• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Summary
 Interview














Title: Nathaniel Reed [EVG 2]
ALL VOLUMES CITATION DOWNLOADS THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00004804/00001
 Material Information
Title: Nathaniel Reed EVG 2
Series Title: Nathaniel Reed EVG 2
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Nathaniel Reed
Publication Date: 2000
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00004804
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA6057

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

EVG2 ( PDF )

EVG2summary ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Summary
        Page i
    Interview
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
Full Text





Nathaniel Reed
EVG2

Mr. Reed begins by describing the lobbying efforts of the environmentalists and the sugar
industry over the acquisition of the Talisman Sugar Plantation (page 1-2). He describes the
complexity of the Everglades restoration, saying success will require multi-year programs and
support from multiple government agencies (page 2-3). Cleaning up pollution in Lake
Okeechobee should be a priority (page 3-4). He discusses how the sugar industry defeated the
penny-a-pound tax with advertising and public relations (page 4-5, 7-8). He specifically
addresses phosphate pollution (page 5-7). He explains that the sugar industry in dominated by
the Fanjul brothers and Flo-Sun and attests to their political power (page 8-10).

The aquifer storage and recovery aspect of the restoration is examined, and Mr. Reed declares it
will pose legal challenges and should be studied carefully (page 10). He critiques the South
Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) role in restoration and sees reverse osmosis as
a necessary solution (page 11-12). He talks about morale and financial problems at the Water
Management Districts and notes that without a change in the sugar bill, opposing interests will
continue to fight (page 12-13). He sees the potential in two to five years for a tax that would
supplant land acquisition that is now funded through state land-transfer tax. (page 13). Mr. Reed
then clarifies the purpose of an adaptive-assessment team as dealing with unforeseen changes in
the Everglades (page 13-14). He describes counting sparrows in the Everglades and relates that
to the necessity of peer review in biology (page 15-16). He discusses the decision-making
organizations of the project, the role of Jeb Bush, and related congressional debates (page 16-
17). He contrasts Governor Lawton Chiles' Commission on Conservation with Governor Jeb
Bush's and expresses regret that the present commission is skewed toward big business (page
18).

Mr. Reed comments on the establishment of a coordinating council between federal and state
agencies, the South Florida Restoration Task Force (page 18-19). He further states that its
organization, based on three subgroups, is logical and helps coordination (page 19-20). He
believes that the Everglades Forever Act was pro-agriculture (page 20-21). He agrees that
Dexter Lehtinen was the force behind the lawsuit against the state, and he weighs the positive
and negative aspects of the lawsuit and Everglades Forever (page 21-22). He emphasizes Bob
Graham's commitment to restoration and considers him the most important factor in getting the
Everglades Restoration Act signed (page 22-23). He also talks about the great support of the
newspapers in publicizing the issue, especially the writings of Carl Hiaasen (page 24).

Mr. Reed talks about the establishment of 1000 Friends of Florida and their victory in a Martin
County land-use decision (page 25-26). He also covers the issues addressed by the magazine
Foresight (page 26). He talks about the important women of the environmental movement,
Preservation 2000, and the Audubon Society of Florida (page 27-28). He comments on their
lobbying efforts, that the environmentalists are outnumbered by Big Sugar (page 29). He
mentions lobbyist Wade Hopping as an example (page 39-30). He addresses mercury levels, the
algae bloom, pesticides, and the death of panther and deer in the Everglades (page 31-33). He
ends by discussing the role of the National Academy of Science, the National Park Service, and
the Seminole and Miccosukee Indian tribes in restoring the Everglades (page 34-35).









EVG-2
Interviewer is Julian Pleasants
Interviewee is Nathaniel Reed

P: This is December 18, 2000, the second interview with Nat Reed.

R: My mother would kill you if you said that. She would say, it is Nathaniel Reed.

P: Would you comment on the Everglades Restoration project, in particular your
testimony before the United States Senate Environmental and Public Works
Committee on January 7?

R: It is very vivid. The reason that it is vivid is during November and December,
1999, we negotiated with the White House what the celebration of the fiftieth
anniversary of the establishment of Everglades National Park should be. It was
the consensus of the environmental community that the most important thing we
could do would be to acquire the Talisman Sugar Plantation that was on the
market. [Talisman] is in the southernmost part of the Everglades agricultural
area. The land is basically worn out. There is production, and the production is
meaningful to Flo-Sun, in the sense that it is tons of sugarcane, but the yield per
acre is nothing like the [northern] Everglades agricultural area. I spent weeks
discussing the project with Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt and with the White
House staff at Council of Environmental Quality as they came to terms with what
it would be for the vice- president to announce at the fiftieth anniversary. When
Big Sugar found out that Talisman was our priority, they did everything in their
power to prevent Talisman from being acquired by the federal government. [It is]
being scheduled for a reservoir, a massive reservoir, 60,000 plus acres, in the
first phase of the Everglades Restoration program. Malcolm Wade, better known
as "Bubba," and I were testifying in front of the committee as they held their
hearings in Naples. After I finished my statement, which was quite fierce but
nevertheless very honest as to the [major obstacles we faced in supporting the
proposed] Everglades Restoration bill. The [Miccosukee] Indians were not happy
about some parts of [the proposed bill]. ["Big] Sugar" hired a very well-known
former assistant secretary of the Army to lobby for them, who is a very gifted
lobbyist. When Bubba Wade pronounced all kinds of generalities, I interjected
and said, Mr. Chairman, I hate to interject on this distinguished gentleman, but let
me tell you what really is at the basis of our problem, and I went right into it. I
said, the basic fact is that the sugar combine is opposing the acquisition of
Talisman, and if we are successful in acquiring Talisman, they will do everything
in their power to prevent Talisman from being changed from a sugar plantation
into a major reservoir. I said, you are going to hear, in the quiet of the cloakrooms
and in the quiet of the corridors in the Senate, every reason in the world why the
Talisman property should not be turned into a reservoir. I think it is better to get it
out right here, in full public view, in front of everybody in this room. There was
silence and then an enormous amount of applause. Everybody on the committee
looked absolutely thunderstruck, but the most thunderstruck was poor Mr. Wade,









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 2


who just sort of blurted out, well, we do have our differences, and let it go at that.
It was a very good preemptive strike because Chairman Bob Smith [R-Senator
from New Hampshire] said to me a number of times afterwards, it was so much
better to bring this point out right then and there, so that the committee and all
the staff could hear it and understand what a really bitter point this was in the
negotiations with Sugar. Of course, as you know, as history relates, we were able
to persuade the vice-president to come to the Everglades and make the
announcement of [the acquisition of] Talisman [Plantation]. Now, here we are
eleven months later and we still have Talisman Reservoir in the first stage of the
Everglades Restoration effort, but Sugar has not changed its mind at all. [They]
would like a ten-year delay in transforming the plantation into a reservoir and will
do everything in its power quietly-it does not want to get caught overtly-to try to
prevent Talisman from becoming a reservoir.

P: In your testimony, you mention the tremendous complexity of the process and all
of the multiple agencies involved. How is all that going to be worked out?

R: The point that I was making: Sugar wanted every year for the Everglades
Restoration work group to produce a line-item authorized one-year project. What
the environmental community has stressed from day one is, we ought to be
working on a three-, five-, ten-year schedule, because we do not know what the
reaction of the Everglades system is going to be, to filling in canals, taking down
dikes, building the tremendous underpass underneath Tamiami Trail so that the
water can go down into Shark Valley Slough instead of way off to the west where
it goes now. There are going to be an enormous number of [environmental]
responses that we cannot possibly predict. The sugar barons want to be able to
throttle any project. So the first part of my answer is that we wanted the flexibility
to come up with multiple-year programs. The coordination between the federal
and the state side could be the most difficult part of the process. Within the last
few days, we have been notified that the outgoing Clinton administration, which
has been so deeply involved in so many of the Everglades decisions, has
appointed deputy assistant secretary Michael Davis of the Army, who has been
an absolute superstar throughout this entire process, to take a permanent
position in the Department of Interior as the director of Everglades Restoration.
He will report directly to the new Secretary of Interior, and he will be given the job
of supervising the federal response to how we proceed. [This is a brilliant
appointment.] We are already off to a difficult start with the [Army] Corps [of
Engineers]. One of the Corps project managers has come up with a canal in
western Martin County to connect a number of drainage canals. It is a restoration
program, or project, underneath the broader outlines of the Everglades
Restoration project called the St. Lucie-lndian River component. We are already
having difficulty with a typical straight-line canal connecting a canal to another
canal to another canal, when many of us think there are better ways of handling
and treating dirty water. So, right off the bat, the warning is there, and it is going
to require some very strong stands by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 3


Service, EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], to handle the traditionalists in
the Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville, who are still [fixated on] canals and
pumps, which we think are out of fashion with high energy costs [and] with
tremendous costs of maintenance over a 50-, 100-year period. We think we
ought to design more with nature and less by the heavy hand of man. So, we are
going to see conflicts, but the great thing about the passage of the bill is we are
underway. We [have] a new colonel in Jacksonville. We got a lot of brand-new
staff at the Corps' [Jacksonville] office. I attended a conference last week in
Naples, Florida. 475 scientists came together from all agencies, state, federal,
international, all with an abiding interest in the restoration of the Everglades. It
was the most extraordinary conference imaginable, and the enthusiasm of the
scientists was infectious. The feeling that it can be done, and how much benefit
can come from the first ten years of activity, was truly remarkable. My glass is
more than half-full. I recognize all kinds of problems: funding problems, problems
with the traditionalists at the Corps, problems with financing both the state side
and the federal side on a sustained effort. I worry about confusion in front of the
Congress as we get into heated debate in Florida about parts of the project,
which is inevitable. But I look back at where I was in 1960 when I began this
odyssey and where [we are] in December of the year 2000, and [we are] miles
and miles ahead, about to begin a second part of an epic adventure. The first
adventure was to call attention to the plight of the Everglades and try to get
somebody to do something about it. Fourteen years on the Water Management
District Board, the best I can say that I did was to at least help assemble one of
the finest groups of scientists ever put together in an agency of the state, and to
prove conclusively that not only was the Everglades dying, but that there were
things that could be done if we really got behind a program of major cost. This is
the most expensive renovation program in the world's] history. It is the largest
restoration program ever attempted by man, and now I hope I have time to see
this epic adventure [succeed]. The second part of this epic adventure [will] begin
to break ground and we begin to do things in a very talented way, scientifically
sound. [We] will begin the process of resurrecting a very sick system.

P: What should be the initial priorities?

