Human–environment interactions in South Florida's …cescos.fau.edu/gawliklab/papers/Soleckietal1999.pdf · 2006-12-19 · degradation and restoration at the ... nents: interaction

Urban Ecosystems, 3, 305–343, 1999c© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Human–environment interactions in South Florida’sEverglades region: Systems of ecologicaldegradation and restoration

WILLIAM D. SOLECKI ∗Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, 350 Mallory Hall, Upper Montclair,NJ 07043, USA

JOHN LONGPopulation Division, Bureau of Census, Washington DC 20233, USA

CHRISTINE C. HARWELL† and VICTORIA MYERS∗∗Center for Marine and Environmental Analyses, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Universityof Miami, Miami, FL 33149, USA

EZRA ZUBROWDepartment of Anthropology, SUNY Buffalo, 380 Millard Fillmore, Ellicott Complex, Buffalo, NY 14261, USA

with

TOM ANKERSENUniversity of Florida, School of Law, Center for Government Responsibility, 230 Bruton Gear, Gainesville,FL 32611, USA

CHRISTOPHER DERENEverglades Research and Education Center, P.O. Box 8003, Belle Glades, FL 33430, USA

CAMILLE FEANNY ‡

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149, USA

RICHARD HAMANNUniversity of Florida, School of Law, Center for Government Responsibility, 230 Bruton Gear, Gainesville,FL 32611, USA

LEWIS HORNUNGU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019, USA

CELESTE MURPHY¶

Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33149, USA

GEORGE SNYDEREverglades Research and Education Center, P.O. Box 8003, Belle Glades, FL 33430, USA

∗To whom correspondence should be addressed.†Current address: Harwell Gentile & Associates LC, Coconut Grove, FL 33133.∗∗Current address: World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington, DC 20037-1175.‡Current address: CNN Environment Unit, 1 CCN Center, NW, Atlanta, GA 30303-2762.¶Current address: Florida Gulf Coast University, 10501 FGCU Boulevard South, Ft. Myers, FL 33965-6565.

306 SOLECKI ET AL.

Abstract. This chapter examines the societal drivers of environmental change in South Florida’s Everglades re-gion during the past 150 years. This historical geography is developed through the use of a conceptual frameworkconstructed to facilitate the analysis of human–environment interactions and nature–society systems of ecologicaldegradation and restoration at the regional scale. The framework is composed of four basic interlinked compo-nents: interaction mechanisms (e.g., land use, direct resource utilization, pollution and external inputs, resourcecompetition), feedback mechanisms (e.g., basic needs, quality of life, environmental ethics), control systems (e.g.,governmental regimes, legal institutions, resource management), and the societal context (e.g., population anddemographic patterns, social structure and organization, technology, economic conditions, societal values). Aprimary objective of this chapter is to determine the presence and importance of each of these components duringthe process of environmental change over the period of study—1845 to 1995.

Data for the analysis are drawn from primary and secondary sources on the environmental, social, economic,and political history of South Florida. The results indicate that although elements of each component were presentthroughout the entire period, different elements of each component play more significant roles at differing mo-ments. The shifts in importance are used to define four periods of environmental change within the region. Theperiods are the following: (1) frontier settlement (1845–1900), focused on basic needs acquisition and direct uti-lization of the resource base; (2) drainage and land conversion (1900–1930), focused on population and economicgrowth, land use change, and increased resource management and competition; (3) flood control and consolidation(1930–1950), focused on inputs from external sources and infusion of advanced technology, the development ofgovernance and social structures, and increased concern for quality of life; (4) postwar boom, flood control, andwater supply (1950–1970), focused on accelerated land use change, increased pollution, and further heightenedconcern for local quality of life; and (5) period of limits (1970–1995), focused on pollution and resource com-petition concerns, a developing regional environmental ethic and amenity values, and environmental preservationgovernance strategies.

Taken together, the five periods represent the differing nature–society systems through which South Florida’sregional ecosystem was degraded and which is now entering a phase of restoration.

Keywords: predrainage Everglades, geologic and climatic process, regional hydrology, natural disturbances

Introduction

Although humans have inhabited South Florida for millennia, the population densities andbasic subsistence life styles of the indigenous peoples had minimal effect on the dynamics ofthe natural system. The narrow coastal zone, an area preferable for settlement, was separatedtopographically from the natural Everglades by the almost imperceptible Atlantic CoastalRidge that divided the coastal and Everglades watersheds. The Everglades were impracticalfor most human uses, as they were regularly subjected to flooding and fires, had too manymosquitoes, and would have required extensive drainage.

From 1900 forward, the opening up of eastern South Florida by the construction of thecoastal railroad and the initiation of major drainage activities led to a rapid increase in themanipulation of the South Florida ecosystem by human activities. Population settlement,hydrological reengineering, land conversion, agricultural expansion, and the burgeoningeconomic activities of South Florida were to transform much of the Everglades ecosystem.

Beginning in 1900, South Florida underwent one of the fastest sustained populationgrowth spurts of any part of the U.S. in history, increasing an average of over 100% perdecade for the next six decades. In the process, roughly half the land was transformed toagricultural and urban uses. Simultaneously, the hydrological system in South Florida wasaltered by a series of water management features diverting much of the water that previouslyhad gone into the natural system for the human system through a network of canals, levees,

HUMAN–ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS 307

and retaining ponds. In the process, the Everglades were transformed from a natural systeminto one that would be human dominated.

This chapter introduces a conceptual framework of societal–ecological interactions. Theobjective of the framework is to facilitate analysis of the process of environmental change ina regional setting. Once introduced, the framework is then applied to a historical geographyof ecological degradation and restoration in South Florida. General conclusions and notesfor refinement of the framework and the account are presented.

Conceptual framework for societal–ecological interaction

To analyze the societal–ecological linkages in the South Florida/Everglades system requiresa paradigm that facilitates the explanation of environmental change in a local ecosystemdominated by the human societal system (Keyfitz, 1994; Pickett, 1993). Traditional biologi-cally based views of the ecosystem have been one-sided, viewing the ecosystem in isolationfrom human influences (Batisse, 1986). For example, in South Florida, the ecological sus-tainability goals for the Everglades National Park were formulated to achieve the mostnatural condition, protecting and sustaining critical ecological structures and processes thatconstitute the essence of the Everglades, without primary regard to effects and implicationsfor the human sector.

When human society is considered in these biological approaches, it is often within thecontext of the Malthusian view of population and resources. Under this view, the naturalsystem has a certain carrying capacity. Population pressure on fixed natural resources isviewed as a major cause of environmental degradation. A leading formulation of this ap-proach views society’s adverse impacts on the environment as a function of population,affluence, and technology (Ehrlichet al., 1977). Following a strict interpretation of this per-spective, any increase in population, rise in standard of living, or advancement in technologyhas negative effects on the environment.

Many social scientists tend to reject the basic tenets of this view. After long and frustratingattempts at determining “optimal population size” during the 19th century, social scientistsare particularly wary of a notion of “carrying capacity ” for the human population. Somescholars view population growth as a positive factor in economic development (Simon,1981) or at least as an impetus for innovation and technological development (Boserup,1981). Although most social scientists accept the general principles of neoclassical eco-nomics that a market economy can substitute alternatives for natural resource scarcity causedby increased population demand, they recognize that population growth may have substan-tial negative effects on the environment since many factors may prevent the market fromoperating efficiently (Bilsborrow, 1992; Jolly, 1994). Current market mechanisms may notprice resources efficiently to allow for the needs of future generations (Repetto, 1987). Forother social scientists, the importance of institutional, social, political, and cultural factorsoverwhelm both natural resource and market issues in determining the real effects of humansociety on the environment (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Murdoch, 1980).

The emphasis of most of the social–ecological paradigms on the global or national scalemakes them largely unsuitable for regional studies. Such a broad-scale approach makesresearch hypotheses hard to formulate and leads to ignoring factors such as the geographic

308 SOLECKI ET AL.

and social distribution of population and economic resources and their environmental im-plications. An emphasis on Biosphere Reserves and their surroundings requires local andregional rather than global approaches. With the exception of some descriptive studies doneby anthropological human ecologists and political ecologists, local approaches are espe-cially underrepresented in social/environmental research, and this notable lack has led torecent exhortations to “think globally and research locally” (Hogan, 1992).

Traditional societal–ecological paradigms are limited with respect to the needs of thisproject. First, they are basically anthropocentric, i.e., concerned with the effects of en-vironmental degradation on the societal sphere. Most focus primarily on the subsistenceagriculture sector and on such human concerns as the degradation of agricultural land,deforestation, and water usage. Each of these concerns is treated in terms of their effectson humans (e.g., human health, or agricultural and labor productivity) and not in terms oftheir effects on the natural systemper se. Even the more recent environmentally sensitiveliterature has been couched in the language of “sustainable development”—still a human-centered approach that views management of the environment as a means to continuingdevelopment of the social/economic system (Archibugi and Ninjkamp, 1989; Clark andMunn, 1986; Costanza, 1991). Since the focus of this project is on the sustainability ofthe natural system in the context of a human-dominated system, a model that treats bothhuman and ecological sustainability is needed. Such a combination is particularly necessaryin the “human-dominated system” that has an urban center close to a Biosphere Reserve.Consequently, we have adopted a dual approach that provides for overlap between the urbanand ecological systems.

Many discussions within the U.S. Man and the Biosphere (US MAB) project challengedthe specific disciplinary paradigms, rejected narrow technical issues within given fields,and substituted a generic framework that permits a true interdisciplinary approach to eachtopic. The resulting general framework provides a checklist for the important factors tobe addressed in each research project, although it does not provide a specific analyticalmodel (most of which require the acceptance of specific disciplinary paradigms). It alsoshould be noted that the framework was specifically developed for the understanding ofthe South Florida/Everglades system and should not be seen as a general framework (e.g.,those produced by Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Burch, 1988; or Gundersonet al., 1995)that could be transferred easily to other sites. (Note: For a fuller discussion of the specificityand limitation of the proposed framework, see C. Harwellet al., this volume.)

The analytical framework proposed owes a considerable intellectual heritage to ecol-ogists from both the sociological and biological disciplines (e.g., Hawley, 1950; Odum,1973), but with a sufficiently broad scope to permit inclusion of other concepts that maynot be incorporated in human ecological models. This framework includes both natural andsocial orientations by expanding upon early human ecologists’ paradigms such as Duncan’s(1959) emphasis on population, organization, environment, and technology. The proposedframework (figure 1) views the interactions between the human population and the naturalsystem as mutual. In one direction, the human system affects the natural system throughvarious interaction mechanisms. In the reverse direction, we have identified feedback ef-fects by which the natural environment supports, similar to Odum’s concept of “nature’ssubsidies,” and benefits the societal sector. The societal sector can be divided into a socialcontext module and a control module that includes institutions that regulate the interactionof the human sector and the natural sector.


Figure 1. Framework of human–environment interaction.

Interaction mechanisms

The human system can affect the natural system through one of four interaction mechanisms:land use, direct utilization, external inputs, and resource competition (figure 2). Each of thesemechanisms has its own characteristics in terms of permanence, reversibility, and breadthof effect.

