In writing on the so-called black water phenomenon, your editorial rush to judgment in blaming sugar farmers was irresponsible. Also misleading was mention of the $8 billion federal/state Everglades program that deals with rerouting water for the environment, flood control and primarily urban water supplies for a 16-county area unrelated to sugar farming. Jumping to conclusions is bad enough: publishing unsubstantiated claims makes it difficult for readers to discern the facts. In the same edition your own reporter, Cathy Zollo, who covered the conference of scientists studying the issue, wrote, "Scientists discarded theories that have been presented possibly attributing the bloom's success to nutrient runoff." You should note that the scientists who actually sampled the water (as opposed to those you quoted who were telling you what they think about it) found "nothing atypical — no spikes of nutrients, pollutants, farm runoffs or natural organisms." "There is nothing in this sample that I would be afraid of or call dangerous," said Paul Coble, a marine biochemist at the University of South Florida. There was no evidence of anything toxic in the water. There is, in fact, no credible scientific evidence that the zone of discolored water was caused by nitrogen as you suggest, and it is irresponsible for you to speculate that nitrogen was coming from sugar farms. Water from sugar farms has no negative impact on the west coast of Florida or the Florida Keys. Historically, nutrient levels have been at pristine background levels in the water being discharged from Shark River Slough into the mangrove estuar ies adjoining the Gulf of Mexico. Continued research by credible scientific institutions is important to all Floridians and, according to your own reporters, it is being carried out. Having been aware of the situation since January, responsible scientists did not concur with the boogeyman theory you espoused. |
|||