R: Among [the most pressing concerns] is cleaning up the headwaters of Lake
Okeechobee. The present plans by the Water Management District and the state
call for a storm water treatment area that will remove eighty tons of phosphorus
per year. The fact of the matter is that 400 tons [of phosphorus] in excess of what
the lake can stand is [flowing] into the lake, so the initial step there is very, very
disappointing. A bill passed in this past year's session [which eliminates] the
state regulatory agencies [from all] regulatory authority. That includes DEP
[Florida's Department of Environmental Protection] and the South Florida Water
Management District. [The clean-up is supposed to be accomplished] by best
management practices. I am going to be very honest with you: I do not believe
that the cattlemen and the huge dairy operators will maximize their effort without









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 4


[a sound] regulatory program overseeing their operations. I foresee grave
difficulty in years to come, probably leading to major litigation, similar to the
Everglades litigation, for failure of the state of Florida to enforce its own water-
quality standards in the Okeechobee watershed. We simply cannot allow Lake
Okeechobee to be continually polluted year after year. Actually, the amount of
phosphorus [flowing into the lake] is going up, not going down, and the lake is
showing every sign of becoming hypereutrophic. What is saving [the lake] right
now is this long drought has restricted the amount of phosphorus coming in
through the principle tributaries, which are Taylor Creek, Nubbin Slough, the
Kissimmee River, and Fisheating Creek. All [of the lakes'] tributaries are
delivering far more phosphorus than the most conservative water-quality expert
deems the lake can stand. So that would be high on my list. Then secondly, I
would obviously get the storm water treatment areas underway, they are almost
all [constructed], to control the run-off from the sugar plantations before that
[drainage flows] into the Everglades marsh. I certainly would set the water-quality
standards at ten parts per billion over the entire Everglades marsh, and if the
sugar plantations have to reduce the level of phosphorus from their drainage
before their drainage goes into the state's created storm water treatment areas,
so be it. Frankly, agriculture "owns" their own waste stream. The public of Florida
do not "own" Sugar's phosphorus. Somehow, we have got this thing all mixed up.
If it was a lethal discharge coming out of a steel plant or a copper plant, the plant
owners would be required to clean up their waste stream. It is a little bit bizarre
that the people of Florida, especially the people of the sixteen counties of South
Florida, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds to clean up
the [polluted] wastes coming off privately-owned agricultural lands. In time, that
fact is going to become clearer to the people of South Florida. When the [public]
voted 68 percent for Amendment Five [of the Florida Constitution], Amendment
Five said very clearly that those who were polluting the Everglades should bear
the full cost of the clean-up. The fact of the matter is the EAA [Everglades
Agricultural Area], 475,000 acres of the EAA, are paying approximately
$12,700,000 in taxes toward a project that is costing about $80,000,000 a year.
The taxpayers of South Florida are subsidizing the EAA ownership for
$67,000,000 a year. At the moment, the vast majority of the public are unaware
of that [fact]. When they become aware of it, I think they are going to ask their
members of the legislature why no bill has been put in through a legislative
session to implement Amendment Five of our constitution.

P: Explain how Big Sugar defeated Amendment Four, which was a-penny-a-pound
tax to pay for the cleanup.


R: The initial poll showed that those of us who were proponents of the penny-a-
pound would win by 70 percentile. Sugar hired a number of the top advertising
companies and strategists that money can buy, and we lost some ardent
supporters right off the bat, including Steve Spurrier, the famous [football] coach









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 5


of the University of Florida, who was going to sign up with us and was warned
that if he did his contract was in doubt. That was hardball. Hardball was
threatening people across the state who had high visibility who might join our
campaign. Softball was to go down and take a hard look at the condominium
communities of South Florida, arrange for busloads of them to be taken for a
luncheon at Clewiston, given a short tour, given five pounds of cane sugar, a
very good luncheon, and be absolutely charmed out of their shoes by a very
attractive group of young people that the sugar companies hired. As the months
went by, we began to see slippage. Unwisely on our behalf, a public relations
advertising company published a photograph in one of our full-page
advertisements in the newspapers of South Florida that showed a dead deer [in
the Everglades marsh. We know that mismanagement of water caused deer to
die by the hundreds, but not phosphorus]. Phosphorus never killed a deer in the
Everglades, and anybody who was knowledgeable would have seen [that] the
dead deer picture was not going to escape criticism. Of course, the sugar
industry went absolutely wild, brilliantly wild. Their paid agents, their agents
provocateurs went absolutely wild, saying, look, they are absolutely defaming us,
maintaining that our tiny little bit of phosphorus in the [drainage] is killing deer
when, in fact, our water is cleaner than Perrier, of which there is some truth.
Perrier has quite a bit of phosphorus. Their argument that their [drainage] is
cleaner than rainfall is also accurate, because rainfall has many more parts per
billion of phosphorus in it because it picks it up from their land. Their land and the
cattle country north of Lake Okeechobee and the citrus lands on the east and
west sides of the lake all use massive quantities of phosphorus. In the dairy land,
[phosphorus] is in the feed. In the ranching land, it is in their fertilizer, as it is in
the citrus groves. Tons and tons of phosphorus are used, because phosphorus is
basically a very inexpensive part of fertilizer. Farmers are notorious: if five
pounds per acre is the right amount, well, it is so cheap, let us put down fifteen
pounds per acre and make sure that we get enough phosphorus down. South
Florida is so loaded with phosphorus that it is hard to believe. One of the
curiosities of the great Everglades marsh is [that it began as a forested marsh].
We all know that the sawgrass was there. We all know that the aquatic plant
material was there that made the muck soil. There was also an enormous forest
of cypress trees and pond apples and all kinds of deciduous trees. The
combination of them sucked [out] what little phosphorus was in Lake
Okeechobee. Lake Okeechobee was basically nutrient-starved until man arrived
around its edges. So, the great sawgrass marsh of the Everglades, the 800,000
acres of sawgrass marsh evolved over thousands of years in a water column that
basically had no phosphorus. Ten parts per billion is the speck of what reputable
water-quality scientists believe the water-quality [standards should be]. Beginning
at twenty parts per billion, you have a shift, and it is not a slight shift. You have a
major shift in a plant-dominated community from sawgrass to cattails. Sawgrass
is intolerant to phosphorus. Cattails grow like cancer with phosphorus. Once
cattails [take over], it is extremely difficult to reconvert to sawgrass, the historic
[Everglades] marsh. In Florida's water-quality rules, which I helped establish









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 6


many years ago, we could not agree on various standards, numerical standards,
throughout Florida. I wrote, with the aid of very good attorneys, a biological
botanical standard saying that discharge from [an industrial] plant or from
agriculture, from [any] industry, may not change the botanical biological makeup
of the receiving water. That is the handle that led the federal government to sue
the state and the Water Management District when thousands of acres of
sawgrass were converted into cattails by the stream of phosphorus coming out of
the EAA. That [legal approach] is probably what we will be forced to [achieve]
upstream in Okeechobee [watershed]. Give it a year. If the state is not able to
galvanize itself, to really make meaningful progress in controlling the amount of
phosphorus going into Lake Okeechobee, then they are opening themselves to
an identical lawsuit, which says you are not enforcing your own water-quality law.

P: What agency would enforce that?

R: At the moment, we do not have one because of Pruitt's bill last year. Senator
Pruitt's bill-he was Representative Pruitt last year-passed a bill that removed all
[regulatory] authority from DEP in the South Florida Water Management District,
gave it to the state of Florida's Department of Agriculture and encouraged best
management practices, which are entirely voluntary. There is nobody up there
saying, Farmer Jones, you will do the following things: you will stop draining your
wetlands and putting your water into the waters of the state. You will control the
phosphorus on your land. You will not put septic tank wastes [on your land].
Hundreds of millions of gallons of [sewage], high in phosphorus, are dumped on
the rangelands in Okeechobee County. Where does the phosphorus go? It goes
out [from the ranch] drainage ditches, many of them illegally constructed, into the
waters of the state and then to [Lake] Okeechobee. Now, when you have got to
remove a minimum of 400 tons of phosphorus per year out of this system, you
can imagine how much phosphorus is being dumped by cattle, by fertilizer, by
septic tank waste, [by sewage sludge] on this one watershed.

P: So no federal agency has jurisdiction?

R: EPA has kept an eagle eye on the situation. Carol Browner [head of EPA under
President Clinton], came down and spoke to the dairy operators and the cattle
operators last spring. That would be in June of 2000. She told them that they had
limited time to get their act together and begin to work together to reduce the
phosphorus loadings to the tributaries. Since then, we have seen absolutely no
progress at all. There is a new dean at the Institute for Food and Agricultur[al
Studies, IFAS] at the University of Florida. Last spring, I made a desperate effort
through Dr. [E. T.] York, a former [interim] president of the University of Florida
[1973-1974], to get IFAS [involved, although it] has been a handmaiden of
agriculture in Florida since its creation. IFAS has been such a broad supporter of
all agriculture in Florida that it has never taken a strong stand on the problems of
agricultural pollution. It is my great hope that IFAS will take a very strong position









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 7


as one of the coordinators of a program in the Okeechobee basin to correct this
incredible wave of pollution that is coming into Lake Okeechobee. It is a great
opportunity for IFAS to show its [bright] side.

P: Let me get back to the defeat of Amendment Four.

R: Well, we lost it because we lost our credibility with the deer ad. We did not think
that we were going to have to raise as much money as we did, or spend as much
money as we did. I think we raised and spent close to $11,000,000, and very
quietly, agriculture raised and spent $22,500,000. It was not until the last polls,
which [came in] about eight or nine days before the election, that we recognized
that there had been a significant shift in the public's view. It had not been helped
by the newspapers discrediting our effort because of the deer advertisement. The
deer advertisement had a very damaging impact on our campaign. Further, I
traveled for three weeks across the state doing morning, lunch and dinner
speeches, at Kiwanis, [Chamber s of Commerce,] you name it, anybody that had
a speaking date. I went to breakfast radio in Fort Pierce, breakfast radio and TV
in Vero Beach. I mean, we took up various parts of Florida. I was so tired during
that period, I actually drove off the road three times, asleep at the wheel. The
night of the election, I still felt quite confident. I had been engaged for a couple of
thousand dollars in contributions to 1,000 Friends of Florida to call the election at
a radio station in West Palm Beach. That election, as you know, was over rather
early, so I left the radio station and drove down to Miami, where Mary Barley and
Paul Tudor Jones and the rest of our gang were sitting and waiting for the final
results. Of course, about two o'clock in the morning it became apparent that
[Amendment Four had been rejected]. We were terribly disheartened, but Thom
Rumberger [law firm of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Tallahassee], our lead
counsel, one of the best lawyers in the state of Florida, said, I think we may gain
more from Amendment Five than we would have from a-penny-a-pound. I think
Amendment Five is going to force them to spend between $70,000,000 and
$90,000,000 a year. But, what nobody recognized that evening and for several
weeks thereafter, there was not a member of the legislature who was willing to
put in a bill to implement Amendment Five. Attorney General [Bob] Butterworth
said, it is self-enforcing, it is law. Water Management Districts immediately began
assessing the owners of land in the Everglades agricultural area full costs per
acre [for] cleaning up their wastes, [and asked them to] identify what wastes were
coming off what plantations immediately [so the District could calculate their
share of tax]. The sugar industry immediately appealed the attorney general's
decision to the Supreme Court of Florida, and the Supreme Court said
amendments to the constitution require implementation [by the legislature]. So
we are back knocking at the door of the Supreme Court. A group of us filed suit,
Mary Barley and myself and a couple of others, saying to the Supreme Court,
yes, we understand your verdict, but what happens in a state when an
overwhelming majority votes for an amendment to the constitution (it is now part
of Florida's constitution) and yet we cannot get it implemented, because no









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 8


member of the legislature, all well-paid by Sugar, will enter the bill. There is
judicial reference in a number of different places. A number of historical decisions
have been made where the court has either imposed its will or sent a clear
message to the legislature, saying, you will have hearings and you will
implement. That does not mean we will gain the full level of taxation, but we
believe the Supreme Court will send a message to the legislature saying, hey
guys, implement.

