Slashdot Mirror


Florida Attempts the Largest Hydraulic Restoration Project In the World To Save the Everglades (vice.com)

New submitter ar2286 shares a report from Motherboard: Florida is defined by its water -- the water flowing around it, through it, increasingly over it. But throughout the twentieth century, its major arteries of fresh water, which flowed from the Kissimmee River south of Orlando to Lake Okeechobee and down to the swampy Everglades, were permanently rerouted by the federal government and landowners to stop flooding, and make room for agriculture and housing in the southern part of the state. Now the state is working with the Army Corps of Engineers -- the government agency partly responsible for rerouting and draining water to begin with -- and the South Florida Water Management District to attempt the largest hydraulic restoration project in the world. And while some say the effort has turned Florida into a battleground, pitting sugar farmers against legislators and environmentalists, others are hoping this will finally right certain man-made wrongs and restore some balance to the state. If the government is able to fully fund the plan, and should dozens of contractors and state forces successfully carry it out, it could permanently change Florida. And set a precedent for inevitable restoration projects around the world, which are becoming increasingly crucial as climate change manifests in stronger storms and sea level rise. The state is embarking on such a massive restoration project because the aging levees and control gates surrounding Lake Okeechobee are at risk of failing during large storms and/or heavy rainfall. "The more rainwater that increases in Lake Okeechobee, the more pressure is on the lake, and that pressure can continue to build up and build up and build up and one day the levee can go," said Tammy Jackson-Moore, a Belle Glade resident who co-founded Guardians of the Glades, a nonprofit focused on community advocacy. "And we're talking about wiping out entire communities here." The rerouting has allowed for bursts of economic growth, but it does have its consequences. "The Everglades, the largest swath of subtropical wilderness in the country, is now half of its size circa 1920, and the ecosystem has deteriorated, losing wildlife and native flora," reports Motherboard. "Without a natural place to flow, stagnant water pushes toxic algae blooms into the rivers, and turns pristine ocean into sludgy waste."

98 comments

  1. As someone who lives in Florida by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All I can say is "Good!"

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    1. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by BeauHD+(mod) · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly this. If you like the environment, vote for things like this. Take down things like dikes and dames and allow Nature to return to itself. Humans can be redisplaced from rural places where they are tearing up the enivronment and moved back into cities where they belong and can be managed. Earth gets to heal Herself and people become less of a plague on Earth. In the long run concentrations of populations is a good thing for efficiency of people, management of people (no one is X miles away from an administrative body), and biodiversity can regain its roots (no pun intended) throughout the rest of the lands and waters.

      -=Beau=-

    2. Re: As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the levee breaks, Mama you got to move.

    3. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly this. If you like the environment, vote for things like this.

      Also, if you believe in sensible government, you should support this. There are few things stupider than corn subsidies, but sugar subsidies are one of them. These sugar farms are totally uneconomical, and would immediately go out of business without government support ... and that doesn't even count the billions we spend to destroy the Everglades on their behalf.

    4. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly this. If you like the environment, vote for things like this. Take down things like dikes and dames and allow Nature to return to itself.

      I would agree with this to some extent.

      Humans can be redisplaced from rural places where they are tearing up the enivronment and moved back into cities where they belong and can be managed.

      Uh, OK, this is where you lost me. Move them back where they belong? As if a city is some kind of natural formation of concrete and greed. And we're talking about (rural) farmers here. You also going to vote for higher taxes to subsidize the growth in welfare to sustain farmers when you remove them from the job they know? And please don't attempt to throw a steaming political pile of STEM in my face as the solution here. Natural limitations often define the kind of job people do in life, and not every brain is cut out for a STEM job.

      Earth gets to heal Herself and people become less of a plague on Earth. In the long run concentrations of populations is a good thing for efficiency of people, management of people (no one is X miles away from an administrative body), and biodiversity can regain its roots (no pun intended) throughout the rest of the lands and waters.

      Ah, so efficiency of people is the goal here? Well, fuck it, let's not stop with all those "greedy" rural land owners. You spoiled bastards in your houses with your half-acre yards need to go too. I say we cram every human into apartment buildings like sardines; you know, for efficiency's sake. That way no one has grass-filled yards to waste water on, tends of thousands of separate air conditioners can be removed from the environment in favor of massive 100-story high-rise living, where everyone gets a standard-issue 750SF of administratively controlled living space. And of course, let's not forget in 10 years when cities are 10-million strong in population, the efforts we'll go through to re-route streams and rivers, once again cutting off natural habitats in order to provide enough water to feed the concrete jungle we insisted on shoving every human into.

      I agree there needs to be a balance here, but cities are not where every human belongs. Part of the point of keeping our planet beautiful is to enjoy it, which often means populating areas that are not a fucking cancerous cesspool of concrete wasteland.

    5. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You also going to vote for higher taxes to subsidize the growth in welfare to sustain farmers when you remove them from the job they know?

      Americans pay more than $3.5B per year to support only about 100 sugar farmers. So unless welfare recipients receive more than $35M each, no tax increases will be needed.

    6. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      humans don't need to move back to cities. There is SO MUCH rural land in the US that is just being mowed (not even for hay-- just for lawn) but not actually producing any crops. Move people there and grow good food.

    7. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly this. I am moving from Western PA to the Finger Lakes region of New York. I bought a few acres and all of the land that didn't have trees or the frog pond on it was just mowed. Next Spring I'm going to till about an acre at least and plant crops for my wife and I to eat. Add a couple of chickens and beehives, plant some fruit trees.

      Lawns are a waste of otherwise arable space for the most part. Sure we'll have some lawn area for recreation, but when I see a huge yard that is just mowed it irks me a bit.

      I'm even going to plant clover and wildflowers over the septic leech field. Food for the bees.

    8. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Take down things like dikes [sic] and dames...

      What do you have against women?

    9. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Americans pay more than $3.5B per year to support only about 100 sugar farmers. So unless welfare recipients receive more than $35M each, no tax increases will be needed.

      This is absolutely not true. This is baseless BS from a group that was fighting sugar industry subsidies, which are less than $100M. It doesn't hold up to any common sense test. Surprised even you would be so blind. But, hey, anything you read that suits your need....................

    10. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Informative

      He's replying to someone who is advocating the UN's Agenda 21. It calls for the human population to be warehoused in gigantic megacities and the rural areas to be depopulated. Some Agenda 21 advocates think that doesn't go far enough and the countryside should be banned even from overflight. It's a chilling vision of the future, one we hope never comes to pass.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Americans pay more than $3.5B per year to support only about 100 sugar farmers. So unless welfare recipients receive more than $35M each, no tax increases will be needed.

      This is absolutely not true. This is baseless BS from a group that was fighting sugar industry subsidies, which are less than $100M. It doesn't hold up to any common sense test.

      So what you're saying is that unless welfare recipients receive more than $1M each, no tax increases will be needed? Thanks for clearing that up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Exactly this. If you like the environment, vote for things like this. Take down things like dikes and dames and allow Nature to return to itself.

      All genders bear equal responsibility for this problem.

    13. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by thereitis · · Score: 1

      Have you ever lived in a rural area? Not everyone wants to live like a sardine in a can.

    14. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if you believe in sensible government, .

      Believe in sensible government?
      In Florida?
      You must be new there.
      Nothing but deplorable Trump voters, who can drown for all I care.

    15. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      " It calls for the human population to be warehoused in gigantic megacities and the rural areas to be depopulated. "

      It's a swamp, not a 'rural area'.

    16. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Next Spring I'm going to till about an acre at least and plant crops for my wife and I to eat. Add a couple of chickens and beehives, plant some fruit trees.

      Will you also apply for farm subsidies?

      https://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-...

    17. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

      http://dailysignal.com/2017/07...

      If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

      Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

    18. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

      http://dailysignal.com/2017/07... [dailysignal.com]

      If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

      Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

    19. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by jonsmirl · · Score: 3, Informative

      The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

      http://dailysignal.com/2017/07... [dailysignal.com]

      If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

      Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

    20. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

      http://dailysignal.com/2017/07... [dailysignal.com]

      If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

      Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

    21. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      The number is actually much higher. Those government subsidies for the 'select few' sugar farmers are used to raise the price every American pays for sugar. This article estimates that it is costing US consumers $47B.

      http://dailysignal.com/2017/07... [dailysignal.com]

      If you will look Google maps you can see a gigantic sugar operation right south of Lake Okeechobee. In the middle of it is a plant that converts sugar cane into another subsidized product, ethanol, for a gasoline additive. This operation is so large it cuts off all of the natural flow between Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades forcing it into canals.

      Simply get the sugar farmer's hands out of the government money and all of this would collapse since the entire operation is uneconomical without government support.

    22. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      Seems there was a hiccup at slashdot.

    23. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone at the UN read Caves of Steel.

    24. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation needed]

    25. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      >Earth gets to heal Herself and people become less of a plague on Earth

      The attitude of 'humans are the pinnacle of Creation and Nature should be bent to their will' was admittedly extremely ignorant... however, so is the hippy bullshit you're spouting.

      The reason we need biodiversity now is we recognize our ignorance and technological limitations prevent us from intelligently managing a sustainable biosphere that is human-friendly, not because Gaia's sad if we destroy the wetlands.

      Life on Earth is in its geriatric phase; it's been here over 4 billion years and has less than a billion left before it's gone. And that's just if things chug along as they always have - there's no guarantee that some tipping point won't hit and turn Earth into a lifeless hell hole long before that. Nature is not intelligent, and thus not intelligently managing the environment.

