Annual Cypress Seed Harvest--October 30th

mark your calendars

Green M&M's Party!

US Sugar Purchase: responding to the critics

Several newspapers and columnists have responded negatively to the land purchase that the Governing Board agreed on last week. So let's take the time to debunk some of their favorite myths:

I’m afraid you don’t understand the hydrology of the Everglades, the soil subsidence in the EEA that will prevent any natural connection between Lake O and the water conservation areas, and the need for more water storage

We understand the hydrology perfectly well. We have looked at contour maps, and the north-south profiles from Lake O to WCA-3. It is clear that even with the current subsidence, the possibility of gravity driven flow begins when the lake reaches ~13+ feet, the higher the Lake, the more gravity driven flow, and energy reduction. Florida Crystals has reached the same conclusion.

Even the SFWMD admits that this is so, in the course of the River of Grass workshop considerations.

That also is why the Corps of Engineers is considering a spill-way, down roughly this north-south path around the Miami and North New River Canal. Given current conditions of the dike, and an extreme wet condition that would take the Lake up to 18+ feet, and a possible breach of the dike, it is fairly obvious which direction the water would flow.

An ill-conceived conclusion that the water would not flow came from a look at an east-west transect, which does show a bowl of sorts. However the major objective remains south flow, not east-west flow. The hype that water won't flow from south to north under the aforementioned conditions is beyond science (BS)

Of course the reservoir isn’t the final solution and nobody says it is.

The National Research Council councils against engineered solutions, as usually they carry a lot of unforeseen consequences. As the EAA reservoir would have been a four-sided dam requiring a lot of pumping, and more unforeseen consequences, same as the dike around Lake O, it needed to be taken off the table as providing too few benefits, relative to cost.

Where do you get your water storage?

Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow, as described in CERP section 2.3.1

Everglades Scientists, Florida Crystals, and the ArtMarshall.org have all calculated that if there is enough treatment by restoration of vegetation in shallow flow-ways and STA's, there would be enough thru-put via flow to provide "dynamic storage", just as it worked in the historic Everglades.

The ArtMarshall.org is also pushing restoration of the pond apple forest as part of the solution. It appears that the pond apple forest played a major role in reducing nutrients as water flowed south.

I.e., this approach would have moved nearly 2 million acre feet south, the current estimated requirement to restore ENP and FL Bay, which would also provide relief of the estuaries.

Both the placement and acreage of the EAA Resvoir would likely have foreclosed this option.

John

B.S. Geology, UF '63, M.S. System Science, 72

John Arthur Marshall, Chairman of the Board,

Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.

www.ArtMarshall.org Declaring 2010 the Year of the Everglades!

EVERGLADES RESTORATION: Our Passion! Our Mission! Our Legacy!

Letter to the Editor: Orlando Sentinel

The following was sent to the Orlando Sentinel in response to Nancy Smith's article, U.S. Sugar Deal Diverts Money From Concrete Solutions. The quote below is from that article...

I asked Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, what she thought of Thursday’s unanimous vote. “I’m disappointed but not surprised,” she said. “I’m a great supporter of Everglades restoration, somebody who sponsored Everglades Forever. But this is the wrong land, wrong time, wrong price.
We should never have switched from building projects, from a reservoir that was nearly built that we had already put $300 million into, to buying land that brings us to a halt.

Most of the nay-sayers of the purchase parrot the EAA reservoir as if it would be the savior of the Everglades. In fact it was the second-worst component of a deficient plan, second on to the proposal for 330 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells in what was the historic Everglades.

ASR has faded into the background; the EAA reservoir is in need of the same course of action, with the realization that low-cost, low-risk, low tech approaches, such as a flow-way provide significantly greater benefit to cost, than high-tech, high-risk, high-cost applications that require pumping and concrete.

Operations and maintenance costs, for either of these components would have broken the bank, and both have significant water-quality problems with more expense to address, rather than the needed water treatment provided by restoring flow, re-vegetating, and restoring peat, fundamental processes's needed to restore the Everglades.

In the case of the EAA reservoir, the construction cost was ballooning from the $400 Million estimate to something approaching a billion dollars. The Title of Smith's article - U.S. Sugar deal diverts money from concrete solutions - does hold some truth. There would have been a lot of concrete plowed into this project, and of course there was no concrete or deep water storage in the historic Everglades.

Not only would the EAA Reservoir provide negative water quality attributes, but would provide little relief to the estuaries, because when bone-dry the EAA reservoir would lower Lake Okeechobee less than a foot. Few reservoir advocates have taken a look at the future scenario, with the reservoir being a source for back-pumping polluted farm water.

In a really wet storm event the reservoir would fill up same as Lake O; this would lead to no other option but to dump dirty water south, same as dumping dirty water east at west to the estuaries.

In fact the EAA reservoir would have displaced spatial extent of natural area needed for treatment and conveyance of clean water, as in a lose-lose-lose BIG-time loser situation.

The reservoir was an alternative solution owing to the lack of a willing seller of the lands needed to convey and treat water when the plan was formulated back in 1999 (The ArtMarshall.org was there protesting for more natural flow then, same as now)

All should be grateful that Governing Board Member Estenoz addressed the reservoir issue in the discussion of what to do, April 12.

Granted we all would like to have seen more land bought in the August 12 deal. However the Art Marshall view is that the SFWMD has reached the right reasons for suspending the reservoir and considering win-win options, with the option to purchase more land in the future, for the natural solution.

Whatever configuration is chosen to restore the missing link to revitalize the river of grass, the ArtMarshall.org has calculated economic benefits of 90 Billion dollars over the 40 year life-cycle of the plan.

The best of six solutions - with the most economic benefit - turned out to be the one with no deep water storage reservoirs. Wonder of all wonders, it was the Florida Crystals Corporation solution.

We would be happy to provide the basis for that calculation as well, for people willing to listen to serious analysis, rather than shoot from the hip.

Art Marshall, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and Johnny Jones, Everglades restoration luminaries past, had it right all along. For the Art Marshall approach, Semper Fi,

Respectfully submitted,

John
John Arthur Marshall, Chairman of the Board,
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.

Letter to the Editor: What About the Benefits?

Below is a draft letter to the editor, sent to the Palm Beach Post from the 2010 Marshall Foundation Summer Interns. As of 8/12/10 this had not been published.

U.S. Sugar Land Purchase

What About the Benefits?

Restoration of the historic Everglades is at a critical point. In a pending Florida Supreme Court appeal, litigants have argued against the purchase of the U.S. Sugar Corporation land on economic grounds. The newest version of the proposed land deal calls for buying 26,800 acres from U.S. Sugar that could be used to build reservoirs and treatment areas to restore water flows from Lake Okeechobee to the southern Everglades. The litigants’ main argument states that the high cost of the South Florida Water Management District issuing $200 million in bonds does not serve the “public good.” Litigants imply that restoring the land bought with bonds will cost still more and take away from other critical Everglades restoration projects. They suffer from what some call, “sticker shock.” Those critics have failed to consider the economic benefits that restoration will bring or claim that they are either intangible, or incalculable. However, there are objective, scientific methods of valuing the services provided to nature and society by restored ecosystems.

While the cost of buying the land is evident, the greater benefits provided by the land are less apparent. In order to assess these benefits, we have quantified the economic value of the services provided by ecosystems: flood protection, water supply, recreation, etc. We have used and modified the methodology for “valuing ecosystem services”, first quantified by a group of international economists and biologists in 1997 and recommended for application by the National Academy of Sciences. Without natural systems like the Everglades the cost to provide these services will burden the SFWMD and the public. Our point is that natural systems and restoration provide economic value.

Furthermore, in the decision-making process, we must recognize that the natural ecosystem has tangible economic value. We argue that it can be evaluated as an investment, and we calculated the return on the purchase of the U.S. Sugar land. Our assessment compared the co

sts to the ecological and economic benefits of the proposed plans for Everglades restoration. Costs include the purchase of land, building necessary reservoirs and storm water treatment areas, and ongoing operations and maintenance. Benefits include flood control, water regulation and the revitalization of the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, which have been severely damaged by harmful discharges from Lake Okeechobee.

Investment in any of the proposed restoration plans will result in a substantial return within 10 years and contribute up to $90 billion dollars to the economy over 40 years. What the investors and taxpayers need to remember is that restoration is not only a “feel good” environmental project, but also an economic investment with a huge return. With a benefit to cost ratio of at least 6 to 1 there is an astounding “sticker benefit” associated with the purchase and restoration of this land.

2010 Summer Interns: Angelique Giraud, Ed Pritchard, Dylan Scott, Adrienne Smith, Jim Wally

Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.

What about the Benefits?: The U.S. Sugar Corporation Land Purchase

Here is a paraphrased version of my public comment to the SFWMD Governing Board, delivered on August 11, 2010:

Chairmain Buermann: The written summary submitted for the record is the work of our Arthur R. Marshall Foundation Summer Interns, same that briefed you at the Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (GEER) Conference in July.

Economic conclusions remain: In the long run, whatever River of Grass configuration is chosen, the economic benefits approach 90 billion dollars over the 40 year life cycle of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). This results in a calculated benefit to cost ration of 6 to 1, maybe more, with an optimal approach.

What were the benefits as Art Marshall saw them, reading from the 1981 Marshall Plan:

There will be benefits to fresh and saltwater fisheries, to wildlife, and to water quality. These translate into increased public health and improved recreational experience, protein foods for Floridians and their visitors, and profit for the tourist industry and fisheries, both recreational and commercial. There will also be benefits - little recognized - arising from increased energy efficiency.

On the same page of the Marshall Plan, Marjory Stoneman Douglas addresses the cost question:

What about the costs? The cost of doing nothing in monumental.

As Art Marshall advocated, the only way to get this done is to buy some land...and increase the total spatial extent of natural area...the first stated goal of CERP!

Stupidity is forgivable, but ignorance is no excuse.

Buy the land, whatever's affordable. Then buy more land when it becomes affordable.

The cost of not doing it is monumental

(Following this public comment, Chairman Beurmann acknowledged the work of the 2010 Arthur R. Marshall Foundation Summer Interns with a thank you.)

Post Script: (1) All the nay-sayers and anit-establishmentarians are putting up roadblocks, so who is going to exercise leadership and tell us how it--CERP+, is going to be done?
(2) Art Marshall, Marjory Stoneman Douglas and Johnny Jones, had it right all along.

Respectfully Submitted,
John Arthur Marshall

The Best of the 2010 Summer Intern Program -slideshow

Another group of Champions to help restore the Everglades

A heartfelt 'thank you' to Jim, Angelique, Ed, Dylan and Adrienne. Best of luck in all that you do.