This report highlights an important aspect of Everglades restoration water quality in the ecosystem. The key theme of the report, that there are uncertainties involved in restoring the Everglades, is familiar to anyone who has closely followed the debate in the Committee. Our Everglades legislation, which the Senate likely will consider this week, anticipated uncertainties in the implementation of the Plan, as is to be expected with a project that is going to take an estimated 30 years to construct. I have said it before and I will say it again: my favorite aspect of the Comprehensive Plan is the inherent flexibility provided by Adaptive Assessment. If we learn something new about the ecosystem, perfect our modeling techniques, or just plain see that something isn't working right, through the concept of Adaptive Management, we can modify the Plan based on the new information on hand.
In addition, I understand that the GAO Report highlights whether an additional 245,000 acre-feet of water is needed for Everglades National Park. The Everglades bill which this Committee passed on June 28, 2000, includes a provision dealing with this very issue. In our bill, we require the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study on the need for the water, and this feasibility study must be submitted to Congress for our review. The Committee will carefully consider the completed feasibility study, including concerns of National Park neighbors that they not be flooded if the additional water is needed. Again, this is not an unanticipated issue.
The GAO Report also focused on the uncertainty surrounding Aquifer Storage and Recovery or "ASR" as it is called. Our bill authorizes a pilot project, in addition to the two ASR pilot projects included in WRDA 99, to test this technology. In fact, I would like to highlight for those who don't know that there is chance for substantial SAVINGS if ASR works how the Corps and South Florida Water Management District anticipate it will work.
There are other opportunities for savings in the Plan that GAO has not mentioned. One example is the Wastewater Reuse facilities. The Comprehensive Plan calls for two wastewater reuse facilities to treat water to a high level of cleanliness for return to the natural system. The Committee is skeptical about the need for these facilities, as well as their nearly billion dollar cost. The bill reflects that concern and skepticism. Pending the results of a pilot project included in our bill, one or both of the facilities may not even be needed.
Finally, GAO makes a recommendation that the Army Corps and the State report to Congress on the status of the Plan, that is, whether any new projects have been added, whether any projects are no longer necessary, and what the costs of implementing the Plan have been. Our bill has a requirement for a detailed report to be submitted to Congress every five years. GAO suggests a biennial report, so that we hear from the Corps every time the Administration submits its water resource bill to the Congress. I understand that the Corps and the State both support this recommendation. I don't think this is the same type of exhaustive report that we seek every five years, but there may be value in more frequent interim reports from the implementing agencies on progress and changes to the Plan.
It is important to squarely face the uncertainties in the Plan, and the risk that someday we may need to spend more money than we anticipate today. We know that the Plan will not cost $7.8 billion. That is an estimate, it may go up, hopefully it will go down. What we do know today is that if we do not act, then the remaining Everglades will die. I think we should take the risk that there are uncertainties that could end up costing more than we now estimate in order to save the Everglades. I have no further remarks and look forward to hearing from the witnesses.