PUBLIC COMMENT--CEPP Project Delivery Team/Water Resources Advisory Comission

Below you will find my public comments from February 1, 2012...

Public Comment to CEPP Project Delivery Team (PDT)/Water Resources Advisory Commission (WRAC)

Subj:  Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP) Analysis of Alternatives? 
          Restoring the natural system V. deep water reservoirs.

Dear CEPP PDT / WRAC Members, et al;

We appreciate being a prime mover for enhanced pubic involvement and the opportunity to make public comment in taking the CEPP process forward post haste, and the opportunity to bring these matters to the Water Resource Advisory Commission (WRAC).

The report of a January record drought in today's PB Post appears to validate the hypothesis, that reduced surface waters in South Florida are a major cause of the effect of decreased rainfall and resulting drought, as discussed below in a previous e-mail to the CEPP PDT, along with analysis of alternatives to get to the long-term drought management fix.  See:  http://www.palmbeachpost.com/weather-news/county-has-driest-january-on-record-2141665.html

During CEPP (Central Everglades Planning Project) PDT (Project Development Team) Noon Public Comment period Jan 31, 2012, the Arthur R. Marshall Foundation challenged the PDT to consider the fundamental alternatives of restoring Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow (Option A) per CERP Section 2.3.1, verses stacking water in a deep water reservoir (Option B) currently at the forefront of consideration. This included calling for trade-off's to consider various permutations of A, restoring sheet flow, i.e., A1, A2, A3, V. B1, B2, B3 deep water reservoirs, as presented in the overview slides.

Ensuing discussion of water resources, and calls for a water budget, appeared to go beyond science, generating a need for a clear understanding of the relation between surface water (or the lack of same), EvapoTransporation (ET), rainfall, groundwater, seepage, aquifer recharge, drought, and extreme wet events.
A full understanding rainfall cycle of cause and effect here appears critical to consideration of alternatives by the CEPP PDT, especially the challenge to consider A options v. B options noted above.
Consider the following observations, many taken directly from the FL Water Atlas, as hypotheses, some intuitively self-proving:
     •    There is more than sufficient water going to tide, to keep a wet flow-way wet most years
     •    ASR may be a consideration in the few years that are not wet enough to wet a wet flowway.
     •    Often heard, 50% of the Everglades is left; Seldom heard: Nearly 100% of the Rainfall remains.
     •    ET is never a loss; ET + moist sea breezes drives rainfall (RF) such that RF is always greater than ET to the tune of RF = 1.25 ET, on average.
                o    If this were not true, S. FL would be a desert;
                o    Are we getting there by reducing wetlands, thus surface water, draining same to tide, stacking it in reservoirs > 4 ft., and pushing surface water down an ASR well?.. and;
                o    Failing to fully restoring surface water in the form of sheet flow to the extent feasible?
     •    The reduction of surface water, as in the loss of wetlands and reduction of dynamic storage and sheet flow, is an apparent cause of increasing drought, because decreased surface water means decreased ET means decreased RF, per the above equation traceable to the FL Water Atlas.
                o    A large % of the water now going to tide was historically ROG surface water subject to ET which drove RF making the Everglades a much wetter system than previously postulated.
                o    Stacking water in a deep water reservoir has the effect of reducing ET, therefore reducing RF, whereas historic Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow, resulted in greater ET, ET being a part of dynamic storage driven by solar radiation
                o    Holding Lake O lower adds to the ET deficit because there is less Lake O surface water subject to ET which adds to the RF deficit.
                o    All this appears to be changing the climate in the direction of drought and moving the freeze line south
                o    Data appears to indicate that the water resources of the Everglades ecosystem are only fully replenished during extreme wet events (hurricanes and tropical storms), then it comes in the form of floods.
     •    Regarding the statement that a STA is more efficient than a re-vegetated flow-way in reducing nutrients, as in Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow; what is the proof?
     •    There is notional proof that Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow produces much greater benefit/cost ratios than STA's, owing to reduced construction costs, reduced O&M costs, and letting natural system do the work to provide the benefits.
                o    Dynamic Storage is three dimensional (3D) storage that includes ET, surface water including the ROG, forested wetlands, seepage, ground water, aquifer storage and recharge.
                o    In this scenario, Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow provided no-cost nutrient removal
     •    Unfortunately there is only a circumstantially proven hypothesis than a re-vegetated flow-way consisting of a pond apple forest and saw-grass plains would reduce nutrients significantly, and more cost-effectively than a STA. Specifically, a re-vegetated flow-way between Lake O and WCA-3 has not been subject to rigorous analysis, rather it has been waved to the CEPP PDT Parking Lot.
                o    In this regard it was interesting to hear a CEPP PDT comment that the more distant from the Lake the less effective the land is for growing or words to that effect, i.e., the father away from the pond apple forest, the poorer the soils.
     •    Putting water on the landscape attracts wildlife (CEPP PDT member statement 1/31/2012)

