Wetlaculture –Another Expensive Bandaid From Reality Evaders

 

 

eye roll In: Wetlaculture --Another Expensive Bandaid  From Reality Evaders | Our Santa Fe River, Inc. | Protecting the Santa Fe River in North Florida

Another scheme to avoid the cure, another Bandaid, another kick down the road for the can. Perhaps a better word than “scheme” is “boondoggle.”

This reminds one of the English teachers who periodically “discover” new grammar terminology, i.e. new names for the same old parts of speech.  Nothing new, but it gets them an article published to put in their portfolio, which, after all, is the goal.  Not new knowledge, but a new article.

The counterpart for water managers is not an article, but a show of spending money to substitute a needless endeavor for the real cure.  This way it looks like they are fixing the problem because it is innovative and expensive.  A key component of these boondoggles are “studies.”  Studies are good, because they take lots of time, cost lots of money, and make the scientist look like he is breaking new ground and discovering something awesomely brand new.  Pure, raw research.

Here we are spending money to take land out of production to make the wetlands.  Lands lost to farming and money spent to make the wetlands,  money lost after the money is spent because you can’t farm the wet areas.

The cure is to curb fertilizer.  Scientists know this.  If water managers must pay the farmer for something, then pay him to curb fertilizer.  Simple to say, difficult to do in Florida where Agriculture is King and legislators have no nads.

Read about this bad idea here in WINK News.

Comments by OSFR historian Jim Tatum.
-A river is like a life: once taken, it cannot be brought back-


 

Could farmers make money by helping clean up Florida’s water supply?

It’s called “wetlaculture.”

The marriage between agriculture and wetlands restoration is being pitched by scientists as the middle ground in the tug of war between the farming industry and environmentalists.

“It’s an approach for putting more wetlands back on the landscape but it’s also an approach for allowing more sustainable agriculture as well,” said Dr. William Mitsch, the director for Florida Gulf Coast University’s Wetland Research Park.

Mitsch, and other scientists, recently presented “The Economics of Wetlaculture” at the North American Lake Management Conference in Cincinnati in early November.

The idea is to convince farmers to transform some of their acreage into wetlands, which scientists believe helps filter nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen.

The farmers would be paid for their environmental benefit by government programs.

Those nutrients, according to Mitsch, are caused by fertilizer use and when they build up in our water supply it leads to algal blooms.

Eventually, the lands that have been converted to wetlands will be so dense with nutrients they should be able to be drained and converted back into farmland.

But when they are flipped back, the idea is that there will no longer be a need for so much fertilizer.

“You don’t see any reduction in the amount of fertilizer we are adding to the land each year, that’s an opiate. We got to get off of that opiate,” he said.

Currently, the process of flipping wetlands into farmland is being studied through the use of mesocosms, artificial wetlands set up in baby pools, at an experiment site in Four Freedoms Park in Naples.

Two other similar sites have been set up in Ohio, one near Lake Erie and one near Buckeye Lake in Central Ohio.

“What we’re applying here is equally applicable at Lake Eire and down here (in Florida) and anywhere else where there is a green body of water that is being absolutely trashed by human beings, we think this will work,” said Mitsch.

He said the mesocosm experiments are relatively new, so it will be a few years before they attempt to flip them to farmland.

Until the experiments are completed they won’t really know how long a site has to remain a wetland before it can be flipped back to be used for agriculture.

For the idea to be a long-term solution to Florida’s water crisis, state and federal leaders would need to be on board.

Congressman Francis Rooney told WINK News in an email:

“This is an interesting idea that we will investigate further. It seems to be similar to what the Army Corps and SFWMD are doing now with the A-1 and new A-2 (EAA) reservoirs, as well as the limited scope “water farming” projects.The problem with addition of additional reservoir capacity is how to acquire land now that the majority of state property has been used.”

WINK News also reached out to Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Elect, Nikki Fried who issued this statement:

“As I work with my transition team, we will bring experts to the table to ensure we build a Department that has a proactive approach and will consider all options available to take on on Florida’s water crisis. Innovation is key to progress—this is a long-term issue and can’t be solved in the immediate, but we must take a new approach, think bigger, and take bold action. If we’re only working to solve these problems when they have intensified to extreme levels, we will not succeed.”

A spokesperson for US Sugar said Wetlaculture is not something the company is currently involved in.

WINK News was not able to get a comment from Governor Elect Ron Desantis prior to the Thanksgiving Holiday.

1 Comment

  1. Just a thought. It seems like it might be common sense.

    If you are paying a farmer to reduce fertilizer, and he is already using optimal amounts of fertilizer, then you are paying him to reduce production. Of course, he would not be producing if there were not demand for his product in the first place. The problem is demand for the product.

    I am not suggesting that we not continue to do the tiny little things to make our existence slightly less taxing on our environment.

    However, there is only one real solution to our environmental problems. It is to reduce demand on resources and the only way to do that in a truly significant way during the lifetime of our great grand children is to reduce the human population.

    If we were to cut the human population in half, it would be possible to have a real, not trivial, impact on climate change and the future of our beautiful state.

    Let’s start paying people not to have children.

    How about medicare at age 50 if you don’t have any biological children.

    How about no income tax breaks for families with children and increased taxes, rather than tax deductions, for people who have more than 2 children.

    Let’s provide free birth control for everybody. Our government could even provide free birth control to all of those nations with populations still growing wildly out of control. Now that is an investment in saving the planet. We might even be cost effectively doing more to save the planet than all the other countries on the planet combined.

    You probably would even reduce the abortion rate along the way. Wouldn’t that be great.

    Some might say I am off target with this thread but I think not. I like to think that I am addressing the issue of the elephant in the room rather than just the size of his toenails.

Back to top
Skip to content