P: I wanted you to comment on their very effective television advertising.

R: No question about it.

P: A tremendous amount of distortion, but it seemed to have worked.

R: Right, it worked. As I said, they hired the very best of the very best. You get what
you pay for. It was a great lesson. We did not realize that we were being
outspent by that much. The $10,000,000 or $11,000,000 differential was
colossal. They held their money back for the last three weeks, except for the
extensive tours where they literally bussed thousands and thousands of voters
from the condominiums in southeastern Florida who we counted on, were sure
of. We lost condominium after condominium, and it was the bus [trips that led to
the negative reaction]. After the fact, we went back to find out why we lost at
certain places, and the big reasons in Dade, Broward, southern Palm Beach
[was], how could we put those dear farmers out of business, those little farmers,
those such attractive young people, those nice ladies, nice young black people
who all are working so hard out there? We just could not put them out of
business. The thought that these were huge corporate farmers apparently never
dawned on them. One of the great stories, and I do not remember whether I told
it in the first interview, was testifying in front of a Committee of Natural Resources
of the Florida legislature in the House. One Republican who is nameless, and he
should be nameless because he was defeated in the next election, asked me
what I had against small farmers in the Everglades. I looked at him and I said,
name one. I mean, come on, 90 percent of the EAA is owned by two
corporations. 97 percent is owned by three.

P: Who is the power then, the Fanjul brothers and Flo-Sun?

R: They are very, very powerful. U. S. Sugar is very powerful. George
Wedgeworth used to be powerful. He is less powerful now because he has
trouble with voracity and because he has a temper that is not his best ally. The
Fanjuls are very, very clever. One brother is a Republican and is an enormous
donor to the Republican party and serves on the most prestigious of all the large
donor groups of the Republican party. The other brother, the eldest brother, is a
Democrat and is a close friend of the president.









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 9


P: That is Alfie?

R: Alfonso. When Al Gore was championing the penny-per-pound issue for us,
Amendment Four, one telephone call from Fanjul to Clinton stopped all of the
activity in Washington in our behalf.

P: Is that because they make so many contributions to so many legislators?

R: Yes. They are the most generous of the donors, and more generous than
General Motors, Ford and Chrysler put together. There is hardly a member of the
legislature that does not get some financial support, and the vast majority of the
[Congressional] leadership receives tremendous support, not only from Florida
Sugar, but from the sugar beet states as well. [We face] great problems [in
attempting to] reform the sugar act, which is totally out of control. This year, a
minimum of $84,000,000 worth of excess sugar [has] already dumped on the
American taxpayer and in the next two weeks we will probably see another
$15,000,000 [dumped]. The Congress has to rewrite the sugar bill within two
years. The problems of [the Sugar Act are:] you have sections of this country
where the sugar beets are grown, the Dakotas, Montana, eastern Oregon,
eastern Washington, parts of Idaho, [even California and Arizona] where there
are no significant cash crops, and [sugar] beets give a very steady source of
income to the individual farmers because of the American subsidy system. You
have [obvious] imbalances, because Hawaii sugar costs more to produce
because they have to use manual labor to cut the cane. The [Hawaiian]
processing plants are very old. They have had no capital investment in them for
many years. Then the price of bringing the raw sugar to the United States by ship
to refine it adds enormously to the cost per pound of raw versus cane sugar
grown in Florida or beet sugar grown in [the Midwest]. The combine is held
together, beet and cane are held together, by intensive negotiations at their
offices in Washington. Sugar has one of the largest lobbies of any industry in
America, the reason being that it is a product that is so heavily subsidized that
the producers of sugar, cane and beet, are willing to spend anything on lobbying,
campaign donations and legal efforts to keep this incredible largesse flowing.

P: They really have it good because the state of Florida gives them all the fresh
water they want and the federal government subsidizes their crop.

R: And it gets worst, because not only is the water free in Florida, but the total cost
of operating the system in the EAA [is subsidized]. Remember there is an
agricultural [tax] exemption on all of those lands, so the total income from those
lands to support the operation of the pumping system, to take their excess water
from their land and bring irrigation water from the lake to their land, is entirely
subsidized by the taxpayers of South Florida. The taxpayer of South Florida is
paying to give them "free" water, to take "free" water to their plantations, to take
[the polluted drainage] from their plantations, and to clean up their load of









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 10


pollution coming off their plantations. Never in the history of agriculture has
anybody ever had it so good, on top of a guarantee of $0.21 a pound [when the
world price for sugar is eight-plus cents!]. It is coming to an end, because Mexico
in the North American Treaty is able to sell in the United States a great many
tons of sugar per year. The [sugar] surplus now has grown at such a rate that the
American taxpayer is finally going to wake up and say, we are not going to dump
$100,000,000 into excess sugar again. It is just not going to happen. It is going to
be a tremendous battle. We have won it in the House many times before
because of the urban bloc, but we lose it in the Senate because of the number of
states that cane and, most importantly, sugar beets are grown in. If you add up
the number of states where sugar beets [and] cane sugar is grown, and where
the refineries are, you find out that you have a very tough time cleaning up the
sugar racket. How is that? It has been going on since the 1880s.

P: The sugar industry has attacked you. I think they compared you to Fidel Castro.

R: I love it. The children, each one of them, have mounted in their house this
incredible full-page advertisement that [U.S. Sugar] took in the Miami Herald. [It]
is absolutely glorious. I thanked both presidents of both sugar companies for the
great honor they have bestowed on me. [They compared me with Fidel Castro!]

P: Let me get back to a question on Everglades Restoration. A key part of the whole
process is going to be the aquifer storage and recovery. That has never been
done on a large scale. How do we know that is going to work?

R: We do not, and [that is a "searching" question]. I would [admit that] the weakest
part of the restoration plan is aquifer storage. It may not even be legal. EPA may
have grave difficulty in allowing [untreated] water to [be pumped] into the aquifer.
It certainly poses some extraordinary legal challenges and hurdles.

P: Isn't it polluted water?

R: It will be polluted water. The answer to that, of course, is that it is going into an
impermeable zone where it [supposedly] cannot move [upward]. [The agricultural
industry will be] using it for irrigation water so [when] it comes out with a lot of
phosphorus and nitrogen and then even if it has a little bit of herbicides, it is not
doing any damage; it is probably doing the crop good. That is the toughie. I think
we will see that [experiment proceed] because there are times, like last winter,
where we had a bountiful supply of water for a very short period of time. If we
had some way of storing it without losing it to the atmosphere, through
evaporation or through plants or through seepage, it would have been very
valuable to put that amount of water into storage. But for every enthusiastic
supporter of ASR, you have got ten people who say, beware, beware, beware.
This is an interesting concept. Go ahead and study it, go ahead and do some
trial, but to count on it is going too far.









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 11


P: Talk about the function of the South Florida Water Management District in the
restoration process. There has been some criticism in the past that they did not
heed scientific evidence as much as they should have.

R: I think that is a fair criticism. When I came on the board initially, environment was
probably the least-considered function. I stayed on the board long enough to see
that environment actually for a short period of time become [one of] the primary
objectives of the Water Management District. Then we had a hurricane, [South
Florida] got wet, and then drainage became more important than [the
environment]. Agriculture, of course, rear-guarded [environmental reforms] to
make sure that their needs were kept as a priority. [The District] now has multiple
priorit[ies]. Obviously [they] have the environment, the public utilities of South
Florida that rely far too heavily on Everglades water, and agriculture, who cannot
subsist without water. So, you have got at least two of the three users that cannot
survive without [an] adequate amount of water, which is agriculture and the
environment. You have to look very hard at the utility system in South Florida,
still connected by umbilical cords to the Everglades, where they remove
hundreds of millions of gallons of "potable" water a day. I would say "potable"
with quotes around it because Everglades water has to be treated because it
carries all kinds of interesting [chemicals in it]. [One of] the toughest decisions
that must be made during the Everglades restoration process, is the little-
discussed fact, and I am [stating] fact, [is] that the utilities of South Florida are
going to have to find other sources of water. By that I mean, they are going to
have to go to RO [reverse osmosis] water or some other form similar to RO,
because the Everglades [system is] simply not going to be able to provide the
amount of drinking water per day that [the utilities] have gotten used to [taking]. It
is so cheap to pump the water out from underneath the Everglades that the
thought of going to reverse osmosis is tough, but massive reverse osmosis
plants are effective all over the Middle East. Yes, they are energy-expensive.
yes, the water per gallon, or per thousand gallons, or per hundred thousand
gallons, is substantially higher than expertly-treated water taken from the
Everglades aquifer. But the fact of the matter is, with the rate of growth that
South Florida is going through, it is not possible to have a successful agriculture
community and utilities and protect the Everglades simultaneously. Agriculture]
has no other possible way of producing the kind of water needs that they have.
The Everglades [ecosystem] cannot be shorted again. You will see a legal effort
and you will see congressional effort to remove the power of the state if the [state
dries] up Everglades National Park and Florida Bay again for the sake of more
people living in South Florida. Congress made that very, very clear in passing the
Everglades Restoration bill this year, that this additional water [acquired at] vast
expense of the American taxpayer was not going to be used to subsidize
additional housing units in South Florida. That [scenario] will play out. That crisis
is down the road, because the utility directors, who have a very strong hand in
the Water Supply Department of the South Florida Water Management District,
have no intention at the moment of voluntarily giving up cheap Everglades water.









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 12


The fact of the matter is if you spread RO over the enormous base of the
3,000,000[-plus] people who live in South Florida, it is not staggering. Water is
bound to be far more expensive. I used to think that water was going to one of
the key elements in restraining growth in South Florida. Now, with the
tremendous advent of high-speed RO systems, I no longer believe that. I believe
that people will live here versus Chicago on December 18. I mean, let us face it,
looking down the Indian River as we are right now, where would you rather be?
Would you rather be in Detroit or Minneapolis or Chicago or Boston? No. The
fact of the matter is when you can afford it or whether it is by luck or volition, you
are going to get out of that miserable [four]-month, [five]-month winter and move
to a place where you could be in a polo shirt today. That is our problem. We still
are such an attractive place to live, despite the fact that there almost too many of
us, especially here in southeast Florida. It is approaching that in southwest
Florida.

P: When you get to making decisions, what impact will the South Florida Water
Management District have vis-a-vis the Corps of Engineers or these other
agencies? How are they going to reconcile their interests?

R: They are equal partners, and it will require the selection of very good board
members and a very good executive director. I think the big problem right now is
two-fold at the water management district. First, we have a serious morale
problem, because we have members of the board who are trying to micro-
manage the staff. Secondly, we do not have a clear formula of how South Florida
is going to pay what the governor says is our percentage of the annual cost [of
the Restoration effort], which is $200,000,000 a year. He says that the state will
be responsible for $100,000,000 and South Florida will be responsible for
$100,000,000, but that money must come out of the South Florida Water
Management District budget and the South Florida Water Management District
may not raise taxes to come up with that $100,000,000. If you take $100,000,000
out of the South Florida Water Management District budget, you will lose the
great scientific staff that has been assembled, and you will lose project after
project that are vital beyond Everglades Restoration. Drainage alone for the
urban area will be lost. Cooperation between the cities and counties in South
Florida to clean up their urban pollution problems will all be lost, because that is
[paid for] on a matching basis, and the land-acquisition programs in South Florida
will be crippled as well. I am preparing right now a series of questions, and
hopefully some answers, to be presented at the Everglades Coalition meeting in
January where I chair one of the committees of the conference in producing, I
hope, an exciting forum on how South Florida should tax itself to meet its
responsibilities, rather than to [fiscally] destroy the South Florida Water
Management District. I hope it is going to be a very exciting forum.

P: Are there any procedures that have been worked out to facilitate the restoration
process? If you think about the Native Americans, the federal government, the









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 13


state government, the sugar farmers, dairy, all these different agencies, how are
they going to reconcile their different goals?

R: As I said, Michael Davis is a magnificent choice [for Everglades Coordinator]. In
the [Everglades Restoration] Act, there is some very strong direction given to the
Interior Department [and] the Secretary of the Army who supposedly controls the
Corps. I do not believe that the differences between the federal and the state
local interests are going to be that great. I do believe that, without a change in
the sugar bill, there will be continued friction between the restoration effort, the
environmental interests and the interests of the EAA. I think it is highly possible,
however, that the Congress will order a certain amount of land to be taken out of
[sugar] production. That will promote a crisis in the sense of whether we are
going to allow golf-course communities in the Everglades Agriculture Area or
whether the land must be acquired by the federal government and the state
acting in concert. The second alternative not only is preferable, but I think it is
highly possible.

P: Did you not propose one time a two-cent tax to buy land and take it out of
circulation?

R: Yes.

P: What happened to that proposal?

R: It did not get very far. I have a paper process now for consideration for future
amendments to the Florida Constitution to protect the EAA as an agricultural
area, or as an environmentally sensitive area to be acquired with a potential
funding source. We are probably, two, three, four, maybe five years away from
producing such a huge effort in the state of Florida, which would be a green tax
that would supplant the present Florida Forever and other land-acquisition
programs that are presently paid for by a small percentage on the [state land]
transfer tax.

P: Like Preservation 2000?

R: Yes. I think there is a cleaner way of doing it, and I think the people of Florida
might rally to the cause.

P: Talk a little bit about a new concept that I am not very familiar with. There is
going to be an adaptive-assessment team. What is that, and what is their
function?


R: That goes back to my opening quite a ways back, just as we began this process,
when we were talking about my testimony in front of the committee. That is the









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 14


one that Sugar decided to fight against as hard as anything and then gave in as
very extremely well-known scientists joined with the environmental community in
supporting this concept. The concept is pure and simple. As we proceed with this
Restoration project, we are going to have modifications and changes that we
cannot possibly foresee at this time. We cannot give a plan every spring to the
Congress that says we are going to do the following things in the following order
forever because there will be unforeseen changes. Dramatic things will happen.
The marsh will either dry out or it will get flooded or the water will go in the wrong
[direction]. No matter how good the computer models are, and they are very, very
good, adaptive management is that you adapt your plans to fit the situation. Pure
and simple as that. Now, we have got multiple millions of acres of land and
water, and it would be foolhardy for us to stick with Plan A and not be willing to
be flexible; if Plan A is not producing the results anticipated, that we [should be
able to] shift by adaptive management and say, hey, let us try a correction
course. And do it rapidly and not have to go back to the Congress every single
time to say we need to change a dike, we need to change a levee, we need to
get rid of a pump, we need to let the water flow naturally, or we need to acquire
another piece of land over here because we have made a mistake in the overall
acreage. That is what adaptive management is going to be. It is going to be to
take advantage of unforeseen options, and I mean that, things that we cannot
possibly predict at this time. That is why you have to have this real grouping, and
that is what was over in Naples last week, this astonishing hierarchy of scientists,
some of them the most senior in the country, Department of Interior and South
Florida Water Management District in particular, the Corps of Engineers, I might
add, Fish and Wildlife Service. I had to be dragged away. I had dinner every
night with different groups of them so I could ask my own personal questions,
and I said, bah humbug a number of times, to people who I did not appreciate
their presentations, which were obviously partly Sugar-inspired. But it was good.
We had a couple of sessions that were literally free-for-alls where panelists
debated for an hour and then the audience debated with the panel for an hour,
the best kind of give-and-take. That is what is going on. Searching questions are
being asked right now as we get ready to open the barn door and start to come
charging out. There are a lot of things that we want to discuss now. More
importantly, I think the question really revolves around, will the managers-the
Corps of Engineers, Water Management District-pay close attention to the signs.
So much of Florida has been screwed up because neither the Corps nor the
managers of the various Water Management Districts have trusted their
scientists sufficiently. This time, the scientists have got to stand up when they are
being driven over with a management bulldozer and scream. This is not the time
for the scientists to retreat to ivory towers and years later, say, I told you so. I am
sure some heads will fly off when scientists stand up and say, managers, you
have got it wrong. That is the price that has to be paid to keep this thing on track,
scientifically sound. As you know, there is a peer review committee established
by the secretary that meets two or three times a year, at which the scientific
community can go and plead its cause and say those bad wicked managers









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 15


down there are following straight-line Corps of Engineer dictum of the past rather
than doing something. That will be a very interesting process to watch and be
involved in.

P: What happens when the scientists disagree? The hydrologists say one thing,
other scientists disagree. Who reconciles those differences?

R: Well, I sat at a table the other night while the battle of the Cape Sable sparrow
went on around me, with rifle shots being fired across the table as to good
science and bad science and who was involved in good science and who was
bad and who was involved with "sloppy" science. There are no Methuselahs
readily available. At the height of the dispute, two years ago, I volunteered myself
to go down. I went with Dr. Stewart Pim, who has now moved to the Columbia
[University] in New York City. We stayed up quite late and got up at four o'clock
in the morning and drove to Homestead. I had to put on this incredible fireproof
clothing that the federal government insists that non- federal employees wear
when they get in a helicopter. Of course, we took off before sunlight, which is
against the law, but nevertheless we took off before sunlight and arrived on the
Everglades marsh inside the national park. The helicopter would drop the three
of us and go on. When the helicopter was out of sight, we would listen very hard
for the little cry of the male Cape Sable sparrow, which is the only way that you
can identify whether they are there because they are in the muley marsh. They
are almost impossible to see. I am happy to tell you that not only did I see males,
but I saw females, I saw nests, I saw babies, which was very exciting. The babies
were just fledglings and could fly ten or fifteen feet. I saw their number one
predators, which are water snakes and cottonmouth moccasins by the hundreds.
I got a keener appreciation of this incredible water regime, that developed over
eons of time, that allowed this population of birds to live in these two remote
sections of the Everglades National Park, basically unknown by human beings
until the latter part of the nineteenth century. Nobody paid any attention to them
until the Endangered Species Act passed and somebody went out and counted
them and then counted them again another year and another year and another
year and found that their populations were crashing and that changes had to be
made in the water management delivery schedule to the park to assure that the
habitat was sufficiently thick when the little beasts want to breed, and that the
water levels are sufficiently low. If the water levels are high, the water snakes
and the water moccasins come out and eat all the young birds in the nests. So,
you got to have this dry-down, this typical Everglades dry-down. The snakes will
not cross the oolite to get to the nest because it is too hot and too sharp. They
have to be able to swim during this period. Before the spring rains come, the
birds do their duty and they have multiple crops of young birds, and we believe
they are holding our own, but it is a very near thing. Who makes those decisions?
Well, you have got to take the advice from who you consider to be the soundest
biologist, and I always like to have peer review. As Assistant Secretary [of
Interior], I learned that peer review applied to me too. For instance, I have a









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 16


number of things right now. I have a couple of op-ed articles, I have a letter very
critical of state policy on the Loxahatchee River, that are all up on peer review
because, at sixty-seven years of age, I want myself to be annoyingly accurate.
So, I believe in peer review, especially in the federal government. If you are
member of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service, peer
review is absolutely essential. The taxpayer believes that you should be
accurate.

P: Let me try to get a handle on this. In the restoration project, who will make the
decision? For example, is the task force the key at this juncture?

R: The task force is very important. Appeals to the Secretary of Interior are going to
be very important. The secretary must have a good science advisor. Secretary
Babbitt had an expert science advisor. He had expert assistants at the Fish and
Wildlife Service and at the National Park Service. We had some major
differences between the superintendent at Everglades National Park and the
upstream water managers. Whenever you are the tail of the dog, you are bound
to resent the upstream part of the dog managing the water that you are going to
get. I think with the transfer of Superintendent [Dick] Ring to Washington, where
he will be a major player in Everglades Restoration, but with Superintendent
Maureen Fennety arriving, she is a very, very knowledgeable and very cool
customer. It will be really worth watching how she and the South Florida Water
Management District interact. We have a new colonel in Jacksonville. It will be
very interesting to see how he reacts to his federal responsibility to assist
Everglades National Park.

P: How do you think things might change under George W. Bush?

R: I have no possible inkling. It depends much on his selection of Assistant
Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and National Parks. That person, if it is a
great friend of mine, which I am not going to use a name, but there is a candidate
who is a great friend of mine who I consider to be tops, I am sure that the
Department would be a very strong player. If it is not him and we have a weak
Secretary, Interior will not play as important a role as it should. Obviously, we
have the opportunity, in the two years that Governor Jeb Bush has left in his
term, to make enormous progress, with his brother being president. You also
have the problem that Governor Jeb is given bad information or bad advice and
he appeals to his brother who obviously knows nothing about the Everglades,
you could overrule some good science or good initiatives. That is a possibility,
one we will have to keep a close eye on to make sure that our governor,
Governor Jeb, stays on the right track.

P: While we are on that, would you assess Jeb Bush's contribution to the project?









