Letter to the Editor: What About the Benefits?

Below is a draft letter to the editor, sent to the Palm Beach Post from the 2010 Marshall Foundation Summer Interns. As of 8/12/10 this had not been published.

U.S. Sugar Land Purchase

What About the Benefits?

Restoration of the historic Everglades is at a critical point. In a pending Florida Supreme Court appeal, litigants have argued against the purchase of the U.S. Sugar Corporation land on economic grounds. The newest version of the proposed land deal calls for buying 26,800 acres from U.S. Sugar that could be used to build reservoirs and treatment areas to restore water flows from Lake Okeechobee to the southern Everglades. The litigants’ main argument states that the high cost of the South Florida Water Management District issuing $200 million in bonds does not serve the “public good.” Litigants imply that restoring the land bought with bonds will cost still more and take away from other critical Everglades restoration projects. They suffer from what some call, “sticker shock.” Those critics have failed to consider the economic benefits that restoration will bring or claim that they are either intangible, or incalculable. However, there are objective, scientific methods of valuing the services provided to nature and society by restored ecosystems.

While the cost of buying the land is evident, the greater benefits provided by the land are less apparent. In order to assess these benefits, we have quantified the economic value of the services provided by ecosystems: flood protection, water supply, recreation, etc. We have used and modified the methodology for “valuing ecosystem services”, first quantified by a group of international economists and biologists in 1997 and recommended for application by the National Academy of Sciences. Without natural systems like the Everglades the cost to provide these services will burden the SFWMD and the public. Our point is that natural systems and restoration provide economic value.

Furthermore, in the decision-making process, we must recognize that the natural ecosystem has tangible economic value. We argue that it can be evaluated as an investment, and we calculated the return on the purchase of the U.S. Sugar land. Our assessment compared the co

sts to the ecological and economic benefits of the proposed plans for Everglades restoration. Costs include the purchase of land, building necessary reservoirs and storm water treatment areas, and ongoing operations and maintenance. Benefits include flood control, water regulation and the revitalization of the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, which have been severely damaged by harmful discharges from Lake Okeechobee.

Investment in any of the proposed restoration plans will result in a substantial return within 10 years and contribute up to $90 billion dollars to the economy over 40 years. What the investors and taxpayers need to remember is that restoration is not only a “feel good” environmental project, but also an economic investment with a huge return. With a benefit to cost ratio of at least 6 to 1 there is an astounding “sticker benefit” associated with the purchase and restoration of this land.

2010 Summer Interns: Angelique Giraud, Ed Pritchard, Dylan Scott, Adrienne Smith, Jim Wally

Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.