Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
RESTORATION OF THE EVERGLADES AND SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM
Wednesday, March 1, 2000
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:39 p.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on restoring the Everglades and the southern Florida ecosystem—probably the most ambitious environmental project in the history of our Nation and perhaps the world.
What is the origin of the $7.8 billion comprehensive Everglades restoration plan, the so-called ''restudy''? It did not just show up on Congress' doorstep in July last year. In the Water Resources Development Acts of 1992 and 1996 and in various survey resolutions, this committee and Congress directed the Army Corps of Engineers to ''restudy'' the 1948 Central and Southern Florida project, establish a comprehensive plan, and report back to Congress by July 1, 1999. The resulting stack of documents has been long in the making, but I would have to say it has been time well spent. Federal, tribal, State, local, governmental and nongovernmental interests all have worked hard to develop consensus and get this historic plan where it is today.
This is no slam-dunk, however. Notwithstanding the broad consensus and the general by-in, the restudy will have its critics and skeptics and they will range from scientists to environmentalists and from Florida natives to those who have never even been to the Everglades, that truly unique resource known as the river of grass.
The greater the scrutiny, the more likely we will find issues or hot spots over varying degrees of detail, but this is a good thing. We will have the debate, and I believe in the end the broad agreement and overriding goals will remain intact and on track.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To help us scrutinize the overall plan and its details, we hope to have an impressive array of witnesses. I will be pleased to welcome distinguished colleagues from the State of Florida. These Members were present when the plan was presented in July, and my guess is they will be present at every critical stage of the process. I hope this is one of the stages where we can count on their presence. They will be instrumental in whether it advances or stalls, a result which I believe would be tragic.
We will also hear from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Interior Department's chair of the Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, the Secretary of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection, and the Chairman of the South Florida Water Management District, the Chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe, and key stakeholders from environmental, sugar, and local citizens groups. In other words, we are going to hear from a broad array of people who have an interest in this subject.
Will we seize on a truly historic opportunity to learn from earlier engineering mistakes and foster a more-integrated, holistic approach so that we can finally get the water right. Will we be able to work out the remaining differences in mission and perspectives among the many governmental and nongovernmental entities?
The stakes are high, incredibly high, but make no mistake, the alligators and egrets are watching, and so are our children and grandchildren. Indeed, the whole world is watching.
Before I turn to my distinguished colleague, the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, I would like to state the Chair's intentions regarding upcoming hearings on the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and the recent controversy over economic analysis of projects.
We scheduled a March 8th hearing to afford the Administration an opportunity to discuss their WRDA 2000 legislation. I am told, however, the Administration will not be prepared to discuss its proposal until shortly thereafter.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the interest of accommodating the Administration and in keeping to our schedule as much as possible, I intend to use the March 8 hearing, instead, as an opportunity for Members to testify about their needs and their concerns. We will then have a subsequent hearing in March on the Administration's complete legislative package.
In the meantime, this Subcommittee, as well as the Full Committee and the Oversight Subcommittee, will continue to review the serious allegations and troubling developments over the economic analysis of proposed projects on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.
Our goal is to ferret out the facts, and if there is wrongdoing or waste, hold accountable those who are responsible. However, our goal is also to keep on track with developing and enacting a WRDA 2000 bill.
This responsive and responsible legislation is an opportunity to address not only the Everglades, but the main navigation, flood control, environmental, and other projects the American public wants and deserves.
Mr. BOEHLERT. With that, let me turn to my colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member from the City of Brotherly Love, Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to working with you, as always, and I appreciate your accommodation on the schedule.
Let me suggest, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that we go right to the speakers here. We are a little bit delayed because of the vote, and hopefully the other Members will join us shortly. But I have a wonderful statement that I would like to submit for the record and proceed with our first guest.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. That is a good suggestion.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, which is so evidence on this committee day in and day out, we will go directly to our distinguished colleague from Florida, The Honorable Carrie Meek.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TESTIMONY OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA; HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA; AND HON. MARK FOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Ms. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much members of the committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify today on the important issue of Everglades restoration.
As a native Floridian and a Member from south Florida, I am honored to participate in these proceedings that I hope will lead to sensible and realistic legislation on Everglades restoration as soon as possible.
I support the comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, better known as CERP. First, the restoration plan provides an adequate framework to restore, protect, and preserve the Everglades, as well as provide for a sustainable south Florida.
Second, the restoration plan presents us with a conceptually sound approach to deliver the right amount of water of the right quality to the right places at the right time.
Third, the prospect of capturing most of the fresh water that currently flows unused to the ocean and to deliver it when and where it is needed makes good sense, Mr. Chairman, not just for the natural system, but for all water users in south Florida.
This must all be done in an efficient and effective manner. We cannot afford to waste critical taxpayer dollars on a plan that will not work.
Thus, I commend the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District for their leadership in developing the restoration plan.
However, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do have some concerns. I want to make sure that we do not make mistakes in the name of progress the way we made these mistakes in improving the Everglades in the 1940s and the 1950s. I repeat that concern. I want to make sure that we do not make mistakes in the name of progress the way we made mistakes improving the Everglades in the 1940s and 1950s.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am concerned about the authorization of Everglades restoration projects which do not have completed feasibility studies.
It is important for the citizens of south Florida, specifically agricultural communities and Indian tribes, whose property and livelihood will be impacted by these projects, to have the opportunity to make their views heard and to have their concerns addressed.
Completed feasibility studies that identify the location and impact of these projects are essential to Congress in crafting reasonable restoration legislation and helping us to understand better the possible impact of restoration projects.
Congress should insist that detailed engineering, economic, and environmental studies be done before authorization, as well as ensure that these studies be guided by a comprehensive definition of the Everglades.
In that way, after we really have a complete definition of the Everglades, we can proceed efficiently with restoration, not just of the Everglades National Park, but of the entire Everglades ecosystem.
Another important issue to me is the unnecessary premature loss of productive agricultural land. The production of fruits, vegetables, and sugar cane, and the processing of these agricultural products are important sources of employment for unskilled and low-skilled workers in south Florida. It would be a tragic loss if farmland were taken out of production prematurely when there are more-responsible alternatives available that would not result in the loss of these scarce jobs.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that, in the central and south Florida project comprehensive review study, issues of environmental justice and community preservation or revitalization are barely included. They are needed, but they are barely included.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Out of the 4,000-plus page restudy, only about 10 pages discuss these issues by pointing to possible urban and community impact on low-income and minority populations. These impacts must be thoroughly examined.
Furthermore, the restudy treats these potential impacts with troubling uncertainty.
In section 12.22 of the final feasibility study and PEIS, the following is stated: ''Doing detailed implementation of the CSF project modifications, facilities will be sited with care regarding low-income, minority, and other at-risk populations so as to minimize adverse effects, and if adverse effects cannot be avoided, the affected parties will be engaged in dialogue to determine appropriate mitigation.''
If we are to implement this plan fairly, we must ask which adverse effects, who or what agency is responsible for looking out for low-income people and minorities, who and what agency will ensure that changes are made in decisions to protect low-income and minority communities.
I think I have come to the end of my time. I see a red light that says stop. I am surprised to see it, Mr. Chairman.
I want to submit the rest of my testimony for the record and ask the committee to please pay specific attention to this, because the restudy is not something that we take in a very cursory way. We are looking at this because this will be with us for the years to come, and we want to be sure that there is a viable answer to keeping our Everglades and the community around the Everglades safe, as well as paying attention to the economic opportunities that may be available.
I want to thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Your statement will appear in the record at this juncture in its entirety, and your counsel is well-taken, so we very much appreciate that.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MEEK. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Before we get to our colleague, Mr. Deutsch, the Chair would like to recognize the distinguished colleague, Mr. Blumenauer.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief opening comments. Like a number of us, this is sort of an avalanche week with our constituents, and I may have to be moving in and out, but I wanted to put my concerns on the record and express to my colleagues from Florida my keen interest in this project.
One of the reasons I like serving on the committee with you, Mr. Chairman, and with our ranking member, Mr. Borski, is because I think this subcommittee, more than perhaps any in Congress, deals with the essence of what makes our communities liveable, what makes our families safe, healthy, and economically secure, and our colleague, Ms. Meek, talked on a number of those points.
The success of Everglades protection is a key component in whether or not southeastern Florida can meet the test for liveable communities.
I am struck by my visits to the Everglades and by my previous work with some friends from Florida how complex the Everglades system is by natural design, but the fine hand of human engineering or interference made it much more complex and the problems more serious.
Some in Florida and many around the country thought that engineering would improve their lives, but we are now stuck with billions of dollars in restoration costs, we have serious problems with endangered species, we have polluted and drained water supplies, and homes literally, in some areas, sinking along with the sinking water table.
I am interested, personally, in being helpful to the Everglades restoration project, but I want to put my concerns on the record that it is going to require far more than engineering.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The ever-expanding population in southeast Florida alone, by my reckoning, is larger than 32 States, totalling 5.5 million. The population is projected, I was told when I last visited, to potentially triple in half a century. And at one point, as Florida started putting these pieces together, people found that their comprehensive plans had Florida zoned for 90 million people.
Now, I know you have made progress since then and are starting to make some readjustment, but, still, four out of five of the new southeastern Florida residents are locating west of the urban area towards the Everglades.
Poorly-planned growth hurts communities and damages the environment. Agricultural uses to suburban uses means more polluted runoff, more asphalt, more demand for water, and so on.
I am struck by the changes that you have already made. Some of you may recall 18 months ago I co-sponsored a forum on Capitol Hill for a Florida effort called ''Eastward Ho.'' I was very excited about 'Eastward Ho's' plan that encourages infill and redevelopment, to push development away from the Everglades, save the environment, and, if it is done right, save 50 percent of the infrastructure cost.
I appreciate the opportunity for this hearing, listening to our colleagues, the leadership of our committee under the chairman and ranking member, but I hope that we will be aggressive in espousing a position where the Federal Government is a partner and that people in south Florida are taking some risks for the environment and not making unrealistic expectations that somehow things are going to continue as they have in the past.
I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate having a chance to express to my colleagues and some of their assorted friends an interest in moving forward on this during this session of Congress.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for your very thoughtful presentation. We appreciate that. Some of the concerns you have raised are very legitimate and will get the attention of this Subcommittee as we fashion something that is going to be workable and responsible, so thank you very much.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With that, we will go to our colleague, The Honorable Peter Deutsch.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Again, I also have said it before from this table—I appreciate your personal interest and concern about the Everglades, as well as all of the other members of this committee, as well.
I have pretty extensive remarks that are written that I would like to just submit and really try to summarize a little bit.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. All of our colleagues' entire statements will appear in the record. If you wish to summarize, we would appreciate that.
Mr. DEUTSCH. I wanted to make sort of two almost general points. In a sense, it talks a little bit about some of the ideas of stakeholders. I think in this report, in the restudy that is no longer called the restudy, but is called the ''Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan,'' so in a sense we are beyond the restudy and now in the restoration phase of this. But the second thing is that we are talking about America's Everglades. We are not talking about Florida's Everglades, we are talking about America's Everglades.
I think what is significant about that is that the stakeholders are America. It is not just the people of south Florida, it is not just the people in my District or Mr. Foley's District or Mr. Goss' District or Congresswoman Meek's District. I mean, it is literally the people of Florida are stakeholders in this, and when this committee works its way on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, I think that is a critical component that you cannot lose sight on.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It might sound unusual, representing a District in south Florida that I ask your input, but I think that to get to the results where we want, we need to have that.
I think what has also been significant is that this entire effort—and this is my eighth year in Congress, actually, along with both of my colleagues here, and I think they both can speak to it, as well, and Mr. Goss and Mr. Shaw, who were elected before the three of us, can speak to it also—is that this has been really a totally bipartisan effort from the State of Florida. It is not just a south Florida effort, but it has been effectively always a 23-Member-of-the-delegation effort. In fact, I think the last letter that we put together, we had easily 22 Members. The only reason the other did not sign is because as a formal member of the republican caucus she no longer signs those types of letters any more, not that she did not support the effort. And both of our Senators have been consistently supportive of it.
But I also think that part of this is that it has also had national support, obviously, particularly from this committee and subcommittee.
I think another component—and, again, we have seen, in the eight years that I have been here, again, democrat and republican leadership can change in the Congress, yet that support has continued.
In the 18 years I have been an elected official, 10 years prior to here in the State Legislature—and my colleagues, both of them, on this dais now, served in the State Legislature with me, Congresswoman Meek in the Senate when I was in the House and Mr. Foley in the House and then in the Senate after that. But we have seen changes in Florida Administrations, as well, Governors from Democrat to Republican, the Legislature changing. I think the commitment has not changed through all of this.
I think it is also a commitment that it is not just a commitment in words, it is a commitment in deeds. It is a commitment where the money has been on the table. Governor Bush I think has done an excellent job, has made some proposals which are far-reaching proposals in terms of the State's commitment to get to a 50 percent partnership. Governor Bush has worked with us when there were concerns about takings issues, and he did not just talk the talk, he walked the walk in terms of his commitment, which I think has been real and effective.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And there is that partnership that is going on, and I think we expect it to continue.
What I would say, though, is every year, in a sense, is a critical year for the Everglades, but the truth is this is probably—in the eight years that I have been here, this is the most critical year, because if you, through your subcommittee and your committee—I would consider this, and our letter to the Speaker from the entire delegation was to this effect—this is effectively a must-pass piece of legislation. It would be, I think, tragic for this Congress to adjourn without having passed this legislation, because what that really does, as a practical matter, is it stops the process for at least another year.
There is no policy reason that I can articulate to stop the process for another year, and I think that collectively hopefully the subcommittee and the committee and the Congress, itself, and the leadership of the Congress, both in the House and Senate, accept that as a premise.
Let me just quickly go through, and hopefully if there are all questions all three of us are able to answer, but really we are at the point where we have an understanding of the best science that is available. The plan, the way it is proposed—and, obviously, there will be modifications—has the ability to be adjustive and flexible. There is a procedure out there.
The one last thing that I would add, which has been an ongoing issue, is that the Keys' water quality, which is still technically not in the plan, is a critical component to restoration efforts, and there are other aspects and other avenues for us to deal with that, but I think that to clean up the entire system and then not deal with what is, in a sense, the receiving part of the system, even though technically it is not part of the restoration efforts, just also does not seem to make a heck of a lot of sense.
We can literally spend $10 billion upstream, and if we are not going to spend $200 million downstream the $10 billion upstream can effectively be wasted.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
I just want to provide you some level of comfort and would remind you that when we had that national press conference, July 1 of last year on the Senate side, Mr. Borski and I stood side-by-side with a bipartisan Florida delegation with the Vice President of the United States to send a very strong signal that this is something that is good for America, and we are going to work with you.
Mr. Foley, we have got the bells, but I think we have got the time to get you in. You may proceed.
Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo clearly the sentiments of Mr. Deutsch, my colleague. I think he summarized very well for Florida. And I particularly want to commend the panel, and particularly yourself and Mr. Borski, for your leadership on environmental issues. I do not think there are two finer Members of Congress on these issues that have helped deal with the environment, clean water, clean air. Obviously, the Everglades is central to that commitment.
Moving ahead with restoration of the Florida Everglades is, indeed, vital, and your willingness to hold this hearing now sends a strong signal out on the importance.
Thanks to the support of my Congressional colleagues, we have been able to bring the issue of the Everglades into the national spotlight, and it is now recognized across America as a national treasure that needs to be protected. It is also now widely recognized that it is a treasure in need of help.
The good news is that we now know the cause of its problems—more than 50 years of diverting the natural ebb and flow of water, the lifeblood of the Everglades, from the Kissimmee River north of Lake Okeechobee to the park's boundaries in Florida Bay. The diversion has often left the Everglades with too much or too little water, endangering the native plant and wildlife.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In order to preserve the Everglades, we need to restore its natural flow of water, and that will take a tremendous and vital partnership between Federal, State, and local governments.
As Mr. Deutsch clearly enunciated, we have those partnerships in place and they are actively involved with finding not only the remedy but the money.
Since the restudy effort, we have learned that the drainage improvements designed to supply water and protect us from devastating floods also have caused the decline of much of the south Florida ecosystem.
For those again questioning why the Federal Government should have such an investment, let me reiterate, this is a national park. Secondly, I want to underscore that the Corps of Engineers is involved in the planning and draining of the Everglades, then known as the ''Swamp'' in the 1930s. So there is a pattern, if you will, of behavior that we allowed to happen, both with the approval of the then-citizens of our State, but in concert with the Federal architects of this system. So clearly we see the cause, now we see the damage, and we feel we have a solution to rectifying some of this.
The St. Lucie River, within my Congressional District, has long been a vital part of our local economy. Aside from the obvious draw of our beaches, tourists from all over come to Florida for boating, fishing, and other water-related activities. The St. Lucie River has always attracted many of these tourists because of its clear waters rich in fish and surrounding wildlife.
Historically, this pristine system was supported by the slow, natural drainage system of creeks and wetlands in central Martin and southern St. Lucie Counties. As demand for agriculture and residential development grew, however, the advent of drainage canals caused dramatic changes in this fragile ecosystem. With each heavy rainfall in south Florida, the St. Lucie River has had to absorb billions of gallons of phosphorus-laden excess water from Lake Okeechobee, stressing the mix of salt water and fresh water needed by marine life in the river.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thankfully, the mission outlined by the restudy will help us restore not only the Everglades National Park but also the St. Lucie River, which needs to return to its historic pristine state.
By addressing water storage problems on a regional scale, recommendations in the restudy will mitigate further future fresh water releases into the St. Lucie River.
I am looking forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues in the House to move forward with the restudy this year.
Again, I want to underscore—and I think you have heard it clearly on a bipartisan level—we must, as a Florida delegation, and I believe as a Congress, do all we can this year to restore a national treasure every bit as precious and every bit as unique as the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Park and other treasures that exist throughout this country.
Again, I am delighted to be here today. Thank you for your courtesies, and again for your strong commitment to the environment and to our national park system.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. I would like to thank both of you.
We have a call of the House now. There is a vote in progress.
I just want to point out that Mr. Goss' statement will appear in the record in its entirety. He is not able to be here. He is Chairing a very important hearing now before the Select Committee on Intelligence. That is where I am supposed to be, too. Mr. Borski is a former member of that panel, so he understands that. That is why he is not here. And Mr. Shaw, likewise, has an important commitment in the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BOEHLERT. We all know the drill. We are like one-armed paper hangers so often. We are all over the place. But I want to thank both of you for being resources. I want to pledge to you and to everyone else interested in this national resource that we are going to move on it in a responsible way and in a timely fashion.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you so much. The hearing will recess for about 15 minutes or so.
[Break.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Our next witnesses will be The Honorable Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, representing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, accompanied by Michael Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Policy and Legislation; and from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Mary Doyle, who is Counselor to the Secretary.
I would like to welcome you all.
Dr. Westphal, you go first.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL L. DAVIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR POLICY AND LEGISLATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND MARY E. DOYLE, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be before your committee once again this year. Mr. Borski, nice to see you again.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to come before your committee and talk about the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan.
What I want to do is I want to give you some brief remarks, summarize some of my testimony for you, and then enter into whatever discussions you would like to have on this.
We have, I think, provided for all the Members a set of slides. I may reference those from time to time in my testimony.
As you know, America's Everglades are a unique resource. The Everglades has been designated a national park, an international biosphere reserve, a world heritage site, and a wetland of international significance. It is home to 68 threatened or endangered plant and animal species.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The south Florida ecosystem covers an area of 18,000 square miles, with a population today of approximately six million people.
To help illustrate what I am discussing, I ask that you turn to the first tab on those slides, the red tab, in the handouts you were provided. This slide depicts, you will see, the historic and current flows. In addition, it shows what flows will be like after the comprehensive plan is implemented. So the red tabs show you three maps of south Florida. As you can see, the historic flows were abundant. They stretched way up into the Kissimmee River basin. Today you can see most of that water escaping into the Atlantic and into the Gulf of Mexico. You can see the reduction in the area pictured in green. And then you see the effect of this plan, or the potential effect of this plan into that ecosystem.
Historically, the ecosystem was connected from the Kissimmee River to Lake Okeechobee through the River of Grass to the sea. It included about nine million acres of wetlands, providing a variety of habitats and function. But today, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this American treasure is in trouble. Ecological indicators that the ecosystem is in trouble include a 90 to 95 percent reduction in wading bird populations, 68 plant and animal species that are threatened or endangered, 1.7 billion gallons of water per day on the average lost to the ocean, one million acres of the ecosystem under health advisories for mercury contamination, over 1.5 million acres infested with invasive and exotic species, declining population levels of important fish species in the St. Lucy and Kaloosahachee estuaries and the Biscayne and Florida Bays, defoliation of sea grasses, fish kills and deformed fish within the St. Lucy estuary, continued reductions in the number of birds initiating breeding, and repetitive water shortages and salt water intrusion.
With the anticipated doubling of the population of south Florida by the year 2050, things will only get worse if we do not act today.
The good news is that we can do a lot to reverse these problems if we make Everglades restoration a national priority, and we have planned for doing just that.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
On July 1, 1999, the Secretary of the Army presented to the Congress a comprehensive Everglades restoration plan, a series of environmental improvements implemented over the next 25 years. The plan will improve the health of over 2.4 million acres of the south Florida ecosystem, virtually eliminate damaging fresh water releases to the estuaries, improve water delivery to Florida and Biscayne Bay, improve water quality, and enhance water supply and maintain flood protection.
The comprehensive plan was based on five guiding principles. These are important, and I would like to quickly review each of them.
First, the over-arching objective is the restoration, preservation, and protection of the south Florida ecosystem while providing for other water-related needs of the region.
Second, use of the best available science and independent scientific review was an integral part of the plan's development.
Third, the plan was developed through an inclusive and open process, engaging all stakeholders and interest groups.
Fourth, all applicable Federal, tribal, State, and local agencies were partners, and their views were considered fully.
And, finally, the plan is a flexible plan based on the concept of adaptive assessment. Modifications will be made based on new information.
The principal goal of the plan is getting the water right. That means four criteria: delivering the right amount of water, ensuring water to the right quality, getting the water to the right places, and getting the water where it is needed at the right time.
To meet these four criteria, the plan is made up of 68 components which fall into seven major categories: surface water storage reservoirs, aquifer storage and recovery systems, storm water treatment areas, waste water reuse, seepage management, removing barriers to sheet flow, and operational changes to existing and new facilities.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The plan will allow us to capture, clean, and distribute at the right time an additional 1.2 million acre feet of water that is currently wasted to the ocean.
Of the ''new water'' available to the ecosystem under the plan, 80 percent will be directed to the environmental restoration. This is aimed at reviving the ecosystem from Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades National Park to Florida Bay and the coral reefs.
The remaining 20 percent of the new water is directed at ensuring adequate water supplies for cities and farmers well into the future.
While the plan will not completely restore the historic flow pattern, it will clearly enhance the current flow pattern to support and enhance the recovery of significant portions of the ecosystem.
The plan is based on sound science. Its development included independent peer review of the science being applied and solicitation of advice on difficult issues from a full spectrum of available resources, including use of state-of-the-art models.
The estimated cost of implementation of the plan is $7.8 billion. The plan would be implemented over 25 years. The cost of implementing the plan will be shared equally between the Federal Government and the State of Florida.
When implemented, it will cost approximately 185 million per year to operate, maintain, and monitor the components of the plan.
The next step in the process is Congressional approval of the plan as the correct road map for Everglades restoration, as well as authorization of a few specific projects. Specifically, we intend to propose that the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 include authorization of three types of project features. They are, first, four additional pilot projects, estimated cost about $70 million. The plan calls for six pilot projects, but you authorized two of those in WRDA 1999.
Second, initial authorization of 10 projects, with an estimated cost of one billion, and an additional 100 million for adaptive assessment and program monitoring. These projects will provide system-wide water quality and flow distribution benefits to the ecosystem. Their immediate authorization will assure efficient interface with ongoing projects, maximizing the benefits of those Federal investments. It will also maximize opportunities to integrate features with other Federal and State program efforts and utilize already-purchased lands.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Third, authorization of a programmatic authority similar to the critical projects program authorized in WRDA 1996. This will allow us to implement projects which will produce independent, immediate, and substantial restoration, preserve and protect benefits, and to expedite some of the smaller components of the plan.
No work will start on any project until completion of a project implementation report, accomplishment of national environmental policy compliance, and full public involvement in that process.
The remaining 26 components of the plan, at an estimated cost of $6.2 billion, would be pursued for specific authorization in future water resources bills.
We expect that environmental improvements will begin soon after hydrologic changes are made due to the implementation of the plan elements. This does not mean immediate restoration of the ecosystem. Ecosystems do not always respond immediately to changes. That is the basis for our use, but incremental approach that allows for pilot projects and assessment and evaluation of implemented projects to make needed project or operational changes that will assure effective and proper ecosystem restoration to meet the objectives set forth in the plan.
As I noted earlier, independent scientific peer review is an important part of the overall restoration process. We have established in the National Academy of Science a committee composed of 16 scientists to independently review our work to the South Florida Restoration Task Force.
Certainly, the cost of implementing this plan is significant, but it is not out of line with other major public works projects. The Everglades and south Florida ecosystem is at a crossroads, and the time to act is now.
I ask also now that you turn on your slides to the yellow tab. You see here this is a report card. It shows the future ecosystem conditions with and without the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. The map on the left is what the ecosystem looks like if we do not act. The system will simply die. The map on the right shows what we have the power to do if we make the Everglades restoration a national priority.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We can restore the Everglades, and we have a good plan for making it happen.
Mr. Chairman, this plan could not have been accomplished and the work in the future will not be possible without the tremendous cooperation and partnership that has existed among all of the variety of groups that includes, certainly, the State of Florida, South Florida Water Management District, the tribes—the Seminoles and Miccosukee Tribes—local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and, of course, the general public, and our partners, the Department of the Interior, the EPA, Department of Commerce, and others.
I certainly look forward to working with them and with you and the Members of the House and the Senate to implement this plan in the best possible manner.
I thank you for allowing me to testify and look forward to questions.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And thanks, also, for the manner in which you made the presentation, because it was easy to follow. You were even kind enough to tab it for us so we would know where to be and when we are supposed to be there.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Ms. Doyle?
Ms. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Borski, I am Mary Doyle, Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt. Since January of this year, I have been the chair of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. It is a real privilege to be here today. Thank you for the invitation.
I am going to address you today both on behalf of the Department of Interior and of the task force.
On behalf of the Department, I want to communicate to you our strong support for the Army Corps of Engineers' comprehensive plan, as presented to Congress last July. This plan was developed through an open and collaborative process closely involving agencies of the Federal Government, the South Florida Water Management District, the tribes, environmental groups, and the public. The Corps deserves enduring credit for working constructively with all these parties, including our Department, in creating the plan.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I want also to communicate to you that the Department of the Interior strongly supports Congressional authorization of the Corps' plan, provided that that authorization contains sufficient assurance as a matter of Federal law that water developed under the plan will always be dedicated to meet the needs of the Everglades natural system.
Here I refer not just to the Federally-managed portions of the natural system, Everglades National Park, the national wildlife refuges, and Biscayne National Park, but to the State and tribally-managed lands that make up a large portion of the natural system that is the Everglades.
Recognition of the need to restore the inter-connectedness of these elements of the ecosystem is a keystone of the plan, so Congressional assurances of water supply must extend to all natural areas within the ecosystem.
This assurance in Federal law must provide water of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the needs of the natural system, and must further guarantee that water is delivered at the appropriate times and locations to most closely mimic historical natural patterns and flows, thus achieving the goal of restoration.
Without adequate Federal assurances of appropriate deliveries to the natural system, we run the risk that water developed under this plan and at substantial Federal expense will, some time in the ensuing decades, end up being diverted to urban water supply to meet the predictable future demands brought by relentless population growth in the region at the expense of the natural system.
This has been the story in south Florida for the last hundred years, and it is to halt the resulting death spiral of the natural system that this ambitious, comprehensive plan was developed.
A couple of words on behalf of the task force, and then I am finished.
The task force, as Secretary Westphal mentioned, is a 14-member body authorized and mandated by Congress in WRDA 1996. It consists of representatives of Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and entities, and is supported in its work by a 29-member working group that is based in Florida.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The task force is the body charged with coordinating the development of consistent plans, policies, and programs in connection with the restoration, facilitating the resolution of interagency and intergovernmental conflicts, of which we have had none so far, but theoretically they could arise in an undertaking as encompassing as this one, and coordinating scientific and other research associated with the restoration.
As Assistant Secretary Westphal just noted, we have recently formed a committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences to provide independent, scientific peer review of the science of the implementation of the project.
I hasten to add that every agency involved in developing the plan—the Corps and the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the South Florida Water Management District—deployed their own biologists and hydrologists in this effort and regularly submitted that work to outside peer review.
This is going to be the peer review panel for the implementation phase. These 15 scientists appointed by the National Academy are from a range of disciplines, and their task is to review and make recommendations on scientific and technical aspects of the plan and its implementation on an ongoing basis.
We believe that this distinguished group of scientists, who are just getting started with this work now, will provide a high level of confidence that the project is, over time, delivering the benefits promised.
Finally, the task force will also be addressing how it best can perform in resolving disputes among its constituent agencies and entities.
We have been in touch with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, recently established under Congressional sponsorship, and this body will advise the task force members, along with a number of experts within and outside government who are experienced in intergovernmental and interagency disputes. I am very hopeful that we will be coming up with a set of creative and effective approaches to be helpful in this area.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With that, I conclude with thanks for your leadership and thank you for having us here today.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, both of you, for a good introductory statement and for your more comprehensive statement that is part of the record at this juncture.
Let me ask both of you this: the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Comprehensive Plan included some commitments that were not in the Corps' Jacksonville District report. One of these commitments concerns an additional 245,000 acre feet of water for the Everglades National Park and for Biscayne Bay.
What is your understanding as to the nature of this commitment? Is it a commitment to find and provide this additional water, or is it a commitment to study the potential for and the value of delivering additional water?
Dr. Westphal?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Let me ask Michael to answer that question. He has been involved actually in the negotiations on that particular matter.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, the actual commitment is to do the analysis that is necessary to determine how much water would be necessary out of that 245,000, whether it is 245 or something less than that, and to determine, also, how we would go about delivering that water and cleaning the water.
The genesis of that commitment is that the Everglades National Park believes and many scientists believe that some additional amount of water is necessary to help us meet our restoration objectives in the park, and so we committed to studying this issue, doing a full Environmental Impact Statement, doing all of the normal planning and work that the Corps does, engaging the public, and then making a final decision about how much and how to do it.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. But it is a commitment to study it, not to actually deliver it?
Mr. DAVIS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Is that your understanding, Ms. Doyle?
Ms. DOYLE. That is my understanding, too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay. Fine.
My next question: a critical concern raised by both the economic and environmental interests has been the issue of assurances. The environmental community is concerned that water intended for restoration purposes will be diverted to economic uses. Economic interests want assurances that their present water supply will not be reallocated to restoration without reliable replacement supplies being in place, and that their future needs will be met, as well.
Could all interest groups be assured that they would receive their water supplies if the Project Implementation Reports prepared for each plan component documented the uses to be supplied by the component and Congress confirmed that allocation in authorizing the component?
Dr. WESTPHAL. The answer to that is yes, and you will receive from us in our package, our WRDA package and language on this, a section on assurances that will do just that.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Do you agree with that, Ms. Doyle?
