Weighing the Evidence
An honest assessment of the documented evidence for keeping vs. breaching Rodman Dam, based on peer-reviewed research and agency reports.
Our Approach to Evidence
This page presents a balanced review of the documented evidence on both sides of the Rodman Dam debate. We cite peer-reviewed research, agency reports, and technical studies—not opinions or assumptions.
Important context: Both "keep" and "breach" positions have some legitimate evidence. The question isn't whether one side has zero merit—it's which approach is better supported by the weight of documented research, particularly regarding manatee conservation and ecosystem function.
What We Mean by "Stronger Evidence"
Stronger evidence = peer-reviewed publications, agency technical reports with methods and data, or well-documented observations. Weaker evidence = general claims without specific citations, advocacy-only statements, or assumptions not backed by published research.
Evidence for Breaching vs. Keeping
What the documented research actually says on both sides
Evidence FOR Breaching
1. Documented Manatee Harm at Dam/Lock System
Multiple verified and undetermined manatee mortalities documented at Buckman Lock/Rodman area, with carcass damage consistent with structural trauma. Marine Mammal Commission report explicitly states removal would eliminate the only known source of water-control-structure mortality in the St. Johns River system.
Source: Marine Mammal Commission, UF-hosted technical reports
2. Restoration Expands Safer Access + Eliminates Mortality Source
Technical literature frames restoration as restoring access to the Ocklawaha/Silver River system and inundated springs while removing structural hazards. This isn't speculation—it's the documented restoration rationale from agency planning processes.
Source: Marine Mammal Commission, Florida Springs Institute synthesis
3. Rodman Is Not a "Leave It Alone" Ecosystem
FWC and other agencies document recurring drawdowns every 3–4 years for vegetation management. The reservoir's current condition depends on ongoing human intervention, not natural stability.
Source: FWC, UF/IFAS extension publications
4. Water-Quality Tradeoffs Were Studied
Florida Springs Institute documents that additional water-quality studies were required and completed during restoration planning, with findings that restoration benefits outweighed short-term water-quality impacts. This shows the concern was addressed, not ignored.
Source: Florida Springs Institute synthesis of planning history
Evidence FOR Keeping
1. Rodman Is a Major Fishery/Recreation Asset
FWC promotes Rodman as a significant reservoir fishing destination. Peer-reviewed research shows drawdowns can create strong largemouth bass recruitment under managed conditions.
Source: FWC management pages, Nagid et al. 2015 (North American Journal of Fisheries Management)
2. Rodman Can Retain Phosphorus
South Florida Water Management District contractor report calculated Rodman's phosphorus balance and shows net phosphorus retention across years (Table 9-5). This is real—reservoirs can trap some nutrients under certain conditions.
Source: SFWMD "Water Quality Impacts of Reservoirs" report
3. Local Economic Value
Florida TaxWatch argues Rodman provides local economic value and that removal produces negative net benefits under their assumptions. Note: This is policy analysis from a think tank, not peer-reviewed academic research.
Source: Florida TaxWatch (2022) - advocacy/policy document
Important Caveat
These benefits are real but narrow: "retains some phosphorus" ≠ "solves algae blooms," and a managed fishery doesn't negate manatee mortality concerns or ecosystem connectivity issues. The evidence for keeping is strongest on recreation/fishing, weaker on broader ecosystem claims.
The Bottom Line
If your decision metric is manatee conservation + restoring a connected river-spring corridor while removing documented structure-related risk, the evidence we pulled is stronger for breaching/partial restoration. The Marine Mammal Commission report, documented mortality data, and restoration planning studies support this approach.
If your metric is maintaining a managed reservoir fishery and you view nutrient retention as the overriding benefit, there's credible support for that narrower case—but it's not as strong on the manatee/habitat fundamentals.
How We Made This Assessment
We searched for peer-reviewed research, agency technical reports, and documented studies. We deliberately included evidence from both sides. The "stronger evidence" conclusion is based on source quality, specificity of claims, and alignment with conservation goals—not cherry-picking only pro-restoration sources.
You can verify every claim on this page by visiting our Sources & References page, which provides direct links to all cited research and reports.
The Evidence Supports Restoration
Based on the documented research, breaching Rodman Dam to restore the Ocklawaha River offers the best path forward for manatee conservation and ecosystem health.