Conclusion/Major Hypothesis:
     •    The optimum (maximum benefit at least cost) approach to CERP/CEPP and restoring what was a much wetter Everglades, is to restore a massive amount of surface water in the form of Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow.
     •    This is just as Art Marshall stated in 1981: To repair (restore) the Everglades, restore sheet flow to the max extent possible from the Kissimmee Lakes to FL Bay.

Circumstantial proof: Kissimmee River Restoration results.
Precaution by the NRC Peer Review Committee: Avoid engineered solutions where possible.

Footnote: As previously noted in public comment, all this appears consistent with a CERP approach to streamlining CEPP, using CERP Section 2.3.1 Dynamic Storage & Sheet Flow (Primary characteristic therefore CERP/CEPP Baseline); 5.1 Table 5.1 Goals and Objectives; Section 7.5.2 Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analysis ... that considers cost and benefits; and the Adaptive Management Protocols in the more recent 2011 Adaptive Management Integration Guide, especially required activities 4 & 5: Consideration of a regional conceptual ecological model, CERP Table 5-1 Goals & Objectives, and benefits compared to costs.

Thanks for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, on behalf of the ArtMarshall.org S&T Committee, pro bono,
 John Arthur Marshall, Chairman of the Board,
Chair, Science & Technology Committee,
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.

Everglades Headwaters Refuge Proposal

Exciting news out of Washington regarding the proposed Everglades Headwaters NWR!

 

New federal plan a boon for Everglades

Federal officials unveiled final details of a plan to create a new wildlife refuge and conservation area that would preserve open land north of Lake Okeechobee and help waterflow to the Everglades....

Watch live streaming video from interiortest at livestream.com

Waterfowlers Summit--August 25/26

Below you can find the presentation I will deliver at the 2011 Waterfowlers Conference in Ocala on August 25.

CERPBenefitsandCosts

For more information on the conference click HERE!

Public Comment for CISRERP

Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc (ArtMarshall.org)
Public Comment on synthesis, ecosystem services, etc., to the 24th meeting of the
Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress

It is great to see “Synthesis,” “Ecosystem Services,” “Restoration Benefits,” and “Costs” (Budget Implications) on the Agenda for the 24th Meeting of CISRERP as applied to Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plans (CERP) and Non-CERP projects, which I’m calling CERP-plus = CERP(+) here.

Unfortunately I am unable to attend the meeting to see the synthesis results presented. In lieu of not attending the following public comment is submitted for the record.

First, I am pleased to introduce a new member of the Art Marshall.org Science & Technology Team as our representative at the 24th CISRERP meeting: Dr. Teresa Thornton, PhD in Forestry Resources, University of Maine, and another ArtMarshall.org spokesperson for the trees, environmental education, and more.

Second, on Synthesis: As always, the late Art Marshall was ahead of his time on this subject:
“If you don’t synthesize knowledge, scientific journals become spare-parts catalogues for machines that are never built. Until isolated and separated pieces of information are assimilated by the human mind, we will continue to rattle around aimlessly.” --- from “Anatomy of Man-made Drought,” Sports Illustrated, March 15, 1982 [Google for an interesting read]

Finally, the main point of this comment: The Art Marshall Foundation position, consistent with my late Uncle’s view re synthesis, is that better environmental decision making results from incorporating comprehensive ecosystem services valuation (ESV) based on total dollar accounting (total economic valuation) of benefits and costs (NRC, 2005) and that includes decisions on how to apply or implement CERP(+) for the following reasons:

