FLORIDA EVERGLADFS ECOSYSTEM 

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

EFFORTS TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM 

WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON FLORIDA BAY 

Serial No. 103-42 

(COMMI'ITEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES) 

Serial No. 103-48 

(COMMI'ITEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES) · 

HEARING HELD IN KEY COLONY BEACH, FLORIDA 

JULY 31, 1993 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources and the 

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

73-729 WASHINGTON : 1993 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-041794-5 
COMMITl'EE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, CluJirm4n. 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana DON YOUNG, Alaaka, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Mauachueetta Rtmlei"if Republican Member 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennll)'lvania JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, Weet Varginia BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minneaota ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin lalanda CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tenneuee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mezico JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oreson WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American RICHARD H. BAKER, Louiaiana 

Samoa KEN CALVERT, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SCOTl' MciNNIS, Colorado 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JAY DICKEY, Arkanaaa 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Califo7;Dia 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Dlinoia 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wiaconain 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KrsH, Republicon Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon, 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California Rtmlei"if Republicon Member 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minneeota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tenneeeee 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York JAY DICKEY, Arkanaaa 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

LANE EVANS, Illinoia 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wiaconain 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

CHARLENE DoUGHERTY, ~ Staff Member 

LINDA GoRDON STEvENS, Cleric 

TED CASE, Republican Comrdtant on Ovuaiglll and ln'IIUtigotiom 

em 
SUBCOMMITl'EE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia Ranlci716 Republican Member 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawa}i JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

MAURICE HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

RICHARD HEALY, Staff Director 

AMY HOLLEY, Pro(euional Staff Member 

CHARLENE McCARTNEY SEAliiENS, Clerk 

(Ill) 
COMMI'ITEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Muaac:huaetta, Chairman 

WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jeney JACK FIELDS, Teua 

EARL HUTTO, Florida DON YOUNG, A1aaka 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia 

WILLIAM 0. LIPINSKI, Dlinoia JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Teua HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

THOMAS J. MANTON, New York CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Viqpnia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York ARTHUR RAVENEL, JR., South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

GREG LAUGHLIN, Texu RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California 

JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

GENE TAYLOR, Mia&iallippi TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida 

JACK REED, Rhode !Bland MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

H. MARTIN LANCASTER, North Carolina PETER T. KING, New York 

THOMAS H. ANDREWS, Maine LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

LYNN SCHENK, California HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Tezaa CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

DAN HAMBURG, California 

BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky 

BART STUPAK, Michipn 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Miasi.uippi 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

JEFFREY R. PIKE, Staff Director 

W!Ll.IAM W. STELLE, Jr., Chief Counael 

MARY J. Fusco Kn'Sos, Chief Clerk 

HARRY F. BURROUGHS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Muaachuaetta, Chairman 

GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York JIM SAXTON, New Jarsey 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey DON YOUNG, Alaska 

GREG LAUGHLIN, Te:us CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

JOLENE UNSOELD, Washington ARTHUR RAVENEL, JR., South Carolina 

JACK REED, Rhode leland WAYNE T. GILCHRIST, Maryland 

ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM, California 

DAN HAMBURG, California MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkaneu CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California JACK FIELDS, Te:us 

EARL HUTTO, Florida (Ex Officio) 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Teua 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

DANIEL AsHE, Profeuional Staff 

KAREN STEUER, Pro{eNioNJl Staff 

GINA DEFEIUWU, ProfeNional Stc.ff LAUREL BRYANT, Minority Pro(eBBional Staff 

(lV) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held: July 31, 1993 ................................................................................... . Member statements: 

Hon. George Miller .......................................................................................... . Hon. Bruce F. Vento ........................................................................................ . Hon. Larry LaRocco ......................................................................................... . Hon. Carlos Romero-Barcelo ........................................................................... . Hon. Peter Deutsch ......................................................................................... . Hon. Carrie P. Meek ........................................................................................ . Hon. E. Clay Shaw, Jr .................................................................................... . Witness statements: Hon. Buddy MacKay, Lieutenant Governor, State of Florida .................... .. Panel consisting of: Dr. John Hunt, Florida Marine Research Institute .............................. . Dr. Ron Jones, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University ............................................................................... . Panel consisting of: Hon. Jack London, mayor, Monroe County1 FL ..................................... . Scott Marr, Florida Keys Federation of Chambers of Commerce, Key 

ca~~~c?o1~n~ ·Fi~rid~-~~··a;;id~-~i~ti~~;·i'~i~~~~d~; ··: Karen L. Lee, Republic Securiz Bank, Islamorada, FL ...................... .. 

c~;,i~.!~~ci!; ~~--~~~~--~~~.' .. ~~~~-~:,~ -~~~~~~-~-~~~~ Karl Lessard, president, Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, 

Marathon, FL ........................................................................................ . Panel consisting of: Thomas D. Martin, chair, Everglades Coalition ................................... .. James Humble, vice president and chief executive officer, South Dade 

Land Corp., and chairman, Lime/Avocado Administrative Committee ........................................................................................................... . George Barley, chairman, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Advisory Council ................................................................................... . Dexter Lehtinen, general counsel, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Miami, FL .............................................................................................. . Panel consisting of: Bonnie Cohen, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and 

Budget, Department of the Interior, accompanied by Brooks 

Yeager, Director, Office of Policy Analysis, Department of the Interior, and Dick Ring, Superintendent, Florida Everglades National 

Park ....................................................................................................... . Col. Terrence C. Salt, Commander, Jacksonville District, U.S. Army 

Bifi;rg~ c~~!~~=!!~~.--Fi~rid~-K:~y-~ N~ti~~~i·M:~~-s~~t~~·:: Tom MacVicar, deputy executive director, South Florida Water Management District ................................................................................... . Hon. Daryl Jones, Senator, Florida State Legislature ................................ .. 

(V) 

Page 

1 

1 

5 

10 

10 

11 

12 

13 

15 

24 

29 

40 

46 

48 

52 

57 

59 

70 

99 

101 

103 

131 

143 

153 

164 

182 
VI 

APPENDIX 

JULY 31, 1993 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from: Committee on Natural Resources: 

1. Background memorandum from Hon. George Miller, chairman, 

to Members, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, dated 

July 27, 1993 ........................................................................................ .. 2. Press release from Chairman Miller and Chairman Vento dated 

July 13, 1993 ........................................................................................ .. 3. Press release from Chairman Miller and Chairman Vento dated 

July ~~ 1993 ......................................................................................... . 4. The bid, H.R. 1664, titled "To Save Florida Bay" ............................. . 6. Congressional Research Service report titled, "The Florida Everglades: An Ecosystem in Danger," dated July 22, 1993 .................... . 6. General Accounting Officer report titled, •sugar Program: Changing Domestic and International Conditions Require Program 

7. c;~~ ".:::1a1f~~ ~!~~~ .... ~~ .. ·~~·r~~·the·c;;~t: tee ';;~Natural Resources by the ~nerallc:unting Office ........... .. 8. "The Florida Sugar Industry-Its Evolution and Prospection," by 

Peter Buzzanell et al., Sugar and Sweetener, Situation and Outlook Yearbook, June 1992 .................................................................... . 9. "The Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Plan," prepared 

by The Everglades Coalition and dated July 12, 1993 ...................... . Eve~lades Co-Ordinating Council: Prepared statement of Freddy 

Fisikel!!. president, inclu~ attachments ............................................... . Florida Aeya Citizens Coalition, Inc.: Prepared statement of George 

Kundtz, chairman, including attachments ................................................ . 

~~~U:l ~\r<:a~~~J':;i!:t;::h;,:v~~·Q~i~; p~j;;t'~: tor, to Natural Resources Committee staff dated July 24, 1~3: enclosing a _prepared statement and attachments [Editor's note.-Aaditional 

materfills submitted by Reef Relief may be found in the archival file.) ... The Everglades Coalition, Washington, DC: Letter to Hon. Bruce Babbitt, 

Secretary of the Interior, dated Jul)' 30, 1993 ......................................... .. National Audubon Society, Everglades System Restoration Campaign, Miami, FL: Letter to the Committee on Natural Resources dated August 10, 1993 ............................................................................................... .. Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, CA: Prepared statement of Rod-

·ney M. Fujita, Ph.D., dated August 13, 1993 ............................................ . 

Page 

185 

193 

194 

195 

199 

215 

284 

293 

309 

349 

442 

446 

449 

461 

467 

470 
EFFORTS TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE 

EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM WITH SPECIAL 

EMPHASIS ON FLORIDA BAY 

SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEES ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS AND NATIONAL PARKS, 

FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL 

RESOURCES; SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

NATURAL RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met_pursuant to call at 9:08 a.m. at the Key 

Colony Beach City Hall, Key Colony Beach, Florida, Hon. George 

Miller (chairman of the Natural Resources Committee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. I am Congressman George Miller, and J. am the 

Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. I want 

to begin by welcoming all of you to our oversight hearing and 

thanking everybody who has been so helpful in setting this hearing 

up, from representatives of the various governmental agencies and 

local government to our colleagues in Congress and their staff for 

making this time available to us. 

This morning will prove to be interesting-in some cases maybe 

controversial-and we would ask that everyone in the audience try 

to cooperate with the committee. We are on a fairly tight time line, 

if you will, because we have some additional activities this afternoon and so we will have to leave here basically according to our 

schedule. 

I would ask the witnesses, to the extent that they can, to summarize their statements. Give us the pertinent points. If points 

have been made before you, try not to repeat those. I ask that simply because we have quite a few members of Congress here, and 

if you think you can talk, nobody can match us. So it is just a question of allocating the time, but we do need time to ask questions 

and we hope that the witnesses understand that. I think that will 

make for a good hearing. 

Obviously many more people asked to testify than we were able 

to accommodate. The record of this hearing will remain open for 

two weeks so the people who do not like what they heard or heard 

it differently or think it should be said in another way are welcome 

to submit testimony to the committee. This is the Committee on 

(1) 
2 

Natural Resources, Washington, DC. And we will make it part of 

the record of this committee. So you should feel free to do that. 

This is an ongoing set of hearings that we have had on the issues 

surrounding the Everglades. It is an attempt on the part of the 

committee to improve our knowledge of the conditions of the Everglades ecosystem and more particularly this morning, Florida Bay. This hearing is being held to gain a better understanding of the 

ongoing efforts of the government to restore and to protect the Everglades and the Bay, including the progress of the Interagency 

Task Force assembled by Interior Secretary Babbitt and the details 

of the recently announced settlement agreement. 

We are here to hear proposals and recommendations for both 

short- and long-term actions that might be undertaken to improve 

the conditions of the Everglades ecosystem and to ~ain a better understanding of any problems that might be assOCiated with those 

proposals. We also want to learn whether or not federal agencies believe they have sufficient authority and resources to develop and 

implement comprehensive plans to protect this ecosystem. 

Our committees have held a number of hearings in the past on 

Everglade issues and our members have spent time on the ground learning how this natural system and the present water delivery 

infrastructure works. The protection of this unique ecological world-recognized Everglades ecosystem is of paramount importance 

to us and, I believe, to the people of this country. The question is, How do we protect the Park, Florida Bay and 

the marine sanctuaries in the context of the intensely developed 

south Florida area? 

We have invited a diverse group of witnesses to help us ~ain a 

better understanding of these issues. I consider this a very Important hearing not only because of what we will learn about the Everglades, but also because of what we can learn from the Everglades about restoring and protecting ecosystems throughout the 

United States that are now in jeopardy or at risk of collapse if we 

do not act to protect them. I look forward to hearing from all of the 

witnesses. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 
3 

NEWS CONCiRESSMAN 

ATTENTION: 

OPENING STATEMENT 

2205 Rayburn Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

12021 225·2095 

HONORABLE GEORGE MILLER 

Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee 

July 31, 1993 

Key Colony Beach, Florida 

Joint Oversight Hearing on Measures to Protect 

and Restore the Everglades Ecosystem. 

Including Florida Bay 

7th District 

California 

Welcome to all of the Members of Congress and our witnesses who have come here to 

participate in this important oversight hearing. 

We hope to accomplish a number of objectives at this hearing, including to: 

-- improve our knowledge of the condition of the Everglades ecosystem, and most 

particularly, Florida Bay; 

-- gain a better understanding of the on-going efforts of the government to restore and 

protect the Everglades and the bay, including the progress of the imeragency task force 

assembled by Interior Secretary Babbitt and the recently announced settlement agreement; 

-- hear proposals and recommendations for both short-term and long-term actions that 

might be undertaken to improve the condition of the Everglades ecosystem and to gain a 

better understanding of any problems that might be associated with those proposals, and; 

-- learn whether the federal agencies believe they have sufficient authority to develop 

and implement a comprehensive plan to protect this ecosystem. 

Our committees have held a number of hearings in the past on Everglades' issues and 

our Members have spent time on the ground learning how the natural system and the present 

water delivery infrastructure works. The protection of this unique ecological and worldrecognized Everglades ecosystem is of paramount importance to us and to the people of this 

country. 

(over) 
Miller/Opening Stalement 

Page 2, July 3 t. 1993 

4 

The question is, how do we protect !he Park, Florida Bay, and !he marine sanctuaries, 

in the context of the intensely developed soulh Florida area. 

We have inviled a diverse group of witnesses to help us sort lhrough and better 

understand lhese issues. I undemand !here were many additional people and organizations 

who wanled to appear before !he Committee and I regret we could not accommodate 

everyone who wanted to he heard today. We invite !hose who could not testify to submit 

statements for !he official hearing record. 

I consider !his a very important hearing, not only because of what we will earn Jbwit !he Everglades, but also because of what we can learn .fm.m !he Everglades in !he 

Committee's on-going efforts to restore and protect ecosystems lhroughout !he United States 

!hat are now in jeopardy or are at risk of collapse if we do not act to protect !hem. I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Ill 
5 

Mr. MILLER. At this point, I would like to recognize Congressman 

Vento of Minnesota, who is the chairman of the National Parks, 

Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee of the Natural Resources 

Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased with the 

warm welcome that we have received here. 

Frankly, our committees are here because there is a problem. In 

fact, there is a crisis in Florida. The Everglades, the ecosystem, the 

interrelatedness of this vast sheetflow of water and the intricate 

ecosystems that it embraces is in crisis. We are here to review 

what has happened in the recent past, the litigation and the solutions that are being proposed to respond to that. 

Frankly, we want the management of these lands put back in the 

hands of land managers. We want Florida and we want this environment preserved. We want it to continue to serve the economy 

and the people of Florida and to remain the international biosphere 

biome whose quality has been world-renown. 

As a Member of Congress, I have taken a deep interest in Florida, by necessity and by being driven by the delegation from Florida, starting with one of the longer-serving members of that delega- tion, Charlie Bennett, whose primary interest was Timucuan Ecological and historical preserve in northern Florida; and of course 

the ever-present Member of Congress, Dante Fascell, who we 

worked on many projects in south Florida with. I was there when 

we expanded Big Cypress most recently, when we did a couple of 

land exchanges with Aerojet for land in Nevada, with Collier for 

land in Arizona, for the ml:\ior expanse of the Everglades and for 

the policy changes and the expansion of the wildlife preserves that 

have occurred down here. 

But you know, all that we have done is not enough because what 

we need is to get our act together to work with the various state 

and national entities that are responsible for the hydrological cycle in this area that is so key. And the fact is that this ecosystem is 

crashing; it is in crisis. It is under stress, it is not able to sustain 

the normal natural cycles that occur. Sometimes those are slight, but sometimes they are very dramatic like Hurricane .Andrew, 

which is introduced into a system under stress that cannot absorb 

the type of problems and type of issues that are affecting it. 

So now we turn to some dramatic problems-and frankly, much 

of this has to be done very quickly. This system, and natural systems, tend to work towards an equilibrium or balance. But this system when it is under stress is going to crash, and it is going to 

crash quickly unless we are able to get our act together and face 

the issues rather than compromise away this valuable environment 

in south Florida. Frankly, most of you from Florida have everything at stake in this issue. 

I am pleased to see the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor 

present today; and of course· the new leadership of Peter Deutsch 

and Carrie Meek and many others, Clay Shaw, are maintaining a 

big interest in this. We are pledged to work with them, but we are 

here because there is a serious problem and we need to eliminate 

politics and start talking about sound public policy in Florida and 
6 

face up to decisions the way they are, not the way we wish they 

are. If we are going to falter on this, you are going to lose what 

is the highest quality of life and one of the most important natural 

resources on the face of the earth. I think we all have a responsibil- ity to respond to that and to face this crisis. 

I am pleased to see the type of efforts that Secretary Babbitt has 

led to bring together the agricultural interests and hopefully we 

will see positive details of that so we can march forward and take 

this back into the land management scheme and out of the courts. 

I want to see the money spent on cleaning up and re_pairing this 

ecosystem, not on further litigation with no solutions. So let us get 

to work. Let us do it. We all understand what the problem is, so 

let us try and agree on a policy path that will deliver us answers 

rather than further debate. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Vento follows:] 
7 

OPBHXNG STATEMENT 

CORGRBSSMUJ BRUCB P. VBHTO 

JOXHT OVBRSXGHT BBARXHG 

TO B:DMXHB TBB BPPORTS TO PROTECT 

AND RBSTORB TBB BVBRGLADBS ECOSYSTEM 

JULY 31, 19!13 

MR. CHAIRMAN, I JOIN YOU IN WELCOMING THE WITNESSES TODAY. 

THIS XS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, BOTH FOR THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 

PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF ONE OF OUR MOST UNIQUE AND FRAGILE 

ECOSYSTEMS, AND FOR THE RESIDENTS WHOSE LIVELIHOODS DEPEND UPON 

ITS CONTINUED VITALITY. THE EVERGLADES REPRESENT A SCENIC, 

DIVERSE AND COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT WORTHY OF PROTECTION. IT IS A 

RICH AND VARIED ECOSYSTEM OF UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY AND IS ALSO AN 

AREA WHERE MAN HAS EXACTED A PRICE, APPLYING EXTREME PRESSURE IN 

ORDER TO DERIVE HIS LIVELIHOOD. BOTH THE TOURIST AND COMMERCIAL 

FISHING INDUSTRIES ABSOLUTELY DEPEND ON SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN BOTH THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK AND IN 

THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREAS TO MAINTAIN A VITAL SOURCE FOR 

SUCH RESOURCE-DEPENDENT ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES--A HEALTHY AND 

VIBRANT FLORIDA BAY. 

SADLY, THIS INTRICATE ECOSYSTEM IS UNDER SERIOUS STRESS AND 

DECLINE. WATER QUANTITY, QUALITY AND DISTRIBUTION CONTINUE TO BE 

MOST PRESSING ISSUES. FLORIDA BAY, IN PARTICULAR, LOCATED AT THE 

SOUTH END OF THE ECOSYSTEM, IS SADLY POLLUTED BY MAN'S ACTIONS, 

INCLUDING FARM AND SEWAGE RUNOFF, AS WELL AS FROM SOME NUTRIENT 

LOADING FREED UP AND RESULTING FROM NATURAL PHENOMENA SUCH AS 

HURRICANE ANDREW. FURTHER STRESS ON THIS MODIFIED ECOSYSTEM HAS 

OCCURRED BECAUSE OF ITS INABILITY TO WITHSTAND NATURAL CYCLES 

SUCH AS THE DROUGHT OF THE LATE 1980'S AND REDUCED FRESH WATER 
8 

FLOWS TO FLORIDA BAY THROUGH THE EVERGLADES HAS MARKEDLY 

INCREASED THE BAY'S SALINITY. COMMERCIAL FISHING AND TOURIST 

INDUSTRIES TODAY ARE SUFFERING HEAVY LOSSES AS THE RESULT OF THIS 

FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM'S DETERIORATION. 

THE PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SUGARCANE GROWERS, THE 

STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL HOPEFULLY RESULT IN 

SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN CURRENT AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION 

LEVELS: IMPORTANTLY, THE DETAILS HAVE YET TO BE WORKED OUT. 

HOWEVER, EVEN IF THIS AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE AND WORKS TO 

ELIMINATE THE MOST EGREGIOUS PRACTICES AND ALLEVIATE SIGNIFICANT 

AMOUNTS OF CONTAMINATION, THE AGREEMENT IS ONLY ONE PIECE OF THE 

PUZZLE NEEDED TO RESTORE THE TOTAL EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM. 

THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION 

PROJECTS IN SHARK RIVER SLOUGH, TAYLOR SLOUGH AND THE C-111 BASIN 

ARE RECOGNIZED AS ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS TO ENSURE FRESH WATER 

FLOWS TO FLORIDA BAY. MORE LAND MUST BE ACQUIRED TO FACILITATE 

APPROPRIATE WATER FLOWS THROUGH THE EVERGLADES TO FLORIDA BAY. 

AND, THE POPULATION GROWTH OF SOUTH FLORIDA AND THE ASSOCIATED 

WATER NEEDS MUST BE ADDRESSED WITHOUT SACRIFICING OR COMPROMISING 

A WAY THE WATER NEEDS OF THE EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM . 

I HAVE VISITED THIS AREA SEVERAL TIMES, AND I HAVE BEEN 

STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR EXPANSION AND 

IMPROVEMENTS IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK. AMERICANS WILL NOT AND 

CANNOT AFFORD TO ALLOW THIS IRREPLACEABLE RESOURCE TO CONTINUE 

ITS DEVASTATING PATH OF DECLINE. 

THE GOVERNANCE CHALLENGE MUST BE MET WITH MANY FEDERAL AND 

STATE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS AREA, IT WILL 
9 

TAKE MUCH MORE THAN GOOD INTENTIONS AND ISOLATED PIECES OF POLICY 

OR LAW TO ADDRESS THE PROFOUND DETERIORATION OF THE FLORIDA 

ECOSYSTEM. THERE MUST BE A COORDINATED, COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT TO 

ADDRESS EACH ELEMENT NECESSARY TO THE RESTORATION OF THE 

EVERGLADES AS A RICH, HEALTHY AND PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE . WE MUST 

GRANT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO EACH AGENCY INVOLVED AND 

RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VARIED PROJECTS AND REQUIRE THAT THEY WORK 

TOGETHER TO MAXIMIZE THEIR EFFORTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 

RENEWAL OF THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM. NATIONAL POLICY AND 

LAW MUST PROVIDE FUNDING TO ASSURE THE COMPLETION OF NECESSARY 

AND VIABLE PROJECTS AND DENY FUNDING FOR COUNTER PRODUCTIVE 

INITIATIVES. WE MUST ALSO ENACT PROVISIONS TO ASSURE THAT 

PROGRESSIVE AND SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE IN 

PLACE INSURING THAT FUTURE LOSSES DO NOT NULLIFY THE POSITIVE 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WE MUST BUILD UPON THIS OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE 

IMPORTANT, LASTING IMPROVEMENTS. 

MR. CHAIRMAN, I HOPE THIS HEARING WILL PROVIDE A POSITIVE 

PUBLIC FOCUS FOR THE EFFORT TO REJUVENATE THE EVERGLADES 

ECOSYSTEM -- ESPECIALLY THE FLORIDA BAY. I LOOK FORWARD TO 

HEARING THE WITNESSES, AND TO WORKING WITH YOU AND OTHER 

INTERESTED PARTIES TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. 
10 

Mr. MILLER. Next, Congressman LaRocco from Idaho. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY LaROCCO 

Mr. LARocco. Mr. chairman, thank you, I will be brief. 

First of all, I want to applaud you as the chairman of this committee for bringing us to this part of the world and to Florida. 

Clearly, this is a critical issue. I come from the State of Idaho 

where the Everglades are not high on my mind, but ecosystem 

management is very high on my mind and we have dealt with the 

history and public policy in this country of looking at just preserves 

rather than a total ecosystem. And if we are going to look at this 

from the highest policy level, then we must not only look at it in 

the Rocky Mountain region but also in regions like Florida. That 

is why I took the time this weekend to join the committee on the 

road to do what is proper, and that is to move this committee out 

of Washington, DC and come down on site with you folks to hear 

what is on your mind. 

I look forward to the hearing and to learning more about this 

critical issue. I want to say that I applaud the Secretary of the Interior for the bold initiative that he has taken just in the last six 

months. I think this is indicative of the attitude of this administration to bring competing interests together. Not only is it critical in 

this part of the world, but in the Northwest where we have the ancient forests and the s~tted owl and in my region, the salmon and 

other endangered speCies. I think that this administration is truly 

the cleanup crew, and they are committed to bringin~ these competing interests together instead of having these lingenng disputes. So Mr. Chairman, I have traveled with you to Yellowstone recently to look at ecosystem management; I have come here to Florida today to learn more about this; and I look forward to this hearing with great, great interest. I am very pleased to be a member 

of this committee and to work on these issues. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Congressman Romero-Barcelo from 

Puerto Rico. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too want 

to congratulate you for having invited us down here and having had the idea of holding these hearings here in the Keys to help us 

on this committee understand much better what the concerns and 

the problems are in the different sectors of the community, about 

the problems that are now facing this area. 

Coming from Puerto Rico, I also learn a lot from these hearings because we have similar problems, on a much smaller scale . of 

course, but we do have floodable areas next to the ocean with the 

same type of problems involving the same issues between the agri- cultural interests and the interests of the environmentalists and 

the interests of the community as a whole. There is no doubt that 

the area here and the swamps here in Florida are very, very, very 

valuable assets to the Nation and to the world, and I think it is 

an environmental treasure that we have here in Florida. 

So we are all interested and looking for the best solutions, and 

I think there is no better opportunity than today to hear from the 
11 

different concerns, the different problems, the different solutions, 

so that we can all be together to look for the best for Florida and 

for the whole system, and for the community. So I am glad to be here and have this opportunity, and I also 

want to congratulate Secretary Babbitt and the Vice President who 

have shown a great interest in not only protecting the environmental areas that are under threat in the Nation, but also to make 

sure that our future generations will have the full enjoyment of 

those areas that have been given to us by nature. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to hearing from all of 

you. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

I failed to mention at the outset that this is in fact a joint over- si~ht hearing with the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fishenes. We are joined this morning by Congressman Peter Deutsch, 

who is a member of that committee and has been incredibly active 

on this issue in the short period of time he has been in Congress. 

I think I personally have attended three different meetings at his 

behest with the Secretary and with others in the Department of 

the Interior to talk about getting joint action on this issue. 

Congressman Deutsch, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BON. PETER DEUTSCH 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First let me publicly state my appreciation, and the appreciation of the people of south Florida, for your personal interest in the 

Florida Keys, the Florida Everglades and the entire south Florida 

ecosystem. Your leadership over a period of time has really been 

very dramatic. 

I also want to thank Congressman Vento for his personal concern 

and involvement in this issue. I also want to thank Chairman 

Studds of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, who 

could not be with us today because Secretary Babbitt is actually in 

his district in Massachusetts. 

The presence of this committee here, the mere fact that we are 

here, makes people in south Florida and the Keys realize the fact 

that the determination of Florida Bay is a national issue. And having talked to Secretary Babbitt directly, and even the President 

himself, the condition of Florida Bay and the condition of the Florida Everglades is something that they are intimately aware of, conscious of and involved with. Sometimes we think about this as a 

Keys issue or maybe even only as a south Florida issue; this truly 

is a national issue and it is appropriate that two committees of the 

United States Congress are here today. 

And I think even beyond that the truth is it is· an international 

issue because there is only one Everglades ecosystem in the world, 

and we must preserve it. 

One of the things that I believe will come out of testimony today 

is that the protection of Florida Bay is not one of those areas of 

the country where there is a conflict between what is good environment and what is good economy. Particularly in Monroe County, 

the economy is so tied to the environmental conditions here that 

we both have an environmental disaster and an economic disaster 

on our hands. If we do not deal with the degradation that is going 
12 

on in Florida Bay, we are going to have serious problems beyond just the environmental conditions in Monroe County-we will have 

direct economic degradation as well. 

At this point, let me also introduce this morning three elected officials from the county that are here: Mayor London, who is going 

to be testifying shortly; Commissioner Ocheo is here somewhere; 

and I believe other Commissioners will be coming-Commissioner 

Shirley Friedman is here. And also with us on the dais up here is 

the State Senator from the Keys, Senator Daryl Jones. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. We are also joined this morning by Representative Carrie Meek, who has captured all of our attention in 

a short period of time that she has been in Congress. But I think 

more importantly for this issue, she captured the attention of a 

number of agencies in her work on the Appropriations Committee 

during the markup of the water resources legislation by directing 

resources to this issue. Obviously when we get. done trying to decide policy and directing agencies, it all comes down to whether 

those agencies will have the wherewithal to meet the demands and 

the mandates and the directions that these agreements will put 

upon them. And Congresswoman Meek is a crucial player in that 

arrangement and that outcome. As has already been said, sitting with her is Daryl Jones, the State Senator from this area. You are 

welcome to sit with the committee, Senator Jones, and I recognize 

Congresswoman Meek for any statement you might have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARRIE P. MEEK 

Ms. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is indeed a pleasure to be here today and to thank you for 

coming to south Florida when it is not February. [Laughter.] 

We do appreciate it. 

Mr. MILLER. I continue to show that bad judgment. Ms. MEEK. I am pleased to be here. I serve on the Energy and 

Water Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations, and I have focused a great deal of time on Florida and its very fragile ecosystem, knowing that in order to support the policies that the committee 

has so adequately addressed, that certainly there must be the financial resources to underwrite and undergird those kinds of 

things. 

I also want to say that it is so good that the committee has come 

to south Florida to see firsthand the things which we cherish so 

much, our natural system, our resource system here. 

So I will continue, Mr. Chairman, to commit to you to do everything that I can do on the Appropriations Committee to be sure 

that the things that you authorize and indicate are important, that 

I follow up on. And I want to say that I have met with the South 

Florida Water Management District Board and I have had a tour 

with Colonel Salt. So they have given me a thorough initiation, 

even though I live in Miami, but I have been here many, many 

times. I have worked with the Farm Bureau and they are a pretty 

tough bunch in this area and in south Florida, and I see many of 

them out there. 

But I also want to say to you, we have one of the best environmentalists in the world in this state and that is Lieutenant Governor Buddy MacKay. When he was in the Florida Legislature and 
13 

throughout his Congressional career, he focused on that. So I am 

pleased that he is here today, Chairman Miller, to testify before us. 

Mr. MILLER. That is your introduction, Governor. 

Congressman Clay Shaw, another major player in this issue. 

Thank you for joining us. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. I am the token Republican actually. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SHAW. If I was not sharing this microphone with Peter here, 

I would guess that this was a conspiracy to give me the dead mike. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF BON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR. 

Mr. SHAw. George, I really want to thank you and Bruce for coming down here to take your valuable time to look over the problem that we have here in south Florida. I say problem, and I should say 

crisis. It is an emergence of crisis, there is no question about it. I 

have talked to both of you in Washington about this and about the 

bill that I filed on the Florida Bay, afong with Peter, Carrie Meek, 

and the rest of the Florida delegation as co-sponsors. 

I hope tomorrow when you take your fly-over that y:ou will go up 

as far as Lake Okeechobee because you have to really go up that 

far to fully understand what is happening. We have got one system that works together, starting actually as far north as Disney World 

coming down the Kissimmee River, across Lake Okeechobee, the 

agricultural area to the south and then down into Florida Bay. In 

listening to Bruce Vento's opening remarks, I was very_ encouraged 

to see he recognizes, as you do, Mr. Chairman, the emergency nature of what we have here. Your staff has put together I think one 

of the best and most concise work as a summary of the situation 

as we see it today. The thing that is wrong with everything that we have done up 

to now is that we are just not moving ahead fast enough. On your 

tour this afternoon of the bay itself, you will see the dying turtle 

grass, you will see that nature is being destroyed at an accelerated 

pace. We have got to do something about it and we have got to say that there are no sacred cows in dealing with the future of Florida 

Bay. Florida Bay is too precious an environmental resource for all 

of us here in Florida and indeed for the entire country. We see that 

the only living reef in the country today is dying as a result of 

what is coming out of Florida Bay, which is the nursery and the 

hatchery for most of the shellfish and fish around south Florida. 

Therefore, Florida Bay is too precious a natural resource not to get 

in and ~t the problem solved. There is going to have to be some 

restoration of the natural flow of water through the Everglades. The word Everglades itself means a river of grass and this river 

of grass has to be restored to a river of grass instead of a series 

of canals. This means there is going to be some flooded property; there is going to have to be some property that is going to have 

to be acquired. Some federal funds have to be expended, appro- priated quickly in order to solve this problem. 

With all the devastation that Hurricane Andrew caused, it did 

create a window of opportunity for acquisition before the buildings and improvements are rebuilt on this property. Much of it still lies 
14 

in devastation and has not been restored, and we could certainly 

profit by moving very, very quickly to acquire this property. 

I too am glad to see Buddy MacKay, our former colleague in the 

House, with us today. Many years ago, he and I worked on the 

cross-Florida barge canal. We were successful in destroying that 

project, which was a big mistake. We now have other mistakes that 

have been made in the past. Well-meaning as they were, they have 

to be reversed and nature has to be restored. 

You are truly doing the Lord's work here today, and I am absolutely thrilled and delighted to see that important people such as 

you have come down here to give us the benefit of your weekend. 

I thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Let me just take one minute to put this in some context. There 

are two things that are going on in this set of hearings in the Natural Resources Committee-and I think we are joined in this by 

the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. First, in the case 

of areas like the Everglades, and you heard Congressman LaRocco 

mention Yellowstone Park, and from my area I would mention Yosemite, we have these grand assets that the people of this country 

made a decision to preserve for their use and for enjoyment by the 

people of this country and by people around the world that come 

to visit those assets. In each case those national parks sit in a very, 

very threatened ecosystem because of changes that have taken 

place since the time that we dedicated the park and made those decisions. In my state of California, like Florida, we have added 40 

million people since we created the park. In Yellowstone, external 

development, the change in land use patterns, and the growth have 

changed the situation in which that park sits. And of course, the 

Everglades and all of the development that has taken place here 

in the last 50 years. 

We believe, and I believe as chairman of this committee, it is the 

obligation of the Federal Government to defend those parks. I 

mean actual outright defense of those parks and the decision that 

was made, because I do not believe that the people of this country 

would reverse that decision. We are not prepared to de-designate, 

if you will, the Everglades, Yellowstone or Yosemite. 

Second, there is a struggle going on as our societies change, both 

in my State of California where agriculture is a dominant economic 

factor; and in the State of Florida where tourism and other growing 

economic sectors are very important economic factors. We have got 

to see how we accommodate those transitions, and that is tough, 

hard political decision-making. It is hard ball all of the way; nobody goes quietly into the night. Everybody is kicking and scratching for one more year, one more month, one more gallon of water, 

one more acre-foot of water, whatever it is. 

Last year in California, we were finally able to start that process, 

to start the environmental restoration, to change the operation of 

dedicated projects from single-purpose to multipurpose. I think that 

is the discussion that is now ongoing. But as Clay mentioned, out 

there, there is a clock running here. We are in serious trouble here, 

and it is not going to be able to operate on the political timetable; 

if you will, because nature does not know our timetable; it does not 
15 

know fiscal years and election cycles or anything else. It knows the 

natural cycles, and somehow we have got to bring this into sync. 

I think that the Interagency Task Force is a beginning; we are 

trying to construct those and have constructed them in some of 

these other situations across the country. So that is the context. 

This is not singlin' out Florida for the intervention of the Federal 

Government. This 1s a recognition of an ongoing trust relationship, 

a fiduciary relationship to the people of this country for the investment and the decisions they have made about these world-class resources and all that they mean to the communities surrounding them in terms of the economic engines that they have become in 

terms of generating activity. 

So with that, let me introduce Lieutenant Governor Buddy 

MacKay, who obviously who needs no introduction. Buddy, please 

come forward. I had the pleasure, as did Congressmen Vento and 

Clay, of sharing our seats in Congress with Congressman MacKay. 

I thought of you often this week as we were bringing our budget 

agreement to closure-we are not quite there yet-as one who constantly preached to us and worked on both the Budget Committee 

and in the Congress for the kinds of tough decisions we had to 

make if we were really concerned about our future. And now I find 

you in the middle of the same kind of controversy that is not about 

toda>', but really is about what happens in the long term for south 

Flonda. We welcome you and thank you for your participation in 

the past with this committee in our discussions of the Everglades 

ecosystem. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BON. BUDDY MacKAY, LIEUTENANT 

GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA 

Lieutenant Governor MAcKAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I would like to welcome you on behalf of 

Governor Chiles and myself and the people of Florida and P,articularly the people of the Keys and the people of south Flonda who 

have a very intense concern about the topic of your hearing today. 

It does look different when you have been in the Congress and 

when you get out and you are operating at the state or local level. 

And the Congress looks good when it is out of Washinaton, down 

here taking a look at what the problems the people are facing from da~ to day. 

You have got a good agenda, some excellent witnesses who are 

experts. I am not going into the technical ~k~ of this. I think 

we are talking about an ecosystem, we are t · g about the prototype of the environmental crisis of the twenty-first century. If we 

can figure this one out, then you can figure a lot of other ones out, 

including the Mississippi River, which is the latest example of 

what happens when you try to shackle Mother Nature. We are, you 

might say, a little bit downstream from the Mississippi in the sense 

that we tried a little earlier, it caught U,P with us a lot quicker and 

the crisis is one that we have been living with for the past 20 

years. 

I would like to just _give you a perspective. I think it would be 

important for the non-Florida members of the committee, the Florida members, and Senator Jones and the county commissioners 

who are here that live through this just as I have and they will 
16 

be very -familiar with what I am going to say. I am just going to 

outline what has happened since the State and Federal Government started cooperating to work on the Everglades. It will take 

a few minutes. 

I would then like to tell you for a minute about where the State 

of Florida is, policy-wise, today and I would like to sketch a couple 

of lessons and then I am here to listen, like the rest of you. We 

have all got a lot to learn. 

Let me just start with the 1960s, so we can get the perspective 

straight. In the 1960s, the South Florida Water Management District was the Central and Southern Flood Control District. The 

State and Federal Government were cooperating then. We were at 

the end of our first half century of cooperation. We had cooperated 

to ditch, dike and drain the Everglades. In the last 1960s, when I 

was already in state politics, Clay Shaw was in local politics at 

that point--1 do not want to embarrass Peter Deutsch or Daryl 

Jones, they were somewhere in school--

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHAw. They may have been in my courtroom, I do not know. 

Lieutenant Governor MAcKAY. In the late 1960s-now this is 

what is fascinating about this-we were finishing the last drainage 

projects in the Everglades ecosystem. The "gold coast" is a very 

narrow strip of land; it extends from Palm Beach County south 

through Dade County. The gold coast population was 1-2 million 

people. So that is where we were. We were trying to get rid of 

water; we did not have any real stress on the environment from 

population. 

In the 1970s, in 1972, they changed the name from the Central 

and Southern Flood Control District to the South Florida Water 

Management District. The gold coast population then was 2-3 million people. The city of Orlando was stopped from dumping treated 

sewerage into Shingle Creek because it was polluting Lake Toho 

and the upper Kissimmee chain of lakes. They were having algae 

blooms. I mean you are going to see a little thing that is repetitive 

here. We were facing a collapse of the upper end of what we now 

understand to be this system. 

The State and Federal Government exercised some muscle. The 

city of Orlando cooperated, that was the first of the battles. During 

the 1970s, there was the beginning of the battle over the restoration of Lake Okeechobee. Major algae blooms; it was clear that system was nearing collapse. The evidence of collapse had moved 

downstream. 

During the 1970s, and I think Congresswoman Meek will remember this, one of our great controversies was the State designated 

the Florida Keys an area of critical State concern. Now that is an 

arcane term, does not mean much to people outside the State. But 

inside the State, it is one of the great controversies we have had. 

I can tell you there are people in the Keys sitting right behind me, 

I can feel it on the back of my neck. We preempted land use regulations in the Florida Keys over this very concern, because we 

thought the system was under such stress we could not allow 

delay, and the State has basically preempted land use regulation 

in the Florida Keys since the late 1970s. We have that preemption 
17 

today, very controversial, you may hear about it before the day is 

out. 

In the 1980s, we now have the poeulation of this narrow threecounty strip as 4 million, over 4 million. We have major coordinated Federal and State land acquisition £~grams. You were part of this; Congressman Vento was part of · . Certainly then Senator Lawton Chiles was a major player in trying to expand the 

amount of land that is going into these parks and is a protected 

area for water flow. 

The State of Florida, in 1985, passed the Growth Management 

Act. Congresswoman Meek was part of that-Congressman Deutsch was part of that-major controversy in which we said we 

are not going to allow growth unless the local governments have 

made the decisions that lead to an assurance that we have got the 

infrastructure to sup:t»>rt the growth. The restoration of the Kissimmee River was a m~or, major issue. Then-Governor Graham, now 

Senator Graham, this was a major battle that he fought. You all 

are paying half the cost of that, it is a half billion dollar project. 

We are unstraightening out a river. We took that river in the 1960s 

and the 1950s and made it a ditch so we could move water out faster and move it south. We are now unbuilding a Corps project that 

costs 5 times as much to unbuild it as it cost to build it. 

We then started the cleanup of Lake Okeechobee. The dairy industg buyout, another of the constants-so you will get the per- spective on this-is agricultural industry after agricultural industry has been through the wringer. We are buying the dairy industry out, getting them so they are not polluting Lake Okeechobee. 

And that was the first of that. The battles with the sugar industry 

over the Everglades agricultural area actually started in the late 

1970s, intensified in the 1980s. There was evidence of collapse in 

the late 1980s in the Loxahatchee and the Glades, which eVIdence 

you could see by the growth of the cattails. And Congressman Miller, the last time you and I talked, you were down here looking at 

that problem two years ago. 

Now we come to the 1990s. The population in that narrow threecounty strip is now in the 5-6 million range and will be above that 

by the end of this decade. Litigation in the federal court over water 

quality, the qualitr of the water coming off the Everglades' agricul- tural area going mto the Glades. The suit was settled in federal 

court-this is a very important issue, Mr. Chair-they settled the 

suit in federal court and that was a major achievement. We then 

tried to implement the settlement and we have something like 60 

suits in state court by agricultural interests that are eirectively blocking our implementation of that settlement. At one point, I was 

lookinJ at the deposition schedule of the peoP.le in our departments of enVIronmental protection in Florida and 1t was like siX hours a 

day five days a week for the next nine months. These are our people who ought to be out there getting something done. We are literally tied up in court. I do not ~ that critiC8lly. I say that to 

point out that people have rights. They are going to exercise these 

rights and we are not going to run over anybOdy. 

The point I want to make is, litigation could enable us to win 

this battle 10 years from now, and 10 years from now you are not 

going to have Florida Bay and you are not going to have the 
18 

Glades. Now we may have the pleasure of saying, by golly we 

threw sugar out of the Everglades or we threw the tomato growers 

out, but it is going to be 10 years from now and you will be looking 

for yourself and making your own decisions about whether this 

problem can wait 10 years. 

Because of the problems in trying to implement the federal court 

settlement, a mediator was appointed, one of the finest, most experienced environmental mediators, international environmental mediator, a Canadian named Jerry Cormick. Jerry Cormick has done 

an extraordinary job. They have been mediating literally for almost 

a year. They have arrived at a mediated settlement which led to 

the statement of principles at the federal level, which is far superior to the settlement in the federal courts because it deals with 

water quantity and with restoration of the natural periods, the 

hydro-period, as well as water quality. The federal court suit was 

over water quality. And in the mediation, they discovered that 

while they were at it, they probably could get an agreement that 

would lead to restoring sheetflow, to restoring hydro-period and to 

putting tremendous amounts of fresh water into the Everglades 

and really part of the reason for that was that, while they were mediating, Florida Bay's collapse was becoming more and more apparent. 

So now that mediation became fairly bogged down, it is an incredibly complex problem. Secretary Babbitt and the Department of 

the Interior stepped in and I think did an incredible job of pressuring all of us, pressuring the State, pressuring the agricultural interests, to come to some settlement. We arrived at an agreement 

on a set of principles. There is now substantial controversy about 

that. The real issue is, Can you resolve this without throwing agriculture out of the Everglades' agricultural area? The Clinton administration is saying I believe you can resolve these things so that 

you do not have to sacrifice thousands of agricultural jobs in order 

to protect the environment. It is basically the same issue as the 

spotted owl and the ~cient forests-it is the same controversy. We 

are committed to the idea that you can resolve it the way we are 

trying to do it, and that is where we are. We are now in a 90-day 

period where we are trying to flesh out that agreement in principle 

and really arrive at a settlement. 

While we are doing that, just to continue this cycle, there is evidence of the Florida Bay collapse. I think it is quite clear; and 

there is evidence of the stress on the reef, which is the National 

Marine Sanctuary. And so now you have got it, you have got it all 

the way from Shingle Creek to the Florida Keys. Now what you are 

seeing is an ecosystem and what you are seeing is a group of 

human beings reversing where we were doing and trying to catch 

up with the problem. And you all are in the business of making 

laws, you know the second law of aerodynamics. You cannot push 

a problem that is moving faster than you are. That is our problem: 

It is collapsing faster than we are correcting it. 

So in summary, we have been developing partial solutions. We 

have been struggling to get our vision and our understanding of the 

problem to be as complete as it needs to be to deal with this entire 

system. 
19 

Let me talk about the position of the State of Florida. The 1993 

legislature combined our environmental agencies-a very difficult 

issue, as the Floridians would know-and mandated that our Environmental Protection Agency take an ecosystems approach. So that 

is now the policy of the State of Florida by statute. We mandated 

that there be a strategic growth management element to the Florida comprehensive plan, that we single that out and that we go to 

work immediately and develop a strategic plan. We mandated a coordination of the land use plan, which is under the Department of 

Community Affairs, with the water policy and the water plan, 

which is under the Department of Environmental Protection. I am 

in the middle of both of those verr difficult issues. 

Governor Chiles will shortly sign an Executive Order which establishes a Commission on the Everglades Ecosystem. That commission will have local government. It will have the stake-holders. 

We will ask your federal agency people who are the managers of 

the federal resources to serve on that and try to deal with the question of what is going to happen when there are 10 million people 

in that narrow strip or 12 million or 15 million. Nobody has dealt 

with that issue in the State of Florida. In other words, we are now 

trying to get ahead of this problem. 

I do not believe the problem can be solved through litigation. What I did was outline a 20-year period. If we now have to stop 

and take 10 years to litigate, we are going to lose all the investment we made in the last 20 years and it is just simply unthinkable that litigation would be a solution to this problem. And the solution has got to be comprehensive-it has got to be comprehensive. 

We cannot leave out the environmental community any more than 

we can leave out agriculture, any more than we can leave out local 

government or the private sector land development interests. It has 

got to be comprehensive. We have now been in battles with the dait¥_ industry, and we 

have been in battles with the sugar industry. When you start trying to get sheetflow restored and really protect Florida Bar., you 

are going to get head-on-head with the tomato industry, like 80 

percent of the winter tomatoes in America are grown in the area 

that has been drained and the drainage of that area is directly 

leading to the collapse of Florida Bay. So that is what you are 

going to hear today. The lessons are we have got to move fasterwe have got to stay together. These committees have got to be our 

advocates in Washington. This cannot be resolved without Washington understanding that the State is ready to step up and do our ~art, and we will face the controversies here, local government will. 

We will take whatever heat we have got to take, but Washington 

was here in that partnership for half a century that messed it up, 

and Washington has got to be part of the partnership that straightens i!;:E· Th you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. And if I might, just one ques- tion. As I read through the testimony, and we will hear a presentation, it seems to me to be some concern that after that agreement is finalized we may fall back into an inertia where this problem 

then gets back into a sort of bureaucratic haggling about roles and 
20 

missions and mandates and jurisdictions. And we know this is true 

in some of the other ecosystems such as the Northwest. The way 

we now think the administration is able to work their way out of 

that problem is with a really incredible interagency agreement at 

the Federal level, for the first time, with respect to that problem. 

And you mentioned what you are doing at the State level and my 

concern would be that if there is an effort to have the court give 

up jurisdiction or to stand back, what is the entity that is going 

to enforce the goals and the time lines here, given the urgency of 

this problem? 

Lieutenant Governor MAcKAY. The Florida environmental community and the national environmental community are raising that 

issue very vehemently. We think they are proper in raising it. The 

frustration that we feel-Florida law is very different from federal 

law and we are saying to the federal agencies day in and day out, 

hey, you are talking about what could happen in the federal court, 

but you do not understand what could happen in Florida courts 

where we have very broad standing provisions and where much of 

this has to go through administrative procedures. And I think there 

has got to be a mechanism that enforces this agreement. And I do 

not know what it is. That is what we are going to be negotiating 

in the next 90 days. The point I want to make is, the Chiles administration is not an adversary to that point of view. We want to have 

something that is enforceable also. You have no idea how frustrating it is to literally have your entire upper management of an 

agency tied up in litigation in effect in day-to-day, hour-to-hour, 

month-to-month depositions. And that is what has been happening. When people say we can tie you up in court for 10 years, let me 

tell you something, Mr. Chairman, in Florida, they are not bluffing. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, I think you pointed out the importance of not just 

dealing with the phosphorus. And of course there are all sorts of 

concerns about whether those targets will be hit that were initially 

set out in the court document. I trust that they will. I am concerned about a lot of other things like the nitrogen and others, but 

phosphorus is the one that is related to sugar. So the dilemma is 

that you have got the sugar growers at the table and you are working out a deal here for about a half billion dollar package, but 

meanwhile we are doing a lot of other work in the Kissimmee in 

terms of water restoration. You have got 40,000 acres coming in on 

this deal, but we have to do a lot more in terms of other lands that 

might be flooded, like in the case of the 81J2-mile area and the Frog 

Pond area. Is the State of Florida going to continue to have some 

cooperation and help to the National Government to deal with 

bringing in these other parcels? I know that we are not trying to 

set down a mandate that any of this has to be done, I am just setting them up as potential questions and I would like to know 

whether you are going to continue. The State of Florida has been 

a real partner with the National Government in terms of setting 

aside these areas and restoring the sheetflow both in the Taylor 

and Shark Slough. 

Lieutenant Governor MAcKAY. Mr. Vento, you are also asking 

one of the central questions. During the negotiations in Washing-
21 

ton that led up to the agreement in principle, the State was ar~­

ing that the Federal Government needs to continue land acqUisition, that we are not there yet, that this issue will not be resolved 

now, we have got to think about this issue 10 and 20 years from 

now. And we made an offer which we made clear, Senator Jones, 

is subject to legislative approval, but we basically said would you 

step in and acquire lands across the southern end of where the 

STAs or the filter systems are, if you would acquire those, since we 

know we are ~oing to need additional lands. I mean basically when 

you start talking about water quantity and taking water out of the 

lake and sheetflowing it across all of this, down here to help Florida Bay, the fact is that is polluted water. Now how are you going 

to filter that? The answer is we need to acquire lands now that we 

know we are going to need later. And the proposal we made was 

that if the Federal Government would step in and acquire those 

lands-there is a company that owns a big part of that, the Talisman Sugar Company-people believe that that land could be acquired. If it is acquired now, it is probably going to be acquired at 

a lower price than ever again in the future. We made the offer. You 

acquire that, and we will trade you the Loxahatchee lands, which 

you lease from us. You have got now a federal asset which is on 

a leased piece of land from the State. We will trade you the 

Loxahatchee land, which is worth 10 times what you would be acquiring, so you could tell the Congress, hey, we are getting a good 

deal. But the truth is, it is all a partnership and it is all an effort 

to save this asset. Now frankly the Clinton administration is up to 

its fanny in alligators on deficit reduction and so anything that 

committed them to go spend more money did not get in the agreement in principle. But I am telling you that is very important-it 

is very important to the State, it is very important to the environmental community, and they are saying to us, we want to see some 

good faith. If you want us to endorse this thing, we want to see 

somebody stepping up to the plate. 

Let me just say one other thing, if I might. This I should have 

put in the perspective section. Sugar.;cane growing may well be the 

most benign use of this Everglades land, Everglades agricultural 

area. If we run su'ar cane out of there, the land is going to be used 

for something. It 1s some of the best vegetable land in the world. 

Vegetables are much more intensive; the fertilizers and pesticides 

are much heavier. Nothing that I know of in American law today 

would say you cannot use your land. They own that land. If we run 

all of them out, do you know what is going to happen to that land? 

It is going to be subdivided. And we had better be thinking about 

that. That is why I am talking about the 1 million people that were 

there when this started, the 6 million that are there by the end of 

this decade, the 15 million-all of this land can be subdivided. That 

muck is a mineral; it is being depleted. When the muck is !one, 

you are sitting on lime rock. You dig the lime rock out an you 

make great lakes, and that is exactly what has happened in Palm 

Beach, Broward and western Dade County. And that is what is 

going to happen. This land is going to be worth 10 times, 15 times 

as much for subdivision as it is worth today. And we have got to 

move faster in our understanding of this problem or you are going 

to be back here or your children are going to be back here explain-
22 

ing to my children what a screw-up we did in the 1990s, when we 

thought we solved it, but we really did not get ahead of it. The acquisition of additional lands, so that we can have a filter system, 

not only says those are lands that will not be subdivided later, but 

it also assures that when we are able to really put water through 

here to Florida Bay, it is not polluted water. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Governor. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LARocco. Mr. Chairman, we have a long list of witnesses 

here and I know that time is key. I do not know how we could have 

had a better lead-off witness. I will just say that the message came 

through loud and clear to this member, Governor, that the ball is 

essentially in our court in terms of time and with the administration working on this. So I heard you loud and clear, but in terms 

of a background that was very helpful to me. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I go along with Mr. 

LaRocco, I think Mr. MacKay has been very, very comprehensive 

in his testimony and we would like to hear some of the other witnesses, and I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. MILLER. Peter. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Again, I want to just thank you for the cooperation. I do not think we could have a better team in terms of what 

you have been doin~ with the Federal Government on these issues. 

Mr. MILLER. Carne. 

Ms. MEEK. Thank you, Governor. 

Mr. MILLER. Clay, any questions? 

Mr. SHAW. Just very quickly, if I may. 

You did speak of the agreement that has been made with agri- culture interests up around the lake. One thing that I am very concerned about is the time schedule. The State can come back and 

sue by certain years if something is not done. The problem that I 

see there is as follows: Say that in the year 2002 there is supposed 

to be some type of an evaluation. If they do not meet that, then 

you are starting that litigation timetable all over again. In effect, 

we are looking at another 10 years. Even though I have some great problems with the agreement as to the taxpayers throwing in a 

dime, I do want to point out a few things. One, this agreement is 

this is not a cleanup solution, this is a solution for further pollution. 

Second, I think any type of an agreement that is reached should 

be put in the form of a court order that then could be brought back 

and specifically enforced at any time. In addition, I think that you 

need several time marks in there so that the court can go in and 

automatically enforce that agreement. Thus, you avoid getting into 

a lawsuit in which quite frankly the lawyers are paid to keep you 

from going to court, keep you from getting a final judgment, and 

keep the State and the Federal Government from having its day in 

court. That is clearly an abuse of the system, but I know that is 

the way the system works. Particularly with the federal courts in 

Florida, when something gets there, it is in big, big trouble. I can 

appreciate your time schedule and can sympathize with it, but 

those are just a couple of suggestions that I would have. 

Lieutenant Governor MAcKAY. Mr. Chairman, that is one issue 

that you will probably hear more about today. Let me just state 
23 

quickly the State of Florida's position. The original settlement ~greement in the federal court had a phase one and a phase two. 

The agreement in principle does not make clear what we contemplate about that. The state of Florida's position is there is still 

a phase one and still a phase two and that we are not moving out 

of the agreement in principle. We have got to move toward a full 

agreement that carries forward the idea that if phase one does not 

clean it up, there is a phase two and that was part of the settlement agreement in the federal court. So that is our position. 

Mr. SHAW. Has there been consideration to putting that in the 

form of a final judgment rather than an agreement that will take 

you back into court? 

Lieutenant Governor MAcKAY. I think you might ask that question as the morning goes on, Mr. Shaw, and I think it is a very 

valid question. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Deutsch. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Again, just to focus some of the issues that you talked about, your presentation gave some historical and policy 

background, but is there a specific policy decision that you want for 

the property at the Frog Pond, and the 8% s9.uare miles to be purchased as part of the slieetflow increase solution? Is that a specific policy directive? 

Lieutenant Governor MAcKAY. We are now at the point in our 

term where there is no place to hide. The South Florida Water 

Management District Board are our appointees. We cannot repudiate what that Board is doing, and they are doing what we asked 

them to do. They have got to acquire that land, they are making 

efforts now to acquire that land. They have done the preliminary 

steps so that when the time comes in their budget cycle to make 

a decision, they have set the steps to put the J>Ublic on notice that 

they may vote as much as a tenth of a mill additional in order to 

raise their part of the money that we have committed to. So that 

is Lawton Chiles and Buddy MacKay's position and we are pre- pared to stand with our board members and take the heat. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time, 

Buddy, we appreciate it very much. 

We are gomg to divide the first panel here-next will be Dr. John 

Hunt, for the Florida Marine Research Institute and Dr. Ron Jones 

from the D~J)artment of Biological Sciences, Florida International 

University. We will hear from them first, and then we will take the 

remaining panelists starting with Mayor Jack London of Monroe 

County. 

We are now in the critical part of the hearing here because we 

have about four hours to accomplish the rest of this, and I know 

that you had a detailed slide show. I think I am going to ask you 

to forego that because I understand the plates can be made available to the committee or we can arrange for that to be done. 

We have about 20 minutes for you combined, however you want 

to slice it up. I assume you are friends and know one another. 

Worked together before and you know which one is long-winded, right? 

So we will go ahead and begin with you. We want to make sure 

we have time to respond to questions. Who is going to go first? 
24 

PANEL CONSISTING OF DR. JOHN HUNT, FLORIDA MARINE RE· 

SEARCH INSTITUTE; AND DR. RON JONES, DEPARTMENT OF 

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN HUNT 

Dr. HUNT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name 

is John Hunt. I run the research laboratory here in the Florida 

Keys for the newly merged Department of Environmental Protection. I have provided you with a three-page brief, it is the same 

brief that my boss recently presented to the Lieutenant Governor 

when he explained quite a number of the issues to him. That brief 

summarizes, as best you can anyway in three pages, the entire 

range of perturbations and causes for those perturbations in Florida Bay. And I encourage each of you to read that. It will provide 

the details that I do not ~ve you this morning. And also this afternoon, Dr. Jones and I will be with you on your field trip and we 

will try to present some of the more technical aspects at that time. 

What I want to do now is build on what the Lieutenant Governor 

said, and from the perspective of the immediacy of this issue, because a whole suite of catastrophic events have occurred within 

Florida Bay. Starting in about 1986 or 1987, we first experienced 

and discovered actually the die-off of seagrasses. Seagrasses are 

critical nursery habitat for pink shrimp and quite a few other fishery species as well. By now in 1993, literally only 6 years later, the 

seagrass die-off has expanded to approximately 100,000 acres. 

Following the seagrass die-oft's, and probably as a result in part of the seagrass die-oft's, Florida Bay has been experiencing several 

different types of planktonic, microscopic algal blooms; in other 

words, very small algae cells floating in the water at very high concentrations. One of these is a blue-green algae bloom, and as an example, the cell densities inside that blue-green algae bloom have 

been on the order, at its peak, of 10 billion cells per quart of water. 

Before you-and some of you might have it available-we have 

a landsat image and that can serve the place of one of my slides. 

That is a superimposed algae bloom computer-enhanced on a 

landsat image of Florida Bay. You will see that bright green 

splotch; I believe that one is from February, our fly-over in February, it might have been January. What I want you to do is take 

that black area just north of the Keys themselves and in your mind 

tum that into a large green splotch. That area also has been covered by this blue-green algae bloom. The algae blooms have now 

covered approximately 600 square miles of Florida Bay. Florida 

Bay in toto is about 1,000 square miles. 

Underneath those algae blooms, or at least the green portion of 

the algae bloom, sponge die-oft's have occurred. Virtually every species inside that area has died. And in many places, that die-off is 

100 percent. Sponges are critical nursery habitat for spiny lobsters. 

My colleagues at Florida State and Old Dominion University were 

out in May, when we had previously existing pre-bloom research 

sites, where we looked at a habitat and the abundance of lobsters. 

And we resa:npled them when the water finally cleared up for a 

few weeks in May, post-bloom, and we found that the reduction of 

very small, say half-inch to one-inch spiny lobsters was approxi-
25 

mately 50 to 70 percent less than it had been in the same areas 

post-bloom. Clearly, we have a suite of perturbations and catastrophic events that are growing. It is one of these exponential kinds of growths, and they are affec:ting the basic fisheries and the 

basic ecosystem components of the Florida Keys marine ecosystem. Pink shrimp harvest has dropped from an average of 10 million 

pounds in 1960 to in 1985 less than 5 million pounds, some years about 2 million pounds, from the Tortugas Fishery, mostly likely in 

relation to the loss of seagrass habitat, that 100,000 acres in Florida Bay. 

We have had no measured impact yet on the spiny lobster industry because those events are happening today and those missing lobsters would have had to grow up before they became harvested. 

However, I can tell you, the spiny lobster industry is one of the 

core, both pure commercial fishery industries of the Florida Keys with at least about a $25 million to $30 million dockside value here 

in the Keys, and it is also one of the major recreational fisheries 

in the State of Florida. If you were here in the past couple of days, 

came early, you would have experienced the very large number of 

people that come here for recreational fishing purposes. We sell 

about 120,000 crawfish stamps which are an eqwvalent to the federal duck stamp, for _your reference, to citizens from all over the 

world, quite frankly. They come here mostly to the Florida Keys to 

fish. 

Very briefly, what has been at least in this scientist's mind, the 

key causes and long-term causes to lead to this suite of catastrophic events-and then I have to immediately turn back since 

I do not have much time and cannot give you all the details. But 

for me, most of the evidence lies in Everglades water management, 

our long-term Everglades water management. The amount of fresh 

water that has entered into Florida Bay has dwindled drastically, which has changed Florida Bay from its historical estuarine conditions and fluctuating estuarine conditions, to a long-term hyper-sa- line lagoon. That whole process has resulted in a suite of stresses 

in that ecosystem which have led to these catastrophic events. 

This afternoon, Dr. Jones and I can discuss those stresses in 

much more detail with you when we have more time. So I think 

I will close my testimony with that and open the floor for ques- tions. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Hunt and Dr. Haddod follows:] 
26 

The status of Florida Bay: a Brief for the Committee on Natural Resources 

Prepared by John Hunt and Ken Haddad 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Geoqraphical settinq 

Florida Bay lies between Cape Sable, the southernmost point of 

Florida's mainland, and the Florida Keys, encompassing about 1000 

square miles of shallow marine and estuarine waters. Much of Florida 

Bay is within Everglades National Park. Florida Bay contains critical 

juvenile nursery habitat for many species both economically and 

ecoloqically important to south Florida, including pink shrimp, spiny 

lobster, qray snapper, tarpon, bonefish, and others. Blue crabs that 

qrew up and were tagged by scientists in Florida Bay have been 

harvested by fishermen throughout the west coast of Florida as far 

north as Appalachee Bay off st. Marks. Florida Bay exerts considerable 

influence to Florida Keys waters; net water flow in the Florida Keys 

ecosystem is from Florida Bay to the ocean. Florida Bay is a key link 

in the Everglades/Florida Keys Ecosystem. In this brief, we describe 

the series of catastrophic events that are occurring in the Bay, the 

ecological and economic consequences of those events and briefly 

summarize the two theories that exist to explain the factors causing 

the ecosystem collapse. 

Events 

For about 6-7 years a series of catastrophic events have cascaded 

through Florida Bay. Each disturbance in one habitat has been followed 

by another disturbance affecting a new habitat within the bay. 

Seaarass pieoff 

Seagrass dieoff was first observed in 1987. By 1990, nearly 63,000 

acres had died. Although dieoff events have been poorly monitored 

since 1990, it is now estimated that over 100,000 acres of seagrass 

have been lost. 

Algae Blooms 

Harmful phytoplankton blooms have coveL·ed over 600 square miles of 

Florida Bay since November 1991. A diatom bloom has covered the western side of the Bay. Turbidity in the western bay has also 

increased due to erosion of the shallow banks following seagrass dieoff 

in that region and now occurs year-round. A blue-green algae bloom has 

simultaneously covered the southern and eastern sides of the Bay. The 

first blue-green algae blooms appeared in the fall of 1991 following 

an extensive seagrass die-off event. They dissipated in February 1992 

and reappeared in the October of 1992 following renewed dieoff and 

Hurricane Andrew. The hurricane likely exacerbated the blooms last 

year through the addition of extra nutrients from the defoliation of 
27 

the mangrove forests in the Shark River region of Everglades National 

Park. The 1992 blue-green algae blooms dissipated in April but they are already starting to reform at present. Phytoplankton algae blooms 

are apparently evolving to be a year-round feature in the bay. 

Sponge Dieoff 

Throughout the region covered by the blue-green algal bloom, a 

massive sponge dieoff has occurred; the sponge dieoff was first 

discovered in February of 1992. Dead sponges have been observed from 

Everglades National Park to Marathon; many areas have experienced a 

100% mortality of all sponge species. The causal agents of sponge 

mortality are unknown. 

Mangrove Dieoff 

Mangroves on a few islands in the central region of Florida Bay 

have been dying since 1991. Since then, mangrove dieoff has expanded 

to the mainland and additional islands in the bay. 

Consequences 

These fundamental changes in the Florida Bay ecosystem have 

affected the abundance of important fishery species. Sea grass is 

critical juvenile habitat for pink shrimp and Florida Bay is the major 

nursery ground for that fishery. Pink shrimp harvest has dropped over 

50% from an historical average of 10 million pounds pre-dieoff to an average of less than 5 million pounds in recent years. Harvest has 

been as low as 2 million pounds and shows no signs of recovering. The 

pink shrimp fishery has been reduced by $10 million annually. The 

sponge-hardbottom community is critical habitat for juvenile spiny 

lobsters. Because the loss of sponges is so recent, fishery impacts, 

if any, are unknown. However, recent surveys of long-term lobster 

research sites in sponge-hardbottom sites affected by the blue-green 

algae bloom have revealed a 50% to 70% drop in lobster abundance of 

juvenile lobsters when comparing pre-bloom to post-bloom conditions. 

The dockside value of the commercial lobster fishery is about $24 

million annually and of course, spiny lobster support a major 

recreational fishery in south Florida that is the key element for 

tourism in the Florida Keys during selected times. We know little 

about impacts to other economically and ecologically important species, 

but fishermen have reported fish moving out of the bloom waters and 

fishing guides have reported a loss of customers. Keys tourist related 

businesses have developed a heightened concern about broader and longterm ramifications of the ecosystem collapse. 

What Has caused These Ecosystem Perturbations 

Two theories exist to explain the problems in Florida Bay. The 

first identifies the ecosystem collapse as the ultimate result of our long-term Everglades water management regime associated with some 

recent natural events. The majority, by far, of the scientific 

community supports this theory. An alternative theory supported by a 

73-729 - 93 - 2 
28 

few scientists has been postulated that states that the dieoff and 

blooms have occurred through addition of external, mostly anthropoqenic nutrients. Both are discussed below. 

Eyerqlades water Management 

Everglades water management has created a long-term reduction in 

freshwater entering Florida Bay and altered the seasonal t1ming of that 

flow. That, in conjunction with low-rainfall conditions during the 

1980's resulted in increasing salinity and ultimately in a persistent 

state where salinity exceeded normal seawater. Average salinities in excess of 50 parts per thousand (normal seawater "' 35 parts per thousand) have been recorded in central Florida Bay during recent 

years. Thus, the Florida Bay ecosystem changed from an estuary, containing a mixture of seagrasses adapted to a wide range of 

salinities, to a fully marine ecosystem dominated by one seagrass, 

Tbalassia testudinum, or turtle grass. Turtle grass flourished and 

colonized areas where it previously did not exist, ultimately forming 

very dense and extensive meadows. These events enabled the complex physical, chemical and bioloqical·interrelationships to develop that 

began the cycle of seagrass dieoffs in the Bay. In particular, a suite 

of stresses developed, including disease, elevated water temperatures, 

and hypoxic stress of belowgro~nd turtle grass tissue related to a reduced ability of the grasses to transport oxygen internally caused 

the dieoff to start and persist. As seagrass dieoff expanded, 

nutrients released from dead seagrass blades and exposed sediments 

initially fueled microscopic phytoplankton such as blue-green algae 

causing them to bloom. 

£xternal Nutrients 

The alternative hypothesis states that external anthropoqenic 

nutrients have fueled plankton blooms in the coastal waters of 

southwest Florida and that these blooms (and associated phosphorus) 

have been transported into western Florida Bay thus causing the 

overdevelopment and ultimate mortality of seagrass and fueling algal 

blooas in the Bay. Sources for these nutrients have been variously postulated to be the Florida Keys, Everglades Agricultural Area, and 

the populated watersheds of southwest Florida as far north as Tampa 

Bay. However, until a couple of months post-Andrew, levels of the key 

limiting nutrient, phosphorus, in the Shark River were extremely low. 

CODOlUSiODS 

Most available evidence points to the Everglades Water Management 

theory as the dominant human component in the ongoing collapse of 

Florida Bay. Water delivery to the bay has been reduced and nutrient 

levels in the bay and nearby Shark River have been generally low except following seagrass dieoffs and Hurricane Andrew. Mechanisms for 

transporting external nutrients into the bay are poorly understood. 

Restoration of natural freshwater flow into Florida Bay through the 

Everglades ecosystem will likely lead to a more resilient and diverse 

bay ecosystem. 
29 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Jones. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RON JONES 

Dr. JONES. I do not have much to add to what Dr. Hunt has said. 

I was asked to come and explain how water delivery through the 

whole system from essentially Kissimmee River through Lake 

Okeechobee down through the Everglades could possibly affect the 

Everglades or the Florida Bay ecosystem and even the reef ecosystem. One of the things people need to understand when they examine 

the Everglades is that it is a very complete and intact system, and 

what we do very, very far to the north affects many things that 

occur all the way down here in Florida Bay. The problems that we 

have been ~riencing in Florida Bay have been cascading. It 

started out With seagrass die-off and then we have a number of 

fisheries-related problems. We now have the algal blooms, the 

sponge die-off. It just seems like every week we go out onto the 

Bay, we ~et in our boats and we see a different problem occurrin~. 

As scientists, many of us have come to the conclusion that what 1s 

causing this problem is, if you will, the upstream management of 

water, not necessarily problems that are locating themselves in 

Florida Bay. 

We think that Florida Bay's problem is based on the fact that it 

is not receiving the quantity of fresh water that it needs at the 

right timing, nor is it bein~ delivered to the right places in the Bay. These are the types of things that need to be remedied when we 

come in and try and repair the Bay, to re-establish the type of ecosystem that will support the pink shrimp, that will support the 

seagrasses, that will support the red fish, the mullet, the various 

other types or organisms that are in the Bay that depend upon a 

bay that has water coming with all of these proper charactenstics. 

And with that again, I will just say I will be with you this afternoon and we can discuss the details then. 

Mr. MILLER. When you say right places, you mean historical 

outfalls for the water? 

Dr. JoNES. Yes. For instance now one of the major areas that we 

are working on is the C-111 basin and that canal, if you will, is 

on the eastern end of the bay and it has put water actually in an 

area where the water tends to move towards the north rather than 

into the south into the bay. The canal is actually just putting water 

in the wrong place. So we need to re-establish flow down through 

Taylor Slough and in the C-111 basin to put water into the northeastern portion of the bay where it belongs, not into Bamestown 

Biscayne Bay. 

Mr. MILLER. Where are these series of events going to take us 

in the current context? We do not have a replumbed system, and 

I will get back to that. But for the moment, if you look down the 

road here the next couple of years, where do you extrapolate . these 

to go based upon your understanding of the Bay? 

Dr. JONES. Well, one of the first things we have to understand 

when we are repairing the Bay is that making a small fix is not 

going to tum the whole Bay around, it is not going to be tomorrow 

and everything is wonderful out there. But we cannot stop making 

these fixes just because there is no positive reinforcement with the 

first one. It is going to take a number of fixes to the Bay. It is 

going to require the fixing of the C-111, fixing the Taylor Slough, 
30 

but that is not going to solve the Bay's problems. We need to then 

continue the motivation, if you will, in the absence of what in all 

likelihood I could not as a scientist tell you that you are going to 

see any real positive biological effect of that. 

Mr. MILLER. If we do not do this, what can you tell me as a scientist? 

Dr. JONES. As a scientist, I can tell you if you do not do it, you 

are going to get exactly the same thing that we have now. It is 

going to be a series of additional problems. I do not know what 

next week's problem is going to be, I do not know what organism 

is going to die off, I do not know what organism is going to bloom, 

but I can tell you that Florida Bay is not going to be the estuarine 

mosaic of environments that are necessary to support this diverse 

biological community. It will evolve into something. I mean if we 

cut the water off into there, we could have a nice coastal lagoon 

and it may even actually look nice. But it is not going to be functionally what Florida Bay needs and it is certainly not going to be 

functionally what the fisheries and what the industries, even the 

tourist industry, have come to depend on down here for the Bay. 

Mr. MILLER. If we consider the events and the blooms and the 

die-off to be negative events in the current context-what you have 

shown us on the landsat photo-you would expect us to see a continued migration and expansion in the size of the blooms and the 

die-otr? 

Dr. JONES. I would not be willing to say that what you are going 

to see is expansion or moves of the blooms. I am just saying that 

there is going to be another problem and it might be worse than 

an algal bloom. There are a number of things. We can start having 

major fish kills. We cannot really say what the problems are going 

to be in the future, whether this algal bloom is going to continue 

for another two years or ten years or whether it is not going to continue. That is a matter of speculation, but there will be additional 

problems, and they will be on the magnitude of these algal blooms, 

the sponge die-off and the other fisheries-associated things. 

Mr. MILLER. When you look back up the system, as has been 

pointed out here by Governor MacKay, if you look all the way back 

up to Orlando and you look at the settlement, what you might 

know about it, should we have some confidence that we are going 

to be able to provide the quantity of water, properly distributed, 

that you think would be necessary for mitigation of these? 

Dr. JONES. The settlement and the lawsuit was originally based 

on water quality and so, you know, the quantity issue that is being 

thrown in now is an additional benefit to the thing, but there was 

a real solid water quality issue that needed to be addressed by the 

original lawsuit and that is the most important thing. 

Mr. MILLER. It has been expanded. 

Dr. JONES. It has been expanded and that is very good. But if 

we have bad quality water coming into the Everglades· freshwater 

system or into Florida Bay or anywhere, that is a very permanent 

biological type of thing. It takes a long time to remove phosphorus 

from the system. It stays in place. 

There are natural droughts. There are natural wet periods. 

Those types of things are things that are important, but if you do 
31 

not fix the quality of water, you have got a problem that you have 

created for a lo11g period of time and you may not be able to do it. 

Mr. MILLER. What is your confidence in the a2reement? 

Dr. JONES. My confidence in the agreement?" I think the agreement is a very good basis. Right now, remember they are just negotiating an agreement. There is a statement of principles and I 

guess they are 80 days or 70 days away from an agreement and 

I will reserve judgment of what it will be until then. But by looking 

at the plan and the documents that I have to this point, I think 

that it is a very, very solid first step in the matter of repairing 

water quality, okay? And it certainly is addressing water quantity 

and that has got to be good for the Bay. 

Mr. MILLER. Do you concur that this is a framework in which 

some of the kind of mitigation you think is required can be carried 

out, quality and quantity? Dr. HUNT. Let me first say that once you move up into the upper 

reaches of the Everglades, I am much less familiar than Dr. Jones. 

However, I would essentially concur with him that it is a good 

start. 

Mr. MILLER. But in terms of the prescription that you think may 

be necessary based upon what you know to date, do you have some 

confidence that this agreement can deliver both the quantity and 

the quality of water? 

Dr. HUNT. My perception of this agreement is that it focuses pri- marily in the upper reaches of the Everglades ecosystem and in 

that regard-and Ron, if I am wrong, you can correct me-it is not 

focusing on some of the Taylor Slough issues in the southern Everglades and eastern Everglades, and we cannot ignore those. And so 

this agreement is only part of a step towards the overall solution, 

and we have to, as well, focus on some of those southern regions. 

As you heard from the Lieutenant Governor when asked about 

the Frog Pond area and some of the other areas in the southern 

Everglades, those areas have to be addressed and a solution--

Mr. MILLER. Do you view the acquisition of those lands as essential? . 

Dr. HUNT. I perceive that the acquisition of those lands would 

aid greatly in restoring appropriate flows into the northern and 

eastern Florida Bay region. 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Jones? Because the agreement does not address 

this. 

Dr. JONES. The agreement does not address Florida Bay. 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman Deutsch raised the point with the 

Governor, the acquisition of those lands, you believe that to beessential? 

Dr. JONES. Absolutely essential. I mean the agreement basically 

does help the Shark River Slough and it adds some additional 

water quantity, you know, coming into that particular area, but 

that is not Florida Bay per se. That is a minor effect, if you will. 

Mr. MILLER. At some point, you are .quite correct, the agreement heavily impacts the northern operation here, but as has been pointed out, and most graphically by the photo, you are the backstop in 

this. Everything that goes wrong upstream, you are going to inherit. And I think everybody believes that the agreement is the 

outgrowth of litigation and the desire to change the system with re-
32 

spect to quality. It is not about quantity and some redirection of 

water. But from our perspective and I think from the other elected 

representatives' perspective, we have got to know that there are 

other ingredients to the solution with respect to the Florida Bay 

and the Keys that must become part of the same mission. I guess 

that is what I am trying to say. I worry that the agreement goes 

off and that is where the energy is and these other things start to 

lag. But the fact is, as you point out, the benefits flowing to Florida 

Bay can be substantially interrupted and changed because of conduct between the agricultural areas and Florida Bay, if we do not 

change some of those uses. At least that is what I am understanding you to say. 

Dr. HUNT. I think that is a fairly good summary of our statements and I think that, you know, the State of Florida is, in conjunction with the Federal Government, trying to focus on those issues as well. They are just newer issues, more recently recognized, 

I believe, and the focus there is beginning, whereas the focus in the 

upper reaches of the Everglades ecosystem began sometime ago. 

But we cannot ignore that southern Everglades whole water delivery system and from all the same quantity, timing of that quantity 

and quality of the water that would ultimately come to Florida 

Bay. 

~.~R.~.Vento. 

~.VENTO. I think that is why I think for the agreement-at 

least the parameters of it-we need to know how it is going to be 

enforced. Enforcement mechanism, my friend says it has to go 

through court, and I do not know whether that is the most efficient. But we are all looking at that, and we will learn that I guess 

by the middle of October. But I think this is just a piece of it. The 

Kissimmee restoration, these other areas that are up further, and 

like you said, the big issue here is probably quantity because you 

are talking about enough oxygenated water entering. I guess that 

is what you are talking about. The question to the scientists is, 

This is not a normal cycle? In the past 7 years, as you look back, 

we have obviously had a catastrophic event in terms of stressing the _environment, with a hurricane here delivering a lot of nutrients, and that has caused some problems. But this cycle is not just 

some sort of El Nino phenomenon, is that correct? I mean a weather phenomenon, maybe I should put it that way. 

Dr. JoNES. I would have to agree there. No, it is not. It is not 

something transient. ~.VENTO. Well I think it is important that we state that because we need to have certainty here. I know that a lot of people 

want 100 percent answers, but the fact is that there are no 100 

percent answers. The restoration of more of the sheetflow in Taylor 

and the C-111 solution has begun, but even in that agreement we 

had, ~. Chairman, if we start flooding out, we have to stop in accordance with that 1989 law that we passed to expand the eastern 

Everglades. And I only raised those lands as examples of what 

needed to be done, not specifically the Bay. I mean there may be 

other solutions. I think we are willing, but we need to move on it. 

You point out in your testimony too that the turtle grass was 

sort of a derivative-there were multiple grasses before that, so we 
33 

went into a monotype of grass which was subject to disease and 

subject to a lot of other problems, is that right, Dr. Hunt? 

Dr. HUNT. Yes, I did. And I did not get that in the oral testimony, but that is in the written. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I read that. Everyone thinks turtle grass is the 

answer to everything, but it may not be. 

Dr. HUNT. Turtle grass is not the only answer to everything. In 

fact in my briefing what I say is that a mosaic or a suite of the 

three seagrass species that should be in Florida Bay is a system 

that is probably more resilient than the ecosystem that we have 

now. And the whole series of events that led to the development 

of that monoculture has to be essentially reversed to allow that 

suite of seagrass species to have an opportunity to redevelop, if you 

will. 

Mr. VENTO. Well Mr. Chairman, my observation is and I think 

that the scientists probably agree, these systems tend to move to 

equilibrium. If you have not got oxygen, you are going to get bluegreen algae. You could have a sterile system here, as you have suggested, without anything in it. It might look nice and you could 

still see whatever depth coral is down there. It is just moving to 

an equilibrium here and if you do not like the answer, then you 

have to change what you are putting into it. And frankly, it is not 

the natural phenomenon, but it is man's difference. That is what 

we can change. We cannot control acts of God. 

Dr. HUNT. Well I would not say we have not tried in the past, 

but we certainly have not succeeded very well. 

Mr. VENTO. Well it comes as a good observation, Mr. Chairman, 

that the Corps of Engineers' history in Florida started about the 

same time it was made a state. And frankly, I think in some re- ~pects they have had a bigger impact than the legislature or the 

Governor. 

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Dr. Jones and Dr. 

Hunt, one of the things that we are considering in the committee 

right now and is talked about across the Nation is that we want 

to rely on science to help us develop public policy. I think in a very 

forthright manner your testimony here that I have read states that 

there are two theories. I am going to put you on the spot here, so 

I do not mind you holding back on this because I do not want you 

to feel that I am asking you to trash your peers or other scientists, 

but you are welcome to if you want [laughter]. 

But Members of Congress if the Lieutenant Governor gets his desire, are going to be putting into law perhaps the final resolution 

to this issue, to get the Federal Government behind that if it is 

successful. But I am trylng to come to some conclusion here about 

the difference in scientific approach. You stated here in your testimony that, "The majority, by far, of the scientific community supports this theory," which is the ecosystem collapse "as the ultimate 

result of our long-term Everglades water management regime associated with some recent natural events." And then you say, "Analternative theory supported by a few scientists has been postulated 

that states that the die-off and blooms have occurred through addition of external, mostly anthropogenic nutrients." Is the second, 
34 

where there is the minority scientific oplDlon, does that flow 

through the litigation or the litigants or are we going to hear political views or are the minority scientists going to be tied with certain 

positions on where this is headed? 

Help me understand why there is a difference or scientific opin- ion on this, if you can. 

Dr. HUNT. Dr. Jones is going to go first and then I will add to 

it if necessary. 

Mr. LARocco. Okay. I don't want to take too much time, but this 

is important if we are going to rely on science. 

Dr. JONES. I think that with scientists there are always competing hypotheses, there are competing ideas. You know, many times 

they are not entirely right on either side. I think though on this 

particular type of thing, that I have seen more of these varying 

hypotheses in the pre88 than I have in the courtroom, if you will. 

I think that that is where it stands right now, at least from this 

particular set of hypotheses for Florida Bay. 

Mr. LARocco. So more in the press than in scientific literature? 

Dr. JoNES. Oh, certainly not in the literature. It is definitely being played publicly. 

Mr. LARocco. So there is a scientific opinion here, but what you 

are saying is that it is not backed by science? [Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER. Political science. That is us, that is our specialty, do 

not fool around with it. 

Dr. HUNT. Do not worry, Mr. Chairman. 

There is much more data out there that provides some evidence 

to support the progression of events from the Everglades water 

management theory than the alternative theory. One of the key questions you have to ask of that alternative theory is, How do we 

get those external nutrients into Florida Bay? And if they are anthropogenic, they have to come from an anthropogenic source. 

Much of the information that we have use that Everglades agricultural area, once again far to the north from Florida Bay, and get 

those nutrients into Florida Bay. You have to get them down 

through the entire Everglades system into the SharK. River Slough, 

which is where that upper reaches drains ultimately into oceanic 

waters just north of Cape Sable in Everglades National Park in the 

southwestern portion of Everglades National Park. 

I am going to speak for my colleague here-Ron's own data from 

that Shark River Slough region indicates that there were varied 

load levels of nutrients until about 2 or 3 months following Hurricane Andrew. And I am going to use nutrients as a broad term instead of phosphorus in this case, in that Shark River, lower Shark 

River region. Hurricane Andrew defoliated thousands upon thousands of acres of the mangrove forests in that Shark River-Lost 

Man's River-Highland Beach region of southwestern Florida in Everglades National Park. It takes about 2 or 3 months for those 

microorganisms to break through that hard outer cuticle of a mangrove-and if you have never seen that, we can maybe try to get 

a mangrove leaf this afternoon and show you what we mean-before those nutrients inside the leaves or the trunks or what-haveyou start to become released. And that is when this gentleman here 

found an increase in the pulse of nutrients. 
35 

There is no question that there are some current patterns that 

go at least from the Shark River area southerly down to that westem area of Florida Bay. And if you return again to my landsat 

image, you will see a big brown area on that landsat image, and 

Ron has postulated, and I would say correctly, that is the Hurricane Andrew-related source of nutrients-there is an external 

source of nutrients from the Shark River area that have arrived in 

Florida Bay and have exacerbated, expanded these blooms at least 

for the time being. . So with what little data we have, we have to say at least right 

now, the water flow regime, the lack of water that gets through 

that whole Everglades ecosystem, is probably not any source of anthrop()genic nutrients. You could then turn to places such as Charlotte Harbor in the Fort Meyers area, some have even said as far 

north as Tampa Bay, as the source of nutrients coming into Florida 

Bay. There is a hypothesis, it is certainly probably testable if we 

can mount the research effort at that magnitude, but there is no 

evidence at all for that at the present time. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. In your written testimony here, you indicate these two alternative theories are the Everglades water management or the external nutrients; however, from your testimony, 

I gather that it is a combination of both, and that in order to solve 

the problem you have to address both problems. That trying to address only one of the causes, if it were the Everglades water management alone, you still have the other problem with the external 

nutrients to deal with because you have to deal with the purity of 

the water. Am I correct? 

Dr. JONES. You have got the two components correct, but the fact 

of the matter is that nutrients are in every system and they are 

very important. It is how those nutrients are distributed that 

makes algal blooms and other types of things occur. And the water 

is the mechanism that moves these naturally occurring nutrients 

in the system. So what we have done by taking the water and 

changing the way it flows, the quantities and everything else, is we 

have also changed the mechanism by which nutrients are moved 

and distributed in the system. So yes, indeed, you cannot have an 

algal bloom without fertilizer, you cannot get your yard to grow if 

you do not put fertilizer on it, and the same thing happens in any 

ecosystem, but you have to apply it. You cannot just stick that bag 

of fertilizer in the middle of the yard. You have got to stick· it in 

your fertilizer spreader and put it over the yard. The water is the 

spreader down here .and that is the mechanism. So these things are 

tied together, they are just intermeshed and there is no way of sep- arating them. 

The question is whether these nutrients are naturally occurring 

nutn. 'ents that are being distributed in. correctly, okay, or whether 

these are manmade nutrients that should not be being distributed 

at all. And it is my opinion, and I believe the data that we have 

in our laboratories indicates, that what we have is a . situation 

where naturallY occurring nutrients are being distributed in an incorrect manner in the system. 

Dr. HUNT. Let me add one thing in this sequence of these catastrophic events. The first blooms, from any information that I have 
36 

been able to either observe in my 12 years here or have been pub- lished or recorded in the scientific arena-the first blooms resulted 

immediately foll~ seagrass die-oft' events. So the seagrass died, 

that exposed the sediments, a wave comes by, the sediuients have 

nutrients in them and those sediments get suspended into the 

water, move out into the water and then you have a bloom. So to 

some extent, it is that sequence of events that we have observed. 

And there is at least some of the source of those natural nutrients 

that are being redistributed as Dr. Jones said. 

Mr. RoMERO-BARCEL6. Well I am trying to put together that 

things are a little different from the perspective of the loss-like 

tryin¥ to find out who is to blame. My perspective is, what is the 

solution, what is the way to solve it. I am not really concerned and 

I do not think the committee is really concerned about who is to 

blame or which one of the parties you can lay the blame on; it is 

how can this problem be solved. 

That is all, thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Congressman Deutsch. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. If I could go back to what Congressman LaRocco 

was talking about. Is it rour opinion that there really is no alternative, even arguable SClentific theory, than the one that you are 

presenting for the existence of the blooms? I mean, I am being very 

direct abOut it? 

Dr. JoNES. Well being generally very protective of my theories or 

other J)80Ple's that I deal with, I would have to say that I do not 

think there is an arguable theory. Scientifically I have a large data 

set of nutrientst... water guality information, for a very large geoB!'aphic area of l4"1orida Bay and the western portion of Eve!Jflades 

National Park, and I do not think that that data supports this "alternative theory." But that does not mean that new data could not 

be collected that would not convince me that I was incorrect. But 

at this time; no, I do not think there is a viable second alternative 

theory. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Dr. Hunt. 

Dr. HUNT. I believe Dr. Jones spoke well for what I would say and we can duplicate his comment. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. So let me go through that. If I hear you correctly, 

you are saying you absolute~ believe that we need, without question, to increase water cr.a..ntity into Florida Bay to deal with some 

of the degradation that occurred. Is that ac:c:urate? Can we say, with 100 ~t certainty that we need to increase water quantity into Florida Bay? 

Dr. JoNES. Yes, but that water has got to be of sufticient quality. 

I me;:kewe do have polluted water sources to the north. We cannot 

just a canal frOm the EAA and dump. it down into the Baf; that water has got to be of adequate quality. The other thing lB 

that ~ to be the right tjming, and it has got to be distlibuted . We can put all the water we want to down the C111 into tee or into Bamestown and have the same fish kills 

and ~ die-oft's and thing&. So it is more than just quantity. I 

mean it h8s got to be all of those thinp tied together. Mr. DEUTSCH. Right. Quantity that is of a good quality and at 

the npt time. 

Dr. JoNES. Right place and richt time. 
37 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Right place and right time. Dr. Hunt. 

Dr. HUNT. Once again, I can reiterate that, but let me explain 

that timing factor. · I have not seen your agenda so I do not know of some of the Everglades Park hydrologists will be speaking to you today. But they 

have some very clear figures that show the groundwater levels 

have dropped considerably and that annual fluctuation has decreased. So you have this curve that used to go like this and now 

it goes like this [indicating]. And it is just that seasonal fluctuation 

that forms the key basis for the Florida Bay ecosystem. And so 

when Dr. Jones says timing, what you are looking at is that seasonal fluctuation of the natural ecosystem which then creates increased variability in many regions of Florida Bay, which then cascades, presumably positively through the whole ecosystem. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. As a follow-up question, which I know people in 

Monroe County are concerned about, what are the specific solutions? How are we going to deal with it. Do you have a list of solutions that you have actually proposed or will be proposing that governmental entities, either the State or the Federal Government can 

undertake now to deal with the problem? 

Dr. JoNES. I have heard and seen such a list, but I would be 

hard pressed to sit there and list it. There are other people who 

are going to be testifying today who have this list of action items 

down pat. You know, I know certain things need to be done to Frog 

Pond, as an absolute necessity, the 8¥2-square-mile area, the buffer 

strip, and there are areas for the Taylor Slough, C-111. But for the 

rest of the individual steps, I would defer to others: 

Mr. MILLER. Congresswoman Meek. 

Ms. MEEK. I am here today to protect the Corps of Engineers and 

see that you do not dump on them too badly. [Laughter.] 

That is why I am here. Mr. Chairman, you need to know my hidden agenda. But I would like to ask these scientists a question. In 

light of the information which you have revealed, how does that influence policy that is followed by the South Florida Water Management District Board and the Corps of Engineers? I listened to the 

Governor very closely and it appears that many of the mistakes 

that we have made in the past have been due obviously to some 

type of gap between theory and practice. So my question to you is 

how do we prevent that from happening in the future? 

Dr. HUNT. Part of me wants to say give the researchers more 

money. But a number of us have been working out there in Florida 

Bay for a number of years on different issues. I have spent considerable time, personal or professional time, in either these types of 

settings or with individuals, for example as I said my boss spent, 

I am sure, quite a bit of time this week with the Lieutenant Governor. I have worked with Ms. Boyd of the Water Management District in a one-on-one session, spending the time to try to hopefully 

educate here with the details, while still providing a fair balance, 

as we are trying to do here, of the entire issue. Both Dr. Jones and 

I, even though there are quite a few unknowns out there, believe 

that we have hit a point in this issue where there is enough scientific information to move ahead with public policy chan_ges to try 

to resolve this system to restore that natural ecosystem. So I think 
38 

in the Florida Bay and the Everglades ecosystem, we are there and 

that information IS there. . Dr. John Ogden from the Florida Institute of Oceanography calls 

this almost a common-sense issue. And I believe that you could 

take that type of statement to heart. 

Ms. MEEK. ~you. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Shaw. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I have worked with Dr. Hunt before with this problem and been out on the Bay with him. I am very impressed with 

his view towards the problem and the solution. I would like to direct the committee's attention to page 2 in a handout which is 

called "The Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Plan" and it 

shows the map of what the Everglades was and what it is today, 

so y~u can see the enormity of the problem. When we are talking about qu81ity and quantity of water, on 

page 26 of that same book, you can see the series of canals: the 

West Palm Beach Canal, the Hillsborough Canal, the Cross Canal, 

New River Canal, which comes out through the middle of Fort Lauderdale, then the Miami Canal and others that are taking water 

out of the system and dumping it into the ocean rather than over 

the Everglades. However, I am reminded in what Dr. Jones said, 

that you cannot take a canal and just run it down to deliver that 

quantitY, of water into the Everglades, recogni~ that the Everglades Itself as a sea of grass is a filter system in Itself. And if you 

shortchange that, particularly with the nutrients that are upstream, you would have some real problems. We do learn something from past experience. I think Governor 

MacKay gave us a very good example of that in regard to the Kissimmee River, when it was straightened for all the good reasons. 

Unfortunately, we created a nightmare and now are having to go back and recreate the original flow of the river to a great extent, 

so that the natural ebb and flow of the river and the meandering of the river itself acts as a filter system. I think it is tremendously important we learn from that. 

When we look at the salinity-and Dr. Hunt spoke of the increase in the salinity-it goes from about 30-35 parts per thousand, which is normal for seawater, to double that amount. So it 

is very obvious that this is caused directly by the flow of water. 

There is no question about that. I think there is no question that 

when you double the salinity, it is going to have a very serious and 

negative impact on the natural environment of the area that it is 

broul{ht into. So I think that what I am getting to here is that we 

definitely know that we have to restore as much of the natural flow 

of the Everglades as we possibly can. By bringing it down through 

canals, you are getting large quantities of water, large quantities of rain, and the water gets out quick. Currently, the Bay just sits 

there and the salinity builds up and the other problems come 

about. 

I strongly believe that the acquisition of the land that has been 

under consideration, the Frog Pond area and the 8th mile area, is 

absolutely essential. I think that this committee should seriously 

consider and address these land acquisition efforts. I believe that 

the testimony we have heard from this panel creates the founda-
39 

tion as to immediate action that the Congress can do in regard to 

the problems surrounding Florida Bay. There are a lot of things 

that have to be done, but the one thing that we know is correct and 

needs to be done immediately is to acquire that land so that you 

can raise the level of the water in the Everglades and recreate 

much of the flow south into the Florida Bay. I would invite the panel to comment, if I have misstated anything. I am interpreting this as your appeal to us as to what we 

can and must do immediately. · Dr. HUNT. I would echo that that is definitely our appeal to these 

committees. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Well thank you very much for your testimony. I 

think Congressman LaRocco said quite properly that • there is a 

clear movement, both within the Congress and I think outside, to 

provide for greater reliance on science in looking at some of these 

large ecosystem problems and the solutions to those problems. But 

you know, very often, I have to say that when I look at some of 

the systems that are in serious trouble, some of it was done simply 

out of ignorance, and I do not mean that in a pejorative sense. We 

simply did not have the ability to measure, to quantify and to understand the relationships of systems 30 years ago when decisions 

were made at that time, or even 20 years ago. Today we do. We 

now cannot repeat those mistakes when we have the information. 

That would be a terrible shame if we do that. But science does 

present politicians with some very hard choices. As . we . select 

among the options and as local . officials do likewise, those are a 

tough range of problems, but hopefully science will give us some 

buffer in terms of explaining to the public what really needs to be 

done with respect to the solutions that I think the public would expect. I really want to thank you for your contribution this morning. 

We will be with you this afternoon and we can go into some of this 

in more depth. Thank you. The next panel will be made up of Mayor Jack London from Monroe County, Florida; Mr. Spencer Slate, Key Association of Dive 

Operators; Mr. Scott Marr from the Federation of Chambers, Key 

Largo; Mr. Mike Collins, Florida Keys Guide Association; Karen L. 

Lee, Republic Security Bank; Chris Fleisher from the Hotel/Motel 

Association; Karl Lessard, the President of the Monroe County 

Commercial Fishermen. Welcome. We will recognize you in the 

order in which you appear. Your full statements and any supporting evidence that you think is important to the committees will be 

accepted in their entirety for the record of this hearing. You may 

proceed and summarize in the manner in which you are most comfortable, but obviously as you can see, the panel does have anumber of questions. Mr. London, we will begin with you. 
40 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BON. JACK LONDON, MAYOR, MONROE 

COUNTY, FL; SCOTI' MARK, PRESIDENT, FLORIDA KEYS FEDERATION OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, KEY LARGO, FL; 

CAPT. MIKE COLLINS, FLORIDA KEYS GUIDE ASSOCIATION, 

ISLAMORADA, FL; KAREN L LEE, REPUBLIC SECURITY 

BANK, ISLAMORADA, FL; CHRISTIAN FLEISHER, PAST PRESI· 

DENT, UPPER KEYS BOTEIIMOTEL ASSOCIATION, 

ISLAMORADA, FL; AND KARL LESSARD, PRESIDENT, MON· 

ROE COUNTY COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN, MARATHON, FL 

STATEMENT OF BON. JACK LONDON 

Mayor LoNDON. Good morning, ladies ::nfentlemen, and welcome to Monroe County. I would like to you for taking the 

time to come to the Florida Keys. Aa you may have already observed, our islands are a place vibrant with life and possessing a 

visual beauty that poets and painters continually strive to capture. 

Indeed, the Keys are truly one of the magic places on this planet. 

Yet, as we meet here today, Monroe County 18 confronting a crisis 

of unparalleled proportions. A crisis which has united our residents 

as no other issue in our history ever has. 

I am speaking about the meltdown now occurring in Florida Bay. Frankly, this is not simply an environmental issue, but rather it 

is a fundamental question of economic survival. The entire economy of the Keys is based on a healthy Florida Bay. Today, you will .hear from commercial and recreational fishermen, business ~ple, dive shop operators, hoteVmotel owners and 

others whose livelihoods depend on an uncontaminated marine environment. They have come to voice a poignant plea: Help us save 

Florida Bay. To the citizens of the Keys, the Bay is more than just 

a magic place, it is a critical component of the greater ecosl!ltem 

which provides tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions 

of dollars· in annual revenues. 

Aa you heard from the scientists, the reduced freshwater flow 

from the Everglades into Florida Bay has led to a massive seagrass and sponge die-oft'. This past winter the opalescent waters of the 

Bay turned a fetid brown as the algae bloom, estimated to be in 

excess of 600 square miles wide, suffocated plant and animal life. 

A bloom so large that on several occasions, it extended over the offshore coral reefs. Scientists now agree that the hyper-saline waters 

of Florida Bay are having a devastating impact on our Nation's 

only coral reef tract. 

Let me provide you with a few startling statistics. Aa we speak. 

30 percent of Florida Bay cannot be fished; water visibility is Clown 

to 6 inches or less in certain areas· backcountry guides report that 

client bookings for next winter's fishing season have plummeted. 

Commercial fishermen and marine scientists report an alarming 80 

percent drop in pink shrimp catches. The average lobster fisherman's catch on the east side of the Bay is down 40 percent. Commercial fin-fish catches of pompano and mackerel are down 75 percent. 

Dive shop operators are often forced to cancel reef trips owing to 

poor water visibiliW· Resort owners complain of green algae sup- planting the sparkling azure waters that kept their customers com-
41 

ing back year after year. Clearly, the conditions in the Bay are now 

impacting businesses in the Florida Keys. 

Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, this is a problem that 

has a solution. As you know, there is now a scientific consensus as 

to what corrective actions are necessary to remedy this disaster. 

The momentous first step in saving Florida Bay is to resume the 

historical flow of clean, fresh water through Taylor Slough. The diversion of fresh water away from the Bay to a relatively few tomato 

farms is having a catastrophic effect on the environment and the 

economy of Monroe County. 

It strikes me that this situation is somewhat analogous to another emotional issue we . all pay lip service to. I am referring to 

the outrage we usually express when we hypocritically denounce 

third world countries such as Brazil and Madagascar for allowing 

agricultural interests to destroy their tropical rain forest for shortterm profits. 

Ironically, the crisis now confronting us is fraught with frightening similarities. I would suggest to you that the time for the seemingly endless debates and discussions has long since passed. Our 

constituents have the sense that inertia has set in and time is running out on Florida Bay. The Army Corps of Engineers must take 

this into account as they begin their reconnaissance study into the 

central and southern Florida project for flood control. 

I want to sincerely thank the members of this committee for taking the time to listen to the concerns of the people of Monroe County. As you weigh your options regarding the restoration of the Everglades and Florida Bay, I would urge you to seize the initiative 

and take the bold steps that we believe are absolutely essential. 

The stakes are high and this is a battle that must be won. North 

America's only coral reef is now imperiled, and the future of Monroe County is in your hands. Thank you. [Applause.] 

[Prepared statement of Mr. London follows:] 
42 

Comments by Monroe county 

N&yor Jack Lonclon 

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen ancl welcome to Monroe 

county. I '!S like to thank you for taking the time to • COI'Ie to the 

Florida Keys. As you may have already observed our islands are a 

place vibrant with life and possessin9 a visual beauty that poets 

and painters continually strive to capture. Indeed, the Keys are 

truly one of the magic places on thia planet. Yet, as 'we meet here 

today Monroe County ia confronting a crisis of unparalleled 

proportions. A crisis which has united our residents as no other 

issue in our history ever has. 

I &Ill speaking about the melt-down now occurring in Florida 

Bay. Frankly, this is not simply an environ~~ental issue. Rather, 

it is a fundamental question of economic survival. (Pause) The 

entire economy of the Keys is based on a healthy Flo~ida Bay. 

Today you will hear from com.ercial and recreational 

fisher:~~en, business people, dive shop oP.rators, hotel/IIIOtel 

owners, and others whose livelihoods depend on an Uncont&lllinated 

marine environll8nt. They have COI'Ie to voice a poignant plea: 

(pause) Help us save Florida B&x· To the citizens of the Keys 

the BaY is more than just a ugic place, it is a critical cc.pount 

of the 9reater ecoayst• which provides tens of thousands of jot>., 

and hundreds of millions of dollars ill aDnual revenues. 
As you will hear from the scientists, the reduced freshwater 

flow from the Everglades into Florida Bay has led to a massive 

seagrass and sponge die-off. 'l'his past winter the opalescent 

waters of the Bay turned a fetid brown as the algae bloom, 

estimated to be as large as 550 square miles wide, suffocated plant 

and animal life. A bloom so large that on several occasions it 

extended over the offshore coral reefs. Scientists also agree that 

the hyper-saline waters of Florida Bay are having a devastating 

impact on our nation's only coral reef tract. 

Let me provide you a few startling statistics. As we speak: 

30\ of Florida Bay cannot be fished; water visibility is down to 

six inches or less in certain areas; backcountry guides report that 

client bookings for next winter's fishing season have plummeted. 

commercial fisherman and marine scientists report an alarming 80\ 

drop in pink shrimp catches. 'l'he average lobster fiahermana' catch 

on the east side of the Bay 1s down 40\. C011111ercial fin-fish 

catches of pompano and mackerel are down 75\. 

Dive shop operators are often forced to cancel reef trips 

owing to poor water visibility. Resort owners complain of green 

algae supplanting the sparkling azure waters that kept their 

customers coming back year after year. Clearly, the conditions in 

the Bay are now impacting businesses in the Florida Keys. 

Mr. Chairman; Members of the COIIIIIittee, this is a problem that 

has a solution. As you know there is now a scientific consensus as 
44 

to what corrective actions are necessary to remedy this disaster. 

The momentous first step in saving Florida Bay is to resume the 

historical flow of clean, fresh water through Taylor Slough. The 

diversion of fresh water away from the Bay to benefit a relatively 

few tomato farmers is having a catastrophic affect on the 

environment and economy of Monroe County. 

It strikes me that this situation is somewhat analogous to 

another emotional issue we all pay lip service to. I'm referring 

to the outrage we usually express when we hypocritically denounce 

third world countries such as Brazil and Madagascar for allowing 

agricultural interests to destroy their tropical rain forests for 

short term profits. 

Frankly, I think what we're now allowing to take place in what 

we in the Keys refer to as the "back-country" is tantamount to the 

same short-sighted mind set. Ironically, the crisis now 

confronting us is fraught with frightening similarities. I would 

suggest to you that the time for seemingly endless debates and 

discussions has long since passed. our constituents have the sense 

that inertia has set in, and that time is running out on Florida 

Bay. 

The Army Corps of Engineers should ••• no .•• MUST take this into 

account as they begin their reconnaissance study into the central 

and Southern Florida Project for Flood control. 
45 

I want to sincerely thank the members of this Committee 

for taking the time to lhten to the concerns of the people of 

Monroe county. As you weigh your options regarding the restoration 

of the Everqlades and Florida Bay, . I would urge you to seize the 

initiative and take the bold steps that we believe are absolutely 

essential. The stakes are high and this is a battle that must be 

won. North America's only coral reef is now imperiled, and the 

future of Monroe county is in your hands. Thank you. 
46 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Marr. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT MARR 

Mr. MARR. Good morning. My name is Scott Marr, I am President of the Florida Keys Federation of Chambers of Commerce, 

representing the five Chambers of Commerce of the Florida Keys 

and a member of the Water Quality Joint Action Group. 

The Federation of Chambers represents over 1,000 businesses in 

the Florida Keys. We applaud the Joint Oversight Committee's interest in saving Florida Bay, and we hope that further studies and 

research do not get in the way of taking the steps that are necessary to assure and help restore as natural a freshwater sheetflow 

as possible back into Florida Bay through Taylor and Shark River 

Sloughs, which we consider to be one of our country's most precious natural assets. 

We hope that you will recommend the immediate purchase of the 

land masses necessary to return this natural flow, including the 

Frog Pond and the 8¥2 mile square and connectors. These and 

other steps are necessary to reverse the dying process that is occurring in the Bay. If this process is not reversed, we, the 80,000 residents of the Florida Keys, will not only lose a quality of life that 

we have come to expect, but we will lose our economic base and our 

livelihoods. 

Where studies are necessary, we hope you will take into account 

the economics of the Florida Keys. The Florida Keys are the second 

most visited tourism area in the State of Florida after the Orlando 

Disney World complex. We are dependent entirely upon our water 

and nature for our tourism, we do not have Mickey Mouse and 

Donald Duck to rely on. Six million tourists visit the Florida Keys each year and they come to enjoy our area's natural resources. We 

as businessmen feel that to be a businessman in the Florida Keys, 

you must be both a businessman and an environmentalist. Six million tourists, as I said, visit us each year to enjoy this area, all 

which hinge upon the continued survival of Florida Bay and the 

coral reef system off of our Atlantic ocean. These areas are so precious that you and your fellow Congressmen recently designated 

the Florida Keys a National Marine Sanctuary. 

This tourism base represents a multibillion dollar industry to 

Monroe County and our State and Nation. Our economic base is entirely dependent upon the continued health of Florida Bay. 

Please have the foresight and political conviction to take the 

steps necessary to reverse the dying process that is now happening 

in Florida Bay. We need immediate action, not only to assure the 

continued economic health and quality of life for the citizens of 

Monroe County, but also to preserve the Keys for the millions of 

citizens and foreign visitors who come to enjoy them each year. 

The future of the Florida Keys, the Florida Bay, the Everglades 

National Park, our coral reefs and the National Marine Sanctuary 

are in your hands. Please do all that you can to assure their continued existence for our children and grandchildren by restoring as 

natural as possible a sheetflow of fresh water into Florida Bay. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Marr follows:] 
47 

My name is Scott Marr. rm president of the Florida Keys Federation of Chambers of Commerce, representinJ the five 

Chambers of· Commerce in the Florida Keys and a member of the 

Water Quality Joint Action Group. 

The Federation of Chambers represents over 1000 businesses 

in the Florida Keys. We applaud the Joint Oversiaht Committee's 

interest in savina Florida Bay, and hope that further studies and 

research do not set in the way of takinl!' the steps that are immediately available to help restore the natural freshwater sheet 

flow throush Taylor and Shark River Slou1hs to one of our Country's most precious natural assets. We hope that you will 

recommend the immediate purchase of the land masses necessary to 

return natural sheet flow to the area, including the Frog Pond, the 

8 112 mile square and connectors. 

These and other immediate steps are necessary to reverse the 

dying process that is occurring in the Bay. If this process is not 

reversed, we, the 80,000 residents of the Key's will loose not just the 

quality of life that we have, but alsOf'Our economic base and 

livelihoods. 

Where studies are necessary, we hope that you will2ive 

adequate consideration to the economy of the Keys. The Florida 

Keys are the second most visited area of Florida after the 

Disneyworld!Orlando area. We are dependent upon tourism for our existence. We don't have Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck to help us attract visitors. Six million tourists visit the Keys each year to 

enjoy our area's natural resources, which all hinge upon the 

continued survival of Florida Bay and the coral reef system off of our Atlantic Ocean. These areas are so precious that you and your 

fellow Congressmen recently desipated the Florida Keys a National 

Marine Sanctuary. 

This tourism base represents a mUlti-billion dollar industry to 

Monroe County, and to our State and Nation. This economic base 

is entirely dependent upon the continued health of Florida Bay. Please have the foresight and political conviction to realize the 

neJJative impacts of our many of our governments past actions and 

take the steps necessary to reverse the dyins process that is now happenins in Florida Bay. We need to take immediate action, not 

only to assure the continued economic health and quality of life for 

the citizens of Monroe County, but also to preserve the Keys for the 

millions of citizens and foreign visitors who come to enjoy them 

each year. 

The future of the Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Everglades National Park, our Coral Reefs and the National Marine Sanctuary are in your hands. Please do all that you can to assure their 

continued existence for our children and grandchildren by restorin1 an as natural as possible sheet fiow of fresh water to 

Florida Bay throueh Taylor and Shark River Sloushs. 

Thank you 
48 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Collins. 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. MIKE COLLINS 

Captain CoLLINS. Mr. Chairman, members of the joint committee 

and Senator Jones, I want to thank you for coming here. 

I have been sort of savage in my criticism for the last several 

years to the agencies involved in this ecosystem. My routine answer to a bureaucrat who told me he was almost ready to do something, was that I did not see the cavalry anywhere. 

Sitting here listening to you this morning, I can honestly tell you 

that for the first time I think that may be what I am looking at 

on the horizon here. I hope it is true. 

In 1976, when the guides in the Keys first noticed major changes 

in the seagrasses of Florida Bay, we notified the Everglades National Park Superintendent, met with the appropriate scientists, 

and assumed-fools that we were-that because it was the Park's 

responsibility, that they would soon be able to take care of it. 

In 1982, when the Superintendent approved the drawdown of the 

L-31W canal and the flood protection guarantees to the tomato 

farmers in Rocky Glades, I voiced my concerns to him personally 

and as President of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides. I was told 

that the situation would be closely monitored. 

In 1987, when huge areas of seagrass began to die in the Bay, we brought it to the attention of the Park administration and were 

told that it would be dealt with. 

In 1989, when fish kills of nearly half a million fish occurred 

after discharges from the C-111 canal system, we notified the Park 

and was told that it was a natural phenomenon and that the Park 

staff were too busy to personally inspect a bunch of dead fish. We 

raised enough of a fuss that three days later they came out to look 

at it, but they stuck to their story. 

In 1990, when the first algae blooms showed up, we asked Park 

research if they had any idea where all of this was heading. We 

were told that they really did not have the staff to fully research 

the problem. 

In 1991, when the algae blooms covered half of Florida Bay killing all the sponges in that area and renderin.g it unfishable for five 

months, we asked the Park and the South Florida Water Management District what they planned to do. We were told that they 

would need more research before they could take any action. 

In 1992, when the algae blooms showed every sign of covering 

the entire Keys out to the reef track, we asked the Water Management District, the Park and the Army Corps of Engineers to take 

immediate action. We were told that they needed to be cautious 

and that precipitous action could do more harm than good. 

I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty, with the exception 

of my friend Mr. Lessard here, the commercial fisherman, I probably have more time actually spent on the waters of Florida Bay than everybody else who will testify in front of you today combined. I can tell you with a larger degree of certainty that the agencies 

that have been required to monitor and manage this ecosystem have failed entirely in their trust. 

At that first meeting of guides and scientists on the Bay in 1976, 

we all agreed that the problem was fresh water and the delivery 
49 

system to the Park. In the intervening 17 1.ears of sitting on advisory councils, resource management comDUttees and attendin£ the 

councils of the wise, I have not heard one shred of hard evidence 

that that assessment was wrong-:-<~uite the contrary. The p~posed settlement for the Everglades lawsuit provides no 

help for Florida Bay. Instead, it mandates what appears to be nearly iill the taxing authority of the Water Management District to 

protect the profits of big sugar. 

Every citizen of the Keys who works at commercial fishing or 

tourism-and that is almost every working citizen-is in danger of 

losing his or her job right now. That danger exists solely because 

of a history of government sell-out to mega-rich agricultural interests. We are aSking you to turn that around. We are asking you 

to call for a full restoration of the Everglades and Florida Bay 

based on what is best for that ecosystem, not the rich who have 

been able to exploit it. And in the process, we ask you to save all 

of our jobs and livelihoods. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Captain Collins follows:] 
50 

CAPT. MIKE COL.L.INS 

I". C . IICX 1103 

IIII.AMCltAOA. "L 33036 

In l976,when the guides in the keys first noticed major 

changes in the seagrasses of Florida Bay,we notified the 

Everglades National Park Superintendant, met with the 

appropriate scientists and assumed, fools that we were, 

that because it was the Park's responsibility that they 

would take care ot it. 

In 1982,when the Superintendant approved the drawdown of 

the L-31W canal and the flood protection guaranteed to the 

tomato farmers,! voiced my concerns to him personally and 

as President of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides . I was told 

that the situation would be closely monitored. 

In 1987 , when huge areas of seagrass began to die in the bay, 

we brought it to the attention of the Park's administration and 

were told that it would be dealt with. 

In 1989 when fish kills of half a million fish occurred after 

discharges from the C-111 canal system,ve notified the Park 

and were told that it vas a natural phenomena and that the 

Park staff were too busy to personally inspect a bunch of 

dead fish.We raised enough of a fuss to make them come and 

look,but they stuck to their story. 

In 1990,vhen the f i rst algae blooms showed up we asked Park 

research if they had any idea vhere this all was heading. 

We vere told that they really did not have the staff to fully 

research the problem. 

In 199l,vhen the algae blooms covered half of Florida Bay 

killing all the sponges in that area and rendering it un- !ishable tor five months,ve asked the Park and the South 

Florida Water Management district what they planned to do . ve vere told that they vould need more research before they 

could take any action . 

In 1992 when the algae blooms shoved every sign of covering 

the entire keys,out to the reef tract,we asked the Water 

Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers to take 

immediate action. We vera told that they needed to be cautious 

that precipitous action could do more harm than good. 

I have to tell you that I am through asking questions. At that 

firat meeting of guides and sci entists on the bay in 1976,we 

all agreed that the problem vas tresh vater and the delivery 

system to the Park . In the intervening seventeen years of 

sitting on advisory councils,resource management committees 

and attending the councils of the vise,I have not heard one 

ahred of hard evidence that that assessment vas vrong. 

Quite the opposite. 
51 

CAPT. MIKE COLLINS 

P.O. IIDX eoa 18L.AMQ .. AOA. f"L 330a6 

I can aay,with a fai~ deg~•• of certainty, that with the 

exception of the commercial fishermen, I have spent as much 

time on the waters of Florida Bay as eve~yone else here 

combined.I can say with a larger degree of certainty that 

the agencies entrusted with monitoring and managing the 

Everglades ecosystem have failed completely in their trust. 

The proposed settlement of the Everglades lawsuit provides no help for Florida Bay.Instead it mandated the use o! 

nearly all the taxing authority of the Water Management 

Diarict to protect the obscene profits of Big Sugar. 

!very citizen of the Keys who works at commercial fishing 

or tourism,and that is almost every working citizen,is in 

danger of losing his or her job right now. That danger exists 

solely because of a history of government sellout to megarich agricultural interests. We are asking you to turn that 

around. WI are asking for you to call for a full restoration 

of· the Everglades and Florida Bay, based on what is best for 

that ecosyatem,not the mega-rich who have exploited it, and 

in the process save all our job&. 
Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Lee. 

52 

STATEMENT OF KAREN L. LEE 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much for coming. We sincerely appreciate your time very much, it is very important to us. 

I am a full-time permanent resident of the Florida Keys. I am 

employed as a manager of mortgage loan production operation of 

a federally chartered savings bank in Islamorada. I am a representative of banking. and real estate sales, that type of business, 

rather than the fishing and the diving, so it gives you a broader 

sense of the economic scope of the problem. 

A healthy Florida Bay is the foundation of our entire economic 

structure in the Keys. This estuary is vital to Monroe County's 

principal industries which are recreational and commercial fishing, 

diving and tourism. And those businesses support many spinoff industries, two of which are the real estate sales and mortgage banking that I am familiar with. 

Throughout this century, people have visited and moved to the 

Florida Keys to enjoy our beautiful climate and relaxed social atmosphere and pristine waters. Our local real estate business is 

quite strong. While other parts of the country have experienced declining property values due to the recent recession, our property 

values have remained steady due to the desirability and the 

uniqueness of our beautiful waters and our waterfront communities. Where else in the world can you enjoy a tropical island lifestyle while living in the United States and maintaining citizenship, 

and still be within a short driving distance of the mainland? We 

are very, very privileged and very fortunate to live and work in 

such a paradise. 

Statistically speaking, the current volume of real estate sales in 

Monroe County exceeds $250 million annually. Mortgage loan closings presently exceed $400 million per year. Public revenue that is 

generated annually from these closings in the form of state intangible taxes and documentary stamps presently exceeds $2.5 million. 

For a single, relatively small and isolated county-and we are not 

totally dependent on a major metropolitan area-we feel that these 

numbers are significant and we are proud of our economic success 

and stability. 

However, continued strength of our market depends on steady 

property values which are directly affected by the quality of Florida 

Bay. We are greatly concerned about the impending impact that 

the deteriorating condition in Florida Bay may have on our real estate business and entire economy. 

Filtering down through the Everglades and canals of the South 

Florida Water Management District, the headwaters of Florida Bay 

must be cleaned of agricultural, industrial and other pollutants before reaching this fragile ecosystem. The biological imbalance that 

has led to recent algae blooms in Florida Bay must be corrected, 

in order to prevent permanent irreparable damage to our surrounding coral reef. This environmental issue is even larger than the vital preservation of a single endangered species. As trustees of our parks and 

public lands, you must act with great diligence to make sure that 
53 

the very life of an entire ecosystem that is home to many endangered species, as well as to protect its contingent economic system. 

Ours is an uncommon situation where environmentalists and local 

commercial interests are united and all are on the same team. We 

implore you to make restoration of the Everglades and especially 

Florida Bay your number one priority. We know that there are 

many very critical environmental issues facing you across our N ation, but for the Florida Keys and for the only living coral reef in 

North America, it is the only issue. 

This country is truly blessed by the very precious and unique 

Florida Keys environment. This invaluable prize should be recognized by every American as a resource that must be protected by 

all U:.~freserved for future generations. Th you again for coming. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Lee follows:] 
PLORXDA BAY BBARXBG 

JUly 31, 19113 

Karen Lee - Teatiaony 

My name is Karen Lee; I am a full-time, permanent resident of 

the Florida Keys. I am employed as a manager of mortgage loan 

production operations for a federally chartered savings bank in 

Islamorada. As a representative of banking and real estate 

businesses in Monroe County, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

to you today to point out the economic significance of these 

industries and to relate to you our concerns about the future of 

Florida Bay and its impact on our local economy. 

A healthy Florida Bay is the foundation of the entire economic 

structure of the Florida Keys. This estuary is vital to Monroe 

County's principal industries of recreational and commercial 

fishing, diving and tourism. These businesses support MANY spinoff industries, two of which are real estate sales and mortgage 

banking. 

Throughout this century, people have visited and moved to the 

Florida Keys to enjoy the beautiful climate, relaxed social 

atmosphere, and pristine waters. our local real estate business is 

strong. While many other parts of the country have experienced 

declining property values in recent years, property values in the 

Florida Keys have remained steady, due to the desirability and 

uniqueness of our beautiful waterfront communities. Where else in 

the world can you enjoy a tropical island lifestyle, be a resident 

and citizen of our wonderful United States, and still be within a 

short driving distance to the mainland? We truly do live and work 

in paradise. 
Statistically speaking, the current volume of real estate 

sales in Monroe County exceeds $250,000,000 annually. 

loan closings presently exceed $400, ooo, 000 per year. 

Mortgage 

Public 

revenue that is generated annually from these closings in the form 

of state intangible taxes and documentary stamps presently exceeds 

$2,500,000. For a single, relatively small and isolated county, 

that isn't totally dependent on an adjacent major 11etropolitan 

area, we feel that these numbers are significant. We are proud of 

our economic success and stability. 

However ••• continued strength of our market depends on steady 

property values, which are directly affected by the water quality 

of Florida Bay. We are greatly concerned about the impending 

impact that the deteriorating condition in Florida Bay may have on 

our real estate business and entire economy. 

Filtering down through the Everglades and canals of the South 

Florida Water Management District, the headwaters of Florida Bay 

must be cleaned of agricultural, industrial, and other pollutants 

before reaching this fragile ecosystem. The biological imbalance 

that has led to recent algae blooms in Florida Bay must be 

corrected, in order to prevent permanent, irreparable damage to our 

surrounding coral reef. 

-2-
56 

This environmental issue is even larger than the vital 

preservation of a single endangered species. As trustees of our 

parks and public lands, you must act with great diligence, to 

protect the very life of an ENTIRE ecosystem that is home to MANY 

• endangered species, as well as to protect its contingent economic 

system. Ours is an uncommon situation where environmentalists and 

all local commercial interests are united, and on the same team. 

We implore you to make restoration of the Everglades, and 

especially Florida Bay, your NUMBER ONE priority. We know that 

there are many, very critical environmental issues facing you 

across our nation, but for the Florida Keys and for the only living 

coral reef in North America, it is the ONLY issue. 

This country is truly blessed by the very precious and unique 

Florida Keys environment. This invaluable prize should be 

recognized by every American as a resource that must be protected 

by all and preserved for future generations. 
57 

Mr. Mn.LER. Thank you. Mr. Fleisher. 

STATEMENT OF CBlU8TIAN FLEISHER 

Mr. FLEISHER. Mr. Chairman, committee members, Senator, I 

would like to take this opportunity to ~_you, and on_ behalf of 

the hospitality industry, welcome you to the Keys. 

My name is Christian Fleisher. I am a Minnesota transplant, for 

Congressman Vento's sake, and I have spent 14 of the last 16 years 

here. I will apologize for my political naivete, but I am speaking 

to you mainly today as a father of two sons, •ho feels in his capacity as a father he wants to preserve the Keys and does not want 

to see the Keys ruined by poor stewardship. 

Tourism is the lifeblood of the Keys. As Scott mentioned earlier, 

over six million people visit the Keys each year. They spend a q~arter of a billion dollars on our rooms, and between $500 and $600 

million on food, recreation, entertainment and purchases. This 

translates to over $2 billion a year to the economy of the Keys. And 

it is fair to say that 75 or 80 percent of the people are directly or 

indirectly employed because of the tourist dollars which come into 

the Keys. 

I can only speculate on the scope and scale of the problems which 

you, our elected representatives, deal with. And I cannot _presume 

that even a $2 billion issue can be considered relevant. However, 

when we speak of Florida Bay, our reefs and the Everglades National Parlt, we are speaking about one of the country's most important and beautiful treasures. And no price can be tllaced on this. 

And as an individual, I am pleading with you to cons1der the needs 

for better stewardship as it relates to water management. One has 

to take into account the downstream interests impacted the hardest by shortsighted management decisions, and agriculture and ecological concerns have to come together. The present situation in 

the Bay must be looked at as the proverbial canary in the mine. 

We do not have to wait for its final demise before we react when 

we already know it is sick. 

The issues at hand are no longer just political or economic but 

find their heart at the most basic fundamental trust which we b;ve 

today, and that is the preservation of those things and ideals we 

value moat for futurc:t__pnerations. 

And with that I will thank ;rgu. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Fleisher follows:) 
58 

Mr Chairman, Committee Members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to spea. 

to you today, as well as to welcome you to the Florida Keys on behalf of the hospitality 

industry. My name is Christian Fleisher, I am a 14 year resident of the Upper Keys, 

and I am here today as a representative of the Upper Keys Hotel Motel Association, of 

which I am the past president. I am also a board member of the Monroe County Tourist 

Development Council and chair both the advertising and the sales & marketing 

committees for the Ke,YS. But perhaps the most important hat I am proud to be wearing 

today is that of a father of two young men ages three and eleven, and in this capacity a 

person who doeSn't want to see the Keys ruined because of poor stewardship, whether 

in this or foreseeable generations. 

In coordinating our talks I have been asked to give you a short overview of tourism in 

the Keys and what a healthy Florida Bay as well as the reefs mean to this industry. 

Briefly, 9ver six million visitors come to the Keys each year spending approximately 

$250 million in room revenues and another $500 million on food, recreation, 

entertainment and purchases. The tourist economy as a whole generates over $2 billion 

annually in economic activity, and directly and indirectly employs 75% of the Keys 

work force. In other words, tourism is the lifeblood of the Keys, and it is no 

exaggeration what so ever to state, that this industry is totally dependent on a healthy 

Florida Bay as well as healthy coral reefs, since one of the major factors which bring 

visitors to the Keys are its beautiful, clean waters. 

I can only speculate on the variety, scope and scale of the problems which you, our 

elected representatives deal with on a national level, and cannot presume that even a $2 

billion issue may be considered that relevant. However, when we speak of Florida Bay, 

our .reefs, and the Everglades National Park, we are speaking about one of this 

country's most important and beautiful treasures, on which no price can be placed. And 

as an individual, I am pleading with you to consider the needs for better stewardship as 

it relates to water management. Please take the initiative and direct all involved federal 

and state agencies to take into account the downstream interests impacted the hardest by 

short sighted management decisions which favor agricultural over ecological and long 

term concerns. Let the present situation in the Bay be the proverbial canary in the 

mine, don't wait for its final demise before you react when we already know its sick. 

There are a number of recommendations which have been developed and submitted for 

your review by scientists and concerned citizens which we, the Keys hospitality 

industry feel make a lot of sense relative to restoring historic water flow back into the 

park and bay. We urge you move on these recommendations expeditiously. The issues 

at hand are no longer just political or economic, but find their heart at the most basic 

fundamental trust which we have today, and that is the preservation of those things and 

ideals we value most, to insure for future generations. 

Thank you very much. 
59 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Lessard. 

STATEMENT OF KARL LESSARD 

Mr. LESSARD. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I want 

to thank you for giving me this opportunity to address you today. 

My name is Karl Lessard, and I am the designated representative 

of Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, the Keys Chapter of the 

Organized Fishermen of Florida and a member of the EPA Water 

Qualitr Steering Committee. 

We m the Monroe County commercial fishing industry have witnessed the advancing degradation and loss of the most prolific fishing _area in the State of Florida, Florida Bay. Monroe County has generated approximately 20 to 25 percent of 

Florida's total dockside landings in seafood production. In 1990, we 

landed $48.4 million in dockside value, which comes out to $106.4 

million wholesale. Shellfish landings make up 80 percent of this 

value. Shellfish landings have declined by 54 percent since 1981 

with the degradation of Florida Bay. 

I am not going to reiterate what John Hunt said about the pink 

shrimp industry except I will state another fact. Dr. Ed Klima of 

the National Marine Fisheries Service stated that the decline in 

shrimp harvest is not from over-fishing, but an environmental 

problem. 

With the loss of this pink shrimp in the food chain, we have seen 

fin fish go from consuming highly nutritious shrimp to consuming 

crabs and other poor quality food sources. This has affected their 

size and their reproductive rates. 

We are experiencing harmful algae blooms under the tip of Florida which have created a large dead zone. Again, I will not reiterate John Hunt on the degradation of the sponge habitat and the 

effects on the lobster industry, although the lobster industry is the 

largest single fishery for Monroe County and the average lobster 

fisherman's catch on the east part of the Bay is down by 40 percent. With these blooms, we now have what we call a green tide. I am 

sure you are all familiar with the red tide which kills fish. Well 

this green tide kills the habitat and drives away the fish. Since 

most fish are sight feeders and cannot see to feed in these green 

waters, the schools of commercially harvestable fish are no longer there for the near-shore fishermen to catch. 

The commercial fishermen of Monroe County believe that immediate action is necessary to restore the freshwater flow into the 

east portion of Florida Bay. We believe that clean, freshwater flow 

should be returned to Taylor Slough in its proper historical 

amounts. We need action now while there is still a resource to 

save. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Lessard follows:] 

73-729 - 93 - 3 
00 

Mr. Chairman , members of the committee, I want to thank you 

for giving me the opportunity to address you today. My name is 

Karl Lessard, I am the designated representative of the Monroe 

County Commercial Fishermen, the Keys Chapter of the Organized 

Fishermen of Florida, and a member of the EPA Water Quality 

Steering Committee. 

We in the Monroe county commercial fishing indus~ry have 

witnessed the advancing degradation and loss of the most prolific 

fishery area in the state of Florida, Florida Bay. 

Monroe County has generated approximately 20-25t of 

Florida's total dockside value for seafood production. In 199r 

we landed $48.4 million in dockside value which comes out to 

approximately $106.4 million wholesale. Shellfish landings make 

up sot of this value . Since 1981 pink shrimp catches have 

dropped sot. This has led to the collapse of the pink shrimp 

industry. 

since the start of the seaqrass die-off in 1986, we have 

lost over 64,000 acres of pink shrimp habitat and Dr. Ed Klima of 

National Marine Fisheries Service stated that the decline in 

shrimp harvest is not from over-fishing, but an environmental 

problem. 

With this loss of pink shrimp in the food chain we have seenfin fish go from consuming highly nutritious shrimp to consuming 

crabs and other poor quality food sources. This has affected 

their size and reproductive rates. 

We are experiencing harmful algae blooms that have created a 

large "dead zone" under the tip of Florida. We now have a 
61 

cyanobacteria bloom that is wiping out all of our sponge habitat 

which is the main nursery for juvenile lobster. Without this 

sponge habitat to provide protective cover and feeding grounds, 

the juvenile lobster are now falling prey to predators. The 

average lobster fisherman's catch in the east side of the Bay is 

down 40t. 

We are calling this region of dark green bloom water the 

"green tide". This is because unlike the red tide which kills 

fish, this green tide drives the fish away from the area and 

kills the habitat. Since most fish are sight feeders and cannot 

see to feed in these green waters, the schools of commercially 

haryestable fish are not there for the near-shore fishermen to 

catch. 

The commercial fishermen of Monroe County believe that 

immediate action is necessary to restore the freshwater flow into 

the east portion of Florida Bay. We believe that clean, fresh 

water flows should be returned to Taylor Slough in its proper 

historical amounts. We need action now, while there is still a 

resource to save. 

Thank you very much. 
62 

Mr. MILLER. Well thank you. I thank each of you for your statements. 

Captain Collins, when I read your statement late last night, I 

was hoping you might get lost on your way here-

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER [continuing]. Since that is not a litany of events that 

most of us in public life like to have read back to us in terms of 

the inability to deal with the concerns of our constituents or groups 

about problems. But I think clearly we are at a juncture now where 

it has become clear to all of us, those of us who represent other 

parts of the country and certainly those who represent the south 

Florida area, that that was business as usual. And this situation 

is now at such a point that that simply cannot continue because 

I think, as this panel points out, maybe 10 or 15 years ago, or really up until recently, the questions of environmental protection were 

always pitted as an either/or situation with respect to if you were 

going to protect the environment, you had to agree to the assumption that you would lose jobs and you would lose economic activity. 

If you were going to close a refinery or not allow one to be built, 

therefore you lost those jobs. If you were going to clean up the river 

and stop some activity or change it, you would lose jobs. I think 

what we are starting to see emerge around the country, especially 

as we look at these large ecosystems, that that simply is no longer 

true. That in fact, some of the most valuable ecosystems that we 

are concerned with around the country are huge economic engines 

of activity that generate a very, very large number of jobs and jobs 

that appear to have a future, and some growth in them. We were 

recently up in Idaho and the Guides Association started there for 

the first bme over the last couple of years to document what the 

use of those natural resources in terms of the non-extractive use 

meant to the State of Idaho, meant to the airline industry, to the 

real estate industry, to the travel industry, to the motel industry, 

sort of what you have put forth here. And it is rather remarkable 

because it starts to overwhelm what we had in the traditional notion of the extractive use of resources, deplete it, leave it behind 

and move on; that the stewardship that you talked about starts to 

look to make an awful lot more economic sense in that concern. 

In my own State of California, we were subsidizing large agriculture. It was paying us $3 and $4 for an acre-foot of water and 

it was costing us in some cases several hundred dollars to get that 

water to the front door of the farm, and that farm was creating 20 

or 30 jobs. We found that if we gave that same acre-foot of water 

to the Silicon Valley, we could create thousands of jobs. And those 

are the competing interests. But I think for those of us in the political arena that are concerned about the environment, the kind of 

testimony that you bring forth here is very helpful because we are 

going to have to pick and choose about what are the emerging 

economies, where is the ~owth in the jobs and where are the sustainable jobs. Obviously 1f the Keys is sustainable, the economy is 

sustainable. If the Keys is in decline, eventually you will see it reflected in your own business activity and in real estate values and 

others. 

Clearly this kind of a coalition is very welcome by someone like 

myself to this debate because, without it, we get back into the old 
63 

either black-or-white solution. And in this case, I find so many parallels with this and the big fights in California that we have gone 

through the last 20 years-it really is not about whether you are 

going to put agriculture out of business. The question is how do we 

have agriculture conform to the changed dynamics within the State 

and the competing interests and emerging interests. And how are 

we able to sustain that to the extent that we can, realizing that, 

as we found out in California, that food was not quite as cheap as 

we thought it was. There were a lot of other costs that my colleagues in the Congress last year agreed they were no longer going 

to ask their constituents to pick up, in terms of the deep subsidies 

that went to the production of that food and fiber. 

So while I think that we are still at a point where we have the 

possibility that these are not either/or questions, clearly the emergence of the discussions around the preservation and sustainability 

of the environment and the emerging economic interests dramatically change that debate. I really do not have · any questions for you 

because I think your testimony gives a fairly clear blueprint for 

what the hell we should be doing. But it also is very straightforward in stating what is at risk here beyond the physical degradation of the Bay. 

So thanks very much to all of you for your testimony. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank the witnesses 

for their patience and their willingness to work. 

Obviously this agreement is just one piece of the puzzle. There 

are alot of other things that need to be done. You have raised the 

issue of dea.liilg with restoration of flow from other areas that had 

little to do with the agreement, but everything to do with Florida 

Bay. I think, as I try to emphasize when asking scientists questions, we are dealing with an environment here that is under 

stress. Whenever you add changes to it-some dramatic, some 

minor-you are getting profound impacts. So I think you highlight 

many of the attributes, the $2 billion-someone said. Does $2 billion mean anything to you?. Even in Washington, $2 billion still 

means something, let me assure you. 

So I understand and we understand, that that has to be trans,. 

lated in terms of what has traditionally been the policy decisions. 

Much of this area was looked at in its earliest history as a wasteland. Today we understand that it is a very important estuary 

area, and I think you have to look not just at what is happening, but I have to ask you to look out into the marine sanctuary and 

the importance that that has on these affected areas and these 

areas in the Bay. If we do not begin to deal with it, nobody else 

is going to. So I hope that as I have listened carefully to you, that 

you will stand ready to work on a whole host of problems. If we 

have to wait until everything is in crisis and then take these dramatic actions, we are expecting perhaps more than what the government policy system is able to absorb. We have to get ahead of 

the curve, and that is indeed what is being articulated. We do not 

want this in the courts. We have to have a common-sense, on-theground type of implementation of policies, and we have to work 

with the State and -with local governments very closely. And that 

is why I am glad that Mr. London is here. 
64 

Frankly, when we start talking about watersheds, this has got to 

be one of the biggest watersheds that we have. We can go to Minnesota where Christian and I hail from, and we see a much different situation in terms of watershed that is a much smaller problem. But really, this degree of coordination and governance and discipline that is necessary in this system exceeds anythin« that I 

mow of almost anyplace. But I think it is so clear that while there 

has been so much done by the State of Florida already, it is not 

enough. You have to take that final step and really deal very thoroughly with the problems-and there are a lot of them. It is not 

just phosphorus, as has been indicated, it is not just water quantity. You know, there was a problem long before the turtle grass 

disappeared because the turtle grass itself is a problem. And those 

questions have to be dealt with. 

And it means disciplining ourselves if we want to preserve this 

legacy and this economy. And I think your association recognizing 

the ecosystem and the importance of your economy to it is key to 

resolving this. It has a value, a tremendous economic value, and 

certainly a value in terms of our legacy and our heritage as people 

in this Nation. 

So I look forward to working with you all. Thank you. 

Mr. Mn.LER. Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I too heard and listened very intently to each of your statements 

and I appreciate the conciseness, the heartfelt feelings that you had. Quite frankly, when we talk about vision in the Northwest, we 

use the Native American analogy that they used to look ahead 

seven generations and when peoJ.>le talk to me about their children 

and grandchildren, I think that 1s the way we should be thinking. Mr. Fleisher, you mentioned your kids, and I do not think you can 

get any more visionary than what we are trying to do for our kids 

and our grandkids. 

I might mention, Ms. Lee, that Congressman Vento and Congressman Deutsch and I all sit on the Banking Committee and so 

we are in tune with what you are saying. We deal with the issues 

that you brought to us all the time in the dual roles that we serve 

in Congress on the committee assignments. 

Mr. Chairman, it gets down to water, does it not, and fish. And 

I know that we can sit here and talk about clean air and other 

things, but out my way in Idaho where Chairman Miller and I had 

the opportunity to float the Selway River, not a river that everybody knows-Mr. Collins is shaking his head- You dip your cup 

in the middle of the Selway River and drink it during runoff. And 

that is a watershed that has been totally protected. 

But it goes beyond that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks 

for this hearing. It is not just the preservation of that watershed 

that is in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, but it is other things 

as well. And you make the case, and I am happy to hear, as a 

Member of Congress, where we have the these debates out in the 

Northwest, the environment versus jobs, to hear that people are 

hinging their economic future on the environmental quality of our 

surroundings. Due to the good work of Chairman Vento ana Chairman Miller, we passed through the Senate on Wednesday legisla- tion to protect the densest concentration of nesting raptors in 
65 

North America which is in my District, through the Senate and it 

is on its way to the President. I only mention this because it is the 

only place that exists in North America, like this living coral reef 

here, so I identify with these issues tremendously. 

I would say that you know where you come down on science, it 

comes down on the economic side as well in this part of the world. 

And I think that is important for us to hear. 

I would simply ask Captain Collins because you have been forceful in your statement, I would like to hear how you regard the 

process right now of the Secretary's involvement with the statement of principles. I will just follow that question up by saying that 

the litany that you presented to this committee of perhaps failure 

in governmental agencies from acting and reacting is not easy to 

hear, as the Chairman mentioned, but I feel that this administration is trying to coordinate the activities of the multi-agencies involved in issues like this, and there is a sincere attempt not to 

have these things happen in the future. But we have something on 

the table that is in its infancy in terms of the 90-day deadline on 

this agreement and statements of principles, but you were a little 

critical of that, I think. - Captain COLLINS. There is a great fear that exists in anybody 

that has been involved in something like this as long as I have, 

with the kind of frustrations I have dealt with, and there are a couple I did not list there, that were a lot more personal and a lot 

more highly placed in this ~overnment. There is a great fear when 

you see something like this that we are asked to participate in 

whether the resources that will exist when this whole deal is over 

are going to be sufficient to deal with the problem that we have 

in our own backyard. We _did not have anything to do with that situation up there. We had absolutely nothing to do with it. We had 

nothing to say about it. We had no representation there really; we 

do not have anybody on the District Board. So it is hard sometimes 

to look at it. I understand the points that have been made in favor 

of it, that it is time to get this settled and go on, and I believe that 

very much also. But I do not want to go on and wind up once again 

standing out there in the middle of Florida Bay waiting for the calvary to show up because we spent all our money doing something else. Again, I guess I have to put it to you, I mean do we have 

enough money to do both? Are we going to have enough money left 

over to do what we need to do in Florida Bay, you know, if we are 

required to spend X amount of dollars, and that is my question. It 

is not that cleaning up the Everglades is not worth it. If you tell 

me we can do that and that, I will kick in my share wholeheartedly. I do not have any problem with that at all. I believe 

there is room for all of us in this equation. I believe there is room 

for sugar in the Everglades. That may be a minority opinion in the 

Keys, but I think we can probably work something out. But I also 

question very seriously whether or not we can afford · to be that 

generous at all times. 

Mr. LARocco. That is a fair statement and I appreciate your reaction to that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Carlos. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I want to thank each and every one of the 

witnesses for their testimony. I think one of the brightest things 
66 

we have shown in this hearing is the unanimity of the different 

concerns in the Keys to save the Everglades and promote the environmental health of Florida Bay. 

I wanted to mention something specifica,Hk1!hat Mr. Collins said 

because when we had the scientists here t · g, Dr. Hunt and Dr. 

Jones, they enlightened us tremendously, but I kept thinking all 

the time while they were talking that they never made any reference to having talked to the fishermen or having talked to the 

guides. And I mention that also because I was born about a block 

away from the ocean and I grew up in the ocean and I learned to 

respect the opinions and the knowledge that the fishermen have of 

the oceans. I want to mention an example, one of your frustrations, 

of 17 years ago you knew what the problem was and you knew 

what had to be done. Captain COLLINS. I did. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. And your gro~p of guides and I am sure 

the fishermen knew the same things. There is a hotel constructed 

on the eastern coast of Puerto Rico, a very fancy hotel, it is up on 

a cliff. And they decided to build a marina on the coast and they 

brought these ocean experts who studied the currents and the tide 

and they decided to build the marina. And when they started working, the fishermen said what are you doing there, and they said we 

are building a marina. They said, are you crazy, you cannot build 

a marina there, at such and such a time of the year we have currents and there will be no boat that will survive in there. They 

said, oh, no, we studied the tides with a scientific study. They said, 

well you must have studied the wrong time of the year. And they 

did not pay any attention. So they built this very, very expensive marina and behold, when that time of the year came, all the boats, 

a lot of them were harmed and they had to close the marina, because they did not pay attention to the .fishermen. 

And I bring this up because if I have anything to do at any time 

with decisions of who is going to oversee or monitor what the results of this are going to be, I would insist and suggest that in that 

group of people that are going to be monitoring, that the guides 

and the fishermen would be represented, because no other person would notice how it was working and how it is being done more 

quickly and realize more what was happening than the fishermen 

and now the guides also, which are on those waters every day. I want to thank you and I think you made a very good contribution to this. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Deutsch. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Again, I think this was a very powerful panel for 

me and I think for everyone here. I also think these are the sort 

of comments that every one of us can take back to Washington and 

share with other Members. As I said in my openin~ statement, the 

environmental conditions in south Florida are not JUSt an environmental tragedy but a potential economic tragedy. I want to focus 

on a couple of issues. Mike, in your association there are literally 

people who have been out on Florida Bay almost every day for the 

last 20, 30 or even 40 years. The reason I bring that up is there 

at least seems to be a debate about whether the algae bloom is a 

new phenomenon or an old phenomenon. Could you focus on that, 

both from your own personal experience of literally being out on 
67 

the Bay almost every day of your life for the last x number of 

years, and from other guides who have that historical perspective. 

And one of the things that we have seen from the scientific evidence is that there is really no scientific literature about the existence of an algae bloom prior to several years ago. This seems to 

indicate that we really are not in a sort of cycle of ecological problems. Rather, we are clearly at a crisis level. I think the kind of 

anecdotal history that you can express gives us a clear picture of 

that. 

Captain COLLINS. In res_ponse to the question that you asked 

first, I think there have always been in very, very small limited 

sort of doses, and I think Dr. Jones would tell you this, little flash 

blooms of varieties of algaes. Algaes have probably always been 

back there. And there would be a time when there would be 

enough nutrients concentrated in some back eddy or something like 

that that would be maybe the size of the tables that we are looking 

at and they would be gone in a couple of days. That is what the 

old timers told me that every once in a great while they would see 

a blue-green algae of some sort. But like I say, it would be about 

this big and two or three days later you would come through there 

and it would be gone. There is nothing, accordingto the testimony, and I spent at least 

three hours with a member of our organization, who is on his 11th 

captain's renewal, which means he has been a captain for 55 years, 

of anything that even resembles what we are looking at today. There has never been fish kills of the kind and type. They had always been related to cold water activity. The reasons we were 

screaming bloody murder about the ones that we saw in 1988, 1989 

and 1990 was that they took place in the summer time. Nobody had ever seen a fish kill in the Bay of that magnitude in the summer time. So when somebody tells us that it is a natural phenomenon, and I have got people that have been back there their entire 

lives that tell me that nothing of that kind ever happened before, 

you know, we get a little confused by it. But no, there have never 

been algae blooms of this magnitude in anybody's memory that we 

have spoken to. And I think I have covered pretty much everybody that has been back there, who is still alive. 

Just one sort of aside, and they will probably be able to fill you 

in better. The Water Management District has been collecting, has 

started working to collect this anecdotal material and try to get it 

institutionalized in a way where it can provide some help, hope- fully, in the future. 

Mr. MILLER. Ms. Meek. 

Ms. MEEK. I do not have a question for this group. I would just 

like to compliment ,you on the clarity of your presentation. I think 

we got the message that you are very much concerned about saving Florida Bay. Now we have got to decide how to do it. I came here 

today to listen and before I leave or maybe next week or whatever, 

very soon, in talking to our very knowledgeable chair people here 

and the members of these two committees, I would like for someone 

to say to me what is one strategy for doing this; perhaps strategy A. What do we do in strategy A, how do we start, how do we end. 

How much money is it going to take in strategy A. What is strategy B, and come up with maybe three or four scenarios that can really 
68 

give us a practical answer to this problem. I think much of it is 

going to end up costing some money [laughter] and I would like to 

know, because I am very close to you, I am in Miami, you see me 

often and I kind of stand out from some other people. You may ask 

me a few things when you approach me sometimes and I want to 

have some answers and hopefully some solutions in the next 3 to 

4 years. It appears in what we heard from the Governor, we cannot 

wait 10 years. And I am hoping that after this Chairman Miller 

and the rest of them-they are pretty smart people--can come up with some practical applications so that when I come back for the 

next hearing, we will be able to bring you some answers. Because 

I am a freshman in Congress, I feel pretty much like Captain Collins on a lot of things, you know-show me something. So that is why I am glad I am here to hear you speak because 

I worked with the organized fishermen for many years, Mr. 

Lessard, when I was in the legislature, and I was always on their 

side. I was always against the-what do they call themselves, the 

Marine Fisheries Commission or whatever. I hope not too many of 

them are here today. [Laughter.] 

I was always on the side of the organized fishermen because they 

represent the working people, as far as I was concerned. And I am 

just appealing to the committees, both of them, to try and really 

come up with something today or in the near future sort of like 

putting together much of what you have heard here today. So can I get a pledge from you, Chairman Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Well hell, why not. 

Ms. MEEK. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Shaw. 

Mr. SHAW. The gentleman from Idaho made reference to the 

Banking Committee and his interest in the testimony. I can tell 

each one of you, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, 

which is the tax-writing committee, we certainly have a very, very deep interest in seeing that the jobs are preserved. I too, think this 

is something that has to be considered. Agricultural jobs are important, but I would hasten to point out to this committee that most 

of the workers involved in the sugar fields and in the tomato fields 

are migrant workers. They are from offshore. What we are talking 

about here is the jobs of the people who live here, who pay the 

taxes, and who have their kids grow up here. These are the people 

that we represent and whom we must be most concerned about. 

I also would certainly point out that unlike the situation that we 

have up around the lake, the problems surrounding Florida Bay 

were definitely caused by government. Well-intentioned as it was, 

it was the government who dug these canals that are now creating 

the problem. It is government that drained the land that now has 

to be flooded again to put back the original sufficient sheettlow into 

the slough and other parts of the Everglades in order to save the 

Florida Bay. I am very, very encouraged by your testimony. I think 

you have certainly re~Jresented your community very well before 

this body and I can tell you that the committee is quite impressed 

with your testimony and I am very grateful for it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 
69 

Just two points. One is that when we look at the financial contributions under the statement of principles and what various entities are going to be called to put forth over the next decade to try 

and help solve some of these problems, I think it should be clearly 

recognized-maybe it is obvious on its face-that you are also being 

taxed currently for this, when you lose a booking or you lose a 

room or you lose a sale or you lose whatever it is in your particular 

industry, that that is a tax on your livelihood just as much as the 

positive contribution from signing an agreement to go forth with 

this problem. That the industries that are represented in the Keys 

are currently, it appears from what your testimony suggests, are 

already starting to pay a rather dramatic tax on their businesses 

through lost activity and eventually, Mayor London, obviously 

through local contributions for that purpose. 

Secondly, in my pledge that you all heard to Congresswoman 

Meek, I was hoping to do it the other way because when I read the 

transcript of one of the hearings held on the Kissimmee, which you 

participated in, I thought that was about as fast as I have ever 

seen words translate into action, this year's appropriation bill. So 

I have all the words, I was looking for the action the other way. 

We will work it out, Mr. Collins, do not worry about it. 

But clearly the urgency, the bloom this size, the physical damage, the psychological damage to fishermen and others who decide 

to go fishing somewhere else-there is only so many recreational 

dollars and fishing dollars in the universe here and if they are not 

going to be spent in the Keys, they are going to be spent somewhere else-demand some action on this agreement and getting on 

with this solution. 

Thank you very much for your testimony and we look forward to 

continuing to work with you. And Mayor London, thank you for 

your contribution as well. [Applause.] 

The next panel will be made up of Mr. Tom Martin, the Chair 

of the Everglades Coalition; Mr. James Humble, Vice President and 

Chief Executive Officer of South Dade Land Corporation; Mr. 

George Barley, Chairman, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

Advisory Council and Mr. Dexter Lehtinen, the General Counsel 

for the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Miami, Florida. As you have 

seen, we have a light on here for your testimony, which will allow 

you all five minutes to make your statements. The extent to which 

you can summarize will be appreciated and then we will allow time 

for questions from the Members. 

Mr. Martin, we are going to begin with you. 
70 

PANEL CONSISTING OF THOMAS D. MARTIN, CHAIR, EVERGLADES COALITION; JAMES HUMBLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTH DADE LAND CORP., AND 

CHAIRMAN, LIMFJAVOCADO ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITI'EE; 

GEORGE BARLEY, CHAIRMAN, FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MA· 

RINE SANCTUARY ADVISORY COUNCIL; AND DEXTER 

LEHTINEN, GENERAL COUNSEL, MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF IN· 

DIANS, MIAMI, FL 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. MARTIN 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. 

I am pleased that you have a copy of the Everglades restoration 

plan in your documents. I would like to recognize a number of 

other people who helped prepare it, who are members of the coalition who are here today: Joyce Newman from Clean Water Action; 

John Flicker and Mark Robertson from the Nature Conservancy; 

George Barley and Edwin Morrey from National Audubon. All of 

them helped put this together. We are very proud of the document 

and do believe it presents you a good prescnption for solving problems in the Everglades system. I would like to spend my time talking about things these committees can do to make a real difference in the Everglades system. The 

first and most important thing I think is you need to view it as a 

total ecosystem. From the headwaters of the Kissimmee all the way 

down through the coral reefs, it is one system. If you focus on fixing but one part of it, you will not be able to; it is a system, you 

must focus on all of it. So I would like you to come down in February and hold a hearing on the northern end of the system, so 

that you can have a full understanding of the system from top to 

bottom. 

A second thing that I would like to suggest is an accountability mechanism. One of the difficulties of dealing with Everglades issues, as you have seen, is the plethora of Federal and State agen- cies with management responsibility. Mr. Shaw has introduced a 

bill, and I know he is planning to add some amendments, that I 

think could give you the kind of device you need to establish that 

kind of accountability. First, you need coordination. Secretary Babbitt has set up the inter-agency committee and we are grateful that 

he has done that, but that should be mandated in law. 

Secondly, somebody should be legally responsible. We should 

know where the buck stops for Everglades restoration. In the law, 

it ought to say the Secretary of the Interior. They ought to be able 

to have consultation with other agencies and they ought to have 

the power to resolve disputes between agencies. Finally, there ought to be regular reporting on work plans for the 

coming years from each of these agencies, and a report on what 

they accomplished in the year before, tied to your budget cycles, so 

that you can see what the budgetary needs are and you can make 

sure the agencies are working together. Another thing that I think these Committees could do that would 

be very positive is thorough review of the East Everglades Expansion Act. There are a number of problems with that Act. First, it 

sets up some competing expectations. It suggests to the farmers 
71 

that if they are adversely impacted, you will pull water levels 

down. It suggest to the Park that you will proVIde enough water 

for them. That is an inherent contradiction that I believe needs to 

be solved before you can expect your managers to properly manage 

the system. 

Secondly, there is a well field permit, the West Dade Well Field 

permit, which is also talked about in that Act. Modeling by the 

South Florida Water Management District in the Park showed that 

drawing down in excess of 40 million gallons a day will harm Everglades National Park. The East Everglades Expansion Act sets that 

cap at 140 million gallons a day. I suggest that you look at that. 

Now that the modeling is available, I suggest you amend it. 

In addition, the 8lh square miles, because of the East Everglades 

Expansion Act, is expecting to have a leyy built around it as flood 

protection. I suggest that $22 million will be put to far better use 

to buy those lands. 

Next in your oversight, hold the Corps accountable. They are undertaking now a system review, and I am very pleased that Colonel 

Salt is here today. They are doing this in a new way, sitting as full 

partners at the table for this environmental review of the entire 

system is the Department of the Interior, EPA, NOAA. I think that 

kind of collective review is good but it should not take 18 months; 

it should not take any more than a year. 

Next, C-111. If you are concerned about Florida Bay, fixing C111 so that natural flows are restored in that area, timing, distribution and flow is a key thing. That is in process at the Corps 

now; it has been dragging on for years. We need to get that fixed. 

Finally, a Taylor Slough demonstration project. The Corps has 

put more water into the system, but they have not put enough in. 

And I think you should talk to them about the levels at which they 

are holding the canal stages. 

I would also like to recognize the hard work that Ms. Meek has 

done to get us some appropriations to restore the system. It has 

made a real difference. But again, we have appropriations spread 

throughout the federal budget that are almost unpossible to figure 

out what the total focus and spending on Everglades is. I would 

suggest that the Congressional Budget Office, OMB, maybe the 

Budget Committee, each year prior to your consideration as Congress of those budget bills, put together an Everglades budget so 

that you see what is being spent on Everglades, where the investments are being made, and make sure that those line up with the 

kinds of priorities that you have: 

Finally, I would like to just make a comment very briefly about 

the settlement. It is a settlement by some of the parties-the statement of principles. It is an agreement by some of the parties about 

some of the issues. However, it never provides clean water for the 

Everglades system and it has an inherently unfair distribution of 

costs in it. I hope during the next 90 days that can be fixed. I 

would like to thank Lieutenant Governor MacKay. I think he 

raised a very key issue. If there is going to be a successful resolution of these negotiations, there has to be more land. One of the 

things these committees could do is authorize the Department of 

Interior to begin acquiring land inside the Everglades agricultural 

area for the expansion of those STAs. I think that would be a great 
72 

step forward and I would support Lieutenant Governor MacKay in 

that. 

Finally, I would like to thank Congressman Deutsch for helping assemble the Everglades caucus in Congress, and getting all of 

Congress focused, not just people in relevant committees, in this 

national issue. 

Thank you v~ry much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. [Applause.] 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] 
73 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS D. MARTIN REGARDING THE RESTORATION OF 

THE EVERGLADES SYSfEM WITH SPECIALEMPHASIS ON FLORIDA BAY. 

BEFORE THE COMMmEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES' SUBCOMMmEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS AND SUBCOMMmEE ON NATIONAL 

PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS AND THE MERCHANT MARINE 

AND FISHERIES SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

JULY 31, 1993 

INTRODUCTION 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished 

group of Members of Congress and subcommittees. I am Executive Director of 

National Audubon Society's Everglades System Restoration Campaign and today 

have the privilege of representing the Everglades Coalition. The Coalition is a 

group of 28 environmental and conservation organizations dedicated to the 

restoration of this system. 

This is a key time for you to be discussing restoration of the Greater Everglades 

Ecosystem. The Corps has just begun work on the redesign review of the 

plumbing system which should become the blueprint for restoration and clearly 

identify the commitments that need to be made to fully restore the system. 

However there are things that can be done right now that will make a marked 

difference in the health of the system. This distinguished group can help make 

these events happen through a variety of activities that our testimony will 

outline. 

Recommendations for the Committees represented here today fall into three 

categories. First, you can provide a sorely needed oversight function. Second, 

there are specific activities the federal government can undertake to make a real 

difference in the health of the system. Finally, we will identify federal 

appropriations that are essential to the recovery of this system. Prior to 

discussing the recommendations we should first examine the ecological history 

of Florida Bay and the greater Everglades system. 

EVERGLADES SYSTEM BACKGROUND 

No more important or complex ecosystem in need of restoration exists in our 

nation than the Everglades. Spanning South Florida from the coral reefs off the 

Keys to the headwaters of the Kissimmee River near Orlando, the size of the 

Everglades is complemented by the diversity of life it historically supported. 

Nurturing the existence of humans and wildlife, it is now a troubled system on 

the brink of collapse. 
74 

It is impossible to talk about the health of Florida Bay without placing it in the 

context of the greater Everglades system. The Everglades has been channeled, 

diked and drained into compartments that interrupt the free flow of water upon 

which this ecosystem depends. What was once a self-sustaining, healthy system 

now fails to meet the needs and demands of people, plants and animals. 

Portions of the Florida Keys coral reef system, supporting the most prolific 

commercial and recreational dive industry in the world, are threatened by 

hypersalinity and increased water temperatures. Fisheries in Florida Bay upon 

which a $200-300 million annual commercial and recreational fishing industry 

depends are imperiled by seagrass die-offs and resulting algae blooms caused in 

large part by the lack of freshwater flows through the .. River of Grass ... 

Everglades National Park is in peril because its water supply has been disrupted: 

too little water at times, too much at other times. The number of wading birds 

has declined by 90 percent in the last 50 years -- a bleak omen since birds are 

among the most visible indicators of change. Despite ample rainfall, Southeast 

Florida is often left struggling to find enough water to meet the needs of its 

citizens, businesses and natural areas because precious water is flushed to the sea. 

The Water Conservation Areas are under assault by pollution from the 

Everglades Agricultural Area. Lake Okeechobee faces serious nutrient pollution 

problems. The Kissimmee River has been altered from the winding, productive 

stream it once was to little more than a ditch. Finally, the whole system is 

touched by mercury pollution and exotic plant and animal species. 

The system once occupied an area roughly 40 miles wide and 100 miles long that 

extended from Lake Okeechobee to the southern tip of Florida. Because of South 

Florida's flat terrain, the water flowed as a relatively continuous sheet, taking 

alomost a year to reach Florida Bay. Eighty percent of the water falls in a wet 

season from May to December. During this period, water spreads out over much 

of the marsh, when plants and algae exhibit maximum growth, fish, and 

alligators flourish. When the dry season begins, the water recedes and fish 

populations are concentrated in shallow pools. These concentrations provide 

wading birds with plentiful food for breeding. Slight variations in land 

elevations also created a mosaic of different water depths that combined to fill a 

variety of ecological functions. 

Today, the Everglades system has shrunk by roughly 50 percent. Roughly one 

quarter of the system has been turned into sugar cane and vegetable fields. 

Another quarter has become urbanized. This has destroyed valuable habitat and 

interrupted the natural flow of water in the system. These areas require rapid, 

massive drainage during the wet season that sends water to tide. They then 

demand water from the system during the dry months. This intervention is at 

the root of most of the Everglades problems. 

The Everglades Coalition's Everglades System Restoration Plan is centered on recreating a free flowing "River of Grass" where water rises and falls in natural 

harmony with seasonal and annual variations in rainfall. A federal drainage 
75 

project constructed a series of blockages across this ecosystem, with internal 

canals carrying water past dry areas in the north to relatively deep, stagnant pools 

in the south. This alteration in flows has harmed the plant and animal 

communities as well as our economy. Currently, the Everglades System is home 

to 16 federally-designated endangered species. To set the system free, historic 

flows and levels in the remaining Everglades must be returned by re-linking 

these severed units and conserving water now diverted to sea. 

Restoration of historic flows is the cornerstone upon which this system can be 

rebuilt. The return of natural volume, timing and distribution of water will 

support the return of historic plant and invertebrate communities, that, in turn, 

provide the food and shelter for the fish and animal populations for which this 

system is renowned. The restoration of the full community of life to this 

complex ecosystem first requires the restoration of natural water delivery 

patterns. And that demands res'toration of each of the system's components and 

rebuilding the links between them. 

What is most remarkable is that despite the litany of ills and abuse, the system 

can be restored. Much of the land needed to restore the system is in public 

ownership and most of the legal authorities required to undertake the task are in 

place. What is lacking is the political will of the government to design and 

implement a comprehensive restoration plan. 

The cost and manner of undertaking this reconstructive surgery are unknown. 

As with the drainage projects, infrastructure improvements require a substantial 

investment that will be paid back over time by fostering long-term economic 

growth. We expect the state-federal public works project model used to drain the 

system will be required to repair it. As we learn from experience during the 

progress of this project, we can adjust the design to incorporate new information 

and minimize costs. Our plan is effective and economically sensible. 

The costs of failing to undertake this endeavor are clear. Our failure to act will 

exacerbate water supply problems for businesses, homes and recreation areas, 

constraining Florida's economy from Palm Beach through Key West. Failure to 

act will destroy the fishing and diving industries of the Keys and Florida Bay. 

Failure to act will doom Everglades National Park (ENP) to accelerating 

deterioration. Failure to act will ensure the continued shrinkage of the bird and 

animal populations that depend on this system for existence. In short, the 

economic and environmental health of South Florida is at stake. 

Our Plan reconnects the now separate pieces of the system and illustrates how 

water can be moved through it to meet the needs of the entire system and its 

dependents. Many of the recommendations that follow are reiterations or 

refinements of directives in the South Florida Water Management District's 

Surface Water Improvement Management Plan and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Project supporting documents; 
76 

recommendations made months and years ago, but never implemented. While 

any restoration process will be an iterative one, taking time and reflecting new 

knowledge, our Plan clearly shows that it is possible to restore the system. 

PRINCIPLES OF RESTORATION 

The goal is to create a smaller but complete Everglades system by replicating its 

original features -- to re-create a mosaic of natural soil, plant, fish and animal 

communities so as to mirror the unique biodiversity of the historic system. This 

system will be self-sustaining, bountiful and perform the original functions and 

support the. In designing restoration plans for this system, the following 

principles must be applied: 

• Restore pristine water quality throughout the system; 

• Conserve and reroute water entering the system to increase the selfsufficiency of urban and agricultural water supplies; 

• Replicate the essential features of the natural hydrology -- the volume, 

depth, timing and distribution of water that once flowed through the 

system; 

• Maximize the number, size, and connections among wetland 

communities which will retain more water and enhance natural 

values; and 

• Judge the success of restoration by monitoring a suite of biological 

indicators from throughout the system. 

The plan presents four important types of reforms that flow from these 

principles. 

1. Water mana~ement - We must replicate the timing, amount, flow, 

depth and distribution of water that once defined the system. 

Accomplishing these goals requires significant changes in water 

management, including physical and operational changes to the series 

of canals, dikes, pumps and levees throughout the system. It also 

includes changes outside the system to increase the self-sufficiency of 

agricultural and urban water supplies, for their needs have distorted 

the natural system. 

2. Aq~ujsition. mana~;ement or protection of key areas now outside the 

publicly owned system - Most of these areas must be used to recreate 

natural flowways into the remaining system, store water, prevent 
77 

seepage, increase aquifer recharge and treat polluted farm runoff. 

Some areas must be protected or acquired to provide habitat for 

Everglades animals, especially endangered ones. 

3. Management and oyersj~ht - We must couple these restoration 

efforts with continuous physical and biological assessment and 

oversight to permit policy corrections as restoration proceeds. 

4. Economjc reforms - The economic system must be reformed so that 

polluters pay to cleanup their own messes, costs of operating the 

system are borne by those that benefit from them and that operation of 

the system recognizes and restores those jobs dependent on a healthy 

Everglades system. 

The principles drive the recommendations we have made about the repair of 

this system. As we learn more about the system and consider alterations to 

our strategy these principals will guide us as we will consider changes. 

"Fixing" one part of the system in isolation from the other parts may have 

unintended but devastating consequences on other areas. Therefore 

restoration must be viewed and implemented in an integrated and 

comprehensive manner. 

FLORIDA BAY AND SOUTHERN EVERGLADES BACKGROUND 

1. Natural Ecology 

Although Florida Bay comprises an entire ecosystem in its own right, it is also 

part of a larger ecosystem -- the Greater Everglades ecosystem. Florida Bay's 

location at the extreme southern end of the Everglades ecosystem means its 

dependence on natural freshwater flows from the Everglades is most tenuous. It 

also means that when too little water enters the Everglades in its northern and 

central regions, it is Florida Bay that will be most severely affected. Because 

Florida Bay's health is so directly linked to a healthy Everglades, restoration of 

Florida Bay necessarily requires restoration of the entire Everglades ecosystem. 

For more than three decades, the natural systems of Florida Bay and the 

southern Everglades have been severely degraded, primarily as a result of 

reduced quantity, altered timing and shifted distribution of freshwater flows. 

These changes have had a dramatic negative effect on the populations of plants, 

birds, animals and fish which live in this ecosystem. The estuarine-marsh 

interface between the southern Everglades, the mangrove belt, and Florida Bay 

itself once formed a diverse, biologically productive and extremely abundant 

ecosystem. During some years in the 1930s and 1940s, between 200,000 and 

250,000 wading birds would attempt to reproduce in this region. The maximum 

population of 8,000 birds in the 1930s fell to a maximum of only 500 to 600 in the 
78 

1990s. As a result of its dwindling population in south Florida, the Wood Stork 

was listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1984. 

More than one-fourth of the U.S. population of Roseate Spoonbills nest in 

Florida Bay. Great White Herons are restricted primarily to the Florida Keys and 

extreme South Florida. The entire U.S. population of the endangered American 

Crocodile nests around the southern edge of peninsular Florida. The Cape Sable 

Seaside Sparrow is found nowhere else in the world. The largest concentration 

of Roseate Spoonbills in the U.S. once nested along the eastern edge of Florida 

Bay. 

Since the 1970s the number of Roseate Spoonbills along the eastern half of 

Florida Bay has decreased dramatically. Researchers found that Great White 

Herons feeding exclusively in Florida Bay are raising fewer young than before. 

Fewer than 35 female Crocodiles currently nest in south Florida, dropping the 

total U.S. population to between 300 and 400 individuals. Other more widely 

dispersed species have dramatically decreased in abundance in the Everglades 

system. The number of Osprey pairs nesting in the Florida Bay has declined 

from 200 in 1970 to 70 pairs in 1993. 

Florida Bay and the estuaries of the southern Everglades also provide ideal 

habitat for a variety of fin and shellfish that are the basis for a huge recreational 

and commercial fishery. In recent years, the combined income produced by these 

fisheries has been estimated at more than $500 million per year and the success 

of both are closely linked to the health of the Bay. Florida Bay has gained and 

enviable reputation for its superb sport fishery and fishing guides take thousands 

of fishing enthusiast into the Bay annually to catch tarpon, bonefish, red drum 

sea trout, mangrove snapper and snook. The Bay"s seagrass beds and mangrove 

habitats provide important nursery areas for many marine organisms including 

these economically important fish, pink shrimp and spiny lobsters. The 

importance of Florida Bay as a nursery area was recognized in the 1950s when it 

was added to Everglades National Park. 

2. Historical Treatment -- Alterations to the Natural Systems 

Although diversion and alteration of flows through the Everglades begun in the 

late 1800s undoubtedly affected Florida Bay, it was construction of the Central 

and Southern Florida Flood Control Project (C&SF Project) beginning in 1949 

that had the first notable impact on the Bay. Records from visitors to the Bay 

prior to the project described an estuarine community where nearshore fresh 

water springs welled up in crystal clear Bay waters. During the 1950s, however, 

the Bay began a transformation to its present marine environment. From 1961 

to 1964 all flows to the southern Everglades and Florida Bay from north of the 

Tamiami Trail (the northern boundary of Everglades National Park) were cut off 

following completion of the southern levees of the Water Conservation Areas 
79 

WCAs) as the State of Aorida closed flow gates in an attempt to fill the WCAs. 

\!though few scientific records of the health of the Bay exist for that period, 

mecdotal evidence supplied by commercial fishing guides, recreational 

'ishermen and inhabitants of the area indicate a noticeable decline in catches bv 

he mid-1 %0s. · 

3y the late 1960s the southern Everglades had suffered so severely that in 1970 

:ongress authorized a plan to ensure minimum water deliveries to the southern 

~verglades and Florida Bay. Unfortunately, by the late 1970s, it had become 

ipparent that these minimum deliveries were clearly insufficient. Thus, in 1983 

:::ongress adopted legislation which directed the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) to begin experiments to determine and deliver the amount of 

water necessary to maintain a healthy southern Everglades (and in turn a 

healthy Aorida Bay). More than a decade later, and despite a plethora of data and 

information detailing the need to restore flows to historical levels, the COE has 

failed to deliver the amounts of water necessary to restore and maintain the 

health of the southern Everglades and Florida Bay. 

3. Effects of Alterations to Natural Systems 

Historically, Florida Bay received major inflows of freshwater directly from 

Taylor Slough and indirectly from Shark River as it curled around Cape Sable 

and entered Florida Bay from the west. Today, flows from both sources have 

been greatly reduced. As a result, although evidence suggests that Florida Bay 

always experienced regular salinity swings, never has it experienced such 

prolonged and exaggerated periods of hypersalinity. Modeling work suggests 

that overall salinities have increased by 20 parts per thousand from historical 

norms (for comparison, seawater is 35ppt). All available scientific evidence 

suggests that this rise in salinity levels in the Bay has resulted from an overall 

decrease in the amount of fresh water reaching the estuaries and Florida Bay 

from the Southern Everglades, specifically Shark and Taylor Sloughs. 

While freshwater contribution to the Bay from rainfall has remained constant, 

water management practices in south Florida have decreased the amount of 

fresh water flowing through Taylor and Shark Sloughs and into Florida Bay. 

Hydrologic modeling work by South Florida Water Management District and 

Everglades National Park (ENP) suggests that flow volumes through Shark 

Slough into the estuaries along the western edge of ENP have been reduced by 

almost half a million acre-feet during average years, and even what is more 

important, almost a million acre-feet during wet years (1 acre-ft. = 325,000 

gallons). These reduced flows have dampened the salinity swings to the 

freshwater side converting the Bay from an estuarine system to a more marine 

system. 
80 

This change has caused a shift in bottom communities from a variety of 11 

different seagrasses to a monoculture of turtle grass. Historic fluctuations in 

salinity alternately favored each type resulting in a natural pattern of growth and 

death of each species. As fluctuations toward lower salinities were eliminated 

(due to reduced freshwater flows from the southern Everglades), turtle grass, 

which thrives in more saline conditions, began to crowd out other varieties. The 

final result is the presence of dense stands of turtle grass of an extremely old age 

(the normal cycle of death and rebirth when salinities changed has been broken). 

These communities are more susceptible to disease and subtle fluctuations in 

living environment. In fact, turtle grass seems to be more sensitive to and less 

tolerant of fluctuations in salinity, especially as water becomes increasingly fresh. 

The seagrasses may have been further stressed in 1992 when above average 

rainfall in the area resulted in large pulses of freshwater. These extreme salinity 

fluctuations have probably made the turtle grass susceptible to diseases, 

contributing to the massive dieoffs. 

In 1987, Florida Bay's environmental problems achieved national attention 

when a large seagrass dieoff was discovered in the central Bay. Some 

scientists have suggested that water temperatures and salinities rose so high 

during the hot and dry summer and fall of 1987 that some seagrasses may 

have been killed directly, others surmise that the weakened "old growth" 

stands succumbed to disease (which under historical conditions might have 

killed some turtle grass stands, but would have left other varieties still 

healthy). By 1991, mangroves in the Bay and along the southern tip of the 

peninsula also began to die. The release of nutrients from the dead seagrass 

and mangroves caused a rapid growth of algae. The resulting algae bloom 

smothered more seagrass beds and a host of other organisms throughout 

Florida Bay. Sponge beds which serve as the primary nursery grounds for 

juvenile spiny lobsters have been especially hard hit. Populations of adult 

lobsters are expected to decrease over the next few years as a result of the lost 

nursery habitat and some important fishing grounds for lobsters have been 

smothered by the algae decreasing the area available for commercial fishing. 

The direct loss of seagrass has reduced the amount of available habitat for 

marine organisms, including juvenile pink shampoo finish. Some have 

suggested that the 60% decline in the pink shrimp catch in the Dry Tortugas 

fishing grounds is related to the degradation of Florida Bay. Although the 

dieoff has undergone several expansions and contractions, by late 1992 it had 

affected more than 100,000 acres of Bay bottom. 

Scientists have speculated that the coral reefs near the central Keys also are being 

adversely affected by the deterioration of Florida Bay. The broad expanse of 

shallow water in central Florida Bay is heated by the summer sun and through 

evaporation becomes extremely salty and low oxygen. This extremely salty, hot 

water is denser than normal seawater; it hugs the bottom and flows south and 

east out of the Bay through Hawks Channel to the reefs near Long Key. The 

temperature, salinity, and oxygen content of this water are at the upper tolerance 
81 

limits of corals and are thought to be contributing to the degradation of these 

coral reefs. Furthermore, coral heads located in Florida State Parks located at the 

southern end of the Bay are now coated with algae, which will certainly result in 

their eventual death as well. 

The primary culprits in the collapse of Florida Bay are the C&SF Project and the 

South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS). They have completely drained more 

than half of the historic natural headwaters of the Taylor Slough watershed 

(much of which has since been converted to farmland in an area referred to as 

the Frog Pond). The remaining headwater marshes are currently being 

overdrained to protect the nearby farmlands inundation. Today, headwater 

marshes that once were flooded for 3 to 6 months each year often now have 

standing water for less than one month. Surface and subterranean water that 

historically flowed south through Taylor Slough into Central Florida Bay, now is 

diverted to the east and drained through canals into Biscayne Bay, Blackwater 

Sound, and Joe Bay. During the past decade, without performing Environmental 

Assessments (as required by the National Environmental Protection Act -

NEPA), the COE has lowered canal levels adjacent to Taylor Slough, and in turn 

water levels in the headwater marshes. In a part of the natural world where 

entire life zones are defined by inches of elevation, this has been deadly. 

OVERSIGHT OPPORTUNITIES 

One of the most pressing needs for the system is for long-term, consistent 

oversight of the myriad federal activities that effect the system. Your 

Committees can provide vital accountability and coordination functions. 

Frankly the fact that three Sub-Committees have joined for this field hearing is 

an encouraging sign. I recommend that you undertake a number of further 

activities in this area. 

Pass The .. Save florida B1f Acf" With Amendments. 

This Bill, sponsored by Mr. Shaw and others, could be an important oversight 

tool for you to use in ensuring that rapid progress is made in restoring the 

system. With a number of amendments I believe that this bill or a substitute can 

more clearly define responsibilities, establish ultimate accountability for 

restoration activities and set up an annual workplan and reporting program for 

key agencies. Specifically, the bill should establish the Interagency Everglades 

Task Force in law. It should give the Secretary of Interior power as Chair to 

resolve interagency disputes and request consultation with other agencies so that 

clearly the Secretary is accountable for the success or failure of the restoration 

program. Finally, it should require each of the appropriate agencies 

to submit a workplan to Congress each year and a report on their work for the 

previous year, timed to meet budget deliberations. 
82 

Hold a Hearin' on Northern EyerKiades Issues. 

I'm sure that it's clear that to fix Florida Bay the entire system must be fixed. As 

you focused on the lower part of the system today, I believe that a similar effort 

to focus on the northern end would complete your understanding of how this 

complex system works. Only an integrated, comprehensive program of 

restoration can fix the problems of Florida Bay. 

Reyiew the East Eyer~lades Expansion Act. 

This act sets up unrealistic expectations among competing interests. By directing 

the Corps to provide flood control in areas west of the perimeter levee, upon a 

finding of undefined "adverse impacts", Congress bas created the expectation for 

these people that water levels will be held relatively low. However, Congress 

bas also mandated water flows to the Everglades National Park sufficient to 

nourish it, creating the expectation of relatively high water levels in these 

geographic areas. It is vital for the health of the lower system that this conflict of 

expectations be resolved through purchase of these border lands or amending the 

Act to ensure that Florida Bay and the rest of the Park have their water needs 

met. 

On a related issue you should immediately review the proposed construction of 

a flood levee around the so-called 8 1 I 2 Square Mile area west of the levee. 

Instead of protecting an area that is not legally allowed to have housing, the 

Congress should purchase the lands and allow adjacent water levels to be 

returned to higher stages. 

Review the ProKress of Corps Restoration Projects. 

Your Committees should ask the Corps for timetables for implementation of 

their myriad restoration projects. Specifically their work on such projects as the 

C-111 restructuring, Shark Slough water delivery and Taylor Slough 

demonstration project is vital to restoration of the lower system. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHORT AND LONG TERM ACTIONS WHICH 

MIGHI' BE UNDERTAKEN TO SLOW OR REVERSE THE DECLINE OF THE 

EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM, INCLUDING FLORIDA BAY 

1. BACKGROUND 

The prolonged and now rapid decline in the natural systems of the Bay is merely 

symptomatic of the ills and abuses heaped on the entire Everglades ecosystem 

during decades of abuse, neglect and mismanagement. Simply stated, the level 

of commitment and the lengths we are willing to go to restore the Everglades 

upstream will directly determine whether the Bay will survive downstream, and 
8S 

if it does, how robust its health will be. In order to produce the actions necessarv 

to cure the ills of the Everglades and Florida Bay we must first identify th.e 

malady which spawned the illness. To say that Florida Bay's decline began with 

onset of large algal blooms in the central bay in 1987 would be to ignore the 

persistent set of negative conditions which preceded it and in fact caused it. As 

with any living organism, the Bay withstood long and debilitating abuse before 

finally falling ill. We offer a brief illustrative history. 

We are aware that already you have received, and during this hearing and in the 

future you will receive countless recommendations on how to improve the 

health of this ecosystem. We believe that as you sort through these 

recommendations, the health of the entire ecosystem can only be restored if the 

recommendations you adopt are internally consistent and together cover all the 

bases. Because the focus of this hearing is the southern Everglades and Florida 

Bay we have limited our recommendations for remedial action to those which 

most directly affect the Bay. (Most focus on restoring flows to Taylor and Shark 

Sloughs, the two primary sources of fresh water to Florida Bay). We believe, 

however, that it is imperative to the success of restoration of the southern end of 

the Greater Everglades Ecosystem that this committee seek at a future date to 

determine actions necessary to restore the northern half of the system as well. 

Florida Bay and the southern Everglades cannot and will not be returned to 

health without attention to all the problems of the Everglades ecosystem. In fact, 

"fixing" one part of the system in isolation from the other parts may have 

unintended but devastating consequences on other areas. 

As a result, during the first half of 1993, the Everglades Coalition developed a 

comprehensive Everglades restoration plan containing a set of universal 

principles as well as more than 100 specific recommendations for achieving 

systemwide restoration. What follows are the recommendations that most 

directly affect Florida Bay and the southern Everglades. As you requested we 

have divided these recommendations into short and long term applications. 

2. SHORT TERM ACTIONS 

a. l.and acqujsjtjon and mana~ement: 

The 1947 Central and South Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes 

(C&SF) was designed to provide water supply and flood protection to the people 

of South Florida. As designed and evolved over time, the Project separated 

urban areas, where flood protection would be provided, from the Everglades to 

the west by a single continuous north · south protective levee and seepage canals 

(the Dade-Broward levee and the L-30, L-31N, and C-111 canals). Despite the 

Project's clear indication that no flood protection was to be offered west of the 

boundary levee, several parcels located in this area, literally in the Everglades, 

contain farms and residences. Continued inappropriate land use prevents 
84 

restoration of Taylor and Shark River Sloughs (and in tum, return of natural 

freshwater flows to Florida Bay), and will continue to do so until the land is 

returned to public ownership and to its natural character (flooded 3-6 months per 

year). 

All properties west of the L-31N and C-111 boundary canals must be purchased so 

that canal stages and groundwater levels can be raised to historic levels, wet 

season ponding can return, and gradual sheetflow restored over a 6-9 month 

hydroperiod (as compared to the current 0-1 month). Although creative 

purchase techniques could be employed which would allow ljmited continued 

private or commercial agricultural use, these uses must be subject to natural 

periods of flooding which will periodically result from maintenance of ground 

and surface water levels commensurate with historic natural patterns and levels. 

The following purchases should be supported by immediate appropriations and 

should be transacted as soon as possible. 

• Fro~; Pond agricultural area. 

The Frog Pond is located in what once was the heart of the headwaters 

of Taylor Slough. It is the first, critical parcel that must be purchased if 

Taylor Slough is to be restored. During the past ten years, adjacent 

canal stages have been continuously lowered to accommodate 

increased demands of the Frog Pond farmers for flood control. The 

result is an artificial drydown of the Taylor Slough headwaters. 

• 8.5 square mile residential area. 

Under its current plan, the COE intends to spend approximately $22 

million of Department of Interior appropriations to build a seepage 

canal and pump station for flood control. This is in direct 

contradiction to the COE's own master plan and would create a 

permanent residential in-holding in the Everglades. This canal would 

draw water out of Northeast Shark Slough, as does L-31N canal. Thus, 

any benefit gained from reintroducing historic natural flows at the 

northem end of Northeast Shark Slough (NESS) would be canceled by 

seepage losses to the south. Flood protection cannot be provided to the 

residents of this area without keeping adjacent canal levels lower than 

is required to prevent massive subsurface water losses from the 

Slough. Although a total cost of $78 million is frequently cited for 

these lands, that figure represents the extreme upper estimate 

generated by the COE (the low end figure was $43 million). In the wake 

of Hurricane Andrew and the significant destruction to this area most 

now estimate its value between $35 and $45 million. 

• Rocky Glades Agricultyral Area. 

The purchase of the Rocky Glades Agricultural Area is necessary for the 

same reasons as the 8.5 square mile area. If canal stages and 

groundwater levels are raised in the Taylor Slough headwaters, much 
85 

of the Rocky Glades area may experience additional flood control or 

drainage problems. The affected land must be purchased to manage 

groundwater levels and surface flows for the benefit of the natural 

system, rather than to accommodate the economic desires of private inholders. 

• Purchase properties south of Homestead and Florida City <Model Lands 

Basjn. all remainin& tracts in the Southern Glades tract. the Card 

Sound Road Basjn. the Palm Driye Basin and the C-111 Basjnl 

Together these lands create the Coastal Everglades system, the vital 

link between the Shark River and Taylor Sloughs to the northwest, 

Biscayne National Park to the east, and eastern Florida Bay and 

Crocodile National Wildlife Refuge to the south. Reestablishing 

connected and naturally fluctuating hydrology in the Coastal 

Everglades will help maintain water levels in the adjacent Taylor 

Slough basin, enabling natural levels of groundwater and surface water 

to reach the eastern and central portions of Florida Bay. 

b. Water Mana&ement 

In order to return the ecological systems of the Southern Everglades and Florida 

Bay to health, the most important steps which can be taken are those which 

immediately restore pre-drainage ground and surface water levels in the 

southern Everglades, ensuring a return to the natural quantities, distribution 

and timing of flows to Taylor Slough and Shark River Slough. While this can 

fully be achieved only by restoring natural quantity, distribution and timing of 

flows in the northern areas of the system, such as Lake Okeechobee and the 

Water Conservation Areas (WCAs), we believe that the following recommended 

changes to the canal systems most directly affecting Shark and Taylor Sloughs 

will, if implemented, produce substantial and measurable restoration results. 

The following operational changes to the South Dade Conveyance System 

(SDCS) can and must be made immediately. 

• The COE and SfWMD must raise L-31N. L-31W. C-111 canal levels 

<tbose which form a conti&uous north-south boundary between ENP 

and urban deyelopment to the ea:;t> to at least design optimum leyels 

and. where necessary. to leyels eqyjyalent to natyra!. pre-drainage 

adjacent water leyels. 

If stages in these canals are not maintained at least at levels 

approximating those in the adjacent Everglades, they will, in essence, 

bleed the Everglades dry. The single most crucial step which can be 

taken to return Florida Bay to health is to restore natural freshwater 

flows to Taylor Slough, Florida Bay's key source of freshwater. The 

COE has jurisdiction over the L-31W canal, the S-332 pump, the S-174 

and S-176 gates and the C-111 canal, the five key ingredients in affecting 
86 

a solution. Despite incontrovertible data showing what historic 

natural groundwater levels and surface flow volumes were and thus 

what they must be returned to restore Taylor Slough and Florida Bay, 

the COE set parameters for it's 'Taylor Slough Demonstration Project" 

dramatically beneath these levels. In fact, the parameters were set so 

far beneath those needed to reproduce a natural and healthy ecosystem, 

that we believe the two year experiment will produce data incapable of 

extrapolation and, in turn, unable to predict the steps necessary to 

properly restore the ecosystem. Specifically, despite a scientifically 

unchallenged hydrological report by ENP technical team indicating a 

need for an addition of 700 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase in flow at 

the Taylor Slough bridge (which would require a 1,000 cfs discharge at 

the S-332 pump upstream) the COE has installed pumps to discharge a 

maximum volume of 265 cfs. Furthermore, ignoring even its own 

recommended level of 5.0, as well as data in this study and several 

others showing natural water levels of 5.0 to 6.0 feet, the COE will 

operate the L-31 W canal between 3.0 and 4.5 feet. 

• Until its headwaters are acquired and restored. the COE and SFWMD 

must deliyer water to Taylor Slou&h at S-332 on a schedule that most 

closely a""roxjmates natural condjtjons for tjmin& and distribution. 

Perhaps the most important factor in balancing this natural ecosystem 

is the variation in freshwater flows and levels. Fish, birds and animals 

all depend on these fluctuations to nest, feed, and raise their young. 

The only way to ensure these natural fluctuations is to adopt a water 

delivery schedule which mimics them. 

• The COE and SFWMD must route all L-31N flows at the S-176 structure 

(at the headwaters of Taylor Slou&hl jn excess of flows at the S-173 

structure Cat the 8.5 sqyare mile resjdentjal areal westward jnto Taylor 

Slou&h throu&h S-174 rather than south throu&h C-1 1 1 to be flushed 

jnto Barnes Soynd. Durin& e"jsodes of heayy rainfall, the COE and 

SfWMP must royte all L-31N flows at the S-174/176 djyjde west 

thmu&h S-174 jnto Tiylor Slou&h· 

Maintenance of optimum canal stages and elimination of excessive 

pumping practices should, in most instances, eliminate the need to add 

water for transport south (robbed from the Northeast Shark Slough to 

the north). If the L-31N canal does pull water from adjacent lands 

upstream, that water should re-enter the Everglades north of Taylor 

Slough where it naturally would have flowed from the Rocky Glades. 

Because the most important contributions to Taylor Slough occur 

during periods of high rainfall and flooding, all such flows from north 

of the Slough now prohibited from entering the Slough by the L-31N 

boundary canal and levee must be returned to Taylor Slough via the L31 W canal and 5-332 pump station. 
87 

• The SFWMD must cease usjn~ the S-331 pump. 

When operated, this pump indirectly draws water from Shark Slough 

into the L-31N canal. Each year more nearly 200,000 acre feet (AF) or 65 

billion gallons of water are lost from Northeast Shark Slough to this 

canal. The 5-331 pump is currently operated for perceived upstream 

flood control benefits, despite the fact that the SFWMD's own field 

studies demonstrate that the pump provides no flood protection 

benefits to upstream landowners. Further, when this pump is in 

operation, downstream pumps must be used to divert water away from 

Taylor Slough in an effort to provide flood protection for downstream 

landowners. 

• The COE and SFWMD must initiate distribution of water deliveries to 

Shark Slough at a rate of 70 percent to the east and 30 percent to the 

west of the S-333 structure. 

This allocation will more closely approximate natural flows to 

northeast Shark Slough as predicted by the SFWMD Natural Systems 

hydrologic model and confirmed by water budget calculations 

computed by National Park Service scientists and hydrologists. 

• The COE and SFWMD must increase delivery of water to northeast 

Shark Slough by an annual average of 400,000 acre feet per year 

(AF/year) -- more than 825,000 AF during wet years -- and must base 

deliveries on formulas that replicate historic natural conditions. 

The SFWMD Natural Systems hydrologic model predicts -- and field 

observations, biological research, aerial photography, and soil sampling 

by National Park Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National 

Audubon Society and other scientists, biologists and hydrologists 

confirm -- that current deliveries fall substantially short of natural 

deliveries during an average year and acutely short during wet years 

primarily due to diversion for urban uses and elimination of 

contributions from the area east of the L-30 levee. Hydrographs show 

that current deliveries occur far out of synch with natural flow 

patterns. Without proper regulation of · the timing of deliveries, even 

an increase to historic flow levels will not affect restoration. 

3. LONG TERM ACTIONS 

a. Land acqyjsitjop and mana~ement: 
88 

The C&SF Project contains a large network of canals designed to quickly drain 

urban lands following periods of rain, flushing rainwater to coastal bays. 

Historically this rainwater recharged the Biscayne Aquifer, providing drinking 

water for urban residents. Dense urban development further decreased aquifer 

recharge and eliminated traditional storage, creating the need to draw from the 

Everglades' water supply during periods of drought. To restore aquifer recharge 

and to prevent drawdown of Everglades water levels, urban areas must create a 

system of water supply preserves. 

• Purchase land to create a series of water supply preserves 

These preserves would be maintained as marshes and impoundments 

above the Biscayne aquifer. Rather than dumped to tide, stormwater 

will be pumped through existing canals and structures to be stored in 

the marsh system. Water would recharge the aquifer and could be 

pumped out of the marshes during the dry season to supplement 

urban supplies. The marshes would reduce competing demands for 

water west of the levee by substantially reducing seepage. Additionally, 

these preserves would create positive recreational values and help to 

ensure a stable urban water supply needed for long-term economic 

growth in South Florida. The total area and location of land necessary 

to create these preserves must be sufficient to supply urban southeast 

Florida with a stable water supply, independent of Everglades supplies. 

b. Water mana&ement. 

As originally designed the C&SF Project and SDCS placed canals and 

structures where they were thought to bring flood control and water supply 

benefits to urban areas. We now know that a number of these canals and 

structures do not perform these utilitarian tasks, but do cause tremendous 

harm to the Everglades ecosystem. Most important among them are the C111 canal (originally designed as a barge canal to transport rocket engines), 

which diverts large quantities of water from the Taylor Slough basin away 

from the central Bay leaving it hypersaline, and the series of north-south 

boundary canals (L-30, L-31N, and L-31 W) which currently drained several 

hundred thousand AF annually from Shark and Taylor Sloughs. The COE 

must begin design and construction of the following structural changes: 

• The COE must fill and level tbe C-111 canal and borrow canal south of 

S:J.ZZ. 

• The COE must fill the C-109. C-110. and C-111 extension canals. 

repladn& them wjth a sjn&le east-west spwder canal located south of 

S-177 and at tbe north end of the extensjon canals. extendin& east of the 
89 

current C-111 bed. and contjnujng under U.S 1 to restore water levels 

jn the "triangle" area between Card Sound Road and U.S. 1. 

• The COE must use the wjdenjng of the "18 mjle stretch" of U.S. 1 

south of Florida City to create cu!yerts at jnteryals sufficient to reestab1ish connective flows rep1icating natural patterns jn the basjn . 

Channelized flow along U.S. 1 myst be prevented. 

Lands in the C-111 basin have been cut off from the natural sheetflow 

moving south from the coastal ridge (Homestead and coastal 

Everglades) and have suffered from lowered subsurface levels in the 

adjacent southern end of Taylor Slough. Reconnecting these lands 

hydrologically, re-establishing sheetflow and managing water flows to 

prevent freshwater flushes, will result in the return of the base ecology 

supporting a host of endangered and threatened species, such as the 

American crocodile, wood stork, white ibis and roseate spoonbill. Even 

with these structural changes, the basin will rely on upstream 

regulation of canal levels and flows to approximate the natural timing, 

pattern and range of deliveries relative to precipitation and seasonal 

flows. 

• The COE and SfWMQ must replace the S-332 pump wjth a mechanjsm 

located upstream of the bjstoric headwaters to introduce surface water 

jnto TAflor Slough. 

Attempts to pump adequate amounts of water into Taylor Slough to 

replace historic and natural headwaters contributions via the S-332 

pump are doomed to fail. Heavy pumping creates an upstream deficit 

that can only be replaced by upstream flows, thus exacerbating the 

difficulty of maintaining sufficient levels in northern canals. Heavy 

pumping also lowers canal levels south of the pump, ensuring that 

much of the water pumped into Taylor Slough recirculates into the 

canal just downstream. The S-332 pump is located several miles south 

of the headwaters of Taylor Slough and does not restore the upper 

third of the historic Slough. Finally, the S-332 pump is unable to 

replicate the headwaters' ability to pond water during the wet season, 

vital for natural water release during the transition to the dry season. 

Introducing Rocky Glades flows at the northern end of the historic 

headwaters and re-establishing proper distribution and ponding 

provide the proper volume of water and the proper timing for its 

gradual release into the lower reaches of the Slough during the 

transition from wet to dry seasons. 

• The COE must replace the S-174 gate wjth one capable of routjng all 

storm flows from 1.-31 N jnto the Taylor Slough basjn. To be capable of 

passing peak flows jn L-31N. and the new gate should haye a capacity 

of at least 1.200 cubic feel per second (cfs). 
90 

The current S-174 structure is capable of passing maximum flows of 

only 533 cfs. The S-174/ 176 junction is designed to accommodate 

combined flows of more than 1,150 cfs. In order to allow maximum 

flows to pass exclusively through the S-174 gate, it should have a 

maximum capacity of at least 1,200 ds. 

• The COE must degrade the L-67A. L-67C and L-67 Extensjon canals and 

~. 

The L-67 canals and borrow levees separate WCA 3A from WCA 3B 

blocking natural flows from the former to the latter. Because WCA 3B 

is the primary source of water for Shark Slough, restoration of Shark 

Slough requires return of natural flows from WCA 3A to WCA 3B. 

While deliveries from the WCAs theoretically can be distributed by 

appropriately employing mechanical means, restoration of natural 

timing can be achieved only by restoring natural drawdown flows 

across WCA 3A into WCA 3B and into northeast Shark Slough. 

Although the COE and the SFWMD have considered reconnecting 

flows from WCA 3A to WCA 3B by creating a series of breaches or 

flowways in the L-67 A and L-67C levees, return of sheetflow between 

the two is best achieved by degrading the full length of both levees. 

Accordingly, monies contemplated by the COE for use in creating 

throughway structures such as the proposed S-349 and S-345 should be 

applied to this degradation. 

• The COE must build S-355 structures east of the S-333 structure along 

the southern boyndacy of WCA 3B that are capable of delivering a 

minimum of 70 percent of flows into Shark Slough <quantities jn 

excess of 1.3 million AF/ Yr). 

These structures must contain excess capacity to accommodate an even 

higher percentage allocation of flows east of the S-333 structure should 

iterative studies following the initial change in allocations determine 

such a change is necessary. The structures must have the capacity to 

accommodate not only average year deliveries, but one-in-onehundred-year deliveries (that could be as much as four times the 

average annual delivery) and at flow rates equivalent to those 

predicted for such a natural system. 

c. Begin the following programmatic initiatives. 

• This committee should undertake an economic analysis of the cost of 

environmental damage to Florida Bay and the coral reefs. 

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with 

state and local agencies, must initiate a comprehensive water quality 

monitoring program for water delivered to the southeastern 
91 

Everglades and Florida Bay. This program should include soil 

sampling and plant community mapping. If violations of nutrient and 

other pollutant standards are found, EPA must mount an aggressive 

enforcement and correction program. 

• ENP, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, state agencies, COE 

and SFWMD must immediately begin work on a comprehensive plan 

to restore Florida Bay and the offshore reef tract. This plan must . 

include design of a circulation model for Florida Bay, extension of the 

SFWMD Natural Systems hydrologic model to include nearshore 

exchanges in Florida Bay, systematic examination of management and 

research needs for the area, and a monitoring program to determine 

the precise effects of various changes. Some of these needs are basic 

and apparent and this research should start now. Additionally, this 

group must closely examine the other biological problems around the 

Bay, including the mangrove dieoff, to ensure that recovery plans are 

complete. 

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must request the 

funding and execute its proposed $3 million water quality ~tudy of the 

Keys and Florida Bay. Additionally, in conjunction with the state, they 

should identify and control sources of non-point pollution entering 

the Bay. 

• The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary must adopt a 

Comprehensive Sanctuary Management Plan. 

This plan must address all threats to the estuarine and marine 

ecosystem in the Bay and offshore, including physical impacts, overharvest and water pollution. The plan must establish "no-take" zones 

of sufficient size to protect the full diversity of complex underwater 

habitats in the Sanctuary. These zones will also serve as 

replenishment areas for marine life and as valuable research sites. A 

well-developed plan must include research, monitoring, and education 

programs. 

• Local Keys County and City Master Development and Growth 

Management Plans must be altered to assure that there will be no 

further adverse impact to Florida Bay or the reef tract from nearshore 

pollution (Monroe County must ban shallow well injection and 

require all new wells to be drilled to 2000 feet or deeper). 

APPROPRIATIONS 

73-729 - 93 - 4 
92 

While we recognize that the Committees represented here today do not make or 

review appropriations, all of you have great influence over that process through 

your individual leadership and your committee authorizing power. Because the 

budget of the federal government will largely determine the success of your 

commitment to restoration we want to take a moment to review needed 

appropriation activities. 

Annual Eyer~lades Bud~et Report 

Pro~ram Description And Basis Of Need 

The Committees should have staff prepare an "Everglades Budget". With the 

plethora of federal agencies having management responsibility over the Bay and 

rest of the system it is often difficult to tell what level of commitment is being 

made to their stewardship. Additionally, it is difficult to decipher whether 

agencies have coordinated, complimentary or conflicting agendas. These 

Committees should request a comprehensive budget and program report from 

the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office or the Office of 

Management and Budget each year prior to budget hearings. 

Mela!eyca Bio-Control Oyarantine/ Research Facility-$1 mmion 

U.S. Army Corps Of En~ineers 

Pro~ram Description And Basis Of Need 

The melaleuca was introduced by man into south Florida in the early 1900s as a 

windbreak, ornamental and to dry up the Everglades. Since its introduction it 

has proliferated to the point that it now infests between 400,000 to 600,000 acres of 

land. And it continues to proliferate at the rate of 52 acres a day! Much of this is 

in stands so dense that all other plant life is crowded out. In short, this pest is 

changing the natural community at a rapid rate. In addition, it consumes 4-5 

times the amount of water that natural sawgrass prairies do. 

Control strategies for this pest are complicated because it is a species introduced 

from Australia with no natural enemies in Aorida. This program will focus on 

finding natural pathogens or insects in Australia that attack the melaleuca, but 

don't pose ·a threat to other species. While a number of possible agents have 

been identified for this task they must first be quarantined and extensively tested 

before release into the environment. This facility is dedicated to that secure 

testing. Through earlier federal appropriations the control facility has been 

designed and donated land has been identified. 

Redesi"' Of The Central And Soyth Florida Flood Control Pmject-$450 000 

u.s. Army Corps Of Enpneers 

Pro~ram Description And Basis Of Need 
93 

The C&SF project began in the 1940s as a project to drain much of the Everglades 

for agricultural interests and to alleviate flooding problems. Through a series of 

dikes, canals and pumps, the Corps radically changed the movement of water 

south of Lake Okeechobee from a sheetflow to a compartmentalized system of 

water control areas and canals to rapidly spill water out to sea. The effect of this 

change has been slowly parch the Everglades system and limit the amount of 

water available to southeast Florida's urban communities. 

This authorized project will allow the Corps to begin redesign of the water 

delivery and drainage system to ensure that the needs of both the natural and 

urban systems are met. Specifically, the Jacksonville office of the Corps will work 

cooperatively with other federal and state agencies to meet these multiple needs. 

Florida Keys National Marines Sanctuary Water OuaHcy Protection Program 

-$3 Mmjon U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Pro,ram Description And Basis Of Need 

Florida Bay was once one of the most productive fisheries in our nation, 

anchoring the economy of the Keys region. Recently, however, Florida Bay has 

been in serious decline, in large part because of a lack of freshwater flows into it 

from the lower Everglades. Additionally, lack of controls on stormwater runoff 

and questionable sanitary waste disposal practices add nutrient loadings to the 

Bay. 

This program has been developed to ensure restoration of water quality in the 

Sanctuary. A key component of the plan is to assess the influence of flows from 

Florida Bay into the Sanctuary and to ensure that freshwater flows are restored 

into the Bay at an adequate level to halt the deterioration and restore its health. 

The House budget did not fund this initiative. 

Kissimmee River Restoration-$10 Mmion (Installment On An Authorized 

Project Of $186 Mmjon) 

U S. Army Corps Of EnK;ineers 

Propj~m Qescription And Need 

During the 1960s the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers straightened the channel of 

the once meandering Kissimmee, whose windings gave birth to thousands of 

acres of ecologically important wetlands, and reduced it to little more than a 

ditch. As a consequence, the contributions which the river provided to the 

complex Everglades ecosystem--water purification, habitat for migratory 

waterfowl and endangered species, opportunities for recreation and fishing were 

dramatically reduced. Much of the river's floodplain has been converted to 

farmland, destroying the wetland buffer protecting the water against runoff 

pollution. The destruction of the natural hydrology has caused water to flow 

more rapidly through the upper Everglades system, creating more periods of 

flooding and drought. Further, this alteration has forced the dumping of 
94 

precious fresh water out to sea, exacerbating peaks in Lake Okeechobee. Many 

species of animals have been hard hit by these changes. For instance, wading 

bird populations in the Okeechobee area have plummeted from a peak of 2 

million to only 20,000. 

Once believed to be destroyed beyond repair, plans for the Kissimmee show it can 

be brought back to life. In a collaborative scientific and engineering effort, state 

and federal agencies have begun to restore its winding natural habitat. These 

funds will be used to further the engineering and construction work that will 

restore the river. 

Eyer~lades National Park -$1.7 Milljon 

U.S. Qepartment Of Interior Park Service 

Pro~ram Qescription And Basjs Of Need 

This permanent increase in base research funding of $1.7 million will be 

allocated among resource management personnel needs, field work units, and 

basic research. In response to criticism of National Park Service research 

system's most immediate needs, the Targeted Parks Initiative recommended an 

increase of $10 million to be allocated among the research facilities at a half 

dozen key facilities, including $1.7 million to Everglades National Park. Because 

the Park ecosystem's very existence depends on adequate flows of clean waters 

into it, the research unit must define comprehensive restoration plans to 

identify the system's needs. Current funding has not allowed the collection, 

analysis and dissemination of information concerning these issues in a timely or 

complete manner. Of those funds, $800,000 will be aUocated to base research and 

resource management, $400,000 to field research and the Inventory Monitoring 

Program and $500,000 to discretionary research. The Park's resource 

management division is currently staffed at only two-thirds its normal size. Due 

to the inadequacy of the current budget, more than 30 research positions are 

vacant. Yet the work to be done by these people is key to designing restoration 

efforts in the system. Chiefs of other programs have been asked to temporarily 

cover these programs. The result, according to research personnel at the Park, 

has been that none of the programs have been administered to acceptable quality 

levels. Thus, monies allocated to resource management will be used 

immediately to fully staff vacant positions. 

Funding associated with field research will be applied primarily toward the 

Inventory Monitoring Program and vegetative analysis of the Everglades portion 

of the Park, particularly of the transition zones such as those associated with 

Taylor Slough. Comparison of current plant and animal inventories with 

historic vegetative conditions is vital in defining what the biological goals for 

restoration efforts will be. Funding directed towards discretionary research will 

be used to respond to immediate pressures from the South Florida Water 

Management District water supply planning process and the Everglades 

restoration process, as well as immediate crisis conditions of Taylor Slough. 
95 

Already the Park has begun planning the research effort necessary to determine 

a response to massive seagrass and algae blooms that threaten to destroy Florida 

Bay and the entire southern half of the Park. Needs include baseline date on 

pollution sources in Florida Bay, measurement of fluctuations in salinity, 

appropriate modeling, and collection of circulation data as it relates to freshwater 

inflows from Shark and Taylor Sloughs. 

ENDING SUGAR'S POLLUTION 

The July 13th agreement is not flawed simply because of what it fails to 

accomplish. The foundations of the agreement would cause the Everglades to 

continue to receive polluted waters; would relegate the preferable alternative of 

storm water treatment areas (ST As) to a back seat, behind less reliable treatment 

approaches, including best management practices (BMPs); would assure that 

more private lands will be drained for development at taxpayer's expenses and 

the polluted runoff water dumped into the Everglades and designated as a new 

source of Everglades water supply; and force Florida taxpayers to pay even more 

taxes to subsidize sugar companies. 

It is important to note that the "Statement of Principles" was developed through 

negotiations between Flo-Sun, U.S. Sugar, South Bay Growers, and the Federal 

and State governments. Environmental participants in the federal litigation as 

well as other environmental and Native American parties, were deliberately 

excluded from the crucial final weeks of negotiations. 

The Everglades Coalition has consistently identified six elements that must be at 

the heart of any settlement and any Everglades recovery strategy, if Federal and 

State efforts to restore and protect the Everglades are to succeed. 

1. Pollution of the everglades must stop. The 1991 Federal court stipulation and 

settlement between the Federal and State governments requires that, by 2002, 

water discharged from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) must be clean 

enough to stop harming the natural system. That means reducing background 

levels of phosphorus in agricultural discharge to approximately 10 ppb. 

Any settlement that deals with interim standards must do so in a way that 

reinforces the ability to achieve the final standards must be based on cleanup 

methods accepted as effective, not on untried or experimental systems. Only the 

setting aside of between 70,000 and 120,000 acres of Everglades Agricultural Area 

lands for use as ST As is an acceptable treatment system. The use of less acreage 

would require the use of engineering treatment systems neither likely to work to 

design capacity nor to work effectively on a continuing basis. 

The current plan seeks to utilize 40,000 acres of ST As with pumping stations 

placed at the interface between agricultural land and filtration marshes to 
96 

achieve interim standards, thereby precluding the subsequent conversion of 

additional sugar acres into filtration marshes, because of the location of pumping 

stations. This would relegate attempts to meet final standards to use of 

unproven treatment methods, or conversion of public Everglades lands for use 

as treatment areas. It is essential that ST As established to clean up polluted water 

be created from lands owned by the polluters, not from State owned Everglades 

lands purchased for Everglades restoration and dedicated to wildlife 

conservation. 

32,000 acres, or almost as much as called for in the present agreement, would be 

needed simply to treat the new polluted water that the agreement proposes to 

introduce into the system from Lake Okeechobee and Palm Beach County. The 

only way to assure that water brought into the system to help restore the 

Everglades natural water supplies will also be clean enough to avoid damaging 

Everglades wildlife would be to set aside the additional treatment lands now. In 

addition, because the agreement would drain private lands and send urban 

runoff into the Everglades, even more filtration marsh lands may be needed to 

protect the Everglades against a wide range of urban water pollution. 

A fair distribution of cleanup costs among the parties is essential. We start from 

the premise that polluters should pay for correcting their water quality 

violations. The " Statement of Principals" requires a contribution from the 

polluting companies, in today's dollars, of little more than one-third of the cost 

of fixing the problems they have caused. The $322 million dollar figure for 

sugar's contribution referenced in the "Statement of Principles" is misleading for 

the following reasons: 

• The 20 year payment schedule reduces the true value of the $322 million 

figure to less than $150 million in real 1993 dollars. 

• The distribution of costs between polluters and the public fails to account for 

the 12,000 acres of public lands (originally purchased by the State for 

restoration to natural Everglades habitat) which will be converted to ST As. 

• The proposed formula for reducing the annual base payments according to 

BMP performance (a potential reduction in the sugar industry's contribution 

of as much as $6.9 million per year) opens extensive new opportunities for 

continuing litigation. This potential challenge of the required payments by 

the sugar interests and makes it very uncertain whether these payments will 

ever be collected. 

Furthermore, it appears that the State of Florida's contribution to subsidize this 

cleanup from the Preservation 2000 land acquisition fund will debilitate other 

important environmental restoration projects in South Florida Water 

Management District users will be asked to contribute $21 million per year--

more than the sugar industry in any year. 
97 

Finally, urban taxpayers in South Florida already pay operate the South Florida 

Water Management system that drains water off sugar fields in the Everglades. 

Consumers in Florida and throughout the country pay $1.4 billion annually in 

higher sweetener prices resulting from Federal programs that prop up the sugar 

industry. 

3. The implementation schedule and requisite funding must meet the 

requirements of law. In the court settlement between the Federal and State 

governments two years ago, the State agreed that the first cleanup phase must be 

in place by 1997. However, the July 13th agreement allows the sugar industry to 

make such small annual payments on their share of the cleanup costs that the 

initial cleanup goal would not be reached for 11 years, long after the deadline set 

by the court. 

4. Interim water quality standards must be met, and met in a way that assures 

the ability to also achieve final standards. Reducing phosphorus pollution to the 

interim level of 50 parts per billion is only the first step, and in itself will not 

restore Everglades water to the natural quality needed to protect the ecosystem. 

Even if BMPs and a small marsh filtration system were to succeed in removing 

some pollution, the July 13th agreement would create new engineering works 

located in areas that would preclude the later establishment of the additional 

marsh filtration areas needed to assure full and reliable compliance with 

standards that will protect the Everglades. 

5. Water lost to the system because of new agricultural practices must be 

replaced, and the replacement waters also must meet interim and final water 

quality standards. The "Statement of Principles" allows the sugar companies to 

achieve most of their pollution reduction not by actually reducing levels of 

pollution in the water, but by reducing the amount of water discharged from the 

farms into the Everglades. To the extent that sugar companies reduce their 

pollution by depriving the Everglades of water, instead of cleaning up the water 

before putting it back into the Everglades, the companies are simply choking off 

the Everglades water supply, continuing to discharge polluted water, and 

requiring other agricultural and urban water users to supply, and clean up, 

replacement water. This means that the July 13th agreement includes no 

enforceable provision to assure that the necessary cleanup measures will be 

taken. 

6. A setdement of the legal issues must be enforceable by all parties on the 

prevailing side of the federal litigation; that is, by the United States and by the 

environmental plaintiffs. While Federal and State agencies are now moving 

toward enforcement of the water pollution laws that protect the Everglades, 

present activity has been preceded by decades of indifference to the pollution. 

Any final agreement must be enforceable by environmental plaintiffs, citizens, 
98 

and the Miccosukee Tribe, and must carry strong and effective penalties to 

discourage non-compliance. 

Is a fair settlement of these disputes possible, to enable all parties to meet 

responsibilities? 

We believe so, if the federal government uses its full authorities to protect the 

Everglades, and encourages State agencies and the sugar companies to comply 

with water pollution laws and revise water management practices to better 

protect both the natural Everglades system and the residents of South Florida. 

We are confident that restoration of the Everglades, and improved water 

management that more economically meets the water supply and flood 

protection needs of south Florida's coastal cities, can be consistent with 

continued and profitable agricultural production in most of the Everglades 

Agricultural Area. 
99 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Humble. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES HUMBLE 

Mr. HUMBLE. Thank you, and thank you for being here today. I 

was notified 36 hours ago that the person that was to speak from 

the Homestead area would not be able to, and they asked me to 

come down in their place. You have indicated there will be a 14-

day period in which we can put in comments and those comments 

will be put in during this period of time. 

I agree with the fact that litigation does not generally serve a 

purpose, and I think that generally speaking litigation is used 

when people feel they are not part of the process and they feel that 

that is the mechanism they can use to become part of that process. 

The only time we ever sued the Federal Government on this issue 

was in 1984 when the Everglades restoration plan began. And obviously after 1979, when no more back pumpmg was allowed into 

Lake Okeechobee, hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water 

started moving south. And it is understandable why the Everglades 

National Park did not want that put through a small narrow area 

into the Park, through the S-12s, and they requested that that be 

spread out over a wider body of land, a body of land known as the 

East Everglades, which was privately held at the time. We felt that 

would have a negative impact on the interests in south Dade County, agriculture interests, and therefore we did sue in federal court, 

and we got a temporary injunction, and we agreed to sit down with 

the parties and work out the issue. And for the next several years, 

we did that and we never had a problem doing that, because we 

felt that our interests had not been taken into consideration when 

the decision was made to convey so much water south. 

Obviously people in the Homestead area were the last recipients 

except for Florida Bay of water that came from the north. Farming 

first began in the Homestead area at the tum of the century. There 

is only 80,000 acres of agriculture in the Homestead area. It generates about $500 million; it is tropical fruits and tomatoes and so 

on and so forth. Many of these farmers are second- and third-generation farmers. They grew up before there was a canal system in ~:~outh Dade. They farmed a lot of these lands prior to a canal system in south Dade on a seasonal basis. AB a matter of fact, when 

the National Park was formed in 1947, there was a body of land 

inside the Park that was farmed for years and years and years, 

known as the hole in the doughnut. I know Mr. Vento is familiar 

with that. 

Of course in the mid-1970s farming was terminated there and 

from the interest of the Park, I think that was probably a wise 

choice because there was strong feelings publicly about that farming. But there were no canals in the park where they farmed and 

all that land is under four foot elevation in the old hole in the 

doughnut, and even when Daniel Beard wrote his original book, 

when he surveyed the National Park in the 1930s-and I read that 

book again recently, it is a very interesting book-he pointed out 

all that farming in there in the 1930s, all below four foot elevation 

and all without canals. 

The Central and South Florida Project, when it was put in, obviously puts a reliance in people's minds on it. I mean they begin to 
100 

view it as something that brings stability to them. They maybe 

even begin to farm in different ways, and that is understandable 

because there has been an incentive created for that. And I think 

capital does follow incentives, and I think that the farming in the 

Homestead area grew as a result of that, especially tropical fruit 

farming. 

Now we are at another point. There is not animosity between the 

farmers in Homestead and the fishermen in the Keys, there really 

is not. Farmers own the area known as the Frog Pond, which is 

South Dade Land Corporation, which I am an owner in. It was 

named the Frog Pond about 13 years ago by Jean Bellamy at a 

Water Management District meeting. She quoted herself the other 

day for having named it. 

But in any event, those farmers have farmed that piece of land, 

not totally, but the western side since the 1920s and 1930s. The 

United States Geological Survey has supplied us with a map that 

shows farming there in 1940. So it has a long history prior to canals being there. 

I can understand why the fishermen in the Keys are concerned 

about discharges in the Manatee Bay-we are also concerned about 

them. Enormous amounts of water are coming south from north of 

us. About 7 or 8 years ago, we began to be concerned also about 

water quality because there has never been a water quality issue 

in South Dade. You will never hear that in the testimony. That is 

not the issue in south Dade; it is water quantity rather than qual- ity, I think is the issue. And we began monitoring those canals 

from Tamiami Trail all the way to Manatee Bay. We have probably 

more data of water analysis in that area-l will not say more than 

the agencies, but we have a lot of analysis in that area. And we 

noticed over time that the nature of that water changed. The canals that were clear 10-15 years ago, now were murky. And yes, they have nutrients in them and they have other chemicals in 

them, there is no doubt about that. We know that ourselves. The 

analysis that we make at Tamiami Trail is equal to the analysis when it comes south. It does not change, it is whatever is coming, 

comes into our area too, and we are concerned about that. As a 

matter of fact, the city of Homestead passed a resolution recently saying they were concerned about it. The Keys passed a resolution, 

their county commission, and they are concerned about these issues. We are all concerned about these issues. 

I am going to bring this to an end for the sake of time. We will submit a written statement. 

[EDITOR'S NOTE.-Prepared statement of South Dade Land Corporation may be found in the Appendix.] 

Mr. HUMBLE. I wanted to give what I would say just some history because I do not like the feeling that some people try to create 

that there is a lot of animosity between us and people south of 

here. From our standpoint, there is not. I think from the Keys standpoint, there may or may not be. I do not know how to read 

that in the papers. But certainly we do not feel that way and certainly we have a long history of working with the District, being the farmers in the Homestead area, rather than north of us. And 

we certainly think the farmers north of us should be taken into 

consideration too. 
101 

I appreciate your time. Carrie Meek, I want to say to you that, 

with the force of your personality, you would stand out in any crowd any time. And we have known each other for many years. 

There is no doubt about it, you are a very forceful person, a very 

articulate person and person of her word. There is just no doubt 

about that. 

Mr. Vento, I appreciate you being here as well. Th~ last .time I 

saw you was testimony when the Everglades expans1on bill was 

going through. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Barley. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE BARLEY 

Mr. BARLEY. Thank you, Chairman Miller and Chairman Vento 

and other members of the committee. 

My name is George Barley and I am a businessman from Orlando and I am Chairman of the Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary Advisory Council. I grew up in Florida and my family 

has been here for many generations before. For the last 15 years, 

I have been in public service in· a variety of jobs nobody else 

seemed to want to take. 

I have been coming down to the Keys for 30 or 40 years and it 

has been clear to all of us that the Florida Keys were part of an 

ecosystem. Chairman Miller, not many people in the Keys know 

this, but you came down here a few years ago and held some hearings, and you were concerned about what ~ou saw going · on here, 

as many of us were. And you went back to Washington and helped 

spark the idea in the Florida delegation to form the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary. And I want to recognize you for that 

and thank you for that, because without this sanctuary, we did not 

stand a chance. You heard Mike Collins and Karl Lessard talk 

about how they tried to tell government what was going on, and 

nobody was listening. But when it became clear that there was a 

clear and present danger to the sanctuary, then people started listening. And Florida Bay is a clear and present danger. 

I hope you saw the Miami Herald tliis morning. Two weeks ago, 

a large new seagrass die-off was discovered in deep water on the 

Atlantic side of the sanctuary, out in Hawk's Channel, in front of 

Long Key State Park. So we are not going to be able to do what 

we want and what Congress intended for us to do in the sanctuary if we do not solve this water problem from Florida Bay. It is not 

the only water problem here. We have other water quality problems and we have got to look at those also, and we have got to 

have funding to address those as well. And Ms. Meek, I know this 

probably is not your committee, but I would bring to your attention 

that EPA was supposed to get $3 million in the fiscal year 1994 

budget to undertake their responsibilities that Congress gave them 

to do water quality protection here, a good part of which is Florida 

Bay-related. And they asked for no funding, and there is none. I 

have spent hundreds of hours with these scientists who have struggled with this issue. They have been terribly underfunded for 

years. 

Others are going to talk to you about how to restore the Bay. We 

know there is a short-term solution, fairly short-term. We have to 

get together with Mr. Humble and we have got to buy some land 
102 

and maybe we can lease some of that land back to him and allow 

him to keep farming, we have got to work those things out. We 

have got to raise canal levels, we have got to modify the C-111 

canal, we have got to move more fresh, clean water down into Florida Bay. But that is not going to do it. We cannot fix Florida Bay 

without restoring the Everglades, and that is why I am so concerned about this settlement. 

Now why should somebody who worries about Florida Bay be involved in the settlement agreement? You heard Dr. Jones tell you this. He did not s~ it very loud, but he said it. And I asked him 

to tell me again. The settlement agreement does not do anything for Florida Bay. The settlement agreement is a permit to allow 

sugar to continue to pollute. Sugar has been breaking the law in 

Florida for years and years and years. And there has not been an 

administration yet that has come along and said you are breaking the law, you stop. You heard Governor MacKay talk about how 

they stopped the city of Orlando and Orange County and they did, 

and that led to a solution. But nobody has had the courage to say 

to the sugar industry, you are not any different than anybody else, 

you are breaking the law, you are polluting the Everglades, you 

stop and you fix it on your land at your expense, not the taxpayers' 

expense. Why are these hundreds of millions of dollars that we 

need--

[Applause.] 

Mr. BARLEY. Why are hundreds of millions of dollars that we 

need to fix Florida Bay to restore the Everglades being spent to 

help sugar, one of the most heavily subsidized farming activities in 

the United States. And I know some of these sugar. barons and 

they are not hurting for money, I can tell you. And jobs. They say this is going to cost jobs, this is going to put 

us out of business, and that is just a lot of baloney, we all know 

that. I mean, one shopping mall in south Florida supports more 

jobs than are goin~ to be impacted if we make sugar clean their 

pollution up on the:tr own land. 

Ten years to solve it? I do not believe that. It would have been 

solved a long time ago if the State of Florida had exercised the law 

and said to sugar, get a permit for every one of your discharges and 

meet water quality standards. They could have done that, and they 

can still do it. Governor Chiles could still support legislation to tax 

sugar_, put a tax on them, pay for the cost of fixing up their pollu- tion. Maybe the Federal Government could do that. Maybe there is 

another way we are going to have to do it, maybe the people are 

going to have to rise up and do it. 

But I keep my ear to the ground, I know you do too, and I can 

tell you what these people out here are saying. It is a simple message-the polluter must {>ay. That is the American system-the polluter must pay. And this polluter is not paying when he can afford to pay, and you are letting him get away with not paying, and 

the peo:t>le want you to stop that. 

Now Secretary Babbitt and Governor MacKay are good people. 

But the history of the Everglades since the 1970s, I have watched 

it, you have all watched it, gets sicker each year. It is a complex 

issue and sometimes for politicians faced with difficult complex issues, a time comes-I do not know whether it is the moon or 
103 

what-but they want to declare victory and that is what is happen- ing now. We have got a new partnership for victory. I can tell you 

we have had a partnership for years with sugar, and it has not 

been a good partnership. They have dominated the Water Management District in this State for decades. The jobs in the Keys are 

a lot more important than those jobs up in the EAA. 

Public lands-why in the world are we using public lands to 

clean up sugar's pollution. And you heard Governor MacKay talk 

about how we, the taxpayers, have to buy more public lands to 

clean up their pollution. I am a real estate developer, and nobody 

ever said to me we will buy some land next to your project and help 

you build a facility to put your storm water over there, the taxpayers will help you with it. I had to do it all myself. That is what 

the law says, and that is the American way. So that is it. That is why we are worried about it. It does not 

correct the problem-the settlement agreement does nothing for 

Florida Bay. It is just another of a series of actions that are getting 

ready to take place, I have seen take place over the last few decades where government says we are fixing the Everglades and they 

really are not. I do not think the agreement is going to stand. I 

think you are going to see more litigation over this public land 

issue. You are going to be in court forever on that. So let us have 

a real solution-a real solution is get all the costs on the table, sit 

down and bargain hard with sugar, ·try to get a settlement. If you 

cannot. get a settlement, let us either tax them or let us litigate aggressively, and spend our money in the meantime on a project that 

will get water into Florida Bay. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Lehtinen, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DEXTER LEHTINEN 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Thank you. I speak to you this morning in two 

capacities. One is as a Florida native, born and raised near the Everglades, hunted, fished and camped in Florida B_9, Florida· Keys 

and the Everglades. Also watched for 8 years as a Florida state legislator as the State and the Federal Government dodged their 

water quality responsibilities and spent almost 4 years as United 

States Attorney in an effort to enforce those laws that Mr. Barley 

says, and correctly says, are clear, unequivocal and unquestionably 

were violated then and are still being violated as we speak this 

morning. I also (!peak as the general counsel for the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians. Their homelands are in the Florida Everglades, and Chairman Cypress feels, as he has said many times, that the Everglades 

is our mother, she is dying, she is in the care of others who do not 

in fact care. Chairman Cypress feels that the Federal and State 

Governments, that have clear legal commitments to the 

Miccosukees to preserve the Everglades in its natural state, treat 

those legal commitments like Will Ro~ers spoke of treaties-the 

Federal Government makes treaties With Indian Tribes for what 

the Indians think is in perpetuity, that is to say, to quote one famous phrase, "for as long as the grass grows and the water flows." 
104 

And then the federal government just dams up the water, kills the 

grass and the treaties are gone like the wind. 

Mr. Cypress and his Tribe want me to indicate clearly this singular message. They have clear legal rights in the Everglades and 

they will fight to protect those legal rights. The Federal Government and the State simply cannot continue to dam up the water 

and kill the river of grass. 

Historically, Florida has had dichotomy in its water policy. The 

dichotomy-and it has been alluded to before-.-is between the law 

and practice between principle and reality. For more than two decades, Florida water quality standards that are law have not been 

enforced in the EAA and in the Everglades to the south, and they 

are not being enforced as we speak this morning. For decades, Florida required surface water management permits that are issued in 

the thousands to various landholders, anyone who turns a spade, 

and are held by large numbers of people in the EAA and in the Everglades, have clear water quality components and criteria. Those 

components· have never been enforced as a matter of law and they 

are not being enforced as we speak this morning. 

The settlement that the State entered into to· avoid the clear embarrassment that would exist had evidence been presented · in 

court;-for example, when the pumping of water from south of 

Lake Okeechobee into Lake Okeechobee, was demonstrably and scientifically proven to be killing Lake Okeechobee, the solution to the 

State was to pump the water south. I remember as a legislator saying if water pumped north is dirty, is it not still dirty, if you pump 

it south. It clearly was dirty, and it ·is killing the Everglades and 

Florida Bay. We knew what we were doing, we did not lack Scientific evidence, we lacked the political courage and the will to act 

on that scientific evidence. Lack of evidence, according to Vice 

President Gore, is a consummate excuse of polluters, in his book. 

I refer you to his book that says, "Anyone who says we need more 

research to solve these environmental problems is looking for an 

excuse to avoid the solution of the environmental problems." 

Now with respect to the settlement, the State of Florida has continued that dichotomy and today violates the federal settlement 

agreement. For example, on a simple matter, the requirement that 

new research is allegedly needed to set the final restorative water 

quality standard, that requirement for new research has not been 

carried out, the research has not even begun 2 years later. Furthermore, they have not adopted a final surface water improvement 

and management plan, SWIM plan. The reason for that is that 

they use their legal maneuvering in connection with big sugar to 

adopt . instead a proposed plan to allow a point of entry under Florida law so the plan did not become final, so that components of 

that plan could not be utilized for carrying out the utility assessment district and so forth; thus creating voluntarily, intentionally 

the very excuse they speak of, litigation gridlock, of which they are 

so fond. I do not agree that litigation is unAmerican. You use litigation to enforce the rule of law. Anyone who says that litigation 

in America is not a technique for enforcing the law is not willing 

to stand by the rule of law, not willing to have a judge, as one Congressman alluded to, enter final, definitive orders, are . trying to 
105 

avoid those final definitive orders in order to continue to cut the 

side deals. 

Now with res~t to the statement of principles, it is dangerous because it substitutes benign ambiguity for these real hard choices 

that need to be made. It has the potential to be the Munich of the 

Florida Everglades. It has the potential to cut peace in our time between government and big sugar and leave the real solutions to 

later generations. 

In that settlement, for example, we agree to stays of litigation without any firm agreement wliatsoever. That should not be done. 

Furthermore, as Governor MacKay points out now, it fails to address the final water quality standards, the only standards that 

matter. The interim plan only reaches 50 PPB, parts per billion, 

phosphorus, for example. The real standard has to be 10 PPB, and 

that is what we propose be adopted. A Congressman said he assumed genuinely that the dates of the federal settlement are going 

to be met-they are clearly not going to be met. The State of Florida now alleges that it is mea culpa impossible for it to ever have 

met those deadlines. I do not know why they signed the document 

with me in the first place, if they knew they were never going to 

get near 1997 and 2002. On the question of enforceability, Department of the Interior 

press releases say this is going to have to be approved by Judge 

Hueveler. In the neJotiations, it has clearly been stated, and I 

quote one person saymg to me, "Do not ever believe Department of 

the Interior press releases, this thing is not going to go to a federal 

judge for approval, it is not going to be in court order form" that 

anybody like the Miccosukee Tribe or me as a citizen of Florida 

could enforce. 

Let me mention one final thing. I appreciate the opportunity to 

be here of course-and that is that about two weeks ago I warned 

the Water Management Board that what would be sought by the 

special interests in this agreement or what they had already received in the private agreement and not acknowledged were at 

least three elements: One is superior water rights; that is to say, specific allocation and quality rights for the next 20 years in the 

EAA. Second was a guarantee that there would be no further monetary contributions by sugar over the next 20 years. Third, that 

there would be no further utilization of agriculture land for any STAs. They had already gotten less ag land used in this agreement than was in the federal settlement. All of the attorneys in the 

Water Board and the governing board members said that statement was incorrect, it could not be, they checked with their lawyers. However, as we speak this morning, representatives of big 

sugar ha':e stated clearly publicly, no more land, no more waterand that 1s a quote from them-1s and always was a component of 

the agreement when it was announced in the press conference in 

Washington. Furthermore, they are clearly demanding in the negotiations superior water rit{hts, allocation of water in the EAA for 

the next 20 years, which 1s different than the eastern water right, 

or so-called beneficial use rights, that they hold now in competition with or allocation with other beneficial users in the future. 

Those aspects of restriction of future governmental regulatory 

power, power to assess sugar, power to regulate it, etcetera, raise 
106 

questions in my mind and in the citizens' mind and in . the 

Miccosukees' mind of the real willingness or ability or indeed intention to go further than the interim plan which is all this agreement actually does, go to the interim plan, because it disabled government from acting in the future. 

Now in conclusion, I would simply say that we in Florida are familiar with numbers of illusory agreements which are made and 

announced but with the actual intention of actually avoiding enforcement. This agreement today will have the legal effect of never 

enforcing the water quality standards of the surface water management permits, it will be clearly articulated to any lawyer who reads 

it, and it has the effect of never applying the narrative standards 

within the EAA. If in fact we are to have an agreement that matters, we would be impressed in south Florida not with grand statements of J.>rinciple, but with application of the law against everyone equally, nch and poor, big and small. That is what would impress 

us in south Florida, but to my chagrin, that seems to be out of our 

reach. 

Florida water policy was characterized by Mark Twain a century 

ago. In the nineteenth century, he characterized our problem in 

south Florida. He said, "Water flows \!~)hill-toward money." And 

that is what happens in south Florida. Thank you. [Applause.] [Prepared statement of Mr. Lehtinen follows:] 
107 

S:rATBMBJIT OF DUDR LBHI ... 

• ATUJUU. U80URCB8 SUBCOMMiftBB FIBLD DARIIIG 

at COLOn BIACB, FLORIDA 

JVLJ' 31, 1tt3 

(A shortened five minute version to be delivered orally) 

UTRODVc:riOII 

It's a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the Florida 

Everglades and particularly, the politics of the management of the 

Florida Everglades -- that is to say, the politics of the 

destruction of the Everglades and of its resurrection, like 

Phoenix, from the ashes. 

MICCOSVKBB TRIBE RBPRBS~TA:riO. 

I speak in two capacities. First, as general counsel for the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. The Tribe has deep 

ancestral and legal interests in the Everglades, with a federal 

Indian reservation, perpetual use and occupancy rights by law in 

water conservation area 3-A and the Big Cypress National Preserve, 

and use and occupancy rights by permit in Everglades National Park 

(all in the Everglades). The Tribe's homelands are in the 

Everglades and they feel that their tribal lands have been and are 

being degraded by the newcomers to this land, by the ancestors of 

Columbus. Chairman Billy Cypresa, leader of the Tribe, has aaid, 

"The Everglades is our mother, aha is dying, and abe is in the care 

of others who do not care.• The "others• include the Department of 

the Interior (breaching its trust responsibility to the Tribe) and 

the State of Florida. Both have legal commitments to the 

Miccosukee& that the Tribe has rights in perpetuity to inhabit the 

Evergladea in its natural state. Yet the Miccosukeea have found 
108 

that those commitments are as the wind. Will Rogers, Jr, himself 

a half-Indian born in the Oklahoma Indian Territory, predicted and 

described the Miccosukees fate: The federal government, Rogers 

said, commits land and resources to the Indians by treaty, for •as 

long as the grass grows and the water flows.• "But,• Rogers went 

on, "the government just dams up the water and kills the grass, and 

the treaties are gone like the wind." 

The Miccosukees want to send this singular meesage today --

you can't just dam up the water and kill the grass anymore. The 

Tribe has rights rights and interests, incidentally, the 

exercise of which are to the benefit of all citizens of South 

Florida who want to break the special interest hold on Florida 

water policy, citizens who want what the Miccosukees want, a viable 

living Everglade& not polluted by the politics of ecosystem 

deetruction. And the Miccosukees will fight for these rights. 

The •others• also include the agricultural land barons who, in 

Chairman's Cypress words, •use the land like the gold prospectors 

of old, and when the land is dead, move on•. Land barons, I might 

add, who receive special consideration in the councils of 

government and cut special deals with government officials. 

NATIVE FLORIDIAN 

I also speak as a native South Floridian, born at the edge of 

the Everglades, fishing, hunting and camping throughout the Glades 

as I grew up. I've seen the gradual destruction of the Everglades 

as a citizen. For eight years as a Florida State Representative, 

and Florida State Senator I watched the state and federal agencies 

2 
109 

responsible for implementing water quality standards dodge their 

responsibilities. I tried to protect Everglades National Park and 

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge as United States Attorney for 

the Southern District of Florida by suing the State of Florida in 

1991 for its negligent and deliberate abdication of its public 

responsibilities. 

BISTORICAL BACKOROURD 

I want to proceed directly to the issues of Everglades 

restoration because that is the crossroads at which we have arrived 

today, and because I assume yo~r understanding and acceptance of 

the overriding value of the Everglades, of this international 

biosphere, of this unique ecological system. This value is, after 

all, repeatedly publicly acclaimed by public officials, the press, 

business interests, and citizens groups, and is enshrined in the 

law. 

The real issue now is not the value of.thia wetlands, but how 

to translate that public value into public policy; although, for 

some the real issue now is how to articulate that value in public 

and yet avoid being held to that value in private. 

To understand where we've been and the impedimenta to getting 

where we ouqht to be -- that is, to understand water policy in 

South Florida-- we need only to recall Mark Twain's comment in the 

19th century, which succinctly describes our condition in South 

Florida in the twentieth century. •water flows uphill," Twain 

said, •toward money.• 

The history of the Central and South Florida Flood Control 

3 
110 

Project (CSPPCP) is the construction and operation of water 

projects to serve the special interests, especially agriculture. 

There were general public interests served, particularly flood 

control, but these benefit& (the often-cited public justifications 

for the project at its inception in the 1940s) were quickly dwarfed 

and have always been dominated by the special interest benefits for 

agriculture. 

IDIVIROIIMBII'IAL VALUBS AIID VIOL&TIO•s 

As time paseed, protection of the reaource overall, its 

management in the public intereat, and promotion of environmental 

values were specifically articulated in law but were effectively 

ignored in implementation. This dichotomy between law and fact, 

between principle and practice, baa degraded the Everglades in 

reality while public officials commit to the Everglades in 

principle. This dichotomy continues today. 

State narrative water quality standards set in the 1970s were 

ignored by state officials and violated in the Everglades 

Agricultural Area (EAA) and Everglades south of Lake Okeechobee 

(and are still being violated today). Water quality conditions as 

components of surface water management permits were never enforced 

(and are still not being enforced today). When scientific data 

clearly demonstrated that the quality of the water being pumped 

from south of Lake Okeechobee into the 

"backpumping•) was killing the Lake, the state 

Lake (so-called 

simply started 

pumping the water south instead of north --to kill the Everglades. 

I remember asking, as a member of the Florida Legislature at the 

4 
111 

time, whether it wasn't true that dirty water pumped north would 

still be dirty water if pumped south. And of course it was, but 

the goal wasn't to clean the water -- it was to avoid cleaning the 

water in a constant shell game of mythical temporary solutions. 

FEDERAL LAWSUIT ALLEOIRO FLORIDA LAW VIOLATIORS 

This dichotomy between the fiction of Florida water quality 

law and the fact of Florida water quality degradation and 

preferential treatment for special interests was the basis for the 

lawsuit which I filed as United States Attorney in 1988. This was 

a suit under Florida law (not federal law) to protect federal 

landholdings in Florida from the illegal (under Florida law) 

upstream pollution. It was in federal court only because the 

federal government was a party. And it was a suit against the 

State of Florida and its Water Management District for failure to 

perform their duties (not against farmers). The suit went against 

all the tacit deals between federal and state officials and the 

special intere~ts, to speak, see and hear no evil. It was opposed 

on all fronts by various public officials and special interests, 

but it was so demonstrably correct that the "emperors• of federal 

and state water policy had •no clothes" with which to defend their 

negligent (in fact, deliberate) inaction in enforcing water quality 

law. There was little they could do publicly at first to halt the 

onslaught. 

BREACHING THE FEDERAL SETTLEMENT 

But halt it they did . After first denying the facts but 

facing overwhelming evidence of state malfeasance, state officials 

5 
112 

entered into a settlement in 1991 to avoid the embarrassing proof 

of state culpability. Apparently they entered into the settlement 

for no other reason. Since that settlement, the state has 

continued its avoidance role, rather than enforcement role, in 

water quality law. 

For example, the required new research to aid in establishing 

final numerical water quality standards has not even begun (a 

violation of the settlement). The "final numerical standard" is 

the standard to be reached under the settlement by the year 2002, 

sufficient to preserve and protect the Everglades. In other words, 

it's the numerical standard needed to •operationalize" the 

•narrative• standards required by law. A typical Florida Class III 

narrative standard reads: "In no case shall nutrient concentrations 

of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in 

natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. • It's the minimum 

standard to save the Glades, the only standard that really counts. 

It's around 10 ppb ("parts per billion") phosphorous, for example, 

compared to the 50 ppb interim standard to be reached by 1997 and 

the 150-250 ppb which has been discharged into the Everglades from 

various District structures. 

Furthermore, the Water Management District failed to adopt a 

final Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (SWIM). A 

final Plan could be challenged in legal proceedings but none the 

less could be used ils the basis for further action during the 

pendency of the challenges. Instead, the District adopted only a 

proposed SWIM plan, deliberately creating an unnecessary so-called 

6 
113 

"point of entry• under the Florida Administrative Procedures Act 

through which epecial intereets could challenge the Plan before it 

was considered final. While this may sound "technical", it is, in 

fact, •strategic• -- indeed, a strategic victory for the special 

interests in the deliberate creation of "gridlock" (a term of which 

the federal and state officiala and special interests are so fond 

as an excuse for their inaction). It was deliberately created so 

that the SWIM Plan could not become final without litigation, with 

the result that special interests would have a veto on the Plan and 

that implementation of the settlement would be delayed and slowed. 

The intended effect was what we have seen unfold, officials and the 

special interests could cut a deal with the excuse that they have 

no other alternative, that "litigation• blocks their alternatives. 

The picture is clear: the ·state would have lost the federal 

litigation which I filed, so it settled, then invited other 

unnecessary litigation in order to be able to say that it couldn't 

fulfill its settlement obligations. Upon perceiving the likelihood 

that farmers would eventually lose and the state win that 

litigation (because the facts stay the same, polluters are killing 

the Everglades contrary to clear provisions of law), officials and 

the special interests rush to • settlement •. A •settlement• is 

needed to avoid court orders which would, once and for all, wipe 

out the special interest •special relationship" with the government 

and eliminate their •preferred status•, subjecting them to the law 

like everyone else. 

The state has likewise failed to go forward with the 

7 
114 

implementation of utility district to assess the farming interests, 

authorized under state law. By refusing to adopt a final SWIM 

Plan, the state established for itself ~ 

its excuse for not 

implementing the utility assessment districts, since the utility 

districts must by law be based on various SWIM Plan provisions 

(i.e., the SWIM Plan is a prerequisite). But that excuse should 

only stop the District from legally adopting a binding utility 

district rule, not stop it from doing the research, planning and 

drafting which is a prerequisite to taking the first formal action 

-- yet that is not being done. 

TBE CURRBRT "STATEMEMT OF PRIWCIPLBS" 

It's this context in which the new "statement of principles" 

released by the Secretary of the Interior, State of Florida, and 

sugar interests must be evaluated. 

"It's a sad day for the Florida Everglades,• Billy Cypress, 

Chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe, said in reaction to the 

•statement of principles•. •once again, delay is agreed to by the 

very governmental institutions which are supposed to be vigorously 

enforcing laws. Special interests win another delay because 

government can't stand up to their power.• 

The statement of principles is dangerous because it fails to 

address the hard issues, substituting benign ambiguity for any real 

substance. It has the potential to become the "Munich• of the 

Everglades, in which the government buys •peace in our time• with 

Big Sugar, leaving to others at a later day the even more difficult 

task of actually saving the Everglades. 

8 
115 

Specifically, the Miccosukee Tribe maintains the following 

position (among others), which are consistent with the goals of ell 

citizens of South Florida: 

1. Delay should never be accepted in the state SWIM Plan 

proceedings or any other Everglades litigation without a final 

resolution of the issue at bend. 

2. .No settlement should .omit or leave vaque the issue of 

setting and achieving final water quality standards. This 

•statement• does not provide any method or mechanism for achieving 

final standards, settling instead for "interim• standards only. 

3. No settlement should permit any polluter to pay less than 

the full cost of its own pollution; i.e., polluters should pay for 

their pollution. In feet, the •statement• prejudices the effort to 

achieve the final standards by giving Big Sugar •certainty• that 

Sugar's monetary contributions to the "interim• plan will be its 

sole obligations. 

4. The Tribe seeks the adoption of a final phosphorous 

standard of 10 ppb and its achievement in the field by the year 

2002, throughout Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the Water 

Conservation Areas, Big Cypress National Preserve, and Everglades 

National Park. 

5. All parts of the Everglades should receive equal treatment 

and no part should be used as a filtration area or "dumping ground" 

for outside pollution. This has two aspects. 

S(A). Firat, the standards established for the 

northern edge of the Everglades (northern boundary of the 

' 
116 

Miccosukee reservation and the water conservation areas) should be 

the same as those established for Loxahatchee and the Park. In 

fact, federal and state officials often show a tendency to believe 

that the Park can be protected by allowing a higher pollution level 

at the northern edge of the Everglades (at the Indian reservation 

and WCA boundary), because the large expanse of wetlands in the 

Indian reservation and Indian perpetual use area in the WCAs can be 

relied on to filter out the remaining pollution. 

5(B). Second, all pollution sources must be 

addressed, not just the Everglades Agricultural Area (!AA). At 

present, significant pollution generated outside of the EAA, 

particularly from the parts of the •western basins• known as 

•feeder canal", "L-28", and "L-28 tieback", are completely ignored. 

This pollution enters directly into the Miccosukee Tribe's 

reservation and perpetual use areas. Both of these aspects of 

•unequal" Everglades clean-up constitute discrimination against the 

Indians and the sacrifice of significant parts of the Everglades. 

The Tribe was deliberately excluded from the negotiating 

leading to this •statement of principles•, despite its status as a 

party in the SWIM legal proceedings, a special Interior Department 

agreement with the Tribe promising complete consultation by the 

Department with the Tribe on Everglades issues, and its homeland in 

the Everglades. The Tribe is the only party to the Everglades 

litigations whose members actually live in the Everglades. 

Less than two weeks ago, I warned the Water Management 

District Governing Board that special interests would be demanding 

10 
117 

in this agreement (or had actually already received) much more than 

was acknowledged in the written statement. They would, I predicted 

from experience, be demanding (or already had, in secret) at least 

three elements which would fundamentally change the character of 

the agreement from what was described. (These elements could also 

be seen in the written statement by a trained, experienced eye, 

knowledgeable about Florida water politics.) 

The agreement that the special interests bargain for is to 

contain the following: first, guaranteed water rights for those 

interests; second, guarantees of no more special interest land ever 

to be used in the future for water clean-up; and third, guarantees 

of no more monetary assessments against special interests in the 

future. Water Board attorneys, Board members, and federal 

attorneys all denied this statement. Yet, as we speak today, the 

special interests have clearly stated that their •no more money, no 

more land" elements were an understood and agreed upon component of 

the agreement announced at the press conference. They clearly 

demand those elements in the current negotiations, as well as the 

water rights element. 

These critical demands by Big Sugar (superior water rights, no 

more money and no more land), combined with a general series of 

demands that the EAA be relieved of numerous other provisions of 

Florida law and administrative procedures for the next twenty 

years, act as restrictions on the sovereign powers of the Florida 

and United States governments to establish and implement future 

environmental protection laws and policies in the Everglades 

11 
118 

Agricultural Area and the Everglades itself. These restrictions on 

governmental power to regulate, gove4n and assess agriculture in 

the future raise serious doubts in the minds of the Miccosukee& and 

other Florida residents as to the ability, willingness and (indeed) 

intentions of the state or federal governments to establish and 

achieve the final restoration water quality standards. 

COMCLVSIO. 

So, as you've seen, we have a history in South Florida of 

mythical •tough" agreements which are in reality deals cut with the 

polluters so as to avoid enforcement by public officials. Press 

conferences and grand announcements of vague principles don't 

impress us. Equal application of the lew to all alike, rich or 

poor, small or big, would impress us -- but that seems to be out of 

our reach. After ell, Mark Twain warned us, •water flows uphill 

toward money•. 

12 
119 

Mr. MILLER. It does in California, I did not know it did here too. 

Mr. Lehtinen, let me ask you a question. As I understand it, you do not consider the Tribe a party to this agreement, is that correct? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. That is correct. The Tribe and several others, and 

I might point out that it is not even agreed to by all of the sugar 

interests. And I do not mean to lambast them. If I can get in and 

speak to the Secretary, I will, but the lawyer for the Florida Sugar 

Co-Op, which represents hundreds of sugar growers, said in the 

last negotiation, and I quote him, he said, "Let's cut through the 

fog, let's face it; this agreement is a deal cut between two big sugar 

companies and government. We have nothing to do with it." He 

said as a farmer he may buy into it, but we, like sugar co-op and 

like the environmentalists, were not involved in the negotiations. 

Mr. MILLER. Without getting into all that, I think there was representation, even if there was not unanimity within the sugar industry about the agreement. But let me ask you this, you are 

therefore assuming that you still have the right to seek the Tribe's 

demand in court for reduction in phosphorus to the 10 PPB? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Yes, we are an intervenor in the 88-91 federal 

suit as well as intervenors in the SWIM litigation, but in that suit 

we believe we can take anything that is not consistent with that 

settlement to Judge William Hueveler and the Tribe has instructed 

me to do that. 

Mr. MILLER. You are not prepared to accept that the agreement 

will co-opt your ability to do that? · Mr. LEHTINEN. As best I can as a member of the bar, I am not 

g'ling to let that happen, but they are pretty skilled on the other 

side. They are going to try to do that, but we are going to try 

to--

Mr. MILLER. But your assertion at the ~oment is that the courthouse remains open to the Miccosukees to press for that enforcement. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. My assumption is yes. Mr. MILLER. On the issue of whether there will be more money and more land, let me ask you something: At the time when it was 

first suggested that there would be a set-aside of lands up in the 

EAA, was it not at that time suggested that that would not work, 

from sugar's side of the argument? Were they not saying you are 

taking this land out of here-when it was· going to be their landthat this is not going to work? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Yes. Depending on the time period you are referring to, in 1988 in the initial filing of the federal suit, we said at 

the time, because we had to know from our scientists, that there 

was some solution that would work, not just a pie-in-the-sky-suit, 

we announced that what we would like . to see was some storm 

water treatment areas as well as enforcement of the permit conditions in the EAA. They said at the time that would not work. Subsequently, with the exception of the sugar co-op, the others have, 

for whatever reason, new research or change of position, most of 

sugar now believes the STAB will work except the sugar co-op. Mr. MILLER. On the issue of whether or not this agreement can 

create a superior water right-! do not know the water right situation in Florida-but when you speak of beneficial use, I interpret 

that, as we have seen it interpreted in the West in some instances, 
120 

where the State, if you will, has a right to balance the uses of 

water and determine at some point when water is not being put to 

a beneficial use. In California, that was done in the Imperial Irrigation District. They decided the seepage and leakage of the canals 

was so bad that they could force them to reline those canals, take 

that water and put it to another use in another part of the State. 

Is that what beneficial use is? · Mr. LEHTINEN. That is correct. My understanding of sugar's concern and Florida law-and I am not an expert on water law, although I taught it, but I am really not an expert-the one system of beneficial use does allow you to adjust, and allow other priority 

users to come into the system and therefore reduce the amount of 

water that someone used in previous years; as opposed to the system generally called in the legal hom books or descriptions, prior appropriation, which is when you in a prior year appropriate or use 

a certain amount of water, it can never be taken away from you, it is a priority by time. Florida does not have that direct priority 

by time,. There are some footnotes, you know, as law is always complicated, but the issue is, will Florida water rights today, whatever they are, be changed in the EAA to guarantee future quantity 

and timin~ of the same amount of water that they have today, notwithstanding downstream uses. To quote sugar, and I do not complain about their request, but they say that if they are to pay this 

amount of money, they need a ~Plarantee of at least as much water 

as they get today, and the timmg of the water, and if that is not 

a change of Florida law, then they do not need the guarantee. And 

if it is a change of Florida law, it could be a deal killer. 

Mr. MILLER. Again I do not know the specifics, but that is the 

purpose of this hearing. My concern would be about the evolving 

situation here, and really not knowing in a hard sense what the 

real needs are going to be for this system, if you will, for the entire 

system including the Bay and the Keys. In the West, under beneficial use there is a public trust doctrine, and you can decide that 

the public is entitled to the protection of these resources and water 

can be moved again from one user to that public purpose. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. This would lock it in. 

Mr. MILLER. The concern would be whether or not the agreement 

starts to provide for carve-outs of that doctrine and then you find 

yourself 5 years from now or 10 years from now as we know more 

about this and as we see whether or not some of the short-term solutions work or do not work, that all of a sudden there is a block 

of water that is not available in terms of the solution. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. That is correct. As I understand it and I know it, 

they are seeking a carve-out. The specific example they use is if a 

different governing board or a different political administration in 

future years or a different water regime comes to pass, there are 

more needs downstream in the urban areas, and the water regu- latory authority attempts to reallocate under whatever Florida law 

allows it-beneficial use, competing priorities-attempts to reallocate water away from the EAA, they specifically say they need, in 

this agreement, a legal guarantee that that it cannot be reallocated. 

Mr. MILLER. So finally, if that is a factual statement, then there 

is a recognition that the State would have the authority to do that. 
121 

Mr. LEHTINEN. It has the authority now, and they seek to disable 

the State's authority to do that. Let me be clear-point of clarification-they are clearly seeking that, asking for that. There is no indication that the Federal Government has agreed to that, and I 

hope they do not. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lehtinen, I think we are all impressed by your work in 

terms of pursuing the suit. Obviously you made a decision to settle 

it, I guess at this point you wish you had not. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Because it has lent itself to this administrative detour that we are talkin~ about, or at least you are portraying here 

today. But the suit obVIously settled on the phosphorus and reductions of those levels, some of that phosphorus is from sugar-related activities, some is from the natural background. I know you are not 

a scientist, nor am I in that sense, so I think there may be conclusions about how much impact you can really squeeze out of a certain participant in terms of what you can accomplish, would you 

agree with that? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. I would agree, Congressman, and in fact, the 

Miccosukee position and my position really is not so much that the 

government cannot reach certainty with sugar for whatever the fair 

amount is, or indeed whether or not this is the fair amount, but 

that _1J._pon being advised that this is what the agreement would do, 

the Water Board, others, that you are in fact settling with sugar 

for what you believe to be their fair amount and you, the 'ovemment, assuming all the remaining responsibilities. That 1s gen- erally rejected. 

Mr. VENTO. Unfortunately it is not the government and it is not 

the sugar, it is the environment that ends up paying the difference. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. True. 

Mr. VENTO. It is the ecosystem that ends up carrying the cost 

and I think that is one of the problems. Mr. Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sorry. There was one statement in there, there 

ma:y_ be a misimpression here. The background level of phosphorus in Everglades National Park is in the 5-15 range, and you are 

looking at concentrations well above the high 170-200 depending 

on where you are in the EAA. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, but it comes from dead organic material, it does 

not just come from fertilizer that is applied by the sugar industry 

and which escapes. Obviously they want to keep that anyway on 

their land. But let me just go a step further. One of the problems here, and I guess we will get into this, is that this is a piece of the 

puzzle in terms of this particular agreement. Now you may disagree or agree with what we you are doing, but the thing is, sometimes you do not solve problems by expanding them. I mean this 

is a legal piece that has to be put in ~lace. A lot of other things 

have to happen, and that is why I inteiJected the issue of what are 

we going to do in terms of land. Well the answer comes back that 

first guaranteed water rights for those interests. Was water rights 

an issue in your suit, Mr. Lehtinen? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. No, we would have sued--
122 

Mr. VENTO. Well I mean, my point is that water rights are pretty 

tough, that is something you establish in an adjudication process. 

We become more familiar with water rights than I ever wanted to 

become. Coming from Minnesota, this was never a problem, Mr. 

Chairman. [Laughter.] 

In Idaho, it is a religion. [Laughter.] 

In Florida, it has a new meaning. But my concern is you are saying that it does this, and I say where is the forum, are we going 

to get into an allocation, adjudication of water rights here? I know 

a lot of people from the West would be happy to come over here 

and give you a lot of expertise on it. You say it is not going to donate more land. Well as far as I know, there has been a lot of land 

donated by the State of Florida to the Park. The Park was created 

from State lands, by and large. And other land have been purchased. I know a little bit about it and I try to remember a little. 

The point is that I do not know that anyone wants to donate the 

land. They are buying the land that is going in here, I do not know 

that we cannot go back, and Mr. Humble, I do not know if you 

want to sell us Frog Pond or donate it, but the point is [Laughter] 

so I am just trying to say there are certain property rights inherent 

there. Was donation of the land part of the suit? I guess the answer is no. Now the third part is no guarantee of monetary assessments. I guess they are settling up on phosphorus and whatever 

other indices that are in the agreement. I do not know what they 

are because, as you know, it is a statement of principles and we 

have to get more details. So my only concern is to look at the enforcement mechanisms; nobody said it would not go to court. But 

I think our experience, even when the court is on our side or on 

the side of those that are concerned about the environment-the 

Pacific Northwest-is not that it exactly is helpful to that region 

of the country. And I would suggest that if we can move to avoid 

that and spend the money, as much as I love my friends in the 

legal profession, on dealing with the problem in a good faith manner. I do not think it is going to be business as usual here. I do 

not think that the Secretary means this to be business as usual. 

And as a matter of fact, we have been doing a lot of work in land 

classification, as I indicated, at least in my short history in working 

on land bills with the good help of the Dante Fascells and the Bob 

Grahams and others that have come to Congress from Florida. I 

might say on a bipartisan basis, Nate Greene used to drive me 

crazy, Mr. Chairman. Nate is, of course, a former Assistant Secretary of Interior. 

In any case, I just wanted to say that because I appreciate what 

you are all saying, but I am not sure that this water flow in this 

particular sequence is going to solve all the problems in Florida 

Bay. There is a lot more that needs to be done in Florida Bay in 

terms of water flow restoration, and unfortunately not a lot of time 

to do it. So I think I pick up the sense of alarm and concern that 

you have. I understand the urgency, but I also have to say that it 

cannot be business as usual. This cannot be another walk off into 

the night and think we have solved the problem. I understand 

what you are saying. 
123 

So I appreciate your message· and the concerns and the good 

faith that you are representing in your statements today. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. LaRocco. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too appreciate the 

message. 

I think, Mr Martin; your testimony was very helpful to me and 

I think ultimately the coriunittees here, because you were so specific in trying to tie things together. My colleague Mr. Vento talked 

about water out West. We have a saying out West that whiskey is 

for drinking, water is for fighting. So you might take that into consideration, at least if this legislation ·goes through this committee. 

Also Mr. Vento brought up the question of property rights. There 

is a huge fight going on in the committee and the Congress in general on private property rights and I am not going to get into the 

politics of all that, just to say that it is there. I meant to say to 

the other panel that was here representing economic interests, that 

this is going to be very key in the committee in terms of the acquisition. I do not think we can gloss over that acquisition issue because there are people that just want to draw lines in the sand 

with this whole issue. We have had bills literally stopped in their 

tracks over the acquisition of private lands. So the private property 

rights battle has been joined, and we try to deal with this on the 

committee in a very rational, legal way, but it is in the domain of 

an emotional poli~cal realm as well. 

I do not know, Mr. Chairman, how to react to this. I am left with 

the impression that big sugar has been violating every applicable 

environmental law, water quality standard that exists in Florida 

and the United States Government. The agricultural interests in 

Idaho, industrial interests, they are taken to task every day, every 

hour if they exceed non-point source pollution standards, water 

quality standards, minimum stream flows and so forth. So I mean 

I am just left here wondering what happened. Why these laws have 

not been enforced. That sounds like a whole other issue, but I am 

just curious as to how the hell this has happened. [Laughter.] 

I do not understand it at all. It seems like we must have a different body of law or different enforcement mechanisms around the 

country, because, I mean the mining interests in my state, when 

you talk about water as the issue, I do not understand. They cannot violate any permits, there are plans that they have to submit. 

So I am confused, I am going to try and learn more about the history of this, although I am trying to be more prospective than retrospective, but I think you look at the history of this, then obviously it brings in the emotion and the litigation and how we move 

forward. But I have heard certain things throughout the course of 

this morning; crisis, clock ticking, cannot push air-how did you 

say that, Buddy-cannot push air that is moving faster than you. So I know that we have got a crisis. But Mr. Lehtinen, if you even 

took one minute to enlighten me on how all of this has happened 

under whoever's watch, 1·--

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER. I will certainly open up the response for the next 

14 days, but go ahead. 

73-729 - 93 - 5 
124 

Mr. LARocco. Yes, well we could save it for another time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Yes, most of that would be characterized as politi- cal rhetoric, at least-and it was characterized as that when I said 

it in a lawsuit. But let me say this, we sued the State of Florida, 

not the farmers, because if I were a farmer, I would not internalize 

costs which I was able to externalize onto society, if I could help it. Very few of us hook up to our sewer systems voluntarily; we are 

forced to do it. If we find several residents of a neighborhood that 

are not hooked up, it is probably the government that failed to enforce the regulatory scheme rather than holding those people morally wron~. So I believe that sugar runoff, nutrient runoff and 

hydro penod designed to serve farming interests rather than the 

interests of the environment are the cause. But the true cause is 

the failure of the government to enforce the regulatory scheme. The 

decision-making was behind closed doors, it was not in the public. The effort of the federal lawsuit was to really bring a spotlight to 

that decision-making and to put it in the public forum and it has 

done that. So I do not believe that we are talking about illicit bribery. We are instead talking about an industry that is so close to 

the regulatory structure that the classical political science theory applies, that the regulators became owned by the regulated industry without any need for corruption or illegal acts, simply such a 

close tie between them that it was impossible. 

I will just say this, the dairy rule north of the lake is a case 

study. For years and years, staff told the Water Management 

Board they were required by Florida law to pass a dairy rule. We 

have proof of this, we have got great stuff in the files· that we had 

to prove our case. The District Governing Board would not adopt 

a dairy rule despite knowing that it had the legal duty. When the s~tlight was put on them, they finally adopted a dairy rule that 

disabled some dairy farmers. Others are doing well with adjustments. So those case studies are in. It is the close tie between the 

industry. It is not any direct illegal corruption, but the very close 

ties between regulator and regulated person. 

Mr. LARocco. Thank_you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I want to thank also the members of the 

panel for all the testimony. I think it has been very educational 

and I have learned quite a bit more on this issue. 

I would like to ask Mr. Lehtinen something. In the first place, is there any evidence that the sugar farms' water discharges are 

violating the law? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. Okay. And is there not a law that you can 

order the public officials to enforce the law through mandamus? In 

Puerto. Rico we have a mandamus. If a public official does not enforce the law and you have the evidence, you can file in court to 

have them enforce the law. Is there not that kind of remedy available? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Well yes, there is. The lawsuit that I brought was 

in the nature of that, we sought only injunctive relief, future relief. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Was it against the government? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. It was against the Florida government to mandamus them to enforce Florida law. 
125 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. What about the individuals that occupy 

the positions, the ones that have to enforce the law? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. It is possible that you could sue them. The 

Miccosukees are asking me for a lot of those remedies, but despite 

the fact that I was not considered to be a person with a great compromising spirit, in reality [laughter] I mean, in reality, when the 

State of Florida, to avoid the embarrassment of a trial and the putting in of documentary evidence, just documents where staff said 

"you are killing the Glades," "you are killing the water conservation"-we have got the memos up to the Board-to avoid those 

being put in, the State committed to a fairly tight time schedule, 

1997 and 2002 to bring this into line. And we accepted it. Now we 

are being told 1997 and 2002 cannot be reached, which raises serious concerns. But that is what we did. Plus the people who have 

to bring those suits have to have a lot of money behind them. I 

could not do it myself as a State legislator, I did it as the U.S. Attorney. Yes, that is what citizens ask all the time about the rule 

of law. But notice that all of what you are mentioning, Congressman, involves litigation, and ! understand the genuineness of the 

fact that litigation can be a problem, but most public officials, take 

the view, and Lieutenant Governor MacKay is a big advocate, that 

litigation never produces the right outcome. I am a believer that 

it does not produce a better outcome than what would happen if 

you could cooperate, but that if you disable yourself from usmg litigation, if you are not willing to say I will sue you and I will make 

it stick and I will pull your permit-! mean you are going out of 

business and your permit is getting jerked-if you do not somehow 

come into line. Iflou disable yourself from using that threat, which 

we in the State o Florida have done because we constantly say litigation is gridlock, then you lose those remedies of mandamus and 

so forth. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. In your conclusion you said that equal ap- plication of the law to all alike, rich, poor, small or big, would impress us. That would be a solution. ·Yet at the same time, you say 

there are frustrations in litigation and that you do not have the resources to litigate. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Well I think it was Mr. LaRocco alluded to the 

fact that I probably regretted settling the suit. I do regret it. Judge 

Hueveler would have spent 2 years taking depositions, but the 

court order he would have issued this year, which is 2 years later, 

would have been final, binding, would have taken over the Water 

Management System like the feds had to take over the state prison 

system. Now the State Government always said we do not want 

our water system run by a federal judge the way our prison system 

was run. But those of us in the State of Florida who observed its 

politics know that we would not have ever reformed our prison system if the federal judge had not taken it over. 

Mr. ROMERo-BARCELO. None of the states would have, I think. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. That is correct, I believe. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Deutsch. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Here again, I appreciate each of your testimony. 

Trying to focus back on Florida Bay for a second, Tom, you produced in your document and in your testimony as well, specific 

things that could be done today to try to deal with the degradation 
126 

of Florida Bay. Very quickly can you summarize, you know, A, B, 

C, that we ought to be doing today? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sure. First, I think you need to buy the key lands 

that are at the southern ends of the Everglades system, the 8lhsquare mile area, the Rocky Glades agricultural area just south of 

it, and the Frog Pond. And I can show you those areas here and 

give you a better sense of what we are talking about. The areas 

along this canal here down to here. The reason that these perimeter canals are so key is that water levels are being kept artificially 

low in those canals. Therefore, it is draining water back out in the 

Everglades system into the canal so you do not get your natural 

flow down through Taylor Slough. The second area is C-111. These 

feeder canals here need to be closed. This traditionally had a finding function and provided water down through sheetflow in this far 

eastern end of Florida Bay. These are things that could be done immediately. 

As you go farther north, you need to restore sheetflow again. You 

eventually need to degrade the L-67 canals here so the water can 

flow as it naturally did here, and you need to _provide an awful lot 

of water into northeast Shark Slough here. Some modeling indicates in the wettest of years as much as 800/l,OOOths-feet of water. 

There is no reason for this L-67 extension to continue to exist. Basically by buying these lands, degrading these canals, you will 

allow yourself to restore sheetflow down here into Florida Bay and 

give you the fresh water that you are looking for. Buying the lands 

is necessary to be able to raise those canals. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Jim Humble, if you can respond specifically to 

that. And I think it is important fo!' people to understand at least 

about a couple of courses of action. My understanding is the South 

Dade Land Corporation owns the entire Frog Pond, is that accurate? 

Mr. HUMBLE. The South Dade Land Corporation is the name of 

the corporation that owns that. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. And essentially you are representing them here 

today as their chief executive officer? 

Mr. HUMBLE. And as a shareholder. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. How do you respond to some of the testimony you 

have heard about the necessity of the purchase of that as it affects 

Florida Bay? 

Mr. HUMBLE. When it comes to that, I think that piece of land, 

by virtue of its name and by virtue of the fact that there are people 

who have had an interest in it long term, back when the Everglades Expansion Act happened in 1988, or 1989, there was an attempt at that time to make that part of the exchange, as a matter 

of fact, and that did not occur. 

So there is a history of people who have an interest in placing 

that land in the public ownership, and I think that sometimes their 

unwillingness to see a future Without that being possible puts the 

farmers in a position of not wanting to see a future where that 

would happen. And I think that, to a large extent, is what is driving that. 

That piece of land, has really been farmed for many, many years, and extensively for the last 20, definitely extensively for the last 

20-and another problem here is that the farmers who farm it go 
127 

back two and three generations, so they have a memory of having 

farmed there before canals were there and so on and so forth. In 

certain parts of it, you have to remember, that was a smaller part 

of it. When you take their memory and put it with the memory 

that certain people impose on that piece of land, it runs counter to 

their feelings about it, and they hear what people say and their experience ·tells them that was not true. So they are very reluctant 

to sell that land, as I am, as I would be reluctant to sell other land 

I own in south Dade County east of the levee, not pertaining to 

this; because you only have about 78,000 to 80,000 acres f)f land 

left there. It is the second highest return agriculture in the U.S. 

and I know these things may not mean a whole lot here, but certainly we are sympathetic to the fact that fishermen are basically 

using a public resource and benefitting from that, by you know, 

fishing it and taking tours across it and snorkeling. We own this 

land, it is not yet a public resource, and these farmers generate 

their whole lives out of this. And the people who work there, contrary to what was said earlier,we. do not employ migrant workers 

from outside of the United States. Migrant workers that work in 

the Homestead area in many cases live there. So that is not a truism either. And farming is the only industry in Homestead. Again, 

this is not a hearing being held in Homestead, it is not a farming 

hearing, it is not a hearing in which the setting is Homestead, 

which again has an equal amount of people who would have a 

strong view on the other side of this, possibly. And you know that, 

you have been to these hearings for many, many years~ 

In a round'-about way, I am not answering your question. Wealways listen to everything and it is my obligation as CEO of this 

corporation to listen to it, to take it back, to discuss it with the directors . and we could all make a vote on. it at some point. But we 

have no interest in selling this land to a governmental agency at 

this point. And we do not think this land is the solution to that 

problem. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Let me follow up with one last statement or question regarding something that George Barley had mentioned. I believe-in fact, I am almost sure I am accurate in this-that the 

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee appropriated over $3 million 

for that EPA project. With the help of Congresswoman Meek, we 

actually did get some money into the House-passed bill of Congressman Stokes' subcommittee, and Congressman Stokes and I actually entered into a colloquy on the House floor that he is very 

much aware and sensitive that $3 million was too low a number 

that the House put in. Hopefully the House will ultimately come 

up to the Senate number on that EPA funding issue. So it is ongoing. Congresswoman Meek, I just want to again thank her, which 

I thanked her a number of times, for her involvement because 

these funds come through one of the subcommittees that she is on. 

Mr. BARLEY. Yes. I think my testimony was EPA did not ask for 

it. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Right. 

Mr. BARLEY. We appreciate your help in getting it, Congresswoman Meek. 

Mr. MILLER. Congresswoman Meek. 
128 

Ms. MEEK. That was my question to Mr. Barley, thank you for 

bringing that to our attention. 

Mr. MILLER. Clay. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Humble, it was my statement that spoke of the migrants. I 

am glad you clarified that. My statements were intended to be 

more towards sugar, even though I did mention tomato in the outset. I think that my statement does hold correct when you are talking about jobs up around the lake. 

Mr. HUMBLE. Absolutely. I would agree with that. 

Mr. SHAW. Also, I would like to ask you a question with regard 

to an earlier statement that was made by Governor MacKay. Based 

on conversations with knowledgeable sources, the area that we are 

talking about taking, that you have an interest in, I believe that 

all of the flow from the land goes right out the canal and is not 

a big problem with regard to the Everglades, at least it does not 

come back into the Taylor Slough area. 

Mr. HUMBLE. We do not discharge through pumping into any 

State canals. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir, that was my opinion. But Governor MacKay said earlier that if the sugar industry went away, that the fresh 

fruit and vegetable industry that would come in to fill that vacuum 

to take over that land woul~ create a greater source of pollution 

than the sugar caiie growers. Do you have a comment on that, any knowledge that can affirm that, or do you have an argument with 

that? 

Mr. HUMBLE. Frankly, I am going to have to say this, I do not 

know enough about sugar farming to give you an answer that 

would mean anything. I know quite a bit about tree farming because I own tree farms, and they have a very low use of fertilizers, 

pesticides or herbicides, as you probably well know. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes. 

Mr. HUMBLE. Vegetables have a more intensive use, depending 

on the vegetable that you are growing. So that varies, and since I 

do not know the regimen of sugar, how they treat it, I do not know 

how to compare the two, I really do not. 

Mr. SHAW. Well I appreciate you addressing that anyway. 

I think this panel knows that if Mr. Lehtinen, had not taken the 

courageous step some years ago in bringing this lawsuit, which was 

controversial at birth and remains very controversial today, nothing would have been done. I certainly want to recognize him for not 

only what he has done, but what he continues to do. To say that 

he is not of a compromising spirit is an understatement. I think 

that certainly he has done a wonderful job, and I am pleased that 

you are not willing to compromise the environment of south Florida 

on all of this. 

You know, in sitting here listening to the testimony, I thought 

that probably the easiest way to solve the situation up around the 

lake is just do away with price supports for sugar. [Applause.] 

That would cost us absolutely nothing and the consumer's all 

across this country would be the beneficiary of such a plan. However, there is a lot that we have got to do and I think your statement that water flows uphill towards money is probably a very 
129 

good one, especially with regard to much of the problems that we 

have right now. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this 

panel. I know we have another panel to go, but I am very, very impressed by the full circle that you and your staff have put together 

with the panels that have been before us today. I think they have 

been absolutely excellent. Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Vento has one other question and 

I have one other question. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment. I hope it 

can be brief. The question will be short too. I was visiting with one 

of my natural experts here in the back and they mentioned that 

we have been focusing on the eastern flow of water through Shark 

River and Taylor Slough into Florida Bay. But there is a concern 

here that we had not talked much about the fact that the water 

flows west, or at least it is prohibited from flowing west, and I was 

just wondering if there is anyone on this panel who could discuss 

this, because this area moving towards 10,000 islands and through 

Big Cypress has not been discussed. Of course when they shove the 

water east, although I do not know what the effect is, that has a 

tendency to be used for agricultural uses, for sugar and for other 

types of crops that are there. And I think the sugar subsidy issue 

is interesting, but that land is going to be used for something agriculturally or even for residential or other problems beyond what we 

have envisioned. What about not shoving the water west? Obviously the plan does not deal with these issues. Mr. Martin, I see 

wanted to answer the question. The settlement does not deal with 

it. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, in terms of 

Florida Bay, two major inputs, two most important inputs of overland freshwater come through the Taylor Slough area and then further to the west through the Shark River Slough. Farther to the 

west is the Big Cypress Preserve, and frankly that area we have 

not screwed up much yet. There are problems in that area but the 

water is far closer to a pristine condition. There is an aggressive 

land acquisition strategy over there by both the Federal and State 

Governments that I think will allow those headwaters· to remain in 

natural condition and hopefully maintain the purity of that. But 

the Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough, if we are talking about 

Florida Bay, those are the two most important inputs. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. If I might just add, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit 

of brevity, my written submission which is much longer than the 

oral, does refer to certain western basin pollution problems that are 

not addressed on any front in that settlement, or pollution coming 

in from west of the EAA, and it does refer frequently to the Big 

Cypress and the necessity to treat the Big Cypress as a portion of 

that as well. 

Mr. VENTO. Well I read your entire statements, both, and yours 

is pretty long, Mr. Martin. It may be that if you do not get water 

that is polluted, that is one thing, but if there is water that is 

being shunted through the other side on the eastern slope, that 

changes things, as opposed to it not going through the other area 

where it naturally flowed through. So you are saying that there is 
130 

no barrier between east and west in terms of water flow in Big Cy- press? 

Mr. MARTIN. There is a natural hydrologic barrier that in all but 

the wettest of years divides the water. Actually within the Park itself, along Tamiami Trail, if you take a look at the L-67 extension 

that sticks down there, at this point about 70 percent of the water 

comes down on the west side of that and 30 percent on the east. 

That needs to be flipped. Frankly there is not enough coming down 

the east side in that area, and I think that point is well taken. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Let me make a couple of points here. 

While I disagree with most of my colleagues in Congress, there is 

nothing like a good lawsuit to focus the mind, and I think in terms 

of [laughter] in terms of the environmental issues around this 

country, absent litigation, we would be nowhere. We would look 

like the Ukraine with respect to environmental cleanup because, 

given the expense, nobody aoes it willingly. 

On the issue of what is happening now during this 90-day period, 

are the Tribe and the environmental groups involved in these discussions around this settlement? Have you been invited in to par- ticipate or make submissions or consulted? 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Yes. The Tribe has. 

Mr. MILLER. You are part of this. 

Mr. LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. 

Mr. BARLEY. We are not. 

Mr. MILLER. You are not, by choice, by--

Mr. BARLEY. No, no, we asked to get to the table, and we were 

told we would have to hire a lawyer and we are looking into that. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. I think the intention by both the State and Federal 

authorities is to have us at the table. I would say that we have not 

yet fully executed on their intentions. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. So you assume that the door is open. Mr. MARTIN. If we start to get notice of where the door is and 

when it is, it will help us in getting there and finding it open. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER. That is the way Governor MacKay found the Congress when he got there, you know; then he changed all the rules 

on us. Now you have got to give notice and tell everybody where 

the doors are. Hell of a system. [Laughter.] Thank you, very, very much for your testimony and especially for 

your hard work over the last several years on these issues. Thank 

you very much. [Applause.] The final panel will be made up of Ms. Bonnie Cohen who is the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, Department of the Interior; Colonel Terrence Salt, Commander of Jacksonville Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. Billy Causey, Manager, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Mr. Tom MacVicar, 

Executive Director of the South Florida Water Management District. 

Could I ask you to take your conversations outside, please, so we 

can go ahead? This panel has been waiting, as they say, and we 

appreciate that very much. We felt it was important, since many of you are representing the very entities that are going to have to 
131 

make some very crucial decisions certainly over the next 90 days, but also over the long term, that you, like· us, listen to the people 

that have a stake in the outcome of this situation. So thank you 

very much, and Ms. Cohen, we will begin with you. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF BONNIE COHEN, ASSISTANT SEC· 

RETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPART· 

MENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY BROOKS 

YEAGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS, DEPART· 

MENT OF THE INTERIOR AND DICK RING, SUPERINTENDENT, FLORIDA EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK; COL TERRENCE C. SALT, COMMANDER, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT, 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; BILLY D. CAUSEY, MAN· 

AGER, FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY; AND 

TOM MacVICAR, DEPlJTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH 

FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT .DISTRICT 

STATEMENT OF BONNIE COHEN 

Ms. COHEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the subcommittees, and Mr. Jones. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to reaffirm Secretary Babbitt's commitment to the 

people of south Florida to make the protection and restorations of 

the Everglades and the Florida Bay ecosystem one of his highest priorities. 

Before I summarize my prepared statement, because there is a 

natural tendency on the part of people when listening to Government officials perhaps drone on with prepared statements, I would 

like to say two things at the outset, particularly with regard to the 

settlement. 

One is that the question has come up as to whether there are 

side agreements in connection with this settlement. Secretary Babbitt has only been in office for 6 months, but I think ;vou, the peo- ple of south Florida and people in the country are gettmg the sense 

that he is willing to address the hard issues. And neither he nor 

anyone he has appointed is in the business of making side agreements with anyone. This is a negotiation that we are in the process 

of, and I can assure everyone that there are no side agreements 

apart from the statement of principles that people have seen. 

Second, I would like to say that we are in negotiations. Sometimes over a period of 90 days, those negotiations are not done in 

the public eye. The coming negotiations obviously will be done in 

the public eye and undoubtedly sugar interests will have many demands that they will be putting on the table. That is in the spirit 

of negotiation, but those are not demands that reflect any agreements that have been entered into by anyone prior to this. 

To continue, the Secretary is in accord with the call to arms of 

the Everglades Coalition and Peter Berle of the National Audubon 

Society, who wrote that "The Everl{lades is one of America's most 

endangered environments, and it 18 dying." Restoring the Everglades is one of the greatest environmental challenges our Nation 

faces. Preliminary analysis indicates that the work of the Everglades Coalition on the restoration plan can contribute to our own 

restoration plan and we will be looking at that. 
132 

What does Secretary Babbitt's commitment actually mean? First, 

we recognize that the problems of the Everglades and Florida Bay 

are interconnected and exceedingly complex. As complex as the 

problem is, we cannot afford further delays-further delays, like 

those we all saw in the Pacific Northwest over the last decade. 

These delays can only result in further resource degradation and 

economic decline. 

The main problem of the ecosystem, as you have heard, is water; 

water _guality, water ~uantity, the timing of flows and their dispersion. Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, 90 percent of 

which is within the Park boundary, get too little water, of poor 

quality, at the wrong time in the wrong place. At the heart of many 

of these problems if the fact that the water management systems currently operating in south Florida were designed to do just what 

they are now doing. We know that must change. We do not know 

yet all that we need to know about the causes and effects of the 

problems on the system. We have learned that to succeed we must 

tackle the whole Everglades ecosystem restoration systematically and not symptomatically, in concert with State and local efforts. 

We, the Federal Government, are taking the following steps: 

The Army CofP,S of Engineers has begun to restore the Kissimmee River and 1ts essential hydrologic function. Colonel Salt, I 

know, is going to talk more about that. 

The U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of the Interior 

have been working on the water quality issues in the Florida Bay, 

and they will be undertaking a ~eater mitiative in the fall. 

The National Park Service is m the process of acquiring lands for 

the east Everglades expansion that was authorized by Congress in 

1989, as a means to protect the hydrology of the Park and to facilitate restoration of the Shark River Slough. 

We have put a special priority on accelerating the remaining acquisitions. We are also committed to the continuation of the experimental water deliveries to the Park based on the natural system hydrological model, to replicate historical water flows. 

The Corps of Engineers is completing its General Reevaluation 

Report on the C-111 basin. 

We are committed to the Taylor River Slough experimental restoration program. 

Obviously the initiative that has received the most attention recently is the statement of principles entered into by the sugar industry leaders, the State of Florida, the Department of the Interior 

and the South Florida Water Management District. Negotiations involving all interested parties have begun. These are designed to 

add specificity and enforceability to these principles, so my remarks must be circumspect. But this settlement has been described 

as a first steJ?, and that is what we think it is. It builds on the 

work and initiative of many: environmentalists, elected public officials, dedicated public servants like Burkett Neely and Dick Ring, 

who is here today, and Suzanne Ponzole, of the Justice Department, all of whom have worked and are working to save this ecosystem. 

When Governor Chiles took office, he said he and Lt. Governor 

Buddy MacKay had no higher priority for their administration 

than finally bringing to an end the costly Everglades litigation. The 
133 

statement of principles offers only a framework and a headstart towards addressing water problems in the Everglades. That is what 

the litigation was about, and we have 90 days to bring everyone 

to the table-environmentalists, tribal representatives and local 

government-to hammer out details, or the momentum we have 

achieved to date could be lost. 

While the agreement reaffirms the req_uired on-farm phosphorus 

runoff at 25 percent in the early years, 1t provides strong new incentives for as much as a 45 percent reduction in later years. It requires the industry to pay as much as $322 million and in no year 

will industry pay less than $11.62 million. The bottom line is this: 

We cannot possibly gain enough in court to warrant further litigation. Every day of delay only adds to the damage in the Everglades 

ecosystem and Florida Bay. We believe our resources are better 

spent in restoration than in court. We could have litigated longer 

at additional expense to all parties and ended up too late with less. 

Secretary Babbitt, in agreeing to the settlement, was making a 

tough resource allocation decision. But he decided first that the settlement was a fair one for everyone involved; and second, that it 

was the right one for this ecosystem. This is a special place. The 

decision was to get out of the courtroom and into ecosystem repair 

now. Delay means further degradation. The agreement, as you heard Dr. Jones say, is a starting point, 

a signal that we are all committed to a course of cooperation and 

planning and not litigation. It should not be, I think, the Munich 

of the Everglades, but the Camp David-it is the beginning. In addition to the settlement, a combined Federal interagency Task 

Force has met and begun to coordinate a larger restoration effort, 

the sort of coordination and dedication of resources across federal 

agencies that should have taken place for the last 10 years in the 

Pacific Northwest. Their first report is due out in September. 

Let me end on a personal note. I have a real affinity for this 

place. I first came to the Everglades and the Keys 23 years ago, 

pregnant with my now 24-year old daughter. And I have been back 

many times since, including a slow visit by houseboat. Both my 

children have gone many years to sea camp on Big Pine Key. In 

my previous work at the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

I became well aware of the rich cultural heritage of this area. This 

is an area that we all have to work to save. 

Secretary Babbitt and his staff are firmly committed to using the 

legitimate resources and powers of the Federal Government to 

work with all the interested parties, local and State officials, to 

preserve and restore this ecosystem. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Cohen follows:] 
1~ 

STATEMENT OF BONNIE COHEN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, ~~AGEM!NT, AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE 

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES' SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL 

PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC LANDS AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES' SUBCOMMITTEE ON eNVIRONMENT 

AND NATURAL RESOURCES, CONCERNING THE STATUS OF eFFORTS TO 

PROTECT AND RESTORE THE EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM. 

July Jl, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and members o! the Subcommittees, it is a 

pleasure to appear be~ore you to discuss the Department of 

the Interior's efforts to protect and restore the Ever9lades 

ecosystem, including Florida Bay. The Department is 

responsible for overseeing and managing three National Parks 

in the region - Everglades, Biscayne, and Dry Tortugas - tne 

Big cypress National Preserve and six national wildlife 

refuges including Loxahatchee.• Our ability to protect 

these areas as nationally and internationally significant 

resources is wholly related to the larger Everglade• (or 

South Florida) ecosystem. 

I am here because Secretary Babbitt and the Department are 

committed to restoration of this ecosystem -- doing what is 

necessary to assure that the Federal actions in this effort 

are coordinated, timely, and effective. I am here today 

because the Department of the Interior is cnarged with 

conserving the superlative r••ourcee of the Everqlades 

National Park and the other parks in the Everqlades 

1 Loxahatchee, National Key Deer, Great White Heron, 

Key West, crocodile Lake, and Florida Panther 
135 

ecosystem so as to leave them "unimpaired" for future 

generations. The Secretary of tha Interior is vested with 

responsibility for both the seminole and the MiccosUkee 

Tribes whose lands lie in the heart of the Everqlades. These 

Tribes ~re affected by the changes to this ecosystem and are 

intensely concerned about their !ut~es which are 

inseparably linked to the health of tha Everglades. We also 

bear responsibility !or the preservation of threatened 

wildlife under the Endangered Species Act and custody of the 

national Wildlife refuges. Moreover, the Everglades and 

Florida Bay are a national and international resource which 

are invaluable assets for the region's fishing and tourism 

industries. 

As I sit before you I want to say that we are only a part of 

the Everglades solution. I want to acknowledqe the work of 

current EPA Administrator carol Browner who, as Florida's 

Environmental secretary, launched a course of action to 

restore the EVerglad@s. Similarly, Governor Chiles, Senator 

Graham, Lt. Governor Buddy MacKay, and SFWMD chair Valerie 

Boyd have all been instrumental in buildinq the consensus to 

address the nation's most vexing task ot environmental 

restoration. I am also pleased to report that other Federal 

agencies, including the Departments o! Agriculture, CoJmnerce 

(NOAA), Defense (Corps of Engineers), and Justice have joined 

Interior and EPA in coordinating resourcea, expertise, and 
136 

legal authori~ies to address more effectively all aspects of 

this issue rather than individual areas of agency 

jurisdiction. 

The Problem 

As you well know, there are serious problems confronting us as 

we begin the process of restoring the Everglades ecosystem. 

Fortunately, there are a number of encouraging initiatives 

underway which 5eek ~o coordinate research activit~es, 

planning and funding tor Evergla~e& restoration and launch a 

course ot action that promises to and years of legal 

stalemates even as we have watched the health of the 

Everglades continue to decline. One such measure is the 

development of a Statement of Principles assigning a large 

portion of the tinancial responsibility for Everglades cleanup to those accountable for Everglades pollution. This 

agreement, which I will address later in my testimony can be 

used as a cornerstone tor progress on several fronts toward 

our common goal of cleaning up the Everglades and Florida Bay. 

From the Kissimee to Lake Okeechobee throuqb the agricultural 

areas to Everqlades National Park, including Florida Bay, what 

happens in one part of the •ystem attects the rest of it. The 

main problem of the Everglades is water -- water quality; 

water quantity; the timinq ot flows; and its delivery . 

Everglades National Park and Florida Bay ( 90\ of which is 

3 
137 

within the park boundary) get too little water, at the wrong 

time and in the wrong places, and containing more nutrients 

than the ecosystem can assimilate. At the heart ot many of 

these problems is the !act that the water management systems 

currently operating in south Florida were designed to do 

preci~ely what they are now doing. We know that must change. 

We do not yet know all that we need to know about cause and 

ertect ot problems in the system. We have learned that to 

succeed, we must tackle the whole Everglades ecosystem 

restoration systematically and not symptomatically, in concert 

with State and local efforts. 

Restoration Efforts 

Even as we sit here today, the ecological problems threatening 

the Everglades ecosystem continue to grow worse. As a result, 

secretary Babbitt and the other agencies joining with us have 

launched an ef:t'ort to begin "replumbing" the Everglades and to 

develop a better understandinq of lonqer-term changes in the 

complex system of canals, levees, pumps, ana spillways that 

can accomplish restoration without other unforseen 

consequences. The Corps will describe in greater detail its 

efforts to modify water deliveries to the Everglades. 

However, I will touch on some of them briefly here: 

4 
138 

~ The Army corps of Engineers has bequn to restore tha 

Kissimee River and its essential hydrologic function. 

More than 29,000 acres o! freshwater wetlands will be 

restored and 45, ooo acres of the floodplain will be 

regenerated benefitting wading birds, waterfowl, 

recreational fishing, and endangered species including k 

Bald Eagle, woodstork, and the snail kite. 

o The National Park Service is in the process of acquiring 

lands for the East Everglades expansion that was 

authorized by Congress in 1989 as a means to protect the 

hydrology of the park and to restore thQ snark River 

slough. (Also under active consideration by State and 

local entities are the acquisition of the Frog Pond, the 

8-1/2 square mile area, and the land in between them.) 

o We are also committed to the continuation of 

experimental water deliveries to the park based on the 

Natural System (hydrological) Model to replicate 

historical water flows. 

= The Corps of Engineers is completing its General 

Reevaluation Report (GRR) of the c-111 Basin demonstration 

project -- a necessary prerequisite to beginning the 

5 
139 

process of permanently restoring the quantity, timing, and 

distribution of water that characteri~ed t~e historic 

Everglades ecosystem and to add more water to Florida Bay. 

o We are committed to the Taylor Slough experirr.ental 

restoration program that will raise the water table in the 

area immediately adjacent to Everglades National Park 

which we believe will begin the process of restori:"lg 

groundwater and surface water levels in the eastern 

portion ot the park. Reestablishing the sheet !low of 

water should benefit the remaining remnants of the 

EVerglades ecosystem anc1 create the environmental 

conditions for reestablishing native flora and fauna. 

o The Department has engaged a Federal Working Group on 

Everglades Restoration that includes EPA, and the 

Departments of the Army, Justice, Agriculture, commerce, 

and Interior. We have convened a Florida-level group of 

all the Federal bureaus with responsibilities related to 

the ~vergladee ecosystem1 that is to report by September 

1, 1993 on the Federal action• ana runding necesa~~Y to 

bring about the restoration ot the Everglades ecosystem. 

: National Park Service, Fish and Wildlifa Service, 

u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic ang 

Atmospheric Administration, Bureau ot Indian Attairs, 

Department of ~ustice, u.s. Geological Survey, Environmental 

Protection Agency 

6 
140 

We simply cannot afford to wait to launch our efforts to 

restore the Everglades. We recently signed a statement of 

Principles in the Federal lawsuit on the Ev•rglades. Under 

that agreement, we now have 90 days to negotiate among the 

South Florida agricultural industry and all other 

interested parties -- in an effort to spend our resourc¢s on 

the repair and restoration of the Everglades instead of 

further litigation. We reached this point, Mr. Chairman and 

members, because we demonstrated that we were willing to press 

this litigation onto future generations if necessary to 

protect the interests of taxpayers and the south Florida 

environment; and its dependent industries of tourism and 

fishing. The technical plan that we reached in these 

Principles is superior to other proposals to date becausQ it 

is driven by science and COIM\On sense. Best :nanagernent 

practices will require the agricultural industry to reduce 

phosphorus 25\ within the first two years, and under this plan 

the industry will gain a strong head start toward "Phase ll" 

water quality standards. The plan also anticipat•s the 

construction of more than 40,000 acres of wetlands that will 

clean up stormwater before it enters the Everglades ecosystem 

-- an increase of 14,000 acres over the previous settlement 

aqreement bQtween the StatQ and the Federal government . rhe 

Federal government committed, as part of the agreement, to 

pursue funding for the c-51 flood control project which will 

be modified to provide additional water for the Everglades. 

7 
141 

This agreement offers a cornerstone to the long term effort to 

restore the Everglades because it increases the quantity and 

quality of water to be more effectively distributed across the 

Everglades. 

Florida Bay 

Today's focus on the significant and relatively recent 

dramatic changes in the physical and biologi cal conditions in 

Florida Bay is a consequence of the cumulative impacts of the 

"re-enqi!'leerinq" of the Everglades some fifty years ago. The 

symptoms of a dying ecosystem are striking in the Florida Bay: 

The widespread die-off of sea grass beds, frequent and 

persistent algal Dlooms, declines in marine life, including 

fish populations, and the die-back of mangroves. To date, 

there is no clear scientific consensus on all the causes of 

the degradation or a full understanding of what is necessary 

to restore the Bay but we are determined to work with the 

State, other Federal bureaus and private researchers to 

improve our understanding of Florida Bay and determine what 

research needs to be done. 

Among the scientific community, there is consensus on the 

necessity and immediacy of the need to restore hiator ic 

hydrological conditions and to recreate freshwater flows into 

the bay that mimic the natural system in timing, distribution 

and quality. We have taken steps to bring about that 

a 
142 

restoration and we believe that the work of restoring the Bay 

is the logical outcome ot restoring the Everglades ecosystem. 

finally, the decline of Florida Bay has had adverse 

consequences to the tourism industry or south Florida ana the 

Keys and to its fishing industry as well -- both are based on 

the unique physical and biological attributes of this 

ecosystem. Restoration of the ecosystem will clearly benefit 

these important elements o! Florid~'s economy. 

secretary Babbitt has pledged to make Everglades restoration 

a top priority, We have convened working groups and begun 

planning a coordinated Federal ettort to work with the State, 

local agencies, and industry. we share your concern and 

interest in Florida Bay and look forward to working together 

with you. We recognize that there is only one Everglades and 

only one Florida Bay. We stand committed to their protection. 

I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

9 
143 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Colonel Salt. 

STATEMENT OF COL TERRENCE C. SALT 

Colonel SALT. Mr. Chairman, I am Colonel Terrence Salt, Commander of the Jacksonville District, Army Corps of Engineers. I am 

here representing Dr. G. Edward Dickey, the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Civil Works. I have prepared a full written statement for the record, but would like to bnefly summarize it, now for 

the Committee. In fact, in the interest of time, I will summarize 

my summary. 

Before I begin, I would like to commend your staff for the set of 

witnesses they have assembled. I have been here in south Florida 

for only a short time, but I believe the testimony and discussions 

you have heard today fairly and accurately represent the issues 

that we face. 

I believe it is helpful to recall the history of development in south 

Florida. The Swamp and Overflowed Lands Act of 1850, which 

granted the State all lands below the ordinary high water encouraged development of Florida's wetlands. In 1880, the State of Florida began an extensive drainage system which proved inadequate 

for either flood control or water supply in the region. To remedy that situation, Congress, in 1948, authorized the Corps of Engineers, with the State of Florida as our local sponsor, to implement 

a comprehensive plan for the Central and Southern Florida Project, 

the C&SF Project. 

I believe Lieutenant Governor MacKay fairly and accurately traced the history of our joint efforts since 1948, and I salute the 

Lieutenant Governor and Governor Chiles for their leadership as 

we have worked through these challenges during the past three 

years. Although water supply for Everglades National Park and the 

protection of fish and wildlife resources were included in the C&SF 

Project purposes, the primary objectives identified by designers and 

included in the authorizing legislation were to prevent flood damage and to provide urban and agricultural water supply. Today, the 

flood control and water supply problems that characterized Florida 

50 years ago have been substantially reduced by the project. And 

also today, we have better information regarding the environmental needs of the Everglades and the ecological balance of the 

area. 

The primary issues we now face in retrofitting these water management systems relate to meeting the needs of the environment 

in the area. The C&SF Project has altered the fresh water flow into 

Florida Bay. I do not think there is any dispute or question on the 

nature and the urgency of the problem, and I essentially ap-ee with 

Drs. Hunt and Jones' assessment of that problem. I believe they 

fairly and accurately presented the problem we are trying to solve. 

Further, we ~gnize the urgent need to restore the natural flow 

of fresh water !n Florida Bay. And while ~tis likely that this i.s only 

one part of this puzzle that we are trying to solve, for us m the 

Corps, it is the logical place to start. 

The Corps and our rartner, the South Florida Water Management District, are wel under way with three projects which address the restoration and protection of the Everglades ecosystem 
144 

and Florida Bay. Those are the Kissimmee River restoration, the 

modified water deliveries to Everglades National Park and the C111 general reevaluation report. And as an aside, I agree with Tom 

Martin's testimony that we should be held accountable for the commitments and the schedules that we have made on those three prQj~ects. 

The Kissimmee River restoration will restore the basin's natural 

hydrologic conditions by enabling more natural water level fluctuation and discharges in the river. The project will backfill a large 

portion of the existing canal, restoring 29,000 acres of wetlands for 

fish and wildlife habitat. Construction of the test fill in the channel 

will start in October of this year. 

The Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park 

Project will create more natural hydrologic conditions in over 

300,000 acres of Shark River Slough, which is a major source of 

fresh water inflows into Florida Bay. It also acquires over 107,000 

acres for incorporation into the Park by the Department of the Interior. Land acquisition is under way and construction will begin 

on that project next year. 

An experimental program for this project was authorized by Congress to increase flows into the eastern portion of Shark River 

Slough, and this demonstration program has been under way since 

1985. In June of this year, a new iteration of that test incorporated higher flows into Taylor Slough, which flows directly into Florida 

Bay. Finally, the C-111 general reevaluation report is developing a ~roposed modification to the C&SF Project structures in southeast 

Florida to enable the restoration of more natural flows into Taylor Slough. The existing water management features cannot concurrently provide natural hydrologic conditions in the slough and 

maintain flood control for agriculture. The plan under development seeks to do that. 

Finally, the Corps has initiated a long-term approach to address 

and hopefully resolve these conditions. In June of this year, the 

Corps started the reconnaissance phase for a comprehensive restudy of the entire C&SF Project, the Everglades and Florida Bay. 

That study will address four essential tasks. It will define the prob- lems and opportunities and identify potential solutions. It will determine those potential solutions that should proceed into a feasibility phase and will estimate the time and cost for that feasibility phase. Finally, it will assess the level of interest and support 

of non-federal agencies in pursuing those identified potential solutions. That rep«?rt is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 1994. 

Federal legislation authorizes the Corps to construct environmental mitigation and restoration projects or project features. For 

the Everglades restoration project, there are also specific Con~Vessional authorizations which have allowed the studies and projects 

to proceed as I discuBSed. Congressional intent with respect to longterm Everglades restoration is clear. The federal task force on Everglades restoration will provide important coordination and assistance in establishing federal goals and objectives for Everglades res- toration as they relate to our ongoing Corps studies and projects. 

At this time, federal appropriations for ongoing Corps projects are 

sufficient to continue without delay. 
145 

Finally, I was asked to comment on the recently announced 

statement of principles in the Everglades litigation. In my view, it 

is an important first step on the path to a partnership among the 

diverse users of the C&SF Project to assure adequate funding of 

the Everglades restoration effort. The Corps is committed to pursue its currently authorized C-51 flood control project and other efforts 

in a manner that is well integrated with efforts to increase the 

availability of water to the Everglades. We expect the Department 

of the Interior and the South Florida Water Management District 

to continue to be important financial and technical participants in 

that effort. 

Sir, this concludes my testimony. I thank you for the opportunity 

to be here. 

[Prepared statement of Colonel Salt follows:) 
146 

CONPLBTB S~A~BKBHT OP 

COLOIIBL ~BIUUDI~B C. SAL~ 

COIOIMIDBR, JACUOHVl:LLB DISTRICT 

0. S. ARMY CORPS OP IDTGIIIBBR.S 

BBPORB TBB JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING OP ~HB HOOSB 

COJOIITTBB ON NATURAL R.BSOOR.CBS' SOBCOMMITTBBS 

ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS AND ON NATIONAL PARKS, PORBSTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS AND TBB COJOIITTBB ON MBR.CHAHT MAR.IIIB AND 

PISHBRIBS 1 SOBCOJOIITTBB ON BNVIRONXDlT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JULY 31 1 1993 

9:00 A.M. 

KBY COLONY BEACH CITY HALL, KEY COLONY, PLORIDA 

Mr. Chairman, I am Colonel Terrence c. Salt, Commander, 

Jacksonville District of the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers. I am pleased to be here today representing Dr. G. Edward Dickey, the 

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. In 

response to your joint letter, my testimony will provide a brief 

background on flood and drought problems in the Everglades, the · Corps of Engineers role in the Central and Southern Florida 

Project, the current situation in Florida Bay, short and longterm activities to address Everglades restoration and Florida Bay 

problems, and some constraints and issues involved in these 

efforts. 

A basic understanding of the history of water resources in 

south Florida is necessary to understand many of the issues that are being addressed today. The interest in developing Florida's 

wetlands was encouraged by enactment of the Swamp and overflowed 

Lands Act of 1850. This act granted to the state all lands below 

ordinary High water and allowed the state use of all net proceeds 

from the sale of these lands for internal improvements, after 

necessary drainage projects were implemented . 

In the late 1880's, Florida began a series of major projects 

designed to drain the Everglades. By the late 1920's, several 

drainage canals had been constructed from Lake Okeechobee and 

through the Everglades to tidewater. The destruction and 

economic losses caused by the hurricanes of 1926, 1928, and 1947, as well as a series of drought years during the 1930's, made it 

evident that the water management system was inadequate. 

Congress initially authorized the Corps of Engineers to 

implement a comprehensive Plan for the Central and southern 

Florida (C&SF) Project in 1948, with subsequent authorizations. 

The plan was authorized to serve the primary purposes of flood 

control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for 

Everglades National Park (ENP), and protection of fish and 
147 

wildlife resources. Furtheraore, the project required that a portion of the cost be borne by a lQCal sponsor, the central and 

southern Flood Control District, which was later renamed the 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The 

authorization specified that the Corps would operate and maintain 

the main outlets of Lake Okeechobee and the Water Conservation 

Areas. However, all remaining project features are operated and 

maintained by the SFWMD in accordance with requlations prescribed 

by the secretary of the Army. 

While no specific priority was established for the project 

purposes, initial development concentrated on flood control and 

water supply, followed by the other project purposes. Moreover, 

at that tiae, the flood control and water supply objectives were much more clearly defined than the environmental objectives. 

Today, the flood control and water supply problems that 

characterized Florida 50 years ago have been substantially 

reduced by the project. There is also much more information 

available regarding the environmental needs of the Everglades and 

ecoloqical balance. Therefore, the primary issues that must now be addressed relate to the restoration of the region's natural resources. 

As it exists today, the Central and southern Florida Project 

encompasses all or parts of 18 counties and approximately 16,000 

square ailes. The primary system includes about 1,000 miles of 

levees and canals, 130 water control structures, and 16 major 

pump stations. Virtually all of the aajor drainage basins in the 

project area are now controlled by man. More than 1,300 square 

miles of Everqlades habitat are contained within the Water 

Conservation Areas (WCA). In fact, Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge encompasses WCA No. 1. These areas comprise the largest 

remaininq undeveloped section of Everglades in existence today. 

Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, located at the 

downstream end of the project, are impacted by operations 

required to satisfy the needs of upstream project users. 

Assessment of the Condition of Florida Bay 

our concern regarding the health of Florida Bay began to 

increase in the late 1980's as reports of sea grass die-offs 

became more frequent. Since that time, we have witnessed a cascade of environmental concerns. Up to 100,000 acres of 

seagrasses are now impacted, and this die-off appears to be 

feeding an algae bloom which has covered as much as 400 square 

miles of the Bay. The exact extent of the damage from the bloom 

is unclear, but where it persists we know that there is a concurrent loss of habitat for fish and shellfish. The continued 

reduction in seagrasses and increases in algae blooms threaten 

the productivity of the Bay. 

2 
148 

The Corps recognizes that the freshwater flow into the Bay 

has been altered by the C&SP Project. Restoration of the natural 

flow of freshwater into the Bay will have a beneficial effect. 

Increased flow is an expected by-product of restoration of the 

Everglades. We simply do not know if this will resolve the 

present situation in Florida Bay. The increase in freshwater 

flow is only one part of the puzzle, but it is a logical place to 

start. 

Short-term Actions to Address 

Everqla4es Restoration and Florida Bay 

The Corps is currently undertaking three large projects to 

address the restoration and protection of ecosystems in central 

and southern Florida. Bither directly or indirectly they will 

benefit the Everglades ecosystem and Florida Bay. The projects are the Kissimmee River Restoration, the Modified Water 

Deliveries to Everglades National Park, and the C-111 (South Dade 

County). 

The Kissimmee River Restoration Project consists of 

modifying and dismantling portions of the existing water 

management system to restore the basin's natural hydrologic 

conditions. The project was authorized by the Water Resources 

Development Act of 1992. When complete, the Kissimmee Headwaters 

Revitalization Project will restore more natural water level 

fluctuations in the upper basin lakes. The Kissimmee River 

Restoration Project will restore 29,000 acres of wetlands 

ecosystem along with the associated wildlife, fishery, water 

quality, and aesthetic values in the Kissimmee River floodplain. 

The current plan includes additional water storage capacity 

in Lakes Kissimmee, Cypress, and Hatchineha. Modified operations will be required to provide more natural discharges to the 

Kissimmee River. Acquisition of flowage easements, improvements 

to canals joining the lakes, and construction of a new outlet 

structure are project components. A Project Modification Report is scheduled for completion next year, with initiation of 

construction scheduled for December 1995. 

In the lower Kissimmee River, the main components of the 

authorized restoration project consist of backfilling about 29 

miles of the existing flood control canal, removal of 3 water 

control structures, about 12 miles of new river channel 

construction, acquisition of real estate interest in the 

floodplain, and modification of two bridges. A 1,000-foot-long 

test fill section of ca.nal will be constructed between October 

1993 and June 1994. The first design memorandum is scheduled for 

completion in early 1996. Construction will require 

approximately 15 years. The total project cost is estimated at 

$558 million (including inflation during construction). 

3 
149 

The total volume of water entering Lake Okeechobee from the 

Kissimmee River Basin will not be significantly impacted by the 

restoration project. However, the timing will change to more closely reflect natural real-time variations in seasonal rainfall 

patterns. 

To begin addressing concerns over impacts of reduced water 

flows into Everqlades National Park, an Experimental Proqram of 

Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park has been 

underway since 1985. It is being accomplished under existing 

authorities and through an iterative testing process. Each 

subsequent test iteration is being designed based on information 

obtained in previous iterations. In June 1993, a new iteration was initiated to incorporate additional flows to Taylor Slough by 

adding capacity at the existing pump station that discharges into 

the Park. Also, canal stages are being held higher to reduce the 

loss of water from the Everqlades into the canal system through 

seepage. Based on infor.ation obtained durinq the 1993 wet 

season, more pump capacity may be added for the 1994 wet season. This iteration is scheduled to end in May 1995. 

The Modified Water Deliveries Project to Everglades National 

Park was authorized by the Everglades National Park Protection 

and Expansion Act of 1989. This act authorized the Corps of 

Engineers to construct modifications to the water management 

system to improve water deliveries into Everglades National 

Park's Shark River Slough, which empties into western Florida 

Bay. It also authorized the Department of Interior, with cost 

sharing by the State of Florida, to acquire approximately 107,600 acres of land in the East Everglades for incorporation into the 

Everglades National Park. 

The Corps part of the project includes the construction of 

eight (8) water control structures to restore the historic flow 

patterns fro. Water Conser¥ation ·Area (WCA) No. 3A through WCA 

No. 38 and into Northeast Shark River Slough in the Bast 

Everglades. A 10-mile long levee along the Park's northeastern 

border will be removed as a part of the project. A levee, canal, 

and two pump stations will be constructed to prevent adverse 

impacts to adjacent developed areas that would otherwise result 

from the project. In general, the project objective is to 

restore natural hydrologic conditions for the purpose of 

enhancing the quality of the Everglades habitat for the native 

flora and fauna. More natural hydrologic conditions will be 

established in more than 300,000 acres of the upper Shark River 

Slough. The timing, volume, and location of water flows to Shark 

River Slough will more closely approximate those that occurred 

prior to the influence of the various structural measures undertaken by man. The project features will provide much 

qreater operational flexibility so that as additional data are obtained and evaluated, water deliveries can be modified as appropriate. 

4 
100 

A General Design Memorandum for the project was approved in 

June 1992. The first of five Featu~e Design Memorandums is 

scheduled for submission in September 1993. A field test of an alternative requiring less construction will be initiated in 

December 1993. The test will provide hydrologic data that will 

enable the accurate prediction of potential impacts of simply degrading portions of levee rather than construction of all the 

water control structures. Land acquisition has begun and 

construction of the· other project features will begin in the fall 

of 1994. Completion is scheduled for 2001 at an estimated cost 

of $98 million. 

Under the C-111 project, a General Reevaluation Report (GRR) 

is being developed to include a plan for the restoration of more natural flows to Everglades National Park's Taylor Slough. Hydrologic data indicate that water conditions in Taylor Slough 

have been drier than historically found. Taylor Slough and flows 

from the C-111 canal enter eastern Florida Bay. 

Pull restoration of Taylor Slough will require raising water 

levels during wet conditions. This would cause flood damages in 

the adjacent agricultural area due to inundation of the root zones by groundwater. The existing water management features are not adequate to concurrently provide natural hydrologic conditions in Taylor Slough and maintain flood control for 

agriculture. The draft GRR, which includes a proposed plan for 

structural modifications, will be available for review this 

winter. 

Long-term Actions to Address 

Everglades Restoration and Florida Bay 

In June 1993, the Corps initiated the reconnaissance phase 

of the comprehensive restudy of the C&SF Project, the Everglades and Florida Bay. The comprehensive study was authorized by Section 309(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, 

and two resolutions, both dated September 24, 1992, of the u.s. House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation. The authorities directed the review of the Chief 

of Engineers report on central and southern Florida project, and 

other pertinent reports, to determine whether modifications to 

the existing project or its operation are advisable to improve the quality of the environment, improve protection of the 

aquifer, and improve the integrity, capability, and conservation 

of urban water supplies affected by the project or its operation. 

The Corps reconnaissance study will address four essential 

tasks: 

(1) The definition of problems and opportunities, and 

identification of potential solutions. 

5 
151 

(2) A dete~nation of whether planning should proceed 

further, into a feasibility phase, based on a preliminary 

appraisal of consiatency with Army palicies; costs, benefits, and 

environmental impacts of the identified potential solutions. 

(3) An estimate of time and costs for the feasibility 

phase. 

(4) An assessment of the level of interest and support of 

non-Federal interests in the identified potential solutions. 

This reconnaissance study is being closely coordinated and 

developed in partnership with the primary local public agency, 

the South Florida Water Management District, as well as other key Federal agencies, including the National Park Service, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

the u.s. Geological survey, and the Environmental Protection 

Agency. The public involvement program for the study will reach 

out to all concerned interests, including environmental and 

developmental interests, state and local agencies, as well as interested members of the general public, to ensure that the 

widest range of views and information are available and 

considered in decision making. The reconnaissance report is 

scheduled to be completed in November 1994. 

Institutional/Legal Barriers to Restoration 

There are some general Federal authorities that enable the 

Corps of Engineers to pursue environmental restoration projects. 

For the Everglades restoration projects, there are also adequate 

specific Congressional authorizations to allow the required 

studies to proceed. Additional authority will probably be 

required to implement many of the proposed projects. The 

Congressional intent with respect to Everglades restoration is 

clear and needs no further clarification. It is anticipated that 

the Federal Task Force on Everglades Restoration will assist in 

establishing Federal goals and objectives for Everglades 

restoration as they relate to ongoing Corps studies or projects. 

The task force and its specific roles are being developed in 

response to Interior secretary Bruce Babbit's direction. It will 

provide a means of developing and implementing a coordinated 

Federal plan for Everglades restoration within the authorities, 

policies, and budget constraints of the individual agencies. At 

this time, Federal appropriations for ongoing Corps projects are sufficient to continue without delay. 

Everglades Litigation 

The recently announced Statement of Principles is an important first step in establishing a partnership among the 

diverse users of the C&SF Project to insure adequate funding of 

the Everglades restoration effort. The Statement of Principles 

6 
152 

is, in essence, a broad outline of the types of action needed to 

restore and maintain a healthy Everglades ecosystem along with a rough schedule and cost allocation for implementing the 

restoration plan. There will be a 90 day stay in the litigation 

while the signatory· parties attempt to convince other interested 

parties of the wisdom of joining in the partnership. It is also a significant recognition of the need to begin restoration of the 

Everglades ecosystem while the task is still possible. 

The Corps is committed to pursue its c-51 flood control 

project as currently authorized. Any actions we undertake will 

be done in a manner that is well integrated with efforts to 

increase the availability of water to the Everglades. We expect the Department of Interior and the SFWMD to continue to be 

important participants (financial and technical) in that effort. 

Although a great deal of negotiation and work remains, we are hopeful that the statement of Principles will lead to a settlement agreement which resolves all outstanding Everglades 

litigation. 

7 
153 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Causey. 

STATEMENT OF BILLY D. CAUSEY 

Mr. CAUSEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittees, Ms. 

Meek and Senator Jones, thank you for this opportunity, and welcome back to south Florida, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Billy Causey, Superintendent of the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary, which is a 2,800 square nautical mile sanctuary that encompasses all of the Florida Keys including portions of Florida Bay. I am pleased to be here today representing NOAA. Thank 

you for bringing this joint hearing to tne field where I feel and 

trust that you will witness firsthand the alarming ecological changes that are occurring within one of the Nation's most treasured resources. 

The coral reefs of the Florida ~ys comprise the downstream 

component of a vast ecosystem that originates north of Lake Okeechobee, beginning at the headwaters of the Kissimmee River and 

extending ·southward through the Everglades into Florida Bay and 

continuing to the offshore reef tract. This highly diverse ecosystem 

supports valuable commercial and recreational fisheries and forms 

the economic basis for the number one industry in the Florida 

Keys, which is tourism and recreation. 

An unprecedented consensus now exists among scientists and resource managers of some of this Nation's most si~cant resources. That consensus is that serious and progresstve degrada- tion is occurr:iJJ.g within .the Florida ·say ecosystem and the entire 

ecosystem may collapse. A crisis of extraordinary proportion jeop- ardizes this Nation's most diverse and unique natural resource, an 

ecosystem that the economy of south Flonda and the Keys is dependent upon. The scientists and managers further agree that this crisis is a direct result of flood control, other water management measures and 

agricultural runoff that have substantially reduced the amount and 

quality of fresh water flowing into the Everglades and Florida Bay hydrological system. Likewise, the · actual and potential adverse effects of Florida Bay degradation on marine resources of the sanctuary have been well documented. As a result, decisions regarding the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of fresh water 

inflows into the Everglades and Florida Bay are of direct and immediate concern to the management of the Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary. 

You have already heard numerous examples as to why these 

changes are of concern to us. Let me give you a few more. Prior 

to the designation of the Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary in 

1981, Looe Key Reef had always been known as a nice place to dive 

with beautiful coral formations, but very few fish. Today, as a result of intense management of the 5.3 square nautical mile sanctuary, the fish have returned, but the corals and other related organisms are exhibiting serious decline due to diseases and various 

forms of stress. In order to determine the origin of the stresses that 

were affecting the reef, NOAA initiated several research projects. One of those projects was to characterize the water in and around 

the sanctuary by determining current patterns and water flow. Dr. 

Ned Smith of the Harbor Branch Foundation headed up the field 
154 

work of a research project that included the deployment of current 

meters throughout the sanctuary. He also placed current meters in 

the openings of some of the msjor passes in the Keys, including the 

gap in the Seven Mile bridge, which is the widest span, and the 

Bahia Honda Pass, which is the deepest span. His results demonstrated that water flowing in the vicinity of Looe Key Reef was 

coming from the direction of Florida Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. 

The net flow of the water was from the north, heading south 

through the Keys in the direction of the coral reef tract. 

The results of Dr. Smith's work somewhat relates to what we 

know geologically about the development of coral reefs along the 

Florida Keys. Reef development is poorest in the vicinity of major 

passes that open up to the Gulf and Florida Bay. However, man's 

influence on the quality and quantity of the water reaching the 

coral reef has resulted in an alarming rate of decline in the health 

of the corals. This decline has been scientifically documented by Dr. 

Jim Porter on several reefs in the Florida Keys, with his greatest 

rate of decline being recorded at Looe Key Reef, where he initiated 

his work in 1984, and where we now know the waters of the Gulf 

and Florida Bay flow. 

I am going to skip several of my other examples that were covered by Dr. Hunt and Dr. Jones. 

Research supported by the National Park Service and carried out 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service during 1984 to 1985 demonstrated that the western portion of Florida Bay, adjacent to the 

Gulf of Mexico, and channel habitats throughout the Bay consistently supported the highest diversity of fish. The channel areas and 

basins in western Florida Bay also displayed the greatest diversity and density of seagrasses. Statistical analyses indicated close relationships between seagrass abundance and the abundance and diversity of fish populations, including gray snapper and spotted 

trout. The basins in western Florida Bay currently undergoing 

seagrass die-off and secondary losses of seagrasses as a result of increased turbidity are those areas that had the highest diversity 

and densities of fish. Loss of seagrass habitat will lead to reduced 

fisheries productivity both short term and long term. 

An associated effect of the seagrass devegetation has been the 

impact of enormous quantities of defoliated seagrass leaves and litter that have been continuously drifting onto the beaches and into 

the dead-end canals of the Keys for the past decade and a half. 

The near-shore water quality problems associated with the decomposing seagrasses are evident as one travels the length of the 

Keys and sees the root-beer-brown-colored water that borders the 

racks of decomposing seagrasses. Although some decomposition 

may be natural, the rate at which it has been occurring over the 

last decade and a half is of great concern. 

I have some recommendations, both for the short term and the 

long term. For the short term, my first recommendation is to purchase sensitive and strategically important properties that could 

expedite the increase in fresh water flow into Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. 

Second, establish fresh water flow into the Taylor and Shark 

River Sloughs and the eastern panhandle that more closely resem-
155 

ble the natural timing, quantity, quality and distribution of historical flows. 

Third, assure the adherence of water quality standards for water 

deliveries to Taylor Slough and the eastern panhandle. Fourth, support the Everglades National Park's effort to determine groundwater flows in lower Taylor Slough by expanding the 

current groundwater modeling program in the eastern panhandle and the C-111 basin. 

Fifth, support research that will characterize the waters of the 

Everglades and Florida Bay components of the ecosystem by determining current circulation patterns, seasonal hydrographic and 

hydrological fluctuations and other periodic variations. 

For the long-term, I would suggest establishing a goal to restore 

the functional elements of the Everglades ecosystem to most resemble the natural functions of a freshwater, estuarine and marine environment that are intricately linked to one another and whose 

overall health is dependent upon the health of the individual elements. 

Second, restore estuarine conditions to Florida Bay by increasing historical sheetwater flow in order to restore Everglades ecosystem 

functions. 

Third, restore and maintain the economic viability of the Everglades and the Florida Bay ecosystem. Fourth, e:q>lore the possibilities of establishing an ecosystem- wide monitonng and research prop-am that can assess the current 

status of the system and momtor changes brought about by changes taken to restore the ecosystem as well as monitoring the 

ecosystem to prevent possible future collapse. Fifth, increase the public's awareness as to the fragile nature of 

this ecosystem through the use of environmental education programs and solicit the public's assistance in assuring its lasting health. 

In conclusion, I would like to say the uniqueness and irreplace- able value of the Florida Keys marine environment was nationally recognized through the Sanctuary designation. In recent months, 

an unprecedented level of coordination between Federal, State and 

local agencies and involvement by the public has occurred in order 

to protect its resources and enstlre the livelihood of the Keys' community. Yet, unless bold immediate steps are taken to restore the 

natural hydrological functioning of the Everglades/Florida Bay ecosystem, it is likely that our efforts to protect the downstream resources of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will be in 

vain. 

Now is the time for bold action to restore clean, fresh water to 

Florida Bay. A national treasure is at stake. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Causey follows:] 

73-729 - 93 - 6 
156 

TESTIMONY OF 

BILLY D. CAUSEY, SUPERINTENDENT 

FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

ANDTHE . 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31,1993 

KEY COLONY BEACH, FLORIDA 

Messrs. Chairmen and members of the Subcommittees: 

I am Billy Causey, Superintendent of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 

which is a 2800 square nautical mile sanctuary that encompasses all of the 

Florida Keys, including portions of Florida Bay. I am pleased to be here today 

representing NOAA. Thank you for bringing this joint hearing to the field, where I 

trust you will witness first-hand the alarming ecological changes that are 

occurring within one of this Nation's most treasured resources. In response to 

your joint letter, my testimony will: 

(1) oper:J with a few introductory comments; 

(2) give you my assessment of the condition of the Bay and its living resources; 

and 

(3) offer recommendations for short-term and long-term actions which might be 

undertaken to slow or reverse the decline of the Everglades ecosystem, including 

Florida Bay. 

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act, which was 

signed into law on November 16, 1990, provides protection to unique and 

nationally significant marine environments, including seagrass meadows, 

mangrove islands, extensive hardbottom habitat, patch reefs, and the Nation's 

only living coral reef tract that lies adjacent to North America. These marine 

environments support rich biological communities possessing extensive 

conservational, recreational, commercial, ecological, historical, scientific, 

educational, and aesthetic values which give this area special national 

significance. As the marine equivalent of tropical rain forests, these marine 

environments support high levels of biological diversity and are fragile and easily 
157 

susceptible to damage from human activities. If properly conserved, these marine 

habitats possess high value to mankind. 

The sanctuary extends 220 miles south-southwest from the southern tip of 

Florida, encompassing the waters of the entire Florida Keys archipelago. The 

boundary of the sanctuary runs along the 300-foot depth contour from Fowey 

.Rocks off Miami, extending south and west, encircling the Dry Tortugas National 

Park, and extending along the north side of the Florida Keys to a boundary 

contiguous with the Everglades National Park (map attached). Biscayne, 

Everglades, and Dry Tortugas National Parks are not included within the 

boundary of the sanctuary. All other Federal refuges, state parks, and aquatic 

preserves fall within the sanctuary. 

ECOSYSTEM 

The coral reefs of the Florida ~eys comprise the downstream component of a 

vast ecosystem that originates north of Lake Okeechobee, beginning at the 

headwaters of the Kissimmee River and extending southward through the 

Everglades, into Florida Bay, and continuing to the offshore reef tract. This 

highly diverse ecosystem supports valuable commercial and recreational 

fisheries and forms the economic basis for the number one industry in the Florida 

Keys which is tourism and recreation. From historic times, the major components 

of the ecosystem, which include the Everglades, Florida Bay, and the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary, have been linked through the flow of fresh 

water from Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades into Florida Bay, where it 

eventually mingles with Gulf of Mexico waters before moving from the Bay 

through passes in the Keys onto the coral reef tract. Today this flow has been 

interrupted by a variety of human manipulations in the South Florida region, 

resulting in inadequate water deliveries that no longer follow a natural hydroperiod (flow pattern). The Bay, which used to be estuarine in salinity, now 

exhibits high salinities throughout the year and frequently displays hypersaline 

conditions as a result of decreased freshwater inflow. 

PROBLEM STATEMENT 

An unprecedented consensus now exists among scientists and resource 

managers of some of this Nation's most significant resources. That consensus is 

that serious and progressive degradation is occurring within the Florida Bay 

ecosystem, and the entire ecosystem may collapse. A crisis of extraordinary 

proportion jeopardizes this Nation's most diverse and unique natural resources: 

an ecosystem that the economy of South Florida and the Keys is dependent 

upon. 

The scientists and managers further agree that this crisis is a direct result of flood 

control, other water management measures, and agricultural runoff that have 

substantially reduced the amount and quality of freshwater flowing into the 
158 

Everglades/Florida Bay hydrological system. Likewise, the actual and potential 

adverse effects of Florida Bay degradation on the marine resources of the 

Sanctuary have been well documented. As a result, decisions regarding 

quantity, quality, timing and distribution of freshwater inflows into the Everglades 

and Florida Bay are of direct and immediate concern to the management of the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 

~ecent public meetings of both the Sanctuary Advisory Council and the Water 

uuality Steering Committee confirm that these bodies, as well as the public, 

recognize the decline of Florida Bay to be an urgent situation calling for 

immediate steps to restore freshwater flows, as well as to implement a long-term 

comprehensive strategy to restore the Everglades/Florida Bay ecosystem. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE BAY AND ITS LIVING 

RESOURCES 

There are numerous examples that demonstrate how changes in the delivery and 

quality of freshwater to Florida Bay are adversely affecting the ecological 

resources and economic viability of the region and the Sanctuary. For example: 

1. Prior to the designation of Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary in 1981, Looe 

Key Reef had always been known as a nice place to dive with beautiful coral 

formations, but very few fish. Today, as a result of intense management of the 

5.32 square nautical mile sanctuary, the fish have returned, but the corals and 

other related organisms are exhibiting serious decline due to diseases and 

various forms of stress. In order to determine the origin of the stresses that were 

affecting the reef, NOAA initiated several research projects. One of those 

projects was to characterize the water in and around the sanctuary, by 

determining current patterns and water flow. Dr. Ned Smith of the Harbor Branch 

Foundation headed up the field work of a research project that included the 

deployment of current meters throughout the sanctuary. He also placed current 

meters in the openings of some of the major passes in the Keys, including the 

gap in the Seven Mile bridge, which is the widest span, and Bahia Honda Pass, 

the deepest span. His results demonstrated that the water flowing in the vicinity 

of Looe Key Reef was coming from the direction of Florida Bay and the Gulf of 

Mexico. The net flow of the water was from the north, heading south through the 

Keys in the direction of the coral reef tract. 

The results of Dr. Smith's work somewhat relates to what we know geologically 

about the development of coral reefs along the Florida Keys. Reef development 

is poorest in the vicinity of major passes that open up to the Gulf and Florida Bay. 

However, man's influence on the quality and quantity of the water reaching the 

coral reef tract has resulted in an alarming rate of decline in the health of the 

corals. This decline has been scientifically documented by Dr. Jim Porter on 

several reefs in the Florida Keys, with his greatest rate of decline being recorded 

at Looe Key Reef, where he initiated his work in 1984, and where we know the 

waters of the Gulf and Florida Bay flow. The decline reported by Dr. Porter 

coincides with anecdotal observations made by many knowledgeable scientists 
159 

who have visited Looe Key Reef in recent years. My personal observations 

extend back to 1969 and carry through to the present. In the 1970s I spent 

several hundred underwater hours diving on, and in the vicinity of, Looe Key 

Reef. The reef remained spectacular throughout this period. However, the most 

dramatic changes in the health of the corals and coral related organisms, such as 

colonial anemones, at Looe Key began in 1986. Outbreaks of black band 

disease on coral colonies, and the disappearance of false coral, a colonial 

anemone that was once common at Looe Key, supported the observations of 

many who feel that the coral reefs of the Keys are in a serious state of 

decline. 

2. Tortugas pink shrimp landings averaged over 10 million pounds annually 

during 1963-1980. Since then, annual landings have equaled that average only 

once, production has been less that 8 million pounds per year, and severe drops 

below 5 million pounds per year were seen during 1988-1991 . Tortugas shrimp 

fishery production appears to be directly or indirectly linked to freshwater inflow 

into Florida Bay, the largest nursery area for juvenile pink shrimp in South 

Florida. While exact mechanisms are not yet known, higher rainfall levels and 

higher levels of freshwater generally lead to greater pink shrimp production and 

the lack of freshwater results in less production. In addition, the loss of seagrass 

habitats has likely exacerbated the decline in pink shrimp production, which 

appears to have begun before the seagrass die-off. 

Research supported by the National Park Service, and carried out by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service during 1984-1985, demonstrated that the 

western portion of Florida Bay, adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, and channel 

habitats throughout the Bay consistently supported the highest diversity of fish. 

The channel areas and basins in western Florida Bay also displayed the greatest 

diversity and density of seagrasses. Statistical analyses indicated close 

relationships between seagrass abundance and the abundance and diversity of 

fish populations, including gray snapper and spotted seatrout. Toe basins in 

western Florida Bay currently undergoing seagrass die-off and secondary loss of 

seagrasses as a result of increased turbidity are those areas that had the highest 

diversity and densities of fishes. 

In Florida Bay, the turtle grass (Thalassia) die-off has led to increased acreage of 

non-vegetated sediments. Loss of seagrass habitat will lead to reduced fisheries 

productivity, both short-term (as denuded areas take time to recover) and longterm (if reduced water clarity prevents recolonization or induces further die-off). 

Quantitative popnet sampling in Florida Bay basin habitats at water depths 

between 1.0 and 1.5 meters has shown that the communities are dominated by 

small forage fishes and that there have been shifts in population densities and 

diversities. Densities are highest in unimpacted turtle grass habitats and lowest 

in the "new" colonizing habitats. Thus, it appears that one impact of the seagrass 

die-off may be a decrease in forage fish in western Florida Bay basins. There 

also appears to have been a shift in size of some of the fishes and shrimp, with 

smaller organisms present in the die-off and algae covered bottom than in the 

turtle grass. These data suggest increased predation pressure in the die-off and 
160 

newly colonizing areas. Current sampling in seagrass habitats immediately 

adjacent to mangrove islands and away from the seagrass die-off is 

demonstrating large numbers of juvenile fish and shrimp, and this may indicate 

possible shifts in populations from those stressed habitats within the basins to 

those in close proximity to mangroves. 

3. Seagrass habitats, which dominated the sea floor of Florida Bay, have 

changed from a mixture of predominately three species (turtle grass, shoal grass, 

and manatee grass) to largely monospecific meadows dominated by turtle grass. 

Since the mid- 1980s, the generally monospecific turtle grass habitats, 

particularly in the western portion of the Bay, have been undergoing a die-off with 

large areas of unvegetated bottom being the end result. Coinciding with this dieoff has been an increase in turbidity from both resuspended carbonate sediments 

and blooms of microscopic algae. 

An associated effect of this seagrass devegetation has been the impact of 

enormous quantities of defoliated seagrass leaves and litter that have 

continuously drifted onto the b~aches and into the dead-end canals of the Keys 

for the past decade. The nearshore water quality problems associated with the 

decomposing seagrasses are evident as one travels the length of the Keys and 

sees the "root beer" colored water that borders the racks of decomposing 

seagrasses. Although some decomposition may be natural, the rate at which it 

has been occurring has accelerated over the past 10 to 15 years. I can 

document this with years of personal observations in the vicinity of my home on 

Big Pine Key, where prior to 1980 I could observe schools of snapper, grunt, and 

beautiful tropical fish species such as angelfish and butterflyfish swimming in my 

canal. Enormous racks of seagrass started drifting into the dead-end canals in 

the early 1980s (considerably more than in the 1970s), where it would decay and 

drop to the bottom. It was obvious to even the casual observer that the system 

was being impacted by the accelerated decomposition of seagrass. By the mid1980s the fish had disappeared from the canals, and where I could once stand 

and see the bottom of the canal, I could no longer see into the water column 

more than a few feet. This continued until the neighbors of the subdivision 

installed a "weed gate" and "bubbler system" to keep the seagrasses out. Now, 

the fish are back in the canal and you can see the bottom again. These 

observations tell me that much of what we are seeing and reporting in our 

nearshore waters regarding changes in water quality, can be linked to changes in 

Florida Bay. 

I don't want to leave you with the impression that we don't have problems with 

nutrients entering the nearshore waters from anthropogenic sources. The Water 

Quality Protection Program drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary identifies numerous point sources and literally 

thousands of potential non-point sources of nutrients from anthropogenic origins 

that may be contributing to the eutrophication of the nearshore waters of the 

Keys. The impact of these problems on the nearshore habitats and coral reefs of 

the Florida Keys is exacerbated by the cumulative impact of deteriorating Florida 

Bay water as it flows through the Keys. 
161 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ACTIONS 

Recommendations for short-term action are: 

1 . Purchase sensitive and strategically important properties that could expedite 

the increase in freshwater flow into Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. 

2. Establish freshwater flow into the Taylor and Shark River Sloughs and the 

Eastern Panhandle that more closely resemble the natural timing, quantity, 

quality, and distribution of historical flows. 

3. Assure the adherence to water quality standards for water deliveries to Taylor 

Slough and the Eastern Panhandle. 

4. Support the Everglades National Park's effort to determine groundwater flows 

in lower Taylor Slough by expapding the current groundwater modeling program 

in the Eastern Panhandle/C-111 Basin. 

5. Support research that will characterize the waters of the Everglades and 

Florida Bay components of the ecosystem by determining current and circulation 

patterns, seasonal hydrographic and hydrological fluctuations, and other periodic 

variations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LONG-TERM ARE: 

1 . Establish a goal to restore the functional elements of the Everglades 

ecosystem to most resemble the natural functions of a freshwater, estuarine, and 

marine environment that are intricately linked to one another, and whose overall 

health is dependent upon the health of the individual elements. 

2. Restore estuarine conditions to Florida Bay by increasing historical sheet 

water flow in order to restore Everglades ecosystem functions. 

3. Restore and maintain the economic viability of the Everglades and Florida Bay 

ecosystem. 

4. Explore the possibilities of establishing an ecosystem-wide monitoring and 

research program that can assess the current status of the system and monitor 

changes brought about by actions taken to restore the ecosystem, as well as 

monitoring the ecosystem to prevent possible future collapse. 

5. Increase the public's awareness as to the fragile nature of this ecosystem 

through the use of environmental education programs and solicit the public's 

assistance in assuring its lasting health. 
162 

CONCLUSION 

The uniqueness and irreplaceable value of the Florida Keys marine environment 

was nationally recognized through the sanctuary designation. In recent months, 

an unprecedented level of coordination between Federal and state agencies, and 

involvement by the public, has occurred in order to protect its resources and 

ensure the livelihood of the Keys community. Yet, unless bold immediate steps 

are taken to restore the natural hydrological functioning of the Everglades/Florida 

Bay ecosystem, it is likely that all our efforts to protect the downstream resources 

of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary will be in vain. 

Both the short- and long-term measures to restore Florida Bay must be 

proportional to the scale of the ecological crisis we are currently witnessing in the 

Florida Bay ecosystem. We can no longer afford to defer concerted action 

pending further study. 

Now is the time for bold action to restore clean fresh water to the Florida Bay. A 

national treasure is at stake. 

Messrs. Chairmen, this concludes my testimony. Thank you. 
>- cr:: 

<( 

:::> 

b 

z 

<( 

(f) 

w 

z 

cr:: 

<( 

~ 

.....J 

<( 

z 

0 

~ z 

(f) 

>- w 

~ 

<( 

0 

cr:: 

0 

.....J 

LL 

163 
164 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. MacVicar. 

STATEMENT OF TOM MacVICAR 

Mr. MACVICAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittees, Congresswoman Meek, Senator Jones. 

First of all, I need to correct the way I am listed on the agenda. 

I am the Deputy Executive Director of the Water Management District. Our Executive Director Tilford Creel is at the christening of 

his first grandchild in Seattle and I think if it was anywhere east 

of the Rockies, he would have managed to do both. It is an honor 

for me to be here. 

The South Florida Water Management District was created in 

1949 for the sole purpose of acting as a local sponsor for a federal 

project that has wrought what now exists in south Florida, both 

the good and the bad, I think, after all your witnesses today. We 

are governed by appointed board members who are not paid, who 

donate their time and a lot of their emotional energy to make some 

of the toughest decisions that south Florida faces. Six of those 

board members are here today to show you their commitment to 

this process and this issue. 

The current Board as well as past Boards has made it clear that 

the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem is their number one 

priority and they have put their actions where their verbiage is. 

On a few of the key projects: The Kissimmee River restoration, 

we worked with the Corps for ten years before we knew whether 

they would be a partner. The Water Management District spent $35 million in the Kissimmee Valley before we knew there would 

ever be a penny of federal money to match. We are now very encouraged that Congress has authorized the Corps to participate, 

and a project that we all knew would happen someday will now 

happen in our lifetime. 

The Everglades Park expansion, the State of Florida went first 

and donated 40,000 acres as well as committed to 20 percent of the 

funding of the land acquisition to expand Everglades National 

Park. 

On Florida Bay, the Water Management District is uniquely positioned to take important first steps to correct the problem. And 

we did that. Beginning in 1989 we spent a million dollars of our 

money to construct two water control structures to fix the worst 

problems with the way water flows through Taylor Slough and 

Shark River Slough. We have fine-tuned the operations. We do not 

consider these actions anything more than bandaids but when a 

patient is in front of you bleeding to death, somebody has got to 

put on a bandage. The federal process just cannot react quickly 

enough to do that. 

Just as an aside, 1992 was the most successful year for 

birdnesting in the last 25 years in south Florida. The two largest 

rookeries that developed in the Everglades developed just upstream 

of one of our bandaids. The conclusion certainly is not that these 

minor fixes can solve the problem, but the conclusion is you have 

a very resilient Everglades and if we can do our part to fix some 

of the glaring design problems and management problems, Mother 

Nature will do her part to bring the system back. 

In terms of the statement of principles, and having been in the 

front lines of the Everglades litigation fight for the last five years, 

please do not overlook the good things that the statement of prin-
165 

ciples and the mediated plan does for the system. Dr. Jones is 

right, the Everglades EAA plan does not do anything to address 

water quality in Florida Bay, those problems are coming from elsewhere. But it does take an important first step to increasing the 

water quantity in the Everglades. There are still larger issues: Lieutenant Governor MacKay mentioned the Talisman Sugar issue, that is very important for the 

long-term correction of Everglades systems, but it is just at a scale 

that I think you will all agree after you see the system, requires 

a federal/state partnership. 

In terms of the immediate actions that have been recommended 

today on the Florida Bay, I think our Board is in agreement with 

virtually every recommendation you have heard. We adopt our fiveyear land acquisition program two weeks from now. We have $20 

million set aside for land acquisition in the east Everglades. We 

will be adding the Frog Pond, the agricultural land north of the 

Frog Pond, to that acquisition plan on August 12. We have already 

begun negotiations with many of the grove owners who planted 

their groves on the wrong side of the levee, and who were wiped 

out by Hurricane Andrew. Before they go in and replant, which 

many of them are doing, they have agreed to sit down and talk 

with us about acquisition. In that case, we have willing sellers, we 

have our money m the bank and we will make those deals if we 

can get there through negotiation. We do not have all willin~ sellers, I think you heard that. And the Water Management District 

does not have the $120 million or so it is going to take to buy all 

the land that you have been asked to consider buying today, but 

we stand ready to be a firm partner with the Federal Government 

and the State of Florida and Dade County in making those acquisi- tions happen. 

Some final points on the settlement and some comments made by 

one of the earlier speakers. I think specifically the idea that there 

was some collusion in the settlement of the federal lawsuit that 

promoted the continuing litigation with the sugar industry-! find 

that not only ludicrous but really insulting to the Chiles/MacKay 

team that put the first settlement together, and to the board members who struggled through these issues on our Board. We are used 

to large crowds in dealing with this issue. For the last five years, 

we have had the honor of confronting non-point source pollution from agriculture, and we did that first north of Lake Okeechobee. 

There were 49 dairies north of the lake when we started, three 

years later there are 32 dairies. We are not afraid to face the tough 

economic issues. There are obviously political sides to all of these 

issues. The Federal Government built the project for the purpose 

of promoting agriculture back in the 1950s, saw to it to exempt agriculture from federal water qualitr statutes, saw to it to guarantee profits for an industry that farms m the Everglades. We do not dispute that. We are out here to solve the problems, we are an action 

agency. We had to stop the litigation and I think ,YOU will find if 

we are allowed to put this plan in place that the Everglades will 

be a much different and be~~J:ace ten years from now. 

It is not the final fix. I · it is critically important that we 

get beyond the sugar fight if we are ever going to be free to put 

the rest of our resources into the rest of the Everglades problems. 
166 

This settlement principles do not tap out the Water District, we are 

more than willing to put more of our land money and more of our 

ad valorem money into the larger Everglades fix, but we need a 

partner, and that partner has got to be bigger than we are, and 

bigger than the State of Florida. It has to be a joint federal/state/ 

local partnership. 

I tliink I will end my comments there, Mr. Chairman, thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Mac Vicar follows:] 
Overview 

167 

TESTIMONY: MR. TIIOMAS MACVICAR, SFWMD FOR 

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 11IE 

EVERGLADES ECOSYSTEM AND FLORIDA BAY 

JULY 31, 1993 

Florida Bay is a dynamic estuary showing signs of distress. Large seagrass and sponge dieoffs have occurred; mangroves fringing the bay are troubled; once-abundant juvenile pink 

shrimp and sport fisheries have sharply declined The spiny lobster population appears 

threatened; once crystal clear waters are now turbid; and an estimated 500 square mile algal 

bloom is drifting toward the reef. All of these factors indicate a serious problem that the 

South Florida Water Management District is current addressing. In the next ten minutes, 

I would like to explain the role the District is playing, what we see as recommended short 

and long term action steps to resolve these problems, and an idea of what the future holds 

in store for South Florida The South Florida Water Management District recognizes the 

importance of our estuarine resources to the overall health of the eco~tem. We are 

committed to the preservation and restoration of the entire Everglades ecos1ste.m. including 

Florida Bay. 

History 

Historically, fresh water moved freely over much of the state of Florida, eventually emptying 

into Florida Bay and other southern estuaries. However, natural flow patterns were 

modified with the development of the 1,400 mile water management system - largely 

constructed between 1950 and 1975 - to provide flood contra~ urban and agricultural water 

supply to a rapidly growing south Florida. Today the South Florida Water Management 

District is charged with operating this system so that all these interests may co-exist. This 

requires careful study and decision making to achieve the best possible outcome. Over the 

years, management priorities of this system have changed, with alternating emphasis on 

flood contro~ water supply and, most recently, environmental protection of the Everglades' 

natural resources. In the future, with an expected tripling of the population served by the 

District, the competition will become even keener for water resources. As you can see from 

this illustration (attachment 1 - Vision 2050 map), we can expect to see greater urbanization, 

movement of agriculture further north, and, if we are able to move forward quickly with our 

Everglades restoration program, a return to the "River of Grass" concept from Lake 

Okeechobee to Florida Bay. 
Tom Mac Vicar Testimony Continued ... 

Oversight Hearings, Fla. Keys, 7/31/93 

Current Activities 

168 

2 

The District, in its Everglades SWIM Plan, has described five major problems confronting 

the Everglades system. These are: 

1) fragmentation of the Everglades system; 

2) changes in timing, distribution and quantity of water discharges in the 

wetlands of the northern and central portions of the ecosystem; 

3) impacts due to water quality associated with discharges from the Everglades 

Agricultural Area; 

4) invasion of native plant communities by exotic species such as melaleuca; and 

5) changes in the timing, distribution, quality and quantity of water discharged 

to the coastal estuaries of Florida Bay. 

This fifth problem is the focus of my comments today. Based on current research on which 

we see general agreement, these four criteria of timing, distribution, quality, and quantity 

of water are paramount. The District has developed an interim plan tO- address these 

concerns, and has also significantly increased its budget for funding research to further 

understand more about these parameters. · 

Some of the action steps that have developed from the interim plan include: 

1) Beginning in 1989, the District initiated an effort to direct sheetflow into 

Shark River slough and Taylor Slough, while preventing excessive discharges 

to Manatee Bay and Barnes Sound. The project included construction of a 

new gated structure upstream in L31N and conversion of an earthen dam at 

the C-111 outfall into a gated structure. 

2) In 1992 the District and Army Corps of Engineers began a project to aid the 

hydrologic restoration of Taylor Slough. Called the Taylor Slough 

Demonstration project, installation of a portable pump has increased the flow 

into the slough by more than 60%. We plan to increase the pumping capacity 

at this structure, with an eventual goal of 500 cubic feet per second capacity. 

3) The water quality issue is addressed through an extensive network of 

monitoring stations currently in existence in the Bay (attachment 2 -

monitoring sites). Through detailed information regarding salinity, water 

level, temperature and other key parameters, we are working closely with 

Everglades National Park to ensure that the fresh water being delivered to 

Florida Bay is of good quality. 
Tom MacVicar Testimony Cominued ... 

Oversight Hearings, Fla Keys, 7/31/93 

169 

3 

In addition to these technical projects, we are working to ensure our research program is 

accurate and timely. To that end, we will convene an eminent scientists panel next month 

to listen to testimony from Florida Bay researchers. In conjunction with the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation, the District is sponsoring this panel, whose goal is to hear the 

testimony and help us define scientifically valid management alternatives. With this, and 

a simultaneous effort to define critical modeling parameters, we are confident the District's 

research program, in conjunction with the Everglades National Park, will have the necessary 

answers to address these critical issues. 

Future· Activities 

The District will continue to work with other governmental agencies to ensure coordination 

of effort and maximum attention to this problem. These include the Corps of Engineers, 

Everglades National Park, the 'Florida Department of Environmental Protection, federal 

Department of the Interior and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. In addition, 

citizen and special interest groups such as the Water Quality Joint Action Group are of vital 

importance to this effort. This is a coalition of a variety of individuals and groups that have 

come together to propose a 12 point plan for restoring the bay. This group'S. plan is similar 

to our own. A joint effort to work together has already begun, with the District funding 

a Nature Conservancy effort to broaden monitoring using concerned citizens from the 

Florida Keys. It is programs such as this that will allow the District to ensure our efforts 

are properly focused and effectively communicated. 

Conclusion 

Florida Bay is a critical component of the greater Everglades ecosystem, which the District 

is committed to protect and restore. To accomplish this end, land on the eastern panhandle 

of Everglades National Park will have to be acquired. (attachment 3 - land acquisition 

map). The Nature Conservancy has drafted a plan that would combine federal, state and 

local funds to help acquire this land. This plan would optimize the District's ability to go 

forward in purchasing this land, and use it to re-create the sheet flow environment that once 

existed in south Florida. We look forward to Congressional ~pport for this concept. To 

solve the problems of Florida Bay, we believe a federal, state and local partnership is 

required, and we look forward to working with you and other members of Congress to 

achieve that goal. 
170 

Mr. MILLER. After you made us a partner, you are going to end 

your comments. Thank you, and thank all the witnesses. 

And let me introduce for the record, Mr. Brooks Yeager, who is 

the Director of the Office of Policy Analysis in the Department of 

the Interior. Is that right, Brooks? And Superintendent Dick Ring 

from the Park, all of whom we have been talking about, around, 

over, and under here. But we will get to you later. 

A couple of points. One of the concerns that I have is just a sort 

of generic concern having been through the Northwest situation for 

the last several years. And that is, when we move from a courtdriven process to a settlement-driven process, that we take some 

edge off of that situation. And in some cases, probably constructively so in terms of bringing people together. But as we now see 

the formation of the Interagency Task Force that is being put together, I guess when I look at that in light of the asset that is 

under discussion here and the pressure that the Everglades is 

under, where does that lead us? Is that going to be the statement? 

And I compare that of course to the outcome of the forest summit, 

and I do not believe the President can run to every ecosystem and 

hold a summit. But what we learned out of the Northwest summit 

was that you put together a tool that was able in a very short period of time on a crash but very substantial and credible basis to 

develop some alternatives and solutions for the purposes of going 

back to that court so that the government would not be held in contempt. 

How do we measure this first step by the Secretary against that 

process? Because I think one of the things that has been said here 

by the delegation time and again is there have been a lot of fits 

and starts, this thing has been put together in a lot of different motions, some forward, some backwards and now you have clearly an 

agreeable State administration. I questioned whether they would 

stick with it this long when Buddy first told me a couple of years 

ago they were going to do this. And a federal administration that 

believes in the agencies and departments working together. Why 

are we not moving in the same direction and intensity as we did 

with the outcome of the Nortrwest forest summit? I do not get the 

sense that we are in terms of really crushing this process toward 

a comprehensive outline and recommendations. 

Ms. COHEN. I will let Brooks Yeager talk--

Mr. MILLER. That is my impression. I do not want to lead you 

to believe that that is factual; you will probably lead me to believe 

that it is not. 

Ms. COHEN. I do not believe it is factual. 

Mr. MILLER. But that is my impression when I compare the two 

and I think they are of equal importance. 

Ms. COHEN. I do not believe it is factual and I will try to persuade you differently, but I will also let Brooks talk a little about 

what exactly is going on. 

But in the Department of the Interior, this has the same urgency. We have put together people in Washington; this has the 

Secretary's attention. The Interagency Task Force is working and 

one of the questions is, Now that they have come together, what 

next? And I think that is where you will start to see the urgency. 

They will have their first report out in September and that report 
171 

is meant to outline what next, what is required, whether we feel 

legislation is required, what will be the role of the different agencies. It will be that point in time that sets the milestones and takes 

us forward. We have also begun across departments planning our 

1995 budgets and these budgets will be drawn together, as I think 

maybe Tom Martin suggested earlier. We are focusing, again with 

Secretary Babbitt, but also with the Office of Management and 

Budget which brings a lot of force to this process, to look at what 

every agency is doing, and focus across the government agencies on 

this. 

And I also think that, while a tremendous amount of attention 

and energy has gone into the settlement and will go into it over 

the next 90 days, the resolution of that will free up people's time 

and attention to implement solutions. 

Mr. MILLER. Well on that point, I think the confidence in the settlement grows. I think maybe Congressman Vento stated it quite correctly, the settlement is part of a much larger mosaic to the settlement of this overall problem with the Everglades and Florida 

Bay. But the confidence in that piece-whether people want to 

characterize it as just simply dealing with sugar or not dealing 

with sugar or dealing with the northern part of the system and not 

the entire system-but the confidence in that piece tends to grow 

if you know that we are moving on these other fronts with the 

same intensity. We are not going to get to the litigation point and 

then have to everybody run over and put out that fire and everybody run over and put out this fire. But as we start to bring this 

into a comprehensive package, then I think people's confidence 

about the settlement and the next steps starts to be enhanced. And 

obviously, for the people who represent this area, that confidence 

is a major condition to the success of these pieces and handing off 

the trust, if you will, from the courts to this process. 

Ms. COHEN. I think that that is exactly right. One thing I would 

like to say about the settlement is that it is much larger than the 

original SWIM plan contemplated and it does focus to a large extent on the quality of water issues, but it also involves quantity. 

Our own technical people indicate that it will increase by 25 percent the water flow down through the Everglades. And I think that 

is important because people are being asked to contribute to this 

and it is a beginning even on the water quantity issue. Then once 

more, people are going to be working very intently across the Interior Department, across federal departments, this summer to come 

up with exactly what will be done beginning in the fall to address 

these issues. I think that this is not an administration, and Secretary Babbitt is not a secretary to contrast perhaps with the situation over the past decade in the Northwest, where we are saying, 

"well we are not sure there is a problem, we need more science, 

maybe we do not need as much science." We are saying we have 

enough science to start and we are willing to start. We intend to 

go forward; probably with requests to Congress and we are also 

confident that the pressure that we feel back from Congress is not 

likely to lessen. This has our attention. 

Mr. MILLER. Well clearly it has your attention and my q1,1estions 

are as to fact. I do not mean to characterize, but again, you know, 

having those lands under injunction drove a lot of people to make 
172 

decisions that they would have preferred to delay and put off. And, 

as we saw, were in fact delayed and put off over the last decade, 

and it created a much worse situation. But that sharpened the 

focus of everybody involved because you had a constant drum beat 

out there that there were jobs and communities and resources that 

were at stake if this could not be sorted out. And I just want to 

make sure that we have the same kind of clarity of purpose and 

the sharp edges to the time lines. We have the Vice President saying he isJoing to re-invent government. Well here is a classic case, 

because · we can bring all of these agencies together to work coop- eratively, we probably have gone much further than anybody at 

this table has witnessed over the last 20 years. And I just express 

that as a matter of concern. I do not mean that as a matter of characterization. But clarity here is terribly important. 

Ms. COHEN. I think it is a fair concern. Brooks has been involved 

in the Interagency Task Force and I will let him tell you exactly what is happening. 

Mr. YEAGER. I think, Mr. Chairman, you pointed out one important difference that we are going to have to struggle with, which 

is that in the Northwest, arguably the overall problem was contained within the limits of the litigation and the court action. And 

therefore, in responding to the demands of the courts, the government, once this administration made the commitment to respond in 

fact and to come forward and enforce the law and to do so in a way 

that would still allow the economy to go forward, was in the context of meeting a series of legal deadlines and in a comprehensive 

plan that was responsive to a court settlement. 

If there is a little· bit more complexity and difficulty here, in part it is because the settlement and the original litigation only embraced a part of this problem, perhaps only a fifth of the problem. 

And we recognize that. We understand and are sympathetic with 

the points that were made by earlier panels that the settlement in 

and of itself does not cure the Florida Bay problem. We think it is 

still important because we think it contributes to an overall restoration effort that will ultimately help cure the Florida Bay problem. And what we mean by that is a process and an effort to link 

together a whole series of projects and efforts, some of which are 

already under way and some of which have just barely gotten started, that we hope will ultimately produce a comprehensive restoration program for the Everglades and for Florida Bay. That includes, in the big picture, not just the Corps of Engineers 

reconnaissance study for the redesign and replumbing of the overall south Florida system, but the continuation and completion of 

the Kissimmee restoration so that we get at the headwater issues 

that lead into Lake Okeechobee. It also includes stopping Everglades agricultural pollution from entering the headwaters of the 

water conservation areas, and I think that there we also recognize 

that the settlement is only in effect a settlement of the phase one 

effort to do that and that there are issues left that we have to deal 

with about how to get to final standards. And we are committed 

to doing that. We think that the settlement is important because it does start 

to address the beginnings· of the flow distribution issue that have· been mentioned by some of the other witnesses. Clearly to address 
173 

them down the system from the EAA, we have to complete the 

modifications of the Shark River Slough, the water deliveries in the 

headwaters of Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough, which includes land acquisitions that will be necessary to facilitate having 

those areas be used as recharge zones for the major rivers of the 

Everglades. We do have to complete the work at the C-111 basin 

to allow sheetfl.ow of water into the north and northeastern part of 

the Florida Bay and to start to emulate the natural hydro-period 

and deliveries of water to Florida Bay that existed prior to the time 

that the system was systematically disturbed. 

Finally, we have to do this in the context of a multifaceted look 

at endangered species and threatened species; I think one area 

where the Northwest solution might be a model is the incredible 

strenuous effort that was made there to look not just at one species 

or two species or three forest-dependent species, but in fact at hundreds of forest-dependent species to make sure that they were 

being dealt with systematically. 

I think the object of the interagency working group in Florida, 

which Dick Ring has done a lot to coordinate, has been to take all 

these complex elements, all the building blocks of restoration, and 

make sure that as they work together, and that they do so in a coherent fashion. And that is not a trivial problem. 

I think we are hoping that the report of the inter-agency working 

group of the career field folks and the scientists down here will 

help us decide on a structure for going forward, a means of involving the State and local governments and non-governmental participants meaningfully in the evolution of the restoration plan, and a 

set of management· and restoration objectives for each element of 

the system that will work together as an overall restoration objective. 

Mr. MILLER. Well when he was U.S. Attorney, Dexter Lehtinen 

had it about right when he filed this lawsuit to protect this Park. 

But by moving forward with the settlement, you have put the burden on the Secretary of the Interior instead of the judge, and that 

is a very heavy burden. And this Secretary is very fond of saying 

that we passed enough laws over the last decade and that he has 

enough power to do what is necessary to get things working if he 

can get everybody pulling in the same direction. And this, like the 

Northwest, is clearly a test case of that theory of government. I obviously have a great stake in seeing that he·is successful. 

On the Interagency Task Force, Colonel, if I might, a salient 

point in your testimony is where you state that you were given 

your charter in 1948. Is there going to be a problem or should we 

be giving some directions about setting some priorities within the 

legislation. You kind of have to be all things to all people here in 

the management of this system. Do you have the authority necessary to respond? 

Colonel SALT. Yes, sir. I would like to answer that question and 

tie it in with your last question. Sir, I have been Commander for 

two years in the Corps Jacksonville District. After about four 

months on the job, I found myself in the same mode that Lieutenant Governor MacKay talked about. As we were working on a problem on one part of the project, another problem popped up some-
174 

where else. We were solving problems in a very narrow context, 

and as a result, not solving the problem at all. We, the Corps and the Water Mana_gement District, proposed this major restudy effort to "crush" the Everglades problem and to 

work through it in a way that focused on the environmental balance and that considered the cost of the various alternatives. We 

routinely report to the Washington-level committee esta~lishe<l by Secretary Babbitt. So Dick Ring and I have to get our act together 

here at our level, because we ultimately have to go up to see our 

big bosses and lay out what we are doing. I think the opportunity for crushing this problem is here, but it is still going to take awhile 

as we try and work through this. I believe the authorizing le¢slation for this study is imminently 

clear about the goal of restonng the balance between the environmental and other project ~purposes. Right now, the environmental 

piece is the one that is suffering. 

Mr. MILLER. Well my concern would be that if there is a conflict 

between that and the original authorizing legislation for the 

Central and Southern Florida Project, that you let us know, because obviously we do not want that to happen. Colonel SALT. Sir, I believe the Congressional authorizing language is very clear. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay, thank you. On that point, let me just say someth.inJr here. This committee does not have direct jurisdiction 

over the Corps. We do a lot of work with them, along with the Bureau of Reclamation, in making projects work together. I cannot 

think of any agency that is going to be under more challenge than 

the Corps when you look at the Mississippi River and what that 

is going to mean over the next decade in terms of rethinking a 

whole series of assumptions and what is going ori in the State of 

California and now het'e. The Corps has provided incredible technical expertise over the last 4~50 years in the construction of 

major public works projects throughout this country of every shape 

and size and purpose. One of the very exciting things will be-with 

the outcome of this project and a couple of others-to see whether 

we have the ability· now to move to management. The Bureau of 

Reclamation, the ·Corps and others were ·great constructors based~ 

upon the needs and the priorities of this Nation, but the ability 

now to manage these resources in some ways is almost more frightening than the initial step, to see whether we can successfully or 

unsuccessfully control them. The Corps is really going to have its 

work cut out for it almost across the entire landscape of the United 

States. Obviously a major component in this task force, this cooperation, is the Corps. I want to publicly thank you for your cooperation already. Many people who have been skeptical of the 

Corps in the past have been very complimentary of your involvement. The Corps' past involvement here and in the future solutions 

will be a major challenge. I just want to thank you very much for 

all you have done. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Well thanks, Mr. Chairman. l know the witnesses 

and others have been here long and I do not want to ask a lot of 

questions. I think that it is evident that the administration is not 

looking for sufficiency language here, are you, Ms. Cohen? I mean 
175 

we do not expect to anneal or protect or immunize any of these decisions from law. I guess the expectation is that you are going to 

try and get this to work together, and I am greatly encouraged. I 

think that it is sad that we have designated the largest National 

Marine Sanctuary at just precisely the time it is being destroyed. 

But it serves as a reminder. I might say that I did not mention the 

work that we had done in the Dry Tortugas National Park with 

Congressman Fascell, which is one of my really deep interests. And 

the National Marine Sanctuary basically goes all the way around 

that, so we have got such a close working relationship here with 

the Department of Commerce and with the Corps of Engineers and 

the various Park units. We have to do that, we have to get together 

to solve this. And so I am optimistic. One aspect that has not been raised today very much is the Biscayne aquifer. It was only raised tangentially in saying that I made 

a mistake in the 1989 law by allowing you to pump 150 versus 40. 

But that really was modeling that we were domg at that time. Mr. 

Ring, is here. Maybe he could comment briefly on that since they 

have been responsible; that is, on the adverse impact of a higher level of pumping. I think this is something that we hear a lot about 

the sugar farmers tomato farmers. The fact is we also have to talk 

about the rest of us that are living or want to live in these ideal 

places on the coasts and talk about what we do in terms of water 

conservation right here in the Keys, and the vacationers and so 

forth, in terms of what that contribution has to be. 

You know, we do not want to hear that. AB I said earlier, it is 

not a question if the State is going to pay or the growers or the 

citizens. I think the one thing that has happened before is everybody got what they wanted and the decline has been that Florida 

Bay is paying, that is where you see the price right now. Mr. Ring, 

on the _pumping. 

Mr. RING. Mr. Chairman, our analysis since the 1989 East Everglades legislation indicates that up to 40 million gallons a day from 

the west Dade wellfield could be taken and mitigated, although 

proper monitoring would have to be put in place to assure that that 

judgment was correct. Our assessment at this point is that anything in excess of that 40 million gallons a day could not be adequately mitigated and would have adverse impacts on the park. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is very important. 

I think one of the problems with all the water districts and others 

is that they want all the authority they can get. You know, they 

may not need it, but they want it. And so I think we really have 

to talk about some of those issues in terms of what we are going 

to do in terms of water conservation and other aspects. That is the 

price that is going to have to be paid in terms of changing our behavior-the most difficult thing. The most difficult problems are 

not about writing legislation, ther are the ones inside people's 

heads, getting them to change thell' behavior. Those are the most 

difficult problem. That is where we need to engage this on a local 

basis and make certain that citizens of this area understand and 

others begin to understand that they are going to have to make 

those types of chan~es. 

Thanks, Mr. Chmrman. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. LaRocco. 
176 

Mr. LARocco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will try and be very brief here. I do not want to be the one to take us beyond 2:00 p.m. 

here, and I do want people to know that you do not allow lunch 

in Washington either. [Laughter.] 

I want to follow up on your point which is more managerial and 

it is somewhat ironic that I have come all the way to the Keys to 

deliver a message to our friends from Interior here, with regard to 

the Northwest. 

But I think that the situation in the Everglades is analogous to 

the situation after the summit in the Northwest and the plan that 

has come out by the admiiristration. And I think in this experiment 

that we are having with governing-which I think is so wonderful 

for America, and Secretary Babbitt and the President and the administration are to be congratulated for that-many people at the 

local level have had access to the highest levels of the government 

and the officials within Interior and now in the days after the announcements, then all of a sudden the work begins. Some people 

in the Northwest have told me that they do not have access to 

those very people because they are moving on. And I think there 

is a danger here, from a managerial standpoint, that the same intensity and same degree of commitment continue, so that we just 

do not go from summit to agreement to principles to settlements 

to whatever. It is so easy to do and lapse back into what I think 

we have come out of in terms of the last 12 years, and that is denial. This administration is not in denial, I think that they are 

picking up the reins here so beautifully. But I would just say that 

the Interagency Task Force is one element of that and you are to 

be congratulated. 

But again, because I have this opportunity to talk about what I 

have been hearing in the Northwest, please make sure that the 

same intensity is given to those diverse user groups in the Northwest who are so concerned about the timber plan there, the ancient 

forest plan, whatever. And that is my message. And thank you, Mr. MacVicar, for addressing the non-point 

source pollution issue that I had raised earlier. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Carlos. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I just want to take this opportunity to 

congratulate Ms. Cohen and the Secretary, to say how pleased we 

are that we now have a Secretary in the Department of the Interior 

who is very concerned about the environment and is willing and 

eager to do things about it. 

I wanted to have just one question regarding what has been said 

here today about the pollution in the water discharges from the 

sugar growers. How is that being addressed and how do you feel 

that the decisions have been made in the settlement; are they what 

they care about adequately? 

Ms. COHEN. I will take the first crack and Brooks will take the 

second. 

I think that even the settlement's warmest friends are not sure 

that this will do the job and if it does not do the job, we will continue to pursue it and have recourse. So that is the first thing. The 

settlement does call for substantial phosphorus reduction and it 

does provide serious financial incentives-! think everybody here 
177 

has talked about the sugar industry responding to financial incentives-it does provide serious financial incentives for accelerating 

the reductions. So it addresses the problem. If it does not address 

the problem sufficiently, we will be back to see that it is done, and 

we are not giving up any rights to see that it gets done. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you. Mr. YEAGER. I think the only thing that I would add is that 

clearly, as was enunciated before, the statement of principles is a 

foundation. We look for this settlement primarily to put in place a 

technical plan that will allow us to reach what are called the phase 

one standards. Those are the standards that are the interim standards through which the releases of phosphorus from the Everglades agricultural area are supposed to be reduced from the 170 or 230 

parts per billion. They are now in some parts of the system to 

about 50 parts per billion. There is a second phase that is required 

in the original federal court settlement to get us to final standards. 

The final standards are not yet quantified according to State law, 

but they are described as the level at which phosphorus pollution will no longer be causing ecological changes in the Everglades. The technical folks who have worked long and hard on this plan, 

including I think some of the top scientists in the State on these 

issues, believe that the technical plan that would be put in place 

by the settlement will ~t us beyond phase one standards. They 

cannot tell us that it will get us all the way to phase two standards, but they do believe it will help us close the gap. We believe 

that we cannot get to phase two unless we can first get to phase 

one. And our hope is that the combination of the incentives and the 

technical plan Will hel~ us close that gap and allow us to find a 

way to reach the quantitative final standards and again, as Bonnie 

said, we have not given. up our right to enforce those. 

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. Thank you. Actually as this is the last panel, let 

me introduce two elected officials who have been here about four 

and three-quarter hours, but they were not here when we first introduced elected officials. Commissioner Mary Kay Reich has been 

here almost from the beginning and Commissioner Jimmy Wheatley has been here, al.niost for four and three-quarter hours 

at this point. 

I had two specific questions, and I think the way the panels have 

been set up lias been very positive. But if you could, Ms. Cohen, 

specifically respond in a public sort of way to the criticisms of the 

settlement made by Tom Martin and Dexter Lehtinen. I mean, I 

think both of them were relatively critical of where we are now and 

I have heard some of the res~onses but I do not think in your initial testimony you really specifically addressed what Tom and Dexter said. I think it would be helpful, if you could literally respond 

to what they said. And they are both here, so they will be able to 

respond later to what you said. But this will at least give you the 

opportunity now. · Ms. CoHEN. I will do my best. I think that they have had a series 

of criticisms. I am not taking these in order of importance and if 

I leave some out, they can yell from behind me. But I think first 

is a general concern as to the degree of participation that everyone 

will have over the next 90 days, because there are diverse groups 
178 

with different interests and I think different expertise, and ability 

to really contribute to the talks that will make this settlement 

more concrete. We have taken the first steps and I think while 

there may have been some logistical problems, you can basically 

tell that we have involved these people and are willing to involve 

them over the next 90 days. 

There appeared to be a concern as to whether side agreements 

had been made with the sugar industry. There are no side agreements. That is just not the way we do business. 

The third I think is a kind of pervasive question of fairness in 

the distribution of costs of what is a large and complicated project. 

The overall costs-not to tum this into some obscure kind of financial discussion but to sort of talk about the ballpark figures-the 

overall costs that we have been told is that the project could cost 

as much as $465 million. This is to address both water quality and 

water quantity issues. The sugar share of that cost has been 

quoted to us as low as $140 million and as high as $240 million. 

Obviously it is a big range and there is a lot of debate and I would 

say that probably the $140 million we feel is low, and whether it 

is exactly $240 million, we cannot tell you at this point in time. No 

one will really know until we get into the project. 

The sugar industry started out with a much lower contribution. 

They have ended up, as I think I indicated, at a minimum of 

$11.625 million a year and as high as $322 million over 20 years. 

One of the things that is important to realize is that the reductions 

from the $322 million only occur if the industry achieves greater 

on-farm phosphorus reductions so that even though the cash coming in may be somewhat less, the benefit to the Everglades and the 

ecosystem is still there, in reduced phosphorus. So that is an important value. 

Another point that I think people really have not focused on is 

that when these negotiations began, the sugar industry's payments 

were tied to the cost of the project. In fact, there were some offers 

on the table at about $10 million a year for 10 or 11 years. And 

they were very specifically tied to the construction. In the statement of principles, that is no longer true. And I think that can be 

important to the people of south Florida. There is now a flow of 

payments that will come in over a 20-year period of time. There are 

some people who feel that with reduced phosphorus, perhaps not 

all of the construction will be required, but that money will be 

available there for this ecosystem. So I think that addresses the 

fairness issue. 

We have reams of computer printout that show under different 

kinds of scenarios what the share of cost is and we are glad to 

share that with the people who have been doing other analyses. I 

know Tom Martin and his people. So that answers that. 

I think that when you look at the statement of principles which 

are somewhat general, there are key words in there, and we do 

talk about security. And this is meant to be an enforceable agreement. So I would also like to assure people about that. We have, 

specifically in talking to environmentalists, said to them over the 

next 90 days, we are confident that you will be willing to participate with us in defining enforceability so we will have an enforce-
179 

able agreement. I do not know whether I have addressed all of the 

issues. 

Mr. DEUTSCH. I think you have. 

I have one last question, which I think has been brought up today by a number of people. A concern of mine is that the goal 

of the agreement is not specifically to address the crisis in Florida 

Bay. AB the Secretary is well aware and I know that you are well 

aware, there are issues that do not address the agreement because 

they were not part of the original lawsuits. Specifically, issues such 

as increasing water flow outside of the agreement, and purchase of 

additional property. How can people in south Florida be assured, 

and I think the question was asked specifically earlier, that we are 

not spending money on this issue at the expense of solutions related to Florida Bay? 

Ms. COHEN. Well I think I said I had the opportunity yesterday, 

and I know all of you are going to have the opportunity tomorrow, 

to fly over this whole ecosystem and to realize as people have so 

eloquently said today, it is one ecosystem. The settlement is not a 

complete solution, it is only a first step. It does increase the quantity of water coming into Florida Bay, but this is a . threatened, if 

not dying, ecosystem and we all are going to be participating over 

a number of years in solutions to this that are going to continue 

to require resources to be applied. And I think that we are going 

to be defining those. We are going to be working with the State 

Government, we are going to be willing to put items into our budget, and we are going to be looking to Congress to support those as 

we come forward. But this is an important priority. I forget which 

person talked about the cascading problem. This is a cascading 

problem and we cannot afford to wait. 

Mr. YEAGER. Congressman, if I could just add two things. Just 

by a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, I would say the Federal 

Government at this point is projecting commitments of approxi- mately $750 million to the various projects that are embraced in 

the system restoration effort that starts at the Kissimmee River 

and moves all the way south to C-111 basin and Florida Bay research efforts. The overall cost of those projects right now, pro- jected cost, is something like $1.25 billion. So we are already into 

a range of very serious commitment. I do not think we are going 

to walk away from any of those commitments and I do think we 

are trying to look at it as a unified whole. But that does mean that 

we also have to try to operate on every part of the problem in some 

parallel fashion and there are going to be times when you will have 

to help us make decisions about priorities in that process. 

Mr. MILLER. Congresswoman Meek. 

Ms. MEEK. Yes. Colonel Salt and Mr. MacVicar, is it true that 

the recent settlement agreement contemplates a revision to the C51 project-is that truer 

Colonel SALT. The C-51 project as currently designed is a flood 

control project. 

Ms. MEEK. Yes, I know. . Colonel SALT. The settlement would call for modifications to that 

project to increase the amount of water that would be retained and 

then fed back westward into the Everglades ecosystem as additional water supply. That modification has not been designed, but 
180 

we are ready now to move out as soon as those technical aspects 

are sorted out. We will work with the Water Management District 

to have that plan ready as a priority item. 

Ms. MEEK. Does that require new authorizing legislation? 

Colonel SALT. It depends. The current project, the flood control 

project is authorized. It may require additional authorization if 

Federal funds are requested for the new modifications. 

Ms. MEEK. First I want to thank you, Colonel Salt, and I am glad 

to meet you, Mr. MacVicar. I am glad to see that the Corps is coming more into the environmental milieu. I think it is extremely important. My concept of the Corps has always been flood control and 

those kinds of things and I never saw you having a real strong interest in the environment. But it appears that you are getting more 

and more concerned about the environment, and as a member of 

the committee, I feel that is a very good direction, Colonel. 

Colonel SALT. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Clay. 

Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to follow up on what Carrie had said, I have found in working with Colonel Salt that he has been very, very helpful in being 

a problem solver. You know, so many of the bureaucrats you go to, 

particularly military bureaucrats, if you will excuse me for saying, 

the first thing they do when you point out a problem is to figure 

out why they should not do it. And with beach erosion and various 

othe.r things we have been working together, it has been a real joy 

to have had you as representative of the Corps here in Florida. 

Secretary Cohen, I would like to go a little bit further into the 

agreement. This thing has been beaten to death, I realize that, but 

there are a couple of things that I would like to ask about. One is, 

the agreement, I believe, provides that part of the land to be used 

for the settlement of the nutrients is land that will be in fact pur- chased from big sugar. They would be paid for that land and then 

we would turn around and use it as part of the solution. Is that 

correct or incorrect? 

Mr. YEAGER. I think what you are referring to is that in the plan, 

40,000 acres of lands, approximately, that are dedicated to be 

storm water treatment areas, STAs. Those are for the most part lands that are now in sugar production, and presumably-! think 

Mr. MacVicar might be able to speak more to this-but yes, the 

mechanism by which the District would be able to obtain those 

lands would be by purchase, although to some extent they would 

be using money contributed by the sugar industry to purchase 

sugar lands for storm water treatment areas. Mr. SHAW. I guess you could tum that around and say we are 

going to give them the money to give back to us to pay off their 

obligations, which is somewhat strange, if I am understanding you 

correctly. 

In earlier testimony, Mr. Lehtinen mentioned that sugar was 

making demands for future guarantees of water supply. One, is 

that correct? And two, if it is correct, I know Governor MacKay 

said he was not about ready to agree to that, and I might ask if 

the Interior Department would be agreeable to such a demand. 

Ms. COHEN. The Interior Department has already told the industry that it is not agreeable to such a demand. 
181 

Mr. SHAW. Good. I hope you will stick to that point because I 

think that would be just absolutely outrageous. 

Now as I understand the litigation, sugar is not a defendant but 

they come in with an agreement. Has there been thought or discussion as to requiring sugar to submit themselves to the jurisdiction 

of the court as a party defendant and then to place whatever agreement you have into the form of a final judgment? 

Ms. COHEN. I think this came up a little earlier in our discussion 

and I am not a lawyer, I talked to one of our lawyers and these 

kinds of things are under consideration. We could get back to you, 

I just do not have an answer. 

Mr. SHAw. I think that even though I do not like the direction 

things are going, if there is going to be an agreement, I would certainly hope that it would be in the form of a final judgment, so that 

it could actually be implemented immediately by the court. I am 

very, very concerned and in listening to Governor MacKay earlier, 

I think he makes a persuasive argument that this agreement may 

not be the greatest in the world but maybe it is better than continuing litigation. I can certainly see that without such an arrangement, that you may go on down to the year 2002 and have to start 

over again. That makes absolutely no sense at all. At this time you 

would be litigating an agreement rather than litigating something 

else, and you may even find yourself in a worse position because 

once you sign the agreement or get into an agreement, then that 

would certainly be a defense against pollution. I mean, so that further prosecution could be prevented and the sugar industry or whoever is party to the agreement would put the agreement up as a 

complete defense to this administration or a future administration 

from prosecuting them for further pollution. 

Ms. COHEN. If I could just respond briefly to that. I think that 

our lawyers are aware of these kinds of risks and are very focused 

on the issue of the enforceability of this agreement. 

Mr. SHAW. I want to now end on an area where we are in agreement. You talked about the acquisition going forward. I assume 

that what we are talking about is the acquisition of the lands down 

at the south end that were talked about, the . Frog Pond, the 81h 

acres, that area, that would start the sheetflow through the slough, 

is that correct? 

Ms. COHEN. Well some of the acquisitions are federal acquisitions 

and some of the acquisitions are state acquisitions and I think that 

we are all determined to go forward expeditiously. We have some 

money already appropriated, there has been some delay on the federal side in acquisitions and I have spoken now to the people at 

the Park Service who handle acqUisitions, and we will be putting 

a special team on that to expedite those acquisitions. 

Mr. SHAW. But your comments did include that? We are not talking about acquisitions up around the sugar area? 

Ms. COHEN. Oh, no. 

Mr. SHAW. We are talking down south when we talk about that. 

Ms. COHEN. Yes. 

Mr. SHAW. And does the Secretary have discretionary funds that 

can be used to accelerate this matter? 
182 

Ms. COHEN. Well I think the Secretary, t>robably much to his 

surprise since he took office, has very few discretionary funds. So 

the answer to that is no, we do not have discretionary funds. 

Mr. SHAW. Is that because a prior administration cleaned out the 

cabinets or is that just that the Secretary does not generally get discretionary funds to use? 

Ms. COHEN. We think it is because Congress does not generally 

give us discretionary funds. 

Mr. MILLER. Because of prior administrations. [Laughter.] 

Ms. COHEN. Ma~be that will change. 

Mr. SHAW. I will tell you, some of the dialogue from up here towards the administration witnesses has certainly changed considerably over the last six months. 

Ms. COHEN. This is as good as it gets, I guess. 

Mr. SHAW. Yes. 

You are still on your honeymoon, believe it or not. Of course, 

after next week, you will know whether that honeymoon is abruptly over or not. 

One other item that I do want to be sure to bring up before this 

committee, which is near and dear to my heart, and it certainly is 

directly involved with the other problems that the Everglades has, 

and perhaps with your · fly-over tomorrow you could be taking a 

look at the terrible encroachment of the melaleuca tree into the 

Park itself. We were successful a couple of years ago of having it 

put on the noxious weed list. It is another disaster that is waiting 

to happen in the Everglades. I know, Mr. Ring, you spend a great 

deal of time eliminating this tree. In the appropriations bill this 

year, at least the one in the House, and I hope it survives the conference and the Senate, we have an experimental station paid for 

so we can try to take care of it. It just shows what happens when 

you start bringing exotics into this country. Florida now has the 

hyacen-hydrilla, the Australian pine, Brazilian pepper and of 

course I think one of the worst as far as the Everglades is concerned is the melaleuca, which is a terrible tree as far as draining the Everglades and pulling the water out of the system. Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank you for coming down here 

and also certainly want to thank you for allowing me and inviting 

me to be part of this most important hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Let me just, before we adjourn here, recognize State 

Senator Jones who has been sitting here listening to all this, for 

any quick closing comments he may have. 

STATEMENT OF BON. DARYL JONES, SENATOR, FLORIDA 

STATE LEGISLATURE 

Senator JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of 

all, I want to say that, on behalf of my constituents, I really thank 

you and the Lieutenant Governor and all of your colleagues for 

being here and taking time to listen to our concerns. 

I think there are basically two problems, two causes and possibly 

two steps to a solution. First of all, the ecological devastation of 

Florida Bay through the Everglades is one aspect of the problem 

and it is also resulting in the economic devastation of the Keys, so 

that is very key. And you have a unique situation here when you 

actually have business people who are ecologically minded and that 
183 

does not happen very often in the traditional sense as we think of 

it. 

Second, the two causes, and I think it is important that you separate the two causes. One is destruction of the sheetflow of water 

going through the Everglades that was generated by the canal 

structure that is set up, and of course the Army Corps of Engineers 

at the time was thinking that they were doing a great thing for us, 

but it ultimately ended up being something that hurt the Everglades. And the other is the pollution caused by the runoff from agriculture and other nutrients that are evolving into the system. It 

is important when we take a look at those two parts of it to determine, as with the Department of the Interior and their agreement 

with the farmers, determine what aspects of this is going to be 

funded by what portions of our community. 

There are two steps to solve the problem-and it is a very complex problem and I do not mean to simplify it that much. But obviously we first have to have a plan for how to go about developing the solution. We have heard from so many different experts this 

morning and this afternoon about how that problem can be resolved, and I know that you listened intently to that. I think that 

the big pieces of the plan are really in place and we really know 

where we need to go. The hard part is figuring out from a negotiations standpoint what is going to be acceptable and do-able with or 

without litigation. And finally, we have to find the money to resolve 

the problem. I guess my best friend right now today is Congresswoman Carrie Meek. [Laughter.] 

But finding the money to do that. We think that there will probably have to be a joint solution to this problem, not just the Federal Government supplying all the dollars. We know it is going to 

take as much as $465 million to try to resolve this problem. But 

the state certainly is going to play a role, there is a tenth of a mill 

property tax being proposed by the South Florida Water Management District that will generate about $20 million a year. Of 

course, we all expect the farmers and the agriculture industry to 

play a role in this. And a lot of people are wondering whether or 

not their role at this point is sufficient. My law firm has not been 

retained to negotiate on behalf of the State of Florida or the United 

States Government, but I really would like to see them play a larger role. 

But be that as it may, I would like to say that we really appreciate you being down here. I would like to make one quick announcement, the State Senate Committee for Natural Resources 

will be here on the 12th of August in Islamorada conducting a similar hearing. Unfortunately, because of my Air Force Reserve commitments, I will not be able to be here during that time, but I want 

you to know that my heart is with you and that we are going to 

do everything we can along with Lieutenant Governor Buddy 

MacKay, Governor Chiles, the Senate and the House to try to resolve this problem along with you, because we do view it as an important partnership in order to solve the problem. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Senator JoNEs. And thank you for letting me join the panel. 
184 

Mr. MILLER. Buddy, you have been nice enough to sit here all 

day. I do not know if you have anything you want to say. 

Lieutenant Governor MAcKAY. I think this was an ideal hearing, I appreciate you being here and these people getting a chance to 

see government at work. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. And with that the committees will stand 

adjourned, and I want to again thank everybody and especially the 

committee staff for its support and the Park Service for its support 

of this hearing. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
APPENDIX 

JULY 31, 1993 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD 

GEOIW.E Mlli.EIII. CALIFOitNIA. CHAIRMAN "''~IP II $1<AI" 'IIIOIJINA 

£0WAIIIO J 111"111((1' MM!SACI<USITTS 

"USTINJJilV-'I'_I't:NNI'I'LVANIA 

"'*l'(JOliiiiiHAI.L R.WIST'IIRGIHIA 

:~~:~.=~~..:=~au. IliON M WGO. ~ ISLMOS 

s.w GlJOPdOM. CQMNICTICUT 

NCM.MI)M_ 

IILL MCHoftoN)S(IM. 

LltWMI. 

NlW 

~ 

MEXICO 

'ITEIIA.WAliCI.OIIIIGOM 

INI ' M. FALIQMAVAIGA, IIMIIIICAII SAMOA 

TIM JOMNSOfl. SOUTM D.utOT4 

LloM'f'~.IIWIO 

fiiiiLAIIIICIIQIIIIE.IIA""AII 

ca.I.'IIIIM.OQOI.I'I'.~ 

CAII.OiilliCIMBIOUIICII'UIMOIIICO 

~a.GUIM.~ 

UMMIMIPMIIIO.Uf .... MI'IWIIDIM..QICIMIA 

IMUIIClO.~.-ft)M 

lll»>llT A. UltOYWOOO, GUMI SMIF-.CALifOIIIIM 

UIMIV.,._IUIJIOII 

PAt$\'T ...... -wAit 1M)IId J --.ow .. llllff\.ICin' 

TMOIMIIILMIIIIITT,IIIWISCOIIMI 

MEMORANDUM 

'lt.6. J)oust of ~tprtStntatibes 

~ommitttt on 

Jlatural ~•oum• 

•ai!Jilt!llan, 5«: 205lH20l 

July 27, 1993 

OON VQL;'OG ill.ASK• AAN(oNG I'IEPI..'BloC.lN >,IEMBEI'I ;AM£$ v ~At.oSON 'Jr·~ 

1•!18Aitt. ~ VIJCANOVI("' ~E~•O• 

(lTQMG.li.i.EGLYCAi..fGIINIA 

IIOIEIITFSJioloT,._QIIEGON 

CltAIGTMOM.&S.WVOIWING 

J0HNJ OUNCAN,J•.HNNESSU 

.IOlLHEFLIV.COlOMDO 

JOtiNT OOOUTTtl.CAI.IFOII"''" 

WAYN(AU.AIID.COLOIIAOO 

NCMAIID lol. lAlli!. LOUISIANA 

llftCAI.Vlfi'T.CALIH)IIIiiiA 

SCOnMCifiiHIS.COI.OIIAOO 

IIICHMID W . ...,._0, CAI.IfOfiNIA 

JAYOICU'I',AIIitMSA5 

-~..-. IT.vfDIIIICTOfl 

IIICMAIIDMILTZElt 

GlNiliUo&.COIJIIIIIL 

ONIIIILVAI.liStl 

IIUI.IIUCANITAIFOIIIICTOA 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on OVersight and Investigations and 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

FROM: George Miller, Chairman 

SUBJECT: Joint oversight Hearing with the Environment and Natural 

Resources Subcommittee of the Merchant Marine Fisheries 

Committee to Examine Efforts to Protect and Restore the 

Everglades Ecosystem, with Special Emphasis on Florida 

Bay, July 31, 1993 

On Saturday, July 31, beginning at 9:00 a.m., the 

subcommittees will hold a joint hearing at Key Colony Beach City 

Hall, in Marathon, Florida to examine the problems of -- and 

potential solutions for -- Florida Bay and the greater Everglades 

ecosystem. 

PURPOSE OF THE HEARING 

The original intent of holding a field hearing in the Florida 

Keys was to give Members an opportunity to learn more about Florida 

Bay issues, which have been the subject of intense concern in the 

State; to improve our understanding of the entire Everglades 

ecosystem (of which Florida Bay is a critical part); and to permit Members to see first-hand the conditions on Florida Bay. With the 

Administration's recant announcement of a Statement of Principles 

and a 90-day negotiating process which might lead to the settlement 

of a contentious and complicated lawsuit, additional witnesses were added to discuss aspects of the possible settlement. 

Three panels of witnesses have been invited to testify. 

Panel One will consist of two scientists, who have been asked to provide a brief overview of the Everglades ecosystem, including 

Florida Bay, along with their assessment of the health of this area. This panel will also include a series of short presentations 

by a variety of economic interests affected by the changing state of Florida Bay. 

(185) 
186 

2 

Panel Two consists of people representing differing views 

concerning what needs to be done to restore the Everglades and the 

Bay and the proposed settlement of the lawsuit. All have been 

active in or affected by Everglades issues. Several are parties to the lawsuit. 

Panel Three consists of three of the federal agencies deeply 

involved in the Everglades ecosystem. These agencies have been 

asked to share-their views on the health of the Bay and the rest of 

the ecosystem; to offer recommendations for short and long-term 

actions to restore the Everglades; to discuss the possible 

settlement and what, if any, impact the settlement will have on the 

Bay; and, finally, to tell the Committees whether they believe any federal agency (not necessarily the one they represent) needs 

further guidance or authority from Congress in order to carry out 

plans to restore the Everglades ecosystem. 

Provided below is some general background information on the 

Everglades. Members will be provided notebooks with additional 

background. To the extent that it is available, Members will be 

provided advance copies of the prepared statements of the 

witnesses. Note that not all of the interests concerned with the 

Everglades, the Bay, or the settlement will be represented at this 

hearing. We attempted to get a cross-section. 

BACKGROUND 

The Everglades ecosystem, of which Florida Bay is a part, is 

in serious ecological decline. In this "downstream" end of the 

vast Everglades watershed, many agree that properly managing the 

quality, quantity, distribution, and timing of water flows through 

the Everglades and to the Bay is a top priority issue. How this 

fresh water is managed also has important consequences for the 

coral reefs of the Florida Keys, at the ecosystem's southern end. 

To the north, restoration of the greater Everglades ecosystem has begun. Kissimmee River Basin and Lake Okeechobee restoration 

projects are underway. Lawsuits have been ongoing since 1988 to prevent agricultural runoff from harming the Everglades' unique 

plant and animal life. Further south, however, much of the water 

that historically flowed through the Everglades National Park and 

into the Florida Bay remains unavailable. The region's natural 

hydrology has been profoundly altered by the Army Corps of 

Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control 

and Other Purposes ("the CS&F Project"). Construction of the CS&F 

Project, begun in 1948, continues to this day. 

The project consists of the channelized Kissimmee River, the 

impounded Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades Agricultural Area 

(700,000 acres), five Everglades water conservation areas (900,000 
187 

3 

acres), and 1,500 miles of canals and levees. It was originally 

designed to protect the area south of Lake Okeechobee and the 

developed lower east coast. It is operated jointly by the corps 

and the South Florida water Management District in accordance with 

Corps regulations. Although preservation of Everglades National 

Park is an authorized C&SF Project purpose , meeting the Park ' s 

needs at times requires trade-offs with other project purposes, 

such as flood control and public water supply. 

Non- native plant species, high levels of mercury, and the 

effects of Hurricane Andrew also tax the fragile Everglades 

ecosystem.' The end result of the cumulative stresses on the 

Everglades is that this biologically rich ecosystem now contains 

sixteen endangered species. Wading bird populations have declined 

95\ in the last fifty years. In recent years, scientists have 

detected changes in Florida Bay sufficient to indicate a major 

ecological collapse, according to the National Park Service. 

Water Quality Litigation 

In 1988, the federal government sued the State of Florida for 

failure to enforce State water quality standards protecting the 

Everglades National Park and the Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuge. The suit sought to prevent runoff leaving farms south of 

Lake Okeechobee from degrading the ecology of the Park and Refuge. 

The federal government and Florida reached a settlement of the 

lawsuit in 1991 that established interim ( "Phase I, " or 1997) and 

long-term ("Phase II, • or 2002) restrictions on water entering the 

Park and the Refuge. It also called for construction of 35,000 

acres of fil taring marshes, called stormwater tr!!atment areas ("STA's"), and achievement of 25t on-farm phosphorous reductions 

through best management practices ("BMP's") by 1996. In addition, 

a federal/State scientific panel was set up for monitoring, 

research, and program evaluation. After settling the lawsuit, the 

state of Florida sought to meet the settlement terms through its 

Surface Water Improvement Management Plan, or "SWIM" Plan. 

Legal challenges were then filed against the SWIM Plan in the 

Florida courts by agricultural interests. As part of a mediation 

effort to resolve the challenges, a breakthrough "Statement of 

Principles" was signed on July 13, 1993 by the large sugarcane 

1 A proposal by Shell Oil to drill an exploratory well on the 

Miccosukee Indian Reservation that would slant under Everglades water conservat~on areas has ra~sed an addit~ona1 concern. A draft 

environmental impact statement has been prepared on the proposal; a decision on Shall's application by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and the Bureau of Land Management is slated for January, 1994. A representative of the Miccosukee Tribe is scheduled to testify at 

the hearing and will likely voice opposition to the latest movement in the water quality litigation discussed above . 

73-729 - 93 - 7 
188 

4 

growers, the State, and the federal government. The principles 

also incorporated a "Technical Plan" developed to lay out the 

specific projects and funding needs to protect the Park and Refuge. 

Like the 1991 Settlement, the Technical Plan calls for filter 

marshes, but raises the number of marshes from five to six and 

increases their total acreage. In addition, the plan includes 

environmental restoration projects beyond the 1991 Settlement 

requirements. These projects will provide a 26% increase in muchneeded water flows to the Park and Refuge, and will improve the 

timing of water deliveries to correspond with natural patterns. 

Construction of these projects is estimated to take eleven years. 

Implementation of the entire Technical Plan is estimated to 

cost $465 million. The Statement of Principles establishes the 

financial commitments to meet this cost. The sugarcane growers 

agreed to pay c:·;:. to $322 million over 20 years; their contribution may be reduced to as low as $232 million if the growers achieve an 

additional 5 to 20% phosphorous reductions over a thirteen-year 

schedule. The Principles and Technical Plan now form the basis of 

a 90-day effort to reach a detailed, formal settlement of the 

lawsuits. Many important details must still be worked out, 

including detailed work plan, more specific financing arrangements, 

and enforcement terms. 

Florida Bay 

As settlement efforts farther north in the ecosystem progress, 

downstream Florida Bay is in serious ecological trouble. Pollution 

from sewage and farm runoff has increased nutrient levels in the 

Bay. Dead vegetation from Hurricane Andrew has added additional 

nutrient loadings. Drought from 1986 to 1990 stressed the Bay by 

raising water temperatures. In addition, reductions in fresh water flows to the Bay from the Everglades, caused by C&SF Project 

diversions, have increased the Bay's salinity. Starting in 1987, 

the high nutrient/high salinity regime is believed to be 

responsible for starting a chain of sea grass die-offs and algae 

blooms. A mass die-off of mangroves and sponges has occurred as well. Sea grass and sponges provide habitat for fish, atone crabs, 

and juvenile pink shrimp and lobsters. 

Fishermen have labeled a 100 square mile area of the western Bay "The Dead Zone.• The Bay is approximately 1000 square miles; 

roughly 80% of the Bay is within Park boundaries. Shrimp harvests appear to be in long term decline and have dropped 40% in recent years, also coinciding with a prolonged drought. In addition, 

lobster, tarpon, yellow snapper, and grouper catches are reportedly 

falling. Florida Bay supports a $120 million commercial fishing 

industry that accounts for more than 3,000 jobs. Some five million 

tourists a year visit the Keys. These visitors spent an estimated 

$787 million in Monroe County in 1991. The tourist economy reportedly employs 18,000 people. A serious concern for the Keys 
189 

5 

is the possibility that hypersaline Bay water circulating through 

the Keys may cause coral bleaching and disease. 

LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW 

After expanding Big Cypress National Preserve in 1988, 

congress passed the 1989 Everglades National Park Protection and 

Expansion Act, approving the addition of 107, 600 acres in the 

ecologically important northeast Shark River Slough and East 

Everglades. In addition, the Act directed the Corps, after 

completion of a report, to construct IIOdifications to the CS&F 

Project to improve Park water deliveries and, to the extant practicable, to take steps to restore the natural hydrology in the 

Park. 2 The 1989 Act also mandated that the general design memorandum for C&SF operations in the •c-111 basin" area of the 

East Everglades taka all measures which are feasible and consistent 

with the purposes of the project to protect the Park's natural 

values. Scientists believe the C-111 area affects Florida Bay, just to the south. 

Congress has fassad several other laws addressing delivery of water to the Park. In the River Basin Monetary Authorization and 

Miscellaneous Civil Works Alllandlaants Act of 1970, Congress mandated 

that the Corps deliver a &pacified amount of water on a sat schedule. In the 1984 Supplemental Appropriations Act, as amended, 

Congress authorized an experimental program for water delivery to the Park in order to determine an improved schedule. As part of 

the program, the .Corps is authorized to acquire adversely affected 

agricultural lands. To data, the Corps has mads modifications to projects affecting the critical headwaters of Shark River Slough 

and Taylor Slough, the Park's two historic watersheds. 

As part of this direction, the 1989 Act required the Corps to construct flood protection if it made a finding that proposed 

modifications would adversely affect the residential area within 

the East Everglades known as the "Eight and One-Half square Mile 

Area• or adjacent agricultural areas. Our understanding is that, as part of its modified deliveries, the Corps has proposed a flood 

"mitigation• system that provides incidental flood control in the 

Eight and One-Half Square Hila Area. The "mitigation• system is 

substantially lass elaborate than a flood protection system. The 

Corps found that the adjacent agricultural areas would not be 

adversely affected by the modifications. The Act requires the 

Corps to periodically review this last finding. 

Mora generally, in the Water Resources Development Act of 

1990, Congress directed the Corps to include •environmental 

protection• as one of its primary missions in planning, operating, 

and maintaining water resource projects. 
190 

6 

Most recently, in the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, 

congress requested the COrps to review the C&SF Projec~ to determine if modifications to improve environmental quality, 

protection of the Biscayne aquifer, and urban water supply are 

advisable. The Comprehensive Review Study will reportedly taka 

five years to complete; its legislative history provides that it 

should not slow or supplant current restoration projects. A 

preliminary reconnaissance study began in May and is scheduled for 

completion in lata 1994. 

Congressman Clay Shaw, along with the rest of the Florida 

delegation, has introduced H.R. 1564, the "Save Florida Bay Act of 

1993." Among other things, the bill establishes an interagency 

committee to develop a Bay restoration progratl, makes the Bay 

eligible for priority consideration under EPA's National Estuary 

Program, and authorizes $3 million for a study of the Bay's 

problems. 

ISSUES 

1. water Quality Litigation Negotiations. The recent agreement 

between the sugarcane growers, the State, and the federal 

government has been criticized by environmentalists and others 

because it does not require the sugarcane growers to pay more for 

the cleanup of their own pollution. They point out that growers, 

already heavily subsidized, will pay less on an annual basis than 

the taxpayers and water users financing the State's projected 

contributions. (The GAO recently determined that in 1991, for 

example, 140 sugarcane farms in Florida received an average federal 

sugar program benefit of $948,000 each.) Environmentalists have 

also expressed concern about the lack of attention given to 

achieving the more stringent "Phase II" cleanup standards by 2002, as required in the 1991 Settlement. The Administration, however, 

has stated that the sugar industry's contribution does fund the 

entire cost of the water quality aspect of the cleanup effort. The 

federal and State government portion, under this characterization, 

is directed toward general Everglades restoration. 

The eleven-year construction schedule for the Technical Plan appears to mean, however, that the requ~rement ~n the 1991 

Settlement that Phase I standards be met by 1997 may not be 

reached. Similarly, the inattention to the more stringent Phase II standards may mean that reliance will be placed on the BMP reductions and larger filtration marshes to meet Phase II standards. If Phase II standards are not met by 2002, the 

Administration has indicated that it still has the option to sua for enforcement. 

2. Addressing the Needs of Florida Bay. According to the Park 

Service, there are no quick fixes to stabilize the condition of 

Florida Bay. Park staff, however, believe that moving quickly on C&SF Project hydrological restoration efforts in Shark River 
191 

7 

Slough, Taylor Slough, and the C-111 basin is essential for 

ensuring fresh water flows into the Bay to begin to restore its 

natural salinity. Restoration efforts have been undertaken or are 

being developed under the 1989 Expansion Act and the modified 

deliveries program authorized by the 1984 Supplemental 

Appropriations Act. 

The Corps' proposed restoration in Shark River Slough 

currently includes a flood "mitigation• system for the Eight and 

one-Half Square Mile Area. The Park and others believe that 

restrictions on flood protection and development are critical to the hydrological restoration of Shark Slough. Under local zoning 

laws, ones flood protection is built, allowable residential density 

increases. The Taylor Slough, further south, is the; main conduit 

of fresh water into Florida Bay . Its headwaters are primarily in 

rural development and agricultural use. The Park and 

environmentalists have questioned whether current and proposed 

project modifications for Taylor Slough, including the c-111 basin 

modifications, are sufficient. Our understanding is that canal water levels have recently been raised six inches so that water drains toward the Park and Florida Bay instead of laterally to the 

canal. Canal levels had been lowered in 1984 on an experimental 

basis to optimize water manage .. nt for farmers in the 5,000 acre "Frog Pond" area. Farmers are concerned that a lessening of flood 

control, mainly pumping groundwater out of the area, will result in 

damage to their crops. 

Land acquisition is another important aspect of restoration 

under discussion to ensure appropriate flows reach Florida Bay. 

The Eight and One-Half Square Mile Area, the adjacent agricultural area to the south, and the Frog Pond ere widely regarded as 

priority areas for acquisition.• These areas were devastated last 

fall by Hurricane Andrew . Federal proposals in the past have 

considered land acquisition in the Eight and One- Half Square Mile 

Area. The Nature Conservancy, South Florida Water Managaaent 

District and Dade County are exaaining purchasing Frog Pond. 

Agricultural interests in the area are concerned about possible 

acquisition of these lends. 

3. Everglades Ecosystem Management. While attention and funding 

have been directed elsewhere, the crisis in Florida Bay has been 

relatively neglected. As developaoent ·and urban pressures in the 

area grow, and as south Florida continues to be a mecca for tourism 

and recreation, it has become increasingly important that· a 

• Notwithstanding, the 1989 Expansion Act continues to direct 

the Corps to construct flood protection works for the agricultural 

area adjacent to the Eight and One-Half Square Mile Area if a finding of adverse effect is made based on a review eighteen months 

after the Shark River Slough IIOdified deliveries project is 

completed. 
192 

8 

comprehensive, scientifically sound plan be put in place to protect 

and restore the entire Everglades system.' 

Federal agencies and others are moving in the direction of an 

overall ecosystem management plan. Significant steps have already 

been taken. The Everglades Coalition, which includes twenty-eight 

conservation groups, recently published a comprehensive Greater 

Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Plan. Secretary Babbitt has moved 

toward an ecosystem-based approach at the federal level by 

establishing an interagency task force on the Everglades. 

According to the CRS, its mission includes a review of ongoing 

federal activities, development of regional goals for the 

ecosystem, establishing measurable criteria for meeting regional 

goals, and coordinatin.g research activities. The group's efforts 

will be carried out in coordination with the State. Similarly, our 

understanding is that the South Florida Water Management District 

has been working on a "vision" document concerning Everglades 

protection. The Dis.trict may provide details of their plan at the 

July 31 hearing. 

4. Agency Legal Authorities. Secretary Babbitt, in announcing the 

recent developments in the water quality litigation, stated that 

the Corps (and the Bureau of Reclamation) had built the world's 

greatest water systems but that they would now build the world's 

greatest restoration projects. Some have raised the issue whether 

the Corps can undertake full environmental restoration for the C&SF 

Project without additional Congressional authorization or guidance. 

The C&SF Project has at least eleven authorized project purposes: flood control, navigation, water supply (agricultural, municipal. 

and industrial), preservation of fish and wildlife, drainage and 

water control, preservation of Everglades National Park, water 

supply for Everglades National Park, recreation, water quality. 

prevention of saltwater intrusion, groundwater recharge. Although no explicit priorities or trade-off criteria guide fulfillment of 

project purposes, the Corps recently stated that • [t)hese are competing and conflicting interests and water management is done to balance these objectives• in a response to a comment letter on a 

modified water delivery proposal. 

The project's original authorization recognizes that 

modifications within the scope and purpose of the authorization 

will be made at the discretion of the Corps. Such discretionary 

modifications have been common. Generally, the threshold for 

modifying projects without additional authorization from COngress 

is that the scope or purpose of the project is not materially 

altered. In this case, COngress has already given the Corps 

In the Pacific Northwest, the Administration's Forest Plan 

called for planning on three levels: 1) the regionwide level, 2) 

the physiographic province (or large river basin) level, and 3) the 

individual watershed level . 
News 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

Tuesday, July 13, 1993 

193 

Committee on Natural Resources 

0<0IJC Miller, CIW&MAN 

U.S. Howe of Represenlatives 

Washinaton, D.C. 20SIS 

CONTACT: Daniel Weiss 

202122S-209S 

REPS MILLER ANO VENTO ENCOIIRAGEO BY INJERIOR' S EVERGLAPES PLANANNQ!INCE JULY 31 HEARING ON EVERGLApES ANp FLORIDA BAV 

WASHINGTON -- Con&fe$Smell George Miller .(D-caiif.) and Bruce Vmto (D-Minn.) 

expr~ their suppon today for Interior Secretary Babbiu's initiative to resolve the longstanding dispute over the dec:lining health of the Evqlades National Park. 

"Restoration of the entire Everglades ecosystem is esscnlial if we are to save die Everglades 

National Park and restore Florida Bay, • said Miller, Chairman of the House Natural 

Resources Commiuee. "Tbe framework to molve the leogdly litigation over water quality 

standards is a step in the rieJtt diRction. I commend the Secrewy for bis resolve to bring 

the litigation to a close aDd to commence with the long-term restoration of the Everglades.· 

Miller also announced that a joint oversight hearing will be held by two subcommiuecs of the 

Natural Resources Commiuee and by the Subcommiuee on Environment and Natunl 

Resources of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Commirtee on July 31, 1993, in 

Maratb011, Florida. Tbe purpose of tbe field hearing, which was planned independently of 

the Secretary • s announcement, is to examine the environ menial condition of Florida Bay and 

the economic impact on south Florida from the dec:!iDing health of the Bay. The panels will 

bear testimony from representatives of the fishing, tourism and other local interests affected 

by changes in the Bay, as well as from government officials. 

"Congress has repeatedly enacted legislation to strengthen protection for the Everglades 

National Park, yet we have continued to see further degradation of this unique and world 

renowned treasure, • commented Cong. Veoto, Cbainnan of the Natunl Resources 

subcommittee on national parks, forests, and public lands. "It is a pleasure to have a 

supportive Administration -- one that is actively trying to save the Park and Florida Bay. • 

Miller and Vento said they were anxious to examine the details of the proposed settlement 

agreement before commenting on the merits of tbe agreement itself and that issues such as 

such as water quantity, and delivery schedules and location need to be addressed. 
News 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Friday, July 23, 1993 

194 

Committee on Natural Resources 

George Miller, CHAIRMAN 

U.S. House of Rel""senwives 

Washington, DC 20S lS 

Contact: Kerri McClimen/Daniel Weiss 

(202)225-6631/(202)225-2095 

CONGRFS.C!IONAJ. HEARING TO EXAMINE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Of 

EVERGLADES fLORIDA BAY ANP ECONOMY OF SOUTH fLORIDA 

WASHINGTON -- Congressman George Miller (D-CA), Cbairman of tbe House Natural 

Resources Committee, and Bruce Vento (D-MN), Cbairman of tbe Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests and Public Lands, announced a joint oversight bearing with the Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries Committee on July 31, 1993 in Muadloa, Florida at 9:00 a_m. at 

the Key Colony Beach City Hall, 600 West Occaa Drive_ A press briefing will 

immediately follow the bearing at approximately 2:00p.m_ 

The bearing wiU examine the specific threats to the environmental bealth of the Everglades 

and Florida Bay and the economic impact on south Florida from the declining bealtb of the 

Bay. The bearing will also examine tbe recent agreement to resolve the longstanding dispute 

over the declining bealth of Everglades National Part. The bearing will review the status and 

direction of the plan and seek to ascertain the components necessary to acllicvc satisfactory 

environmental and economic results. Willlesses will include government officials, IDdian 

leaders, and representatives of fishing, tourism and other local interests affected by changes 

in the Bay. 

"This bearing is tbe most recent step in an ongoing ewninalion by the House Natural 

Resources Committee of ecosystems, environmental restlnlion and the 1iDk bctwcco 

environmental and economic sustainability, • said Miller. "Restoration of the entire 

Everglades ecosystem is essential to save tbe Everglades National Part and restore Florida 

Bay.· 

Vento noted that this agreement was extremely important to varied ecosystems and landscapes 

throughout the nation. "The Administration is moving forward to protect and implement an 

ecosystem protection strategy,· said Vento. "I am hopeful that this may serve as an example 

for addressing other troubled ecosystems such as Yellowstooe National Part, tbe PacifiC 

Northwest forests and other areas in tbe United States. • 

Ill 
103D CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION 

195 

H. R. 1564 

To save Florida Bay. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARcH 31, 1993 

Mr. SHAW (for himself, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. LEWIS of Florida, Ms. RosLEHTII\"EI\, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. STEARI\S, Mr. McCOLLUM, Mr. Goss, 

Mr. GmBOI\S, Mr. BACCHUS of Florida, Mr. JOHI\STOI\ of Florida, Mr. 

Mrr.LER of Florida, Mr. IIAsTII\OS, Mr. HuTTO, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. 

MICA, Mr. PETERSOI\ of Florida, Mrs. THUIUIAN, Mrs. FOWLER, Ms. 

BROW!\ of Florida, Mr. CAI\ADY, Mr. YOUI\0 of Florida, and Mrs. MEEK 

of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the 

Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Natural Resources 

MAY 17, 1993 

&referred jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

Natural RPsources, and Public Works and Transportation 

A BILL 

To save Florida Bay. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Save Florida Bay Act 

5 of 1993". 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 
196 

2 

1 (1) Florida Bay is vitally important to both the 

2 economy and ecology of the State of Florida. 

3 (2) Florida Bay's environmental health has 

4 been deteriorating at a rapid rate, which for un5 known reasons is presently accelerating. 

6 ( 3) Florida Bay is the principal nursery for 

7 Florida's largest commercial and sport fishing fishS eries. 

9 ( 4) 55 square miles of seagrasses m Florida 

10 Bay have died since 1987. 

11 (5) The number of pink shrimp caught after 

12 maturing in Florida Bay is near a 30-year low. 

13 (6) Mangroves and sponges in Florida Bay are 

14 dying at an alanning rate. 

15 (7) Florida Bay is currently abnonnally saline 

16 and wann, causing an unhealthy habitat for juvenile 

17 shrimp, lobster, fish, and other creatures. 

18 ( 8) The nearby coral reefs, the only living coral 

19 reefs in the Nation, are endangered by the changes 

20 occurring in Florida Bay. 

21 (9) The most massive plankton bloom ever 

22 found in Florida Bay was recorded in the summer 

23 of 1992 and still exists. 

24 ( 10) A dearth of knowledge exists on how Flor25 ida Bay's ecosystem functions. 

•BR 1184 BCR 
197 

3 

1 SEC. S. ESTABIJSHMENT OF COMMI'ITEE. 

2 Not later than 30 days after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act, the Chairman of the Council on Environ4 mental Quality (in this Act referred to as the "Chair5 man") shall establish and thereafter coordinate an inter6 agency committee, including representatives from the De7 partment of the Interior, the Environmental Protection 

8 Agency, the Corps of Engineers, and the National Marine 

9 Fisheries Service, to develop a program for facilitating the 

10 restoration of Florida Bay and to define the roles and re11 sponsibilities of each of those agencies in facilitating that 

12 restoration. 

13 SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING INCLUSION OF 

14 FLORIDA BAY IN COASTAL AMERICA PRO. 

15 GRAM. 

16 It is the sense of the Congress that not later than 

17 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

18 Chairman should include Florida Bay as part of the 

19 Coastal America program. 

20 SEC. 5. FLORIDA BAY ELIGmLE FOR PRIORITY CONSIDER21 

22 

ATION UNDER NATIONAL ESTUARY PRO· 

GRAM. 

23 Section 320(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution 

24 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended by in25 serting "Florida Bay, Florida;" after "Sarasota Bay, 

26 Florida;". 

•BR 11184 RCH 
198 

4 

1 SEC. 8. STUDY. 

2 (a) STUDY REQUIRED.-Not later than 30 days after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

4 the Interior shall direct the superintendent of the Ever5 glades National Park to conduct a study of the problems 

6 plaguing Florida Bay, including an assessment of the im7 pact of Hurricane Andrew. Such study shall be completed 

8 no later than September 30, 1993, and upon completion 

9 the Secretary of the Interior shal~ submit a report to the 

10 Congress describing the findings, conclusions, and rec11 ommendations of the study. 

12 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.-There is 

13 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Inte14 rior for the study under subsection (a) $3,000,000 for fis15 cal year 1994, to remain available until expended. 

0 

•HR 11184 RCH 
199 

Congressional Research Service • The Library of Congress • Washington, D.C. 20540 

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL 

Honorable Georp Miller 

Chair, Committee on Natural Reooul'C81 

HouN of Repreoentativee 

Wubington, DC 20610 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

July 22, 1993 

In praparation for a field bearing, you requested CRS to prepare a 

baclqp-ound report on the Evereladea eeoayetem. I am pleuad to submit tbia 

doeument in raaponee to that request. 

The nport coven the natural bietory of tho area, a bietory of human uoe 

and impaeto, the current conditione and raeoureee, and a liot of policy iuues. 

An appendix lieto Federal and State apnciu active in the area, and eome of the 

private orpniutiona that have pll\yed a role. The nport wa prepared by M. 

Lynne Com, Jennifer A. Hoek, and David Whiteman, of the Environment and 

Natural Ileeoul'C81 Policy Divioion; and Pamela Baldwin of the American Law 

Divioion. 

I hope that the report will eerve the Committee'• needs u it prepare• for 

the field bearing. 
200 

~ CRS Congressional Research Service • The Library of Congress • Washington, D.C. 20540 

The Florida Everglades: 

An Ecosystem in Danger 

M. Lynne Com (Coordinator) 

Jennifer A. Heck 

David Whiteman 

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division 

Pamela Baldwin 

American Law Division 

July 22, 1993 
201 

CRS-2 

THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES: AN ECOSYSTEM IN DANGER 

SUMMARY 

Nationally, there is a growing recognition of the value of the Everglades 

ecosystem as a national treasure ranking with the Grand Canyon, Y oaemite, 

Yellowstone, and Denali. The ecoeystem has been highly modified over 

centuries, but particularly in the last 50 years. There is a sense of crisis among 

many who know the area well, and call it an ecosystem "on the brink of 

collapse," and "the most endangered park in the United States." At the heart of 

the controveny is water. Once considered a nuisance or an obstacle to 

development, rastoration of a more natural water regime is now considered 

essential by fiShermen, city planners, the tourism industry, scientists, and 

others. 

The natural Everglades ecosystem has been reduced to half of ita previous 

area, which once stretched from Kiuimmee to Key West and beyond, but there 

are hopeful signa of change. There are unprecedented efrorte to restore the 

Kiuimmee River and ita watershed. Recently, an agreement was reached among 

Federal, State, and local government&, and business intereate to restore aome of 

the water diverted to agricultural lands to the aouthern part or the ecoeyatem. 

The settlement remains controversial to both environmentalist& (who argue that 

it may not be enough) and to at least some local government& (who do not wish 

to pay for the effort). Details of the settlement remain to be worked out. 

Issues for Congrese include facilitating coordination among the many 

Federal agencies involved, and with State and local government&; addreseing 

iseues not covered in the recent settlement; protecting the national interest in 

Everglades National Park, Big Cyprese National Preserve, six National Wildlife 

Refuges, a National Marine Sanctuary, and ita trust responsibility for Indian 

reservations; protecting industries, such as fishing and tourism, that are 

dependant on a healthy ecosystem; balancing the interests of the agriculture 

industry with other needs in the area; and poseibly using the area as a teat case 

for ecosystem management. 
202 

CRS-3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

NATURAL lflSTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

lflSTORY OF HUMAN USE AND IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

CURRENT CONDITIONS AND RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Florida Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Non-native Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Hurricane Andrew ............. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Mercury Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Settlement of Lawauit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Secretary' a Interagency Working Group and Corps Study . . . . . 8 

POIJCY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

APPENDIX: AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED . . 11 
203 

THE FLORIDA EVERGLADES: 

AN ECOSYSTEM IN DANGER 

INTRODUCTION 

For a variety of reaaons, many people in and out of Florida are concerned 

about the future of the Everglades eco.yKem. Nationally, there is a growing 

recognition of the value of this ecoayatem u a national treasure ranking with 

the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yello'WIItone, and Denali. Locally, fishermen lmow 

that the ecosystem is far larger than Everglades National Park (ENP), and that 

activitiee nellr Orlando can affect Florida Bay. City planners realize that the 

drinking water of the Miami metropolitan area depends on the Everglades. 

Many fear that the fabr' of the Everglades ecoayttem is being tom, to the 

detriment of not only birds and alligators, but of humane as well, and it is not 

clear how much time remaina to stitch it back together. 

Water is the central iuue. Where water once seemed abundant and even 

a nuisance, it is now u contentious u it is in any desert. However, the problem 

is not only the quantity, but the quality, timing, and distribution of water. This 

paper briefly outlines the natural history of the ecoayatem; the recent history 

of human use; the current conditione in the ecoayatem, including the atatua of 

varioua lawsuits; and some of the policy iiiUea for Congreu. Finally, a lilt of 

the apnciee and organizationa involved is appended to this repor' ._ 

NATURAL HISTORY 

For at leut 2,000 years, the Florida Everglades ecoayatem baa eonaiated of 

a 9,000-aquare mile water ~m that stretched 220 milee, from Orlando to the 

aouthem tip of the Keys. Several hundred lakee around Orlando fed sloughs 

(slow moving ereeb) that eventually joined to form the Kiuimmee (Kih-SIMmee) Ri'V81'. Depending on annual rainfall, which can vary from 40 to over 65 

inchee per year, the water either flowed south 98 miles through the Kiaaimmee 

or topped the ri'V81''a banks and flowed through 40,000 acres of marsh on ita way 

to Lab Obeehobee. During the summer rainy season, Lake Okeechobee would 

aometUD. cmtrflow ita aouthem shore, spilling water and nutrients into the 

Evergladee marshlands. Due to the area's flat topography, the water then 

flowed slowly (100 feet per day) through a 40-mile wide, 100-mile long aawgrau 

marsh south to Florida Bay.' 

1

Brown, Kirk, '"l'be Ewrgladee: Rev.ninJ Man'a Miatabl." Special Report, Palm &=h Poet, 

April11, 1993, p. 1. 
204 

CRS-2 

The slow flowing of water through the sawgrass allowed for natural 

recharge of the Biscayne Aquifer-2 by infiltration of rainfall through porous 

limestone outeroppings of the reservoir at the Everglades' surface. The slow 

flow also allowed time for the sawgrass debris to decompose into rich organic 

sediments called muck or peat. These soils accum~lated at a rate of about 3.3 

inches per 100 years, reaching maximum thickness of approximately 18 feet in 

the early 1900s.

3 

The unique habitat resulting from the Everglades' combination of abundant 

moisture, rich soils and subtropical temperatures has historically supported a 

vast array of species, including more than 2.5 million wading birds and millions 

of migratory birds. The National Park Service (NPS) estimates that the overall 

number of wading birds attempting to nest in the Everglades each year declined 

ftom 300,000 mating pairs in the 19308 to only 15,000 to 30,000 mating pairs 

in 1990.4 Overall, wading bird populations are believed to have been 5 to 10 

times greater than they are now. Many currently endangered or threatened 

species, such as the Florida panther, wood stork, and loggerhead sea turtle, 

uisted in the Everglades in high numbers at the tum of the century. It is 

estimated that 90 percent of the commercially valuable fish and shellfish found 

in Florida Bay spent a portion of their life cycles in Everglades estuaries. 

The Everglades were also home to several Native American tribes, including 

Calusa, Tequesta, and Seminole Indians. Two thousand years ago, the Calusa 

controlled the lower and central Florida Gulf shore. They depended heavily on 

seafood resources in the region, as shown by mounds of discarded oyster, clam, 

and conch shells, some 30 feet high and 50 acres in size, found along. the lower 

Gulf coast.

6 There are currently four reservations in the area: Hollywood, 

Brighton, Big Cypress, and Miccosukee. 

HISTORY OF HUMAN USE AND IMPACTS 

Upon attaining statehood in 1845, Florida's first legislature asked Congress 

for assistance in reclaiming the "valueless" lands of the Everglades region. In 

1879, Florida sold four million acres to Hamilton Disston, a Philadelphia 

manufacturer, to drain for development. Disston's first drainage project 

involved cutting through the natural dam between Lake Okeechobee and the 

Caloosahatehee River and connecting the two via canal. By 1890, Disston had 

2.rb. U.S. EnviroDmental Protection Apney (EPA) hu deliplated the B--yne Aquifer, 

which provicMe &.h -ter to 3.5 million people in 110utb.R Florida, u a 110le-lourcl aquifer. 

SStone, JA and D.E. Leg, "Acric:Wture and the EVVJI.ad-," JourntJJ of Soil a1ld Water 

~. May/Juna 1992, p. 208. 

4

.Aixlordinl to Katblem SulliV1111 of Nature eo-ney'e Ewraladee R.Mn:h Center, about 

30-40 percent or the total bird population mat. at one time. 

6sand, Georp. 7'1le E-wlada Today, Four Wmde Pre., N- York, 1971, p. 109. 
205 

CRS-3 

also constructed canals connecting the Kissimmee lakes and had partially 

dredged the Kissimmee River.6 

Thess efforts resulted in uncontrolled drainage that lowered water tables 

five to six feet in South Florida, putting streu on wetland systems and 

increasing flooding of agricultural areas, which had expanded into the partially 

drained lands by the end of the 19th century. The success of agriculture on 

lands south of Lake Okeechobee fueled the demand for dependable flood control. 

All a result, four ~or drainage canals were constructed from Lake Okeechobee 

through the Everglades to the Atlantic by the beginning of World War I. 

Disjointed efforts to addreu regional problems of flood control and water supply 

continued through the mid 1940s, prompting Congress to authorize Phase I of 

a comprehenaive plan for flood control and water supply in 1948.7 The original 

local sponsor was the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District 

(FCD). 

The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project focuaed on Lake 

Okeechobee as a primary source of flood control and water storage for 

_agricultural and urban areas. The project dMignated 700,000 acrt111 10uth of 

Lake Okeechobee to become the EvergladM Agricultural Area (EAA) and 

900,000 acree to be retained in fiw Water CoORrvation Areas (WCA.). By 1967, 

a ayatem of 1,1500 miles of canals and le-... bad been constructed to protect 

east-coast urban areas from flooding, to recharge aquifera, and to protect against 

saltwater intruaion. In 1972, the State abolished the FCD, replacing it with the 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) under supervi8ion of the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).· The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineenl operate. some aspects of the . project and SFWMD others in 

accordance with Corps regulations. Varioua pbasee of the project haw changed 

over the yean, some with congreaional direction, 10me without. 

The highly managed aystem bas resulted in sewrely altered water flow 

patterna through the Everglades, with visible effects on the region's 

environment. The rise and fall of the water table is now controlled by seven 

~or pump ltations operated by five water management areas in reeponR to 

the needa of aupr cane and tomato farmers. Water ia purged or retained 

according to waather conditions and growing ICbedules. Changes in the timing 

~ 

and dimibution of water flOWII affect survival of certain species natiw to the 

saeh as the. wood stork. Artificial water fluctuations in EvergladM 

Natioaal Puk haw forced wood storks to delay nesting until late winter, sewral 

montbll behind schedule. As a result, the birds lack sutnCient time to raiae their 

'or.h.m, Bob, "EruiDc Man'• Mark in theE_......, • Naliontll PanW, Jv.Jy/Mpit. 1985, 

p.14. 

7

Tbe Act ol June 30, 1948, (Ch. 7'71, 82 Stat. 1171) authoriud the Brat pbaM olthe plan. u 

8K out in Ho.e ~t 848; Olllle8(1aDdiartaplatioD·_..w..q-tlJ pUIIId by the State 

ot Florida (Florida Statute Cbapter 378, 19411). 
206 

CRS-4 

young before the summer rains arrive, dispersing the small fish which they feed 

their nestlings. The young birds then starve to death. • 

CURRENT CONDmONS AND RESOURCES 

Agriculture 

Many ecological alterations are attributed to runoff from the rich 

agricultural lands that compriM the EAA. The Florida sugar cane industry, for 

eumple, which uMe more than 400,000 acree of drained land immediately lOUth 

of Lake Okeeehobee, ia a I:DIQor IIOUI'Ce of phoephorua pollution. Each year, an 

estimated 222 tons or the natural fertilizer wuh into drainage cana1a and then 

into the Everglades in concentrations 10 to 20 times normal.• Phosphorus 

loading of Everglades waters ia feeding an invasion of rare or non-native 

vegetation, including cattaile and varioue tree1 and sbrube. The impact ia moet 

visible at the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlite Refuge, where 

6,000 acree of aawgrau marshland have been taken over by cattaile. 

DiaplaA:ement of natift vegetation in tum deetroyl habitat for natift animala. 

Another source of nutrient loading ia cow manure from dairy tarma located 

along Lake Okeechobee's north shore. Dairy tarma were implicated u sourcee 

of nitropn and phoephoroue responsible for a muaift algae bloom on Lake 

Okeechobee in Auguet 1988. The State spent $8.4 million to move 14,000 cowe 

as part of a buyout program inwlving 18 of the 49 ~- north of the lab.10 

Apicultural runoff also threateu the potability of water in tbe Biacayne 

Aquifer. While the aquifer's poroue limMtone outcroppinp permit rapid natural 

recharge of tbia I:DIQor underground IOUrce, IUch poree also render the aquifer 

vulnerable to contamination from IU1'face IOUrcee, IUch u thoee uaociated with 

agricultural activitiea. 

Florida Bay 

Nutrient loading mipt alnady be havinl ecological impacg u far south 

u Florida Bay. Scientiata at NPS'• South Florida Relearcb Center tint noticed 

signa of a me,jor die-off of ........... in Florida Bay during the fall or 1987. 

Inc:reeM level8 of nitrogen and phoepborue, both ueed u fertilizere, 1Upport 

increeM .numben of mrypn-hungry bacteria, reiUlting in oxygen depletion or 

Bay wailln and, 8'98ntually, filh Jdlle. 

8

0Fe, Jolm, Natiaaal P-ail Senice, in: I•= rt1r, Jolm, ...__tal w,... .Job J. 

PWmecJ tor Jhwafeclee· wu.r s,.-to Be Alt.ncl to Aid Nature,"W'~ PoG, Pebrua17 

20, 1980, p. A7. 

It,- rtu, Joba, p. A7. 

~ Kirk, '"I'ME-.Jeclee: .._...._ ......... " Spec:ialB..pan,Palm.B.cAI'oet, 

April11, 1988, p. L 
207 

CRS-5 

In addition, decreased flows of fresh water from the southern tip of Florida 

are disrupting the mixture of salt water and fresh water in coaetal estuaries and 

Florida Bay. Extreme fluctuations in salinity due to restricted and diverted 

freshwater upstream in the watershed has lead to mangrove, sponge and marine 

seagrasa die-off's, spreading algae blooms, substantial decline in the fisheries, and 

the loes of nursery functions in the estuaries. Salinity changes in Florida Bay 

threaten to make its waters unsuitable for certain species of fish and shellfish, 

both of which play an important role in the region's economy, and fishermen 

have already identified a "dead zone" in the Bay. Ocean circulation patterns 

then carry this saltier, warmer water south to the Florida Keye, one of the most 

popular diving destinations in the world. Recently scientists have noticed 

significant deterioration in the health and growth rate of the Keye' coral reefs; 

they argue that much of the deterioration results from the altered water flows 

of the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. 

Three massive fish kills involving sea trout and snapper were reported in 

Florida Bay during 1990. Some argue, however, that nutrients in supr industry 

efftuent are taken up rapidly by sawgrass and are not responsible for problems 

in Florida Bay waters. Whether the specific eauae is uceuive nutrients or 

salinity, the Bay is sick. Commercial species spendin1 part of their lives there 

include lobeter, atone eraba, pink shrimp, redflsh, tarpon, mullet and others. 

According to data from the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the 1960-

1985 average harvest of shrimp tails from the top of Florida Bay to the Dry 

Tortupa11 was 9.8 million pounds. H owever, harvests of these shrimp have 

declined markedly since a 1981 peak year, and have been 1881 than 5 million 

pounds per year since 1989. 

Non-native Planu12 

The invasion of non-native (exotic) pest plants is a growing threat to the 

integrity of the Everglades eeoey8tem and has altered wildlife habitat. Although 

some pe8t plant control programs and actions have been authorized, funding 

problems have delayed any concerted control activities. 

Everglades settlers around the tum of the century imported the hardy, 

prolific and water-guuling melaleuea tree. from Auatralia to bolster drainage 

efforts. 'n.y miatabnly thought that the trees also had potential for timber 

procluctioD. Melaleuea is now considered the principal pe11t plant, · covering 

500,000 .a. or Ewrgladee with dense; sun-blockinc atands that are spreading 

at a reported rate or 50 acree per day. The tough tree is reeistant to herbicidee 

and the bark of each tree must be eut open for eradication treatment to be 

effective. The trees have no known domestic natural enemies, and officials and 

11Ju...W. lllrimp, M tiMy de¥llop, - ~ low laliDit)' - In tbe EWfllad- azul tbe 

BaT• -.r- belli, down tbe ~ to tbe Of)' Tortups, 10 tbe barwat In all elm- - ia 

aifected by tbe -wtioca el tbe Bar-

!Jsrown, Kirk, '"l'be E~: Rewnin1 Man's Miltaba. • Special Raport. Palm IJ«<cAPo.t, 

Aprilll, 1988, p. L 
208 

CRS-6 

aeientieta are now weighing the risks and possible benefits of introducing 

Australian weevils as a control measure. Environmentalists and others have 

requested higher funding for a melaleuca research quarantine facility in 

Broward County, between ENP and Lake Okeechobee. 

Other rapidly spreading non-native species include the Brazilian pepper tree 

and several other ornamentals. From the agricultural areas adjacent to the 

northern and western boundaries of the ecosystem, phosphorus and nitrates 

have fed the replacement of aawgr888 and other native plants with cattails. 

Cattails are spreading rapidly in dense stands, crowding out other plants and 

wildlife in 20,000 acres of Everglades aawgraaa prairies and marshes. In many 

C8888, a return to a more natural water cycle would help control peat species, 

many of which are not adapted to prolonged flooding. 

Hurricane Andrew 

On August 24, 1992, Hurricane Andrew devastated a large portion of south 

Florida, doing $20 billion in damages to Dade County. There was considerable 

damage to Park facilities, including two visitors centers, a research station, and 

adminiatrative offices. ~or portions of the Park remained closed until 

December 15. Andrew's effects on natural resources were equally eoatly: it 

leveled a 25-mile swath through the Everglades ecoeyatem, ripped out about 

70,000 acres of mangrove forest, and toppled scores of tree islands. 

Hurricanes can also dump sufficient fresh water to flush out the entire 

ecoeyatem, including Florida Bay. Historically, hurricanes have helped shape 

the Everglades by altering topography, drainage, and vegetation-change from 

which the ecoeyatem baa previously recovered, and in fact, baa evolved to 

withstand. However, recovery from the bloWII of hurricanes baa been severely 

hampered by direct and indirect human alterations to the ecoeyatem. 

Perhaps the most lasting impact of hurricanes baa been the spreading of 

seeds of non-native plants. It will take years to ..,.... the damage from the 

release of miUiona of aeeda from the melaleucaa and Brazilian peppers on the 

eastern rim of the Everglades. These aeeda were widely dispersed througbout 

a large area of the park, where the previously intact ~m was not 

conduciw to the pvwth of these species. Ezperta are now concerned that a 

forest of water-conauming aotic plants will push out the native vegetation that 

provide. food and habitat for native wildlife. 

Mercury ContamiDation 

Mercury contamination of fish in Everglades waters is reportedly the worst 

in the country. In early July 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

conducted mercury testing on Florida Bay filh and found dangerously higb 

levels in ... trout. 11 Florida health officiab have iuued strong warninp about 

1

1p--w -Wiication, Tbomu Buu:roft, National Audubon Soc*y, July 8, 1993. 
209 

CRS-7 

eating fish that have spent part of their life cycle in Everglades waters. 

Mercury contamination could devastate the area's commercial fishing industry. 

Environmental activists blame four municipal solid waste incinerators 

between West Palm Beach and Miami for releasing mercury. Another possible 

source is the peat soil which contains naturally high levela of inactive mercury. 

Preliminary research suggests that agricultural runoff into the Everglades may 

be causing the releue of mercury occurring naturally in the soil. When farming 

operations expose these soils to the air, mercury may enter the food chain 

through plants and be passed on to terrestrial and aquatic animals. 

Settlemeat of Lawnit 

A. diecuAed above, the Federal and State governments have workec:l over 

the yean on Oood and water control projecta in the Central and South Florida 

areas, the purpoeee and prioritiH of which chanpd over the years. A. 

circwutances evolved, the partiH moved to more advenarial roles with rapect 

to some upecta of water UN. 

In 1988, the United States tued Florida for not enforcing water quality 

standarda for agricultural runoff water entering the Arthur R. Maraball 

Loubatchee National Wildlife Retup and EverBiad- National Park. In 1991, 

the Florida Legialature and Governor Chilea responded with new effortl at 

reRorincthe EvergladH, and a propoeed Mttlement of the lawsuit wu approved 

by the court in February 1992. The Mttlement required a number of actiona to 

be taken to reduce pba.pborua poUution, to deftlop a replatory program for 

the EAA, and to dewlop a water quality monitorinc proJNID. Meanwhile, other 

IUite bad been rued apinat the SFWMD, the State, Federal apnciM, and other 

partiM cballenging varioua actiona. 

Mediation effortl at reconcilinc the poaitiona of aU partiea to the varioua 

litigation ....uited in qreement on July 13, 1993, to a "Statement of PrinciplM. • 

The partiM wiD Met a 90-day atay in judicial proceedinp to 0Mh out the 

Principt.. and 1'8101-.. Nlditional u.u.., . after which time the plan will be 

preMDted to the appropriate courtl for ecceptance. Summari• of the Statement 

of Principle. indicate that it includM: 

• a pledp to inauaurate •an unprecedented new partnenhip" of the 

J'ecleral and State ao-..rnments with the qricultural induatry of South 

Florida; 

• an incre8le in water quantity, aheet Oow, and .other hydro-period 

ra.toration needa of the E-..rglaclea ecoayatem and of apiculture and 

other elements of the South Florida economy, inereuingwater Oow by 

25 percent o-..r current le-..11; 

• Mtabliahment of pba.pborua reduction requirements of 25 percent 

within 2 yean throup application of "BeR Manapment Prectica." 

and u much u 45 percent within 12 years; 
• 

• 

210 

CRS-8 

establishment of six constructed wetlands covering more than 40,000 

acres to clean storm runoff from agricultural lands before it enters the 

Everglades ecosystem, an increase of 14,000 acres over the original 

settlement agreement; 

development of new operating rules for Lake Okeechobee to increase 

the availability of water in the dry season for downstream users and 

the Everglades; and 

provision of funding to implement the Plan, with the largest share 

falling to agriculture, which will pay up to $322 million. 

This settlement is not intended to addreae all of the iaaues in the 

Everglades ecOsystem. 14 These include many of the iaaues mentioned above, 

management of tourism, response to hurricanes, pouible effecte of drilling for 

oil on an Indian reservation and in other portions of the ecoey8tem, and a host 

of other iseues. Settlement of iuues raised in the laWIUit may, however, auiat 

in solving other problema. For example, a more natural water now may make 

the ec:oeyHem better able to resist the invasion of non-native planta or to 

recover from hurricanes. -

Secretary'• IDterapncy Worldq Group and Corp. Study 

In response to the growing sense of crisis about the condition of the 

Evergladee and frustration over lack of coordination, in Februuy 1992, Interior 

Secretuy Bruce Babbitt called for convening an interagency working group 

representing the various agencies involved in the area. The group met in Key 

Largo in early June, and in Orlando in July. Their miuion included a review 

of Federal agency activities and restoration project&, the development of regional 

retJtoration goala for the ecosysteM, and the setting of me81Urable criteria for 

achieving those goala. The group will also attempt to coordinate research 

activiti•. The State and the SFWMD will be brought into the group. 

The Corpe of Engineers wu cbarpd in an FY92 appropriationa bill with 

doing a seri• of studi•, ftnt a niCQDo•iuaMe study of the water problema in 

the ~ a feaaibility study for their improvement, and a design study to 

_aclcln. ~ problema. In effect, the goala prepared by the workiJlg group will 

Juide tM r-onn•iMenee study by the Corps. The report by the Corps is 

apeeted in late 1994 or early 1996 . . , ' 

POIJCY ISSt1E8 

Raaliatically, there is no cbailce of returning the Everslades ecoeyRem to 

both its previoua conditiona and aiM: among other reuona, so much alteration 

bas occurred that it is difllcult to know what those conditiona were. Eumples 

of our ignorance include such fundameutals as reliable data on bird population~ 

14A -tRudy, aDd- ohbe _, r-to att.npt .uch a pl-the 0,.,.,. Ewr61Gda ._,.,.,. ~ PIIJia. £~ Coalitioft. Wlilhiqtoo.. 1993. 36 p. 
211 

CRS-9 

and detailed patterns of water flow. Furthermore, substantial portions of the 

ecosyatem have been converted ·to relatively dense human use. While some 

agricultul'11lland may be bought and converted to more natural conditklns, high 

costs alone would prohibit the reversion of lilrge amounts of residential land to 

a more natural state. 

Instead, the central issue is how to restore earlier conditions 88 well 88 

possible, perhaps on a smaller scale, and how to balance the needs of all of the 

users and dependents of the ecosyatem, both human and otherwise. It should 

be stressed at the outset that the ckbtJU ;.. not job. versu. environment or birds 

verau. fa~rlJ. The choicee are more difficult: agriculture joba versus fishing 

and tourism joba; abundant water aa currently delivered versus safe, long-term, 

salt-free water supplies; restoration of water ftowa venua protection of some 

areu from flooding; reduced mercury contamination versua atable incineration 

costs and low farm costs, and so on. The following liat outline• some of the 

uuvor issuea facing the Everglades ecosyatem. 

• Who ;.. in charge? At the State level, there ia debate over who speaka 

for the State: the Florida DEP or DNR. At the Federal level, agencies 

from at leaat seven departmenta and the EPA are involved. Sometimea 

the mandates of these agenciu conflict, and at other timea, agenciea 

simply find it difficult to know what their aister apnciea are doing. 

A variety of coordinating committees have helped to share information, 

and Secretary Babbitt'• interagency working group should address 

broad issuea in the ecosyatem. 

• How con Federal, Stot;e, cuad local agen.ciu coo~ their octiona 

be~r? The goal of improving flow into the southern part of the 

aystem, for example, suggeata that local and State governments should 

prevent the conversion of farm land into subdivisions, since that 

convenion which would exacerbate the difficultiea of controlling of 

water flow, but it is unclear bow zoning ordinancee, tu policies, and 

other programa can be coordinated to achieve this goal. Other i88Uea 

offer aimilar potential for conflict. Again, the working group may 

.. iat in this effort. ' 

• How aluJll land ~,., a.ddreBII the man.y iuues that were not 

COW1'ed in tM recent court ~~ettktMnt? Many issues remain, whether 

or DOt the aettlement achieves ita atated goala. Responaes to these 

problema could require additional legialation or fUnding from varioua 

levela of government or private aoureee. 

• How dou the recent court ~~ettkment tl.e{iM "suct:U{I", cuad ;.. that 

standard flOOd enou6h? There ia some question that the aettlement'a 

interim atandard of 50 parte per billion of pboaphorua is adequate to 

protect the ~m. 

• Can tM .utlemml attt:Jin 1M lfCIGU it lleda? Some question whether 

the 40,000 acres of filtration marah will be aufficient to remove 
• 

• 

212 

CRS-10 

phosphorus, whether the spending levels will be sufficient, and 

whether all parties will uphold their shares of the agreement. Other 

questions are also raised about the effectiveness of creating artificial 

marshes to prevent pollutants from entering the remainder of the 

ecosystem. 

What is the Federal responaibility for funding the settlement, especially 

if the agreed meaBures are inadequate to achieve the desired result.? 

The settlement calls for $465 million to fund restoration, in part from 

the Federal Government. Since details of the agreement have yet to 

be developed, it is not clear how the Federal share will be funded. 

Are the sugar companies and the vegetable growers paying their fair 

share in the settlement? The settlement requires the sugar industry to 

fund restoration of the Everglades, but reduces the payment if they 

reduce the amount of phosphorus discharged into the ecosystem. Is 

this payment itself too low, and how can the commitment be enforced? 

Should they be required to do more? 

Are local govemmenttl willing to pay their share of the settlement? In 

some areas, local officials argue that their areas bad nothing to do 

with farm runoff, and so should not be required to pay.16 From the 

material available to date, it is not clear what enforcement 

mechanisms exist in the settlement to assure these payments. 

What iB the best way to restore the health of Florida Bay and the 

human community dependent on it? In the Bay, where the economic 

effects of the damage to the ecosystem are clearest, pure additional 

fresh water may not be enough to restore the health of the ecosystem, 

if major portions of the flora and fauna have been displaced or 

eliminated. More active measures may be necessary. 

How will State and local govemment. manage the conflict between 

Florida's growing eaBt coast population and the recharge of the 

Biscayne Aquifer? The aquifer, the sole water source for Miami, needs 

long-term planning and land management or the water table will drop 

too low to meet increasing demand by urban users. Some suggest 

beping land in buffer strips by leasing land to farmers, thereby 

allowing reduced flood control measures, but maintaining economic use 

olthe land. 

1

6wwhy Shoukl We Pay?" Fort M,_. New•Preu, July 11, 1993. p. 24A. 
213 

CRS·ll 

APPENDIX: AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 

Federal 

Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Park Service 

Geological Survey 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reelamation 

Minerals Management Service 

Department Qf Agriculture 

Soil Conaervation Service 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Department of Energy 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commialion 

Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Coast Guard 

CUBtome Office 

Department of Defenae 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Air Force (Homestead) 

De~ntofJu.Qce 

DruJ Enforcement Administration 

De~ntof~nation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Florida 

De~nt of Environmental Protection 

South Florida Water Management Dmrict 

Southweet Florida Water Management Dmrict 

Department of Natural Re.ourcea 
U.S.Supr 

Flo-Sun Sugar 

Florida Sugar Cane League 

The Nature Conservancy 

214 

CRS-12 

National Audubon Society (and local affiliates) 

Greater Everglades Coalition (28 environmental groupe) 

Clean Water Action 

Sierra Club 

1

"rbi.tiaa ~ o-p&ete; m.. are die orpniaticlm wbicb-t.o Jilhtcluriq 

tm. ...., IIUrft1 oldie -.. 
GAO 

Apr111993 

GAO/RCED-93-84 

215 

United States General Accounting omce 

Report to the Honorable 

Charles E. Schumer, House of 

Representatives 

SUGAR PROGRAM 

Changing Domestic 

and International 

Conditions Require 

Program Changes 
GAO Ualted State. 

General Aecollllt!JIII omee Wulllqtoa, D.C. 101148 

RHouren, Comm.1lllltJ, aad Economle Development Di'ri8loa 

B-251529 

April16, 1993 

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer 

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Schumer: 

216 

This report responds to your request that we review the U.S. Department of Agriculture's sugar 

progam. The report examines what the program's impact is on sweetener users and producers 

and how changing domestic and International conditions are likely to affect the program's 

future. The report contains a recommendation to the Congress that the loan rate for sugar be 

lowered. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no 

further distribution of this report until30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will , 

send copies to appropriate House and Senate Committees and Subcommittees; Interested 

Members of Congress; the Secretary of Agriculture; and the Director, Office of Management and 

Budget Copies wiD also be made available to others upon request. 

This work was perfonned under the direction of John W. Harman, Director, Food and 

Agricultural J.ssues, who may be reached at (202) 512-5138 if you or your staff have any 

questions. Other llll\ior contributors are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours, 

9~fd4 Assistant Comptroller General 
217 

Executive Summary 

Purpose 

Background 

The sugar program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), guarantees producers (growers and processors) a minimum price 

for domestic sugar that Is typically twice the world market price. The 

program was designed to insulate domestic producers from lower and 

potentially volatile world prices, but it has increased costs to sweetener 

users-consumers and manufacturers of sweetener-containing products. 

Representative Charles E. Schumer asked GAO to analyze the sugar 

program's effects on sweetener users and producers, the potential impact 

of changes in domestic sweetener production and consumption, and the 

effect of pending international trade agreements on the program's 

operation. 

The U.S. sweetener market was transformed about 20 years ago by the 

introduction of a process to mass-produce high fructose com syrup (HFCS). 

At that time, sugarcane and sugarbeets were the dominant sweetener 

sources in the United States. Despite increases in sugar production, 

sugar's importance as a sweetener has diminished. HFCS and other com 

sweeteners now account for more than one-half of the caloric sweeteners 

consumed in this country. 

For over 200 years, the United Statea has intervened in the sugar market, 

first by levying tariffs on imported sugar to raise revenue. However, the 

Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, as amended, provides the basis for the 

current sugar program. The program has two basic components: (I) a 

domestic commodicy loan program that sets a support price (loan rate) for 

sugar and (2) an import quota system. Because the United States has had 

to import sugar to meet its domestic needs, USDA has been able to use an 

import quota to restrict the supply of foreign sugar. This allows USDA to 

keep prices high enough to support growers and to prevent processors 

from defaulting on their loans. USDA must use all available authority to 

prevent loan defaults to meet a provision that the program operate at no 

net cost to the government. 

While the United States continues to need imported sugar to meet 

domestic demand, the level of imports entering the nation has fallen 

dramatically over the past 20 years in response to increases in domestic 

sweetener production and decreases in sugar consumption. In 1991 the 

United States imported less than 2 million tons of raw sugar, compared 

with almost 6 million tons in 1972. 

..... GAOI'RCED-U-84 Sqar Proeram Uader Changina: Conditions 
Results in Brief 

218 

1be program protects domestic sugar producen from lower world prices 

but has increased domestic sugar prices, thereby costing sweetener users 

an .-age or $1.4 billion umually. Higher domestic prices provide support 

to an estimated 1,706 SIJil8rCane farms in 4 states and an estimated 13,731 

sugarbeet farms in 14 -· Forty-two cane mills and 36 beet processing factories extract sugar from cane and beets. 

Producen receive about 40 percent-or $561 milllon-<>f the average 

annual $1.4 billion in user costs. The benefits are distributed among a 

relatively small percentage of farms. GAO estimates that 42 percent of the 

sugar grower benellta went to 1 percent of all sugar farms in 1991. 

Although cane and beet sugar each represent approximately one-half of 

the domestic sugar market, the cane lndustly's benefits are more 

concentrated than those or the beet industry-17 cane farms received 

about 68 percent of the estimated cane grower benefits in 1991. 

Some of the $824 million of the remaining user Costs go lo HFCS 

manufacturen and foreign countries that export their quota sugar to the 

United States. The rest is considered a net loss to society that results from 

program Incentives that lead to an inefficient allocation of productive 

resources. HFCS manufacturen benefit indirectly because they can charge 

higher prices to compete with the supported price of sugar. Benefits for 

HFCS manufacturers, which average $548 million annually, are also 

concentrated: Four finns accounted for 87 percent of production in 1990. 

Foreign countries that export their quota sugar to the United States 

receive the supported domestic price, which is higher than the price these 

countries could receive on the world market. 

Current trends in domestic sweetener production and consumption, as 

well as pending trade agreements, may prevent the sugar program from 

continuing to operate as it does today. Recognizing that increases in 

domestic sugar production were outpacing consumption, the Congress 

passed legislation in 1990 requiring that once estimated import needs fall 

below 1.25 million tons, USDA would have to limit the amount of domestic 

sugar that producers can sell. Also, pending international trade 

agreements, which could reduce protectionist policies to promote a freer 

market, may eventually lower the domestic price for sugar as lower-priced 

foreign sugar is allowed more access to the domestic market. 

1 A grcwt'r may oW1'1 rnt'll"e than one rarm. 

GAO.'KCED-N-84 sacu Prop-... Under Changing ConditlOIII 
Principal Findings 

Sugar Program Has Cost 

Sweetener Users Billions 

of Dollars 

Sugar Program Provides 

Concentrated Benefits to 

Few Sugar Farms 

Sugar Program Provides 

Benefits to Manufacturers 

ofHFCS 

Sugar Program's Future Is 

Uncertain 

219 

Sweetener users bear the cost of supporting sweetener producers. Some 

studies have estimated a higJl cost by comparing the supported domestic 

price of sugar with the prevailing world price, resulting in a cost to 

domestic users of over $3 billion annually. However, recognizing that the 

world price would.go up signi11cantly In the long run if the United States 

and other countries purchased more sugar on the world market, GAO chose 

a more conservative approach. Using a long-run world price for refined 

sugar, and Including program,related HFCS user costs, GAO estimates that 

the program costs sweetener use111 approximately $1.4 billion annually. 

Tills ls an average based on 1989, 1990, and 1991 cost estimates. 

Growers and processors share the $561 million In benefits, with growers 

generally receiving about 60 percent and processors 40 percent. Benefits 

that go to sugar growers are concentrated among a relatively small 

percentage of Canns. GAo estimates that in 199i 42 percent of these · 

benefits went to about 1~1 percent-of all sugar farms. Cane growers 

and beet growers each receive about one-half of the total benefits, even 

though there are about eight beet Canns for every cane farm. The cane 

sugar industry is especially concentrated, with 17 farms receiving over 

one-half of all cane grower benefits. The beet sugar industry is less 

concentrated, with about 2,000 farms receiving one-half of the beet grower 

benefits. Benefits are further concentrated because, in both the cane and 

beet industries, some growers are also processors. 

Since the sugar program keeps domestic sugar prices higher than they 

would otherwise be, manufacturers of sugar's main 

competitor-HFCS-can keep their prices higher as well. GAO estimates that 

manufacturers of HPCS receive an additional $548 million annually as a 

result of the sugar program. HFCS manufacturer benefits are also 

·concentrated: Four HFCS firms accounted for 87 percent of domestic 

production in 1990. Tills concentration of benefits occurs largely because 

of the substantial investment required to produce HFCS, which makes it 

difficult for new firms to enter the market. 

Current trends in domestic sweetener production and ongoing 

international trade negotiations may prevent the sugar program from 
Recommendation to 

the Congress 

Agency Comments 

220 

--

operating In the t\Jture aa It does tocla,y. Increasing doinesUc producUon, 

encouJ1IIII!d by tedmolotiY lmprovemenla 111111 the price lnceiiUves bullt 

Into the augar procnm, led the eoo,re. to JlUII fann leglalation in 1990 

that provided for a minimum level of foreiln augar Imports. This law could 

require tliiD.\ to ~ t\Jture llmlta on the amount of domestic susar that 

producera can 11!11. Such action would exacerbate the economic 

c:list.ortloos that have me.dy readted from the program. 

Additionally, lntematlonallrllde ~currently llllder consideration 

1M¥ require a t\Jture departure fmm the current augar program. Under the 

conditions of the propoeed North American Free Trade Agreement (MAFTA) 

and the propoeed.new ~Wider the General Agreement on Tariffs 

and Trade (GAT!'), Import quotas on 1111 agricultural commodities could 

eventulllly be eMed 111111 their llllppOit prices reduced. MAFTA has not 

received llnal approval, 111111 current GAlT negotiations have not been 

concluded. Ne.ertheless, a movement toward a freer market would 

eventulllly require dwlges In the current program. 

Because of the lddllionsllllel' COIIts of the...,... program llllllthe 

p.oo.biU!¥ that It wiD not opent.e In the t\Jture aa It does today, the 

Coogreal'ftda to consider leglalation to move the sugar lndustly toward 

a more open nwket. AIJ put of this tranlllion, the market price ror sugar should be lowered. To achieve a lower market price, GAO recommends that 

the Concr- jpadually lower the lOIII\ rate for augar and direct USDA to 

8IQust Import quotas IICCOrdlngly. Reducing the loan rate gradually would 

llllow producers lime to make orderly ll(ijuatments. 

In commenUn& on a draft of this report, tJ!IDA ssld that, overall, this is a 

reuonable report with no ~ dllta problema. USDA agreed that 

upcoming lrllde aareements are likely to make the current program 

Inoperable Ill a t\Jture date but lUted that there will be no near-tenn 

elfects on the abWt;y of the United Slate8 to shield Its domestic susar 

producers fmm lncrealllng impol1ll. GAO has included additional 

Information on current GAlT negotiations 111111 MAFI'A to clarif'y this poinL 

Also, where approprlale, GAO has lncorponted USDA's comments into the 

bod¥ of this report. USDA's OCher conunerd8 appear In their entire!¥ In 

appendix V, alan& with GAO's detailed nsponoes to them. 

..... 
Contents 

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Chapter2 

Sugar Program 

Increases Costs to 

U.S. Sweetener Users 

Chapter3 

Sugar Program 

Provides 

Concentrated Benefits 

to Few Sweetener 

Producers 

Chapter4 

Changing Domestic 

and International 

Conditions May 

Require Program 

Changes 

Appendixes 

221 

Sugar Is Produced Worldwide 

Domestic Sweetener Production and Consumption Has Changed 

U.S. Sugar Polley 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Users Pay for Producers' Beneftts 

Program Limll8 Domestic Competitiveness of Manufacturers of 

Sugar-Containing Products 

Conclusions 

Agency Comments 

Sizeable Benellts Go 19 Few Sugar Farms 

No Limit to Size of Program Beneftts 

HFCS Manutactw-ers Receive Benefits From the Sugar Program 

Conclusions 

Agency Comments 

Changes In Production and Consumption May Make Today's 

Program Design Outmoded 

Impending Trade Agreements May Prevent the Program From 

()perallng as Designed In 1981 

Concllllllons 

Recommendation to the Congress 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

Appendix 1: GAO's Technical Economic Analysis ofthe Sugar 

Program 

Appendix ll: Summary of Economic Studies Reviewed by GAO 

Appendix m: State-By-State Distribution of Program Benefits 

Appendix IV: Costs of Sugar Production 

Appendix V: Comments From the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Appendix VI: Ml\lor Contributors to 11lls Report 

..... 

2 

10 

10 

11 

17 

20 

24 

24 

28 

29 

29 

30 

.. 30 

32 

35 

36 

36 

37 

37 

39 

41 

42 

42 

44 

66 

59 

60 

62 

70 
222 

Tables Table 2.1: HypolheUcal Delault Calculalion for Raw F1orlda Cane 

Sugar 

25 

Table 2.2: ElotlnWes of Uaer Cost 26 

Table 3.1: ElotlnWes of Producer Gains, Foreign Exporter Gains, 30 

Uld DelldweiCht I.a. 

Table 3.2: D181ribut1011 of Sugar Program's Benefits Among Fanns 32 

In Sugar-Produdng Slates, Crop Year 1991. 

Table 3.3: DlslribuUon of Benefitll According to Size of Benefit 33 

Table 3.4: A ....age Costs of Production, Average Market Prices, 34 

and Retuma 011 Sal..- fot' u.s. Cane, u.s. Beet, and 

Cane-Producing Statal 

Table 1.1: Range of Demand Uld Supply Elaslicitles 50 

Table L2 Total Caloric Sweetener ConsumpU011and Supply 51 

Table 1.3: Producer Gains Uld Consumer Losaes for the Total 53 

Sweetener Market 

Table L4 Net Nalional Loss, Quota Renta, Uld Deadweight 54 

Losaes, 1~1 

Table U.1: ElotlnWes of Consumer Losaes, Producer Gains, and 56 

Net Losaes f« the Economic Studies Reviewed 

Table m1: Perc:entaae DlstribuUon or Benefilll by State and 59 

Benefit Level, 1991 

Figures Figure 1.1: Domestic Raw Cane Sugar Production, Crop Years 12 

1980181 to 1992.113 

Figure 1.2: Raw Cane Sugar ProducUon by State, 1992 Crop Year 13 

Figure 1.3: Domelltle Beet Sugar Production. Crop Years 1980181 14 

tol992.113 

Figure 1.4: SU,U Beet ProducUon by State, 1992 Crop Year 15 

Figure 1.5: Refined Sugar Uld Cot'n Sweetener Consumption, 17 

111'15-112 

Figure 2.1: Raw Cane Sugar Prices and Loan Rates. Quarterly 26 

Datil, Fl.cal Years, 198S82 

Figure 2.2: WhoiMale Refined Beet Sugar Prices and Loan Rates, 27 

QuartstJ Datil, Fl.cal Yean 198S82 

Figure Ll: Elreet of the Sugar Program 011 the Domestic 47 

Sweetener Market 
223 

Abbrevtatiou 

ASCS Agricultural StablllzaUon and ConseiV&tion Service 

ccc Commodl~ Credit Corporation 

EC European Comnnmlty 

BRS Economic Reteardt Service 

GATT General Apeement on Tarift8 and Trade 

GAO General Accounting Oll!ce 

IIF'CS high fructoee com sweetener 

LDC less developed country 

IIAIE mArketing allotment import estimate 

NAFrA North American Free Trade Agreement 

USDA United Slates Department of Agriculture 
Introduction 

Sugar Is Produced 

Worldwide 

Supr Ia only one component ot a complex and changing sweetener 

industry. Todq'a U.S. sugar producers ..,.Influenced not only by growing 

condiUona and aupr prices but also by a numbet or developments In the 

..,-..,.Industry. One such Important chlnge is lncreaaed use of 

llltenWM! caloric -Importantly high lhK:toee com syrup 

(HPal). The muket foe HPCS has grown at the expenae of sugar. 

The United States Ia the llfth l.orgeet aupr producer In the world; however, 

It 111111 relies on aupr 1mporta to meet toUI domeat1c demand. U.S. raw ._use for llaeal year 1992- esUmated by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (IJSDA) at 8.9 milllonlhort tons.' Between i991 and 1992, sugar 

producUon accounted for about 81 percent of domestic aupr use, and 

Imported aupr for about 19 percent. Nearly all U.S. sugar Ia grown In 4 

suprc:ane-produclng and 14 auprtoeet,proclucinC states. 

The United States has tradiUonally protected domestic sugar producers 

Dun lower and potenllally wWlle world plica Cwrently, USDA 

admlnlaten a aupr PfiJCialll that Ia the key detennlnant of the domestic 

aupr price. The law reqlllr8 tliiOA to MlppOit domestic sugar prices with a 

loan PfiJCiall\ that .......,tees a minimum price for aupr. A tariff-nte 

quota Ia used to restrict foreign supplY In order to nlae the domesllc 

muket price. 

Supr comoe from~ and augarbeet plants. The cane plant, a 

peremlal paa that probably on,lnated In lhe South Pacific, Ia cultivated 

In countriee with tropia~ cllmala. The t-t plant, an annual crop that 

Jll'l)l*lly oriiiNted In the ~ reclon. Is cultivated In temperale 

zone countries. Both~ and~ must undergo procesalng 

to extnoct the aupr. 

Supr Ia produced In about 110 countries and Ia used In a wide varlet;y of 

foods thrcJuChout the world. Moat countries protect their aupr Industries 

to~ producllon and ensure domesUc supplies. Governments use 

a varlet;y ot mecboclo to reau11ote producUon levelo, ilnporb, Cactmy and 

lleld ........_ ......... 11101, often, prices at vutoua ..... ot diotribuUon. 

Nearly all ot the world'• ..,.-procluclnS nadone subsidize productiOn, 

and '10 nadone export ..... 'lble protection_...,.. production that 

ml&ht not OChenrlee lab piiiCe llld ~ world prlcea. Lower world 

mariGet prices~ conUiued protecllon- pemments attempt to 
Domestic Sweetener 

Production and 

Consumption Has 

Changed 

The Domestic Sugar 

Industry 

225 

Insulate their producers from the world market. These lower world prices 

have benefited countries that buy sugar on the world market and harmed 

the development of export markets for efficient producers. 

Although many countries sttempt to shield their sugar producers from 

potentially erratic world prices, according to USDA, several factors have 

reduced world price volaUllty In recent years. These factors include 

(I) developed countries' purchases of world imports have fallen by half, 

reducing the chance for world prices to be "bid up• because 

Jess-developed countries do not have the financial resources of developed 

countries; (2) the number of substitutes for sugar have Increased; (3) most 

oCtile world sugar trade occurs st the world price, rather than at premium 

prices under speeial agreements; ( 4) sugar production ma)o be more 

responsive to price signals because of increased prlvati•ation; and 

(6) some countries, such as Australia, are liberalizing their sugar trade 

policies.' 

The U.S. sweetener market was transformed about 20 years ago by the 

lntroduetion of a process for mass-producing lltT-~. From a clearly 

commanding position, sugar has moved to one of shared import.mce wiU• 

IIFCS. JIJ'CS has gained market share because of Its competitive pricing and 

its near-perfect substltutabUity for sugar in many liquid swoet.,nt•r us.,s. 

Greater lltT.s use has come primarily st the expense or sugar imports: 

Domestic sugar produetion has increased even as Increased use of this 

substitute caused sugar consumption to decline. 

Both cane and beet sugar are produ<:ed In the United States, each 

accounting for approximiltely one-half of domestic production. Sugarcrun• 

is grown on an estimated 1,706 farms in Florida, Louisiana, Tt•x:L<;, ru1d 

Hawaii. Beets are grown on approximately 13,731 farms in 14 st:.tos. Sugar 

from the cane and beets is extracted by 42 cane mills and 36 

beet-processing factories. Some cane sugar millers grow tlwir own cane, 

and it is common for fanning cooperatives In both sugar S<.'Ctors to grow 

and process their own sugar. Beet sugar Is transfom~ed dircclly into 

refmed sugar by the beet processor. Sugarcane is typically mill<-d into raw 

It 'SUA nolt'd that~ t•orfndtnl ufvariM.iun fur Slll(lU' priN~ (a 11'1('2."\U'\' oh<ariahilily llt:11 ,,.n~,. fm111 

Oto I) hal falll'n from0.78bl.'lWffn 1!16010 1!181 to0.:\4 bc>tw~•t•nl!l.li:! amllH!II. t'SflA st.;ltt•d lllill llw 

variability ofthl' wurld supr prlt't In tlw h•t dl't'adt• waalowt·r t.han l.ht• \'ll!'lallillly ~·ftlw -·••rhl11rit·~·!4 

oiC'CII'ft, rtc.o, soybe-ans, and wht'at hMwt'f'n JOOO aod 1981 . 

.... 11 
226 

sugar then Rnt to one ot 12 rellneries where it Is further processed into 

refined sugar ready ror consumption. • 

Cane sugar production in the United States increased about 26 percent, 

from about 2. 7 miWon short tons in the 1980181 crop year to about 

3.4 miWon short tons in the 1991192 crop year (see fig. 1.1 ). Over the same 

period, harvested acreage increased more than 24 percent, and USDA 

expects 1992/93 acreage to be more than 10 percent higher than it was in 

1989/90. 

Flgu,.1.1: Domestic Raw c.ne Sugar Production, Crop Y_,1MOII1to 1-(Est.) 

U .... UMIU .. producdon. milliOn Mon 10M 

u 

u 

~· ... 

u 

u 

~· u 

... 

... 

.. , ~ ........................................................................ ~. 

I I .... _ .r I I I I I Source: USDA data. 

Florida and Louisiana have expanded acreage and production, while 

Hawaiian production, which accounts for relatively little acreage, is 

'Some~ •l*l'~b' ~ftnfd b)' ...tunc It in a Cft'ltrlt\&lf undfor IIIU'litary rondilioM. raU~ 

than beln& tent. to. reftnny.,.. .. known. turbin.do IUP'· 

...... 
Flgure1.2: ""w C.ne '-

Pnlducllon by Stale, 1892 Clop YNr 

-· 

declining because of high production CO!IIs. Figure 1.2 shows an analysis 

of raw cane sugar production, by state, for the 1992 crop yeac. 

...--------- 3% 

Texas 

Florida 

Source: USOA data. 

Beet sugar production also increased about 19 percent from about 

3.1 million short tons in the 1980181 crop year to more U1an 3.7 million tons 

in the 1991m crop year (see fig. 1.3). Over the same period, harvested 

acreage increased nearly 17 percent, and USDA expects 1992193 acreage to 

be more than 9 percent higher than it was in 1989190. Additional 

production increases are likely as new technology to increase beet sugar 

recovery rates during processing become more widely available. Increases 

have not been unifonn across all beet-producing states. 

Pap 11 
u ............... ~ ...... I!MitiiDN 

.. , 

... 

... 

... 

.. , 

... 

u 

u 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

... 

~· 

-

228 

.. , ~lllllllllliiilll .. illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~l 

I I ...,._ I I I I J' 

I Source: USDA data. 

California's production has f'allen in recent years, while production in the 

Red River Valley of Minnesota and North Dakota has increased sharply. 

Figure 1.4 shoWll an analysis of refined sugarbeet production, by state, for 

the 1992 crop year. 

,_,. 
Figure 1.4: Sugar Beet ProduciJon by 

sute, 11112 crop vCorn Sweetener's 

Importance Has Grown 

229 

Cloqeul 

.. __ 

~----------------4% 

Montana 

~---------------5% 

Wyoming 

.-------------- 5% 

Nebraska 

.------------ 10% 

Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, 

Texas, Ohio, and Washington 

Idaho 

Minnesota 

L------------------ ~h~om 

L----------- Michigan 

Source: USDA data. 

HFCS is a liquld com sweetener whose sweetness is nearly identical to that 

or sugar. When Its production costs declined while sugar prices rose, HFCS 

became a viable substitute for sugar and replaced Uquid sugar in many 

produel&--pal1lcularly in soft drinks. \JSilA estimates that HFCS displsced 

nearly 6.6 million tons or rermed sugar in 1992. 

New usea for HFCS muat be found If it Is to take more or the sugar market. 

Because HFCS is a Uquld sweetener, its use In DUI)or food products is 

...... 
Low-Calorie Sweetener 

Use Is Increasing 

Sugar Consumption 

a...torl 

-

230 

limited to liquid prodUdl, prfniartly 110ft drlnb. Also, HF'CB does not have 

the same baldnc propert1ee • supr. However, In 1987 a cryBtalllne 

tructo.e -Introduced for lnduslrlal.e In some "niche" producta such 

u ftawred braktut drlnb. tJBDA olllclals told us that fUrther 

development of lhe product eould cauoe sugar to lose more market lhare. 

The consumption oflow-alorte sweeteners (such as aspartame and 

sacclwtne) hu lncreaed alnce 1981. Consumption oflow-calorle 

sweetener~~, on a supr-equlvalent basis, Increased from about 6 percent of 

total U.S. sweetener consumpUon In 1980 to nearly 15 percent In 1991. In 

addition, eucnloee, a new artillclll sweetener pending Food and Drug 

Admlnlstral1on ~ hu 110111e clwacterlstics more like sugar than 

existing art.lllclal sweeteners. Sweetener analysts. however, do not 

consider low-calorie sweetener~~ to be direct substitutes for sugar because 

low-calorie oweetener uae ls dictated more by dietary preferences than by 

price. 

Relined supr sales peaked In 197311 11.5 million short tons. As shown in 

ftgure 1.5, relined supr.e awnced about 10 million tons between 1975 

and 1980, and then dipped to 9 miWon tons In 1981. Thereafter, 

consumpUon steadily declined for several years u com sweeteners, 

particulady IIJI'Ql, dlsplaced supr. As I~ to H~ slowed, sugar 

consumption roae to 7.6 million short tons in 1987 from a low or 

7.2 miWon In 19116, laqjely becauoe ofpopuls!Jon and income growth (see 

llg. 1.5). Consumption In 1992 Is eatlmlted at 8.9 million short tons and is 

expected to continue to rioe alowl;y • 

...... 
__ , 

-

231 

Flgln 1.1:-.._IIIII Com-c-..pllon. 11"/SC 

12~ ............. 

" 10 

------------------ ...... 

: ~:.========~:.~~:::::.-~.~~-·--······-································ 

1m 

-- ,.,. 

Sugar hnports Have Fallen 

U.S. Sugar Policy 

... - 1107 ... 

Willi increased sugar production and decreased total demand for sugar, 

lmpo1111 feD aa USDA restricted forelln supplies to maintain domestic 

prices. Imports for clorMSic uae feD approxlmalely 77 percent from a high 

of6.1 million ahortt.ona In 1977 to a taritr-rale Import quota or about 

1.4 million oltort t.ona In llacal year 1993. 

According to USDA, this decline In Imports has been a Jruijor contributing 

factor to lite decline oC lite U.S. cane relining Industry. Ten refineries, 

representing 35 percent oCihe U.S. refmlng capacity have closed since the 

Implementation of the current sugar program, according to USDA. 

Except for several periods of reduced government Intervention from 1975 

to 1981, lite United Slates has been Involved In lite domestic sugar market 

atoce lite 1700s. At that time, tari1Js on Imported sugar were used to 

Pqe17 
Current Program 

Established in 1981 

The Loan Program 

Provides a Price Floor for 

Sugar 

232 

supplement the federal treaoury. Since then, the United Slates has used 

various prognms to protect the ~c sugar lndustty, but raising 

revenue through Import tarilfs Ill no longer a goal of the program. 

Toda,y's sugar program was established by the Agriculture and Food Act of 

1981, and mocWied by the Food Securicy Act of 1985 and the Food, 

Agriculture, Coneenatlon, and Trade Act of 1990. Designed to operate at 

no net cOiit to the govemment, the sugar program provides VSDA with three 

tools to support the domeBtlc sugar lnduotty: a nonrecourse loan program, 

a tarlll-nte bnport qu-, and do~ IIIIU'keting allotments. Cane and 

beet proceMOn llao pay allllllketing UBe11811\e11t to the Cornmodicy Credit 

Corporation (CCC) for the sugar they process. 

The sugar program supporlll producers by using a loan program intended 

to guarantee producers a minimum U.S. IIIIU'ket price for their sugar. 

However, the lo8n program Ill suppoaed to operate without a coat to the 

govemment. Raw cane sugar and relined beet sugar are used as the 

co11ater111 for lo8na oblalned from VSOA. 'l1le processors that borrow the 

money pay growers for their cane and beeta UPOO delivery to the 

JII'(ICeSIIIng facWcy. Growers generally receive 60 percent of the loan at that 

time, but lndMdual ~vary by conllact. After the proceBIOJ' 

has sold the sugar, It makes allnal payment to the grower on the basis of 

the price at which the sugar was sold.' 

Loans INIJ be taken out for up to 9 months to allow processors to pay the 

growers and store the proce88ed sugar rather than sell It in the market at 

lwvest. 'l1le louw are a low-lnten!:st source of operating capital that allow 

~to hed&e .,.mat low market prices by storing sugar rather than 

sellln& it. When the sugar 18 BOld, the procesBOr repsy8 the loan to VSDA. 

Moat Important to producer&, the loan program sets a gusranteed 

minimum price because~ can simply forfeit their sugar-which 

Ill the lo8n collater1II-W the USD.\ as full satJsfiCtion of the obllgstions of 

the loan. 'l1le loan ,_ Ill the minimum support price for sugar. Processors 

would have an economic Incentive to forfeit their sugar rather than repsy 

-·· 
Import Restrictions Allow 

USDA to Support Prices 

and Prevent Loan Losses 

Marketing Allotments May 

Be Necessary to Support 

Prices 

~· 

-

233 

the Joan lithe market priet' is not sufficient to l't'CO\'er Joan int<•n•st 

paymenla and the additional costa involved in scUing lhe sugar. Bc~ausc of 

the program's no-net-cost provision, ''"llA has to use all avaiL>blc authority 

to keep prices high enough to prevent forfeitures. The Import quota has 

been the tool to accomplish this. 

Curmltly, cane millen can borrow an average or 18 cents p<'r pound for 

raw cane sugar, while beet proceosors can borrow an averag~ of 2.'l.3 cents 

per pound for refined beet sugar. Legislation requires that ' '"llA support 

suprbeets at a level that is "fair and reasonable" in relation to the loan 

rate Cor sugarcane. 

To prevent loan forfeiture, which risks a cost to the gon•mnwnt, t'SI>A uses 

a tariff-rate import quota to restrict Ute supply of fort'lgn raw ram• sugar. 

By reotrlcting Imports or lower-priced sugar, t:SI>A supports dmm•slic sugar 

prices. A tariff-rate quota pennlts a limited level of import.• at a low tariff 

level Any imports beyond that level are &.'!Sessed a sccond·ti~r tariff. 

Under the tariff-rate quota, foreign countries may exce<>d Ut~ir quota, but 

they must pay a Ukents-per-pound tariff on additional .Ugar sold in the 

U.S. The tariff is high enough that t:St>A expects less than 1,000 tons of 

additional sugar imports. 

Each year ~SDA esllmates the domesllc production and drnuutd for sugar 

and the level of supply that would ke<-p domestic prices at a h•V<'I 0131 

discourages producera Crom forfeiting sugar to rsnA. rst>A consults wiUt 

the Sugar Working Group to determine how much sug.v to hntH>rt. Tite 

Sugar Working Group is composed of repf'('S<'ntati\'l>s of \'arious CX(!<'UI i\'<' 

agencies with an interest in the sugar program ~ l"Sl)A \LilieS tJ1is input to 

establlsh a final import quota. The United States Trade llt•pn•s.-nlative 

then allocates individual quotas to traditional foreign suppliers, l;trgt•ly on 

the basis of their percent share or u.s. imports in Ute 1975-81 l>t'll<XI. 

Under the 11100 farm legislation, foreign sugar producers and tionlt'stk 

cane n!llners are assured that estimated imports will not f;~l hPiuw 

1.25 million short tons of sugar. If estimated Import rtoqnirt•mt•nL< are lt•s.< 

than 1.25 million short tons for the f....-aJ year, l'Sf>A is mtnin•tltu at•li\·att• 

- - ------- - ---·- -···---··- --··-·- ·- *nwo poup t'M..UA of ntl'k-NIIJ fn..n l.ht- Ollk't' ullhr l 'nilrd S.llte"M Tnult> Ht11R-:<o•nbuiw. Ofl'in• uf 

.............. ~('.cMiflrilf:A£nn ..... , WhUJJt ..... t!('IMMitttk'J~Iiky("IJUtkil. 

NMit:U StcurityCoulk'll and front UK- (}(lpartnM'nO.nt tht-Tn....n1ry, t'cmlllM'R't', Sl;•l•·. ;a .. d 

Aafkutlu"'. 
Processors Pay a Marketing Assessment 

Objectives, Scope, 

and Methodology 

--· 

marketing allotmenta. • 'lbe allolments would permit imports to enter the 

United SIMes at the minimum 1.25 million ton level "ithout lowering 

domestic prices. t!SDA will ~ marlcetlng rights to cane mill<'rs and I>N't 

processors on the buls of historical production, production capacity, and 

ability to market sugar. Marketing allotments-which have not yet b<'<'ll 

used-will restrict the arnoW\t of domestically produced sugar and 

crystallized high fructose com syrup that each processor can st'll. 

The Omnibus Budget Reronciliatlon Act of 1900 requires that a 

nonrellmdable marketlnl assessment of 0.18 cents per pound of raw c:uu• 

sugar, and 0.193 cents per pound of refined beet sugar 1M> roll<'<'ted from 

cane millers and beet processors on each pound of sugar they nmrket. 

Using t!SnA'a Economic Resean:h Service (EllS) estimate of 1001/92 

production, this aseessment would have resulted in a collection of 

approximately $12.5 million from cane millers and $14.4 million from h<'<'l 

processors in fiscal year 1002. 

In response to a request from Congpssman Charles E. Schumer, we 

analyzed the sugar pi'O(Irtlm's effects on sweetener users and prodU«'rs, 

the potential impact of changes in domestic sweeten<'r production and 

consumpdon, and the effect of pending intematlonaltrad£' agrcenwnts on 

lhe program's operation. 

To understand the PJ"'OI'88II and the Industry, we spoke with 

representatives of I :!IDA's Agricuhural Stabilization and C'otLo;('l'\'lltion 

Service (ASCS), EllS, and Foreign Agricultural Scn.i<'t'. We SJ'uk<• with 

officials from the OIDce of the United Stales Trade R<'P~<'S<'IItatiw,tlw 

International Tradt> Commission, and thP World Bank. 

To"'""""' the Impact of the sugar program on sw<'Ct<'n<'r tL"'"'· '"" identified and analyud economic sludies of the ll.S. sugar pn•~nun. ,,,..,.,. 

studies were conducted by l"arious uni\·ttrsitit"S, agriculttlral n•s<•:trdt 

institutions, and F.RS or Otl,Pr govemntf'llt 81Cil<'if'R. IJN-aUS(' lltt•st• St\ltllt•s 

covered ..arlk>r tim" pl'rlods, ""'also perfol'llll'<l our 0"" ru~'liysl.• for"""'' 

r«enl years. using tl'ChniqtteS similar tO thooe ll!led ill till' <'('OUomiC 

studi<'Siltat mPaSUred the welfare t>fl'<'<'ts of tiK' sug.v1•m~r:un. As 

n<"CCSSafY, we intt'l'\ie'A't'd rt'S("aR."IK"rs \\110 had conduch'tl smm• uf tht.• 

studi("S \\'f' US('d, In our analysis. wr ("Stimat('(l thr cost tu lht· hu~'l·n- uf 

_______________ , __ , _ .. _,_, 

"'\1-0UA.;BUIIl"thc-Martwti~CAUntnM"ftfln~port F.14inu.lt•(,.1.-\U·:,,.,,.,,.autt .. lm doo·I:O:"•;.o 1 "''"·•"-•· tl/0. 

MJnwruftJKoimiW.., n<q~dtNIM'flt """"· 11M• runuula Cur ''"''"''1111Hh' l" a ... r,oJJo,,., ~1:\il: • (n•;u.;tmahlt•c•ncliuiC llltlll'kl'l • c·nu!Otlllll•liun) · (l~t•ICitmlnll: Nhll'k"' • prutluc·uor' . 

,_ .. 
235 

raw cute IIUPI'. refined beet sugar, and HI"CS. A discussion of how we 

meaaurecl the welfare pins and la.es from the program and how we 

Incorporated lnfClnli8Uon from vartoua ltUdles into our analysis Is 

included In appondiJ: L Appendix D IIIIa the economic studies we 

revtewecL 

To further determine the pnllralll'simpact on domestic sugar users, we 

spoke with four larJe manufacturen of sugar-containing products and the 

Sweetener U11er11 AMoclMion, which represents the interests of large sugar 

users. We also reviewed relevult economic literature. 

To obtain sweetener producen' perspectives, we spoke with the United 

States Beet Sucar AMoclMion, the American Sugarbeet Growers 

Aaaoclalion, the California Sucarbeet Growers Association, the Hawaiian 

Sucar Planters' Aaaoclation, the American Sugar Cane League, the Florida 

Sucar Cane League, and the Rio Grande Vlllley Sugar Growers, as well as 

with cane arowera and millers In LouiAiana, Florida, Hawaii, and Texas. 

We spoke with beet arowera and proceiiiiOI8 in California and 

repreaentalivea of the American CI)'Ql Suclr Company in Minnesota. We 

spoke with repn!8elltaliYe ol the California and Hawaiian Sugar 

Company, whidlla a cooperallve retlnln& company and marketing 

III80CiaUon owned proporlionately by Its 12 member sugar companies in 

Hawaii. Wealaospokewithrepresentativea of the Corn Refiners 

Aaaoclation. We could not obtain the views lbout the program from 

domestic cute rellnera since their representatives In the Cane Sugar 

Hellner's Aaaoclation declined to meet with us. 

To determine the Impact on producen, we obtained Information from ASCS 

on 1111 sugar producen that are e1181ble to participate In the sugar program. 

Each producer that participates In the program reports total farm acreage 

and the number of acres In sugar produc:tion to ASCS. However, Hawaiian 

producers generally do not participate In the loan program and 

coosequently do not provide farm da!a to ASCS. Therefore, we obtained 

-on Hawallan producers from the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' 

Auoclatlon'a 1992 Sup lobnual. We multlpUed the farm acreage by Ens 

da!a on avenp aupreane oc ouprbeet yield per acre {by state or region 

where applicable) to determine the eatlmated lolal sugarc.ne or sugarbeet 

yield per farm. Next, we 1-.1 ERS lllalisdca on sugar recovery rates {by 

11ate or recfon where applicable) and multlpUed tho8e rates by the total 

sugarbeet or sugarcane yield per farm.' However, we did not independently 

...... 
.,..,...,, 

latrodutloa 

236 

verify the accuracy of ASCS's, ERS's or the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' 

Association's data. 

We estimated that the average per-pound benefit of the sugar program is 5 

cents. We detennined this 5-cent benefit using an average market price of 

22 cents, minus 2 cents for transportation, compared with an estimated 

a<ijusted world price of 15 cents under liberalized conditions.' (See app. I 

for the methodology used to estimate this figure.) The difference, then, 

between the average U.S. market price and a world price in liberalized 

conditions Is 5 cents. Although this analysis uses the 15-cent 

world·liberalized price that we selected for our overall welfare analysis, it 

does not employ the same methodology. Our welfare analysis detennined 

total costs and benefits to sweetener users and producers, including IIFCS. 

Our analysis of concentration of benefits, however, detennined the 

concentration of benefits among sugar producers, as well as the estimated 

benefits to a few of the larger producers. 

Since growers and procl!ssors share returns on their sugar on a 60/40 

basis, we used that ratio to determine individual farm benefits. 9 We then 

used information on individual growers in each state and determined the 

concentration of benefits on a state-by-state basis. We only considered 

cane farms that had individual benefits of $6,000 or greater and beet farms 

that had individual benefits of $1,200 or greater. Using these criteria, we 

included 1,705 cane farms and 13,731 beet farms in our analysis. 

To assess the program's future under changing domestic and international 

conditions, we reviewed analyses of the potential effects of proposed new 

agreements under the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GAlT) and 

the yet-to-be-ratified North American Free Trade Agreement (NAITA). We 

also attended International Trade Conunission hearings and interviewed 

knowledgeable representatives from USDA, the Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative, and private industry. 

We a<ijusted ligures as necessary in this report to 1991 dollars to more 

accurately compare prices and costs over time. For this adjustment, we 

used the gross domestic product implicit price deflator on a crop· year 

basis, with 1991 being equal to 1.00 . 

..,._~ dom~c markf't pi"K'e of 22 cen~ per pound is for raw cane sugar. 

~ 60140 sharina of returns Is not l'@QUired fnr participation in the program. Although this is Ole 

general level of sharin(ll, the ratio varies according to the tenns of individual contracts 

GAOIRCED-93-M Supr Procram Under Cbanging Coadition• 
a...- a 

-

237 

We conducted our work !rom September Ullll throuCh Nowmbet 11192 in 

accordance with aenenll1 aceepted pemment audltlnll-..lanls . 

..... 
288 

c 2 

Sugar Program Increases Costs to U.S. 

Sweetener Users 

Users Pay for 

Producers' Benefits 

Determination of Benefits 

We esllmale that the U.S. sugar program costs sweetener users an average 

of$1.4 billion annually. (This average ls based on estimates for 1989, 1990, 

and 1991 and accounts for users' consuming less while paying more for 

sweeteners than would occur In the absence of the program.) Although the 

sugar program ls considered a JIMlet.cost program because the 

government does not make payments directly to producers, It places the 

cost of the price supporis on sweetener users-consumers and 

manufacturers of sweetener-<:ontalnlnS products-who pay higher sugar 

and sweetener prices. 

A wide spread between world and domestic sugar prices makes it more 

di!Jicult for domestic manufacturers of sugar-<:ontaining products to 

compete against lmporis that contain sugar purchased at the world market 

price. This has led to an Increase In lmporis of these products. However, 

U.S. manufacturers of sugar-<:ontaining products can stiU be competitive in 

the export market by using a progrsm provision that allows them to buy 

sugar from the world market as long as it is used in products that are 

exported. 

The sugar progrsm, like many other commodity programs, has the goal of 

supporting producers' incomes and stabllizinS prices. In some other 

commodity programs, however, such as those for wheat and com, the 

funds used to support producers come directly from the U.S. Treasury. For 

these commodities, the difference between the target price (what the 

Congreas says fanners should receive) and the higher of either the support 

price or market price ls paid directly to farmers in the form of deficiency 

paymenta. In contrast, the sugar program places the cost of supporting 

sugar producers on U.S. sweetener users through the higher prices created 

by restricting the supply of low-priced world market sugar on the U.S. 

market 

Under the sugar program, producers' incomes are supported primarily 

through higher prices that users pay for sugar. The price support is 

implemented through a loan progrsm and import restrictions. 

To operate the progrsm at no cost to the government, USDA attempts to 

keep market prices high enough to dissuade producers from defaulting on 

their loans and forfeiting sugar to the government. USDA maintains that to 

prevent defaults, the market price must be high enough for producers to 

recover the (1) basic loan rate, (2) cost of transporting raw cane sugar to a 
T-2.1: lfypolllellcoll-.n 

Colculllllon for-- c.ne Sugor 

Annual Average Cost to 

Users Is $1.4 Billion 

289 

co..- _....,__c- a .. u.L -IJOOio 

refiner (marlretin& ezpeswe), mel (3) In-expenae !or sugar placed 

under lOUL AceordJnl to lliiDA, prices miiR be high enolll!h to prevent 

!orfehure In the llel8 with the hlsheat coeta. As a result, all other areas are alao protected trom the rl8k of !Oifelture. H,ypothetically, ao illustrated in 

table 2.1, I! a Florida cane miller wanted to put raw cane sugar under loan 

for 9 months, the market price 9 months later would have to be about 2.4 

centa per pound higher than the loan rate to prevent the miller from 

de!aullfnl on the loan.' 

-olprloe 

Rorida e.ne loon rate 

l-e-(9mon1ho a1 Jan. 1993 CCC rate) 

Tronopor~allon Requlrlld f)rice --· 9 montholalar --

17.99 

0.51 (17.99x3.75% x 9/1 2) 

1.90 

20.40 

To prevent domeatlc prtcea from railing below the forfeiture level, USDA 

estlmatea the d~c demmd and supply for sugar at a price thst avoids 

forfeiture& mel then uses the tarUf-rate quota to restrict !on!ign supplies 

and keep domestic prices above the !Oifelture level. 

We reviewed a number of economic etudles to detennine how much the 

sugar program lncreaaed the cost of aweeteners !or U.S. users. Using a 

methodology similar to llloee of sevenl other etudles meaourlng the 

welfare elfecta of the sugar program. we estimated the program C<lSt to 

users between 1989 and 1991.2 Our lll&lysle Indicates that the user cost ovel' the period ranged from approximately $1.1 billion to $1.7 bUIIon 

annually (In 1991 dollan), aalhown In table 2.2. 1bla cost includes both 

the COIIt of IIUppOrted sugar mel 1tm1, wboee price Is alao protected from 

world marlcetsupr prtcea becal.elt laa.m.dtute !or supr. In addlllon 

to c:oa4» resullfnl from purchaalng lll8her-Prlced sweetenen, these 

eatimatee Include IJOclal welfare 1oeaes that occur because of the reduced 

consumption of aweeteners resullfnl trom the program's price supports. 

Chapter 3 contains lnfonNIUon on how llloee COlla are dlstdbuted to 

producen. 

1

Since GUt« fldon. ad ............ ~ ftllll' Jaftueacethe ~ cll!cWon 1D detauft. \he defllultpriceblti*~IIWIC.bec::onlldereda~ane. · 

1,\ppl.llnd U ~tbe ........._we .-din our....,.Md the..._ we reviewed. 

..... 
Table 2.2: Eotlmotoo of Uoor Coot 

240 

---C..toU.S. 

-Uoen 

~· 

Dotlars in billions 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1989-91 average 

User costa 

$1.38 

1.72 

1.06 

$1.39 

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show recent raw cane and refined beet sugar prices. 

Figure 2.1 shows that between 1988 and 1992 monthly prices for raw cane 

sugar ranged from 6.6 cents per pound above the average loan rate in the 

second quarter of 1990 to 3.1 cents in the second quarter of 1992. 

FlguN 2.1: - C.. Sugar Prlcoo and Loon Rotoo, OUOr1ofty Dolo, Flocol Yooro, 111118-112 

.... .,.... ......... .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

IU 

.... 

1U tu-------------------------------------------

17.1 

,, .. ~11111111111111~11111111111111~~111111111111~~11111111111111~~1111 ... 11M 1.. 1- 1111 1112 

-- Source: USDA reported quar1erly rw~~ cane prices, duty-paid, New York . 

...... 
.. ...... _ ., 

.. 

.. 

• 

'II 

.. 

.. 

.. 

.. 

241 

a...-• 

._.....,_-~ .. v ... -t-. 

F'lgure 2.211howa !bat, owr the arne period, monthly relined beet sugar 

prices ranged between 9 centa above the average loan rate In the third 

quarter o( 1990 to 2 cenlll above the average loan rate In the third quarter 

of 1992. Some lnclulcJ7 ~ maintain that lower prices dl11ing 1992 

occurred beaua tJ8DA had .no-d auppUes to increalle with tarUI'-rate 

lmpolt quot.u that were luger tiwl neee.uy. USDA attributed the declines 

to the rece.lon'almpact on sugar 111e, tlllde expectllllons that production 

mleht be ll1alh« tlwt eadnW.ed, alltJrle In arr1valll or quota sugar, and an 

~t increa11e of sugar blends from Canada. 

,~----

D .............. ii .. i __ ii __ ii __ i __ ii __ i __ ii __ ii __ i __ ii __ ii __ i ____________________________ ll~llllllllllllll~llllll ~--------~ .. 

~ - - - - ---Whatesale rtfned bMt ~price. 

-- A~IOWirMe~refinedbeel~ 

SCU'ce: USilA rac,xwted quanerty whOieslle ,.,ined beet augll' prices, Midwest market 

Periods of hiCher domestic pricel provided an additional source of 

support to sugar producera but contributed to the user c.- of the 

program. Our economic aMiysla retlecta a decline In user costs and 

producer benellta when the gap between the forfeiture level and the 

.... ., 
Program Limits 

Domestic 

Competitiveness of 

Manufacturers of 

Sugar-Containing 

Products 

242 

~· _._....r.a-c-oou.s. --lloen 

domestic market price narrowed between 1990 and 1991 as domestic 

market prices fell. 

Sweeteners are used In a wide array of products, not only as sweetening 

agents but also as preserving or fermenting agents In processed foods. 

Because of sugar's use In many food products, such as candy, confections, 

and bakery goods, the price of sugar Is an Input cost. Therefore, domestic 

manufacturers of sugar..:ontslnlng products generally oppose the supply 

restrictions Imposed by the domestic sugar program. The program denies 

them access to world-priced sugar, which has been cheaper than domestic 

sugar throughout the life of the current program. Between 1988 and 1992, 

annual average U.S. raw sugar prices were between 10 and 12.5 Cfnts per 

pound higher than world raw sugar prices. For example, for every !().cent 

U.S. sugar price premium, a foreign product containing 3().percent sugar 

would have a cost advantage of 3 cents per pound of producl 

Many factors, Including the price of sugar, affect the cost of 

sugar-containing products. Supported sugar prices place domestic 

manufacturers of sugar-containing products at a competitive disadvantage 

against those foreign-made products sold in this country. We reported in 

1988 that although import restrictions were Imposed on certain 

sugar-contslnlng products, imports of other types of sugar-containing 

products had increased substantially since the start of the sugar program' 

In addition, we reviewed economic studies that show greater imports of 

sugar-contslnlng producls are associated with domestic sugar prices that 

are high relative to world sugar prices. 

Two of the four manufacturers of sugar-cootalnlng products we spoke 

with said that the sugar program provided some beneficial price stability, 

but that given a choice, they would endure greater price instability in 

return for a lower average cost of sugar. None of the manufacturers we 

spoke with believed that the program provided Improved access to better 

quality sugar. While each of these manufacturers told us they have tight 

quality requirements for sugar, they also said that domestic refiners have 

been able to meet the needs of manufacturers regardless of their source of 

raw sugar. 

To allow U.S. manufacturers to stay competitive in the world markets, the 

Secretsry of Agriculture initiated the Sugar-Containing Products 

illf. ProJnm: Issues Related tD ImportaotSusar-Containinl Products (GAOIRCED-88-146, June 22. I . 

~·· GAOrtCEO.ta.a.t 8qa;r Pro&ram Uader Chanlinl Condltloa• 
Conclusions 

Agency Comments 

---c-. --· ... o.a. --

Re-Esport Program In 1984. The esp~ purpoee of the re-ecport 

propam Ia to f!IUIUI"e the competl~ of U.S. ~talnlng 

produds In the world marlret by perlllltUna manufacturer~~ of these 

producta to purdlue 11JPr Inn the world marlret outside of the quota 

lllld without a16-cent wur • J.ooc aathe product Ia ~within 18 

rnontha. Aecordinl to VIDA'S Fon!iCn Acriculture Service, without the 

re-uport prosrun, U.S. ezporta of ll!pr<OIItainlng producta would 

geneniJy not be competitive with folelln produebl that uae world-priced 

sugar. 

While sugar prices have fallen over the Jut aeveZlli years, the loan program 

111111 conllnued to operate at no nekoat to the government. However, even 

with lower prices, then!- still a $1.4 billion coat to sweetener users. 

Put of the coat of the llJPr program Ia borne by domestic manufacturers 

ofproduds that contain IIJPr. Higher 11JPr prices place manufacturer~~ of 

cerUin produds at a competitive dlaacMntlge with overseas 

manutacturera that can biQr sugar Inn the world market lllld ship augar 

contalnln8 producta to thla country. A re-export program was Initiated so 

that domestic manufacturer~~ of these produds could be competitive In 

export macketa. 

ln commenting on a draft ofthla report, tlllllA aatd that the COSIS and 

beoellta derived uainC l88lll1lp1iona of~ policy alternatives are 

well within the nnse of moat reeeucb. Further, IJSDA stated that the basic 

melhodoloCf for obtaining welfue eaUmatea Ia IOUild, aa are the data. 

1'1nally, tl!IDA noted that the equilibrium price of 20.6 cents per pound is 

also reaaonable. 

-· ---OMor"""-c-u-
C ter3 

Sugar Program Provides Concentrated 

Benefits to Few Sweetener Producers 

Table 3.1: Eatlm1t11 of Producer 

Gelna. Foreign Exporter Gain•, end 

De-ghtLOIO 

Sizeable Benefits Go 

to Few Sugar Farms 

By keeping the domestic price of sugar higher than it would otherwise be, 

the U.S. sugar program provides sugar producers (growers and 

processors) with an aven~~~e of $561 million in benefits annually. This is 

less than one-half of the $1.4 billion in user costs. Some of the remaining 

user COIIta go to HFCS manufacturers or foreign countries that export their 

...-sugar to the United States. n.e rest of the user cost is considered a 

net !008 to society that n!IIU!ts from program incentives that lead to an 

inemcient allocation of productive resources (deadweight loss). 

The benefits that go to growers are concentrated among a relatively few 

large farms. Because benefits do not come from tax dollars, sugar program 

beneficiaries are not subject to payment limitstions as many other USDA 

commodity programs are. Table 3.1 shows the producer and exporter 

benefits and the deadweight loss of the sugar program. 

Dollars In millions 

Suger HFCS 

p<od- rNinufKturer Eaporter Deadweight 

v •• , golnl gelna gains loss 

1969 $597 $551 $116 $114 

1990 650 677 241 150 

1991 435 417 141 65 

Averaie $561 $548 $166 $110 

Soufce: GAO analysis of USOA dala. 

Growers and processors share the $561 million in benefits, with growers 

generally receiving 60 percent and processors receiving 40 percent. The 

benefits that go to growers are concentrated among a relatively few farms. 

We estimate that in 1991,42 percent of the grower benefits went to 

I percent of all sugar farms. The cane sugar industry is especially 

concentrated, with 17 of the estimated I, 705 cane farms-or about 

I percent-receiving 58 percent of ali cane grower benefits in 1991. The 

beet sugar industry is less concentrated. Still, about 10 percent of the 

estimated 13,731 farms received 41 percent of the beet grower benefits in 

1991. 

Because producers include both growers and processors that split the 

program benefits generally on a 60140 basis, we separated growers from 

processors to calculate average farm-level benefits and to show the 

·-10 G.\Ot'aCED-ta-86 s...,. Pro&r .. Uader CMnaint CoadllioM 
a..-• ----..- -... hw--

dlmlbutlon ofcN.e beiiOftla. 'lbelie are COII8e!IWIIw. estlmatea because 

many large ane arowera own their own mlll881ld many beet gro...,... are 

memben ofprooeaolng ~ Proclucen that are vertically 

inf.ellnlted realize ll'Uter JlftlfiAIII benellta. We only considered cane 

Carma with Individual benellta of t6,000 and abaft, and beet Canna with 

Individual benelllll oU1,200 and U>ooe. 

Table 3.21hows that In .U aupl'i)roduclne atate1, the benefits received by 

the top 20 pen:ent of tanns n&1lfe rrom 47 .s percent 1n Ohio to 86.8 percent 

In Florida. The diiCrlbullon fl&w-e.lhow how each state's beneflta are 

llwed 11m0111 that at.te'a tanns.1 New Medco and Wuhlngton are not 

ll.lt.ed evmlhou&h they are~-Since there are 110 few 

tanns In thele two atate1, talA lncludea their production in an •other• 

categoly to IVOid dl8cloeure of Individual operations. 

concenlntloft) ------<Le......,..-llle .._ • do not liCCOUIIl fotU. r.:tiMt ane trowen opa1t1e .... _ol more tbaft one 

-
T-U:_ol.._ ..._ .• _A-._In 

.._._... ... -. c:n.p v- 1181. 

No Limit to Size of 

Program Benefits 

246 

........... ......... 

~· p ..................... -c-.1 

UniledSialao 

Cllnakllll 

--

Florida _..,. cane 

Toxaacana 

Oregonbeol 

--

Neb<aakabeol ~-

Louloiana cane 

Mlc:hlganbeol 

~aciobeol 

Ohiobeel 

Toxaabeol 

Monlanabeol 

MIMosclabeel 

Wyoming bee! 

North Oakcla beel 

Upper 

1'!1. 

Upper Upper ~ 5'!1. 10% 

41.7'!1. 54.1'!1. 63.2'!1. -

74.7'!1. 

58.4'!1. 78.8'!1. 83.8'!1. 89.1% 

9.9'!1. 27.3'!1. 40.7'!1. 58.4% 

35.2'!1. 65.8'!1. 76.3'!1. 86.8% 

17.4'!1. 34.5'!1. 45.3'!1. 60.7% 

15.8'!1. 30.1'!1. 41.7'!1. 57.7% 

12.4'!1. 31.9'!1. 46.0'!1. 63.1'!1. 

10.3'!1. 26.7'!1. 39.3'!1. 55.9% 

9.9'!1. 24.8'!1. 35.9'!1. 51 .8% 

9.0'!1. 25.9'!1. 39.4% 57.8% 

8.2'!1. 26.0'!1. 40.5'!1. 59.3% 

8.5'!1. 21.6% 32.6'!1. 47.4% 

7.8'!1. 20.4'!1. 31 .3'!1. 47.3% 

7.6'!1. 20.0'!1. 31 .2'!1. 47.4% 

6.9'!1. 21.4'!1. 33.4'!1. 50.6% 

6.4'!1. 19.9'!1. 32.0% 49.8% 

6.1'!1. 19.1'!1. 30.6% 47.4% 

5.3'!1. 16.9'!1. 31 .1'!1. 49.0% 

.., 1991, 12 c:ompeniel and 1 cooperative in Hllwlii produced about 724,000 tons olaugar. or lboul21 percent Cllll domeltic cane augat. The six largest producers accounted for 72 percent 

ci-'lproducllon. 

Unlike USDA commodity prosrams that provide direct payments to 

producers, the sugar propam does not subject benefiCiaries to payment 

Umitat.lons. For example, we estimate that one farm received over 

$30 miWon In benefits from the sugar program in 1991. The 33\argest 

tarms---..llln Florida or Hawaii-received over $1 million each in 

estimated benefits from the program that year. These 33 farms, which 

represent 0.2 percent of all sugar·produclng farms, received approximately 

one-third of the entire estimated f811ll-level benefits from the program. 

The Congn!as set the payment Umitat.lon on most other program cropa in 

19111 because of concerns about large payments to farm operators and the 

overall cost or federal farm proiiJ'lUIIS. Sugar producers, however, are not 

subject to payment Umitat.lons because they do not receive a direct 

payment from the government Because there is no Umit on program 

...... 
Higher Costs or Producing 

Sugar in Some States 

Reduce Returns 

._ ~· ....... -~ --,...--

benefits, eome Individual producers realize annual benellts of miiUons of 

dollara. 

Table 3.3 ahowathe dlatrlbutloa orbenellta ror augar tanns according to 

the abe of the benellt. AppendiX mallows a~...tate distribution of 

benellta by the beneGt level. 

Numllerol -ol -ofiOial 

C....lllnllllla - llllormo benollto 

IMIIhln$50.000 1,336 8.7"' 4.5"' 

$50,001).$100,000 212 1.4 3.2 

$100,001-$500.000 106 0.7 4.2 

$500,001-$1 million 18 0.1 2.7 

Over S1 lriHioo 33 0.2 34.0 

c..- 1,'1'011 11.0% 48.1"' 

--- IMolhln$50,000 12.877 83.4 35.5 

$50,001).$100,000 690 4.5 10.2 

$100,001-$500,000 163 1.1 5.5 

$500,001-$1 millioo 0.01 0.2 

Over $1 miUioo 0 0 

......... 1:1,731 18.0% 51.4"' 

~- 11..- 100.0% 100.0% 

Nolo: TCIIalo moy 1101 odd duo"' ,_g . 

.We l!8llmate that In 1991the mean farm benefit trom the program was 

$130,000 ror eane r.um.. The beneGta for beet farms ranged from a mean 

of t6,000 In Ohio to S36,000 In Callfomla. 'Dle8e benefits are the amounts 

8J'O'Welll can earn beyond the amount they would earn wlthoutaaugar 

piOIInlt\ and do not~ repll!llel1t prollta. 

The baleflto from the augar Jli'OIIJlU11 are not necesaarily profits; prollto 

depend OlleoMa ol production and eftldency. The COlt of producing sugar 

vutee from eane to beet, from one J:e81oo olthe country to anolher, and 

from J)I'IICiooer to producer. Producen lhat have lower coats of production 

and 11re more eftldent reallze 8leafet prollta than othen that are 

lneftlclent and have hJ8h« eoMa ot production. 
Table P.-Jon,A 3.4: A-__ Coeta o1 ,_, 

anc1 R-on-toru.e.c-, u.s.-.- c.n.Produclng ..... 

Acconlina to USDA's EllS, the average cost of producing and processing 

cane SUIU' In Teus wu 23.84 centa per powld between 1986 and 1990. 

Using an awrage market price (198&00) of22.2 cents per pound, Texas 

producera, on average, lost money.• However, producers in Florida, whose 

costs of production over that aaine period were, on average, 19.07 cents 

per pound, realized poelllve relums. By selling their sugar for 3 cents per 

pound above their eaUmaled costs of production, Floridians had an 

avenae prollt IIIUIIin of 16 percent. M shown In table 3.4, the f>.year 

average (1986-00) prollt margin for wholesale relined beet sugar was 

23.6 percent, while the average return for raw cane sugar was 12.3 percent. 

nUa table also shows average costs of production and average returns on 

sales for cane and beet, and Individual averages for each of the four 

cane-producing stales. 

Aw.-gernarkat 

prtca (1!111&-10) Retumon111e• 

U.S. raw cane average 19.754ftb. 22.19t)lb_ 12.35% 

u.s. retlnod beet -aoo 21 .49t/lb. 26.56¢11b. 23.59% 

Florida raw cane 19.07fftb. 22 19t~b

HawaH raw cane 22.15111b. 22 1~b

Louitiana raw cane 18.74fllb. 22 19t~b

Texaa raw cane 23.114Ub. 22.19¢/lb. 

~ -.poductlon tlgurw --til 1\.t economic: CCIII~ producing (growing ond ptOCelling) IUglll', t.e., N bed, vetilb't, and adminlstratr.... COitl and include Cfedilt tor byp-IUCII--ondpolp _..,.poductlon __ _ . Soo _ _ NIO< a IIIng~lho 

16.36% 

0.18% 

18.41% 

-6.9% 

Although cost and returns estimates ma.y reveal how much producers are 

earning above their coeta, these ftgurea are not a basis for determining 

support prices. Less eflldent production is encouraged when the support 

price remainS bJ8h eJlOIIIIh to make that production feasible. For example, 

In an unprotected market, many of the 139 Texas cane farms that 

..:counted ror about2 percent of total domesUc sugar production ln 1991 

ma.y not be llble to ~ In bualneu because their costs are higher than 

OCher~ producem' costs. However, most F1orlda growers, which 

grow SUIU' on 140 farms and accounted for about 26 percent of total 

<ion8tlc SUIU' productloo In 1991, would probllbly be llble to sta,y In 

.._. T .. l..e ...,.,producers INt' haw bMn llble to com' slwir ..n.ble cml8 but not tMlr tun 

................ 

.... N 
HFCS Manufacturers 

Receive Benefits 

From the Sugar 

Program 

249 

busineuslnce lheirC0818 ofprodliCiion are comparatively low. (See app. 

m foe a -.ey..- distribution of producer benefits.) 

Some sugar producen we apoke with said that It would be dllll<:ult for 

them to 1ta;y In bualnello without a aupr procram since the lower sugar 

prices they would recel~ In an open market would probably not cover 

their C0818 of production. 11le sugar producenJthat we spoke with 

generally aupport the cunent program. 

B«auoe the sugar procram keeps domestic sugar prices higher tlwllhey 

otherwise would be, It also benefits HFCS manufscturers, whose product is 

a substitute for sugar. We estimate that the benefrts to HFCS manufacturers 

are, on average, $048 million annually. HFCS manufacturers do not pay a 

premium to com growers for com that will be manufactured Into IIFCS. 

However, 10me analyst& eatlmale that HFCS producUon benefits com 

growers becauoe It Increases the demand foe com. 

11le com sweetener indUSil)''s share of the sweetener market has 

increased subslanually since the cunent sugar prognun became 

operaUonalln 1982. In that year, com sweeteners accounted for 35 percent 

of U.S. sweetener consumption. By 1001, com sweeteners' market share 

had Increased to over 50 percenL IIFCS Is the most bnportant com 

sweetener, and It Is the primacy reason for the large increase In com 

sweeteners' market share. The price of HFCS is typically lower tlwl sugar, 

as Is its cost of prodliCiion. By providing a price floor for domestic sugar, 

the U.S. sugar procram has contributed to the sizeable increase In IIFCS's 

market share. 

11le benefits that manufacturers of IIFCS realize from the sugar program are 

highly concentrated. In 1990 the four largest U.S. IIFCS manufacturers 

accounted for 87 percent of all domestic HFCS production. This high 

concentration Is due largely to the aubslanual investment required to 

manufacture IIFCS, which discourages omallllrms from entering the 

market. In 1990 USOA'a ERSestimated lhatthecostofproducing IIFCS Was 

14 cents per pound. Between 1986 and 1990, the average market price for 

~ was 19.88 cents per pound, reau1tlng In an estimated return on 

production C0818 of 42 percent for IIFCS manufacturers.• 

'UFCS65 rd'rrs to 1M Jl('n'C'ntacilf' n( (nM'tl:*' in llf'CS and i1 an indJeat.ion of illlliW\'t.'tnlW. ltf"':'S.5.~ 

.mHF(".S..t2aft'thc-twniM,j(wt)1~t'tltJtllfo"('S . 

...... 
Conclusions 

Agency Comments 

250 

Relatively few sugar and HFCS producers receive the lion's share of the 

sugar program's benefits. In 1991, about 150 farms-I percent or all 

domestic sugar ram-received 42 percent or the entire sugar grower 

benellts. Similarly, four manufacturers of HFCS shared 87 percent of the 

HFCS Industry's Indirect benefits !'rom the sugar program. These Indirect 

benellts to HFCS manufacturers, benellts to foreign cotmtrles that export to 

the United States, and the deadweight loss or the program account for 

over one-half or the $1.4 billion In user costs or the program. 

Since there is no limit to the amount of benefits that any one sugar 

producer or HFCS manufacturer can receive from the sugar program, some 

large sugar producers and HFCS manufacturers realize millions of dollars in 

program benefits each year. 

In commenting on a draft or this report, USDA indicated that the 

methodology we employed was reasonable. 

,.,.,. 
251 

C ter4 

Changing Domestic and International 

Conditions May Require Program Changes 

Changes in 

Production and 

Consumption May 

Make Today's 

Program Design 

Outmoded 

73-729 - 93 - 9 

Current trends in domestic sweetener production and consumption may 

require changes in the way the sugar program ls opersted. If domestic 

production continues to increase, It will become difficult for USDA to keep 

prices high only by controlling imports. USDA may also have to limit the 

amount of domestic sugar sold in the United Ststes in order to maintain a 

minimum level of imPorts and to continue to support domestic sugar 

prices. However, thls may cause further problems in addition to those that 

have already resnlted from the program, such as disruptions in supplies 

and stress on some domestic producers. 

in addition, pending international trade agreements could eventually cause 

changes in the U.S. sugar industry. Under NAFTA and under proposed new 

agreements for GATI, Import quotas that support the domestic sweetener 

industry could be ultimately eased. NAFI"A has not received final spproval, 

and negotiations under GATI are stalled because of disputes over certain 

Issues, including liberalizing trade in sgriculture products. According to 

USDA, the currently proposed agreements will not have any near-term 

e!Tects on its ability to shield U.S. sugar producers from increasing 

Imports. Nevertheless, an eventual movement toward a more open market 

would require changes in the domestic sugar industry in order for it to 

compete in the long term with increasing amounts of lower-priced 

Imported sugar. 

The minimum support price and financial liquidity provided by USDA's loan 

program, together with productivity Improvements and less atiractive 

prices for alternative crops, are contributing to increases in domestic 

sugar production. These increases, coupled with only slowly increasing 

sugar consumption, may prevent USDA from operating the program in the 

future as It does today. If domestic production continues to increase, USDA 

will need to further lower quota Imports of raw cane sugar to keep sugar 

prices above the forfeiture level. 

Because sugar producers face no limit on the amount of benefits provided, 

and because they are guaranteed a minimum price for every pound of 

sugar produced, some sugar growers may benefit by putting more land 

into production. In fact, despite a decline in both raw cane and refined 

beet sugar prices, USDA expects 1992/93 harvested cane and beet sugar 

acreage to be about 12 percent higher than in 1989190. 

A number of productivity advances are contributing to greater sugar 

production. For example, sugar planting and harvesting have become 

Pqel7 
Production and 

Consumption Changes 

Created Need for 

Marketing Allotments 

Marketing Allotments May 

Cause Problems 

252 

much more mechanlz.ed, cleaeuln8 the labor costa of sugar production. 

Yields may Increase u supr pnxlueera use Improved plant 1\ybrida and 

employ new techniques In sugar extraction. In the beet lnduslly, new 

molaoaee de-sugaNallon tedullques are Improving sugari>rocesslng 

recovery rues. L'SDA ~ that during 1992.113 a total of 250,000 

additional tona of sugar will be recovered using thls new teclutology. 

Sugar conswnpUon lteadlly declined 11111111986 u less expensive IIFCS 

displaced sugar. A!J losses to HFC8 olowed, sugar consumption rose to an 

estimated 8.29 million short tona In 1992 from a low of 7.35 million in 1986, 

largely because of populatlon and income growth. 

By 1990 the Congresa began to antidpate some problems as domestic 

sugar production Increased Caster than consumption, such as (I) an 

erosion of Imports, (2) l088e11 to the cane refining induslry because of 

fewer raw sugar imports, and (3) the possible lnabUicy to support prices 

merely by controlling lmporta. That year, the Congress established 

marketing ollotrnents to limit the aole of domestically produced 

sweeteners under certain conditions. lC USDA determines that anticipated 

r1SC81 year importa of sugar for u.s. consumption will be less than the 

minimum esablished level-1.25 million ton&-lhe agency wUI use 

domestic marlceting allotments to limit the amount of domestic sugar and 

crystalline IIFCS that can be sold in the United States. These restrictions are 

designed to maintain a minimum supply of imported raw cane Cor 

manufacturing by the domestic cane reCinlng lnduslly and prevent sugar 

prices from falling below the forfeiture leveL 

Marketing allotments may disrupt the normal flow of sugar through the 

economy and may Increase the delivered cost of sugar to industrial users. 

It is less clear what effect allotments wUI have on domestic sweetener 

producers. Administrative costa Cor both the sweetener Industry and the 

federal government wUI increase If allotments are used. 

A representative of the sweetener users induslly told us that allotmeniS 

wiU hurt industrial users because of the uncertalncy allotmeniS may create. 

He said that their transaction costa will Increase because they will have a 

more difficult time Corward-pun:haslng sugar. Some sweetener users said 

that costa could Increase because their normal suppliers may not be able 

to seU all the sugar that they produce and may be prevented from meeting 

contractual commitments. 1ltey said that they could go to more distant 
Impending Trade 

Agreements May 

Prevent the Program 

From Operating as 

Designed in 1981 

NAFI'A Will Ease Trade 

Barriers and May Affect 

U.S. Sugar Industry 

253 

Cllolllllll--- ~· --._n---

suppliers to purchase their sugar, but hi8ller frelSht charges will Increase 

COllis. 

It Ia not clear what e11ect marketing allotments will have on the domestic 

sweetener-producing Industry. Some USDA o111clala have noted that the 

potential for allotments may dlasuade new lnduatJy enllants and could 

affect the In-declalons of companies already In the sugar 

bum-. Allotments could particularly hurt companies that have lnvesled 

In technical Improvements that have Increased capacity and e111clency. It 

Ia poealble that less elllclent producers would benellt trom allotments 

because allotments could slow the production Increases of more e111clent 

producers. Since the 81110Wlt of crystalline JIFCS that Ia sold will also be 

restricted, the research and develOPment of products that would use 

ceysla(llne HFCS would be slowed. 

Marketing allotments will Increase sdmlnlstralive costa of the program to 

sweetener prodU<ll!lll and the government. If aUotmenta go Into e11ect, IJSDA 

may have to spend more time monitoring supply and distribution data and 

spend time veri(ylng compliance and enforcing allotments. fUrther, to 

Implement allotmenta, the Congreaa has required an Increase In supply and 

dlalrlbuUon lnformallon from the ProcesoinC lnduatJy. Industry 

participants told us that much of the lnfonnatlon Ia WUleCt!SS8IY and shlfta 

personnel from their normal dudes to data collection adiviUes. 

M the United States enters Into new lnternaUonallnlde asreementa such 

811 NAFTA and expands GATr, It will not be able to lnsu1ale Ita fanners from 

compeUUon •It has In the past. Many U.S. crops will have access to 

larger markets and pealel" sales. However, as sugar Import baniers ue 

eued In the long IWl, ~sugar may not be as compeUUve with 

sugar sold In freer markets. NArfA has not received llnal approval, and 

nesot~at~ons have not beef! completed on GATr because of disputes over 

certain 1ssues. u lhese asreementa do not receive 11na1 approval, IJSDA 

- that It will 111111 be U>le to shield U.S. sugar producers from 

.....-..g imPOrls In the near 1enn. Nevertheleaa, an eventual movement 

toward a more OPeD market would require changes In the domestic sugar 

lndustly In order f<W It to compete In the 1ong term with Increasing 

amounts of lower"Jiriced Imported sugar. 

The United States, Mexico, and Canada have llgned the NOI"th Amertcan 

Free Trade Agreement. If formally approved by adl nation, the agreement 

wiD allow greater trade among the three countries and Ia expected to 

...... 
booet their economlel over the long tenn. Under NAFI'A, trade barrlen 

would be removed (lnldually to anow countries to ll<ijust to freer market 

condiUons. The agreement will not have a near-tenn elfect on U.S. sugar 

producen, occordlng to IJSDA. 

Under the Cllm!flt NAI'I"A proposal, the United States and Mexico will 

l1!duce banten to sugar trade between the two countries gradually and 

harmonize their border protection with respect to the rest or the world. By 

the end of the l~year NAFI'A transition period, aD tarilfs, quotas, and 

licenses that act as banten to agricultural trade between the United States 

and Mexico wiD be eliminated. 

During the transition period, any additional duty-free access or sugar to 

the U.S. market beyond Mexico's cwrent quota will be conditional on 

Mexico's becoming a net surplus producer of sugar. For the first 6 yeslll or 

the agreement, duty-free access ~ not be more than 25,000 metric tons, 

raw value. If Mexico were to Increase its exporis to the United States from 

the 19921evel of 7,878 tons, the overaD U.S. Import level would not 

necessarily lncresse; rather, individual quota levels for other countries 

exporting to the United States would be lowered. In year 7 or the 

agreement, If Mexico is a net surplus producer, duty-free access will be 

Umlted to 150,000mellic tons. In each subeequentyear of the transition 

period, access willlncresse by 10 percent. This cap is replaced with 

Mexico's projected net swplus production alter 6 yean If Mexico achieves 

net producet" surplus status for 2 consecutive years. 

It ill WICiear how Mexico's sugar production and consumption will allect 

U.S. sugar pcvducers. Mexico Ia a ~uclng counlly that also 

relies on lmporis to meet domestic demand. According to a 

Sepcember 1992 USDA report on the Mexican sugar induslly, both 

expansion and conllactlon or Mexican sugar production are possible. 

Sugar production coats are higher In Mexico than they are In the United 

Slates; however, Mexico has land on which to expand sugarcane acreage, 

and coats could decline through economies of scale and Improved 

technoiCllliea, which will lncresse yields. 

According to the report, as Mexican wealth lncressea, sweetener 

consumpUon Ia expected to expand. An lncresse In Mexican sugar 

conaumpt1on could limit the ability of Mexico to become a net exporter. 

However, If HfC8 dllplacea sugar In some products, as It has in this 

counlly, COCliiUillJIIio of sugar could {all and Mexico could require less 

..... o 
Proposed GAIT 

.Agreements Could Reduce 

hnport Barriers on Sugar 

Conclusions 

256 

'-" 

~--­

__ .._._a.-

IQ(IIIr to-~ demand. Thill cculd contribute to Mexico's shifting 

from a netimpolt.er olaupr to a net exporter. 

O..llle lana run, Mexico's producllon tnnda mel ability to export to llle 

United Slalea will depend on the ftladve pro8lablllty of SIJ88I' compared 

with other cropa. The U1DA report noted that Mexico could increal!e Ita 

own Imports to 2. 7 million tons under a low procluctlon-hlc COIIIIIIJilptlo 

acenarlo. Alt.erniiiJvel¥, Mexico could haw an exportable surplus of 

600,000 tons In 19116 under a high production-low conswnpllon scenario. 

However, USDA analysle aalclthat the Ukellhood of Mexico becoming a net 

exporter of 111gar over the nat 5 yeara Ia quite low. 

Durlngllle Uruguay Round of GA'IT, the United States called for more open 

tnldinl condltlona. Asreement on this accord Is still questionable, in large 

part because of dlsputea between llle United States and the European 

Community over fann subeldlea. AIJ of Aprtl1993, the proposed agreement 

to brlna current GA'IT negollatlons to closure provides that reductions In 

internal farm supports be rne.sured on a total basis, rather than 

commodity by commodity. Consequently, ewn If a new GA'IT agreement 

baaed on llle current proposal is adopted, USDA will still be able to provide 

considerable support for Individual products such as domestic sugar, at 

least In llle sllorWenn. Howewr, a movement toward a more open market 

could make the current program Inoperable at some future date. 

Changes In domestic mel lntematlonal conditions may prevent the sugar 

prot!J'&III from operatinC as It does t.oda;v. Three trends have occurred in 

response to supported domestic sugar prices that may make it difficult for 

llle sugar program to continue to opente as it currentJ.y does: 

(1) lower..:oet corn sweetenera haw dlsplsced demand for sugar; 

(2) domestic SIJ88I' consumption has Increased only slowly, largely with 

population growth; and (3) domestic sugar production has continued to 1n<:reaae deaplte lower prlcea over the past 2 years. 1l>e recent 

bnprovements In beet SIJ88I' production and the potential for bnproved 

sugar 111bstltutes will exacerbate theae trends. Because of these factors, 

USDA may cletennlne anticipated lllcal year bnports of sugar to be less than 

1.25 mUUon tons. This would cause USDA to use marketing allotments to 

reatrlc:t the amount of domestic sugar that can be sold In this country. 

WhUe It Ia too soon to tell, lntematlonal trade agreements may cause 

program modlllcatlons over llle long tenn, since they would require a 

gradual easing of trade barriers and a reduction of intemalsupport prices . 

...... 
Recommendation to 

tlte Congress 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

256 

llecai.e at the additional ....,. .,... at the sugar program and the 

~!hat It wiD not openl.e In the future aa It does tocla.v, the 

eon,z- needs to COillllder legislation to move the oupr lndustJy towanl 

a more open market. M part of Udlllnlnllllion, the market price ror augar 

lhould be lowered To lldlleYe a lower market prlee, we recommend !hat 

the eon,z- padually lower the Joan rate ror augar and direct IJ!IDA to 

~~~lust Import quotas acccnlln8IY. Reducing the Joan rate gndually would 

lllow producen lime to make onlerly adJwlttnenta. 

USDA agreed !hat upcoming llade agreement& are likely to make the 

current program Inoperable at a future date but stated !hat there will be no 

near-term elrecta on the abll!cy at the United Statea to ahleld Ita domestic 

oupr producen from Increasing lmporta. We have Included additional 

Information 01\ GA1T and IWTA to~ thJa point. Alao, where 

appropriate, we have Incorporated VSDA'a commenta Into the bod,y atthla 

report. U!IDA'a comment& appear In their enllrel;y In appendix V, along with 

our detailed ft!IIPOII&"'I to them. 

.... 41 
257 

Appendix! 

GAO's Technical Economic Analysis of the 

Sugar Program 

Theoretical 

Framework for 

Sweetener Welfare 

Estimates 

11lls appendix discusses how GAO measured the welfare g.'lill< and los.'K'S 

from the U.S. sugar program that were reported in the body of this rt'po11. 

Under the program, producers' lncomea are supported primarily through 

transfers (in effect a tax) from users to producers in the form of higher 

prices for sugar. The U.S. Department Of Agriculture (I'SIIA) kN'ps 

domestic prices above sugar lorleiture levels by restricting the supply of 

lower-priced foreign sugar on the U.S. market through a tariff-rate im1M>I1 

quota. 

According to our estimates, between 1989 and 1991, the program n'Suited 

in average annual consumer losses of approximately $1.4 billion And 

average total producer gains of over $1 biUion. During this i)('riod, we 

esUmate rents to foreign exporters averaged $166 million annunlly, whil<• 

average deadweight losses were $110 milllon. We calculated all gains and 

losses lor the caloric sweetener market, which includes high fructose rom 

syrup (n•'t'11).

1 Manufacturers of IIFCS benefit from the sugnr program 

because they can charge higher prices for a commodity thai <'<>111J><'I<•s 

directly with sugar. Tile consumer loss and producer lx-m•fil.s for I he tolal 

sweetener market give a more accurate picture of the cntin• (•fft'<'l'i of thl' 

sugar program. 

In the first sectlon, we explain the theoretical framework I hal W<' us,.llo 

examine the welfare consequences or the U.S. sugar program. &•com I, '"'e 

discuss the data and data sources employed to obtain our <•slin••t<-s. Third, 

we present the results of the welfare analysis of the sugar progr;uu. 

To esUmale the change in consumer surplus, producer surphL<, ruulo"'l 

welfare loss from the U.S. sugar program, we employed a p;U1 inl 

equilibrium model of the U.S. sweetener market.' We <>stilwu"l g:uns ;111cl 

losses by calculaling the difference in welfare, starting from Ill<' curn•m 

U.S. program position and going to a position of essentially fr<'" markt•ts in 

SUJ&Z'. We used standard Marshalllan measures (holding mm"'Y im~unw 

constant) of producer and consumer welfare in tWs analysis sine<• 

sweeteners are generally a small part of total con.•umt'r purdmscs. Our 

anazysis employed mathematical integration to detemliue the arms of 

consumer lOllS and producer gains. In addiUon, the los.<es in li>L• ru•'llysis 

1

U8DA Inrhldrs ~ a,ymp. dntlnw, honf7, and fdlb)p syrnJII' in bftltimah"' 11f tutalt•ldurit• 

~Wf'(Vftn'l, Jktwft't'f, ft do not iiK'fude chemIn chill .... ,. bPc:iiCIPlht')' h;n•t• WI')' "J"~·ifM' <UMI 

limi~ ...,art" rM1t • ...tlfftitUI.IIhlto MJIF'(;S and IUJIW, .00 at"t"tMIPI fur a n •llltiwly "mall ~han• uf rho.· 

tslorl<' IIW<'Mf'I'K'r mlltkC't. 

'I"MliK'nltik•alfnnwwork W<> 11M' iaburdnn •Gatnaand l<~:itiM~ ofUit' t ·.:;, ,._ll~ar l'r••~Umn · 

unpublhchttrd draft hy Rt•hka MMra whikt 81 Emnnmlr ~h S.·n•it't'. ~IIA , 1!1!1(1 . 

...... 
Changes in Consumer 

Surplus and Producer 

Surplus 

258 

A&lpeodlsl 

. GAO'oT...o.leol--ol _....,.. ... 

aggregated HFCS and sugar losses.3 We calculsled welfare gains and losses 

using elsstlcity estimates developed In the lilerslure. 

In order to calculate changes In consumer and producer surplus, we 

sssumed an exponential form of the constant elsstlcity demand and supply 

equations:' 

where, 

Q., • Quantity demanded 

Q. = Quantity supplied 

e z 2.71828 (e is the bsse of the naturallogsrithmic function) 

a • a demand shifter, when linearized represents the intercept term for Ute 

demand equation 

f3 .. a supply shifter, when linearized represents the intercept term for the 

supply equation 

p zprice 

11 = the price elasticity of demand 

£ • the price elasticity of supply 

In fJgUre L I, the change In consumer surplus by going to a •no program • 

situation is the area under the sweetener demand curve and between the 

domesticslly supported sweetener price, P"' and a long-run equilibrium 

'Ocher 

~ 

analyD haw Mown tMt thEw.> total ~are n. than if sugar were the only caloric 

avan.bko for consumpUon. 

AconMant~ functional form ls<M'W' in which theei..UCityot'tupplyordemand isUIIUhK'<Illt 

be a~X~N~ant paramHH OW'f the ft'levant,... otthe runcuon. 

, ..... 
269 

world sweetener price, P,._•'lbus, we measured conoumer surplus loss 

lkom hi8her domeellc priceiJ by lntetlfallnl over the area • P ,.ai>P,. in 

f18Ure L I. The dellnlte lftte8ral, whldt repniiiC!IIts lhls area is: 

< 3) Acs-l e"p"dP 

Evalualing lkom p D to p,.: 

(4)ACS • (e"hl+l)• [P0•·•. Pw•·•]. 

We measured galna to sweetener producers by calculating the area 

between the two prlceJ, P 0 and P w• and to the left or the supply function. 

In llgure Ll, lhls area Is P 8 deP.,. We calculated the clwlge In producer 

surplus by lntegratlng over lhls area using the definite Integral: 

Evalua1lng from P 0 to P,.: 

(6) t1PS- (e'l£+1) • (P8•••. P.,•·•J. 

6

A ....,_. equill:lrlum workiiWINllmer ~ • • JJob11 pdcethl& would occur undtr rl'ft IMI'Itd aandldonl after all .U.-mertW h8ve &lken piKe. Under U.. eandttlalw, world prtct" would~ hiJhcor &hM the current world plicl chle 10 1.) .,..._ import deiMnd from countries that now •upport 

dameiUe ....-and 2.) a -.eed ...-ntkJ ol....,. produotd lftd nported b)' count liN wk.h hllh 

--.... 41 
...... L1:-ofiM.....,......,_ 

..... ~---

OAO'oT ~I ___ </1 ... 

--

Price 

0 

Quantity 

P 0 • Domestic market support price for total sweeteners 

P w • World long-run wholesale relined price of sugar 

q, - q1 • Quuttlty of sugar Imported at free lnlde price 

q, • q, • Quuttlty of q..-lmporls 

cdab • Net national loss 

edsC • Quota reniS to foreign exporters 

abf • Conawnptlon deadweight loss 

cde • Production desdweight loss 

-·T 
Calculation of Net National 

Loss, Quota Rents, and 

Deadweight Loss 

261 

Figure 1.1 also shows the net national lOllS, which consists of that amount 

Dot represented by a tnu>sfer from domestic conswners to domestic 

producers. Net national loss IncludeS two portions: that which Is lost to 

foreign exporters and deadweight loss.8 1n llgure 1.1, net national ioos Is 

area cdab. In order to calculate net nationalloos (NNL), we subtracted the 

change In producersurpiWI (&PS), area P DdcP w in figure 1.1, from the 

change In consumer surpl1111 (ACS), area P DabP .. 

(7) NNL = ACS • AI'S 

or graphically, 

area cdab = area P D*bP w - area P DdcP ..-

Renta or gains to foreign quota holders are represented in figure 1.1 by the 

area edalwith a quota quantity equal to <lo- <lo· We calculated these gains 

as the difference between the domestically supported price and the 

long-run world liberalized price times the amount of the quota imports 

(see table 1.4). 

Total deadweight loss Is the sum of the areas cde and abr in figure 1.1. The 

area cde Is a production deadweight loes and represent& the cost of 

shltting resources to pay for more expensive domestic production rather 

than to bnport additional sugar. Area abf, the consumption deadweight 

1081, represent& the loss to conswnera In the bnporting nation resulting 

from a reduction In total sugar consumption. Without the quota, 

consumers could have purchaaed quantity q, of sugar at the world price. 

We calculaled total deadweight loss (DWL) by subtracting renta to foreign 

quota holders (QR) from the net national loss (NNL). 

(8) OWL= NNL- QR 

or graphically: 

Areas abf + cde • area cdab - area edal. 

'Somt ...... .....,.. ~ Uult ...... f<fti&n quoCa l'ftD IW a dtlinlble Pllfl of the prtJII'IUI'I Mil 

~ proride • ronnotiOrefpaMI:t.o_,..,., ...... C'DMftlriea. oo.en AYihal tJU 18 • 

indlldent llaMift' .. bnl and. wom. .. at1NII)' hurt ...... -pocNd ... ~ br RYeftly 

redudnC the ....,. qunta. 'I'M panmrnt • .-tualb' a~Ptunn, a small poftkln ol Ode renta ln lhe 

lonn of a t.lrlf'f'ol0.62fi een• per pound under the Witr~ HOftWr, manJ oountriellhal. esport 

IUIIt&o the Unlled Staaftlft bfonelkiariee ollhe Genenlbfd SY*m ol Prefftl'n<.'eS or the Caribbean BMin lnitiadve and PI'Y wro duty . 

._ .. 
Data Sources for Data 

Elements 

Demand and Supply 

Elasticities Used 

262 

~I GAO'IIT_.... __ at ... 

--

We used data on sweetener dell'land and supply elutlc11¥ estimates, U.S. 

sweetener quanllt;y and price data, and the shift pamneters In the welfare 

calculallons. U.S. price and quanllt;y data are from VSDA sugar and 

sweetener publications. F'INIJy, using lnfonnallon on U.S. demand and 

supply elasticities and price and quantlt;y data, we calculated the shift 

parameters needed In the welfare analysis. 

We obtained estimates for the elasticities of supply and demand from a 

range of estimates gathered from a literature review of sweetener welfare 

models and sweetener supply and demand models. These are llated In 

table 1.1. A laJge range of dell'land elasticities were found In the literature, 

-0.06 to -0.62, depending upon whether the elasticit;y was for Industrial or 

household use, or short run or long run. The smaller elaaticllles (in 

absolute value) represent the shorter-term or single commodit;y goods, 

while the laJger elasticities (In absolute value) represent longer-term 

elasticities or combined goods (Le., augar and sweeteners). Also, 

household demand Is more inelastic, while Industrial demand Is more 

elastic. For oversllsweeteners, the demand elaaticl1¥ Is quite inelastic. We 

used -0.06 for our total sweetener demand elastlcit;y estimate because this 

elasticit;y was found In several studies, and we focused on the total 

sweetener market for this analysis. 

The range for the supply elasticities Is much laJger-!tom 0.1 to over 

2.Q-:dependlng again upon short-run and long-run elasticities. Beet sugar 

Is more supply-responsive than cane sugar because of cane's land and 

water consllaints. For this study, we used the fUll range of supply 

elasticities In our analysis as taken from the literature. The sources are 

llated al the end of this appendix. 

..... 
.....,-.... TIIIIIL1: ...... af--

Quantity Data Used in the 

Model 

263 

~· 

GAO'II ___ ..... 

........... 

Clrmen. 11182 

y,..,.,.,elol, 1986 

FTC, 11184 

Huang. 1985 

LM>gloy and Zellner, 1986 

Sudatyanto, 1987 

Un and Novick, 1966 

lord, 1966 

lopez, 1989 

Ronlngen and llixn. 1966 

ABARE. 1990' 

Marks, 1991 

-o.05 (SR)' caloric 

-..... -o.114 

-o.20 

-o.052 (houlehold) 

11167-76-o.oe 

19n-&t -o.31 

-o.62 (Industrial) 

-o.09(household) 

-o.05 (SA) 

(sweeteners) 

-o.111(SA) 

-o.597(lR) 

-o.os caloric sweeteners 

-o.122(lA) 

0.10 

0.14 

beet 0. 70 (SA) 

cane 0.11 (SA) 

beet 2.29 (LA)' 

cane 0. 74 (LA) 

0.20 

beet 0.479 (SA) 

cane 0.231 (SR) 

beet 1.201 (lR) 

cane 0.579 (LA) 

0.5 

0.6 sugar 

beet1 .701 (LA) 

calcrlc cane 0.289 (LA) 

sweeteners 

Haley. VNien, and Sigua, 1992 

Nol:t:AIIIIasticlties .,. tor .ugar except whlrt ndld othefwiae 

-short·run elasticity 

l~Long-run.,.sticity 

-o.473 

(refined) 

11Austrenen Bureau of Agrlcullurtl Resource Economics. Sturgiss. F181d, and Young. 

beet 0.37 

cane0.20 

For the tolal caloric sweetener market, we used USDA estimates of U.S. 

sugar Uld HFCS consumpUon ligures for 1989, 1990, and 1991 (table 1.2). In 

order to obtain total domestic sweetener IRJPPly, we sub1rac1ed 1he refilled 

equivalent of the raw sugar quota as well as net HFCS imports for these 

.... 10 
Price Data Used in the 

Model 

yea,.. In onler tO tranlllate··to the relined sugar equivalent, we divided raw 

supr quantities by the conversion factor, 1.07, because approximately 

7 percent of raw supr Is 1.-In the refining process. 

Product In thousands of sbort tons, dry weight 

- T- ...., Tollll OCII*Iftlllllan - -bl NeiHFCS 

y- HFCS ...., OCII*Iftlllllan lmpolb" lmporto' ·--oupply" 

1989 6.022 7,761 13.783 1.162 96 12.523 

1990 6.130 8,051 14.181 1.999 16 12.166 

1991 6.260 8.050 14.310 1.918 8 12.384 

~P~ ~aria~~i":UC:t:::'!,~g:;.:-sn os:fo ~~~ ~~~~k.!;·, ano tlfheH Nlimlltel r:J tweelener consumption and supply were calculated by GAO using the above • 

USOAiigur ... 

We calculaled the quota price premium for the total caloric sweetener 

market u the difference between a U.S. domestic sweetener price and an 

estlmaled long-run world relined price for sweeteners. More specifically, 

the quoCa price premium for the total caloric sweeteners market was the 

difference between the awrage oC the U.S. price oC urcs-42 and urcs-55 and 

wholesale relined supr ( welehted by consumption) and tl1e estimated 

long-run world relined price for these commodities.' Boch domestic and 

world prices were a<IJusted by the Gross Domestic Product-Implicit Price 

Deflator "*'11991 dollars. 

For the domestic sweeterler price, we used an average, weighted by 

consumption, oC urcs-42, H~, and wholesale relined sugar prices for 

1989, 1990, and 1991. urcs-42 and nFCS-65 prices are wholesale list prices, 

baaed on the Midwest market annual averages. 'n\e U.S. wholesale relined 

supr price Ia also the Midwest market average. Boch domestic IIFCS and 

augar prices are taken from ~'SOA Situation and Outlook documents. 

In order to calculate a world relined price, we assumed a long-run 

equWbrium world raw sugar price oC 15 cen1a per pound, which was ~by oevenl experts In the field u weU as by L'SDA documents. A 

llanlportallon rate of 1.5 centa per pound was added to this price for a 

'HP'CSa refton 1D &he ~otr~ in Hf'CS and •an indicalion olila s~. HF"CS-55 

Mel HFCS-a ~ d:w t-a ~ IWft ol HFCS. • 

...... 
Calculation of Shift 

Parameters 

Welfare Model Results 

265 

landed price of 16.5 centa per powiCI. To this price, we added a refining 

spread of 4 centa per powiCI. • This brought the eeUmaled world long-run 

wholesale relined price to 20.5 c:enta per pound. We assumed that with a 

free market In sugar, IIFill would match this price. 

The Jut piece of Information that we needed In order to calculate 

consumer and producer swplull cflan8ea were the 8lliA parameters, a and 

II. These parameters, when linearized, are the intercept tenns for the 

demand or supply equaUoos. We calculated the 8lliA parameters by using 

eaUmates of the elasticities of supply and demand, and quantities 

demanded and suppUed at the U.S. price. In order to proceed, we 

transformed the demand equation Into a Unear fonn , using natural 

logarithms: 

(9) JnQ. = a(lne) + T)(inP) 

And, alnce In( e)= 1, 

(10) lnQ, E a + TJ(inP) 

SoMngfora: 

(11) a= lnQ, + T)(inP), assuming TJ is negative. 

We solve for the 8lliA parameter for the supply equation, ~. In a similar 

fashion. The equation for II is: 

(12) p = JnQ,- £(lnP) 

Incorporating the lnfonnation on elasticities, price and quantity data, and 

ohlft parameters, we estimated conaumer loes and producer gain by 

mathematicaJJy Integrating over the appropriate areas (expressions 4 and 

6). A!J explained above, we calculated net national losses as the ditierence 

between consumer surplus loes and producer gains (expression 7). Quota 

renlll to foretgn exporters equals the price ditierentlal between the 

domestic and world relined sweetener price times the amount of the quota 

imports for the year. To oblllln deadweight losses for each year, we 

subtracted quota rents to foreign exporters from net national losses 

(expression 8) . 

.._ .. ___ .....,..u-..~CoMidou 
Estimates of Producer 

Gains and Consumer 

Losses 

T-1.3: Produ- Glllna ond 

Conoumeri.GMM forlheTotol -UoEstimates of Net National 

Loss, Quota Rents to 

Exporters, and Deadweight 

Loss 

266 

Ealimateaof<:OIIIIUIIIerJ<.a range from a high of$1.7billion in 1990to 

over $1.1 biWon in 1991. Average consumer losses for the 3 year 

period-11189, 1990, and 1991-were approximately $1.4 billion. 

We apportioned the producer gains between HFCS and sugar by their 

percent of production. Over this period of analysls, the percentage of 

production between HPCS and sugar was divided into approximately 

60 percent for each. ItA table L31hows, average gains to sugar producers 

from 11189 to 1991 repreaent about half of average totsl gains to all 

sweetener producers. Between 11189 and 1991, average gains represented 

less than one-half, or 40pereent, of the $1.4 billion average yearly costs to 

aweetenec users. Average gains to totslsweetener producers were 

$1.1 billion. Gains to HPOI producers averaged $548 million, 40 percent or 

average tots1 consumer 101111. 

1991 dollars in millions 

- Totolpn>d.- Total conaumer 

v- - ..... pin (..0.1 • 2.0) loloo(q•~ 05) 

1989 Sugor $597 $1.031-$1.234 $1 .378 

HFCS 551 1.148Avg. 

1990 Sugar 650 1.165-1.448 1.718 

HFCS 677 1.327 Avg. 

1991 Sugar 435 78().904 1.058 

HFCS 417 852 Avg. 

Average. 1989-91 Sugar 561 1.109 1.385 

HFCS 548 

Estlmated net national loss, quo!& rents for the tariff-rate quota, and 

deadweight lOllS for the years 11189, 1990, and 1991 are shown in table 1.4. 

Net national lOllS, compooed of gains to forei8JI exporters and deadweight 

looses, represented approximately 20 percent of total losses from the 

program. or the S276 million, 3-year average net national loss, 60 percent 

was transferred to foreign quota holders, while approximately 40 percent 

was sheer domestic deadweight Joss. 

...... 
T-IAHil_..__ 

........... 

,_, ~"-

Literature Cited 

267 

.._.., ___ 

_ 

__.<6 ... ...... 

111l1_1n_ 

-- llMdwelglll ,_ 

11189 

19110 

$230 

-

391 

--$116 

241 

$114 

-

150 

111l1 206 141 65 

!%:! ...... $276 $166 $110 

· Auslrallan llure8u of AcrlaJIIunl and Reeource Economics. 1990 and US 

Supt Policy Reform. ..._.,.. Piper 90.4. Canberra, Australia: 1990. 

Cannan, Hoy F. • A Trend Prqjectlon of High Fructose Corn Syrup 

Suballlu1ion for Supr," Amerk:an JoumaJ of Agricultural Economics, vol. 

6C (4) (1982): pp. 621>33. 

Hlie)', Stephen 1., Deborah A. VIvien, and Cella A. Sigua. "Sugar Polley 

Refcnn In the United tbta and the European Community: Assessing the 

Eccaomlc lqlld, • Deputmen& of AcrlaJIIunl Economics and 

Agrlbullr-, ~State UnMnit;y Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, 

Loullllana: Aug. 19Q2. 

Huan& Kuo. U.S. Demand for FocR!;!a%h'tete System of Price and Income Medii, UllDA, Bconolnle Service, Technical Bulletin 

Number 1714, Wub., D.C.: 1985. 

Jeaae, & V., and G.A. Zepp. Supt Polley Options for the United States, 

AER.361, UllDA, Economic Re8eu'c:h Service: 1977. 

Lu181eY, Sudlllda V., Md JUOM A. Zellner. "Government Intervention and 

Tedlnolotllcal Chuqre In the Sweetener Industzy: A Welfare Analysis." 

Paper pnopered for the Southem Agricultural Economics Assoclat.ion 

Collference, OrWndo, Pia.: Feb. 2-6, 1986. 

Un, WUUam Md Andrew NOYicl<. "Subaallutton of High Fructose Com 

SJrup for Sugar: Trend8 Md Outlook, • Supt and Sweetener Situation and 

Outlook Report. UBDA, Eccaomlc Re8eu'c:h Service: June 1988. 

Lopez, JUcoberto. "Polillcal Econorn¥ of U.S. Sugar Policies,· American 

JoumU of A8Jicuhur!l Economics. (Feb. 1989), pp. 2().31. ---

...... 
268 

-I 

GAO'II~--., ... --

Lonl, Ronald C. EotimallonofWelrare Eft'ectaofU.S. Sugar Policy with 

Tlme-Varyinll Panmeteta. Ph.D. D1saerta1ion, Oklahoma State University, 

Dec. 1988. 

Marb, Sl.epheJI V. "A Reaaoesomeot of Empirical Evidence on the U.S. 

Sugar Program. • Paper presented at the State Department Conference, 

"Sugar Markets In the 1990s,. Ma, 23, 1991. 

Mehra, Reldla. "Gains and Losoes from the U.S. Sugar Program." 

Unpublished draft, USDA, Economic Research Service, 1990. 

Roningen, Vernon 0 ., and Praveen M. Dixit. Economic Implications of 

~Polley Refonns In lnduolrial Market Economies. U.S. 

Department of Apleulture, Economic Research Service Staff Report No. 

AGES~ Aug. 191111. 

Sudatyanto, Tahlim. '"!be Potential Impacts of Liberalized Trade Policies 

In the United Slates 8nd the European Economic Community on 

intematlonal Markets for Sugar, • Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of 

Economlc:s and lluslneso, North Carolina State University, 1987. 

Tarr, David G. and Morris E. Morkre. Aggregate Costa to the United Slates 

oCTaritfs and Quotas on impol1s: Genenl Tarilf Cuts, and Removal of 

Quotas on Automobiles, Steel, Sugar, and Textiles. Bureau of Economics 

Staff Report, Fedenl Ttade Commiaaion: Dec. 1984. 

Vroomen, Hany L. "An Econometric Analysis of the Effects ofU.S. Sugar 

Polley on Dameatic Sugar and Rich Fruct.ose Corn Syrup Markets. • 

Master's Thesis. Department of Agrlcullllral Economics and Rural 

Sociology, Pennsylvania State Univetsity, Univetsity Park, Pennsylvania, 

Ma, 1984. 

Vroomen, Harry L., James W. Dunn, and Kenneth F. Harling. • An Analysis 

of the Eft'ecta of United Slates Sugar Policy on Domestic Sugar and High 

Fruct.ose Corn Syrup Markets," Bulletin 861, The Pennsylvania State 

University, Oct., 1986. 

...... 
269 

Summary of Economic Studies Reviewed by 

GAO 

T-L1:_CJI_ 

__ ' 

1081 danon In mlllkn 

-

~----- --- PMooiCJI-

-- l'nlducerplno NotGommin, 19n 1e74 sse 599 86 

Federal Trllde 1983 . 987 556 338 

Cor!vnlollon, 

1984 

Dlrdls and 1983 (FY) 2,520" to 3,230 1,050to 1,190 1,310 to 1,880 

Young.1985 

Llngteyand 19n-&l 1,130 597 254 

Zellner, 1986 

Leu, SchmitZ. 1983 488" to 2,150 227tone 272to 1,320 

and Knutacn, 

1987 

-.1969 1986187 1,520 to 2,340 818to982 538to 1,520 

Relcha MelVa. 11184185 687 612 275 

1990 

19851811 781 556 203 

1986187 9113 800 193 

1987168 1,050 883 166 

Borrell, Sturgloa. 1981182 3,990 1,790 1,1 30 

ltldWong. 1987 

111112183 4,3110 1,800 1,210 

11183184 4,380 1,570 1,280 

11184185 4,200 1,850 1,010 

19851811 3,010 1,450 314 

Lord.1986 1987 1,130' to 3,740 785to2,410 370 to 1,330 

Noll end.-.; 1982· 1987 1,880 904 754 

1991 Awqgo 

Dept. ol 1987 3,510 

Corrrnorce, 1986 

u.s. t-lonll 1989 1,193 1,070 162 

T-

~ 

111110 

Aulhllln BuNau 1982-68 2,88Q't.3,620 1,130-1,380 9681o979 

:.O"C: 

,_ 

Econornlco. 111110 

(cont;nved) 

...... 
Studies That Measure 

Gains and Losses 

From the U.S. Sugar 

Program 

270 

11111_1n_ 

c- ----... -- Mor1cs,11111 3,180 

-..-No!-

2,440 743 

_ , __ .. ____ goino.ondnoloconomic-!roml10 

----ond-al110ondallhlo--•-uolng-.ng 

~--_.atlludy( __ .,._),ond-. Wo --10..., 11181 - uolng lho Orou .,.,.,_ Produd-lmplicl1 Prk:o Dollolor. 

'lllo..-.....-... _,_lool,-goln.ondnol-fooDorcbondYoung ....... dW>go .. -'<1 price. 

II'Jhis r.nge ol..am.tn of COI"'IIIMt' klu, producer gak'l, and net lou from Leu et. el. it with 

tf'CS-. 

CfhiM e11tm1te1 of COI'II\INI' lou. proctuc:., gains, end nee kilt ere >Mth HFCS aubltltution . 

..... fiDur• , • ...,. k»>r MC1 upper bounCtl ol c:~ kill. producet gainl. end net 

loll. 

Australian Bureau of Agrkultural and Resource Economics. 1990 and US 

Sugar Polley Reform. Diacussion Paper 90.4. Canberra, Australia: 1990. 

Borrell, Btent, Robert Sturgisa, and Gordon Wong. Global E!rects of tile 

US Supr Polley. Dlacusslon Paper 87.3. Bureau of Agricultural 

Economics. Canberra, Australia: 1987. 

Dardis, Rachel and Carol Young. "The Welfare Loss from the New Sugar 

Program • The Joumal of Consumer Atfaln, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1986). 

Aggregate COllis to tile United States of Tari!fa and Quotas on Imports: 

General Tarilr Cuts, and Removal of Quotas on Automobiles, Sleel, Sugar, and Textiles. David G. Tarr and Morris E. Morkre. Bureau of Economics 

Sta11'Report, Federal Trade Collllllllllllon. Dec. 1984. 

meets of u.s. Import Restraints on Agricultural and Other Producta: 

General Equilibrium Resul1a. Poethearlng Submission to United Stales 

International Trade Commission. lnvestlptlon No. 332-262. Bureau of 

Economics, Federal Trade Commission. May 1990 . 

.... ., 
271 

.._..a _ .. ___ _ - . 

Gemmill, Gordon. "An Equlllbdum Anllbail ofUB. S.,. Policy." 

Amedcan JCIUIIIII ot Ap!N1un! Economlcl, (Nov. 1977), pp. 609-618. 

l..ullleY. Sudulda v.,llld 1-A. Zellner. "Government lntem!nUon and 

~a.nte In llle llweeteNI-Irodulll)': A Welfare~" 

Paperprepued (Grille llol.-u~ Economlal A8aodallon 

ClCJIIfennce, Orlllndo, Plodda, Feb. 2-6, 11186. 

Leu, GwoJlun M., Andrew Scbmlla, and Rcna1d D. Knutaon. "Gains and 

'-

~ 

ofSuclr Propam Policy OpCbw.. AmericanJoumal of 

Economlcl, (AIIC- 198'1). pp. &910M2: • • • .. ... -J. 

Marb, Stephen V. "A ~otEmplrical Evidence on the U.S. 

Supr Propam."l'llper pn!M!IIIed lit the U.S. State Department Conference 

on "Suffr ~In the 1~ • Mq.23, 1990. 

MMkua, Keith E. "WJie c.- and Srnalllleneftta ot the American Supr 

Propamme." World Economr• Vo1.12, No. 1 (1989), pp. ~104. 

Melin, Reldla. au.. and'-Prom the u.s. ap Propm. 

Unpublilhed Draft, 1990. 

Neff, Stephen A. and 'l'lmodly E. .biJns. Ecanomlc Elfec:ts ot Removing 

U.S. ~Sullr ~ Dl8cuaalon Paper Series No. FAP iiZ001~ 10i~ WMhinaton. D.C. Oct., 1991. 

U.S.~ ot~ lntematlonal Trade Admlnlalratlon. United 

5Wa r Polley; An ANipiL Pftplred by Ralph Ives and John Hurley. 

Apr.1 

U.S. lnlemalionll Tnde CommiMIIIIL The Economic Elfec:ts ot SiBnlftcant ~~It~ProductaandNalural --- l'ublledon 231(. 1990 . 

..... 
272 

Appendix ID 

State-By-State Distribution of Program 

Benefits 

Tobie 11.1: Poroontege Dlolrlbutlon of 

Benefllo by Slolo - a-nt Lovol, 

111111 

Table W.1 allows the dislribullon of sugar program benefits by state. For 

example, 84.2 percent of the Canna In Louisiana have benefits of less than 

$50,000, while 15 percent of the Canna In F1orlda have benefits of over 

$1 million. The lollll number of Canna Ia listed In parentheses aft.er the 

state IWile. 'l1lelle ..., ClOIIIIeiV8&IYe estimates since many large cane 

growers own miUa Uld IIIUl)' beet growers are members of processing 

cooperallvea. Producers that ..., vertically Integrated realize greater 

program benellta. Table 3.2 of this report shows the distribution of 

beneftts &lllOil8 growers roc- the upper 1, 5, 10, Uld 20 percent of farms. 

Loll- ISO,GOO- $100,001· $500,001- Ovor 

Sllto (number ol-) 150,1100 1100,1100 SSOO,IIOO S1 mil $1 mil 

Fla. (140) 22.9% 20.0% 30.7% 11 .4% 150% 

La. (1.413) 64.2 11.8 3.9 0.1 0 

Hawail(13)' 0 0 7.7 92.3 

Tex. Cono (139) 82.0 12.2 5.0 0.7 

Calif. (808) 80.7 13.7 5.4 0.1 

Colo. (827) 99.3 0.6 0.1 0 

ida. (2.082) 91.2 6.2 2.5 

Mich. (2.130) 97.9 1.9 0.2 0 

Minn. (2.011) 87.2 11 .1 1.7 0 0 

Mont.(82S) 97.6 2.2 0 .2 0 

N.D. (1.201) 88.8 9.9 1.3 0 0 

Nabt. (1,279) 98.3 1.3 0 .4 0 

Ollioi<IOO) 99.8 0.3 0 

Oreg. (401) 97.8 1.5 0.7 

Tex. Beol (888) 98.7 1.2 0.1 

(1.081) 99.0 1.0 0 0 

Nol:e: T 01111 mey not .ckf due to rounding. 

•12 cornpaniet and 1 grower~ cooperative produce sugar in Hawaii 

....... 
2'73 

Costs of Sugar Production 

--Prcductian .... coots V-CIIh-

--

chemicolo 

CUllom 

apo<Miono 

fuel 

_ .. hired labor 

noncash benef~l 

purchlledlrrlgation water 

m-laneous 

heiAing .-.nco 

F".-dcaah-

_ .. farm 0\lerhead 

taxe1 end insurance 

Rat..,. 

-to owned inputs 

apo<otfng c.pital 

nonlond capital 

net land rett.xn 

unpaid labor 

Proce11ing costs 

Variable cash expenses 

cane transportation 

processing labor, fuel, and 

supplies 

repairs and maintenance 

labor benefits 

morl<eting 

Interest 

F".-.1 cash expenses 

depreciation 

.. taxn _ and insurance 

..... 

---

Production coots v.-CIIh-

-lo<tili2er 

chemiells 

cUllom 

operationl 

fuel 

repairs 

hired labor 

noncash benefits 

purchaeed irrigation water 

miscellaneoUs 

hauling allowance 

F".-dcaah-

~ralfarm CMOrhoad 

taxes and insurance 

interest 

-toownadinp<.Co 

apo<ating capital 

nonland capitol 

net land return 

ret11n to coop share 

~idtabo< 

Processing c05ts 

Variable cash expenses 

beet acquisition 

proeeMing labor, fuel, and 

supplies 

repairs and maintenance 

labor benOIHI 

marketing 

interest 

Fixed IKP8fl$8S 

depreciation 

taxa and insurance 

interest 

(continued) 
274 

General ~~~~--·- and administratr.-e 

labor 

nonlabor 

General ----· and administrative 

llbor 

nonlabor 

Pulp drying and marketing 

Hole: These are the component items ERS usee to cek:u6ale rtiW c.- sugar and refined beet 

sugar . 

...... 
275 

Appe!!di!V 

Comments From the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 

Note: GAO- aupp4ementlng U...ln 111e 

repan --etllle end of lhlo appendix . 

s.. c:ommont , . 

llr. • .JOlin •• aar.aft 

0B"AJtT'tftNT Of' AeRICUL TUM 

oPPtCe: t# TtC ..CMTAIW .,......,....,o.c._ 

MAR 2 6 1993 

Di~, rood and Aflrlcvlture Iuuea o.a. o.n.ral A.ocow\tin-t Office ..... 1111Jt011, DC 20541 

Dear llr'. aar.an: 

t appz-eciate beiniJ able to proviU your office vitb the :=:n:.::..t:: r.;t=•~ ce::;t;;::n..:r;:r,:;:•· 

-· OWI'all, tilt. ie a raaaonabla report vitb no .. jor data FC*l... '1'be =-ta and. benefiU, derived ualft9 aaau.ption. of b~ic:al policy alternativu, are vell within tb8 ranva of 

-~. 

1'be report -.pflaai&u a vi.v that ~1119 int.erMUcm.l .....-.nu are likely to aaka the MMJ&r provru inoperable in ita current twa at ~ future data. h a .,aneral ata~ that b ~ly a fair COftCluaion. 

Rowaver, the ~!fica of the Dunkel Text, •• Mld.Ub4 by 

tbe Blair Hou.M ~t, and of the NAPTA text vill not bave a near-tera aff~ on t.be o.s. Goven~Mnt•a ability to Miald the 

*--l:ic -.rket frta~ incruaint lllporta. 

'Ia tat c:vrent atatu (pcMit Blair HouM), the propo.ect GA'I'T ~t on aqricu.lture would require no red~ion in the loan rata and no cbanqe in the act.iniatration of tbe tariff•rate quota for A9U (contrary t.o what b at:ated on pqa 44). '!'be Blair llou8e ~t providu that internal MappOrt will be ... nr.s on a total Mala, rather Ulan oa..odlty bV ~lty. a.caue of tbe cndit we alr.ady bave fro~~ pHvioua cu.ta tor variou. prod~. we would not bave t.o aake any cuta in internal avpport. for 8UIIJU. Reqardint the tariff-rate quota, CNr poaitlon ia that it ia a tarirf' Nrriar not •ub1ect to taoritfic.tion. OUr obl1vat1ona thu are lt.itacl to a a1niaa lS percent reduction of tM taritra on auvar ( froa u cent. a pound. to U. 6 cenu for the 

b19b-t.iw tariff, aftll auvar-contalnih9 producta, U\CI 

tarifticatlon of tbe s.ctioft 22 quotaa on auqu-cofttalninq prod.uc:t.a. It ie poa.Jbla that ~ level of hiflb-tia.r t.acUfa on 

~ ~· aiflbt allow aa.a laaka9e into tM u.• ... rut. 

fte IIAftA U. a proviaioft to QP duty-tree iaporta froa llmfico at 25,000 •t.rlc tona for the tirat 6 y.ara of tile 

~t (lua if tliiJdco ia not aNt a\lf'PlU prod\acar) and at 150,000 Mtric tcma: with 10 peccent annual inca-.a .. a thereafter. ftlia cap ;La replaced. with ,..xico•a projected nat av.rplua 

...... 
276 

~v c--....... v ... _., 

-

Mr. Jobn •• ,..,.....,. 

prOINct.ion after ' yean 1f au:ico acbi.ve. net prod.cer eurplu •tatua for 2 ~the yean. At tbe end of 15 yeara tMre v i ll be rr .. • tr ... in MI!IU' IMtveen tbe t:vo cowatri... Jf ... ico were t:o ~ • -:Jor net: .urplue prodt.lou', tMn tbere VIDQ14 likely be rep1raa.a.ion. for tbe *--tic p!I'OIJraa. 

A .. t: of ,...-.pec:Uic and pau'al technical ~t• 1• enclOMd • 

...... 
Nowonp. 2. 

See comment 2. 

Nowonpp. 3and 11 . See CQIM18nt 3. 

See comment 4. 

Now on pp. 5 and 42. Sea comment 5. 

Nowonp. 22. 

Sea comment e. 

Nowonp. 22. 

See comment 7. 

Nowonp. 25. Sea comment 8. 

-v 

~ 

c--........ u.a._., 

u.s. ~ of Atricu.ltwe - · ... ::t:'.:i~~=-~3==1tion. 

-..u ... ~, .... u rw ewer 200 y.an tbe o.t. bu 

in~ 1n. H9U' tract., ¥ raiaint N'ftiiiM 1• now incidental 

to---· 

-.....t .. _.,. ,... a, ..., .... U• fte conect ind.utry eo~~~~Mition a 40 caM pc'OOMeiniJ cc:.pani .. (.U aille) and 

U - -in9 _.u.. (>• toctorioa). 

-..u .. ~ ..... •• 'l'be plaraM • •• • du.ct the v•oa. to ad jut bpoR quota• eocordin91y• bpliu a potential direct! ve W1Cib. aipt be J,nooNaiatent. vitb othU' provraa pE"OYialou. 

~,:r ~-=~ :!:: ;~owO:~t~nt:!:~t:. the Pport. cuota coul4 a.. U.aitecl. ror az-.le, t:be • ftO'o'COet• JCOY1•1on could OOftflict witb uy 4t.recu,. q •adj\Mit Cl'lOtU accocdinrgly. • 

-.. .... ~ .... 1, ... ..,. t11 1'ba word •t.ran.ition• .._ avkvard u a v.rb. .........,. ·~·· 01' -...... in• would be a.tter • 

.... 

~ 

Ul It Ulould be , pena.q. in a -f~, Ulat aany do nK take out. loane, aftd 'tbenf'OI'e tM phi' ... •OcCIIIMI"8 ...-.uy noel~ 10 ~t of tbe loan at that t.J.-.. 0 . • vou.ld "'* apply to ca... ,l\artbenOnl, bf not. talr.int out lou. frc. UDA., tbe ~ vou.U DOt be •liqated to pay ~the Rat:atory ai.at.a pri01 few •uprt:~eeta (cw 

~). ...ard.l-. of wta.n frDW'WS are paid, ~ do ultiaC.ly noaiw. abDut 10 pwoeat of total nceipta f~ tbe •lAI of ...,ar, and ~ &~»out .40 pK'CIII'It. 'l'bMe .....,._ are a ~14...,14e ~ • . and ~reflec't tbe nlat1¥e ooet.a of 

-in9 - -in9 • ._u .. ly. 

.... Ill 1'be per-pound MMUt of S oente i8 r.uonaltle • ....,_.. i~ i• ~ cleu fr. tbe footnote vbether i~ a refined or 

~ 

r:w Ma~Pr:r or a •bland.• ~~ MovU be..._ clear to tbe tba~ ai.noe no U'CS ie !JwolYM ..,... tM analyaie of U. di.c.t"1tlu~i011 Of pcocluou benef1U iMVl,_ a different M:taociolOIY rr. tbe -.tiaation of ovwall coeu aftd benetitll, ...taiclla .,_ include arcs. ~ ref venae to ........,.br: n probably -....~lxl. 

.... ••• U Bavail 1• ued •• a brpot:.~~oetical caee, t.able 2. 1 on ~ 25 .atould read ·~t.ical O.fault C.leulatioa for bv llavailan Cane. • Aft att:arnat.iv. would be to _..,.,.t the r .. u.~lc 
Nowonp. 20. 

SH comment 9. 

Nowonp. 39. 

SH c:omrnonl 10. 

Nowonp. 41 . 

SH convnonl 11. 

Nowonp. 51 . 

see comment 12. 

see comment 13. 

278 

caM for rlwida, v1Ua a loan nt.e 17 .H .nta a pound, 1rttare.t 

0.51 ceau:, U..,....Ution 1 . 10 c:anta, and r-paired price 

:~o.to ceau. 

.... J8t fte tlaird parep-aJ* laqaly repNta tba Urat .. r-.rapll. 

,.._ tt, tit .. ,er.,._ ia _.. to tbe t.ri..,ar few urket1119 au......u. I~ -..ld M cluUi .. t.Mt u.. IIU'kethtt Allot.ent 111p0rt a.t.t.at.e CIIUa) ia .... ~ a f__.la in t.be 1110 Fuw Act Mllicb reqyirM tM a.cret.uy to Prpo.e allot..ant.e u ba 

.. tet111Me tbat Japort nrau~ will M 1 ... than 

1. 21 aUU.on !~bart ~. 'fte f--.ala tor tile .. u .. ta of tba Pport; .Hifl'li..-.t. 1.,.1 la: 811 • (r...onabla endinv aU»cka + ~ion) - (beflMliiiJ atoclta + proc~Qct.ion) . 

.... U 1 aentencae in the Mcondi par-.rapta llftould read •tt all~ta 90 into affect, 0~ •Y have to ... nd .ora u .. -nitorint .upply and dbtribution data, and ••• apend u .. in WHUying cc.pli...:e and anforcirMJ allot.enb •..• conrgraaa baa HCI'Iired an inor .. M in aupply and dieUiiNtion intoraation ••. • 

.._. U1 ~ neer t.ta. botta. ahould read • •.• d .. pita lovt~r 

prio.a over tbe ..-t tva yaara. • 

.... lit !'be tootftO'ta ebou.ld follow toomote 3 (1*9• 3?) vhich 

ia clearer and •r• accurate . 

qeperel te• 

'ftMI Male •tbodol09Y tor o~inll'lfJ welfare -ti•taa h .o\and, 

u are t.be data. IIOet of t.be otbar atud.iea ci teet did not coabine 8Uif81' and IU'CS, but 91Yen tbe natura of the aubetitution obsarvect between the tvo ...-tenere, tbe GAO appr011cll ia ruaonable. Tile el-..ticiti•• alao .... reaaonabla. 

fte I'MUltint eaUaate of $1 . 4 billion annual aver•CJ• conauaer coet durint ltlt.-tl ia well witbin the ran941 of ot.J\er eapirical .. u .. t .. , vbaft ad'vated for the u- par loci covered . ,...._ b~tical •rr .. trade• WOl'ld refined aU911r (eve.tener) price aqgilibriua of 20 .5 cant. a pound (paCJe 56), the baae •tdnat Wbic::ll t.be u.a. price h c:a.p.~rect, ..... reaacmabla . 

,._ world ....,.r price (the ItO. 11 contrect of tbe lfav York cort .. , SUfJer • Cocoa b:chanfa) baa hiatorically been volatile, and thh volatility baa been cited by .. ny cauntriea aa nttlciant juatitication for inaulating tbair doa~eatic •WJ•r iftdWJtriea trOll the world -rut. However. aevaral tact.ora have r.tucec1 t.ha vot.t.ility in recent yaara: 

"'''la allllre ot 1lf0rld i..,art.a taken by •developed• countriae baa fallen by halt, fro. about two-third• a dacad.ea aqo to 

...... 
279 

~ ~· ._, ..._. .acld ... u .. ue .a.on., tbe 

=~ ~ ..... ·,~ =::.. ~=,_::ui• aa•tZ'i.•· la pri• ,._.. b19bW-t.aoo.. buy.n oould bid wrw14 -..r pria. _. bJ..fJber' tbaa today'• loww•U.OC.. 

a.. ften -· an ._.. nlletiWU. for MIIIU today t.taan tMn wva 

l.ntM.-.--pdao-.-. 

--"" 11b1r to,. -1- 1n""' ..._.. o . Ia tile aid-1110., el:lcNt ...-tbird. of 1:be 27 alllion ton. of 

--- (l.e., dJ.4 aat: cnde ..-•~ opoaial warl4 -nK ~-~~d- ~CU..). ~ 'I'M oollapae of u.. t.-r aovi.c. u.don bu eliaiMt.cl aeveral MICb -.n~U. l'nai.....-pz'io.d Japoru 1llt.o tiM! IC and tM Utlic.cl ftatee total .-ut. leU t.b.aft 3 ailllon toM, and today -.t of tba r.ainU., tO peraant of vwld ngar trade ia ......s on. world JC"i~. 

d. A Cnrd tawud privatin'tioa of ...-r u.tuut .. ill ooc:vrlftl u.nd tbe WDZ'ld. ftia trend oou.14 rat .. tbe rMpOnai.,..... of wpr prorOiaetion u price aipal•, lowrial pd.oe volatility. 

•· a- CIOUiltZ'l• an llblnlil:lnl 'tbair -vu tnde poUciM Ulll ~ pn4uaen aad OOIW__.. taoe world price 

pdao 

=-=:: 

ftlatUUy. 

=--::tt:Y :!':.!r ~-=':a!~. ~ut 

Par 1e•o-11, tbe ooetUaient. of variation (a ..... u• of vad.ablU.ty vll1cll u..,.. ~ a to 1) or tbe avwap aNNal vorld ....,_. ICicle wu D. 71, al.a!Nt tllioe toM laWil of o.u tor vbeat. -.c tw tM ~ deoede, 1112-tl, tbe ODIIf'rtoi.at. of wrt.aUon r_......,. ~PCioM w. o.u, ,_, cl_. to tM 1.,.1 of o.u for -..c. lll fMrt, t.be variability ot the ..-14 -.u prioe in. t.be left. ..._.. vaa ~ tban tbe -.ar1abU1t:y of tbe world pd~ or ODI'II, rioe, ..,....... aad -..c ~ tM t:wo prior~. 

ltH-11. 

'1M bi..ftorieal ,_.lod an .eaicll t:lle U.l. aupr ~ quot~~• are -... U 1971-al. aa tlliia ~ pwiod noMM f~ into tM put., U. ...-oitio pauant ot' tae quota alloca~i-

~~!:z.: ~~tr:.-:::;-~.~ C::t!i: ...... _,tGIIed rraa ~~ to nat-~ .Utu. and in 

-. -..r ~ioa ia Cleolinlnv to tba poi~¢ vMn trae 

........ 

=:f!t:t!.-: ~t.e • =~~t.: :n u.;!~·.lir:~ ~; 

..... 
See comment 14. 

280 

.._...,.v 

c-.e ... rro. Ute u.a. De,.n.eat of 

............. 

Ttle raport:•a diacuaaion of effacta of the pr<MJra• on auvar UHra dcMia not -ntion ita 1..,.ct on U.S. nfin••· ftn U.l. rafiMri••· r-straaantinq~ l5 percent of u.a. caM retiniiWJ c:apac:ity, hav. cla.ed aince the i .. l ... nhtion of t.be currant •ut•r pr091'•• in l98J. While not all of tllia O.Cllne in induatrial activity can be attributlld to the •U9•r prOCJT&a, tha pr09r-•• Uaitation on Iaporta of rav cane •U9•r ia a .. jor contributil"'9 factor . 

..... ., 
GAO's Comments 

281 

-v ~.._ ... v.&.,._., __. .... 

11le following are GltD'a conunenta on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 

leUer dated Mardl26, 1993. 

I. We have Included more current information on the proposed GA1T and 

NAPTA asreementa on the bula or VSDA'a statement that !here wUI be no 

lleU'-Ienn elrecta on the ebllley or the United States to shield domestic 

8IJIIIIl' producen from lnc:reaaln& Imports. We also reemphasize that !he 

current GA1T negotiations are ever-dlanglng, that it is difficult to predict 

their outeome, and that NAFI'A still requires formal approval. 

2. We changed the sentence on page 2 to read "For over 200 years the 

United States has intervened In the sugar market, first by levying tariffs on 

imported sugar to raise revenue." We also added information in chapter I 

to explain that ralalng revenue is not a goal or !he current program. 

3. We changed the description in our report to reOect !he number of beet 

factotlea and cane mills, nlher !han beet-processing companies and 

cane-proceaalng companies. 

4. In our estlmatlon, if the Congress only lowers the loan rate, usn A may 

not neeeuarily ~Wit the Import quota amount to achieve lower market 

prices. lllhis is the caR, the goals or gradually moving dte sugar industry 

toward a more open market situation and reducing sweetener user costs 

1118,)' not be met. Therefore, we recommend that !he Congress also direct 

USDA to a<Ullllt Import quo1aa in accordance wilh a lower loan rate. In our 

ealimadon, USDA could atiU meet the no-net-cost provisions of !he acl 

5. We changed the wording in the recommendation to "move dte sngar 

Industry toward a more open market situation. • 

6. We have noted in chapter !that IIW1Y processors do not take out ccc 

loans and would not therefore be obligaled to pay growers the statutory 

minimum price for sugad>eeta or sugarcane. However, processors lhat do 

not obtain loans atiU bertelit from the price Door that the lo:ut program 

eatablishea. Also, u IJSOA acated, growers ultimately receive about 

60 percent of total receipta and procesaora about 40 percent. regardless of 

whether or not !hey participate in the ccc loan program. 

7. In the objectlves, scope, and methodology section of ci~•pter I we added 

language to emphasize that our welfare analysia of the total costs and 

benefits of the program is separate from our methodology to calculate dte 

._ .. ~ ...... Propul UnderCIIuclaceo.dltloM 
282 

concentration ofbenellts. We abo darilled the point that the 

22-cent-per-pound domestic market price is for raw cane sugar. 

8. Although in the report body we had noted that the Hawaiian default 

calculation was hypothetical, we took USDA's suggestion to use Florida as 

our example. nus is more realistic since Hawaiian millers rarely take out 

ccc loans. We state that the F1orida default calculation is still a 

hypothetical one because, even iC the market price falls below the default 

level, other factors may detennine when a processor will default on the 

loan. 

9. We have added the Marketing Allotment Import Estimate (MAlE) fomuda 

in chapter I, where we first discuss the mechanics of marketing 

allotments. 

10. We changed the language in the report to reOect USDA's suggestions. 

II. We changed the sentence in chapter 4 to explain that domestic 

production has continued to increase despite lower prices over the past 

"2" years, rather than the past "few" years. 

12. We changed the footnote describing IIFCS 42 and uFCS 55 in appendix I 

to be consistent with our eariier footnote in chaprer 3. 

13. In chapter I we include USDA's comments that world sugar prices may 

no longer be as volatile as they once were. We state that the five factors 

that USDA provided have reduced the world price's volatility in recent 

years. 

14. In chapter 1 we included USDA's information about the program's 

impact on the U.S. cane refining industry. However, as noted by llSDA, the 

report does not discuss the effects of1he program on cane refiners. We 

were unable to obtain views about the program from the refining industry 

because the Cane Sugar Refiners Association declined to meet with us. 

Pq~lt ~EO.,.... 8qar ......,...lJader CN.nclnllf Conditio,.. 
283 

A ndixVI 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Resources, 

Community, and 

Economic 

Development 

Division, Washington, 

D.C. 

(110013) 

73-729 - 93 - 10 

Jeffrey E. Heil, Assistant Director 

Mary I.. Dietrich, Evaluator-in-Charge 

Paul A Dommel, Staff Evaluator 

Barbara J. EI-Osta, Staff Economist 

Carol Hermstadt Shulman, Reports Analyst 

Pace70 GAOJ'IlCBD-93-U Suaar Prqr&m Under han~&ina CondiUoiW 
PROGRAM ADDS TO SWEETENER 

• $1.4 billion annually 

• Conservative estimate based on th

between U.S. program price and l

world price 
PRODUCER BENEFITS ARE CONC

• $561 million in benefits to sugar pr

• 42% of grower benefits went to 1% 

1991 

• 58% of cane grower benefits went 

(or about 1%) in 1991 

• $548 -million in benefits to HFCS m

annually 

• 4 manufacturers produced 87% of 
NO LIMIT TO SIZE OF BENE

• Some producers realize millions of 

benefits 

• 33 largest farms each realized over 

benefits in 1991 -(AI\··--- fla... ~ ~; .j- 

these are 0.2% of the 15,436 sug

accounted for over 1/3 of all the 

benefits in 1991 

all in Florida and Hawaii 
FLORIDA SUGAR INDUSTRY RECE

BENEFITS FROM SUGAR PROGRA

• 140 farms 

• Average program benefit was $948

benefited by over $1 million; 1 ben

million 

• Average. profit margin was 16.4% 

18.5% for 1991 
288 

-'#. 

0 

cv) 

LO - c as 

"C 

0 ·c:: 

0 

·-......, u:: 

(.) 

:::J 

-c 

0 

'-

a. 

'-

ctS 

C) 

:::J 

en 

Q) 

c 

ctS 

- (.) 

'#. rn 

0 

as 

en 

C\1 

t\i '#. - ~ - :J 

as 

0 

c: t\i 

as C\1 

:;; ·-- :1 ·as 

0 3= 

_. as 

:I: 
Florida Acres Harveste

450 

~ 

~ 

/ ·/ 

/ 

I 

/ 

,/ 

440 

430 

420 

410 

400 

390 

380 

370 

360 

350 

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 19
US sugar acres 

2300~---------------------

2200+---------------------

2100 

en 

~ 0 

cu 2000 

~ 

T"" 

1900 

1800T----.~=-~----------

1700~~~~~--~--~--~-

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 

Crop ye
Florida: 

450 

400 

350 

300 

(/) 

~ 250 

cu 

0 

& 200 T""" 

150 

100 

50 

0 

1950 1956 

Sugarcane h

1962 1968 197

Crop year 
RECOMMENDATION 

• The Congress should copsider l

sugar industry to a mor~ open 

--Lower the loan rate (support 

-- Direct USDA to adjust impo

• This would: 

-- lower market prices 

-- reduce sweetener user costs 

-- allow producers time to mak
Un ited Statu o.p., t~nt of 

Agricultur• 

Economu:: Reseatch 

Serv.ce 

SSRV17N2 

June1992 

293 

Sugar and 

Sweetener 

Situation and 

Outlook Yearbook 

~: \"1-Z~~~ . . ~· t: . . 

' ' . ' \ < H ~·_. "'; 

. . 

7: ::: :: ::::::::::::::::: ~:~;~~:: :: :: :::: :~;.~~~~: . ,' , ___ ,, I .S . . ............. .. }'p;o;;;,iiOft" '''"'"'''"' '' '''''''' 

. •-;.;.;:.::.::.::; ..... ---· ···· ·· ·-········· ··· ··· ·· ·· ·· ·· 

5.5 .....____._....._ __ J..... ....... -1'-....... .....L-....... -U 

1812113 1M4115 1886'17 ,...,.. 1ttc:W1 
294 

The Florida Sugar Industry-Its 

EvoiUUon and Prospecta 

Peter Buaanell, Ron Lori!, and Nathaniel B. Brown, Jr. 1 

Abstract: Florida lw the lar&est supr producin& Industry Ia the United States. It be&an the 

1990's wltb contlnuln& expansion of 111prcane acreaae, hlp uUUzation of miiUn& capadty 

laUin& procl~~<:tioa -u. record supr procluc:tloll, aacl rlslna marketlna power. However, ~here are major cballence:s. lndudln& soli resource llmltatlolll, sustalalna produc:tlvlty pins, orr-shore 

labor, and environmental Issue~. How sua:e&~tully Florida meets tllese dlallenaa willlarael)' 

determine Jbe dlrectloa tbe lndusUJ- Ia the late 1990'L 

~U. Florida, suprcane, supr, marteuna. Ewr&~ac~e& 

Introduction 

Florida's supr ladusU)' bepn the 1990'slmpreulvely, 

with record CIOJI' ol Ul aacl 1.13 atWioa short 10111, 

raw value. ne 1991M output (October·Maldl) wu acllle>ed from a recon1428,000barvested acre& olsupr· 

cane tor supr JielciiDSI4.9 mllUon tons.' For the cur· reat sasoa, Florida ac:couu fill oac.quaner ol the 

aatlonal supr output, halt ol aD U.S. harvested cano 

acreaae, IDd more tlau bait ol caac supr procluc:tloa 

(II&- A· I). A 4eca4e 110 Florida harvested ~~e~~ty 

100,000 fewer aere:s. prodiiCed 900,000 tons less supr, 

and accouated for only about oac-tblrd ot aatlooal cano 

SU&U produc:tloa (49). 

Ia 1990, suprcaac ncelpu comprised S4SO mllUonol 

Florida's SS.7lllllloa Ia tolllaplcllltural r~pts, plaelnl suprcaaelll tile top 10 (II&- A·2). UIIIYerslty ol 

Florida lluclla COIIdudc lballllprcaiiC procluc:tloDIDd 

IIIIIIIDI iuke a slpillcaDt <DDiri1Hitloa 10 tile ecDDOIDJ 

ot South~ ClpedaDJ tile couallca ot Oladca. 

HCIIdry, Marila.IDII him a-.. Ia Palm Bcacl 

County, supr CXIIItrlllute.IICUiy OM-halt ol tile SUI· 

blllloa value ol-' aplcultural produc:tloD (JI&- A-3). 

Ia nceat ,an. tile wlue ol raw supr procasec1 Ia 

Soutll Florida .. .._ UOIIIId S$50 llllllloa aaaually. 

Willi a Mica 1!11111dpller llilr tile IDdasU)' aUmated at 

2.42, eadl $1.00 ol supr slllpped from South Florida 

.,_, -~~..-.-""""*-. _ ...... .............. -.-AMIJIII-. .... 1'111-a.-.Jr.ll_rl_-. ..... 

VoloJ 

_..._ $lalo ClDiotao .... Ooaqjo. aldqooola-rltloil-forlkirdooo no--10--- ........... 1Aa_IS,IXIII_ ... $M,IIIIII_rl __ 

-----..... ---(~ 

$apr ... s-fcD«/l•• 199Z 

paenta $2.42 tor tile local ecoaomy. Wllea aU muiU· 

pUer dfecu are considered, the supr ladusU)' Ia South 

Florida paente. between SI.31Dd $1.6 bUUon Ia 10111 

lacome aacl create~ over IS,OOO fiiU·Ume equiYalent jobl 

Ia the State (33). 

WbJJe the ladustry lias apallde4 Ia output aDd nlue, It 

also flu .._ coafronted wltll ebaUenaa COIICCIIIInatlle 

USC of laD4 IDd labor, lad tile Impact OD the eaWoa• 

IIICDL How well tile ladllllry CXIIIfroDIIIbae cilaDea&a 

wllllar&el)' deiCnlliDe wlletber k coatlaua 10 apalld, SllbUiz.a II QIRCIItlevels, or lle&fDS a>atraaJoa. 

Hlslerbl Dnelopmnt fll tile laduau,; 

Pre-lMO-Focu oa Water Maupaaeat 

Aller IC¥enl failed anempts In Ccatral Flo~ Ia tile 

late 19th IDd cu1J 20111 ceaturla, a supr IDdusU)'-

llDally aubllllled arouD4 tile -tbcn sllorc ollMe 

OUeclloboc duria& tile late 19210"1 (32). ladustry a!Dn..-tud pvwtla bJaaed --maaaae-t 

IJIIaM 10 -uolllowl IDd .,_ aplllll ralay - IDd llurricue related Ooods (10). Coastrualollollow 

mud< lewes aloq the south IDd -tllweat sllorc ol 

Lake OUeclloboc durlaa tile 19210"1 lar&ely ellmllllted 

IMrllow-th 10 tile EwraJidca. Howoer,- hu~ ill tlaa late 1920'1111MC11ed these~ 

causlaalllplllcutloll otute IDd JIIOP.CI1J datruc:lloD. 

'l1lae -~~ spurred State IDd FederallaltlaU. 10 

pnMdc - ..... te llootl proteClioll b apiculttare 

IDd tile JIIIWIDI .... populatlo•-tlleall ol Lab 

OUec:llollee. Florida created t1aa Ewrplel DraiDa&e 

Coallol Dlltrlt:t Ia 1913, .... ,_ 1930 10 1945 tile u.s. 

Army Corpl ol Eql-. added llood CDDtrOimca&ureL 

However, a - drouptiiii9431Dd 1944,1Dd a 

II 
caw trophic hurricane and Oood In 1947 spurredclforu 

10 develop a more romprehenslve water manaaemenl 

plan 10 address South Aorida'• Oood and drou&Jit problems (10, 14). 

The Aoocl Control Act of 1948 (P.l.. 80-858) addressed 

water management and created lbe Everglades Aarlcullural Area (EAA). Also lD 1948, the Corps or Englnee"' developeclthe romprehenolve Central aod South· 

e111 Florida Project for Aood Control aod Other Purposes. Lake Okeechobee was rcroplz.ed u the major 

focus or Soulb Florida's water manaaemenl system. The 

lake Is lbe primary Oood rontrol and water storaae 

fadlity for a&rtcullure wilhlD lhe EAA. provldlna backup 

water suppUes for east coast munldpaUtlesand other 

allied purposes. The plan also deslpated approximately 

709,000 acres soulb of Lake Okeechobee as apicultural 

(tile EAA), aod 900,000acres 10 be re1alned u water 

CODSCMUon areas (WCAs) and never 10 be drained or 

reclaimed. About this same time, the Everglades National Park was created enrompwlnJ approximately 1.4 

miiUon acres (ftg. A-4) (10. 11 ). 

lD response 10 Ibis Federal action, the Slate legislature 

in 1949 passed Chapter 378 F.S., creauaa the Central 

and Soulbera Florida Flood Control District 10 provide 

l1oocl prolecllon, ensure adequate water supply, prevent 

salt water intrusion, and enhance the environmental 

raourcea or the repoa,lDdudlDJ the Everglades National Park. Leglslalloa in 1972 apanded the Flood 

Control District's aulborlty and renamed II &be Soutb 

Florida Water Management District (II, 42). 

Durin& the early decades of the industry, suprcane 

Yarietles were bred for tbe sem.l·tropical climate of the 

area. raU Unkaaes were dCYCioped 10 move supr out or 

the area. and cbanaes in Federal policy CDQOUraJed 

expansion or domesllc sugar production. For CDmple, 

in 1956, tbe Supr Act was amended to allow upanslon 

of mainland caoe production (10. 32). However, 

lbroupoutlbe 19SO's, aDDual SUJU production re- mained under 145,000tons (lable A-I). As late as 1959, 

lbere were ooly lllree supr mills In Florida, wltb a combined dally pilldlnJ capadty or 12,000 tons (22, 32). 

Posll!I60-FOCUIOD Ana bpaJlllooo 

The Industry ~nded alter 1960 because or the decUne 

of supr in Puerto IUoa, lhe U.S. lmpon embarao on 

Cll~n su&ir (1uly 1960-10 lbe present), aod lhe Ullin& 

of domeatlc cane production reotrlcUons by lhe Federal 

ao.e....m.at (10). By.I964J65, sugarcane was planted 

OD 223,000acres, oampared wltii5J,OOOacres 5 yean 

earUer. E1eveD suaar atiUs wqe in operation aod production totaled 574,000 tons, more tban ctouble the 

OUIIUill in 1%0 (Uble A-2). 

Suaar and Sweetener/June 1992 

295 

However, fa 1965, acreaae restrictlon.s were aaaln Imposed. Acreaae dropped 14 per~nlthe nc.n season. 

By the end or the decade, area planted to cane llad 

!allen 10 160,000 acres, but production remained above 

500,000 tons. 1D &ood weather year!i, higher yields In· 

creased •uaar production, such as the 7J7,000tons in 

1967168 (16, 47). 

Acreage and •uaarcane production began to rt.e again 

In the early 1970's (II&. A-5 aod A~). Growth was 

spurred by expiration or the Sugar Act ia 1974 and the 

eliminalioaor production controls. By lbe cad or the 

decade, over 300,000 aaes were plaoted 10 suaarcaae, 

Dearly 10.0 JDillion tons or cane were bein& proce6Secl 

annually, and tile llr!il t-mJUfon ton sugar aop bad 

beeaacblevecl (ft&- A-7). 

1D the 1980's, JIOWib was unrestrained by productloa 

roatrols and was fadUiated by the price level and subiU1)' provided by &be loan proaram provisions or the 1980 

and 1985 !arm acts (49). suaarcane broke the 400,CJOO. 

plaated-acre mark lD 1986/V and annual productfoa 

averap 1.21 million tons durin& the lint half or lbe 

decade aod 1.47 m.JIUon durin& the second batr. 

Currut Slt...doa, SltvctUte 

and Ft111DIJ11 ~ 

Florida sugarcane development rellecu the climate aod 

natural resources in lhe re&foa. Over the year!i, drou&Jil 

and Ooodill& have beea tempered by the u&enslve development or Irrigation aod Dood control lacilities. South 

Florida olrers an Ideal climate lor suaarcane, wilb a loa& 

warm and wet summer arowin& seasoa, and a fairly dry, 

sunny, coo~ and normally freeu-!ree harvest and proceaoin& season that runs from October to March. Killill& freezes, usually between Oeoemher and February, 

bave periodically damap cane and reduced production 

(10. 19). 

The organic soils or the EAA need no a.iuoaen leniliur 

and oaly reJaUvely small amounts or ph0$phorous. 

CultiYlltionaad cllem.Jcal application 10 control 1fU$ aod 

weeds come belore the cane develoP' a canopy between 

tbe rows. For the organic soils, water table oaotro! is 

very lmportanL The optimum water level to sustain 

maximum sugarcane yields Is 18-24 lnche$ below sround 

level (39). 

Dralna,e aod Irrigation systems require surface water 

111111aaemeat and roasumpllve use permlu from lbe 

South Florida Water Mana,emenl District (the Water 

District) and the Florida Depanmenl or Environmental 

Replatloo. Aaordin& 10 lndustl)' sources, ei&JII separate permits arc aecessal)' 10 rarm inside the EM The 

typical sugarcane farm water manaaemenl system is a 

13 
_ .... 

296 

Tab .. A·t-F'Iorld'a't ~arca e and su;at: At ... yi.cd, and ptoducUon ttl0-1110 

---·--· ---· ---

Ac:tll ._ V"oOidol Ctoc>,..,. htrw•ttd Yloldol- c ... r-od (5-ylltl'l., ... , lor O"'J&r ... ....., - ""'" ... ... _tl ~ ...... _ 1,000 Ktll r- 1,00010ftl 1.000- Poundt 

tt»'::t·tt~S 13.2 21.0 3&1.2 31.4 113.1 t tlSI'le . 1939140 11.1 :14.t 151.2 t:U lt0.2 114W4 t • lfU/45 27.1 21.t IOo.t n.• ttt.O tt45141 · tt4..SO :13.1 :IO.S I,W.2 .... 171.0 ttSO'St • tt541'U 40.4 S2.1 t;U7.0 ISS.I 201.0 115&'51 · ttSMO 15.7 341.0 1,357.1 1341.2 205.0 - ----- ---- ·--· t1 Net tona. 

1J AIW'Y...,._ 

Sf Ptillln'inl.ry. Source: USOA I F1oltdt Sugatc:11N Leap. 

Table A-2-Florida't .....,ane and sugar: ArM. yWd, tnd ~ ttll·tlt2 

- ._ V"oOidol 

Ctoc>r,... lloNIIIM Yloldol- C... r-od - ......... (S.O,.arav•eve) ... ....., ... _ ... .....,u .. ..... _ t ,OOOactU T- I,OOOtonl I,OOOtDnl , .... tMCWt · tMWS US.I S2.0 :Uti 151.2 113.4 

IH5/M • INW70 IIO.S 31.1 s.n. tOO.t -I 

ti7Cnt • tt7417S 2SS.S )1.4 7,SII m.o ZIZ.I 

1171171·11- m .t :12.0 ..... 17LI -I 

1tDII·ttlotiiS :141.0 :12.2 U,t_, uou 21U 

I~·IIIMO ..... :12.2 12.711 1,474.1 2:10 •• 

I-I t tt .o SS.I 14.174 1,-. 241.0 

1Htii2'J/ 421.0 :14.t 14.131 1,au 2tl0 

- Amwoi-4&00,1130-IHI.,...-.. _...~ ... IIIniiA., 

tiN«-

W Rawvellle. 'JI.........,. - USOA•florido Sugor_l_ end USOA'tCtop,__ ...... 10t2. 

........ 7 

Florida: Sugar Production 1.000-

Yleld ol ~., 

'*~""IIIH 

.... r ... 

2.3C :ut 

2.11 

2.71 

3.11 

3.17 

Villdoftuglt 

potlloNnlld 

.... rS.Ot 

.... 

Ul 

us 

'

S·.'' 72 

U l 

Ut 

Florida: SugarCMe Production I,OOOnot- ~ooor--------------------------, 

l~r----------------------------, 

...................

. ................................. 

14,000 

10,000 ............................ . ....... . 

•. ooo 

1.000 

~8311L. .. III_ ..... I.MOII••IIIO 1110 ,., 1"1~--· 

IC 
297 

network of open ditches, ucavated to the limestone and 

sometimes Into the limestone or marl bedrock, and 

connected to a pump llallon at one or tbe major canals 

operated by tbe Water District. The water table II 

raised to Irrigate the cane roots. Drainage Is the reverse; pump~ create an artificial hydraulic padientto 

lower the soil water table (39, 42). 

Tbe sugarcane cropping cycle In Soulb Florida Is normally 3 to 4 ye.trs, but cao be longer. Short stalb of 

sugarcane. harvested from seed caoe ftelds, are burled Ill 

rows s feet apan Ill the rau or the ftnt year. Tbe ftnt 

barvestlllllthe late faU or winter of the second year 

and 1$ caUed the 'plant cane' crop. 'There are annual 

lwvests or two 10 three crop~ Ill succeedlllJ ye.trs, called 

'ratoon' crops. before the sequence be&Jos aplll (I, 10). 

The University of Florida reponedl990 barvestedacre-

•ae u 30 percent plant cane and 70 percent ratoon (30 

percent, lint ratoon; 22.3, sea>od; 11.2, third; and 6.S, 

fourth and older) (13). 

Florida's 'sugar llldustry Is largely venlcally llltepated. 

Many mWilla companies owa farm land and pow canecalled admlnlsuatlon cane. Five ot the six milllllJ compaolcs p:ow administration cane and account for about 

two-tblrds or Florida's total acreap. 1be remalniD& 

processor Is a power cooperall.-e whose members supply the built or the cane mUied and account for the rest 

of the State's production ( 10). 

Slgnlllcant amounts of the sugarcane are powa by llldependent producers wbo seU to private companies or 

cooperatl-. For aample, the U.S. Sugar Corporation 

(U.S. Supr) says lbat of the 6.1 million 10111 of suprc:aoe pound Ia 199Clr91 at tbelr two mills. approlimalely 

2S percent came from Slllldepeodent power~ wbo bad 

from 14 to 6,200 acra (S2). Allot tile c&De deUYCred 10 

the Supr Cane Growers Cooperatloe of Florida II 

JIOWil by llldepeadeats u are su"-tantlalamounts of 

cane for the Okeelanta and Atlantic m11ls. 

There Were 133 .,.,..., .. of suprcaoe !or the 1990 crop 

Ia four Florida counties (table A-3). The farms raoJed 

from less lhaa 10 acra to over 120,000 and mraJed 

3.272 acra. Ia contrast, Ill the mid-1970's the a.-eracc 

- 2.200 acres (S6). latercstla&JY,the number of !arms 

bu remallled relatl.-ely uacbanged at around 130. Bocaii$C some people owa a number of farllls, there are fewer powers lbao flrmL 

MOlin& CapaciiJ and Owllerahlp Stracture 

Florida currently bu seYCn milia (II&- A-8) wllb an AYCr• 

•ae dally pladlll& capacity per mW or 16,429to01 ot 

suprcane (22). For the 1991192 season. tbe Industry 

Sugar and s-tener/June 1992 

pound oYer IS million lou of sugarcane durin& a 147-

day mlllln& season (10). 

Orindin& capaciry hu pown rapidly, especially over the 

lase IS ye.trs (ft&- A-9). Although the number of mills 

feU from lllllche mid-1960's to 7 by 1977,1he same as 

today, statewide daily Jrindln& capaary went from 50,800 

coos Ill the mid-1960's, to 78,300 llll980,to 115,000 

currently. 1be capacicy or the smallest Florida mill 

exceeds lbat of tbe larpt ooe ill HawaU or Louisiana. 

Instead of buUdlo& extra mills co accommodate more 

Aorida suaarc:aoe output, the emphasis has been oa 

expandlo& c:xisllo& mills (10. 16. 22). 

Here Is the ownership ltructure of tbe mills (table A-4) 

(19,22): 

• The U.S. Sucar Corpo[lltlog (U.S. Supr) Is tile 

olclest aad laraestsugar company Ill Florida (table 

A-4). For 199Clr91, U.S. Sugar mWecl6.1 miUioa 

tOOl ot cane yleldln& a record 720,500 1001 of raw 

sugar aad 37.4 mWloa pUo01 of molasse~, more 

lbao one-tblrd of Aorlda's ouuuro or the 1"'!1 producta. U.S. Sucar bu two milia. 'lbe Clewiston mill 

wu coostructedlll 1927 and produc:ecl the State's 

lint crop Ill 1929. The &riadill& capacity II 22,000 

10111 per day. The Oewlston, Sugarcane Growen 

Cooperative or Florlcla, and Okeelaota mill are the 

larptlll the Uolted States and amoaa tlle.larpt 

Ill the worl4. U.S. Sugar's mill at Bryant wu coastruaed lll1962 and Is the Larpt slll&i< tandem 

mill ia Florlcla. wllb • Jlilldlll& c:apadcy ol 16,000 

1001 per day.' Capaclcy for the Oewlstoa and 

Bryaat mills Is up S2 and 10 percent, respectl.-ely, 

from a decade •ao-• 

U.S. Sugar II the only company Ill Florida lbat 

1ra01pons cane by raU 10 llliUs. wllb 116 miles or 

raU OD its OWII land aad CODocctiDJilll<!a wllb the 

Florida East Cout, Soulb Central Florlcla, and 

CSX systemL U.S. Sugar Is a private company, 

whose employee$ rorm the larpt stockholder 

bloct. 

• 1be Suur Cane Growers Coopcnulyeo{ Aori!la 

(tile CooperaUYC) Is ill Belle Glade. The miU's 

rated JlilldlnJ capadly II 21,000 IODI or suaarcaoe 

per day. For the lm91 crop, tile Cooperatl..: 

pound 2. 7 million 1001 of cane and produc:ed 

'slope ...... ..m.--"' oi.-Mn/rollcnla a....,. • 

.... 'oo,..ao, _ .. _ <---~ ... Ia lalotoporl- ~'rilleSupi<UO ~ ...... oa- 5opr Jlluual. u.s. Supr ... 

-USDA doc Clpocidcl oldoclr0cwia1oo udll<yut lllilll ut 

:M,IlOO .... 11,000-,.,..,, 

u 
298 

Fiploo ""' 

Florida's Sugarcane Growing Area and Factories 

logond 

.. Sugarr!Wis 

Sugllcane OfOWI"Q artl • Raw SUOat rtf~nery 

-oil~ 

1,113 

U7t 

1.101 2.-

1.224 

1,122 (3.0101 

(2.112) 

Tolll 15.- 100.0 

s-ee: TlloGimoro ~-" FloridoSupcono 

.._A~ 

-·· .. Clop ..... ~ .. 

16 

. 

; 

I 

I 

SugarMHit 

Company Location 

81 Attantie Sugar Association Bene Glade 

61 OkHianta Sugar Corp. South Bay 

111111 Osceola Farms Co. Can.! Point 

IIIII Sugar~ Gro-·s Coop. Belle Glade 

81 U.S. Sugar Corp. lltyant 

.. u.s. Sugar Corp. Clewiaton 111111 Taisrnan Sligar Corp. South Bay 

T_A_q ___ ll<lllt'counly 

--of.- -ol Cout1ly -· I teO INS 1te0 

-AcrMPolmBoac:h " 20UM 215.500 270,421 HorlrS'y 11 10~ 120.311 ~ IS ••• UIO '"·'" 12.352 

- 5 NA 7.251 7.521 

Tolll '~ 301.700 352.031 436,171 

•Forcrap,..tiiO. 

5o<oco: USOA. 

ptOMtorl ~ Sllnol ....... Sllnol (rOW-) ~ 10 lria ~ 

1.000-

- 1,000.-

121.3 7.l 7.114 -7.1 311.7 17.1 2o.lll 20.0 .187.2 11.2 11,731 11.2 -.a 1U 11,7e7 11.0 117.7 1.7 7,700 u 720.$ 40.1 "·* 35.1 (401.1) 23.0) (21.311) (20.4) 

(314.1) (17.11 (11.043) (1U) 

1.7e5.1 100.0 104,411 100.0 

'? ';. .1--
299 

289,200 cons or suaar, 16.4 percent or the Florida 

total, and 18.8 million aallons or molasse&. 

The Coopcraclw II owned by 54 power mcmbcn 

who proccssccl lhelr nnc crop la 1962,163. Ia ackll· 

Uoa 10 supr and molasaa, lhe Coopcrallw,la 1 

jolnl venture wilb 1 cbemical a>mpany, produce~ 

rurl\uaJ, I chemical derlvallvc from IUJirCIDC ba· 

cusc..' A IWO·Irack rail sldln& conoec:u lhe miD 

wilb the Florida Easl Coast Railroad (10). 

• Jbe Otcclanta Corpon!lon bu 1 miD la Soul• 

Bay. tu llnl crop- Ia 1947 wbellll becune lbe 

second DIIU Ill !be EAA. Orlndlaa capac! I)' meed~ 

21,00Chons per day, double WI ora decade IJD. For lhc 1990,91 acuoD, Okeclaall milled 2.1111ll· 

uoa cons or cane and produced a record 311,700 

1011 or supr, 11 ...,.... •• a( tile Florida 10111. 

Otcclanllll a SUbcldlaiJ or llle flo.Sua Corpora· 

11oa or Pallll Bad. Iller purdlue rrom cbe Olllf 

and Wcscena Corporalloala 1!114. f!o.Sug II !1!8 

!ial oom~for tile aypr '"" oil•• ••-of 

.• ~ ~ul !!_a!llt, wbo lied 10 Florida rrom Ollie 

a tro lOOt power. 

• Osg;oja FJ!JQI miD Is localecl acar C&llll Polal, 

eu1 or Uta Okeecllobee, aad II also a sublldlary 

or~ Osceola produced lu 11n1 crop 1a 1961 

and lbe r.c:tory llll a ptadlaa capaciiJ Ia - or 

12,000 IODI or CIDO per day. Durta& lbe 19!JC!o91 

ICUOII, Osceola mll1ed 1.1 ll\IUioa IODI or cue aad 

produQecla reoonl 197.0001011 or supr, 11 pcnlCill 

or 1be llldustr, 1011L n. ortpal mll1. willa a c&· 

paciiJ or 3,300 10111, - brouptlll pleas 10 111 

pl'CICIIllocalloa fromlhe VcrmUioa Sllpr Flcl017 

Ia LoulslallL 

• AtJanl!c Spw t"?'MOP produced lllllnl crop Ia 

196&. Ju .w -~~aeaaror Belle Oledo w a..,_ illl capacllJ or 12,000 1011 ot supra• per day, 11 

perceat or c~~e LIICIIIIIIJ 10111. m.pare~~ wtlla s.ooo IOU Ill 1964, aad S.000 Ia 1910. For lbe 19!1C!o9l 

IICUOII, AIIUIIC pouiiCI a roconl 1.2 mlllloa 1011 or 

caaellld prodllQeci129.3QOIODiorsupr, 7.3 per· CCIII or cbe LIICIUIUJ 10111. 

Alllaallebcpa 

boupl Oull &ad 

• 

Walen 

a ooopetaiM. 

aupr ID-111 

~ 

Florida 

(aad cbe Domla!caa Republic) Ill 1!114 &ad 1915, 

and :i!Oired a 51::JI!I!!!!ICGatroUiaalp!CI!I&QI 

AIIU li IWi, AltaalleiiCaiil • a a>opcrallwl 

-

............. _., ... _,...._ ... .,..._ ........ 

_ _ ..__ ··--··,.·· _,...,,.._ __ _ 

Supr aad s-.rtlu• 19ft 

and became a private corpotolion,joinllyowncd by 

former mcmbcn of !he a>operaciYe. 

• To lisman Sucar Corporation la Soulb Bay, 11 the 

sou1hem01011 factory and bu a capac11y or I 1,000 

tons or cane per day, 11p 38 percent rrom 1910. For 

1991.92. Talisman around 1.2 million Ions or cane 

and produQecl 117,700tons or supr. While 1 record ouuum ror the company, u the smalle&t producer it ICCOIIDiecl for Oily 6. 7 percent or industry 

productloc!. Tallsmaa bcpa operations wllb lbe 

1961 crop. Tbe oompaay Is OWiled bJ The Stloc 

Paper Company, a subsidiary or lbe DuPont Qart. 

!lble Fouadalloas. 

Cue Praduclloa ud s....., 

rr-atq Coeta ud lleturu 

USDA reporu llaal Florida's a»~ or producllla &ad 

proccul•& suprca111 reu over tbe last decade (IIJ. A·IO) 

(49).' 

The 10111 eooaomlc eo&t or produdaa tbe 19!1C!o91 auaar· 

caiiC crop Ia Rodda - S30.02 per !let lOll, lbe Joweal 

llllbe NalloL AWr&Je returu (residual relUtlliiO 

maaqemeat &ad rtst) lbr F1orida were 153.30 per acre 

(calculated by aubtncllaa total ecolllllllic costa rrom 

c:ula ~pu). &ad S3UO per act IOL F1orida'a a»~ ot 

prodiiCiaJ IUJUCIIIC ltUIIaleiiO 12.37 CCDII per JIODIId 

or raw supr, oompared wltb 1 aaclonala-.ce or 13.34 

ccau. 

Florida suaarc:ue variable casb ·-per pouad or raw supr &ad acc 101 or cue 1-.p 7.9 ceau aDd 

Sl9.2,rcspec!Miy. Tbe prlllclpal Yartablc costs wen labor (41 perceat). ,.m (23 pcnut). &ad ren;u,., 

.... cbeaalcaJI (11 penal). IAcraled mecUalutloa 

reclllQecl cbe coal oi lllred labor - tbe lall decade 

delpltellf&l!er waaea per wort« (1la. A·ll)(appcodm 

lllbloA·3). 

MedaaDical taan.lfn& II leu expcas1¥e per 10a oe a c11m:1 eo&l basil llaaa llaod banal, but siplllcaally 

lllOte tru11 - rroa lllc llcldl, raJs1a& llllllponatioa 

aiiCI proa:u111t COlli (10. 49, S6). Ia ackllua.,lllel:llaa. 

lcaiJy llanatod llcldlllldlllouiiJoould - be lltooaecl • -"'lJr. Hoooeo.w, ..,__ .... llanalllla ........ aad llci&Jllellecl.....-tllkllll piDecl llaroaa' aperlellce .... reduced ,._ ptOble-. 

SaiiCIJ soils Ia Soulla Florida Deed - fenilller &ad 

Jleld leiiiOIIIIIJC per aae llaaa muct 10111. Panlally 

o11Mn1q ao.r yleldlls aore npr per toa rro. cue 

..-~~; _____ oa u11C1J 10111. ~. _ ladusuy ollldals repon 

11 
300 

that maintenance and replacement rosts of tiekl and 

factory equipment are peater Cor cane produced on 

sandy $Oils than muck (10). 

Florida's average eo&t o( prOUS5ing the 1990,91 sugarcane trop Into raw sugar was 6.3 unts per pound or 

$15.30 per net ton.' This was the lowest in the Nation 

and 27 percent below the national average. Florida's 

average plndlng eapadty per millis over 16,000 tons a 

day, compared with S,OOO tons Cor the remainder of the 

domestic cane Industry. The substanllally higher plndln& rate &fves Florida proccsson a distinct cost advantage. Variable cash expenses or processln& averaaed 4.9 

cents a pound for Florida and 6.6S cents nallonally. 

Marketing costs, the laraest component, totaled 1.4 cents 

or 29 percent oC IOta! variable cash expenses. Repairs 

and maintenance were the next highest, reprcsentin& 22 

percent of variable costs. Processing costs In Florida feU 

II percent between the 1989.-90 freeze year and the 

1990.'91 crop, rdlectin1 hiJher volume and recovery rate 

lnaeases (appendix table A-4). 

Combined producllon and processln& costs In Florida 

averaged 18.7 cents a pound In 1990t91, the lint time In 

a decade below 19 ceDIS (appendix table A-S). The 

national average was 20.2 cents. Florida's net production and processiD&costs were 17.6 cents for the 

1990.'91 aop when credits for molasse~, bagasse, and 

other byproducts are liken Into aa:ounL 1 

Aaxlrdin& 10 USDA's 'Ealnomk: illdicators of the Farm 

Sector" repon, total farm cash receipts (fann level sales) 

In South Florida l'or cane for suaar averaged S40 million 

annually in the 1960's, $160 miWon in the 19?0's, and 

$364 JDIIIJon In the 1980's (II&- A-12). 

In lntepated operatioDS, the dMslon of returns between 

llelcl and factory Is not econom.k:ally slpillcanL The 

apparent Florida payment per ton or cane. whk:h iDdlcalel relallv~ly low returns, woulclmost directly alrect 

only Independent Jf0WC1S who are not members of a 

cooperative. 

A dllrerent cost study, not usln& the traditional cost 

aa:ouallnJ approacll employed by USDA, published by 

the University oC Florida, sboM per acre &fOOl revenues 

of $1,121, variable C061S of S6S8, fixed costs of $100, a 

land t:lwge oC $125, 8nd a net retura oC $238 (1).' On 

an average stud Florida sucar farm, 3,272 aaes, Del 

rctu1111 or $238 per aae would yield a prollt of $779,000. 

'Ptoce:..in1 c.u11 iDdude all • .,_..., DCC'CIMrJ lo llni:M ,... avpr 

... .. fiDe.,.. •_..,., ,._.u.c '-'~"'"'- u,.-ot-... pcod- per ocr 100 ot-. 

II 

Govemment Loan Proeram 

Most Florida pr0US50rs usc the nonrccounc loans 

available thsou&h USDA's Commodity Credit Corporalion (CCC). The interest rate Is usually lower than on 

c:ommcrdal toans because Ills based on the Oovern· 

meat's C06t of Cunds. The loans can provide important 

cash-llow benefits to the c:ompanies before the sugar is 

$0(<1. 

The Florida industry acc:ounted Cor over two-thirds of aU 

cane sugar put under loan durin& the last S crop years. 

ill recent yean, the loan rate Cor Florida bas been sliJhl· 

ly below the nalionalaveraae of 18 unu a pound. 

P~rs who take out a loan must pay a mlnlmum 

price l'or suprcaoe (49). 

Markedn& Processed Suaar and MolasID recent yurs, approximately 300,000 tons of Florida's 

annual raw sugar producllon bas beeo relined In the 

State. The remainder was marketed either throu&h 

tona-tenn c:ontracts between supr mills and sugar relln· 

eries outside the State or throuJb the Florida Suaar 

Marketina and Terminal Association (the Association). 

U.S. Suaar annually sends about306.000 tons of raw 

supr by raU 10 the Savannah Food& and Industria 

rellaery In Pon Wenrwonh, Oeorp. and by lriiCk to Its 

Ever&ladeS rellaery near Clewistoll. The Talisman 

Suaar Corporation sends au of its raw suaar by truck to 

the Ever&fada rellnery. Toaether, these two c:ontracts 

have acc:ounted for about oae-lihh or annual production 

(10). 

Tbe bult of Florida's raw supr produaloa, IDcludln& 

the rat ol U.S. Supr's produalon,la marketed throu&h 

the Association durin& the year, relleain& the Industry's storaae capacity at mllls and tile As&oclation's port 

facilitia. The As$0datioJI, an agicllltural awketin& 

cooperatM. was esllbllshed In late 1m by live raw 

sugar processors: Atlantic, Oulf and Westera Food 

Products Company (at the time, OWDers of the Okeclanll mW), Osc:eola, the Cooperative, and u.s. Suaar." 

The JfOUp recoplzed tile poteatlaJol the florida IndUS· 

uy 10 expand and the Umilltions of the em lin& raUsupplled $0Uiheast market to absorb that prodiiCIIon 

(23). 

( TAJvara ud Scllu<KIIU- &fa ... for U -peildCiii .,.,.;;-J ' o/640..,.. "'""too11d loa.-(- Stl per l<la) .. ...,. S7-'0 uti"' 

--~----,10~-- .. "oimaoly.----,.-..,.,..Aioociltioe.....,,. dlol Obelulo ........... o.w .... w ....... n. coJr- '"P' 

,...,_,.--a •-roiiM AMoNiioo i1 IMToliomoa s..pr Corpotaeto.. ~ .. m .. 11 ol ita J)ladluctiae •• 111c E-tcr-

&ladcorcllociJ. 

Suaor and Swect.coer(June lll9l 
F"oguro A·IO 

Florida: Sugaroano Produollon and 

Proe .. slng Coata C....po<l""o"doiIS 

1S ~~' ••• •••••••• r.~ ~••• •• •• •••;;,._, o ', .......... __ .... ·--------' ''· 

10 •• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 

...__ ..... -...... ~.'::.~.::' .. _ ... --- O 1811 1912 1M3 1 ... lees 1- IM7 1111 1111 1880 

FlglnA·I1 Florida: Sugarcane ProducUon Coate 

for Hired Lebor 

C..O.porl""o"dolu 

• 

U IMI ·- Ita liM 1111 1111 IM7 ·- 1111 ·-

FiglnA·IZ 

Florida: V•lue of F11n11 Caell R-lpte from Ceno 

forSupr 

.a,.... 

-....................................................... _, 

301 

F1g1oe A·l4 

Florida: Shar .. of Sugarcane Crop 

~Cut •nd Mechanically H•rve•ted 

ltllm - - - - -· '"'" ·--·--....,-

It 
302 

Central 10 lhelr lfOWib Slralel)' WU CORSII'UCI~ ID 

IUIODIIIed bf&JI·Speed, mecllanfca~ dockside loadfn& 

r.ctllty to aa:ommodatc vlrlually aay YCSSCI reaularty 

used Ia tbe IDtemationatsuaar trade. lbc terminal 

became operational fa 197&. It bas an automated supr 

reccivlaa s111t1oa to unload 1t11eb arrlvln& from 111c 

producill& area about .50 miles weal ot the pon, and a 

... rcbouse wllh a capacity ot 20,000 tons (llaurc A.&). 

1bc loadlna station bas a sus1111Dec1 capacity or about 

100,000 tons a month, based oa 24 boun per day and 

SK day work week. 11 1bc Asloclatioa OWDS no bar..-, 

but cbanen several under various amaaemeau (10. 

ll). 

The Asloclalion usea many dlft'crent prlcin& mecbanlsiDI 

ID markelin& Florida's raw supr. 

• )'bed price sala are tbolc ID whlclllllc AsiOclatioa 

IDd 111c buyer aaree on 1 prloc for a particular 

quanlity of suaar 10 be dell¥ered on a set dale. 

1bc delivery dltc price II nonna11y mtcbed wltll 

lhe c:orreapondiD& fllturea coalriCI moatb tradilll 

on lllc New York No. 14 marteL 

• Prlda& llplnst No. 14 -trld is commonly used 

by lhc Asloclation Ill seD Ia& raw suaar to trade 

bouseland rcftac~a. 

• PrkiDa llp1alt lloruree MUJcmeat prlas prooidol 

for lllc priciD& of I spccUied IOIUII&C Ia I COIIUIICt· 

c1a1 matract apiDstlhe awraae of tbe daily seukIIICIII price of 1 speclllc No. 14 flllurea delivery 

monlh for aa I&JCed Cllcndar period durin& wblcb 

lhe fllrurca delivery monlh wiD be tradlnJ. 

• • ..,.... Cilia 11low lllc buyer 10 prloc up 10 a spccillc: Umiled quaality ot suaar on lllc basil ot tile 

precediD& day'S ICIIIeiDCDt price for I dealpaled 

fllturcs ~ 1110111k. 

• l'rklnl bJ ..,._,II done wbea tbc AsiOclalioa 

and 1 buyer apoe 10 pricle a preclctermlaed quaality on a dally or weekly bull ( 10). 

Tloo facllllles Ia lhc Sla~e procea raw CUIC suaar 1a10 

rciiDed products. 1bc Evcr&Jadea Supr Reftacry, lac., 

Ia a lland alone unit OWDed by SavanDih Foods and lndustrfea lac., and produces lbont20(),000IODII year. 

Florfdl Clystala Rcllncry, lac., b pan of tbc Okeelsnlll 

mUI, IDd ID recent yean produced about 80,000 10111 of 

rcllliCid supr aJIDually. 

_ ''no- ... _'"""" -llll)'llli_.c ....... ... _ "'"' ...... .. --_ ... __ 144,000 

(IG). 

20 

For a a umber of yean, tbc suaar prod.uced at tbc Okee· 

lanta rcftncry wu marketed by Savannah Foods and lndustrlca, lac. But wit~ tbc 1991M crop, Flo-Sun, lac., 

tbc parent mmpany ot Okeelanta, e&Uiblisbed an Independent tUrkclin& operation for rcRned supr. Creation of a markctin& system and product linea is a key 

Clement Of flo-Sun's Stratel)' tO be Ill lntepaled food 

process in& company. The pi for 1991192 Ia to expand 

lllc procasiDa season beyond lllc normal campalp and 

produce 1.50,000 tons ot refined suaar (10, 26). 

Florfdl's population IDcreased trom 6.8 million Ia 1970 

10 13 mlilloa ID 1990. Florfdl's Statistical Abstract 

sbows SUite sweetener use Ia aroulld 1 mWioatoas, 

compared wllh 437,000toDIID 1970 (46). SuJII'ssharc 

Ia 1990 wu about-400,000 toDL However, consumplioa 

ill Florfdl caceeds tbcse catimatea because lbc SUite's 36 

mUiion annualtoulisu arc aotlllcluded. 

Blactstrap molassca Is a valuable byproduct ot raw suaar 

mnufacturfaJ. WbUe I SmaU ponloa of lhe IIIOiasscs II 

11101 Ia local U..toclt feediD& operations of suaar COIIIpealca, tbc peat majority Ia mrkcted by the Florfdl 

Moiassca Eadwlac, a c:ooperalivc similar 10 lllc Florfdl 

Supr Martclina alld Tcrmlllal Association and ioCIIed 

at 111c same tcrmiDIL or tbe 104 mlUioa pllons or 

611,00010111 ot molassca proclueed by 111c lad us II)' In 

1991),91, fUI,OOOIODI or mote lhaa 99 perCICDI were 

marketed tluou&h tbc Eldlaa&e (Uible A-4). This share 

bas lacrcued ill ICCICIII yean, rcllcctiD& U.S. SuJII's 

sbift away (rom Clllle operatioDIIO citruS and IIIOIC 

supr. 1bc Excbanae bas lllc capacity to market far Ia 

eu:css of 600,000 tons or molasses annually. 

The Excbanae sblpslbout .50 percent of Its total annual 

saJcs by blpway semi uallcrs aDd rallrold tank ell$. 

1bc rcmalnclcr is tratDCcrrod to a 60,000-too Ulnk farm 

at tile Pon ot Palm Bcaclt wberc 11 is bcld for Clpor1 to 

Europe and Crooada. !lou. domestic and forelp sales 

arc made by periodic public leaden 11 weD 11 pr!Yate 

neaoliatioDL 

Florfdl's suprcane alflculturc 111kea plaCIC laracly 011 

orpnlc or muck solb accumulaled from vcaetalivc 

resld- trom proton&ed swamp c:oadltlons. 11 Ia 1990, 

tn perocnt ot suprcanc acreaae wu on muct, lllc remiiDder 011 sandy soils mostly oa tbe c:xpandln& weatc111 

ed&e ot 111c powlna area (13) (II• A-4 alld A.&). The 

muck soils, oo tnp of Umeatnne or marl roc:t, vary Ia 

lhlckacss trom ~51 IDc:bcl (lllc Terra Ccla and 

~ «~ IOillp•rd7 ....UIS ,. ... ot _,. Olplll<-"' .... (7). 
303 

Okeccbobce soli croups) to under 20 loches (Dania soU 

poup), aeaerally 4cdlllln& front 110ttll (near Lake Okce· 

ciiOboe) to soutll (40, <&2, 41). 

Tlae bl&hJy fenlle, or1anlc solb of tbe EAA are 1ubject 

to lublldeace or c:ontractloa (10, 40, 42, 48). SoU 1ubll· 

dence II blolo&Jcal ollidatloa of tbe muck soils caused by 

ruaat, aerobic bacteria, and aatlaomyceteo tbat dec:om· 

pose oraalllc matter. Subokleace Iowen tile surface 

elcvatloa a tile oraaatc portloa of the soU oxidizes Into 

tile air. 1be aw:nae IUblideace rate It about 1.2 IIICbea 

per year and bas lc4 to a slpllk:aat reductloa Ill soU 

Ieoda (40, 44). A 9-foot c:onaete market pclltdrlw:a to bedrock Ia 1924 at tile pracat Jocatloa of tile 

Ulllw:rslty of Florida'1 Ew:raJaclea Raearcb aDd Educa· 

tloD Ceater (Raearcb Ceater) Ia Belle Olade. !If 1977, 

581Dcbea of soD sublkleace bad occurred at tile JIOII, 

aDd by 199laa addlllonal12 10 14 lnche& (10, 39). 

1be sublkleace red- tbJck deposits of oraalllc materi· 

aL Nor aD liOill sublkle at tile same rate. For aample, 

Tony muclt, wllicb -•ts b 7.1 perceat of tile soU Ia 

tile EAA, bas a blp daJ c:oateatand remalas wet 

tbelcby reduciDJ tile sublkleace rate (S). Moreover, tile 

rate of sublkleace varies rrom ,ear 10 year depelldiDJ 

oa tile lew:l of tile water table. Also, a tile ~of 

die orJIDic matter decreUCI, so doea tile a1110w11 of 

mJaoblal ac:tMty,SiowiDJ tile blocbcnllcaJ oxldatloa 

process aDd formln& a more stable soU base. 

1be Raearcb Ceater says tbat tile key to tile soU subll· 

deace problem II water table maaaaemeat. aDd 10 keep 

soils lloocled wM8 aotla use aDd mallltala tile water 

table .. bJ&b .. poulllle dwlaa tile cropplaa qdes (l9). 

For CDJDple, .,o.s cue yleldlcu be ICIIJeYed wt1e11 tbe 

water llble II lito 24 IDclla below 1M l1llface, -

pared willa tile ltlldltloDallO to l6 ....... 'l1le Reo 

-reb Ceater rcporu tile more orpalc 100 abcM tile 

water table, tile more~ 

ODe meaas of 11ow1DJ sublkleace, and eddlllJ ea~IIOBilc 

reiWIIIIO tile raDd, Is culllvalloaof aqullc: CIOJIL Rice, 

wl&ldo f001Uira lloc>dlaa 81 put of Its aonul product loot 

c:,de. II slldla crop. Ia tile tbJrd- of a suaarcaDC 

procfiiCiloa c:,de. tile lle1ds are IIOllllally left l'allow 

durlllJ tile IUIDIDer prior 10 plaatiDJ a - "plaat- crop.' Flooded rice culllvadotadllrla& 1M-fll. 

low period will reduce or stop 100 au~ Moe-. 

_.,-ud .-yleldl oa llddt roDowlq rice ue 

bJ&ber. For CDIDple, cue Jleldl ~rice46.$- per acre, -pued to 42.., .. llddt -cropped willa r1ce (3). s-~eoc~s- tu pcRlCIII 

rollowinc rice \'CBUS 12.6 percent after fallow. Mon 

arowen c1o aoc fenillze rice. " 

For more thn 40 ,an, 1arae areas of the EAA llaoe 

beea apected to be uasultable for c:oaventloula&ricul· 

ture by the ,ear 2000 ( 44, 4S). Slace oraanJc maller 

dec:ompo51tloa Is a biolo&Jcal phenomenon, the rate or 

soU subsidence Is hlply predictable for a pw:a r.el of 

c:ondltlona, Le., I foot per 10 ,an or about 1.2 laclle& 

per ,ear oa vlr&Ja muck soils wileD tbe water table It 

malataiDed below 20 incb-. Acc:ordlnJ to tbls researcb, 

bJ tile year 2000 only about 80,000 acre& Ill t1ae EAA 

were apected 10 baoe oraalllc soils 3 feel or deeper and 

SOO,OOO lCIW woukl baoe 3 feet or leu, of wllldl onebalf wiD be less tbaa I foOl. 

Supr ud s..ce-/lu• 1992 

Some areas may become lnaeullliJy susceptible to tlae 

problem durlll& tbe 1990"L A case Ill polllt may be tbe 

arowia& area l'artbest soutla rrom Lake Okeedlobee, 

wllicb Is oa relatlw:lysballow muck. Howcw:t, wllere a 

blper-tlan-.pwater table It mallllalaed,or flood. 

Ill& or prodliCIIoa of aqu11c crops sucll a rice Is dODe, 

the rate of soD sublldeDcc will be lower tbaa tlae a¥er· . 

aae. 14 No llekll baoe &OK 0111 of IIIJil prodiiCIJoa 

because of sublkleace and some llldusuy ol'lldall Jle. 

1le¥e tile coacen ow:r soD tubfldeac:e, Ill tile sbon Na, 

are ow:rstaled (10). 

f1cN .... Mllll'nldUCSI>IIJ ClaaiJcn&ee 

WbiJe area espanded dramallc:slly, suaarcaDC yield& per 

acre 'lliCIC relatlw:ly sleedy, aw:racllla 32.4 IOU Ill tile 

19110'1, 32.3 Ia tile 1970'1. aDd 32.0 Ill tile 1980'1. Ylelcls 

fof 19!10 ud 1991Jumped 10 realrd-breatJac le¥cls of 

34.9 ud 36.S to.~, rapectlw:IJ. Supr yleldf per aae 

lreDded up flola 3.261011118 tile 19110'1, 140 Ia tile 

1970'1, u.s 3.60 Ia tbe 1980'1. Record supr )'loldl ol 

4.3 1011 per acre were reponed fof 1990 aDd 1991 (JI&. 

A·l3). 

Tbe Florida IIIJ&rCiliC illdlllll)' 1111 I well eltabllsbed 

resan:l aDd deldopmeal propaa Variety de¥elop- _,ls a coopcrallw:olrort by tile USDA 'I Supn:ue 

Flekl StaiiOIIat cuaa Polllt, t1ae UIIMrslty of Plor1da'1 

~ Ceater Ia Belle Ollde, and tile Florida supr 

powen ..,.,.,... admlalatered by .... Plor1da SuJarcaae 

Leque (tile l..eque) beadqlllftered Ia CkwlaloL k 

llkell to 10 ,an to deoeJop I -.en:iaiiUJUCIM 

varleiJ. New varletlel ~ uder tlalt tripanhe 

ellln are dllutbuted by lbe l.eqlle uder powet-c:oop 

.. ________ ..,.....,, __ 

..,._ .. ..,... .... _,_,....(~ 

..._ __ ... ..., .. -... ., . ..__ 

21 
era tor agree111cnts. U.S. Sugar, as a member or the 

waue, Is active lo this arranaement, and also has a 

lona·standlna breedina proaram or its OWD. 

304 

For the 1990 harvest. 36 cane v.arieties were &fowtl In 

Florida. Three oC them (CP·72·1210,CP-70.1133,and 

CLA>l-620) accounted for 57 per<:ent oC total plantinp, 

oompared witb 79 percent in 1987 (13). The reduced 

oon<:entratloo on a few varieties in recent yean has been 

a strateJY to lessen vulnerability to disease and pest 

problems that mlpl bit one particular variety. Moreover, tbc breed Ina proaram Is oow emphaslzlna development oC varietla with blper suc:rose oontent. with better ratoonln& cbaracterlsllc:s, and reslstan<:e to rust, leaC 

scald, stuottna diseases, sugarcane borers. as weU as toleraace to biper water tables. 

Meaawblle,ln the millln& and supr manufacturln& 

phases oC operations there bas been a aenerallnc:ruse 

In eapltallnYCStments to Improve cftlciency. For exam· 

pie, the size, number, and emctency oC standard equipment sucb as roUer mUis, lllters, v.acuum pans, and 

evaporators ~ve Increased. New tcchnoloates have 

Introduced bca"J duty shredders, blah performance Cccd 

rolls, sbort receotloo lime clarlfters. oonllnuousv.acuum 

pans, and vertical c:rystallbers. SicnificantlnYCStment 

baS JODC Into sblftln& from tradltlonaltbree to tbe oew four miU rows Cor crusbin& caae and equipment Cor 

Improved extracllon oC sucrose from molassa. 

Labor Claallcnca 

Nearly 18,000 workers f10W and barYCSt suprcaae and 

another 2,150 are employed In IIIIUID& and rellntna 

operatloas In Florida (19). AboutiO,OOO are annually 

brouptla from Caribbean oountrles to band harvest tbe 

crop. blstorfcally tbc preCured method oa muck soils. 

.N. tbe eaoe matura It Calls over, causln& lhe top por· 

tlota or e.acb plaat, wblcb must be removed ill barvestlna. 

to be at lrrep!U helpts tbroupout tbe Oelcl. 1bc 

worker Ia tbe llelcl can cut at aactly tbe correct heipt 

Ota eKb plaDI but I IIIICbllle COUld DOL On soft muck 

soils, heavy lltiCblael bave tended 10 damaae suaarcane 

roots. lowcrin& productlollla Collowln& seasons and 

Corclaa replatatltaasooDCt." 

Tbe employmetat oC olf-sbore workers bas been a loo&-

llandlaa Issue amona lndusuy, labor ripts advocates, 

tbc U.S. Oovei'IIIDCnt, and tbc media. Domestic recruit· 

IIICIII efforts slace the 1940's bave DOl beeta suc:ccssful. 

so the Florida aupr lndusuy bas soupt barYCSt labor 

elscwbCJC. Caribbean workers come to Florida to cut "o.--.. -,....n-. ......... ,.;a IJI>ially- .. ..,-...-, ... - op ..... lcDCfial;u.lf.,.IIO-IIIcol ..._... 

u 

cane each season under the H·2A program administered 

by the Department oC Labor alld and the lmmlpatloa 

and Naturalization Service (CNS). 

However, prior to ob~inin& Labor's permission to em· 

ploy theae workers, the industry must demonstrate tbat 

there are lnsuftlctent U.S. workers able, wllllna. and 

available, and that imported labor will not advencly 

atrect the waces and workln& oondltions or similarly 

employed U.S. workers (26, 52, 53). 

Labor is responsible for review and approv.al or tbe job 

terms and oonditions becwccn tbc worker and the Flori· 

da Industry. The CNS sraots Immigration Jtatus to the 

workers and allowatbem to be employed on a seasonal 

basts. 

Cane cullers' WIIC$ arc SCI Oll I 'WI< basis; COfiD&Jiy 

cutlln& aU or a portion of two rows oC cane (cut row). 

The price oC tbe "WI<' wries &om Oelclto Oeld, reOect· 

In& tbc diftlculty or the cut Alfectln& the speed or tbc 

cut arc the esUmated tons of cane In the llekl. oondltlon 

and v.ariety or the cane, and tbe quality or the pre-bar· 

vat burnlna of cane llelds to remove ezceaa vccelatlotL 

Workers are tOld the price beCorc the start or eac11 

"task". Row pricea are set at a level that al.lo>w tbe 

avcrace worker 10 cam more thaD the federally established Adverse Ell'ect Wace Rate (AEWR). 1bc 

AEWR for the 1991,92 barvatln& seasoll was initiallY 

set at $5.38 per bour aod Increased to $5.68 February I, 

1992. 

H·2A workers. mainly from Jamaica, reccivc free round 

trip w Care 10 Florida and free bousiDJ. Workers must 

pay for meals wbicb caftJIOt exceed $6.39 per day by 

replatiotL Traditionally, 2 percent oC their cart1lnp 

went into aa optional bcaltb Insurance policy and 23 

percent into Ill optional savlap flltld administered by 

tbe West Indica Ccnual Labor Orpnlzatioa (WICLO), 

a quasi-aooenunental orpniz.atlon act up by tile Wat 

Indica Realonal Labor Board." 

For a number or years, tbe Florida •upr lndusuy baa 

beeta critk:Ued by tbe media and Carm labor orpnlza· 

lions. primarily Rural Lepl ScMces and the Farm Worllcrs Justice Fund, Cor its treatment and oompenaatioa of 

H·2A workers (34, 54). In addition, tbe Department ot Labor found cases where workers were underpaid at!d 

the WICLO'• adminbuationoC worker propams waa 

lu. 

"no. ~~.cpaut......,. lloMI- ot oll'oriak r-..- ea.Mcu pcrMteell Mae citiKM ...•• ·~ .. 1M H· 2A .......... udlu dlai,... illllo ,.,..._ Sca<IAI)'ol tM 

MioiiiiJ ol!Aor ill .lalllola. Actio& oo bdlllf oliM -. ... 1M 

loud ue..a, M&OiiiiCII U ~mploJmcftltpcciMM witb liM f'loridl 

............ .., . 

Supr ••• Swee .. aer/Juac 199Z 
305 

The lndi&Stl)' bas reacted to tbese problems Ill a number 

or ways, sucb u upend in& H-2A llvin& quaners and 

dcvelopln& more automated ways to 'ticket' task wort to 

reduce disputes. 

Now workers wbo sicn up for a bcaltb care propam 

bave 2 percent or their carninp remiued directly to U.S. 

Insurance oompanles. In prior years, tbc dcdualoaseat to WICLO. To overcome another coaccm, Jamal· 

can workers wbo want to panldpate Ia lbe saviap propam mi&SI sip up Ia Florida Ia addition to JamalcL 

This belps ensure tbaltbe reptntlon is YOiunwy. 

Dependeaoe on Imported labor bu dec:IIDcd Ia recent 

years becausc aew macbJDa caJt operate more dlldeat· 

ly oa muck soils, Improved suprcaae wrlellel Slllld 

more upript, aad maaaFJIICIII ballmprooed tbroup 

experleaoe aDd adaptatlolls (fl&. A-14). For lbe 1991HZ 

-. lbe IDdusll)' bahaled 54 percoat or 111 crop., macbiJte, COIIIpared 'Willi 2$ percoat I decade lF- U.S. 

Supr ba.-ted Sl perceat ., madtlae, •P from l9 

percent Ia 1990/91, lJicl tbe CooperaiM barwated a reoord 81 pet'CC11t by machine, compared wltb 66 perccat 

the previous seasoa. Tile Cooperalioe pia .. to mecbul· 

cally ba.-t UlO perceat or tbe 1992193 crop. Tile 

Talismaa Compaay bu 1leCil fully mecbanized for a 

number or years, but reponedly at a bl&b -t or r... 

quent replantlnp (10). 

Wben lbere is a freeze, selec:ti¥ely cuttlnc only •adam· 

•&eel paru makes band bahatiDJ valuable aad dllcleat. 

Howcvcr, DeW eqlllpme~~taad ldjustmeallll lbe 111111 

are 

After 

1mprov1ac 

tbe December 

lbe advanlapl 

1!119 freeze, 

or JMCitulcal 

IDetllulcal 

~ 

u.-tcn 

pert'onDcd welllJicllaael wae llliiiiDibed. 11lere are tltree typea Ia Florida: tile Clau (Oermaa). Aua·Toft 

(AIISirallan). aad tbe 2 row, 2 IDlCitiDe IJSIC8I developed 

., tbe CooperatM. ne eameco CompaaJ or Lottlsl· 

... bu de¥eloped a maclllae ¥CIJ limllar to tbe AusToft, which II apedally cooc1 on lbe sandier laadl 

where tbe aop II "lf&bter" aDd more erect. 

Tbe bulk of barvestln& 1111)' be dnDC bJ macblne Ill 5 

yean. Processors are adaptln& to lbe lll&her trub ooa- tent ot macblDe caJte ., addiD& a tounb roUet to eacb 

mill to aUow maiDteaaace or lbe crladl•& rate aad lm· 

prowd atraelloa. The CooperaiM rcporu tbatlt bu 

made lmprovemenula Ill e11111111Ju Slltloa 10 allow a 

loap tlme lor supr C111tals to Cora 'BIIII apeciDd 

to 1acrase )'lelda aac~ oll'set ••car 1oae1 rro.. mecbaal· 

ca11y harvested cane. 1a 1991192. t11e ClOII or JDeCbaalcal 

bahatiDJ- $1.50 pet "" COIIIpared wltb IIIDtaaiiJ 

cut cue at S12toa (10). 

Ea\'lroDODmlal Oalle.,.. 

South Florida's supr lndustl)' II confronted wltb slanlll· 

cant envii'OIIIIICatal cballenca conccmlna watu, especially wltb belptened pul>lk: coftCCm about malntalnla& 

tbe viability or lbe ualque ecolo&Y or tbe Ever&Jada (11&-

A-lS). Bounded abo by a rapidly arowln& urbaa populatloa to tbe eut, suprcane productloa and procasln& 

operations are lacreuln&ly scrutinized oYer eaviroamental issua. The 111011 promlaeat oae coafroatiac 111e 

Florida IUJU ladUSII)' lithe level Of pb01pborus CODCCD• 

tntloa Ia l'llliOif watu l'toat tile EAA. 

Fedual aDd State apttclclllaw detetmlncd tbal pltolpborulll aportec1 via cuall Croaltlle EM aDd bas 

Impaired 111e ecoJoa1ca1 IDiepll)' or 111e f..Qabatcbee 

Nalloul RetuJe aid II tllreaiCitia& tbe IMr&Jada Nalloul Part (42, 50). Nuutaua,llldlaa pbo&pborul, 

aourillt plaats, llldl aa c:attalll, wltldlc:aa cause cMqe& 

Ia DllMCICOI)'I- (10. 42, 50). 

Ia 1991, Florida paued tile Marjory Stoaemaa Doup Evet&Jada Protectloa Aa wltlcb require& lbe Water 

Dlltrict to adopt a llll1act watet lmprovemeat aid 

maDIFJIIClll (SWIM) plan (41)." Tbe Aa alloM for 

tbe crealloa ot a stormwatet utUII)'. 

In July 1991, Fedual aDd State olllclall reacbcd u 

aareemeat 10 setdc a FederallaMuit coaoeraiac 111e 

quality olwater eatcriac tlte E-&Jada (50). • 'l1le 

seldcateatladudcd: 

• sa-ter-......_ Tlte Water District 

wiD pun:base, dalp. aDd COIIIIIIICIItormwater 

treatmealareaa (ST AI) 10 reduce pltolpborus COD· 

oealnlloas bJ lliiUIDJ EM noaolf tbroup aatural 

¥CJCUtloa before It reacba tbe l..oabatcbee RcltaP. tile WCAs, and tbc Put (II&- A· 15). The 

ST AI wiD ladude approllmately 35,000 acres ol 

farmlaad wltbla tbe EM at key outllow polats. 

_ .,..,.,_ .... _.,-n.e......- Dooopoolla - --• -ofo.-',Nia.i -.-.--.... .,..,, '"noo-...--.... o.-.n, t-..., ... u_ ----........-............ ... -of~- ____ ... __ 

... _......,__ ..... _o.,.-of-

_.......,.. 
• Rueardl ud moaltorla1 proarams will be Initiated 

to check compllanc:e wltllthe aareemenL 

• A "PlatO<)' P""'"•llto be u~enakea to 

achieve a IG-perc:ent reduction of phoapllorus In lbe 

water lavina the EAA by 1994, an4 25 percent bY 

1996. The proaram will require special permits tor 

Internal dralnaac systems In the EAA. 

Ia State adntlnlltratlve and Fe4era1Judlclal procccdlnp. 

the Lcaaue, U.S. Su&ar, aod the Cooperative have challen&e4 lbe sdeatilk aod lepl bases tor the senlemcaL 

The Lcaauc abo bas aa alternative propooal which SLate 

an4 Federal aaeades are cxamlalna (18, 36). 

In addition to phosphorus levels, there Is the Issue of 

water levels, or bydroperiocl--the quaatlly,tlmlng. and 

duratloa of water leYcls In tile EveraJadcs. Dcades or 

bumaa lntuveatloahave altered the hydroperlocl ot the 

entire EveraJades s)Stem. lncludlDJihe Park, contn'bullnJ to chances Ill lbe e<:OS)Stem. Rec:entlow rainfall bas 

c:uc:erbated lbe bydroperiocl problem. The National 

Park Servic:e bas requested chaaaes ID lbe water delivery 

schedule to more closely approldmate 0Dllllfal' now 

conditions (10). 

The cstlutate4 c:oot of lbe land aod onnstructioa or the 

ST A lllllllloD marsbcs calle4 ror Ill lbe scttlemeal vary 

wiclcly. One ollldal estimate Is $312 millloa berween 

fiscal yean 1990 aod 1997 (42). SLate law allows the 

Water Olslrla to c:rcate a stormwater uUUty that can 

charac Carmen a share of dcaaup costs (43). 

Fuhlrt Prospecll 

Where will lbe Florida su~~r llldustry be Ill S yean? 

Much clcpeocl$ oa lbe outcome ot lbe labor aod cnvlroamealll Issues, aod other factors sudl as soD subsldeiiClC. 

Also ot crllk:al lmportaace will be lbe U.S. supr proaram and possible cbaAJe1 due to trade apeements or 

Mure wnaes Ia leplatlotL 

The tollowln& forecasts are base4 on subjective JudacmeaL The 'hlp' aod 'low' forecast llncs bound u area 

wbkll sbould luduclc aboutiWO-Iblrds or Ultely out: 

COIIICL" 

• Ala for Supr ud Soed (ftJ. A-16) 

Suprcane aaeap ID Florida steadily lnc:reased 

over lbe last 20 years, but at a clccUala& rate. The 

20-ycar averaae luc:reasc (197217l-1991."12) was 10,200 acres per year, the IG-year avcraac waa 7,100 

acres, and lbe S-year averaac was 6,500 acres. Ia 

1991,92, supr and seed were harvested from a 

record 443.000 ac:rcs. 

306 

ERS' 'low' forecast for 1996197 Is 410,000acrea, a 

drop of 7.9 percent or 33.000 ac:rea from 1991,92. 

This decline allnolt matches the proposed land 

oeeded tor ST A ftltratloa nsanbca. AltematiYcly,lt 

onuld Imply lbe lou ot aomc area due to eUmlnalloa of production at sites where severe soU subslclcac:e bad occurred or the shift lD land use to more 

remunerative crops (e.J. veactablea or citrus). 

ERS' 'hlp' forecast tor 1996197 io 500,000 aacs, 

an lnaeasc of 13 perc:eot or 57,000 acrea. Thll 

forecast lmpUcs no lou of acreaac due to environmeatal bsucs, onatlaiiCd c:rpansloa ot suaar Ia to 

lbe sand lands west ot lbe EAA. and some pins Ill 

suprcane aaeaae from veaetablcs. 

ERS' 'most likely' forecast II 458,000 acrea ID 

1996w97, aaltlaeasc ot 3.000 aacs per year (0. 7 

percent a year). Tbio would be about hall the 

powtb rate ot the last S years which was 6,500 

aaea pet year. 1'1111 slower powtb io conslsteat 

wilb the fact that liiOit suitable land Ill !be EAA Is 

already Ia caac. aod future apic:ullural apansloa Ill 

the sand lands io likely to ao laraely to dtruS. 

However, due to lbe hip reu.ms from supr, some 

land resources will ooalillue to be pulled 11110 cane. 

• Supr per Acre (ftJ. A-17) 

Ia onalllllto acrcaae, lbe rate ot iacrease Ia supr 

per ac:re bas aoc:elerate4 over lbe last 20 yean. 

1bc ZG-year averaac was 3.57 tons per ac:re, wilb a 

powtb ot .()38 tou per acre per year. 1bc 1G-ycar 

averaac waa 3.82 tona, wllb aa atlllual powtb or 

.056 IODS per acre, aod the 5-,ar averaac was 3.94 

tons, wllb 111 atlllual pvwt11 rate ot .144tons, tour 

tlmea lbe 20-ycar powUL Ill 1991,92, supr per acre was 4.28 tona, weD above tread. 

ERS' 'low' rorecast Is 3.*1 tons ~ year Ill 

1996w97. Yields could reven towal.s lbe IG-year 

averaac because or re4uc:ed usc ot l'enWzen, peatlc:idcs, aod herblddcs due to eovlfoameatal coac:erna, or lbe lou of blp-yleldia&laad. or poor 

reaults from lllaeased mecbaalz.ed bar>atlDJ. 

ERS' 'hlp' forecast bas yields Ia 19911,97 at 4.6 

IODS pet ac:re, 17 perc:eot alJ6ooe lbe 1105t rec:eat 5-

year averaae. AltalaloJ 4.6 toas would aced 111 

luaeasc from lbc latest S-ycar averaac (3.94) or 

ooly0.13 tons per aae per year, lower !baa cxperieaccd Ia lbe last S yean. 1be 'lllp'sceaarlo onuJd 

reault from lmprowed varietal brce4lnJ and more 

acreaac 111 bi&Jtct yleldlll& sand 1aDds. 

wo;;;;;;;;;;-........ liM-- """. t·iM JHClllbili-

.,. ---lllo--

Supr ood S•••<l<ner/Juo< 1991 
307 

F"9Ufo A· IS 

South Florida's Everglades Agricultural 

Area (EAA) and Adjacent Water 

Conservation Areas, Parks ,and 

Preserves 

~·11,11' .. .,.. ... - -~ u.......,...., .... ... '""..., o-- • ...,CAI'IMnr-.on 

a·--.- ·-CNI'SW!Gpt ....... 

-Riweti.""*' .... 

-

FlguN ...... 

Florida: Sugarcane ArM for Sugar and SMd 

-- NOr-------------------------~~ 

100 

:: ::::: :::::::::::::::: :: :: :::::::::::::: ~ 

Supr aatl s--/Juac 1991 

F"oguro A·11 

Florida: Sugar per Acre 

Sho!ltono,,.wvoluo 

5,-----------------------~ 

H;gh •.• 

U• ·· ··· ··············· ·· ··· ······· ··· ···· ·~ 

~!_!!Y 4 ............. .... . . . . . . . . ...... . ................. ··· 

low 3.;·· 

u,.~n/73~:-'-..... ,~.=-:= ...... -"':,~-*:':-'-..... "",-~.l, ...... ,.., ... _..wr ·p...-. 

~A-11 

Florida: Sugar Production 

··---.- 2,000 ,.----------------. ..... 2,100 

··-

1,100 

1,200 

-

2.220 

:::: :::: :: :: ::: ::::::: :::::: ·· ·:..~~ . .._ ··.J.SOO 

... ... ·········'-
ERS' 'most likely" forcx:ast for yield.s is 4.14 tons 

per acre, up S percent from the most recent S-year 

average, through bree4in& and technology Improvemenu. It wuld also Imply that some marginal, 

tower yielding Ianda go out of production thereby 

stabilizing the overall average. 

• Supr Production (fig. A-18) 

Sugar production in Florida grew at an annual rate 

of 88,000 tons during the wt 20 yean, S6,000 durIng the last 10 years, and 49,000 the last S yean. Ia 

1991J'J2, production was a record 1.83 million tons, 

200,000 or 12 percent above lbe most recent 5-year 

average or 1.63 million tons. 

The ERS 'low" forecast for suaar production is 1.7 

mUIIon tons. • The 'hlp' forecast Is 2.1 million 

tons. 

ERS' 'most Ukely" sugar production forecast is 1.83 

million tons, wmparable to Ibis season's record. 

This forecast wumea 443,000 acrea ( 458,000 aaea 

tota~ less 15,000 for seed) and yield of 4.14tons 

per acre. This scenario lmpUea a>ntlDued hlp 

utilization of c:xistina mill capacity and declininJ 

cosu. 

The 'hlp' alternative would require lbe processiD& 

of more c:ane than the 15 (plus) million tons ill 

t991J'J2. and more investment Ia milling c:apadty or 

a longer production seaso11. 

In addition, there would be increased strain on lbe 

Infrastructure to market sugar II prodUction rises above 

the current level. This botUeoect might be solved by 

Industry's IDcreasec!IDvestmentla storaae fa<:illtica at 

mills, greater dependence on raU transporution to move sugar out of Florida, or expansion of storaae and loadIns capacity at the Port of Palm BeaciL 

asu.., prod»nioe forec:alla aft lbc prod~ ol liM fonc:uta ot ..,..paod,O.Idpcrocro. 'Ik'low"l-fotocrup(-

..,..) ao4 Jic1c1 {l.l too, per..,.) iodMd..U,.- ooly o 1+6 probol>ilioy . ..... - .... loo(t.6J __ .,_l""""' U¥C •• eve• Joaocr probabilkJ. 

16 

308 

(I) Alvarez, JO&e and Thomas Schueneman. 'Cosu 

and Retul'll$ for Sucarcane Production oa Muck 

Soils ill Florlcl.a 199G-91,' Eoonomlc Information 

Report, El 91 -3, University of Florida, Caincaville, FL. June 1991, pp. 22. 

(2) Alvarez. J., G. Kidder, and G.H. Snyder. 'The 

Eoonomlc Potential for Growing Rice and Su&-

arcane ill Rotation in the Ever&Jades,' ~ 

Crop Sst. Soc. Aodda Proc., 38:12-15,1978. 

(3) Alvarez. J., ar.d G.H. Snyder. 'Effect or Prior Rice 

Culture on Sucarcane Yield.s ill Florida,' ~ 

Croos Rgearcb..9-.31S-321,1984. 

(4) Alvarez, Jose, et al "The Integrated Program ~­

proacb illlbe De-;elopment of the Florida Rice 

Industry,' Journal of Agronomic EducatiOI\ 

18(1):6-11,1989. 

(5) ADdeno11, O.L 'A Review: Soils Nutritioaand 

Fertility Practices of tbe Florida Sugar illdustry, • 

Soil and Crop Science Society o! Florida, 49:78-

87, 1990. 

(6) Bany, MarshaU 0 . "The Adverse Impact of lmmiJralioD 

f!Rg. No

oa 

. 3, 

Florida's 

Center 

Farmworkers,' 

for Labor Research 

~ 

aDd 

Studies, Florida International Uaiversity, November 1989. 

(7) Buckman, H•ny D. and Nyle Brady. 'The Nature 

and Properties or SoU,· New York: Tbe Macmillian Company, 1969. 

(8) Buker, Robert H. Jr. and Donald W. Canon. 

'Ever&Jades Ead1ame. • The New York Times. 

September 23, 1991. 

(9) Buker, Robert H. Jr. 'Government Is to Blame for 

Ever &Jades Problems,' Florida Trend. February 

1992,pp. 4. 

(10) Buuanell, Peter and Roo Lord. Field laterviC'A$ in 

Florida and foUow-up research and telephone 

a>aversations with sugar industry, aad State and 

Federal Govemmeatollkials, October 1991-June 

1992. 

(II) Caner, Lutber J. "The Florida Experieac:e--Laad 

and Water PoUcy ill a Growth State,' Published 

for Resourca for lbe Future, Inc. Tbe Joluls 

Hoptlns University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 

1974. 

Supr ud Sweeltatr/Juac 1991 
309 

THE GREATER 

EVERGLADES 

ECOSYSTEM 

RESTORATION 

PLAN 

PREPARED BY THE EVERGLADES 

CO ALmON 

A COALITION OF 18 CONSERVATION AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GROUPS DEDICATED TO 

THE RESTORATION OF THE EVERGLADES SYSTEM 

FOR MORE INFORMATION 

PLEASE CONTACI': 

STEVE PARCELLS 

OIAIR 

EVERGLADES COALITION 

CJO NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIE1Y 

666 PENNSYLVANIA S.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003 

(202) 547-9009 

OR ANY MEMBER OF THE COALmON 
310 

The Everglades Coalition 

666 ........,.. .... Aft., SE, W Floor 

Wubl...-, DC 28103 

FOR IIIIED'A1E Rfl EASE 

Qr'llact S...Piala 

&aiJwloeCDI!cn Dii«m 

TanMidh 

ALIU:xr1aEwlglldtiic.n., Daclr:r 

:me!B-1138 

EVERGLADES C0ALm0N RELEASES PLAN TO RESTORE EVERGLADES 

WA.91rGTa'i ~ 12 -The NllcniiAucU:xrl Soaltt. b Sill1a CU, 1he Wbmeas 

Socialy, b Nllllcnlll Vttile Feclanlla 1 ftltwocba'i at.nia .,,.... ~ tlday 181aasedb 

rnoatWIIP ........ ~JBi .. ~b-FiatiDEvai~ftlcaladl4lQ\banr; 

Aani istlali:JIIOpullhbJBiQ......,.biladiliPBI&.UL 

lheJBi\eeod1alldnlni:nail:¥b&Ma •••111~Fin1hfbtil Wt:lle 

Fe:&ali:i ~ Clall1 WaEr Ar::bl, Ftiandsdh ~ 1(XX) Ftiandsd Fbita.the Nalll8 

~.~IIMII1ilat.rr&'ltasdbfwlgladasa:.licn 

lhe 181 calsb-thewiiPei'&ISMt I8I!IDalicn dh Fbtil EYerglades. aZDmile ~ 

8CXlSySEm tlal&lnlll:hasflan OWldoiDh Flcrtia .. ~ ilcUiasAmaii:a's~ iWnd 

lake and Nalh Ameri:a's criJ wallll8f. 

It esaa1liatf l8lla8IIS 50 )'Bind Sllllelnlfedaral eM. lgi1811i lg. Vlhch ctanedvast portions 

ate EYergladesb' III!Jb.*l8lnl diM!q:mrt. 

"The EYargladas is cn1 d Ameli:a's moat aocil ogaad aMtrmerD. and I is~" sai:t 

Na1bna1 Auc1tm SociBly PI8Sidert F.-AA Berte. ~the Everglades is aiEl d t1e ~ 

lnli'tm'oel1al ctlalanJes cu naiDl faces.. 

"This effort is as~ as p!8S8IYi'lg the Grwod Qnp\ rrh Alaska Nalicnll wt11e 

Refuge," he a:lcled "It wii8Stlle wilclle 1D the EYargladBs. tmg flash _..to the c:ilias d ScUh 

Ftri::B. anc1 en51.18hll the~ ancltlul'isriWB9ad W1'll'lkriias n .. Fbtill<fJJs suvW." 

"One d the oamallcabletorgs atxU tis plan is 1hat I clllaitf bandas the tie beiYteen a SCU1d 

erMa'mertand 

the wmerfk::NI wl 

a 

prtA8Ct 

SJIIIdea::rurPf," 

the I8Cf88lia 

sai:l 

181 

Erwitm'ienal 

civiYJ i'lduslly, 

Dekrlse 

I8Stll8 

Fu-d 

W II 

pasiiert. 

I oal:aJ ancln!Ciaalioi 

Ftad l<n.f.p. 

181 

~ 

fist*og 

and prtMje v.a~ertrtloi.JsnB d busi'lessas n Sol.to FDm • 
311 

Klllnsatn. pr81iiartaf1he\\tciaii-~,CII11Ch,pn .. ~ldililiaalbi81d 

RcrkiiGMmarl.aM:nOiaabaQDt .... "U.S. rr.trem.yBibblt.CIIadtw ,..,.. • af,. Ewiglldlaa •caa.• lhe 11111 "'W811JWhltl_. l»twnatCDJ1llaK81d 

CXIiptl& .. iiMOIIIcli)lthCUflllkn'ahlltly. fcrhltaD1,CURIIicnll81d81111181aaciin r..tbiiiiPCRI~b .. c:hilllrVit ........ 

Cllt Pcpe, piaiiBt aftw Silna Cltlllld, -n. EWI_..ilhcrnebmcl8tll'l a dozen ..,adlrillrY'~g~~•ad.t...-. Tte~aftwlna!UwlhMblliRatidil&1al~i'ibMY 

IWOIIc&, from~ hcMUIIPIIClillb~ .. tl'lbCJ»)aiL" Papea:bld,"lNsisa .., h~clallaa Wld'lJbid~hMc:lactiiiCStr{ll)patati"ibiiiiS)yaa. Iindh 

..... dacadt, .. lcbllarnfWicattahRcrkiiBirthMfalln~.· 

Slid Nlllcnll PllkendCo •'lllliCi• Pnllidlrt ~ Plll:had. "lax:ld'igt)fw Nalicr1al Park 

SeNice, b Ewiglldaailcunate diQIIIadRIIicnll._ TteJ*Inw1181D81helebtxxtM~Br 

flow dtw pmk, end nlllln I b II nlllnl gllndlu." 

lnardarbnlllla8al'lllllnltowaf ... ~,.EWI--eocr,a•~ fleJ*n 

i&UIIi&idsmcl8tll'l100epdeat*na. llwfavtlantwiiRICMIIdecrne...,~diGBB 

btleeliili lllticlidC88stlll~clr'1)tilicnafglllcnld--cUdb&agladasiJIIBn 

sdhbncxa\ 

Acccltt1gbfleplln. ma8tll'lcne tudadhun:la:aftl.t!I»IIXJiiad n crdarb 

pemt.-a'lllltooci"Gnfnlllla8...,qLII(ly. Md'ldblanctls~ tuaanedl is ~end a 111'1111amcut is l8li:illr'tiiL 

lhe pBll'dal hit "lugarc.wnfvagalltit SJOIII8S hallepoiUacf EYagladas Wllllirdsb' 

decadas. • ." lnddamlndshlth!V-paUngnf ~J¥fleU CCI!IISd clillri'Q ~bllliCIId"Q 

erMtrmert 

"Ra&toilticli dtle~ Ewaglldaa 8COIII7* ills not anlypollba, lis \talb'tle econcmi: 

enderwia 11&1111 hallhd FbtB."twpB1CCI1CUiaa. -n..-dtis 1J11Bnls1hesametpd 

i"MIIIrnart CU' l"'lllliln makas 8lo'8l)'day i"i briclgaa. ~lind llipats- buttlis i"llaslructll81sd 

saw;pass. not CD1Dilee.. 

lhe pliri v.as81.bndt7,tb EvargladesCoallicn ar:Mnegol4)~bfle ,... ... , d .. Ewrgladas !JISBn. 

ftf 
312 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION p. 1 

II. PRINCIPLES OF RESTORATION p. 5 

Ill. FLORIDA BAY AND ITS HEADWATERS p. 7 

IV. WATER SUPPLY PRESERVES AND OTHER LAND p. 13 

ACQUISffiON 

V. SHARK RIVER SLOUGH p. 17 

VI. BIG CYPRESS BASIN p. 21 

VII. WATER CONSERVATION AREAS p. 23 

VIII. EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA p. 24 

IX. POLLUTERS MUST PAY FOR CLEANUP OF OWN p. 28 

POLLUTION 

X. C-51 BASIN p. 29 

XI. LAKE OKEECHOBEE p. 30 

XII. KISSIMMEE RIVER p. 31 

XIII. EXOTIC PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES p. 33 

XIV. MERCURY p. 34 

XV. CONCLUSION p. 35 

XVI. GLOSSARY OF TERMS p. 36 
313 
314 

EMBARGOED UNTIL 9AM JULY 12 • NOT FOR RELEASE OR 

DISTRIBUTION 

THE GREATER EVERGLADES SYSTEM RESTORATION PLAN 

INTRODUCTION 

No more important or complex ecosystem in need of restoration exists in our nation than 

the Everglades. Spanning South Aorida from the coral reefs off the Keys to the 

headwaters of the Kissimmee River near Orlando, the size of the Everglades is 

complemented by the diversity of life it historically supported. Nurturing the existence of 

humans and wildlife, it is now a troubled system on the brink of collapse. 

The Everglades has been channeled, diked and drained into compartments that interrupt 

the free flow of water upon which this ecosystem depends. What was once a selfsustaining, healthy system now fails to meet the needs and demands of people, plants and 

animals. Ponions of the Aorida Keys coral reef system, supponing the most prolific 

commercial and recreational dive industry in the world, are threatened by hypersalinity 

and increased water temperatures. Fisheries in Aorida Bay upon which a $200-300 

million annual commercial and recreational fishing industry depends are imperiled by 

seagrass die-offs and resulting algae blooms caused in large part by the lack of freshwater 

flows through the "River of Grass." Everglades National Park is in peril because its water 

supply has been disrupted: too little water at times. too much at other times. The number 

of wading birds has declined by 90 percent in the last 50 years -- a bleak omen since birds 

are among the most visible indicators of change. Despite ample rainfall, Southeast 

Florida is often left struggling to find enough water to meet the needs of its citizens, 

businesses and natural areas because precious water is flushed to the sea. The Water 

Conservation Areas are under assault by pollution from the Everglades Agricultural Area. 

Lake Okeechobee faces serious nutrient pollution problems. The Kissimmee River has 

been altered from the winding, productive stream it once was to little more than a ditch. 

Finally, the whole system is touched by mercury pollution and exotic plant and animal 

species. 

The system once occupied an area roughly 40 miles wide and I 00 miles long that 

extended from Lake Okeechobee to the southern tip of Florida. Because of south 

florida's flat terrain, the water flowed as a relatively continuous sheet, taking alomost a year to reach Aorida Bay. Eighty percent of the water falls in a wet season from May to 

December. During this period, water spreads out over much of the marsh, when plants 

and algae exhibit maximum growth, fish, and alligators flourish. When the dry season 

begins, the water recedes and fish populations are concentrated in shallow pools. These 

concentrations provide wading birds with plentiful food for breeding. Slight variations in 

land elevations also created a mosaic of different water depths that combined to fill a 

variety of ecological functions. 

Today, the Everglades system has shrunk by roughly 50 percent. Roughly one quarter of 

the system has been turned into sugar cane and vegetable fields. Another quarter has 

become urbanized. This has destroyed valuable habitat and interrupted the natural flow 

of water in the system. These areas require rapid, massive drainage during the wet 
73-729 - 93 -11 

815 
316 

season that sends water to tide. They then demand water from the system during the dry 

months. This intervention is at the root of most of the Everglades problems. 

The E vcrglades System Restoration Plan is centered on re-c:reating a free flowing "River 

of Grass" where water rises and falls in natural harmony with seuonal and annual 

variations in rainfall. A fcdcral drainage projcc:t construc:ted a series of blockages across this ecosystem, with internal canals carrying water past dry areas in the nonh to relatively 

deep, stagnant pools in the south. This alteration in flows has harmed the plant and 

animal communities as well as our economy. Currently, the Everglades System is home 

to 16 federally-designated endangered species. To set the system free, historic: flows and 

levels in the remaining Everglades must be returned by re-linking these severed units and 

conserving water now diverted to sea. 

Restoration of historic: flows is the cornerstone upon which this system c:an be rebuilt. The return of natural volume, timing and distribution of water will support the return of 

historic plant and invertebrate communities, that. in tum, provide the food and shelter for 

the fish and animal populations for whic:h this system is renowned. The restoration of the 

full community of life to this complex ecosystem first requires the restoration of natural 

water delivery patterns. And that demands restoration of each of the system's 

components and rebuilding the links bctwccn them. 

What is most remarkable is that despite the litany of ills and abuse. the system can be 

restored. Much of the land needed to ~ the system is in public: ownership and most 

of the legal authorities requWd to undertake the task are in plac:e. What is lacking is the 

political will of the government to design and implement a comprehensive restoration 

plan. 

The c:ost and manner of undertaldng this reconstructive surpry arc unknown. As with 

the drainage projects, infrutruc:ture improvements require a substantial investment that 

will be paid baclc over time by fostering long-term economic: growth. We expcc:t the 

state-federal public: wocb projcc:t model used to drain the system will be required to 

repair iL As we lelm from exJIC!iencc during the progress of this project. we c:an ldjust 

the design to incorporate new information and minimize costs. Our plan is effcc:tive and 

ec:onomic:ally sensible. 

The costs of failing ttl undenake this endeavor arc clear. Our failure to ac:t will 

exacerbate water supply problems for businesses, homes and recreation areas, 

constraining Florida's economy from Palm Beach through Key West. Failure to act will 

destroy the fishing and diving industries of the Keys and Florida Bay. Failure to act will 

doom Everglades Natioaal Park (ENP) to ICCCieraling deterioration. Failure to act will ensure the continued shrinkqe of the bird and animal populations that depend oa this 

system for existence. In shon, the cc:onomic: and environmental health of South Florida is 

It stake. 

Our Plan rec:onnects the now separate picc:es of the 5ys11e111 and illustntes how water can be moved through it to tneet the needs of the entire system and its dependents. Many of 

the rec:ommendations that follow arc reieeratioas or refinements of directives in the South 

Florida Water Manap:ment District's SurfiiCC Water Improvement Manap:ment (SWIM) 

Plan and the U.S. Army Corps of EngiiiCCI'S' Central and Southern Florida Project 

supporting documents; recommendations mlde months and years ago, but never implemented. While any restoration process will be an iterative one. taking time and 

reflecting new knowledge, our Plan clearly shows that it is possible to restore the system. 
317 

OVEJtL.\ND n.ow • NATVJt.U.SYSTEM OVEIU..UID n.ow ·MANAGED SYSTEM 

.. . 

. . ' 

• 

~ .: ... ·., i :, 

PRINCIPLES OF RESTORATION 

The goal is to create a smaller but complete Everglades system by replicating its original 

features -- to re-create a .mosaic of natural soil, plant and animal communities so as to 

mirror the unique biodiversity of the historic system. This system will be self-sustaining, 

bountiful and pafonn the original functions and support the. In designing restoration 

plans for this system. the following principles must be applied: 

Restore pristine water quality throughout the system; 

• Conserve and reroute water entering the system to increase the self -sufficiency of 

urban and agricultural water supplies; 

• Replicate the essential features of the natural hydrology •• the volume, depth. 

timing and distribution of water that once flowed through the system; 

Maximize the number, size, and connections among wetland communities which 

will retain more water and enhance natural values; and 
318 

• Judge the success of restoration by monitoring a suite of biological 

indicators from throughout the system. 

The plan presents four important types of reforms that flow from these principles. 

1. Water manapcnt- We must replicate the timing. amount, flow, depth and 

dislribution of water that once defmed the system. Accomplishing these goals 

requires significant changes in water maoqemeot, including physical and 

operational changes to the series of canals, dikes, pumps and levees throughout 

the system. It also includes changes outside the system to increase the selfsufficiency of agricultural and urban water supplies, for their needs have clistorted 

the natuJal system. 

2. AcqpWtion manaiCmcnr or pmtec:tjon of key !I'M$ now ouujdc the pyblicly 

oWJ!Cd ustcm • Most of these areas must be used to recreate natural flowways into the remaining system, store water, prevent seepage, increase aquifer recharge 

and treat polluted farm runoff. Some areas must be proteeted or acquired to 

provide habitat for Everglades animals, especially endangered ones. 

3. ManaiCmcnt gd oymja;bt - We must couple these restoration efforts with 

continuous physical and biological assessment and oversight to permit policy 

correctiotts as reSlOrl!ion proceeds; 

4. Economic reforms • The economic system must be reformed so that polluters 

pay to cleanup their own messes, coSts of operating the system are borne by those 

that benefit from them and that operation of the system recognizes and restores 

those jobs dependent on a healthy Everglades system. 

The principles drive the decisions we have made about the repair of this system. As we learn more about the system and consider alterations to our strategy these principals will 

guide us as we will consider changes. While restoring the system can only be 

accomplished with a system-wide view, organization of the individual projeCts to 

accomplish this end requires viewing the system in its components. However, while the 

rest of our plan is organized in sections by geography, the strategies are integrated and 

interdependent "Fixing" one part of the system in isolation from the other pans may 

have unintended but devastating consequences on other areas. Therefore our plan must 

be viewed and implemented in a integrated and comprehensive manner. 
319 

THE COMPONENTS OF THE EVERGlADES SYSTEM 

FLORIDA BAY, m HEADWATERS AND THE CORAL REEFS 

BACKGROUND 

Aorida Ba,v and the Coral Reefs 

Aorida Bay is dying. The current collapse of the Florida Bay estuarine and. marine 

ecosystemS is directly related to changes made by humans in the. historic quantity, timing 

and distribution of freshwater flows throughout the Everglades system. The effects of 

these changes are particularly acute as water is distributed to Florida Bay through Taylor 

Slough and Shark River Slough. Due to both structural and operational interferences 

with these flows, reduced freShwater deliveries to Florida Bay have drastically altered the 

natural pattern of salinity variation in the cenlral Bay. Persistent hypersaliniry is now 

more common while periods of low salinity have been virtually eliminated, transfonning 

the Bay from an estuary to a saltwater lagoon. 

The plant communities inhabiting the Bay have been effected by salinity swings, as 

evidenced by recent, massive seagrass die-offs. Dead plant matter releases nutrients 

directly, and by releasing sediments when the roots die, that in tum fuel major algae 

blooms. Algae blooms block sunlight, depleting the water of oxygen and completing a 

vicious cycle by killing even more seagri.SSCS' and causing widespread damage to the 

bo.ttom community of sponges and soft corals. The seagrasses and the bottom 

community serve as the primary nursery for juvenile lobster, Shrimp, stone crab, redftsh, 

tarpon, bonefisb, mullet and a variety of other commercial and recreational species. The 

1992 pink shrimp catc:h. for example, dropped nearly 80 percent from 1986 levels. 

Massive algae blooms now blanketing more than half of Florida Bay, in conjunction with 

the unnaturally warm, hypersaline waterS, are believed to threaten the Florida Reef Tract. 

Although current hydrologic modeling is incapable of detennining the exact reduction of 

freshwater flows to Florida Bay, we do know that flows have been reduced to less than 

half of the level of histOI'ic natural flows during average years, and to less than one fourth 

during crucial wet years.· 'rbe two principal contributors to decreased flows of freshwater 

are the diversions of surface and groundwater flows. 

In addition there must be a concerted attack on the other factors contributing to the Bay's 

decline, especially such things as run-off pollution and the dieoff of the coastal mangrove 

stands. 

Taylor Slough 

Under historic, natural conditions, Taylor Slough provided vital habitat for birds and 

other animals. During the wet season, rainfall would poria in wetlands at the headwaters 

of the Slough. Then the water was.slowly transported south thro.ugh Taylor Slough and 

the Southern Everglades to Florida Bay. Today, unnaturally low canal stages adjacent to 

the Everglades create an eastward gradient through. the bighly penneable substrate, 

causing ground and surface waterS to flow Pll~ ofthe Everglades. Water managers diven 

and rapidly drain waters that historiclllly nourished Taylor Slough and central Florida 

Bay, robbing the Bay of freShwater causing' unnatUI'II fluctuations in.slllinity. Flows into 

the southern Evergladts have been drained into the ocean to ·provide dry land and flood 

control for urban development or bave been blocked from the east by boundary levees 

and canals. Flows from the north have been impounded by the Water Conservation Area 
320 

(WCA) levees and CIDils. These S11"11CtUreS, ill combination with roadways, have cut 

surface comributions to the SOU1hem EverJlades. Apicultural and development press~ 

for lower groundwater tables eut of the boundary canals have revened subsurf: 

gradients and flows, removin& larJe amounts of stored water ill places where, un natural conditions. water once flowed into the southern Everglades. Water losses robl 

the Slou&h of much of its ability to provide critical wildlife habitat. 

LOCATIONOFTAYLORSLOUGB,FLORIDABAY,ANDTIIE 

SOUTH DADE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. 

AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOWS FOR YEARS 1983. 1990 

BLACK ARROWS= FLOWS 111ROUGH CANALS 

WIDTE ARROWS • GROUNDWATER SEE PAGE INFO L-31N 
321 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

Immedialely restore ~-drainqe lfOWICIIIld surface water levels while ensuring a return to the naturll quannties. disttibulioo and timing of flows to Taylor Sloup and Shark 

River Sloup. This can only be ~ehieved by providing water from nonhem arus of the 

system, such u Lalce Okeechobee and the Water Conservation Areu (WCAs) and 

preventing seepage losses in the south. This also should be integrated with the land 

acquisition strategy for the southern Everglades outlined below. Needed specific ICtions 

include: 

JnjmcdjatcJy make the fo!lowjng QJICDtione! cbanw t9 d!e Sopth Qade ConveYance 

~-

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the South Florida Water 

Management Disttict (SfWMD) must raise all Everglades National Park (ENP) 

eutem boUDdary canals (L-31N, L-31W, C-111) to atleut design optimum levels 

and, where necessary, to levels equivalent to natural, pre-drainage adjacent water 

levels. 

• Until its headwaters are restored, the SfWMD must adopt a pumping schedule for 

deliveries to Taylor Slough at S-332 that approximate natural conditions for 

liming llld disttibution. 

These canals form a continuous boundary between the Everglades ecosystem and 

urban and agriculturll. develo~L If stages in these canals are not maintained 

atleut at levels approximanng those in the adjacent Everglades, they will, in 

essence, bleed the EVCfllades dry . . 

• The COE and SfWMD must resttict north to south _pumping to levels that 

balance canal inflows and outflows 50 water is not Clrained from adjoining 

wetlands. 

When water is heavily pumped cTom the·DOithtm reaches of the L-31N canal and 

from the northern end of the C-lll. canal, ·a defteit is created that can be filled 

with water from only thJ'ee:·places: (1) seepage and surface flow from the 

Everglades, (2) seepage llld surface flow from the Urban. arid agricultural areas 

situated to the eut, and (3) upstream canal water diverted from the WCAs. The 

f!J'St and third options are ex~ely detrimental to the Everglades. 

• Duri':'~ normal periods of operation (ineludinJ. extreme wet and dry season cond1nons), the COE and SfWMD must route all L-31N flows at the S-176 

structure (at the headwaters of Taylor Slough} in excess of flows at the S-173 

structure (at the 8.S· square mile residential area) we5tward into Taylor Slough 

through S-174 rather than south through C-lll to be flushed into Barnes Sound. 

During episodes of heavy rainfall, the COE llld SfWMD must route all L-31N 

flows at the S-174076 divide west through S-174 into Taylor Slough. The 

delivery schedule should replicate historic paucms. 

Maintenance of optimum canal stages and elimination of excessive pumping 

practices should, in most instances, eliminate the need to add water for transpon 

south (robbed from the Northeast Shark Slough to the nonh). If the L-31 N canal 

does pull water from adjacent lands upstream, that water should re-enter the 

Everglades nonh of Taylor .Slough where it naturally would have flowed from the 

Rocky Glades. Because the most important conttibutions to Taylor Slough occur 
322 

LOCATION OF TAYLOR SLOUGH, FLORIDA BAY, 

AND THE SOUTH DADE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. 

WITH STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR TAYLOR SLOUGH AND C·lll 

-1 H H !CULVERTS ACROSS USI 

--------NEW SPREADER CANAL 

++UH++++U NEW SHEET FLOW 
323 

during periods of high rainfall and flooding, all such flows from nonh of the 

Slough now prohibited from entering the Slough by the L-31N boundary canal 

and levee must be returned to Taylor Slough via the L-31W canal and S-332 

pump station. · 

• The SFWMD must cease using the S-331 pump for perceived upstream flood 

conlr01 benefits. Use of this pump for flood conb'Ol purposes drains water from 

Nonheast Shark Slough and forces downstream pumping away from Taylor 

Slough to provide downstream flood protection. SFWMD's own f~eld studies 

demonstrate that during periods of rainfall, the operation of S-331 provides no 

flood protection benefits to upstream landowners. 

Begin !lcsien and conS!D!Ction of the following structural changes: 

• The COE must fill and level the C-111 canal and borrow canal south of S-177. 

• The COE must fill the C-109, C-110, and C-111 extension canals, replacing them 

with a single east-west spreader canal located south of S-177 and at the nonh end 

of the extension canals, extending east of the current C-111 bed, and continuing 

under U.S. 1 to restore water levels in the "triangle" area between Card Sound 

Road and U.S. 1. 

• The COE must use the widening of the "18 mile stretch" of U.S. I south of 

Florida City to create culvens at intervals sufficient to re-establish connective 

flows replicating natural patterns in the basin. Channelized flow along U.S. 1 

must be prevented. 

Lands in the C-i 11 basin have been cut off from the natural sheetflow moving 

south from the coastal ridge (Homestead and coastal Everglades) and have 

suffered from lowered subsurface levels in the adjacent southern end of Taylor 

Slough. Reconnecting these lands hydrologically, re-establishing sheetflow and 

managing water flows to prevent freshwater flushes, will result in the return of the 

base ecology supporting a host of endangered and threatened species. such as the 

American crocodile, wood stork, white ibis. and roseate spoonbill. Even with 

these structural changes, the basin will rely on upstream regulation of canal levels 

and flows to approximate the natural timing, pattern and range of deliveries 

relative to precipitation and seasonal flows. 

• The COE and SFWMD must replace the S-332 pump with a mechanism located 

upstream of the historic headwaten to introduce surface water into Taylor Slough. 

Attempts to pump adequate amo1111ts of water into Taylor Slough to replace 

historic and natural headwaters contributions via the S-332 pump are doomed to 

fail. Heavy pumping creates an upstream deficit that can only be replaced by 

upstream flows, thus exacerbating the difficulty of maintaining sufficient levels in 

nonhem canals. Heavy pumping also lowers canal levels south of the pump. 

ensuring that much of the water pumped into Taylor Slough recirculates into the 

canal just downstream. The S-332 pump is located several miles south of the 

headwaters of Taylor Slough and does not restore the upper third of the historic 

Slough. Finally, the S-332 pump is unable to replicate the headw11ters' ability to 

pond water during the wet season, vital for natural water release during the 

transition to the dry season. Introducing Rocky Glades flows at the nonhem end 

of the historic headwaters· and re-establishing proper distribution and ponding 
324 

provide the proper volume of water and the proper timing for its gradual release 

into the lower reaches of the Slough during the transition from wet to dry seasons. 

• The COE must replace the S-174 gate with one capable of routing all storm flows 

from L-31N into the Taylor Slough basin. To be capable of passing peak flows in 

L-31N, and the new gate should have a capacity of at least 1,200 cubic feet per 

second (cfs). 

The current S-174 strUcture is capable of passing maximum flows of only 533 cfs. The S-1741176 junction is designed to accommodate combined flows of more than 1,150 cfs. In order to allow maximum flows to pass exclusively through the 

S-174 gate, it should have a maximum capacity of at least 1,200 cfs. 

Bcdn tbc fo!!owinr pm(p'JJI!matic jnjtiatiycs. 

• The State of Florida should undertake an economic analysis of the cost of 

environmental damage to Florida Bay and the coral reefs. 

• The SFWMD, ENP, Dade County and the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) must design and implement a comprehensive water quality 

monitoring program for water delivered to and from the southeastern Everglades 

and Florida Bay. This program must include soil sampling and plant community 

mapping. If violations of nutrient and other pollutant standards are found, these 

agencies must mount an aggressive enforcement and correction program. 

• The Florida Marine Research Institute, a branch of the Florida Department of 

Natural Resources, should prepare annual reports on the state of the Bay including 

such data as salinity, water temperature, nutrient levels and biologic activity. 

• ENP, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. state agencies, COE and 

SFWMD must immediately begin work on a comprehensive plan to restore 

Florida Bay and the offshore reef tract. This plan must include design of a ciJculation model for Florida Bay, extension of the SFWMD Natural Systems 

hydrologic model to include nearshore exchanges in Florida Bay. systematic 

examination of management and research needs for the area, and a monitoring 

program to determine the precise effects of various changes. Some of ~se needs are basic and apparent and this research should start now. Additionally, this 

group must closely examine the other biological problems around the Bay, 

including the mangrove dieoff, to ensure that recovery plans are complete. 

• The U.S. Environmental ProiCCtion Agency (EPA) must request the funding and 

execute its proposed $3 million water quality study of the Keys and Florida Bay. 

Additionally, an conjunction with the state, they should identify and control 

soun:cs of non-point pollution entering the Bay. 

• The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary must adopt a Comprehensive 

Sanctuary Management Plan. 

This plan must address all threats to the estuarine and marine ecosystem in the 

Bay and offshore, including physical impacts, over-harvest and water pollution. The plan must establish "no-take" zones of sufficient size to protect the full 

diversity of complex underwater habitats in the Sanctuary. These zones will also serve as replenishment areas for marine life and as valuable research sites. A 

well-developed plan must include research. monitoring, and education programs. 
325 

• Monroe County and the City of Key West must adopt, amend _and implement 

sound Comprehensive Plans that manage development in a way that assures there 

will be no further adverse impact to Florida Bay or the reef tract in the future, and 

will mitigate any adverse impacts due ufexisting development. Florida's Cabinet 

must use their authority to com:c:t any plan deficiencies. 

In recognition of the fragile environments and unique conditions of the Keys 

archipelago, Monroe County and the City of Key West were designated Areas of 

Critical State Concern in 1975. In 1992, Monroe County adopted the Rate of 

Growth Ordinance, limiting development to ±255 dwelling units per year for the 

next ten years. Public land acquisition will be required to maintain these growth 

limits. Although Monroe County has already begun setting aside funds through 

the Monroe County Land Authority, additional funding must be secured from the 

Florida Communities Trust, as well as the Conservation and Recreation Lands 

(CARL) acquisition program and federal programs. The County must now 

implement a comprehensive plan with protection for all aspects of the Keys 

environment. The County plan must reduce sewage and stormwater pollution 

from existing development. Key West's Comprehensive Plan must focus on 

eliminating its ±7 million gallons per day sewage outfall. 

• Monroe County must ban shallow well injection and require all new wells to be 

drilled to 2000 feet or deeper. 

WATER SUPPLY PRESERVES AND OTHER LAND ACQUISITION 

The 1947 Central and South Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes 

(C&SF) was designed to provide water supply and flood protection to the people of South 

Florida. As designed and evolved over time, the Project separated urban areas, where 

flood protection would be provided, from the Everglades to the west by a single 

continuous north • south protective levee and seepage canals (the Dade-Broward levee 

and the L-30, L-31N, and C-111 canals). Despite the Project's clear indication that no 

flood protection was to be offered west of the boundary levee, several parcels located in 

this area, literally in the Everglades, contain farms and residences. Continued 

inappropriate land use prevents restoration of Taylor and Shark River Sloughs, and will 

continue to do so until the land is returned to public ownership and to its natllllll character 

(flooded 3-6 months per year). · 

The C&SF Project contains a large network of canals designed to quickly drain urban 

lands following periods of rain, flushing rainwater to coastal bays. Historically this 

rainwater recharged the Biscayne Aquifer, providing drinking water for urban residents. 

Dense urban development further decreased aquifer recharge and eliminated traditional 

storage, creating the need to draw from the Everglades' water supply during periods of 

drought. To restore aquifer recharge and to prevent drawdown of Everglades water 

levels. urban areas must create a system of water supply preserves. The adjacent map 

outlines areas in which land should be wgeted for purchase although some of the 

identified area may be unavailable because it is already developed. 
. ................. . 

. 

. 

. . . . . . 

. 

326 

t·········· 

. : '········· . . . . . . 

. . ............... 1 

. 

. 

Within this area lands that are not heavily urbanized 

should be IICquired. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Purchase aiiii"''IJCCics west of tbc L-3!N and C-1 II boundazy canal§: 

Lead by the SFWMD. the COE. State of Florida. Dade County. and ENP must work 

collectively to remove from private ownership all propeny located west of the 

boundary canals. These areas must be purchased so that canal stages and 

poundwater levels can be raised to historic natural levels, wet season ponding can 

return, and p-adual sbeelflow restored over a 6-9 month hydroperiod (as compared to 

the cum:nt 0·1 month). Creative purchase techniques could be employed, such as 
327 

sales with reserved life eswes or salelleasebacks, that would allow some economic 

ud continued personal use. Any use of theae lands must be subject to natural periods 

of flooding to the maintain ground ud surface water levels commensurate with 

historic natural patterns ud levels. 

• Purchase the Frog Pond Agricultural Area. 

The Frog Pond is in what was ODCC the heart of the headwaters of Taylor Slough. 

It is the first, critical parcel that must be purchased if Taylor Slough is to be 

iestcRCI. During the past ten years. adjacent cual stages have been continuously 

lowered to accommodate increased demuds of the Frog Pond farmers for flood 

control. The result is u artificial drydown of the Taylor Slough headwaters. 

• Purchase the 8.5 square mile residential area. 

Under their current plan, the COE intends to spend approximately $22 million of 

Depanment of Interior appropriations to build a seepage cual ud pump station 

for flood control. This is in ~contradiction to the COE's own master plan and 

would create a permanent residential in-holding in the Everglades. This canal 

would draw water out of Northeast Shark Slough, as does L-31N canal. Thus, any 

benefit gained from reintroducing historic natural flows at the northern end of 

Northeast Shutt Slough (NESS) would be canceled by seepage losses to the 

south. Flood protection cunot be provided to the residents of this area without 

keeping adjacent canal levels lower than is required to prevent massive subsurface 

water losses from the Slough. NESS water levels, flow quantities and timing 

cunot be restored until this property is returned from the current 0-1 month 

hydroperiod to the historic natural range of 3-6 months. 

• Purchase the Rocky Glades Agricultural Area. 

The purchase of the Rocky Glades Agricultural Area is necessary for the same reasons as the 8.5 square mile area. If canal stages and groundwater levels are raised in the Taylor Slough headwaters, much of the Rocky Glades area may 

experience additional flood control or drainage problems. The affected land must 

be purchased to manage groundwater levels and surface flows for the benefit of 

the natural system, not solely to accommodate the economic desires of private inholders. 

• The SFWMD, the State of Florida. Dade County, and the National Park Service 

must develop a management plan to govern these properties once purchased. The 

plan must address such concerns as the invasion of exotic plants and run-off of 

polluted water into the sloughs. 

Purchase pt@Crtjcs south of Homestead apd Aorida Cjty: 

• Dade County, the State of Florida, and the SFWMD must jointly purchase the 

Model Lands Basin, all remaining tracts in the Southern Glades tract, the Card 

Sound Road Basin, the Palm Drive Basin, and the C-111 Basin. 

Together these lands create the Coastal Everglades system, the vital link between 

the Shark River and Taylor Sloughs to the northwest, Biscayne National Park to 

the east, and eastern Florida Bay and Crocodile National Wildlife Refuge to the 

south. Re-establishing connected and naturally fluctuating hydrology in the 

Coastal Everglades will help maintain water levels in the adjacent Taylor Slough 
328 

basin, enabling natural levels of groundwater and surface water to reach the 

eastern and central portions of Florida Bay. 

o To capture urban runoff now lost to tide, Dade County and the State of Florida 

must create a master development plan for undeveloped lands between urban 

areas on the coastal ridge and the Coastal Everglades to the south. To restore 

natural volumes, timing, and patterns of flows to the Coastal Everglades, water 

now falling on northern urban areas that historically would have contributed to 

water levels in the Coastal Everglades in the south must be cleaned and redirected 

south into the system rather than diverted east to tide. A comprehensive 

development plan must immediately identify the quantity, type, and location of 

lands for purchase and use as catchment and storage areas into which these urban 

flows can be directed and filtered to naturally enter the system. 

Create a series of water SUPJ)iy preserves sufficient tp sui!J)Iy uman sputheast Florida 

wjth a stable water supply not dependent on Em&Jadc:s mi!J)Ijcs: 

o The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA); the SFWMD; and Dade, 

Broward and Palm Beach Counties must identify and integrate, in a tri-county 

comprehensive master water supply plan, the total area and location of land 

necessary to create a series of water supply preserves sufficient to supply urban 

southeast Florida with a stable water supply, independent of Everglades supplies. 

As proposed by SFWMD former Board Chair, Allan Milledge, the preserves 

would be maintained as marshes and impoundments above the aquifer. Rather 

than dtunped to tide, stormwater will be ptunped through existing canals and 

structures to be stored in the marsh system. Water would recharge the aquifer and 

could be ptunped out of the marshes during the dty season to supplement urban 

supplies. The marshes would reduce competin' demands for water west of the 

levee by substantially reducing seepage. Additionally, these preserves would 

create positive recreational values and help to ensure a stable urban water supply 

needed for long-term economic growth in South Florida. 

o A team. including local water utilities and led by the SFWMD, must identify 

funds for water supply preserve land acquisition. 

o The SFWMD must begin immediately to engineer the necessary alterations of the 

conveyance structures to deliver storm water and draw municipal water from the 

supply preserves. 

o The SFWMD and the State of Florida must quickly finish consideration of the 

addition of a rock mining "lakebelt" as a water supply preserve. If this proposal is 

environmentally unwise then alternative plans must be made to acquire this 

property. 

The rock mining industry in Dade County has proposed to establish a "lakebelt" 

of closed mine pits, eventually stretching from Hialeah to South Dade County. 

The proposal would allow further mining in exchange for the eventual return of 

land to public ownership. The land would be left in a series of marshes and lakes 

for recharge, wellfield protection, storm water storage and recreation. The area 

would also be available to receive treated, backpumped urban storm water run-off. 

Prior to the granting of approval of the "lakebelt, • the mining industry must be 

required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement and a full accounting 

of the technical and fmancial details of the proposed extension, and to provide 
329 

detailed and binding plans for future site developmenL There must be a specific 

showing that funher mining will not hum the Biscayne Aquifer or increase 

seepage out of the WCA. 

SHARK RIVER SLOUGH 

BACKGROUND 

South of the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs), the "River of Grass" forms a central 

channel known as the Shark River Slough. Here depths and rates of flow increase, 

providing habitat for the richest variety of plints and wildlife in Everglades National 

Park. Shark River Slough extends southwestward through tbe bean of tbe Park before 

emptying into tbe estuaries along the Gulf of Mexico, primarily between Whitewater Bay 

and Broad River at the North Prong, Rookery Branch, Squaw~ Creek, and Tarpon Bay. 

These estuarine communities once provided shelter for an abundance of ftsh, crustaceans 

and other marine life, that in tum supported the largest known colonies of wading birds in 

this country. Prior to construction of the canals, levees and structures, water was 

delivered to Shark River Slough through the free flowing "River of Grass." extending 

south from Lake Okeechobee. This delivery was characterized by natural fluctuations in 

the amount and location of flows, depending on both current and seasonal rainfall 

patterns. 

Today, the flow is dramatically altered, resulting in marked decline in tbe health of Shark 

River Slough and tbe southern Everglades. Seasonal volumes flowing south toward tbe 

Slough have been sharply reduced by blockage and diversion in the EAA and WCAs to 

the north, by current regimes for delivering water io tbe lower east coast urban areas, and 

by massive subsurface water losses to border canals providing flood protection to 

adjacent urban and agricultural lands. Water is often delivered to Shark Slough in 

controlled bursts, concentrated in the wrong places. and more critically, delivered at the 

wrong times. Once Shark River Slough was cut off from tbe Everglades to the north, the 

COE and the SFWMD attempted to regulate flows to Shark Slough under a variety of 

management plans. all of which delivered the wrong amounts of water to the wrong 

places at the wrong times. 

One indicator of the extent of the degradation of Shark Slough is the vinual elimination 

of nesting populations of wading birds from the estuaries at its southern end. During the 

1930s. these rookeries frequently contained more than 200.000 nesting wading birds. 

That number dwindled to between 500 and 10,000 birds during the last decade. 

Alligator populations throughout the southern Everglades have suffered as well. Dependent on natural variations in water levels to site their nests for successful breeding, 

haphazard and unnatural patterns of water delivery produced by the current system have 

often left alligator nests either too dry or inundated. The result: reproductive failure and 

steady population decline. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

The CQE must as pan of the C&SF Project study and create a plan for reconnectin& the 

Water Conservation Areas (WCAs> and restorin& historic natural yo!umes of water jn the 

form of cootinuous shcctflow from the southern end of the Everalades AIUicultura! Area 

<EAA> to Aorida Bay distributed and delivered on a timetable matchin& historic na1ural 

condjtiops. 
330 

The WCAs must be returned from current use as warer impoundment ~JUS, the primary 

purpose of which is to provide storage for urban water supplies, back to the natural 

character and function as a vital pan of the "River of Grass." A restoration plan for the 

WCAs and Shark Slough basin must include the following components: 

• Disconnect the major canals that cut directly through the WCAs and currently link 

the EAA with the lower east coast (i.e., the Miami, New River, and Hillsboro 

canals). 

As long as. urban aJeas on the lower east coast remain connected by canals to the 

portion of Everglades currently impounded by the WCA levees, water continues 

to be drawn directly out of the Everglades. 1be only way to ensure that water is not drawn out of the Everglades is to disconnect the canals from the urban aJeas 

and create an alternative means to deliver Like Okeechobee water during drought 

years. Disconnecting the canals should also keep 1ar&e amounts of water in the 

Everglades that is now lost to tide. 

• Each canal must be partially filled with existing borrow material or plugged at 

regular interVals. 

In additiOn to ensuring that adequate volumes of water remain in the Everglades, 

flow from the northern end of the WCAs must be returned to natural rates. Water 

is rushed to the southern end of the WCAs by canals so that it anives at the 

northern end of Shark Slough at the wrong time, disrupting biological and 

ecological patterns, such as plant community composition and animal nesting and 

feeding. Partially filling and blocking the canals will help slow flows through the 

WCAs to rates more closely resembling natural conditions. 

• Creation of a water supply model for delivery of Lake Okeechobee and EAA 

water to the WCAs that, in tum, will enable the return of natural flows to the 

Shark River Slough and the southern Everglades. 

This model must reproduce the volumes of water in a pattern of distribution that 

most accurately re-creates both when and where the water historically anived 

along flow lines at the northern end of the WCAs. 

• Creation of a supplementary delivery system to replace historic flows from 

portions of the historic east Everglades that have been developed or cut off from 

the natural system. 

In tbc Interim tbc fgl!owjng OJ!crationa] Changes Must Be Made lmmcdjarcly: 

We must restore pre-drainage groundwater levels in the southeastern Everglades, 

while ensuring a return to the natural quantities, distribution and timing of flows to 

Shark River Slough. These changes should be made by operational modifications 

using existing and proposed structures as an interim solution only until proper water 

quality inflows into the WCAs are achieved. At that time, funher operational and 

structural changes described below should be undertaken. 
331 

FLORIDA BAY, AND 11IE SOVTH DADE SECI'IONAL. 

WITH PROPOSED STRVCTVALAND PLOW CHANGES 

FOR SHARK SLOUGH 

XXXX • REMOVE, DEGRADE/FILL 

M •GATE 

• •PUMP 

• The COE and SFWMD must raise water levels in the boundary canals (L-31N, L30) adjacent to the Dade-Broward levee to levels equivalent to natural, predrainage, adjacent groundwater levels. Where this cannot be achieved, at an 

absolute minimum, canal levels should be held at design optimum levels. 

These canals form a continuous boundary between the Everglades ecosystem and 

urban and agricultural development. If water in these canals is not kept at levels 

approximating those in the adjacent Everglades, the canals will. in essence, bleed 

the Everglades dry of both surface and subsurface waters by creating a flow 

pattern from west (the Everalades) to east (boundary canals). Natural, predrainage levels may be calculated usin& groundwater level measurements from 

nearby wells such as the U.S. Geologic Survey well G-S96, which suggests proper 

canal levels in the northern reaches of L-31 N at 6.S feet above sea level. 
332 

• The COE and SFWMD must initiate distribution of water deliveries to Shark 

Slough at a rate of 70 pen:ent to the east and 30 percent to the west of the S-333 

struCtUre. 

This allocation will more closely approximate natural flows to nonheast Shark 

Slough as predicted by the SFWMD Natural SystemS hydrologic: model and 

c:onfinned by water budget calculations computed by National Park Service 

scientists and hydrologists. 

• The COE and SFWMD must inc:Jease delivery of water to northeast Shark Slough 

by an annual average of 400,000 acre feet per year (AF/year) -more than 825,000 

AF during wet years •• and must base deliveries on formulas that replicate historic: 

natural conditions. · 

The SFWMD Natural Syste~s hydrologic: model predicts •• and field 

observations, biological research. aerial photography, and soil sampling by 

National Park Service. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Audubon Society 

and other scientists, biologists and hydrologists c:onfum - that current deliveries 

fill substaDtillly short of natural deliveries during an average year and acutely 

short during wet years primarily due to diversion for urban uses and elimination 

of c:onaibutions from the area east of the L-30 levee. Hydrographs show that 

current deliveries occur far out of sync:b with natulal flow patterns. Without 

proper regulation of the timing of deliveries, even an increase to historic: flow 

levels will not affect restoration. 

Bep jmmcdjag: dcVIP aod construction of the followjna chanaes w $1lJ!Cl!Rs: 

• The COE must degrade the L-67A, L-67C, and L-67 Extension canals aod levees. 

The L-67 canals and borrow levees separate WCA 3A from WCA 3B bloc:k.ing 

natural flows from the former to the latter. Because WCA 3B is the primary source of water for Sbarlt Slough, restoration of Shark Slough requires return of 

natural flows from WCA 3A to WCA 3B. .While deliveries from the WCAs 

theoretically can be disaibuted by appropriately employing mechanical means. restoration of natural timing c:an be achieved only by restoring natural drawdown 

flows across WCA 3A into WCA 3B and into northeast Shark Slough. Although 

the COE and the SFWMD have considered reconnecting flows from WCA 3A to 

WCA 3B by creating a series of breaches or flowways in the L-67 A and L-67C 

levees. return of sheetflow between the two is best achieved by degrading the full 

length of both·Jevees. Ac:c:ordingly. monies contemplated by the COE for use in 

creating throughway structures such as the proposed S-349 and S-345 should be 

applied to this degradation. 

• The COE must build S-355 structures east of the S-333 structure along the 

southern boundary of WCA 3B that are capable of delivering a minimum of 70 

percent of flows into Shark Slough (quantities in excess of 1.3 million AF/Yr). 

These structures must contain excess capacity to accommodate an even higher 

percentage allocation of flows east of the S-333 structure should iterative studies 

following the initial change in allocations determine such a change is necessary. The structures must have the capacity to accommodate not only average year 

deliveries; but one-in-one-hundred-year deliveries (that could be as much iS four 
333 

times the average 11111ual delivery) and at flow rates equivalent to those predicted 

for such a natural system. 

Bce;jn the fg!Jowing pmpmatjc cbanrr;s-

• Tbe Congress and Aclminisuation must fund the purchase of the remaining private 

land in NESS. 

• ENP must design and implement a complete monitoring system for water quality 

and the health of wading bird, fiSh and vegetation communities. 

BIG CYPRFSS BASIN 

BACKGROUND 

The swamps and strands of the Big Cypress adjoin the Everglades sawgrass marshes to 

the west, where water often flows to one or both draina&es as water levels rise and fall. 

Like the Everglades, this basin provides fresh water to the coastal marshes and 

mangroves of the southwestern Everglades that feed the Gulf of Mexico and, indirectly, 

Florida Bay. Although the water quality is among tile most natural in the sySicm, because 

of the large amount of federally-protected land in its waterShed, there is widespread concern that reduced flows through the Big Cypress might be contributing to a decline in 

productivity of estuarine habitats supplied by the basin. The watershed shares key 

biologic communities with the rest of the system and provides habirat for many wading 

birds. the Florida panther and other animals. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

The watershed is threatened by development in Golden Gate Esrates, drainage along 

Srate Road 29 and the barrier to flows presented by I-75 and U.S. 41. Much dllila&e to 

the natural waters of the area can be corrected without extensive physical modifiCI!iolis 

of the water system or landscape by the purchase. of remaining headwater areas. Restoring Golden Gate flows requires land .acquisition and engineering. Improving flows 

under 1-75 and U.S. 41 and removing L-28 require only cblnges in existing project works 

and water structure operations. These recomrilendations provide some of the clearest and 

lowest-cost opportunities to protect and reStore ecosySicm values. We recommend the 

following actions: · · 

• The SFWMD and local governments must complete the acquisition of the 50,000 acres in the Corkscrew Regional &osystem Watershed Project. The Srate must 

complete acquisition of the approved 41,000 acres in southern Golden Gate 

Estates and complete hydrologic restoration plans for this area, including the 

restoration of sheetflow to the Ten Thousand Islands. Lee and Collier Counties' 

Comprehensive Plans must designate these areas for apJ)ropriate uses; 

• Big Cypress Preserve should begin a land acquisition program for Olcaloacoochee 

Slough that delivers water to the Falcahatchee Strand and the Florida Panther 

Refuge. This slough also provides imporrant wading bird habitat; 

• . The SFWMD must examine the effects of 1-75, especially in overdraincd areas such as the Florida Panther NWR near southern Golden Gate Estates; 
334 

BIG CYPRESS PROPERTY J.D. AND FLOW LiNEs 
• The State and SFWMD should purchase approximately 27.000 acres of 

undeveloped lllld in the Belle Meade watcrsbcd to manqe flows ~roUnd existing 

fannland and re-esublish sheetflow toward Rookery Bay and Collier Seminole 

SwcPark; 

• The Big Cypress Preserve and the SFWMD must begin a water quality and 

quanti!)' monitoring propun to delamine the effects of agricultural, urban, and 

wellfield development oa surtice water and groundwaller; and 

• The SFWMD must restore flows of natural quantity, quality, timing and 

distribution across L-28 and under the Loop Road and US 41. 

WATER CONSERVA 110N AREAS 

BACKGROUND 

The Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) present perbaps the most obvious example of the 

need for a comprehensive plan for restoration of the system. While the name implies the 

WCAs are for the purposes of water conservation, in fiCt these areas are managed in large 

part for flood control. What is not manapd for are the natural values brought to the 

system. With the presence of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) interrupting the 

Datural movement of waller from the north end of the system. these areas provide the key 

conveyance link between north and south. Additionally the WCAs once provided. and c:an again provide, some of the most productive "River of Grass • habitat in lhe sys11em, 

used heavily for feeding and nesting by birds. 

One hundred and fony-five thousand of the 900.000 acres of the WCAs have been 

dedicated as Arthur. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. the largest remnant 

of native northern Everglades. WCAs 2 and 3 are capable of being restored with 

traditional sheetflow regimes and once again providing their full measure of important 

habitat To the north of WCA 3, surrounded on three sides by the agricultural lands of 

the EAA. are the Rotenberger Tract and Holey Land. These lands are heavily degraded 

by overdraining. but in a slow process of return to Everglades habitat Both areas must once again be returned to historic roles of feeding water to the south and providing 

habitat for Everglades wildlife. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refup must be managed by the SFWMD. COE 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for return to its historic functions of 

water provision and wildlife habitat for the Everglades sySflelll. 

• To restore lhe traditional sheetflow ICfOSS the WCAs and to provide historic 

water supply. flood control and habitat values. the COE and SFWMD should 

eliminate the L-67s. L3SB. L-28 tieback as well as ensure lhe Hillsboro, North 

New River and Miami Canals are alllered to end the comt~artmentalization of the 

WCAs. Benefits include recharge of the Biscayne Aqutfer and increased flow 

into WCAs 2B and 3B upon ~ elimination of the interior canals and the 

establisbment of the Water SUpply Preserves. 

Additionally, the COE and SFWMD must ensure that the historic patterns of wa~r delivery are re-established. Presendy, during wet years in particular, not 
336 

enough water is delivered to the WCAs; and in most years it is being delivered too · early in the season, anificially shortening the hydroperiod. 

The SFWMD must also manage flows on the west sidC of the system to restore 

the natu(l) patterns. Water management decisions must no longer be made solely 

for the management of deer as now happens along the Miami Canll. 

• The COE and SFWMD must build spreader canals across the top of WCAs 2 and 

3 10 re-establish sheelflow with clean water and to help provide flood control 

benefits for the EAA. now provided by the canals to be eliminated. This.method 

has the added benefit of returning water to the system that is now often dumped to 

tide. Aood protection will also be provided by the increased storage in the EAA 

described below. Loxahatchee must be fed with suftkient clean water from Lake 

Okeechobee and the EAA. 

• The. SFWMD must deliver water through the WCAs 10 the Parle in a manner that 

re-establishes historic patterns. Because WCA 3 has historically provi~d a vital source of water for the Park and through it to Aorida Bay, its restoration is vital. 

• The SFWMD must ensure that the water being used to re-nourish the Rotenberger 

and Holey Land meets Class m water quality standards and is delivered in a spreader canal that re-establishes sheetflow. 

• As mitigation for the C&SF project, the State of Aorida should give the FWS a long-term lease for mana&ement of the property, clearly re-stating the wildlife 

values for which this refuge was to be managed when first established. 

• The SFWMD must establish a comprehensive monitoring program for the health 

of the bird, animal aDd plant communities in the WCAs as well as for water 

quality. 

EVERGLADES AGRICVLnJRAL AREA 

BACKGROUND 

Southern outflows of Lake Okeechobee once created some of the Everglades deepest 

marshes and deepest, richest soils. Immense volumes of water were stored in the marshes 

and when released kept water moving downstream even into the dry seasons. Those 

deep, rich soils attracted early efforts to "reclaim" the Everglades for agriculture, 

culminating in the C&SF Project's creation of the EAA. About 700,000 acres have been 

drained for agriculture, from the L-8 canal in northern Palm Beach County westward 10 

Hendry County's L-2. Most of that land must be drained to keep it ll'&ble. The EAA's surface is generally below surrounding water levels and protected from flooding by 

massive perimeter levees and pumps. Canals and pumps provide irrigation water to the 

EAA. primarily from Lake Okeechobee, during dry seasons. Under most conditions. the 

combination of drainage and supply features provides optimal water tables for EAA users. · 

The presence of the EAA at the headwaters of the "River of Grass" means that flows to 

the WCAs (including Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge) are now largely limited to 

agricultural drainage. The volume, timing, and distribution of these flows are dictated by 

drainage requirements of the EAA, not the needs of the remaining Everglades marshes. Agricultural drainage includes the run-off from fenilizer applications and the 
337 

decomposition of drained peat soils that pollutes downstream areas, causing massive 

losses of native Everglades habillt Some scientists are concerned that pumping practices 

release unacceptable amounts of connate seawater, heavy with dissolved solids and 

chlorides, into the system. It is ironic that these agricultural practices are destroying the 

soils upon which their existence depends. 

Current EAA management practices dictate that natural areas receive water of the wrong 

quality, in the wrong amounts, at the wrong time, and in the wrong places. And the 

wrong people -- urban taxpayers -- pay for it. EAA users receive huge public subsidies 

for water management (nearly $7 million per year); they and their predecessors also 

contributed a pittance to the funding of the public works that provide EAA drainage and 

irrigation. Sugar, the dominant industry in the EAA, enjoys even larger subsidies through 

federal market controls and loan guarantees. Representing less than 2 percent of the 

regional economic output, EAA intereSts have been allowed to preside over the water 

management futures of the Everglades ·and the remaining 98 percent of the region's 

economic life. 

By polluting Lalce Okeechobee and the Everglades, and by interrupting water flows to the 

natural system, a handful of qri-businesses impose high costs on the system -- a capital resource belonging to the people of Florida and die rest of the nation. They have used 

direct and indirect public subsidies to aggravace the problems of the Everglades and to 

prevent the instituuon of public programs to correct the problems. EAA users should 

have no special privileges but should operate under rules that are in the public interest. Water discharged from the EAA must not only meet water quality standards, but must be 

discharged consislent with historic natural delivery patterns to the WCAs. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

Waur~~m~~ 

In the long term, survival of the Everglades and of the EAA depends on containing 

the deleterious effects of agriculture's water management practices within EAA 

boundaries. This can be accomplished only by creating areas and facilities within the 

EAA to store, convey, and treat wacer following several criteria. 

• Agricultural landowners must assure that all discharges from the EAA meet water 

quality Standards to prevent the alteration of the natural balance of fauna and flora 

in Lalce Okeechobee and the Everglades. 

• Agri-businesses must provide for seasonal irrigation requirements of fannlands 

without demand on Lalce Okeechobee or other resources outside the EAA. 

• State and federal governments must provide for the movement of wa~er from Lalce 

Okeechobee to the Ever&lades now blocked or restricted by the EAA. 

• The SFWMD and the COE must provide both physical structures and operational 

programs that ensure the movement of water from Lake Okeechobee through or around the EAA to the Everglades, in amounts and on a timetable replicating the 

lake's natural contributions to the WCAs. 

To accomplish these goals, the Storm water Treatment Areas (ST As) 

recommended in the current SWIM plan must be integrated with Water Manqcment 

Areas (WMA) 2, 3. and 4, described in the SFWMD's September 28, 1990, SWIM 
338 

plan, and augmented by inclusion of a 54,000-acre uac:t nonh of the described WMA 

2 and Brown's Farm area. The combined approximately 126,000 acres are sufficient 

for storage and treatment requirements, if effectively managed. The recommended 

configuration permits the return of the state-owned Holeyland and Brown's Fann 

areas to Eve!Jlades-quality restoration, as well as completing a buffer between 

fanning areas and WCAs 2 and 3. These lands will also be available to treat polluted 

Lake Okeechobee water before its return to the system. 

EAA PROPOSED STRUC11JIL\L REFORMS 

• State OWDOd Laadl 

• New Spradcrc.MI 

f"77l Area Within Which Laadl Must Be Acquired L3 For W•tcr Storqe 111111 Treatment F•dlilies 

+++H+HI Sheet Flow Recrauel 

Alternate configurations providing the same range of benefits but reducing or 

concentrating the financial impacts of the ST As on facilities such as sugar mills may 

be appropriate. But the sugar industry must bear the burden of proving the viability 

of alternative solutions. 
339 

'lbe SFWMD should also define alremalives that include development of vecctated 

flowways at chc eucem and wes1em pcrimciiCI'S of chc EAA. Such flowways could 

provide moR natural, low-enerey systems for RCOnnecting the Lake to the 

Evcqlades. and effective, economical ~tmcnt and stOngC benefits. 

Any confipration. with itS associated operation plan, must provide at least the 

following clcmcnts: 

• Water stOraJC functions must be restored within the. EAA equivalent to those 

provided by lake and adjacent marsbcs lost during the EAA's CR&tiori in Order to 

Rpair the hydroperiods at the WCAs' boundaries; and 

• Water quality at the point of introduction into the Everglades must be sufficient to reston: and proteCt native flora and fauna. 

To calculalc the amount of land needed to obtain tbesc benefits. we estimate that 3 

feet per tcR of subsurface water, once stoRd in the pelt soils of the EAA. has been 

lost from subsidence in more than 500,000 ICRS of con: Wetlands. that once existed. 

If onc·balf of that stoRd water is available to suppon downstream flows, then 

750,000 acrc,.fect of Rgulatory SloraJC is RquiRd to Rplac:e it. A comparison of 

observed flows and flows predicted by the Natural System Computer Model (NSM) 

of water flows in the system, Rvcals that in the weaest years as much as 2.000,000 

acre-feet must reach the WCAs. Even with substantial revetment, a storacc area of 

about 100,000 ICRS will be required. 

The srorage area cannot replace water quality treatment areas, although it may have some benefits in settling out particulate phosphorous. Paniculate phosphorus is the 

cheapest and easiest-to-treat fonn of phosphorus and is a primary tar&Ct of on-farm ~tment. A settling rate of 10 meters per year will Rquirc 70,000 to 80,000 acres of 

treatment area, if standards enunciated by law for final cleanup (7 -I 0 ppb for 

phosphorus seems likely) are io be met. 

With proper design and manaccment, the defiCiency in storage and treatment areas can be made up by linking lands now owned by the state (i.e., Holeyland, 

Rotenberger, Browns Farm) with WCA 3. However, this restoration will only be 

successful if the recommended complex of storacc and treatment systems within the 

EAA is fully operational and includes ~tment of waters from Lake Okeechobee or elsewhere to make up for water losses associated with cleanup programs for the EAA. 

• Under any condition, if legal requirements to provide restored flows of unpolluted 

water to the Everglades are not met at the times set forth in the federal lawsuit 

settlement agRement of 1991, we demand that the SFWMD Rvoke discharge 

pennits and water usc pennits that suppon polluting discharges to end these 

polluting flows. 

Economic Reforms 

We believe that degradation of the environment is iDCRased and perpetuated when the 

users of public natural resources are not held Rsponsible for the cost of using those resources in their business choices. We suppon. an economic design in which 

financial impacts caused by the polluters are borne within the EAA - after all that is 

the way other induslrics are treated. The "polluters pay" principle requires several 

actions: 
340 

• EAA opei'IIOi's pay for die C'os1S of all water autment flcililies needed because of 

dleir presence in the sySICID; that is. all treallllellt costs that could be avoided were die JWIII'II system in place em lands now oa:upied by die EAA; 

• Tbe State of Florida must create a cost-of-service-based system to support 

SFWMD to allevilfe unfair IJid wasWUI effects of die preseut property-tax-based 

system; and 

• The United States must eliminate market controls and JUilUitceS for EAA 

production until EAA Water Quality standards are met and EAA water 

management practices are in humony wtth a rain-driven system. 

POLLUTERS MUST PAY FOR CLEANUP OF THEIR OWN POLLV110N 

In addition to damage from lack of freshwater flows, the Everglades is being slowly 

strangled by agricultural pollUtion. Suaar cane and veaetable growers in die EAA have 

polluted Everglades wetlands for decades. in viola!ioil of state water quality standards, 

until die federal aovemment finally interceded. This iUcpl practice went unchallenaed 

until the U.S. Justice Depar1meDt sued die State for allowing C:ontinued degradation of 

the Everglades. The Settlement Aareement resulting from the ensuing lawsuit mandates an end to the sugar inclustl)''s pollutinJ pniCtices. The Florida Legislature subsequendy 

passed the Mlljory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Protection Act (MSD Act) by a unanimous vote, authorizing the Swe to charge EAA agricultural interests a per-acre fee 

for cleaning up the agricultural runoff. Tbe Act also grants the State of Florida 

condemnation power to acqm land for die creation of filtering marshes. 

Pollution caused by EAA sugar growers and others is the result of the application of 

nuaient-based fertilizers and pesticides, the release of nuaients from die soils through 

fanning practices, die intrOduction of connate seawater, die back-pumping of polluted 

water into Lake Olceechobee, atmospheric transport and subsequent release of nutrients 

onto areas sunounding the EAA, die altering of the region's natural filtering capacity by 

the conversion of wedands to farmlands, and the altering of water deliveries in the EAA 

from a natural rain-driven system to an agricultural-needs-driven system. 

Attempts to enforce the Setdement Agreement · and the MSD Act have been fiercely 

resisted by the sugar industry -- in the courts, in the media, and in the public relations arena. 

With the signing of ·the Settlement Agreement and the passage of the MSD Act. the State 

has at its disposal all the tools necessary to implement and enforce the cleanup. The only 

question remaining is who will pay for the remediation, the polluters or the taxpayers. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

• The pollution of the Everglades system, including Lake Okeechobee, must be 

halted and cleanup efforts begun immediately. The State of Florida must hold 

agricultural interests (primarily sugar growers) in the EAA responsible for 

remediating all pollution above the levels that existed prior to fanning in the EAA 

and charge them for cleanup costs. Only if the industry can conclusively 

demonstrate that parties outside the EAA also released pollution into the system 
341 

must the qrieultural indusuy be required to pay uythin& Jess dwllOO percent of 

tbe toW cleamlp com; tben oa1y iD direct proponion to each piny's comribulion. 

• The only altemalive is for ~pi-business iD 1be EAA to qree to imnw!iately cease all disclwJc of polluted water from within its boundaries. In this event. the 

indusuy must be required to pay die state ud fecleral aovenunems damqes to 

cover put deluuction of die natural system caused by its farmiD& practices. 'lbese funds would be earmarked for restoration of the Eveqlades system. 

• The EAA bas disrupted natural water supply patterns ud the indusuy must pay 

for the development of IJI alternate syS1eJD to deliver that water. · 

C·51BASIN 

BACKGROUND 

This key area in 1be northern pan of the system is essential to the proper restorllion of 

natural bydroiOJY. Localled within ODe of the fastest growing putS of the COWIIJ')', it is 

subject to peat development praaure. The area must include storage ud U'eltment 

capacity to fully contribute to the systcm llld cannot be dedicated solely to flood control. 

Water from tbis basin must meet all water quality standards before enterin& the 

Ever&Jacles syS1eJD. 

With respect to the C-Sl basin ud water supply, the overuchin& principle must be that publi~ lands ~ for preservation llld wildlife purposes must not be used to clean 

up pnvate pollution. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

• The SFWMD must be&in to re-create the historic long-term water storqe function 

of the basin. Water was stored for several years at a lime in the natural ecosystem 

that once existed. 

• The S-lSSA Structure should be moved east of State Road 7 by the SFWMD to 

accommodate discharge from the E-1 cual. 

• The SFWMD must eliminate harmful freshwater discharges to the Lake Worth 

estuary by increasing water storaae in the western basin. 

• The State must be&in a comprehensive monitoring ud control program to 

eliminate water quality problems in the area. 

• The state ud federal governments must stop the discharge of water not meeting 

U.S. Fish ud Wildlife Service standards from the EAA to the Loxahatchee 

National Wildlife Refuge ud increase the supply of water meeting water quality 

standanls to the Refuae IJid to the peater EverJlades system. 

• Northern Palm Beach Water Control District must stop discharge spikes through 

C-18 and G-92 Culvert by maximizin& water sunge in the basin. 

• The State of Florida must require the "298" Drainage Districts to comply with 

water quality SIIJiclanls through water treatment ud storaae within each dislrict. 
342 

• The Swe of Florida must evaluate the C-S 1 Basin for desigulion as. a Area of 

Critical State.Concem because of tbe pressing need for comprehensive watershed 

manaaement. Local government land use clecisioas must limit densities and uses 

to proiCCt the wa~er quality IIIII bydroiOJY of tbe basin. 

LAKE OKEECHOBEE 

BACKGROUND 

Lake Okeechobee is the second lar&est freshwater lake within the boundaries of the 

United States. This shallow lake bas long bad an active bass fishery, provided important 

habiw for birds and served as a vital source of w~~er to the rest of the EverJ}ades system. 