Land useConversion of land from its natural state to human uses is the most permanent and oftenirreversible effect that humans can have on the natural landscape (Jolly and Torrey, 1993).Once land has been converted from its natural state to either agricultural or urban uses, it hasbeen essentially removed as a habitat for most species except those specifically cultivatedor nurtured by humans or those that can adapt to the radically altered environment attendantwith human settlement. The radical alteration of the landscape leads to a markedly differenthuman-dominated environment. The process of transformation from natural to agriculturalto urban (and occasionally in the reverse direction) provides an important part of the analysisof societal–ecological interactions.

These transformations are particularly important within the context of Biosphere Re-serves (Walkeret al., 1996). The very creation of the Biosphere Reserve requires someaccommodation in decisions about land use for human and natural sectors. For example,the creation of the Everglades National Park required the acquisition of land to be dedicated

310 SOLECKI ET AL.

Figure 2. Societal, environmental, and demographic interactions in South Florida.


to the natural system. In surrounding buffer areas, land may or may not remain in a naturalstate, but it should be used in a manner compatible with protection of the core.

Direct utilizationLand can remain unconverted but still be affected by direct human uses. Such uses includehunting, harvesting, fishing, recreation, and even mineral extraction. These uses take placewithout permanent human settlement but often with substantial impacts on plant and animalpopulations. Some major threats to species extinction in the Everglades from direct utiliza-tion are illustrated during the early 20th century when plumage hunters around Flamingo atthe southern tip of the Everglades depleted massive flocks of wading birds (Tebeau, 1990),or later in the century when motorboat users scarred and killed manatees cruising near thesurface of the water.

Today, the Everglades Biosphere Reserve is limited to such direct uses as daily recre-ational use and fishing. These involve human activities that take place directly in theBiosphere Reserve and depend on careful management to minimize impacts on the environ-ment. While almost any human use has some degree of negative impact on the pristine stateof the ecological system, these low-impact uses may serve as opportunities for the public toexperience the resource. Through this experience the public will come to value the resourcepersonally, thus becoming a feedback mechanism providing a very important source ofsupport for the maintenance of the Biosphere Reserve.

Pollution and external inputsExternal inputs from the societal system to the natural system occur when by-products ofhuman activities are transmitted to systems where they do not naturally occur. Pollution andfire resulting from human activities are the most common forms of external input. Harmfulresiduals of both productive and consumptive activities can have major negative effects onthe natural ecosystem.

In a well-designed Biosphere Reserve, the buffer areas should prevent much pollutionfrom entering the core. However, in the Everglades, where the surrounding agriculturaland urban areas often come right to the park boundaries, the damage from such pollutioncan be significant. For example, even where there is the buffer of the Water ConservationAreas, phosphorus runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area and Lake Okeechobee haveincreased the cattail (Typha latifolia) population, at the expense of the natural historicalsawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) communities, in the northern portion of the Everglades.Toxic chemicals such as mercury and environmental hormones (i.e., partially degradedproducts from organic chemicals used for pest control) may be responsible for contaminationand reproductive effects on fisheries and wildlife.

Another type of external input is the introduction of nonnative (exotic) species. Humanintroduction of exotic plants and animals either for decorative and domestic use or as directattempts at habitat transformation can over time cause major transformations to the natu-ral ecosystem. The introduction ofSchinus terebinthifolius(Brazilian Pepper),Melaleucaquinqueneruia, Casuarina equisetifolia(Australian Pine), and other exotic species into theSouth Florida environment may have been more destructive to the Everglades environmentthan the chemical pollution often blamed for environmental degradation.

312 SOLECKI ET AL.

Resource competitionOften the human sector and the natural sectors compete for the same resources. A primeexample is the competition for water. Human diversion of water from the natural system forreasons of drainage, flood control, or water supply can reduce the viability of the naturalsystem. This competition can occur in normally wet areas as well as in arid regions.

In the Everglades, use of water by agriculture or for urban water systems and diversionfor flood control limits the availability of water flow into the Everglades Biosphere Reservecompared to predrainage inputs. To the extent that protection of water for the naturalsystem is perceived as promoting the well-being of the human system as well (in thatstorage capacity of the Everglades adds to the protection of the urban and agriculturalwater supply in South Florida), these interactions may lead to increased societal supportfor the maintenance of the natural system. But when the water control needs of society(or part of society) conflict with the supply of water to the natural system, the ecosystem’ssustainability may be severely threatened as conflicts over resource allocation occur.

Feedback mechanisms

The social costs or benefits of attaining a sustainable ecological system can be measured bythe feedbacks such a system provides to the human system. The feedback effects includethe supply of basic needs, improvements in human quality of life, and the satisfaction of anenvironmental ethic (figure 2).

Basic needsThe natural environment provides the basic needs for sustenance of the human sector,either directly or indirectly by transformation or import from other natural environments.These needs range from food and shelter to water supply and sources of income. Where thenatural environment can provide those needs without land transformation, there is a vestedinterest for the human sector to preserve the land. When higher returns can be obtainedby transforming the natural sector to human uses (agricultural or urban), then the naturalenvironment is imperiled.

In South Florida, only a fraction of the basic human needs of the area’s population comesdirectly from the local environment. One case where the environment does provide thesebasic human needs is the protection that the preservation of the upper Everglades provides forthe water supply for agricultural uses and for the urban population. Continual replenishmentof the aquifer from the Everglades is necessary to provide freshwater and to prevent saltwaterintrusion. Equally important, indirect provision of basic needs comes from the dependenceof the local tourism-based economy on a healthy ecosystem. The Everglades provides anatural attraction for tourists going to regional parks, the surrounding recreational areas,and to the fishing areas of Florida Bay. The importance of tourism for the South Floridaeconomy cannot be overestimated.

Quality of lifeThe natural system’s principal feedback now may be the maintenance of quality of life in theregion. Local residents receive significant benefit from the recreational opportunities, scenic


attractions, and the preservation of open space and wildlife. Much of what makes SouthFlorida a uniquely attractive place in which to live comes from the moderating climaticeffects of a naturally wet Everglades. Scientists have debated over the past several decadesthe implications that the loss of the Everglades would have on South Florida’s climate(Kushlan, 1987; Walteret al., 1992). Even if local-scale climate shifts did not occur, thereis good reason to believe that a large-scale loss would markedly degrade other aspects ofquality of life in the region, such as from loss of recreational opportunities.

Environmental ethicPerhaps the most difficult feedback area to measure is one that might be called the inter-generational equity associated with the preservation of environmental quality. This area offeedback would come from the satisfaction of the preservation of an area even for thosewho are not currently able to take advantage of its amenities.

The establishment of the Everglades as a World Heritage Site is an example of the highvalue placed on this resource by segments of society that are unlikely to benefit directlyfrom the resource. This type of value is noneconomic; it is rather ethical and spiritual andreflects positive feedback from “doing the right thing.”

South Florida is currently in the midst of a path-breaking attempt to reverse years ofenvironmental damage. The ecosystem restoration project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers and the 1996 Farm Bill, which authorizes the purchase of a portion of the EvergladesAgricultural Area to return to water storage and partial restoration of the traditional naturalhydrological system at the cost of several hundred million dollars, represent some of themost impressive results that a renewed environmental ethic can have on society (M. Harwellet al., this volume).

Control system

The direct mechanisms for the interaction of the human and natural systems discussedabove are regulated by many human institutions that we aggregate and refer to as thecontrol system. These institutions include the governance regime, legal institutions, andinstitutions for resource management (figure 1).

Governance regimeThe governance regime includes formal governmental institutions at all levels, but it also in-cludes the more informal participatory mechanisms and market-oriented approaches that af-fect human behavior. One major aspect to be investigated is the use of government-sponsoredmarket solutions to many of the adverse aspects of the human–ecological interaction, suchas financial incentives to infill urban areas rather than converting suburban land.

Legal institutionsA specific type of regulation of these interactions occurs within legal institutions. Herewe must consider a number of issues, including property regimes, legal constraints, andadministrative regulations. Environmental law itself is now a well-developed field, but

314 SOLECKI ET AL.

consideration must also be given to the broader issues of property law and private propertyrights.

Resource managementClearly, agencies responsible for resource management and regulatory oversight, includingnational parks, zoning commissions, and water management agencies, play a vital role inregulating the interaction mechanisms between the natural and human systems. Review ofthe major past, current, and future resource management strategies in water management,land management, planning, and zoning is vital to gaining a complete understanding ofthe entire system of interaction. For example, the report of the Governor’s Commission(Governor’s Commission, 1996) recommended changes in water management but linkedthem closely with changes in urban zoning and planning.

Societal context

Both the interaction mechanisms and control systems operate within a social context thatmust be understood if the entire system is to be specified properly. There are five majoraspects of the social context: population and demographic patterns, social structure andorganization, societal values, technology, and the economy (figure 1). Analysis of the socialcontext does not pretend to cover the entire gamut of societal concerns, but only those thathave major effects on society’s interaction with the environment.

Population and demographic patternsMost discussions and arguments about human effects on the environment focus on the abso-lute size of the population (Jolly, 1994). For local societal–ecological analysis where spatialissues are paramount, the spatial distribution and settlement patterns of the population areeven more important than the total size. Obviously, settlement in the core of an ecologicallysensitive area is much more damaging than settlement in the periphery. Thus examinationof detailed population trends for distinct areas within and surrounding a Biosphere Reserveis important. In addition, studies of migration patterns should help reveal trends in currentand future population growth.

Social structure and organizationSimilarly, demographic, social, and cultural aspects of the population have major effects onthe sustainability of the natural system. For example, shifting migration trends can bringin populations that have strong differences in economic and social characteristics. Eachnew population group may arrive with different expectations about their local and regionalenvironments. A less-affluent group may be far less likely to show environmental concernsif their basic drive has to be for sustenance. These relations are mediated by formal andinformal social institutions that emerge and develop within societies and other levels ofsocial organization.

TechnologyTechnology has a mediating effect on the interactions between the human and the naturalsystems. Technology can be negative in its capacity to alter more natural resources and in


its polluting characteristics, or in its ability to permit more people to locate in otherwiseundesirable but ecologically sensitive environments (e.g., via air conditioning). On theother hand, technology also provides the capability for changing current methods of humanbehavior (e.g., recycling), organization (e.g., reducing plastics and paper in packaging),and production (e.g., energy conservation in manufacturing) in ways that minimize theeffects of human activity on the environment. In South Florida, the technology of floodcontrol and water management has played a major role in determining human impacts onthe environment, as have technological changes in agriculture and urban settlement.

EconomyThe major sources of economic support for the human system determine the range ofpossibilities for human–environmental interactions. If agriculture and manufacturing aremajor factors in supporting the region, then agrarian and manufacturing interests will becritical in determining the feasibility of land use changes. Sources of income from outsidethe region (e.g., international banking), such as transfer payments (e.g., retirement income)and financial remittances from productive activities outside the region, give a much broaderleeway in deciding the future patterns of land management and resource use.

The environmental effects of current agricultural usage in the core, buffer, and peripherywill be determined by crop types, land use, and agricultural practices. Similarly, the majorindustrial activities in the region (extraction, manufacturing, and commercial activities) willhave varying effects as sources of pollution, such as tourism, which affects transportationuse. In South Florida, the relative lack of large polluting industries and the presence of sig-nificant outside sources of income that are not tied to exploitation or conversion of the localnatural sector provide a favorable situation for environmental protection and preservation.

