- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 730
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-363
_______________________________________________________________________
RESTORING THE EVERGLADES,
AN AMERICAN LEGACY ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
to accompany
S. 2797
July 27, 2000.--Ordered to be printed.
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri HARRY REID, Nevada
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BOB GRAHAM, Florida
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Dave Conover, Staff Director
Tom Sliter, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Background....................................................... 1
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.................... 3
The Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act............. 3
Section-by-section analysis:
Section. 1. Short Title...................................... 4
Sec. 2. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan............ 5
(a). Definitions......................................... 5
(b). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan........... 5
(c). Additional Program Authority....................... 113
(d). Authorization of Future Projects.................... 13
(e). Cost Sharing........................................ 14
(f). Evaluation of Projects.............................. 16
(g). Exclusions and Limitations.......................... 17
(h). Assurance of Project Benefits....................... 18
(i). Dispute Resolution.................................. 24
(j). Independent Scientific Review....................... 25
(k). Outreach and Assistance............................. 26
(l). Report to Congress.................................. 26
Hearings......................................................... 26
Rollcall votes................................................... 26
Evaluation of regulatory impact.................................. 28
Mandates assessment.............................................. 28
Cost of legislation.............................................. 28
Changes to existing law.......................................... 29
Minority view of Senator Inhofe.................................. 31
Calendar No. 730
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-363
======================================================================
RESTORING THE EVERGLADES, AN AMERICAN LEGACY ACT
_______
July 27, 2000.--Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Smith, of New Hampshire from the Committee on Environment and
Public Works, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2797]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2797) to authorize a comprehensive
Everglades restoration plan, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that
the bill, as amended, do pass.
Background
In its natural state, the South Florida ecosystem was once
connected by the flow of water south from Lake Okeechobee
through vast freshwater marshes--known as the Everglades--to
Florida Bay and on to the coral reefs of the Florida Keys. The
Everglades covered approximately 18,000 square miles and were
the heart of a unique and biologically productive region,
supporting vast colonies of wading birds, a mixture of
temperate and tropical plant and animal species, and teeming
coastal fisheries. These superlative natural resources were
nationally recognized with the establishment of Everglades
National Park in 1947. Since that time, the Federal investment
in preserving the Everglades has increased. Other significant
federally designated conservation areas established since 1947
include Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park,
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and 16 National
Wildlife Refuges, including A.R.M. Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge. The State of Florida has actively participated
in this effort and set aside additional lands for conservation
purposes.
In 1948, in response to a series of devastating floods that
occurred in the region, Congress authorized the Central and
Southern Florida (C&SF;) Project. The C&SF; Project authorized
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) to provide: flood
control; regional water supply for agricultural and urban
areas; prevention of salt water intrusion; water supply to
Everglades National Park; preservation of fish and wildlife;
recreation; and navigation.
Unfortunately, the project has had unintended consequences
on the unique natural environment which constitutes the
Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems. Water that flowed
unimpeded through the southern half of the State, nearly 1.7
billion gallons of water a day, has been redirected to the
Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico, disrupting the natural
sheet flow through the South Florida ecosystem. As a result of
the high volume of discharges of water, coastal estuaries are
in peril, while water needed for the ecosystem and regional
water supplies is wasted. In addition, runoff from cities and
farms has resulted in high levels of phosphorus and other
contaminants polluting the water. The C&SF; Project also has
resulted in a 90-95 percent drop in the wading bird population,
and more than 1.5 million acres of land are infested with
invasive exotic plants. The South Florida ecosystem also is
home to 68 threatened or endangered plant and animal species.
The size of the historic Everglades has been reduced by half.
For several decades, this committee and the Congress have
taken steps to address many of the C&SF; Project's unintended
harms to the natural system. The Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA) of 1992 authorized a Comprehensive Review Study
(Restudy) of the C&SF; Project. The purpose of the Restudy was
to recommend modifications to the C&SF; Project to restore the
Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems while providing for the
other water-related needs of the region.
WRDA `96 provided further direction to the Restudy. It
established the 50/50 cost share between the Federal Government
and the State of Florida for construction of critical
restoration projects; gave credit for lands acquired by the
South Florida Water Management District (the local sponsor);
and established the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force under the chairmanship of the Secretary of the Interior.
The Task Force also includes the Secretaries of Commerce, the
Army, Agriculture, and Transportation; the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Attorney General, a
representative of the Miccosukee and the Seminole tribes, two
representatives of the State of Florida, and a representative
of the South Florida Water Management District. The Task Force
is charged with coordinating the development of policies,
strategies, plans, and activities that address the restoration,
preservation, and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
Also, WRDA `96 spelled out the restoration activities that
should be included in the Restudy, mainly: the restoration,
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem; the
protection of water quality; and the reduction of the loss of
fresh water from the Everglades, while providing the flood
control and enhancement of water supply objectives served by
the C&SF; Project. Furthermore, WRDA `96 mandated that the Army
Corps present this Plan to Congress on July 1, 1999.
A major provision of WRDA `96 provided for ``Critical
Restoration Projects,'' ecosystem projects designated by the
Secretary of the Army, the Task Force, and the local sponsor as
having immediate and substantial restoration, preservation, and
protection benefits. Federal expenditures for the projects were
capped at $25 million per project, with a total of $75 million
authorized for the period between fiscal years 1997 through
1999. WRDA 1999 extended this authorization period through
2003.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
As required by WRDA `96, the Restudy or ``Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan'' (CERP or Plan) was submitted to
Congress on July 1, 1999. The Plan defines the major project
for ecosystem restoration, water supply, and other water-
related purposes, as well as defining a process for
implementation. The keys to restoration include increasing the
amount of water available by providing increased storage
ability and capacity; improving the timing and distribution of
water flows and levels; ensuring the quality of the water that
is directed to the natural system; and restoring the
connectivity of the system that was so severely
compartmentalized by the original project.
The Plan has 68 project components to be implemented over a
35-year period. These components are expected to deliver the
following benefits: improve the functioning of over 2.4 million
acres of the South Florida ecosystem; stabilize Lake Okeechobee
water levels for littoral zone health; improve urban and
agricultural water supply; improve deliveries to Florida Bay,
Biscayne Bay, and other coastal estuaries; and improve regional
water quality conditions, while maintaining the existing levels
of flood protection. In addition, the Plan will eliminate the
damaging freshwater releases to the Caloosahatchee and St.
Lucie estuaries.
A key element of the Plan is adaptive assessment, an
approach to monitoring the progress of the Plan, providing
built-in flexibility, and giving the implementors of the Plan
the opportunity to respond to unforeseen circumstances by
making modifications, as necessary.
Although the Plan contains a number of key components
designed to benefit federally designated areas by improving the
quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water, the Plan
is interconnected, with each project component related to the
other. Further, the Plan is to be implemented using the
principles of adaptive assessment, recognizing that
modifications will be made in the future based upon new
information. Overall, the 68 individual project components of
the Plan, to be implemented over a 35 year period, will improve
the ecologic health and economic sustainability of over 2.4
million acres of the South Florida ecosystem
The Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act
The ``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act''
(REAL Act) was introduced on June 27, 2000, by Senators Smith,
Voinovich, Baucus, Graham, and Mack. This bill approves the
CERP as a framework and authorizes the first set of projects
and implementation procedures. As such, the REAL Act represents
the first stage of the restoration process.
A project of this size is not without uncertainties. The
REAL Act authorizes four pilot projects to address the
effectiveness of some of the technologies being proposed. In
addition, this bill authorizes an initial ten construction
projects. These projects were carefully selected by the Army
Corps and the South Florida Water Management District and
included in the Plan as the projects that would, once
constructed, have immediate benefits to the natural system.
Almost right away, the Plan begins to restore the natural sheet
flow that years of human interference has interrupted.
S. 2797 authorizes so-called ``programmatic authority'' so
that the Army Corps and the non-Federal sponsor can move
forward with critical projects that will have immediate,
independent, and substantial benefits to the natural system.
Together, these components represent the first phase. The
remaining projects will be submitted to Congress for
authorization biennially, as part of future WRDAs.
One of the key components of the CERP is the inherent
flexibility provided by adaptive assessment. Under the adaptive
assessment approach, the Plan can be modified, based on any new
and improved information or modeling. With a project of this
size and duration, it is inevitable that new technologies will
emerge, modeling systems will be perfected, and monitoring of
the ecosystem will continue to provide up-to-the-minute data on
the effectiveness of project components. It is important that
these factors be incorporated into the Plan, when the new and
improved information will enhance the restoration effort.
The REAL Act also contains a carefully balanced assurances
provision that provides the mechanism to ensure that project
benefits for the natural system are attained. The United States
and the State of Florida will enter into an up-front, binding
agreement that will ensure that water generated by the Plan
will be available for the natural system. Furthermore, the
Secretary of the Army, in concurrence with the Governor of the
State of Florida and the Secretary of the Interior will
promulgate programmatic regulations which will establish a
process to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Plan are
achieved.
The total estimated cost of construction, including real
estate costs, for the Plan is $7.8 billion dollars over the 35-
year implementation period, shared 50/50 between the federal
government and the State of Florida. The State of Florida
recently passed legislation that will enable them to pay for
and carry out their share of the responsibilities over the next
10 years. The average Federal cost is $200 million a year over
the next 20 years. Annual operation and maintenance costs,
which are also split 50/50, are estimated to be $172 million
once all project components are complete.
Restoration benefits not only Floridians, but the millions
of people who visit Florida each year to behold this unique
ecosystem. The committee views this effort to restore the
Everglades ecosystem as our legacy to future generations.
Section-by-Section Summary
Section. 1. Short Title
This section designates the title of the bill as the
``Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act.''
Sec. 2. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
(a). Definitions
Summary
Subsections (a)(1) through (7) provide definitions for
terms specific to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan.
Subsection (a)(1) defines the ``Central and Southern
Florida Project'' as the Central and Southern Florida project
authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 and
any subsequent amendments made to that section.
Subsection (a)(2) defines the term ``Governor'' as the
Governor of the State of Florida.
Subsection (a)(3) defines the term ``natural system'' as
including all the lands and water managed by the Federal
Government or the State within the boundary of the South
Florida Water Management District including, but not limited
to, the water conservation areas, sovereign submerged lands,
Everglades National Parks, Biscayne National Park, Big Cypress
National Preserve, coral reefs, State and Federal lands that
are designated for conservation purposes, and any tribal lands
that the tribes designate for conservation purposes.
Subsection (a)(4), defines the term ``Plan'' as the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan contained in the
``Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement,'' dated April 1, 1999, as
modified by this bill. This definition does not include the
final report of the Chief of Engineers on the C&SF; Project
Comprehensive Review Study dated June 22, 1999.
Subsection (a)(5) defines the Secretary as the Secretary of
the Army.
Subsection (a)(6) defines the term ``South Florida
ecosystem'' as the land and water within the boundary of the
South Florida Water Management District in effect on July 1,
1999. Included within the boundary is the Everglades, the
Florida Keys and the contiguous near-shore coastal water of
South Florida. The committee does not intend for the contents
of section (a)(6)(B) to exclude other areas that meet the
criteria of subsection (a)(6)(A) from the definition of the
South Florida ecosystem.
Subsection (a)(7) defines the term ``State'' as the State
of Florida.
(b). Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Summary
Subsection (b)(1)(A) approves the Plan, except as modified
by this bill, as a framework for modifications and operational
changes to the C&SF; Project that are needed to restore,
preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem; provide for
the protection of water quality in, and the reduction of the
loss of fresh water from, the Everglades; provide for the
water-related needs of the region, including flood control, the
enhancement of water supplies, and other objectives served by
the C&SF; Project.
Subsection (b)(1)(B) directs the Secretary to integrate the
activities described in subparagraph (A) with ongoing Federal
and State projects and activities in accordance with section
528(c) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3769).
Subsection (b)(2)(A) requires the Secretary of the Army to
take into consideration State water quality standards, and
include whatever features the Secretary believes are necessary
to ensure that the ten projects and the four pilot projects
authorized in this bill meet all relevant water quality
standards.
Subsection (b)(2)(B) authorizes the Secretary of the Army
to construct four pilot projects at a total cost of
$69,000,000, with a Federal cost of $34,500,000. In addition,
the Secretary of the Army is required to provide an opportunity
for the public to review and comment on each project in
accordance with Federal law.
Subsection (b)(2)(B)(i) authorizes the Caloosahatchee River
(C-43) Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot project, at a
total cost of $6,000,000, with a Federal cost of $3,000,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(B)(ii) authorizes the Lake Belt In-Ground
Reservoir Technology pilot project, at a total cost of
$23,000,000, with a Federal cost of $11,500,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii) authorizes the L-31 Seepage
Management pilot project, at a total cost of $10,000,000, with
a Federal cost of $5,000,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(B)(iv) authorizes the Wastewater Reuse
Technology pilot project, at a total cost of $30,000,000, with
a Federal cost of $15,000,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C) authorizes the Secretary of the Army
to construct ten initial projects, subject to a favorable Chief
of Engineers report and approval by resolution of the Committee
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives, at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with a
Federal cost of $550,459,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(i) authorizes construction of the C-44
Basin Storage Reservoir, at a total cost of $112,562,000, with
a Federal cost $56,281,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii) authorizes construction of the
Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs, at a total
cost of $233,408,000, with a Federal cost of $116,704,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(iii) authorizes the construction of
the Site 1 Impoundment, at a total cost of $38,535,000, with a
Federal cost $19,267,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(iv) authorizes the construction of
Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage Management, at a
total cost of $100,335,000, with a Federal cost of $50,167,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(v) authorizes the construction of the
C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a total cost
of $124,837,000, with a Federal cost of $62,418,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(vi) authorizes the construction of the
C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a total cost
of $89,146,000, with a Federal cost of $44,573,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(vii) authorizes the construction of
the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area, at a
total cost of $104,027,000, with a Federal cost $52,013,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(viii) authorizes construction to raise
and bridge the east portion of the Tamiami Trail and fill the
Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3, at a total cost
of $26,946,000, with a Federal cost of $13,473,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(ix) authorizes the construction of the
North New River Improvements, at a total cost of $77,087,000,
with a Federal cost of $38,543,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(x) authorizes the construction of the
C-111 Spreader Canal, at a total cost of $94,035,000, with a
Federal cost of $47,017,500.
Subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi) authorizes a ten-year Adaptive
Assessment and Monitoring program, at a total cost of
$100,000,000, with a Federal cost $50,000,000.
Subsection (b)(2)(D)(i) requires that before implementation
of a project described in clauses (i) through (x) of
subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall review and approve for
the project a project implementation report prepared in
accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
Subsection (b)(2)(D)(ii) requires the Secretary to submit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate the project implementation report
required by subsections (f) and (h) for each project under this
paragraph (including all relevant data and information on all
costs).
Subsection (b)(2)(D)(iii) directs that no appropriation
shall be made to construct any project under this paragraph if
the project implementation report for the project has not been
approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
Subsection (b)(2)(D)(iv) directs that no appropriation
shall be made to construct the Water Conservation Area 3
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project or the
Central Lakebelt Storage Project until the completion of the
project to improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park
authorized by section 104 of the Everglades National Park
Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-8).
Subsection (b)(2)(E) restates that Section 902 of WRDA `86
(33 U.S.C. 2280) shall apply to each project feature authorized
under this subsection.
Discussion
This subsection approves the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, as modified by this bill, as a framework to
make changes to the C&SF; Project. Changes to the project are
intended to restore the South Florida ecosystem, and in
particular the Everglades, by improving water quality and
reducing the amount of fresh water lost from within the system.
In addition, the project modifications are intended to provide
for the water related needs of the region. The water related
needs of the region are defined to include providing flood
control and enhancing water supplies. In undertaking these
activities, the Secretary must integrate them with ongoing
Federal and State projects and activities in accordance with
section 528(c) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3769).
The Plan contains a general outline of the quantities of
water to be produced by each project. According to the Army
Corps, 80 percent of the water generated by the Plan is needed
for the natural system in order to attain restoration goals,
and 20 percent of the water generated for use in the human
environment. The committee recognizes the levels of uncertainty
involved in the Plan and fully intends for the adaptive
assessment and monitoring process to account for such as the
Plan is executed. Subject to future authorizations by Congress,
the committee fully expects that the water necessary for
restoration, currently estimated at 80 percent of the water
generated by the Plan, will be reserved or allocated for the
benefit of the natural system.
Endorsement of the Plan as a restoration framework is not
intended as an artificial constraint on innovation in its
implementation. The committee does not expect rigid adherence
to the Plan as it was submitted to Congress. This result would
be inconsistent with the adaptive assessment principles in the
Plan. Restoration of the Everglades is the goal, not adherence
to the modeling on which the April, 1999 Plan was based.
Instead, the committee expects that the agencies responsible
for project implementation report formulation and Plan
implementation will seek continuous improvement of the Plan
based upon new information, improved modeling, new technology
and changed circumstances. Further, the committee expects that
the implementing agencies will make every effort to accelerate
the delivery of Plan benefits to the natural system to the
extent practicable. It is estimated that 3 to 5 acres of land
in the South Florida ecosystem are lost per day under current
conditions. Time is of the essence in this restoration effort.
In implementing the Plan, the Secretary of the Army is
required to take into consideration State water quality
standards, and include such features the Secretary determines
are necessary to ensure that all ground water and surface water
discharges from any project feature authorized in this bill
meet all applicable water quality standards and applicable
permitting requirements.
