Orlando Sentinel lead EDITORIAL

A rotten deal

Our position: Possible lawsuit shouldn't cause water district to give up land.
July 8, 2007

In criticizing a land deal as rotten as the one the St. Johns River Water Management District is concocting in Indian River County, it's hard to know where to begin -- except to first step aside and warn district commissioners preparing to review it on Tuesday of its toxicity.

Someone's got to. Commissioner Ometrias Deon Long of Apopka said on Friday that he was inclined to approve the deal, which involves the district handing over 1,265 acres of sensitive land to a major landowner along Interstate 95, because "staff said we'd be in a better position to protect the environment."

But Mr. Long said staff didn't tell him that the district's motivation in washing its hands of the land is to avoid a lawsuit from the landowner who covets it.
Could that have been an oversight? Or could that be because anyone so informed couldn't help but distance himself from the deal?

The district acquired the 1,265 acres in 1999 under the Preservation 2000 program, along with another 2,000 acres just west of it, which it used for a reservoir. The 1,265 acres were, as the Preservation 2000 moniker indicates, to be "preserved."

But now the district seems to be saying, "Well, that depends on your definition of 'preserved'." Huh?

"We acknowledge the land has some conservation value," says Robert Christianson, director of the district's operations and land-resources department. "It still does." But Mr. Christianson also says, "It's no longer needed."

What apparently is needed is getting the Corrigan ranch family off the district's back.

The Corrigans own 5,900 acres just south of the 1,265-acre tract. Both land masses press up against I-95. If the district gave the Corrigan family the 1,265 acres, much of which potentially could be developed, Mr. Christianson says the Corrigan family would give up the threat of suing the district. The lawsuit, according to Mr. Christianson and others, would look to soak the district for damage the Corrigan family alleges it did to its 5,900-acre tract, thanks to the district raising water levels in the nearby reservoir.

But hold on. The district's analysis of the Corrigan family's supposed claim doesn't even conclude that the district is flat-out wrong. "We haven't conceded to all of their claims," Mr. Christianson says. "The legitimacy of their claims isn't easy to ascertain."

This, however, is: The district has no business giving up land it bought with state money for preservation to a landowner, in hopes of dodging a lawsuit. Indeed, the whole point of the state's land-preservation program is to protect such land from development -- not give it up in a swap with developers. And it shouldn't try to quiet the cries surrounding its action by saying the land's not particularly remarkable. Or, by asking, as Mr. Christianson did, "Do citizens need to own all land with conservation value?"

The question, rather, is whether the district needs to hold on to the land it's charged with preserving.

The answer is yes.

< < < back to Protect Conservation Lands

Fair Use Disclaimer

The Pelican Island Audubon Society web site, www.pelicanislandaudubon.org, is a nonprofit, noncommercial web site that, at times, may contain Copyrighted material that have not always been specifically authorized by the Copyright owner. The Society makes such material available in its efforts to advance the understanding of issues related to Florida’s natural environment in hopes of helping to find solutions for those problems. It believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such Copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Persons wishing to use Copyrighted material from this site for purposes of their own that go beyond “fair use” must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.

All articles are copyrighted by the respective newspapers.