Societal valuesAn integral part of the societal context involves trends in local and national environmentalvalues (both those expressed directly and those that form the underlying culture and ideologyof the society). Special interest will be shown on the effects of these values and ideologieson sustainability and on the extent to which changes in societal values alter the relativeimportance of economic and other factors in the social context.

Differences in values among various socioeconomic groups and changing environmentalvalues over time have major effects on the long-term sustainability of the ecological system.In fact, a broad societal–ecological approach should also explain the human decision to savethe ecosystem as an implicit part of the procedure.

Stages of human–environment interaction

At different stages of economic development of settlement, different parts of this modelbecome relatively more important. In the case of South Florida, society’s principal inter-action mechanisms shifted from the direct use of natural products of the environment toconversion of land from natural to agricultural and urban uses, to redirection of water flows,and finally to external inputs such as pollution from agricultural activities (figure 2).

316 SOLECKI ET AL.

Similarly, the feedback of these natural changes to the human system also progressedduring this period. While the Everglades’ relative contribution to the basic food and shel-ter needs of the South Florida population declined, its importance as a water supply andassurance of quality of life increased. Perhaps more importantly, the uniqueness of theEverglades became significantly more valuable to a society that was developing an everstronger environmental ethic.

A more detailed look at these historical changes over time can be seen by examiningseveral different periods in the development of the societal–ecological interactions in SouthFlorida. These periods and the components of the social model that were most importantduring each period are as follows:

1845–1900: Frontier settlement—basic needs; direct utilization1900–1930: Drainage and land conversion—economy; land use; population; resource man-

agement and competition1930–1950: Flood control and consolidation—external inputs; governance; quality of life;

social structure and organization; technology1950–1970: Postwar boom, flood control, and water supply—land use; legal institutions;

pollution; quality of life1970–1995: Period of limits—environmental ethic; governance; pollution; resource com-

petition; values

1845–1900: South Florida as frontier

The natural system of South Florida, in comparison to other areas of the eastern U.S.,remained relatively unaffected by humans until late in the 19th century. Because it was ahostile, swampy wilderness off the path of western human migration, South Florida wasone of the last frontiers in the eastern U.S., and it remained sparsely populated well into the20th century (see Gannon, 1996, for a recent history of this period). Florida was one of thelast territories east of the Mississippi River to become a state. When it became a state in1845, few nonnative inhabitants lived south of Lake Okeechobee, and the entire populationof Florida was less than 80,000.

Throughout this initial period, several themes dominated the interaction of the naturaland social system. The societal context was one of low population and an almost subsistenceeconomy. The control system was relatively weak, with only minimal governance and legalinstitutions functioning. Society’s principal interaction with the environment was one ofdirect utilization and limited land conversion. The natural system was minimally changedby human activities, with the notable exception of some rapid declines in the bird populationcaused by plumage hunting. Clearly, the major feedback of the natural system to the humansystem during this period was the provision of basic needs.

The societal context in which South Floridians lived in the late 19th century was thatof refuge and subsistence. Both Native Americans and early settlers laid claim to enoughland to survive and to provide for their families. Their values centered on self-survival,and little, if any, greater environmental ethic existed among the settlers, who viewed thenatural resources as limitless in the context of their own needs (Carter, 1974). Key West


was the largest city and a major stop on the Gulf of Mexico trade route because of its deep-water port, but the island settlement was cut off from the rest of South Florida. Only smallsettlements dotted the coastline between where the present-day cities of Palm Beach andMiami are located. Native Americans who once inhabited near-coastal or more northerlyareas were pushed to the interior of the peninsula during the Seminole Wars from 1835through 1858, many settling in the Everglades. Writers from the late 18th through the 19thcenturies wrote of Florida as a land of great attractiveness and ease of living, though notwithout the challenge of adventures (Bartram, 1951; Carter, 1974; Willoughby, 1898).

Agricultural activities accompanied human occupation of South Florida from the earliesttimes, most based on introduced plants and animals. Settlers of European descent generallyfarmed small parcels on the coastal ridges and raised cattle inland. Various native peo-ples, such as the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes, were known to grow fruits, vegetables,and even some sugar cane (Saccharumspp.) on tree islands in the Everglades (Dovell,1947). Such farming activities primarily were uncoordinated, independent ventures exceptfor pineapple, sugar, and orange production, which emerged as important crops in the lat-ter part of the 19th century and were mostly shipped to northern U.S. markets (USDA,1884).

Drainage of the Everglades for agricultural development was an early public policygoal of Florida. Governors and legislators were largely wealthy land owners and attorneyswho actively pursued direct public and private investment in drainage and land acquisition.Shortly after statehood in 1845, a study was conducted for the U.S. government to determinethe feasibility of draining the Everglades. The environmental values of the times are wellsummarized in this report by consultant Buckingham Smith. While Smith acknowledgedthe beauty and awe of the Everglades, he reported that “if the visitor [to the Everglades]is a man of practical, utilitarian turn of thought, the first and abiding impression is theutter worthlessness [of the region] to civilized man, in its present condition” (Carter, 1974).However, he also expressed the view that Everglades drainage would enable the cultivationof crops such as tropical fruits and sugar cane that could not be grown elsewhere in the UnitedStates. This utilitarian perspective dominated the conceptualization of the Everglades formuch of the next century.

In 1845, more than two-thirds of Florida’s land was owned by the federal government,but the Swamp and Overflowed Lands Act of 1850 transferred ownership to the states of alllands below the ordinary high-water elevation. Under this act, Florida ultimately acquiredabout 9× 104 km2 of land for conveyance into private ownership and reclamation. This inturn allowed the states to sell the lands to private interests for drainage and to utilize theproceeds for internal improvements. By virtue of statehood and the public trust doctrine,Florida had also gained title to submerged lands, i.e., all tidelands and lands below theordinary high-water mark of navigable streams and lakes. This act was the initiation of thelong history of water management and drainage in South Florida (Carter, 1974).

The development of the State of Florida lands was strongly promoted during the latterpart of the 19th century. The Florida legislature immediately attempted to divest itself oftitle to all of the submerged lands of the state. The swamp and overflowed lands were turnedover to a Board of Internal Improvement for disposition. Bankruptcy of a state fund in theaftermath of the Civil War ultimately led the trustees to promote the sale of lands in SouthFlorida to gullible out-of-state investors to save the state from financial bankruptcy (Blake,

318 SOLECKI ET AL.

1980). For example, in the 1880s approximately 1.6× 104 km2 of land in the KissimmeeRiver and Caloosahatchee River basins were sold to a northerner, Hamilton Disston, with theunderstanding that the land would be drained and made “productive.” Disston constructeda series of small canals connecting several lakes in the upper Kissimmee River basin. Wet-season rainfall flooded virtually all of the Kissimmee River basin well into the dry season.The canals were intended to facilitate drainage into the Kissimmee River and ultimately intoLake Okeechobee. Disston created the first direct outlet from Lake Okeechobee to tidewateras a short canal constructed to connect the lake to the headwaters of the CaloosahatcheeRiver.

Even given these initial activities, toward the end of the 19th century much of the landcover in southern Florida remained little altered. In most respects, the integrity of the naturalEverglades and adjoining watershed areas was still largely intact, and only small areas hadbeen converted to agricultural and other human-dominated land uses. By 1900, probably lessthan a thousand people lived in the Everglades watershed area south of Lake Okeechobee.

1900–1930: drainage and land conversion begins

Beginning in 1900, the construction of a coastal railroad and the initiation of major drainageactivities south of Lake Okeechobee led to a rapid increase in the human manipulation ofthe South Florida ecosystem. Wealthy capitalists within Florida and from northern citiestook advantage of cheap land prices and government incentives to establish an extensiveagricultural area south of Lake Okeechobee, and coastal resort communities and port citiesfrom Palm Beach through the Florida Keys. South Florida’s population increased tenfoldbetween 1900 and 1930, marking the beginning of what would be exponential growth overthe next six decades (Marth and Marth, 1993).

The beginning of large-scale Everglades agricultureAt the turn of the century, the State of Florida wanted to encourage settlement in SouthFlorida but still lacked the money to provide the infrastructure, particularly the water control,necessary for that settlement (figure 3). Therefore the state granted land to various developersor sold it to them at a very low price for the purpose of drainage and resale to would-besettlers (Hanna and Hanna, 1948).

Governor Napoleon Bonaparte Broward, a Progressive-Era politician, was elected in1905 on a platform advocating further Everglades drainage. The institutional mechanismto accomplish further drainage was the Everglades Drainage District (EDD), headed by thegovernor and cabinet, and authorized to levy ad valorem taxes to finance the constructionof drainage works. By 1917, the EDD had completed construction of four major canalsfrom Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades to tidewater: the Miami, North New River,Hillsboro, and West Palm Beach Canals. The canals served two basic functions: drainageof Lake Okeechobee to reduce the frequency and volume of inflows to the Everglades,and direct drainage of water in the Everglades to tidewater. The canals were constructeddiagonally across the flow path of the Everglades and served to collect surface water andconvey it directly to tidewater. There were no water control structures on these canals. By1925, the EDD had completed construction of the St. Lucie Canal from Lake Okeechobee


Figure 3. South Florida in 1900.

eastward to tidewater. Unlike the Everglades Agricultural Canals, which were constructedat least partially along the alignment of natural creeks or rivers through transverse glades,the St. Lucie Canal was constructed through uplands with no natural drainage patterns. Itserved the single purpose of draining Lake Okeechobee.

During these decades, thousands of people were persuaded to buy land in the Evergladesfor the purpose of farming. Evidence of the potential for farming was drawn from experiencegained along the south shore of Lake Okeechobee, where the soil is a mixture of minerallake sediments and organic matter from submerged vegetation (Snyder, 1994). Reports ofthe high productivity of these soils probably were accurate; however, only a few kilometersfrom the lake and extending a hundred or more kilometers southward, the soils are drasticallydifferent. Throughout most of the upper Everglades, the soils are derived mostly from thedetritus of sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) and other plants that grew under oligotrophicconditions. This gave rise to very infertile soils which, combined with drainage that oftenwas either inadequate or excessive and with episodic lake overflows, resulted in the failureof virtually all small farms more than a few kilometers from the lake.

320 SOLECKI ET AL.

There were several corporate farming ventures in sugar cane production during the 1920s(Dovell, 1947). Land and mills for a sugar industry were developed south and east of LakeOkeechobee, around the towns of Canal Point, Clewiston, and Moore Haven. From thebeginning, sugar cane quickly became primarily an agribusiness plantation crop, ratherthan a commodity of family farms. Although several of these ventures failed, they clearlydemonstrated the potential for growing sugar cane in the Everglades. In general, the morehighly capitalized firms were able to survive the struggles of farming in the region.

In the 1920s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture established the Sugar Cane Field Stationat Canal Point to make hybridizations for the development of new sugar cane varieties forthe Louisiana industry (Herbert, 1971). Later, with the expansion of the Florida sugar caneindustry, the Canal Point station would play a major role in increasing productivity throughthe development of cultivars especially suited to the Everglades.