The pilot projects. There are six pilot projects described
in the Plan, two of which were authorized in WRDA `99 and four
which are authorized in this bill. The pilot projects are
necessary to address uncertainties associated with some of the
physical features that are proposed in the Plan. These pilot
projects include aquifer storage and recovery in the
Caloosahatchee River Basin; in-ground reservoir technology in
the Lake Belt region of Miami-Dade County; levee seepage
management technology adjacent to Everglades National Park; and
advanced wastewater reuse technology to determine the
feasibility of reusing wastewater for ecological restoration.
The authorized funding level for the design, construction, and
monitoring of the pilot projects is $69,000,000, to be equally
cost shared between the Federal Government and the State of
Florida. The Plan's concept of adaptive assessment allows for
future changes to be made in the Plan. This includes
consideration of the results of the pilot projects. The
committee directs the Army Corps to ensure that the overall
benefits described in the Plan are maintained and any necessary
changes incorporated in the event any pilot project
demonstrates technical infeasibility.
Three aquifer storage and recovery pilot projects were
proposed in the Plan, and one of those aquifer storage and
recovery pilots, the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin Aquifer
Storage and Recovery, is included in this bill. This pilot
project and the two aquifer storage and recovery projects
authorized in WRDA `99 are necessary to identify the most
suitable sites for the aquifer storage and recovery wells, and
determine the water quality necessary for injections into the
well and the water quality of the receiving aquifer. In
addition, the pilot projects will provide information on the
hydrogeological and geotechnical characteristics of the upper
Floridian Aquifer System within the regions, and the ability of
the upper Floridian Aquifer System to store injected water for
future recovery. The Army Corps expects to design the
Caloosahatchee project between November 2000 and October 2001,
construct the project between October 2001 through October
2002, and monitor the results between October 2002 through
October 2005.
The second pilot project authorized by this bill is the
Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology project. This project
utilizes areas to store water where lime rock mining has
occurred. The pilot project is necessary in order to assure
that the mine retains water and also includes subterranean
seepage barriers around the perimeter in order to enable
drawdown during dry periods, prevent seepage losses, and
protect water quality. The Army Corps expects to complete
design in June 2001, will construct the project between June
2001 through December 2005, and will monitor the results
between December 2005 through December 2011.
The third pilot project authorized by this bill is the L-31
Seepage Management project. The purpose of this project is to
investigate seepage management technologies to control seepage
from Everglades National Park. Hydrologic modeling performed by
the Army Corps have shown that controlling seepage from the
Everglades results in desirable hydrologic conditions. However,
the proposed technologies could have unintended results
elsewhere. The pilot project will provide the necessary
information to determine the appropriate amount of wet season
groundwater flow to return to Everglades National Park while
minimizing potential impacts to Miami-Dade County's West
Wellfield and freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay. The Army Corps
of Engineers expects to design the project between November
2000 and October 2001, construct the project between October
2001 through October 2002, and monitor the results between
October 2000 through October 2003.
The fourth pilot project authorized by this bill is the
Wastewater Reuse Technology project. This pilot project will
address water quality issues associated with discharging
reclaimed water into natural areas such as West Palm Beach's
Catchment Area, Biscayne National Park, and the Bird Drive
Basin, as well as determining the level of superior treatment
and the appropriate methodologies for that treatment. After
treatment to remove nitrogen and phosphorus, the water will be
used to restore 1,500 acres of wetlands and to recharge
wetlands surrounding the City of West Palm Beach's wellfield. A
portion of the treated water will be used to recharge a
residential lake system surrounding the City's wellfield and a
Palm Beach County wellfield. In addition, this project will
reduce the City's dependence on surface water from Lake
Okeechobee during dry or drought events, and create or restore
approximately 2,000 acres of wetlands. The Army Corps expects
to complete design in September 2003, will construct the
project between September 2003 through September 2005, and will
monitor the result between September 2003 through December
2007.
The ten initial construction projects. This subsection also
authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct ten initial
projects. These projects were carefully chosen by the Army
Corps and the South Florida Water Management District because
they were viewed as the projects that would provide the most
immediate system-wide improvements in water quantity, quality
and flow distribution. Prior to beginning construction on the
ten initial projects, the Secretary of the Army must approve
the project implementation report in accordance with the
requirements of this bill, and submit the reports to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works in the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House of
Representatives. Funding cannot be appropriated for
construction of the ten initial projects until the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives approve the project implementation report for a
project by resolution. In order to ensure against cost
overruns, if the cost of constructing the projects exceeds 20
percent of the authorized amount, after allowance for inflation
as measured by appropriate cost indexes, the Army Corps must
seek from Congress an authorization for the additional amount
required.
The C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir project is a 40,000 acre-
feet water storage reservoir. This component will provide
significant regional water quality benefits though the
reduction of nutrients entering the St. Lucie River and the
Indian River Lagoon by reducing damaging water releases from
Lake Okeechobee. In addition, this project will moderate
damaging releases to the St. Lucie estuary from Lake Okeechobee
and the surrounding basin.
The Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir project
will result in approximately 300,000 acre-feet of water storage
and will improve the timing of the environmental water releases
to the Water Conservation Areas, reduce damaging freshwater
releases to the estuaries, and meet supplemental water supply
for agricultural demands in the Everglades Agricultural Area
(EAA). Phase I of the project included in the initial
authorization will further enhance the performance of
Stormwater Treatment Areas 3 and 4, thereby improving the
overall water quality of EAA water releases into the
Everglades. Lands for the construction of this component have
been acquired by the South Florida Water Management District
through the purchase and exchange of the Talisman Sugar
Corporation properties through funds provided by the Department
of the Interior.
The Army Corps should maximize use of the lands acquired
through the Talisman purchase and exchange, as well as other
EAA lands held by the non-Federal sponsor, in the design and
construction of Phase 1 of this project feature. Further, the
Corps should seek to take full advantage of the Talisman lands
by maximizing the depth of water stored in the Talisman Water
Storage Reservoir. The lands are presently leased for
agricultural production, which is a sound land management
practice that should last only until the lands are needed for
restoration. As such, the Army Corps and the non-Federal
sponsor are expected to provide the necessary notification to
the lessors so the acquired lands can be used for Everglades
restoration purposes as promptly as possible, consistent with
the anticipated expiration dates in 2005 and 2007 of the
current leases. It is expected that the lands will be needed in
2005 as required by the Plan. As a result, the Corps of
Engineers will be required to notify the lessees by October 1,
2002, if the lands are to be used for restoration beginning in
2005.
The Site 1 Impoundment project consists of a 15,000 acre-
feet water storage reservoir. This reservoir will be located
adjacent to Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and will
capture water, currently sent to tide, to supplement water
deliveries to the Hillsboro Canal during dry periods, thereby
reducing water demands on Lake Okeechobee and Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge. Much of the land that is required for
this feature has already been acquired by the South Florida
Water Management District.
The Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B levee Seepage Management
project will control seepage from Water Conservation Areas 3A
and 3B by improving groundwater elevations, and will provide
flood protection for the C-11 Basin.
The C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area project
consists of a 6,400 acre-feet impoundment and stormwater
treatment area, located in western Broward County. This project
will divert and treat runoff from the western C-11 Basin that
is currently discharged into Water Conservation Areas 3A and
3B. After treatment, the water will then supply either Water
Conservation Area 3A, the C-9 Stormwater Treatment Area, or the
North Lake Belt Storage Area. This project is necessary because
the original C&SF; Project design provides that the Western C-11
Basin drainage be pumped into Water Conservation Area 3. Once
completed, this project will provide the necessary facilities
to maintain flood protection within the Basin, while reducing
flows through the S-9 pump station to Water Conservation Area
3.
The C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area project
consists of a 10,000 acre-feet impoundment and stormwater
treatment area to enhance groundwater recharge in the western
C-9 Basin in Broward County, provide seepage control for Water
Conservation Area 3 and buffer areas to the west, provide flood
protection, and provide treatment of runoff in the North Lake
Belt Storage Area.
The Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment Area
project consists of a 50,000 acre-feet water storage reservoir
and 20,000 acre-feet stormwater treatment area that will allow
flows to Lake Okeechobee to be attenuated when lake levels are
high or rising, and improve water quality treatment flows from
Taylor Creek and Nubbin Slough basin, which currently
contribute to the highest phosphorus inflow concentrations to
Lake Okeechobee.
The project to raise and bridge the east portion of the of
the Tamiami Trail and fill the Miami Canal within Water
Conservation Area 3 consists of modifying or removing water
control structures in Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B to
enhance sheetflow within the remaining natural system areas
within the Everglades, thereby reestablishing the ecological
and hydrological connections between Water Conservation Areas
3A and 3B, Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National
Preserve. The first phase of enhancing sheetflow necessitates
elevating eastern portions of Tamiami Trail and backfilling
portions of the Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3.
The project to construct the North New River Improvements
will improve the North New River Canal and southern conveyance
system in order to handle increased water flows resulting from
the backfilling of the Miami Canal within Water Conservation
Area 3 to allow for continued water supply deliveries to Miami-
Dade County.
The C-111 Spreader Canal project will improve water
deliveries and enhance the connectivity and sheetflow in the
Model Lands and Southern Glades areas, reduce wet season flows
in C-111 and decrease potential flood risk in the lower south
Miami-Dade County area. Existing C-111 Project design features
are enhanced through the construction of a stormwater treatment
area, enlarging the S-332E pump station, and extending the
canal under U.S. Highway 1 and Card Sound Road into the Model
Lands. This feature also results in filling the Southern
portion of the C-111 Canal and removal of S-18C and S-197
structures.
Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring. The Adaptive Assessment
and Monitoring program provides an organized process for
adapting the Plan as new information becomes available,
ensuring that long-term implementation of the Plan delivers the
benefits intended. In addition to the inevitable uncertainties,
natural and human systems will at times respond in ways that
are not anticipated or predicted by any existing hypothesis.
Adaptive assessment should moderate these responses by
providing an in-place process for early detection and
interpretation of the unexpected.
Conditions. Prior to implementation of any of the ten
initial construction projects authorized in this bill, the
Secretary shall review and approve for the project a project
implementation report, prepared in accordance with subsections
(f) and (h). This project implementation report is to be
submitted to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate for approval by
committee resolution. No appropriation shall be made to
construct any of the ten initial projects authorized in this
bill until the project implementation report for the project is
approved.
Modified Water Deliveries Project. The Modified Water
Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project, authorized by
section 104 of the Everglades National Park Protection and
Expansion Act of 1989, is an important element in Everglades
restoration since it provides for increased and more natural
water deliveries to Everglades National Park through the Shark
River Slough. Completion of the project will enhance the
recovery of the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow and
environmental restoration north of Everglades National Park.
The completion of the Modified Water Deliveries project has
been delayed because of controversy over flood mitigation to
the adjacent 8.5 square mile area. The committee is encouraged
by recent progress in reaching a resolution of the issues on
the project, and urges the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary
of Army, South Florida Water Management District and the
Governor of Florida to continue to cooperate in implementing
this critical project as soon as possible. To emphasize the
committee's concern, the bill includes a provision to preclude
construction appropriations for projects in the Plan that are
dependent on the completion of the Modified Water Deliveries
Project, specifically the Water Conservation Area 3
Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project and
the Central Lakebelt Storage Project, until completion of the
Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project.
(c) Additional Program Authority
Summary
Subsection (c)(1) authorizes the Secretary to expedite the
implementation of modifications to the C&SF; Project that are
described in and consistent with the Plan and that will produce
independent and substantial benefits to the restoration,
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
Subsection (c)(2) requires that before implementation of
any project feature authorized by this subsection, the
Secretary shall review and approve for the project feature a
project implementation report, prepared in accordance with
subsections (f) and (h).
Subsection (c)(3) caps the total Federal cost of each
project carried out under this subsection at $12,500,000, with
the overall project cost not to exceed $25,000,000. The total
Federal cost of all projects carried out under this subsection
shall not exceed $206,000,000.
Discussion
WRDA `96 authorized Everglades Ecosystem Restoration
Projects, or ``critical projects,'' as they are more commonly
known. These projects are defined as those which would produce
independent and substantial benefits to the restoration,
preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem. A
programmatic authority is included in subsection (c), which
provides an authority similar to the ``critical projects''
authorized in section 528(b)(3) of WRDA `96. Prior to
implementation, the Secretary must review and approve a project
implementation report for each project, which must be
consistent with subsections (f) and (h). The total Federal cost
for each project shall not exceed $12,500,000 and the aggregate
Federal costs of all projects authorized under this authority
shall not exceed $206,000,000. There are 21 such projects in
the Plan that meet the criteria set forth in this bill.
(d). Authorization of Future Projects
Summary
Subsection (d)(1) directs that each project except those
projects authorized by subsections (b) and (c) require a
specific authorization of Congress.
Subsection (d)(2) requires that before seeking
Congressional authorization for a project under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a description of the
project and a project implementation report prepared in
accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
Discussion
This subsection provides the mechanism by which future
projects are authorized. The recommended components of the Plan
that are not authorized by this bill or eligible under the
program authority subsection require a specific authorization
by Congress. These future projects are expected to be
authorized for construction in subsequent WRDAs.
Prior to the authorization of any project not authorized in
subsections (b) or (c) of this bill, the Secretary must
transmit a project implementation report to Congress. This
allows the Secretary to complete the additional studies
necessary to propose future authorizations to the Congress for
the elements of the Plan not authorized in subsections (b) and
(c), as well as studies related to the improvement of the
performance of the features of the Plan. Such future
authorizations shall be consistent with subsections (f) and (h)
of this bill.
(e). Cost Sharing
Summary
Subsection (e)(1) directs the Federal share of the cost of
implementing the projects authorized in subsections (b), (c),
and (d) to be 50 percent.
Subsection (e)(2) directs the non-Federal sponsor to be
responsible for the acquisition of all lands, easements and
rights-of-way, and relocations, and provides credit for such
acquisitions toward the non-Federal share regardless of the
date of acquisition.
Subsection (e)(3)(A) provides that the non-Federal sponsor
may accept Federal funding for the purchase of any necessary
land, easement, right-of-way, or relocation, provided that the
funds are credited toward the Federal share of the cost of the
project.
Subsection (e)(3)(B) provides that funds appropriated to
the non-Federal sponsor under U.S. Department of Agriculture
programs may be credited toward the non-Federal share of the
cost of the Plan, if the Secretary of Agriculture certifies
that the funds provided may be used for that purpose.
Subsection (e)(4) directs that, notwithstanding section
528(e)(3) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat. 3770), the cost share for
operations and maintenance will be split 50/50 between the
Federal and non-Federal sponsor.
Subsection (e)(5)(A) authorizes the Army Corps to provide
credit to the non-Federal sponsor, regardless of the date of
acquisition, for the value of lands or interests in lands and
incidental costs for land acquired by the non-Federal sponsor
in accordance with a project implementation report.
Subsection (e)(5)(B) authorizes the Army Corps to provide
credit to the non-Federal sponsor for work performed on
implementation of the Plan, if the credit is provided for work
completed during the applicable period of the project, as
defined in the respective agreement between the Secretary and
the non-Federal sponsor for that stage of the project. The
Secretary must also make a determination that the work is
integral to the project.
Subsection (e)(5)(C) authorizes credit to be carried over
between authorized projects.
Subsection (e)(5)(D) directs periodic monitoring at both
the preconstruction engineering and design phase and the
construction phase to ensure that the non-Federal sponsor's
contributions comprise the appropriate percentage share for the
cost of projects in the Plan.
Discussion
Responsibilities for implementing the Plan will be shared
50/50 by the Army Corps and the South Florida Water Management
District. As is standard with Army Corps projects, the non-
Federal sponsor is responsible for all land, easements, rights-
of-way, and relocations necessary to implement the Plan. The
non-Federal sponsor will be afforded credit for providing these
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations. The non-
Federal sponsor may use Federal funds for the purchase of such
lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary to
carry out the project, so long as those funds are credited
toward the Federal share of the cost of the project. The
exception is that funds provided to the non-Federal sponsor by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture shall be credited toward the
non-Federal share of the cost of the Plan, if the Secretary of
Agriculture certifies that the funds provided may be used for
that purpose.
The majority of the Plan's projects accomplish restoration
of the South Florida ecosystem and directly benefit Everglades
National Park, Biscayne National Park, Big Cypress National
Preserve, and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Therefore,
notwithstanding Section 528 (e)(3) of WRDA `96, the cost of
operating and maintaining the projects in the Plan will also be
shared equally between the Federal and non-Federal sponsors.
While the committee supports the traditional non-Federal
operation and maintenance responsibility, the unique nature of
this project and the Federal benefits from the restoration Plan
warrants the sharing of operation and maintenance costs.
Approximately half the lands that comprise the natural system
in the South Florida ecosystem are Federally-managed lands, and
these Federal lands will realize substantial benefits through
the implementation of the CERP.
Notwithstanding section 528(e)(4) of WRDA `96 (110 Stat.
3770) and regardless of the date of acquisition, the value of
lands or interest in lands and incidental costs for land
acquired by the non-Federal sponsor in accordance with a
project implementation report for any project included in the
Plan and authorized by Congress shall be included in the total
cost of the project and credited toward the non-Federal share
of the cost of the project.
The Secretary may also provide credit, including in-kind
credit, toward the non-Federal share for the reasonable cost of
any work performed in connection with a study, preconstruction
engineering and design, or construction that is necessary for
the implementation of the Plan. The credit is conditioned upon:
the work being completed during the period of design, as
defined in a design agreement between the Secretary and the
non-Federal sponsor; the credit being provided for work
completed during the period of construction, as defined in a
project cooperation agreement between the Secretary and the
non-Federal sponsor; the design agreement or project
cooperation agreement prescribing the terms and condition of
the credit; and the Secretary determining that the work
performed by the non-Federal sponsor is integral to the
project.
