In this era of sprawl and rapid development, we often put our hopes in pro-environmental legislation. But sometimes well-meaning laws can have either an unintended negative consequences, or may be improperly applied or enforced.

For example, well-meaning mandated preserve areas in developed areas, result in isolated "islands" that inhibit migration and territorial foraging of the species they are designed to protect. The result as been unhealthy inbreeding, resulting in genetic mutation, and weakening of species. We have found that many species need large contiguous areas in order to thrive. But the laws do not provide for this continuity; and, indeed, discourages it.

Another misapplied and misunderstood concept is "mitigation." After years of dredging, draining, and filling swamps and wetlands for growth, the scientific community began to convince the public of the essential need for these wetlands for water filtration, species propagation, climate control, etc. The result was the Clean Water Act, and several Florida laws, that were designed to protect these vital areas, and discourage filling in and building on wetlands and swamp areas.

However, no laws, including the Clean Water acts, are "self executing." That is, their application is up to local authorities and the interpretation of local courts. Despite the laws, dredging and filling of environmentally sensitive areas continues almost unabated in Florida. How does this continue to happen?

The answer is "mitigation." This was a quid pro quo designed to appease the building trades, and to ensure a "no net loss" of wetlands through the replacement of ecological resources proposed to be lost in a dredge and fill project. Mitigation is not supposed to be considered until the applicant has demonstrated that there is no alternative non-wetland site available for the proposed project, and then demonstrated avoidance and minimization of all wetland destruction. But permit after permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (who are charged with administering the Clean Water Act) fail to reveal any demonstration of compliance with the Act. In fact, the Corps virtually never rejects a permit application.

In addition, even when mitigation is granted, there are no objective standards for determining what constitutes appropriate mitigation. In Florida, anything goes. Stormwater retention pits ("fake lakes") can count as mitigation. Wetlands preserved in one application can be allocated for removal in another application. Wetlands left on site are counted as mitigation, even thoug their quality and function is diminished by the surrounding dredge and fill. High value mature wetlands are sacrificed and replaced by low function wetlands in far away watersheds.

In 2000, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability issued a report saying that mitigation was not working in Florida. Dredge and fill projects continue unabated -- all the more horrifying since we now know the negative effects of wetland destruction. Instead, the laws are interpreted and enforced by an army of consultants, bureaucrats, lobbyists, lawyers, and industries dedicated to thwarting the standardization of, and firm enforcement of wetland protection rules in Florida.

Until the citizenry decides that Florida's environmental health and ecological uniqueness is at least as important as its unbridled growth, and demands true enforcement of the environmental laws, the forces of development will continue to hide behind those laws, claiming "compliance," while the natural environment continues to vanish.