The railroad and the expansion of coastal developmentThe influx of investors changed the landscape and cultures of the small coastal commu-nities as well. Just as some northern capitalists viewed the Everglades as swampland tobe conquered for large-scale agriculture, others viewed the pristine Atlantic coastal ridge,with its adjacent shallow waters and barrier islands with broad, sandy beaches, as a tropicalparadise that would attract vacationers and seasonal and full-time residents. Consequently,as small agricultural towns cropped up on the south shore of Lake Okeechobee, coastalsettlements became cities. The northern capitalists brought railroads, electricity, and othermodern conveniences that helped shield residents from the natural environment, permit-ted them to import supplies more easily, and created a service-based economy that wouldemphasize tourism and trade.

One of the principal and most successful advocates for northern investment in SouthFlorida was Miami’s Julia Tuttle. In the winter of 1893, a severe freeze killed citrus cropsthroughout North and Central Florida, driving citrus producers southward. Tuttle offeredHenry Flagler, who was constructing the east coast rail line that had reached Palm Beach,half of her land and convinced other prominent Miami and Fort Lauderdale citizens to do soas well to encourage Flagler to extend his railroad to Miami. Flagler continued the projectall the way to Key West, thereby putting in place the technology to aid the expansion andurbanization of the region (Chapman, 1991).

Wealthy new landowners settled large tracts of land in South Florida, usually adjacentto rivers leading to the sea (e.g., Henry Ford and Thomas Edison on the CaloosahatcheeRiver, Fort Myers; the Rockefeller family home on the intracoastal waterway in OrmondBeach; in Coconut Grove, David Fairchild and John Clayton Gifford [Gifford, 1972]). Thesenew residents retained strong interests in the maintenance of the natural amenities of theregion. Gifford and Fairchild became local civic leaders, as well as internationally renownedconservationists, and influenced the development of conservation ethics in South Floridafrom the turn of the century until the late 1940s.

South Floridians during this early settlement period also maintained a close and directrelationship with the natural environment. Along with the subtropical beauty, they sufferedthe daily discomfort of intense heat and humidity, mosquitoes and fleas. South Florida wasregularly subject to yellow fever epidemics. Major hurricanes in 1906, 1919, 1926, and


Table 1. Population of Southeast Florida (includescurrent area of Broward, Dade, Monroe, and PalmBeach counties).

Year Population Percent growth

1900 est.20,000a —

1910 39,073 —

1920 86,092 120.3

1930 228,454 165.4

1940 401,600 75.8

1950 723,662 80.2

1960 1,545,020 113.5

1970 2,289,471 48.2

1980 3,283,712 43.4

1990 4,134,124 25.9

aApproximately 18,500 of these residents lived in KeyWest, Monroe County.Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census ofPopulation.

1928 caused massive property destruction and deaths throughout South Florida (Chapman,1991). The 1928 hurricane sent water from Lake Okeechobee surging over the existinglevees and spreading through the nascent communities along the southeast shore of thelake, killing over two thousand people and destroying homes and businesses and much ofthe livelihood of the residents (Blake, 1980; Will, 1984).

Overall, the period 1900–1930 laid the foundation for the extensive growth and develop-ment of South Florida. Despite the impediments to growth from hurricanes, heat, disease,and insects, the development of Miami and Miami Beach in the early 1900s produceda marked increase in the South Florida population to 229,000 by 1930 (Table 1). Mostpopulation growth concentrated east of the Atlantic ridge, except for that attracted by theagricultural opportunities in the newly drained portions of the Everglades. Rapid popula-tion growth and economic development led to a boom mentality. Resource managementand governmental plans encouraged drainage and land conversion. While the region’s newresidents explored and exploited the natural resources, like Gifford and Fairchild and others,they also planted the seeds of an environmental ethic that would grow widespread in laterdecades.

1930–1950: flood control and land conservation

The period from 1930 to 1950 was one of fundamental restructuring for the South Floridaregion. The late 1920s and early 1930s signaled the beginning of this significant change.The massive Florida real estate boom was winding down (as punctuated by the 1926Florida real estate crash), and the agricultural frontier era was closing. In concert with these

322 SOLECKI ET AL.


changes came the devastating hurricanes of 1926 and 1928, and the beginnings of the GreatDepression.

Restructuring dramatically changed the internal dynamics of the two emerging, yetseparate, societal realms within the region: the urban system and the agricultural system(figure 4). These shifts also brought important changes to the nature of the human–environ-ment interaction. They created conditions under which there could be an even greater levelof functional separation between the everyday life of both the urban and the agriculturalresidents and their immediate natural resource base. The shifts also brought dramaticallyincreased natural resource utilization and land conversion, which steadily increased through-out the 1930–1950 period and eventually began to increase dramatically in the 1950s.

Applying technology: drainage and flood control as multipurpose water managementThe natural disasters of the late 1920s led to local outcries for improved protection. Theselocal protests became translated in 1930 into Federal government action as exemplified bythe construction of the Hoover Dike on the northwest shores of Lake Okeechobee, and theraising of the existing levees along the southern shores of the lake. The floods of the 1920s


were followed by droughts, soil subsidence, muck fires, and saltwater intrusion during the1930s. Public well fields along the east coast became intruded by saltwater, and muck firesburned out of control for months in the Everglades. This series of droughts, like the floodsof the late 1920s, equally demonstrated problems with water supply in the region.

In some respects, the demands for Federal government intervention during this timesignaled not only a technological shift in the water management regime but also a shift inthe attitudes of local residents. Although concern over natural disasters had long been anissue in South Florida, the contemporary events offered graphic evidence of the region’svulnerability to major perturbations. These disasters led residents and decision-makers torestructure the legal and institutional framework for water management in South Floridaand to agree that government agencies should act to prevent damage from future flooding aswell as initiate drainage projects (Blake, 1980). The governmental response, to be knownas multipurpose water management, brought at least two significant results. On a tangiblelevel, the promise of flood protection meant that the prospects for increased developmentof the upper Everglades and west of the coastal ridge grew. On a more symbolic level, thesocietal attitude shift exemplified the recognition that dramatic alterations to the naturalsystem were necessary to meet and allow for growing human demands.

Agricultural development and researchAs the water- and flood-control projects continued throughout the 1930s, another set of tech-nological innovations was applied to resolve a different difficult problem in South Florida:how to farm in a semitropical environment, something largely unfamiliar to U.S. farmers andother U.S. agricultural interests (Derr, 1989). Throughout the 1930s, much was being learnedabout overcoming the fertility limitations of the sawgrass muck soils through of the effortsof the Everglades Experiment Station in Belle Glade. Vegetable production, in particular,increased as a result of the research done at the station. In 1929, there were approximately6,900 ha of vegetables in the area. By 1943, vegetables occupied 30,000 ha, which was nearlythree-quarters of the total area in cultivation in the northern Everglades region (Elvove,1943).

Livestock production had also been limited by the infertility of the sawgrass soils. Evenafter overcoming some of the pasture fertility problems, cattle production still was limited bymany other problems such as frozen winter pastures, foot rot, anaplasmosis, and extremelysevere insect infestations, particularly by ticks (Kidder, 1979). Many of these problems,however, were resolved by the late 1940s with the development of new agricultural fertilizersand pesticides.

A primary agricultural sector that failed to change significantly during the period wassugar. Sugarcane production remained constrained from the 1930s through the 1950s bygovernment-imposed quotas (Sitterson, 1953). The area in sugarcane production increasedfrom only 2,800 ha in 1930 to 15,300 ha by 1950. Although Florida sugar producersconsistently petitioned the Federal government to increase their quotas, the only suspensionof the Sugar Act occurred during World War II (Salley, 1986).

Transportation infrastructureAnother major development of the 1930–1950 period was the full integration of SouthFlorida into the nation’s transportation network. Although the development of the railroads

324 SOLECKI ET AL.

into the area over the previous several decades had dramatically increased access to theregion, during the 1930s and 1940s two other means of transportation developed: all-weatherfederal and state highways, and airline companies and airports.

The earliest major highways into the region were U.S. Route 1, which paralleled Flagler’sAtlantic Coast Line railway; U.S. Route 27, a more interior road stretching across the south-ern end of the peninsula in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction; and Tamiami Trail,which cut east–west at the southern end of the peninsula. These three highways became themain arteries of a denser highway network that was developed during the 1950s and 1960s.

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, southern Florida also became one of the birthplacesof the airline industry. By the late 1920s, Pan American Airlines started to make Miamithe “Gateway to the Americas,” and by 1930, Pan Am was competing with another Miami-based airline, Eastern Airlines (Chapman, 1991). The airline industry increased during theearly 1940s, as preparation for World War II particularly affected the South Florida region.Because of the flat terrain and generally favorable year-round climate, Florida became animportant area for pilot training. Many airfields were quickly developed and opened justbefore and during the war. In April 1941, the U.S. Army moved en masse into the Miamiarea. The Army would soon occupy over 140 hotels as barracks for a variety of OfficerTraining and Air Officer Schools. Throughout the war, tens of thousands of recruits weretrained in the Miami area (Chapman, 1991).

Shifts in human–environment interactionsAs these structural changes were taking place, the region’s human population continued togrow, as did its impact on the physical environment. The most significant feature of thisimpact was continuation of the series of massive canal and levee building and land-drainingprojects. The work on these projects meant that by the late 1940s the historical path of waterflow to the Everglades and South Florida was already dramatically altered. One of the keyobjectives of the projects remained as before, to prepare land for agricultural productionand flood control. These projects enabled the beginning of the large-scale land modificationand land conversion process in South Florida. The construction of levees and canals, andthe degradation of existing rivers and sloughs, quickly brought dramatic changes to theregional hydrology and ecosystem. In many areas water tables fell, causing the dryingout and modification of the soil and of the vegetative cover. Some of these areas werethen opened as “reclaimed” land for residential development and agricultural production.The principal areas of initial land modification were directly south of Lake Okeechobee andaround some of the developing urban centers. In the emerging agricultural area south of LakeOkeechobee, land in agriculture grew to over 55,000 ha by 1943 (30,353 ha of vegetables;12,141 ha of sugar cane; 2,024 ha of pasture; and miscellaneous minor crops) (Snyder andDavidson, 1994). By 1938, three other large agricultural districts had been developed onlands just beyond the urban fringe along the Atlantic coast. Winter vegetables, such as stringbeans, tomatoes, potatoes, and celery, were the dominant crops in the three districts foundalong the Atlantic coast. Agricultural lands at this point made up approximately 15% of thewhole Everglades region (figure 4).

Population growthWhile population growth slowed from the boom years of the previous decades (1900–1930),growth was still substantial from 1930 to 1950. These new in-migrants, along with the


existing residents, were able to take advantage of the emerging technological innovations,such as the promise of flood control. The continued rapid growth of the Miami and MiamiBeach area, as well as other locations, helped to bring the South Florida population to morethan 400,000 by 1940 and to just over 720,000 by 1950. The new in-migrants includedmany groups: retirees, workers drawn by the growth in the South Florida economy, and alarge number of WW II veterans, many of whom trained in the region and returned afterthe war to live (Strong, 1991).