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 17


R: I think he has been important. I think I will let it go at that. You know, I think it
took a combination of the private side, the environmental community of Florida
that reached out to the national organizations, where we got commitments from
every one of the national organizations that they would spend time and money in
the other forty-nine states, so that we had a national commitment to restore the
Everglades. Then we had a very strong Florida delegation, led by Congressman
Clay Shaw, that never wavered. We were very fortunate in having the chairman
of the Appropriations Committee, Congressman [C.W.] Bill Young from Tampa,
at the right place at the right time. We were very fortunate that Senator [Bob]
Graham and Senator [Connie] Mack made a tremendous effort to get along with
each other, coming from different parties, to get along on the Everglades
Restoration bill. Senator Mack was very important with the majority of
Republicans. For instance, when everybody was questioning whether the bill
would be heard prior to the close of the congressional session, I had absolute
assurance from Senator Mack's staff that Congress would not go home without
hearing the Everglades bill, and the same from Chairman Smith. It never crossed
my mind. I never got even remotely excited at the possibility that the bill would
die because it would not be voted on. It was being held up for various political
reasons as a chip, but the combination of Graham and Mack was incredibly
important. The governor came in infrequently, but when he did come in, he came
in effectively. Sugar made a desperate effort to get various things from the
governor and his comments before the congressional authorizing committees.
They did not get what they wanted. I think we did very well with the governor, and
I am very pleased that he went to Washington for the signing of the bill. I think he
showed his continuing interest, plus I will be very honest with you. It is a winner,
politically. If you want to be really gross, you say, gosh, $400,000,000 a year
alone is going to be spent for twenty years in the Everglades. That is as good as
rebuilding 1-95 when you come to drag lines, front-end loaders, earth movers.
This is big time. If you read the comments in the Senate debate, I mean, Senator
John Warner [from Virginia] said, hey, I got a pretty big project on the
Chesapeake that involves, I think, five states which pollute Chesapeake Bay.
You got Montana saying, hey, we got a whole bunch of water projects in
Montana, and you always got water projects in California. Then you got the
desert states, Arizona, New Mexico, southern Colorado, Nevada, Utah. They got
a hundred water projects. I am not kidding. There are so many water projects.
Every time we have said, let us have a review of all the authorized water projects
in this country that have never received an appropriation and knock the ones out
that are not important or which are environmentally totally destructive, the
Congress says, no, no, no, review committee, keep them alive forever. The
backlog is billions and billions of dollars, but it is not a realistic backlog because
98 percent of them are never going to be built. But the congressman wants to go
home and say, my dear constituents, I am working really hard to have that canal
built, and someday before I leave the Congress, I promise you that I will deliver.
They look at an $8,000,000,000 project in Florida, sure, it might restore the
Everglades, but they do not look at it like that. They look at it, this is money









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 18


coming out of my project somewhere else in the United States. That is the great
danger of continual funding, is that if we go into a major recession and we go
back into red ink, this project could be delayed and it could be cut back. We will
need to have strong congressional support from our delegation and from our
governor. So, I congratulate Governor Jeb, and I think we have a fantastic
opportunity to move ahead with him and his brother in the White House.

P: Comment on his current advisory group. I think it is the Governor's Commission
on Conservation, something like that, which has maybe two, at the most,
environmentalists. Stuart Strahl is on that. The rest of the people on that
commission are businessmen, industrialists, farmers. It seems a little skewed
toward big business as opposed to the environment.

R: I would rather not comment on it because I would rather forget its establishment
and appointments. Compared to the committee that was established by Governor
Chiles, which was chaired by Richard Pettigrew, which produced enumerable
good decisions by consensus, the less I see of this commission the happier I will
be.

P: That Chiles committee was the Commission for Sustainable South Florida.

R: Yes.

P: What contribution did that commission make, in specific terms?

R: I think its whole attitude of finding consensus and recognizing the tremendous
advantages of a restored Everglades to the economy and to the environment of
South Florida was its hallmark. It was astutely managed by Pettigrew, and it was
very well stocked with very responsible members of the South Florida
community. It was not loaded one way or the other. The amazing thing is that
they were able to reach consensus with utility directors and major
representatives of the agricultural community. I think the best thing to do with the
present commission is to keep them from meeting. They might damage
themselves.

P: Discuss how the South Florida Restoration task force was chosen, and who
made those decisions?

R: Under Colonel [Rock] Salt?

P: Yes.

R: That was established basically by the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of
Army. Colonel Salt was nominated to coordinate its activities. I think on the whole
we wanted to find out whether it would work. Secretary Babbitt and I discussed









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 19


this some time ago, probably seven years ago, the establishment of a
coordinating council, so that all federal and state agencies could discuss
pertinent issues, sometimes out of the Sunshine [Laws] because they work under
federal rules. I think it has proven its worth. How is that? I think it has proven its
worth, and I think now it will evolve with this permanent position in the
Department of Interior. It is the only way to go, in my opinion. I knew it at the
time, and I knew that it would prove itself out. You have to have this body which
meets frequently where tough decisions, ecological decisions, biological
decisions, construction decisions can be made.

P: Do you think at this juncture the task force agrees on priorities and goals?

R: No, there are some differences of opinion, there always will be, but I think the
vast majority of them believe that we are underway, let us get underway, let us
work very coherently with one another and limit our special interests. I think we
are off to a good start. I really do. I am not aware of giving you a negative reply to
that question. I am not aware of a single member that would have said to me in
Naples or would have picked up the phone and called me at eleven o'clock at
night saying our interest is being screwed. I have not had any sense of that, and I
have the strong feeling that if it had happened, if it was going on, I would be
called, because this morning I received a long fax from a worker, a very, very fine
scientist in the Everglades, over a problem he is having with DEP and the
governor's office, and asking for assistance. I understand exactly where he is
coming from, and I understand exactly what the problem is. I am not quite sure
how to solve it yet, but I think I will come up with a solution within forty-eight
hours. But I am a known conduit, so if there was a problem, like there is a
problem between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers on
the Cape Sable sparrow. The Corps' [legal] council will not give or modify certain
water-management regulations destined to either water or de-water the
sparrow's area, depending on the time of the year. Inevitably, there will be a
lawsuit. That lawsuit is being filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council,
which I serve on as a board member. I feel very badly about this lawsuit,
because I wrote the last colonel twice, urging him not to allow this problem to
continue when it was, in my opinion, a very easy matter to resolve. I heard from
various members of the Corps, who I enjoy being in communication with, and
certainly with the Fish and Wildlife Service and certainly with the park, that these
regulations could be modified, but were not being modified, because of the
strong objections of one member of the Corps. I find that to be totally bizarre and
worthy of a lawsuit.

P: Originally, as I understand, the task force was divided into three groups, one
subgroup for science, one for infrastructure and management and one for
coordination. Does that sound like a logical organization to you?

R: Whether logical or illogical, it was an effort to begin the pyramid of laying a base









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 20


for cooperation between potentially warring members of the federal
establishment and state agencies. Sure, it makes sense. Almost any
organization, would have made sense in an effort to get people to begin to talk
together, discuss together, argue together, know each other better personally.
These people are going to have to work with each other, hard, for a minimum of
ten years as we get this huge project underway. In some cases, besides
sabotaging each other by letters or memorandums, they have never met each
other. This happened to me frequently in my service at the Department of
Interior. I gave a steak dinner, paid for it out of my own pocket, for four National
Forest superintendents, the manager of the Jackson Hole [Wyoming] Fish
Hatchery, and the superintendents of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks, and most of them had never met each other. Two of them were at war.
They had never met each other. Now, the standard operating procedure, you got
these governmental meetings. For instance, at Yellowstone where I still serve on
that [the Foundation] board, the supervisors of the National Forest and the
manager of the National Elk Refuge, which is Fish and Wildlife Service in
Jackson, meet together on a frequent basis to discuss mutual problems. In the
1970s, still this regimentation. The Forest Service still held the grudge against
the Park Service for taking so many acres of Forest Service land and making
them into national parks. The Fish and Wildlife Service was the biological unit of
the federal government, and it objected to the National Park Service having its
own biological staff. It was this extraordinary maze and conflict of federal
[bureaucracy]. I think we have made enormous gains. I spent an awful lot of time
on that. I was very pleased last fall when we were having a Natural Resources
Defense Council board meeting in the Pacific Northwest. So many of the young
National Forest supervisors who came to our meetings knew their neighbor,
knew the superintendent of the Cascades Park, or the Mount Helens National
[Forest] knew the superintendent of the next park. They were younger. They
were less regimented in their services than their predecessors. I have a nice
feeling that I was part of that process.

P: Let me go back and ask a question about the Everglades Forever Act, 1994.
Why was that not more successful?

R: Because it was done in a dark room with Sugar monopolizing that meeting and
the enviros walked out. Probably a big mistake on the environmental side, they
felt that everything was stacked against them and that it was a fixed-end deal
and they did not want to be in the room while the deal was being made. The
chairman of the Water Management District attended, and because of the
Sunshine rules, no other member of the board could be present. So, Valerie
Boyd represented us, and though we might have disagreed with various terms of
the Everglades Forever Act, that deal was knocked out. An interesting thing, I will
give you the plus side: it ended the lawsuits, and the reason it ended the lawsuits
was it had a long time frame for compliance and that the EAA would have to pay
such a small percentage of the overall costs of cleaning up the Everglades. That









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 21


gave them everything they could possibly want, plus they got their guarantee of
water, plus they got the guarantee that the state would continue to drain their
lands for them, drain the canals that their lands feed into. So, it was a very pro-
agricultural bill. It led to the construction of the storm water treatment areas,
which we hope will work. It highlighted the desperate need for a major restoration
package. It delayed everything, but remember that the federal judiciary still has
[jurisdiction], under the federal lawsuit when Governor Chiles capitulated and
said we are guilty, signed a consent decree with the federal government.
Although the Everglades Forever Act extends the time frame for compliance, the
federal government still has the right to enter at any time and order the state to
do any one of a number of different things, to accelerate its cleanup or to modify
how the cleanup should take place. So in a sense, at any time the environmental
community feels the state or the agency of the state, the South Florida Water
Management District, is not fulfilling its responsibilities under the consent decree,
it can head right to Miami. And do not kid yourself, we fully intend to do that on a
frequent basis if the state of Florida does not proceed post-haste.

P: Are they, at the current time?

R: I think they are barking up some avenues which are not going to be successful. I
think we are still paying money into a major study of how to remove the last bit of
phosphorus from the STA systems so that you arrive at approximately ten parts
per billion. You cannot build a chemical treatment plant on the end of STA. We
have not got the money to run the treatment plants, nor do we have a place to
put the byproduct. Sooner or later, we are going to have to bite the very tough
bullet with Sugar and say, you have got to hold more water on your land or you
have got to treat the water on your land before you release it to the waters of the
state.

P: Was Dexter Lehtinen the force behind the lawsuit against the state?