      If we learn how to manage a global biosphere (including some difficult things like moving the planet's orbit), we might extend this planet's habitability until the point as which the Sun no longer provides enough energy to drive an energy gradient.

    26. Re: As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, that's not the whole population. There are many moderates and liberals there, too. Just because the electoral votes made the state "red" doesn't mean 100% of the population is that way. Florida used to have some strong open government "sunshine" laws, too.

    27. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >drown for all I care.

      Ah yes, the tolerant, non-violent, concerned, 'intelligent' "liberal" mindset. Your parents, friends, family, and political party must be so proud.

    28. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Yeah. Good for them.

      Ha ha ha.

      Listen son, by the time We The People manage to pull our collective noses out of the latest boob-tube to actually notice there is a problem, the problem is probably beyond solving.
      By the time We The People are scared enough to get Government to pull their collective noses out of the back-sides of Big Business long enough to actually think about solving a problem, the problem is so far beyond solving it is useless to even try.
      And, by the time Government (and Big Business) get through frankensteining a solution together, the "solution" is little more than the Government writing checks to Big Business so a bunch of people can look good in a photo-op.

      This is all a joke. Your houses will vanish beneath the waves like Atlantis. The Everglades are already a memory. We are all the dumbest ass-hats ever to cobble together a civilization and we deserve what is coming to us.

      Sleep tight!

    29. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes. The dream of the pastoral Earth, sparsely populated by gentle, peace-loving farmers, each with a cadre of underpaid workers chained up in the fields.

      What? How else did you think that little fantasy worked out? In order for you to play the Baron in His Hall, you gotta have the peasants in the fields.

    30. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Even that understates the problem. Sugar tariffs have driven the change to fructose and HFCS, with accompanying damage to general health.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    31. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually....

      The $3.5B was actually paid to actual conglomerates who actually RENTED the actual land to raise the actual sugar beets.

      No actual money went to actual farmers.

    32. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by sycodon · · Score: 1

      So why aren't we looking at returning the island of Manhattan to it's original, beautiful, state?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    33. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. No.

    34. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia article covers Agenda 21 generally and its opposition briefly, without including any text from the U.N. document. Wikipedia cites this massive mess https://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/natur.htm which is full of bureaucratese and obfuscation, but hints as to the intention to have government control over people. The devil is in the details, and the details would be in a myriad of state and local laws written to fall within Agenda 21 guidelines. This, of course, would be too detailed and diffuse to unravel.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    35. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the point on the radio call-in show where the host politely cuts off the caller and the engineer queues up the "cuckoo-clock" sound effect.

    36. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. No.

      Why not? Hobbyists get subsidies too, check the link.

    37. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by johnstrass1 · · Score: 2

      FL voters already voted to pay for this clean up. The republicans (absolute majority fo both the state senate and reps and the governor) are instead (surprise, surprise) using the money for anything but. http://www.miamiherald.com/new... "Two years after Florida voters overwhelmingly endorsed a trust fund expected to raise $10 billion over two decades to save the state’s stalled conservation efforts, lawmakers are again proposing spending a big chunk of it on more mundane matters like risk management insurance. In twin bills that lawmakers will hammer out this week in Tallahassee, only a fraction of the $880 million allocated under the Amendment 1 constitutional measure is slotted for conserving new land. Instead, lawmakers divvied up the money to cover salaries —including paychecks for the entire staff of the state’s forestry service — and shifted much of the costs covered by the state’s general fund to the trust. In addition to human resources and expenses, lawmakers also propose using $20 million to treat sewage sludge in central Florida and $25 million for a wastewater treatment plant in the Keys.

    38. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us don't want to live in cities, you arrogant asshole. You place a premium on your style of life, you also are willing to deny others the ability to live responsibly where they want to? The changes were made in the past, people made good faith investments to work with the changes and live there. Now you want someone else to pay to displace these people so that "nature can go back to how it was". Bullshit. Nature never is stagnant, it changes constantly and often in ways that are unpredictable and troubling to the people in the areas. We work to control it because we like order and progress. This is dreamy ideas that nature will be in harmony with us if we just let it do it's own thing.

      If you feel this is so important, why don't you spend all of your own money and work on this harmony thing as your job and let the rest of us have our own dreams and lives.too? I see you advertising a lot of agenda ideas here on this site and I am tired of ignoring your crap. Stop attention whoring and go do something "productive" with your own money and quit this preaching about how you want to put us all in detainment camps. Because that is how some of us think of your precious cities.

    39. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep the hate alive!

