Scientist: Everglades restoration may kill reefs in Florida Keys

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

jviehe

Contributor
Scuba Instructor
Messages
3,109
Reaction score
35
Location
Tallahassee, FL
# of dives
500 - 999
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/8027987.htm

HILARY ROXE

Associated Press


MIAMI - Efforts to clean up and restore the Everglades may end up hurting another state environmental landmark - coral reefs off the Florida Keys.

As the massive $8 billion Everglades restoration project increases the amount of water flowing into the bay, nitrogen in that water may kill coral, said Dr. Brian Lapointe, a scientist at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in Fort Pierce.

The restoration is designed to clean up water passing through the region, and return some of the historic water flow to the Florida Bay. Though the project will filter pollutants from the water, the focus is largely on phosphorus, which scientists say poses the most serious threat to the Everglades.

But Lapointe said nitrogen, which comes from farm runoff, sewage and other places, is another culprit. Nitrogen feeds algae, causing it to burgeon and compete with coral, he said. That type of plant growth also clouds up the clear water that corals prefer. He said there have already been examples of this phenomenon in the Keys.

Between 1996 and 1999, after an increase in the flow of water into the bay, 38 percent of the living coral in the Keys died off, a problem Lapointe credited to "nitrogen overloading." Other pollutants were clearly in that water, but Lapointe said nitrogen caused an explosion in algae blooms, which led to the reef's demise.

The Keys reefs began to recover when officials decreased the water flow into the region in 1998, Lapointe said.

But as the amount of water flowing into the bay increases through the Everglades restoration, so will the amount of nitrogen reaching the area, and Lapointe said the reefs will again be in danger.

Dr. David Rudnick, a senior scientist with the South Florida Water Management District, which helps coordinate the Everglades restoration effort, said researchers are still studying nitrogen's effects. Because the project concentrates on the Everglades, officials pay less attention to the marine environment, and therefore less attention to nitrogen.

"In the Everglades, phosphorus is so overwhelmingly important that the attention is paid to phosphorus ... There's no getting around phosphorus," he said.

If studies over the next two to three years find that nitrogen is damaging the bay, Rudnick said officials will change their plans.

"When we start manipulating an ecosystem of this scale ... there are going to be changes that are unpredictable, and that understanding of our limitations is built into the program," he said.

Rudnick said the filters that remove phosphorus from the water also screen out about 30 to 50 percent of the nitrogen. Even if water flowing through the region increases by that amount, the net effect will be even, he said.
 
I love it! This was obviously written by anti-environmentalists (more specifically anti-Everglades restorationists), despite the silver tongued caveat to reefs. These individuals are arguing that:

a: we can't clean up the everglades, 'cuz then all the human filth dumped in there would get out and destroy the reefs... MAYBE

b: we don't know what the effects of all this human-generated waste unnaturally trapped in the everglades will do to the local reefs, so we should spend some more money to study it and give the lawyers more time to kill the Everglades restoration.

This is a very common political tactic that uses science AGAINST itself, and it works wonders confusing the public. Lawyers introduce doubt into the scientific method (which is easy 'cuz the Method by design cannot PROVE ANYTHING), and then use obscure or unrelated science to counter it. Science and the U.S. legal system are not particularly compatible, to say the least, as it is impossible for science to "prove without a doubt".

Notice the article does not actually ask the opinions of the scientists from which it takes it's anti-everglades stance. Rather it selectively uses quotes on nutrient loading (which no scientist will dispute) from them to isolate the issue and twist it towards a no-cleanup stance.

If they actually DID ask opinions of these experts, you are going to get a near-unanimous response something like this...

"Yes, cleaning up the Everglades will cause some environmental damage to surrounding areas. It's a massive area, and it's been damaged by man for a very long time. But it's impossible to isolate, so we'll have to deal with impacts to adjacent areas as they arise. The alternative is to do nothing (as usual), which makes the problem even harder to deal with in the future. Local coral systems are already suffering severe damage from degrading water quality. Continuing use of the Everglades as a waste repository does nothing to curb or reduce nutrient emissions; it merely locks them away out of sight. By going forward with Everglades cleanup, you not only restore an ecosystem, but you also expose pollution sources that utilized this area. And with this exposure, true environmental cleanup can begin by nipping it in the bud, so to speak."
 
Lets look first at the root cause of this issue which is the building of the huge burm around the southern half of Lake Okeechobee to control run off. The over flow of that lake plus various other streams and rivers is what kept the natural flow of water through the Everglades that eventually made itself to FL Bay and down through our water tables and natural filters into the underground aquafers. The Army Corps of Engineers saw itself fit to recreate what nature in that way and by "straightening" rivers, streams, and creating drainage canals and IMHO has created a degrading sliding scale in terms of environmental quality. Its not irrepairable, it'll just take a good hurricane or two real close together to drive out or at least thing out the human impact that is continues to disrespect this eco system.