The Lake has been severely altered with dikes imprisoaing much of its shoreline, 

changing the littoral zone and preventing free flow into what is now the EAA. The 

Lake's inflows have also been changed from a syStem of meandering sueams and rivers 

into a series of canals. These alterations have turned the Lake from a naturally- fluctuating system with levels determined by nin to a manaaed reservoir with levels set 

by engineers. The managed levels have not provided the full nnge of values to the Lake or to the rest of the system as did natural conditions. The methods employed to reStore 

the Lake are critical to providing the wa~er needed to restore Florida Bay and other 

southern parts of the system. We believe that this can be done without. significantly 

reducing flood protection to the rest of the system. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

• The COE and SFWMD must manage the Lake to provide the values once held. 

Specifically, the Lake's vital littoral marsh zone must be re-established. 

• Management decisions by COE concerning the Lake must be made in the context 

of full-system restoration. These decisions must integrate the protection of the 

Lake's ecosystem and consider other storage options in addition to the Lake to 

meet water supply demands. The Lalce must again provide water to the system in a manner that mimics its historic contribution. 

• Back-pumping of polluted water into the Lake by both the SFWMD through S-2, 

S-3 and S-4 and by private interests (the 298 disaicts) must cease. If the farmers 

need tore-plumb their delivery syStem, then they should pay for it. 

• The COE must re-create historic flows into the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee 

Estuaries and eliminate freshwater "slugs" from the Lake into these areas. Much 

of this water once flowed south into the "River of Grass. • 

• The COE must stop managing the Lake with a blind focus on providing drought 

protection for the EAA. The integration of these other management objectives 

may somewhat reduce the holding of wller solely for this purpose. 

• The State of Florida must revise the "Dairy Rule" and other MSSW rules to ensure phosphorus discharge limits to the Lake are met and concentrations in the 

Lake return to safe levels. 

• The State or SFWMD should buy the FJSheating Creek watershed. 
KISSIMMEE RIVER 

BACKGROVND 

343 

The Kissimmee River buill is the beadw~~er of abe Everalades·Like Okeechobee- ~ssimnw River waterSbecL 1bis oocc-IDCIDCicrilla river provided Wiler stonp for the 

E~ S)'Slem as wdlu blbiw fot a vutiSSCIIlblap of birds llld other lllimals. To 

drain and convert Kissimnw wetlands iDto arable IDd arazm& lind. die COE ll'IIISf!II!DCd 

die river into a ditch. Two hundred tbousand acres of manhland ~ drained, driving 

away 90 pcn:ent of die nali~ walafowl and robbin& die system of its primary watershed. 

In 1992, the United States Coopess passed the Water Resources Development Act, 

reversiq tbe oriJillal audlarizatioo to tum tbe river into Canal C-38. The Act authori%cs 

the COE ud tbe SFWMD to be&in restoration of tbe Kissimmee River ud buill to reverse tbe earlier clamqe. The Act also insuucts tbe COE to UIICiertake the Headwater 

Revitalization Project. desiped to rescore like le~ls in tbe Upper Basin lUes to provide 

eooup water to Dalllrally "clri~" tbe Kiuimnw River. The project has been modified to 

reduce tbe number of privd: resideoces Kq~ in lbe northern reaches and to avoid 

backfillin& between S-6SE and S6S·D. Bactfillia& nonh of S-6SD will be designed so that no homes south of U.S. 98 need be boupt or flooded. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION (Upper Kllllmmee River a.ln) 

• The COE must raise lake stqes to ale'lel sufficient to add 100,000 acre-feet of 

seasonal Wiler sUJn&e to the Upper Chain of lakes to provide simulated historic 

flows into the Lower Kissimmee River Buill. Stages should be managed to 

mimic historic fluctuations. 

• Interconnecting canals must be enlarged. 

• Maximum lake stages must be increased to S4 feet above sea level for the 

Kissimmee. Cypress. and Hatchineha lUes. 

• The spillway <:apacity at S-6S must be increased. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION (Lower Klalnunee River Belin) 

• The COE must backfill the middle 22 miles of Canal C-38. 

• The COE must excavate about 9 miles of DCW river channel. 

• The COE must consttuct a bypass weir and channel at S-6.S. 

• The COE must modify existing Pool B weir, the structures at S-6SA and, if 

needed, 5-6SE. 

• The COE must consttuet containment levees and bridge crossings at U.S. 98 and 

the csx railroad. 

• The COE must remove the existing S-6SB and S-6SC structures ud associated 

levees. · 
344 

I 

§ 

I 
345 

EXOTIC PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIFS 

Many non-native plant and animal species have been inlrOduc:c:d into !he Everglades 

system during !he last c:c:ntury, inclucling more !han a dozen fish, over fifty birds and 

reptiles, and an untold number of plants, including the Brazilian pepper <khimls 

tca;bjntbjfoligs), !he Australian pine <Casuarina cqujgtifplia) , and !he melaleuca 

CMc!a)cw;• 0ujp0uencrvja>. Because exotics often have no naturally-occurring 

competirors or predators, these plants and animals multiply at an unusually high success rate, crowding or out-competing native species. Competition from exotic species can have profound negative effects on the entire community of life in !he system. . 

Onc:c: entrenched, exotic plants tend to grow in unnaturally dense concentrations, 

changing the entire array of plant and animal distribution. Most recognizable and most 

immediately threatening to the health of the Everglades system are Brazilian pepper and 

melaleuca trees. Brazilian pepper infests and occupies upland pine communities, 

hardwood hammocks, and bultonwood and m&nlfOve forests. It gained a strong foothold 

following Hurricane Donna in 1960 when it began reseeding damaged mangrove areas along the boundary of the Everglades mainland and Florida Bay. 

Covering more than 500,000 acres and spreading at a stagering rate of more than SO acres per day. the melaleuca tree is !he most widely recopized exotic threat to !he 

Everglades. Onc:c: colonized in an area, melaleuca continues to multiply at a tremendous 

rate until all other plants are fon:ed from the area. An extremely dense monoculture stand 

is created, transformin'- open saw~ mii'Sh communities into dry tree forests incapable 

of supponina native wildlife Spec1Ci. Melaleuca CXUII:ts five to six times as much water 

from !he Everglades sheetflow as natural sawgrass communities. This is particularly 

noxious in the southeastern region of Florida where more than 90 pen:ent of recharge to 

the Biscayne Aquifer occurs. Aquifer recharge is reduced where melaleucas grow. 

resulting in heightened urban area demands for precious water from other pans of !he 

system. 

RECOMMENDED AC'nON 

While several approiCbes. iDcluding pbysic:al removal aDd injection of lethal herbicides, 

have been used to combat melaluec:a, lbele teclmiques often prove ineffective and costprohibitive. Biological contrvl qems or natural predators of melaleuca, imported from 

its native environment. appear to be a potential elimination metbod. However, these 

agents cannot be intrOduc:c:d without extensive testing to ensure that unintended 

consequences. including an infestation of the control apnt, are prevented. 'lbeJefore, we recommend: 

• Tbe United States Congress must fully fund the melaleuca quarantine facility in 

Broward County; . 

• The SFWMD. ENP, che State of Florida and Dade, Broward and Palm Beach 

Counties must initiate a Cataloguing of all invasive non-native species present in 

!he Everglades and adopt a coordinated and comprehensive approach to needed 

control programs; 

• The COE and the SFWMD must maintain water delivery to boundary areas between the soutbem Everglades and the lower east coast urban areas. Natural 

(much looger) byclroperiod must be returned to and maintained in these areas to 

lhwan funber spread of the melaleuca. which is not suited to growth in long 

bydroperiod areas; 
346 

• The SFWMD must eradicate the Brazilian pepper stand~ ,urrendy blocking flow 

into the C-111 basin from the C-111 canal; 

• The SFWMD, in conjunction with the DCA and Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach 

counties, must create a coordinated approach to required mitigation efforts to 

eradicate exotics in transitional wetlands within urban areas; and 

The SFWMD should explore the feasibility of a fee dedicated to exotic control for 

those that are seeking permits to disturb virgin land, since this is one of the major 

pathways for the spread of exotic plants. 

MERCURY POLLUTION 

Mercury is widely recognized as the most immediate toxic threat to plants, animals, and 

humans of the Everglades ecosystem. It is a highly volatile element that has no known 

biological function and is extremely toxic to all living creatures. It has spread rapidly 

through the Everglades system, now affecting Loxahatchee, ENP, the WCAs, the 

Fakahatchee strand and Big Cypress Preserve. Pollution is so acute in these areas that the 

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has issued warnings cautioning 

anglers against the consumption of many fish and has banned alligator hunting in many areas. 

Mercury does not easily break down and accumulates in aquatic organisms with 

concentrations increasing as you move up the predatory food chain. A dramatic 

illustration of the threat posed by this poison is the affect on the endangered Florida 

Panther. While only 30-50 still exist in the wild, post-mortems performed on the three 

females who have died in ENP since 1989 established Mercury poisoning in all, with it 

being the cause of death for one of them. Mercury poisoning has also led to infant 

mortality among the Panthers. 

Current studies indicate the main sources of human produced mercury in the Everglades are airborne depositions from incineration facilities, fossil fuel burning power plants, 

paints and coating processes used in manufacturing, electrical apparatuses and sugar cane burning. Disturbances to the peat, erosion and water management practices may 

also be releasing mercury stored in the peat of areas like the EAA. 

RECOMMENDED ACTION 

Mercury and other toxic metals have the potential to destroy many of the benefits 

resulting from the Restoration Plan. Quick action is required because mercury 

bioaccumulates in the food chain and does not easily break down once it enters the 

environment. Research, monitoring, and control programs are necessary for an effective 

attack on this problem. 

DEP must strengthen the proposed mercury emission rules for garbage 

incinerators to include all existing facilities and by mandating a 90 percent 

reduction in emissions instead of the 80 percent proposed. Rulemaking should be 

started to control mercury from other sources as well. 
347 

• DEP must immediately begin testing the contribution of oxidation of peat soils to 

the Everglades mercury problem, especially from within the EAA. This study 

should include the affects of altered hydroperiods on the release of mercury. 

• The SFWMD must fully fund its mercury research program to ensure full 

sampling and the most sensitive testing is performed. They must also heighten 

their efforts at coordinating with DEP and EPA to ensure a comprehensive 

research and monitoring program is implemented rthout duplication. 

• DEP and EPA must design and implement a biological monitoring program of 

Everglades plants and animals, representing various food chain levels, for 

mercury and other toxins of concern. 

• The State of Aorida must mandate mercury and heavy metal recycling laws to 

limit waste contributions to loading problems. 

• DEP must complete implementation of its air deposition monitoring network so 

that the contribution of urban area pollution to the system can be fully assessed. 

• Congress and the Administration must fund the $3 million EPA Everglades 

Wetlands Study that will evaluate how wetland and aquatic processes effect the 

availability of mercury in the system. 

CONCLUSION 

Restoration of the greater Everglades ecosystem is not only possible, it is vital for the 

economic and environmental health of Aorida. The repair of this system is the same 

type of investment our nation makes every day in our bridges, highways and aiJpons 

-- but this infrastructure is sawgrass not concrete. The repair of this system will also 

teach our nation a great deal about how to restore and manage a large, diverse 

ecosystem. The benefits of restoration are immense and diverse, while our continued 

neglect will increase the deterioration of our economy and environment. It is time to 

act. 

73-729 - 93 - 12 
348 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND COMMONLY USED TERMS 

AF ·ACREFEET, AMEASUREEQUALT0111EAMOUNTOFWA1Et NEEDEDTOCOVER X 

ACRES OF LAND 

CARL· STAlE OF FLORIDA CONSERVAnON AND RECREATION LANDS ACQUISnON. ~~ . 

C & F S ·CENTRAL AND Sotml FLORIDA ~OJECf 

CFS • CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 

COE ·U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

OCA ·FLORIDADEPAR'IMENI"OFCOMMUNITY AFFAIRS 

DEP ·FLORIDA DEPAR'IMENI" OF ENVIRONMENTAL ~OJ'ECl'JON 

EM ·EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA 

ENP ·EVERGLADES NAnONAL PARK 

FWS • U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVIa 

MSD ACf ·MARJORY STONEMAN DOUCiLAS EVERCILADES ~OTECTJON Acr 

MSSW • MANAGEMENJ" AND STORAGE OF SURFACE WA'IEtS 

NESS ·NORTHEAST SHARK SLOUGH 

NSW ·NATURAL SYSTEM COMPlTIER MODEL 

NWR ·NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

PPB • PAR1S PER BJLUON 

SFWMD • SOt1I'H FLORIDA WA'IllR MANAOEMENT DISTIUCI" 

ST As • STORMW A 'lEt TREATMENr AREAS 

SWIM ·SURFACE WATEit ~OVEMENT AND MANAGEMENI"PLAN 

WCAs • WATEit CONSERVATION AREAS 

WMA ·WATER MANAGEMENI" AREA 
'""'~ AC~ CONSE~VAT ON 

Cc.;& OF DADE COUNTY 

A~!1 CAN SAFARI CI.UI 

01= lOQr OA . INC 

A,QSOAT AND MALFTAACK 

CONSERVATION CI.U8 OF 

PALM BEACH COUNTY 

&OAT ASSOCIATION 

C~ FLORIDA 

OWA~O COUNTY 

:~ 80AT. HALFfDACK 

ANC C0NSE11VATION Ct.UB 

'VEOGLADES SPORTSMAN a 

CO SE~VAT ON C LU B 

=~OQ!O A .-!UNTtNG a F;St-·NG COUNC iL 

COL i~ COUNl'V 

CONSC VAT ON CLU8 

OLD GLOOV !lASS CLUI 

WO .1ANCH 

EVERGLADES PtiOTECTION 

soc:erv. rNC. 

SAI=ARf CLUB OF 

~rA I 

SOUl>• FLOfllOA 

CHAPTER Of SM·ARI 

CLUI INTEQNATJONAL 

W,_.E~LEO IUGCV 

ASSOCIATION OF 

SOUTH I"LOArOA 

849 

EveRGLADES Co-ORDINATING CouNCIL 

7901 WEST 25TH CT., HIALEAH, FL 33016 ·TO COORDINATE THE CONSEIWATION EFFORTS OF SO<JTHFL.OAfOA 51'0/IHSMEN"SCLUBS" 

STATEMENT OF THE EVERGLADES CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL 

TO JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE EVERGLADES 

ECOSYSTEM 11ND FLORIDA BAY JULY 31, 993 

by 

Freddy Flslkelll 

President 

PleaH Include thl• sixty-six C66) page document 

a• part of the Congreeelonal Record for the 

hearing held on the above date and subJect. We 

thank each ec lecteo off 1 ca I tot tak 1 no tIme to 

like Into this Issue. It Is our de•lre that some 

real action take place to correct the problems of 

the pa ... d In thl• matter. 

Each weekend we have thoueande of Mlllber• who tan 

out through out this great ecoaystelll. We have 

members who are In the area dally. The .. people 

have enJoyed South Florida' s boUntle• for many 

many years. With all the .. wltnee .. s we know 

quickly when there le a problem or some 

questionable activity In the entire ecoeystem. 
350 

; :)ll •;no'J cnl!' !!'l~li·~'~on w1::n ::n•s S'i~rem. WI!' •Jc ... i<:l i 1"1!' co 

~an~ tnl!' Gentll!'man trom Puer:::o-P1co , Congressman -·cml!'co-Barceio, tor recognizing the ooservation powers ana 

e:.:per1ences of tishermen 1.11tn regara to environmenca; 

conaltlons. We oelieve the same canoe said about ali ·utaoor ;...sers, nunters, campers, ana birawatcners. Aec 

nun :::ers ·'ina t i shermen wno use the northern parts of the 

£v•rg 1aoes, LaKI!' Okeechobee and the Kissimmee River we oec~me alarmed in the late 1960 ·s. Through the Florida 

,..11dl1te Feaeration we filled suite to stop bacK pumping 

t rom t ne Everg I ades Aggr I cuI ture Area c EAA) . This is the 

pcact1ce of pumping water up stream to Lake Okeechobee. 

instead ot requiring the polluted water to be cleaned it was 

sent south. By 1971 we observed problems and Governor Askew 

established ';wo Blue Ribbon Panels. These experts submitted 

two reports on the subJect. They baslcly said correct the 

tunaing inadlquacles: 

A. 97% of the cost of the EAA plumbing Is paid by home 

owners while 3% by the EAA water users. 

8. 95% ot the proJects work is to benlflt the EAA and ~% to ben1f1t the Gold ·Coast. 

fhey strongly recommended tnat no more of the 1972 

Everglaaes ce convert to aggricuitural use, that flow ways 

oe oeve iopea to connect the Lake ana the Everglades. 

fie Know wnat happened: ~. more drainage . more tax aol iars spent at the same appC'OPC'Iation formula 

c. moC'e pol lutea water sent south 

Sportsmen ana others went to the Governor. and Cabinet to 

protect the I ast Everglades tracks In Palm Beach County. Governor AsKew support protecting the Ray Rotenberger, Holey 

Lands ana Brown Farm areas from the. plow. These ares have 

now been enhanced by mitigation due to the Impacts on wet 

lanas by I-75. 

No sooner had these I ands been assured pub I I c protect I on 

tnan the EAA water users put In to use them as water 

retention areas. We went to court and the juage said NO to 

tne plan. Two more runs at using these public lands ana 

they rema 1 ned protected from IndustrIa I run-off . Now we 

hll.Ve a Washington D.C./State agreement that destroys the 

iast Evergiaaes In Palm Beach County. 

!Secause of our ocservat ion powers, willingness to Inform 

PO li ticians of wrong actions and to go to court the Soutn 

r10r1da Wate~ Management District has continually t~lea to r emove sportsmen t~om THEIR lands. No sportsmen, no eyes. 

no Witnesses, no one cares so they can do what they desire. 
351 

Ana, you ai I heara witness atter witness on Saturaay te i i 

you what they want to ao ana how they have triea to ao it. 

'<ie strongly agree with some Congressional convnittee members 

tnat an:; agreement must nave tne weight of the courts to 

entorce the agreement. This is illustrated in the lack of 

aaneac an ceo to t ne MOA aeve I opea oy the SFWMD ana F I oc i aa ~arne- ana F1sn Commission<GFCl. The GFC has touna it 

necessary to investigate filing suite against the SFWMD to 

nave tnus agreement tolloweo. <Announced at the July 1993 

Game ana Flsn Commission meeting oy Dirctor B. Brantly.) 

In ie-ss than three years the cattails have spread from very 

tew acre~ to more tnan 3,200 acres in the Holey Lana. The 

agreement stated that wnen 2.000 acres of this plant exsist 

tnen tne poi iutea water woula not oe pumped in to tne area. 

Not only is the main pecmlttea pump stlll working on the 

west s1ae out a temporary non-permlttea pump has been 

pump1ng tor a year on tne east sloe. So much for an 

agreement. 

As you can see it is not likely that any agreement that does 

not nave the court behind it will not be honored. 

we tina it intolarable that EAA water users have been 

a11owea to operate in a manner that certainly appears to 

operate outslae environmental laws that apply to all others. 

Tnis was po1ntea out by numerous witnesses at Saturaay ·s 

nearing. 

we know of no homeowner or business on the Gold Coast who Is 

a11owea to aump their waste water ana not pay for lt. We 

ai i nave water ana sewage Ollis that are very high ana going 

up. 

As the Key · s fishemen have notice problems with fish we as 

nunters nave notlcea a aecllne In wi.lc:lllfe, both game ana 

non-game, 1n the Everglaaes. Where nave all the snakes, 

raDDits ana Insect ;one? These changes started after 19i3. 

!i'urtner we nave not seen the t ish ana wl lallfe repopulate 

tnese swamps after recent flooas ana draughts as they did 

oetore. Mr. Neely has tola us he has observed the same in 

n1s Retuge. 

It we ao not get action to clean up the Everglades water but 

merely aaa water we will not solve the problem. Presently 

wt. cannot eat the Dass, alligators nor ducks because they 

are contam1natea. This same proolem will soon, 1f not 

aireaay, happen to our saltwater creatures. 

Wh 1 1 e we are p leasea peop I e are looking at the nutrItion a I 

1eve1 ot incoming water there are many other undesirable 

cnemicals in It <see attachement>. We contend that these 

cnemi cal s, wh I en are carceno;ens, are hav In; a ne;at i ve 
352 

ettect on O<JC wil<:lilte. we :~.iso oo not l•naecst .:..n•J n(lw ;:ne 

::)f'NMD can all ow this water to recharge the Northwest ana 

::.outn Daae well fields ~c_now1ng that the EPA has statea tnat 

no 1evet ot carcenogen 1s acceptaoie in water no matter how 

sr;,a ; ! tne amount IS . 

. n!s oiscusslon on quanity ana quality is neeaed ·oecause the 

current meatatea pian oniy extiroates the Everglaaes· SICkness. Dra1n1ng tne C-51 oasln to the Everglades wil I: 

1. aaa potlutea water 

<:.· encourage aevelopment ~. Increase water aemands 

1. add more polluted water to the Everglades 

uratngtng more wet lands Is not the answer to Saving the 

Everglades. 

Concern over the Frog Pond Is a serious matter because 80% 

ot the winter tomatoe crop for the USA Is grown her-e ana 

farm land to -the east has been developed. Mr. Humbel was 

neard to say that the ar-ea was far-med befor-e the canals and 

1t was not tloodea. He tuther stated that their- r-un off did 

not ·enter- public canals. Thus ther-e should 'be no concern 

aoout araining or- f loodlng the Frong Pond when the public canals ana pumps are dismattled. 

we must consider the Big Cypress National Pr-eserve as a part of tn1s system. While this area Is not In serious trouble It 

01as oought to pr-otect the water-s of wester-n Ever-glades National park trom development. Currently' thec-e Is a 

pc-act tee oe 1 ng acne oy water- managers th_at forces western 

£vecglaaes water/Eastern Big Cypr-ess water to the east ana 

on to the Frog Pona area. This action Is doing harm to 

tnose areas aeprivea of their water-. This damage has not 

rea1 ly aeveloped at this time because the practice has only 

oeen In exststance for- a few years. 

we know the current plan is not acceptable by the public on 

tne Goia Coast oecause our melllber-s have no pr-oblems ootain"ing the attached resolutions and positions from cities 

ana bus1ness or-ganizations In Dade and Broward County. <see 

attached> These coupled wl th those from Monr-oe County 

cepresent more than · 1.5 million people---DO - NOT USE OUR 

PUBLIC LAND TO CLEAN EAA WATER AND HAVE POLLUTERS PAY! 

We must Iiston to what the wlldllfe Is telling us. Like the 

canary in the cave When lt died the minner-s get out. ·ourcanar-y is the fish, up-lana wildlife, Insects, retlles and 

oi'c-as and When they die from a sick Evever-gl aaes then we 

wlil have to leave. Art Harshell · always sald When the 

Everglades collapses so does Southeast Flor-Ida. 

uur recommendations are: 

1. Stop all sugar price supports, subsidies, etc. 
,.;, t\ct-1'/ate the NAFTA wl th tough foc-ei'gn countc-y poi lut ion 

requtrements: 

.J. L:o not oc-ain or encnance oralnage of the C-51. 

4. Deact 1 vate ali pumps that are not used to pc-otect tne 

:::eve i opeo east coast. That c-equ l res on 1 y two pumps to oe 

•ert active. 

5. Act 1 vate that poe-t ion of the Evec-glades Nat lonal Pac-k 

expansion psan that allows the Feoeral Govec-nment to use 

tneic- personnel, practices ana proceoures to ccnaemn lana in 

t ne K 1 ss trrmee, Lake . Octteechobee, Evec-;1 aaes bas Ins ana taKe 

tnose EAA Ianoe that owners are unable to or unwlll ing to 

Dring Into ccxnpliance with the appropriate Jaws. 

~. Matte sure that water coming Into the EAA meets the water 

stanoaros aestrea when It leaves the EAA. 

7. w i'ti'u n two < 2 > years push 1 n a 1 I cana 1 s west of the 

eastern perimeter canals as 1-ncUcatea ·in the Everglades 

~oal it i.on plan • . ·

a. Apply sugar price support ctollars to the Eveglaaes 

C1ean-up • 

.;., Do not use any undeveloped public property to clean or 

store EAA· water---Rotencergers. Holey LandS, Brown Farms. 

10. MaKe sure all laws are enforced In the !AA. · 11. ~equtre ali pumps to be registered and tagged with a 

seated tag on the operation clock. 

1~. All pumps are to be inspected for use time ana logged In 

montnly. 

1~. cancel the current Holey Lana agreement. 

1-.. f'ol1uters are to pay for their pollution. 
354 

NEWS RELEASE ~lORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

__,NORTH H•t.YI .. HILL ROAO, WIST PALM II ACto~ , FLORIOA llt07 

PHON£: 130t, tu-2l~ 

I~TER-ORGANIZAT!ON RELEASE 

. SuJ;ject: Rotenberaer Area 

lftiElU! liE ARE AT 11115 IDIEin' 

JOHNC. JONU 

,~ .. ·there Mf be SOM C<)RfllliOn &I to W~&t is &Oin& .on concernina the Rotenberaer .Area 

in Southweot Pal• leach County, t u send ina this - to !Irina yOII "P to date • 

... .;. 

1'1!!! Pat•'· leach· Coun~y . Co.-iolion 'is· considerina zonina the Rotenberaer. area and the Holey 

,Luld Conservation/Preoervation, which WOIIld stop all d""el~t in the area. On Thursday, 

October 3, with the help of so.e of our •e.bers and the Gue Co•ission, we toured · the 

ana with three ..-.ero of the P. B. County Co•ission. Chairun Robert Culpepper, Lake 

Ly.tal, and Robert Johnson ude the trip. .we hed requested the C/P zonina several weeks 

iaao.! and the -Co•ilsioners felt they should take a first hand look. The Federation· •de 

the· necessary arrana-nts. Sonny Peecoc:k provided a hoa for a wildhoa lunch. A_ public 

'hearina is reql!ired before the Co•ission can take any action, however, 1 feel we ude 

.soee points with thooe present. We had aood press coveraae in the Pal• leach Post. 

"nnrnorida Qlblnet ••t on October 2. The Federation has obtained the services of two 

enviro-tal attomeys .fro. Wuhinaton, D. c. to research the laws on drainaae, et.c .• 

,The attomer,s, Patrick llacRory and Norton Tennille acco~anied Major Louis F. :;atney and 

ayse)f to Tallahus" for the Cabinet .. etlq. ·we Chartered. a flicf\t. and Wes Sarvis. 

Ralph Johnson, Dale Jennett and To•y Callahan flew on a ~.,..ercial fliaht fr>• Miaai. 

We all •,t with the C&binet officers before the 2:00 P. II. Hetina to express our concern 

over the area. Durina the cabinet ••etina there were several hours of hot debate, which 

reo11lted in another 90 day mratori,. on drainaae in the area. This will aive the state 

•'!. opportu~ity to neaotiate trades in the area to preserve the wetlands. lt&rmn Shields 

~lately called in his "endanaered lands'; staff, and pulled the pluas. The trades and 

outriaht ,..rchue of the Rotenberaer area lands has mved to the top of the priorty 1 ist, 

'thanlto to-n. 

The National Wildlife Federation has aiven us help in the font of the two top-notch 

attomeyo which are •ntioned above. They are very well versed in the Federal Water 

Qll&lity Act and other federal laws which could have a bearina on this case . ln addition. 

: :.:;· -. : : :!:!yin& the Florida Water Resources Act o£,'lj172. If it should )>e necessary to 

ao into court on thes~ issues, it would take a ujo~ c~itHnt on the part of both the 

NWF--and the FWF. 

/ 

The Florida Wildlife Fe<letation has already spent several thousand dollars ond considerable 

time and effort in this project, in addition to the funds spent by the Everglades Coordinating Council. ThiS has been a serious drain on our treasury, and financial assistance 

froa interested individuals would be most helpful. All of .,;.r backs are aaa.;nst the wall 

and we cannot and IIUSt not lose this one. John C. Jones, Executive Director 
Rezo_nin:g D~I~y·~~ ·for C~~nty Hu

. . !_!~ .. 4J,!ZL .. . , . a.rto Lft, j~ .i. •--,~ r.111o ~ ''lllo ..n.n.u.e II u.ft ...iII !1--Ills .· 

. r_, ........._. ,......,. ~ . ... A ...... l!oclltJ, ..... c 1

• Ill .. _: lobt ..... atclootiJ.:'.:._·_ ... , ....... -. :: . . 

prodd& .. lo move quiclll, ... lmposjl .. of.• f'C •; ~la !JI*II ........ WIIIo ...... •. :· ,., ·•.- · .:·.: ... ,. .,, '· -' ':f. ; · . · . ·. 

,, ... ,.·au.,.:,a.-, .. i.loruanaof · •. r.uj lloili.,..IIJIIIo~ llloillolofl'l8 · .-. · ...... ~ ... La.,... ... llloiJIIGower- 

~~:u:~.~=~-~ b-: ~~ ~~;..;....· .. , ~~./· ·-· ~a: ... r::::r:._~ 

,...ocp~:.:~a::~i:s.,:::.c~:c.·...:: =~~Gel~~:: .... ~: ... lllo~-~ lud~ ;· 

llddhl• Fedorat .. IFWFl. CWII_I.., .. lrloo. 'lllt .............................. ,,_; ,......a. .. _. ;. :; •< ;-~ ·~ -':': .' '.: ': ::- 

iooltadlo,... ..,alodtleuoollllluloohtlllo· It ......... aolr '"'J ......... a.- · . "'lilt a., laool ~ ~ ......... ,;.d a•· 

arra lcr•t "- aool tbt FlorWaGame 1oo1 ,,... _,1M.._ to tilt~ II~ lor~ Ilion 11 ..,..... lrl f'larldl," ...._...., .,_, ., - 

Walor F1oh COIIIIIUss ... IGf'ClllaN........, let Loot · '· : ·. , ,...,. _._JIM IIIII to Aftlt. • ., ; . - ,. .. ·• , 

tho """m•sslon to,_ tloo ---J a- 1M lllol - - lllo AIIMol IIICIItt · .-- , · , · -' · 

Tltttrsday. · . • . . ')loll 101 ~ ....... 0111• .,_., · 11o uJd- 1111 p..., ~ 111o PC"...... 

C'ommissit>Mr E.W. Weavor ralltd 1110 lopl ·. ne-•-. tit "1111'1 ..-"• 10011 · ..... ..._..If 1 state Cllllrlot _..... 

'IOH!im II• said~ boliool!dll- be "as 1ft' ' . ~Iff poill"' lor ........ ._,-........ . oe dnfule It tbt =· -.c Jlo!: LIM. 

'""'P""*' as ~II " lor Clio eammissiCII to at- • 1110 .,.._ • , • . · ' · 11y _,... ,_ lrllllo 

c...,. lo <IIane• lllo pr.seat qriealton ..... ··w. - -tut t11tot ..,. a1 -..u.. -. tilt wlldlllt · ""'"" to ...... 

wbon !hal ,.,, lllo lad - lnltnolod - lllo - ..... 1o haft 1o 1oo ....... II 11J tilt - ............ If llllltHWIIId lutlo 18 tilt ~ 

r .. ual and Southt'rn f1..-ida F'1ood Control Pno- ,._.,. _...,.. 1M -. 110 ...... u.t <Ae: - .-1 area - a .,..... _,au. clio- 

)«I •·•• approved b)' c....,r .. s. - lou 11111 ........, 111o 1aoo1 - Mt u.t trict. · · 

· 
356 

FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION 

THOMAS L. HIRES, SL MRS. GILBERT W. HUMPHREY WILLIAM G. BOSTICK, JR. C. TOM RAINEY. D.V.M. DON WRIGHT 

CMii'IMfto Lake Walet Vtc..Chlnman. Miccoeukec Winrer Haven Miami Orlando 

ROBI!RT W. RAKTL Y, E--.. Oinctor 

ALLAN L IGalaT, ,._0.. A-.....: u.a.- OU.C. 

Mr. L. Jaelt Moller 

Cornapoa.dent Secretary 

July 17, 1987 

Half Traelr. Conservation Club of Dade County 

16700 S.V. 68 St. 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33331 

Dan Mr. Hollar: 

Punuant to your letter of 16 June 1987 reaardina water ..... ,e.nt 

in the Holey Land and llotenberaer Wildlife Manqe..at Areas, the G._ 

and Freoh Vater Fioh eo-iooion io e-itted to purouit of a water 

rest.. whieh will uxiaize benefito for a broad ranse of Eversladeo 

wildlife. lie wont to reduce the oceurrenee of .. cit fino and ooil 

ouboidence, while evoidin& tho neptive effecto .of long-tera floodina 

that have been aoted in parto of the water conaenation anu. 

The c-iooton •• overall aoal for the Boley Land ltaatoration 1a to 

recreate a •aaic of vet prairie, •""'rua, aacl elouah c_,..itiea which 

will provide habitat for a broad raoaa of indipaoua wildlife. 

Specific aanaae..at objeetiv .. include: 

1) ntum the ujorit.y of the oavaraaa-abrub zona to a 

•avar••• c.,_..lty 

2) develop..at of wet prairie lind eloup e-.nltiaa 

3) llf.Dillize the oecurnnee of .aelr. fine 

4) provide habitat for vadinl bird foraai"l• alliptor neetiDa , vt.ntertnc waterfowl, and. oc:.har Bv.E"•l•H• 

wildlife. 

lie bave aiped ... interapftcy aan-llt (May 1983) with the Florida 

DapartMilt of lllviroa..ntal ltaplatiOtl (DU) , the loard of Truataea of 

the ltltarul Ioopr-t Truat Fund (Govemor.end cabinet), .,d the 

South Floridz Vater Mmaa-nt Dietr:l.et (Sllit!D) whieh atat .. : 

"'rhe puQoee of tbta reetoratt.oa pl• la to ••t forth a eourae 

of action whieh leada to the eonat.,.ceion ud operation of a 

vater eontrol eyet•• that att..,u to reetora and pr•••rve 

utural Evupadao habitat vi thin a def:l.ud ana." 

"Vatu level achad11lea for the project ana ahall be 

eatabliahed to ai.alate the nat11ral hydroperlod for tbe 

purpoae of raatorilll Eversladea habitat." 
Hr. Jack Hollar 

ra1a 2 

357 

"A 0-2 foot hydroperiod for the Holey Land and 0-l foot 

hydroperiod for the ltobenbaraer Tract will be the initial 

referenced level• for the propoeed restoration. The Diltrict 

and t-i .. ioa will .. tabliah the final hydroperioda and 

achedulaa for eath uac:t d"rina the dedp proc .. a. The 

ac:hed,.le vill be oaject to thana• if the Diotrict and 

c-ioaloe aaru that oiiCh a chanp vill contrib,.te to tha 

project ,..rp_." 1111 llaft a1eo alped a -rand .. of Underatandina on Lalr.e 

Olleec:hollea (October 1916) vith tha Dl&, Sf1illll, Depar-t of llatural 

-ourcu, Deparc-t of Aaricult"n •d Cou-r S.nic .. , and the 

Depar-t of c-ity Affaira ·vhldll includea the followiDa laoauqa: 

"'lanap the Boley Land .. OUtlined iD the Boley Land 

-toration .Intorapncy Aa..-t •d de,..lop, .. a joint 

project with the Sf1illll, • operation plao for the IIDlay Land 

to redac:e tha l.,.c:ta of the lntaria Actloa Plan oo Vater 

Couenatioa Area l ..,. Jveraledea Jatiooel Pan, within the 

coutraiDU of habitat raatoratioa objecti,..a .S....lopad for 

the Bol•J Land "" tha GJC." 

C:O.....nioa of the Bola,. Land to a ator ... nunolr haa -

propoud at ,.rloua tiau -• tba lut decade, bat va bell.,.. that the 

.,.-u .. , • ....., .. ...,..., 11,.. • atpifieaat ~a ...... 1D oppoeua 

·-·-· 

SlacanlJ, 

_, ... , .. CCI Lt. Co~l a • .,_ -ford 
358 

TOa Co,...ittee To revent Eutroproic~tion 

Of Leke Okeechobee 

June 17, I 976 

·When 1 first h .. rd about this rnu•ting I could not make up "·J 

mind whether to talk or not, because if everyone here uked to talk 

and Mere able to say ~•at they feel we would be here for a weak. 

~lhen 1 say would he ai-le to say wha: they feel I maan most of us 

have trouble putting our feelings into WOI'ds. If you wi II bare 

with .. I will attempt to do thfs, 4 aiJ.~..,_,~df ~ '1%'~~~·~1 esti~\ed cost of the r.c.o. Projec; ~$72o million, and 

the objectives o,f the ·F ,c,o. area 

1. Water Supply (for all needs, incluc!ing wildltfe) 

2, Salinity Prevention 

}, flood Protection 

4, Water Conservation 

5o ·Maintenance of Desireable Gr.ound and Surface \later Levels, 

6, Protect ion and Enhance•.,nt of Fish and WI hll He, 

7. Preservation ot Important Wilderness Areas and Their EcQ$ystema. 

a, · Public Recreation 

This all sounds like., Ideal plan, but somewhere along the fino 

something happened, The r.c~o. built 32 canals, 125 spillways and 15 

pumpfng stations to accr~tish these means. Instead they have deve1oped 

HDO,DOO acres of a possible 700,000 acres of land, known •• the Ever9lades 

A!)ricultural Area into a very productive .rea. I don't think the hct 

that most of the F .c.o. l>oard meni•ers, who have•served duriny those years, 

were In soma •way connected with this land, had any bearing on this 

development. ey developing this land we have created another prohlem, 

Water Pollution, which is why we are here tonight, 

In 1973, the Florida Le~islature, after Nny complaints from the 

Conservationists that Lake Okeechobee was dying, enacted the Special 

project to prevent the Eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee. One of the 

findings ot this study was that the Everglades Agriculture Area was 

polluting the water that was going into the lake. 
359 

Their reco~ndetlons was to create deep stora~e areas on state owned 

lend, known as the holy land, in order to purify this w .. ~r.r, ::ow unlus 

I have read this report wrong In ·most of the other oroa£ they stated 

thu best way to clean this water was In overland flow through the 

· ve9etetlon. We SI!Oia to have the bes~ possible overlend flow aroa just 

south of the L•S Levy, which Is celled Consorvetlon Area 3•\, built 

along with the othor conseFvation areas at a cost of $)4 million. Why 

not use thfa erea7 Or Is the feet that once the water Is south of L-S 

lovy alld the S-8 puaoplng station, It cannot be ~aod by the Agriculture ,.,. ... Gentlemen, all J can say as • tax payer In this state, Is that 1 

•y have been negligent In not fighting the people when they were using 

our .aney to create areas for personal gain. J will not lot this 

~appon again, I •• here to oxproaa ~ f .. ltnga that It Is about time ,. stop peyfng the freight for these agriculture people end let the• 

stert paying their own way. If we need deep storage oroaa, which I 

doubt, then leta hufld theM on the land that created the -d for thea, 

by thh I ·- thor •'-ld be but It on agriculture land at their - expenae not at tax parers expenae. 

In closing, J WDuld like to go bock end roatote the objectives of 

the t.c.o. according to Houle Doc_,.t J61t), tuued In llllt& end • report Issued bJ tha F.c.o. In 1~5• 

1. Water 8upply (for ell needs, Including wf ldlffe) 

2. Sa1fnhr l'roventfon 

), flood l'rotectfon 

s. l'.olnte- of Dealroble Gr-..1 and Surf,- Wet_. Level1o 

6, Protection and lnhonc ... nt of ffah ond Wildlife. 

7• l'r...,.,atfon of IMportant wnwneas Areu end Their lcosrst-. 

•• ,..lie aecr .. tfon 
360 

Now it seems to""' that beeouse your reecr:n•ndations will rreat 

only a few of these objectives, ~ut will destroy the rest, there 

should be only one decision for the cabinet, to turn It down. 

thank you for your attention. 

Ao A. Fhike11i 

Hellber of Halftraek Conservation Club 

Of Oacle County 

"-Mr of Airboat Anocietion of Florida 

Rep. of Coordination Counsel ~f South Florid• 
361 

·fLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

...U NORTH HAYIAHIL.L ROAD, WEST PAL,M BEACH , FLORIDA J3A01 

PHO"E' 13051683·2328 

JO .. tN C. JONES • 

iO 

II 

. 

Decellber 4, 197 4 

Honorable Re~~bin Askew · Governor of Florida 

·na Capitol 

Tallahassee, Florida 32304 

Dear ~ernor, 

In recent -ths Gulf • !festem has hired a fira called "Ecoillfi&Ct, Inc . " to do a study on s-·state-owned· lands in Southwest Palil Beach County, an area c-nly 

knolm. ISS tha "Holey Land." · I • ' . ' 

Tha "Holey Land" has been used. for uny years as a Wildlife Manaa_,.t Area. In 

plain talk, it is a huntin1 area. Althou1h it is used by others to observe wildlife. 

(I enclose a copy of a letter fro• a Dade County resident- who is requestinl our help 

in proservin1 the area for the citizens.) 

Glalf' ud Western has pe to 1reat lenaths to discredit the "Holey Land" and the 

report has .. called it an ecolo1ical disaster, ud indicates that the GaM and Fresh 

Water Fish COialssion has •is.an&Jed the area. Tha report concludes that the best . way, to_ s;ave the area fr. any further dearadatlon, 11 to plant suaar cane on it. 

The eo.alssi~ ad8its it could have ~one a better job of .anaa..ent, but they did not have tha jurisdiction over the water control•. The water . .anaa-t in the area is 

the key. Most' .of .the wa''" control structures which are needed are ·already in exist· 

RC:e, · however, rain water has been peraitted to drain off the land. This ·.drainaae 

has c-ed - chan&•~ , ~ th~ ecoloJY of the area, but .it is certainly not an . 

eco.l?lic_al ~saster_. ,, · 

The area is still' hiply pl-oductive in wildlife, and r-ins -of the best huntinl 

areas in South Florida. Each year thousands of Florida citi:ens utili:e the area 

in recreati-.1 F,SIIitl!• .: . . · · · . . ; . • • . ! ~! . : ·-. -. . 

Gulf· ad w .. tetn · pioposed to 'the state a swap of lands !hey own for the "l!oley Lands." ~lei tha ·state uke this trade, and these lands are developed into suaar eane the 

P";le, crf.t~~! .. stat!t w.i~l.be. the losers. . . . . 

Tha ,.Conferwe on wat~ .._~.-t in South Florida;· which was called by you in 

Septe.b&rr' ll71, 'called for aarieultural lands and •arshes not presently (in 1971) 

in productillll below Lake Okeechobee be reflooded. It also called for a proaru to conserve:.the -iclands, and suuested the ·best way to &CCOIIfllish that could be to 

reestablish saw~n~s. 

It' is clear that plantina su1ar cane in this area, which is already owned by the 

state, .!'~ld not &e!=08Jilish the 10als of the water II&Jllll-t conference. 
362 

l~norable Reubin Askew Pa1e Two 

Governor, the people of this state are looking to you and the members of the Cabinet 

.. to p~tec;t their interest. With kindest personal reaards, I aJD, 

Sincerely,~,~ ;'' : 

(~1.· ·· .. I . 

· . John C. nes ·· · , . 

fE~ecutive Director 

. . !·.i. · > cc: . :. Members of the Cabinet 

Dr. 0. E. ·Frye, Jr . 

. Mr. Jay LUiders 

Mr. Har.on Shields 

· Mr. Arthur Marshall 

Col. Clinton Effin&er 

Mr.·. Albert J • Seh laaheek 

. l·.·· 
363 

S'rll'•':; v.· n.onrD;, 

DEI'/\JW'.BilT Of l~fl'l'UML lmSOURCE:; 

Pith• Beach Tract f206. (Palm ;;,,<Jch Count~·) 

LOCI\L LAND us;; l'LN!!HNG ;\!·~D l~_(;lJJ,J\TOI<Y l·oi':~ SURES - OVERVIEI'I 

Sources: ··1:.. Mr. Don r.ockh,,rt - f)ivision of Forestry, working 

with the l'l<un llcach Cou~ty Planning and Zoning Dept. 

2. . University of Florida .Po;>pulation Stu4y · 

3. · EEL Working Matedals 

Future Growth. 

Estimated l.973 Palm Beach Coun~y Population -427,983. 

The estimated average yearly percent increase in population from 1970 

to 19]3 was 6.96,, 

The enda!lgerment- inde.x co1nputed for Palm· Beach county is 303, 

placing it. Sth __,ng Flo;-ida 's .,counties. · 

· · The primacy growth hctor •··Mch ·could affect the proposal area in the futun is that of ag#cultural land-use expansion rather than 

direct population e1icroachmen t. · 

ZOning and Planning. 

Currently the property is :r.oned for ag~icultural use· and open 

space. However, . planning· officials ,have. reconuilended that the area be designated as a "Preservation/Conservation• zone. This action 

would be preceded by approval of the Palm Beach County Commission. 

Sugar cane is the dominant crop gro1~n in the. area of· the 

propasal. There is a constant pressure to drain .more land for the . purpose of additional sugar cane acreage. 

Major Development Activity . 

The majority of large projects within the county are at least 

ten miles east of the proposal and pose no immediate threat to the site. 

10/30/74 

LS/jnw 
~ ~ J)~IS ~ I ,~

fi ~~ ~~ P.J!fl dU II I

. ~~ HJ•ln!' 1 • r 

· l · ~ rJll ~11th II 

~~~~1 ··ni, ~ I! 

.~! ~Jif i 

I t~f !lilh ~ i rfl fli.fl a !iflt 1!-Jf . or .1 'r'fs 11!~ hin h~u JiHI 

! .. 11r . -:-l '< !1.7 ~ l 

• 
365 

Florida WlldUit FldenUoa 

FOREVERGLADES 

114fLM--•-I'L- I'Iol .... ,..Oowol .. (lll)m-am 

Apdl U, 1112 ~'l"''U ar FAca:nau: ·AND ~L. · 

Q, 1'1.1ION 4:Z'eel, &lr-Uvo Dinatozo 

leNtil J'lod.de Wa\N ....__. DJ.Rdft 

•• o .... 14 .. 0 

w.n ftlll IMall, n. unc-••o 

DeU fill 

Ml llevioion or ••m kiodty •otOZ" aodl' 

Liot 

ftie lett. ia ill ~ to r.ny hanon'• ~11 J, lottu oeaMI'IIlnf t:llio IIUle~R. l u «inotirl9 Ulie u 07011 

Mclaue tlllo I.e a bJ.fh 10ftl po11Gy Mt:tu. 0 •• 

ftlo .. ley loend and Jotanlloqv 'tnoU OIIAt: u '11o 

laG1ade4 ill t110 ~Ye~Wl .... nu •1u. ...1ul• or Uae.o 

UIIOt:8 ia onating lllnn.t: or you intaat:lona U011f .· 011\'u..-t:aliau. 

ta tho put:, .-. atofl Mllban have at1Yooat:e4, along vitll AIU liltenau, ua of u.e IOHr z..t u a et:oraaazo 

tnetilallt: ana• fte _, noent ....U.U• ot UWI . iMed wu t:11o J'lN'lda hpl' cue,...._.,, ~I'll t, ·Oltia or a u ._ oredJ.t. rw. ......-no .:n.nl •r uae ao1or ...a. 

hall .... b -.v.le)' u tile ~ • .,......., Ulat: 0 • 

Dietd~R t1tMf, uc tile ·'ft'UtMO or t:11o lnftllll 

u,.o•mt 'bUt rue« nUl! .. , u noton Ule .. ley LUll u IIYOZ'91 .... llaltit:at. · Wat:an of .a. Boler ...a an Cleo• 

Ul vaten of Ule otat:a. aa ua t1'ftll t:11o Diotwiot aotiae 

t:aat vatw fiii&U.ty ttllllluU. wlu be entoraed in Ule IIOloy. r.nc. . . ' 

·~~'!· : 

~~Ice 
tk.llober\'l'.lleu'U 

'I'OWD MllAlaaato~ ftiWD of.,..,. 1511 IN tl\b ttret' 

366 

~ 2S, ltll 

Dl¥1., l1ar14a ,,,, •• ,,,, 

J)UI *. lltanlal 

'l'llull JW IW ....UDI - a aopr ol JOUr DMilf ..SOpM4 tMID 

ruol\ltl• •• tbe loftnor ... J QpHOlaU JOUr .....,. for 

quUtt o1 ... -.. .._17 ... aaaan "'* _,._.. we .,... awnolat• IOU otiU of bel» aDt wUl ..u • JW ...U w .... ,... uaU\Uae. 
367 
368 

5ponso~= . Coul)c_ilman .Jack Brady . 

. RESOLUTION. NO.If -~~·_/r.r1 

A RESOLUTION OF TH& CITY COUNCIL OF THE; CITY OF 

NORTH I.AUDERD~LE, FLORIDA, CALLING ON ALL 

APPROPRIATE PUBLIC OFFICI~S AND AGENCIES TO PRODUCE 

, A: DEFtNITE. ,PLAN TO .. R&OUCE oNV.l'RIEltr . INPUTS INTO . THE . 

· . ' EVERGLADES .WATER CONSERVATION . AREAS ,AND OTHER PUBLIC 

. >. ~QS ""IL! .. ~:J;NTA:J;NIHG ·,MAXIMUM FLOWS OF CLEAN WATER ·. 

· FOR THE · a!!fEFI'l!: OF· ALL· ~! . CITIZENs· 'OF·. FLoRI.DA •. · . 

WHEREAS,·· the EVerglades · Acgicultuni Area is a · vast :!lUgar cane ·.and winter.::veqet&ble prCiduction . tract; su~roiuid.d . by . an cxtensiv~ 

~Y,~em · ~f., c.~J-·•dn~~loed . ~~ t~• SoJ:&th. F~orld,a ~~t.~r ·-Mana9emer:ii Di•\:r·!ct , wbi.eb : c•nal.s : emptl;' · · i.nto · th~· . _Everglades· : Water 

cop•ea;v~ tio_a , ~e~s: ancJ.,. . . : . . • · ,·. . , .· · ·.· :': . . . . · . · . . . . . · 

WHEREAS,:·· run-c;~ff . 'froal" ··the··: agricul.t;ut~.l· art!& i:n(o .tf,i! : canals 

~:orlt.iJUI · ~sticid,S, . berbi~ideS, .. ·fertilizers and . Othet ChemicalS 

.,.,bi:ch C&~ be'~ ~araaful :·· to· huinana: but ·.'ar.e · ·n.,ert:bel'ess .-··dueharqed· withou~ .treatlilent into . the Everglades Water ·Conservation: Areas;. :and · . · · . ·. · ·',- ,. .. . · ~ · · · . · . · · · · · · . .-. ·· · :: · ·. · .. · . · : · · : · · · 

·WR&aw, when· 'll!aid aqri.culturill run~ff is :·n;;t ·properly : r~taine<i or detained, it allows harmful · substances to enter :ourfacc: 

wat•rs.l and 

WHEREAS, this effluent can be high in nutrients and if discharged 

into an area with little or no water movement. cutt·-::>phicat ion (a 

high nutrient content resultinq in the build-up vf algae anc microscopic plants) occurs, severely degrading the water qualicy; 

and 

WHER&AS, it bas been acknowledged by the State of Florida, United 

States . government, the sugar industry and conservationalists 

alike that said agricultural run-off causes serious environmental 

probl._ in the Everglades Water Conservation Areas. Everglades 

National Park and the LOxahatchee Wildlife Refuge; and 

• 

WHEREAS, water flowing through 'and from the Everglades 

Agricultural Areas and into the Everglades Water Consct·vation 

Areas is used to recharge the Biscayne ltlq-aifer and the 

well-fields of Broward County including those serving the City of 

North Lauderdale; and 

WHEREAS, the Sta~e. caaapreben,~ve Plan,. •t -CbaP.ter_. 187, florida 

Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, ·that the State shall 

protect and use natural· water · systeu1 . protect . surtace and 

groundwater quality, protect aquif~rs f "rcill cQntam:i.nation; . and 

eliminate the discharge of inacSequ•tely treated wastewater and 

storm run-off into the waters of. the state; and · . . . . :·:. ~ . . 
369 

WHEREAS, . the · State of · F'lorida ·and · the South . florida . Water 

Management Distiict.- rcqulre use of ·pollution retardant structures 

and· other measures to control contamination run-off in ·the urban areas . of southeast Florida, but have not historically required 

such structures and measures in non-urban areas; and 

WHEREAS, urban dollars are already funding the majority of water 

management expenses for the Everglades Aq.ricultural Areas and 

urban businesses are required to clean thei~ own wastewater· while .others· are ~inq · allowed . to ·discharge .unt:reated ·wastewater · i nto 

t _he · public's water !!Upply and ont'o· publi~ l,~llds; .. and. 

WH~!AS, the ·cii:y conimis&~on is conc~rried that J:i . on-$ite 

pollution retarda·nt: · s.tru_ctuz;es and · other. appropriate measures are not required of· non-1,1tban _areas,/. individual homeowners · a!)~ 

businesses . iolill have .... t!J . bea'l"'-· a burde.{l ·,ilqt·. ·tieing' . p'laced .. on . 

. ~~i-~ t;,~~n~· ~:.: n.~ ·,:·: · ,:: ·.··· :· ·- '·· . . ·. -: . . : . . · :·.· . . . , ·:>:I·::-·. . . . 

wKEitW I "·•the appropd'ate •officials . are: herl!by' . Urged,. tO .•·assist 

aqdbu!liness_· i,n .. developj.nq: sell..:cont~ined aqr;oultut.il>irriqation 

sy$tems, which allaw r,use of . ini9ation wat~r !"ithout disc~arge 

in~o dralni.Qe ··canalS) · •nd · · · : · ' . .. · · · · 

~; ~~; cti:i .: c~im~it ~f.· t.he-: btt/of t(~ft'h ·. ~au<fe,fc!41 :· c~iis . 

. on . all .. . appropr,!;ate · a.qencies:.'. and ·. public : o£fic.ials .. to· . . work e~itiously to produce a definite plan·· for reducing ·nutrient ·inputs into publicly held · lan4s, canal~ .. ,and ·. conservation areas ·whUe 'iaaintai'llin9 m&xiiiNia ·flows of ·clean water: · · • · _· . 

NOW, THEREFORE, ·aE IT RESOLVED 8Y .. TH! CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 

NORTH LAUDERDALE; FLORIDA: 

St!Ction 1: That the appropriate City Officials are hereby 

authorized and directed to take all actions reasonabl~ and propec 

to urqe state and reqional officials and agencies to p1·oduce a definite plan for reduction of nutrient inputs into the 

Everqlades Water Conservation Areas and other pubLic lands 

includinq, but not limited to, "The Holey Lands" and "Ray 

Rotenberqer" tracts as well as other parks, ::a.nals and wild life 

refuqes while maintaininq maximum flows of clean water. 

Section 2: That the official position of the City council of the 

City of North Lauderdale is that the,.•state Comprehensive Plan 

requires that. no water be returned to public lands and waters 

without first bein9 cleaned 

and that the appropriate state and regional officials should 

protect the interests of the citizens of North Lauderdale by 

implementinq the State's Comprehensive Plan. 

Section l: That this Resolution shall take effect invncdiately 

upon adoption. 
PASSED arid ADOPTED 

Lauderdaie, Flor~da 

370 

North 
'•. 

-..... ;. · 

371 

RESOLII T lllN flO. OY- 0 7 

. . . 

HF.SOlllll~lW OF rt!E :MA YO!l 1\1111 C 1 TY COUHC I L 

OF TilE C l TY OF II I ALE/Ill, FLOR l!JA, RE-

. .OIIF.S rttlu Till\ T PROPEIHY OIINERS . IN . TilE . · ··· :. : . -F.VERGLAflES -1\GUt'CIILTUI!I\L ... AREA :· l£AA) ·· BE . REOUIRF.U TO PROVIUF. THEil{ OUN IIATEK . HE-

'. . ·lf.NTIOti .. PilllllS '.1\Nil 1\LlOW NCl iiATER· Til RETURil. TO PUiiLIC LAIIUS WIT.tiUUl FIRST tiEING 

':':. . ~LEA~~EU • . ·.. .. -:: : .. . _ : . · ,, . 

.. . . . · ·:; ·: lfiiEREAS, · ' THE : :W~1eR' corti~G Fttolt · TH1: EvERGL.DE~ AGR~cuL­ TtiRAL' AREA (EA/1) •.15 CARRHHC'I -- -F&RTILI~ER, :PEShc·l'nes;· FIINGICIOES, 

~::•~cl oEs .AH.D: .orHu.: citE !i I(;A'i.~ WHI~ , cAN RE ..... "~"'Ful .-: Te , HUHANS~ 

: .· · · . · · \lltEREAS,. _-THE' 'r~TU •.editiNG FRon· THE EAA · is rioT · ro. · eE 

llAC I(~I>IIHPED··c 1 N'tO r br._iK~ :OKEF.CJtoql'i;; ftEOAUSE,:·lT·' -H~s . fiEt~ . D&'fE1U11~i!D 

TH"T THIs· WATER .J S , COHTR I ~Ill !:fiG 'r~ TH~ POOR HEAL-Tf! ,0~ . THIS ~O DY OF .WA':r.ERJ 'ARD · :. ··:. ': ·:.: ... :. · ·:· ,_· .·.;":·: · ... ·", :· .. ,·.:.· ·'·· ·i·· · .. .... ·. ··,. ··. ·'· ..... ·'·: , .. 

<' .. · .· ;IIHERiiAS ;- ;.~F. vo~iu1t '.' ~i ,: wAT.ER :HOVING .ACAoss'AtiD ··ou·f' OF 

~;~le . EAA ;ertoR,OII-$ :.,411~ .. .•.. ·- .:-,: :- ; .;:.• ... ,;·, :_:: .. .: , /.;: :-··· ,i .' .,, ;. ·. ,:;:.:: .. ; ·~ . : · .. ,·. ·. <·: :: . .. . . . "WftEHF.AS,, THE .: G~HE 'AND -FISH .((lfln us.ror(·. H~!l : C011.PLETED .A. 

$TIIDY ON DUCKS bSIMG THE f.·Afl AREA ·AND FOiiND THAT THESE ' iJUCKS AilE 

CARRY·ING' OL.lii'F~~JS :;.,HICH A~ ftAjtitF!IL -~ Tn . rtAii:. ··.AIIQ . 'fHE · STU.OY .. INDICATES THAT. THUE POlLIITAN'r-S '·WERE 'OBTAINED WHILF. litE : ~CKS WERE IN 

THE. EAAJ AND . . . 

WHEREAS, TilE . WATER COHIHil TIIROIJGH AlAn OFF THE EAA IS 

HEEDED · TO ENHANCE THF. .. 9~T~WEST WELL F 1 ELD I)F UADE CouNTY· PRoDUCTION CAPAC lTV; AND 

WIIEREI\S, IJRRAN 'DOLLARS ARE FIJIID I HG TilE fiAJOR I TV OF THE 

WATER · HANAGEMEHT EXPENSE~ . IN THE f.AI\; AtiD . 

WBEHEAS, . URRAN llUSIHESSES ARE REiliiiREO TO C:LEAI~ THEIR 

nwrr WASTE WATER, WHILE .T.He EAA INTERESTS. ARE -Au:owen ·SJY THE STATE 

TO DISCHARGE UHTREATEI) WASTE WAT·ER INTo· TilE PURLIC'S WATER !:liPPLIES AlfD . Ott PUBLIC I.ANDS. 

tiOW,. THEREFORE, · KE IT RESOLVED' RY Tilt MAYO!{ ANU CITY 

COUNCIL OF tHE CITY- UF 1111\LEAII~ FUllllll/1, THAT: 

SECTION 1. ltie- EA/1 WATF.R IISERS SHOIILO ALLOW NO WATER TO 

RETIIRII TO PUBLIC LANDS AllD WATERS Ill TIIOIIT FIRST AE I NG CLF.ANEO RY 

THE WATER IISER IN THE F.llfl AREA . 
. . ·, . ··· .. 

372 

" . . . .. . 

. · I!ES.IJLUT I tlll tm. &9-07 

PAGE ·TWO UF .TWO . . .. ; ·• ·. ~ :: .. , . . : ··· :··:···· · 

... 

- ·. SEtiioN 2. · THE EM WATF,A USERS SHOtJ(.D . PAOV JI)E THE 1 A OW If 

WA~ ..• R. "RU.E.HT-IO.H/.O£HNJ.JOlf-. .: PoNOS . ." : Oit · T~EI A .;_(AMOS . · A'T THEIR . OWII 

~P ~~~ .~ .:"··.:.··.; _.·,.:::, ·. : "::.: . ~· ' . . :. ; . . _: ,:· .;_ .·. : . . .' . - ,- ~-- • • . . • . : 

. _.: .. .. · .: S"ECIIOJt ~· A CO..!'Y o:F )H.IS ~~~il.l.ti(JC')N ae: PRC')VIDEP To . T~£ 

~~:~ '- t~~G!•r ~, _- ~ir_J F.~t· .• ·: · · · .... . ·.· .. ·· ·. ·. · ~ ·_ . . .. . ' . ·· 

... ·. ~ ·_ -.-i. 0.R9 .• ,_. ,;,j~.: ~; ;_ }~SS,~y· ~~~ .- ~~~P~~u _.: t~a~ : ·~th .J ~~·~ ··~ ~; :.: : _ "' 

· .. ··. : ·. -: · .. ··; .. . .. . ·.: ..... ·~ . ; - . ... 

APPHOVEII =zr----'-=-~- HAYOR ~ · --~ · lr-~---lL-·~,..-.-- \ 

APPHOVEIJ AS TO LEGAL 

SUFFICIENCY AND AS TO FOK" (RESOS/015-GLAUES/WATER) 
373 

RESOLUTfON ~0. 89-08 . . 

RESOLUTION OF TH~ MAYO~ AND ~tTY COUNciL. 

OF THE ·· CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA~ REQUESTING THAT THE STATE . OF FLORIDA OFFER 

PROTECTION TO "THE HOLEY -LANDS• AND "RAY 

ROTEIIRF.RGER". AS -OTHiiR. liDOIE.S OF LAND -IN 

THE· EVERGLADES ARE P~OTECTED. · 

~-·. ·. . · ·.~ , . 

· ·.·:_:' ·-wHEREAs, -rHe'.i •. w~t.t.C s·i~~. oesiGNE.D -to · PRC}T~cT suRFAcE 

WATE'Rs i>F· fLoR-l DA,. D-ID NOT: ·P·Ro:r.eci" · "THE -Ho ·l ey LAND.s." AN.D ~RAY 

ROTENBERGER• . TRACKS OF PU8L I~ l-ANDS;· AND · · · · :- . . . . ·. . . . . . ' . . .. . . . ' . ~ 

. · .. ·:·;..: _;: ~Jt~E:'.S, :1'H U~ -~~OS ~R(-A~- P-A~T. OF·" THE ·:O!H!>:I"AL •. :_L,A_NOS O,NED- !SY ' THE···fRusTE.lS"·OF THE_· STATEf>F·_:fLQRI'DA'J AND .. · . . . : :: ___ · . ' 

·<·. :' : · ~-: WH~REAS ,' :··PoRi'loris: of;. tH~liE' ~Ai•~s-:· wt~~ .~RcHAsim ·i,i.neil 'T.JiE ·SAVE ·OUR ·RIVI!RS PRO.GRAILQ.R ENDANGERED LANilS"-PROGRAHJ -AIID . .' 

:,:.:.'.;·_ :(.~·: -·. W.~REAs·~ ~H e~e:. ~~o~~AHs -- weR.P: :i!~TA~-~~~Neu a~:. :r~~- srAre~·;o~ · F'L.oil1 o.\ To -RESToRE VALliA.BLE .wef:_ i.ANos· AND To ·PREVENT ·THEI1 hoH REIfiG .. DE'sTRfi·ven:; AND ··-,_ .. · '. :. _ ·. ·-. · ·: ·. . .. _ • . _.:. ·. · ,. _· : ·:· .'··· 

· · · · ' · WHE~EAS ~ ' "tHESE LANDs· WERE A PART:··oF " 1'HE ·oRtr.INAL: EveRGLADEs AND ARE STILL AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAYS EVERGLADE_S • 

. NOW, THEREFORE. . BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR ArlO CITY 

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, THAT: 

SECTION 1. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HEREBY REQUEST 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO OFFER PROTECTION TO "THE Holey lANDS• AND 

•RAY ROTENBI:RGER" AS OTHER BODIES OF LAND IN THE EVERGLADE!l ARE 

PROTECTED. 

(THIS PORTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT RLANK) 
3'14 

llESOLUTIOII NO. 89-08 

PAGE TWO OF . TWO. 

0 •• 

SECJION ~· A COPY . OF THI.S KESOLUTION BE PROVIDED· TO . THE 

.... , # • ~ • • • •• • • • 

. . . · , .. · · · PASSED··AatD ·ADOPTtu 'r~is14th oAC~F. Fe!XuUy . ·, .1989~ ' :. . . . . . . .. . . . . -· ·... .. . .. - . .. . . . . . . . ·. '•.: . . . . . . . . .: . ~ ... ; 

. .. 

APPIOVEO ·AS .TO l£GAL .~ · · ·suFHC IENCY AND AS TO' FOR" 

<RESOS/015-TOP/WATER> 

.··: 
'·-·--

.. ~ .-;.·i,~,l,~~ ' u ll 

----

--

--_..__ 

·

--

-t.MU --

--I'IRAD&-

. --

. 

--- WIA-

-

--

375 

NORTHEAST DADE 

BISCAYNE BOULEVARD COALITiON 

20360 HIGHLAND LAKES BLVD • 

NORTti DADE ~ MIAMI, FLORIDA 33179 

13051 932·7887 

Honorable Bob Gra~ 

The Capitol Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 

Oear Governor Graha11: 

September 12, 1986 

Our Clean Hater C011111ittee has reviewed the proposal to dfvet·t a great percentage of· the water frill lake Okeechobee toward the 

southwest and northeast. We have concluded that this plan would 

further contribute to the pollution of our drinking water supply, which is already threatened by toxic waste intrus~on and other 

contuinants. 

lake Okeechobee for years has served as a reservoir to replenish drinking water supplies during times of drought and other-emer- ,gencies_. · 

·The diversion of the water of this valuable lake to other areas viola~es the very Purpose of its intended function, and in the 

presence of. the continual pollution by agricultural interests 

the diverted waters would· in essence serve ·as transporting agents of the fecal matter from the cattle used for dairy and other 

purposes. 

An additional threat· to the water supply eminates from the agri- cultural .industries located in the Everglades Agricultural Area . 

We ·recoamend· that inmediate measures be taken to stop a 11 backpump- ing, discontinue the issuance of surface water 111nagement permits, · and begin fining all violators • 

It· Is further r'!COI!I!Iended that agricultural and other Interests 

discontinue pumping the water from Lake Okeechobee and discontinue 

discharging contaminants into the lake. 

It ·is vital that the integrity of La~ Okeechobee be maintained by further allowing for the rejuvenatiOh of the lake, which can only be accomplished by the discontinuation of the discharging of con- 't.utinants into t ts prec taus waters. 

(con.) 
376 

Page 2 Honorable Bob Grana. September 12, 1986 

These agricultural and other interests must solve their own problems by 

effecting solutions which do not include the conta~ination of our vital 

reservoir and other sources of supply for our drinking water. 

c. L. Jlck Holler 

Sincerely, 

_,./P. ~./7 S.A. Ward 

Chli .... n · Cltlll Wlter c-ittH 
.. 

... 

u 

377 

l RESOLUTION OP ~~ az.'l'i c~~ISSION · ov THE 

CITY OP CORAL SPRtNOS, PLO!IDA' CALLXHO ON 

ALL THB APPROPRIAl'R .P.UBLIC" ~OPPlCIALS AND: 

AOBHCIBS TO, PRODUCE A D.EPIHITB' .fL.\N :to.,.: .. RBDUCB NUTRI~ XH.PIJ'l'S ·lell'O 'l'HE ·ZVEROLADEs 

WA'l'BR COHSIRVATiotf . .AREAS · AifD O'i'RBR ·l'OBLIC . LANDS VHILB' MAINTAINING.' liAX.:MUM , PLOWS Oif.,: :. CLEAN VATB8 PO~ · '11f~ BBNBPIT: OP ~LL THi ' , 

• . .' 

CITIZENS op· PLOJII.Dj •· · .. ' ·:" ... . . '_.. '< . . . 

WHEREAS, the Eve.~gl~ de~ :· ;i~ri~l1~~~r~i · ~r.e~ ·1s .~ vast .~~a:- · .. \ . . . - · ... 

cane and win tel' vegetabl~ . pro4U:ction.::~ract ; iurrol,lnd~d bf. ~n'. :. . 

extensive systea~ or ana~s ~ihta~ne6>':b~ . thJ s~utb:\ Plorida ·. ~.te~. 

Management District which . a~~~~~ ~JftP?.Y 'tnt·~ t~i: ·~~gladeJ'::~~tk .' 

c'onservat1on Areas;· ~d ":_' ,;: ~~ .~· :.:·.··: · + .'.'< .. ·.:;:,;·· . . ~ . . . . ,. WHEREAS, run ott·.trom 11~e ~g:tio\l<ltl.ira~ ·AreJiato tile ~Anals. 

contains peet1ciclee, ,her~i~~a*•# · ,.,.~1;1~~~~ .ri1f o·t:hel" . cheiiatcals: 

which can be hal"llltui,.~o h!-llfl~~: 'bl.lt.: a~~ ·, ii~v~~~~le~ . di a~ha;~ed · . 

without treatment' int~ thll ~·~.r~l~~.: w~i.r .. Co~~er~at1ori A~:· .. i 

and ;. .: . ·:-: · ... ; . ·.· " -~~:· :· ·: .. ··. ·. . ~· . . :. . 

: .... , ·;:>:<· ~: .:1' .... ; ; : .. '~ . '·. WHEREAS, when a&id -~ll"~isU11;ural:·J"Unorr ~a :not'•preoperl'.Y · ; : 

reetatned ore detained,\ :· ~~·fod· b;re .. t~al ~~b~t~Jciee to enter,::· · · 

euretaoe watera: an~ ·. ·;: · : ":: ·).~ ; .·. : :. : } ::: · .. · : : .. .::·. ' ·- ., .. 

WHERBAS~ thia ef~lu~1: 1~· a,e· t1~4h: in ~~~ ,.~entil and ~e diechareged into ab area .w~tk "ilttie ~·r.. ~0 '~.:i~~; 'mo~~ .... n~· • .. 

eutrophioatton--(.a bilti nu~~;-~t: c~tent ~e~~~~~ng ~~ the bJlld ~op •• • • . . : .. - ·.· : .· ·. ·... • : :·. -~ -··:. , - -.. .. . : . !"~~-. • : • • • 

or algae and 11tcreoaoopiq: Plan~al · ooov.ra, aet/ere4!'l·y iieai-adt,n~: the . : .... <·~ <~ ·. ·., .. :,:.;. ;·, . : .. water qual1t7: and · · · .·; ' ·, · .'.,.-.. ·. .· · · . • 

.. ·.· ··•. '' 

WHERBAS, it baa been· ao;icn6wlitcSg4i'd bJ the ··state or Plorlda, · 

Unt ted Stat .a gov~ .. ~~t ~· t~~ · ~~g-~ l~~u~t'i-,i ~~~ .. ·· : ·. ·_ . . . ·: ~ . . . . . . ·:~· . •:. . ..; · . . ::'1:.. . :; ,: 

ooneervat1onal1eu al~ke. ttl~~ .: i~ld'· •i~~cul turd, ru~ orr ca~·e• 

aertoua environ ... ntal. .Probi~~. :in' ~h•'·iYer~ad~ ~~~-.. 

Conatrvatlon AJOeaa, EV•~"Iladti' Natio~ll l~~lc an~·tli~ Loxah~tchee ·. . .:p ·_ .·: ... ·-.~- ~~ .. · . . :·. : ., ..... ·.. ·.·- W1ldlU'e Refuge; and . '· .. · =. ... . • . • 

WHEREAS, lfater tlowitl& .t~~oul~ ~ct·~t~o~. t~~· ~va~glade~;! 

Agricultural•A~eae an~ into·~.; t~·· ~ .. &j.ad~a ~~ter· co~aervat;~n . . · •, .' . · . ·'· : .· . . 

Al"eas il ueed to i-echareg.: t~ :Bteca:vn;.; .. Aquiter:.-aitd ·~the weUheldi· .. ·_.·: ... ·. -::: .<·· : . I, • .• .: .: . • ·. :· · .. • .•. ·. . : , · ••• 

or Breowared Count;v including .. those aerevin& th• C1t.Y ·.or C~ra1 0. . . ~ . . . . . . ~ .• .· 

Spre1ngs; and 
378 

WHEREAS, the St.a,te Comprehens1ve.P.lan, at ,ChaPter 187, . 

Florida Statutes, provides, in perti~ent. part; tha~ the St,a,t.e 

shall protect anc:S use natur.a.l,. wate!" :.systems;. pro tee~ surfac~ and '· . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . 

groundwater ql.lali ty j PI'O~ec~: aQ\Ilfer~ from 'contam.il'l& t1on. and . •. . . . .. .· . . ' · .. . 

eliminate the discharge p.f tnadequatf1:1Y. treii.t,ed wa,stewa~e~ ancl 

storm runoff into the.: wa;ere·. or: the state j 'and ... . . . . . .. . · . . .· ·· .. . 

WHEREAS, the State Gof ·ho~1da • ~~ d· the 'Sou·t.h: ~lo l"ida Wat.er ., Management District tequ1re ::ueit of p~iltit1on r~ tal'da~t attou.~tul"es' 

and other measures t~. co~trol: .;contairi~ natio~ r~ri ·ot.f in ·the .'ul"b~n:. . ·.' . . ··:-

al"eaa of southeast F'li;lr1d'a, b~t. h'-ve ~ot .. htatQ~~ c~U.'y r~qutred 

such atructul'ea and .measure• in ncm·u rbair arei.~. ; arid . :. 

WHEREAS, Ul'ban dolla'l'a··:a,~e ~lre~d~ :f~~(Uni: the inaJOl'"1.tY of ·'·· .• . . . 

watel' management .expenses' fi)·~ . :the.' ;tv,i-aiade.a. 'i&r1cui..tural :A~eas . . - ... - . . . -:: - .. ··~ . . .. : . . . . . ~ . ~ . 

and urban bus1neaaes ·are •l'e_qu:1i-.ed: to.· ·Qle.an •'the1.1"' ·O.wn. wastewater 

while othel'a are b~1i)• a1 lo~~d ~o· ::d1 •. cha~~-·, UJ.l~:~e~:~ed wa~te~ater .. 

into the public • 1 wat.~~ ~up~ly· .' an~: .o~to _pu~ll.e •n ~~; arici. 

WHEREAS, the C1t7 C:ommi_l!•1on<1a ~onc•J"ned . ~hat, 1f. on•8.1te 

pollution retar-dant ~tru~tu~ea and other· approJil"1.ate -meaau'l"ia a:-e .. . .. .- . . ~ . :. ~ ·. . :: 

not required of non,;.u~ban · are.aa, 1.,dt~1dual. hOJI!:eownera anc('local 

buaineaaea will have .·tp !Sea~ :· · bu~deEi; not ~at~~ '· pl~ce~ ~I) ··.· . - ,•: : .. · . . .. 

agl"1bua1neaa; and 

.. WHEREAS, the· ap~f'OP?~~~ : orf~c1&,~ .. a · ar,f. )~er'eby ·u~g.d t~; 

aaaiat agr-1bua1nell 1n· 'de'ie'loping ·.aelf•CODta1niHS aSr'icultui'al 

1r"r1aation eratema. · ~~i~h\a.'~-~ow r"eue~ :ot. 1~ri~atlon . ~aier . ,;1 th:~ut d1echarge into dra1na~e ~-an~~-~~: a~~ ... :: .. ·· :; . · _, · . .,,. 

WHEREAS, the C1tj. c~~~ation ~t ~he cs:·t~ .4·r Ca!'al ~p!'tna• 

ther"efol"e -;·· . 

BE IT RESOLVED si TH! chl'Y · COMM~~SION OF' THE CirY OP CO.RAL • • ~· 4 • 

~-. . . .. 

SPRINGS, FLORIDA: · ~ . 
379 

Section 1. The. appl"0~!"1a_te·:c1~, ott1c1alil a:oe he:oebJ . 

. autho:o1zed and d1-:oected: to/t~ke al.l,::actiona ·i-eaeonable· and· p:o.,pe.r . . ... ; . ... . . · .. 

to urae a tate and rea1onill ·.ott10-i.ala"·· and ~&ericiea ;t; pNd~~. a .. . ~· , . .. .. . . . . •. . . ·, . . . 

det1n1te plan tor reduot1.Q~·:~r •• n~t:oj•n{l.~put•··1nto. ·th~ · ... 

Eve:oaladea Water· co.,jeroia,t~~ii ·Are~a·{i~~. ~~h~:r: :'pubilc l~ncS~ .. · . ·. . . ..,.. . . .. . . .' ... 

1nclud1na, but not ltm1ted:.:t~,.:: •i'b•·.~9ler··.Lan~• &iid. •Ra1' .:· . • • • • • :' • • -~ • ~ 0 • -~ • • - - • - • • .. 

Rotenberaer• traota .aa .wd.l'. aa othe~ 'pai'!Jca, · ciud~-. ancf wn" 11te ... _:·:-~. . _f: . ~- .: . . . . . . ··: . . . . ·· .... 

retuaea while ma1nta11l1h& ~xiu fij?.wa CJt.' ctl•aa W,te:o~. ·; :, . 

Section 2. 'l'he ;ort~ci~l· ~o~i.~~n ot.\~e'·'c~~~ .. co .. taaion 1a . ·_ .. . : ~- . - . . . . ~-: ·. . • : .. -·~ ... !. . . ·. . . ·. .. 

that tbe State Co•pr.hend~· h .... r•t~1rn:tb.at h.Cl.,wac.r. 1Mt · · :' ' • •, .-, ." . • • I~ • . ·. • • • . . •·' • . _:. - • ' . .. 

r;oeturned to public lancia del wat:era.::Wttholit. t\b'ai:··,t~etna cleaned; . .. ; ~- .. ~_: •. )' . ·. •.: --~· .•• •• . ·-~:: . _,.. . ~ .. J;.: •. 

br the ueer and at the uaer".•a exPfta' and- the\: the· appr.qp:oiate ·. . . . . ·.. .. :.: . ... .• .-.. ~ . .• . 

etate and reatonal o~tle;iaie abou~ll-~rot•ctt:· ..... J,ntel" .. ta 'ei th• 

c1 ttsena ot Co:oal S~tnaa .~~~:..= l~pl~~uni.:·:,~~·.:l~c~e·• • . • . I ·,_,' • •'! ... • ., ,' 

• • ~- • '.:, •• ~ 4" 

C011prehena1 ve Plan. · '. . · : ,.i .· j. · •.• 1 

Section 3. ltt•cu,;~·)Date. ;·• .·'".· · •:·• .. • • • -! ~- •• ·.,. . • • :. : • • ; • _.· ·; • • ·- .• 

Thle Reaolut1on aha.ll' J!ecio ... ·~tectt•• uppn.~opt.tqn;·; ··. . -· . . .· . . . -: ; . . . 

--... ~-;.....~~-~ . J989. . 

·:~·-' 

A'l'T!Sl': :· ; ... , . '. 

)l.~/;;{j.~ ~ . :. ' 

,·. --:.·. 

73-729 - 93 - 13 
380 

. l:t!, _ __;_;,_·· .. 

___ ---~ ____ &!_ .....~ CIAM-OPaMIDCI 41115~.W.4ollfiAYerue· .. Qavte,FiortcM33314 Phone:581-07!10 

Kor 7, 1990 

Soootor Too KcPborooa 

5121 Soothvoot 90th A••••• 

Cooper CitJ, Flori•• 33321 

. ;~ 

;_. 

Ill IISOLUTIOI IIQU&I~· TIAT PtoPiltf ·OVIIIS I~TRI IYIICLADIS 

ACIICULTUIAL AliA II IIQUJIID.TO·PIOYIDI.TIIII OVI VATII ::::Mo:.:::-:tt::.:LLOII' 10. VA'fU, TO l~ll· TO PUBLIC LAIDS 

Door Seaotor KcPborooot .: •-;" 

Tho lou• of Dirocton, · ea••~ tH roc .... o.otioo of tho 

Ca.oroaootal Affaire co-.t.t~ee··· cdocerae• cltt.a.oao ••• l••••nhtp ar .. ootoo, dab to ooklt · tho . · ottocJI.o• rolio1,11tloo for roar cooot.•orotloo. •.:· · · ·~· ·.· .... ·:. ·, 

. Tllo co••••••• ••• roco-•••,.tt..~a· of ltbo~.ia poroooil .coocorao• to tbo 

follooloat 

1. that o ploo ohooU N pro~~ ••. ·to, :~•••co oo~rloot lopoto froo 

oorfoco votor Uodoa· frH"tho l•or-,1•••• Aat:1e.ol~oro oroo1 

:t. ••• ...... •uu ........ u,.fora with. th'e ltoto of rio.rUa Clooa Ur votor otoador•• ••• protect tho ·l•oral••••· coaeor•ottoa orooo ••• p••ltc 1••••, oltilo oolot.otalo• a .. ,. ... ..., flow of clooa ootor for clttooao of FlorUo · .. 

I ao coofUont that · 1•• ... vttl. rocet.io'"tolC. · o~ppo.r.t for thto 

rooolottoa froo tho Cha•••"• Tovo .'of Do•lo, Cooper Cttr, 

loodorohtp arodi.otoo ••• · coocoraa•· citi!l'e•• of lr.•••r• CooatJ. 

Wo opprocioto rour oiocoro offorto· to pi'o•ldioa oo•·· •••••· 

·slacorolr, 

C.~?~ !ae,utL•e Dlre,tor 
381 

... , •• davl~­

~,ta~~.~~~~------------------~---------------------------------- ~ --- ~· 4185S.W.&IlhAvellle Oa11e.Fiorlda33314 Phone:581·0790 

IISOLUTIOI 90-04 

A IISOLUTIOI or TRI DAflK/COOPII ClTt CRAKIII or COKKKICI 

IIQUISTUO TIIAT PIOPIITt OVIIU 11 Til lfiiOLADIS AOilCULTUIAL 

AliA (KU) Ill IBQUIRID TO PIOflDI Tllll OVJ VATBI IITIITIOR 

PONDS UD ALLOV 10 IIATII TO IITUU TO PUBLIC LAIDS lllTDOUT FliST 

IIllO CLUIID 

IIIIIIUS, tloo .. tor coaba fna tloo looraldoa Aarlcdtud 

Aroo (IAA) b cerrrlaa fertlllaor, p .. tlcU .. , haaleUoo, 

hor.lcl••• ••• other choalcolo whlclo coa •• loorafal m haaono on4; 

VIIIIIAS, tho water eoaha froa tloa IAA a1o .. 1• aot •• ••ek-

•••••• lato Loko Okoocloo••• looc .. oa lt looo loooa ••tor•la•• that 

thlo .. tor b coatrlhtlaa to tloo poor bodtlo of thb •o•r of 

water •••• 

IIUIIIAS, tho ooloao of .. tor ao•ha .era .. ••• oat of tho IAA 

lo oaor•o•• ••• ohoaU •• .. .... eba tho •• u u.u.· l .. to.. of 

4ioporoal•a tho• •••• 

IIUIIIAS, tloo 1••• u4 fhh eo_i .. loa .Jl~• ewapJatd • ot .. r 

oa .. clto adaa tloo IAA. oroa ••• foao4 that thaaa .. clto ora 

corrrlaa pollatoato whiclo ore horafal to •••• ••• tho ot .. r 

la.lcatao.tloat tloooo'pollatooto ware o•toloo4 wloilo tlo ••cko •••• 

h tho IAA •••1 

111111&1, •r••• 4olloro oro f•••i•l tloa aojoritr of tloo wotor 

•~••a••••t ••P••••• ia tho IAA oa41 

IIRIIIAS, or••• hd .... oa oro ro,alro. to cleo• tholr own 

vooto voter vhllo tho IAA btoreot eta o11ovo4 ., tloo State to 

•ioeharao aatroot•• vooto voter iato tloo pa.lie 1o voter oapplloo 

••• ~· r••lie 1••••· 

CORDON SKITII, PI!SlDE~T 
382 

A RESOLIJTION OF i'HE TOWN OF OAVaL FLORID~ "'Ll.INC ON ~LL . APPROI'RIAT£ PUBI;IC OffiCIALS ANI).· AGENCIES .-TO. PRODUCE A 

DEFINlTE PLAN . TO REDUCE . NlTI'RiEm'S INPUTS FltoM . SURFACE 

WATERS FLOWING FROM TtfJi EVERGLAcii!s AGRICULTURAL AREA AND 

TO CONFORM WITH THE· STA'i'E· 01'· FLORIDA : CLEAN WATER 

STANDARDS AND I'ROTECTlHE'EVERGLADES CONSERVATION AREAS 

AND OTHER PUBLIC LANDS WHIU MAIN'I'AININC A MAXIMUM FLOW 

OFCLiAN WAT&a FOR TJiE lliNEFIT.OF Ati.crrlZINSOF'Fi.ORIDA. .. •' . ~ ,{ . . .:!•·. · .. :·= •. _ -:: ··. ::•:;: . . . 

WHEREAS. tN E~ A~ral ~;.A-.:tEij.;; Ia a·· .,._cane and winler vtptatM·· . . . ·: . . . . . 

production tnct lllliGUIIded by an ...i.n.l~ ~ !'f ~ ~~ by t!. Sou~ Florida. Woler 

M....-t DIJirkt (Sfw~) --~··~ -. af~~ ~to ~· ~ Wolei 

c-llonAJ.t;ond :: . . . :. ) · . . 

' .~· . 

WHEREAS. run-off &om the tiptcultuni ..... lftto ·the ~· pllllckhf. herbicides, 

fertilizers end other cheiriCIIII wN~ ~ be ~II~ :.; ~~ bUt aiw newmhel.-· 

didlorpd wilhoutlnllmlnt ~to~ ~~~~•*·: ~ . . ·• 

WHEREAS, when uld ap:tcuiNral ~.oiru~ ~y~~ ~~;It .allows harmful 

levels of polluiUIIIIO enter puwk ~~Ud .:.-;.. ~lin;~ : -' ~ .. , . . . . . .:- . . . . ~.' _.: 

WHEREAS, lhll elfhant .... be bJilh.'rft n~~ II lntoaj, anil .wilh Utile or 1\o 

water mooement, eutrophlca~ (a -. ~ n'c;~: ~t ~; ;.;.~-up of •ISH ond 

!Ncto«oplcplanll>~-.n'1~;;.. -~}u~~ ~ WHEREAS, the waler 119-ri ... fnMii the·aM·II JIOi' to be ~~....0 Lake Ok.mot>ee. . ·.:. . . .. ... · .. : . 4:: ·. . .. , . .... \ . . . : _· 

beCIIute It hu bee cletennlnad !ha! q,la_k,oc;lt·pwnpt"'i II mntribiatlili _, 1M daclinlftl health of this 

body of woler; .,..S . . . ·• ,z. ; . : . . . ~ ' . · . · . ·. : · · ·,!'• .,t •. _: 

WHI!RBAS. u hu ._, .., ... e&tiicl ·."? ~ ~~ of ~IJ.Ir.l. s,wa• eo-n..-t. lt. 

Supr lnduatry uid co~~ .uwfihat ukl a~tural ruft.olf t;..;,a_llriou1 «nvironlnim~l · • . : ·. . . ; ,J. •·• .. 1 . . . 

problmw In the E-&ladel w* Corllei:'ft11on .v.., i~No-f.rk .ncJ the Louhatch_. :. ' -:· =-: : . ~- · ... -~: . - f'.: . . .. ,._: •. • . • 

WlldW. Refuae; end ' · .. · .: . '· · ~ .•. ,, .- ·._ .. ·. 

WHEREAS, waler llowl .. lhro.upi: And &ofti .lilt .£:ftrJ)ad8 AariMturaa. Alai and Into I he 

. . -: ._·-... ·. : _: ~ . •. ·--: · ·.:·. 

E-sladel Water Co~~Mm~llon Alai II iued _, rechaJie·the ~~~Dyne Aqllllir·end the well6elds of 

Btoward County, OW County~~~~~ theTownoi o.*.~CQopet City; ond . -. . - :. . . . ·. 

WHEREAS, the State Comprehentln l'lln. :ai 'a,.'*"~ 187,, .Aorida .Stotutei. provtclft. in. 

pertinent part. lhlt the State ihaJI ~II!Ct ~ ..... :;..tural ~~ ; ~t~ IUrface ond 

groundwoter quollty; protect oqulfen·froin ·conlaml.;.llori:lnd ~te 1!W.dllchirp of lnodequolely • . . • •. ; . l~ • ' • 

lrtlltd wutewater ond otonn ~I( Into tiW woterl of .... State: ond . . . WHEREAS, the Stale oi f'lcirido ..,.j·the SoutJr~ Woter. ~~ District requi~ lhe . . . > . : . : . • ·. ·; . • : . . 

use ol pollulion c:Ontroiiii'\ICIUm ond O!hft mn.W..,.;,. contnll Coo\~11011 nan-off In the urban 

ortas of southwOSI Florida. bul have ;,;,,' .,;st~rically ...q~ired such ~I'll- ond mea~u~ in non- . .. .•,. 

urban areas; ond -:• 
383 

IM Evers .... Apicullural Aras and urban bu._-rtquiNcllo dran lheir own w.ulrwalcr at 

lhelr own expeowe on lhelr own proJ*!y while IM EAA Is btlns .!lowed by lhr Stale ol Florid• In 

diiChafle unllftted WUieWIIer lnlo U. public's wak!r supply and onlo public lands; and 

WHEREAS, IM Town CouncU of U. Town of O.Yie II concemal lhal If on·slle was-Iter 

__ , fecllltles- 1101 required of non-urban • ._ lndl'fldual honwo.....,. and local busines!leS 

wiD have 1o bar a burden no! ... placsd on ~and 

WHEREAS, lht appropriate offlciall ate hereby urpd 1o Mlill ~ In *"klpins aell· 

~ apicultural "--llftlmlnl and irriptlon .,_.. which allow - of lrription 

Wiler without diiChup IIIIo dralnap anal~; and 

WHEREAS, lht T_:.. c-.dJ of the Town of Dlovte alii on all~ apodel and public 

olficlllls ·Ill _., lo-rds • cl4iflnlte plan lor redudnanlilrienllnpull 1n1o publicly held .. ,.., can~~ Is 

and _.., ~•lion INM while malntalnlli& rn~~xlmuln llows of clan waler 1o benefit all citizens 

of Florida. 

NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OE THE TOWN OF DAVIE. ~QQDk . 

!jECIJON 1. TM appropriale Town officllb are hereby aulhoriz8d and directed lo Ilk~ all 

ICIIonl _....and praplf lo ~ Stale and rep.nal offociall and apncilllo prod~~« • clefinittpt.n for ..Sacllon of nulrilnl lnpull l,niO lht Everzllde W- eo..rw11on Anu and Olher publir 

Ianda ind~ but nollbNied lo, "'t1w Holey Lands" and ~ ~ 1rac11 u well .u olher 

~ canaJe and wllcllll.,.,.... while malntalnins a maximum flow of clan -•· 

SEQlON 2. Thallha olfldaJ plllillon of lht Town of O.Yie \.that U. State Comprehanlive Plan 

nqul-thet no -ler be diKNrpd 1o pUblic lulds and w-. wtu-tllnl belna cleaMd by the uHT 

and at lha _., expes~~e and that. the appooprille Statio and NIJIOIIII officials thould prolecl u~ 

In-of the dlianl of U. Town of O.Yie by~ the SU•'a Campoilhanllw Plan. 

ATTEST: 

Tr,_wnOirk;j U 

ArrROVED,TiiiS ·/ / J. DAY OF l JC •' .. /,~.._ 1990 
384 

RESOLUTION 88-57 

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 

THE DADE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC. 

REQUESTING THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO CREATE 

A STATE PARK AROUND THE NORTHWEST WELL 

FIELD AND THE CONE-OF-INFLUENCE TO ASSURE 

THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF DRINKING WATER 

TO THE RESIDENTS OF SOUTH FLORIDA. 

WHEREAS, the protection to aaeure the purity of freah 

water for conaumption by the reaidenta of SOuth Florida is 

mandatory, and 

WHEREAS, the continued purity of water depends on the 

protection of all well fields fro• contaaination, and 

WHEREAS, the continued supply of freeh drinkinq water 

is eaaential to aaaure adequate drinkinq water for the continued 

qrowth of South Florida, and 

WHEREAS, to eatabliah a State park would aaaure the 

purity of water and control the land uae to prevent any pollutant,-

to the well fielda. 

NOW, THERBFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

OF THE DADS COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC.a 

Attest• 

Section 1. The State of Florida ia urqed 

to create a State park that 

would include the•extatinq and 

propoaed well fielda and the 

cone-of-influence in the Northweat aection to aaaure the 

quality and quantity of drinkinq 

water to South Florida. 

Section 2. That the Executive Director ia 

hereby authorized to diatribute 

copies of thie reaolution to 

the appropriate official• of the 

State of Florida, all local 

qoverru-.. :__ .:~. :-:_~:- ~-··-•:· .,..,d 

the new• media. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED thil 2nd day of June, 1988. 

RAUL L. MARTlN£Z, President 

SIDNEY WEISBURD, Secretary--
--·-------· .. _ 

--... --=.-:-- . "=" .. --.... -.......... ·-. ......... !ID'ill 

-.... _ 

--

-----

----

_.._ 

--

--

---- --- ---

·--

--............. 

--

... 

- ~CUll 

--

.._ __ 

--

--...- --.,. ... ~LMII 

--...... 

___ - ....._ 

--- ---

385 

NORTHEAST DADE COALITION, INC. 

18071 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 11804 

N.E. DADE, FLORIDA 33UIO C3011 832·1010. 832·11384 

January 22,"19 

The Honorable Governor Hartinaa and Cabinet Ha~r• 

ra•fartiliaars in Holy Land 

drinlci119 water 

we support the currant a..orandua of Agr .... nt on the 

.HOly Landa • 

. . 'fa ·aai.:: that the ~~gla4aa A91'ical~ur~ ~ .. cuM ·tara use Ianda, curJraatly. under. ·thait control, to build · retention I datantion. ponda .at tbair aapanaa ia order to r~ fartiliaara froa the water. They· should not iapoaa tbair fart~liaara 9pon our dr1nk1D9 water • 

. ·This -ai:S:. ~ctuai Iy : b4i . • · toe~Mifit for · the .far-r vbci · ·can ra~use thaaa fertilisers and aave conaidarable au .. of 

-nay. 

• We aak that the water leaving the IAA be of the 

higbeat quality, equal to that before ita coataaination. 

·sincerely, 

-~~ 

~~ph Plataick,Praaideat 

c.c.-Jack Moller 
EAOEirSDIGUT 

,.,, ..... ... itolaccd ............ it -

of die aoi"' ao 11t !Gab111 ill ,_... ol ....... public policy buc ill ....... ol polilioppon cal 101rollill1." he llyL 

know A MW Rapn Adminisrration 

J as a propOsal to improve our supr poli· chen cy rcprnm11 a seep in the rithll: 

•p('Oft direction. h would cu.: by OM·third 

• such the suMidiud loan rate to ~ 

exec- tors. This cut woukl: help comum-

: IMI ers pay less ror supr afld ocher l.rioft I)O«ttMd procluttL The prapaul 'uJlar woWd alto ai•e .. crantit:ioft pay· mcnlt .. 10 compenute arowcn far 

~ wich their lou in earnings. This par· other mcnc, wh"h could ruth St.t bil· 

>. cot- lion, would phase ~~ over four 

:nand- yean. Thne two mcatuttt would rtctnr lower prictt alld pmsur• clamnric : sur- fanneneithcrtobecomccficietK.eo 

o~ divtni{y or Ill F' 110M of die supr ;radi- · busi-. O.er rhc ion& rerm. rho 

N.Y.). masum could uvc c~"""'" bil· I .... liooou afld hdp cJao.no;ia aiMaod. n01h- Bvr chanp it far from Cfltlia. 

a rive UnlcSI ordinary Anwricau prcMCII 

go to 10 cheir eon,rauncn.. tht supr to t(d lobby will COfttin• ·to block any 

bably cudooeks ill rhesuprproanill. Ull· 

1utual clc Slm should '* ·have become "UtlCic S4opr"-coclolliftc a rilly 

N.J.) poupll,..........<!llll6ncrJ• 

:xrvc one cite. A4 ~civc Solan al iri· put it. ·R.aftly have so frw cxuacted 1tum so much from to many.'" 

386 

i\fMI IUJIUIIIAI&IT a lhoppct 

purchaen cereal. mayon- tllitt, na......t yosurc. • can-' t.-, e&U onia allll • cram. Each proclua-inssupr 

rhar cwa 1he IGod prod_, rhno 

limes !he -tel supr pricc-11-

rhalis.or-.puaecloa•doc 

con\umtr. llccauot rhe price or .... 

ar it maftdaled bJ. law. it amounu 

10 1 hid.Jtn sales ua r~w ... , loocll Amtricaroo tlarly $) llilliotla year. 

• In 1916. MOUnuina ol· raw •uaar were lOki 10 communist Chill&. The U.S. Otpanmtnc or 

Aaricukurcs Commodity Crcdi1 Corpor11ion paid It leuc tl cnus 

a puu.ncl to Kquire aod More chc 

,,J_onttrio:_: iclllllaodtdrho 1wee1 atYfF for leu than fiwc cma p<r poulld. Lou 10 rho American 

11Xpeycr: over "'' miUion. • Ciovernmrnt•m.lndated rc· 

ductiOfts in· foreip supr impom 

hclptd forct •he closi.,. or Brooklyn • Rtvcrc Supt RtiUocry ill March ,..,, rh ......... 4,.. torlpio>y• 

ca ouc of work. The COftstqutnm or •he fCdtral 

b=~:::..·w=~~ ~.: law by _.,tohhe tllliotl's slortwdmlohloyitu. i1 wlllft uapoyer dol- lan and wreaks economic havoc oa u.s .• u;a. The main btoocficiaria 

1rc tome r:a.ooo to 1'.000 supr farmcn-rcprnmcina less than one 

:rJ'.a 'l'M(.R._.T.I'l' 

We all pay in 

this classic case 

of a special interest 

prevailing over 

the national good 

The 

Unsweetened . Truth 

About Sugar 

Subsidies 

IY TMOIUI K. IILUNCOTCJ~ 

paceM ril American aartculrure. 

·rr Anwrica"t con~umcn knew 

what Coftarcu had done ro chem 

throuah dw '"P' proaram. rhere'd be a ral cry of ouuacc." uys Rep. 
387 

NORTHEAST DADE 

BISCAYNE BOULEVARD COALITION . .. . . 

'20380 HIGHLAND. LAKES avo. 

NORTH DADE- MIAMI.·FLORIDA 33171 

13011.f32· 7187. 

1 24, ·a, 

~......, The · Hononb1e Repr ... ntat1ve Gardner . ....._ . T~ capitol . . · . . . . . 

...._......., Ta11a,t--•.Flor1dll 323~1300 

0::..~·- . . . . . . ·: -.-~- 8111 ...._. . .Dear· Sir, . • .... _ 

... c..: . .. ..... :: . ·.· . .. :·. .. . . . . ,.._. "-· hliw. ·juat ~ awre of· -" -*•nt "JiropoHd 

----- . · for "the "SSda-1111". ~·· ~t wtu d•troy the · 1ntent·.or ttw· bill. r1- defeat th1• Rotenbel-aer· anc1 

·. ~ ~--~· ~r: ~1.1: t:h.e b£~~ .~. Witb..- thof ......._,.·:· ·· ~ a-.iftt·tt·Win· d.cnicn hanrthan ·lbQd. · · · · · · ·· 

.,w> '· ·. ·.·.·.• .. . . ... . . 

~~:..., ~!.:!2~. ' .... ........ -. ............. · · · . "C .c.~l.nentatlve *1tw Youna : 

Reprnentat1ve Ronald Silver 

fUM--

,_ 

--__ 

--
388 

!~;, .. ,; ..... .................. SToU~t ... ..... S"P ~·TE 'i~Ll'E .... ururs s~;lj .• PTH ~l 

-~-~ c 52 6h'l·lll <0. 0(•7 ~6/l c.s 

f•c S2 ~7-24·~0 •:O.i••l1 U~•l ~.5 

~"~ s= c~-~ :-eo <c.~~' a::~ o.5 

'"c 52 ~~-~~-e~ \O.~u7 U&il ~.$ 

i•' .. 52 liHJ-80 <O.uN lJ&il o.s C- k~·~A I£ 52 OHI ~ ,s,fu&iL ..•. 5 

t•'·'"''l 52 G~·ll·86 (5.<• u&/l .5 -;.. . __ '< 

u.; ::r~~·• 52 •z-u-a. \5.~ U6/L .5 c,, ;~ t~~E 52 !t5·2N9 118 u&il M 

r•L~! :: ~~E 52 o;.-:;s-;• Ku iiiiL 0.5 

c~ .. c~ ::...£ 52 07-:4-79 ND u&il o.s C .. tt'!~~.\tl£ 52 v&-21-7' liD Ui/L 0.5 

r~LGiitloiiE S2 05·13·10 <O.OOi Uli/L 0.5 

tll.:iiD~W£ S2 66-Ct?-10 <0.25 UG/l 0.5 

CMI.tR~~IIE 52 Gi-25-10 <0.25 Ulll 0.5 

CIII.G~~- 52 07-ot·• <0.25 UI/L 0.5 ' 

C"oll~ 12 07·24-10 <0.25 lil/l o.s' 

Chlillc.:RE 52 08-04-10 <0.25 UI/L 0.5 

ti:I.Cii~fdiE 12 01-2o-10 <0.45 Ul/l 1.5 

Ciil~ 52 .,...,l-10 <o.t07 111/L •• s 

tMLGf!l~- 12 ll•l2-lt <U2 111/l o.s. 

Cl"~olo.'l( ' 12 H-17-15 <.t2 111/l o.s ra111•• 12 . 02•11-16 • <.15 Ulll ,, 

DO 12 G$-29-lt .111/L .. , 

DVJ S2 o.-21-n • 111/l o.s 

.. 12 01-2 .. ,. ' • 111/L o.s 

•• 12 Ol-2l•lt • 111/L '·' •• 12 01-ll .. <0.12 111/L .~, 

Ill 12 ....... <t.t2 UIIL .. .. Ul 12 H-21-11 . <t.t2 111/L t.S 

Dtl 12 07+11 <O.t2 111/l t.S 

... 12 07-24-10 <0.02 111/L t.S 

GUt 52 01-o•-ao CU2 Ulll o.s 

Kl 52 01-:lo-10 <0.02 UIIL ••• GDD 52 l'lt-ol-10 <M2 111/L 

IIID 52 11·12·10 co.t2 UIIL '·' t.S 

.. 12 15-29-lt • 1111\. t.S 

011[ '12 16-21-lt • 111/L 

.. 12 07-24-lt 8 Ul/1: t,S '·' 

• 12 Ol-2l•lt • UIIL I.S 

HE 12 05-ll .. <0.02 111/L o:s 

,. 12 06-DHD <0.02 UIIL I.S 

ill( 12 Gi-2HI <0.02 111/l I.S . 

DIE 12 07-ill-ll <o.t2 UIIL I.S 

IK 12 07-24-10 CU2 U&il I.S 

.. 12 01-04-10 \U2 UIIL t.S 

IK 12 01-2o-10 <0.02 UIIL I.S 

DIE 12· OHl-10 <C..02 115/L o.s 

HE 12 ll•IZ-10 <O.G02 115/L o.s 

"' 12 GS-29•79 • liD ~'lil o.s 

~T Sl Gi-21-lt Iii 111/l o.s 

ICT 12 17-24-lf Iii U&IL t.S 

liT 12 et-21•1' Iii 115/L •• s 

;GT 52 05-ll-10 <M2 U5/L o.s 

DDT 12 C6-i.-.-ao <0.,2 111/L o.s 

~I)T 12 "-25-iG <O.GZ ~iiL u 

"' S2 07-CI-IC (0.02 Uiil o.s 

tDT S2 Oi·24•8G \O,tl Ui/L o.s 

~T 52 Cl-o4•St \Ul USIL o.s 
389 

•;:,;_,,r .• /11•·,1 Jf'w:.tl ~;,:\,..,...,, .,. ,.;.1\ ... .... .. .......................... - ... -..... ··- - ·-· .... ~· .;:-.,·.: ........................... s;o:. ~:t. ....... :·~ C .: :.~;.:£. ••. ·. :tt:S S!- ?LS.~f ~~ ~~l 

~~~ 52 v&·:~-S·l .:o.u~ uo,L 0.5 

t~T 52 U,·,=·S\,· <O. ~~2 i.!5/L ~.5 

m 52 11-1:·&~ \6. ~I Uo/l M 

tELii. ~t: S2 vo-tH5 \,01 ~5;L 0.5 

~tt.l~ l~C 52 C~·l!·SO \.b~5 uo1l . • S 

t:~m~ 52 ~5-2;-n NO ;iotl o.s ~E~ETCY 52 Oo·Z5·79 •o ~oiL s 

t·E!':tmN $2 01-:14-79 w~ U!i/l 6.5 

~~~HON 52 09-21-7~ . ND Ui/l o.s D!•ll~uN 52 65-:~-n MD UGil u.s 

DlAW;"' 52 06-25-79 MD iiii/L 0.5 

ml!HOM 52 07-24-79 liD ~6/L M 

mm:~~~ 52 ~l-21-i9 liD 11&/l 0".5 

Dlo\m:N S2 06-17-85 <.5 US/l 0.5 

DIAZIN~N S2 02-11-.. <1.0 u&/l .5 

~~m~1• 52 05-29-79 • UI/L 0.5 

DIELDRIN 12 06·25-79 1111 U&/L 0.5 

~IELDRIN S2 07-24-19 .. Ulil 0.5 

DiELQAII 52 08-21-79 le U6/L o.s 

DIEL&RII 52 os-il-Bo <0.02 11&/l 0.5 

lluPII 52 06~-10 <o.t2 11&/L 0.5 

~iELDRII S2 06-25-10 <0.02 UI/L 0.5 

DI£LDRII 52 " 07-08·10 <0.02 U&/L 0.5 

DIRMII 52 07-24-it <t.t2 UI/L 0.5 

DIRDRII 52 08-14-10 <o.oz UI/L · e.s 

eiELDRll 52 08-Zo-10 <0.02 111/L o.s 

l!EURJI 12 09-Gl-10 <0.02 111/L 0.5 

D!EUP.il 12 11-12·10 <0.004 U&IL o.s 

~IRGRII 52 06-17-85 <.OS 11&/L o.s 

OJELDRII 52 02·11-.. <.01 116/L .5 

ENDO~FAI S2 05-29-79 8 11&/L 0.5 

Eli~SUtF~ •52 06-25-79 II UI/L 0.5 

m~SULFA~ . 52 07-24-79 liD UI/L G.$ 

Eh~~SULFMN 52 . 08-21-79 liD u&/L 0.5 

ENe!!SIJI.F~I . 52 05-13-110 <0.02 UI/L o.s 

EN~SillFAII ~ 06-ot-10 <0.02 IHi/L 0.5 

(NroiULFM S2 06-25-10 <0.02 UG/L o.s 

ENI~SU'&.FM S2 07-08-10 <O.Ql U&/L 0.5 

EliOOSULFU 12 07-24-10 <0.02 US/L o.s 

m~SULF .. 52 08-o4-IO <o.t2 U8IL o.s 

ENDOSilLFAII ·a 01-2o-10 <0.02 11&/L o.s 

mosu;.FM S2 ot-ol-10 <0.02 U6/L o.s EIDOE~LFAN I IZ 06-17-15 <.OS 11&/L 0.5 

EIDOSULFIIII I 12 02-ll-16 <.01 11&/L .s 

EIP.JSiilF'II II 12 06-17-85 <.05 UIIL 0.5 

EIIWSULFAII II 12 02-11·16 <. 01 11&/l .s 

E~:lSa'.F~M SllFATI 12. 06-17-85 <.1 UI/L 0.5 

ENtOoUlF~ SIUAT£ · 52 02-ll-.. <.l 11&/L .5 

tllilll~ 52 05-29-, II 116/L o.s 

ENDRII 52 16·25-79 1111 UG/L 0.5 

ENiiiiJN 52 07-24-79 ID 11&/l 0.5 

EK;RIII 62 01-21-79 ID 11&/L o.s 

E!ltll' S2 05-13-10 <0.02 U&il 0.5 

MAIN 52 06""9·10 <0.02 11&/L o.s 

ENOAlil s~ 06-25-90 <0.02 U&/l o.s 

ENIIA!I 52 OHi·iW <0,02 ~6/L 0.5 

mm 52 07-2NO <0.02 111/L o.s EN~RIN a2 ~g-oc-ao <0,02 U&/L· G.5 

m~1• 52 08-2rS~ \O,G2 ii&/L 0.5 
390 

c~ ·: :':; . .......... . ... ... .. ....... sr. •. ~Jt .•••.••• 51!' ;.uc .,Alllt •.• . L~r ; i"F~i.~FTH i 

t·. ~iiC 52 69-03-6) (~ 0~ ~:ill 0.5 

[,:;!!4 s~ 06·iH5 \.vs usn. 0. 5 

[~ ~ ~ !N 52 o~-11-e~ \,Ot l~il .5 

~<":.i ~ AL..IiE~r~£ 52 C6·17·SS \,1 litL ~.5 

l·. ;:.1:; .:.m1mE 52 02·11·50 <.Ol UG ~ .5 

£7;.!j .. 52 05·,1-H •'0 i:6/L ~.5 

~~I( N 52 ~-25-H liD U~iL 6.5 

£1~ !~~ $2 07-~~-7~ NS US/l M 

ETKIOII 52 01-21-79· •i U6/L 0.5 

El•i N 52 ll6·17·i5 <.1 USiL 0.5 

£i~I~N 52 6~-11-U •:1.0 UifL .5 

6!JI~iaN 52 os-::.;.,; Nt L'&iL 0.5 

GU!Mlilll 52 06-25-79 Q Ui/L o.s 

oUWOI 52 07-24-79 .. 00/l o.s 

EJiiiJGll 52 01-21-79 10 Ui/L o.s 

SUIHIOll 52 05-13-aO {2.0 Ui/l o.s 

SUTHJCII 52 06-ot-80 <2.0 U&/L o.s e~T~Iilll 52 06-25-80 <2.0 Ui/L o.s 611T~I~~ 52 07-01-80 \2.0 US/L o.s 

SUTI!ICI 52 ON4·10 <2.0 UI/L o.s 

SU!NIDII 52 01-~-ao <2.0 UI/L 0.5 

6UTNlill 12 Ot-2G-80 <2.1 U&/L o.s 6Ut~IOI 52 · 09-03-80 <2.0 UIIL o.s 

&uTHIOII 52 06-17-15 <I.e UI/L o.s 

&UTNION 12 02-11-.. (1. UIJL . • s 

HEPTt.CHLrt 52 05-29-79 10 115/L o.s 

H£PToiCii!..ill 52 06·25-79 10 UIIL e.s 

HEPTACHLOR 12 07-24-79 G lii/L 0.5 

hVTACII..DA 12 01-21-79 II UI/L o.s 

liEf T ACiil 011 12 05-ll-10 <O.Qil7 UI/L o.s 

H£nACil.DR 52 06-ot-ec. <0.007 UI/L 0.5 

kCPTAOUi . 52 06-25-10 <M07 UI/L O.S 

~EI' i ~C!UR 52 07-ol-80 <0.007 U&/L 0.,5 

hE~f~tillDil 52 07-24-10 <0.007 Ui/L o.s H£Pi~Ciilil.~ · 52 oa-o•-eo <0.007 u&/L o.s ~cFUCiii.DR £2 Ol-2o-ao <0.007 UI/L 0.5 

liEPTACH'.III 52 09-Ql-10 <0.007 11&/L 0.5 

~.£PTA(;NLOII 52 06-17-85 <.01 UIIL o.s ~EnAI:IILCR 52 02-11-86 c.oos UIIL ;s 

l.'tfTAtift.Oll EP1111D£ 12 05-29-79 10 UIIL t.S 

~EPUCHLO!I EPOIIG£ .52 86-25-79 .. llill o.s HEF!~i!i..t-!1 UOliDE 52 07-24-79 G UIIL o.s ~E~ I ;. HLOi EfDIIDE 52 01-21-79 II US/L o.s ~EFT:.tlfl~ EPGIIDE 12 05-ll-10 <0.01 U&/L 0.5 

HEPU~IlliR £POIIDE 12 06-09-80 <0.01 11&/L o.s 

I!EPTI.Ch'I..Otl EPOIIDl 12 06-25-80 <0.01 ~&/L 0.5 

liCPTr.CM:.DR [POI!DE 12 07-0i-fi <0.01 U5/L o.s 

liCPt;.CH:.DR v~IIDE . 12 ae-o4-iol <0.01 UI/L •• s 

HEFTt.CIII..CR EfilltDC 52 Ol-2v·Bol <0.01 U&/L 0.5 

HEPr~~I;LC5 EfOIIIE S2 09-Gl-iO <0.01 U&/L o.s r. En~;;:..oa mm£ 52 06-17-115 <.02 UI/L 0,5 

~.<m:iii.CR CFGliDE 52 02-11-16 <.005 U&il .5 

iiEPTOiii.GR EPDUD£ 12 07-24-80 <t.OI lii/L 0.5 

IELT~~II( 52 OH7·15 <.5 115/L o.s 

rELTMt\11£ n 02-ll-&6 <1.0 u&/L .5 

LiNJ~ S2 os-2t-n liD U&/L 0.5 

Ll ~:r..'i£ S2 011·25-79 10 U&/L o.s u•:~ S2 07-2H9 110 1:&/L . o.s 

LIN:iioll£ 52 01-21:-79 Nil L'i/L · 0.5 
391 

~~.:.~.~ s: li5- i ~-·~ .~. 

·:0:-7 t;~:L ll.5 

u~::.\; S2 'o-c;-;~ \Uo 

)iJ7 .;:;,l u.5 

~:"':: .. : s~ "'·~! -=~ 

•.U. :~7 l'G,·:.. u.s 

.•:~ ~ 52 oi-ua-iu 

\6.·:·vi ~:; .. L 0.5 

w.:~ll£ 52 07-24-a~ iC: •• ~7 Uiiil M 

li~~••E 52 ui-ut-til <O. :•u7 ~iiiL 0.5 

ll~t~\E 52 08-~~-,(o '0.~u7 Uo

iL 0.5 

u~:.~•• 52 ~9-ui-&o ,Q,u67 U6il M 

u:;r ~~E 52 uo-17-£5 <.61 U~ l 0.5 

liN~:.~E 52 o~-11-84 <.Ou5 US/L .s P.~l~;;;JON 52 05-29-7i NO U6iL. 0.5 

~-l~T~lCV 52 W-25~79 ~~ IIGil 0.5 

'olloTMJu• 52 07-24-ii NO U6il 0.5 

11>\LAiKJQII 52 01-21-79 110 INil 0.5 

11;\~iolHIOV S2 05·13-10 \U7 U6il 0.5 

r.AUTHI6.~ S2 06-09-80 (0.7 116/l 0,5 

~UHIOll i2 Oi-25-&0 <0.7 UGiL 0.5 

IIAUTHIOII 

., 12 07-vi-BU <0.7 Ui/L 0.5 

~~LATH ION 12 ' 07-24-80 <0.7 u&iL 0.5 

IIAUTHID• S2 Gl-64·80 <0.7 111/L M 

I!AUTHIOll S2 01-20-&0 <0.7 U&/L 0.5 

P.MlATHID 12 09-Gl-lt (0.7 U6/L 0.5 

llo\LATIIICII 12 06-17-15 <.5 UIIL •• 5 

llo\LATHIOII 12 12-11-84 (1.0 UIIL .5 

JIETIOIYl• 12 t2-ll-16 <5.00 UGIL .5 

IETIIQXYCill.Gil 12 05-29-79 Ill Ulll 1.5 

II£T~nt1UI 12 06-25-79 • llaiL 1.5 

IET OJYCIUIII S2 17-24-79 • 11&/l 0.5 

I!£TII01tl'Hllll 12 ot-21-19 • UIIL o.s 

I'ETIIOXYt!i.ll 12 05-IHO <1.3 116/L 1.5 

I'!£1HOHi:lllll a 06-09-10 <0.3 UI/L .., 

P.E TliO nco 12 06-~5-lt (0,3 111/L o.s 

IIETHu1YC!'I.III 12 o7-oe-eo <0.3 UIIL o.s ~[T;;~:rCI;l~ S2 07·2HO <0.3 U6/L o.s 

llmG••t!II.DII S2 01-64-81> <O.l Ui/L o.s 

IIETHQntili.iJII 12 oi-2o-10 <0.3 UIIL 0.5 

I!CTIIOIYCHI.OII 12 ot-orto <0.3 UI/L o.s 

IIETiiOlYCII.iiR S2 02-ll-16 <.3 Ui/L .s 

!ETiiYl PAI!ATNIOI S2 15-29-79 • 111/L 0.5 

ll(i~YL PMIATNICII S2 06-25-79 • 111/l 0.5 

IIETHYL PA.~ATNIDI 12 11-2.:.79 • UIIL o.s 

IIETMY'. H!!ATMIOII 12 tl-21-79 IG UIIL 0.5 

II REI a 15-29-79 .. 11&/l 0.5 

Ill REI a ·-25-79 • 111/L o.s 

IIIR£1 a 07-24-79 Nl 11&/l o.s . . 1111£1 12 tt-21-n. • U&/L 0.5 

IIIR£1 12 05-triO <US UI/L 0.5 

lllR£1 12 06*10 <0.05 UI/L (1.5 

lllafl 12 06-25-10 <0.05 11&/L 0.5 

., .. 12 07-GI~IO <0.05 UI/L o.s 

IIIRU 12 07-24-10 <0.05 111/L o.s 

IIIIU S2 01-84-10 <0.05 llliL o.s . mn S2 ti-2HO (0,05 UIIL 0.5 

IIIP.Et S2 09-Gl-10 <0.05 u&IL o.s 

CP-DH S2 06-17-15 <.iiS Ui/L o.s 

O,_,DD 52 12-11-li <.01 UIIL .s 

OP-Oii£ S2 Oi-17-IS <.oS 111/L 0.5 

DP-10£ S2 t2-ll·l• \.01 US/L .5 

IIP•IDT S2 06-17-15 <.65 u&/L 0.5 
392 

.. . .. . .... . . ..... ..... .. ,.._ . COI!P~ii!ID ......... . .. . .. ... .. . ...... STA.W: .. ...... ~p :wTr VoLe! .... l~ItS :~~LUnH ~. 

G?·U~t 52 OZO!Ho ",ii~ u~, L • 5 

·~~-r.t~~ .. 

~- ~5·2~-n N~ uo•l d 

p;.m~t~~ S2 06·25·H ~u ;ijiL o.~ 

r~~~!ht~M r. 07·24-79 ~~ ~> L 1

i.S 

., .. ;.trn:c~ 52 09·21·7'1 ~C U5i L 0.5 

~,;iiATK!~~ 52 05·11-S~ \il.~ ~••L ~.5 

p,:.'.HH!C~ 52 66-.)~~&~ '"·l U~tL u.s r.:.~.ti;f!~'t 52 .. 06·:15-B<i \G.l uiiiL li.5 

PA~~Tii:C~ 52 07-oi-80 . <G.: U&/l o.s P~~~iH!C~ 52 07-24-Bv \O,l Ui/L 0.5 

~:RATHitl 52 Ol-04·i0 <O.l USil 0.5 

PWiHICX 52 ti·2HO \0.3 USiL M 

'~'•r~t=~ S2 09-03-au io.l uiiL 0.5 

~~mHICl S2 06-17-85 <.2 iiSil 0.5 

f.ao\THJCII 52 02-ll·ilt <1 CiiiL .5 

PCI S2 os-:;~-n liD u&/l 0.5 

PCI S2 06-25-79 liD Ui/L 0.5 

Pi:l 52 o7-2t-n 118 u&i l 0.5 

;ca S2 01•21-H lUI U&iL 0.5 

Ftl S2 05-U-80 <G.£5 1:5/l M 

P".J S2 06-Gt~ (0, 45 US/L o.s 

foCI S2 06-25-10 (0.25 u&/l 0.5 

~·- S2 07-GI-80 '\0,25 U&/L 0.5 

PCI S2 07-lt-10 <0.25 U&/L 0.5 

FCI S2 08-04-81) <0.25 U&/L 0.5 

PCI S2 08-2t-IO <0.25 u&/L 0.5 

r-tl 52 09-GJ-10 \0.25 UiiL 6.5 

Ptl-1016 S2 11·12-10 <0.~2 U&il 0.5 

fCI-1016 52 06-li-15 <.1 USil o.s 

PCI-1014 S2 02-11-16 <.001 Ui/L .5 

Pi:l-1221 sz · 06-17-85 <.1 U&/L M 

;u-m1 S2 02-11-16 <.001 U&/L .5 

FCI-1232 S2 06-17-«! <.1 US/L 0.5 

PCI-1212 S2 oz..:.tl-lte <.001 US/L .5 

PCI-12'2 S2 11-12-10 <0.05 1<&/L 0.5 

i'CI-12tl 52 04-11-85 <.1 u&/L 0.5 

i'CiHZU .52 02-11-16 <.001 UiiL .s 

!1:1-12'1 S2 11-IHO <U7 U&IL 0.5 

~CI·Utl 52 . 04-17-85 <.1 U&/l 0.5 

PCi-12'1 12 tz-11-16 <.001 UI/L .·5 

"tl-1254 52 11-12-10 ~0.04 ~GiL o.s 

"C8-1254 IZ 04-17-15 <.1 ii5/L 0.5 . 

rCI-1254 IZ tz-11-16 <.001 U&/L .5 

PCI-1:60 ·II 11-12-te <0.04 U&iL 0.5 

PCI-1260 II 06-17-85 <.1 U&/L u.s 

PCI·12U II tz-11-16 <.001 US/L .s 

ftCI·tW IZ 16-17-15 <.1 lii/l 0.5 

PO THAll( II 02-11~ .. <1.0 U&/L .s 

FHIIATE II OS·lt-19- II Uo/L 0.5 

PHGI!All. 52 06•25-19 1111iil 0.5 

?HGRAit S2 t7·2C-n Q Ui/L 0.5 

PMGRATE 12 01-21-n II li&/L 0.5 

PHOS!II1ll 12 os-Zt-n liD u&/L .., 

FMOillll 12 06-25-n II Ui/L 0.5 

NOSIIil S2 o1-2e-n II U&/l 0.5 

PMOS!IIII S2 01-21-19 110 U&/L 0.5 

Pfl-m S2 04-17-15 <'.~ ~&/L 0.5 

PF-GH S2 02-11-&4 <.Ol ti6/L .s 

Pfi·DDE 52 06•17-£5 <.t5 liG/L o.s 
393 

I "" t ol t . .. . , --........... ......... ~ ..... ...... ............... .... .. ......... . ....... 

C!llll':.:~a ........................... STA. C~l •••••••• )liP 01\Tl V~Lii( •••• ijNI iS S~Fl&. tFTM lftl 

rr-::e 52 o~-11-a.; d·~ t~.L .5 

fHOl 5~ o•·l7-i5 \.~5 L•5•L .).5 

fP·"uT 52 ~HH~ .:.": l~ l . 5 

~~·~tT~•!I 52 02-11·3~ i5.0 ~S1 l .s F?.:i'~~, S2 ~2-11-so i5.o toiL .5 

~o,-::L 52 05·2~-;; N& UG• l 1).5 

~u~~EL 52 0.-2~-;; ND Uo• l 1).5 

~~:illtL 52 07-24-i; ~D Uii• L ~.5 

~J~:a 52 08·21-79 MD UiiiL 0.5 

Sl'-~<111< 52 02-11-£0 <5.0 u:;:L .5 

STill !:oil[ 52 05·29-i9 "~ Ui•l 0.5 

STI'IOIAiili S2 0.·2S·H ~ UiiL 11.5 

mDSA!E S2 07•24·H .. l:iil 11.5 

STiOIAiiE 52 01·2H~ G U~ll ~., 

TEDICII 52 06·17·85 (,1 il&il 0.5 

TtDIG~ :12 02·11· .. u.o u;;L .5 

TDZo\PM£11£ 52 05-29·i9 .. ~&/l o.5 

TDiloPM[Nl 52. 0.025-i9 .. U&/l o.5 

TOIAPHili£ 52 07-24-79 MD U&/l 0.5 

TDUPIIEIIE 12 01-21-lt .. Ui/l 0.5 

TDJAPHU£ 12 05-13-80 <0.:<5 U&/L 0.5 

TDIAPII£ll£ 52 ........ . (0.25 li&IL 0.5 

TDIIPIIEII£ 12 0.025-10 <0.:15 11&/L i.5 

TDI.,IIElli 12 07-tl-lt <¥.25 ll&/L 0.5 

TDIWU 12 17-24-lt <t.25 USIL 0.5 

TDIIofiitli£ S2 OH4-IO <0.25 li&/L 0.5 

TUIAl'iiEIIE 52 OI-2HO <0.25 US/L 0.5 

TDIIPiiEIIE 52 'tHJ-M <t.:<S li&/L o.5 

TDIIPIIEIIE 12 06-17-15 <.5 11&/L 0.5 

TO'APIDE 52 tNI· .. <,05 UI/L .5 

TRIAZIIIE i2 02-11-16 <5.0 u&/l .5 

TIIFI.UiiALIN 52 ts-29-79 II UB/L ·0.5 

TRIFllli~LIN 52 06-25-79 MD u&il 0.5 

TIIFWRALIN 12 07-24-79 liD li&iL 0;5 

TIJFLU.tlliN 52 11-21·7' liD UI/L 0,$ 

TRIFUU.IN 12 12·11-16 <5.0 U&IL 

TRJTNIOII 52 15-29-79 liD Ul/l 0.5 ·' 

TIIITNIDII 52 06-25·79 118 Ui/L fl.5 

111TNlDI 52 07-24-79 .. lii/l 0.5 

TRITHIOII sz 11-21-79 d IJ&il 0.5 

UUTHICII a 06-17-15 <.1 il&/l 0.5 

TIIIT~IIill a 02-11-16 <1.0 U&/L -~ 
394 

f-;i;.!~ lt-~f ~'e :. ~ ,. .. ,.. r~ .. :. •••til ., .. . ~ tt..~ ;. • .:.·~t..PI•;,.; r . .;:- •• ..,., . .,..-........ :, .. , 1 ...... . :;.,. .. . ~ .. CO"'ColiO ........................... STA.C:E .• .••• .. SliP ~~TE Yoi:.UE .... u~toS i~rli.:iPI~ ~1 

t .• I 5-T s~ a .. :; ... o1 \ .~ ~~ ~ u 

l,l . 5-T Sl iii-17-35 \!·:. ~? L <•.5 2,&,~·l? Sl 05·21-79 s~ t:jil <•.S 

2,1,5-if Sl ~··25-;; ~~ U:i il <:.s 

2,1,5·1P Sl Oi·ll-7? r;;; tio' L ~. s 

2,4,5-TP s: 08·21· ;; ~~ ;;a 'L v.s 

2,1,5-TP 53 05·13-0~ <v.V9 ;;;;L u 

2,1,5·7P Sl .. OO·vHG (ti. i~ jj~ L u.S 

2,1,5-TP Sl ···25-8~ . \il. w9 •;;L 0.5 

2,1,5-TP $3 oHa·a~ \ G,i19 U:i;l ·l.S 

2,4,5-TP Sl OHC·iv ,v.u9 ~ilL G.S 

2,4,5-TP Sl GB-64-a~ .:v.o9 "'iL u.s 

214,5-TP Sl OB-20oa.l (0.09 iliiil M 

2,4 15-TP Sl OHl-6~ <O.Iii U~il o.s 

2,4,5-TP Sl 01·29-U \M U&il o.s 

2,4,5-TP Sl o.-11-85 <lO u&il o.s 

2,4-D 13 05-29-79 0.27 U6/l o.s 

2,4-t S3 06·2~-n 0.18 US/L 0.5 

2,4·D Sl 07·24-79 Ill Uiil 0.5 

2,4·1 Sl 01·21-79 0.42 USil o.s 

2,4-t S3 GHl-aO \0,2 L'&/l o.s 

2,4-1 $3 . O.-t9-ao <0.2 U&/l o.s 

2,4-t Sl o.-~10 • (0.2 US/L o.s 

2,4·1 Sl 07-GI-10 <0.2 U&il M 

2,4-t Sl 07-24-10 \0,2 U&/L 0.5 

2,4-t ss 01-04-10 (0, 2 C&il o.s 

2,4-1 Sl 01•20.10 <0.2 UiiiL o.s 

2,4·1 Sl ot-01·10 <0.2 US/l o.s 

2,4-D a et-29·84 <t.O US/L o.s 

2,4-t S3 o.-17-15 <:sol U&il o.s 

riUCII.OI a· 02-11-.. <5.0 U6/L .5 

ALDIC~I Sl 02-11-.. <1.0 U&/1. .5 

M.&RIII a 05-29-79 liD U&/L o.s 

M.DRIII S3 o.~~7t liD Ui/L M 

M.DRII a 07•24-79 Ill ll8/L 0.5 

UR111· ss 01-21-79 Ill u&/L o.s 

M.Dillll . ss 05-13-10 <0.01 116/L 0.5 

M.OIIll ss OHHO <O.OI Ui/L 0.5 

M.DRIII ss o.-2HO <0.01 Ui/L 0.5 

M.DRII Sl 07-tHO <0.01 US/L 0.5 

M.DRII ss 07-24-10 <Ul US/L 0.5 

AIJRIII a OH4-IO <0.01 Ui/L M · 

M.OIIIM • ss 01-20-10 <0.01 Ui/L 0.5 .... ~,. a 09-Gl-10 \0.01 !iii~ o.s 

M.DiiiM a o.-17-115 <.01 ul/L 0.5 

M.OIIIII a 02-U· .. <.vOS Ui/L .s 

M.PIIl.IIIC ss o.-17-115 <.01 U6/L o.s 

ALPMA lilt ss 02-11 .... <.005 UiiL .5 

METRYI Sl 02-11·86· \5 •. 0 Ui/L .s 

ATR4lllf Sl 02-11·86 <5.0 'l:&iL .5 

am INC ss o.-11-as <.v2 u&iL 0.5 

lETA 1111: ss 02·11-86 <.olOS US/\. .5 

lilt ss 05-29-79 IW 116/l ~.5 

IIC Sl o.-~79 sa 1511. o.s 

INC Sl 07-24·79 ... U6i\. 0.5 

K Sl 01-21-79 G U&/L M 

fMC Sl 05-ll-iv <o:v67 U&iL 0.5 

lilt Sl 0.-G9-IO <O.o67 u;;L o:5 

lift Sl o.-25-80 \0.007 U&iL 0.5 

Ill • IIOIT llET£tTEii 
395 

... , .... . .. . . . ... ' . ...... . . • \ . f .... ~ • • ~ . .. . .. . .. ... -.......... .... ' • . -.. -... . ....... '-· 

alfiPOUIIO .. ,. ,, ,,, .. , .. , , ,, , , , ..... • STA.CD£, ....... Sl!f' DATE VAluE . ... UltiT3 SIIP\.&.~PIM oft) 

m S:l ~HH i ,V.J2 ~: .. ~ ·L~ 

fi:T Sl 09-GH) .. .J.t.'1 ~j.'l. 0,5 

~~T Sl 1!-t:-~v (~ .~~ :;; ~ ;.s mr~ rHC Sl 06-IHS i.ot ~;:;,k v.S ~HTo\ f,;~ Sl OHi-33 <. -~ Uo:l . s 

li£1'£!011 53 65-2H; ~~ -~· i•.S 

DmTCN 53 06-25-7' ·~ uall o.s liE~EiC~ Sl 07·24-if ·~ uoiL 0.5 

DE~ETCN Sl ul-21-79 KD ll6/l v.5 

D!£WO~~ 53 05-:f-79 IQ CSiL v.s 

Dlo\41NtM 53 06-2H~ liD !Jiil 0.5 

G!Allh11~ Sl 07-24-79 liD UO/l o.s 

II'ZIMtN Sl 01-21-79 • 1111 US/L 0.5 

OlAmON Sl 06-17·i5 <.5 U&/L o.s 

DIAl! NOll Sl 02-11-86 <l.u US/L .5 

DIELGitll 11 05-2f-79 liD UI/L 0.5 

DIElGit!N Sl 06-25-79 G U&/l M 

DIEI.DIIIN Sl 07-2•-79 QUill 0.5 

DIEUIRII sr 01-21-79 Q US/L 0.5 

DIEURII Sl os-u~10 <U2 US/l M 

DtEUlll a OHHO <U2 liS/L 0.5 

DlElGitii Sl 06-25-eo (0.02 116/L e.s 

IIELIRII ll 07-01-10 <0.02 till 0.5 

IIELiilll a 07-24-10 <0.02 11&/L 0.5 

DIElGitll a ....... <0.02 u&il 0.5 

IIEI.Gitll a. 01-20-10 \0.02 lltiiL 0.5 

IIEI.iiRil a OHl·iel <0.02 1:&/l o.s 

OlB.IRll a 11·12-10 <0.00' 11&/l 0.5 

I laiR II a 06-17-15 <.05 US/l 0.5 

"ElDRII a t2-ll-16 <.01 118/L .s 

liiDOStlJM a 05-2'-79 111 111/l o.s 

EIIOSULFAI a or:is-79 .. 11&/l o.s 

EIDGSULFM ·a 07-2 ... 79 • USIL o.s 

ENDOSW:ioM a 01-21-79 .. 11&/L o.s 

WOSULfM .a 05-13-10 <0.02 11&/L 0.5 

EIDOSUI.FAI a OHHO <0.02 111/L u.s 

EIIOitiJM a or25-lt <0.02 US/L 0.5 

(1~111 a t7 ....... <t.02 11&/L M 

EQOSUI.Fioll. a 07-24-10 <0.02 11&/l 0.5 

WDSII.FAI ll OHHO <0.02 111/L u.s 

[JIIOSIAIM a ·~ <0.02 u&il 0.5 

UG~iUI.Fioll ·a tHl-10 <0.02 U&/L D.5 

EIDOSULF~ I a ort7-ls (.05 Uliil o.s 

EMDOiUlFioll I a 02-11-.. <.01 11&/l .5 

EIDOSUI.fioll II a ort1-es <.05 u&/l 0.5 

EIIO!illFAI II a t2-11-16 (.01 u&/l .5 

EIIICiiUI.FM Sll.FiiTE a orl7-es <.1 11&/L 0.5 

EIDOSULFAll So.'I.FoiTE a 02-11-16 <.3 US/L .s 

ENDRlll a os-29-n liD 11&/L 0.5 

EIGIIJN 53 or25-79 liD Uli/L 0.5 

EIJIII a o1-2c-n liD u&/l 0.5 

UDal II a 01-21-n 1111&/l o.s 

EJNll a 05-13-10 <0.02 u&il 0.5 

EJIRJI" a OHHO <0.02 li&il 0.5 

Ullllll Sl or25-~ <0.02 Uiil 0.5 

ENGitlli a 07-D~ <O.G2 lleiL 0.5 

ENOl Ill Sl 07-24-80 <O.v2 Uiil 0.5 

E~Vlll Sl ..... , <G.02 u&il 0.5 

ENOl II Sl oi-20·IG (~.02 111/l 0.5 

liD • llllf DET~TED 
396 

tGRPGI.f.i: ........................... St.\.Cil •••••••• Sftf Gt\i£ V"'-o£· ••• U~ITi Si!1',ii.aPTH l"l 

iMC 53 ~7-t&-:0 \~ .OG7 ~'IL 0.5 

[,~!~ 53 CNHu ~a.~ ·:.; l:~tl ·i.5 

ilit 53 ~HH~ <~·.·:~i ;.;s ..~ ~.5 

$;¢ 53 G0-4V.SG \v.~C·i lotL ~.5 

Slit $] 09-vl-i~ \U.~\•1 Uiil v.5 

CAU.:.l!ATE $] G2-ll-&a <5.v USil .5 

c..ae.:.;•i. $] 02-11·1• \5.u GiiL .s C/o5!;;~•1.11 S3 02-11-&a <5.v ijoiL .s tMte•j~~• 53 ~2H9 NO ~ill 0,5 

tHlD~~r..;t 53 06-25-H s~ ~ilL G.5 

CHlGo~o\lli 53 07-24-79 ~a u&iL o.s CHlO~GA:<£ 53 01-21-79 Nli Uiil 0.5 

Cl'l.Of.D:olll IS 05-ll-10 <0.25 Ui/L o.s 

CilLO' aiM£ a OHt-iiO <0.:5 ~5/L o.s 

DLGQMIIE a ti-25-10 <0.25 Ui/L u 

CIILOit ... a 07-tl-10 <0.25 Uiil u.s 

CIII.IIRDioliE a 07-24-10 <G,3 11&/l o.s 

auaDroiE a GHHO <0.25 ll&iL o.s 

tllllllio\lil a OI-2HO <0.2S llS/l u 

tiiLillai a .,.., <0.007 lii/L 0.5 

Clllil&iolll a ll-12-11 <fi.02 111/L 

Cll.lllilloiiE ·a 16-17-15" (,02 11/L 1.5 

··~ llUuiiiE a 02-U-16 • <.05 Ul/l .s 

.. a 15-29-79 • UliL 1.5 

DDI a tr:ZS.79 It 111/L •• s 

.. a 17-24-79 8 111/L o.s ... a· M-21-79 D UIIL 1.5 

DDI a 15-JHt <O.t2 UIIL o.s 

.. a .....,... <1.02 111/L o.s. 

.. a 16-:zs.lt • <U2UIJL 0.5 

DDI a OHHO <O.t2 liii/L 0.5 

~· a 11-24-11 (0.02 I!S1l. 0.:1 

.... a ....... <0.02 lii/L o.s 

Dill a OI-2HO <0.02 lli/l 0.5 

"' a 89-0WO <0.02 Ui/l o.s 

DID a U-12-10 <0.02 18/L o.s 

10£ s:s 15-2t-79 D IIIIL o.s 

D£ ·a lr:ZS.79 •u&iL 0.:1 

Dl a 17-24-79 Iii 11&/L 0,5 

Ill a 01-ZJ-79 8 111/L 0.5 

U£ a 05-ll-10 <0.02 Ui/L ~:s 

ill a OHt-10 <w.o2 lr:tiL o.s 

ill a t6-2HO <0.02 U&/L 0.5 

iiDI IS 07-01-10 <0.02 Uiil o.s 

DK a 07-24-10 <0.02 US/L o.s 

OM a ....... <0.02 llS/L v.s 

Dill a OI-2HO (0.02 lliil 1.5 

lDI a· Ot-Ol-10 <0.02 Ui/L o.s 

SD£ a n-IHI <0,002 ~6/L 0.5 

)Df a 15-29-79 liD :Jill o.s 

lGT a 06-25-79 ID Ui/L 1.5 

iiT · II 17-24-79 II UIIL G.S 

liT a 01-21-79 .. lliil ol.S 

liT IS 15-ll-lil <O.G2 Ui/L o.s 

lOT a ........ <0.0% Ui/L M 

'" a CM-3-10 <0.02 US/L G.S 

;OT IS 07-tHO <0.02 ll&ll o.s 

·DT a 07-24·10 <M2 Ui/L O.J 

·Of a GHI-t!l <0.02 US/L o.s 

D •11:11 HTEtlO 
397 

rll~~~" Sl OHl-80 <G.C-2 !:Ell M 

Eh~~:~ 53 o;-11-as ,.vs uoiL 0.5 

·~,~~~ S3 v;-t:-e~· (.Co! !:ill .5 

Ell:~l:' ;.t:t~t~£ 53 C6·1H5 <.1 :i:iil M 

Ettt.;lM ML;ti'ltr': Sl 02-11·86 \ .~. lii;L .5 

ETHIG!I Sl GS-29·79 ~~ ~aiL 0.5 

ETMIC~ Sl oo-~5-i9 Nj ~iil 0.5 

[TMJIJ., Sl 07-2C·79 ~il Uiil u.s [T~1DN Sl 111-21-7t lill Vi/L 0.5 

[TNj~ Sl 06-li-15 <.J ~oil 0.5 

ETN1illl S3 0:!-11-le (1,0 U&iL .s 

&IJfijiGII Sl 05-29-7' IIU U5iL M 

&ilTNtO~ Sl o.-25-?f liD ii&iL ,;.s 

&uTMio- a 07-2c-7' ~D Ui/L 0.5 

liiiTNiilll Sl Oi-21·7f liD UI/L o.s 

&ll~lililll :a 05-ll-· <2.0 Uill o.s 

&uTMIDI a ........ <2~fl iliiL o.s 

IIUTMICII a. lr25-IO <2,8 UIIL o.s 

IIUTHIOI a 07-ot-10 <2.0 111/L u 

IIUTIIi:lll a 07-2c-IO <2.0 UI/L 0.5 

IIUlliiCI a GH4-IU <2.0 Ui/L o.s 

IIIlTH IIIII a GI-2HO . <2.0 11&/L 0.5 

PJTMIDI a OHHO . <M 11&/L e.s 

lllliJDI a tr17-15 <1,0 UIJL o.s 

IIUTIIIDI' a 02-11-16 <1. UIJL .s 

IIPTICII.III Sl 15-29-7t 1111 UIIL o.s 

IIPTICil.llll ~ Gr25-7t D UI/L .., 

HEPTaoa Sl ·o7-2t.-7t 1111 u&il 0.5 

NEPTN:MLIIII a Ol-21-7t ID 111/L 0.5 

IIPlll:llllll a ........ <0.007 UI/L t.5 

IIEPTAI:Illlll a Gr2HI <t.Ot7 UI/L t.S 

IIEP1 AC11.1111 a tHHt <o.t07 UIIL · 0,5 

IIEPlactlllll a 07-2+-11 <0.007 UI/L 0.5 

IIEPTN:It.DII · a IHHO <G.Go7 lii/L o;s 

IIEPT AC111. :lR Sl II-2Ht <0.007 Ui/L o.S 

IIPT-ACII.!III a GHl-10 <0.0" lii/L O.S 

IIPTICIII.IIII Sl ... 17-15 <.01 UIIL O.S 

IIPTactlllil a 12-lt-16 <.OOS UI/L ;5 

IIPTacNLDII EfOilfl£ a G5-29-7t D 111/L o.s 

llfliDUR Er~IIUt! a ... 25-.,. D UIIL e.s 

tiEPt.oua ~~om£ a t?-2 .. .,. 1111 u&/L e.s 

IIPTN:iUR £fDmE Sl .21-19 • USIL o.s . 

IIEPTICNLDII ifOmE a IIHHI <O.OI IS/L o.s 

IIPTCII.Di EPGIItE a ...... <0.01 UliL 0.5 

16TN:It.DII E~mE a ...... <O.OI t;liL t.S 

NEPTM:IUI EP~Il~ a ..... <0.01 ua!L o.s 

llfl&CIIllli i'l'illlni a .... \t.GI lii/L t.5 

IIPTICII.DII EPGU* a ....... <0.01 UI/L o.s 

NEPTN:HLDII EPOII»E a ... 17-15 <.02 UIIL 0.5 

IIEPTAOL!lll ii'GUi:-5 a 12-11-16 <.005 Uii/L .5 

llfTINLGII E<Om£ a 07·24-10 <0.01 !;IlL o.s 

W.TIWI a lri7-IS <.5 111/L o.s 

.a~ a 12-U-16 <l.O U5/L .s u~ a 05-Zt-7t llil UIIL O.S 

Lllllolll a or25-7t llil liiiL O.S 

Lilli: ME a t7•Z .. 7t • UIIL t.5 LlM~,\:1( a ll-21-7t liD Ui/L 0.5 

Ll .. Aij( u 05-1:1-10 <O.u:.7 U&IL 0.5 

LIIIJIIE Sl ........ <O.OC.7 lilil 0.5 

• • lOT liETEtTEii 
398 

""""'~·•••••••••••••••••••••••••• .J'"''"'"'"'''''''' ••itt ~•S. ''~'''' "'''''"' .,.,,. .. .;,o~ro o> "" 

Lll;:;·,, 53 ~·-~5-H ;,~o(oj S•l ~.5 

"' \:;. ,~ S"l o7-va-•· 

\''. \/Vi UO·l ~.5 

~ t ~!~ .:.:,e 53 o7-24-iiv 

·:l·.UV7 ~StL ~.5 

UMW~'it 53 G8-o)4-iil ((I,\1Vi i,ij/L, v.~ 

ll, •• ,, Sl va-:o-a~ ((

,.ut7 u>;L u.s LIN••~£ Sl ".Vl-10 0."~7 Ciil u.s 

ll' "'~£ Sl Olt·IH5 ,,ill uii

il ~-~ 

ll~::.t £ Sl G2·11·S. 

<. vC•S Uo'l .s ":.L~n;;c~ 53 05-2'-" N~ UGil o.s R4"ATiiln~ Sl 06·25-79 . liD li&/l o.s ~lAl~lil~ Si 07-24-n X~ IJa,L G.S 

P.ALAiHi~N Sl 01-21-79 ND Vi/l 0.5 

"Al4r~IOM Sl 05-13-10 <O.Oi US/l 0.~ 

RolWii!~ Sl 06-19-10 \0.7 US/l 0.~ 

lloii.ATHIOII SJ 06-25-80 (0.7 U&/l o.~ 

'-AUTHiOII p 07-tl-10 <O. 7 US/t o.~ 

IIAl~TNiGII p 07-24-· <0.7 U&il o.s 

IIAl.ATHIOII a Dl-84-10 (0,7 ~lil o.5 

r.,~t.ATHICI a til-20-80 \0.7 USil M 

ftALATHIDII S1 n-o:s-10 <0.7 US/l o.~ 

!IM.Al"lOI a •n-., <.~ 11&/L 0.5 

IIAI.AllllCII SJ 02-11-16 <1.0 UIIL .~ . 

!!111Clm. a 02-11-16 <5.60 u&il .5 

I!TiiiliitiiLIIR a 05-29-79 1111 u&/L 1).5 

IIETt!Gnt;t.IIR a lr25-79 II 116/L o.~ 

IIETH!Imll.IIR a 67-24-79 liD Ui/L o.~ 

IIETIIaHC~LG~ a· 01-21·79 liD il8/L ~.~ 

I!ErHOIYCil.GI! a 05-13-10 <o.l liail o.5 

r.ETIIG:lvtll.• a ....... <u.l UIIL 0.5 

~liWntll.GI! a o.-25-11 <0.1 u&/L u.s 

J!ETiiilntl'-011 a ., ...... <O.l US/l ll.5 

~~THGJYCILilll SJ " 07-24·· <~.3 USil o.~ 

IIETIIOllCil.GI a ...... <O.llli/L 0.5 

NETMGJYCil.OII a 01-20-10 <0.~ Ui/l o.~ 

IIETMOJTCii.CI a OH:s-10 <O.l 115/l o.~ 

11£1110) YCil .. Sl t2-11·16 <.l UIIL .5 

IIETh"ll. ·PIIIAniiDll SJ GS-29-79 1111 Uill 0.5 

II!THYL PMAiHIGH .SJ lr25-79 II li&IL o.~ 

IIETIIYL URAT"IOII SJ t?-24-79 Ml lii/L o.~ 

IIETHYL P~ATH!CII a . 01-21-79 llil Ui/L o.5 

RIIEI a GS-29-79 • .....,l 0.1 

ftiiEI a lr25-79 .. U&/l 0.5 

RIIU a 07-24-79 liD U&iL 0.5 . 

RIUI a .21-7' am tilL o.~ 

"lliU .a ts-IHO <0.0~ l:a/l o.5 

Rllil a ....... <O.ll5 USiL 0.5 

1111£1 a lr25-IO (v.v~ :JilL M 

P.llil a 17-01-10 <US UiiL o.~ 

IIIII I a 11-24-lt <O.v5 Uill o.s 

RilE I a .......... <M5 Uiil 0.5 

RIREI a OI-2Ht <O.O~ ~&/l ~.s 

IIIII I · a 69-t:s-10 <0.05 l:iiL 0-3 

CH~D SJ •n-as \.~ ~5il 0.5 

OP·UD SJ 02-11•16 \,61 ll#il .5 

·-· a •n-u <.6~ U&/l 0.5 

GP-iK SJ 02·11-16 <.01 Uiil .~ 

•-m a 

·ern-., <.115 Ci/l 0.~ 

DP-m a 02-11-16 <".Ol US/l .5 

Pt.IATMIGI p 05-lt-79 liD u&iL o:~ 

110•1101L£TECTU 
S99 

POIATWJQW Sl 06-~-~· tm ca ,- ~ 0.5 

; ··-~ '41:~ S! ii7·:H; t.j 1.;5 

..... 11.3 

;.;.:.:.~-4L~ Sl 08-:H; ~o :.>•L J.5 

m.:THii:~ 53 05·l:i·S~ 

\0.3 ~:J L 0.5 

Ft;,;i.it4:j!l 53 G6-li9·8.J <~.:; ~;;L 0.5 

~.~-:.ti-4:~J4 5~ 06-:S·S.J \.J.:i Uiitl: J.5 

m~>Hiii~ u G7·uB·S~ \0.~ t;01t v.s t~r;AT~iii~ 53 07·2;-i!J (O.l iioii. 0.5 

F._~.:.!"iiUII 53 ~8-oH.J \v.:i Uii/L 

(o.5 

PAi<1oTHlii~ u ONOo-90 \O.:i ~:>iL C.5 

PAii~TMlQ~ Sl 09-(,3-8,) (IJ.l Ui/l i1.5 

~oliioTHi:N u Oi·l7·SS \.2 UiiL v.~ 

him~ I Gil Sl t2-ll-li6 \1 iJii/l .5 

PCI u t5·49·79 Jill US/l v.s 

ftl Sl 0.·25-79 ND Uliil ~.5 

PCI u 07-24-l'i ND ~/l v.5 

PCI Sl 01-21·7' 10 Uiil 0.5 

PCI a 05-ll~ <G • .S u&JL u.5 

PCI Sl 06-(,9-10 <0.25 ~S/L 0-5 

PCI. Sl 06-25·10 <v.,s UiiL 0.5 

PCI a o1-oa-ao <0.~5 U&il ol,S 

PCI Sl 07-24-liO <u.25 U&IL 6.5 

PCI a OI-G4·80 <0.25 Uliil 0.5 

PCI " a N-2~ <v.a liD/L li.5 

PCI a 09-03-10 <0.~5 Uo.'L 0.5 

PCt-1016 a 11·12-10 <v.il2 Ui/L. 0.5 

PCI-101. 11 06-17-85 (.I US/L 0.5 

PCI-1016 a 02-11-.. <.001 US/l .5 

PCI·I221 a 06-17-iS <.I llli/L 0.5 

PCI-1221 a 02-11-16 <.001 lM/L .5 

Ftl-1232 a 06-17-IS \,1 h"S/L 0.5 

PCI-1232 Sl 02-ll-t6 <.001 u&iL .5 

fCi-1242 ·a U-12-lt <0.05 u&/L e.5 

P::l-1242 a 06-17·15 <.1 liliil M 

PCI-12'2 a 02-11-.. <.001 U&/L .5 

PCI·124i a 11-12-&0 <0.07 Ui/L o.s 

PCI·1241 a 0....17-15 <.1 u&/L 0.5 

PCI-1241 a 02-11-.. <.001 u&/L .5 

PC8·1254 a 11-12-lt <0.04 u&/l 0.5 

PCI-lZS4 a 06-17-15 <.1 Ui/L D.5 

Ftl-1254 a 02-U-.. <.001 Uli/L .5 

PCI·I2i0 

·a 11-12-10 <0.04 11&/l 0.5 

l'tl-1260 a 16-17-15 <.1 U&/L 0.5 

PCI-1260 a tl-U-16 <.001 US/L .5 

PCI-1262 a trl7-85 <.1 u&/L o.s 

PPlllo\IIE a tl-11-16 <J.O Ulill 

PIIDRATE a 1115-2'-79 liD UiiL ·' M 

PMDRATE a 06-25-79 liD UiiL 0,5 

PliORAT[ a 07-24-D Ill u&/L 0.5 

PHQRATE a Gl-21-79 llii lJ&/L a.s 

PM:$-~~· a 05-29-79 IGI ~&/L o.s 1'115~RI• a Gr-25-79 liD 115/L 0-5 

PltOSt·m a 07-24-79 ND Ui/L 0.5 PIIOS~Rll a 01-11•79 ND 11&/L 0.5 

PP-IDI ll 0..17-15 <.05 U61L G.5 

PMGD a 02-11-li <.vl li&iL .s PP-D~ a . 06-17·15 <.~5 ~i/L 0.5 

PP-00£ a 02-11-86 <.Ol Ui/L .5 

"·IDT Sl 06-17-15 <.05 UiiL 0.5 

IIi • lOT D£T£tTU 
400 

. .. 

CDIIPOUoll ........................... ST&.tx •••••••• s.. DAn vo~LU£ .... UN liS SliP\.&. OPt" '"' 

FP·"'T Sl OHI-~'1 \. V~ i,;j:l .•. . FP.Cm~·N 53 o:-u-h ·;5,Q ij;; il .5 

tP.l ;,...:.~ $3 G:H•·io \S.il .;a;~ .5 •o~s;L Sl 65·29-H ~il Wl 0.5 

•a~~n 53 c•-:5-n Nu ~iiiL ~-5 

Rut;l!EL Sl 07-2H~ NO .;&/l u.5 

•c••n Sl 03-21-i~ fia USii. 0.5 

SlllilllNE Sl 02·11·0. \5.0 Ui ~ .l 

STAC8o'!ii Sl ·os-H-79 •w ~iit u.s m~p.:.;~ 53 06·25·i9 ~G ~:iil 0.5 

SlitnSolli£ Sl 07-24-H ~G lliil ~-5 

STRO~ Sl 01-21-H !Ill Ui/l 0.5 

TlDICII Sl 06-11-85 <.1 Uill 0.5 

TEiliill. 53 02-11-86 \1.0 U&/l .5 

TG1wii£S£ .Sl 05-2N9 lQ Uiil o.s 

TOIAPnn£ •SJ 06·2$-19 •• il&il 11.5 

TGlAMII u ONH9 Q iilll o.s 

TOIAfHEIIE Sl· 01-21-79 liD Ui/L 0.5 

TDIAPMEII£ 53 05-13-10 <0.25 USIL M 

TOIIPiflit U· 06-G9-10 <0.25 Uill 0.5 

161!1P!iEII! Sl Oi-2HO <0.25 u&IL 0.5 

TOIIPIIOE a 07-oHO . (0.25 l!lil 0.5 

TO I AMI£ Sl 07·24-10 <0.25 Ui/L 0.5 

TDIAIIQ( Sl tHHO <0.25 UIIL 0.5 

TDio11'10£ Sl 01-2¥-10 <0.45 U&IL i.5 

TDIAMIIE Sl· Ot-GHt <0.25 116/L 0.5 

TGimtOl u .lle-17-15 <.~ U&/L o.5 

TDIAIIIEIIE u Ol-11-86 <.05 118/L .5 

TIIAUII£ u 02-11-16 <5.0 11&/L .5 

TIJFLUUI.II u 05-29-7t a u&/L 0.5 

lRIFU.'IAllN 13 06-25-79 ID UBIL 0.5 

TllFLIIAiolll Sl f7·24-79 liD Uill ·o,s 

TIHFLUPA1.1~ 13 .21-79 81:6/L 0.5 

TIIIFLUIAI.IM Sl 02-11-86 \5,0 u&/L .$ 

TRITHID:I ' s:s ts-29-79 lll!ill 0.5 

TlliliiOII Sl 06-25-79 • UB/L 0.5 

TilTH I Oil 13 f7-24-79 • 111/L 0.5 

taltHllll 13 •zt-79 • UB/L 0.5 

TRltHllll s:s ... 17-15 <.1 llliL 0.5 

TlltHIIII 13 12-11-M u.t 111/L .5 

• • IDT HtECTO 
401 

~ ...................... ..... SU.C;l ••• ,,,,. SliP OolTi VALUE •.•• UNiTS WLS.DtTH !RI 

2,4,~-1 54 03-:!H~ . ~.~ ~~:l 1), 5 

:!,4,5-1 54 ~o-ti-iS ,z.:, ~~,L o.s 

2,4,5-ir i4 ~s-:;-n U.2: ~Dh u.S 

2,4,~·iP S4 oo-2~-H Sj liiil ii.S 

2,4,5·'~ S4 o7-~l-a ~;~ tioil 0.5 

2,4.3-!P 54 oa-zv-n ho ci:L ~. 5 

2,4,5·1~ S4 05-!Hoi o.<·9 liull o.s 

2,4,5-TP 54 ~6-o9-iloi . <0. oi ~iiL ~.5 

2,4,~TP S4 ~ir45-~ .o.vt ~iiL. u.s 

2,4,5-TP 14 OHI-Ioi \~ ~ ;.;aiL 0.~ 

21415-TP ... 07-24~ <o.ot ""'L 0.5 

2,4,5-TP S4 01-04-lil <v.vf wiiL 0.5 

2,4,5-TP S4 01-2o-10 <O.v' USIL il.5 

2,4,5-TP 14 H-tl-10 (0.~ u&ll o.s 

2,4,5-TP 14 01-29-14 \ll,$ iliil 0.5 

2,4,~TP 14 06-l7-15 <~G ~ilL il.5 

2,4-1 14 05-Zt-79 0.21 WL ~.s 

~.4-1 ... Oi-25-79 <0.1 liiiL o.s 

2,4-t 14 07-2H9 0.2f Ui/L o.s 

2,4-1 14 Ol-2t-79 II 111/L o.s 

2,4-1 14 05-lHQ <0.2 UIIL o.s 

2,4-1 14 ........ . <t.2 UIIL o.s 

2,4-1 .. ... 2Ht . <0.% liiiL e.s 

: .... .. t7-IHI <t.2""' o.s 

2,4-1 .. tJ-24-18 <O.l UIIL o.s 

2,4-1 ... ...... <0.2 UI/L 

2,4-1 .. .. .. <0.2 UIIL '·' e.s 

2, ... 14 OHHt <1.2 liliL t.S 

2,4-1 .. .29-M u.e lllil • •• 2,4-1 14 ... 17-15 <SIUIIL o.s 

.uaL• .. . 12-11-16 <S.t lii/L .s 

UltMI .. 02-11-16 u.o ~~~~~ .s 

Ull 14 05-29-19 • UIIL o.s 

11.1111 .. .... ,. • UIIL o.s .. 1. 14 t7•2J-19 DUI/L o.s 

ILJIII· .. ...,. D taiL o.s 

11.1111 ... •awe <0.01 UI/L o.s 

lUI II .. ........ <O.tl UIIL o.s 

011 .. ...... \0.01 UIIL t.S 

.... .. ... <o.tlllllL 1.5 

IUlll .. t7•2HI <Ml 111/L o.s 

11.1111 .. ....... <l.tl 111/L o.s. 

IUllll. .. . .. <0.01 UIIL .. , 

Ull .. ...... <0.01 lrii'L o.s 

Ull .. lrl7-15 <.01 111/L o.s 

ILIIJI .. 12-11-16 <.OOS UIIL .s 

..... • ... 17-15 <.01 UIIL t.S 

UIIA lilt .. 12-11-16 <.iOS UliL .s 

M(1lft .. 12-IJ-16 • <S.u lliL .s 

Allllliif .. 02-11-16 <5.~ "UIIL .s 

ll'liC 14 06-17-15 (,02 L1/L u 

IEfAIIC .. 12-11-16 <.~ liVL .s 

• .. .29-19 Iii UIIL o.s 

IIC .. lrZI-19 • UIIL .. , 

IIC .. 17-D-19 II UliL .. , 

• 14 M-21-19 liliVL o.s 

• 14 

·~ <u.w7 iiiiL o.s 

IIC .. OHHI <v.iri1 iiiiL ~ .. , • 14 86-ZHoi CO,iow7 UIIL o.s 

••aDETmo 
402 

· COifi:lll .. , ........................ Sl&.tll ....... . i!lt loll£ Viol. Iii .... Ullli3 SIIP\,i.C;tll IRI 

;-.c Sol c.7-.;a-a•i \L•.VU7 :;;, L M 

litC S4 u7·<•·~ <u.,l

-); wiL u.s 

~·t 54 Wl'1l4·t! -:.:.~;~ :.:~fl ~-5 

'"c 54 ~Nr~ ••• ;~; ~iil ti.S 

.lit 54 c.Hl-iu •v.-~; L'Sil u.~ 

tA'"~AATt 54 G2·1l·le ;s.v iii/L: .s toll.i..li~~ 54 oru·le \!.6 liiil .s C~'iGFJa:oN 54 tNl·la \S.V :u;t, .s 

CIII.QiWtl 5' 

•1$-lf•it loG Ulil li.5 

tlili:«~;.li( S4 06•15-if IIi UliL o.s 

CIII.PPII S4 ONl-11 Q Ui/L v.5 

Clll.lliaollli S4 iol-21-11 .. 1:11\. 1),5 

tllCl~ .. 65-lHI <0.25 UliL t.S 

t!UUioll .. ......... <t.%5 SA o.s 

CIILOiiliolll .. ... 2HI \0,25 lliiL t.S 

t~Uo\lll .. . 17 ..... <ll.:S lliiL o.s 

ClllUMil .. t7·H <t.25 .,, o.s 

Clli.UIG'. .. IHHI <t.25 UIIL o.s 

Clllilio• .. ..... <0.25 111/L I.S 

CIII.OY..MI .. ....... <0.007 liiiL fi.S 

tllJIIIoll .. ... 17-15 <.U 111/L t.S 

CUIPII .. o-u-a (,15 Ill\. .s 

i!ll .. .29-79 .111/L .. , 

ill .. ... 25-79 .IIIIL t.S 

• .. 17-23-79 • 1111L t.S 

HI ... ... 11 ..,., 

... , 

"' .. •aHI <•.u liiL e.s 

• .. ......... <0. Ol IIIIL t.S 

• .. ... 2HI <0.02 liiiL •• s 

Ill .. 17 ..... <o.tZ UIIL t.S 

ill .. .... <1.'12 IIIIL t.S 

• .. ........ CU2 111/L t.S 

.. ... ..... <o.i2 UIIL •• s 

Ill .. ....... <0.02 UIIL 0. S 

• .. .29-11 • IIIII. t.S 

.. .. ... 25-11 • UIIL t.S 

.. .. 17-D-79 • .. L t.S 

.. .. •• 79 • UIIL t.S 

Ill .. .IHI <t.t21111L o.s 

Hl .. ....... <t.I2UIIL t.5 

• .. ..... · Ct.IZ UIIL t.S 

• ... 17 ...... <U2 UIIL t.S 

• .. .... <0.02 1111L I.S 

filii .. ........ <0.02 UIIL o.S 

• .. ... <U2UIIL t.S 

• .. ..... <t.t2 IIIIL t.S 

Ill .. .29-79 • Ill&. •• , 

IIJ .. ....79 .UIIL O.S 

., .. 17-D-Jt • IIIII. o.s 

.T .. •• 11 lillllll o.s 

Ill .. .IHI <1.02 lii/L t.S 

Ill .. ........ co. 02 111/L v.S 

IDT .. ... 2HI <M2 UIIL o.s 

IDT .. tHHt <0.02 lii/L 0.5 

liT .. 17-24-lt <t. 02 115/L O,S 

»T .. GH4·10 \O,C.~ lli/L e.s 

liT .. .... <¥.02 lii/L 0.5 

DDT ... OHl-10 <U2 Ui/L o.s 

Ml.liiC .. v.-u-a <.Gl UIIL . o.s • •lilT arma 
403 

~iiUIIO ....... .............. ..... ·• SJA.Cl£ •••••••• SliP DATt YtlliJC .... Ullll5 O.'ll'i.S.OPIM !Ill 

~=~ u. ;,;~ 54 OZ·l ! .. i.i <.v:·5•,H • 

. 

J 

tt!l:~ ·~ 54 G5-2H9 ~u l'oiL •}. 5 

ltc"E 1 ~ 54 Oo-,5-i~ NO oil v.5 

OE~t ii:N 54 OHH9 N" ~/L v.s 

uE~t:ON $4 v8-2U-H Mu USi i. o. 5 

Olio! iii~~ $4 G5·<t-;; ~D Uoil 0.~ 

DIAi:~JN 54 0.·25·7~ ND U~ l 11.5 

DIAilh:N $4 .07·2l-H ~~c ~SJ L 0.5 

Dll!IIIVN . 54 01-20.79 NO US/l u.s DIAZI OS 54 0.-17-85 (.S U& ~ u 

DIAiiMCII 54 02-11-S. 'l.o ~oiL .5 

DIELGftl11 54 05-29-79 NO U6il ~.s 

DIEL~U 54 o.-~-79 . ·~ Uiil 0.5 

DIELU/111 54 07·2l-7t ~ Uo/L 6.5 

DIElr.all · 54 lll·2t-79 NO U6il u.s 

DlELDIIIII ' 54 05-ll· (0,02 U6/L ll.~ 

IIELDAII .54 iH9-II) <ll.VZ u&•L u.~ 

DIELGRII 54• 0.-25-~ <u.o2 u~tL i1.5 

DIELDAII 14 07~ ... <0.02 US/L 0.5 

DIELDAII 54' 07-24-10 <0.02 UG/L 0.5 

iilEl.GIII 14 01-*-10 <U2 ~&/L 0.5 

DIEI.iiRll 54 01-20-10 <o.oz uiil 0.5 

DIELDAII 54 09-0l·IIO <0.02 Uiil 0.5 

DIEI.DRII 14 0.017-15 <.05 U&iL 0.5 

IIEI.DRII 14 02•11-16 <.01 U6il .5 

EIIGOSULFM !14- 05-29-79 110 U&/L 0.5 

EIIDCSULFAII 54 .04•25-79 liD u&/L 0.5 

WISWM 14 07·2l·79 110 u&/L 0.5 

EIDCSUlFM. 14 01-20.79 110 U6/L M 

EliiOSIILFM 14 05-IWO <0.02 u&iL v.5 

EIDOSULFAI 14 04-0'-10 <0.02 U&/L 0.5 

EIGOWAII 14 6r2$-10 <0.02 U&/L 0.5 

EIIDOSUl.F"' 14 07+10 <M2 U6 /L u,5 

(l'tiOSU'.FAII 14 07•24-10 <O.v2 u&/L 0.5 

EIIOOSULFA!t 14 01-04-10 <0. 02 U8/L o.s 

wGiiA.fAII 54 .... <o.oz u;;L 0.5 

(ll~iUIJiill 14 OHWO (0.02 U&il M 

EIIDOSUt.FM I 14 0.017-15 <.05 UGIL G.5 

WGSUI.FAI I 54 02-11 ... <.01 11&/L .5 

OIOCISUt.FM II .. lt-17-15 <.05 Ui/L 0.5 

... IIJAIIII 14 0%-11 ... <.01 U&/l .5 

EIIGOSULFM SII.FATt 14 lt-17-15 <.1 U6/L 0.5 . 

£1T105Ul.Fiill am& .. 02•11 ... <.3 U6/L .5 

Mill .. 05-29-79 Na ~'6iL 0.5 

EJU11 · .. 04•25-7! 110 ~6/L M 

EIDRII 14 07•23-79 110 U&/L 0.5 

EIIDIII. .. 01-20-79 ~1 US/L o.s 

ODRII .. 05-IS.IO <0.02 Uo•L 0.5 

E•DIItl .. 06-tt-10 <o.o; u&iL o.s 

EIDRII 14 0.025-10 <M2 UiiL o.s 

EliDA II .. 07-oHO <o.v: WL o.s 

EJIPII 14 t7•24-M <O;O~ UE/L IJ,S 

E~ll .. ~ <0.02 ~;/L 0.5 

EIIOAII .. ot-2t-IIO <0.02 U6/L o.5 

£IDa II .. OMS.IO <0.02 U6/l 0.5 

mtUI .. 0.017-15 <. ii5 U:i/L o.s 

£1;111 14 .02•11 ... COl U&iL .s 

OOlll AUEIIYD£ S4 06-17•15 <.1 UIIL 9.5 

iiDill AL~EWIG£ .. 02-11-li <.Gl i.i6/L .5 

ID • IIOT DETECiEV 
404 

CllltiOiiliO ........................... STA.CO£ ........ SRP ~olT£ ~-..~'£ .... uMI:i Sft?Li.iiPTK lftl 

ET•Hl1 s~ os-:;-r; ~~~ -.,j ." t .~ 

ElHI!i~ S& Oa-<5-H ~J •>:l o. 5 

~iiijS s~ C1-:~·i; ~·J ~~~l ~-~ 

UHI~~~ 54 vh<H~ ·~ l);i;l ~.j 

ElM IOK 54 vo-17-e: '·• u;,L ~.5 

ETHIC• 54 02-IH~ <l.u ;;;;;L • 5 

&liTHIC~ n 05·2~-;; ~~ ~i L •).5 

&IIIHIO~ 54 ~··25-H • ., ijo•• .. "·• &u!HI~· 54 ·~7-2l·H . MD UiiL 0.5 

iUI~ICij 54 ~Nu-79 ~u u:;;t ti.5 

&IITHIGI ~ 05·13-6\r \~.6 UGil 0.5 

&liTHIC~ 54 06•09-&li \:.0 US,'l i1.5 

611111Ulll 14 06·25-iO <M l!ii/l (1.5 

i'JTNI~ 14 Oi-GI-8~ <M liiil ~.5 

&IITHIOI 54 07-24-10 <2.6 u&tl 0.5 

&IITIIItll 14 01-04-20 <MUSil il.! 

&liTH IIIII 14 01-26-60 <2.6 ~iil o.s &UTIIIO~ 14 Ot-63·10 <2.0 U&iL il.! 

&IITMIDI 54 06-17-85 <1.0 lliil o.s 

&IIlli lOII 54 Ol-11-16 (J, u&/1. .! 

IVTM:I'\.011 14 05-29-79 liD Ulil 0,5 

IIPTM:Iillll 14 06-2!-79 Q USIL 0.! 

IIPTICII.III 14 07-23-79 liD Ulil 0.! 

IIPliCII.~ 14 01-20-79 .. Ulll o.s 

IVlltitLOII 14 0$-IHO <O.V07 116/l o.s 

IEPTM:Jt:.Gi 14 ....... <O.Oil7 liiiil o.s 

IIPTA;;NLIII 14 06-25:* <O.GOi U&/l 0.! 

IVTM:llili 14 17-ti-Bt <0.007 Uiil o.s 

tmltli.Oil 14 07-2~-10 <0.001 Ul/l 0.! 

IIPltoCII.Oil 14 ........ . (0.007 li&/l o.s 

IIPTACHLCill 14· 11-:zt-10 <0.~07 lii/L G.! 

IIPTAtll.llll 14 OHl-li <0.~7 116/L 0.5 

IIEPTitli.OII 14 06-17-1! <.01 lliiL (1,! 

IIPTA::NLDa · 14 ONI-86 <.Ofl5 ~iiiL .s 

IIPTACNLOR EFOIID! 14 05-29-i9 liD US/L o.s 

IIPTACii.Dii t.Gmc 14 06-25-79 liD UiiL 0.5 

IIPTAC~ca Ei·OUGE 54 07-23-79 Ill U&iL o.s IIPTACill~ t.iiU;iE ' 54 Ol-2t-79 118 UIIL o.s IIPTACHLC~ t~OIIDE 14 0$-13-10 <0.01 U&iL 0.5 

IIPTACilOR EPGII~ 14 OHHO <G.OI USil o.s 

IIPTACHI.Cil mllii£ 14 06-lS-t-) <~.01 Ui/l 0.5 IIPTQC~ EPGJiW£ 14 07-61-10 <UI U&iL 0.5 

IIPTN:III.OR EPGlln£ " 11-04-10 <O.ill li&1l o.s HEPm~ir..~ mmE 14 01-20-10 <O.OI 11&/L o.s IIPTI(HL~ EPOilDE 14 OHl-110 <MI !J6/L M 

IIPTt.CilOR EPGJIIi£ 14 ei-17·15 <.02 U&/L o.s 

IIPTACiti.lill EPQIID£ 14 02-11-86 <.005 u&IL .5 

IIUTAiltl EPOUDE 14 07•24•10 (0.01 u&/l 0.5 

llLliiAIIE 14 06-17-15 <.5 u&/l o.s 

ICEI.TNAIIE 14 02·11-86 <J,O .Uiil .s 

LIMDAII£' 14 0$-29-79 MD u&/l o.s 

LIIIIIAIII 14 ir2!-79 1111 U&/L ~.s 

ll~1iollt 14 07·23·79 Ill U&iL M 

llllllo.'l[ 14 01·2G-79 1111 UG/L o.s lll~~ 14 0$-13-80 <O.w7 U~/l o.s 

LIMitt\!1£ 14 06 .... -av \~.iroi7 L'$/;. 0.5 

ll~ 14 06-2~ <O..OV7 Uiil 0.5 

LIN~~tj( 14 o7-oa-av \6.v~7 ~iiil v.s ll~ii~ 14 07-24·10 <~.w7 US/l 11.5 

1111 • IIOT tiTEtiEI 
405 

t,Oftr\iiliiaooo•••••••••••••••••••••••• :lilflo~illl;oooo•••• ),,.II"''-,,...,,,;,,,,, '' ~ ~.-:,-..,-·~' , .. ., 

i.l~=~~· s• \·8··:.:-:,; ;\/.~ ~; :n. J. ~ 

Lit.~.;.~t 54 V6·2~ ... i(• ,t.J,{'l:7 "'j:L id 

:..1~•= t.::£ s~ 0'-,;~-; ) .. .... ,, .. ' "''•"' -~I wlo!·.~ 

.. "·· Ll~~"''' 54 ve·li-05 cui u,;,L l~.s 

dM~o~E S4 ;,:-u-oo <.uil5 ~SiL .s ft~LAT~:C~ 54 v5·2H' ~~ USIL. li.S 

llolL;.TMiDI S4 ., ... ~~-;, ND CSil ·>.5 

1!1\l.\iHIQ~ s• ONNt N~ tiiil a.s ~lti~ICM S4 ili-l~-7~ . liii ~ill oi.5 

IIALAT~:" l S4 il5·ll·i~ <0.~7 Uiil v.s 

IIAI.AlkltN S4 oe~•-i~ <6. i ~&/l ~.5 

~~A&J;TNIO~ S4 oe-25-lil \6.7 Ui/l 0.5 

IIAUTIIItill · 54 07-ol•lil <O. 7 U&/l 0.5 

IIALATNI~II .. 07-24·10 tfl.7 US/l ~.5 

lloli.ATMIDM .14 01-M-10 <0.7 Ui/L M 

liMA TN l 011 .. 01-li-10 <0.7 IJ&/L o.s MUTIII~ A 09-Dl-10 <O. 7 li&il o.s 

IIAI.•TIIICII .. S4 0.·17-n <.S U&/l a.s 

IIAUTNIDI .. 02-11-86 (1.0 u&/l .s 

I£TMCIIYl s• 02-tl-56 <5.00 ii&il .s 

IIETIIOUCil.Oit .. 05-lt-79 ID L'i/l o.s 

IIETMalYCII.DR . .. 06·25-79 liD IIG/L o.s IIET!iOIYCIII.~ .. 07·23-Jt liD L'l/l o.s 

IIETIIII1CIII.GI 14 ·-·79 liD li&/L 0.5 

IIETlllll¥CII.OA S4 05-11-01 \0.3 11&/L. M 

I£TIIDJ¥CII.Dit 14 OHHO <O.l u&/l 0.5 

IIETHOJYCiil.aR If 06·25-10 <O.l ~'&/L o.s 

I!ETHDlYCILOR .. 07-01-10 <O.l U&/l u.s 

IIETIIDUCIII.DR .. 07·2HO <O.l u&ll o.s 

1£THDlYtlll.GII .. ....... <O~l u&/l o.s 

IIETlllllttii.DA .. 01-20-10 <~.l 11&/L o.s 

IIETIIDIYIX.DR .. ot-el-10 <O.l u&/L o.s 

111110lYtii.O!I .. 02-11·16 <.l Ui/L .$ 

I£TIIYl Pt.P.ATHIOX .. 05-29·79 Ill U&IL o.s 

11ET11YL FAAIT~Ilil ... 06·25-79 liD Uill o.s 

IIETIIYL PARiiMIDI !!4 07-21-79 IIi US/L o.s 

11ET11YL PAlioTMIGII .. •• 79 • U&IL o.s 

Ill !lEI 14 tl-2t-79 • Ul/l 0.5 

1111£1 .. 06-25-it Ill UI/L o.s 

Ill !lEI .. t7·D-79 • Ul/l o.s 

IIIli .14 •• 79 • U&IL o.s 

IIIli 14 11-lHt <0.05 U&JL 1},5 

II ill .. ......... <0.05 U&Jl o.s 

1111£1 14 M-25-ID <0.05 Ulil 11.5 

Ill !lEI .14 17-tHo . <0.05 UI/L 0.5 

IIIIEJ 14 u-24-10 <O.OS U&/L o.s 

1110 " .......... <0.05 UI/L o.s 

IIIIEI · 14 .... <0.05 11&/l •• 5 

IIIIEI 14 OHHt <o.tSUI/l o.s .... 14 .,, ... <.05 UIIL 0.5 ..... .. ez..u ... \,01 UiiL .s .... 14 06-17-tS <.05 Ulil o.s .... 14. 02-11 ... (,01 U6IL .s 

IIHIT 14 06-17-tS <.OS Ui/l o.s 

IHit 14 02-11 ... <.Ol u&il .s 

NliTIItDI .. os-2f-n IGI Ulil u.s 

HIATIIIDII 14 .oi-25-79 • UIIL o.s 

NtiTIIUlll .. 17·23·79 IQ li&/L . o.s NhTNJO~ 14 Ol·lG-79 • iii/L o.s 

II •IEIT amtTO 
406 

...... . ............ 0 •••••••• • ••••• 0 ••• 0 ... .... ....... 0 ••• • • • • .. . .. ....... _, .. . ... .. . ... ·-·. 

Pt~~ nn:1 s• 05-ll-80 \O.l ~~il ·).5 

:·:~; .. q:~ s• vhHC \Q.~ ~~•L 1).5 

p,;~~~~i"~ u o•-:5-eu \O.l U~!L 0.5 

;.Alollri;C~ 54 Oi-\16·50 \G, l UG/l 0.5 

F;.i.~TMI~~ 54 Oi·2H~ <u.l USil ~.5 

p;.;;.TN!t~ 54 Ol·04·i0 \G.l U~ll \1,5 

fW~A~itlO~I 54 U8·2H~ \u.:; uii1L 0.5 

PW.iol!lt~N 54 G9·0l-&~ \O.l U&il 0.5 

?~;;.iMi " 54 . .G6·17-i5 <.2 USil 0.5 

f¥A!lllilli 54 02·11-ii (I Uill .$ 

ftl 54 t5-2~·i9 'D li&il M 

PCI 54 0.·25-H iM u'Gil G.$ 

rca 54 07·23-i' Ill iiiiil 0.5 

PCI 54 01-20-79 Q Ul/l 0.5 

rca 14 05-ll-1~ \0,25 il&il 0.5 

rca ·14 OH9-IO \0,25 U&/L 0.5 

PCI 14 Dr-25-1$ <0.25 U&/l 0.5 

ttl 14 07-QH.) <0.25 Uiil o.s . Ftl 54' 07-24-11> <0.2$ lii/L 0.5 

PCI 14 01-M-t~ <0.25 UIIL M 

PCa 14' OI-2HO <0.25 UI/L o.s 

PCI . 14 OHHt (0.25 UliL o.s 

PCI-1016 14 16-17-15 . (,1 1liiL 0.5 . 

PCI-1016 14 12-11-16 <.ttl UI/L .5 

P0-1224 14 16-17-15 <.1 UIIL 1.5 

ftt-1221 14 t2·U-I' <.001 IIIIL .5 

PCI·l2l2 .. 06-17-15 <.1 UIIL 0.5 

Ptl·12l2 14 .. 2-ll-16 <.001 Ui/L .s 

PCt-1242 14 06-17-15 <.I lii/L 1.5 

PCI-1242 14 a-u• <.ttl Ulll .s 

PQ-Iltl 14 16-17-15 <.l 118/L o.5 

PCt-1241 54 ~2-ll .... (,001 Uill .5 

PCt-1254 14 06-17-15 <.1 11&/L 6.5 

PCI·l254 14 02-U_.. <.001 US/l .5 

I'Ct-1266 .. 16-17-15 <.I 11&/L 0.5 

PQ~I2i0 14 .2-U-16 <.001 11&/L .5 

PCt-1262 .. 16-17-15 <.1 111/L 0.5 

PEATMAil 14 12-11-16 <1.0 USIL .5 

PIIOUTE .. t$-29-79 • UIIL 0.5 

PIIGUTE .. 16-25-79 8 U6/L 0.5 

PIIIIIATI .. 17-2J-79 • U&/L 0.5 

l'lGATt .. 01-20-79 • Ulll 0.5 

PIIOSGall .. t$-29-79 ID UI/L 0.5 

PliiiSall .. 16-25-79 II UIIL 0,5 

PNGSMII .. 17-2J-79 II UIIL 0,5 

Pllllillll .. 01-21-79 ID UIIL 0.5 

, ..... .. 16-17·15 <.05 US/L 0.5 

PHD .. 12-ll-16 <.Ol UI/L .5 ..... .. 16-17-15 <.05 UI/L 0.5 .... .. 12-11-16 <.OliiiiL .5· 

PP•IIl .. 16-17-15 <.VS tla/L 0.5 

..... 1 .. 12-U-16 <.Ol UIIL .5 

IIIIOIIITI'II .. 12-ll-16 \5.0 Ui/L .5 

PIGPIWI .. G-u:..e. <5.0 Ul/l .5 

1101111. .. 15-2'-79 ID UIIL 0.5 

aGIIIL .. 06-25-79 1111 11&/L 0.5 

IGUEL .. t7·2l·79 Iii UIIL 0.5 

10101!11. 14 .ta-21-n MD UI/L 0,5 

SIMUIII 14' tl-11-16 <5.01.'&/L .5 

MD • lliit rc.E:tD 
'"'•'"·~·"• ~'•·'~ _ .. _r--...c .,.,.;., ., ...... •" .......................... .,. .. , -- .... ... ·-- ..... tiii!PIIUIII ........................... STA.CDE •••••••• SliP DATE Vo1Ltl •••• I.'!IITS olll'~&.~PTII lftl 

ST~C~~·.£ S4 os-~;.;q ~J U:i;L ·i.S 

;n::~-.~ S4 04o-~S-H NO U~il u.s 

SnG&o<ME i4 vi-23-i'i ·~ ~ii;l .;.s 

STt~aMlii 54 ·~~-i9 ~D ~3il (•.S 

lEu ION 54 1)0-17-63 ,.1 u:;L v.s rem~ i4 02-11-56 o.~ •>iL .s TOUP~£~1 $4 05-29-il ~~ U5il 0.5 

TGXI\i';;.h£ 54 06•25-i9 ~il U&/L ~.~ 

TCIArHENE 54 07•23-79 . IIi lii/L. 6.5 

TOXA?i'E~£ 54 ONG-79 Nil Uill u.s TCloii'H£~£ 54 05-ll·IG <o.2s us;L o.s· 

TOIAPiiENE 54 06-t'•iO (0.~ iliil 0.5 

TCir.;£-E 14 06-25-10 <0.25 ~ill o.s 

TDIAPN£NE 14 07-lHO <0.25 ~'S/L o.s 

TOIAf..CNE 14 07-:<4-10 <0.25 Ui/L u.s 

rmnEll£ 14 ~·0 (0.~ Uiil 0.5 

TDIAfHENE 14 01-20-10 <6.25 116/L o.s 

TOIAPIIE!iE 54 OHJ-60 <0.25 U6/L u.s 

TOIAPMENE 54 06-17·15 <.5 116/L 0.5 

TOIA?ftE.~ 54 02-tl-16 <.05 u&t'L .s 

Til AU liE 14 02-11·16 <5.0 U&il .5· 

TRIFlURALII 14 05-2'-79 II 11&/L 0.5 

TRIFLURa&.ll 14 06-25-79 Ill 116/L 0.5 

TIIFLIIRAL.II 14 07-D-79 liD 111/L 0.5 

11iiFlUULII 54 01-Zt-79 II Ui/L 0.5 

TRIFLURo11.41 14 02-11-16 <5.0 116/L .5 

TiiiTHIUI 54 05-29-79 liD ii&/L o.s 

TRITHiilll 14 06-25-79 18 U&/L 0.5 

TIITHIDII 14 07-Zl-79 II UIIL o.s 

TIITHIDII 14 01-Zt-79 II 11&/L 1).5 

TAITHIDI 14' 06-17-15 <.1 111/L 0.5 

TI!THII!I 14 02-tl-16 u.e 111/L .5 

II • IIGT DETECTED 
408 

tl\tl.!•~•"tllfll :tr•·.,W ~wat•t.' ... •C.Il ..,,.,. r .,., ...... . , ..... ,. .... .............. .... . ..., ........

... tmr...I<G.: ......................... SU.tll( ........ ~ OATt ~AI..;£ .... Ulltt; SP.!'~& OI'TM 1111 

: ,4,5·1 56 ~a-H-a~ 

·.•) .5 \.; .: ~ u.s 

2,4.:-1 56 0.·11-&5 \ 

: ;, l,; ;' l 0.5 

2,4.5-lf 56 ill-2i-i4 \(•.5 !,;&1L v.S 

2,,,~TP se OH7·85 \~V U~li.. li.S 

2,1-0 s. oa-::,·&4 n.u :;;;t •• 5 

2.H s. 06·17-!5 (~ .:. C&JL u.s 

UtHI.V. s. 02-1:-a. \S.Q ~SIL .5 

At.m••a 56 02-11-ii <I.G iill .5 

ALN<l» s. Oi-11-85 . .~l t.;Oit 1!.3 

ill.'m Sll V.·IHS !). ~j~ ~~il li.5 

AI. OR II s. 02·11-S. < • .:.,s ~Sit. .5 

lol.f~• IIIC s. Oi-17-iS <.OJ UiA 

o;5 

ALPHa aliC s. 02-11-le (,0V5 ~iill .5 

UI!Ta'iN s. 12-11-lil \5.6 U!IL .5 

mAZJ:I£ .. t2·11-16 \5.~ USIL .5 

am 8liC " Oi-17-15 <.62 ~&il 0.5 

tna lilt S6 02-11-lt (.(1'15 ~ill .5 

CARBAIIATt 56 02-ll-116 <~.0 U&il .5 

C»IAAVL s. 02-11-16 \5,u U6iL .5 

CMI".111¥11 s. 02-11-16 

\5.0 Ui/L .5 

OllliRDAiil .. 06-17-15 <.02 U&/L 0.5 

CIIUIWIIE .. 12-11-16 . <.o5 II&JL .5 

illL tA lilt · s. 06-17-tS <.OJ i111L 0.5 

DELTA liE .. 02-11-16 <.005 li&il .5 

mu11011 .. Oi-17-15 <.5 Uli/L. M 

JJAUIICX It 02-11-16 <1.0 U6/L .5 

IIELuatJ 56 06-17·15 <.65 Uli/L 0.5 

IIDJIJI s. 12

· 11-16 <.OJ USIL .5 

Ellilolli.FIIIII .. ... 17-tS <.65 U&IL 0.5 

om1vt.a 1 .. 02-U .... <.p1 Uill .5 

bilCW.\1111 .. 06-17-tS <.e! Ulill 0.5 

EIIDOSULFM II ... 12-U-16 

<.01 U5/L .5 

EII"IIDSULFAI SIA.FATt .. 06-17-15 <.1 U6/L 0.5 

WYSII.fo\11 SII.FATt 56 02-11-16 <.3 U&IL .5 

Will ... 06-17-tS <.05 Ui/L 0.5 

Will !6 12-U-16 <.OJ u&/L .5 

PHil AIJEMYD£ .. ...17-tS <.1 US/L e.5 

WAll ALJ£11YH .. 12-11 .... <.Ol U5/L .5 

(TNUill .. ...17-tS <.1 U61L 0.5 

£TMIII .. 12-11~ <1.0 u&JL .ll 

&IITIIJilll ... ...,,_., <1.0 u&il ~.5 

lUTHI GII .. 02-11-16 <1. U5iL .5 

11nKM.11 " trl7-15 <.~1 il&iL 0.5 

IIPTACIUII .. 12-ll-16 <.OilS Uiil .5 

IIPTICIILIIEi'OIIX .. ...17-15 \,u2 UGIL 0.5 

IIPTADI.DI EFOIJM " 12-11-16 (,0,5 'Jill 

.ll 

mtiiME .. ... 17-tS <.5 Uall 0.5 

lELTHMII .. 12-11-16 <1.6 UiiL 

.5 

LJIIHII .. 06-17-15 <.ill will 0.5 

Lllliiol( .. 12-11-16 <.uii5 Ui/L .5 

IIIILIITHJDI .. trl7-15 <.5 USil 0.5 

MI.ATMIGII .. 12-11-16 <l.il Uiil .5 

.TMOIIil .. 02-11-li <5.w Ui/L .s 

lllllliVtll.DI .. t2-ll-16 (.:i Uiil .5 

CP-Da 16 06-17-15 (.05 iiiil 0.5 

CP·t3 " 12-11-le <.01 Uili. .5 

CP-IDE .. ..-17-ill <.~ 5 li&iL 0.5 

CP-JH .. 82-U-16 (," li&il .5 

•·IDT .. Oi-17-15 (.05 liill o.s 

II • 11111 DETitTU 
409 

. .. ·- .. . ... ..... - ...... 

llii'QUIID ........................... STA.Cll£ •••••••• SliP DtiTE Yoili;C •••• UNITi S~PLG.atTH tRl 

HjT 56 u:·tHa \.ill \:S1l .. . ;.;.;.TH!C~ Sb ui·I7-BS (.;; liiiil .. 

u •• 

io~AlWION se ~~-11-a~ \I ~oiL .s ti·l~" 56 O.·li·SS <.1 Uiil 0.5 

CS·tm 56 02·11·Bb \,(lo)i llliil .s 

ca-tm 56 0.·17·iS <.1 u;1~ ;).5 

ti-1221 56 02·11-ii c;;ot Uliil .5 

Cl·12l2 56 .0.·17·85 <.1 Uiiil 0.5 

Cl-1232 .. 02-11 ... 1.001 ~ill .5 

C8·1242 .. Vi·l7·i3 <.1 Uiil ~-~ 

Cil·l2C2 .. 02·11·S6 <.001 U&il .s 

Cl·!241 .. 06-17·&5 <.1 U&/L o.s 

ca-ma .. 02·11 ... <.001 u&il .s 

CI·I2S4 .. 06-17·15 <.1 Ui/L o.s 

Cl-1251 ... 02·11 ... <.~1 U&/L .s 

0·1260 ... 06-17-15 <.1 Uli/L o.s 

ct·l260 .. 02-U ... <.001 U&/L .s 

Cl-1262 ... 06-17-IS <.1 !li/L 0.5 

EITIIAIIE .. 02-U ... <l.t UIJL .s 

P-IDD • 06-17-IS . <.05 Uli/L o.s 

P·DII .. 02-11 ... <.Ol 111/L .s 

, ... .. 06-17-15" <.05 111/L o.s 

P-IlE .. 12-U ... <.Ol UIIL .s 

P-DT· .. 16-17-15 <.05 111/L o.s 

MIT .. a-u ... <.13 UIIL .s 

RDIIl'lllll .. t2-ll-16 <S.t UIIL .5 

-- .. ·12-U-16 <S.O UIIL .s 

IMU. .. u-u ... <S.t UIIL .s 

EIIGII .. 16-17-15 <.& IIIIL o.s 

Ell Gil .. 12-U-16 U.t UIIL .s 

OJIP& .. 16-17-15 <.S 111/L o.s 

DIMIIE .. .11 ... <.05 111/L . .s 

RIAZI. .. ., ..... <S.O lliiL .s 

UFL.UULii .. t2-11-16 cs.a 111/L .s 

m•••· .. 16-17-15 <.1 UIJL o.s 

UiiiJGI .. t2-11-16 <1.0 111/L .s 

l•ll!lf amtT!I 
410 

·-·····-·· ....... -··· ....... .... .. . .... .......... . ···- - . . . ·- .... CIIIPIUQ ........................... SlA.CK ...... ~. SliP iiATt v;,u,t .... jjiiJTS ~&.:PT~ tftl 

,,,,5·1 57 CNi·r.. \1),5 J:;;;. ;).5 

2,4,5·T s: ti·IH~ 1l~ ii51L 1).5 

2,1,5-TP S7 01-H·U ·0.5 u&;~ tl.S 

2,4,5-TP S7 .. -17-&5 c:~ lii!l o.s 

2,4-1 17 M-29·&4 \1,0 ~SiL 0.5 

2,4·D 17 .. -17-iS ,:.:, ~iL 0.5 

AUC!UI 17 t2-ll-h •5.1l ~uiL .5 

-..m.as S7 .12-11-- \I.~ ~~iL .s ..... S7 .. ·17-15 . <.~1 ll&iL 1.5 

Ulll 17 12-11-16 <.w51ii1L .s 

.... 17 ... ,,.., \,01 tilL .. , ....... 17 12-ll-a. <.YeS tiiL .s 

Mltlftl 17 12-11 .... "-• Ull1. .s 

Atlo\Zl. 17 12-li-16 <5.0 UliL .s 

lOA lilt S7 •u-e <.12 11WL a.s ., .. S7 12-11 .... c.ees Ull1. .s 

CIIIIUATI 17 12-11-16 <S.I UIIL .s 

CMit1m. S7 12-11·16 <5.0 UIIL .5 

CMIIIFIIM i7 12-ll-16 <5.1 UliL .s 

CIUIIIII u 16-17-15 <.02 UIIL t.S 

Cll.llall . SJ 12-11-M <.IS UIIL .s· mn• 17 16-17-IS <.ea UliL 1.s 

mra• 17 12-11 .... "<.liS lliiL .s 

a :au• 17 .17-IS <.5 .n. I.S 

IIAZI. 17 12-11 .... <1.1 11/L .s 

IIIUIII 17• •. , ... <.IS IIIIL I.S 

IIEUIJI 17 12-11-16 <.II Ull\ .s 

DlliiU•t S7 .u ... <.IS UIIL I.S 

~FM I 17 12-11 .... <.tl 11/L .s. -.FMII 17 •. , ... <.IS IIIL loS 

_,Mil 17 12-11 .... <.01 UIIL .s ~~~SULFATE 17 •11-a (,1 iiiiL I.S 

IIDIISULFloll SII.FA1E 17 12-11_.. <.J UIIL .s 

111111 IJ .17-15 <.OS lliiL o.s .... 17 a-u-.. C.OI UIIL .s 

EJIIII. tlUililll 17 .17-IS <.1 UIIL o.s 

Mill A!.HK .17 12-11 ... <.OlUiiL .s 

mt• S7 •n-a <.1 11/L I.S 

m111 17 . 12-11 .... <l.l UIIL .s 

IIlii. 17 •n-a U.IIIIIL •. s 

lllllllll D a-u-.. · U.UIIL .s 

IIPJICIUI 17 •n-a <.tl iiiiL •• s. ....... 17 a-u-.. <.165 UIIL .s 

IIPJII:II.II EPDIIH 17 •. , ... <.02 llliL t.S 

IIPJACIUI ~~~~~ D u-u-.. <.OOS UliL .s 

GL'IIIolll D 16-17-IS <.S UIIL t.S 

·- D 62-11 ... U.l UI/L .s 

u ... 17 •n-tl <.01 UIIL o.s 

u ... 17 G-Il_,.· <.005 UIIL .s 

IIILitiiJQII 17 .17-IS <.S 'IIIIL t.S 

IIILI111111 17 12-11 .... <1.0 UIIL .s 

•'*'L 17 12·11-16 <5.it UiiL .s 

llliiDIYCilll S7 12-~1 .... <.l UliL ;s ..... IJ •n-a <.IS Ui/L I.S 

....... S7 12-11-e. \,01 UIIL .s ..... IJ . ... 17-IS <.65 UiiL t.S 

.... 17 12-11 .... <'.ol lliiL .s 

IHI1 IJ 16-17-IS <.05 UIIL •• '5 

IIP·Itl 17 12-11-16 \.~ USIL .s • •1111 DmtT£1 
411 

CWGUii).,, ••, ••, ,, ,. • • • ••• • •• ••• • • ''"·-.~• • •• • • • • *' II .. ,, YIML.IIIICo ••• \Ill! l~ ~.rLD ... r '" u•, 

folUTHION 57 06-17-35 <.~ US!L •), 5 

~~~~~~T~!uN 57 02-11-~· < 1 u;;L .s 

PC&· I\• I• S7 06-17-&5 <.I G5il u 

PCI·IOii• 57 02·11-E; <.oo1 ~:a;L .5 

PC8·1221 57 00-17-65 (.I i:iiil 'o.s 

PCI-1221 57 02-11-w \.0~1 USil .5 

Pea-1m 57 ~·17·iS \,1 U5il 0.5 

PCI-1Zl2 57 02-11-16 <. 001 C\iil .s 

PCI-12o2 57 ~-17-85 <.1 ~;.' 0.5 

PCI·I242 S7 02·11-U <.001 USiL .5 

PCJ·I2•8 57 06·17·85 (.1 USil 0.5 

PCJ-1241 57 t2-l1-16 <.Oill U6/l .s 

PCJ-m• S7 06-17-i5 <.1 UG/l 0.5 

PCI·1251 17 02·11-li <.001 U&il .5 

PCJ-1200 17 06-17·55 <.1 U&/l 0.5 

PCI-1200 17 02·11·16 <.001 Uiil .5 

PCI·IU2 S7 e.-17-15 <.1 U6/l 0.5 

PERTIIAII 17 02-11-16 <1.0 U&iL .5 

: PP-DDD 17 ... 17-85 <.05 u&/L 0.5 

PP·IID 17 02·11·16 <.03 U6/L .5 

PP·DDE 57 16-17·&5 <.05 U6/L 

PP-IIE 17 02-11-16 <.~ 11&/L ··~ .s 

PP•IDT 17 .... 17-15 <.tS U&/L 0.5 

PP·DIT 17 02-11-16 <.03 UI/L .s 

PIOIIETIVI 17 02-11-16 <5.0 U&/L .5 

PIIIIPIIIIII 17 02-11-16 . <5.e 1:8/L .5 

SliiAZJII 17 02-11-16 <5.0 111/L .5 

TDIOII 17 16-li-115 <.1 Ul/l 0.5 

TO lOll 17 02-11-16 <1.0 U&/L .5. 

TDIAPIIIIE 17 e.-17-15 <.S Ul/l o.5 

m~M~E 17. 02-11-16 <.t5 .-JL .:! 

Tlllllll 17 02-11-16 <5.0 UIIL .s 

TIIFLURM.II 17 02-11-16 <5.0 111/L .s 

TIITHIIII 17 lr.l7·115 <.l UI/L o.s 

TIITHIOII 17 02-11-16 <l.O 11/L .5 

• • IIDT KTttTO 

73-729 - 93 - 14 
412 

i.4.1V'iJUAU. • t' 1 o 1 110 11 o 1111 I I to I o o • o o ""' 1010 """"""' o o • o I o o ..... •" , .. •-••• o o o .,.,o, •"" ,. ..... ,.,.,., ,, 

2,4,5-T sa 08-2'-54 · v.s uail u .. •• 

2.U-! 53 Oi·li·BS \ 3U US/L u.S 

::4,5-if iS Ci-2~·ii4 .. <~.~ u;;L l.S 

2.U·T~ sa 06-17-BS \ :~1 U~/L o.s 

2,4-D sa 01-29-84 <1.0 ~oiL 0.~ 

2,4·D 5I 06·17-BS (~~ USiL o.s 

Al,Cstua 5I 02·11-iO <S.O i:oil .s '1-m•~• 5I 02·11-Bo o.u ua•L .s 

Al.t<JN 5I ·fi·17-i5 \.01 ~5il o.s ~um 5I 02-11·86 <.OCS u&/L .5 

~lf~A triC 5I 06·17·65 <.OJ U&/l 0.5 

~lP~A IHC 5I 02·11·!6 <.uOS USil .5 

j~~~EnYN .51 02·11-Bi <M u&il .5 

ATRio!l~ 5I 02·11·!6 \5.0 Ui/L .s 

am ii4C 5I 06·17-U <.02 U&/l 0.5 

BETA iHC :sa 02·11·86 <.005 U6/l .5 

CARBWa II 02·11· .. <5.0 U&il .5 

CA~PAIIYL 5I 02·11·86 <5.0 U&/l .5 

CARiCFliRM II 02-11-86 <5.0 u&/l .5 

CHLDallt\!IE 5I 06·17-15 <.02 u&il 0.5 

CMI.O~OAIIE II 02·11·86 (,,)5 u&/l .s 

DElTA lilt 5I 06-J7-15 (,01 u&IL 0.5 

OELTA iiiC • 02·11·86 <.005 u&/L .5 

DIAUIIOII • 06·17-15 <.5 UI/L 0.5 

tiAZIIIOII • 02-11·86 <t.v u&tL .5 

DIELDIIII • 06·17-15 <.G5 ll&iL 0.5 

IIELDRII • 02-11-86 <.OJ 11&/L .5 

Elittiili.FAII I. II "06-IT·U <.05 u&/L 0.5 

EllaGSUl.FM I • 02-11-86 <.01 Uli/L .5 

WOSULFAII II • 06-17-15 <.05 Uli/L 0.5 

EIIMSUI.Fioll II • 02-11·86 <.01 !JilL .5 

ElltGSUlFAI SULFATE 5I 06·17·15 <.1 06/L . 0.5 

mGSULFAII Siii.FAT£ 5I 02·11-86 <,l u&/L .5 

EJIJIIII • 06-17·15 <.05 U6iL 0;5 

El"vllll • 02-11-86 <.01 u&/L .5 

Elilllll .. WilDE • M-17-15 (,J Uli/l 0.5 

EIDITI EMYOE II 02-11-16 <.Ol UIIL .5 

ETMIOI • M-17-15 <.1 u&/l 0.5 

ETHTOII • 02-11·86 <1.0 Uli/L .5 

lUTHI OII • M-17·15 <1.0 UI/L 0.5 

~ICI 5I 02-U.f6 <1. u&IL .5 

HEPTA::Il.IIR 5I 16-17-15 <.01 U&/L 0.5 

!IPTACMLIIR • 02-11-16 (,005 u&il .5 

HEPT.0U.EPOIIGE 5I M-17-15 <.02 u&IL 0.5 

HEPTACII.GR EfOIIIiE • 02-11-16 <.005 U6/L .5 

mtiWIE • 16-17-15 <.5 u&/L 0.5 

mtiiAIIi • 02-11-16 ( 1.0 llliil .s 

LlllltOII£ • 16-17-15 <.OJ u&/L 0.5 

Lllllftllt • 12-11-16 (,005 u&il .5 

llollJ TMIDII 5I M-17-15 (.5 u&il 0.5 

NLATIIIOI 5I 02-11-16 <1.0 Ui/L .5 

II£Tli1111Yi. II 12-11-16 <5.~ 11&/L .5 

IICtiiOnCil.Dit 5I 12-11·86 <.l U&IL .5 

DP-m • 06·17-15 (,t-5 u&il 0.5 

GP·IDI 5I t2·11-16 <.OJ u&/L .5 

IIP·IDE • 06·17·85 <.v5 :JG/L o.s 

GP·DiiE 5I 02-11-16 \,01 U&/L .s 

llNDT 5I ·06-17-85 \,05 UGIL o.s 

DI'-&DT • 02·11·86 <.Ol Ul/l .5 

18 •llilt DETECTEI 
413 

.. • ,· "!:JI"• :, ....... ~., .... :,.o •"''" 'wA .:,.:,A.,~·"•~:-; .. .:.~ ........ ,.·,,. ,.,,,:_,. o• ...... ·.:,.; ;,.~C. '"' 

rf!!.,h.•-11_ .·:'" •• ···• ............... S!.\.::1':: .•••••. : ~'" ~tHE ";.t.it ..•. U~IZ~S ~Jl;I_D.:Frw ;Ri 

~~~~ .... ·.G.' 

~:~-1Y:., 

;~i·:~'~o 

P:S-!2'1 

rc9-m: 

;:a-•~=2 

fCH24~ 

ftH~42 

tr.:H241 

PC!·12;a 

PC&·I=54 

Ftl-1254 

Ptl·12iG 

FCI-m-) 

PCJ·m2 

Fif.TIWC 

Pi'-Dflll 

FP·DI~ 

PP·IM 

PP·Dt£ 

PP·iiDT 

PP-DDT 

PR!liiETifl 

PROPHioll 

Slft~lliiE 

lOla 

TO Iiiii 

TQJ~if£11£ 

TtJ~HE!I£ 

TRiml!i 

TRiFL!JaALII 

TRITHIGII 

TRITHIOII 

IIi • IDT DtTECTED 

59 

sa 

58 

58 

58 

58 

sa 

58 

58 

sa 

58 

5I 

5I 

5I 

5I 

5I 

• 5I 

5I 

5I 

5I 

5I 

5I 

5I 

5I 

5I 

Sl 

Sl 

5I 

5I 

• 5I 

5I 

• 5I 

1)6·17-:l 

vHH~ 

oa-17-ii5 

02-IH$ 

-~-17-iS 

02·1Ha 

(oi·l7·i5 

.. o=-u-aa 

v6·17·i5 · 

~HI·!:. 

06-1'1-i~ 

02-ll·&a 

06·17·ii5 

02·11-&e 

06·17-15 

02-11-16 

06-17-15 

02-11-· 

06-17-115 

02-11-86 

06-17-15 

02-11-86 . 

06-17-&5 

02-11-t6 

12-U-16 

02-11-· 

02-lr-86 

06-17-IS 

02-ll-16 

06-17-15 

02-11-16 

02-ll-t6 

02-11-86 

•n-a 

02-U-16 

n .;; L • 

\.1 ~Si~ J.5 

<.•)~! u::.-L ·• 5 :: .l :.til v.: <. ~~~ l!ii:~ .s 

:.1 uiiL o.~ 

\.~u~ usn. .5 

\,: ~Sil J.5 

<.1 UGtL C.5 

(.6~1 ~liL .5 

<.I ~ii/l ~-5 

<.VOl U&; ~ .5 

<.1 u&/L G.S 

<.001 u&/L .5 

\,1 UliiL 0.5 

\1,6 US/L .5 

<.05 u&/L 0.5 

\.03 Uii/L ,5 

(,05 ii3/L 0.5 

<.03 US/L .5 

.:.GS Uii/L 0.5 

<.0~ UGIL .5 

<5.0 Ui/L .5 

<5.0 ~6/L .5 

1!.0 ~ill .5 

(,I US/L 0.5 

<1.0 u&il .5 

<.5 iiS/L 0.5 

<.05 u&/L .5 

<5.0 11&/L .5 

<!.0 116/L .5 

<.1 U&/L O.S 

<1.0 11&/L ,5 
EADER"S OICEST 

lcrry 

ofrhe 

onon, 

•ppon 

know 

.tasa 

there 

•rron 

., such 

exec-

! th.u 

btion 

•ugar 

swith 

U(hcr 

J,cor-

~undrecent 

. sur198~ 

irat.liN.Y.). 

1 scgnochouivc 

go to 

!0 MCt 

b•bly 

•utual 

N.l.) 

·serve 

o~l in- •surcs 

&hal an itollccd protram is eat 

pn1 10 bo looked ac ill - ol public policy buc in - ol policicall.,.,...linl." he says. A new Rcapn Adlftinistrabon 

propOsal to improve our supr policy reprnenu a seep ia lhc riJhl direction. It would cut by 011e.rhird 

the suhsidiz:td loan rate 10 proca· 

son. This cut would help consum· 

en pay less for supr and 01hcr ~wccccncd produces. The _. 

would also aivc .. traftlicion PlY· 

mcncs"' to compensate powers for 

chcir loss in earnings. This payment, which could reach St.t billion, would phase out Oftf four 

years. Thctr two measura would lower prices and pressure~ 

farmers either 10 become dlicient. to 

divcnify 0< 10 J<l OUI n( chc sup< 

· business. Over chc long cmn. chc measures could save consumcn billions and help dcmoc:rxia .a.n.L But clunp: is far from certain. 

Unlns ordinary Amcricau protest 

to their Congressmen. lhe supr lobby will continue ro block any cutbacks in the supr propam. Uftdc Sam should noc 'h.,c became "Uncle Sucar"'-codc:lli• a riny 

group at tremendous COR to neryone else. A$ Rcprctcnaativc Solarz put it, "Rarely have so few curacted 

so much from so many." 

414 

~~ders 

- 1\:T>igest 

A1'11& IVNIINAa&aT I shopper 

purchata cereal, mayon· noise, Rawoml yogun, a canned ham, cake mia and icc 

acam. Eao:h produce -..ins supr chac COlli chc food prnduccr chrcc 

times the world supr price-a COli 

chac is, of counc, posocd on 10 che 

.-umcr.llccausc chc price of •ua· ar is mandated by l.w. it amounu 

co a hidden sales ua chac ICII back Americans narly SJ billion 1 year. • In •916. mouecains of raw sugar were sold 10 communitt 

China. The U.S. O.parcmcnc of Aariculturc's Commodity Credit Corporation paid at )call tl ccntl 

a pound to acquire and store the 

•n.ooo metric tnns: it unloaded chc swea ttufT for leu than five cents p:r pound. Loss to the American 

taxpayer: over $.f~ million. • c;uvcrnmcnt-nundatcd reductions in foreign suaar impons 

hd~ force chc dooinK of Brook- lyn s Revere Supr Refinery in 

March ·~· chrowing 4~0 employ- ees out of work. 

The conscqucncct of che federal 

C:~'~=~~:.~'M.:~~~:. t::: law by some of d\c n.ation 's shrewd-

'" lobbyists, it wastes ta~epayer dol· lars and wreaks economic havoc on 

U.S. allies. The m1in beneficiaries are some 12,000 to 15,000 sugar 

farmers-representing less than one 

:r.r'Jil ·.r.wr.n·~ 

We all pay in 

this classic case 

of a special interest 

prevailing over 

the national good 

The 

Unsweetened 

Truth 

About Sugar 

Subsidies 

BY THOMAS K. BILLIN(.;TON 

percent 01 America.n aari(uhurc. '"If America's consumers knew 

what ConJfCU had done to 1hem 

through the supr program, there \I. 

be a real cry of oucragc," SJ)'S Rep 
415 

NORTHEAST DADE 

BISCAYNE BOULE\(ARD COALITION 

'20360 HIGHLAND LAKES BLVD. 

NORTH DADE- MIAMI, FlDAIDA 33179 

(3061 .932-788~ . 

The Honorable Repre11entati.ve Gardner 

Th~ Capitol . . . . 

Tal1ahas&ee,Florida 32399-1300 . · . . 

.o.ear·· Sir • . re:swim Bill 

. lfe :·~ve just beeom& aware of ·an amenciltent proposed 

for the "Swim Bill", . ThiS· amendment will· destroy the 

intent of the· bill. Please defeat thi' Rotenb.eraer· and 

. !'lciy lAnds u~ent' or k;l.li the bill bee.U••·w1th .. the - '. amendment 1 t ·wfll d~ mote tuli'III: than . &i)od~ ' . '..: ' . . .. . 

Thank· you . .. 

-UII~ ... ~~=z ·. :.- .... ~"-''A ... 'J/l/1:/·Pi'atnicK ,President 

. . ~ .. ... .. . .. . : . -~ 

c~c .'-l!ept-esentativ~ w.iter· Youna : 

Representative Ronald Silver 

\IIUA-
416 

Ill; .. . : ....... ............. ... STUD< .. ..... . 51'1 1).4!E :;Ai.LIE .. .. uriiTS S~il:i.~PTN tftl 

-~-..c 52 ~HB-9~ \O.vi•7 ~&ll c.s 

·c 52 07-24-9~ •: 0.<••)7 U~ l Q.5 

••c 52 CZ·~l·SO \C. 07 ~: :.. M 

'"c S2 08-~~-8~ (Q. 11(17 ~&il s 

!"' ·• S2 uHJ-so <0.1i~7 U&IL 0.5 

("'~·~ATE S2 0::-11-86 \S.O U&/L .5 

(;. ;: ~~;Yl 52 G2-11-B6 <5.(1 ll&/L 

,5 

c~; r:F~,;.~ 52 \.2-11-U \5.0 ~6/L .5 

("~ ~· iohE 52 65-2N9 Q U6/L 0.5 

CoiLC~ :,~~E 52 00-25-i9 N~ Uiiil 0.5 c;;,c;.:·r.liE 52 07-24-79 Ill UG/l 0.5 

Cktmoll.r: 52 Vl-21-79 Ill Ui/l 0.5 

r~LmitHE S2 05-13-BO <O.OOi UG/L 0.5 

tH. :ii&~•E S2 "-&;-ill) <O.~ UG/L 0.5 

CHLC~3 1i£ 52 Oi-25-10 <0.25 Ui/l 

0. 5 

tHLG~~o\IIE 52 01-oa-80 <0.25 U6/L 0.5 

cat~~«~•~£ 52 07-24-80 <0.25 U&/l o.s 

thlilRC~NE 52 oa-o4-80 <0.25 U&/l 0.5 

t~W\ui.!IE S2 oa-2o-80 <O.~ li&/L 0.5 

Ciil~RiiAKE S2 09-Gl-80 <0.007 U8/L o.s tHUlf:D~~E S2 11-12-10 <0.02 U&/L o.s. CP.t.~~r.r..~E '12 06-17-IS <.02 UI/L 0.5 

r:·:LORi:oANE 52 . 02-11-86 • <.05 UlfL .s DD~ S2 G5-29-79 Ill UIIL 0.5 

~-~ S2 Oi-25-79 • UIIL e.5 

DDD S2 07-24-79 IIi u&IL 0.5 

DDV S2 01-21-79 • U&ll •• 5 

DDD S2 05-IJ-80 <0.02 UIIL t.S 

DD& S2 Oi-ot-80 <0.02 U&IL 0.5. 

~~· S2 06-25-80 · <0.02 115/L o.s 

m 52 07-GB-80 (0.02 116/l o.s D~D S2 07-24-80 <0.02 U&/l 0.5 

m S2 oa-o4-eo <0.62 U&/L 6.5 

~ul S2 ~B-l0-80 <0.02 U&/L o.s 

GDD 52 09-ol-SO <0.02 UG/l 0.5 

DOD S2 11-12-80 <0.02 US/l 0.5 

IDE S2 ~5-29-79 liD US/L 0.5 

GDE ' . 52 16-25-" .. 11&/l o.s 

18£ S2 07-24-79 Q Ul/l' o.s 

DDE S2 01-21-79 Iii u&ll e.s 

DGE 52 05-IJ-80 <0.02 u&/L o:s 

DDE S2 06-ot-80 <0.02 US/L 0.5 

m S2 Oi-25-80 <0.02 115il o.s 

DDE 52 07-uB-80 <0.02 Uill 0.5 

DD£ S2 07-24-80 <M2 u&/l o.s 

DDE 12 oa-o4-ao \0.~2 U6/L 0.5 

m 52 09-<G-80 <0.02 U6/l 0.5 

DGE S2 09-03-60 <0.02 U&/l 0.5 

DGE S2 11-12-ao (0.002 U&/l o.s ~DT S2 05-29-79 . 1m U&il 0.5 

m 52 06-25-79 Iii U6/L 0.5 

DCT S2 07-24-79 li1l u&/L o.s 

m 52 ~8-21-79 Iii u&/L 0..5 

OOT 52 ~-13-80 <0.~2 U&/L o.s 

m S2 C6-1l9-2~ <M2 U&/l 0.5 

not 52 'H~iW <O. 02 ~'ill 0.5 

m $2 OH&-BC 

\0.02 UEil 0.5 

m S2 Oi-24-BG 

<0.,2 US/l o.s 

m $2 ca-o4-So (0.02 u&/l 

.0.5 
417 

:.L ,~ ... , , .>r•··• "" .,.,,.., .. " .-" ...... . ,. ... ~ .. ... ~ ... ...... ............ - •:,;~ ~·,~ .. . ....•..•.. .. . .. . .... .... ~;. .C:t. ••••••• S .. ~ :·;.iC -.,.;,r_ut •.• • ~~Hi S 5~ L6 ~f H ,~, 

""1 52 i·S-20-S•l \O,U~ U6tl 0.5 

~~T 52 0~-~=--Q(i' ( 0. (12 i:5 / L ~. 5 

m 52 11-IZ-S<l \UI ~GIL ~.5 

•ELio t~i: 52 Gio-17-aS (. 01 U5il 0.5 

~ttl~ 5:-iC 52 02-ll·Sio \.6~5 u;;;L . • 5 

tE~m~ 52 05-2~-79 ND ilo il 0.5 

LE~ETC~ 52 Oio-25-79 ND ~S/L ~.5 . 

~E~ETON 52 01-24-79 M[• UG/l o.5 

LE~nON 52 09-21-79 . NO Uii/l 0.5 

DtiomuN 52 05·29-79 NO U&il ii.S 

DlAIJ~tN 52 o•·25-i9 liD iiS/l 0.5 

flloi!IH~ 52 07-24-79 .. ~&/l M 

mm\lll 52 118-21-i9 Ill) U6/l 0".5 

mm::H 52 06-17-85 <.5 US/l 0.5 

DIAmCII 52 02-11-Ba <1.0 Uii/l .5 

~~m~l• S2 05-29-79 liD U&/L 0.5 

DIELDRIN S2 06-25-79 ~~ U&/l 0.5 

DIELDRIN 52 07-~4-79 liD U&iL 0.5 

DiEL~IN S2 011-21-79 1111 US/L o.s 

DIELDRIN S2 os-iHo <0.02 u&/L 0,5 

Dl£l.DRIN 12 06-09-80 <0.02 u&/L 0.5 

DIELDRII S2 06-25-80 <0.02 11&/L 0.5 

DIELDRII 52 " 07-o&-80 <0.02 U&/L o.s 

DIELDRII 52 t7-24-80 <0.02 11&/L 0.5 

IIEI.DRii 52 08-04-10 <0.02 11&/l . 8.5 

IIElDRll 52 08-2o-IO <0.02 U6ll 0.5 

ei£Uill 52 09-Gl-10 <0.02 ll&ll 0.5 

D!ELDRil 52 11-12-80 <0.084 U&fl 0.5 

DIELDRII 52 06-17-85 <.05 U&/L o.s 

DIELDRIN 52 02-11-Ba <.01 11&/L .5 

EIID03ULFM 12 05-29-79 .Q U&/L 0.5 

EKVCSULFI.II •52 06-25-79 II U8/L 0.5 

£NtC:S!!!.FArt . 52 07-24-79 d u&/L 0.5 

E~!lilSULFilll 52 08-21-79 .. 116/l 0.5 

EN~SULFM '52 05-13-~ <0.02 UI/L 0.5 

EliUOSillFilll u 06-ot-80 (0.02 U&/l 0.5 

ENLOSUI.FM S2 06-25-80 <0.02 u&/L o.s 

bi95Ul.FM 52 07-GI-10 <0.02 U&/l o.s Ell~ Ali 52 07-24-10 <0.02 116/l · t.5 

ENtCSULFM 52 08-04-80 <o.t2 U&fl e.5 

EII»DSOli.FM •52 11-2o-ao <o.fl2 U&/L 0.5 

UIOSUlFM S2 09-Gl-80 <0.02 U&IL 0.5 

EIDOSl:lFilll I 12 t6-17-85 <.05 116/L t.5 

EKDOSiJLFAII I 52 02-ll-86 <.01 11&/L .5 

EIDQSiilF~ II 12 06-17-85 <.05 U&/L 0.5 

EMiiiiSULFilll II 12 02-li-Ba <.OJ 11&/l .5 

E!IL:iS~lF~ SUlJAlE 12. 06-17-85 (,1 111/l 0.5 

ENCDoULFI.II Sli.FAlE · 12 02-ll-86 <.l UI/L .s EIDRI~ 12 05-29-79 MD U&/L 0.5 

UDRII 52 tt.-25-79 liD UGIL o.s 

ENCIIJI 52 07-24-79 liD UG/L o.s 

bllRJI S2 01-21·79 • Ul/l 0.5 

£lim• 52 05-13-80 (0.92 Uliil 0.5 

ENDRII S2 06-G9-IO <0.02 Ulill 0.5 

Er.,llli ~ 06-25-BO <O.O:< Ui/L 0.5 

EII'JI!I 52 07-118-IU <0.02 u&/L 0.5 ~1'1!!1 52 07-~4-80 \0,02 11&/L 0.5 

ENtiA IN i2 a9-o4-ilo <0.02 ll&il · 0.5 

E~li~l· 52 01-~~9~ <o.G2 il&/L. 0.5 
418 

.~"'·:.~·'.v ..........•.......•.•••.••• )IM.;...,t •••••••• ;.·:~ "'"'t ,.~ ... c. •••• I..O\io; ;:,:1r~a."r'n 1111 

e·.~~ iN 52 G9-Q3-6-l <~.02 ~S/L (1,5 

[\:::!• 52 06-iH5 <.G5 UH 0.5 

[ ·.~ r !N 52 01-11-S~ \.01 l5iL .5 

E~i-oi~ AL&E~~~E S2 06-17-SS \,I lii1L ~.5 

r~;~l:i hLCEWr:E S2 02-u-so <.Ol UGI~ .s ~:n:J"I 52 OS-2H9 NO i:&/l o.s E~a:t.tt S2 06-25-H h1 U~il 0.5 

EH!C~ S2 .. ~7-2H~ 115 u:uL M 

ETH10N 52 01-21-79 Na U6/L o.s 

f.lrii:jN 52 06-17-iS <.1 USil o.s 

EirllON 52 02-11-~i (1.0 liiiil .5 

&UI~I~N 52 05-:H'I lit U&/l 0.5 

GUTHJDH 52 0.-25-7t Nil Uii/L o.s 

cUI ~JON 52 07-24-79 MD US/l o.s SJI~IOli 52 01-21-7'1 MD U&/l 0.5 

6UIH10X 52 05-1~-116 {2.0 U&/l u.s 

SUTHICN 52 0.-69-80 <2.0 U&/l 0.5 

E•JT~IQII 52 06-25-86 <2.0 U&/l 0,5 

6UT~1'~ 52 07-oB-ICI <2.0 US/l 0.5 

SUTIIl!lll 52 OH4-80 <2.0 U&/L o.s 

GIHH10N 52 01-.:14-80 <2.~ U&/L 0.5 

SUTHiilN 52 01-20-BU <2.8 U&/L 0.5 

euta10N 52· 09-03-80 <2.0 U&/l 0.5 

&uTHIOII 52 06-17-85 <1.0 116/L 0.5 

EUTH10N 52 02-11-86 <1. 116/l- .5 

HEPT~HLOII 52 05-29-79 U 116/L 0.5 

liEPTo\CiitilR 52 06-25-79 ICI U&/L 0.5 

HEPTACHLOR 52 07-24-79 a lii/L 0.5 

HEPTACiilDR 52 11-21-79 llllli/L o.s 

h£PTACiilOII 52 05-1HO <0 • .,7 u&/L 0.5 

liEPTAClii.DR 52 0.-GHCI <0.007 u&/L o.s 

ktPTAi:IUR .52 16-25-BU <M07 116/L 0.5 

J;~;i~C!il.OR 52 07-GB-80 <0.007 u&/L 0.~ 

ho?r~ti41.Dil 52 07-24-80 <0.007 u&/l 0.5 

liEPif!CHI.CR ·52 01-04-80 <0.007 U&/L 0.5 

~i:FUCHI.OR E2 01-20-80 <0.007 u&/L 0.5 

HEPUCH'-DR 52 09-03-80 <0.007 U&/L 0.5 

r.£PTACHLOR 52 0.-17-85 <.01 116/L o.s 

mTA.:HLCt 52 tZ..II-86 <.005 llli/L .5 

liEPTAC;tt_o;l EPliiiDE 52 05-29-79 NBIIIi/L 0.5 

HEmCHlilR EPOIIK .52 0.-25-79 Ill Ui/L 0.5 

HEP!AC~i.~R £POIIDE 52 17-24-79 a U&/L G.S 

~E~mHLOii Ef&IIDE 52 01-21-79 II u&/L 0.5 

HEmtt4l.OR EPGIIDE 52 05-ll-10 <6.01 U6/L o.s 

HEHIICHi.i:R EPQIID£ 12 OH9-8~ <~.01 U&/L 0.5 

Hi:PUCh,_Ofi EP!IllDE 52 06-25-80 <0.01 ~6/L 0.5 

J;CPT 01:11:.. OR [POll DE 52 07~i-8~ <0.01 U&/L 0.5 

liEPT ;.c;r.,QR £PmDE . 52" 01-GHO <0.01 UI/L 1).5 

HHT~HI.CR EFOIID£ 52 11-2¥-Bil <0.01 UI/L 0.5 

~EPr~clil!$ EFniiUE 52 09-ol-ao <0.01 U&/L 0.5 

;;;;T~if..Ga EHiil~ 52 06-17-85 <.02 u&/L 0.5 

~.;m:iii.CR £FGI1to£ 52 02-11-86 <.OG5 U&il .5 

HcPTioiii.Qa EPDUD£ 52 07-24-80 <0.61 U&/l 0.5 

KELTK~NE 52 0.-17-85 <.5 U6/L 0.5 

KELTHt\N£ S2 t2-11-&6 <1.0 U&/l .5 

LiNJ~ 52 e-29-n ND Ui/l 0.5 

Ll~i:A.'i£ 52 06-25-79 MD U&/l 6.5 

llNiit.riE 52 07-24-79 liD ~6/L. 0.5 

llMj;.t;£ 52 01-21:-79 liD Uli/l · 0.5 
419 

t:·4~:. .· ,~ sz \15 .. l3 .. ~1l •.O.•iCil ~o1l (1.5 

~:••:: 52 ~--~H~ \U.·;67 U~,l ~-5 

~ :s:-:. ,~ s: Vo .. ~~ .. a~ 

( I). 0~ 7 l!6i!.. (1.5 

Lifo·;~~ 52 Oi-ilo-au ~. ·:· vi u:;:L 0.5 

LH;:~ 52 OH4·a~ \&. ,;7 Ui/L ~.5 

Ll~~••E 52 ua-uHu <~. 

!•u7 ~iiiL 0.5 

Ll~t~\E 52 CN\i-8\1 'O.ou7 u;;L 0.5 

u••~;;£ S2 ~11-VHO \O,Ii67 U6/L 0.5 

li~: ,~E 52 ue·IH5 <.61 US/L 0.5 

m::~'l£ S2 fi~-11-Bll <.Oii5 115/l .5 

P.;.lAi~l91 52 05·29-79 ID U6/L o.s ~olLitTWICN S2 . 06·25·79 liD U6/L 0.5 

1'1\LUHID• 52 07-24-i9 ID 116/L 0.5 

'ALATIIiilll 52 01-21-79 liD 113/L 0.5 

llio~IITNIO~ 12 os-n-ao <M1 U6/L 0.5 

r.AlATHIG.~ S2 o.-ot-80 <0.7 116/L 0,5 

11:4LATHIOI 52 06-25-80 <0.7 U6/L 0.5 

IIAI.IITKIIIII S2 07-v&-86 

<0.7 Uill 0,5 

1'1\WHION 12 07-24·80 <0.1 U6/L 0.5 

IIAUTHIIIII S2 &8-GC-10 <0.7 116/L 0.5 

I!AUTHlOll S2 oa-20-ao <0.7 116/L 0.5 

ftALATHlllll S2 ot-ol-80 (0, 7 11&/L 0.5 

NLATHIIIII 52 06·11-15 <.5 U6/L •• 5 

NLATHIIIII 52 02-11·86 <1.0 .IL .5 

1!£111\Pm• 52 02'-11-86 <5.ot 111/L .5 

IIETHOIYCilDil 52 05-29-79 111111/L 0.5 

I!ET~ntlt.illl S2 06-25-19 .. IIIIL 8.5 

I'IEl~CntHLDII S2 17·24-19 .. 116/L 8.5 

I'.£TNOJ'iCHlDII 12 01-21-79 Ml UIIL 0.5 

PETHOXYC!Ii.GI 12 05-13·80 <0.3 UI/L 0.5 

r.ETHOH.:lii.GR 52 06-o9-80 <0.3 116/L 0.5 

I!ETHOUCilllll S2 ~-25-H <0.3 li&/L 8.5 

II£TH~lVC!!I.GII 52 07-v&-10 <t,3 US/L t.5 

~H•):rCI!i.lill S2 07·24-11(1 <0.3 llt/L 0.5 

m~OftC.'Il. OR S2 oa-oc-e-~ <0.3 11&/L 0.5 

IIETHQXYCIG.iJR S2 oi-2o-10 <0.3 II&IL 0.5 

IICTIIOIYCiii.OII S2 ot-ol-10 <0.3 U6/L o.:t 

IIETIIOIYCHUII S2 02·11·86 <.3 Ui/L .5 

!!ET~YL PAI!AiNl. S2 15-29-19 • U6/L 0.5 

IIEi~YL PAR~TIIICII S2 06-25-19 ... IL 0.5 

llfTHYL Pl~ATHIIII 12 t7-24-19 .... /L 0.5 

IIETHV'. fM!ATHIIII 52 ot-21-19 llii .. /L 0.5 

RIR£1 12 05-29-79 II U6/L 0.5 

NIREI 52 06·25-79 liD U6/L 0.5 

RIR£1 12 07·24-79 111115/L 0.5 

II REI 12 ·-21·19. • Uill 8.5 

111£1 12 05-JHO <t.05 UI/L 8.5 

llll£1 12 06-09·80 <0.05 lii/L 0.5 

I IIIII 12 06·25-10 <0.05 U6/L 0.5 

RIR£1 12 01-os-ae <US U&/L 0.5 

II REI 52 07·24·80 (0.05 U6/L 0.5 

IIIR£1 S2 o&-04-10 <0-65 116il 0.5 

Rili£1 52 08-2D-80 <0-65 Ui/L 0.5 

RIP.U S2 Ot-o3·10 <0.05 USIL 

0.5 

IJ·DGI 12 06·17-85 .~ 5 Ui/L 0.5 

OP·,DD 52 02·11-h <.~1 U&iL .5 

OP·DK 52 06-li-95 ~.05 ~6/L o.s 

OI'·DDE 52 02·11-U (,01 US/L .5 

01'-IDT S2 Gll-17-85 <.65 Ui/L 0.5 
420 

, r . .., ...... -,. M•t•.t ... v,...c, -·~ .,,.,. r.,. C.•'-=- ~,._.~ ...,.,....._ .~ """ "'r'" .. ,..,. .. ''" ''""~ • 

COP.P&:iill) ........................... SU.CPE ........ SliP ~~Tf v ... , ..... IJ!WS =~~lS.!iHH :M, 

tr .. ~~i 52 02-li-So \.•ij u~.L .5 

:.~,H~Jc·• $2 05-29-71 H~ U~•j. o.5 

p,:.; ATWIJ~ 52 06-25-7; ~ii ••it G.S 

r.:a!hi~N 52 07-24-79 hD uiiL ~.5 

PitmHiO~ 52 05·21-H ~D US/L .:.5 

p,;;;ATHI~~ S2 05-13-90 ,~.z ~;;;t 0.5 

p;.,.;t~IC~ 52 Gi-,n-sv \u.3 CSil u.s ;,:,m~J~~ S2 .. ot.-:5-BU <v. 3 u~il u.s PA~~r~:o~ S2 07-0i·BU · <v.l U&tL 0.5 

F~~ATHJC~ S2 07·24-lv \~.3 U&/L b.5 

~~R;.TH~~~ 52 ·~-iO <O.: USil 0.5 

f(,aA!HIC~ S2 GI-Zt-i!O \O,l Ui/L ~.5 

PAR.<T~ION S2 OHl-ail ,·o.3 uiiL 0.5 

P"m~ICII S2 06-17-85 <.z u&iL 0.5 

hliliTHIOM 12 02-11-ili <I Uoil .s 

ftl 12 05-4H9 ~~ U&/L 0.5 

PCI 12 06•25-79 1111 Ui/L 0.5 

PCI 12 07-24-79 Ill U&/L 0.5 

PCI S2 01·21-H 1111 U&/L 0.5 

FCI 12 05-IHO <v.~S 1:6/L o.s 

PCJ S2 06-of-a,) <O.:lS US/L 0.! 

ro 12 06·25-10 <0.25 U6/L 0.5 

PCI . S2 17-01-10 '<0. 25 1.'&/L o.s 

Pel S2 17-24-10 (0.25 Uli/l 0.5 

f'CI S2 IH4-Iol <0.25 116/l 0.5 

PCI 12 01·21-10 <0.25 U6/L 0.5 

PCI S2 OHl-illl <~.25 UGiL u.s 

f'CI-1016 12 11-12-10 <0.02 US/l o.s 

PCI·IO" S2 06-17-15 c:a UlliL 0.5 

PCI-IOI6 12 02-II-116 <."'I 116/L .5 

Pti-I221 a· 06·17-BS <.1 U6/L 0.5 

rea-m• 12 02-11-116 (.001 U6/L .5 

PCI-1232 S2 06-11-115 <.1 U&/L 0.5 

PCI-1232 S2 02~11-116 <.001 Ui/L .5 

P::t-I242 12 11-12-10 co.os u&IL 0.5 

PCl-1242 12 06-11-15 <.1 U&/l 0.5 

PCi-I242 . 12 02-11-116 <.OOI U&/l .5 

PCI-1241 12 11-12-10 <0.07 116/L o.s 

ftB-124; 12 . 06-ll-13 <.1 U&/L o.s 

PCI-!241 S2 tz-ll-116 <.001 UI/L .~ 

PCJ-1254 S2 11·12-10 (0.04 tiGil 0.5 

PCl-1254 S2 .... l7-15 <.1 il&/l 0.5 . 

ftl-12~ 12 t2-ll-16 <.OOI U6/L .5 

PCa-mo ·12 U-12-10 <O.C4 u&il 0.5 

PCI-1260 12 06·17-13 <.1 Uli/l (1.5 

fti-I26G 12 02-u-a <.001 lfS/l .s 

PCI-l2i! 12 .... 17-13 <.I lii/l o.s 

PERTHAIIE 12 02-11-U <I.G Ui/l .5 

FHDIIATE 12 05-Zt-79. o uill o.s 

PIIOP.ATE, S2 06·25-79 1011i/L 0.5 

PHGlAlt S2 17-24-79 Q 116/l 0.5 

PIIOI!ATE S2 01-21-79 .. ti6/l o.s 

PIIOSDI!Ill 12 05-Zt-79 1111 Ui/l 0.5 

FHOia.J• 12 06-25-79 ID 11&/L o.s 

PIIGSOAil 12 tl-24-79 II UI/L 0.5 

I'MOSORt• 12 01·21-79 liD US/l o.s 

Pf'-&31 12 06-17-15 r.os ~'ilL 0.5 

Pf-G~ 12 02-11-116 <.Ol UI/L 

~-IDE 52 Oi•l7-~ <.CS UI/L 0.5 ·' 
421 

Cllt!Pc:!~ .. , •• , .. ... . . ... . ...... . .. . STA."£ ........ Sll!' ilt\T£ VMI.~t .... ijN(iS S~.FLS.tPTH l"l 

;r-~ E 52 02-IJ-a~ .~~ u~,L . 

'" fHDT 5~ O•·IH5 \. ~5 l'~·L v.s 

•P-:·OT 52 <•H!-E~ (. ~; ~!iil . 5 

~~mT~tH sz OZ-11-96 \5.0 ~Stl .5 

Fi::lP~~, 52 02-11-so i5.o ~SiL .5 

~Q,~;;L 52 05-29-i~ N~ UG iL 0.5 

P.O~h£L 52 0.-2~-7~ NO Uotl u.5 

RG:illtl 52 07-24-ii ~0 USiL ~.5 

RJ~ ;EL 52 ~8-21-79 NO U6iL 0.5 

SIP.~&IME S2 02-11-io <5. 0 UoiL .5 

STRO!Ioll£ S2 05-29-79 ao Ui· L 0.5 

STiOIA!iE S2 06-U-H llii Uiil u.s 

5TU&A.'E Sl 07-24-H w• l.:iiL 1),5 

STi0841i£ S2 01-21-H NO ~il o.s 

TEl lOll S2 06-17-85 (,1 li&/l 0.5 

TEDID~ :s2 82-11-116 <1.0 USil ;5 

TOlo\I'HU£ 52 05-29-79 lit U&/l 0.5 

_TDiloPMEIIE 12. 06-25-79 NO ~6/L M 

TOIAPHCiiE S2 07-24-79 Ill U&/L o.s 

TDIAPHEII£ 52 08-21-79 MD Uill o.s 

TOIAPHEII£ S2 05-13-80 <0.25 U&/L 0.5 

TOIAPIIEII£ S2 06-At-80 . <0.25 u&/L 0.5 

TOIAPIIII£ S2 06-25-80 <0.25 u&/L 0.5 

TDIAPIIEII£ S2 07-tl-80 <0.25 u&/L 0.5 

T01Wol£il£ S2 07-24-80 <0.25 U&/L o.5 

TDIAfliEii£ ~ OH4-IO <0.25 U&/L o.5 

101/oPHDIC S2 ••eo <0.25 l!i/l o.5 

TOIAPIOE S2 09-03-llo) <0.25 U&/L o.5 

TOIAMIIE S2 06-17-85 <.5 u&/L 0.5 

TOtAPHEII£ S2 02-11-S. <.05 US/L .5 

TRIAZIIIE i2 02-11-86 <5.0 U&/L .s 

TIIFWALIN 52 05-29-79 liD US/L ·0,5 

TRIFLiliALIM 52 06-25-79 •o u&it 0.5 

TIIFLURALIN 12 07-24-79 MD u&/L 0;5 

TIIFLUR!li.IM S2 01-21-79 MD U&/L 0.5 

TIIFLWLIN 52 02-11-16 <5.0 u&/L .5 

TlllHIOII S2 05-29-79 1111 U&/L 0.5 

lRITHIOII S2 06-25-79 • u&/L 0,5 

1111TH10ll S2 07-24-79 liD liii/L 0.5 

TlllHIOII S2 01-21-79 • UB/L o.s 

liiTHICI S2 •n-as <.1 u&/L o.s TIIT~IIil S2 02-11-16 (1,0 U&/L .s 
422 

COIU'CUNO ........................... STA.Ci:£ •••••••• SliP ~~TE VoliJE •••• U~!TS 5~.i'LS.:iPT~ i~l 

1,4,5-T Sl ca-:;-;~ ''.

1

.5 ~~/L 0.5 

2,4.5-T Sl oi&-17-35 ..:;.; u.::t \•.5 

2,4,5-T~ Sl ~5-2H9 ~~ l;;il v.5 

2,t,5-Tf Sl ~-25-i'i ~D U:iil ~.s 

21415-TP Sl Oi-<4-i9 r;r; lio: L v.s 

2,4,5-TP ~ 08-21-i9 ~D u:n 0.5 

2,4,5-TP Sl os-1:;-aQ <o. "' u;;L c.s 

2,4,5-iP Sl .Gi-QHO <;, •• j~ u;;;L 1).5 

2,4 15-TP 53 u•-2s-ao · \ii.G9 li5il o.s 

2,t,5-TP 53 o7-vii-av <O.i19 Uii:L ~.s 

2,4,5-TP 53 07·24-iO ,v.v9 lio/L o.s 

2,4,5-TP 53 GI-VH~ (i/.09 ii6il o.s 

2,4,5-TP 53 oe-2o-au <O.u9 u;;;L u.s 

2,415-TP 53 09-03-60 <O.u'i U&il 6.5 

21415-TP 53 01·29-84 <0.5 UGil 0.5 

2,4,5•TP 53 0.-17-85 (30 u&il M 

2,4·0 53 05-29-79 0.27 U&/l ~.5 

2,4-1 53 o.-2~·79 0.18 US/L o.s 

2,4-D 53 07-24-79 ND USiL o.s 

2,4-D 53 01·21-79 0.42 USiL 0.5 

214·0 53 05-ll-80 <o.z us;t 0.5 

2,4-D 5l o.-o9-ao <0.2 U6/L 0.5 

2,4-D 53 0.·25-80 . (0.2 US/l 0.5 

2,4-1 53 07-08·80 (0.2 t.'&il 0.5 

2,4-1 53 07-24-80 (0.2 U6/l 0.5 

2,4-D 53 OI-G4-80 <0.2 U&il 0.5 

2,4-1 53 01·26-80 <0.2 USiL o.s 

2,4-t 53 09-ol·BO <0.2 USil 0.5 

2,4-D 53 et-29-84 (1.0 u&il 0.5 

2,4·1 53 0.-17-llS <~ u&il M 

ALACIIlOR a· 02-11-811 <S.v U&il .5 

AlDICi\1!1 53 02-11-86 <1.0 U6/L .5 

M.&Ril 53 05-29-li NO U&/l 0.5 

ALDRIN 53 0.~25-79 NO Uil/l 0.5 

ALDRIN 5l 07-24-79 ~D U&/l 0.5 

ALDRIN· 53 01-21-79 NO US/l 6.5 

ALDRIN .53 05-13-80 <0.01 Uii/l 0.5 

AI.DRII 53 o.-G9-80 <O.OI Uiil 0.5 

ALDRIN 5l o.-25-80 <O.Ol Ui/l 0.5 

AI.IRIN 5l 07-oHO <0.01 US/l 0.5 

ALDRIN 5l 07-24-80 <0.01 U&/l 0.5 

AURIN 53 OH4-80 <0.01 Uii/L 0.5. 

ALDRIN· 5l 01-20-80 <0.01 Uo/L 0.5 

AL~RIN 5l OHHv <G.OI Uliit 0.5 

AURIM 5l o.-17-85 <.01 Uii!l 0.5 

ALDRIN 5l 02-ll-86 <.uOS US/l .5 

M.PIIA.IIIC 5l 0.017-llS <.01 U&/l 0.5 

ALPHA lilt 53 02-11-811 <.005 Uiil .5 

AIIETRVN 53 02-11-iil· •:5 •. 0 Uiiil .5 

AT·m~ 53 02-u-a.; <5.0"U6il .5 

am INC 53 o.-n-as <.v2 u&;L 0.5 

BETA 8HC 53 02-11-86 <.1105 ~S/l .5 

lilt 5l 05-29-79 lili U&/t ~.5 

BHC 53 0.-25-79 !W U6/l 0.5 

INC 53 07-24-79 Nii U&il 0.5 

INC 53 01-21-79 ~D U&/l 0.5 

fMC 53 05-ll-&G <o:ov7 us;L 0.5 

IHC 53 O&-o9-80 <o.ou7 ~SiL v:s 

IHC 53 Oi-25-80 <O.ON U&il 0.5 

ND • lilT l"I£TECTEii 
423 

CIIIIPGU•D ....... . ............... . ,.. SU.C~£ ........ SliP DAlE ~AI.IJ: .... llllll; ;~PL&.gPJM oNl 

jll s:; C·i-2j .. ;.j .:~ : ~ ·~ ' ... r 

~:T 53 OH:i-~0 \ il,(·" \jjll u. 5 

~&T 5l tH:-av ~. ~1 :.;: .::.. . s 

mTA t~C il OII-1H5 (.01 ~ii L v.5 ~tlTM foi'. 51 OHH~ <. ~,;,~ Uo : L .5 

liE~ETCM 53 ~5-2H; ~~ u;, t: ,.,, DE~ETON 53 Oi-25-H N' uotL u.s ~E"tiC~ 53 07-24-i9 NJ u:./L u.s DE~ETGN 53 ul-21-79 ND U&il ~.5 

o:m •~~ 53 05-<Y-79 N:> ~s ~ .j.5 

DI~<IN~M Sl 00 2:-7~ IIU Uoil o.s mm~M Sl 07-24-79 1111 Uoi/L o.s DI~IINliN 53 01-21-H • 1111 U&/l 5 

mm011 53 06-17-iS <.5 U&/l o.s 

OIAmOII 53 02-11-811 <1.~ US/l .5 

DIELGRIN Sl 05-29-79 lill US/L 0.5 

DIELGRIM 53 00-25-i9 1111 US/L o.s 

DIELDRIN 53 07-24-79 111 uotl 0.5 

GIELGRIN Sl 08-21-79 Ill U&/l o.s 

DI£URIH 53 05-U-80 <O.V2 U6/l ii.S 

DtElliRIM 53 06-0i-80 <O.V2 uSJL 0.5 

DIELGRIII 53 06-25-80 <O.G2 US/l 0.5 

DIELDRIN 53 07-08-80 <0.02 Ui/l 0.5 

DIELDiiiN 53 07-24-80 <U2 UG/l 0.5 

DIElfiiiiM 53 8H4-Bil <0.02 USil 0.5 

DIELGRIM SJ. 08-21>-80 \<),02 USil 0.5 

Dl£li!RlM 53 09-03-~ ~.02 C&/L 0,5 

DIELGRII 53 11-12-iQ <O.uU4 US/L M 

DIELDRII 53 011-17-85 <.OS US/l 0.5 

~IELDRIII 53 02-11-86 <.01 Ui/L .5 

ENDOSUtrAM 53 05-2H9 liD US/l 0.5 

EMDGSULFAN 53 06-25-79 MD US/l 0.5 

ENDOSULFAN ' 53 07-24-79 Ill US/l 0.5 

ENDOSULFMN 53 01·21-79 1111 US/l 0.5 

EIDOSULFAII . 53 05-13-11(1 <0.02 US/L M 

ENDOSULFAII 53 06-D9-80 <o.G2 U&/L u.s 

EIIDOSUI.FAII 53 06-25-80 <0.02 L'S/l 0.5 

EN:IOSULFAM 53 07-08-tO <0.02 USiL 0.5 

EllDOSULFAII. 53 07-24-80 <0.02 UG/L 0,5 

EliDOSULFAII 53 ~-80 <0.02 U&/L (1,5 

ENDOSULFllll 53 OI-2Hol <0.02 u&/l 0.5 

ENGil~LFioll '53 09-Dl-80 <0.02 U&/l 0,, 

EIIDOSULF._. I 53 06-17-tS <.05 USil 0,, 

ENDO~LFioll I 53 82-11-i' <.01 u&/l .5 

UDQSULF.:tl II " 53 06-17-tS <.05 U&/l 0.5 

EMDOSULFAII tl 53 02-11-Bi <.01 u&/l .5 

EMDOSULFAN SULFio TE 53 06-17-85 <.1 U&/L 0.5 

ENDOSUI.FA.• S:;LFATE 53 02-11-a. <.l u>tL .s 

ENGRll 53 05-29-79 ~ U&/l 0,5 

EliGRIM 53 06-25-79 MD U&/l 0.5 

ENf•tU. 53 07-24-79 MG U&IL 0.5 

EMioRIN 53 01-21-79 llli u&il u t:~GaiN 53 05-13-80 <0.02 u&il 6.5 

EDRIM. Sl 06-Dt-&0 <0.02 USil &.5 

U~RI• 53 06-25-10 <V.02 UoiL 0.5 

mt~t.- 53 01-oa-a• <M2 w iL ii.S 

ENORIN 53 07-24-80 (O.u2 uoJL 0.5 E~wRIN 53 08-¥4-8·) \C,Q2 UiiiL o.s 

mm 53 01-21>-Bii <~.02 U&/L o.s ~ • 1101 OET~CTED 
424 

~tfti.;..tlil ........................... Sitl.tU£ •••••••• S~f iltliE ~Alii.< •••• u~IT:i S~h..S.ilfiij tftl 

=~: 53 oHs-:o .; OOi ~' L u ;~c SJ GNHv ;). ; 5/L .;.s 

;•c Sl h4-0~ <~ ); ;.;S :'L ~.5 

·~: Sl Go·:iHG \(d(·7 •• ,.l ~-5 

Si't 53 OHl·i) \U.V\!7 UD/L o.s CAUo1~i<TE Sl G2·ll-&~ <5.0 UEiL .5 

c.-rca.:.; ,~ Sl 02-11-84 •: S.V U&;t .5 

:w~s~;:~,;;.:.~i 53 02-IH~ <s.o uoiL .. . CHLC':j;~;: Sl o5-•H'i liD Uii/L 1).~ 

:Ht.o;.~r.iit 53 0~·25-H ,;r: ;jS/l &.5 

CMLG••~Mt Sl 07-24-79 ~D U&iL o.5 

CMLOr.G~: E Sl 08·21-79 Nii us:L o.s mOF.D~~< 53 05-13-80 <0. 25 Uo/L o.s CIILO!\O~E 53 00·09-iO <~ :5 USIL M 

CHLGP.D;.~E 53 00-25-80 <0.25 U&/l v.s CHLOR-~E 53 OHB·BO <0.~5 ~Sil u.s 

CML~DiJi£ 53 Oi-24-80 <u.~s ii&JL o.s CH;.~~~ 53 08-o4·i0 <0.25 U&il a.s CMLO~io~E 53 G8-2G-.0 <6.25 ~S/l 1}.5 

ClillliLillit Sl 09-Gl-Bu <6.007 lili/L u.s 

CiU.iiiuioliE 53 11-12-80 <u.o2 u&IL u.s. 

CHI.Gfc.."l..IE '53 06-17·95· <.02 U&il 0.5 

CMLORDt.liE Sl 02-JJ-a. . <. 05 U&/l .5 

il&D 53 05-29-79 liD U&il o.5 

DDD 5l 00-25-79 liD Ui/L 0.5 

ODD 53 07-24-79 •• U&/L M 

OGD Sl ' 08-21-79 1111 U6/L 0.5 

GGO Sl 05-ll-'eo <O.v2 U6/L ~.s 

~~~ 53 06-G'I-80 \0.02 Ua/L M . 

liDD 5l 06-25-10 · <0.32 Uii/L M 

liDD 5l 07-0t-80 <0.02 Uii/L 0.5 

wOI 53 07-24-10 <0.02 CS/L o.s 

aCD 53 01-04-80 <0.02 ~ii/L 0.5 

eUD 53 G8-2G-il0 <O.G2 u:;JL v.5 

)~D 53 09-ol-80 <G.G2 Uii/L 0.5 

:u 53 11-12-10 <0.02 L:Sil 0, 

DE s:J 05-29-79 IIi u&/l 6.5 

j£ '53 06-25-79 Hli U&iL o.s 

't s:J 07-24-79 Iii li6il 0.5 

j£ s:J 01-21-79 liD U&IL 0.5 

j£ 5l 05-ll-10 <0.02 ~liiL o:5 

:E s:J 06-89-80 <~.ii2 USil 0.5 

lE a 06-2HO <0.02 U&il 0.5 

jG£ IS 07-08-80 <o.o2 ua;L 0.5 

)D£ a 07-24-80 <0.02 CSiL 0.5 

>M a 08-&4-80 <0.02 US/L u.s 

lOE a 08-lt-80 <6.02 Uiil 0.5 

lDE Sl· 09-03-iO <0.02 Uiiil 0.5 

lD£ s:J 11-12-80 <O.OCZ ~6/L 0.5 

lOT s:J D5-2H~ tiD ~iiil u.s :liT 53 06·25-n MD li6/L o.s 

.oT a 07-24·79 liD U&/L 6.5 

lOT 53 01-21-79 ND Uiiil V.5 

•GT 53 05-ll-lu <0.62 uS/L 0.5 

iDT a 06-G9-86 <~.o~ Uli/L M 

·GT 51 ua-~5-6~ <0. u2 US/L 6.5 

·DT Sl 07-68-86 \0.112 Uill 0.5 

~T Sl 67-24·80 <~.62 u:;;L O.J 

OT 53 ,1-o.&-!(1 <0.02 U6/l u.s 

D • IIQT Ot:TECTED 
425 

Fli~-!~ 51 0~-~J-BO <O.t2 u;:L M 

E~ ~;:•: Sl o;-11-B~ \o 

VS i,i l ~ 

t~'> ~ 

SJ v:-1!-~! \.

·:·! c;;L 

.s 

t,;:;u:• :.L:; ... ,~:: Sl co-17

->5 (.1 :;~, .. ~ . ·" £~i:olH i;L;;:,;,:: Sl u2-1Ho \ ,\,j Lii:l .5 

ElhlOS 53 G5·lH9 ~• ~oil 0.5 

ElHIC, 53 OH5-i9 lij uoil o.5 

ETHIO~ Sl Oi-24-79 ~• u;;;L ~.s 

£THICN Sl 0&-21-79 N' ~S/l u • '" ElHiJ~ Sl 06-Ji-85 <.1 ~•'L ~.5 

ETHI~~ 53 02·11-lo \1.~ USiL .5 

GQiijjQ~ Sl 05-29-79 Nu U5il M 

6\ITNIO~ Sl uo-25·" ~D u6il li.5 

&UTHID- Sl 07-24-79 ~~ U"'L 6.5 

6illHiuM Sl Oa-21-79 NJ U&il 0.5 

&UTiiluN :Sl 05-ll-80 <2.0 U&il 0.5 

6UTMIOII Sl oo-o•-ao \2~il Ui

il 0.5 

6UTHICII Sl 06-25-80 <2.0 115/L 0.5 

6UTHIQI Sl 07-GI-80 <2.0 115/L ol.5 

6UTHl~N Sl Oi-24·80 <2.0 U&il ol.5 

GUTHICM SJ. oa-vc-av <2.0 US/L 0.5 

&ulHION Sl OI-2G-BO . <2.0 UG/L 0.5 

!iiJTMIDM Sl 09-03-10 . (2.1) U&/L 0.5 

6UTIIIDII Sl 06-17-85 <1.0 U&iL 0.5 

6UTIIJOII' Sl ol2-ll-14 <I. U&il .5 

HEPTAI:Il.DR 53 05-29-79 liD li&/L 0.5 

HEPTACHlOR Sl. 06-25-n liD lli/L 0-5 

MEPT.CHI.Oil 53 '07-24~79 liD U&il o.s 

NEPTACHLOP. 53 08·21·79 5D usil 0.5 

I£PTACHI.DR Sl 06-o9·80 \0.007 110/L 0.5 

ltEPTACROR Sl 06-25-80 <0.007 u&/L 0.5 

1£PTACII.DR a t7-ol-80 <0.007 lii/L · 0.5 

I£PTAC1i.OR a 07-24-10 <0.007 Ui/L 0.5 

NEPTACII.OR · Sl 01-04-10 <o.co7 u'iiL o;s 

MEPT~CHL:l!l 53 08-2G-80 <0.007 Cii/L M 

HEPT-MCHI.QR a G'l-03-80 <O.Ov7 li&iL 0.5 

HEnlltHLO~ Sl 01.-17..., <.Ol U&/l o.s 

IEPTAC!ii.Oil Sl 02-ll-86 <.005 U&/l .5 

l'iPTACIII.DR EfQiit-E Sl 05-29-79 Wll lli/L M 

J£Pr Atl4lfi!! m me 53 .... ~,. IG 115iL o.5 

tiEPT.lCHLO.~ EmJD£ 53 07-24-79 liD u&/L 

0.5 

NEPTACHLDR EfOii:E Sl 08·21~,. liD US/L 0.5 

I£PTACHLCR E~DmE a OHHO <0.01 US/L 0.5 

I!PTAtiUii E~iiU:.E. 53 06-25-80 <0.01 U&iL o.5 

IEPTACHI.QR Er>:mE 53 t7-oHO (0.01 li&il 0.5 

I(PTACIILDII EPm~£ 53 OHHO <ol.OI iii/L 0.5 

IIPT&C14l.Oii EH:I!iio Sl 08-20-10 \0.01 Ui/L 0.5 

I£PTACIILOA oPiill~ Sl G'I-Ol-80 <O.GI 116/L 0.5 

I(PTAC;Q.OR EF·OIIH Sl 06-17-15 \.02 L'i/L o.s 

IEPTAtHll:a £i'i:U.E Sl 02-ll-86 <.005 UiiiL .5 

ltEPlAI;LG~ Ei'a&m: 53 07-ZHO <0.01 t:&il o.s 

W.TIWI'E a ~11-a <.5 115/L 0.5 

lRillotliE 53 02-ll-86 <l.O lli/L .5 

LIIIDA.'l£ 53 05-29-79 llil U&/L 0.5 

LIMD:.Ii£ a or%5-it 1Q U&iL 0.5 

LlliiAME S3 07-24-79 Nil U&/L 0.5 

u~•a'IE Sl 08-21-79 liD US/L 0.5 Ll~tA:;£ Sl vs-1:rao <O.u~7 Uiiil 0.5 

LINiNI"E 51 OH9-Jio) <O.OVi u&il 0.5 

.. • 1101 liETE~ TE~ 
426 

;..iP ~: ,t_ 53 llb-:~-il , · .. .. ~ ~j·L (•. 5 

.. : ·~ : :. ,~ 53 G7·•J5 .. 3J · .• . ·J7 ·~ .; . ~ 

,i. 5 

~ 1: ,t s; Gi-~4-; i 

.... . ,. . 

·.1. , t,;!J. "'"IL. v.5 

u-.~:.~ t 53 va-·iHu <~ 

.... ~; Uj/i.. :) .~ 

li\U.:•:t Sl a-:o-a~ .C~7 i.::iL id 

LIN·~~E 53 GH3-&G 

'a. ~·";i c;ti.. v.5 ll'8~£ 53 ~o-IH5 ,,;,l iiiiil u.~ 

LIK~:.: t 53 G1-lt-ao em Uo'L -~ P':.L•fll-i it ~ Sl 05-29-79 N!) Uoil 0.5 

11/olATiilil~ 53 06-25-H !in US/l 0.5 

~~AIHIO~ S> (17-14-7~ ~~ ~tl u.s ~ALitilliuN Sl oa-21-i~ u• Uiil 0.5 

~~A;~JOM Sl 05-13-80 <O.Oi CSil 0.5 

111\L~Tn!ON ~ oe-ot-ao i~. 7 U~/l 0.5 

llo\UTMIJM 53 ~6-25-i) <O. 7 U&/l 0.5 

P.ioi.ATitlGN Sl o;-os-ao <O. 7 Ui/i. (;,5 

!IAL:.T"iGM Sl 07-24-80 <O. 7 U5il 0.5 

IIOoLA TH I 011 Sl OS-o4-lil \0.7 US

il 0.5 

~l~TitiCI 53 ve-2o-ao \il.7 USil M 

!!JilATiiiOII Sl GHl-80 

<O. 7 u&/l 0.5 

l!ALATHION Sl Oi-17-115 .:.s u61L 0.5 

lloli.ATHICII Sl 02-IJ-B6 \1.0 USIL .5. 

!!TMCIIYL 53 02-11-86 <5.UO U&il .5 

i!ETiiilriCHLOR Sl 05-29-i~ 'a i:&JL 0.5 

IIET'I!Ontli.DR 53 Oi-25-79 liD Uli/L 0.5 

IIETHOmii.DR 53 07-24-79 118 !jill 0.5 

l!£TH3f/C~lG~ 53 ' 01-21-79 ~~ U&il u.s 

iO.liHOIVCil.c.R 53 05-IHO \0.3 liiil 0.5 

~T~:iYCNlC~ 53 Oi-GNO <il.l U&/L o.5 

~~1~31\tllc.R 53 06-25-80 <0."3 Ui/L i1.5 

I!ETiiiiXYCWI.ilR 53 07-GI-iG <O.l Ui/l ~.5 

~.£THCIVCHi.ilR 53 " 07-24-80 <u.l USil 0.~ 

!IET+<Cntll.Ga Sl 01-M-80 <0.3 u&/l o.s 

IIETHCIYCIIllla 53 Ol-2o-80 co.; uiiL 0.5 

IIETHOilCitlCR 53 09"03-80 <O.l U&/l 0.5 

l!lllt0l1CII.illl 53 02-11-W. <.l u&/l .5 

F.Ml·PARATHICR 53 05-29-79 ..., Ui/l 0.5 

1!THYL PNI~iMiiiM 

. 53 oe-25-n llll U&/L 0.5 

c.£TH11. fA!IAT"ltill 53 t7-24-79 Ill Ui/L 0.5 

!~ETHYL PolftioTHlCII a . 01-21-79 llo1 Ui/L 0.5 ,..n 53 05-H-79 liD ~'&/l 11.5 

111tl 53 06-25-79 .. u&il 0.5 

1llU Sl 07-24-79 NO u&il 0.5 . 

AIREl a ·-2J-i9 liU 1:5/l 6.5 

mn 

. Sl 15-13-80 <0.05 Ui/l 0.5 

lllltl Sl OHHO <0.05 USil 0,5 

~lUI Sl 06-25-10 (v.v5 :Jill 6.5 

l!llil Sl 17-ot-80 <0.05 Uiiil I). :I 

II I REI Sl t7·24-IO <v.il:l u&iL M 

m£1 a 01-04-80. \0.~5 Uiil 0.5 

ftliU 53 Ol-2t-IO 

<0.05 -~6/l M 

IIIR£1 · a 69-tl-ilol <O.v5 tiil ~.5 

Cf-m 53 06-17-85 \,05 U&/L 0.5 

OHGO 53 02-ll-Q6 \.~1 l$il ;5 

Of-HE 53 06-17-~ <.~: u&/L 0.5 

Gil-a a£ 53 02-11-16 (.01 Uiil .5 

OP-DGT 53 06-17-85 (,05 ~6/L 0.5 

OP-m 53 02-ll-i6 <".03 U5/l .5 

~OIIAT~IGI 53 05-29-79 1111 U&il o:5 

1111 • IIOT mmn 
427 

PA,AIWIO~ Sl ~-25-;~ tm t:G

iL 0.5 

;: ;.;~ i .11C 4 .. .. ii7·::!H; tt~ us.

·L (!. s r~:._ :~!·.-. )J 09-:1 -i; ~D t;i;,L .j. 5 

i-!.~;THiC1 Sl 05-IH) \0.3 li:l.L o.s ht~t.irf!;jU Sl iio·ui·S~ \0. ~ U5/L 1).5 

F-H~P.T~l~'f s• Oo·<HJ <V.~ UDii: J.S 

~~mwiii~ Sl oHB·&v <O.j t;iilt u.s r~nAT~iii~ Sl 01-2;-o~ \O.l ~~it 0.5 

f~;:.!ioiiU'f Sl -oa-u<-av <v.3 lioll (1.5 

m.:rHru~ Sl os-2o-so iC.::i t::ul 0.5 

fAO~THlii~ Sl 09-6l-8·) ,o.l u&IL M 

ro\ooTHi~N Sl Go·17-9S . <.2 us;:.. o!.S 

P~i<itTWiuN Sl 02·11•56 (I U&/l .5 

PCI Sl 05·29-79 liD US/L M 

ftl Sl 011·25-79 ~D ~Sil il.5 

FCI Sl 07·2Hi NO U.il u.s 

PCB Sl 01·21-ii N) Uiiil 0.5 

PCI Sl 05-ll-8~ <0.~5 US/l u.s 

PCI Sl OHNO <0.2S USIL o.s 

PCB. Sl Oi-25-80 <v.25 u&iL 0.5 

PCI Sl o7-oa-~ <0.~5 USil .. •• 5 

PCI Sl 07-24-50 <u.2s u&iL 6.5 

fCI Sl oa-oc-so <0.2S ti&il 0.5 

PCI' Sl oa-2t-ao> <u.lS US/L 1).5 

l'tl a 09-03-80 <o.:s liotl 9.5 

PCI·1016 Sl 11·12-80 <G.i11 USil . o.s 

PCI-1016 51 011-17-In \.I u&iL 0.5 

PCI-1016 Sl 02-li·Bi <.001 U&il .5 

fti-1221 Sl Olt-1Ni5 \.1 U&/l 0.5 

PCB-1221 a 02-11-ti <.OOI uiitl .5 

Fcl-1232 a 06-11-15 <".1 U&/l o.s 

PCB-1232 Sl 02-ll-16 <.001 Uiiil .5 

fG-1242 '53 11·12·10 <0.65 US/l 0.5 

PCI-1242 Sl 06-17·85 <.1 U&/l 0.5 

PCB-1242 Sl 02-11·16 <.001 116/l .5 

PCa-ma Sl 11·12-60 <0.07 UGil 0.5 

PCB-1248 a 06-17·15 <.1 UG/l 0.5 

Ptl-1248 a 02-11·86 <.001 U&/l .5 

PC9·1254 Sl 11-12-80 <0.04 US/l 0.5 

PCi·l~54 " 06-17·85 <.1 Ui/l 0.5 

Ftl-1254 a t2-11-il6 <.001 U&/l .s 

PCB-1200 

·n 11-12-80 <0.04 U&/l 0.5 

?tl-1260 a ... 17·85 <.1 Ui/L ii.S 

PCI-1260 a 02-11-86 <.001 US/l .5 

Ptl·12i2 a ... 17-ln <.1 u&/l v.5 

PERT HAllE 

· a 02-11·86 \l.u U&/L .5 

PHORATE a 05-29·79 liil USil o.s 

PNCIRA'It Sl 06-25-79 liD Uiiil o.s 

PliOIIATt a t7-24-'l9 Ill u&il o.s 

PiiORA!E a 01-21-79 IGi iJOil a.s '"~"aT• a 05-29-79 Jlj) ~&/l o.s 

l'lteitRIM a e.-25-n Iii) USil il.5 

PNOS~iiiM Sl Oi-24-79 liD Uiil u.s PHOS~RlM Sl 08-21-79 liD U&il 0.5 

i'I'-DOO a Olt-17-85 <.OS US/l 0.5 

PP·Dn Sl 02-11

· 10 <.Ill U&il .s 

Pf-IGE Sl ~17-15 <.~5 ~aiL o.s 

FP-DU£ Sl ONI·i6 <. O::i Ui/l .s 

PP·DDT a 06-17·85 <.05 Uiil o.s 

tai • lllll 11£1EtT£D 
428 

tcliFOI;OiD ........................... sa.t~E •••••••• S~ ;.;rE Y~LU! •••• UtHl) SI!Plii.OFIM lftl 

F•-::-r. :J ~:· j ! -;~ :. ;)3 .. : :L ' 

~~c •: rt. ~ Sl CHI-S> ', .\) ' l • ' J 

t~~ ; .. .;.M ~3 v:-1~-~~ -..5 . ~ .. ~; ~ . 5 

;;~~sa Sl uS-~1-B ~j LDil u 

:>~~El 53 Co-:5-7Y ~ii ~;il e.5 

Ru~ tl 53 OH~·i1 N~ wS:'L 0.5 

RuN~El 53 03-21-ii Na t:ait 0.5 

Slft•n~: 53 02-11-06 •.~.U t.O, i.. .J 

SIRC9o'<E SJ ·os-iY-H ht ~aii. oi.S 

iTR3~0:. iE SJ vHs-;; h5 ~·il 1).5 

ST;;~8~~E Sl OH4-i'1 ~" U6il 0.5 

sr~o~•,;r: S3 GS-21-i'l Na U>tl G.S 

TEDICii Sl v6·17-8S <.t Uoil 0.5 

THiuN 53 02-11-96 (1.0 CSiL .5 

IDioi'Hc~E . Sl GS-29-79 ~• uoiL 0.5 

TOlH?ii[t;E ' Sl 66-<5-19 NG U6iL c.s TOI~r'liENE 53 07-24-79 ~D ii6il 0.5 

TOmHEME Sl· 08-21-79 Nil Uoil 0.5 

TOlAPHENE S3 05-13-80 <0.25 US/l 5 

TOIAPHEioiE S3 06-.19-90 <C. 25 Uiiil 0.5 

JGI,;P~E•E S3 06-25-80 <0.25 USil 0.5 

TOIAFHENE 53 07-GS-80 <0.25 USil 0.5 

TOJAPH<ME S3 07-24-80 <0.25 USil ~-5 

TDIMPNE~E 53 oa-o4-ao <0. 25 UE il 0.5 

TDI~i'HE~E 53 G8-2ir-6U <u.:i5 C&il 1).5 

TOIAPiitsE 53· OHl-80 (0.25 USil 0.5 

TDI~PHENE S3 .60-17-85 <.~ ~GIL 0.5 

TOIMfnENE 53 u2-u-eo <.OS U6/L .5 

TRIAZIM£ 51 02-11-86 \5.0 US/L .5 

TAIFLU~.U.IN 53 05-29-H 10 UGil . u.s TRJfUfl~llll 53 U.-25-79 ~D lllill 0.5 

lliiFlU;.ioL;N 53 177-24-79 ~~~ Uo/L ~.5 

T~IFLUP~Ll~ 53 08-21-79 ND ~6/l 0.5 

TliiFl~Ri.liN 53 02-11-80 \5.0 UG!L .s lRlTHIC~ • 53 t5-29-79 NO UG/L 0.5 

TRiiriiOM 53 06-25-ii NO Uo/l 0.5 

TRITHIIIX Sl 07-24-79 •o U&/L 0.5 

TRITHIDII 53 08-21-79 NO US/l v.s 

TR!THIOI 53 06-17-85 <.1 U6il 0.5 

TRITHIOII Sl 02-11-80 (1.0 U6/l .s 

liD • lOT DETECTED 
429 

CII.'!I'Ct;M~ ........................... Sn.C~£ •••••••• S"P O.T< Yo\lUE •••• U~iTS S~•~S.IifT• iftl 

2, ·.~ -! •• ~a-:;-e, ·~ -~ ~~ :. ·:

.: 

~, ,,5 .. f H (·>·1i·o5 ,: .. 1 .. ~, ~ .j,: 

4.,4,5-if- •• vs-:; ... ;; u.:: :,.;;, :.. ~.~ 

2,4,~·7P 54 Oo·•:i·i~ l"" '- ... •<J Li:r• L U.j 

2,4!s-·;: 54 o;-n-;~ ~.U L~1 L u.s 

2,1.5-!P 54 06-2~-;; hi: 

uo.L 0.5 

2,.t,5•ti' 54 05·13-ait (~ ~ ~:il l o.s 

2,1,5·TP 54 ~c·OH~ \V.tj1 U5d. 

0.5 

,,4,5-rP 54 vo-;:s-a~ . u~ 

JDi L u.s 

t,I,S·TF s• Oi·uS·Bil 

\·i.lli ~.)d. !1. ~ 

2,•,5-TP 54 OH4·8u <O.O'i l:oil M 

2,4,5-TP 54 ~&-04·8~ <V.Vi USit u.~ 

2,4,5-TP 54 08·20·80 <0. u~ US/L tl .~ 

2,4,5-TP S4 09..Vl·&O <O. il' S/L o.5 

2,4,~·TP 54 09·2'*14 -:v.5 iloiL 

•).5 

2,4,5~TP 54 06-li-85 m u;;L u.s 

2,4-D 54 OS.H-79 0.21 ~:ott M 

2,4·0 S4 Oti-25-79 <O.I tiail 0.5 

2,4-0 54 07-23-79 il.2~ U6

il 0.5 

2,4-D 54 08·20-79 NL U&il M 

2,4·0 S4 05•13-IQ <O.Z US/l M 

2,4-D 54 06-Gt-80 <0.2 US/l o.s 

2,4-D S4 06-25-80 · <o.; ~oil M 

2,4-a S4 G7-GHO (0.2 ~&il u.s 

2,4-D S4 07-24-80 \0. t USil 0.5 

2,4-t 54' G8-G4·80 

\0.2 US/l u.s 

2,4·0 S4 09·20•&.) <u.2 USil 0.5 

2,4·0 S4 09-Gl-10 

<0.2 ~&il M 

2,4-D S4 Gl-29·84 u.o uoil o.5 2,4-J S4 06·11-85 <50 U&/l 0.5 

aUtl'.lUR sc · 02·11-86 <S.O Uo/L .5 

AlDICAAB S4 02·11-86 <l.o Uoli.. .5 

ltlDRIM S4 05-29-79 NO Uoil 0-5 

ltlDRIN S4 06•25-79 ND Viil o.5 

M.DRIN S4 07-23-79 ND U&/l M 

AURIN · S4 01·2H9 ND US/L 0.5 

AlDRIN S4 05-ll-80 <0.01 Uc/l il.5 

AlliRIN S4 06-tt-80 <o.ol ua;l G.~ 

Ill DR IN S4 06-25-80 \~.01 Uiil 0.~ 

AL.IiiiiM S4 07-01-10 <0.01 US/L ~~ 

Ill~ IN S4 07-24-80 (0.01 Uill 0.5 

AlDRIN 14 01-04-80 <O.OI uoli. o.~ . 

AlliRIIi. 14 Gl-20-80 \0.01 Uo/L 0.5 

AlDRIN S4 09-03-ao <~.01 ua;L 0.5 

toLDRill 14 06-17-15 <. 01 U&/L 0.5 

AlliRIN 14 02-11·86 <.OVS U&/l .s 

M.PiiA IMC S4 t6·17·85 <. 01 Uiii~ 0-5 

'l.PHA IMC S4 02·11-111 <.v~S U6il .5 

Anmv• S4 02·11·86 . \5.u ~oil .5 

ATRAll!iC S4 02-11-86 <S. ~ 

·USIL .5 

IET48HC S4 06·17-15 <.oz ~oil ~.5 

em a;;c S4 02-11·111 <.u\15 ~:;/l .5 

IHC 14 05-29-n liM Uii/l o.s a.~t S4 06·25-it MD Uii/L o.~ 

...: S4 07-23-79 liM U&il o.s 

8HC S4 Gl-2~79 Na ~/L 0.5 

IHC S4 05-13-60 <it.u07 ;;;;JL 0.5 

IIIC i4 o•-v;;o .:.u.::;;,; VO/l ~:5 

!MC S4 04t·:i5-Bu <G.u&i U6/l 

0.5 

•D • NOT DEiECrE~ 
430 

COftf~ .. ,., ...................... ST~.i:eE ........ S'll' UTE ~•L•<· ... U~I::i :iftfL.C.Ci'T~ t"l 

~:.oc 

·~ iJ7-

·:a -;.:. 

\ l•.·:•J7 :.::. L ·) .5 

6<lC 

·~ vi-ZH\• -.ll,.,.j:' ~~ll v.s 

fH 54 i:hH•) ~·.~~; ~j.• .. :.s 

&' r "· S4 ~--~~-a~ ,.;.~~·7 ~S t. v.s ~HC S4 ~1-it:l-ov ,u.:~; USiL u.~ 

cw;;;.~:.TE 54 o~-11-io ;s.v ;;:; ~: .s c~~ ~~-. ,:.. 54 OHHo \:.u uD, L .5 

c";~~i~ ~;.N 54 ~2-11-ao \5.u u~n .s CHl~?.f :.-.[ s• t.~·l9-i9 ~~ USil u.s tloil~!\~;. :; £ 54 06-25-H Na USil 0.5 

CHLQ;pl~t 54 67-23-79 N~ U5/l v.5 

CHLO~uoSc S4 ~5-20-79 ~u u&;L o.s CSt£~j;.tiit 54 65-ll-80 <0.25 U&/L 0.5 

C~LO\~t.NE S4 06-09-80 \~.ZS Uit/L 0.5 

CHlO~~-~E S4 06-25-80 ,il.25 UG/L 0.5 

CHLQ; iullic S4 07-Gi-80 v.~s cs;L 0.5 

CHtC~jA~iE S4 07·24~H \0.~5 Uiil o.s CHliiiiiio~E S4 08-G4-80 <0.25 U&il 0.5 

CHLa.:iAIIE 54 08-2G-80 <0.25 U&il 0.5 

CIII.OPit~~E ~< 09-0l-80 \0.007 U6tl ~.5 

CMLO~&ANE S4 06-17-85 <.02 U6/L 0.5 

tHLDmll£ 54 02-11·84t <.05 U6/l .5 

~~- 54 05-29-79 liD U&/L 0.5 

m S4 06·25-79 liD U&il 0.5 

DDD 54 07-23-79 liD U6/L 0.5 

~DD 54. 08-2G-79 1111 Ui/L 0.5 

DDD 54 05-13-80 \6.02 U6/l 0.5 

DDD S4 06-G9-80 \0.02 U6/L 0.5 

~DD 54 06-25-10 <0.02 Ui/L 0.5 

~ S4 07-ta-10 <0.02 U6/L 0.5 

liDD 54 07-24·10 <0.~2 U61L 0.5 

DDG S4 OI-G4·10 <0.02 U6/L 0.5 

ODD '54 Ol-2o-80 <0.02 Us/L 0.5 

DDD S4 09-Gl-80 <0.02 UG/L 0.5 

ODE S4 05-29-79 liD U6/L 0.5 

Da£ S4 06·25-79 1111 U&/l 0.5 

DUl 54 07-2l-79 liD Uiil M 

DOE 54 08-20-79 II& u&/L 0.5 

~DE S4 os-n-ao <0.02 U&/l G.5 

DtE 54 06-ot-80 (0.02 iJ&/l o.5 

'* 54 06-25-10 · <0.02 U&/L 0.5 

tDE '54 07-ol-80 <ii.02 US/L 0.5 

DDE 54 07-24-80 <0.02 U&/L a.5 

~DE 54 08-04-80 <O.G2 Ui/l 0.5 

liDE 54 08-20-80 <6.~:1 U&/l 6.5 

DOE 54 OHl-10 \0.02 iJ&/l o.5 

DDT 54 05-29-79 liD US/l 0.5 

DDT 54 06·25-79 1111 u&/l 0.5 

DOT 54 07-23-79 liD U&/L (1.5 

DDT 54 08-2G-79 1m U&il 0.5 

liDT 54 05-13-10 <0.02 Uo/L 0.5 

DDT 54 06-G9-80 <O. 02 US/l 1).5 

DDT 54 Or25-lkl <0,~2 U&/L 0.5 

DDT 54 07-GB-80 (0.02 ~:l/l 0.5 

~DT 54 07-24-80 <~.02 u>IL 0.5 

'~T S4 G8-G4·80 \0.~2 UDIL 0.5 

DDT S4 08-2G-80 <v.02 US/L 0.5 

DDT 54 . 09-0l-BG \ii. 02 Uiiil 0.5 

~ELTI &wt 54 ua-17-BS \.01 Uii/l 0.5 

MG • IIOT iiEi£CiED 
431 

CGIIPOUIID ........................... STA.C~E •••••••• SI!P DATE YAI,U£;, •• UM!TS S"P~.OPTH IRI 

;~~, .. :,;~ 54 o~-1: -a~ < .v:•S ''"'L < 

.~ 

t~,.~~:;'~ 54 GS-29·i~ ~- L'iiil •J.S 

~c"ETJl 5.4 vo-2S·i~ NO t;61l ,l,5 

DE~t iCN 54 Oi-23·79 Mli ~S/l (I.S 

wEll£ TON 54 VI-N-H Nli USiL 0.5 

DloWI~~ 54 05·29-i; ijJi Uiiil 0.5 

Dl~ll~ON 5.4 0.-25-79 Nli U:iil u.s 

DIAiiS:<M 54 .07-23-a ND US/L 0.5 

DIAlllli:•N 5.4 01·20oH NO U&/l u.s OIAma~ 5.4 0.·17-85 \,5 U&/l 0.5 

DIAliNI'..II 54 02-11-ao \1.0 ~&il .5 

DIElliiiiN 54 05-29-79 ND u&IL 0.5 

OIELDl11M 54 0.-25-79 • ND Uiiil 0.5 

OIEL~aiN 54 07·23-79 Nli Uii/L u.s 

DIELUIIIII ·54 lll-2t-79 NO U&/L v.5 

DIELDRIN 'M 05-13-10 <0.02 U&/l v.s 

DIELDRIN .. CIH9·8V <0.02 u&,L _,,s 

DIELDRIN ... 0.·25·80 <0.02 US/L v.s 

DlELDIIIN S4 07-DB-80 <0.02 US/L o.s 

OIElDiilll ... 07-24-80 (0.02 UG/L 0.5 

iilElDRII .. ~ao <U2 ~6/L o.s 

DIEliiRIII .. 01-20·80 <0.02 U&/L o.5 

DIELDRII S4 OHl-10 <0.02 Uii/L 0.5 

OIElDiii• .. 06·17•85 (.05 U&il 0.5 

DIELDRIII S4 02•11-80 (,01 U&il .5 

EIIDOSULFAM 54-. 05--29•79 liD U&/L 0.5 

EIDCSULFAII .. .06•25-79 NO U&/L o.s 

EIIDOSULFAII .. OJ.Zl-79 ND U&/L 0.5 

ENDCSULFAII. .. 01--20.79 MD Ui/l 0.5 

ENilGSIII.FAII 1M 05-I:HO <0.02 U&iL 0.5 

ENDOSUlF.W B4 06-09-IIV <0.02 U&/L 0.5 

ENDOSOI.I'AN B4 "-2HO <0.02 Ui/L 0.5 

EJiDOSULFr.ll 14 07-o&-80 <0.02 UO/L v,5 

mosu~FAH 14 07•24-80 (0,02 U&/L 0.5 

EIIOOSUlFA.; M 01-04-10 <0.02 U&/L o., 

amO:iiJLFM 14 01--20.80 <0.02 Uiil o.s 

EIIOOSULFOII 14 OHHO <0.02 116/L o.s 

EIIOOSULFAII I 14 ·17·15 <.OS U&/L M 

ENDOSULFAII I 14 02•11-a. <.01 U6/L .s 

ENDOSULFM II .. • .,-15 <.OS ~'&II. 0.5 

mGSili.Fr.ll II 14 02-11 ... <.01 U&/L .s 

ENDOSULFAII SULFATE .. ··7·15 <.1 116/L 0.5 . 

EIIOOSULFMII Sil.FATE 14 02-ll•a. <.J U&/L .s 

ED IN 14 05-29-79 ND ~'&il o.~ 

EIIDIIII. 1M 06·25-79 MD U&/L 0.5 

EIIIRIN 14 07•23-79 liD U&/L 0.5 

EIUIII. .. ot·2o-79 •1 U&/L 0.5 

ENDRIII 14 0:0•13-80 <O.o2 ua;L 0.5 

EitDRIN 14 ""'"'80 <o.o; U&iL o.s 

EIIDRIII 14 •zs.•~ <0.02 U&/L o.s 

EIIDRIN 14 07-DHO <0.02 U&il o.s 

ENHIII 14 07·24-10 <0:02 11&/L ~.s 

Eli" IN .. ....... ., <0.02 UG/L 0.5 

ENDRII .. 01-2o-ao · <0.02 U&/L o.s 

ENDIIIN 14 ot~S·IO <0.02 U&/l 0.5 

EIDAII M 06•17•85 <.~5 US/L o.s 

£11GU. 14 . oz..u·•• <.01 U6/L .5 

ENDRII AllEMYDE s• .11-15 <.1 UI/L o.5 

ENDIIII ALiiEIIoDE B4 02•11•86 <.Ol ~6/L .s 

1111 • IIOT DETECiEii 
432 

aiiPtiUIID ........................... STA.CDE ••• ••••• SliP Ot\TE VNi.:JE .... UNI:o Sll?l&.~PTH (ftt 

crm~ s~ os-:;-1q tiC, Cj/l (1.5 

itHIG.~ 54 0.·25-79 ~~ rE:L 0.5 

tiiiiJ~ s~ G7 2~-;; :tj u~ L v. ~ 

ETMt~:l 54 Oi-2H~ NG UStl ,.s 

ETMIC111 54 G0-17-i;; , ,I U&il c.5 

ETHiii~ 54 02·1!-ilb o.u u&il .5 

&UT~ICN 54 05-2~-;; ~D U&iL •) .5 

&UTHIO~ 54 v6·25-H li~ tiGJi.. C,.!; 

&liTH Iilii 54 't7·2l·i9 . Ha ua;L 0.5 

iiJTlHOII 54 lill-2o-79 ~u ua;t u.s 

&UTHIGII 54 05-13-&il <2.0 UGil 1).5 

&UTHIOII 54 06-ot-&o i2,0 USlL 1).5 

&Ill HI Oil 54 06·25-iO <2.0 1!6/l ~.5 

6'.'lHliili 54 07-0il·B~ <M tiiil u.s 

&liTH IIIII 54 07-24·80 <2.0 li&/L 0.5 

&UTHICII 54 Gl-04·80 <2.u USil (1,5 

&UTHTOII 54 Ol-2o-&o <2.6 ~iiL 0.5 

&UTHtDli 54 09-tl-80 <2.6 u&i L u.s 

&UTNIOI 54 06-17-115 <1.0 lliiL 0.5 

&UTiilllll 54 02-11-86 <1. u&/L .s 

IIPTCI\011 54 05-29-H D u&iL u 

NEPTGDA 54 06-25-79 ND USIL 0.5 

IIPTACHLOII 54 07·23·79 NO U&/l 0.5 

IIPT li:HI.Oi 54 Ol-2o-79 liD U&IL 0.5 

IIPUCIII.OR 54 05-ll-80 <M07 US/L 0.5 

leT lOll~ 54 OHHO (0.007 ll&IL o.s 

NE,TAi:III.OR 84 06-25-&0 <O.GOi U&/L 0,5 

IIPTACIIL.ill1 54 07-41~&0 <o.oo7 u&/L .., 

tmAClii.OII 14 07-24-80 . <0.007 11&/L 0.5 

IIPTACII.OR 14 011-04-80 · <0.007 U&/L 0.5 

NEPTIICIILOR 14· Ol-2o-80 <M07 U&/L u.s 

NEPTAI."'UUR 14 09-03-80 <O.C07 u&/t o.s 

HEPT.allllli 54 06-17·115 <.01 U&il (1,5 

HUlAi:HLGil · 54 ON1·86 ( , 0(15 Cii/L . 5 

NEPiACIIlOii HOUDE &4 05-29-79 ND U&/L u.s 

NEPTACNLGii Emm 54 06·25-79 • 116/l u.s 

NEPTACiilOR HOUDE &4 07-23-79 D U&/L o.s 

IIEPTACiilGl! CFiiUliE "54 Ol-2o-79 liD IJ&/L 0.5 

IIEPTACIILC~ E~OIIl)£ 54 05-13-10 <O.OI U&/l 0.5 

IIPTM:Hli111 EPiili!i£ 54 GH-t-10 <O.OI U&/l o.s 

IIEPTACIIL!ia EfOIIU£ 84 06-2H? <~.01 u&/L 0.5 

IIPTiotllC~ EfGmi 54 07-61-80 <UI u&il 0.5 

IIEPTAQlllli EPiilTD£ ~ ........ <0.01 u&il 0.5 

NEPTAali.~ mm-E 54 01·2o-i0 <0.01 u&/l M 

~TACHLOR EPCliDE 14 09-03-lil <Ul !Jill 0.5 

IIPTt.CII.OII EPGJI&E 54 06-17·115 <.02 u&/l 0.5 

IIPTACii.lill EPQUD£ 54 02-11-86 <.005 115/l .5 

HEPTAII.CI Ei'DIIDE 54 ON4-10 (0.01 116/l 0.5 

ULTIWIE 54 06-17·115 <.5 Uli/L 0.5 

Qlliii\IIE 54 02-11·86 <1.0 .Uiil .5 

LIIIIME' 54 05-29-79 .. u&/l 0.5 

LllmAIIE 54 "·25-79 .. u&/l 0.5 

Lllliolli 54 Oi-23·79 8 UiiL 0.5 

lllil!'"l 54 oe-2o-n liD U6/L 0.5 

ll!Giolll 14 05-13·80 <o.uu7 IJii/L M 

Llllatl!IE 54 06-ot-8(1 \~.it~7 US/l o.:5 

LINaM& 14 06·25-8(1 <OAG7 Uiil 0.5 

Llllil"' 54 01-0I-a6 \6.~~7 Uiii l 6.5 

ll~ 54 07-24·&0 <Mu7 U&/t 6.5 

.. • IIOT mmED 
433 

u~:~~< 54 B··H-a~ · u • .:-~; ~·~;L ~,.), ~ 

Llt.~~!,E S4 VS·21i-l

'). ,1), ~·(. 7 uG ~ <•.5 

u:;:;.::t S4 09-.iH

·) 

. .. # ...... · • 

, iJ. v·/1 "'IJ • L .~ 

Ll~~;.~i' 54 ~o-li-os <.vi ~•·L ,,,5 

dNDi;t,E S4 ~:-IH6 <.uvS LSiL .s "~•m:c~ S4 &5-2;-;q hD U5il: u.s ML~THiO~ S4 UD·~:i-i~ ~o us:L ·).5 

~AL~iHION 54 07·2•-n ~" uaiL 0.3 

"~Loi~IC~ S4 v&-2H~ . "ii U~ll ~.5 

ftAlHiH:~ I S4 US·ll·i~ 

<0.01 Uiiil li.S 

IWILA!ij(CN S4 06·uHO \6, i CG/l ~.5 

"Al,;THIC~ S4 06-25·80 \0,7 U&/L 0.5 

llo1L.;THiiiN 

- 54 07-Vi-90 <O. 7 U6/l 0.5 

llo1LATHI~~ S4 07-24-80 {'(,, 7 USil M 

lltCUTHIOd 54 01·~4-8(1 <O. 7 Uii/l .>.5 

IW.ATHlON S4 08·2v-BO (0. 7 ~6/l 0.5 

II1UTHI~N 54 09-03·80 <O. 7 U6il 0.5 

IIHI.ATHICN S4 Oi-17·65 <.5 U&il M 

!W.ATHIQ. 54 02·11-Bo <1.0 U6il .5 

IIEiHCIIVl. S4 OHI-56 <S.VO u&fl .5 

IIETHOlVCil.lm 54 05-29-79 no uii/L o.s 

IIETHaXYCII.Im 54 06·25-79 MD USil o.s IIET~Ontlll.ca S4 07-23-79 ND US/l o.s 

IIETHOlYCHlllR 54 08·2o-79 NG Ui/l 0.5 

IIETHOHCHLDR 54 05-13·90 <0.3 US/l. o.s 

I£TNOJJCII.Oll 54 06-ot-80 <O.l US/L 0.5 

IIETH!IlVCiilOR 54' 011·25-80 <O.l U6/L 0.5 

I!ET~DlVCilOR 54 v7-0a-ao <O.l USiL u.s 

IIETHOIYCHI.OR 54 07-2HO <O.l U&/L u.s 

r.ETHOIYtHI.OR 54 08-D4·80 <0:3 U&/L o.s 

IIETHOHCil.Oil 54 01•2G-80 <6.3 uS/L M 

IIETHOIVCHLDR 54 09-Dl-80 <O.l U&/l o.s 

IIETHOUCHI.DR 54 02-U·Bio <.3 u;JL .s 

I!£THVL PAP.~THION 54 05-29·7! Ni Ui/l o.s 

IIETHVI. FAAATiiiOI .54 0.·25-79 liD Uii/l o.s 

!!ETHYL PARA!iHD• 

~· 07-23-79 Ni U&/l o.s I£THVL Pr.F.~THIOM 54 Gl-20-79 Jill Ui/l 0.5 

II I REI 54 05·29·79 liD US/l 0.5 

Ill REI 54 0.·25-it NO U&/l o.s 

IIIREl 54 tl-23-79 NO U&/L o.s 

IIIREi ,54 01-21)-79 liD Ui/l 0.5 

1111£1 54 05-13-ICI <O.OS U6/l ~.5 

IIIAEl 14 ........ ) <O.G5 U&/l o.s 

Ill lEI 14 Gr2HO (0.05 U61l u.S 

II I REI -54 07-DHO <0.05 U6/l o.s 

1111£1 14 07-24-iO (0.05 :till o.s 

II I REI ~ 01-04-80 <0.05 U&/l o.s 

mEl 54 11-20-co <O.u5 U&/l 0.5 

RIREI 14 09-Dl-80 <v.OS Uiill o.s 

OP-n• 54 0...17·115 <.05 U&IL 0.5 

OP·IDI 54 02-ll-86 \,01 lliil .s 

OP·DDE 54 06·17·115 <.05 USil o.s OP-1~ 54 02-11·8/o <.01 US/l .s 

OP·IGT 54 C..-17-85 <.05 U6/l o.s 

OP-Ht 54 02·U·IIo <.Cil Uiil 

.5 

PAiiATHlOM 54 05-29·79 Ni U&il u.s 

PARATHION 54 .. -25-79 liD U&/L o.s 

PAIUHI5ll 54 07·23-79 IQ li&iL . M ,_RATHIO~ 54 08·2o-79 NO ili/l o.s 

liD • lnT DET£Cru 
p~~~ 

! H! :~ 54 05·13 8~ 

\0. 3 !; ~il 

•l.5 

= ;. -.t:s 54 VO·V'i-0~ \~ . 3 l 11.5 

P• ,:T~i 1~ 54 uo-:5-Eu \0. j tl t 0.~ 

rA~olt:;:c~ 54 OH6·Su 

\0, 3 UGIL 0. s f~>~THI~~ 54 Oi-24-S•l <O.l US/l •i.5 

Mo!HIG~ 54 oa-o4-ao 

<0.3 U:iil ~.5 

MArH!O~l 54 v8·2Hv <o.:; uo1L 0.5 

Pof.ioTIIICN 54 Ghll-&v \0.3 US

il (1.5 

r.:.ft~iMi~-. 54 jjo-17-55 

<.2 USil 0.5 

fA~A!HlON 54 02-11-S~ <I US/l .5 

PCB 54 t5-21-i9 ~D U6il M 

PCB 54 0~·25-ii ~ii Uti/l 6.5 

PCI 54 o7-2l-n NV uoil 0.5 

PCB 54 OB-2G-i9 liD U&/l 0.5 

PCI 54 05-ll-60 \0,:15 USil 0.5 

PCI 54 06.V'i-60 \0.15 US/l 0.5 

PCJ 54 06-25-80 <0.25 US/l 0.5 

tta S4 07-vB-i<l <0.2Hiiil 0.5 

fCI 54' 07-24-80 (0.25 ~'6/l 0.5 

PCB S4 oa-oc-eo <0.25 U&iL 0.5 

PC8 54 08·20-BO <0.25 U&/l 0.5 

PCI S4 09-Gl-80 (0.25 U&il 0.5 

PCB-1016 S4 06-17-85 . <.1 Ui/l o.s 

PCI-1016 54 02-11-S. <.001 U&/L .5 

PCI-1221 S4 06-17-85 <.1 U&/L 0.5 

fCI-1221 S4 02-11-S. <.001 U&/l .5 

PCB-1232 54- 06-17-15 <.1 11&/L 0.5 

PCI-1232 S4 ·02-11-S. <.001 U&/L .5 

PCI-1242 S4 06-17-85 <.1 li&/L . 0.5 

PCB-1242 54 02-11-16 <.001 U&/L .5 

PCI-1248 S4 06·17·85 <.1 U&fl o.s 

PCI-1241 54 ~2-11-16 <.001 Ui/L .s 

PCB-1254 54 06-17-85 <.1 U&/L 0.5 

PC8·1254 54 02-11-S. <.001 US/L .5 

PCI-1260 S4 06·17·85 <.I Uill 0.5 

PCI-:1200 S4 02·11-S. <.001 u&/L .5 

PCI-1262 S4 06·17·65 <.1 U6/l 0.5 

PERT HAllE S4 02·11-S. <1.0 US/L .5 

PiiORAT£ S4 05-29-" • u&/L 0.5 

PIUATE S4 06-25-79 lill U&/L 0.5 

I'NOIIATE S4 07-23-79 1111 US/L 0~5 

PMDaATE S4 Ol-2o-79 Ill u&/L 0.5 

PMOSr.RII S4 05-29·79 1111 U6iL 0.5 

~Ill S4 lr25-7t Ill 116/L M 

PMGsMJI S4 07-23-79 IIi) US/L 0.5 

PIIDiMII S4 01-20-79 1111 U6/L 0.5 

PP-ODD S4 06-17-85 <.05 UG/l 0.5 

PP•SCD S4 02·11-16 <.03 U&/L .5 

PP·DH S4 06-17-85 <.05 U&il 0.5 

p;-DDE S4 02·11-S. <.Ol u&/L .s 

PP•DDT S4 06-17·85 <.vs U3iL M 

PP·DIT S4 02·11-S. <.OJ u&/L .5 

PRDII£lR1M S4 12-11-S. <5.0 Uiil .5 

PROF NAil S4 02-11-86 <5.0 Uiil .5 

lilliE. S4 05-29-79 10 U$/L 0.5 

RGIIIEL S4 Ge-25-Jf liD U6/l 0.5 

IOJI:IEL S4 07·23-79 it u&/L 0.5 

RUlol!B. S4 

.01-20-79 liD U&/L 0.5 

SINllll( 54' t2·11-S. <5.0 I.'G/L .s 

II •lliii ~TEtTED 
. 436 

~ 

- ................... ; ....... STA.CCE ........ SliP I)AT[ V!\1.~ .... L'liiTS oiC'L&.:iPTM lftl 

ST~(~~' E 54 05-2'i-79. !,J ~5 , L •).5 

;n:Eh-.~ t 54 o•-~s-H NG uu:.:. u.s ST~G&i.•E S4 ~i-23-i~ IU ~li L ~.5 

STi:~&o; ;& $4 os-~li-i9 ~D ~3il (•.5 

IE~ ION 54 vo-17-ii3 ,,, Uoil •.. · .. ml~N •• 02-IH6 <1.0 o:iiL .5 

TOUf~tNE 54 05-.9-i~ ~~ ua;L 0.5 

TGii.FiiO:~E 54 oH:r-n Nil Uii/L ~ . .. TGW.HE~E 54 07-23-i9 . lll'l lii/L. 6.5 

TQIA?!'E~E 54 OB-<o-79 IQ Ui!L ~.5 

TCli.?H(~E 54 05-ll-80 <0.25 USiL 0,5 

TOio\FiiE~£ 54 oro~-•~ <G.25 ~oiL o.s TCJv~Eii£ S4 or2s-;;o <0.25 lii/L o.s 

TDIAPIIttiE 54 07-lii-BO <0.25 liS/L G.S 

TOJAf..CN£ 54 07-:!4-BO <0.25 Ui/L o.s T~lo\fl!£11£ 54 oe-o..ao (0,25 lliil o.s TOJ~MEN£ 54 01-20-10 <&.25 116/L 0.5 

TDUFIIEIIE 54 09-03-iO <0.25 Ui/L c,.s 

TOUPIIEME 54' llrl7-115 <.S 116/L o.5 

TOIAPli£!1£ 54 02-11-.. <.OS lliiil .s 

lRIAZIW£ S4 02-11-.. <5.0 u&iL .5 · 

TIIFLUMI.II 54 05-29-79 .11&/L 0.5 

TRIFLIJIALIN S4 0..25-79 Ill U6/L 0.5 

TIIFLIIRALIN 54 07-23-79 liD u&/L 0.5 

lliiFLUULIN 54 011-2.-79 Ill Ui/L o.s 

TIIFLUIALiN S4 02-11-.. <5.0 u&/L .5 

iiiiTHI~ 54 tS-29-79 M1 il&iL 0.5 

lRITHlill 54 0..25-79 Ml U6/L 0.5 

TIITNIDI 54 07-23-79 • u&/L 0.5 

TIITHIIJII S4 Ol-2o-79 II U6/L M 

TIITNIII 54' 0..17-iS <.1 lli/L 0.5 

liiTNII!I S4 02-11-.. <l.t UIIL .5 

•• ~ 11£T£CTED 

73-729 - 93 - 15 
436 

CO"POL.~u.: ......................... STA.CDE ........ S~P DATE Yk.;E .... U~lrs S~!'l6.Di'TH l"l 

: ,•, 5-l S6 03-~H~ ·.•).5 L3rL v.s. 

2,1.5·1 Sb Oi>-17·&5 \ :~ ~S/L u.s 

2,4.5-TP Sb ~B-21·64 \(1.5 ~61L ~.s 

2,4,5-TP so Oo-17-85 \3V UO/L u.s 

2,4-i) 56 08-2'-64 <~.u :;:;;L o.S 

l.H 56 Ob-17-BS <~·i CUll: v.s 

I.LACHLOR 56 o2-t:-a11 <5.0 WL .. . ~LLICHi\B So 02-IHb < 1.0 LG/L .s 

ALL'i':!N 56 Ob-17-85· \.Ul ~Gil v.s 

ALDRH: Sb vb-17-aS \\). ~il i,;aiL .J.S 

ALDRIN 56 02-11-96 <.u,5 USiL .5 

ALPHio aHC 56 06-17-BS <.01 UiiiL 0.5 

ALPHA 6HC so 02-ll-&b cous uStL .s ~~EmN 54 02-11-&o <5.11 US/L .5 

illl\~!l:lt Sb 02-11-ao \5.1i U6/L .5 

BETH BHC 54 06-17-85 <.ft2 t;5/L 0.5 

!ETA 8HC so 02-11-110 <-~~5 Uiiil .5 

£ARi1A"ATE so 02-IHio <~.0 !.iSiL .5 

CAP8M~VL so 02-ll-84 <5.0 U6iL .5 

CAiiffiFUilAM so 02-11-S. <5.0 U6/L .5 

CIILOROASE so 06-17-85 <.02 U&iL 0.5 

CIILOI\O~tl£ so 02-11-84 . <.05 U&il .5 

mtA BHC so 04-17-85 \.01 U6/L 0.5 

DELTA iHC so 02-11-84 <.OVS !i&iL .5 

Dim NON so 04-17-85 <.5 UD/L. M 

mmcx St 02-11-86 <1.0 U&/L .s 

DIELuiUM so 06-INS <.OS Uii/L 0.5 

DIELDRIN so 02·11-S. <.01 U6/L .s 

ENOQSULFAN I so 04·17-85 <.65 U6/L 0.5 

EN!:CSULFMII I so 02-11-86 <.,01 U5/L .5 

ENOiloULF~N II so 06-17-85 <.05 UO/L 0.5 

EMDOSULFAN II .so 02-11-110 <.01 U&/L .5 

ENDOSULFAN SULFATE so 06-17-85 <.1 US/L 0.5 

END~SUlFo\H SULFATE so 02-11-86 <.3 li&/L .s 

ENDRIN ·SO 06-17-85 <.05 Uii/L 0.5 

EN&RIN !6 02-11-80 (.01 U6il .5 

ENDRIN ~LDEHVOE s. 06-17-85 <.1 U6/L 0.5 

EliliRIN ~LDEHVDE s. 02-11-84 <.Ol UGil .5 

ETHION s. ~-17-85 <.I li&/L 0.5 

ETHION so 02-11786 <1.0 U6/L .5 

6UTHIO• .s. 06-17-85 <1.0 U6/L 0.5 

&UTHION s. 02-11-80 <1. USiL .5 

HEPTIICNlOR S6 06-17·85 <.01 U6/L 0.5 

HEPTo\CitLOA s. 02-11-110 <.005 U&/L .5 

HEPTACHLOR E?OIIDE s. 06-17-85 <.02 US/L 0.5 

HEPTACIILOR EFOIIDE s. 02-11-111 <.OCI5 !JSil .5 

KELTHMNE s. 06-17-85 <.5 U6/L 0.5 

kELTHM!IE 56 02-11-S. <t.O USil .5 

LINDANE so 06-17-115 <.ill U&/L 0.5 

LINiiioNE so 02-11-86 <.uiiS UE/L .5 

IIALioTHION so 04-17-85 <.5 liSiL M 

IIALATHION so 02-11-86 (1.(1 Uiiil .5 

IIET~O".IL s. 02-11-110 <5.w U&/L .5 

IIETNOXVtHLOA so 02-11-110 <.~ Uiil .5 

CP-DilD S6 ~-17-85 <.OS Uo/L 0.5 

ONDD so 02-11-&.; <.01 Uiiil .5 

OP-DDE so 06-17-85 <.~5 U&iL 0.5 

O!'·DDE S6 02-11-86 <.ol li&/L .5 

01'-DDT so 04-17-85 <.05 li&/L 0.5 

II& • NOT DETEI:TED 
437 

... Dtllill .............. ,.,.,,,,.,,,, STA.CDE ........ SliP DtliE YAI.I:£ .... UIIITo S~Flii.~PTH 1Rl 

' ·Gjl 56 o:-u-:o <.Ol l5il . '" :;, o!HIC~ 5~ vi·11·ES <.: .;oiL .. u • .~ 

~~AI~ ION so ~~·IH~ \I ~ii/L .s :i-1~1· 56 O.·li-S5 <.1 ~oiL 0.5 

C9·1ill• 56 02-IHb <.OOI u•il .s 

ca-tm s• o•·t7-aj <.1 u;;l ~.5 

Ct-1221 56 o2-11-a.1 c ou1 u:;;L .5 

C8·12l2 s. 06·17-85 <.t u;;;L o.s 

ct-1232 56 .o2-11-eo \.~01 Uiiil .s 

:l-1242 56 v6·17-ii5 <.1 UoiL o.~ 

C3·1242 56 02-!Ho <.001 U&il .5 

:e-ma 56 o.-17-&S <.1 US/l o.s :a-ma 56 02-11-80 (,001 Uiil .5 

:a-tm 56 06·!7-&S <.I Uii/L 0.5 

i:8·12~ ·56 02-11-Sl <.O'll UGil .5 

:8-1260 ·so 06-17-85 (,J U6/l 0.5 

c~-1260 56 v2-u-a. (,001 UGil .5 

:8-1262 so· 06-17-&S <.1 ~/L o.s 

fRTHtUIE 56 02-11-Sl <1.0 U6/l .5 

P-DnD 56 06-17-&S <.05 ~6/L 0.5 

P·DDB 56 02-11-Sl <.ul U&tL .5 

i'·DG£ 56 o.-17-85 . <.05 U&/L 0.5 

~-DG£ 56 02-11-Sl <.Ol U&/L .5 

HDT • 56 06-17-85 <.05 Uiil 0.5 

P·DilT 56 02-11-Sl <.03 U&/L .5 

oOIItTRYW 56 02-11-86 \S,O U&/L .5 

Rilfllllft 56 ·02-11-Sl \5.0 U6/l .5 

l!IA!lliE 56 02-11-86 <5.0 U&/L .5 

ED lOll 56 o.-17-85 (,1 Ul/l 0.5 

E<ll S6 02-11-86 <1.0 U&/L .5 

OiAA!lll[ S6 0..17-85 <.5 Ui/L 0.5 

lJAfll(ll[ 56 02-11-Sl <.OS USIL .5 

'IAZIIIE Sl 02-11-86 <5.0 US/L .~ 

mLU~Allll 56 02-11-86 <5.0 UiiL .5 

~ITMIOIC 56 06-11-15 <.1 UliL 0.5 

HTIIIC•II 56 02-11-16 U.O 1.1&/L .5 

1 •ll!ll Dmtm 
438 

COIIPG!J~~ ................... ........ SlA.C~E ...... ~, SliP ~ATE Vloi.U£ .... UNITS SIII'L&.~PT~ tftl 

(,: , S·l 57 ca-< -:;~ \U. 5 ~~ l .s 

2, I,S·T s; OH7-3S \ lJ u5:L 0.5 

2,1 15-TP 57 ~·-2~·84 ~.5 UG iL u.s 

2,1,5-TP 57 06·17-65 <:U 1.1&1l o.s 

2,1·D 57 ~6-2H4 \1,0 USil ~.5 

2,1 · 0 57 oo-17-&5 <!v c&iL 0.5 

Al.AtHlCA 57 02·11·80 (5.0 ~iiil .5 

~Lm;.n; 57 .02-lt·oe \1,0 L;;il .5 

Al.DR11 57 06·17·85 <.01 U6il 0.5 

ALDRIN 57 02-ll-i6 <.~i15 Uo/L .s Al.PH~ B~C 57 06-17-25 . (.01 t:S/l 0.5 

ALPHA PHC 57 02-11-Sti <.uos ~aiL .5 

•"em• 57 02-11-86 i~.o usJL .5 

ATRAZIIOE 57 02-li-96 <5.0 USiL .5 

IKU Iii!!. 57 06-17-85 <.02 U~il o.5 

BETA liHt 57 02-11-S. <.005 UG/l .5 

CiiRiA~ATE 57 02-11-86 <5.0 Uo/L .5 

c~mm 57 02-11-86 <5.0 U&il .5 

CAUDfURo1M 57 02-11-S. <5.0 U&il .5 

tHlCiiGAME 57 06-17-85 <.02 USiL 0.5 

tHLCRiiA~E 57 02-li-S. <.05 L'S/L .5 . 

DELTA iHC 57 06-17-85 <.01 ti&IL 0.5 

DELTl tHC 57 02-11-S. '<.OUS U&/l .s 

D:~IIID 57 06-17-85 <.S IIG/l 0.5 

DIAZ!NCII 57 02·11·S. <1.0 U&/L .5 

DIEL~IN 57• 06-17-115 <.05 U&il 0.5 

DIELDill~ 57 02-11-86 <.01 USIL .s 

mOOUI.F•N I 57 06·17-15 <.05 US/L 0.5 

EIIDGSULFAN I 57 02-ll-S. <.tl U6il .5 

truOOUI.FA.~ i1 57 06-17-85 US U6/L 0.5 

ENDOSULi'AN II 57 02-11-S. (.01 U&/l .5 

E~DOSUI..FA~ SULFATE 57 06-17-85 (.1 il&/l 0.5 

ENDOSUlFi.:i SULFATE 57 02-11-86 <.3 116/L .s 

ENDIIIN 57 06~17-85 <.05 Uii/l 0.5 

ENOl IN 57 02-11-86 <.OJ U&/L .s 

EQaJN uE~VDE 57 .... 17-IS <.1 u&/L 0.5 

EliDA IN •~ nmae 57 02-11-86 (.01 116/l .5 

HHIGII S7 06·17-15 <.1 116/L 0.5 

ETHIOII S7 02-11-86 (1.0 U&ll .5 

SUTMI~M S7 06-17·85 <1.0 U&/L o-.5 

OUTIIIOM S7 02-11-86 ' <1. UG/L .s 

liEPTACHlilll S7 06·17-85 <.01 Uiil 0.5 . 

tEPTAtHI.ca S7 t2-U·ll6 <.065 116/L .5 

HEPTACil.OA EPOIIGE 57 .... 17-85 (,02 u&il o.s 

l£PTACM.OR Cf'illlilE 57 t2-11-86 \,ws u&iL .5 

ICELTH~ S7 16-17-85 <.S U&il o.s 

IELTMANE S7 62-11-16 <1.0 Uiil .5 

LIMDAiiE S7 06-17-· (.~1 u&/l 0.5 

LIIID~II£ S7 02-11-86 . <.005 US/L .s IW.ATiilij~ S7 06-17·85 <.5 \J&il o.s 

Ml.ATMJON 57 02-11-14 <1.0 U&/l .5 

llTIOIYL S7 12-11-86 <5.fN UOil .5 

IIETHOlYCIUR S7 OHI-86 <.3 U&/L ;s 

II'·D&D S7 06-17-115 <.05 Ui/l o.s 

II'· GOD 57 02-11·!6 (.01 U6il .5 

DP-DDE 57 Oi•li-85 <. 65 Uiil 0.5 

11'-DGE 57 t2-ll-86 <'.or UOJL .s 

II'·DDT &7 06-17-85 <.OS U&/L 0.'5 

11'-DOT 57 &2-11-86 <.r.3 USiL .5 

liD • IIDT GETECTEi 
439 

fol~~THIOH 57 06-17-35 <.; UG /l (•.5 

~~UTii!O~ 57 02-11·>• <l U:ii l .s 

PU·I\•Io 57 06·17-05 <.I \i5il •1.5 

Ptt-IOii 57 02-IHo <. ~01 ~oiL .5 

PC8·1221 57 Oo-ii-65 <.1 i:iiil o.s 

PCI-1221 57 02-ll·ii~ \,uvl us;L .5 

PCI·tm 57 vo-17·6~ \,1 ~Sil 0.5 

PCI-1232 57 OHI-ao <.001 ~Sil .s PCI-12~2 57 ·1)4-17-85 <.1 ~~·· 0.5 

PCI-1<42 S7 02-11·8~ <.Oil! Uoil .s 

PCt-1248 57 06·17-as <.1 USIL 0.5 

PCI-1241 57 02-11-50 <.001 UOIL .s 

PCt-m• 57 06·17-iS <.1 UG/l 0.5 

Pta· I~ 57 02·11-at c.oo1 ~&;L .5 

PCI·U.O 57 06·17-65 <.1 Uiil o.5 

PCI-1260 57 02·11-16 <.001 U5iL .5 

PCI-1262 57 06-17-as <.I USil 0.5 

PERTHIIIIE S7 02-11·16 <1.0 U&il .5 

PP·DDD 57 06-17-85 <.05 u&/L 0.5 

PP·DDD 57 02·11·86 <.03 U&il .5 

PP-DDE 57 06-17-i5 <.05 lli/L 0.~ 

PP•IDE 57 02·11-1£ . <.03 U&/L .5 

PP·DDT 57 06-17-55 • <.05 u&/L 0.5 

PP·IIT S7 02-11-16 <.03 u&/L .5 

Pllllllltvll S7 02-11·16 <5.0 Uli/L .5 

PRifiiM 17 02·11·16 . <5.0 1:6/L .5 

5I MII. S7 02·11-16 <5.0 1.'6/L .5 

Ttl lOll 57 06-li-85 (,1 11&/l M 

Ttl lOll S7 02-11-16 <l.t 116/L .5 . 

lDIIPIIE1IE SJ e.-17-85 <.5 11&/L 0.5 

TDitVIOE S7 . 02-11·16 <.05 11&/L .5 

TIJ.Ul. S7 02-11-16 <5.0 11&/L .5 

TIIFUIIAI.II S7 02-11·16 <5.0 111/l .5 

Til Til lOll S7 0..17·85 <.1 11&/L 0.5 

TIITIIIDI 17 12·11-16 <1.0 u&/L .5 

• •llf ll'lmD 
440 

2,4,5-l sa 08·2H4 

·u.s Uiil ... - c 

2,C ,5-T 59 o~-11-es 

\lit C6/L u.5 

: , I ,S·TF ;g CB-29·ii• ,~.:; u;;;l. Q.S 

2.4,5-TP ss 06-17-BS 

\:o USil o.s 

2,4-D sa 0&-29-U (1.0 ~iil 0.5 

2,4-D 58 06·17-SS 

i51l USiL o.s 

Ali,C"'-uA sa 02-11-iO iS.O i:o

il .s ~LOIC~~~ sa 02-11-80 il.u ua•L .s 

At0ii1N 58 ·ta-17-iS i.01 USiL o.5 

~um 58 02-11-86 <.OCS u&/L .s ~lP~A tiiC 58 06-17-65 <.01 U&/L o.s ~LP~A BHC sa 02-ll-86 <. uOS U&il .s 

AIIETRYN sa 02·11-Bi iS.O ii&il .s 

AU AliNE sa 02-ll-i!6 <5.0 Ua/L .5 

BEU &HC 5I 06-17-IS <.02 11&/l 0.5 

BETA&~ .51 02-11-16 <.oos U&/L .s 

CM5.BWrE 5I 02-ll-16 <S.O U&il .s 

CUBARYL sa 02-11-16 <5.0 u&/L .5 

CARiOF~RAII 5I 02-ll-16 <S.O 11&/L .5 

CHlORDANE 58. 06-17-85 <.02 u&il 0.5 

CNI.O~DAII£ sa 02-11-16 <.os U&/L .5 

DELTA BHC 5I 06-17-15 

(, 01 11&/L 0.5 

DELTA iNC sa 02-11-16 <.005 US/l .5 

DUll NOll 5I 06-17-15 <.5 11&/L 0.5 

DIAUIIOI Sl 02-11-M <1.1l 11&/L .5 

DIELDAII 5I 06-17-15 <.G5 Ulil 0.5 

tiELDm 5I 02-11-16 (.01 11&/l .5 

EliGCSiiLFAII I. 5I '06-IT-IS <.05 u&/l o.s 

EliDOsut.FAI I Sl 02-11-16 <.01 11&/L .5 

WOSULFAII II Sl 06-11-85 <.05 11&/L 0.5 

EliDOSUI.Fioll II 5I 02-ll-16 <.01 u&/L .5 

EIIUIISUlFAII SULFATE 5I 06-17-15 <.1 U&IL . 0.5 

£JmSUlFt.ll Sii.FATc sa 02-ll-16 <.l GIL 

.s 

EJI.aJII sa 06-17-15 <.05 U&IL o,s 

Ell"ulll 5I 02-11-lio <.01 11&/L .s 

EliDRJM AI &ENY"uE Sl 06-17-15 <.1 11&/L e.s 

EIIDIII EHVDE sa 02-11-M <.Ol 11&/L .5 

ETHIOII 5I 06-17-15 <.1 11&/L 0.5 

ETHTOI Sl 82-11-M <l.t 11&/L .s 

IUTHIOII Sl 16-17-15 ( 1.0 11&/L 0.5 

IUTIIICII Sl 02-11-M <1. U&IL 

.s 

HEfTacHLIII 5I .17-15 <.01 u&/L 0.5 . 

IVTACHLIII • 02-11-16 <.005 11&/L .5 

IIEPT.0..DR EPOIIGE 5I 16-17-15 <.02 11&/L o.s 

HEPTACHLOR EfOllliE • 02-li-M <.005 UI/L .5 

IELTHAIIE • •n-a <.5 11&/L 0.5 

II:ElTIIAIIi • 02-ll-16 <l.t U&iL .5 

LIIDAIIE • •n-a (.01 11&/L 0.5 

lllllloiiE • 02-ll-16 <.005 11&/L . 5 

MLJTHIOII 5I 16-U-15 <.5 uail e.s 

IIIII.ATMIOI 5I 02-11-16 <1.0 UI/L .5 

II£THGIIYi. • 02-ll-16 <S.GO 11&/L .5 

lllliiiiVCII.DR • 02-ll-16 <.l U&IL .s 

GP·DI9 • ... 17-15 . <.05 11&/L t.S 

GP·IDI • 02-ll-16 <.01 11&/L .s 

GP-DD£ • trl7-15 <.GS :,Ill o.s 

GP-UE • 12-ll-16 <.OJ !ail .s 

IIP·DIT • trl7-IS <.05 UIIL o.s 

GP-501 • o-n-.. <.U UIIL .s • •IIIIT IETECTD 
441 

~~~..: · .. !•G· . ........................ s~a.~r:: ....... ; ;u OoH£ v~~r< .... u.,ns .,_FI.i.tPTI! :111 

• • • tt ~':!t ss ~•-n-•s '·~ u;,~ b.~ 

f.; ;.~ ~ i~:. 58 o~-11-&b <I ii:;l . ;:Hvlo $1 06·17-&5 \.1 C&il M 

~t-io,. $1 OHH6 <.~G! US;l ·.5 

FC~-1221 $1 u6·17-as (.I ~6il u.s 

P;;S-1221 5I 02·1l·i6 .~at \!ii;~ .5 

l'CJ·tm 5I W.-17-85 (.! lii/l 0,5 

FCi·tm sa .. o:-u-ao (.w! USil .5 

PCS·t24' $1 06·17-85 . <.: USil ~.5 

Pti-m2 sa 02·11-!o <.Oiil CSil .s 

PCi-mi $1 06·17·85 <.I UGiL e.s 

Pte-ma $1 02·11·86 <.6~1 :!Sil .5 

PCi-1:5' $1 06-17-55 <.1 U&/L li.5 

f£1-1254 $1 02-ll·a <.VOl IJII;I. .s 

PC8·12i0 5I 06-17·85 <.1 116/L o.s 

Pti·12t1 5I 02·11-iiO <.001 U&IL .s 

PCI·Im Sl 06-17-15 (,1 U&il o.s ~F.TIIA:C 5I 02-11-86 <1.0 Ui/L .s 

PP..DiiD 5I 06·17·15 <.05 U&/L 0.5 

fP-DD~ Sl 02-11·86 \.01 U&/L .s 

PP·Dl'E Sl 06-17-15 <.05 U&/L o.s 

PP-Dtf Sl 02-11-iiO . <.01 L'I/L .s 

PP-DliT Sl 06-11-iS \,OS Ui/L 0.5 

PP-II'T • t2-11-t6 <.~ 11&/L .5 

PROIIETRt• Sl 62-11-ft <5.t Ui/L .5 

PRCPIIioll Sl 12-11·86 . <5.9 11&/L .s 

Sllli\ZIIIE · Sl t2-1f-B6 •S.v UiJL .s 

TUIOII • o.-11-n {.1 U5Jl o.s 

lED lOll Sl 12-11-16 <1.0 116/L .s· TGIAPO Sl 06-17-15 <.S 116/L 0.5 

ltloliE!IE • 12-11-86 <.05 •IL .s 

'!IUUII!i Sl 12-11-iiO <5.0 .. /L .5 

TRiFl!liAll• •· 02-11-16 <5 •• lt&/L .5 

lRITHIGII Sl e.:.n-a <.1 116/L 0.5 

DITHIOII • 02-U-86 u.e •IL .5 

• •llllt IElETD 
442 

FLORIDA KEYS CI11ZENS COAllTION, INC. 

P.O. Box SIOS23, lCcy Colony s-:h, FL 330Sl-OS23 

(30S) 74). 7944 

A 0011p101it SOI(c)(3) COIIICMiion Cllpniza1ion ·Founded 1973 

July 31, 1993 

Representative Oeorp Miller, Chainnan, House Nlllllnll R.esoun:es Committee 

Representative Brw:e Vento, Chairman, Subcammitlee on National Pwb, Forests & Public Lands 

Representative Peter Deutsd!, Congressman 20th District, Florida 

Manbcn of the Mm:hant Marine and Fiahcrics Commitlee 

GeoqJe Frampton, A:Js't Secmary, U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Manbcn of the Hearing Panel Delegation 

Subject: 

Teltimcny to the Corweuional M.ing at Key Colony Beach City Hall ~ with ~the 

health of the EVCIJ)ades, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys ecosystem. 

Dear Members ofthe Harina Panel, 

We we very priveJesed to have you here to develop a solution to the exlremely serious failure of our 

unique ec:osystcm and the damaaini In addition to this very important marine environlnent, 

we have at stake the value of our businesses, homes, our Clllin: economy and the quality of our lives. 

Most of us now ape that the coral reef of the Florida Keys, Florida Bay, along with our seapsses and 

the entire IIIBrine environment are being destroyed by improper land use. 

The fcdaal, stale and county governmcn11 have ignored the laws. They have allowed much of the 

EVC!Jiadcs to be developed, mined, farmed and polluted. Most or the fresh wa1cr has been diverted and 

the rest of the walcr is pollWU. the Evc:raJadcs, Florida Bay and the coral reef. Although there has been a 

federal law suit and great public 0111rage the South Florida W&~o:r Managanenl District and the Go¥anor 

have not been willin& to take meaningful corrective action. 

The Federal Marine Slllldualy Plan has failed to consider land use effects upon the marine environment 

The Codcral EPA allows poor SCW1iC tm11mcnt and it allows the Army Corps of Engincaa to p!t 

pennits for 97% of the applications to fill wetlands.1bis is in violation of the federal Clean W&JIJI NJ. 

and allows DIOR development that causes even more pollution. The consequence is a dead Florida Bay 

whole pollution is clcpadq the reef. 

There is abo pollution over IIIUdl of the Florida Keys which have been ovadeveloped in tolal disreprd 

of the marine cnvironmcm. Although millions have been spent for land use plannina to procec:t the 

Florida l<cyl, there bas _. been a decision to set land use limils to pro1cct the marine water qualily. 

There bas - been alllllricnt lnd odx:r COIItiiDimnt load limit established. Every land use decision Cor 

IDCft development bas ianored the cnvironmcntal impact and caused more dc&radation. 

The MWiand use plan which four of the Monroe COIDlty Commissioners we attemptina to have lplliOWd 

would - DIOR Cll~ cleptldltion. 11 faila to set land IISC limits within the cnvitanmcnt'a 

lbility to IUIIIin illclf. 11 l11ows C¥aJ men -u.J and high density residential devclopnc:& h 

lllows filq and development of disturbed wetlancls as does the Federal Marine Sanctuary Plan. The 

Monroe Coudy plan bas C¥aJ RIIIO¥ed height limitations, setting the Slap for hiah rise developncnt lnd 

even JDOR pollulion. 
443 

July 31, 1993 

The Marine Sanctuary proposal has failed to address these problems and would pcrpctuate the failllrC$ of 

the pat Fcdaal EPA and the Army Corps ofBnginccn policies cause the problems to become worse. 

Please take the ~kind of action to ccmpcl the fcdaal agencies to oomct their practice of causins 

these failures and implement policies which would allow the marine environment to restore and sustain 

itself. 

yOW'S truly • 

.ffir-& ~-- ~ 0eorse KundU. Chairman 

Encl: 

Miami Herald, "Mistaaccn Policies Endanger Lives and Environmnet", 12128/91 

Keynoter, "Malignant Plan', S/8/93 
444 

Malignant plan 

New land-planning regulations will 

endanger ·lives, .degrad~ environment 

Four of the MODroe County Commlllioners have created a averely weakeued new lalld·use plaD that .takes away lmportaDt protection we have had since 1988. Tbey are uow attempUna to aet state app,oval for their plaD which will eDCJanaer thousands of Jives, dearade our environment and rmse tues. Some recent news reports incorrectly claimed that the new plan cut the rate of arowth In half. Tbe truth Ia that the 1986 plaD, which had been amended, and the. new plaD, limit resldenU&I development to 2:15 unlta per year. Tbe most destructive part of the new land·uae plan eUmlnates Important hurricane evacuation pro- tection. The new plan would conlinue to allow over-de· velopment to the extent that 36,000 people will not 

be able to evacuate to aave their Uves from a burr!· cane. It would allow more development to the extent that It takes 30 boun to evoeuate the Keys. No matter bow many laDes are added to the road, 

It would not reduce evacuation time. These facts are ahown In Monroe County's official records. Tbe new plan causes mont environmental dear•· dation. It. falb to set Jand·ua Umlta within the envi· ronment's ability to lllltaln ltaelf.lt allowo more C:ommercial and hl&h deulty retklentlal develop- ment. It allows development of wettando. Tbe plan bas even removed bel&ht limitations, oettln& theotace for hi&h·rlae development. When our environment falla, we willlooe the quaUty of our Uves and the ecouomlc value of our homes and bualneaes. · Tbe plan allowo more over-development without couldarlna the buae ourplua or commercial and reol· deotlal propertleo oo the market for years. Thiois a 

GEORGE KUNDTZ 

Guest 

Columnist 

c\'cre economic hardship, particularly ~m the elderly who must sell their homes. The plan would cause even higher taxc> to pay for facilities needed by new development. It is a blank check to allow more over-development indefinitely, 

regardless of the environmental or economic conse· quences. This may explain why development interests have consistently testified In favor of this plan. Four of the commlllioners insist on their plan lor more over development, regardless or the cost in lives, environment or hl&ber taxes. Tbe Florida Keys Citizens Coalition had no choice but to take le&alacUon as an intervener to correct 

this malignant plan. The success of our e!!ort depends upon the public's financial support. Please send your tax deductible contribution and pledge your volunteer support to the ~·lorida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc., P.O. Box 510523, Key Colo- ny Beach, 33051-0523. George Kundlz is chairman ollhe Florida Keys Clli· zeru Coolilion,lnc. 
THOUGHTS FROM A KEYS CONSERVATIONIST 

Mistaken policies endanger lives and e

' I ' ' • 

11JGEORGEKUND1Z 

M ONJlOECOUNTYCmnni...._..bmo 

lldopted a oew ~ plaaaiac polic:yt.bat II daqerouoly flawed. The policy would produce • plaD that would be deotruclifttD !be marine 

eminJDmeDt .... tbe ecGIIOIIIJ 

that depeDda UjlOII t.bat 

..u-t. 

It would aloo_..,.. !be 

liwoolreoideataaod -on tD tbe Plorida ICeya iD !be event a ~ lltrilleL lDordertD correct u-.....:ceptlble • plaaaiDc policieo, !be Florida 

X.,. em-Coolitiaa, Inc. . (FKCC);olwllidl I 1D1 cbairmaD, 

baa filed • petitiaD for 

~ ' . The _ _._ .... .._ 

lmbelienble .,...a.1em II tbe ' 

plaD'a policy allowiaa<XIIItinued K ~tD!beateDtt.batlt ........ 

would tUe 30 boun for- mo:aatloD. The NatioaaJ 

Weather Senk:e liable tDJ)ftdict a JaunicaDe blttiAa a puti&:Giar lacatiaD 12 bounl before l.adfaJl with 60 

pa~~burricllleencuatica...iuu.. 12 bounce Jeaail c:caoidered idell. Couoty data..., tbeallllitrt~>encqateattbenteoi2,000peopleper 

!lour. 1'1111~'*-12boun'forecu11Da 

alillty .... 30 bounencuatica liiDe 1118 boun. ~ boun liiDea 2,000peo;Peper !lour eqlllla 

36,000peaple wboiiiiJDOt be able tO~ The 

coaatrburricllle plaD tbeft4areapeciliei ftl7 ariJ ~ 30bounpricc1Dtbe lft'iftloltropbl 

ltDrlll wiDda. 

Thil illaac before a hurricaae laadfaD lacatlaD can be pndicted cc a hurricaae WlrlliDI can be made. There 

11110 behnionl atudr"""""" t.bat people wlllleue thil adJ ....... there II ODiy a .erylllmchaDce ~a 

burricllle atrildDc tbe Keyo. A likely c:cueqaeDCe would bea~baollifeinahopeleaaelrccttDgetout 

=:==:!d'~finaiiJ ......... thattbe 

AJtbcucb 30 boun would be oeecled tD evacuate, tbe »boar ariJ encuoticaorder doeaDOtallow for the 

Ume -,.tD lower cme oitbe bridaa if it' a atuck iD .tbe ap politiaD cc tbe additioaal time aeedecliD cue of a '*I aa:ideat.Juot receatiJIIlaccidi;Dt caaaed u.s. 1 to be c:looed for ...... hoan. Ap-beletforaaa{e12-hourencuatica . time. "Wbile itiiiiJDOt be poooible at thil time, ft muot DOtmakelt,....byallowiaamoreaod-

~thuoaddiqiDtbe~ 

Wldeldacoitbeencaatioll route II DOt tbe - · The DeW ploiuiiDc pollc:ywiDmake thil _,.'*I 

aitualila much...,.. by cbaaliaa !be metbod ol cak:alatlllatbe U.S. 1 Lenl c(&irrice. At pnoart, tbe atate deliaeo aerilce leoeiAaa unimpeded traffic flow 

wbile leoel F II tbe aloweot traffic flowntiq. Uoder tbe 

COUDtt'MXiatiaa recuJatjoaa, half olU.S. 1 ilat leoel E cc F, wlllda !ll'lllillita !be...._ olaew buiildlDi C*ID .. ..._aiDoethiltrafficCIIIIdltloaaareao 

1'1111 ""'policr'ametbodoi calcalallaD, byllllllleric 

lleilbtoibllld, wlll .... tbeft!Y..,traffic-ll 

SATURDAY, OECEMBER28. 199111A··. 

!THE MIAMI HERALD 

aervice-lnel C. Thia would allow more buikliuc 

penDita, in total clil:eprd for tbe alrady impooaihle. .burricllle encuatioll plan. · AD ol thio baa been _..,.ed by both Mcmoe Couat

Qnrnitojmen .... tbe Florida Depulment ol 

Commullity Alfain --'!:C':"': ol tbe Plorida X.,. DCA office aad · · · Earl Cbealbmo abcnm how thio-metbod ol calcWatiaD will violate Florida growth ...... apec:ifically Code 9]-5. 

The oew laDd-plamlina policy may aloo be 

deotruclift tD our marine emiromDeot by allowing a . 

huie loopbole for deftlopmeDt of diaturhed wetlaMo. WetlaDda are tbe oriein oltbe marine life cycle aod mus

be protectecl. Code 9J-5-t.bat clioturbed wetlaDcla muat be ratored, DOt cletelaped. The law •P!"'P'tl)' 

recopiaea t.bat tbe nlae ol our proper!J aod our entire ~depeDda..,...abell!hJmariileeminlament. 

The jlllllainapolicy CCIIDtadown lltniDIIJcm tbe oide oidetelopenwhereit-doubtaabOat abilit)'ID ....... mariDe 'eutiiGW6dlilcanJiul c:apecity (able 

to be aelf~ l"erbbpe thil attitDcle, in luppoct oldeftlopmeDt~oitbeca>aeqDeDCe iawby 

tbe Plorida Ke)'amar!Deeavil- baa bec:ome ao 

~~wouldalaolacreuedelllit)'in urban ueu. 1'llla laiD cleu violatiollol aDOther atate law t.bat 

requireltbellllldplaDID"-t~ollaod 

and noid undue OIIIICelltratioll'oi populatioll."The 

COUDty'l policy clilreprda impoc:t em tbe marine 

envirollment aod makea ID DDpo.ible burriciDe encuatiaDplaDeft!llwcne. . 

. The ltaled ~in thil oewcoaatr pollct laiD 1acreue delllit)'ID make it more jnlltable for I deftloJlen. fait..,_... t.bat tbe e.catlft clirecttl
.............. u.~­

~··--.... -fiTa -lllLC. ....... 

.. LoL Lo ........ ..,. • ., .. 

.C-"'L~· 

---"'·""'" ... '"DI'ITI'" -· 

....,L "- UAYOfT, _, .. -LoL ......... .,......,.. •ncMau.&-a• 

ao-•oa.~ 

--.. .~ . .... n ao-•o Lo •un•• 

..... C:..LOV~ 

.-......... -.. . ........... - ... ? 

Ms. Uncia Stephens 

....,...,aa~GMAL. .-...ocv.T'M;MII 

ATTOIIIMilY. MilO eot.HIIM~ AT ..... 

,..., IWftCS - ,.,, ...... ,

·- aut CIOU&ell --....,c. , ... n.oDit 

y.............._ ..._.. ••eo• fii:Lil_.MOMil (MMt ll<l•MM 

tniiCOI'IutC.oot)_..~ 

fii:L~II:· (~) ..... 07.1 

October 12, 1993 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Longworth Building. Room 1328 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: Aorida Bay 

Dear Ms. Stephens: 

... ~-~ 

-· ... ¥0111 ....,La. acoo~a• 

---""'C'CI ~. -M)NcY 

~·Lo8flllllll.. 

--~ ~a.u.eena.-

•• ...._..c. ....,.11: .. 

---

The enclosed statement is submitted on behalf of South Dade Land Corporation in 

connection with the Florida Bay hearinp. 

If you have any questions, please contact me. 

SMA/ks 

Enclosure 

cc: James Humble 
447 

SOUTH DADE AGRICULTURE NEED NOT BE 

DESTROYED TO SAVE FLORIDA BAY 

Submitted by South Dade Land Corporation 

South Dade Land Corporation is the owner of a 5,200± acre tract of very valuable 

agricultural land in Southern Dade County. 1bis land has become known in regulatory 

circles as ''The Frog Pond", although it is not a pond; it is farmland. 

Southern Dade County is one of the few areas in the United States where winter 

vegetables may be grown. The property has been designated "unique" by the United States 

Soil Conservation Service because of the special climatological conditions which exist there. 

In fact, this property has been the source of the 2/3 of the winter tomatoes grown in the 

United States. 

The South Dade County area has always relied heavily upon agriculture for its 

economic base .. ·South Dade Land Corporation's agricultural operation on this property has 

been the source of millions of dollars in revenue to the local economy. The Dade County 

agricultural region was severely damaged by Hurricane Andrew. Many grove-based 

agricultural industries were completely destroyed because of damage to trees. 

Unemployment in the agriculture industry became a byproduct of these losses. The South 

Dade Land Corporation property was not damaged and did not suffer permanent losses due 

to the nature of the tomato plant and the growing cycle involved. ~ a result, the South 

Dade Land Corporation's property becomes an even more important source of jobs and 

income for the Homestead-Florida City area. ~ this area continues to recover, it faces a 

new challenge: well meaning regulators responding to pressure to "do something" about 

Florida Bay. 

Florida Bay is a valuable ecological resource, and South Dade Land Corporation is 

supportive of the research efforts needed to determine the causes of the environmental 

phenomena affecting the bay. However, in the course of these multi-agency, multidirectional effons, the suggestion has arisen in some circles that the "Frog Pond" should be 

purchased as part of a plan to JJJOYe more -ter to Florida Bay. 

73-729 - 93 - 16 
448 

Proceeding with such a plan would be a senseless mistake and a sad waste of 

resources. Unless the goal is to destroy a valuable agricultural resource and· the source of 

many jobs for hurricane-ravaged Southern Dade County, there is 'no reason why regulatory 

agencies cannot effectuate their goal of moving more water into Taylor Slough without the 

destruction of the agricultural activities taking place in the "Frog Pond". 

South Dade Land Corporation's scientific consultants have been studying the 

hydrology of this area longer than many of the scientists assigned to work on the Florida Bay 

problem. They are aware of various options for movement of water into Taylor Slough 

which would not result in the need to acquire the ''Frog Pond" property. 

South Dade Land Corporation's scientists are ready to discuss these options with the 

agencies. Follow-up on this offer has been encouraged by numerous public officials but the 

opportunity to discuss these options has not been taken up by staff of the regulatory 

agencies to date. Acting on such an alternative will allow regulatory agencies to achieve 

their goals for Florida Bay while at the same time preserving a valuable agricultural 

resource. 

2 
July 24, 1993 

Charlene Dousherty 

Aide to Georae Hiller, Chairman 

Natural Resources Committee 

1324 Lonaworth HOB 

Washington DC 20515-6201 

449 

Re: Natural Resources Committee Visit to Marathon 7/31/93 

Dear Ms . Dousherty: 

I was referred to you by Linda Stevens reaarding the speaker list for 

the committee visit scheduled for later this week. 

REEF RELIEF is a laraely volunteer arassroots non-profit sroup that 

has led efforts to protect the coral reef of the Florida Keys for the 

past eiaht years. A few years ago, we hosted Georae Miller and his 

staff during hearinas resardins offshore oil development in the 

Florida Keys. We personally arranaed for a trip to the coral reef for 

the Consressman and was able to discuss our concerns with him . 

We are writing to you as his representative to ask that a very important scientist be included in your heariruls on the issue of 

restoring environmental health to the Everslades and Florida Bay . Dr. 

Brian LaPointe is with Harbor Branch Oceanosraphic Institution and has 

has been studying alaae srowth in the Florida Keys for the past ten 

years. He presented an overview of the Florida Bay alsal bloom 

problems and the relationship to watershed manaaement and associated 

nutrient inputs at our recent annual meetir•s in Key West. Enclosed i.s a paper he presented recer.tly at the Global Coral Reef Symposium in 

Miami . A eimilar paper was presented at the Coral Reef Symposium held 

in Guam laet summer. He can be reached on Big Pine Key at (305) 872-

2247. 

His presentation revealed that fresh water input to Florida Bay has 

increased over the past two yare, especially in 1992 via the Shark 

River Slough system, which increased the nitroaen loading to the 

western Florida Bay region and exacerbated the algal blooms in Florida 

Bay that have now reached the coral reefs of the Upper Keys. 

Dr . LaPointe speculated on the source of the nitrogen which he 

believes is traceable to farming activities. The process of raising 

and lowering water stages in the canals results in the oxidation of 

niotroaen-rich peat soils. Approximately one inch of top soil is lost 

each year. He referenced the ~nAl-~~•ARbi~ article of several 

years a.ro which noted that since the 1930's up to seven feet of top soil has been lost in the Everglades farming areas. 

Mailing Address: Post Offke Box 430, Kq West, Florida 33041 

E7Wi1"0f1171111Ja/ Education Center: 201 William StrNt, ~!I West, Florida 33040 

T~kphOM (305)294·3JOO I FAX:(305)293·9515 

F+inlod on lloqcltd /'ap<r 
450 

P&ett Two 

Taylor Slough has b~en the focus of publicity surrounding the 

percieved need to incr~ase surface water flow to the Bay. In fact, 

this slough represents less than 10 percent of the watersh~d of 

Florida Bay. The Shark River and the rest of th~ Everglades supplies 

the bulk of the fresh water to Florida Bay. Groundwater seepage is an important factor as well that has not been considered in restoration 

plans . 

We are concerned that the current approach to restoring Florida Bay 

overlooks the role of nutrients--both nitrates and phosphates. This 

oversight has increased the algal blooms and is doing irreparable harm 

to our marine ecosystem . The solutions lie in reducing the nutrient 

loadina prior to releasing additional freshwater to Florida Bay . Until we address this aspect of the problem , we are only further 

poisoning an otherwise collapsing ecosystem . 

We hope you can accommodate this hil{hly respected scientific 

authority. Thank you for your consideration. Please give Congressman 

Miller my personal regards and encourage him to take action on H.R. 

583 and 584--legislation pending before his committee to provide 

permanent protection from off,.hor~ oil in Florida. We have been 

fighting this annual drilling ban approach for too many years--it's 

time to buyback the Florida offshore oil leases. 

Very truly yours, 

DeeVon Quirolo 

Project Director 

enclosure per above 
451 

PHOSPHORUS INPUTS AND EUrROPI!ICATION ON TiiE FLORIDA REEF TRACT 

Brian E. Lapointe, I Willbm R. Matzie.t and Marl< W. Clark2 

I Harbor Branc:b Occa!>osrar>blc lnsdtution, Inc. Rt. 3. Box 2l>7A 

Bit Pine Key, FL 33043 

2 Center Cor Wedancls and W- Resource< 

Unlvmil)' ac Florida 

Ga!Deoville, Fl. 32601 

ABSTRACT 

'Ille Florida a.e.r TtliiX <FRn has expcrtenced dromallc c:baDp and tou or c:cra1 covt~ durinJ 11>e J'UI-CollowUIJ many 

decadel fl m-e biiii>ID liCIIvideo 011 d>e soudl Flodcla warenbed. CcmJWIII"" sbldtea durina 1990 sbowed tllal dllo<cpbyU a. tlllbldity,llld local ciWoi...S pbosr>t .•. ,... 10\e 2-3 Cold bJ&bct 011 bini< ..Cs or die FRT COIDJll'*l to llilllilar ~eefs iD 11>e tess developed 

--Calibbun JeCian. Sampllna <hlr!Da SlliiiiiiCr I99211bowed blah pbospbcruiCiliiCZDinlicn• iD redo-' oa11n1ty coasw w~~m lklq tbe ....., Gulf fl Mexlco, inclkall•J W.S.bue<IIOIIrCU af"""""'""" 1Dpu1. l!xlstlnJ data 3lld obsavltioGs also slluw lblll JRValiiDS cumatooftbe lnner<beltwoten cflllc......,. GulforMeaicomoYO 10<1dlerly. la10 Florida Bay, 1114 !hen ,..ward, 

providlna a Dlfdlonillll for I'I>I>SJlllonlo tnnspan to d>e FRT. 

Beca""'lllt Cllllbooale-ridl- of tbe FRT ore pbooqlllon>$-llmltod, Clllluladve ~ inputa fnliD far·Cidd SOUII:C6 (as 

wdlas -field sowm) mix wilb N·ridl WalaS in d>e Florida JC.ys IIIII provide a bsloDcod nacrimt SUJ1IIY -to swcalu llllisance 

alpJ blociiiL Enridlmeat above albrabold or- 0.10 11M lOIII dlslolvecl pboopbonll ~ aclcqUIICto support DUisaDCe alpl bloolu. 

~ 

A l..aDdalllllldlile imaJe lalralin We May IO!l21bowed a denle pb)'IOpi&Dkloa bloom in thto ._-wbeno we oboerved 

CN·UDUiedl- oflbo eas1tm C'n~lf oCMaico 11oWinJ inO> N-rldl (1'-Umiled)- rlwe$10m Florida Bay. 

IAc:reued!'I>)IIOJIIaDiaoD and llllbldily ...Wiin& from mixlna of lbese wall:tlyJieo roault in wlcleornod aiJIII blooms. wllidl suess ..r system~ by reduclua sullaWU>e HcJ>t while dmulllnDOUSiy iDcteasina eedlmeD1ali011 that smodler• c:araiJ, increueo c:cra1 disease, 1114 

Cllhlac:et c:cral oYallJOWib by belllhl< ma<roaiaao. TCI1IJlCOIIIllll extre11101 baveloDa beeD -...eel to exert die J1rimatY ....,.. ""c:cral 

reef dovelopneat alonJibo FRT. However, our data 3lld observatioN IIIIJeSI that pi>OII'b<Jntt lllf'GC& from b11111an liCIIvllies ill south 

Anricla represent an UJI'tteam "'''tee conlribudnJ to eulm(lbl<adan 011 the FRT. 

INillODUCTION 

CC0$131 eutropbicatiott resulliD& l'loal bum&D aulrletlt tllputs Is -.!deled 111e ol t11o -IIIJOIII eavllontneDIII slpals 

C()Q'dadna witb t11o lk>bal ~or c:cralrem (D'EIIaetal. 1991; Bell, 1992). ThD220-mlle 1on1 Floriclaa.etTnct <FRn.lbe 

1-aat coral reel $ystelll lll Nonh America. Is adjaamt to tlpldly arowinJ IOGIIl Flcrida wblcb ,_._ W811e......, inpull from domalic, apic:ullunl,llld lnduslrii!IIOIIIteS. Evidence SUJIOSISIIIaldle FRT hal eJq>etiea<ed - ond dlapiD c:cral populatioDs 

overtbeputdecades (Dusran llld llalaA. 1987; l'bncraiiCIMeter.IW.Z). ~on .. clellnodlleteaa "nulunculpl blocms" (Purl. 1988) -·hal boeD repeotedly cltecl u • .....,.,. _,.,tile FRT (Miller, 1988; USEPA. 1992). Whllc JtUclielllaVe documel>ted 

the JO!e fllocall2od clomeJtlc w .. le......, iaputs on euucpblc:allao of die FRT (l.apoiDie 3lld Clllll:, 1993), """" clistaol but sipitlcaDt 

........ of aulrialt inf'UIS from rlle,ooulb Florida wataShed bave DOl been IWO$Sed. 

lbere Is"""*' f~ ..,ea.! <011<0111 reaardina nulrieat I'DJlUII from tile- Glllt fl Maico as t11coo ..-1 w-. ore biJbly earldled in J)lloopllorus (P), r11e JWnwy nuuieru .-Umitlna a1J111 JIOWII!IIId euaqllllcldon 111 bel:t·Nd ........ oldie FRT (l..apoiDte, 1987; FDER. 1987; l.lpoillte, 1989). Ill FloridlaD dven, CC1D<ellllllloD fl soluble racdYO ~ (SRP) cxwrelate 

widt ibe dlstrlbltdoa or pboopbalk:-toe~< ~"' tbe WIMnbed (Kattl'mlll. 1969). Odunt (1933) llnl Doted tbe map;mc~e or 

pbc1pbon1s poUudco llloo&lbls a.slllt>e. Available data llldicatc lbal tbe ~ CCDtrlbutlott fl pllolpb<>nla to dlele waters is tbe diroc:t- of the IICiivily t1Dd IDia'f......,. by"""'· ~ly 11>e pllolpbllo aliDIIIJIDdamy (Tat Group Report. 1967). 'Ille iDaa' sl>olf-fltlle eastem Gulf cfMexic:o baYO l'fOvallinJ 0ow 10 dte IOUtla 3lld IOUib-(lOda and~. 1992), a-tbat Is 

r:nbaDced dudDJ dte--(JODeS et al .. 1973). We have llboc!oc=-ted very ltiODIIIM CUIDIIIatlvellow fl Gull ol MexiQQ/Florlda Bay ......,. t111oUJ1t tklaJ JI&UOiin the Keya towsr.ll Haw CbaaDel and dte FRT (l.apcJIDte a al., 1992). 'Illese 4ata. 

lOiedler willl obwvadOill by odcDd..u a11d c011U11e1dal (llllemlcn, ID4lcole alliiUJIDI' ....-by wlllcb P inpull - tile eastem Gulf cCMexic:o c:u ~the FRT. To dale, no swdlea baYO been 1D11C1e of die ciWolved P e-.dons ODibe FRT in rdalioa ro lbe,..... Florida WOII:tSbod- bave <OIIIJ'O'IIIve O>IUCiies been performed witb -Y c:craiNdallddna sudiiDIOIISD bumaD P inpu11. 

We here provide evldeD<:c tbat di>salved plloiJII>nrus pool> are Jlplftcaoady biJber oa tbe FRT- nlallvely J>ri1t1De nets fllbe 

- Caribbeoa ,.Jioa. Funbermore, we demOCISilale t1aat coastal -. of tbe-Galt cCMexito may tetftiOIII• siiJiillcant ~tpStreG soarc:e ot P coatributinc to algal blt>om~ "" lbe FRT. 
452 

Co~centrat.ions or cbloropbyU a avrraged 0.20 J.l.g · I" I on tbe: FRT. a value higher than the lnean orO. II Jl' · t· I for :."1: 

we~ Canbbean (Tah_le 1). The mean wtbidlty was also ~iJ.rnifkancly higber on C.b.e FRT, 0. 35 ~IU, ..:om pared M a meau d '-' 

r-m.r m the western Canbbean O:£ion (Table 1), 

1.0 

o .• 

0.6 

~\I 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

)) )4 35 )6 37 3. 39 

ppC 

Figwe 3. Regre.<Sioa of total pbO<i'l>o<u¥ vo. salialty alonll tho Shark River-Looo Key uansect. 

!SO 

140 

130 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

"' so 

40 

30 

20 

10 

The com:lallon coefficient ( r) Is -.71 and tho re~ionls ltigniticant at p • .000094. 

BW LKl UCl L.Xl HC PR PC PP UHX MC FD2 FB l EC NWC Pl.B ~ SR 

Fl~turo 4. W~~~xr oolumn rota! N:total P nulo along tho Shark River-Looe Key lmll>eCI. 

Eastem Gult ol Mexico. FRT 

Total P CODi:elllrllioos doaea5ed t'mm (ICOl< value£ llong lhc eastem Gulf of Mexico, through tidal passe& of lhc Keys and t 

!be most oft'&bcre stalion south ol Looo Key <Fil- 2). TOI.II P C<lG<CAtnliool< up 10 0.9 J-IM occurred offshore East Cape lll1d deatas 

lion& !ho westem eel&• at Florida Bay; llltal P c:oacelllmlioDA ...,_ iD nean<bOte Keys' waters around Big Pine Key aDd !ben 

docreo.«d 10 value. of- 0.20 11M ar Looo Key. Total P vlluea in blue water south of Looo Key"""'< 0.20 11M (Fig. 2) 

Regte.ssioo 'IDOiyltis of !lie total P oon<enn~oas will> salinity along this trarucct indicated a significmt and oeptive 

corrclal:ion (Fig. 3). The bigbeu total P CCIOCCI'Ittaliooi occuned in n:duceu Alinity watc:r around lbe Ea.q Cape uea and alon& the: 

we5u:tn edge of Florida Bay comJ1Rf'OI) w the lowell P concenuationl and ¥h~t .alinities in mnie oceanic waters adjacent tD Looe 

Key. 
453 

Tbe total N: total P (IN:TP) ratio varied signific::mtly along tllb tr:uts~t Crom the lo,,..·e~t va.h:~s ar;.•und Ea~t Cape i< ~O'J h) 

lbc biibest values(> 11)()) in nearshore waters around Bi& Pine Key. The Shazk River bad a relath·eJy high l'::P rario !-il)) and tbe: 

waters of Hawk Olannel and Looe Key had imennediare values (-30 ·SO: Fig. 4). 

A Land.a~ satellite image (from Palh 15. Row 43; Fig. 5) of •outll Florida recordeu on ~lay 29. El92 shows the presence of a 

higbly discolom.J. turbid zone in the Ea"t Cape 31\!a where 1he Shark Rivtr system disc barges into lhe. CiL.;;tem Guu· of Mexico and 

western Florida Bay. The turbidity wa.~ caused by a dense phytOplankton blCK.lm 1.'0nsisting largely tJt the hluc~green alga 

S\'IIU llococcus and diatoms. 

Imaae rourtesy of Kell Haddad. Florida Marioe Re~~eareb lnstitula and EOSAT Cotpor:ttkHJ. 

Figure S. landsat s.1teUite lmaKC of south Florida up.<ueam of the FRT (May 29, 1992) showinK extent of algal hlo<>m at East Cape. BoxN area is central regiM of algal bloom io western A(,rida Bay. 

DISCUSSION 

Our fmdina• of higller TDP but similar TDN coru:entration.< oo lhe FRT compared to we<tem Caribbean reefs su,gests that 

al~al growth oo tbe FRT i• more weakly limited by P CO!IIporW to tile Caribbean sites. Tbi• coru:lusion is dir<c~y suppo<ted by lhe 

significantl)·lowcr TDN;J'DP n>tio in the waters oflhe FRT (~23) coml"""d w those of tile Caribbean (~$6); algal growtb is increasinJ:IY P-limited as tile N:P ratio n. ... above 30: I and lnaea.•lngly N-limited as the ratio clccreaseo below tills value (Ryther and 

!lun>tan, 1971 ). Carbonate-rich wate<> of tile Key• and Caribbean "'gion ten() to be P-limlted in <Ontra•t to <iliciclastic .,._ ill 

temperate latitude< that are N-IimitC\1 (Ryther and DutUitan, 1971; Lapointe eta!., 1992). The carb<mate s<diments on tropical ... fs are 

gener.Uiy organic-poor an<J >trongly hind phosphate (DcKanel and Mor.;c. 1982) but ll(ll inorganic N (Ro>enfeld. 1979). Along with 

other biogeochemical pnJCC:5:tloes, lbe end reslllt i.' a geperal rendency towards P-limilation of algal growth in shallow, carbonate· rich v.:alen. except where P iPflutl' oc:c.ur from either natural (e.g. auano-rich ~i.t\1 rookeries. Lnpohlle er al .• 1993) or buman $0\lrces (e.g. 

sewage, Lapointe and O'Connell, 1989; Littler et al., 1991). 

In We a~nce of historic data on TOP concentrations 011 the FRT. one might a:ssurne that IDP concentratkms of the FRT 

were historicaBy comparnb.le to those thal currently exist on the Caribbean sites. Globally, human activities have increased tbe 

average P c<>nccntr.Won of river water by approximately 300% (Meybeck. 1982). Between 1974 """ 1981, nitrogen and phosphorus 

load< entering the Gulf of Mexico in•Teascd hy 46 an() 5S%, respectively (Smith et n!., 1987). In lac~ rivers alon¥ lhe entire 

southwest coast of Aorida. which are upstream or tbe FRT with prevnilina currents, have P concemralion,; sub!itaDtially bigber than 

mo!'t rivers in North America (data from Lovejoy etal., 19CJO; Flannery et al.. 1991). TI1ese large P hurtlens result largely from 

phosphate mining and associated pollution thai: rnake rhe Alafia. Peace. and Fenholloway rivers the grcare~t P carriers in Florida (P 

concenl!3tions m the Alafta arc> 200 rrrn; LaRock and Bittakcr. 1973). 

Additiooal P inrtuts to tbe FR.T result from agriculn1rnl and dume.-otic w~tewat~ inputs in ~outh Aurido\ and the Keys. Over 

onepmilliun acres are intensively farmed for ~uaarcane, MXJ.. vegetnble'i and earth~. practices that have increa.~ phosphorus loads tO the Everglades (Belanger et al.. 1989). Freshwater wetland.; like tbe Evtrglade~ b.·we limited capacities ror Pretention and do not offer 

long tcnn protection of down.,tream receiving waters from eutrophication (Richarxhon, 198.5). Sewage generated by an average population or 75.000 residenl$ (a value that approximately doubles during peak touri.'it ptri<Xl~) living wirbin tbe Aorida Keys also 

contributes significant P directly into surface waters of lhe FRT: specific source~ include Key We~r·s 7 MGD or secondarily-treated 

eftluent llischar~:ed from a shallow coasral outfall. Apt'lroximate1y 65 %of lhe Key·~ wasttwarers are di~po.~ of by on·sire sewage dispotoaJ systems (- 30.000 ~ptic ranks aJKl ces.~piL~). wbicb elevate nutrient cxmcenrrmion~ C.lf groundwaJ:er~ thar discharge into <~djacent coasta.l waters (Lapointe et al .• 1990). An additional- 1.100 shallow .injection wells aL.;o introduce Nand P to groundwatcrs tllal could al~o cm~::r su11'ke waten; via submarine groundwater dis1.·harge. 
454 

t.!ETI!ODS 

SampliDI Stations and Waca Analysis 

FRT· Wesrem Carib be WI • The>e studies were pafotmed during summer 1990 on a """""ell expedition aboard ll>e RJV Capt Halleras. Six r<ef sites wer< selected a priori from navigalioo charts, and included tine bank reefs on Banco Chlncbotro. Yucatan 

(Cayo None, Cayo CenD'o. and Cayo Loboo). Hoi Chao and Curlew RW on the Belize Barrier R""f sy<ttln, and a frin'ing reef on tbe 

east side of Roatan, Honduras (Fie. 1: Table }), Six off>hole bank reef site< were~ sampled on tbe FRT, which inc:luded Carysfon 

Reef, Molasses RW, Alligatllr Reef, SCI!Ilbrero Reef. Looe Key, and Sl<ld Key (Fig: I; Table 1). Six waru sampl"' (thn:< surfxe, 

throe boW>m) were collected with a S.O Uter Nlskln botde at throe differeat ...Uoos per site in Z-8 n> water depCIJ aJona a transect 

extendin& from the back reef eo the fore J"re( of each ~ittJ. The samp~ were frozerl in clean hfKh del\~ ty polyedlylenc boulcs until ...UyU.. 

Figure I. Mapl or Florida Keys and Carlbbean areas sbowing location of study sites. 

'Ibis compuativo Sillily fOCIIIe<l on delcrminallon ~ tolll dislolved nitrogen and !lbospborus (TON, TOP). Tbe<e nutrient 

pool$ include di~<Oived orpDic DID'Ogon and plloipllonla (DON, DOPl whlcb ;nlmportat>tnulrient pools ~~ alp! powth in 

oliao<ropbic waleft (JaclaoniDCI Willioms, 19&S). We abo......- cnlorophyU a and turn;<fity as on index of alplrespomoiO 

nutrient c:oac:enllllioliJ. OtlaopbyU a and nubldlty are aoo<1 overall indi<alon of euiiOI'hiealioo as they intepale nulrieDIIooding 

over time IDd alJo had the hlpe&tnclall•e correlation wid> c:cnl JfOwrh ra1e along a eutrophieatiOO gndleDI in Bart>odoS (Tomaacik and s.nden, l98S). 

Aliquots of !he wau:r .ampleo were fllrued rhroufh a OFF 0.4S 11m mea prior 10 nutrient analysis. Tbe liiD'ate was analyzed 

Cor TON and TOP by persulfate wa .. ti(ln lftd delenninalica of ailnlle and SRP on a Tedlnicon Autlllllalyzer (D'Elia et a!., 1977; 

Menzd lftd Corwin, 1965). A •ub...,.pte or the f!IUate was alao analyJed for SRP usinJ a Bau..:b and Lomb speclrO(>bolomel<r fitted 

wid> a 10 em oeU; dis.<Olvod organic pbool(lborut (D()P) was esdmated by sublraction of SRP from TOP. The fUter> were anal)'711d for 

chloropllyU a by exlnlelion wid> DMSO and analysis on a 'J'umer Deoipl Mode!IO Ouorameter (BuruiSoD, 1979). Turbidiry (as 

nepilelometrir: IUit>i4ily IDiits. m'U) waa determined on unti!Und-sampla -Y tollowinc COU<aloo on a !lad> Model 

2100 lulbi- calibraled wid> fonnazln siNldanhl. U"(!!irecct.....,...,... wed 10 •llltiAdcaUy compore thew...,. quality dala ~ 

tor the two reaioru. 

&ut<m Gulf of Muico • FRT- Out <IU<ly of the eaatem Gult at Mexico and tbe FRT was performed on July 24. 1992 aad 

foaJsed on tbe spalial dblribution of Ullal nitrogen (11'1), total pbOI}1bnn1s (TP), and salinity measurellat 17 &laliono a1on11 D'ansect 

extending from estuarine .. ...,. or lhe Slwk River 10 ooeanlc blue W8ler'l< offsbae Looe Key Nallooal Marine Sanctuary; tbe stalioo 

codes Cor the Shark Rlver•L<x>e Key trnn.<ec:t shown in Fia. I are .. follows: Shari< River (SRl. Linle Shark River (LSR). Ponce de 
455 

Leoo Bay (PLB). NOtt.bwest Cope (NWC). fa,t Cape (EC), Florid> Bay (FB l), Florida Bay <FB2). :>loser Ch:!nn<l <MCJ. Upper 

Harbor Key <UHK), Port Pine Heiglus canal (PP), Pine Channel (PC), Mw>son bland P.otcb Reef (PR). Hawks Cb;umel (HO. Looe 

Key back=f(LKI), LOOl Key lagooo (LK2), Looe Key fon: rcef(LK3), and hluc water 21an south ofLooe Key (BW). GPS data 

were recorded fot all stations. 

1be $11Dples were coJiected at ebbinr; tide by coordinatin¥ movemeniS ot" two small research ve~$ along different sections of 

tbe transect. Samples were collected. rrom .surt'o.ce and hotk'lln waters with a Nlskin bottle &nd stored a." describe\~ above. Salinity of 

tbe waters was measured w;.ing a Hydrolab Surveyor n calibrated immediately ]Xior lo u!ie. ConcentralionK or total nitrogen (TN) and lOtal pbospborus (1'P) were determined on unfiltered water samples by persulfate dieestion as described above. We u~ lOtal N and P 

pools in this study bcc:ause tbex pools include particulate fr.tetions that are impon.·un1o nulrient rransi'OJ'( by currentc; and Lide.c; 

(Gardner eta!., 1990). 

RESULTS 

FRT·Westm> Caribbean 

Mean c:oa<:elll1'lll o!IDN wen1 oimilar between tbo two rqlaos ~to 2· to 3-!<>kl bigller COIICCDII:2ti<w of TDP on 

tbo FRT (Tible I). TDN OODCentiOilooA aVOQ&ed - 3.1 J.IM ln both nopms wbereas TDP 3V"'"8ed 0.19 J.IM oa tbe FRT aad 0.07 J.IM in tbe welltem Caribbean. Tbe elevalt>ll TDP on noefs of tbe FRT wu due primarily to elevated DOP concentraliODs 10.1611M vs. 

0.04 jiM)., SRP concenll:21ian.< weno limilar (- 0.05 J.IM) betweell tbe two nopons (!'able 1). Decau"' or similar TDN c:oncentralionli but elevated TDP In the Kcyv, TDN:TDPmloo weno o-2-fold bigllerin the we•tern Caribbean (-Sii:ll ~to 

the FRT (-23:1: Table 1). 

TABLE I. Calc:cntrai!OIIS ol 101.11 dWolved Ditrogeii.IOCOI dluolvecl. dlloolved «llllllic. aod IOiublc reactive 

JIIK!flpboruo, chlorupbylla. and lllrbid1ty oa CMilnoeC. of die Florida Keys ODd tbo weslftD 

Caribbean. Value• ,..,._. 11111111 :1: I aWitllrd dovlallon. 

11M 

VARIABLE FLORIDA KEYS N WESTERN CARIBBEAN N 

TDN 3.11 ± 1.65 36 3.16 ± 0.,8 

TDP 0.19 ± 0.12 36 0.07 :1: 0.03 

SRP 0.05 ± 0.04 36 0.04 ± 0.03 

DOP 0.16:1: 0.09 36 0.04 ± 0.03 

TDN:TDP 225 :1: 16.1 36 55.9 ± 23.9 

CIB.--A 0.20 ± 0.11 37 0.11 :1: 0.06 

lURBIDITY 0.35 ± 0.22 38 0.14 :1: 0.04 

24 

32 

32 

32 

29 

24 

24 

SIGNIFICANCE 

NS 

P•O.OOO 

NS 

P=O.OOO 

P=O.OOO 

P•0.002 

P•O.OOO 

0.9 r----------------------------, 

o.s 

0.6 

Qj 

o .• 

O..l 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 ~~---------=------------------------=-----~ w~~~oc~~"~~~~~~~~u 

Fl&""' 2. TGIII pllalpllonls olmf tbe Sbar1t Rivcr·Looe Key -L Vahla .........,,.,..... ±I standanl devladna. 
456 

A SRP cottc ~uati cm of - 0.10 J.L\ f is ~ons erec.J a thre .... h(JJcJ ror t'Utrophio: nrion lm 'oral re~: .lo (Bdl. l·N~ . '"'hile tl.I L' alu ~ 

may be useful in a general comparative: sense, ~no: uat ion.:s of other avail:tbh: P (l uu;es net:d 10 be: cvnsic.ltred. A lb.n!~ld b:J. U 

only on SRP ignores tbc widely recognized role of DOP in supponing algal growth ~mru.t!.l..: via. ph ph:~.tasc: rnt)'Ules that allo w 

cycling from DOP p:x>b. For cxarnplc, the shallow waten of the. FRT contain extensive porutarion:\ of filamentous aud micro- r'Uamentous macro~&ac that have high alknline phosphAtase a.::tivities (APA: Larointc, 1989). Thi~ fact ex.J'Ilains bow cutro(>hicalion 

on tbe FRT. inclul.ling macroatgal overgrowlb ofseagra:iscs and coralo;, can occur in waten witb. < 0.10 ~ SRP ('1..3pointe and Clark. 

19')3; Lapoinle et al., 1993). Our fiudin~• of • mean DOPconcenttotion of- 0.19 J.1M on the FRT, togelhc:r with tnowledge that 

large labile fra..~ion< ofDOP pool< an: important to phyto(llanlaoo growth in oliiotmphic wattrs (lock.<on and Williams, 1985), 

provides a kinetic mechanism by wbi<b low but 'i¥nilicantlevels or OOP enricbment COli suppon algal bloom<. 

Consideriq¥ that the .cncan con~ntration o!TDP on relatively pristine Caribbean reef~ was< 0.07 ~f. we suca:est tbat a 

TOP concenuatioa of .. 0.10 ~ n:rresea~ a tbre.._hold tOr al&al dcvdopmen' and euuupbicaliM oo Lbe FRT. We believe t.baC the 

elevated cbloropbyll a and turbidity on !he FRT oomporalto the Caribbean si!U is din:ctevidence ol a w~ algal growth 

response 10 iller.._ ill !be 'll>P concentrations oo the FRT. Milly llOIIliDerCW llsbmDen, residents, and oci<rwists alike bave 

IVitneSS<d the incnaoing al~al bk>< .. s and ""'""'ialt41W1>idity OYer broad ...... or the FRT over lbe pa>l dtade. eopecially in lh< wak.'f$ 

ofwOSI<m florida Bay in lbe vicinity ofE:ul Cape wbete the Sbadt River system disdlargos into d>e _,. OulfofMe.ieo and 

wes<cruFtori<la Bay. The ina....,. hurtlensof P 10 ooa.<tal.....,.<>f die....,.,. Gulf of MexiCo over pAUllecades bave YOf)' likely 

iDaoaJed IDf>ulS of Pinto die llownsU<:un N-rich wa= of Florida Bay and the FRT (Lopointe and Clark. 1993) wbtn: !bey would 

result In ._. 11111 growth and d; ·•IOfllDenl of algal blorms. Over lime, cwnuladve P inpolS would reolua: the 'll>N:TDP ratio 

-· as "''&Uted by ll>i• sW<Iy - and shift limitation or al;al growdl !1om P-limltation to...-cls N-limi!Mioo. The telalively low N:P 

rotios lrOUlld East Cape SUice<t !lw cumulative P inputs may havel\lteady <hilled the W1llen in Ibis 'milling woe' to N-limillltion. 

1be FRT thus appeaR slmil3t to fres.bwausr lakes thai: a1Ml undergo tlowuW3111 :sbifu in lh~ N:P ralio ,..ith incrca.~i Pk 

ellricllme1ll and eu!M(Ihk:alion, favoringllolllinan<:>e oCN·fi•lnc blue-creen algae (Scbill<llet. 1977). Several sro<iel of nuisance blue8"'011 aJiae 11ave be<x>me abund."" on the FRT over thel""'l decade, and include 001 only !he pbyln[llanlt"" S)'l<eho<oec•.• but also 11>e 

fllamenlDUs Phormidium (a CMtl palbOIJI'tl and the causal ,'ljlenl ol"black-band disease') and L)'lllbyu (Pon<r and Meiet. 1992; 

Lajx>ill!e aDd Cladt. 1993). Some bave KU&~es<ed !hat the""""' lalitudlnal limits of coal rect devdnpncn< are oflellse< by <XXliJIOIIdoa ormac:roaJpo with oxals and that macroolpe are favortd a1 bleJ>er latitudes that baYO bigbc< null'iellt coaccnll2lioos (lol>aaaesetal., 1983): Indeed. u.:.....dabundonce ofmaacolpebu~ with the deaea«d coral oo..,.un the FRT(I'oncrand 

Meier, 1992), susaesling eum>rblalion bas already enban<ed macroalpl camJIOCI!Ion will> rect coral•. 

CONCLUSIONS 

LarJe-IClk IDIItrop<>leni< aulriont enricbmeDC is widely ~ by >CiolllisiS modeling the eff<C!S af <utropltlatlioo <WI the prodllclivlty oC !be OOil!inallal shclvos (e.J. ,.. Wal.<l!, 1988) and llle 0pe11 oceoD (Faaolng, 1989). llljllllS ol P 10 oooslalw»m o1 

thee-.. Gulf or Mexia> appear 10 bearriod clawlllllraiD by pevai!ial ......,..., !lie N-ricb. P-limi!Od -.otlllcFRT. 1bU 

DU!rieat~ model Is aplauslblc ~""!Ill!= aploiD !lie nocallly ....,..,_ t!lllqllliatlioo oc:curriD& owrbraod...., >I tile FRT. Alrl>oup low liiJIIICIIIUnO sae.u io c:oiiJidcnolapri&Niy faaor olfecdq eoral rect powtb and ditai-ID Florida 

:

~ 

- et al., 1982; a....., 1985), our dala .... -.-...,.... dial eullq1IIICaliOa bolleaGIIy '-allllll<l< saas 10 roof 

llldllllf leo410 (llnber reot deciJDelDd exdDcd<ll. ~is a at:Qor cause ot anl-ffltldedlao -w..ide. clue"' 

lllenaiYO ......... r..-topbytnplottkum bit--...........,_,~ alpl JIOWlb,<lCWII-.---...,....._.. ond 00111 blooclliaa.llld li<lllmiwlllll (lieu, 1991). Oar fladlea• n ..,....._will! ""'lis or anocnr NSF-II--' wartcsllop on ,... rect~ IIIli'~-. ~diRclly fila roruJallca powdllll!ldevclopDeD&n llletaoDfiC$! 

··-olpalslnllllle--toCXI<llroefs•(I)Eiaetal., 1991).k--dlc-............. 

............ forailiCaleuli'OpbicodoD in 111e - .--ri<:ll . ..., lii3C1tlflbyle-<lominoled .....,.aflllo FRTwQUile 1ow ~~. IDP- 0.10 J.IM) aDd oomparable 10 IICGSiliYO from- ocooy ... m,;. 

REFERENCES 

elaDJO<, T. V., D. S. Scllcidl. and 1. R. Pllllco II. 1989. Etroc:l< of nuttlent enridunm< nn lbo Florid> EvorcJad<S. 

LakeandReservulrManap:men<~I)I0!-111 . .:1~ P.R. F. 1992. Eutropbi4:a!ioll and <'0131 t<ef• • 101110 example> in the Ctell Bonier Rod la$000· W.,..ltaoaldl, 26:55l-S68. umitoa, 8. K. 1979. Modilltd dlme!byl .Wfoxklc(DMSO) txtnclino for d!laropbyU liiAiyu ofpbyll'opl~DboD. C... I. Fbll. 

AqaaL set. 17: m. IIIIlS, T, P. 1985, !laid-coral dlsuibullon and culd·WIICr dlsauhancet in Saulll F1oric1a: ..-JadoD wilb depdland Jac:adoa. Coral 

..,. 4:117·124 'Eiia, C. F., P. A. Stcudkr, N. A. Corwin. 1977. Detamiaaliollof!Oial Ditmp~~ iD _.,...IAIIlfll<s wiD& penult .. diaelliotl. 

1.iwlol. 2l: 760-764. 

Ella, C. P., W. B-.S. V. Smill>. 11191 . Worklbopoa eoral bleodiiiiJ, eoral rectecosyatma. ...Sslobaldlall8e: 

Rcponot Proc:eodinp. Marylao>dS..Orlllc P!Jbli<:alllliiiJM-sG-TS-91.c:J. 
457 

DcKancl J. a.nd j , W. ~!(JCst . ~8 . Th-e chcml"ll)' of orthOJ1hWpb:uc upcal:c from ,~:a .. ••3t!r ,,nt-.> :J h.~ .llld m ionite . G('l'\:'tlun. 

CosmoKbirn. A..:u. ~2 : J 335· 1 ~-' . 

Dllslan. P. and J. l\al3s. 1987. Cban~es in the rt.C-<ornl community o!Carysfon R..,r, Key largo, Aotida. 1974-1982. C<•rnl Reels 6:91·106. 

Foanill&. K. A. 1989. Jnllucoce or •mu><)111erit r<>llullon on nutrielll limit.lli<>n in u.. ocean. Natutl' 339:460-163. FDER. 1987. Florkb Keys moal~n1 RIMJy. Water quality a.\5e55mcnt uf tiv~ Stltek:d pollutanr sC>urc:es in Maralhon, Fl.. 

Flannery, M.S .. H.C. Do,..nin~ lr., G. A. ~lcGany, and M.O. Walters. 1991. lncrc-~"'d nulri<nll•>a.linJ an~ bas<tlow 

SUI'J'Ielll<ntauononlhe Uttle Manareo waiCNhe~. Proc. TOIIlpo Bay Area S<itntlfic lnfollll:llion SymJ>"'ium 2 369-396. Garclentr, W. D .. M.J. R;cJ>ardson.l. D. Wal.">, iOid BL. Bergllllld. 1990. ln·situ optical <ensing of pani<l<s for d<ICnninalion of 

OOW>ic PIOC<SSCS. ~anograpby 3:2 11·17. 

Jackson, G. A. and P. ~1. Williams. 198!1. lmponan .: of diiwived oraanic nkrogc:n and ph<lSphorus 10 biClkll!lical nucricnt cyd int . Oeep.Sea Re.<earcb 32: 22~-22~. 

lobanoes. R. E .• W. l . Wiebe, C. J. Cm.>laDcl. D. W. IUtnmer, and S. V. Smitll. 19R3. Latitudinallimi<s of coral reef gro,..lh. 

Marioe E<oJoay Prost< .. S.ric• 11 1~ 111 . 

Jooes,J. I. et Ill. 1973. Pbysi<a! ocoanoSJlllll>y nt rile Gull of MeJdco and !'lorida L'OIItincntal•helf. The Eastern Gulf of Mexic;o 

1m. TbeState UnlversirySy ternoffloriclalnstitur&at~y IIB·I-6. 

Kaufman, M. I. 1969a. G<nenlizecl di.,ibutinrt and cancentnliua of nctllopll"'i>bate in l'l<Jtidl >aeam•. 1.1. S. Gtololliclll Surwy . Map Serie:l 33. Tbe £astau Gulf of Mexico 1973, Tbo s- Unlvmity Sy•...., of Florida lmliwtc of Oc•anoar:>f>by IIC 46. 

Kl""' C. J. Uland S. P. Orlando Jr. 1993. A 'J'Oiial framewodc for !he watct quality tJUtiOilCineOll in !he l'lnrida Keys N•lional Marine SanCioary. Tedmical Rept>rl of Str.llcpc Eavlrollmentll A»e......,.l:l Dlvwon, NOAA. RoclcYille, Md. Lapolnse, B. E. 1987. P and N-llmi!QI pbocooyntbeoix and powlb of G. tikwrltitJt in lilt Florida Kty•. Mar. Bioi. 93:561·568. l.apoiruc, B. E. 1989. Maaaa1¥Jil jlfOUlrclian.,., lllllrieat ~ill oUsOUIIflllk: _. ofl'lorida B;oy. BuU. Mar. S<i. 44:312-323. 

l.apoinlc, B. E. and M. W. Clarl:. 1993. Nlllriertt inpul:l from !he WIICr>bed llld coasu1 eutro)lllicalion ill tbe florida Keys. 

E.....n.. 15: 46$-476. l.afoninse, B. E. M. M. Littltt ODd D. S. Ulller. 199Z. Nutrient avoillblllty to D>arineiiUICftlalpe in >llldcl.uti<: venus """"-ridl eoutalwaun. &braries 15:75-82. l.apoiDI<, B. E., M. M. Lilller 11M! D. S. Urtlcr. 1992. Motlillt:ldoo ofl>clllbie wmrnunity illnl<llllt by n.lturm eutrorl>l<alioll: The 

Beli,. Barrier Reef. Proc. 71h Int. C<>llll Reef Symp. in prwss. l.apoin~c, B. E. and l. D. O'COiliiOU. 1989. Nulrient-cnbmeed powdl at C/udophoru proli{tta in Hartin&IOO Sound. Bennucla: 

Eutrophicadon of a conrtncd. pboo(lhorus-limitecl marine """"YI-· E.~. Coa.<tal, and Shell Sde""" 28:347 · 360. I.apoin10, B. E.; l. D. O'Connell. and G. S. Gam;tt. 1990. NulrielltcOUplinp between ali-lit< ><Cwa&e dlspo.<al •y•lems. IJOUlldwatm and nearshore surr..., ...-.of !he Floricla Koya. B~rry 10: 289-307. 

Lapoillle, B. E., N. P. Smitll, P. Pitts, and M. W. C1irlr.. 1992. Buell111 cllllaet<rizalloa of chemil.-.1 and ~ proc:~:s5<' in 

lbeW21Crcolumoofl.oooo Key Natitlollll Moilne S""""*l'· F"UI!Il Report(c:aalniOtiNA 8MA·H.CZ071l to Natianal Oceanic 

anc1 AJmOSjllleric AdmiDlsualion. MariDe SIDetllaria DivisiOQ, Wubillllm, D. C. l.aRod<. P. and H. L. Binaket. 1973. Cbemlcal dala at lbe attllrine and DCan!IOre eoviruomer.ts ill tile Ear.tero Gulf of Mcldco. The 

s- UniYen~ iY System of florida lnstiwtc or Oo:aDo&nl>bY IIC-1. Linler. M. M., D. S. Litdcr. and E. A. Tidyanuv. 1!>91. ComJWiiOIII of N· 11M! P·limitAOCI producdviry bctwe<JI high ~ranhlc 

Wands vorsus low carbonat< atOlls in the ScycbeUes Alcblpelaio. CO<al Reef• 10:199-20'J. . Lovejoy, S.B., B. DunkelberJ, and J. G. Lee. 1990. Suun:cs 111d quaoliliell of nutrienrs entering lilt Gulf M Me11co. Tho 

enviromneotal 1111<1 ec:ooomicsuuu.< of Gulf of Maloo. Gulf nf Mexre<• Pro,..... 41-43. . . . Menu~ D. w. aud N. A. Corwin. 1965. lbe measurement of total Jlhmllh<lrus in .. aw- ba>ecl on tile hbeta11011 or organically 

bound fracliooli by penullatc nxiclalion. l.imnolol)' 1111<1 ~Y 10:280-282. . , . Meybect. M. 1982. Carbon. lliuopm and pbospbonls triDSporl by work! nvcr>. Am. loum. Sci . • 82.401-4~. . Miller,!. 1988. Results of a worbl>o!> 011 crn1 reel ....ardl anci.,...._,,ID !he Floric1a Keyo: A blut....,.tr.. a<lton. 

NOAA Tecbrtic:al Repon. NaliODol Uoclenca Rcoo:ardl Pro;ntrn. WasbiuJIOD, D.C. . Od H T 19S3 DWolve<l piiOofliK"Clllln !'lorida waton. Fla. Geol. Surv. Rept>rl oflnYeS111atlon 9. Par. 1: 1-10. ~H. it .. 1988 . . NuU;ancc pbyiO(IItutklun b1001111lrt _.a! eslllallno, 111d 1111aDclWIIal- L~: Oo<artocr-33(4):823-847. 

Porttr, 1. W .. l. F. Baacy, mel 0 .1. Smilb. 1982. Penurl>&lim and CbanJC iD coral red COIIllllUDtUe•. Proc. Nad. A<:llll. Sci. 

: ~~Z: !:, . w. Meier. 1992. Quanlifl<:a&..km at lou aDd cbanae io Fkwidiaa reef caraJ porulatk"''· A.meri.c.:ul Zoolo&i.s1 

34:62~-640. . ·-" limllOI ,.,__,_ :z.l•356-364 Ro@leld.J. 1979. Amm011illlllacb<"J11i0nln--'>ore...,.te~menrs . . . ~.::"'.;..~ Scicncc228·142A·I427 Ricllaldsorl. C 1 1985. Medwri- OOOtrollinl (lho<pborliS ICtenlKIII cap8Clty CD >>QUwa. , · . 

Rylher, J. H. ~ W. M. Durular>. 1971. Nitn>;<n. Jlhuol'borUS. arllleouopllicalioO in lhecno.\lal mariDC eovtronmeoL $c:ieiiOt 

Sclt~og'I;Jl· 1977 Evulullc.WI ut ~-liml!tlrion in lalcu. Soienee 19~ 260-262. Smilb,R•A · R ·B ~ .. dM 0 Wulrnarl. 1!187. WoiCrqual!tyln:ll<binlbertatiOll'$ ri..,.. $ciela 23~:1607·1615 . Tllko..;..p·Rep..;, 1967. So,;,_. of;uqea anc1 pbosrlllonrs In waiOt surrU... l. AWWA S9:. :144-366 .. TOIIIIICit. T. anc1 F. Slll<lor. 1~. Elf«"' ..reutriJ!IhaliOD ODreef·bua<lina canis. Manne B~oloay. 87.143-145. 

USEPA. 1992. W- quality l"llle<:li<m l"''JI'III' f<l< tbe Aoricla Keya NatiMal Morine Sannuary. Pllasel report. 

Walilll. l. 1988. Qntllonalureot...,.;n.;ntal dtol•.._ A<aderniePmo.ln<. 
458 

Pollution threatens Florida's Cora 

July 18-24 is Reef Awtne· 

russ w.l<. 0utr tht Y"'"· REEF R£UEF lVI$ ltd the way in milk· 

ing tht public •wa,. of the threats 

to tht rref •nd in seeking ways to prottctit. Florlda's cora) reef arc 

alive with .in abund•mcc of fish, stony and soh corals, sponges, jellyfish, anemones, 

snoils, aabs, lobsrers, rays, sea 

turtles and other sea life. Coral 

reefs are the most biologically 

diverse marine t.ocosystcms on earth, rivalled only the the tropical rain forests on land. 

Together with mangrove forests and seagrass beds, 

coral reels fonn a fragile inter· 

dependent ecosystem. 

Coral, for all its sturdy 

appeorance, is fragile and vul· 

nerable to a number of threats 

including the physical impacts 

of divers; snorkelers, boaters 

and fishermen, marine debris, 

overharvesting of tropicallish, 

li•e rock and coral collection 

and, most importantly, by 

water pollution. Scientists 

have documented that Aorida's coral reef is dying in sev- eral areas and no new coral 

growth is O«Urring. Water temperature 

change, salinity and suspchd· 

cd sediments all reduce the on nutrients. Fast·growing 

conditions required for nuisance algaes are covering 

healthy coral growth. Howev- areas where ronls once lived. 

er, the biggest single threat to Nutrients enter local 

the health of the coral reefs of warers from sewage ditc:harge, 

the Florida Keys is the over- fertilizer and stormwater runabundance of nutrients in the off, agricultural run-off from 

oc:ean. South O.de, and deteriorating 

Nutrients promote algal Gulf waters. Th discharge of 

blooms which rob the water of sewage into the ocean is the 

"fhl' Flllrh.l.l ;.._, .... . 

r' t,rnH:d h\' th ... · 1:nh· 

ilt'drlld' ,,i IP:-i!'IIIZl'l: 

rt.'CiS th;ll \\'t•ro.: t..'X~l(l:>o.."...J 

:-:.cot l~vL'Is l1tnp~'l.·d !ho:: 

oi Y'-'ars ,,g,,. llw.; 'lllrl>t: 

str<Ha provid~·:' in.Hh·· 

depth itl'f most scptu- ~y · 

which r~quin.: inur i ; 

b<.>drock ior ciiicicnt dra1 

action. As a n..-sult ""'"' 

25.llX.I s...·phc IJnk:-o thn•u 

the Ke-ys lci\(.'h 1Httnt·n1 

tht' Will~r. Sum'-' llllh•\· 

nutricnt-rcdudng sysll'! 

being test(.•d .~roulh" 

nation, and thl' C.S. F 

curre-ntly den•lop11 

dcmons.tration progr. 

evaluate several of thes· 

tems for usc in the Fl 

Keys. 

.The Key West a nl~ 

Colony Beach scwotge 

ment plants lack tertiary 

ment to strip out nutr 

TheS<.• plants dischar~l 

lions ui galluns oi tHtl 

laden k·astew;tt.lCr 

l'll'arshore waters. Till' ll., 

ogy to add nutriet\1 stn: 

to cxistin~ plants is ad\·. 

· iU\d mo.u\y communi tit.•:-

· implcmL·nh.'d biologic 

~,: rlWIII f(l ~lr1p IIlii lllllrlt'll ( 

l'ltutobyCtwfJ(.""•rulu ~m.,lll r pol(i;.,l,~l' i' 

wastewater uriginates I rom thrt•u~h,•ul 1h'-· K'-·v~ ~:n 

illegal cesspits, shallow injt..-c- l;1ck lhrtricnt stnPrrn.~ 

tion wells. septic tank leakage, low inj(.-cticm wells-or 

and municipal treatment holes" .m.• shallow hok 

plant5 which l'\l'k nutrh.'llt \\• hid1 ~-~ .. -. ~~w i~ pump:, 

stripping. porous limestone bcJn 

Diving for decit :r.f:~o:~~bf~~t~:.tdi~~ = ~.;,' ~~ BY~R~~ _, ative sa" and "Wet Dn..'ilm," \t\ 

Weed and the .. King Kl 

March," Mike McCIOth 

his bailie hymn .. ( 

Republic SOng.· the Key Pie Band· and "My J, 

Home," Mickey Jame· 

Sharon Spivey with "B; the KL•vs." thP Survivnr 

eues such as blackband dis- rus. Wastewater acxounto for \ with the sound of music July 

ease are convnon at locallftfa. ,~bout 7Sllo of the combined 10 as WW.US (U.S. I) broad· Our gin-cloar walerS are tum- wutewater/sconnwoter nitro- cast its 104.7 FM signal both 

lng green, indicating phyto- gen and phosphorua being : on top of the water and 

plinlc.ton growth that thrives released from the Keys. The , beneath the Atlantic Ocean. 

Some 100 boats and scuba 1 divers and snorkelers took to 
Page 6A I The Keoy West Citizen. StJnday. Jufy 0:'~ . l::f~.J 

o Briefly I Reef at risk from natural, h

Shark-bitten seal 

flown to Florida 

SAN JUAN . Pucrtu Rico IAPl A wal•w;,rd seal round with shark bil«:s <'10~ thou5cmds o( 

miles (rom its nahtral habitat was shipped friday to Florida to recover. 

Rescue workers placec.J blocks of ice on top of a dog cage containing the 5-monlh- old. 72-p.ound male hooded 

seal and load~d him on an Arrow Air cargo jel bound for Mi- ami. 

The workers n=tmed him Ca- muy arter the se-ction of Puerto Rico's north coast where lhe ailing seal was round ,July 17. 

The 5eal. whose usual habl· tat l5 or'( eastern Canada or Greenland. was taken by van (rom Miami to Sea World in Odando. 

Antonio t.11gnucci. 5elenttnc coordinator of I he Caribbean Stranding Network. a marine ,,nhnal center. said juvenile 5eals sometimes .'>lrav from Uaclr natural realm. · 

West lndian monk seals 

once lhri"•ed in the Caribbean region. but were killed off by the early 1940s. 

FAMU pofJCe chief 

gels reprimanded 

TALIAHA~SEf: tAP) -The 

f1orida A&M Unln:rslly polk:e 

chld has been r~pri~nded 

for conducting privaie tour- bus b\,Jsiness at the police sta- tion and for U$1ng slf'te gas for 

~.!~usiness trip to .\ll;onta last 

fhis ,·s lhe tina: article in a series 

provided as a publk service in recognilkm of Reef Relief's Reel 

Awareness Week. 

The ln·ing 

coral reef or the FloridC~~ J(e~·s is I Reef Week 

an am<'t irlJ;:: un· 1993 duwater world • teeming with lire and abundant 

in exotic 

:~~pes. ~:~~~~~~ ~'](~ I 

scopic color. The beaury and diversity or North America's only living coral barrier reer. and Its accessibility 

by autontobilc from points north. has attracted millions of visitors a year. mafly or whom like it so much down here In the Conch Republic that they decide to stay. 

That's the problem. The cumu- lau"·e dfecr or numerous natural 

~'!t~~r:~~:rim~~t t~~~~:t'i~ olog.ically rich combinaUon or coral reefs. mangrove forests and scagrass meadows at risk. Dr. 

Jim Porter has documented that tht: major n:crbuildinf corals arc declining ClOd that no new 

growth is occurring at several Keys reefs. Oytng seagrass meadows and replacement or coastal mangrove communmcs with shoreline development all spell Lroublc for the ecosystem. 

The list or endangered and threatened species that live In 

the Keys is long and Impressive 

for an area wtlh such a small land b•ue. II includes the Flor1da manatee. brown pelican. Amcri· can crocodile. Key mud turtle. Kemp's Ridley sea lurOc. luther· back turtle. l(ey deer. schaus swallt\wtall butlerRy. Stock Is- ,,. .. ,. . ...... ~,...,,, ~...... ... .. u ...... 

qutred to avold the coral reefs along the l(ey.s. The act also pro· 

hibited offshore oil exploration ~nd development or a compre· hensh•e management plan for the sanctuary. 

'fhe first draft of the plan de· velopcd by the Sanctuary Advt· sory c.ouncil in cooperation wtth NOM provides a range or three management strategies - strong. medium and weak - to deal with various management objectives Including boating Im- pacts: fishing, recreaUon. land use and water quaUty. The coun- cil wtll vote on whJch or the ideo- tiRed strategies to adopt at their meeting ·scheduled for this Thursday and Friday at Hawk's Cay Resort in MarathOn. The public Is Invited to comment. The U.S. fish and Wildlife Ser- vice draficd a backcounlry man- agement plan (or the wildlife rer- uge.s under. their jurisdiction and eontalnec:! within the sanctuary borders. lllat plan is being im· plemented and will be lncorpo· rated into the sanctuary man. 

agemenl plan. Variou5 zones have been pro- posed to deal with connlcUng uses \vfthin the sanctuary. This has pi-oven to ht= controversial: no one wants to be restricted (rom dotng what they have <'1 · ways been allowed to do in lhe 

Keys. On the other hand. em1· ronmentalists want strategies for eliminating harmrui physical im- pacts that are crfUcal to restoring health to the coral reef tCO· 

system. 

Treasure salvaging acUvttie.s became the subject or legal ln- juncU\'e acUon and then Interim regulation by NOAA. and arc now subject lo a pcrmllUng procc:· dure. That iniUaUve resulted tn the creaUon of an adversarial 

...... 

dispOsal sys(ems (septic ·tanks) 

and package plants (which do not strip out nutrients) and con· strucling ad\•anced wastewatrr treatment plants. Reef Relid is particularly concerned lhat the stale cease per- mitting shallo\V Injection "Veils. which allow tnjecUon or ra\Y sew- age a minimum o( 60 feet Into the porous limestone substrata or the Keys and that the final plan lncludC": a univers;"l commit· mcnt to advanced ~vO\stewater 

!reatmcnt. The. plio~ Pr~g.ram.~ 

GULF of 

rest:arc:h 

to restori

chemical

integrity 

EPA sanc

Manus. 

There i

do to sup

ter qualit

to: Carol 

tor. U.S. 

Washingt

gressman 

Cannon 

i.r:tgt~n. D
Help lawmakers fight offshore oil dr

By Dee Von Ouirok) 

Guest corrme,lary 

The fiflh in a seties of articles presented as a public semice by 

'The Key West Citizen in recogni Cion of Reef Reliefs Reef Aware· ness Week , Jld!J 18·24 . 

Coral c~rfs ar~ IJ"le und~rwatt=r 

equivalent or tropical rainforests in terms or biologic div~rsity . 

Many sc1en· .z----~ 

tists agree that coral ccds hold Reef Week 

: secrets that may 1993 someday ad· vane£ medical k.nowledg~ and 

provide other 

~~~~e~c:nki~~ R53n'C I far beyond ns ·lnlr1nslc value as a wUderness. Us recreaUonal value to divers. snorkclers. nshcrmcn and boaters is proven by its popu1aJity and th~ Increasing r:umbccs of 

visitors to reds worldwide The coral reef Is Important to many residents or the Florida Keys for Its economic value. Most economic acUvity in the keys Is linked to touris m and commc:r- dal Rshing opportunilics made 

Crash survivor 

possible by thc coral reef. The valuation of the coral r«l 

becomes a hot topic when weighed against thc need for de· vcloplng orfshore oil rc cr s. 

The Keys reefs ha\'e never been damaged by a major oil spill. al· though the cumulative impact of 

11umerous smaJI spills from boats dcgrade water quality on a daily basis. Opposition to plans to allow 

offshore oil dcvelopmcnt and ex- ploration nc:ar the Keys is one of the Issues that has united local 

residents. Jusl about everyone agrees that the damage such de· vdopr~"M:nt could visit on Flori· da's coral reefs - and our econ· omy - Is not worth the ~su

mated one days· national con· sumpUon of oil this area holds. In 1987, then Se-cretary of the Interior James Watt leased 73 blocks of open occnn to nine oil companies to explore for offshore oil deposits In areas u clMc as 25 miles from Key West and lhe Dry Tortugas. This area IS a fer- tile breeding ground ror shrimp. lobster. stone crab. nsh and 

myriad olher sealife. It Is also subject to thc strong Gutr LOop Curn::nl. lvhich 'vould bring the tons o( toxic drilling muds. sut· 

ungs. and ottiu by-products di· rectly Into Florida"s coral reef. 

The environmental impacts of shoreline support servlces and the added tanker traffic ~ou\d 

prove incompatible with the fish· tng and tourism economy of the Keys. In the first 30 years of the offshore oil program In rederal wa - ters. there were 106 inckf~nts of ~:s lgntncanl polluUon." or more than 2.100 gallons or pollution released. in the Gulf of Mexico alone. Durtng that same period 

there ~re 145 well blowouts. 767 f\rcs on offshore stsucturcs. 3) pfpdlnc breaks, and 224 ma- jor accidents. Those mtabap.s ln· 

votvcd fiR and explosion.. which 

damaged more than $1 million ln 

property. Included spiUs gr-eater than 8400 gallons. and rataltties and serious persona] lnjurfcs. An oO spill would be cala· 

strophic. A spill occurred in Pan-

:~c~~ !:!:!~s·~~~~r~f ;:::;~ It resulted In defoliation of man- groves, the death of many cora1s. seagrass. algae and lnverte~ 

brates. and afier 16 months. only one species of animal lifc had rc:turned to typical abundance. 

. •·'i)! ;:· ... ~i·' :i _ ./i~.i~!. 

Abundance or the most com· rnon corals In depths of less than 

three meters decreased by 51 

per<::ent. The effects of the spill in 

the long term were even more ex- tensive. Algae growth ovcrtook many coral colonies and repro· ductlon was severely reduccd. The offshore oil leascs havc 

~~~u:,C:d ~~~~:~~~ of~ :a~~ have raJUcd In opposing them. joln.lng a list of coastal states around America that agree that ·ou and Water Don't MIX.~ 

Each year ror the past seven years. Con&ress has placed a moratorium on fundtng ror lhc 

Department o{ lntu1or's plans to activate these leases. Last year. President Bush announced a I 0-year drilling ban for the Flor- Ida Keys. but subsequenUy 

dropped this commJtmcnl whcn ncgoUa.Uons for the Encrgy bill 

that 'vas passed by Congrcss wcce finalized. Instead, Congress 

then passed the usuaJ one-year ban. which expires this October. For the past three years. Flori-

~:~. be~~"~fr~~~~~g re~~,=~~~ to rman~nUy cancel the leas- es. This mechanism would buy out the oil companies and reimburse t

menls 

incurre

es. The 

malntat

should 

eluded 

Five Ye

~=to~-

mtpts t

lease sa

There 

mism th

lioc Bru

environ

the oU 

and rf!p

ror oU I

ments W

policy. 

You c

18th an

ington, 

your op

~~~~~:

~~~t~~~

nus y

before- C

leasc.a

They In

and drU

coa.st o

Tax evasion trial 

TOKYO tAPJ - The tax cvasion trial of the man who once was Japan's most powerrul poUUclan 

began Thursday. threatening to add to postelection disarray among major poUUca) parties . 

AnivinC amJd tight sc;curity ror the trial's first hearing. 78-yc:Mold Shln Kanemaru was taken by .,·.'-...... l .. hsl.- ,,..,,.. th ... .,.,.. .......... nh:. 

jortty ln 

The p

damage 

whJch 

uled Su

before t

mlzc any 

But It 

formlst 

.... ... ,. ... ..
461 

Th·e ~-. l!ll'lhl.d<eo C~.tllillii~:m 

666 Pennsylvania An. SE. 2nd Floor 

Wuhinpon, DC 20003 

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt 

Secretary 

Department of the Interior 

Washington. D.C. 202.0 

Dear Secretary Babbitt 

30July 1993 

We are deeply mncemed with the Everglades "Statement of Principles" 

iUU\Ounced on July 13, 1993, setting forth an agreement among the Federal 

government, the State of Florida and three sugar companies, that would 

encourage the sugar industry to end its litigation against enforcement of 

water quality laws in the Everglades. 

We ~gnize and appreciate the leadership role you have played in 

establishing tile Everglades Jnterasency Task force, and in advocating a 

prompt beginning of the U.S. Corps of .Anny Enpneers' Everslades system 

r,edesign review. 

However, the July 13th agreement has caused great dismay among our 

members. in Florida and throughout the nation. We believe that the 

proposed framework will fail to clean up the Everglades system, and is 

inherently unfair in its division of financial obligations. 

Like you, we are committed to restoration of the Everglades system, 

from the Kissimmee River basin to Florida 'Bay and the coral reefs of the 

Keys. But it is our belief that the negotiated agreement is not a solution that 

will help restore the Everglades, but is instead a validation of sugar industry 

practices that will, if permitted to continue, make inevitable the biological 

degradation of Everglades National Park and other elements of the great 

Everglades ecosystem. 

Tite July 13th agreement is not flawed simply because of what it fails to 

accomplish. The foundations of the agreement would cause the Everglades to 

continue to receive polluted waters; would relepte the preferable alternative 

of stormwater treatment areas (STAs) to a back seat, behind less reliable 

treatment approaches, including best management practices (BMPs); would 

assure that more p:-ivate lands will be drained for development at taxpayer 
462 

expense, and the poUuted nmoff water dumped into tbe Everglades and 

designated as a new source of Everglades water supply; and force florida 

taxpayers to pay even more taxes to subsidize the sugar companies. 

It is important to note the the "Statement of Principles" was develop~ 

through negotiations between flo-Stm, U.S. Sugar, South Bay Growers, and 

the Federal and State governments. Environmental participants in the 

Federal litigatim that is the foWldation of the c:ontinuins legal amflict, and 

other environmental and Native American parties, were deli~rately 

excluded from the crucial final weeks of negotiations. 

The Everglades Coalition has consistently identified six elements that 

must be at the heart of any settlement and any Everglades recovery strategy, if 

Federal and State efforts to restore and protect the Everglades are to succeed. 

1. Pollution of the Everglades must stop. "The 1991 Federal court 

stipulation and settlement between the Federal and State governments 

requires that, by 2002, water discharged hom the Everglades Agricultural Area 

(EAA) must be clean enough to stop harming the natural system. That 

means achievement of background levels of phosphorus of approximately 10 

ppb. 

Any settlement that deals with interim standards must do so in a way 

that reinfor<Zs:the ability to achieve the final standards, and, we believe, must 

rest on clean~p ·methods accepted as effective; not on untried or experimental 

systems. Only the setting aside of between 70,000 and 120,000 acres of 

Everglades Agricultural Area lands for use as STAsis an acceptable treatment 

system. The use of less acreage would require the use of engineered 

treatment systems, neither likely to work to design capacity nor to work 

effectively on a continuing basis. 

The current plan, utilizing 40,000 acres of STAs, with pumping stations 

placed at the interface between agricultural land and filtration marshes, 

would preclude the subsequent conversion of additional sugar acres into 

filtration marshes, because of the location of pumping stations. lhis would 

require attempts to meet final standards to depend on unproven treatment 

methods. or to take more public Everglades lands for use as treatment areas. 

It is essential that ST As established to clean up polluted water be created from 

lands owned by the polluters, not from State owned Everglades lands 

purchased for Everglades restoration and dedicated to wildlife conservation. 

An additional 32,000 acres, or almost as much as called for in the 

present agreement, would be needed simply to treat the new polluted water 

that the agreement proposes to introduce into the system from Lake 

Okeechobee and Palm Beach County. The only way to assure that water 

brought into Ute system to help restore the Everglades natural water supplies 
463 

will also be dean enough to avoid diiDUiglng Everglades wildlife would be to 

set aatde the addltionallreallnent lands now. In addition. becaUIM! the 

agreement would drain private lands and send wb~ runoff into lh! 

Everglades, even more ffitration marsh lands may be needed to protect the 

Everglades against a wide range of urban water pollution. 

2. A fair distribution of cleanup costs among the parties is essential. We 

start from the premise that poUuters should pay for correcting their water 

quality violations. The Statement of Principles requires a contribution from 

the poUuting companies, in today's doUars, of Uttle more than one,.third of 

the cost of fixing the problems they have caused. The $322 million dollar 

figure for sugar's contribution referenced in the Statement of Principles is 

misleading for the following reasons: 

The 20 year payment schedule reduces the true value of 

the $322 million figure to less than $100 million in real 1993 

dollars. 

• The distribution of costs between pol11,1ters and the public 

fails to account for the 12,000 acres of public lands (originally 

purchased by the State for restoration to natural Everglades 

habitat) which will be converted to STAs. 

•. ~· The proposed formula for reducing the annual base 

plyments to minimum payments according to BMPs 

performance (a potential cost reduction of as much as $6.9 

million per year) opens extensive opportunities for continuing 

litigation to challenge tile required payments by the sugar 

interests and makes it very uncertain whether these payments 

will ever be collected. 

Furthermore, it appears that the State of Florida's contribution to 

subsidize this cleanup from the Preservation 2000 land acquisition fund will 

debilitate other important environmental restoration projects in the 

Everglades region which depend upon this funding. Taxpayers and South 

Florida Water Management District users will be asked to contribute $21.9 

million per year - more than the sugar industry in any year. 

Finally, urban taxpayers in south Florida already pay to operate the 

South Flo~ida Water Management system that drains water off sugar fields in 

the Everglades. Consumers in Florida and throughout the country pay $1.4 

billion annually in higher sweetener prices resulting from Federal programs 

that prop up the sugar industry. 

3. The implementation schedule and requisite funding must meet the 

requirements of law. in the court settlement between the Federal and State 
464 

governments two years ago, the State agreed that the lint cleanup phase must 

be in place by 1997. However, the July 13th agreement aDaws the sugar 

industry to make such smaD mnual 

payments on their share of the cleanup costs that the initial cleanup goal 

would not be reached for 11 years, long after the deadline set by the court. 

4. Interim water quality standards must be met, and met in a way that 

assures the abillty to also achieve ftnal standards. Reducing phosphorus 

pollution to the interim level of 50 parts per billion Is only the first step, and 

in itself will not restore Bverglsdes water to the natural quaUty needed to 

protect the eaisystem. Bven If BMPs and a small marsh filtration system were 

to succeed in removing some pollution, the July 13th agreement would 

create new engineering works designed and loa~ted that would preclude the 

later establishment of the additional marsh filtration areas needed to assure 

fuD and reliable compl~ with standards that will protect the Everglades. 

5. Water lost to the system because of new agricultufat practices must be 

replaced, and the replacement waters also must meet interim and final water 

quality standards. 1he Statement of Princlples allows the sugar companies to 

achieve most of their pollution reduction not by actually redudng levels of 

pollution in the water, but by reducing the amount of water dlscharged from 

the farms into the Everglades. To the extent that sugar companies reduce 

their poll~ijon by depriving the Bverglades of water, instead of cleaning up 

the watl!t..IR!fore putting it back into the Bverglades, the companies are simply 

choking off the Bverglades water supply, continuing to dJIICharge polluted 

water, and requiring other agricultural and urban water users to supply, and 

dean up, replacement water. 11tis means that the July 13th agreement would 

provide no water quality benefit to the Bverglades, unless offsetting water 

from Lake Okeechobee and other soun:es were cleaned up through filtration 

marshes and introduced into the Everglades. But the July 13th agreement 

includes no enforceable provision to assure that the necessary cleanup 

measures will be taken. 

6. A settlement of the legal issues must be enforceable by all parties on the 

prevailing side of the Federal litigation; ttuit is, by the United States and by the 

environmental plaintiffs. While Federal and State agendes are now moving 

toward enforcement of the water pollution laws that protect the Everglades, 

present·activity has been preceded by decades of indifference to the poUution. 

Any fmal agreement must be enforceable by the environmental plaintiffs, 

citizens, and the Miccosukee Tribe, and must carry strong and effective 

penalties to discourage non-compliance. 

Is a fair settlement of these disputes possible, to enable all parties to 

meet their responsibilities? 
465 

We believe so, if the Pedual government .-ita full authorities to 

protect the EverJlades, and encourages Stale apndes and the 1upr 

campania to comply with water poUutlon lawa and n!VUe watllr 

management pnctic:ell to better protect both dw natural EversJada sywtem 

and the residents olsouth Florida. We an c:onftdent that ratoration of the 

Evergladet, and, Improved water management that more economic:aUy meets 

the water supply and flood protection needa of south Florida's ooaatal cilia, 

can be amsiatent with c:ondnued and profitable agricultural production in 

most of the Evergladet Agricultural Area. 

Mr. Secretary,. we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you 

personaUy to diiCUIIIhese matters. 

~ Associated Executive Director, 

Conservation and Communications, 

Signed: 

.? .----...,:_&J-:;>/-( A 

c~_7.f7-~ Peter A.A. Berle 

President, 

National Audubon Society 

~c ·~(::9jtk() u.o~ Pri"""d Do•;dZwkk 

President, 

NPCA 

fi. ~ .,..J Y-Lt 

Dr. Bernard Yokel 

President. 

Florida Audubon Society 

~~~ 

Carolyn Waldron 

Director and Regional Executive, 

National Widlife Federation 

President, 

Clean Water Action 

~~ President, 

Florida Wildlife Federation 

~Vc+- Kevin J. Coyle 

President, 

American Rivers 
~~ Executive Director 

lzuk Walton Leape 

])~(,II 

Dennis Olle loU--

President, 

Tropical Audubon Society 

~ Executive Director, 

Florida Defenders of 

the Envirorunent 

~~ Tim Searc:hinger 

Senior A\tc:imey, 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Dr. Elwood Br 

President. 

Audubon Society 

of the Everglades 

g'~.l.fl~ ~even J: Pa}l!ens 

Chairman. 

Everglades Coalition, 

on behalf of other 

Coalition Members 

466 

*~ -t~~~~· Ann Whitfield 

Executive Dlrec:tor 

Florida PIRG ' 

~~ F'l.lhennen Against Destruction 

of the Envrionment 

~~ 

N~ 'itaggiacomo 

Pr ... dent, 

Leagu'e of Women Voters 

of Florida 

ICarin P. Sheldon 

President, 

1be Wilderness Society 

E,z~ Brent Blackwelder 

Vice President, 

Friends of the Earth 
467 

Natio~dubon Society E__...,.s,-

Reolonlt.l Cuopolp 

160NW 1761h St.ll202 

Miami. fL 33169 

(305)6S3· 1136 

(30S) 6S3-04S3 fax 

August 10, 1993 

Clerk 

House Natural Resources Committee 

1324 - LHOB 

United States House of Representatives 

Washingtion D.C. 20515 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

Please include this letter as part of the hearing record for the recent 

field hearing on Florida Bay. 

While the • i~evitable focus of the hearing on Florida Bay is on the 

eastern side of the lower Everglades system, the western side, or Big 

Cypress Basin is also deserving of your attention. Pressing land 

acquisition needs are outlined in the " Greater Everglades Restoration 

Plan" which is part of the Committee record. In addition, continued 

study of flows in the area are vital if we are to preserve the 

relatively unspoiled nature of the sub-system. 

In additic.n ;,.reas like the L-28 tie back which may interrupt flows 

between the two basins must be eliminated. The original purpose for 

that was to protect private lands from "flooding, however these lands 

are now publicly owned for natural purposes. In addition control of 

the culverts allowing flow between the two basins and the lower end 

of L-28 and L-29 must be operated in a way to replicate natural 

patterns. Careful monitoring and control of expanded agricultural 

areas in the northern end of the basin will be necessary to preserve 

the natural character of this sensitive area. 

Historically, the perception of Big Cypress National Preserve· has been 

that it is a pristine watershed, physiographically distinct from the 

Everglades/ Shark Slough system, and is neither influenced by, nor 
468 

influances the Everglades ecosystem. This misperception, or bias 

appears in many of the research, water supply planning, flood 

control, and political initiatives for the restoration of south Florida 

ecosystems. The basin is also often neglected in these efforts by 

jurisdictional lines that do not conform to natural watershed or 

biological boundaries. 

In order to appreciate the role of the Preserve hydrologic resources 

in the larger ecosystem, the following conditions should be 

adequately considered: 

I. Studies indicate the over 50 percent of the fresh water flowing 

into the Ten Thousand Islands estuaries originates in the rain 

recharged headwaters of the Preserve. The timing, duration, and 

water quality is severely impacted by Flood control structures and 

delivery schedules from the Central & Southern Florida Project ( L28 ). The full extent of the impact is not understood and is not being 

adequately considered under the coastal water supply planning 

processes now under way. 

2. The •. ~adwaters for the Mullet · Slough system north of the 

Preserve are strongly influenced by discharges from the western 

Basins, L-28 Interceptor, and citrus conversion to the north. 

3. Water from the Okaloacoochee Slough system supplies the last 

remaining freshwater marshes in the Preserve. The potential for 

degrading this flow regime from urbanization, agricultural 

conversion, and modification of the water supply should be 

adequately understood before water budgets are developed. 

4. Current hypotheses on the sources of the demise of Florida Bay 

suggest that shifts in ground water flow regimes along hydrologic 

boundaries may be directly affecting salinity in the bay. 

Groundwater flow patterns in the Preserve are known to be shifting. 

Some believe that this may be a key component in understanding the 

dynamics of the Bay and in developing a management plan. 

Restoration plans must integrate the hydrology, environmental 

quality and migratory biological uses for the entire greater 

Everglades system, including Big Cypress. 
469 

Thank you very much. 

Thomas D. Martin 

cc: The Honorable Bruce Vento 
c~ 

~ ENVIRONMENTAL 

DEFENSE FUND 

470 

-- -·- ---~ -- ------ --------- -- --

( "uliforniu ( Jffin• 

Rockridgc MJrkt: t Ha ll 

!ih:'5 C'ullege Ave. 

Oakland. CA <l.U.IH 

(51 11) h5X·I«MII! 

f 'ax: 5/0..()58-IJtdO 

TESTIMONY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

THE ECOWGICAL COlLAPSE OF FLORIDA BAY 

Submitted 13 Aapst 1993 to the 

Boase CollliDiuee oa Merdumt MariDe aad the 

Boase CollliDIUee oa Nablral Resources 

for their jolat fteld bearlaa beld oa 31 July 1993 

!57 Patk Avmuc South 

New YO<k. NY 10010 

(2 12) 2100 

at Key Coloay Beacla, llorlda 

1875 C.-cai<w Ave .. N.W . . w--.oc-

(1021 387·3500 

by 

I~ AnpMot Ave. 

Bouldn. co 80.102 (.103) 4ol().4901 

1:!8 Easl Hupn St. 

llal<ip.NCZ7001 

(919) 821·7793 

IIIUOGI&Odolup< 

"""io. TX 78701 

(51 2) 4711-Sihl 
471 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Rodney M. Fujita. I 

hold a doctorate in marine ecology from the Boston University Marine Program at 

the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. My research has 

been directed at understanding the role that nutrients play in structuring marine 

ecosystems. For the last 4 years, I have headed the Environmental Defense Fund's 

Coral Reef Project, which alms at protecting coral reefs and associated ecosystems 

worldwide. 

EDF played a significant role in the establishment of the Florida Keys 

National Marine Sanctuary; we were actively involved in the drafting of the water 

quality protection provisions of the legislation designating the Sanctuary. We 

continue to be actively involved in the implementation of the Sanctuary, serving on 

Technical Advisory Committees on water quality and innovative waste treatment 

technologies, helping the Sanctuary Advisory Council to develop recommendations 

for the comprehensive management plan, and facilitating support for improved 

water quality in the Keys community by conducting intensive policy dialogues 

between diverse stakeholders. I am a founder and director of the Water Quality 

Joint Action Group (WQJAG), an alliance of resource users, civic groups, business 

leaders, environmentalists, and many other diverse interests united in the pursuit of 

the restoration of water quality and the marine ecosystems ·of Florida Bay and the 

Keys. The Committees heard several members of the WQJAG ·testify to the 

devastating economic and ecologic impacts of the collapse of the Florida Bay 

ecosystem during the field hearing. 

The Science 

Recent evidence and theories strongly suggest that the massive die-off of 

seagrasses in Florida Bay observed in recent years may have been caused, in large 

part, by human activities over the last century. Enormous withdrawals of 

freshwater from the Everglades to support residential development and farming 

have apparently contnbuted to the development of chronic hypersalinity in some 

parts of Florida Bay. Hypersalinity means very high salinities; the salinity of water 

in the Bay during the die-off was about 50 parts per thousand (ppt) (maintained 

for months) and peaked at 70 ppt, compared to ~ ppt for normal seawater in 

Florida. The constriction of water exchange between the Bay and the Atlantic 

Ocean, associated with infilling during the construction of the railroad down the 

Keys in the early 1900's, may also have played a role in increasing salinities, by 

enhancing evaporation from the Bay. The hypersalinity appears to be a principal 

trigger for the massive seagrass die-off that has been occurring in Florida Bay since 

1987; 27,000 hectares of seagrass bed were dead or dying in 1991, representing 

about 15% of Florida Bay. 

The seagrass die-off has had . many deleterious secondary effects. High rates 

2 
472 

of nutrient regeneration from the dying seagrass beds are apparently supporting 

massive algal blooms in the Bay, and suspended sediment from the now barren 

patches of bottom affected by the die-off adds to .the turbidity (cloudiness) of the 

water. High chlorophyll levels and turbidity may in turn contnbute to elevated 

water temperatures, which stress animals and plants. Drought and unusually high 

air temperatures during the 1980's have probably been the dominant factors in 

increasing water temperature. 

Research by scientists at the Florida Institute of Oceanography and the 

National Undersea Research Center, supported in part by EDF and The Nature 

Conservancy, confirmed something divers, fishers, and boaters in the Keys have 

known for a long time: that hot, salty, turbid Florida Bay water flows out through 

the sluices in the middle Keys into Hawk Channel and onto the reef tract offshore. 

This phenomenon may explain, at least in part, the rapid decline in coral cover 

and ecosystem vitality in that portion of the Keys - very high rates of coral 

mortality and reduction of coral cover (up to 10% per year) there has resulted 

from bleaching and black band disease, both of which could well be triggered by 

the intrusion of unusually warm, nutrient-rich water from the Bay. Other factors 

are probably also partially responsible for the decline in coral cover. These 

include: natural upwellings of cold water with high nutrient content; chronic 

physical damage from boats, divers and fisherman; and nutrient loading from septic 

tanka, sewage treatment plants and stormwater runoff. 

In a rare show of consensus, the entire panel of scientists convened by the 

South Florida Water Management District for their workshop on Florida Bay 

agreed that immediate action, in the form of allowing more freshwater to flow into 

the Bay, was warranted. 

• The panel presented compelling evidence that supported the hypothesis that 

hypersalinity associated with water withdrawals, .combined with the relative lack of 

hurricane activity to flush out the Bay since 1965 and the unusually hot weather 

and droughts of the 1980's, was the principal cause of the seagrass die-off. 

The issue continues to be controversial, however, and we have been in 

contact with the principals in the debate, in order to improve our understanding of 

it and to inform our own strategies for restoring Florida Bay and the coral reef 

tract. At the Florida Keys Regional Ecosystem Symposium, geologists measuring 

oxygen isotope records in corals suggested that salinity in the Bay had been 

unnaturally high since before 1910, hypothesizing that this was a result of the 

construction of the Keys railroad which constricted water exchange between the 

Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Furthermore, some of the geologists concluded that 

the pattern of wide fluctuations in salinity have not changed greatly since then, 

even though freshwater inflow to the Bay has been greatly decreased since the 

3 
473 

1940's as a result of manipulations upstream. Some suggested that a high rate of 

evaporation in the Bay, resulting from the longest dry spell (all of the 1980's with 

the exception of 1981 and 1982) since 1902-1918, is the principal cause of the 

chronic hypersalinity observed in the Bay recently, rather than freshwater 

withdrawals. Others continue to believe that freshwater withdrawals may have 

been responsible. 

• Some combination of increasing freshwater flow and increasing water exchange 

with the Atlantic might be needed to restore the Bay. 

Adding to the controversy, some scientists have suggested that hypersalinity 

may have little to do with the die-off, and that restoration of freshwater flow (with 

attendant increases in anthropogenic nutrient loading) might do more harm than 

good. These researchers note that high salinities in the Bay during the early 

1960's did not result in a maSs die-off. In addition, they maintain that patterns of 

mortality in the recent die-off do not correlate well with areas of hypersalinity. 

To explain the die-off, opponents of the hypersalinity hypothesis observe 

that Gulf of Mexico waters have become enriched in nutrients, particularly 

phosphorus, which is limiting to seagrasses and coral reef ecosystems in south 

Florida. This means that addition of phosphorus to these ecosystems will stimulate 

the growth of corals, seagrasses, and algae; however, too much of the limiting 

nutrient results in algal overgrowth and a breakdown of ecological integrity. They 

propose that increased nutrient loading from polluted Gulf waters, and possibly 

from rivers flowing into Western Florida coastal waters, over-stimulated the growth 

of seagrasses in the Bay, and then stimulated the growth of epiphytes (which are 

small algae that grow on seagrasses. In this scenario, epiphyte growth 

overwhelmed the seagrasses, which (presumably in combination with the lack of 

flushing resulting from the lack of hurricane activity over the last 27 years) 

triggered the mass die-off. Death by epiphytes is probably the most common 

cause of seagrass mortality in cases documented around the world. Proponents of 

the hypersalinity hypothesis agree that high seagrass biomass was an important 

factor in the die-off, but insist that biomass accumulated as a result of a shift from 

a diverse estuarine flora to a dense monotypic stand of Tha/Iasia seagrass (turtle 

grass) resulting from chronic high salinities in the Bay. 

The likely resolution to this controversy, as has been the case for many 

complex ecological puzzles, will lie in acknowledgement that all of the suggested 

causative factors play some role. The problem will be to assess the levels of 

importance of each factor: circulation restrictions, lack of freshwater flow, climatic 

conditions (such as drought and high temperatures), nutrient loading, and new 

factors that may enter the equation as more information is gathered. 

4 
474 

* Indeed, the nutrient loading hypothesis and the hypersalinity hypothesis are not 

mutually exclusive. Chronic hypersalinity could have been nece558I)', but 

insufficient for the full development of the abnormally lush, monospecific stands of 

turtle grass that became characteristic of Florida Bay over the last few decades. 

The hypersalinity may well have selected against less tolerant seagrass species, but 

extra nutrients were probably required to generate the very high shoot densities 

typical of Florida Bay turtle grass meadows before the die-off. These high 

densities and the large amount of biomass produced by the seagrasses are cited by 

many scientists as nece558I)' preconditions for the die-off. 

The Solution 

While the scientific debate will likely continue for some time, the restoration 

of natural flows of freshwater into the Bay, coupled with a restoration of natural 

circulation patterns msofar as that is fe8Slble, appears to be a high leverage action 

tru!t is justified even in the face of scientific uncertainty. The withdrawal of water 

was clearly a massive, unnatural manipulation that most likely had strong effects on 

the Bay's ecological processes. Restoration of more natural flows is likely to 

increase the ability of the Bay to withstand droughts and hot spells, which will 

probably increase in duration, frequency and intensity as global warming proceeds -

- the cool respite from the hot 1980's afforded by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo 

appears to be over now. 

Increased freshwater flow with an appropriate hydroperiod, delivered to the 

appropriate places, would select for a more diverse seagrass ecosystem 

characteristic of less saline waters, composed of more euryhaline (tolerant of wide 

salinity fluctuations) species. Such an ecosystem would probably prove to be more 

stable in the face of climatic variation than the monotypic turtle grass beds which 

took over the Bay over the past few decades. These probable outcomes, coupled 

with the many other benefits of restored freshwater flow such as the restoration of 

bird and fish populations, restoration of the Everglades, decreased impacts on the 

coral reef tract, and more rational water allocation and use, make the restoration 

of freshwater flow through the Everglades and into the Bay a high priority despite 

the remaining uncertainty over the principal cause of the seagrass die-off. I 

endorse the specific recommendations of the Water Quality Joint Action Group, 

which are attached 

s 
475 

St a t Ment to Jtter th• nDSJ' oualit - water Joint Quality Action Gro 

___ ua. • March 10 • Ut3 Stetrina Cogittee 
476 

I. WA'l'llll QUALITY JOIJJI'l' AC'l'IO. GJlOUP' 8 COJIIIO. S'l'A'l'IIJID'l' 

The Water Quality Joint Action Group is coaposed of people who 

make their living from the water and people concerned about the 

dramatic decline in the health of Florida Bay and the entire Keys 

ecosystem. our jobs, quality of life and biologieal diversity are at stake. Through joint action, we seek to save the ecosystem 

and restore habitats in Florida Bay and the Keys by restoring fresh water flow and eliainatinq pollution. To accoaplish this, we will work toqether to: 

* Develop the political will needed for action; 

* Secure adequate funding for research and action; 

* Continue our dialoque on water quality, and engage in joint 

oroblem solvinq. 

II. WATZR QoaLI'l'Y JOIJft AC'l'IOM GROUP'S XBKBBR ORGABIIATIOMS 

The Water Quality Joint Action Group's aeaber organizations 

include the following organization representatives: 

*Rod Fujita, The Environmental Defense Fund. 

*Mike Collins, Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association. 

•Paul Johnson, Center for Marine conservation. 

*Karl Lessard, Monroe County Commercial Fishermen; Organized 

Fishermen of Florida. 

*Sally Mishmash, The Coral Reef Sweepers. 

*Richard Grathwohl, Marathon Guides Association. 

•carol Reese, Project Reefkeeper. *Dan Yeider, Monroe county Coaaercial Fishermen. 

•Joyce Newman, Clean Water Action. 

•Pops Petrick, organized Fisheraen of Florida. 

*Mark Robertson, The Nature Conservancy. 

III. ltBCOJIIIJDIDATIOMS TO TBB WATBR QoaLI'l'Y STBBRIIfG COJIIII'l"l'BB 

The Water Quality Joint Action Group commends the Steering 

committee for the ·water Quality Protection Proqram document's ~cv~• and goud ~e~ommendations. ~· s~ro~gly sup~rt the 

recommendation that the Steering Committee must take the lead 

role in •restoring freshwater flow to Florida Bay.• We believe 

there is enough scientific consensus to take immediate action to 

restore fresh water flow to Florida Bay. Research is needed but 

this need should not delay immediate action. We urge the Steering co.mittee to consider and act upon the following recommendations: 

1) •~• Sboul4 Have Decisioa MakiD9 Authority. We urge the 

Steering Committee to require all of it's aembers to have 

sufficient authority to aake decisions on behalf of aember 

agencies. Decisions aade at Steerinq committee aeetings should 

be binding, in order to ensure that urgently needed actions can be taken. This is what it means to take the •lead role• on restoring freshw,ter flow to Florida Bay. 
477 

2) rund Restoration or Florida Bay. The steerinq Committee should 

pass a resolution. that each of its participatinq aqencies will 

seek Conqressional appropriations and re-allocate existinq funds 

and resources to support immediate action, monitorinq, and 

reqional research directed at restorinq Florida Bay. 

3) •o More CUts iD Fresh Water Flows. The Steerinq committee 

should immediately iaplement a policy to ensure that no more reductions in fresh water flows to the Bay are aade. 

4) Restore Fresh Water Flow. The Steerinq Committee should draft a resolution to the Governor, Secretary of Commerce, the 

Environmental Protection Aqency, the South Florida Water 

Kanaqement District, and the Army Corps of Enqineers directinq them to take immediate action to restore more natural fresh water 

flows with d~e care taken not to discharqe contaminated water. 

5) coaqressioul llaJlclate for &otioa oa •lorida Bay. The steerinq Committee should move to have Conqress include ecosystem health 

and water supply as specific project purposes in the Federal Act 

qoverninq the South Central Florida Water Control Project to ensure and enable federal aqencies to focus on an action plan for 

Florida Bay. 

6) coordiuted Plaa for •loricJa Bay. Tbe Steerinq co-ittee 

should develop a coordinated aqency action plan for Florida Bay with specific deadlines, and then direct each steerinq committee 

aqency to impl .. ent their appropriate portions of the plan. 

7) Lall4 A.c:~Cpisitioa t:o aest:ore •taral 8heet •low. The Steerinq ca.aittee should pursue land acquisition opportunities to 

purchase the Proq Pond, the 8 1/2 square aile tract and the 

connector, in order to r .. tore natural sheet flow. 

8) ~e ~iae for actioD oa •lorida Bay is lOW. Steerinq Committee 

should review and accelerate tiae lin.. for action on Florida 

Bay. 

9) IIDaourave ll.eaaaralt All4 Moait:oriDCJ •fforts • . Tbe top priority for research and ~nitorinq .u.t be the r .. toration of Florida 

Bay; specifically the quantity, quality, and tiainq of freshwater 

flows and the associated bioloqical iapacts. Tbe coaaittee, in 

conjunction with the National Park service, should extend 

research and ~nitorinq proqrau into the Florida Bay. The 

Coaaittee should strenqtben Florida Bay external influences 

section (BS-4) in the Water Quality Protection Proqrem for the 

Florida Keys sanctuary, and consider extendinq the bydrodynemic aodel for SOUth Florida into Florida Bay. 

10) lfaaa9e tile cauls as Desiped. we support the Steerinq Ca.aittee's proposal to t.aediately raise to oriqinal d .. iqn criteria optiaua flood control levels in the L31 and c-111 

canals, in order to enhance fr .. hwater flow into Florida Bay. 
478 

11) Bverqladea aeatoratioD aDd Plorida Bay. Include Florida Bay in all Everqladea Restoration Plans 

12) BDcouraqe Pirat 8aD4 View of Plorida Bay. The water Quality Joint Action Group stronqly urqea that members of the Steerinq committee and their superiors take advantaqe of an invitation to 

participate in the NOAA "fly overs• proqraa to view the Florida 

Bay's current water quality problema. 

0 

ISBN 0-16-041794-5 

9