Front Cover
 Back Cover

Group Title: Circular
Title: A brief history of water management in the Everglades Agricultural Area
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00014486/00001
 Material Information
Title: A brief history of water management in the Everglades Agricultural Area
Series Title: Circular
Physical Description: 8 p. : maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Izuno, Forrest T
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1989
Subject: Water resources development -- Florida -- Everglades Region   ( lcsh )
Water-supply, Agricultural -- Florida -- Everglades Region   ( lcsh )
History -- Everglades Region (Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 8).
Statement of Responsibility: by F.T. Izuno.
General Note: Title from cover.
General Note: "June 1989."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00014486
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA6926
ltuf - AJZ4219
oclc - 30935002
alephbibnum - 001918656
 Related Items
Other version: Alternate version (PALMM)
PALMM Version

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Back Cover
        Page 9
        Page 10
Full Text


i q I 16l~
-Li "J

A Brief History of Water Management
in the Everglades Agricultural Area

F. T. Izuno

~arstOf SCAenice
L iv ar j

Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
John T. Woeste, Dean

Circular 815
June 1989

A Brief History of Water Management
in the
Everglades Agricultural Area

F. T. Izuno*

Recently, a great amount of attention has been
focused on the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)
in south Florida. The attention stems from concern
over the environmental health of Lake Okeechobee, KE OKEECH
the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs), and the
Everglades National Park (ENP). The first step
towards developing plans for the future manage- 5-4 BASIN HVER
ment of the EAA, WCAs, ENP, and Lake Okeecho- /
bee, is to understand and appreciate the past his- ---
tory of the area.
The purpose of this publication is to give a ,-3 BASIN S
brief accounting of how and why the present water BAIN
management scheme in south Florida was devel-
oped. The purpose, herein, is not to present an
exhaustive water history of the area, but rather to L-2 BASIN
generate an appreciation for the complexity of the S-7BASI
development of the area. For a more in-depth dis-
cussion of the EAA and water related topics, the L-
reader is referred to Izuno and Bottcher (1987).

General Background Information
The Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) (Fig-
ure 1) is contained in one of the largest contiguous
bodies of organic soil in the world (Jones, 1948).
By different accounts, it has been reported to en-
compass a total area ranging in size from 650,000
acres (Snyder, 1987) to 770,000 acres (Knecht,
1986). The EAA is only a small portion of the area
originally called the Everglades Region (4.8 million
acres) that included Lake Okeechobee to the north
and a major part of the Florida Peninsula to the
south (Jones, 1948) (Figure 2).
Growers in the EAA have built a thriving agri-
cultural industry with average annual cash receipts
of about 500 million dollars (Snyder, 1987), due for
the most part, to sugarcane and winter vegetables.
The agricultural industry is responsible for generat-
ing over 1.2 billion dollars worth of economic act-
ivity annually (SFWMD, 1985b). To maintain this
obvious productivity, water management is essen-
tial. During the wet season, adequate provisions for

Figure 1
Definition map of the Everglades Agricultural
Area (EAA) and its canals and drainage basins.

drainage are mandatory. Alternatively, during the
dry season, irrigation water must be available in
amounts sufficient for supplemental crop use.
Without the provisions for both irrigation and
drainage, at or near current levels, agriculture in
the EAA could cease to be one of the major in-
dustries in south Florida.
Historically, Lake Okeechobee has supplied the
EAA with approximately 438,000 acre-feet of water
annually (Florida Department of Administration,
1976). Returns to the Lake, through the process
called backpumping (pumping against the flow
direction that would occur naturally due to gravi-
ty), averaged over 480,000 acre-feet annually, prior
to implementation of the Interim Action Plan (IAP)
in 1983. This fact supports assertions, made by

*Assistant Professor, IFAS, Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL.




