    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        ISSUES REGARDING EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AND SURROUNDING AREAS
                    IMPACTED BY MANAGEMENT OF THE EVERGLADES

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   before the

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                         APRIL 27, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-24

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     house
                                       or
               Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    57-272           WASHINGTON : 1999

                                     ______

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California            Samoa
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    KEN CALVERT, California              SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho               CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   ADAM SMITH, Washington
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    RICK HILL, Montana                   DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado                   Virgin Islands
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  RON KIND, Wisconsin
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              JAY INSLEE, Washington
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania           TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          MARK UDALL, Colorado
    MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho                  JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

                         Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
                       Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
                  Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                    John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

                Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

                        JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
    ELTON, GALLEGLY, California          CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee           Rico
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North          DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
        Carolina                             Virgin Islands
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   RON KIND, Wisconsin
    RICK HILL, Montana                   JAY INSLEE, Washington
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              MARK UDALL, Colorado
    DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania           JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
                            Allen Freemyer, Counsel
                         Todd Hull, Professional Staff
                        Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
                       Gary Griffith, Professional Staff

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held Month, Day, 1999....................................     1

    Statements of Members:
        Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos, a Delegate in Congress from the
          Territory of Puerto Rico...................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
            Letter to Hon. Alex Penelas, Mayor of Miami-Dade County,
              from Hon. Bob Graham, and Hon. Connie Mack.............    26

    Statements of witnesses:
        Aguilera, Ibel, The United Property Owners & Friends of the
          8.5 Square Mile Area, Inc..................................    99
            Prepared statement of....................................   103
        Jones, Ronald D., Ph.D, Southeast Environmental Research
          Program, Florida International University..................    48
            Prepared statement of....................................    50
        Leary, William, Senior Counselor to Assistant Secretary for
          Fish, Wildlife and Parks, National Park Service;
          accompanied by Richard Ring, Superintendent of the
          Everglades National Park...................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Lehtinen, Dexter, Esq., Lehtinen, O'Donnell, Vargas & Reiner,
          P.S., representing Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida..    75
        Lorion, Joette, Environmental Consultant.....................    79
            Prepared statement of....................................    83
        MacVicar, Thomas K., P.E., President, Federico & Lamb, Inc...    52
            Prepared statement of....................................    55
        Rice, Colonel Terry L., U.S. Army Retired, Florida
          International University, and Advisor, Miccosukee Tribe of
          Indians of FloridA.........................................    35
            Prepared statement of....................................    39
        Shiver, Hon. Steve, Mayor, City of Homestead, Florida........    95
            Prepared statement of....................................    97

    Additional material supplied:
        Barley, Mary L., The Everglades Foundation, Inc., prepared
          statement of...............................................   136
        Diaz-Balart, Hon. Lincoln, letter to Mr. Hansen..............    22
        Dieguez, Elena, prepared statement of........................   129
        Forten, Madeleine, prepared statement of.....................   135
        Prieto, Armando J., prepared statement of....................   133
        Rinaldi, Charles R., Deputy Director, South Florida Water
          Management District, Florida, letter to landonwers.........   118
            Walfer, Ray, Senior Real Estate Specialist...............   122
        Rosario, Emilio, prepared statement of.......................   127
        Sweeting, Debbie, prepared statement of......................   124
        Sweeting, Robert, prepared statement of......................   125
        Truth Patrol: Rebutting the Myth and Misinformation Campaign
          in the 8.5 Square Mile Area................................   138

      OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ISSUES REGARDING EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AND
           SURROUNDING AREAS IMPACTED BY MANAGEMENT OF THE EVERGLADES

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999

                  House of Representatives,
                           Subcommittee on National
                                    Parks and Public Lands,
                                        Committee on Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room
    1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen
    [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Hansen. The Committee will come to order.
        Good morning and welcome to the oversight hearing today. We
    have many people here today, so I would like to make an opening
    statement and proceed with the business at hand.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        The Everglades, in the State of Florida, represents the
    largest wetland ecosystem in the United States, about 18,000
    square miles of land, rivers, and lakes. This complex ecosystem
    has been considerably impacted by the development and water
    management in central and south Florida. Over many years,
    various protective measures for the Everglades have been
    enacted by Congress, but problems still abound.
        The Clinton Administration has more recently announced the
    South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative which led to the
    creation of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
    by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This Task Force
    is comprised of a large number of Federal, State, tribal, and
    local agencies and stakeholders and has established three main
    goals: one, get the water right, that is, restoring the natural
    hydrological function of the Everglades; two, restore the
    natural systems by land acquisition and changing land use; and,
    three, transform the developed environment.
        Finding solutions to restore the Everglades has not been
    cheap. Since 1993, approximately $1.2 billion has been provided
    from Federal funding to implement the activities of the
    Restoration Initiative. It is projected that at least $11
    billion will be spent on these activities over the next 20
    years. Where and how this enormous amount of money has and will
    be spent is, obviously, of great concern to this Committee.
        The issues surrounding the huge area of land and water of
    the Everglades are as complex as the ecosystem. Many of these
    issues are linked to the Restoration Initiative and will be
    examined within the scope of this oversight hearing. Areas in
    particular that are the subject of this oversight hearing
    include the land acquisition requirements in the 1989
    Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act and
    subsequent amendment in 1994 and how these requirements
    impacted the Modified Water Delivery Project, the Miccosukee
    Indian Tribe, and an area of land known as 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area.
        In 1989, Congress passed the Everglades National Park
    Protection and Expansion Act, which authorized the addition of
    107,600 acres of land in the eastern part of the Park. This Act
    also authorized the Modified Water Deliveries Project, Mod-
    Water Project, which, when finished, supposedly will restore
    the natural water flow into the Shark River Slough by moving
    water under the Tamiama Trail and into the Everglades National
    Park.
        It was the express intent of the Congress that all the land
    acquisition be completed by 1994 and was expected to cost
    approximately $81 million. To date, however, both the land
    acquisition and the Mod-Water Project are years behind
    schedule, with the Mod-Water Project now not scheduled for
    completion until 2003, if everything goes right, and it
    probably won't.
        The cost of the land is projected to be at least $50
    million more than the first estimate. So far, less than 60
    percent of the land has been acquired, and most of this has
    been the larger tracts of land. Hundreds of individual
    landowners still must negotiate a deal, while others have never
    been contacted.
        Also in the 1989 Expansion Act was a provision which
    provided for the flood protection for the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area. This privately owned area currently has approximately 430
    residents and is used extensively for agriculture. Although the
    Army Corps of Engineers had responsibility for the construction
    of the flood control project, the Department of the Interior
    was responsible for funding it. This arrangement has caused
    nothing but problems and delays. In fact, actual construction
    of the flood protection was never begun.
        Compounding the situation is an amendment to the 1989
    Expansion Act passed in 1994 which provided for acquisition of
    additional lands which affect the restoration of natural water
    flows to the Everglades National Park or Florida Bay. The
    amendment also authorized the Federal Government to provide not
    more than 25 percent of the funds necessary for the total cost
    of the acquisition.
        The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area was included in this amendment.
    However, because of the development within the area, its
    geographic location and elevation, it is clear that the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area should not be considered to affect the natural
    water flow of the Everglades. I think we will see conclusive
    evidence of that. As a matter of fact, studies commissioned by
    three separate Governors of Florida along with many scientists
    and hydrologists support this finding.
        In regard to the funding, Secretary of Interior Babbitt has
    stated they will contribute 50 percent of the amount needed to
    buy out the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area clearly exceeding the 25
    percent threshold mandated by Congress. It amazes me. The
    authority Secretary Babbitt has for far-exceeding the 25
    percent threshold has not been forthcoming from the Interior
    Department.
        In 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers, in consultation with
    the Park Service, submitted a report which stated that
    acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area was not necessary and
    included mitigation measures to protect the area from flooding.
        Contrary to that report, the Park Service maintained that
    this was not an acceptable solution. The Park Service,
    therefore, has refused to release the funds mandated by the
    1989 Expansion Act to provide flood control for the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area. In fact, in 1998, the Park Service notified
    the Corps of Engineers that it would no longer provide funds
    for the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area flood mitigation.
        Also in 1998, the South Florida Water Management District
    issued a decision endorsed by the Park Service to acquire the
    8-1/2 Square Mile Area rather than implement the flood
    mitigation plan proposed by the Corps of Engineers in 1992.
    However, it is clear from the bill report language accompanying
    the 1994 amendment that the Act does not authorize Federal
    imminent domain.
        It is known that the vast majority of land owners in the 8-
    1/2 Square Mile Area are not willing sellers. The lack of
    willing sellers prevents another formidable obstacle to
    overcome before natural water flows begin.
        Regardless of whether the reason is the non-attainment of
    the land acquisition mandated in the 1989 Expansion Act or the
    failure to construct the flood mitigation measures for the 8-1/
    2 Square Mile Area or the forced proposal to outright acquire
    the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, the fact remains that natural water
    flows through the Everglades have been needlessly delayed.
        The Park Service's delays and purposeful inactivity to get
    the water flowing again has severe negative impacts on lands
    that the Miccosukee Indian Tribe has use of, namely Water
    Conservation Area 3A. Because the Park Service has been
    delinquent in implementing any plan that actually moves the
    water, it has been stacking up in the WCA 3A for a number of
    years. This has led to unnaturally high water levels throughout
    the water conservation area. The effect of this water stacking
    has been dramatic. In fact, the Everglades in WCA 3A is
    drowning. Tree islands, known as hammocks, are disappearing as
    tree roots rot because of high water levels. Wildlife within
    this area is dying as well. All of this combination has had and
    will continue to have severe and dire consequences to the
    Everglades if water does not start flowing again.
        One of the primary goals of everyone involved in the
    Everglades is to get the water moving again in a more natural
    flow. For a variety of reasons, however, the Interior
    Department and the Park Service are doing their utmost to delay
    projects and avoid reasonable solutions which will accomplish
    this.
        The fact remains that something has got to be done to
    implement projects that will help restore natural water flows
    as soon as possible. Delaying known solutions only exacerbates
    these problems. The Congress must find ways to implement
    activities which will get the water moving once again. This
    oversight hearing intends to help accomplish this goal.
        I would like to invite Everglades Superintendent Richard
    Ring to please sit at the witness table. Is that you at the
    table?
        Mr. Leary. No, sir. My name is Bill Leary.
        Mr. Hansen. Let us get Mr. Ring up there if we could. Thank
    you. Thank you, Mr. Ring.
        I also want to mention that the Army Corps of Engineers was
    asked to testify today and be present to answer questions. Even
    though their offices received an invitation on April 15, they
    contend that they were unaware of the hearing until last
    Friday, so they will not be here today and even declined to
    send someone to answer any questions.
        Is there anyone here from the Corps of Engineers? We are
    going to have to exercise the power of subpoena around here,
    aren't we? I guess snafus like this one is symptomatic of the
    Federal Government not taking action in the Everglades.
        With that, I will welcome all of our witnesses, and I will
    recognize my friend from Puerto Rico, the Ranking Minority
    Member, for any comments that he may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

     Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
                               the State of Utah

        Good morning everyone and welcome to the oversight hearing
    today. We have many people here to testify, so I'd like to make
    an opening statement and then proceed to the business at hand.
        The Everglades, in the State of Florida, represents the
    largest wetlands ecosystem in the United States--about 18,000
    square miles of land, rivers, and lakes. This complex ecosystem
    has been considerably impacted by development and water
    management in central and south Florida. Over many years
    various protective measures for the Everglades have been
    enacted by Congress, but problems still abound. The Clinton
    Administration has more recently announced the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration Initiative which led to the creation of
    the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force by the Water
    Resources Development Act of 1996. This Task Force is comprised
    of a large number of Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies
    and stakeholders and has established three main goals: (1) Get
    the water right, i.e., restoring the natural hydrological
    function of the Everglades; (2) Restore the natural systems by
    land acquisition and changing land use; and (3) Transform the
    developed environment.
        Finding solutions to restore the Everglades has not been
    cheap. Since 1993 approximately $1.2 billion has been provided
    from Federal funding to implement the activities of the
    Restoration Initiative. It is projected that at least $11
    billion will be spent on these activities over the next twenty
    years. Where and how this enormous amount of money has and will
    be spent is, obviously, of great concern to us.
        The issues surrounding the huge area of land and water of
    the Everglades are as complex as the ecosystem. Many of these
    issues are linked to the Restoration Initiative and will be
    examined within the scope of this oversight hearing. Areas in
    particular that are the subject of this oversight hearing
    include the land acquisition requirements in the 1989
    Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act and
    subsequent amendment in 1994 and how these requirements impact
    the Modified Water Delivery Project, the Miccosukee Indian
    Tribe, and an area of land known as the 8.5 square mile area.
        In 1989, Congress passed the Everglades National Park
    Protection and Expansion Act which authorized the addition of
    107,600 acres of land to the eastern part of the park. This Act
    also authorized the Modified Water Deliveries Project (Mod-
    Water Project) which, when finished, supposedly will restore
    the natural water flow into the Shark River Slough by moving
    water under the Tamiama Trail and into the Everglades National
    Park. It was the express intent of the Congress that all the
    land acquisition be completed by 1994 and was expected to cost
    approximately $81 million. To date, however, both the land
    acquisition and Mod-Water Project are years behind schedule
    with the Mod-Water Project now not scheduled for completion
    until 2003, if everything goes right--and it probably won't.
    The cost of the land is projected to be at least $50 million
    dollars more than the first estimate. So far, less than 60
    percent of the land has been acquired and most of this has been
    the larger tracts of land. Hundreds of individual landowners
    still must negotiate a deal, while others have never been
    contacted.
        Also in the 1989 Expansion Act was a provision which
    provided for the flood protection for the 8.5 Square Mile Area.
    This privately owned area currently has approximately 430
    residences and is used extensively for agricultural. Although
    the Army Corps of Engineers had responsibility for the
    construction of the flood control project, the Department of
    the Interior was responsible for funding it. This arrangement
    has caused nothing but problems and delays. In fact, actual
    construction of the flood protection was never begun.
        Compounding the situation is an amendment to the 1989
    Expansion Act passed in 1994 which provided for acquisition of
    additional lands which affect the restoration of natural water
    flows to the Everglades NP or Florida Bay. The amendment also
    authorized the Federal Government to provide not more than 25
    percent of the funds necessary for the total cost of the
    acquisition. The 8.5 Square Mile Area was included in this
    amendment. However, because of the development within this
    area, its geographic location, and its elevation, it is clear
    that the 8.5 Square Mile Area should not be considered to
    affect the natural water flow of the Everglades. I think we
    will see conclusive evidence of this today. As a matter of
    fact, studies commissioned by three separate Governors of
    Florida along with many scientists and hydrologists support
    this finding.
        In regard to the funding, Secretary of Interior Babbitt has
    stated that they will contribute 50 percent of the amount
    needed to buyout the 8.5 Square Mile Area clearly exceeding the
    25 percent threshold mandated by the 1994 amendment. The
    authority Secretary Babbitt has for far-exceeding the 25
    percent threshold has not been forthcoming from the Interior
    Department.
        In 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers, in consultation with
    the Park Service, submitted a report which stated that
    acquisition of the 8.5 Square Mile Area was not necessary and
    included mitigation measures to protect the area from flooding.
    Contrary to that report, the Park Service maintained that this
    was not an acceptable solution. The Park Service, therefore,
    has refused to release the funds mandated by the 1989 Expansion
    Act to provide flood control for the 8.5 Square Mile Area. In
    fact, in 1998 the Park Service notified the Corps of Engineers
    that it would no longer provide funds for the 8.5 Square Mile
    Area flood mitigation. Also in 1998, the South Florida Water
    Management District issued a decision, endorsed by the Park
    Service, to acquire the 8.5 Mile Square Area rather than
    implement the flood mitigation plan proposed by the Corps of
    Engineers in 1992. However, it is clear from the bill report
    language accompanying the 1994 amendment that the Act does not
    authorize Federal imminent domain. It is known that the vast
    majority of land owners in the 8.5 Square Mile Area are not
    willing sellers. The lack of willing sellers presents another
    formidable obstacle to overcome before natural water flows
    begin.
        Regardless of whether the reason is the non-attainment of
    the land acquisition mandated in the Area, or the forced
    proposal to outright acquire the 8.5 Square Mile Area, the fact
    remains that natural water flows through the Everglades have
    been needlessly delayed. The Park Service's delays and
    purposeful inactivity to get the water flowing again has had
    severe negative impacts on lands that the Miccosukee Indian
    Tribe has use of, namely Water Conservation Area 3A. Because
    the Park Service has been delinquent in implementing any plan
    that actually moves water, it has been stacking up in WCA 3A
    for a number of years. This has led to unnaturally high water
    levels throughout this water conservation area. The effect of
    this water stacking has been dramatic and, although
    counterintuitive, the fact is the Everglades in WCA 3A is
    drowning. Tree islands, known as hammocks, are disappearing as
    tree roots rot because of high water levels. Wildlife within
    this area is dying as well. All of this combined has had and
    will continue to have severe and dire consequence for the
    Everglades if water does not start flowing again.
        One of the primary goals of everyone involved in the
    Everglades is to get the water moving again in a more natural
    flow. For a variety of reasons however, the Interior Department
    and the Park Service are doing their utmost to delay projects
    and avoid reasonable solutions which will accomplish this. The
    fact remains that something has got be done to implement
    projects that will help restore natural water flows as soon as
    possible. Delaying known solutions only exacerbates these
    problems. The Congress must find ways to implement activities
    which will get the water moving once again. This oversight
    hearing intends to help accomplish this goal.
        I would like to invite Everglades Superintendent Richard
    Ring to please sit at the witness table, as I am fairly certain
    that at least a few questions will come his way. I also want to
    mention that the Army Corps of Engineers was asked to testify
    today and be present to answer questions. Even though their
    offices received an invitation on April 15, they contend they
    were unaware of the hearing until last Friday, so they will not
    be here today and even declined to send someone to answer any
    questions. I guess snafus like this one is symptomatic of the
    Federal Government not taking action in the Everglades.
        With that, I'd like to welcome all our witnesses here and
    now recognize the Ranking Minority Member for any comments.

    STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
                   FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem
    has been a matter of considerable importance to this Committee,
    as well as to the entire Congress.
        I remember the first Congress I was here, we had a field
    trip hearing down in the Everglades, beyond the Everglades,
    into Key West to see the effect that the flow of the waters had
    had on the Keys. So it has been something--that and many other
    issues have been before this Committee very, very often.
        The 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion
    Act as well as the Act's 1994 Amendment involved the bipartisan
    effort of this Committee, as well as the Florida congressional
    delegation. It is our understanding that this oversight hearing
    is focusing on the 1989 Act and its 1994 Amendment,
    particularly the land acquisition of the Congressional Acts.
        Evidently, with funds provided by Congress, the National
    Park Service has made significant progress in acquiring the
    107,600 acres of lands authorized by the 1989 Act for the Park.
    The 1994 Amendment to the Everglades Act specifically
    authorized the Secretary of the Interior to contribute to the
    State of Florida up to 25 percent of the cost of acquiring
    three areas, including an area known as the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area. The 1996 Farm Bill and the fiscal year 1999
    Appropriations Act subsequently authorized the Federal
    contribution of 50 percent for these acquisitions.
        The decision of South Florida Water Management District to
    proceed with the acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area has
    been a matter of considerable controversy. We understand that
    the National Park Service is undertaking a NEPA review as part
    of determining whether to proceed with contributing to the
    acquisition as authorized by Congress.
        The important thing here is that there has been a great
    delay in the implementation of all of this plan, as the
    Chairman has indicated.
        Also, I would like to point out I have met with my staff to
    try to figure out why the changes in the plans of the
    acquisition of the land and why the interest in acquiring the
    8-1/2 Square Mile Area instead of doing--building up the levees
    and the dams that were supposed to be built around the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area. I just don't understand. I hope that in this
    hearing we get some clarification as to why these changes have
    been made so we would understand what is the reason instead of
    following the original plan.
        Mr. Chairman, the 1989 Everglades Protection Act and the
    Act's 1994 Amendments are important aspects of the effort to
    restore the Everglades. We look forward to hearing the
    testimony of our witnesses today in regards to these matters.
        Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Romero-Barcelo follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Carlos Romero-Barcelo, a Delegate in Congress from
                          the Territory of Puerto Rico

        Mr. Chairman, the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem
    has been a matter of considerable importance to this Committee,
    as well as to the entire Congress.
        The 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion
    Act, as well as that Act's 1994 Amendment involved the
    bipartisan efforts of this Committee, as well as the Florida
    Congressional delegation. It is our understanding that this
    oversight hearing is focusing on the 1989 Act and its 1994
    Amendment, particularly the land acquisition of the
    Congressional Acts.
        Evidently, with funds provided by Congress, the National
    Park Service has made significant progress in acquiring the
    107,600 acres of lands authorized by the 1989 Act for the Park.
    The 1994 Amendment to the Everglades Act specifically
    authorized the Secretary of the Interior to contribute to the
    State of Florida up to 25 percent of the cost of acquiring
    three areas, including an area known as the eight and one-half
    square mile area. The 1996 Farm bill and the Fiscal Year 1999
    Appropriations Act subsequently authorized a Federal
    contribution of 50 percent for these acquisitions.
        The decision of the South Florida Water Management District
    to proceed with the acquisition of the eight and one-half
    square mile area has been a matter of considerable controversy.
    We understand that the National Park Service is undertaking a
    NEPA review as part of determining whether to proceed with
    contributing to the acquisition as authorized by Congress.
        Mr. Chairman, the 1989 Everglades Protection Act and the
    Act's 1994 Amendments are important aspects of the effort to
    restore the Everglades. We look forward to hearing the
    testimony of our witnesses today in regards to these matters.

        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, do you have any
    opening comments?
        The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands?
        The gentleman from Washington?

       STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LEARY, SENIOR COUNSELOR TO ASSISTANT
    SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE;
     ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD RING, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE EVERGLADES
                             NATIONAL PARK

        Mr. Hansen. I appreciate our witnesses being with us today.
        Mr. Leary, I will start with you; and then we will ask Mr.
    Ring if you have any comments. The floor is yours.
        Mr. Leary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My name is Bill Leary. I am senior counselor to the
    Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks for the
    Department of Interior. I also serve as an advisor to Secretary
    Babbitt on matters relating to the Everglades and south Florida
    ecosystem.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record that I
    believe addresses the issues, as I understand them, you wish to
    discuss today. However, in the interest of time, what I prefer
    to do is address the issue that seems to be, at least from your
    statement, the central issue before us, which is the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area. If you will indulge me, I would like to just
    very briefly explain to you how we got from where we were to
    where we are today with respect to the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Leary, let me say this. Your statement and
    all other statements, without objection, will be included in
    the record in full. Any way you want to abbreviate your
    statement is perfectly fine with us.
        Mr. Leary. Thank you, sir.
        The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area needs to be understood--issues
    relating to it need to be understood, in the following context
    that I would like to lay out for you.
        In the 1970s, Congress enacted a series of Acts to make
    sure that water deliveries to Everglades National Park were
    adequate to protect the Park. In 1988, Governor Martinez
    appointed a task force which came to the conclusion that the
    Park was receiving inadequate waters through its main artery,
    Shark Slough.
        In 1989, in reaction to those concerns expressed from the
    State of Florida and others, Congress enacted the 1989
    Everglades Park Protection and Expansion Act which, Mr.
    Chairman, you referred to.
        That Act did three things. It authorized the Secretary of
    the Interior to expand Everglades National Park by roughly
    107,000 acres, to bring more of Shark Slough into Federal
    ownership. Two, it authorized the Corps of Engineers to design
    the Modified Water Deliveries Project to improve the delivery
    of the water into the Park. And, three, it provided that, in
    designing the project, the Corps was to protect the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area and other residential and agriculture nearby
    areas from the impacts of that water delivery system.
        The Corps of Engineers designed the Modified Water
    Deliveries Project in 1992. The announcement of the design of
    that was immediately followed by Hurricane Andrew which hit the
    area. You will be hearing more about the impacts of that storm
    from one of your witnesses, Mayor Shiver, later. But that
    brought a lot of things to a halt as people were picking up
    their lives down in south Florida.
        In any event, in 1993, the State and others determined that
    Florida Bay was suffering great harm. Florida Bay is also the
    recipient of much of its water from Shark Slough through
    Everglades National Park. So the issue was revisited by the
    Congress in 1994.
        And, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, in 1994, the Congress
    suggested and authorized us to take a different approach,
    suggesting that perhaps the best approach was to buy the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area, Rocky Glades and the Frog Pond to the south,
    and provided the Secretary with the authority to cost share
    with the State of Florida for the acquisition of the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area and those other properties.
        In 1995, Governor Chiles appointed a committee to look at
    the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. That committee was composed of
    representatives of the State of Florida, the South Florida
    Water Management District, the Corps of Engineers, Everglades
    National Park, and the residents of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
        They took a year looking at the options, a little bit less
    than a year, and issued a report, a unanimous determination,
    Mr. Chairman, by all of those parties. They rejected full
    acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area and rejected the
    original Corps plan. What they suggested was a flow way buffer
    approach to the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area that linked it to the
    flow way buffer that was being designed for the C-111 project
    to the south. It was a unanimous decision.
        The parties then attempted to enter into an agreement, a
    statement of principles to effect that proposal. All parties
    signed onto it. The Corps of Engineers, through the district
    engineer at the time, who is one of your witnesses today,
    refused to sign the statement of principles. So he raised
    questions, legitimate questions, about whether that was the
    best approach. But his refusal to sign meant that the deal fell
    apart.
        The South Florida Water Management District then in 1996
    took it upon itself to review the alternatives to determine if
    it wanted to do a locally preferred option to the Corps'
    project. They engaged in that analysis.
        During the course of their analysis, which began in 1996
    and culminated last November, 1998, the Governors Commission
    for Sustainable South Florida, which is a group in south
    Florida appointed by the Governors and composed of
    representatives of virtually all interest groups, addressed
    this subject. A subcommittee of the Commission, headed by
    another one of your witnesses today, Mr. Lehtinen, encouraged
    the commission to adopt a resolution that was in the nature of
    asking the South Florida Water Management District, to make a
    decision and move on. It encouraged the Water Management
    District to make a decision about what it wanted to do as a
    locally preferred option by December 31st, 1998, and to come up
    with a funding solution for it by September of 1999.
        Heeding that advice, in part, the Water Management District
    Governing Board in November of 1998, after analyzing all the
    alternatives, came to the conclusion that it supported full
    acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. This was well within
    the recommended time line.
        As a result of that decision, the Corps of Engineers is now
    engaged in the NEPA process of reviewing that alternative and
    the options before it. The Department of Interior has engaged
    with the Corps to try to expedite the NEPA analysis for the
    purpose of determining which option to support financially. And
    that is where we find ourselves today.
        Mr. Chairman, because the decision is yet to be determined,
    I don't know what the outcome is going to be. I believe I
    understand the views of the residents of the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area area. I have been there. I have met with them. Mr.
    Chairman, for the most part, they want to be left alone. I
    believe I understand the views of the Miccosukee Tribe. I have
    had many spirited and frank conversations with both Mr.
    Lehtinen and Mr. Rice about the concerns of the Tribe. We
    understand them.
        We are attempting, Mr. Chairman, to do the right thing for
    Everglades National Park consistent with our understanding of
    what congressional intent is. We believe you should expect that
    of us, and that is what we are attempting to do, Mr. Chairman.
        I am here representing the National Park Service and the
    Department of the Interior as your witness. I will be happy to
    answer any questions.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Leary. We appreciate that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Leary follows:]

    Statement of William Leary, Senior Counselor to the Assistant Secretary
                        for Fish and Wildlife and Parks

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Leary. I serve as Senior
    Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
    Parks for the Department of the Interior. I also serve as an
    advisor to Secretary Babbitt on issues related to the
    restoration of the Everglades and the south Florida Ecosystem.
    I appear here today on behalf of the National Park Service and
    the Department of the Interior.
        I am pleased to be here today to discuss several issues
    related to the restoration initiative. Secretary Babbitt has
    repeatedly and accurately referred to this as the largest
    environmental restoration effort ever undertaken. It is one of
    the top environmental priorities of the Clinton/Gore
    Administration and has enjoyed strong bipartisan congressional
    support.
        Because of the enormity and importance of this initiative,
    the Federal Government has entered into unprecedented
    relationships with the State of Florida and tribal, regional,
    and local governments to guide our collective efforts, despite
    diverse missions and authorities. The progress being made,
    largely under the auspices of the South Florida Ecosystem
    Restoration Task Force, is a result of these partnerships and,
    at the Federal level, from the substantial bipartisan efforts
    of the Congress and the Administration.
        This is an unprecedented undertaking, requiring difficult
    decisions to resolve complex issues. It requires enormous
    cooperation among four separate sovereigns, dozens of State and
    Federal agencies, and hundreds of regional and local
    governments. So far as possible we attempt to achieve consensus
    on how we should proceed. Given differing missions, authorities
    and interests, I believe we are achieving remarkable success in
    south Florida. That is not to say that there are no
    disagreements or difficulties to be overcome. But we have the
    means to resolve them and we do.
        As we understand it, the Subcommittee wishes to discuss
    several issues that affect Everglades National Park: the
    requirements of the 1989 Everglades National Park Protection
    and Expansion Act and 1994 amendments, particularly the land
    acquisition requirements, and how they impact the Modified
    Water Deliveries Project, the Miccosukee Tribe, and the Water
    Conservation Areas.
        Mr. Chairman, we welcome this hearing and the interest of
    the Committee members in the important and ongoing efforts to
    restore the environment of Everglades National Park.

    I. Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of
    1989

        A. History

        Everglades National Park, established in 1947, has long
    been considered the most threatened park in the National Park
    System. The history of Federal and State conservation efforts
    in the Everglades are directly linked with development of the
    vast water management system that has led to the decline of the
    ecosystem in general and the park in particular. Both span over
    50 years. The national heritage values at stake are beyond
    question. It is the only protected sub-tropical wetland in the
    nation. Its wonders are widely known, and draw visitors from
    around the nation and the world. The many threats confronting
    its future are also well-known.
        Throughout the park's 52 years, a close Federal and State
    partnership has mutually worked toward achieving its
    conservation objectives. As required by its authorizing
    legislation, the park became a reality in 1947 by the donation
    of lands from the State of Florida. Over subsequent
    enlargements of the park boundary, State participation has been
    a key factor, including the donation of about 43,000 acres
    within the 1989 expansion area.
        A major concern for park restoration surfaced in the 1980's
    and centered on the exclusion of the northeastern portion of
    the Shark River Slough from the park when originally
    authorized. This major tributary was the central flow way of
    the original Everglades, the ``River of Grass'' immortalized by
    the late Marjory Stoneman Douglas. By drawing the park's
    boundary through the middle of Shark Slough, water that had
    once flowed freely in a slow, broad expanse, was now
    artificially funneled to the west. As a result, the eastern
    portion was kept artificially dry.
        In 1970, Congress enacted the first in a series of
    congressional acts designed to address hydrological and
    ecological problems in Everglades National Park and mandated a
    minimum of 315,000 acre-feet of water to be delivered to the
    park from Water Conservation Area 3A. This minimum delivery
    schedule was subsequently modified by Congress in 1984 in
    response to excessive regulatory releases to the park following
    high rainfall. The experimental program for delivery of water
    authorized in the 1984 Act was thereafter extended by Congress
    in 1989 and 1992.
        Nonetheless, the park continued to suffer due to
    interruptions in the natural flow of water into the park
    through Shark Slough. Addressing this threat to the park became
    a local and national cause. Governor Bob Martinez formed the
    East Everglades Task Force in 1988, which reported,
    ``Restoration and protection of Everglades National Park cannot
    be accomplished unless the East Everglades area is acquired and
    surface flows are restored through it.''
        Congress responded to this dilemma with passage of the
    Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989.
    Its purposes were to (1) increase the level of protection of
    the outstanding natural values of the park and to enhance and
    restore its ecological values, natural hydrological conditions
    and public enjoyment; and (2) assure the park is managed in
    order to maintain the natural abundance, diversity, and
    ecological integrity of native plants and animals as part of
    their ecosystem.

    B. East Everglades Addition to Everglades National Park

        This farsighted legislation reflected Congress' clear
    recognition of the serious problems of declining park resources
    and the need for quick action to correct the problems. The
    legislation expanded the boundaries of the park and authorized
    the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 107,000
    acres in the Expansion Area.
        The acquisition of lands in the Expansion Area has been
    difficult due in large part to the fact that they consist of
    thousands of small parcels, the ownership of which has been
    often difficult to determine. These parcels are comprised of
    land which are regularly inundated with water and essentially
    unfit for development.
        In addition, we have received varying levels of funding for
    this purpose which have been inadequate to allow the timely
    acquisition of the Area. However, in 1997, we began in earnest
    to complete these critical acquisitions as quickly as possible.
    With the help of Congress, we are nearing completion.
        In FY 1998, we received $26 million toward the acquisition
    of the remaining acres, leaving lands estimated at $40 million
    to be acquired. In FY 1999, Congress provided the National Park
    Service $20 million toward that balance. Our FY 2000 budget
    request for the remaining $20 million will allow us to complete
    these acquisitions.
        We have also recently received declaration of take
    authority which will substantially increase the rate with which
    we will be able to complete the acquisition of the Expansion
    Area. Because the land is unsuitable for development and there
    is no public opposition, this authority will allow us to settle
    more quickly with the landowners by avoiding many of the title
    issues that have previously delayed acquisitions. Under this
    authority, all property owners will, of course, receive just
    compensation for their property.
        As of March 31, 1999, 70,881 acres (2,645 tracts) have been
    acquired in the Expansion Area, including 28,792 acquired and
    42,089 donated by the State.
        This leaves 36,343 acres (5,268 tracts) in private
    ownership yet to be acquired to complete the acquisition of the
    area. We have made remarkable progress toward completion in the
    past three years due to increased funding levels from Congress
    and the recent authorization of declaration of take authority.
    The latter is critical due to the difficulty in closing
    acquisitions on so many small parcels, the ownership of which
    is scattered. We are hopeful that the National Park Service
    will have completed its responsibilities in the acquisition of
    lands in the Expansion Area as early as 2001.
        Accordingly, we are pleased to report to the Subcommittee
    that we are well on the way to meeting the intent of Congress
    to put emphasis on completion of land acquisitions to benefit
    the park.

    C. Modified Water Deliveries Project

        The Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act
    of 1989 also authorized changes in the Central and Southern
    Florida Project to provide for improved water deliveries to the
    park and authorized the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to
    mitigate any adverse impact from the project modifications on
    adjacent agricultural and residential areas, including the 8.5
    Square Mile Area (SMA), the Rocky Glades Agricultural Area, and
    the Frog Pond.
        In 1992, the Corps developed the Modified Water Deliveries
    Project, which included the mitigation plan for the 8.5 Square
    Mile Area. This project, funded by the Department of the
    Interior through appropriations to the National Park Service
    ``Construction'' appropriation, is designed to restore more
    natural hydropatterns in Water Conservation Area 3 (WCA-3) and
    Shark River Slough. The project is currently scheduled by the
    Corps for completion in 2003 if several difficult issues can be
    resolved. The project will involve the removal and modification
    of existing levees and canals, along with construction of new
    water control structures and pump stations. Some of the project
    features are underway. In December 1998 construction was
    completed on two new water control structures. S-355A and S-
    355B, that will help to reestablish flows from WCA-3B to
    Northeast Shark River Slough. The project also required the
    Miccosukee Indian community of Tigertail Camp to be raised to
    prevent flooding the community. This construction feature,
    which also included replacing substandard housing with new
    concrete homes, is complete.

    D. 8.5 Square Mile Area

        A significant issue impacting the Modified Water Deliveries
    Project remains the long-standing controversy over the 8.5 SMA.
    The 8.5 SMA consists of about 5,600 acres immediately adjacent
    to the Expansion Area of Everglades National Park and west of
    the L-31N levee. It was developed in the 1960's and has about
    1,200 residents and 365 structures. The issue about how to
    restore natural flows of water to the park through Shark Slough
    and the resultant impacts on the 8.5 SMA have for years
    presented a challenge.
        Despite the authorization for mitigation for the area
    contained in the 1,989 Act, clear evidence of harm to Florida
    Bay, led Congress in 1994 to revisit the issue. Congress
    amended the 1989 Act to authorize the Department of the
    Interior to help acquire the 8.5 SMA, as well as Rocky Glades
    and the Frog Pond, as an alternative to mitigation.
        In 1994, Governor Lawton Chiles established the East
    Everglades 8.5 SMA Study Committee to review alternatives to
    the Corps mitigation plan for the 8.5 SMA. In 1995, the
    committee recommended a solution in the form of a flow way/
    buffer project. This option would have required acquisition of
    up to half the acreage within the 8.5 SMA, above the amounts
    needed for the Corps' mitigation plan (which called for
    construction of a canal and levee). The committee's option
    would use the acquired lands as a water detention area to
    provide full (1 in 10 years) flood protection to the remainder
    of the area. It would also link hydrologically with the flow-
    way buffer being planned for the C-111 project to the south. In
    1995 the Corps had modified its plan for the C-111 project,
    which included the acquisition of Rocky Glades and the Frog
    Pond, to create a flow-way/buffer to provide for hydrologic
    restoration of the headwaters of Taylor Slough. The SFWMD, as
    local sponsor for the C-111 project has since acquired the Frog
    Pond and a large portion of the Rocky Glades area.
        In 1996, in response to the 1995 committee report, the
    South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) contracted a
    study and analysis of the flow-way/buffer and 5 other options
    for resolving the 8.5 SMA issue. These options included the
    Corps' original mitigation plan, the committee's modified flow
    way/buffer, and full acquisition. The SFWMD formed a review
    team to monitor the technical aspects of the study, consisting
    of affected agencies and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
    Florida (Tribe). The analysis consisted of hydrologic
    evaluations, water quality analyses, and economic analyses.
        In November, 1998, the SFWMD Governing Board unanimously
    voted to support full acquisition of private properties within
    the 8.5 SMA as a Locally Preferred Option (LPO) to the Corps'
    mitigation plan, subject to cost-share arrangements with the
    Federal Government and Miami-Dade County. A decision of the
    County Commission to provide partial funding has been deferred
    pending resolution of the lawsuit brought by the Tribe against
    the SFWMD alleging that the meetings of the review committee
    violated the State Sunshine Law.
        In response to the SFWMD Governing Board's decision, the
    Corps and the Department of the Interior are examining the LPO
    pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
    review being conducted by the Department to determine its
    participation in funding the LPO will examine various
    alternatives to the LPO.
        The Tribe and residents of the 8.5 SMA have raised a number
    of issues regarding acquisition of the area. The first issue is
    whether the acquisition of the 8.5 SMA will needlessly delay
    implementation of the Modified Water Deliveries Project. Those
    who oppose the LPO contend that it is not needed for
    restoration and that full acquisition will take an inordinate
    amount of time, particularly given the fact that many residents
    oppose the buy-out.
        The restoration benefits to be derived from the various
    alternatives will be part of the on-going NEPA analysis. The
    ability to acquire such lands as are needed will involve issues
    yet to be determined, including the willingness of residents to
    sell and number of parcels to be acquired.
        The second issue is that residents of the 8.5 SMA have
    alleged that they were denied due process as the SFWMD reviewed
    the alternatives and decided to support full acquisition as the
    LPO. While it would be inappropriate to discuss the issue that
    is the subject of litigation between the Miccosukee Tribe and
    the SFWMD, the Department of the Interior fully agrees with the
    Tribe that these decisions must provide due process to the
    fullest extent and will afford ample opportunity for public
    review and comment during our NEPA process.
        Let me state categorically that we do not include a full
    acquisition alternative in our NEPA analysis lightly. We
    believe that any solution must be a sustainable solution for
    all the people of south Florida and meet the goals of the
    Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989,
    as amended.
        We are implementing the Modified Water Deliveries Project
    to meet the clear intent of Congress to restore the Shark
    Slough. We want a solution that will not compromise those
    efforts. The history of the park includes cases where
    structures built for park needs were eventually changed to
    operate for greater flood protection and water supply benefits
    to the detriment of the Park. Under the Corps mitigation plan,
    the residents will continue to live with flooded streets and
    yards, threatening to create similar conflicts between the
    residents of the 8.5 SMA and the Park. We want to avoid that.
    We want to find a sustainable solution.

    II. Impact of recent wet years on the Water Conservation Areas
    (WCA)

        Mr. Chairman, related to the 8.5 SMA is the issue of
    impacts in 1998 to the WCAs, particularly those interests to
    the Tribe from the extraordinary high levels of water in the
    system in 1998. A significant part of the problem was the
    inability of the Corps to move water off the Tribal lands and
    toward the 8.5 SMA without impacting the 8.5 SMA residents.
    These issues have come together in striking outline over the
    past 4-5 years. These have been record rainfall years. And they
    have severely strained the water management system. Most
    importantly, they have underlined the limited options the
    current system provides to address flood control needs for an
    expanding population while at the same time, trying to limit
    negative impacts on the Everglades.
        The 1997 wet season (June-October) was higher than average
    leaving the system full when the dry season began. These high
    levels were then followed by a dry season (November to May)
    that was 50 percent wetter than normal due to the influence of
    El Nino. Thus, not only did the high levels not dry down, they
    actually increased, threatening the entire system. On top of
    this, the 1998 wet season loomed.
        At the north end of the system high water in the Kissimmee
    drainage was straining the capacity of Lake Okeechobee. With no
    additional storage capacity, water managers were forced to
    release sufficient amounts of water and sediment into the
    Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. These releases were
    unrelated to the plight of the sparrow. These releases
    reinforced need for storage in the north as recommended by the
    Restudy.
        Further down the system, the configuration of water
    deliveries to Everglades National Park is currently constrained
    by the system which funnels most water to the park into western
    Shark Slough. This area is also critical nesting habitat for
    the endangered Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. In order to provide
    for a minimum 45-day nesting period, the flow gates (S-12
    structures) to the west were at first operated for minimal
    discharges, then closed in the spring of 1998. The agencies
    found ways to route water to the east and south in a manner
    close to being equal to the S-12 expected flows. Levels in the
    Water Conservation Areas were high due to high rainfall and
    discharges from the upper system. This circumstance would not
    have been different if all the S-12s were fully open.
        The emergency action, along with a period of dry weather,
    was successful in limiting the disturbance to nesting in the
    western population of the sparrow. There was an approximately
    75 percent success rate compared to the previous year. Results
    would have been much lower without the emergency actions.
        Expressing concern over flooding in the conservation areas,
    some have misinterpreted the flooding as caused solely by the
    emergency sparrow actions. As a matter of fact, similarly heavy
    rainfall in 1994-95, when park flood gates were fully open,
    produced much higher levels in the conservation areas. And
    during the emergency actions of 1998, amounts of water
    generally equivalent to the expected flows of the western
    gates, was moved through other structures to the east. Simply
    put, the closing of the western S-12 gates was not the
    principal cause of high water in the conservation areas, but
    resulted from rainfall and inflows from the north.
        The conservation areas are currently contoured with levees
    to hold and store water. A principal goal of restoration will
    be to ultimately decompartmentalize these areas to the extent
    possible. This, together with creating additional water storage
    capacity, is the best way of avoiding similar high-water
    conditions.
        Finally, with respect to the emergency actions taken in
    1998, some have criticized the validity of the science
    surrounding the sparrow. In response, the interagency State,
    Federal and Tribal South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working
    Group convened a peer review workshop and panel. The panel,
    consisting of the nation's top experts nominated by the
    American Ornithological Union, have recently released their
    draft report. The draft report supports the scientific
    credibility of the current sparrow research being relied upon
    by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the need for
    appropriate management actions.
        The report recommends similar short-term actions to hold
    water in Conservation Area 3-A during high-water events,
    pending completion of the Modified Water Deliveries project.
    The report further points out the lack of reliable data showing
    a decline of tree islands in 3-A over the last decade and cites
    studies showing that increased tree mortality has not occurred
    over that time period.
        All the above characterize the difficulties of preserving a
    wetland national park in the midst of growing pressures and a
    fundamentally changed natural system. We need to increasingly
    look toward the larger system for solutions to problems in its
    constituent parts.
        We are concerned about impacts throughout the system,
    especially including impacts to Miccosukee Tribal lands in WCA
    3-A. We take our trust responsibilities to the Tribe very
    seriously. However, we note that the perpetual Lease and
    Settlement Agreement the Tribe holds in WCA 3-A subjects the
    Tribe's rights in the Leased Area (3-A) to the Corps' authority
    to raise and lower water levels. We are committed to work with
    the Tribe to resolve these issues.
        In all of this, we have a true and sincere concern for the
    Tribe and its interests. Our focus has necessarily and, we
    believe, appropriately been placed on looking after the
    interests of the entire South Florida Ecosystem, which is
    inextricably linked to those of the Tribes, the State and all
    stakeholders in the ecosystem.

    III. Conclusion

        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these and other
    issues related to the restoration of the Everglades. We
    appreciate the continued support of this Subcommittee on behalf
    of the National Park System, including one of its most fragile
    and threatened units, Everglades National Park.
        I will be happy to answer any questions.

        Mr. Hansen. Superintendent Ring, do you have an opening
    statement or anything that you would like to add to what was
    just stated?
        Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here providing
    what support I can to Mr. Leary as the Department's witness,
    and I will be pleased to assist with any questions and answers.
        Mr. Hansen. Questions for the panel. The gentleman from
    Puerto Rico, Mr. Romero-Barcelo.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Leary, the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, is it prone to
    flooding?
        Mr. Leary. Yes, sir, it is. The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is
    an area composed of about 5,600 acres. We have a chart that I
    would like to put up that makes it a little bit easier for you
    to see this. I believe we made copies of this available to the
    Committee.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Which chart would that be?
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.002

        Mr. Leary. Members of the Subcommittee, this chart, of
    which I hope you each have a copy, is a chart which represents
    the Modified Water Deliveries Project. The 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area is the area in orange on the map. It is roughly 5,600
    acres. It is west of the levee which, for the most part, runs
    north and south and separates the natural system from the built
    environment. It is on the natural system side of that levee. It
    is a wetland, and so it suffers seasonal wet periods as one
    would expect.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Would the Corps of Engineers 1992 flood
    mitigation plan prevent the flooding of the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area?
        Mr. Leary. No, sir, it wouldn't. The project that the Corps
    of Engineers designed does not provide full flood protection to
    the residents of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. It is designed to
    mitigate any additional harm that might be imposed on the
    residents from operation of the modified water delivery
    schedule. The area is frequently inundated with water. It would
    receive no additional water stacked on top of that from the
    operation of the modified water delivery project. But the Corps
    plan does not provide full flood protection to the residents.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. If the 1989 Everglades Protection Act
    authorized the flood mitigation measures to protect the
    developed portion of the 8-1/2 square miles from the adverse
    effects arising from the restored water flows to the Park
    through the northeast Shark Slough, why has the Department
    decided not to provide these flood mitigation features?
        Mr. Leary. For a variety of reasons. First of all, as I
    discussed, after the project was designed, the Governor
    appointed this committee, which came up with a new consensus
    approach to deal with the area.
        In addition to that, in 1994, Congress suggested to us that
    perhaps the better solution was to buy the area. Our concern
    with the original Corps plan was, and remains, that it simply
    will not work to the best benefit of Everglades National Park.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Why will it not work to the best
    interest? What will it do that would be adverse to the best
    interest of the Park?
        Mr. Leary. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, it might be
    easiest for me to answer this question if I could go up to the
    chart.
        Mr. Hansen. Speak up, if you would, please. Thank you.
        Mr. Leary. Understand, Mr. Chairman, I am not an engineer,
    but I am going to attempt to answer that question as I
    understand it. This is the Modified Water Deliveries Project.
    It consists of several component parts.
        This is Water Conservation Area 3A and Water Conservation
    area 3B here. These levees 67A and C separate these two water
    conservation areas. Part of the design of the project would be
    to put gates in here that would allow water to flow from Water
    Conservation Area 3A to Water Conservation Area 3B.
        The whole idea of the Modified Water Deliveries Project is
    to restore the natural flow through Shark Slough, which roughly
    runs southwesterly, into Everglades National Park. So you would
    open the 67A and C levies. You would also make changes to
    Tamiama Trail to allow the water to flow down and then flow
    into the Park. Those are the principal features of the project.
        The original Corps design for the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area
    was to put a levee and a seepage canal here essentially around
    the edge of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area because water levels
    would be higher west of the area in the Park than in the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area. The hydrology works such that, when those
    conditions exist, water seeps under the levee and floods the 8-
    1/2 Square Mile Area. And so the seepage canal was designed to
    collect that water and move it back into the system.
        There are a couple of ways of doing that. One was to move
    the water in the L-31 canal, perhaps in the dry season, south
    down toward Taylor Slough and the Bay. The other was, in wet
    seasons, when there is a lot of water, to move the water north
    along the canal and dump it back into the Park up here at
    Tamiama Trail.
        There are several problems with both of those scenarios. In
    the first place, the Corps plan is designed to move into
    Northeast Shark Slough for the purpose of restoring the Park;
    much of the water will seep out of the park and will have to be
    collected and recycled.
        Another is that putting water into the L-31 canal, whether
    it is moving south or north, raises the level of water in that
    canal, which can have impacts elsewhere in the system. For
    example, if the water is too high moving north, it can result
    in potential damage to the people who live on the east side of
    the canal since the water level east of the canal would be
    lower and the water would seep out and impact them.
        The same is true with water levels to the south. The water
    levels moving to the south, if too high, can create potential
    damage to agriculture and other residents in this southern area
    east of the canal.
        Another problem with the plan is that it moves water
    northward, when the system is designed to operate to move water
    from the north through the system.
        This has become increasingly more important as our
    understanding of the system has evolved in the last few years.
        The Subcommittee may recall that, in the 1996 Water
    Resources Development Act, Congress authorized the Corps of
    Engineers to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire
    system and issue its report to Congress by July of this year.
    It is known as the Restudy. In the process of developing the
    Restudy over the last couple of years, we have all learned a
    great deal more about how this system functions.
        The Modified Water Deliveries Project was originally
    designed to be a stand-alone project for a very important part
    of the system. This is pretty much the heart of the system. But
    in the Restudy we have looked at the entire system. We have
    learned a lot in those intervening years about what restoration
    means. We have learned a lot about what the restoration goals
    should be. And the restoration goals have changed such that we
    expect even more water now to be moving down into this part of
    the system than was contemplated in 1992 more water than the
    Corps plan was originally designed to handle.
        So, now we anticipate that we are going to be moving more
    water down from the north part of the system pursuant to the
    Restudy. This will allow more water to flow into Everglades
    National Park to attempt to restore it closer to what the
    natural system model tells us historical water levels should
    be.
        So all of these factors make the original Corps design, in
    our judgment, inadequate; and so we have engaged with our
    partners in a review of alternatives.
        As I indicated, in 1996, there was a unanimous opinion that
    the best approach was a flow way buffer essentially halfway
    across the 8.5 Square Mile Area. In 1998, the South Florida
    Water Management District suggested that the best approach was
    full acquisition. We are analyzing all of the alternatives in
    light of the additional information we have gained under the
    Restudy authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of
    1996.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you. My time is up.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
    interested in this issue but don't understand it completely.
    But, Mr. Leary, please help me understand your definition of
    full flood protection.
        Mr. Leary. Much like the situation on the east of the L-31
    levee, full flood protection would not only prevent additional
    waters from going into the area, either through seepage or
    otherwise, but help remove water in the area such that the area
    stays as dry as possible.
        Mr. Gibbons. And you don't believe that full flood
    protection can be achieved with a levee; is that what you are
    telling us here today?
        Mr. Leary. The original Corps plan would not provide full
    flood protection. Could a system be designed that would? Yes.
        Mr. Gibbons. Have you undertaken a study of that design?
        Mr. Leary. The Park Service has not, no. The alternatives
    that have been studied have included efforts to provide full
    flood protection to all or a portion of the area.
        One approach that was studied was to put a wall essentially
    down into the ground that would attempt to block the seepage
    from occurring, and I think most parties determined that that
    was not a feasible approach. In fact, that approach was
    suggested in 1992 down in the Frog Pond area.
        The pink area on the map is the Frog Pond area. This
    curtain wall approach was suggested and rejected by the Corps
    of Engineers. I believe Colonel Terry Rice, one of your
    witnesses today, was district engineer at the time, as I
    understand it, the flow way buffer concept was agreed upon by
    Governor Chiles' committee in 1995 and 1996 might provide full
    flood protection to the eastern portion of the 8-1/2 Square
    Mile Area.
        Mr. Gibbons. How much is the eastern portion in terms of
    area?
        Mr. Leary. I don't know the exact acreage of that proposal?
        Mr. Ring. Sir, the Governor's committee report that
    examined that alternative recommended a conceptual plan which
    really didn't pin down the amount of land required for the flow
    way buffer and the amount that would ultimately be provided
    flood protection. I believe the South Florida Water Management
    Districts' engineers report did, and the alternative I think
    was roughly half. Half of the 8-1/2 Square Mile area would be
    acquired for the flow way buffer, and roughly half would be
    provided protection.
        Mr. Gibbons. Well, let me ask this question. Obviously,
    flood protection is something that is normally overseen,
    normally discussed and engineered through the Corps of
    Engineers, rather than the Department of Interior or the Park
    Service. How come you guys have ended up getting involved in
    the design plan of the flood program here?
        Mr. Leary. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the
    design of the project.
        The way Congress set this up in 1989 is that the project is
    funded through the budget of the National Park Service. I
    believe the rationale for that was that this project was being
    designed, and Congress directed that it be designed, to benefit
    Everglades National Park. Because of that, of course,
    Everglades National Park is very interested in knowing whether
    the project that the Corps implements----
        Mr. Gibbons. Do you have veto authority over what the Corps
    of Engineers proposes?
        Mr. Leary. No, sir. The only issue there would be a
    question of funding by Congress of the project.
        Mr. Gibbons. Has the Interior Department provided funds to
    acquire either the Rocky Glades or the Frog Pond area?
        Mr. Leary. No, sir. To date, no. Those have been acquired
    by the South Florida Water Management District.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, my time is, I can see, up. I
    will yield to others who may have questions.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
        Mrs. Christiansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just some
    clarification on some of the issues.
        The Frog Pond alternative, would that also require land
    acquisition or relocation of the Tribe, the one that you last
    described?
        Mr. Leary. The Frog Pond is part of a different project.
    The Frog Pond is part of the C-111 project, which is south of
    the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
        Mrs. Christiansen. It wasn't an alternative way of
    addressing the same situation, the same problem?
        Mr. Leary. The C-111 project is more designed to help
    restore natural flows through another Slough called Taylor
    Slough, which is to the south. The Frog Pond area essentially
    cuts in half, strides across the Taylor Slough which provides
    waters at the south end of Florida into the south end of the
    Park and Florida Bay.
        Mrs. Christiansen. I have--I went to some of the hearings
    with the Miccosukee Tribe last year, and it is a bit disturbing
    to me to hear that we are back again talking about relocating
    members of the Tribe. What I would like to know is, isn't there
    any alternative plans that could be developed that would
    accommodate the Miccosukee Tribe and not have them have to
    relocate from this area? Have all of the possible ways of
    restoring the water to the Everglades been evaluated?
        Mr. Leary. The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area does not directly
    impact the Miccosukee Tribe. Let me show you on the map. This
    is the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. The Miccosukee Tribe
    reservation--reserved area is over here. The Tribe can tell you
    far better than me, but my understanding of the concerns of the
    Miccosukee Tribe are largely this: The Miccosukee Tribe is
    interested in getting this water to flow, as the Modified Water
    Deliveries Project is designed, eastward in this direction and
    away from their lands and then southward into Shark Slough.
        The Tribe is concerned that, until water can move eastward,
    water will stack north of them and potentially damage their
    properties here. So they are eager to see the water move over
    toward Shark Slough. We are eager for the water to move over
    here as well because, again, we want to restore flows through
    Shark Slough.
        What the Tribe is suggesting, I believe, is that we need to
    deal with the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area the quickest way possible
    in order to move the water so it does not impact their lands.
        Mrs. Christiansen. Well, I will reserve further questions
    for the Tribe when they come to the panel.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Udall.
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Could you just further explain the issue there with the--
    that you were just explaining with Representative Christiansen
    on the 8-1/2 mile area? That is an area--what is the status of
    that and how does that relate to their claim and to the fact
    that they don't want the water on their land?
        I understand about the water moving out on the--you have
    the water moving. I assume that is set up so you want water
    moving more to the east----
        Mr. Leary. That is correct.
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico. [continuing] and around their
    property. And in order to do that you have to--is it purchase
    this 8-1/2 mile area or what?
        Mr. Leary. That is the penultimate issue. The situation we
    find ourselves in is we all want to move the water over to the
    east. The issue is, can we do it without doing harm to the 8-1/
    2 Square Mile Area? So the decision is how to address that
    area.
        This area to the immediate west of the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area here we have a similar problem. This is the Park Expansion
    Area we are engaged in acquiring so that we can move water
    through it. But, in addition to that, we have to deal with the
    8-1/2 Square Mile Area one way or the other in order to move
    the water.
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Mr. Leary, it is your
    recommendation or the Park Service's recommendation that there
    be a purchase of the 8-1/2 mile area?
        Mr. Leary. We have looked at that alternative. The Park
    Service has indicated that it believes that it is the best
    alternative to provide protection to the Park. But that is the
    subject of our NEPA analysis before we make a final
    determination.
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Leary. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Go ahead. Go ahead.
        Mr. Leary. I wanted to correct one answer that I gave to
    Mr. Gibbons. The Department of Interior has acquired some of
    the property in the Rocky Glades that are within the boundaries
    of Everglades National Park.
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Is it the opinion of the Park
    Service that the flow that is planned under the current system
    will restore the ecosystem of the Everglades? And how quickly
    will it do that?
        Mr. Leary. I am sorry. Are you talking about the original
    Corps plan?
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico. No, the Corps plan we are
    functioning under right now.
        Mr. Leary. We believe that the Restudy plan the Corps is
    developing and will be submitting to Congress in July, when
    implemented with the Modified Water Deliveries Project and with
    the C-111 Project, will meet, or provides us with the means to
    meet, our overall restoration goals for the ecosystem.
        Mr. Udall of New Mexico. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
        I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Lincoln Diaz-
    Balart be included in the record.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

    Letter to Mr. Hansen from Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Representative in
                       Congress from the State of Florida

        Dear Mr. Chairman:
        I commend the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
    Lands for reviewing the delays in the implementation of the
    1989 Act providing for Modified Water Delivery to the
    Everglades. It is essential that all agencies involved proceed
    expeditiously to implement the program contemplated by the 1989
    Act, so that the proper flow of water to the south can be
    restored, the damage to the State and Tribal lands to the north
    from flooding can be reduced, and the constitutional property
    rights of adjoining homeowners are protected.
        Congressman Dante Fascell's bipartisan 1989 Act is sound.
    It represents a Congressional commitment to the affected
    parties that should be honored. The Act, including the
    protection of the 8.5 square mile area, was based on the
    recommendations of two Governor's Commissions (both a
    Republican and a Democrat Governor). Since passage of the Act
    and the 1994 Amendment, another Governor's Commission (a
    Democrat Governor) has again recommended that the 8.5 square
    mile area be protected. Further delay, including delay caused
    by the ill-founded effort to condemn the homes of the residents
    of the 8.5 square mile area, are bad both for the environment
    and for the affected parties. As part of the 8.5 square mile
    area falls within the district I represent, I respectfully
    request that the Subcommittee disavow any agency efforts to
    condemn homes in the 8.5 square mile area.
        The environment to the north is suffering because water
    flow is blocked, flooding the Florida-owned and Miccosukee
    Tribe-owned portions of the historic Everglades. Natural
    resources of the State and the Tribe are being lost. Members of
    the Tribe and citizens of Florida have a right to expect that
    agencies will carry out the 1989 Act without further delay.
        Homeowners in the area that were promised protection are
    instead being threatened with condemnation. Their property is
    under siege even though the 1989 Act directed the Army Corps of
    Engineers to protect this area and the Report of the 1994
    Amendment specifically disavowed condemnation.
        I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to use its good
    offices to expedite the Modified Water Delivery Project,
    including the protection project for the 8.5 square mile area.
    Our commitment to the Everglades environment, to the Miccosukee
    Tribe, and to our system of constitutional property rights,
    requires nothing less.

        Mr. Hansen. Gentlemen, I want to ask both of you a few
    questions. I appreciate it; and, in the essence of time, I ask
    that you be as brief as you possibly could.
        Mr. Leary, the 1994 expansion amendment made it clear that
    not more than 25 percent of the funding to acquire the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area can be provided by the Federal Government.
    Where does the Interior Department get the additional authority
    to chip in additional an 25 percent, as stated by Secretary
    Babbitt?
        Mr. Leary. What Secretary Babbitt was discussing in his
    letter was a response to the question, if the South Florida
    Water Management District were to adopt a locally preferred
    option, would we cost share on that project. Secretary Babbitt
    was saying to the South Florida Water Management District that,
    consistent with the overall 50/50 match requirement for the
    entire ecosystem restoration effort which Congress had enacted
    in 1996, we would look at this as part of the overall effort.
    The funds we have been provided from the Congress in the
    intervening years have provided us with the authority to
    acquire lands for ecosystem restoration based on a 50/50 cost
    share.
        Mr. Hansen. In other words, you are referring to the 1996
    farm bill; is that right?
        Mr. Leary. The 1996 farm bill is one of them. But our
    appropriations for the last 2 years from the Land and Water
    Conservation Funds have provided the same cost share
    requirement.
        Mr. Hansen. Do you believe the farm bill supersedes the Act
    of 1994?
        Mr. Leary. I am not suggesting that, sir. I believe that we
    would need to seek and obtain a clarification from Congress as
    to whether the 1994 restriction was or was not limited to the
    funds that were being discussed in that Act.
        Mr. Hansen. But, as you know, you cannot authorize under an
    appropriation bill; and whether or not it was appropriated as
    you just stated, it still has to be authorized.
        Mr. Leary. We would be seeking guidance.
        Mr. Hansen. I can't figure out where the authorization is,
    Mr. Leary.
        Mr. Leary. We would be seeking guidance from Congress in
    that regard.
        Mr. Hansen. Do you have a solicitor's opinion on that?
        Mr. Leary. I do not, sir. I will be happy to request one if
    you would like.
        Mr. Hansen. Do you believe the 1996 farm bill creates any
    condemnation authority?
        Mr. Leary. I don't believe we have examined that question.
        Mr. Hansen. Let me ask this. Do you feel an appropriation
    will create an imminent domain authority?
        Mr. Leary. Likewise, sir, I don't know the answer to that
    question.
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Leary, has the Interior Department provided
    any funds for the acquisition of the Rocky Glades area or the
    Frog Pond?
        Mr. Leary. The Department of the Interior has--yes. We have
    about $14 million available for contribution to those areas. We
    entered into an agreement with the South Florida Water
    Management District for those funds. The South Florida Water
    Management District has not requested those funds.
        Mr. Hansen. So you really haven't expended any funds yet.
        Mr. Leary. Not for those two projects, no, sir, other than
    the acquisitions within the Park in the Rocky Glades area.
        Mr. Hansen. Why?
        Mr. Leary. Because we have been in disagreement with the
    South Florida Water Management District over the terms that
    were imposed upon us by Congress.
        In authorizing those funds, Congress stated that the lands
    acquired with those funds were to be managed in perpetuity for
    the benefit of Everglades National Park and Florida Bay and the
    South Florida Water Management District, and we have to date
    been unable to agree on the means by which the Department of
    the Interior and Everglades National Park can assure the
    Congress that the directive will be met.
        Mr. Hansen. In 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a
    general design memorandum with the completed EIS which
    essentially gave the green light to start construction of the
    flood protection to the 8-1/2. At that point, a full 2 years
    from the 1994 amendment, why didn't the Interior fund the Corps
    to start construction?
        Mr. Leary. I need to look at the 1992 appropriations
    figures, but we did request over the years and received funding
    for construction of those features as requested by the Corps of
    Engineers. We have met those requests. We have constructed,
    under the Modified Water Deliveries Project, a number of the
    features of that project but not the feature involving the 8-1/
    2 Square Mile Area.
        Mr. Hansen. September 23rd, Assistant Secretary Berry wrote
    to Congress asking for a declaration of taking authority. What
    is the status of that request?
        Mr. Leary. That request has been approved by the
    committees, and we are undertaking to implement that authority.
    We believe that that authority will enable us to speed up the
    completion of the acquisition of the Park expansion area by a
    number of years, and we are very grateful to have received that
    authorization.
        Mr. Hansen. I am always curious, as I try to think back on
    this, why this Committee wasn't asked, especially since we are
    referenced in the first page of that.
        Mr. Leary. Mr. Chairman, the reason that this Committee did
    not receive that request is because the Park Service has been
    operating for over 21 years on what we understand is the policy
    of this Committee that we do not need to request specific
    authority from this Committee, but that we provide the
    Committee with quarterly reports. That policy is expressed in a
    letter we received over 22 years ago from this Committee. If
    the Committee, under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, has changed
    that policy, we were unaware of it, and we apologize.
        Mr. Hansen. Let me ask this, if I may. In your testimony,
    you state that there is clear evidence of the harm to Florida
    Bay if the Department of Interior does not acquire the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area. Would you mind quickly telling us what that
    clear evidence is?
        Mr. Leary. The clear evidence that I was talking about,
    sir, was evidence that the State and the Federal Government
    determined back in 1993 that Florida Bay was continuing to
    experience great harm, and that caused the State and the
    Department of the Interior to come to Congress and ask for
    greater authority to move forward in ways that would be
    protective of the Bay.
        Mr. Hansen. Also in your testimony, you seem to criticize
    the Chiles Commission report. Did the Dade County Commission
    endorse it and the south Florida water folks endorse that? What
    was the conflict between you folks?
        Mr. Leary. Sir, you misunderstood me. I was not at all
    criticizing the Chiles Committee report. Indeed, what I was
    suggesting was that we had unanimity of the parties in interest
    as a result of that report and were prepared to move forward on
    the flow way buffer. But the district engineer at the time,
    Terry Rice, refused to sign the agreement, and so the agreement
    fell apart.
        Mr. Hansen. The 8-1/2 bothers me. Do we have any willing
    sellers in that area?
        Mr. Leary. The South Florida Water Management District
    believes that there are many willing sellers in the area.
        Mr. Hansen. How many folks have you got in that area?
        Mr. Leary. I believe there are about 1,200 residents is
    what I understand, about 365 structures.
        Mr. Hansen. Go back to your term. What percent would be
    willing to sell their property of that? Have you got any wild
    guess on that at all, Mr. Leary?
        Mr. Leary. I do not. I have been told anecdotally from the
    South Florida Water Management District that the number of
    willing sellers is in the 300-plus range, but I do not know of
    my own knowledge. We certainly have taken no poll out there.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate your comments.
        The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would--Mr.
    Leary, the 1992 flood mitigation proposal, is it still carrying
    the hydrological conditions we need? And, also, does it leave
    intact all of the residences and the property in the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area?
        Mr. Leary. The original Corps project would require the
    acquisition of some lands necessary for construction of the
    levee and the seepage canal, but it would not require,
    obviously, as much acquisition as would the other alternatives.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. And then what would be the impact on
    that land of the Governor Chiles' study committee?
        Mr. Leary. That proposal would impact roughly half of the
    area. As Mr. Ring suggested, it was more of a conceptual plan,
    as opposed to an exact design. But, as we understood it, it
    would require the acquisition of roughly the western half of
    the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Finally, Mr. Leary, your critics say
    that--the critics of the Department of Interior decision say
    that the reason that they want to acquire the--the Park Service
    wants to acquire the 8-1/2 is to establish a buffer, which will
    be against existing law, to acquire land for a buffer. How
    would you respond to that criticism?
        Mr. Leary. Well, I believe what they are referring to is
    report language in the 1994 Act that talked about how this
    authority is not to create a Federal buffer. And no one is
    suggesting the creation of a Federal buffer. If the Federal
    Government did indeed hypothetically down the road decide this
    was the approach to take, it would provide grant funds to the
    South Florida Water Management District, and the South Florida
    Water Management District would buy these properties.
        And you understand that part of the rationale here and
    justification for interest in the full acquisition is not just
    limited to the issue of the flow of water. That is but one part
    of the issue of restoration. The rest is this. One of the
    things that the Everglades ecosystem lacks is adequate short
    period wetlands that help serve as an ecological buffer between
    the built environment and the Everglades. And that is what the
    8-1/2 Square Mile Area is, short-term wetlands.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Leary.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I finally would like to ask
    unanimous consent to submit a copy of a letter signed by
    Senators Graham and Mack to the Mayor of Miami-Dade County,
    Alex Penelas, dated February 24, 1999, supporting the
    acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
        Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

    Letter to the Hon. Alex Penelas, Mayor, Miami-Dade County, Florida from
                      Hon. Bob Graham and Hon. Connie Mack

        Dear Mayor Penelas:
        We want to share our views with you as deliberations
    continue on the very difficult issues surrounding the modified
    water delivery project and its impact on the 8.5 Square Mile
    Area. A decision to acquire this area from willing sellers
    marks an important step in the process of rehydrating
    Everglades National Park and restoring Florida Bay.
        This is a very difficult and emotional issue, but this is a
    situation that will continue to linger until the entire area is
    acquired or provided with flood protection. Full acquisition is
    not only the best alternative for the Everglades; it is also
    the best alternative for all Miami-Dade County taxpayers.
        For these reasons, we support the decision made last year
    by the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management
    District to fully acquire the 8.5 Square Mile Area and urge you
    to ratify the decision when it comes before the Miami-Dade
    Commission. Finally, we pledge our strong commitment to ensure
    that the Federal Government is an active financial partner with
    the South Florida Water Management District and Miami-Dade
    County in order to ensure that the residents of the 8.5 Square
    Mile Area are fairly, and fully, compensated.

        Mr. Hansen. Let me go back to some of these things we are
    talking about.
        I still can't quite fathom this 8-1/2. Go back to the law;
    and, as the gentleman from Puerto Rico just stated, the
    Committee knows this Act does not authorize the use of Federal
    imminent domain authority, nor does it create a Federal buffer
    zone outside the Park.
        Now, I guess you could give it over to the water district,
    but then, if I understand this right, being the past speaker of
    my State, and I don't know if these laws are the same. I have
    no way of knowing. Then they would have to have this Florida
    State legislature give them the right of imminent domain.
        And if they can't do that, you guys are dead in the water.
    You don't have any authority at all to take this 8-1/2. If you
    have got a willing seller, yeah, but my staff tells me here
    that is the infinitesimal amount and that some of those folks,
    when they were interviewed, felt coerced that they were going
    to get imminent domain. I don't know if that is true or not,
    but I know that if people think they are going to lose
    something, they probably would say that.
        So here we have got this agriculture area. I still don't
    understand the hydrology or the science behind why that is
    necessary. Maybe that is just my limited knowledge of this, but
    I don't think you have any right at all to take that 8-1/2
    square miles.
        Mr. Leary. Mr. Chairman, we haven't come to the question of
    the need for imminent domain authority in the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area because, again, the issue remains unsettled as to what
    project will ultimately be implemented. As Mr. Romero-Barcelo
    suggested, there are a number of people who support full
    acquisition of the area. Members of the Florida delegation,
    including Senators Graham and Mack, support full acquisition.
    There are a number of people who do not, but the point is that
    it is speculative at this point to determine the need for
    imminent domain authority in the area.
        Certainly, there are a number of entities which might have
    imminent domain authority or seek it if it is needed. That
    would include the Department of the Interior. It would also
    include the South Florida water management district, the State
    of Florida, Dade County, and the Corps of Engineers; any number
    of entities.
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Leary, regardless, if there are a number of
    people who support it isn't the issue, as I see it; and also as
    I look it, it is not the issue of whether or not the Department
    of Interior or others eventually would have imminent domain
    when they have a great big roadblock called Federal law
    standing in front of them.
        Someone either has to change the law, or you have got to
    get it from another source; and until you can get it, you have
    got to get rid of this 1994 Act because we look at--the 1996
    Farm Act doesn't even come close to helping you out in any of
    those areas. So you have got a heck of a roadblock staring you
    in the face, in my mind, if that is what you want to do and
    your scientists feel that.
        I don't have a dog in this fight, but still, on the other
    hand, this has got so many problems hanging on it. I would be
    very concerned if I was in the shoes of either you or Mr. Ring
    on how you really want to go about doing this. I think you're
    setting yourself up for all kinds of litigation. We will
    probably all be pushing up daisies by the time this thing is
    all resolved.
        Mr. Ring, the clear intent of the Park Expansion Act of
    1989 was to acquire this eastern expansion area by 1994. What
    has taken so long for the Park Service to acquire these lands,
    the eastern expansion area?
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Chairman, can I contribute
    something to the gentleman? I don't think the Department of
    Interior has any authority at all over the Park Service to
    acquire any lands. They can only contribute, and it is Florida
    South Water Management that can do the acquisition, and I think
    the only thing appropriate to contribute--I think that----
        Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the comments.
        Mr. Leary. Mr. Chairman, might I respond to that question?
        Mr. Hansen. Sure, Mr. Leary.
        Mr. Leary. As I understand the question, you are talking
    about the park expansion, the additional areas to the park
    itself. Congress did indeed authorize us to acquire those
    acres. We received about 40,000 acres from the State of Florida
    and have been engaged in acquiring those lands since, with
    funds which have been made available to us by Congress for
    those acquisitions.
        What we have encountered is a number of difficulties in
    acquiring those properties from this simple fact: This is
    property that is largely under water most of the time. This is
    the classic example of swamplands that people bought decades
    ago. It is land that is largely undevelopable, but is in small
    tracts, Mr. Chairman. Many of these parcels are quite small.
        It takes just as much work to acquire the small tracts as
    it does large ones. It is difficult to get clear title on some
    of these properties because they have such little value that
    owners have even not gone through probate on some of these
    properties. It is an extremely difficult process.
        We have acquired those that are the easiest to acquire, and
    now we have run into the slow difficulty of going through
    individual condemnation actions, trying to clear title. That is
    why we sought the declaration of take authority, and that is
    why we believe, with it, we can clear this quickly.
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Ring, essentially the park was expanded in
    1989 for the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem and the
    natural flow of water. Part of this entailed the acquisition of
    some property owned by the Hernandez family, the Carter family
    and the Hect family. Are Park Service personnel living in the
    homes that are acquired on this property?
        Mr. Ring. There are Park Service rangers living in some of
    the homes, of the few homes that were acquired inside that area
    of the east Everglades expansion area.
        Mr. Hansen. How long is that going to go on?
        Mr. Ring. That was initiated as an interim measure pending
    the completion of land acquisition and the revision of the
    park's general management plan to determine how we will be
    managing the area. It creates a presence out there while the
    area has been partially acquired, not completely acquired, and
    is not under our management and control, in order to prevent
    things like dumping.
        There was an automatic weapons shooting gallery out there,
    quite a number of problems in the area that we were trying to
    stop, so we are trying to create a presence to provide
    protection to the Federal properties pending the completion of
    acquisition and the completion of our management plan.
        Mr. Hansen. Okay. You mention ``interim.'' So this was
    essential for the natural restoration of the Everglades.
    Employees are living there. You fully intend they will be gone,
    you will destroy these homes, all that type of thing; is that
    right?
        Mr. Ring. We are in an advanced stage now of land
    acquisition, we have about 70,000 acres acquired. Assuming the
    approval of the fiscal 2000 budget request, we will have the
    funds to complete the acquisition. This fall, we will be
    starting the planning process to amend the park's general
    management plan, and we will be examining with the public and
    all of our partners what are the appropriate actions and
    activities and facilities and management presence that we need
    out there.
        The basis for any continued presence on the part of any of
    our rangers out there in homes will be discussed and determined
    as a result of that planning. It will not be continued as a
    result of the interim decisions we make.
        Mr. Hansen. You made a statement describing, quote, a
    sustainable solution or sustainable approach to the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area. Give me your definition of sustainable. What
    do you mean by that?
        Mr. Ring. Sir, Mr. Chairman, a number of the agencies,
    ourselves included, have been trying to address the issue of
    sustainability in south Florida as part of an overall ecosystem
    approach towards restoration. Sustainability means a decision
    that will not create problems elsewhere. It will fit into a
    context of a comprehensive solution and it will last.
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Ring, do you believe that there are any
    people down there being threatened or coerced or intimidated by
    the water management district into selling any of their
    property?
        Mr. Ring. I have absolutely no knowledge of that, sir.
        Mr. Hansen. Going back to the gentleman from Puerto Rico,
    do you believe the acquisition of the 8-1/2 would create a
    buffer zone for the park?
        Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry?
        Mr. Hansen. Do you believe that the acquisition of the 8-1/
    2 would create a buffer zone for the park?
        Mr. Ring. I believe that, and I have indicated that, the
    proposal of the water management district adopted and
    recommended to the Corps would indeed solve the water
    management issues associated with the completion of the
    Modified Water Delivery Project in that area in a sustainable
    manner. And, I believe it would also add critical short
    hydroperiod wetlands to the overall ecosystem, and that would
    provide significant ecological benefits.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Let me ask you one more.
        There are other properties acquired as directed by the 1994
    amendments for Everglades restoration, particularly in the area
    known as the Frog Pond, when in private hands which is used
    extensively for agriculture. Since the Park Service was in 1994
    arguing that these lands were also essential for the
    restoration, what is the current use of these lands?
        Mr. Ring. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the South
    Florida Water Management District acquired the Frog Pond as a
    result of trying to acquire the land necessary for the C-111
    project of the Corps of Engineers. They tried to acquire the
    western three sections of the Frog Pond and, in negotiations
    with the owner, ultimately acquired the entire area.
        They leased back the land for seasonal agriculture on a
    year-to-year basis for two reasons, as I understand it, but I
    would urge you to contact the South Florida Water Management
    District directly on this.
        One was to soften the impact on the agricultural economy in
    south Dade, and the other was to prevent the intrusion of
    invasive exotics which would likely come into that land if it
    were left fallow pending the completion of the actual project
    features associated with the C-111 project that were scheduled
    to occur over a 5-to-7-year period.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Ring.
        Member of the Committees, Mr. Sherwood, you weren't here
    earlier. Do you have any questions?
        Mr. Sherwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I am asking this a little tentatively, coming in as
    late as I have, and I have been to the Glades and spent time in
    that area, and I think I understand the theory of--that it is a
    sheet water flow going south out of the big lake all the way to
    the bottom of the peninsula, and that that has been interrupted
    and that that is the problem.
        But what I don't understand about this 8-1/2 acres of land,
    I have information that that is at a higher elevation, and it
    doesn't participate in the sheet water flow. So why is that
    important that you buy that 8-1/2 acres of ground?
        Mr. Leary. For a couple of reasons, the justification would
    go as follows. For one thing, the Shark Slough area immediately
    to the west of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, which is in orange
    on the map there, is the lowest portion of Shark Slough. The 8-
    1/2 Square Mile Area is at the edge, and the elevation does
    indeed go up.
        We are not talking about severe elevation here. It is----
        Mr. Sherwood. I understand.
        Mr. Leary. But the western portions of the 8-1/2 Square
    Mile Area are indeed as low as the areas immediately to the
    west in the Park expansion area. The area becomes flooded, as
    water levels increase, whether it is during heavy rainfall
    events or otherwise. In Florida there are two seasons, a wet
    and a dry season. During very high water rain events, that
    level of water can cause flooding throughout the entire 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area.
        The--but the other rationale for acquisition of the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area is the one that Superintendent Ring just gave,
    which is that the Everglades does not--suffers from a lack of
    short season hydroperiod wetlands, and that is an ecological
    benefit that this area could provide to the Everglades system.
        Mr. Sherwood. I didn't understand that.
        Mr. Ring. Sir, in 1993 we gathered as many scientists as we
    had available to try and critique the problems of the
    Everglades' ecosystem. They provided a report which provided
    the basis for the Corps proceeding into their overall
    hydrologic restoration effort. They determined that the
    fundamental characteristics of the predrainage system that
    needed to be restored were a hydrologic regime which featured
    dynamic and sheet flow, and large spatial scale.
        Fifty percent of the original Everglades has been lost. So
    the recovery of some of that spatial scale was critical, and
    what they referred to as ``habitat heterogeneity''--that means
    a mixture of different habitats--and what has been lost on the
    Everglades, particularly on the eastern side, has been the
    edges, the areas that aren't always flooded.
        The deep, central sloughs often have water in them all year
    round. Wading birds, for instance, can forage there during the
    dry season when the water is low in the deep, central sloughs,
    but as those fill up in the wet season, they must have shallow
    wetland areas to forage to survive. They move as that habitat
    is available to them.
        What has been lost on the edges are those short hydroperiod
    wetlands, the wetlands that are inundated with water only
    portions of the years. Those portions of the year are critical
    to providing support and habitat for populations of wading
    birds, particularly when the central sloughs are filled with
    water during the wet season.
        So, there is a critical loss of function to the Everglades.
    While 50 percent of the spatial scale has been reduced,
    approximately 90 percent of the historic levels of wading birds
    have disappeared, and that is as a result of the loss of some
    of those critical edge habitats.
        Mr. Sherwood. So, if you bought that edge habitat, what
    would you do with it?
        Mr. Ring. I think the South Florida Water Management
    District has proposed the acquisition of that area as a way to
    provide a sustainable solution to the restoration of flows into
    Shark Slough, and we see benefits from that proposal associated
    with the additional habitat that it would create. The South
    Florida Water Management District would be the land owner and
    the acquiring agency and would manage it the way it manages
    many areas throughout the Everglades system for both water
    management purposes and for natural habitat.
        Mr. Sherwood. I see we have run out of time. I developed
    that a little more, but maybe it is----
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have just
    a couple of brief questions.
        First, Mr. Ring, given the enormity of the size of the
    Everglades National Park, is it your testimony today that this
    8-1/2 Square Mile Area is absolutely essential to the
    restoration of the entire Everglades system?
        Mr. Ring. The restoration of the Everglades system is a
    vast and very, very complicated problem. It has a number of
    difficult issues associated with it. Finding a sustainable
    solution in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area that is consistent with
    the long-term restoration goals--not simply the hydrologic
    goals, but the overall ecological restoration goals as well is
    essential to achieve.
        Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask, once you achieve acquisition of
    this 8-1/2 Square Mile Area to do what you want to do, which is
    eliminate all the people off of it so you can freely flood it
    when you need to, what prevents the water flow from exceeding
    the limitations of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area into other areas?
        Mr. Ring. Sir, that is a question that is probably more
    properly directed to the South Florida Water Management
    District and the Corps of Engineers, but there is a canal and
    levee system, the eastern protective levee, that runs down
    along the edge of the Everglades and separates it from the
    built system. The Corps of Engineers and the South Florida
    Water Management District have designed and are attempting to
    maintain a design that allows for the restoration of historic
    hydrologic conditions in the Everglades and the provision of
    authorized flood protection east of the levee.
        Mr. Gibbons. Does that levee system work?
        Mr. Ring. Sir, the Modified Water Delivery Project and the
    C-111 project have been authorized, approved and are being
    undertaken, as well as the restudy which calls for a replumbing
    of the entire system. I think that is a fairly good indication
    that the system, as it exists in south Florida right now,
    doesn't work, doesn't work for a variety of purposes in many
    areas.
        Mr. Gibbons. So you are telling us today that the levee
    that is there on the eastern shore isn't going to work and it
    will conclude to flood. There will be seepage outside it once
    you allow for flooding in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, as well?
        Mr. Ring. No, sir, I'm not saying that.
        Mr. Gibbons. Well, if that is the case, why wouldn't the
    levee that you want to put on the western side of the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area keep water out and seepage out of the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area?
        Mr. Ring. Sir, I am trying to indicate that the Corps of
    Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District, the
    local sponsor, are trying to come to grips with a number of
    different engineering issues to improve the system that is
    there. There are problems that are being addressed through
    these projects and through the restudy.
        Your question about the original seepage canal system on
    the western side of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is one that Mr.
    Leary spoke to you about before, and that is, it does not make
    conditions any better in the 8-1/2 mile area, which is an area
    that already floods. It simply keeps that area from getting
    worse as some additional water is introduced into the east
    Everglades as part of the Modified Water Delivery Project.
        Mr. Gibbons. And your introduction of the additional water
    into the east Everglades, is that changing the flow of water
    through or around the reservation that we talked about earlier,
    that is northwest of this area?
        Mr. Ring. Are you referring to the Modified Water Delivery
    Project, sir?
        Mr. Gibbons. Well, yes.
        Mr. Ring. Okay.
        Mr. Gibbons. Because you want to now take it to the east
    and then southwest, come back through--out Shark River Slough.
        Mr. Ring. Right. It would move the flows that are currently
    being funneled to the west through Water Conservation Area 3A
    and being delivered into Everglades National Park through a
    series of structures called the S-12 structures. On the western
    side of Shark Slough, it would redistribute those flows to the
    east to be consistent with the way they flowed historically.
        Historically, about two-thirds of the water that flowed
    across Tamiama Trail into Everglades National Park through
    Shark Slough came east of the L-67 extension levee, which is
    the old boundary of the park. It came through the east
    Everglades addition.
        Today, something on the order of 75 percent of the flows
    that come into the park come to the west of that extension
    levee and significantly inundate the western parts of Shark
    Slough, much higher than they ever were inundated historically,
    and that is area where the Miccosukee Reserve area is. It also
    causes funneling and stacking up of water in Water Conservation
    Area 3A immediately to the north of that location.
        There are times during high water conditions when water can
    be 3 to 4 feet higher immediately to the west of the L-67 levee
    than it would be on the same day immediately to the east of
    that levee.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Is it true what I have just been told, that we have spent
    about $1.3 billion on this Everglades restoration project so
    far?
        Mr. Leary. The figure we have seen is about $1.2 billion.
    That figure is largely composed of appropriations over the
    years for several ongoing projects, such as the restoration of
    the Kissimmee River. You may recall that years ago the river
    was straightened, and we are in the process of taking it back
    to its original meander.
        The figure also includes expenditures for the Modified
    Water Delivery Project and for the C-111 project, C-51 project,
    but----
        Mr. Duncan. Is it also true--is it true that it is going
    to--that the conservative estimates are that the total cost for
    this is going to be about $11 billion over the next 20 years?
        Mr. Leary. The $1.2 billion figure also includes normal O&M
    costs associated with managing the parks and the refuges and
    the sanctuaries and that sort of thing that--two-thirds of that
    are normal operations. Most of the new funds in that figure are
    for land acquisition.
        Mr. Duncan. I think you are going to have a real problem in
    that, you know, the entire budget of the National Park Service
    right now is about $1.3 billion or something like that, and
    then you talk about all this money as if it is just all there
    and, you know, I just don't believe it is going to be there.
        And then I am told that this--the acquisition of this 8-1/2
    square miles is going to cost about 6--is it $60 million; is
    that what you have estimated?
        Mr. Leary. I believe the estimate for full acquisition is
    closer to $112 million, I believe.
        Mr. Duncan. A hundred and twelve? Does that count the
    litigation costs and that type of thing? Is that in there, too?
        Mr. Leary. I don't believe it is.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, you know, this is just--I mean, the Great
    Smoky Mountains National Park, its entire budget is about $11
    million a year, and that is the most heavily visited national
    park in the nation. This is just sounding crazier and crazier
    the more we get into it. The money's just not there.
        Mr. Leary. If I may?
        Mr. Duncan. Not even close.
        Mr. Leary. The vast majority of the figure that you cited
    is the figure that has been released by the Corps of Engineers
    for implementation of the Restudy, which is a series of over 60
    projects that will help restore the entire ecosystem and, among
    other things, provide protection to one of our most endangered
    parks, Everglades National Park. This restoration effort is
    going to take 20-plus years to be implemented under the best of
    circumstances.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, but you are talking about ridiculous
    amounts of money, and if we were to even come close to the
    figures that you are talking about, you would be taking away
    money from national parks all over this--all over this country.
    I mean, it is like the Smoky Mountains get about 9 or 10
    million visitors a year, three or four times what any other
    national park gets, and the Smoky's budget is $11, maybe
    heading to $12 million, and you are talking about $112 million
    just to acquire this one little piece of property.
        I will tell you, it is just ridiculous, just ridiculous.
    You people are dreaming, and you are being very unrealistic
    about this whole thing. I mean, you just--you have to be a
    little more realistic. There are things, if we were going to
    create an absolutely perfect world and spend just ridiculous
    amounts of money, I mean we could spend the whole Federal
    budget on this project, but it just wouldn't make sense to do
    it. There are some things, you have to be a little bit more
    realistic.
        I know the easiest thing in the world to do is to spend
    other people's money, but you have to be a little more sensible
    and a little more thrifty and frugal and economical at some
    point.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, and I thank you, Mr.
    Leary and Superintendent Ring, for being with us. We appreciate
    your attendance with us today.
        I would like to ask you if you can possibly stay for these
    next two panels. It would be nice if you could. I know we are
    all very busy around here.
        Mr. Leary. I wish I could. I have a hearing on Thursday I
    need to prepare for, sir. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Hansen. I certainly understand. I would like to point
    out to you, this thing is fraught with problems, but I don't
    know how you get around this 1994 law. I have been reading it
    while these other gentlemen have been talking. Very clear with
    respect to any lands acquired pursuant to this subsection, the
    Secretary may not provide more than 25 percent. Regardless of
    what the Secretary said, I don't know how he gets around that.
        The Committee does not authorize the use of Federal
    imminent domain authority nor does it create a Federal buffer
    zone in the park.
        Just one after another, just like it was written to stop
    some of the things that I understand are going on, and--but
    anyway, I won't bore you with that, but I would sure like the
    Solicitor's opinion on some of those things. The Solicitor's
    opinion I would like is the difference between the 1994 Act and
    the 1996 Farm Act, does he feel that one supersedes the other.
    I would be very curious to know that. If you could provide that
    to the Committee, I would appreciate it.
        [The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. And also, if it is all right, Superintendent
    and Mr. Leary, a lot of us have a lot of questions we would
    like the ask about this issue, and we would like to submit
    those to you, and we would appreciate the answers if we could
    get them. Would that be all right?
        Mr. Leary. We would be happy to answer any follow-on
    questions you have, and if we have any documents that we wish
    to provide the Committee by way of explanation, we would
    appreciate it if you would accept them.
        Mr. Hansen. We really appreciate that, and let me just add
    and I don't mean this in any unkind way, but we would
    appreciate them relatively soon. We have this problem. I am one
    of the senior members of the Armed Services Committee, and
    whenever we ask somebody in the Pentagon for something, I think
    18 months later we get the answer. So we just get a little
    weary of that, if we may. But you folks have always been much
    better; we appreciate that.
        Mr. Leary. Thank you, sir. One last thing, we would
    encourage the members of this Subcommittee to come visit and
    allow us to demonstrate to the members of the Subcommittee
    exactly what we are doing down there and why, and why the
    administration considers it such a high priority.
        Mr. Hansen. We appreciate that because the gentleman from
    Tennessee pointed out, we look at the parks system, and I am
    constantly fooling around with one of these 374 units of the
    park systems, or the 73 that we have of national monuments till
    the President makes another one, but anyway, we are always
    concerned about that.
        So this is one that is really creating kind of a big issue
    to a lot of us, and maybe we ought to have a Subcommittee
    meeting or CODEL that goes down there and looks it over. That
    may not be a bad idea.
        Mr. Leary. We would welcome you, however it is you would
    care to visit.
        Mr. Hansen. Very kind of you. We appreciate it and thank
    you, gentlemen.
        Our next panel is composed of Mr. Dexter Lehtinen, Thomas
    A. MacVicar, Dr. Ronald D. Jones and Colonel Terry Rice,
    Retired, if those gentlemen would like to come up, please.
        Gentlemen, we are going to run out of time, and we spent
    quite a bit of time with these first two gentlemen, and I
    apologize, but we had a lot of things we wanted to know. So, if
    it is not terribly inconvenient for you, we would like to
    follow the clock a little close if we could.
        You see it there in front of you. It is just like when you
    are driving your car. It is a traffic light: green, you start;
    yellow, you start wrapping up; and red, you stop. So if you
    just feel that there is no question that you have got to have a
    minute or two more, go ahead, but we would appreciate if you
    could stay as close as you could.
        Colonel Rice, we will start with you and go across. Is that
    all right?
        Colonel Rice. That is fine.
        Mr. Hansen. You have the floor, sir

    STATEMENT OF COLONEL TERRY L. RICE, U.S. ARMY RETIRED, FLORIDA
      INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, AND ADVISOR, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF
                           INDIANS OF FLORIDA

        Colonel Rice. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Committee members, I
    am Colonel Terry Rice, and I have been a public servant for
    over 30 years now. In February of 1998, I retired from the
    Corps of Engineers after being an officer for that entire
    period, working around the world, grappling with some pretty
    tough challenges.
        My last assignment in the Corps of Engineers was with the
    Jacksonville district, where I had oversight responsibility for
    Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and my major
    priority, my major focus during that assignment was Everglades
    restoration. It consumed about 50 percent of my time because of
    the priority it had.
        Once I retired, I decided to continue my efforts in
    Everglades restoration, and to do that, I took a position at
    Florida International University as a research scientist. I do
    have a Ph.D. in hydrology, so it gives me a little knowledge of
    the water and things that happen in the Everglades--water is
    what restoration is about--and I also advise different people
    in environmental matters in south Florida, to include the
    Miccosukee Tribe of Indians.
        I think that the Everglades restoration is very important
    for all of us. I think it has far more meaning than what meets
    the eye, and I just think it is important to be involved in,
    and that is what I am dedicated to.
        When I came into the Jacksonville district back in 1994 it
    quickly became apparent to me that this Modified Water Delivery
    Project was a strategic imperative as far as winning this war
    to save the Everglades. There was no doubt in my mind that if
    we didn't find some way to move through this quickly, we were
    going to do undue harm to the entire system.
        It is not just a matter of putting that water into Shark
    River Slough as you directed be done. It also is putting water
    into the western part of Florida Bay, which is very important.
    It also relieves many areas to the north. You have the water
    conservation areas where the tribe practice their culture which
    had been destroyed over the years. Lake Okeechobee is being
    destroyed, a lot of the estuaries are receiving fresh water,
    that shouldn't be receiving it, because of this; and it is
    driving tourists home. It is destroying the economy of the
    area.
        So it has impacts throughout the entire system, and that
    was very apparent; and when I started looking at the project,
    embedded within was the turning point of the whole war: how do
    you get by this 8-1/2 Square Mile Area that everybody wants to
    fight over all the time.
        And we had a plan submitted to Congress in 1992, which
    would solve that problem--that was very clear. Once you build
    that project you can put the water in Shark River Slough and
    get rid of all this damage that has been created over the
    years.
        So you have heard by earlier testimony, that in 1996 I
    declined to sign a statement of principles. The reason I
    declined to sign that statement of principles was because they
    could not explain to me how we were going to get through all of
    these issues that we had to get through to do something other
    than the Corps plan. I could not see a way through that, and
    nobody was addressing all this Pandora's box of issues that
    were going to be unleashed--increased budgets, more
    environmental problems, and congressional approvals--all those
    kinds of things. I was very concerned.
        So I basically sat back and watched them go through the
    process of grappling with finding another alternative, and this
    basically has gone on since 1992--7 years. Progress; we have
    had no substantial progress in implementing the 1989 Act when
    it comes to modified water deliveries since 1992. It has been
    essentially dormant.
        I watch these agencies do this over the years, and then
    finally it came to a head. There was a decision reached last
    year on November the 12th, 1998, and that decision essentially
    was to buy out the area and, to me, that was an extremely bad
    decision. It was a decision that was ill-advised,
    unimplementable, and I think, as the chairman said, we are
    going to be pushing up daisies before it is implemented. This
    concerned me very greatly.
        And of course, South Florida Water Management District had
    a big role in that, Miami-Dade County had a big role in that,
    but what you look at here is the Department of Interior's role
    and they made a commitment that day at that board meeting. It
    was based on a letter sent by Secretary Babbitt to the
    superintendent of Everglades National Park, Dick Ring, who was
    just here, that basically committed 50 percent of the money to
    buy the entire area.
        I am absolutely convinced that that board would never have
    made that decision to buy out the area unless that commitment
    was made, and they understood it as a commitment. If you go to
    south Florida today, they think the money is in the bank. That
    is why they made that decision. And unfortunately, that
    decision was not only a bad decision and a bad commitment in my
    mind, but it also defied the laws of Congress, and let me just
    explain a little bit of what I mean.
        Number one is, it changed the 1989 Act. You said protect
    it, they decided to buy it out. There was no amendment; there
    was no action taken to change that. They committed $60 million
    when the Corps of Engineers still stands by, and I checked last
    week, that the $40 million project will solve or satisfy the
    Federal interest.
        They committed 50 percent--we have already been through
    that--when the law clearly says 25 percent. They did not go
    through NEPA before they did that. If you ask here, Mr. Leary
    says that they are doing NEPA. Well, down in south Florida, it
    is committed. They think it is a done deal, even though the
    NEPA process is going to take a long time.
        They did not go through the process of consulting with the
    South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, which Congress
    established to coordinate these kinds of things. They did not
    coordinate one iota with that group before they made that
    decision.
        And lastly, they did not consult with Miccosukee Tribe of
    Indians, which has a vested interest in seeing this project
    accomplished as fast as possible.
        So all those things, I think, are indications of some
    things that allowed that decision to be made. A decision which
    is going to hold things up.
        So, in summary, I think it is bad. Obviously, that is my
    opinion. We have something here that is bad for progress. We
    need progress. We talk about the $11 billion that is maybe
    coming down the road. We need to show some progress in what we
    already have authorized.
        We also are wasting taxpayers' money in my mind. We are
    also destroying natural resources that shouldn't be destroyed.
    Some of these are not resilient. They are not going to come
    back. But worst of all, we are needlessly removing 432 homes
    from an area when it doesn't have to be done, and it is being
    done in the name of Everglades restoration; and I think that is
    totally intolerable and should be stopped.
        I think that what you have here is a situation where people
    need to be held accountable. Accountability, I think, is the
    word of the day. If we don't hold people accountable, we are
    never going to get through this whole restoration process,
    which is going to go on for 40 years. We have to hold people
    accountable, people and agencies, and until we do that, we are
    going to continue to hear the excuses that we hear. We are
    going to see the process continue to go on and we are not going
    to have progress like we know we need.
        And so I think, in a nutshell, it boils down to figuring
    out how to hold people accountable and getting through all
    these different processes that people want to create.
        Buying out the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is not necessary for
    Everglades restoration. Not buying out the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area is necessary for Everglades restoration as was the wisdom
    of Congress in enacting the law in 1989. What we need to do now
    is hold people accountable and get it done.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Colonel.
        [The prepared statement of Colonel Rice follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.011

        [Written answers to questions from the Committee.]
        May 21, 1999
        Subject: Everglades Oversight Hearing--April 27, 1999
        To: Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives

        Mr. Hansen did not have time to ask all the questions that
    he intended to ask at the April 27th hearing. Below are written
    responses as promised.
             Q. Will the Corps plan work with whatever
            modifications are appropriate in the detailed design phase? A.
            Absolutely. I can not imagine a scenario for which the concept
            documented in the Corps plan will not work.
             Q. Is it necessary to condemn or fully acquire the 8.5
            square mile area for Everglades Restoration? A. Unequivocally
            NO. As a matter of fact, ``not buying out the area'' is
            necessary for restoration. Attempting to buyout the area,
            without a justifiable public purpose, may doom the entire
            Modified Water Deliveries project and more. We should avoid at
            all costs unnecessarily removing people from their homes no
            matter what our endeavor.
             Q. Does the 8.5 square mile area block northeast shark
            river slough? A. Absolutely not. The 8.5 square mile area is on
            the periphery of the slough on relatively high ground.
             Q. What is the affect on lands to the north of Tamiama
            Trail of delay modified water delivery while some try to
            condemn the 8.5 square mile area? A. Due to the abnormally high
            water levels created by the Modified Water Deliveries project
            not being completed, the Water Conservation Areas, Lake
            Okeechobee, and much of the estuarine system is being
            significantly damaged . . . much of this damage is
            irreversible. Time is of the essence.