    40. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by butchersong · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't spent much time in bayou country ;)

    41. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      I don't want subsidies. Don't need them. My career in IT was/is very good to me (in the process of semi-retiring). Perhaps if I expand beyond an acre or two; I have right of first refusal should my neighbor decide to sell the 5 behind us. He's not doing anything with it, although the meadow and the more distant birch trees are lovely.

    42. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by hey! · · Score: 1

      As if a city is some kind of natural formation of concrete and greed.

      It's the wrong question. "Natural" is no longer sustainable. Human populations at the current level, living what is now considered a middle class lifestyle are unprecedented in the history of the planet.

      So what is best isn't necessarily to try to return to a primitive lifestyle of small, isolated villages with stone-age technology. There are still a few native cultures where people live in villages and wear clothes made from wild animal skins, e.g. some Greenland Inuit. But if North Face tried make its jackets out of wild animal skins that would be actually a lot worse than polyester fleece -- an unnatural petroleum-based fiber that can be made from old soda bottles, and eventually could be made indefinitely recyclable.

      Likewise imagine treating sewage for a city with a million people in it. It's a massive undertaking, but it doesn't cost much per person to do treatment that takes raw sewage and turns it to something that appears like clean river water. Take that million people and distribute them across a thousand neolithic villages of a thousand people and there's a lot more environment impact.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    43. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't spent much time in bayou country ;)

      Bayou
      In usage in the United States, a bayou is a body of water typically found in a flat, low-lying area, and can be either an extremely slow-moving stream or river, or a marshy lake or wetland.

    44. Re:As someone who lives in Florida by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Likewise imagine treating sewage for a city with a million people in it. It's a massive undertaking, but it doesn't cost much per person to do treatment that takes raw sewage and turns it to something that appears like clean river water. Take that million people and distribute them across a thousand neolithic villages of a thousand people and there's a lot more environment impact.

      Only if you use the wrong system. If you just go ahead and use composting toilets, or if you must have flush then use AIWPS then you can turn poop back into an asset instead of having it be a problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. JAIL ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISTS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The future WOULD if they could.

  3. Drain it dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then kill all the damn pythons and imported crapfish, then refill in a controlled manner.

    1. Re:Drain it dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drain your retarded brain sac.

  4. If This Was Not Meant To Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God would not have commanded it so. Leave it alone!

    1. Re:If This Was Not Meant To Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strike down this heretic.

    2. Re:If This Was Not Meant To Be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he is Jesus Christ. Mel? Mel Gibson? Is that you?

  5. In the long run it doesn't matter by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As sea level continues to rise the Everglades (and most of Florida) will disappear under the ocean sometime between 100 and 300 years from now.

    1. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. It is totally and completely insane to spend any money trying to do anything with Florida except buy people out of their homes, which is cheaper than any other option. And those who deliberately moved to that glorified sand bar deserve nothing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Yes. It is totally and completely insane to spend any money trying to do anything with Florida except buy people out of their homes, which is cheaper than any other option

      Are you sure about that being the cheapest option? The Dutch have been living on land that's below the sea-level rather successfully for centuries.

      Now granted, there are coastal areas that cannot be defended with dams, because water can seep in through limestone etc. But the reason I'm asking is that relocating an entire state is bound to be insanely expensive, so it's not impossible that there are 'in-between'. options such as evacuating only parts of the state/coastal regions most in danger and starting to secure the rest to withstand ocean level rise.

      Not to even mention that I find it somewhat unlikely that the current, or even future, US governments would be willing to create a buyout program of the scale that relocating an entire state would require, but that's another point.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    3. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by gtall · · Score: 2

      The Dutch are not surrounded by water on 3 sides, nor are they subjected to hurricanes, at least not of the sort is Florida. They are also not afflicted by brainless politicians who cannot think further that their kickbacks.

    4. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus Florida is made of that porous limestone GP mentioned.
      You can't hold back the sea; it will bubble up beneath your feet.

    5. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree. It is too late to save Florida. Resources should be spent on other projects.

    6. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Florida. They are also not afflicted by brainless politicians who cannot think further that their kickbacks.

      WHAT??!!! A state without any politicians??? Now I understand why people would want to live there.

    7. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      On a 100-year timeline, you're going to see problems within a human lifetime, but not so quickly people can't react to them.

      I say... don't bother doing much at all. People will move out on their own as the ground becomes soggy with seawater. Or we get New Nice replacing Little Havana.

      Mostly I think the government ought to be looking at removing anything that will cause large-scale pollution problems if it ends up abandoned and at least partially submerged.

    8. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      We're surrounded by water on 2 sides plus two of the major rivers of Europe. Agree on the 'no hurricanes', but we have the Dutch + English coasts acting as a funnel into the English Channel, so we get storm surges much higher than one would expect of a 12 Beaufort wind.

    9. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do nothing most certainly not buying them out. They mostly voted for Trump and his no such thing as man made environmental change.

