On the morning of Thursday, September 24th, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on the Everglades ecosystem. Why would this committee be discussing this topic? Because the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), the most extensive wetland restoration plan in the country, if not the world, is largely a series of infrastructure projects first authorized at the federal level by the year-2000 version of the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA). Since then, millions of public dollars have been allocated by the federal government and state of Florida to restore the Everglades, and a 2020 version of WRDA passed the House unanimously earlier this year.
A bit of background: the Everglades ecosystem is suffering from a lack of water. Several decades ago, the modus operandi of the Army Corp of Engineers was that wetlands were meant to be drained for land development, and too much water was flood threat to crops and lives. Fast forward to now, and the meandering "River of Grass" is now a highly managed system of water control structures and canals.
At the heart of the issue is freshwater supply, as too little reaches wetlands in the National Park and Florida Bay to the south, and too much is discharged to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries to the coasts. Central to CERP is the goal of sending more water from Lake Okeechobee south to those starving ecosystems, and Captain Elizabeth Jolin made that argument clear when she said all residents of the Florida Keys, not just the fishing industry, are impacted when a water-deprived Florida Bay is unhealthy.
At the heart of the issue is freshwater supply, as too little reaches wetlands in the National Park and Florida Bay to the south, and too much is discharged to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries to the coasts. Central to CERP is the goal of sending more water from Lake Okeechobee south to those starving ecosystems, and Captain Elizabeth Jolin made that argument clear when she said all residents of the Florida Keys, not just the fishing industry, are impacted when a water-deprived Florida Bay is unhealthy.
After the testimony from several witness stakeholders in Florida, Representative Brian Mast (R-FL 18) was given the floor by several of his committee colleagues. An outspoken advocate against "Lake O" discharges to his district on the St. Lucie, he questioned the last minute decision to strip WRDA provisions protecting ecosystem and community health and the dyke surrounding the lake. He accused the farming lobby, specifically the Sugar Cane League, for being against said provisions. One of the witnesses, Gary Ritter of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, was then questioned for his testimony to keep Lake O water levels the same. |
While Mr. Ritter was adamant his request was only that farmers received the water they are permitted by the state, Rep. Mast pointedly asked where that right to water infringes on his constituents' rights to not be sent "poisoned" lake water. This question was underscored by replies from Secretary Noah Valenstein of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, who stated microcystin, a toxic compound produced by some cyanobacteria species, is regularly measured at 20 ppb during Lake O blooms (the EPA recommended threshold for swimming advisories is only 8 ppb ). Chairwoman Napolitano (D-CA 32) smartly followed up this questioning by pointing out that conditions such as climate can always restrict "paper" water allocated by permits, a situation all too common in her home state.
This contrast between stakeholders was further emphasized by a simple yes or no question posed by Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL 28) to the witnesses: do you agree with the status quo lake management? All witnesses save Mr. Ritter disagreed, suggesting that the current management strategy to limit Lake O to a 12-15 foot water level is too conservative for restoration to work.
This contrast between stakeholders was further emphasized by a simple yes or no question posed by Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL 28) to the witnesses: do you agree with the status quo lake management? All witnesses save Mr. Ritter disagreed, suggesting that the current management strategy to limit Lake O to a 12-15 foot water level is too conservative for restoration to work.
Despite the dramatic flair of this questioning, perhaps the most concrete policy suggestion was presented earlier in testimony by Shannon Estenoz of the non-profit Everglades Foundation. Estenoz stated that the Army Corp has the infrastructure right now to send more water south during the early dry season. Not only would that help ensure the Everglades isn't too dry, but it would reduce coastal discharges from Lake O later when the lake rises during the wet season. Ultimately, a common theme from testimonies and questions answered by witnesses is that the Everglades cannot wait on bureaucracy or politicians within the in D.C. beltway. CERP is already 20 years old, and only a fraction of projects have been completed towards restoring this vital ecosystem. Estenoz, with the final word, called for, "[water] balance not just 10 years from now," and encouraged, "let's make incremental progress at every opportunity."