Government
New EPA Water Nutrient Requirements Draw Ire of Business, State Leaders
House and Senate leadership pledges to stop the federal government's 'overreach'
Around the State
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.
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.


Comments (1)
As if the numbers by industry are based on facts? Doubtful...., to put it politely. Wasting money is the biggest waste of resources there is so I don't want to see it wasted on rules and regulations that aren't needed. But that said, we do need to clean up our water and to do that, industry and municipalities have to first stop using it as a dump.
Not requiring industry to dispose of their waste properly goes against free market principles and promotes socialism. Sooner or later, we have to clean up our water. Allowing industry to externalize to taxpayers what should be calculated in the cost of doing business, distorts the market. To put it simply, how can you compare the price of a tomato or any product to another when you don't have to pay up front for the true cost?
Put another way, why should I have to make up in my taxes what I save at the store- or worse, so someone else can save at the store? Also, how can small business owners compete with the big guys when they don't get to externalize some of their costs like they do?
Otherwise, I've said this before but will say it again. Something to keep in mind about the EPA guidelines is that someday, we may be drinking that water.
Also, from what I read, polluters will have 15 years to come in compliance and spread the costs out, which hardly seems like it would lead to armageddon. And it's likely to create jobs.
Again, a few articles I recently came across on the subject of water that I think are worth reading.
"Extravagant cost estimates for water quality standards written by industry, and disputed by state"
http://floridaindependent.com/12419/e....
"Viruses 'can remain in drinking water' after desal treatment"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/....
"Overdraft, Saltwater Intrusion Strain the Floridan Aquifer"
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews....
...
BTW, taking care of water supplies is one of those instances where socialism is a good thing. But not just so companies can make bigger profits.)