Jeb Bush signs bill delaying Everglades cleanup deadline

[subgenius]

Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill that could extend the deadline for cleaning up the Everglades by 10 years, despite objections from environmentalists and a judge's warning that the law may violate a federal agreement.
.......
"We are committed like never before to restoring the Everglades," Bush said before signing.
......
However, Bush said he is convinced the measure does not violate a 1992 agreement with Washington calling for phosphorus levels in the Everglades to reach acceptable levels by 2006. The new law extends that deadline to 2016 or the earliest practicable date.

U.S. District Judge William M. Hoeveler, the judge who oversaw the agreement, threatened earlier this month to ignore the state law if it contradicts the plan, calling the new law "clearly defective."

The sugar industry, which is paying for much of the cleanup, also was lukewarm to the plan, saying it makes too many concessions to environmentalists.
.......
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/21/florida.everglades.ap/index.html

Saturday, May 10, 2003
MIAMI — A federal judge Friday ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee compliance to Everglades water cleanup deadlines and said that he intends to enforce the current agreement, even if Gov. Jeb Bush signs a bill that critics say could stall restoration and jeopardize $4 billion in federal aid.

Bush, the president's brother, has said he supports the $450 million state bill that overwhelmingly passed the state Legislature last week despite criticism from environmentalists and at least seven members of Congress, several of them Republicans.
http://www.naplesnews.com/03/05/florida/d932436a.htm

"But Hoeveler's stop-'em-dead order is the greatest demonstration I've seen in a long time for why we have a federal system with judges appointed for life.

The Everglades are more than a state possession. They're certainly more than a sugar-industry repository for phosphorus runoff, or virgin territory for developers, or a plaything for politicians.

They're a national treasure. They're a one-of-a-kind world ecological marvel. And if a state government is too shortsighted or too besotted by sugar-industry money to protect that treasure properly, it's the national government's duty to step in and save the day."
.....
"While I am deeply troubled by the content of the bill, I am dismayed by the process that led to its passage. ... "

"It is my understanding the Governor intends to sign the bill. Apparently he has been misled by persons who do not have the best interests of the Everglades at heart. ... "

Hoeveler's order is a deserved rebuke to every legislator, Democrat and Republican alike, who helped this bill sail through virtually unopposed, against the background of $1 million-plus in sugar-interest campaign money in the past two years.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pphoward11may11,0,6299863.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

Note that the bill Jeb's signing would nullify a decade old consent decree. The parties agreed to it and now one of them wants out.
Sorry, just my little rant of the day.
Good argument for campaign finance reform as well.
This is not simply a political issue, Dems and Repubs on both sides.

[corplinx]

So, in short, do you consider it good or bad? I think its bad in that it flies in the face of existing law, yet in theory the state itself should have the final say instead of the federal law.

Is the delay in the cleanup good or bad though? The government is the worst project manager there is, and things rarely finish on time. Is this a case of "it won't be done until then anyway so let's make that the new date" or can it be done in the originally alotted time and is Bush simply letting the cleanup slow down?

[subgenius]

This judge is one of the greatest federal judges of all time by all accounts. I trust his judgment.
This has nothing to do with fed vs. state. There was a consent agreement which means the parties agreed to it. This (the bill) is an abrogation of that decade old bargain, unilaterally, to the detriment of the sanctity of contract and one of the nation's greatest treasures and resources. (Not just a "spotted owl".)
The judge charged with enforcing the original agreement says so.
It can be rationalized (as all things can), but the only reasonable explanation is that (sugar) "money talks". (And as Elvis Costello said: "...its persuasive.")
Is there a possibility that the Everglades could survive under Bush's bill? Yes.
Is there a possibility that the Everglades will be gone forever? Yes.