|OGT Home | UPF Home | View Cart|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
Florida A&M University, Tallahassee Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers Florida International University, Miami Florida State University, Tallahassee New College of Florida, Sarasota University of Central Florida, Orlando University of Florida, Gainesville University of North Florida, Jacksonville University of South Florida, Tampa University of West Florida, Pensacola Original text copyright rf by Nelson M. Blake. Additional content copyright ff by Christopher F. Meindl, Steven Noll, and David Tegeder. nis work is licensed under a modited Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-No Derivative Works b.f Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/b.f/. You are free to electronically copy, distribute, and transmit this work if you attribute authorship. However, all printing rights are reserved by the University Press of Florida (http:// www.upf.com). Please contact UPF for information about how to obtain copies of the work for print distribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specited by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the University Press of Florida. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the authors moral rights.
With Contributions by Christopher F. Meindl, Steven Noll, and David TegederUniversity Press of Florida Gainesville/Tallahassee/Tampa/Boca Raton Pensacola/Orlando/Miami/Jacksonville/Ft. Myers/Sarasota
Copyright rf by Nelson M. Blake Additional content copyright ff by Christopher F. Meindl, Steven Noll, and David Tegeder Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper All rights reserved b f b Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ne University Press of Florida is the scholarly publishing agency for the State University System of Florida, comprising Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida International University, Florida State University, New College of Florida, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, University of North Florida, University of South Florida, and University of West Florida. University Press of Florida Northwest th Street Gainesville, FL bf www.upf.com
ContentsPreface vii Introduction ne Watery Eden Early Boosters b ne Big Dealers ne Flow of Northern Dollars ne Progressive Challenge rr Time of Troubles b Tapping the Federal Treasury r Struggle for Conservation Environmentalists to the Rescue f Florida Takes the Lead b Rival Prescriptions for South Florida b Water for the Future Notes bfb Index bb Commentary Chapters bf Years Later, and Still Powerful b Christopher F. Meindl Cross Florida Barge Canal b Steven Noll and David Tegeder b Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? ne Ever glades since rf br Christopher F. Meindl Florida Water Management Since rf: Challenges in a State Addicted to Population Growth Christopher F. Meindl
30 Years Later, and Still Powerful I remember my trst encounter with Nelson Manfred Blakes book Land into WaterWater into Land as a graduate student in the early fs: I was captivated with Blakes discussions of the century-long attempt to manage the Everglades, the many ill-fated eorts to create a Cross Florida Barge Canal, and the evolution of Florida water management over the past century or so. I enjoyed the book so much that I wanted to buy a copy, but this book, originally published by the University Presses of Florida in rf, was either impossible to tnd or very expensive if I could tnd it, so I gave up. You can imagine my delight when Tom Swihart, a Florida water policy analyst, contacted me in early summer ff. As a long-time employee of the Florida Department of Environmental Protections Oce of Water Policy, Tom is a careful observer of water management in Florida and he sought help in resurrecting Blakes book. I had previously published some historical geographic work on the Everglades, and we agreed that Blakes view of Florida water management over the past f years was spot on; but so much has happened since Blake wrote three decades ago (like a near doubling of the states population!) that the book could stand some updating. Tom eventually hooked up with historians Steve Noll and David Tegeder (who have recently written their own book on the Cross Florida Barge Canal, Ditch of Dreams, published by University Press of Florida in ff), and we met in Fall ff to discuss how we might resurrect Blakes book. We decided that it would be best to maintain Nelson Blakes original text without alterationand then to add a few chapters that update an otherwise brilliant discussion of Floridas emerging water management. nis way, readers would have access to Blakes original text and a few addi tional chapters that comment on selected aspects of the rapidly changing Florida water management landscape since the late fs.
Land into WaterWater into Land Our work has been complicated by several issues. To begin with, Blake and his wife have long since passed away. Tom eventually tracked down Nelsons son James Blake (a retired professor living on the Pacitc coast), and James thought his father would be attered to learn we were interested in reissuing Land into WaterWater into Land, so he endorsed our proposal. Next, since the book had been out of print since the late rfs, the University Press of Florida had a thin tle of documents related to the original projectand no electronic or even hard copy of the book. We contacted Dr. Mark Greenberg, director of the Florida Studies Center at the University of South Florida (in Tampa), about obtaining one of the several university-owned copies of the original book. Mark suggested he and his sta (including Barbara Lewis) could scan the book to provide an electronic copy of the original for us to work with. Meanwhile, Tom Swihart began writing his own book-length review of Florida water management, and it became impossible for him to continue with our enterprise. Tom agonized over this decision for a few weeks, and only aer Steve Noll, David Tegeder, and I assured him that we would indeed resur rect Blakes book according to the plan we had established at our fall ff meeting did Tom eventually withdraw from the project. Although we are saddened that Tom was not able to actively participate in the project he helped initiate, fortunately for us he provided many suggestions and critiques of our proposed updated chapters. Finally, I thank Bill Belleville and Gary Mormino for reading prior dras of the concluding chapter and oering their constructive questions and comments. nat said, the interpretation of events since the late fs (and any remaining errors) in this updated version of Blakes book remain our responsibility.* *Nelson Manfred Blake was born in Island Pond, Vermont, in fr and earned degrees from Dartmouth College, and Brown and Clark Universities. He had a long and productive career at Syracuse University where he taught from b until his retirement as Maxwell Distinguished Professor of History in b. He wrote several innovative books on American social history such as e Road to Reno: A History of Divorce in the United States () and Novelists America: Fiction as History, (). Moreover, Blake foreshadowed his interest in Florida water policy when in he published a book on the development of water resources in the northeastern United States (a fact Blake alludes to in the original pref-
Years Later, and Still Powerful ace to this book). Indeed, as late as ff, environmental historian Joel Tarrin reviewing another authors book about water resources in New York City opined: Few historians, however, have written about how such an impressive record of [water] service provision evolvedwith Nelson Blake, Water for the Cities: A History of the Urban Water Supply Problem in the United States (), still setting the standard. Aer retiring to South Florida in the fs, Blake set his sights on the evolution of Florida land and water management, with special attention to the Everglades and the Cross Florida Barge Canal. Aer completing Land into WaterWater into Land in rf, Blake worked on a few less intense projects before passing away in November ne original edition of this book attracted immediate notice in scholarly circles, where it was reviewed in no less than seven academic journals. Almost all of these reviews deeply admired Blakes work and, although Blake was born more than a century ago, his writing is virtually timeless. One reviewer contended that Blakes discussion of water management is a component of a larger problem: whether human beings can analyze situations, make choices, and persist in the politics that these choices render necessary.b Two others complimented Blake for successfully using the past to help us understand pressing contemporary problemsan infrequent and admirable accomplishment. Yet another reviewer lauded Blake for revealing the extremes to which people may go to further their own interests, no matter what the cost. In spite of these accolades, however, other reviewers suggested that Blake neglected some important issues. For example, nomas Dunlap was perhaps most critical of the book, complaining that Blake ignored the development of water law, administrative agencies, and hydrological science in Florida. Furthermore, Dunlap wished Blake had added more of his own opinion on land and water management in the Sunshine State, concluding that there was too much narrative, generally political narrative, and far too little analysis. Anyone who knows as much about his subject as Blake does has opinions and judgments that are worth sharing, but he avoids even the most obvious comments. In addition, Abraham Homan took Blake to task for failing to comment on the explosive growth of southeast Florida that both led to, and was stimulated by, excessive manipulation of the regions water. George Buker agreed, contending that Blake spent so much time detailing the evils of overdeveloped engineering that he ignored grappling
Land into WaterWater into Land with why Floridians demanded ood control in the trst place: Floridians must decide how much of their oodplain, which is a good percentage of the state, should be inhabited or used for agricultural purposes, for the question of levees and canals versus swamp and marshland hinges upon that point. nese critiques notwithstanding, the current edition of the book contains every single word of Nelson Blakes original text without moditcation of any kind. Each of our new chapters has its own reference list. We include a brand new chapter featuring a review of the barge canal controversy since the late fs by Steve Noll and David Tegeder. Blake reported the decommissioning of the barge canal by the Nixon administration in the early fs, but it took nearly two more decades of political wrangling for Congress to permanently terminate the project. Moreover, although the Cross Florida Barge Canal will not be completed, the fate of the surviving structures (dams, portions of canals, and man-made lakes) and property along the proposed canal route quickly became a political hot potato. Rodman Reservoir, in particular, has attracted many contemporary champions, especially among Central Florida anglers (including politically powerful people) who want to maintain their tshing hole. Noll and Tegeder artfully review the barge canals death, the struggle to create a Central Florida greenway named for the canals leading opponent, Marjory Harris Carr, and the failed eorts to liberate the Ocklawaha River from the shackles of Kirkpatrick Dam. ne next chapter in this updated volume is my own analysis of the continuing eort to manage the South Florida environment, especially the Everglades. Blake demonstrated a trm grasp of the connection between people and the Everglades even as south Floridians were just beginning to sense their dependence on a healthy collection of ecosystems for water resources, natural amenities, open space, and tourism. Over the past three decades, however, there have been enormous eorts by state and federal governments, as well as a range of private interests, to mold a course of action that allows extensive agriculture and millions of urbanites to thrive alongside a somewhat more naturally functioning series of South Florida ecosystems. Finally, in the last section, I review the substantive issues associated with Floridas evolving eorts to manage water resources since the late fs. Blake saw the ground beginning to shi with the state legislatures
Years Later, and Still Powerful passing of several pieces of important environmental and resource protection legislation in the early fs, including the creation of water management districts. Yet he was not in a position to comment on the successes and failures of water management since rf. Although Florida has made much progress in water resources management over the past few decadesand the public seems to take these matters seriouslywater management districts are still reluctant to more fully integrate land use planning into water resources planning. Indeed, the development community has prevented any serious discussion of limits to population growth that is capable of being supported by inexpensive local water resources, using property rights rhetoric to justify their desire to provide an unending supply of housing to new Floridians, regardless of the cost of new water sources. Central and South Floridas inexpensive groundwater resources have now been almost entirely developed. Additional population growth will require more expensive water sources such as ocean water subjected to costly desalination processes, or more signitcant use of reclaimed wastewater, which will require hundreds of millions of dollars of additional investment in distribution infrastructure. Blake may be accused of not taking a stand on water management issues; but in the conclusion to this volume I contend that population growth (particularly in new, sprawling subdivisions) ought to pay the full cost of providing the more expensive water resources necessary to accommodate such growthrather than spreading the costs of expensive water on to people who did not create the demand. If people have to pay the full cost of the resources they consume, they will have a powerful incentive to build in places where these costs can be minimized. nis would reduce suburban sprawl and population growth in peninsular Florida to more sustainable levels, and provide the revenue to develop water resources without burdening established residents, particularly those of more modest means who benett little from additional population growth. Some might argue that such a policy shi would be unfair for newcomers, but I believe it is equally unfair to distribute the hey costs of growth on to people who do not ask for it and who cannot aord it. Water management districts are inching toward a time when they just say no to development that imposes signitcant monetary and environmental costs on Floridians to meet constantly increasing demands for progressively more expensive water resources; only
Land into WaterWater into Landtime will tell if they reach this point while Florida remains a territc place to live.Notes Joel A. Tarr, book review in Enterprise and Society (ff): br. ne only review of the seven not specitcally referred to here is by Phil Vaughn in History () (r): b. b. E. F. Abbott, review of Blakes book in Professional Geographer bb (r): r. F. J. Dobney, review of Blakes book in American Historical Review r (r): ; D. G. McComb, review of Blakes book in Journal of Southern History (r): r. A. Homan, review of Blakes book in Technology and Culture (r): T. R. Dunlap, review of Blakes book in Journal of American History r (r): f. G. E. Buker, review of Blakes book in Florida Historical Quarterly (r): r.
Cross Florida Barge Canal With the rf publication of Land into WaterWater into Land, Nelson Blake concluded his discussion of the Cross Florida Barge Canal on an ambivalent note. Most observers, including Blake, understood the canal project was virtually dead, yet he cautiously concluded that the f-year old canal scheme clung to life by a narrow thread. Now nearly thirty years later, the future of the canal is no longer in question. Instead, the story of the Cross Florida Barge Canal has largely been subsumed by the controversy surrounding one of its legacies: Kirkpatrick Dam and its accompanying Rodman Reservoir. nough Marjorie Carr and the Florida Defenders of the Environment achieved success in stopping canal construction, Rodman Reservoir has remained intact for over forty years. nus, their victory remains incomplete because the Ocklawaha River does not ow freely. For many observers, the years since Richard Nixons announcement stopping the canal have been much like Hollywoods Groundhog Day: an endless cycle of repetitious actions that never seemed to resolve anything. Disputes over river restoration, reservoir drawdowns, and the ultimate removal of the dam itself have taken center stage in the ongoing battles. However, by focusing solely on the Rodman controversy, one can lose sight of the incredible accomplishments of Carr and her allies. For out of the ruins of the failed canal project, Florida has developed a thriving f-mile linear park. ne aptly named Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway is a ribbon of relatively pristine land and water that cuts across the middle of the state. In a state marked by rapid development and suburban sprawl, the establishment of the Greenway marks a signitcant achievement for those who wanted to preserve a piece of natural Florida. ne transition from canal to greenspace was, like everything involving the Cross Florida Barge Canal, dicult, ambivalent, and time consuming. At the time of Blakes publication, the State of Floridas December Cabinet meeting appeared as an important turning point.
Land into WaterWater into Land State ocials, who had for so long demanded canal construction, voted with near unanimity to stop backing the project. In retrospect, however, the meeting looks less crucial and seems like just another of the many controversies that invoked much heat and little resolution of the issues surrounding the Cross Florida Barge Canal. Marjorie Carr and the Florida Defenders of the Environment (FDE) viewed that December State Cabinet decision to withdraw support from the canal as exhilarating and historic. Recognizing that this was only part of a larger struggle, most activists restrained themselves and remained relatively low key. ne lone exception was Florida Audubons Hal Scott, who gleefully proclaimed, we are planning an Irish wake. A wake for an old devil whose demise we have been looking for a long time, and thank heavens it is tnally here. Conversely, canal boosters considered the political setback disappointing and hard to understand, but they were hardly making funeral arrangements. Putnam Countys George Linville called the Cabinet meeting a travesty. It was the most stacked deck I ever appeared before. ney won one today but we are detnitely not dead. Canal Authority Chairman Lewis Smith concurred, announcing that canal supporters needed to do what we can to see this project through to a successful conclusion. Not only for the people of today, but I think were talking about f, bf, or f years down the road. All these jobs may not be for us but will be for our children and their children. Marjory Stoneman Douglas, the other grande dame of Florida environmentalism, was all too familiar with the intractability of opponents like Linville and Smith. In a congratulatory holiday message to Marjorie Carr, she cautioned that I know you will not rest easy until the tnal word is said but surely all the preliminaries for success are in your hand. Understanding the diculties of the continuing conict, she concluded her letter by noting, though your tne work is almost complete, we will keep up what pressure we can bring until it is over. Signs that Carrs long struggle may have been nearing completion appeared almost immediately. On January General Ernest Graves, Director of Civil Works of the Army Corps of Engineers, submitted a disposition form that laid out his agencys position in light of the upcoming tling of the tnal environmental impact statement (EIS) in February. nrough all of Graves bureaucratic verbiage, one thing stood out. He concluded with tnality that the Corps should not recommend resump-
Cross Florida Barge Canal tion of construction under the current authorization. Five days later, a federal interagency taskforce concurred. Underscoring the importance of the December Cabinet decision, it released a document which stated that the position of Florida ocials will make it dicult, if not impossible, to fultll the elements of local cooperation required by the current Congressional authorization for the project. Sounding like Marjorie Carr, the group recommended the Oklawaha River should be restored to a freeowing river condition. nis would involve elimination of Rodman Pool. Following Federal Appeals Judge Harvey M. Johnsens earlier demand for a restudy, this was the clearest indication yet that FDEs vision would soon be realized. On February the Army Corps formally submitted its longawaited environmental impact statement to Judge Louis Bechtle, who had replaced Johnsen following his death in late A tersely worded press release categorically recommended termination of the project. nough the Chief of Engineers conceded construction was still feasible, he asserted the projects economic justitcation is presently marginal and, when combined with the potential adverse environmental impacts, [the Corps] does not favor completion. Twenty-four volumes of dense scientitc text accompanied the announcement that in many respects reinforced anticanal claims made seven years earlier. FDEs David Anthony gleefully announced he was certainly gratited aer over a dozen years of work that tnally even the Corps of Engineers has come to the same conclusion we did, that its [the canal] no good economically, and its environmentally damaging. We have known for some time that its a turkey, and now the Corps admits it. While it appeared the Corps had done a complete turnaround, other long-time activists took issue with Anthonys optimistic assessment. ney felt, with good reason, that Army engineers could not be trusted to halt the project. Such a radical shi in the Corps position, especially considering its long history of environmentally destructive projects, justitably engendered a great deal of skepticism. Unable to believe its engineers could actually terminate the project, Nathaniel Reed fulminated that the spectacle of the Corps groping for new benetts as the EIS is completed reinforces my opinion that the Corps is incapable of an honest evaluation of a project which it has promoted and supported for so many years.b Reeds sense of frustration and mistrust was not unwarranted. By the
Land into WaterWater into Land mid-fs, the Corps remained profoundly divided over its mission and how that related to the emerging environmental movement. Its response to the canal controversy reected the schism. While many ocials viewed environmental activists like FDE as nothing more than a bunch of troublemakers, some, particularly junior ocers and civilian employees, actually sympathized with the concerns of Anthony and Carr. Little of this bureaucratic intghting le the Corps oces, but the institution was ever so slowly moving away from the dredge and tll mentality of the early fs. Indeed, by the Army had created a new level of Corps managementa civilian Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, ostensibly established to keep a watch over expensive public works projects. It tabbed Victor Veysey, a stalwart Republican and a former congressman from California, for the position. As General Ernest Graves, deputy chief of the Corps, remembered, Veysey was determined to turn the image of the Corps around to an agency that was among the most, if not the most, responsive to environmental concerns. Almost immediately, he clashed with Major General Frank Koisch, the Corps district engineer for the Lower Mississippi Valley. Koisch represented the traditional vision of the Corpslets tnish this project and the environmentalists be damned. At breakfast one morning Veysey and Koisch got into the most incredible argument about the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, Graves continued. As far as Koisch was concerned, get the shovels and start digging, which, of course, was the very image of the Corps that Veysey deplored. nough Veysey would eventually win the argument, Reed certainly was correct in remaining cautious about the Corps ability to objectively evaluate one of its own projects. Amid these bureaucratic shis, the election of Jimmy Carter in marked a signitcant departure in presidential leadership concerning environmental issues. Campaigning as an outsider far removed from the corrupting inuence of traditional power, the Georgia peanut farmer appeared supportive of causes like the one championed by Marjorie Carr. Sensing a potential ally in the White House, FDE seized the initiative to lobby the new president, who was already working on an ambitious environmental policy within the trst few months of his administration. On May f, drawing on a time-worn strategy, more than rf scientists signed a letter addressed to Carter seeking the presidents assistance in the removal of Rodman Dam, which would allow the Ocklawaha to once
Cross Florida Barge Canal again ow freely. Safely presuming the canal would never be built, the message instead focused on the restoration of what had been destroyed. nree days later, the president went before Congress and issued a sweeping thirty-six page message that laid out an agenda to strengthen environmental policy on several fronts. Within a statement calling for clean air, clean water, and the protection of endangered species, Carter strongly encouraged Congress to tnally deauthorize Floridas canal. Following FDEs recommendations, he also called for the designation of the Ocklawaha as a wild and scenic river. nough he did not address the controversy directly, Carters statement implicitly supported eliminating Rodman Dam. Marjorie Carr announced that she was just delighted with the announcement, especially with Carters emphasis on the restoration of the Oklawaha River. ne river, she recalled, is where it all began where the public outrage began. A sense of outrage remained, yet this time it was expressed among canal proponents. Some were completely dejected. ne president of the Putnam County Chamber of Commerce mournfully declared his county had been dealt a mortal blow. In Ocala, vice-chairman of the Canal Authority Bill Rodgers confessed with more than a hint of understatement that Carters announcement certainly is not very encouraging. However, he blamed the boosters themselves for their predicament, since we have not really fought hard enough for the canal[we] did not exert enough pressure. ne implication seemed clear: with more lobbying, there would be greater support for the canal, and thus the project could continue. A gloomy Putnam County commissioner saw promise in the growing distinction between canal construction and the removal of Rodman Dam. If the canal project is scrapped, he plaintively suggested, we hope to save Lake Ocklawaha. ne most truculent response came from Canal Author ity Director Giles Evans. Emphasizing the limits of executive authority, Evans minimized the threat of Carters announcement. ne canal is a project begun and controlled by the Congress, he snarled. Nixon tried the same thing before and the canal is still here, so far. Warning that he and other proponents were going to tght until the bitter end, he boldly predicted that the canal is going to be built one of these days. It will just cost more money. Evans, however, was simply whistling past the graveyard. Even the pro-canal Ocala Star Banner grasped the signitcance of
Land into WaterWater into Land Carters speech. President Carter, it announced, prescribed the death sentence Monday for the Cross-Florida Barge Canal. As any observer of the American legal system can attest, death sen tences oen take torturous paths and innumerable years to reach their conclusion. Such was the case for the canal. Although Floridas Senators Lawton Chiles and Richard Stone immediately sponsored a Senate bill to deauthorize the canal, prompting the Ocala Star Banner to label them as Carters volunteer executioners, the legislation failed to pass. For the next decade, despite an overwhelming consensus for deauthorization in both Tallahassee and Washington, recalcitrant House membersdiehards like Charles Bennett, Bob Sikes, and particularly Ocalas Bill Chappellblocked any measure to kill the project in Congress. ne struggle became so protracted and so arcane that newspaper editors had to resort to metaphorsoen awkwardly mixedto convey the growing sense of frustration with a controversy seemingly without end. ne Orlando Sen tinel chimed in early, presciently suggesting in February that the reason the Cross-Florida Barge Canal seems to have more lives than a cat is, it cant be declared dead by anyone but Congress and Congress has a way of keeping boondoggles attached to life machines. Most newspapers clung to this imagery of death: from the cute, nis wicked ditch is dead; to the maudlin, Barge Canal May Face Watery Grave; to the utterly morbid, Environmentalist Wants Cemetery to Mean Death for Canal. ne latter stemmed from Marjorie Carrs rb proposal to locate a burial ground for f,fff veterans along the path of the canal. No matter how one looked at it, the controversy was becoming absurdly intractable. As Florida Attorney General Jim Smith noted aer the problem had dragged on into early rb, any delay in resolving the fate of the canal will further complicate an already complex situation. In April Floridas legislature waded into the controversy by passing a bill that disbanded the Canal Authority and developed a repayment plan for the six counties that contributed land for canal construction. ne law seemed rational enough, but it oered no trm solutions, since it could only take eect when Congress deauthorized the project. ne impatient House sponsor, Frank Mann of Fort Myers, contdently proclaimed the law would tnally kill the cotton-picken [sic] canal by sending one more message to Congress that we want the barge canal gone. Others mistakenly thought the end was near. Jacksonville Representative Tommy
Cross Florida Barge Canal Hazouri conceded defeat, announcing despondently, we recognize the fact that when the canal is dead, its dead. ne legislation may have struck a bold blow against the project but that was only in Tallahassee. Canal opponents still had to reckon with Congress. nus even Mann had to admit some doubt. ne canal, he said, was a snake with a lot of heads. We keep chopping them o and it keeps coming back.r While the death of the canal may have been a foregone conclusion for most Floridians, a few members of Floridas Congressional delegation begged to dier. For the rest of the fs and rfs, Charles Bennett and Bill Chappell stubbornly kept the canal alive, if barely. With their years of seniority, which led to inuential positions on such important Congressional Committees as Appropriations, Armed Services, and Water Resources, they commanded considerable inuence. As fellow Florida Congressman Clay Shaw explained with a touch of awe, they are tough adversaries. ney know how to twist arms and get votes. Few could rival Bill Chappell for his knowledge of legislative protocol and willingness to use it to support the canal. Anyone seeking legislation eventually had to horse-trade with him. And Chappell almost always got his way. His very presence seemed to stop the anti-canal movement in its tracks. During one committee vote on the canal last year, reported the Miami Herald in r, he stood in the back of the room, arms folded, trademark cigar in his mouth. ne canal survived the vote. Chappells command of the legislative process allowed for nothing more than a series of obstructive rear-guard actions. Savvy enough to understand that Congress would never fully fund canal construction, he instead focused his energies on forestalling deauthorization, for he believed that at some point in the future if it is not deauthorized, it will be built [emphasis added]. Twice the Senate, prodded by Lawton Chiles, voted favorably on such legislation, only to be rebued in the House by Chappells willingness to play hardball and manipulate parliamentary procedures. For Chappell, deauthorization represented not only the death of a dream, but the admission of defeat to those whom he considered unworthy adversaries. Moreover, he realized the legislation would hardly signal the tnal act of an ongoing drama. Deauthorization would simply create a whole new set of problems concerning the disposition of canal lands and the ultimate fate of Rodman Dam, all of which centered on the restoration of the land to its original state. It would mean the destruction of Lake
Land into WaterWater into Land Ocklawaha, which Chappell saw as having developed a unique ecology abound[ing] with waterfowl, egrets, eagles, tsh and the changes brought about [that] have resulted in a national recreational treasure enjoyed by thousands of families annually. ne ensuing economic costsranging from compensation to the threat of never-ending lawsuitswould also result in an unconscionable taxpayer burden: one beyond calculable projection. nis was ironic talk for someone who, as late as r, fervently demanded nearly half a million dollars for yet another Corps feasibility study. And canal opponents saw the idea for what it wasan attempt on the part of the proponents to keep the canal alive.f Chappells political maneuvering appeared even more contradictory as support for his cause increasingly dwindled. Even Ronald Reagans notoriously prodevelopment Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, declared the canal should not be completed. By rb, the overwhelming major ity of Floridas political establishment, including Governor Bob Graham and former Governor LeRoy Collins, trmly supported Congressional deauthorization. At the same time, public approval for the project had dramatically waned in areas that were once the very center of procanal boosterism. Even Chappells once personal bailiwick of Marion County deserted him. On April rb, the Ocala Board of Realtorsnever noted for their radical environmental viewsissued a resolution urging Congress to tnally pull the plug. Claiming the project would be of no economic benett to Marion County and provide an economic threat to the Florida Aquifer, the realtors suggested the canal dream must come to an end. To add insult to injury, a recent Congressional redistricting plan pushed Chappell out of the central Florida county and into a new district along Floridas east coast. Now representing Marion County, freshman Congressman Kenneth Buddy MacKay vividly demonstrated just how much the situation had changed by immediately joining with Senator Lawton Chiles to sponsor deauthorization legislation. Jacksonvilles business community provided the nucleus for what lit tle support remained for the canal. Strongly backing Chappells tght in Congress, they found an ally in Andy Johnson, a young, strident, and vociferous state representative who enthusiastically assumed the mantle of canal boosterism once held by the likes of Duncan Fletcher and Gilbert Youngberg. In r, he helped organize the Coalition for Rational Energy and Economic Development (CREED) and pushed, against imposing po-
Cross Florida Barge Canal litical odds, for canal completion with an entirely new rationale. Johnson focused almost exclusively on the projects assumed importance in delivering cheap energy to Florida, a major consideration in the early rfs as the continuing oil crisis and problems associated with nuclear power bedeviled the nation. Johnson and other members of CREED claimed the canal presented an opportunity to move coal inexpensively to Jacksonvilles new electric power plants. While extolling the economic benetts of the project, Johnson sounded much like former Lieutenant Governor Tom Adams, perhaps the canals most vociferous proponent, as he blasted Marjorie Carr and her allies as crazy phony environmentalists. He combatively oered to go to any city in Florida to debate her and show her for the liar she is. Appealing for a broader constituency, he enlisted Dr. X., a Jacksonville radio talk show host, to spread the message and distribute procanal bumper stickers. All of Johnsons frenetic activity energized even the aging Claude Pepper, who had wavered in his support for the canal nearly a decade earlier. By r, the octogenarian seemed once again as devoted to the canal as he was to Social Security. Why should we throw it all away, Pepper asked rhetorically, with a resolution to deauthorize it? ne dream of centuries will be done away with by the precipitous action of the people of this generation. Despite all the posturing, Johnsons boosterism provided few tangible results. Even CREEDs membership realized they were signitcantly outgunned. One charter member, according to a political observer, had never attended a meeting, thinking it is a waste of time. He has told Johnson a number of times that the canal project is dead. More than anything, the basic mathematics that lay behind political calculation suggested Johnsons last-ditch eorts had little chance of success. A procanal vote is worth about f,fff votes, the observer asserted, whereas a vote for the deauthorization is worth an easy f,fff state-wide. With those numbers, the question surrounding deauthorization became not if but how. By the mid-rfs, the stars tnally began to align for Congressional deauthorization. From rb to r, state legislators held a series of hearings around the state to determine the ultimate disposition of the canal and Rodman Dam, as well as the future use of lands previously allocated for canal construction. ne usual cast of characters appeared and made their case. On one side, Marjorie Carr and David Anthony called for a measure that would end the canal controversy once and for all. For them, deautho-
Land into WaterWater into Land rization had only one meaning; the removal of Rodman so the river could tnally begin the long process toward restoration. On the other side, the few remaining canal supporters tried to convince Floridians the waterway would yield untold economic benetts for the state. However, if the canal was no longer possiblewhich was becoming increasingly obviousthey argued Rodman Dam should at least remain to preserve the vibrant recreational playground of Lake Ocklawaha. While a forest had indeed been lost under the tracks of a wantonly destructive crusher nearly twenty years beforehand, a new environment had taken its place. ney now extolled the virtues of the reservoir as a thriving ecosystem where wildlife was abundant. In many respects, arguments from both sides were simply old news: a rehashing of time-worn and seemingly intractable positions. Yet the hearings provided frustrated state ocials the chance to publicly push the canal controversy toward resolution. At the Palatka meeting of June r, Governor Bob Graham made clear the states unequivocal position. We do not want this canal, period, he asserted. We have many, many needswe need new schools, more teachers, roads, bridges, mass transit, water and sewer linesbut there is one thing we dont need, and thats the Cross Florida Barge Canal. Furthermore, he complained that years of Congressional inaction had exacerbated the problem. Understanding that the lack of resolution allowed for a continuing victory, albeit one with little reward, for procanal forces, he called on Washington for an ultimate solution. Congressmen, how many times do we have to say no? How many ways are there to say no? Pleasetake no for an answer.b In the Senate, Lawton Chiles remained a staunch advocate of deauthorization. And Paula Hawkins, who spent most of her term vacillating on the issue, tnally came down trmly for the projects termination. Her stance came at a price, however, which profoundly troubled FDE. She supported eliminating the canal but on the condition that the locks, dams, and other canal structures now in place will be permanently maintained for the benett of boaters, tshermen, and other sportsmen who utilize the structures. nis le open the very real possibility that Rod man Dam would remain standing. On the other side of Capitol Hill, an overwhelming majority of Floridas representatives signaled support for deauthorization. Democrat Buddy MacKay and Republican Clay Shaw of Fort Lauderdale fought hardest for the issue, authoring bills to tnally end the project. Of course, Bennett, Chappell, and Pepper stood trmly as
Cross Florida Barge Canal the lone exceptions to the growing House unanimity. Here, too, though, things were changing. Claude Pepper continued his opposition, but his primary legislative interests related to health care and Social Security. Moreover, his increasing age (by the summer of r he was eighty-tve) and his weakening physical condition made him signitcantly less eective on the House oor. Bill Chappell could also no longer give the tght his undivided attention as rumors of kickbacks from defense contractors swirled around the congressman. nat le Charles Bennett as the solitary stalwart, and even he began wavering in his defense of the canal. Never simply a shill for local business interests, Bennett slowly recognized the futility of continually pushing for the project in the face of signitcant opposition from fellow Floridians. By r, he began to see deauthorization as an acceptable compromise, under the condition that the property allocated for canal construction remain in public hands. Bennetts position was gradually moving toward Marjorie Carrsif the waterway was no longer possible, canal lands could best serve as the basis for a unique linear greenspace across Florida. Under the auspices of either the state or federal government, this swath of land would both protect a unique part of natural Florida from rampant development and provide a suitable return for the millions of tax dollars expended on the project. Even as Bennett came on board, contentious questions remained, especially concerning compensation for lands taken for the canal. Would deauthorization mean that hundreds of parcels of land automatically reverted to their previous owners? Could the state use the land for other purposes, such as the park proposed by Carr and Bennett? Were former owners due reimbursement for lands no longer dedicated for canal construction? Would counties that had spent millions in taxpayer dollars purchasing property for the canal right-of-way similarly expect reimbursement? And if they were due some form of repayment, who would assume responsibility for the compensation, Washington or Tallahassee? By the fall of r, Congress tnally addressed these issues head-on when it passed a deauthorization measure as part of a huge .b billion omnibus water resources act. Signed by President Reagan on November th, Section of Public Law established the Cross Florida National Conservation Area and declared that portion of the barge canal project located between the Eureka Lock and Dam and the Inglis Lock and Dam (exclusive of such structures) is not authorized. As the
Land into WaterWater into Land Miami Herald simply put it, the act drove a stake through the heart of the monster known as the Cross Florida Barge Canal. ne law answered many of the questions that had dogged the project for decades. Besides the obvious death of the canal, it allocated the return of b million to the six counties (Duval, Clay, Putnam, Marion, Levy, and Citrus) associated with land purchases. It mandated an interagency management plan for former canal lands, under the auspices of the Corps of Engineers, stressing the enhancement of the environment and the conservation and development of natural resources. It demanded a federal presence in the new conservation area and maintained that Washington, not Tallahassee, should operate, maintain, and manage the lands and facilities. All this sounded wonderful to Marjorie Carr and FDE. And yet, victory was not complete. ne law granted the Corps of Engineers, the bane of environmental activists, a signitcant voice in the disposition of the canal. Worse yet, the Secretary [of the Army] shall operate the Rodman Dam, authorized by the Act of July b, in a manner which will assure the continuation of the reservoir known as Lake Ocklawaha. ne canal was tnally, irrevocably dead, but the continued operation of Rodman assured the Ocklawaha River would not yet ow freely. Major questions persisted over the relationship of the state and federal governments and their role in the new conservation area. State ocials adamantly asserted that Florida, not Washington, should manage and operate the conservation area. As late as r, the state legislature had even issued a memorial calling for an amendment to the bill that would ensure greater state latitude in disposing of canal lands. Charles Bennett was just as convinced that federal control, through some sort of national park designation, would best provide protection for the land. At the same time, private citizens prepared for legal battles over the taking of their lands for a project that had now been terminated without their consent or input. Not surprisingly, the Corps had yet to tnalize its management plan within the stipulated one-year period. And, most important, the contentious issue of Rodman Dam remained unsettled. Finally, in f, everything came into place as Congress took up the canal question once again. In the four years since deauthorization, both Claude Pepper and Bill Chappell had died, stilling the most vigorous and long-lasting voices favoring canal completion. In an ironic twist, Charles Bennett himself introduced a new deauthorization proposal in January.
Cross Florida Barge Canal Under pressure from Tallahassee ocials who sought state control of canal lands, the Jacksonville congressman now maintained, the most acceptable solution is to create a state park or state conservation area [that] would be like a Phoenix bird arising from the ashes of yesterdays idea. A month later, Senator Bob Graham and Republican Congressman Cli Stearns of Ocala, who had tlled MacKays seat, oered an alternative bill that closely resembled Bennetts. I am very hopeful something will come out of this Congress, Bennett announced, to put this behind us and create something valuable for future generations. FDE gladly supported these measures more than the r legislation because Congress had now placed the future of Rodman Dam in the hands of the state of Florida, where environmental activists thought they could exert more inuence. An FDE press release applauded the bills as a constructive and surprisingly happy solution to a problem that has been plaguing Floridians for f years. Carr herself was positively ebullient. ne people of Florida, she announced, will have a beautiful greenbelt now, instead of this albatross hanging around their necks. Florida state ocials joined the love fest. Republican Governor Bob Martinez remarked that the passage of this legislation would make a ttting end of the misguided era of ditch and drain. Looking forward to a future without the same tireless annual debates about the fate of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, Fred Ayer, assistant director of the Canal Authority, announced, now its up to the state to go ahead and tnish it o. ne idea of a linear park from coast to coast is pretty exciting. With Bennetts agreement to the compromise measure, the entire Flor ida congressional delegation threw its support behind the bill. In May f, the Florida legislature passed its own measure that agreed to the terms of the federal legislation, assuming it passed through Congress and was signed by the president. Submitted that same month, the compromise proposal was folded into another large omnibus water resources act. Enduring a summer of obligatory hearings, Congress tnally passed the measure on October and sent the bill to President George H. W. Bush. One month later, Bush signed the comprehensive act, ending once and for all the Cross Florida Barge Canal. ne legislation immediately deauthorized the canal and transferred all project lands to the state of Florida. ne state, in accordance with its own statute, received the lands to create a State park or conservation/recreation area and preserve and manage them for
Land into WaterWater into Land the benett and enjoyment of present and future generations of people and the development of outdoor recreation. Like the r act, the f statute stipulated a reimbursement of b million to the six counties involved in the project. nis time, however, Florida assumed responsibility for the payment, with funds originating from the assets of the states Canal Authority and the Navigation District. Finally, the law prescribed a two-year turnover for the Corps to transfer land and management responsibilities to the state. As the Miami Herald explained, the law is akin to a team of doctors deciding to cut o life support to a comatose patient. Conspicuously absent from the legislation was any mention of the disposition of Rodman Dam and the pool/lake/reservoir/impoundment that lay behind it. With the January passage of a resolution signed by new Governor Lawton Chiles and the Cabinet agreeing to the terms of the federal deauthorization bill, the era of the Cross Florida Canal was tnally, mercifully, over. nough Marjorie Carr and FDE could justitably feel proud of their eorts in that victory, they also understood that the tght was far from over. Profound questions remained over the shape of the ,fffacre park that was to take the place of the canal. Legal issues concerning the control of former canal lands threatened to keep Florida in a state of continuous litigation for years to come. ne rancorous debate over the fate of the Ocklawaha River loomed largest of all. If that was not solved to the satisfaction of Marjorie Carr, if the dam still remained blocking the river, would the years of hard work be in vain? Aer all, this had started as a campaign to save the river itself. Yet divergent groups oered diering visions of recreation in the space that was to be the canal. ne decisions made by Florida politicians on these concerns would determine the very nature of the entity that would replace the Cross Florida Barge Canal. In the summer of the Florida legislature began the process of preparing to decide how to use and develop the swath of land now bureaucratically designated as the Cross Florida Greenbelt State Recreation and Conservation Area. To do so, it established the twenty-one-member Canal Lands Advisory Committee (CLAC), an advisory board composed of politicians and interested citizens from the surrounding area. In recognition of her involvement and inuence, the legislature appointed Marjorie Carr as the committees representative of the public at large. CLACs primary responsibility lay in creating a master plan for the best
Cross Florida Barge Canal use of the land. nat meant balancing a variety of competing interests, articulated during more than a year of local public meetings. For Carr and many in FDE there was not much to debate. ney felt such passive recreational pursuits as hiking, nature trails, and canoeing should stand alone at the center of the greenway experience. As Manley Fuller of the Florida Wildlife Federation explained at a CLAC hearing, we get sort of nervous about building and paving within the greenbelt. Yet as early as September, the St. Petersburg Times pointed to radically dierent visions of recreational use. Environmentalists envision picnic tables and horse trails. Developers dream of a marina and motel complex. And home owners hope to restore the original ow of the Withlacoochee River. nere were even disputes within those large constituent groups. Many people from Marion Countys horse country yearned for a world class equestrian and agricultural center that seemed more like a tourist trap than an escape from the hustle and bustle of modern living. On the western boundary of the proposed park, Jim Eyster, a Crystal River developer, formulated plans for a mammoth b-slip marina near Inglis Lock while others were more content with primitive tsh camps. And to the east, many of Putnam Countys residents remained steadfast in their demand for the retention of Rodman Reservoir as a bass tshing paradise. Spending the weekend trolling on a bass boat, they saw something magic about the shout of the adult female when she realizes she has caught her trst tsh. Take them to Rodman Reservoir and enjoy life. All of this was rather alien to Marjorie Carr and her allies. For them, tshing was something better experienced on the free-owing, densely canopied Ocklawaha with a canoe or johnboat, not a noisy two-cycle smoke-belching gasoline guzzling outboard engine powering an expensive rig on the at and unappealing waters of the stagnant Rodman Reservoir.r On September following more than a year of deliberation, CLAC met in Ocala to issue its tnal report on the future of the green belt, now called the Cross Florida Greenway. As an advisory board, its recommendations held considerable weight, but the ultimate fate of the land rested in the hands of state ocials. During a two-day meeting, the committee settled a host of dicult issues pertaining to park boundar ies, governance, funding, and local land use. With regard to the heavy imprint of canal construction, especially the bfs excavations and bridge stanchions, CLAC recommended leaving most of the Corps work intact.
Land into WaterWater into Land In many respects, CLAC validated much of Carrs environmental vision. Expressing a belief in passive recreation, it rejected the Inglis marina outright and looked cautiously at other relatively invasive forms of outdoor activities. Yet it abdicated its most important responsibility by refusing to address the contentious issue concerning the ultimate disposition of Rodman Dam and the Ocklawaha River. Instead, it voted fourteen to seven for yet another study, this time a three-year review under the auspices of the St. Johns River Water Management District. nis new demand that once again examined the usual technical, environmental, and economic costbenetts of the reservoir le many members of FDE howling in protest at what they saw as just another round of delays. With Marjorie Carr now weak with emphysema at the age of FDE ocials plaintively conceded their leader would not live to see her dream fultlled. ne river will not be restored in her lifetime, announced David Godfrey, FDEs Ocklawaha restoration project director. nis decision today means that action may not even begin in her lifetime. ne September committee meeting represented an important transitional moment. Besides wrestling with the issues associated with deauthorization, it also introduced a new player to the debate: state senator George Kirkpatrick of Gainesville. A member of the state legislature since rf, the b-year-old Democrat quickly became the face of the movement to retain Rodman Reservoir. Contentious and prickly, he reveled in his wellearned reputation as a political street tghter. Im someone who comes on the scene asking the questions that these frustrated rednecks have always wanted to ask, he remarked in a interview. I keep refusing to take no for an answer. I pound and I pound. Im perceived as arrogant. But if someone manages to turn me on their side, and I know theyre right, then theyve got their own personal Rottweiler. Dogged, vitriolic, and politically astute, Kirkpatrick was more than just another loud-mouthed politician. As a result of senatorial seniority, he would become the chair man of the powerful Senate Rules Committee in b and remain a bitter adversary of Marjorie Carr and other environmentalists who wanted to see the Ocklawaha owing freely.f Even before the tnal CLAC meeting, Kirkpatrick was instrumental in organizing a coalition of interests bent on preserving Rodman Reser voir, which had become a haven for recreational and sports tshing, even considered by some experts as one of the best bass lakes in America. In
Cross Florida Barge Canal July, the senator encouraged Dan Canteld, a professor at the University of Floridas Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, to conduct yet another studythis time designed to refute FDEs claim that the reservoir was nothing more than a weed-congested ecological disaster. Funded in part by the Putnam County Chamber of Commerce, Cantelds forty-sixpage report added to the furor over the disposition of Rodman. Pro-Rodman forces now went beyond traditional assaults upon FDEs research as they used Cantelds research to buttress their position to protect the lake. Canteld conceded as much when he wrote that proponents of restoration have written extensively and eloquently about their concerns, but his study was designed to determine if a case could be made for Rodman Reservoir. Asserting that Lake Ocklawaha was not a dying water body that is destined for biological senility in our lifetime, he added the lake would continue to serve as a refuge for not only tsh and wildlife, but also anglers. With consideration of the reservoirs economic benetts for the local Putnam County economy, Canteld reached a simple conclusion: we recommend that Rodman Reservoir be retained for now. nere is no compelling biological/ecological reason to rush restoration at this time. ne scientitc rationale behind the Canteld report soon became the basis of support for keeping the reservoir intact. Cantelds research was remarkably eective, especially as he delivered the report on the trst day of CLACs September meeting. Kirkpatrick praised the study as a signitcant improvement over FDEs examination of the lake, which he claimed had numbers quoted from a study done in rr whose numbers were collected from a report done in r which had been taken straight from biased studies done in the early fs. Not surprisingly, FDE dismissed Cantelds conclusions as gar bage. Faced with evidence that had only appeared in the tnal hours of more than a year of dicult meetings, and with a whirlwind of competing claims circling the room as a result of the study, CLAC played it safe and, almost by default, concluded that further scientitc investigation was necessary. Another round of delays led many FDE members to see another, more sinister reason for the decision in the very person of Senator Kirkpatrick himself. Marjorie Carr blasted him for his strong-arm bullying tactics. Senator Kirkpatrick has clobbered them [CLAC members], she fumed. He has carried out the most intensive campaign of intimidation that I have ever seen. God knows he has clout, but Id call that a misuse of
Land into WaterWater into Land power. FDE, recognizing Kirkpatricks power as the incoming chairman of both the Rules Committee and next sessions Appropriations Committee, accused the senator of threatening various state agencies with budget cuts if they blocked any eort to study the lake and dam once again. Kirkpatrick downplayed his inuence. My eort, he averred, has been to make sure that the recommendation is based on accurate information. When asked about his alleged threats, Kirkpatrick played coy. I didnt do any of that, he said. I talked to DNR [Department of Natural Resources] and asked how we could come up with a compromise. neres been no threats by me. With the cockiness that became part of his persona, he loudly proclaimed FDEs complaints were just sour grapes. In December the governor and Cabinet met in Tallahassee to review CLACs recommendations on turning the former canal into a linear park. nough the public meeting dealt with many of the broader concerns related to the transitional process, debate centered on the fate of Rodman. Once again, adversaries descended on the capital and staked out their positions in the hope of swaying government ocials their way. nis time, however, Marjorie Carrs illness made her too weak to appear in person. Instead her supporters brought along an emotional videotaped appeal from their leader. In it, Carr called the Ocklawaha a natural work of art and asked the Cabinet to restore it and care for it as if it was a Pieta by Michelangelo. She summarily dismissed the economic and recreational concerns of those who pleaded for retaining Rodman Reservoir. I realize bass tshermen will be inconvenienced, she said. I trust they will tnd good tshing in nearby lakes. Heeding Carrs words, Commissioner of Education Betty Castor oered an amendment to the CLAC proposals that overrode their call for another study of the Rodman area. Directing the Department of Natural Resources to immediately take steps to complete the restoration of the free owing Ocklawaha River, she called for the drawdown of Rodman Reservoir. Backed by Governor Chiles, who expressed frustration with the glacial pace of resolving the controversy, the amendment passed unanimously. nis policy statement placed the executive branch and its agencies trmly on the side of Marjorie Carr and river restoration. FDE and fellow environmentalists were elated. Calling the amendment a wise decision, Timothy Keyser of the Florida Wildlife Federation agreed that restoration of the wildlife habitat is more impor
Cross Florida Barge Canal tant than maintaining a degrading [sic] system. From Gainesville, Carr concurred, It is a giant step forward for Floridians.b Not all Floridians were as excited as Carr. In Putnam County, local tshermen expressed disbelief as the Cabinet pulled the plug on Lake Ocklawaha. I cant imagine how anybody can go to Rodman, announced tshing guide Billy Peoples, and see whats there and make that kind of decision. Wes Larson of the Putnam County Chamber of Commerce bemoaned the loss of f jobs and million in annual tshing revenue if the dam was removed. Putnam County Administrator Gary Adams concluded, I think it is a terrible economic blow to Putnam County. I think it is the wrong thing to do for a multitude of reasons. He also assailed Carrs growing inuence in Tallahassee. It appears to me that the Florida Defenders of the Environment had enough clout that they could get their position through. In Gainesville, George Kirkpatrick seconded Adamss assessment. Embittered with the Cabinet meetings result, he took on the very nature by which the decision was reached. Claiming the Cabinets vote was based on strong emotions that had very little relationships to the facts, the senator concluded that the Cabinet bypass[ed] an appointed task force and completely rejected all their recommendations. I realize that this is a very well orchestrated political decision, he said with no hint of irony. I realize the people I represent will probably lose. In a moment of self-deprecating sarcasm, he took a personal swipe at Marjorie Carr herself. Im not a scientist, Im not an eloquent speaker, he intoned, and I dont have a T.V. video to show you. At trst glance the Cabinet decision seemed to tnally resolve the issue in FDEs favor. However, buried in the language of Castors amendment was the phrase, upon favorable legislative action, which took the controversy out of the governors hands and placed it in the state house. Even FDE recognized the tentative nature of their victory. We are fully aware that only half the task is done, David Godfrey admitted. ne unanimous vote gives us momentum going to the legislature, and thats a whole other ball game. But it sends a strong message. nat message would be countered by George Kirkpatrick, who warned the Cabinet decision Tuesday is far from the tnal say on the future of the Rodman Dam and the lower Ocklawaha River. On the other side of the Capitol, Ocala Representative George Albright concurred: By no means is this cast in stone. For the
Land into WaterWater into Land next few months, Kirkpatrick and his allies prepared for battle over the fate of Rodman. By the next legislative session, George Kirkpatrick dominated the debate surrounding Rodman Dam. Beating back numerous eorts to comply with the Cabinets decision, Kirkpatrick instead oered a plan to fultll CLACs demand for further study. By the summer of b, the legislature passed a measure allocating ff,fff for an eighteen-month examination of Rodman Reservoir. ne law called for four possible scenarios for future actionfull or partial retention of the reservoir, or full or par tial restoration of the river. In many respects, the studymanaged by the newly established Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which then subcontracted most of the research to the St. Johns River Water Management Districtwas the summation of a generation of scientitc research. And given the contentious nature of much of that work, the resulting twenty-volume report, submitted in January oered no tnal resolution of the issue. nough it concluded that no further studies are necessary to answer the question concerning Rodman, the report was oen so ambiguous and technically arcane that both sides saw it as contrming their position. George Kirkpatrick most certainly thought so. Aer combing the report for the slightest bit of evidence that would favor his cause, he announced he was elated by the tndings included in the DEP report, which gave us even greater evidence of the positive environmental impact of the [Rodman] ecosystem. nough small parts of the study may have supported his position, the thrust of the report clearly warmed Marjorie Carrs heart. Hidden in the volumes of dense prose was the simple statementeorts should be directed instead at restoration of the Ocklawaha River. Following the reports recommendation, Governor Lawton Chiles or dered the Department of Environmental Protection to begin an immediate drawdown of the reservoir in anticipation of restoration. Kirkpatrick lashed back, informing DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell that he, representing the legislature, and not the governor, was in charge. Any movement towards restoration on the part of the Department, he asserted, would be highly presumptive. Any movement towards restoration would presume that the Department has already determined that the legislature will eventually decide against keeping the structure [Rodman Dam]. He added presciently, nis would be highly premature. nus be-
Cross Florida Barge Canal gan what became an annual ritual of Florida politics. With the emergence of spring, the governor and executive agencies, in addition to a majority of the state legislature, would call for the removal of Rodman Dam. And George Kirkpartrick, much like his Congressional predecessors who had blocked deauthorization, stood in the way. When trst examined, George Kirkpatricks commitment to Rodman Dam appeared rather unusual. Representing a university town that stood at the center of the anticanal movement, he seemed out of sync with its environmentally conscious constituency. However, his district stretched far beyond the city limits and embraced rural areas of north central Florida, particularly Putnam County. An avid angler, Kirkpatrick had an anity for the lake and the good ol boys who spent whatever free time they had tshing in it. As he once noted, I represent the interests of the folks who love, use and depend on the Reservoir for their livelihood. He had to, for he recognized more than anyone that his political fate rested in their hands. Le-leaning Gainesville rarely granted its own senator a majority of votes. nus Kirkpatricks base of support came from those rural residents who saw him as the lone defender of their way of life. And with the governor and Cabinet consistently calling for restoration, both he and the people of Putnam County would join forces to tght what they considered an elitist alliance between government bureaucrats and scientitc experts, who either at best ignored them or at worst dismissed them as ignorant rednecks.r nings were ironically coming full circle. In the summer of a group of Putnam County residents and recreational tshermen organized a group called Save Rodman Reservoir, Inc., to tght o the wishes of those who know better. Working within the neo-populist legacy of Ronald Reagan and the conservative revolution, they were determined to protect their lake from outsiders, those they considered paid enviro-wonks [who] pontitcated at public hearings about the evil that is Rodman. Relying on strategies strangely similar to the nascent anticanal movement thirty years earlier, they sought the preservation of Lake Ocklawaha and its new ecosystem with abundant ora and fauna. Our band of ragtag supporters had grown into a throng, Kirkpatrick reminisced, with folks calling and writing from every place imaginable. Weary travelers made the trip to Tallahassee for committee meetings on a weekly basis, sometimes without any plan to speak, but just to be there to make their presence felt.
Land into WaterWater into Land Like a modern day barn raising, they rallied the troops with newsletters, phone calls and faxes. Meanwhile paid consultants and strangers to Rodman pushed the anti-retention agenda. nose very same words could well have described Marjorie Carrs earlier eorts against the Canal Authority and the Army Corps of Engineers. Kirkpatricks chief legislative aide, Mike Murtha, certainly thought so. ney [FDE] had something they loved back in the Sixties and some bastards came and took it away from them, he exclaimed. Well, now we have something that we love and some bastards are trying to take it away from us. Over the next three legislative sessions, Kirkpatrick and his allies did their job well, as they blocked any eort toward restoration by Governor Chiles and the Department of Environmental Protection. For Marjorie Carr, r years old and now terminally ill with emphysema, these setbacks must have seemed like all her work was for nought. Rodman Damthat obscenity, that ridiculous mistake, that hideous monstrosityremained. By the summer of feeling lousy, tethered to an oxygen bottle, and forced to move from her cherished Micanopy homestead to a patio home in the middle of Gainesville, Carr plaintively asked, will I live to see it [the Ocklawaha] run free or not? I dont know. What she did know, was that George Kirkpatrick was now the source of all her frustration. Char acterizing his defense of Rodman as an obsession, she added that the senators success stemmed from the fact that he is feared and I dont think he cares. nough no longer able to lead the battle for restoration, she still showed signs of her legendary feistiness. She railed against those who failed to see the wisdom of Rodmans removal. She complained that bass tshermen ought to be ashamed of themselves for their unyielding support for the reservoir. At the same time, Carr rearmed her sentimental attachment to the river, sounding more like Sidney Lanier than a research scientist with a stubborn commitment to the facts. Once the dam is gone, she reected, the manatees will be able to come up there during the winter. What a sight that will be. How lovely that will be.bf On October f, Marjorie Harris Carr tnally succumbed to her illness. Almost immediately, accolades began pouring in for the woman now beatited as Our Lady of the Rivers. Lawton Chiles commended her as a true giant in the environmental community. Our state is a truly better place because of her work. Carol Browner, native Floridian and director of the Environmental Protection Agency, called her one of the
Cross Florida Barge Canal true pioneers of the movement to preserve what is best about Florida. Bob Graham, who had met with Carr only weeks before her death, said her name will always be synonymous with conservation. She served as the environmental conscience for Floridas leaders. Closer to home, her friends and allies within the movement she had created sorrowfully lamented their loss. Her longtime colleague David Anthony reected on her commitment to the river. Considering she had dedicated nearly forty years of her life to the struggle, he lamented, its sad to realize that Mar jorie has died without the Ocklawaha running free. It was our dream to have a celebration on its banks. Joe Little, University of Florida law professor and a veteran of FDE since the fs, expressed his deepest disappointment in Carrs inability to see the dam removed. It was a bitter pill that Marjories death leaves us to swallow. Alyson Flournoy, current president of FDE, took Carrs death as a call to action. Just as she was an inspiration in life [in death] she can only inspire us to continue to work to see that restoration happens. Its the best tribute we can pay to her.bFDE members hoped Carrs demise would signal a change of heart in Tallahassee. neir expectations were buoyed in late May of r, when the legislature commemorated Carr with the passage of a law that named the Cross Florida Greenway aer her. In many respects it marked the crowning achievement for a woman who had dedicated her life to environmental protection. However, if FDEs membership thought this could provide the political momentum to tnally restore the Ocklawaha, they were sadly mistaken. Indeed, the day aer the legislature honored Carr with the name change, it also saw tt to memorialize her leading adver sary by renaming Rodman Dam aer Senator George Kirkpatrick. Calling the senator an avid bass tsherman, naturalist, and outdoorsman with a keen interest in the tnal disposition of Rodman Dam, the legislature complimented him for leading the opposition to the removal of the dam throughout his Senate career. It was the worst form of tit-for-tat in an already rancorous debate.b With the turn of a new century, the future of the Ocklawaha still remained unresolved. Even with such federal agencies as the U.S. Forest Service pushing for Rodmans removal, nothing changed. Even with a popular new Republican governor, Jeb Bush, publicly committed to re storing the river, nothing changed. Even with Kirkpatricks forced retirement in fff, nothing changed. With their nemesis now removed by
Land into WaterWater into Land state-mandated term limits, FDE mistakenly thought they had a chance for success. Especially with George Kirkpatrick gone, one member asked, who else is going to be there to champion the dam? ne answer was a bipartisan coalition of north Florida politicians led by Republicans Jim Pickens of Palatka and Jim King of Jacksonville, and Democrat Rod Smith of Gainesville. Smith had not only taken Kirkpatricks seat, but his passion for the reservoir. Following the death of Kirkpatrick in ffb, he would even introduce legislation protecting the reservoir as the George Kirkpatrick State Reserve. If such a measure became law, it would make it nearly impossible to remove the dam. nough the legislation was vetoed by Governor Bush, it remained a legislative perennial, introduced session aer session, that demanded FDEs constant vigilance. Even seemingly insignitcant issues placed environmental activists on the defensive. Every tax dollar spent on the reservoirs recreational facilitiesbe they boat ramps, campsites, or bathroomsreinforced Rodmans permanence. Reservoir supporters argued that aer nearly forty years of existence, the artitcial lake had become part of the natural environment itself. As one explained, its got its own ecology. Its got its own value. ne reservoir remained alive, with newspaper headlines as late as the spring of ff observing, Year aer Year, its the Same Dam Debate, and Ocklawaha Restoration Remains in Limbo.bb Despite the ongoing controversy over the fate of Rodman Dam and the Ocklawaha River, the establishment of the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway turned the century-old boondoggle of a canal into a model conservation project. As Florida Representative Bill Grant explained immediately following federal deauthorization, the state now had the chance to convert an environmental lemon into lemonade for the citizens of Florida. Over the next two decades, Floridas legislature took advantage of an unprecedented opportunity and established a f-mile greenway dedicated to recreation and natural preservation in a region undergoing rampant growth and economic development. In f, one Marion County resident, excited over the promise of a new future, wrote a letter tlled with anticipation to the Ocala Star Banner, once the unrivaled voice of procanal boosterism. Recalling the words of Sidney Lanier and William Bartram, Dee Cirino praised the fruition of our linear park [which] can begin with a system of leisure lanes that lead to a wide oasis
Cross Florida Barge Canal of canopied hardwoods, scrub habitat covers, carpets of leaves, and a variety of grasses. We can arrive by car, foot, bicycle, and horseback, until we reach the rivers called Ocklawaha, to the east, and Withlacoochee, to the west. To paddle along shaded waters is to feel the past, understand the present, and be consoled that the future brings hope for natural adventure. For those who think these kind of dreams, this can be a tribute to the future as well.b nis vision reached fruition by the trst decade of the twenty-trst century. In fff, the Oce of Greenways and Trails spent b. million to construct a ff-foot-long land bridge to connect the two parts of the Greenway bisected by Interstate Hikers, mountain bikers, equestrians, and even wildlife shared this connector which linked the east and west sides of the Greenway. With the development of campgrounds, trails, and boat ramps, thousands of visitors ocked to the variety of recreational opportunities aorded by the Greenway. According to the Greenways ff management plan, ne Cross Florida Greenway probably supports a wider variety of outdoor public recreation uses than any other park and recreation land in Florida. In ff (the last year total annual statistics were available) over ,ff,fff people used the facilities of the ,fff-acre Marjorie Harris Carr Greenway. By all accounts, the Greenway has been a resounding success and provided a lasting legacy for Marjorie Carr.b Yet contentious echoes of past issues continue to plague the Greenway. On its eastern side, the controversies over the fate of Kirkpatrick Dam and Rodman Reservoir continue to swirl in new and dierent ways. In June ffr, the St Johns River Water Management District received a per mit application to build a ff-slip marina at an existing RV park on the shores of Rodman Reservoir. Supporters of river restoration saw the plan as just another attempt to keep the reservoir intact. Karen Ahlers of the Putnam County Environmental Council concluded that if youve been on the natural parts of the Ocklawaha, you know that the river is simply not big enough anywhere in its reach to accommodate ff boats. Conversely, Ed Taylor, a founder of Save Rodman Reservoir and a Putnam County commissioner, favored the proposal simply because wed like to see anything and everything that keeps that dam in place. Public opinion ran heavily toward denying the permit. As of March ff, the water management district had received over ff letters and e-mails opposing
Land into WaterWater into Land the project. Charles Lee of the Florida Audubon Society expressed the views of many when he wrote, this is a highly controversial application, and we have a strong interest in making sure this application is denied. nere are obviously extraordinary implications regarding the restoration of the Ocklawaha River, and even the management of the existing reservoir. In spite of this groundswell of concern and the stance of myriad state and federal agencies opposing construction, no decision has yet been reachedeither concerning the approval of the marina permit or the broader issue of the restoration of the Ocklawaha River itself.b On the usually quiet western side of the Greenway, the application by Progress Energy Corporation to build a twin reactor nuclear power plant in Levy County near Inglis Lock has raised problems as well. If the signitcant bureaucratic hurdles are cleared, the facility is projected for completion by ff and will generate ,ff megawatts of electricity at an estimated construction cost of billion. Proximity to the completed sections of the canal has provided signitcant rationale for the location of the plant. Water for cooling the reactors would be taken from the untnished Cross Florida barge canal and pip[ed] several miles to the plant, and then several miles back out the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the completed portion of the canal west of Inglis Lock will serve as the major access point for shipping materials to the plant itself. Similar to the Rodman marina controversy, little has been resolved as to the ultimate disposition of this issue.b ne legacy of the Cross Florida Barge Canal therefore remains profoundly ambivalent. ne unintended consequences of canal development and the unfultlled dreams of canal boosters have created the Marjorie Harris Carr Greenway out of the lands designated for canal construction. ne dogged activism of Carr and her cohorts proved that citizen involvement can achieve positive results by changing the course of seemingly inexorable government projects. Yet canal supporters have their monuments as well. Kirkpatrick Dam and Rodman Reservoir on the eastern end of the Greenway and Inglis Lock on its western side represent the continuing eort to fundamentally tame Floridas waterways. ne remnants of the canal project contain elements of both nature and human endeavor, which points to the strained relationship between people and Floridas environment. ne issues and concerns surrounding the Cross
Cross Florida Barge Canal Florida Barge Canal still resonate thirty years aer Nelson Blake trst published this book and raise profound questions about how future Floridians will grapple with similar questions.Notes Marjorie Carr to John Bustered, bf December RG Series Box Folder (), FDE, PKY; Cabinet Votes Against Completion of Barge Canal, St Petersburg Times, r December ; Cabinet Votes Against Canal, Florida Times Union, r December ; Cabinet Minutes of the Canal Authority, b January OGT; Mar jory Stoneman Douglas to Marjorie Carr, bf December RG Series Box Folder (), FDE, PKY. Lieutenant General John W. Morris, Memorandum for Washington Policy Group, January Box f, Folder ACE, Oce of History, Humphreys Engineer Center, Fort Belvoir, Alexandria, Va.; Nathaniel Reed et al., Memorandum for Lieutenant General John W. Morris, January Box f, Folder ACE, Oce of History, Humphreys Engineer Center, Fort Belvoir, Alexandria, Va. b. Edward Greene, News Release, Chief of Army Engineers Recommends CrossFlorida Barge Canal Project be Terminated, February Box f, Folder ; Terminate Canal, Army Engineers Say, Ocala Star Banner, February ; Nathaniel Reed to John Bustered, December Box f, Folder ACE, Oce of History, Humphreys Engineer Center, Fort Belvoir, Alexandria, Va. Ernest Graves, Engineer Memoirs, r, http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/ eng-pamphlets/ep--/part.pd f. End Florida Canal Project Carter Urges Congress, St Petersburg Times, May End Florida Barge Canal: President, Florida Times Union, May ; Marion Commissioners Canal Reaction Mixed, Ocala Star Banner, May ; Congress Asked to Put RIP on Barge Canal, Orlando Sentinel, May ; Carter Urges Death for Canal, Ocala Star Banner, May Carter Urges Death for Canal, OSB, May ; Close Ledger on Useless Project, Orlando Sentinel February ; Florida House Votes to Kill Barge Canal, Palatka Daily News, April ; Barge Canal May Face Watery Grave, Independent Florida Alligator, f April rb; Environmentalist Wants Cemetery to Mean Death for Canal, Independent Florida Alligator January rb; Jim Smith to Paula Hawkins, b May rb, Series VI, Box b, Folder Cross Florida Barge Canal, Paula Hawkins Papers, Winter Park Public Library, Winter Park, Fla. r. Florida House Votes to Kill Barge Canal, Palatka Daily News, April Feud over Florida Barge Canal Reheats, Miami Herald, f June r. f. Why Cross Florida Barge Canal Refuses to Die, St Petersburg Times, May r; Bill Chappell to Marsha Chance, r April rb, RG Series Box Folder rb (), FDE,
Land into WaterWater into Land PKY; Cross-Florida Barge Canal Shows Signs of Life, Independent Florida Alligator, September r. LeRoy Collins to Claude Pepper, July rb, Series bf, Box A, Folder b, CPP; Resolution, Ocala Board of Realtors, Inc., April rb, RG Box Folder CFBC Easy Reference, FDE, PKY. Andy Johnson to Friends of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, October r, Box Folder b, Bill Chappell Papers, PKY; Barge Canal Opponents and Proponents Line Up on Either Side of Project, Daytona Beach Morning Journal, February rb; Feud over Florida Barge Canal Reheats, Miami Herald f June r; David Gencarelli, Memorandum to Senator Hawkins, April rb, Series VI, Box b, Folder Cross Florida Barge Canal, Paula Hawkins Papers, Winter Park Public Library, Winter Park, Fla. b. Barge Canal Is Still Hotly Debated, Gainesville Sun, June r. Paula Hawkins Press Release, undated, Series VI, Box b, Folder Cross Florida Barge Canal, Paula Hawkins Papers, Winter Park Public Library, Winter Park, Fla. Water Resources Development Act of r, PL -, November r, http:// www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Omnibus/WRDA.pdf; A Monster Slain, Miami Herald, f November r; Section PL -, http://www.fws.gov/habitatconser vation/Omnibus/WRDA.pd f. Charles Bennett press release, January f, RG Series box Folder fs (), FDE, PKY; Bill Would Kill Canal, Return Land to State, Ocala Star Banner, March f; ibid.; Land for Florida Barge Canal May Become a Ribbon of Parks, Miami Her ald f May f; Graham, Stearns: Give Canal to State, Gainesville Sun, March f; Land for Florida Barge Canal May Become a Ribbon of Parks, Miami Herald, f May f. Land for Florida Barge Canal May Become a Ribbon of Parks, Miami Herald, f May f; Water Resources Development Act of f, PL f-f, r November f, http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/whatwedo/civwks/wrda.pd f. r. For a listing of CLAC members, see Minutes of Meeting of Canal Lands Advisory Committee, April Accession II, Box Cross Florida Greenbelt Plan Folder, FDE, PK; Barge Canals Fate in Dispute, St. Petersburg Times, October ; One Strip of Land Is the Focus of Many Dierent Desires, St. Petersburg Times, September ; Richard Coleman, ne Joys of Fishing, Letter to the Editor, Gainesville Sun May r; David Bruderly, Fishing Would Be Great, Op-Ed, Gainesville Sun June r. Panel: Study Rodman b Years, Gainesville Sun, r September r. f. Ex-Senator Kirkpatrick Dead at Gainesville Sun, February ffb; Kirkpatrick Created Legacy of Action, Controversy, Gainesville Sun, February ffb. Daniel Canteld, Eric Schulz, Mark Hoyer, To Be or Not to Bene Rodman Reservoir Controversy, A Review of Available Data, February b, v, viii, St. Johns Water Management District Library, Palatka, Fla. George Kirkpatrick, Musings on Rodman, n.d., b, George Kirkpatrick Papers,
Cross Florida Barge Canal Mike Murtha Collection, Gainesville, Florida; Rodman Decision Relayed, Palatka Daily News, r September ; Rodmans Fate Put on Hold, Ocala Star-Banner, r September ; Panel: Study Rodman b Years, Gainesville Sun, r September r. b. Cabinet: Pull Rodman Plug, Florida Times Union, December ; Cabinet Urges End to Dam, Gainesville Sun, December ; motion by Commissioner Betty Castor, December Historic Documents Pertaining to Ocklawaha River Restoration, FDE, fff (blue folder), FDE Headquarters, Gainesville, Fla.; Cabinet: Pull Rodman Plug, Florida Times Union, December Fishermen Worried About Another One Getting Away, Florida Times Union, December ; Cabinet: Pull Rodman Plug, Florida Times Union, December ; Cabinet Votes to Restore River, Ocala Star Banner, December ; Cabinet Urges End to Dam, Gainesville Sun, December Cabinet Urges End to Dam, Gainesville Sun, December ; Cabinet Votes to Restore River, Ocala Star Banner, December Environmental Studies Concerning Four Alternatives for Rodman Reservoir and the Lower Ocklawaha River, Volume Executive Summary, St. Johns River Water Management District, St. Johns Water Management District Library, Palatka, Florida; George Kirkpatrick, Musings on Rodman, n.d., George Kirkpatrick Papers, Mike Murtha Collection, Gainesville, Fla. George Kirkpatrick to Virginia Wetherell, April George Kirkpatrick Papers, Mike Murtha Collection, Gainesville, Fla. r. George Kirkpatrick, Memorandum to Members of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, n.d., George Kirkpatrick Papers, Mike Murtha Collection, Gainesville, Fla. George Kirkpatrick, Musings on Rodman, n.d., b, George Kirkpatrick Papers, Mike Murtha Collection, Gainesville, Fla.; ne Battle of the Dams, Smithsonian, r, November r, bf. Barge Canals Nemesis Takes on the Dam, Miami Herald, February f; Activist Recalls Fight to Let the River Run, Gainesville Sun, b June b. Gainesvilles Marjorie Carr, Environmentalist, Dies at r, Gainesville Sun, October ; Steward of Gods Garden Laid to Rest, Gainesville Sun, October b. http://election.dos.state..us/laws/aws/ch_-.pd f. bb. Should the River Run Free?, Florida Times Union, b March fff; Ocklawaha Restoration Remains in Limbo, Gainesville Sun, April ff; Year aer Year, Its the Same Dam Debate, Ocala Star Banner, April ff. b. Bill Would Kill Canal, Return Land to State, Ocala Star Banner, March f; Dee Cirino, Conserving Land Where Bridge Was to Cross Canal, letter to editor, Ocala Star Banner, r March f. b. Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway Management Plan, prepared by Muller and Associates, Inc. with the Oce of Greenways and Trails, June ff, b, http:// www.dep.state..us/gwt/cfg/Plan_PDF/CFG_LMP_Final.pd f ; visitor numbers from OGT
Land into WaterWater into Land ff tgures, attachment in e-mail to Steven Noll from Patricia Root, OGT, DEP, March ff. Over ,fff more acres have been added to the Greenway since its original contguration of ,fff acres. b. Rodman Dam Removal Faces New Twist: A Proposed Marina, St. Petersburg Times February ff; Charles Lee e-mail objector letter OL___.tif at https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/epermitting/jsp/Search.do?theAction=searchDetail&theIn dex= b. Progress Energy Florida Signs Contract for New, Advanced-Design Nuclear Plant, January ff, http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutus/news/article.asp?id= ; Florida Nuke Plant Avoids Drought Woes with Saltwater, St. Petersburg Times, January ffr.
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? The Everglades since 1980 As Nelson Blake tnished writing the original edition of this book, he had access to a handful of signitcant works that treated selected aspects of human and natural history in the Everglades including Marjory Stoneman Douglass classic e Everglades: River of Grass. Blake made generous use of primary sources, but he could not have imagined how easily many of these documents are now accessed. For example, Florida International Universitys Everglades Digital Library features an on-line assembly of nearly f,fff pages of primary documents and images in a collection entitled Reclaiming the Everglades: South Florida Natural History, Nor could Blake have imagined the avalanche of literature generated on the Everglades since he completed his book in rf.b Above and beyond the huge volume of primary source material on the Everglades since rf, including government documents and reports, collections of personal papers and oral histories from a range of inuential Everglades personalities, and extensive newspaper coverage of events regarding Everglades management, there are now a large number of scholarly books and articles on virtually every aspect of the history, natural science, and social science of the Everglades since rf. In this chapter, I will use some primary sources but I will rely even more on the enormous volume of relatively recent books and articles, and attempt to synthesize the various scientitc and management issues in the greater Everglades ecosystem over the past three decades using the same (but probably less eloquent) narrative form Blake used. Blake recognized the interconnectedness of the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, and Everglades systems, but it is not entirely clear that he comprehended the enormous diversity of land and waterscapes across South Floridaand how closely they are connected by slowly moving
Land into WaterWater into Land water. Indeed, what most people refer to as the Everglades consists of a wide variety of ecosystems, including extensive sawgrass marshes on thick beds of peat and muck soils; marl prairies featuring thin, dried algae-based soils, outcropping limestone and sparse sawgrass; the somewhat deeper water Shark River Slough (in the heart of the Glades) with its myriad tree islands just a foot or so above the surrounding landscape; Taylor Slough and the estuarine environment along the southern edge of mainland Florida; the dwarf cypressdominated Big Cypress Swamp; the higher pine keys (such as Paradise Key or Long Pine Key)large inland tree islands far from the ocean but surrounded by marsh; the mangrove-dominated south and southwest coasts and the shallow ats of Florida Bay; and even the extensive littoral (shoreline) marshes along the southern and western shores of Lake Okeechobee. Yet Blake was certainly beginning to appreciate the growing human footprint in the region. As population growth continued unabated in South Florida, ecological problems appeared to spread beyond the Everglades. When Congress authorized the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project) in r, the population of South Flor ida* had not yet reached f,fff, and planners estimated that the region would have just million people by the year fff. As Blakes book went to press in rf, however, South Florida had nearly b.r million people; by ffr, the U.S. Census estimated there were nearly million people in the regionand before the national economic meltdown that began in late ff, some observers believed that as many as million people might have called South Florida home by fbf. ne increasing intensity of urban and agricultural land use in the region ultimately led to a host of water quantity and quality problems that Blake began to see. For example, he noted that Lake Okeechobee had begun to suer noticeable water quality problems by the early fs. Total phosphorus in the big lake nearly doubled between and r, and this important plant nutrient contributed to a series of algal blooms dur ing the rfs and early fs (the largest covering some percent of the lake in r). Although the lake continues to support signitcant sport and Since 1948, defined here as the following counties: Monroe, Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee, Glades and Hendry.
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? commercial tsheries, algal blooms are oen blown into and do damage to the extensive littoral marshes along the southern and western portions of the lake. Environmentalists initially suspected that channelization of the Kissimmee River, and consequent destruction of roughly bf,fff acres of ood plain wetlands during the fs and fs, was primarily responsible for rushing excessive nutrients from expanding cattle ranches into Lake Okeechobee. Yet careful scientitc research ultimately demonstrated that although the Kissimmee was contributing some additional phosphorus to the big lake, the lions share of excess phosphorus made its way into the lake compliments of dairy farms in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough area (just northeast of Lake Okeechobee)while back-pumped water from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) also contributed some phosphorus and particularly nitrogen to the lake. It does not help that Lake Okeechobee is relatively shallow (less than f feet deep at ood stage, but more oen between f and feet deep) and that periodic strong winds produce waves capable of re-suspending nutrients that otherwise sink to the lake bottom.Figure b.
Land into WaterWater into Land Water managers decided to reduce back-pumping from the EAA into Lake Okeechobee in sending nutrient-laden water from the agricultural area into the water conservation areas (WCAs) farther south. Unfor tunately, they inadvertently altered the vegetation in the WCAs. Sawgrass has long dominated much of the Everglades because it can survive in environments with low concentrations of nutrients, especially phosphorus. When water managers directed the EAAs nutrient laden runo away from the lake and into the WCAs, dense stands of cattails began to appear in the conservation areas. Cattails are native to Florida but they usually do not form thick stands that crowd out other species of plants and animals. Moreover, although much is made about the Everglades not receiving historical amounts of runo aer construction of the C&SF project, at least as much of the ecological damage in Everglades National Park (ENP) over the past several decades has been due to dumping excess water into the park during the dry season (November to May), and especially during unusually wet months that can occasionally occur during the dry season. Over several millennia, plants and animals in the region developed biological communities adapted to the annual dry season. ne wood stork, for example, depends upon the natural annual drawdown of water to concentrate tsh in progressively smaller pools so they are easy to catchand then feed to their young who are hatched at this time. Yet in an attempt to provide the park its fair share of water, managers began providing ENP an equal allotment of water each month (and ooding it during extremely wet months). Continuing the chain of problems, the general reduction of water passing though the WCAs and into Everglades National Park throughout the year (compared to historic ows) meant less water oozed from the Park into Florida Bay; and a series of ecological problems became manifest in Florida Bay by the rfs.r Of course, the once pristine Biscayne Bay also suers from water quality and related ecological problems stemming from water manipulation and signitcant development in Southeast Flor ida. Furthermore, it eventually became clear that ushing excess fresh (and nutrient laden) water from Lake Okeechobee down the Caloosahatchee River (to the Gulf) and St. Lucie Canal (to the Atlantic Ocean) created water quality crises in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. Blake noted human impacts to the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, and Everglades proper; but continuing population growth, increasingly
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? intensive land use, and progressively more complex water manipulations ultimately began to cause ecological problems throughout the greater South Florida ecosystem, including coastal waters. Indeed, in the years aer Blakes book was published, the federal government worked closely with the state of Florida and the South Florida Water Management District to create Biscayne National Park (rf), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (f), and Dry Tortugas National Park ()and add over ff,fff acres to Big Cypress National Preserve in rr and over ff,fff acres to Everglades National Park in r. Although he did not realize it at the time, Blakes coverage of initial attempts to cope with water quality problems in the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee were the beginnings of the movement to restore the Everglades.f Blake commented on the failure of Floridas Kissimmee River Restoration Act (passed in ) to accomplish what its supporters originally intended. Recall that Florida ocials begged Congress and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE or Corps) to do something aer the peninsulas incredibly destructive oods of the late fs. ne Corps responded, in part, by digging a straight, wide canal (C-br) through the lazily mean dering river during the fs and fs. Such action provoked almost immediate reaction from Floridas environmental community, which lobbied hard to get the legislature to restore the Kissimmee River in Passage of this bill set o nearly two years of argument among South Floridas farmers, ranchers, and environmentalists, but just tve years after completing the big ditch, the state legislature asked Congress to have the Corps of Engineers restudy the Kissimmee River/C-br canal with an eye toward restoring the river. ne COE was still adjusting to its new environmental mission, so it was in no rush to restore even a small part of the river. In r, the Corps tnally issued a report in which they found that restoring the Kissimmee would yield no net economic benett, and since federally funded projects at that time had to generate net economic benetts, the COE temporarily dashed hopes of federal participation in Kissimmee River restoration. It is no secret that President Ronald Reagan and his administration took a dim view of virtually all environmental preservation and restoration eorts throughout the rfs. Reagan certainly had little use for federal government sponsored environmental protection and he wanted to shi responsibility for this activity to the states. Such a stance le Flor
Land into WaterWater into Land idas Governor Bob Graham (r) to tackle environmental problems without much in the way of federal support. Indeed, the governor cemented ties with environmentalists aer Sports Illustrated ran a story in their popular swimsuit issue in February r entitled neres Trouble in Paradise, an expose that lambasted Grahams mediocre record on the environment. Between the Sports Illustrated article, the drought of rf r, and El Ninoinduced ooding in early r (in which Everglades National Park was used as a dumping ground for huge amounts of excess water from urban and agricultural areas), Graham was moved to launch his Save Our Everglades program in rb. In early rb, the governor insisted that his top environmental administrators produce a plan to improve ecological conditions in the Ever glades. Indeed, Nelson Blake was among the experts consulted by the governor as his sta tried to determine how to best revive the Glades.b By August of that year, Graham proclaimed Save Our Everglades as a plan intended to rejuvenate much of the South Florida ecosystem. He called for Kissimmee River restoration, strategic land acquisition in South Florida, wetland restoration on state-owned lands within the EAA, more eective wildlife management and modifying the east-west Tamiami Trail and Alligator Alley highways to enable more natural sheet ow of water from north to south. Although far short of more recent eorts to restore the Everglades, Grahams initiative represented a crucial change of focus: it succeeded in raising the protle of the Everglades and in highlighting the importance of restoring the environment of much of South Florida (not just Everglades National Park). Grahams vision for the region can be put into context another way: as an academic area of study, ecological restora tion was in its infancy in the early rfs. Bob Grahams appointees to the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) initiated the Kissimmee River Demonstration Project in r. ne SFWMD eventually decided to buy some f,fff acres in the Kissimmee Valley in an eort to restore a section of the old meandering river channel. By r, a demonstration project was in place and the preliminary results were very encouraging. ne small portions of revived river channel soon behaved as they had for centuries before moditcation, with point or sand bars developing along the inside bends of the stream and wetland plants and animals returning to adja cent oodplains. Of course, any hoped-for river restoration would have to
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? prevent ood damage, and this would not be easy given the expansion of settlement and ranching in the Kissimmee Valley since the completion of C-br in Meanwhile, the Corps lack of enthusiasm for the SFWMDs demonstration project was palpable, and in July r, the COE reported to Congress that they ought not participate in project moditcations of the Kissimmee River. Despite this, Congress included million in its rr tscal year budget for the Corps to conduct its own Kissimmee River demonstration project, but the Reagan Administration refused to authorize the Corps to use funds for this purpose. Meanwhile, in an eort to better cope with apparent water quality problems in Lake Okeechobee, Governor Graham assembled the Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee (LOTAC) in r. nis committee of experts was charged with preparing a course of action to help improve the big lakes water quality. A year later, LOTAC made several recommendations including the development of best management practices intended to reduce the nutrient-laden euent emanating from the dairy farms north and east of the lake; moving surface water from Okeechobee dairies into neighboring Martin and St. Lucie Counties for agricultural use; and developing long-term monitoring, research, and management capability for the lake. Indeed, thirty of the regions forty-eight dairy operations chose to participate in the states Dairy Rule Program, a series of actions intended to reduce phosphorus runo from dairies. nese actions were paid for with a combination of taxpayer and dairy farm money. ne state ultimately bought the remaining eighteen dairies. Not long aer this, the Florida legislature passed the Surface Water Improvement and Management Act (SWIM Act) in r, and Governor Bob Martinez (r ) reconvened the LOTAC (oen referred to as LOTAC II) to help the water management district develop a SWIM plan for Lake Okeechobee. Recognizing that it would be dicult to signitcantly reduce the production of nutrients in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough dairy district, or to prevent the movement of nutrient-laden water into the lake, LOTAC II recommended the construction of a long-term, large-scale water treatment project using wetlands. Wetland scientists at the University of Florida had published studies on the ability of wetland plants to extract nutrients from wastewater back in the fs. ne idea is relatively simple: create a gently sloped wetland environment packed with nutrient-loving marsh plants that consume a large percentage of the nutrients (particularly phospho-
Land into WaterWater into Land rus and nitrogen), so that by the time water leaves the system, it contains far fewer nutrients. In a move foreshadowing a signitcant portion of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan more than a decade later, in r SFWMD devoted more than million toward construction of the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project adjacent to Water Conservation Area I. Flow through operations tnally began on the ,-acre treatment wetland in Still, the State of Florida continued to allow water polluted with excessive nutrients (especially phosphorus) to pass into federal properties in the region. nis despite the fact that the states own narrative standard for class III waters states: in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic ora and fauna. To be sure, interpreting this water quality standard consistently in the teld is almost impossible, but from the perspective of federal land managers in South Florida, the water management districts r SWIM plan appeared to be too little, too late. Accordingly, the U.S. Attorney in MiamiDexter Lehtinendecided in his trst year on the job (without consulting his bosses in Washington) to sue the State of Florida and the state-supervised South Florida Water Management District for failing to enforce Floridas own water quality standards. Lehtinen tled suit in Federal Court on October rr.r It turns out that the Everglades is a very oligotrophic system: its plants and animals have adapted over millennia to an environment with very low concentrations of essential plant nutrients, especially phosphorus. How low? Nobody knows for certain, but many scientists and others have followed the lead of Professor Ron Jones, who has long argued that water in the Everglades generally had no more than f parts phosphorus per one billion parts water (f ppb). Water with just a couple dozen ppb of phosphorus is enough to create dramatic ecological changes in the Everglades. Specitcally, phosphorus-loving cattails can out-compete and crowd out other plant species to the detriment of both native ora and fauna adapted to a low nutrient environment. Large swaths of all three Water Conservation Areas have become choked with cattails, and little else. nis is because total phosphorus levels now routinely average more than ff ppb in Lake Okeechobee and oen average around ppb in the EAA before treatment. EAA farmers continue to be blamed for excess nutrients. ne regions farmers object, claiming to use fertilizers that contain relatively little phosphorus, but they do use water from Lake Okeechobee and some
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? observers suggest that phosphorus emanating from the EAA may be a result of this nutrients mineralization as peat soils oxidize. ne fact re mains that phosphorus-laden water leaves the EAA and is pushed into the WCAs. ne Federal governments lawsuit against the State and SFWMD charges that the districts r SWIM plan for the Everglades simply would not reduce phosphorus levels quickly enough to prevent signitcant ecological damage to Everglades National Park and nearby Water Conservation Area also known as the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Although the Reagan Administration probably was not happy about the lawsuit, Dexter Lehtinen apparently counted on support (or at least no interference) from Vice President George H.W. Bush as he campaigned for President in October rr, denouncing Massachusetts Gover nor Michael S. Dukakis for his failure to clean up Boston Harbor. Because Floridas own water quality rules state that water quality should not cause an imbalance of plant species, and because there appeared to be scientitc consensus that nutrient laden water caused cattails to replace sawgrass in South Florida, the States lawyers had very little wiggle room. Conceding defeat, however, was not the preferred option for South Florida sugar farmers. Admitting guilt would lead to a solution that would come out of their pockets, probably in the form of retired agricultural land that would be used to create artitcial wetlands to remove excess phosphorus (an option sugar farmers did not believe would work). Although some members of the SFWMD governing board suggested that the district ought to do more to reduce excess nutrients in the regions water, a majority of board members agreed with the farmers and preferred to duke it out in court, ultimately spending several million dollars of the publics tax money challenging the lawsuit.f Lehtinens action may have been necessary in order to bring about more signitcant environmental protection in South Florida, but it shredded relationships between many state and federal ocials and it created a toxic atmosphere for bureaucrats, environmentalists, farmers, and politicians throughout South Florida and beyond. During the f Florida gubernatorial campaign, former U.S. Senator Lawton Chiles denounced Governor Bob Martinez for wasting tax money in an attempt to defend against a hopeless lawsuit. Floridians elected Chiles governor (r) and several months later, he stunned many observers by appearing in fed-