The 1930s and 1940s are associated with the growth in the numbers of middle-classtourists to the region. Their access was made easier by the increasingly efficient rail,highway, and aviation transportation networks and by effective marketing. Also includedin the transient population were migrant farm workers who came into the region duringthe winter to harvest produce on the interior farms. Possibly hundreds of thousands ofAfrican-American and white migrant farm workers came into the region particularly duringthe Depression-ridden 1930s. A large number of Bahamians also worked on these farms(Carlebach and Provenzo, 1993).

The vast majority of the population in the 1930s remained tightly clustered within a fewurban nodes located along the Atlantic coast. Only near Miami had the population movedmore than several km inland. The amount of the land converted for urban land uses remainedsmall, taking up no more than a few percent of the whole watershed area. During the 1930s,as population growth continued, the urbanized areas remained concentrated to the east sideof the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. By 1940, only about 20% of this population was more than8 km from the coast, based on populations east and west of the current Interstate-95, whichlargely parallels historic U.S. 1 (Shultz, 1991). During the 1940s, however, this growthbegan to spread across the ridge, with almost 30% west of this line (Shultz, 1991).

Although the agricultural expansion and population growth of this period taxed the like-lihood of sustainability of the natural system, a small counter-movement continued to growthat was dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the Everglades. Throughout the1930s and 1940s, conservationists wrote on the human impact on the Everglades and onthe need to create a national park. Marjory Stoneman Douglas’ (1947) book,The Riverof Grass, the most famous of these writings, described the environmental degradation thathad occurred by that time. In response to these calls, the Everglades National Park (ENP)was created in 1947. This Federal action, supplemented with additional acquisitions for thepark, provided a large contiguous land area protected from human encroachment. However,the park only comprised 20% of the original Everglades.

Also in 1947, the Everglades Drainage District proposed another series of water supply,flood control, and conservation plans. These proposals included the establishment of WaterConservation Areas, the lease of lands to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wildlifeprotection, and the donation of lands to the Everglades National Park. Landed politicalinterests opposed to paying ad valorem taxes for such purposes stymied these plans until aseries of hurricanes and storms flooded much of the South Florida area for up to six monthsin 1947 and 1948. The extensive flooding forced government officials and local residentsto revisit these proposals and the future of the Everglades (figure 5).

A stage set for growthThe late 1940s storms put into play a chain reaction that ironically both helped preservethe land of the Everglades but also seriously disrupted the water supply that sustained the

326 SOLECKI ET AL.

Figure 5. Extent of flooding during the 1947–1948 floods. After Light and Deneen, 1994.


natural system. Under congressional authorization resulting from local economic and po-litical pressure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established an extensive public worksproject known as the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Flood Control Project. Althougha number of drainage projects had been tried in the Everglades area since the early 1900s,the C&SF project was a major turning point for water management in the region. Theauthorized purposes of the project served objectives beyond flood control and water con-servation, including prevention of saltwater intrusion, improved navigation, preservation offish and wildlife habitat, and water supply for ENP. Although there was no Congressionalprioritization of project purposes, flood control and water conservation were generally theguiding principles in project design.

The project authorization required the state to establish an agency to represent local in-terests in the design and financing of the project. This led to the establishment of the C&SFFlood Control District (later combined with the Okeechobee Flood Control District andreorganized as part of the 1972 Water Resources Act to become the South Florida WaterManagement District [SFWMD]) to serve as the local sponsor for the project. Since 1948,there have been 12 additional congressional authorizations that have added or modifiedcomponents of the C&SF Project. The project encouraged agriculture to expand furthersouth of Lake Okeechobee and in some areas to the east, as well as the formal creationof the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). Urban development, assured of flood protec-tion and water supply, would expand rapidly on the Atlantic Coast Ridge and in the EastEverglades. Simultaneously, a large part of the historic Everglades was assured of somelevel of environmental protection in the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs), one of which(Loxahatchee) was leased to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a national wildlife refuge.

Some evidence of the land cover shifts caused by these developments already wereapparent by the early 1950s (figure 6). Although the vast majority of land altered by humanuses until the early 1950s was the result of agricultural production, the amount of urbanland had begun to increase significantly. Much of the increased urban growth occurred inDade and Broward counties, particularly as in-fill in and around the cities of Miami andFt. Lauderdale.

Another significant trend was that rapid urban growth had taken place in both coastal andnoncoastal (i.e., inland) communities. The noncoastal growth was particularly significantbecause, for the first time, urban land use demand began to out-compete agricultural landuse demands over a large area. As a result, farmland was being converted to residential,commercial, and industrial land uses. Possibly in response, new agricultural land was beingdeveloped even further inland, moving off the upland pine forests along the coastal ridgeinto the interior wet prairie and sawgrass marsh areas. The years from 1938 to 1953 alsoshowed a rapid enlargement of the agricultural area south of Lake Okeechobee. Conversionwas particularly evident along the major canals (e.g., Okeechobee Canal, the HillsboroCanal, and the North New River Canal).

1950–1970: rapid growth and environmental degradation

The 1950 to 1970 period was one of tremendous growth for the South Florida region.Although earlier decades had greater percentage increases in population, the 1950 to 1970

328 SOLECKI ET AL.


period had the greatest absolute increase in population to date. The agricultural sector alsogrew dramatically during the period. The value of agricultural product sales in South Floridaas a percentage of all farm sales in the U.S. more than doubled from the period 1949 to1968 (Winsberg, 1991).

During the 1950s and 1960s, the South Florida region began to develop much of itscontemporary form with respect to socioeconomic conditions and land use patterns. Thesoutheast section grew especially quickly and attained the status of a major metropolitanarea. By the late 1960s, the Miami area had gained many characteristics of a large anddiverse metropolitan region, even though the major Latin migrations had not yet occurred.For example, in 1966 Miami became home to its first professional sports team, the MiamiDolphins; in 1968, the Republicans held their National Convention at Miami Beach; and inthe same year Miami experienced the first in a series of major race riots. By the close of the1960s, residents and others also recognized that the ecosystem of South Florida was undersevere stress.


Population growth and changeFrom 1950 to 1970, the South Florida population increased from three-quarters of a millionto just under 2.3 million (Table 1). The increased availability of flood-controlled land wasa direct factor in this growth, as were national and international in-migration and tourism,increased retirement incomes, the dynamic growth of South Florida commercial interests,and the growing availability and affordability of air conditioning, which permitted year-round comfortable living. The greatest source areas of in-migrants were the Northeastand Midwest of the U.S. and increasingly from Caribbean and Latin American countries,particularly Cuba. The population growth meant dramatic increases in the local demand forland, much of this in the noncoastal areas. By 1970, almost half the population was locatedwest of Interstate-95 (Shultz, 1991). Much of the housing development to accommodate theregion’s new residents was in the form of land-intensive, low-rise, single-family dwellings.

As the population of South Florida grew, so did the local economy, which was a moreservice-based economy than many other parts of the U.S. The percentage of South Florida’swork force in 1970 employed in service-related industry was several times higher than thenational average. The service-based economy was important with respect to the local naturalresource demands. Given that the economy had very recently and quickly developed andthat integration into the national economy was so complete, South Florida rapidly movedthrough the stages of development during which populations typically place heavy directdemands on the local natural resource base. For example, by the 1950s, most food for theresident population could be brought in, and heavy industry and concomitant pollution ofthe environment were very limited. Other than the basic demands for water and land, SouthFlorida’s human population could coexist with its environment and did not need to exploitit directly to create economic growth or employment opportunities. Furthermore, the rapidin-migration and emergence of an economy based mostly on federal money transfers, ocean-based tourism, and other services created a society with a heavily urban and coastal-focusedconsciousness and bias. The South Florida society of the 1950s and 1960s was largelydetached from the inland Everglades. Other than tourism to ENP, the Everglades continuedto be seen by most residents as a vast swampland filled with alligators and mosquitoes.Most urbanites likely failed to understand the dependence of the growing metropolitan areaon this region to the west.

Agricultural growth and consolidationWhereas the link of the natural land to the urban realm began to seem weaker, the link wasstrong in the agricultural sector. Agricultural growth during the 1950s and 1960s was partic-ularly vigorous because of the increased national demand for fresh winter produce, whichin the U.S. could only be grown in Florida and a few other extreme southern areas. Marketsfor Florida’s winter vegetables and fruits grew as the region’s transportation and productdistribution system became more integrated into the affluent markets of the Northeast andMidwest. Residents in these areas increasingly wanted and could afford fresh winter pro-duce (Winsberg, 1991). Also, during this period the definition of two primary agriculturalareas—the area south of Lake Okeechobee and the Atlantic Coast Ridge area—continued.The most significant crops grown in the EAA during the 1950–1970 period were sugarcaneand a variety of vegetables. Sugarcane became increasingly important, both in number of

330 SOLECKI ET AL.

hectares planted and in the value of production. Most of the farms in the EAA by this timehad become large-scale agribusiness operations.

As agricultural production became more intensive and extensive in the EAA, some limi-tations of the area, such as soil subsidence, also were being recognized. Organic muck soilsare decomposed by aerobic microorganisms when they are drained. This loss of organicmatter, which comprised the bulk of the volume of the soils of the EAA, resulted in a re-duction of the surface elevation, thus giving rise to the term “subsidence.” The mucklandsare underlain by hard limestone bedrock. Whereas portions of the upper Everglades hadpredrainage soil depths of over 3 meters, depths of less than 1 meter became common inthese areas (Stephens and Johnson, 1951).

Before the creation of the EAA, the emphasis of water management had been on drainageonly. The rate of accelerated soil subsidence was later recognized to be directly related tothe depth of the water table. It was argued during the early 1950s that by creating a watersystem that allowed for the control of the water tables, soil subsidence could be reducedby maintaining water tables as high as are compatible with crop production. It also wasrecognized that some soils in the Everglades already were too shallow over bedrock tosustain agriculture over a long enough period to pay for the water control project, or wereof a physical composition that was unsuitable for agriculture. The EAA boundaries weredrawn to exclude these soils, which were instead included in the adjacent WCAs.

The impetus for the Everglades to become the greatest cane sugar–producing area in theU.S. was the Cuban Revolution in 1959. At that time, sugarcane production in the Evergladesoccupied 19,000 ha and was processed in three mills. The U.S. had depended on Cuba tosupply a large portion of the nation’s sugar demand, but the embargo of Cuban produce afterthe Revolution and the tariff rate increases on imported sugar ended that. Coincidental withthe embargo was the influx of Cubans to Florida. Many were experts in all phases of canesugar production, and a few also had the wealth and expertise to invest in Florida’s cane sugerindustry to help meet the domestic demand. Sugar cane production increased spectacularly.By 1963 there were 55,800 ha of sugar cane in the Everglades, which increased to 92,000 haby 1965, 121,000 ha by 1979, and 162,000 by 1987 (Salley, 1986). The increased opportunityfor sugarcane production came at the expense of other EAA agricultural activity, particularlythe cattle industry, which declined significantly during the 1960s.

Finishing a human-dominated hydrologic systemIncreased demand for Florida’s agricultural produce and in-migration during the 1950s and1960s further pushed the demand for increased water supply and flood control. A primarypriority in design and construction of the Central and South Florida Project was the EasternProtective Levee. The intent of the levee was to prevent floodwaters in the Everglades fromflowing east toward developed areas. The creation of the levee established a physical andpsychological boundary between the remaining natural Everglades and developed areas tothe east. (For the most part, the levee still serves this function, with a notable exceptionbeing the “8.5-Square-Mile” residential area and the Rocky Glades Agricultural Area insouthern Dade County where development has occurred west of the levee.)