      They are either correct in which case everything will be fine or they get what they voted for.

      Win \ win either way.

    10. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! Half-measures! We can give $10k to every Florida home owner to build their own wall. Or wait! we can count up all the Floridians in a community and give the community $count(people) x $10K to build a wall around the community!

      Then in fifty years when that obviously fails we can shrug our collective shoulders, turn our backs on what's left of the state and merge it with what's left of Puerto Rico.

      Problem Solved!

    11. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I say... don't bother doing much at all. People will move out on their own as the ground becomes soggy with seawater.

      That's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up. We have a fund for repairing people's homes, and it doesn't include any means testing, sunset date, or even maximum amount spent. The same property can get flooded and rebuilt again and again. It's very difficult to sell a home which has been flooded and which will almost certainly flood again, unless it's on a beachfront. Then it's just expensive to do the work, and we all pay for it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Ahh. Do one thing, then; add a sunset clause to that fund, stage it in based on anticipated rate of natural disasters by area and decade.

      Maybe you get 90% assistance now, but 80% in the event of flooding after ten years, etc. And maybe add another clause that the rate can be adjusted as models are improved and annual measurements accumulate. Possibly add a third bit that says you can take a (small but non-zero) payout from the fund to assist with relocation, and set the amount to be less than the anticipated payout for rebuilding if the person stays another 10 years.

      Essentially, ya'll need to be told, "This area is becoming uninhabitable for people, and we're not going to continue supporting your efforts to live in denial of that fact".

    13. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do nothing most certainly not buying them out.

      The economic impact of not buying people out of their only home is significant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      It's important to point out, most of Florida's NATURAL terrain might have once been low-lying, but 99.9% of the buildings in Florida aren't sitting on natural terrain, nor are their ground floors anywhere close to sea level (let alone below it). Most actual buildings sit on several feet of engineered fill dirt, dredged from manmade lakes & canals.

      As far as I know, it hasn't been legal to build habitable buildings that are LITERALLY "below sea level" (or even "below floodplain level") in Florida since the roaring 20s, and has NEVER been regarded as a viable way to build anything you intend to survive more than a few years.

      Florida isn't going away, no matter HOW badly eco-warriors might want it to happen. If anything, sea-level rise will probably cause a new Florida land boom that takes the state's population to 50 million. If the southern Everglades became an extension of the Gulf of Mexico (flanked by the new Miami and Naples peninsulas), Krome Avenue would become Miami's new equivalent of Ocean Drive, and you'd see "flocks" of cranes building skyscrapers there to overlook it. Florida's leaders would celebrate the doubling of the state's coastline, and every remaining trace of South Florida's original natural environment would cease to exist.

      Lake Okeechobee would become a series of lakes surrounded by water-control structures extending diagonally to the area north and west of I-75 & the Sawgrass Expressway, designed to form a progressive gradient that keeps outright salt water south of Tamiami Trail, and brackish water south of I-75 (so Lake Okechobee and its new clone in Palm Beach County would be immense freshwater reservoirs).

      THIS is the real future of the Everglades. Most of "the Everglades" between Miami and Naples (along Tamiami Trail) already looks more like a big unkempt vacant lot than vast, untamed wilderness. The area along I-75 is a wetter and swampier, but the area around the rest stop about 20 miles west of Weston looks like they could build a sprawling outlet mall next door without anybody batting an eyebrow. When I was a child, Alligator Alley felt like a dangerous packed-gravel cowpath through the wild, untamed jungle. Now, it feels more like I-75 through Davie, Pembroke Pines, and Miramar did back when it first opened 30 years ago.

      It's not good, and it's not bad. It just "is". Fifty years from now, Florida won't be an underwater sandbar, it'll be jousting with Texas and New York for the title "second most-populous state in the nation".

    15. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      FEMA might repeatedly pay to rebuild, but it still requires mitigation against future flood events. So flood #1 might destroy your house, but flood #2 will probably just destroy your car and everything in the garage (because FEMA would have required that your repaired/rebuilt house be raised on new pilings or a higher foundation). This is EXACTLY what happened in the coastal parts of New Jersey that were destroyed by Sandy.

      Likewise, if your basement (but NOT the first floor) gets flooded in a state like Missouri, FEMA will force you to move all infrastructure (furnace, water heater, etc) so it's above the likely flood height, and the city will officially de-classify it as "basement"... so you won't be able to claim "basement" as a feature if you go to sell the house in the future, you'll never be able to get a legal building permit to turn it into a bedroom or home theater, and anything stored in that basement going forward will be totally excluded from coverage.

    16. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm somehow the science seems to disagree with you.

    17. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The beaches are eroding away so fast that they are literally moving sand from the ocean, and dumping it back on the beaches.

