The Southland rock mine proposal, on 8,600 acres of Palm Beach County farmland owned by US Sugar and Okeelanta Corp. (Florida Crystals), has been sailing through the county and state approval process.

But at the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board meeting Thursday, Southland hit a roadblock. A crowd of opponents was there to question the project — but some of the toughest queries came from the Chairman of the Governing Board himself.

Chairman Chauncey Goss’s comments were so pointed, in fact, we’re certain Big Sugar was burning up the phone lines in their wake. Goss asked, among other things, if the sugar landowners would be willing to just sell the land to the district.

He asked: If the district itself was building this project, would it use the same footprint?

If blasting from the rock mine causes a negative impact on the EAA Reservoir in the future, he asked, who pays to fix it?

Where’s the cost-benefit analysis showing what each foot of storage will cost, whether that’s the lowest cost and how it compares to other district projects?

Since this is a “public-private partnership,” will the sugar landowners split the profit they make from the mined aggregate with taxpayers?

And then this: Goss said Matt Eidson of Phillips & Jordan had been “gilding the lily,” suggesting the district had already approved the project. From this moment forward, said Goss, “the spin really needs to stop. The lobbying needs to stop.” 

We’re certain Big Sugar executives blew a gasket over that one.

Also interesting were comments made by board member “Alligator” Ron Bergeron, who is clearly concerned with the lack of transparency in this process. “I can understand why the public is so concerned,” he said. “I’m a little disappointed that the project didn’t come to us first to analyze all of this.”

Other board members, including Jay Steinle and (remotely, again) Scott Wagner seemed more inclined to view Southland favorably.

And then there was SFWMD Executive Director Drew Bartlett, who attempted to defend his New Year’s Eve letter to Southland that “identified” the project as a potentially viable water resource project, setting all this in motion.

Bartlett also tried to reassure opponents by saying the district is taking public comment into consideration, and there will be multiple opportunities for the public to make its case.

But that’s not good enough.

Big Sugar is exerting political pressure behind the scenes to get this done. Everyone knows it. And opponents who say the district — this governing board — risks destroying its credibility if it greenlights the Southland project are correct.

Who does this governing board serve — Big Sugar or the public?

It’s soon going to be gut-check time. Goss and Bergeron are asking the right questions, at least.

And if we — the public — continue to raise a ruckus, maybe more board members will come to understand there’s a difference between what Big Sugar wants — and what the public needs.