• No matter what comprehensive ESV approach is taken, the benefits demonstrated are greater than the B:C go-no-go decision ratios of 1.5 traditionally used by the Corps of Engineers. Using an ESV B:C for CERP(+) looks to have a B:C range of 6 to 9 times dollars invested as a return on investment. (ROI);
• The White House (PCAST 2011) has called for ROI to be calculated for programs such as CERP(+) to support decision-making. Fully accounting for benefits and costs is more likely to result in support by Congress, Office of Mgt & Budget, and the public, while avoiding the influence of high cost nay-sayers;
• In the Case of CERP(+), which has a 40-50 year life-cycle, the ESV approach forces long-term, strategic thinking, by requiring life-cycle benefits and costs to be projected, whereas the present focus on near-term project costs yields “sticker shock” for lack of accounting for long-term benefits.
• Provides those implementing CERP(+) the opportunity to exercise leadership by example, as a better way of doing business, and is an opportunity to shift the zero-value paradigm.

The ESV approach is a fast emerging paradigm owing to the need to achieve optimum return on investment in these difficult economic times. We are very pleased to see the White House Report to The President: Sustaining National Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy hit the street (PCAST 2011), with strong recommendations that the Federal government adopt the ESV approach in projects like CERP(+). The Florida Ranchlands Payment for Ecosystem Services (FRPES) Project is a start.

Having presented a demonstration project (Marshall, et al, 2010) using the Costanza Synthesis (Google Nature 387), which got good peer review, e.g., The Honorable Rock Salt’s comments at a previous CISRERP meeting, we are happy to tout using the Costanza Synthesis (1997) and the benefits-transfer approach to move the implementation of CERP(+) forward, based on preliminary estimates of ESV.

Consistent with the latest literature we acknowledge that the benefits transfer method may have disadvantages over other methods. (Daily, Polasky, et al: 2011), However as a starting point when no other information is available, the benefits transfer approach using the Costanza Synthesis (Costanza, et al, 1997) appears to meet the mission impossible 3 out of 3: Quicker, better, and cheaper (QBC) goals. This appears more effective than resorting to narrative assessments necessitating subjective judgments by decision-makers, absent numeric decision-support.

The benefits transfer method also provides an order-of- magnitude reality check when alternative ESV approaches are taken up. Such an approach is equally great for QBC analysis of alternatives when several configurations are under consideration, and a determination of relative merit ROI is a primary consideration. This was the main purpose of the Valuing Ecosystem Services of a Restored River of Grass demonstration by our 2010 Summer Interns (Marshall, et al; 2010). As the late Admiral Grace Hopper noted: One good experiment [demonstration] is worth a 1,000 expert opinions.

P.S. Back to the future regarding the current man-made drought debate on the 2011 managed water shortage: The 2011 Arthur R. Marshall Summer Interns calculated the cost of the 2011 drought/water shortage to south Florida’s society and economy. They projected the drought/water supply shortage cost over the 40 year life-cycle of CERP(+), assuming three droughts a decade. The total cost to society and the economy exceeded $11 Billion. They concluded that at least $7.6 Billion Dollars in drought costs could be avoided. That’s enough to pay for implementing most of the proposed River of Grass configurations. (Marshall, et al, 2010). Greater focus is needed on such cost avoidance as CERP(+) is fully implemented.

All this begs an ethical question: Who are we as scientists and CERP(+) implementers if we can’t demonstrate the added value of our work to society? Art Marshall had an answer to this question as well:

I have to believe, as all scientists should, that the more exactly we define realities, the closer society will adhere to them. If this is not true, then many of our careers are personal opiates rather than contributions to hope in the world. American Association for Advancement of Science Conference, December, 1972.

Respectfully submitted,

John Arthur Marshall, Chairman of the Board, Chair Science & Technology Committee
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.; www.ArtMarshall.org
1028 North Federal Highway; Lake Worth, FL 33460; 561-233-9004

Primary References:
Costanza, et al; 15 May 1997: The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.
NRC, 2005: Valuing Ecosystem Services – Toward Better Environmental Decision Making
Marshall, et al; 2010 GEER Conference; Valuing Ecosystem Services of a Restored River of Grass;
Daily, Polasky, et al; 201l; Natural Capital – Theory & Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services
PCAST, 2011: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (S&T); Report to the President: Sustaining Natural Capital – Protecting Society & The Economy;

River of Grass Everglades Restoration Benefits and Costs: A Citizen Scientist’s view.

The July 30 letter to the editor, TC Palm, of questionable title puts politics ahead of restoration science by demeaning a total system approach initiated by a previous Governor. Citizens deserve a more science-based account than what was provided by a former South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) governing board member.