      You have a couple replies in this thread and they all seem to be pipe dreams. Things you want or hope will happen. Nothing substantial or any sources backing you up. Just a bunch of "this is what I thinkisms.

    18. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      What, exactly, does "the science" disagree with me about? The series of water control structures and "freshwater to saltwater gradient" plans aren't some dark, secret plot... South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers have always been pretty open about their priorities and plans. Their unambiguous missions are, in descending order:

      1. Prevent urban land from flooding (and create new developable urban land wherever possible)

      2. Secure a reliable supply of cheap fresh water suitable for drinking and bathing

      3. When possible with limited resources, and without compromising on goals #1 and #2, make a few token efforts to preserve the natural environment... especially the parts tourists (or legislators in Washington) care about.

    19. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: sandy beaches don't occur naturally (or at least, don't consistently exist as wide expanses of white, sparkling "sugar sand"). The fact that we HAVE wide, sandy beaches in Florida AT ALL is due to all of that "moving sand from the ocean". If Florida beaches ceased to be constantly rebuilt, within 10-20 years, most of them would revert to either mangrove swamps or foot-deep water washing up against a concrete seawall (like in Key West).

      Beach erosion isn't some new thing... it was happening DECADES ago. Back in the early 70s, the Bal Harbour/Surfside/Sunny Isles area had practically no sandy beach left... according to my parents, if you wanted to go play in the sand at the beach there, you HAD to go at low tide, because the rest of the time, it was constantly washed over by every incoming wave, or under at least a few inches of water. The wide sandy beach that exists there NOW is an actively-maintained 100% artificial triumph of geotechnical engineering.

    20. Re:In the long run it doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you misunderstood me they voted for no welfare and small government Honour their wishes and give it to them , - let them drown - it's not like there is a shortage of human beings in the genetic pool yet.

    21. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The science that says you can expect 10 feet or more of sea level rise in 150 to 300 years. Yes you can probably make good things like you're talking about happen over the next 50 or 75 years but sea level will be rising for a long time until the great ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica catch up with the warming that's already occurred. The last time CO2 was over 400 ppm as it is now sea level was around 70 feet higher than it is now. There's no guarantee that won't happen now either, it will just take time as the ice doesn't melt instantly.

    22. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      zOMG! 10 whole feet in 150 years! Run for the hills!

      300 years is longer than the United States has existed as a country.

      The oldest surviving structure(*) in the ENTIRETY of Miami is only 160 years old [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]... and it's been badly-damaged by hurricanes so many times, it presents a genuine "Ship of Theseus" problem to historians because there's almost nothing LEFT that was actually part of the original house. The oldest surviving structure in Fort Lauderdale [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ] was built in 1906 -- it's barely 111 years old.

      Between hurricanes and wrecking balls, I doubt whether the majority of buildings in South Florida under 10 stories tall that exist today will even still be AROUND a hundred years from now, let alone 150-300 years from now. If current development patterns persist, Miami International Airport in 2167 will be sitting in a canyon between two Coruscant-like plateaus of skyscrapers stretching from the beach to (what's left of) the everglades.

      (*) Technically, there's a 12th-century Spanish Monastery that William Randolph Hearst bought, had disassembled & shipped to Miami, and reassembled in the 1920s, but I think we can all agree that it doesn't count.

    23. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      What does 10 feet of sea level rise do to Miami and much of Florida? Doesn't that much rise move the coastline back 20 or 30 miles around much of the state? I agree it's slow enough that it's not going to be a sudden disaster but it's not something that will be stoppable either.

    24. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      It would if the land were in its natural state... but it's NOT. It's been DECADES since Florida has had anything vaguely resembling a natural coastline or terrain. South Florida wasn't "developed" so much as "terraformed".

      How to envision Florida:

      1. Dig deep lakes and lots of canals.

      2. Dump the excavated rock and dirt to raise the level of the surrounding terrain.

      3. Repeat on grand scale.

      Here's a great example -- https://www.google.com/maps/@2...

      It's the city of Weston, Florida (approx. 10 miles west of downtown Fort Lauderdale). The area north of I-75 is literally underwater (though it's only a foot or two deep)... from a car driving west along I-75, the Everglades north of I-75 looks more like "Lake Okeechobee" than the southern edge of Lake Okeechobee ITSELF does.

      Look at the satellite photo of the area, and realize that 30 years ago, the area south of I-75 looked EXACTLY like the area north of I-75. Notice how the developer dug the lakes as long linear canals to maximize the amount of new waterfront property AND minimize the distance that the excavated fill had to be hauled before dumping.

      The area further south (Pembroke Pines, Miramar) is similar. Notice the STAGGERING number of linear lakes everywhere throughout the area. The big rectangular lakes are former limestone strip mines... they're HUGE, deep, and considered highly desirable to have in the back yard because, unlike natural lakes, they're generally crystal clear, blue, and are too deep and rocky for things like aquatic weeds to grow in (so they don't stink from rotting vegetation the way natural lakes do). Environmentalists HATE them, homeowners love them.

