The Corps of Engineers' civil engineering and water management approach
to the Kissimmee River had the following
effects. The River was converted from a naturally meandering 105-mile long channel
to a straight, 56-mile long, man-made canal. Lowland and upland land uses and
drainage practices adjacent to the River were drastically altered. Discharge
characteristics of water flowing into Lake Okeechobee
were greatly modified. And other hydrologic conditions were severely changed,
resulting in numerous other adverse environmental alterations to the Kissimmee River ’s complex ecosystem.
Those negative effects included critical loss of biological resources and
degraded hydrologic regimes. About 30,000 of the original 35,000 acres of the
River's wetlands were drained, covered with spoil material dredged during
construction of the channel, or were directly converted to channel use. Ecological
consequences of those water management activities included diminished
floodplain diversity, reduction in waterfowl, raptor, and wading bird use of
the floodplain, diminution of riverine and wetland habitat for forage, and loss
of larger riverine fish species. And for what reason? So the land owned by
cattle ranchers would not be subject to seasonal flooding and could be
converted from "unproductive" wetlands to profitable grazing lots. Hey, the
ranchers wanted to get fatter and Congress, naturally, listened to their
demands for relief while eagerly awaiting ever larger injections of political
campaign contributions.
In summary, the subsequent modification or destruction of river and
floodplain interactions negatively affected the functional integrity of the
River, its floodplain, Lake Okeechobee, and the Everglades.
Other negative effects resulted from interruption of low flow that was
associated with a meandering river system included degraded water quality,
increased sedimentation, diminished habitat quality and diversity, and
disintegrated river biological communities. In short, it was a terrible mess no
matter how you looked at it; well, not if you were a blind-to-reality Corps or South Florida Water Management District engineer.
Okay, the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee
had been dealt what could have been death blows by the indifferent and
environmentally clueless Congress and their Corps of Engineer minions. What happened
to change that situation?
First, the very magnitude of the river channelization project and its
highly visible and highly negative aesthetic and environmental effects
immediately sparked widespread public outrage. Environmentally concerned people
got royally pissed off and began demanding that their politicians change things
back to the way they were. Although that movement was a grassroots effort it
was intense. Second, various State and national environmental organizations
quickly recognized the power of that emotional response, added their voices to
the outcry, and gradually shifted the focus of the nascent restoration movement
to objective, resource-based issues established by leading bio-scientists.
Immediately after the channel’s completion in 1971, activists such as
Arthur R. Marshall Jr.,[1] a
crusading U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist who with Archie Carr ranks as Florida 's best known and most revered professional
ecologist, and Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, one of the original founders and
First Lady of the Florida Florida environmentalism, was held along the banks of the
Kissimmee River . Guided by Marshall and
Douglas, the River's restoration became the Coalition's top priority and
organizing principle for many years.
The initial impetus of the environmental organizations included focusing
on the negative downstream effects of the River's channelization on Lake Okeechobee . Early proponents of restoration
maintained that river channelization was causing accelerated eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee by transporting sewage effluent (which
was being discharged into the River's headwater lakes), chemicals, and manure
from intensive agricultural and grazing land uses in the floodplain and
adjacent areas. Those factors resulted in elevated nutrient loads that were
flushed directly downstream into the Lake and from there into the Everglades National Park .
The third critical factor in the restoration effort was that Florida legislator Rob ert
"Bob" Graham became an extremely strong and well-placed supporter of restoring
the Kissimmee River to its former pristine
condition.[2] In
1976 he was one of several legislators pushing the State and the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) into studying ways in which the River could
be restored. But, in 1985, when the Corps of Engineers, which incidentally at
that time had never worked on a river or environmental restoration project,
reviewed the State's document, it concluded that although the SFWMD plan was
generally beneficial in terms of environmental concerns it would not contribute
to the country's economic development. Which made it a no-go with respect to
the Corps undoing its own horrific mistakes. Remember, the Kissimmee
After Graham's stint as a state legislator he was elected Florida Lake , in 1985 Governor Graham formed the Lake Okeechobee
Technical Advisory Committee (LOTAC). By the time he was elected to the U.S.
Senate in 1986 he had the political clout and savvy to sponsor federal
legislation that, when passed and signed into law, authorized the Corps to
engage in environmental projects. Which was a tremendous change in their modus
operandi.
Through the omnibus Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Congress
approved what was in essence the SFWMD plan to backfill 22 miles of what was
known as the C-38 canal and to demolish two of its six control structures in
order to restore 43 miles of the old meandering river channel and 27,000 acres
of wetlands. It was an attempt to partially re-form and re-create a mosaic of
wetland plant communities and intricate food webs that would support a diverse
group of waterfowl, wading birds, fish, and other wildlife in the complex
river/floodplain ecosystem. The restoration project was to be a joint
partnership between the SFWMD and the Corps of Engineers. The one critical congressional
constraint on restoration of the Kissimmee River
was that the project could not increase flood risks to anyone in the Basin.
That was a huge financial bone thrown to their agri-business powerbroker
supporters to make sure most of their grazing lands (which were and still are Kissimmee River wetlands stayed high and dry and
productive. So the agri-businesses could continue getting fat.
There's no doubt that the nearly $580 million Kissimmee River project
(with costs shared equally by Florida and the U.S. Government) is the most
ambitious river restoration effort ever attempted in the United States and
perhaps in the world. It's been so successful that Corps engineers were telling
everyone who will listen that they are using the Kissimmee
restoration as a model for the Everglades
restoration. Easy to say but very hard to do, especially if you are a Corps
civil engineer and don't know and don’t care about biological systems. As
perfect examples of that chuckleheaded thinking, Corps engineers wanted to "protect" and stabilize parts of Kissimmee
For those interested Readers, a number of
significant differences can be found between the Kissimmee
River and the Everglades Restoration Projects of which you should
be aware:
- The principal
- The principal
In a telling interview in 2002 with Washington
Post reporter Michael Grunwald, Lou Toth, whose official title was SFWMD's
Kissimmee River Restoration Project Manager, agreed that the Corps of
Engineers' CERP leaders had missed the point of the Kissimmee Everglades project will likely destroy more wetlands than
the entire Kissimmee Project will restore. "They're doing the opposite of what
we did," Toth said.[3]
Furthermore, for those of you Gentle Readers who do not enjoy having smoke
blown up your asses, here's something disturbing to think about. Scientists at
SFWMD claim in various publications that the Kissimmee
River . . . "restoration project will restore the ecological
integrity of the river-floodplain system by reconstructing the natural river
channel and reestablishing hydrologic processes."[4]
Another quote taken directly from the SFWMD’s official Kissimmee River
Restoration website stated: "The project is reestablishing the physical form of
the river with its historical water levels and flows, while ensuring existing
flood protection is maintained."[5]
But, both quotes have one small problem. Neither happens to be true.
What is consistent with the facts though is the tradition of Florida
And how do I know that? Louis Toth, the PhD in biology and Senior
Environmental Scientist and Project Manager of the Kissimmee River Restoration
Project, tells us in no uncertain terms that, because of the congressional
mandate, "The restoration project itself has one major constraint, and that is
a constraint to maintain existing levels of flood protection."[6]
Project Manager Toth states, with that restriction the project will only
re-flood areas that will benefit from the flooding but, "We cannot restore the
entire length of the channelized Kissimmee River .
In fact we're only restoring about half of the historic river’s length."
Let me ask my few but dedicated Readers a simple question: how do those statements square
with the official party line quoted above? How can historical water levels and
water flows be restored while at the same time existing levels of flood
protection are required by law to be maintained? Today's existing flood levels were
created in the 1960s and 1970s by the Corps's channelization and water management
techniques as applied to the Kissimmee River. It's not hard to see that those
two values (pre-development water levels and existing flood levels) are
directly and absolutely in opposition. You can do one or you can do the other.