Ms. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, we have been working very hard with our colleagues in the Corps on developing this language, and I would say we are very close to an agreement.
Mr. BOEHLERT. All right. Next question: The Chief's Report adds a commitment to develop the necessary assurances that adequate water will be available for the natural system. Department of Interior's testimony supports assurances for the natural system. What assurances, if any, do you believe need to be provided in law for the agriculture and urban water users?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Again, I think we are going to provide you those assurances in the water resources bill, but I do not know if there is anything specific to say at this point.
Ms. DOYLE. Could I add something?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure.
Ms. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, we will include language that will assure continued supply to existing legal uses, which includes agricultural uses, urban uses, and existing uses of the natural system.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So there would be some specificity?
Ms. DOYLE. Yes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is fine.
All right. Let me ask you this, Dr. Westphal. Why is it appropriate to authorize restoration projects without the benefit of feasibility level studies that are required for other projects?
Dr. WESTPHAL. We are presenting to you a proposal that actually has a feasibility study, comprehensive feasibility study completed, it has a programmatic and Environmental Impact Statement completed, and a chief's report completed.
Now, the feasibility report that you have that we have completed is a broad overview of the 68 components of this plan. We have amassed a great deal of work and research to also identify those ten specific projects that we are asking for authorization now, and none of those projects will go to construction until we have all of the specific information and completed environmental NEPA compliance and public comment on those projects.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So you are not treating them differently then?
Dr. WESTPHAL. No.
Mr. BOEHLERT. All right. Final question. My time is almost up. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force has recommended that the Federal Government pay 50 percent of the O&M cost of the projects, while the Chief of Engineers has recommended that it be a 100 percent non-Federal responsibility, consistent with WRDA 1996.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What is your view on what would be an appropriate way to pay for the $182 million annual O&M cost?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, the Administration, I have to say, has not made a final decision on this. We have this matter before the Office of Management and Budget, as we are developing our WRDA proposal to send to you, and I made that commitment in my transmission letter, the Secretary's transmission letter to you when we presented the plan, that we would have a recommendation made by the time we introduced this authorizing legislation.
So I think at this point in time I cannot tell you specifically what we will recommend, but you will have a recommendation.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So that is not your final answer?
[Laughter.]
Dr. WESTPHAL. That is not my final answer. And it says ''stop,'' so I cannot go any further.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay. Fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. Borski?
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Ms. Doyle, let me also welcome you and thank you for your testimony. I also want to welcome Mr. Davis and mention, Mr. Chairman, that I had the opportunity, with Mr. Davis' assistance, to visit the Everglades. Let me just say the magnitude of it is overwhelming.
Mr. Secretary, you make a pretty compelling argument today, as well as the bipartisan Florida delegation that testified today. I only have one question to you, and it is about money.
The restudy contemplates a significant Federal financial commitment. Does the Corps anticipate an increase in its budget, or do you believe that this project will be funded within current budget levels? And if it is, are there then other projects, worthy, as well, that could be diminished to fund something of this magnitude?
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, I can tell you that our plan is to go forward with a request for additional funding for Everglades in the next budget cycle and in cycles to follow, but I can only assure you about the next one.
I cannot predict what will be the final product of the President's budget submitted to Congress at the end of this year, but I can tell you that we will ask for additional support for this project and not take it out of the existing levels of funding.
Mr. BORSKI. Ms. Doyle?
Ms. DOYLE. I have nothing to add to what my brother just said.
Mr. BORSKI. All right. That is fine.
Mr. Chairman, that is my only concern. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Davis, just a last quick question following up on Mr. Borski's comment that he had the privilege of visiting down there.
What would you guesstimate how much time, if the subcommittee were to go down, how much time we would require to get a good, comprehensive overview and a feel for the situation?
Mr. DAVIS. I think normally two to three days. Three would be better. Actually, it takes two or three trips before you begin to understand how it all fits together. But I think in three days you could start to get a sense of how the system works, starting up in the Kissimmee headwaters near Orlando and working down through Lake Okeechobee, do the Everglades proper, and then down into Florida, Everglades Park into Florida Bay.
Mr. BOEHLERT. We have been thinking about it.
Mr. DAVIS. Give us those three days, and we will treat you right.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Yes. Well, we have been thinking about it, but, quite frankly, the way this town and this country works, you know, any time Members of Congress travel, particularly if you go to a more-desirable climate at the wrong time of year, people are going to say, ''There they go again.'' And so I prefer to delay it so we would not be subjected to that criticism. And it is not valid, because any time we are talking about investing $8 billion of taxpayers' money, I mean, I think it is pretty important that we not just take as gospel what you have to tell us, we go and see for ourselves on a bipartisan basis. So we will be working with you on that on a bipartisan basis to see how we can arrange something for two or three days.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Mr. Chairman, I have done a pretty comprehensive look—I mean, I think what Michael is referring to is get the broad scope and maybe get on the ground and talk to people and do that kind of thing, but I think you can see—with a good guide, you can see everything that we are proposing, you can look at the overview of those three maps that I gave you, in three-quarters of a day.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I liked Michael's answer better.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, I am thinking of when you go down there in August with the mosquitoes and everything else.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I understand. But, you know, we all understand what we are talking about. I think it is important for us to see it and to get a good overview and not waste any time, obviously, spend any time needlessly, because we all have other places to be, particularly in this year. But I think it would be time well spent if we did get down there for at least a day or two.
Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Who always has us over in the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. GILCHREST. Not really. What we need to do—maybe, Dr. Westphal, we can have the same kind of trip to look at all of the projects with the oyster reefs and the dredging and everything else that is close by. We can arrange to have the committee come over to the Chesapeake Bay, especially to look at what we are trying to do with Restore America's Estuaries Act, which passed out of the subcommittee.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Gilchrest, let me suggest that would be a good idea to work on that. I think Mr. Borski would share my interest in arranging something like that.
Once again, there are many demands on our schedule. I think people think Congresspeople are traveling all the time. We turn down nine out of ten requests simply because we have to be at home, we have got to be here, and we do like to spend some time with our families, but it is also important to get out and see first-hand what is going on.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. I would very much appreciate hosting a meeting to see what is going on with the Chesapeake Bay with Mr. Borski and yourself, Mr. Boehlert, and any other members on the committee. The Corps of Engineers has—
Mr. BOEHLERT. Work with the staff and set up something, Mr. Gilchrest, if you would, that you think would be beneficial.
Mr. GILCHREST. We will do. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. And we are not going to take that off your time.
Mr. GILCHREST. I was just wondering about that. I am looking at the green light.
Mr. BOEHLERT. We are going to start from the beginning now.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Your five minutes begin now.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we should spend—if we do spend the night, we probably should spend the night in a tent while we are down there in the Everglades to see how the restoration is going. I guess the more mosquitoes, the better the restoration.
Dr. Westphal, I am not real familiar with the details of the entire project, but I am interested in the term ''spending $7.6 billion—'' or whatever the amount of money is—''until restoration is achieved.'' What is the level of restoration that is trying to be achieved? I guess there is some sense, in a way, of what it may have been like before Europeans came here. And there is some sense of what it was like at the turn of the century—certainly some sense before Florida became the mecca for vacationers, retirees, suburbs sprawl, agriculture, canals, and all those things to support the communities and everything else.
So is there some definition that the Corps is using for achievement of restoration?
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. Well, you know, you can graphically see it. I think you came in after—you have the slides?
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.
Dr. WESTPHAL. If you look, they are tabbed. There are two tabs. There is a red tab.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.
Dr. WESTPHAL. If you turn to the red tab, you see three maps.
Mr. GILCHREST. I think the staff showed me those three maps when I first walked in.
Dr. WESTPHAL. If you look, the map to the left shows the historic flows of the Everglades, starting at the top, with the Kissimmee River basin and that area, north of Lake Okeechobee and then down, and you see the green area. It is extensive.
If you look at the second map, the current flows, you look at the reduction of wetlands, the tremendous loss of water out of the ecosystem.
And then what we are trying to achieve with this plan is on the map to the right.
Mr. GILCHREST. So the map to the right restores it then—the map on the left looks like the green area is the original watershed for the Everglades.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. And then the map in the middle shows that basically totally fragmented.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. And the map on the right shows about half of the watershed being restored?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. WESTPHAL. I do not know if you can say it is half the watershed, but you see significant restoration.
The white areas, of course, are areas where you have a lot of farming. You have agriculture. You have a lot of development, certainly on the Atlantic coast, the cities of Miami and Dade County and everything else, all that development. You cannot move that. That is not going to go away.
Mr. GILCHREST. Right. Considering what you are faced with here, it looks like a pretty good start.
Dr. WESTPHAL. It is a very good start. And what you are doing is you are not just capturing that water and not losing it to the oceans and to the gulf, but you are also cleaning that water. You are treating it in an environmentally very sensitive way. You are not building waste treatment plants. You are creating more wetlands to treat the water. You are capturing it. You are taking the nutrients out of it and you are moving it down.
These initial projects that we are attempting to authorize now are to take advantage of investments we have already made. The State has made huge investments in buying land. So we want to get some projects going that we will be able to capture some of that water, we will be able to treat some of that water, we will get some of that original sheet flow going back into the park, itself, into the southern areas.
Mr. GILCHREST. I think this is a great opportunity for us to really put back the—what the Corps has done here, it seems to me, is to analyze with the task force the engineering structure of the mechanics of this natural ecosystem, and you are attempting to put it back into place.
I had just another quick question. Is there still a disagreement between the task force and the chief of engineers as far as the cost of the operation and maintenance on an annual basis of either 100 percent State money or 50 percent State match?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. DOYLE. Well, the task force had made a recommendation of 50/50 operating cost share, but that decision is going to be made in the Administration, and the Administration has not made it yet. So, as the chairman said, you do not have our final answer on that question.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Well, thank you, Dr. Westphal. Are you really brother and sister?
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. You really are?
Dr. WESTPHAL. No.
Ms. DOYLE. Is not that a coincidence?
Mr. GILCHREST. That was a nice thing to say though.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Just one last question, Ms. Doyle, and then we will have some additional questions that we will submit in writing and would appreciate from both agencies a timely response.
With the large number of endangered species found in south Florida, what are the chances that compliance with the Endangered Species Act will require some modification of the Administration's comprehensive plan?
Ms. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the Endangered Species Act, has been heavily involved in the development of this comprehensive plan, and it is the Fish and Wildlife Service's opinion that the plan will do a lot to restore the threatened and endangered species, so they are endorsing the plan.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is good. That is fine. That is good news. I would not bet my house on it, though.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. DOYLE. Conflicts may arise in the future.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Well, thanks very much. I appreciate your testimony.
Dr. Westphal?
Dr. WESTPHAL. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that you will be hearing—I think there are other panels that are coming after us, and certainly there will be a good deal of discussion in your committee about this matter and various components of it.
I just want to extend to you and Mr. Borski and the members of the committee our willingness to cooperate and work with you at every turn, provide you any information you need collectively or individually. We are at your disposal. We want to make this process understood to you and your members.
We certainly see this. I mentioned the adaptive nature of this whole process. We are going to be learning a lot as we go through. We do not have all the answers today. We need to do a better job in a lot of areas, I am sure, and we are also trying and will work closely with the tribes and the State to reconcile any differences we have down the line, and hopefully bring you in the future requests for authorizations that will be clear and precise and supported.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you. I am comforted by that assurance that you will be working cooperatively among us. We will be seeing a lot more of each other, not just on the Everglades, but on this thing called the ''Upper Mississippi Project'' that I imagine should be occupying a good deal of your time and attention.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I can assure you it is getting our attention, and we will be talking a lot more about that subject.
But thank you very much for today's presentation.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. DOYLE. Thank you.
Dr. WESTPHAL. Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. In addition to the written statement, there will be a written statement from the Environmental Protection Agency, which will appear in the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Now we advance to panel number three, consisting of: The Honorable David Struhs, Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, who has been most helpful in working with the committee; Mr. Michael Collins, the governing Board Chairman of the South Florida Water Management District; and Miccosukee Tribe Chairman, Mr. Billy Cypress.
Mr. Secretary, you are up first, and then Mr. Collins, followed by Mr. Cypress.
We would ask that you try to summarize, if you can, or else we will be here all night. We spend a lot of time talking to each other and listening to each other, and that is very productive.
Thank you very much.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. STRUHS, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA; MICHAEL COLLINS, GOVERNING BOARD CHAIRMAN, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA; AND BILLY CYPRESS, CHAIRMAN, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE, MIAMI, FLORIDA
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. STRUHS. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert and members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity, my opportunity, in particular, to represent Governor Bush and the State of Florida before you today.
Our bottom-line message is that Florida is ready, willing, and waiting to forge a new and full partnership with the Federal Government for this restoration effort. Clearly, there are some important Federal interests at stake: the Loxahatchee, 10,000 Islands, Big Cypress, the manatee, the snail kite, the Cape Sable Sparrow, the Florida panther. Perhaps the most well-known of those Federal interests, of course, is America's Everglades National Park. I would like to use the opportunity to talk about that park. It has already been referred to as being at the same level as a Yellowstone or a Grand Canyon. That park was actually given to the Federal Government as a gift by the State of Florida in 1947, and again in 1989, when we, as an agency, donated a State park for the expansion of Everglades National Park.
In fact, it is quite interesting. If you look at the 3.3 million acres of Federal land in the south Florida ecosystem, more than two million of those acres were actually given to the Federal Government by the State of Florida.
Despite this historic commitment by Florida, we clearly appreciate this committee's interest as an authorizing committee and are providing solid evidence that our resolve and commitment will continue well into the future.
I have to be blunt. We, in the State of Florida, have similar concerns regarding the Federal Government, because, while it is important and we appreciate the debate over authorization that is occurring here today, in Florida we are actually already in the process of appropriating money.
This year, alone, the year 2000, Florida will complete another $155 million worth of Everglades protection projects that are part of this restoration plan, and we are doing that at some risk, because, in fact, the Federal authorization has not yet occurred.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Governor Bush has offered a seven-point test to make sure that Florida follows through on this commitment for the next 20 years. Seven principles: that we fully fund the State's half of the project costs, that we plan ahead for the peak funding years, that we receive full credit for the work we have done, that we not siphon money away from other environmental priorities in the State, that we not borrow the money but we use cash on hand, and that we share the responsibilities equitably within our various communities in Florida.
The seventh point that the governor would like for me to stress here today, in particular, is the idea of a new and complete kind of partnership with the Federal Government.
Now, on this last point I would like to share four basic concepts that we would like for you to consider in an authorization bill.
One is the idea of accelerated dispute resolution. We think that there are benefits to be had by all parties if there are disputes along the way with a complex project that is going to last for 20 years, for them to be elevated quickly so we do not lose time and money fighting between bureaucratic agencies.
Secondly, we employ something called ''value engineering,'' or it might be called ''peer review,'' to bring in outside panels to review our work and make sure that we are using the very best kinds of engineering techniques.
Thirdly, I would like to speak briefly about the idea of normalizing the funding. In a typical project, the State fronts the money and then the Federal Government comes in and does the remainder at the end.
Given the size of the project, given the expense of it and the length of time, we think there may be benefits that could accrue to both State and Federal Governments if we were to normalize the funding and levelize it, shave off the peaks, if you will.
For example, by the year 2000, Florida will have already spent nearly $700 million on this project. The Federal Government, assuming it moves forward, by contrast, will have spent $230 million. Compare that to the year 2007, when the Federal commitment would be about $350 million and at that point Florida's share would be $100 million. Clearly, interests on both sides if we could normalize that.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The fourth and final concept is to make sure that we incentivize cost savings. Far too often when we have a cost match program it becomes almost a contest to see how you can measure your commitment, and you measure your commitment by how much you are willing to spend rather than how much you are willing to save.
By memorializing an authorizing bill, the incentivization of cost savings by sharing the savings equally between Federal and State partners will have a far more fruitful kind of relationship.
Yes, the project is complex. Yes, it is going to be expensive. But it is clear to the State of Florida that the cost of not proceeding is even of greater cost to the State, to our local governments, and also to some very critical Federal interests.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Collins?
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today.
In my summation of my written testimony, I would like to concentrate on two themes. The first is one that has been very widely discussed here, and that is a partnership. I would submit that the partnership that is the foundation of the comprehensive plan is the one that exists and has existed for some 50 years now between the South Florida Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers. It has a number of levels that it takes place on.
When we sought to hire a new executive director as part of our reorganization in anticipation of this plan, we sought and found someone with extensive experience both in Washington and as a district engineer for the Corps and someone who had been the Pentagon's environmental programs director worldwide. He joined several dozen other members, both military and civilian, at the Corps that worked at the district.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The other level that this takes place on is probably more philosophical, but for the State of Florida it is very important. The Corps, like the Water Management District, is required to balance a number of statutory responsibilities. The focus that originally started as digging ditches and draining swamps has become more and more, as time has gone on, one of environmental and human interface in managing the way those two relate to each other that is critically important to the way we go forward.
The disputes that arise occasionally between agencies that have narrower focuses—and a large number of the Federal family of agencies do—are resolved a lot easier when one of the Federal family members is someone that has the same broad balance that we are required to produce.
The other concept is one of balance, itself. The plan that we brought to you—and I was a part of the Governor's commission that was a State advisory group to the Federal Ecosystem Restoration Task Force—was a balanced plan. It was a plan that was balanced for a large number of reasons, but not least of which for the simple reason that it never would have happened if it were not for that balance.
I would submit that it is important for this to have the base of support that it will need to go forward and, for us to be able to carry this out over the next 25 years, that that balance remain; that we need to juggle the competing interests in a way that holds harmless the current users and provides the restoration for the ecosystem that we have sought.
How we are proposing to do that and the part of the plan that has not been discussed here today is adaptive assessment. I believe very strongly that the adaptive assessment process that we are discussing is part of that process of balance.
The people of 50 years ago that started out draining the swamp were of the opinion that what they were doing was the right thing to do. It was a partnership between the State and the Federal Government. We cannot afford to make those mistakes. As we go forward, to maintain the support that this plan will need, we need to be sure that we are constantly assessing and evaluating the projects as we build them.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I believe very strongly that the plan provides for that kind of balance. I believe very strongly it provides a foundation that we can use to both restore the natural system and keep everybody at the table that we need to have there as we go forward.
I look forward to working with you as we do that.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Next up is Mr. Cypress.
Mr. CYPRESS. It is always a pleasure and a privilege to testify before you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
Miccosukee Tribe is an Indian tribe that resides in the Everglades, so the panel before you here talks about how it is going to get done, and the lands where the tribe resides are going to be used for filtering system, and that is where we have a problem with that.
As you hear, there was money to be put up where a study is going to be worked on while implementation of the project goes on. It is almost like building a home without a plan.
Now, you go to a bank and want to build a home. What do they usually ask you? They ask for plans so you know what you are going to have at the end and the cost of the price that you are looking for.
This is what the people before you, the panel said—''Give us a right and we will study and build as we go along and develop a plan for you.'' You cannot mess with that. But there is a problem. Somewhere down the road the United States, Congress is going to get wise to this and say, ''Why are we spending a lot of this money without proper planning to achieve the goal?''
What are the goals? You heard people sidestepping this morning. I would like to see that a proper study, proper spending of the money, because somebody talked about the jewel, but why is Congress going to say we put too much money into the project without proper planning.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If we are going to spend money as part of the tribes, United States, it needs to look at a proper plan and study, more restudy.
Also, I would suggest disregard the chief's letter. it has got flaws in it. We have brought that up before.
Second, there is that discrimination where tribal lands are being used to filter the pollution. That is being discriminated against the tribe because they are a minority. This is what we have to look at. We have to see where the cleanup is to be done, restoration is to be done. That is good, but not at the expense of the tribal lands, not at the expense of the northern Everglades, which is vital for the national park to survive, because national park is in the southern region. And if you want to save the Everglades, you have got to save the northern portion in order to save the south.
But right now what is happening is that they are sacrificing the northern portion of the Everglades to save the south, and that is not correct.
Also, we still believe in property rights. This is something that is being disregarded.
Also, in 1989 the Honorable Congressman Fascelli worked on a bill, got it passed with money, funding attached to it, that was called a ''modified water plan.'' Yet, that plan, that money, that project has never taken off ground. If that was put in proper perspective and the project started, a lot of these things that we are facing today, it would alleviate some of this.
So I would urge this committee to take a look at and suggest or strongly say that you do have that money. Spend it and get it going and it can be part of that study. But right now, the way it is going is that it is kind of discretionary.
Some agencies do not like the way how they like to approach their plan, so they hold that money back, rather than going ahead with it.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This is where money is laid out. A project is laid out. It needs to go forward while this restudy is being looked at because this is going to cost more money than the 1989 funding.
I urge the committee to really take a look at Miccosukee's written testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Let me ask you this: do you feel that you were invited to participate actively by the Corps and by the South Florida Water Management District, and do you think your views were given fair consideration during the planning process?
Mr. CYPRESS. Sometimes we are invited, but everybody says, ''We hold the money purse, so we need to look at our—what we are pushing for needs to be addressed more so than our views.'' So I guess in a way we are heard, but I think we are probably not taken into account, because we are living there and the people who are planning to restructure, restore, are the people who just come and work and go home.