Figure 2
Location and extent of the Everglades Region.

many, that the EAA is a net supplier of water to
the Lake. Bear in mind that these figures are out-
dated since the IAP drastically changed South
Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD)
criteria for backpumping. Nonetheless, the figures
do point out that in an average year, the EAA
receives more water from rainfall than it needs to
sustain agriculture. The problem lies within the
fact that a large majority of that rain occurs in a
concentrated 5-month period. The EAA is con-
sidered to be an efficient user of water since the
basin is surrounded by water storage areas, does
not leak, and is devoted almost entirely to agricul-
ture (SFWMD, 1985a).
The natural flow of water through the EAA is
from north to south, caused by an almost imper-
ceptible land slope. To the north of the EAA is
Lake Okeechobee, the second largest freshwater
lake (second to Lake Michigan) wholly in the Uni-
ted States (Federico et al., 1981). The Lake serves
as the primary source of water for the EAA and
the urban communities of Okeechobee, Moore
Haven, Clewiston, South Bay, Belle Glade, and
Pahokee. It serves as a secondary source for the
Lower East Coast (LEC) including Palm Beach,
Broward, and Dade Counties, as well as Monroe
County, the ENP, and the-Fort-Myers area
(SFWMD, 1985a).(/dae Okeechobee-is considered
to be the most efficient water storage area in south
Florida in terms of minimizing losses to seepage

and evaporation. The Lake has a capacity of
3,221,000 acre-feet (more than 1 trillion gallons)
when operated according to the present regulation
schedule (SFWMD, 1985a). The long term strategy
for Lake management is to protect it environmen-
tally, as well as to ensure that there will be ade-
quate water for all south Florida interests.
To the south and east of the EAA lie the three
Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) (Figure 3).
These three areas encompass about 960,000 acres
c and were to be used, when created, for water con-
servation, water storage, and salt water intrusion
control. Additionally, they were to be managed in
such a way as to ensure the protection of wildlife
within their boundaries (Florida Department of Ad-
ministration, 1976).

Development of the EAA
Acquisition of the Land
The history of the drainage system and devel-
opment of south Florida must begin with Ponce de
Leon's quest for the fountain of youth (Smith,
1980). It was his search that first brought western
man into the Everglades. The Spanish, for the
most part, neglected the swampy interior except for
some exploratory travel. During Spain's 300 year
rule of the area, south Florida remained wet. In
1821, Spain deeded the land to the United States
for 5 million dollars: Florida gained statehood in
1845. At that time, Buckingham Smith was ap-
pointed to make the first inspection of the lower
Florida peninsula. He reported, in 1848, that the
Everglades could be reclaimed by digging canals
and deepening streams to the coasts. He also indi-
cated that it was his belief that if the land were
drained, a new agricultural industry would thrive.
Hence, the drainage of the Everglades began.
On September 28, 1850, the Federal Govern-
ment of the United States passed the Swamp and
Overflowed Lands Act which gave the State of
Florida approximately 20 million acres of land
(Jones, 1948; Knecht, 1986). Included in this parcel
of land were approximately 4.8 million acres which
became known as the Everglades Region (Figure
2), including the 2.8 million acre parcel which is
known today as the Everglades (Jones, 1948). Of
the original Everglades, approximately 700,000
acres are included within the present day EAA. In
January of 1851, the Florida Legislature passed an
Act to secure the lands.

Lake Okeechobee
One of the primary features of the parcel of
land was Lake Okeechobee. The Lake was origin-
ally named Lake Mayaimi (Bloodworth, 1959) from
the Caloosa Iridian word for big water. The Lake's

present name is a composite of the Seminole In-
dian words "oki" for water and "chubi" meaning big.
At a stage of 15.5 feet msl, the Lake covers an
area of about 725 square miles (464,000 acres)
(Jones, 1948). Prior to artificial drainage attempts
by man in south Florida, the Lake received drain-
age water from approximately 4,000 square miles
(2,560,000 acres) of watershed area (Federico et al.,
1981). Since the canal networks have been in-
stalled, approximately 600 square miles (384,000
acres) have been added to the Lake watershed
Prior to man induced drainage, the Lake stage
stood between 18 and 20 feet msl (Jones, 1948).
There was no well defined outlet and during high
stage, water would overflow the southern rim and
proceed slowly through the Everglades and nearby
swampland (referred to as a "river of grass" by
Marjory Stoneman Douglas) as a result of a very
slight north to south grade of about 2 to 3 inches
per mile. What was not evaporated or used by
native plants drained to the Gulf of Mexico or the
Atlantic Ocean.