The levee was located some 8 to 15 km further west of the normally flood-free area. In thisnewly bounded settlement area, the population was for the first time guaranteed protection


from floods. The result was substantial population movement west of the Atlantic coastalridge into the Everglades. On the other hand, the limitation of settlement to areas east ofthe levee has had much the same effect as the establishment of the park, i.e., preservinglarge quantities of land in the former natural hydrological system from the incursion ofhuman settlement or agriculture, thereby limiting population expansion to within about 20to 30 km of the coast.

The second focus of design and construction was directed at flood protection for the sec-tion of the EAA immediately south of Lake Okeechobee. This consisted of improvementsto the agricultural canals and construction of pump stations at their northern and southernends. The plan provided the capability to remove excess flood waters (up to 2 cm per day ofrunoff) from the EAA. The northern drainage area for each canal was to be pumped north-ward to Lake Okeechobee, and the southern portion of the drainage area was to be pumpedsouthward to the WCAs. These features were completed by 1959. These flood waters pro-vided for water conservation for urban and agricultural water supply and for prevention ofsaltwater intrusion into groundwater well fields. Flood control for areas east of the EasternProtective Levee was provided by developing an adequate conveyance capacity to removeexcess water out to the Atlantic Ocean. A series of east–west canals were constructed fromthe Eastern Protective Levee to drain into estuaries for this purpose. The flood control andwater conservation phase of water resources development also included construction of im-provements to the Lake Okeechobee levee (Hoover Dike) and construction of water controlstructures along the coastal canals to control water levels and prevent overdrainage.

Land use and land cover change: moving toward the contemporary formThe impact of these processes on the region’s land-use patterns was dramatic. A comparisonof figures 6 and 7 illustrates that tremendous change took place from the early 1950s to theearly 1970s. Two of the more obvious shifts were the rapid increase of agricultural land inthe EAA and the increase of urban-oriented land. For the first time, an almost continuousstrip of urban development emerged along the Atlantic coast. Urban land uses had becomewell established in the extreme southeast part of the region, particularly around the citiesof Miami and Fort Lauderdale, and along the entire coastline heading northward to WestPalm Beach (figure 7). By 1973, 26% of the region’s land was in agricultural productionand 8% was urbanized.

The rapid urbanization along the Atlantic coast led to three other important land-use shifts.From 1953 to 1973, most of the remaining upland pine forests and near-shore agriculturalareas were converted to urban land uses. In 1973, just a few remnants of the coastal pineforest were evident, and agricultural production increasingly was found only in isolatedpockets situated between the urban fringe and the public conservation lands to the west.In sum, agricultural lands were largely reduced to serving as a transition zone between theurbanized coast and the interior Everglades area. As the agricultural land was convertedto urban land uses, other lands typically in even more inland locations were placed underagricultural production. These shifts were particularly evident in the southern portion ofDade County and in a stretch of territory running northward from the Broward–Palm Beachcounty line to an area north of what had become designated as the Loxahatchee WildlifeRefuge (WCA1).

332 SOLECKI ET AL.


Natural system effects and growing resource conflictsThe designs of most of the water projects during the 1950–1970 period were solely tosupport human needs and seriously compromised two major characteristics of the naturalEverglades: they further interrupted the sheet flow and eliminated much of the dynamicstorage capacity of the system to reduce flood risks. Management of the C&SF projecttended to even out the flow through the system, reducing both the temporal (seasonal andinterannual) and spatial differences in water flow so important for habitat heterogeneity.These effects were to lead to a marked degradation in the Everglades. From the 1950sforward the Everglades was no longer “natural” but “human-dominated.”

Given the importance of hydrology to the sustainability of the Everglades and the locationof the EAA in the middle of the freshwater flowway, water management for the EAA greatlyaffected the South Florida environment. To produce viable commercial crops, the historicwet–dry seasons of South Florida required the EAA to be pumped for drainage in summerand for irrigation in winter. This pumping and disruption of normal surface flow patternsled to nutrient enrichment of the WCA fringing the EAA and to the drawdown of the waterstorage capacity of the conservation areas in some especially dry years.


Agriculture-related nutrient problems also have affected the natural system. As the naturalsystem is oligotrophic (low-nutrient), any additions from fertilizers used for agriculture,dairy farming, and landscaping have enriched the system and caused changes in the naturalvegetation patterns. The potential for conflicts over water quantity and quality between ENPand the C&SF project was recognized early but was ignored until the southern dikes had beencompleted and the gates closed to fill WCA 3A. A series of droughts during the early andmid-1960s (1961–1964), extensive muck and grassland fires, and water supply shortages insouth Dade County adversely affected the ENP and resulted in project modifications evenbefore completion of the C&SF comprehensive planning process. These modificationswere referred to as the ENP Emergency Conveyance Canals. Their purpose was to conveydischarge water from Lake Okeechobee through the WCAs.

1970–1995: limits to growth and the politics of ecosystem restoration in South Florida

As with the earlier periods, the years between 1970 and 1995 were associated with tremen-dous change for South Florida. Absolute population growth continued at a rapid rate, hugetracts of land were converted to urban and agricultural land uses, and the demand for naturalresources grew. It became apparent that the Everglades ecosystem was increasingly threat-ened. Two points became issues for discussion. The first point was that the rate of growthand increased degradation could not continue over the long term. The great ecological costsof rapid growth were becoming apparent (Derr, 1989). An increasingly wide circle of indi-viduals and groups recognized this and began to define it as the major environmental andsocial problem facing South Florida. Another closely related issue was that the current paceof development was untenable over the long term, and the nature of growth in South Floridaneeded to be different. It was increasingly discussed in the public and private sphere thatthe region’s human population and the natural environment needed to be linked in a moresustainable relationship, one that allowed for the restoration and continued maintenance ofthe Everglades ecosystem and for continued economic growth in the South Florida regionas a whole.

In-migration and land conversionAs before, the two driving forces for land use modification and conversion were increasednational demand for Florida’s agricultural produce and increased in-migration. The pop-ulation of the four southeast Florida counties was almost 2.3 million by the year 1970,3.3 million by 1980, and 4.1 million by 1990 (Table 1). Huge in-migrant streams came fromthe Northeast and Midwest of the United States and from other countries, again particularlyfrom Latin America and the Caribbean basin. Significant amounts of inland land-use con-version were driven by the construction of large-scale planned communities, many of themretirement communities.

By the late 1980s, the basic pattern of the land use remained the same; however, the shiftsseen in the earlier 1950–1970 period intensified (figure 8). The continuous strip of urbanizedland along the Atlantic Coast became more clearly defined and pronounced, and dominatedthe roughly 150-km stretch from northern Palm Beach County to southern Dade County.Much of the conversion to urban land uses from the 1970s to the late 1980s occurred on landswithin the already settled areas. The agricultural zone separating the coastal settlements

334 SOLECKI ET AL.


from the interior Everglades had been significantly reduced. In contrast to the coastal urbandevelopment, far interior land-use shifts were associated with agricultural conversion. Theamount of agricultural land increased in the EAA. Other, much smaller, conversions toagriculture took place on the eastern coastal region on a broken string of parcels, often justalong the edge of the publicly held lands.

Agricultural development and economicsThe continued rapid population growth and land conversion meant dramatic shifts in theagricultural economy of many areas within the region. Particularly in the urban–rural fringeof Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, increased urban demand for land and risingland values meant that a significant amount of the agricultural land was converted eitherto urban land uses or to higher value crops, as in the replacement of vegetables by highervalue nursery products. In general, the agricultural sector increasingly became open toland speculation and tenant farming, where farmland was purchased by land development


companies and then leased back to the farmers, keeping property taxes low while not limitingprospects for future development.

The other large agricultural production sectors also experienced tremendous change dur-ing this period from a variety of causes. For example, winter freezes in more northerlylocations in the state accelerated the development of citrus production in many areas inSouth Florida, particularly in Hendry County. Furthermore, the implementation of the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had a tremendous impact on South Floridavegetable growers, particularly tomato growers and packers, who now face competitionwith less expensive winter produce imported from Mexico. The sugarcane industry alsowas under stress, though its profitability continued. The negative publicity surroundingsugar’s association with the continued phosphorous pollution in the Everglades, and thegrowing possibility that the federal government might change the price support structurefor sugar, combined to put indirect political pressure on cane growers. The backdrop forthese developments was the increasing recognition that the EAA muck soils are a quicklydeclining resource and that within the next several decades would become degraded to thepoint that sugarcane production will no longer be viable in large sections of the area.

Water supply and patterns of conveyanceAs the land resource demands and resident population increased, the pressure on the hy-drologic system intensified. Water resource concerns revolved around two central issues:(1) water storage, having either too much or too little; and (2) water quality. By the late1960s, most of the major construction outlined by the EDD and the C&SF project hadbeen completed. Water resource managers already had begun to shift their attention to othermajor water-related problems, such as the lack of resilience of the system to perturbationslike drought, the impact of the significantly altered flow to and within ENP, the increasedproblem of water pollution brought from urban areas and from agricultural runoff, and theincreased demand for water from the growing human populations along the Atlantic coast.The administrative and engineering response to these issues has dominated the past 25 yearsof water management in South Florida.

The Flood Control Act of 1968, for example, authorized the construction of the SouthDade County–Everglades National Park Conveyance Canal System. The purpose of thissystem was to meet urban and agricultural water supply demands for south Dade Countyand to provide water deliveries to ENP even in up to a 10-year drought. An importantresult of the 1968 act was that it established the federal interest in ENP water supply byallocating the total cost of structural and operational actions required for this purpose tothe federal government. Just three years later, in 1971, Congress mandated minimum waterflows to ENP, specified on a monthly basis. To accomplish these deliveries concurrent withconveying urban and agricultural water supply, several existing canals were enlarged, watercontrol structures were added, and pump stations were constructed.

Questioning the pace and nature of growthThe emergence and growth in significance of the new water resource concerns and theinstitutional response showed that scientists, decision-makers, and the public were becomingincreasingly aware of the suite of environmental problems facing South Florida and, in

336 SOLECKI ET AL.

particular, the Everglades. People increasingly recognized that the environmental problemswould influence the continued economic growth of the region, particularly through effectson tourism. The obvious sign for the region’s inhabitants that the regional ecosystem wasin trouble was a sequence of highly publicized pollution events that took place during the1970s and 1980s. In 1970, State of Florida studies showed that Lake Okeechobee was beingpolluted from nutrient runoff from dairy farms and cattle ranches north of the lake; in 1986,massive algal blooms spread throughout Lake Okeechobee; and in 1987, seagrass die-offwas first noticed in Florida Bay.

As the evidence of environmental degradation became stronger, the seeds were being setfor a more vigorous and concentrated initiative for environmental protection. Starting in theearly 1970s, a small circle of resource decision-makers, politicians, and environmentalistsincreasingly focused on the extent of the environmental degradation, the causes of thedegradation, and its restoration. A series of debates were held in which the participantsformed various camps. For example, environmentalists often were pitted against agriculturalinterests, the State of Florida, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Other major divisionsincluded urban water–demand interests versus agricultural interests.

As the political debates grew, empirical evidence of ecosystem degradation began tomount. By the early 1980s, three primary conditions of ecosystem degradation and resourceconflict had been clearly articulated: (1) interruption of the natural periodicity of surfacewater flow and the seasonal storage of water; (2) change of the hydrology of the aquiferrecharge, particularly the Floridan aquifer, which underlies much of the Everglades; and(3) increasing evidence of the impact of the agricultural runoff and urban settlements onthe region’s surface- and groundwater supplies. While it had been clear for decades thata thriving human community had become increasingly dependent on a highly structuredwater supply and flood control system, it was only in the 1980s that the previous externalitycosts of this system and associated water uses became more generally obvious.

Rising environmentalism in florida and its characterizationThe rise in environmental awareness from 1970 to 1995 also was characterized by a shift inthe valuation and perception of the natural resource base by many Floridians, particularlyresidents of South Florida. Although Florida has had a strong and vibrant core of environ-mentalists and conservationists since the latter part of the 19th century, it was during thepast quarter century that heightened environmental values began to be shared by a large partof the general population. Throughout the region during the 1970s and 1980s, there wasgrowing recognition of a decline in the environmental quality of the region, and a feelingof “paradise lost.”

Many surveys during the late 1980s and early 1990s showed that Floridians were con-cerned about the environment and supported stronger environmental protection, althoughduring this period they were not optimistic regarding the future of their local environment.Most Floridians expected that the level of environmental degradation would be worse inthe future, and that government was not adequately addressing these issues. A compli-cating factor is that while most Floridians characterized themselves as pro-environment,their commitment became qualified when specific issues of jobs, growth, and the economywere raised (Derr, 1989; Wilkes, 1995). This conflicting attitude of economics vs. ecology


illustrates one dimension of the challenge in forging consensus on ecosystem restoration inSouth Florida.

In response to the growing pro-environmental attitudes of the public, institutions’ envi-ronmental attitudes also have changed since 1970. A rapid evolution in the mind-set of theresource management institutions as well as an increase in the number of policy proposalsto protect and restore the ecosystem of the Everglades occurred during this period. Mostdramatic of these was a shift in policy perspectives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Following the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes, the federal role in water control became predom-inate, as the state legislature created the Okeechobee Flood Control District and authorizedits cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since then, the corps had con-sistently acted to alter the natural hydrology. The first major shift in corps’ responsibilitytoward the natural system came with the Everglades National Park Protection and Expan-sion Act of 1989 (U.S. Congress, 1989), directing the corps to improve the park’s waterdelivery toward restoring the natural hydrologic conditions. The second major change fordirection of the corps came with the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, providingauthority for sweeping modifications to restore the Kissimmee River ecosystem.

Other institutions with regional or local mandates also began to focus more on Evergladesrestoration. Within the meeting rooms of the SFWMD and local county water managers,county commissioners, and mayors, Everglades restoration increasingly became an issueof discussion and debate. While most officials were supportive of what they understood asthe broad plan for restoration, they felt their ability to influence the process was limited andremained very hesitant about potential costs (Zubrow, unpublished manuscript).

Development of policies to restore the EvergladesIn response to the increasing concern for the environment, the legal and institutional ap-proach to Everglades management and protection has changed tremendously during the past25 years. The era witnessed two fundamental changes: the shift in the administrative site ofpolicy development, and the shift in the nature of policies themselves. The first change wasthe growth of the Federal government as a major player in the development of new ecosystemmanagement policies, often forcing the State of Florida and other local institutions into pro-environment action. The second shift was associated with the development of a sequenceof three new sets of policy initiatives. Early in the 1970–1995 period, most new policiesfocused on protecting and restoring specific components of the Everglades ecosystem, suchas the groundwater resources or endangered species, and were implemented by a specificagency. By the 1980s, the new policies were more ecologically integrative and holistic yetstill were implemented by single agencies. In the 1990s, cutting-edge policies remain inte-grative and holistic but now explicitly require interagency collaboration to be implementedproperly (Milonet al., 1997).

This institutional and policy development history can be broken into three periods: 1971–1983; 1983–1993; and 1993 to the present. The first period can be characterized by a setof mostly state-level policy initiatives, each of which were designed to address specificpolicy questions. The second, initiated by a water crisis declared within ENP, signaled thebeginning of even greater federal involvement in the management of the Everglades and thebeginning of a more comprehensive regional and ecological response to the problem. The

338 SOLECKI ET AL.

most recent phase, initiated by the declaration by U.S. Department of the Interior SecretaryBruce Babbit that the Everglades will be used as a test case for ecosystem restoration andby the winding down of an intense federal vs. State of Florida lawsuit focused on theEverglades, was reflective of the movement toward a more cooperative and comprehensivelong-term resolution of the problems.

Increased general environmental awareness and concern, several highly publicized large-scale development projects, and a serious drought helped foster what seemed like a crisiscondition for the Everglades in the early 1970s. It was under these conditions that the eraof greater State of Florida attention to and involvement in regional environmental issuesstarted when Governor Askew convened, in the fall of 1971, the South Florida Water Man-agement Conference to define solutions. The result was a call for comprehensive regulationof land and water use, stricter wetlands regulations, and other limitations on growth anddevelopment. In response, the 1972 Florida legislature enacted sweeping new legislation,each component designed to focus on a facet of the problems. The Water Resources Act(State of Florida, 1972a) provided for comprehensive water management throughout thestate. A new agency, the SFWMD, replaced the C&SFFCD. Like its previous incarnation,the district was governed by a board of gubernatorial appointees and had authority to levy advalorem taxes and to build and operate water management structures. The district also hadextensive planning responsibilities and the authority to regulate consumptive use, aquiferrecharge, the use of district works, and surface water management systems.

Other legislation addressed land use issues. The Environmental Land and Water Manage-ment Act (State of Florida, 1972b), provided for state and regional review of Developmentsof Regional Impact and state oversight of areas of critical concern such as wetlands. TheFlorida Comprehensive Planning Act provided for the establishment of a state comprehen-sive plan, and the Land Conservation Act authorized the issuance of $240 million in bondsto purchase environmentally endangered and outdoor recreation lands, subject to approvalby the voters in a referendum. As evidence of the environmental ethic of the time, 70% ofthe state’s voters approved.

Water crisis in the EvergladesEven with these state-initiated measures, it had become clear to scientists by 1983 that thewater management system was not adequately meeting the needs of the natural system. Infact, many project features constructed pursuant to the 1968 authorization for improvingwater deliveries to ENP caused the most serious problems. The extremely heavy rainfallthat occurred throughout the project area during the winter of 1983 created what ENP staffconcluded was an emergency situation that threatened the continued viability of the park’snatural resources. In March 1983, the ENP superintendent proposed a seven point plan thatcalled for major modifications to the C&SF project and its operation. It was soon obviousthat implementation of this plan would have substantial impact on private property and theability of the water management system to provide flood control and water supply. Thisplan and the ensuing debate signaled the beginning of the next phase of water resourcesdevelopment in the South Florida region.

Unlike earlier periods, this phase in water resources development recognized the neces-sity of addressing the entire ecosystem. For example, in 1983 Florida Governor Graham


announced the “Save Our Everglades” program designed to make the Everglades func-tion, by the end of the century, as it had in the early 1900s. Building on ideas generated by“Save Our Everglades,” a more system-wide perspective developed within state and regionalagencies and among members of the environmental community, which self-organized asthe Everglades Coalition. In 1987, Florida extended the system-wide perspective by en-acting the Florida Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act designed toaddress large-scale water quality problems. The political origin of the regional SWIM planswas the massive algal bloom in Lake Okeechobee, but associated studies showing furthernutrient-based threats to the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park begana new era of state–federal interactions in confronting ecosystem management problems andopportunities.

The politics and practice of ecosystem restorationA dramatic increase in federal involvement in the Everglades took place in 1988, when theU.S. government sued state agencies for letting polluted water flow into the LoxahatcheeWildlife Refuge (WCA1) and ENP without a state permit. While the lawsuit was primarilyinitiated by the then acting U.S. Attorney for South Florida, on behalf of two of the region’snational protected areas, ten national environmental groups eventually intervened. Althoughthe State of Florida and SFWMD were the parties sued, the public debate focused around theresponsibilities of the sugar growers and the construction of artificial wetlands for filtration.

The lawsuit helped transform the political landscape of the Everglades ecosystem de-bate. Although it explicitly pitted the federal government against the State of Florida, allthe major players used the lawsuit as a way of defining and sharpening their own positions.The differences between the various interest group positions became clear and distinct.Debate over the Everglades, specifically over the management of water, further fracturedSouth Florida politics into various groups including old-timers vs. new immigrants; growthinterests vs. environmental interests; agricultural vs. urban interests; coastal vs. noncoastalinterests; and Native Americans vs. all others. As this political debate took place duringthe late 1980s and early 1990s, several concurrent events helped to increase the intensityof the discussions. During 1988 to 1991, Florida experienced another major drought, againhighlighting the conflicts over water. In the late 1980s, scientific reports increasingly docu-mented the dramatic degradation of the Everglades ecosystem, particularly with respect tothe decline of the water bird populations and the extent to which exotic plant species haveinvaded the area.

Also occurring during these years were other events that laid the foundation for the evenmore dramatic policy steps in the future. For example, in 1990 Congress ordered the corpsto do another study of whether restoration of the Kissimmee River was possible. The studydetermined that it was possible, and in 1992 Congress authorized the corps to proceedwith the restoration. This process was quickly seen by many as the prototype of the largerscale Everglades restoration project, which was anticipated to follow soon. In 1991, FloridaGovernor Lawton Chiles made an initial attempt at settling the lawsuit and agreed to havethe state build 1.4× 106 m2 of water treatment marshes. Farmers and others, identified asthe major agents of degradation, claimed that it was not wholly their fault, and filed thefirst of more than a dozen lawsuits to block the plan. Also in 1991, the Marjorie Stoneman

340 SOLECKI ET AL.

Douglas Act was passed by the state legislature, requiring the SFWMD to complete theEverglades SWIM plan, apply for a five-year interim permit from the Florida Departmentof Environmental Protection, and initiate EAA regulatory rule-making procedures.

Integrated ecosystem management and interagencies effortsThe political framework for Everglades restoration was again altered in scope in July 1993when Secretary of the Interior Babbit, at the annual Everglades Coalition meeting, statedthat he intended to use the Everglades as a prototype for ecosystem management andrestoration. A task force was organized at the White House level to examine ecosystemmanagement strategies of all federal agencies with environmental or land use jurisdiction todetermine how their activities could be interwoven to achieve ecosystem restoration goals.This call came in response to the understanding that single agencies or institutions, withoften overlapping, conflicting, or inadequate jurisdictions and mandates, were inappropriatestructures to address ecosystem-wide problems.

Two major initiatives followed these actions: The Department of the Interior invited allfederal agencies with jurisdiction in South Florida to join an interagency task force, autho-rized by a memorandum of understanding to coordinate federal efforts toward ecosystemrestoration. This restoration reflects a major shift in federal level appreciation of the inher-ent inadequacy of small repair efforts in the face of system-wide ecological threats. Stateagencies and Native American tribes later joined the interagency task force. In a paralleleffort at the state and local level, Governor Chiles created the Governor’s Commission fora Sustainable South Florida to explore methods for enhancing long-term ecological healthwhile sustaining economic and social progress. Federal agencies participated as nonvotingmembers in the commission’s multiyear project. The Federal Interagency Task Force forSouth Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Governor’s Commission for a SustainableSouth Florida were seen as mechanisms to establish a balance among competing interestsof the natural system and the human social and economic systems.

Conclusions: complexities in ecosystem restoration management

Throughout the history of South Florida, society’s relationship with the natural environmenthas undergone a series of transformations. Each transformation has set the seeds for a newpattern of resource perception and use. And, in turn, each new period of resource use setthe stage for the next transformation. From an early pattern of survival and exploitationbefore 1900, the relationship quickly turned to one of land-use conversion mixed withmajor engineering efforts to dominate the environment and direct it toward human needs.The common perception was that the Everglades swamp wilderness could be drained andconverted for large agricultural development. Secondarily, coastal locations were seen assites of extensive urban development. More than 8×103 km2 of natural land were convertedfor agricultural and urban uses during the period 1900 to 1986 (Walker and Solecki, 1996).Coupled with the construction of drainage canals and levees, a human-dominated landscapewas created. Yet as the dramatic consequences of these efforts to manage and alter thenatural environment became clear, a rising concern about the effects on the quality of life,along with an increased environmental ethic, lead to a strong counter-movement. While


efforts to preserve the Everglades ecology have appeared throughout this century, theseefforts have significantly increased since the 1960s. Gradual trends indicating ecologicaldecline, punctuated by well-publicized environmental disasters such as red tides, pushed thelocal and regional decision makers and public to reassess the management of the region’secosystem. The turmoil and major reassessment of society’s relationship to the Evergladesin the past 25 years has brought the region to a crossroads of yet another transformation,the outcome of which is still evolving.

Acknowledgments

This article is contribution number US MAB HDS 055 of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere(US MAB) Human-Dominated Systems Directorate (HDS) Series.

Funding for this study was provided, in part, by the US MAB Program (Grant #1753-100110) to the University of Miami with subcontracts to the University of Florida, FloridaState University, SUNY Buffalo, and the University of Maine. US MAB is administeredby the U.S. Department of State as a multiagency, collaborative, interdisciplinary researchactivity to advance the scientific understanding of human/environment interactions. Ad-ditional funding was received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Ex-periment Station, Vicksburg, MS (Contract #DACW 39-94-K-0032) and the U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through aUM/NOAA joint research project funded by the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program as part ofthe University of Miami-NOAA Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies(CIMAS NA67RJ0149: Task 3 Coastal Ocean Ecosystems Processes). This article does notnecessarily represent the policies of US MAB, the U.S. Department of State, any mem-ber agency of US MAB, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the U.S. Department ofCommerce/NOAA.

References

Archibugi, F. and Nijkamp, P., eds. (1989)Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable Development. KluwerAcademic Publishers, Boston, MA.

Bartram, W. (1951)Travels. M.V. Doren, ed. Dover, New York, NY.Batisse, M. (1986) Developing and focussing the biosphere reserve concept.Nature and Resources22(3), 107–122.Bilsborrow, R.E. (1992) Population growth, internal migration, and environmental degradation in rural areas of

developing countries.European Journal of Population8, 125–148.Blaikie, H. and Brookfield, P. (1987)The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Methuen,

London, UK.Blake, N.B. (1980)Land into Water—Water into Land: A History of Water Management in Florida. University

Presses of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Boserup, E. (1981)Population and Technological Change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Burch, W.R., Jr. (1988) Human ecology and environmental management. InEcosystem Management for Parks

and Wilderness(J.K. Agee and D.R. Johnson, eds.), pp. 135–153. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.Carlebach, M. and Provenzo, E.F. (1993)Farm Security Administration Photographs of Florida. University Press

of Florida, Tallahassee, FL.Carter, L.J. (1974)The Florida Experience: Land and Water Policy in a Growth State. Johns Hopkins University,

Baltimore, MD.

342 SOLECKI ET AL.

Chapman, A.E. (1991) History of South Florida. InSouth Florida: Winds of Change(T.D. Boswell, ed.),pp. 31–42. Department of Geography, University of Miami, Miami, FL.

Clark, W.C. and Munn, R.E., eds. (1986)Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press,New York, NY.

Costanza, R., ed. (1991)Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia Uni-versity Press, New York, NY.

Derr, M. (1989)Some Kind of Paradise: A Chronicle of Man and the Land in Florida. Morrow, New York, NY.Douglas, M.S. (1947)The Everglades: River of Grass. Mockingbird Books, St. Simons Island, GA.Dovell, J.E. (1947)A History of the Everglades of Florida. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC

(condensed inSoil Science, Society of Florida Proceedings4-A, 132–161).Duncan, O.D. (1959) Human ecology and population studies. InThe Study of Population(P.M. Hauser and

O.D. Duncan, eds.), pp. 678–716. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. and Holdren, J.P. (1977)Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Freeman,

San Francisco, CA.Elvove, J.T. (1943) The Florida Everglades—a region of new settlement.Journal of Land Public Utilities Eco-

nomics19, 464–469.Gannon, M. (1996)The New History of Florida. University Press of Florida, Tallahassee, FL.Gifford, J.C. (1972)On Preserving Tropical Florida. Compiled and with a biographical sketch by E.O. Rothra.

University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, FL.Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida (1996)A Conceptual Plan for the C&SF Restudy. Report

submitted to Governor Lawton Chiles. Coral Gables, FL.Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S., and Light, S.S., eds. (1995)Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems

and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.Hanna, A.J. and Hanna, K.A. (1948)Lake Okeechobee, Wellspring of the Everglades. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis,

MN.Harwell, C.C., Deren, C.W., Snyder, G.H., Solecki, W.D., Wilson, J. and Harwell, M.A. (1999) Use of a conceptual

model of societal drivers of ecological change in South Florida: implications of an ecosystem managementscenario.Urban Ecosystems3(3/4), 345–368.

Harwell, M.A., Gentile, J.H., Bartuska, A., Harwell, C.C., Myers, V., Ogden, J., and Tosini, S. (1999) A science-based strategy for ecological restoration in South Florida.Urban Ecosystems3(3/4), 201–222.

Hawley, A.H. (1950)Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure. Ronald Press, New York, NY.Herbert, L.P. (1971) U.S. Sugar Cane Field Station, Canal Point, Florida—first fifty years 1920–1970.Sugar y

Azucar66, 73–76.Hogan, D.J. (1992) The impact of population growth on the physical environment.European Journal of Population

8, 109–123.Jolly, C.L. (1994) Four theories of population change and the environment.Population and Environment16(1),

61–90.Jolly, C.L. and Torrey, B.B., eds. (1993)Population and Land Use in Developing Countries. National Academy

Press, Washington, DC.Keyfitz, N. (1994) Counting bodies, counting heads: why biologists and economists disagree about population

policy. The Sciences9, 21–27.Kidder, R.W. (1979)From Cattle to Cane. Belle Glade Historical Society, Belle Glade, FL.Kushlan, J.A. (1987) External threats and internal management: the hydrologic regulation of the Everglades,

Florida, U.S.A.Environ. Manage. 11(1), 109–119.Light, S.S. and Dineen, W.J. (1994) Water control in the Everglades: a historical perspective. InEverglades: The

Ecosystem and Its Restoration(S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden, eds.), pp. 47–84. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach,FL.

Marth, D. and Marth, M.J. (1993)The Florida Almanac. Pelican, Gretna, FL.Milon, J.W., Kiker, C.F. and Lee, D.J. (1997) Ecosystem management and the Florida Everglades: the role of

social scientists.Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics29, 99–107.Murdoch, W. (1980)The Poverty of Nations, the Political Economy of Hunger and Population. The Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore, MD.Odum, H.T. (1973)Environment, Power, and Society. John Wiley, New York, NY.


Pickett, S.T.A. (1993) An ecological perspective on population change and land use. InPopulation and Land Usein Developing Countries(C. L. Jolly and B. B. Torrey, eds.), pp. 37–41. National Academy Press, Washington,DC.

Repetto, R. (1987) Population, resources, and environment: an uncertain future.Population Bulletin42(2), 3–43.Salley, G.H. (1986)A History of the Florida Sugar Industry. Florida Sugar Cane League, Miami, FL.Shultz, R. (1991) Population growth and migration: southeast Florida in regional context. InSouth Florida: Winds

of Change(T.D. Boswell, ed.), pp. 43–62. Department of Geography, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.Simon, J. (1981)The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Sitterson, J.C. (1953)Sugar Country. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY.Snyder, G.H. (1994) Soils of the EAA. InEverglades Agricultural Area (EAA): Water, Soil, Crop, and Environ-

mental Management(A.B. Bottcher and F.T. Izuno, eds.), pp. 27–41. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,FL.

Snyder, G.H. and Davidson, J.M. (1994) Everglades agriculture: past, present and future. InEverglades: TheEcosystem and Its Restoration(S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden, eds.), pp. 47–84. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach,FL.

State of Florida. (1972a) Water Resources Act, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, Tallahassee, FL.State of Florida. (1972b) Environmental Land and Water Management Act, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Talla-

hassee, FL.Stephens, J.C. and Johnson, L. (1951) Subsidence of organic soils in the upper Everglades region of Florida.Soil

Science Society of Florida Proceedings11, 191–237.Strong, W. (1991) The southeast Florida economy. InSouth Florida: Winds of Change(T.D. Boswell, ed.),

pp. 70–86. Department of Geography, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.Tebeau, C.W. (1990)Man in the Everglades: 2000 Years of Human History in the Everglades National Park.

University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, FL.U.S. Congress. (1989) Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989. P. L. 101–229. U.S.

Congress, Washington, DC.USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture]. (1884)Yearly Report on Agricultural Production in the United States.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Walker, R.T. and Solecki, W.D. (1996) Land cover change, sustainability, and the biosphere reserve concept.

Unpublished manuscript.Walker, R.T., Solecki, W.D., and Harwell, C. (1996) Land use dynamics and ecological transition: the case of

South Florida.Urban Ecosystems1(1), 37–47.Walter, C.J., Gunderson, L.H., and Holling, C.S. (1992) Experimental policies for water management in the

Everglades.Ecol. Appl. 2(2), 189–202.Wilkes, E.A. (1995)Location of Residence as a Predictor of Spatial Variation in Public Concern for Environmental

Protection in Florida. Department of Geography, Florida State University.Will, L.E. (1984)Swamp to Sugar Bowl: Pioneer Days in Belle Glade. The Glades Historical Society, Belle Glade,

FL.Willoughby, H.L. (1898)Across the Everglades, A Canoe Journey of Exploration. J.M. Dent, London, UK.Winsberg, M.D. (1991) South Florida agriculture. InSouth Florida: Winds of Change(T.D. Boswell, ed.),

pp. 17–30. Department of Geography, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.Zubrow, Ezra. (1995) Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. Un-

published manuscript.

Documents

Human–environment interactions in South Florida's …cescos.fau.edu/gawliklab/papers/Soleckietal1999.pdf · 2006-12-19 · degradation and restoration at the ... nents: interaction