Everglades Restoration: Federal Funding and Implementation Progress

Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

The Everglades is a unique network of subtropical wetlands in South Florida that is approximately half of its historical size, due in part to degradation from federal water projects. In 2000, Congress authorized a 30-year plan, termed the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), for the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem in southern Florida. When originally authorized, it was estimated that CERP would cost a total of $8.2 billion and take approximately 30 years to complete. More recent estimates indicate that the plan would take approximately 50 years to implement, and would cost $13.5 billion.

Under CERP, the federal government (through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior) is required to fund half of the costs for restoration, with an array of state, tribal, and local agencies paying the other half. In addition to activities under CERP, a number of other federal and state efforts that pre-date CERP (known collectively as “non-CERP” or “Foundation” activities) also contribute to Everglades restoration. While non-CERP efforts are technically not included in CERP, the two sets of activities are widely viewed as complementary.

Since passage of CERP in 2000, the federal investment in the Everglades has increased. As of the end of FY2012, the federal government had provided $1 billion in funding for CERP, with the state providing matching funds for CERP projects, as well as advanced funding for land acquisition and construction for expected future CERP projects. Federal funding for non-CERP activities (most of which pre-date CERP) has also continued over this time period. These efforts are estimated to total more than $3 billion as of 2011. While estimates of nonfederal (i.e., state) funding contributions to CERP and related restoration efforts vary widely depending on what methodology is employed, most agree that, to date, the state of Florida has spent significantly more on Everglades restoration than has the federal government.

Progress has been made on a number of Everglades restoration projects, although overall progress to date has fallen short of initial goals. As of 2012, the majority of the land necessary for restoration projects under CERP had been acquired, and significant progress has been made on non-CERP activities (including improved water deliveries to Everglades National Park). Construction has also been initiated on four CERP projects, and studies have been completed or are underway for a number of other CERP projects. Despite this progress, some projects have seen setbacks in the form of schedule delays and cost escalations. Additionally, new or revised authorizations will be required for many projects to go forward. These impediments may have the effect of further delaying restoration efforts.

Reductions to state funding and the lack of new Everglades CERP authorizations in the Water Resources Development Act have increased attention to the congressional role in Everglades restoration. Debate and resolution of these issues has implications, both for ecosystem restoration in the Everglades and for large-scale restoration initiatives elsewhere.

This report provides information on federal appropriations for Everglades restoration and provides a brief summary of accomplishments and potential challenges for Everglades restoration.


Date of Report: February 26, 2013
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R42007
Price: $29.95


To Order:

R42007.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000

Katie Hoover
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Many counties are compensated for the tax-exempt status of federal lands. Counties with national forest lands and with certain Bureau of Land Management lands have historically received a percentage of agency revenues, primarily from timber sales. However, timber sales have declined substantially—by more than 90% in some areas. Thus, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) as a temporary, optional program of payments based on historic, rather than current, revenues.

Authorization for SRS payments originally expired at the end of FY2006, but through several reauthorizations the program was extended through FY2012. Congressional debates over reauthorization considered the basis and level of compensation (historical, tax equivalency, etc.); the source of funds (receipts, a new tax or revenue source, etc.); the authorized and required uses of the payments; interaction with other compensation programs (notably Payments in Lieu of Taxes); and the duration of any changes (temporary or permanent). In addition, legislation with mandatory spending, such as SRS reauthorization, raises policy questions about increasing the deficit; current budget rules to restrain deficit spending typically impose a procedural barrier to such legislation, generally requiring offsets by additional receipts or reductions in other mandatory spending.

In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343) enacted a four-year extension to SRS authorization through FY2011, with declining payments, a modified formula, and transition payments for certain areas. In 2012, Congress enacted a one-year extension through FY2012, and amended the program by slowing the decline in payment levels and tightening requirements that counties select a payment option promptly (P.L. 112-141).

With the expiration of SRS at the end of FY2012, county compensation is again the subject of congressional debates. County payments are set to return to a revenue-based system for FY2013, and are likely to be significantly lower than the previous years’ payments. Congress may consider extending SRS, with or without modifications, implementing other legislative proposals to address the county payments, or taking no action (thus continuing the revenue-based system that took effect upon the program’s expiration). To date, no legislative action has occurred in the 113th Congress. Discussion in the 113th Congress may focus on many of the same issues that were debated in 2006-2008 and again in 2012.


Date of Report: February 26, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41303
Price: $29.95


To Order:

R41303.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

National Park System: What Do the Different Park Titles Signify?

Laura B. Comay
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Congress names individual units of the National Park System in the enabling legislation for each unit. In so doing, Congress establishes the range of titles used in the park system. The system’s 398 units currently bear a wide range of titles—national park, national monument, national preserve, national historic site, national recreation area, national battlefield, and many others. This report addresses the significance of the different titles and discusses potential advantages and disadvantages of systemwide recommendations to simplify park nomenclature.

Legislators are concerned with park titles in several ways. First, Congress must determine appropriate titles for individual units when parks are established. Although the laws, regulations, and policies governing the National Park System generally apply to all units regardless of title, some meaningful differences nonetheless exist among the designations. Congress has grouped similar units under similar titles and has authorized resource-intensive activities, such as sport hunting or off-road vehicle use, in some types of units more than in others. In particular, Congress has been reluctant to allow such activities in national parks, but has authorized them in national preserves, national recreation areas, and national seashores and lakeshores, among other areas. A few unit titles are further associated with specific statutory authorities that govern their creation or development. National monuments, for example, can be proclaimed by the President under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (whereas other types of units cannot). National scenic trails and wild and scenic rivers are subject to requirements of the National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-543) and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542), respectively, as well as general park authorities.

In addition to naming units when they are established, Congress also considers many proposals to retitle existing park units. Among other things, such proposals may aim to increase visitation at a given unit and thus to boost local and regional economies. For example, studies have suggested that the “national park” title attracts visitors and may bring economic benefits. Partly for this reason, local stakeholders have sometimes advocated for a name change to “national park” in units bearing other titles. Those opposing redesignations may be concerned that unwanted restrictions would be pursued along with a change in title.

An issue for Congress is whether the current wide array of park titles should be consolidated. The House Natural Resources Committee explored this question in 2010 hearings. The National Parks Second Century Commission, and the National Park Service (NPS) itself, have recommended reducing the number of park titles to better “brand” the units and make them more recognizable as part of the park system. Such branding could potentially bring more visitors to underrecognized units and thus help businesses in surrounding communities. On the other hand, the current, more loosely structured system maximizes Congress’s flexibility to title units to reflect their unique features.


Date of Report: February 20, 2013
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R41816
Price: $29.95


To Order:

R41816.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns

Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

In the process of congressional oversight of executive agency regulatory action, concerns have been raised about the adequacy of the FDA’s review of a genetically modified (GM) salmon. More specifically, concern has focused on whether and how potential environmental issues related to this GM salmon might be addressed. In response to these concerns, several bills were introduced in the 112th Congress seeking to declare GM fish unsafe and thus prevent FDA approval of this salmon for human consumption or to require that GM fish be specifically labeled. No final action was taken on these bills by the 112th Congress.

Genetic engineering techniques allow the manipulation of inherited traits to modify and improve organisms. Several GM fish and seafood products are currently under development and offer potential benefits such as increasing aquaculture productivity and improving human health. However, some are concerned that, in this rapidly evolving field, current technological and regulatory safeguards are inadequate to protect the environment and ensure public acceptance that these products are safe for consumption. (The safety of GM foods for human consumption is not addressed in this report.)

In the early 2000s, several efforts began to develop GM fish and seafood products, with a GM AquAdvantage salmon developed by AquaBounty, Inc., in the forefront of efforts to produce a new product for human consumption. By September 2010, requested data had been provided to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by AquaBounty, and FDA’s Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee held public hearings on the approval of AquAdvantage salmon for human consumption. The public comment period on FDA approval closed on November 22, 2010.

Environmental concerns related to the development of GM fish include the potential for detrimental competition with wild fish, and possible interbreeding with wild fish so as to allow the modified genetic material to escape into the wild fish population. Sterilization and bioconfinement have been proposed as means of isolating GM fish to minimize harm to wild fish populations. To address these concerns, AquaBounty proposed producing salmon eggs (all sterile females) in Canada, shipping these eggs to Panama, growing and processing fish in Panama, and shipping table-ready, processed fish to the United States for retail sale.

On December 20, 2012, FDA announced the availability for public comment of (1) a draft environmental assessment of the proposed conditions specified by AquaBounty and (2) FDA’s preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for AquaBounty’s conditions. A 60-day public comment period initially ran through February 25, 2013, but was extended through April 26, 2013. If significant new information or challenges arise in the public comments, FDA must decide whether or not a full environmental impact statement is required prior to approval of AquaBounty’s application. If approved, AquAdvantage salmon would be the first GM animal approved for human consumption.


Date of Report: February 20, 2013
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R41486
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41486.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Garcia v. Vilsack: A Policy and Legal Analysis of a USDA Discrimination Case

Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has long been accused of unlawfully discriminating against minority and female farmers in the management of its various programs, particularly in its Farm Service Agency loan programs. While USDA has taken concrete steps to address these allegations of discrimination, the results of these efforts have been criticized by some. Meanwhile, some minority and female farmers who have alleged discrimination by USDA have filed various lawsuits under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pigford v. Glickman, filed on behalf of African-American farmers, is probably the most widely known, although Native American and female farmers also filed suit in Keepseagle v. Vilsack and Love v. Vilsack, respectively.

In addition, a group of Hispanic farmers filed a similar lawsuit against USDA in October 2000. The case, Garcia v. Vilsack, involved allegations that USDA unlawfully discriminated against all similarly situated Hispanic farmers with respect to credit transactions and disaster benefits in violation of the ECOA, which prohibits, among other things, race, color, and national origin discrimination against credit applicants. The suit further claimed that USDA violated the ECOA and the APA by systematically failing to investigate complaints of discrimination, as required by USDA regulations. After nearly a decade of litigation and numerous rulings on procedural and substantive issues, the Garcia plaintiffs exhausted their final avenue of appeal to have their claims heard as a class action. As a result, the Garcia plaintiffs who wish to pursue their available claims in court must do so individually, or they and other eligible Hispanic farmers may participate in a settlement process established by USDA. Settlement claims must be filed by March 25, 2013.

In addition to an analysis of the Garcia lawsuit, this report also discusses several possible options for Congress to consider if it wishes to respond to the Garcia dispute.


Date of Report: February 22, 2013
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R40988
Price: $29.95

To Order:

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.