New EPA Water Nutrient Requirements Draw Ire of Business

The months-long battle between Florida and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over freshwater nutrient standards reached a turning point Monday.

During a morning conference call, the EPA announced it will give Florida officials, including the Department of Environmental Protection, 15 months to comply with new numeric nutrient standards for freshwater lakes, streams and rivers.

In 2008, the Florida Wildlife Federation filed a lawsuit against the EPA for the federal agency's neglect to enforce water purity standards in the Clean Water Act. Since a judge's ruling in 2009, the EPA has been working to come up with more stringent standards for regulating levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in freshwater lakes and streams.

Environmental groups have blamed the high levels of nutrients for algae blooms that can kill fish and create skin irritations for swimmers. Representatives from the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and other environmental groups defended the EPA, saying the standards are necessary.

"Sewage, manure and fertilizer are killing the St. Johns River," said Neil Armingeon, a St. Johns riverkeeper. "We believe that these numeric standards are the beginning of the saving of the St. Johns River."

But state elected officials and business leaders say the new standards go too far.

U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Florida, who recently won the election for commissioner of agriculture, released a statement saying the EPA essentially ignored concerns about the effect implementation would have on Florida's economy, and the bipartisan effort to back up the new rules with sound science.

"While the EPA heeded our calls for additional time to implement numeric nutrient criteria in Florida by setting an effective date 15 months beyond the date of promulgation," said Putnam, "the issue remains unresolved, and regardless of when implemented, the federal mandate will have a dramatic impact on our state’s economy.”

Putnam was among several newly elected officials who signed a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Friday calling for a delay. He, along with Gov.-elect Rick Scott and incoming Attorney General Pam Bondi said the new standards could cost more than $20 billion.

Gwen Fleming, regional EPA administrator, says those figures are vastly exaggerated and based on the assumption that all wastewater treatment facilities would have to use the expensive reverse osmosis system to meet the new demands.

"That's simply not the case," said Fleming. "Prior to now, the only thing that has been out there is a lot of speculation and guesswork."

While the EPA's estimate is significantly south of $20 billion, they still expect the new regulation to cost the state between $135 and $206 million.

Associated Industries of Florida President Barney Bishop cites estimates from municipalities and wastewater plants and says implementation will cost far more than the EPA thinks.

"Those numbers are out of fantasy land," he said. "They have no basis in fact."

In a testimony before the EPA, Bishop offered to write a $130 million check to the EPA if they would agree to pay anything over that.

"They didn't take the deal, and they won't take the deal," said Bishop. It'll cost us way more than that. It'll cost us billions of dollars."

Both Putnam and Bishop said the mandate was born of litigation and not scientifically based.

Continuing in his written statement, Putnam said the regulation "not only unfairly treats Florida differently than the other 49 states, it jeopardizes jobs throughout the state."

Fleming says the reason Florida is the only state they're imposing these standards on is because of the 2008 lawsuit. She also mentioned the DEP's well-kept data on nutrient levels as another reason.

"It just happened to be, with the lawsuit and everything else in terms of the great database from which to work, that we were able to put these rules in place," said Fleming.

The EPA does provide for some flexibility. Fleming says they wanted to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to implementing the standards, allowing for case-by-case adjustments depending on local environmental factors.

While some officials cited studies by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, a spokesperson from the DEP says those cost estimates were based on a hypothetical. Still, with the actual numeric standards now available from the EPA, the DEP is being cautious to pass judgment on the costs.

The department released a written statement saying, “[The] DEP will now analyze and address the remaining legal and scientific issues, as well as the policy considerations associated with moving forward on nutrients, to assure that the benefits are worth the costs to Floridians.”

Efforts to push back against the federal government-imposed standards are already under way.

“I urge my colleagues, as well as other state and federal leaders, to continue to press on for Floridians against this federal overreach and let sound science prevail to sustain our state’s economy and natural resources,” said Putnam.

Incoming House Speaker Dean Cannon said the House and Senate are planning to override a bill vetoed by Gov. Charlie Crist that might limit the EPA's power as well.

"Pushing back on the new nutrient rules and the EPA is something I'm very interested in. I think it's a very big overreach by the federal government."

If the veto is overridden Tuesday in the special session, HB 1516 would require legislative approval for new rules that cost more than $1 million over five years.

Incoming Senate President Mike Haridopolos added his voice to the chorus.
"Clearly, the Florida-only water standards will cost Floridians jobs and I will do everything I can not just to delay this unneeded federal intervention but to permanently stop (the new standards) from taking effect,” he said.
After the 15-month implementation period is up, the DEP will serve as the primary enforcement agency. There will be no direct enforcement for noncompliance, but over time, the EPA may refuse to renew permits to industrial businesses and municipalities that discharge nutrient-rich water into the environment.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/new-epa-water-nutrient-requirements-draw-ire-business-state-leaders

DEP instructed to revise proposed regulations for protecting freshwater

After five years, what's another month or so?

Proposed regulations that would set the first comprehensive standards for water flow levels for the state's rivers and streams, called for in a law passed by the state legislature five years ago, were "rejected without prejudice" last week by the legislative panel charged with approving them.

The Regulation Review Committee directed the state Department of Environmental Protection to revise and resubmit the regulations, meant to manage and protect the state's freshwater resources.
The revisions would respond to concerns raised by legislative staff attorneys and a coalition of public water companies, agriculture, municipal and business groups concerned that the new rules would be overly strict and restrictive of public water supplies. The DEP contends it wrote ample flexibility into the rules to ensure public water needs can be met.

Betsey Wingfield, bureau chief of the water protection and land reuse bureau of the state DEP, said her office is still analyzing the technical and substantive issues raised by the Legislative Commissioners Office in its report to the committee.

"It's a legal analysis of the regulations, and I don't see them as pushing for them to be more or less protective of the environment," Wingfield said. "It's raising legal issues."

For example, among 10 "substantive concerns," the report said the regulations need to clarify the basis for a decision to change the classification of river or stream, and to more clearly define natural and sufficient flow variations.

Wingfield expects the DEP will resubmit a new version to the legislative committee in time for its November or December meeting.

She added it is typical for the committee to send new regulations back for revision after the first submittal, as was the case with the streamflow rules. The committee could have voted to reject the regulations altogether, but that would leave the state out of compliance with the law passed five years ago.

"Rejection without prejudice" was expected, Wingfield said, given the complexity of the regulations.

David Sutherland, director of government relations for the Nature Conservancy, also didn't see the committee's action as a major setback. The conservancy and several other environmental and outdoor sportsman groups have been advocating for the regulations to ensure water companies and others that divert from rivers and streams maintain water levels that can adequately support fish and other aquatic life.

Elizabeth Gara, executive director of the Connecticut Water Works Association, said her group and others in the coalition opposed to the last version of the regulations are looking forward to a new version "that will protect aquatic life and make sure public water suppliers have sufficient water to meet customer needs."

The regulations should also be narrowed so that they do not apply to groundwater supplies that were not covered in the original law, she said.

"I don't believe the Legislative Commissioners Office report went far enough," she said. "Certainly the committee identified concerns that went beyond."

http://www.theday.com/article/20101102/NWS01/311029883/1019&town=