83 

## CENTRAL & SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJ ECT COMPREHENSI VE REVI EW STUDY: ROAD MAP OR ROAD BLOCK FOR THE FUTURE? A CASE STUDY I N WATER RESOURCE PLANNING IN THE AGE OF

ECOSY STEM MANAGEM ENT

Cathleen C. Vogel Director of

Go ve rnme nt R el ati ons Pavese, Ga rn er, Haverfield, Dalt on, Har ri son & Jen sen

In the realm of

wate r resource management, 1997/98 w ill lo ng be remembe

red as the “ El Niño

Yea rs.” Na t ionwid e, we ha ve wat ch ed t emp er at ur es soa r or plum met while un r elen ti ng stor ms a nd tor na does h ave resul ted in los s of l if e a nd exte nsi ve de st ructio n. Ext raordina ry rains hav e c aus ed

se ri ous fl ooding

and ero si on. Flo

rida has had it s share

of “El Niño .” To dat e, the weather ph enomenon has cost Florida more than $500 mi ll ion in dam aged cro

ps , b us ine ss es and ho me s. On a mo re sombe r note, 46

deaths have

be en attribute d to stor ms c au sed by El Niñ o. 1
Theeffe cts of El Niñ o in Sout h F lor id a ca n be summ ar ized in a wo

rd: WET! In early 1998, the region’s ty pically dr y wint er mon th s exp er ien ced cl ose to 3 00% of normal ra in fa ll. Th is cam e on top of alr eady satur ated conditions throughout th e en ti re sout he rn por ti on of the peninsu la. In fact, th e main water st ora ge fe at ur e of Sout h Fl or i da , La ke Ok ee ch obe e, r ea ch ed a r ec or d d r ysea son w ate

r leve l hig h o f 18. 33 ft . NG

VD o n Fe

bru ary 27 causin g seri ous problem s for water manag ers in South Flo rida: Th e dike sur roun din g Lake Okeech obee showed si gnsof stres s astwe nty -three c le ar wate r b oi ls w ere id entified. High water lev els in the man age d lak e requ ir ed hi gh d isch ar ges of water to be rel eased through a sy ste m of canals thatco nnect the lake to th e Evergl ades and coastal estuar ies. 2 In t urn , th ese freshwat er disch ar ges wrea ked ha voc on estu ar ies an d flood e d critic al b ird-nesting habi tat in the s out

hern Eve rglade s.

THE CENTRAL & SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT Desp ite th ese cris es , So

uth F lorida

w as ab le to co ntend we ll with th e water m an agem ent ch all enges pr esen ted by El Ni ño. It s p rimar

y defense aga in st th e extr emes of high wate r and torrent

ial rains is a ma ss iv e i

nfr ast ructure systemknown as th e Cent ra l & South ern Flori da Pr oject for Flood Control and Ot her Purpose s. (C&S F Proj ect, for short) This United S tat es Army Co rpso f Enginee

rs project is truly a marvel of engineerin g, land pla

nning and water co nt rol . Co

nst ructe d p rimarily

du ring t he per iod of 1950 t o 1975, th e C&SF pr oject’s auth oriz ed pur poses in clude flood cont rol, water sup pl y, pr even ti on of sal twa t er in tr usi on, pr ovisi on of wa ter sup pl y for Everg lades Na ti ona l Pa rk , n avi ga ti on a nd pr otect ion of fish an d wil dl ife. Th e pr oject s tr etch es fr om ju st s out h of Orlan do in c ent

ral F lorida

to the so uthe rn tip o f the pen insula. It inclu des ove r 1000 m iles of canals an d levees, 160 wa te r c ont rol str uct ur es a nd 16 m ajor pum ping statio ns, and it e

nco mpass es an ar ea of

18,000 sq uare miles. 3 Desi gn ed t o move an d stor e water thr oughout

the incredib ly

flat, low -ly ing region of

Sou th Flo rida, th e C&SF Project a lso in cludes six ma jor water sto rag e ar eas : La ke Ok eech obee, W at er Con ser vat ion Area 1 (w

hich is also

th e U.S. Fi sh & Wi ldli fe Service Loxah atch ee Wildlif

e R ef uge), W ater Co nse rva ti on Areas 2A and 2B, and Wate

r Conse rvatio n Areas3A

and 3B (See Appendix

A, Central

& S ou thern Flori da Pr oject Map.)
Mo re effectively than an y land u se plan ni ng ef fo rt, t he C&SF Pr oject e sta bli sh ed a comp re he ns ive bl ue p ri nt for the de ve lo pme nt o f so uthe ast Fl ori da. It

de si gnated

the ar ea south of

LakeOkee cho

bee f or fa rming (the Eve rglad es A gricul

tural Are a). It d

rew an “urb an bo unda ry l ine” - th e east coast p rotecti ve levee - which runs1 00 m iles from We st Palm Beach to H omestead - ef fe ctively se tting o ff the urb aniz ed

ea st co ast f rom the Everglad es. It

es tab lis hed the Wate r Cons erv ation Areas to remain asEvergl ades h abita t an d water storage ar eas, an d it p rovided t he facil iti es necessar y to guara nt ee that Everg lades National Park w ould a l wa ys rece ive

adequate water supply

from the

sy ste m. I n f

ac t, w itho ut t he Central& So

uthern Florid a Pr oj ect, F lorida and So uth Florida in pa rt icu la r wou ld n ever have b een ab le to devel op into

the maj or ec ono

mic and p op ula tio n ce nters th ey a r e today. In 1950 when t he pr ojec t was just un de r wa y, Florida ra nked 18 th am ong the st ate s w ith a84

popu la ti on of 2.8 mi ll ion . By 199 0, Flor id a h ad gr own to nearly 13 million, making it the f ourth largest state inthe co un t r y. Forty-ni ne per cent of Flor ida’ s popula tion lives within the regio

n serve d by

the C& SF Proj ect, and this re gi on is critic al to

Flo rida’s ec onomy

given the i

nco me genera ted by

its agr icultur al an d tourism indu stries.
Wha t Pr ice Dra in age?
Whi le the C&SF Pr oject p rovi des a n a rr ay of direct and in dir ectbenefits for Sout h Fl orid a, i t h as al so caused sub stantial enviro nm ental prob lems. F lo rida’ s Everglad es, one of its most prominent natural features , is the lar gest wetla nd i n t he Uni ted Sta tes . What we ty pically thin k of when we say the word “Evergl ades” consists tod ay of

tw o maj or ge op ol iti cal re gio ns: the Everg lades Water Co

ns erv ati on Are as, o w

ned b y the stat e, and Eve

rglade s Nat

ional P ar k. Together t hese areasspan well ov

er a milli on acres. H

ow ever, in its origi nal stat e, th e Evergl ades en compassed an ar ea twice this si ze . W

hile the idea o f drai

ningthe Ev

erglad es was f irst espo used in an 1848 report to the United State s Congre ss b

y Senator J. D. We stc ott, 4 it too k many e arly attemptsand ul tima tely the constructi on of the C&SF Proj ect to ev entually succ eed in this eff

ort.
T he pre-drain ag e Ever gl ad es ecosyst em wa s cha rac teri z ed

by 1) exten sive stora ge an d na tur al sh eet flow ( the extreme ly

shallow elev ation gradient of

Sou th Florida - a dr op i n e leva ti on of only 20 fee

t ove r the 100 mil e distance fro

m Lake Oke echob ee

to F lorid

a Bay

- me ant that surface water in the wetland flow ed v er y slowl y); 2) an extr aord in ar ily lar ge spat ial ar ea (such large areassust aine d habita t di ve rsi ty b y pro vi ding ext en sive feeding ar eas); and 3) heterog eneity of habitat. 5 Drain age o f this

ec os y st em and al ter at ion of

na tu ra l fl ow pat terns (the

tim ing a

nd v ol ume o f w ate r movi ng thr ough the

Everglades) has had t wo major negative side ef fe ctsthat are the

fu ndamental

pro bl em s w e a re de aling with in S ou th Flor id a t oda y: wat er qua li ty det er ior at ion and re duc ed wa ter sup pl y. Stor mwa ter ru nof f from agricu ltural and urban activiti es is damagin g th e rem aining Everglades system as well as coastal estuar ies. In add iti on, the

o ve rall low eri ng o f su

rf ac e a nd groun dwater level s in ord er to d r ain and dev elo p areas and provide flood protect ion h as r esulted in a tota l water storage loss f

rom the nat ural system o f up to 6,000,000 ac re fe et. 6 Thi s pre- dra in age stor age in essence smooth ed out th e ef

f ects of erra tic r ain fall. It al lowed water to rec ed e gradually during the dry s easo

n and it also a meliora ted floods and drough ts. 7 The los s of this storage co mb ine d w ith t he ext re me vol um es of

wat er that are either lost to ev

apotranspir ation (estimated 1 0, 470 mi ll ion gallons a day

) or that are disc

harged to the o ce an by the ca nal s y st em (e stimat ed 3,5 31 mil lio

n g allo ns a da y) 8 de

mo nst rate qu ite cl ea rly ho w a re gi on suc

h as sou th Flor ida, whic

h rece ive s an average annual pr ecip it at ion in exc es s o f fi ve f ee t and w hic h is o ne o f the two wet test ar eas in the coun tr y, can h ave a water supp ly problem.
EVER GLADE S RE STORA

