STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
EVERGLADES FIELD HEARING
JANUARY 7, 2000

Good Afternoon. I would like to thank my good friend, Senator Bob Graham, for inviting us to his home state of Florida for this field hearing on the Everglades. Bob is one of the most admired members of the Senate, and Floridians are quite fortunate to have him working for them in Washington.

Senator Graham and I have a lot in common. After all, we both served as governors of our respective states, so we are each familiar with the types of daily challenges and rewards that public service has to offer. We also have in common that we both sought to serve our nation as well as our states as United States Senators.

In my first year in the Senate, we have worked together on many issues. For example, Bob is a leader in the Senate on children's issues, and I am grateful that he is a lead sponsor with me of legislation to enhance services to children from prenatal to three. In addition, Bob was the leader in passing legislation in this past session of Congress to prevent the Federal government from seizing funds the states won in lawsuits against tobacco companies. Supported by all 50 governors, this was the most significant federalism legislation passed since unfunded mandates, and it couldn't have been passed without Bob Graham, Senator Connie Mack and the support of Governor Jeb Bush. And just for a moment: speaking of unfunded mandates, the late Governor Lawton Chiles was a great advocate for that legislation. He was a wonderful man, and I miss him.

I would also like to say how much I admire Senator Connie Mack, who is retiring this year. He is one of the most highly regarded Senators in the Republican Conference, and a tireless advocate for Florida. I have gotten to know Connie through our Senate Prayer Breakfasts and I know him to be a man of principal and unshakeable faith. I am confident that he will continue to serve Florida in some capacity as he turns a new chapter in his life.

As many of you know, there are lots of Ohio Buckeyes in Florida, the warm weather having enticed many to move here. My wife Janet and I have visited Florida a number of times over the years and, as a result, we have witnessed Florida's unbelievable growth. We have also seen the pressure it has put on the environment and aquifers in Florida and, of course, the subject of this hearing, the Everglades.

I am no stranger to the Everglades. When I was Governor of Ohio, thanks to the courtesy the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, I spent a day observing the environmentally impacted areas of the Everglades by helicopter and airboat. In addition, I have enjoyed fishing in the Florida Bay and fishing for snook in the Everglades.

I really enjoyed this morning's tour which updated me on what has happened to the Everglades and further familiarized me with specific areas highlighted in the Army Corps of Engineers study and recommendations which are the basis for this hearing.

As I said, over the years, I have been a firsthand witness to firsthand the rapidly increasing development in Florida. It appears that, in too many cases, the development has occurred without sufficient planning and consideration of its impacts on the environment, water supply and, yes, the Everglades themselves. The problems confronting the Everglades today are mostly man-made and as such, can only be corrected by man's proper stewardship of the environment and by regulating growth.

I do not wish to appear to be singling out Florida because Florida is not alone in terms of the impact of rapid growth. A lot of states have not given appropriate consideration to the environmental impacts of aggressive commercial, housing and agricultural development.

Two years before leaving office as Governor, I realized the effects of encroaching development on Ohio's farmland. After seeing acres and acres of farmland gobbled up by development and urban sprawl, I created Ohio's Office on Farmland Preservation for the purpose of developing a statewide management policy to preserve farmland and encourage responsible development.

In addition, recognizing the need to recycle Ohio's urban wasteland, we undertook Brownfields legislation and statewide incentives to recycle these wasteland sites. I have made a strong commitment to Brownfields legislation, and I am confident that if we recycle some of this nation's urban wasteland, we can take pressure off the over-development of open spaces. I believe Brownfields legislation is something we need to pass at the Federal level in order to preserve our environmentally-sensitive National treasures.

And the Everglades are indeed one of our national treasures. However the problems facing the Everglades need to be viewed from a national perspective. The primary concern before Congress on the Everglades issue is what course of action will best help preserve the Everglades eco-system and what level of responsibility should be assigned to the Federal government as Congress puts together the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2000.

I would like to stress that as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, equity among the fifty states has to be a key factor in any bill coming out of the Subcommittee. Every state wants its share of project authorizations under the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. For example, the State of Ohio has uncompleted flood control projects in Cincinnati and Columbus that require additional funding. However, there is never enough money budgeted in the annual Energy and Water Appropriations bill to accommodate all state needs for water projects.

In addition, everybody has to understand that whatever projects that are sought to be included in the WRDA 2000 be measured against water projects currently on the books. Right now, there are about 400 projects in various stages of implementation which were authorized in past WRDA bills and which have received either design or construction funding. This represents a $30 billion backlog in federal funds which are needed to complete these projects. There are additional project authorizations in recent WRDA bills that will also require funding in addition to the $30 billion needed for projects currently underway.

In other words, there are some 400 projects that have received some funding, and others that have received no funding at all. As Chairman, one of the challenges I face is to evaluate all such projects and prioritize the allocation of funds.

The State of Florida currently has almost $3 billion in project authorizations from past WRDA bills for Federal funds for projects under design or construction. This represents about 10% of the $30 billion total backlog in such projects. With a request in WRDA 2000 for $1.7 billion in construction authorization -- half of which would be Federal expenditures to begin implementation of the Everglades project -- Florida would have the largest requirement for Federal funding to complete authorized water resources projects of any state. (CHART) This includes projects for beach nourishment in several locations in Florida, channel improvements in Canaveral Harbor, Miami and Tampa Harbor, and the Kissimmee River restoration project, which is an integral part of South Florida restoration.

With respect to water development projects, the authorized level of funding is rarely matched with a full level of appropriations. Therefore, it is clear that we must review projects to the fullest extent and only authorize those projects which are of the upmost importance to the individual states. In addition, Florida must make some decisions on its own priorities for water resources development within the state. With its current backlog, what will Florida's priorities be? Will the state finish uncompleted projects or go with the Everglades project exclusively? The Federal government can't do it all.

For example, WRDA 1999 authorized 248 state-specific projects for a total Federal and non-Federal cost of about $5.6 billion. Of that amount, fourteen projects were included in WRDA 1999 for the State of Florida at a project cost of $341.2 million -- the fourth highest level of authorizations among the 50 states. This total authorization is over and above the $30 billion backlog. Florida did well in last year's WRDA bill and will do well again in the next WRDA bill. The question is how much?

When it came time to fund these projects, the State of Florida ranked second, following California, in the level of appropriations received in the Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. To put that in perspective, of the $1.4 billion in construction funding provided for water projects nationwide this Fiscal Year, Florida will receive 11% of the funds with $157.7 million. This means outside of the requested Everglades project, the State of Florida will receive approximately 10 cents of every WRDA dollar spent.

My home state of Ohio received about $21 million in fiscal year 2000. It is important to note that the implementation of the comprehensive plan on the proposed schedule would require a construction appropriation of about $200 million per year. Compared to recent appropriations levels of about $1.4 billion, this would represent about 14% of the total federal appropriation.

The request for the Everglades project is $7.8 billion over 20 years, with an additional request of approximately $182 million each year for operations, maintenance and monitoring. Not only is this committee being requested to provide funds to construct the Everglades project, but the funds to operate and maintain it after construction as well. As you can see from the available dollars, the chance of that happening is remote. Florida will have to pick up the tab.

Florida's request for WRDA 2000 will ask Congress to authorize an initial $1.7 billion that will begin implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. However, many of the components of the initial authorization request, such as the aquifer storage and recovery wells, remain untested and have not followed the necessary feasibility study process required by the Army Corps for all other projects nationwide. This is something I would like addressed in this hearing.

This committee's policy has required projects to have undergone full and final engineering, economic and environmental review by the Chief of Engineers prior to Congressional authorization. For new construction projects, the Committee requires all projects to have a Chief of Engineers' report which ensures that projects are in the federal interest and have a local sponsor willing to share the costs. While this project does have a Chief's Report of sorts, it is not given to the level of detail required by all other projects nationwide. For example, the feasibility report does not contain specific details on the siting of storage reservoirs, aquifer storage wells, stormwater treatment areas and other components or the level of engineering and design detail usually found in feasibility reports.

As the largest WRDA project authorization that this committee has been asked to approve, we will need to have much more information on this project. The question I have is: should Congress wait for the normal level of detail before committing this amount of taxpayer dollars to such a potentially large project? Are we getting ahead of ourselves? I would like to hear from witnesses on these particular issues.

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to participate in this hearing, and I am anxious to hear what our witnesses have to say.

Thank you.