Now, there are times when Water Management District and the group disagree, but on this one I think that we are looking more closely together because we have to live in partnership, as the gentleman to my right mentioned. Sometimes him and I do not always see eye to eye, but we have still got our jobs to do.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Sure. But you were consulted? I mean, you may have some differences of opinion, obviously, but you were not shut out of the process?
Mr. CYPRESS. We were not. Let me put it this way: in a way, we might as well have been shut out, because the chief's letter was already done and said, ''This is the way it is going to go,'' and yet, being a Federal Indian tribe, we are supposed to have an open door with any Federal agencies, and even to the President, what he calls ''nation-to-nation'' meetings and Congressional, and yet agencies look at the tribes as probably lower than second-class citizens of the United States.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary or Mr. Collins, what can be done to ensure the swift completion of the modified water deliveries project? Mr. Collins, you want to try it?
Mr. COLLINS. Yes. We are currently evaluating, I think, nine—and I will probably add one more this coming week—alternatives for locally-preferred option on that. We expect the scientific review to be finished and have those back in front of the governing board this coming month.
I can tell you that, as chairman, that consideration will be thorough, but it will also be very short term. We are not planning on spending the next three years working on it.
We will have it back to the Corps as fast as we possibly can get it back to them. The Corps has very generously agreed to devote the resources to move up the date of decision on that process by six months from the original time tables, and we are looking hopefully at somewhere around August or September at the latest.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me ask you, Mr. Collins and Mr. Secretary, to respond to this. What sort of assurances for adequate water do you believe need to be written into the authorizing legislation?
Mr. Secretary?
Mr. STRUHS. We may both want to respond to this. I think one of the things I would like to do, with all due respect, is to begin by questioning the premise of the question.
I think, unfortunately, this policy discussion has hinged on the presupposition that there is going to be some kind of competition for water in the future, competition between agriculture, urban, and natural systems. In fact, that is really not going to happen.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What we are doing by restoring the Everglades ecosystem is taking 1.7 billion gallons of water that every day is discharged to the ocean and putting it back into, as much as possible, its historic hydro pattern. That same water then supplies all of those various needs. It provides the natural needs first by hydrating the ecosystem as much as possible to the historic standards. By doing that, you have the derived benefits of a reliable water supply for human uses, particularly agriculture and the urban population.
There is no mechanical means of directing water flows away from the ecosystem into urban uses or vice versa. The restoration is, in fact, capturing all this water and putting it back into this system.
Just one final point, if I could. When you consider the source of water for the highly urbanized area of southeast Florida, they rely on groundwater principally. One of the problems they face with growing consumption there is salt water intrusion. One of the reasons you have the salt water intrusion, of course, is because you do not have the natural seepage of the fresh water going out to the ocean.
By restoring the water that is now sent directly to the ocean by canal into the Everglades ecosystem, you create the hydric pressure that then keeps the salt water intrusion at bay, services the natural system first, and then provides ultimately the water supply for that urban population.
So I think, unfortunately, the discussion, while an important one and a worthwhile one, has become more divisive than it actually needs to be.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Mr. Collins, do you have anything you would like to add?
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, Florida statute 373, which provides the statutory guidance to the water management district, provides assurance language. It has worked for a while. I would submit that the plan that we have put together, for some of the reasons that Secretary Struhs has mentioned, covers the needs of the future as well as the needs of the security.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As close as we can calculate, of the average 55 inches of rain that Florida receives every year, probably something like two inches needs to get captured for current urban use. If we were to reach the population projections, which have correctly been identified as just a little optimistic, we probably need three inches of it.
So the idea that future urban users are going to steal from the natural system is not something I really think is a possibility.
Also, the only place that can really get that water, because of the fact that we rely on groundwater, is water that comes to the natural system and comes through the natural system.
If we did this plan right—and I would submit to you that I believe very strongly we have—in taking care of the natural system needs, we have taken care of the urban users. This is not going to be a competition if we do this properly.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I want you to convey this to the Governor, and I want to tell you that we appreciate the good relationship you and the State of Florida government enjoy with this committee, and we do, however, want to remind you, this is long before your time and long before Governor Bush's time, but mea culpa. It is not just the Corps of Engineers that did what they did resulting in what we have got now. In the 1940s and 1950s the State of Florida was not as diligent as it should have been and allowed the urbanization of this area, and that has created a lot of the problems we have today.
Now you are trying to be part of the solution, so I am not reminding present company of any deficiencies of the past, but Mr. Blumenauer, if he were here, would be quick to remind Floridians that pell-mell growth in this area is part of the problem.
So consider this compliments on what you are now doing, in general, and the good interaction we have with this committee.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One final question: will the Stormwater Treatment Areas called for in the Comprehensive Plan be sufficient to meet expected water quality standards? Mr. Collins?
Mr. COLLINS. We are right now in phase one of the plan imposed and statutorily guided that guides us under the Everglades Forever Act that calls for meeting a 50 parts per billion standard. The storm water treatment areas currently built are, in average, reaching probably double that. We are getting somewhere around 25 parts per thousand [sic]. We are aggressively pursuing—and I will be out in that area tomorrow—technologies to get us the rest of the way. We are optimistic, but I cannot sit here and tell you that we currently have all of the technological answers that we are going to have to have to guarantee whatever the eventual standard becomes.
I can tell you that we are spending an awful lot of money and energy in getting there currently.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is good.
Let me thank the panel for being resources. We may have some written submissions for you, and then we will want to get back to you.
Before we go to the next panel, the Chair would like to announce a five-minute recess. Mr. Borski has an important telephone call he is involved with, and I would like a couple of minutes with Mr. Cypress about a totally unrelated matter. I do not want you to think this is the two of us teaming up against you guys on this. But I do want the opportunity to have a few minutes with Mr. Cypress.
The committee stands in recess for five minutes or so and we will be right back for the next panel. We will not be too delinquent.
[Break.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Our fourth panel will consist of: Mr. Malcolm S. Wade, Senior Vice President of the U.S. Sugar Corporation in Clewiston, Florida; Ms. Ibel Aguilera, Director of the United Property Owners & Friends of the 8.5 Square Mile Area, Inc.; and Dr. Stuart Strahl of Audubon of Florida.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Lady and gentlemen, we will proceed in the order you were introduced, and we would ask that you try to summarize your statement in five minutes or less. We will not be arbitrary, but I would hope you could give us some consideration in order to allow some time for questioning.
Your statements will appear in the record at this juncture in their entirety.
Ms. Aguilera, you are up first.
TESTIMONY OF MALCOLM S. WADE, JR., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES GROUP, U.S. SUGAR CORPORATION, CLEWISTON, FLORIDA; IBEL AGUILERA, DIRECTOR, UNITED PROPERTY OWNERS & FRIENDS OF THE 8.5 SQUARE MILE AREA, INC., MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND DR. STUART D. STRAHL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Ms. AGUILERA. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Ibel Aguilera. I am a resident of a small rural community in Miami Dade County, Florida, known as the 8.5 Square Mile Area. I am also director of the United Property Owners & Friends of the 8.5 SMA, an organization made of unwilling sellers that are fighting government efforts to take our land and our homes under the guise of restoration.
Sir, first of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address your committee. I also want you to know that the people of the 8.5 SMA are in favor of the restoration of our wonderful Everglades.
I am here today, however, to testify about a very ugly, unfortunate, and unnecessary chapter in the Everglades restoration process that should be viewed as a case study while your committee considers funding for this multi-million dollar project in the Water Resources Development Act 2000.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This case study involves a restoration project that was authorized in Everglades National Park Expansion Act of 1989, public law 101-229. Under this act, the Army Corps of Engineers was directed to build and implement a modified water delivery project to restore national flows. The act clearly directed that adjacent residential and agricultural areas be protected without qualification as part of the modified water delivery project. Section 104.C clearly guarantees the 8.5 Square Mile Area protection.
The contract to build modified water was signed with the South Florida Water Management District in 1994. To this date, not one shovel of dirt to build the levee promised us by Congress has been turned.
I now understand that senior officials in Washington have determined that removing us from our homes and our land in defiance of the will of Congress is flood protection. If the clear language that was provided by Congress to protect us can be twisted this way, what value, I wonder, will the assurances in WRDA 2000 be to those who have been assured?
Issues involving violations of property rights and discrimination will greatly taint this process in a manner that could halt this multi-billion-dollar project so desperately needed to restore the Everglades and the south Florida ecosystem.
The restoration of our ecosystem is being held hostage due to the Department of the Interior's attempt to get our tiny 8.5 Square Mile Area for the park buffer, something they know is not allowed under public law 101-229.
The lesson for this committee is that selfish Government agencies want to use precious Federal restoration taxpayer dollars to buy our land, even though years of studies, including reports of three Florida governors and an act of Congress have concluded that the 8.5 Square Mile Area is not necessary for the Everglades restoration.
As former residents of a communist country that we were forced to flee, our family never imagined that 30 years later they would once again be faced with the government taking our land and our homes against our will, especially by what is supposed to be a government for the people and by the people.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We certainly never expected to be discriminated against in a country that has laws to prevent such discrimination.
Do you know what it is like to be treated as less than human? As a result of the continued discrimination against our Hispanic community by government agencies, one of the oldest and most-respected Latin organizations, League of United Latin American Citizens, has passed a resolution denouncing the discrimination against us and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians in the modified water deliveries project.
Our crime has been acquiring the American dream in the country we all thought was the land of freedom and Constitutional rights. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida have also given us their support, as they understand, through their own struggle with the Department of Interior and the National Park Service, how poorly they treat minorities.
These Native Americans also have to fight attempts from these Government agencies to remove them from their land under the guise of Everglades restoration.
After Hurricane Irene, Miami Dade County set up a flooding task force to investigate the situation, and on February 24, 2000, they passed a resolution that urges the Corps not to undertake any operational changes that compromise flood protection until they issue their report in June, 2000. It is important for this committee to realize that the urban and agricultural communities are concerned about how the failure to implement MWD has impacted their flood protection and how the restoration plan currently before you might also do so.
There is absolutely no science to support the ruthless confiscation of our land. The people of the 8.5 Square Mile Area for the most part are Cuban-American citizens locked in another struggle to keep our homes and our land. We came in search of the democratic freedom we were being denied in our home country. Our families have struggled to rebuild our homes and our life in a beautiful and fruitful land that resembled the one we were forced to leave behind. We chose the 8.5 Square Mile Area to build the American dream, but for us the American dream has become a nightmare. Sadly, this type of nightmare does not come from a communist dictator, but instead from the United States Government agencies who are attempting to remove us from our legal homes against our will.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Everglades restoration should not be an ugly process of using Federal dollars to hurt people and take away their land when it is not necessary.
You can make the Everglades restoration a beautiful thing. You can assure the future of the Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents of the 8.5 Square Mile Area by writing WRDA 2000 in such a way that Government agencies can no longer defy Congress and the law. Please do this, not only for the people of the 8.5 Square Mile Area, but for all the people of south Florida who will benefit from the historic project and for all those people of this country who have to pay for it.
Everglades restoration must never again be wrongly used by selfish government agencies to accomplish nonrestoration objectives by trampling the rights and life of innocent people. We place our lives and the future of our homes in your hands.
Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wade, you are up next.
Mr. WADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am Malcolm Wade, Senior Vice President of United States Sugar Corporation. I am appearing today as a representative of south Florida agricultural sector. In developing the views presented, I have attempted to represent the consensus of the Florida agriculture community. I have recently contacted representatives from the Okeechobee dairy area, the Florida Citrus Mutual Group, the Caloosahatchee Basin farmers, the South Dade farming area, Florida Department of Agriculture, the Chairman of the South Florida Water Management District's Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Gulf Citrus Group, and other sugar industry groups.
While this is not all of south Florida agriculture, it is a significant representation of it. I believe that most of south Florida agriculture would agree with the views I will present to you here today.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I must assure you, first of all, that everyone in the agricultural groups I have talked to throughout south Florida generally support the restudy effort and believe it is needed to assure a sustainable south Florida, both economically and ecologically. However, we in agriculture recognize the enormous task ahead of all of us to make sure that the project is carried out correctly, efficiently, and cost-effectively.
Although agriculture is generally supportive of the restudy, we have concerns. I will summarize 12 concerns that agriculture believes must be addressed by Congress and the Florida Legislature if we are to make this restudy project a success.
Number one, Congress should reaffirm the statement of the comprehensive plan multiple project purposes contained in the WRDA 1996 authorization. ''The comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection of water quality in and the reduction of the loss of fresh water from the Everglades. The comprehensive plan shall include such features as are necessary to provide for the related needs of the region, including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other objectives served by the central and southern Florida project.'' This balancing of the restudy is important to stakeholders, land owners, and agricultural land owners in south Florida.
Second, Congress should approve the comprehensive plan presented in the Jacksonville District's feasibility study as a framework. This is not—and I repeat, not—a final decision-making document in the traditional sense required by WRDA. The plan does not meet the traditional authorization requirements for Army Corps of Engineers projects. The plan does not include feasibility level engineering, real estate evaluations, economic and environmental investigations, and analysis.
Individual restudy project components should be authorized only after standard feasibility level study requirements have been satisfied and a report submitted to you.
Third, at present there is no plan or agreement as to cost sharing of the project of the operation and maintenance costs. I know this was pointed out by Assistant Secretary Westphal, and we would emphasize that it should be cost shared 50/50.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Fourth, Congress should provide assurance to water users that their existing flood control and water supplies will not be taken away from them and given to others in the system before project components are built and proven to be able to provide replacement supplies or similar flood control. For water users in south Florida, this is one of the most important recommendations I can make to you.
I will emphasize through an example that my colleagues in the South Dade farming area recently had their water levels raised in their canals arbitrarily, and they became aware of this before Hurricane Irene hit, and they were in the process of trying to correct it.
Well, Hurricane Irene hit and they suffered some $100 million in damages, and they believe that those elevated water levels that were arbitrarily done were the cause.
We cannot afford to have these type of things throughout this restudy or property owners are going to suffer damages.
Fifth, many of the technologies incorporated in this plan are unproven in south Florida, and they consist primarily of aquifer storage and recovery wells, above-ground storage reservoirs, and seepage barriers.
I said ''above-ground reservoirs.'' In south Florida, above-ground reservoirs less than a thousand acres are pretty sizeable, and agriculture is used to those. We have them throughout our property in U.S. Sugar. Our largest one is 1,000 acres. We have several thousand acres of them. Our experience is that when you put water in them and it is dry, they do not hold water, and when it is wet they are full of water, but so is everything else in south Florida.
In some cases, to implement this restudy you are talking about 60 square miles of shallow reservoirs and relatively poor soils. Congress should authorize pilot projects to study all of these technologies so we can develop the best solutions to these problems before we spend millions in engineering and design and construction.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Next, as previously mentioned, project components should be authorized where traditional feasibility level studies required by WRDA have been completed and submitted to Congress by the Administration. This function should not be given up by Congress and not delegated to the Administration. We believe there is far too much uncertainty to allow shortcuts.
In addition, the project will receive much greater scrutiny from the other States if we ask for shortcuts that their projects are not allowed.
Next, consistent with WRDA 1996, section 528, incremental justification of projects authorized for consideration should be required. To our knowledge right now, we have not seen any type of prioritization of these projects other than a simple list. There is no budget that exists that shows in detail what is going to be spent for $400 million next year, and there is no prioritization to show where money is going to be spent over the next 20 years for the $8 billion.
A strategic plan does not exist currently that identifies all the measures. This was pointed out by the GAO in their original study, and we agree with them thoroughly. There needs to be a strategic plan and it needs to be periodically updated and include water quality and exotic species management.
Next, land purchases should be from willing sellers and land already in public ownership, where practical. Otherwise, State condemnation process should be followed. This is important to agriculture in south Florida because there are 248,000 acres of land targeted, and it is primarily from rural and agricultural lands.
If land is condemned, all reasonable costs should be reimbursed to the landowner, which has not happened in the Federal process. The state condemnation process should be used.
Next, water quality requirements involved in each project component should be agreed to by both the Federal and State agencies before a project element is authorized. You asked this question earlier, and we believe that water quality is not currently being addressed and that we could spend billions of additional dollars to retrofit the projects if we do not make sure that the agencies appropriately incorporate water quality measures up front in the projects.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Funding issues must be addressed. As I mentioned earlier, there is no detailed budget for any of these projects. The funding for each element should be reasonably assured from both the State and Federal Government before each project element is authorized. If authorization and funding are not closely tied, we run the risk of condemning land and starting construction, only to have projects unfinished for years.
Finally, the restudy—and Mary Doyle pointed this out earlier—the restudy team has only recently put together a National Academy of Sciences peer review team to review the restudy plan. Authorization should not be given for major components before this critical peer review has been given for these major components.
Before I close, I would like to say that, in general, there is a high degree of mistrust for the Federal agencies by the farmers and others in south Florida. A good example is the chief's report, which we have already heard about today, that was sent to Congress with the plan on July 1, 1999. After years of public review and input, the 4,000 page comprehensive plan finally reached consensus status throughout land owners and stakeholders in south Florida. The chief's report issued commitments that were totally inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
And I would disagree with some of the answers that you heard here today regarding the chief's report. The most egregious was giving priority to the natural systems for water supply over all other users. This was the most highly-contested issue over six years of debates throughout south Florida in public workshops, and during the six years of deliberations the final comprehensive plan stressed balance among all users. A high degree of mistrust is created when years of hard work can be thrown out by the stroke of a pen in the chief's report. There are numerous other examples that other various stakeholders and agricultural land owners could tell you about.
I have stated many concerns we have that I hope you will take in account in your deliberations. We are not suggesting the restudy plan is a bad plan. It is a sound framework to guide individual project element planning to address all of south Florida's water uses. It by no means is a detailed plan that Congress can authorize and say all justifications have been made and just go build it. The risks of failure and setback are too great to not subject these construction projects to the same detailed preauthorization planning required of other civil work projects.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Colonel Miller's Jacksonville team in the South Florida Water Management District should be commended for their hard work to get us where we are. They are quite capable of completing timely project feasibility studies.
In closing, there are many, many concerns all stakeholders have, but the restudy project is critical to all of us, including agriculture, for a sustainable south Florida. Agriculture is entirely supportive of these efforts. The answers to our concern is that we move forward as fast as possible but that we do it in a methodical, balanced, and well-thought-out approach. The approach must satisfy additional Corps authorization requirements that include proper feasibility level engineering, real estate evaluations, economic and environmental investments, and analysis. This is crucial to obtaining and maintaining the buy-in cooperation and support from all stakeholders, including the other States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Wade.
Dr. Strahl?
Dr. STRAHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity, members of the committee, for being able to present our case today.
My name is Stuart Strahl. I am the president of Florida Audubon Society and the State director for National Audubon Society. Together we are Audubon of Florida. As of tomorrow, we are celebrating our 100th anniversary of working in south Florida on Everglades issues.
We began our movement in south Florida, protecting birds, declaring parks and reserves, and a large part of that process has been in the field of science and science-based policy. My Ph.D. is in tropical ecology, and I have been working for the last four years directing our Everglades program, which is our largest effort nationwide.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, restoration of the Florida Everglades—or really America's Everglades—is a national priority. It is not something that we can put off. It is something we have put off for 30 or 40 years.
I sit before you today as a member of an environmental group called ''The Everglades Coalition,'' 47 members which have been calling for many of the steps that we see in this comprehensive plan now for several decades, and we find it refreshing to say to you that we think this Corps plan should move forward as expeditiously as possible. This year should be the year for an action and not inaction.
Right now, the Everglades has been the subject of a large bipartisan study, the most weighty of which, beyond the restudy, is the studies by the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. I was on that commission, Mr. Wade was on that commission, and many of the other people here today were on that commission.
First, the initial report of that commission said Florida is not sustainable. The Everglades are a national resource, and I could go on, but I think many of the earlier speakers have talked about the incredible natural beauty of the Everglades, the aesthetic basis for restoring the Everglades, and the ecological basis, which I am most familiar with, but also there is a strong economic component to restoring the Everglades. We are not living sustainably in south Florida. The Governor's Commission stated that and formed the basis for the Everglades restoration plan.
Our plan's framework has its basis in the second report by the Governor's Commission, the conceptual plan for the restudy. This plan is codified in WRDA 1996 as the policy directive by which Everglades restoration will be delivered, and this is a plan which I signed off on, which all the other members—a consensus document signed off on, as well.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the investment the taxpayer made in the national parks and the other national wildlife refuges of south Florida, but also a moral obligation because the damage down there was done by the Federal flood control project. But all of our stakeholders taken together, whether they are local government, agriculture, environmental, or the other 47 members of this commission, have put together a plan which balances all those issues in one large document.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have been studying the cure for many years—five decades, in fact—and right now the Everglades are in an ecological intensive care unit, and we have been treating the symptoms for a long time. You have heard a lot of the symptoms here today, rather than a disease.
