Order Code RS20702
Updated February 2, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
Pervaze A. Sheikh and Nicole T. Carter
Analysts in Environmental Policy and Natural Resources
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 both the natural system and urban and
agricultural users. The plan consists of 68 projects estimated to take more than 30 years
and $7.8 billion to complete. The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000
(P.L.106-541) authorizes $1.4 billion 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 project priorities, timely completion of restoration, phosphorous mitigation,
effectiveness of restoration efforts, uncertainties in technologies and costs, and effect
on the Corps budget. This report outlines the history and current conditions of the
Everglades, CERP legislation, 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 have been developed to define the processes and
procedures that will guide the implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan (CERP or the plan) over the next three decades. 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 altered the region’s ecology. During the dry season, the current water
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
regime in South Florida is unable to provide sufficient freshwater supplies to meet the
needs of both 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 Everglades’ combination of abundant moisture, rich soils, and
subtropical temperatures supported a vast array of species. However, by the mid-1800s,

---

CRS-3
many in South Florida viewed the Everglades as an unproductive swamp. Flood control
and reclamation efforts that manipulated the 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. Because of the C&SF project, water that once flowed from Lake
Okeechobee across the Everglades in a slow-moving sheet is directed into canals and
rivers discharging directly to the ocean. Experts now believe that the Everglades
ecosystem has changed because it now receives less water during the dry season and more
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 harmed 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 undertaken many restoration
activities, such as acquiring lands and preparing a multi-species recovery plan. The South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (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. Achieving these goals for South
Florida is estimated to 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 plan is
designed to capture and store freshwater, which is currently discharged to the ocean, for
use during the dry season; an estimated 80% of the captured water would be directed to
the natural system, and the remaining 20% would be for agricultural and urban
consumption. 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.

---

CRS-4
Authorizations and Appropriations. Title VI of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 approved CERP as contained in the Final Integrated
Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, as modified by
the Act. It also authorized $700 million in federal funds for an initial set of CERP
projects. As other CERP projects are prepared, they will be proposed for authorization
in the subsequent WRDAs, which are often biennial.1 Since WRDA 2000, no additional
CERP projects have been authorized. The Indian River Lagoon and Picayune Strand
restoration projects (estimated total costs of $1.2 billion and $363 million, respectively)
are likely to be considered for authorization in the 109th Congress; authorization of the
two projects had been included in legislation introduced in 2004 during the 108th
Congress.
Title VI of WRDA 2000 established that construction as well as operation and
maintenance costs of CERP projects would be equally shared by Floridian stakeholders
and the federal government.2 CERP authorization was achieved after years of delicate
negotiations among federal, state, local, and tribal stakeholders. Federal agencies
responsible for components of CERP receive appropriations for these activities through
their annual appropriations bills. Information on the status of appropriations for CERP
activities performed by the Corps is available in CRS Report RL32307, Appropriations
for FY2005: Energy and Water Development. Appropriations status for CERP activities
performed by Department of the Interior agencies is available in CRS Report RL32306,
Appropriations for FY2005: Interior and Related Agencies.
Current CERP Issues
While support for CERP approval was rather broad, some reservations remain over
implementation. Recent concerns have included how projects are being prioritized, the
pace of federal efforts and investments, and the pace of phosphorus mitigation efforts.
Other issues include effectiveness of restoration efforts; uncertainties in technologies and
their costs; and the plan’s effect on the budget of the Corps.
Project Priorities. Federal investments in water resources projects are intended
to be made in the national interest. Analyses of projects are to consider the national
benefits, with local and regional benefits playing a minor role in analyses. Under WRDA
2000, Congress approved the CERP framework because of its overall national benefits.
A concern among some observers is that some specific projects proposed for authorization
or under development have primarily local benefits. For example, there are differing
opinions on the level of federal participation in the the Indian River Lagoon project.
1 No WRDA has been enacted since WRDA 2000. For more information on the status of the
proposed WRDA, see CRS Issue Brief IB10133, Water Resources Development Act: Army Corps
of Engineers Authorization Issues in the 109th Congress, coordinated by Nicole T. Carter.
2 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.

---

CRS-5
Proponents for authorizing appropriations for the Indian River Lagoon Project (IRL)33
argue that restoring the IRL should be a national priority, because it is an estuary of
national significance and will restore the seabed floor, revive bottom-dwelling
communities, and enable excess freshwater to be stored in reservoirs, instead of being
dumped into the ocean. Some critics contend that the restoration of IRL would largely
serve local interests, primarily because it aims to benefit agricultural and recreational
interests, and that environmental benefits will largely be contained and not spread
throughout the Everglades ecosystem.4 One reason that the issue of who benefits from
IRL authorization has received some attention is that the project’s estimated costs have
increased since its original formulation under CERP.
Timely Completion of Restoration. There exists serious concern that delays
or changes to related projects or CERP components may jeopardize the plan’s feasibility.
Problems with acquiring land for the related Modified Water Deliveries Project are an
example of this issue. 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.
Phosphorus Mitigation. Another area of controversy that is related to potential
delays in restoration stems from a Florida state law (Chapter 2003-12) enacted on May
20, 2003.5 The law authorizes a new plan to mitigate phosphorus pollution reaching the
Everglades. Some critics of the law argue that the plan extends previously established
phosphorus mitigation deadlines and may compromise restoration efforts. The law’s
proponents argue that the plan represents a realistic strategy for curbing phosphorus. In
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2004 (P.L. 108-108) there are
several provisions that condition funds for restoration on the achievement of water quality
standards in federal properties. These provisions were also included in the FY2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447) under Interior and Related
Appropriations. If standards are not achieved, appropriations for restoration may be
reduced according to provisions in these acts. The enacted language indicates
congressional interest in overseeing the achievement of water quality standards for waters
entering federal lands in Florida.
Restoration Effectiveness. Some environmental groups question the extent to
which CERP contributes to Everglades restoration and whether so complicated and costly
3 The IRL has been altered by unnaturally large and poorly timed freshwater discharges. One
consequence of these discharges is the accumulation of muck on the bottom of the estuary, which
has resulted in reduced water transparency and altered communities of seagrass beds. These
discharges also bring unnaturally high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen into the estuary, which,
according to scientists, alters native vegetation and habitat for native wildlife.
4 For more information, see CRS Report IB10133, Water Resources Development Act and Other
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Legislation, Coordinated by Nicole Carter.
5 This law amends the Everglades Forever Act of 1994 (Florida Statutes §373.4592). Excess
phosphorus is one of the primary water pollutants in the Everglades and is generally attributed
to agricultural runoff. Excessive levels of phosphorus and other nutrients stimulate the
conversion of native sawgrass marshes and sloughs to vegetation stands dominated by cattails.
This conversion has resulted in less habitat for wading birds and other wildlife.

---

CRS-6
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
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. A
report by the National Research Council also suggests that acquiring needed land early
in the restoration process is important for lowering the potential for irreversible damage
due to development within the Greater Everglades.6
Technological and Cost Uncertainties. Ecosystem restoration is a relatively
young science, and, in many cases, the technologies and scientific data to support it are
still being developed. As a tool to manage the resulting uncertainty, CERP is being
implemented using adaptive management — a flexible learning-based approach to
implementation that integrates new information into the restoration effort as it proceeds.
Consequently, CERP is not as detailed as a typical Corps feasibility proposal. Another
mechanism for coping with uncertainty is the use of pilot projects. Title VI authorized
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 as proposed under
CERP. ASR uses underground aquifers as reservoirs to store surface water that will be
withdrawn later during dry periods.
Corps Budget. Some stakeholders are concerned that the substantial commitment
of federal funds to CERP might limit the funds for other Corps projects across the nation.
The sponsors and beneficiaries of traditional Corps projects that provide navigation and
flood control are concerned that not only Everglades restoration but also other large-scale
restoration activities with Corps involvement that may be considered for congressional
authorization in the 109th Congress, such as the Upper Mississippi River Basin restoration
and the coastal Louisiana wetlands restoration, are going to divert funds away from their
projects.
6 National Research Council, Re-engineering Water Storage in the Everglades: Risks and
Opportunities, Pre-publication Version (Jan. 2005: Washington, D.C.).

---