Land Drainage and Development
On January 6, 1855, the State of Florida Legis-
lature passed an Act to create the Internal Im-
provement Fund of the State of Florida (Jones,
1948; Smith, 1980; Knecht, 1986). Simultaneously,
the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Fund (TIIF) was created and given the respon-
sibility of managing the land given to Florida
under the Federal Swamp and Overflowed Lands
Grant. The Board was made up of the Governor
and his cabinet and remains as such to date
The TIIF mission was to sell lands and use the
generated revenue to reclaim and improve them.
They were responsible for receiving and reviewing
applicants for canal and railroad projects. If the
TIIF determined that a project was desirable, the
applicant received State assistance. In addition,
companies received a 200 foot wide right of way
through State lands, plus alternate sections of land,
6 miles deep, on both sides of the railroad track. A
symbiotic relationship developed since railroad
companies had to drain land to lay their tracks. It
was envisioned that completed railroads and trans-
portation companies would encourage settlers to
enter the area.
By 1877, the Internal Improvement Fund was
bankrupt (Jones, 1948; Smith, 1980; Knecht, 1986).
To save the Fund, the Trustees had to find an
immediate buyer for a large parcel of land. A
search led them to Hamilton Disston of Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania. Together, they negotiated two
large land deals which became the foundation for
all future drainage efforts. In 1881, after lengthy
negotiations, Disston officially contracted to drain

land in return for one-half the acreage that he
could reclaim. The deal, however, fell through.
Subsequently, Governor William Bloxham per-
suaded Disston to purchase 4 million acres at 25
cents per acre. The first canal, between Lake Okee-
chobee and the Caloosahatchee River, was dug in
1883. Disston's was the first attempt to drain a
large land area as a single unit. With his new
lands, Disston developed a sizable sugar industry.
The TIIF had depended heavily on the railroad
company interests to raise money for reclaiming
the Everglades in the late 19th century. Wealthy
businessmen such as Disston, Plant, and Flagler
had virtual control of drainage projects because of
the TIIF dependence on their money. Development
was on-going, but in a haphazard, uncoordinated
manner, subject to the whims of the developers
(Smith, 1980).
In 1899, the United States Army Corps of En-
gineers (COE) began a survey of the Kissimmee-
Okeechobee-Caloosahatchee water system and the
effects of Disston's drainage project on the area
(Smith, 1980). The Corps of Engineers (COE) re-
commended to the United States Congress that
navigational improvements be made. The result of
this was the renewed involvement of governmental
agencies in the development of south Florida. This
involvement acknowledged that private developers
were not likely to lead the efforts towards a bal-
anced, well developed territory. Government and
public interests had now been drawn into the
water management process.
Under Governor Jennings, in office from 1901
to 1905, the present drainage program began
(Jones, 1948). Extensive land surveys were made to
re-evaluate the feasibility of reclaiming the Ever-
glades from an overall standpoint. Data on topo-
graphy, rainfall, watersheds, and soils were col-
Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, Flori-
da's 19th Governor, actively brought government
and public agencies into water management and
land development (Smith, 1980) in response to his
beliefs that the railroad industry was too dominant.
In 1905, the Board of Drainage Commissioners
was created to oversee the State-wide development
of land and the necessary water management. The
United States Supreme Court, however, decided
that such a Board was not authorized by the State
constitution. In 1907, an amendment was attached
to the Act that was to establish the Board of
Drainage Commissioners. The amendment created
an agency responsible solely for the Everglades and
the Act was passed. Its passage in May of 1907,
created the Everglades Drainage District (EDD)
and allowed the EDD to levy a 5 cents per acre
With the coordinated and active drainage plan
in effect, land ownership in the Everglades rose