Any credit provided may be carried over to another
authorized project, in accordance with the periodic monitoring
performed by the Secretary. The periodic monitoring, which
shall be assessed for each project on a 5-year basis, will
ensure that the contributions of the non-Federal sponsor equal
a 50 percent proportionate share for projects in the Plan. The
Secretary will monitor the preconstruction engineering and
design phase and the construction phase separately. Credit or
work provided shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.
(f). Evaluation of Projects
Summary
Subsection (f)(1) requires that prior to implementing any
project authorized in subsections (c) and (d) or any of the
clauses (i) through (x) of subsection (b)(2)(C), the Secretary,
in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor and after notice
and opportunity for public comment, shall complete a project
implementation report for each project to address its cost-
effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and potential
environmental impacts. This section requires that the project
implementation report for each project be consistent with
subsection (h).
Subsection (f)(2)(A) states that in carrying out any
activity authorized under this section or any other provision
of law to restore, preserve or protect the South Florida
ecosystem, the Secretary may determine that the activity is
justified by the environmental benefits derived by the South
Florida ecosystem and no further economic justification for the
activity is required, if the Secretary determines the activity
is cost effective.
Subsection (f)(2)(B) provides that (f)(2)(A) shall not
apply to any separable element intended to produce benefits
that are predominantly unrelated to the restoration,
preservation, and protection of the natural system.
Discussion
Subsection (f) describes the mechanism for the evaluation
of projects. Prior to implementation of any projects authorized
by this bill, the Secretary, in cooperation with the non-
Federal sponsor, and after notice and opportunity for public
comment, shall complete a project implementation report for the
project.
The project implementation report is a new type of
reporting document, similar to a General Reevaluation Report in
that it will contain additional project formulation and
evaluation. The project implementation report also will contain
General Design Memorandum level of detail, or higher, for
engineering and design. Some of the tasks associated with the
preparation of the project implementation report will include:
surveys and mapping; geotechnical analyses; flood damage
assessment; real estate analyses; and preparation of
supplemental National Environmental Policy Act documents. The
project implementation reports will bridge the gap between the
programmatic-level design contained in the Plan and the
detailed design necessary to proceed to construction.
Furthermore, each project implementation report will be
accompanied by a project Management Plan, which will detail
schedules, funding requirements, and resource needs for final
design and construction of the project.
(g). Exclusions and Limitations
Summary
Subsection (g) directs that some components of the Plan are
not approved for implementation subject to certain exclusions
and limitations.
Subsection(g)(1) directs that any project designed to
implement the capture and use of the approximately 245,000
acre-feet of water described in section 7.7.2 of the Plan shall
not be implemented until the project-specific feasibility study
on the need for and physical delivery of the approximately
245,000 acre-feet of water, conducted by the Secretary, in
cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, is completed; the
project is favorably recommended in a final report of the Chief
of Engineers; and the project is authorized by an Act of
Congress. The project-specific feasibility study shall include
a comprehensive analysis of the structural facilities proposed
to deliver the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of water to the
natural system; an assessment of the requirements to divert and
treat the water; an assessment of delivery alternatives; an
assessment of the feasibility of delivering the water
downstream while not substantially reducing authorized levels
of service for flood protection to affected properties; and any
other assessments that are determined by the Secretary to be
necessary to complete the study.
Subsection (g)(2) directs that upon completion and
evaluation of the wastewater reuse pilot project, the Secretary
in an appropriately timed 5-year report, shall describe the
results of the evaluation of advanced wastewater reuse in
meeting, in a cost effective manner, the requirements of the
natural system. This report shall be submitted to the Congress
before Congressional authorization is sought for advanced
wastewater reuse projects.
Subsection (g)(3) directs that the Federal share for land
acquisition to enhance existing wetland systems along the
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, including the Stazzulla
tract, should be funded through the budget of the Department of
the Interior, and that the Southern Corkscrew regional
ecosystem watershed addition should be accomplished outside the
scope of the Plan.
Discussion
Certain components of the Plan are excluded from the
overall approval of the Plan or are included with conditions or
limitations as follows:
245,000 acre-feet of water. Section 7.7.2 of the
Plan describes the potential capture and use of approximately
245,000 acre-feet of additional water. The Plan concluded that
this additional water would substantially improve the
performance of the Plan in meeting restoration goals for
Everglades and Biscayne National Parks but had the potential to
have adverse impacts elsewhere in the system and, therefore,
required additional study before being incorporated into the
Plan. The bill provides that any project that is designed to
implement the capture and use of the approximately 245,000
acre-feet of water shall not proceed until a project-pecific
feasibility study on the need for and physical delivery of the
additional water is completed, favorably recommended to the
Congress in a final report of the Chief of Engineers, and
authorized by an Act of Congress.
Wastewater Reuse. The Plan includes a wastewater
treatment plant expansion at the existing South District
Wastewater Treatment plant in Miami-Dade County and at a future
West Miami Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant to produce superior,
advanced treatment of wastewater for reuse in Everglades
National Park and Biscayne Bay restoration. The plant upgrades
will potentially produce a combined 230 million gallons of
water per day. The combined cost of the upgrades is about $800
million in construction costs and $85 million in operation and
maintenance costs. There is concern about the high cost of
treating this water, and whether the treatment system will be
capable of treating the wastewater to appropriate levels for
reuse in the natural system. The results of the wastewater
reuse pilot project will be carefully reviewed in considering
the ability of the treatment system to meet water quality
requirements.
Additional water is needed to meet the requirements of
restoration of the natural system including Biscayne Bay.
Therefore, subsection (g) directs that the Secretary, in
consultation with the Department of the Interior, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Florida and local
governments to investigate in conjunction with the
implementation of the Wastewater Reuse Technology Pilot
project, potential sources of water other than reuse for
providing freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay focusing on lower
cost alternatives; defining target freshwater flows for
Biscayne Bay based on the quality, timing, and distribution of
flows needed to provide and maintain the estuarine functions of
Biscayne Bay, Biscayne National Park and associated coastal
wetlands; and performing further evaluations to determine
whether restoration targets can be better achieved. These
evaluations are to be included in an appropriate 5-year report
to the Congress before any authorization is sought for advanced
treatment and reuse of wastewater.
Land Acquisition projects. Two of the projects
included in the Plan are primarily land acquisition. While
these projects have merit, they are not appropriate for
implementation under the program of the Army Corps.
Accordingly, the bill provides that the Federal share for land
acquisition in the project to enhance existing wetlands systems
along the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, including the
Stazzulla tract, should be funded through the budget of the
Department of Interior and that the Southern Corkscrew regional
eco-system watershed addition should be accomplished outside
the scope of the Plan.
(h). Assurance of Project Benefits
Summary
Subsection (h)(1) is a general statement of Congressional
purpose and intent to guide the implementation of authorized
Plan activities, including the agreement between the President
and Governor required by subsection (h)(2), programmatic
regulations required by subsection (h)(3), and the project-
specific assurances required by subsection (h)(4).
With the exception of the pilot projects, subsection
(h)(2)(A) provides that no appropriation shall be made for
construction of a project contained in the Plan until the
President and the Governor enter into a binding agreement under
which the State will ensure, by regulation or other appropriate
means, that water made available under the Plan for the
restoration of the natural system is available as specified in
the Plan. The committee expects this agreement to be executed
early in the Plan implementation process. Subsection
(h)(2)(B)(i) establishes a Federal cause of action to enforce a
failure by Federal or State officials to comply with any
provision of the agreement. This section provides for
injunctive relief directing an official, found to be in
noncompliance with the agreement, to comply. Subsection
(h)(2)(B)(ii) requires sixty-day notification to the Secretary
prior to commencement of an action under clause (i), and bars a
civil action under clause (i) if the United States has
commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action for the
failure to comply in either Federal or State court.
Subsection (h)(3)(A) requires the Secretary of the Army to
issue programmatic regulations within 2 years of the date of
enactment. The purpose of the programmatic regulations is to
ensure, over the life of the Central and South Florida Project,
that the goals and purposes of the Plan are achieved. The
Governor and the Secretary of Interior must concur on the
regulations prior to issuance; additionally, consultation with
the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
of Florida, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department
of Commerce, and other Federal, State and local agencies is
required.
The content of the programmatic regulations is specified in
subsection (h)(3)(B). Programmatic regulations will be the
basis for determining the content and sufficiency of project-
specific assurance documents required by subsection (h)(4). The
regulations shall establish a process to: provide guidance for
the development of project implementation reports, project
cooperation agreements, and operating manuals to ensure that
the goals and objectives of the Plan are achieved; ensure that
new information resulting from changed or unforeseen
circumstances, new scientific or technical information or
information that is developed through the principles of
adaptive assessment contained in the Plan, or future authorized
changes to the Plan are integrated into the implementation of
the Plan; and ensure the protection of the natural system
consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan.
