By Jose Jesus Zaragoza, INI Florida

WEST PALM BEACH -- In a meeting to discuss the relative necessity of backpumping to provide some relief to the current drought conditions, sugar representatives and their advocates said that they cannot support sustained water restrictions.“I’m bringing you fear from the agricultural industry,” said Nelson Mongiovi, director of the division of marketing with the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDA). “I will not tell you the sky is falling … but there are gray clouds we have never seen before.”Arguing emphatically that the water restrictions are causing severe harm to the industry, sugar proponents made the case at the Wednesday, Aug. 8, meeting that the negative environmental affects associated with backpumping are outweighed by the need to have enough water with which to continue doing business.It would not be enough, in the end, and farmers and the industry say they find themselves in a precarious situation.

The speakers painted a dreary picture.“We’ll have a serious crisis if we don’t find an alternative source of water,” Mr. Mongiovi warned SFWMD officials. “This is not just about Big Sugar, Big Citrus … being less profitable.”The FDA representative seemed to scold officials for not acting o­n implementing the backpumping measures during their meeting in July. According to him, the water restrictions that are now costing the agricultural industry $86 million monthly would have been lifted by December if the board had taken that action.The losses, if they are ignored will be, the FDA official said, “A billion over the course of the next 24 months.”On the other side of the discussion, SFWMD officials did not seem completely opposed to the thought of using backpumping to restore the damages that the months without rain have caused.

The discussion turned to the issue of water supply backpumping -- a strictly unique situation that is necessary o­nly under drought conditions. The issue focuses o­n putting water back into the lake.SFWMD officials were careful, however, to say that the solution was not simply in backpumping, but perhaps a combination of things including using the Palm Beach Aggregates site, where a large amount of water is found, to help make the drought slightly more bearable.“We have to do something and do everything we humanly can,” said Eric Buermann, SFWMD chairman. “I don’t think anybody here is an enemy of agriculture.”Consultants to the water management district provided conservative estimates o­n how likely the backpumping is set to help the situation.Under some estimates provided by SFWMD officials, the lake level would stand to rise by a foot or more. Using estimates from o­ne of the outside consultants, the district can expect gains of o­nly 0.3 to 0.6 inches.All speakers agreed, including the doctor, that the precise impact is too inconsistent a variable to pinpoint. Charts depicted a wide gap of possibilities relating to how much backpumping was expected to help the situation.The concrete answers remain elusive even to experts.“One of the questions I get is, o­nce you put water into the lake, how much can you get back? I don’t know how much,” said Gary Goforth, who holds a doctorate, with Gary Goforth, Inc. said that the measure is difficult.Pointing to o­ne of the charts depicting the possible measure of the backpumping’s impact to the lake, Shannon Estenoz, SFWMD board member said: “The fat line is what we know, the next is an explosion of the unknown. Ultimately, we don’t know.”The following day, o­n Aug. 9, water managers voted 4-3 against backpumping with the board majority citing, among other factors, the uncertainty of the backpumping.

“God bless the farmers,” o­ne woman said, who compared the issue with a medical ailment. “I think Lake Okeechobee is our colon … it’s in trouble.”Jose Zaragoza can be reached at jzaragoza@newzap.com.