The 1994 Everglades Forever Act (EFA) marked a turning point in the history of Florida's famed river of grass. For centuries before the legislation was enacted, the sugar industry went unchecked, routinely using the everglades as a disposal site for fertilizer-tainted runoff containing upwards of 200 parts per billion (ppb) of phosphorous, a nutrient that increases algal growth, promotes eutrophication and helps exotic plants to supplant native ones in aquatic ecosystems. The EFA established a 2006 deadline for the reduction of phosphorous levels to 10ppb. A subsequent joint state-federal agreement allocated $8.4 billion to efforts to restore a more natural quantity and flow of water in the everglades. This joint agreement depends on the implementation of the EFA, and the improvement in water quality that should come with it.

Compliments of a new sugar-industry-backed bill, the landmark EFA legislation faces amendments that threaten to undermine these efforts to improve water quality and possibly the success of the joint project that is recognized as the most ambitious restoration effort this country has ever witnessed. When the bill left the Florida House, it called for a 20-year extension of the 2006 deadline established by the 1994 EFA, a 50 percent increase in allowable pollutants and a ban on the seizure of private property needed for wastewater treatment. While the Florida Senate's alterations made the bill somewhat less caustic, shortening the time extension to 10 years and reinstating the eminent domain clause, it did nothing to address what opponents objected to above all else – its loose language. Example: "These changes shall be designed to achieve state water quality standards, including the phosphorus criterion and moderating provisions, to the maximum extent practicable." Dione Carroll, an attorney for the Miccosukee Indian tribe, said, "they've essentially removed the enforcement standards and replaced them with 'do your best.'"

The bill passed though the Florida State Legislature exceptionally fast, in spite of bipartisan criticism from more than a dozen members of Congress and a Federal Judge, all of whom objected to a requirement that they should foot their half of the $8.4 billion bill in light of the Florida Legislature's backsliding on the project. One possible explanation of why Florida lawmakers appear so eager to jeopardize an Act that their state stands to benefit so much from could be that the sugar industry employed an estimated 46 lobbyists to propel the bill through the state legislature. Another factor is that they invested more than $26 million in the campaigns of state politicians and political committees.

It appears that Florida Governor Jeb Bush intends to favor the bill. He has stated that he will make his final decision on the legislation within the next two weeks. If enacted, it will seriously undermine a landmark effort to restore and protect an important piece of our nation's precious natural heritage.