Further proof of the imact is the almost yearly red tides that we are now experiencing. This is something that was pretty rare in my growing up here, but in the last 10 years has become more and more common place. Red Tide is a red algae bloom that is spawned by high nitrogen levels in the water. But I doubt that increased fertilizer usage on grass that does not hold water and farm run off have anything to do with it, right?! :rolleyes:

As far as I am concerned the focus on Everglades restoration is unfounded since you cannot restore something you continue to pollute. Its like trying to clean the toilet while your sitting on it conducting "research".
 
This $10 billion package was craftily passed in an Omnibus legislation package that was presented during the aftermath of Sept 11 with a national focus on terroism, but with enouh "pork barrell" to feed every developer, large tract land owner, contractor and banker interested in real estate in Florida (my home state).

The Everglades Restoration Project is more about defining which lands can be developed, and doing so to limit further damage; this is real ambitious civil and environmental engineering. It is still speculation, on the grandest scale. Reverse engineering the levy and dam system the Army Corps of Engineers executed is indeed understandable, but naturalists would still fear further primary and secondary threats from this project and indeed, the common denominator: population explosion.

How to do this today without bruising the cattle ranchers (more than even Texas), citrus and sugar beet farmers, tourism, and, of course, the needs of current citizens for even more development (places to go, things to buy, roads, etc).... The politics of this state would intrigue you, too: wealthy Cuban/Amer. cement company owner chairs the state Democratic organization; the Bushes are pro-development; etc

Restoring the Everglades is a well chosen moniker because it appeals to and motivates the naturalists among all of us; "us" being the Federal tax payer.

So off we go to "restore" the damage done, and/or to build the next generation of developments with federal dollars doing the duty of "impact fees."

Henry Flagler and his Kenan successors (philantropists of Tarheel fame), the Rockefellers and other turn of the century developers were just ignorant and thoughtless of the environment. Their modern equivalents as mega-developers (St Johns Land Development, Arvida Corporation, etc) are all equally self-motivated ($$$), but today, have no excuse for the lack of consideration that human development has on such a precarious environment.

Population density and control is where the real focus should be. It is just not a profitable paradigm that can rally the real "players."
 
CBulla:
As far as I am concerned the focus on Everglades restoration is unfounded since you cannot restore something you continue to pollute. Its like trying to clean the toilet while your sitting on it conducting "research".

The list of regions "free from pollution" is a very short one, and comprised mostly of areas that never had pollution to begin with (ANWR for instance). I won't even bother describing all the "restored" wetlands I've been to that continue to suffer pollution effects, since I would be describing every single one. Restoration is usually done in areas suffering the worst environmental damage, not the other way around.

The heart of Everglades restoration in its current form involves releasing more water back into it. Ignoring all the political and commercial gobbledeegook associated with that, increasing water flows will better purge the system. Damming up natural waterways is almost ALWAYS a bad idea.

Most environmental laws that actually get through legislature are piggybacked by a slough of political garbage that environmentalists despise. It's something you have to deal with. The alternative is not having anything done, period.

There are idealist environmentalists, and there are practical environmentalists. The idealists do not get laws passed. Sad but true.
 
Archman,

We should be pragmatic I agree. What is the practical solution to the urge for high-rise condos on Islamorada, for instance? Small footprint, so go high, that's practical....not. The Keys should not be developed like Manhattan IMHO.

Let people visit the keys, then go home.

Full time habitation needs full scale development that stresses the ecology further. For eg., grocery stores, service sector/professionals, workers, schools and then more roads etc. But only a few will want to dive or know about reefs!

One of the goals of "restoring" the Everglades is indeed to allow more water to flow thru, but not just for Bambi, but to bring water to service the masses of humanity (present and future) in So. Fla and the Keys, instead of letting it out to the Atlantic, and to the sugar beet growers/refiners (huge water users). Huge and deep retaining walls (along I-95 corridor) are envisioned to keep the water table from ruining the last 100 yrs of development and to funnel the water south.

The water table will change up/down depending on flow; sounds like a sinkhole disaster. Many communities will have to do large scale surface storm water managment projects and other surface engineering to match the federal programs. Big changes are in store.... Current citizens may not be able to afford tax increases for local projects. For eg., my modest family are struggling with tax increases, and afforability of homeowners insurance after H'cane Andrew and 9/11.

Sorry to be cynical, but I am a realist and pragmatist and a taxpayer, as well as being eco-aware (Republican, too). Bush shouldn't dis Nader so.

The proposals add up to a huge subsidy for developers in a state where existing families are struggling in many ways that could use $10 B better. This is as wrong as federal coastal flood insurance, which enticed over-development by the wealthy.

Sorry if this isn't the soap box forum.
 
I thought this intelligent dialogue would interest readers of the Miami Herald.

I sent the thread to the op-ed editor.

I hope no one minds, and except for me, all others remain anonymous.

cc: Joe Oglesby at HeraldEd@herald.com
 
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/23/scotus.water.ap/index.html

It's mostly law-stuff and not very entertaining. I didn't know it warranted the U.S. Supreme Court, though. From what this blurb says, I gather that the court dumped the problem back in Florida's lap, for them to keep fighting over. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom