Order Code RS20702
Updated January 27, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
Nicole T. Carter
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The Everglades, a unique network of subtropical wetlands, is now half its original
size. Many factors have contributed to its decline, including flood control projects and
agricultural and urban development. As part of a larger restoration program for South
Florida, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and other federal, state, tribal, and
local agencies collaborated to develop a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP or the plan). CERP focuses on increasing storage of wet season waters to
provide more water during the dry season for the natural system and urban and
agricultural users. The plan consists of 68 projects estimated to take 36 years and $7.8
billion to complete. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L.106-541)
authorizes appropriations for initial construction projects and their operation and
maintenance. The federal government will pay half the plan’s costs and an array of
state, tribal, and local agencies the other half. Major issues associated with the plan
include: development of programmatic regulations, timely completion, coordination of
restoration efforts, effectiveness of restoration efforts, uncertainties in technologies and
costs, specifics of water allocation, and effect on the Corps budget. Final programmatic
regulations are expected early in 2003. This report outlines the history and current
conditions of the Everglades, CERP legislation and funding, and associated issues. It
will be updated as events warrant.
Introduction
The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Title VI, P.L. 106-541) authorized
involvement of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in a plan to restore the
Everglades. Programmatic regulations are being developed to define the processes and
procedures that will guide the 35-year implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP or the plan). The Everglades is the defining component of the
South Florida ecosystem (see Figure 1), which incorporates 16 national wildlife refuges
and four national park units. South Florida is also home to more than six million people
and a large agricultural economy. There is wide agreement that major changes in water
quantity, quality, timing, and distribution since the 1950s have significantly degraded the
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
region’s ecological health. During the dry season, the current water regime in South
Florida is unable to provide sufficient freshwater supplies to meet the needs of the natural
system and urban and agricultural consumers. Water shortages are expected to become
more frequent as demand by urban and agricultural consumers increases.
Figure 1. Principal Components of the South Florida Ecosystem
Source: Adapted from an illustration prepared by the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.
Everglades History
The Everglades is a network of subtropical wetland landscapes that once stretched
220 miles from Orlando to Florida Bay. Several hundred lakes fed slow-moving creeks,
called sloughs, that joined the Kissimmee River. Depending on rainfall, water flowed
south down the river or topped the river’s banks and flowed through 40,000 acres of
marsh to Lake Okeechobee. During the summer rainy season, the lake would overflow
its southern shore, spilling water into the Everglades. Due to flat topography, this water
moved slowly south to Florida Bay through a shallow 40-mile wide, 100-mile long
sawgrass marsh. These wetlands acted as natural filters and retention areas that recharged
underlying aquifers. The unique habitat resulting from the Everglades’ combination of
abundant moisture, rich soils, and subtropical temperatures supported a vast array of
species. However, by the mid-1800s, many in South Florida viewed the Everglades as an
unproductive swamp. Flood control and reclamation efforts that manipulated the

---

CRS-3
Everglades hydrology promoted development of the East Coast of Florida and permitted
agriculture on reclaimed marshland. Principal among the human interventions affecting
the Everglades is the Corps’ Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) project, which was
first authorized by Congress in 1948 to control floods and to satisfy other water
management needs of South Florida. Water flows in South Florida are now directed by
1,000 miles of canals, 720 miles of levees, and almost 200 water control structures.
Current Conditions and Recent Restoration Efforts
Management and development activities have markedly changed the Everglades’
water regime. The C&SF project redirects water that once flowed from Lake Okeechobee
across the Everglades in a slow-moving sheet into canals and rivers discharging directly
to the ocean. Experts now believe that the Everglades receives too little water during the
dry season and too much during the rainy season. The altered water regime combined
with urban and agricultural development have reduced the Everglades to half its original
size. Habitat loss has threatened or endangered numerous plant and animal species.
The Everglades is also affected by degraded water quality. Pollutants from urban
areas and agricultural runoff, including excess nutrients (such as phosphorous and
nitrogen), metals, and pesticides, have harmed plant and animal populations. Nutrients
entering the Everglades have caused a decline in native vegetation and an overabundance
of invasive exotic species. Changes in the quantity, quality, and timing of freshwater flows
have also disrupted the equilibrium of coastal estuaries and reef systems.
The federal government and the State of Florida have already undertaken many
restoration activities, such as acquiring lands and preparing a multi-species recovery plan.
Between FY1993 and FY2002, $1.7 billion in federal funds and $3.6 billion in state funds
were appropriated for South Florida restoration. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force, which was formalized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-303), coordinates the numerous restoration activities. The Task Force facilitates
restoration using the following goals: (1) “get the water right,” (2) restore, preserve, and
protect natural habitats and species, and (3) foster compatibility of built and natural
systems. It is estimated that achieving these goals for South Florida would cost $14.8
billion, of which $7.8 billion would be spent under CERP. This plan is the principal
mechanism under the broader restoration program for “getting the water right,” i.e.,
restoring natural hydrologic functions and water quality, and providing water supplies.
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
CERP focuses on water quantity, quality, timing, and distribution. The overarching
concept behind the plan is to capture and store freshwater currently discharged to the
ocean to be used during the dry season; an estimated 80% of the captured water would be
used for the natural system, and an estimated 20% for agricultural and urban uses. CERP
calls for removing 240 miles of levees and canals, and building a network of reservoirs,
underground storage wells, and pumping stations that would capture water and redistribute
it to replicate natural flow.
Legislation in the 106th Congress. Title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 approved CERP as contained in the “Final Integrated

---

CRS-4
Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” as modified by
the Act. Passage followed years of delicate negotiations among federal agencies, the State
of Florida, Congress, and disparate groups of stakeholders including local and national
environmental organizations, sugar growers, utility companies, home builders, the
Seminole Tribe of Florida, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians.
Funding. Under Title VI, CERP construction as well as operation and maintenance
costs are equally shared by Florida and the federal government.1 Title VI authorizes four
pilot projects at a total cost of $69 million ($34.5 million federal share), 10 construction
projects and a monitoring program at a total cost of $1.1 billion ($550.5 million federal
share), and modifications to the C&SF Project not to exceed $206 million ($103 million
federal share). In total, the plan requires an estimated $7.8 billion—$5.5 billion for
construction and $2.3 billion for necessary lands, easements, water rights, relocation
expenses, and disposal areas. The Corps expects to request congressional authorization
for additional projects every two years through 2014. In May 2000, Florida passed
legislation approving CERP and committing $2 billion in state resources.
For CERP in FY2003, the Administration requested $37 million for Corps activities
and $9 million for Department of Interior agencies.2 The House and Senate versions of
the Interior Appropriations bill provided the requested $9 million. The Corps’
appropriations are included as part of the Central and Southern Florida line item in the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act; that line item in the budget request
totaled $108 million. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees (H.R. 5431,
H.Rept. 107-681; S. 2784, S.Rept. 107-220) and the Stevens Amendment (in the nature
of a substitute to the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Resolution H.J.Res. 2)
recommended $96 million, $98 million, and $90 million, respectively. The Senate report
and Stevens Amendment explained that the reduction resulted from questions raised about
the implementation of the restoration project, specifically that it was too heavily weighted
in favor of commercial development of water supplies rather than the restoration of the
Everglades. Neither the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill nor the
Interior Appropriations bill for FY2003 has been enacted.
Current CERP Issues
While support for CERP has been rather broad, some reservations remain over the
specifics of implementation. In particular, concerns have been raised regarding the
allocation of water under the programmatic regulations that will guide CERP’s
implementation. Other issues include: coordination of activities; timely completion of
CERP components; effectiveness of restoration efforts; uncertainties in technologies and
their costs; and the Plan’s effect on the Corps budget.
1 Operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $172 million annually (1999 price levels) for
the completed plan. Title VI departs from Section 528 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996, which prohibits federal funding of operation and maintenance. Proponents of the
exception argued that a federal project damaged the Everglades and much of the restoration will
benefit federally-owned land.
2 More information on Corps funding is available in CRS Report RL31307, Appropriations for
FY2003: Energy and Water Development. More information on Interior funding is available in
CRS Report RL31306, Appropriations for FY2003: Interior and Related Agencies.

---

CRS-5

Programmatic Regulations. The final programmatic regulations will define the
processes and procedures that guide CERP implementation and operations. Section VI of
WRDA 2000 required the promulgation of these regulations by December 2002. The
Corps announced in December 2002 that it anticipates the final regulations in early 2003.
The Corps presented draft versions in December 2001 and August 2002, which received
comments from interested parties and the public. A few Members of the House and Senate
submitted written comments on the 2002 draft.3
A major concern was the lack of a clearly stated proportion of the water generated by
CERP that will benefit natural areas. Many want the often-discussed 80% allocation to
restoration to be explicit in the programmatic regulations, while others feel that there are
too many uncertainties to be that specific. Another issue was that some viewed the role of
the Department of Interior as being unfairly relegated to one of consultation rather than
concurring authority. Other expressed concerns were that interim goals should be adopted
as part of the regulations when available and that the public outreach activities during
implementation (particularly related to minorities) needed further development.
Coordination. As evidenced by the concerns raised about the programmatic
regulations regarding the status of the Department of the Interior, a significant challenge
for CERP implementation will be coordination. The Corps leads CERP implementation
with cooperation from local sponsors and several federal agencies: Department of the
Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Geological
Survey), Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cooperating state entities are the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force coordinates CERP’s
implementation with ongoing restoration efforts.4 As CERP project details and
operational policies (especially those related to the timing and delivery of water) are
developed, support may shift and conflicts arise, testing the effectiveness of the
coordination framework of CERP and the Task Force.
Timely Completion. There exists serious concern that delays or changes to related
projects or CERP components may jeopardize the plan’s feasibility. Current problems with
acquiring land for the related Modified Water Deliveries Project is such an example (CRS
Report RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project). Without
this land, the water flows needed to undertake CERP components on the eastern side of
the Everglades National Park cannot be met. WRDA 2000 established that no funds for
parts of CERP can be appropriated until the modified waters project is complete.
Restoration Effectiveness. Some environmental groups question the extent to
which CERP contributes to Everglades restoration and whether so complicated and costly
a plan is necessary. There is also concern that the plan does not include enough measures
to improve water quality in the Everglades. Some groups and federal agencies have
3 For written comments by Members of Congress and other stakeholders
[http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/progr_regs_proposed_rule_comments.cfm].
4 See U.S. General Accounting Office, An Overall Strategic Plan and a Decision-Making
Process Are Needed to Keep the Effort on Track, RCED-99-121 (Washington, DC: April 1999).

---

CRS-6
expressed concern that CERP does not explicitly give natural systems precedence in water
allocation, and that it is focused first on water supply rather than ecological restoration.
To address this point, the Corps revised the project implementation sequencing to include
restoration activities in earlier phases. These changes have not satisfied some groups and
scientists who continue to oppose CERP. Some environmental groups, which support
CERP and Florida’s financial participation in the effort, have expressed concern about the
source of Florida’s contribution. They argue against using funds designated for the
purchase of land needed for restoration to finance other types of CERP projects. These
groups contend that land acquisition is essential for successful Everglades restoration.
Technological and Cost Uncertainties. Because not all the scientific data and
technologies to restore the South Florida ecosystem are available, CERP manages
uncertainties using “adaptive assessment,” which combines the implementation of initial
project features with data collection for use in later project designs. The current state of
knowledge and this adaptive assessment means that CERP is not as detailed as typical
Corps feasibility proposals. Title VI authorizes funding of four pilot projects, including
projects to test aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), a technology that has never been used
on such a large scale in these geologic conditions. ASR uses underground aquifers as
reservoirs to store freshwater which will be withdrawn later during dry periods. A report
by the National Research Council concluded that regional modeling efforts should precede
implementation of ASR as proposed by CERP.5 The report also noted the need to assess
water quality standards of ASR water. A General Accounting Office (GAO) report
identified uncertainties that could lead to changes in project designs and their costs.6
These uncertainties included: (1) treatments required for water stored in aquifer storage
and recovery wells, (2) adequacy of water quantity for Everglades National Park, and (3)
phosphorous removal by storm water treatment areas.
Corps Budget. The substantial commitment of federal funds to CERP might limit
federal construction funds and the operation and maintenance funds available for other
projects. The Corps’ budget is of particular concern because of its backlog of construction
projects and maintenance activities as well as its increased spending on security. Title VI
requires that the annual federal budget include under the heading “Everglades Restoration”
all proposed funding for the plan. Title VI also requires that the Corps budget show the
total proposed funding for the plan and an assessment of the plan’s impact on the budget
year and long-term funding levels. Tracking these funds proves difficult because funding
is included in both Interior and Energy and Water Appropriations bills.
5 National Research Council, Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, (Washington, DC: February 2001).
6 U.S. General Accounting Office. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan: Additional
Water Quality Projects May Be Needed and Could Increase Costs, RCED-00-235 (Washington,
DC: September 2000).

---