U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–979 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–226 

THREATS FACING 

FLORIDA’S TOURISM DRIVEN ECONOMY 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AUGUST 10, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on August 10, 2017 ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES

Dr. Paul Sanberg, Senior Vice President, Research, Innovation, and Knowledge Enterprise, University of South Florida; and President, National Academy of Inventors, on Behalf of Judy Genshaft, President, University Of 

South Florida ........................................................................................................ 2 

Rick Kriseman, Mayor, St. Petersburg, Florida .................................................... 3 

George Cretekos, Mayor, Clearwater, Florida ....................................................... 3 

Janet Long, Chair, County Commission; and Chair, Tourist Development 

Council .................................................................................................................. 4 

Sherry L. Larkin, Ph.D., Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, Associate Dean for Research and Associate Director, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida (UF/IFAS) ............................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Robin A. Sollie, IOM, FCCP—President/CEO, Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber 

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Maryann Ferenc, Chief Executive Officer, Mise en Place, Inc.; and Member, 

Board of Directors, U.S. Travel Association ....................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Mitchell A. Roffer, President, Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service Inc.; 

and Adjunct Faculty, Florida Institute of Technology, Department of Ocean 

Engineering and Sciences .................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

APPENDIX

Letter dated August 7, 2017 to Senator Bill Nelson from Terry A. Gans, 

Mayor, Town of Longboat Key ............................................................................ 55 

Letter dated August 24, 2017 from Nan Summers, Grants Coordinator, Parks 

and Natural Resources Department, Manatee County, Florida ...................... 57 

(1) 

THREATS FACING 

FLORIDA’S TOURISM DRIVEN ECONOMY 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, St. Petersburg, FL. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m. at the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, University Student Center, 

200 6th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida, Hon. Bill Nelson, 

presiding. 

Present: Senator Nelson [presiding]. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. This meeting of the Senate Commerce Committee will commence. Thank all of you for coming. This is an overwhelming outpouring of interest in the subject matter of today’s 

hearing. Thank you all very much for coming. 

This is an official meeting of the Senate Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation Committee. It is a field hearing. 

As we start the meeting, let’s welcome the U.S. Naval Suncoast 

Squadron’s Sea Cadet Corps, and they are going to lead us in the 

Pledge of Allegiance. 

Cadets? 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

Senator NELSON. And if you will remain standing, I’d like to call 

on Reverend Watson Hayes, Executive Director of the Pinellas 

County Urban League, for the invocation. 

Pastor? 

[Invocation.] 

Senator NELSON. Well, we are so grateful to our host. I want to 

have one of them to say a word before we get started in the Committee hearing. Though President Genshaft couldn’t be with us, we 

have several of her very capable colleagues from the University, 

and a special thanks to the College of Marine Sciences for its highcaliber research into our vast natural resources. 

Thanks also to the City of St. Pete, Pinellas County, for hosting 

us and to our colleagues, Kathy Castor, Charlie Crist, who represent this area so ably in the U.S. Congress. Thank you for being 

here. 

I’m pleased that so many of our colleagues are here—also County 

Commissioner Janet Long, St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Kriseman, 

Clearwater Mayor George Cretekos, and Dr. Paul Sanberg from 

USF. 

2 

So I’d like to ask, Dr. Sanberg, if you might give us some words 

of greeting. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL SANBERG, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, RESEARCH, INNOVATION, AND KNOWLEDGE 

ENTERPRISE, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA; AND 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF INVENTORS, 

ON BEHALF OF JUDY GENSHAFT, PRESIDENT, 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA 

Dr. SANBERG. Sure. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Ranking Member Nelson, my name is, again, Paul Sanberg, and 

I’m the Senior Vice President, USF, for Research, Innovation, and 

Knowledge Enterprise, and also President of the National Academy 

of Inventors. I’m honored to be here on behalf of President Judy 

Genshaft and the University of South Florida system. It’s our great 

pleasure to host the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Committee for this important field hearing on the threats facing 

Florida’s tourism driven economy. 

Thank you, Senator Nelson, for bringing us together here at the 

beautiful USF St. Pete campus. 

I’d just like to ask any St. Pete or USF, in general, system faculty, staff, students to please stand, just to show your support here. 

[Applause.] 

Dr. SANBERG. We would also like to recognize Congresswoman 

Castor and Congressman Crist for their participation in today’s 

hearing. Thank you also to St. Pete Mayor Rick Kriseman, Clearwater Mayor George Cretekos, and Pinellas County Commissioner 

Janet Long, who have joined us today. Welcome, everyone. 

Across the USF system, researchers work daily on solving global 

issues, including the health and sustainability of our beautiful natural environment. The people of Florida are served by world class 

independent research institutions which conduct the most rigorous 

and credible science possible. The Federal Government is a vital 

partner in this important endeavor. 

Many of you will remember the important role that science 

played in responding when our tourism economy was threatened 

because of an environmental disaster, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon 

spill. Because our state had invested in research vessels operated 

by the Florida Institute of Oceanography, and because we had advanced instrumentation and world class expertise, researchers from 

USF and across Florida were among the first to begin an independent analysis of the spill’s impact. 

In the immediate aftermath of the spill, we are grateful to have 

had the leadership of Senator Nelson, Congresswoman Castor, and 

Congressman Crist to sustain and move this massive scientific effort forward. These three public servants played pivotal roles that 

enabled a robust examination of the spill’s impact to continue. As 

a result, Florida citizens are more informed stewards in our fragile 

environment. 

Our strong partnership in supporting education and research remains one of Florida’s most important tools in securing a healthy, 

safe, and successful future. We are delighted to have the opportunity this morning to share the research our university faculty are 

working on with the staff from the Senate Commerce, Science, and 

3 

Transportation Committee. We look forward to learning more about 

the Committee’s interest during this afternoon’s hearing, as well as 

hearing testimony from the distinguished panelists. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you so much. 

I’d like to introduce and recognize two family members. First of 

all, my wife of 45 and a half years, Grace Nelson. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. And Dr. Charles Crist, Charlie’s dad. Would 

you stand up and be recognized? 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Now, we’re very fortunate to have our two mayors with us, and I want you all to bring us some greetings. 

Mayor Kriseman? 

STATEMENT OF RICK KRISEMAN, MAYOR, 

ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 

Mr. KRISEMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Rick Kriseman. I’m the 

Mayor of St. Petersburg, and on behalf of myself and my City 

Council members, many of which are here with us today, we want 

to welcome you to the Sunshine City of St. Petersburg and to the 

beautiful USF St. Pete campus. My thanks to Senator Bill Nelson 

for his leadership in Washington, his work on this important committee, and his strong advocacy for Floridians every single day. 

As everyone knows, tourism is vital to our economy here in St. 

Pete and to cities big and small throughout the state of Florida. So 

I thank you, Senator, for addressing threats to our tourism-based 

economy and for your past and future actions to prevent such 

threats. 

Senator Nelson, Congresswoman Castor, and Congressman Crist 

all have strong track records on these issues, and I thank them for 

everything that they’ve done for our state, our county, and our city. 

And, in particular, I thank them for being such great partners with 

the City of St. Petersburg. 

Welcome, everyone. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Mayor? 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE CRETEKOS, MAYOR, 

CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 

Mr. CRETEKOS. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for being here. 

Thank you to everybody who has joined us. 

You know, Pinellas County, Clearwater, is number one in tourism because we understand how important it is for our tourist industry partners to work with government, and we thank the Federal Government for the leadership that you, Senator, and our representatives, Crist and Castor, have provided, and even Governor 

Scott, in making sure that our legislature and our residents understand that we are competing not against each other, but we’re competing against the world to bring tourists to Pinellas County, to the 

state of Florida. 

4 

We’ve done a very good job with that, and our industry partners 

understand that they are in a service industry, that they provide 

hospitality, and the reason we’ve been so successful is because they 

and their staffs do that, and we would appreciate you all taking 

that message back to Washington and to those in Tallahassee so 

that they can understand that tourism provides jobs and provides 

growth in the state of Florida. 

One other thing I need to mention. We also have to protect beach 

re-nourishment and the importance of offshore oil drilling, and, 

Senator, thank you for your leadership in that regard. We cannot 

allow rumors to circulate around the world that Florida is contaminated when that has never been the case. 

So thank you, Senator, for allowing me to be here today. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Commissioner? 

STATEMENT OF JANET LONG, CHAIR, COUNTY COMMISSION; 

AND CHAIR, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 

Ms. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you for 

being here on this glorious afternoon in Pinellas County. Senator 

Nelson, you have been our champion, and we are so grateful that 

you are bringing this United States Committee field hearing today 

on this beautiful campus of USF. As Chair of the County Commission this year and Chair of the Tourist Development Council, I am 

grateful and sincerely appreciate everyone who is here, taking their 

time out of their busy schedule to attend what is going to be one 

of the biggest issues going forward in our county. 

Tourism is our number one industry, and not only here, but 

throughout the state of Florida. This industry provides to us, right 

here in Pinellas County, 100,000 jobs for our county residents, and 

it drives—are you ready for this? This is a really big number—$9 

billion, $9 billion in revenue and economic impact to this county 

every single year. In July, it was the 47th straight month of yearover-year tourist development tax growth for Pinellas County. But 

the threats that this county faces in our industry from beach erosion to red tide to the potential of increased offshore drilling, is 

very real. 

So I look forward this afternoon to hearing the testimony and 

hope to get a better understanding of the diversity and the severity 

of the threats that face our industry. 

So thank you, Senator, for your leadership, and our Federal delegation. What would we do without you? 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. You might be also interested to know that in 

the midst of everything you see that looks like it’s dysfunctional in 

Washington, Marco Rubio and I actually get along. And, of course, 

we invited Marco to come. He could not. He’s off someplace else. 

But we do a lot of things together that you never see; the appointment of all the academies, the appointment of Federal judges, the 

U.S. attorneys, et cetera. 

By the way, just a word for you until we get into the subject matter of the hearing. As a result of what you have seen play out over 

5 

the course of the last couple of weeks in Washington, with the dramatic vote of John McCain in the middle of the night, with now 

being able to move on from that subject, there was an immediate 

response in a bipartisan way of a number of senators coming together—informal meetings, sit-down meetings in each other’s offices, and then culminating with a dinner just before we left Washington of 14 of us, evenly divided, seven and seven, who are talking 

about the fixes to stabilize the existing current law on healthcare. 

So maybe, just maybe, we are seeing a change of the way that 

things have been operated. This being, if successful, a prelude to 

what else can be done down the road on income tax reform and 

desperately needed infrastructure in this country. That’s not just 

roads and bridges, but it’s airports and seaports, it’s broadband, it’s 

sewer plants and water plants, and so forth, that are so desperately needed. 

Now, the way the Committee usually operates—the Chairman 

makes an opening statement, the Ranking Member makes an opening statement, and then the witnesses are introduced, and then we 

go to questions. I have invited my two colleagues in the Congress 

to ask questions with me, and we have a star spangled panel today 

on this subject. 

If you think back, now, why are we here? In large part, it has 

already been addressed by the statements that you’ve heard. But 

think back to a quarter of a century ago. Southwest of where we 

are right now, 330,000 gallons of number six fuel and an additional 

32,000 gallons of jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline spilled into Tampa 

Bay. That was just 24 years ago. Two tank barges and a ship sat 

disabled due south of Mullet Key, blocking the entrance to the Bay, 

the main shipping channel. It was closed for nine days. 

Oil coated Fort DeSoto Park and Egmont Key almost immediately, and then the winds and the tides carried the bulk of the 

fuel out into the Gulf until a storm pulled the mess back onto 

Pinellas County barrier islands, from Redington Shores to St. Pete 

Beach and Boca Ciega Bay. At that time, more than 2 million visitors used the boat ramp at Fort DeSoto Park each year. 

So it’s fitting that today, we are hearing about the threats to our 

state’s tourism driven economy and what we can do about it to 

mitigate the risk. Last year, a record 113 million visitors, both 

international and domestic tourists, came to Florida. The tourism 

industry supports about a million and a half jobs in this state. So 

there’s a lot at stake, and I think we’ll hear some of that from our 

panelists today. 

You think about our brand. It’s sunshine, it’s sea breezes, it’s 

white sand beaches, it’s family friendly theme parks, and it’s world 

class fishing and seafood. So when red tide comes along or if toxic 

algae closes a beach, tourism dollars go elsewhere. Hurricanes, oil 

spills, sea level rise, and Zika threaten our brand. But we can take 

steps to protect our tourism industry, and that’s what this hearing 

is about. 

Ever since your Senator was a young Congressman, I’ve been in 

this fight to protect Florida’s unique environment and its tourismdependent economy. Thus, it was quite natural, in a bipartisan 

way, with a Republican senator, my colleague, Mel Martinez—in 

6 

2006, we enacted into law a moratorium on oil drilling off of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. That moratorium is the only place in the entire 

outer continental shelf of the United States that is off limits to oil 

rigs, and it’s off limits until the year 2022. The United States Air 

Force has asked us to extend that another 5 years to 2027, and 

they’ve done so—why? This is the largest testing and training area 

for the United States military in the world, and it’s unfettered in 

their ability for all of the development of new systems and sophisticated weaponry. They have no impediments. 

You take a famous range like the Nevada Test Range. You’ve 

heard of the secret area there called Area 51. You superimpose that 

over the Gulf test range and it’s just a little spot. This is the largest testing and training range in the world, and the reason the Air 

Force has asked us to extend it is they want to invest in very expensive, updated, new telemetry as they are testing these systems, 

and they want the security of knowing that that investment is 

going to be there so that they’ve got that range for at least 10 

years. Yet we are in a fight, because the very attempts in the defense bill to get the moratorium extended to 2027 are being vigorously opposed by the oil industry. 

So just think back. What were some of the consequences? Remember the spill off of Louisiana? That was way off of Louisiana, 

but the winds shifted. They started bringing it to the east. They 

brought the oil as far east as Pensacola Beach, and those sugary 

white sands of Pensacola Beach were completely covered in oil, and 

that photograph flashed around the world. 

The winds kept coming east, and they brought it to Destin and 

Sandestin. We kept it out of the pass, unlike Pensacola Pass, because the oil got into Pensacola Bay. We kept it out of the pass at 

Destin, getting into the very large Choctawhatchee Bay. That was 

done with booms and buoys. The winds carried it far east—there 

were tar balls on Panama City Beach—and then the winds reversed, and they started carrying it back to the west. 

But the damage was done. When those photographs flashed 

around the world, they thought there was oil all over the beach, 

and the tourists did not come to the Gulf Coast beaches all the way 

down south to Naples and Marco Island for an entire season. That 

was a consequence of having oil on Pensacola Beach. 

You remember back at one point, 36 percent of the entire Gulf 

was closed to fishing. A recent study showed us estimates that recreational anglers lost $585 million in fishing opportunities as a result. So the bottom line is if there is an oil spill, it spells disaster 

for state and local economies. 

So what are we going to do going forward? We want to certainly 

maintain our vibrant tourism economy. We want to maintain our 

very delicate environment in the bays and estuaries, where so 

many of the critters come in and the marine life is spawned, and 

then goes back out to sea. 

Another issue that we’re going to have to face is Florida’s and 

the U.S.’s Brand USA. Brand USA is a quasi-government private 

partnership that promotes tourism from foreign countries to the 

United States. It has had a very positive effect on Florida’s econVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:09 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\29979.TXT JACKIE
7 

omy. It attracts millions of foreign tourists to the United States, 

many of whom, of course, come to our state. 

The President has proposed in his budget doing away with Brand 

USA. Eliminating it, I think, is classic definition of penny-wise and 

pound-foolish, and I know the three of us are going to try to convince our colleagues to preserve this important Federal program. 

The fact is that it’s de minimis compared to the other items in the 

Federal Government, and yet it returns such tremendous dividends 

to our state. 

OK. Let’s get to our witnesses. Dr. Sherry Larkin is a Professor 

of Resource Economics and Associate Dean for Research at the University of Florida. She’s also Associate Director of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. Ms. Robin Sollie is President and 

CEO of the Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce, working 

out of their St. Pete Beach headquarters, representing the business 

and tourism interests of several Bay communities. 

Ms. Maryann Ferenc serves on the Board of Directors for the 

U.S. Travel Association and Brand USA. Dr. Mitchell Roffer is the 

President of Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecast Service based in Melbourne and Miami, and he has provided targeted, science-based 

fishery forecasts for 30 years. 

So welcome to all of you. Take about 5 minutes apiece. Let’s start 

with you, Dr. Larkin, and we’ll work right down the panel. 

STATEMENT OF SHERRY L. LARKIN, PH.D., PROFESSOR, 

FOOD AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, 

ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, 

INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (UF/IFAS) 

Dr. LARKIN. Good afternoon, Senator Nelson and distinguished 

panel members. My name is Sherry Larkin. I’m a natural resource 

economist at the University of Florida. 

My research examines how our common property resources can 

be better managed by considering the biological, ecological, and economic dynamics that affect sustainability and generate benefits to 

society. A component of my research involves estimating the economic value of so-called nonmarket goods, which are environmental 

services, like clean air and water and healthy fish and wildlife populations, in order to include such information in decision modeling. 

While most of my research has focused on fisheries, I have examined environmental stressors like red tides and oil spills in my 20- 

year career here in Florida. I first came to Florida in 1997. I envisioned Miami and the Everglades and hoped to visit all of the famous beaches. But what I learned in my first few weeks has set 

the tone for my career and enticed me to stay, and that is that 

Florida’s economy, and especially tourism, is based on our natural 

resources, especially from things like our spring water that flows 

to our coasts to the diverse flora and fauna that we share our 

coastal habitats with. 

In the most developed and undeveloped communities statewide, 

protecting and enhancing our natural resources and conserving 

them for future generations is in our economic self-interest, whether they be used directly or indirectly, by full or part-time residents, 

8 

or by visitors from other states and nations that may one day be 

our neighbors. In what follows, I outline Florida’s strengths, opportunities, and aspirations for ensuring a strong and vibrant naturebased tourism economy. 

Strengths. I believe Florida has three basic strengths in that regard. First, we’re already a strong brand recognition as a tropical 

vacation destination and supporting built infrastructure. Second, 

Florida has a rich and diverse environment. Third, visitors seek out 

nature-based experiences while in Florida, either indirectly at our 

famous theme parks that highlight them or directly through visits 

to state parks. Recent corporate investments by Disney to expand 

into coastal resorts and even redesign and rename their downtown 

to highlight our local freshwater springs signals that corporate 

America recognizes the potential for additional nature-based tourism. 

Opportunities. The neo-classical economic framework identifies 

six distinct economic values associated with human use of the environment that can be measured. I included a graphic on page 3 [see 

page 11 for reference to graphic]—I’m not sure if all of you have 

that—but they are basically of two types. There are so-called nonuse—or use values, first, I’ll talk about—because they’re generated 

from people that literally use the resource directly, such as from 

fishing or indirectly from activities like birdwatching. 

And then there are the non-use values, where an individual values the protection of a resource, not for their own personal use, but 

rather to ensure that it continues to exist. Think of polar bears 

that perhaps nobody will ever even see in person. 

This total economic value framework allows economists to make 

a ‘‘deep dive’’ into the investigation of what constitutes and contributes to economic value, which also helps identify opportunities for 

investment to increase that value. I have used this framework for 

the Florida legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research to value, you know, making the public whole following the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill as required by the Oil Pollution Act. 

The analysis generated a conservative estimate of $643 million 

for lost direct-use value and $854 million for lost existence value. 

That is $1.5 billion for just two of the six types of economic losses, 

and those are to Florida residents alone. These figures actually also 

exclude job losses and lost tax revenues from reduced visitor spending. 

Aspirations. In closing, Florida’s economy fundamentally depends 

on our tourism, which, in turn, is dependent on our natural resources. But the industry does face numerous threats, some natural 

and others manmade, all of which can be prioritized in part with 

economic analysis of, for example, the following four types of 

projects. 

One, built and natural infrastructure to expand recreational opportunities and support rural development. Two, technological innovations, such as marine aquaculture, to jump start a blue revolution for job growth. Three, improve terrestrial and freshwater environmental systems that generate spillover and downstream economic benefits for nature-based tourism. And, four, prevent, mitigate, or control invasive species to protect our old Florida brand, 

ecotourism, and commercial sectors of our economy. 

9 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Larkin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHERRY L. LARKIN, PH.D., PROFESSOR, FOOD AND

RESOURCE ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR RESEARCH AND

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, INSTITUTE

OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA (UF/IFAS) 

Good afternoon Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the 

Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide testimony regarding 

the threats to Florida’s tourism industry, especially those that are directly and indirectly linked to natural resources of our estuaries and wetlands, surrounding gulf 

and ocean, and our coastline. 

My name is Sherry Larkin and I am a natural resource economist at the University of Florida. My research examines how our common property natural resources 

can be better managed by considering the biological, ecological and economic dynamics that affect the regeneration and sustainability of environmental assets (primarily 

fish stocks) that generate economic benefits to society. A component of my research 

involves estimating the economic value of so called ‘‘non-market goods’’—environmental goods and services, such as clean air and water, and healthy fish and wildlife populations, are not traded in markets—in order to include such information in 

decision modelling. This type of analysis is necessary when considering environmental issues that affect human systems, and public programs that have the potential to generate non-market benefits (such as recreational experiences) or to mitigate, control or prevent negative economic consequences. In addition to my academic 

achievements as a professor, including that I am the current President of the North 

American Association of Fisheries Economists, I have served on the Science and Statistical Committee of both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. While most of my research has focused on fisheries, I have examined 

environmental stressors like red tides and oil spills in my 20-year career in Florida. 

For this hearing, I was asked to discuss challenges to the tourism economy in the 

State of Florida, and provide suggestions for how these challenges could be addressed to protect existing tourism opportunities. My comments will primarily represent the research with which I have been involved, but my opinions will be reflective of my collaborators and colleagues within UF/IFAS that are conducting research 

under the auspices of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station and the Florida 

Sea Grant College Program. 

I came to Florida on a one year post-doc in 1997, never having been east of Indianapolis. I envisioned Miami and the everglades, and hoped to visit Key West to 

enjoy those famous pink shrimp, but what I learned in my first few weeks has set 

the tone for my career—Florida’s tourism is based on our natural resources, from 

our spring water that flows to our coasts, to our diverse flora and fauna that we 

share our coastal habitats with, and in the most developed and undeveloped communities from Key West to Pensacola. Protecting and enhancing our natural resources 

and conserving them for future generations is in our economic self-interest whether 

they be used directly or indirectly for full and part time residents, and visitors from 

other states and nations that might one day be our neighbors. 

As a natural resource economist, and with respect to our environment and natural 

resources that have and generate economic value, we aim to provide information to 

help make strategic investments; yes, all projects provide value, but what about 

costs, lost opportunities and relative values? In the face of limited resources, I am 

here to argue for the use of economic analysis in decision-making both from my disciplinary expertise and my own research, but also as a representative of all UF/ 

IFAS researchers that I serve in my role as an associate dean for research and associate director of the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. 

In what follows, I outline—from an economic perspective—Florida’s strengths, opportunities, and aspirations for ensuring a strong and vibrant tourism economy. 

Strengths . . . of Florida’s tourism economy 

Florida has a rich and diverse high-quality environment—from freshwater springs 

that attract divers worldwide, to numerous iconic mammals and reptiles (alligators, 

manatees, sea turtles, panthers, Key deer, etc.), unique birds (roseate spoonbills), 

825 miles of coastline with diverse beach characteristics and palm, pine and oak 

trees that highlight our tropical to upland habitats that reinforce our ‘‘old Florida’’ 

brand. A brand that has been fostered by past public investments and that I sought 

10 

1Further distinction can be made within these categories, and different names are used to 

convey the nature of each value. Such categories include those that focus on the ‘‘services’’ provided including provisioning (direct use value), cultural (indirect use value, recreation in particular), regulating and supporting (indirect use value, ecosystem services like habitat, water filtration, wetlands, and nutrient cycling etc.). 

to model in a theoretical contribution to the literature. A brand that arguably supports a robust tourism industry. 

While beaches may be the first destination for the majority of visitors, data shows 

that visitors seek to enjoy our natural resources and that enjoyment translates into 

economic value and return to the state. (see box). Clearly, our natural resources are 

the key to our tourism, and coastal tourism in particular—where 80 percent of Floridian’s live and work—has been an economic engine for the state. Recent corporate 

investments by Disney to expand into coastal resorts and even redesign and rename 

their ‘‘downtown’’ to highlight our local freshwater springs indicate the potential 

growth of our natural resourced-based tourism. 

Opportunities . . . of identifying and increasing the economic value 

associated with nature-based tourism 

From a neo-classical economic perspective, anything that gives an individual satisfaction or ‘‘utility’’ to the point that they are willing to forgo scarce resources to 

obtain it has an ‘‘economic value.’’ Whether the scarce resource is time, money, or 

some other object of trade, the value of the trade is a conservative estimate of the 

value of the non-monetized natural resource because the trade would only happen 

if the individual derived at least the same or greater level of satisfaction. 

In total, there are six distinct economic values associated with human use of the 

environment that can be measured (Figure 1) and they are of two types: so-called 

‘‘use values’’ because they are generated from people literally using the resource 

today (either directly such as from catching and eating fish or indirectly from ecosystem services or recreational boating, beach going, or wildlife viewing),1 or from 

the value of holding the resource with an option of using it in the future (such as 

set aside areas of biodiversity for future recreation or medical products) and ‘‘nonuse values’’ where an individual values the protection of a resource—not for their 

own personal use—but rather to either ensure it exists (think polar bears and koalas that maybe no one will ever see), or for the benefit of others either today or 

in future generations (that is, altruistic and bequest values, respectively). 


810LARKI1.eps
11 

Figure 1. Total Economic Value (TEV) of a natural resource to an individual and society can 

be measured as the sum of up to six distinct values (in yellow). 

This total economic value (TEV) framework allows economists to make a ‘‘deep 

dive’’ into the investigation of what constitutes and contributes to economic value. 

And while some of these values are relatively straight forward to estimate—such as 

the value of seafood or cost to travel to the coast for recreational boating, others 

are more salient and require advanced methodologies and strict protocols for data 

collection in order to begin the judicial process of damage assessment under conditions established following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (Bishop et al., 2017. ‘‘Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: The BP oil spill’’ Science 356(6335): 253– 

254). 

The TEV framework has been used to estimate the value of opening up new natural areas to recreation, investing in infrastructure that can allow for greater use, 

or protecting existing coastal areas; alternatively, it can be used to value losses or 

potential losses in the same. By integrating scientific information on changes in either the biophysical or human infrastructure—whatever the cause (rising seas, rising temperatures, storm events, or algal blooms)—with the economic (be it either 

costs and benefits, risk assessments, and impact analysis), decision makers are 

poised to make informed decisions with the highest return on investments (ROIs). 

While the TEV framework estimates the value to individuals that can be extrapolated to society as a whole, economists have also utilized impact analyses that estimate the ripple effects of a change in economic activity at the county, regional, or 

state level—that is, by estimating a change in the spending in an economy and associated secondary effects (indirect and induced from multipliers) of the change in 

spending. This is an important tool as it highlights the linkage between the economic value of the environment and natural resources and the job creation and community benefits derived. This was highlighted in a recent Florida Sea Grant Report 

entitled ‘‘Living on the edge: The balance between economy and environment’’ that 

claimed 

Most of Florida’s 20 million residents live in coastal counties, and over 80 million tourists visit the coast each year. This concentration-of people, activities 

and economies contributes more than 80 percent—almost $562 billion—to the 

state’s economy annually. 

I would argue that the premise is false, that is, there isn’t a balance; the environment and economy are inextricably linked and what benefits one, benefits the other 

and vice versa. 

I have used the TEV framework on behalf of the Florida Legislature’s Office of 

Economic and Demographic Research to value making the public ‘‘whole’’ following 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill—as required by the Oil Pollution Act. The analysis 

generated a conservative and risk-adjusted estimate of $854 million for lost passive 

use value and $643 million for lost direct use value from forgone recreational trips 

in the aftermath; or nearly $1.5 billion of lost TEV associated with just two of the 

six economic values that Floridians could have for a restored Gulf environment in 

the short run. This means the analyses would support investing up to $1.5 billion 

in preventing similar damages to the Gulf of Mexico’s natural resources. In addition, 

the study also estimated the losses to the state of Florida from forgone trips by doVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:09 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29979.TXT JACKIE

810LARKI2.eps
12 

2 Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) software uses national and regional economic data 

to measure the ‘‘ripple effect’’ on a regional economy that is caused by a change in spending 

by non-residents. The total economic impact from a change in spending by non-residents of the 

study region (direct effect) includes the secondary effects of economic activity lost from reduced 

purchases of intermediate products through the industry supply chain (indirect effects) and activity lost from reduced employee household and government spending (induced effects). Economic multipliers are used to capture the distinct secondary effects on the regional economy by 

accounting for the ‘‘leakage,’’ or the degree to which demand for goods and services in the region 

is met by businesses that import from other regions. 

mestic visitors (via IMPLAN software).2 In particular, visitor spending fell $1.3 billion due to cancelled trips over a 28-month period. The associated regional economic 

impacts equaled a reduction of $2.03 billion in output (industry revenues), and employment loss of over 20,000 job-years, and $1.37 billion in decreased value-added. 

In addition, the corresponding loss in sales tax revenue totaled $77.8 million dollars. 

For comparison, the state was awarded $2 billion on behalf of its trustees to compensate for economic losses following the spill, primarily due to tourism effects. 

In addition, I have participated in studies that have generated economic information for resources in Florida (see box for examples). Economic analyses provide a rigorous framework upon which to evaluate investment in environmental and natural 

resource assets that in Florida are surely to be used and enjoyed by tourists. Such 

a framework is critical when investment dollars are scarce and scientific information is costly. And given an increasing demand from population growth, choices will 

be imminent. 

No discussion of environmental and natural resources would be complete without 

mention of climate change and associated concerns over sea level rise and extreme 

weather events. One way to frame the issues is to first consider—or not consider 

at all—whether the cause matters. If we, as a society, have strategies that mitigate, 

control and possibly prevent associated environmental and economic damage with 

a high degree of certainty and at costs that are less than the value of rebuilding 

existing infrastructure, what then? Economic analyses can compare the future costs 

with the benefits of proposed strategies to assess the ROI. 


810LARKI3.eps
13 

Aspirations . . . for moving forward 

My personal and professional hopes are that society makes investment decisions 

based on sound science, including sufficient knowledge of the biophysical world and 

interdependent social sciences that collectively shape societal outcomes. I also hope 

that the inherent interconnectedness of the natural and physical world become better understood by all so that strategic investments, while seemingly narrow in their 

objective, can eventually lead to significant socioeconomic benefits. I offer two examples before ending with a list of suggestions to help mitigate future threats to Florida’s tourism driven economy. 

The first example involves the political decision to close a fishery over concerns 

of stock collapse. The town of Cedar Key was essentially removed of its lifeblood 

after a public vote to ban net gear for the capture of mullet in the mid-1990s. The 

public investment that ensued to retrain fishermen to farm hard clams was significant. Fast forward 20 years and Cedar Key is the leader in the production of hard 

clams, which has supported a relatively high-valued locally caught fresh source of 

seafood with spill over externalities to the supporting rural community. Fishing jobs 

have increased, a working waterfront is maintained, tourism is burgeoning, and 

public and private investments are increasing. This public investment 20 years ago 

has resulted in recent substantial investments by the Florida Aquarium and the 

new UF/IFAS Nature Coast Biological Station, which houses new UF faculty conducting research along the Big Bend Region. The seemingly private benefits of reinvesting in fishermen has provided public benefits in the form of rural development 

and expanded tourism opportunities that are independent of out-of-state brand 

name hotels. 

The second example highlights the potential for further development of aquaculture in Florida. UF/IFAS has researchers, including nearby at Apollo Beach and 

in Ruskin, that are seeking to (1) farm corals for restoration of the Florida Bay and 

the Keys in order to improve water quality, habitats for other species, and support 

increased snorkeling, diving and fishing; (2) rear live bait fish that have high economic value and the potential to reduce pressure on the harvest of wild forage fish 

from the ecosystem, a move that would leave forage fish to support an increase in 

valuable reef fish species; and (3) augment populations of popular recreational marine species such as snook, red drum and scallops. Today, the recreational scallop 

fisheries along the northern Gulf coast of Florida provide substantial economic activity to several rural coastal communities. 

In closing, Florida’s economy is fundamentally dependent on our tourism, which 

is in turn dependent on our natural resources. But the industry faces numerous 

threats, some natural and others man made; all of which can be addressed in part 

with investment. Florida’s brand name will continue to grow with continued investments that evaluate the benefits and costs of each choice, which may require scientific information. Below are types of investments—some obvious, some not so obvious—that show the breadth of activities to achieve this objective: 

1. Investment in built and natural infrastructure. Improve or create new on-site 

recreational facilities such as parking lots, boat ramps, and boardwalks. Improve off shore and underwater ecosystems that protect the built environment 

in coastal areas (e.g., oyster reefs), and that serve as habitat for species that 

can supply additional recreational opportunities (diving, fishing, and/or snorkeling). These investments will directly strengthen local economies by improving access and visitation opportunities, and expand Florida’s portfolio while 

providing rural development. 

2. Facilitation and support of technological innovations such as aquaculture. Biological research to close the life cycle of high-valued species, legal research to 

reduce regulatory burden, engineering studies to improve design and economic 

studies to improve efficiency and evaluate the ROIs can all help to augment 

wild populations for recreational harvest (e.g., fish species) and increase the 

supply of fresh fish to tourists to boost the local experience, and further build 

the Old Florida brand. These investments would serve to initiate a ‘‘blue revolution’’ in the U.S. and the new industries would be associated with job growth. 

3. Continued protection of wildlife. Collaborate with and augment efforts by conservation organizations to ensure habitat areas are sufficient for iconic species 

like sea turtles, manatees and goliath grouper that have tremendous popularity among tourists. Bird watching is one of the fastest growing hobbies as 

enjoyment is not limited by physical ability, and birders are willing to travel 

to see unique species like sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, and bald eagles. 

Public investment to support private lands that sustain valuable species for the 

benefit of all are well justified. Such investments could include the additional 

expense of beach renourishment projects that are suitable for sea turtle nesting 

14 

(i.e., proper sand, slope and compaction) and conservation easements for agricultural lands that ensure continuous acreage to support larger mammals; this 

is because investments in terrestrial and freshwater environmental systems generate spillover and downstream economic benefits that support nature-based 

tourism. 

4. Invest in efforts to prevent, mitigate or control the spread of invasive species 

that can introduce pests and diseases that threaten the survival of iconic 

plants and animals (think large palms, citrus, and endangered panthers and 

black bear, some of which are currently threatened), and human health (e.g., 

mosquitos). Florida is ground zero for the unintended and undetected introduction of new species that do not have local predators to keep populations in 

check. The risk is exacerbated by the ongoing expansion of port capacity and 

international trade. UF/IFAS research has shown that early investments in detection (biological risk assessments) are substantially more cost effective than 

controlling the spread of established species (pythons and melaleuca come to 

mind); consider investments in risk assessments for example to preserve the 

aesthetics of our tropical environment and sustain the economic benefits derived 

from ecotourism that are critical to nature-based tourism and commercial sectors of our economy. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you might have. 

Relevant Publications/References by S. Larkin 

(reverse chronological order) 

Book Chapters 

Bi, X., T. Borisova, S. Larkin, and J. Longanecker. 2015. ‘‘Economic Value of 

Recreation along the Freshwater Portion of the St. John’s River,’’ Chapter 6, p. 225– 

261. In St. John’s River Economic Study (C.T. Hackney, ed.). University of North 

Florida, Jacksonville. 

Bi, X., T. Borisova, S. Larkin, and J. Longanecker. 2015. ‘‘Estimation of the Current and Potential Level and Value of Ecotourism in the St. John’s River Basin,’’ 

Chapter 7, p. 263–268. In St. John’s River Economic Study (C.T. Hackney, ed.). University of North Florida, Jacksonville. 

Larkin, S. 2014. ‘‘Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill,’’ in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Encyclopedia, p. 105–107. T.C. Haab and J.C. Whitehead 

(eds.). Santa Barbara: ABC–CLIO, LLC. 

Gardner, C., S. Larkin, and J.C. Seijo. 2013. ‘‘Systems to Maximise Economic Benefits in Lobster Fisheries,’’ chapter 5, p. 113–138, In Lobsters: Biology, Management, 

Aquaculture, and Fisheries (2nd ed.). B.F. Phillips (ed). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Adams, C.M., S. Larkin, K. Morgan, B. Degner, and J. Stevely. 2008. ‘‘Measuring 

the Economic Implications of Red Tide Events on the Gulf Coast of Florida, USA: 

An Overview of University of Florida Research Efforts,’’ pp. 223–232. In Mitigating 

Impacts of Natural Hazards on Fishery Ecosystems. K.D. McLaughlin [ed.] American 

Fisheries Society, Symposium 64. 

Peer-reviewed Journal Articles 

Avila, J., S. Baker, K. Grogan, S. Larkin, and L. Sturmer. In review. ‘‘Ecosystems 

Services Generated by Hard Clam Aquaculture and Valuation of the Industry in 

Florida’’ Journal of Society and Natural Resources. 

Whitehead, J., T. Haab, S. Larkin, J. Loomis, S. Alvarez, and A. Ropicki. In review. ‘‘Lost Recreational Value to Northwest Florida from the Deepwater Horizon 

Oil Spill Using Revealed and Stated Preference Data.’’ Marine Resource Economics. 

Elrich, O., X. Bi, T. Borisova, and S. Larkin. In press. ‘‘A Latent Class Analysis 

of Public Attitudes toward Water Resources with Implications for Recreational Demand.’’ Ecosystem Services. 

Court, C., R. Clouser, A. Hodges and S. Larkin. In press. ‘‘Economic impacts of 

cancelled recreational trips to Northwest Florida after the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill.’’ Regional Science, Policy and Practice. 

Camp, E., R. Ahrens, K. Lorenzen, and S. Larkin. 2017. ‘‘Trade-offs between Socioeconomic and Conservation Management Objectives in Stock Enhancement of 

Marine Recreational Fisheries’’. Fisheries Research 186(2): 446–459. 

Borisova, T., X. Bi, S. Larkin, and J, Loganecker. 2016. ‘‘Assessing Nature-Based 

Recreation to Support Economic Development and Environmental Sustainability Extension Programs.’’ Journal of Extension 54(4): 5RIB1. 

Anderson, C., J.L. Anderson, J. Chu, J. Meredith, F. Asche, G. Sylvia, M.D. 

Smith, D. Anggraeni, R. Arther, A. Guttormsen, J.K. McCluney, T. Ward, W. 

15 

Akpalu, H. Eggert, J. Flores, M.A. Freeman, D. Holland, G. Knapp, M. Kobayaski, 

S. Larkin, K. MacLauchlin, K.E. Schnier, M. Soboil, S. Tveteras, H. Uchida, and D. 

Valderrama. 2015. ‘‘The Fishery Performance Indicators: A Management Tool for 

Triple Bottom Line Outcomes.’’ PLoS ONE 10(5): e0122809. 

Alvarez, S., S. L. Larkin, T. Haab, and J.C. Whitehead. 2014. ‘‘A Revealed Preference Approach to Valuing Non-market Recreational Fishing Losses from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.’’ Journal of Environmental Management 145(1): 199–209. 

Larkin, S.L., R.G. Huffaker, and R.L. Clouser. 2013. ‘‘Negative Externalities and 

Oil Spills: A Case for Reduced Brand Value to the State of Florida.’’ Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 45(3): 389–399. 

Adams, D., A. Bwenge, D. Lee, S. Larkin, and J. Alavalapati. 2011. ‘‘Public Preferences for Controlling Upland Invasive Plants in State Parks: Application of a 

Choice Model.’’ Forest Policy and Economics 13(6): 465–472. 

Morgan, K., S. Larkin, and C. Adams. 2011. ‘‘Empirical Analysis of Media versus 

Environmental Impacts on Park Attendance.’’ Tourism Management 32: 852–859. 

Morgan, K., S. Larkin, and C. Adams. 2010. ‘‘Red Tides and Participation in Marine-Based Activities: Estimating the Response of Southwest Florida Residents.’’ 

Harmful Algae 9(3): 333–341. 

Larkin, S.L. and C.M. Adams. 2008. ‘‘Public Awareness and Knowledge of Red 

Tide Blooms.’’ Journal of Extension 46(2): 2FEA8. 

Larkin, S., and C. Adams. 2007. ‘‘Harmful Algal Blooms and Coastal Business: 

Economic Consequences in Florida.’’ Society and Natural Resources 20(9): 849–859. 

Other Reviewed Publications 

Larkin, S., and C. Adams. 2013. ‘‘Summary of Literature that Addresses the Economic Consequences of Harmful Algal Blooms.’’ EDIS (Electronic Data Information 

Source) document FE936, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 

Huffaker, R., R. Clouser, and S. Larkin. 2012 ‘‘Contract for Analytical Services 

Related to the Deepwater Horizon Disaster: Estimation of lost indirect and passive 

use economic values to Floridians’’ Food and Resource Economics Department, UF/ 

IFAS, Gainesville, FL. 

Larkin, S., J. Georges, A. Hodges, M. Allen, and D. Jones. 2012. ‘‘The Economic 

Impact of the 2011 Florida BASS Federation Tournament to Osceola County and the 

Economic Value of Participants.’’ EDIS document FE916, University of Florida, 

Gainesville, FL. 

Larkin, S., S. Alvarez, G. Sylvia, and M. Harte. 2011. ‘‘Practical Considerations 

in Using Bioeconomic Modelling for Rebuilding Fisheries’’, OECD Food, Agriculture 

and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 38, OECD Publishing. 

Adams, D.C., A.N. Bwenge, D.J. Lee, S.L. Larkin, and J.R.R. Alavalapati. 2011. 

‘‘Economic Value of Upland Invasive Plant Management in Florida State Parks.’’ 

EDIS document FR352/FOR290. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 

Larkin, S., K. Lucas, C. Adams, and J. Stevely. 2011. ‘‘Strategies to Address Red 

Tide Events in Florida: Results of a 2010 Survey of Coastal Residents.’’ EDIS document FE891. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 

Swett, R.A., C. Adams, S. Larkin, A.W. Hodges, and T.J. Stevens. 2011. ‘‘Economic 

Impacts of Artificial Reefs for Six Southwest Florida Counties.’’ TP–178. Florida Sea 

Grant College Program, UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL. 

Morgan, K.L., T. Stevens, R. Degner, S.L. Larkin, and C.M. Adams. 2010. ‘‘Economic Impacts of Alternative Regulatory Scenarios on the Florida Fresh Half-shell 

Oyster Industry.’’ EDIS document FE835. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

Morgan, K.L., S.L. Larkin, and C.M. Adams. 2008. ‘‘Public Costs of Florida Red 

Tides, 2007.’’ EDIS document FE711. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

Senator NELSON. Thanks, Dr. Larkin. 

Ms. Sollie? 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN A. SOLLIE, IOM, FCCP—PRESIDENT/ 

CEO, TAMPA BAY BEACHES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Ms. SOLLIE. Thank you, and—— 

Senator NELSON. By the way, while you all are working on that, 

let me call your attention to the poster over here. [Poster is on display.] That, of course, is the peninsula of Florida. All of that yellow 

in the Gulf is the area that is off limits in law to drilling, and, as 

you see, in a position from Clearwater Beach to the edge of the line 

on the west, which is called the Military Mission Line. That’s 235 

16 

miles away. When you get down as far as Naples, it’s something 

like 260 miles. Up in the panhandle off of the beach there, it’s 125 

miles off of Panama City Beach, and that is one of the national assets. 

We are now—look down there where the Keys are. So when the 

U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet had to shut down its training in Puerto 

Rico in the island of Vieques, all of that training comes here now. 

So they’ll send the squadrons of F–18s in the Navy down to Key 

West Naval Air Station, which is on Boca Chica Key, and when 

they lift off, you can see from that map, in 2 minutes, they are in 

restricted airspace. So they don’t have to spend a lot of fuel and 

time to get to their training area. 

Then you can see from the bottom all the way north to the panhandle where the big Eglin Air Force Base is. That’s a distance of 

350 miles. They can test weapons. For example, they could shoot 

a cruise missile in its testing operation from the south, and it’ll go 

350 miles in testing it, and then if they wanted to land it in the 

sea, they could. If they wanted, they could land it on land, and its 

impact could be on the huge Eglin Air Force Base. 

So, visually, that’s a good pictorial for you to see how big that 

training range is. 

OK. Ms. Sollie? 

Ms. SOLLIE. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me this 

afternoon. I’m extremely honored to be here and honored to be representing the coastal communities of Pinellas County and the business community as well. 

My first slide in my presentation—thank you, panelists. You’ve 

taken care of everything up there in your opening remarks. 

I would like to emphasize, as we discuss tourism and we say 

tourism industry, that everyone here in the audience and our elected officials remember that it’s truly economic impact. It is an economic driver. In many times and instances, it is left out of economic development because we think about diversification of jobs 

in the markets that we have within the county, and tourism needs 

to always be in the conversation when we talk about economic development and the economy. 

The numbers are there. Twenty-three percent of the sales tax 

generated is generated by our tourists that come to the destination. 

We have businesses that are built in these communities because 

they thrive and are alive because of the tourists that come here. 

When I have my closing, I can definitely depict what had happened 

in 2010, especially in the beaches and the coastal communities in 

Pinellas County as a result of 2010. 

So you asked me to present to you what we see as threats to our 

tourism economy. I did that in conjunction with polling a lot of our 

businesses in the coastal communities, and we came up with some 

high-impact threats, mid-level impact threats, and low-level impact 

threats. 

Obviously, oil drilling off of Florida’s coast—we can talk about it 

over and over, and it’s an unfortunate situation. What happened in 

2010—we’re still, you know, trying to understand and ascertain— 

thank you, Dr. Sanberg—to understand the impact on the health 

of the Gulf of Mexico, let alone what happened when tourists 

stopped coming here as a result of that tragic explosion that was 

17 

nowhere near Florida. So we say and we ask, to mitigate this 

threat, to continue the moratorium on the exploration and oil drilling off Florida’s coast. 

Our second high-level impact threat is storm surge and hurricanes. Obviously, we can’t control when a storm comes to our coastline or when a hurricane does. But what we can do is we can control the health of the natural resource of our shoreline. When a 

storm comes or a hurricane comes, there’s severe amounts of beach 

erosion. Debby came to our coastline and tore up our beaches, from 

Redington Shores, Sand Key, all the way down to Pass-A-Grille. A 

few years later, in 2016, Hurricane Hermine came by—again, eroded our shoreline. One was a tropical storm. One was a hurricane. 

They both have the same impact of beach erosion to the beaches. 

If we don’t have a healthy beach, our tourists and our residents 

don’t have a beach to go to. Our businesses around those beaches 

end up suffering. So we do ask, to mitigate that threat, that we 

continue—and thank you, Senator Nelson—continue funding nourishment, increase funding nourishment along with the contributions that we do on a state and local level when it comes to beach 

nourishment. 

Then third, we classified this as mid-level only because if funds 

are diverted from Brand USA and, unfortunately, here in the state 

of Florida, Visit Florida, it has a slow, residual, painful effect on 

tourism. It’s not a high immediate effect, like a storm or an oil 

spill. But to divert funds from a marketing agency that we need 

vitally to make sure that we are a competitive industry globally, 

especially when we have emerging markets, like Dubai and Cuba— 

we have cruise ships that are going to Cuba, taking thousands and 

thousands of passengers there. So we want to encourage, to mitigate this threat, that you fight for us on our behalf up there to continue to fund Brand USA and continue to use those funds for the 

intended purpose, to market us globally so we can stay competitive. 

Transportation—big one. We’re number four in the nation when 

it comes to transportation, due to our infrastructure and our roads. 

That sounds great, but when we lift up the hood and we look at 

our destinations, Pinellas County, Orlando, connectivity, transportation is more than a road. It’s easements to create the future of 

transit. We need transit. We need mobility. 

We have travelers who come to this destination. The demographic is changing. Foreign travelers—their expectations are 

much higher when it comes to public transportation. Millennials— 

we have to think for the future. We need to have the ability to 

make sure that our tourists can be mobilized in a variety of facets, 

and that even includes the Federal funding in any capacity for our 

airports and the fees involved there so we can continue to be that 

competitive market. 

So the threat there, to mitigate that, is please continue to explore 

funding and, whenever possible, expanded funding, and I’d say be 

advantageous. Let’s be cutting edge in some cases. We’re way down 

at the bottom here in Pinellas County when it comes to transit. 

Another threat—Zika. Zika, and you could say, slash, red tide or 

any other type of maybe algae bloom or anything that may happen 

in the ocean or within our environment. We say it’s low, because 

the impacts, again, aren’t an immediate ramification of loss of revVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:09 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\29979.TXT JACKIE
18 

enue and jobs and tourists automatically fleeing from us. However, 

they do impact us. 

It’s very hard to track. It’s very hard to understand. But we do 

ask, to mitigate those threats, that you continue to fund research 

and development to eradicate whatever that is, or to find cures, or 

be able to at least minimize the ramifications of any of these 

blooms, Zika, whatever would impact national media hype, as I like 

to call it, to make it look like we’re not a place that you should visit 

as a result of this. 

And then, finally, we talk about sea level rise. That is a low and 

is a long-term effect. I know there was an article in the Times 

today about sea level rise, and it’s escalating. But we don’t see immediate results today, right, of sea level rise. It’s one of those 

things—we say, ‘‘Oh, our grandkids or our grandkids’ grandkids 

are going to see that.’’ We need to address it now. 

We are working in environments in Pinellas County with many 

municipalities that have specific land use plans, and at a county 

level, we need to address the land use plans for redevelopment or 

new development that has sea level rise in the vision so that we 

can plan for the future, so that our coastal communities are protected long-term, and those tourists will continue to enjoy our destination, and our residents can continue to thrive in our destination 

as well. 

You know, I talk about the recipe. What is the recipe? Because 

we never know how this is going to pan out. We can’t always plan 

for the impact of what any of these may present to us. If you think 

about 2010, we had three things that occurred. We had an oil spill, 

we had a cold snap—we can’t control that—and we had a recession. 

Maybe we could have controlled that in some capacities in hindsight, but, pretty much, we couldn’t. 

We lost thousands of jobs. We had businesses closing. Bed tax 

collections were down. We had to cut marketing funding during 

that time. Our sales tax collections go down as a result of that as 

well. 

So we, as leaders, need to continue to plan for the future, plan 

as if, because when it comes, we don’t know in what variety it will 

come. It will, unfortunately, and we will need to be prepared, fully 

funded, and fully healthy and nourished, and we appreciate it. 

I accept any questions, and thank you for the opportunity to 

present. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sollie follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBIN A. SOLLIE, IOM, FCCP—PRESIDENT/CEO, 

TAMPA BAY BEACHES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today regarding ‘‘Threats to 

Florida’s Tourism Economy’’. On behalf of the businesses in our communities we appreciate all you do each day for our country, the state of Florida and our local communities. 

Introduction 

As the CEO of the Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce (TBBCoC), I have 

the privilege to represent over 730 businesses with the majority directly tourism related (accommodations, restaurants, and attractions). The TBBCoC geographical 

reach is the entire coast line of Pinellas County, which are 12 municipalities and 

1 un-incorporated community. The culmination of these communities is an estimated 8,872 businesses and over 156,000 residents (*Stats from Pinellas County 

Economic Development http://www.pced.org/?page=DemoBusiness). 

19 

Important facts regarding the Tourism industry and its economic impact: 

• 112 million Visitors to the State of Florida in 2016 

• Over 1.4 million Tourism related Jobs in the State of Florida in 2016 

• Approximately $110 billion Economic Impact to the State of Florida in 2016 

• 23 percent of Sales Tax in Florida is generated by visitors 

• Pinellas County alone has over 100,000 jobs, nearly 6 million visitors in 2016, 

$10 billion economic impact in 2016 

• Diversification in Tourism: sports, film, leisure, and meetings all make up the 

industry 

(*Stats from www.visitflorida.org & www.pinellascvb.org) 

The numbers are very powerful for the entire state and Pinellas continues to lead 

as a destination. As an industry we continue to keep our pulse on what elements 

could damage, interfere or even disrupt this vital economic driver. Managing threats 

is a strategic process with a precise recipe (planning & funding). Mitigating the long 

term effects could be managed if proper planning occurs. The elements the industry 

has found to be threats are: 

• Oil Drilling off Florida’s Coast (High) 

• Storm Surge/Hurricanes (High) 

• Continued Funding of Brand USA & Visit Florida (High) 

• Transportation (Mid/Long Term) 

• Zika (Low) 

• Sea Level Rise (Low/Long Term) 

The degree at which any of these threats effect Florida’s economy is a moving target which in some cases could be timing, media, and if there are multiple threats 

simultaneously. It’s obvious some threats cannot be controlled, but how we react, 

fund or plan can be within our control. 

Oil Drilling (High Level) 

One of the highest threats we have to Florida’s tourism economy is the idea that 

lifting the ban on oil drilling off the coast of Florida is a viable and lucrative option. 

There is no amount of money/proceeds from oil exploration and drilling that can outweigh the risk that is has on the entire coast of Florida. In 2010, this was experienced firsthand through the Deepwater Horizon explosion. 

As a result of this explosion, only small amounts of oil came to Florida’s coast in 

the Panhandle. Not one drop washed to Pinellas County’s coast; yet the magnitudes 

of losses are still being calculated. As of this date, businesses and municipalities are 

still working on their claims process to compensate for lost revenues. 

The environmental consequences have been studied by a variety of agencies one 

of which is here in Pinellas county; USF’s College of Marine Science, the lead institution for the Center for Integrated Modeling and Analysis (C–IMAGE), an international research consortium which was created to study the effects of the 2010 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill, their research is outlined here: http://news.usf.edu/article/templates/?a=7309&z=220 and mentions as one of 4 finding that prolonged oil 

toxicity in fish continues. Many of these agencies continue to monitor the ramification of this spill on the marine life and Gulf of Mexico’s overall health and indicate 

that it may be years before we truly fully understand the depth of this impact. 

During this tragedy and many months afterwards, the Tourism industry had to 

fight the perception that there was oil on our beaches, and that our beaches were 

closed, while re-structuring tourism marketing expenditures to crisis messaging. 

One of the largest resorts on the West Coast of Florida, Tradewinds Island Resorts had the following impact on their business (during the 2010 spill): 

• Call volume from potential visitors went down by as much as 25 percent 

• Since the oil spill (April 21st through June 2010), two resorts were down by 

over approximately $1.7 million dollars in revenue. If you assume the hotels 

that represent the rest of the 35,000 rooms experienced similar revenue losses 

per room, that is over $70 million dollars in revenues lost in just Pinellas County 

• Keep in mind these losses don’t consider restaurants, suppliers, attractions or 

other secondary businesses which rely on visitors staying in hotels 

(*Taken from Keith Overton written testimony July 12 to the National Commission 

on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling) 

20 

It is simple; the Deepwater Horizon explosion was off the Louisiana Coast and still 

had major threats and consequences to the entire Florida Tourism Industry. 

ACTION TO MITIGATE THIS THREAT: Continue the extensions of the moratorium on drilling off Florida’s coast. 

Storm/Hurricane Surge and Beach Erosion (High Level) 

The threat of storm/hurricane surge results in beach erosion; this holds true for 

the entire coast of Florida. In Pinellas County we are very proactive in what measure we need to take regarding beach nourishment. Beach nourishment is vital to 

the health of the beaches for our visitors and residents to enjoy as well as our wildlife (birds and turtles). 

The #1 reason travelers come to the state of Florida is to visit the coastal communities and enjoy the award winning beaches. 

A stat sourced from visitflorida.org/resources/research ‘‘The most popular activities for domestic visitors in 2015 were beach or waterfront activities (41 percent)’’ 

In June 2012, Tropical Storm Debby and in 2016, Hurricane Hermine came for 

a visit. Both of these visitors left their baggage behind. That baggage was the damage to the beach—large amounts of erosion along Pinellas County. 

Andy Squires, Section Manager for Coastal Resources in Pinellas County provided 

specific data regarding Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Hermine. 

Hurricane Hermine Impact to Pinellas Beaches 

(Reference PDF, page 28, Table 1 for summary of sand losses) 

Table 1. Volume Changes Measured along the entire Sand Key, 

Treasure Island, and Long Key 

• Impacted Pinellas beaches for 2 days between Sept 1–3, 2016 

• Sand Key sand loss from erosion totaled about 481,200 cubic yards 

• For reference, a typical volume of sand placed each 6 year nourishment cycle 

is typically about 1.3 mm cubic yards. The 2 day storm eroded over 1/3 the volume of sand that is typically eroded over a 6 year duration 

• Loss of dry beach width ranged from 5 feet along Indian Rocks Beach to 35 feet 

along Indian Shores 

• Treasure Island sand loss from erosion totaled 69,000 cubic yards and loss of 

dry beach width ranged from 11 feet at Sunset Beach (part of Treasure Island) 

to 24 feet at middle of Treasure Island 


810SOLLI1.eps
21 

• For Long Key (St. Pete Beach) sand loss (note Table 1 has a typo) from erosion 

totaled about 80,200 cubic yards; Loss of dry beach width ranged from 6 feet 

to 23 feet 

Tropical Storm Debby Impacts to Pinellas Beaches 

(Reference PDF, page 20, Table 1 for summary of sand losses) 

Table 1. Volume Changes Measured along the Long Key, Treasure Island, 

and Long Key 

• Impacted Pinellas beaches for 3 days from June 24–26, 2012 

• Sand Key sand loss totaled about 424,000 cubic yards and dry beach width loss 

ranged from 10 feet to 34 feet 

• Treasure Island total sand loss was 93,500 cubic yards and dry beach width loss 

ranged from 10 to 21 feet 

• Long Key (St. Pete Beach) total sand loss was 113,400 cubic yards and dry 

beach loss ranged from 11 to 26 feet 

In summary the overall impacts to erosion from each storm were similar. This 

demonstrates that a tropical storm can have extreme impacts and risk to our beach 

environments. 

ACTION TO MITIGATE THIS THREAT: Continue and increase funding for 

beach nourishment projects throughout the state of Florida; along with funds at the 

local level. 

Transportation (Mid-Level) 

Florida is #4* in the Nation when it comes to transportation and we must continue to stay competitive. However, many of our popular destinations fall well below 

average as it relates to transportation options (transit/mobility). With the increase 

in traffic from foreign travelers and a rise of the millennial traveler, both demographics desire and expect access to better mobility options. 

Transportation options are vital to stay competitive. 

(Source: http://www.flchamber.com/did-you-know-florida-road-conditions-rankbest-in-the-country/) 

ACTION TO MITIGATE THIS THREAT: Encourage funding for progressive 

transportation projects to ensure we can stay competitive in the ever changing travel market. 

Funding Brand USA & Visit Florida Emerging Competitive Markets (MidLevel) 

With emerging competitive markets (Cuba and Dubai for example) vying for our 

tourists it is imperative that agencies like Brand USA (and Visit Florida) are adeVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:09 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29979.TXT JACKIE

810SOLLI2.eps
22 

quately funded and funded for extensive periods of time. This will ensure the marketing is earmarked to continue to attract global travelers to our award winning 

destinations. 

ACTION TO MITIGATE THIS THREAT: Continue funding this agency to remain 

competitive to emerging markets like Cuba and Dubai. 

Sea Level Rise (Low level) 

We do not see any immediate consequences in the business communities; however, 

if our state and local agencies do not start to draft land use plans accordingly for 

the long term effects of this, we will experience impacts. Sea level rise will continue 

to become a pressing issue in the years to come. It is vital to plan for the future 

and set the legacy we leave behind. 

Pinellas County executed a study titled: ‘‘Awareness and Implications of Sea Level 

Rise’’. It is clear that if coastal communities begin to plan for sea level rise, there 

are options to protect the majority of the acreage that will eventually be impacted. 

(See Table 29, from Awareness and Implications of Sea Level Rise—Document is 

also attached). 

ACTION TO MITIGATE THREAT: Start the planning now in conjunction with 

coastal communities; collaborate to have a unified approach. 

Zika Virus (low level) 

Though a low level threat at this time, depending on press, containment, number 

of cases it is still a threat to certain parts of the tourism market. Some resorts reported minor cancellations when they could track, but many times it is difficult to 

track. 

ACTION TO MITIGATE THREAT: Fund research and development of eradicating 

this disease or a cure to how harmful it is. 

Conclusion 

We recognize many of the threats that Florida’s Tourism economy faces are uncontrollable circumstances. It is the deliberate pre planning and funding we invest 

now that will mitigate and help soften the immediate and long term effects on Florida’s overall tourism economy. 

Additionally, we do not know the exact ingredient for successful mitigation. However, we do know that in 2010 we had a recipe for a major hit on this industry 

which was an oil spill, a severe cold snap and the recession. The three combined 

resulted in a considerable dip in bed tax collections, sales tax, 1000s of job losses 

and business closures. We need to be pro-active and innovative as we protect this 

industry. 

As a voice for over 730 business members and 14 communities we urge this committee to acknowledge all aspects of tourism and consider your ability to invest in 

the future of this indispensable economy. 


810SOLLI3.eps
23 

Senator NELSON. Thanks, Ms. Sollie. 

Ms. Ferenc? 

STATEMENT OF MARYANN FERENC, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, MISE EN PLACE, INC.; AND MEMBER, 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, U.S. TRAVEL ASSOCIATION 

Ms. FERENC. Senator Nelson and members of the Florida congressional delegation, I am honored to testify before you today as 

CEO and Proprietor of Mise en Place, the restaurant, and Mise en 

Place Hospitality Group, the business, which was born recently of 

that foundation. I am also here as a Board Member of the U.S. 

Travel Association, representing all sectors of the national travel 

and tourism industry. On behalf of 876 Floridians and 15.3 million 

Americans whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant travel sector, 

thank you for holding this field hearing. It couldn’t be more important to us. 

Tourism is Florida’s largest industry and an integral component 

of the new economy. Tourism provides employment to individuals 

from all walks of life and all levels of education. Beyond that, tourism provides community, a sense of place, and creates destinations 

that other industry sectors, such as technology, desire to call home. 

Tourism has recovered faster than any other industry from the economic recession. My testimony will briefly address the progress 

we’ve made on each of the five policy priorities and how the Congress can help. 

Brand USA. I remember attending World Travel Market in London for the first time and being shocked by the underwhelming 

presence of the United States at the show. Then the public-private 

partnership Brand USA was formed with the bipartisan support of 

this committee and Congress as a whole. Brand USA has an important mission to attract millions of new international visitors by 

marketing the entirety of the United States and communicating 

ever-changing entry and visa policies, all at no expense to American taxpayers. 

As a member of the Board of Directors, I can report that Brand 

USA’s activities are supported by private sector contributions 

matched by a $10 fee on visitors from the Visa Waiver Program nations. According to Oxford Economics, Brand USA has generated 

nearly $3.9 billion in Federal, state, and local taxes. This has supported 50,900 incremental jobs annually and overall yielded an astonishing 27-to-1 return on investment. 

Nonetheless, the President proposed defunding Brand USA in 

2018 by redirecting its resources to the Department of Homeland 

Security. We have been gratified by the bipartisan congressional 

response, including from Senator Nelson and Senator Thune of this 

committee. Last month, the House Appropriations Committee rejected the White House recommendation, and we seek your support 

as the legislative process continues. 

Survey of International Air Travelers, or SIAT. SIAT, conducted 

on a monthly basis continuously since 1983, provides information 

on passenger trip planning, travel patterns, demographics, and 

spending. This travel data from inbound foreign visitors is critical 

to the promotion strategies of destinations in Florida and across 

the nation. 

24 

The administration’s 2018 budget proposed disrupting SIAT’s 

funding, but the Senate Appropriations Committee last month included report language explicitly rejecting the administration’s proposal and even encouraged an increase in the sample. The pending 

House version of the Commerce funding bill is silent on SIAT, so 

we still have work to do, and we would appreciate your support. 

The Passenger Facility Charge, or PFC. PFC is an indispensable 

tool for local communities to make their own decisions about how 

to finance airport modernization. Adjusting the PFC ceiling would 

allow each airport authority to tailor its own PFC rate in order to 

maximize efficiency, reduce project costs, and ensure fiscal responsibility. 

At Tampa International Airport, the PFC was used to expand 

Airside F, enabling new service from four international airlines. 

One daily nonstop flight from Europe creates $156 million annual 

impact for this region and creates 1,200 jobs. The Mise en Place 

companies are a good example of those jobs. We joined forces with 

other companies to create TPA Hospitalities and will soon own and 

operate eight food service establishments at the Tampa International Airport. 

Last month, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an increase in the PFC cap from $4.50 to $8.50 for originating passengers. This would be the first increase in 17 years and protects 

rural passengers from having to pay a higher PFC twice on connecting flights. As we pursue this priority further, we would be 

very grateful for your help. 

Open Skies. Open Skies agreements have yielded hundreds of 

thousands of American travel and manufacturing jobs, billions of 

dollars in U.S. economic growth, lower airfares for travelers, and 

more flights to airports beyond the major gateways. Regrettably, 

the large legacy airlines have sought to disrupt Open Skies agreements with Gulf carriers. U.S. Travel is part of a diverse coalition 

of airlines, travel businesses, destination, and cargo companies opposed to this attack on our Open Skies treaties. We welcome your 

assistance as we continue to press this issue with the administration and in the Congress. 

Balancing security and travel facilitation. In recent months, the 

administration has proposed or implemented a battery of new policies intended to protect national security, and the travel industry 

certainly appreciates the need to adapt to evolving terror threats. 

But there is more to the equation. In the echo chamber of the foreign press, the stricter views and entry policies announced in recent months could serve to discourage potential visitors. For instance, we were alarmed when the Trump administration recently 

reversed the State Department’s goal to meet a three-week Visa 

interview goal for Visa applicants. The U.S. Travel Association, 

joined by 20 national travel and business leaders, has asked President Trump to reconsider. 

We detailed the economic fallout from visa processing delays and 

asked the White House to reiterate our nation’s commitment to an 

efficient, world class visa process. We urge your continued diligence 

as such security policies are brought forward. 

We are open for business. It’s our role to create the jobs. But 

there are government policies that can help rather than hurt. As 

25 

outlined above, we need to continue to support the SIAT, adjust the 

PFC cap, support Brand USA, and defend Open Skies. Taken together, these policies can go a long way toward conveying a clear 

global message to international travelers that America is open for 

business and open to the millions of travelers that wish us well. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to participate in today’s 

hearing, and thank you so much for your support to date on travel 

and tourism. It is appreciated by all of us. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ferenc follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYANN FERENC, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MISE EN

PLACE, INC.; AND MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, U.S. TRAVEL ASSOCIATION

Senator Nelson and members of the Florida congressional delegation: 

I am honored to testify before you today as the CEO and owner of Mise en Place, 

a premier Tampa restaurant and event company since 1986, and the hospitality 

business which it created—the Mise en Place Hospitality Group. I am also here as 

a board member of the U.S. Travel Association, the trade association representing 

all sectors of the national travel and tourism industry. On behalf of the 876,000 Floridians and 15.3 million Americans whose livelihoods depend on a vibrant travel 

sector, thank you for holding this field hearing. It couldn’t be more important to us. 

The mission of U.S. Travel is to increase travel to and within the United States— 

which together yields $2.3 trillion in economic output annually, supporting one in 

nine American jobs. Last year, America attracted 75.6 million international visitors, 

making travel the Nation’s top service export. 

Tourism is Florida’s largest and, I would submit, most impactful, industry and an 

integral component of the new economy. Tourism provides employment to individuals from all walks of life and levels of education as well as a unique opportunity 

for on-the-job training that results in substantial possibilities for advancement. Beyond that, tourism provides community, a sense of place and destinations that other 

industry sectors, such as technology, desire to call home. In 2016, we welcomed 

112.8 million visitors, who spent $108.8 billion and supported 1.4 million Florida 

great jobs and highlighted countless great places to work and live as well as to visit. 

We are a resilient, self-reliant industry—and have recovered faster than any other 

industry from the economic recession. We thrive when we serve the public well by 

providing safe, efficient, productive and enjoyable travel experiences. 

In this context, we today respectfully urge your support for: 

• full funding of Brand USA; 

• retaining the Survey of International Air Travelers; 

• lifting the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge user fee; 

• protecting U.S. Open Skies agreements; and 

• balancing needed visa and travel security protocols with a clear welcome message for international visitors to the United States. 

My testimony will briefly address the progress we’ve made on each of these priorities and steps the Congress can take to enhance travel’s contributions to our economy. 

Brand USA 

By attracting international visitors, Brand USA enhances economic growth, spurs 

job creation and advances public diplomacy—all at no expense to American taxpayers. As a member of its board of directors, I can report that Brand USA’s activities are supported by private sector contributions, matched by a $10 fee on visitors 

from Visa Waiver Program nations. 

Brand USA was created by statute in 2010 to help address the post-9/11 decade 

of declining U.S. share in the booming global travel market, costing the U.S. economy nearly a half-million travel-related jobs. Prior to 2010, the United States was 

one of the few developed countries in the world without a national destination marketing organization. I remember attending World Travel Market in London for the 

first time and being shocked by the underwhelming presence of the United States 

at the show. It was a graphic manifestation of the impact of travel which the U.S. 

was ignoring. The Travel Promotion Act, enacted and reauthorized in 2014, and supVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:09 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29979.TXT JACKIE
26 

ported by large congressional majorities, sought to restore our leading position in 

the highly competitive worldwide travel marketplace. 

Overseas business and leisure travelers are critical to local economies across our 

Nation. To help attract these visitors, Brand USA has forged working relationships 

with hundreds of communities—large and small, urban and rural—and leveraged 

their varied promotional efforts into a coherent, cost-effective and productive national marketing campaign. 

According to Oxford Economics, over the last four years, Brand USA has attracted 

4.3 million incremental visitors; $13.6 billion in related spending; and $29.5 billion 

in total economic impact, including nearly $3.9 billion in federal, state and local 

taxes. This has supported 50,900 incremental jobs annually and overall yielded an 

astonishing 27-to-1 return on investment. 

In addition to marketing the U.S. as a destination, Brand USA is charged with 

communicating our evolving visa and entry policies, by addressing confusion about 

our security protocols that can discourage potential visitors from choosing U.S. destinations. Brand USA helps ensure that such visitors get accurate explanations of 

our changing rules—and ultimately return home to spread the word about America’s 

attractions and hospitality, generating goodwill for years to come. 

In short, Brand USA is an extraordinarily successful public-private partnership— 

and not only for gateway cities. During my terms on the United States Travel and 

Tourism Advisory Board, under the auspices of the Department of Commerce, I witnessed the power and impact of thoughtfully-created, high-quality public-private 

partnerships as we deployed a whole-of-government approach. I was inspired by the 

organization and its efforts to represent all of our industry. I found it to be both 

inspiring and personally rewarding to support the close and successful partnership 

of extraordinarily talented civil servants and truly remarkable travel and tourism 

professionals. Brand USA is another fine example of this and its work has been particularly beneficial for small destinations with limited marketing resources that can 

leverage Brand USA’s coordinated outreach overseas to market their brands in the 

global marketplace. 

Nonetheless, the President’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget proposes to de-fund Brand 

USA by redirecting its resources to the Department of Homeland Security. We have 

been gratified by the bipartisan congressional support for Brand USA, including 

from Senator Nelson and Senator Thune of this Committee. Furthermore, last 

month—the House Appropriations Committee rejected the White House recommendation 

We appreciate the House Appropriations Committee’s acknowledgement of the 

uniformly positive impact of Brand USA’s work—and seek your support as the process continues in the Senate. With misperceptions of the size, quality, and vitality 

of America’s welcome mat now in the foreign press, Brand USA’s efforts and provenresults have never been more important to our communities. 

Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT) 

The Survey of International Air Travelers (SIAT), conducted on a monthly basis 

continuously since January 1983, provides information on passenger trip planning, 

travel patterns, demographics and spending. This travel data from inbound foreign 

visitors is critical to the promotion strategies of destinations in Florida and across 

the Nation. 

The Administration’s FY 2018 budget proposed disrupting SIAT’s funding—but 

the Senate Appropriations Committee last month included report language explicitly 

rejecting the Administration proposal and even encouraging an increase in the sample size—important because the Commerce Department is also considering reducing 

the survey size and raising its fees. 

The pending House version of the Commerce funding bill is silent on SIAT, so we 

still have work to do—and we would appreciate your support. 

Passenger Facility Charge 

A key barrier to the travel industry’s growth and future competitiveness is the 

poor condition and performance of our Nation’s airports. As a result of misguided 

Federal policies, too many of our Nation’s airports are outdated and unable to handle passenger demand. 

These problems are forecast to worsen and will soon be unsustainable. Within the 

next four years, the top 30 U.S. airports will experience passenger volumes, congestion and delays equal to the day before Thanksgiving at least once per week. The 

Federal Aviation Administration predicts that travel demand will exceed capacity at 

many of the Nation’s largest airports within the next 15 years, unless airports 

achieve sustainable levels of capital investment. 

27 

The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) user fee is an indispensable tool for local 

communities to make their own decisions about whether and how to finance airport 

modernization. Adjusting the PFC ceiling would finally allow each airport authority 

to tailor its own PFC rate on a project-by-project basis in order to maximize efficiency, reduce project costs and ensure fiscal responsibility. This would also allow 

large hub airports to rely almost entirely on local user-fee funding, and enable Congress to redirect Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants for large hubs to smaller airports that require more Federal assistance. At Tampa International Airport, 

the PFC was used to expand Airside F, enabling new service from Copa Airways, 

Edelweiss Air, Lufthansa Airlines and, in three weeks, Icelandair. This is in addition to British Airways expanding their service at Tampa International Airport and 

Southwest Airlines adding commercial service to Havana, Cuba. One daily non-stop 

flight from Europe creates a $156 million annual impact for this region and creates 

1,200 jobs. These jobs are essential to the economic health of our State. The Mise 

en Place Companies are a good example of the PFC being used in a way that spurs 

growth and jobs. We joined forces with other local companies and a national concession powerhouse to create TPA Hospitality Partners, LLC, to invest millions of dollars in retail build-out at the airport, and to own and operate eight food service establishments. 

I’m pleased to report that last month, in the FY 2018 transportation-funding bill, 

the Senate Appropriations Committee included an increase in the PFC cap, from 

$4.50 to $8.50 for originating passengers. By adjusting the Federal limitation on the 

cap, the Committee language would unlock desperately needed airport infrastructure investments that will improve the passenger experience, facilitate growth in domestic and international air travel, and make America’s economy more globally competitive. This would be the first increase in 17 years and would protect rural passengers from having to pay a higher PFC twice on connecting flights. 

The Senate committee language was supported across the political spectrum, from 

the Heritage Foundation to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. But the path ahead is 

uncertain. There is no such provision in the Senate FAA reauthorization bill; and 

as you well know, the overall appropriations process faces parliamentary turbulence. 

Still, this is significant progress on which to build—and we’re grateful for the Senate’s leadership. 

Open Skies 

In recent decades, a cornerstone of American aviation policy has been the 100+ 

Open Skies agreements that the U.S. has negotiated with countries around the 

world. By reducing government interference in air travel, Open Skies agreements 

have yielded hundreds of thousands of American travel and manufacturing jobs, billions of dollars in U.S. economic growth, lower airfares for travelers, more flights 

to airports beyond major gateways and new opportunities for U.S. airlines willing 

to take advantage of them. 

Regrettably, the large legacy airlines have sought to disrupt existing Open Skies 

agreements with the Gulf carriers. U.S. Travel has participated in a diverse coalition of airlines, travel businesses, destinations, cargo companies and others opposed 

to this attack on our Open Skies treaties. 

On the merits of the Open Skies debate, we feel strongly that: 

• Open Skies is critical to fixing America’s trade deficit. These agreements grow 

international inbound visitation. Every dollar spent by an overseas visitor to the 

U.S. counts as an export and closes our trade deficit. In 2016, U.S. travel exports contributed $246 billion to our balance of payments. 

• Open Skies creates jobs and has great economic impact across Florida. In 2016, 

Gulf carrier flights brought 143,000 additional visitors to Fort Lauderdale, 

Miami and Orlando. These additional visitors spent $451 million at Florida 

businesses in these markets, which supported more than 6,000 jobs and $291 

million in income to Floridians. 

• Open Skies agreements boost made-in-America manufacturing. Because of Open 

Skies, the Gulf carriers have committed to purchasing American products and 

strengthening our manufacturing base. The three Gulf airlines have over 300 

Boeing planes on order or currently in use, including 777s and new 

Dreamliners. These orders support thousands of American manufacturing jobs 

across the Boeing supply chain. 

In recognition of the broad economic benefits of U.S. Open Skies agreements, the 

Senate Appropriations Committee recently included positive report language on 

Open Skies in the 2018 transportation-funding bill. The Committee directed the 

Transportation Department to consider whether any further action is necessary in 

response to allegations by the large legacy U.S. carriers regarding unfair subsidies— 

28 

and further encouraged DOT to protect the interests of travelers, the travel industry 

and the broader economy if any further action is taken. 

Open Skies agreements have led to hundreds of thousands of new American travel 

and manufacturing jobs, billions in U.S. economic growth, lower airfare for travelers, more flights to more airports, and new opportunities for U.S. airlines. Overall, 

they create a widespread effect for not only the large companies, as is often thought, 

but also a trickle down effect that actually benefits to small companies, communities 

and individuals. The Committee’s report dismisses the U.S. legacy carriers’ parochial arguments to roll back those agreements—and we will continue to press this 

issue with the Administration and in the Congress. 

Balancing Security and Travel Facilitation 

In recent months, the Administration has proposed or implemented a battery of 

new policies intended at protecting national security—from the President’s executive 

order on immigration and travel to stricter vetting of visa applications. The travel 

industry certainly appreciates the need to adapt to evolving terror threats because, 

without confidence in public safety, no one will choose to travel here. 

But there is more to the equation, for the United States—and especially for Florida, one of the Nation’s prime destinations for inbound international visitors. America needs to convey a clear global message that, while we aggressively confront all 

threats, we still welcome overseas visitors coming here to relax on our beaches or 

close deals in our boardrooms. 

As specific security proposals have been rolled out over the last few months, travel professionals across the country have sought to help Federal officials explain and 

implement them. At the same time, we have drawn on our expertise to analyze and 

detail for policymakers how these changes impact the real-life travel experience— 

with particular concern about unnecessarily exacerbating delay, confusion and inefficiency for travelers. 

The international travel marketplace is highly competitive. While the United 

States—and states like Florida in particular—are highly attractive destinations, foreign travelers have countless other choices. And it is clear that one factor in consumer decisions about where to travel is the perception of a potential destination’s 

hospitality. 

America is renowned as a welcoming nation. From our iconic cities to the Nation’s 

heartland, visitors know ordinary Americans will greet them with open arms—but 

only if they can get here. In the echo chamber of the foreign press, the series of 

stricter visa and entry policies announced in recent months could serve to discourage potential visitors. 

In the years after the September 11 attacks, labeled by our industry as the ‘‘Lost 

Decade,’’ travel to the United States plummeted. We battled back to regain our historic share of the marketplace, but it took ten years—and was then possible only 

because of sustained White House commitment to a National Travel and Tourism 

Strategy. This inter-agency strategy, announced in 2012 in Orlando, not only set 

ambitious goals for volumes of international visitors, but also made sensible, lowcost management reforms that yielded remarkable success. 

For instance, delays in the visa process had gotten so serious that applicants in 

key visiting nations—such as China, India and Brazil—had to wait over three 

months for a visa interview. After a presidential order requiring most visa interviews within three weeks, the delays were reduced to a few days, removing a disincentive to travel here and reducing misperceptions about U.S. policy. That was 

outstanding work that could be used as a model. I recall once more my time on the 

Travel and Tourism Advisory Board. The work on this subject, by dedicated individuals from the private and public sector, was long and arduous with results that 

were broad and deep. Great progress was made and overwhelmingly positive effects 

were realized—more travel, more jobs, more prosperity and, we believe, more security through greater understanding of one another as people and communities. 

For this reason, we were alarmed when the Trump Administration recently reversed the State Department’s goal to meet a three-week visa interview goal for 

most visa applicants. After engaging the Administration to review its rationale, U.S. 

Travel—joined by 20 national travel and business leaders—wrote to President 

Trump to ask him to reconsider. Our letter detailed the significant economic impact 

of visa processing delays, then asked the White House to reiterate our Nation’s commitment to an efficient, world-class visa process—and to back that statement up 

with full staffing of consular personnel to meet the growing demand from overseas 

visa applicants. 

The good news is: so far this year, visitors are still choosing travel to the United 

States. The data is still very preliminary since international travel is typically 

planned long in advance, but our fingers remain crossed. And this is where Brand 

29 

USA comes in: never has its statutory mission of explaining our security protocols 

overseas been more essential. 

Open For Business 

In Florida and across the nation, the travel community is being challenged on a 

daily basis but we remain upbeat and optimistic. The United States remains the top 

global destination. We’re working each day to grow our share of the competitive and 

lucrative international market—while also serving the needs of our domestic travelers. 

It’s our role to create the jobs—but there are government policies that can help, 

rather than hurt. As outlined, above, we need to adjust the PFC cap, support Brand 

USA, and defend Open Skies. By accelerating airport modernization, promoting the 

United States as a global destination, and preserving successful international air 

route governance, we can go a long way to conveying a clear global message—to 

both leisure and business travelers—that America is open for business. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Ms. Ferenc. 

Dr. Roffer. 

STATEMENT OF MITCHELL A. ROFFER, PRESIDENT, 

ROFFER’S OCEAN FISHING FORECASTING SERVICE INC.; AND 

ADJUNCT FACULTY, FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 

DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES 

Dr. ROFFER. Thank you. I’d like to thank you, Senator Nelson, 

for inviting me, and the panel for hearing me. I wish the screen 

had been put on the side. 

While I have done 10 years worth of research, the NASA funded 

research involved the Gulf of Mexico and various fisheries here and 

around the United States. Today, I’m going to be talking more 

about the fishing industry. 

So when we wake up in the morning, Floridians and tourists, we 

all have the assumption of clean water and clean air, and up to 

now, we’ve had it. So the assumption of clean air and water goes 

to an abundant source of resources that includes fish and undersea 

fisheries and biodiversity. Healthy ecosystems is, in fact, the economic engine in the state. 

Recreational boating in Florida has put together approximately 

$10 billion in value. Eighty-three thousand to 115,000 jobs have 

gone to strictly recreational boating in the state of Florida. The 

Tarpon Bonefish Foundation estimated the actual impact of the 

state’s saltwater fishing as $7.6 billion. So the fishing industry is 

quite a big deal in the state of Florida. 

As we know, we have a decline in water quality, as we’ve seen 

recently around the state. It’s a decline in revenue, as we’ve heard 

from other panelists and yourself, Senator Nelson, as well as a loss 

of reputation which we’ve also heard. The biggest threats that I’ve 

seen is now what’s under our control—is water quality and habitat 

degradation and loss. 

Secondary threats, but big threats as well, not under our control, 

unfortunately, is climate change, and these things involve changes 

in fish migrations. The water gets too hot, the fish don’t visit Florida anymore, and we don’t have fish in our areas for fishermen to 

go, or the catchability changes. Climate change involves sea level 

rise, changes in pH, as well as changes in oxygen levels. 

So the threats in our state come from inside the state and outside the state. We didn’t have to go too far—and you’ve already discussed it—if you turn around just briefly, you’ll look at a reminder 

30 

of the Deepwater Horizon spill, what it did. We talked about the 

beautiful beaches in Panama Beach were turned into, unfortunately, an oil color. And we also should not forget the Deepwater 

Horizon and the amount of oil that spilled that destroyed animals 

and potentially our beaches throughout the entire state. 

We look at the polluted water, not just the oil that was recoverable. The water—we tracked the water that actually touched the 

oil at some point and tracked it using satellite data around the 

state. We noticed that it came off the West Florida shelf and down 

into the Keys, and then we lost continuity with it, and we really 

couldn’t tell. So had we not had the loop current pulling this oil 

away and the wind not cooperating, we would have had a lot of oil 

on the west coast of Florida as well as the Florida Keys. 

So in terms of Gulf Stream connectivity, we have a great deal of 

threat in terms of industrial threat or even terrorist threat, one 

from the Gulf of Mexico using a loop current in the Gulf Stream 

system. The other is from Mexico and Cuba. Put something in the 

Gulf Stream, and it will go into the Florida Keys and the east coast 

of Florida. Also, we have threats from out-of-state that work down 

the east coast of Florida from the north. These are all critical 

issues in terms of water quality. 

So in-state water quality threats—we’ve changed our patterns of 

water flow throughout the state. The water used to run straight 

down the Everglades. It was a great thing. Unfortunately, at the 

time, people thought it was best to put in canals and divert the 

water to the coast. Unfortunately, people have been dragging our 

feet to get that water flow back to the Everglades where now Florida Bay is starving from lack of freshwater. So other water projects 

in the state have changed the flow alternations which, in fact, 

changes the ecosystem in the state. 

One of the other threats to the state of Florida is the lack of user 

remediation. Users are not required in the state of Florida to clean 

their water after using it, whether it’s you or I, or industry. They 

use the water and they put it right back into the canals, the rivers, 

and the bays, and then the rest of us have to suffer. Algae 

blooms—polluted water is dumped right back in. I mean, Lake 

Okeechobee is a classic example of agricultural dumping into the 

lake, and that water now has been spread to both sides of the 

state, causing a great deal of problems. 

Another threat is no environmental bond is taken for remediation insurance for people who use the water and have coastal 

businesses. An example—people simply, when they have an environmental problem, like they had at Piney Point several years ago 

in Manatee County—‘‘Well, we’ll go out of business. We won’t 

worry about the problem. We’ll walk away from it and let—that’s 

the state’s problem.’’ That became a big problem. Added phosphate 

to the water, and now people are even talking about putting that 

water in subsurface and doing some internal drilling to put that 

nutrient rich water away. 

Algae blooms is a major, major threat. We have too much nitrogen and phosphorus in our ecosystem. It comes from a whole host 

of varieties of sources. We’ve changed from really great sea grasses, 

which support a lot of our ecology, to a real big mess. This is an 

example, the picture here, showing what happened just last year 

31 

from the water spill coming down from Lake Okeechobee—fish 

kills, animals were killed, and look at the human advisory. This 

goes in the news all around the world, and people—‘‘Why should 

we come to Florida anymore?’’—because you can’t even touch the 

water. So this is a big problem. Boatwork people have lost money. 

Hell’s Bay Boatworks lost $1.5 million—a very popular skiff making company in central Florida, Titusville. 

Red tide comes from too much nitrogen and phosphorus, which 

we can control. It is a major problem. Sarasota, Pinellas County— 

you recognize this picture. This is from your beaches here just a 

few years ago. Smelly fish on the beaches. The beaches—they’re not 

going to go there—plus the toxic in the air, the burning of the eyes 

and the lungs of the tourists. 

Another threat we have in the state of Florida is the lack of an 

integrated coastal ocean observing system. We have no way to 

monitor the health of our ecosystem as it is right now, none whatsoever. There are some minor studies done by the state. We really 

need an integrated ocean observing system in the state. This is like 

having a doctor checking the health, the diagnosis of the ocean. It 

protects the economic engine. It just doesn’t tell people about where 

there’s blooms. It’s very important. Nationally, there’s a bill, Bill 

1425, that’s up, and we would like all your support for that. 

Climate change—as I go into my final slides on this. It’s more 

than just warming. It’s oxygen loss. It’s pH. When you have pH declining, heavy metals increase the toxicity. One of the panelists 

mentioned that, well, sea level rise is not a big deal. Ask the people 

in South Beach if sea level rise is not a problem. This has become 

a daily occurrence now in South Beach—closing beaches. That’s a 

big problem. When your beaches close due to sea level rise and municipal waste going in because the sewers are backing up, that’s a 

problem. 

Habitat loss—well known. Our coral reefs are dying from overheating from global warming as well as vessel groundings. Look at 

the beautiful coral on the left in 1980, and in 2011, and even worse 

now. This is our economic engine, and we’re letting it crash in front 

of us. Habitat loss from development has taken away so many 

mangroves, which filter the water, which help keep our economy 

going strong. 

The threat from highly migratory species. If that’s not managed 

properly, then the fish will lose—will decline in abundance and 

won’t come into our waters. A lot of the fish that I’m talking about 

are internationally managed, but some in the state. I won’t get into 

the red snapper issue whatsoever. There’s other issues with regard 

to fisheries management, namely, the antiquated management assessments that they have—single models. But that’s in my written 

testimony. I won’t go into that now. 

Port development and industrialization. Yes, we need better 

transportation in the state, but we do not need to become like New 

York or Newark, New Jersey. The picture up at the top is from 

Cape Canaveral as it presently looks. The picture below is from 

Newark. Which one would you rather have? I certainly wouldn’t 

want our ports and bays to look something like this. 

Additional threats are in my presentation as well as my testimony. We have outdated municipal water treatment facilities. SewVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:09 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\29979.TXT JACKIE
32 

age is dumping right into the water and elsewhere—not good for 

tourists when they see pictures of floating poop in our water. 

Loss of groundwater. Municipalities gain too much water without 

proper management plants. Intake from power plants for cooling. 

We haven’t talked about nuclear meltdown. That used to be a thing 

of science fiction in the movies, but Japan showed us otherwise a 

couple of years ago. Importation of exotic species, and, of course, 

loss of access to the water and the need to dredge waterways is 

very important to have our access to the water. 

So I’ve taken a little bit too much time, but I thank you. The picture behind you shows how some people enjoy the water, and let 

the questions begin. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Roffer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MITCHELL A. ROFFER, PRESIDENT, ROFFER’S OCEAN

FISHING FORECASTING SERVICE INC.; AND ADJUNCT FACULTY, FLORIDA

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES

Introduction 

I am Mitchell A. Roffer, President of Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service 

Inc., and Adjunct Faculty at the Florida Institute of Technology, Department of 

Ocean Engineering and Sciences. I received my Doctorate from the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science in Biological Oceanography. ROFFSTM provides a variety of consulting services to the recreational and 

commercial fishing industries, as well as, to the oil and gas industry, ocean towing 

industry, environmental consulting organizations, as well as, to academic and government organizations. I am actively involved in ocean research with a variety of 

collaborators from academia, the government sector and non-governmental organizations. I was a member of NASA’s Ecological and Biodiversity Science team for 11 

years. Thus, I am in constant contact with a broad range of people who conduct 

business in Florida, as well as, fish in Florida in addition to those visitors who travel to Florida to fish and use the water. 

When people visit Florida as tourists and when Floridians get up each morning 

they assume that the air and water will be clean and that the waters will provide 

an abundance of marine life whether it be fish, marine mammals like dolphins and 

manatees, turtles, or birds. Over the years Florida has had sufficient clean air, clean 

water and healthy marine life to support good fisheries and fantastic tourism. The 

National Marine Manufacturers Association estimated that the total annual economic impact of recreational boating in Florida is $10.35 Billion. Recreational boating provides for approximately 83K jobs in 5.5K businesses. See (http://www.nm 

ma.org/assets/cabinets/Cabinet508/Florida_Boating_Economics%20State.pdf). The 

State of Florida (http://www.myfwc.com/about/overview/economics/) cites very 

similar numbers. 

Governor Scott’s Report (http://www.flgov.com/2016/06/10/gov-scott-florida-continues-to-lead-the-nation-in-saltwater-fishing-jobs-and-revenue/) indicates that with 

2014 data from NOAA, indicates that Florida is number one in the Nation in jobs 

supported by the recreational saltwater fishing industry at 114,898 jobs. The report 

states ‘‘Our state’s world class boating and fishing also helped attract a record 105 

million tourists in 2015.’’ According to the report, Florida’s commercial seafood industry was third in the Nation in 2014 in numbers of jobs supported with 92,858 

jobs. Florida is also second in the Nation when it comes to highest sales, income 

and value-added impacts from the commercial fishing industry with 18.3 billion in 

sales impacts. The 2014 data are the latest economic data available. 

The Bonefish & Tarpon Trust estimated that statewide, saltwater fishing has an 

annual economic impact of $7.6 billion. When considered by region, some of the annual economic impact numbers are: $1 billion for the Florida Everglades; $765 million for the Florida Keys; $110 million for the tarpon fishery in Charlotte Harbor; 

and $59 million for the Treasure Coast tarpon fishery. 

These are the economic yields are only possible if Florida continues to have clean 

air, clean water and healthy ecosystems, our true economic engine. Unfortunately, 

during the last few decades we have witnessed declines in the water quality and 

habitat which are impacting the fisheries and associated economies. For example a 

recent Miami Times article cites that that Hells Bay Boatworks of Titusville, FL 

which manufactures fishing skiffs, lost $1.5M in boat sales in Florida in association 

33 

with declining water quality and fish abundance. The article reports loss of sales 

for other boat manufacturers as well—all due to Florida’s water quality and habitat 

issues. 

Threats to Florida’s Coastal Ocean Economy 

Threats Coming from External Sources 

Threats to our coastal ocean economy come from sources external and inside (domestic) the State of Florida. Threats from outside the state include pollution from 

oil and gas development as evidenced by the BP Deepwater Horizon where oil from 

another state was transported by the currents and winds to the Florida panhandle 

and along the west Florida coast. If we were not so lucky to have a very large Loop 

Current eddy form and pull the oil westward, the oil would have reached the Florida 

Keys and southeast Florida. (images of oil and currents). 

Figure 1. ROFFSTM Oil Oceanographic Analysis from May 24, 2014 with evidence that what 

ROFFSTM was mapping was oil from the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon oil spill 


810ROFFE1.eps
34 

Figure 2. A reminder of what the Deepwater Horizon oil spill looked like at ground level. 

Figure 3. Map of the water (red) that came in contact with the BP Deepwater Horizon oil. 

Note that ROFFSTM was able to reliably follow the polluted water into the Florida Keys. 


810ROFFE2.eps 810ROFFE3.eps
35 

Oil and chemical pollution along with other hazardous materials could easily come 

to Florida from Mexico via the Yucatan Current and Cuba via the Florida Current 

both part of the Gulf Stream. It could also come from other south Atlantic states 

(e.g., North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) as the currents all provide pathways to Florida as shown in Figure 4. 

Figure 4. Modified from a ROFFSTM Oil Oceanographic Analysis shows blue arrows as the major ocean current paths of oil and other pollutants to enter Florida 

waters. 

Domestic Florida Threats 

Perhaps the biggest threat to Florida’s fisheries and nature-based economy come 

from within. Altered freshwater flows to our estuaries are causing significant damage to coastal ecosystems, with predictably negative impacts on fisheries and tourism. The 2016 algae bloom in the St. Lucie Estuary was bad enough it made national news, as did the large fish kills in the Indian River Lagoon and Florida Bay. 

As bad as these events were, they are reflections of a much larger issue—a longterm and worsening strategy of water and habitat management. Clean water and 

healthy habitats are the factory that produces the fisheries and nature-based tourism for which Florida is famous. Unless the strategy is changed to protect and restore water quality and habitats rather than exploit them, the state’s fisheries and 

mature-based tourism will continue to decline, as will their economic impact. 

A major issue is the poor water management within the State. Industrial and 

other users of our precious water resources are not required to completely remediate 

their water after they use it. So fantastic amounts of nutrients, pesticides, hormones 

from cattle, citrus and other agriculture get dumped into the canals and rivers that 

either run to coasts via the canal system or enter our lakes. These result in algae 

blooms that kill our ecosystems. For example, Lake Okeechobee receives nutrient 

and pesticide polluted water and then algae blooms form. Some like cyanobacteria 

are harmful to humans. 


810ROFFE4.eps
36 

The polluted Lake Okeechobee water is diverted from its natural flow to the Everglades to the east coast and west coast via Port St. Lucie and via the 

Caloosahatchee River estuary. In the last few years we have experienced massive 

fish kills from the toxic water from both the toxins in the water, from the massive 

abnormal amounts of freshwater in which the fish, marine mammals, and invertebrates can not survive in. The algae shades the sea grass resulting in its demise. 

Figure 5. A montage of dead animals from polluted water around Port St. Lucie in 2016. The 

Department of Health posted warnings to avoid contact with the water. 

When either the fish die or the algae dies, the decomposition uses most of not all 

of the available oxygen producing anoxic conditions which kill the remaining organisms. This is happening all over the state in different degrees. In my backyard, 

the Indian River Lagoon system lost between 60 percent and 80 percent of its sea 

grass from algae blooms blocking the light from the bottom vegetation. Also when 

the plants die the increased turbidity from the sediments along with the algae 

bloom prevent new vegetation from growing back. 

The algae bloom threat to the Florida fishing economy also comes in the form of 

red tide and other hazardous algae blooms (HABS) that not only kill fish, but also 

produce airborne irritation that causes serious respiratory problems along with 

coughing, sneezing, and burning eyes to coastal visitors. Loss of beach traffic and 

fishing causes significant economic loss. The HABS threat is directly related to the 

increase in nutrients entering the water from numerous sources including agriculture, urban runoff, leaking septic tanks, residential use of fertilizer, and grass 


810ROFFE5.eps
37 

clippings entering the water, etc. Another threat is the lack of economic data on the 

losses from such events. Florida State and local tourist departments do not like to 

talk about red tide and algae blooms. They would rather show photos of beautiful 

beaches and amusement parks. 

What happens to the Florida economy when algae bloom occur? Fish leave the 

area and/or die and people stop fishing and buying equipment, bait, and boats. In 

the past 18 months it has been estimated that Hell’s Bay Boatworks, a major Florida boat manufacturer has lost $1.5 million in revenue recently due to the loss of 

sales. They minimized their losses recently by shipping their boats out of state for 

sale which historically they never did. Other Florida-based boat manufacturers have 

lost 80 percent of their revenue. (see Miami Times article by Isabella Gomes 

August 04, 2017. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/florida-boat-industry-underwater-from-water-crisis-9502729) 

While our coastal areas are getting too much freshwater from the center of the 

State, the southern Everglades and especially Florida Bay is suffering from lack of 

freshwater. The National Academy of Sciences has considered this as well as all the 

so-called water managers. A short review can be found in the Miami Herald (http:// 

www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article126205254.html). Apparently Florida Bay needs approximately 30 Billion more gallons of freshwater per 

year. See the free National Academy of Sciences ‘‘Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Sixth Biennial Review—2016’’ (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23672/ 

progress-toward-restoring-the-everglades-the-sixth-biennial-review-2016). 

Another threat is the loss of groundwater and the pollution of groundwater. In 

my opinion we are selling too much of our groundwater and managing our surface 

freshwater poorly. In some cases like the St. Johns River Management District, they 

are allowing municipalities to extract more freshwater from the St. Johns River 

than a safe water budget requires. Downstream the ecosystems suffer from lack of 

water. 

To fix these problems one must stop the pollution, fix the plumbing and restore 

the ecosystems. This takes expertise, comprehensive study and monitoring and of 

course time and money. Brevard County has taken steps to repair and restore the 

Indian River Lagoon through a special sales tax the residents voted for. Only time 

will tell if we waited too long to act. 

Another domestic Florida threat to the coastal ocean economy is from industrial 

waste pollution being dumped into our Florida waters. This threat includes phosphate mining discards and storage water from the industrial processing. I remind 

you of the Piney Point, Florida polluted waste water ‘‘containment’’ ponds breaking 

and entering the Tampa Bay in 2003. A ‘‘solution’’ permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was to allow partially treated highly polluted 

water to enter the coastal waters of Manatee County. Now there is serious discussion about injecting this polluted water underground. We learned from the BP Deepwater Horizon that polluters often want to remove the surface pollution to keep the 

public and media from seeing it. A related threat is that businesses are not required 

to post a meaningful, non-refundable environmental remediation bonds. Thus, many 

polluters ‘‘go out of business’’ and walk away. 

One domestic threat to our Florida economy is the lack of a fully funded, comprehensive coastal ocean monitoring system. This would allow objective, non-politically motivated scientists a continuously funded system to gather the necessary data 

to understand the changes in the health of the ecosystems. Automated and nonautomated warning systems based on complete sampling regimes can be devised. 

Presently the State only samples a relatively few areas on a limited schedule. Based 

on my experience and opinion, it appears they do not sample extensively or comprehensively so that they do not find problems or the sources of the problems. A 

coastal ocean observing system would protect the economic engine of Florida by 

monitoring the health of the ecosystem and provide information that would be used 

to create management strategies to fix the problems before they become too severe. 

The idea is to identify the results of the good management practices and non-effective practices. Having a coastal ocean observing system is like having a full time 

medical doctor watching your health. Observations and diagnoses must be made to 

properly treat the patient. In our case the patient is the Florida ecosystem and Florida tourist economy. Such a system would also likely save lives from the resulting 

real-time current data and improved search and rescue models. 

Another domestic threat to our economic engine is the loss of fish nursery habitats and the degradation of all fish related habitats. This is important as the 

amount of habitat greatly influences the total abundance of a fish species. It is well 

known that habitat quality and connectivity will influence fish health, survival, and 

abundance. Cutting the natural flow of water and destroying nursery and essential 

habitat will destroy the fisheries that are an economic engine in Florida. According 

38 

to Dr. Aaron Adams of the Tarpon Bonefish Trust who studies such issues, there 

has been a loss of approximately 50 percent mangrove habitat in Florida. At least 

9.3 million acres of wetlands, more than two million acres of seagrass and up to 80 

percent loss of naturally occurring oyster beds. This has caused a decline in the 

abundance of many fish that are fished recreationally and commercially. Given that 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission does a good job managing 

fisheries, it is clear that the declining fisheries are due to habitat loss and degradation. We can not afford to lose any more habitat and the negatively affect habitat 

should be remediated. These habitat losses stem a variety of causes particularly 

coastal development, water pollution, poor management of the freshwater flow in 

the State. 

The loss of coral habitat is a particular threat to Florida’s fisheries and tourist 

economy. Coral habitats are nursery areas for many fish that are important components of the Florida fishing economy such as snappers and groupers. They are also 

the habitat for important adult fisheries. Coral reefs have been destroyed by improper anchoring and by direct damage by boat groundings. 

A much larger threat to the coral ecosystem is coral bleaching from overheating 

of the waters and also due to the decline in pH of our oceans. Not only do corals 

die from overheating, they are also more susceptible to diseases. See Eakin et al., 

2010 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013969) for more details) 

Figure 6. Photo of the same area of Florida corals taken in 1980 and 2011. Photo credit Mote 

Marine Laboratory 

Another Florida domestic threat to our fisheries tourist economy is the dumping 

of treated and untreated wastewater into our canals, rivers, estuaries and oceans. 

The threat is that many water and municipal managers think that the solution to 

pollution is dilution. This is a dangerous threat to the Florida economy. Firstly the 

polluted water should be totally remediated by its users before being returned to 

our rivers, bays and oceans. Just last week the Miami Metro-Dade County sewage 

outfall pipe was found to be leaking polluted water in the coastal waters. See 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article164655777.html 

Part of this wastewater threat is that water treatment plants in the State have 

not increased their operational capacity or modernized their treatment technology. 

Far too many pharmaceuticals, pesticides, pesticide by-products and nutrients enter 

our waters from our permitted municipal water treatment plants. These are negatively affecting our fisheries ecosystems from the rivers and bays to the ocean ecosystem including hard and soft reef ecosystems. 

Improved wastewater treatment is especially urgent given that many Florida 

homes must be converted from septic tanks to municipal sewerage systems. Numerous studies have demonstrated that many regions of Florida are not appropriate for 

septic systems, and in many locations the density of homes is too high for septic 

systems to be effective. These septic systems leak excessive nutrients into Florida’s 

coastal waterways, adding to the problems associated with surface runoff. 

Inadequate or improper fisheries management is a threat to the State fisheries 

tourism. Since Florida fisheries operate in State and Federal waters the fisheries 

are managed by the State and by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The threat is the lack of modernization of their stock assessment methods from data collection to single species 

models that do not incorporate environmental data—covariants into their assessment. Estimates of abundance are often biased and often do not reflect what the 

fishermen are experiencing in the water or what modern estimates of abundance 


810ROFFE6.eps
39 

would show. Over managing the fisheries results in opportunity losses, but undermanagement or mismanagement results in overfished stocks. A multi-species, habitat oriented and environmentally sensitive system of stock assessment and management needs to be established. 

Another threat to Florida fisheries is the poor management and over-fishing of 

fish stocks outside Florida that migrate to Florida. When populations that migrate 

to Florida decline in abundance, then it affects the Florida fisheries. Tuna, swordfish, sailfish along with blue and white marlin are examples of this. See Restrepo 

et al., 2003 (https://doi.org/10.1071/MF02057) and http://www.takemarlinoffthe 

menu.org/global_status_of_billfish. Recent efforts to ban commercial swordfish 

longline fishing in Florida waters has been effective for Florida’s recreational swordfish fisheries. The threat is to open this fishery to commercial longlining again. The 

bycatch of many other valuable species occurs during longlining operations. 

Figure 7. Example of recreationally caught swordfish in Florida (left). Photo credit Richard 

Gibson and Marlin Magazine. 

Another threat to the Florida fisheries economy is the mortality of fish caught, 

removed from the water to take photos that damage the fish, and returned to the 

water. This threat comes in the form of lack of enforcement of existing laws on removing highly migratory species from the water, and also due to the lack of educational programs to educate fishers of this issue. 

Port development is yet another threat to the Florida economy. The tourist economy benefits from cruise ships bringing visitors to Florida. However, the further development for cargo and ships that transport chemicals including petroleum is a 

threat as they add additional pollution to the port areas and the surrounding land 

areas through increased truck traffic as associated pollution. My personal view is 

that Florida ports should not become like the Port of Newark, NJ. Port expansion 

usually results in the loss of essential fish and bird habitats. 

