TCPalm is to be commended for the front-page article in your Aug 23 edition titled "TCPalm answers your questions about algae.” Hopefully this series will continue and possibly answer my question: Who are the Tallahassee lawmakers who voted for the removal of the eminent domain provision from Senate Bill 10 and why did they do it? This move doesn't pass the smell test and guts this important section of the bill.
Had the eminent domain provision remained in the bill, Florida would have had the ability to take and compensate land owners for the needed agricultural lands to construct the large reservoir which is the pivotal, crucial component of the plan to move clean water from Lake O to the thirsty Everglades. Simply stated, without the eminent domain provision this long-awaited solution will be in jeopardy, especially since Big Sugar has refused to voluntarily sell these lands to the state.
The need for these additional lands was best stated by Steve Davis, wetlands ecologist for the Everglades Foundation, when he said, "The footprint is simply too small for both dynamic storage and the shallow cleaning marsh necessary to meet the Everglades water standards set by law. We recommend a storm water treatment area of at least 13,000 acres attached to the reservoir, rather than the district's 6,550 acre version".
Apparently with study after study ad nauseam, the state of Florida has finally arrived at a viable solution to eventually solve the blue green algae problem. Many informed citizens will be closely watching to see which Tallahassee legislators have the backbone to reinsert the eminent domain provision into Senate Bill 10 or cave in to special interests.
Jack Jennings, Port St. Lucie
Taken from TCBPalm
https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/readers/2018/09/03/letter-why-did-legislators-remove-eminent-domain-provision-sb-10/1131087002/