TION AND THE RESTUDY OF THE C&SF PROJECT
For many y ea rs, ef fo rts hav e b ee

n und erw ay to res tore t he Everglad es. Per ha ps t he most subs ta nt ia l of t hese w as begun in 1983 whe

n then-Go

ve rnor Bo b G raham in iti ated the state’ s Sav

e Our Evergla de s p rog

ram. T he goa l o f this pro gram w as that

b y the y ea r 20 00 the Everg lades w ou

ld l oo k and functio n more like they

did in 1900 than when th e progra m was begun in the 1980' s. This noble b

ut neb ulo us goal undersco

res o ne of the bas ic prob lems th at we wrestl e with i n Fl orid a when we deb ate th e Eve rglades. W

hile there is c onsensu s that this ecosy stem is se ve rely dam aged a nd i n n eed

o f res torati on, there is n o agreement on what is meant by “restoring” the Ev erglad es. One thing is cl ea r, however, the key

to Ev erg lades restor ati on is h ydrologic r estora tion . Wat er built th e nat ura l ecosystem

of Sou th Flori da, an d in order to restor e tha t system, we need to restor e t he natural dis trib uti on and f

low o f w ate r. 9
Rest ora ti on of the Ever glad es inev it abl y le ads to the C&SF Pr oject. Dur in g t he 197 0' s an d ‘8 0' s a n um ber of adjustments were mad e to the pr oject i n t he in ter est of environmental

pro te ct ion and enhance ment. A “rainfalldriv en”planwas

instituted to

improve wate r delive ries to Ev erg lades Natio

nal Park. Agricul

tural runof

f w as iden tified as a ser ious pr oblem for Lake Okeech obee; as a resul t, sev e re la nd use r est ri cti ons were pl aced on pr ope rty up st rea m o f the lak e a nd w ate r mana geme nt pra ctices w ere

altered to redire ct stormw

ater f low s aw ay from th e lake. Th e dri ve to restor e the ch an neli zed Kissim mee Ri

ve r wa s begun. But by the early 1990's, these piecemea l acti vities gave way to the philo so

phy that a compr ehen sive review of the C & SF Pr oject wou ld be nec es sar y in orde r to ad dres s the environmental

impacts of th e pr oject a s well as t o re tr ofit th is i nfr astr uc ture systemto pr ovid e for t he wat er ma na gem en t n eeds of a dramatically

larger and diff

erent so cio -ec onomic community

th at ha d evol ved i n S ou th F lorida since the project’s i

nceptio n. Interestingly, it was th e experi ence of a s evere So ut h F lor id a d rou gh t d ur in g t he per iod of 1988-1990 that ultimately f oc us ed su ff ic ient at ten ti on on the need t o correct t he water man agem ent m ista kes o f the past and p

rep are for the w ate r mana geme nt ne ed s o f the futur e. The

dra ma of th reat ened water su pply combin ed with the pli ght o f the

Ev erg lades

ec os y st em se t the stage fo r co ng re ssi ona l a ut hor iz at ion of a com pr eh en sive “restu dy ” of the Central & So

uthern Florida Proj ect.85

Re st udy - The Early Ye ars Th e Cen tr al & Sout he rn Flor id a Pr oject C omp re he ns ive Review Stud y (or “R est udy ” as it is c ommo

nly called) w as auth oriz ed

by th e U.S. Con gress i n 19 92 (see Appendix B, C&SF Proj ect R

estudy - Alternative 5). In September of that y ea r, tw o res ol uti ons of the House Commi ttee on Publ ic Works & Tra nsp ortati on d ir ecte d t he Cor ps of Enginee rs to determine

w het her t he C&SF Proj ect s hould be modif ie d “i n t h e i n t er es t of e n vi r on m en t a l qu a l i t y, water suppl y and oth er pu rposes” specifical ly ci t ing pur poses for Flori da Bay (which at th at t ime h ad ga rn ered national attenti on asa resu

lt o f la rge alg ae b loo

ms that w ere oc curring in the

we ste rn reaches

of the b ay ). On e month lat er, Congr ess, as p ar t of the 19 92 Wat er Resources Deve

lopment Act (Sec . 309(1)), aut horize d the Corps to de ter mi ne if t he pr oject s hou ld be modified “due to sign ifican t cha nged physical , biologica l, dem ogra phi c, or ec onomi c co nditions w ith particular refe

rence to mo dif y ingth e pr oject or it s oper at ion for imp rov ing t he quality of the envi ron men t, i mpr oving p rotect io n of the aqu if er, and i mpro vi ng the inte grit

y , c apa bi lit y and con ser vat ion of ur ban wa t er s upp lie s a ff

ec te d b y the proj ect or it s o

peratio n.” 10

In order to

f ull y apprec iat e t

he m agnitud

e a ndco mplexity of this task which Congress had assig ne d t he Cor ps of Eng ineers, it is i mp ort an t t o un der sta nd th e soci opol itica l “atm ospher e” which surr ounds th e Everglades. Simply put, the Evergl ades i s a w ar zo

ne w here environmental

intere sts clas

h with ag ricult ural and urban interestsov

er wate r quality and quantity

. Th e Evergl ades is also a battle fie ld where fe deral interests

in th e form of national parks and

wildlife refuges clash with the state’s rights in land use

planning an d w ate r alloc ation. With close to f ive million peo

ple liv ing adjace

nt to o ne o f the mostfragi le a n d e n da n ge r ed ec os yst em s i n t h e c ou n t r y, it is lit tle w ond er t hat c ons ens

usand coop era tio n are rare commodit ies in So

uth Flo rida. In fact , at th e tim e when the Re st udy o f the C& SFPro

je ct w as aut horize d, m any Everg lades stakeho lders o f So uth Florid a w ere

b eing consum ed

by a prolo nged legal fight ove

r water quality enteri ng the Ev erg lades

f rom the Eve rglade s Ag

ricult ural Area. Thi s lawsuit cost taxpayers a n es timated $25 mil lio n; it took al most five years to sett le; it spawn ed tens of rel ate d suit s; and i

t has cre ate d an u

nrel ent ing atmo sp here

o f dis trus t and ange

r amo ng the many co mpe ting inte res ts w ho hav e a

st ake in Ev erg lades protectio n and water manage

ment in So

uth Flo rida. Desp ite this contentious and litigious climate, the Restudy of the C&SF

Proj ect w as met w ith great enthusiasm o

n all sides. No one que stione d the fac t that the 40-y

ear-old canalsystemwas

ca us ing d amag e to the

env ironme nt and w as incap able of providing th e level o f multi-pu rpose service in the f utu re t hat it ha d in th e past. Pe ople welcomedthe

notion of revampin g the pr ojec t so that the Eve rglade s co

uld b e e nhanced and re sto

red and s o that human wat er sup pl y need s an d a deq ua te fl ood pr otect ion for the re gi on could b e ensured. Furthermore, as a Corps of Engi nee rs initi ative , it

w as anti ci

pated that the Restudy o f the C& SF P

roj ect w oul d bring sub stantial fede ral do llars to

be ar on res olv

ing the e nvironmental and wa ter su pply problems of So uth Flo rida.
THE RECONNAISSANCE S TUDY Although the R

est udy was authorized in 1992, it was n ot until fu n di n g w a s a pp r op r i a t ed t h e f ol l owi n g ye ar t hat w ork on the proj ect began. From the s tart, it w as c lear that the Restudy

wo uld be unlike any traditional Corps project. C onside

ring t he s ize , c om

ple xit y , and en vi ro nmental, ec onomic, p olit ical, and tec

hnical cha ra cter isti cs o f the

So uth F lorida

region, the Jacks onville

Distr i ct o f the Co rpso f Enginee

rs dete rmi ned ear ly

on to appro ach the R

est udy in an in nova ti ve man ner . Th e Corps p roject tea m dedi cated its el f to a n op en an d pu bli c pr ocess t ha t woul d i nvol ve pa r t i ci pa t i on by ev er y f

ed eral and state agen cy, in terest group or co

ncerned pub lic w

ith a sta ke in th e Evergl ades and the manage

ment o f w

ater in So uth Flo rida.
T r a di t i on a l l y, a Corp s of Engi nee rs pr ojec t involves a two -ste p planning pro ce ss. Th e first step is known as a Reconna issan ce Study

which is e

ntirely the

respo nsibility of the federal gove

rnment. Dur in g th e Reconna issan ce St ud y, issues are f

ramed, pr oble

ms are de fined , and pot ential solutions are explo

red. If it is de

termined that su ff ic ient f ed eral i nteres

t e xis ts to mo ve b ey ond the problem iden tifica tion stage, th en th e next plan ni ng st ep is a much m ore

detai led feasibil ity study und erta ken with a lo cal sponsor (in this case, t he South Fl orida Wa te r Manageme nt Di st

ric t, l oc al s

po nso r of the Central & Southern Florida Pr oject) to i den ti fy a pr efer re d pl an of actio n to ad dres s the prob lem.
TheC&S F Restudy Reconnai ssan ce pha se last ed approximately

eigh teen months . D uring th at t ime, th ree rounds of public wo rkshops we

re held throughout

Sou th Florida to s olic it publi c i nput . H ow

ev er, de sp ite

the “openness” of

this early datagath erin g process, prope rty ow ners an d water user inte

res ts w ho w ere lo ok ing t o the Restudy to add res s l ong -te

rm wate r su ppl y needso f the re gi on be gan to f

eel u ncomf ortable with the dire ctio

n that the study was taking. As

rep ort ed in the Reconna issan ce Re port, i n July

199 3, an in it ia l p roj ect s copi ng sessi on was he ld in volvi ng st af

f from the Co rpso f Enginee

rs and the South Florida Water Managemen t Di stri ct. At that t i m e, i t wa s n ot ed by t h e a ge n cy p ers onne l that86

fe deral po licy dic tates that state and local

in ter est s h ave prim ary res po nsi bi lit y f or th e d evelopmen t of water su pp l y. It

w as fu rther ac kno

w le dged tha

t re ce nt adm ini s tr at ive po lic ie s o f the f ed eral go ve rnme nt recomm ended against federal fu nding for w

ate r su pply w ork u nderta ke

n b y the Co rpso f Enginee

rs. As such, “( T)he par ticip an ts conclu ded th at t he Cor ps’ Review Stu dy wou ld f

oc us o n Eve rglade s and F lorid

a Bay ecosy stem re stor at ion whil e accomm odatin g other w ater resource de mands. ” (Empha sis added) 11 This was quite a depar tur e from th e compreh ensi ve a p proach to rev is iting the multi-p urpose attr ibutes of the C&SF Project that man y st akeho lders in So uth Flo rida had anticip ated

in the R est udy

. TheSc ience

Su b- Gro up Re po rt
Water user stak ehold ers ’ c onf ide nce in th e Reconna issan ce Study

was further undermined in November 1 993 b y

the pu bl ic ati on of

a re po rt b y the Science Sub-Group o f the federal South Florida Manageme nt & C oo

rdina tio n Wo rking Group. Abo

ut the t ime th at the R

est udy go t underway

, the f ede ral gover nm en t established an Interagency So uth Florida EcosystemRes

toration Task For ce. Th is ta sk force bro ught togeth er al l federa l agen ci es invol ved in t he Everg lades (Inte

rior, Co mmerce , Ju stice, A gri cultu re, Army Co rpso f Enginee

rs a ndEn vir onm en ta l Pr otect ion Ag en cy) to coo

rdin ate federal acti vities a nd bu dge tary pla nningon Evergla des issues. The ass is tant -s ec retary level Task Force f

ormed an int eragency S outh Florida Wo rking Grou p to co ordinate

activ ities atthe loc al level. In S epte mber 1 993, th e federal Task Force deter min ed that the manag em ent

o bj ec tiv es b eing d ev

el op ed f or the C&SF Re study

did not me et its e

xpec tatio ns for Ever glad es restoration. Th e Task Force directed t

h e So uth Flo

rida Wo rking Gro

up to dev elo p f ede ral objectives for ec osystem re stor at ion th at coul d be subm itt ed to t he Cor ps of E ng in eer s wit hi n 4 5 da ys for in cor por at ion in to th e Reconna issan ce S t ud y. 12 The result of this man date was a hastily-produc ed p ubl ica ti on know n as the Scie

nce Sub -Group R

epo rt. By all ac co unts , the Sc ience Su b- Gro u p Report was a sketch y docu men t. It p rovi ded an over view of t h e ec ologica l problems that had developed in South Florida as a r esul t of dr ai na ge a nd devel opm en t, out li ni ng how the na tur al l an dscape of

th e regio

n had beco

me highly frag men ted wi t h l os s o f h a bi t a t di ve r si t y. 13 H ow ev er, the do cu me nt drew skept ics when it d ef ine d re st ora

tio n as the rec ons truc tio n o f pre -exis

ting ec ologica

l conditions. As stat ed in th e repor t, t he “concept ual t ar get of re stor at ion of South Florida wetlands and estuaries is pre-drain age Sout h Florida as defi ne d for top ogr ap hy a nd hydr olog y by the 1858 military

map.” 14 For pro

pe rty o w ners and ot

hers in S ou th F lorida , the

fact that a f ed eral docu me nt wo uld suggest a return to the “typo gr aphy and hy drolo gy” of

1858 se eme d prep ostero us. The bro ad co nceptual re stor a tio

n go als o utl ine d in t

he re po rt see me dreasonable: 1)Re store areal exte

nt as we ll a s hydrologic

integrity of

the system; 2) Adjusthydro logic re stor at ion to ma

ximize ecologic restoration; 3) establish a regio nal monito

ring sy ste m to me asu re success. H ow ev er, sp ec if icpro po sal s re co

mme nde d in t he re po rt w ere total ly unr ealis tic. For e xample , on e recommenda tion, wh ich was described as a “minimum pla n” to a ch ieve re stor at ion goa ls, was t he con ver sion of a 15 0,0 00 ac res

o f pro duc

tiv e f armla nd ( one third o f the lands wit hi n t he Ever gl ad es Ag ri cul tu ra l Ar ea) in to a “f l oww a y” that would hydrolo gically c onnect Lake Okeechobee with

the Water Conservation Areas. 15 Such fantasti c n ot

ions d rew hars h critic is m f

rom the pote ntially aff ected pub lic s, prop erty

ow ners and local gov ernments in the

region and u

nde rmine d the credib ilit y

of th e documen t. Fur th erm ore, t he Scien ce S ub-Gr oup Report was entirely dedic ated t o environmental

obj ectives. Wa

ter su ppl y and o ther w aterrela ted ne eds of t he re gi on were comp let ely abs en t fr om the do cu me nt. I f, in f

ac t, t he re po rt re pre se nt ed t he f ede ral gov ernment’s ob

jec tive s f or the R estud y , it lef t many in ter est s in Sou th Fl ori da f eeling v ery uncomf ortable abou t t he feder al mot ives for this project.
Reco nnais sanc e S tud

y Reco mme ndat ions A year after th e r elea se of the Scie nce Sub -Group R

epo rt, the Corps of En gin eers compl eted it s Rec o nn aissa nce Re po rt on th e Compr ehen sive Review Study (November 1994). To i ts credit , the

Co rpspre se nte d a m uch more balan ced publica tion which descri bed an ec ologica

l go al for Evergl ades re stor at ion as th e recr eation on a sm all er scale of a healthy ec osy ste m thatwo

uld be large enough and diverse eno ugh to surv ive natural cycles

of droughts, floods, and hu

rr ic anes. 16 The

Reco nnais sanc e R

ep ort of fe red an optimistic

out look for E ver gl ad es r est ora ti on noti ng that in spit

e o f the negativ e alte rations that had occurr ed in the ecosyste m, th e opp ort un it ies for rec ov ery ar e grea t. Mu ch of th e origi na l Ever glad es system rem ains in public ow

nership a nd th e tot al ar ea of rem aining wetlands is r elatively large in si ze, all ow ing fo r almost all c

haracteris

tic s pec ies to re main.
Therepor t outli ned a n um ber of goa ls for th e Rest udy of the C&SF Proj ect that in c lud

ed ec os y st em res torati on, wate r quality improve ment, wate

r supply dev

elo pment, flood contr ol, an d recr eation . Sti ll, most of the d etail ed substan ce of

the rep ort w

as de dica ted primar i l y to

the environmental

res torati on asp ec

ts o f the Re stu dy. For in stan ce, th e Recon na iss an ce Repor t con clu de d the follo wing:87

• An ad ap ti ve management approac h to the pla nning pro ce ss sho uld b e take n.

• Florida Ba

y w ou ld bene fi t f rom res toring t he tim ing and amount of

natural f

reshwate r flow s into its nort heast se ct

ion. Addit iona l resea rch is need ed on t h e b a y.

• Thespatial ex

tent of we tlands in the sy

stem should be increa se d thro

ugh su rf ac e s torage are a s, particularly

al ong th e eas ter n bou nd ar y of th e east coast levee w

hich se para te s u rba n Pa lm B ea ch, Browa rd a nd D ade Coun ties fr om th e Evergl ades (this co ncept becam e kn own a s th e Wa ter Pr eser ve Areas), a nd th rough flow ways.

• Ope rational changes to

the C&SF Proj ect alo

ne co uld imp rov e some

natural communities and c ould im pr ove flood protecti on. Op erat iona l cha nges i n con ne cti on w ith m or e s t or a ge a r ea s a n d f l oww a ys co uld sub stantiall

y improv e the abi lity to ma nag e mo re nat ural sh eet flows, especial ly to Evergla des National Park.

• Themodels utilized in the Reco nna issance Study were not sufficient to address water q ualit y issues.

• Ve ry litt le was recomm ended with respect to water su pp l y; ho w ev

er t he report did ac

know ledge that its mod e ling had bee n base d on 1990 wate

r supply deman ds.

• In term s of economic imp act, th e Report concl uded that the Restud

y cou ld hav e lo cal and regional e conomic imp ac ts o w ing i n larg e p art to the tremendous land

acq uis iti on ac tiv

iti es that w ere envisi oned - th e Reco nn aissa nce Report suggest ed that from 80,000 to 260,000 acres w ould ne ed t o be acqui red th rough th e R estud y Proj ect in o

rder to add res s e nvi ronmental re st ora

tio n. Once aga in, the fede

ral government h ad issued a do cu me nt th at weig he d h eavi ly in fa v or of the environmental

restorat ion aspects of the Rest ud y of the C&SF Project whi le se emi ng ly gi vin g sh ort sh ri ft to the fu ture water supply

, floo d control and o th er water manag em ent

needs o f S out

h Florida. De spite

the f act that property ow ners and wate

r-user interests

in South Florida ra ised consider able concer n ab out th e Reconna issan ce Re port, the rec omme

ndation of

the Co rps w as to proceed to the next phase o f the R estud y - the Fe asibility

Re port.

THE FEASIBILITY STUDY Where as the Reco nnais sanc e p ort

ion of th e Re study Project was

conducted e

ntir ely by the Corps of Engineer s, the second pl an ni ng p ha se, the Feas ibility Study , had to be undertak

en in par tner sh ip with a local sponso r. In fact, the dec ision to

proce ed to

the Feas ibility

phase was based on 1) the pote

ntial solutio

n to problem s iden tified by the Reco nna issance Study

h ave a f ederal interest; 2) the so lut ion is in keep ingw ith fede ral p ol ic ie s a

nd bu dge tary prio riti es ; and

3) the soluti on is su pport ed

by a non-f ede ral spo nsor. 17 In this c as e, the non-f ede ral spon sor is the So

uth Fl ori da W

ate r Mana geme nt District, one of Flo rida’s fiv

e regional w

ater man a geme nt agen cies which have

broad authority

fo r plannin g , re gul at ion and m ana gement of regiona l water r esources. Th e Sou th Flo

rida Wate

r Manageme

nt Dist rict w as establi shed in 19 49 (as

the Flo od Contro l District at that tim e) in order to se

rve as the lo cal spo

nso r f or the constr u cti on and o

pe rati on of the Ce ntral & S ou thern Flor ida Proj ect. The District is financed primarily t hro ugh ad v

alo rem tax es . A s l oc al s

po nso r f or the Fea sib ility

Stud y , the Di strict w as comm it ted to a 50-50 cost sha re o n t he e xpe nse o f the Fe asi bi lit y St udy . The termsof th e stu dy an d r espon sibi li ti es of the f ed eral and lo cal pa rtners a re spelled out in what is call ed a Pr oject St udy Pl an. Thefirst Project Study

Plan fo r the Res tudy was issue d in July 1995. Duri ng t he ti me it took to develop th e Project Study Plan , water-user inter est s in South Flo rida had stepped up the ir inv

ol ve me nt with th e Restudy Project and ha d voiced

ob jec tions to any R

estudy plan that woul d not adequa tely addr ess water su pply an d oth er water manag em ent

needs. For exam ple, t he water manag em ent

dist rict’s Agric ulturalAdvisory Comm itt ee ex pre ss ed co nce rns in the sp ringof 1994 that th e Corps Re s tudy Plan needed to address mu ch more th an just Everg lades restorat ion. It n eeded to deal with so cio

eco nomic fac tors that dep end on w

ater supply

an d water management. Flood con tr ol n eeded to be inc lud ed in the st ud y, an d goals a nd object iv es neede d to be clarified. For instance , what d

id the g ov

ernment age

ncie s me an when t h ey talke d abo

ut ec osy stem res toration? Could the y de fi ne a “re st ored Ev

erg lades ?”In a

simil ar vein, PalmBeac h, B row

ard an d Dade coun ties’ wat er util iti es and o ther urb an s upp lie

rs w ere co nce rned that the Restudy proce ss w

as failin g t o addr ess urba n water ne eds andhow

these ne eds w

ould be integrated with Ev erg lades

res torati on. As a result of this heightened a tte nt ion to the Res tudy and its per ceive d sh ort comi ng s, t he Cor ps of Engi nee rs and the water management district w orked more c losely with w ate r-u se r inte res ts in the draf ting o f the Pro je ct Study Pl an f or the Feasibil ity Study. Th e plan adm itt ed th at t he Reconn aissa nce Study ha d iden tified imp ort ant88

co mp on ents to achieve

ec osy ste m restoratio

n, but that w ate r su ppl y and w ate r qu ali ty w ere not fully evaluat ed duri ng the R ec onnaiss ance phase

. The Pro je ct S tudy Plan conclud ed

that addit ional studies we re needed. 18 As such, it la id out a cou rs e of act ion wher ein th e Cor ps of E ngine ers

would look to

the South Florida Wa te r Manageme nt Distri ct’s wate r supply pl an ni ng in it ia ti ve fo r Florida’s low

er east co ast (Palm Beach, Brow ard, Dade and Monroe c ountie s) that had bee n begun in 1992

to ser ve as th e bas is for th e Rest udy’s app roa ch to add res sing water su pply. As the Pro je ct S tudy

Plan noted, the Corps o f Eng in eers would use t he water manag em ent

distr ict’s Lower East C oast Regional Water Supply Pl an ( wh ich was sc he dul ed t o be comp let ed by late 1996) to def

ine water supply

pr ob le ms a nd devel op alternativ e pl ans to addres s them. 19
This ap pr oach pr ovid ed som e deg re e of co mf ort to w ateruser inte res ts . Ma ny o f them had

b ee n part ic ipa ting directly with the w ate r mana geme nt di st

ric t as part of an adv is ory co mmit te e o n the de ve lo pme nt of the LowerEast Coast Re gional Wate

r Suppl y Plan. W ate r us ers concurr ed that it mad e sense f or the Co rpso f Enginee

rs to lo ok to the w ork o f the w ate r mana geme nt di st

ric t and to in corpor ate th e locally-gen erat ed pla n f or add res sing fu ture wat er su pply needs into

the b road er pl an of Re study of the C&SF

Proj ect. Here, it is impo

rtant to understand the role that a Fea sibi li ty Stu dy pl ays in th e tr ad it ion al devel opm en t of a Corps of En gin eers water resour ce pr oj ec t. The Feasi bility St udy is the fin al pl an ni ng step . T he re por t of the study is submitted to the Unit ed States C ong re ss for co ngress ional

approval pr io r to the Co rps be ing able to pr ocee dto

und ertake

more d

etail ed de si gnsand engine ering pla

ns to imple ment a pro

je ct. As such, and in acco rdance w ith the requireme

nts laid out in the 1986 Water Resour ces De velop men t Ac t, a Fea sibi lity Study must de sc

rib e w ith re aso nab le ce rtainty the eco nomi c, environmental, social and engineering be nefits and cos ts of the rec om me nde d al

ternative pla ns . A Feasi

bility Re po rt serves as a complete

dec ision-making do cument to al low dec ision make

rs to ju dge the rec om me nd s ol uti on. (Empha sis added) 20

I n recognition of these requirements for thorough ana lysis, the 1995 Projec

t Study Plan pre sented a six-y

ear w ork plan tha t in cluded t he developm ent a nd p eer r eview of co mputer mode

ls, spe cif ic hydro logic

and eco nomic studi es and an $18 mi ll ion plan ni ng bud get. Wh ile a ty pica l fe asibility

st udy tak es f ou r y ea rs to co mpl ete, the 1995 wo rk plan explained that the Fe asibility Study for the Re study

of the C&SF

Proj ect w

ould tak e six years to fi

nis h. The Study

Plan explained that this time frame is “ne ce ss ary

an d ju sti fia ble” con sid er in g t he siz e of t he study are a, t he ne e d to ma in tai n a n ecosystem-based foc us, the magni tude of the pr oject, an d th e factthat the “study ar ea has co

mpl ex and co ntroversia

l prob lems that req uire inte ns ive

(and time co

nsuming) public invol ve me nt and env

ironmental

ev aluatio ns. Fo r these reaso ns, the s ix-y

ear study time f rame is rea so

nab le and appro priate. ” 21

Feasibility Study Chang es Course
Gi ven th e thoug ht ful an d rea sonabl e study appr oach outli ned in th e 1995 Pro

je ct St udy Pl an, p rop ert

y o w ners and water u ser in terest s in South Flori da fin all y gained a level of co mfo rt with the direction in which the Restudy of the C&S F Pr oject wa s h ead in g. So, i t wa s n ot su rpris ingth at t hi s comfort soon d imi ni shed as a ser ies of events unfolded th at dr ama tical ly chan ged the course of the R est udy Fe asib ility