Land into WaterWater into Land eral court to ask for a truce. On f May Chiles told the judge: I am here and brought my sword. I want to tnd out who I can give that sword to and I want to be able to give that sword up and have our troops start the reparation, the clean up. We want to surrender. We want to plead that the water is dirty. We want the water to be clean. ne settlement agreement (itself the subject of intense negotiations between state and federal authorities) eventually conceded that excess nutrients were causing ecosystem change, and that phosphorus concentrations should meet an interim limit of f ppb by July and long-term limits (to be determined by additional research) by July ff. ne State ultimately developed a complex water quality monitoring system throughout the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park featuring several dozen data collection sites. Although the annual average amount of phosphorus detected at a particular site in the Everglades may be as high as ppb, the average amount of phosphorus throughout the network of sampling stations in the park and in each WCA, over rolling tve-year periods, should be no more than f ppb. Recognizing that it was not likely to reach these long-term goals immediately, the State later pushed back the date this standard must be achieved until the end of ff, and then again to f. In any event, storm water treatment areas (STAs or carefully engineered wetlands) were to become the primary means of extracting nutrients from slowly moving farm runo. ne federal governments lawsuit against Florida prompted the legislature to pass the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Protection Act in May nis act called for a more aggressive Everglades SWIM plan and served to codify the settlement with the U.S. government. Although the lawsuit succeeded in placing water quality in South Florida near the top of the environmental agenda, the acrimony and bitterness it spawned among public ocials probably delayed Ever glades rehabilitation by several years. At the same time, large and small sugar growers in the EAA (oen collectively referred to as Big Sugar even if they occasionally disagree among themselves) were furious with the States settlement. ney played no role in negotiating the agreement between the state and federal governmentseven though they would be heavily aected by it. Within a year of Chiless surrender, Big Sugar initiated a series of legal actions in an eort to delay and sabotage the court order approving the settlement (and cleanup of nutrient-laden water). Meanwhile, throughout the fs and
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? beyond, Big Sugar came under increasing attack as the chief source of ecological problems in the Everglades. In environmentalists attempted to force Big Sugar to contribute more money toward Everglades cleanup by proposing a two-cents-per-pound tax on retned sugar. Florida voters narrowly defeated this proposal in November, but only aer Big Sugar retaliated with a vigorous public relations campaign in which they challenged existing science (especially the very small limits for phosphorus), defended their right to continue farming in the region, and claimed (with some justitcation) that they were the backbone of the EAAs economy; they ooded Tallahassee with high-priced lobbyists and contributions to state and federal politicians reelection campaigns. Indeed, it became increasingly easy for environmentalists and their sympathizers to blame Big Sugar for all ecological problems in the region. Between historic mistreatment of migrant farm workers and using a portion of what used to be the Everglades to reap handsome protts, EAA sugar growers made an easy target, and excessive phosphorus became a handy weapon. What some of the regions environmentalists conveniently ignore is the fact that their own demand for water and products grown in the EAA, and even ood control, contributes to the impetus for water manipulation in South Florida. nis does not mean that Big Sugar is blameless; but it does mean that urban demands for sugar, water, and ood control have contributed to the ecological mess that South Florida has become. By b, the planned cleanup of the Everglades was still tied up in court, but there was a new occupant of the White House (President Bill Clinton), and his entourage included the likes of environmentally friendly leaders such as Vice President Al Gore (of global warming fame); Attorney General Janet Reno (who grew up in what used to be the wilds west of Miami); Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner (another native Floridian who used to run the states Department of Environmental Regulation); and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt (who embraced Everglades restoration almost immediately). Indeed, Babbitt worked hard to broker a compromise that farmers and environmentalists could live with, but many environmentalists objected to Babbitts deal because it did not guarantee clean water for the Everglades or og the regions farmers, nor did it force agriculturalists to pay most of the cost of the cleanup. Disgusted, Babbitt dropped his proposed settlement idea and le the Florida legislature to work out an agreement; the legislature, however, had long
Land into WaterWater into Land been an institution beholden to Big Sugar, its campaign contributions, and its army of lobbyists. Indeed, in early sugar lobbyists wrote the trst dra of the Mar jory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Forever Act (not to be confused with the moribund Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Protection Act), which postponed enforcement of tnal phosphorus standards until ff, provided ff million for creating f,fff acres of tltering marshes designed to reduce phosphorus to f ppb (with less than one-third of the funding coming from farmers)and no apparent plan (or funding) to reduce phosphorus any further than f ppb. Environmentalists howled in protest and the fb-year-old Douglas demanded that her name be taken o the legislation because she believed it marked a retreat from the original settlement agreement; but the law passed anyway, renamed the Everglades Protection Act. In fact, a federal judge continues to oversee this lawsuit and settlement more than twenty years later because even though phosphorus levels have been signitcantly reduced, water entering the WCAs still has more phosphorus than allowed by law.b Clearly, a settlement craed by lawmakers alone would not be able to deliver a plan for the Everglades that did not also produce protests from one quarter or another. Well-entrenched economic and political inter ests built fortunes on the degraded South Florida ecosystemboth in the EAA and along the coast. Furthermore, the regions natural resource agency managers oen viewed responsibilities to their own institutions as more signitcant than those of other agencies. For example, the Corps of Engineers was more interested in providing ood control than environmental enhancement, while ocials at Everglades National Park were more interested in the relative health of the park than in water supply for nearby urbanites. By the late rfs, a handful of scientists from a variety of governmental bodies and universities recognized that much of their work remained buried in technical reports that were dicult or impossible to access. Moreover, despite the growing volume of individual scientitc effort, the compartmentalization of scientists (like compartmentalization of the remaining Everglades) reduced the likelihood that a synthesis and deeper understanding of the South Florida ecosystem might emerge. Because of this, several dozen researchers from dierent agencies and institutions assembled at Key Largo in r for a symposium intended to share scientitc information. Over the next couple of years, as a series of
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? workshops sustained the interaction of scientists, it eventually became clear to the scientitc community that South Florida featured a range of interconnected and human-dominated ecosystems whose degradation could be reversed; in fact, they resolved that the Everglades and its re lated ecosystems could and must be rehabilitated if South Florida was to continue to sustain millions of people at a reasonable quality of life. At the same time, the U.S. State Departments Human Dominated Systems Directorate of its Man and Biosphere Program (MAB HDS) developed a tve-year project on ecosystem management for ecological sustainability. MAB HDS assembled more than f government and academic scientists to engage in a South Florida case study examining sustainability goals for the region, estimating water resource needs, and forming generic principles for ecosystem managementand then developing land use scenarios to judge the potential for socio-ecological sustainability. ne ecosystem management concept dates back to Aldo Leopold () and emphasizes environmental protection, a position very dierent from that of the past century in South Florida where the focus has been on satisfying anthropocentric desires for water-based agriculture and urban development. ne project identited regional boundaries, ecological endpoints for assessing the relative well-being of dierent South Florida ecosystems, as well as natural and anthropogenic stresses on these ecosystems, and analyzed the policy, legal, economic, and institutional framework of South Florida. Scientists also developed a series of conceptual models that helped specify the numerous interactions between people and environment throughout the region. nese models are oen working hypotheses that attempt to explain the chain reaction between driving forces (such as water management or development), stressors (such as altered hydrology or degraded water quality), and ecological eects (such as chemical responses) that lead to attributes or somewhat easily measured indicators that have important values (such as the population of endangered or other important species). For example, water management practices (driver) have reduced the sheet ow of water through the Glades (stressor); this, in turn, has not only increased salinities in Florida Bay but also resulted in the loss of submerged aquatic vegetation. nese two ecological eects are thought to be largely responsible for the measurable decline in the regions waterfowl populations since the bfs. nis otherwise academic exercise demonstrated that a large interdisciplinary group of social and
Land into WaterWater into Land natural scientists could cooperate and produce meaningful assessments of current conditions, that they could generate and assess a series of working hypotheses regarding the regions human-environment interaction, and that they could suggest alternative land use scenarios to policymakers. As the fs progressed, scientists began to assemble impressive bodies of published, accessible work. For example, marked the appearance of a trio of books in which authors synthesized a tremendous amount of scientitc information on the Everglades. Perhaps the most signitcant of the three is the massive Everglades: e Ecosystem and Its Restoration, an r-page compendium edited by Steven Davis and John Ogden (at the time, ecosystem scientists with the SFWMD and Everglades National Park, respectively). nis volume features thirty-one mostly technical chapters that outline what has happened to the Everglades over the past century and how it might be restored. Of course, restoration is a loaded term. Although some activists think outright restoration is possible, most scientists argue that the Everglades can never be fully restored because half of the original system is now urban or agricultural land. Rather, scientists contend that it might be possible to rehabilitate whats le of the system so that it functions more like it did a century ago than it does today. Indeed, for many scientists, Everglades restoration is really about restoring selected functions in the system rather than restoring the Glades to their early twentieth-century condition. Accordingly, the Davis and Ogden volume proposes a large-scale eort based on restoring ecosystem-driving forces (such as regional scale hydrology) rather than merely attempting to re-create a patchwork of restored wetlands. nis is more dicult than it appears because we do not have enough hydrological data from the predrainage era to say with certainty what the regions hydrology was like in ff. Meanwhile, A. B. (Del) Bottcher (president of a soil and water engineering trm) and Forest Izuno (a professor of agricultural engineering) edited Everglades Agricultural Area: Water, Soil, Crop and Environmental Management. neir book features a series of technical discussions regarding soils, crops, and nutrients limited to the EAA. nis volume is helpful because it highlights the economic signitcance of the EAA, and it confronts, in a straightforward and nonpartisan way, the problems of soil loss and nutrient export. Finally, in e Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem, nomas Lodge (a biologist) reviews the range of ecosystems, biota, and human impacts to the region. In Lodges own words, he
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? wanted to prepare a book that would help cope with this central question: What would one need to know about the Everglades and related ecosystems in order to have a good understanding of what they are and how they work? His work is not technical but is an excellent summary of scientitc investigations in the region (and his third edition was published in ff). Whatever else they may have accomplished, these three volumes bring together an enormous volume of Everglades science in reasonably accessible formats. Meanwhile, in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers and the SFWMD to engage in a comprehensive review study (or Re-study) of the r Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project). ne C&SF system made possible an explosion of population growth and development in southeast Florida such that by the early fs, more than four million people were relying on a water system originally designed for just two million people. ne practical implication of this fact is simple: South Floridas periodic minor droughts became progressively more painful. Water use restrictions are becoming routine. Major droughts (not to mention possible climate change) might cause drastic reductions in water availability. Moreover, as we have seen, not only was the Everglades being denied an appropriate quantity of water distributed when plants and animals expected itthe remnant Glades received poor quality water to boot. Politicians ballyhooed the Re-study as an oppor tunity to restore the Everglades, even as engineers focused on the water supply aspects of the study. But unlike COE project planning of the past, the Re-study would be informed by a pair of ad hoc institutions that brought together voices of many dierent interests at both the state and federal level. First, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (SFERTF), originally created by the Clinton Administration in b and expanded by Congress in the WRDA, consists of members, mostly representatives of several federal agencies including the Secretaries of the Interior, Commerce, Army, Agriculture, and Transportation. neir mission is to coordinate federal agency activity related to water and environment in South Florida. Much of the work of the SFERTF is accomplished by a couple of subunits: the Science Coordination Group and the Working Group, whose members have signitcant policy and technical expertise. Second, and perhaps even more important, Florida Governor Lawton
Land into WaterWater into Land Chiles created the Governors Commission for a Sustainable South Flor ida (GCSSF) in March Chiles hand-picked nearly f commissioners and intended for them to represent virtually all signitcant state and local interests in the region. ne Corps and the SFWMD completed their initial reconnaissance phase of the Re-study in and recommended a thor ough six-year study to examine the regions hydrology and economics, engage in computer modeling of South Floridas many systems, and produce a comprehensive plan for water in the area. Yet the GCSSF suggested a quicker pace, so in the WRDA of Congress not only demanded that the planned six-year Re-study be complete by they insisted that it follow the contours of a plan suggested by the GCSSF. Governor Chiles was careful to select a broad range of people to sit on the GCSSF, which included mostly Democrats but also some Republican state and local government representatives, business leaders (including a banker, a developer, and a vice president from U.S. Sugar Corporation among others), Dexter Lehtinen (who had resigned from the Justice Department and now worked for South Floridas Miccosukee Indian Tribe), leaders of mainstream environmental organizations (such as the National and Florida Audubon Societies and the Florida Wildlife Federation) and others. Aside from the leader of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the only other federal government representative was the colonel who led the Corps of Engineers district oce in Jacksonville (which has jurisdiction in South Florida). Signitcantly, the GCSSF was instructed to reach consensus among sectional interests. At trst, this appeared to be an impossible task because many of these interests distrusted and disliked each other. Yet monthly two-day meetings to listen to expert presentations and participation in evening social events ultimately allowed the group to engage in frank discussions of their positions with a minimum of political posturing. Ultimately, the GCSSF produced tve reports, including a conceptual plan for water allocation and storage in South Florida that Congress directed Re-study team members to consider. Indeed, according to Col. Terry Rice (leader of the Corps Jacksonville District and Re-study team from and participant in both the SFERTF and GCSSF during this time), Re-study team members adopted virtually all of the conceptual plan put forward by the GCSSF. neir reasoning was that since it represented a consensus product of many diverse interests, it was the only chance to avoid another lawsuit by disaected parties, and ultimately
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? be capable of attracting congressional appropriations. ne GCSSF made generous use of sustainability and restoration rhetoric, and they struggled mightily to develop a plan of action that would prevent the loss of water to agricultural and urban interests while restoring important functions in the remaining Everglades. Aer the commission laid important groundwork for a restoration/water supply plan, Republican Governor Jeb Bush (ff) quietly terminated the commission on bf June several months aer he assumed oce.r In October the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District released the Central and Southern Florida Com prehensive Review Study, or Re-Study. Acknowledging that the original C&SF Project was immensely successful in protecting people from oods and in making water available to a growing population, the reports authors do not seem troubled by unsustainable population growth and declining environmental quality unleashed by the mid-twentieth-century project. For them, the problem is simple: in order to provide adequate ood protection, the current system ushes an average of billion gallons of fresh water out to sea each day (from Lake Okeechobee through the Caloosahatchee River to the Gulf of Mexico, and through the St. Lucie Canal to the Atlantic Ocean). If this water could be stored and redirected, there should be no more water shortages for farmers, urbanites, or the environment. One alternative, using Lake Okeechobee as a reservoir, would not only further degrade the big lakes water quality and littoral environments, it would place unacceptable pressure on the aging Herbert Hoover Dike, which badly needs decades and millions of dollars of repair work.bf ne Re-study (slightly revised and renamed the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP) originally called for the construction of r major projects related to the regions water resources to take place over several decades and at an initial projected cost of .r billion. (Several projects have since been combined, reducing the total number of CERP projects to f). CERP projects would be added to the regions many ongoing environmental eorts (such as the construction of treatment marshes). Although CERP would level and tll in more than ff miles of existing canals and levees in South Florida (and reintroduce more natural sheet ow of water in parts of the region), the centerpiece of CERP is water storage. Specitcally, the project envisions some bff aquifer stor age and recovery wells (ASRs), most around Lake Okeechobee; a series
Land into WaterWater into Land of deep lakes created from trashing wetlands and gouging limestone rock out of the eastern Everglades; and building a small number of surface reservoirs. ASR technology has been used with some success on a much smaller scale in a handful of places in Florida over the past years. Essentially, ASR wells inject large quantities of freshwater into the ground each day for subsequent withdrawal when needed.* ne two major benetts of this technology are () its potential to store large quantities of water without having to buy much property at the surface, and () such storage would not be subject to evaporation losses typical of surface reservoirs. Both of these benetts greatly reduce the cost of storing water. Yet such a scheme is not without risks or problems. To begin with, this technology has never been attempted on such a large scale anywhere in the world. Nobody can say with certainty (or even near certainty) that it will work. Worse still, when authorities pump fresh water containing normal amounts of dissolved oxygen into a subsurface environment with very low oxygen levels it oen causes arsenic to be liberated from rocks and introduced into the groundwater that is later retrieved.b It remains to be seen if ASR wells in the Glades will perform as hoped. In addition to aquifer storage and recovery, CERP calls for digging many limestone rock pits just west of the urbanized area in southeast Florida that will become a lake belt capable of storing hundreds of millions of gallons of water. ne limestone pits would be created by the lime rock mining industry that happily feeds the states insatiable demand for new roadbed material. Critics have pointed out that not only will these mines destroy several thousand acres of wetlands, they may quickly introduce pollutants from surface water runo into the Biscayne aquiferthe major source of drinking water for most south Floridians.b Vigorous opposition to CERP appeared almost immediately. ne consensus forged by the GCSSF did not include the perspective of ocials from Everglades National Park (ENP), nor did it include many members of the Everglades Coalition, an assembly of nearly ty environmental groups (such as the Sierra Club, Florida Defenders of the Environment, ASR is not to be confused with deep well injection of treated wastewater, which is often injected in much deeper levels of the aquifer, and is not intended for recovery.
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? and Earthjustice), all committed to Everglades protection and restoration. ney observed that the plan provided very little additional water for Ever glades National Park, and not until the year fb. Meanwhile, there would be plenty of water available to keep the South Florida growth machine humming. All of this negative feedback from ENP sta and elements of the environmental community greatly concerned local, state, and federal politicians, who wondered how they would convince Congress to approve a .r billion plan (costs to be split evenly between Florida and the federal government) that generated so much disagreement. Was not the prover bial half loaf for the Everglades better than none at all? Regardless of the water supply elements in CERP, virtually all politicians peddled the plan as an eort to restore the Evergladesand almost nobody in Congress wanted to appear against restoring the Glades. Objections to CERP by several environmental groups were ultimately brushed aside, and by December fff, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed CERP into law.bb Much has been written about the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan; some people are happy with it and others much less so. Although CERP is not exactly comprehensive, it is a large chunk of a bewildering number of environmental rehabilitation and water supply projects sponsored by local (SFWMD), state, and federal agencies in South Florida. Although the collection of projects that form CERP were projected to cost .r billion in fff, there are several more ongoing projects (such as the Kissimmee River restoration, the Ccanal project near Taylor Slough in the southeastern Glades, the Modited Water Deliveries to ENP Project, the Everglades Construction Project featuring thousands of acres of tltering marshes, planned state and federal land acquisitions in the region, and several other projects) whose total non-CERP costs initially exceeded another billion. From the vantage point of the twenty-trst century, it is easy to damn the Corps of Engineers for building the C&SF Project in the trst place; but it must be recalled that Floridians called for the Corps help with ood control in the late fs, and from the perspective of the middle twentieth century, promoting growth in South Florida seemed like a good idea.b When Congress passed CERP in late fff, it included a provision for periodic scientitc review of the projects progress. Even before CERP was signed into law, the U.S. Department of the Interior asked the National
Land into WaterWater into Land Research Council of the National Academy of Science to create a Committee on the Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem to comment on various technical issues associated with Everglades restoration activities. nis panel of esteemed scientists (mostly leading university professors) published seven reports between ff and ff in which they commented on their tndings and made recommendations.b Many mem bers of this initial review committee now sit on the National Research Councils Committee on Independent Scientitc Review of Everglades Restoration Progress, a group that is legally responsible for providing biennial reviews of CERP for the life of the project (several decades into the future), beginning with their trst review in ff. Committee members expressed concern that up to ff, no CERP projects had been com pleted, and anticipated restoration progress in the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) and Everglades National Park appears to be lagging behind the production of natural system restoration benetts in other portions of the South Florida ecosystem. nis is particularly disconcerting consider ing that ten CERP components scheduled for completion in ff have been delayed, and that six more pilot projects scheduled for completion in ff are likely to be delayed an average of eight years. ne committee cited (among other issues) a signitcant lack of funding by the federal government. In authorizing CERP, Congress merely expressed conditional support for the Everglades, and most observers argue that it was quite an accomplishment for Congress even to tentatively commit to a host of projects that wereat that timemore conceptual and likely to be revised substantially over time. nrough ff, however, Congress had appropriated less money than originally planned for CERP. nis is problematic at least in part because the regions constantly increasing land values have already added measurably to the cost of CERP.b Yet a lack of federal funding for CERP is only one source of delay in implementing this complex series of projects. Some delay is inevitable as scientists cope with much uncertainty by continually collecting and assessing data on how natural systems respond to human manipulation. Indeed, the authors of CERP have embraced a concept called adaptive management, a principle trst advanced in the late fs. Adherents of adaptive management accept uncertainty as a fact of scientitc life, yet they believe that sound decisions can be made on complex projects (such as Everglades restoration) by learning as you go rather than studying phe-
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? nomena for decades before deciding to take any action. Major disagreement remains among agencies that have a stake in South Florida, and the complex project planning and approval process is such that unresolved scientitc uncertainties, especially for complex or contentious projects associated with ecosystem restoration, have also delayed the work. nis is not to say that there is no ecosystem restoration progress in South Florida. In fact, there has been very encouraging progress on the Kissimmee River restoration project (begun before CERP). Moreover, storm water treatment areas and best management practices within the EAA have taken water that averaged ppb phosphorus and reduced it to ppb. More research needs to be done to determine how many more acres of STAs are needed to reduce phosphorus loading to f ppb and to evaluate their long-term sustainability, but clearly there has been some progress.b Frustrated by the relative lack of progress on CERP, and anxious to leave his own mark on the South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative, Florida Governor Jeb Bush launched Acceler in October ffa state-funded program designed to jump start a handful of CERP projects that Congress authorized in fff, and on which the SFWMD could begin work immediately. nis move demonstrated Floridas commitment to CERP by contributing funds now and completing seven CERP projects ahead of schedule, plus one non-CERP expansion of a storm water treatment area. With Acceler the state has proposed investing an additional billion of its CERP cost sharing over the next several years in an eort to complete selected projects by f. Completing these projects ahead of schedule should save money, and it is anticipated that the work will provide about half of the planned surface water storage components, which should help improve the distribution and timing of water deliveries in South Floridas ecosystems. Moreover, several of the project components should improve water quality. Yet the National Academy of Science review committee contends that most of the benetts of these projects will accrue to the northern part of the system, especially Lake Okeechobee, the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, f,fff Islands, and Biscayne Bayand relatively little benett to the WCAs and Everglades National Park. Indeed, some members of the environmental community have assailed Acceler for its emphasis on projects that do not directly benett the Everglades. Some people fear that CERP and other related projects are being sold as Everglades restoration when they may provide far less res-
Land into WaterWater into Land toration, but plenty of water to accommodate economic and population growth in South Florida.br In September ff, the Government Accountability Oce (GAO) provided testimony to a U.S. Senate Subcommittee on progress toward ecosystem restoration in South Florida between and ff. nis testimony was based on a GAO report published in May ff on the same subject. ne GAO cited a total of planned restoration related projects in South Florida since only f of which are part of CERP. ne scope of environmental and water supply projects in the region is truly breathtaking and undoubtedly worthy of the label largest environmental rehabilitation project in the world. nese projects include land acquisition, wetland construction, levee removal, and a range of water storage and ecosystem restoration projects. ne GAO classited these projects as CERP, CERP-related, or non-CERP; and they further classited them as completed, in implementation, in planning or design, or not yet started. According to the GAO, although b of the projects were complete, this number is far fewer than the projects that should have been completed by the end of ff. Moreover, in spite of its original authorization in fff, not a single CERP project was completed by New Years Day ff, and more than half were not even on the drawing board. In fact, of the seven CERP projects under construction at the end of ff, tve were initiated by the State of Florida (Acceler ). Although nearly one-third of all CERP projects are tnally in the planning/design stage, f of f projects being implemented at the end of ff were non-CERP projects. Consequently, according to the GAO, the full environmental benetts for the South Florida ecosystem restoration that CERP projects were intended to provide will not be realized for several decades.b ne GAO attributes the delay to several issues. For starters, it took longer than expected to develop the policy, guidance, and regulations that WRDA fff requires of CERP. Moreover, some delays were caused by the requirement to modify the design of some projects so that they comply with the WRDA fffs savings clause. In addition, many projects encountered delays associated with a cumbersome review process that includes stakeholder comment and dispute resolution. Finally, there has been a lack of federal funding and dearth of required congressional authorization for several specitc projects above and beyond the ten initially cleared by Congress in fff. ne funding issue requires further discussion.f
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? According to the GAO, in the total estimated cost for ecosystem restoration projects in South Florida was billion: this includes CERP, as well as on-going and planned CERP-related and non-CERP projects. CERP projects originally accounted for just over half of this total (.r billion). By the end of ff, the total cost tgure for all projects ballooned to billion due to changes in project scope, increased construction costs, and higher land costs. Worse yet, even these cost estimates do not reect the fact that several projects are still in their conceptual phase and their full cost is not yet known. From to ff, federal government agencies devoted .b billion to South Florida water supply and ecosystem restoration projects, a truly signitcant sum. Yet by its own admission, the federal governments funding during this time period was about billion less than the funding originally projected for this time period. Dur ing the same time, however, the State of Florida committed .r billion. Although Congress took some steps toward the end of ff to authorize specitc CERP projects, appropriations of federal money to fund this authorized construction were not immediately forthcoming. As we have seen, despite CERPs passage as part of the fff Water Resources Development Act, congressional appropriations for ecosystem restoration have fallen behind schedule. It is important to remember that WRDAs are part political pork and part useful water infrastructure legislation normally passed every two yearsbut Congress did not pass a single WRDA between fff and ff. As the ff legislative session wound down, leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives began to negotiate the dierences between their respective WRDA bills. ne Senate proposed a billion version and the House a billion version, both of which contained nearly billion of CERP projects. By the time the conference committee completed its negotiations, the new WRDA had ballooned to more than b billion. President George W. Bush lobbied against, and ultimately vetoed, the bill on the grounds that it cost too much and contained too many additional pork barrel projects. Yet political pork oen pays dividends in the form of satisted constituents, and most of the Florida legislative delegation desperately wanted to score points at home by funding work in the Everglades. Less than a week aer Bush vetoed this bill, Congress rebuked him, overriding his veto with far more than the two-thirds vote necessary in both the House and Senate. ne Everglades appeared to have authorization for roughly .r billion
Land into WaterWater into Land worth of projects, but appropriations continue to lag far behind authorization for the work. By early ffr, work toward Everglades restoration appeared to be out of intensive care and inching closer toward recovery thanks to some success in restoring parts of the Kissimmee River, the creation and partial success of storm water treatment (tlter) marshes, Floridas Ac celer program, and the recently passed WRDA ff. Yet the optimism of early ffr soon faded. In September, the National Research Councils CERP review committee completed its second biennial review of restoration activities in South Floridaand they expressed clear concerns with the lack of progress to date.b ne committee concluded that restoration activities are mired in budgeting, planning, and procedural issues, and that there has been only scant progress toward meeting restoration goals. Both CERP and many non-CERP projects in South Florida are closely related, but the federal governments project approval bureaucracy treats each component separately, causing what appears to be endless delay and frustration. ne committee found that not only are almost all CERP and non-CERP projects far behind schedule but also many scientists in South Florida complain: it appears that planning rather than doing, reporting rather than constructing, and administering rather than restoring are consuming their talents and time. Worse yet, the committee found that the natural system is deteriorating and that if such degradation is not arrested and reversed soon, it may become impossible to recover important ecosystem functions. To be sure, the task of restoration is growing more dicult over time as more people take up residence in South Floridas sprawling neighborhoods. Continued population growth is adding to the cost of land acquisition, the materials needed for the restoration, and the water needed to support them. Finally, the committee observed that the fragile coalition of interests that once supported the restoration eort is beginning to show cracks as delays and lack of funding suggest that some parts of the project may never come to fruition. ne committee fears that if demonstrable progress is not made soon, the restoration eort may begin to lose public support, and such an outcome might spell disaster for South Florida. Yet just a few months before the committees report came out in late ffr, a virtual environmental bombshell exploded in Tallahassee: Governor Charlie Crist (ff) announced in late June ffr that the state
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? planned to buy practically all of U.S. Sugars r,rr acres of agricultural land in South Florida, much of it in the EAA. nis deal had its genesis more than a year earlier when environmentalists sued to block sugar farmers from back-pumping agricultural runo into Lake Okeechobee, and the South Florida Water Management Districts governing board voted to outlaw back-pumping into the big lake in August ff. nis led U.S. Sugar to approach Governor Crist for help. Yet the perceptual transformation of the Everglades from useless swamp to wetland worthy of restoration is nearly complete, and Big Sugar has become increasingly dicult for politicians to defend. Accordingly, Crist oered to buy them out, quietly negotiating a deal with U.S. Sugar Corporation in the following months. Crists bold move would cost Floridians billion, although a small fraction of this cost (some f million) would be oset because the plan allows U.S. Sugar to lease this land back from the state for continued agricultural use over the next tve years. nis deal came at a time when the states taxpayers expressed widespread dissatisfaction with property taxes, and when the state legislature decided to cope with a broadening economic downturn (trst detected in middle ff) by slashing the budget and initially avoiding any attempts to increase revenue. nis is not an insignitcant issue because the governor was basically negotiating on behalf of residents of the South Florida Water Management District, who would be taxed to pay for the property. Environmentalists were initially abbergasted at the governors announcement and SFWMDs governing board chairman Eric Buermann referred to the buyout as Floridas Louisianas Purchase.r But not every body is happy. For one thing, many of the thousands of people who live along Lake Okeechobees southern shore and who depend either directly or indirectly upon the well-being of the regions agriculture, are territed that they will lose their jobs or suer signitcant loss in home value. Fur thermore, several members of the Florida legislature, ticked o that they were not consulted prior to Crists negotiations, have expressed concern over the consequences of such a secret dealsuch as the fate of southern Lake Okeechobee residents, possible impacts on future federal funding for the restoration eort, what to do with the planned aquifer storage and recovery wells slated for the big lakes southern shore, and so forth. Indeed, the Miccosukee Indians legal representative (Dexter Lehtinen) wondered aloud if the planned buyout is nothing but a publicity stunt.
Land into WaterWater into Land He worries that so much restoration money will be needed for the buyout that little will be le for other important restoration projects. Ironically, although lobbyists for both U.S. Sugar and the regions other major sugar producer, Florida Crystals, generally take the same side on most issuesFlorida Crystals does NOT want its chief competitor to receive what amounts to a bailout, remaining in business under very favor able terms for several more years. Florida Crystals claims that the proposed deal would act like a bailout partly because U.S. Sugar has serious debt problems and partly because a recent appraisal claims that U.S. Sugar ought to be paying closer to ff an acre to lease the land back from the state aer the sale (not f per acre, as suggested in the preliminary agreement with the governor). State ocials want Florida Crystals to approve the deal because restoration ocials would probably want to swap selected parcels of U.S. Sugar land for some Florida Crystals land in order to create a ow way through the Everglades Agricultural Area.f ne states worsening economy eventually forced Governor Crist to negotiate a less costly deal, which was announced in November ffr. ne scaled-back purchase called for the state to buy r,fff acres for .b billion, allowing U.S. Sugar to retain more than ,fff acres and virtually its entire infrastructureincluding an extensive railroad as well as citrus and sugar processing plants. Hanging on to these facilities would allow the company to continue to employ many workers who could process raw material from elsewhere. ne November agreement would allow U.S. Sugar to continue leasing the land for seven years, with the company supplying million for soil pollution cleanup. All of these changes were intended to deect attacks on the initial deal. Such criticism included the fact that the trst appraisal of the property suggested it was worth only bf million. Both the U.S. Sugar board of directors and the governing board of the South Florida Water Management District voted to accept the r,fffacre (.b billion) purchase in December ffr, yet the states tanking economy led the governor to renegotiate the land buyout a third time. In April ff, Crist announced important changes to the settlement. First, the state agreed to buy just ,ff acres for bb million, with an option to buy the remaining fr,fff acres over the next f years. ne acquisition of ,ff acres seems far less bold, but it would still qualify as the states largest conservation purchase ever. Furthermore, environmentalists claim
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? that only f,fff acres are needed for reservoirs and treatment marshes (not r,fff acres). Second, U.S. Sugar would pay f per acre to lease land back from the state in order to remain in business. Nonetheless, Flor ida Crystals and the Miccosukee Indian Tribe challenged the scaled-down land purchase in court, claiming that property owners in the South Flor ida Water Management District should not be burdened with the districts proposal to borrow up to billion, because aside from buying land, the district does not yet have a plan for how to incorporate that property into ongoing restoration activities. Furthermore, they argue that buying out U.S. Sugar will ultimately cost so much that the district will not have any additional revenue for other restoration work. Regardless of the outcome, Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Donald Hafeles ruling on the legality of the states proposed land purchase is expected to be appealed. Creating a ow way through the EAA featuring treatment marshes and reservoirs is certainly appealing, but it will be virtually impossible to simply re-create the sheet ow of shallow water in a River of Grass between southern Lake Okeechobee and Everglades National Park. Because the EAA was historically the most desirable land for agriculture (it had the deepest and most productive soils), and it has been drained and farmed the longest, this means it has long been subjected to the invisible but relentless physical and biological processes leading to soil subsidence. Nearly six feet of soil just south of the big lake has disappeared since ff due to shrinkage, compaction, burning, wind erosionand mostlymicrobial oxidation of now generally dry organic soils that formed under ooded conditions. In other words, ground elevations immediately south of the lake are now so low that any attempt to reinitiate sheet ow from the lakeshore to Florida Bay would likely produce a huge southern extension of Lake Okeechobee. Water would simply pond on old U.S. Sugar land and not ooze south because this property is now lower than land at the southern (more recently drained) end of the EAA. Even if this ob stacle could be overcome (perhaps with pumps?), scientists point out that allowing nutrient rich water from Lake Okeechobee to move south over old U.S. Sugar land, and then into what are now the WCAs, would yield an ecological disaster because lake water contains excessive nutrients. At the same time, some argue that U.S. Sugars land is so loaded with decades of residual fertilizer that water passing over it would also cause major problems for the low-nutrient Glades further south. Of course, the Everglades
Land into WaterWater into Land can never be fully restored for millions of other reasons, such as the nearly seven million people who call South Florida home, most of whom now live on Floridas lower east coast in suburban communities that used to be the eastern Everglades.b It is not yet clear how U.S. Sugars land would be used in the attempted ecosystem rehabilitation. Since the ,ff acres the water management district wants to acquire in several more years is scattered in a variety of parcels south of Lake Okeechobee, it is likely that the state will try to swap some of this land for land from Florida Crystals and other farmers in the region so that some sort of contiguous ow way (featuring several treatment marshes) might ultimately be created through the EAA. With U.S. Sugar on its way out, however, it does appear that Everglades rehabilitation will lurch forward, even if it takes a very dierent shape than CERP planners envisioned in fff. Some CERP projects (such as water supply for agriculture) will not be necessary if the state takes control of thousands of acres of farmland. Of course, all eyes are on the remaining sugar and vegetable farmers farther south in the EAA, for they occupy land whose soil is becoming thinner each year. One of the more frightening prospects for restoration supporters is that remaining EAA farmers may eventually give up and sell their land to developers, who would love to tll the remainder of the region with all species of urban development. Finally, in perhaps the cruelest irony of all, some critics of Everglades restoration suggest that if global warming leads to signitcant sea level rise, the billions of dollars being poured into the Everglades would be wasted. While future sea level rise is likely to cause serious problems in the southern Everglades (particularly in Everglades National Park, not to mention consequences for the rest of the state), it would be disastrous public policy to allow the complete collapse of South Floridas ecosystems because decision makers thought pouring money into the regions environmental rehabilitation was a waste. ne National Research Council acknowledges that climate change cannot be ignored and they call for more detailed analyses of climate change impacts on CERP. Indeed, the SFWMD is determining the research necessary to cope with potential impacts of climate change. Both current and future residents of South Florida need a healthy Everglades if the region is to maintain a reasonable quality of life. How will we know if the restoration has been a success? Scientists have developed
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? several performance measures such as reduced salinity in Florida Bay, increased sheetow of water in large portions of the WCAs and ENP, reducing phosphorus in water moving as sheetow to f ppb, the expansion of sea grasses and oyster beds in coastal waters, and an increase in wading bird nesting. Although we may see evidence of success in several years, signitcant progress is likely to take several decades. Despite all of the problems highlighted above, the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District are aggressively attempting to rehabilitate South Floridas beleaguered ecosystems. For example, the district has plans to back-tll more than one third ( of miles) of C-br that runs through the Kissimmee River Valley; this will restore over f miles (more than one-third) of the old river channel and reestablish more than ,fff acres of oodplain wetlands. As of September ff, almost half of this work has been completed and the other half is projected to be tnished in late fb, with environmental monitoring continuing until at least fr. Furthermore, total phosphorus levels in the Everglades Protection Area (the three water conservation areas and Everglades National Park) are approaching the states intended targets. ne ffr water year ( May ff to bf April ffr) annual geometric mean of phosphorus in water owing into several points along the northern end of the Everglades Protection Area was just under ppb; and levels of phosphorus generally declined at points farther south in the protection area until water owing into Everglades National Park during this time averaged just ppb of phosphorus (just above the states target limit of f ppb for the Park). Authorities with the SFWMD contend that phosphorus levels were lower in water year ffr than in previous years due to ecosystem recovery from the ff and ff hurricanes, subsequent drought, and the work of storm water treatment areas. Yet they caution that natural events will always cause variability in the amount of phosphorus detected in the system, and that it will take decades to restore phosphorus levels in soils to historical levels. Progress in rehabilitating Lake Okeechobee has been less impressive, but not for lack of eort. For one thing, the lakes littoral zone continues to experience the rapid spread of exotic and nuisance plants. For another, the big lake endures unnaturally high and low water levels. For example, in the midst of a recent drought, the lake reached a record low of r.r
Land into WaterWater into Land feet above NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, very near current mean sea level) in early July ff. Two years later, the lake level reached b.r feet, prompting the Corps of Engineers to drain water from the lake into the ocean in order to maintain storage capacity for the remainder of the ff hurricane season. Meanwhile, in April ffr, the Corps of Engineers approved a revised water level regulation schedule for the big lake that calls for maintenance of lake levels between and feet. ne new target elevations are a foot lower than in previous years because the Corps is trying to ensure public safety as it repairs the b-mile long dike around the big lake.r Finally, like the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee suers from excessive phosphorus loading with total phosphorus in the lake averaging ppb in ffr, far above the states lake target of f ppb. Recent research suggests that hurricanes in ff and ff appear to have resuspended phosphorus from lakebed sediments. According to authorities with the SFWMD, Despite a long history of regulatory and voluntary incentive-based programs to control phosphorus inputs into Lake Okeechobee, no substantial reduction in loading occurred during the fs. nis prompted both the state legislature and the district to develop an alphabet soup of lake protection programs with acronyms that rival the federal governments famed economic stimulus and relief programs during the Great Depression; the state has spent b million on these programs between ff and ffr. Despite problems associated with the potential impacts of global climate change, recent cuts to the state budget, and continuing demographic pressure, there is reason for cautious optimism in South Florida. Work continues (albeit slowly) on a host of water supply and environmental rehabilitation projects in the region, state and federal politicians appear committed to Everglades restoration (in one form or another), and Floridians continue to embrace environmental protection. Furthermore, President Barack Obama and Congress joined forces to funnel some million in federal money for Everglades projects in early ff. nis is the largest one-year infusion of federal money into the Everglades work since CERP passed in fff.f Within a year, federal authorities directed even more money (nearly a half billion dollars)some of it economic stimulus funding for shovel ready projectsinto Everglades work. As more of South Florida becomes tlled with development and choked with trac, citizens are likely to cling even tighter to the idea of a rehabilitated
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? Everglades, for as Marjory Stoneman Douglas reminded us more than f years ago, nere are no other Everglades in the world. Nothing else is like them: their vast glittering openness, wider than the enormous visible round of the horizon, the racing free saltness and sweetness of their massive winds under the dazzling blue heights of space.Notes Marjory Stoneman Douglas, e Everglades: River of Grass (New York: Reinhart, ); Charlton W. Tebeau, Man in the Everglades: years of Human History in Everglades National Park (Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, r); Archie Carr, e Everglades (New York: Time-Life Books, b); Patrick J. Gleason (ed.), Environ ments of South Florida, Present and Past (Miami: Miami Geological Society, ); Patrick J. Gleason (ed.), Environments of South Florida, Present and Past II, nd ed. (Coral Gables: Miami Geological Society, r); Lamar Johnson, Beyond the Fourth Genera tion (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, ); Lawrence E. Will, Cracker His tory of Okeechobee: Custard Apple, Moonvine, Catsh, and Moonshine (St. Petersburg, Fla.: Great Outdoors Publishing Co., ); Lawrence E. Will, A Pioneer Boatman Tells of Okeechobee Boats and Skippers (St. Petersburg, Fla.: Great Outdoors Publishing Co., ); Lawrence E. Will, Okeechobee Catshing (St. Petersburg, Fla.: Great Outdoors Publishing Co., ); Lawrence E. Will, A Dredgeman of Cape Sable (St. Petersburg, Fla.: Great Outdoors Publishing Co., ); Lawrence E. Will, Okeechobee Hurricane and the Hoover Dike (St. Petersburg, Fla.: Great Outdoors Publishing Co., ); Lawrence E. Will, From Swamp to Sugar Bowl: Pioneer Days in Belle Glade (St. Petersburg, Fla.: Great Outdoors Publishing Co., r). Everglades Digital Library, last accessed via the World Wide Web on August ffr at: http://everglades.tu.edu/. b. Among the more signitcant are Jack E. Davis, An Everglades Providence: Mar jory Stoneman Douglas and the American Environmental Century (Athens: University of Georgia Press, ff); David McCally, e Everglades: An Environmental History (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ); Michael Grunwald, e Swamp: e Everglades, Florida and the Politics of Paradise (New York: Simon and Schuster, ff); Susan Cerulean (ed.), e Book of the Everglades (Minneapolis, Minn.: Milkweed Editions, ff); Gail M. Hollander, Raising Cane in the Glades: e Global Sugar Trade and the Transformation of Florida (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ffr); James W. Porter and Karen W. Porter (eds.), e Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, ff); Ted Levin, Liquid Land: A Journey through the Florida Everglades (Athens: University of Georgia Press, ffb). Bonnie Kranzer, Everglades restoration: interactions of population and environment, Population and Environment (July ffb): r.
Land into WaterWater into Land Richard Weissko, e Economics of Everglades Restoration, (Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar, ff). Nicholas G. Aumen, ne history of human impacts, lake management, and limnological research on Lake Okeechobee, Florida, Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanced Limnology (May ): ; Karl E. Havens, Nicholas G. Aumen, R. nomas James, and Val H. Smith, Rapid ecological change in a large subtropical lake undergoing cultural eutrophication, Ambio (May ): f. nomas E. Lodge, e Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, ff, b and rf). r. Carl Hiaasen, ne Last Days of Florida Bay, in Susan Cerulean (ed.), e Book of the Everglades (Minneapolis, Minn.: Milkweed Editions, ff), fr). Mahadev Bhat and Athena Stamatiades, Institutions, incentives, and resource use conicts: the case of Biscayne Bay, Florida, Population and Environment (July ffb): rf. f. Matthew C. Godfrey, River of Interests: Water Management in South Florida and the Everglades, (written for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ff). Last accessed via the World Wide Web on August ffr at: http://www.evergladesplan.org/ about/river_interest_history.asp x. Ibid, rf. C. Brant Short, Ronald Reagan and the Public Lands: Americas Conservation Debate, (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, r); Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kra, (eds.), Environmental Policy in the s: Reagans New Agenda (Wash ington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, r); Robert H. Boyle and Rose Mary Mechem, neres Trouble in Paradise, Sports Illustrated ( February r): rb; Lance H. Gunderson, Stephen S. Light and C. S. Holling, Lessons From the Everglades, BioScience Supplement (): SSb. b. Jack E. Davis, An Everglades Providence: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and the Amer ican Environmental Century (Athens: University of Georgia Press, ff), Godfrey, River of Interests, br; the academic journal Ecological Management and Restoration commenced publication in fff, Restoration Ecology began in b, and Ecological Restoration produced its trst issue in r. Godfrey, River of Interests, fb; Joeseph W. Koebel, An historical perspective on the Kissimmee River restoration project, Restoration Ecology b (September ): ; Louis A. Toth, Environmental Responses to the Kissimmee River Demonstration Project (West Palm Beach: Environmental Resources Division, Research and Evaluation Department, South Florida Water Management District, ); Louis A. Toth, ne ecological basis of the Kissimmee River restoration plan, Florida Scientist (b): Karl. E. Havens, Eric C. Flaig, R. nomas James, Sergio Lostal, and Dera Muszick, Environmental auditing: results from a program to control phosphorus discharges from dairy operations in south-central Florida, USA, Environmental Management (): rb. Godfrey, River of Interests, b; F. T. Izuno and A. B. Bottcher, Introduction in A. B. Bottcher and F. T. Izuno (eds.), Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA): Water, Soil, Crop
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? and Environmental Management (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ), ; F. T. Izuno and A. B. Bottcher, ne History of Water Management in South Florida, in A. B. Bottcher and F. T. Izuno (eds.), Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA): Water, Soil, Crop and Environmental Management (Gainesville: University Press of Florida), b); Michael J. Chimney and Gary Goforth, History and description of the Everglades nutrient removal project, a subtropical constructed wetland in south Florida (USA), Ecological Engineering (ff): rr. r. Godfrey, River of Interests, r. Grunwald, e Swamp rf; Nicholas Aumen, ne history of human impacts, r; Michael Chimney and Gary Goforth, History and description of the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project, ; National Research Council, Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: e First Biennial Review (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press), ; Naomi Lubick, Revisiting phosphorus in the Everglades, Environmental Science and Technology (December ff): f. Grunwald, e Swamp, r; Godfrey, River of Interests, Grunwald, e Swamp, br; Lawton Chiles, as quoted in Godfrey, River of Interests, r; Grover G. Payne, Shi Kui Xue and Kenneth C. Weaver, Chapter bA: Status of Water Quality in the Everglades Protection Area, in Volume : ne South Florida Environment, (dra) South Florida Environmental Report (West Palm Beach: South Florida Water Management District, ffr): bA-f. Grunwald, e Swamp, bf. b. Ibid. Steven Davis and John Ogden, Introduction, in Steven Davis and John Ogden (eds.), Everglades: e Ecosystem and Its Restoration (Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press, ): b. Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and ere (New York: Oxford University Press, ); Mark A. Harwell, John F. Long, Ann M. Bartuska, John H. Gentile, Christine C. Harwell, Victoria Myers, and John C. Ogden, Ecosystem management to achieve ecological sustainability: the case of south Florida, Environmental Management f (): ; Mark A. Harwell, Ecosystem management of south Florida, BioScience (September ): -; Mark A. Harwell, Science and environmental decision making in south Florida, Ecological Applications r (r): rff; J. H. Gentile, M. A. Harwell, W. Cropper, C. C. Harwell, D. DeAngelis, S. Davis, J. C. Ogden, and D. Lirman, Ecological conceptual models: a framework and case study on ecosystem management for south Florida sustainability, e Science of the total Environment (ff): bb; John C. Ogden, Steve M. Davis, Kimberly J. Jacobs, Tomma Barnes, and Holly Fling, ne use of conceptual ecological models to guide ecosystem restoration in south Florida, Wetlands (December ff): rf. Steven Davis and John Ogden (eds.), Everglades: e Ecosystem and its Restoration (Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press, ); A. B. Bottcher and F. T. Izuno (eds.), Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA): Water, Soil, Crop and Environmental Management (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ); nomas E. Lodge, e Everglades Handbook: Under standing the Ecosystem (Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press, ); nomas E. Lodge,
Land into WaterWater into Land e Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem, rd ed. (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, ff). Mary Dengler, Spaces of power for action: governance of the Everglades Restudy process, fff, Political Geography (ff): b; Mary Dengler, Finding the political sweet spot: sectional interests, consensus, power and the Everglades Restudy, fff, Environment and Planning A f (ffr): r. r. Dengler, Finding the political sweet spot, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District, e Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study, Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment (West Palm Beach: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Jacksonville District] and South Florida Water Management District, ). bf. Andy Reid, Lake Okeechobee Dike is bolstered South Florida Sun-Sentinel, r June ff. b. R. David G. Pyne, Groundwater Recharge and Wells: A Guide to Aquifer Storage and Recovery (Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers, ); Eberhard Roeder, Aquifer Stor age and Recovery: Technology and Public Learning in John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiel (eds.) Adaptive Governance and Water Conict (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, ff), f. b. National Research Council, Re-engineering Water Storage in the Everglades: Risks and Opportunities (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ff). bb. Grunwald, e Swamp, bf. b. National Research Council, Science and the Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration: An Assessment of the Critical Ecosystem Initiative (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ffb); National Research Council, Progress Toward Restoring the Ever glades: e First Biennial Review (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ff); Godfrey, River of Interests; Grunwald, e Swamp. b. National Research Council, Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: A Critique of the Pilot Projects and Related Plans for ASR in the Lake Okeechobee and Western Hillsboro Areas (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ff); National Research Council, Regional Issues in Aquifer Storage and Recovery for Everglades Restoration (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ff); National Research Council, Florida Bay Research Programs and eir Relation to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ff); National Research Council, Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment for the Comprehen sive Everglades Restoration Plan (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ffb); National Research Council, Does Water Flow Inuence Everglades Landscape Patterns? (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ffb); National Research Council, Science and the Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration: An Assessment of the Critical Ecosystem Initiative (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ffb); National Research Council, Re-engineering Water Storage in the Everglades: Risks and Opportunities (Wash ington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ff). b. National Research Council, Progress
Repairing the Damage or Making It Worse? b. National Research Council, Progress b; Crawford S. Holling (ed.), Adap tive Environmental Assessment and Management (New York: Wiley, r); Lance H. Gunderson, Managing surprising ecosystems in southern Florida, Ecological Economics b (ff): br; Clyde F. Kiker, J. Walter Milon and Alan W. Hodges, Adaptive learning for science-based policy: the Everglades restoration, Ecological Economics b (ff): fb. br. National Research Council, Progress, b. b. U.S. Government Accountability Oce, South Florida Ecosystem: Some Restoration Progress has been Made, but the Eort Faces Signicant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate ( September ff): r. f. U.S. Government Accountability Oce, South Florida Ecosystem, r. Ibid., b. Craig Pittman and Wes Allison, Bush vetoes water bill, St. Petersburg Times, b November ff, A; Asjylyn Loder and Craig Pittman, Water worries, St. Petersburg Times November ffr, A. b. National Research Council, Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: e Second Biennial Review (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ffr). Ibid., p. Je Harrington and Craig Pittman, nd suitor woos U.S. Sugar, St. Petersburg Times November ffr, B. Gail M. Hollander, Raising Cane in the Glades: e Global Sugar Trade and the Transformation of Florida (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ffr). Alex Leary and Jennifer Liberto, Everglades deal shocks, delights, St. Petersburg Times June ffr, A; Kris Hundley, Deal would be the end for Florida sugar giant, St. Petersburg Times, June ffr, A; Craig Pittman, Jennifer Liberto, and Alex Leary, Crist oered buyout as U.S. Sugar hit wall, St. Petersburg Times, June ffr, A; Craig Pittman, Everglades of past now out of reach? St. Petersburg Times, r June ffr, A; Wes Allison, Lawmakers blast sugar deal, St. Petersburg Times, b July ffr, A. r. Eric Beurmann, Floridas Louisiana Purchase, St. Petersburg Times, f May ff, A. Craig Pittman, Everglades of past now out of reach? St. Petersburg Times, r June ffr, A. f. Craig Pittman, Sugar giant decries rivals deal, St. Petersburg Times, b December ffr, bB. Craig Pittman, State, U.S. Sugar lay out sale details, St. Petersburg Times, November ffr, rB. Mary Ellen Klas and Curtis Morgan, Governor halves U.S. Sugar Glades deal, St. Petersburg Times April ff, A; Andy Reid, Closing arguments end in lawsuit against Everglades land deal, South Florida Sun Sentinel August ff; Andy Reid, Sides argue pros and cons of U.S. Sugar deal, South Florida Sun Sentinel, July ff. b. Craig Pittman, Everglades of past now out of reach? St. Petersburg Times r
Land into WaterWater into Land June ffr, A; S. F. Shih, B. Glaz, and R. E. Barnes, Subsidence of organic soils in the Everglades Agricultural Area during the past years, Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, Proceedings (r): f; G. H. Snyder, Everglades Agricultural Area soil subsidence and land use projections, Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, Proceedings (ff): Beth Williams, Agnes Ramsey, and Larry Gerry, Chapter A: Everglades Restoration Update, in Volume : ne South Florida Environment, South Florida Environmental Report (West Palm Beach: South Florida Water Management District, ffr). Stephen G. Bousquin, David H. Anderson, Michael D. Cheek, David J. Colangelo, Lynda Dirk, J. Lawrence Glenn, Bradley L. Jones, Joseph W. Koebel Jr., Jo Ann Mossa, and Jose Valdes, Chapter : Kissimmee Basin, in Volume : ne South Florida Environment, South Florida Environmental Report (West Palm Beach: South Florida Water Management District, ffr). Grover G. Payne, Shi Kui Xue and Kenneth C. Weaver, Chapter bA: Status of Water Quality in the Everglades Protection Area, in Volume : ne South Florida Environment, South Florida Environmental Report (West Palm Beach: South Florida Water Management District, ffr). Paul Quinlan, Army Corps of Engineers halts dumping from Lake Okeechobee, Palm Beach Post, August ff. r. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Corps approves ffr Lake Okeechobee regu lation schedule, news release frb, bf April ffr. Available at: http://www.saj.usace. army.mil/Documents/NewsReleases/archive/ffr/NRfrb.pdf (last accessed on July ff). Joyce Zhang, R. nomas James, and Paul McCormick, Chapter f: Lake Okeechobee Protection ProgramState of the Lake and Watershed, in Volume : ne South Flor ida Environment, South Florida Environmental Report (West Palm Beach: South Florida Water Management District, ffr). f. Curtis Morgan and Lesley Clark, River of cash: stimulus aid for the Glades, Miami Herald, April ff, A. Craig Pittman, Everglades Restoration gets boost from stimulus, St. Petersburg Times January ff, A. Douglas, River of Grass,
Florida Water Management Since 1980: Challenges in a State Addicted to Population Growth ne publication of Land into WaterWater into Land in rf drew at tention to Floridas mounting water management challenges, much as Marjory Stoneman Douglas focused public attention on the plight of the Glades with Everglades: River of Grass in Because of Nelson Blakes seminal study, we learn much about the spasmodic eorts to construct a cross-state barge canal, the well-intentioned but misguided eorts to thoroughly re-plumb the Everglades, and the development of water policy in Florida from the early nineteenth century to rf. Indeed, Blake traces the evolution of water policy from its initial emphasis on navigation improvement (beginning in the rfs) and drainage (beginning in the rrfs) to an emphasis on ood control (beginning in the late fs) and ultimately water supply and management (beginning in the fs). Blake concludes his analysis in the late fs, immediately aer Floridas environmental revolution, a period when state lawmakers passed landmark pieces of legislation intended to ameliorate the impacts of massive economic and population growth. Blake argued that Floridians tnally began to treat water as a valuable resource, not just a nuisance to be eliminated. ne decade of the fs witnessed extraordinary eorts to preserve and manage the environment in Florida, among them the creation of tve water management districts (WMDs) with boundaries closely matching sur face watershed boundaries rather than county or other political boundaries (see map on p. r). All tve WMDs are overseen by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and each district is governed by a board of district residents appointed by the governor and approved by the state senate, while day to day operations of the districts are handled
