Gilbert: Remove the Kirkpatrick (Rodman) Dam
Letter to the editor
While the Holiday Season is over, why don’t we now celebrate our place in North Central Florida? I have lived here since 1993 and have learned that while water is the bloodstream of the planet, it also defines my ‘sense of place’ in Florida with numerous springs and streams that I have enjoyed.
We will see an increased in-migration of people from coastal Florida as sea levels rise, along with additional students attending the University of Florida. While much has been done to save and protect natural resources in the area, we must protect what survives, repair what has been damaged, and connect places that have been severed.
Let us do this:
Remove the Kirkpatrick (Rodman) Dam. It would allow the Ocklawaha River to flow naturally to give us the natural beauty and benefits the Potano people of long ago enjoyed. It would allow once again the migration of fish and manatees. It would reveal and bring to life the 20-plus lost springs in the river that artist and environmentalist Margaret Ross Tolbert revealed to us with her community presentations about The Lost Springs of Florida.
The restored area would be a jewel for our Ocklawaha River Watershed and a shining example for the State of Florida for the restoration of damaged natural areas. By removing the dam, nature will quickly repair most of the area.
The restored watershed, the ‘Real Florida,’ will then be a natural attraction and bring many eco-tourists, benefiting everyone – particularly local residents.
Bill Gilbert, Gainesville
The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.
Hear Hear!
Well stated…that dam has done nothing positive.
But you did lose me with the ‘rising sea level’ trope. That has been repeated ad nauseam for decades. Satelite data and in-ground survey benchmarks completely contradict the global rising sea level fallacy. Infrastructure and buildings are subsiding in certain coastal areas but that is well known to be caused by poor development on sandy soils which sink, or subside, with time and storms – not due to rising sea levels.
“Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches 67 mm above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch 3.2 mm per year.
Higher sea levels mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did, which also means more frequent nuisance flooding. Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago.
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The ocean is absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.
With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century. In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world’s 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans…”
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Oh, the horrors of 3mm per year! The trend has remained unchanged for over 150 years. This data starts in 1856
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
The problem is irresponsible over development on poor soils in storm prone areas. The climate model projections you reference seem to never come to fruition…20 years ago NOAA and Al Gore’s UN-backed group said coastal Fla would be under water by now.
You wrote above: “Satelite data and in-ground survey benchmarks completely contradict the global rising sea level fallacy…”
Glad you backed off of that and we both agree with NOAA. Note they also say: “With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century…”.
Given that “In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms”, rising a foot in 100 years and with rates increasing, is cause for concern, planning, and mitigation.
And where are Floridians going to get their water if the sea level rises anywhere near models project? Rodman retains harvest able water from the top of the aquifer, when many municipal wells throughout the state will be overrun with saltwater from the hydraulic pressure of the increased water elevation.
Using the Rodman pool as a drinking water source has been researched by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the Withlacoochee River Water Supply Authority. Each have concluded that the poor water quality in the Rodman pool (due to stagnation and years of sludge from vegetation that thrives without the river flow then sinks) and high costs to treat the water renders the Rodman pool an unusable drinking water supply source. Breaching the dam would improve water quality along the entire river
SJRWMD Has assessed the potential for 30 MGD withdrawals from Rodman. The talking point about poor quality water gives testament to the fact that the river water is impaired due to the activities upstream of Rodman. The beneficial cleansing affect that occurs within the pool greatly benefits the health of the St Johns River and does not detract from its potential use to provide a municipal water source. That is fact!
Since people vote in elections, and not fish or trees, the best decision on the dam should coincide with water supply for a growing N. Fla. voter population. Does anyone know? I assume a reservoir helps human water supplies, but is that the case here?
The dam was built as part of the long-since abandoned cross florida barge canal. Drinking water supplies for people had nothing to do with it. It accidentally became a first class bass fishing lake, which drew large numbers of visitors who leave lots of tax payments to vigorous businesses in their wake. That’s the 50- or 60-year old dilemma in a nutshell: does the unintended human benefit offset the environmental harm?
Yes I remembered that too. But politicians today must consider future water supplies for growing number of voters in NC Fla., now.
It is doubtful the occasional bird watcher or alligator tourist desired by the article author will put more money into the Orange Springs economy than the multitude of bass fishermen.
Remember the cost of the debacle barge (Panama) canal? Add in the cost of the Rodman.
Now quadruple that price. That is what it will cost to restore all the damage done.
That is, if the EPA will even allow it. So is it worth the cost that our politicians will not spend?
Not sure about this, the Dam has been there for a long time, I know that there is great fishing at the Reservoir, I know that Springs are created from under ground reserves, so, I am not real sure how removing the Dam will restore springs. I think that Nature has probably already readjusted to the original MISTAKE. I Would not argue that it was a mistake to begin with, it was.
Sea levels rise? Yeah…right…
The best bass fishing in the world, a reserve for starving manatees, gazilion birds, come out here and look around before you decide to “restore” this area