Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades

CRS Report for Congress
Received through t he CRS W e b
Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everg lades
Upda ted Janua ry 13, 2004
Analys t in Environment and Na tural Resources Po licy
Resources, Sc ience, and Industry Division
Analys t in Agricultural and Na tural Resources
Resources, Sc ience, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Phosphorus Mitigation i n the Everglades
Provisions in the FY2004 Energy and W at er Development Appropriations Act
( P . L. 108-137) and t he FY2004 In terior and R elated Agencies Appropriations A c t
(P.L. 108-108) restrict funding for restoratio n activities i n t he Fl orida Everglades i f
Fl orida does not achieve certain phosphorus mitigation and water quality standards
in Evergl ades waters by 2006. The p rovisions also require several federal agencies
to report whether Fl orida i s m eeting t he deadline. If not, s ome p rovisions state t hat
C o n g r e s s m a y d isapprove funding for s ome Everglades rest o r a t i o n p r o j e c t s , i n c l u d i n g
s o m e projects i n t he $7.8 billion C omprehen sive Evergl ades Restoration P lan
(CERP). (For more information, see CRS Report RS20702, South Florida
Ecosys tem Res toration and the C omprehensi ve Evergl ades E cosyst em Rest orat i o n
Plan, b y Nicole C arter and Pervaz e S heikh.)
These p rovisions may represent a t urni ng point in the 10-year federal-state
partnership t o restore the Everglades. Si nce 1993, the federal, s tate, t ribal and local
governm ent s h ave general l y worked t o get h er towards restoration. Congress has not
previously conditioned federal Evergl ades funding on Fl orida t aking s pecific actions
t o wards rest o rat i on, bot h b ecause of t h i s part nershi p and because a federal C onsent
De c r e e a n d a state l aw (the Evergl ades Fo rever Act) s et a d eadline o f 2006 for
phosphorus mitigation. However, in spring 2003, the Florida legi slature amended the
Evergl ades Fo rever Act to ex tend the d eadline until at least 2016.
Phosphorus pollution h as been a concern i n t h e Evergl ades for m any years.
Ex cess phosphorus can cause imbalances in vegetation and habitat and alter n ative
e c o s ys t ems. Much of this phosphorus is discharged in water from t he Evergl a d e s
Agricultural Area (EAA), which is locat ed north of the Arthur R. Marshall
Lo x ahatchee National W ildlife R efuge and the Everglades National P ark. The E AA
has b een used intensively for farming, pa rticula r ly sugar cane, since t he 1950s. In

1988, the federal government sued the S tate of Fl or i d a and two o f its agencies,

a l l e gi ng t h at wat er rel eased ont o federal l ands from agri cul t u ral s ources cont ai n e d
elevated levels of phosphorus and o ther nutri ents in violation of s tate water quality
standards. Based o n a 1992 Consent Decree settling t his l awsuit, Fl orida enacted the
Ever gl a d e s Fo rever Act in 1994. This act required t he state t o establish a numeric
limit for phosphorus by December 2003 and required a c t i o n s t o comply with this
limit by D e cember 2006. The federal judge overseeing the C onsent Decree later
adopted the December 2006 deadline. In spring 2003, Florida amended t he 1994 Act
to create flex i bility in meeting d eadlines for phosphorus mitigation t o 2016 or later,
and i n J uly 2003, Fl orida i ssued a rule establishing a limit for phosphorus of 10 parts
per b illion and methods to meas ure compliance with that limit.
This report d iscusses t h e FY2004 appropriations provisions that condition
federal funding for E verglades restoration o n compliance with water quality
standards, provides a side-by-side analys is of pending appropriations legi slation, and
provid e s b ackground and a timeline of effo rts t o address Everglades phosphorus
pollution. This report will be updated as events warrant.

In troduction ..................................................1
FY2004 Appropriations Bills ....................................1
InteriorandRelatedAgencies Appropriations ....................1
EnergyandWaterAppropriations .............................3
Analysis ofLegislation .....................................3
FloridaEvergladesForeverActAmendments ........................5
Criticism of Amendments ...................................6
Support of Amendments ....................................6
Second SetofAmendments ..................................7
Overview of Phosphorus Pollution i n t he Evergl ades ..................7
Phosphorus in the Everglades ................................7
Effects o f Ex cessive Phosphorus ..............................7
History o f Everglades P hosphorus Pollution .....................8
1988 Lawsuit and 1992 Consent Decree ........................8
1994 Fl orida E verglades Forever Act .........................10
Results of 1994 EFA ......................................10
2003 Long-Term P lan .....................................11
FurtherHistorical Context ..................................11
Figure1. SouthFloridaEcosystem—Past andPresent ....................9
Appendix A: Timeline of P hosphorus Mitigation i n Florida ...............12
Appendix B:ComparisonofPendingLegislation ........................15

Phosphorus Mitigation in the Everglades
Pollution from ex cessive levels of phosphorus and o ther nutrients has l ong been
recogn i z ed as a m aj or cont ri but or t o t h e environmental d egradation o f t he Fl orida
Evergl ades ecosystem. In 1988, the federal government sued the S tate of Fl orida and
t wo o f i t s st at e agenci es, al l egi ng t h at wa t e r r el eased ont o federal l ands from
agricultural s ou r c e s c o ntained elevated l evels o f phosphorus and o ther nutrients in
violation o f s tate water quality standards. Based o n a 1992 Consent Decree settling
this lawsuit, Fl orida enacted the Everglades Forever Act i n 1994. This act required
the s tate to establish a n umeric limit for phosphorus by December 2003 (i.e.,
phosphorus criterion) and required actions to comp l y with this limit by December

2006. Several E verglades-related l awsuits have since been filed b y environmental,

agricultural, and t ribal s takeholders. In s pring 2003, Fl orida amended t he 1994 Act
to create significant flexibility in dead lines for phosphorus mitigation, and in J uly
2003, Fl orida i ssued a rule establishing a limit for phosphorus and m et hods t o
meas ure compliance with that limit. Thes e new laws and t he ru l e h a ve generated
controversy among several s takeholders in the r estoration effort underway in the
Evergl ades and caused concern am ong som e Mem b ers o f C ongress t h at t h e s t at e m ay
not meet the 2006 deadline for mitigating phosphorus.
This con c e r n i s reflected in the FY2004 Energy and W ater Development
Appropriations Act (P . L. 108-137, sign ed into law December 1 , 2003) and t he
FY2004 In terior and R elated Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-108, sign ed into
law November 10, 2003). These laws conditio n FY2004 Evergl ades funding based
on Fl orida m eeting phosphorus mitigation and water quality standards b y t he 2006
deadl i n e (as speci fi ed i n t h e C onsent D ecree and t he E F A ) a n d requi re federal
agenci es to determine whether Fl orida i s m eeting t he deadline. If not, t he laws stat e
that Congress may d isapprove FY2004 funding for E verglades restoration p rojects .
FY2004 Appropriations Ac ts
The FY2004 Energy and W ater Devel opment Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-

137), and FY2004 In terior and R elated Agen cies Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-108),

both i nclude provisions r e l a t e d t o phos phorus mitigation and water quality in the
Evergl ades. Both condition funding for Everglad e s restoration o n one or more
reports that determ i ne whether certain Evergl ades waters meet water quality
requirements as s peci fied in the l egislati on. deadline. The p rovisions require federal
agenci es t o det erm i n e w het h er Fl ori d a i s m eet i n g t he deadl i n e, and i f n o t , t he
provisions state t hat C ongress may d isapprove FY2004 funding for s ome Everglades
restoration p rojects.
Inte rior and Related Agencies Appropriati ons. The FY2004 Interior
and R elated Agencies Appropriations Ac t conditions funds for t wo items related t o

rest orat i o n i n t he Evergl ades: (1) t h e M odi fi ed W at er D e l i v eri es P roj ect 1 and (2)
Fl orida l and acquisitions near the Everglades. The House Appropriations committee
r e p o r t (H. Rept. 108-195) contained s ever al pages o f l angu age s tating committee
members’ strong disapproval of Florida’s new l egislation and its potential effect s on
Evergl ades rest orat i on, i n cl udi ng m em b ers’ concern t hat t he new Florida laws could
delay t he restoration and protection o f LNW R and ENP and hinder implementation
of the s hared $7.8 billion federal-state Comprehensive Everglades R estoration
Modified Water Deliveries. P.L. 108-108 states that both FY2004 funds and
funds appropria ted i n p rior years for the Modified W ater Deliveries p roject should
be available unless an annual r e p o r t f i l e d b y t he Secretaries o f t he In terior and t he
Army, t he Attorney General, an d t he U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency (EPA)
finds that Fl orida i s not meeting s tate water quality standards, and t he stat e numeric
phosphorus criteria and water quality requirements s et forth i n t he 1992 Consent
Decree in Arthur R. Marshall Lo x ahatchee National W ildlife R efuge (LNW R ) and
Evergl ades National P ark ( ENP). This report m ust be s ubmitted t o five
Congressional committees : The House and Senate Appropriations Committees ; t he
House Transportation and In frastruct ure C ommittee; the House R es ources
Committee; and t he Senate Environment and Public Works C ommittee. For funding
to be disapproved, an unfavorable report m ust be s ubmitted and both H o u s e and
Senate Appropriations Committees must disapprove fundi ng for the project in
writing. This report i s due 90 days after t he date of enactment of the bill, which i s
February 8, 2004, and every year thereafter t hrough 2006.
Florida L a nd Acquisitions. P.L. 108-108 directs t he In terior Department
to reallocate unused funds originally intended t o h elp Florida purchase l ands near the
Evergl ades. These funds are estimated at $32 million. Funds are t o b e reallocated
to other agencies, including the U.S. Fish and W ildlife S ervice (FW S ) and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), t o improve water quality in LW NR.
Reports by EPA Administrator. House R eport 108-195 has p rovisions that
direct the Administrator of the Environmen tal P rotection Agency t o report o n t hree
issues: (1) whether Florida’s recent amendments to its 1994 Evergl ades Forever Act
(EFA) are con s i s t ent wi t h t h e federal C l ean W at er A ct , (2) whet her E P A has
ap p roved Florida’s numeric phosphorus criterion, and (3) whether t he phosphorus
criterion will protect LNW R and ENP consistent with the requirements o f t he 1992
C onsent D ecree. 2 The House report does not specify a due date for t he EPA reports.

1 This is an ecologi cal r estoration proj ect in south Flor i d a d e s i gned to improve water
deliveries t o Everglades National Park. Appropriations for t he Modified Water Deliveries
proj ect for FY2004 are $12.9 million. For more i nformation on t he proj ect, s ee CRS Report
RS21331, Everglades Restoration: Modified Water Deliveries Project , by Pervaze Sheikh.
2 T he Florida Departme nt of Envi ronmental Protection phosphorus rule of J uly 18, 2003 sets
different standards f or state and federal waters. For s tate waters, t he standard is an average
of 10 parts per billion ( ppb) for t hree of five years as measured over all data s tations, with
an annual a ve rage over all s tations equal t o or l ess t han 11 ppb, and a nnual a ve rage s a t
indivi dual s tations less than or equal t o 15 ppb. For LNWR a nd ENP, me a s u r e me n t

Energy and W ater Appropriations. The FY2004 Energy a n d W ater
Development Appropriations Act p rovides t hat $137 million appropriated fo r
restoring t he Evergl ades (including fundi ng for t he Central a n d S o uthern Fl orida
project, t he E v e r gl a d es and S outh Florida Ecosys tem R es toration project , and the3
Kissimmee R iver Restoration project ) wi l l be avai l abl e unl ess: (1) t he S ecret ary o f
the Army files an unfavorable report with the House and Senate Appropriatio n s
Committees and t he Stat e of Florida on whet her Florida is meeting wat er quality
requirements i n t he 1992 Consent Decree, within 30 days of enactment of the b ill
(December 31, 2003); (2) Florida fails to submit a plan t o comply within 45 days of
t h e report ; (3) t he S ecret ary fi l es a report confirming t hat Florida has not delivered
the plan; and (4) either the House or S enat e C ommittee on Appropriations issues a
written notice d isapproving furt her ex p enditure of the funds.
The conference report l ef t i ntact both House and Senate committee report
language regarding t he Evergl ades. House committee report language accompanyi ng
the bill s t at es t h at the C ommittee m ay divert the restoration funds to other u ses i f
Fl orida does not meet its responsibilities under t he Consent Decree (H.Rept . 108-
212). In addition, S.Rept. 108-105 states th at water entering LNWR and ENP m ust
meet state water quality standards and the phosphorus criterion throughout LNWR
and E NP , as w el l as t he C onsent D ecree re quirements. This report also d irects t he
EPA Administrat or to send a report on t hese issues to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees, the H o u s e T ran s p o r t a t i o n a n d In fras t ru ct u r e C ommittee,
and t he Senate Environment and Public Works C ommittee.
Analys is of Legislation. Provisions in these acts i ndicate t hat C ongress has
strong concerns about whether t he St a t e o f F lorida will meet the 2006 deadline t o
reduce phosphorus pollution i n t he Evergl ades. These laws may cause some to
question t he viability of the federal -state partnership which has guided Everglades
rest or a t i o n over t he l ast decade.4 This view was s upported i n H.Rept. 108-212,
w h i c h s tated t hat “The C ommittee i s concer ned t hat recent changes to the S tate of
Fl orida’s 1994 Evergl ades Fo rever Act represent a departure from t he commitments
and obligations of the S tate to improve the quality of the wat er entering th e

2 (...continued)
me thodology a nd phosphorus limits will be based on t he 1992 Consent Decree.
3 A f f e c t ed funding leve l s f o r i n d i vi d u a l p r o j e c t s i n c l u d e : K i s s i mme e R i ve r r e s t o r a t i o n , $17.7
million; Evergl ades and South Florida Ecos ys tem Restoration, $14.8 million; Central and
Southern Florida ( C&SF) proj ect (which includes CERP f unding), $104.5 million ( the
appropriation was $105 million but $500,000 of that is for t he Upper St. J ohns proj ect
element, which i s not considered part of the Everglades ecosystem).
4 Since 1993, when a f ederal interagency t ask f orce was created to guide t he restoration with
participation by s tate, t ribal and local governments as well as interest gr oups, t he Evergl ades
restoration has been vi ewed as a new model f or managi ng complex, multifaceted ecosystem
restoration efforts. The i nteragency, multi-stakeholder effort was also viewed as a means
of precluding litigation by provi ding a f orum to raise and resolve i ssues before they could
b e b r o u gh t to court. Although litigation has continued, since t he passage of the CERP i n
2000, the f ederal and s tate gove rnme nts have been vi ewed by some as working hand-in-hand
for environmental r estoration.

Evergl ades by December 31, 2006....”5 Some may also view t hese provisions as
evidence of the federal government es tablishing oversight mechanisms to monitor
st at e act i ons rel at ed t o rest o rat i on. Thi s coul d b e i nt erpret ed as a d epart u re from t he
status quo of federal-state cooperation t o restore the Everglades. These p rovisions
coul d al s o b e s i gni fi cant for ot her l arge-scal e ecosyst em rest orat i o n p roj ect s t hat u se
t h e E verglades as a model, including similar federal-state cooperation, such as the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program i n C alifornia.
Differences in Funding and P rojects Affected. The Appropriations Acts
passed place conditions on different am ounts of funding. The FY2004 In teri or
Appropriations affects FY2004 funding for the Modified W ater Deliveries p roject as
well as unobligated funds for t hat p roject, and $32 million i n l and acquisition funds.
The Energy and Water l egi s l a t i on could affect $137.5 million i n funding for t he
Central and Southern Fl orida P roject, t he Evergl ades and S out h Fl o ri da Ecosys t em
Restoration P roject (also known as “Critical Proj ect s”), the Kissimmee R iver
Restoration, and C ERP.
Di ffe rences in Standards a nd Wa te r Measured. While the Energy and
W at er l egi s l at i o n requi res w at er ent eri ng LN W R and E NP t o m eet C onsent D ecree
standards, the Interior l egislation i s broad er, requiring water entering and water
throughout LNWR and ENP to meet Fl orida water quality standards, Fl orida
phosphorus criterion standards, and C onsent Decree r e q u i r ements. (Although
Fl orida’s phosphorus rule specifies that methodology l aid out in the C onsent Decree
will be used to measure phosphorus in LNWR and ENP, it leaves the decision to
Fl orida as t o whether the criterion was violated.) The Interior l egislation requires t he
waters to meet a broader set of s tandards, as stat e wat er quality standards will incl ude
limits on several s ubstances besides pho s p h orus. Where wat er is meas ured (e.g.,
entering the l and o r t hroughout the l and) may b e s ignificant as phosphorus levels can
vary greatly depending on the point of meas urement. Fu rther, gi ven t he uncertainty
surrounding nutrient m easurements in the Everglades, it is uncertain if all s tate water
quality st andards can be measured and reported annually to comply with reporting
Pote ntial P roject De lays. S o m e st akehol ders are concerned t hat d el ays o r
changes t o related projects o r C ERP com ponents m ay jeopardize C ERP’s feasibility.
This concern was illustrated when l and acquisitions for t he Modified Water
Deliveries P roject were stalled due to litigation and protes t over t he use of eminent
domain. According t o t he CERP authoriz ation, without t h e completion of t he
Modified W ater Deliveries P roject, por tions of CERP could not be funded according
to federal l aw.6 Similarly, the delay or loss of funding, as p r o vided in these
appropriations bills for non-compliance with water quality standards, could also l ead
to delays in the overall restoration process.

5 H. Rept. No. 108-195, p. 39.
6 Water Resources Development Act of 2000, P.L. 106-541, T itle VI, §(b)(2)(D)(4).

Fl or i da E ver gl a des For ever Ac t Amendments
This Fl orida S tate Law, Chapter 2003-12, as amended (hereafter referred t o as
the Amended E FA) changes the E verglades Forev e r A ct o f 1994 (EFA; Florida
Statutes §373.4592) by authorizing a new plan t o mitigate phosphorus pollution i n
the E verglades, known as t he “Everglades P rotection Area Tributary Basins
Conceptual Plan for Achieving Long-Term W at er Quality Goal s Final Report” or
Long-Term P lan.7 This report p rovides f o r a p lanning process t o ensure t hat
d i s c h a rges of water i nto t he Evergl ades will comply with stat e wat er quality
standards and that phosphorus levels in these wat ers will not alter t he native
Evergl ades ecosyst em . In cont rast t o t h e EFA, t he new l aw contains provisions that
ap p ear to creat e flex i bility in this goal . For ex am ple, the Long-Term P lan i s t o b e
implemented from 2003 to 2016 and i s ex p ected to “provide the b est avai l able
phosphorus reduction t echnology”(§3(b)). Fu rther, the n ew law allows the Long-
Term P l an t o be changed t hrough adapt i v e m anagem ent , whi ch m ay l ead t o changes
in the implementatio n of phosphorus reduction activities and an ex tension o f any
compliance deadlines.8
The amended EFA does contai n provi sions that suggest the D ecember 2006
deadline for meeting t he phosphorus criterion is ex pected to be met. Fo r ex ample,
the b ill states that “by December 31, 2006, the d epartment and t he district shall t ake
such ac t i o n a s m ay be necessary to impleme nt the p re-2006 projects and strategi es
of the Long-Term P lan s o t hat wat er delivered to the Evergl a d e s P ro t ection Area
achieves i n all parts of t he Evergl ades Protection Area s tate water quality standards,
i n cl udi ng t h e phos phorus criteri on and m oderat i n g p rovi s i ons ” (§3(b)). Not e t h at t h i s
provision requires t he implementation o f p rojects and strategi es by December 2006
to achieve the phosphorus criterion, but does not require the phosphorus criterion be
met b y 2006. The n ew law does not specify a p a r t i cular date by which t he
phosphorus criterion must be met.9 The Long-Term P l an al s o s peci fi es t h at a s econd
10-year phase (2017-2026) to reduce phos phorus may be necessary t o achi eve t h e
Plan objective. The objective i n t he Plan is to obtai n, to the m ax imum ex t ent
practicable, a long-term geometric average phosphorus concentration i n waters
discharged to the E verglades t hat i s within the upper annual concentra t i o n limit of
the criterion as cal culated i n t he 2003 Everglades C onsolidated Report .10 This mean
has b een defined b y t he Fl orida Department of Environmental P rotection as 1 0 ppb
over a 5-year period, with no single year go ing b eyond 15 ppb.

7 Bur n s a nd M c Dowe l l , In c . , Final Report, Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins,
Conceptual Plan for Achieving Long-Term Quality Goals (March 17, 2003).
8 Adaptive management i s i ncorporating new information from scientific studies and from
new or unforeseen circumstances into the plans of a r estoration effort, t o assure that the
restoration goals are achieved most efficiently.
9 The Amended EFA states that “the Long-T erm Plan s hall be implemented f or an initial 13-
year phase (2003-2016) and s hall achieve wa ter quality standards r elating t o t he phosphorus
criterion in the Everglades protection area as determi ned by a network of monitoring stations
established f or this purpose” (§3(e)).
10 South Florida Water Management District, 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report (West
Palm Beach, FL: J a n. 1, 2003).

Criticism of Amendme n ts . The Amended EFA has generat ed criticism
from s ome s t a k e h o l ders in the Everglades restoration effort. S ome M embers of
Congress, environmentalists, t he Miccos u k e e T r i be, and others argu e t hat t he bill
al l o w s phosphorus mitigation t o ex t end far beyond a compliance d eadline o f
December 2006 set b y t he EFA and the C onsent Decree. Some critics also argue that
if phosphorus mitigation i s d el ayed, i t m ay compromise t he state and federal
governments’ efforts t o res tore th e E verglades, as well as jeopardize federal
approp r i ations for C ERP. In a j oint statem ent i ssued by si x U.S . R epresent at i v es,
five criticisms of the Amended EFA were listed: (1) t here is an uncertain period for
compliance with water quality standards; (2) t h e re i s uncertainty over t he water
quality standard for phosphorus discharge; (3) b ecause of delays i n phosphorus
mitigation, discharges of phosphorus-polluted w ater may enter federal l ands such as
Evergl ades National P ark; (4) this bill provides for discharges of phosphorus-polluted
water i n unpolluted d r y areas; and (5) t his b ill does not reflect the s tate’s intent to
fully fund water quality improvements i n t he Evergl ades and m ay shift s ome of t he
cost t o t h e federal governm ent .11
Support of Amendments. Proponents o f t he new l aw, which include the
Fl orida l egislature and agricultural i nteres ts in the Everglades, cl ai m t hat i t provides
a realistic opportunity for mitigating phosphorus pollution i n t he Evergl ades. S ome
claim t hat l owering t he phosphorus concentration i n t he Evergl ades by December
2006 to 10 ppb may not be feasible considering t he technology and implementation
of rest orat i o n p roj ect s t o d at e. Indeed, t hey argue t h at i t i s m o re cost -effect i v e and
productive t o implement a s ubstitute plan fo r t he plan provided i n t he original EFA,
as (1) s ome o f t he more ex pens i v e p roject s are aimed at waters which contribute
relatively little phosphorus to the Everglades and (2 ) C ERP p rojects i ncorporate
water quality standards and cal l for diverting wat er aw ay from t he Evergl ades
anyw ay. U nder t hi s n ew pl an , t h e y argue, C ERP and state efforts t o l ower
phosphorus will work together more efficiently, and that the 1994 law d id not foresee
the creation o f C ERP. They support a n e w p l a n for restoring water quality that
incorporates adaptive m anage m e n t and the b est t echnology available t o reduce
phosphorus. Further, s ome p roponent s argue th at the new law will lead to fewer
lawsuits and will allow restoration p rojects t o p r o c eed without delays from an
ex cessive number o f l awsuits.
Second Set of Amendments. In response t o critics o f t he amendments, a
second set o f amendments (Chapter 2003-394) was p assed i n J une 2003 amending
the EFA a second time. This second set of amendments deleted phrases that implied
that phosphorus pol l u t i o n w as ex pected to be mitigated to the “max imum ex t ent
practicable,” and i ncluded p rovisions that emphasiz ed t hat p rojects p lanned for
implementation prior to 2006 not be delayed. This amendment d id not ex plicitly set
a 2006 deadline, or any d eadline, for phosphorus mitigation. In stead, t his l aw
pro v i d e d for flex ibility in the plan t o mitigate phosphorus through an adaptive
m anagem ent process. The s econd set o f am endm ent s changed rel at i v el y few of t h e

11 Joint statement by Representatives C.W. Bill Young, David Hobson, Ralph Regula,
Charles T aylor , Cl ay Shaw, and Porter Goss, released by the House Committee on
Appropriations, April 29, 2003.

new p rovisions, and many of the s ame arguments criticizing and supporting t he law
Over vi ew of Phosphor us Pol l uti on i n t he Ever gl ades
Phosphorus in the E ve rglade s . Phosphorus is one of the p rimary water
pollutants i n t he Evergl ades and i s generally thought to be caused b y n atural leaching,
urban runoff, and agricult u r a l r unoff from s ugar plantations, v egetable farms, and
lives tock operations (e.g., from animal was te). Some researchers have also attributed
phos phorus in the Everglades t o atmospheric d epos ition, but measurement t echniques
and val ues for this are highly uncertain. The 2003 Everglades C onsolidated Report
documents total phosphorus concent r a tions as being h ighest in the northern
Evergl ades (wat ers fl o wi ng i n t o LN W R and W at er C onservat i o n A reas; s ee Fi gu re
1), and lowest in the s outhern Evergl ades , where ENP i s l ocated. T he report s tates
that this is indicative o f phosphorus-rich wa ter i n t he canals t hat carry water from t he
Evergl ades Agricultural Area, although u rban runoff h as also been identified as
contributing phosphorus to the Everglades.
Effects of E xcessive Phosphorus. In the Everglades, as in other
ecosystems, ex cessive levels of phosphorus and o ther nutrients lead to
eutrophication. E utrophication i s a natural p rocess t hat o ccurs when bodies of water
e x p e r i e n ce an increase i n t he inflow of nut rients, i ncluding phosphorus, l eading t o
an i n crease i n o rgani c m at t er (e.g. , p l ant s i n t he case o f t he Evergl ades). W h en pl ant s
begi n t o d i e and d ecom pose, t h ey consum e d i ssol v ed ox ygen from t he wat er. A rapi d
inflow of ex cessive nutri e n t s c a n speed this process t o an unnatural p ace. If
dissolved ox ygen levels fall substantially and rapidly, fis h and aquatic plant
populations will suffer. Eutrophication also favors p lants t hat can use h igh l evels o f
nutrients. For ex ample, ex cessive leve ls of phosphorus in the Everglades i s t hought
to be the p rimary factor behind the conversion o f n ative s awgrass m a r s h es and12
sloughs to vegetation stands dominat ed by cattails. This shift in v eget at i o n has
resulted i n l ess h abitat for wading bird s and other wildlife and reduced populations
of s everal native plant speci es . Further, t he rapid growth of cattails is partly
responsible for cloggi ng waterways and altering the h yd r o logy in parts o f t he
History of E ve rglades P hosphorus Pollution. Th e b eginning of
ex cessive phosphorus input into the Everglades can be trace d b a c k to the 1940s,
when se v e r a l t h o u sand acres of land were cleared and converted to agricultural
production. This clearing ex posed soils, which began t o erode and l each phosphorus

12 Davi s, S. M., 1994. “Phosphorus Inputs and Vegetation Sensitivity in the Everglades” in
Evergl ades: T he Ecosys tem a nd It s Restora tion, S. M. Davi s a nd J . C. Ogden ( Eds.), St.
Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida, Chapter 15, p. 357. T he c ontribution of phosphorus to
increasing cattail populations was also r ecognized by a l l parties t o settlement agreement:
“Excess phosphorus accumulates i n t he peat underl yi ng the water...and disturbs the natural
species c o mposition...these disturbed communities deplete the marsh of oxygen, and,
ultimately, result in native sawgr ass and wet prairie communities being replaced by dense
cattail stands or other nutrient-tolerant ecosystems.” United States v. South Florida Water
Management District, e t al., Case No. 88-1886-Ci v-Hoeveler, Settlement Agreement, J uly


into waterways t hat connected to the E v e r glades. Production i ntensified after t he
Cuban revolution i n 1959, as Cuban ex iles fle d t o Florida and established s ugar
plantations. By t he mid-1960s, Florida sugar p roduction h ad increased four-fold. 13
Today, sugarcane p roduction contributes two-thirds of the economic production o f
Evergl ades agr i c u l t u re, and uses nearl y 80% of t h e crop l and i n t he Evergl ades
Agricultural Area (EAA)14. (See Figure 1.) Sugar production contributes phosphorus
to the ecosystem primarily throu gh f ertilizers and to a l esser ex t ent t hrough
decomposition of plants. Fertilizers and plant decomposition are also the main
causes o f phosphorus leaching from v egetable production.
1988 Law s uit a nd 1992 Consent Decree. By the 1980s, t he problem with
phos phorus had gained visibility. In 1988, the federal government sued the S out h
Fl orida W ater Management D i strict (S FW MD) and the Florida Department of
Environmental R egulation, 15 allegi ng that thes e agencies were not enforcing s tate
water quality standards i n ENP and t he LNWR. S tate water quality standards at t he
time included a narrative criteri on stating t hat nutrient concentrations in water s hould16
not cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. After
nearly three years o f l itigation, the p arties reached a s ettlement in 1991
acknowledging t hat water entering LNW R did cause such an imbalance in violation
of stat e wat er quality standards, and t hat w at er en t e ri ng ENP from t he stat e W at er17

Conservation Areas also contai ned h armful levels of phosphorus.
13 U.S. Dept. of Agr iculture, Economic Research Service, U.S. Sugar Statistical
Compendium, ( Washington, DC: August 1991), p. 30.
14 South Florida Water Management District, Environmental Conditions Update (West Pa l m
Beach, FL: April 2001).
15 T his agency was t he forerunner of t o d a y’ s Florida Departme nt of Envi ronmental
16 United States v. South Florida Water M anagement District, et al., Case No. 88-1886-Civ-
Hoeveler, Settlement Agreement, J uly 26, 1991, p. 3.
17 United States v . South Florida Water M anagement District, e t al., Case No. 88-1886-Civ-
Hoeveler, Settlement Agreement, J uly 26, 1991, p. 3.

Figure 1 . S outh Florida Ecosys te m — Past and P resent
O rl ando
E ver gl ades A gr ic ult u ra l A r ea
A r t hur R . Mar s hal lLoxa hat ch ee N at ionalSem inole
W i ld li f e R e f ug eTr ibe
Mi c cos ukeeTr ibe
Big C ypr es sReserve WaterC onser v at ion
Ar eas
Mi a m i
E ver gl adesN at iona l P ar k
Source: Ad apted from a map created by the South Flo r id a E c o syste m T a sk Fo r c e
T h e s ettlement outlined the s teps Fl orida would t ake t o res tore and m ai ntai n wat er
quality, i ncluding:
! achieving specified interim phosphor us limits by 1997 and s pecified long-
t e r m p h osphorus limits by 2002 (later ex tended t o 2006) in the ENP an d
! es tablishing Stormwat er Treatment Areas (STAs), which are l arge filtration
marshes t hat would filter agricu ltural runoff from t he EAA; and
! establishing a regulatory p ermit program requiring farme r s t o u se Best
Management Practi c e s (BMPs) to reduce agricultural run-off (including18
phosphorus) from t he EAA.
The phosphorus limits established were d ifferent for LNWR and ENP. Fo r ex ample,
by J u ly 2002, water i n t he Shark R iver Slough i n eastern ENP was supposed to meet
phosphorus limits o f l e s s t h an 8 ppb (in a wet year) t o l ess t han 1 3 ppb (in a dry
year). Water i n LNWR was ex pected to meet phosphorus limits of 7 ppb (in a wet

18 Id., pp. 9-11. Best ma nage me nt practices ar e voluntary management t echniques used by
farmers aimed at reducing agr icultural r un-off, among other t hings.

year) t o 1 7 ppb (in a dry year) b y J uly 2002.19 As part of the phosphorus reduction
strategy, S TAs and BM Ps were ex pected to limit phosphorus in waters flowing from
the EAA into LNW R to a l ong-term average of 50 ppb.20 This settlement agreem ent
was entered as part of a C onsent Decree in United S tates v . S outh Florida W ater
Management District (847 F. Supp. 1567) in 1992.
1994 Florida E ve rglades Forever Ac t. Litigation ensued after the C onsent
Decree was reached. In 1994, Florida p assed its EFA i n an attempt t o end lawsuits
and administrative appeal s generat ed from t he settlement agreem ent. This Act
provided t he cur r e n t framework for restoration efforts i n Florida regarding water
quality and phosphorus pollution. It differed from t he Consent Decree in two
important ways: (1) it covered state Everglades lands in addition to federal
Evergl ades lands, and (2) i t established a d eadline for meeting state water quality
requirements b y December 31, 2006.21 The E FA also acknowledged that waters22
entering the Everglades contained an ex cessive level o f phosphorus and p rovided
for: (1) implementat i on of t he Evergl ades Construction P roject through t he
construction o f s ix STAs; (2) monit o r i n g and research programs in the EAA; (3) a
mandate for t he Fl orida Department of Environmental P rotection (DEP) to propose
a numerical phosphorus criteri on and adopt a rule by December 31, 2003, with a
default criterion of 10 ppb if this is n o t achieved; (4) creation of an agricultural23
privilege tax i n t he C-139 basin (agricultural area) and EAA; (5) t h e r i gh t o f t he
SFW M D, t o use funds from Florida’s Pres ervation 2000 program t o construct24
STAs; and (6) by December 31, 2006, the DEP an d t h e S FW M D m ust t ake t he
necessary actions to en s u re that water delivered to the EAA achieves state water25
quality standards and the phosphorus criterion. It al so speci fi ed t h at t h e agri cul t u ral
sector use BMPs t o l ower phosphorus runoff.
Results of 1994 EFA. Phosphorus mitigation by agriculture in the
Evergl ades seem s t o b e worki ng. S om e s t akeholders p o i n t t o this to justify added
flex ibility in reaching phosphorus mitigation goals. D u e to BM Ps and S TAs,
phosphorus loads in the Everglades have been decreasing. The 2004 D r a f t
Everglades C onsolidated Report by SFW M D s tates t hat t he BM Ps and S TAs h ave

19 Id. a t pp. 9-10 and a t Appendix B pp. 3-4.
20 Id.atp.11.
21 Ri zza r d i , “T ranslating Science into Law: Phosphorus Standards i n t he Evergl ades,”
Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, Fall 2001, p.153.
22 Id .
23 An agricultural privilege tax i s a t a x on crop l and t hat i s under production and located
within the Everglades Agr icultural Area. The t ax is assessed on a per-acre basis, and s ome
proceeds from t he tax are entered i nto t he state’s Everglades T rust Fund, which i s used t o
fund restoration activities i n t he Evergl ades.
24 T he Preservation 2000 program i s a state f und used for t he acquisition and protection of
nearly 1.25 million acres of land in Florida.
25 Florida Stat. §373.4592 (2000). Pursuant t o t he Clean W a t er Act a nd corresponding
federal r egulations, t he Miccosukee T ribe established its own water quality standards,
including a numeric criterion for phosphorus at 10 ppb.

reduced average t otal phosphorus discharges from t he stormwater treatment areas to
about 35 ppb of phosphorus (with a potential range of 25-45 ppb), compared t o t he
interim goal o f 5 0 ppb established b y t he 1994 Act. The report also s tates t hat t hese
practices removed m ore t han 1,400 tons of phosphorus that otherwise would h ave
ent ered t he Evergl ades. 26
2003 Long-Term Plan. In 2003, the S FW MD Governing Board determined
that meeting t he deadlines in the o r i gi n a l EFA (without integrating C ERP p rojects
with SFWMD project s) would require actions in addition t o t h e STAs and BMPs,
many of which would be costly — approx imately $700 million — and possibly27
unnecessary once C ERP components are in place. The board decide d i n s t e a d to
recommend flex i b i l ity in achieving the phosphorus criterion to allow S FW MD
projects t o b e i ntegrated with CERP project s. Based o n t hese concerns and a review
of the reduced phosphorus levels in water d ischarged i nto t he Evergl ades Protection
Area, the board endorsed t he Everglades Protection Area T ributary B a s ins
Conceptual Plan for Achieving Long-Term Water Qualit y Goals Final Report or
Long-Term P lan. This plan recommends an initial phase from 2003-2016 for
achieving the 1 0 ppb threshold for phosphorus and a second phase of 2017-2023 if
needed. T he plan has t hree primary compone nts, including (1) t he implementation
of structural and operational m odificati ons to projects t hat aim to lower phosphorus
levels in the Everglades (e.g. , S TAs) by December 2006; (2) optimiz ation o f water
quality performance and i ntegration with CERP by December 2006; and (3) adaptive
management and res ulting m odifications and improvements t o enhance water quality
after December 2006.28 This plan formed the bas is for Florida’s am endments to the
Further Historical Context. The p recedi n g h i s t o ry provi des s om e cont ex t
for t he FY2004 appropriations provisions that restrict federal funding for E verglades
restoration bas ed on compliance w i t h water quality standards. The following
appendices provide further contex t i n t he form of (1) a historical timeline o f efforts
to address Everglades phosphorus pollutio n a n d (2) a side-by-side analys is of
pending appropriati ons legi slation.

26 SFWMD, Draft 2004 Everglades Consolidated Report , Chapter 8A: Water Quality Goals,
27 Id. a t 11, “Executive Summa ry”, p. ES-4.
28 Id., pp. ES-5 to ES-7.

Appendix A: T imeline o f Phosphorus M itigation in Florida
1988 Lawsuit: T he f ederal gove rnment sues the State of Florida a nd South
Florida Water Management District, a llegi ng that urban and agricultural
water e ntering Eve rglades National Park ( ENP) and Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge ( LNWR) contain l evels of phosphorus that exceed state
water quality standards. (United States v. South Florida Waterth
Management District , 922 F.2d 704 (11 Cir. 1991).)

1992 Consent Decree: Parties t o l awsuit settle, agr eeing to:

! establish numeric limits for phosphorus in ENP a nd LNWR;
! construct Stormwater T reatment Ar eas (STAs) to filter water
flowing from t he Evergl ades Agricultural Area ( EAA) ;
! require farmers t o use Best Management Pr actices (BMPs) to
reduce phosphorus in water l eaving t he EAA; and
! require waters flowing t o ENP and LNWR t o meet state water
quality standards by J uly 1, 2002.
( United States v . South Florida Water M anagement District , Case No. 88-
1886-Ci v-Hoeveler, M emorandum Opinion a nd Or der Entering Settleme nt
Agreement a s Consent Decree (Feb. 24, 1992).)
Effort to use SWIM: T he South Florida Water Management District
attempts to use t he “Surface Water Improvement Management” ( SWIM )
process t o i mpleme nt the Consent Decree. By December 1992 SFWMD
faces s everal Evergl ades-r elated laws uits and s eeks a mediated solution.
1993 Statement of Principles: Federal, state and agricultural groups reach an
agreement called a “statement of principles” and make significant
financial commitments to improve water quality. Parties agr ee to:
! j oint commitment ending litigation;
! construct ST As; and
! implement agr icultural BMPs.

1994 Evergl ades Construction Proj ect (ECP): Design completed f or ECP.

Includes six ST As to filter almost 1.4 million acre-feet of water f lowi nga
from t he EAA before i t r eaches the Everglades Protection Area. The
ECP i s e xpected to reduce phosphorus to an “interim leve l” of 50 ppb.
Evergl ades Foreve r Act: T he Florida legi slature passes t he Evergl ades
Forever Act, covering state and f ederal waters. It applies t o both state and
federal Everglades l ands and changes the deadline t o meet water quality
standards t o Dec. 31, 2006. It requires i mpleme ntation of t he ECP a nd the
! by Dec. 31, 2003, Florida DEP must establish a numeric
phosphorus criterion for t he Evergl ades; i f not, default criterion
for phosphorus will be 10 ppb.
! by Dec. 31, 2003, SFWMD must seek a permi t t o modify the
ECP, and must e nsure c ompliance with phosphorus and other
wa ter quality standards by Dec. 31, 2006; and
! by Dec. 31, 2006, waters entering Evergl ades Protection Area
must achieve state s tandards f or phosphorus.

1996 BMPs : Farmers in the EAA begi n i mplementing Best Management

1997 Evergl ades Construction Proj ect: Construction begins on STAs.

2000 Comprehensive Plan: T he Water Resources Deve lopment Act of 2000
authorizes the Comprehensive Evergl ades Restoration Plan ( “CERP”),
with an estimated cost of $7.8 billion t o be s hared by t he federal and state
2001 New Federal Deadline: J udge William Hoeveler agr ees to extend the
deadlines in the Consent Decree f or meeting water quality standards from
J uly 1, 2002 to Dec. 31, 2006, as specified in the EFA.
2003 Challenges to Meeting 10 ppb by December 2006: The SFWMD
! actions in addition t o ST As and BM Ps are needed to reach 10 ppbb
by the Dec. 2006 deadline;
! such actions would be very costly if done independently of
CERP; others would be unnecessary once CERP i s i n place; and
! therefore, achieving cost-effective i mprovements i nvolves
integr ating SFWMD proj ects with CERP proj ects.
March Long-T erm Plan : SFWMD Governing Board determines need for

2003 flexibility in meeting 10 ppb standard. Plan i nvolves:

! initial phase of 2003-2016 and s econd phase of 2017-2023;
! implement a s many pre-2006 improvements to ST As as possible
to optimize STA performance; and
! plan obj ective i s t o obtain phosphorus concentration i n water
flowing t o Eve rglades t hat i s “ within the upper a nnual
concentration limit of the [ phosphorus] criterion as calculated by
the Department i n t he 2003 Evergl ades Consolidated Report.”
Apr i l ST A Status: c
2003 ! Four of six ST As operational
! ST As reduce phosphorus to about 40 ppb (a 63% reduction)
Letter from M embers of Congress: Reps. Young (FL), Regula, Hobson,
T a yl or (NC), Shaw a nd Goss releas e a j oint statement on t he pending
Florida l egislature bill to amend t he 1994 EFA. T hey call on Florida’s
governor to rej ect the bill because it creates uncertainty over when
phosphorus standard will be achieve d.
May Fi rst Amendments to EFA: In M ay 2003, Florida a me nds the EFA. T he


! delete requirements t o meet phosphorus criterion by 2006;
! require implementation of t he Long-T erm Plan i nitial phase
(2003-2016), i ncluding moderating provi sions, t o achieve
phosphorus standards “to the maximum extent practicable;” and
! specify t hat permits issued by Florida DEP be based on best
available phosphorus reduction t echnology ( BAPRT ) and
technology-based effluent limitation.

J une Second Amendment t o EFA: Florida a me nds the EFA again i n what i s

2003 referred t o as “the glitch bill.” T his bill:

! specifies moderating provi sions shall not extend beyond 2016;
! requires pre-2006 proj ects i n Long-T erm Plan be i mplemented
without delay; and
! eliminates “maximum extent practicable” l anguage.
July Florida Phosphorus Regulation: Florida’s Environmental Regulation
2003 Commi ssion issues phosphorus rule, s etting s tandard at long-t erm
ge ometric mean of 10 ppb. T he r ule:
! specifies t hat methods in the 1992 Consent Decree shall be used
to measure whether the phosphorus criterion has been achieved i n
LNWR and Eve r gl a des NP;
! includes “ moderating provi sions” s tating t hat until Dec. 31, 2016,
discharges into or within the Everglades Protection Area ( defined
as state Water Conservation Areas and ENP) shall be permitted i f
the applicant i s using BAPRT;
! recognizes “reflux,” the diffusion of old phosphorus-l aden
sediments back i nto t he water, as one reason the r estoration will
be a l ong-t erm process; and
! states that the r ule i s i ntended t o achieve phosphorus levels
established f or LNWR and Eve rglades NP i n t he 1991 Settleme nt
Sour ce: Co ngr essional Research Service.
a. 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report,p.4.
b. 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report,p.26.
c. 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report,p.13.

Appendix B : C omparison o f Pending Legislation
.L. 108-137 (Energy and Water P .L. 108-108 (Interior an d Related Agencies
Devel o pm ent Appropri at i o ns) Appropri at i o ns) Comment s
r my Corps Construction General National P ark Service Construction Account
for “ preserva tion a nd Funds for M odified Waters Delivery Proj ect –P.L. 108-137 could be i nterpreted to cover all funding in
of t he Florida Everglades” “appropriated i n t his Act and i n any prior Acts” shall be bill that is relevant to restoring t he Evergl ades, estimated at
be available unless all four available unless t he Secretar y of t he Interior, Secretary $104.5 million. T he default is that funds are available
apply: of the Army, EPA Administrator and Attorney General unless water quality and phosphorus standards are not met.
T he Secretary of t he Ar my finds j ointly find that waters entering Loxahatchee NWR and
waters entering Loxahatchee Evergl ades NP and water s t hroughout those a reas –P.L. 108-108 refers to FY2004 and prior ye ar funds for
iki/CRS-RL32131R a nd Evergl ades do not meet (1) do not meet state water quality standards, numeric the Modified Waters Delivery proj ect, as well as prior year
g/wter quality requirements i n 1992 phosphorus criteria, and 1992 Consent Decree water land acquisition f unds. If r eport determi nes waters do not
s.orDecree; quality requirements and meet standards, funds are not available.
leakState fails to submit plan for (2) House a nd Senate Appropriations disapprove of
://wikipliance within 45 days of Ar my spending – P.L. 108-108 cove rs water in ENP a nd LNWR as we ll aswater e ntering t hose a reas; whereas P.L. 108-137 (House)
httpArmy s ends second report s aying P.L. 108-108 specifies i n t he National Park Servi ce refers to waters entering ENP and LNWR.
has not submitted plan; and Land Acquisition and State Assistance account that the
Either House or Senate Departme nt of the Interior s hould r edirect funds
Committee previously appropriated ( estimated at $32 million) to
es of spending assist Florida i n buying l ands near the Everglades.
Funds should be used t o benefit LNWR. Any rema ining
funds should be used t o benefit lands ma nage d by t he
Department of the Interior i n South Florida.
r equired not later t han 30 Report r equired by 90 days after bill enactment Both laws include requireme nts t o meet 1992 Consent
s after e nactme nt (Dec. 31, 2003). (February 8, 2004) and a nnually until December 2006. Decree. P.L. 108-108 also requires water to meet state
standards and the numeric phosphorus criteria.

.L. 108-137 (Energy and Water P .L. 108-108 (Interior an d Related Agencies
Devel o pm ent Appropri at i o ns) Appropri at i o ns) Comment s
r my Corps Construction General National P ark Service Construction Account
. Rpt. 108-212) Committee has (H. Rept. 108-195) House Committee c oncerned t hat The House Committee r eport f or Interior Appropriations
l anguage t o divert change s t o s tate’s Evergl ades Foreve r Act (EFA) contains additional r equirements f or reports to be
ergl ades funds to other uses i f “represent a departure from t he commitments to submitted by t he EPA. This report contains several pages
does not meet Consent Decree improve quality of water entering t he Evergl ades by of Committee c oncerns about Florida’s new amendments
December 31, 2006...T he Committee made its position to the EFA, noting t hat t he Committee has funded over $1
...very c lear: c lean water by December 2006, no mi xing billion f or Evergl ades Restoration and that funds will not
Rpt. 108-105) Committee directs zones, no relief from achievi ng the 10 ppb standard. be available unless t he report r equired by t he bill finds
A Administrator to certify by T here must be an open, transparent process with all Fl orida i s meeting its obligations to improve water entering

30, 2003 and a nnually through stakeholders participating...Future efforts t o r estore the LNWR and ENP consistent with the 1992 Consent Decree.

iki/CRS-RL32131to House a nd Senate Evergl ades are now at risk. Given the uncertainty of
g/wmittees on Appropriations, when the State will actually achieve the planned water
s.orCommittee on T ransportation quality improvements, t he Committee believes t hat
leakInfrastructure and Senate future Federal f unding for Everglades r estoration s hould
i ronment a nd Public Works be tied t o specific progr ess t o i mprove water quality.”
://wikimmittee t hat water entering
httpWR and ENP meets s tate water H. Rpt. 108-195 Directs EPA Admi nistrator t o s ubmit T he House Report f or Interior Appropriations also states
standards, state phosphorus two r eports: ( 1) whether EPA approved amendments to the Committee i s pleased Gov. Bush said that Fl orida
and Consent Decree EFA i n a ccordance with Clean Water Act; (2) whether intends to comply with the Consent Decree.

e nts. House a nd Senate EPA a pproved Florida r ule on numeric phosphorus
Committees must criterion and ( 3) whether criterion will protect federal
in wr iting t hat f unds are resources consistent with Consent Decree requirements.
ailable f or expenditure.
Land acquisition: report notes recent changes to the
Evergl ades Forever Act may mean t hat “acquisition of
additional l ands for CERP [ the j oint federal-state
restoration] may not be the highest priority for

.L. 108-137 (Energy and Water P .L. 108-108 (Interior an d Related Agencies
Devel o pm ent Appropri at i o ns) Appropri at i o ns) Comment s
r my Corps Construction General National P ark Service Construction Account
No deadline s pecified for EPA reports, a nd no funding
conditioned on EPA report f indings.
(H. Rept. 108-195)
T he c onference report, H. Rept. 108-330, states that the
manage rs have included l anguage c ontained i n t he
House bill regarding r elease of Modified Water
Deliveries f unds and use of unobligated land acquisition