More than half the land the state is poised to acquire from sugar growers has levels of pollution that could harm wildlife and cost tens of millions of dollars to clean up.

The results from an environmental assessment, outlined Thursday by South Florida water managers, added a new concern to the state's $1.34 billion bid to buy 181,000 acres of sugar fields owned by U.S. Sugar Corp.

The soil shows varying concentrations of copper, selenium, DDT and other agrochemicals -- which could complicate and increase the cost of constructing massive reservoirs and pollution treatment marshes envisioned to replace fields in the future.

''I don't want to get stuck with a land mine,'' said Charles Dauray, a board member with the South Florida Water Management District, which manages Everglades restoration and will bankroll the land purchase.

The contamination poses no public threat, water managers said, though U.S. Sugar would have to clean up 7,750 acres showing arsenic levels above human health standards for commercial operations.

''There were no surprises,'' said Carol Wehle, the district's executive director. ``They aren't any better or any worse than any other agricultural land we've acquired.''

BOARD DELIBERATING

The board passed a resolution clearing the way to pursue bond financing that will pay for the land, but has not yet approved the deal. The board, which must approve the deal, will continue discussions at meetings scheduled for Dec. 2 and Dec. 14 and could vote on it Dec. 15.

The contamination isn't likely to be a deal-breaker, but depending on the size and location of the cleanup projects, it could stick the district -- and taxpayers in its 16 counties -- with hidden costs.

Clean-up costs estimated in three ''worst-case'' scenarios ranged from nearly $18 million, to $44 million, to $119 million. U.S. Sugar's share, under a report prepared by a Tampa engineering firm, would range from $16.5 million to $25 million.

District engineer Robert Kuleski told the board there was a ''high degree of uncertainty'' in the estimates, largely because water managers have only sketched out rough concepts. The district could limit hidden costs by building around hot spots.

WILDLIFE STANDARDS

''If we can avoid those areas, our costs would be zero,'' he said.

That's unlikely, however. Two preliminary designs would encompass large swaths of muck land with the highest concentrations of chemicals, mostly bordering the southeast rim of Lake Okeechobee. The chemical levels wouldn't be a problem for continued cane growing, but standards are more stringent for natural systems.

The report showed 36,400 acres, about 20 percent of the land, posed a moderate risk to wildlife. Some 49,000 acres, 27.5 percent of the land, posed a ''significant'' risk, with levels of some contaminants twice as high -- or higher -- than safe levels for aquatic life, birds and other wildlife.

Wehle said the state wasn't letting U.S. Sugar off the hook for cleanup costs. It was standard district practice, she said, to absorb the cost of cleaning land to meet the tougher standards required for natural systems.

Join the discussion

Note: If this is your first time using our NEW commenting system, you will have to LOG OUT and then LOG BACK IN.

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.CommentBody@

@Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@