        Mr. Hansen. Dr. Jones

      STATEMENT OF RONALD D. JONES, Ph.D, SOUTHEAST ENVIRONMENTAL
           RESEARCH PROGRAM, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members. I
    will make it very brief.
        Mr. Hansen. Dr. Jones, can I get you to pull that mike up
    pretty close so we can catch everything you are saying, please.
        Dr. Jones. Sure.
        I am happy to be here. I am a Professor of Biology at
    Florida International University. I am also the Director of the
    Southeast Environmental Research Program at the same
    university. I am on IPA to the United States Army Corps of
    Engineers, where I work as a senior scientist. I advise various
    agencies as to water quality issues, particularly pertaining to
    the Everglades. I have spent the last 14 years working in the
    Florida Everglades. I have served the Federal Government as an
    expert for both the Departments of Justice and Interior on
    water quality issues and other water-related matters. I also
    have testified in Congress before on these particular, almost
    these same issues; and I provide advice to the State of
    Florida, the South Florida Water Management District, the
    Miccosukee Tribe and the Corps of Engineers on these things.
        Your opening statement pretty much covered the areas that I
    was going to go over. So I am just going to briefly hit some of
    the high points.
        My major concern is the fact that the delay in Modified
    Water Delivery and the completion of this C-111 project is
    causing irreversible harm to many portions of the Florida
    Everglades. As far as I am concerned, it is one of the most
    important issues facing the Florida Everglades today, getting
    this Modified Water Project done. The restudy, the effort that
    we are talking about in the future hinges on us having
    completed this portion of the project, consider-
    ing that the restudy has taken this as being part of the base
    condition before we can go on forward with that.
        Specifically, I work sort of from the south of the system
    up to the north. I have five particular areas that concern me.
        The first of them are the problems that are associated with
    the elevated salinities in Florida Bay that are directly caused
    by our lack of ability to deliver water to the northeast
    portion of Florida Bay and also to the western boundary of
    Florida Bay, through the Taylor Slough and the Shark River
    Slough systems. Neither of these can be corrected without the
    implementation of the Modified Water program.
        The--one of the--I guess to highlight that, the salinities
    in Florida Bay in 1989 were as high as 70 parts per thousand,
    which is double that of sea water; and areas such as the Taylor
    River, which is particularly supposed to be a fresh water, or a
    low salinity river, had salinities of 45 parts per thousand,
    which is 28 percent higher than sea water.
        Some very dramatic problems are occurring in Florida Bay.
    These are not going to be reversed without the Modified Water
    Delivery program being put in place.
        Everglades National Park, when it was established, the
    boundary was at--northern boundary of it is basically U.S.
    Highway 41. The eastern boundary of it was the L-67 extended
    canal. The Shark River Slough--very, very small portion of
    that--was included into Everglades National Park along this
    boundary. Most of it was outside of the park to the east.
        The water that has been delivered traditionally into
    Everglades National Park has been delivered into an area that
    was short hydroperiod wetlands. We have now flooded that area,
    causing extensive environmental changes, and we are trying now
    to restore that by putting water to the eastern flow section,
    and that is, in fact, Modified Water Delivery. Until we do
    that, Everglades National Park and the Shark River Slough are
    going to continue to suffer dramatic damages.
        Another thing that comes to effect is, we move up into the
    8-1/2 Square Mile Area and the only portion of that I will
    directly address is, in 1990 I was requested by Everglades
    National Park and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to
    evaluate the potential impact of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area
    flood mitigation project on its water quality. After extensive
    research in the design sources of water that would be returned
    to the Everglades National Park and along with evaluating the
    phosphorous retention of the buffer strip that was included in
    this project, I came to the conclusion and advised both the
    park and the United States Army Corps of Engineers that there
    was not going to be a water quality problem associated with the
    project as envisioned.
        Currently, the buyout now being the locally preferred
    option, I do not have the same beliefs. I have--although they
    have not done the studies for that, my professional opinion
    right now is that there could be significant water quality
    problems associated with the purchase of the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area that are not being addressed, and they are just assuming
    that buying the area and flooding it will not have any water
    quality impacts. I do not believe that to be the case. It does,
    however, need to be examined carefully.
        Another--fourth point is that because of the inability to
    deliver water south in the system, destructive flooding is
    occurring in Water Conservation Area 3A, which is property of
    the State and leased to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. These
    high levels have caused much damage to the mosaic of the
    communities out there, and they have caused tremendous damage
    to the tree islands. And in many cases, the tree islands are so
    destroyed that they will not be able to be rehabited without
    massive replantings and, in some cases, going out there and
    actually raising the elevation of the soil so that we can have
    this habitat restored.
        Final concern is with the fact that we have--without being
    able to release water south through the system, we have water
    levels in Lake Okeechobee being held unnaturally high, and we
    also have massive fresh water releases going to the coastal
    estuaries which have caused tremendous damage, particularly in
    the Caloosahatchee and the Saint Lucie estuaries.
        Finally, I would just in conclusion say that continued
    delays in the implementation of the Modified Water Delivery
    Project will result in continued and potentially irreversible
    damage to the entire Everglades system, including Everglades
    National Park. This delay has profound implications directly
    affecting the plans for restoration of the Florida Everglades
    and the associated ecosystems.
        Congress should do everything and anything within its power
    to ensure that the Modified Water Delivery Project is
    implemented and completed without further delay.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Dr. Jones. We appreciate your
    comments.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Jones follows:]

       Statement of Dr. Ronald D. Jones, Ph.D., Director and Professor,
     Southeast Environmental Research Center and Department of Biological
          Sciences, Florida International University, University Park

        I am a full Professor of Biology and the Director of the
    Southeast Environmental Research Center at Florida
    International University. In addition I am currently on an IPA
    from the State of Florida as a Senior Scientist to the United
    States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. I have a
    Ph.D. in microbiology from Oregon State University and have
    spent the last 14 years working in the Florida Everglades.
        My education, experience and research work qualify me as a
    water quality expert, including water quality in wetland
    systems, with special emphasis on oligotrophic (low nutrient)
    systems such as the Florida Everglades. In addition I am an
    expert in general Everglades ecology and Everglades water
    related issues in general. I have been qualified in Federal and
    state court and testified as an expert in these areas and
    related matters.
        I have served as a Federal Government expert (Departments
    of Justice and Interior) on Everglades water quality and other
    water related issues since 1988 and have testified before the
    United States Congress on these issues. In addition I also
    provide expert assistance to the State of Florida, the South
    Florida Water Management District, the United States Army Corps
    of Engineers and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida on
    Everglades ecology and water related issues.

    Introduction

        It is my professional opinion that the implementation of
    the Modified Water Delivery Project (MWD) along with the
    completion of the C-111/Taylor Slough modifications currently
    under construction are the most important and critical
    components of Everglades restoration. Without MWID, not only
    does the northeast Shark River Slough in Everglades National
    Park (ENP), continue to unnaturally dry out, but the Everglades
    to the north of ENP in Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) are
    being unnaturally flooded, thus destroying wildlife (including
    endangered and threatened species), tree islands and other
    critical habitat. Water that historically flowed through Shark
    River Slough is now being shunted unnaturally to the estuaries
    to the north causing imbalances that that adversely affect
    water quality and the ecology of these systems. Lake Okeechobee
    is kept at elevated levels for prolonged periods of time, which
    adversely affects the remaining littoral zone, which is vital
    to its ecology and health. The natural system, which includes
    the freshwater Everglades, Lake Okeechobee, Florida Bay, the
    coastal estuaries and the nearshore waters of the Southwest
    Florida Shelf, is suffering severe damage because of the
    failure to implement the Modified Water Delivery Project. The
    longer we wait to implement MWD, the less the likelihood is
    that we can preserve and protect the Everglades and its
    associated ecosystems. Delay is the biggest threat to the
    Everglades.

    Specific Points

        Working from south to north the following five water
    quality and ecology issues are of specific concern:

    1. Elevated salinities in Florida Bay.

        In 1989 Florida Bay experienced salinities as high as 70
    parts per thousand (ppt), which are over twice the salinity of
    seawater. It is the belief of most scientists and my opinion
    that these unnaturally elevated salinities triggered a massive
    seagrass die-off in Florida Bay from which it has not yet
    recovered. In addition to exceedingly high central Bay
    salinities, traditionally freshwater to low salinity areas such
    as Taylor River also experienced salinities that would not be
    expected under natural conditions. For over one year Taylor
    River had salinities continuously in excess of 30 ppt and as
    high as 45 ppt (28 percent higher than full strength seawater).
    These conditions resulted in massive negative impacts in the
    northeast portion of Florida Bay along with extensive
    persistent algal blooms in the central and western portions of
    the Bay. The delays in implementing MWID has been in large part
    responsible for the inability of managers to control salinities
    in Florida Bay and moderate the effects of development within
    the watershed that decrease freshwater flows to the Bay.

    2. Hydroperiod restoration of the Northeast Shark River Slough.

        When Everglades National Park was established, the northern
    boundary (U.S. Highway 41) did not include the historic major
    water flow way, Shark River Slough. Water delivery structures
    were constructed that delivered water to areas to the west that
    only included a small portion of the historic Shark River
    Slough. This resulted in unnatural flooding of short hydro
    period areas and drying out of large portions of the Northeast
    Shark River Slough not included in ENP. The Everglades National
    Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 included the purchase
    of this area with the intent of rehydrating and restoration of
    this area. Although the initial rehydration of this area had
    dramatic positive effects on this area, both in reducing the
    flooding in the areas west of the Shark River Slough and the
    establishment of peat forming communities in the Northeast
    Shark River Slough, ecological restoration has essentially been
    halted due to the failure to implement MWID.

    3. Water quality issues associated with the 8.5 Square Mile
    Area.

        In 1990 I was requested by Everglades National Park and the
    United States Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the potential
    impacts of the 8.5 Square Mile Area and the flood mitigation
    project for water quality impacts to ENP. After extensive
    research into the design, sources of water being returned to
    ENP, along with evaluation of the phosphorus retention
    capabilities of the soils and biological communities within the
    project buffer strip, I concluded that there would not be a
    water quality impact to the Park with the implementation of the
    Corps' plan for the 8.5 SMA. Although a similar evaluation of
    the current plan to buyout the 8.5 SMA has not been conducted,
    it is my professional opinion that serious water quality
    impacts could result from the implementation of this option
    that were not possible under the Congressionally authorized MWD
    Project. This needs to be carefully evaluated as nutrient
    pollution and eutrophication is the major long-term
    irreversible threat to ENP and the Everglades in general.

    4. Destructive flooding of Water Conservation Area 3A.

        Because water cannot be moved south through ENP until the
    completion of MWD, long-term and persistent flooding of Water
    Conservation Area 3A has occurred. This flooding has resulted
    in massive changes in the marsh vegetation patterns, tree
    island destruction and negative impacts on the wildlife,
    including endangered and threatened species. In addition WCA-3A
    contains critical habitat that is being destroyed and will
    continue to be destroyed or degraded until MWD is completed. Of
    particular importance is the fact that although the marsh
    vegetation patterns will reestablish themselves given a
    reasonable period of time, the tropical hardwood hammocks (tree
    islands) will not be restored in a reasonable time period
    without a massive replanting effort and in many cases
    reestablishment of soil surface elevations. Therefore, it is
    extremely important that further destruction be avoided.
    Although these tree islands represent a relatively small
    portion of the habitat, their presence is critical in
    determining the presence of many bird, reptile and mammal
    species found in the Everglades. Although we all acknowledge
    the importance of Everglades National Park, there is no excuse
    for ignoring the equal importance of the Water Conservation
    Areas. This is especially critical since implementation of MWD
    is of equal importance to the preservation and restoration of
    the entire Everglades system including ENP.

    5. Water levels in Lake Okeechobee and freshwater releases to
    the coastal estuaries.

        Although not as directly linked to MWD, the inability to
    move water along its natural north to south path results in
    elevated levels of water in Lake Okeechobee and the release of
    excessive amounts of water to the coastal estuaries. This has
    resulted in negative impacts to the littoral zone of the Lake.
    The unnatural release of water to the coastal estuaries has
    resulted in massive fish and shellfish kills, algal blooms and
    sedimentation. All conditions that are unacceptable and need to
    be stopped immediately. These freshwater releases have problems
    associated with both quantity and timing in addition to water
    quality.

    Conclusions and Recommendation

        In conclusion, continued delays in the implementation of
    the Modified Water Delivery Project will result in continued
    and potentially irreversible damage to the entire Everglades
    system including Everglades National Park. This delay has
    profound implications directly affecting the plans for
    restoration of the Florida Everglades and the associated
    ecosystems. Congress should do anything and everything within
    its power to ensure that the Modified Water Delivery Project is
    implemented and completed without any further delay.

        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Thomas K. MacVicar, you have got the floor,
    sir.

     STATEMENT OF THOMAS K. MACVICAR, P.E., PRESIDENT, FEDERICO &
                               LAMB, INC.

        Mr. MacVicar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee. My name is Tom MacVicar. I am a registered
    Professional Engineer in south Florida, today representing the
    Dade County Farm Bureau, which is an organization that--rural
    organization representing the $1 billion agricultural industry
    just east of Everglades National Park.
        I think I may be the only person in the room today who was
    at the meeting in 1989 of this same Committee, then chaired by
    Representative Vento, when the 1989 Act was heard. At that time
    I was an employee of the South Florida Water Management
    District, and we had just completed a 10-year deliberate,
    inclusive, very public process dealing with the issues
    associated with restoring the Everglades National Park,
    protecting the east Everglades, dealing with property rights
    and other issues.
        Farmers participated; every State, local and Federal agency
    within the jurisdiction participated; landowners, residents and
    environmental groups participated.
        We had to deal with a national park boundary that made no
    environmental sense, a Federal water control project that did
    more harm than good in many cases to the park. We had difficult
    property rights issues, and we had difficult secondary impact
    issues, but the community came together as a community.
        We reached consensus behind the plan that was embodied in
    the 1989 Act. It was a tremendous victory for Florida's
    Everglades, a tremendous step forward for the State of Florida,
    and was really the first concrete example of the State working
    together with Congress to restore the ecosystem. It predated
    congressional action on the restudy and the Kissimmee
    restoration by 3 years.
        It was also a great affirmation for me personally that the
    process worked. We had good scientists from every agency
    working together. That fostered good policy by the leaders in
    Florida, and it ended up with a good solution, which was the
    Modified Water Delivery Project in combination with the
    acquisition of Everglades National Park.
        What has happened in the 10 years since then has not been
    nearly as positive a process, and I would like at this point to
    comment on a few of the statements made by the first panel
    because the Florida Bay issue came to a head shortly after this
    Act was passed and shortly after the plan was produced by the
    Corps and caused a lot of confusion, basically caused the
    abandonment of the scientific approach to the issue, and it
    drove a lot of government process.
        The 1994 Act that has been talked about here today was
    really a way to deal with another Corps project--Corps park
    project, the C-111 project, which is south of Modified Water
    Delivery. That is a project that recommended, without Congress
    ever reviewing the plan, that 10,000 acres of our most
    productive farmland be bought by the government and converted
    to wetlands.
        The 1994 Act was a way to try and get Federal money into
    the acquisition of the Frog Pond and the Rocky Glades, which
    are in the C-111 project; it was not a way to get Federal money
    into the 8-1/2 Square Mile project until the very end when that
    component was added. And as we heard today, although the water
    management district has spent well over $100 million on the
    Frog Pond and the Rocky Glades, the Department of Interior has
    yet to contribute its first dime to matching those
    acquisitions.
        I would like to finish up with a--one of the points, this
    idea of flood mitigation. I apologize for the wandering, but
    the 1989 Act did not invent the term ``flood mitigation.'' It
    said flood protection. When the Corps, at the public meetings
    in Florida, in front of the community, talked about this plan,
    it was a flood protection plan that was designed to provide a
    1-in-10-year flood protection to the area.
        Flood mitigation is an idea that the Federal agencies had
    to come up with after the Act was passed because this looked
    like a water project that didn't go through the normal water
    project process. It did not have a cost-benefit ratio. It was
    not funded through the water resource development program. The
    way that was defined by the people in the Corps and Interior at
    the time, completely separate from the interactions with the
    local sponsor, was to call it ``mitigation.''
        Recent modeling performed by our firm for the water
    management district shows that it does provide the same level
    of flood protection as the lands just east of the levee. Flood
    mitigation is a rhetorical concept. It is not a flood
    protection concept. It is not an engineering concept, and I
    don't think it is valid the way it is being used in this
    instance.
        In terms of recommendations, construction of the Modified
    Water Delivery Project is essential to the protection and
    restoration of Everglades National Park. I think it is a
    scandal that here we are with the park that is always referred
    to as the most endangered unit in the system 10 years after
    this plan was approved by Congress. We have no meaningful
    action to put it in place. This is the single most important
    project for the park, and it is not being built.
        The flood protection system around the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area is not in conflict with Everglades restoration. It is not
    in conflict with the protection of the park, and it should be
    built to move this project forward.
        I would like to reassure you that the action this Committee
    took in 1989 is still valid today. This plan is still the best
    plan to move forward with for the Everglades, and by doing so,
    you will not foreclose any further options of restoration, you
    will not build an impediment to restoration, and you will do
    more than anyone has done in the last 20 years to move
    protection of Everglades National Park forward.
        Thank you for your time.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. MacVicar follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.031

        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Lehtinen

    STATEMENT OF DEXTER LEHTINEN, ESQ., LEHTINEN, O'DONNELL, VARGAS
      & REINER, P.S., REPRESENTING MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF
                                FLORIDA

