Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

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.

Washington Post reporter Michael Grunwald was online to discuss his four part series on the project.

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.

Michael Grunwald: Thanks a lot for playing, everyone. I see there are lots and lots of questions so I'll get right to it. But I did want to say before I start that the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District were incredibly cooperative while I was working on this series, even though I had written an extremely tough series about the Corps two years ago. This one's tough, too, but I wanted to say publicly that I appreciate their openness and honesty during my trips to Jacksonville and West Palm Beach. OK, let's do this...

Arlington, Va.: Is the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan a "done deal?" I hope not, because, I am sure that after the development begins, there will be no money in the future for real restoration projects.

Michael Grunwald: Well, Congress passed the plan in 2000, and President Clinton signed it into law. So far, more than $1 billion worth of projects have been funded. There will be more projects submitted this year into the regular Corps bill--if there is a regular COrps bill. Some senators have vowed to block this year's bill if there are not provisions to reform the Corps.

Washington, D.C.: Hey. Thanks for the brilliant pieces! What you are writing about is very important and can be very interesting for kids too. Are you planning on doing a series for the Kids Post?

Michael Grunwald: Thank you very much. That's an interesting idea about KidsPost. I should talk to them about it...

Arlington, Va.: If the current plan is the best we can do politically, it hardly seems worth it. Why not buy out all of the sugar farmers? If they aren't cooperative, they can be reminded they wouldn't exist if the U.S. didn't have huge tariffs on imported sugar.

Michael Grunwald: There are some people who believe the goverment should buy out the sugar farms, or at least more of the sugar farms. But it would be very expensive. The sugar farmers want to farm their land. The U.S. does have a price-support program that helps the industry, so it does have some bargaining position. But you'll see in a sidebar in tomorrow's paper that while people like to make Big Sugar the scapegoat for all the problems of the Everglades, it's not quite that simple.

College Park, Md.: Everglades restoration is mentioned as a model for ecosystem restoration projects throughout the world. What lessons can we learn so far from the Everglades experience that may help us with other restoration efforts, such as in the Chesapeake Bay, or Bay-Delta in California (CALFED)?

Michael Grunwald: That's an issue I'm going to deal with on Day 4, which will focus on an excellent Corps project--the $518 million restoration of the Kissimmee River--that many people see as the model for Everglades restoration. Not to give away too much, but the scientist who oversaw the Kissimmee believes some of the key lessons are to put restoration first, remove as many barriers to natural flow as possible, and let nature heal itself. He doesn't think the Everglades restoration is going to do that.

Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.: Superb series. Congrats. There is no question the Everglades are in sorry shape, and I liked the quote about Florida cannibalizing itself. We treat this state like a box of Kleenex. If you had to assign blame percentages, how would you apportion the responsibility for the degradation of the Everglades among agriculture, development (population influx) and mining?

Michael Grunwald: Thanks very much. I guess I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around. Remember: For many many years, people thought of the Everglades as a useless mosquito swamp; they didn't think about preserving it. I would say that South Floridians tend to overestimate the damage that has been done by sugar farmers and underestimate the damage that has been done by...South Floridians. Development not only blocks the original sheet flow of the Everglades, it sucks water out of the Glades in dry seasons and dumps water into the Glades during floods.

Alexandria, Va.: Clearly, the drying of the Glades is largely a result of agriculture and water-supply drainage. But I am curious as to why some significant non-agricultural causes of the drying have not been addressed. For example, the State of Florida sited the Tamiami Trail (Miami-Naples) and Alligator Alley (Ft. Lauderdale-Ft. Myers) right across the central flow of water, and added supplemental drainage to keep water away from the highway foundations. As a result, by mid-Dade County, there really are no Glades left, just brackish salt-water sinkholes and scrub. I'm not suggesting pulling up the highways -- yet -- but does anyone have any ideas about this direct insult to the land?

