An 8,632-acre proposal combining limestone extraction and future water storage faces scrutiny over pumping, public costs and its compatibility with neighboring restoration infrastructure.
The Sun Post News
PALM BEACH COUNTY, Florida — November 10, 2026. A proposal to excavate limestone and create water storage south of Lake Okeechobee is confronting a consequential test: whether its developers can demonstrate that the project will deliver measurable public benefits while protecting nearby Everglades restoration infrastructure.
The Southland Water Resource Project encompasses approximately 8,632 acres of agricultural land owned by U.S. Sugar Corporation and Okeelanta Corporation, which is associated with Florida Crystals. Phillips & Jordan and affiliated operations are advancing the proposal.
Its developers describe an opportunity to create additional storage while supplying construction materials for Florida’s infrastructure. Federal officials, water managers and environmental organizations have raised questions about groundwater movement, water availability and the project’s relationship with the neighboring Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir.
Those concerns remain matters for technical review. The records do not establish that Southland has already damaged the reservoir. They also do not establish that every component of the proposed mining and water-storage operation has received final authorization.
A significant deadline now approaches.
In a September 28 communication to company representative Matt Eidson, South Florida Water Management District contracts official José L. Esquivel granted a requested extension and stated that the district anticipated receiving an updated proposal by December 1, 2026.
That date concerns submission of the revised proposal. It does not constitute permission to begin all proposed activities or guarantee a final decision that day.
The district’s questions reach beyond the amount of water an excavated area could theoretically hold.
An April 29, 2025, evaluation document requires information about technical feasibility, financing, operating expenses, ownership, water quality and compatibility with existing infrastructure. It also calls for modeling that compares conditions before and after the project and examines effects on other legal water users.
The agency requested an estimated $83,102 evaluation fee. Its decision to evaluate the unsolicited proposal without seeking competing submissions did not settle whether Southland satisfies those requirements.
For taxpayers, the financial structure deserves particular attention.
Southland’s promotional materials describe initial construction supported by private capital, while acknowledging that the project would ultimately involve public funding. The developers project an initial 18,000 to 20,000 acre-feet of storage in fewer than five years and eventual capacity of up to 120,000 acre-feet.
An acre-foot is the volume needed to cover one acre with one foot of water.
Those figures are developer projections, rather than completed or independently accepted storage benefits. The company also argues that excavated material would help meet demand for aggregate used in roads and other construction.
Evaluating that proposition requires a clear accounting of what the public would purchase, what benefits would be guaranteed, who would operate the facilities and who would bear long-term maintenance and environmental obligations.
The pumping proposal adds another layer of scrutiny.
A September technical memorandum certified by Florida professional geologist Steven J. Memberg estimates withdrawals of 45.36 million gallons per day, based on pump specifications, for dewatering associated with process-water and tailings-settlement storage areas. It describes lowering the water table by approximately 10 feet in portions of the site and requests a permit expiration date of December 31, 2039.
The memorandum says dewatering water would remain within the property and return to onsite canals. It concludes that potential harm to water availability and existing users would be minimal, citing hydraulic separation from neighboring facilities.
These are the applicant’s technical conclusions, subject to agency review. The estimated pumping volume should not be interpreted as proof that this quantity is already being withdrawn, permanently consumed or discharged outside the property.
Federal concerns are documented separately.
In written congressional responses to Rep. Frederica Wilson, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified water-management operations, seepage and regional water availability as areas of concern. The Corps said it was reviewing information and gathering detailed plans to determine whether Southland would require an Army permit or could impair the usefulness of the EAA project.
Seepage is especially consequential where water-storage structures and excavations interact with permeable underground formations. Reviewers must determine how proposed pumping and excavation could influence water movement across property boundaries and around neighboring infrastructure.
The Corps’ position establishes a need for further analysis. It is not a final determination that damage is inevitable.
The adjacent EAA Reservoir explains why the review carries statewide importance.
The federally supported restoration project is designed to store more than 78 billion gallons and help move treated water south toward the Everglades and Florida Bay. Federal officials announced in April that construction is targeted for completion in 2029, advancing the previous schedule.
Its intended benefits include improving the timing and distribution of freshwater flows and reducing harmful discharges toward coastal estuaries.
Southland’s proximity to that infrastructure makes compatibility a central question. A private proposal’s stated restoration purpose must be supported by engineering, operational agreements and enforceable obligations.
A February legal settlement also clarified the limits of an environmental authorization.
The Everglades Law Center and other attorneys represented Tropical Audubon Society, its president José Francisco “Joe” Barros and vice president Brian Rapoza in challenging a proposed Department of Environmental Protection permit.
According to the settlement announcement and amended permit provisions it reproduces, conceptual approval covers the general location of future excavation cells. Material changes to reclamation plans, or operation of the Phase 1 pump station to move water onto or off the property, require additional permitting or a major modification.
The provisions also identify further review requirements for future phases involving offsite water movement.
The settlement does not prohibit every future use of the entire property. Its significance is that conceptual authorization leaves substantial environmental and operational questions to be resolved through subsequent reviews.
For Southland’s developers, the task is to turn projected benefits into a complete, verifiable proposal. For regulators, it is to evaluate that proposal against the performance and protection requirements of the surrounding water system.
The December submission should help clarify whether additional storage can be delivered on acceptable terms, how mining and pumping would interact with neighboring facilities, and what financial commitments the public would assume.
Until those questions are answered, Southland remains a proposal whose commercial opportunities and promised environmental benefits require separate, rigorous examination.