Regarding the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) there is virtually unanimous consensus in the conservation community and many gov’t scientists that the June 24, 2008 initiative to restore the missing link and revitalize the River of Grass, was finally a way to make the C in CERP comprehensive.

The CERP issued in 1999 (CERP 1999) was fatally flawed by failure to provide natural flow from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades and restore its historic River of Grass in the metaphor of Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Moreover, restoring natural flow was a major premise on page 1 of CERP 1999, and throughout the 4033 page tome.

A group of scientists, gov't and non-gov't, took the fatal-flaw issue to the same governing board member circa 2000-2001, who was then chair of the governing board. The chair promised that the flow-way debate would be put back on the table in a workshop. Then he reversed his position, as apparently the discussion of the primary characteristic that was needed to fully restore the Everglades was too hot a potato to put on the table at that time.

Getting the CERP 1999 needs fully discussed based on restoration science at this stage would have saved a lot of time and money, including avoiding $300 million going into a project with more negative externalities than benefits.

The A-1 Reservoir was an implementation in reaction to the fatal flaw in absence of the needed cure. The reservoir result would be a smaller Lake - like structure, requiring expensive dikes and subsequent huge maintenance and replacement costs down stream. It would have increased the need for water quality treatment while taking up space for needed water quality treatment, a double whammy, given the intent to restore dynamic storage and sheet flow as described in CERP 1999 Section 2.3.1, while blocking the flow path to do so.

Long story short: Most what has been claimed in the July 30 letter defies scientists’ calls to restore sheet flow dating back to the 1970’s, also called the Marshall Plan, through the latest CERP 1999 peer review by the National Research Council (2010 Biennial Report).

In January 2008, CERP scientists revealed a second deficiency: That they had found through modeling and analysis, that the Everglades was a much wetter ecosystem than previously modeled in CERP 1999, requiring a return to the drawing board to get the water right and restore natural flow postulated on page 1 of CERP 1999 and elsewhere in the 4033 page tome. Per CERP protocol, this requires an execution of “adaptive management” when new data dictates a significant need for a modification of CERP 1999.

All this was summarized in Governing Board meetings as debriefs of what was going on in River of Grass workshops being conducted at the SFWMD, so it does beg a question as to why this was not heard as a matter of fiduciary responsibility.

In terms of CERP science, per the verb “to restore” and adaptive management, the initiative to restore “the missing link to revitalize the River of Grass” was/is right on target. This provides the means to flow water south to meet the true water needs of the historic Everglades, as well as all the other users, and avoids trashing the estuaries by moving water south more than east and west.

Call the total ecosystem revitalization CERP(+). Consider CERP(+) progress in three regions:

1. There is progress north of Lake O per the Northern Everglades Ecosystem legislation/plan and the proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge.
3. There is progress in the southern Everglades with the bridging of Tamiami Trail and related projects.
2. Until the River of Grass initiative, there was inadequate action for connecting the northern part of the ecosystem with the southern part of the ecosystem, due to CERP 1999 deficiencies. Absent this link, the Everglades would have to remain on expensive engineered life-support, and not much life with that.

In May, 2010 the River of grass (ROG) workshops were postponed until further notice, owing to the need to address land purchase needed. Admittedly the economy makes the current paltry land purchase look like a bad deal, but it does provide options to restore the integrity of the Everglades ecosystem in a more robust way.

Meanwhile the astute Chairman of the Governing Board posed salient questions: Wouldn’t we have to go through this ROG exercise anyway, even if we didn’t buy the land? And what about the benefits relative to the costs?

Preliminary analysis based on data coming out of the ROG workshops indicate that sheet flow configurations with the most benefit would cost about half of the $14 Billion cost claimed in the July 30 letter, produce benefits greater that ten times the cost, and cost much less than the $500 million per year in operations. It would be interesting to know the basis of the bigger costs claimed, and the fact that benefits were not part of the discussion.

Analysis presented to the Governing Board on Sept 12, 2007 also indicated potential benefits in the form of cost avoidance of over $5 billion dollars by restoring natural gravity flow to the extent feasible in lieu of pumping costs.

Additional calculations based on the 2011 drought/water shortage management indicate it likely will be less costly in the long run to restore the River of Grass, than inaction and the need for water management that results in the adverse economic impacts of droughts that are more frequent, longer in duration, and of extreme/exceptional category.

