31
say that so-called environmental management here was and remains rather grotesque. Initially, in the later 1800s and early 1900s, the Everglades was viewed as
something that impeded development and it therefore had to be eliminated by
dredge and drain policies so that it could be used for urban development (see Finkl
1995; Finkl and Makowski 2013a, b). The philosophy of the time was based on
what land developers viewed as potential building space that could make use of
then-perceived useless swampland. There was money to be made by draining the
wetlands and this philosophy became governmental policy that not only supported
but also financed land drainage.
The policy of land drainage for urban and agricultural development continued
more or less unabated until the advent of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas’ book The
Everglades: River of Grass (1947). Her book brought a new philosophy that redefined
the popular conception of the Everglades as a worthless swamp to an appreciation of
a treasured river of grass. The impact of her work cannot be overstated as she opened
the eyes of many people, whose new philosophy demanded care, concern, and protection of this subtropical wetland. The impact of Douglas’ book rests in a public perception of a coastal wetland environment that was degraded or destroyed by human
action, the result of which has been compared to that of Rachel Carson’s influential
book Silent Spring 1962. Public awareness of the uniqueness of the Florida Everglades
ecosystem eventually filtered up to the political realm causing the government to act.
The philosopher’s Rosetta stone in this case arose from the foresight of a woman
who changed public perception of useless swampland to realization of the value of
environmental awareness. But, as this new philosophical outlook for the Everglades
began to take hold, new vocabularies began to spring up as researchers and politicians grappled with problem of lost wetlands and what to do with those that
remained in a damaged condition. For the half or so of the Everglades that was lost
to development, there was nothing to do. It was too late. Those wetlands are lost
forever. The state or condition of the remainder required some sort of sensible management and new environmental principles and practices were invoked in efforts to
put things right. A new view or philosophy for the Everglades was needed and this
is where projects were proposed and eventually implemented (e.g., Central and
Southern Florida (C&SF) Project, Kissimmee River Restoration Project, Everglades
Construction Project (ECP), Modified Water Deliveries Project (Mod Waters),
Everglades Nutrient Removal Project (ENRP), South Florida Multi-Species
Recovery Plan (MSRP), Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), and
Florida Everglades Forever Act (FEFA). The problem with projects is that they tend
to stifle visions because they are goal oriented and become politicized over time by
those who control the purse strings. And when projects become political they tend
to lose their logical (scientific) foundation, philosophy, or vision as conditioned by
the economics of perceived costs and benefits. Very much related to visions of what
should be done to put the Everglades right again are environmental theories and
ideas as to what should be done, how it should or could be accomplished, and by
what means. The term most commonly used in this context is ‘restoration’ but there
are many pitfalls in the application of this concept that affect visions of the
Everglade’s future.
1 The Florida Everglades: An Overview of Alteration and Restoration
say that so-called environmental management here was and remains rather grotesque. Initially, in the later 1800s and early 1900s, the Everglades was viewed as
something that impeded development and it therefore had to be eliminated by
dredge and drain policies so that it could be used for urban development (see Finkl
1995; Finkl and Makowski 2013a, b). The philosophy of the time was based on
what land developers viewed as potential building space that could make use of
then-perceived useless swampland. There was money to be made by draining the
wetlands and this philosophy became governmental policy that not only supported
but also financed land drainage.
The policy of land drainage for urban and agricultural development continued
more or less unabated until the advent of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas’ book The
Everglades: River of Grass (1947). Her book brought a new philosophy that redefined
the popular conception of the Everglades as a worthless swamp to an appreciation of
a treasured river of grass. The impact of her work cannot be overstated as she opened
the eyes of many people, whose new philosophy demanded care, concern, and protection of this subtropical wetland. The impact of Douglas’ book rests in a public perception of a coastal wetland environment that was degraded or destroyed by human
action, the result of which has been compared to that of Rachel Carson’s influential
book Silent Spring 1962. Public awareness of the uniqueness of the Florida Everglades
ecosystem eventually filtered up to the political realm causing the government to act.
The philosopher’s Rosetta stone in this case arose from the foresight of a woman
who changed public perception of useless swampland to realization of the value of
environmental awareness. But, as this new philosophical outlook for the Everglades
began to take hold, new vocabularies began to spring up as researchers and politicians grappled with problem of lost wetlands and what to do with those that
remained in a damaged condition. For the half or so of the Everglades that was lost
to development, there was nothing to do. It was too late. Those wetlands are lost
forever. The state or condition of the remainder required some sort of sensible management and new environmental principles and practices were invoked in efforts to
put things right. A new view or philosophy for the Everglades was needed and this
is where projects were proposed and eventually implemented (e.g., Central and
Southern Florida (C&SF) Project, Kissimmee River Restoration Project, Everglades
Construction Project (ECP), Modified Water Deliveries Project (Mod Waters),
Everglades Nutrient Removal Project (ENRP), South Florida Multi-Species
Recovery Plan (MSRP), Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), and
Florida Everglades Forever Act (FEFA). The problem with projects is that they tend
to stifle visions because they are goal oriented and become politicized over time by
those who control the purse strings. And when projects become political they tend
to lose their logical (scientific) foundation, philosophy, or vision as conditioned by
the economics of perceived costs and benefits. Very much related to visions of what
should be done to put the Everglades right again are environmental theories and
ideas as to what should be done, how it should or could be accomplished, and by
what means. The term most commonly used in this context is ‘restoration’ but there
are many pitfalls in the application of this concept that affect visions of the
Everglade’s future.
1 The Florida Everglades: An Overview of Alteration and Restoration