# Hurricane damaging sugarcane fields.



## permitchaser (Aug 26, 2013)

I was wondering the same thing. I don't live down there but wouldn't it flush out and the fertilizer and crap


----------



## IRLyRiser (Feb 14, 2007)

The 2004 hurricanes made the sugar industry much more willing to selling land to the state to restore flow south.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

IRLyRiser said:


> The 2004 hurricanes made the sugar industry much more willing to selling land to the state to restore flow south.


And since then they have been applying for oil permits and... yes, Florida needs a refinery, obviously.


----------



## 994 (Apr 14, 2008)

EdK13 said:


> And since then they have been applying for oil permits and... yes, Florida needs a refinery, obviously.


Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

mosquitolaGOON said:


> Can you elaborate on this?


http://dep.state.fl.us/water/mines/oil_gas/drill-apps.htm


----------



## Backcountry 16 (Mar 15, 2016)

I hope big sugar losses alot they are part of messing up the everglades to begin with.


----------



## CodyW (Jan 26, 2016)

Backcountry 16 said:


> I hope big sugar losses alot they are part of messing up the everglades to begin with.


Also look at all the nice lawns that are on the canals. These people spend hundreds of dollars on fertilizer a month and a lot of that washes off into the water too. There should be some regulations on synthetic fertilizers or only allow organic fertilizer for waterfront homes.


----------



## bonehead (Dec 9, 2016)

CodyW said:


> Also look at all the nice lawns that are on the canals. These people spend hundreds of dollars on fertilizer a month and a lot of that washes off into the water too. There should be some regulations on synthetic fertilizers or only allow organic fertilizer for waterfront homes.


Agreed man. I fish the canals quite often and always wonder about all the stuff that goes in the water.


----------



## Backcountry 16 (Mar 15, 2016)

CodyW said:


> Also look at all the nice lawns that are on the canals. These people spend hundreds of dollars on fertilizer a month and a lot of that washes off into the water too. There should be some regulations on synthetic fertilizers or only allow organic fertilizer for waterfront homes.


I totally agree with that. Also a big issue but it all starts with big sugar.


----------



## eightwt (May 11, 2017)

Backcountry 16 said:


> I hope big sugar losses alot they are part of messing up the everglades to begin with.


When consumers stop eating so much sugar, then growers will no longer have a market. Or ban homegrown sugar and pay for only imported sugar. Or outlaw sugar and legislate artificial sweeteners only..We all are part of the problem. There are solutions but they all cost money. Its all about values and priorities. Just my 2 cents...


----------



## fjmaverick (Sep 18, 2015)

permitchaser said:


> I was wondering the same thing. I don't live down there but wouldn't it flush out and the fertilizer and crap


Works with molasses, honey and maple syrup. I dont see why large amounts of sugarcane would do the same thing.


----------



## iMacattack (Dec 11, 2006)

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weather/hurricane/article171946187.html


*Evacuations ordered around Lake Okeechobee*

*“Based on recent forecasts, the U.S. Army Corps has been reviewing how the federally operated Herbert Hoover Dike will be impacted,” the governor’s office said in a statement. “Gov. Scott spoke to Col. Jason Kirk with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers today and the corps believes there will be additional impacts from excessive wind pushing some water over the dike.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weather/hurricane/article171946187.html#storylink=cpy
*


----------



## Mavdog (Aug 22, 2017)

fjmaverick said:


> Works with molasses, honey and maple syrup. I dont see why large amounts of sugarcane would do the same thing.


Pretty sure molasses is condensed sugar cane syrup, but I could be wrong. Locally produced Honey though FTW.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

CodyW said:


> Also look at all the nice lawns that are on the canals. These people spend hundreds of dollars on fertilizer a month and a lot of that washes off into the water too. There should be some regulations on synthetic fertilizers or only allow organic fertilizer for waterfront homes.


Fertilizer is fertilizer... Phosphates are considered organic, but destroys the environment getting and making it, as well as the repercussions of what it does to the water. Mosaic wants to blow smoke up people's ass by showing on TV how they are such "good stewards" of our ecology here in Florida, when they cause some of the worst environmental disasters this state has ever seen. F'in SHAME on them!!

Also, organic like cow dong can be just as bad for the water quality, in which it still feeds algae and bacteria which mucks up the water quality. Toxins is what you really have to watch out for. So yes, in that case, man made fertilizers are going straight from the bottle or bag, into the fish we eat and digest. Not good folks!

You guys can thank the politicians of our good State of Florida, back in the day, when their pockets were lined with money from developers and big sugar, whereby they cut up the low lands and dug canals to drain off the wetlands to be developed into farmlands and developments. The damage has already been done 60 to 100yrs ago and now it's just "water under the bridge!"

The answer lies in filling in the man made canals throughout the Glades and Big Cypress and removing the dams. Then bypassing the farm fields with new canals from Lake O, threading in between farm fields and developments, S & SW of Lake O, and re-establishing a sheet flow trench running east to west, south of Big Sugar, but upstream (north) of the headwaters of the glades, in method that evenly redistributes the water evenly across the north end of the Glades, across the state and then allowing the water to sheet flow from that point, south. The results will be a steady supply of freshwater that will naturally filter down thru the Glades and Big Cypress, from the 10,000 Islands thru to Florida Bay. In the end, it's less money that people think it will cost and will solve most of the water problems throughout the Glades.

If anyone knows the dept or guy with all the political connections to make it happen, I have a rough draft of that plan.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Mavdog said:


> Pretty sure molasses is condensed sugar cane syrup, but I could be wrong. Locally produced Honey though FTW.


Molasses comes from sugar cane.


----------



## fishicaltherapist (Mar 9, 2013)

Jacksonville,Tx. was one of the biggest tomato producers in the country until phosphates were introduced and they literally BURNED the soil there and the industry was decimated. Phosphates are poison and if politicians don't think so, they should have a swim day in "big phosphate's" holding ponds. I haven't bought a bag of sugar in at least 30 years and Ted you have a common sense idea there, kudos.


----------



## Mavdog (Aug 22, 2017)

I'd be interested to hear some opinions regarding the overall economic impact of buying/restoring the land. On one hand, the sugar cartel employs farm hands, processing plant personnel, and truckers. They also have to buy processing/farming equipment, fertilizer, and various services required to maintain their machinery. But with my limited understanding of the subsidies provided by the State and/or Federal governments, it seems that the tax revenue and overall economic stimulus generated by the sugar operations would be offset by these subsidies. Additionally, I'm not sure how much the EPA/State of Florida spends on environmental cleanup from discharge generated algae blooms, if anything, but I have to imagine the Army Corp. of Engineer's maintenance of the dikes/channels isn't cheap. 

Let's say that the Bullsugar effort passes, and the land is bought and restored. Clean water is sent south, improving ENP water quality. Cleaner water means more fish, which will attract more anglers and ecotourists. Focusing on the sport-fishing sector, more people fishing ENP increases the need for boats/tackle, which will benefit the boat manufacturers, and the suppliers of rigging, fiberglass supplies and tools, and electronics. Additionally, tackle manufacturers - reel manufacturers for example - require metal stock, tooling, machinery, and maintenance services. In both cases, many of these companies are located in the state of Florida, Maverick, Chittum, Ankona/Salt Marsh, Hells Bay, Beavertail, Birdsall, Blue Point, Tibor, Nautilus, off the top of my head, plus all the behind-the-scenes service providers. So all the sales tax from boat and tackle production alone goes right into the State of Florida's pocket. Then, you have to figure in locals or tourists buying gas, lodging, food, drink, bait, and tackle, as well as paying for services: guiding, boat maintenance and storage, and so on. This increase in economic stimulus will increase sales tax revenue, which again goes right into the state of Florida's pocket. 

I understand how the sugar lobby essentially trades campaign contributions and political support for subsidies, but I'm not sure why no politician has stepped up to oppose this broken system. If a politician were to stand up to the sugar lobby, with support of small business owners and environmentalists alike, I don't see how the sugar babies would stand a chance! Between the Citizens for Clean Water demonstrations, and a common distaste for government overreach I have witnessed in the south, it surprises me that people like Rick Scott have stayed in office for so long. 

I'm not the most knowledgeable about Florida politics, but I don't understand how the public has so much wool pulled over their eyes. I once heard a rumor that during Rick Scott's run for governor, he spoke against Lake Okeechobee pollution, and once elected, was promptly taken to Texas by the one of the sugar families for a Pheasant Hunting Retreat. Whether this is true or not, Scott and Rubio speak out against the pollution issue, while taking millions in campaign contributions from big sugar families. They blame the federal government, ACoE, and anyone else who can be a scapegoat. I'm not sure what scares me more, that Florida residents are that foolish and shortsighted, or that they just don't care.