The approach referenced in the July 30 letter lacks a CERP(+) vision and de facto praises the reduction of State resources for adaptive action to get the water right and lessen the economic impacts of drought/water shortage. This leaves the Everglades and CERP 1999 on a fast track to undermine the Florida economy.

Further, the CERP 1999 approach proposed in the July 30 letter would leave Everglades Restoration a fragmented farce, and undermine revitalization of south Florida’s natural water supply at billions of expense to Florida Citizens.

Not to mention that scientists are proposing that the CERP(+) approach is the best antidote to sea level rise, salt water intrusion, and diminishing the need for expensive water supply alternatives.

Why a former governing board member does not see this is left to the judgment of the reader.
John Arthur Marshall, Chairman of the Board
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation & Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.
1028 North Federal Highway, Lake Worth, FL 33460; 233-9004
561-233-9004

Letter to the Editor, PB Post: Everglades Back on Track ? Really?

The July 16 letter to the editor of questionable title puts political science over restoration science by demeaning a total system approach initiated by a previous administration.

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan issued in 1999 (CERP 1999) was fatally flawed by failure to provide natural flow from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades and restore its historic River of Grass. Restoring natural flow was a major premise on page 1 of CERP 1999, and throughout the 4033 page tome.

Long story short: This was also due to political science, defying scientists’ calls to restore sheet flow dating back to the 1970’s, also called the Marshall Plan, through the latest CERP 1999 peer review by the National Research Council (2010 Biennial Report).

In January 2008, CERP scientists revealed a second deficiency: That they had found through modeling and analysis, that the Everglades was a much wetter ecosystem than previously modeled in CERP 1999, requiring a return to the drawing board to get the water right and restore natural flow postulated on page 1 of CERP 1999 and elsewhere in the 4033 page tome. Per CERP protocol, this requires an execution of “adaptive management” when new data dictates a need for a modification of CERP 1999.

In terms of CERP science, per the verb “to restore” and adaptive management, emerged the initiative to restore “the missing link to revitalize the River of Grass”. This provides the means to flow water south to meet the true water needs of the historic Everglades, as well as all the other users, and avoids trashing the estuaries by moving water south more than east and west.

Call the total ecosystem revitalization CERP(+). Consider CERP(+) progress in three regions:

1. There is progress north of Lake O per the Northern Everglades Ecosystem legislation/plan and the proposed Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge.

3. There is progress in the southern Everglades with the bridging of Tamiami Trail and related projects.

2. Until the River of Grass initiative, there was inadequate action for connecting the northern part of the ecosystem with the southern part of the ecosystem, due to CERP 1999 deficiencies. Absent this link, the Everglades would have to remain on expensive engineered life-support, and not much life with that.

In May 2010 the River of grass workshops were postponed until further notice, owing to the need to address land purchase needed. Admittedly the economy makes this paltry land purchase look like a bad deal. However better economic analysis indicates CERP(+) return on investment is at least $10:$1, with Florida Crystals analysis producing an even higher ROI: 26:1, based on restoring flow aforementioned.

Additional calculations indicate it will be less costly in the long run to restore the River of Grass, than inaction and water management that results in the adverse economic impacts of droughts that are more frequent, longer in duration, and of extreme/exceptional category.

The “streamlined approach” referenced in the July 16 letter lacks a CERP(+) vision and reduces State resources for adaptive action to get the water right and lessen the economic impacts of drought/water shortage. This leaves the Everglades and CERP 1999 on a track undermining the Florida economy.

Why a former governing board member does not see this is left to the judgment of the reader.

John Arthur Marshall, Chairman of the Board

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

1028 North Federal Highway, Lake Worth, FL 33460; 233-9004

Marshall Foundation on Radio Green Earth--7/14/11

The Marshall Foundation shares air-time with Michael Grunwald on the topic of drought in South Florida! Listen in as the Summer Interns discuss their views on the topic...

This week on Radio Green Earth, we talk about a topic on everyone’s minds these days in South Florida : drought.

