Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Ken Keck, and I am employed by Florida Citrus Mutual as Director of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs. Florida Citrus Mutual is a voluntary grower association comprised of 11,500 members growing citrus on over 800,000 acres throughout central and south Florida. While not historically the case, today more than one-half (400,000) of all the citrus acreage in Florida is within the boundary of the Restudy. Obviously not all of this acreage is directly impacted, but much of it is, so the Florida citrus industry has a significant stake in the deliberations surrounding how the "re-plumbing" of the natural system is accomplished.
Let me start by assuring the Committee that we, like you, are committed to restoring the Everglades. We have supported the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan because it offers the promise of accomplishing our restoration goals without sacrificing the property and capital investments citrus growers have made throughout central and south Florida.
In developing the views presented today, I have attempted to represent the consensus of the agriculture community in the region, like citrus growers, who will be impacted by the Restudy. Indeed, the substance of my testimony results from a collaborative effort of the South Florida agricultural sector. These same groups would like to express their appreciation to Senators Graham and Mack for the leadership shown in Everglades legislation.
Further, allow me to thank the Committee for holding this hearing on the Administration's proposed Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan provision contained in S.2437, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
I will summarize my remarks and ask that my prepared statement be included in the hearing record.
The Central and Southern Florida Project is one of the world's great engineering accomplishments and has been critical to the development of a large and vibrant agricultural economy that benefits every consumer in America. In addition, it has allowed millions of people to live along the coasts of Florida with the security of reliable water supply and flood protection. Unfortunately some elements of the project, as well as project-induced economic activity, have adversely affected the natural environment. We fully recognize the need to protect and restore the ecosystem's natural functions and values while continuing to provide for the other purposes of the project.
Florida agriculture has participated extensively in the Federal/State Restudy process that has produced the Comprehensive Plan and we expect to continue to participate as the process moves forward. We are prepared to support major improvements to the water management system. However, we believe that the importance of Everglades Restoration and the other vital project purposes demand that project modifications be based on sound science, be the product of objective analysis, and be implemented in an orderly way that ensures that the needs of existing landowners and businesses are met.
OVERVIEW OF SENATE BILL 2437
Because of their precedent-setting nature, the policy issues raised by S. 2437 should be the concern of every member of this Committee and the Congress. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is the first large Federal water project with ecosystem restoration as its primary objective. Similar efforts are being planned across the nation. Because ecosystems are the result of complex interactions between human activity and natural processes, restoration projects require actions on many fronts and at many levels of government. Decisions on distribution of cost burdens and determinations of responsibility for restoration activities will be major policy issues across the nation. The Comprehensive Plan raises, either explicitly or implicitly, all of these issues.
Florida agriculture is profoundly disappointed with the Administration's bill. We would like to see the Committee make a fresh beginning rather than attempt to modify this fundamentally flawed document. Not only does the Administration persist in seeking Congress's approval of projects that have had no feasibility studies and to undo the balanced purposes of the existing Central and Southern Florida (C&SF;) Project, it also seeks unprecedented Federal authority to manage Florida's water resources.
This statement summarizes our broad concerns with S. 2437. In addition, we have specific problems with definitions used in the bill and the wording of many other provisions. We are prepared to work with the Committee and its staff to make suggestions regarding specific language changes as the Committee moves toward drafting its legislation. Indeed, the ag groups I speak for today are committed to developing a WRDA bill, which we believe would move the process of Everglades restoration forward this year.
EIGHT PROBLEMS WITH THE EVERGLADES PROVISIONS OF S. 2437.
Problem 1. The bill eliminates the balanced purposes for the existing and modified Central & Southern Florida Project that were re-affirmed in WRDA 96. When modified as proposed by the Comprehensive plan, the C&S; Florida Project will supply sufficient water for all future natural and human water uses until 2050. There is no reason to afford one purpose priority over another. Even though the primary purpose of this Comprehensive Plan is ecosystem restoration, it is essential to reaffirm that the C&SF; Project, after modification by this plan, must, and will still provide all the other purposes for which it was originally authorized and constructed. A commitment to improving the present level of flood protection wherever possible as individual project elements are designed and built would greatly enhance taxpayer support for this plan.
Problem 2. The assurance provisions pre-empt Florida law governing water allocations and reservations and preclude comprehensive water management by the local sponsor. They fundamentally alter current federal policy. These provisions establish unprecedented federal authority and control of water quality and quantity.
The issue of assurances is rightly a concern of all interests affected by this project. These include the Federal taxpayer concerned that the intended purposes of Federal expenditure will be achieved. Environmental agencies and the public want assurances that the water for the ecosystem will not be diverted to economic purposes. Finally, existing water users fear that their present water supplies will be reallocated under the Comprehensive Plan to restoration purposes before suitable replacement supplies are in place.
These vital assurances should be provided based on the Project Implementation Reports for each project component under the Plan. Using the information contained in these reports, the Secretary of the Army and the local sponsor, can enter into agreements, consistent with state law, that would fully respond to the concerns of all parties. First, these agreements can allocate and reserve the new water supply made available by a project component. Second, they can specify any other benefits such as flood control. Third, they can establish the operating guidelines necessary to provide the water supply allocations and other benefits. Under this approach, there is no usurpation of State power, and assurances can be made based on scientific information and knowledge of the outputs and performance of each project component.
Problem 3. The bill's provisions regarding Project Implementation Reports seriously undermine the usefulness of the Reports and are inconsistent with the description of those Reports in the Comprehensive Plan. These provisions are also inconsistent with representations by the Corps that the Reports will contain all the information needed for a full feasibility report and more. These Reports provide an opportunity to address assurance issues with a more complete decision making document.
Congress should affirm the language in the Final April 1999 Restudy Document regarding the content of these Reports and should affirm that the Reports should meet the requirements of the U.S Water Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines. If this is done, the Reports will provide all information needed to (1) support Congressional authorization, (2) obtain approval under state law, and (3) answer all questions regarding the allocation of benefits and achievement of Project and Comprehensive Plan purposes for both Federal and State taxpayers and their elected representatives.
Problem 4. The bill authorizes specific project components and undefined other components that are "consistent with the plan". These are all project components whose value, cost-effectiveness and benefits have not been demonstrated by feasibility level engineering, economic and environmental studies. There are no reliable cost estimates on which to base authorization for appropriations.
Restoration projects should have to meet the standards expected of other Civil Works projects. We strongly believe Congress should authorize construction of project modifications only after it has been able to review a completed and fully coordinated Project Implementation Report. This principle has been affirmed twice within the last year by the Administration, and we find no reason to abandon it in the case of this particularly complex plan that relies on incomplete science and untested technology.
The signing statement issued when President Clinton approved the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 on August 17, 1999, less than nine months ago, complained that "many of its project modifications are still in the planning stage or undergoing review and, therefore, simply are not ready for authorization at this time. Until the completion of the review required for proposed Federal water resources projects under Executive Order 12322, neither the Executive branch nor the Congress is likely to know which of these projects will raise significant concerns regarding their scope, economic and technical feasibility, environmental acceptability, or the ability of local sponsors to provide the required cost-share."
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, in his statement on the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 submitted on March 22, 2000, less than two months ago, to the Water and Environment Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the United States House of Representatives stated: "In light of constrained Federal dollars, we must assure the public that projects authorized for construction have completed the planning process, have passed a full Agency and Administration review, and are in accord with the Federal laws and policies established to protect the environment."
South Florida agriculture strongly endorses the principle of "finishing the analysis before authorizing construction." We urge that it be applied to the projects that will be authorized under the comprehensive plan. Because no feasibility studies have been completed or in some cases, even initiated, Congress should not authorize any individual projects for construction and should not authorize the proposed program authority allowing the Secretary of the Army to implement projects requiring up to $35 million in Federal appropriations, especially in light of the fact that the Administration, as reflected in S.2437, desires to proceed ahead of the science and the analysis.
Problem 5. The bill references the Chief's Report of June 22,1999 that includes additional commitments that were not part of the Plan reviewed in consultation with the State and included without notice or opportunity for public comment. If implemented, these conditions would have substantial adverse impacts on State interests and substantially increase project costs.
We take particular exception to the further commitments contained in paragraph 31 of the Final Chief's Report. Among the most egregious of these commitments was one to: "deliver additional water (approximately 245,000 acre-feet to Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay) either by capturing additional runoff from urban areas or by some other means." This amount of water, some 79,000,000,000 gallons annually, represents a 20 percent increase in the total amount of water supplied by the plan, or alternatively, virtually all of the water that is supplied by the plan to non-environmental purposes. There are no facilities in the plan to do this and the costs of the necessary features are not included in the estimated total cost of the plan.
These changes in a final Chief's report were made without consulting the State of Florida or the local sponsor and without any documented analysis or public review and are unprecedented. Florida agriculture would like all references to the Chief's Report deleted from the Bill. This will confirm that the Plan we recommend Congress approve as a guideline and framework for future project components is based on the Recommended Plan in the April 1999 Jacksonville District Engineers Report.
Problem 6. The bill approves the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in a manner that changes the meaning of the Plan as presented to the people of Florida for the past two years.
S. 2437 goes well beyond what was anticipated by the Restudy. The Final Integrated Report, April, 1999, produced by the Jacksonville District of the Corps states that the Comprehensive Plan "will serve as a framework and guide for modifications to the C&SF; Project." S. 2437 states: "Congress hereby approves the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to modify the Central and Southern Florida Project to restore, preserve and protect the South Florida Ecosystem." In our view, this language would fundamentally change the authorized purposes of the C&SF; Project and eliminate the balanced multiple purposes affirmed as recently as the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, which authorized development of the Comprehensive Plan. As stated above, Florida agriculture recommends that Congress affirm the balanced purposes of the project and modify the project only in conjunction with authorization of new project components based on completed feasibility studies. Congress should approve the Comprehensive Plan as a guide and framework for a continuing planning process leading to formulation of the new C&SF; Project components. Moreover, Congress should require periodic updates of the Comprehensive Plan at the time further Congressional authorizations are requested.
Problem 7. The bill acknowledges the need for but does not provide a full and equal partnership between the State and Federal governments.
In the sections dealing with assurances, the Federal agencies would assume unprecedented responsibilities for water allocation. South Florida agriculture recommends that Congress object to a dangerous national precedent and delete provisions by which Federal allocation of water would pre-empt state law. Further, Congress should authorize (1) equal cost sharing of the C&S; Florida project including construction of project components and operations and maintenance, and (2) equal decision-making authority between the Secretary of the Army and the South Florida Water Management District, the project's sponsor, in the establishment of operating protocols in Project Implementation Report agreements.
Problem 8. Compliance with water quality requirements is not ensured. A major shortcoming of the Comprehensive Plan is its failure to fully integrate water quality considerations. The Restudy itself calls for a Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan feasibility study.
The Comprehensive Plan is just one element of a much larger effort. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force has promised a strategic plan this summer that will attempt to identify more of the cost elements and to integrate the many on-going activities at the Federal, State and local level. It is widely acknowledged that achieving water quality objectives will cost several billion additional dollars. Restoration requires both water quality and quantity objectives be met, and water quality considerations will play a major role in the feasibility of many of the Comprehensive Plan's components. Accordingly, Congress should require that, prior to authorization, project components include the features necessary to ensure that all discharges meet applicable water quality standards and water quality permitting requirements.
CONCLUSION
We hope the Committee finds our recommendations for Congressional action on the Comprehensive Plan to be constructive and responsible. We reiterate our willingness to work with the Committee staff in the development of appropriate legislation.
The Corps of Engineers study was abbreviated in both scope and depth to ensure that the July 1, 1999, deadline for transmission of the comprehensive plan to Congress could be met. While referred to as a feasibility report, the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study does not contain the engineering, real estate, economic and environmental analyses that normally support recommendations for authorization of Civil Works projects. Moreover, there simply was not sufficient time to integrate water quality and quantity considerations or to make the usual calculations of the economic benefits and costs associated with the Comprehensive Plan.
In addition to abbreviated engineering and other data collection and analytical shortcuts, there is an extraordinary level of uncertainty with this plan because of its reliance on undemonstrated technologies and the evolving understanding of the science of ecosystem restoration. These uncertainties are frankly acknowledged in the report in the following ways: 1) the clear statement that the ecological changes that will occur in the Everglades as a result of the restudy cannot be forecast at this time, 2) the recommendation for construction of $100 million in pilot projects to demonstrate the technology, and: 3) the commitment to the principle of "adaptive management."
The Administration has taken the important step of contracting with the National Research Council of National Academy of Sciences to form an advisory committee. The Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem will provide a scientific overview and technical assessment of the many complicated, inter-related activities and plans that are occurring at the Federal, state, and local governmental levels. In addition, the National Research Council will provide advice on technical topics of importance to the restoration efforts.
Congress needs to recognize the extraordinary scientific, analytical and technological uncertainties associated with the comprehensive plan. Extra prudence and discipline are essential in the authorization and implementation of this unparalleled series of massive investments in the future of South Florida.
Florida Farm Bureau
Florida Citrus Mutual
Gulf Citrus Growers Association
Sunshine State Milk Producers
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Florida Fertilizer and Agri-Chemical Association
Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc.
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida
Miami-Dade County Farm Bureau
Palm Beach County Farm Bureau
Western Palm Beach County Farm Bureau
Lake Worth Drainage District