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: I'm back again. I hope you've all read all 25,000 words; there's going to be a quiz on Tuesday. Seriously, thanks again for all your interest, and fire away.

Mt. Dora, Fla.: First and foremost, thanks to you and your editors for taking on such an important and difficult issue. The series has been simply remarkable.

The protection of the Great Everglades may well be this country's most important act of natural resource conservation. More importantly, it will be a testament to our understanding of fundamental democratic ideals and values, a standard by which the government we practice will always be measured. Our failings, past and present, are why I believe we are here today in the hope that our words and our concerns will give aid and assistance to a body of land that has been badly beaten and scarred.

That said and given the Governor's recent concern for the Everglades and the state's environmental health, what policy initiatives are either underway or proposed which will limit and/or reduce population and industrial impacts upon the state's remaining wild and open places?

Lastly and while the state's environmental policies have always suffered from political convenience, the conflicts between economic growth and environmental protection have never been more numerous nor sharper. In your opinion, has Florida's manifest destiny become -- with the passage of the state's historic highway bill and increasingly intense pro-development political infrastructure -- a mantra of manifest subdivision instead?

Michael Grunwald: Thank you for your kind words. The state of Florida--under Republican and Democratic governors--has been a national leader when it comes to buying and preserving green space. It has preserved more than 1 million acres that way. The problem has been what's happening in the unpreserved areas. It will be very interesting to see if the state can buy the land needed for Everglades restoration before developers and speculators can get to it. As for manifest destiny, at the risk of ducking your question, I suspect that Florida's destiny is up to Florida.

Washington, D.C.: How can you claim to be objective when you accept thousands of dollars in "awards" from environmental groups? It seems fairly obvious that your choice of subjects, as well as the slant (and sheer volume) of your work, attract the attention of groups with specific environmental agendas, and they have generously rewarded your efforts. Throw in the fact that you consistently quote the same sources and cite the same groups, and it really does appear that you are intent on furthering their agenda, rather than reporting without bias. I'm rather surprised that your editors allow this, unless they are also rewarded.

Michael Grunwald: Whoa! I have never, ever accepted a penny from an environmental group. The Sierra Club, American Rivers and the National Wildlife Federation all named me their journalist of the year or something in 2000 after my initial Corps series--which was their right--but I did not go to any of the awards dinners. You might be thinking of three other awards--not affiliated with any environmental group or any other interest grou--that did give me thousands of dollars in 2000. For the record, I gave that money away, too. And for the record, enviros have been furious at me for stuff I've written about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other topics. Many enviros don't seem too happy about this series, either; there was one tough piece talking about how enviros have twisted facts to scapegoat Big Sugar, and another about infighting within the environmental movement. Get your facts straight, pal. (Sorry to get huffy, everyone.)

Denver, Colo.: Michael,

Thanks for another great series. In a past life, I was Audubon's lobbyist for the four years leading up to enactment of the CERP. Like you, I have great admiration for those who helped develop the CERP and are now charged with its implementation.

The easy part was passing the CERP, the hard part will be to ensure it is properly implemented. When I encountered resistence to the CERP on Capitol Hill -- including some in the Florida -- I always responded that a Federal Everglades restoration program is inevitible. It will happen either via the CERP or by up to 69 endangered species lawsuits.

I wished you had spent more time on the programmatic regulations. They are an important early test and must include interim performance standards that gets measurements of success off the computer and into the field. Further, these regulations also need to provide a "common thread" of restoration goals that tie together the CERP's 68 projects into one comprehensive restoration project. Without such a provision, there may not be much difference between the CERP and an ESA lawsuit.

However, I hope your series serves as a wake up call to Members of Congress because these early decisions will set a tone and chart the course that will last throughout CERP implementation. Like everyone else with their work has only just begun, and they need to begin vigorously exercising their oversight responsibility.

Michael Grunwald: Thank you for your kind words, Audubon. I assume the check is in the mail. (Kidding! That was a joke!) The programmatic regs, which sound like pretty much the most boring thing on earth, will be very important. The Bush administration is supposed to release a draft next month, and that could send a signal about the future of Everglades restoration.

Dania, Fla.: Mr. Grunwald, in today's article you indicated that the Kissimmee's success was due to the District and not the Corps. Are you aware that the District backed out of the most recent construction and operational plan for Mod Waters, due to flood protection pressures? Do you think that the District's lobbying for more flood protection undermines the Park and Corps efforts to achieve the federal intent of the legislation indicating that the primary purpose of these projects are for restoration of the ecosystem, NOT flood protection and water supply?

Michael Grunwald: Thanks for your note. I am aware of the Mod Waters controversy, and I don't think you've characterized it unfairly. When it comes to Everglades restoration, I tried to make it clear that the federal interest is fairly straightforward--restoring the Everglades--while the state interest is far more complex, including water supply, flood protection and more. I hope that featuring Lou Toth did not distract attention from that basic fact. However, when it comes to the Kissimmee, Toth and his colleagues at the district were far ahead of the Corps--which, in fairness, did not get the green light to do environmental restoraiton projects until the 1990s.

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: With a name like Grunwald I'd expect you to be an ecologist or a naturalist. I may have missed something but your series would have stood out much better in the mind's eye with graphics: maps, diagrams, drawings. And links to reports and studies would have encouraged readers with stronger interest to probe the depths and perimeter of your reporting. Still, it was appreciated from this professional engineer. Thanks much.

Michael Grunwald: Thank you very much for the kind note--and for noticing that Grunwald means "green forest" in German. You must not have seen a newspaper copy of the series, which had some brilliant graphics and maps done by our fantastic graphics staff. And good point about the links: I think the actual plan is at www.evergladesplan.org, and we should get up some more links to other documents.

Vero Beach, Fla.: "...it will definitely spend billions of federal dollars to subsidize development and agribusiness in a state already living beyond its ecological means. "

We Florida residents KNOW this state is and has been living beyond its ecological means (carrying capacity exceeded a good while back!). Those of us ready to get down and dirty in the trenches of PRACTICAL/DOABLE problem-solving really need examples of projects that have reduced/halted/reversed this trend in ecological integrity degradation. Pointing out the OBVIOUS is wasting everyone's time while dismanteling those believing spirits yet willing to get on with the challenge by doing practical work to fix our Florida.
In short, come on board and be SUPPORTIVE with some reasonable socio-economic-political-ecological ideas that we can fight with. Please!
Thank you for your attention.

Michael Grunwald: Thanks for your note. I'm not sure that everyone agrees that Florida is living beyond its ecological means. But many scientists do believe that with some changes--storing more water on former sugar fields, removing more barriers to flow, relying less on unproven technolologies--Everglades restoration can really work. Many of the other issues--conserving water, managing growth, etc.--are up to Florida.

Jacksonville, Fla.: What was your primary goal in writing this series for the Post? And do you believe that it has been accomplished?

Michael Grunwald: My primary goal was to provide a fuller explanation of the most ambitious--and probably the least understood--environmental project in history. It's so incredibly huge, and so incredibly important. It's a big chunk of our national environmental budget--four years worth of spending on all national parks! It's already the model for multi-billion-dollar restoration projects in Louisiana and California. I don't think most people realized just how many technical uncertainties there are, or that it's not a pure restoration project. I hope people know now, so that there can be a more honest debate about Everglades restoration.

Pompano Beach, Fla.: You seemed to haved miss the main purpose of the surface water storage in the "restoration plan" -- it is not for future population growth but just to provide enough water for the people here now. In 10 years saltwater intrusion will have contaminated most of the wells currently be used for the water supply (see the University of Miami study). Therefore the region will have to, for the first time, rely on surface water. Guess where that is going to come from. If you recognize this fact you can see that the "restoration" is just a trojan horse to get a new water supply since this over populated region is just a decade away from no water for its current population level much less the influx of people that the developers demand.

Michael Grunwald: Thanks very much for your note. I certainly tried to make it clear that 180,000 acres worth of reservoirs was going to be a huge water-supply boon for the people of South Florida. When the Corps replumbed the region decades ago, it was only supposed to support 500,000 people; they did such a good job that it now supports more than 6 million people. But as you pointed out, the system is basically stretched to the limit. One question is whether federal taxpayers should foot the bill for Florida's water-supply problems--current and future.

San Francisco, Calif.: Both this and your earlier series on the Corps have been exceptional. How do you choose your subjects for these multi-part articles? Is it from personal interest or is it driven by your editors? Either way, keep up the good work.