        Mr. Lehtinen. Yes. My name is Dexter Lehtinen, and I
    represent the Miccosukee Tribe. I have also been a Florida
    State representative, State senator, the United States attorney
    and did testify in those 1993 hearings in the Keys that
    Delegate Romero-Barcelo spoke of.
        Most of my statement has been covered with your statement
    and questions. So let me just reemphasize.
        The delay backs water up and destroys tribal lands. The 8-
    1/2 Square Mile Area does not have water flow over it under any
    circumstances. It is only prone to flooding just the way all of
    Dade County where I grew up is, and that is that if the water
    table under the ground is higher, then your rainwater doesn't
    soak in as fast.
        This area is not in the slough. Therefore, the Miccosukee
    Tribe think it is inappropriate to pit those residents against
    the tribe and subject them to the same kind of Indian removal
    policies, so to speak, when the land is high enough and it is
    really a question of just water flowing off.
        Let me reemphasize, the Corps has done its job past NEPA
    and EIS; and also--the kind of bait-and-switch, willing-seller
    logic that is used is shown also in the Mack-Graham letter.
    Senator Mack's letter that was mentioned earlier says he
    supports buying from willing sellers, and Senator Mack told me
    personally after he signed that letter that he absolutely does
    not support condemnation of these people. The first paragraph
    says ``willing seller'' in the Mack-Graham letter.
        Let me just say this. The park has already made up its
    mind. The park said in November 1998 after a secret group that
    violated, we think, the Florida sunshine law, gave a
    recommendation to reverse standing policy and condemn the area.
    Superintendent Ring stood up in front of the meeting in
    November that Colonel Rice referred to and said on behalf of
    Secretary Babbitt, we are prepared to participate in the full
    cost of the acquisition alternative with 50 percent of the
    funding. That was a total surprise to even those of us who
    serve on the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
        Subsequently, the local sponsor said in writing, it is true
    that the acquisition of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is not
    necessary for Everglades restoration, but they want to do it as
    a land-use issue.
        Let me just list quickly the reason Congress should be
    concerned with this is, first of all, that these delays cause
    environmental damages.
        Secondly, it is contrary to the 1989 Act.
        Third, it is contrary--and Chairman Hansen has done this,
    so I won't quote--contrary to the 1994 amendment because it
    exceeds the 25 percent spending cap and because it involves a
    Federal Government in condemnation.
        Furthermore, it violates the National Environmental Policy
    Act because they are going directly against the NEPA-EIS plan
    in 1992.
        Furthermore, in 1989 they absolutely committed funds. In
    south Florida, they actually say the money is in the bank. They
    committed funds without a 1998 EIS.
        Furthermore, we think it violates the Water Resources
    Development Act. I serve on the South Florida Ecosystem
    Restoration Task Force that is supposed to coordinate and
    prioritize and give advice on these matters, and I can tell
    you, I first learned of this Interior Department decision when
    I sat in the audience of the South Florida Water Management
    District.
        It furthermore violates the restudy procedures. Let's look
    at this and think about this for a second. It is not in the
    restudy. It would never make it in the restudy. If it was in
    the restudy, it wouldn't be a locally preferred option. It is a
    locally preferred option because the entire rest of the Federal
    Government does not support this procedure.
        Park has gone to the local sponsor for an LPO, and then
    contrary to Corps regulations, where the local sponsor is
    supposed to pay 100 percent of a locally preferred option, they
    want to launder 50 percent Federal money in there and buy out
    that local sponsor to do what Congress wouldn't otherwise do.
        I also think that they should have consulted this Committee
    when they got their declaration of taking on the park expansion
    area because you could have conditioned it.
        And I also think that it is inappropriate and unseemly for
    the Federal Government to be involved in promoting a project
    which has--which neither the State nor the Federal Government
    has imminent domain authority for. The State legislature will
    not give imminent domain authority. Chairman Hansen is right;
    it does not have it today.
        Water Management has frequently testified to the State
    legislature that it does not have imminent domain authority for
    restoration. It has sought it. Mr. Leary went to the State
    legislature 3 weeks ago and asked them to put imminent domain
    authority for this project condemning the 8-1/2 in the State
    legislation. By this Friday when the legislature ends, it will
    not have put it in, and I am quite sure.
        My recommendations briefly are as follows. With regard to
    Modified Water Delivery--no, let me add. The Chairman handled
    the farm bill issue, but I just think it is clear. The farm
    bill creates no additional authority and doesn't repeal any
    existing law. As a matter of fact, those of us who helped
    prioritize farm bill money never had condemning the 8-1/2 even
    discussed with us, as a matter of fact.
        Regarding Mod Water Delivery, I would recommend that the
    Committee assert its authority with regard the declaration of
    taking in the east Everglades National Park expansion area and
    condition that declaration of taking on full compliance with
    the law everywhere else, including not using any Federal funds
    to do anything to condemn in the 8-1/2.
        I would recommend that Corps--that funding be shifted from
    the Interior Department to the Corps because despite the fact
    that they said they didn't have a veto, in response to the
    Congressman's question, the fact of the matter is, Dick Ring
    has written in letters to the Corps that he will not fund the
    Corps project, and the chief engineer says to me he cannot get
    any money from the Department of Interior.
        I would also hope the Committee could direct the Corps to
    do detailed planning, any modifications that are necessary on
    additional information under the 1992 proposal, but that
    planning not include what is essentially an illegal
    alternative, that is, condemning the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
        Right now, the Corps, as a political matter out of
    Washington, does not want to tell the district, even though
    many in the district would like to just be told by the Corps,
    that, look, it is an illegal proposal that we made, so forget
    it.
        Two other items just briefly: I think that the Interior
    Department should be reduced in restoration to nothing more
    than a landowner because they act as a landowner. It would be
    wise for the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force to be chaired
    by the Corps of Engineers, and I don't think funding like farm
    bill money ought to go through the Secretary of Interior.
        I think that the Corps has done everything to keep the 1989
    promise. And I just hope that this Committee can induce the
    other agencies to keep their promise as well. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much. Any other comments? No, I
    am not going to give you another chance.
        But let me turn to the gentleman from Nevada. I appreciate
    your testimony from all four of you gentleman. It was very
    good.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I just
    have one brief question for Mr. Lehtinen.
        Mr. Lehtinen, you are an attorney obviously. And on March
    18th, 1999, the South Florida Water Management District sent a
    letter out, and I will quote. Its subject was a 90-day letter
    of assurance. I will quote the first paragraph: ``The South
    Florida Water Management District, `District,' is in the
    process of providing relocation services for the 8-1/2 Square
    Mile Area Project. To carry out our plans for the 8-1/2 Square
    Mile Area, it will be necessary for you to move.''
        That is part of that first statement. Do you believe that
    that statement gives the impression to the people in the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area that it is mandatory that they sell their
    property to the district?
        Mr. Lehtinen. It absolutely does give them that impression.
    And further memos that went out earlier that have the same tone
    and tenor, saying that we will acquire the area, that if you
    don't become a willing seller now when there is a considerable
    amount of money, you will be later condemned, the governing
    board can vote to condemn you.
        All those have produced an atmosphere where these people
    think they will be condemned, and they believe they have to
    move quickly or they will be the last people on the totem pole.
    I should confess that I am an attorney, and this was not
    planned before, but after the governing board of the Water
    Management District directed the Inspector General of the
    district to investigate coercive--possible coercive tactics,
    which was really an allegation I made at the last governing
    board meeting, some members of--homeowners have come to me; and
    I believe next week--I only say this because I don't want to
    mislead you--that we will probably be filing some fraud in the
    inducement lawsuits based on the fact that there are many
    people who say I never would have sold if I didn't think they
    could condemn me.
        They absolutely are not told what the Water Management
    District tells the legislature. They have testified to the
    legislature that we cannot condemn that area unless you give us
    authority. And at the same time, they tell the residents that
    they are going to be condemned.
        Mr. Gibbons. Do you think that this letter is consistent
    with the testimony of the two gentlemen that were here from the
    Park Service earlier, that you were listening and privy to,
    where their statements state that this acquisition is not yet
    predetermined?
        Mr. Lehtinen. I think the fact is that it is predetermined.
    For reasons that I have said earlier, it is predetermined
    because the staff of the Water Management District says that to
    the residents. And the idea on the part of these staff people
    is that, if they can get--coerce enough people into selling
    that their plan was that the State legislature or the Federal
    Government would, years later, upon seeing a lot of land has
    already been bought, that the legislature would be coerced,
    would essentially say it is a sunk cost. We have got no choice
    but to go ahead and condemn. Maybe it is not a good idea, but
    we have already acquired half of it from so-called ``willing
    sellers,'' so let us condemn the rest. It is really an abusive
    or illegal--improper tactic.
        Mr. Gibbons. Despite the fact that it is an ongoing NEPA
    study, which would include the acquisition or the construction
    of a levee and a seepage drainage ditch, there is a back-room
    agreement or some conclusion that the actual result will be
    acquisition rather than a levee construction.
        Mr. Lehtinen. I mean, absolutely, the Department of
    Interior has made the decision. They make it clear that they
    have made the decision everywhere except in Congress and when
    we sue them in court. In court, their defense will be, well,
    the letter--we said we were committing the money, but we really
    meant we are going to study committing the money.
        They do know NEPA. They knew NEPA well enough to walk out
    of a meeting after they commit money, look at me and say, well,
    you know, if you sue us under NEPA, we are going to say we
    really haven't made the decision. I mean, literally say that to
    me; I don't mean figuratively, I mean literally.
        They say I will lose the NEPA lawsuit because they will
    swear they never made a decision, even though, in south
    Florida, it is as made as strong as you can make it. And
    Superintendent Ring's statement to the governing board had no
    qualifiers; it said, we have committed the money.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity.
    I find the testimony of these folks very enlightening in
    comparison to the bureaucratic answers we received by the first
    two witnesses.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman from Nevada.
        The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I don't really
    have any questions. I would say, Mr. Gibbons described the
    testimony as enlightening, and it was, but it was also sad
    because it is another example--particularly the testimony of
    Mr. Lehtinen is another example of what we hear day after day
    after day after day up here of Federal bureaucratic arrogance.
        And people all over this country are getting so disgusted
    and so fed up because they feel that we are ending up or we
    already have a government that is ``of, by, and for the
    bureaucrats'' instead of ``of, by and for the people.'' I think
    you are going to see some changes before long.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
        I have about a dozen questions for each one of you, but I
    am also realistic enough to know we have got to be out of this
    room in a little while, and we have got another panel coming
    up. So can I submit these to you and get an answer, because I
    see some real talent sitting here, and I would sure like to
    have some answers to this if I could.
        So with that, we will submit these questions to you, and we
    will move on to the final panel if that is all right.
        [The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. The final panel is Joette Lorion, the Honorable
    Steve Shiver--am I pronouncing that right--Shiver, and Ibel
    Aguilera. And I probably fouled that up all over the place. Do
    your best with my poor pronunciation of your name, would you?
        Ms. Lorion. It was very close.
        Mr. Hansen. Our first one is Joette Lorion. Is that how you
    pronounce that, Lorion?
        Ms. Lorion. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hansen. One out of three, that is not too bad.

         STATEMENTS OF JOETTE LORION, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT

        Mr. Hansen. You know the rules. We will turn the time over
    to you, and you watch the clock and do your best, okay?
        Ms. Lorion. Thank you.
        ``Where after all do universal human rights begin? In small
    places close to home--so close and so small that they cannot be
    seen on any map of the world. Unless these rights have meaning
    there, they have little meaning anywhere.'' And that is Eleanor
    Roosevelt, March 27, 1958.
        My name is Joette Lorion. I am an environmentalist. I have
    worked on environmental issues in Canada and the United States
    for 30 years. Almost 10 of those years have been spent working
    on the Florida Everglades. I was considered a strong
    environmentalist.
        I love the Florida Everglades. I have given countless
    volunteer hours to the battle to protect and restore the
    priceless Everglade ecosystem. I served nearly 9 years as a
    volunteer vice president, president, and conservation chair of
    Friends of the Everglades, the group founded by pioneer
    conservationist Marjory Stoneman Douglas, who reminded us in
    her book ``The Everglades: River of Grass,'' there are no other
    Everglades in the world.
        Another of Mrs. Douglas' messages I took to heart was her
    constant emphasis that the greater Everglades ecosystem needs
    to be preserved and restored in its entirety. I firmly believe
    that to save the priceless park at the end of the system, we
    must save the Everglades to the north, including the water
    conservation areas, Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee.
        Congress recognized long ago the Everglades are dying. So
    did Congressman Dante B. Fascell, a friend of mine and a true
    friend of the Everglades. He was instrumental in the passage of
    the Everglades National Park Expansion Act that you spoke of
    today. He fashioned one of his greatest compromises in 1989 by
    providing for the restoration of flows to the park while
    instructing the Army Corps of Engineers to protect a rural
    residential area called the Re because he knew we couldn't
    remove those people from that land; and at that time, they
    didn't think they needed to.
        I don't know exactly why the agencies didn't follow the
    intent of Congress, but I do know the results of their
    inaction. I have observed the serious flooding damage the
    failure to restore natural flows has inflicted on the beautiful
    River of Grass to the north of the park.
        The Miccosukee Tribe's Everglades River of Grass has become
    a River of Death. The Tribe estimates that 85 percent of the
    white tailed deer population has been destroyed. Century old
    trees that hold together the tree islands, an integral part of
    the Tribal culture and religious customs have been destroyed.
    It saddens me when I hear Chairman Cypress say, ``The
    Everglades is our mother, and she is dying.'' It saddens me
    when Tribal elders speak of the multitudes of birds that once
    existed but no longer do, or when a younger tribal member shows
    me rotted tree limbs and speaks about the spirit of his
    ancestors and how the killing of these trees is like cutting
    off his limbs. I am an advisor also to the Tribe, and I speak
    with them often.
        It saddens me when Wayne Nelson, a fisherman who has fought
    valiantly for Lake Okeechobee much of his life, tells me the
    Great Lake is near death. It saddens me when I hear tales of
    water shot out the estuaries killing fish and destroying the
    livelihood of the fisherman.
        Why, I ask myself, are we struggling to unnecessarily
    remove people from the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area that Congress
    said to protect, rather than moving forward with the project
    that is vital to the survival of the entire Everglades and
    vital to preserving Everglades National Park that belongs to
    all we Americans?
        Perhaps the answer is that others like myself could not see
    the forest for the trees. I, like many environmentalists,
    believed the myth that it was necessary to remove these people
    from their homes to restore the flows. I, like many
    environmentalists, believed that these people lived in illegal
    shacks without permits. I, like many environmentalists, were
    probably told the tale that 65 to 85 percent of them are
    willing sellers.
        After many calls from a resident of the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area, Madeleine Fortin, I researched the issue for myself and
    visited the area which I had never visited. I found lovely
    rural communities

    spotted with farms, nurseries, and many beautiful homes that
    look like they came out of ``House and Garden'' magazine.
        I attended a public meeting and saw hundreds of very
    unwilling and very angry residents. Property owners showed me
    legal building permits. And I later discovered that the 8-1/2
    Square Mile Area had even been exempted from a flood ordinance,
    that I had been told it was stamped on the back of their deeds
    they know they are in an area that floods.
        I later saw a map that showed the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is
    not in Shark River Slough. And I read the Water Management
    District consultant's report that Mr. MacVicar did the
    hydrological analysis that showed that acquisition of the area
    was not necessary, because natural flows would be restored
    equally to the Slough whether you bought the area for $120
    million or built the $39 million levee.
        But all of the facts, and I try to tell them to people,
    wouldn't break through the myth. So finally on November 12,
    1998, when I stood at that Water Management District meeting,
    and I had been privy to a process that I thought was totally
    unfair and unjust to these people, I resigned from Friends of
    the Everglades, the group that I loved, because I didn't want
    to taint them with the words that I was going to say; and that
    was that I felt that this area did not need to be bought out,
    and that if we bought it out, we were throwing the Everglades
    and the Park down the drain, because they weren't going to
    leave, and we were never going to restore the flow.
        I thought about my house and what it means to me. It is a
    home, it is not a house. And you know, I saw people saying they
    came from Cuba, they came from Cuba on rafts. They escaped.
    Their land was being confiscated by Castro, and now it was
    being taken from them in this country.
        I guess, lastly, I would just like to say that we really
    need your help. The Everglades restoration must be restored,
    not just for the Federal interest and the national park, but
    for the Federal trust responsibility, to the Indians lands, for
    the Federal threatened and endangered species that exist in
    this area. It is important to the water supply of the people of
    south Florida.
        And Congressman Fascell was a wise man. We will make no
    progress on the Modified Water Delivery Project that is his
    legacy if we continue to fight.
        I would just like to end with the words he said at a
    ground-breaking ceremony--and I stood on the stage with farmers
    and people from the community or Steve Shiver, who was once my
    friendly enemy--and what these words were, ``It seems like we
    have been discussing the same thing for about 50 years or maybe
    longer. But for a long time, we have had just one group
    fighting another group. And those of us who were caught in the
    middle trying to even out these various pressures found it
    almost impossible to make a lot of progress. There is only one
    way to get things done, and that is for everybody to work
    together. The government, the people, we are all the same
    people.''
        We don't need victims for Everglades restoration. We don't
    need to be treating human beings like poker chips, but we do
    need to

    do this project. We owe it to Congressman Fascell to make
    progress on the wonderful law that is his legacy, for
    preservation of his legacy will mean progress on the only
    Everglades in the world.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lorion follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.043

        Mr. Hansen. Mayor, good to have you with us.
        Let me ask you, did they rebuild Homestead Air Force Base
    after Andrew went through there?

       STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SHIVER, MAYOR, CITY OF HOMESTEAD,
                                FLORIDA

        Mr. Shiver. I am going to refer to that, and I will
    actually read the headline put on an article, ``Air Base Put on
    Fast Track for Renewal, Homestead to Get Priority Funding for
    Rebuilding and to be a Model Air Force Reuse Facility.''
        Unfortunately, that was printed on July 8 of 1993, and we
    still have no movement on the Air Force base, largely because
    of the Department of Interior's involvement. I thank you for
    asking that question. And, boy, I had that article ready,
    didn't I?
        Mr. Hansen. You were ready for me on that one.
        Mr. Shiver. Thank you very much, Chairman Hansen, and the
    rest of the Committee for allowing me to share with you some
    thoughts. I was asked to submit a supplemental analysis of my
    comments; and simply one line was the frustration that this
    community is feeling. That recaps my entire written document
    that has been submitted to you for the record.
        Have you ever seen a snowball start at the top of the hill?
    Well, as Mr. Duncan pointed out, the only difference that we
    have now is that this DOI-driven cost and expense, there is no
    bottom to that hill. That snowball is going to continue. That
    snowball is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger until
    somebody stands up and demands accountability.
        My community was devastated by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. I
    hate to even speak of that because that was such a traumatic
    time for all of our community. But, realistically, we have
    rebuilt, we have come back physically; and mentally is still
    challenging sometimes. You get the scares of hurricanes, and
    everybody runs for the boards and the bottled water. But we
    still had been able to come back.
        But the closure of the Air Force base, the issues with
    Water Management that continue to be--to go on, that we will
    never come back from, unless there is some accountability from
    this Committee demanded by--or demanded by this Committee to
    the Department of Interior.
        I think the issue of accountability really stems from
    several things. But I want to point out a fact that has been
    mentioned a couple of times, and that is the Frog Pond. The
    Frog Pond was something that had to be--it was essential to be
    acquired. For the agricultural areas and the uses in the Frog
    Pond, it was just killing Florida Bay.
        The Department of Interior lobbied very strong with the
    Water Management--Water Management board to basically move
    forward in acquiring that property. Their cost estimates at
    that time were $11.5 million. Come to find out, once all was
    said and done, $43 million later, that condemnation, there has
    now been research published that agriculture really was not the
    demise of Florida Bay; and that property has now been leased
    back to farmers. I guess that is just another issue or another
    point of best management practices.
        You mentioned the Air Force base, the fast track there. We
    have had many politicians, we have had many representatives
    from various government agencies come into our community and
    say they are going to do everything they can to make sure that
    the economic stability of our community is dealt with, from
    putting the Air Force base back on-line, from ensuring that our
    subsurface flooding issues that has been basically killing our
    agriculture, as testified to by Tom MacVicar, the
    representative from Farm Bureau; and still nothing has been
    done.
        We talk about willing sellers in the 8-1/2 Square Mile
    Area, willing sellers. After the Department of Interior and
    Water Management for 10 years have been asking, on again off
    again, whether or not they are going to condemn the property, I
    would probably be a willing seller, too, just to get out.
        I think Dexter Lehtinen hit it on the head when he said
    there are strong evidences of coercion there. How would you
    like your home to be subject to condemnation discussions for
    over 10, 15 years? That roller coaster, that emotional roller
    coaster I think you would be on would be just devastating.
        Joette mentioned our love-hate relationship in years past.
    Well, it was the vice president of that very organization that
    Joette represented that told me at that same ground-breaking,
    we are going to get your land whether you like it or not. That
    is a vice president of Friends of the Everglades, a
    representative, be it formal or not, of the Department of
    Interior and their movement to basically seize all land area in
    south Dade.
        I have asked on many occasions at the end of the day, Mr.
    Department of Interior, what do you see south Florida being?
    Give us your agenda. Give us your results. There are none.
    There are vague answers, as you were asking many pointed
    questions. And I thank you all for having the ear or giving us
    the opportunity to voice, because I don't think we have been
    listened to.
        We talk a lot about science, we talk a lot about birds and
    bees, but what about the economic viability of the community
    that can actually throw a stone at the Everglades National Park
    and Biscayne National Park? Thank you for giving us that
    opportunity to voice those concerns.
        I want to close with a couple things, just again in a
    department run rampant. A $5 million pump has been built west
    of Homestead, the city of Homestead. That pump was said to be
    essential in replumbing the Everglades. That was done recently,
    and they don't have a permit to turn on the pump. The
    Department of Interior and Water Management and the State of
    Florida have not come to an agreement. It was built on time for
    extra money, actually ahead of schedule. They can't even turn
    it on.
        It is a department run rampant. It is an environmental
    community in some instances, the extremists, that are holding
    us hostage, and that is the people that actually live, work and
    play.
        One more point, and I will close. Recently, there has been
    serious discussion with the Collier Foundation for swapping our
    Homestead Air Force Base for drilling rights that they still
    maintain in the Big Cypress.
        Now, Bill Leary will tell you that his immediate reaction
    was to send the Collier family and the Collier interests to
    Homestead to talk to the local concerns. Well, I met with them
    the day--yesterday, actually, and that was one of the first
    meetings and discussions that we have had concerning that
    entire issue.
        Once again, the Department of Interior is cutting deals on
    the backs of Homestead and South Miami-Dade County without any
    consultation or input from the people who live, work and play
    there.
        Please demand accountability. Thank you for the opportunity
    to address you, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mayor.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shiver follows:]

       Statement of Hon. Steve Shiver, Mayor, City of Homestead, Florida

        Ladies and Gentlemen:
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
    today about several issues that have really changed the lives
    of many people in the community of South Miami-Dade County. I
    hope the information and testimony provided will give you
    insight and some understanding of not only the difficult
    economic challenges we have faced over the past few years, but
    the seemingly increasing regulations, constraints and intrusive
    environmental bureaucracy that continues to plague our
    community.
        South Miami-Dade County, more specifically the Cities of
    Homestead and Florida City, have historically depended upon two
    economic bases. The first being farming with the vast majority
    of our work force depending on our greatest resource, land.
    Secondly, the former Homestead Air Force Base, opened in the
    late 40's, was a significant employer of many in our community.
        As you know, in August of 1992 Hurricane Andrew struck
    South Florida leaving South Miami-Dade County facing the most
    difficult task of rebuilding every aspect of our region. Little
    did we know that the devastation of Hurricane Andrew was just
    the beginning of our long and arduous journey on that dreadful
    night we were not only destroyed physically and mentally from
    the affects of the hurricane, it also brought about the closure
    of the Homestead Air Force Base which has proven to be far more
    devastating than any natural disaster.
        Immediately following Hurricane Andrew, there were many
    that came in to town promising the rapid recovery of our
    economy. In fact I have attached an article from our local
    paper dated July of 1993 that really lays the groundwork for
    our frustration. The headlines read ``Air base put on fast
    track for renewal.'' In this article you'll see comments by
    then Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Perry. Mr. Perry
    indicated that the reuse of Homestead Air Force Base would set
    the standard for military transfers in the Country. He goes on
    to say that the idea is for other communities facing military
    facility closures to be able to look to us (Homestead) for
    ideas and inspiration. Well ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately
    the only inspiration that came out of the Homestead Air Force
    Base closure was to those who saw it as an opportunity to
    discontinue all air related uses of what had been a heavy
    traffic airport for almost 50 years.
        You may ask what this has to do with the issue at hand or
    the Department of Interior. Well it's my opinion that the
    majority of the propaganda circulated in the environmental
    community about this issue is from organizations and
    individuals with close ties to the Department of Interior. In
    fact, this has been a pattern for many years.
        I'm relatively new to this process being elected to office
    in 1993. At that time, the multitude of environmental issues
    ranging from the reuse of the former Homestead Air Force Base
    to subsurface flooding of our farmland were becoming
    increasingly hot topics. However, a bit naive and eager to
    ``get the job done'' I thought I could bargain and reason in
    good faith. I thought we could reach a solution or compromise
    that would allow for the sustainability of not only our
    precious environment and natural resources but also our fragile
    economy and the people who call South Miami-Dade County home.
        Throughout my ``awakening'' I was told by many who has been
    down that road before, not to trust ``them,'' (the Department
    of the Interior and environmental groupies) not to let my guard
    down. After all, this was the same Department of Interior and
    Everglades Administration that in 1995 convinced the State of
    Florida that the 5,200 agricultural acres referred to as the
    frog pond was absolutely critical for the Everglades to
    survive. Agricultural uses had to be eliminated immediately to
    save Florida Bay. This was also the same DOI that said the cost
    of acquisition of the 5,200 acres was only going to be $11.5
    million and they assured the taxpayers of Florida that they
    would be there with their share. Well in 1995, the property was
    condemned and the actual cost turned out to be $43 million. To
    sum it up, South Miami-Dade lost thousands of agricultural jobs
    and the Park Service has since published research showing that
    the Florida Bay problem was not related to agriculture.
    Meanwhile, the State of Florida has leased most of the 5,200
    acre frog pond to ``different'' farmers to grow lower value
    crops. Chalk one up for ``Best Management Practices.''
        Nonetheless, I was able to convince many to come together
    for meaningful discussion with various environmental groups,
    Department of Interior representatives, farmers, bankers, land
    owners and the like. We worked diligently with sometimes quite
    heated debate addressing land use issues surrounding the former
    Homestead Air Force Base. I guess my true ``awakening''
    happened when I learned that environmental representatives
    within this group were actually the driving force behind the
    lack of activity relating to the reuse of the former Homestead
    Air Force Base. No compromise short of nothing at all was good
    enough. I was really shocked when a Vice President of the
    Friends of the Everglades, an organization with close ties to
    the Department of the Interior, informed me that they would
    ``get all of our land if we like it or not.''
        As a life long resident of the City of Homestead growing up
    with the Everglades and Biscayne National Park as our neighbor,
    the last thing we as a community want to do is contribute to
    their demise. However, we must also listen to the stakeholders
    of the community. We must listen to those who actually have
    their lives invested in this community. Those who want to work,
    live, play and raise their families here. As a taxpayer, we
    must also listen to reason. There must be sound science in
    place before major projects are undertaken. The taxpayer of
    America can not afford another frog pond.
        I know there are many that will testify to the merits of
    the science. They will argue that we have studied this issue
    for many years and have reached conclusions that have not been
    implemented. Perhaps it's because the results of these
    conclusions are not acceptable to the Department of the
    Interior. Well, in South Miami-Dade there are a lot more
    interests than just the Department of Interior and we plead
    with you to help us get that point across.
        At issue today is the 5,800 acres in South Miami-Dade
    County referred to as the 8.5 square mile area (8.5 sma). Once
    again, the Department of the Interior has determined that the
    acquisition of this land and many homes is essential to the
    survival of the Everglades. However, there have been three
    Governors in the State of Florida who have appointed various
    study commissions dealing with land acquisition and water
    issues in the East Everglades. Each commission has determined
    that acquisition of the 8.5 square mile area is not essential.
    In fact, some studies show that returning the water to the Park
    from the 8.5 square mile area has more of an environmental
    benefit.
        But just for a moment, let's set aside the science and
    consider the people. There are numerous families that have
    invested their life savings in homes and property in this area.
    Imagine your home for a moment. Then imagine a governmental
    agency that for over 10 years has said they need your land for
    conservation and water issues and the next year they don't.
    I've often said we are the most affected and least influential
    in the decisions that are being made for us. Imagine for a
    moment the emotional roller coaster you would be on if your
    community, your home, for over ten years was the on again, off
    again focus of condemnation.
        Consider what that does to the value of property in that
    area. The value of homes that have been the focal point for
    investment for many who call this area home have been seriously
    affected by this cloud the Department of Interior has placed
    over the entire area. I hope their estimates of acquisition are
    better than their estimate of the frog pond.
        I am no scientist but we continue to talk about land
    acquisition in the East Everglades to create a buffer zone. Why
    not ask to create the buffer zone inside the land area already
    owned by Everglades National Park. It seems that would be far
    less expensive.
        In conclusion, I hope we can count on you to make the
    Department of Interior accountable. We, the people of South
    Miami-Dade County don't have the luxury of a band of attorneys,
    consultants, and paid environmental organizations embarking on
    national letter writing campaigns. The Department of the
    Interior should be required to have sound and independently
    confirmed science in hand before they continue their siege on
    our community.

        Mr. Hansen. We now turn to Ibel Aguilera. Did I come close?

       STATEMENT OF IBEL AGUILERA, THE UNITED PROPERTY OWNERS &
               FRIENDS OF THE 8.5 SQUARE MILE AREA, INC.

        Ms. Aguilera. Ibel Aguilera. That was close enough.
        Mr. Hansen. You have got the floor anyway.
        Ms. Aguilera. Mr. Chairman, I am honored just to be here
    today. I am here on behalf of the United Property Owners &
    Friends of the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. This is an association
    that was formed right after the November 12th decision of
    acquiring our land. Our association represents the unwilling
    sellers.
        There has been a lot said about who is willing and who is
    not a willing seller in our area. Unfortunately, I forget my
    glasses in the hotel room so--thank you.
        I would like to state for the record that last--as recent
    as last month, I sent out a general mailing to all the property
    owners in the area, not just the residences, but all the
    property owners. I have just had returned over 100 forms, and
    all of them are unwilling sellers. I would like to request the
    opportunity later on, in the future, to submit all these forms,
    plus the rest that are still out there pending, to this
    Committee.
        Mr. Hansen. Without objection, we will put it all in the
    record if that is all right.
        Ms. Aguilera. So you can judge for yourself the
    unwillingness of the sellers up there.
        I would like to tell this Committee, this is not a
    restoration issue; this is a human rights issue. As you are
    aware by the testimonies that were given here before, the
    majority of the property owners in the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area
    are Cubans. These people came to this country in the search for
    freedom, in search of rights. In the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area,
    they bought their land. They built their homes. It is been 20,
    30 years for some; at this point in time, they are 60, 70 some
    years old. They don't feel, neither do I feel it is fair for
    this government to come in and unnecessarily condemn their
    homes or destroy their way of life for the last 20 or 30 years.
        We have been coerced by the district to the point where we
    have--we even called the cops and filed a report against one of
    the district members, a copy of which I attached to my
    testimony. I have testimony from people that have sold, that,
    in their words, they can tell you, they feel they have been
    raped by their own government, by their own elected officials.
    These are not even Cubans that are living in that area. These
    are American families that were forced to sell because they
    called the district. And Mr. Sam Poole himself told them, if
    you don't sell now, later on we are going to condemn you. Her
    statement is in my testimony.
        I was hoping this would not happen, but there is a lot of
    emotions and tensions that have been building up since November
    and even prior to that she is crying.
        I ask of this board, consider this issue as we feel it was
    not the intention of the United States Congress back in 1989
    when the Expansion Act was enacted to sacrifice the people of
    the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area. I feel their orders were clear to
    protect the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area.
        The 8-1/2 Square Mile Area is a very productive area in
    Dade County. There is a lot of farming. There is a lot of
    ranch. We feel we have the American dream in the 8-1/2 Square
    Mile Area. However, this dream has become a nightmare since
    November 12, 1998.
        Right after this decision, the district was acquiring land
    in our area. And all this land have been leased to other
    individuals for farming purposes. Why can't we stay on our land
    and farm our land? Because in the name of restoration, they are
    trying to take it away from us and give it to somebody else to
    farm it? I don't think it is fair. I am sorry.
        Mr. Hansen. Maybe the Committee will ask questions, and we
    will go back to our witness. Will that be all right?
        Mr. Gibbons.
        Mr. Gibbons. I pass on the questions and will yield back my
    time at this point.
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, all I would like to do is--I
    don't have a question. But what I would say is this:
        This is so sad because the witnesses may not realize this,
    but this is happening all over this country. The Federal
    Government today owns a little over 30 percent of the land in
    this country, and State and local governments and quasi-
    governmental units own about another 20 percent, so that you
    have got roughly half the land in this country under some type
    of public ownership.
        And what is disturbing, though, is that over the last 25 or
    30 years, this percentage of the land that has been taken for
    public--by public governmental units has been growing by leaps
    and bounds. And these governmental units, particularly the
    Federal Government, but they always can rationalize or justify
    taking this land.
        And what we are doing, we are very slowly destroying
    private property in this country. And if we don't wake up
    someday and realize that private property has been one of the
    real cornerstones of our prosperity, it has been something that
    set us apart from the former Soviet Union and places like that,
    and what is happening to these people, I mean, we are talking
    about an area that is 18,000 square miles, and today we are
    talking about this little time 8-1/2 square mile piece of
    property. But as Ms. Aguilera is showing, this really means a
    lot to these people.
        Ms. Aguilera. It does. It does, sir.
        Mr. Duncan. And even the environmental movement should
    realize that the worst polluters in the world were the
    Socialist and Communist governments. People take better care of
    their own private property than is taken of property that is in
    public ownership.
        I haven't been to this area, but I bet these people take
    good care of their property. It is so sad to think that a lot
    of these people, or most of them, are people who came from Cuba
    where land was confiscated and taken away from them by a
    Communist dictator, and now they come to the United States, a
    country that is supposed to be a free country, yet these people
    are coming all the way from south Florida to Washington, DC, to
    try to defend their little piece of the American dream.
        The unbelievable thing is, this is happening all over this
    country. These liberal, left-wing, Socialist, big-government
    types think they can run everybody's life better than they can
    themselves. So they don't mind coming in and doing a really
    cruel thing and taking away this property. And I just think
    that we need to speak out against it and that it needs to stop,
    or at least hopefully we can slow it down a little bit.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania? Mr. Sherwood, any comments
    you would like to make at this time?
        Mr. Sherwood. Thank you. I have great empathy for the folks
    that are having the problems there, but I think it has pretty
    well been done. I have nothing else to say about it.
        Mr. Hansen. Okay.
        Ibel, do you want to give it another shot? We realize
    things like that get very close to the heart, no question about
    it.
        Ms. Aguilera. Especially with me. I know most of these
    people personally, sir. I can tell you, my next-door neighbor,
    76 years old, a retired World War II veteran, an ex-fire chief
    for the City of Tampa. His wife died 10 years ago. She was very
    close to me. Her dying wish was to have her ashes spread in her
    backyard, and this he did. Recently he told me he wants the
    same thing done with him the day he dies. He has no immediate
    family in south Florida, so my husband and I, we are the
    closest he ever has in the neighborhood.
        Anyways, this gentleman lost his home to Andrew. He got
    involved with a contractor that took part of his money. And
    when he went back to the county to pull his permits, he was not
    allowed to. They told him he had a certain amount of time
    within to pull his permits and so forth. Anyways, he has spent
    thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees, and finally he has got
    his rebuilding permits back.
        He is right now in the middle of his construction. Dade
    County keeps coming every month inspecting all the construction
    that is going on in his home. Nobody else told him to this date
    that he is going to have to give up his dream.
        He is rebuilding his house, the 76-year-old. How are you
    going to tell this old man now that because, in the name of
    Everglades restoration when everybody knows it is not true,
    they are going to condemn his property, whatever he has got
    built in there right now? You might as well shoot him now. It
    is going to kill him anyways.
        And like him, there is many elderly people that have lived
    and have made the 8-1/2 Square Mile Area the place away from
    their native land. How can we tell these people who have
    already suffered the taking away of their homes once before in
    their life that this is going to happen to them again?
        Now they no longer can start building a new home anywhere
    else. Where are they going to go where they can have their
    horses, their cattles, their chickens, the animals they have in
    their farm these days? No where in this county.
        So I ask this Committee to please help us, to help us save
    our 8-1/2 Square Mile Area, to help us keep our dream alive. We
    chose this 20, 30 years ago. We were allowed to do so legally,
    as we were permitted to build in this area. We have suffered
    the devastation of Hurricane Andrew, and we were allowed to
    rebuild.
        Now, 7 years later, we have replanted our trees, rebuilt
    our homes. More or less our lives are back to normal. Why in
    God's name do they want our properties now? They know it is not
    necessary for restoration. There is clear scientific proof that
    it is not necessary for restoration.
        So we ask this Committee to please intervene and help us
    save our community. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. And we thank you, Ibel. That was very good
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Aguilera follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.057

        Mr. Hansen. And let me ask my colleagues if they have any
    further questions for this panel. The one in the chair has to
    watch the clock, and the rest of the folks don't have to as
    much, but we are almost out of time for this room.
        So if you have anything burning in your bosom you want to
    add, I will give you another minute each or my colleagues from
    Tennessee and Pennsylvania if they have any further comment.
        If not, excellent testimony. But I want to say to you the
    same as I did the last panel, we have some questions for you
    that we would like some written answers to the best of your
    ability if you would. Would that be all right?
        Ms. Aguilera. Absolutely.
        Ms. Lorion. Yes.
        Mr. Shiver. Yes.
        [The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you so much for your testimony.
        You know, as the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out,
    sometimes we see movements come along, and they become a little
    extreme; and all over America now we are seeing people get into
    this issue of private property, what can you take and what
    can't you take. And as a past city councilman, State
    legislator, and other things, sure, Mayor, I know what it is
    like. I sat in a position like yours for a few years. Sure, we
    have to condemn some area for a right-of-way occasionally or a
    waterline or whatever it may be.
        But when you want to get to very sacred stuff, start
    talking to people's property and what they have. I think our
    Founding Fathers wisely put that in the Constitution, which I
    think, to a certain extent, has been kind of trampled upon over
    the years and something we should be very careful of.
        The gentleman from Tennessee pointed out 30 percent of the
    country is owned by the Federal Government until you get to
    where I live, and those figures go up. My State is 73 percent.
    I think Mr. Gibbon's State is 90 percent. Mrs. Cubin's State is
    80-something percent. So we are very, very sensitive to the
    Federal Government coming in and stomping on our rights.
        However, there is moderation. I don't know who said
    moderation in all things, but whoever did, it should be
    scriptural, because really there is some point we can reach,
    some moderation in things, without some extreme application
    taking away our rights.
        You look at our people out West, when somebody finds a
    slimy slug on their property, we give up 100,000 acres
    sometimes for it. And we say, why is this so important to us.
    So you are always fighting these kind of arguments.
        So we take what was stated today very seriously. And I can
    tell you, this Committee on both sides of the political aisle
    feel very strong about private property rights, and we will
    look into this in detail. And this is just the start of what we
    will be doing on this issue.
        With that said, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7272.081