Institutional Evolution in Lake Okeechobee Managementin Florida: Characteristics, Impacts, and Limitations

Neeraj Vedwan & Sajjad Ahmad &

Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm & Kenneth Broad &

David Letson & Guillermo Podesta

Received: 6 November 2005 /Accepted: 17 April 2007 /Published online: 9 June 2007# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract The management of Lake Okeechobee in Florida has undergone significantchanges in the last decade. Socio-political, environmental and demographic factors havedriven changes in the environmental and water policy, which in turn have led to wide-ranging institutional changes and a shift toward multiobjective planning and implementa-tion in the Lake management. This article describes the changes in the philosophy andpractice of water resources management in South Florida hydrologic system, of which LakeOkeechobee is a crucial component. The impacts of the changes on management goals anddecision processes are illustrated through a case study of the use of climate information inLake management. The article concludes with a brief examination of the implications of theinstitutional changes, including greater public participation, for the long-term sustainabilityof the social-ecological system in South Florida.

Keywords Adaptive management . Institutional evolution . Lake Okeechobee .

Climate information . Decision making . Stakeholder . Policy . Water resources management

Water Resour Manage (2008) 22:699–718DOI 10.1007/s11269-007-9187-7

N. VedwanDepartment of Anthropology, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, New Jersey, USAe-mail: vedwann@mail.montclair.edu

S. Ahmad (*)Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas,NV 89154-4015, USAe-mail: sajjad.ahmad@unlv.edu

F. Miralles-WilhelmDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

K. Broad : D. Letson : G. PodestaRosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA

1 Introduction

Water resources management is increasingly beset with “wicked” problems, that is,problems which are complex, often have contested political and social dimensions, and thusdefy conceptualization amenable to conventional problem solving approaches (Ludwig2001). The “command and control” paradigm of natural resources management, andreductionist approaches based on it have proven inadequate in stemming serious problems,such as pervasive environmental degradation and intensifying conflicts among competingusers. It has become clear that an effective response to problems being encountered willhave to encompass multiple, but interconnected levels of policy, decision-making andutilization of information.

It has been noted that the decline in scientific certitude and increasing recognition ofuncertainty, both scientific and normative, arising mainly from a greatly increasedcomplexity of water resources management objectives, has transformed the principalinstitutional goal of well-defined problem-solving to change and adaptability (Pahl-Wostl2002; Ludwig 2001; McCool and Guthrie 2001). Water management agencies can beconsidered boundary organizations which respond to broader social changes throughtechnological innovation, establishment of new procedures, and re-conceptualization of themanagement problem (LaChapelle et al. 2003; Fraiture 2007).

Adaptive management (also referred to as integrated management, ecosystem manage-ment) has emerged as an alternative to the dominant mechanistic paradigms that havehitherto dominated natural resources management. It takes an inclusive view of the coupledsocial-ecological system, and offers several advantages over a piecemeal managementapproach. According to Imperial (1999), the main characteristics of integrated managementare: use of systems perspective, improving institutional performance, integrating govern-ment policies, expanded public participation, better coordination between variousgovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and use of science in governmentpolicies. Participatory approaches to decision-making have emerged at the center of theefforts aimed at overcoming the impasse in natural resources policy-making arising out of,primarily, lack of institutional legitimacy and trust (Poisner 1996). Increased stakeholderparticipation and broader public involvement in decision-making, as elements of adaptivemanagement, can facilitate innovations. Fiorino (1990) lays out normative, substantive, andinstrumental benefits of stakeholder participation in risk management decisions. Not only isbroad stakeholder participation in consonance with democratic ethos, but besides addingvalue by helping incorporate diverse input into decision-making, it also improves thechances of success of management efforts (Poncelet 2001). By involving stakeholders andthe broader public in setting goals, formulating the process and actively monitoring theresults, participant learning is fostered which reduces the potential for backlash in the eventof unanticipated adverse outcomes.

An important goal of the adaptive management approach is to strengthen the institutionalcapacity to deal with unexpected changes and uncertainty (Gunderson 1999). In contrast toearlier reductionist approaches oriented to problem-solving using specific technical tools, itembraces social learning as a means to promote innovation. According to Marleeveld andDangbégnon (1999), social learning involves, systems thinking, communicative rationality,and experimentation. A diversity of learning approaches is required because it “strengthensthe adaptive capacity of managed resource systems, since this enlarges sensitivity todifferent types of change and the ability to come up with different strategies for takingaction” (Marleeveld and Dangbégnon 1999: 270). The utility of adaptive management liesin its explicit recognition of uncertainty that exists in the understanding of natural systems,

700 N. Vedwan, et al.

as well as the couple natural–social systems. Instead of adopting a strictly technicalapproach to analyzing and coping with uncertainty, adaptive management calls for greaterstakeholder participation, as well as strengthening the interconnections between diversedisciplines such as engineering, biology, and sociology, to generate a holistic understandingof the coupled natural–social system (Cortner and Moote 1994). Although adaptivemanagement is often exemplified as consisting of an experimental approach, wheremanagement decisions are evaluated for their impact on ecosystems, the goals are muchbroader. In recognition of the politics inherent in using science for natural resourcesmanagement, the objective is expanded from striving for a value-free, objective science toencouraging a “social learning” approach where both the experts and stakeholdersparticipate in a transparent and iterative exercise aimed at unmasking the underlyingassumptions of decision-making. Decision-support tools have been used to facilitate thedrawing up of possible scenarios, along with discussion of tradeoffs inherent in decision-making. Models, traditionally used in water resources management for delineating cause–effect relationships, can also serve as a basis for stakeholder participation, with discussionsbased on modeling results (Olsson and Andersson 2007).

Despite increasing recognition of the usefulness of adaptive management approaches, itremains unclear how the transition from more conventional management approaches takesplace (Roe 2001). According to Pahl-Wostl (2002), the interdependence of the variouscomponents of current water resources management regimes – institutions, policies,models, and practices – due to co-evolution over long periods of time makes transitiondifficult. The entrenched systems of management are resistant to wholesale change requiredfor adaptive assessment principles and practices to be accepted and implemented, unlessdriven by external forces. The looming threat of global change is described as one suchcatalyst, but in general, there are not many accounts available of the transition. In SouthFlorida the changes in Lake Okeechobee management have taken place in the context ofregional environmental restoration efforts, mainly of the Everglades, which were initiatedwith the signing of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project in 2000. Theinvestment of significant political capital at the national level, even transcending theconventional political boundaries, provided the necessary fillip for the reconfiguration ofinstitutional and decision-making mechanisms.

A social learning approach to managing risk and uncertainty has lead to changes in howinformation collection, processing and sharing takes place – all of which have a strongcomponent of stakeholder participation built in, and the processes are iterative and henceflexible. Therefore there has been a move away from expert determination and control ofwhat the information needs are to a more contingent and consensual definition of pertinentinformation.

New principles for conflict resolution, moving away from a “zero sum” approach, wherecostly litigation cycles are the norm, have to be evolved. In case of South Floridaecosystems, the principle of “shared adversity” (Steinman et al. 2002) enables a give andtake approach that allows for satisfactory outcomes in situations where there are no optimalsolutions.

This paper presents a case study of the transition to adaptive management for LakeOkeechobee in Florida. The main goal is to improve the understanding of factors that haveled to the change, through an examination of decision-making within the South FloridaWater Management District, especially as they pertain to information processing. The paperdescribes the policy stalemate, comprised of the demographic, socio-political andinstitutional factors, that triggered an overhaul of existing Lake management in favor ofan integrated approach, incorporating adaptive assessment and stakeholder participation as

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 701

cornerstones. With the help of the example of use of climate information in Lakemanagement, the paper illustrates how institutional and decision-making changes, alongwith specific changes in the philosophy and practice of water resources management inSouth Florida have facilitated the increased attention to climate in operational decisionsmaking, as well as planning. More importantly institutional and decision making changeshave contributed to achieving a better balance among the multiple and often conflictinggoals. The remaining paper is organized as follows. First we present the geographic settingof Lake Okeechobee and important hydrologic characteristics of South Florida. This isfollowed by description of the methods used in the study. We explore various dimensions ofwater resources management crisis in South Florida, and policy and management responseto that crisis. Finally we present some examples of how adaptive management, andparticularly participatory decision-making process, is currently being used for LakeOkeechobee management, and conclude with lessons learned from this approach.

2 South Florida: Geographic and Hydrologic Characteristics

South Florida is home to about 6.5 million people, 45% of the State population, living in anarea of approximately 43,520 km2 that is 31% of State area. The region includes criticalenvironmental resources such as Everglades National Park and Lake Okeechobee. Between1950 and 2000 the population of South Florida has grown about 800% (from 0.8 million toabout 6.5 million). The region also has a significant influx of seasonal and touristpopulation. The permanent resident population of the region is projected to reach 8.2million by 2020 (SFWMD 1998a). Between 1950 and 2000 the urban land use increasedfrom 2.2 to 13.3%. Agricultural land increased from 9.5 to 27.8% during the same period.These changes in population and land use have had significant impacts resulting inincreased demands for water; increased needs for flood protection; an overall decline inwater quality; and a reduction in lands in their natural state.

South Florida has a sub-tropical climate, warm temperatures, and an average annualrainfall of 135 cm (SFWMD 1998a). Seventy-three percent, or approximately 98 cm of theregion’s spatially averaged annual rainfall occurs in the 6 month period from May throughOctober (Ali and Abtew 1999). Although rainfall is relatively abundant in Florida, a majorportion of it is never available for use due to high evaporation. Measured runoff averagesfrom zero to 25 cm per year in much of South Florida.

In addition to the monthly variation of rainfall, year-to-year variability in totalprecipitation is an important feature of South Florida’s climate. Annual rainfall frequencyanalysis performed by Scully (1986) depicted 1-in-10 year dry and wet annual rainfall inthe region as 112 and 158 cm, respectively. The fact that South Florida can move soquickly from having excessive rainfall with associated flooding to a drought situation, orvice versa, exacerbates the difficulties associated with managing the water resources ofthe region.

South Florida region with its water control and conveyance structures is shown inFig. 1. The heart of the system is Lake Okeechobee. The Lake covers 1,869 km2 with amean depth of 2.75 m and has a surface water storage capacity of 3.78 103 million m3.The control and conveyance system includes approximately 2,250 km each of both leveesand canals, more than 200 water control structures and 18 major pump stations. Majorinflows to the Lake include the Kissimmee River, Fisheating Creek and Taylor Creek.Lake Okeechobee has two outlets, the Caloosahatchee River to the west and the St. LucieCanal to the east, which discharge through the tidal estuaries to the ocean. Four major

702 N. Vedwan, et al.

canals (West Palm Beach, Hillsboro, North New River and Miami) convey water supplyto the Lower East Coast and flood control releases from Lake Okeechobee to the south.These canals traverse the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) and capture excess runofffrom the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). The five WCAs, WCA-1, WCA-2A,WCA-2B, WCA-3A and WCA-3B, work as shallow, above the ground impoundments.

Fig. 1 Map of South Florida

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 703

Lake Okeechobee has multiple functions including flood protection, agricultural and urbanwater supply, navigation, fisheries and wildlife habitat. The Lake provides irrigation waterfor the 1,813-km2 Everglades Agriculture Area and represents a critical supplemental watersupply for the Everglades during dry periods (SFWMD 1998a). Ground water provides for53% of the total freshwater demands in South Florida (USGS 1999).

Commercial agriculture is the main water user in South Florida, generating 62% of totalwater demand. The water control system of South Florida is complex, not only in itsconfiguration, but also in its operation.

Lake Okeechobee management mainly involves decisions about the timing and quantityof water to be stored or released to the different parts of the natural system, or for variousconsumptive uses. The water from the Lake can be released to one or more of the followingareas:

a. The estuaries to the east (St Lucie river) or the west (Caloosahatchee river)b. The Water Conservation Areas (WCA) to the southc. The Everglades to the south and ultimately into the Florida bay.d. The coastal urban areas or the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) to the south

The importance of climate information for water resources management is magnified bythe vast basin draining into the Lake, so that even small variability in precipitation can havea significant impact on its level. Global climate phenomena like the El Nino-SouthernOscillation (ENSO) and, to a lesser degree Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), havebeen successfully linked to Florida’s weather with its different phases having, in general,opposite impact on precipitation. For instance, during the El Niño years, winter (Nov–March) precipitation increases by as much as 30% compared to the neutral years (Jones etal. 1999). The La Niña has the opposite impact, with the precipitation in fall and winter (thedry season) declining by 10–30%.

2.1 Evolving Water Management Goals

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, hereafter referred to as the “District”)is responsible for the management of water resources in South Florida. Beginning in the1970s, the increased concern over environmental degradation in South Florida began totranslate into policy measures aimed at stemming the trend. The Florida Water ResourcesAct of 1972 can be considered as marking the beginning of serious rethinking of waterresources management in Florida. The original preoccupation of water resourcesmanagement in the region – drainage, dating back to the 1850s, and subsequently, floodcontrol – over time gave way to inclusion of supply, and finally, environmentalconsiderations. The deterioration of Lake Okeechobee due to a combination of consistentlyhigh water levels for long periods of time and the back-pumping of agricultural runoff (forsupply purposes) into it, and the adverse impact on the downstream ecosystems – theEverglades and the Florida bay – emerged as rallying issues in this regard.

It is important, however, to emphasize that the shifts in environmental policy in SouthFlorida cannot simply be reduced to being the imprint of the objective changes in theenvironment; rather they are the outcomes of multiple and, often, divergent processes, suchas, stakeholder dynamics and the evolution in the scientific understanding of theenvironment. The State government, its proxy, the District, US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE), Federal government, agricultural interests, urban developers, Indian tribes, and

704 N. Vedwan, et al.

environmentalists are the main players in the policy and decision-making arena. At varioustimes, challenges to policies have been mounted legally, as well as politically.

