[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