from 12 in 1909 to 15,000 in 1911 (Jones, 1948).
Between 1909 and 1910, land prices jumped from
$2 to $15 per acre. The State Legislature enacted
laws levying acreage taxes on benefits, and author-
ized the EDD to issue bonds.
By 1912, it became apparent that the existing
canals, and those in the planning stages, would not
be sufficient to control Lake Okeechobee and drain
the lands. The Everglades Engineering Commission
was employed to undertake further detailed stud-
ies. They concluded: "The existing works and con-
ditions of land ownership and settlement seem now
to be such as necessitates an earnest effort to
reclaim in one continuous project and with the
greatest possible expedition, all lands south and
southeast of Lake Okeechobee between the Miami
Canal, the proposed West Palm Beach Canal, and
the eastern boundary of the Drainage District" (as
quoted in Jones, 1948). The commission recom-
mended the excavation of the St. Lucie Canal and
In 1913, the Florida Legislature passed the
General Drainage Act, included as Chapter 298 of
the Florida Statutes. The Act allowed individual
landowners to join together to form private drain-
age districts with the power to issue bonds, levy
taxes, and develop water management systems
within the EDD boundaries (Knecht, 1986).
The EDD began work in 1906 and by 1928 had
constructed 6 major canals with a total length of
over 400 miles. Included in these efforts were the
excavation of the West Palm Beach, Hillsboro,
North New River, and Miami Canals (Knecht,
1986) (Figure 1). The 18-year period between 1913
and 1931 saw the completion of 440 miles of can-
als, adding the Bolles and Cross Canals, construc-
tion of 47 miles of levees, 16 locks and dams, and
costing approximately 18 million dollars (Jones,
The Okeechobee Flood Control District was
created by the Florida Legislature in 1929. The
District was responsible for providing or obtaining
works and improvements necessary for flood con-
trol and navigation in Lake Okeechobee, the Caloo-
sahatchee River, and the Everglades (Jones, 1948).
In 1931, the Internal Improvement Fund, de-
rived from land sales, again went bankrupt and
defaulted on payments on mature bonds (Jones,
1948). This new financial dilemma was intensified
by the collapse of the land boom of 1925, the 1926
and 1928 hurricanes, and the generally poor
national economic situation. Consequently, all con-
struction work stopped and maintenance was defer-
In 1936, Federal Government policies changed
(Smith, 1980) as a result of the adoption of the
Flood Control Act of 1936. The Act maintained
that the Federal Government should improve, or
participate in the improvement of, waters for flood

control purposes if the populations in the sur-
rounding areas would suffer should the improve-
ments not be made. The Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) proceeded under United States Congres-
sional approval, to improve the Caloosahatchee
River and St. Lucie Canal in order to better con-
trol floods along Lake Okeechobee (Jones, 1948)
and to provide a channel from Ft. Myers to Stuart.
Maintenance of Lake Okeechobee stage and asso-
ciated works were under the control of the COE as
they are today.
In 1947, Everglades National Park (ENP) was
officially created (Florida Department of Admin-
istration, 1976), placing yet another supply demand
on Lake Okeechobee. The creation of the ENP
probably helped to raise the consciousness of the
public to the need for preserving natural Florida
habitats in spite of the push for economic devel-

