Everglades Land Swap: New Bill Expands Miccosukee Reserved Area and Mandates Flood Protection within Two Years

This legislation, titled the Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act, is straightforward: it expands the official boundaries of the Miccosukee Reserved Area (MRA) by incorporating a specific piece of land currently sitting inside Everglades National Park. Specifically, the bill adds a location known as Osceola Camp to the MRA, formalizing the change using a detailed map filed with the National Park Service and local authorities (SEC. 2).

The Land Deal: What Changes on the Map

Think of this as adjusting the property lines between two major landholders—the National Park Service and the MRA. By adding Osceola Camp to the MRA, the bill shifts the management context for this specific area. For the average park visitor, this means the status of that land changes. While the bill doesn’t explicitly restrict public access, any change in reserved area boundaries within a national park can potentially affect how that specific parcel is managed or accessed compared to the rest of the park (SEC. 2).

Mandated Flood Protection: The Two-Year Clock

The second major component of the bill is a hard deadline for infrastructure work. It mandates that the Secretary (presumably of the Interior, overseeing the National Park Service), working directly with the Miccosukee Tribe, must take "appropriate actions" to protect structures at Osceola Camp from flooding (SEC. 3). The kicker? This work must be completed no later than two years after the section becomes law. For the federal agencies involved, this is a clear, resource-intensive directive that requires immediate planning and allocation of time and budget to execute flood mitigation projects within a tight timeframe.

The Vague Part: What Are “Appropriate Actions”?

Here’s where the fine print gets a little fuzzy. The bill requires the Secretary to take "appropriate actions" to protect the camp from flooding. This term is vague. Does it mean building levees, elevating structures, or installing complex drainage systems? The bill doesn't specify the engineering standard or the budget required, granting significant discretion to the Secretary and the Tribe to determine the scope of the project. While the intent is clear—protect the structures—the lack of specifics could lead to debates over the cost and effectiveness of the mitigation efforts, potentially slowing down the two-year timeline if the parties can’t agree on what is “appropriate.”

In short, this bill is a land boundary adjustment paired with a mandated, time-sensitive infrastructure project. It clarifies who manages the Osceola Camp area and ensures federal resources are directed toward protecting its structures from environmental risks, but it leaves the exact method of protection open to interpretation.