38
fact of human interference with one of Nature’s great triumphs in the form of a
river of grass as so elegantly described by Marjorie Stoneman Douglas 1947. With
this thought in mind, a serious reality check, it is perhaps worth considering the
value of what is being attempted under the aegis of federal direction. That is, the
expenditure of billions of dollars (Clark and Dalrymple 2003; Holl and Howarth
2000) to attempt something that cannot be done (restore the Everglades), for
Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again. The situation in the Everglades
is similar to so-called restoration of wetlands in coastal Louisiana where enormous
sums of money are spent in efforts to save barrier islands and deltaic wetlands that
have suffered environmental damage that can be traced back to human action (see
Finkl and Khalil 2005).
1.4.6 Degradation of Wetlands Versus Restoration Potentials
This discussion is not meant to be a diatribe or attack on what has been done so far
in the Everglades Restoration Project, but a call to common sense via a paradigm
shift. Billions of dollars have been spent so far with little to show for it as far as the
wellbeing of the wetlands are concerned. What needs to be prudently considered is
the balance between what should be done from a scientific point of view to help
clean up the Everglades; how to better organize, integrate, and organize so-called
restoration in a logical sequence; how to satisfy governments’ need for control and
assurance from positive public opinion; how to control governments’ desire to keep
research (educational) institutions and consultancies going by throwing money at
them in an effort to bolster local economies; and finally how to approach the real
causes of the problems that now plague this wetland, designated as a Wetland of
International Importance, an International Biosphere Reserve, and a World Heritage
Site in Danger. The Florida Everglades was first inscribed on the danger list
(UNESCO World Heritage Danger List) in 1993 because of the damage caused by
Hurricane Andrew the previous year, as well as a marked deterioration in water flow
and quality due to urban development and agriculture. It was removed from the list
in 2007, but degradation of the site has continued with water inflows reduced up to
60% and pollution reaching the point where the site is showing significant indications of eutrophication. The degradation has led to the loss of marine habitat and a
subsequent decline in marine species (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.
asp?NewsID=35490#.VyDLuCMrJAo), according to UNESCO. This endangered
ecosystem was placed back on the list in 2010.
Without realistic consideration of all options to make the Everglades a better
place, nothing will change. The status quo will win out, that is: researchers will be
funded, institutions will thrive on overhead costs, local economies will maintain or
grow, and totalitarian agriculture will continue to pollute and contaminate the river
of grass, estuaries, Florida Bay, the Florida Keys, and coral reefs.
That is one part of the puzzle that deserves fair adjudication, but the other part
that includes the proliferation of invasive species is in all likelihood an insurmountC.W. Finkl and C. Makowski
fact of human interference with one of Nature’s great triumphs in the form of a
river of grass as so elegantly described by Marjorie Stoneman Douglas 1947. With
this thought in mind, a serious reality check, it is perhaps worth considering the
value of what is being attempted under the aegis of federal direction. That is, the
expenditure of billions of dollars (Clark and Dalrymple 2003; Holl and Howarth
2000) to attempt something that cannot be done (restore the Everglades), for
Humpty Dumpty cannot be put back together again. The situation in the Everglades
is similar to so-called restoration of wetlands in coastal Louisiana where enormous
sums of money are spent in efforts to save barrier islands and deltaic wetlands that
have suffered environmental damage that can be traced back to human action (see
Finkl and Khalil 2005).
1.4.6 Degradation of Wetlands Versus Restoration Potentials
This discussion is not meant to be a diatribe or attack on what has been done so far
in the Everglades Restoration Project, but a call to common sense via a paradigm
shift. Billions of dollars have been spent so far with little to show for it as far as the
wellbeing of the wetlands are concerned. What needs to be prudently considered is
the balance between what should be done from a scientific point of view to help
clean up the Everglades; how to better organize, integrate, and organize so-called
restoration in a logical sequence; how to satisfy governments’ need for control and
assurance from positive public opinion; how to control governments’ desire to keep
research (educational) institutions and consultancies going by throwing money at
them in an effort to bolster local economies; and finally how to approach the real
causes of the problems that now plague this wetland, designated as a Wetland of
International Importance, an International Biosphere Reserve, and a World Heritage
Site in Danger. The Florida Everglades was first inscribed on the danger list
(UNESCO World Heritage Danger List) in 1993 because of the damage caused by
Hurricane Andrew the previous year, as well as a marked deterioration in water flow
and quality due to urban development and agriculture. It was removed from the list
in 2007, but degradation of the site has continued with water inflows reduced up to
60% and pollution reaching the point where the site is showing significant indications of eutrophication. The degradation has led to the loss of marine habitat and a
subsequent decline in marine species (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.
asp?NewsID=35490#.VyDLuCMrJAo), according to UNESCO. This endangered
ecosystem was placed back on the list in 2010.
Without realistic consideration of all options to make the Everglades a better
place, nothing will change. The status quo will win out, that is: researchers will be
funded, institutions will thrive on overhead costs, local economies will maintain or
grow, and totalitarian agriculture will continue to pollute and contaminate the river
of grass, estuaries, Florida Bay, the Florida Keys, and coral reefs.
That is one part of the puzzle that deserves fair adjudication, but the other part
that includes the proliferation of invasive species is in all likelihood an insurmountC.W. Finkl and C. Makowski