Creation of the Central and Southern
Florida Flood Control District
On May 6, 1948, the 80th United States Con-
gress passed House Document 643 (Knecht, 1986).
Passage of the document officially adopted a com-
prehensive plan for flood control in south Florida.
The document launched the Southern Florida
Flood Control Project.
In response to federal actions, in 1949 the Flor-
ida Legislature passed Chapter 378 of the Florida
Statutes creating the Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control District (FCD) (Knecht, 1986) to be
the local sponsor of the project. The FCD's duties
included the responsibility for all rights of way,
operating and maintaining all project works, accept-
ing all potential liability for damages that could
occur under the plan, and contributing 15% of the
construction costs. The purposes of the project, and
hence the goals of the FCD, were to provide flood
protection, ensure adequate water supply, prevent
salt water intrusion along the Lower East Coast
(LEC), enhance the region's fish, wildlife, and
other environmental resources, and to provide
water supply to the ENP (SFWMD, 1985c).
These goals were admittedly "lofty and ambi-
tious" (Smith, 1980) and were in response to a
need for change brought on by population growth,
urbanization of inland areas, and increased
environmental awareness. However, the primary
goal of the FCD remained flood control. Naviga-
tional improvements that had once dominated the
need for canalization and development of the Ever-
glades, stemming from the dependence on busi-
nessmen and transportation companies for funding,
receded as needs for flood control came to the
The Central and Southern Flood Control Dis-
trict ushered in the modern era of Everglades


water management with its stated goals. The prim-
ary additions to the system under the tenure of the
FCD were the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs).
It was also under the FCD that the EAA was offi-
cially defined.
During the tenure of the FCD, the EAA was
completely canalized and diked. Three WCAs,
designated WCA 1, WCA 2, and WCA 3, were
developed and their use incorporated in the overall
water management plan (Florida Department of
Administration, 1976). These three areas are situ-
ated south and east of the EAA and encompass
about 960,000 acres (1,500 square miles) (Figure
3). The plan called for conservation and storage of
surplus water in the WCAs. Water in the WCAs
would then be used for supply recharge to the LEC
and the ENP, as well as a source of water to pre-
vent salt water intrusion in the well fields along
the LEC. Regulation of WCA 1, WCA 2, and WCA
3 began in 1961, 1962, and 1963, respectively.

Figure 3
Location of the three water conservation areas.

Water Conservation Area 1 was leased by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service for 50
years under the condition that they would manage
the wildlife within. The Florida Game and Fresh-
water Fish Commission agreed to manage wildlife
within WCAs 2 and 3. With an emphasis placed on
wildlife preservation to accompany the use of the

WCAs for water management, it was necessary to
prevent both over-draining and over-flooding of the
WCAs. Obviously, the environmental considerations
greatly constrained the use of the WCAs for water
management. Rather than serving as buffer zones
for the management of the EAA water system, the
WCAs became entities which required their own
specific environmental and stage management crite-
In addition to the formation of the WCAs to aid
in flood control, the water storage capacity of Lake
Okeechobee was increased. Runoff or drainage from
the EAA was to be routed to the Lake according to
the process described today as backpumping.
In 1971, the Governor's Conference on Water
Management in South Florida assembled leading
experts on resource management to examine the
south Florida situation (Florida Department of
Administration, 1976). The conference affirmed and
emphasized the importance of both conserving
water and protecting its quality.
A project to study the issues of Lake Okeechob-
ee eutrophication and water supply in south Flori-
da began in 1973. The project title was "The Spe-
cial Project to Prevent the Eutrophication of Lake
Okeechobee". Major findings of the project were:
1) The conservation and wise use of water is the
single most important priority in south Florida;
2) Rain should be retained as storage in wetlands
and the shallow aquifer to protect the quality of
the regional supply; 3) Wetlands should be
reflooded and maintained at higher stages;
4) Publicly owned lands in the EAA should be
flooded in the near future; 5) Improved farming
and ranching techniques should be employed to
assist in water conservation and its wise use;
6) The cessation of backpumping to Lake Okee-
chobee would greatly r-duce the present eutrophic
stress on the Lake; and 7) The recycling of drain-
age water within the EAA would be an effective
way to increase the water supply in south Florida.
The Conference emphasized that one of the two
primary goals governing inputs to the Lake should
be to ensure that only high quality water is back-

Creation of the South Florida Water
Management District
In 1972, the Florida Legislature passed the
Florida Water Resources Act, stating that it is to
the benefit of the public that water and water
related resources be conserved and protected (Til-
ley, Lynne, and Boggess, 1985). The Act listed a
diverse and comprehensive set of goals. Among
those goals were: 1) To provide for water and
related land management; 2) To promote the con-
servation, development, and proper use of both sur-

face and ground waters; 3) To develop and regulate
works to provide water storage for beneficial use;
4) To provide for the prevention of damage from
floods, soil erosion, and over-drainage; 5) To pro-
vide for the preservation of natural resources, fish,
and wildlife; 6) To promote development of recrea-
tional facilities; and 7) To promote health, safety,
and the general welfare of the people of Florida.
The Florida Water Resources Act was respon-
sible for the division of the State of Florida into 5
Water Management Districts whose boundaries
were based on historical watershed areas (Figure
4). One of those Districts created was the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD),
which was a reworked version of the Central and
Southern Flood Control District. Under the Act,
the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission,
consisting of the Governor and his Cabinet, was
given the power and duty to review, rescind, or
modify any of the District's policies, excepting only
those policies which dealt entirely with internal
management. In addition, the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation (FDER) assumed the
State-wide responsibility of supervising the Dis-




Figure 4
The five water management districts of Florida.

The SFWMD consists of a governing board
made up of 9 gubernatorial appointees who must
undergo Florida State Senate confirmation. Next in
the hierarchy is an Executive Director who oper-
ates with a staff of over 900 employees (Knecht,
1986). The SFWMD is authorized to: 1) Sue or be
sued; 2) Appoint or remove agents or employees;
3) Issue orders to implement and enforce the
Water Resources Act and regulations; 4) Survey
and investigate water resources within its bound-
aries; 5) Issue permits allowing people to make use
of SFWMD facilities; 6) Clean, straighten, or redir-

ect the course of any waterway; 7) Provide works
which the Governing Board deems appropriate to
fulfill the SFWMD's charge; 8) Condemn land
needed for rights of way; 9) Sell or lease land;
10) Replenish ground water; 11) Impose restric-
tions on one or more water uses; 12) Limit, appor-
tion, or rotate uses if necessary; 13) Declare water
shortages; and 14) Establish permit fees (Tilley,
Lynne, and Boggess, 1985). The SFWMD has act-
ively pursued all of its authorized activities, except
for the establishment of permit fees.
The SFWMD mission, as stated on the covers
of their public informational fact sheets (SFWMD,
1985b) is "to manage water and related resources
for the benefit of the public and in keeping with
the needs of the region". Listed as key elements of
the mission are protection and enhancement of the
environment, ensuring adequate water supply,
providing flood protection, and ensuring adequate
water quality. The SFWMD continues to say that
the mission is accomplished through "the combined
efforts of planning and research, operations and
maintenance, community and government relations,
land management, regulation, and construction". It
is obvious from the above, that the old Flood Con-
trol District, whose primary responsibility was flood
control in spite of a long list of charges, had
evolved into the well rounded SFWMD with wide
ranging and balanced goals.
The EAA lies entirely within the SFWMD
boundaries, and is therefore subject to all regula-
tions imposed by the District. Each individual
farm, landowner, or drainage district must have
both a surface water permit and a consumptive use
permit to operate legally. Growers in the EAA
depend on the SFWMD's judicial use of their broad
powers and on their careful examination of all
possible effects prior to their implementing man-
agement strategies.

The Current Dilemma
Recently, environmental interests in south Flor-
ida focused attention on the eutrophic state of Lake
Okeechobee and the changing environments in the
WCAs. In response, on August 26, 1985, Governor
Graham wrote to the Secretary of the FDER, Vic-
toria J. Tschinkel, requesting a study of the condi-
tions that could be affecting the water conserva-
tion, water quality, and biological characteristics of
Lake Okeechobee (Knecht, 1986). Secretary
Tschinkel responded on October 1, 1985, agreeing
to review and implement all feasible options to
reduce nutrient levels entering the Lake.
A part of the study objectives was directed at
evaluating the water quality and quantity of irriga-
tion and drainage water in the EAA. Secretary
Tschinkel agreed that the procedures being fol-
lowed by the SFWMD at the time were insufficient

to meet the established goals for reducing nutrient
levels entering the Lake from the EAA in back-
pumped waters. Secretary Tschinkel appointed the
Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee
(LOTAC), comprised of growers, State university
researchers, private and State engineering and
environmental group representatives, the COE, and
SFWMD personnel. The Committee was charged
with providing recommendations for short- and
long-term solutions to the Lake water quality and
quantity problems. The findings of the committee
appear to be the pervasive mechanisms that are
controlling the actions and thinking of water mana-
gers and researchers in the EAA today.