R: He was indeed. The former governor of Pennsylvania-Richard Thornberg-a very
distinguished governor, who was attorney general, said that he [Lehtinen] was a
wild card. He did not ask for permission to enter the suit. It was a decision that he
made with the assistance of Michael Finley, the superintendent of Everglades
National Park, when they could see that the leadership of the Water
Management District and DEP seemingly just could not make up [their] mind how
to proceed to clean up the phosphorus-ridden waste going into the Everglades. I
was serving on the board, so I am just as much involved as anyone. Nancy Roen
was our chairlady, and she was one of the best that ever served on the Water
Management District board. The vice chair was James Garner. They urged the
board to hire outside counsel so that we could understand what the purposes
and the point of the lawsuit was. Governor Martinez was persuaded that there
must be an opportunity to get the suit removed, dropped, and he actually flew to
Washington with Mr. Garner and other board members-I was violently opposed









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 22


to this-and tried to lobby [Attorney] General Thornberg to force Dexter Lehtinen
to drop the suit. [Attorney] General Thornberg told the governor point-blank, I do
not force my U. S. attorneys to drop lawsuits. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Go back, and if you think you are being sued without basis, defend yourselves,
but I would suggest to you to go read the complaint with great care, because you
have significant problems in the Everglades area which you have not addressed.
The fact of the matter is the nine of us on that board, without litigation, probably
never would have been able to persuade the taxpayers and the sugar industry
that steps had to be taken to control the pollution of the Everglades marsh. As a
matter of fact, the vast majority of the board members had not taken advantage
of our good scientists at the district and gone down into the Everglades marsh
and seen the enormous increase in the cattails. I had gone on numerous
occasions, but I could not mobilize the senior staff. My failure was in that I
recognized that we had a serious problem and I was not acute enough, properly
educated enough, to be able to say what to do about the phosphorus. We did not
know how much phosphorus it took to change the marsh from sawgrass to
cattails. I mean, we knew so little it is just alarming, but I felt very strongly that we
needed to get underway. What we did was, and this is not all bad, we added an
enormous number of high-quality scientists prior to the lawsuit. So, when the
lawsuit took place, at least some members of the board, me included, understood
exactly what it was that the federal government was suing over. That is not to say
that our scientists had a solution because they did not. You could sit in a room
with scientists and say, okay guys, there is too much phosphorus going into the
Everglades. What the hell do we do about it? In retrospect, hindsight being
perfect, we could have said to U.S. Sugar and to Flo-Sun and to Florida Crystals,
it is yours. That water with 160 parts per billion phosphorus belongs to you. Keep
it, or treat it. If you treat it, we would like it back at ten parts per billion. Instead of
that, we are going to spend $100,000,000 plus cleaning up their waste. Well, no,
we are going to spend a lot more than that. We are going to spend $250,000,000
cleaning up their waste, and they are going to pay possibly 40 percent of it,
maybe less, maybe considerably less. So I tell you, the Everglades Forever Act,
deeply criticized by the environmental community as a bailout to solve the
problem of the continuing lawsuits, the state being sued by the federal
government. Every time the state tried to implement something, the sugar
industry sued the state. We were getting nowhere. The Everglades Forever Act
at least ended the lawsuits for the time being and allowed us to move forward
with the storm water treatment areas and the Everglades nutrient- removal
system. It allowed us to do a lot of different things, mostly at the taxpayers'
expense. It was one of the major stepping stones to the Restoration. So, you got
to balance that.

P: Talk about Bob Graham's contribution to the Everglades Restoration, beginning
when he was governor with his Save Our Everglades plan.

R: You cannot estimate it. It is so great, it is so important that nothing that I could









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 23


possibly say in the English language could come close to my strong feeling and
my strong belief that we would never, ever have gotten the Everglades
Restoration Act assigned into law without his continuing commitment. Whenever
we have disagreed-and we have disagreed half a dozen times on various
aspects of the Everglades situation, including right now, we disagree strongly on
the conversion of Homestead Air Force Base to a commercial airport-the overall
objective that Bob Graham has striven for has been without peer. He has given a
very large part of his political life to the Everglades Restoration effort, and he has
taken some slings and arrows along the way. Whenever something went wrong
last summer with the wording of the bill, everybody blamed Bob Graham. You
know, you would have to call and say, Bob, what about this? And he would say, I
am trying, I am trying, I am trying. I am not czar. But time and again, without
losing his contacts in the EAA and the sugar industry, he has come to the fore.
Everybody knows, the sugar boys know as well as the environmentalists know,
that without him we would not be here. Simple as that. I do not know whether I
told you the story of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas coming out to the dike. We went
to Canal 111, one of our bright ideas when he was governor and I was on the
Water Management board. The water would not flow out of the canal across the
land into the southeast corner of the park, into Taylor Slough, and that is why the
whole southeastern side of Florida Bay is so hypersaline, because 111 cuts off
the [natural] flow. There was this huge bank where the canal had been dug and
the soil had been put up on this huge, huge mound, way up in the air, and during
times of lots of water, I said, Bob, why don't we cut tiger teeth all the way down
the dike, so the water can spill through the tiger teeth and go southeast. He said,
great idea. So we found the money and we cut the holes in this bloody dike, and
every once in a while the water flowed out of 111 and went down to where God
meant it to flow. We decided to have a ceremony to celebrate this brilliant idea,
and we persuaded Marjorie Stoneman Douglas to come in a helicopter with one
of her wonderful hats. It was toward the end of her life and she was quite blind,
but she was very vibrant still. She got off the helicopter and Bob took one arm
and I took the other arm, and we took her down to the edge of the canal and
pointed out this monumental job that we had done. She turned around and she
said, Bob, Nathaniel, not enough, not nearly enough!, and strolled back to the
helicopter, did not stay for the ceremony. It was the greatest put-down that
Graham and Reed have ever gone through. It was so beautiful. She was
absolutely right. You know, it was a pinprick, but geez, in those days, to get a
pinprick, we thought it was pretty good. But we stared at each other and we said,
not enough.

P: One aspect I am interested in, you know Carl Hiaasen [Miami Herald columnist
and writer]...

R: Very well.

P: ...who has written a lot of effective articles about the Glades. How important is









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 24


that kind of newspaper coverage?

R: Oh well, you have got Carl, you got Martha Musgrove, you got Bob King at the
Palm Beach Post, you got Neil Santaniello at Fort Lauderdale at the Sun-
Sentinel. We have had, over twenty-five years, the very best. Cy Zaneski, who
was with the Herald and has now gone to the National Review, I think. John
Pennekamp, let us start with him at the Miami Herald. Then, you have the
publisher of the Miami News, Bill Baggs. All of my political life, which God knows
began very promptly after I came back to Florida in 1960, the key has been the
incredible support we have had from the printed press from Orlando south,
unswerving. Miami Herald at times had a little difficult time with a couple of
projects, but [first came Juanita Greene and now] Martha Musgrove, who have
been chief editorial writers on the environment at the Miami Herald, is one of the
most acute observers and one of the finest writers I have ever dealt with. Carl
Hiaasen, with laughter and with a rapier, has skewed most of the Everglades
opponents more than once. He knows how to hurt, and he knows how to make
you cry with laughter. Then you have got the Sun-Sentinel, which has all of a
sudden become a great player in Everglades issues. Then at the Palm Beach
Post, they have had a succession of absolutely crackerjack reporters bordering
on Pulitzer Prize winners. That young Bob King who is there now, one of the best
environmental Everglades watchers there is in the business, an absolutely
spectacular reporter. The curious thing is that the Palm Beach Post for many
years was the great defender of Sugar. Sugar could do no harm. They were
naughty boys at times, but they could do no real harm. Randy Schultz, now the
editor, keeps the Sugar boys riding the cross hairs. I cannot emphasize enough.
The TV commentary has not been as strong, but it has been effective when
needed. But the printed press, Hiaasen, Musgrove [Greene, King et al].
Pennekamp was of course the first great champion. We would not have an
Everglades park now had it not been for Pennekamp in the great poker game.
Right up the line for forty years, we have had good solid Everglades reporting.

P: Carl Hiaasen once said that to put [the Army Corps of Engineers as] caretaker for
the Everglades would be to same as putting Ted Kaczynski [better known as the
Unabomber terrorist bomber] in charge of the postal service. He has, I think, a
way of appealing to the average reader, who might not read editorials.

R: That is true. It was proven in when the Miami Herald gave up its Sunday
magazine and Hiaasen lost that very important spot each Sunday in that
magazine issue, that the readers wrote in by the thousands saying how could
you do this? So, Hiaasen now is in the newspaper itself, but it is not as effective
a presentation. You know, fifty-two Sundays a year, you dove into the Miami
Herald and pulled the magazine out first to read what crazy Carl was going to
say. He takes no prisoners, whether they are black, white, or human. If you are
ludicrous, if you are a droll, if you are an idiot or if you are a bandit, he will either
have a great deal of fun with you or he will absolutely skewer you. This year, of









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 25


course, he has had more fun than a barrel of monkeys with the famous royal
palms that were produced by Mr. Diaz under a very peculiar contract that was
supposed to have ten feet of [clean wood], or six feet [of clean wood when
planted]. Some Deep Throat [famed newspaper source of Woodward and
Bernstein during the Watergate scandal] informed Carl that [few] of these trees
met the bid standards and he went out measured them and produced this
scathing article of the trees, you know, that Miami and Dade County had
accepted these thousands and thousands of trees and not one of them made the
standards of the bid contract. Furthermore, there were thousands of trees that
were missing. Mr. Diaz' great comment in rebuttal is that [the palms] must have
shrunk. He is under indictment, you will be glad to know, and there is a grand jury
convened trying to figure out what happened to the missing trees.

P: Let me get into the area of environmental groups, and let me start with 1,000
Friends of Florida. Would you discuss how this organization began and your part
in it?

R: It is very easy how it began. [Then-Governor] Bob Graham, of course, passed
the first major comprehensive planning act. [Governor] Askew had begun the
process. Bob Graham accelerated the process and had the famous committees
that developed the comprehensive land-use acts of Florida. When he left the
governorship, he and Buddy MacKay and myself-Buddy was in the House of
Representatives-were very concerned with John DeGrove-John had developed
the comprehensive planning acts for Florida and had been in the ELMS
committee (the Endangered Land Management committees), that we needed an
oversight organization similar to 1,000 Friends of Oregon, which had been
established following Governor Tom McCall's reign in Oregon. Tom had passed
the first comprehensive-planning act in the nation with some real teeth in it, and
he was very nervous that successive governors and legislatures would weaken
his great gift to Oregon. He was right. So, 1,000 Friends of Oregon was created,
and I was an initial donor, an original donor and a great supporter of the
organization. We watched the organization grow and flourish, and we decided
among ourselves that we had to have an organization similar to that. The
question was, who should form it? Graham said, it cannot be me because I am
going off to the Senate, and MacKay said, it cannot be me because I am going to
stay in the House, and DeGrove said, it cannot be me because I am teaching at
Florida Atlantic University. So everybody looked at me, and I said, you good-for-
nothing guys, I am trying to get out of things, not into things. So, eleven years
ago, I sat down and persuaded a fantastic board of human beings to come
together. I was president for the first eight years, and John [then] became
president and I became chairman of the board. [Then] about four weeks ago, we
both became emeriti, and we have a new president and a new vice-president.
We are going to have some new board members. Some of the original who have
served eleven years without a quiver are going to resign. We are still functioning.
We still have a budget of about $1,000,000 a year, which I raise the majority of.