But not both simultaneously on the same river. They are 180° apart. All I can
say is this situation is another wonderful example of governmental double-speak (a term that means LIES) and a perfect reason why people can not trust the existing organizations that
manage water projects in south Florida to tell the not always pleasant truth.
Implications
The Kissimmee River
restoration is a qualified and partial success that offers careful observers a
hard but simple lesson in reality. Any explanation of that success must
recognize that four separate elements quickly became inseparably linked and
worked together in an integrated effort.
- Public outrage over the destruction of a sensitive resource.
- Environmental organizations and highly respected scientists combined to demonstrate the factual basis of the public claims of ecosystem destruction.
- A powerful political champion pushed the State and Federal governments to restore the River.
- That champion was supported at the State and Federal levels by sympathetic colleagues.
However, it is important to be realistic about the long-term effects of
large-scale human use and alteration of sensitive areas. Once humans have
royally screwed up an ecosystem, it is for all practical purposes impossible to undo the damage
for a multitude of reasons: political, financial, cultural (including a lack of
will), and biogeophysical. A good rule of thumb is if an ecosystem has been
altered through human occupancy and use, it will remain in an altered state
even if valiant restoration efforts are made. In other words, don't believe anyone who
tells you that environmental restoration projects will restore an altered
ecosystem to its former state. That's true of the Kissimmee River, Lake
Okeechobee, Lake Apopka ,
the Big Cypress
Swamp , and the Everglades .
Reality can be harsh but facing the truth, no matter how bitter that process
may be, is the only way to go.
[1] A fact testifying to Art Marshall's importance in
Florida environmental issues is that his then cutting edge "total system view," which advocated treating the entire Everglades, from the upper Kissimmee Basin
in the north to Florida Bay in the south, as a single ecosystem, has emerged in
the last decade as the prevailing scientific approach for restoring the south
Florida ecosystem. At least among biologists and ecologists if not among the
civil engineers and water managers at the Corps of Engineers. For a brief Art
Marshall biography online, see the University
of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries Special
Collections
[2]
For the sake of brevity, I have not provided detailed information about the
many political inputs that affected the Kissimmee River
restoration. Interested readers should consult: Louis A. Toth, "Development of
the Kissimmee River Restoration Plan: Lessons Learned and Recommendations for
Comprehensive Restoration Projects." Toth's presentation was based on the
following paper that was published in Implementing
Integrated Environmental Management, John Cairns (ed.), May 1994:
Louis A. Toth and Nicholas G. Aumen "Integration of Multiple Issues in
Environmental Restoration and Resource Enhancement Projects in South Central
Florida." Online source: http://www.oas.org/usde/publications/Unit/oea74e/ch09.htm#Development%20of%20the%20Kissimmee%20River%20Restoration%20Plan:%20Lessons%20Learned%20and%20Recommendations%20for%20Comprehensive%20Restoration%20Projects.
[3] Source: Michael Grunwald, "An Environmental Reversal of Fortune — The Kissimmee’s Revival Could Provide Lessons for
Restoring the Everglades ," Washington Post, June 26, 2002.
[4] Source: Paul J. Whalen, Louis A. Toth, Joseph W.
Koebel, and Patricia K. Strayer, P.E., “Kissimmee River Restoration: A Case
Study:” http://www.riverfestival.com.au/2001/symposium_papers/STRAYERPatricia.asp
At the time of publication, all the authors worked at
the South Florida Water Management District.
[5]
Source: SFWMD's Kissimmee River Restoration project website: http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/erd/krr/
Sad to say, that web site is no longer and the replacement does no contain the
above quote.
[6] Source: http://www.floridaenvironment.com/programs/fe00731.htm;
Doubting Thomases should also read: Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 — Public Law
102-580, signed October 31, 1992 (106 Stat. 4797).
No comments:
Post a Comment