The physical development of the EAA was
discussed from an historical point of view. The
evolution of the area-wide water management goals
were also briefly outlined. The information inclu-
ded in the discussion is directed towards helping to
establish an appreciation for the magnitude of
efforts that went into the development of the pre-
sent day system. Additionally, an understanding of
the evolution of the water management system
structures and goals in the EAA will place present
day problems in perspective.


Bloodworth, B. E. 1959. Florida place names.
Ph. D. Thesis. University of Florida, Gaines-
ville. pp 259.

Douglas, M. S. 1947. The Everglades: River of
Grass. Mockingbird Books, Inc., St. Simons
Island, Georgia. pp 308.

Federico, A. C., K. G. Dickson, C. R. Kratzer, and
F. E. Davis. 1981. Lake Okeechobee water qual-
ity studies and eutrophication assessment.
South Florida Water Management District
Technical Publication No. 81-2. West Palm
Beach, Florida. pp 270. May.

Florida Department of Administration. 1976. Final
report on the special project to prevent eutrophi-
cation of Lake Okeechobee. pp 341. November.

Izuno, F. T. and A. B. Bottcher, eds. 1987. Com-
ponents of the EAA agricultural system that
relate to water quality in south Florida. Part 2
of Phase II Final Report submitted to the South
Florida Water Management District, West Palm
Beach. pp 390. November.

Jones, L. A. 1948. Soils, geology, and water control
in the Everglades Region. Agricultural Experi-
ment Station Bulletin No. 442. University of
Florida, Gainesville. pp 168. March.

Knecht, C. W. 1986. Elements of sugarcane produc-
tion: Water management. Notes from a short
course presented by the Everglades Research
and Education Center and the Palm Beach
County Cooperative Extension Service, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, Belle Glade. pp 9. May.

Smith, L. 1980. The challenge of water manage-
ment. South Florida Water Management Dis-
trict In Depth Report, Vol. 5(1). West Palm
Beach, Florida. pp 8. March.

Snyder, G. H., ed. 1987. Agricultural flooding of
organic soils. Bulletin No. 570. Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

South Florida Water Management District. 1985a.
Lake Okeechobee water supply management
plan. West Palm Beach, Florida. pp 80. July.

South Florida Water Management District. 1985b.
A closer look: Lake Okeechobee backpumping.
West Palm Beach, Florida. pp 8. October.

South Florida Water Management District. 1985c.
A closer look: Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control Project. West Palm Beach, Flor-
ida. pp 12. November.

Tilley, M., G. D. Lynne, and W. G. Boggess. 1985.
Florida water management district rules and
regulations: Consumptive use permits. Circular
No. S-317. Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.
pp 22. March.


^r c ''
i , r it I1~ ~,'E
I ,r I r f,
l!i i!.r ~rr II i i


lMAUSTOf: _PiR ,
\3t? 15~1si r ~ l I/pJ flpjp

0I gIt

nI 72 ff7 TI
iVY lb!!
YYY L 'i1 .

Director, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, publishes this information to further the purpose of the May 8 and June
30, 1914 Acts of Congress; and is authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that
function without regard to race, color, sex, handicap or national origin. Single copies of extension publications (excluding 4-H and youth publications)
are available free to Florida residents from county extension offices. Information on bulk rates or copies for out-of-state purchasers is available from
C.M. Hinton, Publications Distribution Center, IFAS Building 664, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. Before publicizing this publication,
editors should contact this address to determine availability. Printed 1/94.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs