SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
57–272 l
1999
ISSUES REGARDING EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AND SURROUNDING AREAS IMPACTED BY MANAGEMENT OF THE EVERGLADES
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 27, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 106–24
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
TODD HULL, Professional Staff
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hearing held Month, Day, 1999
Statements of Members:
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Romero-Barceló, Hon. Carlos, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory of Puerto Rico
Prepared statement of
Letter to Hon. Alex Penelas, Mayor of Miami-Dade County, from Hon. Bob Graham, and Hon. Connie Mack
Statements of witnesses:
Aguilera, Ibel, The United Property Owners & Friends of the 8.5 Square Mile Area, Inc.
Prepared statement of
Jones, Ronald D., Ph.D, Southeast Environmental Research Program, Florida International University
Prepared statement of
Leary, William, Senior Counselor to Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, National Park Service; accompanied by Richard Ring, Superintendent of the Everglades National Park
Prepared statement of
Lehtinen, Dexter, Esq., Lehtinen, O'Donnell, Vargas & Reiner, P.S., representing Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Lorion, Joette, Environmental Consultant
Prepared statement of
MacVicar, Thomas K., P.E., President, Federico & Lamb, Inc.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Rice, Colonel Terry L., U.S. Army Retired, Florida International University, and Advisor, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of FloridA
Prepared statement of
Shiver, Hon. Steve, Mayor, City of Homestead, Florida
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Barley, Mary L., The Everglades Foundation, Inc., prepared statement of
Diaz-Balart, Hon. Lincoln, letter to Mr. Hansen
Dieguez, Elena, prepared statement of
Forten, Madeleine, prepared statement of
Prieto, Armando J., prepared statement of
Rinaldi, Charles R., Deputy Director, South Florida Water Management District, Florida, letter to landonwers
Walfer, Ray, Senior Real Estate Specialist
Rosario, Emilio, prepared statement of
Sweeting, Debbie, prepared statement of
Sweeting, Robert, prepared statement of
Truth Patrol: Rebutting the Myth and Misinformation Campaign in the 8.5 Square Mile Area
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ISSUES REGARDING EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AND SURROUNDING AREAS IMPACTED BY MANAGEMENT OF THE EVERGLADES
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order.
Good morning and welcome to the oversight hearing today. We have many people here today, so I would like to make an opening statement and proceed with the business at hand.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Everglades, in the State of Florida, represents the largest wetland ecosystem in the United States, about 18,000 square miles of land, rivers, and lakes. This complex ecosystem has been considerably impacted by the development and water management in central and south Florida. Over many years, various protective measures for the Everglades have been enacted by Congress, but problems still abound.
The Clinton Administration has more recently announced the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative which led to the creation of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This Task Force is comprised of a large number of Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies and stakeholders and has established three main goals: one, get the water right, that is, restoring the natural hydrological function of the Everglades; two, restore the natural systems by land acquisition and changing land use; and, three, transform the developed environment.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finding solutions to restore the Everglades has not been cheap. Since 1993, approximately $1.2 billion has been provided from Federal funding to implement the activities of the Restoration Initiative. It is projected that at least $11 billion will be spent on these activities over the next 20 years. Where and how this enormous amount of money has and will be spent is, obviously, of great concern to this Committee.
The issues surrounding the huge area of land and water of the Everglades are as complex as the ecosystem. Many of these issues are linked to the Restoration Initiative and will be examined within the scope of this oversight hearing. Areas in particular that are the subject of this oversight hearing include the land acquisition requirements in the 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act and subsequent amendment in 1994 and how these requirements impacted the Modified Water Delivery Project, the Miccosukee Indian Tribe, and an area of land known as 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
In 1989, Congress passed the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act, which authorized the addition of 107,600 acres of land in the eastern part of the Park. This Act also authorized the Modified Water Deliveries Project, Mod-Water Project, which, when finished, supposedly will restore the natural water flow into the Shark River Slough by moving water under the Tamiama Trail and into the Everglades National Park.
It was the express intent of the Congress that all the land acquisition be completed by 1994 and was expected to cost approximately $81 million. To date, however, both the land acquisition and the Mod-Water Project are years behind schedule, with the Mod-Water Project now not scheduled for completion until 2003, if everything goes right, and it probably won't.
The cost of the land is projected to be at least $50 million more than the first estimate. So far, less than 60 percent of the land has been acquired, and most of this has been the larger tracts of land. Hundreds of individual landowners still must negotiate a deal, while others have never been contacted.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also in the 1989 Expansion Act was a provision which provided for the flood protection for the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. This privately owned area currently has approximately 430 residents and is used extensively for agriculture. Although the Army Corps of Engineers had responsibility for the construction of the flood control project, the Department of the Interior was responsible for funding it. This arrangement has caused nothing but problems and delays. In fact, actual construction of the flood protection was never begun.
Compounding the situation is an amendment to the 1989 Expansion Act passed in 1994 which provided for acquisition of additional lands which affect the restoration of natural water flows to the Everglades National Park or Florida Bay. The amendment also authorized the Federal Government to provide not more than 25 percent of the funds necessary for the total cost of the acquisition.
The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area was included in this amendment. However, because of the development within the area, its geographic location and elevation, it is clear that the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area should not be considered to affect the natural water flow of the Everglades. I think we will see conclusive evidence of that. As a matter of fact, studies commissioned by three separate Governors of Florida along with many scientists and hydrologists support this finding.
In regard to the funding, Secretary of Interior Babbitt has stated they will contribute 50 percent of the amount needed to buy out the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area clearly exceeding the 25 percent threshold mandated by Congress. It amazes me. The authority Secretary Babbitt has for far-exceeding the 25 percent threshold has not been forthcoming from the Interior Department.
In 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers, in consultation with the Park Service, submitted a report which stated that acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area was not necessary and included mitigation measures to protect the area from flooding.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Contrary to that report, the Park Service maintained that this was not an acceptable solution. The Park Service, therefore, has refused to release the funds mandated by the 1989 Expansion Act to provide flood control for the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. In fact, in 1998, the Park Service notified the Corps of Engineers that it would no longer provide funds for the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area flood mitigation.
Also in 1998, the South Florida Water Management District issued a decision endorsed by the Park Service to acquire the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area rather than implement the flood mitigation plan proposed by the Corps of Engineers in 1992. However, it is clear from the bill report language accompanying the 1994 amendment that the Act does not authorize Federal imminent domain.
It is known that the vast majority of land owners in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area are not willing sellers. The lack of willing sellers prevents another formidable obstacle to overcome before natural water flows begin.
Regardless of whether the reason is the non-attainment of the land acquisition mandated in the 1989 Expansion Act or the failure to construct the flood mitigation measures for the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area or the forced proposal to outright acquire the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, the fact remains that natural water flows through the Everglades have been needlessly delayed.
The Park Service's delays and purposeful inactivity to get the water flowing again has severe negative impacts on lands that the Miccosukee Indian Tribe has use of, namely Water Conservation Area 3A. Because the Park Service has been delinquent in implementing any plan that actually moves the water, it has been stacking up in the WCA 3A for a number of years. This has led to unnaturally high water levels throughout the water conservation area. The effect of this water stacking has been dramatic. In fact, the Everglades in WCA 3A is drowning. Tree islands, known as hammocks, are disappearing as tree roots rot because of high water levels. Wildlife within this area is dying as well. All of this combination has had and will continue to have severe and dire consequences to the Everglades if water does not start flowing again.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the primary goals of everyone involved in the Everglades is to get the water moving again in a more natural flow. For a variety of reasons, however, the Interior Department and the Park Service are doing their utmost to delay projects and avoid reasonable solutions which will accomplish this.
The fact remains that something has got to be done to implement projects that will help restore natural water flows as soon as possible. Delaying known solutions only exacerbates these problems. The Congress must find ways to implement activities which will get the water moving once again. This oversight hearing intends to help accomplish this goal.
I would like to invite Everglades Superintendent Richard Ring to please sit at the witness table. Is that you at the table?
Mr. LEARY. No, sir. My name is Bill Leary.
Mr. HANSEN. Let us get Mr. Ring up there if we could. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ring.
I also want to mention that the Army Corps of Engineers was asked to testify today and be present to answer questions. Even though their offices received an invitation on April 15, they contend that they were unaware of the hearing until last Friday, so they will not be here today and even declined to send someone to answer any questions.
Is there anyone here from the Corps of Engineers? We are going to have to exercise the power of subpoena around here, aren't we? I guess snafus like this one is symptomatic of the Federal Government not taking action in the Everglades.
With that, I will welcome all of our witnesses, and I will recognize my friend from Puerto Rico, the Ranking Minority Member, for any comments that he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Good morning everyone and welcome to the oversight hearing today. We have many people here to testify, so I'd like to make an opening statement and then proceed to the business at hand.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Everglades, in the State of Florida, represents the largest wetlands ecosystem in the United States—about 18,000 square miles of land, rivers, and lakes. This complex ecosystem has been considerably impacted by development and water management in central and south Florida. Over many years various protective measures for the Everglades have been enacted by Congress, but problems still abound. The Clinton Administration has more recently announced the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative which led to the creation of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This Task Force is comprised of a large number of Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and stakeholders and has established three main goals: (1) Get the water right, i.e., restoring the natural hydrological function of the Everglades; (2) Restore the natural systems by land acquisition and changing land use; and (3) Transform the developed environment.
Finding solutions to restore the Everglades has not been cheap. Since 1993 approximately $1.2 billion has been provided from Federal funding to implement the activities of the Restoration Initiative. It is projected that at least $11 billion will be spent on these activities over the next twenty years. Where and how this enormous amount of money has and will be spent is, obviously, of great concern to us.
The issues surrounding the huge area of land and water of the Everglades are as complex as the ecosystem. Many of these issues are linked to the Restoration Initiative and will be examined within the scope of this oversight hearing. Areas in particular that are the subject of this oversight hearing include the land acquisition requirements in the 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act and subsequent amendment in 1994 and how these requirements impact the Modified Water Delivery Project, the Miccosukee Indian Tribe, and an area of land known as the 8.5 square mile area.
In 1989, Congress passed the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act which authorized the addition of 107,600 acres of land to the eastern part of the park. This Act also authorized the Modified Water Deliveries Project (Mod-Water Project) which, when finished, supposedly will restore the natural water flow into the Shark River Slough by moving water under the Tamiama Trail and into the Everglades National Park. It was the express intent of the Congress that all the land acquisition be completed by 1994 and was expected to cost approximately $81 million. To date, however, both the land acquisition and Mod-Water Project are years behind schedule with the Mod-Water Project now not scheduled for completion until 2003, if everything goes right—and it probably won't. The cost of the land is projected to be at least $50 million dollars more than the first estimate. So far, less than 60 percent of the land has been acquired and most of this has been the larger tracts of land. Hundreds of individual landowners still must negotiate a deal, while others have never been contacted.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also in the 1989 Expansion Act was a provision which provided for the flood protection for the 8.5 Square Mile Area. This privately owned area currently has approximately 430 residences and is used extensively for agricultural. Although the Army Corps of Engineers had responsibility for the construction of the flood control project, the Department of the Interior was responsible for funding it. This arrangement has caused nothing but problems and delays. In fact, actual construction of the flood protection was never begun.
Compounding the situation is an amendment to the 1989 Expansion Act passed in 1994 which provided for acquisition of additional lands which affect the restoration of natural water flows to the Everglades NP or Florida Bay. The amendment also authorized the Federal Government to provide not more than 25 percent of the funds necessary for the total cost of the acquisition. The 8.5 Square Mile Area was included in this amendment. However, because of the development within this area, its geographic location, and its elevation, it is clear that the 8.5 Square Mile Area should not be considered to affect the natural water flow of the Everglades. I think we will see conclusive evidence of this today. As a matter of fact, studies commissioned by three separate Governors of Florida along with many scientists and hydrologists support this finding.
In regard to the funding, Secretary of Interior Babbitt has stated that they will contribute 50 percent of the amount needed to buyout the 8.5 Square Mile Area clearly exceeding the 25 percent threshold mandated by the 1994 amendment. The authority Secretary Babbitt has for far-exceeding the 25 percent threshold has not been forthcoming from the Interior Department.
In 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers, in consultation with the Park Service, submitted a report which stated that acquisition of the 8.5 Square Mile Area was not necessary and included mitigation measures to protect the area from flooding. Contrary to that report, the Park Service maintained that this was not an acceptable solution. The Park Service, therefore, has refused to release the funds mandated by the 1989 Expansion Act to provide flood control for the 8.5 Square Mile Area. In fact, in 1998 the Park Service notified the Corps of Engineers that it would no longer provide funds for the 8.5 Square Mile Area flood mitigation. Also in 1998, the South Florida Water Management District issued a decision, endorsed by the Park Service, to acquire the 8.5 Mile Square Area rather than implement the flood mitigation plan proposed by the Corps of Engineers in 1992. However, it is clear from the bill report language accompanying the 1994 amendment that the Act does not authorize Federal imminent domain. It is known that the vast majority of land owners in the 8.5 Square Mile Area are not willing sellers. The lack of willing sellers presents another formidable obstacle to overcome before natural water flows begin.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regardless of whether the reason is the non-attainment of the land acquisition mandated in the Area, or the forced proposal to outright acquire the 8.5 Square Mile Area, the fact remains that natural water flows through the Everglades have been needlessly delayed. The Park Service's delays and purposeful inactivity to get the water flowing again has had severe negative impacts on lands that the Miccosukee Indian Tribe has use of, namely Water Conservation Area 3A. Because the Park Service has been delinquent in implementing any plan that actually moves water, it has been stacking up in WCA 3A for a number of years. This has led to unnaturally high water levels throughout this water conservation area. The effect of this water stacking has been dramatic and, although counterintuitive, the fact is the Everglades in WCA 3A is drowning. Tree islands, known as hammocks, are disappearing as tree roots rot because of high water levels. Wildlife within this area is dying as well. All of this combined has had and will continue to have severe and dire consequence for the Everglades if water does not start flowing again.
One of the primary goals of everyone involved in the Everglades is to get the water moving again in a more natural flow. For a variety of reasons however, the Interior Department and the Park Service are doing their utmost to delay projects and avoid reasonable solutions which will accomplish this. The fact remains that something has got be done to implement projects that will help restore natural water flows as soon as possible. Delaying known solutions only exacerbates these problems. The Congress must find ways to implement activities which will get the water moving once again. This oversight hearing intends to help accomplish this goal.
I would like to invite Everglades Superintendent Richard Ring to please sit at the witness table, as I am fairly certain that at least a few questions will come his way. I also want to mention that the Army Corps of Engineers was asked to testify today and be present to answer questions. Even though their offices received an invitation on April 15, they contend they were unaware of the hearing until last Friday, so they will not be here today and even declined to send someone to answer any questions. I guess snafus like this one is symptomatic of the Federal Government not taking action in the Everglades.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, I'd like to welcome all our witnesses here and now recognize the Ranking Minority Member for any comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELÓ, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem has been a matter of considerable importance to this Committee, as well as to the entire Congress.
I remember the first Congress I was here, we had a field trip hearing down in the Everglades, beyond the Everglades, into Key West to see the effect that the flow of the waters had had on the Keys. So it has been something—that and many other issues have been before this Committee very, very often.
The 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act as well as the Act's 1994 Amendment involved the bipartisan effort of this Committee, as well as the Florida congressional delegation. It is our understanding that this oversight hearing is focusing on the 1989 Act and its 1994 Amendment, particularly the land acquisition of the Congressional Acts.
Evidently, with funds provided by Congress, the National Park Service has made significant progress in acquiring the 107,600 acres of lands authorized by the 1989 Act for the Park. The 1994 Amendment to the Everglades Act specifically authorized the Secretary of the Interior to contribute to the State of Florida up to 25 percent of the cost of acquiring three areas, including an area known as the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. The 1996 Farm Bill and the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act subsequently authorized the Federal contribution of 50 percent for these acquisitions.
The decision of South Florida Water Management District to proceed with the acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area has been a matter of considerable controversy. We understand that the National Park Service is undertaking a NEPA review as part of determining whether to proceed with contributing to the acquisition as authorized by Congress.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The important thing here is that there has been a great delay in the implementation of all of this plan, as the Chairman has indicated.
Also, I would like to point out I have met with my staff to try to figure out why the changes in the plans of the acquisition of the land and why the interest in acquiring the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area instead of doing—building up the levees and the dams that were supposed to be built around the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. I just don't understand. I hope that in this hearing we get some clarification as to why these changes have been made so we would understand what is the reason instead of following the original plan.
Mr. Chairman, the 1989 Everglades Protection Act and the Act's 1994 Amendments are important aspects of the effort to restore the Everglades. We look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today in regards to these matters.
Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Romero-Barcelo follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELÓ, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Chairman, the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem has been a matter of considerable importance to this Committee, as well as to the entire Congress.
The 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act, as well as that Act's 1994 Amendment involved the bipartisan efforts of this Committee, as well as the Florida Congressional delegation. It is our understanding that this oversight hearing is focusing on the 1989 Act and its 1994 Amendment, particularly the land acquisition of the Congressional Acts.
Evidently, with funds provided by Congress, the National Park Service has made significant progress in acquiring the 107,600 acres of lands authorized by the 1989 Act for the Park. The 1994 Amendment to the Everglades Act specifically authorized the Secretary of the Interior to contribute to the State of Florida up to 25 percent of the cost of acquiring three areas, including an area known as the eight and one-half square mile area. The 1996 Farm bill and the Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act subsequently authorized a Federal contribution of 50 percent for these acquisitions.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The decision of the South Florida Water Management District to proceed with the acquisition of the eight and one-half square mile area has been a matter of considerable controversy. We understand that the National Park Service is undertaking a NEPA review as part of determining whether to proceed with contributing to the acquisition as authorized by Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the 1989 Everglades Protection Act and the Act's 1994 Amendments are important aspects of the effort to restore the Everglades. We look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today in regards to these matters.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, do you have any opening comments?
The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands?
The gentleman from Washington?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LEARY, SENIOR COUNSELOR TO ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD RING, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK
Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate our witnesses being with us today.
Mr. Leary, I will start with you; and then we will ask Mr. Ring if you have any comments. The floor is yours.
Mr. LEARY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Bill Leary. I am senior counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for the Department of Interior. I also serve as an advisor to Secretary Babbitt on matters relating to the Everglades and south Florida ecosystem.
Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record that I believe addresses the issues, as I understand them, you wish to discuss today. However, in the interest of time, what I prefer to do is address the issue that seems to be, at least from your statement, the central issue before us, which is the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. If you will indulge me, I would like to just very briefly explain to you how we got from where we were to where we are today with respect to the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Leary, let me say this. Your statement and all other statements, without objection, will be included in the record in full. Any way you want to abbreviate your statement is perfectly fine with us.
Mr. LEARY. Thank you, sir.