We’re lucky enough to talk to John Marshall about his theories behind our “man-made droughts” and what we can do to help restore our natural climate system. We’ll also be talking to Time Magazine’s Michael Grunwald, author of the Swamp, about his own research on the Everglades and our local climate systems. Radio Green Earth host, Missy Strauss, will visit the Kissimmee River Basin at the very source of the Everglades and report on one of the best developed restoration projects in the area. We’ll see how aggressive efforts are already under way to restore the Everglades.Read more

Join us for an hour of environmental news, these feature stories, our green tip-of-the-week, and our environmental events calendar Thursday at 7 PM on WPBI 90.7 FM and Wednesdays at 8 PM on WQCS 88.9 FM. Also available live at www.radiogreenearth.org/.

Article in the Palm Beach Daily News

This appeared in Local Voices section of the Sunday edition...

Global climate change, sea-
level rise and the current drought beg for a plan and swift implementation. Call the counter-measure the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

Both the drought and sea-level rise pose imminent threats to the water supply in South Florida by saltwater intrusion into drinking water sources.

An assessment of the cause and effect of the current drought will to some unknown extent counter the consequences of global warming and sea-level rise. (Per Palm Beach Daily News, June 25, 2011: Planning and Zoning board looks for inspiration on climate change measures.)

Much has been reported regarding the current water shortage and blaming the “extreme drought” on global climatic conditions, such as La Niña, the Bermuda High and the North Atlantic Oscillation.

No doubt these conditions are having their effects to produce the current scenario of extreme/exceptional drought. However, in all the reporting, there is not one word about a significant cause of water shortages in South Florida and its links to the global scenarios.

The late Arthur R. Marshall called this scenario a man-made drought, and sought to address the cause and cure back in 1981. (Search for “Anatomy of a man-made drought” online.) The main water-shortage cause is the removal and draining of wetlands for development and agriculture, and the reduction of natural water flow from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades.

The Everglades wetlands, also known as the River of Grass, provided natural water retention, recharged the aquifers from which much water is drawn in Florida and filtered the water as it moved south. Moving water south (also southeast and southwest) will be a significant counter to sea-level rise.

A major volume of water that went south to the Everglades now is flushed to tide. One big result is decreased evapo-transpiration over what used to be the River of Grass, with surface water and plants sending water vapor into the atmosphere, unabated.

When moisture-heavy sea breezes combined with evapo-transpiration, South Florida was subject to rainfall deluges. Art Marshall dubbed this the “rain machine.”

The water supply in all of Florida, especially South Florida, depends on a rainfall-driven system. What is less touted in the science of the Florida water cycle, is that evapo-transpiration drives rainfall. The water cycle is also known as the hydrologic cycle. This is Geology 101 and visually described in a recently published poster by the South Florida Water Management District.

As Art Marshall declared in June 1981: “Water is the major concern of our coalition. If Lake O fails periodically to be adequate for all needs, what is to be done?”

Art Marshall also postulated that there was more dynamic water storage in the atmosphere over Florida than water storage in Lake Okeechobee.

The question persists today. As Art Marshall noted 30 years ago:

“Knowing that rainfall and its retention are the only satisfactory sources of water in the Everglades system, we support the re-establishment of sheet flow in the basin to the greatest possible extent. We cannot ignore the efficiency of the pristine system which often extended the wet period in the Everglades for four months or more beyond the four or five months of the rainy season.

“Dr. Patrick Gannon, meteorologist, has written of the positive effects of wetlands on rainfall in South Florida. Waters evaporated from the basin return to the basin in a form of natural recycling. In addition to this in-basin recycling, the most air rising from the basin can trigger additional rain to fall from water-laden oceanic air masses as they blow inland over South Florida.”

Conservation measures may help alleviate drought situations — such as xeriscaping, drip irrigation, cisterns and rain barrels, low-flow shower heads, doing away with unnecessary irrigation of medians, creating codes that don’t require thirsty green lawns. However, projected population increases, more rooftops and unmitigated destruction of wetlands will only make for more frequent extreme/exceptional droughts, and increased water supply costs, when they can be met.

There is a counter to the man-made drought and a counter to sea-level rise: Restore the river of grass to the maximum extent possible, thus restoring evapo-transpiration, and the rain machine in South Florida.

As Mr. Marshall also pointed out, rainfall always exceeds evapo-transpiration in Florida. If this were not true, Florida would be a desert.

We are way overdue — by 30 years — to address the cause. Now we need action on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and its robust implementation to restore the River of Grass. This will provide South Florida with plenty of low-cost water and avoid costly droughts.

How much is the man-made drought costing the people of Florida? That next.