South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

The Everglades, a unique network of subtropical wetlands in Florida, is half its original size.
Many factors contributed to its decline, including flood control projects and agricultural and
urban development. Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies collaborated to develop a
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP, or the plan). CERP aims to increase storage
of wet season waters to augment the supplies during the dry season for both the natural system
and urban and agricultural users. The plan consists of more than 60 projects estimated to take
more than 30 years and $10.9 billion to complete. The Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 2000 (P.L. 106-541) approved the CERP framework and authorized a first set of
projects at $1.4 billion. WRDA 2000 established how CERP costs would be split; the federal
government would pay half of construction and operation, and an array of state, tribal, and local
agencies the other half. WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114) authorized a second set of CERP activities
($2.0 billion). CERP implementation issues include project priorities and funding; timeliness and
effectiveness of restoration efforts (e.g., the impacts of delays in the Modified Water Deliveries
project); mitigation of excess phosphorous; and technological uncertainties. This report
summarizes CERP and its implementation.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Everglades History..........................................................................................................................2
Current Conditions and Recent Restoration Efforts........................................................................2
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan..................................................................................3
Authorizations and Appropriations...........................................................................................3
Current CERP Issues.......................................................................................................................3
Project Priorities, Costs, and Funding.......................................................................................4
Timely Completion of Restoration............................................................................................4
Phosphorus Mitigation..............................................................................................................5
Restoration Effectiveness..........................................................................................................5
Technological and Cost Uncertainties.......................................................................................6
Figure 1. Principal Components of the South Florida Ecosystem...................................................1
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................6

The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Title VI, P.L. 106-541)¹ authorized involvement
of federal agencies in projects to restore the Everglades; these projects are coordinated under a
planning framework—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 altered the region’s ecology. During the dry season, the current water regime in
South Florida is unable to sufficiently supply freshwater to meet both natural system needs and
urban and agricultural demand. Water shortages, like those affecting Florida in 2007 because of
lower than normal rainfall, are expected to become more frequent as demand by urban and
agricultural consumers increases.
Figure 1. Principal Components of the South Florida Ecosystem
^Source:^{Florida Coastal Everglad}^{es, Long Term Ecological Research htt}^{p://fcelter.fiu.edu; nationalatlas.gov; South}
^{Florida Ecosystem Restoration T}^{ask Force}
^Note:^{Map pre}^{pared b}^y^Congres^{sional Cartography Program, Libr}^{ary of Congress, 2}⁰⁰⁶

¹^For^W^R^D^A²⁰⁰⁷^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^{t R}^L³³⁵^04,^Wa^t^e^{r R}^e^so^u^r^{ces Devel}^o^p^m^en^t^A^c^t⁽^W^R^D^A⁾^o^f²⁰⁰⁷^:^Co^rp^{s o}^f
^Engi^ne^e^r^s^Pr^oje^c^t^Aut^hor^iz^ati^{on I}^s^s^u^e^s^{, by}^Nⁱ^c^o^le^T^.^Ca^rte^r^e^t^a^l^.

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, many in South Florida viewed the Everglades as an unproductive swamp. Flood
control and reclamation efforts that manipulated the Everglades hydrology allowed development
of the East Coast of Florida and permitted agriculture on reclaimed marshland. Principal among
the human interventions affecting the Everglades is the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF)
project of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which was first authorized by Congress in 1948
for flood damage reduction 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.

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, to address the health of the
Everglades. The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (Task Force), which was
formalized by WRDA 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 at nearly $20 billion, of which
$10.9 billion would be spent under CERP. The plan is the principal mechanism for “getting the
water right” (i.e., restoring natural hydrologic functions and water quality, and providing water
supplies).

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.
Title VI of WRDA 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, the Administration proposes them for authorization and inclusion in the next WRDA.
WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114) authorized a second set of activities, including the Indian River
Lagoon (IRL) and Picayune Strand restoration projects; CERP activities in the legislation
represented roughly $2.0 billion in authorizations (not counting $240 million in related ²
deauthorizations also included in the legislation).
Title VI of WRDA 2000 established that construction as well as operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs of CERP projects would be equally shared by Floridian stakeholders and the federal ³
government. 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 RL34009, Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations, by
Carl E. Behrens et al. Appropriations status for CERP activities performed by Department of the
Interior agencies is available in CRS Report RL34011, Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations, by Carol Hardy Vincent et al.

While support for CERP remains broad, reservations remain over its implementation. Recent
concerns have included how projects are being prioritized, the pace of federal efforts and
investments, and the pace of mitigation efforts for excess phosphorous. Other issues include
effectiveness of restoration efforts and uncertainties in technologies.

²^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^the^s^e^pr^oje^c^t^s^,^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^L³³⁵^04,^Wa^t^e^{r R}^e^so^u^r^{ces Devel}^o^p^m^en^t^A^c^t⁽^W^R^D^A⁾^o^f
²⁰⁰^7:^C^o^r^p^s^{of E}^ngi^ne^e^r^s^Pr^oje^c^t^Aut^hor^iz^a^tio^{n I}^s^s^u^e^s^,^by^Nⁱ^c^o^le^T^.^Ca^rte^r^e^t^a^l^.
³^O&^{M is e}^s^tim^a^t^e^d^a^t^m^o^re^thaⁿ^$¹⁸⁰^m^{illion a}ⁿ^nua^l^l^y^f^o^{r the}^c^o^m^p^le^te^{d p}^l^aⁿ^.

Since enactment of WRDA 2000 and though FY2007, $0.37 billion in federal funds and $1.63 ⁴
billion in state funds have been put toward CERP projects. Much of the state’s funds have gone
toward projects that are part of the state’s Acceler8 effort to accelerate the design, construction,
and funding for eight priority CERP projects. Some stakeholders are concerned that the Acceler8
prioritization may increase effort on meeting water supply needs of agricultural and urban users,
and decrease attention to investments for ecosystem restoration. This concern is raised by those
wanting to maintain a focus on restoration and by those concerned with the Corps’ mission being
expanded into water supply projects for municipal and agricultural users. Proponents of Accerler8
argue that the priority projects have both water supply and restoration benefits and were agreed to
as part of the CERP program; these proponents also perceive the pace of federal funding as being
too slow.
Federal water resources policies justify federal participation in ecosystem restoration projects,
like CERP projects, based on the projects’ environmental benefits for the nation. A concern of
some stakeholders is that some specific Everglades restoration projects proposed for authorization ⁵
or under development have primarily local benefits, rather than national benefits. Another
concern has been that the CERP costs have increased, with increasing costs associated with land
acquisition being one factor. Acceler8 proponents argue that these increasing costs are a reason to
move more quickly. The increasing costs are of particular concern to stakeholders who worry that
the commitment of federal funds to CERP might limit the funds available for other ecosystem
restoration 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, such as wetlands restoration in coastal Louisiana, may
divert funds away from their projects.
No CERP projects have been completed since enactment, and all 15 CERP components scheduled ⁶
for completion by 2007 have been delayed. There exists serious concern that delays may
jeopardize the plan’s feasibility. For example, delays in the Modified Waters Deliveries Project
(Mod Waters), a pre-CERP project to restore flows to Everglades National Park, may result in
insufficient water flows for the implementation of CERP components on the eastern side of the
Everglades National Park. This interdependency of CERP and non-CERP projects for achieving
ecosystem restoration goals was codified in WRDA 2000, which restricted appropriations for
specific components of CERP until Mod Waters is complete.

⁴^Sinc^e^eⁿ^a^c^t^m^e^{nt of}^W^R^D^A²⁰⁰⁰^a^{nd t}^h^ro^ug^{h FY}²⁰^07,^Ev^e^r^g^l^a^d^e^s^re^s^t^ora^tion^a^c^tiv^itie^s^un^de^rta^k^eⁿ^outsⁱ^de^of^the
^CE^RP^f^r^a^m^e^w^o^r^{k h}^a^v^e^recei^ved^$²^.⁴⁴^bⁱ^l^lⁱ^oⁿⁱⁿ^f^e^d^e^ral^f^unds^a^nd^$3.⁸⁵^bill^io^{n i}ⁿ^s^t^a^t^e^f^unds^.
⁵^For^e^x^a^m^ple^,^s^o^m^e^s^t^a^k^e^holde^r^s^a^r^g^u^e^d^f^o^r^I^ndiaⁿ^Rⁱ^v^e^r^L^a^g^{oon p}^r^oje^c^t^a^u^th^or^iz^a^tioⁿ^b^ecau^{se i}^t^w^o^u^l^d^rest^o^r^{e a}
^na^tio^na^{l sig}ⁿ^if^ic^aⁿ^c^e^e^s^tua^r^y^.^T^h^e^proje^c^t^w^oul^{d re}^store^t^h^e^se^a^b^e^d^f^l^{oor, re}^vⁱ^v^e^bottom^-^dw^e^lling^c^o^m^m^unitie^{s, a}^nd
^en^ab^{le ex}^cess^f^r^esh^w^at^{er to}^b^e^st^o^r^edⁱⁿ^reserv^oⁱ^{rs, i}ⁿ^st^ead^o^f^g^oⁱⁿ^g^to^t^h^{e o}^cean^.^So^m^e^{critics co}ⁿ^t^en^d^e^d^t^h^{at th}^e
^p^r^o^j^ect^{serves l}^o^calⁱⁿ^t^e^rest^{s an}^{d i}^t^{s en}^vi^roⁿ^m^en^t^a^l^b^eⁿ^e^fⁱ^t^s^l^a^rgel^y^{are l}^o^cal^rat^h^{er t}^h^{an f}^o^{r t}^h^{e l}^a^{rger E}^v^ergl^ad^es
^eco^s^y^st^e^m^.
⁶^Na^tiona^{l Re}^se^a^r^c^h^Co^unc^{il (NR}^C^),^Pr^ogr^e^s^s^T^o^w^a^r^d^Re^s^t^orⁱ^{ng t}^h^e^Ev^e^r^glade^s^:^T^h^e^Fir^s^t^Bieⁿⁿⁱ^al^Re^vⁱ^e^w^{, 200}⁶^,
^P^r^e^p^u^b^lic^a^tio^{n v}^e^r^s^{ion (}^W^a^s^hing^t^{on, D}^C^:^Se^pte^m^be^r^27,²⁰⁰⁶⁾^.

Another area of controversy that is related to potential delays in restoration stems from a May ⁷
2003 Florida state law (Chapter 2003-12) that authorizes a 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, FY2006 (P.L. 109-54), there were several
provisions that conditioned funds for restoration on the achievement of water quality standards in ⁸
federal properties. These provisions were also included in the FY2004 and FY2005 Interior
appropriations. If water quality 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.
Some environmental groups question the extent to which CERP contributes to Everglades
restoration and whether so complicated and costly a plan is necessary. There also is concern that
the plan does not include enough measures to improve water quality in the Everglades. Some
groups and federal agencies have noted that CERP does not explicitly give natural systems
precedence in water allocation, and that it is focused first on water supply rather than on
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, worry 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 ⁹
Everglades.
Others have raised questions regarding the management of Lake Okeechobee and other aspects of
flood management for central Florida on the Caloosahatchee River’s ecosystem and how these
water management issues are being integrated into Everglades restoration efforts and planning.
Others also have questioned the extent to which the impacts of sea level rise and climate change
have been integrated into CERP, and their potential effects on the future of the Everglades
ecosystem.

⁷^T^h^is^la^w^am^e^nds^the^Ev^e^r^g^l^a^d^e^s^For^e^v^e^r^A^c^{t o}^f¹⁹⁹^{4 (}^F^l^o^rⁱ^da^Sta^t^ute^s^§3⁷³^.4⁵⁹²⁾^{. Ex}^c^e^s^s^ph^os^ph^o^r^us^is^a^pr^im^a^r^y
^w^a^t^e^r^pollu^ta^nt^of^the^Ev^e^r^g^l^a^d^e^s^a^{nd its}^m^a^{in s}^our^c^e^is^a^g^rⁱ^c^u^lt^ur^a^l^r^uⁿ^o^f^f^.^Ex^ce^s^sⁱ^ve^phos^p^hor^us^aⁿ^{d ot}^he^rⁿ^u^tr^ieⁿ^t^s
^stim^ula^t^e^the^c^onv^e^r^sion^of^na^tiv^e^sa^wg^ra^s^s^m^a^rshe^{s a}^{nd sloug}^{hs t}^o^c^a^tta^{ils, re}^sultingⁱⁿ^le^{ss ha}^b^ita^{t f}^o^{r w}^a^ding^birds
^a^{nd o}^t^he^{r w}^ildlif^e^.
⁸^For^m^o^r^e^on^FY²⁰⁰⁷^Iⁿ^te^rⁱ^or^a^p^pr^o^p^rⁱ^a^tio^ns^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^p^o^r^t^R^L³³³⁹⁹^,^Iⁿ^te^rⁱ^or^{, E}ⁿ^vⁱ^r^o^nm^eⁿ^t,^an^{d Re}^late^d
^Ageⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^:^FY²⁰^{07 A}^ppr^oprⁱ^a^ti^on^s^,^b^y^Caro^l^Hard^y^Vⁱⁿ^cen^t^et^al^.
⁹^NRC,^Re^-^e^ngi^ne^e^r^{ing W}^a^te^r^St^or^ageⁱⁿ^t^h^e^Ev^e^r^gla^d^e^s^:^Ris^k^s^an^d^O^ppor^t^uni^tie^s⁽^W^a^s^hing^ton,^D^C^:^J^a^nua^r^y²⁰⁰⁵⁾^.

Ecosystem restoration is a relatively young applied science, and, in many cases, the technologies
and scientific data to support it are still being developed. To manage the resulting uncertainty,
CERP is being implemented using adaptive management—a flexible learning-based approach
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 of ecosystem restoration outcomes is the use of pilot projects. WRDA 2000
authorized four pilot projects, including projects to test aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), a
water management strategy that has never been used on such a large scale as proposed under
CERP. ASR uses aquifers as underground reservoirs to store surface water that will be withdrawn
later during dry periods. These pilot projects have not been completed, and as a result, there are ¹⁰
uncertainties in their effectiveness of early water storage projects.
^P^e^rv^{aze A}^.^Sh^eⁱ^kh ^{Nicole T}^.^C^a^rter
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^Nat^u^r^a^{l Reso}^u^r^{ces P}^o^licy^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^Nat^u^r^a^{l Reso}^u^r^{ces P}^o^licy
^ps^h^eⁱ^k^h@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁶⁰⁷⁰ⁿ^cart^e^r@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁰⁸⁵⁴

¹⁰^NRC,^Prog^{ress T}^o^wa^{rd Resto}^rⁱⁿ^g^th^e^Everg^l^a^d^e^{s: T}^h^e^Fⁱ^rst^Bⁱ^enⁿⁱ^a^l^R^evi^ew,²⁰⁰⁶^.