Right now, with the economic impacts growing with fresh water discharges blasting our estuaries and destroying our in-shore fisheries with salt water intrusion coming in and taking over all of our drinking water wells, and with a growing population and urban sprawl, the economic value of restoring the Everglades right now is paramount in addition to the ecological value.
It is no mistake that ''Outside Magazine'' called the Everglades ''the bummer vacation of the year'' a couple of years ago when I stopped subscribing, and they did that because 90 percent of the birds are gone. Lake Okeechobee is at the point of collapse from pollution from the north and the south. In Hurricane Irene recently there were huge quantities of polluted water back-pumped into the lake. We have problems all over the system, and we are losing three to five acres of the Everglades, themselves, a day, and there are 68, as you know, endangered and threatened species.
All of these estuaries around the system, the Everglades, themselves, and Lake Okeechobee are in deep distress.
You have heard a lot about assurances today. I will not go into it in great detail. I stand by the documents the Governor's Commission presented and the restudy plan as it is presented.
We also have reports from the Governor's Commission on the restudy plan. We also have how the project should be implemented and a consensus document of the Governor's Commission.
In closing, I will say this: you will have before you shortly 11 projects presented by the Army Corps of Engineers for authorization. They are summarized in the back of my testimony in very short form. I am sure the Corps can probably provide a little bit more detail than two pages. It is our position that these authorizations must go forward. We should not be sitting and waiting at this time. I can help with that, if you would like.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In any case, we respect Congress' desire to have the appropriate oversight, but we also support a process that preserves construction schedules and protects Congress' oversight responsibility. We think the authorization of these 11 projects is fundamental, and so does the Governor's Commission, especially water storage. If we do not store the trillion gallons we are dumping out to tide and destroying the estuaries with, we will not be able to restore the Everglades on time. And the Everglades, Mr. Chairman, cannot wait any longer.
Thank you.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
You will notice that the Chair has been very lenient. Everyone has gone over the five minute time frame. But, you know, we are not arbitrary, because this is very important business. Despite the fact that I am the Lone Ranger up here in terms of Members, I want to assure you that the other members of the subcommittee share my interest in this subject matter and what we are talking about today.
I want you to know that the year you canceled your subscription, the circulation did not go down, because that same year the magazine called me the Environmentalist Republicans could not live without. So I made up for your lost subscription.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me ask you, you have heard Mr. Wade, Dr. Strahl, dealing with the Talisman, the water storage reservoir. Why do you place such a high priority on the project constructed?
Mr. STRAHL. I think there are several answers to that. Talisman is in the heart of the Everglades, right in the central part of the system, and a lot of the water quality issues of Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades, themselves, have been caused, as you know, from the Everglades Forever Act. During wet seasons—for instance, in Hurricane Irene—the water was being pumped out of the Everglades agricultural area and back-pumped into Lake Okeechobee and out into the Everglades.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Talisman storage area is on land that is owned by the Government, currently. Through a very detailed document, which I do not have with me, the sugar industry, the Federal Government, and the State government all agreed on the time schedule for implementation of Talisman.
The Governor's Commission, in its recommendations, also recommended that ''the first 50,000 acres of Talisman EAA storage should be authorized in WRDA 2000 and on line by 2007.''
This spot in the Everglades with the sugar industry there is a critical spot because it used to be where the water flowed out of Lake Okeechobee. Right now, to keep that spot dry for agriculture, it is necessary to pump water into the canals, back-pump water into Lake Okeechobee—
Mr. BOEHLERT. Flowing south?
Mr. STRAHL. Flowing south, but also back-pumping into Lake Okeechobee during wet season flows. So putting that water there and seasonally pumping the water, instead of out into the estuaries and into the Everglades and back into Lake Okeechobee, putting it there as a place where it can be available for agricultural reuse and also restore the capacity to be that heart of the Everglades—fill up in the wet season and then gradually draw down to maintain those flows, the correct flows in the dry season. So it is a critical piece of the puzzle.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I am not trying to get into counterpoint, but, Mr. Wade, I think you should be given an opportunity to give me your comment on that.
Mr. WADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, we have a deal. I mean, we signed a contract that said if after six years—we would stay on that property for six years, and then if the proper studies were done and there was a construction project to come in as a result of the restudy, we move off. And if that happens and we move off, that is fine. I mean, we will live up to the contract.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You know, I think some things need to be kept in mind when you talk about an EAA reservoir. Respectfully for what Stu said, we are in the middle of the system, but keep in mind all the water that we have from the EAA currently goes to the conservation areas. It does not affect the estuaries out to St. Lucy, the Caloosahatchee, it does not help the Kissimmee Valley, it does not necessarily help the park.
So when you look at that, first of all you have got to keep in mind one thing I said earlier—the reservoirs for the Talisman area are 60 square miles. Now, you can say that the Corps has built reservoirs everywhere and it is known technology, but that is known out west where you have a solid granite or a solid rock impervious surface below it that does not let water leak. We have got mucksoils and we have got pervious lime rock. We already know that ponds leak. All we are saying is that the proper thing needs to be built.
Another point that you need to keep in mind from a water quantity standpoint, when you put a reservoir in land that previously did not store water, in south Florida you are going to lose water supply because of evaporation.
The other components in the restudy, the storing with the ASR wells, the seepage barriers, those type of components, if they are already built you are then saving water and you are not going to lose it when you put in the EAA reservoirs.
If you put in that reservoir without knowing what the impacts are going to be and not knowing what the results from the other components are going to be, you could hurt the water supply in south Florida, especially if it proves that ASRs will not be a viable technology.
From a water quality standpoint, there are scientists on both sides of the issues, but most of them will say we have to be very, very careful with 60,000 more acres six feet deep and what type of water quality from phosphorus or other constituents are going to discharge from there, and can the 40,000 acres of EAA reservoirs or storm water treatment areas effectively treat that water. That is a tremendous unknown.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So we need to be very, very careful. From our perspective, all we want is the right answers. We do not want to build a boondoggle 60,000 acres of reservoirs and have somebody say, ''Well, it was not engineered right, it was not built right. We need to take some more of your land to resolve it because we did it incorrectly.'' We want it done the right way the first time and make sure that it works.
Mr. BOEHLERT. One can sense that there is a difference of opinion here, so I can assure you that both sides to the argument will be carefully evaluated.
Ms. Aguilera, I do not want you to get too comfortable. We are not ignoring you. Let me ask you a question.
Are you and the people within your group asking for a flood protection project that would not make flooding any worse than it currently is, or do you expect something that improves your situation?
Ms. AGUILERA. We are asking for a Congressional law that has been broken, basically a ten-year-old law. We want public law 101-229. That is all we ask. We ask the modified water delivery project be implemented as soon as possible, basically.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me approach it a different way. There are about 1,000 property owners in your group?
Ms. AGUILERA. Approximately 1,200.
Mr. BOEHLERT. How many do you think would be willing to sell and move if a reasonable price were offered for the property?
Ms. AGUILERA. I cannot tell you that, but I can tell you that my organization represents over 347 property owners.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So about a third of the total property owners?
Ms. AGUILERA. Right. And I tell you one thing, a lot of people are confused because of this limbo situation that we have been left to for so many years, so it is hard to say.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, everybody in the area, the 1,200 would be affected in like manner if you had to move.
Ms. AGUILERA. It depends. The 1,200 that we are talking about here are residents. We are not talking property owners.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I see.
Ms. AGUILERA. There is a difference. There are over 250 residences and approximately 1,200 people live in those residences.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I have got it.
Ms. AGUILERA. So we are not talking just people—I mean, we are not talking just residents, but are also vacant lot that make part of that 1,200 property owners that we are talking about.
Mr. BOEHLERT. But within the area, itself, how many people actually reside there?
Ms. AGUILERA. About 1,200 or 1,300. Approximately four people per home. There are—
Mr. BOEHLERT. So how many are eligible for membership in your organization?
Ms. AGUILERA. Pardon?
Mr. BOEHLERT. How many are eligible for membership in your organization?
Ms. AGUILERA. You do not become—I mean, there is no eligibility criteria. If you do not want to sell, you just join us.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I could join your organization?
Ms. AGUILERA. Right, as a friend. You can join as a friend. You do not necessarily have to be a property owner.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BOEHLERT. I am just trying to figure this out.
Ms. AGUILERA. Property owners, if I am not mistaken, there are 347 of them in our organization.
Mr. BOEHLERT. So that is about a third of the property owners?
Ms. AGUILERA. Yes. Between property owners and land owners, I mean, and homes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay. I am just trying to get a better feel for the organization.
Ms. AGUILERA. Okay.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Dr. Strahl, let me ask you to comment on the situation with respect to Ms. Aguilera's 8.5 Square Mile Area, Inc. group.
Mr. STRAHL. Well, modified water delivery project, which was approved in 1989 as part of the Park Expansion Act, was a document that was done a long time before we started talking about Everglades restoration. This is an important issue, but it is not really fully connected with Everglades restoration.
There is a much broader base that we should have at this table if we are going to adequately discuss this.
After modified water delivery was approved, people went back to the drawing board. One of the reasons it has not been enacted is that the natural systems model for not only surface water flows but ground water flows was looked at, and the studies of water flow in that area indicated that modified water would not be the optimal solution ecologically or for ground water. And ground water is important, because that is a permeable area. It is an aquifer recharge area, as well.
Secondly, Everglades National Park had not bought the entire expansion area. If you ask the people who want to protect the sparrow down there, the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, when they ask the Corps, ''Why do you not just flow more water down here on the east side,'' they were worried about flooding land that the Federal Government did not yet own.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There is an EIS underway right now, as has been pointed out by Mr. Collins earlier, that is looking at up to 11 different variables or different ways of resolving this issue. It would be premature to say that any one solution, like especially modified water delivery system, is the correct answer here.
So, you know, I think that it is really worth—if the chairman would like and the subcommittee would like, having a particular panel on that issue would be a worthy topic where you could bring in the national park people, you could bring in a broad group of environmentalists or hydrologists, as well, and I think that that issue, in particular, deserves some attention like that.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of the panelists. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed. This subcommittee welcomes expert testimony, and also opinion that may be not quite as expert in its backup.
We are very diligent in the pursuit of our responsibilities. We view the Everglades as America's Everglades rather than just Florida's Everglades, and I am sure the people of Florida want us to view it that way, because that is how you get some more money flowing from Washington.
But this is very serious business, and we are not going to rush to judgment, but we are not going to drag our feet, either. We are going to consider your point of view. I want you to be assured of that and tell your membership that. We are going to consider the competing points of view as we deal with some of the overall plan. But, in the final analysis we are going to do the best we can as soon as we can. We have got to get on with the job. This is very important business.
Thank you all very much. The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[insert here]