The purpose of today's hearing is to receive comments on the Administration's Everglades proposal, submitted as part of its "Water Resources Development Act of 2000" request. The hearing is divided into morning and afternoon sessions. In the morning session, we will start with Governor Jeb Bush of Florida. I would like to extend my congratulations to Governor Bush, who just successfully shepherded legislation through the Florida legislature to implement the Everglades restoration plan which, I might add, passed both bodies unanimously. We will also hear from representatives of two impacted Indian Tribes, and from the South Florida Water Management District.
The afternoon session will begin with a panel of witnesses from the "Federal Family" the Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, the General Counsel of EPA, and the leader of the Administration's Everglades Task Force from the Department of Interior. They will be followed by representatives of the agriculture and environmental communities. I welcome all of our witnesses, and thank them for their testimony today.
We all know that the Everglades face grave peril. The unintended consequence of the 1948 federal flood control project is the too efficient redirection of water from Lake Okeechobee. Approximately 1.7 billion gallons of water a day is needlessly directed out to sea. This project was done with the best of intentions---the federal government simply had to act when devastating floods took thousands of lives prior to the project. Unfortunately, the very success of the project disrupted the natural sheet flow of water through the so-called "River of Grass," altering or destroying the habitat for many species of native plants, mammals, reptiles, fish and wading birds.
The purpose of our January hearing was to receive comment on the "Central and South Florida Comprehensive Review Study," popularly known as the "Restudy." Congress mandated the Restudy to preserve the Everglades in previous Water Resources Development Acts, and the Administration submitted the restudy to Congress on July 1, 1999, as WRDA'96 required.
The Restudy includes a "programmatic" environmental impact statement; as such, it serves as a road map for the future restoration of the Everglades. All journeys need a road map. We will look to the Restudy as the roadmap for general guidance on restoring the Everglades, but we know in advance there maybe both unanticipated detours, and hopefully a few time-saving shortcuts, along the road we are about to travel. This inherent flexibility to adapt and change as future circumstances dictate is an integral part of the Restudy's approach to restoration. The risks of waiting much longer to reverse the Everglades' decline far outweigh the risks of starting now even as we continue to study and modify the plan. "Adaptive Assessment" means that we can move forward now, even in the face of some uncertainty.
Everyone has had 10 months to evaluate the Restudy. Senators Voinovich, Graham and I visited Florida in conjunction with the January hearing on the Restudy. We are now at the next step of the process. As I have mentioned repeatedly, it is my top priority to pass a bill this year to begin restoration the Everglades. I want to applaud Senators Mack and Graham for their leadership on this issue. Over the next few weeks I look forward to working with them and Senators Voinovich and Baucus to draft a bill that takes into account the comments that we hear today. The goal that I have set for the Committee is to report Restudy implementation legislation next month. Everglades may be part of a larger WRDA bill, or it may move as a stand-alone bill. I will follow whichever path that gives an Everglades bill the best chance of becoming law this year.
As we proceed, I want to let everyone know that I will approach any problems with an open mind. We have studied these issues for a long time and we are ready to move forward. Some of the issues are complex, but I want my colleagues on the Committee to know that it is my priority to get this bill ready for Committee consideration expeditiously. The window of opportunity to have the bill considered on the Senate floor is closing rapidly.
Today I am asking our witnesses to provide constructive comments on the Administration's proposal in order to make real progress, not just to hear a recitation of "positions." For example, we need to find a principled basis we can use to determine how much, if anything, the Federal government should contribute to Operations & Maintenance of the completed Restudy. Another example—even if wastewater treatment proves technically feasible, is it cost-effective as compared to other means to provide water? Further, do we, as a national policy matter, want to encourage the return of treated wastewater back into the natural system? Should the Congress authorize the initial set of 10 projects now, or wait until the project implementation reports are complete, as some will testify today? These and many other issues need to be addressed thoughtfully in the next few weeks, and we seek your constructive comments.
In preparing the hearing I directed staff to invite representatives from the sugar industry and the Citizens for a Sound Economy. In Naples last January, I promised representatives from Citizens for a Sound Economy, which voiced concerns about the costs of the Restudy, that they would have an opportunity to testify at a future hearing to raise their concerns. They were invited today but declined to testify in person.
As for the sugar industry, we did invite them to testify today but they would not provide a witness. Though it is true that the sugar industry testified last January in Florida, it is unfortunate that they would not testify on the Administration's proposal. I had hoped to question a representative from the sugar industry in depth on several issues that I know they consider important. Among the issues that I wanted to question them about are: the extent of their support for the April, 1999 restudy; the rationale for their opposition to authorizing the 10 initial projects; and details regarding continued farming on the Talisman property if authorization is delayed. They should be here.
The April, 1999 Restudy was unanimously agreed to by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force members. It was unanimously approved by the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable Florida, which included all of the major public and private interest groups. Since the Task Force and Commission attained that landmark effort in consensus building, it seems that some of the parties have backed away from the deal that was struck. The Administration may have started this, as the Chief's Report that transmitted the Restudy to the Congress made additional "commitments" that went well beyond the Restudy itself. Also, some in the agriculture industry seem to have backed away from key Restudy components that were included in the Plan the Gov's Commission unanimously approved on March 3, 1999. As we move forward, I hope to refocus our legislative efforts on the groundwork that Congress laid with the 1992 and 1996 Water Resources Development Acts, and the agreement that you all reached on the Restudy in April, 1999. Let's stop backtracking, stop trying to sweeten the deal, and get on with the fairly straightforward task of implementing the Restudy.
I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a national environmental treasure. Restoration benefits not only Floridians, but the millions of us who visit Florida each year to behold this unique ecosystem. We also need to view our efforts as our legacy to future generations. As I said in Naples last January, many years from now I hope that we will be remembered for putting aside partisanship, narrow self-interest and short-term thinking by answering the call and saving the Everglades while we still could.
I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses.