State and regional water officials poured criticism on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday, calling the EPA's proposed pollution standards heavy-handed, overly expensive and indefensibly "poor science."

Appearing at a congressional hearing conducted by U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala, a cavalcade of water experts disputed the EPA's tactics and questioned its motives.

Paul Steinbrecher, president of the Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, said the EPA's numeric nutrient criteria are "rooted in poor science."

"It was done to settle a lawsuit, not to meet an environmental need. Setting criteria for the entire state in an unrealistic time frame, they found there was no way to do a reasonable job in 12 months. So they resorted to shortcut statistical methods that are shoddy at best," Steinbrecher charged.

Richard J. Budell, director of the Office of Agricultural Water Policy at the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said the EPA program would cripple the state with excessive costs and kill jobs.

While the EPA estimates implementation costs between $135 million and $236 million annually, the state agriculture department, working with the University of Florida Agricultural Resource Economics Department, estimated the implementation costs just for agricultural land uses at between $900 million and $1.6 billion annually and could result in the loss of more than 14,000 jobs. 

"Preliminary estimates from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection peg the implementation costs for urban stormwater upgrades alone at nearly $2 billion annually," Budell said.

A study commissioned by a large coalition of Florida-based public and private entities estimated the total implementation costs at between $1 billion and $8.4 billion annually. The wide variability in this latter estimate is, in part, due to the uncertainty associated with not yet knowing the rule requirements, Budell asserted.

Saying his community is getting "whipsawed" by the EPA, David Richardson of Gainesville Regional Utilities suggested that the agency's initiative amounts to ill-conceived, one-size-fits-all rule-making.

"Our community already has an EPA-approved, site-specific numeric nutrient rule -- known as the Alachua Sink Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load -- and Gainesville Regional Utilities is participating in a $26 million project, called the Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project. to comply with that EPA-approved rule. No environmental benefit will result from overlaying new generalized nutrient criteria rules on waters already subject to this science-based, site-specific nutrient rule; only needless economic expenditures will result.  

"In spite of our extensive comments and requests, the NNC rule adopted on Nov. 14, 2010,  provides no meaningful solution.  At a minimum, the rule requires that we spend $1 million demonstrating once more that our sophisticated wetlands restoration project comports with EPA’s new generalized mandates. We feel whipsawed," said Richardson, assistant general manager for GRU.

Before convening Tuesday's hearing at the University of Central Florida, Rep. Stearns, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, said:

“Although the EPA originally accepted the standards set by Florida, under outside pressure the EPA decided to impose its own standards. Numerous studies in Florida indicate that the Washington-imposed standards will have a devastating impact on Florida’s job creation, economy and certain agencies."

Stearns, in turn, was criticized by environmentalists who were angered at being omitted from Tuesday's list of speakers.