Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Administration's bill to authorize the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). This Comprehensive Plan a series of environmental improvements over 20 years that will be the most ambitious ecosystem restoration ever undertaken in the United States.
Please indulge me while I touch on a few historical facts to provide the proper context for my comments. The existing Central and Southern Florida Project was created in 1948 and encompasses 18,000 square miles. This water management system for South Florida includes 1,000 miles of canals and 200 water control structures. It is the largest public works project in the country. As South Florida's water management system it provides water supply, flood protection and other benefits to South Florida.
Recognizing the need to modernize this 50-year old system to address its negative consequences on the environment, Congress authorized a "re-look" at this system to determine if such a task was feasible and in the federal government's interest. The Corps was asked to develop a comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the South Florida ecosystem. Congress further directed that this plan shall include such features as are necessary to provide for the water-related needs of the region, including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other objectives served by the Central and Southern Florida Project.
The Plan submitted to you in July of 1999 is that plan. Is it "comprehensive" in that it provides all answers to all problems? No. It is comprehensive because it was developed recognizing the complexities involved in creating an ecosystem-wide restoration plan and realizing the interconnectedness of the vast water management system commonly known as the Central and Southern Florida Project. The coordination efforts alone were heroic. Overlay the dynamic of the interests with the scientific complexities associated with getting the water right and you begin to understand that the Plan submitted to you by consensus, the Plan that enjoys broad-based support, was only possible through an inclusive process. Any attempt to modify the concepts embraced by consensus has the potential to erode this broad-based support.
The South Florida Water Management District strongly supports this Plan and the process used for developing this product as the best opportunity for solving the region's environmental and water resource problems within the region. We believe that this Plan is the roadmap for providing adequate water for a healthy, sustainable Everglades ecosystem as well as for maintaining urban and agriculture use. As Chairman of the Governing Board for the agency that serves as local sponsor for the Central and Southern Florida Project, I urge you to authorize the Plan submitted to you last July. The Administration's bill deviates from this Plan and the direction given by Congress in the authorization to modernize our 50-plus year old system to address unintended consequences to the environment.
Is it the perfect plan? No. The perfect plan will never exist but the Plan is strong. It is flexible enough to allow for improvements along the way and the Corps needs to be given the flexibility to make refinements as more is learned through scientific monitoring over the period of implementation. The Administration's bill provides for such refinement.
In Naples, I submitted testimony that touched on our desire for the costs for operating and maintaining the Comprehensive Plan to be shared by the federal government. The Administration's bill calls for a 60/40 split of such costs. I urge you to go the next step. Codify our partnership by authorizing a 50/50 sharing of all costs. There are countless ways to try and analyze a formula that makes sense. I submit to you that all the potential formulas are flawed in that none are capable of factoring in the interconnectedness of a system that operates like dominos on a table. Any opportunity for decisions to be made for any other reason than for what is good for the resource will only hurt the resource. A 50/50 cost share provides for accountability, cost effectiveness, equal influence in decisions and I would argue objectivity. It makes sense!
I will close by emphasizing the unprecedented nature of this restoration by highlighting the unprecedented contribution of the State of Florida and the unique resources that we as local sponsors bring to the table, especially when compared to other local sponsors around the country. We bring history, expertise and knowledge of the construction and operation of the system, ecological and modeling expertise and overall project management experience. Successful implementation will depend on the ability to utilize the best from a scientific, engineering and research pool of experts that are made up of federal and non-federal staff. We support the Administration's bill as it relates to in-kind credit. It is not our intent to construct without authorization. We simply want to be given credit for work that we intend to participate in doing. In fact, we propose a more frequent balancing of the books to ensure that both the federal and non-federal sponsor stay closely aligned in terms of spending. Neither of us should get too far out ahead of the other.
Finally, I must applaud our Governor. The State of Florida has a long-standing commitment, spanning several administrations and changes in political party leadership. Everglades Restoration is a bipartisan effort. History has proven this as fact. Back in 1983 then Governor Bob Graham started the Save Our Everglades Program. Sir, we are fortunate that you, with your historical knowledge and continued leadership serve on the committee that will make authorization decisions. Senator Connie Mack has been a force in the support of restoration in Washington and Florida has benefited from the strong relationship between our two Senators.
Our State is now under the leadership of Governor Jeb Bush. Many touted uncertainty of his commitment despite his continued verbal commitments and appointments of leaders known for their individual commitment to restoration like myself. Governor Bush has done more than talk about commitment to restoration. As he stated in his testimony, he led the team of a broad spectrum of people who worked tirelessly to achieve passage of a funding bill to pay the State's share of restoration. That is what I call Leadership! I hope that such a leader is one you want as a partner a full partner -- an equal partner.