[Senate Hearing 106-729]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-729
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
THE COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN PROPOSED BY THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND THE U.S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
__________
JANUARY 7, 2000--NAPLES, FL
MAY 11, 2000
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-232 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Wyoming MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma HARRY REID, Nevada
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 7, 2000--NAPLES, FL
OPENING STATEMENTS
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 5
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 1
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 6
WITNESSES
Browner, Hon. Carol, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 67
Senator Smith............................................ 68
Collins, Mike, chairman, South Florida Water Management District. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 103
Senator Smith............................................ 102
Doyle, Mary, Counselor to the Secretary, Chair, South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, U.S. Department of the
Interior....................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Lehtinen, Dexter, member, South Florida Ecosystem Task Force and
Governor's Commission on the Everglades, on behalf of the
Miccosukee Tribe............................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 106
Responses to additional questions from Senator Smith......... 109
Reed, Hon. Nathaniel, Florida environmentalist and former
Assistant Secretary of the Interior............................ 49
Prepared statement........................................... 110
Shore, Jim, esquire, general counsel, Seminole Tribe of Florida.. 42
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Struhs, Hon. David B., Secretary, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection....................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 97
Senator Smith............................................ 97
Wade, Malcolm S. ``Bubba'', Jr., senior vice president, U.S.
Sugar Corporation.............................................. 52
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 123
Senator Smith............................................ 121
Westphal, Hon. Joseph, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), U.S. Department of Defense............................. 21
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 86
Senator Smith............................................ 77
Senator Voinovich........................................ 83
Williams, Hon. Nora, county commissioner, Monroe County, Florida. 55
Prepared statement........................................... 124
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
Florida Attorney General..................................... 126
Florida House of Representatives............................. 126
Mooney, Robert............................................... 129
Nelson, Bill, Florida State Treasurer........................ 128
Young, Rep. C.W. Bill........................................ 128
Statements:
Foley, Hon. Mark, U.S. Representative from the State of
Florida.................................................... 128
Lake Worth Drainage District................................130-142
Meek, Hon. Carrie, U.S. Represenatative from the State of
Florida.................................................... 127
------
MAY 11, 2000
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 152
Chafee, Hon. Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 190
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 145
Letters, Department of the Interior and the Corps..164-187, 229-232
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 242
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire..143, 206
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 152
Warner, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia.....................................................156, 242
WITNESSES
Bush, Hon. Jeb, Governor, State of Florida....................... 147
Additional statement......................................... 244
Prepared statement........................................... 242
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 247
Senator Graham........................................... 247
Senator Mack............................................. 248
Senator Smith............................................ 245
Senator Voinovich........................................ 250
Collins, Mike, Chairman, South Florida Water Management District. 200
Prepared statement........................................... 263
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 265
Senator Mack............................................. 267
Senator Smith............................................ 265
Senator Voinovich........................................ 269
Doyle, Mary, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Office of Water
and Science, and Chair, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force, U.S. Department of the Interior.................... 213
Letter, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement..... 296
Prepared statement........................................... 292
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Crapo............................................ 302
Senator Graham........................................... 303
Senator Mack............................................. 308
Senator Smith............................................ 294
Senator Voinovich........................................ 296
Guggenheim, David, President, The Conservancy of Southwest
Florida, Co-Chair, The Everglades Coalition.................... 235
Letter, Lake Worth Drainage District......................... 362
Prepared statement........................................... 348
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 357
Senator Mack............................................. 360
Senator Smith............................................ 353
Senator Voinovich........................................ 355
Guzy, Hon. Gary, General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 210
Prepared statement........................................... 309
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 313
Senator Crapo............................................ 315
Senator Graham........................................... 316
Senator Mack............................................. 318
Senator Smith............................................ 313
Senator Voinovich........................................ 314
Keck, Ken, Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs,
Florida Citrus Mutual.......................................... 232
Letters:
Florida Department of Consumer Services................324, 327
Dade County, Florida, Farm Bureau........................ 326
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida................ 330
Landers & Parsons, P.A................................... 331
List, Organizations with concerns about the Restudy.......... 233
Minutes, Governor's Committee for a Sustainable South
Florida, Meetings of March 2-3, 1999......................333-344
Prepared statement........................................... 319
Reports:
Florida Agriculture's Concerns With WRDA 2000............ 233
Position of Agricultural Advisory Committee to the South
Florida Water Management District...................... 323
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Mack............................................. 344
Senator Smith............................................ 346
Resolution, Miami-Dade County, Florida....................... 348
Lehtenin, Dexter, on behalf of the Miccosukee Tribe.............. 193
Prepared statement........................................... 259
Mack, Hon. Connie, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida........ 146
Power, Patricia, on behalf of the Seminole Tribe of Florida...... 191
Prepared statement........................................... 250
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 256
Senator Mack............................................. 257
Senator Smith............................................ 255
Westphal, Hon. Joseph, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), U.S. Department of the Army............................ 207
Prepared statement........................................... 269
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 280
Senator Crapo............................................ 283
Senator Graham........................................... 286
Senator Mack............................................. 290
Senator Smith............................................ 276
Senator Voinovich........................................ 280
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter, Citizens for a Sound Economy............................. 365
Statement, Penelas, Alex, Mayor of Miami-Dade County, Florida.... 367
------
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
OPENING STATEMENTS
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 377
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 372
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 374
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 369
WITNESSES
Davis, Michael L., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works),U.S. Department of Defense.............................. 387
Prepared statement........................................... 430
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 435
Senator Voinovich........................................ 433
Hill, Barry, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and Science
Issues, General Accounting Office.............................. 380
Prepared statement........................................... 396
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 429
Senator Voinovich........................................ 426
Report, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: Additional
Water Quality Projects May Be Needed and Could Increase
Costs, General Accounting Office..........................400-426
Struhs, David, Commissioner, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Tallahassee, FL.................................... 390
Prepared statement........................................... 436
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Graham........................................... 439
Senator Voinovich........................................ 437
EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN
----------
FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Naples, Florida.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:45 p.m. at the
Naples Golf Club, 851 Golf Shore Boulevard, Naples, Florida,
Hon. Bob Smith [chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Senators Smith, Graham, and Voinovich.
Also present: Representative Meek.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. The meeting will come to order.
The Senators have set the example for those of you who want
to take your jackets off. Please feel free to do it. What we
should do is adjourn outside to the beach.
I know it's warm in here and very crowded, but we are very
grateful for the interest in the Everglades, and I certainly
want to welcome our first witness, Administrator Browner. We
will be talking with her in just a moment.
I'm somewhat intimidated by sitting between two Governors
who have to deal with these statewide problems much more than
we do in the U.S. Senate, but maybe I will learn something from
the Governor on either side.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on
the proposed Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and I
extend, again, my gratitude to our hosts, the Everglades
Coalition, for inviting us to participate as part of their
fifteenth annual conference on the Everglades. Although the
coalition will not be testifying today on any of these panels,
they will be invited to testify to a subsequent Washington
hearing, which will be chaired by Subcommittee Chairman
Voinovich. I'm sure that they will be happy to receive their
testimony at that time.
I'm pleased to be here with Senator Bob Graham of Florida,
who is well known to the Everglades and well known as a friend
of the Everglades. As Governor of Florida, he was responsible
for one of the first major Everglades restoration initiatives,
Florida Save Our Everglades Act of 1983, when he was the
distinguished Governor from this State.
He remains a strong voice in the Senate for the protection
of this vital national resource, and I'm delighted to be here
in his State and appreciate very much his invitation to be
here.
Also joining us today is Senator George Voinovich of Ohio's
jurisdiction. Senator Voinovich is the chairman of the
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Everglades restoration
proposal, and I know he plans to hold additional hearings on
this subject in Washington; and I also would like to
acknowledge the important contribution of Senator Connie Mack,
who I talked to yesterday, who could not be here today. He is
also a strong supporter of Everglades restoration.
I also want to acknowledge the presence today of
Representative Carrie Meek, whose district encompasses part of
the Everglades. Representative Meek, thank you for being here.
Your statement will be made part of the record.
Ms. Meek. Thank you.
Senator Smith. There are many other people to be commended,
not only for their efforts that went into this plan, but for
the work that still remains to be done. Certainly Administrator
Browner, a Florida native who has been an advocate and a leader
within the administration on this project, Interior Secretary
Babbitt and the Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Westphal, who are
also in leading roles in this effort.
The Federal Government has very strong partners here in
Florida, starting with Governor Bush and including the
Department of Florida Environmental Protection and the South
Florida Water Management District.
There are many others too numerous to mention right now who
have been instrumental in bringing the Everglades restoration
agenda to this critical juncture.
People you see here today at this hearing and participating
in the conference have been integral in this effort to preserve
and protect the Everglades for the next century and beyond.
At this point I might like to interject to say that
oftentimes in politics, we think toward the next election, and
sometimes in businesses we think toward the bottom line or the
next profit and loss statement. I think we have to think very
much long term when we talk about environmental matters. We
have got to think about next generations, maybe even the next
millennium.
I hope that, when the fourth millennium starts, some other
panel might be able to sit here and say, ``You know, those guys
back there in 2000 saved the Everglades, along with the help of
many, many good people.''
This is my first hearing as the chairman of the Environment
and Public Works Committee, and there is no mistake and no
accident that the subject of my first hearing is the
restoration of this national environmental treasure. We are
here because the restoration of the Everglades is one of the
nation's most urgent environmental priorities. That is my
position. I think it's the position of many others, and it's my
hope that today's hearing will set the tone for the committee's
activities in the coming year.
Let me also say that I appreciate the opportunity to be
here in Florida to learn more about this effort. Over the past
30 years, I have had the privilege of enjoying Southern
Florida's hospitality many times as a private citizen,
sometimes as a member of the house and as a Senator, but more
often as a husband and a father with my children as I have
basically vacationed all over the State from north to southeast
to west.
I have been to the Everglades National Park many times, and
I want to take the time to thank Superintendent Richard Ring--
where is Richard Ring? Right here--for his private, informative
tour of the Everglades last week. It's deeply appreciated. He
is a fine outstanding public servant, and I wish more people,
especially those who like to criticize those who work in
government, could see the kind of dedication and commitment of
Superintendent Ring. He believes strongly in what he does and
it was evident and it was deeply appreciated and informative.
I think, as most of you are aware, Senator Chafee was
strongly committed to seeing this effort go through. I know
that he talked to you, Senator Graham, about this, and I'm
pleased to fulfill his commitment to be here and look forward
to working with you in a bipartisan manner.
Senator John Chafee was a very close friend of all of us.
If I could turn back the clock and not be here as the chairman
and be sitting either to the left or to the right of Senator
Chafee, I would do it in a heart beat.
Unfortunately, we cannot do that, but you will not find
daylight between John Chafee and Bob Smith on the support for
the Everglades. I will work to ensure that we in Congress do
what we need to do to achieve this goal. I intend to take over
where Senator Chafee left off and move with Senator Graham and
other of my colleagues on the committee to craft legislation
that we can all support that will get the job done and
implement the goals of the plan early in the session of
Congress, this session.
The face of South Florida has changed significantly over
the past 50 years. The entire region has experienced explosive
growth in that time, and this growth in turn has exerted
tremendous pressure on the natural resources of the region,
especially the Everglades. The Everglades, estimated to be half
the size they were at the turn of the century, are the largest
wetland and subtropical wilderness in the country and home to
countless species of wildlife.
We know that the Everglades face grave peril. The
unintended consequence of a massive Federal flood control
project in the late forties is the too efficient redirection of
water from Lake Okeechobee, and I emphasize unintended
consequence. Clearly we didn't do it deliberately, but we did
it, and if the Federal Government messed it up, then the
Federal Government needs to step in and help us correct it.
Water--1.7 billion gallons a day--is needlessly directed
out to sea. The project was done with the best of intentions,
but the Federal Government had to act when devastating floods
took thousands of lives. This was a fact. Unfortunately, the
success of the project disrupted the natural sheet flow of
water through the so-called river of grass.
I won't go into all the technical aspects of that. We will
be hearing that shortly from the witnesses; but this plan,
although there will be some who will be critical of parts of
it, and we'll hear a lot of that and support as well, but it
does strike a balance between restoring the biological health
of South Florida and that ecosystem and delivering enough water
to urban areas as well for farms and communities in the region
to keep the economy moving. The multitude of projects that this
plan contemplates will be constructed over many years at a cost
of nearly $8 billion.
Although I'm sure witnesses will comment on the cost, I
would like to remind witnesses that we intend to explore costs
and the financing of the project at the hearing in Washington.
We are not necessarily accepting every single point here in
terms of the cost. We will be looking at the cost. We have an
obligation to do that, and I'm sure Senator Voinovich will be
working on that as well.
Today, we want to hear the details of the project, its
impact on the health of the Everglades, including its many
species of plants and animals, as well as the impact on the
nearby communities and industries.
The scope of the plan is as large as the problem. Some of
the key elements are 181,000 acres of new reservoirs to 300
underground aquifer storage wells, and so forth.
I can assure everyone that the committee will take a hard
look at this plan. There are many important questions that need
to be answered before legislation is finalized, and again we
will receive a budget at some point, hopefully sooner rather
than later, from the administration on WRDA. We will then--the
sooner we get it, the sooner we can begin the process of
crafting legislation. We will carefully scrutinize that plan,
compare it to the administration budget, and work with it
within the committee in a bipartisan way to put all of these
facts together and craft a piece of legislation that answers
the problem.
Many will ask: Why should the Federal Government be
involved?
Well, it's a national treasure. As I said, you don't have
to visit here too many times, probably not more than once, to
know that this is a national treasurer. Restoring the
Everglades benefits, not only Floridians, but to the millions
of visitors who flock to Florida each year. This is the Grand
Canyon of Florida. It has been said that the Everglades are to
Florida and the Nation what the Rockies are to the western
States or what the Grand Canyon is to Arizona.
It was Federal legislation that authorized the Central and
South Florida project in 1948 and we have a responsibility to
correct what we did in that legislation, what we damaged.
Finally, this is a legacy to our future generations. When
our descendants move into the fourth millennium, I hope it will
be remembered that this generation at the beginning of this
millennium put aside partisanship, put aside self-interest, and
put aside short-term thinking and answered the call to save the
Everglades.
There are a lot of birds and fish and wildlife out there
that don't have any lobbyists, Senator Graham. They don't have
any money, and so we have an obligation, I think, to protect
them. In fact, I met one of those alligators the other day when
the superintendent took us a little bit too close to the bank
and he came into the water after us and said, ``Get out of
here.'' So we did just that.
Before I conclude, I would like to recognize the
contributions of four Senate members. I hate to single out four
because so many have done so much, but Catherine Cyr of Senator
Graham's staff, and Ellen Stein of Senator Voinovich's staff,
and Jo-Ellen Darcy of Senator Baucus' staff, and Chelsea
Henderson of my staff, and, of course, Tom Gibson and Dave
Conover as well. I also want to thank Senator Baucus for his
support. His staff director, Tom Sliter, is here. Thank them as
well.
I want to close by saying, reiterating my position, there
will be some differences on how we go about looking at this
plan, but the bottom line is I support the restoration of the
Everglades and that is my goal, to get this legislation crafted
which we will deal with it before we get too far along into the
session and not be able to make this happen. So the goal is to
do it this spring. We will do what we need to do to achieve
that goal, and in close cooperation with Senator Voinovich, who
will work together to closely scrutinize the details and costs
of this plan, and I commit to working in an open, bipartisan
manner to move forward with this bill this spring.
I tried to find a poem that nobody else had in theirs, in
their statement. I think I succeeded. Did I succeed, Dave? I'm
not sure. Let me use Marjory Stoneman Douglas, author of The
Everglades: River of Grass in which she says, quote, ``A
Century after man first started to dominate the Everglades, the
progress has stumbled. Consequences have started to catch up.
It is perhaps an opportunity. The great wet wilderness of South
Florida need not be degraded to a permanent state of
mediocrity. If the people will it, the Everglades can be
restored to nature's design.''
I don't think you can say it any better than that as far as
how I feel about it. So, again, thank you for your hospitality,
to all the people here in South Florida, and I now turn it over
to my distinguished colleague and your Senator here in Florida,
the Honorable Bob Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it was
particularly appropriate that you concluded with those poetic
words from a Floridian who was a close friend of many of us
here and who in many ways was the voice of the Everglades and
particularly the transition to the current attitude of the
Everglades as a national treasure for which each of us has a
responsibility for protection.
I am anxious to move forward so that we can hear from the
many witnesses we have. Also, since I am the speaker this
evening, I don't want to give my whole speech and end up with
nobody coming to dinner. So I warn you that there will be more
to come later.
I want to thank the chairman for having this hearing. As he
indicated, this had been a hope of Senator Chafee to have
started the new year here with us in Naples, participating in
this important hearing on the future of the Everglades. He was
taken from us, and we fortunately have a man who, I believe, we
have come to know and understand shares that commitment. I like
that phrase, ``There is no daylight between you and Senator
Chafee.''
I'm also very pleased Senator Voinovich, who brings a great
deal of experience, not only in his period in the U.S. Senate,
but as Governor of Ohio, as mayor of Cleveland, as a State
legislature who has dealt with similar environmental issues
throughout his political career, is going to be playing such a
pivotal role and has taken the time to spend today, starting
last evening with a briefing in West Palm Beach, and then a
flyover and a visit to Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge.
Those are all indications of his commitment to this important
work.
The year 2000 is going to be a very important year for the
Everglades. If you wrote down the years of significance to the
Everglades, and this will again be a teaser to come back for
dinner tonight, you would write dates like 1882, 1947, 1948,
and I think the year 2000 will justify being entered in that
list of pivotal years for the Everglades.
This is going to be the year, hopefully, which we will
authorize the restudy that has been done by the Corps of
Engineers, that we will lay the financial foundation that with
convert that authorization into reality and, through
initiatives, such as the fifteenth Everglades Conference, will
continue to expand, face a public understanding and support for
the coalition of Americans who will bring this to reality.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I will quote President
Reagan, who asked the question, ``If not now, when? If not us,
who?'' I would ask those questions as it relates to the
Everglades. If the year 2000 is not the year to move forward,
what will be the year, and if the people to lead that effort
are not the ones who are in this room and our colleagues across
America, what group of Americans will assume the responsibility
for leadership to save the Florida Everglades?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the hearing.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Graham. Senator
Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the fact that the chairman of the Environment and
Public Works Committee, the new chairman, and the chairman of
the subcommittee are here in Florida with Senator Graham is an
indication of how important we think the Everglades are to this
country and are anxious to receive the restudy report that has
been done.
I'd like to thank my good friend, Senator Graham, for
inviting me to his home State. Your Senator is one of the most
admired members of the U.S. Senate. I'd also like to thank the
South Florida Water Management District folks, the Army Corps
of Engineer people, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection for their warm hospitality that they have extended
to me last night and today.
Senator Graham and I have worked together on several
issues. This is my first year in the Senate and he is very much
committed to legislation that deals with children's issues, and
one of the most significant pieces of legislation that I think
that came out of this last Congress was the legislation
Congress passed to allow the States to keep their tobacco
money, and I don't know if you fully comprehend how important
that is, but Senator Graham really took a leadership role to
get that passed.
Senator I don't know how much money that means to the State
of Florida, but I can tell you to the State of Ohio that that
tobacco money is over half of our annual growth in all State
revenues. Think of that. That money coming into the State makes
other money available so that we can do some other things that
are so very important.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention Connie Mack, who
happens to be a good friend of mine. Connie is the facilitator
of our weekly prayer breakfast, and Connie is leaving the
Senate, and I want you to know I tried very hard to convince
him to stay.
I refer to Connie as a born-again Catholic, and I'm sure
that the holy spirit is leading him, has led him to his
decision and has something else in store for both Connie and
his family.
As many of you know, there are lots of Ohio Buckeyes in
Florida. The warm weather and the lack of State income tax have
enticed many of our retirees to move here, and my wife, Janet,
and I have visited this State many years, just as you and your
wife and your family; and do you know something, we have seen
the pressure on Florida's environment, aquifers and, of course,
the Everglades as development has occurred over the years.
I'm no stranger to the Everglades. When I was Governor,
thanks to the Florida Fish and Game Commission, I spent almost
a day helicoptering around the Everglades, taking one of those
boats into the Everglades, and I reminded the head of the South
Florida Management District that I have fished Florida Bay,
Flamingo, tried to get some snook in the Everglades.
So the point is that I'm fairly familiar with the
Everglades and some of the challenges and opportunities that
you have here in this State.
I think that in too many cases that the development has
occurred without sufficient planning and consideration of its
impact on the environment, water supply, and, yes, the
Everglades themselves. We realize that, and the problems
confronting the Everglades today are mostly man-made and as
such can only be corrected by a man's proper stewardship of the
environment and by regulating current and future growth.
I don't wish to appear to be singling out Florida because
Florida is not alone in terms of impact of rapid growth. A lot
of States have not given appropriate consideration to the
environmental impacts of aggressive, commercial, housing and
agricultural development.
Two years before I left the Governor's office in 1996, I
realized the effects of encroaching development in Ohio's
farmland. After seeing acres and acres of farmland gobbled up
by development and urban sprawl, we created the Ohio Office on
Farmland Preservation for the purpose of developing a statewide
management policy to preserve farmland and encourage
responsible development.
In addition to recognizing the need to recycle our urban
wasteland, we undertook Brownfields legislation, and I hope
that my colleagues agree that one of the things that our
committee may get at this year is Brownfields legislation. We
have acres and acres of urban wasteland out there and you have
them here in Florida and, if you're going to save the
Everglades and not continue to encroach it with development,
you are going to have to go back into other areas and redevelop
those areas, and Brownfields legislation is, I think, very
important to us.
I share--I'm not as eloquent as the chairman--the
importance of the Everglades as a national treasurer; however,
I think, and I'm going to be very candid because that's the way
I am, the problems facing the Everglades need to be viewed from
a national perspective. The primary concern before Congress on
the Everglades issue is what course of action will best help
restore and preserve the Everglades ecosystem and what level of
responsibility should be assigned to the Federal Government as
Congress puts together the water resources bill for 2000, as
well as future water bills.
I would like to stress that, as chairman of the
subcommittee, equity among the States is a key factor in terms
of things that come before the committee. Every State wants its
share of project authorizations under the Army Corps of
Engineers' Civil Works program.
In other words, there are over 400 projects that have
received funding, and others have not received any funding at
all. We could authorize the projects, folks, but Senator
Domenici's Appropriations Committee on Energy and Water
appropriate the money for the authorizations that come out of
our committee.
Today, the State of the Florida has about $3 billion in
project authorizations from past WRDA bills for Federal runs
for projects under design and construction. This represents
about 10 percent of the $30 billion backlog. Think of that, a
$30 billion backlog of projects that have been authorized by
the committee, and, Mr. Chairman, there are other projects that
we haven't spent any money in design and construction for that
we still haven't put into the hopper.
With the request from WRDA 2000 for $1.7 billion in
construction authorization, half of which would be Federal
expenditures to begin implementation of the Everglades project,
Florida would have the largest requirement for Federal funding
to complete authorized water projects of any State. You would
be No. 1 in the country.
For example, the State of Ohio has uncompleted flood
control projects in Cincinnati and Columbus that require
additional funding, and you know they're all over the country.
So I think that everyone has to know that we are going to
have to measure water projects currently on the books with
those that are coming on board, and I think that Florida--I
know you have got projects for beach nourishment in several
locations, channel improvements in Canaveral Harbor, Miami, and
Tampa Harbor, and Kissimmee River restoration project. All of
it's very important stuff.
With respect to water development projects, the authorized
level of funding is rarely matched with a full level of
appropriations and, therefore, it's clear that we must review
projects to the fullest extent and only authorize those
projects which are of utmost importance to the individual
States.
In addition, Florida is going to have to make, and I talked
with your secretary about this, decisions about its own
priorities for water resources development within the State.
With its current backlog, what will Florida's priorities be?
Your Governor and your congressional delegation will have to
decide what you want to do with those authorized projects when
you come before the committee.
Just this last year, our committee, Mr. Chairman,
authorized 248 State-specific projects for a total Federal and
non-Federal cost of $5.6 billion, and of that amount, 14
projects were included for Florida in the amount of $341.2
million. OK? That's a lot of money. So you add that on to the
backlog of three billion to give you some sense of the dollars.
Now, what does that mean? What it means is this, is that
this last year, the Appropriations Committee have provided $1.4
billion. Think of that, just $1.4 billion for all of these
projects all over the United States; and Florida is going to
receive 11 percent of the funds of that appropriation, $157.7
million; so that out of every dollar, ten cents will be going
to Florida.
So the thing is that we have a major problem that needs to
be addressed, major opportunity, but I want all of you to know
that this project is--we are talking about $7.8 billion over 20
years; and we can talk all we want to and have the greatest
plan and this committee can authorize every project on the
restudy commission, and, if there is no money, it's not going
to get done.
So I think that one of the things that all of the groups
represented here should understand is that, unless we get more
money in that appropriations bill, and we are expecting the
administration to come through with some more, but we're not
going to be able to really do anything about this problem, and
that's important.
I'm editorializing, but the Federal Government is going off
into many directions today. Your Senator and I have talked
about it and we are concerned about our national debt, aren't
we, Bob? Out of every dollar we spend, 14 cents goes for
interest. OK? Fifty-four percent of every dollar goes for
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security. In 10 years, it's going to
be 66 percent and, if we don't do something about the debt and
get the interest cost down, what's going to be left for
projects like the Everglades? I mean, we have a real challenge
here.
So in the process of hearing from you today, I would hope
all of you here, whatever groups you represent, you all are
concerned about the Everglades, but it's really important that
you understand that we need to have those resources in
Washington so that we can make them available to the Everglades
and we can move forward with the Everglades and other projects
in Florida throughout the United States of America. This is
important to our country.
So I'm anxious to hear from our witnesses today about the
plan. I mentioned to Mike last night that it didn't have the
specificity of some of the other things that we had and he
tried to explain to me why that is, but we're anxious to hear
from you. We will have hearings in Washington and then we will
have to sit down and figure out how we're going to prioritize
things and move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator.
I want to say I see another--if you want to know what
happens to ex-Congressman when they leave the Congress, they
move to Florida and retire. We have Congressman John Meyer here
from Indiana. Welcome. Good to see you again, John.
Administrator Browner, welcome. Welcome home, I guess I
should say, and we're looking forward to your testimony, so
here we go.
STATEMENT OF HON. CAROL BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Browner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is indeed a
pleasure to refer to you as Mr. Chairman at this, your first
hearing, and I will say, I think, on behalf of all of us who
care deeply with the Everglades, it is quite significant for us
that you chose this as your first hearing.
It is also a pleasure to be with my Senator, Senator
Graham, and with Senator Voinovich.
If I might, Mr. Chairman, just take a moment to recognize
all in the Federal family who have worked so hard over the last
7 years of this administration on the Florida Everglades--my
colleagues at the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, and so
many others; and it really has been a collegial effort, each of
us bringing to this challenge, this task of the Everglades, our
own expertise and a shared vision and a shared commitment.
I also want to say a word about the State of Florida and
the leadership that they are providing. The task of restoring
and preserving the Everglades is not a task that will be done
by one institution, by one level of government. It will take
all of us working together, Federal, State, local, Federal
Government, the State of Florida, the Water Management
District, a public/private partnership.
Obviously an important part of this effort and those who
continue to remind us daily of the need for the work that we
are here to discuss are the environment groups that make up the
Everglades Coalition. So I also want to take a moment to thank
them for the work that they do and for holding our feet to the
fire, reminding us that we need to do more and questioning us
when they think we have not done enough.
As I think everyone knows, I am a native Floridian. I grew
up in Miami and in many ways my childhood backyard was the
Everglades. But it is really, really much more than that. I
think, for all of us who choose to do the work of public health
in the environment, we are inspired in our work by a very
special place, and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, for you it is the
White Mountains. Well, for me it is the Florida Everglades on a
warm January day and a great blue heron has just taken flight.
There is nothing more inspiring, more beautiful than that.
In many ways, the Everglades has been threatened since
Florida's earliest days as a State, considered really nothing
more than a swamp that stood in the way of progress.
Florida entered the union in 1845. Just 5 years later,
Congress passed the Swamp and Overflowed Land Act and thus
began the draining of South Florida, the literal draining of
Florida's liquid gold.
There is a great debate that took place in the Florida
legislature about the turn of the century where one member of
the Florida Senate stands on the floor and says, ``Let's get it
drained and put it back the way God intended it to be.'' We
have drained and drained and drained the Florida Everglades.
After more than a century, we did come to realize,
unfortunately, almost too late, but nevertheless we did come to
realize that we were in danger of losing this most unique and
beautiful place, and gradually a new sense of environmental
awareness emerged thanks to activists like Marjory Stoneman
Douglas, leaders like then-Governor Graham, now Senator Graham,
and my mentor, the late Senator and Governor Lawton Chiles.
When Lawton Chiles first ran for the Senate in 1970, he
walked the length and breadth of this great State, and I dare
say, if one of us were to walk the path that Lawton Chiles took
in 1970, we would see a very different Florida, a growing, a
dynamic, a vibrant place, but also a Florida that has beautiful
places forever protected because of the work of Senator and
then-Governor Chiles.
One of his greatest commitments was to create a coalition
of government, business, farmers, environmental leaders to
build on the work of Governor Graham to really preserve and
restore the Everglades. Today at the dawn of this new
millennium, we need to seize the opportunity to expand this
legacy.
With the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President
Gore, we have embarked on an ambitious, long-term restoration
plan that will give new life to this great natural wonder.
As a member of this administration, I was very pleased to
join Vice President Gore in February 1996--Senator Graham and
others joined us--as he set forth the Everglades restoration
blueprint, a vision that has already been delivered on, the
acquisition of the Talisman land and other critical restoration
lands, key to water quality and quantity, increased Federal
funding, and now the comprehensive restoration plan.
For the first time ever, we recognize that, to sustain that
which gives us this incredible quality of life we enjoy here in
South Florida, we must sustain, restore and preserve the
natural system, that we cannot simply put the needs of the
natural system third, fourth or fifth.
The challenge is two-fold, water quality and water
quantity, clean fresh water where and when the natural system
needs it. The heart of the Everglades must once again pulse
with the water that is essential to its health.
As Harry Truman said when he dedicated Everglades National
Park in 1947, ``Here are no lofty peaks seeking the sky, no
mighty glaciers or rushing streams wearing away the uplifted
land. Here is land, tranquil in its quiet beauty, serving, not
as the source of water, but as the last receiver of it.''
One of my most important responsibilities as the head of
the country's Environmental Protection Agency is to ensure that
we honor the Clean Water Act, the nation's most important
environmental law. The Clean Water Act is essential to
maintaining and preserving water quality, everything from water
quality standards to where we measure those standards, to
protecting the wetlands, which are nation's only way of
cleaning the water. That is the essence of the Clean Water Act.
As the State of Florida completes its work to set a
phosphorous standard, which is essential to the health of the
Florida Everglades, essential to clean water, it is not just
the standard or the number that will be important but where you
measure that standard, where you measure compliance with that
water quality standard.
If we are to be successful in our efforts for the clean
water that is fundamental to the health of the Everglades, we
must commit ourselves to meet the standard at the point of
discharge, not somewhere downstream.
In other words, we must eliminate the mixing zones, the
waters where pollutants are allowed to mix and hopefully dilute
with the clean receiving waters.
If we have learned anything over the last 30 years of
working to protect our environment in this country, we have
learned that dilution is no solution to pollution. You have to
prevent it.
Several Great Lake States have already taken this step. If
we don't do the same for the Everglades, we will sacrifice this
river of grass to the grinding march of the cattails and other
exotic plants.
The measurement of success must be the needs of the
ecosystem, not merely what one particular technology may or may
not achieve, but the needs of the ecosystem. Success should not
be defined as the installation of this or that technology and
whatever water quality it may bring. Success is the clean water
necessary to restore the health of the Everglades.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the clock is
ticking. We must move forward at an aggressive pace. In the
coming year, it is my strongest hope that we can work together
to do the following four things. First, to authorize the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in WRDA 2000,
including the critical projects; second, I believe that we
should amend the original project, the Central and South
Florida project in WRDA 2000, to include water quality as an
explicit project purpose. With such amendments, we will ensure
that water quality is a fundamental component to all Everglades
decisions and that Federal cost sharing is available for
achieving essential water quality; third, we must agree to set,
not only tough water quality standards, but to measure
compliance--our success in meeting those standards at the point
of discharge, not somewhere downstream.
Finally, Mr. Chairman and, Senator Voinovich, you spoke to
this, let us pledge to work together to secure long-term
funding commitments. Many ideas have been put forward. Senator
Graham has put forward ideas. Let us look at these ideas, let
us evaluate these ideas, and let us make a commitment to a
long-term funding mechanism.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the work that I hope we will
all be able to do with the Everglades, I think I would be
remiss in my responsibility for clean water for all the people
of this country if I did not also ask you and this committee to
close a loophole in the Clean Water Act which is resulting in
the loss of wetlands from Maine to the Mississippi Delta, the
Great Lakes, the San Francisco Bay Delta, even the Florida
Everglades. Because of a court decision commonly referred to as
the Tulloch Decision, EPA estimates that as many as 30,000
acres of wetlands have been destroyed in just the past year,
30,000 in just 1 year. Although EPA and the Corps are working
hard to use our remaining tools to protect wetlands, the
court's ruling makes it clear that only action by Congress that
closes the Tulloch loophole and fixes the Clean Water Act can
ultimately stop the destruction.
We hope that we can work with the committee to close the
Tulloch loophole.
I think that, if we can commit ourselves to the Everglades
and to the restoration plan, that if we can do all of these
things in the new century, we will do much to correct the
mistakes of past centuries, a past where clearly we looked at
the Everglades and we said, ``It's a swamp; let's drain it.''
That's kind of like looking at the Grand Canyon and saying,
``It's a hole; let's fill it.''
Mr. Chairman, 7 years ago next week, I appeared before this
Senate committee in Washington as President Clinton's nominee
to head the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I
said that day in seeking the support of this committee that my
greatest hope was for my son, who was then five, to grow up and
to know the same Everglades and other natural wonders of this
great country that I had known as a child, to know the same
special place that has meant so much to me.
I said 7 years ago that I believed that, if we were
prepared to make tough decisions, we could give my son, we
could give all of our children that opportunity and
inspiration, and I believe that this administration, working in
a bipartisan manner, has made a set of tough decisions. We have
put forth a vision and a plan to finally save the Everglades.
Now it is incumbent on all of us working together with the
Congress to write the law, to provide the funding, to achieve
the shared vision of a healthy, restored, protected Everglades.
There is no other river of grass and there will be no other
chance. Now is the time to act.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Administrator Browner.
It's been a pleasure working with you over those 7 years. As a
member of this committee, we have worked on a number of issues.
We have had some successes, a few failures, but it's been a
pleasure, though, to work with you during that time.
In terms of process here, we are in Senator Graham's home
State, so I'm going to defer to Senator Graham in a moment for
the first question. What I would like to do is have each of us
ask a question or two, not be confined to the clock; and then
after that, open it up so that anyone feels, if they wish to
interject with a question, we will do that. Then Administrator
Browner can move on. We will bring the next panel up.
Senator Graham, the floor is yours.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
going to ask a similar question of most of the witnesses
because it goes to what I think will be one of the most
challenging aspects of the authorization of the Corps study
and, that is, the issue of assurances language, assurance to
what various stakeholders in the Everglades will have relative
to the quality, quantity, hydroperiod of water.
In 1999, as part of the Interior Appropriations Bill, it
was agreed to defer this issue of assurances language to the
Water Resource Development Act of 2000. I know that the
administration and various State officials have been working to
try to develop what would be those appropriate words of
assurance. I wonder if you could describe what your feelings
are as to what some of the principles should be in developing
this assurance language.
Ms. Browner. Well, I think language will be extremely
important. I think we do need to recognize and we do need to
commit ourselves to restoring and preserving the natural system
because it's only when you do that that you can meet all of the
other demands, whether it be the agricultural demand, whether
it be the drinking water demands of the people of South
Florida. So I think it is important when we look at allocation
of this resource that I suppose at one point the thought was
that the supply was never ending, but we now know today has to
be managed carefully to ensure that we do what is necessary to
rehydrate the natural system. With that will then come other
resources that we need for the other uses, and this is
certainly something the administration has had a lot of
experience with out of the San Francisco Bay Delta where you
have a very similar situation.
You have drinking water demands. You have agricultural
demands and you have a natural system demand, and we need the
recognition there, that by serving the natural system, you
could better meet other, competing needs.
I think, Senator Graham, given the nature of this
particular proposal, where it's very project-specific, you may
make slightly different decisions, depending on what is the
ultimate purpose of that project. So in some ways it may
initially be easier to have the conversation around the
specific project that would move forward in the first several
years and to make determinations within the specific projects
because some of them are clearly designed to meet one set of
needs versus another set of needs. I think the overarching
principle has to be to recognize that, when you take care of
the natural system, when you provide for the natural system,
that gives you the greater flexibility then to deal with the
other competing demands, which are primarily the people of
South Florida and the agricultural community.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Administrative Browner, in your testimony,
in your written testimony, you devoted a significant portion of
it to the mercury problems and, in fact, you indicated that
some of the fish might be bordering, may not be edible, some of
the game fish, and also that significant amounts of mercury
were showing up in other wildlife and birds in the whole
ecosystem.
I guess the question is, No. 1: What do you view the major
source of this mercury because it's not really addressed in the
plan, the issue of mercury; and, No. 2, is this unusual in the
Everglades? Is this an anomaly or are we talking about
something that's pretty much in every ecosystem where you have
water and wildlife?
Could you address that, because I think, if we wind up
making all these corrections and save the quality of the water
but lose the wildlife, then we have lost a significant portion
of the treasure.
Ms. Browner. We certainly think that mercury is a
significant problem and one that we have only become more aware
of in recent times. It was not something that the scientific
community studied or understood 30 or 40 years ago.
More than likely in most systems, the mercury is a result
of air deposition, probably from coal fire utility plants and
other types of incineration. It's a byproduct of the process,
and I think there's certainly some who believe that the
mercury, some of the mercury in the Everglades, may be from air
deposition.
The scientists are looking at questions of whether or not
certain agricultural practices may be resulting in increased
mercury levels. EPA is very engaged in research that looks at
what we could perhaps do working with people and perhaps the
agricultural industry to manage that source of mercury
contamination.
I should tell you, EPA sent to Congress last year a report
on mercury and air deposition, as was required by law. As part
of that report, we indicated that, by December 15 this year
under the Clean Air Act, we would make a determination as to
whether or not mercury emissions, air emissions, should be
regulated subject to a technology-based standard, and we are on
track to make that decision by the end of this year. We have
not made a final decision yet.
If we were to make an affirmative decision that mercury is
a pollutant that should be regulated in air emissions, that
would then trigger a whole rulemaking process to set standards
on particular industry sectors.
Senator Smith. The question for me is: Is this showing up
disproportionately here in the Everglades than, say, the
Mississippi Delta or some other ecosystem?
Senator Voinovich. It's the biggest problem we have in the
Great Lakes.
Ms. Browner. Yes, it's very big in the Great Lakes. They
have fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes. Mercury is
a significant problem and though we haven't made a final
determination at EPA, I will tell you within the scientific
community, that large numbers of scientists think it is one of
the greatest challenges we face right now in terms of healthy
ecosystems and wildlife.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich?
Senator Voinovich. I would like to get to some specifics.
The plan has many elements to it and part of, I think, the
committee's responsibility is to sift out through those
elements projects which are what we refer to as genuinely a
Federal project and one which we should be involved with,
perhaps some that may not be Federal in nature.
Two wastewater treatment facilities that have capital costs
of 800 million and contribute to about half of the $84 million
in proposed operation and maintenance costs as planned are in
the proposal, and the question is: What's the Federal interest
in those plans? I mean, that's a lot of money, and one of the
things that you are proposing to doing or the plan is proposing
to do is the Federal Government picking up a lot of maintenance
costs which we have not done before. So I would like your
comment about those waste treatment facilities and how do they
fit in with the project.
If you can't comment on it, perhaps some other witnesses
later can do it.
Ms. Browner. You are asking about the money and that's the
question I was trying to get an answer to.
The State of Florida, as did every State, as you're well
aware, received some money through the State Revolving Fund
program, the Clean Water SRF program. It's a population-driven
formula.
Senator Voinovich. Which you would like to get
reauthorized?
Ms. Browner. We would like to get reauthorized? Yes,
exactly. I wasn't going to bring that up but thank you for
bringing it up.
Generally these types of projects are eligible for funding
through the State of Florida's SRF program. I don't know where
they have ranked them or if they have ranked them yet at this
point in time.
Right now, nationally, that fund is revolving at two
billion annually. So it's a fairly large amount of money that's
moving through the system and available to each of the States.
Senator Voinovich. So the answer is that, if it's not
funded out of WRDA and doesn't perhaps meet the requirements,
that it could be funded out of another fund, which is the State
Revolving Fund program?
Ms. Browner. Yes, sir, generally, loans are available it
its a local responsibility.
Senator Voinovich. One other question I would like to ask
and, that is, I think it's what Senator Smith had to say,
that--this is CERP, right?
Ms. Browner. Right.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that I pointed out
earlier is that I think it's really important that everybody
understand that this isn't the comprehensive restoration plan
for the Everglades because of the fact that we have mercury.
When we were up at Loxahatchee today, we learned about the
exotic plants that have invaded the Everglades and the serious
problems that they have in regard to that.
Is there any thought from any other of the Federal agencies
that are represented here today about how they're going to deal
with those very serious problems, because we can go ahead and
do this project and it will help substantially, but there are
some other things that all ought to be concerned about; and I
wonder, is this high priority with some of the other Federal
agencies that could help in dealing with this?
Ms. Browner. In terms of the other problems?
Senator Voinovich. Yes.
Ms. Browner. Well, for example, in terms of exotic species,
there are a number of programs which the State of Florida
participates in, I know through USDA and others, to try and
eradicate exotic species.
You know, if I could step back for a moment, in developing
the comprehensive plan, there was a vision and the vision was
about bringing the water back to the system, and so the plan's
components focused on that.
It is not to say that there may not be some ongoing
activities, like exotic species, eradication, like mercury,
that are not also important to the health of the system and
will continue to go on. They will, in fact, continue to go on,
but the primary challenge in this system and the most important
thing we can do is to bring the water back into the system and
that is what the plan focuses on.
Senator Voinovich. It in itself is not going to--there are
other problems that need to be addressed; that's the point I'm
making.
Ms. Browner. They are. For example, the issue of mercury,
there are mechanisms in the Clean Air Act for addressing those
problems. There is research underway. The same thing on exotic
species. It's not as if those issues are being ignored. They
are being addressed. They are being addressed in other ways.
Senator Voinovich. I'd like to know from somebody later on
specifically how they are being. I think it's really important,
if we are going to spend this money, that we are also working
on the other problems.
Ms. Browner. I agree. We can do that.
Senator Smith. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Carol, I would like to go back to one of
your four points for 2000, which was the inclusion of the issue
of water quality as one of the purposes of this project.
I wonder if you can elaborate on what is the current
significance of not having water quality as an objective and
what would be the consequences of that. Maybe you could give an
example of those consequences.
Ms. Browner. The current WRDA project, not the restudy, but
the current project you know as the Central and South Florida
project, is the mechanism under which much of the work
heretofore has gone on. I think because it's not what the way
people thought when that project was originally conceived,
water quality has never been included as a project purpose.
It has largely been about the draining of South Florida,
and water quality was not a component of that project; but as
we continue to work within that project and that project is
ongoing and there are certainly many important efforts underway
within that project, we think it would be extremely important
to add water quality to the project purpose.
Now, the State of Florida, I'm fairly certain, agrees with
us on this. In part they would agree with us because some of
the work that they might do under the project, which has a
cost-share requirement, might bring water quality benefits, but
they would not be eligible for some of the cost share as they
would be within other types of activities. So it allows us to
do some of the kind of cost sharing that I think is important
to the long-term success.
I think it would also allow us to make a set of evaluations
for any other activities that might take place under the
original project to ensure that, in making those types of
decisions, we weren't simply making water quantity decisions or
water transfer decisions, but that, if those quantity or those
transfer or their drainage decisions had a water quality
impact, it was part and parcel of the decisionmaking process.
I think for a long time down here we didn't really see the
two as interconnected, but they're completely linked, water
quality and water quantity. In some ways, it almost appears as
if it's a silly oversight now, that the original project
doesn't include water quality; and so going back and adding it
would ensure that any decision that might have to be made under
the original project wouldn't come at the expense, maybe
unintentionally, but nevertheless at the expense, of water
quality.
Senator Smith. Administrator Browner, the comprehensive
plan addresses and frankly relies pretty heavily on the
Stormwater Treatment Areas to reduce the flow of phosphorus,
and the plan actually proposes to construct stormwater
treatment that would deal with some--I think it's 36,000 acres,
as I recall of wetlands.
I guess one question: How effective have these areas been
at reducing the phosphorus discharges. That's No. 1, which is
under your responsibility anyway. Second, can they really deal
with the volume of water that we are anticipating coming
through here in this plan? I don't want to put too much on you.
The third point is: When this happens, when they no longer
can be as effective at removing phosphorus from the billions of
gallons of water, it would seem that these treatment areas may
not provide the term-long solution. I mean, we don't want to
have these beds of phosphorus-filled weeds or grass that become
basically phosphorus holding pens, if you will.
So I'm concerned that, with the increase flow of water
through the plan, you've had experience in dealing with the
phosphorus nonpoint source of pollution as it is.
Just comment, if you could, on how you feel this will
enhance us in regards to eliminating phosphorus in the plan.
Ms. Browner. I think there is wide-scale agreement that the
Stormwater Treatment Areas, the STAs, are effective in reducing
levels of phosphorus as it enters the STAs through management
of the STA, through vegetation and other activities.
Senator Smith. By creating those vegetation areas, right?
Ms. Browner. There's an uptake that you can create through
vegetation and other practices and that has been effective. The
water management district just yesterday released another
report showing what kind of clean-up you can get through the
STAs.
I think you raised an important question, which is: What
happens over a long period of time? Do you reach a moment when
they've sort of done everything they can do? I think it's
important to note that the comprehensive plan does not
necessarily limit STAs to 36,000 acres. It recognizes that,
with experience, with the passage of time, you may find that
you need some additional STA; you may find you may learn more
about some other technologies that could provide answers. So it
doesn't limit it. It doesn't say--in no way does the plan say,
this amount of STA will solve the problem.
The point I made in my opening statement I'd like to make
again: The solution to the Everglades will not simply be to
install technology and, whatever it does, so be it.
The solution has to be clean, available water, and what the
plan does is put together a variety of tools for cleaning the
water. Some of them we know more about than others. They all
bring some benefits, but as we proceed, we may find that
they're not enough and we may need to add to them, but we won't
know that until we go out there and do it. It's like any other
sort of large challenge. You have to begin. You have to start.
You have to get the knowledge. You have to get the expertise,
and then you can make adjustments, if necessary.
The STAs certainly have proven to work. I think everyone
agrees that a large number of them will be important to this,
but we have to keep our eye on the ultimate goal, which is the
clean water, and that may mean making some adjustments down the
road.
Senator Smith. Do we have any science or evidence, though,
in regards to what the capacity of these phosphorus storage
beds can handle?
Ms. Browner. Yes, there is evidence now. The Water
Management District would actually be in the best position to
answer that. They have been studying the assimilation capacity.
Senator Smith. We'll want to pursue it.
Ms. Browner. They're better than was originally thought,
although they are not hitting the kind of phosphorus level that
many of us think will be important to hit to get to the health
of the Everglades. They're not getting all the way down, but
they are doing a good job and they're taking up more than was
originally, I think, anticipated.
Senator Smith. I assume the canal system being removed will
enhance that, as well, correct?
Ms. Browner. Probably should.
Senator Smith. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. This is a little technicality, but it's
interesting. The water runoff that comes into the canals, a lot
of it is runoff from----
Ms. Browner. Agricultural lands.
Senator Voinovich.--agricultures. Any of it come off of
housing developments?
Ms. Browner. Yes. Some of it is urban. Some of it is
agricultural.
Senator Voinovich. You know we have a real problem with
combined sewer, sanitary----
Ms. Browner. CSOs.
Senator Voinovich. The fact is that, in those areas where
they don't have separate sanitary and storm, does all that
water come into those canals too and then----
Ms. Browner. Yes, it's not that much. From Broward County,
which is north of here, there is some coming in. There is not
all that much urban stormwater runoff coming into this system.
Senator Voinovich. The reason I'm saying that is this is an
alternative way of doing something and you are talking about
the period where once a while you have that big flood or, you
know, that big rain. That could save some of those communities
money if this was an alternative in terms of forcing them to
separate their sanitary and storm.
Ms. Browner. Senator, I think--this just occurred to me--
most of the development that we are talking about in the
Everglades' ecosystem is relatively newer development, so some
of the kinds of issues that you're familiar with don't present
themselves down here.
Senator Voinovich. So they don't have the problems?
Ms. Browner. Not of the nature, I think, that you're
familiar with as a former mayor, no.
Senator Voinovich. That's good. That's good.
Ms. Browner. It's different, yeah. It's just newer
developments. Things didn't develop in the same ways.
Senator Smith. I think we are all set, Administrator
Browner. Do you have any comments or points that you want to
make before we move to the next panel?
Ms. Browner. No. I want to thank you for taking the time
and for making this your first hearing and to pledge our
willingness to work with the committee in a bipartisan manner.
I think there is a tremendous opportunity. This is an issue I
have worked on for the better part of my adult life now, and
there have been various moments over the last 20 years where we
have turned an important corner, and I think that that is the
opportunity that is in front of all of us now with the plan,
with your interest, with the committee's commitment; and we
will work with you to achieve that.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much for being here. We
appreciate it.
Let me say to the audience, because we do have a packed
room here, there will be a 3- or 4-minute automatic break as we
change panels. So if anybody needs to go out, that's the time
to do it, if you can, because also, unless we have an emergency
up here, we are going to try not to take any breaks other than
that and keep moving. So if one of us leaves, you'll know that
we will be back.
So thank you very much, Administrator Browner.
Ms. Browner. Thank you.
Senator Smith. If we can have the second panel work its way
up.
[Recess.]
Senator Smith. I would like to welcome the second panel.
I'm going to do my best to introduce you and not mess it up
here for the record, but what we have with panel No. 2 are a
combination of key Federal and State partners for the
Everglades restoration project.
We have Dr. Joseph Westphal, who is the assistant secretary
of the Army for Civil Works, chief of the agency responsible
for implementing the restoration plan of the U.S. Army Corps.
He also has several of his deputies responsible for the project
here in Florida with him.
From the Interior Department, we have Mary Doyle, who is
another Floridian, I understand, who was recently appointed as
counselor to Secretary Babbitt. Ms. Doyle has also been
appointed as the chair for South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force.
Joining the Federal family, are their Florida sponsors, the
Honorable David B. Struhs, the secretary of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. He's here representing
the State on behalf of Governor Bush, who could not attend
today because of a special session of the State legislature.
The last witness on the panel--do we have everybody--is
Captain Mike Collins----
Senator Voinovich. Where is Mike Collins?
Senator Smith. Over there--who is the chairman of the South
Florida Water Management District, the State's cost-sharing
partner for this restoration effort.
Now, I see Mr. Davis here, and I don't have, for some
reason, any information.
Mr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, he is with me. He's going to
help make the presentation.
Senator Smith. OK. Great. We didn't mess it up then.
Mr. Westphal. No.
Senator Smith. I would ask each witness to do your best to
keep your remarks confined to 5 minutes or less. Every word of
your statement will be part of the formal record and you all
know how the drill works and so that we can try to move along
as quickly as possible. I'm not sure of the protocol here. I
think probably it's either the Army Corps or Ms. Doyle. Which
is it?
Ms. Doyle. I think the Corps, Mr. Chairman, will lay out
the plan.
Senator Smith. All right. We will start with you, Dr.
Westphal. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Graham,
Senator Voinovich. We have submitted a formal statement for the
record and ask that you make it a part of the record.
Senator Smith. It will be done.
Mr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, I am here with my deputy
assistant secretary, Michael Davis, whose played a key role in
this effort, and we are going to do a little tandem work here
to present to you an overall look at what we are proposing and
will be proposing.
Senator Smith. Can the folks in the back hear?
[Response in the negative.]
Senator Smith. Maybe pull the microphone a little closer,
see if that works.
Mr. Westphal. There we go.
Senator Smith. Better now? Is that better? All right.
Mr. Westphal. So we will give you an overview of what we
see as the problem and what we see as the possible solution in
this effort.
I also have with me, sitting behind me, General Rick Capka,
who is our South Atlantic Division commander, who oversees the
Jacksonville District's work in the Florida arena.
Mr. Chairman, what we are going to do this afternoon is
very quickly do a little PowerPoint presentation. I know this
is unusual in a congressional hearing but----
Senator Smith. Maybe it will liven it up.
Mr. Westphal.--we thought we would give you a more visual
look at what we're going to talk about.
Now, I have to say you stole some of my thunder when all
three of you have made mention of several of the things that we
are going to say here. So we will go through them fairly
quickly, but I think you'll see from this presentation where we
are heading, what we are proposing, and why we think this is so
important.
So let me start by giving you this brief presentation. Mr.
Chairman, you see there the Everglades. You made mention of the
Grand Canyon and other great--Yellowstone Park, California's
ancient redwoods, as places that are irreplaceable. The
Everglades is such a place.
You see that the Everglades designated, not just an
international park, but an international biosphere reserve, a
world heritage site and so on. The Everglades is unlike any
ecosystem anywhere in the world. It is unique. It is splendid.
It is majestic. It is critically significant, not just to
Florida or to the United States, but to this planet's future
and survival.
This is roughly the area we're talking about. Mr. Chairman,
I was born 52 years ago in 1948, when the first project was
authorized by Congress; and at that time there was an intention
to do a lot of good, to protect people from floods, provide
water supply, to manage water, among other benefits; and it has
accomplished much of what was intended to do in that area, but
we have also seen a population grow from 500,000 people to six
million people, and we project a significant growth in this
millennium and this ecosystem that you see here is now being
reduced in half. What you see here as the river of grass, this
connected system, this flow of water, is no longer the case and
what you see is an ecosystem in danger. You see the Everglades
as a dying natural ecosystem.
Indicators of the problems, I won't read them all to you,
Mr. Chairman. They're in part of the record, but you can see
there, to amend this endangerment and threatened species,
wildlife, billions of gallons of water lost every day, over 1.5
million acres infested with invasive species and exotic plants.
You also have declining population level of important fish
species and other major impacts to the environment.
Everyone in this room that you see behind us has had a
major part in this. The tribes have an important role to play
and are an important part of this ecosystem. The organizations
that are represented behind us, and this administration,
starting with the President and the Vice President, Carol
Browner, who just testified before the committee, Bruce
Babbitt, your committee, Mr. Chairman, you, and, of course,
Senator Chafee, Senator Graham, and many others who have been
staunch supporters of this program, including the delegation
from Florida, the people such as Clay Shaw, Connie Mack, whose
here, Porter Goss, Peter Deutsch, Mark Foley, Carrie Meek, and
others.
The State of Florida and its people, its leadership, its
Governor, are all committed to this comprehensive plan.
Governor Chiles worked hard on it. Governor Bush has made
strong commitments to it, and we stand ready to support him,
and to work with him as equal partners in this process.
Also, the restudy team has made a tremendous effort led by
both the Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management
District, and I want to congratulate them, Stu Applebaum and
Tom Teets for their work.
Specific implementation of the plan, what we hope to
accomplish are listed here, improvements to the health of over
2.4 million acres of South Florida ecosystem, virtually
eliminate the damaging fresh water releases to the estuaries,
and improve water deliveries to Florida and Biscayne Bays.
Administrator Browner already addressed some of these water
quality improvements. They are significant. They are very vital
and very important.
The comprehensive plan incorporates a number of major
principles, the first of which is, of course, the restoration,
preservation and protection of the system.
The comprehensive plan is based on best available science.
There is a significant amount of work that has gone into this,
tremendous intra-agency work to develop the plan, the
comprehensive plan, developed through an inclusive and open
process, engaging all stakeholders and interest groups; and all
applicable Federal, tribal, State and local agencies were
partners in this and continue to be partners in this process.
This is a key, it is a flexible plan based on adaptive
assessments. Modifications will be made as we go along. There
is a 20-year plan that will certainly require us to have the
flexibility to adapt as we monitor to adapt and modify what
we're proposing to do.
Now, the ecosystem is in trouble. It's in trouble basically
because of four major components: How much water is involved,
the quantity; how good the water is, the quality side of it;
where to distribute the water; and when on the timing part of
it.
Those components are written there. They are much too small
for anybody to see, but there are 68 major components to this
comprehensive plan, and in these four areas of quantity,
quality, distribution and timing, we are proposing a number of
major activities and major projects that will address and
attempt to address these four major problems.
On the quantity side of things, we have got 1.7 billion
gallons per day of water wasted and discharged into the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, and with this plan, we hope
to capture and restore the water to a truly reliable and
adequate water supply.
On the quality side, we have too much phosphorus, as we'd
mentioned earlier, too much mercury and other contaminants,
causing significant degradation. We hope to improve the quality
of the water discharged to the natural areas by the development
of a comprehensive integrated water quality plan.
From the timing side, we have altered the hydroperiods, the
flooding and the drying of the area, vital to the functioning
of the ecosystem. We hope to restore these variations in water
flows and levels and to ensure that timing of these flows
matches the natural patterns.
On the distribution side, we have not only reduced the
Everglades by half but what has remained, we have cut it off by
canals and levees and we have disturbed the continuity of the
conductivity of the sheetflow. The movement of water is vital
to the ecosystem.
So will remove, in that case, we are proposing to remove,
about 240 miles of impediments, canals and levees, and to
restore a more natural overland water flow.
If we can turn back to the previous slide, you can see, Mr.
Chairman, that's where the water is going currently. That's
where we are losing water, significant amounts of water into
the Atlantic and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Here you see the various features, again difficult to read
from a distance. You have got surface water storage reservoirs,
1.5 million acre-feet capacity on the surface water reservoirs
to capture the water.
We are also proposing aquifer storage recovery, about 300
wells, 1.6 billion gallons per day pumped down into those
aquifers.
We're proposing Stormwater Treatment Areas, 35,600 acres of
man-made wetlands to be built, draining into Lake Okeechobee
and into other parts of the ecosystem.
We are proposing wastewater reuse, two advanced wastewater
treatment plants producing about 220 million gallons per day of
treated discharge going back into the system.
We are also talking about seepage management using barriers
and levees, pumps and managing water levels that will help
control the loss of millions of gallons of ground water.
Removing barriers to sheetflow. Removing, as I said
earlier, 240 miles of project canals and internal levees.
Then we are talking about operational changes, work with
water delivery schedules to alleviate extreme fluctuations in
the water.
As you see here, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee, what you have is a system that will eventually
restore 80 percent of the water we hope to capture, restore it
back to the ecosystem, back to the environment, back to the
park, back to the natural system; and 20 percent of that water,
new water, to enhance water supplies for our cities and our
farmers.
So the historic flows, the current flows and where the plan
will take us, it won't recover the Everglades to its original
and natural historic flows, but it will make a significant
change in this ecosystem, and I would want to say that that's
what this plan proposes to do. It's the result of a significant
amount of cooperation and work between us and our State
partners and all the groups represented in this room and many
others, and we hope to be able to get to that plan.
Now, I have asked Michael Davis to take another couple of
minutes to get a little more specific on the rest of the plan.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Dr. Westphal, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Graham, Senator Voinovich. Thank you for hosting this hearing.
You are to be commended for doing that.
Let me just take a minute, if I can, to explain what we are
going to be asking the Congress to do in our Water Resources
Development Act 2000 proposal. We see the plan as five basic
parts. First, an authorization of the plan itself as the
conceptual road map for restoring the Everglades, an agreement
that this is a national priority, something that has to be
done, something that has to be done quickly.
That has four basic pieces, some pilot projects, a suite of
projects that we would like to get authorized in a WRDA 2000
bill, a programmatic authority, and then the bulk of the
project would be authorized in some future WRDAs.
We have six pilot projects proposed; however, two of those
were recently authorized in the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999, so we will be proposing four of those as part of our
legislative proposal.
As I mentioned earlier, we are also going to propose ten,
what we will call, initial authorization projects, a package of
projects that we believe are very important, that were
carefully thought out and considered that will allow us to get
on with the business of restoring the Everglades very quickly.
It's important to move on with these projects because
they're a link to existing, ongoing work in the Everglades.
They take advantage of some of the lands that we already own,
some of the lands that the State already owns, and we believe
it is very important and we gave this part of the plan a lot of
thought.
It's important to, I think, understand kind of the process
that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan lays out
for, not only this initial suite of projects, but for all of
the future projects. Not one shovel full of dirt will be turned
on any project until we do detailed project implementation
reports, which is equivalent to a feasibility level analysis
that you're used to getting in your committee.
Not one project will be undertaken until we complete a full
environmental impact statement, which includes full public
involvement; and, again, that's not just the ten initial
projects. That's for every feature that will be undertaken
under this plan.
We are also going to ask for a programmatic authority. We
know that there are a lot of relatively small scale projects
that provide immediate and very important benefits to the
ecosystem and we'd like to move on with those very quickly.
This is very similar to the existing critical project
authority that we have that were received in the 1996 Water
Resources Bill.
Then you can see from this, the remaining components of the
plan would be authorized in future WRDAs in the year 2002 and
beyond. This is about 6.2 billion of the $7.8 billion worth of
projects to be in some future WRDAs, and these would come
through what is really the normal process that you deal with
water resources projects in your committee. We would submit to
you the reports of the feasibilities with the EIS and the other
documentation that you are used to getting in all these future
water components.
Some have suggested that this plan doesn't work fast enough
and how long will it take or how long does it have to take to
restore the Everglades. Implementation of this plan completely
will take about 36 years, but we know, based on modeling and
technical evaluations, that after about 10 years, we will start
to receive and see substantial changes in the ecosystem; and
the vast majority of the benefits will actually be obtained
about 20 years into the plan.
It is important to remember that this ecosystem and other
wetland ecosystems will not automatically immediately respond
to hydrological changes. It will take some time. It took quite
a while to impact the ecosystem. It will take some time to
restore it as well.
As Dr. Westphal mentioned, the plan itself was developed in
a very scientific technical manner with substantial peer
review, and we are going to continue that. We know that we
don't have all the answers. We know the plan is not perfect and
we are going to have to make some midcourse corrections. That's
why we are proposing an extensive monitoring plan and we also
have created the Science Advisory Panel. We have a group of
independent scientists who will give us their opinion on some
of the problems and some of the issues that we will inevitably
face in this 25-year journey of restoring the Everglades.
There is not much I can say here, Mr. Chairman. You, Dr.
Westphal, Carol Browner, and others have made it very clear, I
think, that restoring the Everglades is a national priority and
it is very important to us. I think it is important to put it
in the context of other investments. Certainly 7.8 billion
sounds like a lot. It is a lot of money, but we do spend a lot
of money around the country on other public works investments
as well.
The Woodrow Wilson Bridge, just in all of our backyards, is
$1.8 billion. The Boston Artery and Tunnel in Boston is about
10.8. So there's other public investments in this country that
cost similar amounts.
Finally, there is what I would call the report card, and we
have a copy over here to the right on this poster as well. If,
in our judgment, and this is not just a guess, this is based on
our best modeling and scientific efforts, in our judgment, if
we do nothing, we are going to have the condition on the left,
and red is not good. Red is a failure, and we're going to lose
the Everglades.
We also believe, based on modeling and scientific
expertise, that, if we implement the plan over the next 20 or
25 years, we're going to have the report card on the right.
We're going to have a lot of green. We'll have a healthy,
viable and sustainable Everglades.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. I would say,
since the Army Corps is the presenter of the plan, I was more
generous with the time, but I think we're going to have to try
to hold to the 5 minutes.
We have an administrative decision here. It might flow a
little more smoothly if anybody has a question of these two
witnesses right at this juncture, we should ask it, and then we
can move to Ms. Doyle. I think it will just flow a little
better.
I want to make one comment to you, Dr. Westphal. You know
that, in order for us to move forward, which you have outlined
asking us to do in there, that we are going to need the fiscal
2001 budget from the President, and we are going to need the
legislative language.
I know when the budget normally comes, which is mid-
February, but if we wait--if the language, let's say the
language doesn't come for another month into March, it's really
moving out now into an area where it's going to make it very
difficult to move this thing along at a pace that I would like
to do it.
So I would urge you to do your best to get us that
legislative language much earlier than March, No. 1; No. 2, if
we can get a heads-up on the budget, at least that portion of
the budget that deals with this, that would be very helpful. So
let me make that request of you, realizing that, hopefully, you
can make it happen, but realizing it may not be possible, but
it's going to slow it down dramatically if we don't get that
information before this. Maybe the good Senator from Florida
here could work on that a little, too, within the
administration.
Mr. Westphal. Well, I think we can definitely do everything
we can to meet both of those expectations, especially on the
WRDA piece.
I had a discussion with you earlier. I also had a
discussion with the chairman of the Transportation and
Construction Committee in the House, Chairman Shuster, about
trying to get this bill to you as soon as possible so that you
could work on it early in the session and get it done for a
variety of reasons. I think he is in agreement with that, and
we are working very hard to put that together.
We will try to work with your staff to keep you apprised of
how our progress is going.
Senator Smith. You know how the process works, February and
March, you know, is a good time to be able to work on this kind
of legislation.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Smith. You start getting into the end of the spring
and the summer, then you have got the appropriations bills
beginning to hatch and floor time becomes a problem and so
forth.
Mr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, it's not so much our inability
to produce the language of a bill to turn over to you. A lot of
it is getting OMB to approve that language, and OMB is
simultaneously working on getting you a budget for fiscal year
2001. So they are always juggling all these balls and getting
both authorizing and a budget put together; and that's where we
get into the road blocks; but I will work with OMB to expedite
it and to get as much of it to you as early as we can. If we
can give you any advanced language that we can work on
mutually, I think we can do that.
Senator Smith. A finer point for me, you identified that
$1.1 billion or so of projects. You also identified them as the
highest--maybe you didn't use that exact term, but the
implication was that these were the highest priority items yet
and were going to have the most immediate impact.
I think it's important that you maintain that priority base
so we don't get into a future year where suddenly something
that we missed becomes an emergency that causes us to have to
adjust the schedule upward and causes somebody to lose the
desire to support the project.
I mean, you've told us in that presentation $1.1 billion.
You listed certain areas of the plan that were the highest
priority, and I think, if that's the case, then we need to stay
focused on that and make sure that we know ahead of time if
that starts to slip or something else takes on a higher
priority that might be more immediate in nature. Just a little
caution on that.
Senator Graham?
Senator Voinovich. I have a couple questions about the
scheduling. One of those is, I understand that some of these
projects are going to have to be permitted by the State. Have
the proposed initial flight of projects been reviewed by the
State and, if so, what is the status in terms of their being
permanent?
Mr. Westphal. I don't know the answer to that question.
Senator Voinovich. I wonder, could I ask----
Senator Smith. Sure. You'll still have the opportunity to
give your statement, Dave. Go ahead.
Mr. Struhs. OK. As I understand it, our permanent shop has
actually agreed to work with the designer, so that, as they're
designing structures and facilities to be built in the future,
assuming that this is authorized and ultimately appropriated,
that we are confident that those structures and infrastructure
investments will effect the water quality standards.
The other, I think I would point out, is that last
legislative session, the Florida Legislature inserted
themselves so that would have the ability to early on in the
process demonstrate the political support for the State of
Florida that they are, in fact, on a component-by-component
basis to support these projects, so that, by the time they get
to you, you have more confidence that the entire State of
Florida, including the legislature, is on board.
Senator Smith. Senator Voinovich?
Senator Voinovich. As I mentioned, the comprehensive plan
does not have the detail associated with it with other
feasibility studies.
The issue is, if at all possible, to authorize and fund the
pilot projects to see how they work before proceeding to an
open-end authorization, if you can get it down to the stuff
that you're really sure about and proceed in that fashion.
Mr. Westphal. I think we are very confident about this
proposal we are turning over. I think it has a considerable
amount of study behind it, a considerable amount of science
behind it. I think it's important at this time because it links
so many of these projects together into a comprehensive plan,
as opposed to a disparate set of different projects.
It's not a blank check, as we have said before, in our
presentation. We are going to have to do all the NEPA
compliance work, public comments, and all kinds of future and
legal requirements are going to have to be met as we proceed
along. Of course, it does incorporate as well, this adaptive
assessment and management aspect to it. So as we go along, we
will assess; we will change course if we need to based on our
monitoring work we're doing.
So I think we're presenting you a plan that we are very
comfortable with and we think stands the test of the science
and the hard work that went into it, but I think we also
understand that there may be some changes that come down in the
future as we assess and monitor what we are doing.
Senator Voinovich. I think another thing that's a concern
to me is that the Corps recommends Federal participation in 50
percent of the costs in operating and maintenance of the
project, and this is a significant break with the long-standing
Federal policy dating back to the Flood Control Act of 1936 and
also deviates from the conditions that apply to this project
found in the Water Resources Development Act in 1996.
The point is that there are others--say, the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound. Is the Corps going off into a new
proposal in terms of paying for the operation and maintenance
costs of these things? This is unusual. Why is the
administration proposing that in this plan?
Mr. Westphal. Well, it's a proposal. Actually, in my letter
of transmittal to the committee, to the Congress, to the Senate
and to the House, I indicated that we would looking at this,
along with our other Federal partners and State partners, we
would be looking at this and making a proposal to you on this
matter. So it isn't a final decision, but we are looking at it
very seriously.
We think that this is a very unique project in many ways.
The Federal Government is a beneficiary of much of what we are
going to do here today because of the Everglades National Park,
Biscayne Bay, Big Cypress and others.
In addition, as you all pointed out, the Federal Government
had a major hand and was a major factor in causing some of
these problems. So for those reasons, we are taking this under
serious consideration, and we want to be also fair to the State
of Florida, who, I think, is an equal partner in this and is
willing to share in significant amount of cost of restoring the
Everglades.
Senator Voinovich. It gets back again to the money and, if
Congress authorizes Federal participation in the ONM, up to 80
million will be required from the general account of the Corps,
and a lot of us are concerned about the impact that the
proposal will have in the overall program of the Corps of
Engineers.
When the administration commented on the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, it was noted that the Corps also had a
$27 billion backlog on fund and design and construction.
So one of the things that we have to--the Corps of
Engineers has to have the wherewithal in order to operate, and
I think that is something that the administration has to give
some serious consideration to. I know certainly Congress will.
Mr. Westphal. Right. Senator, I think you're absolutely
right, and I think we would all be foolish to hide our heads in
the sand and pretend that that this is not an issue, that the
money is there, and this is enough of a high priority for
everybody that we're going to get it done real easily. No, I
agree with you. This backlog issue is something that I have
already begun discussions with the House and the Senate
committees on, both the appropriators and the authorizers.
Much of this backlog that we talk about are projects that
we may need to take a serious look at. They're old. They're
sitting as authorized projects dating sometimes back to the
1940's. So we need to look at seriously how much of this $27
billion backlog we are going to build in the future. As you
know, we have no year funding so there is a stream of funding
that continues.
A lot of our problem is, not so much what we are willing to
do or what our capability is to do, as much as it is how we are
limited by appropriations every year, by what you're able to
appropriate, your allocations in the Appropriations Committee,
and what we can do based on those appropriations as we space
out these projects.
So it is something we need to address, and we are going to
be able to address that if we do that together, if we do that,
the Congress and the administration working together trying to
figure out a way out of that dilemma.
We don't believe that this is going to exacerbate that
problem, but we will work with you, and we will work with the
appropriators to try to do that, and I think that's a high
priority for me and it's a high priority for the administration
to try to resolve.
I do acknowledge what you're saying and I think it's
something to consider, but I also think that, if we don't work
together to resolve it, it's going to persist.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I think it would probably
be helpful if we really did spend the time to go through that
backlog to see if the projects were real or not real, skinny it
down to the real projects.
Mr. Westphal. I think it's something that would really be
helpful to both the committee--it is also helpful as you have
to decide on future WRDA bills. You know, we passed a WRDA bill
that amounts to almost $6 billion last year. You're going to
pass another one this year. We don't know what that amount is
going to be; but as you make decisions nationwide, I think it's
imperative that you also have a sense of what you're leaving
behind and what's being delayed and what has priority.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. Let me remind each
witness, as well as my colleagues up here, you have been fine.
We have got to speak directly into these microphones or the
people in the back can't hear. So put it a little closer than
you would normally do.
Ms. Doyle?
STATEMENT OF MARY DOYLE, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY, CHAIR,
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION TASK FORCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mary Doyle.
I'm counselor to Secretary Bruce Babbitt, whose has honored me
today by appointing me to chair the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force. Today is my first day on the job.
Senator Smith. Good timing, very good timing.
Ms. Doyle. Today is my first hearing, Mr. Chairman, just
like you, and I'm very happy to start out in this way. Thank
you.
Senator Smith. Well, congratulations.
Ms. Doyle. Thank you.
Senator Smith. And good luck.
Ms. Doyle. Thank you.
I'm a Floridian, as you mentioned. I have lived in Miami
about 15 years now where I have served as dean of the
University of Miami School of Law; and when these
responsibilities are finished, I intend to go back to Miami. So
I have a very personal stake in this like the one expressed by
Administrator Browner.
With me today are three colleagues who have wide and deep
knowledge and experience on these issues. I wanted to
acknowledge their presence and they're available to answer any
questions you might have.
Donald Berry, who is our Assistant Secretary of Interior
for Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Richard Ring, your guide to the
Everglades, great superintendent of Everglades National Park;
and Colonel Rock Salt, who is the executive director of the
task force I chair.
Senator Smith. That's great.
Ms. Doyle. Everybody wants to meet him when they find out
what his name is.
This committee has asked us to address three issues at this
hearing, and I can go through them very quickly. First was the
future role of the task force in the overall restoration
effort.
The second was the role of the newly created Science
Advisory Panel, which advises the task force and which was
referred to by my colleague, Michael Davis; and then issues
raised in the comprehensive plan for which the National Park
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have responsibility.
Let me briefly tell you that the task force is made up of
representatives of seven Federal agencies, the Miccosukee and
Seminole Tribes, the State of Florida, the South Florida Water
Management District, and two units of local government. It was
established by Congress in 1996. Its responsibility is one of
coordination of the efforts of all these various agencies, and
the development of consistent plans for overall restoration of
the ecosystem.
One of our functions, Senator Voinovich, is to address the
issue you raised beyond the Corps' plan, what are our plans for
overall restoration, including the elimination of exotics,
habitat restoration for endangered species, and so on.
This coming year we are developing a strategic plan which
will integrate existing plans and activities throughout the
region and serve as the framework for future adaptive
management for the next 50 years. We will provide that to you
as it is developed.
The task force also oversees the work of the Science
Advisory Panel, which has just been created. The Secretary of
the Interior and the task force requested the National Academy
of Sciences to put together a team of peer review experts. As
Michael Davis said, none of these 16 scientists on this panel
are currently working in South Florida, except on this project.
They will provide peer review to the Department and the
Corps of Engineers as we move forward on issues of monitoring,
determining whether intended benefits are actually being
realized from pilot projects, and that sort of thing.
The Science Advisory Panel is currently developing its
first work plan, which it will present to the task force for
its consideration at its next meeting.
Finally, the third topic I was asked to address, issues
affecting fish, wildlife and parks in the South Florida
ecosystem. I wanted to note for you that the Fish and Wildlife
Service last May issued the South Florida Multi-Species
Recovery Plan, unprecedented in its scope and scale, which is
the comprehensive blueprint for guiding the actions of all
relevant parties, public and private, toward recovery of the 68
species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered,
species of plants and animals in South Florida.
This Multi-species Recovery Plan is going to be a very
valuable asset to the Corps and the rest of us as we implement
restoration features in the coming years.
An issue of vital concern to the department and its
constituents, agencies, as it is to all the stakeholders is the
one Senator Graham identified early in the hearing, and that is
the so-called assurances issue.
Chairman Regula and you, Senator Graham, have both been
clear that we need up front in the authorizing process a
formula to ensure that water is provided for the natural
system, whether we are talking about the natural system held
under State management or Federal management, in proper
quantity, quality, timing and distribution, even in times of
stress upon the system.
We are developing proposed language now. We are going to be
discussing this with our partners at this meeting. We are aware
of Chairman Smith's admonition as to submitting language to
this committee, and so the time of facing the assurances issue
is now and we are grappling with it.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude with a statement on behalf of
the Department of Interior and the task force of strong support
for the Corps of Engineers' comprehensive plan, of admiration
for the work of our partners in the Corps, in the State, and in
the South Florida Water Management District. I want to assure
you that this is a partnership that works and on which you can
depend in the authorization and funding of the proposal.
Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. Ms. Doyle, you deserve
a raise. You hit it within less than 5 minutes.
I have one particular question and then, if either of my
colleagues have one, we can ask and then move to the next
panelist. David will be next.
You heard me ask Secretary Browner about the mercury
contamination. Could you, perhaps, comment on that, as well as
the phosphorus problem as far as the impact on wildlife and
fish?
Ms. Doyle. Yes. Maybe I will call on one of my wildlife
colleagues.
Senator Smith. When you come up to the microphone, identify
yourself. That's all.
Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, I'm Superintendent Dick Ring from
Everglades National Park. The issue on mercury and phosphorus
are that they both have significant impacts on the wildlife in
the natural system.
The first is that phosphorus is a nutrient that is pouring
into a nutrient-poor system. It's changing the habitat,
eliminating periphyton, the algal communities that are the base
of the Everglades food chain, and creating dense cattail stands
that are changing the habitat for many of the wildlife and
displacing them.
The mercury is a lot more insidious. It is being taken up
into the tissue of the plants and animals that we have, and
truly we have had advisories out on not eating many of the fish
in the Everglades that have mercury levels that have
accumulated in their tissue and we have had examples where the
higher the food chain, for instance, panthers, Florida panther,
and other animals that prey on the lower orders have died
because of mercury poisoning.
So it is a very significant and widespread issue that needs
to be grappled with in the Florida ecosystem.
Senator Smith. I felt there was somewhat, perhaps, limited,
maybe it's unfair to characterize, optimism, but it seemed to
me that Administrator Browner was fairly optimistic of
containing the phosphorus flow.
Do you share that optimism?
Mr. Ring. I think, with the phosphorus, since 1998 when we
began to grapple with it----
Senator Smith. Under the plan, I mean.
Mr. Ring.--I think we have come up with an enormously
effective plan working with the State. I think that plan is
well into execution and the performance of that plan in
removing phosphorus from the water that's coming into the
Everglades is outperforming the design expectations, and we've
got a lot of work to do. We've got about 6 years to go to
finish it off, but I'm very optimistic that we are going to
pull that off and largely, due to the efforts of the state, our
State partners, who are really stepping out to try to tackle
this and pull it through to completion.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. I'm looking at the projects that are on the
initial authorization list. The question I have: These
represent approximately $1.1 billion of a total project of 7.8,
so more or less 12 to 15 percent of the total project is
represented by those that are in the initial list. What would
be the consequences if we, in fact, authorized, funded and
built the projects that are on your initial list and then
stopped? What kind of system would we have? Would it be better,
worse, or the same as the system today?
Mr. Westphal. Well, we believe that any work, of course,
will advance and will help somewhat. We have projects that are
part of an entire ecosystem restoration, which are not
necessarily and always interconnected; but if you don't follow
through--I mean, the whole basis of what we have put together
is a comprehensive plan that's interdependent on all these
things coming together and coming together in a timely fashion.
So we believe that, if you don't continue to fund this, if
we don't continue to support it within the executive branch,
that we will get that report card that has the red on it. We
may see a few green spots here and there, but we are not going
to get to the solution of this ongoing problem.
We believe this is a very strong national priority. Very
significant funding is going into it, very significant amount
of work on the part of the Federal agencies and the State, very
significant work on the part of the Congress. We believe it's
very high priority, not for Florida, but for our nation.
Senator Graham. The Federal Government, not necessarily
limited to the environmental area, is replete with examples of
where the Congress puts its smallest toe in the water and then
withdraws the rest of its anatomy.
My concern about this approach is not that it doesn't make
common sense and is probably not the appropriate way to proceed
but there has got to be a strong both political and
psychological commitment that this is a commitment, not just to
these projects, but as a commitment to the totality of the
plan.
I believe that the strongest way to make that commitment
would be, as Administrator Browner said, to have a funding
scheme that doesn't involve the kinds of concerns that Senator
Voinovich has raised, which is to put this program into direct
competition with every other appropriation for a WRDA project
of the Corps of Engineers, but rather has a sustainable,
adequate, at least 20-year duration of financial plan to
accompany this, even this initial step toward this total
project.
Mr. Westphal. That's right, Senator. I agree with you and
I've talked very little bit about this subject with the
chairman and I have talked with the chairman of the House
Senate Committee and I have talked to you about it, and I agree
that I think we need to try to locate and find a way to do
that.
There are projects like Everglades, perhaps to a lesser
scale and perhaps in the future to a larger scale in other
parts of the country. We face equal and monumental losses of
land in Louisiana. We face issues in other parts of the country
that are of similar magnitude. We are going to have to address
those in the future, and we are going to face the same problem
there.
I think we can reach out and we can find some ways. I think
you have got some ideas on that. I think the chairman has got
some ideas on it. We are willing and very ready to work with
you on doing that.
Ms. Doyle. Senator Graham, the superintendent, changing the
image from anatomy to construction, says it would be like
building the foundation of the house, putting two of the walls
up and then walking away.
Senator Graham. That probably is a neater analogy than
mine.
Senator Smith. Senator Voinovich, a question of Ms. Doyle?
Senator Voinovich. Yes. First of all, I think that it's
comforting to know that you have the task force and the fact
that you have got the agencies together and you're working
together. I'm sure that helps with the preparation of the
restudy.
Ms. Doyle. I wanted to offer the services of the task force
to your committee also as we proceed here.
Senator Voinovich. I would be interested in any information
that you have in terms of the scientific part of this in terms
of the specific projects that are on the list that the Senators
made reference to and what the scientists think about it in
terms of the technology, is it sensible, has it been tested, so
forth.
Ms. Doyle. We are just getting rolling now so we'll keep
you very well informed as to what projects they pick.
Senator Voinovich. Let's get that input on these projects
and the reports from these groups who are monitoring--I would
like to see that plan work too.
Senator Smith. All set?
Secretary Struhs?
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. STRUHS, SECRETARY, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr. Struhs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Graham,
Senator Voinovich.
If Governor Bush had been able to join us this afternoon,
he would have asked or he would have himself delivered, rather
than asking me to deliver, the message that Florida is willing,
ready and waiting to forge a new and complete partnership with
the Federal Government that weighs out rights and
responsibilities as true 50/50 partners.
It was 6 months ago when I was in Washington and joining
Vice President Gore, Administrator Browner, and Senator Graham
and others that Florida committed to continuing the leadership,
continued providing the resources to complete the mission on
which, in fact, we have already embarked, a mission that aims
at restoring the historic balance between land and water, a
critical mission for Florida, certainly, but also a critical
mission for the Federal Government, the Federal Government's
interests, whether it be the Loxahatchee Refuge, 10,000
Islands, Big Cypress, endangered species, like the manatee, the
Cable Sable sparrow, the panther, but perhaps the best known
example of the Federal interest is America's Everglades
National Park.
That treasure has already been, this afternoon, compared to
other treasures in this country, Grand Canyon, Great Lakes,
Yellowstone. In fact, America's Everglades National Park
actually represents Florida's very first commitment to the
Everglades. Florida actually gifted that park to the nation. I
think it's fair to say that it's one of those kinds of gifts
that keeps on giving.
Since that gift was made in 1947, since the State of
Florida made that gift in 1947, we have gone on to spend $3.3
billion on land, restoration and protection activities, and we
have acquired almost 3.4 million acres of conservation lands in
the Everglades ecosystem.
Having said that, we also recognize that our Federal
partners will view, indeed must view, the Everglades as but one
project, competing with many others around the country. To that
end, you are seeking some solid evidence from us that our
historic resolve and commitment will continue.
Frankly, and I say this with all due respect, as a State
government, we have the same concerns about the Federal
Government. For, while we know that the Everglades are, in
fact, our highest environmental priority in the State of
Florida, we understand that the Federal Government, at least
for the time being, is unable to make that same kind of
determination; but what I would like to do is share with you a
few examples of how we are going to continue that leadership
and that commitment.
The State has acquired or contracted to acquire 80,000
acres of additional conservation land. The State has allocated
over $133 million for the acquisition of new lands in the
future. The South Florida Management District has already
finished construction and is now operating Stormwater Treatment
Areas, filtering water, cleansing it before it's released into
the Everglades system. Over 17,000 acres of these filter
marshes are up and operating now.
Just a couple of weeks ago, the State announced a major new
initiative, landmark legislation, in fact, to begin the
restoration of Lake Okeechobee, which, in fact, is arguably the
head waters of the Everglades.
Despite that commitment, we observe and recognize that
there is still much to do, and that is why in this new year,
and indeed this new century and millennium, Florida has already
committed to a plan to spend another $155 million this year on
Everglades protection projects.
Despite this historical commitment, despite the current
commitment, despite this future commitment, we also recognize
that there are distinct advantages that can be gained from
pursuing a more unified and coordinated plan, and that there
are real advantages in sharing a binding obligation to provide
the money needed to see the project through to completion.
Recognizing this reality, Governor Bush yesterday offered a
seven-point test, at least for the State of Florida, as we work
over these next couple of months to determine precisely how
Florida is going to meet that commitment.
Those seven principles which will underlie our commitment
is, No. 1, and most important that the State will commit to
fully fund its half of the project costs. More than that, we
will make sure that we recognize reality and plan ahead for the
peak funding years, recognizing that there are some years that
the peaks are going to be higher than some years and we need to
plan ahead for that.
We will also seek to and intend to get full credit for all
the environmental restoration resources that the State has and
will plan to spend on the Everglades in the future, but at the
same time make a commitment that we are not going to siphon
resources from other environmental restoration programs around
the State to accomplish it.
We're going to share the responsibilities evenly between
statewide resources and South Florida resources. We are not
going to add significantly to Florida's long-term debt burden.
In closing, we are going to seek a new and really complete
partnership with the Federal Government. Yes, the costs for
implementing this plan are substantial, but they are certainly
within the collective reach of State and Federal Governments
working together.
The State Legislature and the South Florida Water
Management District, the executive branch of State government,
we're all going to work together to make sure that we will
completely, predictably and adequately fund the State's share
of the costs.
Governor Bush, in a message to this Everglades Coalition
yesterday via videotape, said, ``There should be no question
about Florida's commitment to finish what we have started.''
Thank you very much for coming to Florida and allowing us
the opportunity to testify.
Senator Smith. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Thank
you for finishing on time, too.
Is there some proposal in place now to move this forward in
the legislature, the funding? If, for example, if the Federal
Government acted with its share, the 1.1 for this, if that
should happen in the next fiscal year, your legislation meets
until when here, October?
Mr. Struhs. No. We have a 2-month session in March and
April.
Senator Smith. March and April. What would be the chance of
some action being taken by the legislature?
Mr. Struhs. If I had to rank it on the schedule, a scale, I
should say, of one to ten, I would give it a nine and-a-half.
High, yes. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Senator Graham, any questions?
Senator Graham. We generally prefer those answers to be
down to the third decimal point, but we will take that as a
rough approximation of your level of optimism.
Mr. Westphal. Senator Graham, if I could clarify a point.
What we're seeking is an authorization that would entail
approximately that amount of money in appropriations, and, of
course, we are going to have to seek that appropriation through
Congress down the road, and that appropriation, that 1.1
billion, or 1.2 billion, will extend over an eleven-year
period. So it's not 1.2 billion for 2001.
Senator Graham. In other words, the appropriation is not
going to be----
Mr. Westphal. Right. So the State, obviously, also might
have to come up with that kind of money.
Senator Smith. Good thing you clarified that.
Senator Graham. Dave, I would like to ask the same question
that I asked of Carol Browner about assurances language because
that's going to be an important part of this initial
authorization. I wonder if you could comment as to what you
think from the State's perspective should be the principles
relative to assurance to the various stakeholders of their
legitimate expectations relative to water quantity, quality,
hydroperiod, point of distribution.
Mr. Struhs. Thank you, Senator Graham. There are important
questions and assurances, and I think it's appropriate that we
address them and work them out up front before we move forward
with authorization.
Assurances, I think, fall into four basic categories, the
quantity of the water, the quality of the water, and then the
timing and distribution of the water.
I think the one that has, perhaps, become the most
important, at least at the moment, is the assurance of the
quantity of the water, if I could address that one
specifically.
Florida State law, Florida water law, I should say, has a
reputation and, in fact, I think it's true as probably one of
the most progressive State water laws in the country, and early
on it recognized that the first and highest best use of water
is to maintain the health of an ecosystem, and we do that under
State law through something called minimum flows and levels.
So we would prefer, obviously, as a state to use that
really extra level of protection of using State MFLs, minimum
flowing levels, to assure the delivery of water.
The other thing I would hasten to point out is that one of
the reasons we were not successful in resolving this last year
is because we want to make sure that the assurance is not just
to one particular piece of real estate within the Everglades
ecosystem, but, in fact, we're establishing that minimum
flowing level for the entire ecosystem, and I think that is
critically important.
There are obviously some portions that are under Federal
control and some under the State. Mother nature doesn't
recognize those artificial divisions and we want to make sure
that minimum flowing level is treating the whole ecosystem
fairly.
One other point I would add. The State of Florida has also
designated the Florida Everglades as an outstanding Florida
water. That is a special designation reserved for only the
outstanding Florida waters, but the reason that has relevance
is because, with that designation, we are required under law to
make sure that, not only is it a minimum flowing level to
preserve the ecosystem, but that it is, in fact, adequate to
make sure that the water quality is also meeting the standards
so that there is an extra level of protection.
Senator Smith. Senator Voinovich?
Senator Voinovich. Want to go one at a time?
Senator Smith. I'm sorry.
Mr. Westphal. Senator, just so you sleep a little better
tonight, we are currently working with the Interior Department
and we'll work with David, Secretary Struhs, and the State on
language on assurances that we will submit to you, Mr.
Chairman, and the committee in our WRDA proposals. We will have
that, and we will make sure that we also work with your staff
to make sure that we have got the appropriate wording and that
we do what we need to do on the assurances. So we are working
on that.
Senator Voinovich. I think I had raised this question with
you informally last night or today, but the comprehensive plan
is really responding to adverse impacts on the Everglades from
the environment, from development in the State, agricultural
development, economics; and it seems to me that some of the
adverse effects which you're projecting in the future are going
to have to do with the development growth in the State.
I think that there was some comment that in 20 years if
somebody looked at it, I think maybe Carol Browner looked at it
and said 20 years from now, the quality would be less than it
is today, because of growth and so forth.
So I wonder, is the State undertaking some thought in terms
of a more sensible growth of the State; and, second of all, and
maybe this is pretty provincial from my point of view, but I've
said this to Senator Graham on occasion, I'm a former Governor
and we competed with Florida in economic development. Every
year we had the site selection magazine and new facilities and
planned expansions and new investments and so forth.
Senator Graham. We tried to get Ohio State to play one of
our football teams.
Senator Voinovich. On that field, forget it. I'd rather
stay in the economic development anyhow.
I think one of the concerns is: Are you asking the Federal
Government to help pay for the growth costs that you're going
to incur in the future in terms of waste treatment, in terms of
water supply, and I think that's a consideration.
We're willing to pitch in and help the Everglades, but I
think a lot of people are going to be reluctant to get involved
in building waste treatment facilities and providing water that
should be the responsibility of the citizens of Florida, and I
think I mentioned informally to you that you really never get
into this whole issue of growth development until you have some
tension, and tension occurs when people realize that, if
they're going to have uncontrolled growth, that they're going
to have to pay for it, either in terms of higher taxes, in
terms of water rates, sewer rates, or whatever the case may be;
and then all of a sudden they start to pay attention and say,
``Hey, wait a second. We need to think about this.''
If you can go free and unfettered and not have to pay the
cost and things just keep going, then you really don't have
that tension that I think is necessary; and as I mentioned in
my statement, I think it applies to your State and it applies
to my State. We've just got to do a better job on that.
I'm interested in your comments on that, what the Governor
thinks about that.
Mr. Struhs. Thank you, Senator, and I think it is a
legitimate and important concern that the Federal Government
raises, and I think, if I might, take a little time to expand
on it, the answer is no, I think, to the question of, Do we
expect the Federal Government to come in and clean up Florida's
pollution? The answer is no. That's something that we will be
prepared to do on our own in the State as appropriate.
There is another level to your question, which is do we
expect the Federal Government to come in and build
infrastructure to allow for expanding economic development?
There again, the answer is no. That's something that is an
appropriate role for a State government and we will take care
of that ourselves.
The fact is, if you look at all the project components of
Everglades restoration in this comprehensive plan, together
what they deliver is best exemplified by those two maps. If we
don't do it, in approximately 50 years, we are going to see the
area turn to red, which means that it is no longer Everglades.
If we proceed with all those components, we get the
preferred map on the right, which is green, which, in fact,
means that remnant of the Everglades system remains intact.
So that's the reason we think it is important and relevant
to the Federal Government to be involved with all of those
projects because they deliver that result.
Having said that, clearly Everglades restoration is a
remarkably good example of how investing in restoring and
preserving an ecosystem will have secondary benefits, will have
secondary desirable benefits for other things, like future
water supply.
I think it's very important to understand, though, that
water supply is not a limiting factor for future growth in
Florida. The growth is going to occur whether we want to or
not. We are one of the fastest growing States in the nation,
one of the highest growth rates. Eighty percent of that growth
comes from migration, people from other States coming into
Florida.
That growth is going to continue; the development pressure
is going to continue; and the water will come from somewhere,
and we already have proposals in the Tampa area to build what
would be the world's second largest desalinization plant. So we
eventually as a State will find the water to meet that economic
need, but isn't it far preferable instead to join in a
partnership with the Federal and State governments working
together where we can actually take a lower cost alternative
and we'll have the benefit of providing those water supplies in
the future, and at the same time, meet the principal objective,
which is to restore the ecosystem?
So, a lot of us have talked about examples where
environmental and economic interests go hand in hand, and I
think this is a premier example of that.
Specifically as to what the State of Florida is doing,
though, to get our own house in order in terms of growth
management, let me mention three quick examples. A program that
has been underway for some time in the Southeastern portion of
Florida known as Eastward Ho, we talked about this earlier
informally. The term we use in Florida is infill, but it is
directly related to Brownfields, directing future growth into
areas that are already served by infrastructure and have
already been developed and in some cases are in desperate need
of that additional economic investment.
Another example, nowhere do you see the pressures of
development more quickly and more obviously than you do on an
island, and Florida has lots of islands, and best known amongst
them are the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys have already and
have in place a carrying capacity study, and I think the notion
of thinking of it in terms of carrying capacities is an
interesting way to address the problem. Captain Collins can
expand on that later if you care.
Finally, in closing, we do have a Department of Community
Affairs that, in fact, is launching a statewide initiative this
very week, aimed specifically at revisiting Florida's growth
management laws and programs to see how they might be improved
and how they might actually deliver better and more predictable
results.
So your question is a fair one, and I would ask you to
believe it fully when I tell you that our goal is first and
foremost to be a partner with the Federal Government in
restoring the ecosystem. To the extent that there are secondary
benefits, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Senator Smith. Captain Collins?
STATEMENT OF MIKE COLLINS, CHAIRMAN, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Mr. Collins. Chairman Smith, members of the committee, I
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I have got
a written comment. You've heard a lot of it before. It mirrors
a lot of what Secretary Struhs said. I'm not real good at
reading written statements anyway, so I'm not going to use it.
I am and have been for some 25 years now a fishing guide in
the Florida Keys. The Guides Association sent me originally in
1976 to ask some questions about changes they had seen in
salinity in sea grasses in Florida Bay. They weren't real happy
about the answers I came back with, nor was the park at that
time.
They elected me president in 1982 and in 1983 sent me to
listen to Senator Graham deliver his Save Our Everglades
address to this group.
Senator I'd like to thank you now on behalf of myself and
everybody else here in Florida for the continued leadership and
support of this. You've got a lot of friends down in the guides
in the Florida Keys.
I spent a lot of time working for that organization as
president, being a thorn in the side of most of the State and
the Federal agencies involved, increasingly asking difficult
questions and increasingly demanding management that was either
not possible or not available.
As an act of revenge, the State and the Federal Government
have appointed me chairman of the Keys Critical Stake Concern
Resource Planning and Management Committee, a member and
chairman of the National Marine Sanctuary Citizen Advisory
Council, which was a real war zone, a member of the Technical
Advisory Committee and then the Committee for the Water Quality
Protection Program for the Sanctuary, a member of the
Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida from its
first to its last meeting; and an ultimate act of revenge, I
now serve as chairman of the Water Management District I've
spent most of the last 20 years attacking.
The most depressing part of that probably is, having
finally gotten here and in a position to demand the changes
that I wanted all along, I find that just changes in management
of this system really don't work.
I would submit to you that we, to the best of our ability,
involving some of the best technicians, some of the best
biologists, and some of the best scientists on the face of the
earth, cannot make this system produce what we want it to
produce. We balance our competing constitutional and legal
requirements on a razor's edge.
I am sued by close, personal friends on a fairly regular
basis for things that I basically cannot do very much about.
Having said that, we are your partner and we want to be your
equal partner.
We seek very zealously to support this plan. It is not a
perfect plan. I worked on it from start to finish. I was
involved in the conceptual plan very intimately. I was involved
through the Governor's Commission in writing a lot of this. I
don't believe there ever will be a perfect plan. What I support
more than anything else is the process that produced it.
I believe very strongly through the sanctuary process and
through a lot of the education I have had beaten into my head
over the last dozen years by the public at putting the
shareholders at the table, educating them with the best science
available, and demanding that they walk in each other's shoes
for a while produces the best products. I believe that's what
we have got in this plan.
Senator Voinovich, you've asked more than once about the
lack of specificity in this plan. It's not a mistake. We did it
on purpose. If we have learned one thing from the history of
this Southern Florida project, it's that there were very clear
indications before we had finished the project that we had made
some mistakes.
I don't believe that's cost effective. I don't believe
that's the way we should proceed in the future, and our review
of performance measures, our production of an annual report
card on how well we are doing with all this will be part of our
commitment to making sure that we spend our money wisely as we
go forward.
We don't know everything we need to know to know of how
this is going to impact, and I don't believe we have the
ability to commit future generations to a funding plan for
something that they're not going to be able to be involved in.
I was a very strong advocate in this administration, almost
the only one at the start in continuing some sort of Governor's
Commission to provide that forum.
I think the forum of involving the public on some sort of a
regular basis, be it the task force, be it the Everglades
Coalition, be it the Governor's Commission, is critical to
survival. I believe a rolling process of performance reviews
that are diligently and religiously scrutinized by both
Congress and the legislature is also important to our continued
success in this process; but I also believe very strongly, as
someone who made a living in an ecosystem that was a recipient
of our Everglades policies, that economically there is a whole
bunch of South Florida that's not going to survive if we don't
do this.
We have no choice in a lot of ways here in this State. We
have discussed this for many years as if this were some sort of
an option. There is a whole bunch of what is wrapped up in this
plan that we are going to have to do one way or another,
whether we adopt it as a plan, in a partnership where we go
forward together, hand in hand, or whether the State of
Florida, to protect its interests, and the Federal Government,
to protect its interests, spend their money some other way,
this is a question of necessity, and I really believe we are
going to have to do it anyway. I would suggest that we do it
together, and I thank you for your time.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Do either of my colleagues have a question?
Senator Graham. Excellent statement.
Senator Smith. I assume the captain is because you're a
captain of a vessel; is that it?
Mr. Collins. A fishing guide. A little boat, paddle it
around Florida Bay, try to catch fish. We used to anyway. You
should come down some time.
Senator Smith. Well, thank you very much.
Does anybody else have any final questions at this point?
Senator Voinovich. I would like to congratulate Mike and
all the people that have had a role in making this possible.
I know, when I was the mayor of the City of Cleveland,
people would comment about the change of the city, and I talk
about the architecture, but I said, ``The really exciting thing
is the civic architecture, how people came together, realized
they had a symbiotic relationship with each other and put
something together.'' I think all of you in this room have had
something to do with it. You should be very proud of
yourselves.
Senator Smith. Excellent testimony. I thank all of you very
much.
Before you get up, I think sometimes we forget--we sit here
for two and-a-half hours asking questions and listening to
testimony--we have a stenographer here who has been taking all
this down for two and-a-half hours without a break. So we are
going to extend this break for a little bit to allow our
stenographer to take a break.
[Recess.]
Senator Smith. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to have to
call for order quickly because we have a tight time schedule.
So either please be seated or depart, one or the other, but
whatever, don't talk anymore.
I ask those who are standing talking to, please, either be
seated or step outside, please.
The next panel consists of two representatives from Indian
tribes with an interest in Everglades restoration. First is Mr.
Jim Shore, a member of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and its
general counsel.
We also have a representative of a Miccosukee Tribe
represented by its lawyer, Mr. Dexter Lehtinen. Mr. Lehtinen is
appearing in lieu of the person listed on the witness list,
which was Chairman Billy Cypress.
So I'm delighted to see both of you gentlemen here; and,
Mr. Shore, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF JIM SHORE, ESQUIRE, GENERAL COUNSEL, SEMINOLE
TRIBE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Shore. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and Senators Graham
and Voinovich. My name is Jim Shore. I'm representing Chairman
James Billie and the Seminole Tribe of Florida today at this
hearing, and I will set the record on brief statements here as
we go along, but as----
Senator Smith. Pull that microphone right up close, will
you, Mr. Shore, please. Thanks.
Mr. Shore. The Seminole Tribe of Florida occupies at least
80,000-plus acres in South Florida, and we are in six different
counties, and the Big Cypress reservation is our largest,
around 48,000 plus and I guess that's in the environmental
sensitive area, and we have at least 900 tribal members that
live there, and just like any other group of people, the State,
its agencies, the Federal, its agencies, we are as concerned
about the pollution of that area and we have always said that
we didn't cause the pollution, but we are here in support of
this comprehensive plan, and this plan may not be perfect or
may not solve the problem, but we think we should at least
start somewhere; otherwise, there will be nothing left to
preserve.
So we are here in support of the plan and, along with that,
we want to be an active player in any plan that is developed to
preserve the South Florida area.
In the past, various plans were implemented without our
involvement or without our notice.
The only time we would know about a plan of some sort is
when we would be noticed of what we would have to do, but I
think we are doing a better job of it now with the State and
the Federal agencies, and maybe at this time I would like to
thank the Secretary of Interior for providing the Seminole
Tribe of Florida a seat on the South Florida Restoration Task
Force and also Governor Bush keeping up what the late Governor
Chiles started when he appointed the Seminole Tribe to be a
member on their commissions, and I think the communication is
better, especially with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer.
We have been having various regular meetings with the staff
out of Jacksonville, and I think we have kind of worked out a
plan or cooperated with each other to the point where we think
the tribe's critical project--we have convinced them or at
least we think we have convinced them enough to be able to fund
that project for us. So I guess there will be an announcement
later on coming regarding that matter.
Even before any plan is in place, the Seminole Tribe is
involved in our own internal restoration plan on the water
quality and quantity, just like everyone else is concerned
about, and even though we only have 40,000 acres or so in that
area, what happens to us north will affect us and what we do is
going to affect the people in South.
So we are as concerned about the destruction of the
Everglades as everyone else is at this meeting here today; and
with that comprehensive plan, as I said before, it may not be
the perfect plan or the best plan, but I think we should start
somewhere and I think what we are doing on our reservation now
is kind of like a mini-plan anyhow.
So as long as we are the active players in the process and
as long as any of these plans are not initiated or started at
our expense, we are in support of the plan; and I have some
technical folks with me today that will assist me in answering
any question that you have, but with that, I will conclude my
comments and I will thank the committee for allowing us to be
at this hearing today. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Shore, for being
here. We appreciate it.
Mr. Lehtinen?
STATEMENT OF DEXTER LEHTINEN, MEMBER, SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
TASK FORCE AND GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON THE EVERGLADES
Mr. Lehtinen. Thank you, Senators. My name is Dexter
Lehtinen. I serve on the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force and
the Governor's Commission on the Everglades. I previously
served as a Florida State representative and Florida State
Senator, and as the United States Attorney who filed the so-
called Everglades lawsuit that compelled a then-reluctant State
Secretary protect to agree to the Stormwater Treatment Areas to
deal with Everglades pollution.
I'm proud to represent the Miccosukee Indians, who have
filed the Federal challenge under the Clean Water Act that
forced a then-reluctant Federal Administrator Carol Browner to
apply the Clean Water Act standards to the Everglades Forever
Act and do the proper review that the tribe had also just won
its S-9 pollution lawsuit for failure to follow the Clean Water
Act in Broward County when the Federal Government would not
take action; and the group that has passed the federally
approved water quality standards for the Everglades that are
tougher than anyone else's, ten parts per billion phosphorus
applied to its own lands, that it would like to see the State
and Federal Government enforce as well.
With that proven record, Chairman Cypress has asked me to
make the point that the tribe believes that Everglades
restoration is in serious trouble due to misplaced priorities,
subordination of fundamental democratic values, such as
property rights, including Indian tribe property rights,
Federal intransigence and really bureaucratic arrogance and
incompetence.
The issue here is not the restoration goal. Senator Graham,
among others, helped to establish that goal properly. It's just
that that goal for some is just a politically correct goal.
They're not really committed to it.
The problems we see are system problems, lack of a system-
wide Everglades-wide commitment that's a parochial approach.
Many Federal agencies, especially Interior, seek only to
protect their piece of the Everglades ecosystem, whether its
geographic, such as Everglades National Park, which is less
than half of fresh water Everglades we need to protect, or
whether it's subject matter such as a single species like the
Cape Sable seaside sparrow action, which the Corps has taken in
the last month by signing the death warrant of more than
500,000 acres of State Everglades and tribal Everglades as we
sit here and speak today.
They're willing to sacrifice and discriminate against State
Everglades, tribal Everglades, in favor of their smaller
Federal Everglades. The water conservation areas, as I said,
are dying due to Federal actions, not taken in the 1800's or
the 1940's, taken last year and this year with the knowledge
that it will cause destruction of tribal and State Everglades.
There is also process problems, a lack of commitment to the
decisionmaking process, a lack of a partnership. The code word
Secretary Struhs used was for a new and true partnership. I
know he has to word it that way. That means Governor Bush
doesn't think he had a partnership before and he didn't think
he had a true partnership. I can say that but I know Secretary
Struhs is constrained, but you have to read those code words,
kind of like the way General Westmoreland described the Vietnam
War.
Many agencies refused to follow the National Environmental
Policy Act process. They give lip service to the partnership
concept, but we have execution problems. Frankly, the track
record in executing specifically directed and congressionally
mandated projects since the mid-1980's is abysmal.
Modified water delivery to C-111 projects are examples,
passed in 1989, fully NEPA approved in 1992 and approved by
Congress with a contract to build it signed in 1994. Not a
spade has been turned to date. Modified water delivery money,
more than ten million a year, has been appropriated. Where did
it go? You need to ask where modified water delivery money is
and find out if it's in the Denver Service Center where you
guys cut it because of million-dollar toilets.
Modified water delivery is also an example of the breaches
of rule of law. The 1989 act said specifically that certain
people would be provided flood protection.
Dante Fascell, when he passed that act, were he still in
Congress today, would not let that promise be broken. What we
have today is that some who are willing to break that promise
while saying to us, ``Trust the future need for process,''
Secretary Westphal and Secretary Davis said, ``Well, we have to
go through these processes but with a direct congressional
mandate.'' They have chosen to ignore that obligation.
I quote what a famous Supreme Court justice said, that is,
``That great nations, like great men, should keep their word.''
The modified water delivery problem indicates what Senator
Voinovich, I think, would say is a concern about lack of
detail, a concern about unbridled agency discretion. The agency
had no discretion and has still refused to do the project.
So what's going to happen if you give agencies the
discretion to pick a project? It's going to be controlled by
whatever agency authority at that particular day sees it a
particular way.
Let me summarize, I think it's clear that our fourth point
would be that Everglades restoration programs, especially the
Federal side, are showing an alarming disregard for fundamental
private property rights and for the fundamental rule of law.
Flood protection and private rights, when they are
demeaned, threaten the rights of every South Floridian and
every American, Native American and non-native alike. We
believe that that misalignment of values will not prevail, but
what will happen if the values are misaligned like this
continue to be, what will happen is the public will turn
against the restoration that we all want to see take place.
Couple of brief misconceptions. One is that the Everglades
is Everglades National Park. The Corps of Engineers just did it
today. They said the Everglades is a park. More than half the
remaining river of grass is not a Federal park. The Everglades
is not a Federal park.
In 1988, just before I left the legislature, we struggled
and successfully required that the entire Everglades be saved,
and the Federal Government has been fighting us ever since.
They want their Everglades saved, nobody else's Everglades.
I will skip over certain other points, but let me make this
caution, if I could, out of due respect. Much as George Romney
went to Vietnam and got nice briefings for the Federal agencies
there, I have received many briefings from Federal agencies and
they have tremendous gaps and holes in them.
In Saigon, 1968, Westmoreland said, ``No problem. Things
are going fine.''
That's where we are in the Everglades today. No problem.
Things are going fine. You couldn't go to what we as soldiers
in Vietnam called Indian country. You couldn't go out to the
hamlets because you'd find out when you were at the hamlet that
they didn't want you to stay overnight because it wasn't a
secured, strategic hamlet. That was called Indian country in
Vietnam.
Well, here you can't go to Indian country today because
Indian country today, more than 500,000 acres is being drowned.
It is a heart-breaking circumstance.
Two weeks ago, they closed gates. They're refusing to let
natural water flow go south from the Central Everglades to the
South and we're drowning the Central Everglades.
In two or 3 years, this will no longer be an issue because
it will be dead, and it won't be from the 1940's.
Let me close with what the Governor's Commission was told
several weeks ago by the Florida Fish and Natural Resources. It
was renamed, Senator Graham, and I keep forgetting. Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission now renamed.
That representative said that water conservation Area 3-A
has degraded more in the last 5 years than in the entire 40
years before that. That is 500 some square miles of Everglades.
That is during the Federal restoration effort and as a direct
product of the Federal restoration parochial attitudes.
The heartbreaking circumstance in 3-A, which is tribal
land, not only indicates discrimination against the tribe, but
it indicates the chaos that Everglades restoration is in; and I
know that any public official who cuts through the chaos, is
willing to say, ``We are not winning the Vietnam War, we're not
winning necessarily the Everglades war,'' who cuts through it
and says, ``The emperor has no clothes,'' will suffer
tremendous initial criticism, but it's not a politically
correct thing.
That public official will be the one who saves the
Everglades and will be the public official for whom future
generations, native Americans and non-native alike will be
grateful.
I appreciate your time, and I didn't put in the answer,
Senator Graham, on the assurances question, but we are prepared
to make a brief comment on that, if you like. I mean, you
didn't ask everybody, so I won't be insulted if you don't ask
us, but we are prepared to.
Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you. Let me start with one question
for Mr. Shore. Mr. Shore, do you feel that all of the partners
in this restoration project have been responsive to your
concerns, yours being the Seminole tribe? Have they been
responsive to your concerns as this process is played out?
Mr. Shore. I think, like I said before, we were ignored in
this type of process before, and now we are a player in this
process. So I think that the players that are involved in it
are listening to us and hearing our concerns, and I think what
we can say is that there is an open communication now, which
didn't exist before. So I believe maybe, in answer to your
question, they are responsive, but I think all we ever wanted
was some open communication, so we can have some kind of
dialog. So I think we are at that point with the Seminoles.
Senator Smith. Senator Graham, do you have a question?
Senator Graham. I'd like to ask the question of both
witnesses relative to the assurance language. What do you think
should be included in an authorization bill at the State or
Federal level as relates to the assurance to the different
stakeholders in the Everglades on the quality, quantity,
hydroperiod and location of water?
Mr. Lehtinen. OK. Thank you. Dexter Lehtinen with the
Miccosukee Tribe.
Well, we think assurance language is appropriate. We think
it has to include flood protection and water supply assurances
language, No. 1. We think the restudy shows that there is
enough water to do it all and that a failure to be willing to
balance subordination off the top of property rights means that
you don't put flood protection and water supply into the agenda
sufficiently and then it's not protected.
Second, you have got to treat all of the natural Everglades
equally. The most offensive thing about the Chairman Regula
language, with all due respect to the chairman, was that it
sought assurances for federally owned land.
Actually, it even eliminated tribal land from which the
Federal Government has a trust doctrine and for which the
secretary holds bare legal title, tribal trust land; but the
assurances language he proposed was to protect national parks.
If I ever saw the Everglades as a national park and we
don't care what happens north of Tamiami Trail, that's it.
In 1994, 1995, Federal deliberate water quality practices
flooded the water conservation area. I don't use the chart
anymore because it offends people in the pictures; but they
killed 90 percent of the white-tailed deer herd in water
conservation 3-A. In 500 square miles of the Everglades, the
entire white-tailed deer herd was wiped out. You saw them
floating in the water.
You don't see them floating in the water today with this
terrible flooding because it killed them all in 1995.
So the Regula language that sought assurances for the park
but allowed the rest of Everglades to be shortchanged was, we
think, inappropriate.
I also disagree with Administrator Browner when she said
that, until you assure the natural environment, you can't
assure the rest.
I think you can assure all of them. I think there's enough
water to assure all of them and that this implicit implication
that some poor resident who is trying to own a home and have
what the American dream, a house and a backyard, a dog, and a
cat, is somehow anti-American because that person wants flood
protection, that's just wrong.
That's what some people in this process make of the
residents of Dade County who want decent flood protection and
what I believe, factually speaking, can easily be provided if
you do the right seepage barriers and so forth.
What's happened is the Chairman Regula approach, and he may
in the end by his approach--and no approach is perfect to begin
with. He may in the end accomplish the goal and we'll thank him
for it, but by not requiring assurances for all users and for
all parts of the environment, Chairman Regula pitted the
Everglades versus the homeowners of Dade County and, if they
are pitted together, the homeowners of Dade County will win.
There is no doubt in my mind that two million people are
not going to accept being flooded out the way they were in
Hurricane Irene because they want to save the Everglades
without providing flood protection, which is why we flooded
badly in Hurricane Irene.
I want to save the Everglades. We just fill the appropriate
barriers. Give all the assurances that we think should be
there, and then you don't pit the residents against the
Everglades. It is a mistake for certain environmental groups to
believe they can use Everglades restoration as a growth tool.
Whether I support growth tool or not, the mistake is that it
will pit the Everglades against existing residents.
In Miami Lakes, Senator Graham, which is well below needs
flood protection, appropriate flood protection.
In the areas where Dan Marino, the quarterback for Miami
Dolphins, lives need flood protection.
Whether they should have built there or not is a different
issue, but having built there, the flood protection that is
their right should not be diminished, and we can protect that
Everglades as we do in Weston, I think, come right to the
boundary--you've got a home and then you've got the Everglades,
where Dan Marino lives--and do it well.
It takes a kind of sometimes politically incorrect
statement up front that, ``Look, you've got to protect property
rights. You've got to provide flood protection. You have got to
protect water use, as well as save the Everglades.'' Then I
think we will save them all.
Mr. Shore. I think on the assurance question, when a new
project of this kind, anytime it's been funded by a Federal
project, the Seminole Tribe, knowing what we're getting into,
will be willing to comply with the requirement of the Federal
Government; but our concern would be that we don't want to have
the government set unattainable standards and not fund it to
the level that it can be achieved and will be, I think, will be
defeating the whole purpose.
So as far as it's funded adequately, the standards are
according to whatever the technology is of today, and the
Seminole Tribe would not have any problems in following the
Federal guideline.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Shore.
Senator Voinovich?
We have no further questions of the panel, so I think with
that we can say thank you for your testimony and look forward
to working with you in the future as we move forward on this
process.
Mr. Lehtinen. Staff had properly advised me that I probably
should say that I, like others, submitted a written record and
submitted the report to the Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
that I serve on and submitted another statement about the
Central Everglades drowning in her own tears.
Senator Smith. Yes, all statements presented to the
committee from each witness will be put in the record.
Mr. Lehtinen. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Smith. If we can have order in the room, we will
begin here.
The final panel includes several important local
perspectives on the plan. The Honorable Nora Williams is the
county commissioner of Monroe County and Florida Keys, which
includes Florida Bay, the southern edge of this ecosystem.
Next is, I'll use the term, Malcolm ``Bubba'' Wade. That's
a great name too. Mr. Wade is senior vice president of U.S.
Sugar Corporation. The sugar industry has supported restoration
but has raised some concerns about how the plan is being
implemented.
Finally, the Honorable Nathaniel Reed. Mr. Reed served
Presidents Nixon and Ford as the Assistant Secretary of the
Interior. In the years since then, he's served several Florida
Governors on Everglades issues, as well as holding important
positions with leading environmental and conservation groups.
Lady and gentlemen, welcome. I'm not sure of the protocol,
but I'll start with you, Mr. Reed, and go that way. How's that?
Mr. Reed. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make every effort to
be at 5 minutes because you all have put in a long day. OK?
Senator Smith. Deal.
STATEMENT OF HON. NATHANIEL REED, FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTALIST AND
FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Reed. Your committee's responsibility for the
management of the public lands of America and the
intrafrastructure of our great land can only be described as
awesome. I want to start my brief remarks to pay tribute to the
vision and commitment to the dream of a restored Everglades
system to Senator Bob Graham of Florida.
Senator Graham initiated the process as Governor of Florida
during his second term of office some 17 years ago. His efforts
began with what could be the largest environmental restoration
process ever undertaken in the world.
We, the advocates of the Everglades restoration project,
dream that we will witness congressional authorization of the
Everglades Restoration Act in the final session of the 106th
Congress.
We hope and pray that the year 2000 will be the year of the
Everglades.
Senator Graham has enjoyed the constant support of Senator
Connie Mack and the members of the Florida House of
Representatives delegation. Especially important to the cause
of Everglades restoration are the Members of Congress from
South Florida and the distinguished chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Bill Young. His letter
is included in today's testimony record.
I am confident that the Florida congressional delegation
will make a unified bipartisan commitment to Everglades
restoration.
We are also thankful that our energetic Governor, Governor
Jeb Bush, has committed his administration to the cause of
Everglades restoration.
The Florida legislature will be debating the methods of
assuring the Congress of a permanent method of funding the
State's share of this expensive but vital project. I am
confident the Florida legislature understands the priority of
the restoration effort, the need for continuing bipartisan, and
a commitment to become an active partner with the Congress as
the project unfolds.
Mr. Chairman, you may know I enjoyed a 20-year long
friendship with the illustrious Senator John Chafee. We have
worked together on many environmental issues. We were
simultaneously members of the board of Deerfield Academy and
served in the Nixon administration. Our summer homes in Maine
were only minutes apart.
I know each of you on the committee miss John Chafee as
much as I do. The late chairman supported Everglades
restoration's efforts and it's my sincere hope that the
Senator's keen interest will be captured by each of you.
I ask myself, what can I add to the vast amount of
testimony that has been presented to you today and that is
included in my written testimony? How can I influence your
views on whether the U.S. Congress should initiate the most
difficult, daunting, expensive restoration effort ever
undertaken by any country at any time in our history? Why?
Because the Everglades is not only the lifeblood of South
Florida, it is a unique treasure for all Americans. Everglades
National Park is the most threatened park in the great system
that is one of America's enduring legacies.
The water conservation areas, including the Loxahatchee,
National Wildlife Refuge, not only support unique forms of life
but are the recharge areas for Florida's water lifeline. The
whole system was once a magical one. It is down in deep
distress.
The vast complicated ecological system has been seriously
damaged by every known environmental insult. Every effort to
manage this ecological system has only damaged it.
I once thought that the damage was terminal, but the
Everglades are resilient. I am now convinced that sound
decisions can produce an Everglades system that at minimum
resembles the original model.
We must accept the fact that we cannot recreate the
Everglades that was. We must instead accelerate the
extraordinary effort to revitalize what we have left. Then we
will be well underway to solving the water problems that have
plagued South Florida for more than 100 years. We must face
certain facts. Uncertainties are inherent in the largest and
most complex restoration project undertaken on this earth.
The Everglades in their extraordinary vastness and
ecological complexity will never be wholly understood. The
comprehensive plan under your consideration provides a
framework for that understanding based on a solid framework of
existing science; however, we'd be folly to imagine that we
have all the answers. To proceed undaunted with the present
prescription for restoration over the next several decades
without learning from ecological responses and technological
advancements along the way would doom us to failure. That's why
adaptive assessment as laid out in the comprehensive plan is
critical to its success. It will require a fundamentally
different way of doing business for the Corps of Engineers. The
Corps must become flexible in its approaches to problems. It
must learn to trust biologists and ecologists. It must become a
good listener, as well as a brilliant engineer.
Stuart Applebaum headed the Corps' restudy team. He proved
that the Corps could listen. Whether his successors will
continue his suburb effort remains to be seen.
I have spent so much of my life working on solving a full
range of environmental problems. I spent a fair amount of that
time on the continuing problems within the Everglades. I am
admittedly an Everglades ``nut.''
I admit that I am fascinated with the ecology, the
politics, and the prospects for a revised system.
The effort to restore a working productive Everglades
ecosystem is the most challenging assignment that Congress and
the involved Federal and State agencies have ever attempted.
We face many years of expensive replumbing. We face
potential conflict, conflict between the perceived needs of
agriculture that demand unlimited irrigation water from Lake
Okeechobee and unlimited drainage from the Everglades
agricultural area. We face potential conflict from county, city
and private water utilities that want to continue to tap the
Everglades' water supply, rather than plan for meeting future
water needs from other sources.
We face opposition potentially from the residents of the 16
South Florida counties that comprise the tax base of the South
Florida Water Management District should they be forced to bear
an unfair tax burden. The effort to restore the Everglades must
be a joint effort of the taxpayers of South Florida, the
citizens of Florida and the American people.
The Governor and the legislature must provide the matching
funds, not only for a long, continuous period, but for a
dramatically increased cost of annual operations of the
enhanced system.
Despite the potential for conflicting views, even
opposition, this is the moment, this is the time, this could
and should be the year of the Everglades when we initiate this
great restoration effort.
What can I add to your long day, a long day when you've
displayed great patience and an abiding interest in solving
Florida's greatest environmental problem?
I close simply by reciting Marjory Stoneman Douglas'
opening paragraph in the River of Grass: ``There are no other
Everglades in the world. They are, they always have been one of
the unique regions of the earth, remote, never wholly known.
Nothing anywhere else is like them. Their vast glittering
openness, wider than the enormous visible round of the horizon,
the racing free saltness and the sweetness of their massive
winds, under the dazzling blue heights of space. They are
unique in the simplicity, the diversity, the related harmony of
the forms of life they enclose. The miracle of light pours over
the green and brown expanse of saw grass and water, shining and
slowly moving below, the grass and water that is the meaning
and the central fact of the Everglades of Florida. It is a
river of grass.''
Senator Voinovich, let me conclude by saluting you for the
hard-nosed questions you asked all of our witnesses today,
especially the emphasis you gave to funding the investment in
America. Your distinguished career as mayor and as Governor in
many ways is a duplicate of our distinguished Senator Graham.
You know what investment in cities, counties, States can be and
must be if this country is to continue to prosper.
The vast majority of the projects your committee authorizes
and the Appropriation Committee funds are well spent improving
the quality of life and environment. Within reason, the
Congress should seriously consider a higher level of
appropriations for carefully selected projects, the investment
in America.
Mr. Chairman, again, our sincere thanks for coming to South
Florida and holding this field hearing. Your staff has done an
admirable job and it is an honor to appear before you.
Senator Smith. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Reed. It's an
honor to have you here.
Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. I, again, have a much longer written
statement and I have letters from the President of the Florida
Senate, the Honorable Tony Jennings, from the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, the Honorable William Young, and from
a personal friend of yours who served with you on the space
committee, the Honorable William Nelson, who called me while I
was crossing Tamiami Trail at a reckless rate of speed and
wanted to make sure that I send you warmest best wishes from
him.
Senator Smith. Brings back a lot of memories. Bill Nelson
was very kind to me when he was the chairman of the Space
Subcommittee when I was a new Member of Congress, and then he
did something crazy and went up on that space shuttle; but he
was very good to me as a chairman when I was a new member and I
remember him very well and fondly.
Mr. Wade?
STATEMENT OF MALCOLM S. ``BUBBA'' WADE, JR., SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, U.S. SUGAR CORPORATION
Mr. Wade. Mr. Chairman, Senators, I'm Malcolm ``Bubba''
Wade, a senior vice president of United States Sugar
Corporation. I am appearing here today as a representative of
the South Florida agricultural sector. In developing the views
presented, I have attempted to represent a consensus of the
Florida agricultural community.
I recently contacted representatives from the Okeechobee
dairy area, the Florida Citrus Mutual Group, the Caloosahatchee
Basin farmers, the South Dade farming area, the Florida
Department of Agricultural, the chairman of the South Florida
Water Management District's Agricultural Advisory Committee,
the Gulf Citrus Group and other sugar industry interests.
While this is not all of South Florida agriculture, it is a
significant representation of it. I believe that most of the
South Florida agriculture would agree with the views I will
present to you here today.
I must assure you that everyone in the ag. groups that I
have talked to throughout South Florida generally support the
restudy effort and believe it is needed to assure a sustainable
South Florida, both economically and ecologically; however, we
in agriculture recognize the enormous task ahead of all of us
to make sure the project is carried out correctly, efficiently
and cost effectively.
Although agriculture is generally supportive of the
restudy, we have concerns. I would like to focus on those
concerns at this time and I will put these in the form of
recommendations.
First, Congress should affirm the State comprehensive
plan's multi-project purposes contained in WRDA 1996 and,
quote, The comprehensive plan should provide for the protection
of water quality and the reduction of loss of fresh water from
the Everglades. The comprehensive plan shall include such
features as are necessary to provide for the related needs of
the region, including flood control, the enhancement of water
supplies and other objectives of the project.
The balancing of this restudy project purposes is very
important to agricultural stakeholders in South Florida.
Next, Congress should approve the comprehensive plan
presented in the Jacksonville district feasibility study as a
framework to guide future project planning and design and it
should not be authorized in the traditional WRDA manner. This
is not a final decisionmaking document in the traditional sense
of WRDA.
The plan does not need the traditional authorization
requirements of other Army Corps of Engineer projects. The plan
doesn't include feasibility level engineering, real estate
evaluations, economic and environmental investigations and
analysis.
Individual restudy project components should be authorized
only after the standard feasibility level requirements have
been satisfied and reports have been submitted to Congress.
Next, at present there is no plan or agreement for the cost
sharing of the project operation and maintenance cost. This is
important as landowners and stakeholders in South Florida were
concerned that, once an $8 billion project is done, everybody
rides off into the sunset but the taxpayers in South Florida
are going to be left with a $160 million operation and
maintenance cost. The total ad valorem cost of the South
Florida Water Management District are approximately 190
million, so you basically would be doubling landowners' cost in
South Florida.
Next, Congress should provide assurance to water users that
their existing water supplies, and this is my answer to Senator
Graham's questions. Congress provide assurance to water users
that their existing water supplies will not be taken away from
them and given to others in the system before project
components are built and proven to be able to provide
replacement supplies.
For water users in South Florida, this is one of the most
important recommendations I'm probably going to make to you
here today.
Next, many of the technologies incorporated in the restudy
plan are unproven in South Florida. They consist primarily of
aquifer for storage and recovery wells, above-ground storage
reservoirs and seepage barriers.
Some people question why reservoirs are unproven
technologies. A large above-ground reservoir in South Florida
is less than a thousand acres, typically farm retention areas;
and they have not proven they can efficiently hold water. In
some cases, to implement the restudy, a single reservoir is
about 60 square miles of shallow reservoirs in relatively
porous soils.
Congress should authorize the pilot projects to study these
technologies so we can develop the best solutions to these
problems before we spend millions on engineering, design and
construction.
Next, as previously mentioned, project components should be
authorized where traditional feasibility level studies required
by WRDA have been completed and submitted to Congress. This
review function should be retained by Congress and not
delegated to the administration. We believe there is far too
much uncertainty to allow shortcuts.
In addition, the projects will receive much greater
scrutiny from the other States if we ask for shortcuts that
their projects are not allowed.
Next, consistent with WRDA 1996 Section 528, incremental
justification of projects authorized for consideration should
be required. This is a standard requirement for all projects
across the Nation for Congress to understand the incremental
contribution of each investment to the ecological and
economical purposes served by the plan before authorizing its
implementation.
Next, a strategic plan, and this was mentioned by the
representative from the Department of Interior, does not
currently exist and it should exist that identifies all
measures and their associated life-cycle costs necessary to
achieve restoration and other project purposes, including water
quality and exotic species management.
Next, land purchases should be from willing sellers and
land already in public ownership where practical; otherwise,
the State condemnation process should be followed. If land is
condemned, all reasonable costs should be reimbursed to the
landowner, which does not happen in the Federal process. This
is very important, that the State condemnation process should
be used with landowners in South Florida.
Next, and Secretary Browner mentioned this one, water
quality requirements involved in each project component should
be agreed to by both the Federal and State agencies before a
project element is authorized. Water quality is currently not
being addressed and, if Congress does not require this, we
could spend billions of additional dollars to retrofit the
projects to incorporate water quality measures later.
Finally, funding issues must be addressed. The funding for
each project element should be reasonably assured from both the
State and Federal Government before each project element is
authorized. If authorization and funding are not closely tied,
we run the risk of condemning land and starting construction
only to have unfinished projects for years. A detailed budget
should be submitted each year so that Congress and the Florida
Legislature have assurances that such problems do not occur.
Before I close, I would like to say that in general, there
is a high degree of mistrust for the Federal agencies by the
farmers and others in South Florida.
A good example is the Chief's Report that was sent to
Congress with the plan on July 1, 1999. After years of public
review and input, the 4,000-page comprehensive plan finally was
a consensus document.
The Chief's Report was issued with commitments that were
totally inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The most
egregious was giving priority to the natural systems for water
supply over all other users. This was a highly contested issue
during the 6 years of deliberations and the final comprehensive
plan stressed balance amongst all users.
A high degree of mistrust is created when years of hard
work can be thrown out by the stroke of a pen in the Chief's
Report, and there's numerous other examples that stakeholders
could tell you about.
I have stated many concerns we have that I hope you will
take into account in your deliberations. We are not suggesting
that the restudy plan is a bad plan. It is a sound framework to
guide individual project element planning to address all of
South Florida's water users.
It is by no means a detailed plan that Congress can
authorize and say that all justifications have been made and
just go build it. The risks of failure and setback are too
great to not subject these construction projects to the same
detailed preauthorization planning as required of other civil
works projects.
Colonel Miller, his Jacksonville team and the South Florida
Water Management District team should be commended for their
hard work to get us where we are. They are quite capable of
completing timely project feasibility studies for Congress'
consideration before any construction is authorized, but there
is a lot of work to be done.
In closing, there are many, many concerns all stakeholders
have, but the restudy project is critical to all of us,
including agriculture, for a sustainable South Florida.
Agriculture is entirely supportive of these efforts.
The answer to our concerns is that we move forward as fast
as possible but we do it in a methodical, balanced and well
thought out approach. The approach must satisfy traditional
Corps' authorization requirements that include the proper
feasibility level engineering, real estate evaluations,
economic and environmental investigations and analysis. This is
crucial to obtaining and maintaining the buy-in cooperation and
support from all stakeholders, including the other States.
Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments and
I'd be glad to answer questions.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Wade.
I should have said in regard to you, Mr. Reed, that your
comments will be entered as part of the record and the
statements will also be part of it.
Mr. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Ms. Williams?
STATEMENT OF HON NORA WILLIAMS, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ms. Williams. ``Bubba,'' hand it over.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich and Senator Graham, it is a
pleasure, pleasure, pleasure to appear before you today and a
true honor to testify on this critical issue to our future.
As a member of the board of Monroe County Commissioners, I
serve as the county's land use liaison to the State of Florida,
represent the commissioners on the National Marine Sanctuary's
Water Quality Steering Committee, and I also serve on the
Governor's Commission for the Everglades.
My county, Monroe, is better known as the fabulous Florida
Keys, but it also includes vast tracts of both mainland and
Florida Bay Everglades and is the southernmost component of the
Everglades ecosystem.
My testimony before you today will be confined to five
critical points. One, the restoration of the Everglades is
absolutely critical to the future of South Florida and the
restudy is our last best chance to restore the Everglades.
This is about more than our water supply. There simply is
no South Florida as we know it without the Everglades. We talk
a lot about the mainland Everglades today and the river of
grass and I will remind you that fully one-third of Everglades
National Park is Florida Bay. The shallow body of water between
the mainland and the Florida Keys is the nursery ground of the
marine creatures that make their homes on the reef, thus
serving as the foundation of both our ecosystem and our
economy.
Second, we must start right away with authorization.
Fragile ecosystems reach a point where no amount of action or
money can ever restore what has been lost; and sometimes when
I'm walking on the edge of those grassy wetlands, I'm deeply
frightened of how close we are to irretrievable loss.
Three, the restudy is an evolving process. I appreciated
how many people not only brought that to your attention today
but how quick you were to recognize what a valuable element
that is. The ability of this process to adapt to what is
learned and to change is crucial to making sure we don't commit
the kinds of mistakes we have committed in the past.
I would be the last to say this is a document without
flaws, but I do believe it's about as close to consensus as we
can hope to get.
Four, and frankly this is as much a cautionary note to
local governments like my own and the State as it is to you. I
firmly believe there need to be assurances in the restudy to
make sure that it will not be the basis for future degradation
of the Everglades' ecosystem.
Much of the expense of the Everglades restudy is directly
traceable to undoing the earlier work of the Army Corps of
Engineers, which we did to benefit a single species, largely
us. That's a problem, and we need to make sure that the money
we spend now is not used to allow us to degrade it some more
and end up at the same spot.
Let's not make it better so that we can make it worse again
without additional consequences. Let's enter this restudy
pledge not to commit the mistakes of the past and determine
that we will not balance every step forward with a step back.
Five, funding water quality improvements in the Florida
Keys is crucial to the restudy's success. Increasingly, the
Army Corps of Engineers has come to see that their job, if
responsibly undertaken, isn't just about the movement of water.
It's about the quality of the water that is moved, and, yes, I
think the language should be in there very clearly that water
quality is an essential part of the program.
That's why I'm deeply distressed that--if I had to call it
a special interest, I will, because I think it's special in
every sense of the word--a national treasure in and of itself,
the Florida Keys has been excluded in the funding proposals
within the restudy. You'll find remarkably little mention of
the Keys, the enormous wastewater and stormwater challenges we
face and no money allocated to help us with those problems.
Senator Voinovich, I am counting on you asking me the
question you asked earlier: Is this simply an excuse to avoid
dealing with growth management problems? I look forward to it.
The Florida Keys are essentially the southernmost third of
the Everglades. What happens in South Florida, to the north of
us, ends up in our bay, in our backyards, flowing through to
the precious reef tract that's not only the world's number one
diving destination, but the boundary of the Everglades
ecosystem.
With documented water quality concerns that made headlines
in national press across the Nation last year, and let me point
out that the illustrious Nat Reed graciously referred to us as
the polluted Florida Keys today at lunch, I would like to know
how we have emerged completely unfunded from the restudy.
Our wastewater system upgrade costs are higher than
anywhere else because we are going through solid rock and we
are treating to higher standards than anyone else; and yet with
our cost of living among the highest in Florida, our citizens
have one of the lower incomes.
We brought these issues formally before the Army Corps
during their public hearings to no avail.
A quick side note. I know I'm running out of time. We have
a restudy that actually recognizes in its language the water
quality crisis in the Florida Keys, that acknowledges that
solutions for this crisis are, and I am quoting from the
restudy here, beyond the means of many, and yet offers no help
for us in its $8 billion budget; and I have wondered, can it
simply be about our lack of clout? We are 85,000 residents and
75 on the mainland, over about 150 miles of island. Have we so
little voice in the process?
I just don't know. It is my belief and my hope today that
it's simply an oversight that you're going to fix.
I will tell you one thing I absolutely do know. Water
quality surrounding the Florida Keys is deeply threatened and
we cannot bear the burden alone. I am here before you today to
ask, whether within the restudy or through a separate
appropriation, that you do not forget us. The Florida Keys are
a national treasure, a part of the Everglades ecosystem and we,
too, are in danger of irretrievable loss and unbearable
burdens.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Ms.
Williams.
Well, Senator Voinovich, since you have been told which
question to ask.
Senator Voinovich. I think Nora wants to tell me about her
capacity problem. Why don't you answer the question, Ms.
Williams.
Ms. Williams. Thank you. There are two elements. The bad
news is there is a long history of growth management we should
be nothing but ashamed of in Monroe County, and frankly the
State bears some responsibility for as well. Bad news is, so do
you guys. The systems that are the heart and soul of a lot of
the problems that we have in the Florida Keys, particularly on
the wastewater issue, were systems approved and OKed by the
Federal Government, as well as the State.
There is a lot of shared responsibility here; and the folks
in the Keys, we finally made that turn, the acceptance that the
problem is real, that we have responsibility, and we are
willing to bear, frankly, more than what is our share of the
cost, if we define share by what it means to most other areas
to deal with these issues.
It is a national treasure. It is a federally involved
treasure in almost every sense of the word. You were, if you
will pardon me for speaking frankly, part of the creation of
the problem. You have to help be part of our solution or it
simply won't happen, and we will be looking at something like
this at some point down the line.
It's crucial to know that we have turned the corner also on
growth management.
Senator when we talk about assurances in the language, that
we don't use this as an excuse to continue being stupid, to go
backward with every step we take forward, we would welcome
those assurances in the language.
We are releasing now in unincorporated Monroe less than 200
permits a year. We are critically aware of the problems we face
and, frankly, deeply worried, the theory of critical State
concern may be lifted and that might further endanger managed
and wise growth.
We recognize that we are finite, that we are islands. We
will not use this as an excuse to end up in a worse place than
we are now, I promise you.
Senator Smith. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. I want to say I have been dealing with
Monroe County officials for a long, long time and that was a
remarkable statement. You, gentlemen, who I hope will have
opportunities to have your experience in the Florida Keys, with
that experience, will appreciate the significance of what you
just heard.
I'd like to ask both Mr. Reed and Mr. Wade, you seem to
disagree on the issue of whether we should use a more
traditional Corps approach, which means having a fairly high
level of detail of what the project is going to be before it is
authorized for actual implementation, as opposed to Mr. Reed's
support for the critical projects adaptive management concept,
which is included in the restudy.
In order to try to get some better assessment of how well a
new approach would operate, since 1996 Congress has sanctioned
critical projects, which means that the Corps, under certain
guidelines, can proceed with a project without having it
subjected to the traditional authorization tract.
In fact, I understand, if we don't conclude fairly soon, we
are going to miss a ceremony where there will be a document
signed authorizing another set of critical projects to be
implemented.
The question is: Could you give me each of your assessment
of how well the critical project process which has been in
place now for four-plus years has, in fact, operated and, based
on that experience, what is your feeling as to confidence level
to proceed with the critical projects in the future?
Mr. Reed. Senator, in my written testimony, which is much
longer than my public testimony today, I answer that question,
I think, very affirmatively that I do not know of a single
ecologist, environmentalist, biologist who would agree to do it
the old-fashioned Corps way.
First of all, we haven't got the time.
Second of all, this adaptive management process. We are
going to learn what the reactions are to each phase of this
recovery program.
Now, Mr. Wade and I remain friendly in a guarded sense
because we are not going to agree, Mr. Chairman, on what he
proposes, which is to slow this thing down and drag this thing
out as long as possible. I'm going to be brutally frank. I'm at
an age where I haven't got a whole bunch of time remaining and
we might as well be frank with each other. At the end of the
day, I want my drink and I want to see that document signed and
I want my dinner and I want to hear the Senator.
Senator Graham. In exactly that order.
Mr. Reed. Maybe not in that order.
Senator Smith. The more drinks you have, the Senator will
sound even better.
Mr. Reed. When Mr. Wade says we have got to study
everything and restudy everything and we got to look out for
those reservoirs, what he's talking about is the Talisman
reservoir and he wants the product off Talisman as long as he
possibly can. I understand that. Everybody in this room who
knows anything about the sugar industry understands that
perfectly; and we also understand that the American taxpayers
bought Talisman and we want to see it go into a reservoir as
rapidly as possible, even though the sugar industry does not.
You know, it's much better to get this out on the table in
front of you than to have it rumored to you and brought to you;
and Mr. Wade is adept at defending himself and offending me,
and I will give him that opportunity.
Mr. Wade. I'd like for Nat to go have that drink.
I think the answer--and when Nat says that, the sugar
industry's whole motivation here today was to slow down
reservoirs, I will remind you that I spoke on behalf of a lot
of agricultural groups here today, and I think there is pretty
much a consensus on this issue about how the authorization
process should work. Just what I told you about the Chief's
report, when we have been through a consensus process to have a
4,000-page document that we basically supported and would have
supported in Congress, when we find the Chief's Report that
comes out that says, ``We have totally turned that upside down
and we have made commitments that weren't in that report.''
To the agricultural industry, that says, ``You better not
authorize the thing and give the Corps and the Federal agencies
the power to go out and make the decisions after you authorize
it.''
We don't want that. We don't trust it, and that Chief's
report was one example of why we don't. What we want is to make
sure that the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed before
it's passed by Congress.
Mr. Reed. I will just add to this, Mr. Chairman. That
letter probably caused more confusion than it was worth, and,
if there was a level of mistrust before, the level of mistrust
was heightened.
The fact of the matter is, I don't know of a single
hydrologist who's examined this product who does not believe
that there is adequate water in this system.
Senator Graham, this is very important. To be able to give
assurance to existing users that the water quantity that they
are presently using will not be impaired in the slightest way,
and I have absolutely no problem being very careful with
Florida water law to give Mr. Wade and the industry that
assurance.
The problem, as you know as Governor, is that every time
over the long period of time since 1960 when I returned from
the military intelligence system that there has been a division
in water, the ecosystem has been the loser, every single time
for 40 years.
So I was very justified in trying to find some language
that will work, that will persuade ``Bubba,'' Mr. Wade, and his
colleagues in the Florida agricultural empire, because it's a
huge, huge part of South Florida, that their water is not going
to be taken away from them for the birds.
That's what he's scared about; and, yet, on the other hand,
the American taxpayer is going to be putting up a heck of a lot
of money and wants to make sure that that water goes to a
national treasurer, both Everglades National Park and the
National Wildlife Refuge, and that's what we're going to have
to wrestle with when we come before you with the language on
assurances.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Reed, and thank
you, Mr. Wade, and, Ms. Williams.
We have got the hotel in a bit of a bind here. The hotel
has a reception in this room now. So in an orderly fashion,
vacate as soon as possible.
Hold on a second, please. Vacate as soon as possible
through that door.
Let me also state for the record, I think some of these
letters have been referenced, but just in case they haven't
been, Congresswoman Carrie Meek, Congressman Mark Foley,
Congressman Bill Young, Florida Speaker of the House John
Thrasher, and Treasurer of the State of Florida Bill Nelson,
all have submitted statements and/or letters for the record.
[The referenced letters submitted for the record follow:]
Senator Smith. Does any other Senator have any other----
Senator Graham. First, I would like to recognize the fact
that Lee Constantine, Representative Lee Constantine, has
joined us. He is the chairman of the State Legislative
Oversight Committee to the Everglades, and I want to thank him
for the outstanding work that he has done.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. I think you got off to a
good start. It is your first hearing. Well done. We moved
forward today and I look forward to continuing to do so in the
months ahead.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. One final
housekeeping--thank you. One final housekeeping note, I am
going to keep the record open for 1 week until close of
business on Friday, January 14, for any Senator who has a
question that he wishes to ask or make some comment for the
record.
I want to thank everyone, all the witnesses and all those
who were here today for being here and thanks again for the
fine hospitality here in Southern Florida. We look forward to
working with you.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 7:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Thank you for your invitation to be here today--at the
very beginning of the new millennium--to talk about something very
close to my heart: the Administration's unprecedented efforts to
restore the Everglades ecosystem and EPA's role in ensuring that water
quality is fully addressed in the restoration efforts.
As many of you know, I grew up in Miami. My childhood ``backyard''
was the Everglades. This vast expanse that we today call the ``River of
Grass'' has inspired me since my earliest days. I am proud to be part
of this Administration, which has worked so hard--and continues to work
so hard--to ensure that the heart of the Everglades ecosystem will once
again pulse with fresh, clean, abundant water. This Administration's
efforts will ensure that the Everglades ecosystem that inspired me as a
child will continue to thrive and offer inspiration to my son, to all
our children, and to all the generations that follow. And I am happy to
be here today to describe EPA's involvement in the Administration's
efforts to protect and restore the Everglades ecosystem.
past progress and current efforts
The Administration's Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan,
designed to restore and protect the Everglades ecosystem--from the
Kissimmee to the coral reefs--is one of the nation's best examples of
the inextricable link between the health of our environment and the
health of our economy. The fresh, clean water that is critical to the
survival of the Everglades ecosystem also is essential to the existing
and future health and welfare of South Florida--its 6.5 million
residents, its many thousands of businesses, its economically important
agricultural industry, and its $14-billion-a-year tourism industry.
As we enter this new millennium, I'd like to take a moment to
reflect on the changes that have come to pass in the Everglades over
the past 100 years--how we arrived at this critical juncture. In 1900,
the Everglades ecosystem encompassed roughly 2.6 million acres--largely
untouched by man. In that same year, the population of the area South
of Lake Okeechobee stood at just over 26,000--most of which was in Key
West.
Today the population of South Florida alone stands at more than 6.5
million, and is expected to double by the middle of this century
(2050). This explosive growth over the past century has led to
significant alteration of the Everglades ecosystem and its watershed.
Overall, the State of Florida has lost 46 percent of its wetlands and
50 percent of its historic Everglades ecosystem--lost to drainage and
encroaching urban and agricultural development. And, along with the
loss of this expanse of habitat, nesting populations of wading birds
have declined by 90 percent; 68 plant and animal species have become
threatened or endangered with extinction; estuarine productivity in
Florida Bay has deteriorated at a catastrophic rate; 5 feet or more of
organic soil has been lost in parts of the Everglades Agricultural
Area; urban and agricultural runoff has produced extensive water
quality degradation throughout the region; and future supplies of water
for residents, businesses, and agricultural interests in South Florida
are threatened.
During the second half of the last century, the existing Central
and Southern Florida Project was built to help meet the needs for flood
control and water supply at that time. But the explosive growth since
then has far exceeded the capacity of the existing system, and has
contributed to the decline in the Everglades ecosystem. The current
system, while very efficient at draining excess water, by its design
and operation severely limits our capability to store excess water when
it becomes available (wet season) so we will have it when it is needed
(dry season). Moreover, it is important to remember that the system was
designed for flood control and for water supply purposes. Water quality
was not a consideration at the time.
Today, with the vision set forth by Vice President Gore in February
1996, this nation has embarked on an ambitious, long-term restoration
plan that will bring new hope in this new millennium to the ailing
River of Grass. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan sets
forth an extremely challenging agenda to restore the hydrology of the
Everglades ecosystem in an effort to balance future development with
the preservation of natural areas, and to meet the needs of farmers and
urban residents as well as the needs of the natural ecosystem. When
fully implemented, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
components will significantly enhance the ability of the Everglades
ecosystem to store excess water so that the projected water supply
needs of the natural systems--both freshwater and marine--can be met,
as well as the water supply needs of the urban and agricultural
components of the Everglades ecosystem.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which was carefully
developed with substantial public involvement over the last several
years, was submitted to the Congress by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers last July. It lays out an ambitious Federal/State joint
venture to restore water flows to the Everglades ecosystem while
providing flood protection and adequate freshwater supplies to the
agricultural industry and to the growing population of South Florida.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan represents a fundamental
change in philosophy.
It is a humble action, recognizing that after the efforts of almost
a hundred years to manage this ecosystem, we did not really get it
right.
When completed, we believe the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan--in concert with other proposed and ongoing restoration efforts--
will result in the delivery of fresh water in the right quantity, of
the right quality, and with our best estimate of the right timing and
distribution to achieve the desired results to the Everglades
ecosystem, including downstream coastal communities all the way to the
living coral reefs of Florida. I believe that the demonstrated
commitment to adaptive management that this program has shown will
incorporate future adjustments, as needed.
EPA strongly supports the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
the Administration provided to Congress for authorization. We believe
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan--in concert with other
proposed and ongoing restoration efforts--represents the best way to
both restore the ecological integrity of the Everglades ecosystem and
to enhance water quality for future generations in South Florida. EPA
recommends authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2000, and also
recommends that WRDA 2000 contain language that specifically identifies
improvement of water quality for ecosystem restoration, protection, and
preservation as a Central and Southern Florida Project purpose. The
inclusion of this provision in WRDA will ensure that Federal cost
sharing is available for the water quality related facilities called
for in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
The Administration's plan recognizes that the problems facing the
Everglades ecosystem come from many corners--and so, too, must our
solutions. It is predicated on the understanding that, if we are to
make progress at all, we must foster public involvement of all South
Florida's diverse communities. We must build strong partnerships
involving industry, agriculture, Tribes, environmentalists, and work
collaboratively at every level of government to ensure the recovery of
the Everglades ecosystem. To achieve our most elemental goals is a
truly daunting task--one that requires us to pool our expertise, our
dollars and our resources, coordinate our laws, and draw on the energy
of the grassroots and the efforts from industry and agriculture.
Our bold and urgent plan expands and accelerates restoration
projects in the Everglades ecosystem, and identifies additional
research that is needed to ensure that our management decisions and
actions are based on sound science. And our efforts are already
starting to produce some encouraging results. The completion of the
Administration's important acquisition of the Talisman Sugar Plantation
in the Everglades Agricultural Area involves more than 61,000 acres,
critical new restoration lands in the heart of the system. In addition,
changes in agricultural practices are reportedly responsible for
achieving a 54 percent reduction in phosphorus discharged from the
Everglades Agricultural Area to the Everglades Water Conservation Areas
over the past 4 years. And 44,000 acres of Stormwater Treatment Areas
are either completed, or underway and due to be completed by 2003,
which will greatly enhance our abilities to remove additional
phosphorus.
remaining challenges and future directions
Despite this progress, we still have a long way to go. The
Everglades ecosystem may never be what it once was. But we can--and we
must--continue to make bold strides forward to protect the remaining
ecosystem and to restore the critical natural functions and structures
of the region and its natural community, which are so vital to
preserving the quality of life in South Florida.
The Administration's Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
offers a comprehensive approach designed to increase water supplies for
the region, and to restore and improve the condition of water quality
throughout the Everglades ecosystem--from the watersheds of Lake
Okeechobee to Florida Bay and other coastal areas of South Florida. EPA
will remain vigilant throughout the design, construction, and operation
phases of the project to ensure that the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan features will fully comply with all Federal, State,
and Tribal water quality standards, as well as all other applicable
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
I'd like to mention just a few of the more important activities
that EPA is involved in, and how each will help promote water quality
and contribute to restoration of the integrity of the Everglades
ecosystem.
Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) and Water Storage Areas (WSAs)
To improve both water quality and the integrity of the Everglades
ecosystem, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan includes
proposals to construct 36,000 acres of wetlands to treat polluted
runoff from urban and agricultural areas. These Stormwater Treatment
Areas (STAs) will be located throughout South Florida, and will enable
us to use the natural filtering capability offered by wetlands
ecosystems as a way to treat and improve water quality and, at the same
time, contribute to the restoration of the health of the Everglades
ecosystem.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan also calls for
construction of 172,000 acres of Water Storage Areas (WSAs), which will
be created to capture excess fresh water flows that now are drained
rapidly to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. This valuable
water, which currently is being ``lost to tide,'' will be captured and
used to provide much-needed water for restoration of the Everglades
ecosystem and to enhance potable water supplies for the people of South
Florida. As with the STAs, the WSAs will render major water quality
benefits to both inland and coastal waters and benefits to the wetland
habitat of the Everglades ecosystem. It also will be critical to ensure
the acquisition of the East Coast Buffer Area because of the continued
threat of development that can affect the Everglades. And together
these measures will greatly enhance the State's ability to reduce its
non-point source pollutant loadings consistent with the goals and
requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management
Act, and should contribute to improved implementation of total maximum
daily load (TMDL) allocations for impaired watersheds throughout the
Everglades ecosystem.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Facilities
Construction of extensive regional Aquifer Storage and Recovery
(ASR) facilities is an essential component of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. When completed, the ASR facilities are
intended to store water during the wet season--freshwater flows that
are currently lost to tide. ASR facilities will store these waters in
the upper Floridan Aquifer for recovery in dry seasons and for use both
to restore the ecological integrity of the Everglades ecosystem, and,
at the same time, to enhance future water supplies for urban and
agricultural purposes in South Florida.