I apologize for turning this into a political rant, but it's clear that our politicians don't care about the health of our ecosystem. Money talks. If anyone has seen a report estimating the economic impacts of buying the sugar land, I'd be interested to see how close or far off I am. If not, I can ask some people I know who are involved with Bullsugar.


----------



## Mavdog (Aug 22, 2017)

Backwater said:


> Fertilizer is fertilizer... Phosphates are considered organic, but destroys the environment getting and making it, as well as the repercussions of what it does to the water. Mosaic wants to blow smoke up people's ass by showing on TV how they are such "good stewards" of our ecology here in Florida, when they cause some of the worst environmental disasters this state has ever seen. F'in SHAME on them!!
> 
> Also, organic like cow dong can be just as bad for the water quality, in which it still feeds algae and bacteria which mucks up the water quality. Toxins is what you really have to watch out for. So yes, in that case, man made fertilizers are going straight from the bottle or bag, into the fish we eat and digest. Not good folks!
> 
> ...


While I imagine the initial cost of restoration is high, the outflow system should be cheaper to maintain in the long run. I am a reliability engineer at a chemical plant, and everything I've learned says that implementing sustainable, self governing systems is always cheaper in the long run, as reactive maintenance is always more costly than well planned preventative maintenance. The Okeechobee discharges, from what I understand, are effectively reactive maintenance efforts, as they prevent flooding or dike breaches. Implementing a passive outflow system would require inspections of course, but it wouldn't leave the ACoE scrambling for solutions every high rainfall event, as it would be inherently designed to process rainfall.

At school, my roommate was an AgEcon major, and had considerable farming experience. From what he and my grandfather have explained to me, most fertilizers are pretty inert - farmers use phosphates, nitrates, and potassium compounds that are found freely in nature. The issue with fertilizers is the runoff causing eutrophication, which for those unfamiliar, is when fertilizer runoff causes algae blooms. Eutrophication specifically in Lake Okeechobee causes phytoplankton and cyanobacteria blooms, which have different effects. When excessive phosphates are introduced into a body of water, the phytoplankton (basically plants) can reproduce much faster. When the phytoplankton die, smaller organisms decompose them. The decomposition process uses oxygen, so as blooms increase in size, more dissolved oxygen is taken from the water and sequestered. Cyanobacteria, on the other hand, "fix", or eat nitrates, so when excessive nitrates are introduced, these bacteria can bloom. The issue with cyanobacteria is that they produce cyanotoxins - a class of toxins that have ranging, but an extremely negative effect on most biological processes. 

So when the phosphates and nitrates are introduced due to agricultural runoff, the phytoplankton blooms rob the water of dissolved oxygen, and the cyanobacteria are eaten by algae eating organisms. Reductions in dissolved oxygen are definitely one culprit for fish kills, but as cyanotoxins are harmful to humans in very small doses, I wouldn't be surprised if they are also a culprit in fish kills. If they are, then the effective is compounded; the cyanotoxins kill aquatic life on all scales, who are then decomposed, further depleting dissolved oxygen levels. These blooms, as you've probably seen, reduce water clarity as well, which I've seen throughout ENP.

I'm not sure if you've heard of ciguatera poisoning that can occur from eating large reef fish, but I read a scientific paper saying that these ciguatoxins are likely produced by cyanobacteria. So tl;dr, fertilizers can indirectly cause tainting of fish. 

Pesticides are what I really worry about in harvesting fish from populated areas. While these are "safe" for use on plants, the compounds are specifically created to kill things. While not lethal in small doses, I believe they are ingested by algae, and accumulate in animals farther up in the food chain. Issues with mercury in large game fish like tuna is a great example. 

At my plant, we do produce wastewater, but after filtering out heavy metals or valuable metals that can be recycled, it is pumped into wells far below the water table, effectively sealing them away from aquifers and surface water. While it's not the best option, it's a great balance between safety and cost efficiency. 

At the end of the day, if the sugar operations are not shut down completely, the only option is much stricter control of wastewater discharge. Regardless, the channels still need built. But to prudently limit our impact on the everglades, the sugar operations MUST be shut down.