Michael Grunwald: Thank you very much for the nice note, and for another chance to plug the Post. I stumbled into the Corps a few years ago, and my editors have been totally supportive of my weird obsession. I moved on to other things last year--a PCB scandal in Alabama, some Interior Department stuff, and then of course September 11--but they were equally supportive when I decided I wasn't done obsessing about the Everglades.

Palm Beach, Fla.: Dear Mr. Grunwald:

Is "Corps reform" realistic given the many new priorities facing D.C. -- mainly the war on terrorism and the slumping economy?

Thanks for a great series!

Michael Grunwald: Thank you very much. I try not to guess what Congress is going to do. But I will say that Corps reform is more realistic now than ever before. Not just because of my series in 2000--now the GAO, OMB, the National Academy of Sciences and the Pentagon itself have climbed on board. President Bush fired the anti-Corps-reform head of the Corps--not just for Corps reform reasons, but it sent a message. The war on terrorism may actually help Corps reform, because spending on porkbarrel projects is going to come under at least a little bit more scrutiny in tight budget times. And several key senators have said they won't allow the biennial bill with Corps projects unless it includes real Corps reform. Given how much members of Congress love Corps projects, that's an incentive for reform.

Washington, D.C.: Thank you for a wonderful and informative series. What do you think of the Corps? Is there more reason to hope than despair?

Michael Grunwald: Thanks for the nice note. I think at this point what I think of the Corps has been pretty well documented, but I'll say again that I have great respect for its expertise and diligence, but less respect for the quality of its analyses and projects. (Which are sometimes shoved down its throat by Congress, but again, the Corps is often quite receptive to the shoving.) When I compare the situation two years ago, when Corps leaders were trashing me publicly and promising everyone that the Pentagon would vindicate everything they do, to the situation today, when even Corps generals feel like they have to say publicly that the Corps needs to change, I'd say there's at least some reason for hope.

Columbus, Ohio: Michael:

You have great investigative skills. Thank you for your great reporting!

What do you consider to be the greatest strength and the greatest weakness to the Everglades restoration effort as it presently exists?

Michael Grunwald: Wow. You folks are really nice. Most of you, anyway. I think the greatest strength is the sheer magnitude of engineering and scientific knowhow--and the impressive political will--that has been assembled in the name of restoring the Everglades. I guess I'd say the greatest weakness is the extent to which the project tries to please everyone instead of just focusing on restoration.

Charleston, W.V.: I am wondering how many of the kinds of questions your series raised about the restoration plan made it into the mainstream, national press when the plan was being debated in Congress. And, if they didn't get much coverage, why that was, and generally how you think the press covered the issue at the time it was being run through Congress.

Michael Grunwald: I did write a story as part of my Corps series in 2000 that I think (and I apologize if I'm wrong) raised the first questions about the plan in a national venue. But you make a good point--I pointed out that Everglades restoration was marketed rather misleadingly on Capitol Hill, but I didn't really take myself and my colleagues to task for buying the company line. I will say that some Florida journalists do an excellent job covering the nitty-gritty of this stuff.

Washington, D.C.: Thank you for writing this series. I've learned quite a bit.

In today's article, "Growing Pains in SW Florida", you mentioned that a prominent Florida development outfit, WCI Communities was working with Audubon International to design eco-friendly golf courses. I think that you might want to clarify that this organization is not affiliated with the Audubon Society and actually receives its funds from the U.S. Golf Association. For more information, see:

1. Audubon International's Web site.

2. This column from Carlos Guerra, a reporter for the San Antonio Express.

I noticed in your article that several employees from the real Audubon Society were quite critical of golf course development. I don't think that they would appreciate being associated with a group that endorses such development.

Thanks.

Michael Grunwald: This is an excellent point that I should have made myself. Audubon International is not affiliated with the National Audubon Society. My bad for not mentioning this.

Miami, Fla.: I want to first thank you for your insightful and poignant articles on my “back yard.” You discuss the subject of our Everglades and the restoration (better labeled as a repluming project) with the depth of understanding than many a native South Floridian.

You mentioned that local zoning officers in Miami-Dade identified wetland impacts outside of the permitted rock mining area and that the local environmental agency told them to keep mum -- “don’t put anything in writing” is what you indicated was said. Can you please elaborate on the incident if you can?

Michael Grunwald: Thanks--that's an incredible compliment. I don't have those documents in front of me this second, but I'll try my best. I think the Miami-Dade zoning agency flagged a mining violation, and the county's Department of Environmental Management wanted to deal with it quietly. (It might have been the other way around!) One of their memos really did say that they wanted to make sure it didn't get put in writing so it wouldn't have to go in the file.

Washington, D.C.: We visited the Everglades in March and every Park ranger we met said "I could get fired for saying this, but they should just buy out the sugar farms and let Lake Okeechobee run naturally." My question is whether you think there is any realistic chance that the decisionmakers will gravitate toward the alternative solution you discussed today (which seems much cheaper, simpler, and more effective).

Michael Grunwald: Well, the experience of the Indian River Lagoon project would suggest that there is a chance for a more natural restoration. That was a project that enviros hated when it was first unveiled, but the Corps listened to their concerns and apparently fixed them. As for Lake O, I don't think there's too much hope of it overflowing naturally again; it's behind an extremely large dike now, and people in cities like Belle Glade rely on that dike. But I do think it's possible that the restoration may end up buying more sugar fields for storage. (Again, though, I tried to point out in my sidebar yesterday that Big Sugar is not the sole source or even the main source of Everglades pollution.)

Washington, D.C.: You admit you have a "weird obsession" with the Corps, yet still claim not to have a biased agenda?

Michael Grunwald: I don't have a biased agenda. I knew absolutely nothing about the Corps three years ago. But I stumbled into this agency that was unbelievably important and unbelievably troubled. I found internal e-mails bragging about how they were trying to grow their program, as if they were some kind of dotcom looking for an IPO. I saw how they cooked the books of their economic studies. And I ended up devoting an awful lot of time to an agency that no one had paid much attention to. That's why I call it a weird obsession. But everything I've written about the Corps has come straight out of Corps documents. I don't make it up.

Everywhere, USA: Mike:

Your reporting will be a landmark in the history of Everglades. Well done!

Hopefully you will continue with your work to describe this proverbial Elephant.

What parts would you like to do next?

Michael Grunwald: Now I guess I can say I have fans Everywhere. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I might try to write a book about the degradation and possible resurrection of the Everglades...

Arlington, Va.: What great, detailed investigative work! It is always such a pleasure to read your work. The Evergaldes is a national treasure. Our children should know about this -- are you planning to put something together for the KidsPost?

Michael Grunwald: You know, someone asked me that yesterday, and I forgot to follow up with Kidspost. I guess I ought to, huh?

Thanks for the kind words.

Baltimore, Md.: Michael, I continue to be troubled by your continued assertion that "For now, the plan's benefits to the Everglades remain backloaded and uncertain, while its water-supply benefits to people and farms are relatively swift and sure." What is your evidence for this claim other than the compliants of environmental advocates? The reality is that there are no short term water supply benefits for anybody.

Michael Grunwald: I think this question comes from Ed Dickey, a former civilian chief of the Corps, and an honorable one at that. Ed is one of the extreme skeptics about the Everglades restoration--not only doesn't he think it will restore the Everglades, he doesn't think it will provide much water supply. (Forgive me if I'm misstating your case, Ed.) I would say that the plan does call for 18 reservoirs, and that the Corps does know how to build reservoirs. There's nothing too uncertain about that. Take a look at the Lake Belt area: The plan calls for a bunch of water-supply reservoirs nearby over the next few decades, but two reservoirs for Biscayne National Park and Everglades National Park can't be built until the miners are done mining (talk about immediate benefits!) in 35 years or so. And those reservoirs depend on new technology that I described on Monday. Hope that helps...

Miami, Fla.: Mr. Grunwald, thank you so much for your excellent series of articles on the Everglades. What in your opinion has to occur to get the Army Corps. of Engineers to deny permits to developers and miners?

Michael Grunwald: This is an excellent question. I've banged my spoon on my high chair quite a bit about the Corps stewardship of the Clean Water Act. I do think it's fair to say that if Congress really wanted aggressive protection of wetlands, they probably wouldn't have given the program to the Corps. To answer your question, I think there are a few ways to get the Corps to change. One way is lawsuits, and several lawsuits (over casinos in Mississippi, riprap on the Yellowstone River, etc.) have forced the Corps to pay a bit more attention to cumulative impacts of their permits. Another way is political pressure; the Corps does respond to the demands of its overseers, which is why it's not fair to lay all the blame on the Corps. And then there's public embarrassment, which I guess I've been supplying a bit lately.

Palm Beach, Fla.: Is economic development part of the Corps' statutory mission? If yes, can you explain how this came to be? If no, why is the Corps concerned with it?

Thanks.

Michael Grunwald: It absolutely is part of the Corps mission. In fact, the environmental portion of the Corps mission is what's new. That's why this project could represent the future of the Corps. Environmental projects are now 20 percent of its workload, and that's probably going to increase. There doesn't seem to be a lot of demand for new dams anymore.

Corvallis, Ore.: Good articles! My understanding is that some of the world's leading scientists and engineers from multiple disciplines and multiple agencies helped develop the CERP plan, with support from industry, public agencies, and environmental groups. This is to say that a lot of heavy thinking went into the Plan's development. I can't imagine how such a plan would be approved at federal and state levels without "something in it for everyone," in this case, ensuring a future water supply for people and industry as well as nature in South Florida. It is certainly true that the Plan has flaws, amply illustrated in your articles. Maybe "adaptive management" can provide some adjustments. But consider the alternative of no plan, just politically devisive, uncoordinated piecemeal efforts at environmental protection. Do you have a bottom line: do you think the "natural" Everglades, in the broad sense, will be better off with or without CERP? If not CERP, what do you suggest? You've raised many good questions; do you offer any recommendations?

Thank you.

Michael Grunwald: Those are excellent points, and thanks. I realize that i've got it easy: I get to go down and point out problems with Everglades restoration, and other people have to fix them. It's not really my job to offer recommendations. I am sympathetic to the argument that we can't do nothing, that Americans have to try to reverse the decline of the Everglades. I think there are aspects of this plan that will help the environment, and others that might help. That said, I also pointed out that while restoration is going on, the destruction is continuing, and the restoration plan's water-supply elements could subsidize more of that destruction. It's going to be a very delicate balance.

No offense to Pompano, but...: Why should I as a taxpayer not from Florida spent $10 billion on a state issue? I'm not arguing your need for drinking water in the coming years, but why should the government spend such a large amount of money on this project?

Michael Grunwald: There are a lot of people in Florida who hope that members of Congress don't start asking that same question.

Silver Spring, Md.: I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Sure we want to protect the Everglades, but shouldn't economic development and economic growth be first on the list? Prosperity and growth is key to our future.

Michael Grunwald: That's an interesting point. Unfortunately, development has had a terrible impact on the Everglades. And there's an amazing bipartisan consensus in Florida that out-of-control growth is beginning to threaten the state's way of life: traffic jams, salt-water intrusion, overcrowded classrooms, and yes, the decline of the Everglades, which is itself a tremendous economic generator in terms of tourism. Marjory Stoneman Douglas said that the Everglades are a test; if we pass, we may get to keep the planet. And people in Congress did seem to agree, liberals and conservatives, that we ought to try to save this national treasure.

Columbia, Md.: Why don't you do a 4-part series on the real culprits in the Everglades saga-the politicians who cave in to the corporate big money interests?

Michael Grunwald: I don't think anyone wants to read another 4-part series by me right now. And God knows I don't feel like writing one.

Arlington, Va.: On one hand the all knowing Congress passes a $200 Billion Farm Bill, which will in large part be used to prop up the sugar industry in this country. Like the bill or not, you cannot argue that it encourages over-production of the land, dumping of pulluted water, and an overall desecration of the land.

On the other hand, Congress now send more billions to help clean up the Everglades.

Is this just a case of as long as we are spending money, lets pump billions into programs that are polar opposites of each other? I guess each insures that the other will continue to need more funding.

Michael Grunwald: There is definitely a tension between the sugar program (not so much the direct subsidies in the farm bill, which are more directed towards commodities like grain) and Everglades restoration. However, I did try to point out that the sugar industry is not the only problem.

Michael Grunwald: I'm out of time, folks. I'm sorry, because there are still a bunch of questions I couldn't get to. But I really appreciate everyone's interest. And I would be neglecting my most important duties if I did not say: Hi mom! Hi dad!

Mike

| |



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