WASHINGTON - Restoring about 2.4 million acres of the Florida Everglades is costing more than expected, federal and state overseers told a House subcommittee Thursday. The initial $1.1 billion estimate for two of the first major projects now approaches $1.6 billion.

The costs have added to the massive 30-year restoration effort's initial price tag of $7.8 billion, which is to be split 50-50 among the state and federal governments.

The two projects involve building reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas and reclaiming 260 miles of roadbeds. The projects set up the broader restoration effort by helping control or capture water from canals and roads in southern Florida.

At a hearing on their costs, Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., asked why projects that don't "directly benefit" the Everglades were slated first.

Duncan, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on water resources and environment, also questioned why the cost estimates had grown and the state had paid $915 million so far - six times as much as the federal government's $150 million.

For the Indian River Lagoon-South Project, which calls for constructing four above-ground reservoirs, four storm water treatment areas and removing 7.9 million cubic yards of muck, the cost estimate grew from $963 million to $1.2 billion.

For the Southern Golden Gate Estates Project, which includes revegetating 227 miles of the reclaimed roads and building three pump stations, the cost estimate grew from $137.3 million to $362.6 million.

Inflation was a factor in the growing costs, testified Col. Robert M. Carpenter, head of the Jacksonville, Fla., district of the Army Corps of Engineers.

He said the projects are particularly important among the dozens planned because they enable engineers to capture and store water that will be needed later for restoration.

The state has paid more than the federal government so far because of land acquisition costs that haven't yet been reimbursed, according to Carpenter and Ernest Barnett, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's director of ecosystem projects.

John Burns, a retired Army Corps of Engineers planner who led an independent review of the science behind the lagoon project, raised concerns that harmful algal blooms "could be a major water quality issue" if the estuary has too many nutrients.

Overall, though, he told lawmakers that the review panel "found nothing from a scientific viewpoint that would prevent you from authorizing the project."