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

What we've done to the northern portions of the Everglades (from Okeechobee south to Everglades National Park...) has been pretty awful - but make no mistake, at every decision point it was our elected officials who gave the nod (for the last 100 years...). Remember as well that very little of south Florida could ever have been developed without flood control (my house sits on land that was Everglades, west of Ft Lauderdale...). As usual we don't have any problems - we didn't collectively cause ourselves... As that old Pogo comic strip said , once upon a time...
"We have met the enemy - and he is us"....

Getting the voters in our state to actually approve what needs to be done (buy up as much of the agricultural areas south of the big lake as needed - then return those areas, as much as we can, to a natural north-south flow way all the way down to the Park, with specific holding areas to clean up fertilizer elements as much as possible -remember the water that the 'Glades needs has to be pretty much pure hydro - no nutrients at all...) would be a huge undertaking... and I'm not sure we have the collective will to actually do that (no matter how we yell and scream about just how bad things are as a result...). 

No politician wants to be the poster child for raising the monies (big, big bucks to correct the current situation...) from everyone in this state to pay for the restoration needed... As much as anglers (and everyone else that loves the 'glades) want to see this happen - most folks are pretty much indifferent - until you propose to raise their taxes....

Beating up on "big sugar" for doing what we've allowed (and encouraged for many years) them to do is great fun - but won't get us one inch from where we are now.... When you hear of this plan or that plan to change/improve the situation remember that promises are a politicians stock in trade (from your own city, then county, then state - and the feds are pretty good at "promises" as well... Watch closely what is actually done, and whether the monies promised actually show up.... That will be the telling point.

Anyone reading this is welcome to re-post it to any site willing to put up with it. I'll get down off of my soapbox now...


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Apr 9, 2010)

fishicaltherapist said:


> Jacksonville,Tx. was one of the biggest tomato producers in the country...


True story. The HS stadium there is pretty cool. It's called the "Tomato Bowl" and it's got a stone facade and wall around the facility, right on the main drag in town. It was built by the WPA near the end of the Great Depression in 1940. It's not on par with some of the ridiculously palatial stadiums some high schools play at here but it's got more character than any 10 combined IMHO.

Sorry for the thread hijack, just thought it would be cool to add a little color to Jacksonville once being the tomato capitol.


----------



## Mavdog (Aug 22, 2017)

lemaymiami said:


> What we've done to the northern portions of the Everglades (from Okeechobee south to Everglades National Park...) has been pretty awful - but make no mistake, at every decision point it was our elected officials who gave the nod (for the last 100 years...). Remember as well that very little of south Florida could ever have been developed without flood control (my house sits on land that was Everglades, west of Ft Lauderdale...). As usual we don't have any problems - we didn't collectively cause ourselves... As that old Pogo comic strip said , once upon a time...
> "We have met the enemy - and he is us"....
> 
> Getting the voters in our state to actually approve what needs to be done (buy up as much of the agricultural areas south of the big lake as needed - then return those areas, as much as we can, to a natural north-south flow way all the way down to the Park, with specific holding areas to clean up fertilizer elements as much as possible -remember the water that the 'Glades needs has to be pretty much pure hydro - no nutrients at all...) would be a huge undertaking... and I'm not sure we have the collective will to actually do that (no matter how we yell and scream about just how bad things are as a result...).
> ...


At some point I'm sure the sugar industry was a huge component of the economy, but, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems that there's enough industry in Florida now to do with out it. I understand that all of the restoration efforts will be expensive, and I agree that few care about the environment more than their taxes. At this point, however, I don't know what else there is to do. 

I agree it is easy to beat up the sugar companies, and frankly the strategy leverages too much whining and not enough doing for my liking. But I'm not sure what else there is to do besides getting people pissed off enough to end the circus. I see the everglades as one of the biggest assets the state has, and wish that there was a stronger "state pride" component that could be leveraged. 

I definitely don't want any part of the Florida coast to turn into the oil refinery zones like you see in LA and TX. I also was not considering the general run off issue either; it's easy to say the sugar companies are the only problem but it's just not true. It sounds like you think we need a pre-everglades to filter the water to a point where it could actually go into the park, and unfortunately I didn't get my degree in environmental engineering, so I can't comment how feasible this could be. It would certainly not be cheap, and would most likely require a lot of monitoring, to ensure the water being released is actually ok to release.


----------



## lemaymiami (Feb 9, 2007)

That filtering proposition (with holding areas designed specifically for that purpose) not only works - it works well in places here in Florida where it's been implemented... In short, it allows vegetation to remove the nutrients from the water - and the water isn't allowed to proceed to the south until it's within established parameters. Farmers near the Everglades have also shown remarkable ability to clean up the nutrients in their waste water before allowing it to leave their property... All that (requiring agriculture, and cattle interests to clean up their discharges) and filtration marshes or holding areas have been shown to work. Remember that the natural water flowing into the 'glades historically was almost pure stuff -no nutrients in it at all....

This sort of stuff would have to be part of the routine needed to bring good quality water southwards. The real expense, only possible with the general public's participation and approval, would come in buying the needed lands (at market value), assisting any workers and businesses displaced as a result, and the tremendous engineering efforts needed to restore a flow-way between the areas around Okeechobee, and what's left of the Everglades to the south. Ancillary benefits would occur to the east (the St. Lucie drainage) and to the west (all the Gulf coast from Tampa to the south) when discharges from Lake O wouldn't be polluting their waters year in and year out - the way it is now....

Like I said from the first we've caused this mess over many years time - and it was approved by whatever government was in power each time (which comes right back to all of us....). Cleaning it up and restoring what existed here before we interfered -that will be the trick - and simply may not be possible at this point... unless all of us push for it and get a majority of folks to sign on (and they're mostly folks who don't fish or spend one moment in the outdoors...). That's how we got the net ban amendment to the state's constitution passed back in the early nineties...

Where I guide these past 21 years is mostly out of Flamingo... the freshwater flow into that part of the 'Glades has almost been turned off compared to the volume of sweetwater that flowed into that area 100 years ago. Wish it weren't so - but I do think that if we could re-establish that flow to the south from the big lake it would go a long way to turning things around..... Our last (and maybe best) argument for doing something is that the Everglades is the re-charge area for all the well fields that supply freshwater to the cities from Stuart south to the Keys.... If we don't fix it - eventually all the urban areas to the east will suffer.... The only thing keeping saltwater out of our groundwaters is the positive pressure of the freshwater (or sweetwater if you're a country boy....) from the 'Glades... That's something to think about... maybe even for city dwellers that will never pick up a fishing rod in their lives....

As before pass this along to anyone interested - who knows? We might actually do some good.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Mavdog said:


> At my plant, we do produce wastewater, but after filtering out heavy metals or valuable metals that can be recycled, it is pumped into wells far below the water table, effectively sealing them away from aquifers and surface water. While it's not the best option, it's a great balance between safety and cost efficiency.


Thanks for a more in-depth description of what I was trying to say. But eliminating Big Sugar is an almost impossible task unless the Brazilians undercut their prices at the market like they did with citrus (which I'm all for on the sugar market). Otherwise, buying them out would be too costly for our country that is already in debt up to our ears. Remember, the ENP is a "National" park, not just State. So these funds need to come from the fed gov't. Nevertheless, those cane fields still have all the pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and fungicides in the ground. So it's best to bypass those fields and go south from there to cut a trench across the northside of the Glades (just south of the cane fields and farm lands) and allow the water from Lake O to filter into the north end of the Glades and trickle southwards and create a new sheet flow system where the water will filter down thru the glades to the south end (of course after filling in all the man made canals that cut up the Glades). That will be the best cost effective way to restore the sheet flow.

In the mean time, as I highlighted your comment about the chem company that you work for, they are no better that what Big Sugar is doing, where your company is pushing toxic waste water into the ground in a place you claim is out of sight and out of mind. In other words, they are just kicking the can down the road and when a problem "arises" from it, they'll just let someone else deal with it! Shame!!! NO, it's NOT the best option!!! Just another example of companies that don't really give a real crap about the environment we all live in. But mother nature has a way of regurgitating these kinds of problems up to show their ugly head. And at that time, how are you and your company going to explain it off? Probably not because you current guys will be dead and/or, your company will be gone or have moved on, just like so many have done in the past and then our children and grandchildren will be left to deal with it. Again, SHAME!!!

Btw, If we all try to justify the income revenue stream of our State or Gov't will gain by improving and perserving our wetlands within the ENP, then you are highly mistaken. The cost of restoration and maintenance of such this park, far outweighs it's residual financial benefit. But what matters most is the preservation of a great park that offers quality of life for native species and for us as people for our attraction and enjoyment. So it's not about producing revenue, but improving quality of life.


----------



## Mavdog (Aug 22, 2017)

Backwater said:


> Thanks for a more in-depth description of what I was trying to say. But eliminating Big Sugar is an almost impossible task unless the Brazilians undercut their prices at the market like they did with citrus (which I'm all for on the sugar market). Otherwise, buying them out would be too costly for our country that is already in debt up to our ears. Remember, the ENP is a "National" park, not just State. So these funds need to come from the fed gov't. Nevertheless, those cane fields still have all the pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and fungicides in the ground. So it's best to bypass those fields and go south from there to cut a trench across the northside of the Glades (just south of the cane fields and farm lands) and allow the water from Lake O to filter into the north end of the Glades and trickle southwards and create a new sheet flow system where the water will filter down thru the glades to the south end (of course after filling in all the man made canals that cut up the Glades). That will be the best cost effective way to restore the sheet flow.
> 
> In the mean time, as I highlighted your comment about the chem company that you work for, they are no better that what Big Sugar is doing, where your company is pushing toxic waste water into the ground in a place you claim is out of sight and out of mind. In other words, they are just kicking the can down the road and when a problem "arises" from it, they'll just let someone else deal with it! Shame!!! NO, it's NOT the best option!!! Just another example of companies that don't really give a real crap about the environment we all live in. But mother nature has a way of regurgitating these kinds of problems up to show their ugly head. And at that time, how are you and your company going to explain it off? Probably not because you current guys will be dead and/or, your company will be gone or have moved on, just like so many have done in the past and then our children and grandchildren will be left to deal with it. Again, SHAME!!!
> 
> Btw, If we all try to justify the income revenue stream of our State or Gov't will gain by improving and perserving our wetlands within the ENP, then you are highly mistaken. The cost of restoration and maintenance of such this park, far outweighs it's residual financial benefit. But what matters most is the preservation of a great park that offers quality of life for native species and for us as people for our attraction and enjoyment. So it's not about producing revenue, but improving quality of life.


While I'd prefer to discharge perfectly clean water, its much safer than you might think. I think our shallowest injection well is 7000 feet deep below sea level (yes, about a mile and a half). In most cases, at least in the Arklatex area, most water wells are hundreds of feet deep. The water is injected into a porous layer of rock in between two impervious layers, so theoretically it should only percolate sideways. Yes, there may be veins in the upper layer that could allow it to escape upwards, but it would have to be an especially rare case for it to even come close to polluting drinking water wells.

I agree, not ideal, but the alternatives are very limiting. You could use osmosis filters, which they use in desalination plants. If you're not familiar, they use many layers of membranes which have pore sizes so fine that they allow water molecules to pass, but not large molecules like salts and hydrocarbons. The filters are extremely expensive, and since they're so constricting, they'd need hundreds if not thousands of filter tubes to process the amount of water we discharge. They technically should be reusable, as long as they're backflushed from time to time, but they're just not cost effective. Some plants incinerate their waste water, but energy consumption is so high you're trading one kind of airborne pollution for another. 

Many of these wastewater discharge practices are governed by the EPA. We intake some of our process water from a nearby lake (Caddo Lake), and if discharging raw process water into the lake were legal, I can guarantee that they'd do it. We had to replace the pipe liners in one of our shallower wells recently, and it was about $1.5 Million. Drilling a new well would've been 3-4 times more expensive. 

Going back to the economics point, it's really just fighting fire with fire. I for one am ashamed as a human being of what we do to mother earth, and wish we could be more selfless. But I will also admit that given the choice of feeding my family or saving the earth (at their expense), I would choose to feed my family every time. To me, saving the world is useless unless our children get to experience it as well. The point of pointing out increased economic stimulus is only to rally the public to our cause. If you can save the environment while allowing more hard working Americans to make an honest (and environmentally friendly) living, you'd have to be daddy warbucks to think that isn't a win-win.


----------



## fishicaltherapist (Mar 9, 2013)

As the population has grown in Florida, so has the poisoning of our land and waterways. When, not if, we have an event that makes the vomitous algae events coming out of both sides of our state look microscopic in comparison; goodbye population growth,touri$m, and inve$tment dollar$. WHEN it happens and our waters, fresh AND salt are ruined; WHAT genius solution (s) will our politician$ and big $$$$$ folks come up with ???