EPA supports this approach in concept, but is continuing to work
with the other State and Federal partners to demonstrate the efficacy
of ASRs. WRDA 1999 authorized two large-scale pilot projects at Lake
Okeechobee and Palm Beach County, and EPA is now involved with these
pilot efforts in the startup phase. EPA recognizes that the ASR
approach is bold and entails some uncertainties, and is fully committed
to ensuring that these facilities will function in ways that are fully
protective of South Florida's drinking water supplies and surface water
quality. Regardless of the ultimate feasibility of ASR facilities, the
Administration remains committed to finding the same amount of water
storage through other means if necessary. Again, I believe that the
demonstrated commitment to adaptive management that this program has
displayed will incorporate future adjustments, as needed.
Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan
Under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, EPA and
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) will share the
lead on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) in developing
a Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan. This plan will evaluate
water quality standards and criteria from an ecosystem restoration
perspective. It will also make recommendations for integrating existing
and future water quality restoration targets for South Florida
waterbodies into future planning, design, construction, and operation
activities in ways that optimize water quality in inland areas,
estuaries, and nearshore coastal waters. The plan also will lead to
recommendations regarding water quality programs, including setting
priorities for developing both water quality standards and pollution
load reduction goals.
Florida Keys Water Quality Protection Program
The Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan will be modeled
after another EPA initiative in South Florida. EPA has been actively
working with the State of Florida in conjunction with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a water
quality protection program for the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary. Located downstream of coastal South Florida, the Sanctuary
composes the southernmost portion of the South Florida Ecosystem. The
Sanctuary was established to protect the living coral reefs, seagrass
communities, mangrove fringed shorelines, and other significant
resources of the area from such threats as degrading water quality.
The purpose of the Water Quality Protection Program is to recommend
priority corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point
and non-point sources of pollution to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Sanctuary. This
includes restoration and maintenance of a balanced, indigenous
population of corals, shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
Improving the Wetlands Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida
In recent years, Southwest Florida has experienced the same kind of
rapid growth that took place earlier in Southeast Florida. As a result
of this fast-paced development, the COE has issued permits to drain and
fill 5000 acres of wetlands. And even more requests are expected in the
next few years, raising concerns over whether the Corps' review of
individual permit requests can adequately address the secondary and
cumulative impacts from these many incremental decisions. These events
have caused us to think about steps that need to be taken now in
Southwest Florida in order to avoid repeating the mistakes made in the
last century in Southeast Florida--mistakes we now are trying to remedy
through the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and other
parallel efforts to restore the Everglades ecosystem.
EPA has been actively involved in assisting the COE in preparing a
Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS), which is
designed to improve the section 404 regulatory decisionmaking process
in Southwest Florida (Lee and Collier Counties). The COE has the lead
for this DPEIS, which was released for public comment on July 7, 1999.
EPA prepared two components of this DPEIS: a description of historic
water quality in the ten watersheds in the study area; and a
comparative analysis of future water quality for two of the COE's
alternatives. The model output indicated that, in 2020, the two
alternatives show an overall degradation of water quality in the two
county area, as well as in most of the individual watersheds.
The comment period for the DPEIS has been extended to January 15,
2000. Following the close of the comment period, EPA will work with the
COE to improve the document as it relates to water quality and wetlands
protection. We expect the Final PEIS to be released in Spring/Summer
2000, and will focus our efforts on developing NEPA tools that will
result in improved wetlands and water quality protection in Southwest
Florida under the section 404 regulatory program and other applicable
Clean Water Act programs.
issues of special note
I'd like to focus the remainder of my comments today on just a few
of the most difficult water quality issues we face today: reducing
levels of mercury and phosphorus in the Everglades ecosystem and
restoring Lake Okeechobee.
Mercury
Mercury levels in fish in the Everglades ecosystem are very high--
so high that State health officials have issued fish consumption
advisories warning people either to limit consumption of, or to not eat
gamefish from Everglades National Park, Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve, and the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians Federal Reservation. In addition, there may be some adverse
effects on wildlife. Wading birds, racoons, and alligators have been
found to have very high concentrations of mercury--higher than other
areas in the U.S. with known mercury contamination. A workshop held in
1999 concluded that, while there is no clear information regarding
effects on the wading bird populations, Everglades wading birds may be
suffering sublethal effects in individual birds due to mercury
contamination. Clearly, much of the energy and resources we are
directing to restoration of the Everglades ecosystem will be
compromised if, at the end of the day, the water is fixed but people
still cannot eat the fish and the wading bird and other wildlife
populations continue to show high concentrations of mercury.
Through our research, and atmospheric modeling, we have learned
that atmospheric deposition is the leading source of mercury in the
Everglades (more than 98 percent), and that no single source can
account for the levels of mercury we are finding. Moreover, uncertainty
remains over how much of the mercury is the result of local air
emissions sources, re-releases, and global circulation of mercury.
Recently imposed controls on local atmospheric emissions are expected
to result in a significant decrease in mercury deposition to the
Everglades marsh. But, while we believe that reducing the input of
mercury to the Everglades ecosystem is likely to reduce the levels of
mercury in fish over time, it is not clear how long this will take or
how much mercury emissions will need to be reduced in order to protect
the uses of the Everglades ecosystem. There is also uncertainty
regarding the linkages between atmospheric deposition of mercury and
risk to the environment and public health.
While much uncertainty remains, we clearly recognize that
designated uses in the Everglades ecosystem are not being met, and
there is a pressing need to learn more. To address these challenges,
EPA is actively engaged in a comprehensive mercury research program,
along with United States Geological Survey (USGS), the FDEP and the
South Florida Water Management District, as well as NOAA's work in
Florida Bay. Thus far, total research funding is approaching $30
million from all public and private sources, with EPA contributing
about one-third of the total ($10 million).
EPA also is working with the State of Florida to develop a pilot
mercury TMDL for a parcel of the Everglades ecosystem known as Water
Conservation Area 3A. This effort is designed to determine the maximum
amount of mercury that could enter the Area each day and still enable
the waters to meet water quality standards. The pilot will examine how
to ``link'' the results of air and water computer models in a TMDL
application, and will attempt to relate local urban atmospheric
emissions to mercury levels in Everglades sediments and fish. We expect
to have technical reports on this work for internal EPA review soon,
and plan to seek input from stakeholder groups and the public by Summer
2000.
Phosphorus
In 1994, Florida's Everglades Forever Act (EFA) created another
ambitious ecosystem restoration plan, which EPA fully supports. The EFA
set forth an iterative and adaptive approach to actions needed to
reduce phosphorus contamination of the Everglades ecosystem. Much
progress has been made since then, including the 54 percent reduction
in phosphorus discharged from the Everglades Agricultural Area and the
ongoing construction of 44,000 acres of Stormwater Treatment Areas that
I mentioned earlier. Despite this progress, however, phosphorus is
still one of the chief pollutants that threatens aquatic life and
restoration of the Everglades ecosystem. There is much more to be done,
and we need to move ahead aggressively.
In May 1999, EPA approved stringent new water quality standards for
a portion of the Everglades ecosystem, which, for the first time ever
under the Clean Water Act, set a specific protective numerical standard
for the Everglades for phosphorus. This protective standard--10 parts
per billion (ppb), adopted by the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida for its
Tribal waters--is supported by the best science available to EPA.
Adoption and approval of this standard represents a significant step
forward in protecting the health of the Everglades ecosystem on
Miccosukee Tribal lands, and sets a benchmark for how much phosphorus
the ecosystem can handle before adverse impacts to native aquatic life
begin to occur.
Under the EFA, Florida is now actively engaged in developing a
water quality standard for phosphorus for other portions of the
Everglades ecosystem. The EFA established a deadline of December 31,
2003, for adopting this standard, but Governor Bush has committed to
accelerating this process and to adopting a scientifically defensible
standard by no later than December 31, 2002. EPA is providing technical
assistance to the State to help meet this ambitious schedule. And, in a
related effort to accelerate restoration of the Everglades ecosystem,
Governor Bush has asked the South Florida Water Management District to
begin incorporating Phase II technology into Phase I of the Everglades
restoration. EPA encourages prompt action for both of these efforts,
and looks forward to approving a phosphorus standard for the State that
will be protective of the entire Everglades ecosystem.
Lake Okeechobee
As the headwaters of the Everglades ecosystem and an important
water supply for Southeast Florida, we have a vital interest in the
activities that will lead to restoring the water quality of Lake
Okeechobee. Water quality in Lake Okeechobee has been degraded by
agricultural runoff and by backpumping, and the rate of eutrophication
is of major concern because of the impact on both the ecology of the
lake and its many other beneficial uses. Over the last 25 years,
phosphorus concentrations in the lake have increased 2.5 times, and
preliminary evidence indicates that sediments in the lake may be losing
their ability to assimilate additional phosphorus loadings. Recent data
suggest that the lake may be in a phase of transition from its present
eutrophic condition to a higher tropic State.
Since phosphorus is considered the key element that controls the
growth of nuisance algae, I am very pleased to report to you that,
earlier this week (January 3, 2000), EPA proposed a TMDL for phosphorus
for Lake Okeechobee. When it became clear that, under its rulemaking
procedures, the State would not be able to meet the court-ordered
deadline for establishing this TMDL, EPA assumed responsibility and has
proposed a total annual load of 198 metric tons of phosphorus for Lake
Okeechobee, including phosphorus deposited from the air (71 metric
tons). This is an important step forward because, a TMDL is the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and maintain water
quality standards, and this TMDL sets the restoration goals for Lake
Okeechobee. We estimate the proposed phosphorus loading represents a 68
percent reduction from the 1997 load, and will take public comment on
the proposed TMDL until March 17, 2000.
But the true test will come with the actual implementation of this
TMDL. One thing is very clear: successful implementation will require a
collaborative process--one similar to the highly successful
collaborative process that has characterized the larger Everglades
ecosystem restoration effort. I am pleased to report that, earlier this
week, EPA took steps to start a collaborative process that will focus
on the implementation of the TMDL for Lake Okeechobee. In the overview
of the proposed TMDL, EPA suggested that the Lake Okeechobee Issue Team
continue its fine work and form the nucleus of a larger collaborative
team that will include representatives of all interested stakeholder
groups. This team will be charged with exploring options and developing
alternatives for implementing the TMDL to ensure restoration of Lake
Okeechobee. We are fully committed to this collaborative process, and
intend to be active participants in it. We also recognize that long-
term restoration of Lake Okeechobee depends upon a strong Federal
commitment to the successful completion of the public works projects
called for the in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which
are essential to improving and restoring the water quality of the lake.
I would also like to commend the State and the agricultural
community for the actions they have taken to begin restoring Lake
Okeechobee. Many of the farmers in the watershed have implemented best
management practices and have taken other steps to reduce the
phosphorus loads entering the lake. And many of the farms on the South
side of the levee have ceased backpumping nutrient-enriched water over
the levee and into the lake. These actions are to be applauded and
encouraged.
Finally, I want to acknowledge Governor Bush's recent announcement
that he is supporting new State legislation aimed at restoring Lake
Okeechobee. I encourage the State Legislature to act expeditiously on
this new legislation, and to follow the blueprint set forth in the
Everglades Forever Act by including regulatory programs for phosphorus
load reductions, interim and final milestones for action, and whatever
tools the State needs to help restore the heart of the Everglades
ecosystem: Lake Okeechobee.
closing
As the Administrator of the EPA, my responsibility for the
environment and public health spans this country's majestic landscape--
from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Great Lakes to the Gulf
of Mexico. But I--like all of us--have that very special place that
serves to remind me what is at stake if we don't prevail in our efforts
to protect our natural environment. And for me, that special place is
the Everglades on a glorious winter afternoon--the white mountains of
clouds suspended above the gently drifting river of grass and a wood
stork making lazy circles against the brilliant blue sky. The legacy of
this fragile ecosystem--and this image--depends on the actions we take
today.
As we enter this new century, we are on our way. We have the will,
we have the commitment, we have the technology to reverse the harmful
water management practices of the 20th century. We must not rest until
the job is finished--until all our children and their children and the
generations to come have the opportunity to grow up with water that is
safe to drink, air that is clean, and--here in Florida--with the
Everglades once again pulsing with life.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this hearing.
We appreciate the leadership and commitment of Chairman Smith and
Senator Graham, and look forward to working with the Committee on this
important endeavor.
______
Responses by Carol Browner to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1: Can you describe water quality issues in the Florida
Everglades and explain how the Restudy will maintain appropriate levels
of contaminants throughout the system?
Response. Major water quality concerns in the Everglades, as noted
in the testimony already provided, include phosphorus enrichment and
mercury contamination. As already discussed, a tremendous amount of
effort is underway to address the issue of phosphorus enrichment of the
Everglades. Other parameters of concern include specific conductance
(salts) in water discharged to Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge,
and occasional detections of pesticides at various locations. The
Restudy does not directly address the mercury contamination issue.
Several components of the CERP will result in improved water
quality conditions. Over 36,000 acres of treatment wetlands (Stormwater
Treatment Areas (STAs)), in addition to those currently being
constructed as required by the Everglades Forever Act, will be
constructed to treat urban and agricultural water before discharge into
public waters. Additionally, 172,000 acres of stormwater storage areas
(SSAs) are proposed. Although these areas will be primarily managed to
store water, they will simultaneously provide some water cleansing as
discussed in the answer to another question. These STAs and SSAs will
help water quality in several water bodies, including the Everglades,
Lake Okeechobee, and estuarine areas. Another essential feature of the
CERP is a Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Strategy. This
Strategy will identify pollution-impaired water bodies, quantify
pollution levels, establish pollution load reduction targets, recommend
potential source reduction programs, outline monitoring programs and
evaluate design and construction of treatment facilities.
Water quality protection and restoration is an essential component
of the CERP. It is not possible to get the water right without
simultaneously assuring that water quality is adequate for meeting
environmental, urban, and agricultural needs. The CERP assumes that
Florida's effort to control phosphorus loading to the Everglades is
successful by 2006, and other appropriate remediation projects are put
in place by state or local governments. However, water quality
protection is not an authorized purpose of the Central and Southern
Florida Project. EPA recommends that the Water Resources Development
Act (2000) contain language that specifically identifies improvement of
water quality for ecosystem restoration, protection and preservation as
a Central and Southern Florida project purpose.
EPA supports the Army Corps of Engineers' request that project
features needed to provide water of adequate quality be included to
help in restoring, protecting, and preserving the South Florida
ecosystem. EPA recommends that in doing this, applicable Federal water
quality standards, and applicable federally approved water quality
standards developed by the state or Indian tribes and the plans to
implement the standards should be taken into account.
Question 2: This year in the Interior Appropriations bill,
Congressman Regula called for the development of ``assurances''
language that would ensure that the park and natural systems in the
Everglades region receive adequate quantities of water. I know that the
Administration and the state are working very hard to develop this
language for inclusion into the Administration's WRDA proposal. Can you
describe for me the basic principles that you feel are critical
elements of this language and why?
Response. ``Getting the Water Right'' (quality, quantity, timing
and distribution) is absolutely essential to accomplishing the goal of
South Florida ecosystem restoration and the CERP is focused on doing
just that. Therefore, EPA strongly supports the development of language
that ensures the natural systems in the Everglades region receive
adequate and appropriate quantities of freshwater. However, we would
defer to the Department of the Army, Department of Interior, and the
Corps of Engineers to provide the specific WRDA language addressing
this need.
EPA believes it is equally critical that ``assurances'' language
addressing the need to restore and protect the water quality of the
natural systems also be incorporated into WRDA. In WRDA 1996, the
Project authorization was modified to include Environmental Protection
and Restoration. The following language was added:
(b)(4) General Provisions
(A) Water Quality--In carrying out activities described in this
subsection and sections 315 and 316, the Secretary
(i) shall take into account the protection of water quality by
considering
applicable State water quality standards; and
(ii) may include in projects such features as are necessary to
provide water to restore, preserve and protect the South Florida
ecosystem.
Although WRDA 1996 added this water quality provision, it is
discretionary. It also does not appear to apply to the existing project
features. As a result, EPA believes that consideration should be given
to amending the basic project purpose to include water quality as a
purpose equal to flood control and water supply.
Question 3: In your testimony, you mentioned that the wastewater
reuse plants in the Restudy would be eligible for SRF funding. However,
these plants are designed to provide water directly to Biscayne Bay
National Park, not for municipal wastewater treatment. In that case
please clarify if these projects would be eligible for SRF funding.
Response. Generally, the costs of capital upgrades for wastewater
treatment are eligible for loans under the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF). It is important to note, however, that local communities
typically are responsible for both repaying SRF loans and for covering
the costs of annual operation/maintenance for treatment plants.
Although projects like this are eligible, other sources of funding are
necessary because Miami-Dade County is under no obligation to apply for
loans or to improve treatment to a level suitable for Biscayne National
Park or the Bird Drive-Everglades Basin wetlands. The purpose of the
facilities is to provide clean freshwater to the environment during the
dry season when the other restudy components will not have enough extra
water available for the Biscayne Bay/Everglades restoration effort.
______
Responses by Carol Browner to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1: I understand that polluted runoff is now being
discharged, untreated, through the canal system into Florida Bay and
the Biscayne Bay. What does the Administration propose to do to address
this problem and ensure that water quality standards are met all the
way down to the Florida Keys?
Response. The CERP contains two components that will help prevent
the discharge of untreated runoff through the canal system. The
Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (feature FFF) include 13,600 acres of
wetlands near the Biscayne Bay coast that will be rehydrated in order
to reduce pollutant transport into the Bay. Surface water now entering
the Bay through canals will be redistributed as surface water
sheetflow, restoring or enhancing freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands,
and near-shore bay habitat such as nursery areas for fish and
shellfish. The sheetflow through wetlands will also cleanse water
before it reaches the Bay while simultaneously reducing abrupt
freshwater discharges that stress nearshore bay habitats and aquatic
life.
Similarly, the C-111N Spreader Canal (feature WW) will improve
water deliveries to Florida Bay by restoring sheetflow and minimizing
canal pulse discharges. This feature also includes a stormwater
treatment area in case it is needed to assure that clean water is
delivered to the Bay. All other water that flows into Florida Bay (the
majority of flow to the Bay) is sheetflow that travels up to 30 miles
through the pristine marshes within Everglades National Park before
reaching Florida Bay. This water is very clean before it reaches the
Bay.
The Administration has another major effort underway independent of
the CERP to address water quality concerns in the Florida Keys. The
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program
was initiated by EPA in coordination with the Department of Commerce
and the State of Florida, as required by the U. S. Congress in the 1990
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act. The
Sanctuary includes 2800 square nautical miles of nearshore waters
encompassing the Florida Keys. This Program recommends priority
corrective actions and compliance schedules to address point and non-
point sources of pollution to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the Sanctuary. It includes
restoring and maintaining populations of corals, shellfish, fish and
wildlife, while providing recreational activities. Two major components
of this program that have been developed are a Wastewater Master Plan
that addresses sewage collection, treatment and disposal throughout the
Keys, and the Stormwater Master Plan that addresses stormwater runoff
to coastal waters throughout the Keys.
Question 2: In your testimony, you stated that the CERP
(Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) does not limit the
Stormwater Treatment Areas (STA) to the 36,000 acres being proposed. Is
more such area needed for additional STAs? Is 36,000 acres not
adequate? How many STAs have been completed and how many need to be
completed? Please comment on the effectiveness of this method of
reducing the levels of pollutants such as phosphorus and mercury.
Response. The STAs proposed in the CERP are included to ensure that
the quality of waters to be rerouted/discharged as a result of the
numerous drainage and storage modifications anticipated are adequate to
protect the quality of the downstream receiving waters. As discussed
below, the use of STAs to restore the water quality is based on
experience from other Everglades restoration projects in South Florida.
The size and general location of the CERP STAs were based on modeling
efforts by the COE. But this is intended to be a dynamic process, as
additional information is developed, the underlying assumptions may
change. As part of the CERP a Comprehensive Water Quality Protection
Plan for South Florida is to be developed. Through that effort it is
very possible that the need for additional STAs could be identified.
Currently, the only STAs in existence or being designed or
constructed are those required to be constructed within the Everglades
Agricultural Area under a Federal/State consent decree and the State of
Florida's Everglades Forever Act (EFA). Under the EFA, to date, STA 1-
West (6,670 acres) and STA 6 (2,280 acres) are operational and
construction of STA 2 (6,430 acres) and STA 5 (4,118 acres) is nearing
completion. STA 1-East (5,350 acres) and STA 3/4 (16,480 acres) are
currently being designed. Once completed the total effective treatment
area for all six STAs will be approximately 41,300 acres. The CERP
tiers off of these ongoing projects and assumes the EFA projects will
be fully implemented.
In accordance with the EFA, which required agricultural Best
Management Practices, the STAs are being designed and constructed to
achieve an interim target of 50 ppb (parts per billion). To date, the
Everglades Nutrient Removal (ENR) Project , the prototype stormwater
treatment area, has been effective at removing phosphorus. Results from
the ENR Project have validated the premise that treatment wetlands
(i.e. STAs) constructed on former agricultural lands can effectively
remove total phosphorus from Everglades Agricultural Area runoff and
achieve the interim outflow concentration limit of 50 ppb specified in
the EFA. In fact, the ENR Project, now part of STA 1-West, is exceeding
its performance objective in terms of phosphorus concentration and load
reduction. During the first 5 years of operation, the project outflow
concentrations have averaged 22 ppb and load reductions have exceeded
82 percent. It should be noted that these reductions in phosphorus
loading have occurred during the early stages of STA operation, and
they may not be representative of future long-term performance. The
evidence to date, however, supports the basic assumptions and design
parameters used in planning the STAs, and they are expected to achieve
the goals of the EFA.
Methylmercury, a very toxic, organic form of mercury, is produced
naturally through biotic processes in Everglades peat soil from some of
the inorganic mercury present in stormwater runoff and rainfall. Once
converted, methylmercury is accumulated by aquatic organisms. On an
annual average basis, during its operational lifetime, the ENR project
has removed between 50 percent and 75 percent of the mercury from
inflow water. According to findings reported in the 2000 Everglades
Consolidated Report by the South Florida Water Management District,
``operating the Stormwater Treatment Areas with higher flows and deeper
water during high rainfall years is likely to maximize the removal
efficiency of both total mercury and methylmercury.'' However, since
more than 95 percent of the recent total mercury load to the Everglades
each year is from atmospheric deposition and most of it is downstream
from the ENR, the ENR can make only a very limited contribution to
reducing mercury levels in fish in the Everglades.
Question 3: In your written statement, you mention that the water
storage areas, ``will render major water quality benefits to both
inland and coastal waters and benefits to the wetland habitat of the
Everglades ecosystem.'' Can you explain what specific benefits you
envision? How will storing water in limestone quarries improve coastal
water quality? Do you expect that the stored water will effectively be
treated in some way through storage?
Response. A pervasive ecological/water quality problem in South
Florida is the pulse flows of huge quantities of fresh water to
estuaries during wet periods which result in extreme salinity
fluctuations and place tremendous stress on the biological community
residing in those estuaries. The above ground storage facilities
proposed in the CERP would first function to capture large volumes of
wet season freshwater flows that would otherwise be directly discharged
to the estuaries. The waters could then be released at a later time in
a more gradual manner such that the salinity fluctuation experienced by
the estuaries would be significantly reduced. For example, with the
above ground and ASR storage facilities proposed in the Lake Okeechobee
area, the problematic pulse flows currently experienced by the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries are projected to be virtually
eliminated.
The operating depth for the vast majority of the above ground
storage facilities proposed in the CREP is 6 feet. At this depth it is
anticipated that these storage facilities will become populated with a
wide variety of submersed and emergent aquatic plants. Along with the
physical settling of solids and contaminants associated with those
solids we expect the aquatic plant community in the storage facilities
to also provide additional water quality treatment to the stored
waters. In addition to the water quality improvements associated with
the relatively shallow storage facilities, we anticipate that these
facilities will offer desirable habitat and attract a wide variety of
birds, mammals, fish and reptiles, thus contributing to the biological
health and abundance of the region.
An additional water quality benefit that may well be realized by
the above ground water storage facilities proposed on the former
Talisman properties in the Everglades Agricultural Area is that of peak
flow attenuation (flow equalization) for waters entering STA 3/4 (one
of the STAs required under the EFA). By providing a more uniform inflow
volume to the STAs, it is likely that the treatment capability of the
STAs could be enhanced, thus producing a better quality of water to be
discharged to the Everglades.
The waters to be stored in the limestone quarries in northwest
Miami-Dade County (Lake Belt Area) are expected to provide the same
benefits to the coastal estuaries as the above ground storage
facilities already discussed. Freshwater that would otherwise be
discharged through the canals to Biscayne Bay in a pulsed flow manner,
would be stored.
The waters to be stored in the central Lake Belt quarries will come
primarily from the nearby Everglades water conservation areas during
wet periods and will be returned to the water conservation areas during
drier times. The stored water should be of good quality since it
originated in the water conservation areas and not need much, if any,
treatment prior to its discharge back to the water conservation areas.
The ecological benefit derived from this water storage scenario is the
water level relief provided to the water conservation areas. High water
levels can cause significant damage to the critical tree island
habitats and to the animal populations in the water conservation areas.
Storing water in the nearby limestone quarries should provide some
relief from those high water levels.
The waters to be stored in the limestone quarries in the northern
Lake Belt region will come primarily from the nearby urban canals.
Obviously, these waters will contain some levels of contaminants. Due
to the deep and quiescent nature of the quarries it is anticipated that
some of the contaminants will be removed through physical settling. The
stored water then will be returned to the canal system where it should
help to recharge the Biscayne Aquifer. To ensure that the waters to be
discharged are of acceptable quality, contiguous stormwater treatment
areas are proposed in the CREP, if needed.
In order to store the water in the quarries, the sides of the
quarries will be either lined or have slurry walls installed to prevent
the lateral migration of the waters out of the quarries. These liners
would also act to prevent the lateral migration of pollutants
discharged to the quarries from the urban canals. Lining the bottom of
the quarries is not currently proposed, and the extent of vertical
migration of the pollutants needs to be further investigated.
The quarries in the northern Lake Belt region which will receive
the waters from the urban canals are far enough away from the Miami-
Dade County well fields that contamination problems are not
anticipated. However, as this storage concept is further refined, more
investigative work on that issue will be needed.
Question 4: At the hearing, you seemed unclear about the presence
of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the State of Florida. Can you
clarify for the record whether CSOs pose a problem, particularly in the
southern half of the state. Would an increase in population such as
that being expected over the next 50 years impact the current system in
any manner?
Response. We are not aware of any CSOs in the State of Florida.
Unlike most northern cities, the sanitary sewer systems in Florida are
relatively new and most were constructed as separate systems. Some time
ago the City of Sanford had a combined sewer system which was, in fact,
problematic with respect to downstream water quality. Through the use
of Construction Grants and local funds those systems were separated a
number of years ago.
Approximately 10 years ago a problem with Sanitary Sewer Overflows
(SSOs), compounded by a minor contribution from a small area with a
Combined Sewer System, was identified in the Metropolitan Miami area.
These problems are currently being corrected as a result of a Federal
Consent Decree and a State of Florida Settlement Agreement with the
Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Authority.
Due to the density of development expected with the projected
population increases over the next 50 years, we anticipate that most of
this development will be served by new or expanded separate sanitary
sewers. However, in some of the more isolated or less densely developed
areas wastewater treatment and disposal using septic tanks serving
single family homes also will occur undoubtedly. Construction of
combined sewers is not allowed under state law. Construction and
operation of the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems
to serve this expanded population will continue, as usual, to be
expensive and challenging especially with regard to how to reuse or
dispose of the treated wastewater.
Question 5: Is EPA concerned that injecting billions of gallons of
water into approximately 300 underground storage facilities in the
upper Floridan aquifer will result in the concentration of that stored
water with the salt water that currently exists in the aquifer? If the
storage facilities were to leak and salt water were to intrude, what
would be the potential costs to treat the water?
Response. The reason the ASR wells are proposed in the CERP is a
recognition of the very critical need to have a system to store water
during the wet season for use during the dry season. Because of
increased urban and agricultural water needs, and the fact that South
Florida has been so extensively ditched and drained, Florida needs more
water at different times of the year, and at the same time it has lost
a significant amount of its capacity to store water. In general there
is either too much water during the wet season or too little water
during the dry season. With the construction of the C&SF project the
groundwater table over thousands of square miles of South Florida was
significantly lowered to alleviate flooding problems in urban and
agricultural areas. During the wet season, the C&SF system is operated
to rapidly drain off excess water. Because this water is rapidly
drained to tide during the wet season, during the dry season there
sometimes isn't enough water to satisfy all of the urban, agricultural,
and natural system needs of the region. As the area grows these
extremes will be exacerbated without the above ground and ASR wet
season water storage components proposed in the CERP.
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding how the proposed
aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facilities would actually work. The
proposed facilities would involve injecting a maximum of 5 million
gallons/day/well of fresh water from various surface water sources such
as Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River during the wet season
through an injection well into the relatively shallow (1000 to 1500
feet deep) Floridan aquifer. The total capacity of all of the proposed
wells would be approximately 1.65 billion gallons/day. Since the
Floridan aquifer in the area is brackish, the ``storage'' concept is
that the injected freshwater would form a ``bubble'' that actually
``floats'' on top of the denser brackish aquifer water. Therefore, at
the interface between the freshwater bubble and the brackish aquifer,
the waters would be in direct contact. There are no actual physical
facilities (storage tanks) that will be constructed underground to
store the injected water. The water is actually stored in the voids
(spaces) that exist within the formation materials (limerock).
Therefore, there are no physical facilities to ``leak.'' Depending on a
number of factors, such as the transmissivity of the aquifer, the
amount of interaction/mixing between the brackish and freshwaters will
vary. If done properly, however, the mixing should be minimal. This
physical solution, which must be engineered in Florida, actually
simulates the natural equilibrium that occurs between salt and fresh
waters in most coastal areas.
For the 200 wells envisioned to be located around Lake Okeechobee,
the proposal is for the waters to be withdrawn from the wells and
discharged back into the lake or into nearby surface waters. Since Lake
Okeechobee is a freshwater lake EPA would be very concerned if there
was significant mixing of the injected waters with the brackish aquifer
waters such that the waters to be discharged back to the lake had a
high salinity concentration, a low dissolved oxygen level or a
significantly different pH. In the CERP, the Corps did provide some
cost estimates for minimal water quality treatment facilities,
primarily to re-aerate the recovered water, if needed. The cost
estimate for re-aerating the recovered water from the Lake Okeechobee
ASR wells was $ 3.0 million. The cost estimates are very preliminary.
The proposed ASR Pilot Projects should help address the need to treat
the recovered water and provide more accurate estimates of the costs of
that treatment.
For some of the other proposed ASR wells the water would be
withdrawn and pumped directly to drinking water treatment facilities.
The Floridan aquifer waters are brackish. If the upper Floridan aquifer
was currently used as a source of drinking water, membrane treatment
technology would have to be used to treat those waters to produce a
finished drinking water. With the injected water, if the ``freshwater
bubble'' is maintained, the pumped water will not be brackish and would
not require significant additional treatment, provided other
contaminants are not present. If the ``bubble'' did not remain intact,
the salinity of the withdrawn water would be lower than the Floridan
aquifer, but would most likely require additional treatment.
There are 333 ASR wells proposed in the CERP; 200 wells around Lake
Okeechobee, 44 wells along the Caloosahatchee River, 30 wells near the
proposed Site 1 impoundment, 34 wells along the C-51 Canal, 15 wells
near the Ag. Reserve reservoir, and 10 wells along the L-8 Canal.
According to the Corps of Engineers, all of the waters to be withdrawn
from the ASR wells would first be returned to either the surface water
body from which the injected water was originally obtained, or
discharged directly to the proposed impoundments/reservoirs. The wells
are to be used primarily to store waters that are currently discharged
to tide.
In order for the withdrawn waters to be discharged directly back to
the surface water bodies, or to existing or proposed reservoirs/
impoundments, the salinity concentrations would have to be low enough
so that water quality problems/violations would not result. In a few
cases, the waters would be discharged to an existing or proposed
reservoir that is, or would be, used as a surface water supply for
local drinking water treatment facilities. In these instances, through
permit conditions, the salinity concentrations would not be allowed to
reach problematic levels. Therefore, if the injected waters and the
brackish Floridan aquifer waters do mix significantly at specific
wells, resulting in high salinity concentrations, those ASR wells could
not be used as proposed. In order for the ASR wells to be successful,
and useful, the freshwater ``bubble'' must not mix significantly with
the brackish Floridan aquifer waters.
During the development of the ASR storage concept as part of the
CERP, several local water utilities did propose the concept of taking
the waters withdrawn from the ASR wells directly to existing or new
drinking water facilities. In all of these instances, the existing or
proposed facilities would use a membrane treatment technology,
primarily to satisfy current drinking water criteria and to also remove
the chlorides from their brackish, upper Floridan, source waters. It
costs approximately $1.30 to $1.40 per thousand gallons for a membrane
treatment facility versus $1.00 per thousand gallons for a lime
treatment facility.
Question 6: What potential alternatives does the Administration
have at this time should the Aquifer Storage and Recovery system not
work on the scale proposed by the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. If the ASR components are not as successful as expected,
then it is likely that the CERP would be adjusted to include more above
ground surface water storage. It is expected that the acreage and
volume capacity of currently proposed above ground reservoirs,
especially in the vicinity of Lake Okeechobee, could be increased. It
is also likely that the depths of the proposed reservoirs could be
increased. However, even with this increase in storage capacity the
ability to capture and store wet season freshwater flows across South
Florida for use in environmental restoration purposes would be reduced
if planned ASR facilities are unsuccessful.
Although ASR facilities were first used in Florida in 1982, ASR
wells have never been used on such a large scale and in such a variety
of geologic conditions as proposed in the CERP. An Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Team has been formed to work through the various surface
water, hydrogeological, and water quality uncertainties. Since
implementation of ASR facilities is expected to occur incrementally
over a 20 year period, there will be ample time for re-evaluations.
Pilot projects will evaluate the effectiveness of the technology. If
ASR use is reduced or eliminated, other features will be substituted.
__________
Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works
Rescuing an Endangered Ecosystem: The Plan to Restore America's
Everglades
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Joseph Westphal,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Sitting with me today
is Mr. Michael Davis, my Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Legislation. Also, with me is Colonel Joe Miller and members of his
staff from the Jacksonville District. We are pleased to be here today
to present the Administration's and the Army's views on an important
national issue the restoration of America's Everglades.
An American treasure is in trouble. Once the Florida Everglades was
a vibrant, free-flowing river of grass that provided clean water from
Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay. It was a haven for storks, alligators,
panthers and other wildlife and was critical to the health of estuaries
and coral reefs. Today this extraordinary ecosystem--unlike any other
in the world--is dying.
Over the past half-century, as the population of south Florida has
grown, the health and size of the Everglades have steadily declined.
Fully half the Everglades have been lost to agriculture and
development. And the surviving remnants suffer from a severe shortage
of clean, reliable water. In our efforts to guard communities against
flooding and to ensure adequate water supplies for drinking and
irrigation, we have diverted the natural water flows that are the
essence and very lifeblood of the Everglades.
As Marjory Stoneman Douglas said in The Everglades: River of Grass,
``There are no other Everglades in the world.'' Like the tropical
rainforest of South America and the giant redwood forest of the west,
the Everglades is a unique ecosystem. We must act now, and act
aggressively, if we are to save this special place.
On July 1, 1999, the Vice President, on behalf of the
Administration, and in partnership with the State of Florida, submitted
to Congress a comprehensive plan to restore the South Florida
ecosystem, which includes the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee, Florida Bay,
and Biscayne Bay. This Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP), which will be implemented over the next 25 years, will:
Improve the health of over 2.4 million acres of the south
Florida ecosystem, including Everglades National Park;
Improve the health of Lake Okeechobee;
Virtually eliminate damaging freshwater releases to the
estuaries;
Improve water deliveries to Florida and Biscayne bays;
Improve water quality; and
Enhance water supply and maintain flood protection.
The CERP, which was formally known as the ``Restudy,'' is the most
ambitious ecosystem restoration project ever undertaken in the United
States--if not the world. Its fundamental goal is to capture most of
the fresh water that now flows unused to the sea and deliver it when
and where it is needed most. Eighty percent of this ``new'' water will
be devoted to environmental restoration, reviving the ecosystem from
the Kissimmee River, through Lake Okeechobee, through Everglades
National Park, to the coral reefs of Florida Bay. The remaining 20
percent will benefit cities and farmers, enhancing water supplies and
supporting a strong, sustainable economy for south Florida. In short,
the CERP provides the necessary road map for improving the quantity,
quality, timing, and distribution of the water so vital to the health
of America's Everglades and the people of south Florida.
The CERP was developed under the leadership of the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. Scores of
scientists from many agencies, including the Everglades National Park,
two Indian tribes, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
and many local governments, have helped develop this plan. Extensive
input has been gathered from interest groups and the general public.
Twelve formal public meetings were held as well as scores of focused
interest group meetings.
While the CERP reflects the best available science, we are prepared
to refine our thinking as we learn more. Thus the CERP is designed to
be flexible, to incorporate and respond to new information as it
becomes available. Continuous monitoring and independent scientific
review are key components of the CERP. Still, we cannot wait for all
the answers to begin. There is too much at stake and little time to
act.
The Problem
The Everglades of today are not the same place that Mrs. Douglas
wrote about in 1947. Millions of people have encroached upon the
ecosystem that once was the domain of panthers, alligators and flocks
of birds so vast that they would darken the sky. With the arrival of
people came the desire to manage the water, to tame the free flowing
river of grass from Lake Okeechobee to the Florida Keys.
The Central and Southern Florida Project was authorized by Congress
50 years ago to provide flood protection and fresh water to south
Florida. This project accomplished its intended purpose and allowed
people to more easily live on the land. It did so, however, at
tremendous ecological cost to the Everglades. While the population of
people has risen from 500,000 in the 1950's to more than 6 million
today, the numbers of native birds and other wildlife have dwindled and
some have vanished. The size of the Everglades has been reduced by
half.
Over the past 100 years, excessive drainage of wetlands and changes
in the natural variability of water flows have altered the Everglades
wetland ecosystem on a regional scale. Today, discharges to the
Everglades are often too much, or too little, and frequently at the
wrong times of the year. An over-abundance or scarcity of water affects
plants and wildlife accustomed to the Everglades' historic range of
water flows, levels and seasons. In addition, canals and highways that
criss-cross the Everglades have interrupted its historic overland sheet
flow.
Water quality throughout south Florida has deteriorated over the
past 50 years. More than one-half of the wetlands that act as natural
filters and retention areas are gone. Some untreated urban and
agricultural storm water is sent directly to natural areas and
estuaries. Too much, or too little, water is often sent to estuaries.
Too many nutrients are entering the Everglades, with an over-abundance
of cattails a visible indicator of the consequences.
Historically, most rainwater soaked into the ground in the region's
vast wetlands. As south Florida developed, the canal system built over
the past 100 years worked effectively and drained water off the land
very quickly. As a result, approximately 1.7 billion gallons of water
per day on average is discharged to the ocean. One very significance
consequence is that not enough water is available for the environment.
Under current conditions, these natural systems cannot recover their
defining characteristics and they will not survive. The growing demand
for a reliable and inexpensive supply of water for agriculture,
industry and a burgeoning population will likely exceed the limits of
readily accessible sources. As the needs of the region's natural
systems are factored in, as they must be, conflicts for water among
users will become even more severe. Water shortages will become more
frequent and more severe unless changes to the water management system
are made. The health of the ecosystem will continue to decline unless
we act.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
First and foremost, the goal of the CERP is to restore, protect and
preserve the south Florida ecosystem. The focus of the CERP has been to
restore the defining ecological features of the original Everglades and
other parts of south Florida ecosystem.
Both the problems with declining ecosystem health and the solutions
to Everglades restoration can be framed by four interrelated factors:
quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water. The principal
goal of restoration is to deliver the right amount of water, of the
right quality, to the right places and at the right time. The natural
environment will respond to these hydrologic improvements, and we will
once again see a healthy Everglades ecosystem. The CERP consists of
over 60 components that work together to accomplish this.
Quantity Significantly less water flows through the ecosystem today
compared to historical times. As noted above, on average, 1.7 billion
gallons of water that once flowed through the ecosystem is wasted each
day through discharges to the ocean or gulf in excess of the needs of
the estuaries. The CERP will capture most of this water in surface and
underground storage areas where it will be stored until it is needed.
Specifically, this water will be stored in more than 217,000 acres of
new reservoirs and wetlands-based treatment areas, and 300 underground
aquifer storage and recovery wells. These features vastly increase the
amount of water available in south Florida.
Quality The quality of water in the south Florida ecosystem has
been diminished significantly. Excess phosphorus, mercury, and other
contaminants harm the region's surface water and groundwater. The water
quality of the Everglades Water Conservation Areas, the coastal
estuaries, Florida Bay and the Keys show similar signs of significant
degradation. The CERP will improve the quality of water discharged to
natural areas by first directing it to surface storage reservoirs and
wetlands based stormwater treatment areas. In addition, the CERP
recommended the development of a comprehensive integrated water quality
plan for the region that will further improve water quality.
Timing Alternating periods of natural flooding and drying, called
hydroperiods, were vital to the Everglades ecosystem. These natural
hydroperiods have been severely altered by human activities. Restoring
these variations in water flows and levels is an integral part of the
CERP. Specifically, the timing of water held and released into the
ecosystem will be modified by the CERP so that it more closely matches
natural patterns. The CERP will reduce the harmful water levels that
damage Lake Okeechobee and its shoreline. Improved water deliveries to
the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers will reduce damage to the
estuaries caused by too much or too little fresh water. Florida and
Biscayne bays will receive improved fresh water flows. In other areas,
an operational plan that mimics natural rainfall patterns will enhance
the timing of water sent to the Water Conservation Areas, Everglades
National Park, and other wildlife management areas.
Distribution The areal extent and movement of water through the
system is the final factor in the water equation. Over 50 percent of
the original Everglades have been lost to urban and agricultural
development. Further, the remaining ecosystem has been separated, or
compartmentalized, by canals and levees. To improve the connectivity of
natural areas, and to enhance sheetflow, more than 240 miles of levees
and canals will be removed within the Everglades. Most of the Miami
Canal in Water Conservation Area 3 will be filled and 20 miles of the
Tamiami Trail will be rebuilt with bridges and culverts, allowing water
to flow more naturally into Everglades National Park. In the Big
Cypress National Preserve, the levee that separates the preserve from
the Everglades will be removed to restore more natural overland water
flow.
In summary, the CERP will store much of the excess water that is
now sent to the sea so there will be enough water to meet the needs of
both ecosystem and urban and agricultural users. The CERP includes a
number of features to improve the quality of water flowing to the
natural environment. It will continue to provide the same level of
flood protection for south Florida. The CERP is not perfect no plan
could be given the complexity of the ecosystem and the effects of past
modifications. We know that we do not have all the answers and that we
will have to make adjustments as we learn more. In this regard, the
concept of adaptive assessment is an integral part of the CERP. In
short, we will monitor, use independent peer review, public input, and
make necessary adjustments as we go, utilizing the effective
interagency and multi-stakeholder partnerships that allowed us to
develop the CERP.
Why Restore the Everglades?
Perhaps first and foremost, the Everglades are an American treasure
that is in serious trouble. There is no other wetland system like the
``River of Grass'' in the world. As with other great natural and
cultural resources, we have a responsibility to protect and restore
this treasure for generations to come.
Implementing the CERP over the next 25 or so years will cost
approximately $7.8 billion. While the cost of the project is
substantial, it will be spread over many years and shared equally
between the Federal Government and the State of Florida. More
importantly, the environmental and economic costs of inaction are
enormous. The Everglades will continue to die and water shortages will
have real effects on Florida's economy.
The benefits to the Nation of implementing the CERP are tremendous.
The entire south Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades, will
become healthy, with many of its natural characteristics restored.
Urban and agricultural water users will also benefit from enhanced
water supplies. Flood protection, so important to hurricane-prone south
Florida, will be maintained and, in some cases, improved.
The economic benefits from implementation of the CERP are wide-
ranging and are linked with the availability of clean, abundant water
in the ecosystem. Not only is water the key to ecosystem restoration,
it is also necessary for sustainable agricultural and urban
environments. It is important for recreation, tourism and navigation.
It plays a significant and obvious role in commercial and recreational
fishing.
With the CERP, the distribution of plants and animals will return
to more natural patterns as more pre-drainage water flows are restored.
The CERP will support the return of the large nesting ``rookeries'' of
wading birds to Everglades National Park, and the recovery of several
endangered species, including the wood stork, snail kite, Cape Sable
seaside sparrow, and American crocodile. We are confident that
implementation of the CERP will allow us to once again witness an
abundance of wildlife in the Everglades.
Lake Okeechobee, which is regionally important to fish and
wildlife, will once again become a healthy lake. Both the shallow and
open water areas within the lake, essential to its commercial and
recreational fishery, will be greatly enhanced by improved water
levels. This will mean more abundant and healthier fish populations.
Water quality in the lake will also be improved significantly by
reducing the pollutant loading of water flowing into the lake.
The CERP will also improve fresh water deliveries to Florida and
Biscayne bays and the St Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries.
Appropriate fresh water regimes will result in substantial improvements
in aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats, including, mangroves, coastal
marshes, and seagrass beds Interacting together to produce food,
shelter, and breeding and nursery grounds; these coastal habitat areas
will support more balanced, productive fish, shellfish, and wildlife
communities.
In short, the CERP will begin to reverse, in a relatively short
time, the pattern of ecological degradation that has been occurring in
the natural system for many decades. If we start now, the natural
wetlands system of south Florida will be healthier by the year 2010.
Like many other public works projects, implementing the CERP is an
investment in the nation's future. With this investment, we can restore
this unique ecosystem and leave a proud legacy for future generations.
If we do not make the investment now, we will suffer the irretrievable
loss of the Everglades.
The estimated cost to implement the CERP is $7.8 billion. It will
also cost approximately $182 million each year to operate, maintain,
and monitor the CERP. Taken together over the more than 20 years needed
to implement the CERP, the annual costs amount to just over $400
million. In general, the Federal Government will pay half the cost and
the State of Florida and the South Florida Water Management District
will pay the other half.
The Restoration Effort Begins with Authorization in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000
In early 2000, the Administration will ask the Congress to
authorize an initial package of projects that will begin implementation
of the CERP. This request for authorization will be made through a
proposed Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The initial
authorization request will include 1) four pilot projects; 2) ten
specific project features; and 3) a programmatic authority through
which smaller projects can be quickly implemented. Authorization for
the remaining 26 proposed projects will be requested in subsequent
Water Resources Development Act proposals beginning in 2002.
Pilot projects will address technical uncertainties. Prior to full-
scale implementation, six pilot projects, costing about $97 million,
will be built to address uncertainties with some of the features in the
CERP (two of these pilot project were authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999). These six projects include aquifer storage
and recovery in each geographic region that the technology is proposed;
in-ground reservoir technology in the lake belt region of Miami-Dade
County; levee seepage management technology adjacent to Everglades
National Park; and advanced wastewater treatment technology to
determine the feasibility of using reuse water for ecological
restoration.
Initial set of construction features will provide immediate system-
wide water quality and flow distribution benefits and use already
purchased land. Ten projects, totaling $1.1 billion, are recommended
for initial authorization. These projects were selected because they
can provide system-wide water quality and flow distribution benefits to
the ecosystem as well as opportunities to integrate these features with
other ongoing Federal and State restoration programs. For example, if
authorized, we could update the ongoing Modified Water Deliveries
Project to make it more consistent with the CERP by taking immediate
steps to improve flow distribution through the Tamiami Trail. In
addition, the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S.
Department of the Interior have already purchased lands, such as the
Talisman lands, for a number of CERP components. Authorization of
projects that use lands already purchased will ensure that these lands
are utilized for restoration as soon as possible.
Programmatic authority will expedite implementation. An
authorization will be sought similar to the authorization received in
1996 for Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Projects (Critical Projects).
These projects would ``produce independent, immediate, and substantial
restoration, preservation and protection benefits,'' and expedite some
components of the CERP. The programmatic authority would be limited to
those individual components of the CERP that have a total project cost
of $70 million or less, with a maximum Federal share of $35 million per
project. A total of 27 components of the CERP, with a total combined
Federal and non-Federal cost of $490 million, could be implemented in
an efficient and expedited manner. Components such as the Arthur R.
Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge internal canal
structures, the Lake Okeechobee watershed water quality treatment
facility and the Florida Keys tidal restoration project could be
accomplished under this programmatic authority.
The remainder of the CERP's features to be included in future Water
Resources Development Acts. Congress will be asked to authorize the
remaining components of the CERP as more detailed planning is
completed. At a cost of approximately $6.2 billion, the 26 remaining
features will undergo additional studies and analysis before
authorization is sought from Congress. Many of these project components
are dependent on the results of the proposed pilot projects such as
aquifer storage and recovery features and the in-ground reservoirs in
Miami-Dade County. Based on the implementation schedule, project
reports will be submitted to Congress periodically through the year
2014.
Implementation of the CERP provides flexibility to adapt to new
information. No plan can anticipate how a complex ecosystem will
respond during restoration efforts. For example, the remaining
Everglades are only one-half as large as their original size and
current boundaries often do not follow natural ground elevations or
habitat patterns. For these and many other reasons, the ways in which
this ecosystem will respond to the recovery of more natural water
patterns could include some unforeseen outcomes. The CERP anticipates
such outcomes. The CERP is designed to allow project modifications that
take advantage of what is learned from system responses, both expected
and unexpected. Called adaptive assessment, and using a well-focused
regional monitoring program, this approach will allow us to maximize
environmental benefits while ensuring that restoration dollars are used
wisely. The monitoring program measures how well each component of the
plan accomplishes its objectives, and, this, in turn, sets up
opportunities for refinement of succeeding components. Independent
scientific review through a National Research Council ``Science
Advisory Review Panel'' is an integral part of this process.
Project Implementation Reports bridge the gap between the CERP and
detailed design. To continue project implementation, more technical
information is needed. Additional plan formulation and engineering and
design will be developed. Additional analysis of the impacts of the
various projects on the environment, flood protection, water quality,
economics and real estate will be developed as will supplemental
National Environmental Policy Act documents. Evaluation of component
contributions to CERP performance will also provide more information
toward the overall process and provide opportunities for the overall
refinement or modification to the CERP as needed. The results of these
efforts will be documented in a series of Project Implementation
Reports. These Project Implementation Reports are designed to bridge
the gap between the conceptual level of the Comprehensive Plan and the
detailed design necessary to proceed with construction.
Public involvement key to CERP implementation. Continued outreach
and public involvement are vital to the successful implementation of
the CERP. In this regard, we will engage the public and stakeholder
groups fully as each feature of the plan is sited, designed, and
evaluated in detail. This will play a key role in shaping the details
of numerous features of the CERP.
Conclusion
July 1, 1999, was a historic day for ecosystem restoration. An
unprecedented ecosystem restoration plan was presented to Congress for
authorization. The CERP represents the best available science and a
solid roadmap for restoring an American treasure, the Everglades. The
CERP also represents a partnership between many Federal agencies, two
Indian tribes, the State of Florida, and many local governments--all
who recognize the import of this effort and the consequences of
inaction. This partnership is vital to our long-term success and we
must all work to ensure that it is sustained.
The CERP is also a reflection of the contemporary Army Corps of
Engineers. An agency that has made environmental restoration a priority
mission.
Restoration of the Everglades is a high priority for the Clinton/
Gore Administration, including the Army Corps of Engineers. It is a
high priority for many in Florida, including the Florida Congressional
delegation. We must make it a priority for the Nation. The Everglades
are America's Everglades and each of us should try to understand better
the importance of saving this treasure.
The ecological and cultural significance of the Everglades is equal
to the Grand Canyon, the Rocky Mountains or the Mississippi River. As
responsible stewards of our natural and cultural resources, we cannot
sit idly by and watch any of these disappear. The Everglades deserves
the same recognition and support.
We are now at an important crossroad in our efforts to restore this
internationally important ecosystem. The future of the CERP now rests
with the Congress who must authorize and fund its implementation. If we
act now with courage and vision to implement the CERP we will be
successful and we will leave a proud Everglades legacy. If we fail to
act, our legacy will be one of lost opportunities for all future
generations. The world is indeed watching as we make this choice.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. For the record, we have
included a copy of Rescuing an Endangered Ecosystem: The Plan to
Restore America's Everglades. This document provides a more detailed
summary of the CERP and includes important graphics that help
illustrate many of the points made in this statement.
Again, it has been a pleasure to participate in this hearing and we
look forward to working with you, Senator Graham, and the rest of the
Committee on this important issue. Mr. Davis and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. What potential alternatives does the Administration
have at this time should the Aquifer Storage and Recovery system not
work on the scale proposed by the Comprehensive Plan? What evidence is
there to give the Administration confidence that the system will work
on the scale being proposed?
Response 1. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is generally defined
as ``the storage of water in a suitable aquifer through a well during
times when water is available, and recovery of the water from the same
well during times when it is needed.'' (Pyne, 1995) ASR facilities have
been in operation in the United States for about 30 years. According to
a report entitled ``Aquifer Storage and Recovery Issue Team Assessment
Report and Comprehensive Strategy'' prepared for the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Working Group in July 1999, the first
ASR facility in Florida was permitted in 1982 and the State had six
operational ASR facilities, with an additional 12 under construction in
February 1998. In Florida, ASR is used to store surplus freshwater
during the rainy summer season, for later use during the usually dry
winter season. These facilities range in capacity from 1 to 15 million
gallons of water per day. Also, a number of raw (untreated) ground
water ASR facilities are currently under construction or in process of
testing in Florida. Although a number of possible sources of water are
available for use with ASR (treated surface and ground water, raw
surface and ground water, reclaimed water), the technology itself is
the essentially the same for each source.
The use of ASR is increasing nationally since, with appropriate
quality of the injected water, it creates few environmental impacts, is
less expensive than many other water storage options, and can
efficiently store water for later retrieval. Implementation of the
planned ASR facilities in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP) is expected to take up to 20 or more years. The first stage will
be a pilot program to test the ASR feasibility in specific locations
such as around Lake Okeechobee. The Corps received authorization for
the construction of two ASR pilot projects in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999. These projects included a pilot facility along
Hillsboro Canal in southern Palm Beach County and a pilot project at
the northern half of Lake Okeechobee. The Administration's legislative
proposal will request authorization of a third pilot project along the
Caloosahatchee River to complete the ASR testing. As a result of the
pilot program and future modeling, the decision to either develop more
ASR wells or end the development will be made. If the decision is to
continue the development of more ASR wells, periodic evaluations will
be made as the program progresses. If the decision is to discontinue
ASR development, other options will immediately be evaluated as
substitutions for ASR to make-up for performance reductions. Potential
alternatives to the proposed ASR components may include: increasing
storage quantity by raising water levels in Lake Okeechobee; deepening
proposed surface water storage reservoirs or providing additional
storage reservoirs in the system; and developing alternative water
sources, including water reuse facilities, desalination features, and
use of Florida Aquifer water with treatment. After considering the
efficiencies, ecological impacts, land requirements, and costs, the ASR
was considered the best alternative to achieve the objectives of the
CERP.
Question 2. Dr. Westphal, it is my understanding that under the
present system, 70 percent of water deliveries are devoted to urban/
agricultural use and 30 percent to the environment. The CERP calls for
80 percent of the so-called ``new water'' that is captured under the
plan to be devoted to the environment and 20 percent to urban/
agricultural use.
Question 2a. Was the 80-20 split a scientific determination based
on what would be most beneficial to the environment?
Response 2a. Yes. Hydrologic performance measures and ecological
outputs were developed for each area of the ecosystem based on
scientific analysis of ecosystem needs. These performance measures,
which involved four interrelated factors: quantity, quality, timing,
and distribution of water, were used to evaluate the performance of the
CERP. Following that analysis, a water budget analysis of the Plan was
conducted. The CERP will capture most of the water that is wasted each
day through discharges to the ocean or gulf in surface and underground
storage areas where it will be stored until it is needed. Eighty
percent of this captured water will be devoted to environmental
restoration. The remaining 20 percent will benefit cities and farmers,
enhancing water supplies and supporting a strong, sustainable economy
for south Florida well into the 21st Century.
Question 2b. Are there safeguards in place to ensure that, indeed,
80 percent of the ``new water'' will be delivered to the Everglades
ecosystem?
Response 2b. The primary and overarching purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan is to restore the south Florida ecosystem.
Accordingly, to ensure the successful implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan, the Corps will continue to work with the Department
of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal
agencies and the State of Florida to develop the necessary assurances
to ensure that the natural system benefits are achieved and maintained.
The assurances will address the proper quantity, quality, timing, and
distribution of water for the natural system.
A major strength of the CERP is that its flexibility allows for
opportunities to make further improvements as we refine individual
projects and obtain new information. It contains an aggressive adaptive
assessment strategy that includes independent scientific peer review
and a process for identifying and resolving uncertainties. Operational
rules are critical to maintaining the benefits of ecosystem restoration
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. We will monitor and periodically
revise our rules regarding the operation of the Central and Southern
Florida Project to ensure that the hydrologic and ecological benefits
anticipated in the Plan are maintained. This recurring evaluation of
operational rules is appropriate considering that the restoration
project is justified on the basis of environmental benefits. Further,
the Administration's proposed legislation to authorize the Plan will
include assurance language on the future evaluation of project features
and to ensure that the benefits to the natural system will be achieved,
maintained and preserved.
Question 2c. In the case of a dry year, if an optimal amount of
water is not captured, does the split remain 80-20 or does the
environment have ``first dibs,'' so to speak?
Response 2c. The distribution of water at any moment in time will
be based on the needs of the natural system as identified by a rainfall
model. The Everglades naturally experienced dry periods and we would
expect to mimic these conditions. Operational rules and procedures
established as part of the implementation process for the CERP will
ensure that the ecosystem receives water based on the natural system
need during dry years. The Administration's proposed legislation will
include appropriate assurance language to ensure that the benefit to
the natural system will be maintained and preserved.
Question 2d. Would the expected increase in Florida's population or
development of urban areas of South Florida impact the proposed
delivery of new water?
Response 2d. No. The Comprehensive Plan was formulated and
evaluated with full recognition of the anticipated increase in
population in south Florida over the next 50 years. Therefore, the Plan
will be able to deliver the appropriate amount of water to the
ecosystem with an increased population.
Question 2e. How do you respond to criticism that this restoration
effort is nothing more than a water supply plan?
Response 2e. The existing Central and Southern Florida Project,
which was first authorized in 1948, is a multi-purpose project that
provides flood protection, water control, regional water supply for
agricultural and urban uses, prevention of salt water intrusion into
coastal wellfields, preservation of fish and wildlife resources, and
recreation. Regional water supply is provided by the project through
the maintenance of ground water levels, recharge of ground waters, and
prevention of saltwater intrusion rather than through direct withdrawal
of water.
The CERP consists of 68 components. Of the 68 components that
comprise the Plan, only 11 components provide direct or indirect water
supply for urban or agricultural uses. If the Plan had been developed
as a single-purpose ecosystem restoration plan, 10 of those 11
components would not have been significantly different since they would
still need to capture and store water needed for restoration. Together
these features provide the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution
of flows to the ecosystem. [Example, one of the cells in the proposed
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) reservoir catches EAA runoff that
would otherwise flood the water conservation areas. This same cell also
releases that water to the EAA for agricultural water supply. That in
turn reduces the EAA's reliance on Lake Okeechobee for water supply in
the dry season. This reduced reliance of the EAA on Lake Okeechobee
ensures that more water is available to the natural system. Thus, this
single reservoir area within the EAA provides water supply and water
quality to both the Everglades ecosystem as well as to urban and
agricultural users.]
Finally, the overarching purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to
restore, preserve, and protect the south Florida ecosystem, while
providing for the other water-related needs of the region. The
overwhelming majority (80 percent) of ``new water'' captured by the
Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the natural system. This will
ensure that the ecosystem will receive the water it needs for
restoration.
Question 3a. WRDA 1996 stipulates that Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) shall be a non-Federal responsibility. Yet the CERP proposes that
the Federal Government assume 50 percent of this cost, estimated to be
$182 million a year once all components of the project are implemented.
How does the Corps justify this extra Federal expenditure?
Response 3a. Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide clarification on
the recommended O&M cost sharing for the Plan. The Jacksonville
District's Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy) completed in April 1999
recommended 50-50 cost sharing for annual O&M of the Plan. This
recommendation was based on their determination that the Plan will
provide substantial benefits to Federal lands. The Chief of Engineers
report recommended O&M cost sharing in accordance with the Water
Resources Development Act of 1996 that established O&M is a non-Federal
responsibility. When I transmitted the CERP to Congress on July 1,
1999, my letter indicated that this is a very important issue that will
require further review before I could make a final recommendation. In
this regard, the Army's legislative proposal will include my
recommendation on O&M cost sharing on behalf of the Administration.
Question 3b. I understand that Everglades National Park, Biscayne
National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, and Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge will all benefit from the proposed plan. If that is the
case, then shouldn't the Department of Interior be sharing the cost of
O&M since these are DOI administered lands?
Response 3b. The CERP will provide benefits to DOI administered
lands including Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National
Preserve, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and Biscayne Bay. The
Chief of Engineers recommended that O&M is a non-Federal responsibility
in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, and
therefore, no consideration was given to potential funding for O&M from
DOI or other Federal agencies. We are currently engaged in discussions
within the Administration on this issue and the Army's legislative
proposal will include my recommendation on O&M cost sharing on behalf
of the Administration.
Question 4. What would be the effects on the ecosystem if
implementation of the Plan were delayed and only pilot projects
authorized in WRDA 2000? Alternatively, what if authorization of some
of the pilot projects were delayed?
Response 4. The features of the CERP which are recommended for
authorization in WRDA 2000 include projects that are necessary to
expedite ecological restoration of the Everglades and other south
Florida ecosystems. Authorization of these features in WRDA 2000 will
ensure maximum integration with ongoing Federal, State, and local
ecological restoration and water quality improvement programs. The
immediacy for authorization of these select features involves two
factors: (1) efficiency with ongoing projects; and (2) realizing the
benefits of Federal investments already undertaken. Authorization of
these features in WRDA 2000 will maximize the opportunity to integrate
them with other ongoing Federal and State programs. It is anticipated
that this would ultimately result in substantial cost savings to the
Federal Government while expediting the restoration of an ecosystem in
serious trouble. Furthermore, the South Florida Water Management
District and the U.S. Department of the Interior have purchased lands
associated with a number of components of the Comprehensive Plan,
including nearly 51,000 acres of land as a result of the purchase and
exchange of the Talisman property in the Everglades Agricultural Area
(EAA) for water storage. Immediate authorization of the components that
use these lands will improve timing of environmental water deliveries
to the Water Conservation Areas including reducing damaging flood
releases from the EAA to the Water Conservation Areas, reduce Lake
Okeechobee regulatory releases to estuaries, meet supplemental
agricultural irrigation demands, and increase flood protection within
the EAA.
Pilot projects are needed to address technical uncertainties
associated with some of the physical features that are proposed in the
Comprehensive Plan. To ensure that the Comprehensive Plan is
implemented in a timely manner, it is necessary to expedite the pilot
projects. These pilot projects are designed to determine the
feasibility, as well as optimum design, of the features prior to
embarking on the full-scale development of these features. Therefore,
any delay in authorizing and implementing the pilot projects will
result in an even greater delay in implementing features that are
dependent on the result of the pilot project.
Question 5. I believe there is some confusion as to what the
process is going to be for authorization of the Comprehensive Plan. For
the record, could you break down the different components of the Plan
and when the Administration expects to request authorization (i.e. in
what WRDA bill?).
Response 5. The process and schedule for authorizing the CERP and
its components was developed based on an analysis of the scheduling of
plan features and ongoing Federal and State programs, such as the C-111
Project and the Everglades Construction Project. The process for
obtaining authorization of the Comprehensive Plan includes:
a. Congressional approval of the CERP as the appropriate framework
or roadmap for Everglades restoration;
b. Initial authorization of a specific set of key components in the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000;
Projects Recommended for Authorization in WRDA 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Cost Construction Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir..... $112,562,000 6/04-6/07
Everglades Agricultural Area $233,408,000 9/05-9/09
Storage Reservoirs Phase I.
Site 1 Impoundment............... $38,535,000 9/04-9/07
WCA 3A/3B Levee Seepage $100,335,000 9/04-9/08
Management.
C-11 Impoundment & Stormwater $124,837,000 9/04-9/08
Treatment Area.
C-9 Impoundment/Stormwater $89,146,000 9/04-9/07
Treatment Area.
Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough $104,027,000 1/05-1/09
Storage and Treatment Area.
Raise and Bridge East Portion of $26,946,000 1/05-1/10
Tamiami Trail and Fill Miami
Canal within WCA 3.
North New River Improvements..... $77,087,000 1/05-1/09
C-111 N Spreader Canal........... $94,035,000 7/05-7/08
Adaptive Assessment and $100,000,000
Monitoring Program (10 years).
TOTAL........................ $1,100,918,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Authorization of four pilot projects;
Projects Recommended for Authorization in WRDA 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Cost Construction Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calooshatchee River (C-43) Basin $6,000,000 10/01-10/02
ASR.
Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir 23,000,000 06/01-12/05
Technology.
L-31N Seepage Management......... 10,000,000 10/01-10/02
Wastewater Reuse Technology...... 30,000,000 09/03-09/05
TOTAL........................ 69,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Future Congressional authorization of components in subsequent
WRDAs;
Projects Requiring Authorization Beyond WRDA 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential
Project Cost WRDA Construction Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L-31N Improvements for Seepage Management and S- $184,218,000 2002 10/05-10/10
356 Structures.
Bird Drive Recharge Area....................... $124,083,000 2002 12/08-12/13
C-23/C-24 Storage Reservoirs................... $369,316,000 2002 6/05-5/09
C-25/Northfork and Southfork Storage Reservoirs $340,907,000 2004 7/06-5/10
Seminole Big Cypress Water Conservation Plan $75,288,000 2004 6/05-6/08
East & West.
C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir & Aquifer Storage $440,195,000 2004 4/05-3/12
and Recovery.
C-51 Regional Groundwater Aquifer Storage and $132,336,000 2004 9/08-9/13
Recovery.
Palm Beach County Agricultural Reserve $124,099,000 2004 8/09-8/13
Reservoir and Aquifer Storage and Recovery.
Water Preserve Area / L-8 Basin................ $415,182,000 2006 9/07-9/14
Site 1 Aquifer Storage and Recovery............ $92,844,000 2006 10/10-10/14
Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands.................. $299,583,000 2006 5/12-5/18
Caloosahatchee Backpumping with Stormwater $82,895,000 2008 9/11-9/15
Treatment.
Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery... $1,097,312,000 2008 7/10-6/20
Everglades Agricultural Storage Phase 2........ $203,240,000 2010 7/12-12/15
North of Lake Okeechobee Storage Reservoir..... $284,854,000 2010 9/11-9/15
Water Conservation Area 3 $59,204,000 2012 1/15-1/19
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow
Enhancement.
Central Lake Belt Storage Area................. $489,861,000 2012 2/15-12/36
North Lakebelt Storage Area.................... $516,061,000 2012 2/16-6/36
Diverting Water Conservation Area 2 and 3 Flows $79,657,000 2012 2/14-2/18
to Central Lake Belt Storage.
West Miami Dade County Reuse................... $437,237,000 2014 6/16-6/20
South Miami-Dade County Reuse.................. $363,024,000 2014 6/16-6/20
TOTAL...................................... $6,211,396,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. A programmatic authority similar to the existing Critical
Projects authority contained in WRDA 1996. This authority, if provided
by Congress in WRDA 2000 will allow the Corps to expedite
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan through modifications to the
Central and Southern Florida Project that are consistent with the CERP
and that will produce independent and substantial benefits. The total
Federal cost for any project implemented under this authority would not
exceed $35,000,000. If Congress provides this programmatic authority,
these projects would not require additional authorization but would
require appropriate technical analyses and documentation of
environmental effects in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act before work begins.
f. Implementation of some components will not require further
congressional action. These include:
Projects Not Requiring Congressional Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Operational change only; implement
when appropriate as other
facilities come on line
Environmental Water Supply Operational change only; implement
Deliveries to the Caloosahatchee when appropriate as other
Estuary. facilities come on line
Environmental Water Supply Operational change only; implement
Deliveries to the St. Lucie when appropriate as other
Estuary. facilities come on line
Everglades Rain Driven Operations.. Operational change only; implement
when appropriate as other
facilities come on line
Change Coastal Wellfield Operations Operational change only
Modified Holey Land Wildlife Implement under existing state
Management Area Operation Plan. process
Modified Rotenberger Wildlife Implement under existing state
Management Area Operation Plan. process
Lower East Coast Utility Water Implement under existing state
Conservation. process
Operational Modifications to Operational change only; implement
Southern Portion of L-31N and C- as part of C-111 Project
111.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 6. How does a Project Implementation Report compare to a
Feasibility Study?
Response 6. A Project Implementation Report (PIR) is a new type of
reporting document unique to the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem
restoration initiative. These documents will bridge the gap between the
conceptual nature of the CERP and the detailed design necessary to
proceed to construction. A PIR will be similar to a traditional Corps
feasibility report in that it will contain detailed information on the
planning and design of a component or series of components proposed for
implementation. Specifically, PIRs will develop the detailed technical
information to implement the project, including additional plan
formulation, engineering and design, detailed cost estimates,
environmental analyses, flood protection analyses, water quality
analyses, economic analyses, siting and real estate analyses, and
preparation of supplemental National Environmental Policy Act
documents. PIRs will also document a Plan component, or group of Plan
components, contribution to the CERP performance and describe any
needed refinements and modifications to the CERP resulting from the
detailed planning and design efforts.
The purpose of the PIR is to affirm, reformulate or modify a
component, or group of components, in the CERP. All planning analyses,
including economic, environmental, water quality, flood protection,
real estate, and plan formulation, conducted during preconstruction
design studies will be documented and included in PIRs. The PIR will be
the vehicle to identify, quantify and attempt to resolve any
uncertainties surrounding the cost and performance of each major
component. These uncertainties are not limited to hydrologic
performance of the specific structure component, but also include the
uncertainties surrounding the expected ecosystem response to the
component. A clear description of the expected environmental outcome of
each component will be included in the PIR. PIRs will typically be
completed in 18 to 36 months.
The PIRs for those projects recommended for initial authorization,
and projects implemented under the programmatic authority, would be
reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Army prior to
construction. All other PIRs for future projects would be submitted to
the Congress for authorization similar to traditional Corps feasibility
reports.
Question 7. What is the Administration's position on authorizing
this measure as stand-alone legislation, separate from a WRDA package?
Response 7. Both the Administration and the Congress have committed
to the biennial WRDA process as the proper vehicle for authorizing all
Army Corps of Engineers water resources projects. We believe that this
is the best approach for authorizing the CERP.
Question 8a. Is it reasonable to expect that there is going to be
``equity'' between states on how much money is expended on Corps Civil
Works projects?
Response 8a. Yes, and we believe we are equitable in our
distribution of funding. We use no criteria that is designed to favor
Civil Works projects in any one state. Ceilings are allocated
proportionally to the individual divisions based on workload. The
states that expend the most money are the states that have the most
pressing needs and/or largest Civil Works projects.
Question 8b. Can you list the ten states that have received the
most funding to date?
Response 8b. The ten states that have received the most
Construction, General funds over the last 10 years are shown in the
table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number State Total $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ CA 1,520,303,640
2............................................ LA 1,472,034,653
3............................................ TX 893,325,572
4............................................ WV 805,291,279
5............................................ IL 776,743,127
6............................................ KY 741,220,454
7............................................ WA 644,700,231
8............................................ OR 561,682,650
9............................................ NJ 448,774,638
10........................................... PA 442,688,415
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 9a. Regarding the $27 billion backlog, are all the
projects in the backlog current? That is, is there a portion of these
projects that are poised to be automatically deauthorized under the
conditions of the 1986 act?
Response 9a. Yes, there are. Two ongoing projects have two
separable elements each that are included in the list of projects that
are eligible for deauthorization that the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Civil Works) submitted to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives on 15 October 1999. $78 million
is included on the backlog list for two elements of the Central and
Southern Florida project, Martin County Backflow and Martin County
Flood Control. Also included on the backlog list is $28 million for two
elements of the Ascalmore-Tippo-Opossum and Backwater-Rocky Bayou
elements of the Yazoo Basin, Mississippi project.
Question 9b. Does this $27 billion include studies or is it purely
from the construction account?
Response 9b. The construction backlog of $27 billion consists of
Construction, General and Mississippi River and Tributaries
construction projects and does not include studies.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. Twenty percent of the new water provided by the
Comprehensive Plan is for municipal and agricultural water supply. This
water supply will accommodate a growth in South Florida population from
its present level of 6 million to a projected level of 11 million by
2050. The Water Supply Act of 1958 and Section 103 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 make it clear that municipal water
supply is to be a 100 percent non-Federal responsibility. What is the
rationale for Federal participation on a 50-50 basis in the portion of
the Comprehensive Plan attributable to proving water supply for
municipal uses and to accommodate future population growth in South
Florida?
Response 1. The existing Central and Southern Florida Project,
which was first authorized in 1948, is a multi-purpose project that
provides flood protection, water control, regional water supply for
agricultural and urban uses, prevention of salt water intrusion into
coastal wellfields, preservation of fish and wildlife resources, and
recreation. Regional water supply is provided by the project through
the maintenance of ground water levels, recharge of ground waters, and
prevention of saltwater intrusion rather than through direct withdrawal
of water.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) consists of 68
components. Of the 68 components that comprise the Comprehensive Plan,
only 11 components provide direct or indirect water supply for urban or
agricultural uses. If the Comprehensive Plan had been developed as a
single-purpose ecosystem restoration plan, 10 of those 11 components
would not have been significantly different since they would still need
to capture and store water needed for restoration. Only one component,
the Broward County Secondary Canal Improvement component ($12.9
million), might not have been included in a restoration only plan. Most
of the components of the CERP are multi-purpose and cannot be
categorizes simply in terms of a single intended purpose such as
environmental restoration or urban or agricultural water supply.
Additional water conservation in the urban areas, which will decrease
water supply demand by approximately 6 percent more than the
conservation incorporated in the future without project condition, is
one of the components of the Comprehensive Plan. [For example, one of
the cells in the proposed Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) reservoir
catches EAA runoff that would otherwise flood the water conservation
areas. This same cell also releases that water to the EAA for
Agricultural water supply. That in turn reduces the EAA's reliance on
Lake Okeechobee for water supply in the dry season. This reduced
reliance of the EAA on Lake Okeechobee ensures that more water is
available to the natural system. Thus, this single reservoir area
within the EAA provides water supply and water quality to both the
Everglades ecosystem as well as to urban and agricultural users.]
Urban water supply in south Florida is currently met from two
sources: local groundwater pumping and deliveries from the regional
system (Lake Okeechobee and the Water Conservation Areas). During
normal years, the lower east coast draws most of its water supply
directly from the Biscayne aquifer. As water levels in the aquifer are
drawn down during dry years, water is then released from the Water
Conservation Areas to recharge the aquifer. Under more severe drought
conditions, water must be brought from Lake Okeechobee to meet the
needs of the lower east coast. With the CERP in place, the lower east
coast receives less water from the Water Conservation Areas and Lake
Okeechobee than under either the existing or future without project
conditions. It is important to note that much of the increased demand
for future water supply will be met by increased pumping from the
Biscayne aquifer.
Here, the vast majority of the water supply comes as an indirect
result of increasing water supply to the natural system. Thus, water
supply is inextricably linked to restoration, adds little if any
additional cost, and, therefore, it was recommended that it be cost
shared in the same manner as restoration.
Question 2a. The $1.1 billion of projects proposed for initial
authorization are developed only to a conceptual level of detail.
Information typically developed before a project is authorized has not
yet been developed including the exact location of project feature
(reservoir sites for example); the exact size and dimensions of project
features (levee heights, dam heights, pump sizes, etc.); the tracts of
land that will need to be acquired to construct the project,
engineering information such as subsurface exploration, detailed
topographic information, and hydrologic modeling; and other design
details. Please provide details on how the information developed for
the projects proposed for initial authorization studies compares to the
information normally developed in feasibility studies.
Response 2a. While the Comprehensive Plan report was written at a
level of detail that is less specific in nature than recent projects
recommended for congressional authorization, the feasibility report has
been completed in accordance with legislation and Army policy and
guidance. Further, the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) addresses the potential environmental effects of the actions
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Programmatic EIS addresses, at
a general level, the alternatives and environmental effects of the
overall project.
The Comprehensive Plan presented in the feasibility report is
similar in scope to the 1948 Comprehensive Report for the Central and
Southern Florida Project. The original plan provided a framework from
which all subsequent planning and design could follow. The plan was
general in nature and did not identify precise locations of project
features. Further, minimal alternative analysis was accomplished. At
that time, it was understood that more detailed alternative analysis
would be accomplished during subsequent planning and design. Hence, a
phased implementation of a comprehensive plan for south Florida was
recommended and implemented.
Further, due to the reduced level of detail, prior to initiation of
detailed design and construction, Project Implementation Reports will
be completed for each project proposed for authorization in WRDA 2000
and any project which will be implemented under the programmatic
authority. These reports will be approved by the Secretary of the Army
and will document advanced planning, engineering and design, real
estate analysis, and supplemental requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Question 2b. What are the risks if any in authorizing these
projects based on only conceptual information?
Response 2b. The Administration believes that there are minimal, if
any, risk associated with authorizing the initial ten projects
recommended in the CERP. A Chief of Engineer's Report has been
completed and these projects have been developed to sufficient detail
to support authorization. The CERP is a scientifically and economically
sound plan that provides the framework and guide for needed
modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project and related
actions that are integrally linked.
The effort to develop the CERP has been an open, collaborative
process involving Federal and state agencies, local government and
tribal participation. This inter-agency, inter-disciplinary process
ensured that the Plan evolved from a healthy diversity of backgrounds,
interests, and agency missions. The project components recommended for
authorization have been developed by scores of scientists and engineers
from many agencies and extensive input has been gathered from interest
groups and the general public. We recognize that there are technical
and cost uncertainties associated with some of the components included
in the CERP. As each component proceeds toward actual implementation,
technical uncertainties will be addressed through pilot projects and
more detailed analysis. We will develop contingency plans as necessary
during the implementation phase for appropriate components and
technologies to ensure that the benefits of the Plan are obtained.
To minimize potential risks associated with the conceptual nature
of the CERP, the Administration will propose assurance language in its
legislative proposal to address the evaluation and implementation of
project features. This language will state that prior to the initiation
of construction of project components and features in the CERP, the
Secretary of the Army will complete Project Implementation Reports
(PIRs), which will be similar to feasibility reports, to address the
project(s) economic justification, engineering feasibility, and
environmental acceptability, including National Environmental Policy
Act compliance. Prior to finalization, these PIRs will be coordinated
with appropriate Federal, state and local agencies, tribal governments,
public interest groups, and stakeholders. These reports would also be
subjected to the normal budgetary review process. The Administration
will propose that PIRs for the CERP components and features recommended
for authorization in WRDA 2000 be reviewed and approved by the
Secretary of the Army. All other PIRs for plan components and features
to be implemented in the future will be submitted to the Congress for
authorization.
The Plan is designed to be flexible, to incorporate and respond to
new information as it becomes available. Continuous monitoring and
independent scientific review are key components of the Plan. By acting
now, we can reverse the damage of the past and rescue this unique and
remarkable landscape.
The risks of not implementing this Plan and authorizing the initial
projects are severe. Reductions in the spatial extent of healthy
wetlands will continue. Species that require large expanses of natural
habitat, such as the Florida panther, snail kite, and wading birds,
will increasingly become stressed by the loss of habitats. Losses of
organic soils will continue to reduce water storage capacity and
ecological productivity throughout the ecosystem. Canals and levees
will continue to encourage the introduction and spread of exotic plants
and animals. Unnatural fire patterns will increasingly damage the
natural landscapes of south Florida. South Florida recreational and
commercial fishing will decline, both in freshwater Everglades and Lake
Okeechobee, and in the Caloosahatchee and Florida Bay estuaries.
Finally, the Everglades will cease to exist as a functional,
recognizable ``River of Grass.''
Question 2c. What precedent will be set in authorizing these
projects based on conceptual information?
Response 2c. The Everglades restoration effort is of national and
international significance. We consider the CERP as a unique initiative
that can be separated from traditional Corps projects. The projects
recommended for initial authorization are an integral part of an
overall Plan that will begin to reverse, in a relatively short time,
the pattern of ecological degradation that has been occurring in the
natural system for many decades. We recognize that this is an ecosystem
in peril, and time is of the essence. Implementation of the restoration
features as scheduled will provide substantial hydrologic, water
quality, and ecological benefits to the ecosystem by the year 2010.
Question 2d. Is the Administration prepared to seek authorization
of other water resources projects based on a conceptual level of
detail?
Response 2d. We are not proposing authorization of a project based
on only conceptual level of detail. The CERP, however, is a relatively
detailed plan. It is based on extensive analysis of problems and issues
and comprehensive modeling of conditions and options to be considered
for addressing the environmental restoration, water supply and flood
control needs of the region. These efforts have been ongoing for 7
years and included independent scientific review and input from all
affected and interested parties. We recognize there are unknowns as to
the full effectiveness of some of the proposed actions. To address
this, the plan allows early implementation of those actions that will
provide clear and significant benefits while other actions are more
fully evaluated as to need and scope based on effectiveness of initial
actions and pilot projects.
Question 3. The Chief of Engineers Report on the Comprehensive Plan
contains a commitment to complete the additional analysis that is
necessary to refine the Comprehensive Plan to deliver additional water
(approximately 245,000 acre-feet) to Everglades National Park and
Biscayne Bay, either by capturing additional runoff from urban areas or
by some other means. This additional water was not part of the report
of the District Engineer and was added at the Washington level. This
commitment was made without coordination with the State of Florida, the
Miccosukee tribe, agricultural interests and other members of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. While there is support for
examining the potential use of this additional, there is a widespread
concern about the economic and environmental feasibility of its use.
Can you describe the process that will be used to develop, review and
approve the plans for this additional water?
Response 3. In response to the October 1998 draft report on the
Comprehensive Plan, the Department of the Interior and other scientists
suggested that additional water was needed to ensure restoration of
Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay. The interagency team that
developed the Comprehensive Plan evaluated several options and
concluded that additional water would provide important benefits to
Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay. The principal remaining
questions are how to deliver this water without impacting other parts
of the ecosystem (e.g. the Water Conservation Areas), impacts on
secondary canals in Palm Beach County, and how much the water would
have to be cleaned before it could be delivered to the ecosystem. A
discussion of this proposal in general terms was included in the Corps'
final report that was released in April 1999. A letter clarifying this
issue was distributed with the report last April, and the commitment to
further study the delivery of additional water was discussed with and
endorsed by the Task Force. The Chief of Engineer's Report commits that
the Corps will prepare a Project Implementation Report by 2004 to
determine how much of the 245,000 acre-feet is necessary to restore
Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay. The evaluation will include
more detailed studies, an Environmental Impact Statement, and full
public review. Once this has been completed, a final executive branch
decision will be made and a proposal will be forwarded to Congress for
consideration in a Water Resources Development Act of 2004. Congress
would then have the opportunity to discuss and debate the proposal. In
short, construction would not start on this proposal until it has been
studied fully and congressional authorization is obtained.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. In your brief testimony, I know you did not have an
opportunity to discuss the restoration work that the Army Corps has
already conducted on the Everglades project. Can you describe these
projects and their status?
Response 1. There are a number of significant and important
restoration projects currently underway in South Florida. I will
briefly summarize these projects below:
a. The Kissimmee River Restoration Project involves the ecosystem
restoration of the historic floodplain to reestablish wetland
conditions resulting in the restoration of 27,000 acres of wetlands and
riverine habitat in the Kissimmee watershed. The project will be
accomplished through the backfilling of 22 miles of canal C-38,
modifications to the operation of the lakes, modification or removal of
several structures and canals, and excavation of about 9 miles of new
river channel. Construction was initiated in the fall of 1997 and is
scheduled to be completed in September 2009.
b. The West Palm Beach Canal Project (C-51) provides water quality
treatment, reduction of damaging freshwater discharges to Lake Worth,
and increased water supply for the Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, the Everglades and other users. Construction was initiated last
year. The eastern basin works are complete and work continues in the
western basin, which is scheduled for completion in March 2003.
c. Another project underway is the South Dade County Project (C-
111). Canal C-111 normally discharges into Florida Bay via overland
flow across the eastern panhandle of ENP and discharges into Taylor
Slough which ultimately also flows to Florida Bay. The project will not
only maintain existing flood protection to the southeast coast urban
areas, but will also minimize the need for damaging freshwater
discharges to Barnes Sound, restore more natural hydrologic conditions
to the Taylor Slough Basin in Everglades National Park and restore
historic freshwater flows to Florida Bay. Project construction was
initiated in Aug 1996 and is scheduled for completion in May 2003.
d. The Corps/DOI/South Florida Water Management District
partnership for Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park
will make structural modifications and additions to the Central &
Southern Florida Project (C&SF) enabling water deliveries for the
restoration of more natural hydrologic conditions in Everglades
National Park's Northeast Shark River Slough basin. Project
construction is scheduled for completion in Nov 2003.
e. Section 528 of WRDA 96 provided authority for Critical
Restoration Projects that would provide immediate, independent and
substantial restoration benefits. Last year we executed the first
Project Cooperation Agreement with the State of Florida for a carrying
capacity study of the Florida Keys and on 7 January 2000 the Corps
executed 7 more Project Cooperation Agreements with the South Florida
Water Management District and one with the Seminole Tribe of Florida to
implement the following projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Total Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Coast Canal (C-4)............................... $1,300,000
Tamiami trail Culverts............................... $8,336,000
Western C-11 Water Treatment......................... $9,630,000
Seminole Big Cypress Water Conservation.............. $49,332,000
Southern CREW/Imperial River Floodway................ $12,021,000
Lake Okeechobee Water Retention/Phosphorus Removal... $16,360,000
Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area................... $29,066,000
Lake Trafford........................................ $17,540,000
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study\1\.............. $6,000,000
------------------
TOTAL............................................ $149,585,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\PCA executed in Fiscal Year 1999
Design activities are currently underway, with the first
construction contracts scheduled for award later this year. All
projects are scheduled to be complete by September 2004.
f. Further studies underway will examine alternatives available for
protecting wetlands outside the remaining Everglades, as well as
coastal estuaries such as those in the St. Lucie estuary, Indian River
Lagoon and Biscayne Bay.
These ongoing projects were all considered in the development of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Each will
contribute to the overall goals to restore the quantity, quality,
distribution and timing of water to more natural conditions. As the
CERP is implemented, the current ongoing projects will be monitored to
ensure that they are optimally integrated into the overall effort.
Question 2. How are these initial projects similar or different
than what is being proposed in the Restudy?
Response 2. For the purposes of developing the CERP, the Restudy
team assumed that authorized/ongoing projects were in place and
operating. This assumption provided a basis for developing the future
``Without Project Condition'' which all alternative plans were compared
against. Since these projects had already been authorized, no attempt
was made to reevaluate the merits of these on going projects. Instead,
the team utilized data and reports developed for these projects to
determine if modifications were necessary.
Generally, the team determined that these projects provide an
important first step toward ecosystem restoration of the Everglades.
However, there are some projects, such as the Modified water Deliveries
Project, that will need to be modified based on the Comprehensive Plan.
To implement these modifications, the Restudy Team is working closely
with the Modified Water Deliveries team and other project teams to
ensure integration of these modifications. Further, to facilitate and
expedite these modifications, the Corps is recommending immediate
authorization of features that will have an impact to ongoing projects.
This initial authorization will ensure the development of comprehensive
solutions that otherwise could not be pursued under existing
authorities.
With regard to the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996
authorizes the Secretary of the Army to expeditiously implement
restoration projects that are deemed critical to the restoration of the
south Florida ecosystem. These projects are referred to as ``Critical
Projects.'' This authority resulted in an expedited study to identify
projects that would meet the criteria set forth in the authorizing
legislation. A total of 35 projects were nominated as Critical Projects
under this authority by the Working Group of the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. This nomination process involved
considerable input from the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
South Florida and the public. Based on the priorities developed during
the nomination process, the Corps of Engineers conducts an abbreviated
study and produces a letter report that is transmitted to the Secretary
of the Army to obtain approval for construction of the project. All
Critical Projects were considered as described above and included as
features for future implementation under the CERP due to funding
limitations under the Critical Projects authority.
Question 3. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we move forward with this project?
Response 3. The entire south Florida ecosystem, including the
Everglades, will become healthy, with many of its natural
characteristics restored. Urban and agricultural water users will also
benefit from enhanced water supplies. Flood protection, so important to
hurricane-prone south Florida, will be maintained and, in some cases,
improved.
Economic benefits from the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan
are wide-ranging and are linked with the availability of clean,
abundant water in the ecosystem. Not only is water the key to ecosystem
restoration, it is necessary for a sustainable agricultural and urban
environment. It is important for recreation, tourism and navigation. It
plays a significant and obvious role in commercial and recreational
fishing.
The Comprehensive Plan will provide for ecosystem restoration.
First and foremost, the goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to restore,
protect and preserve a natural treasure the south Florida ecosystem.
The focus of the Plan has been to restore the defining ecological
features of the original Everglades and other parts of south Florida.
In response to this substantial improvement, the characteristic animals
will show dramatic and positive responses. The numbers of animals--
crayfish, minnows, sunfish, frogs, alligators, herons, ibis, and
otters--at virtually all levels in aquatic food chains will markedly
increase. Equally important, the natural distribution of plants and
animals will return to more natural patterns as more pre-drainage water
flows are restored.
The Plan will support the return of the large nesting ``rookeries''
of wading birds to Everglades National Park, and the recovery of
several endangered species to more certain and optimistic futures.
Wading birds, such as herons, egrets, ibis and storks, are symbolic of
the overall health of the Everglades. As recently as the 1950's and
1960's, large ``super colonies'' of nesting waders remained in the
Park. Today there are none. Wading birds, perhaps more than any other
animal, ``assess'' the quality of the entire basin of south Florida
wetlands, before making ``decisions'' about where and when, or even
whether, to nest. The recovery of the super colonies will be a sure
sign that the entire ecosystem has made substantial progress toward
recovery. Of the endangered species, the wood stork, snail kite, Cape
Sable seaside sparrow, and American crocodile, among others, will
benefit and increase. We are confident that implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan will once again allow us to witness what is now only
a fading memory of the former abundance of wildlife in the Everglades.
Lake Okeechobee will once again become a healthy lake. Both the
shallow and open water areas within the lake, essential to the its
commercial and recreational fishery and other aquatic species, will be
greatly enhanced by the improved water levels as a result of the
Comprehensive Plan. This will mean more abundant and healthier fish
populations. Water quality in the lake will also be improved
significantly by reducing the pollutant loading of water flowing into
the lake. Lake Okeechobee provides huge regional benefits to wildlife,
including waterfowl, other birds, and mammals.
Major benefits will be provided to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie
estuaries, and Lake Worth Lagoon. The Comprehensive Plan eliminates
almost all the damaging fresh water releases to the Caloosahatchee and
most detrimental releases to the St. Lucie and makes substantial
improvements to Lake Worth Lagoon. As a result, abundant favorable
habitats will be provided for the many aquatic species that depend on
these areas for food, shelter, and breeding grounds, thereby enhancing
the productivity and economic viability of estuarine fisheries.
The Plan will also improve fresh water deliveries to Florida and
Biscayne bays. Appropriate fresh water regimes will result in
substantial improvements in aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats,
including, mangroves, coastal marshes, and seagrass beds Interacting
together to produce food, shelter, and breeding and nursery grounds,
these coastal habitat areas will support more balanced, productive
fish, shellfish, and wildlife communities.
Question 4. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we do not move forward with this project?
Response 4. Although some level of ecological improvement will
occur in the south Florida ecosystem as a result of implementation of
projects currently planned outside of the CERP, the cumulative,
regional benefits from these projects would not result in a sustainable
south Florida ecosystem. Specifically, based on an evaluation of
conditions in the year 2050 without the Comprehensive Plan, the overall
health of the ecosystem will have substantially deteriorated. Analyses
conducted during the feasibility study show that making modifications
to only some portions of the C&SF Project in order to achieve
sustainable natural systems will not succeed. Conditions without the
Comprehensive Plan in 2050 fail to meet the basic needs of the south
Florida ecosystem.
Demands placed on Lake Okeechobee result in damaging water levels
and extreme harm to the littoral zone. Damaging fresh water discharges
into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries result in major harm to
fisheries. Damaging high flows alter salinity balances in Lake Worth
Lagoon. Hydropatterns predicted for the Water Conservation Areas are
harmful to tree islands. Everglades National Park does not receive
enough freshwater flow to maintain important aquatic habitat in Shark
River Slough. Low flows to Florida and Biscayne bays also result in
harm to the resources in these areas. These ecological problems would
not be corrected solely by implementation of currently planned or
ongoing projects.
Question 5. Based on your view of how the Restudy authorization
process will move forward, will Congress' action in WRDA 2000 be the
first phase in a multi-stage authorization process or will this year be
the only time this project comes before Congress?
Response 5. No, this will not be the last time Congress is asked to
authorize CERP projects. The process and schedule for authorizing the
Comprehensive Plan and its components was developed using a phased
approach based on an analysis of the scheduling of plan features and
ongoing Federal and State programs, such as the C-111 Project and the
Everglades Construction Project. The process for implementing the
Comprehensive Plan through Congressional action assumes:
a. Congressional approval of the CERP in WRDA 2000 as the
appropriate framework for restoration;
b. Initial authorization of a specific set of key components and
pilot projects in the WRDA 2000;
c. A programmatic authority in WRDA 2000 similar to the existing
Critical Projects authority contained in WRDA 1996;
d. Future Congressional authorization of components in subsequent
WRDAs through 2014; and
e. Implementation of some components without further Congressional
action.
Question 6. Can you describe the consequences of beginning this
project without completing it?
Response 6. The Comprehensive Plan was designed using a set of
discrete project components that together work synergistically to
restore the Everglades ecosystem. Using your analogy, Everglades
restoration is like heart surgery--once you start you got to complete
it. While implementation of each component allows us to incrementally
improve conditions, restoration will not be achieved without the entire
project being completed.
Question 7. This year in the Interior Appropriations bill,
Congressman Regula called for the development of ``assurances''
language that would ensure that the park and natural systems in the
Everglades region receive adequate quantities of water. I know that the
Administration and the state are working very hard to develop this
language for inclusion into the Administration's WRDA proposal. Can you
describe for me the basic principles that you feel are critical
elements of this language and why?
Response 7. The Department of the Army's legislative proposal will
include assurance language addressing two issues: (1) the evaluation
and implementation of CERP project features; and (2) assuring project
benefits to provide clarity and certainty not only to natural system
managers but to the South Florida Water Management District in the
discharge of its water-use permitting function.
Regarding the evaluation and implementation of project features,
the Army is proposing legislation stating that prior to initiation of
construction of project components and features in the Comprehensive
Plan, the Corps will complete Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) to
address the project(s) cost effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and
environmental acceptability, including National Environmental Policy
Act compliance. During development, such reports shall be coordinated
with appropriate Federal, state and local agencies, tribal governments,
and the public. PIRs for features of the CERP authorized under this
legislation will be reviewed and approved by the Secretary.
Assurance language will also be included in the legislative
proposal to ensure that benefits to the natural system are achieved and
maintained. The primary and overarching purpose of the CERP is to
restore the south Florida ecosystem while meeting the other water
related needs of the region such as water supply and flood protection.
The Plan must be implemented in a manner that ensures that the natural
system benefits are achieved and maintained. These assurances must
address the proper quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water
for the natural system, while taking into account water supply and
flood protection.
Question 8. As you described in your testimony, some of the
projects submitted to Congress for authorization in WRDA 2000 will not
have the traditional, detailed feasibility study completed. Can you
provide justification for authorization given that situation?
Response 8. The features of the Comprehensive Plan which are
recommended for authorization in WRDA 2000 include projects that are
necessary to expedite ecological restoration of the Everglades and
other south Florida ecosystems. Authorization of these features in WRDA
2000 will ensure maximum integration with ongoing Federal, State, and
local ecological restoration and water quality improvement programs.
These features consist of pilot projects, initial construction features
and an adaptive assessment and monitoring program.
The immediacy for authorization of these select features involves
two factors: (1) efficiency with ongoing projects; and (2) realizing
the benefits of Federal investments already undertaken. This
authorization will allow for detailed development of future projects
under the Comprehensive Plan while maximizing the opportunity to
integrate those features with other ongoing Federal and State programs,
including the Modified Water Deliveries Project and the Everglades
Construction Project. This integration will allow development of
comprehensive solutions to ongoing Federal projects, such as the
Modified Water Deliveries Project, that could otherwise not be pursued
under existing authorities. It is anticipated that this would
ultimately result in substantial cost savings to the Federal
Government.
Furthermore, the South Florida Water Management District and the
U.S. Department of the Interior have purchased lands associated with a
number of components of the Comprehensive Plan, including nearly 51,000
acres of land as a result of the purchase and exchange of the Talisman
property in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) for water storage.
Immediate authorization of the components that use these lands will
ensure that these lands will be utilized and the benefits accrued as
soon as possible.
Question 9. Can you compare other projects authorized by Congress
that do not have a traditional detailed feasibility study with the
Restudy?
Response 9. Each feature of the Comprehensive Plan proposed for
authorization requires completion of a Project Implementation Report
reviewed and approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary
before implementation. The detail of evaluations in the PIR is
comparable to a Chief of Engineers report. The Congress has included
many project authorizations in recent WRDAs which require completion of
either a Chief of Engineers report or other comparable report that is
reviewed and approved by the Secretary before implementation.
Question 10. Regarding the property purchased by the Federal
Government in the Talisman transaction in 1998, can you identify what
benefit the use of these lands as a reservoir will bring to the
restoration project? Are these benefits wholly dependent on
construction of additional features called for by the plan? Are the
benefits dependent on use of the entire Talisman property or can use be
phased-in? Based on authorization of this reservoir in the initial
suite of projects, when do you anticipate the reservoir will be
operating?
Response 10. The EAA Storage Reservoir component includes above
ground reservoir(s) with a total storage capacity of approximately
360,000 acre-feet located on land associated with the Talisman Land
purchase in the EAA. The design for the reservoir(s) assumed 60,000
acres, divided into three, equally sized compartments with the water
level fluctuating up to 6 feet above grade in each compartment. The
Implementation Plan proposes to construct this component in two phases.
The first phase would include construction of the first two
compartments on lands purchased with Department of Interior Farm Bill
funds, with South Florida Water Management District funds, and through
a series of exchanges for lands being purchased with these funds. This
phased approach was developed consistent with the Farm Bill land
acquisition lease agreements.
The first phase of this component will improve timing of
environmental deliveries to the Water Conservation Areas including
reducing damaging flood releases from the EAA to the Water Conservation
Areas, reduce Lake Okeechobee regulatory releases to estuaries, meet
supplemental agricultural irrigation demands, and increase flood
protection within the EAA. Further, this component will reduce the need
to make damaging regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee to the St.
Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries and will help meet EAA irrigation
needs while increasing flood protection in the area.
Compartment 1 of the reservoir would be used to meet EAA irrigation
demands. The source of water is excess EAA runoff. Overflows to
Compartment 2 could occur when Compartment 1 reaches capacity and Lake
Okeechobee regulatory discharges are not occurring or impending.
Compartment 2 would be used to meet environmental demands as a
priority, but could supply a portion of EAA irrigation demands if
environmental demands equal zero. Flows will be delivered to the Water
Conservation Areas through Stormwater Treatment Areas 3 and 4.
This feature is currently scheduled for construction initiation in
September 2005 with completion in September 2009. The scheduled
construction start is based on the existing lease agreements that were
part of the Farm Bill land acquisition agreement.
Question 11. The Chief of Engineer's Report indicates that the
Corps will prepare a Project Implementation Report by 2004 analyzing
the impact of adding 245,000 acre-feet to Biscayne Bay and the
Everglades National Park. Can you explain the scope of that report and
indicate whether it will be circulated for public review and comment?
Response 11. The Project Implementation Report will determine how
much of the 245,000 acre feet is necessary to restore Everglades
National Park and Biscayne Bay. The evaluation will include more
detailed studies, an Environmental Impact Statement, and full public
review. Once this has been completed, a final executive branch decision
will be made and a proposal will be forwarded to Congress for
consideration in a Water Resources Development Act of 2004. Congress
would then have the opportunity to discuss and debate the proposal. In
short, construction will not start on this proposal until it has been
studied fully and congressional authorization is obtained.
Question 12. The Chief Engineer's Report indicates that the Corps
intends to provide 245,000 acre-feet of additional water to the
Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay. What is the anticipated
benefit from the addition of this water?
Response 12. In response to the October 1998 draft report on the
Comprehensive Plan, the Department of the Interior and other scientists
suggested that additional water was needed to ensure restoration of
Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay. The interagency team that
developed the Comprehensive Plan evaluated several options and
concluded that additional water, would provide important benefits to
Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay. The principal remaining
questions are how to deliver this water without impacting other parts
of the ecosystem (e.g. the Water Conservation Areas), impacts on
secondary canals in Palm Beach County, and how much the water would
have to cleaned before it could be delivered to the ecosystem. A
discussion of this proposal in general terms was included in the Corps'
final report that was released in April 1999. Letters clarifying this
issue were part of the public record that was available for review last
April.
Question 13. Is the Corps planning to accelerate the completion of
the North Lake Okeechobee and Central Lake Belt storage areas? How is
the Corps planning to implement this goal? When does the Corps plan to
have these storage areas completed?
Response 13. The Corps has committed to investigating the potential
of accelerating the implementation of these project components to
maximize early ecosystem restoration benefits. These features provide
significant storage capacity that significantly improves the ecologic
health of Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades. The North Lake Okeechobee
Storage Area is currently scheduled for completion in 2014. This
feature will help reduce eutrophication of the Lake and provide
significant water quality improvement and ecologic restoration of the
lake. The existing schedule for completing the first phase of the
Central Lake Belt Storage Area is 2021. However, the Corps has
committed to working with industry and local government to identify
ways to expedite this feature. Accelerating this feature will reduce
ecologically damaging high water levels in the Water Conservation Areas
and will help restore flow into Everglades National Park.
Question 14. The Chief Engineer's Report indicates that an
additional 245,000 acre-feet will be captured from urban runoff or by
some other means. If the Corps adds 245,000 acre-feet of water captured
from urban runoff to the Everglades system, will the PIR address
potential environment hazards from this water? What would the potential
method be for removing any contaminants?
Response 14. The Project Implementation Report will fully assess
the environmental impacts of capturing urban runoff and evaluate
potential treatment strategies. The types and extent of contaminants
and the potential methods for removing them can not be assessed until
the studies are completed.
Question 15. In Senator Voinovich's remarks, he mentioned the
Corps' ``backlog'' of projects in the state of Florida. Can you provide
me with a definition of the term backlog, a list of all such projects
in each state in the nation, and, for the Florida projects, the
legislative history including authorization and follow-on changes to
the authorization.
Response 15. The $27 billion backlog of construction projects
represents the unfunded, unconstructed portion beyond fiscal year 2000
for all the active, authorized projects. Tables showing the backlog
list (encl. 1) and the authorities for the Florida projects (encl. 2)
are attached.
__________
Statement of Mary Doyle, Counselor to the Secretary, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman, my name is Mary Doyle. I am Counselor to Secretary of
the Interior Bruce Babbitt. Secretary Babbitt has recently appointed me
to serve as Chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force. The Task Force is an interagency and intergovernmental entity
created by the Congress in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) to guide the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. I am
pleased to have the opportunity to address you today and I thank the
Committee for its leadership and true bipartisanship throughout this
effort.
Restoring the South Florida ecosystem is in its essence comprised
of numerous inter-related partnerships. It is a partnership between
agencies and departments of the Federal Government the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, among others. It is a partnership between the
executive branch and Congress; the executive branch and the Seminole
and Miccosukee Tribes; the executive branch and the State of Florida,
including its people and State and local levels of government. And it
includes the active involvement of concerned environmental and citizen
advisory groups. As demonstrated by the dynamic and well attended
conference where we meet today, these multiple partnerships reflect the
significance of the entire restoration effort for the future of South
Florida and the superlative natural resources located here.
An undertaking of this outstanding size, scope and ambition,
consisting as it does of numerous whirring parts or partnerships is not
simple or easy. These complex inter-relationships are required because
the effort here spans the entire ecosystem 18,000 square miles of land
and water stretching from the Chain of Lakes south of Orlando to the
coral reefs off the Florida Keys. The natural system within the region
contains areas with special designations such as outstanding Florida
waters, a national marine sanctuary, an international biosphere reserve
and numerous State and Federal parks, preserves and national wildlife
refuges, all of which are interconnected. The built environment is
equally complex, with more than 6.5 million residents, 37 million
tourists every year and a $200 billion economy, as well as 16 counties
and 150 municipalities. All of which depend upon clean and plentiful
supplies of fresh water produced by the natural system.
The goals of the effort, as you know, are three: (1) get the water
right: that is, to restore a more natural water flow to the region
while providing adequate water supplies, water quality and flood
control; (2) restore and enhance the natural system protecting natural
habitats and reestablishing threatened and endangered species; and (3)
transforming the built environment to develop lifestyles and economies
that do not degrade the natural environment and improve the quality of
life in urban areas. Our vision for the future is a landscape whose
health, integrity, and beauty are restored and nurtured by its
interrelationships with South Florida's human communities.
For many of the public agencies committed in this effort, both
Federal and State, the challenge of working on an ecosystem-wide basis,
with a dynamic and unfolding understanding of the interconnectedness of
the vast system, is new and unprecedented. Each of these agencies has
come to this partnership with its own set of authorities,
constituencies, traditions and funding sources. While inevitably we
have seen conflicts among these diverse partners at times, overall and
overtime the partnerships have brought a great deal of progress toward
the goal. For example, with the $200 million provided to us by Congress
in the 1996 Farm Bill, the Department of the Interior, together with
the State, has recently completed the acquisition of approximately
92,000 acres of land within the ecosystem, including the Talisman
acquisition, that is critical for increasing regional water storage
capacity and improving water quality and habitat. In addition, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, working with over 200 experts from Federal,
State, and local agencies, conservation organizations, and private
industry, developed a Multi-Species Recovery Plan for the imperilled
plants and animals of South Florida, representing a comprehensive
blueprint for restoring native plants and animals throughout the
Florida Everglades. Unprecedented in scope or scale, covering over
26,000 square miles in Florida's 19 southernmost counties, this plan
will guide the actions of all parties toward the recovery of the 68
federally listed threatened or endangered species of plants and animals
in South Florida.
I think all of us fortunate enough to be involved in this great
effort of restoration know that the ecosystem-wide approach, the need
to renew and resume ancient natural connections, is the call of the new
century. Restoration--a fuller understanding of how it is defined and
implemented--is the hallmark of a new era in natural resource
management and environmental policy. The pioneering quality of this
great effort in South Florida inspires each of us working within the
complex public and private partnership with a powerful motivation to
succeed. We must succeed, not only to secure the values sought in South
Florida, but in order to show others the way.
In July of last year, the Army Corps of Engineers, with local
sponsorship by the South Florida Water Management District, submitted
to Congress its Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive
Review Study (now known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan or Comprehensive Plan) to restore America's Everglades. The
Comprehensive Plan is a conceptual framework for structural and
operational changes to the Central and South Florida Project that will
result in restoration of the ecosystem over the next 20 years. The
Corps deserves enduring credit for working constructively with all
parties in developing the Comprehensive Plan. The Department of the
Interior fully supports the Comprehensive Plan with the assurances
provided in the Chief of Engineer's report accompanying its submission
to Congress. We believe the Comprehensive Plan provides a practical and
effective approach to ensure the long-term restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem while meeting future water supply and flood control
needs. We are eager to work with this committee and other Members of
Congress to obtain the necessary authorizations and funding to allow
the Corps of Engineers to proceed with implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
This Committee has asked the Department of the Interior to address
three issues in this hearing: (1) The future role of the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force in the overall effort; (2) The role of
the science advisory panel recently created by the National Academy of
Sciences at Secretary Babbitt's request to advise the Task Force; and
(3) Issues raised in the Comprehensive Plan for which the National Park
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibilities.
The Future Role of the Task Force
The Task Force first took life in 1993 through an inter-agency
agreement among the seven Federal agencies with key roles to play in
the Everglades ecosystem. The idea was for these Federal Agencies to
coordinate their plans and activities; the Department of the Interior
was designated as chair. The experience of the next few years, however,
during which the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District were developing the Comprehensive Plan, showed the
need for broader consultation and coordination among all the public
entities engaged in restoration planning. So in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, Congress established the Task Force in its
present form to include seven Federal agencies, the Seminole and
Miccosukee Tribes, the State of Florida, the South Florida Water
Management District, and two representatives of local government. It is
directed to coordinate the development of consistent policies and plans
for the ecosystem restoration, facilitate the resolution of interagency
and intergovernmental conflicts along the way, and coordinate
scientific research associated with the restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem. In the 1996 legislation, Congress also directed the
Task Force to establish a Florida-based Working Group including
representatives of its member agencies and entities, as well as other
governmental entities as appropriate. Today's Working Group has a
membership of 29, including representatives of State and local
government agencies with expertise to bring to the restoration effort.
Over the past several years, the Task Force and its Working Group have
worked closely with the Corps, providing advice on all aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan, and facilitating the development of agreement among
its members on significant issues addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Task Force will address several key issues in the future.
First, the Task Force will continue its consultation role with the
Corps to assist in timely implementation, as authorized by Congress, of
the Comprehensive Plan. Second, the Task Force, along with its Working
Group, will continue its traditional role of providing a forum for
planning and coordination among its member agencies. An extremely
important element of this continuing interagency planning will be its
work with the recently established Science Advisory Panel to ensure
that implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and the adaptive
assessment process will benefit at every stage from sound science.
Third, the Task Force is developing an Integrated Strategic Plan that
will synthesize existing plans and activities throughout the region and
serve as the framework for future adaptive management for the next 50
years. In this strategic planning process, the Task Force is engaging
community leaders and decisionmakers at all levels of government as
well as the private sector in an effort to achieve a common vision and
set of goals that will reflect the interrelationships of the natural
environment, the economy and society, as well as stressing the
dependence of each element upon the others. The Department expects to
submit this Integrated Strategic Plan to the Congress by July 31, 2000.
Finally, the Task Force will continue to report on a biennial basis to
Congress on, among other things, progress made toward restoration.
The Science Advisory Panel
For many decades, science has been the motivating engine in
alerting us to the environmental problems associated with the Central
and Southern Florida Project and in describing the needs and values of
Everglades restoration. Scientists have guided the establishment of
restoration goals and have identified approaches to achieve them. In
his 1993 speech to the Everglades Coalition, Secretary Babbitt declared
his strong commitment to science as the foundation upon which the
restoration effort would be built. Similarly, Congress directed the
Task Force to ``. . . coordinate scientific and other research
associated with the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem.''
Accordingly, with the help from increased funding provided by Congress,
agency scientists have identified key gaps in our understanding of how
the ecosystem functioned and recommended a coordinated research program
to address long-term restoration requirements. Overall, we believe that
research and applied science will allow us to evaluate the
effectiveness of management actions, enable future outcomes and promote
common understandings of ecological success. And it is extremely
important that we make use of the best available science and take full
advantage of peer review processes.
To that end, with the completion of the Comprehensive Plan and at
the request of the Task Force for peer reviewed science, Secretary
Babbitt requested the National Academy of Sciences to provide
additional scientific input on Plan implementation. The science
advisory panel, which has now renamed itself the Committee on
Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, or ``CROGEE'', began
its work last month. It is composed of 16 scientists representing a
broad range of expertise including biology, ecology and hydrology. They
also bring an objective scientific viewpoint, as none of them are
presently involved in South Florida research and monitoring.
The purpose of CROGEE is to provide scientific advice to the
agencies responsible for implementing the restoration and preservation
plan for the South Florida ecosystem. The Comprehensive Plan is
predicated upon the concept of ``adaptive assessment,'' which calls for
careful scientific monitoring over the entire 20-year period of
implementation to assure that restoration goals are being met as
planned projects come on line, and where the goals are not being
achieved to devise science-based approaches in response to emerging
needs. CROGEE is currently drafting its initial work plan, which will
be submitted for discussion and approval to the Task Force at its
meeting next month.
Fish, Wildlife and Parks Issues in the Comprehensive Plan
The development and drainage of South Florida over the last 50
years has pushed the natural system to the brink in many ways,
threatening or endangering plants, animals, national wildlife refuges
and national parks dependent on the natural quantity, quality, timing,
and distribution of water, the driving force in South Florida's
ecosystem. The Comprehensive Plan holds the promise of substantial
restoration, with large benefits not only for the plants, animals,
refuges, and parks, but also for the human beings of South Florida and
the nation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service have provided their expertise to the Corps in the development
of the Comprehensive Plan, and will continue to consult and coordinate
after authorization in the Comprehensive Plan's implementation.
This final plan incorporates significant changes from the 1998
draft plan, based on comments from the Department of the Interior and
others, that improves the prospects for long-term ecosystem
restoration. For example, the final plan includes a process for
targeting water deliveries to Everglades and Biscayne National Parks
that would approximate 90 percent of the pre-drainage volumes, compared
to only 70 percent of such volumes in the draft plan. The Department
believes that the additional 245,000 acre feet of water per year for
these parks will be critical to restoring natural habitats and we look
forward to working with the Corps and others in the planning effort to
provide this additional water. As another example, the final plan
accelerates implementation of Comprehensive Plan components, providing
for completion of two-thirds of the projects by 2010, so that more
environmental benefits can be realized earlier in the process than
proposed in the draft plan. As a last example, the final plan improves
upon the draft plan by making maximum use of available acreage in the
Everglades Agricultural Area for water storage and providing for a
comprehensive water quality plan.
The primary and overarching purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to
restore the South Florida ecosystem on which fish, wildlife, refuge,
and park resources depend. The promise of the Comprehensive Plan
depends on effective implementation to ensure that the natural system
benefits are achieved in a timely manner and maintained for the long-
term. These assurances must address the proper quantity, quality,
timing, and distribution of water for the natural system, even in times
of stress on the water system. We need assurances that benefits
promised in the Comprehensive Plan are provided. The Department
strongly encourages the initial authorization for the Comprehensive
Plan includes assurances to guarantee sufficient quantities of clean
fresh water at the right place and the right time for the environment.
We have an historic opportunity to address the negative
environmental impacts of past activities and save a national treasure
for our future generations while at the same time ensuring South
Florida's future viability. We are trying to do things that have never
before been attempted, certainly not at this scale. This effort has
always enjoyed bipartisan support and reflects a level of partnership
among the State of Florida, the Federal Government and concerned
citizens that we wish to emulate elsewhere.
We appreciate the leadership and commitment by Chairman Smith and
Senator Graham have shown in helping us achieve the many
accomplishments I have mentioned today. If we are to truly succeed,
that commitment will need to continue for many years to come, and we
look forward to working with you and Congress as we proceed.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the committee on this important effort and I
will be pleased to answer any questions you or the other members of the
committee may have.
__________
Statement of David B. Struhs, Secretary, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Chairman Smith and distinguished members of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works: Good afternoon and welcome to Florida.
Though unable to be with us today due to a special session of Florida's
legislature, Governor Bush has asked me to communicate to the members
of the committee the message he delivered to the Coalition yesterday--
we are ready, willing and waiting to take action.
Just 6 months ago, I had the privilege of again representing
Governor Bush and our State by joining Vice-President Gore,
Administrator Browner, Senators Graham, Rack and one of my mentors,
Senator John Chafee, along with a Florida Legislative Delegation to
present the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review
Study, formerly known as the Everglades Restudy, to Congress.
It was a significant moment. On July 1, 1999, the State made a
commitment to act boldly, decisively, and responsibly. We pledged to
act. We pledged to continue doing our part to restore the world's most
unique ecosystem, Not only to replenish the Everglades, but to restore
the historic balance between lard and water, protecting critical
habitats and dramatically improving water quality. We pledged our
resources to remove levees and reclaim billions of gallons of fresh
water, yet provide necessary flood protection for what will soon be the
nation's third most populous State.
The State has long understood that our Federal partners would want
to see vivid demonstrations of the notion ``actions speak louder than
words'' Florida's leadership in preserving the Everglades is deafening.
Since 1947, the State has purchased almost 3.4 million acres of
conservation lands in the greater Everglades ecosystem at a cost of
over $1.1 billion. This is in addition to the $2.2 billion that has
been spent on restoration and protection activities. This year alone,
the State will spend almost $155 million on Everglades protection
efforts.
But what have we accomplished since jumping into action on July 1?
Over the past 6 months:
The State has acquired, or has a contract to acquire, 80,000 acres
of conservation land.
The State has allocated over $133 million for acquisition of lands
identified in the Restudy. Most notable are funds for East Everglades,
Belle Meade, Southern Golden Gate Estates and Southern Corkscrew
Regional Ecosystem Water Projects.
The South Florida Water Management District has completed
construction on Everglades Stormwater Treatment Areas 2 and 5 and now
have 17,248 acres of filter marshes to cleanse the waters flowing into
the Everglades.
Just 2 weeks ago, the State announced landmark legislation to begin
the restoration of Lake Okeechobee, the headwaters of the Everglades.
The initial program, to be backed with $30 million in funding, will
dramatically reduce Phosphorus loads in the lake. Priority projects are
part of the Restoration Plan and have also been identified as
priorities by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group and
Florida Audubon.
However, we recognize there is still much to do. Governor Bush
stressed yesterday the need for a set of standards, a test if you will,
that each plan put forth for successful and complete restoration of the
Everglades must meet.
First, we must continue building consensus with as many interests
as possible. We have made significant progress in this area. The recent
activity surrounding Lake Okeechobee is a good example of this.
Second, decisions need to be data-driven and science based.
Physical science, not political science, must guide our decisions. It
is more important to get it right rather than getting it first.
Finally, there needs to be financial accountability. We have a
fiduciary responsibility to the people of Florida and the Nation as a
whole. Tax dollars must be spent both wisely and efficiently. .
There are 7 principles behind the funding of Florida's portion of
the Everglades Restoration. These principles will be discussed in depth
in the coming weeks but I would like to highlight three of them today.
First, Florida's funding commitment will be adequate to fully fund
Florida share of the project. Second, Florida's funding commitment will
not siphon resources from other statewide environmental restoration
programs. And finally, Florida's funding commitment will not add to
Florida's long term debt.
While the costs to implementing the Comprehensive Plan are
substantial, they are within the collective reach of State and Federal
Governments, working together. The State legislature, the South
Florida: Water Management District and the executive branch of State
government will work together to fund the State's share of the costs.
As Governor Bush said yesterday ``There should be no question about
Florida's commitment to finish what we have begun.''
Florida has been and will continue to be a leader in the
preservation of this unique and historic area. There is no greater
example of our commitment than Everglades National Park, just a short
distance from here, whose 1.6 million acres is comprised mostly of
state-donated land.
In 1948, just after President Harry Truman signed the legislation
authorizing construction of the C&SF project, Senator and former
Governor Spessard Holland remarked, ``The whole Florida delegation has
stuck together in this matter and will, I am sure, continue to do so,
and each member of the delegation is entitled to his full share of the
credit. The Florida citizens, industries, and public units have also
cooperated to the fullest degree as has the Republican delegation. I
want you to remember that this is not a partisan project and should
continue to merit the united efforts of all our people.''
That quote is as applicable in the year 2000 as it was in 1948. We
are all in this together. The stakes are high, but the rewards are even
greater.
Thank you.
______
Responses by David B. Struhs to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Mr. Secretary, could you please provide the Committee
with a copy of the State's funding Plan for the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan? What assurances can the State of Florida
provide to demonstrate to the Federal partners its commitment to
finance the non-Federal share of the project?
Response. Governor Bush recently announced his funding commitment
of $1.25 billion of statewide funding which, along with resources from
south Florida willfully fund the local sponsor's share. We will have
mechanisms that anticipate peak year funding needs and will not siphon
resources from other statewide environmental restoration programs.
Florida has the fiscal capability to fully fund its share without
adding to Florida's long term debt burden.
Question 2. Regarding ``new water'' captures, are there safeguards
in place, particularly under state law, to ensure that 80 percent of
the ``new water'' will be delivered to the environment and not for
urban/agricultural use?
Response. Florida Water Law (Chapter 373, F.S.) provides many
safeguards to ensure the proper quantity, quality, timing and
distribution of ``new water'' over time. These safeguards are as
follows:
Water reservations: Provides broad authority to the water
management districts to identify quantizes of water to protect fish and
wildlife. Water reserved for fish and wildlife cannot be allocated to
any consumptive user. Reservations are adopted by rule, cannot be
changed without participation by all stakeholders, including the
Federal and environmental interests and are not limited to water
quantizes provided during the initial creation of a national park, such
as the Everglades.
Florida's water management district's must identify the point at
which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water
resources. This concept, known as minimum flows and levels, are another
layer of protection for natural systems and are used most effectively
to restrict consumptive use withdrawals during droughts, when the
natural systems may be most threatened.
Question 3. If the population of Florida indeed doubles over the
next 50 years, will this 80-20 percent delivery remain intact?
Response. Yes. While it may not be a precise 80-20 split, full
implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan will
meet the water supply needs of the natural system and the projected
population in south Florida of 12 million people in the year 2050.
Question 4. How do you respond to criticism that this restoration
effort is nothing more than a water supply plan for the State of
Florida?
Response. Performance measures developed to determine the
effectiveness of the Restudy indicate that implementation of the
Restudy will provide phenomenal restoration results. Most areas of the
remaining natural system will have their natural hydroperiods restored.
. Large portions of the remnant ecosystem will be reconnected. The
coastal estuaries will be protected from the frequent catastrophic
releases of excess freshwater that currently occur about every 3 years.
As a result of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, habitat
for wildlife will improve. An ancillary benefit of keeping this water
in the system is that there is also an increase in available water
supply. If the Restudy is not implemented, there is a high probability
that new water supply demands will be met with alternative sources; yet
the restoration of the natural system would be lost.
Question 5. How do you see the Everglades Restoration effort being
impacted by the economic development that is nothing short of the
inevitable in the State of Florida?
Response. Everglades restoration and economic development are not
mutually exclusive. Most of the anticipated development on the East
Coast will occur through urban redevelopment. The excellent land
acquisition efforts of the state and water management district have
resulted in an extensive network of conservation lands and buffers that
are protected from future development.
______
Responses by David B. Struhs to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we move forward with this project.
Response. The performance measures demonstrate that essentially
every part of the natural system from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay
will show dramatic improvements. Conditions will be improved for the
recovery of large wading bird populations. Populations of endangered
species including the wood stork, snail kite, Cape Sable seaside
sparrow, and American crocodile will benefit from the improved habitat
as a result of the recommended plan. We also expect great improvements
in water quality throughout the system. Observable beneficial changes
are:
Substantial reduction in the number and severity of
ecologically damaging extreme high water and low water events on Lake
Okeechobee, resulting in protection of the Lake's littoral wetlands and
deep water zones and associated ecological And fisheries resources.
Reduced inputs of excessive nutrients into Lake
Okeechobee.
Substantial reduction or elimination of damaging flows of
excessive nutrients, pesticides, and suspended materials to the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries due to improved water quality
and water depths in Lake Okeechobee.
Recovery of desirable salinity ranges in the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, benefiting ecological and
fisheries resources.
Recovery of more natural volume and timing patterns
offlow between Lake Okeechobee and the northern Everglades.
Recovery of more natural volume and timing patterns
offlow into the eastern Big Cypress basin, including improved habitat
conditions for the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow.
Reduced inputs and distribution of excessive nutrients in
the Everglades.
Substantial recovery of more natural hydroperiods,
surface water distribution and timing patterns in the Everglades,
resulting in recovery of more healthy Everglades ecosystems and the
characteristic animals of these wetlands.
Substantial recovery of more natural flow patterns and
volumes into Florida Bay, including recovery of natural salinity
ranges, resulting in recovery of ecological and fisheries resources.
Substantial increase in the spatial extent of healthy
wetlands in the southern Everglades.
Substantial improvements in reaching desired salinity
range and timing offlows for Lake Worth Lagoon, and recovery of healthy
fisheries.
Recovery of more natural flow distribution patterns and
in desired salinity range for Biscayne Bay, and recovery of healthy
near-shore ecological and fisheries resources.
Increased spatial extent, hydropatterns and quality of
southern Miami-Dade wetlands.
Question 2. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we do not move forward with this project?
Response. If we don't move forward, the evaluation tools used in
the Restudy indicate that virtually every part of the natural system
will decline and be imperiled in the year 2050. The consequences of not
moving forward are great. The health of the natural system is directly
linked to the economy of Florida and the nation. Observable negative
consequences of not moving forward are:
Reductions in the spatial extent of healthy wetlands will
continue.
Species that require large expanses of natural habitat,
such as the Florida panther, snail kite, and wading birds, will
increasingly become stressed by the loss of habitats.
Losses of organic soils will continue to reduce water
storage capacity and ecological productivity throughout the Everglades.
Canals and levees will continue to encourage the
introduction and spread of exotic plants and animals.
Unnatural fire patterns will increasingly damage the
natural landscapes of south Florida.
South Florida recreational and commercial fishing will
decline, both in the freshwater Everglades and Lake Okeechobee, and in
the St. Lucie, Caloosahatchee and Florida Bay estuaries.
Endangered species will continue to decline, and some
species may be irreversibly lost in south Florida.
The Everglades will cease to exist as a functional,
recognizable ``River of Grass.''
Question 3. Based on your view of how the Restudy authorization
process will move forward, will Congress' action in WRDA 2000 be the
first phase in a multi-stage authorization process or will this year be
the only time this project comes before Congress?
Response. The State of Florida would like to see the Restudy
authorized through a stand-alone Everglades bill. This legislation
should direct the Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with its
State partner, proceed expeditiously in implementing the Central and
Southern Florida Restudy ``restoration'' in accordance with the
implementation plan developed and submitted to Congress on July 1,
1999. Otherwise, WRDA 2000 action will begin a series of authorizations
to be taken in future WRDAs for a number of years. Based on the current
implementation schedule, authorizations for construction would be
requested through WRDA 2014.
Question 4. Can you describe the consequences of beginning this
project without completing it?
Response. In general, most ecological and biological restoration
targets for sustainable natural systems will not be reached. Because
restoration must proceed far enough to get critical ecological
components and processes past some minimal ``threshold `` level of
health, it is possible that little in the way of long-term recovery
will occur. Fresh water flows may be inadequate to counter the adverse
effects of sea level rise and sinking shorelines; of special concern,
degrading coastal forests may eventually be ``overtopped `` by future
hurricanes, resulting in substantial increases in flooding. Partially
recovered wetland systems may exhibit unnatural fluctuations in
ecological conditions, thus maintaining unstable and unpredictable
habitat conditions for native animals and plants.
Question 5. This year in the Interior Appropriations bill,
Congressman Regula called for the development of ``assurances''
language that would ensure that the park and natural systems in the
Everglades region receive adequate quantities of water. I know that the
Administration and the state are working very hard to develop this
language for inclusion into the Administration's WRDA proposal. Can you
describe for me the basic principles that you feel are critical
elements of this language and why?
Response. The State of Florida's basic principles are:
Distribution of ``new water'' should be dictated by sound
science.
Best way to ensure the proper quantity, distribution and
timing of water to the natural system is to develop design criteria for
each project component to achieve the targets set forth in the natural
systems model.
Existing Florida Water Law is very protective of the
natural system and should be considered in Federal legislation.
Question 6. Can you elaborate on the Florida DEP's plan for
ensuring that the quantities of water generated by the Restudy meet
water quality standards of their intended uses?
Response. The Department of Environmental Protection is an active
member of the Restudy Team. Our strategy from the beginning has been to
actively participate on the Restudy implementation team and through
this participation demand the incorporation of water quality features
into the design of each and every Restudy project component. We also
stand committed to permit the construction and operation of the
individual project components only if the Army Corps of Engineers and
South Florida Water Management District can provide reasonable
assurance that the structures will meet all water quality standards.
Question 7. What actions is Florida DEP taking to ensure that
actions surrounding Lake Okeechobee do not degrade water quality in the
system?
Response. The Department supports proposed Comprehensive Lake
Okeechobee legislation. The Lake Okeechobee legislation commits the
State to a long-term effort to construct new stormwater containment and
treatment structures and to better control phosphorous at its source.
The water containment and treatment structures are also project
components of the Restudy. The legislation will provide the state's
funding for two of the treatment areas and provides a schedule for the
construction of the remaining stormwater treatment areas. The cleanup
of Lake Okeechobee is critical to the restoration of the Everglades.
__________
Statement of Michael Collins, Chairman, Governing Board of the South
Florida Water Management District
Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, I am Michael
Collins, Chairman of the Governing Board of the South Florida Water
Management District. It is a pleasure to stand before you today to talk
about restoration of the Everglades and to support the roadmap for
getting there the Comprehensive Plan.
Before being appointed by Governor Bush to serve on the governing
board of the Water Management District, I served as a member of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program
Steering Committee and the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
South Florida. I have been a member of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides
Association since 1976, serving as president from 1982-1997.
I have spent countless hours on the waters of Florida Bay. I have
watched the population of South Florida grow and the health and size of
the Everglades steadily decline. I can speak from experience about the
inextricable link between the health of our environment and the health
of our economy. The survival of the Everglades is indeed essential to
residents, and there are 6.5 million of us. It is essential to business
and agriculture. And, it is essential to the $13-billion-a-year tourism
industry.
Today many talk about the importance of our partnership with the
Federal Government and I would like to underscore the importance of the
partnership. It was not an accident that Governor Bush appointed me to
the governing board of the Water Management District. This
administration is committed to restoration of the Everglades. The State
of Florida has demonstrated this commitment through several changes in
administrations and through several changes in political party
leadership. Indeed Everglades Restoration is a bipartisan effort. I
remember back in 1983 then Governor Bob Graham started the Save Our
Everglades Program. Sir, we are fortunate to have your knowledge and
leadership in Washington. We are especially fortunate that you now
serve on the committee that will make the decision to authorize the
Comprehensive Plan. The State of Florida has also benefited from the
strong relationship between our two Senators and the united front taken
on behalf of the Everglades. The State of Florida, under the leadership
of Governor Bush intends to continue this dedication and commitment to
Restoration and to the partnership we have with the Federal Government.
Speaking of the partnership between the State and the Federal
Government. I would like to point out that this is a very established
partnership. The Federal Government has played an integral role in the
development of the area encompassed by the Comprehensive Plan to
restore the Everglades for almost exactly 100 years, when the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' began surveying the Kissimmee/Okeechobee/
Caloosahatchee water system to assess ways to improve navigation.
Recognizing its temperate climate and good soil, the State became
extremely interested in draining the land of water. It created the
Everglades Drainage District as well as a funding mechanism that funded
construction of a system of canals around Lake Okeechobee. However,
following two devastating hurricanes that killed thousands of people
south of Lake Okeechobee, in the late 1920's, the Corps, in conjunction
with a newly created State agency (the Okeechobee Drainage District),
improved the region's flood control ability by adding major levees.
Being an area of extremes, this region experienced major droughts
for close to 15 years, followed by more devastating hurricanes in 1947.
It became apparent that a master plan would have to be developed that
balanced the demands for flood protection as well as reliable water
supply. Congress authorized the Central and Southern Florida Flood
Control Project in 1948. The South Florida Water Management District
now serves as local sponsor to the Corps for this massive project,
which includes some 1800 miles of canals and levees that run through 16
counties.
The system that was requested by the State, built by the Federal
Government and is now operated and maintained by the Water Management
District accomplished its intended purpose. It allowed people to live
and prosper on land in South Florida. Unfortunately, it did have
unintended consequences for the environment. You will hear a lot today
about the four interrelated factors necessary to restore the Everglades
ecosystem: quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water.
Getting the water right, striking a balance and sharing adversity among
the urban, agricultural and environmental demands will define success.
The fundamental concept upon which implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan rests ``adaptive assessment'' is the key to
achieving this success. This approach will allow for continuous
refinements as more is learned through scientific monitoring over the
20 to 25-year period of implementation.
The importance of the adaptive assessment approach can not be over
emphasized. While the Plan was developed under the leadership of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management
District, countless scientists from many agencies, including the
Everglades National Park, two Indian tribes, and many local
governments, participated in development of the Plan. Overall, the Plan
enjoys broad-base support. However, there are still issues close to
certain interests that must be worked out along the way. And, based on
the past 50 years, we know enough to know that we don't have all of the
answers today.
The Comprehensive Plan before you for consideration is not the
ultimate perfect plan for restoration of the Everglades. The perfect
plan does not exist. As we debate the merits of the Plan before you the
health of the Everglades continues to decline. It is time to move
forward and we must do it together. The Plan is flexible enough to
allow for needed adjustments along the way.
To fully appreciate the Plan before you for consideration you must
appreciate the dynamics of the complexities involved in creating an
ecosystem-wide restoration plan and realize that the interconnectedness
of this vast system. The coordination efforts in developing a Plan such
as this one are enormous. Within the boundaries of the Plan there are
16 counties, 150 municipalities, 2 Indian Tribes, a multitude of State
and Federal agencies, utilities, agricultural interests, and
environmental interests. Overlay these dynamics over the scientific
complexities associated with getting the water right for a natural
system that is home to an international biosphere reserve, four
national parks and wildlife refuges, a national marine sanctuary, areas
of special designations such as outstanding Florida waters, and
numerous State parks, preserves and wildlife refuges. Developing a plan
with broad base support appears insurmountable. Yet, we did it. How? It
was accomplished through a comprehensive inclusive process.
The Restudy now referred to as the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan was developed by multi-agency teams and through the
efforts of groups like the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
South Florida. I believe so strongly in the merits of the role the
Governor's Commission played in development of the Plan that I was
instrumental in the Governor Bush's decision to continue this type of
process by creating the Governor's Commission for Everglades
Restoration. I contend that decisions about implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan should not be made outside of the process that has
proven to work. Any attempt to bypass the process will only create
distrust on many fronts.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the best opportunity for solving
the region's environmental and waters resource problems within the
region. The South Florida Water Management District strongly supports
the Comprehensive Plan and the process used for developing this
product. We believe the Plan is the roadmap for providing adequate
water for a healthy, sustainable Everglades ecosystem as well as for
maintaining urban and agriculture use.
Finally, I would like to emphasize the uniqueness of Everglades
Restoration. Many of the comments today will highlight the uniqueness
of the ecosystem. The international attention this ecosystem receives
certainly validates this fact. As I previously stated the process used
to develop a plan to restore the Everglades is also unique. And,
finally the State of Florida and the local sponsor standing head to
head with the Federal Government ready to implement this plan are also
unique.
Since 1947 the State of Florida has acquired 3.4 million acres of
conservation lands at a cost of $1.1 billion. In addition, the State
has spent approximately $2.2 billion in other restoration activities.
The State Florida and the local sponsor to the Comprehensive Plan for
restoring the Everglades will pay 50 percent of the cost of
implementation. As equal partners we will be looking for your approval
for the Federal Government to also share the operation, maintenance and
monitoring costs associated with this Plan estimated to be $175 million
annually.
The South Florida Water Management District in addition to serving
as local sponsor for the Comprehensive Plan is also local sponsors for
the Kissimmee River Restoration Project and the C-111 Project in South
Dade. In addition, our agency is solely responsible for a major
restoration project designed to address water quality issues in the
Everglades. This estimated cost of this long-term project known as the
Everglades Construction Project is estimated over $800 million.
Today, after this hearing, there is a signing ceremony for eight
critical projects. You will remember that this Committee authorized
Critical Projects to allow for a jump-start on Everglades Restoration,
thank you! The South Florida Water Management District will sign a
project cooperation agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
serve as local sponsor for seven of the eight projects. The total
estimated cost for our contribution is approximately $47 million. Are
we committed? You bet we are! Are we in it for the long haul? With the
investments made to date it would be irresponsible not to be!
In closing, I would like to reiterate that as we go through the
legislative process toward authorization, the Committee will here many
challenges to the Comprehensive Plan suggesting that more studies are
needed. I strongly contend it is time to move forward and you have
before you a Plan that has incorporated the flexibility to do just that
in a cost effective, scientifically based way.
We the South Florida Water Management District have set a budget
reserve account dedicated to the implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan to the tune of $``X'' annually. We will work with the State to
obtain the remainder of the necessary funds to achieve implementation.
We urge you approval for the Federal Government to move forward on this
unprecedented ecosystem restoration plan and for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to be given the flexibility to do so in a way that maximizes
environmental benefits while ensuring the other needs of the region are
maintained.
With that Mr. Chairman I conclude my remarks. Thank you and the
committee members for the opportunity to speak today. And, thank you
Mr. Chairman for your leadership and commitment to Everglades
Restoration.
______
Responses by Michael Collins to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Regarding the Stormwater Treatment Areas, do you have
good scientific evidence to demonstrate that these areas have been
effective and will be effective in achieving seater quality standards
for phosphorus'? Can these areas really treat the volume of water that
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) envisions being
redirected through the Everglades systems What happens then? Do you
foresee the need for additional treatment and if so, at what cost?
Response. Regarding the Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs), we have
good scientific evidence from the two initial constructed wetlands that
the STAs will achieve their design goal of 50 pars per billion.
However, eve do not have good scientific evidence that they alone will
be able to achieve the long-term water quality standard for phosphorus,
assumed for planning purposes to be around 10 parts per billion. In
addition to researching ways to optimize STA performance, we are
investigating advanced treatment technologies to be incorporated with
the STAB, and also looking at ways we enhance the phosphorus load
reduction at the farm level. Additional details are found in the
Everglades Consolidated Report (SFWMD January 2000). Additional
treatment measures will be required to work in concert with the
additional components of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Depending on the treatment measure implemented, the costs will vary. At
this time, insufficient information exists to estimate these additional
treatment costs.
Analysis conducted during the development of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan indicated that the performance of the STAs
would be enhanced with the construction of storage facilities in the
Everglades Agricultural Arca. Lois is due to the fact that the
reservoir is able to capture large discharges of water during periods
of high rainfall which is then released to the STA's for treatment when
there is a downstream environmental demand in the Water Conservation
Areas throughout the year.
Question 2. Concerning He ``adaptive assessment program'' which is
at the heart of the CERP, there has been criticism that this plan
essentially equates to the Federal Government writing a blank check for
the restoration effort. Can you respond to those criticisms and
recommend safeguards we can put into place to balance the concepts of
flexibility and oversight? Was there such flexibility in place for the
original Central and Southern Florida Project? What were the
ramifications?
Response. The Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works pro&rams have
built-in safeguards that respond to this question. The primary
safeguard is that a project cannot overrun its costs by more than 15
percent without the Corps returning to Congress for further
authorization Additionally, the Congress funds Cows programs on a year-
to-year basis.
The concept of adaptive assessment is new to the current
Comprehensive Plan. The C&SF Project has, however, had numerous
authorizations over the Scars since 1948 when the project was initially
authorized. Each authorization addled to the project. If one looks at a
map of the current project, one can see that there are parts of the
project that were authorized to be constructed, but for varying
reasons, never were constructed. It could be argued that the project
has, in effect, been managed ``adaptively'' since it was first
constructed.
Question 3. What would be the effects on the ecosystem if
implementation of the Plan revere delayed and only pilot projects
authorized in WRDA 2000? Alternatively, what if authorization of some
of the pilot projects Acre delayed?
Response. Authorization of only pilot projects would help to answer
questions regarding those technologies that have uncertainty in their
application in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. However,
delaying the authorization of an initial set of projects for
construction would set the implementation schedule back for key
elements of the Water Preserve Area. In addition the construction of
storage and treatment facilities that would have positive affects on
the quality of water flowing into Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie
Estuary as well as the quantity and timing of waler flowing to the
Everglades would be delayed.
If pilot projects were delayed key questions regarding the
uncertainties of these technologies ant their full scale application
would be delayed, thus delaying many key projects which would accrue
significant restoration benefits.
If implementation of the Plan were delayed, the state's on-going
restoration program would achier intermediate goals. Florida's 1994
Everglades Forever Act requires that all waters discharging to the
Everglades Protection Area must achieve and maintain compliance with
all water quality standards by December 31, 2006. In addition, the
Everglades Forever Act requires that the volume of inflows to the
Everglades Protection Area should be increased by over 25 percent. The
District and other State agencies are conducting research and are
preparing to implement these long-term solutions, although the 2006
timeframe is ambitious. At this time no funding has been designated or
allocated for these long-term measures.
Question 4. What is the SFWMD's position on authorizing this
measure as stand-alone legislation, separate from a WRDA package?
Response. The South Florida Waler Management Districts Governing
Board has nor taken a position on stand-alone legislation, however
Governor Bush has taken a position in support of stand-alone
legislation.
______
Responses by Michael Collins to Additional Questions from Senator Bob
Graham
Question 1. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystem if we move forward with this project?
Response. Substantial reduction in the number and severity of
ecologically damaging extreme high water and low water events on Lake
Okeechobee, resulting in protection of the lockets littoral wetlands
and deep water zones and associated ecological and fisheries resources.
Reduced inputs of excessive nutrients into Lake
Okeechobee.
Substantial reduction or elimination of damaging flows of
excessive nutrients, pesticides and suspended materials to the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries due to improved water quality
and water depths in Lake Okeechobee.
Recovery of desirable salinity ranges in the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, benefiting ecological and
fisheries resources.
Recovery of more natural volume and timing patterns of
flow between Lake Okeechobee and the northern Everglades.
Recovery of more natural volume and timing patterns of
flow into the eastern Big Cypress basin, including improved habitat
conditions for the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow.
Reduced inputs and distribution of excessive nutrients in
the Everglades.
Substantial recovery of ashore natural hydroperiods,
surface water distribution and timing patterns in the Everglades,
resulting in recovery of more healthy Everglades ecosystems and the
characteristic animals of these wetlands.
Substantial recovery of more natural flow patterns and
volumes into Honda Bay, including recovery of natural salinity ranges.
resulting in recovery of ecological and fisheries resources.
Substantial increase in the spatial extent of healthy
wetlands in the southern Everglades.
Substantial improvements in reaching desired salinity
range ant timing of flows for Lake Worth Lagoon, and recovery of
healthy fisheries.
Recovery of more natural flow distribution patterns and
in desired salinity range for Biscayne Bay, and recovery of healthy
near-shore ecological and fisheries resources.
Increased spatial extent, hydropatterns and quality of
southern Miami-Dade wetlands.
Question 2. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we do not move forward with this project?
Response. Reductions in the spatial extent of healthy wetlands will
continue. Species that require large expanses of natural habitat, such
as the Florida panther, snail kite, and wading birds, will increasingly
become stressed by the loss of habitats.
Losses of organic soils will continue to reduce water
storage capacity and ecological productivity throughout the Everglades.
Canals and levees will continue to encourage the introduction and
spread of exotic plants and animals. Unnatural Ore patterns will
increasingly damage the natural landscapes of south Florida. South
Florida recreational and commercial fishing will decline, both in the
freshwater Everglades and Lake Okeechobee, and in the St. Lucie,
Caloosahatchee and Florida Bay estuaries. Endangered species will
continue to decline, and some species may be irreversibly lost in south
Florida. The Everglades will cease to exist as a functional,
recognizable ``River of Grass.''
Question 3. Based on your view of how the Restudy authorization
process will move forward. will Congress' action in WRDA 2000 be the
first phase in a multi-stage authorization process or will this year be
the only tithe this project comes before Congress?
Response. WRDA 2000 action will begin a series of authorizations to
be taken in future WRDA s for a number of years. Based on the current
implementation schedule, authorizations for construction would be
requested through WRDA 2014.
Question 4. Can you describe the of beginning this project without
completing it?
Response. In general, most ecological and biological restoration
targets for sustainable natural systems will not be reached. Because
restoration must proceed far enough to get critical ecological
components and processes past some minimal ``threshold'' level of
health, it is possible that little in the way of long-term recovery
will occur. Fresh water flows may be inadequate to counter the adverse
effects of sea level rise and sinking shorelines; of especial concern,
degrading coastal forests may eventually be ``overtopped'' by future
hurricanes, resulting in substantial increases in flooding. Partially
recovered wetland systems may exhibit unnatural fluctuations in
ecological conditions, thus maintaining unstable and unpredictable
habitat conditions for native animals and plants.
Question 5. Is the majority of the runoff that enters the canal
system from urban or agricultural use?
Response. The answer to this question depends on what part of the
canal system we are referring to. In the lower east coast urban area,
much of the runoff reaching the canal system is a direct result of
providing drainage to people who live in that area. Compared to the
natural condition, the runoff discharged by the canal system in the
urban areas has increased substantially. The contribution to runoff
from the relatively small agricultural acreage in the urban area is
estimate.
__________
Statement of Jim Shore, on Behalf of the Seminole Tribe
Introduction
On behalf of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, I wish to join the
other Floridians participating in this hearing in providing a warm
welcome to our Federal legislators from the north. I hope you enjoy the
warm breezes of our Florida winter.
I am Jim Shore, General Counsel of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. I
am honored to represent our Chairman, James Billie, who was unable to
join us today, and the almost 3000 members of the Seminole Tribe of
Florida.
The Seminoles have been active participants in the multi-faceted
efforts to restore the South Florida Ecosystem and to provide a healthy
future for people of Florida, as well as for the natural environment,
including the Everglades, that draws so many more people to visit and
move here. We appreciate being invited to share our views with Senators
Smith, Voinovich, and Graham on the Restudy presented to Congress last
July. The Tribe supports the Restudy.
In this testimony, I will discuss, briefly, who we, the Seminole
Tribe of Florida, are; our general philosophy regarding ecosystem
restoration in South Florida; the Tribe's contribution to the
restoration; and specific comments on the Restudy. I will be happy to
entertain your questions at the conclusion of my remarks.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe lives in the South Florida ecosystem. The Big
Cypress Reservation is located in the Everglades about 60 miles east of
here, directly north of the Big Cypress Preserve. The Immokalee
Reservation is approximately 30 miles northeast of here, near the Big
Cypress Preserve. The Brighton Reservation is located on the
northwestern shores of Lake Okeechobee. Tribal headquarters in located
on the Hollywood Reservation on the east coast. The Tribe relies on all
aspects of a healthy ecosystem, including the Everglades which provide
many of our tribal members with their livelihood. Our traditional
Seminole cultural, religious, and recreational activities, as well as
commercial endeavors, are dependent on a healthy South Florida
ecosystem. In fact, the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the
land that Tribal members believe that if the land dies, so will the
Tribe.
Die ring the Seminole Wars of the lath (century, our Tribe found
protection in the hostile Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. But for
this harsh environment filled with sawgrass and alligators, the
Seminole Tribe of Florida would not exist today. Once in the Everglades
and Big Cypress, we learned how to use the natural system for support
without doing harm to the environment that sustained us. For example,
our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of cypress logs and palmetto
fronds. It protects its inhabitants from sun and rain, while allowing
maximum circulation for cooling. When a chickee has outlived its useful
life, the cypress and palmetto return to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
looked at the land, we saw the Everglades and supporting ecosystem in
decline. We recognized that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man
on this natural system. At the same time, we acknowledged that this
land must sustain our people, and thereby our culture. The clear
message we heard from our elders and the land was that we must design a
way of life to preserve the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be
able to work and sustain themselves. We need to protect our Tribal
farmers and ranchers.
Seminole Everglades Restoration Projects
Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe has
developed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land and water systems
within our Reservations while ensuring a sustainable future for the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Big Cypress Reservation is the first of
our Reservations for which this plan has been implemented. The Tribe is
in the early stages of developing a plan with similar goals on the
Brighton Reservation.
On Big Cypress, the restoration plan will allow Tribal members to
continue ongoing farming and ranching activities while improving water
quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to large portions of the
native lands on the Reservation and ultimately, positively affecting
the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park.
Construction activities on the western side of the Reservation have
been identified as a ``Critical Project'' under section 528 of WRDA
1996. The Tribe is working closely with the NRCS to identify
appropriate programs to complete construction of the project on the
eastern side of the reservation. Two Wetland Reserve Projects are
currently underway.
The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving water quality and
flows on Big Cypress and has expressed that commitment by dedicating
significant financial resources to our environmental programs and
projects, as well as estimates of 9,000 acres of land to support the
projects on Big Cypress alone.
General Comments on Everglades Restoration
The Seminole Tribe participates in the task forces, working groups,
commissions, and committees too numerous to list. In these various
fore, stratified levels of detail are debated and discussed. Throughout
our involvement, the Tribe has applied the following guidelines to the
many proposals and plans that have been produced and vetted. Our
resources limit our specific comments to portions of the plans that
will directly affect our lands. Our ``philosophy,'' so to speak.
however, can be applied to all of the plans.
Shared adversity. No one place or group of people should be
required to shoulder more than their proportional cost of the fix to
the problem caused by the Federal project created to help all
Floridians.
If you messed it up, you clean it up. While all should share in the
corrections to the built system to provide for sustainability, if an
entity has created a specific problem, that entity is responsible for
correcting the problem. For example, the Big Cypress projects are
designed to improve the quality of the water that the Tribe discharges.
Get the science right. The Tribe recognizes the
complexity of the Everglades ecosystem. Understanding these
complexities and the developing the applied scientific principles is
critical to saving the ecosystem.
Adaptive management. While, in the perfect world, the scientists
would have all the answers to provide the design engineers building the
projects needed to improve water quality, quantity, flows, and levels,
in the real world, some projects need to proceed on the best available
information. Best professional judgment must be executed in the design
and implementation projects for which there is an absence of all needed
data points. However, it is crucial that monitoring and data analysis
continues for such projects and required adjustments to the design and/
or operation of the projects be undertaken in a timely way. In this
way, adaptive management allows important restoration projects to
proceed.
Specific Comments on the Restudy
The Seminole Tribe supports the Restudy and its goals of addressing
environmental restoration and adequate flood protection and water
supply. The Tribe reviewed and commented on all drafts of the Restudy.
Rather than provide extensive comments here, I will highlight our four
most significant concerns:
Ecological models and monitoring. While computer-generated models
are useful and necessary analytical tools, the information they provide
is not reality. It is important to recognize their limitations--limited
to current knowledge, contain assumptions, and subject to computational
constraints--and to deal with project planning accordingly. In
addition, the Restudy computer models were designed so that many of the
Tribe's lands are outside or at the edges of the models. This situation
has forced the Tribe to infer the likely effects of the selected
alternative on its lands. Because the predicted behavior of the model
may not be accurate, the Tribe urges that project authorization include
ongoing data gathering and monitoring.
Adaptive management. The Tribe strongly supports the Restudy's
incorporation of the adaptive management concept. The Tribe urges
Congress to incorporate in the authorization of the initial projects
the flexibility needed to allow for the application of adaptive
management.
Federal funding for water quality improvements. The Tribe
believes that the Federal Government shares the responsibility for
improving water quality. WRDA 2000 should incorporate the WRDA 1996
provision requiring 50/50 Federal/local cost share for water quality
projects.
Critical projects and programmatic authority. Should any
of the projects identified as ``critical projects'' under WRDA 1996
section 528 fail to be implemented due to lack of Federal
appropriations, programmatic authority under WRDA 2000 should renew
authorization for the projects.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the Seminole
Tribe of Florida with you. While the Tribe is a strong supporter of the
Restudy, we will continue to be vigilant in our review of its
implementation. We look forward to a continued partnership on a
government-to-government basis in the challenging effort to save our
Everglades.
__________
Statement of Dexter Lehtinen, on Behalf of the Miccosukee Tribe
My name is Dexter Lehtinen. I serve on the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force and the Governor's Commission for the
Everglades. I previously served as a Florida State Representative and
State Senator where I helped author the Surface Water Improvement and
Management Act, which established the goal of saving the entire
Everglades, whether federally, State, or tribally owned. I also served
as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, where I filed
the so-called ``Everglades lawsuit''. I represent the Miccosukee Tribe
of Indians of Florida, the Dade County Farm Bureau, and many residents
of west Miami-:Dade County, Florida.