Land into WaterWater into Land by an executive director hired by the district board (subject to gubernatorial and senate approval). As Blake originally reported, the WMDs had responsibility for providing ood protection and water resources management. Today, their responsibilities are even broader. Of course, the story of Floridas water management did not end in rf. When Blakes book was trst published in rf, Florida had just over million permanent residents; in ff, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that more than r. million people called Florida homemost of whom live in Central and South Floridaand they predicted in fff that Flor ida would have more than r million people in the year fbf. Although the national economic crisis that erupted in ffr dramatically reduced migration into Florida, the retirement of millions of baby boomers over the next couple of decades will almost certainly impact what historian Gary Mormino calls the Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams. Moreover, population tgures do not include the more than rf million additional people who visit the state each year as tourists, most of whom arrive dur ing the dry winter and spring seasons.b As much of the state confronts the reality of massive population growth and overuse of its relatively inexpensive groundwater sources, water supply has become an increasingly contentious issue and arguably the greatest challenge confronting Florida today. Important water resources (particularly well telds, groundwater recharge areas, and oodplains) are now the subject of preservation and even restoration activities, signitcant features of the WMDs almost since their creation in the fs. Drainage and even ood control are now less prominent issues, due in part to the operation of many engineering projects built over the last several decades. Despite signitcant quantities of precipitation and large quantities of surface and ground water, the geographic scope and conceptual range of Floridas water challenges is breathtaking. To be sure, some regions of Florida experience more serious water-related problems than others. Yet none of the tve water management districts has been immune from the stress and strain on water resources caused by the stampede of people into Florida since rf. ne U.S. Geological Survey reports that each Floridian uses about r gallons of water each day (although about half of this is poured on grass). Meanwhile, the concept of sustainability, which began to take root in the early rfs, has become increasingly important in terms of managing Floridas water resources. Sustainability remains an
Florida Water Management Since Figure Figure
Land into WaterWater into Land elusive concept, having evolved over the past two centuries or so from quaint notions of carrying capacity. Originally, carrying capacity referred to the limits of cargo that could be transported by sailing ships. Over time, scholars attempted (with only modest success) to apply the idea of carrying capacity to a landscapes ability to support wildlife and livestock. Some have tried to apply it directly to humanssuggesting that the earth has a limited capacity to support people and that we are fast approaching those limits. Clearly, the idea of carrying capacity connotes limits but it is almost impossible to directly and concretely apply this idea to people and their relationship with the landscape. Carrying capacity eventually morphed into the phrase sustainable development, famously touted in r by the World Commission on Environment and Development.r Academics and others frequently quote the commissions simple but attractive detnition of sustainable development: development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Of course such a protean detnition allowed the term to be interpreted in many dierent ways, including a business-friendly interpretation that essentially views sustainable development as a light green form of business as usual.f Indeed, so quickly and signitcantly had the business community promoted its own version of sustainable development that environmentalists and others began speaking in terms of sustainability as a way of countering the emphasis on development. Like its predecessors carrying capacity and sustainable development, sustainability is dicult to detne with precision, but most detnitions imply a devotion to three ideals: economic development, environmental protection, and social equityall to be achieved simultaneously over the long term. Early conceptualizations of sustainability oen emphasized economic development, both in wealthy nations as well as in impoverished countries. Yet environmentalists promoted an emphasis on protecting the planets resources. Indeed, several writers have employed the concept of sustainability in the analysis of water resources. One of those writers, Leonard Shabman, argues that applying notions of sustainability to water resources requires questioning the twentieth-century drive to control water with engineering structures. Shabman suggests a couple of sus tainability principles that can be applied to water resources. One such
Florida Water Management Since principle calls for maintaining and restoring the ow and variability of water levels in rivers so that the natural hydrograph is minimally disturbed. It may be dicult to know what natural ows were prior to human manipulations and impacts because virtually all Florida rivers have been altered by changes in land use, but that does not preclude scientists from developing close approximations of natural ow. Another principle, very signitcant in Florida, advocates restricting groundwater pumping to minimize adverse eects on surface water bodies, including lakes, rivers, and wetlands. Detning adverse impacts remains dicult (much like detning sustainability), but it is not impossible. ne one aspect of sustainability that oen receives short shri in discussions of sustainable water use is social equity.b Equity, like sustainability, can be detned in a number of ways. Some people might argue that an equitable distribution of the cost of providing water would mean charging all of a utilitys customers the same per unit price for water they consume. Yet I submit that concern for social equity requires that we manage water resources so that established residents, particularly less fortunate citizens of a place or region, are not harmed by rising water costs caused by the action of others. nis is especially salient in Florida where signitcant population increase in recent decades has forced water managers to pursue more expensive infrastructure and alternative sources of water to meet these new demands. Over time (given the current paradigm), all residents end up paying additional costs for waterwhether they can easily aord it or not. Social equity as it applies to water resources should be redetned to mean those who create the need for expensive alternative water sources ought to be the ones who pay the full cost of developing and using them. ne signitcant costs associated with providing water include capital costs of extraction, treatment, and delivery facilities (and related debt ser vice payments); electricity for pumping and treatment; chemicals used in treatment; salaries of workers and administrators; maintenance; and other costs. Yet calculating the cost of water is a complicated aair because of its naturally occurring variability and other factors. For example, although a water providers legal fees associated with defending its more controversial decisions (such as excessive groundwater pumping) are calculablewhat are the costs of possible environmental degradation and community aggravation associated with such decisions? Moreover, similar sources of water may have very dierent costs in dierent locations
Land into WaterWater into Land due to variable energy costs or varying water quality (requiring more or less treatment). Using estimates obtained from Tampa Bay Water, the regional water wholesaler for much of Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) helps illustrate these issues. Most of Florida is fortunate to have a huge quantity of continually replaced, high quality groundwater that requires far less treatment than most other sources. Ignoring for the moment txed costs such as debt service on infrastructure and salaries, ocials at Tampa Bay Water contend that it costs a bit more than cents to produce ,fff gallons of groundwater; almost rr cents to produce ,fff gallons of surface water; and about for ,fff gallons of potable water from seawater at their relatively new desalination plant south of Tampa. If we factor in txed costs, both SJRWMD and Tampa Bay Water ocials claim that groundwater costs about per ,fff gallons. Furthermore, Tampa Bay Water estimates that expanding its use of purited seawater in the region will cost between and r.f per ,fff gallons,* depending on the specitc project, and that additional drinking water from the Alata River may be produced at a cost of between nearly and up to f per ,fff gallons. ne SJRWMD estimates that it can turn seawater into potable water at a cost of between and .fr per ,fff gallons, and additional surface water may be obtained at a cost of b to per ,fff gallons.r Yet it is not clear if even these costs reect subsidies, such as those provided by the state to encourage alternative water supply development. Regardless, alternative sources such as surface water and particularly seawater desalination are substantially more expensive than fresh groundwater. Florida is not running out of water; rather, the peninsula can no longer support unchecked growth with cheap groundwater. Concerns for the social equity dimension of sustainability, particularly with regard to the increasing cost of water in Florida, informs the rest of this chapter. South Floridas water problems are well chronicled in this book, and so is the story of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal. No less serious, however, are a range of water conicts in many other parts of the state.* The low unit cost of water from Tampa Bay Waters existing desalination facility near Apollo Beach at the mouth of Tampa Bay is largely a function of the fact that the plant takes in bay water that is not as salty as average seawater, and therefore requires somewhat less purification.
Florida Water Management Since Like the cattle wars that detned southern Florida more than a century ago, Tampa Bays water wars were a struggle beginning in the late rfs between the regions local governments and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD or Swimud; map on p. r) over how to provide adequate water supplies to rapidly growing communities whose populations have long since exceeded the capacity of local groundwater resources.f For example, Pinellas Countya peninsula bracketing the west side of Tampa Baybegan to experience saltwater intrusion as early as the fs. Yet the county and the city of St. Petersburg bought land in neighboring counties during the early twentieth century (including Weeki Wachee Springs) in order to pump relatively inexpensive groundwater into Pinellas so that the local population and economic growth machine could be kept humming. Pinellas County is now virtually built out, a densely populated area with nearly a million people. When several lakes and wetlands in neighboring Pasco County began to dry up in the rfs, aected landowners pointed to excessive groundwater pumping; Pinellas ocials claimed they were pumping what Swimud permitted them to extract, and in any case, they blamed drought for the disappearing surface water. In aer Swimud and the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (West Coast, the regional water wholesaler run by local government leaders) spent much of the fs and f million of the publics money arguing with each other in court, Swimud oered to help West Coast (which reorganized in r, becoming Tampa Bay Water) pay for more expensive alternative water sources in order to meet the demands of continuing population growth and reduce the pumping of cheap (but environmentally damaging) groundwater from outside Pinellas County. Accordingly, there is now a large desalination plant at the southern edge of Tampa Bay. nis complex, the largest in the western hemisphere, stands as a monument to prodevelopment politics and is designed to produce a maximum of million gallons of fresh water per day ( mgd). To put this in perspective, the three Tampa Bay area counties of Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Pasco withdrew more than b mgd of fresh water dur ing ff.b Unfortunately, the plant did not begin peak production until late ff, aer four years of delay caused by technical problems, which led to f million in cost overruns that boosted the plants tnal price tag to r million. Mechanical diculties appeared again in March ff, and
Land into WaterWater into Land the plant reduced its production by several million gallons per day for a few months while technicians made additional costly repairs. On top of the price tag for building the desalination plant is the cost of the water it produces, which is far more expensive than fresh groundwater. One of the regions other expensive engineering solutions to water supply is a huge, -billion-gallon surface water reservoir southeast of Tampa (opened in ff) that can store water taken from the Alata and Hillsborough Rivers and the Tampa Bypass Canal for later use. Yet the million facility soon developed unexplained cracks, which dramatically reduced its capacity, and then a severe drought virtually drained what was le in the ,ff-acre reservoir by March ff. Engineers later discovered that the cracks occurred due to a design aw that will necessitate keeping the reservoir dry for at least two years; the repairs are now scheduled to begin in June f. While it is not clear precisely how much it will cost to tx the reservoir and prevent future cracking, some have suggested a price tag as high as million. Such a repair bill will almost certainly be paid by Tampa Bay Water users in the form of higher rates for water unless the utility successfully sues the reservoirs builder. Finally, in order to treat surface water coming directly from the Alata and Hillsborough Rivers and Tampa Bypass Canal as well as the huge reservoir, Tampa Bay Water spent million to build a water treatment plant. Opened in ff, the surface water treatment facilitywhich was originally designed to treat more than f million gallons of surface water per daysoon encountered clogged tlters, greatly reducing its capacity. Although the technical problems have been resolved, reservoir problems and drought reduced available surface water so much by early ff that Tampa Bay Water had little choice but to temporarily shut down the plant.r ne conundrum of water management in the Tampa Bay area since rf remains simple: expensive water supply structures have been built in an eort to reduce environmental impacts and accommodate continued population growth, but these engineering solutions have cost the regions taxpayers several hundred million dollars, have raised the price of water for all of the regions residents, and because they have not worked out as intended, the region is now even more vulnerable to drought. Most people are tempted to view technology as a tx for many problems, including water resource development. Yet water supply technology is usually
Florida Water Management Since expensive and oen fails to work exactly as planned. Indeed, as of April ff (in the midst of a three-year drought), Tampa Bay Water was in the uncomfortable position of having to resume excessive groundwater pumping in order to supply water to the regions residents who number one million more than they did in rf. Furthermore, now that so many more people live and work in the Tampa Bay area, Swimud was initially reluctant to enact signitcant water use restrictions in early ff because such limitations would eectively close many businesses and put people out of work during a deepening recession.bf By the end of March ff, however, the WMD had no choice but to enact severe water restrictions.b Such limitations, supported by modest local enforcement eorts, encour aged some people to reduce water useparticularly lawn watering. Yet many others refused to comply, perhaps wondering what is the point of living in paradise if you cannot wash your car or water your lawn in April? Much of northeast and east central Florida lies in the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD; see map on p. r), a region that has also experienced recent, signitcant population growth. Here as elsewhere on the peninsula, water challenges abound, extending well beyond the barge canal and Rodman Reservoir controversies. Perhaps the most signitcant problem has been the environmental tragedy involving Lake Apopka, just northwest of Orlando.b In the early twentieth century, Lake Apopka boasted a resort economy featuring outstanding tshing, but discharges of inadequately treated wastewater from surrounding communities and especially agricultural runo overwhelmed the lakes assimilative capacity during the middle twentieth century, severely degrading one of the largest lakes in the state. Well-intentioned and expensive lake restoration eorts led by the SJRWMD initially backtred in r and when several hundred birds died aer former agricultural lands were reooded (agitating and recirculating deposits of toxic chemicals); but the districts persistence is tnally paying o with slow improvement in water quality. Still, in early ff, the Lake County Water Authority opened a .b million facility to treat millions of gallons of tainted water that ow each day from Lake Apopka down the Apopka-Beauclair canal into a chain of lakes to the north.bb Less well known are the eorts of the SJRWMD to manage water resources along its namesakethe St. Johns River. During the early ffs,
Land into WaterWater into Land just as others were attempting to drain and reclaim the Everglades for agricultural activity, pioneers and investors dug many miles of ditches and canals in an eort to drain much of the marshy headwaters of the St. Johns River, southwest of Melbourne.b As part of the original Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project primarily intended to control water in the Everglades, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked to eliminate persistent ooding in the upper St. Johns region by digging canals capable of dumping large quantities of agricultural runo into the east coasts Indian River Lagoon. Aer water quality in the lagoon plummeted, this Corps projectlike the Cross-Florida Barge Canalwas halted in the fs. In an eort foreshadowing Everglades restoration, the SJRWMD began work in rr, eventually restoring some f,fff acres of wetlands that constitute part of the headwaters of the St. Johns River. Meanwhile, the lower St. Johns River (in and around Jacksonville) suers from signitcant pollution associated with urban, suburban and agricultural development in northeast Florida. Sadly, the river is being loved to death by people and farms.b Eorts to organize some of the districts communities in order to plan and invest in more expensive water resource development so as to avoid a repeat of the Tampa Bay water wars appear to be treading water at best.b Leaders in east central Florida rightly want to avoid paying more for waterbut they want to accommodate continued population growth as well. Accordingly, the middle St. Johns River is being eyed as a signitcant source of relatively inexpensive water to help sustain Central Floridas population growth. Although Seminole County recently received permission to withdraw just million gallons per day from the St. Johns, Central Florida utilities would ultimately like to divert much more water from the St. Johns and Ocklawaha rivers. Seminole Countys action sparked public protest from the City of Jacksonville, St. Johns County, and the watchdog group St. Johns Riverkeeper. ne St. Johns River WMD claims that up to million gallons a day can safely be withdrawn from the St. Johns near DeLand (north of Orlando), but the WMD continues to study the matter.b Meanwhile, despite much protest, the governing board of the SJRWMD voted in April ff to accept the WMD stas recommendation to allow Seminole County to withdraw mgd from the St. Johns River.br At trst glance, North Floridas thinly populated Suwannee River Water
Florida Water Management Since Management District (SRWMD; see map on p. r) would appear less likely to have signitcant water challenges, but trst glances can be deceiving. To be sure, water supply is generally not an issue in this sparsely populated part of the state, at least as long as interbasin water transfers are prohibited. Yet it is precisely because the district supports less than a half million peopleand much agricultural activity including many animal feedlots and row crop farmsthat it has its own water challenges, especially in water quality.b Nitrogen-laden water is moving from farms into the groundwater system via porous sandy soils and numerous sinkholes, and then reappearing in undesirable concentrations in springs and streams, including the iconic Suwannee River. ne district originally tried to avoid harsh remedial measures to improve water quality by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by oering farmers tnancial and technical assistance in establishing best management practices that are intended to reduce nitrogen runo. ne districts eorts were complicated by vocal environmentalists who claim they did not have a signitcant voice in the policy-making conversation, and that all farmers should reduce their polluted runo at their own (not taxpayer) expensebut this criticism now appears moot.f Since r, the EPA has encouraged all f states to develop specitc numeric criteria for total maximum daily loads of pollutants (such as phosphorus and nitrogen) that can be present in public waters. As we saw in the Everglades, vague narrative standards are dicult to enforce. ne Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) studied the issue for a decade, but several environmental groups grew tired of waiting and sued the EPA in ffr for not enforcing the Clean Water Act in Florida. Accordingly, in January ff, the federal environmental agency formally declared that it would take the lead in developing numeric criteria for the state, using some of FDEPs data and methodology. Meanwhile, a host of interestsparticularly those associated with Florida industry, agriculture, and water treatment worksargue that the EPA water quality standards are likely to be stringent and expensive to comply with.b Federal authorities concede that it might cost Florida polluters collectively more than a billion dollars to clean their waterand this would be on top of the cost to upgrade local storm water systems. Yet an apoplectic president of Associated Industries of Florida contended that the new federal standards would cost more than f billion: its onerous, stupid, ridiculous and
Land into WaterWater into Land idiotic. Given that Floridas waters are vital for tourism, seafood, and other businesses, one might argue that it is stupid, ridiculous, and idiotic that so many Florida waters remain polluted. Aer studying half the states rivers and streams and most of its estuaries and other coastal waters, the FDEP reported in ffr that more than of a quarter of the river miles and lake acreage examinedand some percent of Floridas estuarieshave poor water quality. Meanwhile, the small southern town of Perry (in Taylor County) sits squarely within the SRWMD. Buckeye Technologies Inc., a Memphisbased spino from Procter and Gamble, which built a pulp mill in the fs, is both neighbor and bully. ne pulp mill turns one of the countys most plentiful resources, pine trees, into tbers that are used in a host of products that many people consume on a regular basis such as diapers, feminine hygiene products, casings for hot dogs and sausage, pharmaceuticals, tire and hose reinforcement, and many more. ne mill is located near the swampy headwaters of the Fenholloway River, a small stream that wriggles some twenty miles or so before emptying into the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Like most old pulp mills, the Buckeye mill is a voracious water consumer and disposes of huge amounts of euent: the mill withdraws some f million gallons of groundwater per day (signitcantly reducing stream ows) and then dumps partially treated euent back into the river as it passes the mill. Despite Buckeyes signitcant investment in water treatment over the years, water quality remains a contentious issue in the region. Buckeye has oered to pipe its euent directly into the Gulf of Mexico (by-passing the Fenholloway), but environmentalists claim that this merely moves the dirty water to the same location by different means; they insist that Buckeye should invest even more in pollution control technology. Furthermore, the Fenholloway River water quality problem is complicated by other issues. For example, when Procter and Gamble trst received permission to build the mill in the Florida legislature granted the company authority to use the Fenholloway River as a virtual industrial sewer. ne mill has no such permission today, and as the nation began to take pollution control seriously, the company invested many millions of dollars in altered production processes and water treatment, which improved euent qualitybut not by as much as critics believe is necessary. On top of all this is the fact that Buckeye is the largest provider of reasonably well-paid jobs in one of Floridas poorest counties.
Florida Water Management Since If environmentalists and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection push Buckeye to invest too much in water quality improvement, the company may ultimately decide to establish operations elsewhere and this would devastate Taylor Countys economy. Nor is the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWF WMD, map on p. r) immune to water challenges. For example, rapid population growth along spectacular panhandle beaches in the states four westernmost counties has begun to strain the near surface sand and gravel aquifer, particularly during drought. Yet this water management districts most signitcant headache involves the state of Georgia. Floridas largest river in terms of discharge (water volume)the Apalachicola Riverforms along the Florida-Georgia border at the conuence of the Flint and Chattahoochee rivers (oen collectively referred to as the ACF basin).r Both the Flint and the Chattahoochee trace their headwaters to north Georgia. ne Flint begins at the southern edge of metropolitan Atlanta and drains a large chunk of central Georgia. ne Chattahoochee originates in the northeast Georgia mountains, ows through the Atlanta metro area, and then forms more than ff miles of the southwestern Georgia border with Alabama and Florida. Georgia developers and politicians naturally claim the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers as Georgia streams, and demand more of this water to help fuel continued population and economic growth. Development interests believe continued growth in northern Georgia is tied to the ability to draw more water from the Chattahoochee River because there are no other inexpensive sources of water in the region. Yet homeowners living along the shores of Lake Lanier, a large body of water created by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dam (Buford Dam) on the Chattahoochee River some miles northeast of Atlanta, resist lower lake levels. Finally, communities downstream of Atlanta (such as Columbus) express concern about relatively low ows and poor water quality caused by major users such as Atlanta, which discharges millions of gallons of partially treated wastewater back into the river each day. Meanwhile, Alabama depends on large quantities of Chattahoochee River water to operate the Joseph M. Farley nuclear power plantand Alabama politicians would prefer to be able to use the rivers water to support future growth in eastern Alabama. Floridas interest in the Apalachicola River is primarily related to maintaining diverse habitats along the extensive river oodplain, and sustain-
Land into WaterWater into Land ing the rich oyster grounds in Apalachicola Bay. Apalachicola supplies f percent of Floridas oysters and more than f percent of those consumed in the United States, and its oyster beds are extremely sensitive to the volume of fresh water owing from the river into Apalachicola Bay. Ala bama, Florida, and Georgia have spent two decades attempting to develop a mutually acceptable water allocation formula, but to no avail. Although some legal scholars suggested this ongoing disagreement would likely be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, that now appears less likely.f In July ff, U.S. District Court judge Paul A. Magnuson ruled that the Corps of Engineers may not unilaterally grant Georgia authorities more water from Lake Lanier. Congress authorized and paid for Buford Dam,* so only Congress can grant Georgia a larger water supply from this dam. ne judge also ruled that all water withdrawals from the lake are to be frozen at current levels for the next three years, or until such time as Florida, Georgia, and Alabama agree otherwise. If the states, and then Congress, fail to act within three years, water allocation from Lake Lanier will revert to baseline rules from the fs. nis means that only the small north Georgia communities of Buford and Gainesville (not the rest of rapidly growing metro Atlanta) will be allowed to continue drawing water from Lake Lanier. nis decision must have come as welcome news to Florida and Alabama leaders, who now have the upper hand in negotiating a deal with Georgia. As of this writing, it remains to be seen what sort of water use agreement may emerge. Everyone agrees that Florida faces signitcant water challenges, both now and particularly in the future. Nevertheless, the benetts of continued population and economic growth remain an article of faith among most policymakers and business leaders. Indeed, as economists oen remind us: Economic growth is the tide that oats everyones boat. Yet growthinduced competition for water produces winners and losers. Alas, the grim truth may be that yacht owners, as well as nursery owners, construction workers, and lifeguards will all suer the consequences of too little water. Furthermore, population and economic growth oen produce side eects such as pollution, stress on water supplies, and overcrowding, but these are oen viewed as less signitcant impacts of capitalism that can Indeed, Judge Magnuson discovered that in the 1940s, Georgia authorities were offered an opportunity to help pay for the dam, but they declined claiming it was not necessary for water supply.
Florida Water Management Since be easily ameliorated with a few common-sense regulations and proper planning. According to Cynthia Barnett, however, the problem is not a lack of rules and regulations to cope with growths side eects, Its the way local elected ocials make exceptions to them, the way savvy landuse lawyers and others get around them. Unfortunately, growth-related problems are likely to become more pronounced as powerful people remain convinced that more population growth is the answer to all that ails the state.b Frank Matthews, a lobbyist for the building and development industry, asks a self-fultlling question: You know what the Florida economy is based on? Indeed we do. In Florida, population growth is the primary engine of the economyan economy built mostly on low-wage jobs related to tourism, retail, and agriculture as well as a steady stream of newcomers who support construction and real estate activity. David Reed, an investment banker, puts it this way: ne Florida economy has been based on the selling of Florida. Our growth is all about population growth. When you take that away, what have you got? ne answer is, not very much. Leading economists such as David Denslow of the University of Florida have called for a reorientation of the states economy toward higher wage innovative industries and professional work, but this would require signitcant investment in higher education, something the state legislature refuses to do because it is more interested in keeping taxes low. Meanwhile, politicians and business people never tire of repeating the phrase you cant stop people from moving to Florida. What they dont add is that they are addicted to the ideology of growth, an ideology that resembles a Ponzi scheme, especially in Florida. As essayist George Packer reminds us, A Ponzi scheme succeeds only when enough people are willing to put aside common sense. For over half a century, the Florida economy has run on the principle of a thousand new people moving to the Sunshine State each day. Remarkably, the principle served as a selffultlling prophecy and richly rewarded those who bought into the Florida dream. Ominously, few state or county ocials dared think about the consequences of that moment when senior citizens, barefoot Toledo lawyers, and displaced autoworkers stopped coming to Florida. ne cont dence gametodays investments depend on tomorrows thousand new residentsworked eciently if not always fairly until ffr. When popu-
Land into WaterWater into Land lation growth in Florida sputters, as it did beginning in late ff, the states economy is devastated. Between f and ff, Florida attracted roughly bff,fff new residents every single year. Yet between July ff and July ffr, Florida actually lost more than ,fff domestic residents, and the decline would have been worse were it not for attracting more than ,fff international immigrants.r And between April ffr and April ff, the University of Floridas Bureau of Business and Economic Research estimated that the state experienced a net loss of more than r,fff people the trst time since that Florida had a year in which more residents le than arrived. Floridas lack of population growth spilled over into signitcantly reduced tax revenue and appropriations by the state legislature. In May ff, the Florida legislature approved a budget totaling b. billion; three years later the legislature budgeted only billion and more spending cuts are expected.f What many business leaders and policymakers refuse to acknowledge is that economic and population growth has also led to a deterioration in the quality of life for many Floridians. At the same time, those in a position to prott the most from population growth are also in a position to avoid many of growths side eects. For example, many of economic growths most signitcant benetciaries can aord more expensive water sources and private schools for their children; everybody else simply has to endure the problems: brutal trac, overcrowded and underfunded public schools and universities, rapidly escalating energy costs, and increasing costs for water as progressively more expensive sources must be tapped. Moreover, what many people used to think were reasonable uses of water are now branded a waste because population growth has made Floridas water resources progressively more expensive. For example, turning the faucet on and letting kids play with water coming out of a hose in the front yard during hot summer days used to be a normal part of life in Florida; but now, such activity is shunned as a waste for all but those who can aord to let the water run. Even wealthy landowners who use huge quantities of water to maintain large, manicured lawns have been aected. In the midst of a serious drought in early ff, the St. Petersburg Times published an article holding up for ridicule the b largest water users in the Tampa Bay area. Given the fact that continued economic and population growth continues to subtly erode many Floridians quality of life, some business people
Florida Water Management Since have backed away from advocating growth and simply brand growth as inevitable. Of course, population growth only appears inevitable if the state continues to send market signals to prospective newcomers that they are welcome to add to the states challenges without a corresponding obligation to pay more to cope with these problems. In other words, some Florida policymakers and business leaders are working overtime to keep the states Ponzi scheme aoat: they brand growth as inevitable, pretend we can maintain an outstanding quality of life, and attempt to conceal the real costs of growth by spreading these costs over the entire population. Evidence of this perspective is not hard to tnd. In September ffb, a group of Florida business leaders called the Flor ida Council of ff published a report entitled Improving Floridas Water Supply Management Structure.b ney acknowledge that we must take action to maintain the remaining quality of our environment. Yet predictably, they treat population growth as inevitable, arguing, It is obvious that Florida will need to increase its supply of fresh water in order to meet future demand. ney simply dismiss critics as angry malcontents. ne council blames a decentralized and fragmented governance structure for not being able to resolve regional water shortages, ignoring the states habit of spreading the costs of growth across large regions. ney suggest that the state should create a Water Supply Commission, which would play a leading role in coordinating Floridas water resources. Ap parently the council was moved by Californias experience of transfer ring water long distances (from the northern part of the state) in order to continue supporting otherwise unsustainable population growth in the southand believes Florida ought to do the same. ney take aim at the legislatures r Local Sources First policy, a policy wisely promulgated in an eort to force local governments to develop water resources within their boundariesa trst step intended to force rapidly growing regions to develop in more sustainable ways. ne council insists that North Floridas water would not be stolen, adding that north Floridians mistakenly view water in their region as their propertywhen in fact the states waters belong to all Floridians. Alas, the council cannot avoid the suggestion that water in sparsely populated North Florida maybe should be moved south where it is in high demand. Of course, the reason for this line of argument is to help reduce the costs of otherwise unsustainable growth in Central and South Florida. Although they profess concern for environ-
Land into WaterWater into Land ments across the state, they express no interest in allowing water to become expensive enough in Central and South Floridas new developments (the source of water stress) as a way of sending a market signal that future population growth ought to occur elsewhere. Meanwhile, the economic shock of ffff powerfully reinforces the point that if Floridas population stagnates, the state experiences severe economic problems. Essentially, slow growth or no growth means the death of the Florida dream, fff. ne council invokes sustainability on the cover of its report, yet it appears that what they are most interested in sustaining is population growth in places where it probably should not occur. Not content to view unsustainable population growth in Central and South Florida as merely a mismatch between supply and demand that can be txed by engineers, the council contends that the private sector ought to be invited to prott from developing, treating, distributing and creating alternative water supplies.r Indeed, they suggest providing the private sector incentives to help solve Floridas water challenges. What they dont say is that water provided by private entities would undoubtedly cost more for longtime and low-income residents. Perhaps more expensive water is tne for people who can aord to pay more, but it is not so good for large numbers of poorly paid service workers. Evidently the council prefers a market mechanism that disproportionately impacts less fortunate people rather than trouble those who have been led to believe they can add to Floridas water problems on the cheap. ne council articulates that there is a clear, inherent conict to have the [water management] districts responsible for water supply planning and the regulation of consumptive use of water. Perhaps, but the council tips its hand when it expresses dissatisfaction with the WMDs planning eorts because they did not lay out time-phased, specitc plans with funding sources and that the decentralized structure has not solved the uncertainty of meeting our future water needs.f Because their view of sustainability is limited to accommodating forecast population growth, it does not occur to them that continuing to provide relatively inexpensive water to hordes of recent arrivals in places where water supplies are stressed is the source of the problem. neir path to sustainability ignores the impacts of population growth and instead focuses on initiating a combination of water transfers from North Florida AND on privatizing
Florida Water Management Since alternative water resource development. Of course, prott-motivated companies developing and selling water from alternative sources would mean more expensive water for everybody, not just those responsible for creating the need for more water. Regardless, the councils proposal to create a state authority which presumably would have the power to send water from North Florida to water-stressed portions of the state set o a public uproar that forced Governor Jeb Bush to drop the idea. Yet far from representing a death knell in the battle for state control of water resources, the governors retreat merely signaled a temporary truce. More recently, despite Floridas recession-induced glut of bff,fff unoccupied houses in early ff, state legislator Rep. Trudi Williams (R-Fort Myers) contended, Weve got to get [building] permits going and owing. She and her supporters such as state Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton), the Florida Homebuilders Association, Associated Industries, and the Association of Florida Community Developers, argue that impact fees and excessive and duplicative environmental protection regulations at the federal, state, and county level have stied Floridas population growthand are therefore the root of Floridas economic problems.b Moreover, Sen. Bennett and Rep. Chris Dorworth (R-Lake Mary) want to abolish the Florida Department of Community Aairs, the states growth management agency. In June ff, Gov. Charlie Crist (ff) signed Senate Bill bf in private, without public fanfare. Virtually everybody agrees this legislation is intended to spur additional construction in Florida, but that is where agreement ends. Builders celebrated the bills signing because it reduces regulatory oversight of development and relieves them of the responsibility to pay for roads to support their new neighborhoods. Meanwhile, environmentalists and many others contend that Floridas awed growth management rules have served as little more than a worn-out speed bump on population growth in Florida since rf, and that the state does not need fewer rules on developmentjust better ones. Recall that the states population has nearly doubled from million in rf to r. million in ff. And as one columnist points out, It may not be entirely irrelevant that Bennett is a contractor and Dorworth is a real estate broker. Indeed, state Sen. Dan Gelber (D-Miami Beach) cautions: I dont want to use the term Ponzi scheme. [but] Our No. industry has been growth and our No. policy has been optimism. Well guess what? Growth is not an industry and optimism is not a policy.
Land into WaterWater into Land Admittedly, it would be unfair to suggest that Floridas business and political leaders are completely unconcerned about the impacts of signitcant population and economic growth. Indeed, the state continues to grapple with growth-induced water demands, and there have been some successes. For example, since rf, Floridians have embraced the land preservation and environmental restoration activities going on in many parts of the state. In addition to environmental restoration projects in the Everglades and St. Johns River headwaters marshes, Florida has pur chased b.r million acres of conservation land through Programs such as Preservation fff and Florida Forever. Moreover, thanks to more signitcant regulation of water pollution, water quality in many of the states waters is far better today than it was in the fs. Finally, the Florida Water Resources Act of instructed each water management district to determine minimum ows and levels (MFLs) for rivers, lakes, springs, and wetlands so as to avoid causing signitcant harm to these water resources and natural systems. Essentially, the task is to determine how much water can be extracted from the environment without disrupting the natural systems we depend on. In other words, WMDs have to determine the sustainable limit of water use. Unfortunately, the districts did not devote much attention to MFLs until the courts and the legislature revisited the issue two decades later, essentially demanding that the districts avoid issuing consumptive water use permits that would cause water ows and levels to drop below established minimums.r Each district is allowed to develop its own methodology for establishing MFLs and the techniques used are varied. Furthermore, each district is required to submit a revised priority MFL project list every year to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. MFLs are an important tool to help bring the state much closer to sustainable use of its water resources, but scientists have a hard time saying with certainty how much water can be extracted from the landscape without causing signitcant harm to natural systems. Of course, an emphasis on MFLs alone ignores another important element of sustainability and sustainable water use: social equity. Some might detne equity to mean equal, as in all consumers paying the same price for water. Yet such a view pretends that all water users have the same income, and this is obviously not the case. Real social equity in terms of water in Florida means that established residents would not have to pay
Florida Water Management Since more to develop new (and more expensive) water supplies that recent immigrants to Florida require. As things now stand, rather than force those who are the impetus for more expensive water sources to pay the full cost for the privilege of living in Florida, costs are spread out across the entire population so that, on a day-to-day basis, they are somewhat less noticeable (particularly for new residents). Recent proposals to increase rates for the top water consumers in the Tampa Bay area is a step in the right direction,rf but such action would not send appropriate signals to most future immigrants, who will likely receive water for far less than it costs to provide. We are oen reminded that growth is inevitable; therefore, despite otherwise plentiful water resources, we must accept the cost of more expensive sources of water. Virtually every alternative water source is more expensive than fresh groundwater, but their real cost is hidden because this expensive water is blended with less expensive sources of groundwater. Only over longer periods of time do we notice how much more expensive water has become.r One might assume that in a rapidly growing state like Florida, there would be a clear link between water resources management and land use planning, but this has generally not been the case.r Water management districts are responsible for managing water supply, providing ood protection, maintaining water quality, and protecting the environment. In addition to buying land and working to improve water quality in impaired waters, WMDs issue consumptive use permits for the withdrawal of water, and environmental resource permits for land use activities that could impact the quantity or quality of water resources (including wetlands). It is true that regulating the consumptive use of water is the exclusive pur view of WMDs and not within the jurisdiction of local governments. At the same time, however, WMDs complain that they have nothing to do with determining the densities or intensities of land use, and they have no role in guiding the location of new developmentall of which deter mine the demand for water. nose issues remain the function of local government policymakers and planners. Yet such a stance ignores the inuence WMDs could exert if they so chose, for they have broad statutory authority to reject permit applications that would cause harm to water resources.rb Water use permitting authority became less complicated during the summer of ff when Governor Charlie Crist signed Senate Bill frf.
Land into WaterWater into Land Prior to this legislation, wetland destruction permits involving more than an acre of wetlandsand water use permits applications proposing more than ff,fff gallons per day of groundwater pumpingwere approved by water management districts only aer a districts governing board discussed and voted on permits in monthly public meetings. Such a process was time-consuming and governing boards rarely rejected permit applications, but it provided an opportunity for citizens to voice their opinion. Although Senate Bill frfs original purpose was to promote water conservation, on the next-to-the-last day of the ff legislative session, Sen. J. D. Alexander (R-Lake Wales) quietly slipped an amendment into the bill authorizing executive directors of each WMD to approve permits without a public meeting. Both critics and supporters of the bill widely view this action as a way to reduce the time it takes to issue permits. Skeptics add that eliminating public discussion and votes on permits may allow WMDs to authorize signitcant projects that an informed public would occasionally have made dicult. Governor Crist lamely added that he hoped WMDs would continue to include permits on board meeting agendas. Only two executive directors claim to be comfortable with the new responsibility, and all WMDs appear to be developing better public notice and participation procedures. Meanwhile, David Still of the Suwannee River Water Management District intends to ignore the law and continue having his governing board publicly discuss and vote on water and wetland permits. Are you going to sue me for opening up the process to the public? he asked.r Over the past few decades, the Florida legislature has occasionally attempted to forge a better link between water resources management and land use planning. For example, the legislature has instructed the WMDs to develop twenty-year regional water supply plans. Yet the legislatures stance appears to be that water supply challenges should not limit future population growth. St. Petersburg Times journalists reported that Senate leaders told them that they intended to keep Florida attractive to new residents and companies.r Keeping the state attractive to newcomers is one thing, but doing so at great expense to everybody else is another. Per haps the most signitcant example of attempts to improve the link between water resources management and land use planningand an example of the Florida legislatures prioritiesis the states landmark Growth Management Act of r.r nis act endeavored (among many other things) to
Florida Water Management Since impose concurrency between economic development and the transportation, solid waste, recreation, and water-related infrastructure needed to support such development. In other words, development should not be approved unless the supporting infrastructure appears concurrent with that development. Of course, infrastructure costs a lot of money the state does not have (even before the economic downturn beginning in ff). In r, the legislature attempted to raise taxes enough to cover almost f percent of the cost of concurrent infrastructure, assigning b percent of the costs to local governments, and basically pretending economic growth would produce additional tax receipts to cover the other percent.r Public schools were not incorporated into the r infrastructure concur rency rules because that would have added an even larger obligation for the state to pay. nese facts alone should have been enough to expose the illusion that growth pays for itself. Unfortunately, paying for growth soon became far more dicult. ne antitax backlash was so swi and severe that Governor Bob Martinez called the r legislature back into special session to repeal the objectionable new sales taxes on services that had not been previously taxed and le local governments to pay for most infrastructure themselves. nis action had the eect of severely weakening the r Growth Management Act. Local governments raised their taxes to the extent allowable under law (much to the chagrin of their taxpayers), and they have dumped some of the infrastructure obligation on to developers, but much of the infrastructure that is supposed to accompany development is oen not built until long aer the construction is complete, if it is built at all. Water infrastructure is usually provided on time, but there is oen far less tax revenue le over to cope with the range of other needs such as transportation and schools. Given Floridas copious water resources, and the reliability of water coming out of the tap, it seems hard to imagine that supplying water to new developments has become a signitcant issuebut it has. Most of peninsular Florida is situated on top of aquifers that store huge amounts of water, much like a gigantic underground sponge. Yet Floridas population grew by roughly b million people between the late rfs and the late fs, much of this in Central and South Florida, and the peninsulas once abundant groundwater resources began to show signs of stress, particularly during the drier spring months and again during drought. As the nation prepared for YK, the Florida legislature required water man-
Land into WaterWater into Land agement districts to submit to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regional water supply plans every tve years. nese assessments are supposed not only to anticipate demand twenty years into the future but also to outline specitc water supply projects that can help meet that goal. Four of Floridas tve WMDs prepared such plans in ff, projecting water needs into ff, as well as their plans to assist in developing new supplies. ne slow-growing Suwannee River WMD has not yet engaged in this exercise because it has readily accessible resources for its projected needs several decades into the future. Updated plans for the other four WMDs (completed in early ff) project water use and supplies into f.rr ne U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Floridians used more than .r billion gallons of fresh water per day (bgd) in ff,r and the states water management districts believe demand will grow by roughly bgd by f.f nis is a frightening prospect, particularly in Central and South Florida where water resources are already stretched very thin. In attempting to meet future demands, water authorities must consider not only the quantity of water needed, but also where the resource is wanted, and whether existing resources can meet anticipated demand without harming natural systems. Florida is blessed with tremendous Figure .b
Florida Water Management Since quantities of water and some argue that surely we are not approaching limits to what we can use. For example, Florida has over ff known springs, thirty-three of which are classited as trst-magnitude springs which means they yield at least million gallons of water per day. Floridas trst magnitude springs collectively spew some six billion gallons of water to the surface each day. Several of these prolitc gushers, such as Weeki Wachee, Homosassa, or Wakulla springs, ush hundreds of millions of gallons of high quality water down very short rivers and out to the ocean every day. Although some of this water can undoubtedly be tapped for human consumption, it is important to remember that unique but delicate ecosystems have evolved in concert with this large amount of water and signitcant withdrawal from springs may cause irreparable ecosystem damage. Such damage would be tragic for both local environments and for tourist-based economies that have developed around springs. In some parts of the state (such as Tampa Bay and southeast Florida), water managers are engaging in water supply planning at regional, rather than community levels. A regional water supply system can be more responsive to localized shortages than local utilities with fewer source options.b Indeed, the South Florida Water Management District forecasts that if growth continues unchecked, it will probably need nearly a billion more gallons of water per day in f. Given this possibility, it is clear why critics suggest that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is more about providing water for endless population growth in South Flor ida than restoring the Everglades. Where will future Floridians tnd all this extra water? Historically, growing communities developed new well telds, sometimes from neighboring counties, but inexpensive groundwater will no longer sustain Floridas population growth. Additional water supplies can be developed, but they will be much more expensive. As we have seen, water supply was already a contentious issue in South Florida as Nelson Blake completed the trst edition of this book in rf. As Blake wrote, some geologists speculated that they might be able to store large quantities of drinking water in deep and relatively contned portions of the aquifer so that it could be retrieved during the dry season or during drought. ne theory is that water pumped into the aquifer, with contning layers of rock and other natural materials above and below the injection site would form a virtually stationary bubble of clean fresh watereven in a groundwater zone dominated by salt or brackish water.
Land into WaterWater into Land As we learned earlier, this process is called aquifer storage and recovery, or ASR. It was trst used along the Peace River in Southwest Florida in rb, and it became more popular during the rfs. ne U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established rules to ensure that only high quality water can be part of an ASR operation. By the late fs, however, three things started to crystallize. First, in some cases much of the ASR water was incapable of being recovered. Second, signitcant concentrations of arsenic have been discovered in the water recovered from several ASR sites in Florida. nird, evidence emerged suggesting that even deep wellinjected wastewater did not always remain in a bubble well below the earths surface: it sometimes moved.r Yet as witnessed in the Everglades, one of the most signitcant elements of the CERP passed by Congress in fff is the more than bff planned aquifer storage and recovery wells in South Florida that water managers hope can store hundreds of millions of gallons of water per daywater that is currently ushed to sea during the wet season. In the fall of fff, as CERP was being debated in Congress, a group of Florida water managerssupported by Governor Jeb Bush and his secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, David Struhsasked the Florida legislature to relax the rules governing ASR operations. Specitcally, water managers (and adherents of the progrowth ideology) wanted to save money by seeking authority to inject surface water that did not meet drinking quality standards into the ground. ney claimed they could institute procedures to ensure the retrieved water would cause no adverse eects on human health. Meanwhile, the National Research Councils Committee on the Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, which had been reviewing CERP (and elements of ASR), released a report of their tndings immediately prior to the ff legislative sessionand they expressed reservations about ASR.ff Among other issues, the committee remained skeptical of claims that partially treated water sent into the ground would be safe to drink once recovered. Opponents of relaxing ASR rules in Florida eventually generated enough public pressure on the legislature to force withdrawal of the proposed rule changes. Pumping partially treated wastewater or even untreated fresh water into ASR wells for later recovery and human consumption is one problem; an even bigger problem in many ASR wells is that authorities inject fresh surface water into the ground and get arsenic-laden water in
Florida Water Management Since return. ne arsenic in retrieved water can be removed at the surface, but such treatment adds to the expense of the ASR method of storing water. Although some ASR wells in Florida have not revealed arsenic, and geoscientists continue to work on the arsenic problem where it does occur, it appears that ASR is an alternative water star whose luster has been tar nished by technical and economic problems. Perhaps this was a driving force behind Floridas eorts to buy out U.S. Sugar; the reduced demand for agricultural water and the increased surface storage space may help reduce reliance on ASR technology in South Florida. Projecting demand and identifying future sources of water is impor tant, but harvesting alternative supplies requires money. Accordingly, the ff Florida legislature created the Water Protection and Sustainability Program to help local utilities build the alternative water source infrastructure they will need by f. In tscal year ffff, the legislature committed ff million to the program; in ffff, the state provided f million; in ffffr (as the economy worsened), lawmakers barely scraped together million; and in ffrff, as the state and national economic downturn deepened further still, this program received just million (and million of this was later slashed due to Floridas ongoing budget crisis).f Water management districts will oen use their own revenue to match this state money, but given that the trst three years of the program generated b alternative water supply projects for the entire state that will cost b.r billion the bulk of the expense for these projects clearly rests with local and regional water suppliers and utilities (and the citizens who pay for that water). ne funded projects are forecast to produce r mgd of new water, a lot of water to be sure;f but water managers may need to ramp up conservation eorts more than they already have and identify additional (probably expensive) alternatives to produce the additional billion gallons per day that are forecast to be needed in fand then hope that current forecasts do not underestimate future needs. If ASR is proving to be more of a challenge than initially expected, where will this new water come from? Figure details the category of alternative water supply projects during the trst three years of the Water Protection and Sustainability Program. Clearly, the state intends to rely more upon reclaimed water (partially treated waste water) to meet its future needs. Given that roughly half of the billion gallons of fresh water
Land into WaterWater into Land withdrawn from the environment each day for public supply* is sprayed on lawns to irrigate plants that are oen not well suited to the states climate and soils, there is much potential to use reclaimed water for lawn and golf course irrigation.fb Florida is already among the nations leaders in using treated wastewater, currently reusing more than percent (f mgd) of its roughly bgd permitted capacity for domestic wastewater facilities.f Moreover, according to the St. Johns River Water Management District, the unit cost of producing ,fff gallons of reclaimed water from its many proposed projects is oen less than and seldom more than .f.f Of course, reclaimed water systems require signitcant investment in new distribution systems, an expensive endeavor. Still, rather than ushing much of its wastewater into deep wells or the ocean, as is oen the case, this water could serve as a drought resistant source of additional water for irrigating yards and golf courses.f Public supply does NOT include water used for agricultural or recreational (golf course) irrigation, nor does it include freshwater withdrawn for power generation or other industrial/commercial uses. Figure
Florida Water Management Since ne next most signitcant alternative water source is withdrawing and turning brackish groundwater (mostly from coastal areas) into drinking water. nis process is similar to desalination (turning sea water into drinking water), but because brackish groundwater oen has well under half the salt of sea water, its puritcation costs much less (although it costs more than treating fresh groundwater). According to the SJRWMD, unit costs for its planned brackish water projects are generally between .f and b.f per ,fff gallons.f Because desalination plants generally produce water that costs far more than fresh groundwater, Florida has only three desalination plants (two small emergency backup units in South Floridas Keys and the Big Bend plant just south of Tampa).fr A variety of alternative sources will supply a relatively small amount of water in Floridas near future, although this might have to change if Florida insists upon encouraging and subsidizing population growth. Eleven surface water projects exist, mostly in North Florida, although as we saw, Orlando area utilities ignited a trestorm of protest when they trst proposed sticking their water resource straws into the St. Johns River a few years ago.f In northwest Florida, several coastal utilities are advancing plans to tap inland sources of fresh groundwater. Finally, there are a few projects intended to treat and reuse storm water runo, and a small number of ASR projects being developed in places where arsenic is not a problem.f Modest investments in water conservation will reduce the stress on natural systems and serve as a source of water for additional population growth. As Audubon Floridas Charles Lee contends, ne most immediate, attainable, economical, low-hanging fruit is conservation. Lee has a point. While Floridas per capita fresh water consumption is r gallons per day (and inching very slowly downward each year), Sarasota County has made conservation a major issue and its residents consume just gallons per day. Indeed, Tampa Bay Water ocials claim that water conservation projects not only have the potential to save millions of dollars in capital and debt service costs, they are a relatively inexpensive way to meet new demand, costing anywhere from f. to b. per ,fff gallons.b Yet even an idea as benign as conservation has angered some who resent being asked to consume less water so developers can prott by accommodating additional residents. According to one city commissioner from Ormond Beach, if he insisted on requiring water conserving toilets and
Land into WaterWater into Land other txtures in existing homes or commercial buildings, his constituents would be furious. Perhaps constituents in other Florida communities would be more forgiving. Conservation will certainly have to become part of Floridas water resources future, but it remains to be seen how much more eciently Floridians will be willing to use water. ne state remains dominated by Republican politics, which prizes freedom (including the freedom to consume plenty of water) above almost all else. Sustainability is an elusive concept, but that did not stop the ff Flor ida legislature from creating the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, a body of teen civic leaders, tve of whom are appointed by the governor, tve by the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, and tve by the president of the Florida Senate (all of whom were Republicans in ff). ne commissions primary task is to continually consider laws and regulations and make recommendations as to how we can best ac commodate population growth while maintaining our quality of life (italics mine). nis group meets several times a year in dierent locations around the state and invites the perspectives of a range of knowledgeable and thoughtful observers, from academics to policymakers to business leaders, each of whom attempts to help the commission understand what changes need to be made to ensure a sustainable Florida. ne commission prepares annual reports and recommendations to the governor and legislature, and despite their goal of accommodating future population growth, they appear to be sincerely concerned about the future sustainability of the state. One of their recent recommendations was to host a statewide Water Congress in ffr. ne commission invited f delegates representing a broad range of interests to Orlando in late September ffr for two days of discussions about the future of Floridas water resources. ne delegates (f from state and local governments, f from business, agriculture, and industry, and f from nonprott groups) were divided into small groups each charged with considering, and ultimately voting on, a series of proposed recommendations generated by the Century Commission. ne commissions rd Annual Report lists the top four recommendations as voted on by delegates to the ffr Florida Water Congress:r. Reinstate the annual funding for alternative water supply development and water quality improvement.
Florida Water Management Since Support regional partnerships, incentives, and cooperative approaches to addressing long-term water sustainability for Florida. b. Amend, as necessary, any statute, rule, or policy so that quantitable water conservation best management practices are considered an alternative water supply and are equally as eligible for funding as capital facility expansion proposals. Set a per capita target or goal for water use and quantitable best management water practices and provide a stable funding base for the Conserve Florida program directed by Sect. bb., F.S., including the statewide water conservation clearinghouse for public water supply. ne Century Commissioners (some of whom actively participated in the Congress) then added a th recommendation to the governor and the legislature in their rd Annual Report: While protecting water quality, maximize the benetcial use of reclaimed water and improve upon the capture and storage of excess water. Recruit and connect large industrial users to reclaimed water systems to reduce demand on existing and future potable systems. ne management of wastewater needs to continue to evolve from a disposal problem to a valuable water supply opportunity. Most of the other thirteen recommendations published in the Century Commissions ff annual report focus on increasing storage and reducing water use; none of them says anything about redirecting population growth away from locations where inexpensive water is becoming scarce.f ne silver lining for North Florida is that delegates easily voted down a proposal to establish a Florida water czar, widely viewed as the trst step in seizing water from North Florida for use in the central and southern parts of the state. Yet dreams die hard. nose who insist that Floridians should continue subsidizing population growth with water and distribution systems at least partially paid for by the state remain undaunted. Just a year aer being thoroughly rejected by the Florida Water Congress, sta members of the Florida Senates Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee prepared a report suggesting once again that the legislature should create a statewide body to govern Floridas water supply. Indeed, Susan PareigisPresident of the Council of ffagreed that the Senate stas ff report reads as if it is a second dra of the councils ffb report, and she views this as a positive sign. It remains to be seen if Floridas
Land into WaterWater into Land Republican-dominated legislature (which oen portrays itself as the enemy of big government) will embrace a plan to create state, rather than regional, control of water resources. Florida is now widely known as the Sunshine State, but it could just as easily be called the Water State. As Blake makes clear, for most of Floridas history the problem has been that of too much water. In addition to being surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, and receiving an average of ty-four inches of precipitation each year (Louisiana is the only state that receives more)until the early twentieth century much of Florida remained under water: lakes of all sizes covered more than percent of the state and ubiquitous swamps and marshes covered another percent. Furthermore, hordes of mosquitoes and other bugs associated with this water were not only annoying, they were debilitating for many early residents of this impoverished state. For good reason, many nineteenthand early-twentieth-century Florida policymakers remained txated on improving navigation and draining wetlands.b Florida may receive an average of inches of rainfall per year, but the critical phrase is on average. To begin with, even average rainfall is variable across the state (see Table ). Many northwest Florida locations average more than inches of precipitation per year; and the same may be said for several stations in southeast Florida. But much of the rest of the peninsula is a bit less fortunate. Rapidly growing Fort Myers and Naples each receive about b inches of rain per year; Jacksonville, Orlando, and Daytona less still; and Tampa averages just over inches of rainfall each year. Of course, every year is dierent. Although some years witness upwards of f or more inches of rainfall, other years are much drier. And because Florida is so warm for most of the year, about f percent of the states annual precipitation (some b inches) is lost to a combination of evaporation and transpiration from plants. Furthermore, although drought may not be a constant companion in Florida as it is in the western United States, the Sunshine State is oen just that: plenty of sunshine and not much rain. Over the past century, Florida has had eleven years in which statewide precipitation averaged inches or less, and selected stations routinely receive much less. For example, since Tampa has received less than f inches of rainfall no fewer than dierent years and just under bf inches as recently as fff. Tampa may receive less than f inches of annual rainfall b years out of every f, but below average
Florida Water Management Since rainfall does not become a serious problem unless decision makers insist upon promoting and subsidizing signitcant population growth. Floridas water management system has performed reasonably well during recent droughts. According to a recent report from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Regulatory tools such as water shortage orders, irrigation restrictions, and mandatory use limitations were implemented to stretch limited supplies and protect water resources. Alternative water supplies developed over the last several years supple mented traditional groundwater sources and reduced stress on aquifers. Conservation programs and public education helped ensure that water was used eciently and not wasted.r Of course, even these successes cost money. Moreover, how will Florida cope with drought in the future? If current trends continue, Floridas residents will have to use even less water and water managers will have to hustle just to provide enough water to accommodate future population growth and cope with modest (but occasional) drought. Yet Florida will have to do more to defend itself against serious drought, and it might accomplish this in a number of ways. First, relying upon more diverse sources of water will help. For example, (re)use of wastewater is a drought-resistant source, and the state appears to be moving more in this direction than they already have. Moreover, Florida water managers probably have to continue developing more expensive alternative sources of water, such as brackish groundwater and even sea water. Second, Central and South Floridians will probably be forced to abandon traditional lawns in favor of yards much better able to tolerate the peninsulas annual dry season and periodic droughts. nird, conservation and signitcant wateruse restrictions will probably become more common than they already are. Will these tools be adequate aer the state has welcomed several million additional residents, and then severe drought occurs? It simply is not feasible for water ocials to build enough water infrastructure to survive extreme droughts. Unfettered population growth in Central and South Florida puts water managers in a dicult position. Worse, as residents of the Tampa Bay area have seen, engineered water solutions do not always work as intended. Such water resource structures create a false sense of security (like building levees along rivers) that allows otherwise unsustainable populations to accumulate. Yet as populations in Central and South Floridas metropolitan areas grow, they simultaneously grow
Land into WaterWater into Land more vulnerable to drought. On one hand, too many people already reside in peninsular Florida to make coping with severe drought easy. Yet the states political leadership could prevent increasing the drought vulner ability of its existing population if it chose to assess new construction (particularly in undeveloped) areas the full cost of additional (more expensive) sources of water. nis would reduce population growth to more sustainable levels (in terms of water resources), provide the funds to develop and pay for new water sources, and it would be equitable in the sense that it would not pass these costs on to established residents. If the specter of severe drought frightens an increasingly crowded peninsula, then the possible impacts of global climate change oer potentially devastating consequences for much of Florida.bf Flat earthers and neoconservatives notwithstanding, there is virtually no debate that the planet is becoming warmer, particularly since f.b Most scientists believe that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (mostly from fossil fuel combustion) will trap progressively more heat in the earths atmosphere that might otherwise escape to space. Since water is an integral part of all elements of the global climate system, changes in that system impact water in a variety of ways. For example, a warmer atmosphere will probably hold more water vapor. As a result, climatologists are reasonably certain that geographic patterns of precipitation are likely to shi in a warmer world, and although some regions are likely to receive more precipitation, others (such as the subtropical portions of the earth, including Florida) are likely to receive less.b Moreover, a warmer atmosphere is likely to produce more variable precipitation regimes featuring a larger number of heavy downpours, and droughts of increasing length and intensity. On top of all this are the possibilities of more frequent and more powerful tropical storms, sea level rise, increased cooling costs, and changes to Floridas ecosystems. Indeed, Florida is a state where a few inches of topographic relief result in major ecosystem dierences, so even modest sea level rise would probably wreak havoc in low lying coastal areas. Climate change may not dramatically impact the states water resources over the next couple of decades, but aer that, climate change and associated water resource impacts are a real possibility. If people around the world take immediate and aggressive action to curtail fossil fuel use (on the order of Florida governor Charlie Crists call to reduce greenhouse
Florida Water Management Since gas emissions rf percent by the year ff), global average annual temperature would probably rise less than two degrees (F) during this next century, sparing Florida the worst consequences of climate change.bb Yet as two Massachusetts economists contend, if the world pursues a business as usual scenario, rejecting the current monetary and social costs of shiing to more expensive alternative energy sources, the planets annual average temperature may increase more than eight degrees (F) by the year ff.b Such warming could lead to sea level rise in Florida of three to four feet, and a tve-inch (nearly f percent) reduction of average annual precipitation across the state within a century.b Such changes would have a dramatic impact on the states water resources. First, sea level rise would not only damage coastal property (par ticularly during storms), it would likely render coastal well telds more vulnerable to salt water intrusion. nis has the potential to be a huge problem because the vast majority of Floridians live in coastal counties. As we have seen, fresh groundwater is relatively inexpensive to treat and then distribute to homes and businesses, and in ff, groundwater accounted for percent of all freshwater withdrawals and rr percent of drinking water in Florida.b ne net result of sea level rise to Floridas coastal area groundwater resources would probably be a signitcant increase in the cost of making this water drinkable. Second, most of peninsular Florida is almost entirely dependent upon precipitation for maintenance of its water resources. Precipitation feeds Floridas rivers and recharges the groundwater aquifers Floridians depend on. Most of the peninsula receives no surface or groundwater from outside the state.b If average annual precipitation across the peninsula decreases even a few inches, if drought becomes even more common and severe than at present, and if warmer temperatures evaporate even more surface water than is already the case, global climate change could present insurmountable challenges for Floridas water managers given that Florida may have more than thirty million residents a few decades from now. Unrestricted and heavily subsidized population growth, particularly in Central and South Florida, remains one of the most serious threats to the states water resources. Yet many policymakers and business leaders appear unwilling to take action to slow population growth in peninsular Florida; namely, they do not want to make future residents pay the full cost associated with the more expensive water that must be obtained to
Land into WaterWater into Land support them. Such action would likely reduce population growth to a (sustainable) fraction of previous growth rates, but it would also reduce Floridas chief source of economic growth. At the same time, Florida already has a model for such a policy. In an eort to prevent population growth from raising local property taxes to the point that established residents can no longer aord annual assessments on their homes, Florida voters passed the Save our Homes amendment to the Florida Constitution in (and implemented it in ). nis amendment caps increases on local property taxes for a qualited homeowners Florida residence (if it is their primary residence) at no more than b percent per year. When an established Florida homeowner sells their house, the new resident usually pays much more in property taxes because the b percent cap is lied until the new homeowner has lived in the house for a year, and their house is taxed at the current property value. Floridas frenetic population growth (especially in urban and suburban areas) has caused home values to increase signitcantly in recent decades. Some people argue that Save our Homes is unfair because otherwise identical properties across the street from each other may be taxed at very dierent rates, based only on the homeowners length of residence. nis is true, but it seems fairer than allowing population growth to escalate property values to the point that it taxes long-established or low-income residents out of their homes. I argue that Florida should do the same with water, charging residents of new homes (particularly those sprawling outside urban areas) the full cost of providing additional water. If inexpensive local sources are available, residents of new homes might pay the same as established residents, but if expensive sources must be tapped, many potential buyers of new homes are less likely to be interested in paying the full cost of providing alternative water supplies and would seek homes in places where water costs less. Why should suburban sprawl be subsidized with artitcially cheap water? Another practical example of protecting established residents came to light in early ff. ne groundwater level at a Southwest Florida Water Management District monitoring well miles east of Tampa remained steady throughout December ff until January ff, when a weeklong blast of frigid air threatened the Tampa Bay areas strawberry crop. As overnight temperatures in the region dove below freezing for several consecutive nights in early January, frantic farmers (legally) pumped hun-
Florida Water Management Since dreds of millions of gallons of f-degree groundwater on their land to help save their crops. Groundwater levels suddenly plunged almost f feet at the Swimud monitoring well east of Tampa; scientists believe this led to dozens of sinkholes that damaged a handful of homes, shut down an elementary school, and temporarily closed several roads around Plant City. ne sudden drop in the water table also led hundreds of nearby household wells to run dry. Although groundwater levels recovered within a few weeks, homeowners who experienced damaged wells, and whose wells were sunk before farms appeared in their area, can be compensated for their losses. According to Southwest Florida Water Management District ocials, we can require the farmer to provide water or pay for damages if there have been damages to their well. Homeowners whose dwellings and wells were built aer area farms began operations have no recourse. nis is yet another example of protecting established residents from the problems created by subsequent growth and development, and it supports the contention that recent arrivals should pay the full cost of providing the additional water they need.br As we have seen, proponents of continuing population and economic growth claim they want to protect the environment. Yet our addiction to accommodating population growth is placing signitcant stress on natural systems, forcing changes in lifestyles (some of which are surely for the better), and it calls for everybody to pay more for increasingly expensive infrastructure and alternative sources of water. Paying more for water is hardly a problem for economic growths most signitcant benetciaries, but it is burdensome and unfair for less fortunate people. Of course, it is easy to overstate this case. For example, Florida is not running out of water; but we must face the fact that it is running out of cheap water. In most parts of Central and South Florida, accommodating population growth essentially means providing new residents a perverse subsidy by spreading the costs for all manner of infrastructure and the cost of producing alternative water resources over entire regions; in this way, population (and associated economic) growth showers a few with many benetts while sticking everybody else with the bill. Florida has come a long way since the early twentieth century when the state was still mostly under water and most transportation was tied to navigable streams. Nelson Blake shows us how previous generations of Floridians worked hard to improve navigation by digging canals and, essentially,
Land into WaterWater into Land turning land into water. He also illustrates how many others turned water into land by draining many of the states swamps and marshes. Although many cases exist where wetland loss occurs in Florida, at least some of these wetland losses are supposed to be mitigated with attempts to create or enhance wetlands elsewhere.b If anything, Floridas focus on environmental and wetland restoration (in the Everglades and elsewhere) suggests that in some respects we have come full circleturning land back into water. Blakes original conclusion was mildly optimistic because he noted that by rf, Floridians had begun to treat water as a resource to be treasured rather than as a curse to be rid of. Florida has experienced many success stories in water management since rf, particularly in terms of eorts to improve water quality, establishing minimum ows and levels, purchasing land in order to protect water resources, restoring degraded waterscapes, and eective drought management. Yet a virtual doubling of the states population since rf, and a business and political culture that believes we must accommodate (subsidize) continued substantial population growth, augers ill for many established Floridians who cannot escape growths problems and who tnd it increasingly painful to continue subsidizing population growth.Notes U.S. Census Bureau, Table : Annual Estimates for the Population of the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April to July (available at: http:// www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.htm l last accessed on February ff); U.S. Census Bureau, Table : Ranking of census and projected state population and change (available at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.htm l last accessed on February ff). Jim Ash, Expert: Florida economy worsening, Tallahassee Democrat, March ff; Gary Mormino, Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams: A Social History of Modern Florida (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ff). b. Florida Department of Transportation Oce of Policy Planning Web site: http:// www.oridatransportationindicators.org/detail.php?chart=b (accessed on r March ff). U.S. Geological Survey, Water Use Facts for ff and Trends, available at http:// .water.usgs.gov/infodata/wateruse/waterusefactsff.htm l (last accessed on July ff). Nathan Sayre, ne genesis, history and limits of carrying capacity, Annals of the Association of American Geographers r (ffr): fb. Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William Behrens, e
Florida Water Management Since Limits to Growth; a report for the Club of Romes project on the predicament of mankind (New York: Universe Books, ); Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows, Limits to Growth: e -Year Update (White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Publishing, ff). Sayre, Carrying capacity, ffr; National Research Council, A Review of the Flor ida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, ff). r. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Ox ford: Oxford University Press, r). Ibid., r. f. Simon Dresner, e Principles of Sustainability nd ed. (London: Earthscan, ffr); Mark Whitehead, Spaces of Sustainability: Geographic Perspectives on the Sustainable Society (New York and London: Routledge, ff). Peter H. Gleik, Water in crisis: paths to sustainable water use, Ecological Applications r (r): ; Brian D. Richter, Ruth Mathews, David L. Harrison, and Robert Wigington, Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river ows for ecological integrity, Ecological Applications b (ffb): f; David L. Feldman, Water Policy for Sustainable Development (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press and Center for American Places, ff); Malin Falkenmark, Water and sustainability: a reappraisal, Environment f (ffr) ; Claudia Pahl-Wostl, David Tabara, Rene Bouwen, Marc Craps, Art Dewulf, Erik Mostert, Dagmar Ridder, and narsi Taillieu, ne importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management, Ecological Economics (ffr): r. Leonard Shabman, Water resources management and the challenge of sustainability, in Roger Sedjo (ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Resources in America (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, ffr), fb. b. For an exception to this, see Manuel P. Teodoro, Measuring fairness: assessing the equity of municipal water rates, Journal of the American Water Works Association () (ff): Tampa Bay Water, Tampa Bay Water Proposed Budget Fiscal Year Budget Workshop f April ff (presentation made before the Tampa Bay Water Board, copy provided to the author by Kristal Karatsanos of Tampa Bay Water). Personal (e-mail) communication with Kristal Karatsanos of Tampa Bay Water on March ff. According to Karatsanos, the unit cost (without txed costs) of producing groundwater for Tampa Bay Water in early ff is f. per fff gallons; unit cost of surface water costs f.r per fff gallons; and the unit cost of water from the desalination plant costs per fff gallons. Ken Herd, as cited by Cynthia Barnett, Mirage: Florida and the Vanishing Water of the Eastern U.S. (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, ff, p. ; St. Johns River Water Management District, District Water Supply Plan Dra Fourth Addendum, Technical Publication SJff-D (Palatka, FL: St. Johns River Water Management District, ff, ). Tampa Bay Water, Master Water Plan Development Study Workshop: Demand
Land into WaterWater into Land Management Plan Update, April ff (presentation made before the Tampa Bay Water Board, copy provided to the author by Kristal Karatsanos of Tampa Bay Water). r. St. Johns River Water Management District, District Water Supply Plan Dra Fourth Addendum Technical Publication SJff-D (Palatka, Fla.: St. Johns River Water Management District, ff), Cynthia Barnett, Mirage, f. Honey Rand, Water Wars: A Story of People, Politics and Power (Philadelphia: Xlibris, ffb); Ayin Dedekorkut, Tampa Bay water wars: from conict to collaboration? in John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiel (eds.), Adaptive Governance and Water Conict (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, ff), b. Ralph C. Heath and Peter C. Smith, Water Resource Studies: Ground Water Re sources of Pinellas County, Florida (Tallahassee: Florida Geological Survey, ), bb. Honey Rand, Water Wars ffb; Ayin Dedekorkut Tampa Bay water wars, ff. b. Richard R. Marella, Water Use in Florida, and Trends (U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet ffr-frf, ffr), Table Craig Pittman, More trouble at Desal plant, St. Petersburg Times, March ff, A. Craig Pittman, Utilitys basin options dry up, reservoir options drying up, St. Petersburg Times, December ffr, B. Craig Pittman, To mend reservoir, tack on million, St. Petersburg Times, October ff, A. Ibid.; Craig Pittman, Water bills will rise to tx reservoir, St. Petersburg Times, June ff, A; Janet Zink, Water board okays repair, St. Petersburg Times, June ff, B. r. Craig Pittman, Water projects: money down the drain, St. Petersburg Times, June ff, B. Craig Pittman, Tampa Bay Water warned of million tne, St. Petersburg Times, April ff, B. bf. Craig Pittman, Harsh water rules averted, St. Petersburg Times February ff, B. b. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Water Shortage Order No. SWF -, b March ff (available on-line at http://www.swfwmd.state..us/rules/tles/ water_shortage_swff-f_mod.pdf). b. Nano Riley, Lake Apopka: From Natural Wonder to Unnatural Disaster, in Jack E. Davis and Raymond Arsenault (eds.), Paradise Lost? e Environmental History of Florida (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ff), rfb. bb. Martin E. Comas, Can ancient Roman cure save lakes? Orlando Sentinel, Feb ruary ff, B. b. Gordon Patterson, Raising cane and retning sugar: Florida Crystals and the fame of Fellsmere, Florida Historical Quarterly (): frr. b. Bill Belleville, River of Lakes: A Journey on the St. Johns River (Athens: University of Georgia Press, fff).
Florida Water Management Since b. Ramiro Berardo, ne East Central Florida Regional Water Supply Planning Initiative, in John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiel (eds.), Adaptive Governance and Water Conict (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, ff), pp. b. b. St. Johns River Water Management District, District Water Supply Plan : Technical Publication SJ(Palatka, Fla.: St. Johns River Water Management District, ff), ; Kevin Spear, Mighty river to ow from Seminole faucets, Orlando Senti nel January ff, B; Mary Jane Angelo, Richard C. Hamann and Christine A. Klein, Where did our water go? Give the law a chance, Orlando Sentinel, b September ffr, A; anonymous, Analysis of Hearing and Judges Ruling, St. Johns Riverkeeper (http:// www.mystjohnsriver.com/river_news.php accessed on February ff). br. Ludmilla Lelis, Seminole gets OK to pump from St. Johns, Orlando Sentinel April ff, A. b. Ayin Dedekorkut, Suwannee River Partnership: representation instead of regulation, in John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiel (eds.), Adaptive Governance and Water Conict (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, ff), b). f. Dedekorkut, Suwannee River Partnership, ff. Anonymous, U.S. EPA steps in to set Florida water quality standards, Environ mental News Service, January ff (available on line at http://www.ens-newswire. com/ens/janff/ff-f--f.as p last accessed on November ff). John Frank, EPA steps in on pollution, St. Petersburg Times, January ff, B. b. David Guest, ne tght to protect Florida waters, St. Petersburg Times No vember ff, Ab; Charles Bronson, ne tght to protect Florida waters, St. Petersburg Times November ff, Ab; Fred Hiers, State wants to set water quality standards, Ocala Star-Banner, October ff. Barney Bishop, as quoted in John Frank, EPA steps in on pollution, Br. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: (b) report and (d) list update (Tallahassee: FDEP Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Bureau of Watershed Management, October ffr), x. William D. Solecki, Paternalism. Pollution and protest in a company town, Political Geography (): f; Simon A. Andrew, Fenholloway River Evaluation Initiative: collaborative problem-solving within the permit system, in John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiel (eds.), Adaptive Governance and Water Conict (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, ff), f. Northwest Florida Water Management District, Issuance of a water shortage warning within the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Order No. f-ff (available on line at http://www.nwfwmd.state..us/shortage/order_f-ff.pdf last accessed on February ff). r. Jerey L. Jordan and Aaron T. Wolf (eds.), Interstate Water Allocation in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia: New Issues, New Methods, New Models (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ff); Steve Leitman, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin: tristate negotiations of a water allocation formula, in John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiel
Land into WaterWater into Land (eds.), Adaptive Governance and Water Conict (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, ff), rr. K. M. McCarthy, Apalachicola Bay (Sarasota, Fla.: Pineapple Press, ff); Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (http://www.-seafood.com/apalachicola.ht m). f. J. B. Ruhl, Equitable apportionment of ecosystem services: new water law for a new water age, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law (ffb): ; Drew Melville, Whiskey is for drinking recent water law developments in Florida, Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law (ffb): b; David Lewis Feldman, Barriers to adaptive management: lessons from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Compact, Society and Natural Resources (ffr): Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Judges Ruling Signals End to Tri-State Water Dispute, press release from July ff. Available at: http://www.dep. state..us/secretary/news/ff/f/f_fb.ht m (last accessed on July ff); United States District Court: Middle District of Florida (Judge Paul A. Magnuson). July ff. Memorandum and Order in Case No. b:f-md-f (PAM/JRK). pages. Cynthia Barnett, Mirage, b. N. Skene, ne growth that ate Florida St. Petersburg Times, April ff, P; Herman E. Daly, Beyond Growth: e Economics of Sustainable Development (Boston: Beacon Press, ); Douglas E. Booth, Hooked on Growth: Economics, Addictions and the Environment (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littleteld, ff). Craig Pittman and Matthew Waite, Is more growth the solution? St. Petersburg Times February ff, A. David Reed, as quoted in George Packer, ne Ponzi state: Floridas foreclosure disaster, New Yorker r (ff): rb. David A. Denslow, A shi to high-level jobs is crucial, Forum, e Magazine of the Florida Humanities Council bb() (ff): rf. George Packer, ne Ponzi state, r; Gary Mormino deserves much credit for suggesting to me the idea of Floridas growth resembling a Ponzi scheme. Indeed, he is cited in George Packers article, rb. r. Mike Schneider, More leave than come from other states, Lakeland Ledger, April ff, A. James norner, Population drop stops our streak, St. Petersburg Times, August ff, A; Je Ostrowski, Sunshine State losing luster? Palm Beach Post r August ff, A. f. Janet Zink, Crist grabs credit for cut, St. Petersburg Times October ff, B. Christopher F. Meindl, Toward a historical geography of Florida: assessing the consequences of massive population growth, Florida Geographer b (ff): r. Drew Harwell, Where the grass is always greener, St. Petersburg Times, March ff, A. b. ne Florida Council of ff, Improving Floridas Water Supply Management Structure (Tampa: Florida Council of ff, ffb).
Florida Water Management Since Ibid., f. Ibid., f. Dorothy Green, Managing Water: Avoiding Crisis in California (Berkeley: Univer sity of California Press, ff). Gary Mormino, Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams. r. ne Florida Council of ff, Improving Floridas Water, Ibid., f. Ibid. Greg C. Bruno, Key water tgure tried to allay fears: emotions remained high at the Florida water congress due to transfer concerns, Gainesville Sun, December ffb; Greg C. Bruno, Water proposal may have dried up: Gov. Bush suggests that water transfers will not be on this years agenda, Gainesville Sun, b January ff. Craig Pittman and Matthew Waite, St. Petersburg Times, February ff. b. Ibid. Mike Salerno and Catherine Dolinski, Laws impact on roads yet to be deter mined, Tampa Tribune, June ff. Diane Roberts, Develop, bulldoze, tll, pave; repeat, St. Petersburg Times, April ff, P. Jim Ash, Tallahassee Democrat, March ff. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, available at http://www.dep. state..us/lands/_forever.ht m last accessed on February ff. r. Adam B. Munson, Joseph J. Deltno, and Douglas A. Leeper, Determining minimum ows and levels: the Florida experience, Journal of the American Water Resources Association (ff): f; Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Statewide MFL Water Body Priority List (MS Excel Worksheet available at http://www. dep.state..us/water/waterpolicy/m.ht m last accessed on February ff. Adam B. Munson and Joseph J. Deltno, Minimum wet-season ows and levels in southwest Florida rivers, Journal of the American Water Resources Association b (ff): b; Cliord P. Neubauer, Greeneville B. Hall, Edgar F. Lowe, C. Price Robinson, Richard B. Hupalo, and Lawrence W. Keenan, Minimum ows and levels method of the St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida, USA, Environmental Management (ffr); f. rf. Craig Pittman, Utilities may add surcharge for big water users, St. Petersburg Times May ff, B. r. Gary R. Mormino, Land of Sunshine, State of Dreams. r. Mary Jane Angelo, Integrating water management and land use planning: uncovering the missing link in the protection of Floridas water resources? University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy (ff): b. rb. Florida Statutes, Chapter bb.. r. Craig Pittman, uneasy with clout over water, St. Petersburg Times, July ff, B. r. Mary Ellen Klas, Marc Caputo, and Alex Leary, Senate ready to talk taxes, St. Petersburg Times, March ff, B.
Land into WaterWater into Land r. Timothy S. Chapin, Charles E. Connerly, and Harrison T. Higgins (eds.), Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise (Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, ff). r. James C. Nicholas and Timothy S. Chapin, ne tscal theory and reality of growth management in Florida, in Timothy S. Chapin, Charles E. Connerly, and Harrison T. Higgins (eds.), Growth Management in Florida: Planning for Paradise, rr. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tapping New Sources: Meeting Water Supply Needs (Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ff). r. Richard R. Marella, Water Use in Florida, f. f. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tapping New Sources. Doug Stamm, e Springs of Florida nd ed. (Sarasota, Fla.: Pineapple Press, ffr), Ibid., b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Learning from the Drought: Annual Status Report on Regional Water Supply Planning (Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, ffr), Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tapping New Sources. Michael Grunwald, e Swamp (New York: Simon and Schuster, ff), bf. Don Wilhite, as cited in Cynthia Barnett, Mirage, R. David G. Pyne, Groundwater Recharge and Wells: A Guide to Aquifer Storage and Recovery (Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers, ); Eberhard Roeder, Aquifer Stor age and Recovery: Technology and Public Learning, in John T. Scholz and Bruce Stiel (eds.) Adaptive Governance and Water Conict (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, ff), f). r. Roeder, Aquifer Storage and Recovery, fr. Ibid., ff. National Research Council, Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: A Critique of the Pilot Projects and Related Plans for ASR in the Lake Okeechobee and West Hillsboro Areas (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, ff). f. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Learning from the Drought, ; personal conversation with Tom Swihart, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. f. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Learning from the Drought, fb. Ibid. f. Florida Department of Environmental Protection web sites accessed on March ff: http://www.dep.state..us/water/wastewater/fatcs.co m and http://www.dep.state. .us/water/reuse/index.ht m f. St. Johns River Water Management District, District Water Supply Plan (Dra th Addendum), r. f. Richard Marella, Water Use in Florida.
Florida Water Management Since f. St. Johns River Water Management District, District Water Supply Plan (Dra th Addendum), fr. South Florida Water Management District, Water Desalination Overview (available at https://mysfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=r,bfr,r_bff& _dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL last accessed on February ff). f. Craig Pittman, Counties clash over last cheap Fla. Water, St. Petersburg Times, f April ff, A; Nathan Crabtree, Rivers to quench a thirsty South, Gainesville Sun, r September ff; Kevin Spear, Whose thirst comes trst? Central Florida faces a tght with northeast Florida over St. Johns water, Orlando Sentinel December ff, A; Kevin Spear, Mighty river to ow from Seminole faucets, Orlando Sentinel, January ff, B. f. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tapping New Sources; Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Learning From the Drought. Charles Lee, as quoted in Dinah Voyles Pulver, Where should we go from here? One thing is for sure: we cant waste any more time in search for water solution, Daytona News-Journal, December ffr, A. Mary Jane Angelo, Richard C. Hamann, and Christine A. Klein, Orlando Sentinel b September ffr. b. Tampa Bay Water, Master Water Plan Development Study Workshop: Demand Management Plan Update, April ff (presentation made before the Tampa Bay Water Board, copy provided to the author by Kristal Karatsanos of Tampa Bay Water). ne Florida Council of ff, Improving Floridas Water Supply, Steve Patterson, Florida Times-Union, September ffr. Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, About the Commission (available at http://www.centurycommission.org/about.as p last accessed on February ff). Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, First Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature (Tallahassee: Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, ff); Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, Second Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature (Tallahassee: Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, ffr); Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, ird Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature (Tallahassee: Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, ff). r. Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, ird Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature, Ibid., f. Ibid., Craig Pittman, Water czar idea returns, St. Petersburg Times September ffr, B; Craig Pittman, State water czar idea dismissed, St. Petersburg Times, September ffr, Bb. ne Florida Senate Committee on Environmental Preservation and Conservation, Chapter F.S., Water Resources Interim Report ff(Tallahassee, September ff); Craig Pittman, State water czar idea resurfaces, St. Petersburg Times, b October ff, A.
Land into WaterWater into Land b. nomas E. Dahl, Wetlands Losses in the United States s to s (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, f); Gordon Patterson, e Mosquito Wars: A History of Mosquito Control in Florida (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ff). James A. Henry, Kenneth M. Porter and Jan Coyne, e Climate and Weather of Florida (Sarasota, Fla.: Pineapple Press, b). Ibid.; Morton D. Winsberg with the assistance of James J. OBrien, David. F. Zierden, and Melissa L. Grin, Florida Weather, nd ed. (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ffb). Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Learning from the Drought ffr, Southeast Regional Climate Center, annual precipitation data for Tampa Airport available at http://sercc.com/cgi-bin/sercc/cliMAIN.pl?frrr last accessed on February ff. r. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Learning from the Drought, Ibid., bf. Asjylyn Loder and Craig Pittman, Water Worries, St. Petersburg Times, November ffr, D; Elizabeth A. Stanton and Frank Ackerman, Florida and Climate Change: e Cost of Inaction (Tus University, Global Development and Environment Institute and Stockholm Environment InstituteUS Center: Medford, Mass., ff), pp.; Bates, Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. P. Palutikof (eds.), Climate Change and Water, Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Geneva: IPCC Secretariat, ffr), f pp. b. Bates et al., Climate Change and Water, b. Ibid., bb. Stanton and Ackerman, Florida and Climate Change, b. Ibid., r. b. Ibid., f and r. b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Learning from the Drought, b. Elizabeth D. Purdum, Florida Waters (Brooksville: Distributed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, ff), bb. br. Jessica Vander Velde, Andy Boyle, Robbyn Mitchell, and Kim Wilmath, Roads sink, close around Plant City, St. Petersburg Times, b January ff, B (quote from Bf); Craig Pittman and Jessica Vander Velde, bf of crops lost, sinkholes form, St. Petersburg Times, January ff, A; Kim Wilmath and Tom Marshall, Sinkhole closes school in Plant City, St. Petersburg Times, f January ff, B; Craig Pittman, Freeze costly for aquifer, St. Petersburg Times, January ff, B; Southwest Florida Water Management District, Regional Observation and Monitor-well Program, groundwater well number r, ROMP DVAvon Park, near Dover, Florida. b. Craig Pittman and Matthew Waite, Paving Paradise: Floridas Vanishing Wetlands and the Failure of No Net Loss (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ff); nomas E. Dahl, Floridas Wetlands: An Update on Status and Trends, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ff), rf pp.
Nelson M. Blake was Maxwell Distinguished Professor of History at Syracuse University and the author of many books including Water for the Cities: A History of the Urban Water Supply Problem in the United States and e Road to Reno: A History of Divorce in the United States. Christopher F. Meindl is associate professor of geography at the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, and a contributor to Paradise Lost? An Environmental History of Florida. Steven Noll is a senior lecturer at the University of Floridas department of history and coauthor of Ditch of Dreams: e Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Struggle for Floridas Future. David Tegeder is associate professor of history at Santa Fe College, Gainesville, Florida, and coauthor of Ditch of Dreams: e Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Struggle for Floridas Future.