Michael Grunwald: Actually, some people are suggesting pulling up Tamiami Trail--not getting rid of it, but raising it on a skyway that would let the River of Grass flow under it. The Corps is under an obligation to complete a project--unfortuanately, so far, a disastrous project--called Mod Waters first, but they have promised to at least consider the idea of a skyway, even though it isn't in the initial plan.

Miami, Fla.: Thanks so much for your Everglades work and thanks to the Washington Pos. The series has been outstanding so far and I look forward to the next installment.

Michael Grunwald: Thanks a lot. I should say: It's absolutely incredible that the Post would devote these kind of resources to this series. I think it shows an amazing devotion to in-depth journalism, and if you'll forgive the shameless suckup, the commitment starts in the front office with the Graham family. (The CEO, not the senator!)

Washington, D.C. : Did you file FOIA's to get those wonderful internal e-mails, or did your various sources send them on to you? They are very revealing.

Michael Grunwald: The only document I got through FOIA, believe it or not, was the memo about "the recalcitrance of the Corps" in the Sunday story. And I only got that one because the FOIA I filed from my original series on the Corps in 2000 arrived after the series was already done. So I didn't even bother with FOIA this time. People were just very helpful to me.

Kensington, Md.: Not a question.

Kudos to you for today's article and hoping the rest are as good. Delighted particularly to catch your mention of my cousin, a couple times removed, Hugh Willoughby. Reading his writings on the Everglades from 1900 and yours from today leaves me shaking my head in bewilderment.

Thanks.

Michael Grunwald: Thanks for your note! I didn't get to mention that Willoughby had a lovely description of how "this land--although it is really more water than land--has been deemed impenetrable."

Playa del Rey, Calif.: What's the possibility that global warming (rising ocean levels) will make the whole discussion of saving such a lowland ecosystem moot in the next fifty years?

Michael Grunwald: An excellent question. This is something that former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt--a strong supporter of the restoration--worries about a fair amount. his quote was: "What are we going to do when the Everglades migrates north?" The answer, I think, is that we don't know. It's one of the uncertainties of the plan.

Miami, Fla.: What sources of information did you use to compile your story? Particularly what sources were consulted to provide a historical perspective?

Michael Grunwald: Another great question, because many people have written great things about the Everglades in the past. Marjory Stoneman Douglas, of course, wrote the most famous book in 1947, River of Grass. A guy named David McCally wrote a nice technical book called The Everglades: An Environmental History. Susan Orchid's book The Orchid Thief is brilliant. Mark Derr's book about Florida called Some Kind of Paradise is very nice. And there's lots of good newspaper coverage going on down there right now.

West Palm Beach, Fla.: Have you had any discussions with the GAO, especially their recommendation for a Strategic Plan, which has been more-or-less ignored?

Michael Grunwald: This just has to be John Marshall, one of the most dogged enviros in South Florida. I didn't talk much to the GAO, but I did read their report about the Strategic Plan. And I can see why you might think it's been ignored.

Bladensburg, Md.: Marjory Stoneman Douglas's name is on a lot of the environmental efforts when it comes to the Everglades. A great and legendary lady whom I first came to know of in a PBS series called "On The Waterways" in the early 90s. But what are some of those efforts Ms. Douglas accomplished in conserving the Everglades in her long life?

Michael Grunwald: She helped block a jetport in the Everglades; she founded a group called Friends of the Everglades to do it. She was also instrumental in getting the Kissimmee restoraiton going. Friends of the Everglades, however, did not support the plan that came out of Congress to restore the Everglades in 2000. Not too many people noticed that.

Arlington, Va.: I am in no way anti-environment, and realize that we have a duty to fix what we have broken environmentally, but what a monumental waste of money. 30-40 MILLION Americans without health insurance and we're dumping over $7 billion into a swamp?

Why shouldn't the citizens of Florida and the agricultural interests who ruined the Everglades be made responsible for the clean up? How much did the Sierra Club bribe Congress to get this passed?