My main point is that Everglades restoration is in serious trouble
due to misplaced priorities, subordination of fundamental democratic
values, Federal intransigence and bureaucratic arrogance and
incompetence.
Let me emphasize at the outset that the issue before this committee
and the Congress as a whole is not whether Everglades restoration is a
proper goal or whether restoration is worth the effort. Those who have
struggled for years to achieve the primacy of Everglades restoration as
a goal, including Senator Graham on your panel (and, if I may be so
bold, I would add myself and others here at the Everglades Coalition to
that group), have achieved at least the nominal commitment, or (perhaps
more correctly described) the ``politically correct'' commitment, to
that stated goal.
But the harder questions relate generally to ``implementation.''
These questions include:
(1) Restoration Goal: What does ``restoration'' mean? Are agencies
really committed to Everglades restoration as the No. 1 priority?
(2) Natural Conditions--As odd as it may sound: Do agencies really
want natural conditions? And, what do ``natural'' conditions mean?
(3) ``Everglades'' Scope--Perhaps odder sounding still: Which
Everglades do we restore? Whose Everglades do we save?
(4) Execution--How do we achieve it? Does the Restudy Plan achieve
it? Does the Restudy process achieve it?
(5) Fundamental Values--Are we really prepared to sacrifice
fundamental property rights and the rule of law in favor of unbridled
agency discretion?
Many current problems stem from the deep-seated (though hidden)
disagreements over the answers to these questions, illustrating many
misconceptions about Everglades restoration, These problems include:
A. System Problem (Lack of a System-wide, Everglades-wide
Commitment: Parochial Approach).--Many agencies (particularly DOI
agencies) seek only to protect their piece of the Everglades ecosystem
(whether it be geographic, such as the Everglades National Park, or
subject-matter, such as a single species), deliberately sacrificing
other parts of the Everglades. These agencies readily discriminate
against State-owned and tribal-owned Everglades, despite the
congressional and Florida legislative mandate that these areas be
preserved in their ``natural state'' and despite the Federal Trust
responsibility owed to the Tribe.
The Federal Government is sacrificing the State and tribal
Everglades in favor of the smaller Federal Everglades (ENP and LNWR).
The Water Conservation Areas (especially WCA 3-A) are dying due to
Federal actions.
Examples include: (i) flooding WCA 3-A for sparrow (resulting in
destruction of WCA 3-A and damage to Florida Bay through uneven
freshwater pulses); (ii) blocking Modified Water Deliveries with the
effect of destroying WCA 3-A; and (iii) Chief's Letter rejection of
Restudy water volumes, favoring ENP with adverse effect on WCA 3-A and
Florida Bay; and (iv) blocking S-332D implementation in C-111 Project.
Recommendation--The committee should establish the guideline that
no part of the Everglades Protection Area (including Everglades
National Park) should be treated more favorably than any other part
with respect to hydrology (water volume and timing).
B. Process Problems (Lack of Commitment to Decision-making Process;
Lack of ``Partnership''; Low Inter-agency Cooperation; pro Forma Use of
Task Force).--Inter-agency cooperation (particularly by Department of
the Interior agencies) remains low and many agencies refuse to commit
to the overall Restudy process. In addition, many agencies refuse to
implement programs which, have been finalized through the NEPA
(National Environmental Policy Act) and EIS (environmental impact
statement) processes. Furthermore, the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force seems to serve the main purpose of giving the
appearance of oversight or coordination, while avoiding serious matters
or defects in the restoration process.
The present Federal approach is little more than lip-service to so-
called ``partnership''. Deals are made in Washington, informing the
public, the Tribes, and the State afterwards.
Examples include: (i) Chief's Letter rejection of Restudy process
(closed door meetings after Restudy complete); (ii) improper use of
Endangered Species Act to override regular State role in water
management (Corps actions on sparrow); (iii) exclusion of all-but-
favored private groups (exclusion of State and tribes) from sparrow
meetings; (iv) disregard of NEPA public process on sparrow, Modified
Water Deliveries, and elsewhere (iv) DOI lobbying anti-State and anti-
Tribe agenda on WRDA and Appropriations Bills; and (v) South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force unresponsiveness to members'
questions.
Recommendation--The Committee should ensure as follows:
(a) The Federal Government and its agencies should recognize the
State's right of control over its lands and waters and right to equal
involvement in the Everglades restoration policymaking process.
(b) Congress and all agencies should disregard the Chief's Letter
to the Restudy as exceeding the scope of the Chief's authority,
procedurally infirm, and unacceptable.
C. Execution Problems (Inability or Failure to Execute Specific
Projects).--Frankly, the track record to date in implementing or
executing specific congressionally directed and approved projects, from
the mid-1980's to date, is abysmal (``shocking'' is probably a better
word). Stalled ``Critical Projects'' include Modified Water Deliveries
and the C-111 Project, both held up for a decade. These projects are
assumed by the Restudy and by Congress be completed, a starting point
for the restudy as the next step. The ``immobilisma'', agency
incompetence, and outright refusal of agencies to execute any plan
which the agency doesn't like even if it has been approved through the
appropriate process, raises serious doubts about the wisdom of
entrusting these agencies with the authority and funds involved in
restoration.
Neither Federal nor State government agencies are held accountable
for gross errors and intentional deviations from law. In essence, the
rule of law has ceased to be a relevant concept in Everglades
restoration.
Examples include: (i) failure to conduct required annual reviews of
Test Iteration 7 of Experimental Water Deliveries Program; (ii) permit/
test 7 violation at G-211 structure in West Dade prior to Hurricane
Irene; (iii) excessive groundwater levels in West Dade prior to
Hurricane Irene; (iv) failure to follow public meetings law by SFWMD
(local option to Modified Water Delivery); (v) Corps failure to follow
Restudy procedures; (vi) failure to follow Regulation Schedule for WCA
3-A; (vii) failure to follow NEPA for WCA 3-A; (viii) failure to
implement Modified Water Deliveries Project; and (ix) failure to
implement C-111 Project.
Recommendation--The committee should ensure that both the Florida
Legislature and the U.S. Congress hold their agencies and employees
responsible for errors and accountable for delays in implementing
policy and for deviations from and violations of law.
D. Problems with Fundamental Values (Disregard of Fundamental
Rights and Values of Liberty: Basic Property Rights and the Rule of
Law).--Everglades restoration programs, at least their implementation
by the Federal Government, is showing an alarming disregard for
fundamental values (property rights and the rule of law). Everglades
restoration must not be achieved at the expense of fundamental concepts
of liberty, including property rights. The right to private property is
so fundamental to ordered liberty and freedom that its sacrifice is
simply not justified (and its sacrifice is also not necessary for
Everglades restoration). A closely related concept is the legitimacy of
government provided flood protection. When flood protection and private
property rights are demeaned, the core rights of the average American
are threatened. Such misalignment of values will not prevail but the
ultimate rejection of this misalignment by the public will destroy the
viability of restoration.
Examples include: (i) The Corps actions for the sparrow (increasing
flooding of lands in South Dade, West Kendall, 8.5 Square Mile Area,
and WCA 3-A); (ii) increasing water levels in Dade under Test Iteration
7 of Experimental Water Deliveries without implementing concomitant
flood protection; (iii) failure to implement Modified Water Deliveries
Project protection for property; and (iv) failure to implement C-111
Project.
Recommendation--The committee should reaffirm as follows:
(a) Private property and flood protection are legitimate social
values and neither property rights nor flood protection should be
diminished in any respect in the course of Everglades restoration.
(b) The triple goals of environmental protection, flood protection,
and water supply must each be met without undue sacrifice. Plans which
seek Everglades restoration at the expense of flood protection or urban
and agricultural water supply are unacceptable. Plans which seek to
transform Everglades restoration into a tool for ``no growth'',
``growth management'', or urban planning are unacceptable, because
these matters raise different issues and involve different social
values.
From a review of these problems, several major misconceptions about
Everglades restoration are apparent, including:
(i) The ``Everglades'' is ``Everglades National Park''--The
misconception that the term ``Everglades'' means and is the same as
``Everglades National Park'' leads to sacrificing the central
Everglades, which are the jewels of the famous ``River of Grass''. The
Florida and Miccosukee-owned Everglades north of Tamiami Trail are just
as important and Federal and State policy call for the entire
Everglades to be saved.
(ii) Everglades Restoration is the Number One Federal Priority in
the Everglades--This is clearly not the case in fact, although often
stated in words. This unexamined misconception allows the Federal
Government to place the Everglades second or even lower in priority
while putting other goals first. The latest example is the flooding and
destruction of the central Everglades by maintaining unnaturally high
water levels in WCA 3-A and ``unnaturally'' low water levels in ENP, by
closing structures along an unnatural barrier (Tamiami Trail), for the
purpose of protecting a 10 percent subpopulation of a subspecies of
bird which moved recently into the area (outside of its critical
habitat) when water was unnaturally low. The stated policy is to
maintain the Everglades unnaturally dry in parts and unnaturally wet in
parts for the goal of protecting the bird; clearly, preserving the
natural Everglades is not a No. 1 priority.
(iii) At Least We're Making Progress/What We're Doing is Helping--
While we're making some progress, especially in water quality issues in
the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), elsewhere we're deteriorating
badly. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission said less
than a month ago that ``WCA 3-A has degraded more in the last 5 years
than in the previous 40 years together''. This on-going degradation of
Florida and Tribal lands is a direct result of parochial Federal water
policies, which the Federal Government shows no signs of changing.
(iv) Everglades restoration is a Federal/State/Tribal Partnership--
The partnership is in name only, with Federal agencies constantly end-
running the established process whenever they don't get their way. The
history of Federal relations with the Miccosukee Tribe, the Federal
sacrifice of tribal lands and breaking of environmental commitments, is
just another saga on the trail of Tears on which the Federal Government
has sent its Native Americans.
(v) The Problem in Everglades Restorable is Funding--The idea that
the Everglades ``problem'' is a new version of the old approach of
throwing Federal dollars at whatever problem is perceived to exist. But
is also has the effect of ignoring real issues in restoration. A
related misconception is that additional Finding can't hurt. But more
than just wasting money, could actually result in damaging the
Everglades more than if the money wasn't available.
Many of these issues were discussed more thoroughly in my report
accompanying the 1999 Report of the South. Florida Ecosystem
restoration Task Force, on which I am a Member. It is interesting that
the Task Force staff regularly distributes their glossy-print report
without distributing the minority report which I filed as a Task Force
Member. I have attached my April 1999 report. entitled Facing Up to
Problems in Everglades Restoration (An Additional View): Supplement to
``Maintaining the Momentum, 1999 Report of the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force'' (Exhibit A) for the committee's use. I have
also attached my April 27, 1999 testimony to the House of
Representatives, entitled South Florida modified Water Delivery: A Case
of Agency Obstructionism (Exhibit B), my September 23, 1999 statement,
entitled Statement of Dexter Lehtinen Regarding Backwood Deals on the
Everglades (Exhibit C), and my November 10, 1999 testimony, entitled
Putting People Last: Excessive Groundwater Levels in West Dade (Exhibit
D).
In addition to the recommendations identified with particular issue
above, I recommend the following regarding general Everglades
restoration and resource management:
I. Create a Cabinet Agency For Indian Affairs--The discrimination
against tribal lands and their destruction to serve Department of the
Interior interests shows how Interior sacrifices Indian interests to
serve other agency goals.
II. Reduce Role of the Depart of the Interior--The role of Interior
in Everglades restoration should be reduced to that of any landowner.
The most destructive special interest in Everglades policy today is the
U.S. Department of the Interior.
III. Shift Chair of South Florida Task Force to Corps. The Task
Force should be chaired by the Corps of Engineers, which is otherwise
responsible for the overall Central and Southern Florida Project and
for Water Resources Development Acts in general. The Task Force is now
used to further parochial Interior (not general) interests.
IV. Fund Everglades Restoration Through Corps of the State, Rather
Than Interior. Interior improperly uses its role in funding to achieve
collateral, parochial goals of the agency. Channeling Farm Bill (land
acquisition) and Modified Water Deliveries money through Interior, for
example, was a mistake.
In conclusion, the current chaos, agency parochialism, and agency
arrogance are threatening the viability of Everglades restoration, as
is the subordination of fundamental property values and the rule of
law. The public officials who ignore this reality in a ``politically
correct'' assertion, but ``everything is going well in the Everglades''
are in effect the enemies of the Everglades. On the other hand, the
public officials who recognize the reality, cut through this chaos, and
suffer initial criticism from those who either don't want to admit
problems or don't avant their parochialism to be unmasked, will be the
heroes of Everglades restoration to whom future generations of
Americans (Native Americans and non-Native Americans) will be eternally
grateful.
______
Responses by Dexter Lehtinen to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Can you describe the impact on the Miccosukee Tribe if
we go forward with this project as currently proposed?
I. Summary: Vagueness Renders Conclusions Premature
The outcome or impact on the Tribe could be very negative or very
positive (or somewhere in between), depending upon how the ``project.'
is eventually defined and executed. Until the project components are
each developed in greater detail, there is insufficient detail to
determine whether the vague and ambiguous goals of the Plan will be met
or whether certain elements might actually cause harm.
II. Ambiguities and Dangers in the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan (April 1999) is ambiguous in certain
essential points and relies on inadequate models in several critical
issues, leaving room for numerous areas of potential harm. In addition,
the Chief's Transmittal Letter contradicts the Comprehensive Plan and
raises serious concerns.
1. Defining the ``Project''.--More Details Needed on Project
Components--The Comprehensive Plan (Restudy, April 1999) is still vague
and ambiguous on many essential elements, so that current assumptions
or conclusions about its utility or impact on the Tribe or even the
greater Everglades ecosystem are premature at best. Such premature
assumption could even be dangerous and counter-productive, because they
could lead to unbridled agency discretion, lax oversight, poor
planning, and sub-optimal outcomes (outcomes which destroy part of the
Everglades while helping other parts).
2. Inadequate Modeling.--The possibility of adverse impacts Has
discussed above) is magnified by the alarming admission within the
restudy that two critical models are inadequate for the analytical
tasks at hand. Ha) First, the ``natural Systems Model'' (NSM)uses very
large grids ((2x2 miles) and does not have accurate topographic data in
its data base. Accurate topographic data must be obtained and
incorporated before predictions can be used with any reasonable
assurances See p. 7-73. (b) Second, the ``South Florida Water
Management Model''. (SFWMM or WMM) is inadequate to predict flood
control outcomes. See ``Flood Control'' entry, pp. 7-65 and 7-62.
Before project components are designed in detail and approved by
Congress, these models must be upgraded.
3. Potential Adverse Effects.--Within the scope of the Restudy,
several possible adverse effects could develop if future detailed
planning does not adequately address certain hydroperiod and water
quality issues. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) excessive water levels in Water Conservation Areas (``flooding''
the central Everglades); (b) discharging polluted water into the
central Everglades (essentially using the central Everglades to clean
up water pollution before it reaches Everglades National Park to the
south'; (c) discrimination against Water Conservation Area 3-A
(treating the central Everglades less favorably than Everglades
National Park); (d) discriminatory treatment of minority Americans
(Hispanics, African-Americans, and Indians); and (e) flooding in
residential and commercial land outside the Everglades ``The Corps proposes to deliver additional water
(approximately 245,000 acre-feet) to ENP and Biscayne Bay by either
capturing additional runoff from urban areas or by some other means.''
``The primary and overarching purpose of the
Comprehensive plan is to restore the South Florida ecosystem.
Accordingly, to ensure the successful implementation of the
Comprehensive plan, the Corps will work with the Department of the
Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal
Agencies and the State of Florida to develop the necessary assurances
which will address the proper quantity, quality, timing and
distribution of water for the natural system. Such assurances will not,
to the extent practicable, impact other existing legal water uses and
flood protection.''
These two are among the most egregious examples of new
recommendations that were made without the benefit of any additional
NEPA analysis or opportunity for public review and comment. The first
is an increase in total water supplied by the project for all purposes
by more than 20 percent. Remarkably, no increase in the cost of the
Comprehensive plan is identified to collect, store, treat and deliver
this additional water. Moreover, this idea of 245,000 additional acre-
feet was rejected in the Jacksonville District's analysis because of
its adverse impacts to vast stretches of state-owned Everglades.
The second commitment abandons the balanced multipurpose nature of
the comprehensive plan called for by Section 528 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 that authorized the development of the plan.
The new commitment unequivocally subordinates the claims of economic
users in time of drought to those of restoration without any evaluation
of the economic or the environmental impacts of such a decision.
Extreme climatic conditions sometimes call for difficult operational
decisions. These decisions are best made in light of the environmental
and economic conditions prevailing at the time.
The addition of these commitments has led to litigation in Federal
Court. The complaint is supported by a broad spectrum of Florida
interests, including the Miccosukee Tribe and several agricultural
producers. Its purpose is to seek injunctive relief to prevent the Army
Corps of Engineers from implementing them in subsequent planning and
design activities in furtherance of the Comprehensive plan. The
agricultural community strongly opposes the inclusion of any of the 13
additional commitments in the Chief's Report in any congressional
authorization of the comprehensive plan.
Florida Agriculture's Recommendations for WRDA 2000 Authorizations
Affirm the statement of the Comprehensive plan's multiple
project purposes contained in the WRDA 1996 authorization.
Florida agriculture supports the statement of Plan purposes
contained in Section 528 of The Water Resources Development Act of
1996: ``The comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection of
water quality in and the reduction of the loss of freshwater from, the
Everglades. The comprehensive plan shall include such features as are
necessary to provide for the water-related needs of the region,
including flood control, the enhancements of water supplies, and other
objectives served the Central and Southern Florida Project.'' Congress
should affirm this fundamental statement of purposes and priorities in
authorizing the comprehensive plan.
Approve the Comprehensive Plan presented in Jacksonville
District's Feasibility Study as a framework to guide future project
planning and require periodic updating.
Florida agriculture believes that the Jacksonville District's
recommended comprehensive plan is an appropriate guide and framework
for the continued plan formulation and detailed technical analysis
necessary to achieve the environmental and economic purposes served by
the Central and Southern Florida Project for the next half-century.
Congress should approve the plan as the framework for future planning
and design of the new Central and Southern Florida Project elements and
operational modifications.
In approving the comprehensive plan, Congress should require it to
be revised periodically based on (1) new scientific knowledge, (2) the
results of the pilot projects discussed below, (3) the results of the
three feasibility studies recommended in the District's report, (4) the
actual benefits and other impacts resulting from newly completed
features and changed operational rules and (5) the projected benefits
and other impacts of further proposed modifications and additions to
the Central and Southern Florida Projects. Such revisions are essential
to maintain the comprehensive plan as a current framework guiding
future project investments and operational changes over the two-decade
implementation period.
Without doubt, integration of the feasibility studies of Florida
Bay and Florida Keys, of Southwest Florida, and of the Comprehensive
Integrated Water Quality Plan, the actual results received from the
completion of feasibility level studies of new construction elements as
well as implementation and evaluation of the pilot projects will result
in substantial modifications to the plan. Such changes must be
anticipated and provided for in congressional action on the
comprehensive plan in 2000. A revised comprehensive plan should be
submitted to Congress whenever future recommendations for further
project authorizations are requested.
Authorize cost sharing for project operation and
maintenance that reflects the unique combination of project purposes
served by the Comprehensive Plan.
Congress must recognize that a substantial share of the costs of
operating and maintaining the new structures needed to implement the
comprehensive plan are associated with ecosystem restoration and with
Everglades National Park, specifically. The benefits of restoration are
enjoyed across the nation, and indeed internationally, in the case of
migrating species and rare and endangered species unique to South
Florida. These costs are properly borne by the Federal Government.
Authorize reallocation of present water users' supplies
only when comparable replacement supplies are available to those users.
Florida agriculture supports the Jacksonville District's
recommended comprehensive plan because it recognizes that ecological
and economic health of South Florida is at risk, and implementation of
the plan is essential to restoring and maintaining that health. As an
industry which contributes very little to the increase in demand for
water over the next 50 years, we are concerned that our existing
supplies not be taken from us and given to other users before
replacement supplies are in place. Authorize the pilot projects not
authorized in WRDA 1999.
Florida agriculture supports the authorization of the five
remaining pilot projects recommended in the comprehensive plan which
were not authorized previously. Implementation of the $100 million in
pilot projects is essential to demonstrate the technology underlying
the comprehensive plan. Until we are confident this technology will
perform as anticipated and at the projected cost, we can not be
confident that the comprehensive plan can serve as the ultimate
blueprint for meeting our future water demands.
Authorize construction projects only when supported by
feasibility level studies that have been formally transmitted to
Congress by the Administration.
The Restudy has succeeded in producing a conceptual plan that
enjoys broad support; however, it is not at the level of detail
necessary to define specific construction projects with any reasonable
degree of certainty as to their costs, their benefits or even their
physical impacts and performance; therefore, the Comprehensive Plan
should not be authorized in its entirety. The large geographic area,
project scope and complexity of issues have precluded the conduct of
studies at the level of detail that normally supports Corps of
Engineers construction authorizations. Congress should not authorize
construction projects unless feasibility level studies have been
completed and the report has been officially transmitted to Congress
after full public and interagency review.
The need for strict adherence to this rule is particularly
important in the case of these projects because of the uncertainties of
restoration science and the complex interaction among individual
projects. We are painfully aware that even when projects are authorized
after a full feasibility investigation,--in the case of South Florida,
the Modified Water Deliveries Project for Everglades National Park--
these projects can become mired in design problems and scientific
uncertainty and their implementation delayed for years. The
comprehensive plan is too important to South Florida and the Nation, to
prematurely authorize land acquisition and project construction.
Florida agriculture urges Congress to authorize project construction
only when a feasibility study has been completed and transmitted by the
executive branch. It is also essential that this authorization function
be retained by the Congress and not delegated to the executive branch.
Require incremental justification of projects authorized
for construction.
We recommend that Congress require the Corps of Engineers to
describe the benefits of each project in the feasibility report
supporting project construction. Consistent with Section 528 of WRDA
1996, we are not suggesting that an economic justification be required
for projects which do not supply water for economic purposes. However,
we believe it is essential that each project be formulated in
accordance with the 1983 Principles and Guidelines for Water and
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies of the U.S. Water
Resources Council and that the contribution of each project to the
objectives of the comprehensive plan be described. We believe it is
important for Congress to understand the incremental contribution of
each investment to the ecological and economic purposes served by the
plan before authorizing its implementation. This is a standard
requirement for other projects across the nation, and there should be
no exception for modifications to the Central and Southern Florida
Project.
Require development and periodic updating of a strategic
plan identifying all measures (and their associated life-cycle costs)
necessary to achieve restoration and other project purposes including
water quality and exotic species management. We share the concerns
articulated in the Conference Committee report accompanying the fiscal
year 2000 Interior Appropriations Act. The costs of restoration far
exceed the $7.8 billion identified as the cost of the comprehensive
plan. Moreover, there are several uncompleted projects, including
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, which will have
important impacts on the South Florida Ecosystem. Congress should
require the maintenance of the Strategic plan which would integrate all
activities, including management of exotic species relating to
restoration and a full identification of all restoration related
measures and their life-cycle costs.
Projects should use land acquired from willing sellers
and land already in public ownership where practical; otherwise the
State condemnation process should be followed.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for acquisition of approximately
248,000 acres of land needed for the various components of the Plan.
Most of these acres will be targeted in the rural agricultural areas.
To minimize the impact on one segment of the economy, the acquisitions
should be focused to the greatest extent practical on willing sellers
and government owned land. No one basin or sector of the economy in
South Florida should bear a disproportionate burden if land is required
to be taken though condemnation.
Agriculture also feels that if condemnation is required, then the
State of Florida's condemnation law should be followed which allows the
landowner whose land is being taken to be reimbursed for all reasonable
costs expended. We believe it is unfair to take someone's land and not
reimburse the landowners reasonable costs, such as legal costs and
appraisal costs, as is done in the Federal condemnation process.
Water quality requirements should be agreed to by the
Federal and State agencies before any project element is authorized.
Currently, there is no requirement that the Federal or State
agencies must present to Congress and the Florida Legislature how water
quality standards will be met upon completion of a project component.
Water quality must be an integral component of the Restudy. If we don't
assess how water quality requirements will be met, we run the risk that
we will spend millions and billions of dollars only to discover that we
built systems that are albatrosses and must be retrofitted with many
more billions of dollars to meet water quality standards. If water
quality is not totally integrated with the flood control and water
supply aspects of the project we run the risk that the project will be
a failure or that the project will ultimately be too costly to
complete. By addressing water quality during the authorization process,
we will help assure that we build the most efficient systems at the
outset and thus the overall success of the project.
Funding issues must be resolved.
In the recent past, the Federal Government has had difficulty
funding projects such as the Kissimmee River Restoration, the C-111
Project, Stormwater Treatment Area 1-East, etc. The State has not yet
found a dedicated source of funds to fund the Restudy projects. Each
Restudy project element should have reasonably assured funding from
both the State and Federal Government before it is authorized. If
authorization and funding commitments are not closely tied, we run the
risk of condemning agricultural land and starting construction only to
have projects unfinished for years.
Conclusions and Summary of Proposed Principles to Guide Further
Authorizations of the Comprehensive Plan
I thank the Committee for this opportunity to present the views of
Florida Agriculture on the results of the Central and Southern Florida
Project Comprehensive Review Study. Successful implementation of the
comprehensive plan is essential to the ecological and economic health
of all of South Florida during the next century. The agricultural
community is a vital element of the economy of South Florida and will
benefit greatly from ensuring that additional water is made available
to restore South Florida ecosystems and to provide for a growing urban
population.
Congress should affirm the multiple purpose nature of the
comprehensive plan and direct its use as a framework and guide to
future project planning and design, provided it is regularly updated.
It should assure existing water users that their supplies would not be
reallocated without replacement water being available on comparable
terms. It should act quickly to reduce the uncertainties associated
with the proposed comprehensive plan by authorizing and funding the
pilot projects as soon as possible. It should not authorize any
construction projects that are not based on the same level of
engineering, economic and environmental analysis that is required of
other projects nationwide.
______
Responses of Malcolm Wade to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. What is the contribution that the sugar industry is
making in the Everglades restoration effort?
Response. Florida's sugar farmers are paying approximately $12
million a year in special ``Agricultural Privilege Taxes'' mandated by
Florida's 1994 Everglades Forever Act. (This is the only place in the
country where farmers are taxed for the ``privilege'' of farming).
These taxes will provide at least $233 million, which is more than 100
percent of the project costs associated with cleaning farm water. The
sugar farmers are the only stakeholders that are currently paying a tax
in excess of general ad valorem taxes for the restoration.
Forty thousand acres (60 square miles) consisting primarily of
sugar cane farm land were taken out of production to build Stormwater
Treatment Areas (STAB) to filter farm, urban and Lake Okeechobee water
before it enters the Everglades system.
In addition, sugar farmers contributed $1 million to help build the
experimental prototype filter marsh, the Everglades Nutrient Removal
Project.
In addition, farmers have spent tens of millions of dollars on the
farms to implement a series of Best Management Practices (BMPs)--soil
and water management techniques which clean the water before it leaves
the farms. These BMPs have been quite successful, reducing phosphorus
levels an average of 50 percent a year since 1994, which is twice the
legal requirement.
In addition, the farmers formed a special environmental taxing
district that has generated about $2,500,000 annually since 1989, used
exclusively for environmental restoration within the Everglades
ecosystem.
U.S. Sugar also contributed more than 6 years of a top executive's
time and expertise serving on the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida. This commission developed consensus support
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Restudy of the Central and South
Florida Flood Control System. Sugar farmers continue to support the
Restudy in public forums across the country.
In addition, sugar farmers, as large property owners, also pay over
$200,000 a year for Everglades Construction as part of property taxes
levied by the South Florida Water Management District.
Members of management in all of the major sugar companies have
participated in a proactive way on all of the significant committees in
the Everglades restoration process, including:
Governors Commission on the Everglades;
Governors Commission for a Sustainable South Florida;
SFWMD Lower East Coast Water Supply Committee;
SFWMD Lower West Coast Water Supply Committee;
SFWMD Caloosahatchee River Advisory Committee;
SFWMD Agriculture Advisory Committee;
Everglades Forever Act Technical Mediation Group
Everglades Technical Advisory Committee;
Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee.
Question 2. What have been the effects of the Federal sugar program
on the Everglades ecosystem?
Response. The Federal sugar program has had a positive effect on
the Everglades ecosystem. It has enabled farmers to continue to keep
these environmentally sensitive lands in agriculture. Sugarcane farming
has been determined to be the best possible use for land in the
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). Sugarcane is basically a tropical
grass--it needs very little in the way of fertilizers or chemicals. If
sugar farmers shifted from sugar to other crops the phosphorus run-off
would be at least 200 percent greater.
Other options for these 500,000 acres of land--located near Lake
Okeechobee and less than an hour's drive from both east and west
coasts--would be development or production of alternative crops.
Development would be disastrous for the Everglades, and other crops
require many times more fertilizer and pesticides.
There are no subsidy payments to sugar farmers, and the Federal
sugar program has operated at no cost to the Federal Government for
many years. Reforms to the sugar program in the 1996 Freedom to Farm
Bill removed government price supports, which have resulted in sugar
prices dropping to 20-year lows. Yet, Florida's sugar farmers are
efficient and have been vertically integrating, adding refining
operations to compete in an increasingly competitive sugar market.
The Federal sugar program is a response to predatory trading
practices by foreign governments who heavily subsidize sugar production
in their own countries. Absent the sugar program's import restrictions,
this heavily subsidized foreign sugar would flood our markets, driving
efficient American producers out of business. Farmers in the EAA would
be forced to alternative uses for their land, with many negative
consequences for the Everglades.
The option (and ultimate goal of environmental extremists) of the
Federal Government buying almost half a million acres of private land
and returning it to nature is simply unrealistic. Money for purchasing
the land aside, just managing such an expanse would be nearly
impossible given the rapid invasion of exotic species on other
government-owned land in the South Florida ecosystem. The government
would also have to operate and maintain hundreds of pumps (currently
owned and operated by the farmers) to move water from Lake Okeechobee
south into the Everglades to maintain the water supply for South
Florida as the natural contours of the land have changed over the last
50 years.
Question 3. In what capacity is the Talisman property currently
being used by the sugar industry?
Response. The transaction that gave the government the title to the
``Talisman Property'' was a complex package of trades with, and lease-
backs to, several agricultural companies. The former Talisman tracts
that were traded to consolidate the government ownership are now owned,
and are being farmed, by the companies who participated in the trades.
These properties are shown in dark green on the attached sketch.
The land that is now owned by the government (the South Florida
Water Management District), whether it was originally owned by Talisman
(shown in orange on the attached map) or another company (shown in pink
on the attached map), is being farmed under leases held by the SFWMD.
The understanding during the negotiations of the Talisman agreements
was that this land would continue to be farmed until the government
needed the property for the construction of the water projects
envisioned in the Restudy. Essentially all of the land now controlled
by the government in anticipation of it being found suitable for use as
part of the EAA reservoir project is encumbered with leases that allow
farming at a minimum through 2005 or 2008, depending on the specific
parcel, with a maximum term of 20 years.
The parcels that were owned by a company other than Talisman, but
are now part of the government holdings, are under lease to the
original owner and are still being farmed and are shown in pink on the
attached schedule. The government owned land that formerly belonged to
Talisman is leased to the companies who participated in the land
exchange. Because of the cropping cycles associated with sugar cane the
government agreed to give the lessees a 30-month notice prior to
requiring them to vacate the land.
The attached sketch illustrates the government land holdings as a
result of the Talisman transaction and the related lease expiration
dates.
Question 4. How does this change once the Everglades Agricultural
Area Storage Reservoirs are put into place?
Once it is determined how much land is needed for reservoirs and
where these reservoirs will be located, there will be no use by the
sugar companies. The water storage projects will become components of
the Central and Southern Florida Project and will be owned and operated
by the SFWMD. It is worth noting that the location of the EAA storage
facilities modeled in the Restudy does not match the real estate the
SFWMD now controls as a result of the Talisman transaction.
It will be necessary to reformulate the reservoir plan during the
design process to determine the final configuration, operation, cost
and feasibility of the facilities.
______
Responses by Malcolm Wade to Additional Questions from Senator Bob
Graham
Question 1. This year in the Interior Appropriations bill,
Congressman Regula called for the development of ``assurances''
language that would ensure that the park and natural systems in the
Everglades region receive adequate quantities of water. I know that the
Administration and the state are working very hard to develop this
language for inclusion into the Administration's WRDA proposal. Can you
describe for me the basic principles that you feel are critical
elements of this language and why?
Response. 1. Assurance provisions should be incorporated into WRDA
2000 that are consistent with the Restudy purposes expressed in WRDA
1996 that, through implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, both environmental needs and other water related
needs of the region will be met in a balanced way.
The goals and purposes of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan include
meeting not only environmental needs but the other water related needs
as well. The South Florida Water Management District, as local sponsor
of the C&S Florida Project is relying on the Comprehensive Plan to meet
not just environmental water needs but other water supply and flood
protection needs for urban and agricultural areas.
Consequently, providing assurances that both environmental and
economic needs will be met is fully consistent with the goals of the
overall Comprehensive Plan of the Restudy. The current assessment of
the Restudy team is that to meet all needs, roughly 80 percent of the
new water will be used for the environment and the remaining 20 percent
for other needs.
2. Assurance that all needs will be addressed in a balanced way
must also be provided through a clearly defined authorization process
for plan components which will rely upon the Project Implementation
Reports now proposed by the Restudy's Implementation Plan.
The Proposed Comprehensive Plan is highly conceptual and based on
hydrologic models that will be further refined and are likely to
produce changing environmental restoration targets. The currently
proposed project components are based on these model results, not on
engineering designs or evaluations of operating efficiency or cost-
effectiveness. The pilot projects may also reveal the need for
substantial changes to the proposed Plan. These uncertainties are
acknowledged within the Restudy Report of April 1999.
Consequently, each project implementation report should be required
to identify the increase in, or reallocation of water supplies that
would result from the project component and the uses to be served upon
completion of the component. When Congress authorizes the component, it
would then also affirm the assurances as to the uses that would receive
the benefits of the component's implementation.
This continuing process will meet the goals and objectives of the
Everglades Restudy in a more direct and quantitative way and can be
used to provide specific guarantees to all interests that individual
project components will provide measurable and enforceable
contributions to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
objectives.
Question 2. You have raised some concerns regarding this
authorization of the Restudy without a detailed feasibility study. Can
you explain why you feel the Restudy should not move forward without
this level of detail?
Response. Our position has never been that the Restudy should not
move forward. We have been active players in the formulation of the
Comprehensive Plan and now support its approval (without the additional
commitments in the Chiefs Report) by Congress as a framework for
continued planning and design of future project modifications. We
supported the Critical Projects process authorized in 1996, and we
supported expediting the two ASR Pilot Projects authorized in 1999. We
support authorization of the additional Pilot Projects in WRDA 2000.
Congressional direction regarding the comprehensive plan and
construction of the pilot projects are essential if the restoration
process is to proceed as quickly as Federal and State resource
limitations will allow. We support funding of all restoration
activities at the Corps' capability level in fiscal year 2001 and
beyond and note the Corps presently has the authority to continue
preconstruction planning and design of additional project elements.
We believe that the Restudy should move forward without delay at
both the state and Federal levels. We do not, however, support
construction authorization by Congress for major Restudy components in
the absence of the basic engineering, economic and environmental
analysis that details the project's cost, performance and feasibility.
Premature authorization will not speed up the final construction or
operational date for any project. In fact, it may become an obstacle to
the process if the detailed analysis leads to a significant deviation
from the conceptual plan that would be authorized in WRDA 2000. We
believe that all parties should work together to find a process that
allows the Restudy to move forward without delay while the needed final
engineering analysis is completed. Our position is no different from
the long-standing position of several administrations concerning water
project authorizations, and we note that this position was affirmed by
President Clinton as recently as his signing statement for WRDA 99.
In addition, the detailed feasibility studies, referred to as
Project Implementation Reports (PIR) in the Restudy, are the most
appropriate vehicles for providing the assurances to Congress and other
interested parties that the benefits projected to flow from the
Comprehensive plan will actually be obtained. These reports will
document and quantify how each component will work, what the
restoration goals are and how much water can be expected to be provided
to the ecosystem and other uses. This information can form the basis of
binding water allocations to the environment and to other users that
can be tied to completion of the component and the resulting change in
systems operation. Water quality and other environmental and economic
considerations will also be clarified.
__________
Statement of Nora Williams, Monroe County Commissioner, Marathon, FL
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I want to thank you for
this opportunity to testify before the Senate Committee on the
Environment and Public Works on the important issue of the Everglades
Restudy.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Board of Monroe County
Commissioners, I serve as the County's Land Use Liaison to the State of
Florida, and I represent the Commissioners on the National Marine
Sanctuary's Water Quality Steering Committee. I am also a recent
appointment to the Governor's Commission for the Everglades. My county,
Monroe, is better known as the Florida Keys, but it also includes vast
tracks of the mainland Everglades and is the southernmost component of
the Everglades ecosystem.
My testimony before you today will be confined to five critical
points:
ONE: The restoration of the Everglades is absolutely critical to
the future of South Florida and the Restudy is our last best chance to
restore the Everglades. This is about more than our water supply--there
simply is no South Florida as we know it without the Everglades. Fully
one third of Everglades National Park is Florida Bay, the shallow body
of water between the mainland and the Florida Keys. It is the nursery
ground of the marine creatures that make their homes on the reefs of
the Florida Keys, thus serving as the foundation of both the Florida
Keys' ecosystem and its economy.
TWO: We must start right away. The Restudy really must be
authorized in the year 2000. The condition of the Everglades is not
stagnant, but is getting steadily worse over time, and can be expected
at some point to reach ecological collapse. And there often isn't
recovery from collapse. Fragile ecosystems reach a point where no
amount of action can ever restore what has been lost And sometimes when
I'm walking along the edge of the grassy wetlands of the Everglades,
I'm deeply frightened of how close we are to irretrievable loss.
THREE: The Restudy is an evolving process. When you examine the
Restudy, you're definitely looking at a flawed document--there can be
no question about it. There's a paragraph for just about every vested
special interest in the State--with one major exception I will mention
later--and the plan is fundamentally compromised repeatedly on one side
or the other. But, as it stands, it's as close as we're likely to get
to consensus with something this mighty, this expensive and this
complex. Please recognize that your approval of the Restudy begins a
process of refinement of these expressed objectives and plan--work to
be done not before the passage of the Restudy but as the approved and
funded Restudy evolves.
FOUR: The Restudy must not be the basis for further degradation of
the Everglades ecosystem. Much of the expense of the Everglades Restudy
is directly traceable to undoing the earlier work of the Army Corps of
Engineers this century in Florida. Work to control and direct the flow
of water for the convenience and profit of a single species is rarely
wise, even when that species is us--and we're now finding the cost of
single species ecosystem manipulation is not only expensive, its
devastating and almost always harmful even to the single species it is
designed to benefit. Let's enter this Restudy pledged not to commit the
mistakes of the past and determined that we will not balance every step
forward with a step back.
FIVE: Funding water quality improvements in the Florida Keys is
crucial to the Restudy's success. Increasingly, the Army Corps of
Engineers has come to see that their job, if responsibly undertaken,
isn't just about the movement of water--it's about the quality of the
water that is moved. That's why I'm deeply distressed by the one
special interest I know of that didn't get included in this Restudy
you'll find remarkably little mention of the Florida Keys, the enormous
wastewater and stormwater challenges we face, and no money allocated to
help with those problems.
The Florida Keys are essentially the southernmost third of the
Everglades. What happens in South Florida to the north of us ends up in
our Bay, in our backyards, flowing through to the precious reef tract
that is not only the world's No. 1 dive destination, but the boundary
of the Everglades ecosystem. With documented water quality concerns
that made headlines in national press across the Nation last year, how
could we have emerged completely unfunded from the Restudy? Our
wastewater system upgrade costs are higher than anywhere else because
our islands are solid rock, and the water quality standards to which we
are being held are higher than anywhere else. And yet, with our cost of
living among the highest in Florida, our citizens have one of the
lowest incomes. We brought these issues formally before the Army Corps
of Engineers during their public hearings to no avail.
I can't accept the argument I hear most frequently for our
exclusion--that the Restudy is a delicately balanced Christmas tree,
already heavily laden with special interest and specific project
ornaments--that one more may topple this precious tree. Ignoring what
the Keys face, and those impacts on the Everglades ecosystem, is like
saying the tree is finished before you put the star on top.
We have a Restudy that recognizes the wastewater crisis in the
Florida Keys, that acknowledges that solutions for this crisis are, and
I'm quoting here, Beyond the means of Tanya and yet offers no help for
us in its $8 billion budget. We're not left out because the problem
isn't recognized, and we're not left out because our problems and their
expense pale in comparison with those that were selected for funding
inclusion.
Can it simply be about our lack of clout? With only 85,000 people
spread across 150 miles of islands, have we so little voice in the
process? I just don't know. But I can tell you with absolute conviction
something that I really DO know--water quality surrounding the Florida
Keys is deeply threatened and we cannot bear the burden alone. I am
here before you today to ask, whether within the Restudy or through a
separate appropriation, that you don't forget us. The Florida Keys are
a national treasure, a part of the Everglades ecosystem, and we too are
in danger of irretrievable loss and unbearable burdens.
The Everglades Restudy is our last, best chance to recover
something we can't afford, in any sense of the word to lose, and the
time for the Restudy's approval is now. Let us acknowledge that the
Restudy is flawed and that it will evolve over time. And let us pledge
to one another that the Restudy will be committed to movement forward!
not used as an excuse for allowing additional degradation of the
Everglades. And let me beg that you not forget the place I'm so proud
to call home the Florida Keys.
__________
State of Florida,
Office of the Attorney General, January 3, 2000
The Honorable Bob Smith, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510-6175.
Dear Senator Smith: It is a privilege and a pleasure to welcome you to
Florida as part of the review of Everglades legislation by the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Few issues are more important, or more galvanizing, for Florida
than the fate of the Everglades. I am sure your committee colleague
Senator Bob Graham has on more than one occasion described to you the
splendor of the Florida Everglades and the crucial role played by the
Everglades system. Senator Graham's efforts to protect and restore the
Everglades system, begun when he was our Governor, remain at the top of
Florida's agenda. In a newspaper survey just this week, Florida's eight
living Governors unanimously agreed that the environment--led by the
Everglades--is the central issue facing our state in the 21st Century.
The Everglades restoration legislation under review by your
committee is desperately needed to ensure the long-term protection of
this vital environmental resources. In welcoming you to our state, I
strongly urge you to lend you full support to the legislation.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General.
__________
Florida House of Representatives,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300, January 5, 2000.
The Honorable Bob Smith, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Smith: Allow me to take this opportunity to welcome you
and the members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works to
Florida.
We are pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate the state's
longstanding commitment to the restoration of Florida's Everglades. The
Everglades are a uniquely valuable natural resource and well worth our
best efforts to assure that restoration is ultimately successful. What
we have in the Comprehensive Plan for the Restudy is an overall
strategy for restoration. Now that it is time to begin implementation,
it is imperative that we closely examine each planned project to
determine those that maximize ecosystem benefits. Moreover, it is our
responsibility to see that the public dollars available for Everglades
restoration are put to their best use.
Rest assured that Florida is committed to continuing our
partnership with the Federal Government to restore the beauty and
vitality of the Everglades ecosystem. file will be following your
committee's actions with great interest and look forward to working
with you.
Sincerely,
John Thrasher, Speaker.
__________
Statement of Hon. Carrie P. Meek, U.S. Representative from the State of
Florida
Mr. Chairman, I bid you a heartfelt welcome to this part of the
Sunshine State. I want you to know that I am a native Floridian. For
this reason, I am honored to participate in these proceedings that, I
hope, will finally lead to a sensible and realistic legislation in the
Congress as soon as possible.
In the interest of time, I will be brief but succinct in my
remarks, knowing full well that we have among us today a group of the
most committed and erudite witnesses whose resilient dedication to the
Everglades has withstood the challenges of the times. I also would like
these remarks to be included in the proceedings of this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, from my perspective I want to focus on one basic
issue: The Comprehensive Plan that should define our legislation for
the restoration of our precious Everglades should include specific
elements designed to ensure equitable treatment of all segments of
South Florida's population in order to prevent disproportionate
negative impacts on minority populations due to the implementation of
specific engineering projects.
In light of this issue, I see two glaring consequences of the
Everglades restoration on inner city residents.
1. The implementation of market-driven initiatives of the State of
Florida that are linked to Everglades restoration will redirect
development and growth to communities where African-Americans live and
will result in their displacement and dislocation and thereby diminish
their quality of life.
As is usually assumed, growth is not always synonymous to progress.
2. Whatever comprehensive plan that will emerge from the Everglades
restoration will alter the South Florida landscape in a manner that
creates opportunities for the kind of excesses we Floridians have
experienced over the last half-century.
It is not tenable to then say those results--unintended
consequences, for the most part--were not also the responsibility of
those who devised and supported the Plan. And if the genuine measure of
a society is how it takes care of the least of its members, the
disenfranchised, the young and the old, the poor and, the sick, then in
order for the Everglades restoration to be the success we all want it
to be, the Comprehensive Plan must include, as part of its essential
thrust, measures that address environmental justice and community
revitalization. It will not long succeed unless all of us are included
in this Plan.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this project carries
along with it some $8 billion. It is easily the largest public works
project not only in the United States, but throughout the world.
Accordingly, I would like to issue a call to action to the
proponents of this project not to summarily exclude our inner city
residents--African-Americans and other minorities--whose lives will
surely be affected by it.
Let us not be oblivious of one other Federal program that
masqueraded as ``urban renewal,'' whose glaring effects resulted in the
disingenuous dislocation of many African-American families in the inner
cities.
Rather, let us be inclusive and responsive by aggressively engaging
these very same affected residents via a comprehensive program designed
to teach them on strict environmental clean-up standards, train them on
environmental rehab and health safety projects, as well as job creation
criteria.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we discuss, debate and think through the
various phases of any plan to restore the pristine beauty and
strengthen the longevity of our precious Everglades, indeed the most
crucial and challenging undertaking in this new millennium, I would
like all of us to hearken to the wisdom of the 1987 United Nations'
World Commission on Environment and Development Report. Though written
more than a decade ago, its timeliness is as salient today.
It defined sustainable development as ``. . . development which
meets the needs of the present without endangering the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.''
That definition rests on three principles:
1) that the future must not be sacrificed to the demands of the
present;
2) that humanity's economic is linked to the integrity of the
natural systems; and
3) that protecting the environment is impossible unless improve the
economic prospects of the Earth's poorest people.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for this opportunity and I look
forward to working with you in the Congress for the good of my fellow
Floridians, for the good of our nation, and for the longevity of Mother
Earth.
__________
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, January 6, 2000
The Hon. Bob Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
410 Dirksen Building,
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Bob: As the Dean of the Florida Congressional Delegation, let me
welcome you to Florida for your hearing on the Everglades restoration
project.
As you know, this project is a top priority for our entire
delegation as well as our Governor Jeb Bush. However, restoring the
Everglades is more than a state priority, it is a national priority. As
you will see and hear during your visit, the Everglades is a unique
ecosystem and the decisions we make about its future are critical and
very complicated.
One of the principal witnesses who will testify before your
Committee tomorrow is Nat Reed, who has long beers a very good friend
of mine. His resume lists his many distinguished accomplishments
including his service at the Department of Interior. What his resume
does not say is how widely respected he is throughout our state and
throughout the environmental community. He has devoted himself to the
Everglades project and I know you will find his thoughts to be very
compelling.
Again, welcome to Florida and I look forward to any thoughts you
might have about the Everglades project when you return. With best
wishes and personal regards, I am
Very truly yours,
C.W. Bill Young,
Member of Congress.
__________
Treasurer of the State of Florida,
January 4, 2000.
The Honorable Bob Smith,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Smith: I wish to welcome you and your committee to sunny,
southwest Florida and to thank you for holding a field hearing
regarding the proposed Everglades restoration. Florida is honored to
act as host to your committee.
I have been a long-time advocate of restoring the Florida
Everglades ecosystem and support you and your committee in your efforts
toward this worthy goal.
Sincerely,
Bill Nelson.
__________
Statement of Hon. Mark Foley, U.S. Representative from the State of
Florida
First and foremost, I want to thank Chairman Smith for this
hearing. It is the first one in his capacity as chairman of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works--and, by that virtue alone,
sends a strong signal on the importance of restoring the vitality of
the Florida Everglades.
Thanks to the support of congressional colleagues such as the
Chairman, all of us who are part of the Florida congressional
delegation have been able to bring the issue of the Everglades into the
national spotlight. It is now recognized across America--as it long has
been by Floridians--as a national treasure that needs to be protected.
It also is now widely recognized that it is a treasure in need of
help.
The good news is that we know the cause of its problems: more than
50 years of diverting the natural ebb and flow of water--the lifeblood
of the Everglades--from the Kissimmee River north of Lake Okeechobee to
the Park's boundaries in Florida Bay. This diversion has often left the
Everglades with too much or too little water, endangering the native
plant and wildlife accustomed to the Everglades historic water flows.
In order to preserve the Everglades, we need to restore its natural
flow of water--and that will take a tremendous and vital partnership
between Federal, state and local governments. That is why I so welcome
Chairman Smith's committee here today, to officially begin our
congressional review of the recommendations contained in the Restudy,
which was presented to Congress last July.
The Restudy is vital to reestablishing the Everglades' traditional
water flow while maintaining existing levels of flood control and
improving urban and agricultural water supplies.
Ever since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began the Restudy
effort to reevaluate the damage done by its old public works projects,
we have learned that drainage improvements designed to supply water and
protect us from devastating floods also have caused the decline of much
of the South Florida ecosystem.
Nowhere is this more evident than the St. Lucie River in my own
congressional District.
The St. Lucie River has long been a vital part of our local
economy. Aside from the obvious draw of our beaches, tourists from all
over come to Florida for boating, fishing, and other water-related
activities. The St. Lucie River has always attracted many of these
tourists because of its clear waters rich in fish and surrounding
wildlife. Historically, this pristine ecosystem was supported by the
slow natural drainage system of creeks and wetlands in central Martin
and southern St. Lucie counties.
As demand for agricultural and residential development grew,
however, the advent of drainage canals caused dramatic changes in this
fragile ecosystem, especially in the past few years. With each heavy
rainfall in South Florida' the St. Lucie River has had to absorb
billions of gallons of phosphorus-laden excess water from Lake
Okeechobee, stressing the mix of saltwater and freshwater needed by
marine life in the river. This situation has begun to have a
devastating effect not only on the river, but on the economies derived
by local fishermen and from tourism.
Thankfully, the mission outlined by the Restudy will help us
restore not only the Everglades National Park but also the St. Lucie
River, which needs to return to its historic, pristine state. By
addressing water storage problems on a regional scale, recommendations
in the Restudy will mitigate future freshwater releases into the St.
Lucie River.
I look forward to working with Chairman Smith and my colleagues in
the House to move forward with the Restudy this year. We must do
everything we can to restore a national treasure place bit as precious
and unique as the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Park.
__________
West Palm Beach, FL, January 6, 2000
Dear Honorable Senators: I have asked Mr. Reed to add my message in
with the materials that accompany his testimony before your
subcommittee.
My message is an ancient one: people, not governmental bodies, do
the work. People like yourselves and those who are before and behind
you are the engines that power action.
We are blessed that the remnant Everglades still exists, in part
due to the actions taken by brave individuals nearly a century ago. In
1905, Audubon conservation officer Guy Bradley was shot dead while
protecting wildlife in the Everglades. His death--the first
conservationist to die tragically in the line of duty--rallied others
to take action to protect the Everglades. It saddens fine to add that
many others have died tragically in the Everglades and elsewhere in the
world while protecting nature from our greed. I have included materials
on some of those who have died tragically while working in the
Everglades.
We are now on the brink of destroying what our ancestors worked so
hard to protect for us and for those who will follow us, If they were
with us today, how would those ancestors react to our inaction? How
will our children children judge our actions?
Our offspring are facing a paved wasteland overrun by invasive
exotic plants and animals because of our inaction. Future generations
will see the evidence of many hearings and words ire The Congressional
Record, but that is not action. What you do or not do is most important
to future generations, but they cannot be here before you to make their
pleas.
This past May I was also privileged to be the developer/coordinator
of the first South Florida Restoration Science Forum. The online forum
registry has the names of nearly 400 people who registered. It is
estimated that hundreds more also participated in the no-charge 3 day
event. Now, thousands participate in the forum as it continues on the
Internet (http://sofia.usgs.gov/sfrsf/). I have included several pages
on the forum exhibits, so that you can see how the forum focused on the
science reseeded for resource management decisionmaking actions.
Presently, I'm part of a collaborative effort to build a web-based
``virtual village'' to connect the many disparate and often
disconnected Internet sites for the efforts that are vital for
balancing the needs of nature and man in southern Florida.
Evergladesvillage is organized to provide knowledge by regional
location and by specific interest. It eliminates the need to jump
between the web sites of numerous organizations to find what each is
contributing. I have attached informational cards about
Evergladesvillage. It's Internet address is http:/
fwww.evergladesvillage.net.
I thank you for the opportunity to be part of your work. Best
wishes in your decisions and your actions,
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Mooney,
P.O. Box 222154,
West Palm Beach, FL 33422-2154
__________
Response of the Lake Worth Drainage District to the Comprehensive
Review Study
Executive Summary
On July 1, 1999 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
submitted the Final Report of the Central and Southern Florida Project
Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy) to Congress. The Restudy Plan
recommends wholesale changes to the water management system in south
Florida to provide for urban, agricultural and ecosystem sustainability
through the construction of $7.8 billion worth of new water projects.
The emphasis is on creating new water storage features to provide for
growing environmental and urban demand.
The Restudy Plan recommends several project features within or
adjacent to the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD). Although these
will necessitate structural changes to the LWDD facilities, of more
concern are the significant operational changes that will be needed to
incorporate new sources of water, which will include numerous Aquifer
Storage and Recovery (ASR) systems and new above ground reservoirs.
The LWDD has participated in the process to develop the Restudy
Plan and strongly supports congressional action to continue the
process. Like many in south Florida we acknowledge the need to
modernize the Federal water management system to promote both
restoration of the ecosystem and continued economic prosperity. For the
Restudy to succeed, the implementation phase must demonstrate that the
technological solutions that are proposed will work, are affordable and
will be constructed in a sequence that minimizes disruptions to
existing activities and investments. There was broad consensus on these
concepts throughout the development and publication of the Draft Plan
last fall.
Unfortunately, as soon as the public comment period was closed the
Department of Interior expressed its dissatisfaction with the plan they
had been instrumental in developing and demanded expensive, impractical
changes to meet a narrow set of objectives. This led to a hurried ad
hoc analysis by the Restudy planners of new features to pump large
quantities of urban stormwater from West Palm Beach all the way to
Everglades National Park. The structural changes necessary to make this
possible are overwhelming. It would require the complete reorientation
of a major portion of the LWDD system. Canals would have to be enlarged
onto property that now holds hundreds of houses, business and major
highways. The costs would be staggering. These costs are not included
in the current $7.8 billion price tag.
The process that led to this revised plan has reinforced a general
discomfort with the Federal process controlling the Restudy. Local
government staff and various public groups worked with the Corps over
several years to develop a balanced plan that most people understand,
only to have an elite group within one Federal agency attempt to obtain
major changes without any public participation. The Corps has
legitimized this closed door process by committing, in the Chief of
Engineers' Report, to water diversions that cannot be made with the
facilities in the Recommended Plan. Unless Congress insists on an open
process to implement a plan that is based on sound engineering and
economics the restoration of the Everglades will not have the support
of the people of Florida.
Conclusions
1. The Comprehensive Review of the Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control Project is timely and necessary to assure the protection
of the Everglades and future water supply for the people of south
Florida.
2. The Recommended Plan presented in the Draft Integrated Report,
although dependent on the large-scale application of untested
technologies, nevertheless provides a reasonable framework to begin a
deliberate program to accomplish the objectives.
3. Due to doubts about the viability of several of the most
important Restudy Plan components, Congress should authorize and fund
the pilot projects necessary to prove the feasibility of the new
technologies and a few critical projects for which the engineering,
economic and social impacts are not an issue.
4. Diverting urban runoff from West Palm Beach through the LWDD
canal system to Water Conservation Area 2 is not practical, and may not
even be possible, given the number of existing public and private
facilities that would have to be abandoned or significantly modified.
5. The commitment by the Chief of Engineers to provide 245,000
acre-feet of additional flow to Everglades National Park, above the
unprecedented increases already provided by the Recommended Plan, is a
breach of faith with those who participated in the development of the
Plan and should be flatly rejected by Congress.
6. The recommendation by the Chief of Engineers that the Federal
Government pay none of the future operations and maintenance costs,
when the process has been controlled to favor the agendas of Federal
agencies at the expense of local interests, will eliminate any chance
of the Plan being accepted by the people of Florida.
Introduction
The Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD)(see Figure 1) was
established June 15, 1915 to provide water management to a 218 square
mile area of eastern Palm Beach County. The mission has evolved as the
area developed such that the LWDD now provides essential groundwater
recharge to support 23 public water utilities serving over six hundred
thousand people. For the last 45 years the District has relied on water
supply deliveries from the Central and Southern Florida Project to
recharge public water supply wellfields, maintain canal levels to
prevent saltwater intrusion and provide irrigation and drainage to a
vital agricultural area.
In 1992, The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) was
authorized by Congress to develop a plan to reconfigure the water
management system in south Florida to provide for urban, agriculture
and ecosystem sustainability. On October 13, 1998, after 3 years of
multi-agency effort to develop a plan, the draft Comprehensive Plan of
the Central and Southern Florida Comprehensive Review Study Project was
released for public comment. Public meetings were held around south
Florida to present the Dratt Plan and receive public testimony.
December 31, 1998 marked the conclusion of the public comment period
and the Corps subsequently began preparation of the final Plan
considering responses to the draft by the public and other agencies.
The Final Plan presents a conceptual outline of $7.8 billion worth
of capital projects to rebuild the water management system in south
Florida. It is a plan that requires all interest groups to place their
faith for ecosystem restoration and reliable water supplies in a
process that will unfold over the next 20 years. Federal commitments to
early investments in restoration are accompanied by assurances to
existing water users that the transition to new technologies will not
deprive them of the water supply and flood protection they now enjoy.
Questions about the feasibility of the new technologies are to be
answered by a series of up front pilot tests of field scale prototypes.
Given enough time, money and sustained good faith by all involved
parties the Restudy has the potential to provide a healthy ecosystem
and economy for generations to come. Unfortunately the door was barely
closed on the public comment period when the Department of Interior
began demanding changes to the Plan which would add hundreds of
millions of dollars to the cost of the plan.
On December 31, 1998, the last day to submit written comments to
the Corps, the staff of the National Park Service delivered a 70 page
indictment of the $7.8 billion plan. They concluded that there was
insufficient evidence to claim the recommended plan would result in the
recovery of a healthy, sustainable ecosystem. ``Rather, we find
substantial, credible, and compelling evidence to the contrary'' their
report stated.
This response by a lead Federal agency involved in the study
prompted an immediate, closed door, redesign process to see if the plan
could be amended to satisfy the Park Service. This process has had a
significant impact on the recommendations contained in the Chief of
Engineers' Report to Congress, without having been exposed to public
review and comment.
The Lake Worth Drainage District
The LWDD water management system provides flood protection to
20,000 acres of prime agricultural land and 100,000 acres of urban
development. Facilities include over 511 miles of' canals and 20 water
control structures.
Protecting private property and public facilities from flooding has
always been an essential service provided by the LWDD. This is
accomplished by a well-designed and maintained network of canals and
control structures capable of removing excess stormwater without over
draining the land or wasting valuable water. The present system is
functioning at its build out capacity and new developments are required
to hold water onsite and elevate roads and buildings so the present
discharge capabilities are not exceeded. It is essential that any new
facilities added to accomplish Restudy goals recognize the constraints
inherent in the existing flood protection mission and capabilities of
the LWDD.
In the 1950's the Corps of Engineers connected the LWDD canal
network to the water storage features of the Central and Southern
Florida Project. (Figure 2) This transformed the drainage and water
conservation system of the LWDD to an integrated water management
system capable of supplying dry season recharge to urban wellfields
supplying water to hundreds of thousands of people. Water delivered by
the LWDD system is used to satisfy the needs of public utilities, golf
courses, residential landscaping and a diverse and economically
important agricultural economy. It is also essential to protect water
supply wells from salt water intrusion during droughts. (See Figure 3)
(1) Quoted from a report entitled ``Comments of Everglades National
Park on the Programmatic Environmental impact Statement and Alternative
D13R'' December 31, 1998.
The Restudy Recommended Plan
General Overview
Four of the proposed 68 components in the Recommended Plan will
directly affect LWDD facilities; however, because of the interactions
between most Plan components, the Corps' analysis has shown that
operational or structural changes in any of the main components can
potentially affect the rest of the system. For that reason it has been
necessary for the LWDD to actively monitor and participate in Restudy
activities to assure that water supply and flood protection are not
impaired. Figure 4 is a conceptual drawing of the major structural
features of the Recommended Plan.
Table I lists the estimated capital and operations and maintenance
costs for the Plan components in or adjacent to the LWDD. If these
components are constructed and function as projected in the Corps
computer model they will reduce the dependency of water users within
the LWDD on the existing Federal project and make them more dependent
on the new Federal features proposed -for construction. This has the
effect of allocating most water from existing sources to environmental
uses while new, expensive projects are required to meet the existing
and future needs of the developed area.
Appendix A gives a brief description of each of the projects listed
in Table 1. The Agricultural Reserve Reservoir is the most significant
project proposed within the LWDD boundary. This project will store
local runoff that is now released to the ocean and make it available
for local uses during dry periods. It is a worthwhile proposal in
concept but there are important engineering details that must be
resolved before the feasibility of the project can be assessed.
The Corps has recommended a reasonable approach to implementation
of the Agricultural Reserve Reservoir. They have committed to producing
a detailed engineering, economic and environmental evaluation prior to
returning to Congress for specific authorization to construct the
reservoir. If this approach is followed for all the major components of
the Plan continuing public support should be forthcoming.
Doubts About the Final Report
The Draft Comprehensive Plan was broadly circulated to all
interested parties, numerous public hearings were held in south Florida
and written comments were accepted through December 31, 1998, a period
of 1 1 weeks from the first release of the 3,000 page report on October
13. In most cases written comments were summarized by the Corps staff,
and brief responses were drafted and included in an appendix to the
Final Integrated Report.
The comments from the National Park Service were treated much
differently however. On the last day to submit comments, December 31,
1998, the staff of Everglades National Park submitted a 70 page
criticism of the Recommended Plan, even though the same staff was
involved on a daily basis during every step of the plan development
process. The Park Service threatened to withhold support for the
Restudy unless significant last minute changes were made to the plan.
The chief complaint of the Park Service was that the plan would not
guarantee enough of an increase in flow to Everglades and Biscayne
National Parks and that the time it would take to implement the
components providing the most environmental benefits was not
acceptable.
In response, the computer modeling team began an expedited analysis
to increase the water supply to Everglades National Park and Biscayne
Bay. One of the premises of the Restudy Planning effort from the
beginning was to avoid any proposal that would discharge urban runoff
into the Everglades. With the Park Service requesting as much as
500,000 acre feet per year of additional flow above what was provided
by the Draft Plan, it became necessary to abandon that premise. In
addition, since one of the demands was to provide more water to
Biscayne Bay, the new water could only be obtained by diverting
stormwater from coastal urban areas as far north as West Palm Beach.
Impacts to LWDD
The modifications that would have to occur within and around the
LWDD to accommodate Park Service demands (Figure 5) included:
Stormwater runoff from the West Palm Beach Canal would be
pumped uphill through the Lake Worth Drainage District's primary canal
running along the Florida Turnpike. From there it would be pumped again
into the Agricultural Reserve Reservoir.
From the Agricultural Reserve Reservoir, water would then
be discharged south into another Lake Worth Drainage District canal and
pumped again into the Hillsboro Impoundment.
The Hillsboro Impoundment would be modified to accept the
runoff from West Palm Beach and from the Hillsboro Canal which drains
the cities of Boca Raton and Deerfield Beach. The Hillsboro Impoundment
will require significant design and operational modifications to
accommodate this inflow and treatment of urban runoff. The water would
then be allowed to flow into Water Conservation Area 2A.
The end result of these and other changes to the Plan was a
conclusion that as much as 250,000 acre feet per year of additional
water could be sent to the National Parks on top of the 62 percent
increase projected with the Recommended Plan.
Unresolved Technical Issues
The proposed changes to the plan to satisfy the Park Service were
forced into the hydrologic computer model without time to verify that
the model's representation was accurate or whether the ideas were even
feasible in the field. Questions include:
How will urban runoff be cleaned to a sufficient degree
to allow its release into the Everglades and how much will the
treatment facilities cost?
Is the re-routing of the stormwater from West Palm Beach
even possible? The concept requires that two primary flood control
canals that are already operating at the limit of their design capacity
be enlarged to accommodate roughly a tripling of the hydraulic
capacity. These primary canals currently share a narrow right of way
with the Ronald Reagan Florida Turnpike with dense suburban development
on both sides.
How will the LWDD be able to provide flood protection to
the landowners in their western service area? This plan would require
the complete redesign of the western one third of the LWDD canal
system. A system that works now by gravity flow would have to be
retrofitted to connect to a primary canal controlled by large pump
stations.
Who would pay to build and operate this system? Even if
Congress agrees to pay 50 percent of the initial cost a significant new
source of funding would have to be found to pay the other half of the
capital costs and all of the operating expenses. The LWDD does not have
the tax base or legal authority to take on even a fraction of these
extreme costs. Even though these extremely expensive structural changes
are being proposed solely to satisfy the demands of the National Park
Service, The Corps of Engineers Report recommends that all operation
and maintenance costs be born by non-Federal entities in south Florida.
appendix a
Features of the Restudy Recommended Plan That Will Have a Direct Impact
on the Facilities or Operations of the Lake Worth Drainage
District
The following pages give a brief description of several projects
proposed by the restudy which will have a direct impact on the
facilities or operation of the Lake Worth Drainage District. The
sketches are extracted directly from the Restudy web site or the Final
Integrated Report submitted to Congress on July 1, 1999 and are
conceptualizations of the principle elements of each component.
The Restudy Plan seeks to achieve its regional ecosystem goals
through a combination of interrelated projects, some of which are large
scale, such as 200 ASR wells around Lake Okeechobee and have distinct
regional operational impact. Others are smaller in scope with most
direct impacts limited to a local area. Although the components of most
interest to the LWDD fit into this latter category, the performance of
the entire mix of regional and local elements will determine the final
performance of the Plan.
C-51 Backpumping to West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area
Description and Purpose
The purpose of this component is to reduce water supply
restrictions in Northern Palm Beach County by providing additional flow
to the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area and to enhance Loxahatchee
Slough. Figure 6 illustrates the conceptual features.
Potential Impacts and Concerns for the LWDD
The C-51 Canal receives flood flows from the LWDD system. The
relocation of the S155A structure will reverse the direction of flow
for this segment of the canal and must be accomplished in a way that
preserves the flood control function of the existing canal.
Hillsboro Impoundment and ASR
Description and Purpose
The purpose of this component is to provide a water supply storage
reservoir to supplement water deliveries to the Hillsboro Canal during
the dry season. The 2,460 acre reservoir with a maximum depth of 6 feet
will be located both north and south of the Hillsboro Canal. Thirty
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells with a total injection and
recovery capacity of 150 MOD will be used to enhance the storage
capabilities of the project. Figure 7 illustrates the details of its
conceptual features.
Potential Impacts and Concerns
The Hillsboro Impoundment receives excess water from the Hillsboro
canal during the wet season and releases that water back for water
supply during the dry season. The operation and design of the reservoir
must be implemented in a manner that preserves the water supply and
flood control function of the LWDD existing canal system. If properly
implemented, the LWDD will benefit from the storage capabilities of
this component. However, care must be taken to ensure that the LWDD's
existing sources are not impacted until the storage capabilities
including ASR are a proven reliable source.
Palm Beach County Agricultural Reserve Reservoir
Description and Purpose
The Agricultural Reserve Reservoir will supplement water supply for
central and southern Palm Beach County by capturing and storing water
currently discharged to tide. These supplemental deliveries will reduce
demands on Lake Okeechobee and Water Conservation Area 1. Runoff from
the western portion of the LWDD will pump into the 1660 acre 12 foot
deep reservoir during wet periods and receive water from the reservoir
during the dry season. Fifteen Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells
totaling 75 MOD of injection and recovery were added to this component
to increase its storage capabilities. Figure 8 illustrates the detail
of its conceptual features.
Potential Impacts and Concerns
This component will impact the LWDD operations requiring a pumped,
rather than a gravity system for flood protection. It will require the
installation of two new pumps in addition to improving several existing
LWDD canals. Potential flood impacts from the 12 ft. deep above ground
reservoir need to be addressed. As with the Hillsboro Impoundment, the
LWDD will benefit from the storage capabilities of this component;
however, care must be taken to ensure that the LWDD's existing sources
are not reallocated until this is proven to be a reliable substitute.
The cost to construct and operate this facility is beyond the means of
the LWDD.
Water Preserve Area / L-8 Basin
Description and Purpose
This component involves the combination of two separate components
in the Restudy. The first being the L-8 Project enhancements and the
second being the C-51 and Southern L-8 Reservoir. The combination these
two components is intended to enhance the Loxahatchee Slough, increase
base flows to the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River and reduce
water supply restrictions in the Northern Palm Beach County Service
Area. This is accomplished by capturing more of the wet season
discharge from portions of the southern L-8, C-51 and C-17 basins and
routing this water to the West Palm Beach Catchment Area and C-51 and
1,200 acre 40 foot deep Southern L-8 Reservoir. Figure 9 illustrates
the detail of its conceptual features.
Potential Impacts and Concerns
The LWDD can benefit from this component if it is used to supply
water to the C-51 canal during dry periods. Although the Final Plan
mentions that this component will provide water to the LWDD, the
quantity and timing of these deliveries is unclear.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Bob Smith (chairman of the
committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Smith, Graham, Chafee, Voinovich, Reid,
Baucus, Warner, and Lautenberg.
Also present: Senator Mack.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. The hearing of the Environment and Public
Works Committee on the Everglades will please come to order.
I would like to say to my colleagues that due to the fact
that we are having a vote approximately somewhere in the 10
vicinity, and Governor Bush has to leave at 10:30, I am going
to dispense with opening statements, including my own, so that
we can start right off the Governor's testimony.
So let me start, Governor, by welcoming you. We are glad to
see you here and our two colleagues, Senator Graham and Senator
Mack. I am not sure how you want to do this. I think the two
Senators are going to introduce the Governor, but welcome.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire
Good morning. Four months ago, the committee held a hearing in
Naples, Florida on the Everglades. It was my first hearing as Chairman
of the committee. I said then, and reiterate now, that the passage of a
bill to restore the Everglades is my top priority for the committee
this year.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive comments on the
Administration's Everglades proposal, submitted as part of its ``Water
Resources Development Act of 2000'' request. The hearing is divided
into morning and afternoon sessions. In the morning session, we will
start with Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. I would like to extend my
congratulations to Governor Bush, who just successfully shepherded
legislation through the Florida legislature to implement the Everglades
restoration plan which, I might add, passed both bodies unanimously. We
will also hear from representatives of two impacted Indian Tribes, and
from the South Florida Water Management District.
The afternoon session will begin with a panel of witnesses from the
``Federal Family'' the Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, the
General Counsel of EPA, and the leader of the Administration's
Everglades Task Force from the Department of Interior. They will be
followed by representatives of the agriculture and environmental
communities. I welcome all of our witnesses, and thank them for their
testimony today.
We all know that the Everglades face grave peril. The unintended
consequence of the 1948 Federal flood control project is the too
efficient redirection of water from Lake Okeechobee. Approximately 1.7
billion gallons of water a day is needlessly directed out to sea. This
project was done with the best of intentions--the Federal Government
simply had to act when devastating floods took thousands of lives prior
to the project. Unfortunately, the very success of the project
disrupted the natural sheet flow of water through the so-called ``River
of Grass,'' altering or destroying the habitat for many species of
native plants, mammals, reptiles, fish and wading birds.
The purpose of our January hearing was to receive comment on the
``Central and South Florida Comprehensive Review Study,'' popularly
known as the ``Restudy.'' Congress mandated the Restudy to preserve the
Everglades in previous Water Resources Development Acts, and the
Administration submitted the Restudy to Congress on July 1, 1999, as
WRDA 1996 required.
The Restudy includes a ``programmatic'' environmental impact
statement; as such, it serves as a road map for the future restoration
of the Everglades. All journeys need a road map. We will look to the
Restudy as the roadmap for general guidance on restoring the
Everglades, but we know in advance there maybe both unanticipated
detours, and hopefully a few time-saving shortcuts, along the road we
are about to travel. This inherent flexibility to adapt and change as
future circumstances dictate is an integral part of the Restudy's
approach to restoration. The risks of waiting much longer to reverse
the Everglades' decline far outweigh the risks of starting now even as
we continue to study and modify the plan. ``Adaptive Assessment'' means
that we can move forward now, even in the face of some uncertainty.
Everyone has had 10 months to evaluate the Restudy. Senators
Voinovich, Graham and I visited Florida in conjunction with the January
hearing on the Restudy. We are now at the next step of the process. As
I have mentioned repeatedly, it is my top priority to pass a bill this
year to begin restoration the Everglades. I want to applaud Senators
Mack and Graham for their leadership on this issue. Over the next few
weeks I look forward to working with them and Senators Voinovich and
Baucus to draft a bill that takes into account the comments that we
hear today. The goal that I have set for the committee is to report
Restudy implementation legislation next month. Everglades may be part
of a larger WRDA bill, or it may move as a stand-alone bill. I will
follow whichever path that gives an Everglades bill the best chance of
becoming law this year.
As we proceed, I want to let everyone know that I will approach any
problems with an open mind. We have studied these issues for a long
time and we are ready to move forward. Some of the issues are complex,
but I want my colleagues on the committee to know that it is my
priority to get this bill ready for committee consideration
expeditiously. The window of opportunity to have the bill considered on
the Senate floor is closing rapidly.
Today I am asking our witnesses to provide constructive comments on
the Administration's proposal in order to make real progress, not just
to hear a recitation of ``positions.'' For example, we need to find a
principled basis we can use to determine how much, if anything, the
Federal government should contribute to Operations & Maintenance of the
completed Restudy. Another example--even if wastewater treatment proves
technically feasible, is it cost-effective as compared to other means
to provide water? Further, do we, as a national policy matter, want to
encourage the return of treated wastewater back into the natural
system? Should the Congress authorize the initial set of 10 projects
now, or wait until the project implementation reports are complete, as
some will testify today? These and many other issues need to be
addressed thoughtfully in the next few weeks, and we seek your
constructive comments.
In preparing the hearing I directed staff to invite representatives
from the sugar industry and the Citizens for a Sound Economy. In Naples
last January, I promised representatives from Citizens for a Sound
Economy, which voiced concerns about the costs of the Restudy, that
they would have an opportunity to testify at a future hearing to raise
their concerns. They were invited today but declined to testify in
person.
As for the sugar industry, we did invite them to testify today but
they would not provide a witness. Though it is true that the sugar
industry testified last January in Florida, it is unfortunate that they
would not testify on the Administration's proposal. I had hoped to
question a representative from the sugar industry in depth on several
issues that I know they consider important. Among the issues that I
wanted to question them about are: the extent of their support for the
April 1999 Restudy; the rationale for their opposition to authorizing
the 10 initial projects; and details regarding continued farming on the
Talisman property if authorization is delayed. They should be here.
The April 1999 Restudy was unanimously agreed to by the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force members. It was unanimously
approved by the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable Florida, which
included all of the major public and private interest groups. Since the
Task Force and Commission attained that landmark effort in consensus
building, it seems that some of the parties have backed away from the
deal that was struck. The Administration may have started this, as the
Chief's Report that transmitted the Restudy to the Congress made
additional ``commitments'' that went well beyond the Restudy itself.
Also, some in the agriculture industry seem to have backed away from
key Restudy components that were included in the Plan the Gov's
Commission unanimously approved on March 3, 1999. As we move forward, I
hope to refocus our legislative efforts on the groundwork that Congress
laid with the 1992 and 1996 Water Resources Development Acts, and the
agreement that you all reached on the Restudy in April 1999. Let's stop
backtracking, stop trying to sweeten the deal, and get on with the
fairly straightforward task of implementing the Restudy.
I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a
national environmental treasure. Restoration benefits not only
Floridians, but the millions of us who visit Florida each year to
behold this unique ecosystem. We also need to view our efforts as our
legacy to future generations. As I said in Naples last January, many
years from now I hope that we will be remembered for putting aside
partisanship, narrow self-interest and short-term thinking by answering
the call and saving the Everglades while we still could.
I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses.
Senator Graham?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. In deference to the time constraints, I will be
brief in my introductory comments.
I want to first thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
almost full day of hearing on the Everglades. This is a very
momentous occasion for the Nation and for this important
environmental treasure.
It was approximately 52 years ago that this committee first
authorized the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project,
which started the largest public works project in the history
of the Nation, since the Panama Canal.
That project is now, for the first time in its history,
being subject to a comprehensive reexamination. In 1992/1996,
the Congress, through the Water Resource Development Act,
directed the Corps of Engineers to undertake the basis of the
study.
In July 1999, the Corps. submitted its plan to the Congress
in accordance with the congressional deadlines. And today, we
commence the process of reviewing that Corps of Engineers
report.
This project has had several characteristics during the
time of the preparation for this Restudy. And one of them has
been its bipartisanship. This has been supported by Republican
Presidents and Republican Congresses and Democratic Presidents
and Democratic Congresses; and in Florida, by Republican and
Democratic Governors and legislatures. This is a project that
represents the best of the American political process, trying
to deal with an extremely complex environmental and economic
issue.
I am pleased that today one of the persons who has
continued this tradition of bipartisanship, our current
Governor, Governor Jeb Bush, is here to present the primary
presentation on behalf of the State of Florida as an indication
of the great importance that this issue has for our State.
The Governor demonstrated his commitment by spearheading
two critical pieces of legislation through the just-adjourned
Florida legislature, one of those related to Lake Okeechobee, a
major clean-up, providing funding for the restoration of that
extremely important water body, and the Everglades funding
package that provides funding for the State share of this 50/50
partnership for Everglades restoration.
The State of Florida has now accepted its part of
responsibility for this partnership. The challenge is now here
at the Federal level. I look forward to working with you and
the other members of the committee in discussing, understanding
and, I hope before this Congress is over, authorizing this new
restoration of the Florida Everglades.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Mack?
STATEMENT OF HON. CONNIE MACK, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Senator Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. Thank you for holding this hearing today, and for
allowing me to attend, and to speak on behalf of the
Everglades. I am especially honored to introduce my friend, and
Florida's Governor, Jeb Bush.
Today is an important day. It is important because we stand
at an historic juncture between planning and action. It is
important because now, at long last, we have a realistic chance
at restoring and protecting for future generations a unique
environmental treasure that is fractured, starved for water,
and in a state of steady decline.
It is an important day because the document before you
represents the cumulative efforts of all those who did the
work, not the least of which are the efforts of my friend and
colleague, Senator Graham, on the largest and most significant
environmental restoration project in our Nation's history.
Why does this matter? Why are the Everglades deserving of
Congress' time and effort? Let me offer a few reasons.
This restoration matters because in the last century, a
wonderful, pristine, natural system has been systematically
robbed of its beauty and its uniqueness in the name of short-
term human interests. The restoration matters because America's
Everglades are a national treasure, unique in the world, and
deserving of a better fate than what is currently written for
it in the laws of this county.
The restoration matters because we Floridians, after years
of acrimony and conflicting goals, have come together behind a
balanced plan that fully reconciles the needs of the natural
system with those of the existing water system for water users.
And the restoration matters to us as legislators, because
Congress, in the past, caused the problem, and we should fix
it.
It has been well documented how Congress acted under the
pressures of the day, and authorized the systematic destruction
of the Everglades in the nature of flood control, urban
development, and agriculture. That is history, and we can not
change that.
Instead, we must respond to the needs and priorities of our
own generation, as well as generations to come, and pass this
plan to restore America's Everglades.
Mr. Chairman, passing this plan is all that remains between
the long years of study and the actual restoration of the
Everglades. The Administration has done their part in devoting
a tremendous amount of time and effort on the document before
you.
To Governor Bush's credit, the State of Florida has already
written this plan into Florida's laws, and arranged funding for
Florida's share of that cost. There is only one task remaining.
We, in Congress, must pass this plan this year, and let the
work of restoration begin.
I want to especially highlight the commitment of Governor
Bush. He has consistently demonstrated with both words and
actions that Florida is and will remain a full partner with us.
He has instructed the members of his administration to provide
valuable technical support to the Congress, during our efforts
here.
He has worked with Florida's legislature to set up a legal
framework for the Everglades restoration. And he has assembled
an impressive coalition of legislatures and local government
officials to fully fund Florida's share of the cost.
Mr. Chairman, again, it gives me great pleasure to present
Governor Bush to the committee. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Mack.
Governor Bush, welcome; we are delighted to have you. We
thank you and your staff for all of the help that you have
provided us, over the past several months, since I was in
Florida for the Everglades hearing.
I just want to say to my colleagues that as soon as
Governor Bush completes his statement, I would like to have one
question for each member, in the order that they came in,
simply because we will have a vote in the vicinity of 10, and
Governor Bush has to leave at 10:30. If we get a second round,
we will go to a second question.
Governor, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA
Governor Bush. Thank you, Senator Smith. And Senator
Baucus, thank you. I want to also say hello to Senator Chafee,
who I went to high school with. And it is a joy to see you here
on the same committee as your father, who was a great supporter
of this project, I might add.
Senator Smith. And we want to keep him here.
Governor Bush. Yes, we do.
[Laughter.]
Governor Bush. It is a joy to be here to have the
opportunity to speak about one of our true national treasures,
America's Everglades. And I want to thank Senator Graham and
Senator Mack for being here and introducing me. It is a real
privilege to be here. I would like to have my extended written
statement, if you do not mind, included in the record.
I am here to bring some good news, some hard truths, and a
challenge. This year, together, we will begin this massive, yet
essential, undertaking of restoring the Everglades.
Restoring America's Everglades builds on the very American
ideal that there are unique landscapes that we, as a Nation,
believe are worth preserving. It is also an idea that is now
worthy of action.
First, the good news, last Friday, and I can tell you
personally the good news, as another couple of Governors are
here, when legislative sessions finish, Governors are always
very happy. And in this case, last Friday, Florida concluded
its annual legislative session.
I can proudly report to the Congress that our commitment to
the Everglades is solid. In fact, it is more than solid. As of
next Tuesday, it will be the law.
As part of our State budget, the Florida legislature has
appropriated an unprecedented level of funding to begin the
implementation of the Restudy; more than $136 million in the
first year alone. These dollars will be matched by local
governments in the South Florida Water Management District, for
a total of $221 million to begin this important work.
Next week, I will be joined by Federal, State, and local
leaders to sign into law Florida's Everglades Restoration
Investment Act, a measure that passed the Florida Senate and
the Florida House of Representatives, unanimously. There was
not one dissenting vote. Republicans and Democrats, alike,
support this bill.
With this new law, Florida will contribute over $2 billion
to the Restudy project over the next 10 years. It will not only
codify our long term monetary commitment to the Everglades, but
it will also create a Save Our Everglades trust fund, that will
enable Florida to save money for peak spending years on the
horizon.
In fact, the $221 million that will be invested this first
year in the trust fund will not be spend. We are preparing, on
the long term, to be able to buildup, because this project has
many different projects inside of it, and the funding patterns
go up and down, we are making a long-term commitment, from the
get-go, to have a stable source of funding that will allow us
to make this budget process work.
Second, the hard truths; this is not the first time that
Florida has gone first. Since 1983 when then-Governor Bob
Graham created the Save Our Everglades Program, the State of
Florida has spent over $2.3 billion, and acquired more than one
million acres of land to avoid further destruction and
degradation of the river grass.
All of this is to say that the time has come for a
legitimate and equal partnership with the Federal Government.
For us, we have made this commitment, and we are looking to be
an active partner with the Federal Government to carry out this
project.
I believe it will require Washington to think anew, to
think a little bit differently about this; maybe less as a
water project, and more as the protection of a national
treasure.
Too often in the past, the partnerships of this nature
between the Federal and State Governments have been anything
but partnerships. At their worst, they have been master/servant
arrangements. The Administration's bill that you are
considering today, I believe, is an example of this. And I have
to admit, we are disappointed about their recommendations for a
government structure.
This has been a consensus plan, all along, by all parties,
and I can assure you that this has not been an easy thing to
accomplish. Senator Graham can attest to the fact that back
home there are a lot of people, and Senator Mack can certainly
agree, there are a lot of people that have very divergent views
on this subject.
They have been in the court, up until the last couple of
years, for most of the decade of the 1990's. There was broad
consensus on both the governance and the course of action for
the Restudy. And we believe it is important to maintain that
delicate balance. And the governance issue, I think, is one
that is quite important.
The Administration bill seeks to redefine the project
purpose; to establish Federal agencies as the principal
managers of South Florida's water resources; and to be the sole
arbiter of differences that exist. And they will exist on a
project of this magnitude. I believe we must rebalance this
relationship into a true and equal partnership.
Water Resources Develop Act projects typically require 20
to 30 percent financial commitment from the States. Yet,
Florida now stands ready to deliver with a 50 percent
commitment. In exchange, we seek a new structure of governance.
Because of the importance of this project and the enormity
of the task ahead, Florida believes that it should be on equal
footing with the Federal Government, not only in terms of
financing, but in managing and governing and operating this
project, as well.
Working as equal partners not only makes business sense,
but it also makes good public policy sense. Disputes will be
resolved quickly and fairly. Opportunities for cost savings
will be more readily identified and pursued, and both partners
will reap the benefits of cooperation and consensus.
Finally, the challenge: Florida needs your commitment. It
is apparent that Americans across the country support restoring
America's Everglades the same way we protected Yellowstone and
the Grand Canyon.
Foremost, we need to put Washington's financial commitment
on the table. Congress should not delay in providing funding to
match, dollar for dollar, Florida's commitment.
Congress should also pass a stand-alone Everglades bill if
it possible; one that demonstrates your own dedication to this
endeavor. And Congress should, in cooperation with the
Administration and the State of Florida, craft a project
authorization that for the first time puts Florida and the
Federal Government on equal footing.
With this commitment from Washington, our Federal, State,
and local governments will protect 68 federally Endangered
Species that call America's Everglades their home.
We will recapture 1.7 billion gallons of water that are now
channeled out to sea, and use it to help restore our natural
systems. And we will, in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt,
continue America's legacy of stewardship.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let your own
legacy be that of saving America's Everglades. All the elements
are in place. All that remains is your steadfast response;
first through authorization, then through appropriation.
We have done everything possible to make it as easy as it
humanly can be for something of this magnitude to say yes. The
State of Florida is now ready, willing, and able to be your
partner to restore America's Everglades.
Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Governor. I will start
off with the first question, and then we will rotate through
and see where we are with the time.
First of all, I want to say to Senators Mack and Graham and
to you, Governor, that it is not very often, and I think both
the Senators sitting next to you can attest to this, that we
see a situation where a State puts up its matching money,
first, in anticipation of the Federal Government.
So it certainly is a tremendous gesture on the part of the
citizens of Florida, and the Governor, and the legislature. So
that certainly adds considerably, I think, to the equation. And
certainly, it adds a lot to us moving forward on this
legislation.
There has been controversy, and in fact, it is probably one
of the most contentious issues in the project, Governor, about
the authorizing in the year 2000, the initial 10 projects, if
you will, that we have to start, because the project
implementation reports will not be complete.
Because of that, usually the committee does not authorize
these projects without that kind of completion. So basically,
the committee is being asked to reauthorize 10 projects, the
first 10, which is what those dollars are for that you talked
about in the comprehensive plan.
So I guess the question is why the State believes that we
should proceed differently by authorizing this year these 10
projects.
Governor Bush. Well, I truly believe that this is different
than a typical water resource development project. If you
visit, as I know you have, Senator, the Everglades and have
seen its majesty, this is on par with the Grand Canyon, or
other great monuments of nature in our country. And I believe
we need to have a sense of urgency about this.
Our State did not just start funding projects to protect
the Everglades. This has been an ongoing efforts for a
generation. In fact, Washington has provided support in land
purchasing and other areas, as well.
In our State, we believe that there should be a sense of
urgency about this. We are prepared, unlike other Water
Resource Development Act projects, to put up 50 percent of the
money. The money is in place.
There is a consensus. The water management District, whom
you will hear from, and the Chairman will talk later today, I
believe, will describe the efforts they have done to totally
re-prioritize their spending, so that they can have resources
available to take care of their responsibility.
At the State level, we are spending more on the purchase of
endangered lands than any State in the country; I believe more
than national government's budget in this regard. So we have
made a commitment that I believe shows that we need to
accelerate this project.
The Restudy, itself, had lots of input. There was a
tremendous amount of debate over the last year. And I would
just respectfully say that it is time to move on.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Yes, thank you.
Governor, I was interested in your comments about
management. Could you go into that in a little more detail,
please. What is in the Administration's proposal that you think
is good with respect to management; and then what problems you
might have; and why? If you could just go into that in a little
more detail, so I can get a better flavor.
Governor Bush. In a public works projects of this
magnitude, I think it is important to have clear lines of
authority, and a means to mitigate disputes.
If this was not a Government project, and we just closed
our eyes and assumed that this was a private sector development
of some kind, we would have a Board of Directors, if you will.
There would be clearly established, when there are disputes,
how you would resolve them. It would not be done unilaterally.
The Administration's governance proposal, in my opinion,
does not allow us to be partners. The Governor, I believe, the
way it was described, consults.
If we are putting up half the money, we have a shared
interest in this. We have a plan that has received the full
support of all of the parties. It seems to me that we ought to
have a means where we share in innovations that and where we
discuss major decisions along the way.
Senator Baucus. I was just curious though, as I understand
it, a lot of the science is not yet complete on the project.
And undoubtedly, there are going to be differences of opinion
as to what to do with one portion of the project, and so on and
so forth.
I am just curious, how you envisioned, under the proposal
that you would like to see adopted, those disputes being
resolved. Like I said, the Governor of Florida says well, it
should be (a), and whoever it is says, well, no, it should be
(b). And if we have equal sharing, how are you going to work
that out?
Governor Bush. Well, I think it would be a better way of
resolving the dispute to have a shared vision than to have a
disagreement, where you default automatically to the Department
of the Interior, which is the Administration's position on
this.
The other element of the governance issue that is important
was that the foundation for the Restudy was that there would be
an equal commitment to the natural system, to flood protection,
and to water supply. And as I understand it that, too, has
shifted.
It is important to have this delicate balance between the
interests that are all impacted. And this is a fully integrated
project. You can not separate one from the other.
Our own State laws give primacy to the natural system. So
we are not suggesting that the natural system is not the
principal purpose for doing this. But that is an example of, if
the underlying policy changes by unilateral decision, that
creates problems for the State being able to maintain the
support that we have for this project, which is now near
unanimous. I mean, it is strong, because people know that we
are going to have a say in the implementation of it.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in welcoming our
witnesses here today. I'm pleased to be here today to welcome our
Florida witnesses, including the distinguished Governor, Jeb Bush.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan has been many years
in the making. In the 1970's, the State of Florida began looking at the
adverse impacts the Central and South Florida project was having on the
Everglades.
Under the leadership of my current colleague from Florida, Senator
Graham, who was Governor Graham in the early 1980's, the Governor's
Save Our Everglades Program recognized that the health of the entire
ecosystem was in jeopardy and that efforts were needed to protect and
restore it. Ever since, he has worked tirelessly to get to the point
where we find ourselves today--that is, having a comprehensive plan
that will restore this valuable ecosystem.
The Everglades is a national treasure, and I know, it holds a
particularly special place in the hearts of Senator Graham.
Like most plans, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
isn't perfect and everyone didn't get everything they wanted. But the
Administration, under the leadership of the Corps of Engineers and with
the cooperation of the Department of the Interior and the Environmental
Protection Agency are to be commended for bringing all of the effected
parties to the table to develop a plan that can work for all of them--
the State of Florida and the ecosystem.
I thank our witnesses for the time and energy they have put into
the Everglades restoration effort. I look forward to hearing from them
today and to working with the Chairman to move this plan forward.
Senator Smith. Senator Voinovich?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. First of all, I would like to welcome
you. It is nice to see you, again. And I think it is
significant that your two senators are with you, and that this
proposal is coming from Florida on a bi-partisan basis. And I
congratulate the State of Florida for their moving forward in
terms of doing their share of this project.
I would also like to congratulate the Chairman of this
committee. Ordinarily, this hearing would have been held before
the subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
the Transportation and Infrastructure. And the Chairman thinks
so much of this project that he has called a meeting of the
full committee to hear this proposal. And he should be
congratulated for doing that. That shows the high priority that
he places upon this initiative.
The Comprehensive Everglades Plan that we are considering
has a cost of about $7.8 billion, of which we are talking a 50/
50 share. During the peak years of the Everglades Comprehensive
Plan, this will require a yearly appropriation of about $200
million a year.
The State of Florida has a current backlog of active
authorized projects of about $1.5 billion. We have about a $30
billion backlog right now, and the State of Florida has got
about $1.5 billion of that backlog. These are authorized
projects that are already in the pipe.
In addition to the South Florida restoration, this includes
beach nourishment projects, harbor deepening, and flood
control. In the President's fiscal year 2001 budget, the
construction requests for the State of Florida is about $176
million.
My question is that in view of the fact that during the
1990's, the core construction appropriation is, on the average,
$1.6 billion, how do you anticipate the Federal share of this
to be funded? In other words, you have got $1.5 billion on the
books now. In order to do this project, it is going to take an
average of $200 million a year. And we only appropriate about
$1.6 billion.
The question is, have you thought about that at all, and
have some concern about whether the Federal money is going to
be available so that you can move forward with this project?
Governor Bush. I think about it a lot. I certainly do not
have much control over the budget process up here. What we have
tried to do is to say, let us make this a high priority in our
own State.
Last year, we passed Florida Forever, which is a
continuation of Preservation 2000, which I believe is the most
ambitious land purchasing program of any State in the country,
where we spend $300,000 a year purchasing pristine lands to
keep them out of the path of development, and provide support
for the natural systems.
This year, we have continued that, as well as we are
spending a 140 percent increase in water projects in our own
State. So we have tried to make it easier for Washington to
recognize that we are stepping up to the plate, as well. We are
not asking for something and not making a commitment ourselves.
We have limited resources, like any government. And we are
saying that these water projects, in general, have a high
priority, because it is an investment in the long term future
of our State.
We are a fast growing State. We have development
encroaching into the natural systems. We are redefining our
heritage, if we do not watch it. So we are stepping up to the
plate on these projects. And we would encourage the Congress to
prioritize their spending toward these projects, as well.
With all due respect, Senator, I do not know where the
money comes from up here, other than from our pockets. We give
it to you all, and we would hope that you would spend it on the
things that are of high priorities for Americans.
Senator Voinovich. I would hope that the next
Administration would recommend doubling the amount of money in
the Water Resources Bill, so that we can move forward and deal
with this $30 billion backlog of projects. And the prospect of
reimbursing Florida for our share of it would be more
realistic.
I would like to just ask one other question. You are asking
for a fast track authority here, to move with this. And you are
talking about an even playing field. But, in effect, what you
would like to do is move forward with this project.
Anticipating that we do not get the money on the Federal
level to do the Federal share of this, is it your thought, and
maybe some of the other witnesses may shed some light on this,
that you would just move forward with this project? And then,
ordinarily, on this type of project, you only can move forward,
based on whether or not you have got the Federal authorization.
I think this plan anticipates that you will move with this,
and that down the road, you will spend this money, and then
come back and ask that it be reimbursed. And the understanding
is on a 50/50 basis.
If this authority is granted, would the State give any
consideration of maybe even a larger share of paying for it? In
other words, projects like this need to have the authorization
from Congress to go forward. So we will give you the money, and
we are giving you credit for land purchase and a lot of other
things, as a special kind of permission that you would be
getting, that is different than what we do on other projects.
If we let you fast track this project, would the State give
any consideration to perhaps changing the participation on it?
Is my question clear?
Governor Bush. It is clear, and I hope it is hypothetical.
[Laughter.]
Governor Bush. We have worked very hard. The back-home
people believe that there has been strong support for a 50/50
partnership in this, and that we hope that that will continue
on to be the case.
We are committed to restoring this treasure. And we would
like to do it as an equal partner with the Federal Government,
which I consider to be quite unique, given the history of these
projects, where the States have been asked to make smaller
commitments.
We are here to say that we are prepared to make larger
commitments. And this is a tradition that has been in existence
long before I was Governor. And we are asking for Washington to
continue to provide the kind of support that we would hope
would make this project work.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the State of
Ohio
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and let me start out by thanking you
for holding this hearing today on the future of the Everglades. I
consider this to be of tremendous importance to this nation and I am
pleased to be here.
Mr. Chairman, I am no stranger to the Everglades.
When I was Governor of Ohio, in response to my interests in the
Everglades and thanks to the courtesy the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, I spent a day observing the environmentally
impacted areas of the Everglades by helicopter and airboat.
In addition, my wife Janet and I have made many visits to Florida
including trips to the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and
Everglades National Park. I have enjoyed fishing in the Florida Bay and
fishing for snook in the Everglades.
This past January, I had the opportunity to participate with you,
Mr. Chairman, and our colleague, Senator Graham, in this Committee's
Everglades field hearing in Naples, Florida.
While I was there, I had the opportunity to fly over portions of
the ongoing water quality restoration efforts associated with the
stormwater treatment areas of the Everglades Construction Project. I
also got the chance to revisit the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
and tour it by airboat.
I mention all of this to emphasize that I have invested a lot of
time on the Everglades, and in particular, the Comprehensive
Restoration Plan.
I am unequivocally committed to the fact that the Everglades are a
national treasure that must be protected and restored. Having said
that, my detailed review of the Comprehensive Plan has also convinced
me that the Everglades Comprehensive Restoration Plan was rushed to
this Congress for its consideration.
At a cost of $1.1 billion, the plans for the 10 initial projects
that Congress has been asked to authorize are only conceptual and do
not even begin to meet the standards that this Congress has set for
project authorizations.
There are some who will say that the Administration is only
responding to what Congress requested back in 1996 when it called for a
Comprehensive Plan by July 1,1999. However, the clear words of the 1996
Act call for a feasibility report.
Feasibility studies have not been completed on any portion of the
comprehensive plan, and yet the Administration is seeking a $1.1
billion authorization based on a ``conceptual'' plan that does not
contain any meaningful level of detail regarding costs, benefits,
environmental analysis, design, engineering or real estate.
To authorize projects without this information would be a radical
departure from the past oversight of the Corps' program by this
Committee, and would make it very difficult to enforce historic
standards of this Committee for authorization of Corps projects in
this, and future, Water Resources Development Acts.
This does not mean we cannot act on the Everglades Comprehensive
Plan.
I think we can and should act to advance the critical national
issue of Everglades restoration. We can certainly endorse the
Comprehensive Plan as a framework and guide for future action. We can
authorize pilot projects to obtain the information we need to move
forward.
I am sure that under Chairman Smith's leadership, we can agree on
some process that will advance the authorization of the initial
projects while assuring that Congress has an opportunity to review and
approve feasibility-level reports on these projects before they are
implemented.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to my service on the Environment and
Public Works Committee, I also serve on the Government Affairs
Committee where we are concerned about issues of Government efficiency,
effectiveness and coordinated activity. I can't leave the topic of the
Everglades restoration without this one observation.
Homestead Air Force base is located only 8 miles from Everglades
National Park, one and one half miles from Biscayne Bay and just north
of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The Air Force is seeking
to transfer property at the Homestead Air Force Base in accordance with
the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
The Air Force has prepared a draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement that presents as the proposed action, the reuse of the
airbase as a regional commercial airport.
I am very concerned that the noise, air quality impacts, water
quality impacts and developmental pressure of commercial airport
operations may not be compatible with the adjacent National Parks and
Sanctuary.
I believe it would be irresponsible for the Federal Government to
approve an investment of billions of taxpayer dollars in restoration of
the south Florida ecosystem, while at the same time, approving a reuse
plan for Homestead Air Force base that is incompatible with such
restoration objectives.
I urge the Administration to pursue consistent objectives in South
Florida's restoration and assure that the actions of the Air Force and
Federal Aviation Administration are coordinated with the Federal,
state, tribal and local agencies, and groups making up the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
Finally, I would like to touch on the Everglades restoration in the
context of the total, nationwide program of the Corps of Engineers.
We cannot talk about the Everglades restoration in a vacuum.
Currently the Corps of Engineers has a project backlog totaling about
$30 billion needed to design and construct over 400 active authorized
projects.
These are not old outdated projects but projects that have been
recently funded, which are economically justified and supported by a
non-Federal sponsor. This backlog includes $1.5 billion worth of work
within the State of Florida. The State of Florida work represents about
5 percent of the backlog.
The President's 2001 budget includes a construction funding request
for the State of Florida of about $176 million--more than 10 percent of
the nationwide construction account. This is before consideration of
construction funding for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan,
which will require construction appropriations of $200 million a year
during the peak years of construction.
Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to single out the State of Florida, but
rather, to emphasize that with construction appropriations for the
Corps of Engineers averaging about $1.6 billion a year in the 1990's
there is not enough money to accomplish all of the proposed work in the
State of Florida and address the water resources needs of the rest of
the Nation.
Unless the Corps' construction appropriations is substantially
increased to meet these needs, the State of Florida in particular and
the Nation in general are going to have to make some very painful
decisions on priorities. I believe this is a very critical issue for
this committee as we consider the Water Resources Development Act and I
plan to explore it further in a Subcommittee hearing on May 16.
So, once again, I appreciate you calling this hearing this morning,
Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to what I believe will be a lively
discussion on some very topical issues.
Senator Smith. I need to move forward. We are going to try
one question, and then come back around, because of the vote.
Senator Graham, you were here, and you are a member of the
committee, too. Do you have a question from either that seat or
up here?
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of questions.
But I think I will defer to the Governor's time, and the fact
that I get an opportunity to pepper the Governor on a more
frequent basis.
Governor Bush. And if you can clean up after me, if I said
something wrong, that would be good.
[Laughter.]
Senator Graham. No, I think the Governor has articulated
the policy rationale and the State's position extremely well.
So I would defer to the other members of the committee for
their questions at this time.
Senator Smith. Senator Chafee?
Senator Chafee. As Governor Bush said, we went to high
school together. I have not seen in 29 years.
Governor Bush. The statute of limitations has run out.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chafee. But you mentioned in your statement the
sense of urgency, and I will certainly do all I can to be
supportive on my level here. It is a great project, and we wish
to move forward.
Senator Smith. There is no question? You would not do that
to an old high school mate, would you?
Senator Warner?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Welcome Governor, and I would just like to
talk a little bit about the history of this committee. I have
been on it, out of my 22 years in Senate, about 12 or 14. And I
am referring to the Water Resources Development Act of 1998,
which contains the statement, and this statement has been in
every single committee report since 1986. I will read from page
3.
``Since 1986, it has been the policy of the committee to
authorize only those construction projects that conform with
cost sharing and other policies established in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986. In addition, it has been the
policy of the committee to require projects to have undergone
full, final engineering, economic, and environmental review by
the Chief of Engineers, prior to project approvals by the
committee.''
As I read through your petition, you are asking us to waive
a policy which has guided this committee since 1986. And that
is a very significant precedent.
I also wish to make an observation. You said, ``Roosevelt's
legacy of stewardship.'' And how well you understand, coming
from a very historic family that has provided leadership for
this Nation for so long, that there are the 50 States, and that
we all compete among each other for the scarce moneys to
preserve those portions within our States which relate to
Roosevelt's Stewardship Program.
Shortly after I came to the Senate, and specifically in
1984, I joined with marvelous Senator, Senator Mac Mathias, and
we devised the legislation to begin the preservation and the
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. That magnificent watershed
serves seven States in the immediate touching of the bay, and
the migratory birds, fish, waterfowl, in many, many, many other
States.
We have worked very hard with the Federal/State
partnership. And since 1984, we have gotten only $150 million
from the Federal Government, and several States have applied
$300 million, to show you a comparable project and the funding
levels that we have received and struggled each year to get,
bit by bit.
So as strongly as I feel about this project, I must tell
you that I feel that I have a stewardship and a trusteeship to
my State and seven other States and the balance of the States,
as we look at the very significant cost of this project, which
could, in the estimate of some, go as high as $12 billion.
So that concerns me that this committee is being asked to
approve construction of 10 projects for $1.1 billion, without
the information being completed, in sharp contrast to our
policy.
The project implementation reports will not be done for
another 18 months or more, and construction is not scheduled
until 2004, at the earliest.
I know that your State has taken significant financial
steps to participate in this restoration, as you have so stated
today. You have acquired significant acreage that will be
important to improving water flows into the Everglades. I am
aware that legislation has been enacted to provide $100 million
over 10 years for this restoration effort.
However, the same level of progress can be made on these 10
projects, with the Corps. continuing planning, engineering, and
design for the next 2 years. By the time the 2000 bill comes
up, Congress would have the benefit of the project
implementation reports on these 10 projects, and then be ready
for construction authorization. This approach would not delay
the construction of any of these projects now tentatively set
for 2004.
I really feel that the policy which has guided us these
many years has to be protected. And I will just finish.
Basically, I am stating in candor, before my two very dear
friends and colleagues here who are supporting you, the
concerns that this one Senator has.
Now there is a provision in the legislation relating to the
distribution of water flow from the project. It seems that the
restoration of the Everglades is only one feature of the
project. Others involve flood protection and water supply for
urban/suburban areas, and for agriculture uses.
In light of the complexity and the cost of the restoration
effort, I want to be sure that Federal dollars are used to
restore our national assets, Everglades Park, Big Cypress
Preserve, and other wildlife refuges.
We must have a guarantee, and I underline that, that these
properties will receive the amount of water they need when they
need it, and carefully be sure that the environmental
restoration of the Everglades gets water over and above the
commercial, urban, and agricultural uses that will come.
So that is my statement, Mr. Chairman and our distinguished
witness. I do not want to put a few raindrops on this parade,
but that is about it.
Governor Bush. We need a little rain down in the
Everglades, so that would not be too bad.
Senator Warner. I do not want to be a constructive partner,
but I must go back to Roosevelt's stewardship program, and it
is for 50 States. And I gave you one example of something that
has been very dear to my heart for these many years that I have
been privileged to serve in this body.
Mr. Chairman, I think given the vote and the Governor's
schedule, I have said my piece.
Senator Mack. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Smith. Certainly, Senator Mack.
Senator Mack. Let me just make a comment or two. I
understand Senator Warner's concern about making sure that the
Federal interest is protected.
I think one of the very unique things that has happened in
this plan is the coming together of all the different interests
in the State of Florida that have worked together on this
project to, at this point, superimpose on that, that there is a
No. 1 objective that we are going to establish that does not
take into consideration the working relationship among the
entities in our State. I think that could be disastrous for
this effort.
Senator Warner. I am not sure I follow exactly what you
mean. I commend the Governor, his leadership, and the State
entities to come together.
Senator Mack. If we now say, though, that the primary
objective is the water for the park, as opposed to all other
interests, then the political dynamics that have brought people
together to be able to support this plan, both nationally and
within our State; and within our State, the commitment that the
State legislature has made unanimously for over $100 million,
plus what is going to be done by the Water Management District
of over $200 million totally, what I am saying to you is, if we
superimpose the No. 1 objective established up here, that does
not take into consideration the other interests, and I find
that that could be troublesome.
Senator Warner. But, you know, Senator, I see estimates of
$12 billion of taxpayers' money for this project. Do disavow
those?
Senator Smith. No, it is not that much.
Senator Warner. All right, well, I am sorry, that was the
figure that was given to me. We have already put in $500-plus
million on this project.
Senator Smith. It is a 50/50 cost split, between the
Federal Government and the State government. The highest
estimate that I have seen is $5 billion to the Federal side,
over the 36 year life of the plan.
Governor Bush. And if I could just add, the question of
primacy of one use over the others, our State law requires
minimum levels and flows that gives primacy to the natural
system.
Without doing this plan, we can not implement that. We need
to find ways to capture water, not allow it to go out to tide.
And you can not separate these projects, one from the other.
They are fully integrated to be able to achieve the desired
result. So that would be one point.
The second point is, this is a federally created problem,
which may be different than other projects such as Beautiful
Chesapeake Bay. The mess that has been created was created by
well-intended engineers, that engineered a system that now we
need to completely re-engineer. And so I think that makes it a
little bit different.
I would just argue that while this is not a typical water
resource development project, we are not typically putting up
the 20 percent, either. We are putting up 50 percent, and we
are putting it up in advance. And we are putting it in a trust
fund that can not be touched. We are making our commitment a
long-term commitment, which does distinguish our State's
commitment from other States that have come and respectively
asked for cooperation and money from the Congress.
Senator Smith. Senator Warner, you are correct, that the
policy of the committee is as indicated. Normally, the policy
is that the study would be complete, the PIRS. However, it is
not a policy that we have been rigidly sticking to. As you
know, we authorize projects on a regular basis here, contingent
upon the later completion of a favorable report. And if those
reports are not favorable, then we do not approve it.
So I think, under the adaptive management concept that we
have outlined here throughout this plan, we certainly would
have the opportunity to pull the plug, should something not
come out the way we would anticipate it, in my view.
Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, the $12 billion figure I used
has been discussed with staff, with the GAO. Apparently, it is
$7.8 billion that would be expended over 30 years for the
project. The balance in the $12 billion is land acquisition
costs and other things like that, I am told.
Senator Smith. But that is split between the Feds and----
Senator Warner. That is correct. But, again, you know, $7.8
billion is quite significant, in contrast to what I have been
able to achieve for the Chesapeake Bay.
Senator Smith. Let me just make a 10 second comment here.
We have got 3 minutes left on the vote, and we have at least
five Senators here that need to go down there. So if you have
another comment, go ahead.
Senator Warner. No, I am finished. I am fine, Mr. Chairman.
I have rained enough on this parade.
Senator Smith. Senator Chafee, do you have any other
questions or comments?
Senator Chafee. No.
Senator Smith. Does anybody else?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. Well, Governor, I think it would probably be
a good time to make the break here, and to thank you for,
again, your support and your help, and Senators Mack and
Graham, as well, will be proceeding along the line.
The objective here is to have this hearing, meet with you
and the respective Senators, and the Administration, and the
committee, and try to put a bill together that I think comes as
close to that agreement as possible.
I am sure there are going to be a few bumps in the road,
but we are going to try to do that. And I am going to try to do
it soon, within the next 30 days, if we can pull it off, so
that we can get it considered before the Senate.
So thank you very much for being here.
Governor Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Let me just say, I am going to recess for
about 15 minutes or so, while I go down and vote. And the next
panel will come up, as soon as I return, which should be in
about 15 minutes. The hearing is recessed.
[Recess.]
Senator Smith. The committee will come to order, please.
I would ask the second panel to please come to the table:
Ms. Patricia Power, on behalf of the Seminole Tribe; and Dexter
Lehtinen, on behalf of the Miccosukee Tribe. So it is the
Miccosukee Tribe and the Seminole Tribe.
Because of the fact of the Governor's schedule, we had to
take his remarks and questions early. I am going to take this
opportunity to give a brief opening statement, and any other
member who wishes to have an opening statement may do so, and
then we will move directly to the testimony of the two
witnesses.
I might just say to the Clerk that these opening statements
should be put in the record, ahead of Governor Bush's
testimony.
The committee held a hearing on this issue in Naples,
Florida. It was the first hearing that I had, as the Chairman
of the committee. And I said then, and I believe now, that we
need to restore the Everglades. It is a top priority for the
committee this year.
I say that, recognizing that there are differences on
various components of the plan. But I am committed to work
those differences out, and pass a bill out of committee on the
Everglades restoration.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive comments on
the Administration's proposal, submitted as part of its Water
Resources Development Act 2000 request. We have two sessions,
one this morning and one in the afternoon.
We have already had Governor Bush. And I want to just
extend my congratulations to Governor Bush, who just
successfully shepherded legislation through the Florida
legislature, unanimously, to implement the Everglades
Restoration Plan.
We will hear from two representatives of the Indian tribes
of South Florida, and the South Florida Water Management
District this morning. And then the afternoon session will
begin with a panel of witnesses from the ``Federal family'':
The Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, the General
Counsel of the EPA, and the leader of the Administration's
Everglades Task Force from the Department of Interior. And they
will be followed by representatives of the agricultural and
environmental communities.
I certainly welcome all of the witnesses today. I know some
of you traveled a long distance, and we appreciate you being
here.
We all know, whatever our views are on the specifics of the
plan, that the Everglades faces great peril, the unintended
consequence of the 1948 Federal Flood Control Project is the
too efficient redirection of water from Lake Okeechobee.
Approximately 1.7 billion gallons of water a day are needlessly
directed out to sea.
It was done, this project in 1948, with the best of
intentions, but the results were not good. The Federal
Government simply had to act when devastating floods took
thousands of lives.
But, unfortunately, the success of the project disrupted
the natural flow of the water, the so-called ``river of
grass,'' altering or destroying the habitat for many species of
animals, birds, reptiles, and fish.
The purpose of the January hearing was to receive comment
on the Central and South Florida comprehensive review study,
properly known as the Restudy. And Congress mandated the
Restudy to preserve the Everglades in previous WRDA acts, and
the Administration submitted the Restudy to Congress on July 1,
1999, as the WRDA 1996 required it to do.
The Restudy includes a programmatic environmental impact
statement. As such, it serves as a road map for the future
restoration of the Everglades. All journeys should have a road
map, if you want to know where you are going.
We will look to the Restudy as the road map for a general
guidance on restoring the Everglades. But we know in advance,
there are going to be unanticipated detours and, hopefully, a
few timesaving shortcuts, as well, along this road.
That does not mean that we should not take the journey. And
I want to repeat that. It does not mean that we should not take
the journey. We can deal with the detours. And, hopefully, we
can even have shortcuts.
This inherent flexibility to adapt the adapted management
concept and change, as future circumstances dictate, is an
integral part of the Restudy's approach to restoration. Some
think that this plan, once it is passed, is locked in and we
can not change it, we can not adapt to any new science or any
new information. That is simply not true.
The risks of waiting much longer to reverse the
Everglades's decline far outweigh the risks of starting now,
even as we continue to study and modify the plan. Adaptive
assessment or adaptive management means we can move forward
now, even in the face of some uncertainty; even in the face of
not having every single bit of information that we might like
to have.
Everyone has had 10 months to evaluate the Restudy.
Senators Voinovich, Graham, and I visited Florida, in
conjunction with the January hearing on the Restudy, and we are
now at the next step of the process.
As I have said before, and I will say it again, it is a top
priority for me, and I believe the committee, to pass a bill to
begin the restoration of the Everglades. I applaud Senators
Mack and Graham for their leadership over the next few weeks. I
look forward to working with them and Senators Voinovich and
Baucus to draft a bill that takes into account the comments
that we hear today.
The goal that I have set for the committee is to report
Restudy implementation legislation next month. The Everglades
may be part of a larger WRDA bill, or it may move as a
standalone bill. I will follow whichever path it takes to give
the Everglades restoration the best chance of becoming law this
year.
I want to just make one comment about cost. There have been
a lot of numbers thrown around. This fiscal year, the cost
would be in the vicinity of $100 million. The 14 year cost of
the 10 initial projects would be in the vicinity of $1.1
billion. And that would be split between the State and the
Federal Government.
If you break it down into something a little simpler, in
terms of the entire cost, it is about 50 cents a person, per
year. So if you find a cheap Coke machine, it costs you a can
of Coke a year for the restoration of the Everglades. That is
not a high price to pay.
As we proceed, I want to let everyone know that I have an
open mind on these issues. I am not locked into any plan or any
study or any detail. We have studied these issues for a long,
long time. But we can not study them forever if we are going to
save the Everglades. Sometimes, we have to act around this
place, and I am prepared to do it.
I want my colleagues on the committee to know that it is my
priority to get this bill ready for the committee, and to get
it done expeditiously. If we have problems, we are going to
resolve them. And if we have to take a vote to resolve them,
then we will take a vote and resolve them, if we have
differences.
The window of opportunity to have the bill considered on
the Senate Floor is closing, and it is closing rapidly. The
leader has already told us that Appropriations bills are
expected to be completed perhaps as early as the August recess.
That perhaps might be a little bit too rosy, but it may
happen. And if it does, the window is going to close even
faster. So we do not have a lot of time.
So I am asking our witnesses today to provide constructive
comments on the Administration's proposal, in order to make
real progress; not just to hear a recitation of positions. We
have your written statements. But we need to find a principal
basis that we can use to determine how much, if anything, the
Federal Government should contribute to O&M, operation and
maintenance, of the Restudy.
Another example, even if waste water treatment proves
technically feasible, is it cost effective, as compared to
other means, to provide water further? Do we, as a national
policy matter, want to encourage the return of treated waste
water back into the natural system? That is another key
question.
Should the Congress authorize the initial set of 10
projects now, or wait until the project implementation reports
are complete? You heard comments from both Senator Warner and,
I believe, Senator Voinovich; but, certainly, Senator Warner a
little while ago on that issue.
These and many other issues need to be addressed
thoughtfully in the next few weeks, and we seek your
constructive comments. That is the only way we are going to be
able to work it out.
In preparing the hearing, I asked the staff to invite
representatives from the sugar industry and the Citizens for a
Sound Economy, both of whom were down in Florida last January.
I promised the representatives from Citizens for a Sound
Economy, who had some concerns about the cost of the Restudy,
that they would have an opportunity to testify. They were
invited, and declined. So I want to put that on the record.
As for the sugar industry, we did invite them to testify
today, but they also declined. Though it is true that the sugar
industry did testify last January in Florida, it is unfortunate
that they would not testify on the Administration's proposal,
because I believe it would have been helpful in clarifying some
of the differences that they have.
Among the issues that I wanted to question on were, the
extent of their support for the April 1999 Restudy; the
rationale for their opposition to authorizing the 10 initial
projects; and details regarding continued farming on the
Talisman property if authorization is delayed. They should be
here. They should testify, and they are not here.
The April 1999 Restudy was unanimously agreed to by the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force members. It was
unanimously approved by the Governor's Commission for a
sustainable Florida, which included all of the major public and
private interest groups.
Since the Task Force and Commission attained that landmark
effort in consensus building, it seems that some of the parties
have backed away from a deal that was struck. Maybe the
administration started this as the Chief's Report that
transmitted this Restudy made additional ``commitments'' that
went well beyond the Restudy, itself.
Also, some in the agriculture industry seem to have backed
away from the key Restudy components that were included in the
plan.
As we move forward, I want to refocus our legislative
efforts on the groundwork that Congress laid with the 1992 and
1996 Water Resources Development Act, and the agreement that
you all reached, that everybody reached, in the Restudy in
April 1999. That does not mean that you agreed with everything
in it, but you agreed to a plan.
So we need to stop backtracking and start focusing; not
looking to sweeten the deal, but we need to get on with the
fairly straight-forward task of implementing this Restudy. And
not testifying, frankly, is not a good way to do it. It is
certainly not a good way to endear yourself to me.
I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is
an environmental and a national treasure. Restoration benefits
not only Florida, but the millions of us who visit Florida each
year, and the probably millions more, Senator Graham, who want
to retire there at some point.
As I said in Naples last January, many years from now, I
hope that we will be remembered for putting aside partisanship,
putting aside differences as to the cost of this project, or
the date of this project or that project, and that we sit down,
put aside narrow self interests and short-term thinking, and we
are willing to sit down at the table, and work out a deal that
will save the Everglades.
This is about the next generation. It is not about the next
election, and it is not about some petty bickering. It is about
the next generation, as to whether or not we, in this Congress,
are prepared to stand up in the year 2000 and begin the process
of saving the Everglades.
We are not going to save it with one act or one bill this
year. We are going to start a process that we can adapt to on a
year-to-year basis to begin the process and find out whether or
not we are willing to make the commitment to do this.
Will it work? We are not 100 percent certain. We know one
thing, though. If we do not do anything, we will lose the
Everglades. So the risk is worth taking.
I am committed to the restoration. I am open minded about
how we do it, and I am willing to listen.
Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Mr. Chairman, prudence would say to be
quiet after that statement.
[Laughter.]
Senator Graham. And I will be as close to quite as I can.
I would like to submit, for the record, a letter from the
Corps of Engineers in response to the issue of the total cost
of this restoration. This was a letter dated March 30.
Senator Smith. Without objection, it will be admitted into
the record.
Senator Graham. Excuse me, I misspoke. It actually is a
letter from the U.S. Department of Interior, John Berry,
Assistant Secretary.
[The referenced documents follow:]
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, March 30, 2000.
Honorable Ralph Regula, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 8, 2000, the Department submitted a report
to you on the total cost estimate to restore the South Florida
ecosystem.
This provides a revised cost estimate report.
The total cost of $14.8 billion has not changed, nor has the $8.4
billion estimated to be the responsibility of the State of Florida.
Total Federal costs have been revised from $6.4 billion to $6.5 billion
(+$25.0 million) to reflect revised estimates for the Department of the
Interior land acquisition needs.
As a result of this revision, $424.0 million is estimated as the
balance to complete Department of the Interior funding, subject to the
availability of appropriations. Through fiscal year 2000, $915.0
million has been appropriated for the Department of the Interior.
Again, the Department appreciates the significant support and
funding that this Committee has provided for the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative.
Similar letters have been sent to the Honorable Norman Dicks,
Ranking Minority Member; the Honorable Slade Gorton and the Honorable
Robert C. Byrd, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member respectively, of
the Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
John Berry, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget.
______
I. Introduction
The Conference Committee Report language accompanying the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-113, requested that the Department
submit information, to be updated biennially, on the total cost of the
effort to--restore the South Florida ecosystem. In relevant part, the
report language states:
It would be useful to have a complete estimate of the total costs
to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations believe that this new estimate will exceed the
$7,800,000,000 estimate that has been used over the last 5 years. This
recalculated estimate should include all three goals of this
initiative, namely, (1) getting the water right, (2) restoring and
enhancing the natural habitat, and (3) transforming the built
environment. The Congress and the American people are committed to this
project. Over $1,300,000,000 has been appropriated to date; however,
and the public deserves to know how much this project will truly cost.
This information should be submitted to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations no later than February 1, 2000, and should be updated
biennially.
The purpose of this report is to provide the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees with the Department's best estimate for the
total costs to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The estimate
provided in Part V of this report reflects state and Federal costs to
date for major on-going programs that advance the goals of the
restoration effort, as well as future estimated costs to complete this
work or associated with planned or proposed activities that are not yet
underway. The estimate exceeds the $7.8 billion figure representing the
costs to construct project features associated with the implementation
of the Army Corps of Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Project
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan presented to Congress on July
1, 1999. The Department believes that the actual costs to construct the
Comprehensive Plan may be lower or higher depending upon a variety of
factors, such as congressional authorization for project features that
will undergo further site specific studies and analyses prior to
initiating construction. The Department will update this report
biennially to reflect any future changes.
Although some of the activities included in the Department's total
cost estimate began well before the emphasis in the last decade on
ecosystem restoration (e.g., state land preservation efforts, the
Modified Water Deliveries Project for Everglades National Park, the
State of Florida's Everglades Construction Project), and may well have
occurred without such increased emphasis, the Department is including
the non-recurring costs for these activities as their completion is
integral to the overall success of the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem Not included in the Department's estimate, however, are the
normal recurring operating costs--or ``agency mission'' costs--for
state and Federal agencies. For example, National Park Service costs to
operate and maintain Everglades National Park, Fish and Wildlife
Service costs to provide for Endangered Species Act consultation, and
South Florida Water Management District costs to operate and maintain
its water delivery infrastructure are not included. Although the
Department has cited such figures in the past, as included in the Task
Force's annual cross-cut budget, to describe its total funding in
support of the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort, the
Department believes that it is proper to exclude these agency mission
costs and focus primarily on the increased funding devoted to this
effort that occurred or is planned to occur due to specific restoration
needs or goals.
To provide context for the total cost estimate, Part II of this
report provides a brief background on the South Florida ecosystem; Part
III summarizes major on-going state and Federal efforts key to the
restoration that preceded the establishment of the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force) and the 1992
congressional authorization and direction for the Army Corps of
Engineers to complete its Restudy for the Central and Southern Florida
Project; Part IV briefly describes future efforts; and Part V provides
the Department's best estimate to date for the total costs to restore
the South Florida ecosystem. The programs and associated costs included
in Part V are arranged according to the three goals for the restoration
effort; Federal and state costs are noted accordingly. Federal costs
are further subdivided according to individual agencies.
In accordance with the Committee's directive, this report will be
updated biennially as more information becomes available and current
plans and cost estimates are updated in response to lessons learned and
new information. The Department believes that expanding knowledge of
ecosystem restoration requirements in South Florida and Me process of
adaptive management for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will
result in changes to the total cost estimate presented in Part V.
II. Background--South Florida Ecosystem
In its natural state, the South Florida ecosystem was connected by
the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee through vast freshwater
marshes--known as the Everglades--to Florida Bay and on to the coral
reefs of the Florida Keys. The Everglades covered approximately 18,000
square miles and were the heart of a unique and biologically productive
region, supporting vast colonies of wading birds, a mixture of
temperate and tropical plant and animal species, and teeming coastal
fisheries.
During the last century, efforts were made to drain the Everglades
and make the region habitable. This culminated in the construction of
the Central and Southern Florida Project, a flood control project
jointly built and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the South
Florida Water Management District. In response to periods of drought
and extreme floods, which left 90 percent of South Florida under water,
this project was authorized by Congress in 1948 and succeeded in
draining half of the original Everglades, allowing for the expanded
development of cities on the lower east coast of Florida and the
farming area south of Lake Okeechobee known as the Everglades
Agricultural Area (EAA). Although historically most rainwater soaked
into the region's wetlands, the Central and Southern Florida Project
canal system, comprised of over 1,800 miles of canals and levees and
200 water control structures, now drains the water off the land such
that an average of 1.7 billion gallons of water per day are discharged
into the ocean. Additionally, phosphorus runoff from agricultural
operations has polluted much of the remaining Everglades and Lake
Okeechobee and caused fundamental, and negative, ecological change.
As a result, not enough clean water is available for the
environment, resulting in long-term problems for the Everglades and the
communities in the region. Examples include: (i) 90 percent reductions
in wading bird populations; (ii) 68 species listed as endangered or
threatened; (iii) reduced fisheries in Biscayne and Florida Bays; (iv)
loss of over five feet of organic soil in the EAA; (v) degraded water
quality in inland and coastal areas; (vi) infestation and spread of
invasive exotic plant species on over 1.5 million acres; (vii) damaging
fresh water releases into the St. Lucie, Caloosahatchee, and many other
estuaries; (viii) loss of wetlands that provide important species
habitat and ground water recharge; (ix) loss of tree islands and
damaging ecological effects in the state managed water conservation
areas. Without significant infrastructure modification, these problems
have the potential only to get worse and water shortages are a
certainty in future years as water demands continue to grow.
Today, South Florida is home to 6.5 million people and the
population is expected to double by 2050. The region receives over 37
million tourists annually and supports a $200 billion economy.
Restoration is an imperative--not only for ensuring a sustainable South
Florida economy to guarantee clean fresh water supplies for all future
needs--but also to protect the ecological health of the Everglades that
has been nationally and internationally recognized as like no other
place on Earth.
III. Major On-Going State and Federal Efforts to Protect and Restore
the South Florida Ecosystem
Over the last decade, and prior to the establishment of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force in 1993, significant efforts
have been made at both the Federal and state level to reverse the trend
of environmental degradation in the Everglades. These efforts include:
(i) improving water quality and reducing pollutants entering Lake
Okeechobee and the Everglades from agricultural interests; (ii)
restoring more natural hydropatterns in areas such as Everglades
National Park and the Kissimmee River Basin; (iii) acquiring land for
Federal and state conservation areas, regional water storage capacity,
habitat and recreation; and (iv) management and protection of the coral
reef through the trusteeship of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Although other activities are included in the total cost estimate, a
brief summary of the most significant projects follows:
Improving water quality: In the late 1970's, the State of Florida
and the South Florida Water Management District began investigating
ways to improve ecosystem water quality, including the Lake Okeechobee
Works of the District, farm Best Management Practices, and a cattle
buy-out program. By 1988, design had begun on the 3,700-acre Everglades
Nutrient Removal Project. In 1988, the Federal Government sued the
State of Florida for its failure to enforce state water quality
standards on pollution discharges from the EAA into the Everglades.
This lawsuit was settled in 1991 and a judicially enforceable Consent
decree ordered the state to take a series of remedial measures,
including the construction of stormwater treatment areas (STAB) on
former farms in the EAA to help clean up farm runoff. The technical
plan in the original Consent decree was expanded significantly after
mediation with stakeholders. In 1994, the Florida legislature enacted
the Everglades Forever Act, which codified proposed modifications to
the consent decree as and provided for other measures to improve
overall water quality, including funding mechanisms and construction
timetable for a comprehensive program of six STAB, implementation of
best management practices, additional research, establishing water
quality criteria and implementation of advanced water quality treatment
measures.
Among the most important of these measures is the completion of the
Everglades Construction Project, a series of six STAs presently under
construction and located between the EAA and the natural areas to the
south. Of the six STAB, five are funded by the State of Florida and the
sixth, STA 1-E, is federally funded to improve water quality discharges
into Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The Everglades Construction
Project is expected to cost approximately $696 million in capital costs
to complete, of which $505 million is being financed by the State of
Florida and $190 million by the Federal Government (of which $46
million was appropriated to the Department of the Interior in fiscal
year 1998 for land acquisition within STA 1-E). Construction of the
STAs are proposed to be complete in December 2006. Although that date
has yet to be approved by the court, which retains jurisdiction over
this matter, the projects called for by the Consent decree are
implemented by the South Florida Water Management District.
Additionally, as a result of the Everglades Forever Act, the South
Florida Water Management District established the Everglades Stormwater
Program, which includes two main components in the form of an EAA
phosphorus reduction program and the Urban and Tributary Basins
Program. The EAA phosphorus reduction program includes regulatory
programs developed to reduce phosphorus loads from the EAA by reducing
phosphorus on the surrounding farms and other adjacent land prior to
discharging offsite. Landowners in the EAA have implemented a series of
best management practices that have effectively reduced the phosphorus
loads to the Everglades. Over the last 3 years, the total cumulative
loads attributable to the EAA have been reduced by 44 percent. The
Urban and Tributary Basins Program was developed to ensure that all
basins discharging into, from or within the Everglades, other than
those included in the EAA, meet state water quality standards. Costs
associated with this program are not included in this report at this
time as additional strategies, in the form of regulatory changes and
construction, are still being developed.
Generally, the STAs and farm Best Management Practices are expected
to reduce overall phosphorus levels to 50 parts per billion (ppb), thus
improving water quality from EAA discharges and other sources compared
to current levels. However, the Everglades Forever Act requires the
state to adopt a numeric criterion for phosphorus by 2003 so that all
discharges into the Everglades will meet Federal and state water
quality standards by 2006. If the state does not adopt a numeric
criterion, the Everglades Forever Act sets a default standard of 1O
ppb. It appears that additional measures will likely be needed to
further enhance the performance of the STAs to meet these requirements;
however, the costs to make such modifications are not known at this
time. The South Florida Water Management District is presently
conducting research into advanced treatment technologies to enhance the
performance of the STAB, and also to be potentially applied to other
tributaries of the Everglades. Although funding for the implementation
of advanced treatment has not been appropriated, to date $10 million
has been budgeted by the South Florida Water Management District toward
that research. Once completed, these efforts are expected to
significantly improve water quality for the region.
As part of the effort to improve water quality in Lake Okeechobee,
the South Florida Water Management District is conducting the Lake
Okeechobee Sediment Removal Feasibility Study. The purpose of the study
is to identify a feasible method of removing sediment that will reduce
the internal phosphorus loading and balance the lake's nutrient
assimilative capacity. Costs to implement this program are not known at
this time.
In addition to these measures, and in recognition of the critical
role of water quality in maintaining coral reef natural resources, the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990
required the Secretary of Commerce, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the State of Florida to develop a Water Quality Protection
Program for the Sanctuary.
Restoring more natural hydropatterns: More natural hydropatterns
are presently being restored in Everglades National Park and the
Kissimmee River Basin. In 1989, Congress enacted the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act (Act) to expand Everglades
National Park and to restore more natural sheet water flows to the park
and Shark River Slough. To restore more natural sheet water flows to
the park, the Act authorized the construction of the Modified Water
Deliveries Project. That project is 100 percent federally funded by the
Department of the Interior and is presently scheduled for completion in
2003, depending upon the availability of Federal funding and completion
of ongoing planning. The estimated total cost for this project is
between $133.5 million and $212 million. The range of costs is based
upon alternative design scenarios for certain project features that are
presently undergoing supplemental National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance. The project is undergoing supplemental NEPA
compliance because: (i) the original project authorization was amended
in 1994; and (ii) completion of both the C-111 project design and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan expanded agency knowledge
that raised questions concerning the original 1992 design for the 8.5
Square Mile Area flood mitigation component of the Modified Water
Deliveries Project. This led to technical disagreements among the
relevant agencies and stakeholders over the appropriate course of
action and alternatives are being explored under the NEPA process. If a
locally preferred option for the 8.5 Square Mile Area component of this
project is chosen the project will be cost shared between the Federal
Government and the South Florida Water Management District. For the
purposes of this report, a range of costs is presented for this
project, although this does not indicate a decision by the Federal
Government or the South Florida Water Management District to proceed
with any of the alternatives presently being evaluated under NEPA.
Authorized by Congress in 1992, the Kissimmee River Restoration
project is intended to reverse the environmental devastation of earlier
efforts to channel the once 103 mile free flowing river into a 56 mile
canal, destroying nearly 43,000 acres of wetlands and important
habitat. The project involves restoring about 40 square miles of the
historic habitat in the Kissimmee river floodplain north of Lake
Okeechobee, as well as restoring water-level fluctuations and seasonal
discharges from Lakes Kissimmee and in the upper basin lakes. This
project is estimated to cost approximately $518 million, is equally
cost shared with the South Florida Water Management District, and is
expected be complete in 2010.
The C-111 project comprises modifications to the Central and
Southern Florida Project to provide more natural hydrologic conditions
in Taylor Slough and the panhandle of Everglades National Park and to
minimize damaging flood releases to Barnes Sound and Manatee Bay.
Restoring natural hydrologic conditions in Taylor Slough is integral to
restoring fresh water flows to Florida Bay. The project was initially
authorized by Congress in 1991 at a cost of 5155 million, including
land, and a completion date of 2001. Reauthorized by Congress in 1996,
the Army Corps is directed to consider state water quality standards
and incorporate the necessary features into the C-111 project
implementation. The 1996 authorization states that all project costs,
including land, are to be shared equally between the Army Corps and the
South Florida--Water Management District. A supplement to the 1994 C-
111 General Reevaluation Report will include actual land acquisition
costs, a water quality strategy, redistribution of funding
responsibilities and a revised implementation timeline, all of which
may result in a revised cost estimate.
In addition to improving water quality, certain components of the
Everglades Construction Project described above will restore more
natural hydropatterns in the northern Everglades presently severed by
the Central and Southern Florida Project. The STA 1-E/C-51W Project
will provide flood control for the western C-51 basin and will restore
a portion of the historic Everglades flows to Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge. The current project was reauthorized by Congress in
1996; project construction is 15 percent cost shared with the South
Florida Water Management District, with the District providing all
lands, easements and rights-of-way, with the exception of those lands
that are incorporated into STA 1-E, as discussed below, which is 100
percent federally funded and for which the Department of the Interior
provided $46 million, through a grant to the South Florida Water
Management District, toward land acquisition costs. The Department has
just learned that the costs to complete land acquisition for STA 1-E
will be higher, but does not have a revised estimate at this time. It
is estimated that the STA 1-E/C-51W project will cost $210 million when
complete in 2003, although this number will change once final land
acquisition costs are known.
Land Acquisition: The Federal and state governments have expended
significant funds to acquire and protect lands in the region. Land
acquisition is a critical part of ecosystem restoration as acquired
lands are needed to protect key Federal and state conservation areas,
create and restore additional water storage capacity and recharge areas
to help increase overall water supplies and restore natural hydrology,
and for habitat protection and enhancement and for recreation. As
described above, some lands are also used to improve overall water
quality (e.g. STAB).
Significant actions taken to protect South Florida's natural
resources since the establishment of Everglades National Park in 1947
and its expansion in 1989 (together protecting 1.4 million acres of the
remaining Everglades) include: (i) Florida's 1972 Land Conservation
Act, 1981 Save Our Rivers Program, 1990 Preservation 2000 Act, and the
Florida Forever Act that dedicate state funding for land acquisition at
state parks and preserves in the ecosystem; (ii) the 1996 Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm Bill) that provided the
Department with $200 million for ecosystem restoration, including land
acquisition; and (iii) numerous annual Interior Appropriations Acts
that have funded land acquisition at parks and refuges in the region,
as well as additional state land acquisition assistance funds. The
state assistance funds provided by the Department of the interior have,
for the most part, been targeted toward acquisition of lands that
create additional opportunities for water storage and are generally
expected to be incorporated into a Comprehensive Plan project feature.
Through these efforts, it is estimated that $1.6 billion has been
spent to date (of which $1.1 billion is state funding and $0.5 billion
is Federal) for the acquisition of 4.7 million acres. It is estimated
that about 638,000 non-Federal acres remain to be acquired in South
Florida at an estimated cost of $2.2 billion. These figures do not
include the 220,000 acres of lands needed for the Comprehensive Plan
implementation, which are included in the overall cost estimate for the
Comprehensive Plan.
Critical Restoration Projects: Pursuant to the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, the Army Corps and the South Florida Water
Management District have entered into agreements to undertake nine
critical restoration projects that will provide immediate and
substantial benefits for the ecosystem. The Corps and the Seminole
Tribe have entered into a similar agreement for one critical project.
The ten projects have a total cost of $150 million, half of which will
be paid for by the Federal Government. These projects, although small
and including such features as improving flows under the Tamiami Trail,
have immediate environmental benefits that will assist in achieving the
goals of the restoration.
Exotic Species Control: Commensurate with land acquisition is
proper land management and efforts to eradicate and prevent the spread
of invasive exotic plant species. More than 200 species of exotic plant
species have invaded the Everglades. The majority of these species
occur in limited areas, and do not pose a direct threat to native plant
communities. However, plants like melaleuca, Brazilian pepper,
Australian pine, and Old World climbing fern, are causing widespread
damage throughout the South Florida ecosystem, and are considered
species of primary concern. The South Florida Water Management
District, state, and Federal Government are all directing resources to
combat this problem. While areal coverage for some species will
decrease with vigilant management efforts--which has been the case with
melaleuca--new species could invade without additional management
initiatives. The history of this problem indicates that management
efforts will only intensify with time and should be considered a
perpetual management requirement in the Everglades region.
IV. Proposed Future Everglades Restoration Efforts
Despite the on-going efforts described above, it is widely
recognized that full restoration of the South Florida would require an
overhaul of the 1948 Central and Southern Florida Project. To this end,
in the 1992 and 1996 Water Resources Development Acts, Congress
directed the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive review
study (now known as the Comprehensive Plan) of the entire project with
a focus on making changes that would restore, preserve and protect the
environment, while also providing clean and adequate fresh water
supplies and flood protection to communities. Completion of the
Comprehensive Plan was an interagency and intergovernmental effort
consisting of an inclusive and open process with opportunity for input
from all stakeholders.
The Comprehensive Plan was submitted to Congress on July 1, 1999.
Comprised of over 60 structural and operational elements, the
Comprehensive Plan proposes a conceptual Stonework to store water for
critical uses; manage water to improve the quality, quantity, timing
and distribution of flows to the Everglades; improve wildlife habitat;
and create wetlands to filter runoff. The estimated non-recurring
capital cost, including real estate acquisition and construction of
project features, for the Comprehensive Plan is $7.8 billion, of which
50 percent is proposed to be provided by the state, with the remainder
provided by the Federal Government. . Operating costs, or those costs
that recur on an annual basis, are estimated at $172 million per year
at full build out and are not included in the total cost estimate as
they resemble agency mission costs that were excluded for other
programs. The Administration shortly expects to submit its
authorization proposal for an initial suite of projects to implement
the Comprehensive Plan. It is expected that the Comprehensive Plan will
take more than 20 years to complete, with the Army Corps of Engineers
providing nearly all of the Federal funding. Its completion is integral
to achieving two of the three goals of the restoration effort,
discussed further below, and it is the single largest cost component of
the restoration effort.
Also in 1996, in an effort to encourage appropriate Federal and
state agencies to work more closely together, the Congress established
the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force),
chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, with the mandate to guide the
restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. To this end, the Task Force
established degree goals: (1) getting the water right: that is, to
restore a more natural water flow to the region while providing
adequate water supplies, water quality and flood control; (2) restore
and enhance the natural system, protecting natural habitats and
reestablishing threatened and endangered species; and (3) transform the
built environment to develop lifestyles and economies that do not
degrade the natural environment and improve the quality of life in
urban areas.
The Task Force is presently developing a Strategic Plan, to be
submitted to Congress by July 31, 2000, that will integrate on-going
efforts with future proposed actions like the Comprehensive Plan. The
Strategic Plan will outline how the overall restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem will occur, identify the resources needed to
accomplish restoration objectives, assign accountability for
accomplishing actions, and link the goals established by the Task Force
to outcome-oriented goals. At this time, and based upon input from
State of Florida stakeholders, the state is reviewing Goal 3,
``transforming the built environment,'' including state proposals for
managing growth. Because implementation of Goal 3 is largely viewed as
a state responsibility and the State of Florida is considering how to
address this issue, the Department is including only estimated Federal
costs in support of the present goal. The Department expects that the
completion of the Strategic Plan will result in an improved ability to
report on costs to implement this goal.
V. Estimated Total Costs for the Restoration of the South Florida
Ecosystem
This section presents the Department's best estimate for the total
costs for South Florida ecosystem restoration. As noted earlier, these
costs are comprised of: (1) major on-going programs; and (2) future
planned activities that may change, based uponsite specific designs and
new information, or may require future Federal and/or state legislative
authorization.
Finally, this report may not have captured all of the costs that
could be categorized by some as meeting the goals of Everglades
restoration. A sustainable environment will also need a diverse and
balanced economy. The regional economy should continue to support
traditional industries such as agriculture, tourism, development,
fishing and manufacturing. It must ensure that these resource-dependent
industries are compatible with restoration goals and will maintain or
enhance the quality of life in built areas. It is difficult to quantify
the costs of responsible development that would include such
characteristics as redeveloping declining urban areas, roads,
utilities, services, and light rail, to name a few.
Managing growth and development problems cannot be solved by each
local government acting alone. Roads do not stop at city and county
boundaries. Our major natural resources and ecosystems frequently
encompass parts of many local jurisdictions. A decision by one local
government to construct a major public facility or permit private
development can have a significant impact on an entire region, and the
collective decisions of all local governments affect the entire state.
Among its recommendations to Congress in July 1999, the
Comprehensive Plan recommended a feasibility study to identify the
dominant water and environmental resource issues in southwest Florida
in view of robust population growth in the region and to develop
potential solutions to any problems that may be identified. The
Southwest Florida Study is being conducted by the Army Corps and the
South Florida Water Management District. The study area includes all of
Lee County, most of Collier and Hendry Counties, and portions of
Charlotte, Glades and Monroe Counties. It encompasses approximately
4,300 square miles and includes two major drainage basins. It is likely
that this feasibility study could recommend programs and costs that
would support any of the goals of the restoration effort. At this time,
however, no costs are included as they are not yet known.
In accordance with the Committee's direction, the Department
expects to provide updates of this information on at least a biennial
basis, or more frequently should it be desired, so that all parties
involved are aware of the significant Federal, state and local
investments that are being made in this important effort. Following are
estimated total costs, arranged according to the ecosystem restoration
goals:
__________
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, March 8, 2000.
Honorable Ralph Regula, Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Conference Committee Report language
accompanying the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-113, requested
that the Department submit information, to be.updated biennially, on
the total cost of the effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem. In
relevant part, the report language states:
It would be useful to have a complete estimate of the total costs
to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations believe that this new estimate will exceed the
$7,800,000,000 estimate that has been used over the last 5 years. This
recalculated estimate should include all three goals of this
initiative, namely. (1) getting the water right, (2) restoring and
enhancing the natural habitat, and (3) transforming the built
environment. The Congress and the American people are committed to this
project. Over $1,300,000,000 has been appropriated to date; however,
and the public deserves to know how much this project will truly cost.
This information should be submitted to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations no later than February 1, 2000, and should be updated
biennially.
The $7.8 billion figure cited in the report language represents the
estimated costs to construct project features associated with the
implementation--over the next 20 years or so--of the Army Corps of
Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Project Review Study (Restudy).
The Restudy, now known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, or Comprehensive Plan, was submitted to the Congress on July 1,
1999 and is integral to achieving two of the three goals of the
restoration: (1) ``getting the water right'' to restore more natural
water flows to the ecosystem, while guaranteeing regional water
supplies and flood control; and (2) restoring and enhancing the natural
system. Because congressional authorization is required for the
Comprehensive Plan's proposed project features, and individual project
features must undergo additional site specific studies and analyses,
the Department believes that the overall cost to implement this
significant and important component of the restoration effort could be
lower or higher depending upon future analyses and site specific
studies. Nothing in this report changes the present estimate of $7.8
billion to complete the Comprehensive Plan, for which the State of
Florida will provide half, or $3.9 billion, of the cost.
To develop the total cost estimate, the Department included the
cost of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as certain on-going programs
that pre-date the emphasis on ecosystem restoration that developed
since the establishment of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force in 1993. This includes several projects authorized prior to and
independent of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Congress and
the State of Florida have enacted legislation requiring the appropriate
agencies to take certain steps toward restoration. The Department has
included the costs for these measures because they actively promote
overall restoration goals and establish baseline conditions for the
Comprehensive Plan. An example of this type of cost is the Everglades
Construction Project, authorized by the State of Florida's 1994
Everglades Forever Act and undertaken by the South Florida Water
Management District as a direct result of a judicially enforceable
consent decree settling water quality litigation brought by the United
States against the South Florida Water Management District in 1988. The
Everglades Construction Project is designed to significantly improve
overall regional water quality through the construction of stormwater
treatment areas.
The Department has excluded certain ``agency mission'' costs, which
are generally recurring in nature, including the operation and
maintenance costs for the Central and Southern Florida Project, and
operational costs for national parks and national wildlife refuges
because the Department believes that these costs would occur without
any additional emphasis on ecosystem restoration.
In response to the Committee's request, the Department submits the
enclosed report with its best estimate for the total costs to restore
the South Florida ecosystem. As noted in the report, the Department's
total cost estimate is $14.8 billion, of which $8.4 billion are solely
the responsibility of the State of Florida and $6.4 billion are Federal
costs. This total cost estimate represents state and Federal costs to
date for major on-going programs that advance the goals of the
restoration effort, as well as future estimated costs associated with
planned or proposed activities that require congressional authorization
or are in the preliminary planning stages. Of the Federal costs
included in this report, $1.3 billion is estimated to be Department of
the Interior funding supporting Goals 1 and 2; of which $907 million
represents funding through fiscal year 2000, and $405 million is
estimated as the balance to complete, subject to the availability of
future appropriations. A tabular display, by goal, of this cost
estimate follows on the next page:
As noted in Part V of this report, the Department has limited
information concerning state programs affecting Goal 3, ``transforming
the built environment.'' The state programs affecting Goal 3 are under
review at this time in response to recent state proposals to manage
growth and--may be slightly revised, thus the Department is including
information on Federal programs that it believes support this goal.
Updated information concerning Goal 3 will be included in the Strategic
Plan due this July, and a revised cost estimate for Goal 3 will be
provided at that time.
The Department appreciates the significant support and funding that
this Committee has provided for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Initiative. The Department notes that the State of Florida has recently
committed to fund its share of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Department looks forward to working with the Committee to secure the
necessary funding and legislative authorization that will be required
to continue our important work in this effort, protect the Federal
investments made to date in national parks and national wildlife
refuges, and most importantly, save America's Everglades. The
Department would be pleased to discuss this report and its contents
with you further. Similar letters have been sent to the Honorable
Norman Dicks, Ranking Minority Member; the Honorable Slade Gorton and
the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member
respectively, of the Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
John Berry, Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and
Budget.
______
I. Introduction
The Conference Committee Report language the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000,
Public Law 106-113, requested that the Department submit information.
to be updated biennially, on the total cost of the effort to restore
the South Florida ecosystem In relevant part, the report language
states:
It would be useful to have a complete estimate of the total costs
to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations believe that this new estimate will exceed the
$7,800,000,000 estimate that has been used over the last 5 years. This
recalculated estimate should include all three goals of this
initiative, namely. (1) getting the water right, (2) restoring and
enhancing the natural habitat, and (3) transforming the built
environment. The Congress and the American people are committed to this
project. Over $1,300,000,000 has been appropriated to date; however,
and the public deserves to know how much this project will truly cost.
This information should be submitted to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations no later than February 1, 2000, and should be updated
biennially.
The purpose of this report is to provide the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees with the Department's best estimate for the
total costs to restore the South Florida ecosystem. The estimate
provided in Part V of this report reflects state and Federal costs to
date for major ongoing programs that advance the goals of the
restoration effort, as well as future estimated costs to complete this
work or associated with planned or proposed activities that are not yet
underway. The estimate exceeds the $7.8 billion figure representing the
costs to construct project features associated with the implementation
of the Army Corps of Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Project
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan presented to Congress on July
1, 1999. The Department believes that the actual costs to construct the
Comprehensive Plan may be lower or higher depending upon a variety of
factors, such as congressional authorization for project features that
will undergo further site specific studies and analyses prior to
initiating construction. The Department will update this report
biennially to reflect any future changes.
Although some of the activities included in the Department's total
cost estimate began well before the emphasis in the last decade on
ecosystem restoration (e.g. state land preservation efforts, the
Modified Water Deliveries Project for Everglades National Park, the
State of Florida's Everglades Construction Project), and may well have
occurred without such increased emphasis, the Department is including
the non-recurring costs for these activities as their completion is
integral to the overall success of the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem. Not included in the Department's estimate, however, are the
normal recurring operating costs--or ``agency mission'' costs--for
state and Federal agencies. For example, National Park Service costs to
operate and maintain Everglades National Park, Fish and Wildlife
Service costs to provide for Endangered Species Act consultation, and
South Florida Water Management District costs to operate and maintain
its water delivery infrastructure are not included. Although the
Department has cited such figures in the past, as included in the Task
Force's annual cross-cut budget, to describe its total funding in
support of the South Florida ecosystem restoration effort, the
Department believes that it is proper to exclude these agency mission
costs and focus primarily on the increased funding denoted to this
effort that occurred or is planned to occur due to specific restoration
needs or goals.
To provide context for the total cost estimate, Part II of this
report provides a brief background on the South Florida ecosystem; Part
III summarizes major on-going state and Federal efforts key to the
restoration that preceded the establishment of the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force) and the 1992
congressional authorization and direction for the Army Corps of
Engineers to complete its Restudy for the Central and Southern Florida
Project; Part IV briefly describes future efforts; and Part V provides
the Department's best estimate to date for the total costs to restore
the South Florida ecosystem. The programs and associated costs included
in Part V are arranged according to the three goals for the restoration
effort; Federal and state costs are noted accordingly. Federal costs
are further subdivided according to individual agencies.
In accordance with the Committee's directive, this report will be
updated biennially as more information becomes available and current
plans and cost estimates are updated in response to lessons learned and
new information. The Department believes that expanding knowledge of
ecosystem restoration requirements in South Florida and the process of
adaptive management for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will
result in changes to the total cost estimate presented in Part V.
II. Background--South Florida Ecosystem
In its natural state, the South Florida ecosystem was connected by
the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee through vast freshwater
marshes--known as the Everglades--to Florida Bay and on to the coral
reefs of the Florida Keys. The Everglades covered approximately 18,000
square miles and were the heart of a unique and biologically productive
region, supporting vast colonies of wading birds, a mixture of
temperate and tropical plant and animal species, and teeming coastal
fisheries.
During the last century, efforts were made to drain the Everglades
and make the region habitable. This culminated in the construction of
the Central and Southern Florida Project, a flood control project
jointly built and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the South
Florida Water Management District. In response to periods of drought
and extreme floods, which left 90 percent of South Florida under water,
this project was authorized by Congress in 1948 and succeeded in
draining half of the original Everglades, allowing for the expanded
development of cities on the lower east coast of Florida and the
farming area south of Lake Okeechobee known as the Everglades
Agricultural Area (EAA). Although historically most rainwater soaked
into the region's wetlands, the Central and Southern Florida Project
canal system, comprised of over 1,800 miles of canals and levees and
200 water control structures, now drains the water off the land such
that an average of 1.7 billion gallons of water per day are discharged
into the ocean.
Additionally, phosphorus runoff from agricultural operations has
polluted much of the remaining Everglades and Lake Okeechobee and
caused fundamental, and negative, ecological change.
As a result, not enough clean water is available for the
environment, resulting in long-term problems for the Everglades and the
communities in the region. Examples include (i) 90 percent reductions
in wading bird populations, (ii) 68 species listed as endangered or
threatened, (iii) reduced fisheries in Biscayne and Florida Bays; (iv)
loss of over five feet of organic soil in the EAA, (v) degraded water
quality in inland and coastal areas, (vi) infestation and spread of
invasive exotic plant species on over 1.5 million acres; (vii) damaging
fresh water releases into the St. Lucie, Caloosahatchee, and many other
estuaries, (viii) loss of wetlands that provide important species
habitat and ground water recharge; (ix) loss of tree islands and
damaging ecological effects in the state managed water conservation
areas. Without significant infrastructure modification, these problems
have the potential only to get worse and water shortages are a
certainty in future years as water demands continue to grow.
Today, South Florida is home to 6.5 million people and the
population is expected to double by 2050. The region receives over 37
million tourists annually and supports a $200 billion economy
Restoration is an imperative--not only for ensuring a sustainable South
Florida economy to guarantee clean fresh water supplies for all future
needs--but also to protect the ecological health of the Everglades that
has been nationally and internationally recognized as like no other
place on Earth.
III. Major On-Going State and Federal Efforts to Protect and Restore
the South Florida Ecosystem
Over the last decade, and prior to the establishment of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force in 1993, significant efforts
have been made at both the Federal and state level to reverse the trend
of environmental degradation in the Everglades. These efforts include:
(i) improving water quality and reducing pollutants entering Lake
Okeechobee and the Everglades from agricultural interests; (ii)
restoring more natural hydropatterns in areas such as Everglades
National Park and the Kissimmee River Basin; (iii) acquiring land for
Federal and state conservation areas, regional water storage capacity,
habitat and recreation; and (iv) management and protection of the coral
reef through the trusteeship of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Although other activities are included in the total cost estimate, a
brief summary of the most significant projects follows:
Improving water quality: In the late 1970's, the State of Florida
and the South Florida Water Management District began investigating
ways to improve ecosystem water quality, including the Lake Okeechobee
Works of the District, farm Best Management Practices, and a cattle
buy-out program. By 1988, design had begun on the 3,700-acre Everglades
Nutrient Removal Project in 1988, the Federal Government sued the State
of Florida for its failure to enforce state water quality standards on
pollution discharges from the EAA into the Everglades. This lawsuit was
settled in 1991 and a judicially enforceable Consent decree ordered the
state to take a series of remedial measures, the construction of
stormwater treatment areas (STAs) on former farms in the EAA to help
clean up farm runoff. The technical plan in the original Consent decree
was expanded significantly after mediation with stakeholders. In 1994,
the Florida legislature enacted the Everglades Forever Act, which
codified proposed modifications to the consent decree as and provided
for other measures to improve overall water quality, including funding
mechanisms and construction timetable for a comprehensive program of
six STAs, implementation of best management practices, additional
research, establishing water quality criteria and implementation of
advanced water quality treatment measures.
Among the most important of these measures is the completion of the
Everglades Construction Project, a series of six STAs presently under
construction and located between the EAA and the natural areas to the
south. Of the six STAB, five are funded by the State of Florida and the
sixth. STA 1-E, is federally funded to improve water quality discharges
into Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The Everglades Construction
Project is expected to cost approximately $696 million in capital costs
to complete, of which $505 million is being financed by the State of
Florida and $190 million by the Federal Government (of which $46
million was appropriated to the Department of the Interior in fiscal
year 1998 for land acquisition within STA 1-E). Construction of the
STAs are proposed to be complete in December 2006. Although that date-
has yet to be approved by the court, which retains jurisdiction over
this matter, the projects called for by the Consent decree are
implemented by the South Florida Water Management District.
Additionally, as a result of the Everglades Forever Act, the South
Florida Water Management District established the Everglades Stormwater
Program, which includes two main components in the form of an EAA
phosphorus reduction program and the Urban and Tributary Basins Program
The EAA phosphorus reduction program includes regulatory programs
developed to reduce phosphorus loads from the EAA by reducing
phosphorus on the surrounding farms and other adjacent land prior to
discharging offsite. Landowners in the EAA have implemented a series of
best management practices that have effectively reduced the phosphorus
loads to the Everglades. Over the last 3 years, the total cumulative
loads attributable to the EAA have been reduced by 44 percent. The
Urban and Tributary Basins Program was developed to ensure that all
basins discharging into, from or within the Everglades, other than
those included in the EAA, meet state water quality standards. Costs
associated with this program are not included in this report at this
time as additional strategies, in the form of regulatory changes and
construction, are still being developed.
Generally, the STAs and farm Best Management Practices are expected
to reduce overall phosphorus levels to 50 parts per billion (ppb), thus
improving water quality from EAA discharges and other sources compared
to current levels. However, the Everglades Forever Act requires the
state to adopt a numeric criterion for phosphorus by 2003 so that all
discharges into the Everglades will meet Federal and state water
quality standards by 2006. If the state does not adopt a numeric
criterion, the Everglades Forever Act sets a default standard of 10
ppb. It appears that additional measures will likely be needed to
further enhance the performance of the STAs to meet these requirements;
however, the costs to make such modifications are not known at this
time The South Florida Water Management District is presently
conducting research into advanced treatment technologies to enhance the
performance of the STAs, and also are potentially applied to other
tributaries of the Everglades. Although funding for the implementation
of advanced treatment has not been appropriated, to date $10 million
has been budgeted by the South Florida Water Management District toward
that research. Once completed, these efforts are expected to
significantly improve water quality for the region.
As part of the effort to improve water quality in Lake Okeechobee,
the South Florida Water Management District is conducting the Lake
Okeechobee Sediment Removal Feasibility Study. The purpose of the study
is to identify a feasible method of removing sediment that will reduce
the internal phosphorus loading and balance the lake's nutrient
assimilative capacity. Costs to implement this program are not known at
this time.
In addition to these measures, and in recognition of the critical
role of water quality in maintaining coral reef natural resources, the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990
required the Secretary of Commerce, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the State of Florida to develop a Water Quality Protection
Program for the Sanctuary.
Restoring more natural hydropatterns: More natural hydropatterns
are presently being restored in Everglades National Park and the
Kissimmee River Basin. In 1989, Congress enacted the Everglades
National Park Protection and Expansion Act (Act) to expand Everglades
National Park and to restore more natural sheet water flows to the park
and Shark River Slough. To restore more natural sheet water flows to
the park, the Act authorized the construction of the Modified Water
Deliveries Project. That project is 100 percent federally funded by the
Department of the Interior and is presently scheduled for completion in
2003, depending upon the availability of Federal funding and completion
of ongoing planning. The estimated total cost for this project is
between $133.5 million and $212 million. The range of costs is based
upon alternative design scenarios for certain project features that are
presently undergoing supplemental National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance. The project is undergoing supplemental PAPA
compliance because: (i) the original project authorization was amended
in 1994, and (ii) completion of both the C-111 project design and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan expanded agency knowledge
that raised questions concerning the original 1992 design for the 8.5
Square Mile Area flood mitigation component of the Modified Water
Deliveries Project. This led to technical disagreements among the
relevant agencies and stakeholders over the appropriate course of
action and alternatives are being explored under the NEPA process. If a
locally preferred option for the 8.5 Square Mile Area component of this
project is chosen the project will be cost-shared between the Federal
Government and the South Florida Water Management District. For the
purposes of this report, a range of costs is presented for this
project, although this does not indicate a decision by the Federal
Government or the South Florida Water Management District to proceed
with any of the alternatives presently being evaluated under NEPA.
Authorized by Congress in 1992, the Kissimmee River Restoration
project is intended to reverse the environmental devastation of earlier
efforts to channel the once 103 mile free flowing river into a 56 mile
canal, destroying nearly 43,000 acres of wetlands and important
habitat. The project involves restoring about 40 square miles of the
historic habitat in the Kissimmee river floodplain north of Lake
Okeechobee, as well as restoring water-level fluctuations and seasonal
discharges from Lakes Kissimmee and in the upper basin lakes. This
project is estimated to cost approximately $18 million, is equally cost
shared with the South Florida Water Management District, and is
expected be complete in 2010.
The C-111 project comprises modifications to the Central and
Southern Florida Project to provide more natural hydrologic conditions
in Taylor Slough and the panhandle of Everglades National Park and to
minimize damaging flood releases to Barnes Sound and Manatee Bay.
Restoring natural hydrologic conditions in Taylor Slough is integral to
restoring fresh water flows to Florida Bay. The project was initially
authorized by Congress in 1991 at a cost of $155 million, including
land, and a completion date of 2001. Reauthorized by Congress in 1996,
the Army Corps is directed to consider state water quality standards
and incorporate the necessary features into the C-111 project
implementation. The 1996 authorization states that all project costs,
including land, are to be shared equally between the Army Corps and the
South Florida Water Management District. A supplement to the 1994 C-111
General Reevaluation Report will include actual land acquisition costs,
a water quality strategy, redistribution of funding responsibilities
and a revised, implementation timeline, all of which may result in a
revised cost estimate.
In addition to improving water quality, certain components of the
Everglades Construction Project described above will restore more
natural hydropatterns in the northern Everglades presently severed by
the Central and Southern Florida Project. The STA 1-E/C-51W Project
will provide flood control for the western C-51 basin and will restore
a portion of the historic Everglades flows to Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge. The current project was reauthorized by Congress in
1996; project construction is 15 percent cost shared with the South
Florida Water Management District, with the District providing all
lands, easements and rights-of-way, with the exception of those lands
that are incorporated into STA 1-E, as discussed below, which is 100
percent federally funded and for which the Department of the Interior
provided $46 million, through a grant to the South Florida Water
Management District, toward land acquisition costs. The Department has
just learned that the costs to complete land acquisition for STA 1-E
will be higher, but does not have a revised estimate at this time. It
is estimated that the STA 1-E/C-51W project will cost $210 million when
complete in 2003, although this number will change once final land
acquisition costs are known.
Land Acquisition: The Federal and state governments have expended
significant funds to acquire and protect lands in the region. Land
acquisition is a critical part of ecosystem restoration as acquired
lands are needed to protect key Federal and state conservation areas,
create and restore additional water storage capacity and recharge areas
to help increase overall water supplies and restore natural hydrology,
and for habitat protection and enhancement and for recreation. As
described above, some lands are also used to improve overall water
Quality (em. STAs).
Significant actions taken to protect South Florida's natural
resources since the establishment of Everglades National Park in 1947
and its expansion in 1989 (together protecting 1.4 million acres of the
remaining Everglades) include (i) Florida's 1972 Land Conservation Act,
1981 Save Our Rivers Program, 1990 Preservation 2000 Act, and the
Florida Forever Act that dedicate state funding for land acquisition at
state parks and preserves in the ecosystem, (ii) the 1996 Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (Farm Bill) that provided the
Department with $200 million for ecosystem restoration, including land
acquisition; and (iii) numerous annual Interior Appropriations Acts
that have funded land acquisition at parks and refuges in the region,
as well as additional state land acquisition assistance funds. The
state assistance funds provided by the Department of the Interior have,
for the most part, been targeted toward acquisition of lands that
create additional opportunities for water storage and are generally
expected to be incorporated into a Comprehensive Plan project feature.
Through these efforts, it is estimated that $1.6 billion has been
spent to date (of which $1.6 billion is state funding and $0.5 billion
is Federal) for the acquisition of 4.7 million acres. It is estimated
that about 638,000 non-Federal acres remain to be acquired in South
Florida at an estimated cost of $2.2 billion. These figures do not
include the 220,000 acres of lands needed for the Comprehensive Plan
implementation, which are included in the overall cost estimate for the
Comprehensive Plan.
Critical Restoration Projects: Pursuant to the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, the Army Corps and the South Florida Water
Management District have entered into agreements to undertake nine
critical restoration projects that will provide immediate and
substantial benefits for the ecosystem. The Corps and the Seminole
Tribe have entered into a similar agreement for one critical project.
The ten projects have a total cost of $150 million, half of which will
be paid for by the Federal Government. These projects, although small
and including such features as improving flows under the Tamiami Trail,
have immediate environmental benefits that will assist in achieving the
goals of the restoration.
Exotic Species Control: Commensurate with land acquisition is
proper land management and efforts to eradicate and prevent the spread
of invasive exotic plant species. More than 200 species of exotic plant
species have invaded the Everglades. The majority of these species
occur in limited areas, and do not pose a direct threat to native plant
communities. However, plants like melaleuca, Brazilian pepper,
Australian pine, and Old World climbing fern, are causing widespread
damage throughout the South Florida ecosystem, and are considered
species of primary concern. The South Florida Water Management
District, state, and Federal Government are all directing resources to
combat this problem. While areal coverage for some species will
decrease with vigilant management efforts--which has been the case with
melaleuca--new species could invade without additional management
initiatives. The history of this problem indicates that management
efforts will only intensify with time and should be considered a
perpetual management requirement in the Everglades region.
IV. Proposed Future Everglades Restoration Efforts
Despite the on-going efforts described above, it is widely
recognized that full restoration of the South Florida would require an
overhaul of the 1948 Central and Southern Florida Project To this end,
in the 1992 and 1996 Water Resources Development Acts. Congress
directed the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive review
study (now known as the Comprehensive Plan) of the entire project with
a focus on making changes that would restore, preserve and protect the
environment while also providing clean and adequate fresh water
supplies and flood protection to communities. Completion of the
Comprehensive Plan was an interagency and intergovernmental effort
consisting of an inclusive and open process with opportunity for input
from all stakeholders.
The Comprehensive Plan was submitted to Congress on July 1, 1999.
Comprised of over 60 structural and operational elements, the
Comprehensive Plan proposes a conceptual framework to store water for
critical uses; manage water to improve the quality, quantity, timing
and distribution of flows to the Everglades; improve wildlife habitat;
and create wetlands to filter runoff. The estimated non-recurring
capital cost, including real estate acquisition and construction of
project features, for the Comprehensive Plan is $7.8 billion, of which
50 percent is proposed to be provided by the state, with the remainder
provided by the Federal Government Operating costs, or those costs that
recur on an annual basis, are estimated at $172 million per year at
full build out and are not included in the total cost estimate as they
resemble agency mission costs that were excluded for other programs.
The Administration shortly expects to submit its authorization proposal
for an initial suite of projects to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
It is expected that the Comprehensive Plan will take more than 20 years
to complete, with the Army Corps of Engineers providing nearly all of
the Federal funding. Its completion is integral to achieving two of the
three goals of the restoration effort, discussed further below, and it
is the single largest cost component of the restoration effort.
Also in 1996, in an effort to encourage appropriate Federal and
state agencies to work more closely together, the Congress established
the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force),
chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, with the mandate to guide the
restoration of the South Florida ecosystem. To this end, the Task Force
established three goals: (1) getting the water right: that is, to
restore a more natural water flow to the region while providing
adequate water supplies, water quality and flood control; (2) restore
and enhance the natural system, protecting natural habitats and
reestablishing threatened and endangered species; and (3) transform the
built environment to develop lifestyles and economies that do not
degrade the natural environment and improve the quality of life in
urban areas.
The Task Force is presently developing a Strategic Plan, to be
submitted to Congress by July 31, 2000, that will integrate on-going
efforts with future proposed actions like the Comprehensive Plan. The
Strategic Plan will outline how the overall restoration of the South
Florida ecosystem will occur, identify the resources needed to
accomplish restoration objectives, assign accountability for
accomplishing actions, and link the goals established by the Task Force
to outcome-oriented goals. At this time, and based upon input from
State of Florida stakeholders, the state is reviewing Goal 3,
``transforming the built environment,'' including state proposals for
managing growth. Because implementation of Goal 3 is largely viewed as
a state responsibility and the State of Florida is considering how to
address this issue, the Department is including only estimated Federal
costs in support of the present goal. The Department expects that the
completion of the Strategic Plan will result in an improved ability to
report on costs to implement this goal.
V. Estimated Total Costs for the Restoration of the South Florida
Ecosystem
This section presents the Department's best estimate for the total
costs for South Florida ecosystem restoration. As noted earlier, these
costs are comprised of: (1) major on-going programs; and (2) future
planned activities that may change, based uponsite specific designs and
new information, or may require future Federal and/or state legislative
authorization.
Finally, this report may not have captured all of the costs that
could be categorized by some as meeting the goals of Everglades
restoration. A sustainable environment will also need a diverse and
balanced economy. The regional economy should continue to support
traditional industries such as agriculture, tourism, development,
fishing and manufacturing. It must ensure that these resource-dependent
industries are compatible with restoration goals and will maintain or
enhance the quality of life in built areas. It is difficult to quantify
the costs of responsible development that would include such
characteristics as redeveloping declining urban areas, roads,
utilities, services, and light rail, to name a few.
Managing growth and development problems cannot be solved by each
local government acting alone. Roads do not stop at city and county
boundaries. Our major natural resources and ecosystems frequently
encompass parts of many local jurisdictions. A decision by one local
government to construct a major public facility or permit private
development can have a significant impact on an entire region, and the
collective decisions of all local governments affect the entire state.
Among its recommendations to Congress in July 1999, the
Comprehensive Plan recommended a feasibility study to identify the
dominant water and environmental resource issues in southwest Florida
in view of robust population growth in the region and to develop
potential solutions to any problems that may be identified. The
Southwest Florida Study is being conducted by the Army Corps and the
South Florida Water Management District. The study area includes all of
Lee County, most of Collier and Hendry Counties, and portions of
Charlotte, Glades and Monroe Counties. It encompasses approximately
4.300 square miles and includes two major drainage basins. It is likely
that this feasibility study could recommend programs and costs that
would support any of the goals of the restoration effort. At this time,
however, no costs are included as they are not yet known.
In accordance with the Committee's direction, the Department
expects to provide updates of this information on at least a biennial
basis, or more frequently should it be desired, so that all parties
involved are aware of the significant Federal, state and local
investments that are being made In this important effort. Following are
estimated total costs, arranged according to the ecosystem restoration
goals:
It points out that the $7.8 billion figure that we are
talking about is the cost to complete the plan, which the Corps
of Engineers has submitted.
There are other costs that will be incurred by the Federal
Government in the Everglades, whether we decided to go forward
with this plan or not. We are operating a major national park
in the midst of the Everglades. And there will be costs
associated with that, that are unrelated to the restoration.
It is those costs and other similar items that were added
to the $7.8 billion, in order to arrive at the larger number
that was suggested. I think the letter that I will submit will
detail how those numbers were arrived at.
In the testimony that the Governor gave on panel one, I
thought he did an outstanding job of elaborating, as you have
just done, Mr. Chairman, the theory behind what we are doing.
I would only seek to add one item. And that is that we are
about to embark on the largest environment restoration,
certainly in the history of this country, and probably in the
history of the world. It is not, by any means, the last major
environmental restoration which this country will undertake.
So part of the rationale for what we are doing and part of
the rationale for some of the techniques that are going to be
suggested is that this is a learning process which will be
looked to as a laboratory for other restoration projects that
America will be doing in the 21st century.
I think that is an important part of the rationale for what
we are doing, and an explanation for some of the techniques
that are being used. We are going to learn more about the
science of unique environmental systems, and we are going to
learn more about the public administration for how to go about
the governance and the financing and administration of these
projects, as we go forward, and there will be great benefit
from that.
Mr. Chairman, as we start these hearings, again, I want to
thank you for the tremendous personal commitment that you have
made to understanding this complicated initiative and the
leadership which you just indicated that you intend to provide.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Voinovich?
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. It is interesting that the
three of us were together in Florida. And it is almost a repeat
of the visit that we had there. I, too, am pleased that so many
people from Florida came here today for this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am no stranger to the
Everglades. When I was Governor of Ohio, in response to my
interest in the Everglades and thanks to the courtesy of the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conversation Commission, I spent a
day and a half observing the environmentally impacted area of
the Everglades by helicopter and by airboat.
In addition, my wife, Janet, and I have made many visits to
Florida, including trips to the Locks Hatchery National
Wildlife Refuge in Everglades National Park. I enjoyed fishing
in the Florida Bay and fishing for snook in the Everglades.
This past January, as I mentioned, we were all together in
Florida, and had a wonderful opportunity to again see the
Everglades and the problems that are connected with it.
I mentioned all of this to emphasize that I have invested a
lot of time in the Everglades and, in particular, the
Comprehensive Restoration Plan, and intend to continue to do
so. I am unequivocally committed to the fact that the
Everglades are a national treasure that must be protected and
restored.
Having said that, my detailed review of the comprehensive
plan has also convinced me that the Everglades Comprehensive
Restoration Plan was rushed to this Congress for its
consideration.
At a cost of $1.1 billion, the plans for the 10 initial
projects that Congress has been asked to authorize are only
conceptual, and do not even begin to meet the standards that
this Congress has set for project authorizations. I think
Senator Warner, in his testimony this morning, made reference
to the word ``act'' and the specificity that is required in
terms of projects that this committee authorizes.
There are some who will say that the Administration is only
responding to what Congress requested, back in 1996, when it
called for a comprehensive plan by July 1, 1999. However, the
clear words of the 1996 act call for a feasibility report.
Feasibility studies have not been completed on any portion
of the comprehensive plan, and yet the Administration is
seeking a $1.1 billion authorization, based on a conceptual
plan that does not contain any meaningful level of details
regarding costs, benefits, environmental analysis, design,
engineering, or real estate.
To authorize projects without this information would be a
radical departure from the past oversight of the Corps. program
by this committee, and would make it very difficult to enforce
the historic standards of this committee for authorization of
Corps. projects in future Water Resource Development Acts.
This does not mean that we can not act on the Everglades
Comprehensive Plan. I think we can and should act to advance
the critical national issue of Everglades restoration.
We can certainly endorse the comprehensive plan as a
framework and guide for future action. We can authorize pilot
projects to obtain the information we need to move forward.
I am sure that under Chairman Smith's leadership, we can
agree on some process that will advance the authorization of
the initial projects, while assuring that Congress has an
opportunity to review and approve feasibility level reports on
these projects before they are implemented.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to my service on the Environment
and Public Works Committee, I also serve on the Government
Affairs Committee, where we are concerned about the issues of
Government efficiency, effectiveness, and coordinated activity.
I can not leave the topic of the Everglades restoration
without one observation. Homestead Air Force Base is located
only eight miles from the Everglades National Park, one and-a-
half miles from Biscayne Bay, and just north of the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
The Air Force is seeking to transfer property at Homestead
Air Force Base, in accordance with the recommendations of the
Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The Air Force has
prepared a draft supplemental environmental impact statement
that presents as a proposed action the reuse of the air base as
a regional commercial airport.
I am very concerned that the noise, air quality impacts,
water quality impacts, and developmental pressures of
commercial airport operations may not be compatible with the
adjacent national parks and sanctuary.
I believe it would be irresponsible for Federal Government
to improve an investment of billions of dollars in restoration
to the South Florida ecosystem, while at the same time
approving a reuse plan for Homestead Air Force Base that is
incompatible with such restoration objectives.
I urge the Administration to pursue consistent objectives
in South Florida's restoration, and assure that the actions of
the Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration are
coordinated with the Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies
in groups making up the South Florida ecosystem restoration
task force.
Finally, I would like to touch on the Everglades
restoration in the context of the total nationwide program of
the Corps of Engineers. I mentioned earlier that we can not
talk about the Everglades in a vacuum. We do have an enormous
backlog, $30 billion worth of projects. The backlog includes
$1.1 billion in Florida. And as I mentioned, the President's
budget only includes $176 million for this project.
The point I want to make, and I will make it very quickly,
Mr. Chairman, is we have to be realistic about what we can or
can not do.
If we are going to be supportive of this project and other
projects that are so important to the future of this Nation,
then as a Congress, we need to reevaluate our priorities here,
and do something about this $30 billion backlog. So the people
that are here, the people that are anticipating that something
is going to happen, know that it will occur; that the money
will be there.
If we do not do that, and we continue to provide $1.4
billion every year, then it seems to me that we ought to look
at what the Administration is proposing and say to the people
in Florida, this is an important project, go forward with it,
and work out some other kind of arrangement where they can be
compensated for the Federal share, and get it over a period of
time; but allow this project to move forward.
Now that is going to be an enormous thing for this Congress
to do, because traditionally, you move forward, based on the
amount of money that is made available to you in the
authorization bill.
So this is something that, I think, Mr. Chairman, we need
to talk about. It would be rather difficult, I think, to get it
done, but it might be something that we ought to give
consideration to. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Senator Chafee, do you have an opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINCOLN CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. I would just like to thank the Chairman for
convening the hearing, and your interest in the subject, your
passion for it, and for former Governor and now Senator Graham,
your leadership through the many years to restore the
Everglades. And I look forward to the testimony.
Senator Smith. Let me thank both witnesses for being here.
Let me say, first of all, and it will apply to the remaining
panels, as well, that all of your prepared statements, as you
know, will be submitted for the record.
Again, I want to repeat that as you can tell from the
comments made here, we are far from being totally in accord on
the project itself on the details. But, today, your testimony
will be able to address the Administration's plan. This is a
plan that has evolved, frankly. You can go all the way back to
WRDA in 1996.
It started with the Restudy in April 1999, and that was a
consensus document. It then moved forward to the Chief's
Report, which took some of the consensus and set it aside, and
made changes that are not supported by all the parties.
Then you have the current proposal, the WRDA proposal. New
processes and roles are detailed for implementing the study,
with an expanded role for the Department of the Interior.
So each of you has 5 minutes to testify. And I would just
encourage you to leave an impression with the committee on two
issues: what do you like about the plan, and what do you not
like about it? What specifically are you telling us that is
just not acceptable to you and why? And if you can leave us
with that, that would be very, very helpful as we deliberate on
putting this together.
So let me start with you, Ms. Power, welcome. I know you
represent the Seminole Tribe, and we are glad to have you here.
STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICIA POWER, ON BEHALF OF THE SEMINOLE
TRIBE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Power. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Patty Power.
And it is an honor for me to be here today to talk with you on
behalf of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. A previously scheduled
tribal counsel meeting prevents both Chairman James Billy and
Joint Counsel Jim Shore from being here with you this morning.
The Seminole Tribe welcomes this opportunity to share its views
on S. 2437 with the Environment and Public Works Committee.
As you know, we participated in the committee's Naples
field hearing on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
or CERP. While the Tribe is a strong supporter of the CERP, we
oppose the approach proposed by the Administration, as embodied
in 2437.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida has been an active
participant in the multi-faceted efforts to restore the South
Florida ecosystem. As such, we have seen the value of our
participation to the Tribe in being able to educate
policymakers about the Tribe's concerns and needs.
We have also found value in working with other stakeholders
to formulate and refine policy positions. The Tribe applauds
the committee's approach in developing its legislation by
listening to the input of stakeholders in Florida, as well as
the Federal policymakers.
A program developed through consensus will earn the support
of South Florida, and have an improved prospect for a
successful restoration of the natural system and stability in
flood control and water supply for South Floridians.
The Tribe's great concern about Section 3 of S. 2437 is
that it lacks the balance necessary for successful
implementation. The environmental crisis in South Florida was
brought about by the Central and Southern Florida project so
efficiently achieving its congressionally mandated goals of
providing flood protection and water supply to the farms and
families of Florida, without fully appreciating the resulting
impacts on the natural system.
As the damage to the natural environment became evident,
all entities began to recognize the interdependence of the
natural system and the built environment.
Congress, in directing the Corps of Engineers to complete
the comprehensive plan, described the plan's purposes as
protecting water quality and reducing loss of fresh water from
the Everglades.
Congress also noted in WRDA 1996 that the comprehensive
plan ``provide for the water-related needs of the region,
including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and
other objectives served by the Central and Southern Florida
project.''
The Restudy, as developed with input from a wide array of
stakeholders, recognized the importance of addressing the water
needs in a balanced approach. Section 3 of S. 2437 abandoned
the balanced approach and reverts to the myopic direction of
the half century old project authorization by stating that the
purpose of the CERP and the historic Central and Southern
Florida project is solely for the protection of the natural
system.
We urge the committee to take a balanced approach to
Section 3 by providing protection to the natural systems, the
people, and the agricultural communities that share the South
Florida ecosystem.
The Tribe also has serious concerns about Section 3(i),
regarding assuring of project benefits. The Tribe's water law
is based upon a water rights Compact, codified in tribal,
State, and Federal law, the implementation of which is based on
Florida State water law.
The approach contemplated in Section 3(i), attempting to
Federalize water allocation decisions, blatantly disregards the
existing body of Florida water law. With Florida water laws
thrown into disarray by this approach, the implementation of
the Tribe's Water Compact is jeopardized.
The Tribe has proposed an alternative approach to Section
3(i), and the Tribe also supports the approach taken in the
recently passed Florida Everglades legislation.
Shared adversity is a guiding principle of the Tribe's
approach to water rights, and a basis of the Water Rights
Compact. Consistently, in commenting throughout the development
of the Restudy, the Tribe supported the application of shared
adversity.
While S. 2437 acknowledges that the rights of the existing
user should be preserved, S. 2437 does not define existing use.
Limiting existing use to the water being used today fails to
take into account long term, permanent rights to water that may
not be presently used.
In comments on the lower East Coast Regional Water Supply
Plan, the National Park Service defined ``existing use'' as
that amount of water being used on April 13, or the day the
plan is to be adopted. That interpretation, we believe, would
lead to a moratorium on water use, including capping the use of
permitted, but not currently used water, as well as future
water use.
The Tribe's economic development has been such that the
Tribe is not yet using all of its entitlement water. The
inability to use its water rights would stunt the Tribe's
economic development.
We urge the committee to ensure that S. 2437 incorporates
the concept of shared adversity, and clearly define the
existing use to prevent a water use moratorium in South
Florida.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the
Seminole Tribe with the committee. While the Tribe is a strong
supporter of the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, we
will continue to be vigilant in our review of its
implementation.
We look forward to a continued partnership on a government-
to-government basis, in meeting the challenging effort to save
the Everglades.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Power.
Mr. Lehtinen, representing the Miccosukee Tribe, welcome,
sir.
STATEMENT OF DEXTER LEHTINEN, ON BEHALF OF THE MICCOSUKEE TRIBE
Mr. Lehtinen. Thank you. I am General Counsel for the
Miccosukee Tribe. I serve on the Governor's Commission and the
South Florida Task Force as former State Representative/State
Senator and United States Attorney.
The Miccosukee Indians are the only people who live within
the Everglades, and have adopted federally approved Clean Water
Act standards, which exceed all other standards. To understand
our WRDA positions, you have to know that the Tribe believes
that the Everglades restoration is in trouble, due to misplaced
priorities, subordination of fundamental Democratic values, and
Federal bureaucratic intransigents.
There are two examples that suffice. First, the Central and
Tribal Everglades is given second class status, despite
specific legal protections and the fact that the Central
Everglades is the largest remaining fresh water Everglades. It
is a gross misconception, encouraged by the park, that the
Everglades is the same as Everglades National Park.
Second, the 1989 modified water delivery project is stalled
by bureaucratic selfishness, causing destruction of the Central
Everglades. Agencies spend their time trying to seize the homes
of the politically weak minority residents, who were guaranteed
protection in 1989.
It is curious that the Tribe stands up for these minorities
more than Government. Undoubtedly, that is because Indians who
have been targets of land grabs themselves recognize it when
they see it. If Government can take their land, then it can
take the Tribe's land, and it can take your land, too.
Specifically on WRDA, first, the bill would implement the
July Chief's Report, rather than the April Restudy, which was
the product of the consensus process. The Chief's Report makes
new and contradictory commitments, behind closed doors,
including the 245,000 additional acre fee, even though the
Restudy specifically rejected this proposal known as D13R4, as
destructive of other parts of the Everglades.
This is an outstanding example of politicization by
Washington's civil interference, with the process to bend to
placate groups with which the Administration is close.
The Administration denials of this ring hollow, in light of
recent documents: for example, e-mails from Assistant Secretary
Davis stating that, ``The Chief's Report captures the Restudy
plan, plus the substantial subsequent commitments,'' and also
cautioning, ``Please keep close hold, and do not distribute
outside your agency.''
There was a Corps' e-mail that said, ``We need to keep
these groups on board,'' but it then goes on and says, ``We are
uneasy about changing what is in the report.'' There was a DOI
letter sent to the Corps stating, ``We appreciate the following
additional commitments, additional water.'' And there was an e-
mail I just reviewed from the Corps that states that we want to
include some of the commitments we made after the Restudy was
completed, including additional water.
Second, the bill gives the Interior Department a veto on
water deliveries, essentially Federalizing water laws, the
Seminoles say. DOI is one land owner among others, including
the State, the tribes, and private citizens, and nobody should
have a veto.
Corps. policy processes can certainly protect Federal
interests. And if the DOI does not trust the Corps. then why
should the Miccosukee Tribe or the State or private citizens?
Third, the proposal abandons the balance approach, giving
the natural system, as the Seminoles mentioned, a higher
priority. That is just plain wrong. It is not necessary. It
destroys public support, and it breaks prior legal commitments.
Even the April Restudy report says that flood control
models were inadequate and that, ``For those areas that are
expected to be adversely impacted, further studies are
recommended.''
Fourth, the proposal grants broad programmatic authority
for no real reason, other than to avoid congressional scrutiny.
While some programmatic authority in pilot projects might be
appropriate, the other programmatic authority is excessive:
$100 million for adaptive monitoring, with no actual plan; $250
million for other program authority, when no projects specified
at all. These are just cash cows.
The Restudy admits to a ``high level of technical and
implementable uncertainties.'' Besides flood control, erroneous
assumptions of the natural system model are admitted in the
Restudy. ``Discrepancies in topographic data,'' if consistent
topographic assumptions were used, target depths would be
shallower and less water would be needed. We just need to know
these before we go forward.
Fifth is a proposal on environmental justice. It should
prohibit discrimination and disparate impacts on minorities.
The League of United Latin American Citizens has already found
minority discrimination in the modified waters project, where
DOI is trying to forcibly remove more than 300 largely Hispanic
residents.
Let me just say what is not in WRDA in one sentence. It
shortchanges tribal roles. The Tribe needs to be mentioned in
all parts. It need to go forward and protect the entire
Everglades with an equal protection clause for the whole
Everglades. It needs to require implementation of mod. water
deliveries. It needs to protect private property rights by
continuing flood protection that is not reduced, and it needs
to protect equal assurances.
In conclusion, the Tribe does generally agree with the
comments of Senator Voinovich in his letter to GAO. It
generally agrees with the comments of Senator Warner, if we
interpret those as being that he is committed, but just wants
good feasibility reports. And we do, however, point out that
you have got to save the entire Everglades and have equal
balance. I would not endorse, perhaps, those other remarks of
Senator Warner.
In conclusion, what the Tribe really wants is fairness,
nondiscrimination, and sound planning, and it does want quality
control in Everglades restoration.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Lehtinen.
Let me just suggest to the members, and there are only four
of us here, I think we should feel free to interject a
question, if we wish, and not necessarily have too rigid a rule
here among members. So if you are so inclined to ask a question
or followup any particular point, please feel free to do it.
Senator Graham, did you wish to start? Do you have any
questions?
Senator Graham. I guess a baseline question, you both
raised a series of concerns about the plan. There is the
fundamental option that is available to us, which is not to
proceed with the Restoration Plan. What would be the
consequences to the parties that you represent of a Federal
policy of non-restoration of the Everglades?
Mr. Lehtinen. Well, we want the Everglades restored.
Senator Graham. The question was, would you outline what
would be the consequences to the parties that you represent of
the Federal Government not participating in this restoration
effort?
Mr. Lehtinen. Well, I am assuming you mean ever
participating, and not Senator Voinovich's comment that we
could do something this year, and we can endorse restoration,
but we do not have to do certain projects.
If you are talking about it at the macro level, the problem
today is that mod. water deliveries, which is not part of this
plan, which was an 1989 act, if you do not implement that and
other elements of the plan, you end up destroying, through
water quality damage and through misdelivery of water, water
conservation area 3(A), which is virtually as large a fresh
water Everglades as the fresh water parts of the park,
excluding things worth saving, the Florida Bay, which is salt
water and the salt water estuaries, the transition zones.
So Everglades restoration is important to the Tribe. I will
say, however, that Everglades restoration has to be done right.
If modified water deliveries, which are not part of this named
Restoration Plan; it is a precursor, C1-11, and the quality
aspects of the Everglades Forever Act up around the EAA, the
Everglades construction project, would be implemented, it is
important that these add-on projects in this plan not be done
wrong.
What the Tribe needs is restoration done right. But if it
is done prematurely, and water is delivered incorrectly, you
will do damage. In other words, I guess what I am saying is
this. It is not simply the case that anything we do will help.
We want this plan implemented, but we want it implemented
slowly with feasibility reports. Because if it is implemented
wrong, it will do more damage than we currently have.
In summary, we need restoration because of water quality
and because of misdeliveries. It is essential that Congress
participate in this program, one way or the other. But we tend
to believe that it does not require the macro programmatic
authority that you could pass very substantial bills on this
without that.
Senator Smith. Do both of you still support the negotiated
language in the April 1999 agreement?
Ms. Power. Yes.
Senator Smith. You do, Ms. Power?
Do you, Mr. Lehtinen?
Mr. Lehtinen. Yes, we generally support that.
Ms. Power. Senator Graham, if I could address your
question, I think the State and the tribal and local
governments would continue with their projects to improve the
environment in the Everglades.
However, if the Federal Government does not step up to its
role, it will slow the whole process down, possibly to the
point of causing irreversible damage.
Mr. Lehtinen. Could I add, Senator Smith, one thing about
the April report, we support that report. We still support that
report strongly.
We were always told, however, that certain editorial
comments in the report about how this would be implemented were
going to be up to Congress, meaning we wanted the components of
the April report, and so forth. But we never intended to
endorse any editorial comments that said, we will go and get
programmatic authority.
We are very afraid of this adaptive programmatic
management, which really means that you can do whatever you
want, mess it up, come back and say, well, that is all right,
because we did not have a plan. That is why we endorse April
1999, but we think it requires the planning of each of those
components, rather than very, very broad programmatic
approaches.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Smith. Sure, go ahead.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Lehtinen, on April 6, is that what
you are talking about, the Corps of Engineers general
reevaluation report and environmental impact statement on
alternatives for providing flood mitigation to the 8.5 square
mile area, in conjunction with implementing the modified water
deliveries project. Is that what you are referencing to?
Mr. Lehtinen. No, I am referring to the April 1999 Restudy,
seven or eight volumes.
Senator Voinovich. The question that I have got is in
regard to the testimony, that the modified water deliveries
project is essential to the Everglades restoration. And I guess
that has been mired in controversy.
As you mentioned in your testimony, the modified water
delivery project is essential to the Miccosukee's interest in
Central Everglades restoration. Besides the authorized general
design memorandum plan for flood mitigation, which is opposed
by the Department of Interior environmentalists, is there any
plan which at least partially would address the concern of
property owners and be acceptable to the Department of Interior
and the environmental interests? Is there any way that this can
be worked out?
Mr. Lehtinen. I think the Department of Interior is using
the mantle of restoration to achieve buffer zones in national
parks around the county.
I think the Department of Interior's goal, when the Corps
of Engineers constantly says, in this 100 percent federally
funded plan, that there is no substantial difference among any
alternatives in the restoration of the slew, and they must have
said that four times a week and a half ago, in their oral
presentation, and they say it in their last EIS, I think the
Department of Interior is just holding the money hostage. I do
not think they have got an environmental reason.
Now when Dante Fascell passed the bill, the Congressman,
with the help of the Senate and President Bush, signed it, that
added 107,000 acres to the park, and sought to protect a mere
6,000 acres that were higher than Miami International Airport
in ground elevation. Granted, if you now go in and condemn
those people's land, you get 6,400 more acres, so that is the
way they are analyzing it now. They agreed to the boundary line
then, and now they want the boundary line changed.
I do not know of any compromises that would make a whole
lot of sense there, in that high ground area. The law was
passed to protect 6,000 acres, in return for turning over
107,000 acres to the park, and it is only mired in controversy
in the Department of the Interior.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Power, do you have language that you
think would deal with your problem, that you would like to have
the committee recognize or receive?
Ms. Power. We submitted language in our written testimony
to address the assurances provisions in the bill. And our
concerns with the approach taken by the Administration in
Subsection I on assuring project benefits is that it would not
result in a supportable balanced approach on water allocations.
There are actually two different positions that the Tribe
could support. The one that we outlined in our testimony would
require the Task Force to prepare a report and recommendations
to Congress, the Florida legislature, and both tribal counsels,
to recommend policy decisions on how to allocate water that is
created by the project features in the CERP. Those
recommendations would then be acted on by each of the separate
legislative bodies, and enacted into law.
The other approach would be that taken in the recently
passed State legislation, which would use the PIR process
outlined in the Restudy to identify the increase in water
created by the new project features, and then use the existing
State Florida water law to determine how the allocation of that
new water should be determined.
Senator Voinovich. Would that take care of it, Mr.
Lehtinen? Would you feel comfortable with what Ms. Power just
made reference to?
Mr. Lehtinen. I think the general approach, I mean, the
devil is in the details in the writing of that. But we think
that there are ways to protect everybody's interest that she
has alluded to.
Senator Voinovich. Well, what I have heard is that the
Florida legislature tackled this, and came back with what you
consider to be some reasonable language. And I suspect they are
giving this a lot more attention than maybe we possibly could.
And what I would like to know is that if we were able to adopt
that language, would you be satisfied?
Mr. Lehtinen. We generally support, as did the Seminoles,
the Florida legislation.
Ms. Power. The other benefit of using the Florida approach
is that there would be consistency between the State and
Federal law, which would avoid confusion in implementation and
potential lawsuits, which would result in delays, as that law
is interpreted.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. There is just one more
question for me, and if you could both respond to this, on the
assurances language.
Are you opposed to the DOI/Army Corps. issuing regulations,
based on the violation of a tribal water compact only, or do
you have other objections to this, in terms of the reach of the
Federal Government into the regulations? Could you clarify that
for us, as to what your position is on that?
Ms. Power. Clearly, our concerns are over the strength of
the Compact, which has been in place for 13 years, and
functioning without any issues. That would be our primary
concern, although we would have general concerns about
Federalizing water allocation decisions in Florida, whether it
be the Corps. doing it or Interior and the Corps.
Senator Voinovich. Is that your position, Mr. Lehtinen?
Mr. Lehtinen. Well, the Miccosukees do not have a Water
Compact. They rejected it because of elements that they were
opposed to.
Our position is that the Department of the Interior and
national parks, as important as they are, are not more
important than Federal trust tribal land. They are not more
important than State land. And in all honesty, in this country,
they are not more important than private property of private
landowners.
This is not the kind of country that says, if the Fed.
holds title to a piece of property, that that is supposed to
somehow, under our 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, be
greater of property value than the other landowners.
What we believe is that you can protect everybody's rights,
and should protect everybody's rights. But if you give the
Department of Interior a veto, then what you do is, in terms of
systems analysis and theory, you simply remove any duty or any
motivation to make the water right for everybody by saying,
well, we are supposed to try to make it right for everybody.
But if we satisfy one interest, that is enough. You have to
have a goal in terms of satisfying all needs, or else you
immediately subordinate and disregard the other goal.
Now Interior, they are important, but they are a landowner.
And as a landowner, they will act strictly with regard to their
land, and they should. We should be happy, because Federal
Indian trust land is supposed to be guarded by Interior. But if
you talk to probably 500 tribes, and you are not going to find
that Interior pays much attention to Federal Indian trust land.
Interestingly enough right here, it is Federal Indian trust
land, 500,000 acres of Federal Indian Country, that is historic
fresh water Everglades. The Marjorie Stoleman Douglas is equal
in size to the park.
Their whole program is to save the 500,000 of fresh water
acres in the park, and the tribal fresh water Everglades can go
to pot. So we do not trust any process that gives one landowner
a veto, no matter what id card they carry. Now we do not want
the State to have a veto, or the Tribe. But we think the Corps
of Engineers should issue regulations, taking input from
everybody.
So it is not just tribal water compacts or anything like.
It is really a fundamental principle of equality among all
citizens of the United States, including Indian citizens.
Senator Smith. Does anyone else have a further question of
this panel?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. I might just ask you to just recap for me,
two or three points.
One, what are the two issues that you object to most, from
the transition or the evolution from the April 1999 agreement
to where we are today, with what we are hearing, and what we
are debating this morning.
Mr. Lehtinen. The two most in the Chief's Report?
Senator Smith. Right.
Mr. Lehtinen. That is risky, but it is a 245,000 additional
acre feet that is not properly studied, and will actually do
positive damage to most of the Everglades, especially when the
NSM topographic data is admitted in the same report to be
inadequate.
Senator Smith. OK.
Mr. Lehtinen. No. 2, it is the reduction of water supply
and flood control to ``as is practicable.'' And in that
context, you can solve both of these with specific language in
a bill, but it also illustrates why a broad programmatic system
is subject to abuse, even by good people.
Most of the people who legitimized this process in the
Chief's Report did so out of good faith efforts. And perhaps
they would not be serving their client's interests if they had
not taken advantage of their special inside clout.
If there was a different Administration and I had the
clout, I ought not be able to use it in that fashion, either.
We need a neutral process.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Ms. Power, do you agree with those two top points?
Ms. Power. I do not think those would be the ones that I
would select.
The first one would be, as I spoke about earlier, restoring
the balance to protection to the natural systems, the people,
and the agricultural communities. And the second would be to
create a better approach to assuring project benefits.
Senator Smith. I am sorry, would you repeat that last one.
Ms. Power. To create a different and better approach to
assuring projects, and also to restore balance in that area.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. I appreciate you both
being here today. I know you traveled a long distance, and I
thank you for that.
We are in the Senate, and we have another recorded vote. So
I apologize to the next witness of panel three, but we will
take a 5 or 10 minute break, just so I can run down and vote. I
will be right back. So we will recess for 10 minutes.
[Recess.]
Senator Smith. The hearing will come to order, please.
I am pleased to welcome Captain Mike Collins, the chairman
of the South Florida Water Management District. It is nice to
see you again, Captain Collins.
Captain Collins. It is a pleasure, also.
Senator Smith. I liked that term ``Captain'' when it
applies to a fishing vessel. That is my kind of captain.
Let me say the same thing I said before. I would like you
to outline for, after your remarks or in your remarks, which
are made a part of the permanent record, whatever views you
have on the plan, as it has evolved, as to where you support it
and where you do not; or, if you support it all, then so
indicate.
I have read through your testimony. And that will be made a
part of the permanent record. I apologize for the delay. You
may proceed.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MIKE COLLINS, CHAIRMAN, SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Captain Collins. Mr. Chairman, thank you; it is a pleasure
to be here. And it is a pleasure to hear your continued support
for our ambitious program to save the Everglades.
I am going to skip the remarks about the history. You have
heard all of that. And I want to just sort of point out that
the process that we entered into, on the Governor's Commission
and on the Federal Task Force was to develop a comprehensive
plan to reserve, preserve, and protect the ecosystem.
Under Congress' direction, that plan was supposed to
include features necessary to provide for all the water-related
needs of the region, including flood control, enhancement of
water supplies, and other objectives.
We are never going to be able to protect the natural system
if we do not deal with the issues related to other competition
for that system.
The plan submitted to you in July 1999 is that plan. Is it
comprehensive to answer all the problems? No, it is
comprehensive because it was developed by a consensus process
among all the competition users, and in recognition of the
interconnectedness that we all have in that system.
Overlying the dynamic of the interest with scientific
complexities associated with getting the water right, you begin
to understand how hard it was to build that consensus. As a
member of the Governor's Commission that works hard on
developing that consensus, I still stand behind that original
plan.
As the head of an agency who will serve as the local
sponsor for the State's portion of that plan, I can tell you
that the Agency still stands behind that Plan.
We believe very strongly that attempts to alter, after that
deal was cut, any significant portion of that dynamic balance
stands a very serious risk of destroying the support that we
have been able to build, and that the Governor has provided the
leadership to move through our legislature. That support is
still unanimous.
I can not address the issues that may exist for the sugar
industry. I can only tell you one thing. I share your concern.
And I have an agreement that I struck with Stewart Strall, who
is the President of the Florida Autobahn, who is also a member
of the Governor's Commission; and Malcolm Wade, who is
Executive Vice President under U.S. Sugar, and myself, to go to
the editorial boards of the South Florida newspapers, within
the next 2 weeks, to reiterate our support for that plan.
In their support, they have raised issues at various times.
They did it in the Governor's Commission. But I think, like
you, it is important now that the people who struck those deals
originally stand up and stand behind the plan that has been
submitted to Congress, so that at least you know where we
stand. And I am going to try to help you with that.
The South Florida Management District still supports this
plan and the process that we used for developing this. It is
the best opportunity for solving the regions' environmental and
water resource problems.
We believe this plan provides a successful road map for
providing adequate water, for a healthy sustainable Everglades
system, as well as maintaining urban and agricultural use.
Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. The adaptive and
controversial adaptive management section of this is an
admission that over the 20 year period of this, we do not know
enough to know exactly what is going to happen. Is it a solid
enough framework for us to proceed? Yes, I believe it is.
In April, I submitted some testimony that sort of touched
on our desire for the cost of operating and maintaining the
comprehensive plan to be shared by the Federal Government. The
Administration's bill calls for a 60/40 split. I urge you to
stick to the 50/50 that we originally discussed.
You can invent all sorts of formulas that allocate certain
portions of the water to the Federal side or the State side. I
think all you are doing is setting the ground for future
arguments. The basic thing that I believe in the strongest is
that we are partners.
If we are going to be successful partners, 50/50 is the
only way that is really going to work. It should be just as
true of the O&M, as it is of the plan and the funding for that
portion of it, too.
I think it eliminates the possibility for a whole lot of
future arguments, based on shifts in whatever formula we may
try to draw up. It just makes sense to me.
And, again, just in closing, I would like to State that we
have provided, I believe, evidence that we have the expertise.
We have been the partners of the Federal Government, and the
agency I represent, for 50 years. Whatever mistakes were made,
we have made in concert. The effort to improve this, we have
made in concert.
I believe we have demonstrated our commitment, in terms of
funding. And I believe that the Governor of Florida showing up
here, and then the remarks he made, reiterated every forum
where he has been presented the opportunity to provide his
leadership on this issue.
I would urge you very strongly to continue to support this,
and pass a bill that gets this moving.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank very much, Captain Collins. I
appreciate it. You indicated in your statement that the plan
submitted to you in July, 1999, was comprehensive, but it does
not provide all the answers to all the problems.
Mr. Collins. No, sir.
Senator Smith. And I think it is good to go back, and it
was not sitting at the table, of course, but I think it is fair
to say that in coming to that agreement, that people probably
did not get everything they wanted, but it was viewed as a
compromise plan; is that correct?
Captain Collins. I do not know any one of the 43 or 44
people that sat at that table on the Governor's Commission, or
any of the people that I witnessed on the Federal Task Force
that left with the impression that they had gotten every single
thing they wanted.
It is very hard to describe how many years we took in
reaching that consensus. It was very difficult for people like
the Florida Autobahn and U.S. Sugar, you know, to reach
agreement. So it was very hard for fisherman, who had been
fighting to save estuaries to reach agreement with Ag. people.
It was a realization over a period of years, that if we
were going to survive, we were going to have to do it together;
that is if we were going to survive, we were going to have to
recognize each other's needs. I believe that is in that plan.
I also believe very strongly that it is in Florida water
law. And to relate some of the comments that Senator Voinovich
made, we believe that should be the foundation for whatever
level of what is currently described as assurances takes place.
I believe Florida water law, and particularly the minimum
flows and levels section of that, provide better natural system
assurances than anything that currently exists in Federal law.
Senator Smith. Is there any one of any of the stakeholders
that you are personally aware of, other than the obvious one,
which is EPA or the Administration, whose plan is considerably
different than the original plan?
Captain Collins. Yes, sir.
Senator Smith. Is there any other stakeholder that you are
aware of who has taken a position now of moving away from the
plan, as originally agreed to in 1999?
Captain Collins. It depends on how you describe
stakeholders. You know, we did not have every single individual
at the table. We had representatives of agriculture. We had
representatives of the environmental community.
A lot of the background noise that I have had to deal with
in my position, since the plan came out, has been from people
who are representatives, perhaps of those communities, who were
not at the table. You know, there were national environmental
organizations that were not part of the consensus process, that
have problems with it.
I am not aware of people that were at the table that we sat
at, when we drew it up. There has been a certain amount of
slippage. The Chief's letter was tremendously destructive, in
terms of trust. There were reasons why it was done. It was done
in good faith. But I am going to tell you that I have spent a
lot of time, and had to make a lot of public pronouncements
because of the lack of trust that created.
I think we can heal that. People have slipped a little bit,
yes. I am going to start trying to pull some of the people that
I worked with back together, and make them stand up in public
and make some commitments.
Senator Smith. You, very aggressively in your statement,
support the 50/50 O&M, operation and management, split on the
project. You are aware that this is contentious, because of the
fact that normally the O&M portion is a non-Federal
responsibility.
What in your view makes this different than other water
resources development projects in the past, where traditionally
we have gone without the 50/50 split, but rather the total non-
Federal participation?
Captain Collins. I think the 50/50 cost share and
everything else creates a certain atmosphere. I think the fact
that what we are dealing with here are massive Federal
investments and massive State investments in a natural system
creates an atmosphere that just sitting as the Chairman of the
Water Management District, I can just tell you that right now,
when issues come up, there is a certain amount of parochial
latitude that these are State interests; these are Federal
interests.
You know, the law sort of keeps us on line as far as
protecting both of them equally. Florida water law does.
I think you set the stage, at least. And in doing this, and
I have been at it for many years, when I leave, I want to have
the feeling that we have not set the stage for future battles.
There are going to be demands made by Federal family
members, Department of Interior, in particular, on the
operations of the system. I think it is basically only fair.
I mean, there are going to be differences of opinion. You
build a very weak foundation for some of them, if they are not
paying any of the costs of operation and maintenance. Those are
significant. They create, I think, just an atmosphere that will
lead to disputes in the future.
You build a better case for the idea. And also, like the
Governor, I believe in an absolute sense that this needs to be
a partnership to succeed.
Senator Smith. Captain Collins, the South Florida Water
Management District is expected, as I understand it, and
correct me if I am wrong, to provide about $100 million from
the State, and $100 million from the South Florida Water
Management District.
Can you tell me, at this point, what the plans are for
coming up with that share, and where we are on that part?
Captain Collins. Yes, that has been a lot of fun. We went
back and did a basic probably not a zero line budget, but as
close to it as any agency of our kind ever has.
We have identified a significant portion of it. You know,
how much of it, I can not really say until we get through the
budget process.
In the process, what we discovered was, there were a large
number of local projects that are being done by the counties,
and some of them with State money, that we were not really
getting credit for, because they were not captured within that
process. The State spent $78 million or something like that on
those projects. A number of them are going to be caught up in
that.
It would be hard to say that we have got a full $100
million, but we are very, very close right now. And we have a
process that is ongoing, through our budget process, that we
will do between now and September to identify the rest of it. I
am pretty confident that we are going to get there.
Senator Smith. I have just a couple more questions. When
does your board intend to announce the preferred alternative
for the modified waters project?
Captain Collins. We will be voting at the next general
board meeting which, I believe, is June 15. It is the second
Thursday in June.
Senator Smith. Do you expect a final decision there?
Captain Collins. Yes.
Senator Smith. Is there anything right now in the plan that
we are now hearing on, the Administration plan, that is an
absolute deal breaker for you? And you can hedge on that a
little bit, if you want to.
Captain Collins. I think if there is no role, I think if it
continues to state that this will be Federal decisions on
disputes, I think it will be very, very difficult for any
governing board of the Water Management District to proceed on
the investment of State taxpayers money without some kind of a
guarantee that some role for those taxpayers would be
guaranteed in disputes. I think that is a deal killer.
Senator Smith. What about the Department of Interior
portion on regulating the water?
Captain Collins. Well, I am going to tell you that I went
on record as having stated that the money that was encumbered
with the last language that Congressman Regula submitted would
prevent us from accepting that money. So I can not speak for
the board.
I can tell you personally that it is my opinion that if we
had accepted it, it would have been very difficult for us to
comply with Florida's constitution regarding the way we are
supposed to balance water.
You know, you are creating a whole new statutory world. We
are used to being partners with the Army Corps of Engineers,
and having to consult and consider the Department of Interior.
I think we would be very hesitant to get ourselves in a
position where the Department of Interior had veto authority
over water supply for the people of South Florida.
Senator Smith. Well, I want to thank you for coming again
to testify, and adding to the testimony that you gave to us in
South Florida a few months ago. We appreciate you coming.
Captain Collins. Thank you, sir.
Senator Smith. And we anticipate, as I said before, getting
to the point where we can markup an Everglades restoration
bill, hopefully within the next 30 or 40 days. It is a tough
challenge, but if you guys could get together on a plan, we
should be able to get together as a committee.
I am going to leave the record open only until tomorrow
afternoon at 5. Members had plenty of notice to be here. And so
if they have questions that they want to submit for the record,
we will close that out at 5 tomorrow for questions. So if any
of the witnesses, yourself or any others, Captain Collins, get
any questions, if you would just respond to them as quickly as
possible, for the record.
Captain Collins. We will do that. Thank you, sir.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Let me just state for the benefit of those watching and
listening that we will reconvene this hearing at 2 this
afternoon.
At that time, the panels will be the Honorable Joseph
Westphal, the Assistant Secretary for the Army (Civil Works)
U.S. Army Corps.; the Honorable Gary Guzy, General Counsel of
the U.S. EPA; Ms. Mary Doyle, the Acting Assistant Secretary of
the Office of Water and Science, and the Chair of the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force from the Department of
Interior; Mr. Ken Keck, Director of Legislative and Regulatory
Affairs, Florida Citrus Mutual; and Dr. David Guggenheim,
President, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and the Co-
Chair of the Everglades Coalition.
So we will start again at 2. The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee was recessed, to
reconvene at 2:00 p.m. the same day.]
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2000--AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Bob Smith (chairman of the
committee) presiding.
Senator Smith. The hearing will come to order. I welcome
all of the witnesses. This is the second half of the hearing.
And it actually kind of works a little better that way, to get
a 2-hour break for lunch. It gives everybody a chance to catch
their breath.
I want to welcome the three panelists this morning: the
Honorable Joseph Westphal, the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Honorable
Gary Guzy, General Counsel of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency; and Ms. Mary Doyle, the Acting Assistant
Secretary of the Office of Water and Science, and the Chair of
the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force from the
Department of Interior.
We are glad you are here. As you know, your statements are
all part of the record formally. And if you could give an
overview of those in 5 minutes or so, it would be appreciated.
I just want to make a couple of comments regarding this
morning, and try to bring it into focus a little bit, if we
could. We heard from the Florida State and tribal governments
this morning. And this afternoon, we kind of shift the focus to
the Federal Government, to two important stakeholders, both the
agricultural and the environmental community, as well as the
Department of Interior.
There were several criticisms that the morning witnesses
raised about the Administration proposal, specifically, the
proper role for the Department of Interior in managing the
Restudy; concern about the additional commitments in the so-
called Chief's Report, that is, the additional 245,000 acre
feet of water, that it might upset the balance achieved in the
Restudy on how the water would be distributed.
Also, there was concern that the initial authorization of
10 projects prior to completion of the project implementation
reports could be a concern, and the amount of Federal
contribution to operations and maintenance.
All these were raised by the first panel. And I think it
would be good if in your oral testimony you could address
those. I think it would be fair of the Administration witnesses
here today to ask how the Administration's plan to restore the
Everglades evolved and changed. I mean, I think this, as you
could tell this morning, was a bit of a controversy, and I
think it is something that we are going to have to come to
grips with.
First came the Restudy, and the April 1999 consensus
document approved unanimously by the South Florida Task Force
and the Governor's Commission. Then came the Chief's Report in
July 1999 that made changes to the Restudy plan that are not
supported by all the parties that agreed to that original
Restudy.
Now there is the WRDA proposal, the Water Resources
Development Act proposal, which includes its Everglades
proposal, which specifies new processes and roles for
implementing the Restudy, with an expanded role for the
Department of Interior now.
As I indicated, I am trying to keep an open mind on this,
and to work this through. But I think we are going to have to
clarify some of these issues. We did hear a fair amount of
concern. I do not know if the words, ``broke the deal'' was
used. But certainly there was a lot of concern about the change
in the plan.
Perhaps you might say that the changes are merely
technical. But the fact is that the Administration substituted
an alternative that was rejected by the Restudy team when it
added the 245,000 feet of water. I am not taking any position
on that, one way or the other, other than the fact that it was
a change in the Restudy.
So we would like to hear from the Administration on these
changes. It would be helpful, if you can, to focus specifically
on them in your oral testimony.
Senator Baucus, did you have any opening remarks?
Senator Baucus. No, I am fine. I would just like to hear
the witnesses.
Senator Smith. Let us start with you, Dr. Westphal.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Mr. Westphal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Baucus. I
am delighted to be here before your committee, again. I am very
excited about talking with you about this comprehensive plan.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, on July 1999, as you mentioned,
on behalf of the Administration and in a partnership with the
State of Florida, we submitted to Congress a comprehensive plan
to restore the South Florida ecosystem by modifying the
existing Central and Southern Florida project.
The plan, which we expect to be implemented over the next
25 years will, we believe, improve the health of over 2.4
million acres of South Florida ecosystem, including the
Everglades National Park. It would improve the health of Lake
Okeechobee.
It will virtually eliminate damaging fresh water releases
to the estuaries, improve water deliveries to Florida and
Biscayne Bay, improve water quality, enhance water supply, and
maintain flood protection.
On April 10, 2000, on behalf of the President, I submitted
to Congress a comprehensive legislation proposal that would
allow the implementation of the comprehensive plan.
This legislation, if enacted, will accomplish a number of
important objectives to include: one, a congressional
endorsement of the importance of restoring the Everglades, and
that such a restoration is a national priority; two, a
congressional endorsement of the CERP, the comprehensive plan,
as a technical sound blueprint for the Everglades restoration;
third, an authorization of an initial package of projects,
including four pilot projects and 10 of 68 project features;
fourth, the authorization of a program authority to allow the
expeditious implementation of smaller project features; fifth,
language that would ensure that project benefits are achieved
and maintained for as long as the project is authorized; and
sixth, provisions that recognize the importance of outreach to
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and
business owners in the South Florida ecosystem.
It is important that Everglades restoration becomes a
priority, and that the Nation recognizes that a national
treasure, the American Everglades, is at great risk.
Our legislation would allow the Congress to declare, like
the Administration, the importance of this unprecedented
national resource. Our legislation would have Congress affirm
that the comprehensive plan is a technically sound blueprint
for restoring the Everglades.
With its extensive public involvement and adaptive
assessment approach, the plan would lead to a healthy and
sustainable ecosystem.
It is important that the comprehensive nature of the plan
be maintained, and that the temptation to pick and choose
various parts and features be avoided. The 68 plan features
work together, and each provides an important benefit to the
ecosystem.
Prior to full scale implementation of the plans, six pilot
projects will be built to address uncertainties for some of the
planned features. These pilot projects include aquifer storage
and recovery, in ground reservoir technology in the lake belt
region, levy seepage management technology, and advanced waste
water treatment technology to determine the feasibility of
using re-use water for ecological restoration.
Ten projects totaling $1.1 billion are recommended for
initial authorization. These projects were selected for initial
authorization based on the following four criteria: first, the
ability to provide immediate water quality and flow
distribution benefits to the ecosystem; second, the ability to
utilize lands already purchased; third, the linkage to ongoing
restoration projects; and fourth, maximizing the benefits of
Federal investment already undertaken.
For example, if authorized, we will update the ongoing
modified water deliveries project to make it more consistent
with the CERP, by taking immediate steps to improve flow
distribution through the Tamiami Trail. In addition, the South
Florida Water Management District and the U.S. Department of
Interior have already purchased lands such as the Talisman
lands for a number of CERP components.
Authorization of projects that use lands already purchased
will ensure that these lands are utilized for restoration as
soon as possible.
To expedite the completion of certain smaller features, an
authorization is being sought similar to the critical projects
authority in Section 528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Act of
1996. These projects will produce independent, immediate, and
substantial restoration, preservation, and protection benefits,
and expedite some of the components of the CERP, as well.
The programmatic authority will be limited to those
individual components of the CERP that have a total project
cost of $70 million or less, with a maximum Federal share of
$35 million per project.
Our legislation makes it clear that Congress will be asked
to authorize the remaining components with the CERP in
subsequent water bills. At a cost of approximately $6.2
billion, these 26 remaining features will undergo additional
studies and analysis before authorization is sought from
Congress.
Before any construction starts on any of the 68 features of
the comprehensive plan, detailed design, engineering, and
environmental review will be completed. Specifically, prior to
implementing any authorized project feature, a project
implementation report for each project will be completed to
address its cost effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and
potential environmental impacts.
These project implementation reports will include public
review and comment that will bridge the gap between the
programmatic level design contained in the comprehensive plan
that you have before you, and the detailed design necessary to
proceed to construction.
These project implementation reports will not be different
from the feasibility reports that this committee receives on
other water resource projects. That is, you will receive the
same level of information that you traditionally receive on
every other project.
Both the natural and human environment benefits
substantially from the implementation of the comprehensive
plan. Ensuring that these benefits are achieved and maintained
is an important part of our legislation.
Further, our legislation ensures that existing legal users
are not harmed, and that the overall authorized levels of flood
protection are maintained and enhanced.
Specifically, our legislation provides that the primary and
overarching purpose of the plan is to restore, preserve, and
protect the natural system within the South Florida ecosystem,
and directs that the plan be implemented in such a way as to
ensure that the benefits of the natural system and the human
environment, in the form of proper deliveries of clean, fresh
water, at the proper time, in distribution are achieved and
maintained for as long as Central and Southern Florida is
authorized.
To meet our assurances objectives, our legislation creates
a four-part tiered approach. The first part is the legislation
itself, which makes it clear that Congress intends for the
benefits to be achieved and maintained.
The second part involves the development of a programmatic
regulation to identify, in greater detail, the amount of water
to be dedicated and managed for the natural system and the
human environment. This regulation would serve as a bridge
between the legislation, the project implementation reports,
and the project specific operating regulations.
We believe that this will help maximize the unnecessary
debates 10 to 20 year from now, when the projects are being
completed.
The third part or tier is the detail design, engineering,
and environmental work that would be completed for each feature
before construction starts. This will also give the public,
interest groups, the State, and the tribes substantial
opportunities to influence the final characteristics of each
feature.
The final part of our approach is the project-specific
regulations that will be developed for each feature. These
regulations will be developed based on public review and
comment, and in consultation with other Federal agencies, the
tribes, and the State. These regulations will prescribe in
greater detail how each feature will provide its intended
benefits.
Restoring the Everglades will require a large investment on
the part of the Nation's taxpayers. We believe that it is
important to disclose fully how the restoration is going over
the next 30 years.
In this regard, we have developed a reporting program.
Specifically beginning in October of 2005, the Secretaries of
the Army and Interior, in consultation with other agencies and
the State, will jointly submit a report to Congress that
describes the implementation of the comprehensive plan.
The report will include a determination of the benefits to
the natural system and the human environment that have been
achieved as of the date of the report.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this
is a true partnership with the State and the tribes. We very
much believe that the State has done a tremendous job in not
only helping in participating and preparing the plan itself,
but in their role in delivering the plan to you, and in their
role in hopefully subsequently getting this plan approved
through Congress.
I, personally, commend the Governor for his efforts in the
State, through the legislature, and his efforts to secure the
funding; but also to give the appropriate support that he has
given to the plan, and I thank him for it.
I would also like to mention, Mr. Chairman, if I could,
that this past Monday, May 8, the Restudy team, which consisted
of maybe 100 people in all the Federal agencies in the State,
the South Florida Water Management District, and others,
received a very prestigious award from the American Association
of Engineering Sciences and the Autobahn Society, a joint award
called the Palladium Award, for their work in bringing together
both the engineering sciences and the environmental sciences
toward this environmental restoration project.
I know that Stu Applebaum is here sitting behind me. Stu,
raise your hand. He is one of the study team leaders. And Tom
Teets received an award for everybody else. And I just wanted
to congratulate them for that efforts. And thanks for allowing
me to take time to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Certainly, and thank you, Dr. Westphal.
Let us move to you, Mr. Guzy.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY GUZY, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD HARVEY,
DIRECTOR OF EPA SOUTH FLORIDA OFFICE
Mr. Guzy. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus,
Senator Graham. I am Gary Guzy, General Counsel of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. I greatly appreciate the
invitation to appear here today, along with my colleague and on
behalf of the Administration, to present the Clinton/Gore
Administration's proposed legislation to authorization
restoration of the Everglades.
This bill represents an historic effort, in part, because
of the ambition of the proposed endeavor, and the vastness of
the replumbing effort; in part, because of the significance,
and in once sense, the sheer humility of the change we are
seeking--recognizing that the natural Everglades are dying,
that they are critical to our Nation's future; and that based
on what we now know, we got it wrong. Our past intensive
management of the Everglades must be fundamentally re-thought
and re-ordered for the good of everyone.
We recognize that we must reinstill a balance to what
remains of this ecosystem, and have based this work on an
unprecedented, inclusive process that garnered widespread
support for this effort.
The Administration's proposal and the challenge now before
this committee represents a culmination of sorts. It is a
recognition--slow perhaps in coming--that the Everglades is a
national, biological treasure to be cherished, on a par with
the great mountains or the deep canyons of our land, and that
it is, in fact, America's Everglades.
Without this effort, the natural system could well
collapse. It is choked by cattails and polluted water. It is
inhospitable to its own natural inhabitants. It is unable to
store or filter water the way it used to.
In so collapsing, it could take with it, as well, much of
South Florida's human potential, from drinking water supplies
to tourism to fisheries.
I, personally, have been fortunate enough to witness first
hand, over the years, several key steps that have brought all
of us to this new recognition.
I remember vividly sitting in a courtroom in Florida 10
years ago, then as part of the Justice Department's Everglades
litigation team, witnessing the courage of Governor Chiles, who
despite years of hard-fought and costly litigation, despite
being surrounded by lawyers with, as he put it, ``a battlefield
that was littered with swords and the work of swords.''
He conceded that the Everglades were, in fact, polluted,
and that we should be about bringing the State and the Federal
Government together, to work toward a real and lasting
solution.
I recall being in Everglades National Park in 1996, when
the Vice President, joined by Senator Graham and many others,
set forth the Clinton/Gore Administration's framework for
Everglades restoration.
That called for three critical elements: first, developing
the replumbing plan so that the heart of the Everglades would
once again pulse with fresh, clean water; second, acquiring
critical lands for water storage and restoration; and third,
providing enhanced funding to accomplish this work.
The Administration, working with Congress, has delivered on
each of these commitments to the Everglades, submitting to you
a science-based comprehensive plan that is at once bold and yet
obvious, acquiring the Talisman Tract, nearly tripling our
funding for Everglades restoration.
I think of the most recent instance, when I accompanied
Administrator Browner to the January field hearing in Naples,
where Chairman Smith made it abundantly clear that he would
continue former Chairman Chafee's strong bipartisan leadership
on behalf of Everglades restoration.
Each of these acts required looking beyond the horizon and
exercising leadership. We now ask Congress to take this next
step with the Administration and with the State of Florida.
From EPA's perspective, there are several critical elements of
the approach the Administration is forwarding.
First, we urge this committee promptly to move forward and
have Congress pass the Administration's proposal, to authorize
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as a blueprint
for Everglades preservation and restoration, to ensure that the
Everglades has clean, abundant water to supply and sustain
environmental, as well as human needs.
By recapturing the vast amount of water now lost, that
water can be managed for the benefit of everyone, and re-
approximate natural flows, including the quantity and quality,
timing and distribution within the remaining natural system.
That must be the test for what Congress authorizes; whether
it will accomplish that change. And this is precisely what
Congress asked the Corps of Engineers to do in WRDA 1996, in
developing that plan.
Second, EPA, as the keeper of our Nation's Clean Water Law,
and as an entity charged with the whole ecosystem perspective
and, I might point out, working in an area in South Florida
that is truly defined by its water, EPA is committed to working
to ensure that the critical goal of protecting water quality is
fully integrated into each step of the restoration effort.
While the State continues to bear important
responsibilities to meet water quality standards from polluted
agricultural run-off into the Everglades under a separate
Federal court degree and under existing State law, we must also
more broadly assure that getting the water right, as part of
the comprehensive plan, includes making sure it is clean.
Ee believe EPA's unique perspective should be formalized in
the legislation for an independent role in evaluating the
continuing success of this effort.
Third, we must ensure that the very purpose of the Central
and South Florida project is reflected in this new legislation,
and that it reflects our new collective understanding of the
importance of the natural system, and we must eliminate forever
the risk that attention to the natural system will simply be
placed at the end of the pipe, and that the natural system will
be provided only what remains, regardless of how much, how
clean, when or where that water might be. And this is
fundamental and critical for Congress to clarify this change in
the project.
We also believe that this change can be accomplished while
respecting current urban and agricultural water users. But this
new purpose should be assured through clearly defined
principles of shared adversity for all users. Congress and the
public deserve the assurance that the anticipated benefits to
the natural system and the human environment are achieved and
maintained.
Fourth, we believe that WRDA should provide for
implementing the comprehensive plan in its totality. While the
many individual projects will be phased in over time, and they
ultimately will reflect what we learn along the way, WRDA 2000
should include a framework that guarantees continuity, because
each part of this is highly interdependent.
Our joint efforts in the Everglades represent an
unprecedented, holistic, science-based approach to ecosystem
restoration, and we should commit, at the outset, to make this
entire plan a success. Last, the Everglades have waited simply
too long and their current condition is too dire.
The Administration's proposal sets forth several critical
projects that should go forward in this authorization cycle,
particularly the acquisition and engineering of critical lands
such as the Talisman tradelands, for water quality restoration
and water flow management. These are essential to starting the
recovery effort off on a sound footing.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement on behalf of
Administrator Browner. I thank you and Senator Baucus, as well
as Senators Graham and Mack, again, for your leadership on
these issues. We look forward to working with you on these
matters, as well as on finding a long-term reliable source of
funding for the Everglades--another critical issue.
With me today is Mr. Richard Harvey, Director of EPA South
Florida Office. We would be pleased to answer any questions
that the committee may have. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Guzy.
Ms. Doyle?
STATEMENT OF MARY DOYLE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
OFFICE OF WATER AND SCIENCE; CHAIR, SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION TASK FORCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, thank you for the
opportunity to address this hearing, and thank you for holding
this hearing. And Mr. Chairman, thanks for agreeing to come to
the Everglades Task Force meeting tomorrow.
I would like to begin by displaying for you this map, the
upper map there, which is a map of South Florida, on which are
marked the Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and sanctuaries
located in the South Florida ecosystem.
There are three national parks and 16 national wildlife
refuges in the area, along with Big Cypress Natural Preserve
and the Florida Keys Natural Marine Sanctuary.
The total of federally owned and managed land and waters
stands at about 5.7 million acres or about 40 percent of the
remaining Everglades ecosystem. As you may know, Everglades
National Park is the largest park in the lower 48 States. It is
the largest remaining subtropical wilderness in the United
States, and it receives ever year over a million visitors from
all over the world.
This park and the other Federal assets pictured on the map
are national treasures of incalculable value. And as you well
know, these treasures of our Nation are threatened as the
entire ecosystem is threatened by environmental harm that is
being experienced at increasingly rapid rates. You know the
gory details of the environmental harm, so I will skip over
those.
This comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, developed
over several years by the Army Corps. working closely together
with the South Florida Management District, the Interior, EPA,
and the tribes is a detailed, long-term ecosystem-wide plan to
restore America's Everglades. The Department endorses the plan
and believes that it adopts a practical and effective approach
to ensuring long term restoration.
Someone asked me the other day to define restoration.
Restoration means recovery. The defining characteristic of a
restored natural system is the re-emergence of what is now
lacking; the return of the waiting birds as the food chain is
rebuilt through restoring more natural waterflows, the
redemption of species now threatened or endangered, the
reduction of invasive exotics, and proliferation of natural
vegetation once more, rebounding fisheries and returning
wetlands. All these aspects of recovery are within our grasp
today.
Now Mr. Chairman, you started by asking us to address some
of the issues that were raised this morning, so I thought I
would depart from my text and go right to those issues. And in
particular, you raised the question about the role of the
Department of Interior in the Administration's bill. And I
would like to add to that the related issue of the role of the
State of Florida or the Governor of Florida in the
implementation of the project.
As you may know, the bill provides for the establishment of
what we have termed ``programmatic regulations'' by the
Department of the Army. And the bill provides that these
programmatic regulations are to be adopted with the concurrence
of the Secretary of the Interior.
I would just like to tell you what our concept was in
providing for these programmatic regulations. This is a
provision for a process to quantify the amount of water needed
to restore and preserve the natural system. And here I am
talking not just about the federally managed natural system,
but the tribally and State managed aspects of the interrelated
ecosystem.
Although the programmatic regulations are intended to
provide a process for this quantification, a process that would
include all stakeholders, it would use rainfall driven modeling
to develop a set of ranges for the delivery of water to the
various portions of the natural system in dry, normal, and wet
years.
The idea is to lay down at the beginning of the
implementation a notion of overall what quantities of water
need to be delivered to the natural system, Federal, State, and
tribal, so that when all these elements, these 68 project
features, come on line over a period of 20 years, we can look
back and see that the sum of the parts adds up to delivering
the benefits promised.
The way our bill reads, the regulations that establish the
detail design features for each of the 68 projects would be
adopted by the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the
Department of Interior, but the concurrence rule would not be
present there. The idea is that the project specific feature
regs would have to be shown to be consistent with the
programmatic regs that set aside the quantities of water for
the natural system.
I do not want to go into too much detail here. I would be
very happy to answer questions. But ideally, we would like to
see the State using its water statute, which is a very
progressive one, and adopt essentially a mirror set of
regulations that by State law made the same set-aside with what
we had determined.
The rule of the Secretary of the Interior in concurring on
these basic set-aside regulation seems to us appropriate for
several reasons. One is that the Interior Department, the Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Park Service are one of, if not
the major, environmental clients of this project, and need to
be closely consulted, therefore, on the basic fundamental set-
aside decision.
No. 2, the Federal investment in this project is justified
by the preservation of these Federal assets. And No. 3, the
Department has, over this century, developed expertise and
experience to bring to bear in making this kind of decision.
We do not view it as a veto role for the Secretary of the
Interior, but rather a close collaboration in the establishment
of this basic set of regulations to quantify the amount of
water to the natural system.
Finally, on the role of the State or the Governor in
developing regulations that implement this project, and I think
Dr. Westphal stated this, and I think all of us agree with
Governor Bush and his statement this morning, that this is a
work of a partnership. And it, in fact, is an unprecedented
work of a Federal/State partnership. It has been, up until now.
We want to commend the State on not only promising, but
actually delivering on their promise for financial support for
the project.
The Federal Government has enjoyed excellent relationships
with the Governors of Florida, at least going as far back as
when Senator Graham was Governor, and I am sure before that,
too. And we enjoy a very good working relationship with
Governor Bush at this time.
We have had a number of discussions with the State on the
question of the role of the State in crafting the regulations
for this project. Time ran out on us before we were able to
nail down the issue.
Our lawyers have advised us that there are some
constitutional issues raised by giving the Governor of the
State a concurrence role in a Federal statute. The lawyers in
the Justice Department are working through this issue right
now.
I want to pledge to you that we want to continue
negotiations with the State, because I personally believe we
can find a way to arrive at language that passes muster
legally, and expresses this unique partnership that is the
basis of this project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Doyle.
Let me just comment, since you just had a brief comment or
two on programmatic regulations. I am trying to understand your
reasoning here, without getting into a judgment, one way or the
other, but just to understand it.
It seems to me that in the adaptive assessment or adaptive
management approach that we are trying to place into this, that
when you suggest a one time regulation, only 2 years after the
date of enactment of a plan, then you take away the flexibility
of the Corps., and you take away the flexibility of the entire
adaptive management process for a system that may not be fully
functioning over perhaps as early as 20 or 30 years.
So I do not understand the logic there, if you could just
explain that to me.
Ms. Doyle. Yes, I would be happy to try. It was never our
contemplation that the programmatic regs would be inviolate or
not susceptible to alteration as we gain scientific knowledge,
which is the essence of adaptive management.
We felt very strongly that as you go to begin the design of
the individual components of the project, you have to have some
sort of benchmark or notion of how much water, in the present
state of scientific knowledge, that we need to deliver to the
natural areas in order to achieve the restoration. Otherwise,
you just start piecemealing it, without reference to sort of a
baseline.
Florida has a similar system now in its statutes. It does a
water supply plan before it decides how many permits it is
going to issue for what quantity of water, and it does that by
assessing how much water is available. And this would be
something along that line.
Senator Smith. But how do you accomplish that with a one-
time regulation? You can not be that specific.
Ms. Doyle. No, it would be established, I would hope,
fairly soon, like in a couple of years, and then it would be
susceptible to being modified. It would also come through in a
set of ranges. We are applying these rainfall-driven models to
establish a set of ranges for the delivery of water.
Senator Smith. If each one of you could respond to just
this question, then I will be happy to yield to my colleagues.
The language in WRDA 1996 says, ``The Secretary shall
develop a plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and
protecting the South Florida ecosystem.'' That was the language
that was agreed to, again, without passing any judgment on the
proposed change, which is how I understand it.
Now the new language in the Administration plan says, ``The
overarching purpose of the plan is to protect, preserve and
restore the natural system.''
I think this is different language. It does have different
ramifications. And I guess I need to understand the purpose of
moving from the language that everyone agreed to, and then
changing that language to take on a different perspective here.
What is the rationale behind that? And let me just ask you,
first, Dr. Westphal, and just go right down the table.
Mr. Westphal. Well, remember, the comprehensive plan that
you have before you has been the subject of a considerable
amount of study and reevaluation since 1996, since you passed
the WRDA bill.
The work of the Task Force and the work of the scientists
in developing the plan simply resulted in a much more
comprehensive view of what needed to be done, both in terms of
what the State wanted to do, as well as what the Federal
Government and its entities wanted to do.
So I think that is why you are seeing some variation in the
theme. The theme is still there, that was presented in 1996 and
mandated by Congress. What we have done is, we have just
amassed so much research and so much study and so much
evaluation. And we have come up with so many different
opportunities to protect and to save and enhance and restore
the natural environment, that it results in this comprehensive
plan.
Senator Smith. But if you allow your position to evolve,
then you have to allow the other stakeholder's positions to
evolve, as well, do you not? Is that reasonable?
Mr. Westphal. I think so. And, again, the adaptive part of
this plan and the fact that every single project, whether you
are talking about the programmatic authority, that you were
talking about a minute ago, or whether you are talking about
other features of the plan, everything has got to go through a
feasibility study.
Everything is going to have to have a cost sharing
agreement between the State and Federal Government. Everybody
is going to have a chance to veto, to check, to modify, to
evaluate and reassess where we are going.
What we are presenting you is a blueprint; a blueprint that
is based on a lot of research and a lot of work. We have a
programmatic feasibility study for the whole piece. What we are
saying to you is, we have given you a blueprint from which you
can decide today. But you will be deciding every year from now
on, as we present new reports to you.
Senator Smith. Well, I am going to ask for your response,
Mr. Guzy. I would just say, again, the difficulty that it
places on the committee and on all of us who are trying to
draft the bill is that there may very well be justification for
your position.
There may be justification for others. But we have now
removed ourselves from an original agreement, for whatever
reason. It may be a good reason. But we have done that, and
that complicates things, in the sense that we have got to go
back to all stakeholders and get them to reagree, if you will,
which makes it very complicated.
Mr. Guzy, is your position the same?
Mr. Guzy. Well, just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, we believe
that the heart of the 1996 legislation was a direction to the
Administration to develop a plan that would ensure that, in
fact, the Everglades would once again pulse with clean water;
water that would be provided when needed, where needed, at the
times and places where it was needed.
So that understanding, that when you talk about providing a
plan for restoring the Everglades, you are talking about, as
its central feature, as its critical component, a plan that
provides a means for restoring the natural system.
We do not think that there is any fair debate about what
the committee and, ultimately Congress, asked the
Administration and the Corps. specifically to do in developing
this plan.
I think the challenge comes only if one believes that you
can not do that; in other words, respect the natural system. At
the same time, you also can respect the needs of agriculture
and the needs of the urban water users in the area.
Our belief is the fundamental feature of this plan is
recapturing water that is now lost. And it provides, in fact,
far more water than currently is available to the system. The
result of that means that, in fact, there is the ability to
satisfy the needs of the natural system, as well as existing
users and the potential that they would have for growth in
their needs, also.
So we believe that, in fact, this seeming conflict can be
reconciled, and this is completely consistent with the approach
that Congress took in 1996.
Senator Smith. Would you like to comment, Ms. Doyle?
Ms. Doyle. Yes, please, Senator Smith, just to followup on
Mr. Guzy's last point, I think it is a false dichotomy, serving
the environment versus the needs of water users for secure
water supply and flood protection.
This plan calls for building a tremendous amount of
flexibility into the system, and a tremendous amount of storage
that is not there now, which is going to ultimately rebound not
only to the benefit of the natural system, but to those people
at risk of flood. And it is going to secure water supplies for
urban users in ways that have not, heretofore, been possible.
Senator Smith. Senator Baucus?
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
ask Dr. Westphal a question. And that is just to clarify
whether the list of 27 projects contained in the Chief's Report
is the total universe of programmatic authority projects; are
there more or are there fewer? Are others going to come along,
or is 27 it, under the programmatic authority?
Mr. Westphal. Under the programmatic authorities, what we
have studied to date and we think are feasible today, we can
not predict the future. There may be a need to do other things
in the future. There may be a need not to do some of those
things in the future. But I think that that is what our best
guess is today, based on all the study and research, that those
27 are what flies.
Senator Baucus. Will you come back and ask for more
programmatic authority; more than 27?
Mr. Westphal. We have no intention to do that today.
Senator Baucus. What is the likelihood?
Mr. Westphal. I really can not predict that. I really can
not tell you what the likelihood of that is. I can not answer
that question, today.
Senator Baucus. With respect to the project implementation
report, will each of the projects under the programmatic
authority also have the full scope and review of the project
implementation report like other components of the plan?
Mr. Westphal. Right, they will.
Senator Baucus. They will?
Mr. Westphal. There will be a feasibility study. We are
calling it something different, because of the nature of this
particular set of projects. But they are, essentially,
feasibility studies.
Senator Baucus. Well, how will they differ from the project
limitation reports?
Mr. Westphal. They do not differ. They are the same thing.
They are feasibility studies, just like for any other project.
And they go through the same level of analysis and work that we
do on any other project.
Senator Baucus. You know, I want to tell everybody, I am
for restoring the Everglades. I do not know anybody who really
is not.
This is a huge project, here. And so far, I am a little
uneasy, and I will tell you why. First, in 38 years, I do not
know of a single defense system that takes that long, from
beginning to end. I am worried about cost overruns,
particularly over 38 years. And particularly, when I hear the
words ``tremendous amount of flexibility'' that goes all kinds
of different directions.
I worry about seeing on the evening news, a year or two or
three from now, the ``fleecing of America'' or ``it is your
money'' or something like that, which certainly does not help
the Everglades. It does not help our goal, here.
I am also concerned, frankly, because of the testimony I
have heard thus far, it is all just kind of plans and reports
and so forth.
I have seen nobody, Mr. Chairman, here who can stand up and
say, well, here is what is going on in the Everglades, here are
the basic ideas, and here are some of the things that we think
are going to work, and here are some of the problems that we
have not yet solved, and just be kind of honest about it. I
have not seen that.
I have this funny feeling that I might be buying something
that sounds good, but on down the road, I am going to leave to
my successors here a huge, huge problem. And the problem is, my
gosh, we have spent all this money of the Federal taxpayers'
dollars on the Everglades. And my gosh, it is not working like
it was supposed to work.
Well, we have gone this far. Gee, it is like a Vietnamese
War, in a sense. We have just got to keep on pouring more money
in it, because we have gone this far. And what is our exit
strategy?
I am not saying that is going to happen. I hope it does not
happen. But my very strong view, based upon what I have seen
thus far, is that you have not made a sufficient case. And I
may be just one person, one Senator, who is not sufficiently
familiar and has not studied this nearly as much as have
others.
I am a Senator who is sitting on this committee, and I only
know what I know. And what I know is the testimony I hear, the
words I hear.
Nobody here yet so far, and maybe they have down in
Florida, Mr. Chairman, when you had your hearing down there,
but nobody here in Washington at a hearing where I have heard,
has really provided a compelling case that this plan is going
to work. I have not seen it. And I would like you to dissuade
me of my views, if you could, please.
Mr. Westphal. Well, let me start with just a couple of
points. First of all, there is ongoing work. Second of all, the
pilot projects that we are proposing in this plan are
essentially to test some of the assumptions about which we are
basing the longer term solutions to the problems, aquifer
storage, sheet flow kinds of studies and work to be done to
determine whether or not the things that we are proposing, in
fact, will work.
Those pilot projects are critical. We authorized two last
year. We are asking for authorization for an additional four
this year.
So there is ongoing work. There are ongoing activities now.
We have tested some of these assumptions. We are proposing to
test others.
Senator Baucus. If I might ask, what are the cutoff points
here? That is, is there a period during which, you know,
Congress spends this money, hundreds of millions of dollars,
but which there is sort of a self-contained set of projects,
where this is all the further we can go, and it will not
jeopardize what has been spent and the projects that have
received dollars thus far? Are there discrete parts of this, is
what I am asking, or is it all necessarily tied together? And
frankly, either answer is fraught with problems, as you well
know.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Baucus. But I am trying to get a sense of what is
going on here.
Mr. Westphal. Well, to some extent, it is all very much
interrelated. That is why it is a comprehensive plan, because
we believe all these elements are tied together and, to some
extent, depend on each other.
Mr. Guzy. Senator Baucus, if I may try and address your
broader question, I think we all share the sense of frustration
that this is a plan that takes so long and that costs so much
money. In part, that reflects really the scale of human
intervention that has occurred up to now in the Everglades.
Senator Baucus. No doubt; I agree.
Mr. Guzy. You know, when you look at a plan that involves
removing 200 miles of canals, that involves altering interstate
highways over a 20 mile stretch to allow waterflows, that
involves capturing 1.7 billion gallons of water that is now
just shunted out to the ocean, I think it is fair to say that
the essential elements of the plan that you need to recapture
and store the water that is now lost so that it can, in fact,
be provided to the system.
You need to have flexibility in how that water can get
distributed, so that it can approximate the natural system much
more in terms of the timing, where it is, when it is there, the
levels of water--so that you can begin to recreate that natural
system; and then also can provide for the growing needs of the
urban water users, such as flood control needs and agriculture.
Those essential elements do not seem to be particularly in
dispute that that is what is needed for this system. What we
would invite in the long years over which this carried out is
constant scientific scrutiny. And we have proposed setting up a
premier peer review process that will help to guarantee the
accuracy of this complex ecosystem, as well as extensive
congressional oversight to ensure that, in fact, this money is
being spent wisely and appropriately.
Senator Baucus. In a certain sense, you are putting
Congress in a box by saying it is all or nothing. It is 7.8 or
it is zero, or at least that is how I hear it, thus far.
Why not first, stage one, $2 billion? And that is a
discrete, separate set of projects which, if there are no
further funds, does help to some degree address the problem.
Then if you want to go farther, you can let another
Congress and let them decide at a later point to put another
couple billion dollars in. So if the first stage seems to be
working, and then we have better science, and the gaps in the
science are filled. Then we can address the next part.
I am just very, very nervous to buy everything, at this
point, when I do not feel good enough about this. Again, you
know, you all know a lot more about this than I do. I am just
telling you my gut sense.
Ms. Doyle. Senator, what we are asking Congress to
authorize is an initial suite of projects. My understanding is
they are mainly water storage projects. The site of these
projects, the location of them has been identified. The
neighborhood where they need to be located has been identified
in the plan.
They will help immediately the system, which now has no
storage capability, except for Lake Okeechobee. And when these
initial suite of projects are up and running, we will have to
come back to you for authorization of the next phase of the
project. So I think what is contemplated here is quite
consistent.
Senator Baucus. So are you asking for 7.8?
Ms. Doyle. No.
Mr. Guzy. No.
Senator Baucus. Oh, how much are you asking for?
Ms. Doyle. 1.2.
Senator Baucus. I see, OK.
Mr. Guzy. Senator, I would just add that the Administration
has approached this by trying to really reconcile the fact that
you want to have a set of limited, clearly defined approaches
in the short term, and not ask Congress for authorization for
every single thing that might happen way out, 30 years into the
future.
It makes little sense to do that, unless there is the kind
of broad vision; unless there is a framework for how those
individual projects will fit into accomplishing the ultimate
goals; unless there is accountability and a test for what you
hope to achieve. It makes little sense to go down this road
unless you have an ultimate vision of where the road is going.
That understanding, that the natural system can work in
harmony with the built system and the needs of the people of
South Florida, is really what is represented in the plan.
Senator Baucus. Well, do not misunderstand. I want this to
work. And I am just asking tough questions with the view of
hoping to make it work. So far, it does not totally pass the
``smell test'' if you want the honest truth. There are parts of
this that just do not click in and lock in the way I like it to
feel, at this point.
Ms. Doyle. Senator, we would be happy to provide you a more
detailed briefing in a helicopter, if you would like to.
Senator Baucus. Well, I am sure you would, and I am sure I
would like to do that. But there are only so many hours in a
day and days in the week. And I am right here, this is the
hearing on this subject, and this is what I have, thus far.
Mr. Westphal. Well, again, this is a large blueprint that
incorporates a lot of different features. And what we are
saying to you is, give us your commitment to work toward the
accomplishment of the overall objective through these series of
steps.
Again, every year the appropriators will have to
appropriate the money. We are asking for an appropriation of
over $1 billion, but that is over a number of years. As these
projects come on line, we expect that operation and maintenance
requirements are not really going to kick in for another 15
years or so, until some of these projects come to completion.
So we have got a lot of steps in the process. But we have
looked at this in a very broad fashion with the State. And the
State is putting up 50 percent of the money. So they are
committed to this.
Senator Baucus. That is not O&M?
Mr. Westphal. No, they are putting up 50 percent of the
cost on everything. Well, on the O&M, it is 60 percent, but on
the construction part it is 50 percent.
Senator Baucus. Which is contrary to the rule.
Mr. Westphal. Right.
Senator Baucus. Well, this comes down to trust, both ways.
And I just think we need to work on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Senator Graham, would you mind if I made a
comment in response to this? I apologize for interrupting you.
First of all, I think all three of the witnesses responded
very well to your points, Senator Baucus. And I think it is
important that we understand here, we are not authorizing $7.8
billion. We are not even authorizing even $1.1 billion, if we
pass this proposal anywhere along the lines we are talking
about.
We are talking about perhaps $100 million this fiscal year,
or the fiscal year that it passes in. The $1.1 billion for the
10 projects discussed here are over a 14 year period.
The truth of the matter is, we can not sit here and say,
with 100 percent accuracy, that everything we do is going to
work, because we have destroyed an ecosystem that we have to
restore.
So the point is, through the policy that is laid out in the
overall plan here of adaptive assessment or adaptive
management, we will be able to have the flexibility on almost a
year by year basis to look at what we are doing and make
adjustments.
For example, the Army Corps. can not do one project beyond
a 20 percent increase in what we think the cost would be
without coming to us. So there is tremendous control there. And
so, again, it is a long process. And it is very unique and
unusual in the sense that it is 34 or 35 years.
This is an ecosystem that we can not predict how long it is
going to take. I wish we could say that it could be done for
``x'' number of dollars over 15 years. But, again, we are not
committing to anything, other than a step-by-step process,
which is laid out in the plan.
So I think it is important to point that out. Your
questions and your points are valid points. But I really feel
strongly that whatever form the plan takes, I think, as the
witnesses have very well stated, we are not accepting an
overall dollar amount here.
We are accepting a concept that says that we think we can
do this. And if it turns out 2 years from now or 3 years or 4
years or 10 years from now, that what we are doing is not
right, we can make adjustments. And that is, I think, the
uniqueness of the plan.
Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. I have been listening to the very good
questions that my colleagues, and particularly Senator Baucus,
have been raising. And it reminds me that this year we are
celebrating the 200 anniversary of the movement of the Capital
of the United States to Washington, D.C.
That was a bold action. The Capital was functioning
perfectly well in New York. It was a large city. People were
comfortable there. But they recognized that the Nation, a new
Nation less than a dozen years old, was faced with some almost
intractable problems, which were likely to force it to fly
apart.
One of those is that the southern States did not feel
comfortable in New York. They wanted a site that was closer to
home. The other was that the northern States were burdened with
the State debts that had been taken on to fight and win the
Revolutionary War.
Well, that is the stuff of a political compromise. The
compromise was the Federal Government took on the debts, and
the capital moved from New York to the banks of the Potomac.
And that political compromise probably saved the Nation from
disintegration over those disputes. It was a leap of faith,
that coming here in 1800, that would save the Nation.
I think most people today would say, given what the likely
alternative, to have not moved to Washington, D.C. was, it was
a good decision.
I think in some ways we are at that point with the
Everglades. We can predict with a great deal more certainty
what the consequences of inaction will be than what the
consequences of action will be.
The consequences of inaction will be a continued
disintegration of one of the great international environmental
system; one of the few which, for instance, the United Nations
has placed on its list of world treasures. It will probably
lead to the first de-certification of a national park in the
history of the country, and to adverse effects on a large and
important geographic and population area of America.
Are there risks to going forward? Of course, there are. One
of the things that is unique about the Everglades is, it is
unique. Marjorie Stoleman Douglas, in her great book ``Rivers
of Grass'' said that there is only one Everglades.
You can look around the world, and maybe the Pontanole in
Brazil is somewhat analogous to the Everglades, but not quite.
Maybe there are places in Africa that are similar to the
Everglades, but not quite.
We are dealing with a unique system. That means that we can
not look to other places in the world and say, how did they
deal with the same problems that we are trying to deal with, to
restore a sick and broken unique system? We are going to be on
a rapid curve of increased knowledge, as we get into this
process.
Frankly, if there are not changes in this plan over the
next 38 years, it is a statement of our ineptitude. If we do
not learn something engaging in this, over the next three or
four decades, that is not going to be a stamp of our
intelligence or ingenuity.
The Senator asked a very good question about what are some
of the things that are going to give us confidence that this is
going to work. One, I happen to have a lot of confidence in the
Corps of Engineers. I think it is a phenomenally effective
organization, and has done great things for this Nation.
If you walk down a few blocks and look at the Library of
Congress, it was designed and built and the interior
constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. That is a fairly
phenomenal structure. I think it is the most beautiful
building; a product of the Corps of Engineers.
We also have got a State partner, which is going to be
looking over our shoulder throughout this. And the State of
Florida has an annual budget of approximately $50 billion to
$60 billion. It is going to put up $200 million a year for this
project. The Federal Government has an annual budget of about
$1.8 trillion, and it is going to put up $200 million.
So proportionately, the State has got a lot bigger share of
its treasury that is going to be invested in this than the
national government. And so it is going to be very concerned.
And it is sitting there every day, watching what is happening.
I suspect that if there is a feeling that this has gone
offtrack, the cell phones, faxes, and e-mails will quickly
alert us to those concerns.
Next, the process is very similar to what the Senator was
suggesting it should be. Today, we are being asked to look at
first an overall road map of how to get to this goal of a
renewed Everglades that will protect the natural system, taking
into account the human systems, as well.
The implementation will be in a series of short bursts,
starting with 10 out of 68 to be authorized in this
legislation; many of those 10 projects taking themselves a
number of years to complete, starting with land acquisition,
more detailed design, and then actual construction.
I anticipate that for the foreseeable future, every 2 or 4
years, we are going to be asked to evaluate how well the Corps.
is doing on the set of projects that we sanctioned in the past,
and to take on another set of projects, as the first groups are
moved to completion.
Finally, I believe that we need to recognize that what we
are doing here is not only going to be beneficial to the
Everglades, but we are going to learn a lot about the public
administration, the organization and the financing, as well as
the science of environmental restoration.
I mentioned the Pontanole in Brazil. I can tell you from a
recent visit to Brazil that they are very interested in what we
are doing in the Everglades, and hope that they will be able to
take advantage of some of our learning.
A year ago, I was in New Mexico on the banks of the Rio
Grande River, which is an environmental system that has got a
lot of problems. And the people in New Mexico were looking to
what is happening in the Everglades as maybe a model of how to
deal with the issues of the headwaters of the Rio Grande.
So we are going to be making contributions on a national
and even global basis, as we go through this process. That is
the end of my editorial.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Graham. And also, we do hope that you will come and
look at it from a helicopter.
Senator Baucus. Not from a helicopter; I want to see it
from the ground.
Senator Graham. We have all forms of transportation:
ground, aquatic, air.
Senator Smith. And if he does not support it, we will leave
him down there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Graham. There will be one happy alligator down
there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Graham. Now I am moving from the editorial page to
the front page.
About a third of the questions that have been asked thus
far have related to this issue of, is the planning for the
first 10 projects that were being asked, is it at a level of
maturity that is appropriate for us to authorize, or should we
wait until there has been further engineering done of those
projects?
I wonder, Dr. Westphal, if you might respond as to why the
Corps. feels that these 10 projects are at a point that they
are ready to be authorized by the Congress.
Mr. Westphal. Well, we feel very strongly that we have done
the necessary work for you to authorize these projects. They
are integral to starting us down this path of enhancing the
overall quality of the environment. We believe the science is
firmly behind the work we have done to get to that level.
We picked these 10 projects because I think they provide a
tremendous amount of enhancement to investments we have already
made, both in the purchasing of land, as well as testing
features of the overall set of projects that are critical to
doing now, and not waiting until later.
So we believe it is both essential, from a timing
standpoint, as well as a resource investment standpoint, that
we go forward with these, that we are confident that we have
got the science and the research and the study done, that gives
us confidence that you can be assured that we are embarking on
the right path here.
Senator Graham. Ms. Doyle or Mr. Guzy, did you have
anything to add to what Dr. Westphal has just said?
Ms. Doyle. Well, only to reinforce a point he made, there
were hundreds of scientists involved in the development of the
plan and the designation of the initial suite of features;
scientists from the State agencies and from all the Federal
agencies. The science was subject to peer review. And I think
everybody I have talked to is very confident in the results.
Mr. Guzy. I would just add, Senator Graham, that
considering the pace of environmental degradation in the
Everglades, we look to be opportunistic in the best sense of
the word, to find places where relatively rapid action could be
taken, where you could capitalize on those resources that the
Federal Government or the State Government had already
established, and you could take some very early steps and
achieve significant results. And that is what really those 10
projects represent.
Mr. Westphal. One more point, Senator, is we have got to
remember that the State has also made some great investments
here. And for us to delay going forward really is an affront to
that investment that the State has made, as well as the Federal
Government. We have got almost two-thirds of the land already
purchased for these projects, so we are well under way.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Graham.
I just want to make a couple of comments, and then let me
ask one final question. I guess it would be for you, Dr.
Westphal, before I make a couple of comments.
On these 10 projects, do you feel very confident,
relatively confident, or extremely confident that we can expect
these project implementation reports to be completed on time,
which I assume is in a 12 to 18 month period? Is that about
right?
Mr. Westphal. Do you see any heads nodding behind me here?
Senator Smith. Let me see some heads nodding.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Westphal. Are they nodding? They are the guys that have
to do this.
Senator Smith. What is the answer back there?
Mr. Westphal. The answer better be yes.
Senator Smith. All right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Westphal. And the adjective is extremely confident.
Senator Smith. I want to make a couple more points
regarding some of the questions that were raised by Senator
Baucus and some of the comments that were made this morning.
We all know that this is not exact in terms of dollars. I
think anybody who would say that would be wrong, and it would
be misleading to the public.
I do not think there is anybody in the Senate, and maybe
there is, but I have not met him or her yet, who is more
conservative than I am with the taxpayer dollars. I do not want
to waste a penny of it, because they all belong to all of us.
I think it is important to understand here that this
project is worth the risk. It is worth the risk perhaps more
than many other projects in various other aspects of the budget
that we fund.
I want to go on record as saying that I am willing to take
that risk. And if it comes back 50 years from now that Senator
Graham and I sat here, and we were wrong, because we did not do
enough and the Everglades failed, we can at least say or at
least our grandchildren can say, they tried. And we have to
try.
It is simply wrong to try to exact this thing down to the
last dollar, before we begin the implementation of the plan. We
have the flexibility to make adjustments so if we get to the
point where we say, this is hopeless; we are going to lose the
Everglades, we do not have to spend the rest of the money.
On the other hand, if it starts working, and we can begin
to make assessments and adaptations to the process, then we can
do that. And perhaps we will save money, and maybe it will cost
a few million more.
Let me just point out, we are being asked to authorize
about $28 million in 2001, and about $47 million, or rounded
off, say, $50 million in 2002, in addition to the $1.4 billion
over that 14 year period for those projects, half of which is
paid for by the State of Florida.
Let us look at why we are doing this. You have got a
situation in this ecosystem where 90 to 95 percent of the
wading bird population in this ecosystem is gone. That is 90 to
95 percent.
Second, the Everglades covers less than half, and that is
the ecosystem, not the park, of the area it did 50 years ago. A
billion and a half or a billion, seven gallons of water a day
are pumped out to sea, critically disrupting the estuaries, the
health of those estuaries. And 68, at last count, animal and
plant species are on the endangered list, including the Florida
panther, which is probably the most prominent one.
So it is worth the risk. And I am simply not going to allow
a situation where we are going to get down and we are going to
have to say that right down to the last penny of every dollar
that we spend here has got to be accounted for before we embark
on one of these projects.
We have the flexibility. And I am going to encourage
members to read the plan, so that they understand that there is
the flexibility and the adaptive responses here to make changes
as we go.
That is what I like about it. It is not exact. And we need
to understand that. And if anybody says that they want this to
be exact, then I guess they should not be for the restoration
of the Everglades, and they can live with that, maybe. I could
not live with it.
So we are going to be proceeding on this in concept, but
also looking at those dollars where we can. But even if we
fail, and I hope we do not, and I pray that we do not, we have
to fail trying.
It is worth the risk. And I believe that based on all of
the science that I have seen and the people that I have talked
to, and many people shared a lot of information, including some
of the people here, that it looks pretty good that we can make
a positive impact on that system.
Now we do have differences. And that concerns me very much.
I would just conclude on this, and if you want to respond to
it, fine.
I am concerned that these changes were made, not because
some of them may not be good, because some of them, I am sure,
are. But now we have got to go back and reopen this. If we take
the Administration plan as it is presented, we have to reopen
the whole situation, because other people, other entities and
stakeholders are going to want to be reassessed, as well.
We had an agreement. Now we do not have an agreement, if we
adopt this plan. And I would just say to you, look, if we go
back to the original assessment agreement that we had in July
1999, we can say, if we adopt that, and I am not necessarily
taking that position at this point, but I am saying if we did,
we still have the flexibility to adapt to make some of the
suggestions that you have all talked about, if we want to. So
let us not forget that.
I hope we do not get hung up in a big argument over
specific proposals that we want to place in, that some of us
want to place in. That is why I am concerned. And I think I
want to complement all three of you, because you have done a
great job in defending not only the plan, but the system and
the project, in general.
I do not mean to imply anything else, other than to say, I
think it is regrettable that we now have to reopen the can and
start all over again. It is going to make our job very
difficult. And I hope it does not just die the death of other
WRDA projects.
This is not just another Water Resources Development Act
project. It is not. If we are to throw it in there with, and I
do not want to pick out anything specifically, but we all know
how many of these there are.
I have 100 projects and a number of letters from other
Senators who want their project in a Water Resources
Development Act bill. And I am prepared, if I have to, to pull
this one out of there, and run it through separately, as a
separate proposal, and let the Congress make a judgment.
So the American people and those who support the
Everglades, and I think that is a vast majority of the American
people, will have the opportunity to know who is for it and who
is not. Because if I have my way about it, there will be a
vote.
I do not care where the party lines fall. I do not think it
is a party line issue, as you can see from the debate here
today.
We will have a vote, if I have anything to say about it, on
a proposal of some kind, to restore the Everglades. And I think
the American people deserve that, and I think the American
people deserve to know who is for it, and who is not, and who
is willing to take the risk and who is not.
Does anybody here have a comment before we go to the next
panel; yes?
Mr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, I do not know on the changes if
you are referring, for example, to the addition of water for
the environment.
Senator Smith. That is what, 245?
Mr. Westphal. Yes.
Senator Smith. That is one.
Mr. Westphal. On that point, please remember that the
report from the district that went to the Chief of Engineers
including that feature is calling for a study of that.
All we are proposing to do is to study the ability to get
that additional amount of water, without having any impact on
the 20 percent of the water that goes to municipal and
industrial uses. So we are not advancing a proposal to do it.
We are advancing a proposal to study the feasibility of doing
that.
The other point that I would make is that, you know, we
have talked a lot about partnerships with the State, the
tribes, and each other here. But we really have a partnership
with Congress with this. Because the American people have to
vote on every feature of this plan down the road and on all the
appropriations.
Senator Smith. It is step by step.
Mr. Westphal. So, really, our requirement will be to really
link up with you, your committee, and the rest of the members
here and in the House to make sure that we give you the best
and all of the information required for you to make judicious
decisions for the American people.
Senator Smith. Senator Baucus' point on trust is a good
point. It does involve trust. And we are going to have to, I
think, demonstrate to the American people that we can work that
way; that you can bring this project to us, and you can say,
here is where we are and here is why we can not approve it yet,
or here is the reason we can approve it.
Mr. Westphal. Absolutely.
Senator Smith. I think that is going to take a lot of work
together, and I believe we can do that.
Mr. Westphal. Mr. Chairman, I am confident that whatever
Administration follows the Clinton/Gore Administration, they
will sit together here, and they will tell you the same things
we are telling you, commitment to it and support for it and
willingness to work with you.
Mr. Guzy. Mr. Chairman, we really respect and appreciate
your commitment to move this process forward. And, obviously,
the Administration will work with you anyway that we can to
accomplish the appropriate authorization.
Senator Smith. I do not know if you were in the room when I
made the comment to the first panel this morning, but let me
just repeat it.
The process after we finish this hearing would be to work
together with the Administration and the Corps. and the
Department of Interior, as well as Senator Graham and Senator
Mack and the committee members, Senator Baucus and Senator
Voinovich, of course, who chairs the subcommittee, to try to
come up with a some kind of a compromise, if you will, or
legislation in the next weeks, so that we can get it on the
Floor before the end of the summer. That is the goal.
Senator Smith. Thank you all.
Ms. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Senator Smith, there are a couple of
letters, one from Dr. Westphal, and another from General
Ballard, which attempt to clarify this issue of the 245,000.
And I would like to ask if those could be submitted for the
record.
Senator Smith. Certainly, without objection.
[The referenced documents follow:]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 30, 1999.
Lt. Gen. Joe N. Ballard,
Chief of Engineers,
Department of the Army,
Washington, DC 20314.
Dear General Ballard: We are writing to you regarding the Restudy which
you released to Congress on July 1, 1999. We appreciate all the hard
work by the Army Corps in developing this comprehensive plan for
restoration of the Everglades and in ensuring that it was unanimously
supported by the stakeholders in Florida.
The Restudy submission capped a lengthy process of coordination
among many stakeholders with vital interests in the future of the
Everglades watershed. The draft Restudy was subjected to extensive
review and comment--a factor that we believe contributed to the
remarkable coalition assembled in support of its authorization.
We have received some questions regarding the transmittal letter
accompanying the Restudy. This letter contained some significant new
recommendations that were not reflected in the Restudy itself. For
example, your letter included a commitment to deliver 245,000 acre feet
of water beyond that recommended in the Restudy to the Everglades
National Park and Biscayne Bay National Park. We understand that this
recommendation did not go through the same rigorous public review and
comment as did the Restudy itself.
We know that the inclusion of a transmittal letter from the Army
Corps with this type of report to Congress is standard practice. This
letter reflects the views of the Secretary as they relate to the
project recommendations and technical analysis contained in the Chief's
report. These views are taken into account by Congress as it considers
proposals for project authorization. In every case, the final decision
on the content of the authorization is determined by Congress, normally
through a Water Resources Development Act.
We appreciate the comments in the transmittal letter and will
consider them as we move to authorize the Restudy. Please clarify in
writing that the transmittal letter for the Restudy will function in
the same manner as all other transmittal letters, as recommendations
for consideration by Congress.
Again, we appreciate your hard work on the Restudy, and we look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Connie Mack, U.S. Senate.
Bob Graham, U.S. Senate.
______
Department of the Army,
Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Planning Division, Eastern Planning Management Branch,
Washington, DC, September 27, 1999.
Honorable Connie Mack,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Mack: This is in response to your letter dated July 30,
1999, which was cosigned by the Honorable Bob Graham, U.S. Senate,
concerning the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive
Review Study (``Restudy'') submitted to Congress by the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on July 1, 1999.
As you know, over a 6-year period involving over 30 Federal, State,
and local agencies, tribal leaders, stakeholders, other interested
parties, and the general public and through extensive coordination with
the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida and the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, a Comprehensive Plan for
restoring the Everglades and south Florida ecosystem has been
developed. Due to the magnitude and complexity of the project, the
level of multi-agency involvement, political and public interest, and
the comprehensive nature of the Plan, a decision was made during the
final policy review at the Washington level that the draft Chief of
Engineers report released for State and agency review in April 1999
needed to be expanded to include the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Restudy efforts. Though the report is lengthy
and includes extensive information, it does present the complete and
the latest information on refinements to the Comprehensive Plan and its
implementation strategy for consideration by the Administration and the
Congress.
In furtherance of the Comprehensive Plan, numerous commitments were
made by the restoration team during public review of the Comprehensive
Plan, subsequent coordination with other Federal, State, and local
agencies, and the South Florida Water Management District to
significantly improve the implementation plan. Many of these
commitments, like the Corps decision to complete the additional
analysis to evaluate the proposal to provide an additional 245,000
acre-feet of water that may be required to southern Everglades and
Biscayne Bay are reflected in the Jacksonville District's Final
Comprehensive Restudy. Other commitments stemmed from the public review
period on the draft Comprehensive Plan and implementation plan in
October 1998 and January 1999, respectively and the numerous meetings,
correspondence, and intense coordination efforts during finalization of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The Corps is committed to implementing the final plan in a manner
that provides more water for the Everglades National Park (ENP) and
Biscayne Bay. Up to about 245,000 acre-feet of additional water may be
available from urban sources. Assuming this water can be treated to
acceptable standards and does not result in unacceptable adverse
impacts to other areas of the natural system, this water may be used to
enhance overland flow and ecological conditions in ENP and Biscayne
Bay. As a matter of clarification, the Corps has only committed to
completing the evaluation on the additional 245,000 acre-feet of water
that may be required for southern Everglades and Biscayne Bay. The
ultimate amount of additional water recaptured, its distribution, and
resolution of water quality issues, requires much more detailed study,
analysis, coordination, and public review before any recommendation is
finalized and a report submitted to Congress for authorization. The
development of the Comprehensive Plan involved a historic partnership
among Federal, State, local governments, interested groups and the
general public, and therefore, I determined that including the Restudy
team's commitments was necessary to provide the Administration and the
Congress with all the information that helped shape the Comprehensive
Plan and the complexity of restoring this significant natural resource.
Thank you for your continued interest in this project. I will
continue to keep you advised on the progress of this project as we
proceed with implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely,
Joe N. Ballard, Lieutenant General,
U.S. Army Chief of Engineers.
______
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, November 9, 1999.
Dr. Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary,
Department of the Army (Civil Works),
The Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20310-0108.
Dear Dr. Westphal: We are writing to you to followup on some
correspondence we exchanged with Lieutenant General Joe Ballard
regarding the Restudy which you released to Congress on July 1, 1999.
In this exchange, we requested clarification that the transmittal leper
that accompanied the Restudy would function as a recommendation for
consideration by Congress.
We know the inclusion of a transmittal letter from the Army Corps
with this type of report to Congress is standard practice. This letter
reflects the views of the Secretary as they relate to the project
recommendations and technical analysis contained in the Chiefs report.
These views are taken into account by Congress as it considers
proposals for project authorization. In every case, the final decision
on the content of the authorization is determined by Congress,
nominally through a Water Resources Development Act.
In Lieutenant General Ballard's response of September 27, 1999, he
indicates that, ``numerous commitments were made by the restoration
team during public review of the Comprehensive Plan, subsequent
coordination with other Federal, State, and local agencies, and the
South Florida Water Management District to significantly improve the
implementation plan. Many of these commitments, like the Corps decision
to complete the additional analysis to evaluate the proposal to provide
an additional 245,000 acre-feet of water that may be required to
southern Everglades and Biscayne Bay are reflected in the Jacksonville
District's Final Comprehensive Restudy.''
He goes on to say that, ``. . . the Corps has only committed to
completing the evaluation on the additional 245,000 acre-feet of water
that may be required for southern Everglades and Biscayne Bay.''
Please clarify the following points:
1) Were commitments made by the Restudy team to provide a full
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water to the natural system? If so,
through what process?
2) Does the transmittal letter indicate a commitment by the Corps
to provide this water or a commitment to evaluate the potential to
provide this water?
We appreciate your hard work on the Restudy and look forward to
working together on its authorization. However, we believe that the
interpretation of the intent of the transmittal letter is a lingering
issue that we wish to resolve before the end of calendar year 1999.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Bob Graham, United States Senator.
Connie Mack, United States Senator.
______
Department of the Army,
Office of the Secretary for Civil Works,
Washington, DC, 20310-0108, January 24, 2000.
Honorable Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator Graham: Thank you for your letter of November 9, 1999, co-
signed by Senator Connie Mack, regarding the Chief of Engineers Report
on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Specifically,
you asked me to clarify the Chief's Report provision concerning the
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water that may be required for
Everglades National Park (ENP) and Biscayne Bay.
First, let me state that our commitment is to completing the
evaluation that is necessary to determine how much of the 245,000 acre
feet is necessary to restore ENP and Biscayne Bay. This evaluation will
include more detailed studies, an Environmental Impact Statement, and
full public review. Once this has been completed, a final executive
branch decision will be made and a proposal will be forwarded to
Congress for consideration in a Water Resources Development Act of
2004. Congress would then have the opportunity to discuss and debate
the proposal. In short, construction will not start on this proposal
until it as been studied fully and congressional authorization is
obtained.
In regard to the process that led to the Chief's Report provision
on the 245,000 acre-feet, let me offer the following history. In
response to the October 1998, draft of the CERP, Department of the
Interior and other scientists suggested that additional water was
needed to ensure restoration of the ENP and Biscayne Bay. The
interagency technical team that developed the CERP evaluated several
options and concluded that an additional 245,000 acre-feet of water is
available, that it would provide important benefits to the ENP and
Biscayne Bay and that it is conceptually feasible to deliver the water
to the ENP. The principal questions were how to deliver the water to
the ENP without impacting other parts of the ecosystem (e.g., WCAs and
farmland) and how much the water would have to be cleaned before it
could be discharged into the ENP. Contrary to some reports, this was
discussed in general terms in the final CERP released in April 1999.
Further, letters clarifying this issue were part of the public record
that was available for review last April.
While we believe that restoration of the greater South Florida
ecosystem is our principle objective, ensuring effective restoration of
the ENP is also very important. We are confidant that the CERP in
general, and the 245,000 acre-feet provision in particular, were
developed with the health of the overall ecosystem, including the human
environment, in mind. We are very much aware of the need to look beyond
the ENP boundary to ensure that other important parts of the ecosystem
like the estuaries and the WCAs are protected and restored.
I appreciate your leadership on this important national issue--
restoration of America's Everglades. I look forward to working with you
this year to obtain authorization of the CERP.
Sincerely,
Joseph W. Westphal,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
Senator Smith. We thank the panel.
The next panel is Mr. Ken Keck, who is the Director of
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs of the Florida Citrus
Mutual; and Dr. David Guggenheim, the President of the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and the Co-Chair of the
Everglades Coalition.
Welcome, gentlemen, and I appreciate you being here. I
think you two also traveled a long distance to be here, and we
appreciate it.
We do try to take the hearings out of town once in a while,
and we did have one down there. But the hearing, as you know,
in Florida, was specifically on the issue itself, and this is
on the Administration proposal or legislation, so it is a
little bit different.
Mr. Keck, we will start with you. I appreciate your being
here. Again, as I indicated before, your entire testimony is
part of the record, both of you. If you could summarize in 5
minutes or so, and also kind of indicate to me where your
problems are with the plan, as opposed to the agreement that
you had initially, that helps me to focus a little bit on
trying to build some type of coalition of support.
Mr. Keck?
STATEMENT OF KEN KECK, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, FLORIDA CITRUS MUTUAL
Mr. Keck. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and Senator Graham,
thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ken
Keck. I am employed by Florida Citrus Mutual as the Director of
Legislative and Regulatory Affairs. Florida Citrus Mutual, as
you may know, Senator Graham, is a voluntary grower association
of about 11,500 growers throughout Central and South Florida.
While historically we raised citrus more in the central
part of the State, because of the freeze events in the 1980's,
fully half of the citrus grown in Florida now is within the
boundaries of the Restudy.
Let me let the committee know that in preparing our
testimony, and I say ``our'' in the sense of a broad coalition
of ag groups in South Florida, I will, if I could, submit for
the record, Mr. Chairman, the list of groups who do support our
testimony, today.
Senator Smith. That will be made a part of the record.
[The referenced document follows:]
______
Attachment to the Testimony of Ken Keck
These organizations have endorsed the attached statement of
concerns with the Administration's legislative proposal relating to
Everglades Restoration (Section 3 of S. 2437) as of May 9, 2000.
Florida Farm Bureau
Florida Citrus Mutual
Gulf Citrus Growers Association
Sunshine State Milk Producers
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Florida Fertilizer and Agri-Chemical Association
Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc.
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida
Miami-Dade County Farm Bureau
Palm Beach County Farm Bureau
Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau
Lake Worth Drainage District
______
Florida Agriculture's Concerns with Administration's WRDA 2000 Proposal
This paper summarizes eight fundamental problems with the
Administration's proposal based on the concepts, authorities and
processes that would shape future water management in South Florida
under this draft legislation. We are not, at this time, listing all of
the specific problems we have with many of the provisions. In all
cases, specific legislative language can be suggested.
1. Problem:--The bill modifies the balanced purposes for the
existing C&S Florida Project and, by amending the balanced purposes
that were re-affirmed in WRDA 96, eliminates this balance for the
future of this entire project.
Fix:--The balanced purposes for both the existing and modified C&SF
Project should be reaffirmed while providing that the primary purpose
of the Comprehensive Plan is ecosystem restoration, preservation and
protection.
2. Problem:--The assurance provisions preempt Florida law governing
water allocations and reservations and preclude comprehensive water
management by the local sponsor. They fundamentally alter current
Federal policy. These provisions establish unprecedented Federal
authority and control of water quality and quantity.
Fix:--Assurances can be provided by utilizing the Project
Implementation Reports for each project component under the Plan which
can, by agreement of the Secretary and local sponsor, and consistent
with State law: (1) allocate and reserve the new water supply made
available, (2) otherwise provide for the allocation of any other
benefits and (3) establish the component's operating criteria necessary
to provide the allocations and other benefits.
3. Problem:--The bill's provisions regarding Project Implementation
Reports have much less content and are inconsistent with descriptions
of those Reports in the Comprehensive Plan. These provisions are also
inconsistent with representations from the Restudy team that these
Reports will contain all the information needed for a full feasibility
report and more. These Reports provide an opportunity to address
assurance issues with a more complete decisionmaking document.
Fix:--These Reports should meet the requirements of the U.S Water
Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines and provide all
information needed to support congressional authorization, approval
under state law, and answer all questions regarding the allocation of
benefits and achievement of Project and Comp Plan purposes.
4. Problem:--The bill authorizes specific project components and
undefined other components ``consistent with the plan.'' These are all
project components whose value, cost-effectiveness and benefits have
not been demonstrated by feasibility level engineering, economic and
environmental studies. There are no reliable cost estimates on which to
base authorization for appropriations.
Fix:--Authorize project modifications after Congress has been able
to review a completed and fully coordinated feasibility or Project
Implementation Report.
5. Problem:--The bill references the Chief's Report of June 22,1999
that includes additional commitments that were not part of the Plan
reviewed in consultation with the State and were included without
notice or opportunity for public comment. If implemented, these
conditions would have substantial adverse impacts on State interests
and substantially increase on project costs.
Fix:--All references to the Chief's Report should be deleted from
the Bill, confirming that the Plan is based on the Recommended Plan in
the document of April 1999.
6. Problem:--The way the Bill approves the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan.
Fix:--Approve the Comprehensive Plan as a guide and framework for a
continuing planning process to answer remaining environmental and
technical questions, requiring periodic updates at the time further
congressional authorizations are requested.
7. Problem:--The bill acknowledges the need for but does not
provide a full and equal partnership between the State and Federal
Governments.
Fix:--In addition to deleting provisions by which Federal
allocation of water preempts state law, the bill should provide for (1)
equal cost sharing of the C&S Florida project including construction of
project components and operations and maintenance and (2) equal
decisionmaking for operating protocols in PIR agreements.
8. Problem:--Compliance with water quality requirements is not
ensured.
Fix:--Require that, prior to authorization, project components
include features necessary to ensure that all discharges meet
applicable water quality standards and water quality permitting
requirements.
Mr. Keck. Please allow me to name these, just knowing in
the first panel this morning, there was some question: Florida
Farm Bureau, Gulf Citrus Growers Association, Sunshine State
Milk Producers, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association;
Florida Fertilizer and Agri-Chemical Association, Florida Sugar
Cane League, Inc., Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida,
Miami-Dade County Farm Bureau, Palm Beach County Farm Bureau,
Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau, and Lake Worth Drainage
District.
We responded to Senator Graham and Senator Mack's staff who
asked for a response to the Administration's proposal. Through
a series of meetings, phone calls, faxes, e-mails, we came up
with our core eight concerns with the Administration's bill.
Let me start by saying that all of the groups do support
the plan; that is, the plan that was submitted to Congress in
April 1999. However, the implementation of that plan, which of
course was not subject to review by the groups is what we
primarily have the difference with.
Florida ag participated extensively in that Federal/State
Restudy process that produced that plan, and we expect to
continue to participate in that process, just to make that
clear to the committee. We are prepared to support major
improvements to the water management system.
However, we believe that the importance of the Everglades
restoration and the other vital project purposes demand that
project modifications be based on, and this is no secret, sound
science, be the product of objective analysis, and be
implemented in an orderly way. All of this is hopefully to
ensure that the needs of our growers, landowners, and
businesses are met.
Because of the precedent setting nature, the policy issues
raised by S. 2437 should be the concern of every member,
obviously, of this committee, as well as the Congress. Because
the plan is the first large Federal water project with
ecosystem restoration as its primary objective, we see this
being modeled perhaps throughout the country, in other areas of
environmental distress.
Our profound disappointment with the Administration's bill
makes us hope that the committee can start with a fresh
beginning, and that the committee does not feel bound or tied
to the Administration's approach.
We see the problems in the Administration continually at
this table, seeking to insist on the projects with no
feasibility studies, and ultimately, the Administration
attempts to undo the balanced purposes of the existing CS&F
project.
Moving on to our top three specifics, the bill eliminates
the balanced purposes of the existing modified CS&F project
that were affirmed in the WRDA 1996. So to have that Section
528 of WRDA 1996 reinserted into this committee's product would
be a real high priority for us.
We think the balanced purposes that tie into the assurances
language in that we advocate that the Feds enter into
agreements with the State, as to what benefits will
specifically come out of out each project; what water
quantities will specifically come out of each project; and
where those will be channeled. We think that these balanced
purposes can get reflected, or I should say, would subsume the
assurances issue.
Second, we really have concerns about this committee giving
blanket authorizations, and not project-by-project
authorizations. I think ultimately your constituencies and
taxpayers who will look for things like flood protection
ultimately will not favor such a process that has a blanket
authorization.
And, of course, my written testimony lists some of the
other concerns, but I point out those as priorities. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Keck.
Mr. Guggenheim?
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID GUGGENHEIM, PRESIDENT, THE CONSERVANCY
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, CO-CHAIR, THE EVERGLADES COALITION
Mr. Guggenheim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. I
am David Guggenheim, the Florida Co-Chair of the Everglades
Coalition, and President and CEO of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida in Naples.
I am representing the Everglades Coalition, which is 40
national, State, and local organizations, working together on
behalf of protecting and restoring the Everglades.
I first want to acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, your leadership
and your very eloquent remarks following the previous panel. It
is very much appreciated. And Senator Graham, of course, your
ongoing leadership on this issue is also very much appreciated.
Today, America's Everglades are this Nation's most
endangered ecosystem. Our lack of foresight over the past
century has resulted in a devastated ecosystem, threatening not
only the wildlife that lives within it, but also a way of life
for millions in South Florida, who call South Florida and will
call South Florida their home.
Today, the status quo represents the greatest risk to the
Everglades ecosystem and to taxpayers. We are pushing the
ecosystem and the endangered species that live there to the
brink with unknown consequences. With every passing day,
restoration becomes more uncertain and more expensive.
Severe habitat loss and fragmentation of that habitat
throughout South Florida continues at a very rapid pace,
threatening 68 species, including the Florida panther, the wood
stork, the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, among many others. And
these species continue to decline.
We have disrupted fresh waterflows, which has led to too
little fresh water in some cases, and too much fresh water in
others. And it is a profoundly tragic irony that in a system
that is often terribly thirsty for water, we have also managed
to make fresh water a pollutant.
Just earlier this week, Lee County has filed an injunction,
or has moved forward to file an injunction, against the Water
Management District concerning excessive fresh waterflows down
the Caloosahatchee, as an attempt to reduce water levels in
Lake Okeechobee. And I think that just very dramatically
illustrates how the system is being operated under emergency
conditions. And we are trading impacts in one part of an
ecosystem for impacts in another on a regular basis.
I think, Mr. Chairman, as you stated earlier today, we do
need to act this year. This is the year of the Everglades. And
like you, the Coalition strongly believes that Congress should
move forward this year to enact legislation that truly results
in the restoration of America's Everglades.
We believe that the Restoration Plan submitted by the
Corps. clearly contains numerous strong points. For example,
the legislation appropriately establishes the priority of
restoring the ecosystem first, with water supply and flood
protection goals concurrent but subsidiary.
The legislation also includes initial authorization of 10
projects that will provide critical benefits for the natural
system. However, the coalition believes that the legislation
should be improved in a number of areas to ensure that it
achieves its intent of restoring the Everglades.
We have a couple of overarching comments, and then eight
very specific and brief comments about the legislation.
First, as I mentioned, the legislation contains 10 specific
projects for authorization. The Everglades Coalition believes
approval of all 10 of these is absolutely essential. These
projects were specifically chosen for their ability in concert
to provide significant restoration benefits within the first
decade of this restoration effort.
Included in that list of 10 projects is the Talisman Water
Storage Reservoir. This project represents one of the highest
priorities, in our opinion, because it begins the process of
recapturing water and seasonally storing water that is
currently wasted.
It will provide immediate relief from the current crisis
conditions by giving water managers the very badly needed
flexibility to manage that water. And this directly relates to
the issue with Lee County.
We also have eight specific and brief comments on the
legislation. First and foremost, this effort is about restoring
the ecosystem. The principal goal is to restore the natural
functioning of the greater Everglades ecosystem. And this
project also has secondary benefits of flood control and water
supply, which must be compatible with the principal goal.
No. 2, the Department of Interior and the Corps. must be
co-equal partners in developing the design, plan, and
regulations for at least those new project features that are
intended to provide benefits for federally managed lands.
No. 3, the authorization should institutionalize the peer
review process led by the National Academy of Sciences, to
review and provide recommendations to the agencies on a
restoration process for its entire duration.
Such a body would also provide Congress with an independent
source of expertise, and enable it to better evaluate the
progress of restoration and its associated activities. And that
also includes the development of performance measures.
No. 4, the authorization should include a process that will
ensure the coordination of other Federal actions in and around
the Everglades ecosystem with regard to the restoration effort.
It is counter-productive to have other Federal agencies working
at odds with each other. And I think such a provision could
have avoided the conflict that we are now experiencing with
regard to the Homestead Air Force Base.
No. 5, there should be no irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources to the project that rely upon pilot
projects for their justification. For example, the development
of land in the L-31N project area should not proceed until the
completion of the pilot project in that critical project
feature.
No. 6, the authorization should be crystal clear about what
benefits it intends to provide for America's Everglades. This
will ensure that this bill to restore the Everglades actually
will restore the Everglades.
No. 7, the authorization should provide a process to
expeditiously purchase lands necessary for wildlife habitat and
projects that are under extreme development pressure in and
around the ecosystem.
Finally, the authorization should require agency reports to
Congress concerning the progress of the restoration every 2
years, not every 5 years, as currently proposed. The 2-year
report requirement would be consistent with the WRDA cycle, and
enable more engaged and effective review by Congress and the
National Academy of Sciences.
Summer camp gets under way at the Conservancy in about 2
weeks. It is a time when I reflect on education. And, Mr.
Chairman, as you mentioned earlier, this is very much about the
next generation.
Many of these kids are rather disturbed to hear that when I
was their age, the Everglades were in trouble, and that they
are still in trouble today. And I think it is a commitment that
we owe them and their children.
We have a tremendous opportunity before us. We stand at the
brink of a point in time where we can truly restore America's
Everglades. And our success depends on swift and decisive
action this year.
On behalf of the Everglades Coalition, thank you for the
opportunity to speak, and thank you again for your leadership
on this issue.
Senator Smith. Thank you for your testimony, Dr.
Guggenheim.
Senator Graham, you may go ahead, if you have some
questions.
Senator Graham. Well, I come back to the continuing issue
of whether there is a sufficient amount of detail in the Corps.
plan to justify moving forward this year.
Mr. Keck, there are 10 specific projects that are being
recommended for authorization to proceed. Are there any of
those 10 projects that you think are mature enough to justify
going forward?
Mr. Keck. Senator, yes, but in many cases, and this is the
problem with blanket authorization, many of the feasibility
studies have not even begun, as of today.
So if I am looking to plan investments or capital as a
citrus grower, then I might be concerned if I picked up my
paper and saw that there could be something happening in a
certain area, for instance, land purchases for reservoirs, et
cetera. It might damage or not help my planning process as a
businessman.
Senator Graham. Well, there are 10 specific projects
outlined in the legislation, the first of which is the C-44
basin storage reservoir. And as Ms. Doyle indicated, most of
the 10, or at least a majority of the 10, are similar to that,
in that they are water storage purposes.
I am not certain whether it was you or Dr. Guggenheim that
mentioned that there may well be a suit now by Lee County
against the South Florida Water Management District. As I
understand it, the basis of that suit is that the Water
Management District had so much water stored in Lake Okeechobee
that it was having an adverse effect on the habitat of the lake
and the fish in the lake.
And, therefore, they released water out of Lake Okeechobee.
Under the current options, they had a limited number of places
to release it.
One of those is down the Caloosahatchee River. It ends up
in Lee County. As it has done many times in the past, it caused
environmental damage by having that surge of fresh water hit
the salt water. Bad things have happened, and it may now end up
in more litigation.
So there are 10 of these projects, of which several,
including that first one, have as their specific objective to
try to avoid those kind of surge releases. So there is some
sense of urgency to get on with those projects so we do not
have more examples in Lee County, on the Gulf Coast, and around
the Steward area on the East Coast being affected by these
surge releases.
So I guess the question is, taking that first one, the C-44
basin storage reserve or reservoir, do you feel that one is
mature enough that the Congress could proceed in 2000 to
authorize that project?
Mr. Keck. As long as there was some provision, perhaps, to
come back to the Congress when feasibility has been better
explored or nailed down.
Senator Graham. I wonder if you might suggest what you
think would be a set of sort of gates that should be erected
between authorization and actual proceeding to either purchase
land or commence design or start construction that should be
created. And on these 10 projects, if you could almost rate
them as to which ones you think are closet to being mature, and
those that are the furthest away from being ready to be
authorized.
Mr. Keck. And Senator, on that latter part of your
question, I would ask to submit that for the record at a later
point, just with more specificity.
The Restudy submitted to the Congress back in April had a
definition of PIRS that is very different from the bill that
the Administration presents to this committee today. So in
other words, I would ask this committee and the committee staff
to go back to the Restudy, itself. Because we are very
confident that that PIR system that we all agreed to would be
ideal.
Mr. Guggenheim. I think we are discussing two issues here.
One deals with the process. And it is the view of the Coalition
obviously, that there is extreme urgency to take action.
We also respect the need for congressional oversight. And
we would just ask, respectfully that however Congress decides
to solve this issue, it not be an excuse to hold up
authorization this year; that there is some sort of set of
oversight that can be achieved to allow these projects to move
forward.
The other issue that is, I think, embedded in this
discussion is the one of scientific uncertainty. You know,
speaking as a scientist, I should be the one that says we
should do more studying. But at the same time, there is a
practical side of this. And I think we run the risk, quite
literally, of studying the Everglades to death.
We need to take action, which means that there is
uncertainty in the Comprehensive Restoration Plan. The first
thing is, how do we evaluate whether the plan is going to work?
I heard Senator Baucus ask that question earlier.
Well, in order to get a grasp on the success, the Corps.
has simulated the behavior of the system under different
strategies through computer modeling. And as a modeler, myself,
that is something that I understand and appreciate.
There are two fundamental questions that I ask, when I look
at a computer model. The first question is, is this a robust
system? In other words, as you tweak different variables in the
system, will the whole house of cards fall apart?
Well, the Corps. convinced me that this is a robust system;
that it is not fragile in that sense, and would not fall apart
immediately, if things did not turn out quite the way we
planned.
Second is, is the model flexible? Is the system being
modeled flexibly? When we apply this in the real world, the
real world is always somewhat different than the computer
simulated world.
Will the system provide flexibility, for example, to store
more water in one location than in another, as we had
originally assumed? And the answer is, yes. Those two
components, the robustness and the flexibility, are underlying
components. And that gives us some reassurance that as we deal
with this uncertainty, that we can move forward.
The real key is then in the role of the peer review panel.
The peer review panel has a very important role. And that is to
make sure that the goals of the restoration are translated into
some meaningful performance targets for congressional
oversight, so that we can evaluate where we are at each step of
the way, and make sure that this project is, indeed, doing what
it is supposed to do.
I think they would be working closely with the Corps. and
overseeing very closely what the Corps. does along those lines.
Senator Smith. Mr. Guggenheim, this is a big assumption,
but assuming the results of the waste water pilot project are
good, do you favor putting this advance treated waste water
into the natural system?
Mr. Guggenheim. It is not an ideal solution. But I think we
would have to look carefully at the water quality. That is
ultimately what matters to the system. We are talking about an
ecosystem that relies on exceptionally low levels of nutrients.
We would prefer a means of getting water to the system that
does not involve using waste water. But it could be conceivably
acceptable. But I think we would need to look at that
carefully.
Senator Smith. You would need to take a look at it
carefully, yes. I feel the same way.
I want to ask you the same question I asked the previous
panel. As you know, the Administration proposal changes or
basically substitutes natural system for ecosystem. Well, let
me just read it back for you, in case you did not hear it.
Under WRDA 1996, ``The Secretary shall develop a plan for
the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the South
Florida ecosystem.'' That was in the agreement that came to us
in April or July 1999. And then the language is changed in the
Administration proposal to say, ``The overarching purpose of
the plan is to protect, preserve, and restore the natural
system.''
I would assume that you would probably prefer the later
language. But is the first language acceptable to you, at least
in terms of getting the project started? I know it was,
initially, but have you changed your position?
Mr. Guggenheim. I do not believe we have changed our
position on that at all, no. If you are talking about the WRDA
1996 language, then we are comfortable with that.
Senator Smith. Because I think the Army Corps. or someone
on the panel, when I asked that question, said, well, you know,
things change. But I do not know that anything specific was
brought up.
I am not trying to entrap anybody here. I am just trying to
get my own understanding, as we try to work this through, as to
what the thought process was at the time.
Mr. Keck, again, going back to the April Restudy, the 10
initial projects that were authorized there, that is prior to
the PIRs being completed. You know, agriculture was part of
this, and it was a unanimous agreement. Do you still stand
behind all of the agreement that was made in the April Restudy?
Mr. Keck. I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, that
agriculture did not have, nor did any other party have, a
chance to agree on the chapter on implementation. So the
overall plan, the concept, the theory, yes, agreement was
there. But just keep that in mind as your committee goes
forward.
Senator Smith. OK, I am a little fuzzy on the details of
the details of the condition of Talisman lease. Your testimony,
Dr. Guggenheim, was excellent.
I wish we could show it, for the benefit of those who are
watching on camera. But the location of that area of the
Talisman property, of course, just south of Okeechobee, is very
important to the whole study, which is why that is the prime
piece of property that is in dispute here.
Mr. Guggenheim. Yes.
Senator Smith. But Mr. Keck, do you know the details of
that lease? In other words, can you tell me the agriculture
interest in paying to lease the land; and what, if any,
problems will occur if you are asked to vacate, in accordance
with that lease agreement?
Mr. Keck. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the details of that.
I would not be able to speak to that. But certainly we would be
able to provide from the record, from the ag groups.
Senator Smith. All right, we will take that for the record.
Of course, if the sugar industry were here to testify, they
could answer that question, which is also regrettable.
Mr. Keck. But I might point out, this militates perhaps a
shored up EIR process, as is in the Restudy. Perhaps some of
these things might be avoided at this point.
Senator Smith. Does anyone else have any other comment that
you wish to make, that we may have omitted or left out, or do
you want to respond to anything else?
Mr. Guggenheim. I would just add on that issue of the
Talisman Tract that another element here that underscores the
urgency of acting this year is the fact that there are some
notification requirements in the contract for those lands that
are currently leased by the agricultural interests. And those
notification requirements are such that notification must be
given by October, 2002.
If not, then the lease would continue for another 3 years.
And that would continue to delay the process of getting
restoration under way and using those lands. So there is some
very real, immediate pressure to move forward with the Talisman
property.
Senator Smith. As I understand it, that had ample public
comment, correct?
Mr. Guggenheim. I believe so.
Senator Smith. I do not have any further questions.
Do you have any further questions for this panel, Senator
Graham?
Senator Graham. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Well, let me thank the panel very much for
taking the time to come up here. We appreciate it.
Mr. Guggenheim. Thank you very much.
Senator Smith. At this point, I would just say that the
record will be kept open until the end of business tomorrow for
any Senators that might wish to ask questions of any witnesses.
And if you could provide the information on the lease for the
record, Mr. Keck, I would appreciate it.
I want to thank everyone in the audience. At this point,
the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia
I join my colleagues in welcoming you to the Committee this
morning. The restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem, and
particularly the restoration of our national parks and wildlife refuges
in the area, is an enormous job that will require a strong Federal,
state local Government and private sector partnership.
As I look at the magnitude of the Federal commitment the Congress
is being asked to approve, I the issues in this way.
First, we must be sure that the science fully supports the
investment of Federal dollars. We must know that projects we build will
work.
Second, we must be sure that the Congress fully exercises its
responsibilities to examine the technical, economic and environmental
merits of each of the individual construction projects before they are
authorized for construction.
Third, we must be sure that Federal funds are used to restore the
natural system, particularly our Federal projects, and not use limited
Federal funds to accelerate growth and development in South Florida.
Those are not Federal responsibilities.
Fourth, we must develop a reasonable implementation schedule for
the restoration plan, recognizing that there are many critical water
resource needs across this nation ranging from navigation, lock and dam
improvements which are critical to moving American's manufacturing
goods and farm products to worldwide markets. The efficient
transportation of these goods is essential if we are to compete in a
one-world market.
__________
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to review the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
The Everglades are one of our nation's most important natural
treasures and we have a responsibility as a nation to preserve them,
just as we do the national parks in New Jersey and elsewhere.
Senator Graham has done an outstanding job in bringing the
Everglades to the attention of our Committee.
The Everglades of today are not the same place that they were in
1947. I think we can all agree that restoration of the Everglades is
necessary. The current predicament of the Everglades is due in large
part to mistakes that were made because we lacked the knowledge we have
today about the harm that humans can impose on the natural environment.
But we must be cautious not to compound one man-made problem with
another.
During the past 52 years Congress has selected choices for the
Everglades based on the state of the science at the time. I am pleased
to see that the Plan before us has sufficient flexibility to address
new information obtained during the Implementation process. I just want
to raise a few concerns.
First, how do we assure that the so-called ``new'' water captured
under the plan will be provided to the environment in a quantity
sufficient to restore the Everglades and ensure that it thrives? I was
astounded to learn that, on average, 1.7 billion gallons of water that
once flowed through the ecosystem is wasted every day through
discharges to the ocean and gulf.
So I'm concerned that, as the demands for water increase in the
future, we have protections in place to ensure that the needs of the
plants and animals will continue to be met.
Secondly, how can we justify the 40-60 cost sharing for Operation
and Maintenance of this project? Usually, operations and maintenance
costs are the sole responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor.
In my state, the Port users and the State of New Jersey are paying
100 percent of the costs of similar public works projects in good
faith. I look forward to learning more about this funding arrangement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
Statement of Hon. Jeb Bush, Governor, State of Florida
Chairman Smith, Senator Baucus, Senator Graham and members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak about one of our
true national treasures, America's Everglades. Thank you also to
Senator Mack for making the special effort to join us. I would like to
have my extended written statement included in the record.
I am here to bring you some good news, some hard truths and a
challenge. This year, together, we will begin the massive, yet
necessary, undertaking of restoring the Everglades. Restoring America's
Everglades builds on the very American ideal that there are unique
landscapes that we as a nation believe are worth preserving. It is also
an ideal that is now worthy of action.
First, the good news. Last Friday, Florida concluded its annual
legislative session. I can proudly report to the Congress that our
commitment to the Everglades is solid. In fact, it is more than solid.
As of next Tuesday, it will be the law. As part of our State budget,
the Florida Legislature has appropriated an unprecedented level of
funding to begin the implementation of the Restudy more than $136
million in the first year alone. These dollars will be matched by local
governments and the South Florida Water Management District for a total
of $221 million to begin this important work.
Next week, I will be joined in South Florida by Federal, State and
local leaders to sign into law Florida's Everglades Restoration
Investment Act--a measure that passed the Florida Senate and House of
Representatives unanimously. With this new law, Florida will contribute
over $2 billion to the Restudy project over the next 10 years. It will
not only codify our long-term monetary commitment to the Everglades,
but will create the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund that will enable
Florida to save money for peak spending years on the horizon. No other
State has made such a substantial financial commitment to a project yet
to be authorized by the Federal Government.
Second, the hard truths. This is not the first time Florida has
``gone first.'' Since 1983, when then-Governor Bob Graham created the
Save Our Everglades program, the State of Florida has spent over $2.3
billion and acquired more than 1 million acres of land to avoid further
destruction and degradation of the River of Grass. All of this is to
say that the time has come for a legitimate and equal partnership with
the Federal Government. I believe this project will require Washington
to think anew. Too often in the past, partnerships of this nature
between Federal and State governments have been anything but
partnerships. At their worst, they have been master/servant
arrangements. The Administration's bill that you are considering here
today is a particularly egregious example of this. What had been a
consensus plan among all the parties both State and Federal for
restoring the Everglades would be recast. The Administration's bill
seeks to redefine the project purpose; to establish Federal agencies as
principal managers of South Florida's water resources; and to be the
sole arbiter of differences. We must rebalance the relationship into a
true and equal partnership.
Water Resources Development Act projects typically require a 20 or
30 percent financial commitment from the States. Yet Florida now stands
ready to deliver with a 50 percent commitment. In exchange, we seek a
new structure of governance. Because of the importance of this project
and the enormity of the task ahead, Florida believes that it should be
on equal footing with the Federal Government not only in terms of
financing, but in managing, governing and operating this project.
Working as equal partners not only makes business sense, but also
makes for good public policy. Disputes will be resolved quickly and
fairly. Opportunities for cost savings will be more readily identified
and pursued. And both partners will reap the benefits of cooperation
and consensus.
Finally, the challenge. Florida needs your commitment. It is
apparent that Americans across the country support restoring the
America's Everglades the same way we have protected Yellowstone and the
Grand Canyon. Foremost, we need to put Washington's financial
commitment on the table. Congress should not delay in providing funding
to match dollar for dollar Florida's commitment. Congress should also
pass a stand-alone Everglades Bill, one that demonstrates your own
dedication to this endeavor. And Congress should, in cooperation with
the Administration and Florida, craft a project authorization that for
the first time puts Florida and the Federal Government on equal
footing.
With this commitment from Washington, our Federal, State and local
governments will protect 68 federally endangered species that call
America's Everglades home. We will recapture the 1.7 billion gallons of
water that are now channeled out to sea and use it to help restore
natural systems. And we will, in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt,
continue America's legacy of stewardship.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let your own legacy be
that of saving America's Everglades. All of the elements are in place.
All that remains is your steadfast response. First through
authorization, then through appropriation. We have done everything
possible to make it easy for you to say yes. The State of Florida is
now ready and willing to be your partner to restore America's
Everglades.
Thank you Chairman Smith for your leadership.
______
Additional Statement Submitted by Governor Jeb Bush
federal resources at risk
The Central and Southern Florida Project was authorized by the U.S.
Congress over 50 years ago to provide flood protection and fresh water
to south Florida. The Federal project:
Encompasses 18,000 square miles;
Covers 16 counties; and
Includes 1,000 miles of canals, 720 miles of levees, and
almost 200 water control structures.
These alterations accomplished their intended purpose, but at
tremendous ecological cost to America's Everglades.
There are numerous Federal trust resources now at risk in the south
Florida ecosystem because of the construction of the Central and
Southern Florida Project, including:
Everglades National Park;
Biscayne Bay National Park;
Big Cypress National Preserve;
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge;
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge;
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge; and
Sixty-eight endangered or threatened plant and animal
species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including the
Florida Panther and West Indian Manatee.
These Federal interests are threatened because alterations to the
natural system have resulted in the following:
A reduction of approximately 70 percent less water
flowing into the Everglades today than during the 1800's;
High nutrients entering the ecosystem from the watersheds
to the north;
A disruption of the timing and duration of water in the
natural Everglades, Lake Okeechobee and coastal estuaries; and
A reduction or elimination of habitat.
the comprehensive everglades restoration plan
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan provides the
framework for restoring and protecting America's treasure the
Everglades. The Restoration Plan will restore the natural hydroperiod
of the south Florida ecosystem, disrupted by the Central and Southern
Florida Project, by addressing four fundamental issues: the quantity,
quality, timing, and distribution of water.
The Restoration Plan now before Congress will result in the
recovery of a healthy, sustainable Everglades ecosystem by restoring
the major characteristics that defined the historic Everglades its
large size and its interconnected water system. By removing many miles
of levees and canals and capturing water currently funneled to sea, the
Restoration Plan will reestablish the essential defining features of
the historic Everglades over large portions of the remaining area.
The basic approach of the Restoration Plan is to capture 1.7
billion gallons of water per day that on average go to the ocean
because of over-drainage by the Central and Southern Florida Project.
The stored water will be used to the benefit of the natural system and
other water-related needs of the regions. Some of the benefits are:
Water will be stored in surface and underground storage
areas until it is needed to supply the natural system as well as urban
and agricultural needs.
The timing and distribution of water to the ecosystem
will be modified to more closely approximate pre-drainage patterns.
Wetlands-based stormwater treatment areas will be built
to improve the quality of water discharged into the natural system.
Many miles of levees and canals will be removed to
improve the connectivity of natural areas.
The Restoration Plan is remarkably sound. It balances environmental
restoration, water supply, and flood control.
benefits of restoration
Implementation of the Restoration Plan will:
Improve the health of over 2.4 million acres of the south
Florida ecosystem, including Everglades National Park and other
federally and State managed lands;
Improve the health of Lake Okeechobee;
Virtually eliminate damaging fresh water releases to the
estuaries;
Improve water deliveries to Florida and Biscayne Bays;
Improve water quality;
Enhance water supply and maintain flood protection; and
Provide enough water for the ecosystem and urban and
agricultural users by the year 2050.
florida's commitment to the everglades
The State of Florida's long-standing commitment to the Everglades
dates back to 1947 when the State donated the majority of the lands to
the Federal Government for what is now Everglades National Park. Since
that initial donation, Florida has:
Spent $3.3 billion on land, restoration, and protection
activities in the south Florida ecosystem;
Acquired almost 3.4 million acres of conservation land in
the Everglades ecosystem;
Donated nearly 43,000 acres of land to the National Park
Service in the Everglades National Park expansion area;
Acquired and contributed or leased to the Federal
Government:
908,931 acres in Everglades National Park;
237,287 acres in the Big Cypress National Preserve;
144,842 acres in the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge;
74,139 acres in Biscayne Bay National Park; and
Acquired, for future transfer to the National Park
Service, approximately 20 percent of the 146,117 acre Big Cypress
National Preserve Expansion Area; and
Established a 10-year funding plan that provides over $2
billion of State and local sources to fund Florida's share of
Everglades restoration costs.
summary
In closing, the Restoration Plan has broad support from Federal,
State, tribal and local governments, environmentalists, industry,
public utilities, and the agriculture community. It is a comprehensive
solution for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and flood control.
The State of Florida is ready, willing and waiting to forge a new,
complete partnership with the Federal Government to protect national
interests by restoring America's Everglades.
______
Responses by Governor Jeb Bush to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. Can you please comment on the State's position
regarding assurances language and what the State would alternatively
propose as a mechanism to assure the natural system is the primary
beneficiary of this plan?
Response. The Administration's proposed language deviates from the
primary purposes of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and is
not consistent with the assurances language in the Comprehensive Plan.
The assurances language as proposed by the Administration's bill
provides only for the natural system and precludes the other water-
related needs of the region. The proposed language also fails to
recognize that Florida water law provides full protection of natural
systems through the establishment of minimum flows and levels and
reservations. We believe that authorizing legislation should not
undermine protective Florida water law. The State of Florida proposes
language that clarifies the water for the natural system will be
managed to meet the natural systems spatial and temporal needs, but
does not limit dedication and management to just the natural system.
The State's approach is to require the Project Implementation Reports
(PIR) to identify new water made available from each project component
for the natural system and other water uses and then implement water
reservations for the natural system and allocations for other water
uses in accordance with State law.
Question 2. Are you supportive of the project component that would
take advanced treated wastewater and return it to the natural system?
Response. There are two project components that reclaim advanced
treated wastewater for restoration purposes. The State of Florida is a
leader nationally in the beneficial uses of reclaimed wastewater.
However, any discharge of wastewater into surface waters will require
advanced treatment and will be subject to rigorous regulatory
requirements. The State will continue to work with the Army Corps of
Engineers to investigate other sources of water for natural system
restoration, but we still consider reuse water a viable option for
restoration purposes.
Question 3. Can you describe the Everglades funding measure that
just passed the Florida State legislature?
Response. The Legislature established a 10 year funding plan that
provides over $2 billion of State and local sources of funds for the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The legislation also
establishes a dedicated trust fund to invest funds for future peak
funding years and to accrue interests that will be reinvested in the
restoration effort. The Florida Legislature appropriated the first year
contribution of $105 million. This is the first time a State has ever
made such a commitment of this magnitude prior to Federal
authorization.
Question 4. On March 2 and 3, the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida unanimously approved the version of the Plan
that became the April 1999 Restudy. Ken Keck of Florida Citrus Mutual
testified that the members of the Governor's Commission did not have a
vote on the implementation of the Plan. This is contrary to what
Section 10 of the Restudy says, as well as what the minutes of the
meeting document. Can you clarify?
Response. The Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida
unanimously approved a report in support of the Implementation Plan and
provided recommended assurances language to the Army Corps of Engineers
with no dissenting votes (as documented by the Governor's Commission
for a Sustainable South Florida meeting minutes dated March 3, 1999).
Roll call votes were not taken during Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida meetings. Instead, there was a call for
dissenting votes.
Question 5. As you know, it is the non-Federal sponsor's
responsibility to purchase land. What would the impact be on the land
acquisition process in Florida if the Federal Government did not
authorize the initial suite of ten projects this year?
Response. This is not a typical Water Resources Development Act
project and we challenge the traditional Federal and non-Federal
project responsibilities. The State of Florida seeks a true 50/50
partnership that would allow for the Federal Government to share in the
cost of lands and correspondingly allow the non-Federal project sponsor
share in the design and construction of project components. Having said
that, the State of Florida has already acquired large areas needed and
has a plan that ensures that the State of Florida and South Florida
Water Management District will continue to buy land for restoration
purposes in South Florida. However, in order to meet the timetables set
forth in the implementation plan, the local sponsor is expected to
purchase $750 million worth of land in the first 3 years alone. Without
an authorized project, this puts the local sponsor at great financial
risk to invest this sum of money with no guarantee that there will be
any Federal participation.
Question 6. Are there other important reasons to move forward with
authorization of this initial set of ten projects this year? Can you
describe what the impacts of delay would mean for the ecosystem?
Response. Performance measures developed to determine the
effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan indicate that implementation
will provide phenomenal restoration results. Most areas of the
remaining natural system will have their natural hydroperiods restored.
The coastal estuaries will be protected from the frequent catastrophic
releases of excess freshwater that currently occur about every 3 years.
If authorization is delayed, there is a high probability that
catastrophic harm will continue to Lake Okeechobee, the coastal
estuaries, and the Everglades Protection Area.
Question 7. Would you be supportive of a safeguard mechanism,
perhaps comparable to the process Congress approved in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1999 for the Challenge 21 program, which
would allow these projects to be authorized, but give the Congress
appropriate oversight?
Response. The appropriations process will exert the ultimate
authority regarding the level of the Federal Government's participation
in Everglades restoration. Our hope is the Federal Government will
remain a full partner from the beginning to the end of the entire
restoration process. From a practical perspective, Project
Implementation Reports (PIR) approved by the Secretary of the Army
prior to construction will be a useful way for Congress to track and
assess progress. However, we are receptive to appropriate congressional
oversight of Federal agency participation as long as it does not cause
delays in implementation.
______
Responses by Governor Jeb Bush to Additional Questions from Senator
Crapo
Question 1. Does the State of Florida consider any part of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as establishing new or
additional Federal water rights or altering State water sovereignty?
Does the State of Florida believe that the plan will result in
increased Federal control of water in the State?
Response. The Comprehensive Plan does not establish new or
additional water rights or alter State water sovereignty; however, the
proposed Administration's bill would. The Administration's proposal is
unacceptable to the State. We have provided alternative ``assurances''
language to committee staff that recognizes Florida water law, which
provides protection of natural systems through the establishment of
minimum flows and levels and reservations. We strongly believe that
authorizing legislation should not undermine protective Florida water
law. The State of Florida's approach is to require the Project
Implementation Reports (PIR) to identify new water made available from
each project component for the natural system and other water uses and
then implement water reservations for the natural system and
allocations for other water uses in accordance with State law.
Question 2. Should the State of Florida take the lead in
coordinating and managing the plan to eliminate any potential conflicts
or duplication of activities by State, Federal, local, and tribal
authorities?
Response. The State seeks to be a full and equal partner in
implementation of the plan and will continue to work with the Army
Corps of Engineers to improve cooperative project implementation. In a
business sense, the State of Florida welcomes the opportunity to serve
as the managing partner in the implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Question 3. Can a restoration plan that does not infringe upon the
agricultural community's future water allocation rights be successful?
If yes, how can this be managed? If no, why not?
Response. Yes. The Federal legislation should require the Secretary
of the Army to ensure that the implementation of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, including physical or operational
modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project, will not
interfere with existing legal water uses and will not adversely impact
existing levels of service for flood protection or water use. The plan
can be implemented in a way that provides assurances to existing users
that their existing water supply will not be eliminated or transferred
from existing legal sources of water supply, including those for
agricultural water supply, water for Everglades National Park and the
preservation of fish and wildlife, until new sources of water supply of
comparable quantity and quality are available to replace the water to
be lost from existing sources.
______
Responses by Governor Jeb Bush to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we move forward with this project?
Response. The performance measures demonstrate that essentially
every part of the natural system from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay
will show dramatic improvements. Conditions will be improved for the
recovery of large wading bird populations. Populations of endangered
species including the wood stork, snail kite, Cape Sable seaside
sparrow, and American crocodile will benefit from the improved habitat
as a result of the recommended plan. We also expect great improvements
in water quality throughout the system.
Question 2. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we do not move forward with this project?
Response. If we do not move forward, the evaluation tools used in
the Restudy indicate that virtually every part of the natural system
will decline and be imperiled in the year 2050. Without Plan
implementation, there will be widespread water shortages throughout the
entire South Florida region causing negative effects on the economy of
Florida and the Nation.
Question 3. Can you describe the Everglades funding bill, which you
introduced and which passed the Florida legislature on Friday?
Response. The Florida Legislature established a 10 year funding
plan that provides over $2 billion of State and local sources of funds
for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The legislation also
establishes a dedicated trust fund to invest funds for future peak
funding years and to accrue interests that will be reinvested in the
restoration effort. The Florida Legislature appropriated the first year
contribution of $105 million. This is the first time a State has ever
made such a commitment of this magnitude prior to Federal
authorization.
Question 4. How will the Lake Okeechobee legislation that passed
the Florida legislature last week impact the water quality in the Lake?
Response. The Lake Okeechobee legislation commits the State to a
long-term effort to construct new stormwater containment and treatment
structures and to better control phosphorous at its source. The water
containment and treatment structures are also project components of the
Restudy. The legislation provides the State's funding for two of the
treatment areas and provides a schedule for the construction of the
remaining stormwater treatment areas. As the headwaters of the
Everglades, the cleanup of Lake Okeechobee is critical to its
restoration. This year's approved State budget includes $38 million for
Lake Okeechobee restoration projects. Of the $38 million, $8 million
are for acquiring lands to be used to construct Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan projects and will be credited to the local
sponsor as part of the Federal match requirements.
Question 5. Can you elaborate on the State's plan for ensuring that
the quantities of water generated by the Restudy meet water quality
standards for their intended uses?
Response. The Department of Environmental Protection is an active
member of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Team. Our
strategy from the beginning has been to actively participate on the
implementation team and through this participation, demand the
incorporation of water quality features into the design of each and
every Restudy project component. We also stand committed to permit the
construction and operation of the individual project components only if
the Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District
can provide reasonable assurance that the structures will meet all
water quality standards.
Question 6. Do you feel that the Administration's language
accurately reflects the purpose of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan as set forth in WRDA 1996?
Response. The Administration's language dramatically deviates from
the primary purposes of Water Resources Development Act of 1996. There
was broad support for the Restudy because the primary purpose was to
restore the natural system while meeting the other water related needs
of the region including enhancing water supplies and flood control. The
Federal draft language skews the purpose to restoration first and the
other water related needs if possible. The State feels strongly that
this is not an either/or scenario and the assurances language should
reflect the consensus approach outlined in the Restudy. The Federal
draft language provides only for the dedication and management of water
for the natural system. The State language clarifies that the water for
the natural system will be managed to meet the natural systems spatial
and temporal needs, but does not limit dedication and management to
just the natural system.
Question 7. What is the State's position on the Administration's
assurances language?
Response. Assurances language by the Administration fails to
recognize Florida water law that provides full protection of natural
systems through the establishment of minimum flows and levels. Federal
legislation should not undermine protective Florida water law. The
Federal draft language provides only for the dedication and management
of water for the natural system. The State prefers the consensus
language that clarifies that the water for the natural system will be
managed to meet the natural systems spatial and temporal needs, but
does not limit dedication and management to just the natural system.
______
Responses by Governor Jeb Bush to Additional Questions from Senator
Mack
Question 1. Do you support applying section 902 of the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act to all features of the Comprehensive Plan
before us today? [This provision requires a congressional review if a
project exceeds 120 percent of authorized cost]
Response. Yes and we seek to find additional ways to control costs
with shared incentives between the Army Corps of Engineers and the
local sponsor.
Question 2. Do you support congressional committee review and
approval of the feasibility level of engineering and design work before
any construction can begin on the initial suite of ten projects in the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. A requirement to have the Project Implementation Reports
(PIR) approved by the Secretary of the Army prior to construction will
meet the State of Florida's oversight needs. We believe the PIR process
provides an efficient review that will keep the Congress informed. If
Congress seeks an additional review and approval role prior to the
participation of Federal agencies involved in the initial ten projects,
our hope is it will not unnecessarily delay their participation in the
restoration effort.
Question 3. Do you support requiring full feasibility studies
before any other projects are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Yes. After authorization of the 10 initial projects,
Project Implementation Reports (PIR) should be detailed and thorough
enough to fulfill the requirements of a full feasibility study.
Question 4. Do you support modifying the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to make clear the system includes the lands and
waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District as they existed on July 1, 1999?
Response. Yes. This change will make clear the precise scope and
boundaries of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Question 5. Do your support a provision making clear the Corps of
Engineers is only authorized to study the question about providing an
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water to the natural system?
Response. We believe the adaptive assessment process will allow for
future refinements to project components and we are committed to
continue to work with the Army Corps an Department of Interior to find
appropriate quantities of water for the natural system. We believe it
is an error to assume the 245,000-acre feet of water identified in the
Chief's Report is the appropriate quantity and source of water.
Question 6. Do you support language making clear that the Corps
must work with the State of Florida to ensure all groundwater
discharges resulting from the Comprehensive Plan meet all applicable
water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements?
Response. Yes and the language should be expanded to authorize
water quality features needed for the implementation of the project
components.
Question 7. Do you support replacing the project purposes language
stated in (c)(1) of the administration's draft with language restating
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan developed and passed in WRDA
1996?
Response. Yes. There was broad support and agreement to the
purposes of WRDA 1996.
Question 8. Do you support additional programmatic authority for
the Corps to construct projects of limited cost but are in keeping with
the Plan's purposes and have independent and substantial benefit to
Everglades restoration?
Response. Yes. Additional programmatic authority will allow the
South Florida Water Management District, who possess an unusual amount
of technical expertise not usually found in Corps project sponsors, to
expedite the planning, engineering and design phase of work for many
project components.
Question 9. Do you support a 50/50 cost share between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operation and maintenance of the
project? If not, please state the cost share you believe to be
appropriate and why.
Response. Yes. The high degree of benefits to Federal trust
resources dictates a 50/50 cost share of operation and maintenance. The
project benefits Federal trust resources such as Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve, Ten Thousand Islands
National Wildlife Refuge, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and
Everglades National Park and many federally listed protected species
are well documented.
Question 10. Please provide your thoughts on the definition of
Project Implementation Reports found in the Administration's language.
Do you support this definition? If not, please provide suggestions as
to how you would define these reports.
Response. The Administration's language narrows the focus and
requirements of a Project Implementation Report. We support the
language that was contained in the April 1999 Final Feasibility Report.
Additionally, language should be added clearly stating that the PIR
will identify new water from each project component that will be made
available for reservations and allocations under State law.
Question 11. Do you believe the Department of Interior and the
State of Florida should be on equal footing in developing any
regulations related to assurances? If not, why?
Response. We do think that new regulations related to assurances
are not necessary or appropriate. The plan to require the Project
Implementation Reports (PIR) to identify new water made available from
each project component for the natural system and other water uses and
then implement water reservations for the natural system and
allocations for other water uses in accordance with State law will
accomplish assurances in a way that does not require new Federal
regulations.
Question 12. Do you support the reporting requirement in the
administration's bill? If not, how would you amend the reporting
requirements?
Response. The reports should be subject to concurrence from the
Governor of the State of Florida.
Responses by Governor Jeb Bush to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. My question is that in view of the fact that during the
1990's the Corps construction appropriation has only averaged $1.6
billion and there are many worthy projects nationally competing for
these dollars, how will the Federal share of this work be funded and
still meet other national needs? Stated another way, is Florida willing
to give up its other Corps Federal funding for beaches, harbors and
flood control in order to have the Federal funds to restore the
Everglades? If not, what is the solution?
Response. The quality of the Florida projects for beach
renourishment, flood protection and harbors stand on their own merit.
We will continue to seek Federal funding for these projects where
appropriate.
The restoration of America's Everglades is an urgent national
priority. A review of historically authorized Corps projects around the
country reveals a long list of projects never constructed and no longer
needed. A formal review with de-authorization of no longer needed
projects may significantly reduce the so-called current backlog.
Question 2. If sufficient Federal appropriations are not
forthcoming is it the State of Florida's intention to use State funds
to make up the shortfall and then seek Federal appropriations to
reimburse the State for the Federal share or stated another way, does
the State intend to pursue a set schedule for Everglades restoration
regardless of the Federal appropriations and then seek reimbursement?
If the implementation of Comprehensive Plan is accomplished largely by
the State of Florida with reimbursement of the Federal share, would the
State be willing to incur a larger than 50 percent share of the project
costs or, stated another way, take less than a full reimbursement?
Response. The State of Florida has already accepted the premise
that it will receive less than full reimbursement for this project.
Most Water Resource Development Act projects are funded at a 70 to 80
percent Federal contribution. Florida has already committed to a full
50 percent share. This is particularly remarkable since there are more
Federal interests affected by Everglades restoration than any other
Corps project around the country. The State of Florida expects the
Federal Government to meet its minimum 50 percent share as a full and
equal partner in implementing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan.
__________
Statement of Patricia Power, Seminole Tribe of Florida
Introduction
The Seminole Tribe welcomes the opportunity to share our views on
the Water Resources and Development Act of 2000 legislation, S. 2437,
with the Environment and Public Works Committee. As you know, we
participated in the committee's Naples field hearing on the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and provided our
general comments on Everglades Restoration and the Federal Government's
plan to achieve restoration of a healthy Everglades through a balanced
approach. While the Tribe is a strong supporter of the CERP, we oppose
the approach proposed by the Administration, as embodied in S. 2437.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida has been an active participant in the
multi-faceted efforts to restore the South Florida Ecosystem. As such,
we have seen the value of our participation to the Tribe in being able
to educate policymakers about the Tribe's concerns and needs. We have
also found value in working with other stakeholders to formulate and
refine policy positions. The Tribe applauds the committee's approach to
developing its legislation by listening to the input of the
stakeholders in Florida, as well as the Federal policy makers. A
program developed though consensus will earn the support of South
Florida and have an improved prospect for successful restoration of the
natural system and stability in flood control and water supply for
South Floridians.
This testimony describes the Tribe's concerns with S. 2437 and
offers alternative approaches to addressing the needs of the South
Florida Ecosystem and the people that populate it. Our general
statements on the CERP still hold and can be applied to an analysis of
S. 2437. The Seminole Tribe believes the restoration should seek to
provide a healthy future for people of Florida, as well as for the
natural environment, including the Everglades, that draws so many more
people to visit and move to South Florida. A balanced approach is
critical to success of the restoration effort.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe lives in the South Florida ecosystem. The Tribe
relies on all aspects of a healthy ecosystem, including the Everglades,
which provide many of our tribal members with their livelihood. Our
traditional Seminole cultural, religious, and recreational activities,
as well as commercial endeavors, are dependent on a healthy South
Florida ecosystem. In fact, the Tribe's identity is so closely linked
to the land that Tribal members believe that if the land dies, so will
the Tribe. During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, the Tribe
found protection in the hostile Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp. But
for this harsh environment filled with sawgrass and alligators, the
Seminole Tribe of Florida would not exist today. Once in the Everglades
and Big Cypress, tribal members learned how to use the natural system
for support without doing harm to the environment that sustained them.
For example, the Seminole native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
cypress logs and palmetto fronds. It protects its inhabitants from sun
and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, tribal leaders
looked to the tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look
to the land, for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as
well. When we looked at the land, we saw the Everglades and supporting
ecosystem in decline. We recognized that we had to help mitigate the
impacts of man on this natural system. At the same time, we
acknowledged that this land must sustain our people, and thereby our
culture. The clear message we heard from our elders and the land was
that we must design a way of life to preserve the land and the Tribe.
Tribal members must be able to work and sustain themselves. We need to
protect our tribal farmers and ranchers.
Seminole Everglades Restoration Projects
Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe has
developed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land and water systems
within our Reservations while ensuring a sustainable future for the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Big Cypress Reservation is the first of
our Reservations for which this plan has been implemented. The Tribe is
in the early stages of developing a plan with similar goals on the
Brighton Reservation.
On Big Cypress, the restoration plan will allow Tribal members to
continue ongoing farming and ranching activities while improving water
quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to large portions of the
native lands on the Reservation and ultimately, positively affecting
the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades National Park.
Construction activities on the western side of the Reservation have
been identified as a ``Critical Project'' under section 528 of WRDA
1996. The Tribe is working closely with the NRCS to identify
appropriate programs to complete construction of the project on the
eastern side of the reservation. Two Wetland Reserve Projects are
currently underway.
The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving water quality and
flows on Big Cypress and has expressed that commitment by dedicating
significant financial resources to our environmental programs and
projects, as well as estimates of 9,000 acres of land to support the
projects on Big Cypress alone.
General Comments on S. 2437
The Tribe's greatest concern about Section 3 of S. 2437 is that it
lacks the balance necessary for successful implementation. The
environmental crisis in South Florida was brought about by the Central
& Southern Florida Project so efficiently achieving its congressionally
mandated goals of providing flood protection and water supply to the
farms and families of Florida, without fully appreciating the resulting
impacts on the natural system. As the damage to the natural environment
became evident, all entities began to recognize the interdependence of
the natural system and the ``built'' environment. Congress, in
directing the Corps of Engineers to complete the Comprehensive Plan,
described its purposes as protecting water quality and reducing loss of
fresh water from the Everglades. Congress also noted that the
Comprehensive Plan ``provide for the water-related needs of the region,
including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other
objectives served by the Central & Southern Florida Project.'' (See
Section 528(b)(1)(A)(i) of WRDA 1996.) The Restudy, as developed with
input from a wide array of stakeholders, recognized the importance of
addressing water needs in a balanced approach. Section 3 of S. 2437
abandoned the balanced approach and reverts to the myopic direction of
the half-century old project authorization by stating that the purpose
of the CERP and the historic Central & Southern Florida project is for
the protection of the natural system. We urge the committee to take a
balanced approach to Section 3 by providing protection to the natural
systems, the people, and the agricultural communities that share the
South Florida Ecosystem.
The Tribe also has serious concerns about Section 3(i) regarding
assuring of project benefits. More detailed comments regarding this
section are provided below; however, our concerns are significant
enough to list twice. The Tribe's water law is based upon a Water
Rights Compact, codified in tribal, State, and Federal law, the
implementation of which is based on Florida State water law. The
approach contemplated in Section 3 (i) attempting to federalize the
water allocation decisions blatantly disregards the existing body of
Florida water law. With Florida's water law thrown into disarray by
this approach, the Tribe's Water Compact is jeopardized. The Tribe has
proposed an alternative approach to Section 3 (i), and the Tribe also
supports the approach taken in the recently passed Florida Everglades
legislation.
Shared adversity is a guiding principle of the Tribe's approach to
water rights. Shared adversity is the principle upon which the Water
Rights Compact is based, and support for including shared adversity was
one of the Tribe's consistent comments throughout the development of
the Restudy. While S. 2437 acknowledges that the rights of existing
users should be preserved, S. 2437 does not define existing user.
Limiting existing user or existing use to the water being used today
fails to take into account long-term permitted rights to water that may
not be presently used. In comments on the Lower East Coast Regional
Water Supply Plan, the National Park Service defined existing use as
that amount of water being used on April 13, 2000, or on the day the
Plan is to be adopted. That interpretation, we believe, would lead to a
moratorium on water use in excess of that used on April 13 or the
adoption date. A moratorium would apply to permitted, but not currently
used existing use, as well as future new users. The Tribe's economic
development has been such that the Tribe is not yet using its all its
water entitlement. The inability to use its water rights would stunt
the Tribe's economic development. We urge the committee to ensure that
S. 2437 incorporates the concept of shared adversity and clearly define
``existing use'' to prevent a water use moratorium in South Florida.
Specific Comments and Recommendations on S. 2437
Assuring Project Benefits
Upon review of Section 3(i) of S. 2437, it was immediately clear
that the assuring project benefits language was problematic. The bill
would require that Federal regulations direct how all Central &
Southern Florida project features (essentially all Corps of Engineers
(COE) projects in South Florida) would contribute water to the
``natural system.'' The bill requires the Federal agencies to
``consult'' with the State. The Tribes are not addressed.
There are numerous, complex issues related to allocating any
additional water that projects built pursuant to the Restudy
recommendations brings to the South Florida ecosystem. In fact,
resolution of all issues to the satisfaction of all stakeholders is
impossible to reach in the time period that exists to produce a WRDA
2000 bill. S. 2437 creates the regulatory structure of programmatic
regulations produced in 2 years, to be followed by project specific
regulations as needed. The main problem with this approach is that it
bestows on the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Department of Interior
(DOI) the sole decision making authority regarding how much water the
``natural system'' should receive from all COE projects. While S. 2437
requires consultation, it ignores established Florida water law and
limits the potential role the Tribe should play in making decisions on
future water rights.
Furthermore, the assurances language appears to attempt to alter
the purpose of the original authorization of the Central & Southern
Florida Project, as defined in previous Acts of Congress since Section
203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948. In the section entitled,
``Dedication and Management of Water,'' the COE is required to dedicate
and manage all water ``made available'' from all C&SF project features,
built under all prior authority and WRDA 2000, ``for the temporal and
spatial needs of the natural system.'' Absent from this requirement is,
of course, the flood control and water supply needs of the people of
South Florida in both agricultural and developed areas.
Given that S. 2437 was drafted by the COE and DOI, leaving the
final decisions on the allocation of any of South Florida's water uses
to the COE and DOI appears to leave all but the natural system under-
represented. This approach seems to guarantee that the real decisions
will be made in court. Litigating water rights is an expensive and time
consuming process that will only serve to delay and increase the cost
of an already expensive, long-term project that the people of South
Florida need now. In addition, the confusion likely to result from
litigation would delay the Tribe's ability to realize fully its water
rights under the Compact.
The recently passed State legislation is significantly different
from this Federal proposal. Differing Federal and State law on water
assurances guarantees conflicts and delays as well. This issue is of
particular importance to the Tribe because the Tribe's Water Rights
Compact is based on the functionality of the State system. The proposed
legislation will throw the State's water allocation system into turmoil
because it does not mesh with the regulatory structure created by the
1972 Florida Water Resources Act (FL Stat. Chapter 373).
As a result of the Tribe's concerns, we offer the following
proposal which was designed to eliminate, or at least reduce, these
concerns:
The objective of the process to develop a water supply and flood
control allocation policy in South Florida is to develop a consensus on
water assurances that can be the basis of consistent Federal, State,
and tribal law.
The Task Force shall prepare a report and recommendations to
Congress, the Florida Legislature, and the Seminole and Miccosukee
Tribal Councils regarding the dedication and management of the water
made available from project features authorized pursuant to the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Included in the report and
recommendations shall be a legislative proposal that can be adopted in
identical form by the Congress, the Florida Legislature, and the
Seminole and Miccosukee Tribal Councils.
The Task Force shall seek public comment in the formulation and
final presentation of this report and recommendations. The Task Force
shall operate under the consensus provisions, as described in its
Working Group's Charter. This report shall be presented to Congress,
the Florida Legislature, and the Tribal Councils within 2 years of
enactment of WRDA 2000.
Upon receipt of the report and recommendations, the Congress shall
enact authorizing legislation in coordination with the Florida
Legislature and the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribal Councils.
This proposal also would eliminate opportunities for confusion, and
ultimately litigation, by requiring that the enacting legislation be
identical. Finally, this proposal would give all people of South
Florida a greater role in the water allocation decisions, which would
build greater support for the projects over time and help to ensure
construction and operation of all the Restudy project features.
A provision similar to this will need to be adopted in State and
tribal law, as well. The Federal law cannot require the State and the
tribes to legislate. The State and tribal provisions should also direct
the State and tribal Task Force members to prepare a report and
recommendations through a consensus process.
Alternatively, the Tribe has reviewed the Everglades Restoration
and Funding legislation (HB 221) recently passed by the Florida
Legislature. Given that the State legislation relies upon established
State water law, including the Tribe's Water Rights Compact, to
determine the allocation of new water benefits created by CERP project
features, the Tribe would support incorporating this approach into
Federal law. Again, it has been the Tribe's experience over the 13
years that the Water Rights Compact has been in place that consistency
among Federal, State, and tribal law contributes to the elimination of
legally actionable conflicts.
Other Comments
The following provides detailed comments on Sections 3, 6, and 12,
in the order in which the provisions appear.
Definitions (Section 3(a)). The definition of ``Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan'' includes the controversial Chief's
Report. The Chief's Report is not a consensus document agreed upon by
members of the South Florida Restoration Task Force and will
undoubtedly meet with opposition to implementation. The definition of
``Natural System'' should be clarified to specifically exclude tribal
lands.
Findings (Section 3(b)). The Tribe supports inclusion of the
principles of adaptive assessment in the implementation of the CERP
project features, as referred to in (b)(5). Also, the tribes should be
included as local sponsors along with the State in Section 3(b)(7). The
tribes and the State are not treated as equal partners throughout the
draft legislation although they are each separate sovereigns.
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (Section 3(c)). The
Tribe specifically supports the pilot project defined in Section
3(c)(2)(c)(5), due to the potential flood control benefits for the
Hollywood reservation.
Additional Program Authority (Section 3(d). The Tribe supports the
use of the COE's use of program authority to speed the implementation
of crucial project features. The authority provided by this section is
similar to the critical projects authority provided in Section 528 (b)
of WRDA 1996. The Tribe has worked closely with our Federal and State
partners to authorize the Tribe's Big Cypress critical project under
the WRDA 1996 authority. The critical project authority provided by
Congress in 1996 has allowed the Tribe to expedite this project and
ultimately will bring the Tribe and the region restoration benefits
years earlier than otherwise contemplated under the standard project
authorization process. In addition, we anticipate that both the Tribe
and the Federal budgets will appreciate savings as a result of the
abbreviated process. As a result of our experience, we endorse this
expansion of that authority and recommend that Congress provide more
guidance regarding the process for project criteria and project
selection.
Cost Sharing (Section 3(f)). There needs to be a distinction for
O&M purposes between which features are authorized under this Act and
which features are part of the original CS&F Program for cost share
purposes. This confusion results because the legislation references the
CS&F project. In addition, the Tribe recommends that the Critical
Projects authorized by WRDA 1996 be subject to the 60/40 cost share for
operations and maintenance. The critical projects, by definition, were
so crucial to ecosystem restoration that the projects needed to be
initiated prior to this bill. Project priority, as well as equity,
require that the critical projects be afforded the same O&M cost share
as all CERP projects.
Evaluation of Project Features (Section 3(g)). The Tribe should not
merely be ``coordinated with'' on the development of Project
Implementation Reports (PIR) for the project features, particularly
regarding the availability of additional water. The Tribe should
consistently be part of the decision making process at a minimum on the
same level as the State. Thus, the Tribe should have sign off authority
on all PIR's.
Also, Section (g)(2) addressing project justification must be
clarified regarding how to analyze project benefits where one project
feature has both water supply and water quality benefits. We understand
that segregating such benefits would be difficult.
Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals (Section 3(h)).
The full citation for the reference in 3(h)(2)(B) is 15 U.S.C.
637(d)(3)(c).
Assuring Project Benefits (Section (3)(i)). The definitions of
``substantial adverse impacts'' and ``existing legal water uses'' need
to be developed in Sec. (3)(i)(3). As discussed above, the term
``existing legal water users'' can have a number of different
interpretations with wide-ranging impacts. On April 13, 2000, in
comments provided to the South Florida Water Management District on the
Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan, DOI, through the National
Park Service, recommended that:
``[E]xisting legal use'' and existing legal user'' refer to the
quantity of water currently withdrawn and put to a reasonable-
beneficial use under a statutory exemption or under terms of a valid
water use permit. Any future use in excess of the quantity currently
being withdrawn or pursuant to a new or renewed water use permit is not
an ``existing legal use.'' New permits for additional withdrawal shall
not be issued until water reservations for the natural system are in
place. The period for defining existing legal users should be defined
as April 13, 2000 or the date when the LEC plan is adopted by the SFWMD
Governing Board.
The above definition, as put forth by DOI, who has concurrence
authority on the programmatic and project-specific regulations to make
allocation decisions, would effectively place a moratorium on water use
in South Florida. When permitted but not currently used water would be
available after the water reservations for the natural system is highly
uncertain. This approach threatens the vested rights the Tribe has to
use water in the future under the Compact. This definition would
effectively render State permits already issued for future consumptive
use void. It is also inconsistent with the Tribe's water allocation
rights set forth under the Compact.
Tribal Partnership Program (Section 6). A section should be added
stating that this is supplemental authorization of funding for tribal
water resource development projects. This section should not affect the
ability to obtain funding for these project types under other
legislative acts. Also, the $5,000,000/$1,000,000 limitation in Sec.
6(e) is too low and should be raised.
Reburial and Transfer Authority (Section 12). As a general
principle, the Tribe believes that tribal remains should be treated
with the utmost respect. The Tribe is not affected specifically by this
section.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the Seminole
Tribe of Florida with the committee. While the Tribe is a strong
supporter of the restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem, we will
continue to be vigilant in our review of its implementation. We look
forward to a continued partnership on a government-to-government basis
in the challenging effort to save our Everglades.
______
Responses by Patricia Power to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Why is it important to move forward with authorization
of this initial set of ten projects this year? Can you describe what
the impacts of delay would mean for the ecosystem?
Response. The Seminole Tribe has not taken a firm position on the
authorization of the initial set of ten projects. We presume that the
committee seeks justification for authorization without completion of a
feasibility study, and we support the committee's careful oversight. We
believe that sufficient cause for going forward can exist, and offer
that some middle ground approach, authorization contingent upon a
specified Corps action for example, may address the concerns expressed
by some stakeholders.
However, the Tribe strongly supports the authorization of the
eleventh item in the list of initial authorizations, which is the
Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program. The Tribe has consistently
noted that the Restudy analysis rests on assumptions and computer
modeling, of which most of the Tribe's lands lie on the perimeter.
While the Tribe's hydrological review has provided a basis of the
Tribe's general support for the Restudy components, our comments have
always been tempered by our inability to fully assess the impact of
project features because our lands are either at the edges or outside
of the computer models. In addition, nature can prove the assumptions
and models wrong and it is critical that project implementation be
continuously monitored and assessed for the purpose of making
corrections promptly, if needed.
Finally, the Tribe also supports the inclusion of programmatic
authorization for smaller project features that produce independent and
substantial restoration, preservation, or protection benefits to the
South Florida ecosystem. The Tribe signed a project coordination
agreement with the Corps of Engineers last January, which authorized
the Tribe's Big Cypress Reservation critical project. Critical project
authorization is similar to the programmatic authorization contemplated
in Section (3)(e). It has been our experience, to date, that
programmatic authorization works to expedite critical restoration
projects, resulting in efficient delivery of project benefits.
In addition, we recommend that the committee consider incorporating
report language that discusses the process of selecting the projects to
be authorized under this authority. WRDA 1996 designated the criteria
that each critical project should meet, but was silent on the
selection/prioritization process for the critical projects. An
effective, consensus based process was initiated by the Corps, in open
cooperation with other Federal agencies, and tribal, State, and local
government participants in the Task Force, Working Group, and
Governor's Commission. Business interests, along with agricultural and
non-governmental organizations, were represented on the Governor's
Commission and participated actively in the Task Force's and Working
Group's evaluation and ranking. While not every interest got all that
they were supporting, the inclusiveness and openness of the process
validated the outcome and built broad, general support for the final
outcome. A similar process should be required for the programmatic
authority projects. We would be happy to provide appropriate language
at your request.
Question 2. Please describe the ``assurances language'' contained
in the State's recently passed measure and what the Seminole Tribe's
position is on this language.
Response. The Everglades Restoration Investment Act [CS/CS/H221]
amended the Florida Water Code (Chapter 373, FL Stat.) by adding
section 373.470. Section 373.470(3)(c) provides that prior to executing
a project coordination agreement (PCA) with the Corps of Engineers, the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) shall complete a
project implementation report (PIR) (as defined in the Implementation
Plan of the Restudy). The PIR is to identify increased water supply
resulting from the construction and operation of the CERP component.
Any additional water supply identified by the PIR will be allocated or
reserved by the SFWMD under Chapter 373, the Florida Water Code.
The Seminole Tribe supports this Florida law because it maintains
the functionality of existing Florida water law, upon which the Tribe's
Water Rights Compact is based. In addition, this approach is consistent
with the consensus Restudy document supported by the Tribe last year.
The PIR process as described in the Restudy's Implementation Plan
provides for broad participation in the evaluation of project
components. Furthermore, requiring the SFWMD to allocate or reserve the
benefits created by the new project component according to State law is
consistent with the process currently implemented by the Corps.
______
Responses by Patricia Power to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1. What will the impact be to the Seminole Tribe of
Florida if we do not move forward with this plan?
Response. Failure to enact authorizing legislation will reinforce
the perception of many stakeholders in South Florida that the Federal
Government is not supporting its share of the partnership to restore
the South Florida ecosystem. The State has enacted the Everglades
Restoration Investment Act to supplement its ongoing restoration and
land acquisition programs. The Seminole Tribe is implementing its
Everglades Restoration Initiative through its own and Corps of
Engineers and Natural Resources Conservation Service programs. Local
governments are taking independent actions. All of this activity will
go forward regardless of Federal action. Without Federal action,
however, the projects will proceed at a slower pace and restoration
will occur at a slower pace. Slowing the pace of restoration activities
may cause irreparable harm to parts of the ecosystem.
Question 2. Can you describe the impact if we do move forward with
the Restudy?
Response. Authorizing the framework of the Restudy is critical to
maintaining the public support necessary for a public works project of
this size and scope. Authorizing the consensus based Restudy as a
framework for future project authorizations will provide the
predictability for all parties to continue planning, design,
engineering, and construction activities necessary to set a pace to
ensure ecosystem restoration.
Question 3. Do you feel that the Administration's language
accurately reflects the purpose of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan as set forth by Congress in WRDA 1996?
Response. No. Although we understand that the Administration did
not intend to move away from the WRDA 1996 purpose of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), the Tribe reads the language of S.
2437 to shift the purpose of the project components of the CERP, and
all previously authorized Central & Southern Florida project
components, to be for the protection of the natural system. Balance in
purpose and participation is crucial to the success of the CERP. The
Tribe strongly supports maintaining the legislative purposes of the
CERP as described in WRDA 1996.
Question 4. What is your position on the Administration's
assurances language? What are the key elements that this language must
contain to accommodate the Seminole Tribe's needs?
Response. The Tribe is opposed to the Administration's assurances
language because it abandons the balance in the CERP project purposes
as outlined in WRDA 1996, Federalizes Florida water law, and places a
priority on water use for the natural system above all other water
uses, thereby abandoning shared adversity. If the natural system is
provided with its assurances in a process apart from the consideration
of the needs of all other stakeholders, then the process is inequitable
and flawed.
The Tribe requires that Federal assurance language work
consistently (or at the least not conflict) with State water law and
the Tribe's Water Rights Compact, that all water uses, including those
of the natural system, be balanced among each other, and that the Tribe
be given a role to meaningfully participate in the assurances
decisions. State law provides that when water is set aside for the
environment, the water management district must also prepare a recovery
or prevention strategy to ensure that environmental water supplies are
restored or maintained. A critical element of the recovery or
prevention strategy is a timetable which provides a mechanism to
accomplish environmental objectives while analyzing and minimizing the
effects of meeting such objectives on all other stakeholders. State law
also provides that the recovery or prevention strategy include water
resource development projects such as CERP to increase the available
supply for both human natural uses. Thus State law provides an
objective approach for establishing scientifically based environmental
water needs, and a practical and balanced implementation strategy that
takes all uses, human and natural into account.
Question 5. Can you describe the existing Tribal Water Compact, in
terms and conditions, and how it deals with water requirements for the
natural system if at all? In particular, can you elaborate on the role
of State law in execution of the Tribal Water Compact?
Response. The Seminole Tribe's Water Rights Compact provides for a
process for the Tribe and the State, through the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD), to resolve water supply and flood
protection issues, on a government-to-government basis. The Compact
provides procedures for the Tribe and State to agree on the amount of
surface water to which the Tribe is entitled. The Tribe does not get
permits from the SFWMD; however, the Tribe works closely with the SFWMD
on its land and water use issues through a work planning process.
The Compact does not address water quantity requirements of the
natural system directly. However, protection of the natural system is
inherent in the implementation of the Compact. Through the Compact, the
Tribe has a role in the process to determine the availability of water
not otherwise dedicated to existing uses and the allocation of such
available water. When the allocation of water needed for environmental
benefits needs to be adjusted, the Tribe is consulted and contributes
to the decisionmaking process.
The Tribe's Compact depends on the State water code's determination
of all stakeholders' water use. Although the Compact provides for
entitlements for the Tribe's water supply and flood protection, any
amendments to that entitlement is determined on the basis of
availability, which is determined by the effects of supply by the
demands of other water users. In other words, under the Compact, the
Tribe must compete with other users for water supply and flood
protection. If Federal law supersedes State law, and the natural system
is provided with all of its demands (as determined by whom?), State
water law would then be applied to allocate and reserve the balance.
With what we assume to be a smaller amount of water, the Tribe's
ability to compete for water will be negatively affected.
Our review of the CERP projects indicated that none of the CERP
projects would increase water supply on any of the Seminole Tribe's
reservations for either human or environmental use. Any water
allocation or reservation dedicated to the environment near a
reservation will inevitably reduce the Tribe's ability to compete for
water supply. Therefore, merely providing ``hold harmless'' language in
WRDA would not protect the Tribe's rights under the Compact.
Finally, a Compact-like device forged among the Federal, State, and
tribal governments may provide an appropriate mechanism to address the
needs of the natural system in the South Florida ecosystem, while
assuring existing users a role in the allocation and reservation of
water.
______
Responses by Patricia Power to Additional Questions from Senator Mack
Question 1. Do you support applying section 902 of the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act to all features of the Comprehensive Plan
before us today? [This provision requires a congressional review if a
project exceeds 120 percent of authorized cost.]
Response. The projects authorized pursuant to the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) through the standard congressional
authorization process should not be treated any differently than any
other congressionally authorized Corps of Engineers projects. If
incorporating a congressional review of cost overruns will delay
project implementation, then the Tribe would oppose the review. One
exception may be that if the adaptive management process triggers a
project revision sufficient enough to cause an excess of 120 percent of
authorized cost, then congressional review may be appropriate. The
Tribe strongly supports adaptive management and would be interested in
addressing the concerns of those stakeholders and Senators worried
about the effect applying adaptive management may have on total project
cost.
Question 2. Do you support congressional committee review and
approval of the feasibility level of engineering and design work before
any construction can begin on the initial suite of ten projects in the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. The Seminole Tribe has not taken a firm position on the
authorization of the initial set of ten projects. We presume that the
committee seeks justification for authorization without completion of a
feasibility study, and we support the committee's careful oversight. We
believe that sufficient cause for going forward can exist, and offer
that some middle ground approach, authorization contingent upon a
specified Corps action for example, may address the concerns expressed
by some stakeholders.
Question 3. Do you support requiring full feasibility studies
before any other projects are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Yes, with the following two exceptions. The Tribe
strongly supports the authorization of the eleventh item in the list of
initial authorizations, which is the Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring
Program, without feasibility review. The Tribe has consistently noted
that the Restudy analysis rests on assumptions and computer modeling,
of which most of the Tribe's lands lie on the perimeter. While the
Tribe's hydrological review has provided a basis of the Tribe's general
support for the Restudy components, our comments have always been
tempered by our inability to fully assess the impact of project
features because our lands are either at the edges or outside of the
computer models. In addition, nature can prove the assumptions and
models wrong and it is critical that project implementation be
continuously monitored and assessed for the purpose of making
corrections promptly, if needed.
The Tribe also supports the inclusion of programmatic authorization
for smaller project features that produce independent and substantial
restoration, preservation, or protection benefits to the South Florida
ecosystem. The Tribe signed a project coordination agreement with the
Corps of Engineers last January, which authorized the Tribe's Big
Cypress Reservation critical project. Critical project authorization is
similar to the programmatic authorization contemplated in Section
(3)(e). It has been our experience, to date, that programmatic
authorization works to expedite critical restoration projects,
resulting in efficiently delivering project benefits. We recommend that
the committee consider incorporating report language that discusses the
process of selecting the projects to be authorized under this
authority.
Question 4. Do you support modifying the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to make clear the system includes the lands and
waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District as they existed on July 1, 1999?
Response. Yes, because such a definition provides consistency with
the Restudy and the CERP.
Question 5. Do you support a provision making clear the Corps of
Engineers is only authorized to study the question about providing an
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water to the natural system?
Response. Yes. Delivering an additional 245,000 acre-feet of water
to Everglades National Park was not part of the consensus-built Restudy
sent to Washington in April 1999. The full implications of changing the
Restudy model must be studied before authorizing additional dedicated
water deliveries.
Question 6. Do you support language making clear that the Corps
must work with the State of Florida to ensure all groundwater
discharges resulting from the Comprehensive Plan meet all applicable
water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements?
Response. This is a complicated question. The Tribe supports the
protection of all water, including the drinking water supplies from
groundwater. The Tribe supports regulations to protect groundwater, but
the Tribe is concerned that existing regulations not designed to
address ASR water quality issues may prevent the use of ASR.
Fortunately, technology, primarily reverse osmosis, provides a
reliable and affordable treatment system for drinking water supplied by
groundwater. This technology makes groundwater previously not potable,
available to drinking water systems. When water is pumped out of an
aquifer for surface use, the aquifer must be recharged to maintain its
quality. Basically, the water quality of the aquifer degrades in
relation to the reduction of the water quantity.
Unfortunately, Federal regulations applicable to groundwater
available for drinking water, written many years ago, have not kept
pace with technology. Groundwater regulations were written to protect
actual or potential drinking water sources from toxic contamination;
ASR contemplates the injection of storm water, not hazardous waste. The
regulations provide that water discharged to groundwater meet drinking
water standards. It is expensive to treat water to meet drinking water
standards. To avoid the cost, aquifers are not recharged. When the
groundwater is not recharged, groundwater quantity and quality degrade.
Because the existing regulations discourage aquifer recharge, we do not
support the application of existing regulations to groundwater
discharges for the CERP projects.
The water storage components of the CERP are heavily dependent on
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) projects, and the success of the
CERP is dependent on increased storage. It is critical that the ASR
project incorporate water quality elements and that the water quality
requirements reflect current technology.
Question 7. Do you support replacing the project purposes language
stated in (c)(1) of the administration's draft with language restating
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan developed and passed in WRDA
1996?
Response. Yes. The WRDA 1996 language incorporated a balanced,
consensus-based approach to the purpose of the CERP projects.
Question 8. Do you support additional programmatic authority for
the Corps to construct projects of limited cost but are keeping with
the Plan's purposes and have independent and substantial benefit to
Everglades restoration?
Response. As stated in our answer to question 3, the Tribe supports
additional programmatic authority.
Question 9. Do you support a 50/50 cost share between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operation and maintenance of the
project? If not, please state the cost share you believe appropriate
and why.
Response. Yes. A 50/50 cost share for operations and maintenance
mirrors the cost share for design and construction for CERP projects.
Given the extent of the benefits delivered to Federal lands (the
natural system) from CERP project features, cost sharing operations and
maintenance is equitable and appropriate.
In addition, the WRDA 2000 legislation should apply the 50/50 cost
share for operations and maintenance retroactively to the critical
projects authorized by WRDA 1996. The critical projects were selected
through a broad-based consensus process as so crucial to ecosystem
restoration that the projects needed.
__________
Statement of Dexter Lehtinen, General Counsel, Miccosukee Tribe of
Florida
everglades restoration and wrda 2000: hope for the future, if we learn
from the past
My name is Dexter Lehtinen. I'm General Counsel to the Miccosukee
Tribe of Indians of Florida, and a member of the Governor's Commission
on the Everglades and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force. I previously served as a member of the Florida House of
Representatives and Florida State Senate and as United States Attorney
for the Southern District of Florida. In these capacities I helped
write the State law which declared the goal of saving the entire
Everglades and filed the lawsuit against pollution of the Everglades
which led to the Florida Everglades Forever Act.
miccosukee tribe of indians in the everglades
I want to provide some information about the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida and the Tribe's role in the Everglades:
The Miccosukee Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, and Miccosukee Indian Country is within the Everglades.
Its members are the only people to live within the
Everglades (Indian or non-Indian) and the only Tribe with land in the
Everglades.
The Tribe is a leader in Everglades protection, having
won several critical lawsuits against pollution, and having set
federally-approved water quality standards for the Everglades
(including phosphorus) with its State status under the Clean Water Act.
The Tribe's members are guaranteed by Congress the right
to live traditionally within Everglades National Park and Big Cypress
National Preserve.
restoration failures: two examples
The Miccosukee Tribe believes that Everglades restoration is in
serious trouble due to misplaced priorities, subordination of
fundamental democratic values, Federal intransigence, and bureaucratic
arrogance and incompetence. While we all have hope for the future,
Everglades restoration is clouded by a past of discrimination and
failure.
Let me emphasize at the outset that the issue before this committee
is not the legitimacy of restoration as a goal, but rather the false
use and twisting of that goal to serve narrow parochial interests in
the name of restoration.
Two examples will be sufficient. First, the central Everglades
(including tribal Everglades) is given second-class status. This
discrimination occurs: (i) despite the Federal Indian trust obligation;
(ii) despite the 1982 congressional promise (in the Florida Indian Land
Claims Settlement Act) that the central Everglades will be preserved in
natural conditions; and (iii) despite the fact that the central
Everglades is the largest remaining freshwater Everglades. [Exh. F.] It
is a gross misconception that the Everglades is the same as Everglades
National Park (encouraged by the Park).
Second, pre-existing authorized restoration projects are stalled.
The Modified Water Deliveries Project was directed by 1989
congressional Act to relieve flooding in the central Everglades and
restore flows to the Park through Northeast Shark River Slough. But
bureaucratic ineptitude and selfishness has blocked the project,
causing destruction of tribal Everglades. And, despite guarantees of
flood protection to an area known as the 8.5 square mile area, agencies
are always trying to seize or condemn the minority residents' land.
[Exhs. E & G.] The Miccosukee Tribe knows that taking the homes of
these minorities is not necessary for restoration, and that the
minorities are attacked because they are politically weak. I find it
curious that the Miccosukee Tribe stands up for these minorities more
than government agencies--undoubtedly that's because Indians have been
targets of land grabs themselves and recognize it when they see it. And
it's because minorities must stick together--if government can take
their land, then it can take tribal land (and it can take your land,
too).
proposed wrda 2000: what's in it
The Tribe has several points regarding what's in the
Administration's proposed WRDA bill.
1. Chief's Report (Inappropriate Commitments)--The bill would
implement the Chief's Report (July) rather than the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP/April). [Subsec. 3(a)(3) and
3(c)(2)(A)]. The multi-volume CERP was the product of a public
consensus building process with broad support, but the Chief's Report
substantially changed critical elements behind closed doors without
public notice [Exh. B]. New commitments were made, contradicting CERP,
such as 245,000 additional acre feet of water to the Park (over and
above the increases in the April Plan), even though the April Plan
specifically considered and rejected this proposal (known as D13R4) as
destructive of other parts of the Everglades (including tribal lands)
[Exh. C]. CERP picked D13R, reporting that ``after looking at 10
alternative plans and over 25 modeling scenarios, including D13R4,
alternative D13R is by far the best of the alternative plans'' [Exh. C-
1]. Yet the Chief's Report switched to D13R4 without any notice. The
Report also downgraded flood protection and water supply with the
phrase ``to the extent practicable''.
This is an outstanding example of the politicization of the Corps
and Washington civilian interference which bends the process to placate
the demands of groups with which the Administration is close (as well
as the interference which Senator Voinovich referred to in his recent
letter to GAO).
Although the Administration tries to downplay changes in the
Chief's Report, it keeps seeking to enact the Report, which itself
demonstrates that there must be something different in the Report.
Furthermore, Administration claims of Chief Report neutrality ring
hollow in light of recently obtained documents [Exh. A], such as:
(i) A June 8 e-mail message from Deputy Asst. Sec. Michael Davis,
stating that ``the Chief's Report captures the Restudy Plan plus the
subsequent commitments'', also cautioning ``please keep close hold and
do not share outside your agency''.
(ii) A June 11 e-mail within the Corps, referring to ``the need to
get these groups on board'', but being ``uneasy about changing what was
in the report that has been reviewed at SDA and RO's''.
(iii) A June 17 e-mail within the Corps referring to ``the Michael
Davis. . . OOPS, SORRY. . . Chief's Report. . .''.
(iv) A June 17 e-mail to the Jacksonville Corps, stating
``modification of the implementation plan, particularly in the case of
D13R4, is not a small matter''; and Jacksonville's response, stating
``you need to add the PIR for determining how to deliver the additional
245,000 acre-feet of water'' and ``this will affect the scheduling for
components associated/affected by D13R4''.
(v) A June 29 letter from DOI to Col. Miller (Jacksonville),
stating ``we appreciate the following additional commitments conveyed
in the Chief of Engineer's Report: to deliver additional water
(approximately 245,000 acre feet). . .''.
Congress should reject the Chief's Report and the politicization of
the process that it represents; instead, WRDA should refer only the
CERP itself, dated April 1999.
2. Interior Department Veto on Water Deliveries--The bill gives the
Interior Secretary a veto on water deliveries, essentially federalizing
Florida water law. [Subsec. 3(i)(2)(B)]. DOI is one landowner among
many, including the State, the Tribes, and private citizens. Water
should be allocated fairly by the Corps without any party having a
veto. Corps policy processes can certainly protect Federal interests;
and if the DOI will not trust Corps processes, then why should the
State, or the Miccosukee Tribe, or private citizens trust it? This
approach uses a double standard and is a DOI power grab to politicize
water deliveries.
3. Abandoning Balanced Approach (Downgrading Supply and Flood
Protection)--The proposal abandons the balanced approach of WRDA 1996
by giving natural systems water first place, and water supply and flood
protection second place. [Subsec. 3(i)(1)]. A quick list of problems
here include: (i) It's just plain wrong to deny people flood protection
and water supply; (ii) It's not necessary because we can achieve all
goals; (iii) By downgrading one goal, a license is given to stop trying
to reach that goal and maximum effort to reach all goals is lost; (iv)
The public consensus for Everglades restoration is built on
congressional and State promises of a balanced approach, and this
consensus will evaporate when homes and cars are flooded; and (v)
Previous laws committed to equal treatment of all goals, so how could
the public trust any law when they can be disregarded so easily? In
short, we can and should ``get the water right--for everybody'', not
adopt new policies that will send many people off the planet in their
outrage. The current project purposes are environmental protection,
water supply, and flood protection, and we should grant adequate
assurances for each.
Even with a balanced approach mandated by WRDA 1996 and other laws,
flood protection analysis was virtually overlooked. CERP reports that
flood analysis was ``not quantified'' because models for flood control
analysis were inadequate (``limited evaluation of impacts since model
not designed for flood studies'') [Exh. D-1]. ``Studies to estimate the
flooding impacts of the alternative restoration plans were limited due
to the resolution of the model.'' For ``areas that are expected to be
adversely affected, further studies were recommended'' [Exh. D-3]. If
this is ``equal'' treatment, then ``second class'' treatment'' would
mean virtually elimination. These models need to be improved and the
studies completed before project authorizations that could flood
existing homes.
4. Programmatic Authority--The proposal grants broad programmatic
authority for no real reason except to escape congressional scrutiny
[subsec. 3(c)(2)(B), (C), & (D)] and uses vague references to ``a
programmatic manner'' and ``adaptive assessment'' [subsec. 3(b)(5)].
Perhaps the ``Pilot ``Projects'' [3(c)(2)(B)] (which are tests for
later bigger projects) could be justified, but the ``Other Projects''
[3(c)(2)(C)] should have Feasibility Reports before authorization. For
example, there's $100 million for ``adaptive assessment and
monitoring'' with no actual plan, so the money could be spent on
virtually anything, any study, any scientist--essentially ``vote
buying''. It's just a big pot of money with no controls. And there's
$250 million for ``other program authority'' [3(c)(2)(D)] where no
projects are specified and no controls exist at all. These are ``cash
cows'' where the Administration can do whatever it wants--either invent
new projects you've never heard of; or substantially change projects
which you have heard of, any way they want, as long as they keep the
same name.
The CERP admits to a ``high level of technical and implementability
uncertainties'' [Exh.C-4]. These include flood control (discussed
above) and the known erroneous assumptions of the Natural Systems Model
(NSM), particularly ``discrepancy in the topographic data''. ``. . .
[I]f consistent topographic assumptions were used [in NSM]. . . ,
target depths. . . would be shallower. . . and less water would be
needed'' [Exh.C-3]. Let's get those assumptions right before
authorization.
Programmatic authority is particularly inappropriate when CERP
itself admits to inadequacies in flood control models and the Natural
System Model (NSM). Instead of programmatic authority, each project
should be explored in depth through feasibility reports before
authorization. This is too important to just throw money at it and then
look away, hoping for the best.
5. Environmental Justice/Minority Rights--The proposal shortchanges
environmental justice, minority rights, and discrimination concerns by
referring only ``socially and economically disadvantaged persons'' and
then only requiring that ``impacts. . . are considered''. [Subsec.
3(h)(1)]. This is insufficient. The bill should prohibit discrimination
and disparate impacts on minorities and socially disadvantaged persons
in implementation. The League of United Latin American Citizens has
already found minority discrimination in the Modified Water Deliveries
Project, where the DOI seeks to forcibly remove largely Hispanic
residents from more than 300 homes [Exh. E], despite congressional
guarantees to these people and Corps findings that it makes no
substantial difference to the restoration of Northeast Shark River
Slough (flowing into the Park).
proposed wrda 2000: what's not in it
Now let me comment on what's not in the proposed bill.
A. Tribal Roles--The Tribes are left out in every part except the
``Findings'' [subsec. 3(b)(7)]. They should be incorporated in the
definition of natural system lands and waters [3(a)(4)], the regulatory
process [3(i)(2)(B]) & (C)], etc.
B. Protecting the Entire Remaining Everglades/Comprehensive
Definition of Everglades/Equal Protection for Everglades--No portion of
the remaining Everglades (such as the southern Everglades in ENP)
should receive more favorable treatment than any other portion (such as
the central Everglades in WCA 3-A and Miccosukee Indian Country) in
hydrology (water quantity and timing). An ``Everglades Equal Protection
Clause'' should provide that all parts of the remaining Everglades
receives equal hydrological treatment.
C. Meeting Prerequisites and Demonstrating Competence: Implementing
the Modified Water Deliveries Project--Component projects of the
Everglades Restudy should not be authorized or funded until the Federal
agencies show the competency to implement the Modified Water Deliveries
Project as directed by Congress (PL 101-229, section 104, including
subsection 104(c)), which is categorized by law as a predecessor to the
Restudy and assumed by the Restudy to have been implemented. [Exh. G.]
The failure to implement the Modified Water Deliveries Project since
its authorization in 1989 (PL 101-229) and approval of the 21992
General Design Memorandum (GDM) by Congress is nothing short of
scandalous.
D. Protecting Property Rights: Limiting Eminent Domain and Assuring
Flood Control--Property rights are fundamental to a free society.
Federal and State agencies shall make every effort to avoid taking
private property through eminent domain actions, and continued flood
protection must be assured. Regarding eminent domain, privately-owned
land should not be condemned through State or Federal eminent domain
procedures unless there is no other feasible alternative for achieving
the specific project goals. It should be a defense to an eminent domain
action that there is a feasible alternative other than condemnation of
the property in question and increased costs alone shall not render an
alternative infeasible. Regarding flood control, Congress should
require that no project may proceed until and unless the established
C&SF Project levels of flood protection against a SPF (standard project
flood) has been assured and certified by the Corps. The CERP states
that its models ``were inadequate to determine flooding effects'',
which must be remedied before projects are designed. Flooding has
increased in urban areas recently because the water deliveries to the
Everglades have been increased without providing the protections
mandated by the same laws which authorized the increased deliveries
(e.g., Experimental Water Deliveries, etc). [Exh. H.]
E. Eliminating Collateral Attack: Determination that Provisions of
Collateral Federal Statutes Have Been Met--Because the Everglades
Restoration effort is a comprehensive overall plan to maximize
Everglades restoration and environmental values over a broad range of
parameters, collateral Federal statutes which focus on single
parameters should be deemed to have been met by operation of law. Such
collateral statutes (e.g., the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act) shall not be grounds for separate
determinations or legal actions in connection with the construction or
operation of Everglades restoration projects.
F. Avoiding Holding Funds Hostage: Fund Projects Through Corps or
State (Not Through DOI)--Previous Everglades funding channeled through
the DOI has been held or diverted to achieve DOI goals beyond the scope
of the appropriation. Projects should be funded by congressional
appropriations to the Corps of Engineers or to State agencies or to the
Tribe, not through the Department of the Interior, so as to avoid the
improper withholding of funding to influence or block implementation
outside of accepted processes. If project funds are funnelled through
DOI, Congress should specify the precise purpose of the appropriation
and prohibit withholding of funds when the legal criteria for
proceeding have been met.
G. Assurances: Environmental Protection, Water Supply, and Flood
Protection--Assurances for environmental protection, flood control, and
water supply must be provided so that no segment of people or interest
group is pitted against another. Without equal assurances, the
consensus basis for Everglades restoration will be destroyed.
Assurances should be given that:
(i) Sufficient Everglades Water--Sufficient water will be provided
to the Everglades (including WCAs, Miccosukee Indian Country, and ENP)
so as to maintain its natural state.
(ii) Excess Everglades Water--Excessive water levels (flooding)
will not be allowed in the WCAs (including Miccosukee Indian Country)
so as to maintain its natural state.
(iii) Flood Protection--Flood protection will not be diminished (no
project may proceed until and unless the established C&SF Project
levels of flood protection against a SPF has been certified by the
Corps).
(iv) Water Supply--Water supply for urban, residential, and
agricultural uses will not be diminished and every reasonable effort
will be made to expand such supply to meet future needs.
(v) Conflict/Shared Adversity--If water supplies are insufficient
to meet all goals or goals otherwise conflict, then each goal (water
supply, environmental protection, and flood protection) shall be met
through operation of the C&SF Project components to the maximum extent
practicable so that the deficiencies in reaching each goal are relative
equal or proportionate to the deficiencies in meeting the other goals
(``shared adversity'').
(vi) Miccosukee Everglades Equal Protection--Whatever assurances
are provided to Federal lands or interests shall include equal
assurances to Miccosukee Indian Country (the only Tribe with lands in
the Everglades Protection Area), defined as the Miccosukee Indian
Reservation and Perpetual Leased Lands in WCA 3-A pursuant to PL 97-399
(1982) (definition of Federal lands and interests must include tribal
lands and interests).
problem summary: learning from experience
A summary list of problems and lessons would include:
A. System Problem (Lack of a System-wide, Everglades-wide
Commitment; Parochial Approach). The Federal Government is sacrificing
the State and tribal Everglades in favor of the smaller Federal
Everglades (the Park). The Water Conservation Areas (especially WCA 3-
A) are dying due to Federal actions.
B. Process Problems (Lack of Commitment to Decision-making Process;
Lack of ``Partnership''; Low Inter-agency Cooperation; Pro Forma Use of
Task Force)--In addition, many agencies refuse to implement programs
which have been finalized. The present Federal approach is little more
than lip-service to so-called ``partnership''.
C. Execution Problems (Inability or Failure to Execute Specific
Projects)--Stalled ``Critical Projects'', including Modified Water
Deliveries, both held up for a decade. Agency incompetence, and
outright refusal to execute any plan which the agency doesn't like,
causes continuing damage to tribal lands and raises serious doubts
about the wisdom of entrusting these agencies with the programmatic
authority in restoration.
D. Problems with Fundamental Values (Disregard of Fundamental
Rights and Values of Liberty; Basic Property Rights and the Rule of
Law)--Everglades restoration programs, at least their implementation by
the Federal Government, is showing an alarming disregard for
fundamental values (property rights of both the Tribe and non-tribal
residents, and the rule of law).
prior testimony
The Tribe presented more general testimony describing these
problems in detail to this committee in Naples in January 2000, to
which it commends the committee's attention for further discussion.
conclusion
In conclusion, the Miccosukee Tribe seeks fairness, non-
discrimination, sound planning, and quality control in Everglades
restoration. The Tribe is opposed to any approach which elevates the
Department of the Interior over the Tribes or the State. The Corps can
save the whole remaining Everglades; the Interior Department will save
only its small part while sacrificing the other parts.
__________
Statement of of Michael Collins, Governing Board Chairman, South
Florida Water Management District
Mr. Chairman, Senator Baucus, Senator Graham and members of the
committee: I am Michael Collins, Chairman of the Governing Board of the
South Florida Water Management District.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Administration's
bill to authorize the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).
This Comprehensive Plan a series of environmental improvements over 20
years that will be the most ambitious ecosystem restoration ever
undertaken in the United States.
Please indulge me while I touch on a few historical facts to
provide the proper context for my comments. The existing Central and
Southern Florida Project was created in 1948 and encompasses 18,000
square miles. This water management system for South Florida includes
1,000 miles of canals and 200 water control structures. It is the
largest public works project in the country. As South Florida's water
management system it provides water supply, flood protection and other
benefits to South Florida.
Recognizing the need to modernize this 50-year old system to
address its negative consequences on the environment, Congress
authorized a ``re-look'' at this system to determine if such a task was
feasible and in the Federal Government's interest. The Corps was asked
to develop a comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring,
preserving, and protecting the South Florida ecosystem. Congress
further directed that this plan shall include such features as are
necessary to provide for the water-related needs of the region,
including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other
objectives served by the Central and Southern Florida Project.
The Plan submitted to you in July of 1999 is that plan. Is it
``comprehensive'' in that it provides all answers to all problems? No.
It is comprehensive because it was developed recognizing the
complexities involved in creating an ecosystem-wide restoration plan
and realizing the interconnectedness of the vast water management
system commonly known as the Central and Southern Florida Project. The
coordination efforts alone were heroic. Overlay the dynamic of the
interests with the scientific complexities associated with getting the
water right and you begin to understand that the Plan submitted to you
by consensus, the Plan that enjoys broad-based support, was only
possible through an inclusive process. Any attempt to modify the
concepts embraced by consensus has the potential to erode this broad-
based support.
The South Florida Water Management District strongly supports this
Plan and the process used for developing this product as the best
opportunity for solving the region's environmental and water resource
problems within the region. We believe that this Plan is the roadmap
for providing adequate water for a healthy, sustainable Everglades
ecosystem as well as for maintaining urban and agriculture use. As
Chairman of the Governing Board for the agency that serves as local
sponsor for the Central and Southern Florida Project, I urge you to
authorize the Plan submitted to you last July. The Administration's
bill deviates from this Plan and the direction given by Congress in the
authorization to modernize our 50-plus year old system to address
unintended consequences to the environment.
Is it the perfect plan? No. The perfect plan will never exist but
the Plan is strong. It is flexible enough to allow for improvements
along the way and the Corps needs to be given the flexibility to make
refinements as more is learned through scientific monitoring over the
period of implementation. The Administration's bill provides for such
refinement.
In Naples, I submitted testimony that touched on our desire for the
costs for operating and maintaining the Comprehensive Plan to be shared
by the Federal Government. The Administration's bill calls for a 60/40
split of such costs. I urge you to go the next step. Codify our
partnership by authorizing a 50/50 sharing of all costs. There are
countless ways to try and analyze a formula that makes sense. I submit
to you that all the potential formulas are flawed in that none are
capable of factoring in the interconnectedness of a system that
operates like dominos on a table. Any opportunity for decisions to be
made for any other reason than for what is good for the resource will
only hurt the resource. A 50/50 cost share provides for accountability,
cost effectiveness, equal influence in decisions and I would argue
objectivity. It makes sense!
I will close by emphasizing the unprecedented nature of this
restoration by highlighting the unprecedented contribution of the State
of Florida and the unique resources that we as local sponsors bring to
the table, especially when compared to other local sponsors around the
country. We bring history, expertise and knowledge of the construction
and operation of the system, ecological and modeling expertise and
overall project management experience. Successful implementation will
depend on the ability to utilize the best from a scientific,
engineering and research pool of experts that are made up of Federal
and non-Federal staff. We support the Administration's bill as it
relates to in-kind credit. It is not our intent to construct without
authorization. We simply want to be given credit for work that we
intend to participate in doing. In fact, we propose a more frequent
balancing of the books to ensure that both the Federal and non-Federal
sponsor stay closely aligned in terms of spending. Neither of us should
get too far out ahead of the other.
Finally, I must applaud our Governor. The State of Florida has a
long-standing commitment, spanning several administrations and changes
in political party leadership. Everglades Restoration is a bipartisan
effort. History has proven this as fact. Back in 1983 then Governor Bob
Graham started the Save Our Everglades Program. Sir, we are fortunate
that you, with your historical knowledge and continued leadership serve
on the committee that will make authorization decisions. Senator Connie
Mack has been a force in the support of restoration in Washington and
Florida has benefited from the strong relationship between our two
Senators.
Our State is now under the leadership of Governor Jeb Bush. Many
touted uncertainty of his commitment despite his continued verbal
commitments and appointments of leaders known for their individual
commitment to restoration like myself. Governor Bush has done more than
talk about commitment to restoration. As he stated in his testimony, he
led the team of a broad spectrum of people who worked tirelessly to
achieve passage of a funding bill to pay the State's share of
restoration. That is what I call Leadership! I hope that such a leader
is one you want as a partner a full partner--an equal partner.
______
Responses by Michael Collins to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Does the Water Management District, as the non-Federal
sponsor of the Plan, have a recommendation for how to better ``assure''
the benefits to the natural system?
Response. The South Florida Water Management District supports the
congressionally established policy concerning State primacy instituted
in the Clean Water Act.
Question 2. As I understand it, the State will provide
approximately $100 million a year to the CERP and the SFWMD is expected
to provide the other $100 million. Can you describe for the committee
how the WMD will come up with this share of the non-Federal sponsor's
commitment without raising taxes?
Response. The financial commitment of the South Florida Water
Management District and the State of Florida to restore the Everglades
is well documented. The Governor has very publicly voiced the
commitment of the State of Florida to fund its share of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This commitment was
validated by the Florida Legislature with the passing of the Everglades
Restoration Investment Act. The South Florida Water Management District
will also meet its obligations under this commitment.
Question 3. As you know, it is the non-Federal sponsor's
responsibility to purchase land. What would the impact be on the land
acquisition process in Florida if the Federal Government did not
authorize the initial suite of ten projects this year?
Response. The current arrangement is for the local sponsor to act
as the land acquisition agent for the project. Approximately 2/3 of
lands required for the initial suite of ten projects have been
acquired. If authorization of these projects does not occur it will
jeopardize the continuation of land acquisition for these projects.
Question 4. Why is it important to move forward with authorization
of this initial set of ten projects this year?
Response. The initial set of ten projects will provide immediate
system-wide benefits to the ecosystem including natural hydroperiod
restoration, and protection from frequent catastrophic releases of
excess freshwater to coastal estuaries. Authorization will also allow
utilization of lands already purchased. Additionally, authorization now
will ensure increased efficiencies by integrating detailed engineering
and design work with ongoing Federal and State projects. On the
resource side, there is a high probability that delay in authorization
of these projects will result in continued harm to Lake Okeechobee,
coastal estuaries and the Everglades Protection Area. From a program
management perspective uncertainty will make it difficult to
appropriately staff and budget for the construction phase of projects.
In addition, it will be difficult to justify continued planning and
design efforts if projects are not authorized. The SFWMD is currently
well positioned for CERP design and construction due staff available
from the Everglades Construction Project. Construction on this project
will be completed in 2003 which fits well with shifting staff for the
initiation of a number of construction projects associated with CERP.
Delays in authorizations and subsequent appropriations would make it
difficult for the SFWMD to justify maintaining this staffing level
necessary to meet the aggressive implementation schedule. Delays in
authorization may also make it difficult to maintain a consistent level
of State funding for the Restoration Plan.
Question 5. On March 2 and 3, the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida unanimously approved the version of the Plan
that became the April 1999 Restudy. Ken Keck of Florida Citrus Mutual
testified that the members of the Governor's Commission did not have a
vote on the implementation of the Plan. This is contrary to what
Section 10 of the Restudy says, as well as what the minutes of the
meeting document. Can you clarify?
Response. Answer: On March 3, 1999 the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida was presented the final draft of the Restudy.
The Commission unanimously approved a report that proposed
modifications to the draft and recommended assurances language to the
Army Corps of Engineers. Most of the suggested changes proposed by the
Commission were incorporated in the Final Report that was transmitted
to Congress. A copy of the minutes for the referenced meeting is
attached.
______
Responses by Michael Collins to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. One of the proposals that have been discussed among
various constituencies is the use of State water law and regulatory
processes to issue assurances to the natural system and the human
environment. The State has had Chapter 373 authority to issue
consumptive use permits, minimum flows and levels, and reservations for
the natural system for almost 30 years. To date, the State has only
issued consumptive use permits. If Congress chose to use the State
water law and regulatory processes to issue assurances, how can we be
sure the State process would ever move forward?
Response. While the authority has been on the books the actual
tools necessary to accomplish change has been cumbersome. The current
infrastructure to move water throughout the State is a Federal project
the Central and Southern Florida Project. Modifying a Federal project
requires congressional authorization, which explains the critical
importance of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Further,
to evoke change and then successfully enforce change requires the State
be in good standing from a planning and scientific perspective and that
those stakeholders which will be impacted by changes are part of the
process. The State of Florida has all of this behind us now. In 1997 a
State statutory mandate to develop water supply plans that serve as a
road map for quantifying and protecting environmental water supplies
was adopted by the Florida Legislature. The Governing Board of the
South Florida Water Management District at the May meeting adopted
these regional water supply plans. And, the regional water supply plans
are dovetailed with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. We
are moving forward.
Question 2. One of the definitions under discussion in the
assurances debate is the definition of the term ``existing water
user''. What is your impression of how this term should be defined to
provide adequate protection to existing permitted users and to the
natural system?
Response. An existing water user is a user of water that holds a
valid State permit to use a specific amount of water from a specified
source for a specific duration.
Question 3. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we move forward with this project?
Response.
1. Substantial reduction in the number and severity of ecologically
damaging extreme high water and low water events on Lake Okeechobee,
resulting in protection of the Lake's littoral wetlands and deep water
zones and associated ecological and fisheries resources.
2. Reduced inputs of excessive nutrients into Lake Okeechobee.
3. Substantial reduction or elimination of damaging flows of
excessive nutrients, pesticides, and suspended materials to the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries due to improved water quality
and water depths in Lake Okeechobee.
4. Recovery of desirable salinity ranges in the Caloosahatchee and
St. Lucie estuaries, benefiting ecological and fisheries resources.
5. Recovery of more natural volume and timing patterns of flow
between Lake Okeechobee and the northern Everglades.
6. Recovery of more natural volume and timing patterns of flow into
the eastern Big Cypress basin, including improved habitat conditions
for the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow.
7. Reduced inputs and distribution of excessive nutrients in the
Everglades.
8. Substantial recovery of more natural hydroperiods, surface water
distribution and timing patterns in the Everglades, resulting in
recovery of more healthy Everglades ecosystems and the characteristic
animals of these wetlands.
9. Substantial recovery of more natural flow patterns and volumes
into Florida Bay, including recovery of natural salinity ranges,
resulting in recovery of ecological and fisheries resources.
10. Substantial increase in the spatial extent of healthy wetlands
in the southern Everglades.
11. Substantial improvements in reaching desired salinity range and
timing of flows for Lake Worth Lagoon, and recovery of healthy
fisheries.
12. Recovery of more natural flow distribution patterns and in
desired salinity range for Biscayne Bay, and recovery of healthy near-
shore ecological and fisheries resources.
13. Increased spatial extent, hydropatterns and quality of southern
Miami-Dade wetlands.
Question 4. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystem if we do not move forward with this project?
Response.
1. Reductions in the spatial extent of healthy wetlands will
continue.
2. Species that require large expanses of natural habitat, such as
the Florida panther, snail kite, and wading birds, will increasingly
become stressed by the loss of habitats.
3. Losses of organic soils will continue to reduce water storage
capacity and ecological productivity throughout the Everglades.
4. Canals and levees will continue to encourage the introduction
and spread of exotic plants and animals.
5. Unnatural fire patterns will increasingly damage the natural
landscapes of south Florida.
6. South Florida recreational and commercial fishing will decline,
both in the freshwater Everglades and Lake Okeechobee, and in the St.
Lucie, Caloosahatchee and Florida Bay estuaries.
7. Endangered species will continue to decline, and some species
may be irreversibly lost in south Florida.
8. The Everglades will cease to exist as a functional, recognizable
``River of Grass.''
Question 5. What is the current plan of action related to the 8.5
square mile area?
Response. On June 15, the South Florida Water Management District
Governing Board will decide whether or not there is an appropriate role
for the water management district as local sponsor. Thereafter, the
Army Corps of Engineers will have the responsibility to accept or
reject a locally preferred option, should one be chosen. Ultimately, it
is the Army Corps of Engineers' responsibility to complete the EIS
process and to meet the mandate required by the Modified Water Delivery
project.
Question 6. Can you elaborate on the environmental benefits that
the modified water delivery project is seeking to achieve?
Response. The Modified Water Delivery (MWD) project is an essential
and critical element in the larger restoration effort for the Florida
Everglades. The primary environmental benefit that will result from
implementation of the MWD is to provide more natural water flows in the
Northeast Shark River Slough portion of Everglades National Park.
Completion of the MWD project provides the basis and starting point for
further restoration efforts to be implemented under the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The success of several Critical
Restoration Projects and other scheduled restoration elements under the
CERP can not proceed or would be significantly delayed in their
implementation until the completion of the MWD. The MWD project has
been further identified as a critical element in a Biological Opinion
(February 1999) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. Completion of the MWD project is required
by 2003 as a condition to avoid potential jeopardy and is a compliance
requirement under the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative.
Question 7. Do you believe that the SFWMD will be able to resolve
this issue prior to implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan?
Response. The responsibility to resolve this issue does not rest
solely with the South Florida Water Management District. It is
important to recognize that the Modified Water Delivery (MWD) project
was initially considered to be a 100 percent Federal project, the
persistent disagreement among the Federal agencies as to how best to
accomplish the implementation has delayed progress. The water
management district's role has been to facilitate a public process to
identify common ground on the issue of the 8.5 square mile area and to
determine if there is an appropriate role for the water management
district. Any alternative selected that is different from that
initially proposed by the Corps of Engineers is considered a locally
preferred option. The Governing Board has requested a reevaluation of
the alternatives to identify a mitigation plan that is sustainable for
the long term and accomplishes the restoration objectives. The
Governing Board is committed to making a recommendation about how to
move forward and about an appropriate role for this agency based on
sound science and what is best for the resource, including the timely
implementation of the MWD project.
______
Responses by Michael Collins to Additional Questions from Senator Mack
Question 1. Do you support applying section 902 of the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act to all features of the Comprehensive Plan
before us today? [This provision requires a congressional review if a
project exceeds 20 percent of authorized cost]
Response. Yes, additionally we propose an equal spending
arrangement as implementation of the project's progress. Using periodic
accounting as opposed to rectifying the books at the end would increase
accountability.
Question 2. Do you support congressional committee review and
approval of the feasibility level of engineering and design work before
any construction can begin on the initial suite of ten projects in the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. The delegation to the Secretary of the Army for approval
of Project Implementation Reports (PIR) is adequate oversight. The
water management district does not oppose additional congressional
committee review and approval. We would caution against any process
that would result in significant delays to implementation as these
projects are submitted for approval now because of their immediate
benefits to the natural system.
Question 3. Do you support requiring full feasibility studies
before any other projects are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Yes, Project Implementation Reports (PIR) mirror the
requirements of a feasibility study. The water management district
supports requiring PIRs for construction of projects included in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Question 4. Do you support modifying the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to make clear the system includes the lands and
waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District as they existed on July 1, 1999?
Response. Yes. Modifying the definition of the South Florida
Ecosystem makes it clear that the precise scope and boundaries of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan consist of the lands and
waters within the boundary of the South Florida Water Management
District, including the Everglades, the Florida Keys, and the
contiguous near-shore coastal waters of South Florida.
Question 5. Do your support a provision making clear the Corps of
Engineers is only authorized to study the question about providing
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water to the natural system?
Response. The water management district maintains that the adaptive
assessment process will allow for future refinements to project
components and we are committed to continue to work with the Army Corps
and Department of Interior to establish an allocation of water that is
healthy for the Park. It is an error in judgment to predetermine that
245,000-acre feet is the additional amount of water needed for
Everglades National Park.
Question 6. Do you support language making clear that the Corps
must work with the State of Florida to ensure all groundwater
discharges resulting from the Comprehensive Plan meet all applicable
water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements?
Response. Yes and the language should be expanded to authorize
water quality features needed for the implementation of the project
components.
Question 7. Do you support replacing the project purposes language
stated in (c)(1) of the administration's draft with language restating
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan developed and passed in WRDA
1996?
Response. Yes. There was broad support and agreement to the
purposes of WRDA 1996.
Question 8. Do you support additional programmatic authority for
the Corps to construct projects of limited cost but are in keeping with
the Plan's purposes and have independent and substantial benefit to
Everglade's restoration?
Response. Yes. Programmatic authority is consistent with the
congressionally authorized critical project authority in WRDA 96.
Question 9. Do you support a 50/50 cost share between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operation and maintenance of the
project? If not, please state the cost share you believe to be
appropriate and why.
Response. Yes. The project benefits to Federal trust resources such
as Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Big Cypress National Preserve,
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park and many federally listed
protected species are well documented. In fact, the Federal Government
manages approximately 75 percent of the protected lands and waters
within the South Florida ecosystem that will benefit from the
Comprehensive Plan. The high degree of benefits to Federal trust
resources dictates a 50/50 cost share of operation and maintenance.
Question 10. Please provide your thoughts on the definition of
Project Implementation Reports found in the Administration's language.
Do you support this definition? If not, please provide suggestions as
to how you would define these reports.
Response. The primary issue with the PIR is not in the definition
of the PIR but in the process by which it is developed and implemented.
The water management district maintains that this critical process
should be a joint State/Federal initiative and not one undertaken
solely by Federal agencies.
Question 11. Do you believe the Department of Interior and the
State of Florida should be on equal footing in developing any
regulations related to assurances? If not, why?
Response. We do not think that new regulations related to
assurances are necessary or appropriate. The water management district
supports the proposal to require that Project Implementation Reports
(PIR) identify the new water made available from each project component
for the natural system and other water uses. Implementation of water
reservations for the natural system and allocations for other water
uses in accordance with State law will accomplish assurances in a way
that does not require new Federal regulations.
Question 12. Do you support the reporting requirement in the
administration's bill? If not, how would you amend the reporting
requirements?
Response. The reports should be subject to concurrence from the
Governor of the State of Florida.
______
Responses by Michael Collins to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. I would like to ask you the same question I asked
Dexter Lehtinen, given the importance of completing the Modified Water
Delivery Project, has the South Florida Water Management District
identified any plan for flood mitigation for the most developed portion
of the 8.5 square mile area that would be acceptable to environmental
interests?
Response. The South Florida Water Management District has embarked
on a very public process to identify common ground on the issue of the
8.5 square mile area. The Governing Board is committed to making a
recommendation about how to move forward and about an appropriate role
for this agency based on sound science and what is best for the
resource, including the timely implementation of the MWD project.
Question 2. In response to previous questions by this committee,
the South Florida Water Management District has indicated that the
Stormwater Treatment Areas that are being constructed as part of the
Everglades Construction Project and the additional Stormwater Treatment
Areas proposed in the Comprehensive Plan will result in significant
reductions in the phosphorus levels but that there is not good
scientific evidence that they will be able to achieve the long term
water quality standard for phosphorus estimated at 10 part per billion.
You further indicated that at this time there was insufficient
information to estimate the additional costs required to meet the long-
term standard. If those additional costs turn out to be significant and
result in a substantial increase in the cost of the Comprehensive Plan,
who should pay for these additional costs? Should they be a Water
Management District cost or should they be shared with the Corps?
Response. The project underway to ultimately achieve the long-term
water quality standard is being implemented at the expense of the State
of Florida. Further, this project is considered a ``without project
condition'' in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. If in the
future of this State, it is determined that additional measures are
needed to address water resource issues, then at that time, Federal
agencies and Congress will have an opportunity to determine if there is
a Federal interest in implementing any such proposal.
__________
Statement of Dr. Joseph W. Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Joseph Westphal,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am pleased to be
here today to present the Administration's views on an important
national issue the restoration of America's Everglades and legislation
critical to the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP) submitted to the Congress on July 1, 1999. As
requested I will discuss the CERP legislation contained in the
Department of the Army's legislative proposal for the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 submitted to the Congress on April 10,
2000.
An American treasure is in trouble. Once the Florida Everglades was
a vibrant, free-flowing river of grass that provided clean water from
Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay. It was a haven for storks, alligators,
panthers and other wildlife and was critical to the health of estuaries
and coral reefs. Today this extraordinary ecosystem--unlike any other
in the world--is dying.
Over the past half-century, as the population of south Florida has
grown, the health and size of the Everglades have steadily declined.
Fully half the Everglades have been lost to agriculture and
development. And the surviving remnants suffer from a severe shortage
of clean, reliable water. In our efforts to guard communities against
flooding and to ensure adequate water supplies for drinking and
irrigation, we have diverted the natural water flows that are the
essence and very lifeblood of the Everglades.
As Marjory Stoneman Douglas said in The Everglades: River of Grass,
``There are no other Everglades in the world.'' Like the tropical
rainforest of South America and the giant redwood forest of the west,
the Everglades is a unique ecosystem. We must act now, and act
aggressively, if we are to save this special place. Enactment of the
legislation submitted to you on April 10, 2000 is a critical next step.
On July 1, 1999, on behalf of the Administration, and in
partnership with the State of Florida, I submitted to Congress a
comprehensive plan to restore the South Florida ecosystem by modifying
the existing Central and Southern Florida project. The South Florida
ecosystem includes the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee, Florida Bay, and
Biscayne Bay and the Florida Keys. The CERP, which will be implemented
over the next 25 years, will:
Improve the health of over 2.4 million acres of the south
Florida ecosystem, including Everglades National Park;
Improve the health of Lake Okeechobee;
Virtually eliminate damaging freshwater releases to the
estuaries;
Improve water deliveries to Florida and Biscayne Bays;
Improve water quality; and
Enhance water supply and maintain flood protection.
The CERP, which was formerly known as the ``Restudy,'' is the most
ambitious ecosystem restoration project ever undertaken in the United
States--if not the world. Its fundamental goal is to capture most of
the fresh water that now flows unused to the sea and deliver it when
and where it is needed most. Eighty percent of this ``new'' water
targeted for capture will be devoted to environmental restoration,
reviving the ecosystem from the Kissimmee River, through Lake
Okeechobee, through Everglades National Park, and out to the coral
reefs of Florida Bay. The remaining 20 percent will benefit cities and
farmers, enhancing water supplies and supporting a strong, sustainable
economy for south Florida.
In short, the CERP consists of over 60 components that work
together to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem
by delivering the right amount of water, of the right quality, to the
right places and at the right time. The Army's legislative proposal
approves the CERP as a scientifically sound blue print for restoration
and provides authority to implement the initial increment of the
improvements described in the report of the Chief of Engineers on the
Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study, dated
June 22, 1999.
While the CERP reflects the best available science, we are prepared
to refine our thinking as we learn more. Thus the CERP is designed to
be flexible, to incorporate and respond to new information as it
becomes available. Continuous monitoring and independent scientific
review are key components of the CERP. Still, the CERP provides a sound
basis to move forward immediately. There is too much at stake and
little time to act.
The Problem
The Everglades of today are not the same place that Mrs. Douglas
wrote about in 1947. Millions of people have encroached upon the
ecosystem that once was the domain of panthers, alligators and flocks
of birds so vast that they would darken the sky. With the arrival of
people came the desire to manage the water, to tame the free flowing
river of grass from Lake Okeechobee to the Florida Keys.
The Central and Southern Florida Project was authorized by Congress
50 years ago to provide flood protection and fresh water for the people
of south Florida. This project accomplished its intended purpose and
allowed people to more easily live on the land. It did so, however, at
tremendous ecological cost to the Everglades. While the population of
people has risen from 500,000 in the 1950's to more than 6 million
today, the numbers of native birds and other wildlife have dwindled and
some have vanished. The size of the Everglades has been reduced by half
and several wildlife species are threatened or endangered.
Over the past 100 years, excessive drainage of wetlands and changes
in the natural variability of water flows have altered the Everglades
wetland ecosystem on a regional scale. Today, discharges to the
Everglades are often too much, or too little, and frequently at the
wrong times of the year. An over-abundance or scarcity of water affects
plants and wildlife accustomed to the Everglades' historic range of
water flows, levels and seasons. In addition, canals and highways that
criss-cross the Everglades have interrupted its historic overland sheet
flow.
Water quality throughout south Florida has deteriorated over the
past 50 years. More than one-half of the wetlands that act as natural
filters and retention areas are gone. Some untreated urban and
agricultural storm water is sent directly to natural areas and
estuaries. Too much, or too little, water is often sent to estuaries.
Too many nutrients are entering the Everglades, with an over-abundance
of cattails a visible indicator of the consequences.
Historically, most rainwater soaked into the ground in the region's
vast wetlands. As south Florida developed, the canal system built over
the past 100 years worked effectively and drained water off the land
very quickly. As a result, approximately 1.7 billion gallons of water
per day on average is discharged to the ocean. One very significance
consequence is that not enough water is available for the environment.
Under current conditions, these natural systems cannot recover
their defining characteristics and they will not survive. The growing
demand for a reliable and inexpensive supply of water for agriculture,
industry and a burgeoning population will likely exceed the limits of
readily accessible sources. As the needs of the region's natural
systems are factored in, as they must be, conflicts for water among
users will become even more severe. Water shortages will become more
frequent and more severe unless changes to the water management system
are made. The health of the ecosystem will continue to decline unless
we act now.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
First and foremost, the goal of the CERP is to restore, protect and
preserve the south Florida ecosystem. The focus of the CERP has been to
restore the defining ecological features of the original Everglades and
other parts of south Florida ecosystem while providing for other water
related needs of the region.
Both the problems with declining ecosystem health and the solutions
to Everglades restoration can be framed by four interrelated factors:
quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water. The principal
goal of restoration is to deliver the right amount of water, of the
right quality, to the right places and at the right time. The natural
environment will respond to these hydrologic improvements, and we will
once again see a healthy Everglades ecosystem.
Quantity
Significantly less water flows through the ecosystem today compared
to historical times. As noted above, on average, 1.7 billion gallons of
water that once flowed through the ecosystem is wasted each day through
discharges to the ocean or gulf in excess of the needs of the
estuaries. The CERP will capture most of this water in surface and
underground storage areas where it will be stored until it is needed.
Specifically, this water will be stored in more than 217,000 acres of
new reservoirs and wetlands-based treatment areas, and 300 underground
aquifer storage and recovery wells. These features vastly increase the
amount of water available in south Florida.
Quality
The quality of water in the south Florida ecosystem has been
diminished significantly. Excess phosphorus, mercury, and other
contaminants harm the region's surface water and groundwater. The water
quality of the Everglades Water Conservation Areas, the coastal
estuaries, Florida Bay and the Keys show similar signs of significant
degradation. The CERP will improve the quality of water discharged to
natural areas by first directing it to surface storage reservoirs and
wetlands based stormwater treatment areas. In addition, the CERP
recommended the development of a comprehensive integrated water quality
plan for the region that will further improve water quality.
Timing
Alternating periods of natural flooding and drying, called
hydroperiods, were vital to the Everglades ecosystem. These natural
hydroperiods have been severely altered by human activities. Restoring
these variations in water flows and levels is an integral part of the
CERP. Specifically, the timing of water held and released into the
ecosystem will be modified by the CERP so that it more closely matches
natural patterns. The CERP will reduce the harmful water levels that
damage Lake Okeechobee and its shoreline. Improved water deliveries to
the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers will reduce damage to the
estuaries caused by too much or too little fresh water. Florida and
Biscayne bays will receive improved fresh water flows. In other areas,
an operational plan that mimics natural rainfall patterns will enhance
the timing of water sent to the Water Conservation Areas, Everglades
National Park, and other wildlife management areas.
Distribution
The areal extent and movement of water through the system is the
final factor in the water equation. Over 50 percent of the original
Everglades have been lost to urban and agricultural development.
Further, the remaining ecosystem has been separated, or
compartmentalized, by canals and levees. To improve the connectivity of
natural areas, and to enhance sheetflow, more than 240 miles of levees
and canals will be removed within the Everglades. Most of the Miami
Canal in Water Conservation Area 3 will be filled and 20 miles of the
Tamiami Trail will be rebuilt with bridges and culverts, allowing water
to flow more naturally into Everglades National Park. In the Big
Cypress National Preserve, the levee that separates the preserve from
the Everglades will be removed to restore more natural overland water
flow.
In summary, the CERP will store much of the excess water that is
now sent to the sea so there will be enough water to meet the needs of
both ecosystem and urban and agricultural users. The CERP includes a
number of features to improve the quality of water flowing to the
natural environment. It will continue to provide the same level of
flood protection for south Florida. The CERP is not perfect no plan
could be given the complexity of the ecosystem and the effects of past
modifications. We know that we do not have all the answers and that we
will have to make adjustments as we learn more. In this regard, the
concept of adaptive assessment is an integral part of the CERP. In
short, we will monitor, use independent peer review, public input, and
make necessary adjustments as we go, utilizing the effective
interagency and multi-stakeholder partnerships that allowed us to
develop the CERP.
Why Restore the Everglades?
Perhaps first and foremost, the Everglades are an American treasure
that is in serious trouble. There is no other wetland system like the
``River of Grass'' in the world.
As with other great natural and cultural resources, we have a
responsibility to protect and restore this treasure for generations to
come.
Implementing the CERP over the next 25 or so years will cost
approximately $7.8 billion. While the implementation cost of the
project is substantial, it will be spread over many years and shared
equally between the Federal Government and the State of Florida. More
importantly, the environmental and economic costs of inaction are
enormous. If we do not act now, the Everglades will continue to die and
water shortages will have real effects on Florida's economy.
The benefits to the Nation of implementing the CERP are tremendous.
The entire south Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades, will
become healthy, with many of its natural characteristics restored.
Urban and agricultural water users will also benefit from enhanced
water supplies. Flood protection, so important to hurricane-prone south
Florida, will be maintained and, in some cases, improved.
The economic benefits from implementation of the CERP are wide-
ranging and are linked with the availability of clean, abundant water
in the ecosystem. Not only is water the key to ecosystem restoration,
it is also necessary for sustainable agricultural and urban
environments. It is important for recreation, tourism and navigation.
It plays a significant and obvious role in commercial and recreational
fishing.
With the CERP, the distribution of plants and animals will return
to more natural patterns as more pre-drainage water flows are restored.
The CERP will support the return of the large nesting ``rookeries'' of
wading birds to Everglades National Park, and the recovery of several
endangered species, including the wood stork, snail kite, Cape Sable
seaside sparrow, and American crocodile. We are confident that
implementation of the CERP will allow us to once again witness an
abundance of wildlife in the Everglades.
Lake Okeechobee, which is regionally important to fish and
wildlife, will once again become a healthy lake. Both the shallow and
open water areas within the lake, essential to its commercial and
recreational fishery, will be greatly enhanced by improved water
levels. This will mean more abundant and healthier fish populations.
Water quality in the lake will also be improved significantly by
reducing the pollutant loading of water flowing into the lake.
The CERP will also improve fresh water deliveries to Florida and
Biscayne bays by increasing the flow and reduce the water lost to tide
through the St Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. Appropriate fresh
water regimes will result in substantial improvements in aquatic and
semi-aquatic habitats, including mangroves, coastal marshes, and
seagrass beds interacting together to produce food, shelter, and
breeding and nursery grounds; these coastal habitat areas will support
more balanced, productive fish, shellfish, and wildlife communities.
The CERP will begin to reverse, in a relatively short time, the
pattern of ecological degradation that has been occurring in the
natural system for many decades. If we start now, the natural wetlands
system of south Florida will be healthier by the year 2010.
Like many other public works projects, implementing the CERP is an
investment in the nation's future. With this investment, we can restore
this unique ecosystem and leave a proud legacy for future generations.
If we do not make the investment now, we will suffer the irretrievable
loss of America's Everglades.
As noted above, the estimated cost to implement the CERP is $7.8
billion. It will also cost approximately $182 million each year to
operate, maintain, and monitor the CERP. Taken together over the more
than 20 years needed to implement the CERP, the annual costs amount to
just over $400 million. In general, the Federal Government will pay
half the construction cost and the State of Florida and the South
Florida Water Management District will pay the other half. We are
proposing that the State pay 60 percent of the cost to operate and
maintain the project.
The Restoration Effort Begins with Authorization in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000
On April 10, 2000, on behalf of the Administration, I submitted to
Congress a comprehensive legislative proposal that will allow the
implementation of the CERP. Our legislation would accomplish several
important objectives, including the following:
1). a congressional endorsement of the importance of restoring the
Everglades and that such restoration is a National priority;
2). a congressional endorsement of the CERP as a technically sound
blue print for Everglades restoration;
3). the authorization of an initial package of projects, including
four pilot projects and ten of the 68 project features;
4). the authorization of a program authority to allow the
expeditious implementation of smaller project features;
5). language that will ensure that project benefits are achieved
and maintained for as long as the project is authorized; and
6). provisions that recognize the importance of outreach to
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and business owners
in the South Florida ecosystem.
A more detailed discussion of each of these objectives as well as
additional information on our legislative proposal is provided below.
Recognizing the Importance of Everglades Restoration. It is
important that Everglades restoration becomes a priority and that the
Nation recognizes that a national treasure--America's Everglades--is at
great risk. Our legislation would allow the Congress to declare, like
the Administration, the importance of this unprecedented natural
resource.
The CERP--a Technically Sound Blue Print for Restoration. Our
legislation would have Congress affirm that the CERP is a technically
sound approach for restoring the Everglades. With its extensive public
involvement and adaptive assessment approach, the CERP will lead to a
healthy and sustainable ecosystem. It is important that the
comprehensive nature of the CERP be maintained and that the temptation
to pick and choose various parts or features be avoided. The 68 CERP
features work together and each provides important benefits to the
ecosystem.
Authorization of Pilot projects will address technical
uncertainties. Prior to full-scale implementation, six pilot projects,
with a total cost of $97 million, will be built to address
uncertainties with some of the features in the CERP (two of these pilot
project were authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1999). In our legislation we have proposed authorization of the four
remaining pilot projects at a total cost of $69 million. These four
projects include: aquifer storage and recovery in the Caloosahatchee
River Basin; in-ground reservoir technology in the lake belt region of
Miami-Dade County; levee seepage management technology adjacent to
Everglades National Park; and advanced wastewater treatment technology
to determine the feasibility of using reuse water for ecological
restoration.
Authorization of an Initial set of construction features will
provide immediate system-wide water quality and flow distribution
benefits and use already purchased land. Ten projects, totaling $1.1
billion, are recommended for initial authorization. These projects were
selected for initial authorization based on the following four factors:
1) the ability to provide immediate water quality and flow distribution
benefits to the ecosystem; 2) the ability to utilize lands already
purchased; 3) the linkage with on-going restoration projects; and 4)
maximizing the benefits of Federal investments already undertaken. For
example, if authorized, we could update the ongoing Modified Water
Deliveries Project to make it more consistent with the CERP by taking
immediate steps to improve flow distribution through the Tamiami Trail.
In addition, the South Florida Water Management District and the U.S.
Department of the Interior have already purchased lands, such as the
Talisman lands, for a number of CERP components. Authorization of
projects that use lands already purchased will ensure that these lands
are utilized for restoration as soon as possible. We have previously
provided the committee detailed information on each of the ten projects
proposed for authorization.
Implementation of the CERP provides flexibility to adapt to new
information. Since no plan can anticipate exactly how a complex
ecosystem will respond during restoration efforts, our legislation
proposes an extensive monitoring program. For example, the remaining
Everglades are only one-half as large as their original size and
current boundaries often do not follow natural ground elevations or
habitat patterns. For these and many other reasons, the ways in which
this ecosystem will respond to the recovery of more natural water
patterns could include some unforeseen outcomes. The CERP anticipates
the possibility of such outcomes. The CERP is designed to allow project
modifications that take advantage of what is learned from system
responses, both expected and unexpected. Called adaptive assessment,
and using a well-focused regional monitoring program, this approach
will allow us to maximize environmental benefits while ensuring that
restoration dollars are used wisely. The monitoring program, which will
cost approximately $10 million per year, will measure how well each
component of the plan accomplishes its objectives, and, this, in turn,
sets up opportunities for refinement of succeeding components.
Independent scientific review through a National Research Council
panel, the Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem
or ``CROGEE'', is also an integral part of this process.
Programmatic authority will expedite implementation. To expedite
the completion of certain smaller features, an authorization is being
sought similar to the ``critical projects'' authority in Section
528(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. These
projects would ``produce independent, immediate, and substantial
restoration, preservation and protection benefits,'' and expedite some
components of the CERP. The programmatic authority would be limited to
those individual components of the CERP that have a total project cost
of $70 million or less, with a maximum Federal share of $35 million per
project. A total of 27 components of the CERP, with a total combined
Federal and non-Federal cost of $490 million, could be implemented in
an efficient and expedited manner. Components such as the Arthur R.
Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge internal canal
structures, the Lake Okeechobee watershed water quality treatment
facility and the Florida Keys tidal restoration project could be
accomplished under this programmatic authority.
The remainder of the CERP's features are to be included in future
Water Resources Development Acts. Our legislation makes it clear that
Congress will be asked to authorize the remaining components of the
CERP in subsequent WRDA bills. At a cost of approximately $6.2 billion,
these 26 remaining features will undergo additional studies and
analysis before authorization is sought from Congress. Many of these
project components are dependent on the results of the proposed pilot
projects such as aquifer storage and recovery features and the in-
ground reservoirs in Miami-Dade County. Based on the implementation
schedule, project implementation reports will be submitted to Congress
periodically through the year 2014.
Cost sharing. Consistent with the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996, the non-Federal share of the cost of implementing the projects
is 50 percent. Our legislation directs the non-Federal local sponsor to
be responsible for the acquisition of lands, easements and rights-of-
way, and relocations, and provides credit for such acquisitions toward
the non-Federal share. In a change from the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, we have recommended that operations and maintenance costs
be shared 60 percent non-Federal and 40 percent Federal. We believe
that this is an appropriate allocation of costs in light of the
benefits to Federal lands that will be achieved by implementation of
the CERP.
Project Implementation Reports bridge the gap between the CERP and
detailed design. Before any construction starts on any of the 68
features of the CERP detailed design, engineering, and environmental
review will completed. Specifically, prior to implementing any
authorized project feature, a Project Implementation Report (PIR) for
each project will be completed to address its cost-effectiveness,
engineering feasibility, and potential environmental impacts. The PIR,
which will include public review and comment, will bridge the gap
between the programmatic-level design contained in the CERP and the
detailed design necessary to proceed to construction. The purpose of
the PIR is to affirm, reformulate or modify a component or group of
components in the recommended CERP. PIRs for each project will identify
any additional water to be made available by that project for the
natural system, existing legal users and other water related needs,
consistent with programmatic regulations governing the dedication and
management of water to be issued.
Recognition of socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
Recognizing that a large percentage of the population of the south
Florida ecosystem is made up of minority groups (e.g., 20.5 percent
Hispanic), our proposed legislation would establish a program to ensure
that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals within the
south Florida ecosystem are informed of the CERP and have a meaningful
opportunity to review and comment on its implementation. In addition,
the legislation requires that a program goal be established that not
less than 10 percent of the amounts made available to construct
projects be expended with small business concerns owned and controlled
by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals within south
Florida.
Assuring that CERP Benefits are Achieved and Maintained. Both the
natural and human environment benefits substantially from the
implementation of the CERP. Ensuring that these benefits are achieved
and maintained is an important part of our legislation. Further, our
legislation ensures that existing legal users are not harmed and that
overall authorized levels of flood protection are maintained.
Specifically, our legislation provides that the primary and
overarching purpose of the CERP is to restore, preserve and protect the
natural system within the South Florida ecosystem and directs that the
Plan be implemented in such a way to ensure that the benefits to the
natural system and human environment in the form of proper deliveries
of clean fresh water at the proper time and distribution are achieved
and maintained for so long as the Central and Southern Florida is
authorized.
To meet our assurances objectives, our legislation creates a four
part, tiered approach. The first part is the legislation itself, which
makes it clear that Congress intends for the benefits to be achieved
and maintained.
The second part involves the development of a programmatic
regulation to identify, in a greater detail, the amount of water to be
dedicated and managed for the natural system and the human environment.
This regulation would serve as a bridge between the legislation and the
project specific regulations discussed below. We believe that this will
help minimize unnecessary debates 10 to 20 years from now when projects
are being completed. The programmatic regulation would be issued with
the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior and after consultation
with the Governor and other agencies. In addition, the public would
have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed regulations.
The third part or tier is the detailed design, engineering, and
environmental work that will be completed for each feature before
construction starts. This will also give the public, interest groups,
the State, and the Tribes substantial opportunities to influence the
final characteristics of each feature. Further, the non-Federal sponsor
will have a lead role with the Corps for each feature. This will be
codified in a project cooperation agreement that will be developed for
each feature.
The final part of our approach is the project specific regulations
that will be developed for each feature. These regulations will be
developed based on public review and comment and in consultation with
other Federal agencies, the tribes, and the State. These regulations
will prescribe in greater detail how each feature will provide its
intended benefit(s). Further, all project specific regulations will be
consistent with the programmatic regulations, based on the best
available science, and assure that quantity, quality, timing, and
distribution issues are addressed.
CERP Implementation Reports to Congress. Restoring the Everglades
will require a large investment on the part of the Nation's taxpayers.
We believe that it is important to disclose fully how the restoration
is going over the next 30 plus years. In this regard, we have developed
a reporting program. Specifically, the Secretaries of the Army and the
Interior, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Commerce and the State of Florida, will jointly submit
reports to Congress, beginning on October 1, 2005 and ending on October
1, 2036 that describe the implementation of the CERP. The report will
include the determination of each Secretary concerning the benefits to
the natural system and the human environment that have been achieved as
of the date of the report.
Conclusion
July 1, 1999, was a historic day for ecosystem restoration. An
unprecedented ecosystem restoration plan was presented to Congress for
authorization. The CERP represents the best available science and a
solid roadmap for restoring an American treasure, the Everglades. The
CERP also represents a partnership between many Federal agencies, two
Indian tribes, the State of Florida, and many local governments--all
who recognize the import of this effort and the consequences of
inaction. This partnership is vital to our long-term success and we
must all work to ensure that it is sustained.
The CERP is also a reflection of the contemporary Army Corps of
Engineers. Our agency has made environmental restoration a priority
mission.
Restoration of the Everglades is a high priority for the Clinton/
Gore Administration, including the Army Corps of Engineers. It is a
high priority for many in Florida, including the Florida Congressional
delegation. We must make it a priority for the Nation. The Everglades
are America's Everglades and each of us should try to understand better
the importance of saving this treasure.
The ecological and cultural significance of the Everglades is equal
to the Grand Canyon, the Rocky Mountains or the Mississippi River. As
responsible stewards of our natural and cultural resources, we cannot
sit idly by and watch any of these disappear. The Everglades deserves
the same recognition and support.
We are now at an important crossroads in our efforts to restore
this internationally important ecosystem. The future of the CERP now
rests with the Congress who must authorize and fund its implementation.
If we act now with courage and vision to implement the CERP we will be
successful and we will leave a proud Everglades legacy. If we fail to
act, our legacy will be one of lost opportunities for all future
generations. The world is indeed watching as we make this choice.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. Again, it has been a
pleasure to participate in this hearing and I look forward to working
with you and the rest of the committee on this important issue. With me
today is Mr. Michael Davis, my Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
and Legislation, and Mr. Stu Applebaum from the Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District. We would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Can you describe the formula your office used in
devising the 40-60 Operations and Maintenance split and justify why the
Federal Government should be assuming this percentage of O&M costs.
Response. The Corps analysis shows that 80 percent of the new water
obtained under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)
will be used to benefit the natural system environment and the
remaining 20 percent will benefit regional water supply for urban and
agricultural users. The 40-60 cost sharing was derived as follows:
Cost share 80 percent of the new water for the natural system as
environmental restoration at 50 percent--Federal; 50 percent--Non-
Federal. Cost share 20 percent of regional water supply at 100 percent
non-Federal, or
Cost Sharing Formula:
Non-Federal 0&M = 0.80 (.50) + 0.20 (1.00) = 60 percent
Federal 0&M = 0.80 (.50) + 0.20 (.00) = 40 percent
The Administration supports Federal cost sharing of the restoration
portion of the O&M since the CERP will provide benefits to Department
of the Interior administered lands including Everglades National park,
Big Cypress National Preserve, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge,
and Biscayne Bay.
Question 2. Is there precedence for the Federal Government to share
in this O&M cost?
Response. No. The Everglades restoration effort is of national and
international significance. The Administration considers the CERP as a
unique initiative that can be separated from traditional Corps
projects. In addition, Federal lands, including Everglades National
Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne Bay National Park, and
the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, administered by the
Department of the Interior, would substantially benefit for the
project. Further, the south Florida ecosystem is a unique and complex
national treasure.
Question 3. Can you provide the committee with the cost-per-unit of
water that would be derived from wastewater reuse as opposed to water
derived from other sources in the Plan.
Response. Unit costs for water are cliff cult to compare between
alternative features since these facilities have benefits that are not
accounted for in a simple, unit cost comparison, nor does the analysis
account for flood or water quality aspects of reservoirs. For example,
aquifer storage and recovery provides multi-year recovery that is not
possible with surface storage. Wastewater reuse is unique in that is
available during both dry and wet seasons. Notwithstanding the
difficulty of directly comparing the unit costs, following is a listing
of the unit cost for these features:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feature Unit cost (per 1,000 gallons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewater Reuse................... $1.71 to $1.76
Aquifer Storage and Recovery....... $1.27 to $2.50
Surface Storage.................... $0.85 to $1.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: Unit costs include annual O&M)
Question 4. Can you comment on the desirability of wastewater as a
source of water for the natural system?
Response. The reclaimed water from wastewater treatment plants
provides an opportunity to capture an additional source of water to
achieve the ecosystem restoration goals in south Florida This new
source of water is unique in that it is available during both dry and
wet seasons. Further, unlike other regions in south Florida, the
Southern Everglades, Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay all have a demand for
water during the wet season that exceeds the levels presently provided
by the Central and Southern Florida Project system.
Question 5. When I read the provision on Programmatic Regulations,
my initial reaction was that this concept is completely contrary to the
flexibility the Corps is trying to build into the Plan with Adaptive
Assessment and is entirely premature. How can you suggest issuing a
one-time regulation, 2 years after date of enactment of the Plan, for a
system that will not be fully functioning for 20-30 years?
Response. The Administration believes that the programmatic
regulations are needed and flexible to identify, in a greater detail,
the amount of water to be dedicated and managed for the natural system
and the human environment. This regulation would serve as a bridge
between the legislation and the project specific regulations that will
be developed as we proceed with each Project Implementation Report. We
believe that this will help minimize unnecessary debates 10 to 20 years
from now when projects are being completed. These regulations could be
adjusted over time based on our extensive monitoring and adaptive
assessment program.
Question 6. What was the rationale behind making the project-
specific regulations consistent with the programmatic regulations as
opposed to with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (April
1999 document)?
Response. Project specific regulations will be developed based on
public review and comment and in consultation with other Federal
agencies, the tribes, and the State. These regulations will describe in
greater detail how each feature in the CERP will provide its intended
benefit(s). Further, all project specific regulations will be
consistent with the programmatic regulations, based on the best
available science, and assure that quantity, quality, timing, and
distribution issues are addressed. Also, these regulations, like the
programmatic regulations, could be adjusted over time based on our
extensive monitoring and adaptive assessment program.
Question 7. Section 902 of WRDA 1986 requires the Corps to seek
congressional approval if a project's costs are going to exceed the
authorized amount by 20 percent. Are the 68 components of the
Comprehensive Plan included in the Administration's WRDA proposal
subject to this provision? Do you think it would be more or less cost-
effective to instead institute an overall project cap, that is, a cap
of the entire Plan, rather than on the individual components.
Response. Each of the project components in the CERP, when
authorized, are subject to the conditions, regarding allowable
increases in cost, established in Section 902 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986. The Army believes that it is not appropriate
to apply the Section 902 funding cap to a program based upon a
conceptual design. Historically, the 902 cap has been applied to
projects as they are individually authorized. In this case, each of the
proposed components will undergo further evaluation, refinement, and
detailed design, during preparation of the Project Implementation
Reports. While the Comprehensive Restoration Plan takes a conservative
approach toward cost uncertainties, including contingencies to account
for uncertainties, more accurate cost assessments will be developed and
included in the PIRs. Since the most accurate cost estimates will be
available for individual components at the completion of the PMs, the
most cost-effective approach to the 902 cap question would be to apply
it to individual components as they are authorized.
Question 8. Why is it important to move forward with authorization
of this initial set of ten projects this year? Can you describe what
the impacts of delay would mean for the ecosystem?
Response. These 10 initial projects will provide immediate system-
wide water quality and flow distribution benefits to the ecosystem,
utilize lands already purchased, and maximum integration with ongoing
Federal and State projects. These projects will begin reversing the
ecological damage in the Everglades and other south Florida ecosystems,
which is still continuing Initiating project construction in 2004
requires authorization prior to the spring of 2002. Immediate
authorization of these components will improve the timing of
environmental water deliveries to the Water Conservation Areas
including reducing damaging flood releases from the Everglades.
The risks of not implementing this Plan and authorizing the initial
projects are severe. Reductions in the spatial extent of healthy
wetlands will continue. Species that require large expanses of natural
habitat, such as the Florida panther, snail kite, and wading birds,
will increasingly become stressed by the loss of habitats. Losses of
organic soils will continue to reduce water storage capacity and
ecological productivity throughout the ecosystem. Canals and levees
will continue to encourage the introduction and spread of exotic plants
and animals. Unnatural fire patterns will increasingly damage the
natural landscape of south Florida South Florida recreational and
commercial fishing will decline, both in freshwater Everglades and Lake
Okeechobee, and in the Caloosahatchee and Florida Bay estuaries.
Question 9. Would you be supportive of a safeguard mechanism,
perhaps comparable to the process Congress approved last year for the
Challenge 21 program, which would allow these projects to be
authorized, but give the Congress appropriate oversight?
Response. Yes. The Army supports congressional committee review of
the project implementation reports prior to initiation of construction
on the initial ten projects recommended for authorization in the
Administration's bill.
Question 10. When is a Record of Decision expected on the Modified
Waters Delivery Project?
Response. The authorized Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades
National Park project (MOOD) Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on May
13, 1993. Currently in the design phase, there are three additional
Supplements to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) underway. They
are the 8.5 Square Mile Area, Conveyance and Seepage Control features,
and Tamiami Trail modifications. The projected ROD dates on these are
September 2000, May 2001, and June 2001, respectively. In addition, it
is envisioned that an operational EIS will be initiated on the MOD and
C-111 projects.
The Jacksonville District is also working on an EIS to cover the
interim operations until the MOD project is in place. This EIS will
cover the operations necessary to meet the interim targets outlined in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion dated February
19, 1999. These interim targets are necessary to assist in the recovery
efforts on the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow.
Question 11. In regard to credit for in-kind service, is this a
special privilege only being extended to the non-Federal Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, or are there other major projects with
similar provisions? Does the Corps have a general policy on credit for
in-kind service? Is credit being provided for unauthorized projects?
How does providing this credit to the South Florida Water Management
District for authorized projects enhance the efficiency of Everglades
restoration? Would there be any cost savings associated with this
efficiency?
Response. The general policy of the Army is that credit is not
Afforded for in-kind services unless there is clear statutory language
to do so. Congress has authorized credit for in-kind services in an
increasing number of programs and projects over the years. For example,
non-Federal interests must pay 50 percent of the cost of feasibility
studies. By law, half of that contribution may be in the form of in-
kind services (33 USC 2215). A broad number of general authorities
permit non-Federal interests to build all or a portion of specified
types of projects. Examples include Section 215 of the Flood Control
Act of 1968, as amended (42 USC 1962d-Sa), Section 104 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 USC 2214), Section 204 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (22 USC 2232), and Section 211
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 USC 701b-13), to
name a few. A number of environmental infrastructure programs that
Congress has authorized beginning with the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 have contained provisions providing for the non-Federal
interests to provide all or part of the project work. In other words,
full reimbursement has been authorized. Examples include the program
for South Central Pennsylvania (Section 313 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992, as amended), the program for Southern and
Eastern Kentucky (Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996), and the programs for Mississippi, Central New Mexico, Ohio, and
Rural Nevada and Montana, all authorized in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 in Sections 592-595, respectively.
Additionally, Congress has also authorized credit for work in-kind
performed by non-Federal interests in several environmental restoration
programs. Examples include projects authorized under Section 1135 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended (33 USC 2309a),
and Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as
amended (22 USC 2330). In the former instance, the non-Federal interest
may provide up to 80 percent of the required non-Federal share through
in-kind services. Under the latter authority, the non-Federal interest
may be reimbursed for all project related expenses. Finally, there have
been a number of specific projects over the years where Congress has
authorized credit or reimbursement for in-kind services performed by
non-Federal interests. Recent examples from the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 include Section 318 concerning Lake Michigan,
Illinois, Section 338 addressing Arthur Kill, New York and New Jersey,
Section 339 addressing Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay Channels, New York
and New Jersey.
Regarding the questions concerning credit for in-kind services for
``unauthorized projects'', we assume the question refers to projects
under the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). Again, to the extent
authorized by law, the Army affords credit for in-kind services. As
stated above, the Section 1135 and 206 program are considered part of
CAP in that the specific projects are not separately authorized by
Congress. Yet, as already indicated, Congress has enacted legislation
to provide credits or reimbursement. It should also be noted that
pursuant to Section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999,
specific authority was provided to allow the non-Federal interests
participating in the Everglades Critical Restoration program to receive
credit for work-in-kind performed on each individual project, including
full reimbursement. Similar to the CAP, none of the Critical
Restoration Projects was separately authorized by Congress.
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has great
expertise in many of the areas that will be called upon in order to
implement the Everglades restoration. The Army believes it can leverage
that expertise by working in partnership with the SFWMD throughout the
design, construction and operation and maintenance of the restoration
project(s). To the extent that the SFWMD has capabilities it is
efficient from the standpoint of scheduling and use of resources, as
well as cost effective and equitable to permit the SFWMD to provide all
or portion of its financial obligations through in-kind services.
Allowing for the use of in-kind services in lieu of a cash contribution
may also ease some of the cash-flow issues for the SFWMD associated
with percent cost sharing on this ambitious project.
Question 12. I understand that there is a list of projects under
the original Central and Southern Florida Project that can be
Reauthorized once the CERP is enacted. Can you provide the committee,
for the record, a list of these projects, their estimated costs, and
why the project would be slated for deauthorization?
Response. All or portions of the following separable elements of
the C&SF Project are unprogrammed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separable element $1,000's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin County...................... $110,733
Herbert Hoover Dike Levee and $69,000
Revetment.
Shingle Creek Basin................ $18,291
Everglades National Park........... $18,582
St. Lucie Canal.................... $31,114
Bolles & Cross..................... $24,474
Water Conservation................. $99,755
C-111.............................. $761
Martin County Flood Control........ $77,682
Martin County Backflow............. $55,530
Lake Okeechobee.................... $324,232
Lake Okeechobee Rec................ $40,439
Port Mayaca........................ $2,429
Kissimmee Basin.................... $25,659
St. Lucie County................... $3,596
C-103S............................. $1,854
Total.......................... $904,131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This does not include the $7,363 for the Upper St. John River
Basin separable element.
The CERP does not address de-authorization of existing portions of
the C&SF Project, therefore, authorization of the CERP will not in and
of itself provide justification for de-authorization of the above
mentioned separable elements or portions thereof. The determination of
the need for these already authorized features of the C&SF Project will
in some cases be addressed during the PIR process as part of the
implementation plan. As you are aware, the PIRs are subject to the
National Environmental Policy Act compliance, agency and public review,
as well as congressional review and approval. De-authorization of other
portions of the C&SF Project would require separate de-authorization
action.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. Concerns were raised at the hearing regarding the
Modified Water Delivery Project. Please describe the history of this
project, the type arid cause of problems that have been encountered in
implementing it, and what actions the Corps is taking to resolve any
remaining problems and expeditiously complete this project.
Response. The Modified Water Deliveries Project was authorized as a
part of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of
1989 (P.L. 101-229 Section 104). This Act authorized the Secretary of
the Army to construct modifications to the Central and Southern Florida
(C&SF) Project to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park
(ENP). The act also authorizes the Secretary to construct a flood
mitigation system for the residential area in the East Everglades
(known as the 8.5 Square Mile Area) and adjacent agricultural lands if
the Secretary determines that those areas will be adversely affected by
project operations. This Act led to the preparation of a General Design
Memorandum by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate alternatives
for improving water deliveries to the ENP and providing flood
mitigation, where needed. This GDM was completed in 1992 and approved.
It recommended a plan for improving water flows to the ENP and
mitigating the impacts to the 8.5 SMA and agricultural lands.
The Project has been under design and construction by the Corps
since then. Funding is provided through the Department of Interior. The
Corps has completed construction of the S-155A & B structures on the
southern end of Water Conservation Area (WCA) 3B and the construction
of the flood proofing plan for the Tigertail Indian Camp on Tamiami
Trail. The acquisition of the land needed for the mitigation plan for
the 8.5 SMA has also been completed.
Several issues have surfaced during the design of the remainder of
the project. These concerns have resulted in additional evaluations: 1)
A conveyance and seepage analysis that is examining the plan for
reconnecting WCA 3A and WCA 3B and seepage management from WCA 3B to
restore more natural waterflow; 2) An analysis of Tamiami Trail to
examine the impacts of higher water levels and flow diversions on the
function and maintenance of the highway, and; 3) An analysis of the 8.5
SMA conducted at the request of the local sponsor for this portion, the
South Florida Water Management District, to examine alternatives to the
mitigation plan for the 8.5 SMA as developed and approved in the 1992
GDM These evaluations are ongoing and are scheduled to be completed
this year. Multi-agency teams have been established to expedite
completion and resolution of issues to these problems. The current
schedule calls for completion of the overall project by December 2003.
The ultimate solution to the Tamiami Trail may take longer to
implement.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. The Administration's Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan proposal provides for authorization for construction
of 10 projects at a total cost of about $1.1 billion. These projects
are proposed to be authorized in accordance with the June 22, 1999
report of the Chief of Engineers and subject to review and approval by
the Secretary of a Project Implementation Report for each project. The
Chief's Report and the April 1999 report of the District Engineer
provide only a conceptual plans for these 10 initial projects that does
not contain any meaningful level of detail on costs, benefits,
environmental analysis, design, engineering or real estate. Your
authorization proposal for these projects means that Congress will
authorize $1.1 billion of work without ever reviewing the normal
information usually contained in a feasibility report and for these
projects is delegating all of the review and approval responsibility
for these 10 large expensive projects to the Secretary. Is it going to
be the standard practice of this Administration to seek congressional
authorizations of Corps projects based on conceptual plans? Do you
think it is appropriate for the Congress to abrogate its usual
oversight role in authorizing these 10 projects with a feasibility
level of detail?
Response. While the Comprehensive Plan report was written at a
level of detail that is less specific in nature than recent projects
recommended for congressional authorization, the feasibility report has
been completed in accordance with legislation and Army policy and
guidance. The Administration believes that there are minimal, if any,
risk associated with authorizing the initial ten projects recommended
in the CERP. A Chief of Engineers' Report has been completed and these
projects have been developed to sufficient detail to support
justification.
The Administration is not proposing authorization of a project
based on only conceptual level of detail. The CERP, however, is a
detailed plan. It is based on extensive analysis of problems and issues
and comprehensive modeling of conditions and options to be considered
for addressing the environmental restoration, water supply and flood
control needs of the region. These efforts have been ongoing for 7
years and included independent scientific review and input from all
affected and interested parties. We recognize there are unknowns as to
the full effectiveness of some of the proposed actions. To address
this, the plan allows early implementation of those actions that will
provide clear and significant benefits while other actions are more
fully evaluated as to need and scope based on effectiveness of initial
actions and pilot projects.
The Army supports appropriate congressional oversight prior to
initiation of construction.
Question 2. On the same subject of appropriate authority to be
delegated to the Secretary of the Army in implementing the plan, the
Administration's proposal for the Comprehensive Plan includes the
authority for the Secretary of the Army to approve projects without
specific congressional authorization that have a cost of up to $70
million and a Federal share up to $35 million. Under this authority up
to 27 projects with a combined cost of up to $500 million could be
constructed without any further authorization action by Congress. On a
nationwide basis the upper limits of the Corps programmatic small
project authority is projects with a Federal cost of $7 million. Could
you explain the basis of this extraordinary level of programmatic
authority for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan?
Response. The recommendation for the programmatic authority is
modeled after Section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1996 which authorizes the Secretary of the Army to expeditiously
implement restoration projects that are deemed critical to the
restoration of the south Florida ecosystem. These projects are referred
to as Critical Projects. Critical Projects were defined as those
projects which would ``produce independent, immediate, and substantial
restoration, preservation, and protection benefits. `` A similar
programmatic authority is recommended to help expedite implementation
of certain components in the Comprehensive Plan. It is proposed that
projects included under the programmatic authority will be those
components that are part of the Comprehensive Plan and have a total
project cost up to $70, 000, 000 with a maximum Federal cost of $35,
000, 000. Under this authority, 27 projects could be expedited at a
total cost of $489, 885, 000.
Question 3. The Chief of Engineer recommended that the State of
Florida be responsible for 100 percent of the operation and maintenance
costs of the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the provisions of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The Administration has
recommended that operation and maintenance costs be shared on a 60
percent non-Federal and 40 percent Federal basis. The Federal role is
justified by the fact that much of the water supplied by the plan
benefits Federal properties including Everglades and Biscayne Bay
National parks. However, as proposed, the Federal share of the
operation and maintenance costs for the Comprehensive Plan is coming
from the budget of the Corps of Engineers. Why shouldn't the Federal
share of the operation and maintenance costs come from the Department
of the Interior?
Response. The Administration's proposed legislation includes
language that the Federal share of operation and maintenance costs
shall be 40 percent. This legislation does not specify that the 40
percent share would be funded by the Corps of Engineers.
Question 4. The Administration proposal for the Everglades
Comprehensive Plan allows credit or reimbursement for the South Florida
Water Management District for any approved work performed by the South
Florida Water Management District to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
If the Federal appropriations for the Comprehensive Plan design and
construction are not forthcoming or if the level of Federal
appropriations are lower than needed to maintain efficient schedules,
will you approve design and construction by the South Florida Water
Management District to the extent that there is a large commitment on
the part of the Federal Government to reimburse the South Florida Water
Management District for the Federal share?
Response. The ASA(CW) has executed an agreement with the SFWMD that
would preclude the local sponsor from exceeding the 50 percent of the
total project design or getting substantially ahead of the Federal
share of actual total expenditures at any time. It is not the Corps
intent to create a reimbursable situation with the SFWMD in design and
construction of the project.
Question 5. The Stormwater Treatment Areas that are being
constructed as part of the Everglades Construction Project and the
additional Stormwater Treatment Areas proposed in the Comprehensive
Plan will result in significant reductions in the phosphorus levels but
that there is not good scientific evidence that they will be able to
achieve the long term water quality standard for phosphorus estimated
at 10 parts per billion. There is currently insufficient information to
estimate the additional costs required to meet the long term standard.
If those additional costs turn out to be significant and result in a
substantial increase in the cost of the Comprehensive Plan, who should
pay for these additional costs? Should they be a Water Management
District cost or should they be shared with the Corps?
Response. The Everglades Construction Project (ECP) is a without
project condition for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
The ECP includes a series of six stormwater treatment areas (STAB)
totaling more than 44, 000 acres north of the Everglades designed to
capture and treat runoff to ensure that water quality standards are
met. The objective of the ECP is to produce flows to the Everglades
which contain an average total phosphorus concentration of 50 parts-
per-billion (ppb). This is the interim target for the Everglades
established by the Settlement Agreement to the Federal Everglades
lawsuit. A final numeric phosphorus standard (an average concentration
that is not expected to create an imbalance in natural populations of
aquatic flora and fauna) is to be established by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP) by December 31, 2003. In the event
that no standard is established by FDEP by this deadline, the default
will be 10 ppb. However, based on recent studies, it is expected that
the standard will be in the range of 10-20 ppb. Supplemental treatment
technologies will be incorporated into the design and operation of the
ECP to ensure that flows to the Everglades meet the final numeric
standard by December 31, 2006. The costs for designing and implementing
supplemental treatment technologies necessary to meet the final numeric
phosphorus standard will be the responsibility of the State of Florida
(except for the C-51/STA 1 East Project, which is cost-shared between
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management
District).
Additional water quality treatment is not anticipated to be imposed
beyond what was considered in the CERP planning work. The interagency
water quality subteam specifically considered this question with regard
to the Everglades (Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National
Park). Although the CERP, when implemented, will modify flows into the
Everglades STAs constructed by the South Florida Water Management
District and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, it was demonstrated by
William W. Walker, Ph.D., that changing the timing and location of
flows into the Everglades through the STAs to meet ecological targets
would not adversely affect the design and expected performance of the
STAB. Whatever supplemental technology is incorporated into the STAs to
meet the yet-to-be established numeric phosphorus standard for the
Everglades should be capable of being adapted to modified flows as
contemplated in the CERP.
Moreover, the CERP provides an opportunity to enhance the design
flexibility and performance of the Everglades STAB. Therefore, it is
not expected at this time that CERP will result in any significant
additional expenditures to achieve adequate water quality in the
Everglades Protection Area beyond that which has already been committed
to by the South Florida Water Management District and the Federal
Government.
The 35, 600 acres of additional STAs included in the CERP, coupled
with the 181, 000+ acres of additional surface storage included in the
CERP and the more than 44, 000 acres of STAs with supplemental
treatment technology being implemented by the South Florida Water
Management District should provide water of adequate quality for
ecosystem restoration of the Everglades and other South Florida natural
systems. It is important to note that most of the STAs included in the
CERP treat surface waters that are to be delivered to areas outside the
Everglades. As a cost-effective measure, the interagency team
formulated the CERP to segregate natural system water that has
extremely low levels of nutrients and contaminants from urban and
agricultural runoff water, which would require extensive treatment
before being discharged into the Everglades. Therefore, the CERP
includes STAs to meet water quality needs for ecosystem restoration of
other regions of the CERP planning area, notably Lake Okeechobee, the
Indian River Lagoon/St. Lucie River Estuary, Caloosahatchee River
Estuary, and urban areas in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade
Counties.
Question 6. The Comprehensive Plan includes a project for the State
of Florida Pal-Mar and J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Areas that is
76 percent land acquisition, a project for Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge that is 93 percent land acquisition and a project for
the Southern Corkscrew Area that is 90 percent land acquisition. In
total these projects involve the acquisition of about 11,000 acres of
land that is not needed for water storage or treatment. Are these
primarily land acquisition projects appropriate to be cost shared with
the Corps of Engineers as part of the Comprehensive Plan or should they
be accomplished by the State of Florida and /or the Department of
Interior?
Response. These projects involve hydrologic modifications that will
provide significant environmental restoration benefits and as such
should be accomplished under the Corps of Engineers Environmental
Restoration authority.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. Has the Corps of Engineers or Department of Interior
made recommendations for or undertaken actions that are consistent with
a modified reconnaissance or feasibility study for the projects
contained in the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan?
Response. The Corps of Engineers completed a Reconnaissance Report
for this project in November 1994 The Feasibility Report was completed
in April 1999 and was transmitted to Congress on 1 July 1999. While
this feasibility report was written at a level of detail that is less
specific in nature than recent projects recommended for congressional
authorization, the feasibility report has been completed in accordance
with legislation and Army policy and guidance. Project implementation
reports (PIRs) will be used to bridge the gap between the CERP
feasibility report and detailed design. These PIRs do not differ from
traditional Corps feasibility reports. Because we have completed the
feasibility phase as directed by the Congress, the Army decided to
distinguish the subsequent documents that tier off the CERP by calling
them PIRs.
Question 2. If not, would the Corps and Department be willing to
follow the traditional schedule of studies and reviews before
undertaking each project within the plan?
Response. Although the feasibility report has been completed in
accordance with HO USA CE policy and guidance, due to the scale of the
project, the level of feature design is not as detailed as some
traditional Corps feasibility reports. Therefore, prior to initiation
of construction, project implementation reports will be completed for
each project. These reports will document advanced planning,
engineering and design, real estate analysis, and supplemental
requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act. These studies
will be conducted over the next few years. For the projects authorized
in WRDA 2000, it is anticipated that these reports will be approved by
the Secretary of the Army without need for further congressional action
unless major changes to the Comprehensive Plan are recommended. Project
implementation reports will also be prepared for the other projects.
These will be transmitted to Congress for specific project
authorization. Subsequent to the approval or congressional
authorization of the project implementation report, recommended
projects will progress to detailed design and construction.
Question 3. If yes, would this be a divergence from the Corps'
long-held policy of requiring reconnaissance and feasibility studies
prior to undertaking a project?
Response. There has been no divergence from the Corps of Engineers
policy requiring the completion of reconnaissance and feasibility
studies.
Question 4. Has a full modeling of the costs and benefits of each
project been performed?
Response. The evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan included: (1)
the NED costs (in monetary terms), (2) the anticipated environmental
benefits resulting from restoration measures (in non-monetary terms),
(3) the positive and adverse NED effects expected to occur in the
following economic impact categories: agricultural water supply,
municipal and industrial water supply, commercial navigation,
recreation, and commercial fishing (in monetary and non-monetary terms)
and (4) the positive and adverse regional economic effects (RED)
resulting from project implementation.
The Corps of Engineers ecosystem restoration policy has been
formulated in recognition of the practical limits of available economic
tools to value environmental resources. As specified in Corps of
Engineers ecosystem restoration policy (EC 1105-2-210: Ecosystem
Restoration in the Civil Works Program J, ecosystem restoration
projects are not subject to traditional benefit-cost analyses. Economic
justification of ecosystem restoration is not required in the
traditional sense of ensuring that the monetary benefits of the
alternative plans exceed their monetary costs. An ecosystem restoration
proposal must still be justified by comparing the monetary and non-
monetary costs and benefits of restoring degraded ecosystems. However,
Corps ecosystem restoration evaluation procedures focus on the non-
monetary benefits of restoration, comparing these benefits to monetary
costs through the use of cost effectiveness and incremental cost
analysis procedures.
Question 5. Has a cost-benefit analysis been performed on the
proposed land acquisitions?
Response. No. A cost benefit analysis has not been performed for
the proposed land acquisitions. The land requirements needed for the
project components have been estimated and are included in the overall
project costs.
Question 6. What are the expected benefits and problems associated
with the use of aquifer storage recharge (ASR) units?
Response. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) was included in the
Comprehensive Plan for several reasons: ASR wells have small land
requirements and can be distributed to provide regional benefits in
populated areas; ASR operations can provide an extended dry season
water resource that is not possible with surface reservoirs; and ASR
wells can store large amounts of water during prolonged wet periods.
ASR involves pumping high quality freshwater through a well, for
storage underground in a suitable aquifer, and recovery of that water
from storage when needed. ASR will store excess water during the wet
season for later recovery during the dry season. The recovered water
will augment regional water supplies. There is not a demand in the
following dry season, the water can be held to meet future demands. ASR
will be used to buildup a ``bank account'' of stored water for future
demand or for emergencies by leaving more water in storage than is
recovered each year.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery technology has been used successfully
in the United States for three decades. Most of these ASR facilities
utilize treated water as their source but several ``raw'' (untreated)
ground water and surface water ASR facilities are currently under
design, permitting, construction or testing in South Florida. ASR
technology has great potential to store large volumes of raw ground and
surface water below ground and requires significantly less land than
above ground reservoir storage.
Pilot projects will be used to identify any site specific problems
and to clarify design needs before full implementation of ASR.
Question 7. Has the full range of science for design, monitoring,
and evaluation of the pilot proposal for ASRs been examined?
Response. In December 1998, an Aquifer Storage and Recovery Issue
Team was formed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working
Group to develop an action plan and identify projects to address the
surface water, hydrogeological and geochemical uncertainties associated
with regional aquifer storage and recovery facilities. This report will
serve as the basis for developing the aquifer storage and recovery
pilot projects which will determine the specific water quality
characteristics of waters to be injected and the water quality
characteristics of the receiving aquifer. In addition, the pilot
projects will provide information on the hydrogeological and
geotechnical characteristics of the upper Floridan Aquifer System
within the regions, and the ability of the upper Floridan Aquifer
System to store injected water for future recovery.
Question 8. What will be the impact of the ASR units on each of the
Water Conservation Areas?
Response. ASR provides storage to improve the availability of water
to the Water Conservation Areas as well as other regions of the system.
ASR wells, as included in the Comprehensive Plan, have different
purposes for different areas. For this reason, the three major
applications have to be considered differently for the LEC,
Caloosahatchee River Basin, and the Lake Okeechobee components.
The primary purpose of ASR in the LEC is to provide dry season
regional benefits to the Biscayne Aquifer thus enhancing water supply.
Some secondary benefits are associated with flood management when co-
located with a surface storage area The primary purpose of ASR in the
Caloosahatchee River Basin is to provide dry season regional deliveries
to the Caloosahatchee River for both water supply and minimum flows to
the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Currently, the minimum flow the estuary is
zero--which leads to hypersalinity in the estuary. Water supply needs
are met from Lake Okeechobee after groundwater sources are depleted.
There are secondary flood management benefits to the Caloosahatchee
ASR since they are combined with a surface storage reservoir. The
addition of ASR to Lake Okeechobee was done primarily improve the
health of the Lake especially during in the low stage periods and
prolonged high stage periods. There are secondary benefits to the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries due to an incremental reduction
of regulatory releases.
Question 9. What will be the impact of the restoration plan on the
hydrological needs of the Big Cypress National Preserve?
Response. The area of the Big Cypress region primarily affected by
the Comprehensive Plan lies within the Big Cypress National Preserve
(BCNP) boundary, the BCNP addition lands, the Big Cypress Seminole
Indian Reservation and Miccosukee Indian Reservation. Components of the
Comprehensive Plan affecting the hydrology, and thus the ecology of
this area include: 1) modifications to the L-28 Interceptor canal that
would reroute water from the West and North feeder canals to wetlands
in northeast Big Cypress, including degradation of the southwest L-28
Interceptor levee and filling in the adjacent canal to enhance
sheetflow into the BCNP addition lands; 2) pump stations and spreader
canals built or relocated along the L-28 Interceptor in order to
facilitate sheetflow off of the Seminole and Miccosukee reservations;
3) assumption that this alternative will comply with the Seminole
Indian Tribes' Conceptual Water Conservation System master plan; 4)
construction of two stormwater treatment area to ensure acceptable
water quality prior to discharge from the North and West Feeder canals;
and 5) degradation of the L-28 levee (south of the gap with the L-28
Interceptor), L-28 Tieback and L-29 Levee between Forty-mile bend and
the L-67, and removal of all associated structures, including the S-
344, S-343(A), S-343(B) and the four S-12 (A-D) structures.
Limited and somewhat scattered effects would be expected along the
eastern boundary of the BCNP, along the L-28 Interceptor and in the
sloughs draining the BCNP toward the Gulf of Mexico south of Loop Road.
Hydrologic effects should be most dramatic and widespread in the area
southwest of the L-28 Interceptor, where the Comprehensive Plan returns
hydroperiod to more natural conditions. Finally, as the water quality
entering the northeastern Big Cypress from the Feeder canals is, at
present, of poor quality, it is important that the recommended plan
ensure adequate water quality treatment prior to restoring more natural
flows from this area. It is assumed, for planning purposes, that
compliance with the Big Cypress Seminole Water Conservation Master
Plan, in combination with the two proposed stormwater treatment area
along the Western and Northern Feeder canals, will achieve these water
quality standards. Without successful achievement of water quality
targets, flows entering the northeastern Big Cypress may, in fact,
cause more harm than good to the receiving waters.
Question 10. What role have expected population changes in the
region been incorporated into identifying the scope of the restoration
plan and in the identification of local sponsors for each project?
Response. The CERP was formulated and evaluated with full
recognition of the anticipated increase in population in south Florida
over the next 50 years. Therefore, the Plan will able to deliver the
appropriate amount of water to the ecosystem with an increased
population.
Question 11. What role did water flow functions and natural flow
characteristics in the region play in the analysis and development of
the restoration plan?
Response. The overarching objective of the Comprehensive Plan is
the restoration, preservations and protection of the south Florida
Ecosystem while providing for other water related needs of the region.
The focus of the recommended Comprehensive Plan has been on recovering
the defining ecological features of the original Everglades and other
south Florida ecosystems. What made these ecosystems unique was their
topographic flatness and expansiveness, and that they formed
hydrologically integrated systems from boundary to boundary. What this
means in a healthy ecosystem is that water patterns in one part of the
system could be used to predict the patterns throughout the system.
Animals living in the Everglades would ``read'' the water patterns, and
``know'' where to go to find the food and water that they needed for
successful reproduction and survival under a range of natural
conditions. It was the combination of connectivity and space that
created the range of habitats needed for the diversity of plants and
animals. The construction of the many levees and dikes designed to
compartmentalize the Everglades and separate Lake Okeechobee from its
natural overflow, and the canals that drained water to the coast,
disrupted these natural patterns, and destroyed the ability of many
animals to find the dependable habitat needed for their survival at the
right time.
The recommended Comprehensive Plan, by removing over 240 miles of
internal levees in the Everglades, and approaching recovery of the
natural volume of water in the remaining wetlands, will restore these
essential defining features of the pre-drainage wetlands over large
portions of the remaining system. The plan also includes water storage
and water quality treatment areas that will improve water quality
conditions in the south Florida ecosystem. In response to this
substantial improvement, the characteristic animals of these ecosystems
will show dramatic and positive responses. At all levels in the aquatic
food chains, the numbers of such animals as crayfish, minnows, sunfish,
frogs, alligators, herons, ibis, and otters, will markedly increase.
Question 12. What has been the impact on tree islands of current
management plans? What is the expected impact of the restoration plan
on Bee islands?
Response. The Comprehensive Plan makes substantial progress toward
remedying the two most significant causes of habitat degradation for
wildlife within WCA-3A. The first of these is flood damage to tree
islands, with attendant loss of upland tree species, willow strands
that serve as wading bird nesting sites in northeastern WCA-3A,
tropical hardwood hammocks in southwestern WCA-3A, and habitat
throughout the WCA for island-dependent organisms such as nesting
reptiles, white-tailed deer, and migratory and nesting songbirds. The
second major cause of habitat degradation has been the destruction of
peat soils, marsh vegetation, and tree islands as a result of wildfires
brought on by drought conditions in the north. Together, the reduction
in the frequency and intensity of these two sources of environmental
damage should be expected to lead to substantial restoration within
this large portion of the remnant Everglades ecosystem.
Question 13. Can a restoration plan that does not infringe upon the
agricultural community's future water allocation rights be successful?
If yes, how can this be managed? If no, why not?
Response. The recommended Comprehensive Plan will significantly
increase the capability to supply water from the regional system to
agricultural users. This will provide better protection from
economically harmful water supply cutbacks and allow agriculture to
remain productive. Storage facilities associated with Lake Okeechobee
such as those north of the lake, and Lake Okeechobee aquifer storage
and recovery will enable the lake to remain an important source of
water supply while keeping lake stages at more ecologically desirable
levels. Additional storage facilities built throughout the system will
diversify sources of water for many users and enable recycling of water
within a basin to meet dry season demands, significantly improving the
reliability of agricultural water supply in the future.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. In your brief I know you did not have art opportunity
to discuss the restoration work that the Army Corps has already
conducted on the Everglades project. Can you describe these projects
arid their status?
Response. There are a number of significant and important
restoration projects currently underway in south Florida I will briefly
summarize these projects below:
a. The Kissimmee River Restoration Protect involves the ecosystem
restoration of the historic floodplain to reestablish wetland
conditions resulting in the restoration of 27,000 acres of wetlands and
riverine habitat in the Kissimmee watershed. The project will be
accomplished through the backfilling of 22 miles of canal C-38,
modifications to the operation of the lakes, modification or removal of
several structures and canals, and excavation of about 9 miles of new
river channel. Construction was initiated in the fall of 1997 and is
scheduled to be completed in September 2009.
b. The West Palm Beach Canal protect (C-51) provides water quality
treatment, reduction of damaging freshwater discharges to Lake Worth,
and increased water supply for the Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, the Everglades and other users. Construction was initiated fast
year. The eastern basin works are complete and work continues in the
western basin, which is scheduled for completion in March 2003.
c. Another protect underway is the South Dade county Protect (Canal
C-111). C-111 normally discharges into Florida Bay via overland flow
across the eastern panhandle of Everglades National Park and discharges
into Taylor Slough which ultimately also flows to Florida Bay. The
project will not only maintain existing flood protection to the
southeast coast urban areas, but will also minimize the need for
damaging freshwater discharges to Barnes Sound, restore more natural
hydrologic conditions to the Taylor Slough Basin in Everglades National
Park and restore historic freshwater flows into Florida Bay. Project
construction was initiated in August 1996 and is scheduled for
completion in May 2003.
d. The Corps/DOI/South Florida Water Management District
partnership for Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park
will make structural modifications and additions to the Central and
Southern Florida (C&SF) Project enabling water deliveries for the
restoration of more natural hydrologic conditions in Everglades
National Park's Northeast Shark River Slough Basin. Project
construction is scheduled for completion in November 2003.
e. Section 528 of WRDA 1996 provided authority for Critical
Restoration Protects would provide immediate, independent and
substantial restoration benefits. Last year we executed the first
Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the State of Florida for a
carrying capacity study of the Florida Keys and on January 7, 2000, the
Corps executed 7 more PCAs with the South Florida Water Management
District and the Seminole Tribe of Florida to implement the following
projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Total Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Coast Canals (C-4)............ $1,300,000
Tamiami Trail Culverts............. $8,336,000
Western C-11 Water Treatment....... $9,630,000
Seminole Big Cypress Water $49,332,000
Conservation.
Southern CREW/Imperial River $12,021,000
Flowway.
Lake Okeechobee Water Retention / $16,360,000
Phosphorus Removal.
Ten Mile Creek Water Preserve Area. $29,066,000
Lake Trafford...................... $17,540,000
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity $6,000,000
Study /1/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\PCA executed in fiscal year 1999
Question 2. How are these initial projects similar or different
than what is being proposed in the Restudy?
Response. For the purposes of developing the CERP, the Restudy team
assumed that authorized/ongoing projects were in place and operating
This assumption provided a basis for developing the future `` Without
Project Condition `` which all alternative plans were compared against.
Since these projects had already been authorized, no attempt was made
to reevaluate the merits of these ongoing projects. Instead, the team
utilized data and reports developed for these projects to determine if
modifications were necessary.
Generally, the team determined that these projects provide an
important first step toward ecosystem restoration of the Everglades.
However, there are some projects, such as the Modified Water Deliveries
Project, that will need to be modified based on the CERP. To implement
these modifications, the Restudy Team is working closely with the
Modified Water Deliveries team and other project teams to ensure
integration of these modifications. Further, to facilitate and expedite
these modifications, the Corps is recommending immediate authorization
of features that will have an impact to ongoing projects. This initial
authorization will ensure the development of comprehensive solutions
that otherwise could not be pursued under existing conditions.
Question 3. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we move forward with this project?
Response. The entire south Florida ecosystem, including the
Everglades, will become healthy, with many of its natural
characteristics restored. Urban and agricultural water users will also
benefit from enhanced water supplies. Flood protection, so important to
hurricane-prone south Florida, will be maintained and, in some cases,
improved.
Economic benefits from the implementation of the CERP are wide-
ranging and are linked with the availability of clean, abundant water
in the ecosystem. Not only is water the key to ecosystem restoration,
it is necessary for a sustainable agricultural and urban environment.
It plays a significant and obvious role in commercial and recreational
fishing.
The CERP will provide for ecosystem restoration. First and
foremost, the goal of the Plan is to restore, protect and preserve a
natural treasure--the south Florida ecosystem. The focus of the Plan
has been to restore the defining ecological features of the original
Everglades and other parts of south Florida. In response to this
substantial improvement, the characteristic animals will show dramatic
and positive responses. The number of animals--crayfish, minnows,
sunfish, frogs, alligators, herons, ibis, and otters--at virtually all
levels in aquatic food chains will markedly increase. Equally
important, the natural distribution of plants and animals will return
to more natural patterns as more pre-drainage water flows are restored.
The Plan will support the return of the large nesting ``rookeries''
of wading birds to Everglades National Park and the recovery of several
endangered species to more certain and optimistic futures. Wading
birds, such as herons, egrets, ibis, and storks, are symbolic of the
overall health of the Everglades. As recently as the 1950's and 1960's,
large `` super colonies'' of nesting waders remained in the Park. Today
there are none. Wading birds, perhaps more than any other animal,
``assess'' the quality of the entire basin of south Florida wetlands,
before making ``decisions'' about where and when, or even whether, to
nest. The recovery of the super colonies will be a sure sign that the
entire ecosystem has made substantial progress toward recovery. Of the
endangered species, the wood stork snail kite, Cape Sable Seaside
Sparrow, and American crocodile, among others, will benefit and
increase. We are confident that implementation of the CERP will once
again allow us to witness what is now only a fading memory of the
former abundance of wildlife in the Everglades.
Lake Okeechobee will once again become a healthy lake. Both the
shallow and open water areas within the lake, essential to its
commercial and recreational fishery and other aquatic species, will be
greatly enhanced by the improved water levels as a result of the CERP.
This will mean more abundant and healthier fish populations. Water
quality in the lake will also be improved significantly by reducing the
pollutant loading of water flowing into the lake. Lake Okeechobee
provides huge regional benefits to wildlife, including waterfowl, other
birds, and mammals.
Major benefits will be provided to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie
estuaries, and Lake Worth Lagoon. The CERP eliminates almost all the
damaging fresh water releases to the Caloosahatchee and most
detrimental releases to the St. Lucie and makes substantial
improvements to Lake Worth Lagoon. As a result, abundant favorable
benefits will be provided for the many aquatic species that depend on
these areas for food, shelter, and breeding grounds, thereby enhancing
the productivity and economic viability of estuarine fisheries.
The Plan will also improve fresh water deliveries to Florida and
Biscayne Bays. Appropriate fresh water regimes will result in
substantial improvements in aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats,
including, mangroves, coastal marshes, and seagrass beds interacting
together to produce food, shelter, and breeding and nursery grounds.
These coastal habitat areas will support more balanced, productive
fish, shelfish, and wildlife communities.
Question 4. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we do not move forward with this project?
Response. Although some level of ecological improvement will occur
in the south Florida ecosystem as a result of implementation of
projects currently planned outside of the CERP, the cumulative,
regional benefits from these projects would not result in a sustainable
south Florida ecosystem. Specifically, based on an evaluation of
conditions in the year 2050 without the CERP, the overall health of the
ecosystem will have substantially deteriorated. Analyses conducted
during the feasibility study show that making modifications to only
some portions of the Central and Southern Florida Project in order to
achieve sustainable natural systems will not succeed. Conditions
without the CERP in 2050 fail to meet the basic needs of the south
Florida ecosystem.
