• Politics Live Online • On Politics • Sign up for the OnPolitics Daily Report • Talk: OnPolitics message boards • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

The Everglades
With Robert Dawson
Washington Lobbyist
Tuesday, June 25, 2002; 3 p.m. EDT

In December 2000, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was launched and a truly extraordinary odyssey began: a 38-year push to turn the 4,000-page CERP into 52 water projects. While it’s not clear if CERP might or might not restore a national treasure, it will definitely spend billions of federal dollars to subsidize development and agribusiness in a state already living beyond its ecological means.

Lobbyist Robert K. Dawson was online to discuss the $7.8 billion project to restore the Florida Everglades.

Dawson is the president of Dawson & Associates, a Washington D.C. based government relations/issue advocacy firm that deals with environmental permitting and regulatory compliance, water resources and other natural resources, economic development, energy, defense, infrastructure and government contracting. Current clients include the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Florida Citrus Mutual, Florida Crystals, Inc., Florida Farm Bureau, Florida Power Corporation, Florida Rice Council, Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc., Landon Management/Agripartners based in Florida and the Florida Department of Transportation.

Dawson has also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works where he headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Associate Director of the Office Management and Budget at the White House where he was responsible for all budget and policy issues for the Agriculture, Energy and Interior Departments, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA and NASA.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C.: How do you characterize the Post's articles so far? Do you think they have been fair to your clients? What do you feel is important for people to keep in mind regarding the Everglades and corporate interests? Thank you.

Robert Dawson: Good afternoon. I'm looking forward to answering your questions and, in the process, I expect to learn some important things. Let's do it!

Hello Washington, DC, neighbor.

While I would have some specific disagreements, I think the series has been generally fair and balanced. I think the articles so far reflect a genuine mastery of some very difficult subjects, and I think the short explanations are very helpful. I think the most important message is that this is a plan to meet all future water needs in South Florida. It represents the best in holistic watershed planning. Concerning corporate interests, I think it is important that all participants truly listen to the facts and to the science. I am pleased, for example, that today's article provides proper recognition to Florida agriculture in general and the sugar industry in particular for taking helpful, decisive steps that are very relevant to Everglades restoration.

Palmetto Bay, Fla.: In his articles, Mr. Grunwald portrays the Corps as being merely a patsy for development interests in South Florida. Do you believe that the Corps is failing to properly regulate growth and giving away precious wetlands in the permitting process?

Robert Dawson: The law simply does not make the Corps of Engineers a land use control agency...that is properly the responsibility of local and state authorities. All in all, I think the Corps performs a very difficult job extremely well, to the extent the law gives it authority to regulate in these areas.

Arlington, Va.: Yesterday, a Boston resident asked Mike Grunwald why he should help (as a Federal taxpayer) clean up the Florida Everglades. The Bostonian inferred this was a state problem, and those who made the problems in Florida should pay. How would you respond to such a question, particularly about the $4 billion Federal share of the cleanup?

Robert Dawson: We consider the Everglades to be a national treasure. The Congress clearly recognized that when it did the unprecedented step of picking up 50% of project costs. This also will provide a national model to be used in many other parts of the country that face similar environmental restoration challenges.

Jacksonville, Fla.: With your past experience with the Corps, what is your opinion of the Corps' ability to change their regulation style to ensure that true restoration can be accomplished? Will this new approach serve as a model for reforming the Corps?

Robert Dawson: The Corps has proved all over the world, including work on the Israeli air bases that it has a tremendous capacity to adapt to changing times and to do whatever is necessary within the law to get it done.

In my lifetime, I have witnessed the Corps move remarkably in the direction of environmental restoration. I think this is essential given the fact that many of the Corps ancient missions have been largely met.

So I believe that the Corps will adapt and that this adaptation may indeed serve as a model for reform.

The number of participants is staggering with all the various interests... so all of those interests will have a say in the future direction of the Corps.

Belle View, Va.: What is the difference between lobbying and bribery? When companies contribute money to a politician, they expect to get the votes that they have purchased. My teacher in school says that paying bribes is how our system of government really works. He also said that most corporate lobbying firms are former government officials that use the "revolving door" of access to buy whatever laws that will make them more money. Why isn't this form of bribery against the law?

Robert Dawson: Your teacher simply does not understand our system of government and is wrong about this. Lobbying is something our Constitution safeguards in the Bill of Rights by providing every citizen the right to petition his or her government. This is a right not many people on the planet have in as protected a way as we.

Government today is so complex that often professional help in the form of lobbying is essential to prevent the right to petition our government's becoming an empty right.

If your teacher wants the truth, ask him to call me.

Bribery is clearly against the law and there are people serving time today to prove it.

Lobbying in America is appropriately highly regulated and overseen by the media and others. All of this prevents the kind of abuse your question raises.

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Hey, after the new Floridians pave over the Everglades and drain the acquifer till they're sucking air, what do they propose to do then about fresh, clean drinking water? Mother Nature isn't making anymore of it. I'm an engineer, I know. Thanks much.

Robert Dawson: I have been impressed with the sensitivity of most of the Floridians with whom I have interacted on this project....environmentalists, farmers, and ordinary citizens, and I don't believe any of them much less the high caliber public servants working on this project will allow this paving your question facetiously suggests to occur.

Let's hope that the people living in Florida today and those that will live there in the future will be effective custodians of these great resources. It will take a lot of hard work and the Everglades Restoration project provides a good foundation. The project along with the Kissimee project are good examples of how this can work.

Silver Spring, Md.: The article on panther habitat in today's paper basically gives Dawson & Associates credit for getting the FWS to back down on mitigation for the airport expansion road. Is that the case? Also, how can the Corps not be in the business of land use? It grants permits for development projects that are built on land and destroy wetlands.

Robert Dawson: Hello Silver Spring. The initial Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation request was excessive, I don't think intentionally so, but based on incomplete science.

I don't believe the USFWS "backed down".... rather the science showed what a reasonable mitigation amount truly was.

I use land use control in the legal governmental sense and section 404 of the Clean Water Act addresses just that, clean water, not regional and local land use authorities.

Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.: Do you (and your clients) support the "consensus" of the Sustainable South Florida Commission?

Robert Dawson: I simply don't know the specifics of the sustainable South Florida commission so I can not comment. Sorry.

McLean, Va.: As much of the problem has been caused by the Sugar Industry, it seems rather bizarre to praise them for their "help." How much do they pay you for protecting them from having to account for the years of abuse and destruction of the Everglades?

Robert Dawson: They don't pay me anything to protect them from past actions. It is absolutely a fact confirmable by anyone that was close to the passage of WRDA 2000 and its Everglades restoration provisions that the bill would not have passed if Florida agriculture generally and the sugar industry specifically had not joined with key environmental groups to support the best chance available to save the Everglades.

I am pleased that Mr. Grunwald's article puts in proper perspective the role of the sugar industry, including the extents to which it has gone, exceeding legal requirements to address its own environmental issues.

West Palm Beach, Fla.: Isn't it true that Congress conditionally authorized CERP recognizing that the plan hadn't gone through the level of planning, technical, economic and environmental analysis to justify appropriations? It is our understanding that once the pilot studies and Project Implemetnation Reports are completed, the Corps will have a better idea on how to proceed with Everglades restoration. Did Congress envision a balanced approach to enlarging the water pie to prevent western-style water wars between the built and natural environment?

Robert Dawson: Yes. Congress took a chance in conditionally authorizing these projects without reports. I believe, however, that there is broad confidence in the plan framework that the Corps developed.

Congress did indeed envision a balanced approach, and I believe it is clear that the water pie can be enlarged. There are ample safeguards and it will be all our responsibility to work hard to see the original vision is attained.

Ft. Myers, Fla.: Do you believe that the CERP can benefit both people and the environment at the same time? Or must one take precedence over the other?

Robert Dawson: If it's done right, it benefits everybody.

Not only can CERP benefit both, it must. Let's remember, however, that Everglades restoration is the engine running this vehicle. My clients certainly understand and support that.

Arlington, Va.: Are you familiar with the 400+ miles of gravel roads currently being constructed throughout the Everglades? What's your response to these roads and the impact they will have on waterflow and the ecology? Why is this being allowed, given the "restoration" effort underway?

Robert Dawson: No, I am sorry that I am not familiar with that, but I would welcome more information.

West Palm Beach, Fla.: I would rather have the Sugar industry be more independent in their ability to pay for their own mitigation and management practices, and charge higher sugar prices, to reflect the damage that the crop does to the environment. Why should I, as a taxpayer, support my taxes going to the conflicting interests of sugar subsidies and projects that correct the negative effects of those practices?

Robert Dawson: The strength of the CERP is unifying and combining a seemingly endless number of often conflicting interests. I believe it would be a mistake and, in fact, would diminish the chances of success, to have a piecemeal approach such as you seem to suggest.

Annandale, Va.: Bob, I think it's interesting that you're introduced on this site as a "Washington lobbyist." Yet it fails to mention that your experience includes serving as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, overseeing the Army Corps of Engineers.

With that background, perhaps you can offer some comment on the Corps' processes, especially in the case of the Everglades. Didn't Congress ignore many of its usual processes when it authorized Everglades restoration? no cost-benefit analysis, no report from the Chief of Engineers, etc.

Seems like they're in a no-win situation: Congress tells them what to do, then Congress (and Michael Grunwald) turn around and criticize them for doing what they've been directed to do.

Robert Dawson: Dear Annandale, when I read your first paragraph I thought this question was from my wife, but the rest showed that not to be the case.

I think the urgency of the Everglades restoration indeed necessitated some unusual steps by the Congress and for that matter, by the Corps, the Department of the Interior and other key Federal players.

While I think Mr. Grunwald has been very hard on the Corps in some of his past writings, most of that was due, I believe, to the Corps' inability of unwillingness to talk to him and present its side of the story effectively. The current leadership of the Corps and the Army has changed all that and for example, I know Mr. Grunwald has had unfettered access to all the key players in writing this current series. I believe the Corps' role as described in the articles I have read thusfar reflects that much improved communication.

Speaking as the former Assistant Secretary for Civil Works (and for that matter, as a former senior official of the Office of Management and Budget), I know it has been the Corps' experience to get chosen to do very difficult missions. The difficulty of the missions puts them in very controversial positions, and that is the history of the Corps. The Corps has traditionally been selected by the Congress and by various Administrations to take on very tough and difficult issues which almost of necessity attracts criticism and controversy. I believe from my experience that the Corps will end up working closely with all other Federal agencies, state agencies and local people to get a result for which all of us can be proud. Exchanges like this today and the media focus will help achieve that result.

Washington, D.C.: Who do you think is to blame for the present sad state of the Everglades? Several people quoted in the series say that people buying homes in Florida should look in the mirror, yet homebuyers are never told by salespeople about the damage their nice little subdivision did to the environment.

Robert Dawson: Those to blame are too numerous to list but certainly a culprit is the fact that not too many years ago human lives were being lost in the thousands in Florida by flooding and something had to be done. Thankfully, we are much more enlightened today about how to accomplish multipurpose missions and I think it is safe to say that the environment has skyrocketed on nearly every agenda.

More disclosure in every arena, including the one you describe might well be helpful.

Aventura, Fla.: After reviewing some of the questions that have been coming in, I'm a little confused. Isn't the CERP designed to be a broad plan that addresses replumbing the entire state of Florida and not simply focusing on water quality issues related to sugar? Aren't some of these questions a little misdirected? Even Mike Grunwald addressed other factors today in his articles.

Robert Dawson: I think you are absolutely correct except I would point out that the plan is not aimed at the entire state of Florida.
I believe Mr. Grunwald has done a good job of pointing out that the sugar industry has gone to great lenghts the water quality issue.... maybe that leadership will inspire others.

Tallahassee, Fla.: To your knowledge, is there any other region in the U.S. where agriculture is paying a minimum tax of $25/acre to help clean up agricultural stormwater runoff, and paying for the costs of implementing Best Management Practices as well? Let's talk facts: the 700,000-acre Everglades Agricultural Area gets water from Lake Okeechobee at about 180-220 parts/billion and with these programs in place, is releasing water to the C&SF canals at about 80 ppb. Is that essentially correct?

Robert Dawson: I don't have all the numbers at my fingertips but in general what you say is my understanding of what is happening to the water. The facts and figures are readily available and single party attribution of blame for what is obviously a very complex situation does not advance solutions.

The Post's series does a good job, I think, of addressing this kind of complexity.

Big Pine Key, Fla.: Water quality issues in the Keys are now a top priority, both with regard to Florida Bay, nearshore waters and (scientifically disputed) the reef tract, since our economy depends on a healthy ecosystem. We are also the playground for large numbers of people from other parts of the world, including Miami-Dade. We, being downstream, live (and die) from every poor, self-interested decision made on the mainland concerning water management, including effects from the South West Coast. You represent the rich and powerful in Florida. How do you address issues like unnatural salinity ranges in Florida Bay, coral diseases, decimated fish stocks and any number of problems caused by unchecked population growth in the State of Florida?

Robert Dawson: Dear Friend, I have not delved into many of the issues you identify, but I know that the Congress and the Federal agencies are hard at work on many of them. I and the people I represent understand the connection between Everglades restoration and some of those issues. We must continue to develop the real facts and science on those connections.

Arlington, Va.: As a civilian, you provided political leadership to the Corps' water programs. But couldn't that work be done better in a completely civilian agency, such as EPA or the Dept. of Interior? Why have some colonels and generals in charge?

Robert Dawson: I never felt that the issue was whether "colonels or civilians" were in charge but rather is the agency well equipped with well trained, well qualified people to perform its mission. I don't believe any other agency can come close to the Corps in possessing the necessary mix of skills to accomplish this or similar formidable tasks.

Washington, D.C.: If it comes down to a competition between people and farms and the Everglades for water, who do you think is going to win?

Robert Dawson: Greetings. The whole purpose of the CERP is to avoid that kind of unwinnable collision. If we do it right, this choice should never have to be made.

Robert Dawson: Regrettably, I must say goodbye now. I wish we had more time, and I wish I could address more of your questions.

Democracy relies on this kind of exchange, and the Everglades Restoration project benefits from it.

I've learned a thing or two, and I thank all of you for that.

Farewell, Bob Dawson

   |      |