Michael Grunwald: This is a truly extraordinary amount of money we're talking about here; I think I mentioned that it's 20 times the annual budget for the Nunn-Lugar program to contain the former Soviet Union's loose nukes, and four years worth of spending on all national parks. The state of FLorida is paying half. I think you do have to say that there really was a bipartisan consensus that saving the Everglades was worth $8 billion. But I'm not sure how many members of Congress realized they were voting for a multi-purpose water project that might not restore the Everglades. Some environmentalists now regret that they supported this plan, which certainly would not have passed without their imprimatur.

Tallahassee, Fla.: At one point you mentioned that CERP is going to restore the "quantity, quality, timing and distribution" of water. How will it restore the water quality, and (in your opinion) should the federal government pay to clean up the state's dirty water coming from farms and cities? What precedent does this set for other Corps projects with poor water quality impacts?

Michael Grunwald: The sidebar today shows that many people--EPA, GAO, the Miccosukee tribe, enviros--do not think the restoration plan will restore the water quality. THis is mostly the responsibility of the state of Florida, which has made great strides with a separate $800 million water-quality project. (Which was a response to a federal lawsuit.) There is some water quality stuff in CERP, but not that much. The problem is that many scientists believe that if you don't fix the water quality, restoring the natural flows will just poison the Everglades more efficiently.

Washington, D.C.: This is an excellent series. I work for a Member of Congress who cares a lot about the issues that you raise. What would you suggest that we in Congress can do to improve the problems with the Corps and the Everglades project specifically?

Michael Grunwald: Well, I don't recommend policy; I just write about what's going on. But certainly many members of Congress are curious to see what the Bush administration does with the "programmatic reguations" that are supposed to govern the restoration's progress. Anyway, I'm sure there are no shortage of people who will recommend policies for you, including our editorial page. But I appreciate your kind words.

Washington by way of West Palm: I didn't notice a lot about the taming of (and later, restoration of) the Kissimmee River by the Army Corps of Engineers in contributing to the Glades' current woes. What role will the Kissimmee restoration play in the rebuilding of the Glades?

Michael Grunwald: I think you'll be interested in Wednesday's story. The short answer is that the Corps calls the Kissimmee restoration a model and "the forerunner" for Everglades restoration. But it's not clear that they've absorbed the lessons of the Kissimmee project, which is quite inspiring.

Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.: No reply Necessary.

I am glad to hear you say that. Ag is a slow-moving target, but the canalization started in 1884, long before anyone understood the ecosystem. Now they are excoriated for stuff that was, at the time, regarded as heroic pioneering, by people who would be standing up to their dewlaps in water, were it not for the system of canals (admittedly artificial and misdirected) that sluices the water away. Development proceeds apace. I assume you saw Weston in Broward County, where people live like modern day Dutchmen, behind huge dikes.

Michael Grunwald: Thanks! Dan Marino is one of those people!

Arlington, Va.: You discussed the phosphorous level "that must be below 10 parts per billion," or so some say. My sources say that the "10" is a needlessly expensive/difficult number, and that something like 20 or 30 may be right -- or "right enough" for the purposes. How certain are you of the "10 ppb?"

Michael Grunwald: There is surprising consensus out there on 10. The sugar industry--which was once pushing numbers that were much, much, much higher--is now pushing 15.6. But Jeb Bush has committed to 10, and that does seem to be the number where the ecosystem starts to change. (The sugar guys, by the way, have reduced their phosphorous levels significantly, and while it did take a federal lawsuit to get them to do it, they're doing even better than required.)

Washington, D.C.: Hey, Mike. You write great pieces! The Post doesn't pay you enough.

Michael Grunwald: I agree! (The shameless suckup ends.)

Actually, this is probably my girlfriend.

Bowling Green, Ken.: How can we close this destructive development filled with excessive porkbarrel spending?

Michael Grunwald: Well, it passed the Senate by 85-1 in 2000. So unless there's a real change in feeling out there, you've got an uphill battle ahead of you, Bowling Green.

Tallahassee Fla.: As everyone knows, Gov. Jeb Bush is running for reelection this year, and his brother would certainly like to see him get another term. Has this reelection campaign, as well as President Bush's close race here in 2002, played a signficant part in the funding for the Everglades project?

Michael Grunwald: Short answer: yes. Longer answer: President Bush has been very sensitive to environmental issues in Florida; for example, he recently approved a deal to ban oil drilling in Big Cypress National Preserve. Some Florida enviros complain that it's just a political favor to his brother, although frankly I don't see why they care. But there is a bigger issue with Everglades restoration, because the federal interest (11 national parks and refuges) is a lot greener than the state interest (the Everglades, but also water supply and flood control and development, etc.). The real quesiton is whether W.'s administration will yield to Jeb's on the regulations and other issues, because Jeb has fought very hard to make sure Everglades restoration does not put the Everglades ahead of his constituents. Which may well be what his constituents want him to do.

Playa del Rey, Calif.: Care to comment (and I could understand if you declined the offer) on the perception in Washington of the infighting among Florida environmental groups? Whether this infighting helps their cause politically?

I ask because we have a similar, albeit micro-microcosmic version here in LA where about 300 acres of Ballona Wetlands are still barely viable (capable of restoration) thanks to the efforts of our Marjory Douglas, a woman named Ruth Lansford, who formed Friends of Ballona Wetlands years ago to extract, in court, restoration promises still binding on the present developer of property west of the barely-viable wetlands.

However, later arriving "environmentalists" claim that the "entire historical wetlands" which includes the severely degraded industrial property on which Howard Hughes built the Spruce Goose (and upon which apartments are being built as we chat) could and must be saved, although there's no money (or will) in state or federal budgets to "save it." And despite the fact that the major damage was done years ago by a flood control ditch (our Tamiami Trail) and the creation of Marina del Rey, the world's larges man-made marina.

The flurry of lawsuits against real restoration by "environmentalists" makes us look disorganized and silly. Is the problem in Florida, as you see it, that the definition of what constitutes real restoration still up in the air?

Michael Grunwald: I wrote a sidebar about this; it will run on Wednesday. The short answer is that the infighting is pretty understandable. Some enviros (led by Audubon) think they have to support the plan and work inside the system to improve it. Some enviros think that without strong legal guarantees, the plan is pretty much doomed.

I don't think the problem is the definition of restoration. I think the problem is just a question of how much compromise are you willing to endure.

Washington, D.C.: You seem to have some kind of personal vendetta against the Army Corps of Engineers. You spend a lot of time and energy trying to find fault with them, yet don't bother to mention their positive works like rebuilding the Pentagon. Not much objectivity.

Michael Grunwald: I certainly don't have a personal vendetta. (Do you think maybe they flooded my family or something?) I did write a very tough series about them in 2000, and I do have to say that my findings have been confirmed by the GAO, the National Academy of Sciences, OMB and an internal Pentagon investigation. I went to Ground Zero in NYC with some Corps guys, wrote a totally positive story, and was totally impressed with the work they did there. I think there are a lot of great people at the Corps, but there are a lot of problems at the agency, and I've tried to point them out. I've been very grateful that a lot of Corps people have reached out to thank me for my stories.

Boston, Mass.: You said most federal lawmakers thought that saving the Everglades was worth the price. I'm not so sure. Can you state for me the rationale for saving the Evergaldes? Why does it matter to me?

Michael Grunwald: I think the rationale is that it's a national treasure, a totally unique ecosystem like no other place on earth, home to 69 federally endangered species. That seemed to persuade a lot of people in Congress.

Baltimore, Md.: Doesn't the Clinton Administration carry most of the responsibility for misrepresenting this project to Congress?

Michael Grunwald: No. I don't think that's fair. The Clinton folks did try to make this a more environmental project in 2000, and they had some success. They carry some of the responsibility for the way the project has been sold to America, but again, I wouldn't say most.

Smithfield, Va.: Two points:

Your recounting in Part 1 of how this bill was passed -- not to mention the engineering history of the Everglades -- makes my stomach churn. It's amazing how a straightforward telling of the facts exposes the most base human ambition and greed, and disregard for anything non-human. Which leads me to my second point. Anyone who doesn't agree with the Post's and Steve Coll's willingness to publish long, in-depth series need only read your reporting here. I will be interested to see if official Washington reacts.

Michael Grunwald: Thanks again. Did I remember to include Coll in my shameless suckup?

Washington, D.C.: This is an amazing series. Why did you choose to cover the Everglades? What are you planning to do next?

Michael Grunwald: Thanks a lot. I bumped into the Everglades during my series on the Corps. I'm not sure what to do next. Maybe a book about the Everglades...

Washington, D.C.: Mike - I thought this was a really great beginning of your series. Will you have more online chats after the next pieces come out?

Michael Grunwald: Thanks a lot. I think I'm doing another one on Wednesday.

Miami, Fla.: Thanks for the great articles that bring out the conflict and contradictions at the heart of the restoration effort. My question is about the issue of the role of the Department of Interior in ensuring the Federal interest in the project is protected.The environmental groups have been working hard for the inclusion of DOI as an equal partner (with Corps and SFWMD) to ensure that the Corps and Water Management District do not have untramelled power to interpret and implement the restoration efforts as they please. Where do you think these efforts are headed? And what do you think about the ability of the elaborate participatory process consisting of a slew of task forces, advisory councils etc.and involving stakeholders to prevent total subversion of the (environmental) mandate by commercial/agri. interests?
Thanks

Michael Grunwald: Thanks for your note. The first draft of the programmatic regulations mostly limited DOI to a consultative role. I'm sure people will be watching to see what happens to them in the version that comes out of the administration. The legislation also calls for an independent scientific panel to oversee the work, so it will be interesting to see if RECOVER, which is led by the Corps and the district, will be that panel.

Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: First of all, I want to say your articles have been fascinating so far. It is quite apparent you went through a great deal of trouble to research and get your facts straight.

But to me personally, it absolutely infuriates me to no end to read an article like this. The simple reason being that this "Save the Everglades" campaign in Congress comes on the heels of a $200 BILLION dollar Farm Bill passed by Congress. Thats Billion with a really big B. A large portion of this money will, in both direct and indirect ways, even further destroy the Everglades not only through dumping and pollution, but also through the blatant encouragement for farmers to overuse the land.

Doesn't this irony/hypocrisy bother anyone? It sure as hell bothers me.

Michael Grunwald: If this didn't say Capitol Hill, I would swear this was Tim Searchinger. To answer your question, I would say you're not alone in your irritation about the farm bill.

Hollywood, Fla.: Hello Mike. "Saving the Everglades" is widely accepted by scientists and the public as a good thing to do. Did you get a sense that folks are re-thinking that, or do they think there's a better way to do it, or a better way to implement the current plan?

Michael Grunwald: I didn't talk to anyone down there who doesn't think it's a good idea to try to save the Everglades. I think the main question is whether this current plan will do it.

Miami Fla.: Jeb Bush's former partner developer Armando Codina, who just held a $2 million fundraiser for the Republican's gubenatorial campaign at his Miami home with George W., just received permission by Miami-Dade County to place a giant warehouse complex between the western fringes of Miami and the Everglades in a place that provides drinking water for one million people.

The one-square mile warehouse would sit on top of the northwest wellfield protection area, which serves 1 million residents. (The site is adjacent to the lake belt, or "rock pit belt" you wrote about today.)

What's odd is that Miami-Dade and Florida professional staff originally denied the project because of the health threat and lack of need, and unexplainably reversed themselves. They still need more state and federal permits, which may come this summer.

Many people fear that this extension of the County's "urban development boundary" will spur a feeding frenzy of westward development into the Everglades.

How can the Everglades be restored if South Florida local governments, the Jeb Bush Administration and the Corps permit this kind of development to the west?

Michael Grunwald: I think I mentioned that warehouse at the bottom of today's story. Tomorrow's story is going to cover the question of how to restore the Everglades in the midst of runaway development. The restoration leaders are supposed to paint a masterpiece, and every day the canvas shrinks...

Miami, Fla.: Do you think the Corps on its own, without changes in the enabling legislation for Everglades restoration, can actually be turned toward the environmental goals stated as of primary importance by Congress and the President?

Michael Grunwald: That's a pretty loaded question. I will say that the Indian River Lagoon project, a $1 billion component of the Everglades restoration, would suggest that yes, they can. Enviros hated the project in the original plan; the Corps listened to the complaints and fixed it; now enviros love it. But the IRL project is in a much less developed area than the rest of the restoration. So I guess we'll see.

I guess I just dont get it: For people who have never visited, to put it mildly, the Everglades is a dump. Its not pretty like the Grand Canyon or fun to visit like Yosemite.

Why do we have this dellusional vision of "Wow yes we must save the beautiful Everglades"

Michael Grunwald: Well, some people have an amazing passion about the Everglades. Bob Smith, who is one of the staunchest conservatives in the Senate, just loves the place; he always talks about how his kid saw his first gator there. And biologically, it's a unique shallow-water ecosystem. In any case, people do seem to want to save it.

Arlington, Va.: Mike, you got a blast from Boston about "Why save the Everglades, anyway?" Funny, I think of the Everglades as "ours" (a U.S. treasure), and, as you pointed out, there are a number of federal interests impacted by Everglades issues in that state. Now, the "Big Dig" in Boston, also has a TON of Federal dollars and I do NOT see that as "mine." Perhaps a future article might be on the billions of dollars, a huge portion federal, being spent to improve Boston's traffic?

Michael Grunwald: I hereby don't volunteer to do the Big Dig story.

Baltimore, Md.: Do you think this project should be abandoned as product of false advertizing?

Michael Grunwald: Well, it's certainly not the first big project that's been spun in interesting ways.

Plantation, Fla.: Isn't the real issue now how to implement the restoration plan (still a work in progress) in a way that prioritizes ecological restoration over drainaige and consumptive use for develoment and farms -- and not whether we should be doing and funding the restoration plan?

Michael Grunwald: That's a big debate within the environmental community. The more enthusiastic supporters of the plan--led by Audubon--want to make sure the dollars keep flowing and the projects keep moving. Some of the other groups want to deal with those priority quesitons first; they're afraid that if we spend $4 billion over the next 10 years and the Everglades doesn't improve much, Congress will pull the plug.

Miami: Thanks for the enlightening and in-depth articles. Do you think that the Congress is going to make the future appropriations contingent on guarrantees (or sstronger 'assurances') for environmental benefits, especially in the aftermath of the Programmatic Regulations fiasco?

Michael Grunwald: That's an interesting question for Congress. There was certainly some feedback from the Hill about that initial draft of the regulations. (I'm guessing from your use of the word "fiasco" that you didn't think they were tough enough.)

Playa del Rey, Calif.: "I think the rationale is that it's a national treasure, a totally unique ecosystem like no other place on earth, home to 69 federally endangered species."

Pithy. I agree. My friends here in LA wonder about my interest in Everglades preservation, when I've only been there twice, so I tell them to go see it for themselves. Unique has no modifiers.

The major problem there, and here in overpaved LA, a semi-arid ecosystem, is first demonstrating how natural cycles CAN be restored and healed. Then people "elsewhere" don't wonder "what's in it for them."

I look forward to the rest of your series.

Michael Grunwald: Funny, I haven't had anyone tell me my 25,000-word series was pithy. But I appreciate the kind words.

Michael Grunwald: OK, I'm going to wrap this up. Thanks for all the questions. I'll be back Wednesday, I think, to blab more about this. And I believe Bob Dawson (who represented the sugar guys, home builders, water utilities and many other economic interests in the Everglades) and Shannon Estenoz of the World Wildlife Fund are going to get their chance to whack away at me, too.

Mike

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

Smithsonian Folklife Festival at 3 p.m. EDT
Astrologer Charlene Lichtenstein at 6 p.m. EDT

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>