Demands placed on Lake Okeechobee result in damaging water levels
and extreme harm to the littoral zone. Damaging fresh water discharges
into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries result in major harm to
fisheries. Damaging high flows alter salinity balances in Lake Worth
Lagoon. Hydropatterns predicted for the Water Conservation Areas are
harmful to tree islands. Everglades National Park does not receive
enough freshwater flow to maintain important aquatic habitat in Shark
River Slough. Low flows to Florida and Biscayne Bays also result in
harm to the resources in these areas. These ecological problems would
not be corrected solely by implementation of currently planned or
ongoing projects.
Question 5. Based on your view of how the Restudy authorization
process will move forward, will Congress' action in WRDA 2000 be the
first phase in a multi-stage authorization process or will this year be
the only time this project comes before Congress?
Response. Yes, WRDA 2000 will be the first of many subsequent WRDA
bills on authorization of CERP projects. The process and schedule for
authorizing the CERP and its components was developed using a phased
approach based on an analysis of the scheduling of plan features and
ongoing Federal and State programs, such as the C-111 Project and the
Everglades Construction Project. The process for implementing the CERP
through congressional action assumes:
a. Congressional approval of the CERP in WRDA 2000 and the
appropriate framework for restoration;
b. Initial authorization of a specific set of key components and
pilot projects in the WRDA 2000;
c. A programmatic authority in WRDA 2000 similar to the existing
Critical Projects authority contained in WRDA 1996;
d. Future congressional authorization of components in subsequent
WRDAs through 2014; and
e. Implementation of some components without further congressional
action.
Question 6. Can you briefly explain your vision of how the
assurances process would work as you have proposed it?
Response. The assurance language is designed to ensure that the
benefits that flow from the CERP are achieved and are maintained for as
long as the project is authorized. This includes both benefits to the
natural system and to the human environment (e.g., water supply). The
Administration's language also ensures that existing legal users are
allowed to continue to use that water (both water supply and natural
environment).
We believe that the programmatic regulations are needed to provide
a framework for developing operations plans for project components.
This will provide a system-wide context as we proceed with each Project
Implementation Report. The programmatic regulations will provide
another level of detail on the amount of water to be dedicated and
managed for the natural system and the human environment. These
regulations could be adjusted over time based on the results of the
monitoring and adaptive management program.
Question 7. As you described in your testimony, some of the
projects submitted to Congress for authorization in WRDA 2000 will not
have the traditional, detailed feasibility study completed. The
language you have submitted includes a definition for a Project
Implementation Report. Can you compare this definition to that of a
traditional feasibility study and identify any differences and why they
are there?
Response. A project implementation report (PIR) is a new type of
reporting document unique to the Everglades and south Florida ecosystem
restoration initiative. These documents will bridge the gap between the
CERP and the detailed design necessary to proceed to construction. A
PIR will not differ from a traditional Corps feasibility report in that
it will contain detailed information on the planning and design of a
component or series of components proposed for implementation.
Specifically, PIRs will develop the remaining detailed technical
information to implement the project, including additional plan
formulation, engineering and design, detailed cost estimates,
environmental analyses, flood protection analyses, water quality
analyses, economic analyses, siting and real estate analyses, and
preparation of supplemental National Environmental Policy Act
documents. PIRs will also document a Plan component, or group of
components, contribution to the CERP performance and describe any
needed refinements and modifications to the CERP resulting from the
detailed planning and design efforts.
The purpose of the PIR is to affirm, reformulate or modify a
component, or group of components, in the CERP. All planning analyses,
including economic, environmental, water quality, flood protection,
real estate, and plan formulation, conducted during preconstruction
design activities will be documented and included in PIRs. The PIR will
be the vehicle to identify, quantify and attempt to resolve any
uncertainties surrounding the cost and performance of each major
component. These uncertainties are not limited to hydrologic
performance of the specific structure component, but also include the
uncertainties surrounding the expected ecosystem response to the
component. A clear description of the expected environmental outcome of
each component will be included in the PIR. PIRs will typically be
completed in 18 to 36 months.
The PIRs for those projects recommended for initial authorization,
and projects implemented under the programmatic authority, would be
reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Army prior to
construction. All other PIRs for future projects would be submitted to
the Congress for authorization similar to traditional Corps feasibility
reports.
Question 8. Regarding the property purchased by the Federal
Government in the Talisman transaction in 1998, can you identify on
your chart where that property is and explain what benefit the use of
these lands as a reservoir will bring to the restoration project? Why
is it important to move forward with this project authorization this
year?
Response. The Everglades Agricultural Area (ERA) storage reservoir
component includes above ground reservoir(s) with a total storage
capacity of approximately 360, 000 acre-feet located on land associated
with the Talisman Land purchase in the EAA. The design for the
reservoir(s) assumed 60, 000 acres, divided into three, equally sized
compartments with the water level fluctuating up to 6 feet above grade
in each compartment.
This project is located on lands in the Everglades Agricultural
Area in western Palm Beach County on lands purchased with Department of
Interior Farm Bill funds, with South Florida Water Management District
funds, and through a series of exchanges for lands being purchased with
these funds. The area presently consists of land that is mostly under
sugar cane cultivation. This project will be implemented consistent
with the Farm Bill land acquisition agreements. This project will
improve timing of environmental deliveries to the Water Conservation
Areas including reducing damaging flood releases from the Everglades
Agricultural Area to the Water Conservation Areas, reduce Lake
Okeechobee regulatory releases to estuaries, meet supplemental
agricultural irrigation demands, and increase flood protection within
the Everglades Agricultural Area.
This project is included in the initial authorization for three
reasons: 1) lands needed for the project have been acquired by the U.S.
Department of Interior and the South Florida Water Management District;
2) it provides the opportunity to construct the facility in a manner
that is mutually beneficial for the Comprehensive Plan and the
sponsor's Everglades Construction Project; and 3) expedites
construction of this facility which provides multiple environmental,
water supply, and flood protection benefits.
A delay in authorization of this project component will prolong
damaging flood releases from the EAR into the Water Conservation Areas
and damaging releases from Lake Okeechobee into the coastal estuaries.
Further, any delay will also jeopardize the ability of SFWMD to provide
required notifications and rise further delays and increased costs to
both SFWMD and the Federal Government in implementing the project.
______
Responses by Joseph Westphal to Additional Questions from Senator Mack
Question 1. Do you support applying section 902 of the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act to all features of the Comprehensive Plan
before us today? (This provision requires a congressional review if a
project exceeds 120 percent of authorized cost.)
Response. Yes. The Army supports applying the conditions of Section
902 to all features of the CERP.
Question 2. Do you support congressional committee review and
approval of the feasibility level of engineering and design work before
any construction can begin on the initial suite of ten projects in the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Yes. The Army supports congressional committee review of
the project implementation reports prior to initiation of construction
on the initial ten projects recommended for authorization in the
Administration's bill.
Question 3. Do you support requiring full feasibility studies
before any other projects are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Yes. The Administration's WRDA proposal includes language
requiring completion of feasibility level project implementation
reports and submission to Congress for authorization.
Question 4. Do you support modifying the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to make clear the system includes the lands and
waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District as they existed on July 1, 1999?
Response. Yes. The Army supports this modification.
Question 5. Do you support a provision making clear the Corps of
Engineers is only authorized to study the question about providing an
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water to the natural system?
Response. Yes. The Army would support such a provision clarifying
the Corps commitment to study the proposal of providing an additional
245, 000 acre-feet of water to the natural system.
Question 6. Do you support language making clear that the Corps
must work with the State of Florida to ensure all groundwater
discharges resulting from the Comprehensive Plan meet all applicable
water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements?
Response. The Comprehensive Plan includes features related to the
protection and improvement of quality. The Army intends to design and
construct the individual project features to take into account the
protection of water quality by considering applicable State water
quality standards for those features specifically described in the
CERP. The Army is also authorized to cost share in additional projects
for the improvement of water quality where it is deemed essential to
the Everglades restoration. However, from the standpoint of the non-
Federal interest that we enter into an agreement with on a specific
project, these individual project features may be subject to various
State regulations relating to water quality, including permitting
requirements. As a matter of comity, the Army will cooperatively work
with the non-Federal interests, including the State of Florida, to
ensure that the requisite standards are complied with. However, unless
there has been a specific waiver of Federal immunity, we cannot agree
to comply with or subject the Army to individual permit requirement,
which may change over time. Additionally, oftentimes permit requirement
relate to circumstances that may be beyond the reach of the Government
where the non-Federal interests will operate and maintain the facility.
The Army has agreed to include a monitoring period after the completion
of physical construction to verify that the features, including
features for the improvement and protection of water quality already
included in the CERP, perform as designed. This initial operational
testing and monitoring period would allow for any adjustments, if
necessary, prior to transfer of the feature to the non-Federal interest
to operate and maintain.
Question 7. Do you support replacing the project purposes language
stated in (c)(1) of the Administration's draft with language restating
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan developed and passed in WRDA
1996?
Response. Yes. The Army supports restating the language from the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Question 8. Do you support additional programmatic authority for
the Corps to construct projects of limited cost but are in keeping with
the Plan's purposes and have independent and substantial benefit to
Everglades restoration?
Response. Yes. The Army supports this provision.
Question 9. Do you support a 50/50 cost share between Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operation and maintenance of the
Project? If not, please state the cost share you believe to be
appropriate and why.
Response. No. The Army supports the Administration's proposed cost
sharing. The Corps analysis shows that 80 percent of the new water
obtained under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)
will be used to benefit the natural system environment and the
remaining 20 percent will benefit regional water supply for urban and
agricultural users. The 40-60 cost sharing was derived as follows:
Cost share 80 percent of the new water for the natural system as
environmental restoration at 50 percent--Federal; 50 percent--non-
Federal. Cost share 20 percent of regional water supply at 100 percent
non-Federal, or
Cost Sharing Formula:
Non-Federal 0&M= 0.80 (.50) + 0.20 (1.00) = 60 percent
Federal 0&M= 0.80(.50) + 0.20 (.00) = 409/0
Question 10. Please provide your thoughts on the definition of
Project Implementation Reports found in the Administration's language.
Do you support this definition? If not, please provide suggestions as
to how you would define these reports.
Response. The Army supports the Administration's language defining
a project implementation report.
Question 11. Do you believe the Department of Interior and the
State of Florida should be on equal footing in developing any
regulations related to assurances? If not, why?
Response. Yes. The Army believes that the DOI does have a special
interest and stake in the success of the restoration given the
extensive DOI lands that will be impacted by implementation of the
CERP. In this regard, DOI must be involved in the development of
programmatic regulations. We also believe in a full partnership with
the State of Florida and that the State will have an equivalent
concurrency role for each project feature. That is each feature will
require a written agreement between the Army and the State. During the
development of our legislation, we considered fully the possibility of
granting the Governor a concurrency role on the programmatic
regulations. Because of potential legal and constitutional issues we
were not able to add it to our legislation. We are working with the
Department of Justice to examine this issue and address what may be
done to alleviate these constitutional concerns so that the State may
be provided a role reflecting an equal partnership in implementing the
CERP.
Question 12. Do you support the reporting requirement in the
Administration's bill? If not, how would you amend the reporting
requirement?
Response. Yes. The Army supports the reporting requirements.
__________
Statement of Mary Doyle, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, I am Mary Doyle, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science at the Department of the Interior. I serve as the Chair of
the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, an interagency and
intergovernmental entity created by the Congress in the 1996 Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) to facilitate intergovernmental
coordination directed toward the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address you today to
discuss a matter of great importance to the Department of the
Interior--the restoration of America's Everglades.
In its natural state, the South Florida ecosystem was connected by
the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee through vast freshwater
marshes--known as the Everglades--to Florida Bay and on to the coral
reefs of the Florida Keys. The Everglades covered approximately 18,000
square miles and were the heart of a unique and biologically productive
region, supporting vast colonies of wading birds, a mixture of
temperate and tropical plant and animal species, and teeming coastal
fisheries. These superlative natural resources were nationally
recognized with the establishment of Everglades National Park in 1947.
Designated internationally as both a Biosphere Reserve and World
Heritage Site, the park was expanded in 1989. At 1.5 million acres, the
park preserves the largest remaining subtropical wilderness in the
United States. Its wonders are widely known, and include unique
habitats of saw grass prairies, tree islands, estuarine environments
and the vast waters of Florida Bay. The park is also known for its
diverse bird and wildlife populations. Each year over one million
visitors from around the world visit Everglades National Park. Other
significant Federal conservation areas in the region include the Big
Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary and 16 units of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, including Loxahatchee, Florida Panther, and Florida Keys
National Wildlife Refuges, to name a few. These federally protected
areas conserve Everglades habitat, protect some the most outstanding
coral reef and marine resources in the United States, provide important
conservation areas for wildlife and migratory birds and provide unique
recreational opportunities to numerous visitors.
Early in the last century, vast efforts were undertaken to drain
the Everglades in order to develop the region. These efforts culminated
in 1948 with congressional authorization and construction of the
Central and Southern Florida Project, a flood control project jointly
built and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida
Water Management District. Comprising over 1,800 miles of canals and
levees and 200 water control structures, the Central and Southern
Florida Project succeeded in draining half of the original Everglades
and allowed the development of cities on the lower east coast of
Florida and the expansion of the farming area south of Lake Okeechobee
known as the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). Although historically
and naturally most rainwater had soaked into the region's wetlands, the
Central and Southern Florida Project canal system has for years drained
water off the land such that an average of 1.7 billion gallons of water
per day are discharged into the ocean.
As a result, not enough clean fresh water is available for the
environment, resulting in long-term problems for the Everglades
ecosystem including the federally designated areas above, and the
communities in the region. Examples include: 90 percent reduction in
wading bird populations; 68 species listed as endangered or threatened;
reduced fisheries in Biscayne and Florida Bays; loss of over five feet
of organic soil in the EAA; degraded water quality in inland and
coastal areas; infestation and spread of invasive exotic plant species
on over 1.5 million acres; damaging fresh water and pollutants into the
St. Lucie, Caloosahatchee, and many other estuaries; loss of wetlands
that provide important species habitat and ground water recharge; and
loss of tree islands and damaging ecological effects in the State and
tribally managed water conservation areas north of the park. Without
significant overhaul to the existing Central and Southern Florida
Project works and features, these problems already at crisis level,
will only get worse, and water shortages are a certainty in future
years as water demands continue to grow in South Florida.
Everglades restoration, and a fuller understanding of how it is
defined and implemented, are the challenges of a new era in natural
resource management and environmental policy. Eight years ago the
Department embarked on an historic journey with the Army Corps to
assess the profound environmental damage done to the Everglades
ecosystem by the Central and Southern Florida Project, and, on an
ecosystem-wide basis, design measures for the restoration and
protection of what remains of the natural system. With the submission
of the Comprehensive Plan to Congress last summer, that journey is now
at an important juncture.
In my statement today, I will discuss the Administration's
legislative proposal for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
which is part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
In July of last year, the Army Corps, with the South Florida Water
Management District as the local sponsor, submitted to Congress its
Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan to restore America's Everglades. The Comprehensive
Plan is a conceptual framework for structural and operational changes
to the Central and South Florida Project that will result in
restoration of the ecosystem over the next 30 years. The Department
fully supports the Comprehensive Plan.
Overall, the Department believes the Comprehensive Plan provides a
practical and effective approach to ensure the long-term restoration of
the South Florida ecosystem while providing for future water supply and
flood control needs. Further, the Department believes that the
Comprehensive Plan must be implemented in its totality. While the
authorizations to implement the Comprehensive Plan are planned to be
phased, the Department believes that the Comprehensive Plan must be
implemented fully to guarantee that the benefits promised to the
natural system are ultimately received. The Department is eager to work
with the committee and other Members of Congress to obtain the
necessary authorizations and funding to allow the Army Corps to proceed
with and complete implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
When the Comprehensive Plan is fully implemented, what currently
remains of the natural system in South Florida will gradually recover
and function in a manner characteristic of the pre-drainage Everglades.
It will become once again an interconnected healthy ecosystem, capable
of supporting viable, abundant populations of native plants, fish, and
wildlife. The Comprehensive Plan will better distribute the water
flowing eastward and westward to the coastal areas and southward across
Everglades National Park and into Florida Bay. This redistribution of
water flows is expected to substantially reduce the huge ecologically
damaging releases of fresh water to the coastal estuaries and instead
direct water southward in a pattern that more closely replicates
historic natural water flows. Associated features of the Comprehensive
Plan will allow better control of the timing and quantity of these
flows, and improve water quality. These actions will improve the
salinity balance and reduce nutrient runoff in the coastal estuaries
and in Florida Bay, resulting in substantial improvements to habitat
and associated fish and wildlife productivity.
Through the restoration of the natural water flows, the
Comprehensive Plan is designed to restore substantially the biological
patterns and abundance of wildlife which defined the original
Everglades and which prompted the Congress to establish Everglades
National Park in 1947. This would likely improve the status of several
federally listed endangered species, including the wood stork, American
crocodile, the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, and the Everglades snail
kite. Full plan implementation is also expected to reverse the
degradation of important biologic communities, including seagrasses,
coral reefs, marl prairies, and tree islands. Animals will respond to
the recovery of more natural water patterns by returning to their
traditional distribution patterns, resulting in substantial increases
in many species, including crayfish, minnows, sunfish, frogs,
alligators, herons, ibis, and otters.
The costs of inaction are incalculable. Absent the full
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, the Everglades ecosystem as
we know it today will continue to deteriorate and eventually disappear.
Without the Comprehensive Plan, the natural system is likely to
experience future water shortages, along with more frequent fire
events. These water shortages will make it difficult to maintain
aquatic habitat in Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough. Estuaries like
Florida Bay will experience increased algae blooms, seagrass die-offs
and hypersalinity, reducing sport fisheries and critical nursery
functions for the shrimp and lobster fisheries. The ability to recover
endangered species will be seriously impaired and as the natural
environment suffers, so too will the human environment. The urban
population of South Florida will experience water shortage problems and
severe flood events as the water supply system, under pressure of
continued population growth, becomes impossible to administer
adequately.
The 68 project features that make up the Comprehensive Plan are
interconnected and interdependent, designed to be built and function as
a complete set. Even though individual features will yield substantial
benefits, the benefits provided by the entire plan are greater than the
sum of the individual parts. Therefore, it is important that the
Comprehensive Plan is implemented in its entirety to achieve the
quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water flows required to
restore, protect, and preserve the natural system, including its rich
diversity of life, for future generations.
The promise of the Comprehensive Plan depends on effective
legislative assurances that the project benefits for the natural system
are achieved in a timely manner and maintained for the long-term life
of the Central and Southern Florida Project. Once the Everglades is
restored, these assurances must guarantee that the operation of the
Central and Southern Florida Project will never again negatively affect
the natural system areas of the South Florida ecosystem. Without
assurances, the project will not have achieved its main objective.
The Administration's Legislative Proposal
The Administration's legislative proposal is the product of
extensive interagency discussion and consultation. It includes
legislative assurances language that accomplishes two primary
objectives. The first is a guarantee, as a matter of Federal law, that
there will be sufficient quantities of clean fresh water for the
environment at the right places and the right times. Second, the
individual project works and features will be designed and managed to
further the restoration, preservation and protection of the Everglades.
Enacting a Federal mandate to set aside a quantity of water for the
natural system will complement laudable efforts by the State of Florida
under State law to establish minimum flows and levels for the
environment and to reserve additional quantities of water for the
natural system.
Once an appropriate amount of water is dedicated to the natural
system as a matter of Federal law, the next important step is to ensure
that the Central and Southern Florida Project works and features are
operated, or managed, appropriately to deliver the dedicated quantity
of water. This can be accomplished by ensuring that the design
construction, modification, and operation of Central and Southern
Florida Project works and features envisioned under the Comprehensive
Plan are carried out by the Corps of Engineers in consultation with the
Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency and other
Federal and State agencies as appropriate and consistent with the set-
aside regulations. This does not mean that the Department will be
involved in daily water management decisions, but rather the Department
will assist the Army Corps in determining the amount of water, with the
proper distribution and flows, to be dedicated and managed for the
natural system environment and requiring that all individual components
of the Comprehensive Plan further this goal.
In addition, the Administration's legislative proposal provides for
the sharing of adversity--flood or drought--appropriately between the
natural system and the built environment; and the protection of
existing permitted uses, two goals endorsed by the all of the
stakeholders in the South Florida ecosystem.
Conclusion
In the Everglades we have an historic opportunity to correct past
mistakes and save a national treasure for future generations while at
the same time ensuring South Florida's continued viability. The Federal
and State governments are doing things that have never before been
attempted, certainly not at this scale. This effort has always enjoyed
bipartisan support and reflects a level of partnership, of which we are
very proud, among the State of Florida, the Federal Government and
concerned citizens.
We appreciate the leadership and commitment of Chairman Smith and
the committee and other members in the United States Senate in bringing
us this far today. If we are to truly succeed, that commitment must
continue for many years to come, and we look forward to working with
the Subcommittee as the restoration proceeds.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the committee on this important effort and I
will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses by Mary Doyle to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Did you participate in the development of the Operation
and Maintenance formula and do you think that it adequately represents
the amount of Federal lands and waters that benefit from the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Although the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
requires that operation and maintenance costs for the Central and
Southern Florida Project be the responsibility of the local sponsor,
and that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan provided to the
Congress last July called for an equal split of the operation and
maintenance costs, the Administration proposes that the costs be split
60 percent non-Federal and 40 percent Federal. The Department did not
directly participate in the development of this formula. The Department
supports the Administration's position.
Question 2. Can you provide the committee with examples, if any
exist, of other instances in which advanced treated wastewater was
successfully returned to the natural system?
Response. The Department is not aware of any other instances in
which advanced treated wastewater was used to supply hydrologic needs
of a natural system. As part of the strategy to capture and store 1.1
million acre-feet of water now presently sent to tide, the
Comprehensive Plan proposes two specific wastewater reuse structural
features to provide up to 231 million gallons per day of additional
water by recycling and treating municipal waste water. These features
include the West Miami-Dade County Reuse project and the South Miami-
Dade County Reuse project proposed for authorization in 2014. In order
to attain superior level of water quality, construction of treatment
systems will be necessary. Further, the plans to develop these .
features occur late in the Comprehensive Plan implementation process.
Other potential sources of water will be investigated before pursuing
the reuse facility as a resource, it is possible that the adaptive
assessment process and technological improvements may make these
features unnecessary.
Question 3. Can you comment on the desirability of waste water as a
source of water for the natural system?
Response. As long as the waste water is of sufficient quality, the
additional quantity of water that will be captured from this effort
will be very beneficial for the natural system.
Question 4. Why is it important to move forward with authorization
of this initial set of ten projects this year? Can you describe what
the impacts of delay would mean for the ecosystem?
Response. The first ten projects were selected for the initial
authorization because they provide system-wide water storage, quality
and flow distribution benefits to the ecosystem and they integrate
these features with ongoing State and Federal restoration programs.
This will result in immediate benefits for Everglades restoration and
will enhance the water supply for all uses. For example, as part of the
initial authorization, modifications to raise portions of Tamiami Trail
are proposed in order to improve the flow of water deliveries into
Northeast Shark River Slough that is to be reestablished under the
ongoing Modified Water Deliveries Project funded by the Department of
the Interior and constructed by the Corps.
Additionally, about 381,000 acre-feet of additional water storage
capacity will be created by the construction of six water storage
areas, and, where necessary to ensure adequate water quality,
accompanying stormwater treatment areas. The most significant of these
is the 260,000 acre-feet to be realized from phase one of the
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Storage Reservoir that is proposed
to be located on lands acquired from the Talisman Sugar Corporation and
other sugar producers in the EAA. Delaying the authorization for the
EAA Storage Reservoir until a site specific Project Implementation
Report is complete jeopardizes the ability of the South Florida Water
Management District to provide notice by October 1, 2002, required
under the land purchase and exchange agreement, and for the Army Corps
to utilize these lands for this purpose by the agreed-upon date for the
end of the lease term, which is March 31, 2005
If authorization is delayed, the Everglades ecosystem as we know it
today will continue to deteriorate and eventually disappear. Without
the Comprehensive Plan, the natural system is likely to experience
future water shortages, along with more frequent fire events. These
water shortages will make it difficult to maintain aquatic habitat in
Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough. Estuaries like Florida Bay will
experience increased algae blooms, seagrass die-offs and hypersalinity,
reducing sport fisheries and critical nursery functions for the shrimp
and lobster fisheries. The ability to recover endangered species will
be seriously impaired and as the natural environment suffers, so too
will the human environment. The urban population of South Florida will
experience the water shortage problems and severe flood events as the
water supply system, under pressure, of continued population growth
becomes impossible to administer adequately.
Question 5. Would you be supportive of a safeguard mechanism,
perhaps comparable to the process Congress approved last year for the
Challenge 21 program, which would allow these projects to be
authorized, but give the Congress appropriate oversight?
Response. Because of the immediate benefits that will be realized,
the Department believes that it is important to authorize the proposed
initial construction projects now. The Administration's proposal
provides that construction would not begin until a Project
Implementation Report is completed.
______
Responses by Mary Doyle to Additional Questions from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. On April 6 the Corps of Engineers released a draft
General Reevaluation Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement on alternatives for providing flood mitigation to the 8.5
Square Mile Area in conjunction with implementing the Modified Water
Deliveries Project. The Modified Water Deliveries Project is essential
to Everglades restoration and has been mired in controversy. In a draft
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report on the Corps report the Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Park Service rated a total buyout as
the best plan. It is going to be very difficult to achieve any workable
consensus on a total buyout plan. Is there any plan that would provide
flood mitigation for the most developed portions of the 8.5 mile area
that might be acceptable to the Department of the Interior and
environmental interests?
Response. The Department is working with the Army Corps of
Engineers to complete the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, 8.5
Square Mile Area. The Corps of Engineers, the Department and the South
Florida Water Management District are evaluating ten alternatives
including flood mitigation. Consistent with the Modified Water
Deliveries underlying statutory authorization, the Department has
identified some of these alternatives as providing for restoration of
more natural hydrologic flows for Northeast Shark River Slough, as well
as the required flood protection.
Question 2. The Administration proposal for the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan includes the proposal that the Federal
Government share in 40 percent of the operation and maintenance cost of
the Comprehensive Plan based on the fact that the plan provides water
to Federal properties including Everglades and Biscayne Bay National
Parks. As the Federal agency responsible for management of Everglades
and Biscayne Bay parks, should the 40 percent Federal share of
operation and maintenance come out of the National Park Service budget?
Response. Although the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
requires that operation and maintenance costs for the Central and
Southern Florida Project be the responsibility of the local sponsor,
the Administration proposes that the costs be split 60 percent non-
Federal and 40 percent Federal. The Administration believes that the
traditional arrangement of having the Army Corps fund Federal share of
the project operation and maintenance costs is more appropriate than
having such costs funded by the National Park Service.
Question 3. Is the proposal to redevelop Homestead Air Force Base
as a commercial airport compatible with Everglades restoration?
Response. The Air Force is working on a draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and is evaluating the public
comments received during the public comment process. Although the
Administration has not made a final decision on the reuse of the former
Homestead Air Force Base surplus property, the Department has stated
its belief that the Mixed Use alternative analyzed in the draft SEIS
meets the goals of the SEIS in that it provides for significant
economic opportunities for South Miami-Dade County and protects the
nearby national parks. Attached is a copy of the Department's comments
on the draft SEIS.
U.S. Department of the Interior.
______
Ms. Shirley Curry,
AFBCA External Affairs,
1700 N. Moore Street, Suite 2300,
Arlington, VA 22209-2802.
Dear Ms. Curry: The Department of the Interior (Department) appreciates
the opportunity provided to the National Park Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service to work as cooperating agencies on the preparation of
the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS)
entitled ``Disposal of Portions of the Former Homestead Air Force
Base'' and dated December 1999. The Department understands that the
goal of the Air Force is to dispose of the former Homestead Air Force
Base surplus property in a manner that supports economic revitalization
of South Florida, while protecting Biscayne and Everglades National
Parks.
Homestead Air Force base is less than two miles from Biscayne
National Park, and less than 10 miles from Everglades National Park, so
what is done at Homestead is enormously important to the parks. Both
parks have been set aside by Congress for the fundamental purpose
stated in the National Park Service's Organic Act, ``which purpose is
to conserve the scenery and the natural and the historic objects and
the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in
such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' Everglades National Park has also
been recognized as both a World Heritage Site and a Biosphere Reserve;
it also constitutes the largest remaining subtropical wilderness in the
United States, with 1,296,500 acres that have been formally designated
by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Biscayne National Park receives nearly 500,00 visitors per year, and
Everglades National Park nearly one million visitors per year.
Because South Florida supports some of the greatest biodiversity in
the United States, decisions about the disposal and reuse of Homestead
Air Force Base are also potentially significant to wildlife resources
for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has responsibility.
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge is about 30 miles from
Homestead. Within South Florida 68 species are listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
The Department believes that the Mixed Use alternative is the
preferred approach to achieve the stated goal for the disposal of this
property and urges the Air Force adopt the Mixed Use alternative in its
Record of Decision. The Department believes that the Mixed Use is
preferable to the development of a commercial airport because the Mixed
Use alternative:
Environmental Group Plan, or some similar as yet unidentified
proposal--provides significant economic renewal and revitalization of
south Florida in a manner that avoids degrading the natural environment
and resources of Biscayne and Everglades National Parks.
Although the Draft SEIS analyzes the environmental consequences of
the proposed action and is based upon the best scientific information
available at this time, the Department believes that we have only a
modest understanding of the potential environmental impacts and
associated cumulative impacts from a commercial airport, located less
than two miles from Biscayne National Park and less than 10 miles from
Everglades National Park. Although the Draft SEIS notes correctly that
we are unable at this time to analyze fully the impacts of a proposed
airport expansion because it is so far into the future, the Department
believes that similar impacts could occur, only to compound the
potential degradation to park resources that may result from a
commercial airport.
For all of these reasons, the Department supports the Mixed Use
alternative as the best way to provide significant economic
opportunities to South Miami-Dade County, consistent with the Air
Force's goal to dispose of surplus property at the former Homestead Air
Force Base in a manner that supports economic revitalization of South
Florida, while protecting Biscayne and Everglades National Parks.
More specific comments addressed in the order in which they are
discussed and analyzed in the Draft SEIS follow:
Socioeconomic Benefits
The Department notes that the Mixed Use alternative has the
capacity to generate significant economic benefits quickly that are
nearly as great as the proposed action. The Draft SEIS states that
employment resulting from the Mixed Use alternative in South Miami-Dade
County is expected to ultimately increase by 7,848-15,843 jobs,
generating a potential increase in earnings of 5228 59 million by 2015
The Draft SEIS calculates that this represents an increase in South
Miami-Dade County of about 11-23 percent over the present baseline.
Although less than that associated with the development of the
commercial airport, this is significant economic growth. Further, the
Draft SEIS notes that economic benefits accrue more quickly to the
surrounding area from the Mixed Use alternative than from the
commercial airport, thereby providing more immediate benefits to the
local communities and residents.
In contrast to the commercial airport, the Mixed Use alternative
also provides for significant recreational and educational
opportunities. The Air Force should carefully consider the immediate
and lasting benefits that are offered under both the Collier Resources
Company Proposal and the Hoover Environmental Group Plan as they have
the potential to provide unique educational and recreational
opportunities, as well as expanded tourism in the region.
Airspace Safety
Although the Draft SEIS indicates that serious accidents involving
commercial aircraft are infrequent. the Department remains quite
concerned about the environmental consequences for any aircraft
accidents that may, depending upon the location of such accident.
degrade natural resources under the jurisdiction of the Department of
the Interior. For example, an accident occurring in the wetlands of
Biscayne or Everglades National Parks could destroy valuable habitat
and vegetation, degrade soils and cause mortalities of plant and animal
species. Accidents often involve the release of tonic fuels that may
further degrade the environment. Finally, related aircraft recovery
operations have the potential to damage natural resources. These risks,
though small, are not present in the Mixed Use alternative.
Noise
The natural ambient soundscape, those sound conditions that exist
in the absence of human-caused sounds, is among the important natural
conditions and resources of national parks. As already indicated, the
Draft SEIS states that a single-runway commercial airport at Homestead
would lead to about 231,000 annual aircraft operations at full
buildout, as compared to about 20,000 military and other operations at
Homestead Air Reserve Station today If expanded in the future, a
commercial airport could lead to about 370,000 aircraft operations a
year. At the initial proposed level, let alone at an expanded level,
these operations could significantly increase man-made noise levels in
Biscayne and Everglades national parks, and represent a significant
impairment and use of park resources, including natural sounds and a
sense of tranquility. The proposed flight tracks and operational levels
would also impact Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
As with many resources the National Park Service is charged to
preserve, the natural soundscapes of Everglades and Biscayne National
Parks are not currently pristine and all of the factors affecting those
soundscapes are not controlled by the Park Service; However, the
National Park Service will restore degraded soundscapes to the natural
ambient condition wherever possible and will protect natural
soundscapes from degradation due to human-caused noise. To that end,
the National Park Service is currently preparing a draft Soundscape
Management Plan for Biscayne National Park. Soundscape preservation
will also be addressed in the upcoming General Management Plan for
Everglades National Park. The Department is concerned that the
development of a commercial airport in such close proximity to Biscayne
and Everglades National Park will frustrate these management efforts,
as well as contribute to the further degradation of the resource.
In terms of the analysis of noise consequences from the proposed
action, the Department notes that the draft report by Wyle Laboratories
entitled ``The Soundscape in South Florida National Parks'' and
prepared for the National Park Service was included in the appendix to
the Draft SEIS. The report was prepared to assist the National Park
Service in its efforts to resolve methodological issues associated with
defining the ``natural soundscape'' i.e., the conditions that do or
would exist in the absence of human caused noise, in parks across our
system. Because the natural soundscape is a natural resource of all
parks and is the ``affected environment'' for assessing the impacts of
noise intrusions. the accurate characterization of the soundscape
resource is of great interest to the National Park Service.
The Wyle report reviewed the data from earlier studies that were
used as the basis for the noise analysis in the Draft SEIS. In various
places, the Wyle report points out where the methodology and
assumptions in the earlier studies appear to be inconsistent with an
accurate assessment of the natural soundscape. For example, the ambient
noise level ascribed to the parks by the FM's short term measurements
is far higher than the levels measured over a longer period of time by
Wyle Laboratories. In addition, the Wyle findings do not validate the
vegetation-based extrapolation of data that was done by the FAA. The
Department accepts the Draft SEIS's finding that the airport
alternative would lead to increases in the amount of time that there
would be elevated noise levels in the parks. However, the re-analysis
by Wyle Labs indicates that the analysis reflected in the text of the
Draft SEIS may underestimate the amount of time each day that noise
levels would be elevated.
Notwithstanding these differences in methodologies and assumptions
that indicate that different noise impact results could be achieved,
increased noise levels in the national parks have the potential to
disrupt park employees and visitors, park interpretive programs, and
park natural resources. Because of concerns over the differing
methodologies and assumptions employed by the Federal Aviation
Administration and Wyle Laboratories regarding noise issues, the
Department believes that our knowledge of the effect of increased noise
levels on the resources in Biscayne and Everglades National Park is
evolving. Further, although it is beyond the scope of this Draft SEIS,
it is possible that if a commercial airport were to be expanded at a
later date to increase the frequency of air traffic, increased noise
levels could result despite any future changes in technology that could
mitigate such impact, if such technology were to be developed. It is
unclear at this time if that will be the case.
The Department notes, however, that the Mixed Use alternative does
not result in any change in noise levels, whatsoever, and would allow
the National Park Service to continue its efforts to: (1) preserve and
protect for present and future generations the natural resources of
nearby parks; (2) restore natural soundscapes to the extent possible;
and (3) provide for continued visitor enjoyment of the nearby parks
without the impact caused by increased noise levels.
Land Use and Aesthetics
The Department believes that the increased level of aircraft
operations associated with the proposed action could seriously affect
the land use and aesthetics in the nearby national parks and the
enjoyment of present and future visitors.
In terms of the park resources that could be affected by this
dramatic increase in aircraft operations flat open landscapes and vast
skies are essential resources of Everglades and Biscayne National Parks
that are presently enjoyed by visitors and are an integral part the
visitor experience. The Draft SEIS describes the impact of increasing
the frequency and expanding the distribution of aircraft and contrails
on these resources and on the visitors who enjoy these resources. A
full understanding of the impact of such intrusion is modest.
The Department notes that Everglades locational Park. receiving
close to I million visitors per year and internationally recognized as
both a World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve, is the largest
remaining subtropical wilderness in the United States with 1,296,500
acres officially designated as wilderness. Visitors seeking the
solitude of a wilderness setting at Everglades National Park through
back country camping or canoeing down Shark River Slough could have
their experiences disrupted through increased commercial air traffic
over these areas. Similarly, the nearly 500,000 annual visitors to
Biscayne National Park may find their experience seriously degraded by
the frequent appearance of low altitude approaching and departing
aircraft over Biscayne Bay, and associated aircraft lights and noise.
The Department notes that Biscayne National Park serves as an important
retreat and recreational resource for the surrounding greater Miami
urban area.
Similar to vast open day skies, clear, dark, night skies are
another important landscape of both Biscayne and Everglades National
Parks Based upon the information set forth in the Draft SEIS, it is
reasonable to infer that increased aircraft activity, related airport
infrastructure, and potential secondary development on the adjacent
lands, as well as the -potential for future airport expansion has the
potential to permanently impair this resource for current and future
park visitors. The Draft SEIS recognizes this impact.
In addition to the effects of a commercial airport on the
landscapes and the visitors who enjoy such landscapes, there are also
important park interpretive programs that could be affected by such a
significant increase in air traffic over existing levels. For example,
one of the hallmarks of the environmental education program at
Everglades National`Park is the opportunity for children with little or
no exposure to the natural world to experience a setting where the
influence of human activity is minimized. Park rangers teach these
children about nature by letting them experience the prevailing
``silence'' of nature--having them stand quietly for 60 seconds and
then having them describe what they saw, heard, and felt during that
time. This theme is incorporated into many of the ranger-led activities
throughout the parks. Fundamental parts of these educational
experiences could be compromised' if not completely altered, and we
would be very disappointed if this experience were degraded by the
projected air traffic and noise associated with the proposed airport.
The Department notes that the Draft SEIS finds that the potential
for incomparability between the Mixed Use alternative and the
surrounding landscapes and aesthetics to be less than for the other
alternatives. The Department agrees and believes that the Mixed Use
alternative does not alter the landscapes or aesthetics of either
Biscayne or Everglades National Park or the enjoyment of such resources
by visitors in the same way that such resources would be altered by a
commercial airport.
Air Quality
The Draft SEIS concludes that the development of a commercial
airport at the former Homestead AFB would increase nitrogen deposition
in Biscayne National Park by 2, percent over current deposition rates.
Nitrogen deposition in Everglades National Park would increase by about
6 percent. If nitrogen levels increased in the waters of Biscayne Bay
at the levels described for the commercial airport, that could speed up
the process of eutrophication, which could have a negative effect on
ecological productivity.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are toxic organic compounds
emitted in the exhaust of aircraft, motor vehicles, and industrial
boilers. Higher concentrations of PAHs in soils and water body
sediments are expected near sources such as airports or roadways. PAHs
are considered hazardous air pollutants by the Environmental Protection
Agency, but emissions from aircraft engines are not regulated. Although
there is limited data on the transport of PAHs, they are apparently
very insoluble in water, and readily attach to particles such as soil
and dust. In water bodies, PAHs tend to settle to bottom sediments
where they affect the benthic communities and ultimately the whole food
chain.
The Draft SEIS finds that increased activity of aircraft and other
mobile sources associated with the Proposed Action would increase the
generation of PAHs in the vicinity of former Homestead AFB. The Draft
SEIS suggests that PAHs released from aircraft during night would be
widely distributed at extremely low concentrations before reaching the
earth The Department is concerned that our knowledge of PAHs in this
resource context may be limited and that the distribution of PAHs may
not be so widely dispersed, particularly beneath the flight paths in
the sensitive nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay. Extremely low levels of
total PAHs may be enough to cause a biological impact.
Earth Resources
The Draft SEIS estimates that the commercial airport could result
in the reduction of about 800 acres of nearby farmland in South Miami-
Dade County. In contrast, the Mixed Use alternative is estimated to
result in the reduction of 200-500 acres of nearby farmland. The
Department believes that any action that increases the development of
land surrounding the former Homestead Air Force Base has the potential
to: (1) disrupt the ability to implement recommendations to establish a
buffer between the former Homestead Air Force Base and the nearby
national parks whatever re-use alternative is chosen as recommended by
various groups (discussed further below); and (23 diminish future local
and State efforts to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in the
area for the purpose of constructing projects that could result in
improved water quality and quantity for the Biscayne Coastal Wetlands
feature described in the Army Corps Comprehensive Plan for Everglades
Restoration. The purpose of the Biscayne Coastal Wetlands feature
included in the Army Corps' Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
is to rehydrate wetlands and reduce point source discharge into
Biscayne Bay by replicating historic overland flow and redistributing
available surface water entering the area from regional canals through
a coastal wetland spreader system. The Army Corps estimates that about
13,600 acres are needed for this project.
Restoration the South Florida ecosystem is a major priority for
State. Federal and local governments. The Department believes that any
decision about re-use of the former Homestead Air Force Base should
complement the future ability of Federal, State and local efforts to
implement these goals. Protecting the immediate environs of Biscayne
National Park. including land between and proximate to the base
property and the Bay, is vital to achieving ecosystem restoration by
securing more natural quality, quantity, timing and distribution of
water flows to Biscayne Bay. Potential environmental impacts of
redevelopment of the former Homestead Air Force Base property could
effect this important ecosystem restoration project.
Various agencies at the local, State and Federal levels have
advanced recommendations to create a protected area between former
Homestead Air Force Base and Biscayne National Park to protect Biscayne
National Park and Biscayne Bay from some of the potential impacts of
developing a commercial airport and to restore overland sheet flow to
Biscayne Bay. Any re-use scenario, regardless of what re-use
alternative is chosen should include protections from urbanization and
degradation of the lands between and proximate to former Homestead Air
Force Base and Biscayne Bay.
Miami-Dade County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan
amendments and its proposed Wildlife/Habitat Management and Mitigation
Plan, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group's Issue
Advisory Team and Drafting Subcommittee reports, the Florida Department
of Community Affairs' report to the Administration Commission, and the
Administration Commission's final Order on Chapter 288 amendments all
include proposals for a buffer area.
Miami-Dade County's Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan
for Homestead AFB, completed in June 1998, describes ``Preservation
Considerations for Areas Outside of the Former Base.'' According to the
plan, the areas to the east and southeast of the former Base ``are the
most significant areas in terms of habitat protection and should be
considered critical target areas for preservation and management.,'
The preservation of a buffer area would serve several purposes in
protecting and restoring conditions in Biscayne UP. As described in the
Draft SEIS, a buffer would:
Protect park resources, including water quality and the viewshed;
Protect critical wildlife habitat and wetlands; Preserve the rural
character of the area by limiting conversion of agricultural land;
Preserve in its present condition an area that could be crucial for
restoring sheetflow to Biscayne Bay.
The Department believes that a buffer to maintain existing
agricultural and open spaces uses between Biscayne National Park and
the urban areas of southeast Miami-Dade County is essential to protect
the nationally and regionally significant resources and values of the
park. Implementing the buffer may be more easily accomplished under the
Mixed Use alternative in that projected to result in the use of fewer
acres adjacent to the former Homestead Or Force Base property and the
secondary development impacts may be less.
Water Resources
The analysis of impacts to water resources in the Draft SEIS
assumes changes in the stormwater management system on the former base,
based on the Homestead Regional Airport Surface Water Management Master
Plan. This plan and a permit application for stormwater discharges
would need to be submitted to, and approved by, the South Florida Water
Management District prior to implementation. Substantial changes may be
made to the plan during the approval process, but the Draft SEIS
assumes that the actual stormwater management system would function as
described in the HST Surface Water Management Master Plan. The
Department is concerned that specific storm drainage plans for the new
airport have not been finalized and that possible replumbing to route
stormwater through wetlands east of the base property has not been
addressed.
The Department is also concerned about potential increased flows of
other groundwater contaminants, especially ammonia. The Draft SEIS
suggests that the increase in flows of ammonia, which is tonic to
organisms, could be 13-14 percent. The Department is concerned that
French Drains (which are an important element in the stormwater
management plan for the airport used to develop the Draft SEIS) may
more likely increase contaminants flowing from groundwater into the
Bay, rather than reduce it as suggested in the Draft SEIS. This is
especially likely when one considers the amount of ammonia flowing from
nearby landfills. Ammonia in groundwater is a powerful solvent that
will move metals and other contaminants out into the Bay.
Biologic Resources
Proposed air traffic routes under the commercial airport
alternative bisect and transverse many sensitive habitats (Cape Sable
Seaside Sparrow breeding habitat, foraging habitat for woodstorks and
spoonbills, and crocodile nesting habitat). Notwithstanding the pending
determination of the Fish and Wildlife Service under Endangered Species
Act consultation requirements, the Department is concerned that the
increased frequency, volume, and duration of noise could impact these
endangered species and species of special concern, as well as other
biologic resources in the area. Furthermore, the Department is
concerned that these increases could severely hinder efforts to
reliably determine the status and trends of the critically endangered
Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, other breeding birds and may impact
monitoring of the reintroduction of the bluebird and nuthatch.
The Draft SEIS finds that ``wading birds may flush or be startled
during, feeding loafing or roosting, but it is not anticipated that
nesting birds would be sufficiently affected to abandon their nests.
Some species of wading birds appear to habituate to high noise levels,
while others may choose to relocate to quieter areas with suitable
habitat.'' The Department believes that a full understanding of the
effects of aircraft overflights on indigenous and migratory birds, some
of which are threatened or endangered species, is modest, as we lack
specific studies of commercial aircraft traffic and its effects for all
of the represented species in the affected environment. Further. the
Draft SEIS suggests the use of unspecified techniques to scare birds
away from the flight paths to minimize the danger of bird strikes. If
these techniques involve the use of noise to prevent birds from
roosting in the area, there would be farther impacts to wildlife in and
around the National Parks.
Additionally, development of a commercial airport is expected to
result in the destruction of ecologically sensitive remnant pine
rocklands, with the potential for losses offsite as the result of
secondary development. Similarly, there is also a reduction in wading
bird habitat. The Department notes that, in contrast to the commercial
airport, the Mixed Use alternative offers the opportunity to preserve
remaining pine rocklands and increase wading bird habitat. Under the
Hoover Environmental Group Plan, these areas would be preserved and
enhanced. The Department notes that this may be possible under any
scenario involving Mixed Use, particularly if deed restrictions are
used to preserve rare and ecologically sensitive habitat.
Summary of Concerns and Conclusion
As described above, the Department is very concerned that the
development of a commercial airport in close proximity to Biscayne
National Park and Everglades National Park could have a series of
negative consequences on these nationally and internationally
recognized resources and the surrounding areas. Once allowed to occur,
these negative environmental impacts may be difficult to reverse and
could frustrate collective efforts among the Federal, State and local
governments to create a sustainable South Florida economy by restoring
the Everglades. A summary of the potential negative environmental
impacts follows:
Significant derogation of the natural soundscapes in both Biscayne
and Everglades National Parks with adverse effects on visitor
enjoyment, National Park-Service interpretive activities, and biologic
resources--including the potential disruption of nesting and/or
migration patterns of birds--in both Biscayne and Everglades National
Parks; Increases in contaminants, including ammonia and PAHs, in
Biscayne Bay; Increases in nitrogen deposition in Biscayne and
Everglades National Parks; Reduction of the ability to track the status
and trends of repatriated species, endangered species, and other
breeding birds; Disruption of the scenic vistas and impairment of night
skies at Biscayne and Everglades National Parks; Loss of important
farmland through secondary development impacts thereby leading to land
use changes that may frustrate the ability to complete various
components of the Army Corps' Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan.
For all of these reasons, the Department prefers the Mixed Use
alternative as the environmentally preferable alternative of all the
alternatives evaluated in the Draft SEIS.
The Air Force's goal is ``to dispose of this surplus property in a
manner that supports local community plans for economic revitalization
of south Florida and protects Biscayne Bay and the nearby national
parks.'' The Department believes that this goal can be best advanced by
selecting the Mixed lose Alternative. None of the other alternatives
evaluated in the Draft SEIS accomplishes this goal.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Barry, Assistant Secretary,
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
______
Responses by Mary Doyle to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. Has the Corps of Engineers or Department of the
Interior made recommendations for or undertaken actions that are
consistent with a modified reconnaissance or feasibility study for the
projects contained in the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan?
Response. Yes, the Department has taken a number of independent
actions that are consistent with the recommendations contained in the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and that anticipate future
authorization and implementation of the Plan. As part of its land
acquisition grant program for the State of Florida, the Department of
the Interior has issued a number of grants to the State of Florida's
Department of Environmental Protection and South Florida Water
Management District to assist both agencies in acquiring lands that may
be utilized in implementing specific project features associated with
the Comprehensive Plan. Lands that have been or are being acquired by
these agencies using the grant funding provided by the Department are
located in the East Coast Buffer, Everglades Agricultural Area,
Southern Golden Gates Estates, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed,
and the Caloosahatchee Basin. If the lands are not ultimately utilized
for a project feature associated with the Comprehensive Plan, the
underlying grant agreements provide that the lands will be managed for
Everglades restoration purposes.
Question 2. What will be the impact of the restoration plan on the
hydrological needs of the Big Cypress National Preserve?
Response. Two components of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan target the hydrologic needs of the Big Cypress region.
These include the Big Cypress/L-28 Interceptor Modifications and the
Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Water Conservation Plan. The purpose of the
Big Cypress/L-28 Interceptor Modifications is to reestablish sheetflow
across the Big Cypress Reservation and into the Big Cypress National
Preserve, maintain flood protection on Seminole Tribal lands, and
ensure that inflows meet applicable water quality standards. The
Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Water Conservation Plan is designed to
achieve environmental restoration on the Reservation, the Big Cypress
Preserve, and the Everglades Protection Area, as well as promote water
conservation.
______
Responses by Mary Doyle to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1. The language proposed by the Administration includes
assurances language that calls for concurrence by the Department of the
Interior in Federal regulations and consultation by the Governor. What
is your explanation for why this arrangement is appropriate given the
50-50 cost-sharing with the State on this project?
Response. We believe that the State of Florida should be a full
partner in the implementing the CERP. At the time the proposed
legislation was being drafted, the Federal agencies involved in this
effort had constitutional concerns over providing the State of Florida
with a concurrence role over the Federal programmatic regulations that
are proposed to be developed to determine the appropriate quantity,
quality, timing and distribution of water for the natural system so
that it will be restored consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Upon
further review, the Administration now believes it is appropriate to
provide a similar role to the Governor of Florida in the programmatic
regulations that are proposed to be developed to determine the
appropriate quantity, timing and distribution of water for the natural
system.
Question 2. Can you summarize in a list the Federal holdings that
will benefit from the water generated by this project?
Response. The following federally designated conservation areas
will benefit from the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan:
1. Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
2. Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge
3. Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge
4. Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge
5. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
6. Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge
7. Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge
8. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge
9. Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge
10. Callosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
11. Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
12. Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge
13. Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
14. Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge
15. Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge
16. Key West National Wildlife Refuge
17. Everglades National Park
18. Big Cypress National Preserve
19. Biscayne National Park
20. Dry Tortugas National Park
21. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
22. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve
Question 3. The language proposed by the Administration includes a
60-40 cost-share for operations and maintenance funding. What is your
justification for this number?
Response. Although the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
requires that operation and maintenance costs for the Central and
Southern Florida Project be the responsibility of the local sponsor,
and that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan provided to the
Congress last July called for an equal split of the operation and
maintenance costs, the Administration proposes that the costs be split
60 percent non-Federal and 40 percent Federal. The Department
understands that this allocation was determined by the amount of
Federal lands that will benefit from the Comprehensive Plan.
Question 4. There have been concerns raised regarding the content
of the Chief's Report of June 22, 1999. Why is this water important to
the natural system? Are you aware that both General Ballard and
Secretary Westphal have sent me a letter indicating that they committed
to study the feasibility of providing an additional 245,000 acre feet
of water, not that they committed to providing the additional water?
Are you comfortable with an action to study the feasibility of
providing this water?
Response. As described in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan submitted to the Congress last July, the 245,000 acre-feet
referenced in the Chief of Engineer's Report is vitally important to
the natural system. When the 245,000 acre-feet is combined with excess
water from the Water Conservation Areas, it allows for significant
increased flows of new water to Everglades National Park and Biscayne
Bay. These increased flows are expected to produce substantial
improvements toward meeting the hydrological performance targets for
these two areas, as it would allow these parks to approximate 90
percent of predrainage volumes. This Restudy's Alternative Evaluation
Team arrived at this same conclusion, as described in the Comprehensive
Plan, subsequent to the hydrologic modeling conducted during the winter
of 1998, and in response to the public comments received on the
issuance of the draft plan in October 1998.
Despite the substantial benefits from this additional water, the
245,000 acre-feet of water was not, however, included in the
Comprehensive Plan's recommended plan submitted to the Congress last
July because there were significant unresolved concerns with the
delivery of this new water. Rather, the Alternative Evaluation Team
recommended that the 245,000 acre-feet be included contingent upon
additional planning and study be completed to find a way to resolve
some of these concerns so that the new water could be delivered. For
these reasons, the Army Corps of Engineers agreed to study this
proposal in greater detail and submit a project implementation report
on this issue to the Congress. The Department is aware that Chief of
Engineers Ballard and Assistant Secretary of the Army Westphal both
have made clear in previous correspondence to Congress that ``the Corps
has only committed to completing an evaluation on the additional
245,000 acre feet.''
The Department understands that the commitment to study the
feasibility of delivering this additional water to be consistent with
the recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Plan and agreed to
in correspondence between the Department and the Army Corps of
Engineers, as well as in the Chief of Engineer's Report. The Department
is comfortable with this action.
Question 5. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we move forward with this project?
Response. The Department expects what currently remains of the
natural system in South Florida to gradually recover and function in a
manner characteristic of the pre-drainage Everglades. It will become
once again an interconnected healthy ecosystem, capable of supporting
viable, abundant populations of native plants, fish, and wildlife. The
Comprehensive Plan will better distribute the water flowing eastward
and westward to the coastal areas and southward across Everglades
National Park and into Florida Bay. This redistribution of water flows
will substantially reduce the huge ecologically damaging releases of
fresh water to the coastal estuaries and instead direct water southward
in a pattern that more closely replicates historic natural water flows.
Associated features of the Comprehensive Plan will allow better control
of the timing and quantity of these flows, and improve water quality.
These actions will improve the salinity balance and reduce nutrient
runoff in the coastal estuaries and in Florida Bay, resulting in
substantial improvements to habitat and associated fish and wildlife
productivity.
Question 6. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we do not move forward with this project?
Response. Absent the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Everglades ecosystem as we know it today will continue to deteriorate
and eventually disappear. Without the Comprehensive Plan, the natural
system is likely to experience future water shortages, along with more
frequent fire events. These water shortages will make it difficult to
maintain aquatic habitat in Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough.
Estuaries like Florida Bay will experience increased algae blooms,
seagrass die-offs and hypersalinity, reducing sport fisheries and
critical nursery functions for the shrimp and lobster fisheries. The
ability to recover endangered species will be seriously impaired and as
the natural environment suffers, so too will the human environment. The
urban population of South Florida will experience water shortage
problems and severe flood events as the water supply system, under
pressure of continued population growth, becomes impossible to
administer adequately. As a result, the significant Federal investment
in the region's national parks, wildlife refuges, and marine
sanctuaries will be at risk and future generations of Americans will
miss an opportunity to experience the Florida Everglades.
Question 7. Regarding the Talisman property that I spoke about
earlier with Secretary Westphal, can you describe the terms of the
final land transaction?
Response. On March 26, 1999, the final purchase and related
simultaneous exchange of the Talisman Sugar Corporation properties in
the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) for other EAA properties was
completed. Following nearly 2 years of negotiations with various
parties, this action resulted in the acquisition of 50,855 acres of
land in fee and 490 acres of leased lands in the EAA. These lands had
previously been held by Talisman, as well as other sugar producers,
including U.S. Sugar, Florida Crystals, the Sugar Growers Cooperative
and Knight.
Although the Department of the Interior funded $99.9 million toward
the final $152.5 million acquisition cost, the Department does not hold
title to any of the properties acquired; title is held by the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The funds provided by the
Department for this acquisition were appropriated to the Department
under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the
1996 Farm Bill).
Of the 50,855 acres of fee lands now held by the South Florida
Water Management District, approximately 43,098 acres of land has been
evaluated by the Army Corps of Engineers, as part of the initial
implementation phase of the Central and Southern Florida Project
Comprehensive Review Study (now known as the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan or Comprehensive Plan), for use as a water storage
reservoir to supply an additional 360,000 acre feet of water for the
region. The Army Corps intends to make maximum use of these lands, as
well as other EAA lands acquired by the SFWMD, to meet this need.
The remaining 7,757 acres of lands acquired by the SFWMD will be
incorporated into various stormwater treatment areas (STAB) that are
presently being constructed by the SFWMD as part of its
responsibilities under the Consent Decree, as proposed to be modified,
that ended the water quality litigation between the State of Florida
and the United States, and under the State of Florida's Everglades
Forever Act.
As with similar large land acquisitions and exchanges, the terms of
the final purchase and exchange agreement are complex. A summary of the
major terms and conditions follows:
1. Lease back of acquired lands by various sugar companies: Because
the lands that were acquired through this purchase and exchange are not
expected to be needed by the Army Corps until additional site specific
analysis is complete, it was determined that maintaining the property
in its existing use would be desirable to prevent the spread of
invasive exotic species, continue present levels of employment,
decrease land management costs to the SFWMD, and produce lease income
for the SFWMD to use for other Everglades restoration land acquisition
purchases. Of the 43,098 acres acquired by the SFWMD for the purpose of
constructing a water storage facility, 34,214 acres have an initial
lease term ending on March 31, 2005; the remaining 8,884 acres being
farmed by U.S. Sugar will have a term ending on March 31, 2007. After
the initial lease term expires, the lease is renewable annually until
terminated by the SFWMD. The leases will terminate and the lands will
be made available to the Army Corps of Engineers at the time the Corps
and the SFWMD determine that the lands are needed for restoration
purposes.
2. Lease termination provisions: Notice of termination must be
given 30 months in advance of the effective termination date of March
31 of the appropriate year, with the notice based upon the
understanding that construction is expected to begin within 12 months
of the effective termination. For those lands with an initial term
ending March 31, 2005, notice must be given by October 1, 2002.
3. Lease rental income available for other Everglades restoration
land purchases: Lease rental is to be paid quarterly at market rates
starting on April 1, 2004 (until that time the lease is at no cost).
Under the terms of a separate Cooperative Agreement between the
Department and the SFWMD, the SFWMD will allow the Department to
approve proposed land acquisition purchases from this fund.
4. Environmental cleanup; use of best management practices: The
sugar companies are required to completely remediate the properties
consistent with Federal and State environmental laws prior to the SFWMD
taking possession of the property. In addition, during the lease
period, the sugar companies must employ best management practices.
5. Other miscellaneous provisions--options to purchase: As part of
the overall transaction, the SFWMD: (i) settled condemnation litigation
with various owners of approximately 2,070 acres of land located in the
EAA within STA-1W and STA-2; (ii) purchased 878 acres of land in STA-
1E, thereby settling pending condemnation litigation; (iii) entered
into an option to purchase approximately 800 acres of EAA lands owned
by Okeelanta Corporation (a subsidiary of U.S. Sugar); and (iv)
received the assignment of a right of first refusal from Okeelanta
Corporation to purchase approximately 889 acres of EAA lands.
6. Purchase price: The overall purchase price of $152,454,800
reflected an average value of about $2,900 per acre, which was
consistent with the price per acre of other EAA land sales. The price
was in an acceptable range of the underlying real estate appraisal for
the Talisman Sugar Corporation properties that had valued the Talisman
holdings, after applying discounts for its large size, at $110.1
million, as well as subsequent desk review of that appraisal that
indicated a value of $148.1 million if no discounts were made for the
parcel's large size. Because the property was ultimately acquired as
part of an overall exchange, it was determined that the discounts did
not accurately reflect the property's true value. As noted earlier, the
Department provided $99.9 million toward this acquisition; the SFWMD
provided $38.6 million, with the remaining $13.9 million supplied by
the various sugar companies (other than Talisman).
Question 8. Regarding the property purchased by the Federal
Government in the Talisman transaction in 1998, can you identify on
your chart where that property is and explain what benefit the use of
these lands as a reservoir will bring to the restoration project? Why
is it important to move forward with this project authorization this
year?
Response. Delaying the authorization for the EAA Storage Reservoir
until a site specific Project Implementation Report is complete
jeopardizes the ability of the South Florida Water Management District
to provide notice by October 1, 2002, required under the land exchange
agreement, and for the Army Corps to utilize these lands for this
purpose by the agreed-upon date for the end of the lease term, which is
March 31, 2005. The expected environmental benefits to be realized from
this completion of this feature include: (i) improve the timing and
release of water to the Water Conservation Areas, including reducing
the damaging flood releases from the EAA to the Water Conservation
Areas; (ii) reduce damaging releases from Lake Okeechobee to the
estuaries; and (iii) meet EAA irrigation and water demands. The
approximate location of the lands that have been acquired through the
Talisman purchase and land exchange are shown in the map as follows:
Question 9. The Everglades Restoration Task Force created a
scientific review panel for the Everglades Restoration process in 1998.
Can you describe the mission of this group, its members, and how it
operates in conjunction with the Task Force?
Response. In order to ensure that all of the science is
appropriately peer-reviewed and at the Task Force's request, Secretary
Babbitt asked the National Academy of Sciences to provide additional
scientific input on Plan implementation. The science advisory panel,
called the Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem
or CROGEE, began its work in December 1999. It is composed of 16
scientists, selected by the National Academy, and represents a broad
range of expertise including biology, ecology and hydrology.
The purpose of CROGEE is to provide scientific advice to the Task
Force on the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan is predicated upon the concept of ``adaptive
assessment,'' which calls for careful scientific monitoring over the
entire 30-year period of implementation to assure that restoration
goals are being met as planned projects come on line, and where the
goals are not being achieved to devise science-based approaches that
are effective. The Task Force recently approved a portion of the CROGEE
initial workplan, which calls for review of aspects of aquifer storage
and recovery and ecological indicators.
______
Responses by Mary Doyle to Additional Questions from Senator Mack
Question 1. Do you support applying section 902 of the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act to all features of the Comprehensive Plan
before us today? [This provision requires a congressional review if a
project exceeds 120 percent of authorized cost]
Response. The Department does not oppose the application of section
902 if the cost of a particular project exceeds 120 percent of the
authorized cost.
Question 2. Do you support congressional committee review and
approval of the feasibility level of engineering and design work before
any construction can begin on the initial suite of ten projects in the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. The Department supports the Administration's proposal on
these projects. The Administration's proposal provides that
construction on the specific project features may not begin until a
Project Implementation Report is complete.
Question 3. Do you support requiring full feasibility studies
before any other projects are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Yes, the Department supports the Administration's
legislative proposal requiring the completion of project implementation
reports (feasibility studies) prior to congressional authorization for
the projects following the initial suite of ten proposed in the WRDA
2000. The Department supports completion of the project implementation
reports for authorization of the remaining projects not included in the
initial suite of projects.
Question 4. Do you support modifying the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to make clear the system includes the lands and
waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District as they existed on July 1, 1999?
Response. As provided in the Administration's legislative proposal,
the definition of the South Florida ecosystem does include land and
waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District as they existed on July 1, 1999.
Question 5. Do you support a provision making clear the Corps of
Engineers is only authorized to study the question about providing an
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water to the natural system?
Response. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, both Chief of
Engineers Ballard and Assistant Secretary of the Army Westphal have
made clear in previous correspondence to the Congress that ``the Corps
has only committed to completing an evaluation on the additional
245,000 acre feet.'' The Department is comfortable with this action.
Question 6. Do you support language making clear that the Corps
must work with the State of Florida to ensure all groundwater
discharges resulting from the Comprehensive Plan meet all applicable
water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements?
Response. Yes, the Department supports this modification.
Question 7. Do you support replacing the project purposes language
stated in (c)(1) of the Administration's draft with language restating
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan developed and passed in WRDA
1996?
Response. The Department supports the project purpose as stated in
the Administration's proposal. The Department believes that language
proposed in the Administration's draft accurately reflects one of the
guiding principles for the development of the recommended Comprehensive
Plan. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan issued in April 1999, that
principle is: ``[t]he overarching objective of the Comprehensive Plan
is the restoration, preservation and protection of the south Florida
ecosystem while providing for other water related needs of the
region.'' This principle is consistent with the congressional direction
provided in the Water Resource Development Act of 1992 requiring the
Army Corps of Engineers to reexamine the Central and Southern Florida
Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to
restore the South Florida ecosystem and to provide for other water
related needs of the region, as well as congressional direction in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 that required the Army Corps to
complete the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Question 8. Do you support additional programmatic authority for
the Corps to construct projects of limited cost but are in keeping with
the Plan's purposes and have independent and substantial benefit to
Everglades restoration?
Response. Yes, the Department supports this provision as proposed
in the Administration's plan.
Question 9. Do you support a 50/50 cost share between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operation and maintenance of the
project? If not, please state the cost share you believe to be
appropriate and why.
Response. Although the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
requires that operation and maintenance costs for the Central and
Southern Florida Project be the responsibility of the local sponsor,
the Administration proposes that the costs be split 60 percent non-
Federal and 40 percent Federal.
Question 10. Please provide your thoughts on the definition of
Project Implementation Reports found in the Administration's language.
Do you support this definition? If not, please provide suggestions as
to how you would define these reports.
Response. The Department supports the Administration's language
defining the Project Implementation Reports.
Question 11. Do you believe the Department of the Interior and the
State of Florida should be on equal footing in developing any
regulations related to assurances? If not, why?
Response. We believe that the State of Florida should be a full
partner in the implementing the CERP. At the time the proposed
legislation was being drafted, the Federal agencies involved in this
effort had constitutional concerns over providing the State of Florida
with a concurrence role over the Federal programmatic regulations that
are proposed to be developed to determine the appropriate quantity,
quality, timing and distribution of water for the natural system so
that it will be restored consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Upon
further review, the Administration a law believes it is appropriate to
provide a similar role to the Governor of Florida in the programmatic
regulations that are proposed to be developed to determine the
appropriate quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water for the
natural system.
Question 12. Do you support the reporting requirement in the
administration's bill? If not, how would you amend the reporting
requirement?
Response. The Department supports the congressional reporting
requirement as proposed in the Administration's bill.
__________
Statement of Gary S. Guzy, General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am
Gary Guzy, General Counsel for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Thank you for your invitation to appear here today to talk to
you about something of great importance to me personally and to the
people of this nation: the Administration's unprecedented efforts to
ensure that the Florida Everglades has clean, abundant water to ensure
environmental and human needs, and the Administration's emphasis on the
importance of EPA's role under the Clean Water Act in ensuring that
protecting water quality is fully integrated into each step of the
restoration efforts.
The efforts to protect the Everglades are a part of Florida's rich
history. Marjory Stoneman Douglas, in her autobiography, Voice of the
River, describes the efforts of Congresswoman Ruth Bryan Owen, who
actively argued at committee hearings against the commonly-held notion
of the time that the Everglades was just a swamp filled with snakes and
mosquitoes. She argued that Congress should create the Everglades
National Park.
And Congress did create the Everglades National Park. But that's
not the end of the story, and here we sit today to urge the committee
to once again exert its leadership and take the steps necessary to
preserve and protect this national treasure. Yes, the Everglades is a
major source of fresh water for South Florida. Yes, the Everglades is
the largest wetland east of the Mississippi River. And yes, the
Everglades is an economic boon to a State that depends on tourism. But
the Everglades is more than these things; it is a historical treasure
that is only venerated through its preservation.
past efforts and recent progress
During the second half of the last century, the existing Central
and Southern Florida Project was built to help meet needs for flood
control and water supply at that time. But the explosive growth since
then has far exceeded the capacity of the current system to meet even
these needs, and has contributed to the ongoing decline in the
Everglades ecosystem. The design and operation of the current system,
while very efficient at draining excess water, severely limits our
capability to store excess water when it becomes available (in the wet
season) so we will have it when it is needed (in the dry season).
Moreover, it is important to remember that the system was designed for
flood control and for water supply purposes. Water quality was not a
consideration at the time.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was submitted to the
Congress by the Vice President of the United States for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nearly a year ago (July 1999). The Plan, which was
carefully developed with the full involvement of EPA and other Federal/
State agencies, lays out an ambitious Federal/State joint venture to
restore water flows to the Everglades ecosystem while providing flood
protection and adequate freshwater supplies to the agricultural
industry and to the growing population of South Florida. The
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan represents a fundamental
change in philosophy a commitment to a sustainable future in which we
learn to balance the water supply needs of the natural systems both
freshwater and marine, with the needs of the urban and agricultural
components of the Everglades systems.
More recently, EPA worked with its Federal partners to shape the
Administration's proposed legislation for the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (WRDA), which would authorize the Central and
Southern Florida Project in accordance with the recommendations set
forth in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The
authorization would allow the Corps and its Federal/State partners,
including EPA, to implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, which, in concert with other proposed and ongoing restoration
efforts, would ``get the water right'' by delivering fresh water in the
right quantity, of the right quality, and with our best estimate of the
right timing and the right distribution to achieve the desired results
in the Everglades ecosystem, including downstream coastal communities
all the way to the living coral reefs of the Florida Keys.
EPA recommends the passage of the proposed Everglades legislation
the Administration provided to Congress for authorization in the Water
Resources Development Act 2000. Among EPA's priorities for the proposal
is to ensure that the legislation clearly amends the current and future
project features and purposes for the Central and Southern Florida
project to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem.
We also worked closely with our Federal partners to shape the
Everglades proposal so that it identifies, and fully addresses, the
goal of water quality improvement for the ecosystem. EPA supports the
Army Corps of Engineers' request that project features needed to
provide water of adequate quality be included to help in restoring,
protecting, and preserving the South Florida ecosystem. EPA recommends
that in doing this, applicable Federal water quality standards,
applicable federally-approved water quality standards developed by the
State or Indian tribes, and plans to implement the standards should be
taken into account. The Administration's proposed legislation includes
specific language in the assurances section and in relation to future
regulations to ensure that water quality needs of the ecosystem are
met.
We believe that the Administration's proposed bill builds on the
successes that have already been achieved and serves as an appropriate
mandate for future efforts. For example, under the Everglades Forever
Act (EFA), which built on the commitments in the 1991 settlement
agreement with the South Florida Water Management District and the
State, the implementation of best management practices in the
Everglades Agricultural Area have achieved a four year cumulative
phosphorus load reduction of 54 percent in waters discharged into the
Everglades Water Conservation Areas, as reported in Chapter 5 of the
2000 Everglades Consolidated Report. Under the EFA and the settlement
agreement, the State also is constructing Stormwater Treatment Areas to
filter the farm runoff further. The construction of the six STAs
totaling 44,000 acres has begun and the two operating STAs have greatly
exceeded their design goals. It is important to note that these
commitments by the State were a baseline assumption in the development
of the CERP, and that the State's future cost of meeting the water
quality goals of these measures will not add to the total costs of the
CERP. Another example is the completion of the Administration's
important acquisition of the Talisman Sugar Plantation from willing
sellers in the Everglades Agricultural Area, which involves more than
51,000 acres, critical new restoration lands in the heart of the
system.
The Administration's proposed bill also requires involvement of EPA
in the development of programmatic and project-specific regulations.
Due to our unique ecosystem-wide perspective, we believe EPA can
contribute to the success of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan and evaluation of its progress. We strongly encourage Congress to
endorse this integrated approach.
I would now like to talk to you about some of the specific
challenges that remain in restoring the magnificent Everglades
ecosystem, as well as EPA's recommendations for how WRDA 2000 can best
provide the sound legislative underpinnings we need for this
unprecedented effort.
remaining challenges and future directions
As noted earlier, the Administration's Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan offers a broad, farsighted approach, which is designed
to increase water supplies for the region so urban and other users
continue to get their fair share, while the natural system finally gets
its fair share to restore and improve the condition of water quality
throughout the Everglades ecosystem. Throughout the design,
construction, and operation phases of the project, EPA intends to focus
its efforts and energies on ensuring that features of the plan will
fully comply with all Federal, State, and Tribal water quality
standards, as well as all other applicable provisions of the Clean
Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. Now I'd like to highlight how
EPA's involvement in certain features of the plan will help promote
water quality and contribute to restoration of the overall integrity of
the Everglades ecosystem.
Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) and Water Storage Areas (WSAs)
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan includes proposals to
construct 36,000 acres of wetlands to treat polluted runoff from urban
and agricultural lands. These Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) will be
located throughout South Florida, and will enable us to use the natural
filtering capability offered by wetlands in an enhanced manner to treat
and improve both water quality and, at the same time, contribute to the
restoration of the health of the Everglades ecosystem.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan also calls for
construction of 181,000 acres of Water Storage Areas (WSAs), 171,000 of
which will allow us to capture excess fresh water flows that now are
drained rapidly to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. This
valuable water, which currently is being ``lost to tide,'' will be
captured and used to provide much-needed water for restoration of the
Everglades ecosystem and to enhance potable water supplies for the
people of South Florida. As with the STAs, the WSAs will render major
water quality benefits to both inland and coastal waters and benefits
to the wetland habitat of the Everglades ecosystem. In addition to the
STAs and WSAs, it also will be critical to ensure the acquisition of
the East Coast Buffer Area because of the continued threat of
development that can affect the Everglades.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Facilities
Construction of regional Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)
facilities is another important component of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. When completed, the ASR facilities are
also intended to store water during the wet season--freshwater flows
that are currently lost to tide. ASR facilities will store these waters
in the upper Floridan Aquifer for recovery in dry seasons--for use both
to restore the ecological integrity of the Everglades ecosystem and to
enhance future water supplies for urban and agricultural purposes in
South Florida.
WRDA 1999 authorized two large-scale pilot projects at Lake
Okeechobee and Palm Beach County, and EPA is now involved with these
pilot efforts in the start-up phase. EPA recognizes that the ASR
approach is bold and entails some technical and regulatory
uncertainties; however, we support this approach in concept and are
fully committed to ensuring that these facilities will function in ways
that are fully protective of South Florida's drinking water supplies
and surface water quality. EPA is working with other Federal and State
partners to demonstrate and assess the efficacy of ASRs. Regardless of
the ultimate feasibility of ASR facilities, the Administration remains
committed to finding the same amount of water storage through other
means, if necessary. Again, I believe that the demonstrated commitment
to adaptive assessment that this program has displayed will incorporate
future adjustments, as needed.
Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan
Under the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, EPA and
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) will share the
lead in developing a Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan. This
plan will evaluate water quality standards and criteria from an
ecosystem restoration perspective. It will also make recommendations
for integrating existing and future water quality restoration targets
for South Florida waterbodies into future planning, design,
construction, and operation activities in ways that optimize water
quality in inland areas, estuaries, and nearshore coastal waters. The
plan also will lead to recommendations regarding water quality
programs, including setting priorities for developing both water
quality standards and pollution load reduction goals.
Other Activities Related to Water Quality
In addition to the activities associated with the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, which would be authorized in WRDA 2000,
EPA is involved in a number of related activities and projects aimed at
protecting and restoring water quality and ecosystem integrity in the
Everglades. While time does not permit me to fully describe these
efforts, I do want to call the committee's attention to some of the
most important activities and the purpose of each:
Florida Keys Water Quality Protection Program: EPA has
been working with the State of Florida in conjunction with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to plan and implement
priority corrective actions and compliance schedules to address both
point and non-point sources of pollution in order to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Improving the Wetlands Regulatory Process in Southwest
Florida: EPA has been actively involved in assisting the Army Corps of
Engineers in finalizing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS), intended to improve the section 404 regulatory decision-making
process in Southwest Florida.
Mercury: EPA, along with United States Geological Survey
(USGS), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the
South Florida Water Management District, and NOAA is actively engaged
in a comprehensive mercury research program to address mercury
contamination in the Everglades. EPA also is working with the State of
Florida to develop a pilot mercury TMDL for a parcel of the Everglades
ecosystem known as Water Conservation Area 3A. This effort is designed
to determine the maximum amount of mercury that can enter the Area each
day and still enable the waters to meet water quality standards.
Phosphorus: phosphorus is still one of the chief
pollutants that threatens aquatic life and restoration of the
Everglades ecosystem. In May 1999, EPA approved stringent new water
quality standards for the Miccosukee Reservation in a portion of the
Everglades ecosystem, which, for the first time ever under the Clean
Water Act, set a specific protective numerical standard for the
Everglades for phosphorus. This protective standard sets a benchmark
for how much phosphorus the ecosystem can handle before adverse impacts
to native aquatic life begin to occur. Under the Everglades Forever
Act, Florida is now actively engaged in developing a water quality
standard for phosphorus for other portions of the Everglades ecosystem
and has planned its first Everglades technical workshop on May 17. The
State recently committed to accelerate this process and to adopt a
scientifically-defensible standard by no later than December 31, 2002.
EPA is providing technical assistance to the State to help meet this
ambitious schedule.
the importance of wrda to the future health of the everglades ecosystem
EPA fully supports the Administration's proposed Everglades
legislation that includes specific provisions to assure that the
benefits of the project are achieved and maintained for the life of the
authorization. We have worked with our Federal partners to ensure that
the WRDA legislation specifies that implementation of the Central and
Southern Florida Project, as amended by the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, must occur in a manner that ensures that the
anticipated benefits to the natural system and the human environment,
including the proper quantity, quality, timing and distribution of
water, are achieved and maintained.
EPA also believes that WRDA 2000 must provide for implementation of
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in its totality in order
to ensure that the desired benefits are ultimately achieved. While the
many individual projects needed to implement the Plan in its entirety
will be phased in over time, EPA believes that WRDA 2000 needs to
include a framework that guarantees continuity for completing these
highly interconnected and interdependent project features over time.
Our joint efforts in the Everglades represent an unprecedented,
holistic approach to ecosystem restoration, and we, as a nation, must
commit at the outset to see this effort through to its desired end.
The Administration's proposal contains important legislative
assurances language that guarantees the delivery of sufficient
quantities of clean, fresh water and ensures that the many individual
project works and features will be designed and managed to
appropriately deliver the water. The proposal also formalizes EPA's
consultative role in ongoing decisions regarding projects and programs
to ensure that the natural system and the human environment receive the
water quality benefits intended as the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan is implemented and incorporated into the Central and
Southern Florida Project. EPA regards these safeguards as essential
components of WRDA 2000, and strongly supports their inclusion in the
authorization of this legislation.
closing
Congress has played its part in the past creating the Everglades
National Park and providing funding for the previous restoration work.
There now is broad recognition that the Everglades are a national
treasure and that they are severely threatened and we all must take
action to preserve them for future generations. By authorizing the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as part of WRDA 2000,
Congress can again be part of this important history.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the committee today. I will be pleased to answer
any questions you may have.
______
Responses of Gary Guzy to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. Can you comment on the desirability of wastewater as a
source of water for the natural system?
Response. There are numerous very successful, environmentally
compatible wastewater-to-wetlands and direct reuse projects in Florida
(e.g., Orlando) and throughout the United States. Under the right
circumstances, and with the proper treatment, this approach can be very
desirable it is certainly more desirable than losing the water to tide,
rendering it inaccessible for future use or reuse.
In South Florida, approximately 400 million gallons per day of
wastewater from urban areas that comes from freshwater sources is
either discharged into the ocean and lost to tide, or mixed with saline
groundwater through injection wells. Since one of the principal goals
of the CERP is to provide additional water for the Everglades
ecosystem, the use of the readily available wastewater should certainly
be considered. With the proper level of treatment to applicable water
quality standards for discharge to surface waters, this can be a
beneficial additional source of water for the natural system.
Question 2. Why is it important to move forward with authorization
of this initial set of 10 projects this year? Can you describe what the
impacts of delay would mean for the ecosystem?
Response. The initial ten projects were chosen because they will
provide immediate system-wide water quality and flow distribution
benefits to the ecosystem. Several of these projects will provide
additional water storage, which is critically important to the natural
system as well as to human users. To expedite results, some of the
projects utilize lands already purchased (e.g., the Talisman Lands) or
are designed so they can be coupled easily with existing features to
increase the potential benefit (Tamiami Trail project). Several were
selected because they use proven technologies. In sum, these projects
were chosen specifically to jump start the restoration process by
providing the maximum benefit to the Everglades and enhance the water
supply for all users. Similar to the benefits that compounding interest
provides in a financial investment, authorizing these particular
projects at this stage will allow benefits to accrue more rapidly,
pushing the restoration process forward.
If these projects are delayed, the degradation of the Everglades
will continue, and our restoration tasks will be much more difficult.
Furthermore, without the increased water storage and water quality
features provided by these projects, the urban population will likely
experience water shortages and severe flood events--the existing system
was never designed to provide water supply and flood control to even
the level of the current population.
Question 3. Would you be supportive of a safeguard mechanism,
perhaps comparable to the process Congress approved last year for the
Challenge 21 program, which would allow these projects to be
authorized, but give the Congress appropriate oversight?
Response. EPA would support consideration of a process comparable
to Challenge 21 that provides appropriate congressional oversight or
other means of review prior to construction.
Response by Gary Guzy to an Additional Question from Senator Baucus
Question. In your written testimony you refer to commitments made
in the 1991 settlement agreement with the South Florida Water
Management District and the State of Florida. Your testimony, related
to the Stormwater Treatment Area (STA) components of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), goes on to note that ``these
commitments by the state were a baseline assumption in the development
of the CERP, and that the state's future costs of meeting water quality
goals of these measures will not add to the total costs of the CERP.''
Please expand on what is meant by this statement, particularly as it
related to concerns that the STA components of the CERP will not be
able to meet a phosphorus standard for the natural system of 10 ppb,
that this will likely increase the cost of the CERP, and that the
Federal Government will, at least partially assume responsibility for
these additional costs.
Response. In the 1991 Settlement Agreement, and the 1994 Everglades
Forever Act, the state of Florida committed to the development and
implementation of on-farm Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the
Everglades Construction Project (STAs, now totaling 44,000 acres) with
the absolute requirement that water delivered to the Everglades
Protection Area will achieve all applicable water quality standards
(WQSs) in the Everglades Protection Area by December 31, 2006 (the
Federal settlement agreement required compliance by an earlier date,
but in a joint motion to the court, the Federal Government and the
state have asked that the deadlines be changed to match the
requirements in the EFA).
Although, at the time the EFA was written, it was unclear exactly
how effective the STAs would be in removing phosphorus, both the BMPs
and the STAs have greatly exceeded our performance expectations. You
are correct that the STAs are not reaching 10 ppb. However under the
EFA, additional research is required (and is being conducted) to
identify technology that will reduce the phosphorous concentrations to
acceptable levels. To improve their performance, the Water Management
District must conduct research into optimizing the design and operation
of the STAs. It also must identify other treatment and management
methods that could achieve optimum water quality and quantity. To reach
the 2006 deadline, in 2003, if water quality standards are not being
met, the Everglades Construction Project permits must be modified to
reach that goal. Since these requirements were present in a settlement
agreement and state law, and the state law provided a source of funding
for these features, the Corps assumed in drafting the CERP that these
commitments would be fully implemented and met. Accordingly, there
would be no additional cost to the Federal Government to meet these
particular commitments.
The CERP does contain a separate set of STA features (36,000 acres)
that would be subject to the same types of permitting requirements as
the EFA-STAs, including meeting WQSs. However, with the exception of
two STAs that would discharge into the Everglades Protection Area
(associated with the S-9 and S-140 pumps), the STAs required under the
CERP are located in areas such as north of Lake Okeechobee where the
ambient phosphorus levels are much higher then the nutrient poor
Everglades. Therefore, based on the performance of the current STAs in
the EAA, we do not anticipate that additional treatment beyond that
provided by the STAs will be needed to meet the required nutrient
loading reductions for these other areas.
Regarding the two CERP STAs that will be discharging directly into
the Everglades Protection Area, the EFA research is currently
evaluating how to increase the efficiency of the STAs, and what
additional/supplemental treatment technologies are required to reduce
the phosphorus concentrations down to acceptable levels. Since the
state must meet these WQS requirements by 2006, the results of that
research and testing will be available for application to these STAs.
Costs associated with any additional features needed to meet applicable
WQSs on these features should be shared by all appropriate parties.
Response by Gary Guzy to an Additional Question from Senator Voinovich
Question. The Stormwater Treatment Areas that are being constructed
as part of the Everglades Construction Project and the additional
Stormwater Treatment Areas proposed in the Comprehensive Plan will
result in significant reductions in the phosphorus levels by that there
is not good scientific evidence that they will be able to achieve the
long term water quality standard for phosphorus estimated at 10 ppb.
There is currently insufficient information to estimate the additional
costs required to meet the long term standard. In addition there are
other unresolved water quality problems in Lake Okeechobee. If there
are substantial additional costs associated with meeting water quality
standards for the natural system, who should pay these additional
costs? Should these be State of Florida costs? Shared State and Federal
costs? If shared costs, which Federal agency should be responsible?
Response. Both the BMPs and the STAs that were required under the
1991 Settlement Agreement and the Everglades Forever Act (EFA) have
greatly exceeded the performance expectations, reducing the phosphorus
loads being discharged into the Everglades. Under the EFA additional
research is required (and being conducted) to identify technologies
that will reduce the phosphorous concentrations down to acceptable
levels. Since these requirements were present in a settlement agreement
and state law, and the state law provided a source of funding for these
features, in drafting the CERP, the Corps assumed that these
commitments should be fully implemented and met. Accordingly, there
would be no additional cost to the Federal Government to meet these
particular CERP commitments.
The CERP does contain a separate set of STA features (36,000 acres)
that would be subject to the same regulatory requirements, including
meeting WQSs, as the EFA-STAs. However, with the exception of two STAs
that discharge into the Everglades Protection Area (S-9 and S-140),
most of the STAs required under the CERP are located in areas where the
ambient phosphorus levels are much higher than the nutrient poor
Everglades. Although there are no numeric phosphorus criteria for these
areas, information gathered from these areas indicate that, based on
the performance of the STAs in the EAA, additional treatment beyond the
STAs will not be needed to meet the nutrient load reduction
requirements.
Regarding the two STAs that will be discharging directly into the
Everglades Protection Area, current research is evaluating how to
increase the efficiency of the STAs, and what additional (``phase 2'')
technologies may be needed to get down to the numeric WQS. Since the
state must meet these WQS requirements by 2006, the results of that
research and testing will be available for application to these STAs.
Costs associated with any additional features needed to meet applicable
WQSs on these features should be shared by all appropriate parties.
Water quality in Lake Okeechobee has been the focus of research and
restoration plans for many years. In addition to the Lake Okeechobee
Surface Water Improvement Management Plan (SWIM Plan), and the Lake
Okeechobee Issue Team Report (the Lake Okeechobee Action Plan), EPA has
proposed a total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for phosphorus in the lake
and the state is working on its own phosphorus TMDL. This year, the
state also passed a Lake Okeechobee restoration bill that includes a
source of funding for projects chosen to help restore the lake. Some of
the proposed CERP projects for this year are in the Lake Okeechobee
watershed and should start the process of moving restoration forward.
All of these efforts will help restore the water quality of the lake.
Responses by Gary Guzy to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. What is the expected water quality impact on the
ecosystem of the changing nature of water flows in the restoration
plan?
Response. One of the primary goals of the CERP is to restore the
historical natural hydropattern (the timing and distribution of flows)
and quantity of water delivered to the Everglades ecosystem. Where
there used to be a natural annual cycle of water flowing through the
system, it has been intercepted and diverted during most rain events,
so the water never reaches the ecosystem. Restoring the timing and the
quantity of the historic flows will also have a definite positive
effect on the water quality of the region by allowing the natural
system to function again as an ecosystem, tempering the flows through
it, filtering the water, and maintaining the appropriate water quality
in the system.
A pervasive ecological/water quality problem in South Florida is
the pulse flows of huge quantities of fresh water to estuaries during
wet periods which result in extreme salinity fluctuations and place
tremendous stress on the biological community residing in those
estuaries. The above ground storage facilities proposed in the CERP
would first function to capture large volumes of wet season freshwater
flows that would otherwise be directly discharged to the estuaries. The
waters could then be released at a later time in a more gradual manner
such that the salinity fluctuation experienced by the estuaries would
be significantly reduced. For example, with the above ground and ASR
storage facilities proposed in the Lake Okeechobee area, the
problematic pulse flows currently experienced by the Caloosahatchee and
St. Lucie estuaries are projected to be virtually eliminated.
Another benefit of the increased ability to store water is the
ability to allow water levels in Lake Okeechobee to be lowered, which
will help restore the littoral zones in the lake and improve water
quality within the lake. For years the lake has been used to store
excess water, increasing its average depths. The water storage aspects
of the CERP will provide an alternative to using the lake for this
purpose.
Question 2. What is the expected water quality impact on the
ecosystem of the use of ASR units?
Response. The ASR wells proposed in the CERP will have a positive
impact on water quality of the ecosystem by helping to restore the
ability of the system to store excess water during the wet season for
use during the dry season. Because a large amount of the Everglades
Ecosystem has been lost to urban and agricultural development, and
South Florida has been so extensively ditched and drained, it has lost
a significant amount of its capacity to store water such that, in
general we either have too much fresh water during the wet season or
too little water during the dry season. During the wet season, the C&SF
system is operated to rapidly drain off excess water. Because this
water is rapidly drained to tide, the estuaries are damaged by the
fresh water, and during the dry season there sometimes isn't enough
water to satisfy all of the urban, agricultural, and natural system
needs of the region. As the area grows these extremes will be
exacerbated without the above ground and ASR wet season water storage
components proposed in the CERP. By storing water during the wet season
and releasing it to the ecosystem when it is needed to restore the
natural hydropattern, the water quality of the Everglades system will
be improved and the damaging releases of fresh water through the
estuaries will cease.
As noted above, another benefit of the increased ability to store
water that the ASR wells will provide is the ability to allow water
levels in Lake Okeechobee to be managed at a lower level. This will
help reestablish a healthy littoral zone and improve water quality
within the lake.
Question 3. What is the expected water quality impact on the
ecosystem of the changes in activities in the current Everglades
Agricultural Area and surrounding Water Conservation Areas?
Response. The water quality impact from changes in the activities
in the EAA and surrounding WCAs will be positive, helping to restore
the Everglades ecosystem. The water quality of the discharges from the
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) into the Water Conservation Areas
(WCAs) was first addressed in the 1991 Settlement Agreement and the
Everglades Forever Act. Under these programs, the implementation of
BMPs on the EAA farms, the construction of 44,000 acres of Stormwater
Treatment Areas (STAs) in and around the EAA, and the possible use of
additional technologies, will result in the discharges into the WCA's
area from the EAA achieving water quality standards by 2006. Relying on
full implementation of these requirements by the state, the CERP,
through the construction of Surface Water Storage Reservoirs on EAA
lands providing additional water storage, will allow for more flexible
water management, the restoration of the natural hydroperiod of the
ecosystem, and additional improvement in water quality, while also
providing water for other existing users.
Responses by Gary Guzy to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1. This morning we discussed with the state their progress
on setting water quality standards. Can you describe from EPA's
perspective the water quality issues in the Florida Everglades and
explain how the Restudy will maintain appropriate levels of
contamination throughout the system?
Response. Major water quality concerns in the Everglades, as noted
in the testimony already provided, include phosphorus enrichment and
mercury contamination. A tremendous amount of effort is underway to
address the issue of phosphorus enrichment of the Everglades. Other
parameters of concern include specific conductance in water discharged
to Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and detection of pesticides at
various locations. The Restudy does not directly address the mercury
contamination issue.
Several components of the CERP will result in improved water
quality conditions. Over 36,000 acres of treatment wetlands, in
addition to those currently being constructed as required by the
Everglades Forever Act, will be constructed to treat urban and
agricultural water before discharge into public waters. Additionally,
172,000 acres of stormwater storage areas are proposed. Although these
areas will be managed primarily to store water, they will
simultaneously provide some water quality improvement. This will help
water quality in several water bodies, including the Everglades, Lake
Okeechobee, and the estuarine areas.
Water quality protection and restoration is an essential component
of the CERP. It is not possible to get the water right without
simultaneously assuring that water quality is adequate for meeting
environmental, urban, and agricultural needs. The CERP assumes that
Florida's effort under the 1991 Settlement Agreement and the EFA to
control phosphorus loading to the Everglades is successful by 2006, and
other appropriate remediation projects are put in place by state or
local governments (e.g. SWIM Plans, permitting programs, TMDL's).
Question 2. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we move forward with this project?
Response. The implementation of the CERP will provide system-wide
water quality and flow distribution benefits to the ecosystem and
enhance the water supply for all users. It will allow the remaining
Everglades to be restored, providing habitat for the numerous species
of animals that depend upon it, while providing for urban and
agricultural flood control and water supply for years into the future.
Question 3. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we do not move forward with this project?
Response. If these projects are delayed, the degradation of
Everglades and the estuaries will continue, the Everglades as we know
them today will cease to exist, and our restoration tasks will be much
more difficult. Also, without the increased water storage and water
quality features provided in the CERP, the urban population will likely
experience water shortages and severe flood events the existing system
was never designed to provide water supply and flood control to current
population levels. If there is an extended drought, the ecosystem will
suffer even more. Over time, as competition for scarce water supplies
increases, even tougher decisions will need to be made over whether
water is used for the natural system, agriculture, or urban uses.
Question 4. One of the pilot projects submitted for authorization
is a wastewater reuse pilot. Can you describe how this relates to
wastewater treatment projects that are funded through the SRF?
Response. The CERP includes two advanced wastewater treatment
facilities to increase the water available to restore the ecosystem.
The pilot project is intended to test the technology and assess the
costs associated with these proposed facilities. The pilot project is
designed to address water quality issues associated with discharging
reclaimed water into natural areas such as West Palm Beach's Catchment
Area, Biscayne National Park, and the Bird Drive-Everglades Basin
wetlands, as well as determine the appropriate level of treatment and
methodologies for that treatment. It includes a small advanced
wastewater treatment facility to treat wastewater currently injected
into a deep well. The capital costs of upgrading the current wastewater
treatment plants to produce the quality of reclaimed water suitable for
discharge would be eligible for SRF funding provided the plant
modifications are completed in a cost-effective manner and the level of
treatment provided is necessary to comply with water quality standards.
The State of Florida prioritizes projects for Clean Water SRF loans.
O&M costs for wastewater treatment plants are a local responsibility
and are not eligible for SRF funding.
The treatment plants ultimately proposed for upgrading/construction
include the current domestic wastewater treatment plant serving the
southern portion of Miami-Dade County, and a new domestic wastewater
treatment plant proposed to serve western Miami-Dade County. The
existing facility currently provides secondary treatment and discharges
to a series of deep injection wells. In order to produce the quality of
reclaimed water suitable for discharge to Biscayne Bay, which is
classified as an Outstanding Florida Water, significant plant upgrades
would be necessary at the existing facility. Reclaimed water produced
at the proposed new facility would also have to be of very high quality
since the water would be discharged to sensitive Everglades quality
wetlands; therefore, the new facility must be designed to provide a
highly advanced degree of treatment.
The purpose of the proposed wastewater treatment discharges is to
provide clean freshwater to the environment during the dry season when
the other restudy components will not have enough extra water available
for the Biscayne Bay/Everglades restoration effort.
Question 5. One of the issues that arose at the field hearing in
Florida was related to Combined Sewer Overflows. Does Florida have any
Combined Sewer Overflow systems?
Response. We are not aware of any Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's)
in the State of Florida. Unlike most northern cities, the sanitary
sewer systems in Florida are relatively new and were constructed as
separate systems. Some time ago the City of Sanford had a combined
sewer system which was, in fact, problematic with respect to downstream
water quality. Through the use of Construction Grants and local funds,
those systems were separated a number of years ago.
Approximately 10 years ago a problem with Sanitary Sewer Overflows
(SSOs), compounded by a minor contribution from a small area with a
Combined Sewer System, was identified in the Metropolitan Miami area.
These problems are currently being corrected as a result of a Federal
Consent Decree and a State of Florida Settlement Agreement with the
Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Authority.
Due to the density of development expected with the projected
population increases over the next 50 years, we anticipate that most of
this development will be served by new or expanded separate sanitary
sewers. However, in some of the more isolated or less densely developed
areas, wastewater treatment and disposal using septic tanks serving
single family homes will also undoubtedly occur. Construction of
combined sewers is not allowed under state law. Construction and
operation of the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems
to serve this expanded population will, as usual, continue to be
expensive and challenging especially with regard to how the treated
wastewater will be reused or disposed of.
Responses by Gary Guzy to Additional Questions from Senator Mack
Question 1. Do you support applying section 902 of the 1996 Water
Resources Development Act to all features of the Comprehensive Plan
before us today? [This provision requires a Congressional Review if a
project exceeds 120 percent of authorized cost].
Response. Yes, we support the Corps' position that would apply the
section 902 requirement for congressional review if the cost of a
project exceeds 120 percent of the authorized cost.
Question 2. Do you support congressional committee review and
approval of the feasibility level of engineering and design work before
any construction can begin on the initial suite of ten projects in the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. EPA would support further discussion on congressional
review or other means of reviewing the Project Implementation Reports
prior to commencement of construction on these projects. We believe the
initial suite of ten projects is critical to moving the restoration
process forward while enhancing the existing water supply and flood
protection needs of the region. These projects were chosen because they
provide immediate system-wide water quality and flow distribution
benefits to the ecosystem. To expedite the realization of results, some
of these projects utilize lands already purchased (the Talisman Lands)
or can be coupled easily with existing features to increase the
potential benefit (Tamiami Trail project). These projects were
specifically chosen to jump start the restoration process by providing
the maximum benefit to the Everglades and enhance water supply for all
users. If these projects are delayed, the degradation of Everglades
will continue, and our restoration tasks will be much more difficult.
Without the increased water storage and water quality features provided
in these ten projects, the natural system will continue to be degraded,
and the urban population will likely experience water shortages and
severe flood events.
Question 3. Do you support requiring full feasibility studies
before any other projects are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. EPA supports the Administration's legislative proposal
that requires the completion of Project Implementation Reports prior to
congressional authorization for remaining projects not included in the
initial suite of projects.
Question 4. Do you support modifying the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to make clear the system includes the lands and
waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District as they existed on July 1, 1999?
Response. EPA supports the modification the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to include the reference to the boundaries that
existed on July 1, 1999.
Question 5. Do you support a provision making clear the Corps of
Engineers is only authorized to study the question about providing an
additional 245,000 acre feet of water to the natural system?
Response. We believe that the Chief Engineer's Report should be
part of the authorization, but consistent with the positions of Chief
of Engineers Ballard and Assistant Secretary of the Army Westphal, the
Corps has only committed to study the question of the additional
245,000 acre feet of water. Upon completion of this evaluation, the
Corps should then provide a report for authorization. We would support
a legislative clarification that comports with this process.
Question 6. Do you support language making clear that the Corps
must work with the state of Florida to ensure that all groundwater
discharges resulting from the Comprehensive Plan meet all applicable
water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements?
Response. EPA supports language that indicates that the Corps must
work with the state of Florida to ensure that all groundwater
discharges resulting from authorized features in the Comprehensive Plan
meet all applicable water quality standards and applicable water
quality permitting requirements.
Question 7. Do you support replacing the project purposes language
stated in (c)(1) of the administration's draft with language restating
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan developed and passed in WRDA
1996?
Response. Yes, EPA supports restating the language from WRDA 1996
concerning the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.
Question 8. Do you support additional programmatic authority for
the Corps to construct projects of limited cost but are in keeping with
the Plan's purposes and have independent and substantial benefit to the
Everglades restoration?
Response. Yes. The success of the CERP will depend on the ability
to use adaptive management to build projects in response to information
gathered during the CERP implementation. Allowing projects of limited
costs to be authorized under the programmatic authority fits within the
requirements of NEPA and will allow the Corps to expeditiously develop
remedies as the need arises.
Question 9. Do you support a 50/50 cost share between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operation and maintenance of the
project? If not, please state the cost share you believe to be
appropriate and why?
Response. Although the Water Resources Development Act of 1996
requires that operation and maintenance costs for the Central and
Southern Florida Project be the responsibility of the local sponsor,
the Administration proposes that the costs be split 60 percent non-
Federal and 40 percent Federal. The Agency believes that this
allocation represents the amount of Federal lands that will benefit
from the Comprehensive Plan.
Question 10. Please provide your thoughts on the definition of
Project Implementation Reports found in the Administration's language.
Do you support this definition? If not, please provide suggestions as
to how you would define these reports?
Response. EPA supports the Administration's language defining
Project Implementation Reports.
Question 11. Do you believe the Department of Interior and the
State of Florida should be on equal footing in developing any
regulations related to assurances? If not, why?
Response. We believe that the State of Florida should be a full
partner in the implementing of the CERP. At the time the proposed
legislation was transmitted, the Federal agencies involved in this
effort had constitutional concerns over providing the State of Florida
with a concurrence role over the Federal programmatic regulations that
are proposed to be developed to determine the appropriate quantity,
quality, timing and distribution of water for the natural system so
that it will be restored consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Upon
further review, the Administration now believes it is appropriate to
provide the Governor of Florida with the opportunity to concur on the
Secretary of the Army's programmatic regulations to ensure that the
goals and purposes of the Plan are achieved.
Question 12. Do you support the reporting requirement in the
administration's bill? If not, how would you amend the reporting
requirement?
Response. EPA supports the reporting requirement as stated in the
Administration's bill requiring reports be submitted to Congress no
less than every 5 years through 2036.
__________
Statement of Ken Keck, Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs
Florida Citrus Mutual
introduction
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Ken Keck, and I
am employed by Florida Citrus Mutual as Director of Legislative and
Regulatory Affairs. Florida Citrus Mutual is a voluntary grower
association comprised of 11,500 members growing citrus on over 800,000
acres throughout central and south Florida. While not historically the
case, today more than one-half (400,000) of all the citrus acreage in
Florida is within the boundary of the Restudy. Obviously not all of
this acreage is directly impacted, but much of it is, so the Florida
citrus industry has a significant stake in the deliberations
surrounding how the ``re-plumbing'' of the natural system is
accomplished.
Let me start by assuring the committee that we, like you, are
committed to restoring the Everglades. We have supported the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan because it offers the promise
of accomplishing our restoration goals without sacrificing the property
and capital investments citrus growers have made throughout central and
south Florida.
In developing the views presented today, I have attempted to
represent the consensus of the agriculture community in the region,
like citrus growers, who will be impacted by the Restudy. Indeed, the
substance of my testimony results from a collaborative effort of the
South Florida agricultural sector. These same groups would like to
express their appreciation to Senators Graham and Mack for the
leadership shown in Everglades legislation.
Further, allow me to thank the committee for holding this hearing
on the Administration's proposed Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan provision contained in S.2437, the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000.
I will summarize my remarks and ask that my prepared statement be
included in the hearing record.
The Central and Southern Florida Project is one of the world's
great engineering accomplishments and has been critical to the
development of a large and vibrant agricultural economy that benefits
every consumer in America. In addition, it has allowed millions of
people to live along the coasts of Florida with the security of
reliable water supply and flood protection. Unfortunately some elements
of the project, as well as project-induced economic activity, have
adversely affected the natural environment. We fully recognize the need
to protect and restore the ecosystem's natural functions and values
while continuing to provide for the other purposes of the project.
Florida agriculture has participated extensively in the Federal/
State Restudy process that has produced the Comprehensive Plan and we
expect to continue to participate as the process moves forward. We are
prepared to support major improvements to the water management system.
However, we believe that the importance of Everglades Restoration and
the other vital project purposes demand that project modifications be
based on sound science, be the product of objective analysis, and be
implemented in an orderly way that ensures that the needs of existing
landowners and businesses are met.
overview of senate bill 2437
Because of their precedent-setting nature, the policy issues raised
by S. 2437 should be the concern of every member of this committee and
the Congress. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is the
first large Federal water project with ecosystem restoration as its
primary objective. Similar efforts are being planned across the nation.
Because ecosystems are the result of complex interactions between human
activity and natural processes, restoration projects require actions on
many fronts and at many levels of government. Decisions on distribution
of cost burdens and determinations of responsibility for restoration
activities will be major policy issues across the nation. The
Comprehensive Plan raises, either explicitly or implicitly, all of
these issues.
Florida agriculture is profoundly disappointed with the
Administration's bill. We would like to see the committee make a fresh
beginning rather than attempt to modify this fundamentally flawed
document. Not only does the Administration persist in seeking
Congress's approval of projects that have had no feasibility studies
and to undo the balanced purposes of the existing Central and Southern
Florida (C&SF) Project, it also seeks unprecedented Federal authority
to manage Florida's water resources.
This statement summarizes our broad concerns with S. 2437. In
addition, we have specific problems with definitions used in the bill
and the wording of many other provisions. We are prepared to work with
the committee and its staff to make suggestions regarding specific
language changes as the committee moves toward drafting its
legislation. Indeed, the ag groups I speak for today are committed to
developing a WRDA bill, which we believe would move the process of
Everglades restoration forward this year.
eight problems with the everglades provisions of s. 2437.
Problem 1. The bill eliminates the balanced purposes for the
existing and modified Central & Southern Florida Project that were re-
affirmed in WRDA 96. When modified as proposed by the Comprehensive
plan, the C&S Florida Project will supply sufficient water for all
future natural and human water uses until 2050. There is no reason to
afford one purpose priority over another. Even though the primary
purpose of this Comprehensive Plan is ecosystem restoration, it is
essential to reaffirm that the C&SF Project, after modification by this
plan, must, and will still provide all the other purposes for which it
was originally authorized and constructed. A commitment to improving
the present level of flood protection wherever possible as individual
project elements are designed and built would greatly enhance taxpayer
support for this plan.
Problem 2. The assurance provisions preempt Florida law governing
water allocations and reservations and preclude comprehensive water
management by the local sponsor. They fundamentally alter current
Federal policy. These provisions establish unprecedented Federal
authority and control of water quality and quantity.
The issue of assurances is rightly a concern of all interests
affected by this project. These include the Federal taxpayer concerned
that the intended purposes of Federal expenditure will be achieved.
Environmental agencies and the public want assurances that the water
for the ecosystem will not be diverted to economic purposes. Finally,
existing water users fear that their present water supplies will be
reallocated under the Comprehensive Plan to restoration purposes before
suitable replacement supplies are in place.
These vital assurances should be provided based on the Project
Implementation Reports for each project component under the Plan. Using
the information contained in these reports, the Secretary of the Army
and the local sponsor, can enter into agreements, consistent with State
law, that would fully respond to the concerns of all parties. First,
these agreements can allocate and reserve the new water supply made
available by a project component. Second, they can specify any other
benefits such as flood control. Third, they can establish the operating
guidelines necessary to provide the water supply allocations and other
benefits. Under this approach, there is no usurpation of State power,
and assurances can be made based on scientific information and
knowledge of the outputs and performance of each project component.
Problem 3. The bill's provisions regarding Project Implementation
Reports seriously undermine the usefulness of the Reports and are
inconsistent with the description of those Reports in the Comprehensive
Plan. These provisions are also inconsistent with representations by
the Corps that the Reports will contain all the information needed for
a full feasibility report and more. These Reports provide an
opportunity to address assurance issues with a more complete decision
making document.
Congress should affirm the language in the Final April 1999 Restudy
Document regarding the content of these Reports and should affirm that
the Reports should meet the requirements of the U.S Water Resources
Council's Principles and Guidelines. If this is done, the Reports will
provide all information needed to (1) support congressional
authorization, (2) obtain approval under State law, and (3) answer all
questions regarding the allocation of benefits and achievement of
Project and Comprehensive Plan purposes for both Federal and State
taxpayers and their elected representatives.
Problem 4. The bill authorizes specific project components and
undefined other components that are ``consistent with the plan''. These
are all project components whose value, cost-effectiveness and benefits
have not been demonstrated by feasibility level engineering, economic
and environmental studies. There are no reliable cost estimates on
which to base authorization for appropriations.
Restoration projects should have to meet the standards expected of
other Civil Works projects. We strongly believe Congress should
authorize construction of project modifications only after it has been
able to review a completed and fully coordinated Project Implementation
Report. This principle has been affirmed twice within the last year by
the Administration, and we find no reason to abandon it in the case of
this particularly complex plan that relies on incomplete science and
untested technology.
The signing statement issued when President Clinton approved the
Water Resources Development Act of 1999 on August 17, 1999, less than 9
months ago, complained that ``many of its project modifications are
still in the planning stage or undergoing review and, therefore, simply
are not ready for authorization at this time. Until the completion of
the review required for proposed Federal water resources projects under
Executive Order 12322, neither the Executive branch nor the Congress is
likely to know which of these projects will raise significant concerns
regarding their scope, economic and technical feasibility,
environmental acceptability, or the ability of local sponsors to
provide the required cost-share.''
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, in his
statement on the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 submitted on
March 22, 2000, less than 2 months ago, to the Water and Environment
Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee of the
United States House of Representatives stated: ``In light of
constrained Federal dollars, we must assure the public that projects
authorized for construction have completed the planning process, have
passed a full Agency and Administration review, and are in accord with
the Federal laws and policies established to protect the environment.''
South Florida agriculture strongly endorses the principle of
``finishing the analysis before authorizing construction.'' We urge
that it be applied to the projects that will be authorized under the
comprehensive plan. Because no feasibility studies have been completed
or in some cases, even initiated, Congress should not authorize any
individual projects for construction and should not authorize the
proposed program authority allowing the Secretary of the Army to
implement projects requiring up to $35 million in Federal
appropriations, especially in light of the fact that the
Administration, as reflected in S.2437, desires to proceed ahead of the
science and the analysis.
Problem 5. The bill references the Chief's Report of June 22,1999
that includes additional commitments that were not part of the Plan
reviewed in consultation with the State and included without notice or
opportunity for public comment. If implemented, these conditions would
have substantial adverse impacts on State interests and substantially
increase project costs.
We take particular exception to the further commitments contained
in paragraph 31 of the Final Chief's Report. Among the most egregious
of these commitments was one to: ``deliver additional water
(approximately 245,000 acre-feet to Everglades National Park and
Biscayne Bay) either by capturing additional runoff from urban areas or
by some other means.'' This amount of water, some 79,000,000,000
gallons annually, represents a 20 percent increase in the total amount
of water supplied by the plan, or alternatively, virtually all of the
water that is supplied by the plan to non-environmental purposes. There
are no facilities in the plan to do this and the costs of the necessary
features are not included in the estimated total cost of the plan.
These changes in a final Chief's report were made without
consulting the State of Florida or the local sponsor and without any
documented analysis or public review and are unprecedented. Florida
agriculture would like all references to the Chief's Report deleted
from the Bill. This will confirm that the Plan we recommend Congress
approve as a guideline and framework for future project components is
based on the Recommended Plan in the April 1999 Jacksonville District
Engineers Report.
Problem 6. The bill approves the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan in a manner that changes the meaning of the Plan as
presented to the people of Florida for the past 2 years.
S. 2437 goes well beyond what was anticipated by the Restudy. The
Final Integrated Report, April 1999, produced by the Jacksonville
District of the Corps states that the Comprehensive Plan ``will serve
as a framework and guide for modifications to the C&SF Project.'' S.
2437 states: ``Congress hereby approves the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan to modify the Central and Southern Florida Project to
restore, preserve and protect the South Florida Ecosystem.'' In our
view, this language would fundamentally change the authorized purposes
of the C&SF Project and eliminate the balanced multiple purposes
affirmed as recently as the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
which authorized development of the Comprehensive Plan. As stated
above, Florida agriculture recommends that Congress affirm the balanced
purposes of the project and modify the project only in conjunction with
authorization of new project components based on completed feasibility
studies. Congress should approve the Comprehensive Plan as a guide and
framework for a continuing planning process leading to formulation of
the new C&SF Project components. Moreover, Congress should require
periodic updates of the Comprehensive Plan at the time further
congressional authorizations are requested.
Problem 7. The bill acknowledges the need for but does not provide
a full and equal partnership between the State and Federal Governments.
In the sections dealing with assurances, the Federal agencies would
assume unprecedented responsibilities for water allocation. South
Florida agriculture recommends that Congress object to a dangerous
national precedent and delete provisions by which Federal allocation of
water would preempt State law. Further, Congress should authorize (1)
equal cost sharing of the C&S Florida project including construction of
project components and operations and maintenance, and (2) equal
decision-making authority between the Secretary of the Army and the
South Florida Water Management District, the project's sponsor, in the
establishment of operating protocols in Project Implementation Report
agreements.
Problem 8. Compliance with water quality requirements is not
ensured. A major shortcoming of the Comprehensive Plan is its failure
to fully integrate water quality considerations. The Restudy itself
calls for a Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan feasibility
study.
The Comprehensive Plan is just one element of a much larger effort.
The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force has promised a
strategic plan this summer that will attempt to identify more of the
cost elements and to integrate the many on-going activities at the
Federal, State and local level. It is widely acknowledged that
achieving water quality objectives will cost several billion additional
dollars. Restoration requires both water quality and quantity
objectives be met, and water quality considerations will play a major
role in the feasibility of many of the Comprehensive Plan's components.
Accordingly, Congress should require that, prior to authorization,
project components include the features necessary to ensure that all
discharges meet applicable water quality standards and water quality
permitting requirements.
conclusion
We hope the committee finds our recommendations for congressional
action on the Comprehensive Plan to be constructive and responsible. We
reiterate our willingness to work with the committee staff in the
development of appropriate legislation.
The Corps of Engineers study was abbreviated in both scope and
depth to ensure that the July 1, 1999, deadline for transmission of the
comprehensive plan to Congress could be met. While referred to as a
feasibility report, the Central and Southern Florida Project
Comprehensive Review Study does not contain the engineering, real
estate, economic and environmental analyses that normally support
recommendations for authorization of Civil Works projects. Moreover,
there simply was not sufficient time to integrate water quality and
quantity considerations or to make the usual calculations of the
economic benefits and costs associated with the Comprehensive Plan.
In addition to abbreviated engineering and other data collection
and analytical shortcuts, there is an extraordinary level of
uncertainty with this plan because of its reliance on undemonstrated
technologies and the evolving understanding of the science of ecosystem
restoration. These uncertainties are frankly acknowledged in the report
in the following ways: 1) the clear statement that the ecological
changes that will occur in the Everglades as a result of the Restudy
cannot be forecast at this time, 2) the recommendation for construction
of $100 million in pilot projects to demonstrate the technology, and:
3) the commitment to the principle of ``adaptive management.''
The Administration has taken the important step of contracting with
the National Research Council of National Academy of Sciences to form
an advisory committee. The Committee on Restoration of the Greater
Everglades Ecosystem will provide a scientific overview and technical
assessment of the many complicated, inter-related activities and plans
that are occurring at the Federal, State, and local governmental
levels. In addition, the National Research Council will provide advice
on technical topics of importance to the restoration efforts.
Congress needs to recognize the extraordinary scientific,
analytical and technological uncertainties associated with the
comprehensive plan. Extra prudence and discipline are essential in the
authorization and implementation of this unparalleled series of massive
investments in the future of South Florida.
These organizations have endorsed the attached statement of
concerns with the Administration's legislative proposal relating to
Everglades Restoration (Section 3 of S. 2437) as of May 9, 2000.
Florida Farm Bureau
Florida Citrus Mutual
Gulf Citrus Growers Association
Sunshine State Milk Producers
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Florida Fertilizer and Agri-Chemical Association
Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc.
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida
Miami-Dade County Farm Bureau
Palm Beach County Farm Bureau
Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau
Lake Worth Drainage District
______
The Position of the Agricultural Advisory Committee to the South
Florida Water Management District Concerning the C&SF Restudy Adopted
Unanimously, November 24, 1998
Modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control
Project are needed to meet the water related needs of the region (water
supply and flood control) and Ecosystem objectives.
The Committee supports the overall goals of the Draft Conceptual
Plan, but believes this plan should be used as a guide and should not
be presented for congressional approval in its present form.
The Committee supports moving forward with the Pilot Projects and
Early Action items identified in Section 10 of the Draft Plan.
The Committee supports an accelerated program to answer other key
technical questions such as the effectiveness of seepage barriers,
aquifer storage and recovery systems, above ground reservoirs and
various other components.
Major project elements must have complete engineering,
environmental and economic evaluation with an opportunity for public
review and comment before congressional authorization is sought.
Land acquisition should come after congressional authorization,
from willing sellers whenever possible, using the state imminent domain
process when condemnation is required.
The proposed feasibility study on system-wide water quality should
be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan. Water quality and hydrology
should be looked at in tandem.
Water supplies for existing users must be protected while new
technologies are being developed and implemented. (See water assurance
language.)
A financing plan, including all expected costs, that is well
understood by the state and Federal partners as well as stakeholders
must be developed prior to authorization.
No less than the current level of flood protection must be
maintained for all areas.
Water Assurance Language
During the subsequent planning, design, construction and operation
of projects included in the Comprehensive Plan, and any related studies
to determine modifications to the C&S Florida Project, the South
Florida Water Management District and Corps of Engineers will not, in
any proceeding, transfer, limit or modify an existing source or supply
of water necessary for an existing use until another source or supply
of equal reliability is in place to meet that need.
______
Florida Department of Consumer Services,
Tallahassee, FL, December 7, 1998.
Colonel Joe R. Miller,
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District,
400 West Bay Street,
Post Office Box 4970,
Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019.
Dear Colonel Miller: I want to write and share with you some of my
initial impressions about the draft Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy
or Comprehensive Plan) of the Central & Southern Florida (C&SF) Project
which is currently available for public comment. Although I intend to
submit more detailed comments prior to the close of the comment period,
I believe my concerns are widely shared by many affected interests
throughout the south Florida community and I thought it might be
helpful to the Corps to have the benefit of their earliest
consideration.
As you are well aware, I am a strong supporter of the C&SF Restudy
process. Modifications to the C&SF Project are clearly needed if we are
to meet all of south Florida's future water needs, including water
supply, flood control and ecosystem restoration.
In support of the Restudy, the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services has committed staff and resources to the Corps
Restudy teams, the Federal Working Group, and the Governor's Commission
for a Sustainable South Florida. We have worked closely with the South
Florida Water Management District Agricultural Advisory Committee and
other agricultural interests throughout south Florida as the Restudy
has evaluated alternatives and developed the draft recommended Plan.
Through these efforts, frequent correspondence, and public testimony we
have attempted to bring the perspective of Florida agriculture to the
balanced Everglades restoration effort required by the Water Resources
Development Acts of 1992 and 1996.
The recommended alternative in the draft Restudy Comprehensive
Plan, containing more than 60 project elements estimated to cost $7.8
billion and take upwards of 20 years to complete, is a useful planning
document and has my support as a guide for future action. However,
given the many uncertainties associated with the draft Comprehensive
Plan, I cannot support either its use as a final decisionmaking
document or any blanket authorization in its present form by Congress.
These uncertainties, which are directly attributable to the
compressed time-frame for the Restudy to be completed and delivered to
Congress, include:
a dependence on regional-scale modeling, which provides
few details on the precise location, design, and operation of project
elements;
a lack of the engineering and economic feasibility
studies needed to justify, design, and implement individual projects;
heavy reliance on unproven technologies such as Aquifer
Storage and Recovery, seepage control, and large above ground
reservoirs;
a requirement of 250,000 acres of private land, most of
which will probably come from agriculture, for which the location and
the need has yet to be determined;
inadequate provisions for meeting water quality
standards;
an undetermined implementation process or schedule; and
lack of a funding proposal to implement project elements.
Concern about these uncertainties in the draft Plan has been
repeatedly expressed to me by citizens throughout the south Florida
community. If we are to have any chance to implement such a
technically, politically, and financially complex series of
modifications to the water management system in south Florida, these
concerns must be addressed. If these concerns are successfully
addressed, then I believe we can proceed to implement the elements in
the Restudy's recommended alternative in a manner than can receive the
broad-based support which will be needed for an undertaking of this
magnitude. Conversely, if these uncertainties can not be successfully
resolved, political and financial support will be lacking and the
Restudy will remain only a plan.
There are several key positive steps, which would provide an
excellent foundation for moving forward, that should be taken to
address these uncertainties.
Formal Involvement of the Governor and the Legislature
Implementation of the projects contained in the draft Comprehensive
Plan will require an enormous commitment of resources and impact the
environment and economy of Florida well into the next century. In my
view, it is imperative that the Governor and the Legislature be
formally and directly involved as the Comprehensive Plan is developed
and implemented.
Assurances
Assurances need to be provided to our citizens whose water supply,
land, or economic future may be directly affected as the Comprehensive
Plan is implemented. With respect to water supply, I recommend that the
Corps endorse the following assurance to water users:
During the subsequent planning, design, construction and operation
of projects included in the Comprehensive Plan and any related studies
to determine modifications to the C&S Florida Project, the South
Florida Water Management District and Corps of Engineers will not, in
any proceeding, transfer, limit or modify an existing source or supply
of water necessary for an existing use until another source or supply
of equal reliability is in place to meet that need.
In addition, because the Plan contains elements that divert
existing water supplies for environmental purposes, while providing
potentially more costly replacement sources, an additional assurance to
water users needs to be developed to provide that the costs of new or
replacement water supplies will be equitably distributed.
With respect to the approximately 250,000 acres of land which may
be needed, assurance should be provided that any land acquisition will
be based on need, as justified by sound science, including engineering
and economics, for each project. Appropriate use of available public
lands should be evaluated and acquisition of private property should
only come after congressional authorization, using willing sellers
wherever possible, and using the state's eminent domain process where
condemnation is required.
A Defined Process for Implementing the Comprehensive Plan
In addition to these assurances, citizens need to be comfortable
that the process of den eloping, authorizing, and implementing specific
projects, or groups of projects, provides an opportunity to develop the
technical and economic feasibility information needed resolve the very
significant uncertainties in the Comprehensive Plan. Certainly, such a
process will not eliminate all differences among competing interests,
but it will allow honest and informed dialog on the technical,
economic, or environmental merits and shortcomings of Plan components.
In order to do this, the Implementation Plan portion of the
Comprehensive Plan should be completed and an opportunity for public
comment provided before the Comprehensive Plan is submitted to the
Chief of Engineers. The Implementation Plan should clearly specify a
process which provides for the necessary engineering, environmental and
economic feasibility studies of major project components, including
funding and water quality considerations, with an opportunity for
public review and comment, prior to congressional authorization. After
the Comprehensive Plan is submitted to Congress in July 1999, I would
support action by Congress that would clearly specify the process by
which Comprehensive Plan components are to be authorized and
implemented.
Finally, I would observe that if we can reduce the uncertainties
now present in the draft Comprehensive Plan by formally involving the
Governor and the Florida Legislature, providing appropriate assurances,
and developing a defined implementation process, there are many areas
of agreement that will allow us to continue needed progress on
modifications to the C&SF Project. In addition to broad support for the
general direction of the draft Comprehensive Plan, there is agreement
on the need for pilot projects and support for authorization of a group
of early action or critical projects that are technically and
economically feasible and provide immediate benefits. Given the fact
that it may be possible to quickly gain consensus on pursuing
authorization of several hundred million dollars in projects, we should
be able to maintain momentum in implementing the Comprehensive Plan
while completing the engineering, economic, and environmental
evaluations needed to support funding and authorization of future
project elements.
I hope these suggestions are useful as you move forward with
development of your final recommendations for Congress. Many dedicated
individuals from widely varying interests have devoted countless hours
to the success of the Restudy and the quality of the final product is a
reflection of the excellent leadership provided by the Army Corps of
Engineers. I commend you for a job well done, and look forward to
continuing to work with you as the final Comprehensive Plan is
developed and implemented.
Sincerely,
Bob Crawford, Commissioner of Agriculture.
______
Dade County Farm Bureau,
Homestead, FL, December 29, 1998.
Colonel Joe Miller,
District Engineer, Jacksonville District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
P.O. Box 4970,
Jacksonville, FL 32232.
Dear Colonel Miller: This letter is in response to the Draft Integrated
Feasibility Report of the Comprehensive Review Study. The Dade County
Farm Bureau has approximately 6,000 members representing over 80,000
acres of high value agriculture in the same county with the highest
population in the state. We want to thank you for holding a public
hearing in our community and would like to recognize the technical
staff who have worked so hard to put this report together.
Trying to keep up with all the Corps of Engineers' reports that
have affected our area for the part 5 years has been difficult and
frustrating for our organization. We have had the C-111 GRR, which led
to the government acquisition of 10,000 acres of our best farmland and
cost our community thousands of jobs; Tests 6 and 7 of the Experimental
Program which have raised our water table and contributed to further
crop damage on private property, and the Sparrow Emergency last year
which resulted in the south Dade canal system being used as an outlet
for flood releases from Water Conservation Area 3-A.
During all of these projects, agriculture has been viewed as an
obstacle to restoration rather than an opportunity to maintain a
meaningful buffer between the Everglades and urban development. Flood
protection for private property has been sacrificed in a never-ending
struggle to satisfy the evolving demands of the Department of the
Interior. The Restudy seems to continue this theme.
Our organization does not have the time or the resources to review
the 3500 page report in the few weeks that have been made available.
These are our preliminary comments. Please see that we are included in
future reviews as more detailed information becomes available.
1. This plan is obviously conceptual and does not contain enough
information to make an informed decision on whether many of the
components of the plan should be approved. Congress should not be asked
to approve any significant element of this plan until enough credible
detail is provided to judge the costs and the benefits of the action.
2. The 2050 Base Case, considered the Future Without Project
Scenario for this study, assumes the C-111 Project is operational. The
hydrologic modeling of this scenario shows a significant increase
flooding east of L-31N and C-111. This is totally unacceptable. That
project was designed so protection of private property east of the C-
111 and L-31N canals would be compatible with the hydrologic needs of
the Park. The 2050 Base scenario should be changed to reflect the
proper operating levels for the C-111 project. Operating structures as
they are in the model of the 2050 Base would violate every assurance we
were given during the C-111 GRR process that the land east of the
canals would not be harmed by the C-111 Project. We brought this to the
attention of the Restudy Team during the plan development phase and are
disappointed that it was not corrected. Please correct this problem in
your final report.
3. Two Components, the C-111 North Spreader and the Biscayne Bay
Wetlands require the government purchase of more than 26,000 acres. We
cannot provide meaningful feedback on these components unless we know
exactly what property you are talking about acquiring. Government
projects have taken so much farmland already, this community cannot
accept the loss of any more productive land. These components should
not be presented to Congress for approval until they, and we, know what
land will be taken and what environmental benefits will be obtained by
doing so.
4. The environmental goals of this study appear to be based on a
hypothetical hydrologic model of the area before people arrived. The
study does not make a compelling case that Everglades wildlife will
return if water levels are manipulated to match this computer model. In
view of the huge uncertainties that underlie this study Congress should
only be asked to approve a common sense process to move toward
restoration, not $7.8 billion worth of expensive structures that may do
more harm than good. That process must include defining both the design
and operations of a component before it is approved and monitoring both
the ecosystem and hydrologic response every step of the way to make
sure we know we are making the right choices.
5. We appreciate the fact that the report acknowledges the
potential for the Recommended Plan to cause flooding in south Dade (p.
E-163.) However the discussion stops short of expressing a commitment
to prevent that from occurring. We find the description of the existing
flooding problems on page E-117 inaccurate and somewhat offensive. To
ascribe our problems to ``agricultural encroachment'' in the floodplain
is just plain wrong. Please rewrite this section to correct this
misrepresentation and to include a firm commitment to reduce flood
damage to private property.
We have reviewed the letter to you from Bob Crawford, Commissioner
of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the State of Florida, and
endorse his position on this study. Although this plan is not ready for
consideration by Congress, the momentum it has generated could be
harnessed in a productive way if you can convince local interests you
are serious about their input. Recent experiences will make this
difficult in our area, but we hope you are willing to make the effort.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Steve Sapp, President.
______
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Tallahassee, FL, February 5, 1999.
Colonel Joe R. Miller,
District Engineer,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
400 West Bay Street P.O. Box 4970,
Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019.
Dear Colonel Miller: I want to thank you for providing this opportunity
for comment on the Implementation Plan draft document. Your continuing
efforts to involve the public in the development of the Comprehensive
Plan are commendable and will contribute, in a positive manner, to the
successful outcome of this effort.
In my December 7, 1998 letter to you containing my comments on the
draft Comprehensive Plan, I delineated specific issues that I felt must
be addressed in a revised Implementation Plan section. Mr. Chuck Aller,
Director of the Of rice of Agricultural Water Policy, followed my
initial letter with more detailed comments on December 29.
To summarize those concerns, I believe the uncertainties in the
draft Comprehensive Plan preclude its blanket authorization by Congress
or use as a final decisionmaking document. However, a carefully
designed Implementation Plan, which contains a phased authorization
process, using the Restudy as a guide for the continuing process of
project development, will allow the Comprehensive Plan to serve as a
useful planning document and guide for future action.
In order to accomplish this, the Implementation Plan should provide
for the involvement of the Governor and Legislature in successive Water
Resources Development Act authorization of project elements. There also
needs to be provisions for complete feasibility studies as projects are
developed, and specific assurances for water users, flood control,
equitable cost distribution, land acquisition and private property
rights. The uncertainties surrounding the issues of water quality and
the general environmental permitability of project elements need to be
decisively addressed and resolved. The Implementation Plan clearly
should provide a process that ensures that water quality and/or other
requirements that could prevent implementation of a project, be
identified, fully addressed and equitably funded by both the Federal
and local sponsor before projects are authorized and public resources
are irrevocably committed.
I am very pleased that the draft Implementation Plan has addressed
many of my concerns. The commitment to continue working with the South
Florida Water Management District and stakeholders on adequate
assurances for water users is extremely important. In addition, the
Project Implementation Report (PIR) process should offer the
opportunity to resolve technical and economic feasibility issues prior
to authorization. To protect the integrity of this process, Congress
should not be asked to authorize any of the Plan's major components
until after a final PIR has been completed. The time table delineated
in the Plan's initial proposed authorization provides ample time to
complete the PIR and still obtain congressional authorization before
construction is scheduled to begin. Maintaining this discipline will
improve the credibility of the restudy in Washington and Florida and
will strengthen the chances for long term implementation.
However, given the monumental commitment of resources required by
the Comprehensive Plan and its extensive impact on Florida's
environment and economy, I would ask that the final Implementation Plan
find a way to acknowledge, as the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida has done, the need to involve the Governor
and the Florida Legislature in this process on a continuing basis. I
also believe that water quality considerations, including a process for
the integration of results from the Water Quality Feasibility Study
into projects should be more directly addressed. Other comments,
including suggested changes or specific recommended language for the
Plan that address remaining uncertainties and issues are enclosed.
I hope these comments are useful and would request their
incorporation in the final Implementation Plan. I have been very
pleased with the effort made by the Corps to ensure the involvement of
diverse interests in this complex process. You certainly have my
assurance that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services will continue to support your efforts to restore the
Everglades while meeting the balanced purposes set forth in the Water
Resources Development Act for the Central and Southern Florida Project.
If you or staff has any questions regarding these comments, please
feel free to contact Mr. Chuck Aller at (850)922-7925.
1Sincerely,
Bob Crawford,
Commissioner of Agriculture.
______
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Additional
Comments on the Draft Implementation Plan February 5, 1999
flood protection
Originally, the primary functions of the C&SF Project were flood
control and water supply, with environmental protection and enhancement
given a lower priority. The main focus of the Restudy is to improve the
environmental performance of the system, while providing for the other
project purposes; flood control, urban and agricultural water supply.
When reviewing the Implementation Plan, it is important to be able to
determine how the Corps will address each specified purpose when
designing and operating the components. It is not clear in the current
version of the plan how flood control will be considered or addressed
in the future planning/design efforts. Flood control as a topic does
not fit very well under assurances to water users (pg. 9), which
clearly addresses the water supply issue. It is imperative that flood
control be addressed in a separate section. The following language
should be incorporated as the means to address this issue within the
Plan.
10.2.xx. reducing flood damage
The lack of site-specific information, absence of detailed
engineering evaluations and the limitations of the models used to
develop the Comprehensive Plan precluded the review of impacts to flood
protection caused by the plan. These same limitations also prevented a
review of opportunities to correct existing flooding problems as
specific plan components are constructed. Flood protection benefits can
be obtained without compromising, and in some cases even enhancing, the
restoration performance of the plan. The detailed review of flood
protection and enhancement will be included, as an area for additional
effort in the PIR.
(The following section should be included in the PIR description.)
The Project Implementation Reports for specific Comprehensive Plan
components will include a detailed review of flood protection issues in
areas affected by each component. The Corps will include the
enhancement of flood protection in areas with known flooding problems
as a design objective in each PIR. This includes the reduction of
agricultural losses associated with high water tables as well as
traditional damages caused by surface flooding.
feasibility studies
The scope of the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study (pg. 38)
should clearly delineate flood control as a continuing project
function.
The issue of water quality is inherent in the components/projects
of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Water Quality Feasibility
Study is critical to the development of the water quality constituents
needed to be included as part of these projects. It is imperative that
the Implementation Plan provides a specific schedule, budget, timetable
and initial scope for the Water Quality Feasibility Study. The Plan
should clearly describe the process for integrating the study's
findings into components and project as they are developed. This is
critical in order to avoid problems similar to those experienced in
STA-1W.
landowner/property rights assurances
The Comprehensive Plan anticipates the need to acquire 250,000+
acres of private lands. Assurances should be provided that land
acquisition, for each project, will be based on need and justified by
sound science, engineering and economics. The following language should
be incorporated as the means to address this issue within the Plan.
2.10 assurances to landowners
In view of the extensive real estate requirements anticipated by
the Comprehensive Plan and the long timeframe that will be needed for
engineering, environmental and economic studies, the potential
consequences for private property owners must be recognized. Once
property has been identified for acquisition in a government report the
owner's ability to utilize the property, and consequently the market
value of the parcel, is affected. To minimize this problem, the
implementation process will only identify in the PIR necessary real
estate after detailed studies have been completed. In order for real
estate costs to qualify as part of the local share, acquisition must
come after completion of the PIR and authorization by Congress, unless
Congress specifically grants a deviation.
The State of Florida and the Local Sponsor have already established
an ambitious land acquisition program to acquire certain high priority
parcels for construction of several critical components of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Water Preserve Areas for the East Coast suffer
and the Regional Attenuation Facilities for the Indian river Lagoon and
St. Lucie Estuary have been identified and approved by the state for
early acquisition. Congress has also recognized the benefit of
crediting the Sponsors costs for these acquisitions even though they
have occurred prior to authorization.
previously authorized projects
Previously authorized projects (Kissimmee River Restoration, STA-
1E, Modified Water Deliveries, and C-111) were assumed to be in place
in the initial Restudy alternative model runs. Due to problems that
have surfaced recently with some of the previously authorized projects,
the designs are being modified, and they are inconsistent with what was
modeled in the Restudy. The recommended plan components contain some
additional modifications to the authorized projects, not all of which
are included in the initial authorization list. Some of the proposed
modifications require pilot projects and could not be constructed for
many years or at all, depending on the success of the pilot. The
Implementation Plan should clarify that previously authorized projects
are high priority and should not be delayed while the Restudy is
determining how to deal with the conceptual modifications proposed in
the recommended plan.
implementation of initially authorized projects conflict with the plan
pir process
Process consistency is critical to generating support for the
Comprehensive Plan. Preparing individual Project implementation Reports
(PIRs) after acquiring congressional authorization for the initial
package of plan components (as described on pg. 30) is a deviation from
the PIR process illustrated on page 13. Looking at the projected
construction start dates for several projects recommended for WRDA 2000
raises questions as to why PIRs cannot be completed for these projects
when the schedule indicates that sufficient time exists to do the PIRs
before asking for congressional authorization. If PIRs cannot be
completed on these projects then WRDA 2000 authorization should be
limited to the pilot projects and early action items delineated in the
draft plan.
recommended additions to plan programmatic authority
The 10 Mile Creek project should be added to Table 5.3-1
Programmatic Authority. It is a Critical Project that has tremendous
local support, one that would expedite implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan, and has not yet been completely funded.
approval of the comprehensive plan
The phrase ``Restudy authorized by Congress'' (pg. 23, line three
of Schedule) is inconsistent with the stated objective for Plan
approval used on page 28, Section 5.1. Please modify ``authorized'' to
``approved'' on page 23.
______
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida,
Belle Glade, FL, February 5, 1999.
Col. Joe R. Miller,
District Engineer,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
400 West Bay Street,
P.O. Box 4970,
Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019.
Dear Colonel Miller: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida has been
following the Restudy process very closely since 1993. We have had
briefings with your staff during the development of the various
alternatives and attended public hearings on the recommended
comprehensive plan in South Florida and Washington, D.C. We have
expressed our skepticism concerning the lack of scientific and
engineering support for many of the concepts being proposed.
We continue to have some generalized, process and specific concerns
with the Implementation Plan. First, we are in concurrence with the
position taken by Florida Department of Agriculture Commissioner Bob
Crawford and echo the Department's comments as outlined in its December
7, 1998, December 29, 1998 and February 3, 1999 written correspondence.
Due to the great number of uncertainties in the draft Comprehensive
Plan, we cannot support its blanket authorization or approval by
Congress or use as a final decisionmaking document.
Of particular concern are the proposed reservoirs for storing water
in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). Our members have been
managing water and crops on this land for most of their lives. We have
extensive on-the-ground experience with the hydrology and geology and
believe that the engineering requirements and economic realities will
make these large scale storage areas impractical. In addition, the high
evaporation rates in this area would make these facilities a
significant waste of water, when the objective of the Restudy is to
make more water available.
Our only solace was a commitment by your staff to perform all
necessary engineering and economic studies prior to final approval of
these projects. Regrettably, the draft Implementation Plan, dated
January 25, 1999, recommends seeking congressional authorization for a
40,000 acre project in the EAA before any technical evaluation has been
done. Since the construction schedule included in the same document
shows that there is plenty of time to produce the necessary
engineering, economic and environmental evaluations before
authorization, we do not understand the decision to include this
project in your initial authorization list.
In summary, we do not support the pre-authorization of any
components in which the technical, engineering and economic feasibility
hasn't been addressed.
The assurances to water users as outlined in the Implementation
Plan is a good start. Assurances need to be made for flood protection
and protecting private property rights as well.
Please consider revising the Implementation Plan to address these
concerns, specifically showing the completion of the necessary
technical evaluations before congressional action on any storage area
in the Everglades Agricultural Area. We will actively oppose, in
Florida and in Washington, any proposal that short circuits this
process.
Thank you for allowing us to review this plan and for your
consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
George H. Wedgworth, President.
______
Landers & Parsons, P.A.
Tallahassee, FL 32301, May 28, 1999.
Lt. Gen. Joe N. Ballard,
Chief of Engineers,
7701 Telegraph Road,
Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3861.
Re: Comments of Florida Sugar Cane League Inc on Final Integrated
Feasibility Report and PEIS--Comprehensive Review Study--C&SF Project
Dear General Ballard: I am writing on behalf of the Florida Sugar Cane
League Inc. and its grower and processor members to provide comments
for your consideration on the April 1999 Final Integrated Feasibility
Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement developed for
the Comprehensive Review Study of the Central and Southern Florida
Project.
Representatives of the Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc. have been
active in attending public participation opportunities during the
course of the Comprehensive Review Study, or Restudy, of the C&S
Florida Project. We have long recognized the need to modify the Project
to better develop and utilize available water resources for both the
environmental and other water related needs of the project consistent
with the authorized purposes for the Restudy as provided in the Water
Resources Development Acts of 1992 and 1996 and related resolutions. We
are committed to the success of the Restudy and its implementation
based upon future authorizations and approvals.
As you may know, after the publication of your final Report and
PEIS, the Florida Legislature enacted legislation in support of the
Restudy providing a process that will be valuable in building.a broad
public support and consensus for Restudy implementation and for the
necessary funding. We urge you to consider this legislation in the
formulation of your final Report and recommendations to Congress and in
requests for congressional authorization of Project components in
future Water Resources Development Acts. Although we acknowledge that
this State legislation does not limit you or any Federal Agency in the
exercise of your duties and responsibilities, it will be important to
the effectiveness of the State and Federal Partnership that your
recommendations and future requests for authorization be consistent
with those of Florida.
More specifically we ask that you reconsider your current
recommendations in the Restudy Implementation Plan for some Project
Components now included in the initial authorization to be requested
from Congress. We believe there are Project Components in the current
Implementation Plan that will need further analysis and justification
in order for the local sponsor to receive State approval to join you in
seeking congressional authorization. Providing additional analysis and
justification will not, we believe, delay the proposed dates in the-
Restudy Implementation Plan.
We ask you to revise your Report and recommendations with regard to
the following:
1. The Restudy legislation in Florida requires that all water
resource issues be analyzed and evaluated before the local sponsor can
seek congressional authorization for a Project Component. The issues
include water quality, flood protection and natural system and habitat
needs. Throughout the development of the Comprehensive Plan many
comments from several interest groups have expressed concern that the
analysis of water quality needs and the treatment facilities to meet
those needs has been incomplete. The resolution of this issue is
critical to the success of Everglades Restoration and should be
integrated into the analysis of Restudy components to be authorized by
Congress and not deferred to a later feasibility study as now proposed.
2. In particular, the Restudy Report fails to adequately analyze
the water quality needs of Lake Okeechobee and the impact on the
Everglades from reliance on the Lake for meeting water supply needs of
the Everglades. however, there has not been an adequate alternatives
analysis of reservoir storage in the area of Lake Okeechobee to
determine which alternative will provide the most cost-effective and
feasible water supply design. This analysis is likely to demonstrate
that provision of reservoir storage north of the Lake will provide
greater management flexibility so that additional water supply can be
available to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie basins and not just the
Everglades.
3. Because the recommended Comprehensive Plan relies heavily on
uncertain and unproven technology the results from pilot projects and
further feasibility analysis are essential to determine if the Plan as
a whole will provide the benefits presented in the Report. The proposed
Implementation Plan should be revised to give greater priority to those
project components that utilize existing technology of known
reliability and that will provide a balance of benefits in addressing
all needs;
4. Likewise, many have been concerned that project components in
the list for initial authorization have not been determined feasible
based on standard engineering practices and that evaluations of whether
they are cost-effective are incomplete. One way to provide consistency
with the State process would be to complete the proposed Project
Implementation Report prior to seeking congressional authorization of
any Project component.
5. With specific regard to the proposed Everglades Agricultural
Area Reservoirs, the most expensive projects included in the proposed
authorizations for WRDA 2000, we believe (1) serious engineering and
design issues may make these projects infeasible and (2) water quality
management has not been appropriately addressed in the planning of
these projects. These projects can not be credibly recommended for
authorization on the basis of the woefully inadequate feasibility and
cost benefit analysis that has been undertaken to date.
6. The local sponsor is required by the Florida legislation to
provide reasonable assurances to existing users and landowners that
existing quantities of water and levels of service for flood control
not be diminished by the implementation of Restudy project components.
While the Jacksonville District's Restudy Report and recommendations
are explicit and unequivocal in providing a commitment to habitat
restoration and providing assurances that environmental water supply
needs will be met, there is no corresponding commitment to meet
economic water supply needs even though meeting all water related needs
of the region is an authorized Restudy purpose provided by WRDA of
1996. The local sponsor is required by Florida law to meet all water
related needs in a balanced way. We are persuaded that the water
resource development potential in South Florida is sufficient to
achieve this and we urge you to provide a commitment to this goal in
your Report.
7. Agricultural interests in South Florida are particularly
concerned that the recommended Comprehensive Plan proposes to take
approximately 220,000 acres of land for Restudy purposes, such as water
supply reservoirs and high flow attenuation facilities, which in most
instances will require the conversion and loss of prime agricultural
land. We urge the Corps of Engineers to conduct site-specific analyses
to determine the extent to which the targeted parcels will successfully
function as assumed in the Restudy models. There is considerable doubt
among experienced property owners as to the capacity of soils and sub-
soils in many areas to hold water and function as water supply
reservoirs. Further, the distribution logistics associated with
centralized water supply reservoirs need to be calculated as part of a
cost-effective feasibility analysis. This additional analysis of
feasibility-and cost-effectiveness should be completed prior to seeking
congressional authorization. Finally, to reduce the substantial
economic impacts of this--conversion we ask for a commitment to avoid
use of productive farm land wherever practicable and when use of
productive farm land can not be avoided retain existing agricultural
activity on productive land until it actually is needed for
construction or operation of Restudy project components.
8. With regard to how Project operations may change in the future,
how new Project Components will be operated and how water resources
will be allocated, the Report and Comprehensive Plan is at best vague
but mostly silent. These questions should be addressed directly and
early in the process so that the public can adequately assess all costs
and benefits of the Plan and the resulting water supply available for
all needs. If these and other questions relating to flood protection
and other water related needs remain unanswered, it will be very
difficult to develop a consensus to provide implementation funding at
the levels now projected.
As we have stated in earlier comments, our goal is for the Restudy
to succeed and for the State and Federal partnership to be effective in
meeting all needs.
We acknowledge and appreciate the leadership of Col. Joe Miller and
complement his professional staff who have able to produce a Report of
this magnitude and complexity within the limited timeframe they were
given.
We are also grateful for this and other opportunities to comment on
the Restudy.
Sincerely,
Philip S. Parsons, for the Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc.
______
Draft Meeting Summary--Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida
march 2-3, 1999 the conservancy of southwest florida naples
day one--march 2
I. Opening Remarks
The meeting was convened at approximately 9:30 am.
Chairman Pettigrew began by asking the Commission to approve the
December and January meeting summaries. The summaries were approved
without objection. He then explained the voting procedures for the next
2 days, stating that only Commission members may vote, but alternates
can participate in discussions. Chairman Pettigrew admitted that, while
consensus cannot always be reached on all issues, the Commission's best
work has come when it has had the opportunity to fully understand the
issues at hand. He added that trying to impose an unrealistic deadline
that does not allow a deliberative process would make it difficult to
reach consensus. Therefore, for the next 2 days, the Commission should
concentrate on those issues that it fully understands, and it should
defer those that have not been given enough time to adequately address.
Chairman Pettigrew reflected on the Commission's accomplishments,
citing the Comprehensive Plan for the Restudy, Eastward Ho!,
Sustainable Communities, Brownfields legislation, and other important
contributions. He said the new administration has made a clear
commitment to urban revitalization, and he is hopeful that the
Commission will continue to assist in this effort. He expects the
administration to make a decision on the Commission after the current
legislative session.
II. Attendance
Fred Rapach for Burt Aaronson (3/2); Chuck Aller; John Anderson;
Gary Evink for Thomas Barry; Agnes McLean for Mitchell Berger (3/2),
Sam Poole for Mitchell Berger (3/3); Ernie Caldwell (3/2); Mike
Collins; John DeGrove; .Bill Dobson for Miguel Diaz de la Portilla;
Robert Duane; Loly Espino; George Haughney for Suellen Fardelmann (3/
2); John Flanigan; Richard Harvey for John Hankinson; Shannon Estenoz
for Debra Harrison (3/2), Debra Harrison (3/3); Maggy Hurchalla; Joette
Lorion for Dexter Lehtinen (3/3); Maggie Megee; Maj. Ted Pruett for
Col. Joe Miller (3/2), Col. Joe Miller (3/3); Jack Moller; Bill Payne;
Richard Pettigrew; Terry Rice; Dick Ring; Carol Rist; Herbert Robinson;
Roy Rogers; Rock Salt; Stuart Strahl; Herb Zebuth for David Struhs (3/
2), John Outland for David Struhs (313); Michele Thomas (3/2), Craig
Tepper for Michele Thomas (3/3); Phil Parsons for Bubba Wade; Bernie
Yokel; Charles Zwick.
III. Overview of the Draft Conceptual Plan to Achieve Sustainable
Communities
Karla Ebenbach, Senior Planner for the Task Force, and staff to the
Commission's Quality Communities Committee, gave a brief overview of
Planning for 2050, A Conceptual Plan to Achieve Sustainable Communities
in South Florida, the end product of the draft document formerly known
as A Conceptual Plan for the Human System. Ms. Ebenbach said this
document makes recommendations relative to the economic and social
aspects of sustainability. The ideas are the end product of an ongoing
process that began with the Initial Report recommendations, and reflect
the input received from the Commission. She said this document is more
like an executive summary than the lengthy report style of the previous
draft. She added that this style will be more effective and have
greater applications complementing the Commission's work in
restoration. She asked the Commission to review the document in
preparation for its approval on the following day.
Ms. Ebenbach then explained the contents of the document. It begins
with an introduction that describes the concept of sustainability, and
the need to balance the resource needs of the environment, the economy,
and society. Following the introduction is a set of sustainability
goals and objectives focusing on employment, transportation, and
education. Each of the three sectors is addressed by a vision
statement, a discussion of current trends and problems, and a clearly
articulated strategy.
IV. Overview of Working Group Effort to Determine Land Acquisition
Priorities for Ecosystem Restoration
Richard Harvey, Chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Working Group (Working Group), began with a brief discussion of the
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) letter signed by Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator John Hankinson on
February 9,]999 (see attachment 1). Mr. Harvey said the letter allows
the ASR concept to move ahead for a comprehensive evaluation of both
water quality and hydrogeologic issues. He said the Working Group
formed an ASR issue team in September and it has just published a
report identifying these issues and strategies for addressing them. Mr.
Harvey added that, for the process to continue, the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) must make a decision based on the
quality of the source water compared to that of the receiving aquifer.
He said that current DEP rules require the source to meet all drinking
water standards, and that DEP must decide whether or not to proceed
with rulemaking.
Mr. Harvey then discussed the land acquisition priority list. He
said that the Secretary of the Interior is directed to submit a
comprehensive acquisition plan for non-Federal lands to Congress by
March 31, 1999, which will include a priority list of lands to be
acquired should additional funds become available. This plan must
clearly identify why the parcels selected for acquisition are critical
to ecosystem restoration. The Working Group established a committee at
its January meeting to develop the acquisition list. The committee met
twice in February. At its first meeting, the committee focused on
establishing qualifying and ranking criteria that could be used to
evaluate land acquisition projects for inclusion in the list. At the
second meeting, the committee refined the criteria, and also reviewed
projects nominated by different participating organizations.
Mr. Harvey said the criteria fall into two categories. First,
qualifying criteria for projects to be included on the list. These
include: the project has a willing non-Federal 50 percent cost match
from a local sponsor; the project is included on a current list and has
received public review, such as the CARL, Save Our Rivers, or Miami-
Dade County's Environmentally Endangered Lands lists; the project must
be compatible with the Restudy; the land is vitally important to the
South Florida ecosystem restoration effort; and the project is not
already authorized in the Department of Interior's fiscal year budget.
The second category of criteria identify the beneficial attributes
associated with the project. These include: the land is critical for
multi-species recovery; lands that are important to regional hydrology;
lands that provide linkage to wildlife corridors; lands that improve
regional water quality; lands that are vulnerable to development; and,
lands that are specifically identified by the Restudy as being a key
feature of the proposed plan (see attachment 2 for the list of
criteria).
Mr. Harvey said the end result was a list of about 35 to 40
projects. The committee then developed a matrix listing each of the
projects and the various ranking criteria. Each project criteria was
assigned a ranking number between zero and two, with two stating that
the project has significant contributions to that particular criteria,
and zero signifying the project has no contribution. Mr. Harvey asked
the Commission to review the list and decide the best way for it to
participate. He added that the Working Group hopes the Commission will
rank these projects into some form of priority list. Maggy Hurchalla,
who participated in the land acquisition committee, said the ranking is
different than the process used for the Critical Projects, which placed
the projects into some order for implementation. Instead, this.list
would be an evaluation of the importance of each project. Terry Rice
expressed concerns over trying to formulate this list on such a short
timeframe. He agreed with Chairman Pettigrew's opening statement that
the Commission's best work has been done through thorough review,
and.that trying to rush this list without adequate public review would
not be appropriate. Ms. Hurchalla responded that this process will go
forward on its own, and that the Commission should comment on it to the
best of its capacity. Chairman Pettigrew suggested that the Commission
concentrate on reviewing the criteria instead of reviewing the projects
individually. Several Commission members agreed that this would be the
best step. Dick Ring added that the Secretary of the Interior would
feel much more comfortable about submitting the list to Congress after
knowing that the Commission has reviewed the criteria used to formulate
that list.
