The sprawl of the contamination is boggling. They"re not talking about a backyard pond or a patch of marsh or even a whole creek. The danger zone encompa.s.ses more than 1,200 square miles of vital watershed.
Tainted ba.s.s have been found as far north as Loxahatchee and as far south as the L-67 ca.n.a.l in Dade. The fish, about 70 in all, were collected with electronic stunning gear. They weighed between 2 and 8 pounds each. Experts were shocked at the amounts of mercury discovered.
The government considers any level exceeding 0.5 parts per million to be cause for concern. Anything over 1.5 is unfit for human consumption.
No wonder health workers were alarmed, then, when one of the sample Everglades ba.s.s tested at 4.4 parts mercury per million. Some sites yielded fish with levels averaging 2.5.
Much has been made of these statistics because people want to know how much mercury is safe to eat. Fact: Ba.s.s aren"t supposed to have heavy metals in their flesh.
In humans, mercury poisoning can damage the central nervous system.The most famous and tragic outbreak occurred in the 19505, when mercury-laden effluent from a factory contaminated the fish in Minamata Bay, j.a.pan. Thousands of people who ate the fish suffered severe mercury poisoning that led to blindness, paralysis and birth defects. More than 300 died.
The Everglades scenario is not so extreme. The average person would have to eat a mess of tainted ba.s.s to be affected, but the health risk is larger for pregnant women and nursing mothers.
Actually, the edibility of these fish is the least of concerns. The more urgent riddle is where the pollution is coming from and what it portends for the ecology of South Florida.
"There is no theory at this point," says Frank Morello, a biologist with the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. "It"s just a mystery."
The possibilities are far-ranging. Mercury can travel airborne from coal-burning power plants. It"s also a common residue of agricultural fungicides, which have been known to be flushed into the Glades.
Over time mercury acc.u.mulates in living tissue, and the high levels found in the ba.s.s suggest a serious long-term pollution. Sediment samples might provide some clues, if not answers. The trick is tracing the source of this slop and identifying the offenders.
In a way, the invisible nature of the mercury threat makes it easy to underestimate. It"s not like a red tide or a chemical spill. You won"t see lots of bloated ba.s.s or dead panfish floating around the docks; in fact, you won"t see much of anything.
A sudden fish kill looks more dramatic, but it tends to be brief and contained. The slow poisoning of an entire ecosystem is more sinister and potentially more catastrophic.
The hushed beauty of the Everglades is deceiving. It is so rich with life that we naturally a.s.sume all the life to be healthy.
For now, mercury and all, there are plenty of lunker largemouth ba.s.s to be caught. But the way it"s going, someday we"ll be fishing for them with magnets instead of worms.
News isn"t so sweet for Big Sugar March 5, 1990 The sugar industry, despoiler of the Everglades, got some not-so-sweet news last week.
Powerful federal agencies have come down strongly on the side of U.S. Attorney Dexter Lehtinen, who is suing to make Florida clean its water.
A report of the U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency says Everglades pollution is at "crisis proportions," and the state"s plan to stop it is too weak.
The prime pollutants are phosphates, and the chief culprit is Big Sugar. Because cane companies donate lots of money to politicians, their disgraceful irrigation techniques have been overlooked for years.
Lehtinen ruined the party with his unprecedented lawsuit, which was filed 18 months ago. It charged the South Florida Water Management District with pumping filthy farm runoff into Everglades National Park. And it charged the state Department of Environmental Regulation with doing virtually nothing to stop it.
The message of the suit was so simple: Make the growers quit fouling our water. It hardly seemed like too much to ask.
But it was. The great state of Florida has spent more than $1 million in legal fees to fight the case. Makes you proud to be a taxpayer, doesn"t it? The lawyers get rich while the water gets worse.
All sides agree that the public will be better served if an agreement can be reached out of court. As usual, politics is mucking up the priorities.
Gov. Martinez wants the lawsuit to disappear because it"s politically embarra.s.sing. The board of the water district (which Martinez loaded with farmers and developers) wants the lawsuit to go away because it could cost Big Sugar a fortune.
Florida had insisted it would come up with a comprehensive plan to save the Everglades, if only the feds would back off. Given the sorry history of water management, it was difficult to be bubbly with optimism.
Sure enough, the district"s new Surface Water Improvement and Management plan was greeted by environmentalists with resounding derision. SWIM would give Big Sugar until the year 2002 to clean up its act, using 40,000 acres of public wetlands as filtering pools.