----------



## Mavdog (Aug 22, 2017)

lemaymiami said:


> That filtering proposition (with holding areas designed specifically for that purpose) not only works - it works well in places here in Florida where it's been implemented... In short, it allows vegetation to remove the nutrients from the water - and the water isn't allowed to proceed to the south until it's within established parameters. Farmers near the Everglades have also shown remarkable ability to clean up the nutrients in their waste water before allowing it to leave their property... All that (requiring agriculture, and cattle interests to clean up their discharges) and filtration marshes or holding areas have been shown to work. Remember that the natural water flowing into the 'glades historically was almost pure stuff -no nutrients in it at all....
> 
> This sort of stuff would have to be part of the routine needed to bring good quality water southwards. The real expense, only possible with the general public's participation and approval, would come in buying the needed lands (at market value), assisting any workers and businesses displaced as a result, and the tremendous engineering efforts needed to restore a flow-way between the areas around Okeechobee, and what's left of the Everglades to the south. Ancillary benefits would occur to the east (the St. Lucie drainage) and to the west (all the Gulf coast from Tampa to the south) when discharges from Lake O wouldn't be polluting their waters year in and year out - the way it is now....
> 
> ...


I learned about how marshes act as natural filters in high school, so I can totally understand how these efforts have been effective. I assume that they haven't been implemented near Okeechobee because the interested parties don't want to pay for it. 

Your point about metropolitan water wells is also a great point. Going back to my post above, may don't care unless it directly threatens their livelihood. 

Maybe there is a compromise to be made between totally eliminating sugar operations and where we're at today. You could attack the problem from both ends. First, buy some of the sugar land to create the drainage canals and retention/cleanup areas. Then convince the sugar companies to downsize their efforts and reduce the amount of pesticides and fertilizers they use. They would save money on pesticides and spraying operations, and could sell the sugar as "Premium Organic Pesticide and Gluten Free Sugar". Charge 300% and see the shelves at Whole Foods get emptied every time a shipment gets in. Great PR stunt if you ask me.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Mavdog said:


> I for one am ashamed as a human being of what we do to mother earth, and *wish we could be more selfless*. *But I will also admit that given the choice of feeding my family or saving the earth (at their expense), I would choose to feed my family every time.* To me, saving the world is useless unless our children get to experience it as well. The point of pointing out increased economic stimulus is only to rally the public to our cause. If you can save the environment while allowing more hard working Americans to make an honest (and environmentally friendly) living, you'd have to be daddy warbucks to think that isn't a win-win.


And there you have it! You do what they tell you because you think you don't have a choice. But in fact, you do! Personally, I'd be ok digging ditches for a living to feed my family, and be able to lay my head down and get a peaceful sleep at night with a good conscience, rather than doing what you are doing and justifying it with the statement you just mentioned above.

IF we took our fishing with a mindset like that, there would be no more fish, sighting your above statement. But through education, preservation, a willingness to be good stewards, we have a thriving fishery. If all these yo-yos did the same thing, then maybe we'd be heading into the right direction with our environment and have a positive horizon for the future of our kids and grand children, instead of yet again, kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with it.


----------



## fishicaltherapist (Mar 9, 2013)

I lived,worked,hunted and fished in the ArkLaTex area (including Caddo Lake) for many years and understand how very vital the petroleum & associated industries are for the economic benefits that they provide. When an industry whines and whinnies like a silver spoon fed little #!!$*>! and they have to spend millions to follow the LAWS of safeguarding this planet, doing what is MORALLY and ENVIRONMENTALLY correct.....it is absolutely repulsive !!! The industry NETS BILLIONS of dollars each and every year, keeping their PREFERRED shareholders happy, employees well paid (many way over paid),and politicians well funded. They spend untold MILLION$ in the courts fighting environmental laws/regulations yet, do very little (in comparison) FOR the environment. I have several friends who work in your area Mavdog, from roughnecks to geologists,who love the outdoors like you do. How about SOMEONE in the industry taking on the task of getting a movement started WITHIN itself, to TRULY engage in protecting our fishing and hunting areas and promoting the benefits of working TOGETHER??? Thanks for letting me give my 2 cents.


----------



## Seabreeze (May 31, 2016)

CodyW said:


> Also look at all the nice lawns that are on the canals. These people spend hundreds of dollars on fertilizer a month and a lot of that washes off into the water too. There should be some regulations on synthetic fertilizers or only allow organic fertilizer for waterfront homes.


That's why I own an Organic Farm, good to see others think like me


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

fishicaltherapist said:


> How about SOMEONE in the industry taking on the task of getting a movement started WITHIN itself, to TRULY engage in protecting our fishing and hunting areas and promoting the benefits of working TOGETHER??? Thanks for letting me give my 2 cents.


George, that means someone up there would have to grow a set of balls to stand up for what is right!


----------



## Blue Zone (Oct 22, 2011)

A couple of points here on this subject, very briefly:

It took Scott 18 months to sign the Legacy Florida Bill a referendum passed by voters in 2014 to fund improvements for the Everglades.
A separate Florida initiative to buy land for a reservoir to clean Okeechobee water to send South (Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir) to the Glades was approved by the FL Senate and House and signed into law by Scott a few weeks ago. The deal is that Florida provides the land and the Feds do all the construction (CERP). Florida is waiting for the passage of CERP funding in Congress.
Aside from Rubio and Scott, Bill Nelson is also in the pocket of family Fanjul; *asshattery* (credit for this word goes I think to Marietta Mike) is bi-partisan.
Big Sugar is not going to go away. Sugar subsidies are inside the Farm Bill and no politician is going to mess with that. These subsidies cost the average American family $35 per year over the World Sugar Price that everybody else pays.
Sandy Moret has been doing a terrific job in getting the word out and mobilizing both environmentalists and sportsmen to bring pressure on both Tallahassee and Washington. It's my opinion you cannot be a sportsman without being an environmentalist as well. I have reposted Sandy's updates and news articles over in the Environment section as they become available.

If you care about the Lake runoff and the Glades, make every politician earn your vote next time around.


----------



## BM_Barrelcooker (May 4, 2011)

I've been involved in a few mitigation projects and it's amazing how well Mother Nature will recover with just a little help. 
Quickly too. 

Here is a quick look at my solution. 
I will spare the boring details and outline the basic plan. 
1. Destroying all of the levees would be very expensive as well as potentially produce a large amount of silt. 
2. What is needed is more flow of fresh water across the entire Glades .

3. I'd propose several strategic breaches in 
Lots of the levees and damming of. Canals 

Not big dams that restrict flow but low head dams that turn the canals into settlement basins.
This has two effects. Sediment is dropped in the canals and a low flow is allowed to spread out and let the glades funtiom the way that nature made them. 
About the only impacts this will make is it will impede transportation on canals
And it will impede any future development and some current Ag operations . 

It won't be that expensive and it will work. 

Hell they could implement a slow plan and just start with a few canals and progress as they see success. 

That's my idea.....but what do I know ?


----------



## BM_Barrelcooker (May 4, 2011)

This is a really good read about the negative impact of channelization .

For years and years the ACOE implemted a policy of straightening out the crooked rivers and streams of west tenn .
The damage it has done to the wetlands as well as the agricultural ground they were trying to protect has been profound and devestating. 
It's kind of boring science but the best explanation I have read about the vital role of our wetlands and the nature of the beuracracies that helped destroy them.


----------



## Str8-Six (Jul 6, 2015)

BM_Barrelcooker said:


> View attachment 15838
> This is a really good read about the negative impact of channelization .
> 
> For years and years the ACOE implemted a policy of straightening out the crooked rivers and streams of west tenn .
> ...


Looks like it got good reviews from the 4 people that read it.


----------



## BM_Barrelcooker (May 4, 2011)

Yeah it's kind of geeky wetland science.

It does use some big words but I think there are enough pictures that you'll be okay.


----------



## SnailPowered (Oct 17, 2017)

Here in Orlando, lake Apopka was plagued with runoff from the surrounding farm lands and more or less was a body of water that couldnt sustain life. A company that I worked with a past employer of mine designed a large water purification plant using a ferrate (iron-8) filtration process that had less than 0.5% byproduct and the ferrate could be cleansed and reused. Might be something to check out on the inter webs if you have any intretst on the subject. Its been proven its self worth on lake Apopka.


----------



## EdK13 (Oct 3, 2013)

Tennessee Water Authority - Gore fam allegedly made big dollars on that alleged scam.


----------