V. Public Comment
Edith McClintock, of the Nature Conservancy, discussed a series of
public forums that the Conservancy has been holding throughout South
Florida to make residents aware of the water supply and resource
management problems the area is facing. She said that if residents do
not understand the problems, they will not support restoration efforts.
Ms. McClintock stated that the Conservancy, along with the South
Florida Water Management District, initiated a community outreach
program in 1998, and this program has been extremely successful in
raising public awareness. Last year they held 29 forums throughout the
South Florida area, and will be holding an additional 30 to 50 ``Water
for Our Future'' forums in the next several months. Ms. McClintock
asked the Commission to partner in hosting some of these forums, and
invited the participation of its members.
Diane Buchanan, of the Full Club of Miami-Dade County, said her
organization has five concerns over the Restudy. These are: too much
water in the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs); too much water in the
western part of Everglades National Park; too much water in the eastern
portion of Big Cypress National Preserve; not enough water in the north
end of WCA 3; and maintaining a sufficient supply of water for Broward
County. Ms. Buchanan said her organization has been taking water level
measurements in the WCAs, and that these levels differ from the South
Florida Water Management District's measurements. She added that high
water levels are damaging the tree islands. Ms. Buchanan said that
levees, including the L-29, should be removed in order to restore sheet
flow, and expressed concerns that the first phase of the Restudy does
not include this as a component. She concluded by saying that, despite
these concerns, she supports the Restudy.
Ellen Lindblad, Director of the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem
Watershed (CREW) Land and Water Trust, spoke on the Southern Crew and
Imperial River Flow Way, saying that these lands should be acquired and
protected. Ms. Lindblad stated that when the initial project boundaries
were delineated in the 1980's, only the wettest areas were included.
The boundaries did not. include any active agricultural or residential
areas as part of the watershed. Later, it was realized that the
watershed did indeed include these adjacent lands. Ms. Lindblad said
that the original intent of the CREW project was to protect an
important aquifer recharge area, but it could also serve as a flood
protection area if the boundaries are expanded. She concluded by
stressing the opportunity of acquiring these lands while they are still
relatively undeveloped, and urged the Commission to recommend their
acquisition.
Nancy Payton, Southwest Florida Field Representative for the
Florida Wildlife Federation, spoke about the Southern Golden Gate
Estates, an area of approximately 55,000 acres at the core of
acquisition projects in Collier County. The area is bordered by several
preserves, including the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge,
Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, Everglades National Park, Ten
Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and Rookery Bay. Ms. Payton
emphasized the importance of Southern Golden Gate Estates as a wildlife
habitat for panthers, black bears, wading birds, and several species of
plants. She said the area is also important for water recharge and
flood protection. Ms. Payton stated that acquiring the remaining lands
is vital in light of a proposal by Collier County to build a road into
the area.
Cynthia Laramore, of the Glades Area Environmental Justice
Institute, expressed her concerns over the proposed 35 Aquifer Storage
and Recovery (ASR) wells along the Palm Beach Canal as part of the
Restudy. Ms. Laramore recalled that in the mid 1980's, the water bills
in Belle Glade had warnings about trihalomethanes caused by the water
treatment in use at the time. She added that during October and
November 1998 the water in Bell Glade was yellow. Ms. Laramore said the
proposed ASRs, and the possible relaxed regulations expressed in the
EPA letter, could pose a threat to her area's drinking water if
trihalomethanes are produced. Chairman Pettigrew explained that the EPA
letter does not call for any treatment that could cause
trihalomethanes, and that the ASR water will be introduced into a
different aquifer from the drinking water source.
David Guggenheim, President of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida
and Florida Co-chair of the Everglades Coalition, discussed two points
contained in a recent Coalition letter. First, the Commission's Initial
Report stated that a healthy Everglades is crucial. Mr. Guggenheim said
the Commission has not articulated enough assurances for Everglades
restoration in its recent reports. Second, Mr. Guggenheim expressed
concerns over the language in recommendation No. 17 of the Commission's
Draft Assurance/Implementation Report. He feels that the Talisman
lands, and resulting trades, should be authorized in the year 2000
Water Resources Development Act (WHOA), and the components should be
on-line by 2005 and 2007. Mr. Guggenheim concluded by stressing the
importance of the CREW Project, and urged that the southern addition be
included in the land acquisition process discussed earlier.
Charles Lee, Senior Vice President, Florida Audubon Society, spoke
in support of an amendment that Stuart Strahl proposed to the Draft
Assurance/Implementation Report. The amendment stated that the Talisman
lands were in public ownership, and the first 50,000 acres of storage
in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) should be authorized in WRDA
2000, and come on-line no later than 2007. Mr. Lee explained that the
Talisman sale agreement was signed in January in good faith by all the
parties, including the sugar industry. He said that some sugar
representatives are currently trying to prevent the storage in the
Talisman lands from being implemented on time in order to continue
farming the land under lease. Mr. Lee said that leasing the land
purchased with taxpayer money to sugar interests is not an appropriate
use of the $133.5 million. Mr. Lee noted that the sugar interests are
asking that a Project Implementation Report (PIR) be completed prior to
the request for authorization, and asked what uncertainties this PIR
would answer that are not already known. He concluded by urging the
Commission to recommend that the EAA storage component of the Restudy
be completed by the year 2007.
Jonathan Ullman, of the National Sierra Club, said the Club's
30,000 Florida members are very concerned over the Restudy, and would
like to see Everglades restoration done with the best science possible.
He said the fact that a peer review panel will monitor the restoration
efforts is very satisfying. Mr. Ullman added that his organization will
not support a Restudy implementation plan that serves the urban areas
before meeting the needs of the natural system. He said that some very
tough decisions need to be made, but that the Everglades must come
first.
Mary Barley, Everglades Trust, reiterated support for Stuart
Strahl's amendment, adding that the Everglades Trust opposes any delays
to the EAA storage. She said that some decisions will not be easy, but
the Commission has a chance to protect the Everglades and Florida Bay
with its upcoming votes. Ms. Barley closed by thanking the Commission
and Chairman Pettigrew for showing the people of South Florida the
importance of the Everglades to their environment and economy.
Ann Hauck, of the Council of Civic Associations, stated that
Southwest Florida is being ignored in the Everglades restoration plan.
She added that Lee County has one of the highest concentrations of
endangered and threatened species in the United States, and that
Southwest Florida is the nation's fastest growing area. Ms. Hauck asked
that the Estero Bay area be considered for acquisition. She said that
Estero Bay and its tributaries are designated Outstanding Florida
Waters, and that state and Federal agencies have failed to protect
these areas for the last 10 years.
VI. Consideration of Draft Report on the Implementation Plan for the
C&SF Project Restudy
The Commission dedicated the remainder of the day to voting on the
proposed amendments to the Commission's Implementation Plan Report.
Roy Rogers and Maggie Megee, Co-chairs of the Commission's Public
Outreach Committee, announced the completion of the Commission's
sustainability brochure, the end result of many months of work. Mr.
Rogers expressed his thanks to Rebecca Rust and Katrina Ferguson of the
Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security for their help on
producing the brochure. Mr. Rogers also introduced the near-completion
of the Commission's video, and a short introduction of the video was
played on the screen.
Recess at approximately 5 pm.
day two--wednesday, march 2
I. Opening Remarks
The meeting was reconvened at approximately 8:30 am.
Chairman Pettigrew asked Maggie Megee to continue the discussion of
Planning for 2050, A Conceptual Plan to Achieve Sustainable Communities
in South Florida; the document that the Commission received the
previous day.
II. Consideration of the Draft Conceptual Plan to Achieve Sustainable
Communities
Ms. Megee began by reminding the Commission of the link between the
environment, the economy, and society. This document addresses the
economic and societal components of the Commission's icon. Ms. Megee
explained that the document is a broad vision, or conceptual plan, of
what South Florida's communities should look like in the future. It
does not go into detail on how to achieve specific goals. Ms. Megee
explained how the concept of sustainability, that present demands must
not supersede future needs, is usually associated with the natural
system, but it also applies to the entire living environment. Achieving
sustainability requires balancing the resource demands of the
environment, economy, and society. Ms. Megee concluded by stating that
the principles contained in the document were first addressed in one of
the Commission's first meetings, and that now the Commission has come
full-circle by developing this document. The Commission unanimously
adopted the document.
III. South Miami-Dade County Land Elevation Data Report
Jose Otero, Senior Engineer for the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD), presented a status update on the effort to collect
accurate elevation data in South Miami-Dade County. Chairman Pettigrew
explained that the Commission requested the land elevation data in
response to farmers' concerns that restoration efforts might create
adverse flooding to their lands. Mr. Otero said that the South Miami-
Dade Topographic Interest Group was formed in August, 1998 as a direct
response to a Commission resolution requesting that high-accuracy
topographic data address the concerns of the agricultural interests.
The team is responsible for collection of high-accuracy elevation data,
determining the data requirements of various hydrologic models, and
evaluating the potential for root-zone flooding. Mr. Otero said the
data will be used to improve the various hydrologic models used by
different agencies for ecosystem restoration. The data is collected by
shooting a laser beam from a level-flying aircraft and measuring the
distance to the ground. Navigational equipment on board the aircraft
determines the exact position in relation to the ground and the exact
course. This technology has an accuracy of 20 centimeters (8 inches),
and millions of data points are collected in one flight. Mr. Otero
explained that while the technology is accurate, it is limited to use
over dry ground. The laser cannot penetrate water since the beam will
bounce off the surface. He added that there will be a pilot project for
this technology on March 16, and that maps should be available in May.
Mr. Otero said the questions remains as how to best incorporate this
data into the hydrologic models. He said the Topographic Group is
working with the modelers in trying to address this issue.
IV. Consideration of Draft Report on the Implementation Plan for the
C&SF Project Restudy (continued)
The Commission continued voting on the proposed amendments to, and
unanimously adopted, the Commission's Report on the January 25, 1999
Draft Implementation Plan of the C&SF Project Restudy.
V. Public Comment
Joe Iannone, of Saint Thomas University, expressed his gratitude
for the work of the Commission, and encouraged its members to continue
the Commission's spirit through their individual outreach efforts. He
mentioned that Rock Salt will give a presentation at Saint Thomas
University's ``Healing the Earth'' conference on March 18, adding that
Carol Rist made a presentation last year. Mr. Iannone volunteered the
university network throughout Miami-Dade, Broward, and Monroe Counties
for distribution of Commission information. He concluded by stating the
University's commitment as a partner in environmental education, and
added that 15 of its teachers will train 300 K-12 private school
teachers. Maggie Megee thanked Mr. Iannone on behalf of the Public
Outreach Committee for his time and effort.
Ibel Aguilera, representing the United Property Owners in the 8.5
Square Mile Area and a resident of the area for 20 years, said that she
was not properly notified that this meeting was taking place. She said
holding a meeting which would address land acquisition issues at a
location 3 hours away from the affected area, and on a weekday,
demonstrated to her that the opinion of the residents was of no concern
to those involved in restoration. Ms. Aguilera said the residents were
led to believe that the research in the area was intended to benefit
both Everglades National Park and the residents. She added that the
SFWMD stated at the October 5, 1998, public meeting that the research
was intended to find ways to minimize relocation of the residents. Ms.
Aguilera said she believes the decision for total buyout at the
November 12 meeting was made without adequate public input and in
violation of the Sunshine Law. She concluded by saying that many
residents are not willing sellers and that the 8.5 Square Mile Area is
not needed for restoration.
Maria Gonzalez, a property owner in the 8.5 Square Mile Area, said
the fate of their properties is being decided without adequate public
involvement and input from the residents. She said that prior to the
November 12 meeting, the residents had been led to believe that
alternative 2 would be the preferred alternative. Ms. Gonzalez said
that, according to three prominent hydrologists, the area is not
necessary for restoration. She cited a memo from Alan Hall of the SFWMD
which states that the area does not have to be acquired for Everglades
restoration (see attachment 3). Ms. Gonzalez said she supports the
Corps mitigation plan, and added that she understands that this plan
will not provide flood protection. She would like the area to remain as
it is, and does not request that the County provide additional
services. She said that the Miami-Dade County Board of Commissioners
has postponed addressing this issue because they do not know all the
facts. She explained that the area is not part of Shark River Slough
and is therefore relatively high. She concluded by stating that the
property owners will fight to keep their land.
Charles Lee, Senior Vice President, Florida Audubon Society,
thanked the Commission for adopting language in the Implementation
Report that requests accelerating the implementation of water storage
areas in the Restudy. Mr. Lee said that in pursuing the acquisition of
properties from willing sellers, in light of other owners, oppositions,
a government action that could be viewed as a restraint on the
alienation of title is a violation of property rights and should be
avoided. He said that the SFWMD has received calls from hundreds of
property owners in the 8.5 Square Mile Area that are interested in
selling their land, and that these sellers should not be denied their
right to sell by those He added that the interests of the non-willing
property owners can only go who are opposed. so far before they violate
the property rights of those who want to sell. Mr. Lee emphasized land
acquisition is always an emotional issue, especially among those
immediately affected. He explained that Miami-Dade County will be
constructing a new cross-town expressway east of the airport, a project
that will cost $5 billion. In the process thousands of private property
owners will have their land condemned, many of which will be low to
moderate income homes. He added that while the planning for this
project is moving forward rapidly, the public has not been given nearly
as much involvement as the discussion on the 8.5 Square Mile Area. Mr.
Lee concluded that there will always be people coming forward with
their opposition to land acquisition, and that the minority should not
interfere with the opportunity of the majority that wants to sell.
Jonathan Ullman, of the Sierra Club, said that the permits to build
in the 8.5 Square Mile Area should never have been issued, and that
there is a chance now to do the right thing. He said that this is a
very emotional issue, and empathizes with the residents, but there are
more important factors than their interests. He urged Miami-Dade
County, the SFWMD, and the Federal Government to resolve this issue
quickly.
John DeGrove announced that Rock Salt was nominated by Chairman
Pettigrew and Ernie Barnett for the Thousand Friends of Florida, 1999
Bill Sadowski Award. This award is given each year to an individual who
exemplifies a high level of commitment to growth management and the
philosophy of negotiation for which former Department of Community
Affairs Secretary, Bill Sadowski, was known. Dr. DeGrove said the award
ceremony will take place on March 17, from 6 to 8 p.m. in the Old
Capitol in Tallahassee.
VI. Consideration of Commission Input to Working Group Effort to
Determine Land Acquisition Priorities for the Ecosystem
Restoration
Richard Harvey, with assistance from Bob Jones of the Florida
Conflict Resolution Consortium, led the Commission in a discussion to
evaluate the Working Group's land acquisition criteria. The Commission
agreed it would only evaluate the criteria, not the specific projects
on the list. Joette Lorion, representing the Miccosukee Tribe,
expressed concerns that these criteria were generated in meetings
without public participation, and that the rankings would go directly
from the Working Group to the Secretary of the Interior. She added that
this process did not follow the same procedure as the Critical Projects
where consensus was reached through a series of public meetings. The
Commission's comments on the land acquisition criteria are summarized
in attachment 4.
VII. Consideration on the Draft Report on Funding the C&SF Project
Restudy
The Commission adopted its Fig the Restudy of the Central crud
Southern Florida Project report. The Commission was not able to
complete its discussion of the proposed amendments to the report, and
the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Funding and Water Quality
Funding sections were withdrawn for consideration by a new commission.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:15 pm.
attachments
1) Letter from John Hankinson, EPA Region 4 Administrator, to
Colonel Joe Miller, February 9, 1999.
2) Working Group Land Acquisition Criteria, March 1, 1999.
3) Alan Hall memorandum to SFWMD Governing Board on 8.5 Square Mile
Area, January 4, 1999.
4) Comments from the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida on the Working Group Land Acquisition Criteria, March 3, 1999.
______
attachment i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, February 9, 1999.
Colonel Joe R. Miller,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District Office,
P.O. Box 4970,
Jacksonville, FL 39239.
Dear Colonel Miller: Thank you for your October 1, 1998, letter to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol M. Browner. I
am providing you with a response to your request of written
confirmation of the Agency's policy regarding the use of ``raw''
surface and ground water in aquifer storage and retrieval (ASR) wells
proposed for the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive
Review Study (Restudy). Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
Federal regulations, these wells would be classified as Class V
underground injection wells regulated by the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) program. The State has primary enforcement authority for
these wells, but in any case, injection into any Class V wells must not
endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).
The issue of implementing ASR well technology using untreated
surface or shallow ground waters as source water has been challenging.
We have focused a great deal of attention on this issue at the Regional
level, and at EPA Headquarters offices. We have also worked closely
with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as our
partner in the Underground Injection Control program and will continue
to solicit their support.
ASR technology has the potential for great environmental benefit in
solving water use problems in south Florida, but we believe that the
potential may also exist for this technology to cause undesirable
contamination of aquifers, which might be used as drinking water
supplies for the region. EPA is aware that recapturing lost water
storage capacity is a key element in the overall south Florida
ecosystem restoration effort. Even so, it is imperative that
implementation of this technology not cause contamination of USDWs that
could adversely affect the health of persons now or in the future.
The Restudy currently proposes to use ASR technology to provide up
to 1.7 billion gallons per day of water storage capacity. The source of
most of the water to be stored is untreated surface waters or shallow
ground waters. This raises a potential concern because the SAGA and the
Federal UIC regulations prohibit injection activity which allows the
movement of fluid containing any contaminant into underground sources
of drinking water, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a
violation of any primary drinking water regulation under 40 CER Part
142 or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons [42 U.S.C.
Sec. 300h(d)(2); 40 CFR Sec. 144.12(a)]. Most surface waters, and some
shallow ground waters, cannot comply with this requirement due to the
presence of various contaminants. A review, however, of the somewhat
limited water quality data available for the proposed source waters
(Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River) indicates that there may
be only one contaminant present which exceeds the primary drinking
water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs): total coliform bacteria.
Because of the importance of identifying effective ways to store
water in the region, EPA has indicated in meetings with involved
stakeholders that we are willing to consider a flexible approach to
constructing and permitting the ASR wells proposed by the Restudy. For
those wells, EPA believes that the proposed ``raw'' water ASR projects
can be implemented consistent with the SDWA and EPA's regulations if
``risk-based'' analyses of the projects demonstrate that the USDW will
not be endangered in a way that could adversely affect the health of
humans. his approach would depend on a number of factors: (1) that a
more comprehensive evaluation of the quality of the proposed source
waters confirms that total coliform bacteria is the only problematic
parameter; (2) that a demonstration can be made that the biological
contaminants will experience ``die-off' such that the presence of these
contaminants in the USDW will not cause a violation of the MCL or pose
an adverse health risk; (3) that both modeling and test monitoring
confirm die-off after injection of the biological contaminants within a
reasonable time-space continuum after injection into a saline/brackish
aquifer; (4) that the use of ASR technology on the scale and with the
number of wells proposed, results in recovery of a reasonable amount of
injected waters and of reasonable quality; (5) that there are
documented environmental benefits to be derived by the storing of
seater in this manner; and (6) that use, and treatment if necessary, of
the recovered water is consistent with its intended primary purpose,
i.e., for ecosystem restoration.
We have all come to recognize the complexity of the concerns
involving raw water ASR implementation and the probability that
additional concerns will also arise. Indeed, some concerns may not
become known until actual project initiation. If these current and
future concerns are to be addressed adequately so as to not threaten
public health then the appropriate pilot projects and ``risk-based''
strategies will need to be developed, carried out and carefully
evaluated. For example, if monitoring clearly demonstrates that total
coliform bacteria is the only contaminant of concern, then a ``risk-
based'' analysis must demonstrate that coliform bacteria in the
injectate will not impact any portion of the public currently using
that aquifer or any surrounding aquifer as a source of water supply, as
well as that no bacteria will survive long enough to pose risks down-
gradient or in the future.
Other than for coliform bacteria, the proposed raw water injectate
should be evaluated to determine if other contaminants are present that
exceed MCLs for drinking water, or may otherwise adversely affect the
health of persons. Appropriate water quality monitoring of both the
source seater and the injection zone should be instituted both to
characterize the quality of those waters and to ensure that no USDWs
are endangered.
In addition to monitoring the quality of water that is injected,
appropriate water quality monitoring for contaminants that may form
within the injection zone as a result of the injection activity should
also be conducted. For example, it is conceivable the injection of
oxygenated waters could cause the dissolution of uranium isotopes, if
present, from the injection zone which would cause a threat to the
USDW. Likewise, oxygenated waters could potentially sustain bacterial
survival in the receiving USDW. Other potentially harmful effects from
injection activity include the conversion of organic nitrogen to
ammonium nitrogen, the methylization of mercury, and the formation of
trihalomethanes should chlorination be utilized. Any proposed raw water
ASR project should address these and other concerns that may arise.
As a general matter, the injection zone for any proposed raw water
ASR project should already contain water that is of lesser quality than
the proposed raw water injectate. For example, it may be acceptable to
inject fresh water from Lake Okeechobee containing coliform colonies
that will die off in the brackish water of the Floridan Aquifer in the
region. But the same quality of raw water could not be injected into
the fresh water of the Floridan Aquifer in northern or central Florida.
In other words, the proposed injection activity for the ASR project
should not cause a current or future public water system to need more
treatment to meet drinking water standards than would be necessary
using the native waters of the injection zone aquifer.
EPA believes that such large scale, untreated water ASR projects
should be developed incrementally. Initial implementation should begin
with pilot testing. If this testing indicates initial success with very
low risk, then the project could be expanded in stages with each
subsequent stage demonstrating the potential environmental benefit of
ASR technology. It is critical that a favorable percentage of injected
water be recoverable so that implementation of ASR technology provides
a direct environmental benefit that is more advantageous than
alternative water storage mechanisms. Also, the incremental
implementation of ASR should closely monitor the rates and volumes of
injected fluids, the wellhead injection pressure, and the pressure
buildup within the injection zone. Injection pressure and/or pressure
buildup within the injection zone must not cause fracturing of the
overlying geologic unit so as to allow the injectate or formation
fluids from the injection zone to migrate upward into zones with higher
quality water, such as the Biscayne Aquifer.
If all of these factors/conditions are satisfied, we believe that
EPA, and the FDEP, can determine for this specific project that ASR
injection is allowable under the SDWA without the requirement for
sophisticated treatment of the raw water prior to injection. However,
even if this decision is made, it may be necessary for FDEP to
promulgate amended State rules to allow for injection of this type
which does not meet drinking water standards at the point of injection.
If any factor is not satisfied, the result may be that the proposed ASR
cannot proceed without prior treatment of the injectate.
It is my understanding that an ASR Issue Team, co-chaired by
Richard Harvey, Director of EPA Region 4, South Florida Of lice, has
been created by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force/
Working Group to address the issues and concerns discussed above. I
would like to encourage you to continue working with Richard and the
other members of the Issue Team to resolve these concerns as
expeditiously as possible and to develop an appropriate ``risk-based''
strategy. As always, EPA looks forward to working with you on these and
other critical ecosystem restoration issues facing south Florida. If I
may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
John H. Hankinson, Jr., Regional Administrator.
______
attachment ii
Land Acquisition Criteria
updated march 1, 1999
1. Criteria For Qualification of Projects:
a. Must have non-Federal co-sponsor(s) willing to contribute 50
percent cost-share.
b. Projects that are part of a current land acquisition list
prepared through an evaluation and selection process that incorporated
broad public input can be included without additional detailed analysis
and public review. New projects may be considered, but would require
special attention to include dedicated opportunities for broad public
review and comment.
c. Intended use of land (and subsequent modifications) must be
compatible with the C&SF Restudy Recommended Plan (can't preclude
subsequent implementation of some Plan features).
d. Land is vitally important to the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort, including but not limited to hydrologic or ecologic
restoration.
e. Land acquisition project is not already authorized and included
in DOI's Fiscal Year Budget request, such as Everglades National Park
Expansion, Big Cypress Park Expansion, etc.
2. Criteria for Ranking of Projects (not all criteria must be met, but
``points'' accrued if these factors are true):
a. Land includes habitat considered critical for implementation of
Multi-species Recovery Plan (e.g., an imperiled habitat type such as
dry prairie, panther habitat, etc.), or acquisition and modification of
hydrology on the land will help to mitigate impacts on threatened and
endangered species.
b. Project adds habitat diversity to lands currently held in public
ownership (e.g., short hydroperiod wetlands, wet pine flatwoods, wet
prairies, sand pine scrub, etc.) .
c. The land parcels are an important component of an overall plan
to modify regional hydrology to more closely mimic historical hydro-
patterns.
d. Land would provide critical linkage in wildlife corridor.
e. Acquisition and modification of lands will improve regional
water quality (e.g., creation of buffer, construction of water quality
treatment features, restoration of natural drainage patterns, etc.)
f. Acquisition (and subsequent modifications) would improve
regional water quantity (e.g., implementation of storage facilities).
g. Acquisition (and subsequent modifications) would improve timing
& distribution of water.
h. There is some level of local cost-share--thereby extending
benefits that can be gained with Federal, state, and SFWMD funds.
i. Lands are vulnerable to development.
j. Lands will later be used for implementation of the Restudy
Comprehensive Plan, including features anticipated for inclusion in
proposed Feasibility Plans (e.g., SW Florida, Indian River Lagoon,
Florida Bay, etc.)
Issues for Cover Letter:
1) All of the projects on the list support one or more of the three
goals for South Florida ecosystem restoration and protection. Because
the South Florida ecosystem is of national importance, we believe that
cost-sharing on these projects is responsible use of Federal funds.
2) Several very critical land acquisition projects are not included
in this list because they are already included in either the DOI's or
the USAGE's fiscal year budgets. Examples include lands needed for the
following: Kissimmee River Restoration Project; C-111 Project;
Everglades National Park Expansion; Big Cypress National Preserve; and
National Wildlife Refuges. Continued funding for purchase of these
lands is critical to the restoration and protection of the South
Florida ecosystem.
3) Because of the importance of land acquisition in the overall
restoration and protection effort, the subgroup recommends that the
Working Group establish a Task Team to continue the development of a
land acquisition strategy that identifies and prioritizes both small
and larger parcels needed to meet the three restoration goals. The
Restudy Team has done a great job in identifying lands needed to get
the water right--we need a similar exercise to identify and prioritize
lands needed to restore and protect critical habitats needed to support
Florida's biological diversity--both projects that protect large tracts
of habitat and those that protect and restore small localized tracts in
or near the urban core areas.
______
attachment iii
memorandum
TO: Governing Board Members
FROM: Alan Hall, P.E., Director, Ecosystem Restoration Department
DATE: January 4, 1999
SUBJECT: Ecosystem Restoration Myth-management
I am writing to give you information that might be helpful in
addressing Terry Rice's recent comments in a Herald editorial. You have
all received a copy of Terry Rice's op-ed on this subject, copy
attached. For your benefit I feel that I need to provide to you some
additional details related to what Col. Rice calls ``myths.'' He
represents the Miccosukee Tribe in this and other matters; and, as
such, presents a very specific point of view on this project.
Representatives of the tribe have openly stated that they have no
interest in the provision of flood protection to the 8.5 Square Mile
Area (8.5 SMA). I will respond to each of his ten ``myths'' as
presented in his article:
1. It is true that the 8.5 square mile area does not have to be
acquired for Everglades Restoration. However, it is also true that the
acquisition is the least cost, in public funds, of all the alternatives
which met the project criteria. It is important to note two things here
related to the second part of this ``myth statement'': a) the Corps was
directed to develop a plan to protect the area from increased flows;
and b) this was presented to Congress in 1992. First, the Corps plan
was designed to ensure that the 8.5 SMA did not get wetter because of
increased flows; it was not intended to provide any measure of flood
protection above the current conditions--which is none at all. And
second, was developed in 1992, a full 3 years before completion and
acceptance of the Natural Systems Model (NSM) which showed that
restoration of the Everglades would require significantly higher stages
in this area than was assumed in 1992.
2. The Corps Plan would work ``as designed:'' which means that it
would not provide flood protection to the area above current
conditions. If flows in the Everglades are restored to NSM levels, the
pumping facilities designed in 1992 are substantially undersized to
even ``hold the line'' on flooding in the area, as highlighted by our
consultants in their studies. Also, the higher water levels predicted
by the NSM would necessitate greatly increased pumping as well as
higher operations and maintenance costs, above those estimated by the
1992 Corps design report. The two SFWMD consultants did confirm that
the Corps Plan would allow for ``increased'' flows in the slough; but
they also confirmed shot, from a public interest standpoint, the Corps
Plan did not provide an adequate flood protection system for the
residents or represent a wise expenditure of tax dollars. Building the
1992 Corps Plan would not reduce the outcry from area residents for
flood protection nor allow for improved operations of the L-31N system
for restoration purposes.
3. The SFWMD taxpayers, like all Floridians, are stakeholders in
the restoration of the Everglades. Significant funding for this project
will come from both the Federal Government and local agencies, as
required by the Governing Board's action. Here, at least, Col. Rice
begins to hint that, ``. . . If the Corps plan doesn't work . . .''
Terry Rice knows that the Corps Plan doesn't provide flood protection
to the 8.5 SMA, and in fact he highlights this point in his ninth item.
4. The 8.5 SMA is part of the flow path for restored flows in Shark
Slough.--It is true that some of the area on the eastern edges,
adjacent to L-31N, are Higher'' ground, to the extent that 7 to 8 feet
above mean sea level can be called high ground. Just a few miles to the
north of the 8.5 SMA the Corps is already experimenting with raising
water levels from 7.5 to 8.0 feet above sea levels Eastern parts of the
8.5 SMA which were not inundated by a restored slough would be expected
to have a water table so high as to make the ground unsuitable much of
the time for year-round agricultural purposes, let alone residential
habitation.
5. It will be up to Governor Bush to establish the state's position
on this project in 1999. The Transition Team has received a briefing on
this issue.
6. Here, Col. Rice precisely states that the Corps Plan provides
flood mitigation, not flood protection. The intimation is that, since
the plan does not protect the residents from floods, no urban services
will be required or demanded from Miami-Dade County. Based upon the
history of the area, I think this is not a valid assumption. As stated
previously, tribal representatives have openly admitted that they have
no interest in the 8.5 SMA receiving flood protection.
7. Total acquisition is certainly the least engineered option and
the one with the least long-term operations and maintenance costs. It
requires that we all pay the hard costs now instead of continuing to
defer the high cost of inaction to future generations. This point was
well made by Board member Berger during the workshop in November.
8. The analysis was as open to input as possible. Col. Rice was
specifically invited to be a member of the the District Review Team. He
accepted and then, due to his many other commitments, was not able to
fully participate with the rest of the team members in the evaluation
process. There was no preordained outcome. I specifically instructed my
staff and the consultants to proceed through the process with open
minds and let the result be whatever is the best alternative for all
concerned. Some team members from other agencies were quite skeptical
of the process in the beginning but when it was completed they felt
they could support its integrity and fairness.
9. Finally, here Col. Rice admits that most residents want ``. . .
a version of the Corps Plan.'' Even the residents could see that the
Corps Plan would do nothing for them, nor meet any of their basic water
control needs. If the 1992 Corps Plan had moved forward, over $40
million of Federal funds and up to $150 million of local funds would
have been spent, resulting in a living environment for the residents
which would be no better than the very unsatisfactory conditions which
they endure at the present. The net result would be a demand by even
more residents in 4 to 5 years for a flood protection system!
10. Col. Rice incorrectly states that the Governing Board's vote
for total acquisition was a willing-seller only condition. This is
clearly not the case. The only condition, which you placed on this
option, was that we secure funding commitments from the Department of
the Interior and Miami-Dade County before we close on the first
properties in the area. The willing seller aspect of land acquisition
was discussed as the appropriate first step to initiate this program;
but, it was clear that further acquisition tools might be required
later, after we had processed the anticipated heavy workload of willing
seller deals over the next 2 years.
We all want to expeditiously restore the only Everglades in the
world. Implementing a project, such as the 1992 Corps Plan, which will
cost many millions of dollars, and only lead to an increased demand for
more flood protection in the future, is clearly not in the best
interests of the Everglades, the residents, or the public taxpayers at
large.
I hope the above information is useful in clearing up any
misconceptions that may have arisen as a result of Terry Rice's
article. As always, if I can help explain this in any way please call
me at 561-682-6103.
______
attachment iv
Land Acquisition Criteria 3/3/99 (Comments from the Governor's
Commission Meeting--3/3/99)
1. Criteria for qualification of projects:
( ) = discussed deletion < >= discussed add
a. Must have non-Federal (co-)sponsor(s) willing to (contribute 50 percent cost-share)
b. Projects that are part of a current land acquisition list
prepared through an evaluation and selection process that incorporated
broad public upon can be included Thou additional detailed analysis and
public review. New projects may be considered, but would require
special attention to include dedicated opportunities for broad public
review and comment.
c. intended use of land (and subsequent modifications) must be
compatible with the C&;SF Restudy Recommended Plan (cants preclude
subsequent implementation of some Plan features).
Concerns
needs to be more than compatible--not different than,
Restudy--don't supplant Restudy;
which money pot being used;
d. Land is (vitally) important to the South Florida ecosystem
restoration effort, including but not limited to hydrologic or ecologic
restoration. concern--``vitally'' not needed
c. ELIMINATE--Land acquisition project is (not) already authorized
and (included) in DOI's Fiscal Year Budget request,
such as Everglades National Park Expansion, Big Cypress Park Expansion,
etc.
Concerns
implies that there is something routine about fed budget,
no certainty year to year, change ``included'' to ``fully funded'';
use authorized and not fully funded;
do we need? perhaps not--WITHDRAW.
??Need, cost ``bang-for-the-buck'' and urgency has been established
(split into 2 categories: Conservation vs. Project)
??Must be 1000 acres or greater in size (HOWEVER, ranking process
may take care of)
??Title held by non-Federal entity
2. Criteria for ranking of projects (not all criteria must be met, but
``points'' accrued if these factors are true):
a. Land includes habitat considered critical for implementation of
Multi-species.
Recovery (e.g., an imperiled habitat type such as dry prairie,
panther habitat etc.), or acquisition and modification of hydrology on
the land will help to mitigate impacts on threatened end endangered
species.
b. Project adds habitat diversity to lands currently held in public
ownership (e.g. short hydroperiod wetlands, wet pine flatwoods, wet
prairies, sand pine scrub, etc.).
The land parcels are an important component of an overall plan to
modify regional hydrology to more closely mimic historical hydro-
patterns.
d. Land would provide critical linkage in wildlife corridor.
e. Acquisition and modification of lands will improve regional
water quality (e.g., creation of buffer, construction of water quality
treatment features, restoration of natural drainage patterns, etc.).
f. Acquisition (and subsequent modifications) would improve
regional water quantity (e.g. implementation of storage facilities).
g. Acquisition (and subsequent modifications) would Prove timing &
distribution of water.
h. There is (some) level of local cost-
share--thereby extending benefits that can be gained with Federal,
state, and SFWMD funds.
Concern
drop ``some'';
local--local government (city/county).
i. stands are vulnerable to development.
j. Lands will later be used for implementation of the Restudy
Comprehensive Plan, including features anticipated for inclusion In
proposed Feasibility Plans (e.g., SW Florida, Indian River Lagoon,
Florida Bay, etc.) concern targeted to implement a specific project.
k. Have non-Federal co-sponsor(s) willing to
contribute 50 percent cost-share.
l. Has a Public recreational use
Concern
recreational use that does no damage to the resource.
m. address cost, need and urgency.
______
Responses by Ken Keck to Additional Questions from Senator Mack
Question 1. Do you support applying section 902 of the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act to all features of the Comprehensive Plan
before us today. [This provision requires a congressional review if a
project exceeds 120 percent at authorized cost]?
Response. We would not be opposed to waiving the section 902
requirement for the pilot projects included in the proposed WRDA. The
section 902 policy should definitely apply to all project components of
the Plan. The fact that the Plan features, and thus cost estimates, are
conceptual, should not be used as a rationale for avoiding the budget
discipline imposed by section 902 but rather as the basis for requiring
the completed feasibility studies to come back to Congress for
authorization so the costs can be reliably assessed. [See Agriculture's
concerns No. 4]
Question 2. Do you support congressional committee review and
approval of the feasibility level of engineering and design work before
any construction begin on the initial suite oilmen projects in the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. No. We oppose congressional authorization at this time of
project components in the Plan because these components have had almost
no engineering or site-specific optimization studies that demonstrate
their value or cost-effectiveness. Conditional authorization subject to
committee review and approval of Project Implementation Reports prior
to Appropriations has been suggested as an alternative. This
alternative could be considered by South Florida Agriculture when the
specifics of procedural safeguards are presented and understood [See
Agriculture's concerns No. 4]
Question 3. Do you support requiring full feasibility studies
before any other projects are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Yes. We believe that every project component in the Plan
should be authorized based on a feasibility study consistent with
section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The
Administrations proposed program authority, which would allow the
Secretary of the Army to approve projects costing as much as $70
million, is not necessary for timely implementation of the Plan.
Granting of this authority by Congress inevitably will result in less
emphasis on project justification and identification of the most cost-
corrective alternatives for investments of significant magnitude. [See
Agricultures concerns No. 4]
Question 4. Do you support modifying the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to make clear the system includes the lands and water
within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management District as
they existed on July 1, 1999?
Response. We do not understand the rationale for modifying the
definition in section 528(a)(4) of WRDA 1996 but will consider this
further, once explained. We do not oppose the use of this term, as
defined, combined with the term ``natural system'' in the second
Graham/Mack Staff draft of Section 3, WRDA 2000.
Question 5. Do you support a provision making clear the Corps of
Engineers is only authorized to study the question about providing an
additional 245,000 acre-feet off water to the natural system?
Response. We do not support any reference to the Chiefs Report of
June 22, 1999. The issue of the additional 245,000 acre-feet is
discussed adequately in the April 1999 Report and any reference in WRDA
2000 is unnecessary and would perpetuate the mistrust generated by the
Chief's Report. The Corps of Engineers needs no additional authority to
study any aspect of the C&S Florida Project because general authority
was provided in WRDA 1996. [See Agriculture's concerns No. 5]
Question 6. Do you support language making clear that the Corps
must work with the State of Florida to ensure all groundwater
discharges resulting from the Comprehensive Plan meet all applicable
water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements?
Response. We support language making it clear that both surface and
groundwater discharges from C&S Florida Project facilities meet all
water quality standards. Groundwater discharges should not be singled
out. [See Agriculture's concerns No. 8 and subsection (c) of proposed
WRDA 2000.]
Question 7. Do you support replacing the project purposes language
stated in (c)(1) of the Administration's draft with language restating
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan developed and passed in WRDA
1996?
Response. Yes. [See Agriculture's concerns No. 1 and subsection (b)
of proposed WRDA 2000.]
Question 8. Do you support additional programmatic authority for
the Corps to construct projects of limited cost but are in keeping with
the Plan's purposes and have independent and substantial benefits to
Everglades restoration?
Response. No. We believe such authority is unnecessary and will
result in insufficient attention to project justification and cost-
effectiveness. Each project component should be properly considered to
be a modification of the existing C&S Florida Project and that the
incremental contribution of each project component to system
performance for all project purposes should be demonstrated in Project
Implementation Reports. Moreover, Congress should approve only project
components whose incremental contributions to system performance, as
measured in environmental and economic terms, are commensurate with
their cost. [See Agriculture's concerns 44]
Question 9. Do you support a 50/50 cost share between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operations and maintenance of
the project? If not please state the cost share you believe to be
appropriate and why.
Response. It is appropriate for the Federal Government to
participate in the operations and maintenance cost of the project
because current estimates are that 80 percent of the water will be used
for restoration purposes. We support the 50/50 division also because
that was the understanding of all the parties during the planning
process. [See Agriculture's concerns No. 7 and subsection (h) of
proposed WRDA 2000.]
Question 10. Please provide your thoughts on the definition of
Project Implementation Reports found in the Administration's language.
Do you support this definition? If not, please provide suggestions as
to how you would define these reports.
Response. We are strongly opposed to the apparent weakening of
future analyses that would result from the PIR definition in the
Administration's draft. The Administration's language does not reflect
the scope and content of these reports as described in the
Implementation Plan in Chapter 10 of the Restudy Report of April 1999.
WRDA 2000 should cite Chapter 10 of the April 1999 Report as provided
in the second Graham/Mack Staff draft of section 3 of WRDA 2000. [See
Agriculture's concerns No. 3 and subsection (g) of proposed WRDA 2000.]
Question 11. Do you believe the Department of the Interior and the
State of Florida should be on equal footing in developing any
regulations related to assurance? If not, why?
Response. No. Parity should exist between the State of Florida and
the Federal Government not between the State and the Department of
Interior. PIRs should be utilized to provide assurances by clearly
defining how each project component will be operated, documenting the
purpose of the component and quantizing the expected water supplies to
be derived. The subsequent Project Cooperation Agreement for each
component should codify operational intent and expectations by
agreement between the State and Federal Governments. [See Agricultural
concerns No. 2 and No. 7 and subsections (f) and (g) of proposed WRDA
2000]
Question 12. Do you support the reporting requirement in the
Administration's bill? If not, how would you amend the reporting
requirement?
Response. No. The reports should be provided jointly by the State
and Federal Governments and include periodic updates of the
Comprehensive Plan and findings of the CROCEE and any other peer review
panels. [See Agriculture's concerns No. 6 and subsection (c) paragraph
(1) of proposed WRDA 2000]
Mr. Ken Keck, Director Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Florida
Citrus Mutual P.O. Box 89 Lakeland, FL 33802
______
Responses by Ken Keck to Additional Questions from Senator Smith
Question 1. You testified that the Governor's Commission was not
given the opportunity to vote on the Implementation Plan. This is
contrary to what both the minutes of the March 2 and 3 meetings
indicate, as well as Section to of the April 1999 Restudy. Can you
clarify?
If Agriculture is opposed to authorization of the initial ten
projects, as I have heard stated today, then why did Mr. Parsons and
Mr. Aller, representatives for the agricultural community, vote for the
Restudy, including the implementation plan, at the Governor's
Commission Sleety on March 2 and 3, 1999?
Response. You were correct in your testimony that the Governor's
Commission did not vote on the Implementation Plan that was contained
in Section 10 of the April 1999 Restudy.
[The following are excerpts from letter signed by Philip S.
Parsons:]
The minutes of this meeting reflect, accurately, that:
The Commission continued voting con the proposed amendments to, and
unanimously adopted, the Commission's Report on the January 25, 19959
Draft Implementation Plan of the C&SF Project Restudy.
The Commission's Reports consisted of recommendations that related
to the Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Plan but the Commission
never voted at any time directly on either the Restudy Comprehensive
Plan or the Implementation Plan. The Commission did adopt two reports
relating to the Restudy, the one noted above on the January 25, 1999
Draft Implementation Plan and an earlier Report under the title
``Restudy Plan Report'' of January 20, 1999, transmitted to Governor
Bush on January 27, 1999. These reports did not approve or adopt either
the Restudy Comprehensive Plan or the Implementation Plan. The
Commission could only make recommendations for consideration in the
final plans because the Commission did not meet frequently enough to
review each draft Plan. The Commission's reports made recommendations
on a variety of issues raised by Commission members or the public.
In addition, the two reports of the Governor's Commission did not
recommend that the 10 Project Components in the Implementation Plan be
authorized by Congress without full feasibility review. These reports
provided a set of recommendations that in the words of the Governors
Commission Chairman Pettigrew, ``were aimed at ensuring a full range of
State, stakeholder and citizen input into the development of the
Comprehensive Plan far the C&SF Project Restudy due to Congress on July
1, 1999.'' The Commission did not meet again after March 2 and 3, 1999
and took no action on the Army Corps of Engineers' Restudy Plans and
Report of April 1999.
The Commission's Report of January 20, 1999 contained recommended
consensus assurance language dealing with urban, agricultural and
natural system concerns. Some of this language, but not all, was
included in the later Implementation Plan contained in Section 10 of
the April 1999 Restudy Report. The further recommendation of the
Commission contained in its later report adopted on March 3 was that
``the entirety of the consensus assurance language'' be contained in
the final Restudy Report of April 1999. This was not done.
The Report adopted at the March 3 meeting of the Commission did not
deal with the Implementation Plan contained in Section 10 of the April
1999 Restudy Report but rather an earlier draft of the Implementation
Plan dated January 25, 1999. Further, Mr. Aller, as a member, did vote
on matters before the Governor's Commission but was in attendance in
March 1999 as an alternate for Mr. Wade and could not vote on anything
before the Commission.
It important to also point out that several comments from
agriculture were submitted to the Corps of Engineers on the draft
Implementation Plan of January 25, 1999. Among those commenting was Bob
Crawford, Commissioner of the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services. Mr. Chuck Aller was Commissioner Crawford's and the
Department of Agriculture's representative on the Governor's
Commission. In Mr. Crawford's letter of February 5, 1999 he commented
on the issue of providing an adequate feasibility analysis prior to
congressional authorization:
In addition, the Project Implementation Report (PIR) process should
offer the opportunity to resolve technical and economic feasibility
issues prior to authorization. To protect the integrity of this
process, Congress should not be asked to authorize many of the Plan's
major components until after a final PIR has been completed. The time
table delineated in the Plan's initial proposed authorization provides
ample time to complete the PIR and still obtain congressional
authorization before construction is scheduled to begin. Maintaining
this discipline will prove the credibility of the Restudy in Washington
and Florida and will strengthen the chances for long term
implementation.
The position of agricultural interests in advocating a feasibility
analysis prior to congressional authorization has been a consistent
recommendation both before and after the Governor's Commission meeting
of March 2 and 3, 1999 in November 1998 the Agricultural Advisory
Committee to the South Florida Water Management District adopted a
position statement on the Restudy that included:
Major project elements must have complete engineering,
environmental and economic evaluation with an opportunity for public
review and comment before congressional authorization is sought.
There are many other written and oral statements from Agricultural
interests regarding the Restudy that are all consistent with the
comments of Commissioner Crawford and the position statement of the
Agricultural. Advisory Committee. I cannot recall any statement to the
contrary.
I have spoken to Dr. Bonnie Kranzer, director of the Governor's
Commission and to Mr. Chuck Aller. Both confirm my understanding,
reflected here. that the Governor's Commission did not vote on or
approve the Restudy generally or the Implementation Plan dunging the
March 2 and 3, 1999 meeting or at any other time. More specifically,
the Governor's Commission never voted to endorse or approve
congressional authorization of the 10 initial projects or programmatic
authorization prior to completing a full feasibility review through
Project Implementation Reports or otherwise.
I have also spoken to Mr. Mike Collins, Chairman of the Governing
Board of the South Florida Water Management District. He also confirms
that agricultural interests have always been consistent in opposing the
authorization of project components prior to the feasibility review.
I have attached copies of the minutes from the Governor's
Commission meeting of March 2 and 3, 1999, the Commission's Reports and
letters from Commissioner Crawford and several agricultural interests
reflecting Agriculture's consistent position in advocating completion
of feasibility and economic analysis prior to authorization of further
Central and Southern Florida Project features.
______
Board of Commissioners, Miami-Dade County, Florida
resolution no. 300-00
resolution supporting the restoration of the everglades, the fair
distribution of water to urban and agricultural users and the equitable
allocation of non-federal costs among state and regional interests
WHEREAS, the Governor's Commission for the Everglades is overseeing
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP), concerning the
restoration of the Everglades and ensuring future water supplies for
urban and agricultural users, and
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County wholeheartedly recognizes the importance
of a restored Everglades as a national, state and regional priority,
along with the fair distribution of water to urban users and
agriculture; and
WHEREAS, current funding proposals for the CERP do not allocate
costs equitably among all state, regional and local interests, and
require adjustment, and
WHEREAS, the impact of implementation of the CERP on flooding is
not known at this time and significant areas of South Florida are
subject to frequent and severe flooding, and
WHEREAS, flood protection is part of the mission of the South
Florida Water Management District, and limited evaluation of flooding
impacts in urban and agricultural areas was conducted in the
development of the CERP, and
WHEREAS, the CERP has numerous projects proposed within the Lower
East Coast which will benefit the overall system, but are expensive to
construct, operate and maintain, e.g., two wastewater re-use plants
planned to be located in Miami-Dade County, and
Section 6. The Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District must act to ensure that the proposed components of
the plan will maintain or enhance existing levels of flood protection
in all urban, agricultural and environmental preservation areas, and
that
Section 7. The Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District must commit to the people of South Florida that the
various related projects under consideration will not result in adverse
water quality or flooding impacts anywhere in Miami-Dade County.
Section 8. The Federal Government should fund 50 percent of the
County's aquifer storage and recovery facilities.
Section 9. The Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District should expedite the investigation, as required in
the CERP, of alternative sources of water other than reuse due to its
high construction, operation and maintenance costs. Additionally, the
ACOE and the South Florida Water Management District should evaluate a
more equitable distribution and location, throughout the entire
watershed, of the expensive and technologically unproven components of
the CERP, in particular the reuse facilities, for a more equitable
distribution of available freshwater supplies.
I, HARVEY RUVIN,Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Dade County,
Florida, and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
said County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a true
and correct copy of Resolution No. R-300-00, adopted by the said board
of County Commissioners at its meeting held on March 21, 2000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal
on this 6th day of April, A.D. 2000.
Harvey Ruvin, Clerk Board of County Commissioners Dade
County, Florida.
__________
Statement of David E. Guggenheim, Florida Co-Chair, The Everglades
Coalition and President & CEO, The Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today, and thank
you again for choosing the Everglades Coalition's fifteenth annual
conference in Naples as the venue for the committee's field hearing
earlier this year.
I am David Guggenheim, Florida Co-Chair of the Everglades Coalition
and President & CEO of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, based in
Naples, Florida. I hold a Ph.D. in Environmental Science & Public
Policy.
The Everglades Coalition represents 40 national, State and local
organizations working together to protect and restore the Greater
Everglades Ecosystem. The Coalition represents a broad diversity of
organizations, including environmental and recreational groups, civic
organizations and foundations, and represents organizations covering
the broad geographical extent of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem,
which stretches from the headwaters of the Kissimmee to the Florida
Keys, across the entire South Florida peninsula.
The Urgency of Restoration
Today America's Everglades are our nation's most endangered
ecosystem. Our lack of foresight over the past century has left the
Everglades in a devastated condition that threatens not only the
splendid creatures that live within and winter there from all over the
nation, but a way of life for millions of people who call--and will
call--South Florida their home.
The Coalition strongly believes that Congress should move forward
this year to enact legislation that truly results in the restoration of
America's Everglades, and we believe that the Restoration Plan
submitted by the Corps clearly contains numerous strong points.
However, there are several areas where the Coalition believes the
legislation can be and must be improved to ensure that restoration
succeeds. Our testimony provides these specific recommendations.
Last week, the Florida legislature made good on its commitment to
Everglades restoration by approving legislation that establishes a long
term funding plan, meeting another critical restoration milestone.
Advancing the Federal authorizing legislation this year will ensure
that the Federal and State components of this effort move forward as
one, and will ensure that restoration can begin without delay.
Today, the status quo represents the greatest risk to the ecosystem
and to taxpayers. We are pushing the system and the endangered species
that live there to the brink, with unknown consequences. Restoring the
system has already waited more than 30 years, over which time the
system has seen dramatic degradation. With every passing day,
restoration will be more expensive and its success more uncertain. Our
biggest enemy is inaction.
Opportunities for restoration and for preventing the need for
further restoration--especially opportunities for acquiring critical
lands--are disappearing due to South Florida's rapid growth.
Severe habitat loss and fragmentation continues throughout South
Florida at a rapid pace, and populations of threatened and endangered
species continue to decline. To make matters worse, infestation by
exotic species continues to spread, forcing native species from their
habitat.
Without restoration, water levels and water quality will continue
to be far from natural, further threatening native species. Recent
fires in South Florida highlight the need to restore water tables to
their natural levels.
Nearly one trillion gallons of water that the ecosystem needs is
sent to tide each year. Disruption of the timing of fresh water flows
has led to too little or too much fresh water in the system.
Ironically, in an ecosystem that is now often desperately thirsty, our
wasteful practices have managed to make fresh water a pollutant. In
excess quantities, fresh water is severely damaging South Florida's
estuaries, with impacts to commercially--and recreationally--important
fish species. Such discharges have also affected tourism.
Last week, Lee County took steps to file an injunction against the
South Florida Water Management District to stop harmful fresh water
discharges from Lake Okeechobee from impacting the Caloosahatchee
estuary. It is illustrative of how it has become routine to trade an
impact in one part of the system for an impact in another part.
Without the ability to store fresh water, the system is suffering
from a lack of this precious and ironically abundant resource. Salt-
water intrusion into estuaries and groundwater is impacting freshwater
populations and drinking water supplies. There has been a dramatic
decline in sea trout populations over the past several decades, whose
buoyant eggs depend on a specific balance of salt and fresh water.
There are numerous examples around the Greater Everglades Ecosystem
that illustrate how humankind has pushed the system to its limits and
underscore the urgent need for restoration.
The single greatest common characteristic among the 68 threatened
and endangered species within the Everglades ecosystem is the
degradation of habitat. While each has individual challenges,
restoration of as much of the historic Everglades watershed will begin
their road to recovery.
Only 50 Florida Panthers remain in the wild today. Population
growth and agricultural expansion in South Florida are compromising the
ability of natural habitats to support a self-sustaining panther
population. Much of the panther's habitat lies in Southwest Florida,
among the fastest growing regions in the nation today.
At Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, wood stork nesting productivity is
down 97 percent since 1958 due to habitat loss, especially isolated
wetlands and ephemeral pools.
The fate of the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow is precarious, forcing
the system to be managed under emergency operating conditions in order
to hold back water and prevent the flooding of this endangered bird's
nesting habitat.
The Greater Everglades Ecosystem is a large, complex ecosystem
whose components are closely interrelated. This restoration is critical
to restoring the health of the overall system. The declining health of
Everglades National Park is a stunning lesson of how in South Florida,
land and water are inseparably linked and that protecting our public
lands requires more than drawing a line on a map. Clearly, we must also
protect and restore the lands and flowways around these treasures.
There are numerous other examples throughout the ecosystem, including
exquisite aquatic resources. For example, Florida Bay and North
America's only living coral reef tract along the Florida Keys are part
of this ecosystem, and their health depends upon how the system
functions many miles upstream.
WRDA 2000 Legislation
The Coalition believes that Congress must pass an authorization
package that puts in place a program to achieve significant restoration
of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem. This can only happen if the
legislation includes the specific procedural and legal tools to
accomplish this unprecedented and important mission.
Recommendations to Improve Legislation
The legislation that has been drafted by the Administration and
introduced in Congress clearly contains numerous strong points. For
example, it appropriately establishes the priority of restoring the
ecosystem first, with water supply and flood protection goals
concurrent but subsidiary. The legislation also includes initial
authorization of 11 projects that will provide critical benefits for
the natural system.
However, the Coalition believes that the legislation should be
improved in a number of areas to ensure that it achieves its intent of
restoring the Everglades. We offer the following eight points:
1. Assurances for the Natural System: Stopping the Decline of the
Everglades Ecosystem: First and foremost, this effort is about
restoring an ecosystem. The principal goal of the CERP is to restore
the natural functioning of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem. The
project also has secondary benefits of flood control and water supply,
which must be compatible with this principal goal. The Coalition
strongly believes that the authorizing legislation must ensure that, as
the CERP is put in place over time, the Everglades ecosystem does not
continue to decline as a result of human or other consumptive uses.
Specifically, any assurance to current consumptive users that their
current flood protection and water supply ``benefits'' from the
existing water management system will be preserved must be matched by
an equivalent assurance for the natural system.
The legislation only protects sufficiently current consumptive
uses. The entire natural system is not ensured its current level of
water management benefits--which are already woefully inadequate as we
have all now recognized--thereby allowing current consumptive users the
opportunity to increase their share of the benefits. Indeed, the
legislation even opens the door for future consumptive users to
receive--and vest themselves in -water or flood protection, at the
expense of the natural system. We believe it is unacceptable to
purposefully allow the deterioration in the Everglades to increase
simultaneous with implementation of the restoration plan. If allowed,
the difficulty of the restoration task will be compounded and the
resource placed in extreme jeopardy, particularly in the event the CERP
is only partially implemented.
The true measure of success in Everglades restoration is not just
that we successfully repair the damage already done to the ecosystem,
but that we prevent the need for a large-scale restoration in the other
portions of the system, including rapidly-developing Southwest Florida.
The CERP's ``Southwest Florida Study'' seeks to achieve this, but will
only be able to succeed if the appropriate assurance language exists in
the legislation.
2. Ensuring a Full and Equal Interagency Partnership: The
Department of Interior and the Corps must be co-equal partners in
developing the design, plan and regulations for at least those new
project features that are intended to provide benefits for federally-
managed lands. The legislation appropriately requires
development of rules that will ensure that each specific CERP
project achieves its intended benefits and the requirements of the so-
called programmatic regulations. However, the legislation provides the
Department of Interior with only a consultative role in the development
of the project-specific regulations, which are the primary means by
which the restoration process is implemented. This consultative role is
essentially little more than Interior's current role in a process that
has regularly failed the Everglades.
We believe that Interior, as the agency with legal responsibility
and scientific expertise to protect the federally-managed lands, must
be accorded partnership status on the projects intended to restore
these lands. It has been the plight of these Federal lands, most
prominently Everglades National Park, which has attracted national
attention and served as a catalyst for restoration of the entire
ecosystem.
3. Peer Review: The authorization should institutionalize the
independent peer review process led by the National Academy of Sciences
to review and provide recommendations to the agencies on the
restoration process for the entire 30 years. Such a body, which would
be a continuation of the existing Committee on Restoration of the
Greater Everglades Ecosystem (CROGEE), would also provide Congress with
an independent source of expertise to enable it to better evaluate the
progress of restoration projects and activities. CROGEE will scrutinize
the plan to see if there are ways to achieve greater ecological
restoration at a lower cost and investigate some of the plan's
experimental technologies to see if they are viable. CROGEE will also
play an important role in ensuring that the translation of broadly-
stated goals into specific, measurable targets results in ecologically-
meaningful measures.
4. Coordination of Other Federal Actions: The authorization should
include a process that will ensure coordination of other Federal
actions in and around the Everglades with the restoration effort. It is
counter-productive and poor public policy to have other Federal
agencies pursuing ends that are in conflict with the restoration
effort, as with the inadvisable plan for a major commercial airport at
the former Homestead Air Force Base at the edge of the Everglades. We
believe that such a provision could have helped avoid the breakdown
between Federal, State, and local agencies on this matter. Similarly,
CERP project features that overlap with previously-authorized
restoration projects, such as the Modified Water Deliveries Project and
the C-111 Project, need to be formally incorporated, at least for
design purposes, into these efforts to ensure expedited and efficient
restoration.
5. Pilot Projects Must Go First: There should be no irreversible or
irretrievable commitment of resources to CERP project features that
rely upon pilot projects for their justification. (Such a commitment of
resources might include financial expenditures or natural resource
destruction.) For example, the Lake Belt pilot project should also
examine alternative storage approaches, expediting the benefits to the
natural system, and collateral environmental impacts. In addition,
adjacent wetlands potentially necessary as mitigation for the reservoir
storage areas should not be impacted until completion of the pilot
project.
Similarly, development of land in the L-3 IN project area should
not proceed until the completion of the pilot project for this critical
CERP project feature. We believe that there are many questions
regarding the effectiveness of the seepage management technology on
which the current concept of the larger L-3 IN project relies. The
results of the pilot project will determine specifically whether or not
additional land will be required in order to achieve project benefits.
Indeed, we continue to recommend that the L-3 IN pilot project be
significantly expedited. This project should be closely coordinated
with implementation of the Modified Water Deliveries Project to avoid
further delays to this current restoration program and the creation of
a new problem--increased groundwater levels under private land east of
the L-3 IN.
6. Clearly Stated Benefits: The authorization should be crystal-
clear about what benefits it intends to provide for America's
Everglades. These benefits are spelled out in some detail in the CERP
documents and transmittal letter; accordingly, provisions in the
legislation, such as those concerning the programmatic and project-
specific regulations, should make specific reference to these
documents.
7. Land Acquisition: The authorization should provide a process to
expeditiously purchase lands necessary for wildlife habitat and CERP
projects that are under extreme development pressure.
8. Agency Reports to Congress: The authorization should require
agency reports to Congress concerning CERP's progress every 2 years,
not every 5 years as currently proposed. The two-year report
requirement would be consistent with the WRDA cycle and enable more
engaged and effective review by Congress and the NAS.
Importance of Authorizing the Initial Package of 11 Projects
The legislation contains 11 projects for authorization this year.
The Everglades Coalition believes that approval of all 11 of these
projects is absolutely essential. These projects were chosen
specifically for their ability, in concert, to provide significant
restoration benefits within the first decade of restoration. These
projects are either interconnected or provide relief to portions of the
system enduring critical stress, and serve to ``front-load''
restoration with maximal benefits early on. In addition, approval of
the initial 11 projects is important to the State/Federal partnership
in allowing the State to move forward rapidly with purchasing land
necessary for the CERP. Given the pace of development in South
Florida, anything that delays land acquisition guarantees a higher
cost to taxpayers and could serve to limit options available today.
The Coalition understands the sensitive issue of contingent
authorization, but we hope that this issue does not prevent the
restoration from moving forward this year. The bottom line is that the
ecosystem needs a process that enables restoration to proceed
expeditiously with appropriate oversight by Congress, and the Coalition
would support such a process.
Approval of the Talisman Water Storage Reservoir (EAA Storage)
Included in the list of 11 projects is the first major reservoir to
be constructed by the Corps--commonly referred to as the Talisman Water
Storage Reservoir. This project will be built on most of the 50,000
acres of publicly owned land in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA)
that was purchased last year at a cost of $135 million to taxpayers.
This project represents one of the highest priorities of the Everglades
Coalition because it begins the process of recapturing water and
seasonally storing water that the Central and Southern Florida Project
is currently wasting. Therefore, we believe that any Everglades
Restoration legislation that fails to include an authorization for this
project will be inadequate.
Storage of water in this location is also important because it is
adjacent to, and will complement, the Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAB)
that the State is spending $800 million to construct as part of a legal
settlement. The prime location of the Talisman Reservoirs will allow
for water to be stored next to these filtration marshes, and
appropriately timed releases of the stored water can ensure that the
wetlands function as intended and that the filtered water released into
the Central Everglades is clean. Because the capacity of these
filtration marshes is 240,000 acre-feet of water per year, nearby
storage will negate any future temptation to ``stack'' inappropriate
quantities of water that would diminish their effectiveness.
While evaporation of water from the Talisman Reservoir will occur,
the net gain of water will still greatly increase the amount presently
available for the natural system. Further, such water essentially is
already being lost or mismanaged because it can only be sent to the
Caloosahatchee and/or St. Lucie Estuaries, backpumped into Lake
Okeechobee, or sent into the Everglades at the wrong time, with the
wrong water quality, and/or in the wrong quantity.
As a result of a series of land swaps that occurred when the
government purchased the Talisman lands, the government owns a
contiguous block of land in the southern EAA. An agreement was signed
that construction of this critical reservoir can commence in 2005. The
land was purchased for the sole purpose of storing water for the
restoration of the Everglades, but is being leased to sugar growers and
will remain in cultivation until it is needed for restoration in 2005.
To be perfectly clear, the Coalition urges all sides to abide by this
contract. When this agreement expires, however, we believe that the
taxpayers are entitled to utilize their investment for its intended
purpose.
If Congress fails to authorize the Talisman Water Storage Reservoir
this year, it is very likely that the government would miss several key
dates by which the sugar growers must be notified of the termination of
their leases--the first of which is October 1, 2002. This Congress
cannot assume that the next Congress will act to meet that critical
deadline. If these dates are missed, the leases are automatically
extended in their present form (which are below fair market value),
restoration is delayed, and a new de facto subsidy to the sugar
industry is created.
That Talisman Water Storage Reservoir will not immediately solve
all of the problems facing the Everglades, but it will provide
immediate relief from the current crisis conditions by giving water
managers some additional and badly needed flexibility.
The Corps' Everglades Restoration Plan (Alternative D-13R)
anticipates water being stored on 60,000 acres in the EAA at a maximum
depth of 6 feet. This would ultimately result in the storage of 117.3
billion gallons (360,000 acre-feet) of water on publicly owned lands in
the EAA.
The first two phases of the Talisman lands to be utilized
for water storage in the EAA are a little more than 40,000 acres. The
Corps has proposed storing water at a maximum depth of six feet,
therefore, the Talisman Water Storage Reservoir will store
approximately 78.2 billion gallons of water (240,000 acre-feet).
From January 25, 1999 to January 24, 2000, 15.9 billion gallons
(45,444 acre-feet) of polluted, phosphorus-laden water were back-pumped
from the Everglades Agricultural Area into Lake Okeechobee.
From January 25, 1998 to January 24, 1999, 24.5 gallons
(75,444 acre-feet) of polluted, phosphorus-laden water were back-pumped
from the Everglades Agricultural Area into Lake Okeechobee.
Even though the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
estimates that the EAA is responsible for approximately 5 percent of
the total phosphorus that is deposited in the Lake. We believe that
this indicates the magnitude of the phosphorus problems, especially
given that phosphorus is not naturally produced in Lake Okeechobee. The
SFWMD's estimate of phosphorus levels in the Lake is illustrative of
the severity of the present ecological crisis. We also believe that it
clearly demonstrates the need for the Talisman Reservoir and the
necessity of congressional action this year for the entire CERP.
Once one of America's premier bass fishing spots, Lake Okeechobee,
is also being hurt by a management regime that has treated it as a
reservoir for unwanted polluted water. As previously indicated, water
managers are presently attempting to restore more natural water levels
in the Lake but are finding that their options boil down to making the
Lake's problem another area's problem. This ``Hobson's Choice'' is
repeated throughout South Florida because water managers can only pit
one part of the system against another part when they try to alleviate
any of the numerous problem of the current C&SF project. This scenario
will continue to exist until we build water storage back into the
system and demonstrates why we believe we must authorize the Talisman
Reservoir this year.
Hurricane Irene dumped up to 17 inches of rain on South Florida
last October. To protect their investment, sugar growers began pumping
their fields before Irene's arrival and had them dry as quickly as
possible after the storm. Water managers could only put the EAA's water
in a finite number of places--the coastal estuaries, Lake Okeechobee,
and the Central Everglades. Compared to the residential areas, Irene
spared the EAA of the higher rainfall amounts. However, when the
pumping practices in the EAA are coupled with the necessity of
providing flood protection, water managers have only one option: Send
the water to where no one lives.
We believe the water management crisis created by Hurricane Irene
dramatically illustrates how the present system fails the Everglades.
Since Irene, several of my colleagues have unsuccessfully attempted to
obtain information from the SFWMD as to where water was pumped from and
discharged. We believe that these figures would demonstrate that the
Talisman Reservoir would not have solved all the problems. At the same
time, however, we also believe that these figures would show how this
much-needed flexibility could meet the multiple needs of South Florida
and the Everglades.
The Everglades for All Generations
One of the highlights of my work at The Conservancy is our
education program. Each year, we teach thousands of school children
about their home in the Western Everglades. We take many of these
children into the field to experience a swamp walk, a beach hike or a
snorkeling adventure. Invariably, they are touched by a profound sense
of awe and wonder, and are bursting with hundreds of questions about
what they see. But they are troubled to learn that the Everglades were
suffering back when I was their age, and it is hard for them to
understand why the Everglades are still imperiled today. Today we stand
at the brink of a tremendous opportunity to right a terrible wrong, to
rescue a beloved ecosystem before it is too late. It is a
responsibility we must accept on behalf of our children and their
children. Our success now depends upon swift and decisive action, and
with our presented modifications, the restoration bill is stronger.
The Everglades Coalition is grateful for the opportunity to provide
input to the committee, and we sincerely thank you for your leadership
and vision on restoring America's Everglades.
______
Responses by David Guggenheim to Additional Questions from Senator
Smith
Question 1. As a member of the environmental community, how to you
respond to the concept of Assurances, particularly the Programmatic
Regulations? Do you fled it troubling that a plan will be tied, in 2
years, to project results that may not be apparent for 20-30 years?
Response. The volume, timing and distribution of water essential
for the restoration and preservation of the Everglades must be
calculated and reserved at the beginning of the restoration process.
These programmatic rules, including reservations, should occur under
Federal programmatic regulations established pursuant to WRDA 2000.
There is significant precedent for such Federal programmatic
regulations, including water reservations for the Everglades, dating
back to 1970 (Pub. L. No. 91-282). If we wait specifically to reserve
water for the natural system as it becomes available with the
completion of CERP projects, we run a significant risk that new water
will be subsumed by urban and agricultural uses, including under
Florida's consumptive use permitting process. The only way to be
certain that new water will be allocated to the natural system when it
becomes available is to identify and reserve it at the beginning of the
process.
For example, if we wait to reserve water for the natural system
until it becomes available as a result of specific CERP projects, there
is virtually certain to be intense conflict due to efforts to permit
this ``new'' water to urban and agricultural uses under Florida's
consumptive use permitting process. Chapter 373.236 Florida Statutes
states that consumptive use ``permits shall be granted for a period of
20 years, if requested for that period of time, and if there is
sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the conditions for
permit issuance will be met for the duration of the permit.'' There
will be considerable pressure over the next several years, to permit
for 20 years ``new'' water far ahead of its availability. The only way
to be certain that new water will be allocated to the natural system
when it becomes available is to identify and reserve it at the
beginning of the process.
Regarding the implementation period of the plan, we understand that
ecosystem restoration is a long process. The Comprehensive Plan in our
view is a good road map for achieving long-term restoration benefits,
in part because it recognizes the uncertainty involved in restoring a
natural system. Restoring an ecosystem requires moving forward in small
increments, monitoring the affects of our actions and then changing and
adapting the plan if necessary along the way. For these reasons, we
strongly recommend: (1) a comprehensive framework of assurances to
ensure that adaptations of the plan are driven by restoration needs and
that hydrologic resources are available to meet such needs, and (2)
strong independent scientific oversight.
Question 2. Why is it important to move forward with authorization
of this initial set of ten projects this year? Can you describe what
the impacts of delay would mean for the ecosystem?
Response. The beneficial effects of restoration will not be
immediate. The natural system will require many years to recover. It is
therefore important to initiate restoration as soon as possible.
Recognizing the precipitous decline of the natural system, the
Restudy Team identified 10 projects that it felt produced important
restoration benefits in the first 10 years of CERP implementation. The
initial set of ten projects will focus on water storage,
decompartmentalization and habitat conservation. Any delay in
initiating these projects would result in pushing back restoration
benefits that the system desperately needs to be realized as soon as
possible; in further increases the cost of restoration; and would make
the success of restoration less certain.
The most fundamental thing that must happen in the Everglades as
soon as absolutely possible is an increase in available water storage
capacity. Water storage is not only an important restoration component,
it is needed immediately to slow the precipitous decline of the system,
so that the Everglades will survive long enough for us to restore it.
Without the ability to store ample fresh water, the Greater
Everglades Ecosystem suffers from both a lack and overabundance of this
resource. Without the means to store fresh water, more than a trillion
gallons are dumped to tide each year. This is water that is later
needed during dry periods. Consequently, the system is routinely
managed under emergency operating conditions, threatening natural
systems by severely disrupting the natural hydrological cycle, and
threatening cities and agriculture by water shortages and flooding
threats.
Salt-water intrusion into estuaries and groundwater is impacting
freshwater wildlife populations and drinking water supplies. There has
been a dramatic decline in sea trout populations over the past several
decades, whose buoyant eggs depend on a specific balance of salt and
fresh water. The wasteful ``pulse'' releases of fresh water into the
Caloosahatchee River to the west and the St. Lucie River to the east
have had a devastating impact on the respective estuaries.
Recently, Lee County took steps to file an injunction against the
South Florida Water Management District to stop harmful fresh water
discharges from Lake Okeechobee from impacting the Caloosahatchee
estuary. It is illustrative of how it has become routine to trade an
impact in one part of the system for an impact in another part. Without
restoration, water levels and water quality are far from natural
levels, threatening native species.
The single greatest common characteristic among the 68 threatened
and endangered species within the Everglades ecosystem is the
degradation of habitat. Severe habitat loss and fragmentation continues
throughout South Florida at a rapid pace. At the same time, rapid
infestation by exotic species continues to climb, forcing native
species from their habitat. While each species has individual
challenges, restoration of the historic Everglades watershed will begin
their road to recovery.
Only 50 Florida Panthers remain in the wild today. Population
growth and agricultural expansion in South Florida are compromising the
ability of natural habitats to support a self-sustaining panther
population. Much of the panther's habitat lies in Southwest Florida,
among the fastest growing regions in the Nation today.
Opportunities for restoration and for preventing the need for
further restoration--especially opportunities for acquiring critical
lands--are disappearing due to South Florida's rapid growth.
Question 3. In your written testimony you highlight the importance
of the Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir. If the Corps is
unable to begin construction in 2005, don't you believe that the land
should no longer remain in cultivation? Why is this project of such
significance to the restoration effort?
Response. In order for restoration to begin, there must be a place
to store water that is now being wasted to tide. The current practice
of water dumping not only wastes a valuable resource, but it also
causes significant environmental damage to the St. Lucie and
Caloosahatchee Estuaries. Currently water managers have limited choices
as to how to handle excess water. They can dump contaminated water
downstream into the conservation areas causing damaging high water
levels and the loss of tree island habitat that results. They can force
the water into the Caloosahatchee or St. Lucie estuaries, causing too
much freshwater into these tidal systems with the concomitant loss of
fisheries productivity and the death of many species. Or water can be
held in Lake Okeechobee, drowning marshes, and causing the loss of the
lake's important fisheries. Water storage in the EAA allows for
flexibility in how the water is moved, and provides, in conjunction
with the STAB, water quality improvements that currently do not exist.
The real benefits of EAA water storage cannot be delayed. Therefore,
farmers who hold leases in the EAA storage areas must be notified
before 1 October 2002 that their leases will expire so that restoration
efforts can move forward. If construction of the EAA reservoirs is
delayed due to unforeseen technical difficulties, seasonal agriculture
(e.g. rice, vegetables, sod) may be feasible, and could help control
the invasion of exotic plants into the site prior to the construction
of the reservoir.
Question 4. What is the environment community's position regarding
Homestead AFB?
Response. The proposal for a large commercial airport at Homestead
is incompatible with Everglades restoration. As the Coalition has
stated on numerous occasions, such a commercial airport, if built,
would degrade significantly the Everglades' air, sound, wildlife and
water resources and thus conflict with the planned comprehensive and
costly Federal/State project to restore such resources. With the
proposed airport just a few miles from both Everglades and Biscayne
National Parks and with one flight almost every minute, the parks would
be filled with airplane noise most of the day. According to
predictions, the commercial airport would result in seven tons of air
pollutant emissions daily, loss of thousands of acres of open space and
wildlife habitat, and up to 50 percent of all new water pollution into
such pristine water bodies as south Biscayne Bay.
The Coalition believes that a mixed-use alternative to the airport
is a better choice environmentally and economically. Not only would
such a mixed use alternative, with proper planning, result in
significantly less environmental harm, but the Air Force estimates that
it would produce over 50 percent more jobs and earnings growth than the
airport over the next 5 to 10 years.
______
Responses by David Guggenheim to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. The Everglades Coalition includes members such as the
National Wildlife Federation who are on record as opposing contingent
authorization. In other words they oppose Congress authorizing projects
before the feasibility reports are complete and Congress has an
opportunity to review the details of the economic and environmental
evaluation of the project. How do you reconcile this position with the
fact that you support the Administration's proposal to authorize 10
projects with an estimated cost of $1.1 billion based on conceptual
plans and before Congress has an opportunity to review feasibility
reports on these projects? Also, how is this position consistent with a
programmatic authority for the Everglades Restoration effort that
allows the Secretary of the Army to approve projects of up to $70
million in cost without any specific congressional authorization?
Response. The Everglades Coalition including the National Wildlife
Federation is indeed concerned about the increasing numbers of
``contingent authorizations'' that have appeared in recent Water
Resources Development Acts. For many traditional projects, practically
the only detailed congressional oversight received is through the
authorization process. Too often proponents of projects use the
contingent authorization approach to avoid close scrutiny by Congress
and the relevant authorizing committees on questions of whether the
projects will meet basic environmental, engineering, and economic and
financial standards, meet national water resources policy objectives,
and, overall, constitute wise investments. We therefore continue to
oppose contingent authorizations in general.
However, we believe (1) that the Everglades bill does not provide a
true contingent authorization as that term is typically used; (2) that
there are a number of special circumstances regarding the Everglades
project that both require speed and provide some additional
accountability tools not typically applicable to other projects; and
(3) that even so, it is critical that additional accountability tools
should be provided to warrant proceeding to construction on specific
projects without further congressional action.
First, the bill differs from typical contingent authorizations in
that proceeding with individual Everglades projects is not subject to a
separate benefit/cost analysis. Unlike other projects that stand on
their own, most of the features of the Everglades project are designed
to work interdependently. Furthermore, if it passes the Everglades
bill, Congress is indicating that a total program budget is warranted
for the environmental results. For this reason, the basic go/no go
decision has already been made. Furthermore, the language that we
recommend requires the Army Corps to submit its report to Congress and
we anticipate that Congress will enact legislation that addresses the
design of the project. The authorization is contingent only in the
sense that the Army Corps is authorized to proceed with the project if
there are delays in congressional action.
Second, we believe that the fragile state of the Everglades
warrants authorizing the Army Corps to proceed in the absence of
congressional action with the first basic projects. It is a fact that
matters are sometimes not addressed by Congress because of legislative
scheduling issues unrelated to the merits or even degree of controversy
regarding that particular matter. The rapid decline of the Everglades
and the rapid development of land necessary for Everglades restoration
make expeditious implementation of the plan critical and warrants
special treatment of the initial projects. As the committee is very
much aware, the Everglades ecosystem is in a rapid and serious state of
decline. For instance, the Everglades contains some 68 endangered and
threatened species. In particular, birds such as the Snail Kite and the
Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow are dependent on this habitat and are
directly imperiled by current conditions.
Even with the unique circumstances of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, we believe that Congress should require additional
accountability measures as a surrogate for outright congressional
approval. These should include agreement among the key agencies about
the plan, agreed operating rules for the project, and the review of
each project's specific design and operations and endorsement by an
independent scientific review panel.
The additional program authority that allows implementation of
projects that do not exceed $35,000,000 for the Federal share generally
fall within the concept of continuing Corps authorities for smaller
projects. Because the dollar thresholds for these projects are somewhat
larger than typically called for in this category, we support these
projects also being subjected to the same special accountability
provisions discussed above.
Question 2. Is the Air Force proposal to approve redevelopment of
Homestead Air Force Base as a commercial airport compatible with
Everglades Restoration?
Response. The proposal for a large commercial airport at Homestead
is incompatible with Everglades restoration. As the Coalition has
stated on numerous occasions, such a commercial airport, if built,
would degrade significantly the Everglades' air, sound, wildlife and
water resources and thus conflict with the planned comprehensive and
costly Federal/State project to restore such resources. With the
proposed airport just a few miles from both Everglades and Biscayne
National Parks and with one flight almost every minute, the parks would
be filled with airplane noise most of the day. According to
predictions, the commercial airport would result in seven tons of air
pollutant emissions daily, loss of thousands of acres of open space and
wildlife habitat, and up to 50 percent of all new water pollution into
such pristine water bodies as south Biscayne Bay.
The Coalition believes that a mixed-use alternative to the airport
is a better choice environmentally and economically. Not only would
such a mixed use alternative, with proper planning, result in
significantly less environmental harm, but the Air Force estimates that
it would produce over 50 percent more jobs and earnings growth than the
airport over the next 5 to 10 years.
______
Responses by David Guggenheim to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. Can you provide a general list of the organizations
that have endorsed the views you are providing today on behalf of the
Everglades Coalition?
1000 Friends of Florida
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation and Florida Environmental Institute, Inc.
Audubon Society of the Everglades
Biscayne Bay Foundation
Broward County Audubon Society
Broward County Sierra Club
Center for Marine Conservation
Clean Water Action Clean Water Network-Florida Campaign
Collier County Audubon Society
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Environmental and Land Use Law Center
The Environmental Coalition
Environmental Defense Fund
Everglades Coordinating Council
Florida Audubon Society
Florida Defenders of the Environment
Florida Keys Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America
Florida Keys Environmental Fund
Florida PIRG
Florida Sierra Club
Florida Wildlife Federation
Izaak Walton League of America
League of Women Voters of Florida
Loxahatchee Sierra Club
Martin County Conservation Alliance
National Audubon Society
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Outward Bound
The Pegasus Foundation
Redland Conservancy
Sierra Club
Sierra Club Miami Group
Tropical Audubon Society
Wilderness Society
World Wildlife Fund
Question 2. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we move forward with this project?
Response. Moving forward with the restoration project will ensure
sufficient water quantity and quality to preserve and restore the
Everglades ecosystem as well as help maintain and increase water supply
for agricultural and urban users.
Question 3. Can you describe the impact to the Everglades and
surrounding ecosystems if we do not move forward with this project?
Response. Many portions of the Everglades ecosystem are in decline,
or have collapsed ecologically. Water shortages are becoming more
prevalent all the time. In an area that receives an average of 60
inches of rain a year, this is a ridiculous scenario. It will continue
to get worse, degrading Everglades habitat further, and destroying
South Florida's quality of life. The restoration efforts cannot be
delayed, we must move forward with restoration now.
Question 4. Are you comfortable with the project purpose as set
into law in WRDA 1996?
Response. WRDA 1996 directed the Secretary of the Army to ``develop
as expeditiously as practicable a proposed Comprehensive Plan for the
purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the South Florida
ecosystem. The Comprehensive Plan shall provide for the protection of
water quality in, and the reduction of the loss of fresh water from,
the Everglades. The Comprehensive Plan shall include such features as
are necessary to provide for the water related needs of the region,
including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other
objectives served by the Central & Southern Florida Project.'' In 1996
we were comfortable with this language because we felt that it clearly
directs the Secretary of the Army to develop an ecosystem restoration
plan while giving the Secretary the discretion to determine whether
other project features were necessary to continue to meet the other
C&SF Project purposes. We thought that this language made it abundantly
clear that the primary and overarching purpose of the Comprehensive
Plan is to restore the Everglades.
Unfortunately, we have been frustrated that this language was
interpreted by the State of Florida and by the Jacksonville District of
the Corps, during the development of the CERP, to mean that the
Comprehensive Plan has three co-equal purposes. That has never been our
interpretation of WRDA 1996, a view that we have made clear in every
restoration forum, including the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida. In light of the popular interpretation of
the WRDA 1996 language, we strongly believe that the WRDA 2000 project
purpose language must add clarity to the WRDA 1996 language to ensure
that the purpose of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
remains the restoration of the American Everglades. While we restore
the American Everglades the comprehensive plan will continue to meet
other C&SF project purposes.
Question 5. Your first concern is related to the assurances
language in the bill. Can you elaborate on your point here? Is your
concern with the way the Administration's language is crafted or with
the approach taken to developing the programmatic regulations?
Response. The authorizing legislation must include four essential
safeguards in its ``assurances'' language:
The legislation must implement a principle of ``do no more harm''
to the Everglades. As we move forward to restore the Everglades, we
should not risk losing any more ground. This will only make the
restoration task more difficult, more expensive and put the ecosystem
in even greater jeopardy if the CERP is never wholly implemented.
Therefore, the authorizing legislation must guarantee the natural
system at least its current benefits from the existing water management
system.
The Department of the Interior and the Corps of Engineers must be
equal members of the Federal partnership in the CERP's implementation.
It has been the plight of Federal lands, most prominently Everglades
National Park, which has drawn the country's attention to the need to
restore the entire ecosystem. The Department of the Interior is the
agency with legal responsibility and particular scientific expertise to
protect these federally managed lands, which constitute almost 50
percent of the remaining Everglades. It should also be noted that
Interior currently has concurrence authority concerning management of
water structures affecting the Park.
The legislation must require development of programmatic
regulations. Such a process will, among other things, provide the
guiding purpose that will help ensure that the Everglades restoration
project ``gets the water right.'' Simply moving forward with 68
separate project-specific regulations over 30 years will likely result
in only localized, uneven, and inadequate restoration throughout the
Everglades ecosystem. Moreover, a programmatic approach would provide
the flexibility necessary to allow adaptive assessment and management
to succeed.
The legislation must define specifically what benefits it
intends to provide for America's Everglades. Otherwise, in the
competition over water resources, the Everglades will continue to lose.
The CERP plan includes a specific description of the hydrologic
benefits it intends to provide. Such benefits should be specifically
referenced in the legislation to serve as standards for the development
of the programmatic regulations and CERP's initial implementation.
The Administration's assurances language and, in particular, the
language entitled ``Assurances Language No. 2'' in the Senate
discussion draft do not adequately address any of the above four
essential restoration assurances components.
First, neither version of the assurances language provides the
necessary ``floor'' to halt the Everglades' deterioration. Rather, both
versions go in the opposite direction by including provisions entitled
``Existing Water Uses'' that are focused on protecting consumptive
uses. These provisions should either (a) be removed entirely and
separate provisions added to protect the natural system, or (b) be
significantly revised to prioritize, or at least balance, protection of
the natural system.
The problem with both versions of draft assurances language is that
they prioritize protection of consumptive uses and then use broad terms
to describe such protection (e.g., ``interfere,'' ``existing legal
users,'' and ``existing levels of service for flood protection or
existing water use''). Protections for natural system benefits, on the
other hand, are treated secondarily and described in more narrow terms.
Accordingly, the ``existing water uses'' language opens the door,
for example, for consumptive users such as utilities to demand, under
Federal law, more water--even for future customers--at the expense of
the Everglades and to monopolize whatever benefits the CERP plan
produces. Similarly, the Administration's language would guarantee
``existing authorized levels of flood protection'' to geographic areas,
regardless of how many people moved into the area and how much more the
Everglades needed to be flooded in order to protect them. The Senate
draft language also removes the requirement that the flood protection
be ``authorized.''
Such language appears to weaken current law. The Corps generally
now asserts that it is required to operate the system for multiple
purposes; however, both versions of the assurances language, especially
the Senate discussion draft, elevate benefits for the human environment
at the expense of the natural system. Current inhabitants could
potentially have a new statutorily created right to demand water and
flood protection even if doing so would harm our national parks or
cause violations of environmental laws. This potential conflict must be
addressed in any legislation passed by Congress so that we do not spend
$8 billion to again place the Everglades last in line.
Second, neither version of the assurances language provides an
adequate role for the Department of the Interior in CERP's
implementation and management. Indeed, ``Assurances Language No. 2''
provides the Interior Department with no role in CERP implementation
and management. For the reasons already stated, this is not acceptable.
The Administration's assurances language does provide Interior with
a concurrence role in the programmatic regulations. But it provides
Interior only a consultative role in development of project specific
regulations, which is the primary means by which the restoration
project will be implemented. This consultative role is little more than
Interior's current role in a process that has regularly failed the
Everglades. Interior needs to be a co-equal partner in development of
specific regulations for least those new project features that are
intended to provide benefits for lands it manages.
Third, the Senate discussion draft ``Assurances Language No. 2''
version fails to include provisions for development of critical
programmatic regulations that will help ensure that the intended level
of restoration is accomplished and that such restoration is, and
remains, CERP's No. 1 priority.
Question 6. Can you describe your view of the purpose of an
independent scientific peer review process led by National Academy of
Sciences'
Response. The legislation should institutionalize the current
Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem
(``CROGEE'') or a successor body to provide Congress and the agencies
with independent, scientific peer review of the restoration process
throughout the duration of the project. We have three objections to the
Senate draft bill's language. First, by failing to name CROGEE
specifically, the draft seems to suggest establishing a new panel. A
good panel is in place and, rather than start all over again, the bill
should incorporate CROGEE. Second, CROGEE's independence will suffer if
it is made subordinate to the Everglades Restoration Task Force, as in
the Senate draft bill. To be effective, CROGEE must be independent of
south Florida political interests. Third, the draft limits CROGEE's
reporting responsibilities to the Task Force. Given the scientific
uncertainties and large costs of the restoration project, the
legislation should require CROGEE to issue specific reports directly to
Congress.
Question 7. You indicate that the authorization should have a
process to expeditiously purchase lands under extreme development
pressure that are necessary for CERP projects. Can you outline what you
would suggest that is different from existing policy?
Response. We have known for some time that one of the best things
we can do for the Everglades is buy land now that will be needed for
restoration later. The Talisman acquisition is an important example
because had we waited until closer to the construction date, in all
likelihood the land needed for water storage in the EAA would not have
been available.
We believe that the process by which the State and Federal
Government purchase lands can be streamlined to increase efficiency and
the pace of acquisitions. Each acquisition has had its own series of
lengthy negotiations involving State and Federal agencies--primarily
the South Florida Water Management District and the Department of the
Interior.
We feel that each party should now understand the general needs of
the other party and should seek to agree on a set of principles that
can govern future acquisitions. Such principles should seek to
accommodate the jurisdictional requirements of the agencies and serve
as a formula for how future agreements would be constructed. Such a
process would enable us to avoid negotiating the same issues over and
over, but should have the necessary level of flexibility to address
specific needs of an individual acquisition.
Question 8. Can you elaborate on your final concern related to
commitment of CERP resources to projects that rely on pilots for
completion?
Response. In several cases, the CERP schedule calls for
implementation of costly projects before completion of their pilot
projects, even though the very point of the pilot projects is to test
the larger project's viability and to investigate significant potential
collateral impacts. For example, construction of reservoirs in the Lake
Belt area and related rock-mining is planned to proceed concurrent with
the pilot project for this water storage component, even though
significant questions exist about the component's viability, its
environmental impacts, and how to ensure adequate mitigation for
wetlands loss (the component will result in loss of thousands of
wetlands acres).
One of the proposals that has been discussed among various
constituencies is the use of State water law and regulatory processes
to issue assurances to the natural system and the human environment. Do
you participate in the development of these standards? If so, how?
Our role is limited to participating as citizens in the State
political process, including the legislative process, agency rulemaking
and on appointed citizen advisory board where applicable. The extent to
which the public and advocacy groups can participate and influence the
outcome of these processes is typically limited by their financial,
legal and political resources. These resources cannot, on an issue-by-
issue basis, compete with a specific affected economic interest such as
the sugar industry, mining and development interests etc.
The State has Chapter 373 authority to issue consumptive use
permits, minimum flows and levels, and reservations of the natural
system for almost 30 years. To date, the State has only issued
consumptive use permits. If Congress chose to use the State water law
and regulatory processes to issue assurances, how would you provide
comfort to Congress that the State process would ever move forward?
In our view, the only way to provide comfort that the State may
move forward with water reservations for the natural system in a manner
consistent with the restoration of federally protected lands, is to
require that a programmatic regulatory process be undertaken under
Federal law.
Question 9. You do not focus specifically on water quality in your
testimony. Can you elaborate on your view as to whether the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan includes a process to address
water quality needs of the natural and human environment?
Response. The conceptual plan as it now stands does not adequately
address water quality concerns. Water quality will be addressed in all
of the components of the CERP program, consistent with applicable water
quality law, but care must be taken throughout the entire restoration
project to coordinate the water quality components of the projects so
that the overall effect is a comprehensive water quality program. Great
care must be taken to ensure that when the construction of all of the
components is completed, they and related compliance efforts will
address water quality in a comprehensive way.
______
Responses by David Guggenheim to Additional Questions from Senator Mack
Question 1. Do you support applying section 902 of the 1986 Water
Resources Development Act to all features of the Comprehensive Plan
before us today? [This provision requires a congressional review if a
project exceeds 120 percent of the authorized cost.]
Response. We have no objection, but as noted in our written
testimony we believe that tracking the cost and progress of projects
can be greatly enhanced by requiring more frequent reports to Congress.
The Administration's bill proposed such reports no less than every 5
years, which we believe will result in reports being produced every 5
years. We recommend that these reports be required every 2 years to
better track the traditional WRDA legislative calendar.
Question 2. Do you support congressional committee review and
approval of the feasibility level of engineering and design work before
any construction can begin on the initial suite of ten projects in the
Comprehensive Plan?
Response. We understand and respect the desire of the committee and
of Congress to preserve its oversight role, but we caution against
using it as a reason to not move forward this year. Many of the studies
on the specifications of each project remain to be performed, but they
will be completed before work begins. We could therefore support a
process that preserves construction schedules and protects
congressional oversight responsibilities.
Question 3. Do you support requiring full feasibility studies
before any other projects are authorized under the Comprehensive Plan?
Response. Yes, we support requiring full feasibility studies before
any other projects are authorized.
Question 4. Do you support modifying the definition of the South
Florida Ecosystem to make clear the system includes the lands and
waters within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District as they existed on July 1, 1999?
Response. To adequately and comprehensively restore the Everglades,
all lands within the boundary of the South Florida Water Management
District boundary must be included in the project. However, the
northern reaches of the Indian River Lagoon system and Charlotte Harbor
are not within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District, but could be impacted (positively or negatively) by the
restoration efforts. Therefore political boundaries will not always
adequately define the ecological boundaries of the project.
Question 5. Do you support a provision making clear the Corps of
Engineers is only authorized to study the question about providing an
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water to the natural system?
Response. We would support language that makes it clear that the
delivery of an additional 240,000 acre-feet of water to Everglades
National Park and Biscayne National Park, while necessary for
restoration purposes, is not authorized until a FIR for said delivery
is completed and until Congress reviews and authorizes its
implementation. We believe that there is no justification for
restricting the actions of the Corps on this issue in WRDA 2000 to
``study only''. The team of scientists who developed the Comprehensive
Plan agreed that this water is being wasted to tide and should be
captured to make up wet season shortfalls in Everglades National Park
if the negative impacts associated with its delivery, including water
quality, conveyance, and impacts on other parts of the ecosystem could
be resolved. If resolution of these issues can be reached, then a PIR
process should be allowed to move forward with the subsequent goal
being a congressional authorization of such a project.
Question 6. Do you support language making it clear that the Corps
must work with the State of Florida to ensure all groundwater
discharges resulting from the Comprehensive Plan meet all applicable
water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements?
Response. We would support such language, on the conditions that
the Environmental Protection Agency is also included in groundwater
quality control efforts to the extent that the agency's authority
allows, and that responsible parties must still comply will all
applicable current laws and regulations concerning such discharges.
Question 7. Do you support replacing the project purposes language
stated in (c)(l) of the administration's draft with language restating
the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan developed and passed in WRDA
1996?
Response. WRDA 1996 directed the Secretary of the Army to ``develop
as expeditiously as practicable a proposed Comprehensive Plan for the
purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the South Florida
ecosystem. The Comprehensive Plan shall provide for the protection of
water quality in, and the reduction of the loss of fresh water from,
the Everglades. The Comprehensive Plan shall include such features as
are necessary to provide for the water related needs of the region,
including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other
objectives served by the Central & Southern Florida Project.'' In 1996
we were comfortable with this language because we felt that it clearly
directs the Secretary of the Army to develop an ecosystem restoration
plan while giving the Secretary the discretion to determine whether
other project features were necessary to continue to meet the other
C&SF Project purposes. We thought that this language made it abundantly
clear that the primary and overarching purpose of the Comprehensive
Plan is to restore the Everglades.
Unfortunately, we have been frustrated that this language was
interpreted by the State of Florida and by the Jacksonville District of
the Corps, during the development of the CERP, to mean that the
Comprehensive Plan has three co-equal purposes. That has never been our
interpretation of WRDA 1996, a view that we have made clear at every
restoration forum, including the Governor's Commission for a
Sustainable South Florida. In light of the popular interpretation of
the WRDA 1996 language, we strongly believe that the WRDA 2000 project
purpose language must add clarity to the WRDA 1996 language to ensure
that the purpose of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
remains the restoration of the American Everglades. While we restore
the American Everglades the comprehensive plan will continue to meet
other C&SF project purposes.
Question 8. Do you support additional programmatic authority for
the Corps to construct projects of limited cost but are in keeping with
the Plan's purposes and have independent and substantial benefit to
Everglades restoration?
Response. In several cases, the CERP schedule calls for
implementation of costly projects before completion of their pilot
projects, even though the very point of the pilot projects is to test
the larger project's viability and to investigate significant potential
collateral impacts. For example, construction of reservoirs in the Lake
Belt area and related rock-mining is planned to proceed concurrent with
the pilot project for this water storage component, even though
significant questions exist about the component's viability, its
environmental impacts, and how to ensure adequate mitigation for
wetlands loss (the component will result in loss of thousands of
wetlands acres).
Question 9. Do you support a 50/50 cost share between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operation and maintenance of the
project? If not, please state the cost share you believe to be
appropriate and why.
Response. Yes, we support a 50/50 cost share between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida on operation and maintenance of the
project.
Question 10. Please provide your thoughts on the definition of
Project Implementation Reports found in the Administration's language.
Do you support this definition? If not, please provide suggestions as
to how you would define these reports.
Response. We generally support the definition upon the condition
that the project-specific regulations to be developed for each
component be part of the PIR.
Question 11. Do you believe the Department of Interior and the
State of Florida should be on equal footing in developing any
regulations related to assurances? If not, why?
Response. We believe that the Department of the Interior should
have a primary role in the development of specific assurances that will
ensure the restoration of federally managed lands, including Everglades
National Park and Biscayne National Park. This role is appropriate and
necessary because:
1. The Interior Department has legal responsibility and particular
scientific expertise concerning these lands--approximately 40 percent
of the Everglades watershed.
2. The plight of these lands has drawn the country's attention to
the need to restore the American Everglades.
3. The Federal investment to save these lands warrants the
participation of relevant agencies, especially Interior's role as a
primary steward of public lands.
4. The American Everglades have been historically disadvantaged by
water management in south Florida (relative to consumptive users) and
require specific Federal protections.
Question 12. Do you support the reporting requirement in the
administration's bill? If not, how would you amend the reporting
requirement?
Response. As previously indicated, we recommend that these reports
be required every 2 years to better track the traditional WRDA
legislative calendar. These reports constitute the only regular
government evaluation of this project currently contemplated. They will
serve as a ``State of Everglades Restoration'' report and, as such,
should be required more frequently than every 5 years.
Specifically, the reports should be timed so that Congress has the
benefit of a review by the CROGEE/National Academy of Sciences panel
prior to considering additional project authorizations in a WRDA bill.
__________
May 11, 2000.
The Honorable Bob Smith, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
RE: Lake Worth Drainage District's Testimony on the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for allowing the opportunity to
testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (``CERP''). I am the
Manager for the Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD) and my comments
today are made on behalf of the Lake Worth Drainage District Board of
Supervisors and landowners. I previously submitted testimony on CERP at
the committee's Naples Field Hearing in January, 2000. I appreciate
being given the opportunity to supplement that testimony now that the
Administration has released its CERP Authorization language as a part
of the Water Resources Development Act for 2000 (``WRDA 2000'').
As in my prior testimony I want to begin by commending the Army
Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District (Corps) and the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) staff who spent considerable time and
resources working to put CERP together. The LWDD also spent a
significant amount of time and resources participating in the
development of CERP by attendance at Corps briefings of the SFWMD
Governing Board and at the various public meetings and workshops. Until
the release of Alternative D13R1-4, LWDD was under the impression that
there were no substantial conflicts between the recommended plan and
the operational mission of the LWDD.
However, after review of Alternative D13R1-4, LWDD became very
concerned that CERP will significantly impact LWDD's ability to provide
protection from flooding for the residential, agricultural, municipal
and industrial users in its service area. Despite LWDD's
recommendations that the Corps not include Alternative D13R1-4 in any
plan that moved forward for consideration by the Congress this
Alternative was included in the Appendices to the Comprehensive Plan
and was also discussed in detail in the Chief of Engineer's Report
which presented the Comprehensive Plan to Congress. LWDD provided
testimony to your committee in January, 2000 to explain why we believe
the committee should not authorize a Comprehensive Plan which includes
Alternative D13R1-4 or potentially commits an additional 245,000 acre
feet of water to the Everglades National Park without detailed study.
LWDD is supplementing that testimony today in light of the
authorization language for CERP included in the Administration's WRDA
2000 Bill.
i. characteristics of lwdd
LWDD is an independent taxing district of the State of Florida
created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, and special act for
the purpose of providing water control, including flood protection and
water supply within its boundaries for urban and agricultural
development. LWDD is located in southeast Florida and makes up a large
portion of Palm Beach County. The boundaries of LWDD stretch
approximately from Okeechobee Boulevard in the north, to Water
Conservation Area Number One (WCA-1) to the west, south to the
Hillsboro Canal and east to the E-4 Canal.
The LWDD system contains six main equalizing canals running in a
north-south direction and over 50 smaller lateral canals oriented in an
east-west direction. These canals provide flood protection to
residential, agricultural and industrial interests as well as
satisfying public water supply, domestic, agricultural, commercial,
golf course and landscaping water use demands. LWDD contains a service
area of 218 square miles with 511 miles of canals. It provides flood
protection to over 700,000 residents and over 20,000 acres of
agricultural row crops. LWDD further provides recharge to the Surficial
and Biscayne aquifers preventing saline intrusion from the coast.
ii. alternative d13r1-4
This alternative proposes utilizing the LWDD facilities which
currently discharge north and east to divert water in the opposite
direction (to the south and west) for the benefit of the Everglades
National Park. The precise benefit to the Everglades National Park
needs to be determined before such a massive overhaul of the LWDD canal
system is made. The flood protection, water quality and water supply
implications from such an overhaul must also be studied before Congress
authorizes this additional commitment.
While LWDD recognizes the needs of the Everglades National Park and
the corresponding benefit to the Lake Worth Lagoon from the provision
of additional water, LWDD has specific concerns with Alternative D13R1-
4 relating to flood protection, water quality, water supply and funding
which have not been addressed. I discussed these concerns in detail in
my January, 2000 testimony before the committee. Therefore, for the
purpose of today's Hearing I will focus on the Administration's
proposed WRDA 2000 Bill, specifically the authorization language for
CERP.
iii. cerp authorization language
The Administration's proposed WRDA Bill is unlike any I have ever
seen regarding the C&SF Project. It appears to be more of a policy bill
providing for the Federal takeover of water allocation in South Florida
rather than a public works authorization bill based on sound
engineering principles. The sections which require additional attention
and in some cases substantial redrafting are as follows:
The ``Assuring Project Benefits'' language at Section
3(i) attempts to redefine the original authorization of the C&SF
Project, as originally defined in the 1948 WRDA and all subsequent WRDA
laws, to make flood control and water supply secondary to restoring and
protecting the ``natural system''. This is unacceptable.
Section 3(a)(3) defines the ``Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan'' to include the Chief's Report. The Chief's Report is
not a consensus document. Inclusion of the Chief's Report in the
definition of CERP is unacceptable. CERP should be defined to refer
solely to the Plan contained within the Final Integrated Feasibility
Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, April 1999.
Section 3(c)(2)(A) directs the Corps to carry out CERP
subject to the conditions contained in the Chief's Report. Again, the
Chief's Report is not a consensus document and is opposed by most
interests in South Florida. Carrying out CERP subject to the Chief's
Report's conditions is particularly problematic to LWDD because of the
Chief's potential commitment to send 245,000 acre-feet of additional
flow to the Everglades National Park by way of major modifications to
LWDD's system. Reference to the Chief's Report should be removed and
the authorization should refer only to the April 1999 Plan.
If the references to the Chief's Report are not removed
from the CERP authorization, language must be included to provide
limitations on the Chief's Report's commitment to provide the
additional 245,000 acre feet of water. Specifically, language will have
to be added to the CERP authorization language requiring: ``a detailed
two-part scientific study that documents, through a full, open and
public process, the system-wide environmental impacts of providing the
additional flow, and a comprehensive analysis of the structural
facilities proposed to provide the flow which includes the engineering,
economic and physical requirements to divert and treat urban runoff
while maintaining flood protection to adjacent private property.''
Section 3(i) relates to ``Assuring Project Benefits'',
such assurances continue to be of utmost importance to all water users
in South Florida. This section puts the Secretary of the Interior in
charge of dedicating and managing the water made available from CERP
and all C&SF project features from prior WRDAs. This is unacceptable.
Section 3(i) also creates a process that puts the
Department of the Army and the Department of Interior in charge of
writing a new set of rules for identifying the amount of water to be
dedicated and managed for the natural system from the C&SF project as
authorized by CERP and in all prior WRDAs. The Governor of Florida is
not given the same footing as the Department of the Army and the
Department of Interior in developing these rules, even though Florida
is to pay more than Congress for CERP. This process is unacceptable.
The State of Florida should be on an equal footing with the Department
of the Army and the Department of the Interior in the development of
any criteria to provide the water necessary to restore, preserve and
protect the South Florida Ecosystem while providing for the other water
related needs of the region.
Section 3(g)(1) appears to reduce the scope of the
Project Implementation Reports, which were set forth in CERP to
evaluate the economic, engineering, environmental and social impacts
that were not done as a part of the Final Integrated Feasibility
Report. CERP should continue to require that the PIRs provide the
detailed evaluation requirements as described in Chapter 10 of CERP.
Specifically, the Chief of Engineers has made a commitment to submit a
PIR on the issue of additional flow to the Everglades National Park,
this PIR should also continue to require the detailed evaluation
requirements of the PIR as described in Chapter 10 of CERP.
The theme of this bill does not appear to be restoration of the
South Florida Ecosystem through a consensus public works project. It
appears to be the initiation of a Federal takeover of water allocation
and the operation of flood control facilities in the 16 counties of the
SFWMD. Major changes will need to be made for the CERP authorization
language to have a chance of gaining broad support in Florida.
iv. conclusion
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan remains
timely and necessary to assure the protection of the Everglades and
future water supply for the people of South Florida.
The commitment by the Chief of Engineers to provide
245,000 acre-feet of additional flow to Everglades National Park, above
the unprecedented increases already provided by the Recommended Plan,
is a breach of understanding with stakeholders who participated in the
development of the Plan. This commitment should be flatly rejected by
Congress.
Diverting urban runoff from West Palm Beach through the
LWDD canal system for the benefit of the Everglades National Park is
not practical, and may not even be possible, given the number of
existing public and private facilities that would have to be abandoned
or significantly modified.
Florida water law mandates a balanced approach to the allocation of
water. Human needs are to be considered along with the environmental
needs in making a decision as to where the water will go. To authorize
CERP in accordance with the Administration's proposed language is
contrary to the directives of the State and Federal environmental
agencies. The LWDD is firmly opposed to congressional authorization of
CERP as set forth in the Administration's proposal for WRDA 2000.
The Federal Government and the State of Florida have embarked on
the most far-reaching changes to the Everglades since 1949. When
implemented, CERP and the Everglades Forever Act will change the
hydrology and water quality characteristics of the entire system. At
this point, Congress should concentrate on authorizing a design that
works for the whole system while maintaining the integrity of each one
of the C&SF project's primary purposes: flood control, water supply for
municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, water supply for the
Everglades National Park, prevention of saltwater intrusion, and the
protection of fish and wildlife resources. LWDD looks forward to
working with each member of your committee to identify authorization
language that works for the entire system without jeopardizing the
current flood protection provided by the C&SF project in combination
with LWDD's canal system.
Again, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify
before the committee today.
Sincerely yours,
William G. Winters, Manager,
Lake Worth Drainage District.
______
impacts to lwdd
Based on the preliminary design in Alternative D13R1-4 by the Corps
the LWDD has evaluated that it will take the following to create the
additional flow to the Everglades National Park by way of LWDD's canal
system:
The complete redirection of water flows in two major LWDD
canals.
New Control Structures on numerous lateral canals.
Up to 48 miles of new right of way acquisition for canal
excavation requiring the taking of 875 acres by eminent domain through
property that is now fully developed.
Twenty-four new highway and secondary bridge crossings
for the redirected canals, including two interchanges on the Ronald
Reagan Turnpike.
A total cost of over $420,000,000 is not reflected in the
current estimate for the Restudy.
The Chief's report does not provide additional flood
protection.
A POTENTIAL TAX INCREASE OF 477 percent TO LWDD RESIDENTS.
itemized costs within lwdd
The table below estimates the costs that can be expected within the
boundaries of the LWDD. Operation and maintenance costs have not been
included.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Quantity Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canal Enlargement........... 48 Miles............ $177,408,000
New Pump Stations........... 4................... $36,500,000
Control Structures.......... ?45................. $24,350,000
New Bridges................. 24.................. $35,840,000
Real Estate................. ?875 acres.......... $56,875,000
Houses/Apartments........... ?200................ $90,000.000
TOTAL................... .................... $420,973,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wherever possible, costs were adapted from estimates in the Army Corps
C&SF Restudy.
Other costs were adapted from LWDD structural data, bridge cost source--
FDOT.
__________
Citizens for a Sound Economy,
May 11, 2000.
The Honorable Bob Smith, Chairman,
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
Senator Smith: Citizens for a Sound Economy is grateful for the
opportunity to provide the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee with comments on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan included in S. 2437, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
While CSE often has been outspoken in our criticism of the
Comprehensive Plan, formerly called the Re-Study, we do have some areas
of agreement with this legislation:
(1) We certainly agree with the statement in subsection (1) of the
Findings that the Everglades is a national treasure, and that the South
Florida ecosystem has been endangered by adverse changes in quantity,
quality, distribution, and timing of water flows.
(2) We also agree with the proposition in subsection (2) of the
Findings that the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) project plays an
important role in the economy of South Florida, and that modifications
to this project will be necessary as the population of South Florida
grows.
We also have a number of disagreements with the legislation, with
the Final Implementation Plan upon which it is based, and with the
overall manner in which the Comprehensive Plan is being advanced:
(1) We disagree strongly with subsection (4) of the Findings, which
refers to the Plan as being ``scientifically and economically sound.''
There are critical information gaps remaining with regard to the
science, especially with regard to Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)
wells and wastewater reuse technology. In addition, cost projections
have risen dramatically over the past several years, from an initial
estimate of perhaps $1 billion to a current estimate of at least $7.8
billion if not $11 billion.
(2) We also disagree with the statement in subsection (6) of the
Findings that the Plan will ``significantly'' improve the quantity,
quality, distribution, and timing of water. The Corps of Engineers
itself admits that they cannot predict how the Plan will affect
ecosystems, much like no one realized how the original C&SF project
would affect the environment. To quote from Section O, page 13 of the
Final Implementation Plan: ``There is a very real, and to a great
extent, unresolvable uncertainty about what the new ecosystem will look
like. Because no one knows for sure what the ecosystem will look like,
no one knows for sure what the hydropattern required to produce it will
look like. Moreover, we do not know with certainty what the linkages
between hydropatterns and the ecosystem are.''
(3) We do not believe Congress should approve the Comprehensive
Plan as it is laid out in this bill. Should the committee decide to
move ahead with the Plan, we believe it is imperative that the initial
authorization not include any components beyond the pilot projects. To
be exact, the 11 projects in sub section (C) of the Specific
Authorizations should not be authorized until we have empirical results
from the pilot projects. This is particularly important since, as both
the Corps of Engineers and members of this committee have said, once
you start implementing the Plan you can't stop until it's finished, 20
to 30 years from now. In other words, once the initial batch of
implementation projects have begun, Congress has irrevocably committed
itself to the entire Comprehensive Plan. By the time pilot projects are
complete, not until 2011 in one case, it will be far too late to turn
back. Congress would have no choice but to continue throwing good money
after bad. Essentially, Congress will have given the Corps of Engineers
a blank check.
Two pilot projects in particular stand out: ASR and wastewater
reuse. These two technologies are so central to the Comprehensive Plan
that if pilot projects prove unsuccessful, the entire Plan as written
cannot work. Moving ahead without this data puts the entire Everglades
restoration program, and the people of South Florida, at risk.
(4) We disagree with the Programmatic Authority granted in
subsection (d) of the Specific Authorization. Once again, these
components should not be allowed to move forward without solid
empirical data from pilot projects proving their viability.
(5) We also disagree with the proposition that the primary and
overarching purpose of the Plan is restoration of natural systems. The
overarching purpose of the plan, at least publicly, has seemed to vary
depending on the audience. We hope that in this legislation, the water
needs of the people actually living in South Florida will be considered
just as important as any other aspect.
(6) Finally, we must criticize the legislation, and the entire
Comprehensive Plan, for a sin of omission. There is no mention of
providing the residents of the 8.5 square mile area with the flood
protection that they were guaranteed a decade ago. The residents of
this area are primarily Hispanic, and came to this country looking to
escape oppression and find the American dream. Instead, they have found
a system that, to some, seems little different from what they left
behind. They have turned to Congress for help, often literally in
tears, only to find dead end after dead end. The Comprehensive Plan,
once again, leaves these Americans out in the cold, or in this case,
under water.
We know that a great many people have put a great deal of time,
effort, and resources into developing the Comprehensive Plan. However,
history will not pass judgment on how large of a plan was implemented,
but on how successful that plan was. If we believe that this plan is
the last chance to save the Everglades, we must make sure that as many
of the remaining uncertainties as possible are resolved. Should we
discover 10 years down the road that critical components of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan are not working as predicted,
it will be too late. The Plan will have failed and the Everglades will
be gone.
__________
Statement of the Honorable Alex Penelas, Mayor of Miami-Dade County And
M.R. Stierheim, County Manager of Miami-Dade County
Chairman Smith, Senator Caucus, Senator Graham and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Administration's bill to authorize the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP), as contained in the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000. We applaud Governor Bush and the Florida
Legislature for its unanimous approval of the Everglades Restoration
Investment Act and its appropriation of funding to begin the
implementation of the CERP. We also recognize the diligent work of
Congress and the Federal agencies in bringing together the parties
involved in the restoration effort.
Miami-Dade County is in a unique position in this country. We are
the only large urban area in the Nation located between two national
parks, each with different environmental and ecological needs. We are
home to more than 2 million residents. In 1998, more than 9 million
overnight travelers visited our area. These residents and visitors,
along with local businesses, rely on the underground Biscayne Aquifer
as their sole source of drinking water. That Aquifer depends Ott the
South Florida and Everglades ecosystems for its sustenance,
replenishment and viability.
By Resolution No. 300-00, passes, and adopted on March 21, 2000,
the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously
to recognize the importance of a restored Everglades as a national,
state and regional priority. A copy of that Resolution is attached. As
further detailed below, the Resolution identifies our concerns with the
CERP as it addresses the equitable distribution of water, funding
proposals, flood protection assurances, the investigation of
alternative sources of water and technologically uncertain components
of the CERP. Therefore, we request you consider the following concerns.
Water Supply Equity
Project benefit assurances should provide equal importance to the
needs of the South Florida region for improvement of the ecosystem
environment, flood protection and crater supply. The long-term success
of the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem drill rely on the
ability of the Federal, state and local agencies to work in
partnership. This includes recognition of the water supply and flood
protection needs of the existing and future residents and businesses in
Soup Florida. The proposed components of the CEDE must maintain or
enhance existing levels of flood protection in all urban, agricultural
and environmental preservation areas.
Financial Equity
As of 1995, almost one-fourth of the County's residents revere at
or below the poverty level. Our resident, include a majority population
of economically disadvantaged immigrants, senior citizens and
minorities, who can ill afford to pay increased rates for beater
service. As further explained in the next paragraph, the CERP assumes
that very expensive facilities ``will be constructed by Miami-Dade
County with no Federal participation whatsoever, while similar
facilities constructed elsewhere in the South Florida area will receive
Federal assistance. This is inequitable to the residents of Miami-Dade
County.
One critical factor in restoring the South Florida ecosystem is to
store excess mater instead of discharging it to the ocean via the canal
network. This storage increases the amount of water available and
significantly enhances our ability to meet future needs of both the
natural system and urban land uses. The CERP depends heavily upon
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), a technology that stores excess
water in the Upper Floridan aquifer for later use, and includes the
assumption that Miami-Dade County will depend upon ASR to provide 150
million gallons of water per day. Unfortunately, the ASR within Miami-
Dade County was assumed to be in the future condition for the CERP and,
therefore, is not currently eligible for Federal funding. The benefits
provided by that ASR are the same as those provided by the other ASR
components included in the CERP and, therefore, we request that the ASR
within Miami-Dade County be eligible for a 50 percent match from the
Federal Government on its construction, operation and maintenance.
The CERP contains a large number of components that together
accomplish restoration of the South Florida ecosystem and directly
benefit Federal lands including Everglades National Park, Biscayne
National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, and the Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge. State lands such as the Water Conservation
Areas, the Water Preserve Areas, and the South Dade Wetlands also
benefit. These natural systems and their restoration are of
international as well as national importance. Therefore, we recommend
that, in addition to construction costs, the costs for operation,
maintenance repair, replacement and rehabilitation for all CERP
components be shared equally between the Federal Government and the
non-Federal sponsor.
Technologically Uncertain and Expensive Components
Many of the technically uncertain and expensive components in the
CERP, such a inground reservoirs, seepage management, and wastewater
reuse, are proposed to be located with Miami-Dade County. These
components have the potential to impact general hydrology and water
quality in the County. To address the technical uncertainties, the CERP
proposes that pilot projects be conducted to better understand the
feasibility of constructing the component and the potential impacts
that a full-scale project may cause. It is imperative that Miami-Dade
County participates in the design and implementation of the pilot
projects to verify that its concerns are adequately addressed.
Therefore, we request that the Act specify a process for developing and
implementing pilot projects and clarify the formal points of entry into
the process.
The wastewater reuse component also is subject to uncertainties.
Current Federal regulatory restrictions prohibit Miami-Dade County from
utilizing recently constructed underground injection wells for the
disposal of treated effluent. By state lam wastewater reuse plants are
required to have an alternative source of disposal for those periods in
which reuse water is not needed for the natural or human environment,
such as during the rainy seasons. In Miami-Dade County, the two
proposed reuse plants would rely on similar injections wells to dispose
of unneeded reuse water. Under current conditions, these reuse plants,
if constructed, could not be operated. Miami-Dade County is seeking the
resolution of this issue with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
We also request that guidance language be included to emphasize the
importance and encourage expeditious implementation of further
evaluations in certain areas. Due to strict timeframes in the
development of the CERP, there was not adequate time to complete all
the evaluations thoroughly or to wait for the development of final
restoration targets for all natural areas. We wish to emphasize the
importance and encourage the implementation of (1) the investigation
of, in conjunction with the implementation of the Wastewater Reuse
Technology pilot project, potential sources of water other than reuse,
for providing freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay focusing on loon cost
alternatives; (2) refinement of Me quality, quantity, timing, and
distribution of freshwater flows needed to provide and maintain the
fishery resources, recreational opportunities, and overall health of
Biscayne Bay; and (3) farther evaluation of whether restoration targets
can be better achieved in the Lower C-111/Model Lands Basins. We
recognize that the CERP requires these activities but ask that Congress
restate their importance which will assist in prioritizing those
activities.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Act.
EVERGLADES RESTORATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
GAO STUDY OF WATER QUALITY ISSUES
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
406, Senate Dirksen Building, Honorable George V. Voinovich
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Inhofe, Smith, and Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Good morning. I am pleased that you are
all able to testify this morning on the GAO investigation of
the Everglades and water quality issues. I welcome in panel one
Mr. Barry Hill, Associate Director of Energy Resources and
Science Issues, United States General Accounting Office; and in
panel two I would like to welcome Mr. Michael Davis, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and Mr. David
Struhs, Commissioner, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
This year, I have invested many hours of time on the
Everglades, and, in particular, the Comprehensive Restoration
Plan. I am unequivocally committed to the fact that the
Everglades are a national treasure that must be protected and
restored. Having said that, my detailed review of this largely
conceptual plan has also convinced me that it was rushed to
this Congress for consideration.
A cursory review of this document shows that it lacks the
specificity of a traditional feasibility report. For instance,
it lacks a complete analysis of the water quality aspects of
the Plan. Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem will
involve restoring the appropriate quantity, quality, timing,
and distribution of water to the natural system. This
restoration effort raises a number of serious questions to me.
First, is the Plan adequate to address water quality
concerns in the Everglades natural system? Second, what is the
magnitude of the likely additional investment required to
achieve adequate water quality for restoration of the
Everglades natural system? Third, what is the expectation of
the State of Florida about Federal participation in the
additional investment that will be needed to achieve
appropriate water quality for the natural system?
I asked the GAO to review the big picture of Everglades
restoration and water quality issues on March 29 at a time when
my colleagues and I began to take a close look at the
Comprehensive Restoration Plan. At that time there were a lot
of unanswered questions about how much this would cost and how
the package would be put together.
Additionally, I am pleased that GAO was able to act on my
request in a swift manner and produce this informative report.
In its report, GAO lists several uncertainties in the Plan that
will likely lead to additional water quality projects that
could increase the total cost of the Plan over the Corps'
current estimate of $7.8 billion. For example, the report
suggests that the Corps could have a role in future efforts to
improve water quality, such as the cleanup of Lake Okeechobee,
which is estimated to cost approximately $1 billion. I think it
is clear from this report that there are too many unknowns and
uncertainties in the Plan to estimate what the final price tag
will be.
As authorizers, we need to stay on top of this. This is why
I am conducting this hearing today. I cannot emphasize enough
the fact that the Corps currently has a construction backlog
which consists of over 500 active projects with Federal cost to
complete of about $38 billion. When the Everglades restoration
is considered, this backlog includes the $5.4 billion Federal
share of work within the State of Florida, representing about
14 percent of the backlog across the country.
With the construction appropriations for the Corps
averaging about $1.6 billion a year in the 1990's, there is not
enough money to accomplish all of the proposed work in the
State of Florida and address the water resources needs of the
rest of the nation. Unless the Corps' construction
appropriations is substantially increased to meet these needs,
the State of Florida in particular and the Nation in general
are going to have to make some very difficult and painful
decisions on priorities.
The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Army provide
the Congress with updates that reflect the cumulative project
and cost changes to the overall Plan and indicate the progress
being made toward implementing the Plan. GAO recommends that
these updates should be made at the same time as Congress
considers the Corps' biennial WRDA proposals. I look forward to
hearing from GAO this morning about how this recommendation
differs from the reporting requirement that has been included
in the WRDA 2000 bill on the Everglades.
In addition, I would also like to hear from our witnesses
today about opportunities to save costs on the Everglades
restoration project and how costs will be shared between the
State and Federal Government if more water quality projects are
identified.
On a side note, I am pleased that after months of hard
work, the Senate will soon begin floor consideration of the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000, legislation that I
have sponsored and which includes a $1.4 billion authorization
for the Everglades. Perhaps we will even consider it today--at
least we're scheduled to consider the bill today.
So I am saying to some of the advocates here: We have to
get down to reality. These projects are important, but they are
just going to be talked about unless we can come up with some
more money on the Federal side to move forward on it.
Again, I would like to thank all today's witness for coming
to testify on the GAO investigation on the Everglades and water
quality issues. I look forward to your testimony and responses
to any questions that may follow.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the State of
Ohio
Good morning. I am pleased that you are all able to testify this
morning on the GAO investigation of the Everglades and water quality
issues. I welcome in Panel I, Mr. Barry Hill, Associate Director of
Energy Resources and Science Issues, United States General Accounting
Office; and in Panel II, I would like to welcome Mr. Michael Davis,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and Mr. David
Struhs, Commissioner, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
This year, I have invested many hours of time on the Everglades,
and, in particular, the Comprehensive Restoration Plan. I am
unequivocally committed to the fact that the Everglades are a national
treasure that must be protected and restored. Having said that, my
detailed review of this largely conceptual plan has also convinced me
that it was rushed to this Congress for consideration.
A cursory review of this document shows that it lacks the
specificity of a traditional feasibility report. For instance, it lacks
a complete analysis of the water quality aspects of the Plan.
Restoration of the South Florida ecosystem will involve restoring the
appropriate quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water to the
natural system. This restoration effort raises a number of serious
questions to me. First, is the Plan adequate to address water quality
concerns in the Everglades natural system? Second, what is the
magnitude of the likely additional investment required to achieve
adequate water quality for restoration of the Everglades natural
system? Third, what is the expectation of the State of Florida about
Federal participation in the additional investment that will be needed
to achieve appropriate water quality for the natural system?
I asked the GAO to review the big picture of Everglades restoration
and water quality issues on March 29 at a time when my colleagues and I
began to take a close look at the Comprehensive Restoration Plan. At
that time there were a lot of unanswered questions about how much this
would cost and how the package would be put together.
Additionally, I am pleased that GAO was able to act on my request
in a swift manner and produce this informative report. In its report,
GAO lists several uncertainties in the Plan that will likely lead to
additional water quality projects that could increase the total cost of
the Plan over the Corp's current estimate of $7.8 billion. For example,
the report suggests that the Corps could have a role in future efforts
to improve water quality, such as the cleanup of Lake Okeechobee, which
is estimated to cost approximately $1 billion. I think it is clear from
this report that there are too many unknowns and uncertainties in the
Plan to estimate what the final price tag will be.
As authorizers, we need to stay on top of this. This is why I am
conducting this hearing today. I cannot emphasize enough the fact that
the Corps currently has a construction backlog which consists of over
500 active projects with Federal cost to complete of about $38 billion.
When the Everglades restoration is considered, this backlog includes
the $5.4 billion Federal share of work within the State of Florida,
representing about 14 percent of the backlog across the country.
With the construction appropriations for the Corps averaging about
$1.6 billion a year in the 1990's, there is not enough money to
accomplish all of the proposed work in the State of Florida and address
the water resources needs of the rest of the nation. Unless the Corps'
construction appropriations is substantially increased to meet these
needs, the State of Florida in particular and the Nation in general are
going to have to make some very difficult and painful decisions on
priorities.
The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Army provide the
Congress with updates that (1) reflect the cumulative project and cost
changes to the overall Plan and (2) indicate the progress being made
toward implementing the Plan. GAO recommends that these updates should
be made at the same time as Congress considers the Corps' biennial WRDA
proposals. I look forward to hearing from GAO this morning about how
this recommendation differs from the reporting requirement that has
been included in the WRDA 2000 bill on the Everglades.
In addition, I would also like to hear from our witnesses today
about opportunities to save costs on the Everglades restoration project
and how costs will be shared between the state and Federal Government
if more water quality projects are identified.
On a side note, I am pleased that after months of hard work, the
Senate will soon begin floor consideration of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000, legislation that I have sponsored and which
includes a $1.4 billion authorization for the Everglades. Perhaps we
will even consider it today--at least we're scheduled to consider the
bill today.
Again, I would like to thank all our today's witness for coming to
testify on the GAO investigation on the Everglades and water quality
issues. I look forward to your testimony and responses to any questions
that may follow.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Inhofe, you came in early and
the early bird----
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. I enjoyed your last remarks and
I agree with everything you said. The only thing I don't agree
with is your conclusion, after having said that, that you are
supporting it. It seems like all these problems you pointed out
are the very problems that I am going to point out.
I think we are setting some precedents here that I worry
about for the future. I will just outline five so that I can be
sure to get them in the record.
One is the new precedent--at least new in the last 16
years--which requires the Federal Government to pay for a
portion of operations and maintenance costs. That is a
precedent because we haven't been doing that, to my knowledge,
since the change was made 16 years ago.
Second is the violation of the Committee on the Environment
and Public Works' policy concerning the need for a Chief of the
Army Corps of Engineer's report before project authorization.
This is something we always do. We are not doing it here, to my
knowledge.
The third is the basis of the restoration project on
unproven technology. That is kind of like the second point. One
of the reasons for a Corps report is to show that we are going
to use proven technology, so the things we say we are going to
do we have a reasonable expectation of being able to do it.
The fourth is the possibility--and I guess it is a done
deal now that this is going to put in as part of the Water bill
instead of a stand-alone bill. I think something of this
magnitude--in fact, I had a hold on it for a while for that
reason. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that something of this
magnitude should be in a stand-alone bill.
Last, the open-ended nature of the costs of the project,
$7.8 billion over 38 years. We all know what happens to these
estimates over a long period of time because I am old enough to
remember when Medicare came in back in 1967. It was going to be
$3.4 billion and this year are looking at $232 billion.
As the Everglades report states, ``A project of this size
is not without uncertainties.'' These projects and their costs
will be a moving target for many, many years to come. I know we
have some changes you have put in here that will require them
to come back, but here is the problem we have, Mr. Chairman. It
is kind of like Ronald Reagan said--``a rendezvous with
destiny''--back in 1965. He said that there is nothing closer
to immortality on the face of this earth than a Government
program once started. So once you get started, and then you
find out later on it was a mistake, you can't get out. I think
that may be what we are getting into here.
I would like very much to try to change the approach and
would like to ask some of my colleagues as to possibly handling
this as a stand-alone bill. I don't know that it is too late or
if the train has already gone by. But I do believe the
Everglades is a national treasure. I was there when a very
small child with my parents. I have been there since then. We
have a lot of other national treasures, too. I think if we
start out in some unprecedented approaches to a national
treasure, that I am going to be coming back in here with some
of ours and I think Senator Smith will be doing the same thing
from New Hampshire.
So I have those concerns over it, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
make sure that I got those into the record.
I would ask that my entire statement be made a part of the
record.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection, your prepared
statement will appear in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Opening Statement of Hon. Jim Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, in my dissenting view on S. 2797, the ``Restoring the
Everglades, An American Legacy Act,'' I outlined my concerns with this
legislation. While I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure,
S. 2797 sets precedents, which I can not, in good conscious, condone.
My concerns ranged from:
the new precedent which requires the Federal Government
to pay for a portion of operations and maintenance costs; to
the violation of Committee on the Environment and Public
Works' policy concerning the need for a Chief of the Army Corps of
Engineer's report before project authorization; to
the basis of the restoration project on unproven
technology; to
the strong possibility that the Restoring the Everglades,
An American Legacy Act will not be considered as a stand alone bill; to
the open-ended nature of the costs of this project.
Today's GAO testimony goes to the heart of this concern. The total
cost of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is estimated at
$7.8 billion over 38 years. This is the current estimate. I have
serious concerns about the potential for cost over runs associated with
this project. As with almost all Federal programs, this project will
probably cost much more at the end of the day. For example, in 1967,
when the Medicare program was passed by Congress, the program was
estimated to cost $3.4 billion. In 2000, the costs of the program are
estimated to $232 billion. No one could have foreseen this exponential
growth! The future cost of projects of this magnitude must be taken
into consideration by Congress before we pass legislation.
As the Everglades report states, ``A project of this size is not
without uncertainties.'' These projects and their costs will be a
moving target for many, many years to come. I understand that the Corps
has developed a process for incorporating project modifications and
additions in its future reports to Congress. However, in addition to
the current reporting requirements, I believe that the Corps should be
required to incorporate GAO's recommendations into their reporting
system, specifically providing Congress with information on: (1)
cumulative changes in projects and costs for the Everglades plan as a
whole and (2) the progress being made in implementing the Everglades
plan. I also agree with GAO--it would also be helpful to have this
information every 2 years--rather than the 5-year reporting cycle
called for in the Everglades legislation--so that as Congress considers
authorization for future Everglades projects, Congress can make
informed decisions concerning the expenditure of American tax dollars.
I would also like to reiterate my objection to the Committee's
action to attach the Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act
to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I know many advocates
of this plan argue that the Everglades should be a part of WRDA 2000.
The Everglades plan is hardly a typical WRDA project. Because of the
scale and departure from existing law and policy of the Everglades
legislation, it should be considered as a stand alone bill--not a
provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This is a
precedent setting bill. With Bayou Restoration and other plans in the
works, the Everglades will be a model for how we handle these enormous
ecological restoration projects in the future.
Again, I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure--as I do
many treasures in Oklahoma. As Congress considers the Everglades
restoration legislation, all I ask is that Congress play by the rules.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Smith?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing on the GAO report and asking for that
report. I think we should not be afraid to deal with the facts
as they come.
Before going to my specific opening statement, let me
respond to a couple of points.
We have said all along throughout this process that there
was uncertainty. There is uncertainty in life and risk in life.
The issue here is not about the concern about precedents as
much as it is--and these precedents we have made a point of
saying that these are not going to be precedents, that this is
a special case and a very sensitive environmental ecosystem.
The question really boils down to whether we at the Federal
Government level are willing to spend about $110 million a year
on average over the next 36 years to save the Everglades. That
is what the issue is.
If you want me or anyone else to say that we are
guaranteeing you that we are going to spend $110 million a year
for the next 36 years and we are going to save the Everglades,
the answer is no. I can't guarantee that. But what I can
guarantee you is if we don't try, we will not save the
Everglades and the Everglades will be gone. I have made that
point over and over and over again. If we want to go back and
go down through every one of these issues that have been
outlined here, then we won't save the Everglades. That is the
issue.
So for $110 million a year, with roughly 260 million
Americans, that doesn't cost much per American. Frankly, it is
worth it. We take risks every single time we build a weapons
system in this country. Sometimes they work, many times they
don't, most times they don't. We take risks every time we
invest money in any program, any Government military program or
any other item. Sometimes we invest this money and it doesn't
work and sometimes it does.
That is the issue: whether or not we are willing to take
the risk here, knowing the fact that the Army Corps of
Engineers, at our direction in the 1940's changed this system
in a way that basically ensured its destruction. That is the
issue.
I just want to say, again--and I will be on the record
here--I am not going to say that this is a guaranteed work. But
I will say that through the process of adaptive management,
which is very carefully incorporated into the language of this
legislation which I helped to put in there, we will have the
opportunity every 2 years--indeed, every year for that matter--
to look at these wells, some of the new technology--we will
look at those wells. If those wells don't work, if salt water
and fresh water in these holding wells--if it doesn't work, if
the freshwater doesn't lay on top as we hope it will, we will
stop and correct that. We will do something else.
If we need more acre feet of water, we will have more acre
feet of water. If we don't need it, we won't. We will look at
it every single year. We will have the opportunity to do that.
This is a very innovative method of looking at a project which
is environmentally sensitive.
Let me just say this: the key theme is that there are
uncertainties. Anyone who is familiar with what the committee
has done here knows that. The Senate, hopefully, will consider
the bill this week, maybe today. And it is going to take 30 to
36 years, as I said. But my favorite aspect of this Plan is
that it is an adaptive management concept. It is new and gives
us that flexibility. If we learn anything new about the
ecosystem, we would know that the concept of adaptive
management where we can modify the Plan based on any new
information at hand might work. It just might work.
I believe it will work. And I think we have a lot of
experts who will tell you that it will work. If it doesn't, we
can adapt.
Although the GAO report has focused on the uncertainties
surrounding aquifer storage--ASR, aquifer storage and
recovery--our bill authorizes a pilot project. New technology?
Yes. It is a pilot project in addition to the two ASR pilot
projects included in WRDA 99 to test the technology. In fact, I
would like to highlight that there is chance for substantial
savings if ASR technology works, so it is worth the effort and
the risk.
There are other opportunities for savings in this Plan that
GAO has not mentioned. One is wastewater reuse facilities. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for two wastewater reuse facilities to
treat water to a high level of cleanliness for return to the
natural system. The committee is skeptical about the need for
these facilities, as well as their nearly billion dollar cost.
The bill reflects that concern and it reflects that skepticism.
We are prepared to deal with it. Pending the results of a pilot
project included in our bill, one or both of the facilities may
not even be needed.
Finally, GAO makes a recommendation that the Army Corps and
the State report to Congress on the status of this Plan,
whether any new projects have been added, whether any projects
are no longer necessary, and what the costs of implementing
that Plan have been. Our bill has a requirement for a detailed
report to be submitted to Congress every 5 years. GAO suggests
a biennial report, so that we hear from the Corps every time
the Administration submits its water resource bill to the
Congress. I understand that the Corps and the State both
support this recommendation. I don't think this is the same
type of exhaustive report that we seek every 5 years, but there
may be value in more frequent interim reports and I don't have
a problem with that.
It is important, though, to squarely face the uncertainties
in the Plan, and the risk that someday we may need to spend
more money than we anticipate today. Hopefully, we may spend
less. That is an estimate. It might go up and it might go down.
We do this all the time. If anybody can tell me today that we
are going to build an airplane and you can tell me exactly what
it is going to cost and hit it right on the head, then you are
a better man than I am--or woman.
I think we should take the risk that there are
uncertainties that could end up costing more than we now
estimate in order to save the Everglades. And to go back to my
original point, Is it worth $100 million average per year for
you to take that risk? I think it is and that is really the
issue in whether or not you support the Plan or not.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire
This morning we will hear from three witnesses on a report recently
completed by the General Accounting Office on water quality as it
pertains to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I welcome
our witnesses and thank them for their participation.
This report highlights an important aspect of Everglades
restoration water quality in the ecosystem. The key theme of the
report, that there are uncertainties involved in restoring the
Everglades, is familiar to anyone who has closely followed the debate
in the Committee. Our Everglades legislation, which the Senate likely
will consider this week, anticipated uncertainties in the
implementation of the Plan, as is to be expected with a project that is
going to take an estimated 30 years to construct. I have said it before
and I will say it again: my favorite aspect of the Comprehensive Plan
is the inherent flexibility provided by Adaptive Assessment. If we
learn something new about the ecosystem, perfect our modeling
techniques, or just plain see that something isn't working right,
through the concept of Adaptive Management, we can modify the Plan
based on the new information on hand.
In addition, I understand that the GAO Report highlights whether an
additional 245,000 acre-feet of water is needed for Everglades National
Park. The Everglades bill which this Committee passed on June 28, 2000,
includes a provision dealing with this very issue. In our bill, we
require the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study on
the need for the water, and this feasibility study must be submitted to
Congress for our review. The Committee will carefully consider the
completed feasibility study, including concerns of National Park
neighbors that they not be flooded if the additional water is needed.
Again, this is not an unanticipated issue.
The GAO Report also focused on the uncertainty surrounding Aquifer
Storage and Recovery or ``ASR'' as it is called. Our bill authorizes a
pilot project, in addition to the two ASR pilot projects included in
WRDA 99, to test this technology. In fact, I would like to highlight
for those who don't know that there is chance for substantial SAVINGS
if ASR works how the Corps and South Florida Water Management District
anticipate it will work.
There are other opportunities for savings in the Plan that GAO has
not mentioned. One example is the Wastewater Reuse facilities. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for two wastewater reuse facilities to treat
water to a high level of cleanliness for return to the natural system.
The Committee is skeptical about the need for these facilities, as well
as their nearly billion dollar cost. The bill reflects that concern and
skepticism. Pending the results of a pilot project included in our
bill, one or both of the facilities may not even be needed.
Finally, GAO makes a recommendation that the Army Corps and the
State report to Congress on the status of the Plan, that is, whether
any new projects have been added, whether any projects are no longer
necessary, and what the costs of implementing the Plan have been. Our
bill has a requirement for a detailed report to be submitted to
Congress every 5 years. GAO suggests a biennial report, so that we hear
from the Corps every time the Administration submits its water resource
bill to the Congress. I understand that the Corps and the State both
support this recommendation. I don't think this is the same type of
exhaustive report that we seek every 5 years, but there may be value in
more frequent interim reports from the implementing agencies on
progress and changes to the Plan.
It is important to squarely face the uncertainties in the Plan, and
the risk that someday we may need to spend more money than we
anticipate today. We know that the Plan will not cost $7.8 billion.
That is an estimate, it may go up, hopefully it will go down. What we
do know today is that if we do not act, then the remaining Everglades
will die. I think we should take the risk that there are uncertainties
that could end up costing more than we now estimate in order to save
the Everglades. I have no further remarks and look forward to hearing
from the witnesses.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Senator Graham, you have been involved in this a long time.
I know getting on with this is very important to you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those
remarks and I appreciate the chance to discuss the next phase
of a very long book with many chapters already having been
written and many more to be written as it relates to our
efforts to restore the Everglades.
This hearing today underscores the importance of what we
are about. This is not a regular--certainly not a trivial--
issue with which we are dealing. We are talking about the
second largest National Park in the Continental United States
at risk of being lost. We are talking about a United Nations
World Heritage Site in the Everglades System. We are discussing
the largest environmental restoration project in the history of
the world--I will repeat those words--the largest environmental
restoration project in the history of the world. This project
will serve as a laboratory for the 21st century and beyond,
both for the United States and global efforts to restore
damaged environmental systems.
This is in the category of the great projects Congress--in
many cases, this committee--has authorized over its more than
200 years of existence. There is a new book out by Stephen
Ambrose that describes the process by which the United States
was linked by a road of steel, the first railroad to link the
Atlantic to the Pacific. That was a project that was authorized
by funding through the U.S. Congress. It was a project which
was beset with many of the same unknowns and risks we are
talking about with the Everglades, but would anyone today, 135
years after its completion, say that that was not a risk worth
taking?
Almost 100 years ago, we authorized an even more unknown
and risky project, one which had already killed thousands of
people, cost millions of francs, and the disgrace and
imprisonment of some of the most prominent citizens of the
country of France. But this Congress decided, with the strong
support of President Theodore Roosevelt, that we would attempt
to build a canal across Panama. I would suggest a book called
``Path Between the Seas'' by David McCullough, which describes
all the unknowns in that great project. But would anyone today,
100 years later, say that we should not have taken the risk of
the unknown in pursuing that project? I think not.
There have been some comments made, which I hope our
panelists will help us clarify. One is on the front page of a
report we just received--and I underscore, just received--which
says ``additional water quality projects may be needed and
could increase costs''. Those speculative statements may and
could become reality with a project as complex as this, as I am
certain there were changes in the plan to build the railroad in
the 1860's and build the Panama Canal in the first two decades
of this century. But I would point out that every change would
require the authorization of a future Congress.
These projects--we do not live in a dictatorship in which
the executive branch can, without restraint, proceed to do with
it thinks is right. This is a system of Government of divided
powers and the power to authorize public works projects and to
appropriate the funds for those projects is by the Constitution
resident in the legislative branch. So if there are going to be
additional water quality projects, which could increase costs,
we are the ones who will have to make that judgment as to the
appropriateness of the project and the acceptability of the
cost of that project and authorize and appropriate.
Much has been made about the issue of cost. And this is
going to be an expensive project. But I would point out what
needs to be understood. This is a 50/50 project. When we talk
about $7.8 billion, 50 cents of every one of those $7.8 billion
is going to come from the State of Florida and 50 cents will
come from the Federal Government. I think in a business
transaction, if you have two partners, one of the advantages of
that is that you have two different sets of eyes looking at the
facts and trying to render good judgment, recognizing that
their money is going to be at risk by those decisions.
So while it may not be a total comfort, I think the fact
that the State of Florida is going to be putting up half the
money for this project, and will be assuming both the economic
and political consequences of those decisions, should give us
some degree of confidence as to the project.
We are going to be talking later today about the issue of
the operation and maintenance. I will agree that it is a
relatively new or maybe a renewed concept that the Federal
Government should have a responsibility for operation and
maintenance after the project is complete. I would again point
out that if this were to be financed as a standard Corps of
Engineers project would be financed, 65 percent of the cost
would be paid by the Federal Government, not 50 percent. So the
State of Florida is accepting a substantially higher proportion
of the cost of this project than would normally be the case.
It seems to me--both in recognition of the fact that the
principal beneficiary of this project will be these enormous
Federal investments throughout South Florida and the fact that
the initial cost of construction is going to be substantially
less to the Federal Government than would normally be the
case--this is persuasive justification for an ongoing 50/50
relationship in operation and maintenance as there will be in
construction.
But Mr. Chairman, we are going to have ample opportunity to
discuss these issues.
There is another concern I must state, and that is that I
am concerned about the process that has led us to this hearing
today. Just as one of the goals of the Everglades restoration
is to restore a natural flow of water throughout the Everglades
System, it seems to me one of the goals of a legislative
process is to maintain a flow of information. We may disagree
as to what that information means and have different
recommendations and judgments based on the same set of facts,
but we all ought to be dealing with the same set of facts.
When now chairman of the Federal Reserve System was the
head of the Commission to study Social Security, he began the
debate of his commission by saying that everyone could have
their opinion, nobody could have their own facts. Everybody had
to start from the same set of basic facts.
I am concerned that the process which has brought us to
this morning has impinged upon that goal. The GAO released its
report on September 13. It was not until 6:30 last night that
our office was able to get a copy of this report. They may wish
to comment on it, but I understand that as of this hour that
the representatives of the State of Florida and the Corps of
Engineers received copies of this report. I don't think that is
an appropriate way in which to proceed with a discussion as
serious as the one we are going to be having.
I am writing a letter to the head of the GAO asking that
their policy of allowing the person who requested the report to
essentially embargo the report for up to 30 days be modified in
the event that there is going to be a public hearing or other
public use of the document in that 30-day period. If you want
to embargo it for 30 days so that you are the only one that can
read the book, that is one thing. But if you want to use the
book for a public hearing, then there ought to be access by the
public to that material sufficiently in advance so that
everyone is operating off the same set of facts.
I would also ask that when we start the 107th Congress that
the rules of this committee might be looked at in terms of when
members of the committee will receive materials that relate to
what is going to be the subject of a committee hearing. Senator
Mack and I both feel as if we have not had an adequate
opportunity to fully digest this material, although what we do
know about the material indicates to us that the concerns
raised in this report are concerns that have been raised
previously and that several of the recommendations have in fact
been substantially incorporated in the legislation, which the
Senate will be considering later today.
Mr. Chairman, with those comments about how I hope that
maybe similar issues might be handled by the GAO and by the
committee in the future, I look forward to the comments of the
participants today and regret that the representatives of the
State and the Corps of Engineers did not have more adequate
opportunity to familiarize themselves with the report prior to
this hearing.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Graham.
I think you raise some very legitimate questions in terms
of when the request is made to the GAO and in terms of when the
response is given to the person who requested the information.
As a newcomer on the block, I felt that we were following
protocol that was established with the GAO and I would be more
than happy to discuss that with you or Senator Smith in terms
of when these reports are given to members of the committee and
Members of Congress.
I would like to clarify for the record that according to my
staff the draft report was delivered to the Corps of Engineers
and the State of Florida on August 1. It seems to me that that
draft report----
Senator Graham. But the report on which we are holding this
hearing--we can ask them that question when they testify--I do
not believe that neither the State nor the Corps of Engineers
received a copy of this final report.
Senator Voinovich. Well, that may be the case. But I think
if you look at the draft report that they received and compare
it to the report GAO finally came out with that the differences
and discrepancies are very, very little. In fact, the meat of
the report is in the draft report. I don't think it is fair to
say that the people who are testifying today were unable to
respond properly to the request to come here because of the
fact that they did not have something before them to which they
could respond. As a matter of fact, Senator, if you will note
in the report, comments were made in the first part of the
report where the State of Florida said they didn't agree with
the issue of the cost estimate for the dredging of Lake
Okeechobee.
I think your point is well taken in terms of when members
of this body receive reports and when they are distributed as
something that is worthy of discussion and I think we should
get to it. But I don't think that this hearing this morning is
defective because the witnesses didn't have adequate
information upon which to testify.
I will now move on with the hearing.
Senator Voinovich. We would like to call upon Mr. Barry
Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues
for the United States General Accounting Office.
Mr. Hill, we thank the GAO for the quick response they gave
to the request I made to them about the overall cost in terms
of water quality. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BARRY HILL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENERGY, RESOURCES,
AND SCIENCE ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY
SUSAN IOTT AND SHERRY L. MC DONALD, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before the
subcommittee to discuss the water quality issues related to the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Before I begin, I would like to introduce my colleagues.
With me today are Susan Iott and Sherry McDonald, who are
responsible for developing the information we will be
presenting.
If I may, I would like to briefly summarize my prepared
statement and submit the full text of the statement for the
record.
We are here today to discuss our report, which is being
released today, on the role of the Corps of Engineers'
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in addressing the
major water quality concerns in the South Florida ecosystem and
modifications that may be needed as the Corps implements the
Plan after it has been authorized by the Congress.
In summary, the Corps' Plan provides a conceptual framework
for improving the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution
of water in the South Florida ecosystem. As authorized by the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the Corps included 24
water quality projects in the Plan that it deemed essential to
the restoration of the ecosystem. Both the Federal and State
governments will equally share the costs of these projects.
The projects shown on the chart to my left include the
construction of 17 stormwater treatment projects in areas where
new storage sites will be built to reclaim water or modify its
use; two advanced wastewater treatment facilities to take
runoff from the Miami area, treat it, and return it to natural
areas to increase the amount of water being provided there; and
five smaller projects, such as the restoration of wetlands or
dredging of sediments from lakes or other water bodies, that
will have immediate environmental benefits.
Among other things, the water quality projects are intended
to improve the quality of water in the ecosystem and to
supplement the efforts of Florida, which has the primary
responsibility for achieving water quality in the State.
Before proceeding with a discussion of the modifications
that may be needed as the plan is implemented, I would like to
point out that much of the information we will present today is
based on our discussions with officials from Federal and State
agencies that are responsible for managing water supplies and
ensuring water quality.
This was made necessary for two reasons. First, since the
Plan is a conceptual document, detailed plans of the projects
to be constructed are not yet available. Second, our review is
forward-looking, that is, it is not an assessment of events
that have already occurred.
On the basis of our review of the 24 water quality projects
included in this Plan, it is likely that modifications and
additions to the Plan will be necessary as uncertainties
related to implementing the Plan's projects are resolved and
more information is gathered about the extent of the
ecosystem's water quality concerns. Changes to the Plan's water
quality projects could increase the total cost of the Plan over
the Corps' current estimate of $7.8 billion.
Potential water quality projects that may be needed include
additional stormwater treatment areas, dredging projects to
remove sediments contaminated with pollutants such as
phosphorous, areas to treat the water being retrieved from
underground storage wells, and chemical treatment facilities.
Mr. Chairman, achieving water quality in the South Florida
ecosystem will depend on several programs and efforts,
including the Corps' Plan and several State programs. Although
the Plan currently includes 24 projects to address the quality
of water in natural areas of the ecosystem, there are too many
uncertainties to estimate the number and costs of the projects
that will ultimately be needed to improve water quality. The
Corps has acknowledged this uncertainty in the Plan and has
included a process for incorporating project modifications and
additions in its future reports to the Congress.
It has not, however, included a means for reporting
cumulative changes in projects and costs for the Plan as a
whole and the progress being made in implementing the Plan. We
believe that such information will be important for the
Congress in authorizing future projects. As a result, our
report recommends that the Corps provide the Congress with this
information at the same time as subsequent authorization
proposals. In responding to our draft report, both the Corps
and the state of Florida concurred with our recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement and we will be
happy to respond to any questions from you or other members of
the subcommittee.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
The Corps recognizes that the Plan has uncertainties and
has included a process that Senator Smith made reference to in
his opening remarks of adaptive assessment.
What will this program accomplish and is it a reasonable
way to deal with the uncertainty of the Plan?
Mr. Hill. We think it is a very good way to deal with the
uncertainties. Since this is basically a conceptual framework
and a lot of the details have not been worked out and a lot of
the technologies have not been tested or tried, this is
probably the best approach to basically getting a project
running and through monitoring and collecting data and
assessing the results and effects you are getting from that
project you can make whatever adjustments you need to make sure
that the projects are working effectively and you are achieving
your goals.
Senator Voinovich. You identified the potential for adding
additional water quality projects in the Plan and say the cost
could increase. The Corps believes that it will have
opportunities to save costs. Could you identify where costs
could be saved?
Mr. Hill. Yes, and we do mention that in our report. There
are a number of places but the one we discuss specifically in
the report deals with the aquifer storage areas. There is about
250 of these aquifer storage and recovery wells that will
require treatment of water. The current Plan calls for
chlorination and filtration facilities to treat the water
basically going into the well and some filtration needed when
it comes out of the well.
There are some concerns, in talking to the experts, about
the chemical reaction that will occur when this treated water
meets the groundwater. There is also a question as to whether
any treatment will be needed at all. If they find out, once
they get into this, that the chlorination and filtration is not
needed, then there could be the potential of saving $500
million off the total project cost. On the other hand, if they
find out that not only is the treatment needed but perhaps
additional treatments are needed, these costs could be
increased in the future.
So it is uncertain right now as to which way it is going to
go. But there is the potential there, if that treatment is not
needed, to save $500 million off these estimated costs.
Senator Voinovich. Your testimony listed several
uncertainties in the Plan that will likely lead to additional
water quality projects. I am not asking you to list every one
of them, but I think it is important for this hearing for you
to elaborate on the specific projects you have identified in
all probability could add to the cost of the Project because we
need to deal with the water quality issue.
A statement has been made--I will be interested in what Mr.
Struhs has to say--that this Plan will provide for 25 parts per
billion of phosphorous when EPA may require in the Plan to
reducing it to 10 parts per billion. This is a real question
that is still on the table. I am interested in hearing your
comment on it.
Mr. Hill. That is one of the areas that deals with the
stormwater treatment areas in terms of trying to deal with
reducing the level of phosphorous in the water.
