STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PULBIC WORKS

HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN

SEPTEMBER 13, 2002

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and . Let me start out by thanking you for holding this hearing today on the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. As the former Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I amwas proud to be the sponsor of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, which approved this ambitious plan to restore one of our nation’s natural treasures.

Mr. Chairman, I have not only invested a lot of time on Everglades restoration, I have spent a lot of time in the Everglades, as well. on a number of different occasions. As Governor of Ohio, I spent a day observing the areas of the Everglades that have been environmentally impacted by land use decisions, environmentally impacted areas of thcourtesy of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. In addition, my wife Janet and I have made many visits to Florida’s Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and the Everglades National Park. . I have also enjoyed fishing in the Florida Bay and fishing for snook in the Everglades.

In January 2000, I had the opportunity to participate in an EPW Committee field hearing in Naples, Florida on the Everglades. While I was there, I flew over portions of the Everglades undergoing water quality restoration efforts and toured the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge by airboat.

and tour it by airboat.

Without a doubt, the centerpiece of WRDA 2000 is the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Two years ago, we worked hard to ensure that the Everglades title to the bill addressed the concerns of all parties. Working on WRDA 2000 has been one of the highlights of my career in the Senate. The Everglades Plan not only is the largest restoration project the Corps has undertaken, it is the largest water quality restoration project in the world. We’ve got a hard job before us and it’s one we ought to do right.

My rolerole in putting together putting together the Everglades title was to enassure that we moved the Plan forward while achieving using the same consistency with the criteria that apply to that applied toall projects in the WRDA bill. Originally, the Administration’s Everglades proposal deviated substantially from Corps of Engineers and Environment and Public Works Committee policies for other water resources projects, particularly regardingin the level of the level of specificity required for project authorizations.

the Secretary submits the Project Implementation Report on the individual project to the Committees on Environment and Public Works in the Senate and Transportation and Infrastructure in the House and the committees approve the projects by resolution.Overall, I believe we accomplished a great deal in making the Everglades Plan acceptable to all parties. In addition to the lack of specificity in the Everglades Plan, I was also concerned about the cost of Everglades restoration relative to the cost of all of the Corps of Engineers’ programs nationwide. The Everglades Plan requires construction appropriations of $200 million a year during the peak years of construction, which is 12 percent of the total budget/appropriation for all of the Corps of Engineers’ construction projects.

.

In March 2000, I asked the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to review the big picture of Everglades restoration and water quality issues to help answer questions about how much it would cost. In its report – which was the subject of a Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee hearing in September 2000 – the GAO lists several uncertainties uncertainties in the Plan that wouldill likely lead to additional water quality projects and that could increase the total cost of the Plan over the Corps’ estimate of $7.8 billion. It was clear from the report that there weare too many unknowns and uncertainties in the Plan to estimate what the final price tag wouldill be.

As we all know, the Corps faces a $44 billion backlog and insufficient construction dollars – only about $1.7 billion per year. Regardless of these challenges, In addition, since we approved the Everglades Plan, overall our nation’s priorities have changed significantly. since we approved the Everglades Plan. Nonetheless,evertheless we are are committed to restoring annd protecting the Everglades for future generations. As the Everglades Plan is implemented, we and will simply have to make tough choices in prioritizing Corps of Engineers’ construction projects and “weed out” projects that are no longer justifiable. At the same time, we need more money in order to meet the real needs of this country. We cannot get the job done and save national treasures like the “River of Grass” with inadequate funding.

Our most important accomplishment in WRDA 2000 was the to requirement to apply the same a similar level of Congressional oversight to of Everglades projects that apply to allas other Corps projects. Before we instituted the new requirement, The Administration’s proposal recommended 10 projects had been proposed for authorization - at a total cost of $1.1 billion - without a customarytraditional feasibility report level of detail and without individual project justification. Under WRDA 2000, the Secretary of the Army must submit a Project Implementation Report for each individual project and no appropriations may be made to construct any projects until they are approved by both the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In addition, we reduced the level of programmatic authority for restoration projects that can be accomplished without Congressional review. The levels we set are applicable to other parts of the Corps program.

We also eliminated the provision that would have allowed reimbursement to the State of Florida for the federal share of work accomplished by the state. However, the state retains the ability to receive credit for work-in-kind for up to 50 percent of the work, but only proportionate to appropriated federal expenditures. In other words, they cannot move ahead of federal appropriations.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciateion that to the Bush Administration isfor andupholding the Secretary of the Air Force’s decision to blocking the development of a commercial airport at the site of the former Homestead Air Force Base, which is located within only a few miles of Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Part, and the National Marine Sanctuary. It would have been irresponsible for the federal government to approve an investment of billions of taxpayer dollars to in restoreation of the south Florida ecosystem, while, at the same time, approving a re-use plan for the Homestead Air Force Base that is incompatible with suchthe restoration objectives.

WRDA 2000 contained a Sense of the Congress provision expressing these such concerns and I am pleased that the Administration is doing the right thing. When I take my grandchildren to visit the Everglades in the next couple of years and we look up to the sky, we won’t see commercial aircraft disturbing the airspace over the park or polluting the air.

Today’s hearing is the first oversight hearing on the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in the Senate since the enactment of WRDA 2000.

I understand that there has been a lot of debate about the Corps’ proposed programmatic regulations for implementing the Everglades Plan to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Plan are achieved. The primary and overarching purpose of the plan is to restore the south Florida ecosystem. That is why Congress has committed to paying 50 percent of the cost of the plan, and why I want to make sure we get a sound return on our investment.

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about the progress that has been made during the last two years to implement the Plan. I am also interested in hearing about what we have learned over these last two years in terms of science and technology improvements, potential environmental benefits, and costs estimates.

I am glad the Department of Interior is here and will testify about efforts to address another threat to the Everglades – invasive exotic species. The Great Lakes, too, are being threatened by aquatic invasive species like the zebra mussel, Asian carp, and sea lamprey. These species are impacting our environment and require our immediate attention.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.