The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area needs to be understood—issues relating to it need to be understood, in the following context that I would like to lay out for you.
In the 1970s, Congress enacted a series of Acts to make sure that water deliveries to Everglades National Park were adequate to protect the Park. In 1988, Governor Martinez appointed a task force which came to the conclusion that the Park was receiving inadequate waters through its main artery, Shark Slough.
In 1989, in reaction to those concerns expressed from the State of Florida and others, Congress enacted the 1989 Everglades Park Protection and Expansion Act which, Mr. Chairman, you referred to.
That Act did three things. It authorized the Secretary of the Interior to expand Everglades National Park by roughly 107,000 acres, to bring more of Shark Slough into Federal ownership. Two, it authorized the Corps of Engineers to design the Modified Water Deliveries Project to improve the delivery of the water into the Park. And, three, it provided that, in designing the project, the Corps was to protect the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area and other residential and agriculture nearby areas from the impacts of that water delivery system.
The Corps of Engineers designed the Modified Water Deliveries Project in 1992. The announcement of the design of that was immediately followed by Hurricane Andrew which hit the area. You will be hearing more about the impacts of that storm from one of your witnesses, Mayor Shiver, later. But that brought a lot of things to a halt as people were picking up their lives down in south Florida.
In any event, in 1993, the State and others determined that Florida Bay was suffering great harm. Florida Bay is also the recipient of much of its water from Shark Slough through Everglades National Park. So the issue was revisited by the Congress in 1994.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, in 1994, the Congress suggested and authorized us to take a different approach, suggesting that perhaps the best approach was to buy the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, Rocky Glades and the Frog Pond to the south, and provided the Secretary with the authority to cost share with the State of Florida for the acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area and those other properties.
In 1995, Governor Chiles appointed a committee to look at the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. That committee was composed of representatives of the State of Florida, the South Florida Water Management District, the Corps of Engineers, Everglades National Park, and the residents of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
They took a year looking at the options, a little bit less than a year, and issued a report, a unanimous determination, Mr. Chairman, by all of those parties. They rejected full acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area and rejected the original Corps plan. What they suggested was a flow way buffer approach to the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area that linked it to the flow way buffer that was being designed for the C-111 project to the south. It was a unanimous decision.
The parties then attempted to enter into an agreement, a statement of principles to effect that proposal. All parties signed onto it. The Corps of Engineers, through the district engineer at the time, who is one of your witnesses today, refused to sign the statement of principles. So he raised questions, legitimate questions, about whether that was the best approach. But his refusal to sign meant that the deal fell apart.
The South Florida Water Management District then in 1996 took it upon itself to review the alternatives to determine if it wanted to do a locally preferred option to the Corps' project. They engaged in that analysis.
During the course of their analysis, which began in 1996 and culminated last November, 1998, the Governors Commission for Sustainable South Florida, which is a group in south Florida appointed by the Governors and composed of representatives of virtually all interest groups, addressed this subject. A subcommittee of the Commission, headed by another one of your witnesses today, Mr. Lehtinen, encouraged the commission to adopt a resolution that was in the nature of asking the South Florida Water Management District, to make a decision and move on. It encouraged the Water Management District to make a decision about what it wanted to do as a locally preferred option by December 31st, 1998, and to come up with a funding solution for it by September of 1999.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Heeding that advice, in part, the Water Management District Governing Board in November of 1998, after analyzing all the alternatives, came to the conclusion that it supported full acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. This was well within the recommended time line.
As a result of that decision, the Corps of Engineers is now engaged in the NEPA process of reviewing that alternative and the options before it. The Department of Interior has engaged with the Corps to try to expedite the NEPA analysis for the purpose of determining which option to support financially. And that is where we find ourselves today.
Mr. Chairman, because the decision is yet to be determined, I don't know what the outcome is going to be. I believe I understand the views of the residents of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area area. I have been there. I have met with them. Mr. Chairman, for the most part, they want to be left alone. I believe I understand the views of the Miccosukee Tribe. I have had many spirited and frank conversations with both Mr. Lehtinen and Mr. Rice about the concerns of the Tribe. We understand them.
We are attempting, Mr. Chairman, to do the right thing for Everglades National Park consistent with our understanding of what congressional intent is. We believe you should expect that of us, and that is what we are attempting to do, Mr. Chairman.
I am here representing the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior as your witness. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Leary. We appreciate that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leary follows:]
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LEARY, SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS
Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Leary. I serve as Senior Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for the Department of the Interior. I also serve as an advisor to Secretary Babbitt on issues related to the restoration of the Everglades and the south Florida Ecosystem. I appear here today on behalf of the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am pleased to be here today to discuss several issues related to the restoration initiative. Secretary Babbitt has repeatedly and accurately referred to this as the largest environmental restoration effort ever undertaken. It is one of the top environmental priorities of the Clinton/Gore Administration and has enjoyed strong bipartisan congressional support.
Because of the enormity and importance of this initiative, the Federal Government has entered into unprecedented relationships with the State of Florida and tribal, regional, and local governments to guide our collective efforts, despite diverse missions and authorities. The progress being made, largely under the auspices of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, is a result of these partnerships and, at the Federal level, from the substantial bipartisan efforts of the Congress and the Administration.
This is an unprecedented undertaking, requiring difficult decisions to resolve complex issues. It requires enormous cooperation among four separate sovereigns, dozens of State and Federal agencies, and hundreds of regional and local governments. So far as possible we attempt to achieve consensus on how we should proceed. Given differing missions, authorities and interests, I believe we are achieving remarkable success in south Florida. That is not to say that there are no disagreements or difficulties to be overcome. But we have the means to resolve them and we do.
As we understand it, the Subcommittee wishes to discuss several issues that affect Everglades National Park: the requirements of the 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act and 1994 amendments, particularly the land acquisition requirements, and how they impact the Modified Water Deliveries Project, the Miccosukee Tribe, and the Water Conservation Areas.
Mr. Chairman, we welcome this hearing and the interest of the Committee members in the important and ongoing efforts to restore the environment of Everglades National Park.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I. Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989
A. History
Everglades National Park, established in 1947, has long been considered the most threatened park in the National Park System. The history of Federal and State conservation efforts in the Everglades are directly linked with development of the vast water management system that has led to the decline of the ecosystem in general and the park in particular. Both span over 50 years. The national heritage values at stake are beyond question. It is the only protected sub-tropical wetland in the nation. Its wonders are widely known, and draw visitors from around the nation and the world. The many threats confronting its future are also well-known.
Throughout the park's 52 years, a close Federal and State partnership has mutually worked toward achieving its conservation objectives. As required by its authorizing legislation, the park became a reality in 1947 by the donation of lands from the State of Florida. Over subsequent enlargements of the park boundary, State participation has been a key factor, including the donation of about 43,000 acres within the 1989 expansion area.
A major concern for park restoration surfaced in the 1980's and centered on the exclusion of the northeastern portion of the Shark River Slough from the park when originally authorized. This major tributary was the central flow way of the original Everglades, the ''River of Grass'' immortalized by the late Marjory Stoneman Douglas. By drawing the park's boundary through the middle of Shark Slough, water that had once flowed freely in a slow, broad expanse, was now artificially funneled to the west. As a result, the eastern portion was kept artificially dry.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1970, Congress enacted the first in a series of congressional acts designed to address hydrological and ecological problems in Everglades National Park and mandated a minimum of 315,000 acre-feet of water to be delivered to the park from Water Conservation Area 3A. This minimum delivery schedule was subsequently modified by Congress in 1984 in response to excessive regulatory releases to the park following high rainfall. The experimental program for delivery of water authorized in the 1984 Act was thereafter extended by Congress in 1989 and 1992.
Nonetheless, the park continued to suffer due to interruptions in the natural flow of water into the park through Shark Slough. Addressing this threat to the park became a local and national cause. Governor Bob Martinez formed the East Everglades Task Force in 1988, which reported, ''Restoration and protection of Everglades National Park cannot be accomplished unless the East Everglades area is acquired and surface flows are restored through it.''
Congress responded to this dilemma with passage of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989. Its purposes were to (1) increase the level of protection of the outstanding natural values of the park and to enhance and restore its ecological values, natural hydrological conditions and public enjoyment; and (2) assure the park is managed in order to maintain the natural abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity of native plants and animals as part of their ecosystem.
B. East Everglades Addition to Everglades National Park
This farsighted legislation reflected Congress' clear recognition of the serious problems of declining park resources and the need for quick action to correct the problems. The legislation expanded the boundaries of the park and authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 107,000 acres in the Expansion Area.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The acquisition of lands in the Expansion Area has been difficult due in large part to the fact that they consist of thousands of small parcels, the ownership of which has been often difficult to determine. These parcels are comprised of land which are regularly inundated with water and essentially unfit for development.
In addition, we have received varying levels of funding for this purpose which have been inadequate to allow the timely acquisition of the Area. However, in 1997, we began in earnest to complete these critical acquisitions as quickly as possible. With the help of Congress, we are nearing completion.
In FY 1998, we received $26 million toward the acquisition of the remaining acres, leaving lands estimated at $40 million to be acquired. In FY 1999, Congress provided the National Park Service $20 million toward that balance. Our FY 2000 budget request for the remaining $20 million will allow us to complete these acquisitions.
We have also recently received declaration of take authority which will substantially increase the rate with which we will be able to complete the acquisition of the Expansion Area. Because the land is unsuitable for development and there is no public opposition, this authority will allow us to settle more quickly with the landowners by avoiding many of the title issues that have previously delayed acquisitions. Under this authority, all property owners will, of course, receive just compensation for their property.
As of March 31, 1999, 70,881 acres (2,645 tracts) have been acquired in the Expansion Area, including 28,792 acquired and 42,089 donated by the State.
This leaves 36,343 acres (5,268 tracts) in private ownership yet to be acquired to complete the acquisition of the area. We have made remarkable progress toward completion in the past three years due to increased funding levels from Congress and the recent authorization of declaration of take authority. The latter is critical due to the difficulty in closing acquisitions on so many small parcels, the ownership of which is scattered. We are hopeful that the National Park Service will have completed its responsibilities in the acquisition of lands in the Expansion Area as early as 2001.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Accordingly, we are pleased to report to the Subcommittee that we are well on the way to meeting the intent of Congress to put emphasis on completion of land acquisitions to benefit the park.
C. Modified Water Deliveries Project
The Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 also authorized changes in the Central and Southern Florida Project to provide for improved water deliveries to the park and authorized the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to mitigate any adverse impact from the project modifications on adjacent agricultural and residential areas, including the 8.5 Square Mile Area (SMA), the Rocky Glades Agricultural Area, and the Frog Pond.
In 1992, the Corps developed the Modified Water Deliveries Project, which included the mitigation plan for the 8.5 Square Mile Area. This project, funded by the Department of the Interior through appropriations to the National Park Service ''Construction'' appropriation, is designed to restore more natural hydropatterns in Water Conservation Area 3 (WCA-3) and Shark River Slough. The project is currently scheduled by the Corps for completion in 2003 if several difficult issues can be resolved. The project will involve the removal and modification of existing levees and canals, along with construction of new water control structures and pump stations. Some of the project features are underway. In December 1998 construction was completed on two new water control structures. S-355A and S-355B, that will help to reestablish flows from WCA-3B to Northeast Shark River Slough. The project also required the Miccosukee Indian community of Tigertail Camp to be raised to prevent flooding the community. This construction feature, which also included replacing substandard housing with new concrete homes, is complete.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
D. 8.5 Square Mile Area
A significant issue impacting the Modified Water Deliveries Project remains the long-standing controversy over the 8.5 SMA. The 8.5 SMA consists of about 5,600 acres immediately adjacent to the Expansion Area of Everglades National Park and west of the L-31N levee. It was developed in the 1960's and has about 1,200 residents and 365 structures. The issue about how to restore natural flows of water to the park through Shark Slough and the resultant impacts on the 8.5 SMA have for years presented a challenge.
Despite the authorization for mitigation for the area contained in the 1,989 Act, clear evidence of harm to Florida Bay, led Congress in 1994 to revisit the issue. Congress amended the 1989 Act to authorize the Department of the Interior to help acquire the 8.5 SMA, as well as Rocky Glades and the Frog Pond, as an alternative to mitigation.
In 1994, Governor Lawton Chiles established the East Everglades 8.5 SMA Study Committee to review alternatives to the Corps mitigation plan for the 8.5 SMA. In 1995, the committee recommended a solution in the form of a flow way/buffer project. This option would have required acquisition of up to half the acreage within the 8.5 SMA, above the amounts needed for the Corps' mitigation plan (which called for construction of a canal and levee). The committee's option would use the acquired lands as a water detention area to provide full (1 in 10 years) flood protection to the remainder of the area. It would also link hydrologically with the flow-way buffer being planned for the C-111 project to the south. In 1995 the Corps had modified its plan for the C-111 project, which included the acquisition of Rocky Glades and the Frog Pond, to create a flow-way/buffer to provide for hydrologic restoration of the headwaters of Taylor Slough. The SFWMD, as local sponsor for the C-111 project has since acquired the Frog Pond and a large portion of the Rocky Glades area.
In 1996, in response to the 1995 committee report, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) contracted a study and analysis of the flow-way/buffer and 5 other options for resolving the 8.5 SMA issue. These options included the Corps' original mitigation plan, the committee's modified flow way/buffer, and full acquisition. The SFWMD formed a review team to monitor the technical aspects of the study, consisting of affected agencies and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (Tribe). The analysis consisted of hydrologic evaluations, water quality analyses, and economic analyses.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In November, 1998, the SFWMD Governing Board unanimously voted to support full acquisition of private properties within the 8.5 SMA as a Locally Preferred Option (LPO) to the Corps' mitigation plan, subject to cost-share arrangements with the Federal Government and Miami-Dade County. A decision of the County Commission to provide partial funding has been deferred pending resolution of the lawsuit brought by the Tribe against the SFWMD alleging that the meetings of the review committee violated the State Sunshine Law.
In response to the SFWMD Governing Board's decision, the Corps and the Department of the Interior are examining the LPO pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The review being conducted by the Department to determine its participation in funding the LPO will examine various alternatives to the LPO.
The Tribe and residents of the 8.5 SMA have raised a number of issues regarding acquisition of the area. The first issue is whether the acquisition of the 8.5 SMA will needlessly delay implementation of the Modified Water Deliveries Project. Those who oppose the LPO contend that it is not needed for restoration and that full acquisition will take an inordinate amount of time, particularly given the fact that many residents oppose the buy-out.
The restoration benefits to be derived from the various alternatives will be part of the on-going NEPA analysis. The ability to acquire such lands as are needed will involve issues yet to be determined, including the willingness of residents to sell and number of parcels to be acquired.
The second issue is that residents of the 8.5 SMA have alleged that they were denied due process as the SFWMD reviewed the alternatives and decided to support full acquisition as the LPO. While it would be inappropriate to discuss the issue that is the subject of litigation between the Miccosukee Tribe and the SFWMD, the Department of the Interior fully agrees with the Tribe that these decisions must provide due process to the fullest extent and will afford ample opportunity for public review and comment during our NEPA process.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me state categorically that we do not include a full acquisition alternative in our NEPA analysis lightly. We believe that any solution must be a sustainable solution for all the people of south Florida and meet the goals of the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, as amended.
We are implementing the Modified Water Deliveries Project to meet the clear intent of Congress to restore the Shark Slough. We want a solution that will not compromise those efforts. The history of the park includes cases where structures built for park needs were eventually changed to operate for greater flood protection and water supply benefits to the detriment of the Park. Under the Corps mitigation plan, the residents will continue to live with flooded streets and yards, threatening to create similar conflicts between the residents of the 8.5 SMA and the Park. We want to avoid that. We want to find a sustainable solution.
II. Impact of recent wet years on the Water Conservation Areas (WCA)
Mr. Chairman, related to the 8.5 SMA is the issue of impacts in 1998 to the WCAs, particularly those interests to the Tribe from the extraordinary high levels of water in the system in 1998. A significant part of the problem was the inability of the Corps to move water off the Tribal lands and toward the 8.5 SMA without impacting the 8.5 SMA residents. These issues have come together in striking outline over the past 4-5 years. These have been record rainfall years. And they have severely strained the water management system. Most importantly, they have underlined the limited options the current system provides to address flood control needs for an expanding population while at the same time, trying to limit negative impacts on the Everglades.
The 1997 wet season (June-October) was higher than average leaving the system full when the dry season began. These high levels were then followed by a dry season (November to May) that was 50 percent wetter than normal due to the influence of El Niño. Thus, not only did the high levels not dry down, they actually increased, threatening the entire system. On top of this, the 1998 wet season loomed.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the north end of the system high water in the Kissimmee drainage was straining the capacity of Lake Okeechobee. With no additional storage capacity, water managers were forced to release sufficient amounts of water and sediment into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. These releases were unrelated to the plight of the sparrow. These releases reinforced need for storage in the north as recommended by the Restudy.
Further down the system, the configuration of water deliveries to Everglades National Park is currently constrained by the system which funnels most water to the park into western Shark Slough. This area is also critical nesting habitat for the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. In order to provide for a minimum 45-day nesting period, the flow gates (S-12 structures) to the west were at first operated for minimal discharges, then closed in the spring of 1998. The agencies found ways to route water to the east and south in a manner close to being equal to the S-12 expected flows. Levels in the Water Conservation Areas were high due to high rainfall and discharges from the upper system. This circumstance would not have been different if all the S-12s were fully open.
The emergency action, along with a period of dry weather, was successful in limiting the disturbance to nesting in the western population of the sparrow. There was an approximately 75 percent success rate compared to the previous year. Results would have been much lower without the emergency actions.
Expressing concern over flooding in the conservation areas, some have misinterpreted the flooding as caused solely by the emergency sparrow actions. As a matter of fact, similarly heavy rainfall in 1994-95, when park flood gates were fully open, produced much higher levels in the conservation areas. And during the emergency actions of 1998, amounts of water generally equivalent to the expected flows of the western gates, was moved through other structures to the east. Simply put, the closing of the western S-12 gates was not the principal cause of high water in the conservation areas, but resulted from rainfall and inflows from the north.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The conservation areas are currently contoured with levees to hold and store water. A principal goal of restoration will be to ultimately decompartmentalize these areas to the extent possible. This, together with creating additional water storage capacity, is the best way of avoiding similar high-water conditions.
Finally, with respect to the emergency actions taken in 1998, some have criticized the validity of the science surrounding the sparrow. In response, the interagency State, Federal and Tribal South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group convened a peer review workshop and panel. The panel, consisting of the nation's top experts nominated by the American Ornithological Union, have recently released their draft report. The draft report supports the scientific credibility of the current sparrow research being relied upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the need for appropriate management actions.
The report recommends similar short-term actions to hold water in Conservation Area 3-A during high-water events, pending completion of the Modified Water Deliveries project. The report further points out the lack of reliable data showing a decline of tree islands in 3-A over the last decade and cites studies showing that increased tree mortality has not occurred over that time period.
All the above characterize the difficulties of preserving a wetland national park in the midst of growing pressures and a fundamentally changed natural system. We need to increasingly look toward the larger system for solutions to problems in its constituent parts.
We are concerned about impacts throughout the system, especially including impacts to Miccosukee Tribal lands in WCA 3-A. We take our trust responsibilities to the Tribe very seriously. However, we note that the perpetual Lease and Settlement Agreement the Tribe holds in WCA 3-A subjects the Tribe's rights in the Leased Area (3-A) to the Corps' authority to raise and lower water levels. We are committed to work with the Tribe to resolve these issues.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In all of this, we have a true and sincere concern for the Tribe and its interests. Our focus has necessarily and, we believe, appropriately been placed on looking after the interests of the entire South Florida Ecosystem, which is inextricably linked to those of the Tribes, the State and all stakeholders in the ecosystem.
III. Conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these and other issues related to the restoration of the Everglades. We appreciate the continued support of this Subcommittee on behalf of the National Park System, including one of its most fragile and threatened units, Everglades National Park.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. HANSEN. Superintendent Ring, do you have an opening statement or anything that you would like to add to what was just stated?
Mr. RING. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here providing what support I can to Mr. Leary as the Department's witness, and I will be pleased to assist with any questions and answers.
Mr. HANSEN. Questions for the panel. The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Romero-Barceló.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Leary, the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, is it prone to flooding?
Mr. LEARY. Yes, sir, it is. The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is an area composed of about 5,600 acres. We have a chart that I would like to put up that makes it a little bit easier for you to see this. I believe we made copies of this available to the Committee.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Which chart would that be?
[The information follows:]
INSERT OFFSET FOLIOS 1 TO 2 HERE
Mr. LEARY. Members of the Subcommittee, this chart, of which I hope you each have a copy, is a chart which represents the Modified Water Deliveries Project. The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is the area in orange on the map. It is roughly 5,600 acres. It is west of the levee which, for the most part, runs north and south and separates the natural system from the built environment. It is on the natural system side of that levee. It is a wetland, and so it suffers seasonal wet periods as one would expect.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Would the Corps of Engineers 1992 flood mitigation plan prevent the flooding of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area?
Mr. LEARY. No, sir, it wouldn't. The project that the Corps of Engineers designed does not provide full flood protection to the residents of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. It is designed to mitigate any additional harm that might be imposed on the residents from operation of the modified water delivery schedule. The area is frequently inundated with water. It would receive no additional water stacked on top of that from the operation of the modified water delivery project. But the Corps plan does not provide full flood protection to the residents.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. If the 1989 Everglades Protection Act authorized the flood mitigation measures to protect the developed portion of the 8-1/2 square miles from the adverse effects arising from the restored water flows to the Park through the northeast Shark Slough, why has the Department decided not to provide these flood mitigation features?
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEARY. For a variety of reasons. First of all, as I discussed, after the project was designed, the Governor appointed this committee, which came up with a new consensus approach to deal with the area.
In addition to that, in 1994, Congress suggested to us that perhaps the better solution was to buy the area. Our concern with the original Corps plan was, and remains, that it simply will not work to the best benefit of Everglades National Park.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Why will it not work to the best interest? What will it do that would be adverse to the best interest of the Park?
Mr. LEARY. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, it might be easiest for me to answer this question if I could go up to the chart.
Mr. HANSEN. Speak up, if you would, please. Thank you.
Mr. LEARY. Understand, Mr. Chairman, I am not an engineer, but I am going to attempt to answer that question as I understand it. This is the Modified Water Deliveries Project. It consists of several component parts.
This is Water Conservation Area 3A and Water Conservation area 3B here. These levees 67A and C separate these two water conservation areas. Part of the design of the project would be to put gates in here that would allow water to flow from Water Conservation Area 3A to Water Conservation Area 3B.
The whole idea of the Modified Water Deliveries Project is to restore the natural flow through Shark Slough, which roughly runs southwesterly, into Everglades National Park. So you would open the 67A and C levies. You would also make changes to Tamiama Trail to allow the water to flow down and then flow into the Park. Those are the principal features of the project.
The original Corps design for the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area was to put a levee and a seepage canal here essentially around the edge of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area because water levels would be higher west of the area in the Park than in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. The hydrology works such that, when those conditions exist, water seeps under the levee and floods the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. And so the seepage canal was designed to collect that water and move it back into the system.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are a couple of ways of doing that. One was to move the water in the L-31 canal, perhaps in the dry season, south down toward Taylor Slough and the Bay. The other was, in wet seasons, when there is a lot of water, to move the water north along the canal and dump it back into the Park up here at Tamiama Trail.
There are several problems with both of those scenarios. In the first place, the Corps plan is designed to move into Northeast Shark Slough for the purpose of restoring the Park; much of the water will seep out of the park and will have to be collected and recycled.
Another is that putting water into the L-31 canal, whether it is moving south or north, raises the level of water in that canal, which can have impacts elsewhere in the system. For example, if the water is too high moving north, it can result in potential damage to the people who live on the east side of the canal since the water level east of the canal would be lower and the water would seep out and impact them.
The same is true with water levels to the south. The water levels moving to the south, if too high, can create potential damage to agriculture and other residents in this southern area east of the canal.
Another problem with the plan is that it moves water northward, when the system is designed to operate to move water from the north through the system.
This has become increasingly more important as our understanding of the system has evolved in the last few years.
The Subcommittee may recall that, in the 1996 Water Resources Development Act, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire system and issue its report to Congress by July of this year. It is known as the Restudy. In the process of developing the Restudy over the last couple of years, we have all learned a great deal more about how this system functions.
The Modified Water Deliveries Project was originally designed to be a stand-alone project for a very important part of the system. This is pretty much the heart of the system. But in the Restudy we have looked at the entire system. We have learned a lot in those intervening years about what restoration means. We have learned a lot about what the restoration goals should be. And the restoration goals have changed such that we expect even more water now to be moving down into this part of the system than was contemplated in 1992 more water than the Corps plan was originally designed to handle.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, now we anticipate that we are going to be moving more water down from the north part of the system pursuant to the Restudy. This will allow more water to flow into Everglades National Park to attempt to restore it closer to what the natural system model tells us historical water levels should be.
So all of these factors make the original Corps design, in our judgment, inadequate; and so we have engaged with our partners in a review of alternatives.
As I indicated, in 1996, there was a unanimous opinion that the best approach was a flow way buffer essentially halfway across the 8.5 Square Mile Area. In 1998, the South Florida Water Management District suggested that the best approach was full acquisition. We are analyzing all of the alternatives in light of the additional information we have gained under the Restudy authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am interested in this issue but don't understand it completely. But, Mr. Leary, please help me understand your definition of full flood protection.
Mr. LEARY. Much like the situation on the east of the L-31 levee, full flood protection would not only prevent additional waters from going into the area, either through seepage or otherwise, but help remove water in the area such that the area stays as dry as possible.
Mr. GIBBONS. And you don't believe that full flood protection can be achieved with a levee; is that what you are telling us here today?
Mr. LEARY. The original Corps plan would not provide full flood protection. Could a system be designed that would? Yes.
Mr. GIBBONS. Have you undertaken a study of that design?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEARY. The Park Service has not, no. The alternatives that have been studied have included efforts to provide full flood protection to all or a portion of the area.
One approach that was studied was to put a wall essentially down into the ground that would attempt to block the seepage from occurring, and I think most parties determined that that was not a feasible approach. In fact, that approach was suggested in 1992 down in the Frog Pond area.
The pink area on the map is the Frog Pond area. This curtain wall approach was suggested and rejected by the Corps of Engineers. I believe Colonel Terry Rice, one of your witnesses today, was district engineer at the time, as I understand it, the flow way buffer concept was agreed upon by Governor Chiles' committee in 1995 and 1996 might provide full flood protection to the eastern portion of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
Mr. GIBBONS. How much is the eastern portion in terms of area?
Mr. LEARY. I don't know the exact acreage of that proposal?
Mr. RING. Sir, the Governor's committee report that examined that alternative recommended a conceptual plan which really didn't pin down the amount of land required for the flow way buffer and the amount that would ultimately be provided flood protection. I believe the South Florida Water Management Districts' engineers report did, and the alternative I think was roughly half. Half of the 8-1/2 Square Mile area would be acquired for the flow way buffer, and roughly half would be provided protection.
Mr. GIBBONS. Well, let me ask this question. Obviously, flood protection is something that is normally overseen, normally discussed and engineered through the Corps of Engineers, rather than the Department of Interior or the Park Service. How come you guys have ended up getting involved in the design plan of the flood program here?
Mr. LEARY. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the design of the project.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The way Congress set this up in 1989 is that the project is funded through the budget of the National Park Service. I believe the rationale for that was that this project was being designed, and Congress directed that it be designed, to benefit Everglades National Park. Because of that, of course, Everglades National Park is very interested in knowing whether the project that the Corps implements——
Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have veto authority over what the Corps of Engineers proposes?
Mr. LEARY. No, sir. The only issue there would be a question of funding by Congress of the project.
Mr. GIBBONS. Has the Interior Department provided funds to acquire either the Rocky Glades or the Frog Pond area?
Mr. LEARY. No, sir. To date, no. Those have been acquired by the South Florida Water Management District.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, my time is, I can see, up. I will yield to others who may have questions.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
Mrs. CHRISTIANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just some clarification on some of the issues.
The Frog Pond alternative, would that also require land acquisition or relocation of the Tribe, the one that you last described?
Mr. LEARY. The Frog Pond is part of a different project. The Frog Pond is part of the C-111 project, which is south of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
Mrs. CHRISTIANSEN. It wasn't an alternative way of addressing the same situation, the same problem?
Mr. LEARY. The C-111 project is more designed to help restore natural flows through another Slough called Taylor Slough, which is to the south. The Frog Pond area essentially cuts in half, strides across the Taylor Slough which provides waters at the south end of Florida into the south end of the Park and Florida Bay.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHRISTIANSEN. I have—I went to some of the hearings with the Miccosukee Tribe last year, and it is a bit disturbing to me to hear that we are back again talking about relocating members of the Tribe. What I would like to know is, isn't there any alternative plans that could be developed that would accommodate the Miccosukee Tribe and not have them have to relocate from this area? Have all of the possible ways of restoring the water to the Everglades been evaluated?
Mr. LEARY. The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area does not directly impact the Miccosukee Tribe. Let me show you on the map. This is the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. The Miccosukee Tribe reservation—reserved area is over here. The Tribe can tell you far better than me, but my understanding of the concerns of the Miccosukee Tribe are largely this: The Miccosukee Tribe is interested in getting this water to flow, as the Modified Water Deliveries Project is designed, eastward in this direction and away from their lands and then southward into Shark Slough.
The Tribe is concerned that, until water can move eastward, water will stack north of them and potentially damage their properties here. So they are eager to see the water move over toward Shark Slough. We are eager for the water to move over here as well because, again, we want to restore flows through Shark Slough.
What the Tribe is suggesting, I believe, is that we need to deal with the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area the quickest way possible in order to move the water so it does not impact their lands.
Mrs. CHRISTIANSEN. Well, I will reserve further questions for the Tribe when they come to the panel.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Could you just further explain the issue there with the—that you were just explaining with Representative Christiansen on the 8-1/2 mile area? That is an area—what is the status of that and how does that relate to their claim and to the fact that they don't want the water on their land?
I understand about the water moving out on the—you have the water moving. I assume that is set up so you want water moving more to the east——
Mr. LEARY. That is correct.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. [continuing] and around their property. And in order to do that you have to—is it purchase this 8-1/2 mile area or what?
Mr. LEARY. That is the penultimate issue. The situation we find ourselves in is we all want to move the water over to the east. The issue is, can we do it without doing harm to the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area? So the decision is how to address that area.
This area to the immediate west of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area here we have a similar problem. This is the Park Expansion Area we are engaged in acquiring so that we can move water through it. But, in addition to that, we have to deal with the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area one way or the other in order to move the water.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Mr. Leary, it is your recommendation or the Park Service's recommendation that there be a purchase of the 8-1/2 mile area?
Mr. LEARY. We have looked at that alternative. The Park Service has indicated that it believes that it is the best alternative to provide protection to the Park. But that is the subject of our NEPA analysis before we make a final determination.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LEARY. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Mr. LEARY. I wanted to correct one answer that I gave to Mr. Gibbons. The Department of Interior has acquired some of the property in the Rocky Glades that are within the boundaries of Everglades National Park.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Is it the opinion of the Park Service that the flow that is planned under the current system will restore the ecosystem of the Everglades? And how quickly will it do that?
Mr. LEARY. I am sorry. Are you talking about the original Corps plan?
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. No, the Corps plan we are functioning under right now.
Mr. LEARY. We believe that the Restudy plan the Corps is developing and will be submitting to Congress in July, when implemented with the Modified Water Deliveries Project and with the C-111 Project, will meet, or provides us with the means to meet, our overall restoration goals for the ecosystem.
Mr. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Lincoln Diaz-Balart be included in the record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
LETTER TO MR. HANSEN FROM HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I commend the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands for reviewing the delays in the implementation of the 1989 Act providing for Modified Water Delivery to the Everglades. It is essential that all agencies involved proceed expeditiously to implement the program contemplated by the 1989 Act, so that the proper flow of water to the south can be restored, the damage to the State and Tribal lands to the north from flooding can be reduced, and the constitutional property rights of adjoining homeowners are protected.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congressman Dante Fascell's bipartisan 1989 Act is sound. It represents a Congressional commitment to the affected parties that should be honored. The Act, including the protection of the 8.5 square mile area, was based on the recommendations of two Governor's Commissions (both a Republican and a Democrat Governor). Since passage of the Act and the 1994 Amendment, another Governor's Commission (a Democrat Governor) has again recommended that the 8.5 square mile area be protected. Further delay, including delay caused by the ill-founded effort to condemn the homes of the residents of the 8.5 square mile area, are bad both for the environment and for the affected parties. As part of the 8.5 square mile area falls within the district I represent, I respectfully request that the Subcommittee disavow any agency efforts to condemn homes in the 8.5 square mile area.
The environment to the north is suffering because water flow is blocked, flooding the Florida-owned and Miccosukee Tribe-owned portions of the historic Everglades. Natural resources of the State and the Tribe are being lost. Members of the Tribe and citizens of Florida have a right to expect that agencies will carry out the 1989 Act without further delay.
Homeowners in the area that were promised protection are instead being threatened with condemnation. Their property is under siege even though the 1989 Act directed the Army Corps of Engineers to protect this area and the Report of the 1994 Amendment specifically disavowed condemnation.
I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to use its good offices to expedite the Modified Water Delivery Project, including the protection project for the 8.5 square mile area. Our commitment to the Everglades environment, to the Miccosukee Tribe, and to our system of constitutional property rights, requires nothing less.
Mr. HANSEN. Gentlemen, I want to ask both of you a few questions. I appreciate it; and, in the essence of time, I ask that you be as brief as you possibly could.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Leary, the 1994 expansion amendment made it clear that not more than 25 percent of the funding to acquire the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area can be provided by the Federal Government. Where does the Interior Department get the additional authority to chip in additional an 25 percent, as stated by Secretary Babbitt?
Mr. LEARY. What Secretary Babbitt was discussing in his letter was a response to the question, if the South Florida Water Management District were to adopt a locally preferred option, would we cost share on that project. Secretary Babbitt was saying to the South Florida Water Management District that, consistent with the overall 50/50 match requirement for the entire ecosystem restoration effort which Congress had enacted in 1996, we would look at this as part of the overall effort. The funds we have been provided from the Congress in the intervening years have provided us with the authority to acquire lands for ecosystem restoration based on a 50/50 cost share.
Mr. HANSEN. In other words, you are referring to the 1996 farm bill; is that right?
Mr. LEARY. The 1996 farm bill is one of them. But our appropriations for the last 2 years from the Land and Water Conservation Funds have provided the same cost share requirement.
Mr. HANSEN. Do you believe the farm bill supersedes the Act of 1994?
Mr. LEARY. I am not suggesting that, sir. I believe that we would need to seek and obtain a clarification from Congress as to whether the 1994 restriction was or was not limited to the funds that were being discussed in that Act.
Mr. HANSEN. But, as you know, you cannot authorize under an appropriation bill; and whether or not it was appropriated as you just stated, it still has to be authorized.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEARY. We would be seeking guidance.
Mr. HANSEN. I can't figure out where the authorization is, Mr. Leary.
Mr. LEARY. We would be seeking guidance from Congress in that regard.
Mr. HANSEN. Do you have a solicitor's opinion on that?
Mr. LEARY. I do not, sir. I will be happy to request one if you would like.
Mr. HANSEN. Do you believe the 1996 farm bill creates any condemnation authority?
Mr. LEARY. I don't believe we have examined that question.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask this. Do you feel an appropriation will create an imminent domain authority?
Mr. LEARY. Likewise, sir, I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Leary, has the Interior Department provided any funds for the acquisition of the Rocky Glades area or the Frog Pond?
Mr. LEARY. The Department of the Interior has—yes. We have about $14 million available for contribution to those areas. We entered into an agreement with the South Florida Water Management District for those funds. The South Florida Water Management District has not requested those funds.
Mr. HANSEN. So you really haven't expended any funds yet.
Mr. LEARY. Not for those two projects, no, sir, other than the acquisitions within the Park in the Rocky Glades area.
Mr. HANSEN. Why?
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEARY. Because we have been in disagreement with the South Florida Water Management District over the terms that were imposed upon us by Congress.
In authorizing those funds, Congress stated that the lands acquired with those funds were to be managed in perpetuity for the benefit of Everglades National Park and Florida Bay and the South Florida Water Management District, and we have to date been unable to agree on the means by which the Department of the Interior and Everglades National Park can assure the Congress that the directive will be met.
Mr. HANSEN. In 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a general design memorandum with the completed EIS which essentially gave the green light to start construction of the flood protection to the 8-1/2. At that point, a full 2 years from the 1994 amendment, why didn't the Interior fund the Corps to start construction?
Mr. LEARY. I need to look at the 1992 appropriations figures, but we did request over the years and received funding for construction of those features as requested by the Corps of Engineers. We have met those requests. We have constructed, under the Modified Water Deliveries Project, a number of the features of that project but not the feature involving the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
Mr. HANSEN. September 23rd, Assistant Secretary Berry wrote to Congress asking for a declaration of taking authority. What is the status of that request?
Mr. LEARY. That request has been approved by the committees, and we are undertaking to implement that authority. We believe that that authority will enable us to speed up the completion of the acquisition of the Park expansion area by a number of years, and we are very grateful to have received that authorization.
Mr. HANSEN. I am always curious, as I try to think back on this, why this Committee wasn't asked, especially since we are referenced in the first page of that.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEARY. Mr. Chairman, the reason that this Committee did not receive that request is because the Park Service has been operating for over 21 years on what we understand is the policy of this Committee that we do not need to request specific authority from this Committee, but that we provide the Committee with quarterly reports. That policy is expressed in a letter we received over 22 years ago from this Committee. If the Committee, under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, has changed that policy, we were unaware of it, and we apologize.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask this, if I may. In your testimony, you state that there is clear evidence of the harm to Florida Bay if the Department of Interior does not acquire the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. Would you mind quickly telling us what that clear evidence is?
Mr. LEARY. The clear evidence that I was talking about, sir, was evidence that the State and the Federal Government determined back in 1993 that Florida Bay was continuing to experience great harm, and that caused the State and the Department of the Interior to come to Congress and ask for greater authority to move forward in ways that would be protective of the Bay.
Mr. HANSEN. Also in your testimony, you seem to criticize the Chiles Commission report. Did the Dade County Commission endorse it and the south Florida water folks endorse that? What was the conflict between you folks?
Mr. LEARY. Sir, you misunderstood me. I was not at all criticizing the Chiles Committee report. Indeed, what I was suggesting was that we had unanimity of the parties in interest as a result of that report and were prepared to move forward on the flow way buffer. But the district engineer at the time, Terry Rice, refused to sign the agreement, and so the agreement fell apart.
Mr. HANSEN. The 8-1/2 bothers me. Do we have any willing sellers in that area?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEARY. The South Florida Water Management District believes that there are many willing sellers in the area.
Mr. HANSEN. How many folks have you got in that area?
Mr. LEARY. I believe there are about 1,200 residents is what I understand, about 365 structures.
Mr. HANSEN. Go back to your term. What percent would be willing to sell their property of that? Have you got any wild guess on that at all, Mr. Leary?
Mr. LEARY. I do not. I have been told anecdotally from the South Florida Water Management District that the number of willing sellers is in the 300-plus range, but I do not know of my own knowledge. We certainly have taken no poll out there.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate your comments.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would—Mr. Leary, the 1992 flood mitigation proposal, is it still carrying the hydrological conditions we need? And, also, does it leave intact all of the residences and the property in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area?
Mr. LEARY. The original Corps project would require the acquisition of some lands necessary for construction of the levee and the seepage canal, but it would not require, obviously, as much acquisition as would the other alternatives.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. And then what would be the impact on that land of the Governor Chiles' study committee?
Mr. LEARY. That proposal would impact roughly half of the area. As Mr. Ring suggested, it was more of a conceptual plan, as opposed to an exact design. But, as we understood it, it would require the acquisition of roughly the western half of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Finally, Mr. Leary, your critics say that—the critics of the Department of Interior decision say that the reason that they want to acquire the—the Park Service wants to acquire the 8-1/2 is to establish a buffer, which will be against existing law, to acquire land for a buffer. How would you respond to that criticism?
Mr. LEARY. Well, I believe what they are referring to is report language in the 1994 Act that talked about how this authority is not to create a Federal buffer. And no one is suggesting the creation of a Federal buffer. If the Federal Government did indeed hypothetically down the road decide this was the approach to take, it would provide grant funds to the South Florida Water Management District, and the South Florida Water Management District would buy these properties.
And you understand that part of the rationale here and justification for interest in the full acquisition is not just limited to the issue of the flow of water. That is but one part of the issue of restoration. The rest is this. One of the things that the Everglades ecosystem lacks is adequate short period wetlands that help serve as an ecological buffer between the built environment and the Everglades. And that is what the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is, short-term wetlands.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Thank you, Mr. Leary.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I finally would like to ask unanimous consent to submit a copy of a letter signed by Senators Graham and Mack to the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, Alex Penelas, dated February 24, 1999, supporting the acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
LETTER TO THE HON. ALEX PENELAS, MAYOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA FROM HON. BOB GRAHAM AND HON. CONNIE MACK
Dear Mayor Penelas:
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We want to share our views with you as deliberations continue on the very difficult issues surrounding the modified water delivery project and its impact on the 8.5 Square Mile Area. A decision to acquire this area from willing sellers marks an important step in the process of rehydrating Everglades National Park and restoring Florida Bay.
This is a very difficult and emotional issue, but this is a situation that will continue to linger until the entire area is acquired or provided with flood protection. Full acquisition is not only the best alternative for the Everglades; it is also the best alternative for all Miami-Dade County taxpayers.
For these reasons, we support the decision made last year by the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District to fully acquire the 8.5 Square Mile Area and urge you to ratify the decision when it comes before the Miami-Dade Commission. Finally, we pledge our strong commitment to ensure that the Federal Government is an active financial partner with the South Florida Water Management District and Miami-Dade County in order to ensure that the residents of the 8.5 Square Mile Area are fairly, and fully, compensated.
Mr. HANSEN. Let me go back to some of these things we are talking about.
I still can't quite fathom this 8-1/2. Go back to the law; and, as the gentleman from Puerto Rico just stated, the Committee knows this Act does not authorize the use of Federal imminent domain authority, nor does it create a Federal buffer zone outside the Park.
Now, I guess you could give it over to the water district, but then, if I understand this right, being the past speaker of my State, and I don't know if these laws are the same. I have no way of knowing. Then they would have to have this Florida State legislature give them the right of imminent domain.
And if they can't do that, you guys are dead in the water. You don't have any authority at all to take this 8-1/2. If you have got a willing seller, yeah, but my staff tells me here that is the infinitesimal amount and that some of those folks, when they were interviewed, felt coerced that they were going to get imminent domain. I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that if people think they are going to lose something, they probably would say that.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So here we have got this agriculture area. I still don't understand the hydrology or the science behind why that is necessary. Maybe that is just my limited knowledge of this, but I don't think you have any right at all to take that 8-1/2 square miles.
Mr. LEARY. Mr. Chairman, we haven't come to the question of the need for imminent domain authority in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area because, again, the issue remains unsettled as to what project will ultimately be implemented. As Mr. Romero-Barceló suggested, there are a number of people who support full acquisition of the area. Members of the Florida delegation, including Senators Graham and Mack, support full acquisition. There are a number of people who do not, but the point is that it is speculative at this point to determine the need for imminent domain authority in the area.
Certainly, there are a number of entities which might have imminent domain authority or seek it if it is needed. That would include the Department of the Interior. It would also include the South Florida water management district, the State of Florida, Dade County, and the Corps of Engineers; any number of entities.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Leary, regardless, if there are a number of people who support it isn't the issue, as I see it; and also as I look it, it is not the issue of whether or not the Department of Interior or others eventually would have imminent domain when they have a great big roadblock called Federal law standing in front of them.
Someone either has to change the law, or you have got to get it from another source; and until you can get it, you have got to get rid of this 1994 Act because we look at—the 1996 Farm Act doesn't even come close to helping you out in any of those areas. So you have got a heck of a roadblock staring you in the face, in my mind, if that is what you want to do and your scientists feel that.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but still, on the other hand, this has got so many problems hanging on it. I would be very concerned if I was in the shoes of either you or Mr. Ring on how you really want to go about doing this. I think you're setting yourself up for all kinds of litigation. We will probably all be pushing up daisies by the time this thing is all resolved.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Ring, the clear intent of the Park Expansion Act of 1989 was to acquire this eastern expansion area by 1994. What has taken so long for the Park Service to acquire these lands, the eastern expansion area?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELÓ. Mr. Chairman, can I contribute something to the gentleman? I don't think the Department of Interior has any authority at all over the Park Service to acquire any lands. They can only contribute, and it is Florida South Water Management that can do the acquisition, and I think the only thing appropriate to contribute—I think that——
Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the comments.
Mr. LEARY. Mr. Chairman, might I respond to that question?
Mr. HANSEN. Sure, Mr. Leary.
Mr. LEARY. As I understand the question, you are talking about the park expansion, the additional areas to the park itself. Congress did indeed authorize us to acquire those acres. We received about 40,000 acres from the State of Florida and have been engaged in acquiring those lands since, with funds which have been made available to us by Congress for those acquisitions.
What we have encountered is a number of difficulties in acquiring those properties from this simple fact: This is property that is largely under water most of the time. This is the classic example of swamplands that people bought decades ago. It is land that is largely undevelopable, but is in small tracts, Mr. Chairman. Many of these parcels are quite small.
It takes just as much work to acquire the small tracts as it does large ones. It is difficult to get clear title on some of these properties because they have such little value that owners have even not gone through probate on some of these properties. It is an extremely difficult process.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have acquired those that are the easiest to acquire, and now we have run into the slow difficulty of going through individual condemnation actions, trying to clear title. That is why we sought the declaration of take authority, and that is why we believe, with it, we can clear this quickly.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Ring, essentially the park was expanded in 1989 for the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem and the natural flow of water. Part of this entailed the acquisition of some property owned by the Hernandez family, the Carter family and the Hect family. Are Park Service personnel living in the homes that are acquired on this property?
Mr. RING. There are Park Service rangers living in some of the homes, of the few homes that were acquired inside that area of the east Everglades expansion area.
Mr. HANSEN. How long is that going to go on?
Mr. RING. That was initiated as an interim measure pending the completion of land acquisition and the revision of the park's general management plan to determine how we will be managing the area. It creates a presence out there while the area has been partially acquired, not completely acquired, and is not under our management and control, in order to prevent things like dumping.
There was an automatic weapons shooting gallery out there, quite a number of problems in the area that we were trying to stop, so we are trying to create a presence to provide protection to the Federal properties pending the completion of acquisition and the completion of our management plan.
Mr. HANSEN. Okay. You mention ''interim.'' So this was essential for the natural restoration of the Everglades. Employees are living there. You fully intend they will be gone, you will destroy these homes, all that type of thing; is that right?
Mr. RING. We are in an advanced stage now of land acquisition, we have about 70,000 acres acquired. Assuming the approval of the fiscal 2000 budget request, we will have the funds to complete the acquisition. This fall, we will be starting the planning process to amend the park's general management plan, and we will be examining with the public and all of our partners what are the appropriate actions and activities and facilities and management presence that we need out there.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The basis for any continued presence on the part of any of our rangers out there in homes will be discussed and determined as a result of that planning. It will not be continued as a result of the interim decisions we make.
Mr. HANSEN. You made a statement describing, quote, a sustainable solution or sustainable approach to the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. Give me your definition of sustainable. What do you mean by that?
Mr. RING. Sir, Mr. Chairman, a number of the agencies, ourselves included, have been trying to address the issue of sustainability in south Florida as part of an overall ecosystem approach towards restoration. Sustainability means a decision that will not create problems elsewhere. It will fit into a context of a comprehensive solution and it will last.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Ring, do you believe that there are any people down there being threatened or coerced or intimidated by the water management district into selling any of their property?
Mr. RING. I have absolutely no knowledge of that, sir.
Mr. HANSEN. Going back to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, do you believe the acquisition of the 8-1/2 would create a buffer zone for the park?
Mr. RING. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry?
Mr. HANSEN. Do you believe that the acquisition of the 8-1/2 would create a buffer zone for the park?
Mr. RING. I believe that, and I have indicated that, the proposal of the water management district adopted and recommended to the Corps would indeed solve the water management issues associated with the completion of the Modified Water Delivery Project in that area in a sustainable manner. And, I believe it would also add critical short hydroperiod wetlands to the overall ecosystem, and that would provide significant ecological benefits.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Let me ask you one more.
There are other properties acquired as directed by the 1994 amendments for Everglades restoration, particularly in the area known as the Frog Pond, when in private hands which is used extensively for agriculture. Since the Park Service was in 1994 arguing that these lands were also essential for the restoration, what is the current use of these lands?
Mr. RING. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the South Florida Water Management District acquired the Frog Pond as a result of trying to acquire the land necessary for the C-111 project of the Corps of Engineers. They tried to acquire the western three sections of the Frog Pond and, in negotiations with the owner, ultimately acquired the entire area.
They leased back the land for seasonal agriculture on a year-to-year basis for two reasons, as I understand it, but I would urge you to contact the South Florida Water Management District directly on this.
One was to soften the impact on the agricultural economy in south Dade, and the other was to prevent the intrusion of invasive exotics which would likely come into that land if it were left fallow pending the completion of the actual project features associated with the C-111 project that were scheduled to occur over a 5-to-7-year period.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Ring.
Member of the Committees, Mr. Sherwood, you weren't here earlier. Do you have any questions?
Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am asking this a little tentatively, coming in as late as I have, and I have been to the Glades and spent time in that area, and I think I understand the theory of—that it is a sheet water flow going south out of the big lake all the way to the bottom of the peninsula, and that that has been interrupted and that that is the problem.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But what I don't understand about this 8-1/2 acres of land, I have information that that is at a higher elevation, and it doesn't participate in the sheet water flow. So why is that important that you buy that 8-1/2 acres of ground?
Mr. LEARY. For a couple of reasons, the justification would go as follows. For one thing, the Shark Slough area immediately to the west of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, which is in orange on the map there, is the lowest portion of Shark Slough. The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is at the edge, and the elevation does indeed go up.
We are not talking about severe elevation here. It is——
Mr. SHERWOOD. I understand.
Mr. LEARY. But the western portions of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area are indeed as low as the areas immediately to the west in the Park expansion area. The area becomes flooded, as water levels increase, whether it is during heavy rainfall events or otherwise. In Florida there are two seasons, a wet and a dry season. During very high water rain events, that level of water can cause flooding throughout the entire 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
The—but the other rationale for acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is the one that Superintendent Ring just gave, which is that the Everglades does not—suffers from a lack of short season hydroperiod wetlands, and that is an ecological benefit that this area could provide to the Everglades system.
Mr. SHERWOOD. I didn't understand that.
Mr. RING. Sir, in 1993 we gathered as many scientists as we had available to try and critique the problems of the Everglades' ecosystem. They provided a report which provided the basis for the Corps proceeding into their overall hydrologic restoration effort. They determined that the fundamental characteristics of the predrainage system that needed to be restored were a hydrologic regime which featured dynamic and sheet flow, and large spatial scale.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fifty percent of the original Everglades has been lost. So the recovery of some of that spatial scale was critical, and what they referred to as ''habitat heterogeneity''—that means a mixture of different habitats—and what has been lost on the Everglades, particularly on the eastern side, has been the edges, the areas that aren't always flooded.
The deep, central sloughs often have water in them all year round. Wading birds, for instance, can forage there during the dry season when the water is low in the deep, central sloughs, but as those fill up in the wet season, they must have shallow wetland areas to forage to survive. They move as that habitat is available to them.
What has been lost on the edges are those short hydroperiod wetlands, the wetlands that are inundated with water only portions of the years. Those portions of the year are critical to providing support and habitat for populations of wading birds, particularly when the central sloughs are filled with water during the wet season.
So, there is a critical loss of function to the Everglades. While 50 percent of the spatial scale has been reduced, approximately 90 percent of the historic levels of wading birds have disappeared, and that is as a result of the loss of some of those critical edge habitats.
Mr. SHERWOOD. So, if you bought that edge habitat, what would you do with it?
Mr. RING. I think the South Florida Water Management District has proposed the acquisition of that area as a way to provide a sustainable solution to the restoration of flows into Shark Slough, and we see benefits from that proposal associated with the additional habitat that it would create. The South Florida Water Management District would be the land owner and the acquiring agency and would manage it the way it manages many areas throughout the Everglades system for both water management purposes and for natural habitat.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHERWOOD. I see we have run out of time. I developed that a little more, but maybe it is——
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of brief questions.
First, Mr. Ring, given the enormity of the size of the Everglades National Park, is it your testimony today that this 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is absolutely essential to the restoration of the entire Everglades system?
Mr. RING. The restoration of the Everglades system is a vast and very, very complicated problem. It has a number of difficult issues associated with it. Finding a sustainable solution in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area that is consistent with the long-term restoration goals—not simply the hydrologic goals, but the overall ecological restoration goals as well is essential to achieve.
Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask, once you achieve acquisition of this 8-1/2 Square Mile Area to do what you want to do, which is eliminate all the people off of it so you can freely flood it when you need to, what prevents the water flow from exceeding the limitations of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area into other areas?
Mr. RING. Sir, that is a question that is probably more properly directed to the South Florida Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers, but there is a canal and levee system, the eastern protective levee, that runs down along the edge of the Everglades and separates it from the built system. The Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District have designed and are attempting to maintain a design that allows for the restoration of historic hydrologic conditions in the Everglades and the provision of authorized flood protection east of the levee.
Mr. GIBBONS. Does that levee system work?
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RING. Sir, the Modified Water Delivery Project and the C-111 project have been authorized, approved and are being undertaken, as well as the restudy which calls for a replumbing of the entire system. I think that is a fairly good indication that the system, as it exists in south Florida right now, doesn't work, doesn't work for a variety of purposes in many areas.
Mr. GIBBONS. So you are telling us today that the levee that is there on the eastern shore isn't going to work and it will conclude to flood. There will be seepage outside it once you allow for flooding in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, as well?
Mr. RING. No, sir, I'm not saying that.
Mr. GIBBONS. Well, if that is the case, why wouldn't the levee that you want to put on the western side of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area keep water out and seepage out of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area?
Mr. RING. Sir, I am trying to indicate that the Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, the local sponsor, are trying to come to grips with a number of different engineering issues to improve the system that is there. There are problems that are being addressed through these projects and through the restudy.
Your question about the original seepage canal system on the western side of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is one that Mr. Leary spoke to you about before, and that is, it does not make conditions any better in the 8-1/2 mile area, which is an area that already floods. It simply keeps that area from getting worse as some additional water is introduced into the east Everglades as part of the Modified Water Delivery Project.
Mr. GIBBONS. And your introduction of the additional water into the east Everglades, is that changing the flow of water through or around the reservation that we talked about earlier, that is northwest of this area?
Mr. RING. Are you referring to the Modified Water Delivery Project, sir?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GIBBONS. Well, yes.
Mr. RING. Okay.
Mr. GIBBONS. Because you want to now take it to the east and then southwest, come back through—out Shark River Slough.
Mr. RING. Right. It would move the flows that are currently being funneled to the west through Water Conservation Area 3A and being delivered into Everglades National Park through a series of structures called the S-12 structures. On the western side of Shark Slough, it would redistribute those flows to the east to be consistent with the way they flowed historically.
Historically, about two-thirds of the water that flowed across Tamiama Trail into Everglades National Park through Shark Slough came east of the L-67 extension levee, which is the old boundary of the park. It came through the east Everglades addition.
Today, something on the order of 75 percent of the flows that come into the park come to the west of that extension levee and significantly inundate the western parts of Shark Slough, much higher than they ever were inundated historically, and that is area where the Miccosukee Reserve area is. It also causes funneling and stacking up of water in Water Conservation Area 3A immediately to the north of that location.
There are times during high water conditions when water can be 3 to 4 feet higher immediately to the west of the L-67 levee than it would be on the same day immediately to the east of that levee.
Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Is it true what I have just been told