The standard has not been set yet by the State in terms of
how low a standard they need to achieve. The projects are
currently being built with a standard in excess of what could
be the ultimate standard there. If the standard is lowered to
10 parts per billion, then there may be some additional
projects or modification of projects that are needed. That is
one area.
There are also questions about additional water for the
Everglades National Park. The Department of Interior is
concerned that some additional water may be needed over what
has been estimated now, up to 245,000 acre feet of water. If it
is found out that additional water is needed, then there would
have to be modifications made to provide that water.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Smith?
Senator Smith. Mr. Hill, were your investigators able to
calculate any evidence that the cost would increase beyond the
$7.8 billion?
Mr. Hill. Let me answer that by saying that first of all we
did not estimate costs as much as we talked to the experts, we
talked to the people doing the design work in getting together
this project in terms of trying to identify some of these
uncertainties and some of the options or alternatives that
might need to be considered. Some of this is uncertain to the
point where there are no costs but there does seem to be some
concern that additional projects may be needed. In other cases,
we were able to identify projects that basically are on the
horizon and could have quite a price tag on it, like the work
that would be needed in Lake Okeechobee.
Ms. Iott and Ms. McDonald can answer some specific things
in terms of the people they have talked to and the experts they
have talked to in terms of what they know.
Senator Smith. Can you suggest any areas outlined in the
Plan now where significant cost reductions might occur?
Mr. Hill. Well, we just talked about the aquifer storage
areas which could reduce up to $500 million, depending on
whether that chlorination and filtration is needed or not
needed.
Ms. McDonald. The Corps is also considering whether or not
they will need the wastewater treatment areas that are also
included in the Plan. The Corps also plans to--as it designs
the projects--do value engineering to see where they can save
additional costs.
So there are some areas where they may save costs, which is
why we believe there is potential for that. But when looking at
the modifications and additions that may be needed, we believe
there is a possibility that the cost could increase.
Senator Smith. Did you want to comment, Ms. Iott?
Ms. Iott. I think we should point out that the advanced
wastewater treatment plants--they are considering substitutes
for that, but that is the option now on the table for water for
Biscayne Bay where there is still some uncertainty about the
water that will be provided for the Bay.
Senator Smith. One of the assertions that you made in your
report, as I understand it, is that Lake Okeechobee might have
to be dredged. That opinion is not shared by either the State
of Florida or the Corps of Engineers, as I understand it.
Is that a fair assessment to have in the GAO report, if
most of the experts feel that that $1 billion cost of dredging
may not indeed happen at all? Is it fair to include that in the
report?
Mr. Hill. We have included that in the report because we
view the lake as being such a critical part. It is the heart of
the water system we are dealing with. There are lots of
concerns about the phosphorous in the lake. The water will be
needed for this restoration effort. The Corps is already
involved in doing some treatment of the water in the
tributaries leading into that lake. There are various options
that are still being considered in terms of how to deal with
the phosphorous in the lake.
Dredging is certainly one of the options that is under
consideration right now. It is a possibility. I think they are
still going to pursue other less costly ways of dealing with
the problem, but right now, it is really uncertain.
Senator Smith. But I think you would have to conclude,
wouldn't you, that to dredge Lake Okeechobee at a cost of
approximately $1 billion would be an extreme position to take
at this point in the game. Is that fair or unfair to say?
Mr. Hill. I don't know if we can comment on that. I don't
know if it is extreme or not extreme. All we are really trying
to do is identify some potential unknowns and uncertainties out
there. Certainly, Lake Okeechobee is a big uncertainty right
now in terms of what you do with it. It is something that is
going to have to be dealt with. How it is dealt with and how
much it is going to cost remain to be seen. We wanted to bring
it to your attention that this is something that is going to
have to be dealt with. From the cost estimates and alternatives
with which we were presented, the most costly alternative would
be complete dredging of the lake. The estimate that has been
given to us on that is $1 billion.
Senator Smith. But you can always create more uncertainty
if you want to. But the point is that the Army Corps and the
State of Florida do not agree that Lake Okeechobee would have
to be dredged. You are taking a position that is in opposition
with the experts who have advised us on this entire Plan. Is
that correct?
Mr. Hill. I think in our report we appropriately point out
that there is still disagreement over this and that the State
and the Corps are still contemplating what to do about this and
studying what needs to be done about this. I don't think we at
any time characterized or attempted to characterize in our
report that this was definitely going to be something that the
Federal Government was going to be involved in and pick up the
cost.
We are just saying that this is an area of disagreement, an
area of concern. We did take the additional step of stepping
back and saying that based on where that lake is and how it
fits into the restoration effort and the extent to which the
Corps has already been involved in projects that affect that
lake, there is a likelihood that the Federal Government will
get involved in it and it will have a price tag on it.
Senator Smith. My time has expired, but I just want to say
that the point is, even if that were the case, under the
adaptive assessment process that we have laid out, Congress
would have to authorize that. It is not going to happen unless
Congress authorizes it.
Mr. Hill. That is correct.
Senator Smith. So again, going to that point--and Senator
Voinovich asked you this question and did a quick followup--are
you comfortable that under this adaptive management process we
have laid out here that we can adapt and we can make changes
which could escalate it or depress--are you comfortable with
that?
Are you comfortable with the language that is written in
the legislation? Whatever Congress does, Congress does, and the
executive branch. But as far as the language is concerned,
there is no commitment here beyond what we authorize in the
first round. We are not committed to $8 billion, per se.
Mr. Hill. You are correct. That would require
authorization. There are two things that would make us
comfortable. One is the adaptive assessment process that is
already included in the bill. We fully support that. The second
is the recommendation we made. We think in addition to just
monitoring and assessing how this thing is working, Congress
also needs to know, on a more periodic basis than once every 5
years, at the time that the Corps is coming in for more
authorizations, they need to explain more fully what is
happening here. Since this is a conceptual project, there is a
lot of uncertainties out there, the feasibility studies haven't
been done, the more information Congress has in terms of how
this overall effort is going, how much it is costing, what more
will be needed, and how effectively we are achieving the goals
I think the better off everybody is.
Senator Smith. I don't disagree with you there. I agree
with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Graham?
Senator Graham. Just two issues. One, we are in agreement
that any additional projects that would be developed as a
result of the adaptive management process and indicated to be
appropriate to achieve the results will require congressional
authorization?
Mr. Hill. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. So our successors in this room would have
to make a judgment as to whether those modifications,
deletions, or additions and their projected costs were in the
public interest in terms of achieving this goal of restoration.
Is that correct?
Mr. Hill. That is correct.
Senator Graham. No. 2, I have quickly looked through the
report and I have only been able to find one recommendation--
and that is on page 26. Are there any other recommendations you
have made?
Mr. Hill. No. The only recommendation dealt with the need
to periodically report to the Congress the status of the
project and the need for more money or more projects.
Senator Graham. I would like to bring your attention to
page 34 of the legislation--not of the book, of the legislation
which is going to be before the Senate hopefully this
afternoon.
It states on line four, ``Report to Congress--Beginning on
October 1, 2005, and periodically thereafter until October 1,
2036, the Secretary''--that's the Secretary of the Army--``and
the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce,
and the State of Florida, shall jointly submit to Congress a
report on the implementation of the Plan. Such reports shall be
completed not less often''--not less often--``than every 5
years. Such reports shall include a description of planning,
design, and construction work completed, the amount of funds
expended during the period covered by the report (including a
detailed analysis of the funds expended for adaptive assessment
under subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi)), and the work anticipated over
the next 5-year period. In addition, each report shall
include''--and then it gives more detail as to what is
required.
How would you modify that language, based on your
recommendation?
Mr. Hill. We think that is a good reporting requirement.
The only modification we would see is that since this is such a
conceptual project and the designs and feasibility studies
haven't been done, there would be benefit to having that type
of report done more often than once every 5 years.
I know the language says at least every 5 years, but I
guess what we are saying is that when the Corps comes in for
its authorization request that would be a good time for them to
report in, basically, the types of information you are talking
about there.
Senator Graham. It seems to me that the language is quite
clear. It says they have to report every 5 years, but can be
required to report more frequently. Every time they report they
have to not only do an assessment of all actions to date, but
then look forward 5 years as to what they anticipate.
It seems to me that gives to the Congress very great sense
of confidence as to the information they are going to get, and
the ability of Congress to direct that this report be given
either on a more frequent calendar basis of the 5-year
requirement or on the basis of individual events, for instance,
at the completion of the first 10 projects that are going to be
authorized in this report, or at some other date in the process
that has a particular significance.
If you have some language change that you would recommend
to that report to Congress language, I would be receptive to
hearing it. But I will say that this was thoughtfully crafted
and seems to me as if it accomplishes what your recommendation
is in the proposal.
Ms. McDonald. I have not seen the requirements you have in
the most recent version, but----
Senator Graham. Our language has been in the public domain
since this bill was reported out of this committee. So it is
available.
Ms. McDonald. But what I wanted to point out was that one
of the things that we think would be very important is to know
what cumulative changes are being made to the Plan. At this
point, there are 66 projects in the Plan, at an estimated cost
of $7.8 billion. Part of our recommendation is for the Corps to
report to the Congress on what cumulative changes to the Plan
have been made and then how much that will affect the schedule
and cost.
Senator Graham. I would ask when the Corps testifies if
they think this language covers that. I think it does. And as
you know, the structure of this legislation is that while we
are sanctioning the full report, we are only authorizing a
stipulated set of the some three score projects that are going
to be necessary to accomplish this. So the Corps has to
periodically come back to Congress to get authorization for the
next wave of projects that are necessary to carry out this
restoration.
Mr. Hill. And I guess where we were coming from, in that
process, they are likely to come to you and ask for individual
projects or increases to individual projects--the 10 projects,
perhaps, that were authorized in the prior session. They will
come and ask for additional money to complete that work.
We are saying that in addition to that information you need
to also step back and look at the process as a whole,
cumulatively. What is going on with the project? How many more
additional projects have you identified that we are going to
need to do? If you are not considering that and you don't get
funding for those projects, then it is possible that the entire
effort and their ability to achieve the goals would be
jeopardized. And nobody would want that.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. I appreciate you
being here today.
Senator Voinovich. Our next panel is Mr. Michael Davis,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and Mr.
David Struhs, Commissioner of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
Mr. Davis, thank you for coming today to testify.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Michael
Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
I am pleased to be here today to present the Administration's
views on the draft GAO report concerning water quality issues
associated with the restoration of America's Everglades. I am
also pleased to be here today with my colleague from the State
of Florida, Secretary David Struhs.
With me today are representatives of the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Department of the Interior, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the restoration of America's
Everglades is a high priority for this Administration.
Restoration of the Everglades requires that we ``get the water
right'' by addressing each of the four interrelated factors:
quantity, quality, timing, and distribution. As such, ensuring
a supply of clean fresh water is an integral part of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP.
Over the past 100 years, excessive drainage of wetlands and
changes in the natural variability of water flows have altered
the Everglades wetland ecosystem. Today, discharges to the
Everglades are often too much, often too little, and frequently
at the wrong times of the year. An overabundance or scarcity of
water affects plants and wildlife accustomed to the Everglades'
historic range of water flows, levels, and seasons. In
addition, canals and highways that criss-cross the Everglades
have interrupted its natural overland sheet flow.
Water quality throughout south Florida has deteriorated
over the past 50 years. More than one-half of the wetlands that
acted as natural filters and retention areas are gone due to
agricultural and urban expansion. Under current conditions,
these natural systems cannot recover their defining
characteristics and they will not survive.
The CERP offers a broad, comprehensive approach, which is
designed to restore and improve the condition of water quality
throughout the Everglades ecosystem. While it will not solve
all water quality problems, the CERP improves the quality of
water in the study area, integrates modifications to the
Central and Southern Florida project with ongoing State of
Florida water quality efforts, and ensures that our actions to
capture and store water meet water quality requirements.
Water quality was a consideration in every aspect of the
CERP, and many components of the CERP include treatment
features to ensure that water quality conditions are improved.
We believe the CERP, in concert with other proposed and
ongoing restoration efforts, represents the best way to both
restore the ecological integrity of the Everglades ecosystem
and to enhance water quality. While the CERP reflects the best
available science, we are prepared to refine our thinking as we
learn more. Thus the CERP is designed to be flexible, to
incorporate and respond to new information as it becomes
available. Continuous monitoring and independent scientific
review are key components of the CERP. Still, we cannot wait
for all the answers to begin. There is too much at stake and
little time to act.
We appreciate the work conducted by GAO and as always we
welcome constructive advice on how to improve Army water
resources projects. In its draft report GAO concluded that
``there are too many uncertainties to estimate the number and
cost of projects that will ultimately be needed to improve
water quality.'' To address this concern, we understand that
GAO will recommend that the Secretary of the Army provide
Congress with updates that reflect any cumulative project and
cost changes to the CERP; and indicate the progress being made
toward implementing the CERP.
We do not take issue with the specific recommendations made
in the draft report. We agree that Congress should be kept
informed of our progress and of any substantial changes as we
implement the CERP. We have proposed legislation to require
such reporting.
In regard to water quality generally, we are satisfied that
the CERP reflects the proper balance between the need to have
information and the need to begin the restoration of an
important natural resource that is in serious trouble. Much is
known about the Everglades and how it can be restored. We will
learn a lot more through on-going independent scientific peer
review as well as the adaptive assessment process outlined in
the CERP. We strongly believe that the level of uncertainty and
potential cost increases are manageable through the monitoring
and reporting.
We agree that there are some uncertainties associated with
the implementation of the overall CERP. Some uncertainties are
expected considering the size of the project and its staged
implementation over 30 years. However, the Corps, the South
Florida Water Management District, and many other Federal and
State partners have disclosed fully the uncertainties and
proposed a methodology and process to address these
uncertainties.
We disagree that uncertainties on the proposed water
quality components will absolutely lead to cost increases. The
$7.8 billion cost estimate reflects our best estimate of the
cost of implementing the CERP based on information we have
today after considering these uncertainties. In many ways, the
Corps estimate is very conservative, often assuming the worst
case scenario, as suggested by the comments on the ASR by the
GAO expert. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the
actual cost of some project features could be less than
estimated in the CERP.
We concur with the GAO recommendation that the Army should
provide Congress with updates regarding implementation progress
and changes to the CERP. The Everglades restoration legislation
included in the Administration's April 10, 2000 proposal for
Water Resources Development Act included a provision requiring
reports to Congress. This provision requires that the Secretary
of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Commerce, and the State of Florida, submit reports on the
implementation of the CERP to Congress beginning in October
2005 and at least every 5 years thereafter.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, protecting and restoring water
quality is an integral part of restoring the Everglades
ecosystem. As such, addressing water quality issues has been
and continues to be a fundamental objective of the CERP.
Providing a reliable supply of clean fresh water to the
ecosystem is at the heart of the CERP. While some uncertainties
exist, we remain confident of the analysis, conclusions, and
recommendations outlined in the CERP, including those germane
to water quality. Further, we do not believe that based on the
GAO report or any other information available at this time that
Congress should assume that the cost to implement the CERP will
unreasonably increase or even increase at all.
Mr. Chairman, an American treasure is in serious trouble
and we have developed a technically sound plan to do something
about it. America's Everglades cannot wait until we have all
the answers because we never will have all the answers. As with
any important endeavor of this nature there are risks. The
risks associated with inaction, however, are clearly greater.
The next vital step for Everglades restoration is passage
this year of the legislation authorizing the CERP. As you know,
the Administration has been working closely with the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee on such legislation.
Recently, the Administration, the committee, the State of
Florida, and a diverse group of stakeholders reached agreement
on amendments to S. 2797. The Administration strongly supports
S. 2797 with these amendments and recommends its immediate
passage.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Again, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today before your
subcommittee.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the other
subcommittee members may have.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Struhs?
STATEMENT OF DAVID STRUHS, COMMISSIONER, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
Mr. Struhs. Thank you, Senator Voinovich, and thank you for
inviting me to join you this morning.
On a personal note, I remember the day that you and I spent
touring the Everglades. It was a marvelous day and I remember
you asked a lot of hard questions then. You continue to ask
hard questions today. I think that is good for all of us
because it makes sure that as we go forward and undertake such
a large project, we can provide the public the confidence they
need that we are going to have a project that demonstrates and
delivers on its promises and maintains that public support.
One of the ways in particular which I think this report
will be particularly helpful is laying to rest a common
misperception that water quality issues are somehow separate or
apart from the other project goals of this restoration project.
Indeed, quite the opposite is true. As you know, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan has anticipated--and
indeed integrated--water quality issues throughout its various
components. Water quality is clearly and inextricably
intertwined with all the other project purposes that are
essential to Everglades restoration.
Regarding the projected costs of the Project, particularly
those that relate to water quality, to the extent they can be
separated out, I think the costs are actually fairly firm for a
project of this size and duration. Moreover, I suspect that if
the cost of the water quality components move at all, it is
just as likely that they will move in a downward direction.
Indeed, you have already heard the possibility that if we are
successful in using risk-based treatment standards on the
aquifer storage and recovery technology, we could save as much
as $500 million on the Project.
A couple of other things I wanted to make clear for the
record. While some issues may remain in dispute, overall it is
a project and project conclusions that we can endorse quite
happily. The main project recommendations from the report are
some additional reporting by the Corps of Engineers,
particularly as it relates to costs and progress in terms of
delivering results. We fully agree with that. Indeed, in the
State of Florida, we are already bound by a similar requirement
through some State statutes.
I also wanted to thank the General Accounting Office for
being attentive and responsive to some of the comments they
received from the State of Florida as we reviewed drafts. In
particular, they were accommodating in changing the title of
the report, the final title being ``Additional Water Quality
Projects and Costs May Be Needed''. We think that is a superior
title, giving a truer reflection of what we are actually
talking about. As you know, a lot of people won't ever get
beyond the title of reports such as this.
Regarding the Lake Okeechobee dredging, clearly whenever
you see a $1 billion figure it becomes fairly daunting to all
of us, and that is something that deserves a lot of public
attention and debate. As far as the State of Florida goes--we
are not even convinced that we would want to go forward with a
project like that. I don't believe there is any scientific
consensus that indeed a dredging project would be in the long-
term best interest of the lake or the larger ecosystem.
A final comment, interwoven throughout the report is a
discussion of how you are going to achieve a phosphorous
standard that will probably be substantially lower than that
which will actually be achieved by the stormwater treatment
areas that are being designed and built as part of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I want to make it
very clear that to the extent there will be extra costs in
achieving those reductions, those costs, regrettably, are going
to rest with the State of Florida and our various stakeholders.
Finally, the work that is already underway with the
Everglades construction project and the proposed projects in
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, as it relates to
water quality are compatible.
With that, I would look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
I would like to ask both of you if you would support
additional language by agreement that would require more often
reporting, as suggested in the report by the General Accounting
Office.
Mr. Struhs. Currently, under the State requirements in
Florida, we are obligated to provide reports of a similar
nature on an annual basis. I suspect that that would probably
be appropriate at the Federal level as well.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, we would like to work with you to
perhaps refine that language. I think clarifying the frequency
of the reporting could be something that we could agree to.
I would ask the question, though--in at least the first 5
years you may not want or need a report every 2 years because
there is probably not going to be much to report on for the
first 3, 4, or 5 years. So you may want to have a starting
point and then every 2 years or 3 years after that.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I would be interested in having
you sit down with the staff. We are going to be dealing with
this legislation today or tomorrow. Certainly before we get out
of here, we are going to pass this legislation. If we can work
on that and get it into a manager's amendment, that would be
fine.
Mr. Davis. We will work with you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
I think one of the reasons why I was interested in asking
the GAO about whether or not we had all the costs nailed down
or if there were some other costs that would be faced down the
road gets back to my opening statement. That is that the
adequacy of the funding to move forward with all these WRDA
projects--as I mentioned, $39 billion and about $4.5 billion of
that would include the first phase of the restoration of the
Everglades. We talk about these issues--and Mr. Struhs, I want
to compliment you and your Governor and your Legislature for
stepping to the table in terms of funding of this. You are
anxious to get going.
But the real issue is whether the Federal Government will
be able to belly up to the table in terms of their costs. And
we do have a genuine need for additional dollars in this area.
It is one that needs to be confronted.
Mr. Davis, I would like you to comment. Do you think the
budget is adequate to take care of the capital costs of the
projects the Corps has been asked to undertake?
Also, we have another problem here, and that is the whole
issue of O&M money. My understanding is that you have a backlog
of $450 million in O&M projects. Of course, one of the issues
that we have that may be debated on the Floor of the Senate is
whether or not we should go along with the legislation talking
about the sharing of those costs.
I would like you to respond.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I think you have raised a very
large and very important issue that transcends Everglades
restoration that certainly the Administration and the Congress
need to sit down and have a very constructive dialog to try to
resolve, and that is what the appropriate level of funding for
water resources in this country is, and in particular for the
Corps of Engineers. There is not enough money to do everything
we are being asked to do right now. There is a backlog in both
the O&M and construction programs. We need to work together to
try to tackle that backlog and set some priorities.
I think the important thing with the Everglades is that I
believe by most everyone's account this will rise to the top in
terms of priority. I think we must get moving on this one, but
at the same time we do need to work on the larger problem about
funding and the Nation's priorities for water resources overall
and how we fund that. There are a lot of unmet needs out there
to which we need to pay attention.
Senator Voinovich. I know that when I was Governor of Ohio,
we set about trying to really identify what the unmet needs
were. When I was Mayor of Cleveland, they came in and said $3
billion worth of sewer, water, and all the rest of it. We got
the private sector and created something called ``Build Up
Greater Cleveland'' and identified what we needed to do. We
said here is the problem and then started to systematically
deal with it. I think that is the logical way to tackle things.
I think we are being a little bit unrealistic. This
legislation passes and people will go out and tout that they
are really going to do this. Then when you scratch the surface,
you want to see the money. Show me the money.
That is a major issue that I think we all need to be
concerned about in terms of our public policy.
Mr. Davis, you talked about the fact that there were
specific areas where you feel, rather than low-ball cost, you
put them in at what might be the highest cost. Could you give
us a few examples of those?
Mr. Davis. First, let me say that one of the general
philosophies behind the Jacksonville District's formulation of
the Plan was full and fair disclosure. They really did take
conservative approaches when they put their estimates together
because they knew that in many cases these were conceptual
ideas and projects. So they did kind of assume the high cost
here.
An example is the ASR. Again, we assumed that before we can
pump this water in the ground from these 300 or so ASR wells
that we will have to treat this water to drinking water
standards. We have had discussions with the State and with the
Environmental Protection Agency that lead us to believe that
there is a good possibility that we will not have to do that.
There is a possibility, as a result of that, that we could save
as much as $500 million just on the cost of ASR alone.
The wastewater reuse--we have assumed that we will have to
have two wastewater reuse facilities in Dade County to provide
water in that part of the ecosystem. There are some folks who
believe we will not need both of those and those are some of
the most expensive features, both in terms of the capital costs
and the O&M costs. We have reason to believe that we can get by
with only one of those. But we don't know that yet, so we
assumed the worst case, that we have to have them both.
We felt pretty strong in the Army--as we gave direction to
the Corps--like you, we wanted to be fair. We wanted to
disclose as fully as possible to the Congress what the
potential cost would be here. I don't want to be sitting here 2
years from now, telling you that we made a mistake and it is
actually $10.5 billion. We didn't want that situation. So we
tried to get as close as we can, but being conservative so that
maybe we can reduce it.
Senator Voinovich. And the example is that you anticipate
that you would have to treat the stormwater before you put it
into these underground wells for storage purposes?
Mr. Davis. That's right. Right now, before we pump it down,
we would have to treat it to drinking water standards. The
State and EPA have suggested that perhaps we might not have to
do that. If coliform bacteria is the only problem that perhaps
we might not have to do that and we can avoid chlorination and
other problems that that might create by just pumping it down
in there, maybe with some limited filtration.
Senator Voinovich. This whole business of water quality is
one that has been kicking around. I mentioned earlier the issue
of the 25 parts per billion in terms of phosphorous. I know
that that is a big problem in the Everglades because of the
growth of some invasives that have flourished because of the
phosphate content of the water.
Has there been any final discussion about what it is? Does
it have to be 10? Is the natural environment 10? Have you done
any research on this?
Mr. Struhs. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. What is your take on it?
Mr. Struhs. Well, it is remarkably complicated. If you
looked at phosphorous levels in any other ecosystem, and you
could get those nutrients down to 100 parts per billion people
would celebrate because it would be pristine water. Yet what
makes the Everglades truly unique--and we use that word unique
too liberally nowadays, but in this case it really is true--
what makes the Everglades the Everglades is the ultra low
levels of phosphorus. Getting it down to the natural background
level in the Everglades is going to be a daunting challenge.
But the good news is that we are making better progress and
ahead of schedule. The Everglades Construction Project, which
is, as you know, already underway, was intent on delivering
water that would reduce phosphorous levels down to 50 parts per
billion. Indeed, now that some of them are up and operating,
they are actually exceeding that performance standard.
That is a marvelous thing for the State of Florida because
to the extent that we need to set standards that go below what
this project is going to deliver, that is a cost that is going
to fall on Florida and Floridians. So we are very encouraged by
the progress made thus far.
In terms of the schedule for defining what that standard--
--
Senator Voinovich. The natural--what was it?
Mr. Struhs. Currently in the State of Florida----
Senator Voinovich. What is the goal that you think will get
the job done of the restoration that deals with the invasives--
that is a whole other subject that you and I talked about in
Florida that seems to me needs to be addressed, which is the
invasive exotics that are in there. The quality of water has to
do with whether they flourish or they don't flourish--I guess--
in terms of the phosphorous content. But beyond that, what do
we do about that particular problem?
But let's get back to the phosphorous in the water.
Mr. Struhs. Currently, in Florida State law there is in
fact a standard for phosphorous in the Everglades System. The
standard is what we call a narrative standard. It is not a
numeric standard. Basically what it says, in simple terms, is
that phosphorous has to be kept at a level where there is no
imbalance to the natural flora and fauna.
As we discussed earlier, the challenge with the Everglades
is that that balance is a very delicate one because it is
accustomed to very, very low levels of phosphorous.
Under State law, we are obligated by December of 2003 to
translate that narrative standard into a numeric one. As you
probably remember, Governor Bush has pledged that he will
accelerate that process and see if we can set that number
sooner. We are nowhere near accomplishing that just yet, but I
think what has given everybody confidence that Florida is
serious is that within State statute we actually built in a
default standard of 10 parts per billion. In the event that the
science is unclear and we can't pinpoint whether it is supposed
to be 13 or 7, that default standard kicks in and we know that
10 parts per billion is a pretty good marker in terms of the
natural phosphorous you see in the Everglades System today.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I could maybe add
something to Mr. Struhs' comments.
I think there is some confusion about this 10 parts per
billion and whether or not we are going to build these 19
stormwater treatment areas that are on this map here and
perhaps we will build them and we will not be able to make that
10 parts per billion.
The confusion lies in the fact that the 10 parts per
billion requirement will only apply in what is called the
Everglades Protection Area, the water conservation areas and
the Everglades National Park. Only two of those 19 stormwater
treatment areas will discharge into that Everglades Protection
Area that will be subject to that 10 parts per billion.
For example, right now, the target is 40 parts per billion
for Lake Okeechobee. So it will vary around the ecosystem. It
is not going to be 10 parts per billion everywhere. So only two
of those will be actually discharging where it might end up
being 10 parts per billion; the other 17 will not.
Senator Voinovich. It does get into the whole issue of--I
know the Interior Appropriations Committee requested a report
on the total cost to restore the ecosystem in South Florida.
They asked that it be updated biennially. John Berry, who is
the Assistant Secretary, indicated in a letter to the
Appropriations Committee that the total cost is $14.8 billion.
I don't want to pit one group against another, but I think
you testified that you thought that this projected cost was a
little bit out of line. We had the Assistant Secretary in the
Department of Interior saying that he thinks that is what the
cost is going to be.
It would be interesting to know what your comments are. Are
you familiar that that is what he said?
Mr. Davis. I would never disagree with a Department of
Interior official, let the record reflect.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. Actually, we didn't disagree--I don't know what
comments have been attributed to me personally, but the $14.8
billion is a different number. The $7.8 billion is to get the
water right. That is what we believe it is going to take to get
the water right, and that is what you need to realize the
benefits to restore essentially the hydrology in that
ecosystem.
There are other components. There is a land acquisition
component that is going on. Some of that land may be lands on
which the State and the Federal Government--mostly Interior--
are sharing the cost of that land acquisition program. Then
there are other programs--mostly within the State--regarding
the built environment--maybe brownfields or reuse of these
areas. That is part of this as well.
But what we said was that the $7.8 billion was for water.
If you never do anything else, you will get the water right.
All you need to do to get the water right is spend that $7.8
billion and implement that Plan.
Senator Voinovich. I am going to spend some more time
looking at those numbers. But you are basically saying that it
is the hydrolase you are talking about--they are talking about
maybe more land acquisition and things of that sort?
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Do either of you want to volunteer any
more comments? If you don't, I have exhausted my questions.
Mr. Struhs. I would just reiterate what I said at the
beginning. Whenever you undertake a public project of this size
and duration, we all benefit and are stronger for putting it in
the public spotlight and asking the hard questions and making
sure that everyone is working with the same information. We
appreciate your interest and the GAO's report.
Senator Voinovich. I appreciate your kind remarks.
I hope you understand that I am a supporter of this
project. I think, though, as in any case, we need to have as
much information as we can have on it. The more information we
have the better job I think we can do. Again, as so often
around here, if you have a big price tag on something people
would rather not get started with it. We are going to get
started with the Everglades restoration and hopefully by the
time I leave this place we will increase that budget and have
some more money available so that before I leave this earth I
can say that we really have gone a long way to restore the
Everglades and get on with some of the other major projects
that we have in our country that are so important to our
quality of life and to our environment.
Thank you so very much.
Senator Graham asked that--he wants to come back in about 3
minutes. We will just recess until the Senator gets back.
[Recess.]
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and
Science Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development
Division, United States General Accounting Office
comprehensive everglades restoration plan
additional water quality projects may be needed and could increase
costs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: The South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Initiative is a complex, long-term effort to
restore the South Florida ecosystem, which includes the Everglades.
Because water is key to restoring the ecosystem, one of the
initiative's major goals is ``getting the water right'' or improving
the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water in the
ecosystem. The primary means of achieving this goal is through the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (the
Plan). Although achieving the right quantity, timing, and distribution
of water is important, improving its quality is critical to sustaining
and restoring the South Florida ecosystem. The Plan represents one of
the most ambitious restoration efforts the Corps has ever undertaken;
it contains 66 individual projects that are scheduled to take more than
20 years to complete., Implementing the Plan is currently estimated to
cost $7.8 billion a cost that will be shared equally by the Federal
Government and the state of Florida. We are here today to discuss our
report, which is being released today, on (1) the role of the Corps'
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in addressing the major water
quality concerns in the ecosystem and (2) modifications that may be
needed as the Corps implements the Plan after it has been authorized by
the Congress.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Corps' Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan provides a conceptual framework for improving the
quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water in the South
Florida ecosystem. Twenty-four of the Plan's 66 projects are intended,
among other things, to improve the quality of water in the natural
areas of the ecosystem; the remaining projects deal more with the
water's quantity, timing, and distribution. The water quality projects
in the Plan are intended to supplement the efforts of the state, which
has the primary responsibility for achieving water quality standards in
Florida. Under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the Corps
is allowed to include water quality projects in the Plan and equally
share the costs with Florida if the projects are essential to restoring
the Everglades.
Modifications and additions to the Plan will likely be necessary as
uncertainties related to implementing the Plan's projects are resolved
and more information is gathered about the extent of the ecosystem's
water quality problems. These changes could increase the total cost of
the Plan over the Corps' current estimate of $7.8 billion. Currently,
there are too many uncertainties to estimate the number and costs of
the Corps projects that will ultimately be needed to address water
quality in the ecosystem. The Corps has acknowledged the uncertainty in
the Plan and has included a process for incorporating project
modifications and additions in its future reports to the Congress. It
has not, however, included a means for reporting (1) cumulative changes
in projects and costs for the Plan as a whole and (2) the progress
being made in implementing the Plan. Such information will be important
for the Congress in authorizing future projects. Our report recommends
that the Corps provide the Congress with updates that provide this
information when the Corps submits future project authorization
proposals. Both the Corps and the state of Florida concurred with our
recommendation.
Background
Following major droughts from the 1930's through the mid-1940's and
hurricanes in 1947, the Congress authorized the Corps to construct the
Central and Southern Florida Project. The project an extensive system
of 1,700 miles of canals and levees and 16 major pump stations prevents
flooding and saltwater intrusion into the state's aquifer while
providing drainage and water to the residents of South Florida. The
project's canals now divert much of the water that historically flowed
south from Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades to Florida Bay east
and west to the ocean or to agricultural and urban uses. Although the
Corps' Central and Southern Florida Project accomplished its
objectives, it had unintended detrimental environmental effects.
Coupled with urban and agricultural development, the project has led to
significant deterioration in the South Florida ecosystem's water
quality.
Recognizing that the Central and Southern Florida Project needed to
be modified to address its negative impact on the environment of South
Florida, the Congress included provisions relating to the project in
the Water Resources Development acts of 1992 and 1996. The 1992 act
provided the Secretary of the Army, who delegated this responsibility
to the Corps, with the authority to study the original design of the
project in order to determine whether modifications were needed because
of changes in the ecosystem's physical, biological, demographic, or
economic conditions. The 1996 act directed the Corps, on the basis of
its initial review, to prepare a feasibility report and a programmatic
environmental impact statement to determine what changes were needed to
restore the South Florida ecosystem. The act required that the Corps
report back to the Congress by July 1999.
Because the Plan consists of a large number of projects that will
be designed and constructed over a long period of time, according to
Corps officials, it is not as detailed as typical Corps feasibility
studies. For example, it does not identify specific sites for the
proposed projects. The Corps also plans to conduct additional
feasibility studies because the time allotted under the 1996 act to
complete the Plan did not allow for a thorough investigation of all of
the regional water resource problems in South Florida. The Corps will
design the projects in more detail and expects to request the Congress
to authorize a new set of projects every 2 years until all the projects
are authorized, which the Corps anticipates will take until 2014.
The Plan will be carried out primarily by one Federal agency the
Corps and one state agency the South Florida Water Management District
(the District), which manages water resources for South Florida and is
the Corps' local sponsor, or partner. These two agencies are
responsible for operating the Central and Southern Florida Project as
it is currently configured and will be responsible for planning,
designing, and constructing the Plan's projects to reconfigure it. The
agencies are responsible for meeting both the water supply and water
quality goals in the Plan. Furthermore, under the Clean Water Act,
which seeks to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters, the projects must be
designed to meet applicable state water quality standards.
The Projects in the Corps' Plan Supplement Florida's Efforts to Address
Water Quality in the Ecosystem
The water quality projects included in the Corps' Plan supplement
the efforts of Florida, which is primarily responsible for ensuring
compliance with water quality standards in the ecosystem and for
ensuring that the projects meet state water quality standards. To
identify water quality projects, the Corps established two criteria.
First, the Corps included projects to treat water that is being
``reclaimed'' as part of the Plan. This water is now being discharged
by the Central and Southern Florida Project into the ocean, but under
the Plan, it will be diverted, stored, and discharged into natural
areas to supplement water supply and improve habitat. Second, the Corps
included treatment projects for water that will be ``reused.'' This
water will also be reclaimed, but its final use will be changed. For
example, the Corps now releases water from Lake Okeechobee to the water
conservation areas for flood control purposes and water supply, but
under the Plan it will instead release some of this water for
environmental purposes. As authorized by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, the Corps included 24 projects in the Plan to
improve water quality in the South Florida ecosystem that the Corps
deemed essential to achieve the restoration of the Everglades. These
include:
17 projects to construct stormwater treatment areas in
areas where new storage sites will be built to reclaim water or modify
its use;
2 advanced wastewater treatment facilities to take runoff
from the Miami area, treat it, and return it to natural areas to
increase the amount of water being provided there; and
5 smaller projects, such as the restoration of wetlands
or dredging of sediments from lakes or other water bodies, that will
have immediate environmental benefits.
The Federal and state governments will share the costs of these
projects equally. Figure 1 shows the location of the 24 water quality
projects included in the Plan.
Figure 1: Location of the Plan's Water Quality Projects
Source: GAO's adaptation of an illustration prepared by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Resolution of Project Uncertainties and Outcomes of Studies May Lead to
Additional Water Quality Projects and Costs
As the Corps implements the Plan, Corps officials believe that
modifications to existing projects and additional projects may be
necessary, as their details are further developed and as uncertainties
about their implementation are resolved. In addition, the Corps plans
to conduct several studies that may further identify water quality
problems in the ecosystem. If it is determined that additional water
quality projects are needed during the Plan's implementation or as a
result of these studies, the costs to implement the Plan could increase
above the Corps' current $7.8 billion estimate. Recognizing that
additional projects could be needed as the Plan is implemented, the
Corps included a process in the Plan to incorporate and report to the
Congress on modifications and additions to it. However, the Corps has
not included a process for updating the Congress on the cumulative
effects of the individual changes on the overall Plan.
This information is primarily based on our discussions with
officials from Federal and state agencies that have responsibilities
for managing water supplies and ensuring water quality in South
Florida. Reliance on discussions with Federal and state officials was
necessary because the Plan is a conceptual document and detailed plans
of the projects to be constructed are not yet available.
Resolution of Implementation Uncertainties
The Corps acknowledged that a number of uncertainties associated
with implementing the Plan's projects have not yet been resolved and
could lead to additional water quality projects. These uncertainties
include:
whether planned stormwater treatment areas will be
successful in achieving the lowest phosphorus concentration needed,
whether 245,000 acre-feet of additional water will be
needed for Everglades National Park, and
what type and level of treatment will be necessary for
water stored in and retrieved from aquifer storage and recovery wells
large underground wells that are one of the primary means in the Plan
for storing water.
Impact of Ongoing and Planned Studies
Recognizing that all the water quality concerns in the South
Florida ecosystem have not been fully identified, the Corps plans to
conduct several feasibility studies to identify such concerns in areas
of the ecosystem that were not included when the Plan was developed.
These feasibility studies, which focus on the Southwest Florida and
Florida Bay/Florida Keys areas, were included in the Plan because there
was not enough time when the Plan was being developed for a thorough
investigation of all the water resource problems in these areas of the
ecosystem. In addition to the feasibility studies proposed in the Plan,
the Corps is currently conducting two feasibility studies under the
authority of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 the Indian
River Lagoon Feasibility Study and the Water Preserve Areas Feasibility
Study and is conducting a third for Biscayne Bay under a separate
authority. These studies will likely identify new water quality
projects to add to the Plan and would be in addition to those needed to
address the uncertainties involved in implementing the Plan. For
example, as a result of the Indian River Lagoon Feasibility Study, the
Corps will likely add a water quality project to the Plan to dredge the
lagoon to remove sediments from the St. Lucie estuary, a major
tributary of the lagoon, to improve the water's quality and clarity.
Moreover, the Plan recommends the development of a comprehensive
integrated water quality plan to evaluate and determine whether any
additional water quality projects recommended by the state should be
added to the Plan. Recognizing that not all of the ecosystem's water
quality concerns have been identified, the Corps has included a
recommendation in the Plan for the development of a comprehensive
integrated water quality plan. According to Corps officials, the water
quality plan will be closely coordinated with the South Florida Water
Quality Protection Program, which was recently initiated by the state.
As the state program identifies additional projects to improve water
quality, the Corps will evaluate whether the projects are essential and
whether the Federal Government should participate in them, share their
costs, and include them in its comprehensive plan.
An example of an ongoing restoration effort where the Corps might
have a future role is the cleanup of Lake Okeechobee. The lake, which
has been described as the ``liquid heart of the ecosystem,'' may
require a number of projects to restore the quality of its water.
According to Corps officials, these projects could eventually require
the Corps' involvement. Currently, Lake Okeechobee which was once a
sandy-bottomed, clear, shallow lake has high levels of phosphorus that
make it prone to algal blooms and cattail growth, adversely affecting
the quantity and types of plants and fish in the lake. Despite the
implementation of certain permitting programs by the state, the annual
phosphorus amounts exceed the state targets. Our discussions with state
officials responsible for water quality in Florida indicate that a
combination of actions, such as agricultural best management practices
and the use of storm water treatment areas, will be needed to lower the
levels of phosphorus entering the lake. According to Corps officials,
the Corps may participate in the construction of other stormwater
treatment areas if the state determines that additional areas are
needed. In addition, some Federal and state officials believe that if
large deposits of phosphorus-laden sediment remain in the lake, the
lake's water quality will remain a significant problem. Although no
final decision has been made on what actions to take, a preliminary
estimate prepared by an issue team of Federal and state scientists
showed that fully dredging the lake could cost at least $1 billion.
Pending Florida's completion of a feasibility study on options to
remove the sediment, the Corps could become involved if it decides that
the proposed action is essential to the restoration of the ecosystem.
The Plan Includes a Process for Incorporating and Reporting Change
To allow for changes that will result as uncertainties involved in
implementing the Plan's projects are resolved, including the possible
addition of water quality projects, the Corps' Plan includes three ways
to incorporate changes: (1) additional efforts, such as surveys,
mapping, and water quality analyses, that are needed to develop the
final design of the projects; (2) pilot projects conducted to resolve
technical uncertainties; and (3) an adaptive assessment process, which
involves monitoring the systemwide effects of the projects on the
ecosystem as they are implemented. The Corps has also included a
process in the Plan for authorizing future projects, including any
changes, either modifications or additions, that result from its
additional planning efforts. As it prepares to move forward with a
project, the Corps will submit to the Congress a project implementation
report that includes the detailed technical information necessary to
design a project or a group of similar projects. These reports will be
used to add, remove, or modify projects in the Plan and, except for the
projects presented for initial authorization, will be presented to the
Congress for authorization every 2 years until 2014 when the Corps
anticipates that all of the projects needed for the restoration effort
will have been authorized. Although the reports will contain
recommendations for any modifications to the Plan whose need was
determined by systemwide evaluations, the Corps does not currently plan
to report to the Congress on the cumulative changes that have been made
to the Plan. Such a report would provide the Congress and the state
with an understanding of how the Plan is evolving, as well as an update
every 2 years on the costs of the projects and the Plan.
Mr. Chairman, achieving water quality improvements in the South
Florida ecosystem will depend on several programs and efforts,
including the Corps' Plan. Although the Plan currently includes 24
projects to address the quality of water in natural areas of the
ecosystem, there are too many uncertainties to estimate the number and
costs of the projects that will ultimately be needed to improve water
quality. Given the Plan's conceptual nature and the likelihood of
changes and additions to its projects, we recommend in our report that
the Secretary of the Army, when submitting subsequent authorization
proposals, provide the Congress with updates that:
reflect the cumulative project and cost changes to the
overall Plan and
indicate the progress being made toward implementing the
Plan.
Both the Corps and the state of Florida agreed with our
recommendation. The Corps also agreed that there are many uncertainties
associated with implementing the overall Plan and the projects to
improve water quality in the South Florida ecosystem. The Corps
believes that the uncertainties have been fully disclosed and has
proposed a methodology that will address them. This methodology
includes the development of project implementation reports. We
recognize that the Corps was aware of the uncertainties associated with
implementing the Plan and our report describes, in detail, the process
that the Corps included in the Plan to incorporate changes as the
uncertainties are resolved. We believe that the resolution of these
uncertainties may lead to additional water quality projects and will
likely result in cost increases. The state took exception to the
inclusion of the $1 billion cost estimate for dredging Lake Okeechobee
in our report and maintained that we characterized the Corps'
involvement as inevitable. We do not believe that our report
characterized the Corps' involvement in dredging Lake Okeechobee as
inevitable. We included Lake Okeechobee as an example of an area where,
through the state's efforts to identify actions needed to improve water
quality in the South Florida ecosystem, the Corps could have a future
role. We point out in our report that the state has not yet determined
all of the actions that will be needed to clean up Lake Okeechobee and
that the Corps' role has not yet been defined. However, to emphasize
that point, we revised this section of our report to reiterate that
once the state determines which projects are necessary, the Corps will
determine if the additional projects are essential to the ecosystem's
restoration and decide if the Federal Government will participate in
and share the costs of the additional projects.
This concludes our statement. We will be happy to respond to any
questions from you or other Members of the Subcommittee.
Contact and Acknowledgement
For further information on this testimony, please contact Barry
Hill at (202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Susan Iott, Chet Janik, and Sherry McDonald.
______
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: Additional Water Quality
Projects May Be Needed and Could Increase Costs
(Letter Report, September 14, 2000, GAO/RCED-00-235).
September 14, 2000.
The Honorable George V. Voinovich, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate.
B-285227
Dear Mr. Chairman: The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative
is a complex, long-term effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem,
which includes the Everglades. Because water is key to restoring the
ecosystem, one of the initiative's major goals is ``getting the water
right''--or improving the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution
of water in the ecosystem. The primary means of achieving this goal is
through the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (the Plan). Although achieving the right quantity,
timing, and distribution of water is important, improving water quality
is critical to sustaining and restoring the South Florida ecosystem.
Currently, pollutants such as excessive nutrients, metals, and other
contaminants have diminished the quality of water in the ecosystem and
harmed plants, fish, and other wildlife. To achieve and sustain the
restoration of the ecosystem, its water needs to be clean and
unimpaired by pollutants.
In April 2000, the administration presented proposed legislation to
the Congress requesting the approval of the Plan as a framework for
restoring the ecosystem and authorizing an initial group of projects.
The Plan, whose development was authorized by the Congress in the Water
Resources Development acts of 1992 and 1996, provides a road map for
increasing the region's freshwater supply and improving the delivery
and quality of water to natural areas. This Plan represents one of the
most ambitious restoration efforts the Corps has ever undertaken; it
contains 66 individual projects that will take more than 20 years to
complete.\1\ \2\ Implementing the Plan is currently estimated to cost
$7.8 billion--a cost that will be shared equally by the Federal
Government and the state of Florida. The effort is unique in that the
Plan is conceptual. Because the Plan consists of a large number of
projects that will be designed and constructed over a long period of
time, it does not provide the level of detail normally found in a Corps
feasibility study. The Congress is currently considering this proposal.
In May 2000, Florida passed legislation approving the Plan and
initially committed $2 billion in resources for the effort. The
legislation also included a requirement for an annual report that
provides information on the funds received and expended for the
implementation of the Plan as well as the progress being made in
implementing the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Plan includes 68 projects, but 2 of these projects were
funded under another program's authority. As a result, there are 66
projects remaining in the Plan. Many of the projects have multiple
purposes and contain multiple features. Throughout this report, we use
the term ``projects'' to refer to the 66 projects and their features.
\2\ The Corps estimates that most projects will be completed within
20 years; however, the projected timeframes for two large reservoir
projects extend over 35 years. According to Corps officials,
appropriation levels will affect these timeframes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Plan is conceptual and water quality is critical to
sustaining the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, you asked us
to (1) describe the role of the Corps' Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan in addressing the major water quality concerns in the
ecosystem and (2) identify modifications that may be needed as the
Corps implements the Plan after it has been authorized by the Congress.
The information presented in this report is primarily based on our
discussions with officials from Federal and state agencies that have
responsibilities for managing water supplies and ensuring water quality
in South Florida. Reliance on discussions with Federal and state
officials was necessary because the Plan is a conceptual document and
detailed plans of the projects to be constructed are not yet available.
We also reviewed the portions of the Plan that describe water quality
projects and obtained and reviewed other pertinent water quality
reports and studies.
This is our third report on efforts to restore the South Florida
ecosystem. In April 1999, we reported on the Federal funding provided
for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative and how well the
initiative was being coordinated and managed. In April 2000, we
reported on the status of land acquisition plans for the initiative.\3\
In our first report, we recommended that the Task Force, a multi-agency
group responsible for coordinating and facilitating the overall effort,
develop a strategic plan. The strategic plan would lay out how the
initiative's three goals--getting the water right, restoring and
enhancing the natural system, and fostering the compatibility of human
and natural systems--would be accomplished. Our second report
recommended that the Task Force develop a land acquisition plan to
supplement the strategic plan. At the request of the Congress, the
Department of the Interior, which chairs the Task Force, estimated that
achieving all three of the initiative's goals would cost $14.8 billion.
This figure includes the estimated cost of the Plan--$7.8 billion--as
well as the estimated costs for land acquisition programs and several
other Federal and state efforts.
3. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: An Overall Strategic Plan
and a Decision-Making Process Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track
(GAO/RCED-99-121, Apr. 22, 1999) and South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration: A Land Acquisition Plan Would Help Identify Lands That
Need to Be Acquired (GAO/RCED-00-84, Apr. 5, 2000).
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan provides a conceptual
framework for improving the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution
of water in the South Florida ecosystem. Twenty-four of the Plan's 66
projects are intended, among other things, to improve the quality of
water in the natural areas of the ecosystem; the remaining projects
deal more with the water's quantity, timing, and distribution. The
water quality projects in the Plan are intended to supplement the
efforts of the state, which has the primary responsibility for
achieving water quality standards in Florida. Under the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, the Corps is allowed to include water quality
projects in the Plan and equally share the costs with Florida if the
projects are essential to restoring the Everglades.
Currently, there are too many uncertainties to estimate the number
and costs of the Corps projects that will ultimately be needed to
address water quality in the ecosystem. As uncertainties related to
implementing the Plan's projects are resolved and more information is
gathered about the extent of the ecosystem's water quality problems, it
is likely that modifications and additions to the Plan will be
necessary and that these changes could increase the total cost of the
Plan over the Corps' current estimate of $7.8 billion. For example, the
state is currently determining the level of pollutants that Lake
Okeechobee can receive and what actions are needed to clean up the
lake. Some of the actions being considered, such as dredging the lake
to remove contaminated sediment, could cost over $1 billion. Because
the lake is the source of much of the water in the ecosystem, the Corps
could become involved in the effort if it determines that the lake's
cleanup is essential to the ecosystem's restoration. Other efforts,
such as the completion of feasibility studies for areas in the
ecosystem not covered by the Plan, could also lead to additional water
quality projects. The Corps has acknowledged the level of uncertainty
in the Plan and has included a process for incorporating project
modifications and additions in its future reports to the Congress. It
has not, however, included a means for reporting (1) cumulative changes
in projects and costs for the Plan as a whole and (2) the progress
being made in implementing the Plan. Such information will be important
for the Congress in authorizing future projects. We recommend in this
report that the Corps provide for such reporting.
We provided a draft of this report to the Corps, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and the South Florida Water Management
District for review and comment. The Corps, the Department, and the
District agreed with our recommendation and noted that they will be
producing varied reports that will help them meet our recommended
reporting requirement. While they agreed with the recommendation, the
Corps, the Department, and the District noted areas in which they
believed the report was misleading. For example, the Corps believes
that it fully disclosed the uncertainties associated with the Plan and
developed a methodology to deal with the uncertainties, and it does not
believe that the Plan's total costs will necessarily increase. In our
report, we recognize that the Corps was aware of the uncertainties and
describe the process that it has in place for incorporating change.
Furthermore, we acknowledge that the Corps may achieve some cost
savings in some areas, but overall, we believe that the costs of
implementing the Plan may increase. In addition, the Corps and the
Department objected to the inclusion in our report of the $1 billion
estimated cost of dredging Lake Okeechobee and did not agree with our
conclusion that the lake's cleanup could become part of the Plan. We
revised the report to indicate that the cost estimate is preliminary,
and we indicated the source of the estimate. However, we continue to
believe that projects to improve the lake's water quality--if deemed
essential to restore the ecosystem--should be included in the Plan. The
Department also objected to our inclusion of the estimated costs for
the entire restoration effort in the report, saying that this total was
not an agreed-upon cost. However, we believe that the cost of the
overall restoration is an important piece of information that places
the Plan in context, and therefore we did not remove this information.
We did identify the source of the estimate and clarify what it
includes. Finally, each of the agencies, including the Environmental
Protection Agency, provided technical comments that we incorporated as
appropriate.
Background
The South Florida ecosystem extends from the Chain of Lakes south
of Orlando to the reefs southwest of the Florida Keys. The ecosystem
includes such major water bodies as Lake Okeechobee; the Kissimmee,
Caloosahatchee, and St. Lucie rivers; portions of the Indian River
Lagoon; and Biscayne and Florida bays. Following major droughts from
the 1930's through the mid-1940's and drenching hurricanes in 1947, the
Congress authorized the Corps to construct the Central and Southern
Florida Project. The project--an extensive system of 1,700 miles of
canals and levees and 16 major pump stations--prevents flooding and
saltwater intrusion into the state's aquifer while providing drainage
and water to the residents of South Florida. The project's canals now
divert much of the water that historically flowed south from Lake
Okeechobee through the Everglades to Florida Bay east and west to the
ocean or to agricultural and urban uses. The Everglades, which used to
extend from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay, has been reduced to about
half its former size.
Although the Corps' Central and Southern Florida Project
accomplished its objectives, it had unintended detrimental
environmental effects. Coupled with urban and agricultural development,
the project has led to significant deterioration in the South Florida
ecosystem's water quality. By draining off water to the ocean that
historically flowed through the ecosystem to Florida Bay and opening
large land tracts for urban development and agricultural practices, the
project disrupts natural drainage patterns in the region and releases
stormwater runoff into the ecosystem in many areas. Pollutants in the
runoff, including excess nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen,
metals such as mercury (which is primarily deposited from atmospheric
incinerator emissions), and pesticides, have degraded the natural areas
of the ecosystem. Excess nutrients have caused a decline in natural
vegetation, such as sawgrass, and have caused the increase of
undesirable species, such as cattails. Mercury, which increases in
concentration as it moves up the food chain, and some pesticides can be
toxic to fish and wildlife.
Recognizing that the Central and Southern Florida Project needed to
be modified to address its negative impact on the environment of South
Florida, the Congress included provisions relating to the project in
the Water Resources Development acts of 1992 and 1996. The 1992 act
provided the Secretary of the Army, who delegated this responsibility
to the Corps, with the authority to study the original design of the
project in order to determine whether modifications were needed because
of changes in the ecosystem's physical, biological, demographic, or
economic conditions. The 1996 act directed the Corps, on the basis of
its initial review, to prepare a feasibility report and a programmatic
environmental impact statement to determine what changes were needed to
restore the South Florida ecosystem. The act required that the Corps
report back to the Congress by July 1999.
Using the authority provided by the acts, the Corps, with the
cooperation and assistance of multiple Federal, state, local, and
tribal agencies, completed the feasibility study and developed the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The Plan, which was
presented to the Congress in July 1999, proposes a set of 66 projects
to modify the Central and Southern Florida Project to protect and
restore the South Florida ecosystem at an estimated cost of $7.8
billion. The projects in the Plan, if authorized and built, will
restore water to the natural areas of the ecosystem and also supply
water to agricultural and urban areas. The natural areas of the
ecosystem are made up of Federal and state lands, including the water
conservation areas owned by the state, \4\ wildlife refuges managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state, Everglades National
Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, and the coastal waters, estuaries,
bays, and islands. The goal of the Plan is to increase the water
available for the ecosystem by capturing much of the water that is now
being drained, storing the water in many different reservoirs and
underground storage wells, and releasing it when it is needed. (See
app. I for additional details on the projects included in the Plan.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The state has three water conservation areas that comprise
about 1,350 square miles of land south of Lake Okeechobee. These
areas--one of which is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
a national wildlife refuge--are natural areas of remnant Everglades
that are used for multiple purposes, such as storing water that has
been discharged from Lake Okeechobee and other sources. The areas also
serve as a source of water for Everglades National Park, the lower east
coast agricultural lands, and urban areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration presented proposed legislation in April 2000
asking the Congress to approve the Plan with its projects as a
conceptual framework for restoring the ecosystem. \5\ Because the Plan
consists of a large number of projects that will be designed and
constructed over a long period of time, it is not as detailed as
typical Corps feasibility studies. For example, it does not identify
specific sites for the proposed projects. The Corps also plans to
conduct additional feasibility studies because the time allotted to
complete the Plan did not allow for a thorough investigation of all of
the regional water resource problems in South Florida. The Corps will
design the projects in more detail and expects to request the Congress
to authorize a new set of projects every 2 years until all the projects
are authorized, which the Corps anticipates will take until 2014. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The administration's proposal also asks the Congress to
authorize 4 pilot projects, 10 initial projects, and 25 smaller
projects that will have immediate benefits if implemented.
\6\ Design work is already progressing under the authority of an
existing design agreement between the Corps and the District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plan will be carried out primarily by one Federal agency--the
Corps--and one state agency--the South Florida Water Management
District (the District), which manages water resources for South
Florida and is the Corps' local sponsor, or partner. \7\ These agencies
are responsible for operating the Central and Southern Florida Project
as it is currently configured and will be responsible for planning,
designing, and constructing the Plan's projects to reconfigure it. The
agencies are responsible for meeting both the water supply and water
quality goals in the Plan. Furthermore, under the Clean Water Act,
which seeks to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters, the projects must be
designed to meet applicable state water quality standards. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Although the South Florida Water Management District is the
primary non-Federal sponsor, as many as five counties and city
governments and Native American tribes could also serve as non-Federal
sponsors for portions of the Plan. The Seminole Tribe of Florida signed
a project coordination agreement with the Corps in Jan. 2000 to
implement a water resources project on its Big Cypress Reservation.
\8\ Enacted in 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
commonly called the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entities responsible for ensuring that the Plan's projects
meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act are the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Miccosukee and Seminole tribes. EPA
is responsible for developing regulations and guidance for implementing
the act, while the state and the tribes have primary responsibility for
programs to manage water quality. Florida's Department of Environmental
Protection is responsible for (1) classifying the types of water in the
state by designated use, (2) establishing water quality standards for
each type of water designed to protect the designated use, (3)
regulating discharges into waters, (4) determining and reporting waters
that do not meet standards to EPA and (5) making plans to improve the
quality of water that does not meet standards. In addition, the
Department is responsible for monitoring the quality of each water
body. In the South Florida ecosystem, the Department has delegated
water quality monitoring and assessment to the District. Other
agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, contribute to water
quality monitoring and analysis. The tribes are responsible for these
activities on their reservation lands, which encompass about 165,000
acres in the South Florida ecosystem. Figure 1 shows the relationship
of the Federal and state agencies and tribes involved in improving
water quality in the South Florida ecosystem.
Figure 1: Relationship of Federal and State Agencies and Tribes
Involved in Implementing the Plan to Improve Water Quality in the South
Florida Ecosystem
Note: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has delegated
responsibility for water quality monitoring and assessment in the
ecosystem to the South Florida Water Management District.
The Projects in the Corps' Plan Supplement Florida's Efforts to Address
Water Quality in the Ecosystem
The water quality projects included in the Corps' Plan supplement
the efforts of Florida, which is primarily responsible for ensuring
compliance with water quality standards in the ecosystem and for
ensuring that the projects meet state water quality standards. As
authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the Corps
included projects in the Plan to improve water quality in the South
Florida ecosystem that the Corps deemed essential to achieve the
restoration of the Everglades. The Federal and state governments will
equally share the costs of these projects. The Corps developed guidance
establishing which water quality projects would be considered essential
for restoration purposes. Generally, the guidance calls for the
construction of water quality projects in locations where the Corps
will reintroduce water to natural areas of the ecosystem. Therefore,
some of the Plan's projects involve not only collecting, storing, and
diverting water that is now being drained by the existing Central and
Southern Florida Project, but also constructing water quality projects,
such as treatment facilities, to ensure that the water being put back
into the natural areas is clean.
Florida Has Primary Responsibility for Addressing Water Quality in the
Ecosystem
Florida has the primary responsibility for achieving water quality
standards in the state and is taking steps outside the Plan to achieve
water quality standards in the ecosystem. Most significantly, the state
is beginning to develop pollutant reduction plans to improve the waters
in the state. Under the Clean Water Act, the state has to report water
bodies to EPA that do not meet the agency's standards or are considered
``impaired.'' \9\ In 1998, the state identified and reported 150 such
water bodies or water segments in the South Florida ecosystem. To
improve these impaired waters, the state must establish the amount of
each pollutant that can be discharged into a particular water body and
still meet standards and limit discharges to those levels. Florida
currently has a 13-year schedule to establish the allowable amounts of
each pollutant, known as a ``total maximum daily load,'' that can be
discharged into each body of water in the state, including those in the
South Florida ecosystem. \10\ If the state fails to establish the total
maximum daily loads, EPA is required to establish the amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The state indicated that there are questions about the process
and data used to achieve this listing. GAO has reported on the
inaccuracy of the data used by the states to report impaired waters in
Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and
Incomplete Data (GAO/RCED-00-54, Mar. 15, 2000).
\10\ Florida's schedule has been adjusted to reflect the results of
a lawsuit against EPA for not reviewing the establishment of total
maximum daily loads in the state. The state has rescheduled the
establishment of some total maximum daily loads to meet the schedule
set in the consent decree settling the lawsuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to its statewide water quality programs, Florida has
initiated several efforts specifically designed to address the quality
of water in the Everglades and other natural areas in the South Florida
ecosystem. For example, Florida's Everglades Forever Act,\11\ passed in
1994, established a plan to restore significant portions of the
ecosystem through construction, research, and regulation. Most
importantly, the act requires the state to reduce phosphorus levels
entering the natural areas of the ecosystem. To do this, six wetlands,
called stormwater treatment areas, are being constructed to filter
pollutants in runoff from the agricultural areas south of Lake
Okeechobee. \12\ In addition, the state must develop a numeric
criterion for phosphorus in the Everglades. Another important state
effort to address water quality in the ecosystem, the Lake Okeechobee
Protection Program, was passed in May 2000. These and other state
efforts intended to improve the quality of water of the South Florida
ecosystem are described in appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Everglades Forever Act codifies much of a consent decree
establishing a settlement agreement between the United States and the
state. The consent decree settled a lawsuit against the state for not
enforcing its water quality standards in Federal areas.
\12\ Under the consent decree cited in footnote 11, the state will
build five of these areas and the Federal Government will build one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With funding through a grant from EPA, Florida recently initiated
an effort, called the South Florida Water Quality Protection Program,
to coordinate the various ongoing efforts to improve water quality in
the ecosystem. The purpose of the program, which will be developed
primarily by those entities that have water quality responsibilities in
South Florida, will be to identify water quality problems in the
ecosystem; recommend actions to deal with these problems; and identify
and coordinate the efforts of the Federal, state, tribal, or local
agencies that will be responsible for taking action. The key programs
that will be coordinated are the state's total maximum daily load
program and its activities under the Everglades Forever Act, as well as
the Corps' projects in the Plan.
Corps' Plan Includes Projects to Address Some Water Quality Concerns
Twenty-four of the 66 projects that the Corps included in its Plan
are intended to improve water quality in the ecosystem. Many of the
Plan's other projects will also improve the quality of water by
increasing the quantity or changing the flow of water to degraded
areas, but these 24 projects were included specifically to improve
water quality. To identify these projects, the Corps established two
criteria. First, the Corps included projects to treat water that is
being ``reclaimed'' as part of the Plan. This water is now being
discharged by the Central and Southern Florida Project into the ocean,
but under the Plan, it will be diverted, stored, and discharged into
natural areas to supplement water supply and improve habitat. Second,
the Corps included treatment projects for water that will be
``reused.'' This water will also be reclaimed, but its final use will
be changed. For example, the Corps now releases water from Lake
Okeechobee to the water conservation areas for flood control purposes
and water supply, but under the Plan it will also release water for
environmental purposes. Figure 2 shows the location of the 24 water
quality projects included in the Plan.
Figure 2: Location of the Plan's Water Quality Projects
Source: GAO's adaptation of an illustration prepared by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The Plan includes 19 stormwater treatment areas (17 projects--2
projects each contain 2 treatment areas) in locations where new storage
sites will be built to reclaim water or modify its use. One of the
major purposes of the Plan is to create new storage for the 1.7 billion
gallons of water per day that historically flowed south into the
Everglades but is now, because of the Central and Southern Florida
Project, being discharged into the ocean or released for flood control
purposes, thus depriving the Everglades of much needed water. While
this water generally meets standards for discharge into the ocean, it
will require additional treatment before it can be released into the
natural areas of the ecosystem because these areas are less able to
assimilate specific pollutants, such as phosphorus. A team of Federal
and state water quality experts used available water quality models to
evaluate the potential effects of the Plan's projects on water quality
and to identify areas in which known water quality problems could be
addressed by the Plan's projects. As a result, the Corps added over
35,500 acres of stormwater treatment areas. Ten treatment areas will be
constructed along the east coast between the natural areas and the
developed coastal areas, five are located around Lake Okeechobee to
treat water entering the lake, and four treat water entering the
natural areas northwest of Everglades National Park. In addition, the
Plan relies on the six stormwater treatment areas being constructed
under the Everglades Forever Act to treat water released from the
Everglades Agricultural Area, Lake Okeechobee, and a reservoir planned
for the area. The design of the treatment areas was based on that of
the areas being built by the state under the act.
In addition to the stormwater treatment areas, the Corps identified
a need for two advanced wastewater treatment facilities to treat
wastewater for reuse to benefit natural areas. The two plants will take
wastewater from the Miami area, treat it, and return it to natural
areas to increase the amount of water being provided there. Water that
is currently being released from wastewater treatment facilities will
be treated and used to recharge groundwater to prevent water from
seeping underground from Everglades National Park and to meet the
freshwater needs of Biscayne Bay. The Corps included these projects as
part of the Plan because it needed additional water in these areas but
faced limited supplies. Because of concerns about potential overflows
and accidents, such as pipe ruptures, the Corps is considering
alternatives for at least the facility near Biscayne Bay.
Finally, the Plan included five smaller projects that were selected
because they will have an immediate environmental benefit. \13\ These
projects include such activities as restoring wetlands or dredging
sediments from lakes or other water bodies. For example, one project
involves dredging the tributaries that flow into Lake Okeechobee to
remove sediments, which will help remove nutrients that contribute to
algal blooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Most of the small-scale projects were selected from the list
of critical projects compiled under the 1996 Water Resources
Development Act that allowed the Corps to construct small projects that
would have an immediate environmental effect. This list of critical
projects was developed by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force, and about half of them have been funded. In addition, some
small-scale projects were selected from a list of projects submitted by
the Florida Governor's Commission's Conceptual Plan for ecosystem
restoration and from suggestions by the scientists and agency officials
compiling the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution of Project Uncertainties and Outcomes of Studies May Lead to
Additional Water Quality Projects and Costs
As the Corps implements the Plan over the next 20 or more years,
Corps officials believe that modifications to existing projects and
additional projects may be necessary, as their details are further
developed and as uncertainties about their implementation are resolved.
In addition, the Corps plans to conduct several studies that may
further identify water quality problems in the ecosystem. If additional
water quality projects are identified during the Plan's implementation
or as a result of these studies, the costs to implement the Plan could
increase above the Corps' current $7.8 billion estimate. Recognizing
that additional projects could be needed as the Plan is implemented,
the Corps included a process in the Plan to incorporate and report to
the Congress on modifications and additions to it. However, the Corps
has not included a process for updating the Congress on the cumulative
effects of the individual changes on the overall Plan.
Resolution of Implementation Uncertainties
The Corps acknowledged that a number of uncertainties associated
with implementing the Plan's projects have not yet been resolved and
could lead to additional water quality projects. These uncertainties
include (1) whether planned stormwater treatment areas will be
successful in achieving the lowest phosphorus concentration needed, (2)
whether 245,000 acre-feet of additional water will be needed for
Everglades National Park; \14\ and (3) what type and level of treatment
will be necessary for water stored in and retrieved from aquifer
storage and recovery wells--large underground wells that are one of the
primary means in the Plan for storing water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ An acre-foot of water is equal to about 326,000 gallons of
water--enough to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncertainties About Stormwater Treatment Areas May Lead to Additional
Projects
Uncertainties about the degree to which pollutants can be removed
by the planned stormwater treatment areas may lead to additional water
quality projects. In particular, some natural areas in the ecosystem,
such as Everglades National Park and the water conservation areas, have
a low tolerance for phosphorus--only about 10 parts per billion of
phosphorus can be in the water without adversely affecting its
designated use. Two or three of the stormwater treatment areas in the
Corps' Plan will be used to reduce the levels of phosphorus in water
that is being released into these areas, and the treatment areas will
have to be built so the released water meets Florida's water quality
standards for all pollutants. The state, however, does not currently
have a numerical standard for phosphorus in these water bodies,
although it is in the process of establishing one. The Corps based the
design of its stormwater treatment areas on similar areas being built
by the state that are designed to reduce phosphorus levels to meet an
interim standard of 50 parts per billion. Evidence gathered by EPA and
the state support a numeric criterion for phosphorus of 10 parts per
billion; the final standard will involve methods of monitoring and
determining compliance that could affect treatment options. \15\ If the
state establishes a lower phosphorus standard--for example 10 parts per
billion--for Everglades National Park and the water conservation areas,
then the Corps will likely be required to modify the stormwater
treatment areas being built for these areas to achieve that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Miccosukee Tribe adopted a phosphorus standard of 10 parts
per billion for its lands in the water conservation area. In May 1999,
EPA approved that standard determining that the Tribe's 10-parts-per-
billion criterion is protective of the water's designated use, is
reasonable and is scientifically defensible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Corps determines that an additional 245,000 acre-feet of
water will be essential to the restoration of natural areas,
particularly Everglades National Park, it may need to add another water
quality project. In response to concerns by the Department of the
Interior about needing additional water for the Park during certain
times of the year, the Corps determined that an extra 245,000 acre-feet
of water could be made available from eastern urban areas. Because of
uncertainties in the models for water quantity in the Park, some
Federal and state officials disagree that the extra water is needed for
the Park. In the meantime, the Corps has considered ways to bring the
water to the Park, but it will not study the matter fully until a
decision is made on the amount of water needed. In addition, the amount
of water for the Park may be affected by the amount of water needed in
Florida Bay, which will be determined as part of follow-on feasibility
studies for the Bay. If the Corps and others determine that more water
is needed for the Park, then additional water treatment facilities
could be needed to ensure the quality of the water entering the natural
areas. Under its criteria to include reclamation projects to protect
the quality of water in natural areas, the Corps could be involved in
constructing and funding the project. According to Corps officials and
others, because undeveloped land is scarce on the east side of the
natural areas, water treatment facilities using traditional chemical
treatment are the most likely option. According to District officials,
another option could be to relocate or resize some of the treatment
projects already included in the Plan.
Uncertainties About the Treatment Needed for Water Stored in Wells May
Result in Additional Water Quality Projects
Uncertainties about the type and extent of treatment needed for
water being pumped into and retrieved from over 300 aquifer storage and
recovery wells may result in additional water quality projects. The
Corps has included plans and costs for chlorination and filtration
facilities to treat the water being injected into more than 250 of
these wells. Although the need for chlorination has not yet been
determined, concerns have been raised about a possible chemical
reaction between chlorinated surface water and the aquifer's
groundwater. According to Corps and state officials that we spoke with,
such a reaction could create trihalomethane compounds, which are
carcinogenic. In addition, the level of filtration required may vary
according to the quality of the water being injected into wells; in
some cases simple filtration will likely be needed to remove debris,
but in other cases, ultrafiltration may be needed to remove pathogens
such as coliforms. Corps officials think it is unlikely that
chlorination and ultrafiltration will be needed, and if not, the Corps
estimates that about $500 million could be saved. The Corps will design
and implement pilot projects to determine if these treatments will be
needed and what problems arise from using untreated or chlorinated
surface water. If additional information from the pilots indicates that
chlorination and ultrafiltration are necessary, additional projects to
address water quality problems arising from chemical reactions may be
necessary.
Regardless of whether chlorination and filtration are used, other
chemical reactions could occur in the water stored underground,
resulting in a need for additional projects to improve the quality of
water retrieved from the wells. Some Federal and state officials and
scientists believe that chemical reactions could occur when water is
injected underground. For example, un-ionized ammonia--which in excess
amounts can kill freshwater species, including fish--could be formed.
Florida's monitoring of a small well has demonstrated that underground
chemical reactions have contaminated the water with arsenic and
radioactive materials, such as uranium, although not at levels
exceeding Federal drinking water standards. According to officials from
EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, if such
chemical reactions occur, the water will require treatment when it is
retrieved from the wells. Corps and District officials said that any
pretreatment facilities, if constructed, could be used to treat the
water recovered from wells to handle such problems if they occur. Corps
officials noted that pilot projects the Corps has designed will gather
information to resolve these uncertainties and will identify any
additional projects that may be needed to address water quality issues
created by the technology. If the pilots indicate that the use of this
technology is not feasible, Corps officials said that other storage
options would be substituted.
Impact of Ongoing and Planned Studies
Recognizing that all the water quality problems of the South
Florida ecosystem have not been identified, the Corps plans to conduct
several feasibility studies to identify water resource problems in
areas of the ecosystem that were not included when it developed the
Plan. These studies will likely identify new water quality projects to
add to the Plan. Moreover, the Plan recommends the development of a
comprehensive integrated water quality plan to evaluate and determine
whether any additional water quality projects recommended by the state
should be added to the Plan. Any projects identified by these studies
will be in addition to those needed to address the uncertainties
involved in implementing the Plan.
Feasibility Studies Will Likely Identify Additional Water Quality
Projects
In addition to the 66 projects in the Plan, the Corps included
several feasibility studies for other areas of the South Florida
ecosystem, which could result in the addition of other water quality
projects to the Plan. These feasibility studies, which deal with the
Southwest Florida and Florida Bay/Florida Keys areas, were included
because there was not enough time when the Plan was being developed to
allow for a thorough investigation of all the water resource problems
in these areas of the ecosystem. In particular, water models and water
quality models that exist for Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay have not
been calibrated or validated, and, as a result, the Corps and other
agency scientists could not rely on these models to conduct detailed
studies of the projects needed to improve the quality, quantity,
timing, or distribution of water for these areas. The feasibility
studies will identify new projects to be included in the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan to help solve any problems with water
quality, quantity, timing, and distribution. The Corps, in conjunction
with other Federal and state agencies, is currently refining water flow
and quality models for both bays.
More detailed project designs and analysis from each feasibility
study could reveal additional water quality concerns and could result
in additional water quality projects. For example, the Corps' Plan
already includes a project to improve the circulation and quality of
water in Florida Bay by removing portions of the roadbed that fills
some of the waterways between islands in the Keys. The Corps will
include this as a project in the Florida Bay feasibility study, as well
as other projects that have not yet been identified. Additional
projects may include solutions for the decline in sea grasses and
increases in algae that have occurred in the Bay. Federal and state
scientists and other experts are aware of the excess nutrients and
salinity in some parts of the Bay, and they believe that either one or
both are contributing to these problems. However, they have not reached
consensus on the source or effects of these problems or on the
potential actions needed to resolve them. As more information becomes
known, additional projects to improve water quality in the Bay may be
identified. For these, as for other water quality projects, the Corps
will determine its involvement according to whether they involve
reclaiming water for the natural system or reusing water.
In addition to the feasibility studies proposed in the Plan, the
Corps is currently conducting two feasibility studies under the
authority of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996--the Indian
River Lagoon Feasibility Study and the Water Preserve Areas Feasibility
Study--and is conducting a third for Biscayne Bay under a separate
authority. According to a Corps official, the Plan already includes
most of the projects that will be recommended in these reports, but the
Indian River Lagoon study has identified at least one water quality
project that is not in the Plan. As a result of the study, the Corps
will likely add a water quality project to its Plan to dredge the
lagoon to remove sediments from the St. Lucie estuary, a major
tributary of the lagoon, to improve the water's quality and clarity.
Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan May Identify Additional
Projects
Although Florida has the primary responsibility to clean up
impaired waters and ensure water quality in the South Florida
ecosystem, the Corps of Engineers could have a role in future water
quality efforts if it determines that the projects are essential for
ecosystem restoration under the provisions of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996. Recognizing that not all of the ecosystem's
water quality problems have been identified, the Corps has included a
recommendation in the Plan for the development of a comprehensive
integrated water quality plan. According to Corps officials, the water
quality plan will be closely coordinated with the South Florida Water
Quality Protection Program, which was recently initiated by the state.
Through their participation in the Indian River Lagoon Feasibility
Study, program officials have already helped to identify one
modification to the Plan--the need to add a stormwater treatment area
to a reservoir project on the St. Lucie River to help reduce the flow
of sediment and pollutants into the St. Lucie estuary.
As the state program identifies additional projects to improve
water quality, the Corps will evaluate whether the projects are
essential and whether the Federal Government should participate in
them, share their costs, and include them in its water quality plan.
One of Florida's major efforts to improve water quality will be
identifying and enforcing total maximum daily loads. To complete its
13-year schedule to establish total maximum daily loads, the state will
establish hundreds of load amounts for the almost 150 impaired water
bodies or segments of water bodies in the South Florida ecosystem. The
state will also be developing plans that will identify projects for
reducing the amounts of pollutants entering these water bodies. This
does not include efforts that will need to be undertaken to address
future impaired waters. According to Corps officials, the Corps will
apply the same criteria it originally used to include water quality
projects in the Plan to determine which additional water quality
projects it will participate in under its comprehensive water quality
plan.
For example, the cleanup of Lake Okeechobee, which has been
described as the ``liquid heart of the ecosystem,'' may require a
number of projects to restore the quality of the lake's water and,
according to Corps officials, could eventually require the Corps'
involvement. Currently, Lake Okeechobee--which was once a sandy-
bottomed, clear, shallow lake--has high levels of phosphorus that make
it prone to algal blooms and cattail growth, adversely affecting the
quantity and types of plants and fish in the lake. Despite the
implementation of certain permitting programs by the state, the annual
phosphorus amounts exceed the state targets. Our discussions with state
officials responsible for water quality in Florida indicate that a
combination of actions, such as agricultural best management practices
and the use of storm water treatment areas, will be needed to lower the
levels of phosphorus entering the lake. The state passed legislation on
recovering Lake Okeechobee this year and will put in place additional
best management practices for agricultural lands, will build pilot
projects to test sediment removal and stormwater treatment areas, and
will begin other programs to reduce phosphorus in the lake, but it does
not yet know how many stormwater treatment areas may be needed. The
Corps has already included five treatment facilities in its Plan to
remove phosphorus from some of the lake's tributaries. The number of
stormwater treatment areas that will be needed in addition to those
already planned by the Corps will depend on the final target
concentration that is set for reducing phosphorus in the lake and the
effectiveness of nonregulatory and regulatory actions in helping to
reach that target. According to Corps officials, the Corps may
participate in the construction of other stormwater treatment areas if
the state determines the areas are needed.
Large deposits of phosphorus-laden sediment in the lake further
exacerbate the phosphorus problem. Some Federal and state officials
believe that if the sediment remains in the lake, the lake's water
quality will remain a significant problem. However, dredging will
involve removing as much as 30,000 metric tons of phosphorus from the
lake's sediment and disposing of it either in landfill or as potential
fertilizer. No final decision has been made on what actions to take
pending Florida's completion of a feasibility study on options to
remove the sediment, which range from dredging the entire lake to
sealing or capping phosphorus-laden sediments. If a decision is made to
take some action to remove the sediments, then the Corps would decide
if the proposed action is essential to the restoration of the ecosystem
and if the Federal Government should become involved and share the
costs of the project(s). According to Corps officials, improving the
water quality of Lake Okeechobee, which is the source of much of the
water in the South Florida ecosystem, is critical to the lake's
restoration. The Corps has already included two similar, but much
smaller, projects in the Plan--the Lake Trafford \16\ and Lake Worth
Lagoon dredging projects. In our discussions with both Federal and
state officials, the main difference between these two projects and a
project to dredge Lake Okeechobee is that Lake Okeechobee is many times
larger and would cost more to clean up. A preliminary estimate prepared
by an issue team of Federal and state scientists showed that fully
dredging the lake could cost at least $1 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Lake Trafford project was funded as a critical project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another area that may involve the Corps in future water quality
projects is the abatement of mercury in the ecosystem. Mercury
accumulates in fish and in wildlife that eat fish affected with mercury
and concentrates as it moves up the food chain. Scientists believe that
mercury in the atmosphere from waste incineration and power generation
is deposited in South Florida and, under specific conditions, is
converted to a toxic form that accumulates and concentrates in fish and
animals. At present, scientists continue to research the problem.
However, because of high concentrations of mercury in fish and wildlife
on Federal lands, such as Everglades National Park, the Corps or other
Federal agencies could become involved in trying to remove mercury from
these areas. Other Federal agencies, such as EPA and the Department of
the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey, are already involved in
addressing the mercury problem to some extent through research and
monitoring programs.
The Plan Includes a Process for Incorporating and Reporting Change
To allow for changes that will result as uncertainties involved in
implementing the Plan's projects are resolved, including the possible
addition of water quality projects, the Corps' Plan includes three ways
to incorporate changes: (1) additional efforts, such as surveys,
mapping, and water quality analyses, that are needed to develop the
final design of the projects; (2) pilot projects conducted to resolve
technical uncertainties; and (3) an adaptive assessment process. The
adaptive assessment process involves monitoring the systemwide effects
of projects on the ecosystem as they are implemented, evaluating the
achievement of each project's objectives, and including the monitoring
and evaluation results and new information learned from continuing
research to refine or alter the design or sequencing of projects.
According to the Corps, adaptive assessment will allow it to recognize
the need for change and adapt the Plan if the intended results are not
achieved or if new ways to increase the benefits to the ecosystem are
identified.
The Corps has also included a process in the Plan for authorizing
future projects, including any changes, either modifications or
additions, that result from its additional planning efforts. As it
prepares to move forward with a project, the Corps will submit to the
Congress a project implementation report that includes the detailed
technical information necessary to design a project or groups of
similar projects. The reports will contain the results of additional
efforts, such as surveys and mapping, economic analyses, and water
quality analyses that are needed to develop the final design of the
projects. These reports will be used to add, remove, or modify projects
in the Plan and, except for the projects presented for initial
authorization, will be presented to the Congress for authorization
every 2 years until 2014--when the Corps anticipates that all of the
projects needed for the restoration effort will have been authorized.
The reports will contain recommendations for any modifications to the
Plan whose need was determined by systemwide evaluations. However,
according to Corps officials, the Corps does not currently plan to
report to the Congress on the cumulative changes that have been made to
the Plan. Such a report would provide the Congress and the state with
an understanding of how the Plan is evolving, as well as an update
every 2 years on the costs of the projects and the Plan.
Conclusions
Achieving water quality improvements in the South Florida ecosystem
will depend on several programs and efforts, including the Corps' Plan.
Although the Plan currently includes 24 projects to address the quality
of water in natural areas of the ecosystem, there are too many
uncertainties to estimate the number and costs of the projects that
will ultimately be needed to improve water quality. Even though the
Corps believes that the costs of some projects could be reduced, we
believe that, with the potential addition of a number of water quality
projects to the Plan, it is likely that the overall costs to improve
water quality could result in an increase in the current estimate of
$7.8 billion for implementing the Plan. The Plan's water quality
monitoring and adaptive assessment process will be key to ensuring
success in addressing the water quality problems of the natural areas.
Congressional oversight of future project authorizations will be
important to ensure that the Corps consistently applies its criteria
for including additional water quality projects and monitors their
additional costs. The Corps has correctly acknowledged the Plan's need
for flexibility and adaptability and has included a means for reporting
changes to the Congress. Where the Plan falls short is in the type of
report that the Corps will provide to assist the Congress in its
oversight. Although our review identifies the potential for modifying
and adding water quality projects, the other projects in the Plan, such
as the construction of surface storage reservoirs and barriers to
prevent underground water seepage, are subject to similar changes
because they have not yet been designed. If the Congress approves the
Corps' blueprint for restoration this year, given its conceptual nature
and the likelihood of changes and additions to its projects, the
Congress--as well as Florida, which is equally sharing the costs of
implementing the Plan--will need to understand how the Plan has evolved
from the original blueprint and how these changes will affect the
Plan's total implementation costs.
Recommendation
To promote well-informed decisions about the Plan's projects that
are presented for approval in future authorization acts, we recommend
that the Secretary of the Army provide the Congress with updates that
(1) reflect the cumulative project and cost changes to the overall Plan
and (2) indicate the progress being made toward implementing the Plan.
The updates should be made at the same time as subsequent authorization
proposals. The Corps should also provide these updates to the state of
Florida.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the South Florida
Water Management District, and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection for their review and comment.
The Corps advised us that it concurs with our recommendation and
plans to implement it. The Corps noted that the recently finalized
Master Program Management Plan calls for the Restoration Coordination
and Verification team, which will evaluate and assess the performance
of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, to produce five
categories of written reports covering such topics as the performance
of the Plan and recommendations for design and operational criteria.
The Corps also expects to issue an annual report card on the status,
trends, and success of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
The Corps indicated that it would use the information presented in
these reports to implement our recommendation to prepare an overall
update to the Congress on the cumulative project and cost changes to
the Plan as well as on the progress being made in implementing the
Plan. The Corps also pointed out that the administration's proposal
contains a provision requiring periodic reports to the Congress on the
implementation of the Plan. The Corps expects to submit these reports
every 5 years. We share the Corps' views on the importance of providing
the Congress with information showing the progress being made in
implementing the Plan. However, we believe that the Corps' progress
report should include an update of the cumulative changes that have
been made to the Plan and the effect of those changes on the Plan's
implementation cost and schedule and should be provided every 2 years
when the Corps is submitting its request for congressional
authorization of a new set of projects.
The Corps also agreed that there are many uncertainties associated
with the implementation of the overall Plan and the projects to improve
water quality in the South Florida ecosystem. The Corps believes that
the uncertainties have been fully disclosed and has proposed a
methodology that will address them. This methodology includes the
development of project implementation reports. The Corps disagreed that
the uncertainties will absolutely lead to cost increases. We recognize
in our report that the Corps was aware of the uncertainties associated
with the implementation of the Plan and describe, in detail, the
process that the Corps included in the Plan to incorporate changes as
the uncertainties are resolved. We believe that the resolution of these
uncertainties may lead to additional water quality projects and will
likely result in cost increases. However, because we recognize that the
Corps may also have opportunities to reduce the costs of some projects,
our report does not state that the resolution of these uncertainties
will absolutely result in an increase in the current estimate of $7.8
billion for implementing the Plan.
The Corps believed that it was premature to suggest that dredging
Lake Okeechobee could increase the cost of the Plan and questioned the
inclusion of an estimate of the costs in our report. We specifically
point out in our report that the state is currently conducting a
feasibility study on the options to remove phosphorus-laden sediment
from the lake and that no decision on dredging Lake Okeechobee has yet
been made. We also recognize that any involvement by the Corps would be
contingent on the Corps' determination that the project(s) would be
essential for the ecosystem's restoration. However, we believe that the
cleanup of Lake Okeechobee is the type of water quality effort that
could involve the Corps in the future because (1) Lake Okeechobee is an
important component of the South Florida ecosystem, (2) the Corps has
already included projects in the Plan to address the lake's water
quality, and (3) the Corps' Plan already includes two similar, but much
smaller, dredging projects. We revised the report to identify the
source of the $1 billion cost estimate for the possible dredging of
Lake Okeechobee.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection concurred with
our recommendation. The Department stated that the recommendation is
consistent with state law and requested that we recognize that Florida
already requires that cumulative project and cost information be
reported. We commend the state for having the foresight to establish
this requirement and have revised the report to include this
information. However, we believe that it would be useful for the
Congress to receive information that shows how the Plan has evolved and
how those changes affect the Plan's original cost and implementation
schedule. For that reason, we have recommended that the Corps provide
such information to the Congress at the same time that it submits new
project authorization requests. The Department also stated its belief
that our report is misleading in the following instances:
First, the Department believes that the title of our draft report
implied that the Corps and the state were either unaware of the
uncertainties associated with the implementation of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan or downplayed the uncertainties. We did not
intend to imply that the Corps and the state were either unaware of or
downplayed these uncertainties. However, we agree that the title could
have been misconstrued and, to prevent further misinterpretation, we
revised the title of our report to indicate that additional water
quality projects may be needed and could increase the Plan's cost.
Second, the Department took exception to the inclusion in the
report of (1) the $14.8 billion cost estimate to achieve all three
goals of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative and (2) the
$1 billion figure for the possible dredging of Lake Okeechobee. The
Department stated that any reference to the $14.8 billion cost estimate
should be deleted. In the Department's view, the $14.8 billion figure
is not comparable to the cost estimate developed for the Plan and there
is no consensus among state and local governments on this amount. We
believe it is important to recognize that restoring the South Florida
ecosystem will require more than implementing the Corps' Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan, which primarily addresses one of the
initiative's goals. We agree that we should acknowledge the source of
this estimate, and we revised the report to indicate that the $14.8
billion cost estimate was calculated by the Department of the Interior,
which chairs the interagency task force that facilitates the overall
restoration effort, at the request of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. In addition, the interagency task force's
recently published strategic plan, requested by the Congress, also uses
the $14.8 billion figure in discussing the estimated cost of restoring
the ecosystem. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Coordinating Success: Strategy for Restoration of the South
Florida Ecosystem, July 31, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In taking exception to the inclusion of the $1 billion cost
estimate for dredging Lake Okeechobee, the Department maintained that
we represented this estimate as an official rather than as a rough
estimate and that we characterized the Corps' involvement as
inevitable. We recognize that the cost estimate is preliminary and
agree that we should indicate its source and precision. Accordingly, we
revised the report to include this information. We do not believe that
we have characterized the Corps' involvement in dredging Lake
Okeechobee as inevitable. We included Lake Okeechobee as an example of
an area where, through the state's efforts to identify actions needed
to improve water quality in the South Florida ecosystem, the Corps
could have a future role. We already point out that the state has not
yet determined all of the actions that will be needed to clean up Lake
Okeechobee and that the Corps' role has not yet been defined. However,
to emphasize that point, we revised this section of the report to
reiterate that once the state determines which projects are necessary,
the Corps will determine if the additional projects are essential to
the ecosystem's restoration and decide if the Federal Government will
participate in and share the costs of the additional projects.
Third, the Department believes that our discussion of the
uncertainties associated with stormwater treatment areas is misleading
and that we misunderstood the applicability of the numeric criterion to
be established for phosphorus. We disagree. We recognize that the
stormwater treatment areas being built by the state are not part of the
Corps' Plan and the Corps assumed that these areas would achieve the
numeric criterion that will eventually be established. Furthermore, we
specifically state that several stormwater treatment areas in the
Corps' Plan will release water into areas of the natural system, such
as Everglades National Park and the water conservation areas, that will
be affected by the numeric criterion that the state is in the process
of establishing. We acknowledge the state's experience in constructing
stormwater treatment areas to reduce phosphorus levels and point out
that the Corps used the stormwater treatment areas being built by the
state as part of the Everglades Construction Project as the ``model''
for those included in its Plan. The state's stormwater treatment areas,
which are part of the Everglades Construction Project, were designed to
reduce phosphorus levels to the interim target of 50 parts per billion.
However, if the state establishes a 10-parts-per-billion numeric
criterion for Everglades National Park and the water conservation
areas, we believe that the Corps will be required to modify the
stormwater treatment areas included in its Plan that release water into
this protected area.
Fourth, the state believes that our report characterizes two state
programs--the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program and the South Florida
Water Quality Protection Program--as dependent on the Corps' Plan. We
disagree. We concluded that the state's efforts to improve water
quality in the ecosystem could identify additional projects for the
Corps to consider as part of its integrated water quality plan, which
was included in the Plan because the Corps recognized that not all the
water quality problems of the ecosystem had been identified. The Plan
is intended to be a ``comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving, and
protecting the South Florida ecosystem,'' and as a result, any future
water projects that the Corps determines the Federal Government should
participate in as essential for the restoration of the ecosystem would
be part of the Plan.
Finally, the Department provided comments on several other issues.
The Department pointed out that the Corps had not yet decided to
include the water quality project to dredge the Indian River Lagoon in
the Plan. We agree and revised the report to indicate that the Corps
will likely add this project to the Plan. The Department also commented
that our report implies that the other projects in the Plan do nothing
for water quality. Our report states that many of the Plan's other
projects will also improve water quality by changing the flow of water
to degraded areas. The report notes, however, that the 24 projects
discussed in it were specifically included in the Plan to improve water
quality. The Department believed that the appendix on the state's
initiatives to improve water quality in the ecosystem did not mention
essential activities, such as the state's water regulatory and water
quality monitoring programs. We agree that these are important parts of
Florida's overall effort to protect water quality in the state,
including the South Florida ecosystem. We discussed Florida's
regulatory responsibilities for managing water quality programs in the
main body of the report and did not include the information in appendix
II because the purpose of the appendix was to discuss the additional
efforts the state has undertaken specifically to improve water quality
in the South Florida ecosystem. For this reason, we did not add a
discussion of Florida's regulatory programs for water quality to
appendix II. The Department's comments are in appendix III.
The District also concurred with our recommendation and stated that
it will work with the Corps to carry it out. The District did not
believe, however, that we should characterize the Plan as unusual or
atypical because of the uncertainties associated with its
implementation. We do not characterize the Plan as atypical because of
its uncertainties. It is atypical because it does not provide the level
of detail normally found in a Corps feasibility study--a fact that the
Corps recognizes--as a result of the large number of projects that
would be designed and constructed over a long period of time. For this
reason, we did not modify the report to reflect this concern. The
District's comments are in appendix III.
Finally, each of the agencies, including EPA, provided technical
comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
Scope and Methodology
To describe the role of the Corps' Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan in addressing the major water quality concerns of the
South Florida ecosystem, we reviewed portions of the Plan that
described the water quality projects. We also obtained and reviewed
reports and studies, such as the Everglades Consolidated Report, the
South Florida Ecosystem Assessment Interim Report, and the South
Florida Water Quality Protection Program: Phase I Document that
identify water quality concerns of the ecosystem.
To identify the modifications that might be needed as the Corps
implements the Plan, we contacted officials from the Corps and
discussed the ecosystem's water quality concerns, how the Plan's water
quality projects address them, and the potential need for additional
projects and modifications as the Plan is implemented. We also
contacted officials from EPA, the Department of the Interior's National
Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, and Florida's Department of
Environmental Protection and South Florida Water Management District.
These Federal and state agencies were among those involved in the
Plan's development and have responsibility for (1) designing and
constructing the Plan's projects, (2) ensuring water quality, or (3)
managing lands within the ecosystem. We discussed the water quality
problems of the ecosystem, the projects included in the Plan to address
them, and potential future problems and projects. Because the majority
of the projects in the Plan have multiple purposes, the cost estimate
for each project is an aggregate cost for construction components that
make up the project, such as levees, canals, pumps and structures. For
this reason, the cost estimates attributable to water quality were not
readily available.
We also contacted the staff of the Committee on the Restoration of
the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, the peer review committee for the
restoration effort, to discuss the committee's draft work plan as it
related to water quality. Although the committee does not yet have a
final work plan, it has drafted a work plan that includes studies that
address aspects of water quality. Finally, we contacted the head of the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and representatives of the
Miccosukee and Seminole tribes, the National Audubon Society, and other
environmental and special interest groups and organizations
participating in the effort to restore the South Florida ecosystem to
discuss their concerns about how the Plan addresses water quality.
We conducted our review from May 2000 to August 2000 in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until
15 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send
copies to the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the
Honorable Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency; the Honorable Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida; and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on
request.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202)
512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Jim Wells
Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues.
______
Appendix I
description of the major types of projects included in the corps'
comprehensive everglades restoration plan
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (the Plan) was
presented to the Congress in July 1999. As it was presented, the Plan
contained 68 projects to modify the Central and Southern Florida
Project, which consists of a system of 1,700 miles of canals and levees
and 16 major pump stations that drain water from the ecosystem and
provide water and flood protection to the developed areas of South
Florida. If implemented, the Plan will increase the region's freshwater
supply and improve the delivery and quality of water to natural areas
in the ecosystem.
The Plan, as it was presented to the Congress, consisted of 41
large-scale projects to modify the Central and Southern Florida Project
and 27 smaller projects that were selected by the Corps, with the
assistance of other Federal and state agencies participating in the
restoration effort, to provide immediate environmental improvements.
Since the Plan was introduced, two of the projects have been funded
under an authority, called the critical projects authority, in the 1996
Water Resources Development Act. This authority allowed the Corps to
construct small projects that would have an immediate environmental
effect. As a result, the Plan has 66 projects--25 small-scale projects
and 41 large projects. The 41 projects can be generally categorized by
the type of function they will serve in the ecosystem:
Surface storage reservoirs: More than 180,000 acres of
reservoirs will provide 1.5 million acre-feet \18\ of water storage in
areas around Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers,
and the Everglades Agricultural Area and along the lower east coast of
Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ An acre-foot of water is equal to about 326,000 gallons of
water--enough to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1-foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquifer storage and recovery: More than 300 underground
wells will be built to store water at a rate of as much as 1.6 billion
gallons a day with little evaporation loss, for use during dry periods.
Stormwater treatment areas: Approximately 35,600 acres of
man-made wetlands will be built to treat urban and agricultural runoff
before it is discharged to natural areas, including Lake Okeechobee,
the Caloosahatchee River, the Everglades, and Florida's lower east
coast. This is in addition to 47,000 acres of stormwater treatment
areas (41,500 acres of effective treatment area) being constructed by
the state in the Everglades Agricultural Area. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Everglades Agricultural Area consists of 1,122 square
miles of highly productive agricultural land directly south of Lake
Okeechobee and north of the state's water conservation areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Water for Park, If Needed, Could Require Water Quality
Treatment
Seepage management: Millions of gallons of water per day
seep underground or through levees and canals from the Everglades
toward the east coast. Along the eastern side of Everglades National
Park and the water conservation areas, impervious barriers will be
built in levees, pumps will be installed to redirect water back into
natural areas, and water levels will be held higher to prevent such
seepage.
Reuse water: Two advanced wastewater treatment plants,
which will have increased capability to remove pollutants from the
wastewater, will treat 220 million gallons of water per day in Miami-
Dade County for release into underground aquifers and wetlands along
Biscayne Bay.
Removing barriers to sheetflow: More than 240 miles of
canals and internal levees that are part of the original Central and
Southern Florida Project and that lie within the Everglades and the
water conservation areas will be removed to establish the natural
broad, shallow flow of water in the ecosystem.
Operational changes: The delivery of water to different
parts of the ecosystem will be changed to improve the health of Lake
Okeechobee and to enhance the timing of water flows.
______
Appendix II
florida's initiatives to specifically address water quality in the
south florida ecosystem
Outside of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (the
Plan), Florida has initiated several efforts specifically designed to
address the quality of water in the Everglades and other natural areas
of the South Florida ecosystem. In addition to developing numeric
phosphorus standards, the state has several ongoing efforts, including
the Dairy Rule, the Works of the District, the 1994 Everglades Forever
Act, and the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program. The following sections
describe the details of these initiatives.
The Dairy Rule
In 1987, the state adopted the Dairy Rule in response to serious
water quality problems contributing to the degradation of Lake
Okeechobee. The water quality problems were determined to be
associated, at least in part, with the nutrient-rich runoff from dairy
farms in the Lake Okeechobee basin. The Dairy Rule requires farm owners
in the Lake Okeechobee area, who were previously exempt from permitting
requirements, to obtain permits from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. The rule also requires the dairy farmers to
construct waste management systems and to use best management practices
to control runoff from their dairy farms. Runoff from the area around
the barns, which is heavy with animal manure, is collected and treated
as wastewater. Many facilities reuse the wastewater by applying it to
their farmland and using the nutrient-rich water as fertilizer. The
farmers must obtain industrial waste permits that require monitoring of
effluent and groundwater near the application sites.
Works of the District
In the Lake Okeechobee and Everglades basins, Works of the District
permits are required for landowners who discharge water to the canals,
rights of way, lakes, streams and other water resources for which the
South Florida Water Management District (the District) has
responsibility. The Lake Okeechobee permit program uses performance-
based phosphorus controls designed to achieve the annual phosphorus
loading targets set for Lake Okeechobee. The Everglades permit program
requires all landowners in the Everglades Agricultural Area with land
that discharges to District works to obtain a permit, implement best
management practices, and monitor the quality and quantity of water
they discharge and provide this information to the District. If a
permit holder fails to comply with the terms of a permit, the District
retains the right to revoke it or take appropriate legal action.
Everglades Forever Act
In 1994, the state enacted the Everglades Forever Act. The
legislation was a result of a lawsuit filed against the state of
Florida by the Federal Government for allegedly not enforcing its water
quality standards in Federal areas such as Everglades National Park.
The Florida Legislature found that the Everglades was endangered by
adverse changes in the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of
water flows. The Legislature also found that the programs established
by the District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
to improve the tributary waters of the Everglades were not being
implemented in a timely manner. The waters flowing into the Everglades
contained excessive levels of phosphorus that endangered the flora and
fauna of the Everglades. The act established an Everglades Protection
Area that includes Everglades National Park and the state water
conservation areas. The act is intended to expedite the state's plans
and programs for improving water quality and quantity in this area;
provide water supply for Everglades National Park, urban and
agricultural areas, and Florida Bay; and replace water previously
available from the coastal ridge in areas of southern Dade County.
The long-term goal of the Everglades Forever Act is to ensure that
waters discharged into the Everglades Protection Area achieve water
quality standards by December 31, 2006. The act directs the state to
review existing water quality standards and to establish a numeric
criterion for phosphorus in the Everglades Protection Area. The long-
term goal is to reduce phosphorus discharges to levels that do not
cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic plants and
animals. Although the standard for phosphorus has not yet been set, the
Everglades Forever Act provides a default standard of 10 parts per
billion if a standard is not adopted by December 31, 2003. In addition,
the act requires farmers in the Everglades Agricultural Area to
implement best management practices to reduce pollutants in runoff from
their farms and to pay an Agricultural Privilege Tax to fund the
construction of stormwater treatment areas to provide additional water
quality treatment. The Everglades Forever Act establishes a monitoring
program to determine the effectiveness of best management practices,
which are determined by the District in cooperation with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. Finally, the act also requires
the state to implement advanced water quality treatment measures and
increase the amount of water flowing to the Everglades by 28 percent.
Everglades Construction Project
The Everglades Forever Act establishes a state plan to restore
significant portions of the remaining Everglades ecosystem, including a
program of construction projects, research, and regulation. A critical
element of this program is the Everglades Construction Project, whose
primary component consists of six large stormwater treatment areas. The
treatment areas will encompass 47,000 acres, of which about 40,000
acres were once used as farmland, and will reduce the phosphorus
content of stormwater runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area and
some releases from Lake Okeechobee into the Everglades Protection Area.
(Fig. 3 shows the location of the stormwater treatment areas.)
Figure 3: Location of Everglades Construction Project Stormwater
Treatment Areas
Source: GAO's adaptation of an illustration prepared by the South
Florida Water Management District.
Under a consent decree settling the lawsuit between the Federal and
state governments, the District is responsible for the design and
construction of five of the stormwater treatment areas, and the Corps
is responsible for the design and construction of one area. In
conjunction with best management practices, the treatment areas are
designed to reduce phosphorus concentrations to an interim target of 50
parts per billion. The long-term target is to reduce phosphorus
concentrations to achieve and maintain compliance with the long-term
water qualty standard that the state will establish. As of August 2000,
the District had completed the construction of over 18,000 acres of
wetlands in four treatment areas, and it will begin constructing the
fifth area within several months. The Corps began constructing the
sixth treatment area this year. Achieving the long-term standards may
require future modification of treatment areas.
Everglades Stormwater Program
The Everglades Stormwater Program was established by the District
after the Florida Legislature passed the Everglades Forever Act of 1994
to improve water quality in basins not addressed by the Everglades
Construction Project. The program includes two main components, the
Everglades Agricultural Area phosphorus reduction program and the Urban
and Tributary Basins Program. The District's staff is working with
local governments, state and Federal agencies, drainage districts,
Indian tribes, affected landowners, and members of the general public
in these efforts.
The goal of the Everglades Agricultural Area phosphorus reduction
program is to reduce by 25 percent the annual phosphorus load--that is,
the mass of phosphorus mixed in with runoff--discharging into the
Everglades from the area. The program includes regulatory programs
developed to reduce phosphorus loads from the area by reducing
phosphorus on the surrounding farms and other adjacent land. The 25-
percent reduction goal is to be accomplished by implementing best
management practices that eliminate or reduce pollutants at their
source rather than treating stormwater runoff downstream. The best
management practices in use include new methods of fertilizing farms,
detaining stormwater runoff, controlling sediments, and other
management methods that prevent or reduce the introduction of
pollutants into surface waters. The District has issued each farm
parcel within the Everglades Agricultural Area a permit that details
the best management practices and water quality monitoring program
being implemented on each farm. Records are kept to ensure accurate
implementation of the practices, and each farm must also measure the
flow and phosphorus level of water discharging from the farm. If the
discharges from the Everglades Agricultural Area into the Everglades
meet the 25-percent reduction goal, then the area is determined to be
in compliance with the District's permits, and the farmers receive
state tax credits. If the discharges do not meet the goal, the
individual farms with the highest measured phosphorus discharges are
identified and required to implement additional best management
practices. According to recent water monitoring data, the farmers have
reduced phosphorus loading for 1997 through 1999 by an average of 44
percent (19 percent above the required 25-percent level).
The Urban and Tributary Basins Program was developed to ensure that
eight basins discharging into the Everglades other than those included
in the Everglades Agricultural Area meet state water quality standards.
The program identifies schedules and strategies for achieving
compliance by December 31, 2006. It tests over 250 pollutants (such as
phosphorus, metals and pesticides) at more than 40 structures that
discharge water into, within, or from the Everglades Protection Area.
The District is required to collect, review, and evaluate the water
quality data in order to measure progress toward achieving compliance
with state water quality standards. In particular, a key goal of the
program is to lower phosphorus concentrations in the water discharged
from these basins to comply with the state's long-term water quality
standard. If the Florida Department of Environmental Protection does
not establish a standard by December 31, 2003, the default will be 10
parts per billion. For the period from May 1, 1998, through April 30,
1999, phosphorus concentrations were well below 50 parts per billion at
most structures.
Everglades Restoration Investment Act
On May 16, 2000, the state enacted the Everglades Restoration
Investment Act, which represents the state's commitment to paying 50
percent of the costs of the Corps' Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan. The provisions of the law indicate that, over the next decade,
more than $2 billion in state and local resources will be directed
toward restoration. Through the newly created ``Save Our Everglades
Trust Fund,'' resources will be carried forward across fiscal years to
help ensure that resources will be available when needed. The law also
requires accountability based on performance for all involved in
restoration activities.
Lake Okeechobee Protection Program and Lake Okeechobee Protection Trust
Fund
Also enacted on May 16, 2000, were two pieces of legislation
dealing with the restoration of Lake Okeechobee. One act created the
Lake Okeechobee Protection Program, which is intended to achieve and
maintain compliance with state water quality standards for the lake
through a phased, comprehensive program to reduce phosphorus levels
both in the lake and outside of it. The act requires that the state's
actions to clean up Lake Okeechobee be coordinated with, and if
possible, developed through the Corps' Plan. The program will proceed
in a phased approach and will commit the state to a long-term effort to
construct new water containment and treatment structures to better
control phosphorus at its source. An initial focus will be to cooperate
with landowners around the lake basin to promote existing efforts to
reduce and control the release of excess phosphorus from their farms.
The act provides for
a watershed phosphorus control program, calling for the
phased implementation of phosphorus load reductions, a total maximum
daily load proposal, and the formal establishment of restoration goals;
a phased protection plan that will include the
accelerated construction of stormwater treatment areas and the
restoration of isolated wetlands;
an internal phosphorus management and control program,
which uses best management practices for agricultural and
nonagricultural sources of pollution that do not come from wastewater
treatment or other specific points of discharge;
a comprehensive research and water quality monitoring
program;
the identification and eradication of invasive exotic
species; and
the completion of a feasibility study on the removal of
phosphorus-laden sediment in the lake.
A second piece of legislation created the Lake Okeechobee
Protection Trust Fund to pay primarily for the requirements of the
Protection Program. Trust funds will be appropriated annually by the
Legislature. Of the $38.5 million that will be spent on Lake Okeechobee
this year, $15 million will be spent to research, develop, demonstrate,
and implement best management practices and other measures to improve
Lake Okeechobee's water quality. The remaining $23.5 million will be
used to implement the Source Control Grant Program, restore isolated
wetlands, retrofit water control structures, and buy land to construct
a reservoir-assisted stormwater treatment area in the watershed.
______
Comments From the State of Florida
Responses by Barry Hill to Additional Questions from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. In your report, you state that the Corps' Comprehensive
Everglades restoration Plan primarily addresses the first goal of the
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. What are the
initiative's other goals? How much will achieving all the initiative's
goals cost?
Response. In addition to the goal of ``getting the water right,''
or getting the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water in
the Everglades right; the initiative has two other goals restoring and
enhancing the natural system, such as habitat for endangered species;
and fostering the compatibility of built and natural systems. The
Department of the Interior, which chairs the multi-agency restoration
task force responsible for coordinating the initiative, estimated that
achieving all three of the initiative's goals will cost $14.8 billion.
This figure includes the $7.8 billion needed to implement the Corps'
Plan.
Question 2. Your testimony listed several uncertainties in the Plan
that will likely lead to additional water quality projects. Can you
elaborate on each of these?
Response. The Plan includes stormwater treatment areas
(which are man-made wetlands) that are designed to reduce phosphorus. A
few of the areas will need to achieve even greater levels of phosphorus
reduction. Specific project modifications needed to achieve those lower
levels have not yet been determined. When they are, the Corps will
likely be required to modify the stormwater treatment areas being built
for these areas.
An additional 245,000 acre-feet (326,000 gallons) of
water may be needed for Everglades National Park. The water is
available from areas north of the Park, but the Corps will likely need
to build additional water quality projects, or may need to modify
planned projects to treat this additional water. It should be noted
that because of disagreements among Federal and state agencies, it is
not inevitable that the Park will need or get this water this is also
being studied.
Underground wells (Aquifer storage and recovery wells)
will store large amounts of water during rainy season for use in dry
periods. The Corps is uncertain whether it will need to treat the water
going into and coming out of the wells. Pilot projects will determine
the extent of the treatment that will be needed.
Question 3. The Corps recognizes that the Plan has uncertainties
and has included a process for adaptive assessment. What will this
program accomplish and is it a reasonable way to deal with the
uncertainty in the Plan?
Response. This is a good way to deal with many uncertainties in the
Plan, but it will only be successful if the Corps and others establish
a good monitoring system to determine how the ecosystem is responding
to the Plan's projects. A monitoring system will identify and measure
the water quality and other ecological indicators of ecosystem health
and restoration.
Question 4. In your report, you state that the Corps could have a
role in future efforts to improve water quality and you cite the
example of the cleanup Lake Okeechobee of an ongoing effort where the
Corps could become involved. What is your basis for including this
example?
Response. We believe that the Corps could become involved in the
clean up of Lake Okeechobee for three reasons:
(A) Lake Okeechobee is major component of the ecosystem and the
cleanup may be determined by the Corps to be essential for ecosystem
restoration.
(B) The Corps already included projects in the Plan to contribute
to cleaning up the lake, including two stormwater treatment areas, and
believes that more areas may be needed.
(C) The Corps has two dredging projects in the Plan for much
smaller lakes Trafford and Lake Worth Lagoon. We were told the only
difference between these projects and the Lake Okeechobee dredging
project is the size of the projects.
Question 5. Only the Lake Okeechobee example includes a potential
cost estimate for additional water projects--$1 billion. Are there
estimates for other projects? Why did you not include them?
Response. The Lake Okeechobee dredging project is the only one, to
our knowledge, where a cost estimate has been developed. The $1 billion
is a preliminary estimate developed by the Task Force's working group
last year and could change.
Question 6. You identify the potential for additional water quality
projects in the Plan and say that the costs could increase. The Corps
believes that it will have opportunities to save costs. Do you identify
where costs could be saved?
Response. We identify in the report that the Corps anticipates
about $500 million in cost savings if it does not use the treatment
facilities for underground (aquifer storage and recovery) wells. While
the Corps may identify and take advantage of opportunities to save
costs as it designs and constructs projects, we believe that because
additional water quality projects will likely be needed, the overall
costs to improve water quality will also likely increase.
Question 7. Please tell us more about GAO's recommendation. How is
the reporting requirement you recommend different from what has been
included in the WRDA bill?
Response. The WRDA bill currently under consideration requires a 5-
year report on the progress in implementing the Plan. We believe that
the Corps should report not only on the progress being made in
implementing the Plan, but also on the cumulative changes being made to
the Plan and how those changes are affecting the Plan's implementation
schedule and costs. We believe that this information would be more
useful if the Corps provided it at the same time the Corps submits its
biennial requests for project authorizations. The Corps and the state
agreed with our recommendation. The state requires that cumulative
project and cost information be reported annually.
Question 8. In your testimony, you mention that the state of
Florida disagreed with the inclusion of the $ 1 billion estimate to
dredge Lake Okeechobee. What were the state's other comments?
Response. In addition to objecting to the inclusion of the $1
billion estimate to dredge Lake Okeechobee, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management
District provided comments on several issues:
The Department objected to the inclusion of the $14.8
billion estimate to achieve all three goals of the South Florida
Ecosystem. In the Department's view, the $14.8 billion figure is not
comparable to the cost estimate developed for the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan and there is no consensus among state and
local governments on this amount.
The Department thought that our discussion of stormwater
treatment areas was misleading and that our report characterized two
state programs the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program and the South
Florida Water Quality Protection Program as dependent on the Corps'
Plan. We disagreed.
The Department also commented that:
the Corps had not yet decided to include the water
quality project to dredge the Indian River Lagoon in the Plan. We agree
and revised the report to indicate that the Corps will likely add this
project to the Plan.
our report implies that the other 46 projects in the Plan
do nothing for water quality. Our report states that many of the Plan's
other projects will also improve water quality by changing the flow of
water to degraded areas. The report notes, however, that the 24
projects discussed in it were specifically included in the Plan to
improve water quality.
the appendix on the state's initiatives to improve water
quality in the ecosystem did not mention essential activities, such as
the state's water regulatory and water quality monitoring programs. We
discuss Florida's regulatory responsibilities for managing water
quality programs in the main body of the report and did not include the
information in appendix II. The purpose of the appendix was to discuss
the additional efforts the state has undertaken specifically to improve
water quality in the South Florida ecosystem.
The District did not believe, however, that we should
characterize the Plan as unusual or atypical because of the
uncertainties associated with its implementation. We do not
characterize the Plan as atypical because of its uncertainties. It is
atypical because it does not provide the level of detail normally found
in a Corps feasibility study a fact that the Corps recognizes as a
result of the large number of projects that would be designed and
constructed over a long period of time.
The state agencies also provided a number of technical comments
that we incorporated as appropriate.
Question 9. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized
the Corps to include water quality projects in the Plan. What criteria
did the Corps use to include projects?
Response. The Corps established two criteria for including water
quality projects. First, the Corps included water quality projects when
it was reclaiming water that used to be released to the ocean through
the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers. This water should be cleaner
to go to the natural system. Second, if the Corps changed the use or
purpose of water it released into the natural system, the water quality
could be improved. For example, if it releases water for environmental
purposes rather than flood control, then the water is cleaned up.
Question 10. This report is about water quality, which is regulated
at the Federal level by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under
the Clean Water Act. What is the EPA's role in implementing the Plan?
Response. EPA is responsible for assuring water quality in the
nation. EPA usually delegates the responsibility for managing water
quality programs to the states. Florida's Department of Environmental
Protection will permit Corps structures built under the Plan. In
addition, both EPA and the Department have been involved in commenting
on and working with the Corps to identify water quality projects and
needs. We should point out that if the state fails to establish
pollution limits for water bodies, EPA will be required to do so. For
example, if the state fails to establish the amount of phosphorus that
can be discharged into Lake Okeechobee within a specified timeframe
which will not likely happen then EPA is required to establish that
amount.
Question 11. If more water quality projects are identified, will
the costs be shared jointly between the state and Federal Governments?
Response. According to Corps officials, if the Corps determines
that additional water quality projects are essential for restoration of
the Everglades and meet its two criteria for inclusion in the Plan,
these projects will become part of the Plan. Under the WRDA 1996
provisions, these projects will be cost-shared equally between the
Federal and state governments. Because we believe that changes and
additions to the Plan are likely, our report included the
recommendation that the Corps provide updates to the Congress on the
cumulative changes to the Plan and how those changes affect the Plan.
______
Responses by Barry Hill to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1. In the initial request for this report, you were asked
to complete several tasks. One of them was the report you are
discussing today. The other dealt with the Upper Mississippi River. Can
you explain your progress on the Upper Mississippi section of this
request? Why has no progress been made?
Response. The initial request from the Subcommittee asked GAO to
review the process for the planning, formulation, and review of water
resources development projects and included two specific Corps
feasibility studies that warranted review the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois River Navigation Improvements feasibility study and the
Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study. In our
discussions with the staff on the timeframes for a final report, the
staff indicated that they would like our work completed during the
summer and in time for the Subcommittee's review of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000. For this reason, we agreed with the staff to
limit the scope of our work to one project, the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan and to one subject, the water quality
components of the Plan.
Because of concerns about the objectivity of the Corps' analyses of
water projects, both the Senate and the House recently included
provisions relating to the independent review of Corps projects in
their respective water resources bills. We will work with the
subcommittee's staff to determine how, in light of the recent
congressional action on this issue, GAO should proceed on the portion
of the request to review the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River
Navigation Improvements feasibility study.
Question 2. Throughout your report, in fact, in the title, you
indicate that ``Additional Water Quality Projects May Be Needed and
Could Increase Costs.'' Throughout your report you identify areas where
the Corps may identify a need for a water quality project and indicate
that once the Corps adds these projects to the Plan, costs could
increase. From your perspective, does the Corps have the ability to
independently take on work without congressional authorization?
Response. Our report on the Corps' Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (Plan) discusses the criteria for including water
quality projects in the Plan, the uncertainties that exist in
addressing water quality as the Plan is implemented over the next 35
years, and the conceptual nature of the Plan and the process of
incorporating and authorizing future changes to the Plan. In
particular, we recognize that the Plan has a process of adaptive
assessment that will allow the incorporation of changes as lessons are
learned on early projects or as the need for additional projects is
identified. As discussed in our report, such changes will be included
in future authorization requests to the Congress, as only the first 10
projects of the Plan will likely be authorized in this year's Water
Resources Development Act. Because the Congress will be asked to
authorize projects to implement the Plan over the next 14 or more
years, we recommended that the Corps' should report to the Congress
every 2 years on the status and changes to the overall Plan when it
submits subsequent authorization proposals.
Question 3. You offer an unexplained cost for Everglades
restoration of $14.8 billion. What is the source of that number? How
much of the $14.8 billion has already been expended? Is the $7.8
billion being considered for partial authorization by this Committee
included in this total figure?
Response. As noted in our report, Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan: Additional Water Quality Projects May Be Needed and
Could Increase Costs (GAO/RCED-00-235. Sept. 2000), the Department of
the Interior, which chairs the multi-agency task force responsible for
coordinating and facilitating the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Initiative, developed the $14.8 billion cost estimate at the request of
the Congress. The cost estimate includes the $7.8 billion estimated
cost of implementing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan that
the Committee is currently considering as well as other ongoing and
planned actions by the Federal, state, and local governments to achieve
the 3 goals of the initiative getting the water right, restoring and
enhancing the natural system, and fostering the compatibility of human
and natural systems. No consolidated financial information on the
initiative is available because the agencies involved in the initiative
independently account for the funds that they allocate to the
initiative. Based on financial data we have gathered as part of our
work, we estimate that through fiscal year 2000, the Federal and state
agencies have expended about $2.5 billion of the approximately $3
billion in appropriated funds that has been allocated to the
initiative.
__________
Statement of Michael L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, Department of the Army
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael Davis,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Legislation, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am pleased to be
here today to present the Administration's and the Army's views on the
draft General Accounting Office (GAO) report concerning water quality
issues associated with the restoration of America's Everglades. While
we have not been allowed to review the final report being released
today, we will provide comments on the draft report Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan Implementation Uncertainties May Lead to
Additional Water Quality Projects and Costs.
Background
As you know, the restoration of America's Everglades is a high
priority for the Administration, including the Army Corps of Engineers.
On July 1, 1999, the Vice President, on behalf of the Administration,
and in partnership with the State of Florida, submitted to Congress a
comprehensive plan to restore the South Florida ecosystem, which
includes the Everglades, Lake Okeechobee, Florida Bay, and Biscayne
Bay. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is a
technically sound plan developed by scores of the Nation's best
Everglades scientists and engineers. The CERP, which will be
implemented over the next 30 years, will:
Improve the health of over 2.4 million acres of the South
Florida ecosystem, including Everglades National Park;
Improve the health of Lake Okeechobee:
Virtually eliminate damaging freshwater releases to the
estuaries;
Improve water deliveries to Florida and Biscayne Bays;
Enhance water supply and maintain flood protection; and
Improve water quality.
The CERP is the most ambitious ecosystem restoration project ever
undertaken in the United States if not the world. Its fundamental goal
is to capture most of the fresh water that now flows unused to the sea
and deliver it when and where it is needed most. Eighty percent of this
``new'' water will be devoted to environmental restoration, reviving
the ecosystem from the Kissimmee River, through Lake Okeechobee,
through Everglades National Park, to the coral reefs of Florida Bay.
The remaining 20 percent will benefit cities and farmers, enhancing
water supplies and supporting a strong, sustainable economy for south
Florida. In short, the CERP provides the necessary road map for
improving the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of the water
so vital to the health of America's Everglades and the people of south
Florida.
The next vital step for Everglades restoration is the passage this
year of legislation authorizing the CERP. As you know, the
Administration has been working closely with the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee on such legislation. Recently, the
Administration, the Committee, the State of Florida, and a diverse
group of stakeholders reached agreement on the September 14, 2000,
managers amendments to S. 2797, Restoring the Everglades, an American
Legacy Act. The Administration strongly supports S. 2797 with these
amendments and recommends its immediate passage.
Everglades Water Quality Problems
Restoration of the Everglades requires that we ``get the water
right'' by addressing comprehensively each of the four interrelated
factors--quantity, quality, timing, and distribution. As such, ensuring
a supply of clean fresh water is integral to the CERP.
Over the past 100 years, excessive drainage of wetlands and changes
in the natural variability of water flows have altered the Everglades
wetland ecosystem on a regional scale. Today, discharges to the
Everglades are often too much, or too little, and frequently at the
wrong times of the year. An over-abundance or scarcity of water affects
plants and wildlife accustomed to the Everglades' historic range of
water flows, levels and seasons. In addition, canals and highways that
criss-cross the Everglades have interrupted its historic overland sheet
flow.
As a result, water quality throughout south Florida has
deteriorated over the past 50 years. More than one-half of the wetlands
that acted as natural filters and retention areas are gone due to
agricultural and urban expansion. The remaining Everglades ecosystem is
in a continuing state of decline largely as a result of altered water
regimes and degraded water quality, as evidenced by vegetation change,
declining wildlife populations and organic soils loss. Some untreated
urban and agricultural storm water is sent directly to natural areas
and estuaries. Too much, or too little, water is often sent to the
estuaries. Excess phosphorus, mercury, and other contaminants harm the
region's surface water and groundwater. The water quality of the
Everglades Water Conservation Areas, the coastal estuaries, Florida Bay
and the Florida Keys show similar signs of significant degradation.
Under current conditions, these natural systems cannot recover
their defining characteristics and they will not survive. The health of
the ecosystem will continue to decline unless we act.
Water Quality Features Included in the CERP
The CERP offers a broad, comprehensive approach, which is designed
to increase water supplies for the region and to restore and improve
water quality throughout the Everglades ecosystem. The CERP improves
the quality of water in the study area; however water quality
improvement in south Florida must be viewed as an integrated effort
with several interdependent parts. The CERP is designed to integrate
modifications to the Central and Southern Florida project with ongoing
State of Florida water quality efforts and ensure that our actions to
capture and store water meets water quality requirements. These
include: several components of the CERP; the State of Florida's
Everglades Forever Act; Surface Water Improvement and Management Act
planning efforts, including the development of pollutant load reduction
goals; development of total maximum daily loads under Section 303(d) of
the Federal Clean Water Act; and the Florida Keys Water Quality
Protection Program.
Water quality was a consideration in every aspect of the CERP.
Major features include creation of approximately 181,300 acres of
surface water storage areas, totaling 1.6 million acre-feet of
additional storage volume, which will allow us to capture excess fresh
water flows and reduce pollution loading into downstream receiving
water bodies. This valuable water, which currently is being ``lost to
tide,'' will be captured and used to provide much-needed water for
restoration of the Everglades ecosystem and to enhance water supplies
for the people of south Florida. Additionally, many components of the
CERP include treatment features to ensure that water quality is
improved. Specifically, the CERP includes 19 Stormwater Treatment Areas
(STAs) totaling approximately 36,000 acres of wetlands to treat
polluted runoff from urban and agricultural lands. These STAs will be
located throughout south Florida, and will enable us to use the natural
filtering capability offered by wetlands to treat and improve both
water quality and, at the same time, contribute to the restoration of
the health of the ecosystem.
Construction of extensive regional aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR) facilities is an essential component of the CERP. When completed,
the ASR facilities are intended to also store water during the wet
season freshwater flows that are currently lost to tide. ASR facilities
will store these waters in the upper Floridian Aquifer for recovery in
dry seasons for use both to restore the ecological integrity of the
ecosystem and to enhance future water supplies for urban and
agricultural purposes in south Florida. These components include
treatment facilities to meet applicable State of Florida water quality
standards.
The CERP includes a recommendation for a feasibility study to
develop a Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan, to serve as a
framework for integrating water quality restoration targets for south
Florida water bodies into future planning, design, and construction
activities included in the CERP.
We believe the CERP in concert with other proposed and ongoing
restoration efforts represents the best way to both restore the
ecological integrity of the Everglades ecosystem and to enhance water
quality. While the CERP reflects the best available science, we are
prepared to refine our thinking as we learn more. Thus the CERP is
designed to be flexible, to incorporate and respond to new information
as it becomes available. Continuous monitoring and independent
scientific review are key components of the CERP. Still, we cannot wait
for all the answers to begin. There is too much at stake and little
time to act.
Our Views on the Draft GAO Report
We appreciate the work conducted by GAO and as always we welcome
constructive advice on how to improve Army water resources projects. We
also appreciate GAO's willingness to meet with the Corps Jacksonville
District, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the
Interior, and the State of Florida to discuss these important issues.
In your request to GAO you specifically asked them to (1) describe
the role of the CERP in addressing the major water quality concerns in
the ecosystem and (2) identify modifications that may be needed as the
Corps implements the CERP. The GAO completed its report based on
interviews with agency staff between May and August of this year. In
addition GAO indicates that they reviewed various reports, including
portions of the CERP that describe water quality projects.
In its draft report GAO concluded that ``there are too many
uncertainties to estimate the number and cost of Corps projects that
will ultimately be needed to improve water quality.'' In addition GAO
concluded that it is likely that the estimated $7.8 billion cost of
implementing the CERP will increase--also increasing the need for
congressional oversight throughout the implementation of the CERP. In
this regard, we understand that GAO will recommend that the Secretary
of the Army provide Congress with updates that:
1)reflect any cumulative project and cost changes to the CERP; and
2)indicate the progress being made toward implementing the CERP.
As discussed in more detail below, we do not take issue with the
specific recommendations made in the draft report. We agree that
Congress should be kept informed of our progress and of any substantial
changes as we implement the CERP over the next 30 years. We have
proposed legislation to require such reporting.
In regard to water quality generally, we are satisfied that the
CERP reflects the proper balance between the need to have information
and the need to begin the restoration of an unprecedented natural
resource that is in serious trouble. Much is known about the Everglades
and how it can be restored. We will learn a lot more as we go through
on-going independent scientific peer review as well as through the
adaptive assessment process outlined in the CERP. We strongly believe
that the level of uncertainty and potential cost increases noted by GAO
are manageable through the monitoring, adaptive assessment, and
reporting programs that will be implemented.
While as noted above we have not reviewed the final GAO report, we
will provide a few specific comments on the draft report.
Uncertainty--We agree that there are some uncertainties associated
with the implementation of the overall CERP and project components to
improve water quality in the ecosystem. Such uncertainties are expected
considering the size of the project and its staged implementation over
30 years. However, the Corps, the South Florida Water Management
District, and many other Federal and state partners have disclosed
fully the uncertainties and proposed a methodology and process to
address these uncertainties during implementation of the CERP. This
methodology and process includes the preparation of feasibility level
of detail Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) which will be submitted
to Congress, pilot projects, and an extensive adaptive assessment and
monitoring program. The PIR would be the vehicle to identify, quantify
and attempt to resolve any uncertainties surrounding the cost and
performance of each major component in the CERP.
We disagree that uncertainties on the proposed water quality
components will absolutely lead to cost increases. The $7.8 billion
cost estimate reflects our best estimate of the cost of implementing
the CERP based on information we have today considering all the
uncertainties presented in the CERP. In many ways the Corps estimate is
very conservative assuming the worst case scenario. In fact, there is
good reason to believe that the actual cost of some project features
could be less than estimated in the CERP.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated
their willingness to consider a flexible approach to constructing and
permitting the aquifer storage and recovery wells proposed in the CERP
as it relates to coliform bacteria. This approach involves ``risk
based'' analyses to confirm that this flexible approach is appropriate
if certain conditions are met. If the results of water quality testing
and analyses conducted as part of the aquifer storage and recovery
pilot projects confirm the appropriateness of this approach, then it is
possible that the total cost of the recommended comprehensive plan
could be reduced by as much as $500,000,000 and annual operation and
maintenance costs could be reduced significantly as well. In addition
to the above, we should not automatically assume that overall cost of
the CERP will increase because of the need to add additional water
quality features. For example, it is premature to suggest that dredging
sediments from Lake Okeechobee could also increase the cost of the
CERP. While the State of Florida has initiated preliminary studies to
look at this concept, no Federal feasibility studies for dredging
sediments from Lake Okeechobee have been initiated and to our
knowledge, no cost estimate has been developed. Further, GAO includes a
cost estimate in the report for this project and compares this cost
with the Corps' cost estimate for CERP. Such a comparison implies that
the Lake Okeechobee cost estimate has some certainty and further, that
the project would be part of the CERP. We do not agree with this point.
Congressional Reporting--We concur with the GAO recommendation that
the Army should provide Congress with updates regarding implementation
progress and changes to the CERP. The Everglades restoration
legislation included in the Administration's April 10, 2000, proposal
for Water Resources Development Act included a provision requiring
reports to Congress. This provision requires that the Secretary of the
Army and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, and the
State of Florida, submit reports on the implementation of the CERP to
Congress beginning in October 2005, and periodically thereafter until
October 2036. This provision is included in S. 2797.
Since GAO completed its review, the Corps Jacksonville District and
the South Florida Water Management District, the primary non-Federal
sponsor on implementing the CERP, have finalized a Master Program
Management Plan (MPMP) which describes the framework and process to be
used for managing and monitoring implementation of the CERP.
Specifically, during implementation of the CERP, the Restoration
Coordination and Verification team known as ``RECOVER'' will
periodically produce five categories of written reports. These reports
will be for the purposes of (1) evaluating or assessing the performance
of the CERP or its components; (2) making recommendations regarding
design and operational criteria, and a system-wide monitoring/data
management program for the CERP; (3) documenting the technical and
scientific aspects of the evaluation and assessment tools used by the
teams; (4) identifying and resolving technical issues pertaining to the
performance measures; and (5) describing processes and guidelines used
by the teams to achieve their objectives. In addition, an annual report
card report will also be prepared to inform the public of the status,
trends and success of the CERP in meeting its objectives. Collectively
these reports will provide a full documentation of the activities of
the RECOVER team including the cumulative changes in projects and costs
and the progress of the CERP which will serve as the basis for
preparing report to Congress as required in S. 2797.
Conclusion
Protecting and restoring water quality is unequivocally an integral
part of restoring the Everglades ecosystem. As such, addressing water
quality issues have been and continue to be a fundamental objective of
the CERP. Providing a reliable supply of clean fresh water to the
ecosystem is at the heart of the CERP. While some uncertainties exist,
we remain confident of the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations
outlined in the CERP, including those germane to water quality.
Further, we do not believe that based on the GAO report or any other
information available at this time that Congress should assume that the
cost to implement the CERP will unreasonably increase or increase at
all.
An American treasure is in serious trouble and we can do something
about it. We have developed a technically sound plan of action and the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has worked with us to
develop enabling legislation. America's Everglades cannot wait until we
have all the answers--because we never will. As with any important
endeavor of this nature there are risks. The risks associated with
inaction, however, are clearly greater. We know more than enough to act
now and act decisively by enacting S.2797 as amended on September 14,
2000.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today before your subcommittee. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or the other subcommittee members
may have.
______
Responses by Michael L. Davis to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 authorized
the Corps to include water quality projects in the plan. What criteria
did the Corps use to include project?
Response. In accordance with legislative requirements contained in
Section 528 of the WRDA 1996, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP) includes water quality features necessary to provide water
to restore, preserve, and protect the south Florida ecosystem. The CERP
offers a broad, comprehensive approach, which is designed to increase
water supplies for the region and to restore and improve water quality
throughout the Everglades ecosystem. The CERP improves the quality of
water in the study area; however water quality improvement in south
Florida must be viewed as an integrated effort with several
interdependent parts. The CERP is designed to integrate modifications
to the Central and Southern (C&SF) project with ongoing State of
Florida water quality efforts and ensure that our actions to capture
and store water meets water quality requirements. These include: the
State of Florida's Everglades Forever Act; Surface Water Improvement
and Management (SWIM) Act planning efforts, including the development
of pollutant load reduction goals; development of total maximum daily
loads under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act; and the
Florida Keys Water Quality Protection Program.
Water quality was a consideration in every aspect of CERP
development. Major features include the creation of 181, 300 acres of
surface water storage areas, totaling 1.6 million acre-feet of
additional storage volume, which would allow the Corps to capture
excess fresh water flows and reduce pollution loading into downstream
receiving water bodies. This valuable water, which currently is being
``lost to tide, `` will be captured and used to provide much-needed
water for restoration of the Everglades ecosystem and to enhance water
supplies for the people of south Florida. Additionally, many components
of the CERP include treatment features to ensure that water quality is
improved. Specifically, the CERP includes 19 Stormwater Treatment Areas
(STAB) totaling approximately 36, 000 acres of wetlands to treat
polluted runoff from urban and agricultural lands. These STAs will be
located throughout south Florida, and will enable the Corps to use the
natural filtering capability offered by wetlands to improve water
quality and, contribute to the restoration of the ecosystem.
For the purpose of determining Federal participation in water
quality features and improvements as part of the CERP, the Corps
assumed that the Federal Clean Water Act and state/tribal water quality
standards are currently being met. This assumes that all reasonable
measures within watersheds are in place to assure that the waters,
being received by the Central and Southern Florida project canal
system, are of sufficient quality to meet required standards. If these
measures did not provide water of adequate quality for South Florida
ecosystem needs, then additional features for water quality improvement
were deemed essential for Everglades restoration and included in the
Plan CERP. These features would cost shared 50 percent Federal and 50
percent non-Federal.
Question 2. GAO reported that the Corps included 24 projects to
improve the water quality in the ecosystem. If there are so many
uncertainties about water quality in the ecosystem, how were the
particular projects identified?
Response. We agree that there are some uncertainties associated
with the implementation of the overall CERP and project components to
improve water quality in the ecosystem. Such uncertainties are expected
considering the size of the project and its staged implementation over
30 years. While the CERP reflects the best available science, the Corps
is prepared to refine the plan as we learn more. To formulate and
evaluate alternative plans, scientists, engineers and planners used
computer models to simulate water quality conditions. These models
included the Lake Okeechobee Water Quality Model; the Everglades Water
Quality Model; and the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM).
The SFWMM was used to assess conditions in the St. Lucie Estuary,
Caloosahatchee Estuary, Lower East Coast, and Biscayne Bay. In addition
to these computer model simulations, consultants to the Everglades
National Park conducted an independent assessment of the effects of the
CERP on the performance of the Everglades Construction Project. Thus
the CERP is designed to be flexible, to incorporate and respond to new
information as it becomes available. Continuous monitoring and
independent scientific review are key components of the CERP.
Achieving adequate water quality to ensure ecosystem restoration
was one of the fundamental planning objectives of the CERP. Therefore,
water quality was included in the comprehensive planning effort to the
same extent as the other ecological, water supply, and flood protection
objectives mandated by WRDA 1996.
Question 3. In your testimony you state that you believe that the
Corps will have opportunities to save costs to the Everglades
Restoration project. Could you please explain where you believe that
these opportunities may be?
Response. The current estimated cost of implementing the CERP is
based on the best available information. Appropriate contingency
factors were used in developing the cost estimates to reflect the
uncertainties inherent at this stage of project development. It is
anticipated that the cost of the Plan will be modified in the future as
pilot projects and individual Project Implementation Reports are
completed. As more site-specific analysis is completed the contingency
factors will be revised to reflect the greater levels of certainty.
Value engineering will be used to optimize the design of facilities in
the detailed planning and design phases of implementation for
individual projects. During the detailed design phases, opportunities
will be sought that reduce the number of control structures as well as
using more passive control structures wherever feasible, which could
result in reduced construction and operation and maintenance costs.
In addition there are other factors which may reduce the cost of
the recommended plan. For instance, the aquifer storage and recovery
pilot projects will evaluate the water quality of the source water to
be used for aquifer storage and recovery and help identify the level of
treatment necessary as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
However, preliminary water quality information and correspondence from
the EPA indicates that the high level of treatment for aquifer storage
and recovery facilities included in the CERP may not be required and
therefore, a reduction in treatment costs up to $500, 000, 000 may be
possible. Information derived from the pilot projects will be used to
conduct a risk-based analysis of treatment requirements. Reducing the
requirements of treating water for aquifer storage and recovery may
also result in a reduction in the operation and maintenance costs for
these facilities.
Wastewater reuse facilities, which provide additional water flows
to Biscayne Bay, are another area where the project cost estimates may
be modified. Refinement of ecological goals and objectives for Biscayne
Bay along with evaluation of alternative sources of water for Biscayne
Bay may result in a reduction in the need for superior, advanced
wastewater facilities and a subsequent reduction in project costs. The
two wastewater reuse facilities account for an estimated $84,000,000
(rounded) of the total operations and maintenance costs. As noted
previously, the evaluation of alternative water supply sources for
Biscayne Bay may reduce the need for advanced treatment or the need for
all or a part of the volume of wastewater that is currently identified
in the CERP.
Question 4. This report is about water quality, which is regulated
at the Federal level by the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) under
the Clean Water Act. What in your view is the EPA's role in
implementing the Plan?
Response. The EPA played a crucial role in developing the CERP as a
cooperating agency under the National Environmental Policy Act and a
member of the interagency study team. The Corps intends to continue
this partnership during the subsequent phases of project
implementation. EPA will assist the Corps in developing pilot projects
intended to address water quality uncertainties. They will also assist
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in setting pollutant
reduction targets for key watersheds and/or water bodies affected by
the CERP features. The EPA will assist in design and permitting of CERP
water quality features and implementing monitoring programs.
Question 5. If more water quality projects are identified, will the
costs be shared jointly between the state and Federal Government?
Response. The extent of additional Federal participation, if any,
to achieve appropriate water quality for the natural system restoration
outside the Everglades is not yet known. Further investigation of this
issue was included as an element of the CERP. A feasibility level study
to develop a comprehensive integrated water quality plan is currently
programmed by the Corps of Engineers to be completed by 2006. This
study will determine if there is a Federal interest in additional water
quality improvement projects in the CERP study area (particularly in
Southwest Florida and the Lower East Coast). If it is determined that
there is a Federal interest in additional water quality improvement
projects beyond those already included in the CERP, we could request
Congress for additional project authorization through the traditional
Federal resources development process.
______
Responses by Michael L. Davis to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. Do you have the authority to independently take on
work, for example, a water quality project where you identify the need
for a Federal role, without congressional authorization:
Response. No. Project authorization would be required for the Corps
to study or construct any water quality projects in the south Florida
ecosystem.
Question 2. It appears from the GAO report that the GAO believes
that the Corps merely identifying a project need would lead to
increased costs in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
execution. Can you clarify the process the Army Corps would use if a
project need was identified?
Response. The CERP recognizes that there are implementation
uncertainties and that there may be a need for additional water quality
improvement projects in south Florida, particularly in those regions of
the study area which there are few or no features of the Federal C&SF
Project. For these reasons, the CERP includes appropriate cost
contingencies and a follow on water quality feasibility level study to
further investigate the Federal interest in water quality treatment
projects beyond that which was considered in the CERP planning efforts.
Any recommendations for additional projects as a result of that study
would be submitted to Congress for authorization. Concurrently, as
required by state law and the Federal Clean Water Act, the State of
Florida (FDEP and the Florida of Agriculture and Consumer Services) is
working with local governments and stakeholders to identify pollution
sources and implement pollution source reduction measures throughout
the CERP study area, independent of CERP implementation activities.
__________
Statement of David B. Struhs, Secretary, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Thank you for allowing me to appear before you to discuss the
effort to restore America's Everglades. I am pleased to be here today
to present the State of Florida's comments on the draft General
Accounting Office (GAO) report concerning water quality issues in the
south Florida ecosystem. I have not been allowed to see the report
being released today. I am providing comments on the draft report
entitled ``Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Implementation
Uncertainties May Lead to Additional Water Quality Projects and
Costs''.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (Comprehensive Plan)
is about water. It is about delivering water in the right place at the
right time in the right quantity and quality.
It has already been determined that in an overwhelming majority of
the time, the right place will be the natural system of the Everglades.
There is wide-ranging agreement on this from environmentalists,
utilities, agricultural interests, Federal agencies and Governor Jeb
Bush and the State of Florida.
We are not too concerned about water quantity. By recapturing
nearly 1.7 billion gallons of water per day, plus the water that
remains in the currently deteriorating Everglades, sufficient water
will be available to implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan.
The question before us today concerns the water quality portion of
the plan's overall mission. Restoration of the Everglades is not
possible without adequate water quality. Water quality is an authorized
purpose of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and
explicitly cost shared on a 50/50 basis after Federal, state, Tribal
and local water quality preventive and non-point regulatory
requirements have been enforced. We are confident that the water
quality features already contemplated in the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan along with existing State and local programs will
achieve the water quality restoration targets for south Florida without
adding additional costs.
We recognize that degradation of water quality throughout the study
area is extensive, particularly in agricultural and urban coastal
areas. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection listed over
150 use-impaired segments of water bodies in south Florida. It is also
recognized that achieving water quality goals for ecosystem restoration
in all use-impaired water bodies within the study area will depend on
actions outside the scope of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan. A number of agencies including the South Florida Water Management
District, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as well as local have developed or are
developing water quality improvement programs for several of the
impaired water bodies within the study area. The most notable example
is the Everglades Forever Act, which focuses on achieving adequate
water quality in the Everglades. Other examples include the Lake
Okeechobee Protection Act of 2000 and Surface Water Improvement and
Management Act planning efforts for the Indian River Lagoon, and
Biscayne Bay, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water
Quality Protection Program. We are confident that the State of Florida
and local governments will be able to implement water quality
improvement actions needed to achieve the water quality goals of south
Florida without any appreciable increased costs associated with the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Even where existing water quality may be adequate to meet water
quality standards in present receiving waters, the Comprehensive Plan
contains modifications to the present water management system that will
result in delivering water to different areas having different water
quality needs. Therefore, the Comprehensive Plan was formulated to
treat these waters before sending it on to other areas for ecosystem
restoration purposes.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan includes
approximately 35,600 acres of manmade wetlands, known as stormwater
treatment areas, to treat urban and agricultural runoff water before it
is discharged to the natural areas throughout the system. Stormwater
treatment areas are included in the recommended Comprehensive Plan for
basins draining to Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee River Basin, the
St. Lucie Estuary Basin, the Everglades, and the Lower East Coast.
These are in addition to the over 44,000 acres of stormwater treatment
areas already being constructed as part of the Everglades Construction
Project to treat runoff discharged from the Everglades Agricultural
Area. We do not anticipate major additional costs associated with water
quality to be added to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Closing
Today, we stand at the threshold of authorizing the most
significant restoration effort ever undertaken in this country. It is
remarkable that so many diverse interests have come to get behind one
cause. The cause is ``undoing'' the well intentioned efforts of Federal
entities half a century ago.
While it is more than a re-plumbing project, successful Everglades
restoration does demand high quality water where and when it is needed.
The blueprint--The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan--
contains an authorized purpose to meet that demand. The blueprint calls
for a 50-50 cost share after Federal, state, Tribal and local water
quality preventive and non-point regulatory requirements have been
enforced.
We stipulate to the fact that there are numerous water bodies in
south Florida that have water quality problems. Both state and Federal
agencies are collaborating on water quality improvement programs for
several of the impaired water bodies within the study area. Such
cooperation, we believe, will result in water quality improvements
without any appreciable increase in costs.
Governor Jeb Bush and the State of Florida is confident that
through our responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, state water
law, and the restoration plan we will be able to meet the water quality
needs of the region. We stand ready, more than willing, and fully able
to be your partner in this critical component of Everglades
restoration.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Responses by David Struhs to Additional Questions from Senator
Voinovich
Question 1. This report is about water quality, which is regulated
at the Federal level by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under
the Clean Water Act. What in your view is the EPA's role in
implementing the Plan?
Response. The State of Florida has water quality standards and
regulatory programs in place that will apply to the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. EPA has an important role in implementing
the Plan through their oversight of the State's water quality programs.
EPA will be instrumental in allowing the regulatory flexibility needed
to recognize significant cost savings during project construction and
operation.
Question 2. If more water quality projects are identified, will the
costs be shared jointly between the state and Federal Government?
Response. The Water Resource Development Act of 1996 authorizes 50-
50 cost sharing for water projects that are essential for Everglades
restoration. This determination is vested with the Secretary of the
Army. Only those projects approved by the Secretary of the Army as
essential for Everglades restoration would be jointly cost shared.
Question 3. In your comments to the GAO, the Department of
Environmental Protection for the State of Florida indicates that ``at
best, $1 billion figure for Lake Okeechobee dredging is rough estimate
prepared by the South Florida Water Management District scientists to
bracket the costs for dredging.'' What do you mean by this comment? Is
the State of Florida prepared to budget for the potential dredging of
Lake Okeechobee if it is viewed as essential in achieving restoration
of the Everglades?
Response. The State of Florida is fairly certain that while
dredging Lake Okeechobee warrants further investigation, it is not
essential to Everglades restoration. The emerging consensus is that
dredging is not essential but may shorten the time period for
restoration of Lake Okeechobee. However, a detailed analysis has not
been completed to determine feasibility. The South Florida Water
Management District is embarking on a more detailed feasibility
evaluation to evaluate true costs and technical feasibility and it is
likely that the evaluation will determine that a large-scale dredging
project is not recommended. If the feasibility evaluation indicates
that there is some potential for significantly reducing the restoration
time period, the Army Corps of Engineers would need to perform a
feasibility study to determine if there is a Federal interest in
participating in the Lake Okeechobee restoration effort. Ultimately the
final level of Federal participation, if any, will be determined by
Congress.
Question 4. What is the status of the Lake Okeechobee Sediment
Removal Feasibility Study?
Response. The Lake Okeechobee Sediment Removal Feasibility Study is
a 3-year project that began in September, 2000 and will be completed in
March, 2003. The South Florida Water Management District (District) has
contracted with Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc.(BBL), an engineering and
scientific consulting firm based in Boca Raton, Florida, to implement
the study. The total cost of the study is $955,069.
The goal of the study is to analyze all feasible sediment treatment
alternatives (i.e. chemical, physical) in order to determine the best
method of reducing internal phosphorus loading in Lake Okeechobee. The
goal of the feasibility study will be achieved using an objective
methodology that allows for review and input by experts and
stakeholders throughout the process. The final deliverables from this
study will be used in conjunction with a multiple criteria decision
process and public/interagency input in order to make final
recommendations to the Governing Board of the District.
The study consists of the following five (5) tasks:
1. Development of Goals and Performance Measures
2. Development of Alternatives
3. Work Plan for Alternative Evaluation
4. Evaluation of Alternatives
5. Consulting Assistance
Currently, BBL has begun work on Task 1. Development of Goals and
Performance Measures, which are due in March, 2001. The District will
be conducting interagency and public meetings throughout the study
process. The first public meeting will be held in January 2001 to
solicit input on the project goals and performance measures.
The District is also initiating a pilot dredging project that will
demonstrate the use of innovative dredging, dewatering and water
treatment technologies and provide critical information to the
feasibility study. The District is currently under contract
negotiations with a selected consultant and anticipates completion of
the project in the Fall 2002
Question 5. The State of Florida is responsible for developing the
numeric criterion for phosphorus in the Everglades. Could you please
tell us what level of phosphorus reduction you have been able to
achieve to date vs. what levels will be necessary to restore the
natural system? Do you anticipate that this will cause significant
increases to the cost of restoration?
Response. The numeric criterion for phosphorus will apply only to
the Everglades Protection Area. The CERP has only one project component
that will create a new discharge to the Everglades Protection Area--the
Central Lakebelt project. This project stores surface water in the
Central Lakebelt storage component and subsequently delivers the stored
water to Northeast Shark River Slough in Everglades National Park. The
source of this stored water is excess wet season flows out of the Water
Conservation Areas, so it is expected to be of adequate quality to meet
the Everglades phosphorus criterion upon reintroduction to the
Everglades. Therefore, the CERP will not result in the need for
additional water quality costs to meet the numeric criterion.
The CERP includes STAs to treat water for many other watersheds
throughout the planning area (Upper East Coast, Lower East Coast, Lake
Okeechobee). For planning purposes during the development of the CERP,
it was generally accepted by the interagency team that a 50 part per
billion (ppb) phosphorus design target (the basis for the sizing of the
STAs in the CERP) was adequate to achieve water quality restoration in
these other watersheds.
The existing STAs contracted under the State's Everglades
Construction Project (ECP) have far exceeded the design criterion of 50
ppb and have consistently achieved approximately 25 ppb. Because the
State has not yet established the numeric phosphorus criterion for the
Everglades, we cannot say at this time what level of phosphorus will
need to be reached in the ECP STAs to restore the natural system.
Supplemental treatment technologies will be incorporated into the
design and operation of the ECP STAs to ensure that flows to the
Everglades meet the final numeric standard by December 21, 2006. The
costs for designing and implementing supplemental treatment
technologies necessary to meet the final numeric phosphorus standard
will be the responsibility of the State of Florida (except for the C-
51/STA 1 East Project, which is cost-shared between the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District).
Question 6. What level of research funding is the state currently
conducting into advanced treatment technologies to enhance the
performance of the stormwater treatment areas (STAs)?
Response. To date, the State of Florida has expended $14.28 million
on advanced treatment technologies. Another $4.45 million has been
budgeted for fiscal year 2001. These figures include the dollar values
for research contracts, demonstration projects and staff costs
associated with advanced treatment technologies. The figures do not
include mercury monitoring, agricultural best management practices
research, or phosphorus threshold research, all of which impact the
final solution for meeting long term water quality standards.
Question 7. The Interior Appropriations Committee requested in its
fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations bill a report on the total
cost estimate to restore the South Florida ecosystem. Further, the
Interior Appropriators requested that the Department submit information
to be updated biennially, on the total cost of the effort to restore
the South Florida ecosystem. Assistant Secretary John Berry indicated
in a letter to the Appropriations Committee that the total cost is
$14.8 billion. Do you dispute this figure that was provided by the
Department of Interior, and if so why?
Response. The $14.8 million figure was calculated independently by
the U.S. Department of the interior as the cost to implement all
natural resource management programs in South Florida and there is no
consensus amongst state or local governments on this amount. The
majority of this amount includes projects that are already fully funded
by the State or local governments and it is misleading to portray this
amount as additional costs necessary for Everglades restoration.
Furthermore, the Federal interest of the $14.8 billion has not been
officially recommended to Congress or determined by Congress to be
accurate.
Responses by David Struhs to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1. Do you have the authority to independently take on
work, for example, a water quality project where you identify the need
for a Federal role, without congressional authorization?
Response. No, only Congress can authorize Federal participation in
a project.
Question 2. It appears from the GAO report that the GAO believes
that the Corps merely identifying a project need would lead to
increased costs in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
execution. Can you clarify the process that the Army Corps would use if
a project need was identified?
Response. All new projects will be subject to traditional Federal
authorization in future Water Resource Development Acts. The initial 10
projects are required to have a Committee Resolution from the House and
Senate prior to receiving Federal appropriations. Therefore, there is
no way that increased costs will be realized without congressional
approval.
-