      The area between Weston and Pembroke Pines (Southwest Ranches) LOOKS a lot more "solid" and less watery than the areas to the north & south, but that's mostly because THAT area was originally developed a lot earlier... the average yard height in Southwest Ranches is a few feet lower than the average yard height of homes in Weston, Pembroke Pines, and Miramar because the developer didn't have as much dirt to spread around, and it was spread around a lot more evenly across the entire area (instead of concentrating the excavated fill in a smaller area surrounded by deep, large lakes). The houses themselves in all the areas have first floors that are approximately 10-16 feet above base flood elevation, regardless of how high or low the rest of the yard might be, but yards in Southwest Ranches tend to end up submerged under an inch or two of water for a few days if we get an extended period of heavy rainstorms.

    25. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Just to emphasize, Florida does NOT use levees and dams to hold back ocean. It can't, because the limestone bedrock is too porous. The weight of the water on the "wet" side would eventually push it under the levee and up through the ground on the "dry" side.

      Florida DOES have levees and flood-control structures, but they're purely for handling transient flood events (ie, storm surge or days and days of rain from a "slow, wet, and sloppy" tropical storm. They only have to hold back the water long enough to give SFWMD a few days to dump it in the Atlantic, Gulf, or Florida Bay. SFWMD normally dumps water slowly to avoid causing huge offshore algae blooms near Fort Myers and Port St. Lucie... but if push comes to shove, SFWMD can throw open the gates and dump several FEET of Lake Okeechobee into the ocean within a matter of days.

      For all intents and purposes, urban South Florida is basically the biggest large-scale land reclamation project in human history. If rising sea levels make the ground increasingly soggy, we'll just dump MORE rock & dirt on top as areas get demolished & redeveloped over time. And most of that crushed limestone will come from what's now the Everglades.

      So... years from now, South Florida might very well be two peninsulas with 70 miles of open water between the western edge of Miami-Fort Lauderdale-WPB and eastern edge of Naples-Fort Myers-Cape Coral, and both metro areas might be sitting on 50+ feet of limestone mined from what used to be the Everglades, but I'm quite confident they'll both be quite dry, and even MORE densely-populated than they are now (insert fantasy of Naples with 80+ story skyscrapers rising Shanghai-like along the Gordon River at the site of what's now the city's airport, and Miami/FtL/WPB having a line of skyscrapers along their new western coastlines at the edge of what used to be the Everglades.

      For Florida, rising sea levels aren't an existential threat, they're a business opportunity of unparalleled magnitude with the potential to DOUBLE South Florida's beachfront coastlines by replacing the Everglades with a new Gulf.

    26. Re: In the long run it doesn't matter by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      During our lifetimes you may be correct but as I said the last time CO2 levels were 400 ppm sea levels were 70 feet higher than they are now. It would probably take 500 years or more to get there but it may be inevitable. On top of that where is south Florida going to get fresh water from? As sea level rises it pushes into the fresh water aquifers they are currently using.

  6. Screw it by AndyKron · · Score: 3, Funny

    Taxpayers paid to drain the swamp so land developers could get rich, and now taxpayers have to pay to clean it up.

    1. Re:Screw it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Government by the people, for the people."

      If anything calls for a ROFL, that statement is it.

  7. Epic facepalm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's "hydrologic", not hydraulic.

    1. Re:Epic facepalm by bjb_admin · · Score: 1

      After reading the title I was trying to figure out if they were attempting to raise the state of Florida to increase its height above sea level.....

    2. Re:Epic facepalm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Hydrology is the STUDY of water. Hydraulics is the practical application of hydrology. If you want to learn how water flows, you use hydrology. If you want to AFFECT how water flows, you use hydraulics. Epic facepalm yourself.

    3. Re:Epic facepalm by chill · · Score: 1
      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  8. Sell it back to Spain? by boudie2 · · Score: 1

    Use the money to fix another state that's not a lost cause. Tell them you'll throw in Puerto Rico as well. They're pretty stupid.

    1. Re:Sell it back to Spain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the money to fix another state that's not a lost cause. Tell them you'll throw in Puerto Rico as well. They're pretty stupid.

      Brilliant! Spain should be craving more land after the loss of Catalonia.

  9. Alarmists need to put the remote down now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And do a little goddamn research. I am ready for you to tell me when climate change is going to manifest stronger storms and sea level rise beyond the 1-3mm a year we see now. Wake up, you fucking lemmings.

    1. Re:Alarmists need to put the remote down now! by johnstrass1 · · Score: 1

      "...A new study, published in Geophysical Research Letters and undertaken by the University of Florida analyzed tidal and climate data for the southeastern seaboard of the United States. They found that between the years 2011 and 2015 sea level rose more than six times faster in the southeast United States as compared to global average sea level rise...... Sea level rise in south Florida has accelerated over the past 10 years, studies show. A 2016 University of Miami study found that the average rate of sea level rise was about 3 millimeters a year before 2006, and then rose to 9 millimeters a year on average after 2006......" https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...

  10. What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't fight mother nature.

    Florida may eventually be wiped off the map, without humans being at fault.

  11. i don't want to be managed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a fascist and a psycho.

    I am not moving to Mega City One so assholes like you can "manage me".

    I am sad that no one else pointed out you said that.

    1. Re:i don't want to be managed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some look forward to "total management" with the help of a superior and benevolent AI.

    2. Re:i don't want to be managed by craash420 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our...

      --
      Extra medication for all!
  12. Re:The landed gentry with their movable type. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    That's not how technology works. When you let corporations have free rein, they don't produce more tech, they produce more pollution. It's when you place limitations upon them that they come up with novel solutions.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. As someone who doesn't by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    All I can say is "stop wasting money on that soon-to-be-submerged spit of sand and swamp, and spend it on a state that will still be here in a hundred years".

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Re: In the long run it doesn't matte by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Aquifers are the current best source of cheap, good water... but they're not the ONLY source. Dade, Broward, & Palm Beach counties ALL get quite a bit of water from Lake Okeechobee. They PREFER aquifer water because it needs less processing (i.e, it's cheaper), but all 3 counties could get all their water from the lake if necessary (though it might require expansion of their water-treatment capacity if they had to use lake water for everything).

    If sea levels rose 100 feet, Florida would raise the lake the same way as everything else... by raising the levee around it, and dumping limestone fill into the lake to raise its bottom if necessary (though I think the weight of the lake water alone would probably be enough to keep the saltwater out... I'm pretty sure osmotic pressure isn't a major concern).

    The key point is, none of this will (or needs to) happen overnight. We're talking about *centuries* here. There's plenty of time to raise Florida's terrain 5-10 feet at a time as part of the natural cycle of building redevelopment. Florida has plenty of usable limestone & annual rainfall to satisfy both needs over the long term.

  15. Re: In the long run it doesn't matte by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    The surface elevation of Lake Okeechobee is less than 20 feet above sea level. Do you seriously think people are going to willing to spend the trillions of dollars it would take to raise it and all of the streams that feed into it plus raising all the other terrain the cities and farms are built on. How much are your taxes going to go up to pay for it all? It ain't going to happen.

  16. Re: In the long run it doesn't matte by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    All at once? Of course not. Over the span of several hundred years? Yes.

    Over time, "Lake Okeechobee" would become MULTIPLE lakes... Okeechobee, defined by its current dike... a new freshwater lake comprising what's now the "everglades" portion of Broward & Palm Beach counties (let's tentatively call it "Lake Seminole") connected to the original lake via canals, a new brackish-water lake between Tamiami Trail and I-75 (let's tentatively call it "Lake Miccosukee"), Florida's new Caribbean Coast (so named to disambiguate it from the Atlantic and Gulf coasts) occupying western Dade, eastern Collier, and basically all of mainland Monroe county, and another new freshwater lake north of Lake Okeechobee (let's call it, "Lake Kissimmee", because it would occupy most of what's now the agricultural part of the Kissimmee Valley... and point out to non-Floridians that it's a "valley" only in the sense that Floridians call an area where the terrain is 10 feet higher than the surrounding area "a hill").

    The four lakes would get most of their water from direct rainfall. None would be particularly deep, but they'd get plenty of water because they'd span a geographically HUGE area that gets massive amounts of rain. They'd just dump less of that rain into the Gulf & Atlantic than they do now.

    Plus, rising sea levels will happen slowly enough that most urban areas will get raised by redevelopment long before it becomes an existential threat to the area.

    I'd argue that higher water costs will perversely drive INCREASED development in Florida... as water becomes more expensive, agricultural users will start selling off their land to developers, who'll build new condos, neighborhoods, office parks, golf courses, and discount retail outlets... the new development will drive up land prices, and induce even more agribusiness owners to sell out to developers. To a residential customer, a $10/month difference in the water bill is gripe-worthy, but not the end of the world. To someone like ConAgra, a $20,000/month difference in the water bill could mean the difference between oranges and office parks.

    It really CAN'T be any other way. Florida's biggest single industry is its own growth. It might not be "sustainable" in any way that respects the natural environment, but that doesn't mean it won't continue for centuries until the entire state of Florida consists of 3-6 megalopoli sitting on terrain that's about as "natural" as lower Manhattan (there's actually a swampy island buried underneath the concrete, though post-9/11 was just about the only time we actually got to SEE evidence of its existence).