It is possible that projects authorized for construction in
this bill may be ready to proceed to construction prior to
issuance of the programmatic regulations. Subsection
(h)(3)(C)(i) provides a transition rule, and requires that all
project implementation reports approved before the date of
promulgation of the programmatic regulations shall be
consistent with the Plan. Subsection (h)(3)(C)(ii) further
provides that, once issued, the preamble of the programmatic
regulations shall include a statement concerning the
consistency with the programmatic regulations of any project
implementation reports that were approved before the date of
promulgation of the regulations.
Subsection (h)(3)(D) establishes an ongoing duty for the
Secretary to ensure that the programmatic regulations will
result in attainment of Plan goals and purposes. Review of the
regulations not less often than every 5 years is the minimum
requirement, however this duty may require review and revision
more frequently than the minimum five-year interval. Under
subsection (h)(3)(B)(ii), the initial programmatic regulations
themselves must include a process to account for new
information, changed or unforeseen circumstances, or
Congressionally-authorized changes to Plan elements (such as a
decision not to proceed with certain projects or unproven
technologies).
Subsection (h)(4) establishes requirements for the three
project-specific documents that ultimately deliver Plan
benefits--project implementation reports (``PIRs''); project
cooperation agreements (``PCAs''); and operating manuals.
Subsection (h)(4)(A) states the procedures and requirements
governing PIRs. Development of a PIR is a joint responsibility
of the Secretary and non-Federal project sponsor. The PIR is
developed in accordance with section 10.3.1 of the Plan, as
modified by the additional requirements in this bill
((h)(4)(A)(i)). The Secretary and non-Federal sponsor must
coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal and local
officials when developing a PIR ((h)(4)(A)(ii)).
Subsection (h)(4)(B) references and incorporates the
existing process under which PCAs are executed on Army Corps
construction projects. PCAs are a final check on assuring
project benefits. PCAs are essentially a contract for each
specific project. This subsection requires execution of a PCA
for each authorized project. Further, the Secretary may not
sign a PCA until water for the natural system identified in the
project implementation report is actually reserved or allocated
under State law.
Subsection (h)(4)(C) governs development of project
operating manuals. The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor
shall develop and issue, for each project or group of projects,
an operating manual that is consistent with the water
reservation or allocation for the natural system described in
the PIR and the PCA for the project or group of projects
((h)(4)(C)(i)). Any significant modification by the Secretary
and the non-Federal sponsor to an operating manual after the
operating manual is issued shall only be carried out subject to
notice and opportunity for public comment ((h)(4)(C)(ii)).
Subsection (h)(5) is a savings clause that is designed to
preserve the existing legal rights of persons and entities
served by the Central and South Florida project and potentially
affected by implementation of the Plan. Subsection (h)(5)(A)
addresses the rights of existing legal water users. The
subsection states that the Secretary shall ensure that the
implementation of the Plan, including physical or operational
modifications to the C&SF; Project, does not cause significant
adverse impact on existing legal water users.
Subsection (h)(5)(B) establishes a condition upon project
implementation that prohibits elimination of existing legal
sources of water due to Plan implementation until a new source
of water supply of comparable quantity and quality is available
to replace the water to be lost.
Subsection (h)(5)(C) states the rule for maintenance of
flood projection. The provision is intended to ensure that
persons legally entitled to flood protection are not harmed by
implementation of the Plan. The provision provides that in
implementing the Plan, the Secretary shall maintain authorized
levels of flood protection in existence on the date of
enactment of this bill, in accordance with applicable law.
Subsection (h)(5)(D) states that nothing in this bill
prevents the State from allocating or reserving water, as
provided under State law, to the extent consistent with this
bill.
Subsection (h)(5)(E) is a savings clause designed to
specifically protect a compact between the State, the South
Florida Water Management District and the Seminole Tribe of
Florida defining the scope and use of water rights of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida, as codified by section 7 of the
Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C.
1772e).
Discussion
Assurances Generally. The predominant Federal interest in
this bill is the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem.
Subsection (h) provides the assurance that the considerable
Federal investment made in this bill, and additional
investments expected in subsequent Acts of Congress
implementing the Plan, will result in the restoration of the
Everglades.
Subsection (h) does more than provide the necessary
assurances. It also defines the relation among the various
Federal, State and local governmental entities charged with
Plan implementation responsibilities. The subsection places
procedural and substantive requirements on both the Federal
Government and the State of Florida. Most importantly,
subsection (h) strikes a careful balance between the Federal
interest in ensuring that predicted Plan benefits, including
benefits to Federal lands, are attained, and the State's
interest in: ensuring that State-owned or managed lands also
receive predicted Plan benefits; and preserving its traditional
sovereignty over the reservation and allocation of water within
the State's boundaries.
Subsection (h)(1) of the bill restates and codifies the
purpose of the Plan, as stated on page ii of the Plan summary.
In conjunction with section 2(b), which approves the Plan as a
framework for modifications to the existing C&SF; Project, this
subsection provides overall guidance in reconciling the changes
made to the C&SF; Project by WRDA `96 with implementation of the
Plan. Sections 2(b) and 2(h) clearly specify that the purpose
of Federal involvement in this project is to restore, preserve,
and protect the Southern Florida ecosystem, which was damaged
by past authorized Federal actions carried out to implement the
original, more limited purposes of the C&SF; Project. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While section 2(b)(1) of the bill expressly approves the Plan
as the framework for restoration, many parties have testified that
additional assurances were needed, especially assurances that the
natural system would receive the intended benefits when the Plan is
implemented. The bill also contains additional requirements that are
not included in the Plan. The bill therefore does modify the Plan, and
any inconsistency between the bill and the Plan must be resolved in
favor of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three key elements in how the bill provides the
needed assurances while creating a partnership between the
Federal and State governments. The first element is a
requirement that the President and Governor execute a binding,
enforceable agreement that the water generated by the Plan will
in fact be available for restoration when needed. This
agreement is intended to answer concerns that the water needed
for the restoration of the natural system will be available for
that purpose as individual projects are completed. The second
element is the programmatic regulations. These regulations,
issued by the Secretary of the Army, require the concurrence of
both the Governor and the Secretary of Interior. This
relationship between the principal State and Federal trustees
for the resources that will benefit from implementation of the
Plan is unique in Federal environmental law, and is intended to
create a true Federal-State partnership. The third elements are
the project-specific documents which provide enforceable
project-specific quantification of the appropriate amount,
timing and distribution of water for the natural system and for
other Plan purposes.
Assurances Agreement. In testimony before the committee and
during the negotiations on subsection (h), concerns were
expressed that the State's permitting process could result in
the over allocation of new water to be derived from the
implementation of the Plan. The State of Florida raised
concerns that this bill not federalize State water law, and
that Plan implementation instead rely upon State law and
processes in reserving or allocating water. Subsection (h)(2)
balances both of these important concerns.
Subsection (h)(2) does not specify in detail the contents
of the agreement. The committee intends that the agreement
between the Governor and the President result in a binding
requirement for the State to manage its consumptive use
permitting process in such a manner that does not infringe upon
the ability of the State to deliver the water made available
under the Plan for the restoration of the natural system as
projects come on-line in later years. The agreement is not
intended to create a mechanism for the Federal Government to
become involved, on a permit-by-permit basis, in the State's
consumptive use permitting decisions. Rather, the agreement
will attest that the State will not pre-allocate any water
generated by the Plan. Actual allocation and reservation of
water generated by implementation of Plan projects is governed
by subsection (h)(4). Under subsection (h)(4), any allocation
and reservation of Plan water is identified under a cooperative
Federal-State partnership and executed under State water law.
The President and Governor should execute the agreement
required by subsection (h)(2) as soon as is practicable.
Subsection (h)(2)(B) makes the agreement enforceable by
establishing a cause of action in Federal courts for injunctive
relief in case the Federal or State officials fail to comply
with the agreement. This provision, which allows any person or
entity aggrieved by a failure to comply to bring a cause of
action, is narrowly tailored to remain consistent with United
States Supreme Court jurisprudence on State sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although the Eleventh Amendment prohibits Congress from making
the State of Florida capable of being sued in Federal court, an
exception is provided by the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123
(1908). Ex Parte Young provides that Congress may authorize suits
against State officers to enforce Federal law. The cause of action here
fully comports with Ex Parte Young.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programmatic Regulations. Subsection (h)(3) requires the
issuance of programmatic regulations. The purpose of the
programmatic regulations are to ensure, over the life of the
C&SF; Project, that the goals and purposes of the Plan are
achieved. Further, the programmatic regulations guide the
implementation of the project implementation reports, and they
must be periodically reviewed not less often than every 5 years
to ensure that new information is integrated into
implementation of the Plan. The programmatic regulations are
therefore a central component in the adaptive assessment and
management process on which success of the Plan, and this bill,
depends.
The process for developing the programmatic regulations
recognizes the stewardship responsibilities of governmental
entities with trustee relationships for the resources that will
benefit from Plan implementation. As the Secretary of the
Interior and the State of Florida share, in approximately equal
proportions, responsibility for most of the remaining natural
system areas to benefit from the Plan, and further recognizing
that the State will share equally in the cost of Plan
implementation with the Federal Government, subsection (h)(3)
requires that the Secretary issue the programmatic regulations
only with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior and
the Governor of Florida. This unique Federal-State partnership
will allow for improved up-front planning during the
implementation of the Plan and should improve coordination
among the affected agencies, each with varying missions and
responsibilities. In developing the programmatic regulations,
the Federal and State partners should establish interim goals--
expressed in terms of restoration standards--to provide a means
by which the restoration success of the Plan may be evaluated
throughout the implementation process. The restoration
standards should be quantitative and measurable at specific
points in the Plan implementation. The Secretary and the
Secretary of the Interior are required to report on the
progress toward these goals as part of the required reporting
process.
Project-Specific Assurances. Project-specific assurances
are included requiring the project-specific implementation
reports to be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic
regulations. The PIRs are the documents that will identify and
quantify the water that is necessary to attain the restoration
of the natural system. The State, using its own State water
law, will execute the reservations or allocations for the
natural system that are specified in the PIR before the
Secretary can execute the PCA, which is the contract between
the Secretary and non-Federal sponsor that is the prerequisite
for construction of Plan projects. Finally, subsection
(h)(4)(C) requires consistency between the operating manuals
and the water reservations or allocations for the natural
system.
Savings Clause. Subsection (h)(5) requires the Secretary to
ensure that implementation of the Plan does not cause
substantial adverse impacts on existing legal uses of water,
including water allocated to the Seminole Tribe of Florida as
codified under Federal and State law, the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida, water for Everglades National Park, water
for the preservation of fish and wildlife in the natural
system, agricultural water supply and other legal uses as of
the date of enactment of this bill. Elimination of existing
sources of water supply is barred until new sources of
comparable quantity and quality of water are available;
existing authorized levels of flood protection are maintained;
and the water compact among the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the
State, and the South Florida Water Management District is
specifically preserved.
With respect to flood control, the committee intends that
implementation of the Plan will not result in significant
adverse impact to any person with an existing, legally
recognized right to a level of protection against flooding. The
committee does not intend that, consistent with benefits
included in the Plan, this bill create any new rights to a
level of protection against flooding that is not currently
recognized under applicable Federal or State law.
(i). Dispute Resolution
Summary
Subsection (i)(1) directs the Governor and the Secretary,
within 180 days of enactment of this bill, to develop an
agreement for resolving disputes between the Army Corps and the
South Florida Water Management District. Subsections (i)(1)(A),
(i)(1)(B), and (i)(1)(C) describe what must be included in the
mechanism for the timely and efficient resolution of disputes.
Subsection (i)(2) directs that the Secretary shall not
approve a project implementation report under this bill until
the agreement established under this subsection has been
executed.
Subsection (i)(3) states that nothing in the agreement
established under this subsection shall alter or amend any
existing Federal or State law.
Discussion
This bill provides a mechanism by which disputes between
the Secretary and the Governor are resolved. Within 180 days
from the date of enactment, the Secretary and the Governor
shall develop an agreement on how to resolve disputes between
the Army Corps and the State, related to the implementation of
the Plan. This agreement will establish a mechanism for the
resolution of disputes, including: a preference for the
resolution of disputes between the Jacksonville District of the
Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management
District; a mechanism for the Jacksonville District of the
Corps of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management
District to initiate the dispute resolution process for
unresolved issues; the establishment of appropriate time-frames
and intermediate steps for the elevation of disputes to the
Governor and the Secretary; and a mechanism for the final
resolution of disputes, within 180 days from the date that the
dispute resolution process is initiated.
(j) Independent Scientific Review
Summary
Subsection (j)(1) directs the Secretary of the Army, the
Secretary of the Interior, and the State of Florida, in
consultation with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force, to establish an independent scientific review panel,
convened by a body such as the National Academy of Sciences, to
review the Plan's progress toward achieving the natural
system's restoration goals of the Plan.
Subsection (j)(2) directs the panel described in paragraph
(1) to produce a biennial report to Congress, the Secretary of
the Army, the Secretary of Interior, and the State of Florida
that includes an assessment of ecological indicators and other
measures of progress in restoring the ecology of the natural
system, based on the Plan.
Discussion
Subsection (j) directs the Secretary, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the State, in consultation with the South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, to establish an independent
scientific panel to conduct on-going review of the progress
achieved by the Plan's execution in attaining the restoration
goals of the Plan. The panel is to be convened by a body, such
as the National Academy of Sciences, with expertise in
assembling panels for the purpose of conducting independent
scientific reviews.
The committee expects the body convening the review panel
to use established practices for assuring the independence of
members employed in this instance. This includes assuring that
neither panel members, nor the institutions they represent,
have a vested interest in the outcome of the scientific review
or the execution of the Plan. The committee also expects the
review panel to contain individuals reflecting a balance of the
knowledge, training, and experience suitable to comprehensively
review and assess the Plan's progress toward achieving
restoration goals. The committee believes that members of the
review panel should have expertise in applicable scientific
disciplines and include individuals possessing specific
scientific experience with, and knowledge of, the South Florida
ecosystem. This subsection is not intended to necessarily
preclude the National Research Council's Committee on
Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, either in part
or in full, from assuming the specified duties of the
independent scientific review panel.
The panel is directed to produce a biennial report and
submit its findings to Congress, the Secretary, the Secretary
of the Interior, and the State of Florida. The committee
intends for these reports to address the Plan's progress toward
achieving the restoration goals of the Plan on a biennial
basis. The panel is directed to include in each report an
assessment of ecological indicators and other measures of
progress in restoring the ecology of the natural system, based
on the Plan.
(k). Outreach and Assistance
Summary
Subsection (k)(1) directs the Secretary, in executing the
Plan, to ensure that small business concerns owned and
controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals are provided opportunities to participate under
section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)).
Subsection (k)(2) requires the Secretary to ensure that
impacts on socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,
including individuals with limited English proficiency, and
communities are considered during implementation of the Plan,
and that such individuals have opportunity to review and
comment on the Plan's implementation. The Secretary shall also
ensure that public outreach and educational opportunities are
provided to the individuals of South Florida, including
individuals with limited English proficiency, and in particular
for socially and economically disadvantaged communities.
Discussion
This subsection directs the Secretary to ensure that small
businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals have an opportunity to participate in
the Plan. Under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act,
Federal agencies are required to establish goals for awarding
contracts to small businesses, including socially and
economically disadvantaged businesses. This provision
reiterates that requirement for purposes of carrying out the
Plan.
The Secretary is also directed to consider the impacts of
implementing the Plan on socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals, including those with limited English
proficiency. Recognizing that a large percentage of the
population of the South Florida ecosystem is made up of
minority groups (e.g., 20.5 percent Hispanic), this provision
ensures that the individuals have opportunities to review and
comment on the implementation of the Plan. In addition, the
Secretary shall ensure that public outreach and educational
opportunities are provided to these same individuals.
The Plan must be adequately explained to the people of
South Florida, in particular to those in socially and
economically disadvantaged communities. The Secretary should
work closely with the non-Federal sponsor to identify local
partners for these efforts, such as existing non-profit
institutions with experience in researching and exhibiting
South Florida ecosystems for the general public and conducting
outreach programs for socially and economically disadvantaged
communities and individuals with limited English proficiency.
Because of the large number of individuals in the area with
limited English proficiency, the Secretary should ensure that
the outreach and education programs are communicated so that
these individuals can understand the Plan and implementation
process.
(l). Report to Congress.
Subsection (l) requires the Secretary and the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Department of Commerce and the State of Florida to
submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the Plan.
The report shall be submitted on October 1, 2005, and not less
than every 5 years thereafter. The report shall include: a
description of planning, design, and construction work
completed; the amount of funds expended during the period
covered by the report, including an analysis of funds expended
for adaptive assessment; the work anticipated over the next 5-
year period; a determination by each Secretary and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency concerning
the benefits to the natural system and the human environment
achieved by the date of the report and whether the completed
projects are being operated consistent with the assurances
provisions in subsection (h); and a review of the activities
required under the outreach and assistance provisions of
subsection (k). The role of the Environmental Protection Agency
in this determination helps to ensure that water quality
benefits, an essential component of the restoration effort,
will be achieved, and that an ecosystem-wide perspective will
be maintained.
Hearings
On January 7, 2000, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works held a field hearing in Naples, Florida, to receive
testimony on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Witnesses who testified were: the Honorable Carol Browner,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the
Honorable Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works); Mary Doyle, Counselor to the Secretary and Chair
of the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force, U.S. Department of
the Interior; the Honorable David Struhs, Secretary of the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Captain Mike
Collins, Chairman of the South Florida Water Management
District; Jim Shore, Counsel to the Seminole Tribe of Florida;
Dexter Lehtinen, representing the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians;
the Honorable Nora Williams, Commissioner of Monroe County,
Florida; Malcolm S. ``Bubba'' Wade, Senior Vice President of
U.S. Sugar Corporation; and the Honorable Nathaniel Reed,
former Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
On May 11, 2000, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works met to consider the Administration's legislative proposal
for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, included in
S. 2437. The committee received testimony from the Honorable
Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida; Patricia Power,
representing the Seminole Tribe of Florida; Dexter Lehtinen,
representing the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians; Captain Mike
Collins, Chairman of the South Florida Water Management
District; the Honorable Joseph Westphal, Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works); Gary Guzy, General Counsel of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Mary Doyle, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science, and the Chair of the South
Florida Ecosystem Task Force, Department of the Interior; Mr.
Ken Keck, Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs,
Florida Citrus Mutual; and Dr. David Guggenheim, President, The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Co-Chair, the Everglades
Coalition.
Legislative History
On April 13, 2000, Senators Smith and Baucus introduced by
request the Administration's proposal for the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 (S. 2437). Section 3 of that bill
contained the Administration's proposal for approval and
authorization of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
On June 27, 2000, Senators Smith, Voinovich, Baucus, Graham,
and Mack introduced the Restoring the Everglades, an American
Legacy Act (S. 2797). On that same day, Senator Voinovich,
Smith and Baucus introduced the Water Resources Development Act
of 2000 (S. 2796).
S. 2797, as amended, was reported by the Committee on
Environment and Public Works on June 28, 2000. In addition, S.
2796 was amended to include S. 2797, as reported by the
committee, as Title VI of the bill.
Rollcall Votes
On June 28, 2000, the Committee on Environment and Public
Works met to consider S. 2797, the Restoring the Everglades, an
American Legacy Act. An amendment offered by Senators Smith of
New Hampshire, Baucus, Voinovich and Graham was agreed to by
voice vote. An amendment offered by Senator Graham on a Dispute
Resolution Mechanism was adopted by voice vote. An amendment
offered by Senator Warner on operation and maintenance was
defeated by 10 nays to 8 ayes. Voting in favor were Senators
Bennett, Bond, Crapo, Hutchison, Inhofe, Thomas, Voinovich, and
Warner. Voting against were Senators Baucus, Boxer, Chafee,
Graham, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Moynihan, Reid, Smith of New
Hampshire, and Wyden. A motion to report the bill as amended
was agreed to by rollcall vote of 17 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in
favor were Senators Bennett, Baucus, Bond, Boxer, Chafee,
Crapo, Graham, Hutchison, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Moynihan,
Reid, Smith of New Hampshire, Thomas, Voinovich, Warner, and
Wyden. Voting against was Senator Inhofe.
Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires publication of the report of the committee's
estimate of the regulatory impact made by the bill as reported.
No regulatory impact is expected by the passage of S. 2797. The
bill will not affect the personal privacy of others.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(P.L. 104-4), the committee finds that this bill would impose
no Federal intergovernmental unfunded mandates on State, local,
or tribal governments. All of its governmental directives are
imposed on Federal agencies. The bill does not directly impose
any private sector mandates.
Cost of Legislation
Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act
requires each report to contain a statement of the cost of a
reported bill prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.
Senate Rule XXVI paragraph 11(a)(3) allows the report to
include a statement of the reasons why compliance by the
committee is impracticable. The committee is unable to include
a statement of the cost at this time because the Congressional
Budget Office has not finished an analysis of the bill.
Changes in Existing Law
Section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
require changes in existing law to be indicated in the report.
No changes to existing law will occur with the passage of this
bill
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline my objections to S.
2797, the ``Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act.''
As my vote indicates, I have strong objections to this
legislation. While I recognize the Everglades as a national
treasure, S. 2797 sets precedents, which I can not, in good
conscious, condone. My five major concerns with this
legislation are: (1) the new precedent which requires the
federal government to pay for a portion of operations and
maintenance costs; (2) the violation of Committee on the
Environment and Public Works' policy concerning the need for a
Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's report before project
authorization; (3) the basis of the restoration project on
unproven technology; (4) the open-ended nature of costs of this
project; and (5) the strong possibility that the Restoring the
Everglades, An American Legacy Act will not be considered as a
stand alone bill.
First, S. 2797 sets a terrible precedent on operations and
maintenance. S. 2797 will result in $20 million per year in
operations and maintenance costs. Furthermore, when the entire
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is up and running,
operations and maintenance costs are estimated to be $172
million every year. These are enormous, neverending costs!
Though federal funds are used to construct Water
Development Projects, since 1986, the cost of operations and
maintenance of the projects has been the non-federal entities
(usually state or local governments) responsibility. The
Committee should not forget that this critical cost-share
policy was a key factor in breaking a 16 year stalemate on
Water Resources Development Authorization (WRDA) legislation.
The Everglades Restoration Act splits the cost of operations
and maintenance of the Everglades \1/2\ to the federal
government and \1/2\ to the state of Florida. Not only is this
provision unprecedented, it is also going to cost the federal
government a great deal of money. Furthermore, because the
federal government has not paid for operations and maintenance
costs, states and localities have enormous backlogs of
operations and maintenance costs due to lack of funding. The
precedent, which the Everglades legislation sets, could open a
pandora's box having the federal government take on expenses
for the operations and maintenance of many projects. There are
a number of Oklahoma projects, which I would consider national
treasures, that could use federal funds for operations and
maintenance costs.
Second, by allowing Everglades projects to go forward
without a Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's report, S. 2797
is a serious departure from committee policy. S. 2797
authorizes 10 projects at a cost of $1.1 billion with no
reports of the Chief of Engineers on these projects. Since
1986, it has been the policy of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works to require projects to have undergone full and
final engineering, economic and environmental review by the
Chief of Engineers prior to project approvals by the Committee.
Normally, the Corps of Engineers water resources project
study process can be initiated when either of the two Public
Works Committees of the Congress approves a committee
resolution requesting that the study of a potential project
area be undertaken. Once such a resolution is approved by
either committee, the Corps is authorized to proceed with a
reconnaissance study of the proposed project at 100 percent
federal cost. The purpose of a reconnaissance study is to
determine whether or not there is a federal interest in the
project. Authorization of a reconnaissance study may also be
provided by statute. Army Corps policy now requires all
reconnaissance studies to be completed within 12 months and at
a cost of no greater than $100,000.
If, after completion of the reconnaissance study, a project
is deemed to be in the federal interest, the federal government
and a non-federal sponsor may enter into an equally cost-shared
feasibility study. The feasibility study includes a more
detailed set of engineering, economic and environmental
analyses to determine whether a project is justified to advance
to the construction phase. When the feasibility study is
completed, the Corps District Engineer reviews the results and
forwards a recommendation on the project to the Division
Engineer. The Division Engineer issues a Division Engineer's
notice and then submits the report to Corps Headquarters. Corps
Headquarters performs a final review and submits the report for
the mandatory (33 U.S.C. 701 1(a)) 30-day State and federal
agency review period. After these reviews are complete and the
report is found favorable, a report is prepared for the final
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. The report of the
Chief of Engineers is forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of
the Army (Civil Works) for Administration review and submission
to the Congress.
This process was established to protect taxpayer dollars by
ensuring the soundness of all projects. Therefore, all
projects, which are a part of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, should and must be subject to this same
process.
Third, I have serious concerns about the wisdom of a
federal investment in unproven technologies--particularly a
$7.8 billion investment. The project approval process,
described above, was established to prevent exactly what is
happening with S. 2797--a gamble with the American taxpayers
money. Because of the many unproven technologies, which the
Corp is planning to use to restore the Everglades, the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is gambling with tax
dollars. A great example of why Congress should follow the
normal process for approving projects and wait for reports of
the Chief of Engineers on the Everglades projects.
Fourth, the total cost of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan is estimated at $7.8 billion over 38 years.
This is the current estimate. I have serious concerns about
this potential for cost over runs associated with this project.
As with almost all federal programs, this project will probably
cost much more at the end of the day. For example, in 1967,
when the Medicare program was passed by Congress, the program
was estimated to cost $3.4 billion. In 2000, the costs of the
program are estimated to $232 billion. No one could have
foreseen this exponential growth! A cost cap on the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan must be considered.
However, the future costs of project of this magnitude must be
taken into consideration by Congress.
Finally, I object to the Committee's action to attach the
Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act to the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. Because of the scale and
departure from existing law and policy of S. 2797, this
legislation should be considered as a stand alone bill--not a
provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
Proponents of the legislation want to have their cake and eat
it to. On one hand, they want a special process, breaking
Committee policies, for authorizing Everglades projects. On the
other hand, they are willing to consider the Restoring the
Everglades, An American Legacy Act not on its own merits, but
rather hide the bill in the popular Water Resources Development
Act. This is an attempt to provide legitimacy to an otherwise
illegitimate process.
Again, I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure as
I do many places in Oklahoma. As Congress considers Everglades
restoration legislation, all I ask is that Congress play by the
rules.
