U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

57–272 u WASHINGTON : 1999

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

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

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

TODD HULL, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel

GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff

(III)

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

(1)

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

2

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 ModWater 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

3

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

4

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 (ModWater 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

5

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.

6

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.

7

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 onehalf 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.

8

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 deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:09 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067083 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\57272 pfrm02 PsN: 57272
9

signed 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:]

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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 Nin ̃ o. 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

14

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:]

15

16

17

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.

18

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

19

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.

20

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

21

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.

22

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 C111 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

23

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?

24

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 enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:09 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067083 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\57272 pfrm02 PsN: 57272
25

dorse 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.

26

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, shortterm 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.

27

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.

28

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.

29

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-toyear 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.

30

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 supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:09 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067083 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\57272 pfrm02 PsN: 57272
31

port 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.

32

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.

33

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.

34

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

35

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.

36

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

37

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

38

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:]

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

[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, considerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:09 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067083 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\57272 pfrm02 PsN: 57272
49

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.

50

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

51

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

52

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.

53

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 engiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:09 Feb 02, 2001 Jkt 067083 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\57272 pfrm02 PsN: 57272
54

neering 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:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

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 RomeroBarcelo ́ 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.

76

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

77

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

78

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.

79

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.

80

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

81

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 groundbreaking 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

82

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:]

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

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.

96

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

97

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 naı ̈ve 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

98

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 MiamiDade 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?

99

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

100

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

101

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.

102

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:]

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

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.]

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141