Another threat to the Florida fisheries economy is leakage of nuclear waste and 

overheated water from nuclear power plants. A further threat is the loss of fish larvae and juvenile fish that are killed when the power plants pump water to cool their 

power production. 

Additional threats come from fish and other wildlife being imported illegally or 

disposed of illegally. One only has to look as far as the Burmese python in south 

Florida and central Florida. The lionfish is another example of alien species changing our ecosystem. See http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/ for a list. 

A final threat to the Florida fisheries economy is climate change. The change in 

the absolute abundance along with the changing of the migratory patterns in time 

and space is a major issue. For example warmer winters have resulted in the late 

or reduced arrival of the migratory sailfish into south Florida waters. Without reliably good fishing many tourists who have traveled to Florida are not traveling to 

other locations (e.g., Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Dominican Republic) to fish. TemVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:09 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\29979.TXT JACKIE

810ROFFE7.eps
40 

perature increases are causing significant coral reef mortality and disease. Sea level 

rise and increase flooding in some Florida locations like Miami have a negative impact on marina operations including boat dockage and storage. 

Most Important Threat 

To list which single overall threat is the biggest is a difficult task. In the present 

and near term, water quality along with the degradation and destruction of habitat 

is the biggest threat. In the future, water availability and quality along with climate 

change are likely to be the biggest issues. 

I would like to acknowledge help in the writing/editing of this testimony including 

photo sources: Aaron Adams (Bonefish Tarpon Trust), Mark Eakin (NOAA), George 

Maul (Florida Institute of Technology) and Kellie Ralston (American Sportfishing 

Association). 

Senator NELSON. All right. Thank you, Dr. Roffer. 

I want to welcome all the folks from so many different counties 

that have come today. Would all the elected officials who are in the 

audience—would you stand and be recognized, please? 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much. 

Would all the members of the Chambers of Commerce in the entire Tampa Bay region—would you stand and be recognized? 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Very good. 

And we have a number of environmental advocacy groups that 

are here. Would you stand and be recognized? 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Well, as you can see, there’s broad interest. 

Now, in a Senate hearing, what is typical is the Chairman will 

start the questions first, and then the Ranking Member will ask. 

Since I’m running the show, I’m going to break the normal, and because of our two congressional colleagues—I want you all to have 

the first chances. 

So, Madam Congresswoman? 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Senator 

Nelson, for calling us all together. You simply cannot understate 

the importance of having a leader like Senator Nelson from the 

state of Florida as the leader in the Congress when it comes to 

these issues on the Commerce Committee, Science—— 

[Applause.] 

Ms. CASTOR. So thank you very much. And you are right. Travel 

and tourism are the lifeblood of Florida’s economy, and we’ve all 

got to work together to do everything we can to protect it and to 

ensure that it thrives. 

Robin, you’ll remember this. It is etched in my memory, more 

than most things in my career, my professional career—was in the 

days after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, when we convened 

a working group of small business owners there at the TradeWinds 

on the beach, and we had one business owner who was weathering 

the recession. But, boy, the BP Deepwater Horizon came in and it 

was a very difficult one to punch. She cried. She brought me to 

tears. She was facing significant layoffs and maybe an end to her 

business, and she was not alone. 

In the days—remember that the oil spewed out for five months, 

5 months, and that was what the rest of the world saw. No oil on 

the beaches in the whole Tampa Bay area, and yet the tourists 

41 

didn’t come. So we’ve learned lessons, haven’t we? We’ve got to do 

everything to ensure that that never happens again. 

And God bless the folks here at the University of South Florida 

and the College of Marine Sciences, and, Dr. Sanberg, I know 

you’re very proud of them, and Dean Dixon, Dean Hogarth. Boy, we 

had Dr. Weisberg explaining the loop current to everyone, and Dr. 

Hollander that was fighting for the oil sample that we had to kind 

of—we had to shame BP into providing—fighting for the research 

dollars to come. So thank you. The Weatherbird research vessel 

was out sampling the oil before anyone else was. So this was 

ground zero for protection of our economy and our environment. 

Senator, you were kind of modest, because you didn’t mention 

the role that you played in passing the RESTORE Act in the years 

after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. You all remember the 

RESTORE Act was the law that we passed to ensure that 80 percent of all of the fines and penalties that BP and the other polluters had to pay came back to the Gulf Coast. 

Now, the importance of the RESTORE Act is more plain than 

ever, because we’re facing very significant cuts from the Trump administration when it comes to science, research, whether we’re 

talking about NOAA or EPA or the other science-based agencies. 

But those RESTORE Act funds will continue to flow for years to 

come, and they will be very important in addressing algae blooms 

and the change of climate. But I wanted to thank you for that, because I don’t think that should go unmentioned today. 

But we learned our lessons, and I think, as we set priorities for 

leaving here, we do have to prioritize the offshore oil drilling, and 

it’s very heartening to hear there is a bipartisan effort to extend 

the moratorium from 2022 for another 5 years. I have filed the 

Coastal Protection Act for a number of years now that would make 

the moratorium permanent. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. CASTOR. And we have bipartisan support. But what we need 

is a unified Florida delegation. It’s only through bipartisan unity 

that we are going to get that accomplished. So I’m going to highlight that to you all. 

The other huge challenge that we’re facing, of course, is the 

change in climate, and this is going to be very costly to our businesses and everyone that lives in Florida and everywhere else. But 

think about what we’re facing here in Florida when it comes to 

cost—higher AC bills, beach re-nourishment that our local government officials fight for, higher flood insurance rates, property insurance rates, property taxes, because our local governments are 

going to have to be more resilient in improving water and waste 

water infrastructure. So if we do not act now to get ahead of this, 

we are going to be facing a very difficult future. 

So in addition to clean air and clean beaches, it’s time to fight 

for clean energy in Florida. And, Mayor Kriseman, I want to thank 

you—— 

[Applause.] 

Ms. CASTOR.—because here in the Sunshine City, you’ve been the 

most outspoken advocate—and I see Councilman Rice and Councilman Nurse and Commissioner Welch. This is the place where it 

can happen. Did you all know that Florida is one of the worst 

42 

states in the country in producing energy through renewables—one 

of the worst, the Sunshine State. New Jersey, Georgia, North Carolina produce more energy through solar power than the Sunshine 

State. I think we can do a lot better, and we can have our community thrive. We can grow, we can build jobs in this clean energy 

sector, and it will improve our tourism based economy. 

I’d like to offer into the record, Senator, the editorial from the 

Tampa Bay Times just today. They’re coming fast and furious after 

the National Report of Scientists on Climate, the University of 

Florida Report that was out today. 

So I’ll offer this for the record, ‘‘Climate Threats to Florida 

Mount.’’ 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Tampa Bay Times—Thursday, August 10, 2017—Opinion—Times editorials 

CLIMATE THREATS TO FLA. MOUNT

The latest Federal report on the Earth’s warming climate doesn’t mince words 

about the disturbing trends, man’s contributions or the dangers that millions across 

the globe already face, especially in low-lying coastal areas in Florida and elsewhere. It is yet another call to action for federal, state and local officials—and they 

all have a role to play in curbing emissions of heat-trapping gases, shoring up infrastructure, improving flood control and finding more efficient ways for societies to 

grow and manage their populations. 

Drafted by scientists at 13 Federal agencies, the report cited the warming trend 

as ‘‘global, long term and unambiguous.’’ Global temperatures have increased by 

about 1.6 degrees over the past 150 years, the study found, and thousands of studies 

have created ‘‘many lines of evidence’’ to conclude that human activity is primarily 

behind the changing climate. The authors found it ‘‘extremely likely’’ that most of 

the warming since 1951 was caused by humans, and that even if emissions were 

to cease, existing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would cause temperatures to increase at least a half-degree Fahrenheit over this century. 

The report, by 30 lead authors representing agencies such as NASA, Federal laboratories, the private sector and universities, is part of the National Climate Assessment. That is a congressionally mandated analysis that seeks to build on the existing science and provide a snapshot of the current state of climate change. It found 

an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, and warming in the 

Arctic at twice the rate of the global average—a phenomenon that couldimpact sea 

levels, the weather and other patterns in the lower 48 states. One-third of the sea 

level rise since 1880 has occurred since 1990, and coastal communities from the Gulf 

of Mexico to the Atlantic are at increasing risk of routine flooding, saltwater intrusion into the drinking water supply and the collapse of roads, utilities and other 

vital infrastructure. That puts Florida’s east and west coastlines at risk, yet Gov. 

Rick Scott’s administration has beenless aggressive than local governments in South 

Florida and Tampa Bay in addressing the challenges. 

The findings contradict the talking points of the Trump administration, which has 

openly questioned the science behind climate change and the degree that humans 

contribute to it, and which has moved to reverse the clean-air initiatives of the 

Obama White House. The unpublished analysis was made available to the New York 

Times days before Sunday’s deadline for the 13 Federal agencies to approve the report. Making the report public at least forces the Trump administration to explain 

why it does or does not stand behind the science. 

This national assessment lays a foundation for securing Federal funding and regulatory direction on climate policy, and it offers state and local governments the 

technical assistance they need to incorporate the impact of climate change into their 

planning for infrastructure, land use and other long-term issues. States and cities, 

though, cannot cede all responsibility to the Federal Government. Studies show 

Florida, for example, has invested trillions of dollars in infrastructure with virtually 

no consideration given to rising sea levels. Rising seas could swell Tampa Bay up 

to 19 inches over the next quarter-century,putting tens of thousands of residents at 

risk. The Federal study is another wake-up call about a threat that is real, here 

and more pressing by the day. 

43 

Ms. CASTOR. This is the challenge of our time. We do not want 

to be left with our children and grandchildren asking us, ‘‘What did 

you do? What did you do? Did you address this? Did you fight for 

our way of life?’’ We’re so fortunate to live here. 

So maybe I’ll ask my question. Robin, you remember that day 

when we would bring businesses together. What would it mean to 

them now to know that they would have a little more breathing 

room if we were able to extend the moratorium on oil drilling off 

the coast of Florida or make it permanent? 

Ms. SOLLIE. It would mean the world to them, professionally, and 

I think, personally, because they not only work on the beaches but 

they live on the beaches. We talk about this, as you know, and 

have been for many, many years, and thank you for your support 

on the issue. They’re fearful. They don’t want to see that happen 

again. So extending the moratorium or getting it to be permanent 

is amazing, and we, as an organization in coastal communities, will 

do everything we can to support your role in helping make that 

happen. 

Senator NELSON. The editorial will be introduced into the record. 

Congressman? 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you very much, Senator. I want to add to what 

Representative Castor had to say in thanking you. Thank you, Senator Nelson, for your great leadership in this arena. You understand, as a Floridian, how important all these things are to all 

these people in this room and beyond, how it affects tourism, how 

it affects their businesses, whether they be restaurants or hotels or 

resorts on the beach, or people who are fishing, charter people. It 

has an enormous impact on everything that we do. 

You know, I tell people all the time I have the honor of representing the most beautiful district in America. So does Kathy. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CRIST. And, of course, the Senator has the opportunity to 

represent the most beautiful state in America. All of you here understand that and the importance of what we’re talking about and 

these issues, how sea level rise affects us in a very direct way, 

Commissioner, and what it does when it comes to flood insurance, 

the things that Representative Castor addressed as well. 

So I’ll pose the following question to anybody who would like to 

respond to it. With nearly unanimous scientific consensus that 

man-made climate change is, in fact, real, how can we proactively 

protect our businesses that rely on tourist dollars from the impacts 

of more severe weather-related events, such as hurricanes and 

flooding? 

Ms. FERENC. I would say—thank you very much for the question, 

and, again, thank you for the opportunity to answer. I would say 

that it’s the reason why organizations across the county, locally, 

and at the state level, and then at the national level, are so important to us, because getting the word out to our state and beyond 

and internationally now when a disaster occurs is what is the difference between it being a moment and it being a long, long problem for the economy of the state. 

So we really can make a difference, and we saw that. I think 

we’ve gotten much better at it since the oil spill, and we’ve improved, both at the local and state levels, and at the national level, 

44 

in terms of getting a message out immediately. But I think it’s the 

reason why we need to continue to do such things like fund Visit 

Florida and fund Brand USA so that we can be—so we are prepared at those levels. If we have the funding, we can get that word 

out and really minimize the damage that a hurricane can do in 

terms of the economic impact to the state. 

Dr. ROFFER. I think education is part of the issue here, too. We 

have to educate the public with what the real threats are versus 

the non-real threats and how to prepare for a storm and how to 

build properly. I lived in Miami through Andrew, and, fortunately, 

I survived without too much damage to the house. But the building 

codes changed as a result of Andrew, and it was just a really— 

truly was a minimum increase, and there should be more increases 

in the building code as these storms, in theory, are supposed to be 

getting stronger each time due to the warming of the ocean. So 

educating the builders, educating the public, and then getting the 

word out to everyone what the real threats are and how to prepare 

for them properly. 

Ms. SOLLIE. The way I heard your question and how it affects 

businesses and how we can make it easier for them to mitigate and 

deal with it as it’s naturally occurring for us day in and day out, 

or it’s an immediate occurrence, right, with a hurricane. I think, 

nationally, we need to make accessibility to the small businesses 

more achievable. 

In a lot of instances, whether it’s renewable energy, using solar 

panels, protecting their building against sea level rise or floods or 

whatever it is, the entry, the cost for a small business owner, 

which is the lifeblood of our nation, right, is too extreme for them 

to invest in that, to mitigate something that they can’t see immediately, but they know it’ll help them later when this happens. But 

they’ve got to pay their electric bill, right? They’ve got to pay their 

lease. 

So I think that there needs to be some, again, planning, some 

foresight to develop programs that could help us fund small and 

medium sized businesses to help mitigate whatever that circumstance is in the whole breadth of these threats. 

Dr. LARKIN. So thinking proactively makes me think back to my 

first point, which was investing in natural and built infrastructure, 

so certainly things like oyster reefs, offshore oyster reefs, and 

planting sea grasses that can protect coastal shores. But when we 

think about things, I guess, to follow up on Robin’s point, we think 

about projects and private companies investing and perhaps spending more to develop in a way that protects from sea level rise. A 

portion of that spending is for a public good, not just a private 

good. So, certainly, they benefit, absolutely, but there is a public 

good component that all of us benefit from, that does justify public 

investment in that resource through a variety of programs. 

Senator NELSON. Let me see if I can nail down a couple of more 

points for the record. What I’ve found is that the sea level rise that 

is occurring—and this is not forecast. This is not projections. This 

is measurements that, over the course of the last 40 years, have 

shown that the seas in southeast Florida have risen five to eight 

inches. In fact, the people of southeast Florida are getting sensitized to this, because they’re seeing it on the 6 o’clock news. 

45 

They’re seeing the water sloshing over the curbs in Miami Beach, 

same thing in the Las Olas section of Fort Lauderdale. But what 

I’ve found in other parts of Florida—it’s out of sight, out of mind. 

What do you think is going to change in order for this to sink 

in? What, in fact, has happened? Anybody? 

Ms. Ferenc? 

Ms. FERENC. I would say from that question and from many of 

the comments that you have made today that an education process 

and a campaign, perhaps within our own industry, of understanding more critically how our environment is tied to the health 

of our businesses and allowing us an opportunity to take more responsibility in the paths that we carve out for ourselves and how 

we’re going to conduct ourselves in the future and what’s going to 

be important to us might be a worthwhile effort. 

Senator NELSON. Yes, ma’am. Dr. Larkin? 

Dr. LARKIN. So one of my points was improve terrestrial and 

freshwater environmental systems. One of the things that happens 

in conjunction with sea level rise are changing weather patterns. 

So I think when we do research that tries to integrate sort of the 

biophysical with the economic and all the other components is helping people—going back to the education point—realize how integrated it is, and it may be investments in things to address those 

changing weather patterns that might go a step further. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Roffer, you certainly indicated this in a 

number of your slides as you were talking about fish and all the 

other things. The effects of climate change are real. Are the commercial and recreational fishermen and the charter boat captains— 

are they beginning to see any differences out there on the sea? 

Dr. ROFFER. Quite a bit. You know, when—for example, the 

south Florida sailfish fishing has been very poor—southeast Florida sailfish fishing for the last couple of years has been very poor, 

because we’ve had warm winters, and the sailfish haven’t migrated 

from the Carolinas down into Florida all the way to the Keys. So, 

for example, Charleston had one of the best sailfish fisheries 

they’ve ever had because the sailfish were up there. So fishermen 

are clearly seeing the change in migration of the fish, and sailfish 

is one of them. 

Cobia is another one that’s not—that doesn’t stay in the state as 

long as it had once before. It migrates with the warm water. As the 

seasons warm up, they’re migrating further north and out of our 

area. So a lot of money goes into cobia fishing and sailfish fishing. 

People have noticed changes in the upwelling pattern of the Gulf 

Stream off of the east coast of Florida. We’re not sure if it’s real 

or not. The fishermen are telling us about it. So a change in 

upwelling will affect the availability and the catchability of these 

fish. 

So to answer your question, yes, fishermen are starting to see it, 

and those that are seeing it are starting to understand it and realizing this is real. 

Senator NELSON. Are they speaking out? 

Dr. ROFFER. No, they’re not speaking out. A lot of the problem 

becomes—with commercial fishermen and fishermen and, particularly, charter boat captains—in saying that their catch is decreasing is admitting to their potential clients that they’re not catching 

46 

fish anymore. So you’re not going to get people in the Keys saying, 

‘‘Well, don’t come down to the Keys anymore because the sailfish 

are in Charleston.’’ So they’re not saying it. 

They can’t advertise—the fishermen saying that it’s hurting us. 

Privately, they’ll tell you. But, publicly, it’s very hard to get their 

testimony because they’re basically giving negative advertising for 

their business. The researchers can, in fact, tell this. The recreational fishermen can report it, and people like myself. 

Senator NELSON. And that’s part of the problem. We’re not willing to have an open discussion about this issue of what’s happening 

to the Earth. For example, I was shocked, visiting some of the 

agencies under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, highly 

technical agencies, NIST, NOAA, NASA, et cetera, and what I had 

found with regard to one of those agencies right at the turn of the 

new administration was that the word has gone out that they were 

not to use the two words, ‘‘climate change.’’ 

It has been reported here in the state of Florida that a similar 

edict—had gone out to all state employees—don’t use ‘‘climate 

change.’’ Now, if you can’t even have a discussion about it, or alternatively, we see scientists—and I have seen this in Washington as 

well—attempt to be muzzled as to the free expression of what their 

scientific conclusions are on whatever the issue is, then I think 

we’d better get concerned and we’d better get vocal about this. 

Dr. ROFFER. I agree. I’m constantly on social media, and I’m involved in a newsletter that goes out to quite a few people in the 

country, talking about such issues. Unfortunately, with the climate 

in D.C., the political climate, the words, ‘‘climate change,’’ has to 

be basically taken out of proposals. You have to use the words, environmental variability or environmental change. It means the 

same thing, but it’s not that blow-up word when someone searching 

says, ‘‘Oh, throw that out.’’ 

I have to give NASA a lot of credit. NASA has stayed within the 

climate change realm. I know I’ve been funded under a climate 

change with NASA, looking at bluefin tuna and highly migratory 

species, and they feel they’re doing what’s right for the country, 

and until they’re forced to change, one way or the other, they’re 

going to continue using the words, climate change. But, unfortunately, other agencies are forced not to use it, which I think is unAmerican. 

Senator NELSON. Let me ask—yes, ma’am. Ms. Sollie? 

Ms. SOLLIE. As leaders, we’re involved in the conversation indepth, and so we hear sea level rise or climate change. We know 

where our thoughts are going, and we want to plan for our future 

or protect our businesses or the constituents we serve. I think we 

need to come up with a methodology and education, even as an industry, to speak in more layman terms so that the general public 

understands what we’re saying, and not in a threatening way, just 

to get it in their mindset. 

We’re humans. We live on instant gratification, right? And so, 

again, this is something that’s gradually affecting our lives. But 

until they can see an experience, understand it, I don’t think we, 

behind these doors today, can get the momentum that we really 

need to be powerful. 

47 

And I do want to add for the record that we’re fortunate in 

Pinellas County. We are ahead of the curve. In 2006, Tampa Bay 

Regional Planning Council did a study on sea level rise, and I have 

it here with me. It depicts the acreage within the county that’s actually protectable. So out of 109,000 acres, 78,770 are in a protection—almost certain protective zone. So maybe we can plan as municipalities or counties to take steps so that we can demonstrate 

this to other regions on how we can start to address the issue. 

Senator NELSON. Yes, ma’am? 

Dr. LARKIN. One of the mechanisms available to university researchers is to work with Florida Sea Grant College Program. It’s 

a program that’s housed at UF, but it represents all universities 

here in Florida. Through that program, there are local agents that 

help communicate the science to the public. 

I think what’s really effective about that is that they all have advisory boards on different issues, so the members of those advisory 

boards are folks that—probably some of these folks in the room 

here today that really have a direct contact to folks on the shore, 

and we see them as an extremely valuable resource. I know that 

their funding was, you know, one of those ones that was highlighted to be cut, and I think some of it was allowed to be saved, 

which let us do a big sigh of relief. But they’ve been so effective. 

It’s kind of like the example that you have been talking about. It’s 

hard to imagine it was on the chopping block just because of how 

successful it has been, and it is a real valuable tool. 

Senator NELSON. That Sea Grant Program is within NOAA, and 

that is within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, and one 

of those successes that you’re talking about is what happened at 

Cedar Key. The fishermen have successfully transitioned to a clam 

aquaculture. Now, it has a $39 million value to the state of Florida. 

So, Dr. Larkin, further expand. How would cutting that investment, which is the proposal in the President’s proposed budget, affect these natural resources impact jobs? 

Dr. LARKIN. Right. I mean, you talked about the Cedar Key example, and that’s just a really good one, because that is an example 

of where a fishery had used a particular gear—net gear—to harvest 

mullet, and because of a political vote by the public was immediately shut down. So it was devastating to a little community that 

probably most people had never heard of. 

But the training that ensued, the ideas for how we are going to 

address this issue with this community, started with public investment, and those Sea Grants agents were ground zero. They were 

in a very difficult position, I mean, retraining a whole community 

of folks that have spent their lives, generation after generation, 

fishing one way for one thing. 

So now you fast forward, and not only—you mentioned the commercial value of what’s harvested. That industry, that type of investment, is almost like investing in a museum. It is an attraction. 

People now come because those businesses operate like little public 

aquariums. People can walk in, and they’ll show them the process. 

They come and they now visit, and other private investment has 

ensued. There’s a little artist colony there now. So it has seeded 

private investment and allowed that community to flourish, and 

there are other examples like that as well. 

48 

Senator NELSON. As the Earth heats up—and I’m assuming that 

most everybody here understands the scientific reasons behind this, 

although there are people that deny that this is, in fact, happening. 

It’s simply as the sun’s rays come in and hit the Earth, part of the 

heat is absorbed, but a lot of that heat is reflected off the surface 

of the Earth and radiates back out into space. When you put certain gases, like carbon dioxide or methane into the air, and it goes 

into the upper atmosphere, it creates what is known as the greenhouse effect, like a greenhouse glass ceiling, and it traps the heat. 

Of course, as the Earth heats up, look what covers two-thirds of 

the Earth—oceans, and the oceans absorb 90 percent of the heat. 

And when water is heated, what happens to it? It expands, and, 

thus, we are seeing the phenomenon that has been chronicled here 

by our panelists. 

One of you mentioned, I think, wells. Lo and behold, that’s happened right here in a south Florida city. It’s well field had to be 

moved further west because of the sea level rise and, therefore, the 

salt water intrusion into the well field. So it’s happening, and it’s 

going to cause great infrastructure investment. 

I want to ask the two mayors. Are city mayors starting to think 

about the investments that you’re going to have to make because 

of the changes in the climate? 

Mr. CRETEKOS. Senator, the City of Clearwater was the first in 

the state and in the Southeast to have a natural gas refueling station, and we’ve started doing our vehicles—natural gas vehicles. 

We’ve partnered with Duke Energy to be the first city in Pinellas 

County to finish LED lights on all of our street lights, and we have 

a green print program that we adopted about 5 years ago to put 

us on the path of sustainability. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Mayor? 

Mr. KRISEMAN. Yes, we’re—and I thank the council members 

that are here who have been also pushing these issues. We’re embarking on an integrated sustainability action plan for the City of 

St. Petersburg. We’re looking at doing a long-term plan that really 

takes into account both the impacts of climate change and sea level 

rise, in particular, on our city, because we’ve seen the maps and 

we know the risk that our city is at, and we know that we are 

going to have to make significant changes to how we conduct our 

government, but how we conduct our city. 

Our zoning changes are going to have to be implemented. How 

we build out is going to have to change. So we are looking at doing 

all those things in addition to a commitment to become 100 percent 

renewables in the city. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Commissioner, is this discussion in front of the 

county? 

Ms. LONG. Yes, Senator, and I thank you very much for that 

question, because I want to share with everyone a real living example of how elections matter. This County Commission now uses the 

words, climate change, sea level rise, and sustainability, and when 

I first came on the County Commission 5 years ago, I was stunned 

to learn that our county staff were not allowed to use those words 

in discussions with the commissioner. 

49 

On top of that, we are planning—our county is—a sustainability 

and sea level rise, climate change conference in partnership with 

the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council a few months from now. 

So I hope you’ll stay tuned to that. 

On top of that, I am so proud that all of our facilities within 

county government have moved to things like LED lighting. We invested a lot of money into a cooling system in downtown Clearwater and worked with partnerships all over the City of Clearwater—the mayor is aware of this—and have saved over a million 

dollars a year in energy by using this cooling system. 

So the long answer to your question is yes. It is high on our list. 

We have many bridges in our county that need to be replaced, and 

one of the big deep dive discussions is how high do we have to 

build the new bridges in order to ensure that in the future our citizens will not be at risk again. 

One more thing, if I may be so bold, is to say elections matter. 

The issues we’re talking about today are handled best by good, 

sound, public policy, and when we put people in office that don’t 

believe in science, well, that’s a problem, and we only have one 

Earth. Our oceans and our natural resources, our most important 

treasures—shame on us. What will our grandchildren say when 

they look back and go, ‘‘What were you thinking?’’ 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Sanberg, you’re the head of research. USF 

has been particularly positioned as one of the leaders of the Florida 

Institute of Oceanography led by the Dean that I think you introduced as the Dean—stand up, Dean. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

The Florida Institute of Oceanography ends up being the recipient of some of the funds that we carved out in the RESTORE Act, 

specifically for researching the health of the Gulf in the future. 

Now, there’s a lot of oil out there, and a lot of it is still lurking 

around the bottom of the Gulf. 

Do you want to comment on any of your future plans in the Gulf 

research? 

Dr. SANBERG. Sure. Of course, you have the experts right over 

there, so a comment, in general. I think that there are a few 

things. One is that the Florida Institute of Oceanography is a 

statewide institute, and it’s housed here at USF and in St. Pete, 

a great place to be housed. But it’s a collaboration between most 

marine groups around the state, and so when money comes in, it 

gets diffused, based on research projects around the state to look 

at all sorts of activities on all the coasts. 

The other thing that’s a real advantage is that we had a new 

ship that was recently built, the Hogarth, and it is a superb world 

class ship to continue to do research out in the Gulf, especially to 

look at these problems and issues related to the oil that’s out there, 

the current health of the Gulf, the fisheries, just a number of 

things. 

And the other thing is that students—one thing is we are a research university, but we have great students, and we have students that want to be out and work with these great professors 

that we have in marine sciences and all the other areas. So these 

50 

activities are extremely educational. They’re also STEM-related activities, which really helps a great deal in the education of future 

Floridians and to move into this field. 

The other thing I was just going to say, when I’m listening to all 

the witnesses here, speakers, is there are a number of things that 

you’ve brought up, and education, I think, is a key one, especially 

in tourism. We offer a master’s in global sustainability with a concentration in tourism at USF. It’s a very important program for us. 

And I guess the question, if I was going to ask one, is are there 

other educational programs for the Floridians of tomorrow that 

they could really train in and they could be helpful to all the industries that are being affected? 

Senator NELSON. Anybody want to comment on that? Is Dean 

Hogarth here? I would certainly want to recognize him, because he 

certainly worked with us on the oil spill. Let me ask you another 

question. One of you mentioned invasive species. So we know the 

problem with lionfish, the Burmese python. You could say the Burmese python is related to weather, because the only thing that we 

found, how you can get at this population, is a cold snap that is 

sustained over time. Otherwise, it’s very difficult to find them, and 

the Park Service is thinking there might be 150,000 of them in the 

Everglades. 

Zika—infectious diseases, another byproduct. It’s primarily in 

warm areas. Did any one of you who mentioned that want to expand on this? 

Yes, ma’am. Dr. Larkin? 

Dr. LARKIN. If you’ll allow me a moment, I do want to mention 

one thing. We talked about built environment solutions for dealing 

with global warming. There is a role for natural systems, too. So 

we all know that trees sequester carbon, and we have researchers 

that are working on creating new forages for cattle that will help 

reduce methane. So there’s a variety of solutions. 

With respect to—and tourism. We have a Department of Tourism 

that also offers programs that, hopefully, will help in that scientific 

regard. The invasive species one is a good one. We have little beetles that are attacking our trees and our avocados. 

The pythons—so, actually, we have some researchers who just 

compared the effect of the cold snap between the American crocodile and the python, and, actually, what it found was while it 

knocked both populations down, it only had a long-term effect on 

the potential northern migration of the crocodile, not the python. 

So we are still concerned about it moving north. 

Senator NELSON. You know, we used to think that the python— 

by the way, have you seen the pictures? You know, they caught one 

that was 18 and a half feet long. You pick up one of these things, 

and it’s 200 pounds, and it’s solid muscle. We thought maybe they 

wouldn’t go any further north than the humid marshy environment 

of the Everglades, but if there is increasing warming temperatures, 

you’re right, Dr. Larkin. That snake is going to move north. 

Dr. LARKIN. Right, and, you know, we know they’re responsible 

for a loss of 95 percent of the rabbits and other small mammals in 

the Everglades. 

Ms. SOLLIE. And it wouldn’t be good for the tourism industry either if they travel north. 

51 

Senator NELSON. No. 

Dr. LARKIN. Right. So, I mean, there’s—you know, then you start 

affecting food web that’s involved, and then you start affecting 

other of our iconic species. 

Senator NELSON. All right. Either one of our members of Congress have any further questions? 

[No verbal response.] 

Senator NELSON. Charlie? 

Mr. CRIST. I’m good. Thank you. 

Ms. FERENC. Senator, may I make another comment about a solution? 

Senator NELSON. Please. 

Ms. FERENC. We talked about threats, and then there has been 

some talk of solutions, and there’s been some success stories, and 

many of them seem to revolve around this notion of public-private 

partnership. I have had the honor to sit on the Travel and Tourism 

Advisory Board, and I know that there is also the Transportation 

Advisory Board. This is all at the Federal level. I believe Joe 

Lopano is in the audience from the Tampa Bay International Airport. I believe he sits on that advisory board at this time. And, of 

course, Brand USA is a public-private partnership. 

I’ve seen such amazing work done when the public sector and the 

private sector come together in that intense and sustained fashion, 

and that some of the problems that we’re talking about today, you 

know, we saw these issues come before the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, and the progress that we hope not to give up on now 

that was made during that time, during long, arduous battles between the private and the public sector, and coming to good solutions for both sides, for security and for increased travel, and many 

other issues that were brought up in that way. Transportation is 

one that was brought up in the last round and, of course, I’m sure 

is being discussed now in that particular partnership. 

But I think that these might be other issues that might be 

brought before the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board itself. Is climate change something that can be worked on there? Just the 

value of the public-private partnerships at the Federal level and at 

the State level, I think, is just truly amazing, and I offer that as 

a part of the solutions, to not forget how valuable they are. 

Dr. ROFFER. As a closing comment, I would like to remind everyone on the panel and out in the audience that the true economic 

engine in Florida is a healthy ecosystem, which comes from clean 

air and clean water. That’s the building block right there, and the 

solution to pollution is absolutely not dilution. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Roffer, you had spoken—picking up on that 

theme there about stopping the pollution with regard to the Everglades—about fixing the plumbing and restoring the ecosystems. 

We have been working for a long time on Everglades restoration 

to stop or reverse what man had done over three-quarters of a century, which was to completely reverse the natural plumbing of the 

Everglades, which sent the water southwest of Orlando as it moved 

slowly through the Kissimmee chain of the lakes, as it went into 

a marshy Lake Okeechobee after having come down a winding, meVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:09 Jun 06, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\29979.TXT JACKIE
52 

andering stream called the Kissimmee River, and then slowly went 

through the marshes south into the River of Grass, the Everglades. 

All of that was changed in three-quarters of a century. The Kissimmee River became a straight ditch, et cetera. You know the situation. Turning on the plumbing and reversing that requires sustained commitment from the Federal and the state government. 

Now, unbelievably, last month, the South Florida Water Management District threatened to pull out of the independent scientific 

assessment of restoration progress that’s done every 2 years pursuant to Federal law. 

I think some counties are addressing the problem head-on, but 

it stops and starts with the effort to restore the Everglades, and 

it’s going to affect Floridians mightily. What have you seen, Dr. 

Roffer, over the years on the ground—you’re out there with the 

fishermen—the need for restoration of the Everglades? 

Dr. ROFFER. I see fish dying, an increased number of fish kills, 

and I see water quality degrading very quickly, and our fishing industry is hurting, even though the charter boat captains won’t 

admit that their catches are going down. I’ve talked to many people, and finally you get Hell’s Bay Boats admitting publicly that 

they lost one-point-something million dollars because they couldn’t 

sell boats in the central part of Florida. 

People are getting very frustrated. They believe that the fox is 

guarding the hen house, that some people in the sugar industry 

and agriculture are affecting these people in management and 

making them change their minds and opinions. And pulling out of 

a science-based committee to make the water flow is corruption, if 

you ask me. It may not be an actual dollar corruption, but certainly 

it’s a mental corruption, and there might be money involved, but 

I’m not pointing fingers at this point. 

But, clearly, we need to get that flow to go back down as fast as 

we possibly can. Every day you read about somebody—‘‘Well, 

there’s a reason we can’t’’—you can do it if you want to put your 

effort into it and going there. 

So people are starting to get—the public is starting to get more 

educated on the issue and starting to raise their signs and their 

posters. You see it. People who get elected and changes—if you get 

people—representatives—and not the ones here—I know in central 

Florida—that wouldn’t care anything about environmental and 

water quality who all of a sudden started putting environment and 

water quality on their web pages and started to come to meetings. 

So if the grass roots people are out there, I honestly believe that 

the people, the grass root vote, will out-do the political money coming from those spots. The public has to raise their pitchforks, so to 

speak. 

[Applause.] 

Senator NELSON. We have had tremendous interest, and there 

were a number of people who requested to testify here at this hearing, and, obviously, we had to keep it within certain limits, thus, 

the four witnesses that we have. But I want to invite you for your 

testimony, if you will submit it, it will become a part of the written 

record. And I declare that the record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional members of the Senate Commerce Committee 

to submit additional memorandums and/or questions. 

53 

So thank you all for coming today. This has been terrific. With 

that, the meeting is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:56 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(55) 

A P P E N D I X 


810LONGB1.eps
56 


810LONGB2.eps
57 


810MANAT1.eps
58 


810MANAT2.eps
59 


810MANAT3.eps
60 


810MANAT4.eps
61 


810MANAT5.eps
62 

Æ 


810MANAT6.eps
63 

This page intentionally left blank.