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 26


We have a terrific small team who watch and comment on the comprehensive
land laws of the state of Florida, [and] how well they are managed by the
Department of Community Affairs. We are obviously watching with great interest,
monitoring with great interest, the present governor's commission that is
examining the effectiveness or ways of making the comprehensive planning act
less onerous to certain developers and more effective for the environmental
community. We watch Palm Beach and Martin County with special care, and in
litigation, we try to take on issues of statewide importance. We won one major
editorial piece in today's Palm Beach Post commenting on one of our most
important victories with Martin County on a land-use decision in the southwest
corner of the county adjacent to Palm Beach County where we were amicus
curiae [meaning that they took legal action as a "friend of the court"], and I sent
the article by fax this morning to the staff in Tallahassee with a congratulatory
note and a well done and how proud they should be to have done such a brilliant
job in court on this case, winning on appeal twice.

P: Where did most of the funds come from?

R: They came from friends and acquaintances of mine and the foundations that I am
familiar with. I think anybody looking over the list of contributors will notice a very
high percentage come from Jupiter Island and areas around Jupiter Island.

P: Do you get any money from Big Sugar?

R: No, we do not take any money from Big Sugar.

P: Your magazine is called Foresight. Give me some indication of the main purpose
of that magazine.

R: Totally educational, to let the people of the state know how they can impact
growth management in their counties. The key thing about the act is that no
county can make major changes in the comprehensive land. Act the first five, six
years was to get the cities and the counties to comply with the act to produce a
comprehensive plan for their community. Believe it or not, a lot of cities did not
care to do it, and some counties were not sure that they were going to do it up in
northwest Florida, little counties, and big counties did a rotten job about it, so you
had to appeal their plan. So, the first five or six years were hideously difficult. I
testified in challenge after challenge as to the validity of their plans. We were
much busier litigation-wise than perhaps we wanted to be, but we wanted to
force the counties and the cities to comply with the legislative mandate of the
comprehensive planning act. On top of that, we were immediately involved in a
very important case on the Peace River, on who owned the bottom, whether a
phosphate company owned the bottom of the river and could dredge it or
whether it was waters of the state, which we won brilliantly by David Guest [then-
Assistant Attorney General of Florida], who is now the lawyer for the Sierra Club.









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 27


Basically, the act prevents counties and cities from opening their comprehensive
plan but twice a year. This prevented the Thursday night at eleven o'clock at
night [Commission meetings] changing the zoning or changing the [city or county]
urban boundaries. This encouraged public participation as we have never had it
in Florida. Foresight is an educational tool to convince the members of 1,000
Friends that they have a role to play at the hearings before their city or county
government and that this is an inclusive process, and I think we do a very good
job of it.

P: Talk about how the influence of the environmental groups has changed in the last
twenty years.

R: Well, it is a totally different game. All jokes aside, thirty years ago or thirty-five
years ago, the Nature Conservancy had its first chapter meeting. My memory is
suspect, but it was up in Central Florida, in Winter Park. Where is that wonderful
tower, the Bok Tower, up in the middle part of the state near Winter Park. I gave
a hard-nosed speech about the importance of gathering together and saving the
remnants of Florida, and I looked around afterwards. We were having some
wonderful fruit punch, no alcohol, nice lady fingers and fruit punch, and we really
were the little old men and ladies in tennis shoes. We were all in tennis shoes. As
the environment became a political issue, I cannot tell you the number of
delightful...the environmental movement, as you know, is basically a women's
movement. The initial environment movement was dominated by these great,
great women: Alice Wainwright, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, Marjorie Carr. I
have to watch myself because I will miss a half a dozen of them, and that will not
be good. That wonderful woman on Biscayne Bay, Juanita Green. It goes on and
on and on. Some of them were deeply concerned that environment should not be
mixed into politics, that it was a different branch, clean, untarnished by the
political scene of Florida. I tried to convince them in response that without making
the environment a Florida political issue, we would go down the drain, as we had
been going down the drain, and I know I am right. The greatest thing in the world
now is that you cannot run for public office in Florida as an anti-environmentalist.
You can run as a fake environmentalist. A number of people do that frequently,
but you cannot run in this state saying damn the environment, full speed ahead
with all development plans.

P: Is that due to education, better promotion?

R: And the terrible lawsuits of what we face every day, with roads that are jammed
with cars, hideous billboards, hideous buildings, bad development, the continual
problem of sprawl, lack of water, diminished wildlife resources. Preservation
2000, if I ever gave a gift to Florida that was really of major importance, it was
chairing that committee that came up with Preservation 2000 and signing that
letter to the governor and challenging him to take that issue to the legislature. I
know for a fact that Governor Martinez was outraged by my letter. He thought it









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 28


was much too hard. He thought it was too much of throwing the gauntlet down.
But his advisors and his pollsters said, pick up the challenge. Call up the
leadership of the legislature and put your name on this bill. You will go down in
history. And he will. He will go down in history.

P: Preservation 2000 needs a permanent source of revenue, does it not?

R: But that is what I am getting to. I might have one last mission in life, okay, and
that would be the green issue. I will leave it at that.

P: What is the basis of cooperation between 1,000 Friends of Florida, the Sierra
Club, Nature Conservancy? Do you all work together, do you cooperate, do you
discuss...?

R: Yes. Well, the Everglades issue brought us all together this summer so that when
we had the biweekly...we talk twice a week for anywhere between an hour and a
half and three hours on a conference call, enough to drive you out of your mind,
but that was the only way to put together the nationwide team and the Florida
team to support all aspects of the proposed legislation. Now, we speak once a
week. It is on Fridays. It is still about twelve or fourteen people on the line. The
major organizations are all represented at the national level and at the state
level, and we talk about how the various Everglades issues are going to be
resolved and who are the major players in various decisions that are forthcoming.
There are certain individuals who maintain that certain parts of the turf belong to
them. Certain organizations have more of a leadership role than others. Others,
for instance, might decide that Lake Okeechobee was a very important issue for
them from the standpoint of raising funds and gaining new members. You have
got a constant problem in southwest Florida, who speaks for whom? Southwest
Florida is trying to look like southeast Florida, trying to make all the same damn
mistakes all over again. But usually the level of cooperation and usually the level
of communication is superb.

P: How important is the Audubon Society of Florida?

R: Vital. Stuart Strahl has brought the organization together. He has got an
absolutely superb board. He is highly qualified as a leader, and thanks to Paul
Tudor Jones, his extraordinary, unbelievable financial support, he is able to put
together a staff which is the envy of all other organizations, in depth and in
quality.

P: I was very surprised at the large number of staff members they have.

R: Well, without Paul, we could not do it.


P: Who is he?









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 29


R: Paul Tudor Jones is one of America's most successful traders on Wall Street. He
trades in commodities and in stocks and bonds and financial instruments. He has
a house in El Islamorada [in the Florida Keys], among many other places, and he
was a great personal friend of George Barley. When George died, Paul Tudor
Jones and I spoke at his celebration of life. Paul committed a major source of
funds for the rest of his life, and I committed my time. Paul's ability to make
money is practically unrivaled, and he has been this gold mine, diamond mine
resource.

P: In the next legislative session, how many lobbyists will the environmental groups
send to Tallahassee, and what will they be doing?

R: We will have about four or five. Two will be full-time hours. Three, four, five will
be part time. Basically, again for the second year we will try to prevent anything
dreadful happening to the comprehensive planning act, to air and water-quality
standards and to the submerged lands proposal that failed last time around,
which some members of the agricultural community are determined to bring up
again.

P: Your lobbyists will be outnumbered by Big Sugar alone.

R: We will be outgunned as usual, about 500 to 1, but we have the newspapers. We
have the ability to communicate with the press. It was that ability last year that
stopped the giveaway of submerged lands across Florida, and we are prepared
to go right at it again.

P: Comment on lobbyists like Wade Hopping, who has apparently tremendous
influence in shaping bills or in deleting restrictions that his clients do not like.

R: Wade was my lawyer when I was in the governor's office in Florida. He was the
governor's counsel, and he remains a very close personal friend of mine. We
rarely agree on an environmental issue, but our friendship is such that we have a
very easy time talking about our differences. Last year, I stunned him badly by
getting thousands of children to write in letters to ask him why he wanted to kill
manatees. He has not forgiven me for that one yet. I have thoroughly enjoyed the
thought of thousands of letters arriving asking him that question. Of course, he
wants to protect the manatee, but he is vehemently opposed to restrictions on
water craft. He believes very strongly that enforcement should be the key to
saving the manatees, and he is not quite sure about these refuges, like the west
side of Jupiter Island and Hobe Sound where we have four miles of no building
and the grass flats are in beautiful condition. But I am able to persuade him at
times to modify his position. He is a very graceful man. He has got a wonderful
sense of humor. He is incredibly intelligent. He works very well with the normal
member of the legislature, good old boys, North Florida, South Florida, who are









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 30


looking for direction and always looking for campaign contributions, and Wade
knows every industry in the state of Florida that has a legislative budget. So the
industries who have particular problems come to him seeking advice and seeking
counsel and seeking support. That is all part of America. I have often said, and
he knows, that I wish he had better clients. But that is a nasty comment, and he
laughs when I say that to him. Most importantly, we remain good friends.

P: Let me ask you for a reaction to a comment he made last year. He said it was
hard for him to weigh 600 jobs against a couple of acres of marsh land.

R: A lot of people have that problem. That is what I call a short-term view of a long-
term problem. The problem is, you give up that marsh, you keep giving up that
marsh, for 600 jobs and then 600 more jobs and then 100 jobs and then forty
jobs and then ten jobs, and you finally end up with the jobs and you have not got
a community worth living in. Those balancing acts occur all the time, and the
answer, of course, is discipline, discipline, discipline. You can have, you will
have, a strong economy if you have a good environment. If you have a lousy
environment where you have cut corners all over the place, you are going to
suffer economically. The three Es, my guiding principal in life for Florida, is better
education, a good well-protected environment, which in turn will lead to a strong
economy. You cannot have a state that is so deficient in its education priorities
as Florida is and so still caught in the terrible dilemma of whether to enforce
strong environmental laws. The last four years of Lawton Chiles and the first two
years of Governor Jeb Bush have been alarming in the sense that DEP is not
enforcing the air- or water-quality laws of this state, and it is going to come back
to haunt us.

P: How can they be forced to do so? Lawsuits again?

R: Well, are you going to change governors? You are going to make it a political
issue. Nobody wanted to make it a political issue with Lawton Chiles because
everybody admired Lawton Chiles so much, but the fact of the matter is that
Virginia Weatherall had no instinct to enforce laws. She was a compromiser, and
Lawton really did not like confrontations. I have worked for several men who did
not like confrontation, and the enforcement of air- and water-quality laws requires
confrontation. You either are abiding the law or you are not.

P: What is the Theodore Roosevelt Society?