Stud y . In the spring of

1994, Flo

rida Gov ernor Law

ton Ch il es establi shed the

Go ve rnor ’sCo mmis si on fo

r a Sustainable Sout h Flo rida. Th e c om

mis si on’ s 4 7 me

mb ers repr esented a variety

of interestsin cludi ng feder al, stat e, tribal, lo cal and

regional g ov

ernm ent s, environmental organ izati ons, eco

nomic developm ent represe ntativ es and agricu ltural intere sts. Th e missio n of t he Sustainab le Sout h Florida Co

mmission was to

examine allaspec

ts of the South Florida eco sy stem and to ma k e rec om me ndat ions to f urther a su st aina

bl e eco nom y and maintain a quali

ty of lif e f or So uth Flo rida res idents

that is co mpa tib le w ith a he alt

hy natu ral s y st em . The co mmis sion’s first report, issued in Octob er 1995, co nta in ed 110 recommendations dealing with a multi tude of so ci al, ec ono

mic , and env ironme ntal

is su es in the greate r Sou th Flo rida regi on. While the scope

of the Sustainable Commission’s charge was much broader tha n th at of the Restudy o f the C&SF Proj ect, many of

the commission’s deliber ati ons focused on water a s th e key to bo th a susta in able econ om

y and env ironme nt in South

Flor id a. Man y of

the go ve rnme nt agenc y member s of the commi ssion wer e dir ect l y in volved w ith t he C orp s o f Engine ers R estud y project. And ma ny of th e in it ia l r ecom men da ti ons of th e Sustainable

Sou th Florid a C om

mis si on paralle le d the propo sals being g ener ated b y the Reco nnais sanc e R

ep ort and un de r de ve l op m en t t h r ou gh t h e F ea si bi l i t y S t ud y. (This was not su rpr isin g sin ce most of the s t af f and tec hnical supp ort f

or the Gove rnor’s C ommi ssi on w ere be ingprov id ed by the water management district.) In sh ort , t he re were ma ny si mi la ri ti es bet ween th e work of the Gov ernor’s Co

mmissi on and t

hat o f the Co rpsand89

the water management district in the R estud y Proj ect. Given these d

e f acto co nnectio ns, it m ade

se nse f or the Sustainable

So uth Flo rida Commis sion to evolve as a forum fo r discus sion and debate relating to the Re st ud y. So much so that in th e immediate aftermath of the 1995 Pro je ct St udy Pl an f or the Re st udy Fe asi bi lit y phas e, the Sustainable

South FloridaCom mi ssi on u nd er took it s own re view a nd an al ysis of

Evergl ades r estora tion an d water sup pl y need s of the region in o rde r to pu bl is h a
“Co nceptual Pl an f

o r the Centr al & Southern Florida Proj ect Re stud

y .” 22
This eleven-month review co ncluded th at th e C&SF Project Re study

plan should f

oc us o n thirteen main thematic concepts to accomplish its o bj ec tiv e f or res toring the env ironme nt and

add res sing the

w ate r su ppl y and other w ate

r rel ate d ne ed s o f the

So uth F lorida

region. These thematic concepts included: 23
8. Thene ed t o in cr eas e r egi ona l wa ter stor age in the headwater s of the Everglades an d adjacent a reas. 9. Theneed t o revise Lake Ok eechobee’s water level re gul at ion schedule

to e nhance e

nvironmental pr ot ec t i on a n d w a t er su pp l y. 10. Theneed to

store more s urf ac e w ate r in re se rvo irs wit hin the Ev erglad

es Agric ultural A rea. 11. Theneed to

co nst ruct W ate

r Pre se rve Are as alo

ng the east co ast to capture water tha t is other wise disch ar ged to the ocean; to ameliorate groun dwater seepage from the Eve rglades; and to

creat e a w et

land buffer between the

urb aniz ed

co ast al a rea and t he Everglad es. 12. The ne ed t o e stab lish c ontinuit y an d spatial/hy drolo g ic co

nnectio ns be tween natural are as wit hin the Ev erglad

es ec osy ste

m. 13. Th e need to a ddr ess wa ter sup pl y an d flood protection for ur ban an d agr icultur al ar eas. 14. The need to

ens ure adequa te w ate r qu ali ty f or t h e environment.
15. The need to

ex pand the sp ati al e xte nt and qua li ty of wetlands o uts ide

o f the b ou ndari es o f the Everglades.
16. Thene ed t o c ont

rol no n-nat iv e, invasi

ve pla nt spe cie s in the E

ve rglade s e co sy

ste m. 17. T he need to

f urthe r de ve lo p A qui fe r Stora ge and Reco ve ry as a po tential s ol

uti on f or f utur e water su pp l y.

18. Theneed to p

rote ct and re sto

re es tuarine and c oastal mar ine ecosy

stems.
19. Theneed

to e nhance so

il co nserv ation, e s pec ially wit hin the Ev erglad

es Agric ultural A rea. 20. Th e n eed t o ad dr ess m odi fica ti ons to t he oper at ion and maintenance of

the C&SF

Proj ect. TheSustainable

Sou th Florida Co

mmiss ion’s

Conc eptu

al Planwas

dev elo ped through a particip ato ry and consen sus-based proces s w hich involv

ed to as great a degree as po ssib le all thos e w

ho had a ve sted inte

rest in Everg lades issues
. As a result, most water-user i nter ests, e con omic dev elo pment represe

ntatives and property ow ne rs felt it en compassed a mor e balan ced appr oach and pl a ced much greater e

mphasis on de aling with all water re la ted ne eds of t he re gi on - not just environmental resto ration. Yet, th er e wer e a n um ber of recomm enda tion s conta in ed within the

Go ve rnor ’sCo mmis si on rep ort

th at gen erat ed new co ncerns. For instance , the report express ed do ubts ab ou t the ca pac ity o f the trad iti ona l Co rpso f Enginee

rs pr oject d evelop men t p roc ess t o dea l wi th th e Rest udy of th e C& SF P

roj ect. The Co

nceptual P lan state d that “given the c ompl exit

y and size of the C& SFPro

je ct , the exis ting piece me al a pproac h w ou

ld l ikely f ail ...” . The pl a n we nt on to rec ommend “ an improve d partnership between fe deral and state go vern men t th at st ream lin es the revie w and authorizatio

n of t h e C& SF Project modi fic ations...”. 24
What pro ved mo st dis tre ss ing t o so mest ake hol de rs w ho had partic ipat ed i n t he Con cept ua l Pl an ’s for mu la ti on was a re co mme ndat ion to ac celerate

the pro ce ss o f the Re study so that a Feasib ility

Re port w ould be submitt ed to Co ngre ss muc h ea rlie r than o rigi nally pla nned . The Conc eptu al Plan went s o fa

r as to rec om me nd tha t the Project St udy Pl an (w hic h had bee

n b eg un the pre ce ding year and which was sc

hedule d t o take

six y ears to complete) be fin is hed

as ex pe dit io us ly as po ss ib le

and be amend ed to reflect the Su stai nable South Florida Commission’s Conc eptu

al Plan. Fur th erm ore, w

hile the C&SF Pro

je ct Re st udy w as be

ing d ev el op ed , the Com mi ssi on re com men ded that Co ngress immediately au th or ize mo dif

ic ati ons to the C& SFPro

je ct co nsi st ent with the Co mmis si on’ s C onc ep tual P lan, and t hat t he Corps an d t he loca l sp ons or s hou ld ha ve au th or it y to ac qui re land s c ons is tent w

ith t he Com miss ion’s Plan. 25 (Emphasis added.) I t cam e as no su rpris e t hat m any water- user interestsand property o w ners b eg an to so und the alarm ove

r such propo sals. Here, o

n the basis

of little mo re than a

co nce ptu al p lan ( whi ch by its own90

ad mi ssi on did not invo

lve a technic al evaluation o f its recommenda tions) an appointed com miss ion w as sugge stingt hat Congre ss immedia te ly und er take

land acq ui sit ion and authorize c hanges t o the way wat er i s managed in South Flo

rida!
Th e 1996 Wa ter Resour ces Development Act
If the Sustainable South Florida Commission’s Conce ptual Plan had re-ignited the d oub ts and co nce rns of wate r user interests

and property

ow ners in Sout

h Flo rida, th en th e ensui ng p assag e of the 1996 Water Resources De

ve lo pme nt A ct threw gas o n the fi re! In response to in tens e lobb y ing by environmental interests and th e Depar tmen t of Inter ior, th e Congr ess adopted pro vi si ons in th e act th at subst an tia lly chan ged the course of the Restudy of

the C&SF Project. T he Act d ir ectedthe se cre tary of th e Ar my to d evelop as ex ped itio usly as prac ticab le a co

mprehens ive

plan(em ph asi s ad ded ) for the pur pose of r est ori ng , p re ser vin g a nd pr ot ectin g the Sout h Flo rida ecosy ste

m. Theco

mprehensive

plan wo uld provide fo r water qualit

y in th e Ever gl ad es (t he re by auth oriz ingthe Corps of Engin eers to undertake co mp onents that would address w ater quality - an issue here to fo re left to t he re spon sibi li ty of s tat e and local gove rnm ents). A s a resu lt of la st m in ut e effor ts by business and agric ult

ura l in terest s, th e act al so dir ected that the comprehensive plan wo uld provide

for th e water rela ted ne eds of

the regio

n including flo od c ontrol, enha nce me nt of water supp lies an d oth er objectives served b y the C&SF

Proj ect. 26
Theact ma nda ted th at t he Cor ps would co nsi de r the co nceptual framew

ork specif ied in the Sus

tainable S outh Fl ori da Co mm iss ion ’s C onc ept ua l Pl an as t he basi s for the co mpre h ens iv e p lan. It

w ent o n to direct that the sub mittalof the C& SFRe st

udy Fe asi bi lit y Re po rt al ong with a Programmatic EIS be accelerated b

y tw o ye ars. Under this

co ngre ss ional m anda

te , the Co rpsand t he distr ict must now

prese nt the Feasibility

Re port b y July 1999.
As a result of the 1996 W ater Reso ur c es De ve lo pme nt Act, ma ny st ak eh old er s in Sout h F lor id a wer e left w ond eri ng how the

Corps and the distri ct wo uld proceed. Hav ing admitted in their 1995 Pro jec t Study Plan that it wo uld be ve ry dif fic ult to c omple

te an adequate Feasi bility Report is si x y

ears , the y w ere no w b eing dir ectedto do

so in less than fo

ur. Yet, ac co

rding to the directiv e of

the act, the Co

ngress still re quired that a feasi bi lit y rep ort be sub mitted

. Co

uld the Co rpsand t he distr ict achie

ve thatlevel of ana lysis an d deta il r equir ed by a Co rpsf ea si bi lit y rep ort in such a s hort

perio d of tim e? Many Sout

h Florida play

ers participatin g in the Restudy process di d not believe thi s coul d be accomplished, despit e assur an ces from Corps leadership. And in large part, many ev

ents that hav e u

nf olde d in Sout h Fl ori da s inc e t

he p ass age

o f the 1 996 Wa ter Re sou rces D evelo

pment Act have o

nly served to bolster this co ncl us ion. STATUS OF THE C&SF R ESTUDY - 1998
To the ir cred

it, the Co rpso f Engine e rs, Jacks onville Distr ict and t

he S ou th F lorida

Wa ter M ana geme nt Dis t ri cthave do

ne a herculean task

in trying to

co mply with th e new congr essiona lly-ma nda ted sc hed ule f or the C&S F Res tudy, to inco rporate the Sustainable Sout h Florida Commission’s Co nce ptu al P lan a s t

he f rame w ork for th e Res t ud y, and to continue to kee p the Restudy process op en to

the pu blic and af fect ed interests. But some im por ta nt comp one nt s of a succe ssful R estudy plan ha ve been left un done.
F or e xa mp le, upon re ceivi ng th e n ew di re cti ves fr om Congr ess, th e Corps a nd t he water man agem ent d istr ict set a bout to revise the Project Study P lan for the C&SF Restudy Fe asi bi lit y phas e. In M ay, 19 97, a new w ork plan was ado

pted. 27 T h i s $ 39 m i l l i on st ud y o utlined a course of act ion to ide

ntify the most plausib le be

nef icial al ter na ti ve planco

mponents f

or So uth Flori da ecosystem re stor at ion and u

rba n and agri cu ltu ral w ate r su ppl y . The wor k pla n sp ec if ie d, ho w ev er, that co nsi de ring t he uncer tai nt ies reg ardi

ng de si gn and

detai ls - such as the lo ca tio ns thatmay

be propo sed f

or surface w

ater storage res erv oi rs - th e ul ti ma te com pon en ts r ecom men ded by the Fe asi bi lit y Re po rt ma y ne e d to b e re vi se d in t

he futur e, especially in term s of de sign a nd cost estimat es. 28
The1997 Proj ect Stud

y Plan c ontinue d to

plac e gre at emphasis on the ut iliza tion of the South Fl orida Wa te r Manag em

ent Distr ict’s Lower E ast C oast Region al Wa ter Supply Plan as th e b asis f

or determining much o f the water suppl y portion of the Restudy Feas ibility

Re port. Un for t un a t el y, th e Lower East C oast Pla n was n ever complete d. Wor k on a draf t Lo we r East Co ast P lan that was is su ed in M arc h 19 97 w as dis

ba nde d in t he fal l of that y ea r. In i ts place , a m

uch sma lle r sc ale “i nt erim ” pla n was a dopted b

y the District in December 1997. The r e are se

ve ral reaso ns f or this . Ne

w s tate l aw requirementsf

or w ate r su ppl y pla nning w ere diff icult to incorpo rate into t he ex isting p lanning proc ess
. H ow ev er, it is j ust as

like ly thatthe w

ater manage

ment dis trict w as unableto c omple

te itswate r su

ppl y pla n w hile at t he same tim e meet th e accelera ted work sch edule fo r t he Re st ud y. While this is un de rs tandable, it does little to add ress th e uncer tai nt ies of concern ed water -user inte res ts in the region.91

Now, i nst ea d o f a lo cal w ate r su ppl y pla n f orming t he basis f or the Co rp s of Engi neer s long -ter m comp re he ns ive program fo r the C&SF P

roje ct, the water management district w

ill be loo king to the res

ults of the Restudy to direc t regional w

ater supply

pl an s. A nd as we are quickl y approach in g th e tim e when the Co rpsand the water man agem ent d istr ict will be selectin g a pr eferred plan to rec om me nd in t

he Fea sibility

Re port to Congre s s, 29 what is the outloo k fo r the Restudy recommenda tions?

Although the pla

n development is still in pr ogress, Sou th Florida st a ke h ol de r s h a ve be en cl os el y f ol low ing t

he review and a

naly si s o f fi ve alt erna tiv e p lans th at ha ve been pr esen ted to d a t e b y t he Cor ps an d th e water manag em ent

district. As

of this writing, a sixth

and fi nal plan is bei ng mod eled . Ma ny of the ma jo r compo nents proposed fo

r the Restudy

ha ve b ee n reiterate d f

rom o ne al ter na ti ve plan to the n ext. Al tern ati ve 5 (see Appendix B) in clu des t he ma

jor pr op os als that t

he R est udy has featur ed to date: 1) construction of a series of

large surfa ce w ate

r stora ge res erv oi rs t hrou gho ut the So uth Florida region that w

ill store wate

r for w ater supply purposes, amelior ate hi gh water levels a nd provide enh an ced pr otect ion fo

r estu aries and ot her natural water bodies which prese nt ly bear th e br un t of h eavy dischar ges, and s erv

e to res tore m ore natu ral f low s to the Ever glades; 2) con str uct ion of hu nd re ds of Aq ui fe r Storage and Reco

very Wells to

add r ess urba n wat er supply needs ; 3) re-e stablis

hment o f mo

re natural hydr ol ogic

con ne cti ons wit hi n t he Wat er Con ser vat ion Ar eas by rem ovin g ca na ls a nd levees ; a nd 4) cr eat ion of an “in-ground” rese

rvoir in northwe st Dade

County to ser ve the wate

r supply needs of greate r Mia mi by co nst ructing a cu rtain wal l 100- 200 f

ee t de ep ar oun d 8000 acr es of

rock min ing p its.
Wh ile these co

ncepts are intr iguing, m any stakeholde r s are le ft w onde ring abo ut thei r co st-b enef

it and te chnical ef fi ca cy. As rec ently

as the spring o f this yea r, the Enviro nmental Protecti on Agen cy v oiced conce rns about the regu lat ory impedi men ts to la rge- scale aq uifer storage and reco ve ry. The Co

rps R est udy mo d els assume t hat any ASR injec tion water will

be pre-treated

to c omply with regula tory water qualit y issues. Ho we ve r, as se ve ral water ut il it y dir ector s n ot e, ass umptions may

wo rk in co mpu ter mo de ls , b

ut w hen a pla n is rel y ingon 1 .7 to 2 bil li on gall o ns p er d

ay o f AS R c apa city

to me et f utu re urban needs , the wate

r quality tre atme nt co sts alo

ne co uld add up to $4 b ill ion to

the co st o f the Re st udy pla n. 30
Urb an w ater use rs were n ot th e only ones to voice con cern s ab ou

t the w ate r su ppl y pro po sal s b eing presen ted in th e Res tud y . Ev erg lades Nat ional P ark public ly questioned th e reasonablen ess of r elying so heavily on AS R, especially

co nsidering that pilot proj ects in South Florida do n ot suppo rt the retrieval rate ( 70%) up on w hi ch th e Corps a nd wat er m an agem ent d istr ict w ere basing their analyses . Sim ilarly , th e Par k ra ised co nce rns a bou t t h e e n gi n ee r i n g f ea si bi l i t y o f the ingro und water supply reservoir pr oposed in north west Dad e Count y that would be the futu re sour ce of greater Mi a m i ’s wa t er su pp l y. 31
And w ate r su ppl y is no t the

o nly is su e t hat i s d raw ing critic is m: A

t an A pril 15 , 19 98 me et

ing o f the So uth

Florida Wa te r M an ag eme nt Dis tr ict , a nu mber of st ake hol de

rs participated in a panel discu ssio n to el ab orate th eir con cer ns abou t t he Rest udy. Maj or questions w

ere raised including:
1. T he anti ci

pated leve l o f detai l in t

he prod uc t b eing submit ted to the Unite d States Congress in July 1999 see ms wo ef ully inadequate in

man y peo

ple’s min ds;
2. It is unc le ar w

hat t he role o f the w ate r mana geme nt distric t will be

- doe s t he d is tric t, a s l oc al s

po nso r, have a res

ponsib ility

to se e that the

final Feas ibility produ ctof the C& SFRe st udy liv e u p to the mandates o f state w

ater law? ; 3. Thepracticality

o f re ly ing exce ssiv

ely on ASR is questioned, especial ly when wate r user s do not see a ny back-up p roposal s for addr essin g futur e ur ba n water supply

in th e ev ent that ASR do es not w

ork;
4. Thepropo sals to

dec ompartm ent ali ze th e Water Con ser vat ion Ar eas (i. e. r emove th e ca nals and levees that separat e one Ar ea f rom th e next) r aise que stions ab ou

t w het her s uch ac tio ns w ou ld hu rt rather than help the env

ironment;
5. In ge

neral, t he i nteres te d p arti es

qu estio n the adequ acy with whic h the R est udy planis add

res sing urban and a gricul tura l water suppl y needs;
6. Theability of the propos ed sur face reserv oirs to retain wa te r fo

r w ate r su ppl y pu rpo se s d uring the dr y season ha s com e un der fir e. T hi s is th e ti me of year when ev apotranspiratio n is at its highe st and sh al low surface w

aters typi cally

add to water loss fro m the sy st em rathe r than re tentio n w ithin the sy ste m. Like w is e, in s om e a

rea s t he sandy sub -so ils and the dir ect in terfa ce between

su rf ac e a nd grou nd water lead may

to be lieve that it

wo uld be impos sible for a sur face system to hold water du ring d ry times;92

7. The re are

co nc erns that the plan does ve ry little to addr ess wat

er qual ity

. Without this, it w ould likely be impossi ble f

or i ncr eased flows to be discha rged int o the Evergla des;
8. Environmentalists qu esti on the ca pac ity o f the Re st udy pla nningproce ss to

incorpo rate, at this late date, th e fin di ng s of

the U.S. Depa rt men t of In ter ior Multi- Spe cie s R

ec ov ery Plan f or So uth Flo rida;
9. Theno minal

de gre e of

sensitiv ity and risk analys is that is be ing conducted as part of the R estudy pla nningproc ess

has giv en so me ca us e f or co nce rn; 10. Fi n a l l y, the

f ac t tha t pro po sal s a re alre ady

b eing gener ated to m odi fy the oper at ion s of t he C& SF Pr oject prior to the conclusion of the Rest ud y pla nningprocess, le av e m any pe op le sc ratc hingtheir heads. Wh y would th e Corps or th e water man agem ent d istr ict wan t to cha nge t he water level re gul at ion sch edu le on Lak e Oke ech obee, for in stan ce, pr ior t o completi ng i ts pla nn in g effort?. 32

In shor t, t her e are m an y questions a nd co n ce rns b eing rais ed a bout th e Rest udy pl an even as t he Cor ps of Enginee rs and t he w ate r mana geme nt distr ict ar e poised to sele ct a pr efer re d a lt er na ti ve plan dur in g th e summ er of 1998 t ha t will ser ve as th e basis for a Fea sibilit y Re po rt recommenda tion to th e United States Cong ress. No ne of th e Sout h F lor ida p arti ci pant s -the environ menta lists, the economic de v elopment in terests, the water suppli ers, or agr icult ure - wan t to be perceived as “Nay say ers ” in t his pro ces s. However, th ey do f eel that th ey ha ve a legi tim ate compl ain t: T hey ar e concern ed about se nding a re po rt to Co

ngress that is de signed to result in Con gr essi ona l a ut hor iz at ion of a p lan to dram ati cally

alt er t he l ands ca

pe and w ate r mana geme nt regime o f So uth F lorida , w

itho ut m ore o f the ir qu

estio ns be ing answere d first.
In fact , c onc erne d S ou

th F lorida

inte res ts are no t s ure exactl y what th e repor t th at i s goin g to Cong ress will be. By its ow n admission, the Co

rps of Engineers note s in its revised Projec

t Study Plan th at “Due to the geographic ex tent o f the

st udy are a and the need toco

mplete this study in a timely

fashio n, the level of

detail w ill not be su ff ic ient to proceed di rect ly into detai le d e

ngine eri ng design f or the ent ire co mpre hens iv e p lan. Many components or f

eatu r es o f the c omprehensiv

e plan w ill req uire f urt h er s tud y and addi

tio nal e va lua tio n b ef ore pro ce ed inginto f inal de si gn and

pre para tio n o f pla ns a nd spe cifications. Further, some wo rk items, particularly c omput er mode ling eff

orts, w ill be initiated durin g th e fe asibility phase insu

ppo rt o f su bs eq ue nt ef fo rts.” 33 This be ingthe case , Sout

h Florida interests

questi on w hy

a rep ort

wo uld be sent to Congr ess f

or aut horization b ef

ore the co m pu t er m od el s, fu r t h er st ud y a nd a dditio nal evaluation are complete d.
As a resultof

these conce

rns, water sup

pliers, prop erty owners, loc al g o ve

rnments, agriculture and eco nomic deve lo pme nt in te res

ts to ok so merathe r dram ati c a

nd unp receden ted measures

to e nsure that their inte

res ts are prot ected in this proce ss. As of this writing, a bill is pe nding b ef ore the 19 98 Fl ori da l eg is lat

ure 34 thatwa s prom oteda nd lo bb ied b y these interests. The bill requ ir es thatan y proje ct or mod ifi cat ion to the exis ting C&S F Pro

je ct that res ult s f rom theRe study

plan wo uld not only nee d app roval o f the local spo nsor prior to im ple me ntation, b ut w

ou ld a ls o nee d re

vi ew b y the Florida leg islatu

re. Such a ste

p invo lve s the state

much mo re directly

in the fe deral proc ess

than it ha s been to date. The real rationale b ehind this leg isl at ive i ni ti at ive is quite s imple: Pre sent co st e stima tes fo r the Restudy Pl a n ran ge as high as $5 billion. Th e So uth Florida Wa ter Management Di strict will not have the f inancial ca pacity within its ad v

alorem tax b ase to

prov ide its 50% shar e of

this fun ding in th e future. As such, m ost of th e loca l sh ar e wil l n eed t o come fr om a ne w so urc e such as h igh er taxe s, w

ater us e f ee s, o r additio nal moni es from state lan d acquisiti on progr ams. In a nut she ll, the Florida leg isl at ur e wil l be asked to pay fo r this. It only mak es sense th en th at t he leg isla tur e be in vo lve d in rev iew ingand a

ppro vi ng the Re st udy pla ns and pr ojec

ts.

LESSONS

LEARNED
As we are fast approaching th e co nclus io n o f the pla nningphase o f the C& SF Proj ect Re stud y , what has our experi ence to da te tau ght us? Perh aps th e cl eare st le ss on, whe

n it co mesto l arge-s cal e water r esource plan nin g, was best

ar ticul ated by Chu ck

All er , Di re ctor of Wa ter Po lic y f or the Fl ori da D ep artme

nt o f Agricult ure an d Consu mer Service s. In rece nt comme nts to th e Gover ni ng Boar d of th e South Flori da Wa ter Manageme nt Dis tr ict , Al ler not ed, c om me nting o n the Restudy proce ss, “Wh en you in cr eas e th e level of un ce r t a i n t y, you in cr eas e th e level of r esis tance .” 35 To date, desp it e th e best effort s of t he Cor ps an d th e water ma na gemen t di str ict , t he re ha s been a h uge deg re e of uncertainty

in the R est udy proc ess
. Th e process h as been subs tantially

accele rated, an d as a result, standa r d feasibili ty-level an alyses ha ve not been complete d. It is uncle ar w

hat t he prod uct tha t w ill b e s ent to Co ngre s s will ac hieve . Is

it i ntende d as

a “ co mpre hens iv e p lan” that may well be ve

ry c once ptual in nature, or is it in tend ed to ful fi ll th e Corps r equir emen t of a detai led fe asibility an al ysis? I t i s cle ar th at un ti l t he se con c erns and o thers a re addre ss ed

there will

continue to b e serious93

1. Lo ng, Phil. “Foreca st: L ess

El Niño and No t so Ho t.” The Miami He

rald . Sun day, A pr il 2 6, 1 998 , p. 6B.
2. In ea rl y March , over 800 0 cubic feet per secon d was being relea sed from t he la ke in to th e Caloosah atch ee Rive r to the west. On the lake’s east s ide, 7000 c.f.s. w ere be ing sent down the St. Lucie R iver. (South Florida Water Management Distr ict, Water Conditions Summar y, March 12, 1998)
3. U.S. Ar my Cor ps of E ng in eer s. C en tr al & Sout he rn Flor id a Pr oject. Recon na iss an ce Repor t - C omp re he ns ive Rev iew S tudy, No

vemb er 1994, p.3. resis tan ce to the Re study by many local So

uth Florida inte res ts . A ndthis is und ers

tandab le : peop le ’sland

and water su pply ar e at sta ke.
What can the Corps a nd t he water man agem ent d istr ict do to res ol ve this res is tanc e?

As a s tarting p oi

nt, a ndat a minimum, thes e go

ve rnment agenc ies

can lay out a cle ar game plan with reaso nable time schedu les of how we pro ce ed

f rom this po int f orw ard. Whe n w ill the ne cessa ry h ydrol ogi c, ec olog ic, an d econ omi c stu di es be complete d? Whe

n wi ll comp uter models be peer review ed? How wil l t he se r esul ts be inc orp ora te d int o the exis ting pr oposals for th e Restudy, par ticul ar ly if they demon str ate th e lack of feasi bil it y of an y compon en ts of the Re study pla n? W

ha t al tern ati ves to surface water res erv oi rs or ASR wells will t he Cor ps an d dist ri ct pursue if th ese m ajor foun da ti ons for t he Rest udy pr ove impractical?
Se co n dl y, and m ore

imp ort antly , if a ma jo r go al o f the C&SF Pro

je ct Re st udy is the re stor ati on of

the Everglad es, then we need t o e nga ge th e public poli cy deb ate over wha t ou r r est ora ti on goals fo r this ecosy

stem really are. The y have y et to be def ined in a manne

r that provid es a useable g uide fo r actio n by po licy makers at loc al, state an d federal levels. So mehav e a

rgued tha t the Everg lades of

the mid 1800's

should be o

ur goal. B ut, sin ce thatsystem has b ee n reduc ed to half

its o riginal size, is o ur real goal to

crea te a s maller, b ut natur ally fu nct ioningsy ste m? If this is the c ase , then so

me le ading expe rts ha ve pointed out that there is much we don’t kn ow or understand a bout how the ecos ys tem actua ll y f unct ioned prior to

drainage. So

me o f the

co mp ute r mode ls that will help

us u ndersta n d th e ec olo gic relationships o f the

sy st em are still und er dev elo pment. And th e h ydrol ogic mode l that is being used to dictate hy dro pat tern goals - the Natural Sy

stems Model - is really a di gi ta l a ppr oxi ma ti on o f w ate r leve ls and flows in pr eCol omb ian Florida. It may not be a goo d predicto r of how b est to

res tore env ironme ntal

f unc tio ns a ndvalue s in a system that h as bee n dra matically altered. 36
On a final note , the C& SF P roj ect Re stud

y proc ess has certainly taught us how d iffi cul t, if n ot impossi ble, water reso urce planning is on a s cale as large a

nd co mplex as that of the Ever glad es. It un derscor es the t en sion s, co ntrad ic tio ns an d shi ftin g goals a nd object ive s w ith which the Corps and t

he wat er ma na gem en t d ist ri ct h ave had to st ruggle . O n o ne ha

nd the re i s re ady

agre em ent that we can no longer d o water reso urce planning i n a pie ce me al f ashi on. We mu st i nt egr at e at a wa ter sh ed or water ba sin level our goals f or meeting the needs o f the env ironm en t and t

he eco nom y , re cogniz ing t

he interr elationships that

exis t thro

ugho ut t he na tural and manm ade sy

st em s. Theexperi ence of the C &SF Project Re s tudy may y et de mo nst rate , how ev

er, that such a phil os op hy is noble but impr actical on t his scale. Just consid er that when the Re study was first b egun in 1993, water shorta ges, a par ched Evergla des, and algae blooms on Fl ori da Bay were th e clima ctic an d ecologic issues shap ingthe

Re st udy age nda. Five

y ea rs l ate r the Re stud y fo cus has shifted to high water levels in Lake Okeechobee and e xces sive dischar ges to coastal estuari es. Can any single pla n de al w ith t he d ramat ic ally shi ft ing hydro logic

con di ti ons , t he comp eti ng socio- econ om ic interestsan d th e scient ific un certa in ties of a r egion t wice the siz e of the st ate

o f Ne w Je rse y ? O r w ill the comp re he ns ive Restudy

plan for the C&SF P roje ct ultimately

ev ol ve into a s eri es o f sma lle r, d iscreet , sit especific plans?
It rem ains

to be s een how the R

estudy will proce ed. But it is c lear that the

peo ple of So uth Flo rida have great hopes that a conse nsus-b ased p lan or plans will ultimately

eme rge to guide environmental

pr otect ion and eco nomic dev

elo pment into

the f uture. It is

al so c lear that wa ter r es our ce ma na ger s in Sout h F lor id a wi ll be kept busy her e for years to come!

ENDNOTES94

4. Rec onnaissance Report - Co mprehensive Rev

iew S tudy, p.19.
5. “Fede

ral Objectiv

es f or the South Florida Resto ration,” Science Sub-Group R eport of the South Florida Management & Coordination Workin g Group. Nov ember 15, 1993, p.3.
6. “Everglades W

ater Budget Presentation,” Gove rnor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. July 20, 1995, p. 22.
7. ibid.
8. “A Pu bl icU til ity ’sPe rsp ec tiv e o n Wa ter Su ppl y Is su es ,” P alm Beac h Co

unty Wa ter U til iti es De part me nt Presentation to the Gove

rnor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. March 27, 1998.
9. “Fede

ral Objectiv

es f or the South Florida Resto ration,” p.1.
10. “Central & S outhern Flo rida Project R

ev iew Study New s,” U.S . Army C orps o f Engineers, J ackso nville District, June 1994, p.3.
11. Rec onnaissance Report, p. 76.
12. Rec onnaissance Report, p. 79.
13. “Fede

ral Objectiv

es f or the South Florida Resto ration,” Science Sub-Group R eport, p. 9.
14. Science Sub-Group R eport, p. 15.
15. Science Sub-Group, pp. 46-47.
16. Rec onnaissance Report, p. E-2.
17. Rec onnaissance Report, p. 203.
18. Central & Southern Florida Projec t Comprehensive Re

view Study Projec t Study Plan, July 1995, p.13.
19. Projec

t Study Plan, July 1995, p. 6.
20. Rec onnaissance Report, p. 193.
21. Projec

t Study Plan, July 1995, p. 13.
22. TheGo

ve rnor ’sCo mmis si on fo

r a S us tainab le

So uth F lorida , “A C onc ep tual P lan f or the Ce ntral & S ou thern Florida Projec

t Restudy ,” August 1996.

23. Conceptual Plan, pp. 2-3.
24. Conceptual Plan, p. 17.
25. Conceptual Plan, pp. 64-65.
26. Sectio

n 309 (1), Water Resource s Dev elopment Act o f 1996.
27. Cen tr al & Sout he rn Flor id a Pr oject C omp re he ns ive Revi ew Stu dy, Pr oject S tu dy Pla n for th e Com pr eh en sive Plan, th e Water Preserve Areas and th e L-28 Feasibility Study , May 1997.95

28. Projec

t Study Plan, May 1997, p. 21.
29. In order to

meet the July 1999 de adline fo

r submitting the Feasibility Re port and Programmatic EISto Con gr ess, th e Rest udy pr oject t eam mu st s elec t a pr efer re d pl an by the sum mer of 199 8 so t ha t i t ca n be publicl y reviewed, appr oved by th e water m an agem ent d istr ict as l ocal spon sor by October 1998 a nd for warded for fi na l C orp s r eview.
30. Gary De rnlan, Pa lm B ea ch C ou

nty Wa ter U til ity Di rec tor. Co mme nts made a

t a p ub lic w ork sho p o f the Gov ernin g Board of

the South Florida Water Managemen t District, April 15, 1998.
31. Department o f Interio r View s on Selected Re study Water Sup

ply Compo nents. Prese

ntation to the S ustainable South Florida Commission, March 24, 1998.
32. So ut h Fl or i da Wa t er Ma n a ge m en t Di st r i ct Go ve r n i n g B oa r d W or ks h op
. Pr es en t a t i on on t h e C &S F R es t ud y, April 15, 1998.
33. Central & Southern Florida Projec t Comprehensive Re

view Study , Projec

t Study Plan, r evised May 1997, p. 25.
34. Ho use B ill 4141 and Senat e Companion Bill 2356.
35. South Florida Water Management Distr ict Gov ernin g Board Wo

rkshop, April 15, 1998.
36. MacVicar, Thomas K. South Florida Water Man agement District Governing Board Workshop, April 15, 1998.