Water managers said they didn"t know what SWIM would cost, or how much of the expense would be borne by agriculture. Big Sugar"s response: We"ll be happy to help clean up our slop if Uncle Sam pays every penny of the cost.
What a deal. It"s like emptying a septic tank into your neighbor"s bathtub, then demanding money before you"ll mop it up-and finishing the job 12 years later.
The sugar growers" arrogance is well-founded. Thanks to the state, they get all the fresh water they want. Thanks to the feds, they can sell their crop at artificially inflated prices.
It isn"t farming, it"s glorified welfare. Naturally Big Sugar wants the public to pay for its pollution remedies-we"ve been paying, one way or another, for everything else.
State agencies always had the power to halt the polluting, but never had the political spine to do it. The staffs of the water districts are handcuffed because board members are political appointees who know more about irrigating campaign treasuries than vegetable fields.
The great thing about the U.S. attorney"s lawsuit is that it forces the issue: Why should the Okeechobee growers be allowed to do what no other private industry can?
Knowing what we now do about the slow death of the Everglades, it"s appalling that the sugar debate has lasted so long. The ultimate price of such cowardly politics could be a future of rationed, tainted drinking water for our kids.
We owe the Big Sugar companies zero; they owe us. They should filter the runoff on their own land, at their own expense, starting now.
But they won"t do it, and the state won"t make them. That"s why Lehtinen sued.
It certainly got everyone"s attention, and not a moment too soon.
New wetlands plan rooted in bad policy May 20, 1991 In a political retreat that could mean disaster for parts of South Florida, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing new rules that would allow ma.s.sive development of once-protected swamps and marshlands.
Under pressure from developers and farmers, the EPA recently redefined "wetlands" in a way that excludes up to 10 million acres nationwide. If the new definition is adopted, it could abolish federal protection for large sections of the East Everglades, and for thousands of acres of marshes bordering the conservation areas in southwest Broward.
Developers have been drooling lasciviously over these unspoiled tracts, and now they"ll be ga.s.sing up the bulldozers. The EPA says the definition of "wetlands" should be narrowed to meet three guidelines: * The land"s soils must be composed of muck or peat; * The surface must be flooded by tides, or saturated by rains for more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season; * More than half of the plants growing in the area must be among the 7,000 species commonly found in wetlands.
Unfortunately, those criteria can no longer be applied fairly in South Florida. Here, pristine wetlands have been invaded by melaleuca, Brazilian pepper trees and other water-guzzling exotics. Areas once rich in peat and soggy underfoot are now parched.
Paving is no solution; replenishing is a better idea.
The necessity of saving wetlands is so obvious that George Bush made it a campaign issue, and pledged there would be "no net loss" of marshes and swamps during his administration. It"s distressing, then, to see the EPA, the Department of Agriculture and the Army Corps of Engineers all cave in.
The political pressure is overwhelming. In many places, the feds are the only serious obstacle for run-amok developers. Look at Broward. To describe the county"s land-use policy as spineless would be kind; even calling it a "policy" stretches the definition. Anything developers want, they usually get. The Sawgra.s.s Expressway is a shining example.
When the government announced tough wetland rules two years ago, powerful people were upset. It screwed up their plans to turn the marshes and wet prairies of southwest Broward into a vast panorama of cheesy condos, strip malls and high-density housing developments. The holy mission to make Broward uglier and more crowded than Dade was temporarily put on hold.
Now the feds have gone soft. Bowing to complaints that the current definition of "wetlands" includes land that isn"t very wet, EPA chief William Reilly last week said: "We"re only interested in saving genuine wetlands. There was a backlash over the previous policy because of what appeared to be overreaching..."
Needless to say, the "backlash" didn"t come from the ma.s.ses. It came from folks with connections.
Before the weaker definition of wetlands takes effect, the White House must approve it. Significantly, the Interior Department refuses to endorse the EPA"s recommendation.
In South Florida, the dynamics are simple. Developers are running out of land, and they will fight for every acre. Land-use attorney Don McCloskey beautifully articulates his clients" selfless philosophy: "Government cannot use my private property to save the world."
So much for the Everglades, and for the underground aquifer that gives us water.
The EPA"s logic is politically convenient: Marshes that already are damaged don"t deserve protection.To be deemed valuable, wetlands had better be wet, and free from foreign vegetation.
The irony is cla.s.sic Florida. Melaleucas originally were imported in a grandiose scheme to suck the Everglades dry. Though that plan was thwarted, it looks as if the stubborn exotics finally will get their revenge. The trees won"t have to drink a drop, they"ll just have to stand there.
Developers gleefully will be counting them, one by one, to prove that their land isn"t worth saving.
Glades need a hero before options dry up January 12, 1992 Big Sugar might help save the Everglades, in spite of itself.
The longer that cane growers refuse to clean up their waste and the more unfiltered sc.u.m they pump into the watershed, the greater the public backlash. No cause has so enlarged and galvanized the conservation movement.
Cheers went up when acting U.S. Attorney Dexter Lehtinen sued Florida for letting growers pollute Everglades National Park. More cheers went up when Gov. Lawton Chiles recently settled the case.
The agreement called for a modest cleanup that gives Big Sugar years to comply. The industry"s arrogant response: 18 lawsuits against the Department of Environmental Regulation and state water managers.
People got mad-even people who didn"t fish or hunt, who didn"t care much about alligator nests or the sight of wild flamingos at sunrise. People who simply knew a scandal when they saw one.
Big Sugar gets all the water it wants for practically nothing, dirties it with tons of phosphates, then spits it back at nature. That"s not the only reason the Everglades is in trouble, but what"s wrong can"t be fixed until the cane growers get on board.
"What we"re talking about," said DER chief Carol Browner, "is a significant replumbing of South Florida."
When the Everglades Coalition met this weekend in Key Largo, the conference drew nationally known conservationists, biologists, planners, lobbyists and water experts. There were lawyers, too-mean, tough, hungry lawyers. That"s what it takes these days to battle the special interests.
The mood was sober because the situation is dire. Half the original Everglades has been lost to drainage and development. Fish and mammals are dying from mercury poisoning. The number of nesting wading birds is down to 7,000 annually (in 1931 it was 100,000). Brazilian pepper trees have devoured 100,000 acres of native vegetation.
Everyone agrees the Everglades is dying from pollution, droughts and urbanization. The worst predictions are coming true at the worst possible time. Just when Tallaha.s.see awakens to the crisis, the state finds itself broke and panicky.
Without heroes in the Legislature, there will be no money to clean up the Everglades. No money to find out where the lethal mercury is coining from. No money to purchase endangered wetlands. "It"s kind of scary," said Lt. Gov. Buddy MacKay. "The economics of growth may now be coinciding with the politics of decline."
That"s an amazing admission from a Florida politician, and maybe MacKay wouldn"t have said it at a convention of home builders. But he"s absolutely right.
For 40 years the natural marsh was diked, dammed and diverted to benefit farmers and developers. Today 4 million people in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties rely on the Everglades system for their drinking water. Nature"s plumbing can"t handle it.
Big Sugar can be blamed for stubborn avarice, but the industry makes one irrefutable point: Overdevelopment has done more to destroy the Everglades than all the cane and dairy farmers put together.
Cleaning agricultural runoff isn"t hard, it"s just expensive. The people problem is not so easy to clean up. MacKay wonders what happens when South Florida"s 4 million becomes 6 million, and the 6 million becomes 8 million. Where will they get their water?
They probably won"t. The plight of the Everglades has transcended images of panthers and bald eagles. Now it means something even the most thickheaded legislator can understand: no water. Suddenly growth management is more than a slogan, it"s an imperative.
In his speech, MacKay compared Florida to a big gangly teenager. "We don"t have the foggiest notion of what we want to be when we grow up."
Unless other politicians start listening, the one thing we"ll definitely be is thirsty.
Big Sugar"s sly cleanup plan is dirty pool April 12, 1992 The Florida Sugar Cane League, not famous for its environmental conscience, suddenly has unveiled a plan to clean up the Everglades.
A late April Fool"s joke? Nope. Big Sugar says it"s serious.
The huge corporations that grow cane finally admit they shouldn"t dump so much sc.u.mmy fertilizer into South Florida"s drinking-water supply.
To prove their deep concern for the public welfare, they"ve offered to reduce by 151 tons the amount of phosphorus being pumped off the farmlands into the Everglades. The only catch: Big Sugar, not the state, would be in charge of the anti-pollution efforts.
How considerate of the cane growers, not wishing to trouble government with the task of enforcing its own laws. Instead, we all should just relax and rely on the sugar barons to make the water clean and safe. That"s about as likely as Lake Okeechobee freezing over.
Big Sugar"s newfound commitment to the environment is explained in one word: fear. First, the U.S. attorney sued Florida for allowing the Everglades to be polluted. After a lengthy legal battle, both sides settled on a $400 million cleanup program that requires cane growers to pump dirty farm runoff into large nitration ponds.
Sugar companies say the plan will tie up valuable land and cost agriculture 20,000 jobs. Led by U.S. Sugar and Flo-Sun Inc., the industry has fought back with a hail of lawsuits. Big Sugar has steadfastly resisted all previous attempts to make it pay for its own putrid practices. A Greek chorus of expensive PR men and lobbyists have insisted the phosphorus in farm runoff is as harmless as rain.
That nonsense won"t wash anymore, and Big Sugar knows it. By offering their own cleanup plan-"an olive branch," in the words of one sugar executive-the industry is making a last-ditch effort to appear reasonable and to keep control of its own drainage pumps.
Says Joe Podgor, of Friends of the Everglades: "It"s like a traffic cop has pulled you over, and now you"re trying to sweet-talk your way out of it."
Fittingly, the latest stall tactic came in the same week that the Everglades was named one of the 10 most endangered rivers in North America. A national conservation group, American Rivers, blames agricultural pollution and urbanization as the major threats to the vast shallows that provide fresh water for about four million South Floridians.
Some respected conservation groups aren"t wild about the state"s plan or Big Sugar"s self-serving alternative. Friends of the Everglades, for instance, favors a complete scientific remapping of South Florida"s plumbing, combined with "hard-core enforcement" of existing pollution laws.
Profitable habits are hard to break, and the sugar industry has long enjoyed a sweet deal: cheap water, migrant labor, government-inflated price supports-and the Everglades as its backyard cesspool.
The arrangement is cemented each election year by generous contributions to pliant politicians. According to the Center for Public Integrity, 17 sugar PACS gave $2.6 million to congressional campaigns between 1985 and 1990. Money doesn"t just talk, it shouts: Of 29 U.S. senators who got $15,000 or more from Big Sugar interests, 85 percent voted to keep the price subsidies.
It"s no wonder that cane growers, coddled for years, were stunned by the federal lawsuit over pollution. And with little experience at (or need for) compromise, it"s no wonder that Big Sugar"s counteroffer is so weak.
Backs to the wall, cane growers miraculously discover a way to keep 151 tons of phosphorus out of the Everglades!
Incredible. When these guys aren"t flushing fertilizer, they"re shoveling it.
Future of keys rests in the fate of Florida Bay February 21, 1993 If you went to the Keys this weekend, you probably noticed that the once-clear waters of Florida Bay have turned the color of bile.
A vast and destructive algae bloom has floated out of the backcountry and settled in near Islamorada. Looking northwest from the Overseas Highway, you saw a milky green-brown soup surrounding the mangroves, a perverse parody of Christo"s decorated islands. Crossing the tall arch to Long Key, you noticed a foul-looking stain stretching gulfward to the horizon.
What you saw is Florida Bay dying.
It started with the turtle gra.s.s, essential cover for shrimp, baby lobsters and small fish. In 1987, the gra.s.s turned brown and began falling out in clumps, then strips, then acres. The dead gra.s.s rotted in the warm water, releasing nutrients that fostered algae. Meanwhile, where the lush gra.s.s once grew, the bay bottom turned muddy and barren.
Today the die-off is so huge that between 300 and 400 square miles of Florida Bay is called the Dead Zone. Scientists say its effects are spreading, and the prospects are dire: The collapse of a uniquely bountiful estuary, and the potential crippling of a multimillion-dollar tourist and fishing economy.
There"s no quick answer. Gra.s.s beds are sensitive and slow-growing; replenishment takes a long time. Part of the problem lies miles away, in the Everglades.
For centuries the southward flow of fresh water emptied purely into Florida Bay. Then the geniuses who manage our ca.n.a.l systems began diverting water to benefit developers and farmers. That folly was implemented under the guise of "flood control."
With its flow of fresh water disrupted, Florida Bay got saltier each season. The hypersalinity, combined with drought, caused drastic changes. Some biologists believe additional harm came from fertilizers and pesticides which flushed through the Everglades into the bay.
What you now see out your car window is unlike anything that"s happened before. From an airplane, the sight is even more dramatic and dismaying.