30
ments to take action in the form of numerous projects that are outlined in the preceding paragraphs. The plans were to ‘restore’ the damaged ecosystem by throwing
money at it, making the proposed effort one of the largest ecosystem restoration
projects in the world (Clark and Dalrymple 2003). But there were problems stemming from the fact much groundwork and research was required to find out exactly
how this unique oligotrophic wetland system functioned prior to settlement along
the coast that eventually crept landward into the wetlands.
The restoration effort was initially plagued by lack of organization in the many
multifaceted projects, and all the problems associated with that, and by researchers
clamoring for funds. Congress allocated the money but there was no clear vision of
what could or should be done in a logical, thoughtful, and temporal manner. The
result was an initial helter skelter approach with research being conducted in unconnected or less than purposeful manners. The goal of institutions was to get contracts
to do research and let someone else figure out if it was useful or not. That is to say,
the project lacked a philosophy; there was little in the way of vision and coordination. As time went on, many programs were developed and put forward but they
were disjointed and uncoupled. Great efforts were mounted to make the projects
appear to be successful and legions of papers and reports were produced proclaiming the success of the project.
Part of the problem is philosophical and it is relevant to go back to the beginning
to understand what the full nature and impact of the dying ecosystem would be (see
Kiker et al. 2001) and what it would mean not only to the nation and State of Florida,
but to the world as the Everglades was widely recognized as a unique environment,
the care of which was entrusted to the United States and the State of Florida. Lack
of oversight at all levels of government and the demand for more land by developers
allowed wetlands to be gobbled up and destroyed. In a word, there was no overarching vision or appreciation of the Florida Everglades to the point where it was recognized that this unique environment needed to be protected and not destroyed. The
history of how this coastal wetland was destroyed and remains impaired has been
recounted innumerable times (e.g., Blake 1980; Chimney and Goforth 2001;
Douglas 1947; Finkl 1994, 1995; Finkl and Charlier 2003a, b; Finkl and Kruempel
2005; Finkl and Krupa 2003; Finkl and Makowski 2013a, b; Gunderson and Light
2006; Gwin et al. 1999; Kiker et al. 2001; Light and Dineen 1994; Light et al. 1995;
Perry 2008; Sklar et al. 2005) and now there are many explanations of how it should
be put back together as a restoration process.
1.4.1 Lapis Philosophorium
Reviews of papers outlining the scope and objectives of the Everglades Restoration
Project suggest that there was no well-defined philosopher’s Rosetta stone that
showed the way to a logical and well-thought-out plan or approach to remediation.
There was recognition that something quite terrible had gone wrong in the multipronged management of this unique wetland, to the point that some observers might
C.W. Finkl and C. Makowski
ments to take action in the form of numerous projects that are outlined in the preceding paragraphs. The plans were to ‘restore’ the damaged ecosystem by throwing
money at it, making the proposed effort one of the largest ecosystem restoration
projects in the world (Clark and Dalrymple 2003). But there were problems stemming from the fact much groundwork and research was required to find out exactly
how this unique oligotrophic wetland system functioned prior to settlement along
the coast that eventually crept landward into the wetlands.
The restoration effort was initially plagued by lack of organization in the many
multifaceted projects, and all the problems associated with that, and by researchers
clamoring for funds. Congress allocated the money but there was no clear vision of
what could or should be done in a logical, thoughtful, and temporal manner. The
result was an initial helter skelter approach with research being conducted in unconnected or less than purposeful manners. The goal of institutions was to get contracts
to do research and let someone else figure out if it was useful or not. That is to say,
the project lacked a philosophy; there was little in the way of vision and coordination. As time went on, many programs were developed and put forward but they
were disjointed and uncoupled. Great efforts were mounted to make the projects
appear to be successful and legions of papers and reports were produced proclaiming the success of the project.
Part of the problem is philosophical and it is relevant to go back to the beginning
to understand what the full nature and impact of the dying ecosystem would be (see
Kiker et al. 2001) and what it would mean not only to the nation and State of Florida,
but to the world as the Everglades was widely recognized as a unique environment,
the care of which was entrusted to the United States and the State of Florida. Lack
of oversight at all levels of government and the demand for more land by developers
allowed wetlands to be gobbled up and destroyed. In a word, there was no overarching vision or appreciation of the Florida Everglades to the point where it was recognized that this unique environment needed to be protected and not destroyed. The
history of how this coastal wetland was destroyed and remains impaired has been
recounted innumerable times (e.g., Blake 1980; Chimney and Goforth 2001;
Douglas 1947; Finkl 1994, 1995; Finkl and Charlier 2003a, b; Finkl and Kruempel
2005; Finkl and Krupa 2003; Finkl and Makowski 2013a, b; Gunderson and Light
2006; Gwin et al. 1999; Kiker et al. 2001; Light and Dineen 1994; Light et al. 1995;
Perry 2008; Sklar et al. 2005) and now there are many explanations of how it should
be put back together as a restoration process.
1.4.1 Lapis Philosophorium
Reviews of papers outlining the scope and objectives of the Everglades Restoration
Project suggest that there was no well-defined philosopher’s Rosetta stone that
showed the way to a logical and well-thought-out plan or approach to remediation.
There was recognition that something quite terrible had gone wrong in the multipronged management of this unique wetland, to the point that some observers might
C.W. Finkl and C. Makowski