In 2014, after a large parcel of land south of the lake went on the market, Floridians voted overwhelmingly in support of Amendment 1, which earmarked hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for its purchase. Instead, the state took that money and used it to purchase anything and everything else in the name of conservation. They even gave some of it directly to farmers. Environmentalists place the blame squarely on the sugar lobby.
“Amendment 1 was misappropriated, and we did not get the opportunity to buy land south of the lake,” Jud said. “The governor sided with the sugar industry.”
Despite recent setbacks, proponents of Everglades restoration are encouraged by the public support their cause has garnered. It’s now widely agreed that moving more freshwater south is our best (and perhaps only) shot at revitalizing the Everglades—stopping peat collapse, preventing seagrass die-offs, and allowing more natural ecological transitions to occur as climate change progresses.
What’s more, with rising sea levels threatening to wipe South Florida off the map, a healthy Everglades could be the last line of defense. “You could say Everglades restoration is a waste of money because it’s all going to be drowned anyhow,” Wanless said. “But if you can have a more reliable, higher level of freshwater running through the Everglades, and the wetlands can build up peat again, you can keep the saltwater encroachment at bay better. And that’s worth it’s weight in gold.”
Leave it to Florida’s government to allocate funds through a tax increase and then squander those funds that could have been used to literally save your tax-payers from being underwater and moving out of your state. That is some short-sighted politics.
On another note, this was an excellent example of Gizmodo dipping their toe in reporting. This was a featured article and I hope to see more of these.