David B. Struhs
Secretary, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
to the
United States Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee
September 13, 2002
I am honored to be here to represent Governor Jeb Bush and the State of Florida, your full and equal partner in restoring America’s Everglades.
I come bearing news of amazing progress. Only 18-months into a 30-year project and Florida has:
· Already acquired 75 percent of the land needed to build the authorized projects.
· Already secured funding to fully pay our half of the multi-billion dollar bill for the first decade.
· Already entered into a legally binding agreement that requires Florida to reserve water for the environment before federal dollars are released for projects.
· Already adopted a dispute resolution plan to make sure problems are resolved quickly so progress is not interrupted.
But
this hearing is, appropriately, focused more on process than on progress. Here again, there is nothing conventional
about Everglades restoration.
In
Florida, we are learning a whole new way of doing business to better fit into
established federal procedures. The federal government is learning a whole new
way of doing business, where no decisions can be made without your state
partner. It is interesting to say the
least.
At this stage, the federal government and
Florida are developing the customs and writing the rules aimed at ensuring our
“full and equal” partnership is also a practical and sustainable partnership. Everyone is trying to anticipate as many
future situations as possible, with questions such as:
· “How will the Corps of
Engineers actually know when Florida legally reserves for the environment water
resources made available by the restoration project?”
· “How will the federal
resource agencies be consulted to ensure that our combined financial
investments are yielding ecological restoration?”
· “How will affected parties
be involved in making adaptive management decisions?”
In
almost every case, the real answer to these and similar questions should be,
“By picking up the phone.” How do
partners in business make decisions? By
talking to each other.
Our
goal is to ensure that this type of collaboration takes place. But we must me mindful of two things:
First,
regulations are not written for the usual scenario where everyone agrees. They are written for those exceptions where
there is a difference of opinion. The
corollary to this, of course, is the thorny problem of the future is the one we
cannot anticipate today and for which there will be no rules in place.
Second,
today’s efforts to integrate the laws, policies and institutional cultures of
several different state and federal agencies should not distract us from our
shared goal. Never before have so many
diverse interests been so committed to a common environmental goal.
Congress
deserves high marks on this score. The
Water Resource Development Act of 2000 clearly lays out the expectation that
agencies must collaborate in decision making.
It also wisely vests ultimate responsibility, and accountability, with a
single agent for each of the partners: the United States and the State of
Florida.
We
all recognize, from relevant and recent experience, that to do otherwise puts
restoration at risk.
The
procedural regulations developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers create
workable rules for how our partnership will make decisions. WRDA clearly did
not anticipate some of the additional steps the Corps included in the
rule. For example, requiring the
concurrence of two different federal agencies on six different guidance
memoranda, and memorializing a predominant role for the federal resource
agencies over other interests in the RECOVER program. Yet, we can support the rule as proposed.
However,
we urge that the Corps make no additional changes that would move the
procedural regulations further away from the requirements of the
carefully-balanced and well-considered WRDA 2000 statute.
Regarding
the historic act signed by President Clinton, some who cheered the event are
now exhibiting signs of buyer’s remorse.
Rather than look forward, they look backward. In retrospect, they would like to “tweak” the law, or adopt rules
to advance ideas that failed to make it into statute. To do so risks unraveling the coalition of diverse interests that
made the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan possible.
It
is important to remember that the old zero-sum game view of the world with
winners and losers does not apply here.
This restoration plan is different.
It is holistic. It provides
water first for nature and then for people, and it does so without artificially
subsidizing water supplies. It is,
perhaps, the world’s best example of sustainable development.
Consider
the fact that the plan one would choose for restoring the Everglades would be
basically the same as the plan one would choose for ensuring a long-term
sustainable water supply – and vice versa.
In other words, there will be plenty of water for both wildlife and
people. The very same water that rehydrates
the Everglades also replenishes the wellfields. To ensure that outcome, the plan is built on an enforceable legal
foundation.
Here
is another way to think about it: While
only half of the original Everglades ecosystem remains the amount of rain that
falls on South Florida has not changed.
Pushing 100 percent of the water into 50 percent of the area would
permanently drown the Everglades.
The
restoration plan recognizes this. As
water that is currently flushed out to sea via canals is recaptured, it will be
reserved to ensure the right quantity, timing and distribution is achieved for
the ecosystem. Forcing all of the
water into the Everglades would be too much of a good thing.
Finally,
suggestions that this plan subsidizes water supply and prompts growth are wrong
at several levels.
First,
the federal government was a full partner a generation ago in draining the
Everglades. The federal government must
now be a full partner in fixing the damage.
This is hardly a subsidy.
Second,
Florida has made the unprecedented commitment to fund half the project. Through smart money management and without
raising taxes, Florida has a proven funding plan that allows growth to pay for
environmental restoration, not the other way around.
Third,
the restoration plan simply captures water now artificially lost to the sea and
puts it back into the Everglades’ watery landscape. The plan does not subsidize the infrastructure costs necessary to
provide water supply service. Those
costs will, appropriately, be borne by the water consumer.
The
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan passed out of this Committee will be
a defining legacy of our generation. We
recognize that. And as your full and
equal partner, please understand Florida’s commitment to ensuring that it
remains comprehensive, and that it remains about restoration. That is our common goal.