It's Time to Rethink the Phosphate Pact
By Percy Angelo

Apparently, the Mosaic phosphate pact is coming back to the County Commission despite the refusal of either Sarasota or Lee county to approve it.

Things have changed since Charlotte first reviewed the matter, however, and there are good reasons not to enter a separate agreement with Mosaic, even if the commissioners thought the original agreement was a good idea.

A new state law just approved requires challenges to state phosphate mining permits to go through an expedited appeal, with much less opportunity for preparation and investigation before trial. While Mosaic says it was not behind this stealthy legislative maneuver, it is hard to believe it didn't know about it. In fact, it told the county it didn't have any legislative matters up this year. If it were truly operating in good faith on this issue it would be easy just to promise the county not to use this new law against the county. So far, no such promise.

A central element of the compact was a section referred to in shorthand as the "gag" order, the requirement that the county would not oppose any Mosaic activities and would not make any written or verbal comments on Mosaic permits to regulatory agencies. The county only retained the right to participate in legislation and regulations regarding the phosphate industry.

The county in turn publicly pretended that this was appropriate because it had entered into an era of cooperation with Mosaic. So the one right the county retained it couldn't exercise By its apparent willingness to take advantage of the new mining permit appeal law, Mosaic has shown it sees cooperation as a one-way street.

Meanwhile, the cost of "cooperatively" monitoring Mosaic activities as envisioned by the compact falls on Charlotte alone, without help from Lee and Sarasota and without the right to ask the regulatory agencies for help. Some deal.

There are real potential money costs from Mosaic's operations. As a single example, the cost of replacing drinking water as a result of the loss of Peace River water flows may be substantial in the event we must eventually resort to desalination.

The recent Sun articles on desalination noted a cost of $300,000 per day just in electricity to treat 25 million gallons per day at Tampa Bay. The potential comparable cost to Charlotte would be over $8,000 per day, or almost $3 million a year, simply for electricity for desalination, to replace a single yearly increment of already measured, non-drought-related Peace River loss, without even considering future mining.

The law governing the Corps of Engineers requires it to perform an EIS with a cumulative impacts discussion before issuing a permit to Mosaic for mining. That EIS must be done at Mosaic's expense by the Corps or Mosaic. It is not a question of it being a cost to the county. It's a freebie. A cumulative EIS should consider the cumulative impacts of past, present and future mining, and possible ways to mitigate those impacts, with no mining taking place until it is done.

The Peace River drinking water loss and the potential costs are obvious points which should be brought forcefully to the corps' attention by the county, asking the agency to require a better EIS to investigate these matters and effective mitigation measures if necessary before issuing permits. If the loss is due to non-mining activities, Mosaic can point that out. It is the possibility that the county would believe, or Mosaic would argue, that the gag order prevents this simple but important request that makes the compact so troubling.

A cumulative EIS is more important than ever now that the mining companies are talking about turning their mining sites into reservoirs rather than reclaiming them and where they are seeking variances to delay reclamation because they don't have material to fill their holes. That is a significant change and one that would logically lead to a modified EIS which would address the evaporation of reservoir waters which would otherwise flow to the Peace River.

Shouldn't the county be asking for just that?

Let's be clear. I'm addressing a "cumulative EIS," not the "areawide EIS" discussed by those who want to change the subject. An areawide EIS does not have to be paid for by Mosaic.

Longstanding laws require the county to protect its water resources and the safety of its citizens and prevent it from entering any agreement which conceals information regarding a public hazard. It cannot bargain away these duties. Even if the refusal of Lee and Sarasota to buy into the compact does not give Charlotte pause, the revised reclamation plans emphasizing reservoirs and the suggestion that Mosaic could have known about the plans for a revised expedited appeal process have changed the picture significantly.

The citizens were strongly opposed to the compact the last time around. They were right, and the commissioners should not go it alone in a compact whose primary purpose seems to be to gag them and prevent them from protecting the safety of the public.

Percy Angelo of Englewood is a Democratic candidate for the Charlotte County Commission 3 seat.