R: It was started by Governor Martinez. I originally had said I would join. Then I saw
the list of who was joining it and decided to resign right then and there. It was
supposed to mimic the national T. R. Society, which I am a member of, which is
to try to convince Republican candidates of the need to have a good strong
environmental background and environmental program. The national one has
some real guts because Teddy Roosevelt IV is our chair, and he is a very strong









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 31


environmentalist. I saw Bob Martinez in Tallahassee when I was up just the other
day for a 1,000 Friends executive board meeting and thanked him for...he
apparently gave a very hard-nosed speech to the winter session of the Florida T.
R. Society, telling the Republicans in the room that the environment was not only
an issue now but was going to be a greater issue in the twenty-first century and
they ought to get on board.

P: What is the solution to the high levels of mercury in the Everglades which has led
to the killing of fish over a thirty-year period?

R: You probably saw within the last ten days there was a major announcement that
the mercury levels were going down quite rapidly. Although we are not positive of
all the sources, some of it being airborne, unquestionably the majority of the
problem is from the resource recovery plants where [discarded] pacemakers and
batteries for everything from hearing aids to flashlights were not segregated from
the waste material and were burned. Now, there is segregation of all batteries,
and actually a change in batteries is going on. There are going to be batteries
that do not use mercury. We should see a continuing reduction in the amount of
mercury going into the Everglades system. Right now, a small group has
financed an examination of the levels of mercury leaving the Everglades
agricultural area going into the waters of the state. I have not seen it, but the
report is in draft. It is just out, and it is at Natural Resources Defense Council in
New York City. I should be receiving a draft within two weeks. I am leery as to
saying anything about the level of contamination coming out of the EAA until
such time as I see the report, but unquestionably the levels are going down with
the segregation of all mercury products and byproducts at the recovery plants.

P: What caused the algae bloom in Florida Bay, and how can those sorts of things
be remedied?

R: What precipitated the alga bloom was a die-off of the seagrasses. I happened to
be fishing with a very highly qualified Keys guide from the middle Keys, Harry
Spear, when we went across a patch of bottom, acres in size, that was dying. We
paused and looked at and were amazed but considered it to be a natural
phenomenon. What happened is, simultaneously, thousands of acres of grass
began to die, and as the dead material released nitrogen and phosphorus, the
algal bloom was born. The algal bloom intensified because we had no hurricanes
for a number of years going through the Keys to blow out the great sandbars that
form in Florida Bay which trap so much of the water and stop circulation,
impedes circulation. So, this alga bloom took off like a runaway cancer and
began to cover thousands of acres of bottom, shutting off the sunlight. As the
sunlight was shut off, photosynthesis stopped and more and more grass died.
There were charges that a source of nitrogen was coming around Southwest
Florida from the sewage treatment plant at Marco Island and Everglades City,
from sources unknown, from the Peace River. The basic fact of the matter is we









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 32


do not know what triggered the seagrass deaths. We do know that the bloom
was created by the tremendous transference of dead plant material into
phosphorus and nitrogen, principally phosphorus, which created the alga bloom
as I have described which grew and grew and grew in its intensity, and as it
grew, it cut off sunlight. More and more grass died, creating more and more
phosphorus and nitrogen. Two years ago when we had the very high rainfall
events all over South Florida, we had a good flush-out all through the mangroves
and into Florida Bay. Some more phosphorus obviously [flowed] into the bay.
That was the result of the hurricane taking down millions, if not hundreds of
millions, of mangrove leaves as a detritus mat that was huge throughout the
mangrove section of the Florida Bay. That was washed into the bay by the heavy
rainfall events, and yet it triggered only a very light response. What we are
seeing now in Florida Bay is a rather rapid recovery of the grasses that were
predicted to be the pioneer grasses. We should see a return of the less tolerant
saltwater grasses rather rapidly. Now, the one problem that we have on Florida
Bay is that the saltwater angler got very used to a very saltwater-dominated bay
when the water to the Everglades was cut off and mismanaged upstream. Florida
Bay, at least the area nearby the mangrove fringe should be a mixing zone that is
in constant agitation and competition, because in the years that there is a large
freshwater head, saltwater grasses that are intolerant to freshwater will be forced
out, will be killed off, and other, more freshwater-tolerant grasses will take their
place. Then, during years of drought when the salinity levels rise, the saltwater
grasses will recapture that zone. That is going to be a battle zone. The
Everglades system-Florida Bay is a battle zone between the annual flow of
freshwater. More freshwater dominated upper Florida Bay. The less freshwater,
more saline competition and therefore more saline in Florida Bay. It is not
supposed to be the same every year ad nauseam. It is supposed to be in natural
flux.

P: What can be done about the use of pesticides?

R: You are not going to have agriculture without pesticides. What you have to do is
you have to have strong regulations on use. You have to have strong regulations
on the registration of pesticides so you know exactly what their impacts are, long-
term, short-term, to human health, to the animal world. The use of pesticides on
a golf course, for instance, here at Jupiter Island now compared to thirty years
ago, it is light years apart with the thought of everybody who used a pesticide to
spray a green or to spray a bug on a tree or a plant, now dressed in complete
uniforms with notifications of the chemicals that are being used to the public. It is
just hard to believe. On the whole, compared to Florida of bygone years, when I
raised so much hell at Gainesville with the pesticide committee and the
Department of Agriculture in Tallahassee, Florida is doing a good job of
monitoring and using its pesticides far more carefully now than I ever dreamed
possible.









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 33


P: Some of the more destructive pesticides are starting to be banned now, like
dioxin. Do you see that trend continuing?

R: Sure I do. I think that this is tough in a country that produces so much of the
agricultural byproduct that we do and obviously have a vast variety of insects that
potentially could damage that crop. Actually, if I was critical of EPA, I think they
have been rather slow, the last four years anyway, to have taken a more
dramatic stand against various pesticides. Every stand one takes against a
pesticide has enormous economic impact, but I think the whole world is going to
far more careful with its pesticide use in the future, in the twenty-first century,
than it certainly was in the twentieth century.

P: A question that I should have asked earlier and I did not think to: how have 1,000
Friends of Florida [and] Sierra Club impacted the task force? We talked about the
legislature, but we have not talked about how you influence the task force.

R: The present task force, the governor's task force? We are monitoring, and we
have two members on the commission. Charles Patterson testifies, is at every
meeting, and speaks out for or against propositions that are coming up. We have
a close relationship with Steve Seibert, the secretary of community affairs. I think
our voice is being heard, will be heard, and where we differ with the
commission's final report, I think ours will be very factual, non-political. We call it
as we see it.

P: What influence will you have on Rock Salt and his group?

R: Rock and I have such a special relationship. It is really tested. We talk very
easily, very freely, and are able to avoid problems by seeking each other's
counsel.

P: What can be done about the death of key deer and panther in the Glades?

R: We made some mistakes with the key deer when I was Assistant Secretary. I
spent a fortune buying the offshore islands for the National Key Deer Refuge.
Very frankly, it never crossed my mind nor did it cross the refuge managers'
collective minds that Big Pine Key was such an attractive place to live, or we
would have spent far more money leaving the offshore islands alone and
preventing their development by using wetlands laws, and spent the money on
Big Pine Island where the acreage was expensive then, but not selling well. So,
you are basically down now to defending where there were 900 key deer when I
left office, numbers have dramatically dropped but are on the increase at the
moment, but the fact of the matter is you probably need a strong hurricane going
right through Big Pine Key to cut down the number of people living there. The
federal government needs to acquire every scrap of land it can on Big Pine Key
so that we can stabilize the population at approximately 500. People in Big Pine









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 34


Key, you have got two varieties, those who want to live with the key deer and
those who object to the key deer forcing them to send their children to school off-
island and to have very low speed zones on the island and who do not want to
live at peace with the deer. Simple as that. I think the majority are very much in
favor of the deer. I do not regret buying the islands. The islands are fantastic.
They are a fantastic complex around the key deer, and many of the islands were
used by key deer historically. If the population ever grows again sufficiently, I am
sure that deer will migrate to the offshore islands. They are forever in the Refuge
system, and I am glad they are out of private ownership. But I do regret that
either I or my successors as Assistant Secretary did not see the development
that has occurred on Big Pine Key. I went and picked up a [tarpon guide] down
there a couple of years ago. I had no idea they had that many people living on
the Key. It is incredible.

P: What part should the National Academy of Sciences play in the Restoration
project?

R: Having served on the [National Research Council] for six years, I think they can
play an important role. I think their peer review committee is a good one and can
point out, to the Corps and to the scientists involved, different approaches. I think
it is a very wise decision by the secretary to have appointed it, and I think the
people who are on it are knowledgeable and certainly enthusiastic to serve and
to help.

P: What part should the National Park Service, particularly the Everglades Park,
play in the Restoration project?

R: They are a major beneficiary of all the work going on upstream. First of all,
science is vital. Secondly, everything from water quality to water quantity
remain...[tape interrupted]...they are the major recipient, in a sense, of the
project, so it is vital that they be not only involved but that they stand very firmly
as the major recipient, I mean, that they stand up to their principles. That is why
Maureen Fennety has been sent down here, is that she is a very, very
acute...she will be a very superb superintendent, in my opinion.

P: Let me get your response to two quotations. When [Colonel] Terry Rice [former
Florida District Engineer] was asked about the impact the Army Corps of
Engineers had on the entire problem of the Everglades, he said, it was "innocent
ignorance."

R: Very wise and very accurate. That is as good a summation of the Corps in 1948
through the 1960s as could possibly could be given. They were not evil. They
were extraordinarily ignorant, and they were extraordinarily trained, not only at
West Point, but later throughout the Corps hierarchy, on straight-line engineering.
They really thought the Art Marshalls and the Nathaniel Reeds of this world were









FGM 3 E-F Reed page 35


really off, we came from Mars. They did not know what the hell we were talking
about. Just as easy as that. The ecological system, the ecological basis of life, is
not in the vocabulary of an officer going through West Point. He is not trained,
and the very best of the officers coming out of West Point go to the Corps.

P: This is a quotation from Victor Billy, a Seminole Indian who criticizes white
capitalism. He said, "it is not good to try to be like them, to destroy your land, to
destroy the air you breathe, to destroy the water you drink. If you go to school
and learn this technology, it teaches you to hurt and destroy. We have survived
on this land for 1,000,000 years. The Europeans have been here only 500 or 600
years, and look at how much they destroy each day."

R: It is shockingly true, of course, but I do not think the non-native American
community is going to go back and live like Native Americans lived as the white
man arrived in North America. We have to find accommodation on how we will
live more in harmony with nature at the same time of pursuing different goals, but
the feeling of living in harmony is one that I very definitely share with my Native
American brother.

P: Will the task force understand and adhere to the desires of Native Americans?

R: They will have to, because the Native American has proven in the Columbia
River and elsewhere that he can go to court and enforce it. The Seminole and
the Miccosukee will have a large say in how the Everglades is restored.

P: On that note, I want to thank you very much for your time.


R: My pleasure.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs