Posted on 09/18/2011 3:33:05 PM PDT by Brilliant
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.
“If Stearns wants to hear from his constituents, he should make room to hear from business owners and residents who have endured the public health threat posed by toxic algae outbreaks and fish kills at dozens of cold-water springs, at Sanibel Island, Naples, Daytona, and other tourist beaches, and along the St. Lucie, Indian, St. Johns and Caloosahatchee rivers,” said Earthjustice attorney David Guest.
A lawsuit by Earthjustice spawned the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria.
But Steinbrecher said the new rules would "displace many very good site-specific nutrient standards in place now. TMDLs [total maximum daily loads] were developed to deal with nutrients, and nutrient-reduction obligations have been undertaken by a full range of entities."
By contrast, he said, EPA's "poorly derived numbers would replace properly derived nutrient numbers. EPA would move to a target with no better result."
By requiring new standards for nitrogen -- some below the part-per-million rates found in natural water bodies -- the EPA rules would cost Floridians an average of $700 more per year on their utility bills, Steinbrecher said.
In prepared testimony, Budell and Richardson offered state and local perspectives (excerpted text):
RICHARD BUDELL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
"In the EPA’s own words, 'Florida has developed and implemented some of the most progressive nutrient management strategies in the nation.' Florida is one of the few states that has implemented a comprehensive framework of accountability that applies to both point and nonpoint sources and provides authority to enforce nutrient reductions.
"The EPA has also acknowledged that Florida has placed substantial emphasis on the monitoring and assessment of its waters and, as a result of this commitment, has collected significantly more water quality data than any other state. Greater than 30 percent of all water quality data in the EPA’s national water quality database comes from Florida. Florida was the first state in the nation to implement comprehensive urban stormwater management regulations. Florida’s treated wastewater reuse program is a model for the rest of the country.
"Our agricultural Best Management Practices program is firmly rooted in state law, is backed by sound science and is a critical component of Florida’s overall water resource management programs. These practices have been implemented on over 8 million acres of agricultural and commercial forest lands in Florida.
"By targeting its efforts and resources, Florida has made significant progress in nutrient reduction water resource restoration. Examples range from Tampa Bay, where sea grasses have returned to levels not seen since the 1950s and now cover 30,000 acres, to Lake Apopka, where phosphorous levels have been reduced by 56 percent and water clarity increased by 54 percent.
"Despite these glowing reviews and Florida’s demonstrated commitment to water resource protection and restoration, EPA, in response to litigation, determined in January of 2009 that Florida had not done enough and mandated the prompt promulgation of numeric-nutrient water quality criteria within one year. Before that year was up, EPA entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and agreed to deadlines for federal rule adoption that, for all practical purposes, usurped Florida’s ongoing efforts to develop its own standards.
"This takeover of Florida’s efforts was further aggravated by EPA’s rule-making process. Florida stakeholders were not accustomed to the manner in which EPA develops rules. Under state law, rule-making provides much more opportunity for input, discussion and dialogue. While the state convenes Technical Advisory Committee meetings and public workshops open to public dialogue and interaction, EPA holds public hearings where the public can make comments to silent, nodding representatives while a giant five-minute timer counts down. While Florida’s sunshine laws make all data and information available to the public throughout the rule-making process, EPA restricts the amount of information available to the public and doesn’t make all relevant analyses available for comment.
"Outside of the process concerns, the methods used by EPA to construct its rules are inconsistent with EPA’s own guidance documents and the advice of EPA’s Science Advisory Board. EPA compounded this situation by improperly applying the methods it did use. As a result, in many cases the rule would deem healthy waters as impaired.
"In the preamble to their rule, EPA admits that they were unable to find a cause-and-effect relationship between nutrient concentration and biological response for flowing waters like streams and rivers. In the absence of that cause-and-effect relationship, there can be no certainty that the money and human resources devoted to reduce nutrient content in a stream or river will result in any measurable improvement in the biological condition of that stream or river.
"Florida believes that it is very important to link numeric criteria with an assessment of the biological health of a water body before requiring the implementation of costly nutrient-reduction strategies. Without this linkage, implementation of the EPA criteria would have Florida citizens, businesses, wastewater and stormwater utilities and agricultural producers spending time and money attempting to reduce nutrient concentrations, in some cases to levels below natural background.
"From an agricultural perspective, I can tell you without question that virtually no sector of Florida agriculture can comply with the final EPA nutrient criteria without the implementation of costly edge-of-farm water detention and treatment. Construction of these facilities takes land out of production and requires ongoing operation and maintenance.
"None of these costs can be passed on by the producer. Few growers can afford to implement this kind of practice without the support of farm bill or state-derived cost-share program payments. Florida wastewater utilities believe that expensive reverse osmosis technologies will have to be employed in order for them to comply with the requirements of their point-source discharge permits. These technologies are not only costly to implement and maintain, but they require an enormous amount of energy to operate.
"Florida is pleased that the EPA has agreed to request that the National Research Council convene a panel to review all of the economic studies and render an opinion on the likely costs of implementation.
"In closing, Florida believes that Florida is best positioned to assess the health of its waters and establish associated water quality criteria for their protection and restoration. Florida has earned the right to exercise the authority envisioned by the Clean Water Act to develop its own water quality standards and implement them through an EPA-approved and predictable process governed by existing state law."
DAVID RICHARDSON, Gainesville Regional Utilities
"The recently adopted numeric-nutrient criteria rule is undermining our widely supported environmental restoration project -- the Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project -- by introducing unnecessary regulatory burden, risk and uncertainty.
"The new regulatory requirements will cost our customers up to $120 million in compliance costs or, if we are lucky, a minimum of 1 million customer dollars to pursue highly uncertain regulatory relief. Unfortunately EPA’s nutrient criteria rule will provide no additional environmental benefit for this project.
"I’m sure you must be wondering, if this rule results in customer expenditures with no environmental benefit, why have we not worked with EPA during rule development to prevent this from happening. We have. We provided lengthy written comments and met personally with representatives from EPA’s Office of Science and Technology during rule development.
"The Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project is a major environmental restoration project which will improve water quality, protect drinking water and restore 1,300 acres of natural wetlands within Paynes Prairie Preserve State Park. The $26 million project is a partnership among Gainesville Regional Utilities, city of Gainesville Public Works, FDEP, the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Florida Department of Transportation, and is broadly supported in the community.
"We must proceed with this project to comply with FDEP and EPA permit conditions. This project is incorporated in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that EPA approved and FDEP issued in 2010.
"Now, barely a year later, new regulations have been adopted that put this project in jeopardy. No site conditions have changed, no additional data suggest a different approach is needed, none of the underlying science that led to the development of this project has changed. The only change is that EPA has adopted a new set of generalized nutrient rules that do not acknowledge or allow for the wide range of naturally occurring nutrient levels, or allow solutions that are tailored to site-specific conditions.
"FDEP and EPA still support this project, but demonstrating that this project meets the newly adopted NNC regulation is costly and uncertain. We ask that this subcommittee please help us avoid spending customer money on activities that will not result in an environmental benefit."
I like Cains plan for dealing with the EPA.
It is time for the EPA to be destoyed. Disolve the agency, blow up the buildings and try the “employees” for crimes against humanity.
Skru the epa and OSHSA and the rest...IGNORE THEM...Make them go away.
Refuse to acknowlege that they have any power.
Its your state and your water. make them stfu.
I have zero allegiance to any of these commie fascists.
bump
After Americans retake the Congress and Presidency next year, they must pass law to remove the standing of all these enviro-garbage organizations to sue.
“...I like Cains plan for dealing with the EPA...”
-
And what is that?
{enlighten me)
Yeah, killing 5 jobs for each one he “creates.” Perhaps he thinks he can make up the difference on volume.
Abolish the EPA.
Poor science? The Obamaloon crowd?
We’re talking liberals here. Were they to have the capacity to pass even the beginning science courses, they would have demonstrated the IQ to bypass liberal idiocy and go straight to conservatism.
As low-IQ cretins, they are qualified only for politics and marshmallow-major professorships.
I had the idea many years ago
(if the house and senate had the balls)
that they should take the budgets of Environmental; Education; Agriculture; Energy; and others;
and divide the $$$ by the # of congressional districts
and send the $$$ to the states to do with as they saw fit.
Cleveland had the same issue...water rates are slated to go up 87% and sewer is pulling in some new fangles fees to pay the EPA mandates....stuff not based on usage but because you are hooked up.
Small city of Bay Village is disconnecting from the district and hooking in outside the county. Whole deal and laying new pipe will be cheaper than staying with the EPA Cleveland requirements.
Can’t afford clean water...just another utility I am looking to get off my personal grid.
“It was done to settle a lawsuit, not to meet an environmental need”
We can cry about the EPA all day long, but the enviro laws are too legally and scientifically loose and lax and let the special interest enviro groups run amok in exactly the way the article describes.
We need to change the laws and bring balance between the environment and the economy.
I’d like to put a twist on the liberal mantra of ‘the stimulus saved all those jobs from disappearing’ and flip it right back on them.
How many of those jobs will disappear due to the new regulations, but also, how many people WON’T BE HIRED because of the regulations?
When are these states going to just stand up and kick the EPA back across the state line? It drives me nuts.
One size fits all, adjust with hammer as necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.