3 Materials and Methods

With enormous growth in population, changes in land use, substantial agricultural activity,and need to protect vital environmental resources such as Everglades, South Floridapresents a very challenging case for water management. Methodologically, this paperfollows an approach which has been used widely in policy and decision-making studies innatural resources management (Rayner et al. 2005; Power et al. 2005; Olsson et al. 2004).Natural resource management is influenced by a complex mix of specific historical,political-economic, and ecological factors. Thus, broad generalization across multiple casesand sites is usually difficult to achieve; therefore case-studies, based on in-depthinformation, drawn from a variety of sources, are often preferred. This work is based ondata and information collected using multiple methods: Interviews, participant observation,and sources such as scientific publications, technical reports, procedural manuals,management decision tools (e.g. decision-trees used for Lake-water release), and meetingminutes. Ten semi-structured (Bernard 2000) interviews were conducted with key scientistsand managers at the District. The key advantage of semi-structured approach is flexibility inposing questions, taking into consideration responses, as opposed to strict reliance on a pre-formulated questionnaire. Another goal of the interviews was to elicit contextualinformation pertaining to the actual decision-making, which would help highlight the keyinstitutional variables responsible for innovation. We also attended twelve meetings of thestakeholders (open to public), decision-makers (scientists, engineers, managers), GoverningBoard, Water Resources Advisory Council (WRAC), and Hydrological Systems andModeling (HSM) group of the District. Participant observation often provides informationwhich is difficult to get through interviews and surveys (Agar 1996). For instance, thestakeholder dynamics which can be observed in the course of participation in an openmeeting are likely to differ from the accounts provided by individuals after the fact, at leastin terms of comprehensiveness. Scientific publications pertaining to Lake Okeechobeemanagement, including coverage of specific water release decisions, in particular, andrelated issues like Everglades restoration, were searched exhaustively. We systematicallyanalyzed the collected information to identify factors and conditions that led to transitionform “Command and Control” type of management to participatory decision making.

Regional newspapers were searched, using LexisNexis – a web-based search engine formass media sources – for the coverage of issues related to Lake Okeechobee management andthe Everglades. The content of about two thousand records which were analyzed providesinsights into the public response to the policies and practices of water resources managementin South Florida. The analysis was done using a “grounded theory” approach (Bernard 2000)where iterative analysis is used to elicit prominent themes in the textual data. For instance,one of the themes that emerged repeatedly relates to the widespread perception that the Lakemanagement was still being done mainly for the benefit of agricultural and economic interestsand not the ecosystem.

We present our analysis with the identification of different dimensions of water resourcesmanagement crisis in South Florida. This is followed by policy and management responseto the crisis. Finally, we present a case study of the use of climate information in LakeOkeechobee management.

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 705

4 Dimensions of Water Resources Management Crisis in South Florida

The crystallization of a full-blown water management crisis in the 1980–1990s, compriseda number of interrelated developments, derived from demographic and socio-economicchanges in the region, and the general shift in environmental attitudes. The maincomponents of the crisis were: (1) Competing uses of water; (2) uncertainty about thescientific and normative aspects of decision-making; and (3) the loss of trust in the decisionmaking process and institutions managing water resources.

4.1 Competing Uses of Water

In addition to the positive shift in environmental attitudes in the 1970s, as evident in thepromulgation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA), and the 1972 Stockholm United Nations Conference on the HumanEnvironment (Gottlieb 2005), the environmental dimension of water resources managementgained importance as a result of the structural political-economic changes sweeping throughthe region (Schusler et al. 2003). The in-migration of retirees with disposable income,increasing differentiation and specialization of the economy, and increase in tourism, led tothe emergence of strident voices in support of arresting the environmental degradation. Theinflux of people, drawn in part by the aesthetic and recreational aspects of the environmentand growth of tourism – dependent on the integrity of the environment – brought this fastgrowing sector in conflict with the “old economy”, comprised of the well-entrenchedagricultural and urban interests.

The effects of economic polarization were compounded by the increasing regional socio-political fragmentation. South Florida in the 1970s saw a surge in migration from LatinAmerica, which had far-reaching consequences for the demographics, politics, anddevelopment in the region (Solecki 2001). The outcome was that Lake management withrespect to the major objectives transformed into a zero-sum game, with the aggrieved partiesincreasingly adopting obstructionist positions on various issues and resorting to litigation.

4.2 Uncertainties about the Scientific and Normative Aspects of Decision-making

Natural resources management, in general, is host to numerous uncertainties owing to thepresence of intergenerational issues, science-politics interface, and contestation over valuesas, for example, manifested in the contending philosophies of anthropocentrism vs.ecocentrism (Hempel 1996).

Despite continuing advances in the understanding of the South Florida naturalsystem, uncertainties remain. Reducing the amount of phosphorus in the Lake-water andthe Everglades to the historic low levels has been an important environmental objectiveof water resources management in the region. However, even the basic characterizationof the Everglades as naturally oligotrophic (nutrient-poor, low phosphorus), and therole of the elevated phosphorus levels in the proliferation of exotic species, havebeen challenged by some stakeholders, notably the sugar industry (Green and Perko2001). It is clear however that the impact of uncertainty is not due to lack of scientificknowledge of the characteristic natural system processes alone since even a consensus inthe scientific and management community on the specific ameliorative steps needed torestore the natural hydropattern in the Everglades (timing and quantity of water flows tothe various parts of the natural system) has proven relatively ineffectual in advancing therestoration efforts.

706 N. Vedwan, et al.

Ultimately the problem may have less to do with the objective lack of certainty aboutecosystem properties and their linkages with anthropogenic and natural forces, than withthe lack of agreement on the acceptable level of societal costs and benefits of environmentalrestoration. At the root of the disagreement lies the difficulty of economic valuation ofecological functions and attributes, which provides opportunities for interested parties tohighlight and politicize uncertainty (Krishnan and Goodwin 1995).

4.3 Loss of Trust in the Decision-making Process and Institutions Managing WaterResources

The inability of water resources management, based on centralized rule-making, to come upwith broadly acceptable solutions to the problems being encountered has led to rampantlitigation. By the late 1980s, it was clear that the status quo involving the entrenched policytriangle, comprising the State, including the SFWMD, the economic interests, primarilyagricultural groups, and technical experts, mainly engineers, had proved incapable ofresponding effectively to the crisis in Lake management. The proliferating adversarialrelations between not just the various interest groups, but also the management institutions,led to the enormously expensive and time-consuming “litigation, negotiation and legislationcycle,” which began in 1988, when the Federal government filed a lawsuit against theSFWMD, contending that its practice of back-pumping agricultural runoff intoLake Okeechobee was in violation of the Clean Water Act, and continued into the 1990s(Guest 2001).

The lack of public trust in the State including its various institutions magnifies the effectof uncertainty in the definition, as well as potential solutions of environmental problems,leading, therefore, to passivity towards environmental issues (Johnson and Scicchitano2000). The “top-down” approach of Lake Okeechobee management continued through the1970s to 1990s, while degradation of the Lake and other related South Florida ecosystemswent largely unchecked. One important outcome has been that the environmental groupshave pressed, simultaneously, for greater public input as well as reduced role for thedominant institutional players including the USACE, which is seen as having presided overthe long period of environmental decline.

5 Policy and Management Response to the Crisis

The initial attempts to remedy the environmental problems engendered by decades of waterresources management practices were fairly specific and technical. However, it soonbecame clear that the continuation of the piecemeal approach, with reliance on “end-of-the-pipe” solutions, was inadequate in resolving the problems that had resulted from thewholesale destruction of the integrity of the region’s hydrological system (Harwell 1998).The fundamental problem of disturbed natural hydropattern could not be tackled withoutmajor changes in the Lake management, including its decision-making structure andprocesses, the role of science therein, and a re-conceptualization of the management“problem”.

The main components of policy and management response to the crisis were: (1)adaptive assessment; (2) stakeholder participation; and (3) systems approach to Lakemanagement. Different dimensions of both, the water management crisis and policy andmanagement response to the crisis are depicted in Fig. 2.

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 707

5.1 Adaptive Assessment Program

The adaptive assessment program of Lake Okeechobee is based on the documentation and,ultimately, corroboration of the impact of management actions on various ecosystems, suchas the Lake littoral zone, the estuaries, the Everglades, and competing objectives like watersupply and flood control. For instance, a series of “Performance Measures,” in terms ofwhich the health of various ecosystems can be linked to decision-making about the timing,quantity, and the quality of water released from the Lake, have been formulated.Performance measures include parameters related to Lake water phosphorus levels, amountof Lake vegetation or SAV (Submerged Aquatic Vegetation), Lake water clarity, andfrequency of extreme Lake levels (SFWMD 2007). For instance, during 2006, the totalannual inflow of 795 mt (metric tons) exceeded the target phosphorus load of 140 mt/year(to be achieved by 2015). On the other hand, the target for “spring recession,” anotherperformance measure that involves reduction in Lake level, was achieved during 2006.Performance measures have been devised to incrementally create envelopes of conditionsthat could simulate the range of natural variability pertaining to biological, ecological andhydrological conditions characterizing the various ecosystems of South Florida.

5.2 Stakeholder Participation

A participatory process involving a multi-tiered approach to water resources decision-making has also been put in place. Various stakeholders groups are represented in thedeliberative and consultative process in forums such as the WRAC, while majorinstitutional players are represented in the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Taskforce.The output from different groups and sub-groups is ultimately passed on to the GoverningBoard, which conveys its recommendations to the Governor.

The mechanisms for interaction with stakeholders include meetings with opportunitiesfor public input, field trips, and in-depth discussion of methodologies and techniques usedby the District. For instance, in 2004, the release of large quantities of freshwater from theLake to St Lucie estuary caused a public outcry about the resulting pollution and potentiallyadverse public health impacts. The SFWMD organized a helicopter tour of the area todemonstrate to the stakeholders the difficulty of tracing pollutants to specific sources

Policy and Management

Response Water Management

Crisis

Systems Approach Uncertainty

Competing Use

Loss of Trust

Adaptive Assessment

Stakeholder Participation

Fig. 2 Dimensions of water resources management crisis and policy and management response source:South Florida Water Management District

708 N. Vedwan, et al.

because the local runoff comprised a significant part of the total inflows into the St. Lucieriver. Decisions pertaining to release of water are made after taking into considerationquarterly input from the public and governing board and weekly meetings of amultidisciplinary team of Lake experts. WRAC, for instance, is a broadly constituteddeliberative body – consisting of the representatives of environmental organizations, suchas, the Audubon Society and Nature Conservancy, the local, state and federal governments,and utilities, agricultural and other business interests – open to public input, which meets ona monthly basis. We observed first hand, and from studying records of the meetings (Formeeting minutes, see http://www.sfwmd.gov/gover/wrac/minutes.html), that a wide varietyof topics ranging from the decisions of the District to the implications of legislative andpolicy measures are actively discussed. Requests for more information on particular topicsare frequently made with the District often arranging for special presentations by its staff.

An important aspect of the WRAC meetings is the emphasis on the presentation ofmodeling results by the District in support of or as explanation for its decision-making.Questions from stakeholders usually follow about the interpretations of graphs and otherdata that may have been presented. The last 2 years have seen the Lake at almost record-high levels, which has led to heightened concerns about the adverse impacts on its ecology.Another development has been the steady releases of large quantities of freshwater, oftenpolluted, to the estuaries, which has contributed to the algal infestation and decline inmarine life. The WRAC presentations in this period have focused on contextualizing theunprecedented Lake-levels with respect to the historical record, especially of regulatorywater releases (which are mandated at high Lake-levels). Discussions of the decision-treesin use by the Lake managers and stakeholder input have centered on how they could beimproved to reduce the frequency of damaging releases of large amounts of water.

Issues related to integrated management of the Lake also come up frequently during theWRAC meetings. For instance, the impact of development around the Lake on the runoffwas discussed on several occasions. Members demanded that pre-and post-developmentstudies of the impact on runoff be undertaken and developers required to reduce the volumeof runoff to pre-development levels. Concerns have also been voiced over the amount ofPhosphorus in the inflows to the Lake. One outcome has been the fostering of an integratedview of the South Florida hydrological system comprising the Lake, estuaries, Everglades,and Florida bay. An example of this is the discussion of the “shared adversity” principle,which implies a de facto recognition of the fact that tradeoffs between competing interestsare an inherent part of decision-making.

5.3 A Systems Approach to Lake Management

The “Command and Control” style of management, ascendant since the 1940s, wasessentially reactive and mechanistic in scope with a very narrow spatial–temporal focus.Firmly grounded in a reductionist understanding of the complex hydrology, ecology, andtheir interrelationship in the region, the Lake was considered almost exclusively a reservoirto the acute detriment of its myriad other functions. Management of the Lake thus primarilyinvolved controlling inflows and outflows with the help of a network of canals to maintainlevels conducive to the fulfillment of seasonal water supply and flood control objectives.

Due to the sustained stakeholder pressure on the managers for greater accountability, thedeeply enshrined “command and control” approach (Holling and Meffe 1996) has over timegiven way to system-wide planning. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan(CERP) legislation which was passed in December 2000 was designed to implement an

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 709

integrated approach towards restoring the hydropattern, while meeting the water supply andflood protection needs of the region. The adoption of an ecosystem approach for Lakemanagement, with emphasis on the linkages to the estuaries, the Everglades, and watershedsincluding that of the Kissimmee river, has been affected mainly through the implementationof the Adaptive Protocols (SFWMD 2001) aimed at identifying the basic characteristicprocesses and patterns in terms of level, flow of water, and nutrients for different landscapemosaics which have existed historically (Gentile et al. 2001). In keeping with this approach,measures, “envelopes” of conditions, and Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) have beendeveloped and are monitored for estuaries (salinity levels) and the Everglades (waterdepths) at varying time scales to mimic the natural variability.

The change in the focus of Lake management from a “reactive” mode – whereconsistently high water-levels interspersed with abrupt release of huge quantities of water tothe estuaries were quite the norm, to an approach based on the avoidance of extremes inwater levels, has been accomplished with the use of the new “Regulation Schedule,” as wellas, the “Decision-Trees,” which incorporate environmental information on multiple spatial–temporal scales – ranging from watershed conditions in the immediate past tometeorological and climatological conditions, ranging from a week to several months inthe future. One decision tree is shown in Fig. 3 and is used as operational guide for LakeOkeechobee discharge to Water Conservation Areas.

Source: South Florida Water Management District

STARTLake Okeechobee

Water Level

ZONE A

ZONE B

ZONE C

ZONE D

Pump MaximumPracticableTo WCAs

Check LakeWater Level

Daily

Apply TributaryConditionCriteria

Apply Multi-SeasonalClimate Outlooks on

a Monthly Basis

In Zone D, CheckDesirability of Releases

to the Everglades

TributaryHydrologicalConditions

MultiSeasonalOutlook

Desirable orWith Minimum

EvergladesImpacts

MaximumPracticableto WCAs

All DownstreamWCAs < Max ofUpper Schedule

+0.25ft

All DownstreamWCAs < Max ofUpper Schedule

+0.25ft

No Dischargeto WCAs

MaximumPracticableto WCAs

No Dischargeto WCAs

No Dischargeto WCAs

MaximumPracticableto WCAs

True

True

True

False

False

False

DRY DRY

NORMAL TO

VERY WETOTHERWISE

WSE Operational Guidelines Decision TreeDefine Lake Okeechobee Discharges to the Water Conservation Areas

Fig. 3 Operational guidelines for Lake Okeechobee discharge to Water Conservation Area

710 N. Vedwan, et al.

Integrated view of the system is also fostered through institutional change that has led toprogressively greater involvement of scientists from diverse disciplines – biologists,ecologists, meteorologists, climatologists – in Lake management. The District has over timebuilt considerable in-house expertise for different aspects of Lake management, in additionto establishing collaborative relationships with independent researchers in a number ofuniversities. The weekly meeting of the operational team comprising specialists fromdiverse areas, started in 1999, facilitates communication across disciplines and departmentsthat otherwise have incompatible approaches, methodologies, and philosophy of waterresources management. The routine presentations in the weekly meeting also help to situatecurrent conditions within long-term trends. For instance, the District meteorologist, in ameeting (April 14, 2003), we attended, presented rainfall totals for the preceding week,month, and year, in the context of long-term averages. The presentation was followed by adiscussion of past forecasts, Lake-levels and ENSO conditions in which almost everyonepresent participated. Live reports about Lake-levels received (via teleconferencing) fromfield stations also provided a concrete basis to the discussion.

We witnessed an instance of the transformative potential inherent in unfetteredcommunication during a meeting that we participated in where an exchange between theengineers and biologists resulted in the clarification of the linkage between the spring andfall water-levels in the Lake. The exchange involving “Position Analysis,” one of theprincipal modeling tools used, clearly altered the biologist’s view of the impact of the thenrelatively high spring water levels on the probability of damagingly high fall water levels.

In Table 1, we summaries the changes in different aspects of Lake Okeechobeemanagement that are a result of the transition from top-down management to adaptivemanagement.

Table 1 Changes in Lake Okeechobee management: from prediction-and-control to adaptation and learning

Top-down management Adaptive management

Institutionalstructure

Rigid, dominated by the USACE Diffuse, with greater input from agenciessuch as Fish and Wildlife Services

Knowledge Engineering sciences Interdisciplinary, greater emphasis onecology, biology, political science

Decisionmaking

Hierarchical, closed, outcome or productoriented

Participatory, recognition of uncertainty,greater emphasis on process

Goals Flood control, water supply Environmental restoration, balancebetween different objectives

Riskmanagement

Structural approach based on historical data Proactive, based on continuousmonitoring, scenario development

Spatial focus Different components managed separately Emphasis on the watershed;interrelatedness of the Lake, estuaries,the Everglades

Temporalscale

Weeks to months Seasonal, multi-seasonal

Approach toproblemsolving

Optimization, structural solutions,implementation of the state-of-the-artknowledge, routinization

Mimicking nature, including naturalvariability, development of naturalsystem health indicators, continuousfeedback and learning

Conflictresolution

Litigation Consensus, tradeoffs, “shared adversity”

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 711

6 Use of Climate Information in Lake Management: A Case Study

Institutional evolution in Lake management has produced conditions that are conducive toinnovation and change. Increased emphasis on flexibility in decision-making and enhancedlinkages to stakeholder input, formal as well as informal, are well illustrated by thefollowing examples of use of climate information. Incorporation of climate information indecision making has been driven by a heightened concern for uncertainty, especially thatwhich result from climatic variability. Moreover, climate information when available atappropriate spatial and temporal resolution, can substantially increase the flexibility ofoperations. Climate information has been included as forecasts provided by the ClimatePrediction Center (CPC), as well as modeling exercises aimed at discerning long termclimatic trends. The District’s efforts to include climate in decision-making have been two-fold (SFWMD 1998b):

1. Incorporation of climate information in the day-to-day Lake operations2. Planning and designing for hydrologic conditions arising out of long-term shift in

climate conditions. Of special interest is the possibility of higher than average surfacewater runoffs resulting from changes in the timing and amount of seasonal, particularlytropical precipitation.

Artificial Neural Networks models have been developed to better understand therelationship between the Lake inflows and various climate indices (Trimble et al. 1998b). Inaddition 1-month and 3-month climate outlooks produced by the Climate Prediction Centerare used in the decision trees. (Trimble et al. 2006). Position Analysis has been used by theDistrict to determine the risks associated with operational plans and for predicting theuncertainties related to Lake stages or other hydrologic variables of interest. It has provedan effective tool for project analysis and implementation, as well as communication of theprojected outlooks to the public and policy makers.

The South Florida Water Management Model, used by the District for simulating currentand future hydrologic conditions on a daily basis , utilizes meteorological and hydrologicdata from the period 1965–2000. In 2006 an independent peer-evaluation of the District’sefforts to incorporate climate information was undertaken, partly in response to widespreadconcern triggered by the heightened public awareness about the dangers of a Katrina-stylecatastrophe in Florida resulting from the breaching of the dike surrounding the Lake (StPetersburg Times 2006). One of the main goals of the independent peer-review of theDistrict’s planning and management was to evaluate the extent to which the potentialweather extremes, mainly higher-than average precipitation – had been accounted for in themodeling and operational decision making of the Lake. The system response to these eventshas been documented and correlated with return periods and the expected frequency ofoccurrence established. (Trimble and Trimble 1998; Trimble et al. 1998a). The record wasdeemed as containing a wide enough range of wet and dry conditions to encompass theconditions likely to be encountered in the future.

In 1998, a “dynamic” Regulation Schedule, called Water Supply and Environment(WSE), was developed by the District, which allowed for the inclusion of informationrelated to the climate phase and seasonal outlooks (See Fig. 3). It consists of two parts: a setof regulation schedule lines that define different operational zones and decision trees thathelp lake managers make decisions based on the various combinations of climate outlooksand forecast of inflows. The USACE adopted it in 2000. Decisions to hold water in the Lakeor release it to tide are based on the current Lake levels, time of year, and conditions in the

712 N. Vedwan, et al.

regional system, including the tributaries. Recently, information about the state of ENSOand AMO has been used to forecast the Lake inflow outlook for future 6–12 months andincluded in the schedule. The performance of the Regulation Schedule was tested on thedata from 1914–1964, which was wetter than 1965–2000 period, and outperformed otherschedules under consideration, based on Performance Measures for flood protection, watersupply, and the environment.

The Regulation Schedule was modified in 2003, after 4 years of operation, to take intoaccount the prevailing wetter conditions (Obeseyekera et al. 2006). The RegulationSchedule was modified to allow for more frequent pulse releases in Zone D, leading tolower Lake levels, and improvement in the littoral zone health. These releases would alsoreduce the likelihood of large “dumping” of water from the Lake which could be verydamaging to the estuarine health.

Research into the relationships between global climate states, such as the AMO, PDO,ENSO and South Florida climate, undertaken in the late 1990s, was facilitated by CERP(Enfield and Cid-Serrano 2006). The District climate outlook methodology has been peer-reviewed by several climatologists (Kolen and Hewett 2000). One of the major findings ofthe District has been that South Florida has entered a wet phase, beginning in 2000.Considerable uncertainty about the periodicity, magnitude and extent of the influence ofthese phenomena, however, remains. The District has, therefore, recognized the high levelof risk inherent in making extensive changes in facilities planning and long-termoperational decision-making based on uncertain forecasts (Frederick 1997).

The independent review conducted in 2006 provided a balanced appraisal of theDistrict’s efforts to take climate into account. According to one reviewer (Wood 2006), theDistrict is under-utilizing the CPC forecasts, which can be used more extensively foroperational decision-making after downscaling and appropriate modifications. The revieweralso pointed to the inadequate consideration for tropical rainfall, including that resultingfrom hurricanes, in planning facilities and making projections.

6.1 Use of Climate Information in Lake Okeechobee Management: Two Examples

The changes in the Lake management paradigm, from a reactive mode to pro-activeplanning and implementation, as well as greater recognition of uncertainty about naturalsystems will become clear from some recent examples of use of climate information. Also,these examples will provide evidence of how stakeholder participation, not just in formalinstitutional contexts, but also as perceptions and public opinions articulated in mass media,play an important role in driving decision making.

Use of weather forecasts, typically on a scale of days to several weeks, in LakeOkeechobee management goes back several decades. For instance, in 1970, Lake managersin light of a 30-day, below-normal, rain forecast, decided to delay the regulatory release ofwater. The action was to prove very timely and useful as the 1970–1974 period turned outto be one of the longer dry spells on the record (Trimble et al. 1998a). Similarly, if forecastsindicate above-average precipitation, managers can take steps to ensure timely release ofwater so as to not only ensure flood protection, but also prevent consequent damage to theestuaries from releases of large amounts of freshwater.

The usefulness of climate information lies not only in its ability to reveal impendingchange in climatic regime, leading ultimately to significantly different weather conditions,but also for day-to-day operations, in its ability to forecast and reveal climatic variabilityand its effect on the hydrological response of the Lake. In accordance with the expanded

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 713

spatial – temporal scale of Lake management, climate forecasts (focused on a scale ofseveral months) began to be incorporated in the decision making only recently.

In April 2000, the Governing Board of the SFWMD decided to lower the Lake-level toabout 13 ft for 8 weeks to allow the Lake ecology, harmed by several years of uninterruptedhigh water-levels, to recover. The decision was made based on clear evidence of Lakedeterioration, as well as public opinion about the need for ameliorative action in this regard(The Associated Press 2000). Steinman et. al (2002) describe the various types ofenvironmental and climatic information utilized in making the decision:

1. Being a La Niña year with the associated greater probability of less-than-normal dryseason precipitation, the likelihood of achieving the target was improved.

2. The low probability of three consecutive La Niña years (the previous 2 years were LaNiña), in turn, decreased the probability of less than normal precipitation during 2000–2001 dry season implying low level of threat to future water supplies.

3. The Climate Prediction Center (CPC) forecasts for the coming wet season (June–October 2000) indicated higher than normal precipitation.

4. Modeling exercises by the SFWMD revealed very low probabilities of achieving thedesired Lake-level without the release of water to the estuaries and the Everglades.

The decision makers, thus, had reasons to believe that the major potential adverse effectfrom the release of water from the Lake, namely, the threat to the water supply in thecoming winter (dry season) could be almost certainly avoided. Position analysis revealedthat there was little likelihood of the Lake reaching the target level of 4 m (involvesproducing a series of graphs which show the probabilities of reaching certain lake levels).The probability of achieving the target (3.97 m) was around 80% – substantially higher thanunder “no release” scenario – under the managed recession alternative. Also, the availableforecasts indicated that water from the Lake would have to be likely released anyways, inview of the high likelihood of above-average summer (wet season) precipitation.

According to Steinman et al. (2002), media coverage of the persistently high water-levelsplayed an important role in the District’s decision to initiate the “drawdown” of the Lake in2000. One of the key events that raised the public awareness was the release of the largequantum of water from the Lake to the estuaries in 1998, following ENSO related above-average precipitation during 1997–98 winter. Subsequently, lesions were reported in over 33species of fish found in the estuaries where the bulk of the Lake discharges were directed.

The “managed recession” was able to achieve the desired ecological results for the Lake,but the impacts on water supply and estuaries were less clear. Water restrictions wereimposed in South Florida leading to “acrimony and economic hardships throughout theregion” (Steinman et al. 2002:17). In addition, a lawsuit was brought by Lee County to haltthe Lake water release to prevent damage to the estuary resulting from the release of largequantities of freshwater. The courts refused to grant the injunction while recognizingDistrict’s right to make discretionary releases (SFWMD 2001).

The second example illustrating the importance of public opinion in the increased use ofclimate information pertains to the District’s decision in December 2002 to allow the“drawdown” of Lake Tohopekaliga (also known as Toho) into Lake Okeechobee. LakeToho has suffered from a long-standing problem of proliferation of exotic vegetation owingmainly to persistently high water-levels. The 2002 dry season, on account of the prevailingEl Niño conditions, received higher than normal precipitation with December being one ofthe wettest dry-season months since 1930 (5.89 in. received as opposed to 1.08 in. averagerainfall. The District decided that the dry season was a good time for lowering the

714 N. Vedwan, et al.

water-level in Toho by making releases to Lake Okeechobee and stamping out thevegetation. The resulting high water levels in Lake Okeechobee necessitated the release oflarge quantities of water to downstream estuaries, affecting them adversely. The negativestakeholder reaction and the reporting that followed, however, forced the rescinding of thedecision. The chief complaint was that it was inappropriate for the District to allow a furtherincrease to the already high Lake Okeechobee level (16 ft in January 2003) in the middle ofan unusually wet dry-season (Swartz 2004). The SFWMD relented in face of the unitedstance of eight counties, which would have been adversely affected by deterioration of theestuaries, and the Okeechobee county for whom prevention of high Lake-levels is a toppriority. However, even in the middle of highly critical coverage, the success of theDistrict’s participatory approach was also acknowledged: “The agencies should revert to thebetter behavior they displayed after the devastating dumping of water into the St. Lucieriver in 1998 and 1999, during another wet winter. They began a policy of talking with allwho might be affected before taking actions that could harm the Lake or rivers” (PalmBeach Post, Jan 21, 2003). Underscoring the intense and sustained pressure exerted by themedia coverage of Lake management, the higher-than-normal Lake Okeechobee level inthe spring (April–May) of 2003 evoked angry comments about the “ineptitude” of themanagers in failing to release water in anticipation of above-normal spring precipitation in anEl Niño spring. The revoking of the decision was indicative of heightened sensitivity amongthe Lake managers to well-informed and assertive public opinion, a development madepossible by the intense scrutiny to which the Lake management has been constantly subjectedin recent years.

These two examples illustrate that Lake management is still far from having beenperfected. The increased public participation has however come at the expense of gradualpoliticization; nevertheless, it has injected an element of accountability in the hithertoinsular Lake management

7 Discussion

The case of Lake Okeechobee management demonstrates the futility of approaches that seek totake politics out of science and underscores the usefulness of a transparent, inclusive, andparticipatory decision-making process (Pellow 1999). Thus, “success” in water resourcesmanagement, itself an elusive and contentious concept, may ultimately depend more on thesustainability of a decision-making process rooted in trust and cooperation (Gunderson 2001),that ties disparate interests together than achievement of a critical mass of scientificknowledge of system behavior, or alternately an a-priori social consensus.

The natural resources management institutions need to be in harmony with wider socialgoals if they are to contribute to sustainable adaptation (Tompkins and Adger 2004).Inclusive institutions, needed for co-management to succeed, run contrary to the dominanthierarchical systems found in natural resources management. Horizontal and vertical tiesacross multiple scales and diverse social networks help to build resilience and adaptivecapacity. The benefits of using climate information are more than instrumental, that is,increasing the size of the decision-making window. Water managers describe the use ofclimate information as yet another strategy for risk management. The contribution ofclimate information may not be to just reduce the perceived uncertainty but to “help clarifythe levels of uncertainty” (Power et al. 2005) to decision-makers and stakeholders alike. Inaddition to underscoring the role of models and specific technical information in facilitatingdecision making, discussion of climate information contributes to the relationship between

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 715

water resource managers and scientists by providing “explanations, clarification of issuesand uncertainties, perspective, and balance” (Power et al. 2005).

Use of climate information has been facilitated by substantive changes in theinstitutional and decision-making setup, which have fulfilled the dual criteria of “proceduralequity” and “policy effectiveness” (Bressers and Rosenbaum 2000). The broad shift inpolicy-making has been away from a relatively “closed” policy-making community to aloose array of networks representing diverse interests. The legal and legislative recognitionof a broad array of stakeholder participation, and in some cases, concurrence, has beenconducive to innovation. Due to a substantial degree of uncertainty in forecasts, broadstakeholder participation, especially, in operational decision-making, coupled with theacceptance of the principle of adaptive management, have led to opportunities for betterrisk communication, and therefore a more realistic appraisal of potential costs and benefitsassociated with the use of forecasts.

Stakeholder pressure and media coverage of Lake management have not only led to far-reaching changes in the decision-making apparatus, but their influence can be traced clearly inthe examples provided above. At the heart of the changes in Lake Okeechobee management inFlorida is the dynamic whereby the erstwhile facts themselves have become contested, andscience, or at least the practice of it, politicized. The process and consequences of politicizationare far from being simple and uniform: In some cases (e.g., the Miccosukee tribe) science isconsidered predominantly in terms of a set of western values and constructs denoting controland dominance over nature and juxtaposed unfavorably against the relatively egalitarian non-western/tribal world-view, whereas for other stakeholders, the disagreements are methodolog-ical, and relate to the quality and reliability of the science. The result nevertheless has been notjust a call for better science but a challenge to the very validity of concepts such as “natural,”“endangered,” and “species.”

Due to the short period of use of climate information in decision-making (with theadoption of the WSE in 2000), it is difficult to draw general conclusions; neverthelesscertain tentative lessons can be offered. Despite advances in forecasting, the technical gapsin forecasting continue to generate uncertainty. ENSO-based forecasts in South Florida,while being a reliable predictor of dry-season (winter) precipitation, do not have the sameability to predict wet-season precipitation, which accounts for 70% of the total precipitation.This gap in knowledge leaves water managers uncertain about the optimum Lake-level atthe end of spring and the start of rainy season. Also, as the water managers are at pains toemphasize, it would be a mistake to attribute the positive 2002 experience to the use offorecasts alone. There were several decisions to release water incrementally which turnedout to be beneficial because of the propitious timing of rainfall. The outcome could aseasily have been much less positive. Finally, the absence of clear benchmark of success offorecast use in the Lake management makes evaluation difficult.

It should be pointed out that innovations in decision-making and management of LakeOkeechobee is unlikely to achieve the major objective of curbing environmental degradation inthe absence of fundamental change aimed at improving the fit between water resourcesmanagement and development planning to minimize harm and rationalize future growth in theregion (Angelo 2001). The consensus-based approach adopted so far has worked by avoiding,to a large degree, taking the decisive steps required. The result has been to dilute theenvironmental goals, although undeniable progress has been made in achieving a betterbalance between competing demands on water resources. In the final analysis adaptivemanagement can work in practice only if the coupled social-ecological system is flexibleenough, at all scales, to enable continuous incorporation of new findings as they emerge.

716 N. Vedwan, et al.

Acknowledgement Support for this research was provided by National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration’s (NOAA) Regional Integrated Science and Assessment Program (RISA) and SectorApplications Research Program (SARP).

References

Agar M (1996) The professional stranger: an informal introduction to ethnography, 2nd edn. Academic, SanDiego

Ali A, Abtew W (1999) Regional rainfall frequency analysis for central and Southern Florida. TechnicalPublication WRE #380, Water Resources Evaluation Department, South Florida Water ManagementDistrict, West Palm Beach, FL

Angelo M (2001) Integrating water management and land use planning: uncovering the missing link in theprotection of Florida’s water resources. Univ Fla J Law Public Policy 12(2):223–249

Associated Press (2000) Warring parties agree Lake Okeechobee must be lowered to survive (April 19)Bernard R (2000) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CABressers H, Rosenbaum W (2000) Innovation, learning and environmental policy: overcoming a plague of

uncertainties. J Policy Stud 28(3):523–539Cortner HJ, Moote MA (1994) Trends and issues in land and water resources management: setting the

agenda for change. Environ Manage 18(2):167–173de Fraiture C (2007) Integrated water and food analysis at the global and basin level: an application of

WATERSIM. Water Resour Manag 21(1):185–198Enfield, DB, Cid-Serrano L (2006) Projecting the risk of future climate shifts. Int J Climatol 26:885–895Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci

Technol Human Values 15(2):226–243Frederick KD (1997) Adapting to climate impacts on the supply and demand for water. Clim Change 37

(1):141–156Gentile J, Harwell M, Cropper W Jr, Harwell C, DeAngelis D, Davis S, Ogden J, Lirman D (2001)

Ecological conceptual models: a framework and case-study on ecosystem management for South Floridasustainability. Sci Total Environ 274:231–253

Gottlieb R (2005) Forcing the spring: the transformation of the American environmental movement, 2nd edn.Island, Washington

Green W, Perko G (2001) Good science or myopia: will the 1991 everglades settlement lead to an optimalrestoration or will phosphorus reductions be taken too far? St. Thomas Law Rev 13(3):697–729

Guest GD (2001) “This time for sure” – a political and legal history of water control projects in LakeOkeechobee and the Everglades. St. Thomas Law Rev 13(3):645–667

Gunderson L (1999) Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management–antidotes for spurious certitude?Conserv Ecol 3(1):7. Available at: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art71

Gunderson L, Holling CS (eds) (2001) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and naturalsystems. Island Press, New York

Harwell M (1998) Science and environmental decision making in South Florida. Ecol Appl 8(3):580–590Hempel L (1996) Environmental governance: the global challenge. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Holling C, Meffe G (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management.

Conserv Biol 10(2):328–337Imperial MT (1999) Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and

development framework. Environ Manag 24(4):449–465Johnson R, Scicchitano M (2000) Uncertainty, risk, trust, and information: Public perceptions of

environmental issues and willingness to take action. Policy Stud J 28(3):633–647Jones CS, Shriver JF, O’Brien JJ (1999) The effects of El Niño on rainfall and fire in Florida. Fla Geogr

30:55–69Kolen J, Hewett R (2000) Prediction of lake inflows with neural networks. Proceedings of IEEE Systems,

Man, Cybernetics, TNKrishnan R, Goodwin J (eds) (1995) A survey of ecological economics. Island, Washington, D.C.LaChapelle PR, McCool SF, Patterson ME (2003) Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a

‘‘messy’’ world. Soc Nat Resour 16:473–490Ludwig, Donald (2001) The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4:758–764Maarleveld M, Dangbégnon C (1999) Managing natural resources: a social learning perspective. Agric

Human Values 16:267–280

Institutional evolution in Lake Okeechobee management in Florida 717

McCool SF, Guthrie K (2001) Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in messy naturalresources management situations. Soc Nat Resour 14(4):309–323

Obeseyekera J, Trimble P, Neidrauer C, Pathak C, Van Arman J, Strowd T, Hall C (2006) Consideration oflong-term climatic variability in regional modeling for SFWMD planning and operations. UpdatedTechnical Paper. Available at: http://www.sfwmd.gov/sfer/SFER_2007/Appendices/v1_app_2-2.pdf

Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: thedevelopment of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in Southern Sweden. Ecology andSociety 9(4):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2

Pahl-Wostl C (2002) Towards sustainability in the water sector – the importance of human actors andprocesses of social learning. Aquat Sci 64:394–411

Palm Beach Post (2003) Reprieve for a river. Jan 21, Page 14APellow D (1999) Negotiation and confrontation: environmental policymaking through consensus. Soc Nat

Resour 12:189–203Poisner J (1996) A civic republican perspective on the National Environmental Policy Act’s process for

citizen participation. Environ Law 26(1):53–94Poncelet E (2001) Personal transformation in multistakeholder environmental partnerships. Policy Sci

34:273–301Power S, Sadler B, Nicholls N (2005) The influence of climate science on water management in western

Australia: lessons for climate scientists. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 86(6):839–845Rayner S, Lach D, Ingram H (2005) Weather forecasts are for wimps: why water resource managers do not

use climate forecasts. Clim Change 69:197–227Roe E (2001) Varieties of issue incompleteness and coordination: an example from ecosystem management.

Policy Sci 34:111–133Scully S (1986) Frequency analysis of SFWMD rainfall. Water Resources Division, Resource Planning

Department, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FLSFWMD (1998a) Districtwide water supply assessment. South Florida Water Management District, West

Palm Beach, FLSFWMD (1998b) A refined approach to Lake Okeechobee water management: an application of climate

forecasts. Hydrological Systems Modeling Division, West Palm Beach, FLSFWMD (2001) Adaptive protocols for Lake Okeechobee operations (Draft)SFWMD (2007) The South Florida environment, volume 1. West Palm Beach, FLSchusler TM, Decker DJ, Pfeffer MJ (2003) Social learning for collaborative natural resources management.

Soc Nat Resour 15:309–326Solecki WD (2001) The role of global-to-local linkages in land use/land cover change in South Florida. Ecol

Econ 37(3):339–356St Petersburg Times (2006) Does Florida’s flood lurk behind this wall? June 23. Page 1ASteinman A, Havens K, Hornung L (2002) The managed recession of Lake Okeechobee, Florida: integrating

science and natural resource management. Conserv Ecol 6(2):17. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vo16/iss2/art17

Swartz S (2004) Fix is water, water everywhere. Palm Beach Post. Feb 11. Page 12 ATompkins EL, Adger WN (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to

climate change? Ecol Soc 9(2):10. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10Trimble PJ, Trimble BM (1998) Recognition and predictability of climate variability within South-Central

Florida. 23rd Annual Climate Diagnostic and Prediction workshop, Rosenstiel School of Marine andAtmospheric Science. University of Miami, FL, October 26–30. http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/pld/hsm/pubs/ptrimble/solar/workshop/cpc_paper.htm

Trimble PJ, Santee ER, Neidrauer CJ (1998a) Special report. A refined approach to Lake Okeechobee watermanagement: an application of climate forecasts. South Florida Water Management District (73 pp).http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/pld/hsm/pubs/ptrimble/solar/report/report.pdf

Trimble PJ, Santee ER, Neidrauer CJ (1998b) Including the effects of solar activity for more efficient watermanagement: an application of neural networks. Second International Workshop on ArtificialIntelligence Applications in Solar–Terrestrial Physics. Sweden, July. http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/pld/hsm/pubs/ptrimble/solar/final_dec3.pdf

Trimble PJ, Obeysekera TB, Cadavid LG, Santee ER (2006) Applications of climate outlooks for watermanagement in South Florida. In: JD Garbrecht, TC Piechota (eds) Climate variations, climate changeand water resources engineering. ASCE/EWRI, Reston, VA

USGS (1999) Public-supply population served by county. United States Geological Society, Tallahassee, FLWood EF (2006) Reviewer review report. http://www.sfwmd.gov/site/sub/root/pdfs/wood_review_report.pdf

718 N. Vedwan, et al.