On December 11, 2000, President Bill Clinton and Governor of the State of Florida, Jeb Bush, met in the Oval office to review their recently endorsed act of legislation—the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The purpose of public law 106-541 was to “provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.” (Water Resources Development Act 2000) Title VI of the WRA is solely dedicated to the $7.8 Billion Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)—a 20-year plan that will supposedly restore natural water flow to the Everglades while simultaneously increasing water supply to the residents of South Florida, as well as improving water quality. CERP is the largest public works project ever attempted by the United States Federal Government and has become the national model for future restorations as well as having become the “restoration blueprint of the world” as noted by Washington Post writer Michael Grunwald. It involves a wide assortment of stakeholders and is the result of years of in-depth negotiations amongst “…federal agencies, the State of Florida, Congress, local and National Environmental organizations, Sugar growers, utility companies, home builders, as well as the Seminole and the Miccosukee Tribes of Indians.” (Congressional Research Service Report 2002) Because of the issue’s wide range of stakeholder interests, the social, economic, political, technological and obviously, ecological dimensions of water conservation in the Everglades and specifically, the implementation of the CERP will have enduring ramifications on local, national and global levels.

            When reading through the Conservation of the Everglades Plan, one becomes aware of the economic implications of the project—with a starting price tag of $7.8 billion over the course of the next 20 years, the economic insinuations are hard to ignore. It is a cost that officials expect to rise as much as tenfold over the course of its application with no certainty of the plan’s actual ability to re-right the wrongs inflicted upon the Everglades. Under title VI, CERP operational costs are going to be equally shared by the State of Florida and the Federal Government. The project lays out a plan that includes four pilot projects at a total cost of $69 million, ten construction projects complete with a monitoring program tagged at $1.1 billion as well as other modifications to add to its hefty budget price. When broken down, the plan allows $5.5 billion for construction costs and $2.3 billion for necessary land and other bureaucratic procedures for easements, water rights, and relocation expenses.

A dominant recipient group of these grand-scale wages are South Florida rock-mining firms. Although this is a bit suspect, approximately 21,000 acres of the Everglades are being dug up to attain limestone for construction purposes currently. Although the Army Corps of Engineers—the organization that is in charge of the technological innovations that will make the CERP possible—warned of the devastation from rock-mining and are aware of its economic consequences, they are promoting it as an aspect of the plan’s ability to provide water for both drinking and additional flow to the Everglades National Park. 1 billion of the $8 billion being spent will be used to convert two of the pits formed by rock mining into water storage reservoirs.

Best Management Practices are special farming practices that include soil and farm water management techniques that are trying to aid in the realization of ecological goals. In addition to the millions of dollars it costs to implement these new, environmentally sound agricultural technologies, Sugar Farmer’s have been required to spend approximately $200-$300 million in agriculture taxes as stated by the 1994 Everglades Forever Act for the privilege of farming in their specific location.

Thus, the restoration plan raises economic concerns for all entrepreneurs involved in its application. However, it seems that over the course of its institutionalization, taxpayers and local sponsors will be hit with the responsibilities of generating the revenue and the brunt of the costs. As stipulated in the WRDA2000, “…the state and local sponsors are responsible for land acquisition, right-of-way, pre-construction costs, etc. BEFORE it will allocate funds. This shifts the burden to the state/local sponsor: they must devise ways to produce the estimated $2.3 billion to purchase land.”(Turille MPA Action Report 2001) It will be interesting to see how Florida and the local governments therein will resolve issues to generate enough revenue to pay for the initiation of such a large-scale project. Thus, when the issue of Everglade’s water conservation is analyzed by means of the economic dimensions concerning it, the large costs of such an effort—albeit a totally worthwhile one—are huge and affect all stakeholders and interests involved.

The issue of water preservation in the Everglades has a variety of political implications, which accounts for its vast assortment of stakeholders. In this country, water preservation has been an issue since the late 1960’s.  The Clean Water Act of 1972 “…established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. It gave EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry.”(EPA) This act is still proving its effectiveness in legislative matters that involve water preservation through out the United States; recently, the CWA was utilized in a case pertaining specifically to the Everglades. In 2001, the Miccosukee tribe of Native Americans called upon the provisions of the CWA to sue the South Florida Water Management District for illegal dumping of polluted runoff without proper federal documentation or implementation of processes to minimize the spread of polluted water.  The SFWMD felt that they were not responsible for the purification of the water because they were not the direct cause of the pollutants and were solely in charge of moving the water within a concentrated area of the Everglades. Two levels of courts ruled in favor of the Miccosukee; however, the District appealed to the Supreme Court who heard the case in the beginning of 2004. In March, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the South Florida Water Management District adhering closely to provisions listed in the Clean Water Act and found that “…moving water from one navigable body of water to another does not require a federal permit.” (Smith SFWMD)

The largest and most controversial implementation of public ecological policy that is currently being instigated is the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The project—created by Bill Clinton in December of 2000 as Title VI within the Water Resources Development Act—is the framework for “…the restoration, protection, and preservation of the greater Everglades ecosystem. The CERP also provides for other water-related needs of the region, such as water supply and flood protection.” (2003 CERP annual Report)  It is the largest ecological project in the history of the United States and the world at large. In fact, it is becoming the “…restoration blueprint for the world, studied in south Brazil’s Pantanal and sub-Saharan Africa’s Okavango Delta…” as well as initially being an example of “…rare political unity in Florida and Washington”(the bill sailed through the Senate with a vote of 85 to 1). (Grunwald 6/23/02) Although advocates of the plan claim that the ultimate goal of the CERP is to ensure the restoration of quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water to the Everglades; the multitasking project seems to have it’s focus set upon flood control and providing water supply to the agribusinesses of an ever-growing South Florida—a fact that has environmentalists and grass-root organizations such as the Friends of the Everglades more than concerned. Many government officials, biologists, ecologists, and scientists have expressed serious doubts as to the feasibility and actuality of the CERP—many feel that it has been muddled by the intense political pressures brought forth by various interests in the commercial sector. Developers, agribusinesses, water utilities, and residential neighborhoods all lay claims to this historic article of legislation.

While the federal government’s interest in the restoration is predominantly one of ecological concern—and it did seem like a genuine concern when drafted and enacted in 2000—conservationists fear that the above mentioned South Floridian stakeholders will get their drudged reservoirs for irrigation and water supply for the suburbs, but that a disenchanted Congress will cut off the cash flow before the Greater Everglades sees any water flow. Unfortunately, there is legitimate basis for these fears as all previous plans for Everglade’s preservation—specifically acts passed in 1989 and 1994—have been slowed by litigation, thereby leaving the Everglades in a high—and dry—position with no view of water insight.

The issue of Everglades water preservation and conservation has become one of grandiose proportions in terms of political dimensions. With legislation such as the Clean Water Act, the Water Resources Act and now the implementation of the largest public works project in the world’s history—the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan—it is a matter that is not going to dissipate or assuage at any time in the near future. When analyzing the political facets of Everglades water conservation through political facets, it becomes apparent how many stakeholders are implicated in this single issue and how difficult it is to implement public policy that will assure the happiness or fulfillment of all who are involved.

The SEPTEmber analysis is extremely useful when analyzing the inherent issues involved in Everglades water conservation and the consequences of the CERP on the future of the River of Grass. It is a National treasure that must be preserved at all costs and all who are involved—federal and state representatives, developers, constituents, agribusinesses, utility companies—need to examine the SEPTE dimensions before implementing any courses of action. In the words of the late Marjory Stoneman Douglas (Founder of Friends of the Everglades), “The Everglades is a test. If we pass, we may get to keep the planet.” Well, let us hope and strive to ensure that we pass with flying colors.

Take a look at our Video Interview about this project.