Opinion: Valuable Everglades effort

The Senate recently moved the nation closer to correcting a half-century of damage to the Everglades. Under the plan, the state and federal governments would split the $8-billion cost to restore Florida's "River of Grass," a true national treasure. Republicans, Democrats, environmentalists and farmers all back the effort. Now the House must act. Time is critical to sparing the watershed from further ruin, to planning responsibly for South Florida's growth and to retaining a working relationship for decades to come between the federal government and the state.

The Senate's vote was encouraging on two fronts. It recognizes Congress' responsibility for rerouting water flow in the Everglades, which the Army Corps of Engineers, seeking to drain lands for urban and agricultural use, changed in 1948. The near-unanimity of the Senate vote also underscores the widespread popular and bipartisan support for the Everglades restoration plan. Florida's senators, Democrat Bob Graham and Republican Connie Mack, worked in concert with Republican Gov. Jeb Bush and secured the support of both major presidential candidates. Robert C. Smith, the New Hampshire Republican who chairs the senate environment committee, deftly led the chamber toward consensus. "There is," he said, '"enough credit to go around."

The House should follow suit by approving the legislation before the current congressional session ends. Supporters have worked for years to fashion an agreement that serves the broad interests of all parties. In that sense, the Everglades plan represents the democratic ideal of inclusion and compromise. Seventy engineering projects over a 40-year period would pump clean water into the Everglades, capture new water supplies in underground aquifers and eliminate barriers and canals that starve animals and plants of water.

Inevitably, any plan so encompassing will have its drawbacks. Some critics oppose the amount of water set aside for development, the proposal to reopen Homestead Air Force base as a commercial airport and the plan's estimated cost over the long-term. The Senate plan imposes some cost controls; monitoring for environmental impacts will be necessary to retain broad public support. But nobody should diminish this historic chance to save an unique ecosystem. The remaining hurdle is the House. It should follow the lead of the Senate.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright