Home > News & Media > EPA gets earful about proposed water pollution rules

EPA gets earful about proposed water pollution rules

Miami Herald – February 19, 2010

Citrus growers, cattle ranchers, sugar farmers and utility operators told federal environmental regulators Thursday that they are all for keeping rivers and lakes clean, but they don’t want to go broke doing it.

They warned that could be the ripple effect from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s unprecedented decision to step in and tighten Florida’s pollution laws. The EPA wants to set hard caps on two nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, largely responsible for triggering algae blooms that have fouled waters from the St. Johns River to Florida Bay.

More than 200 people packed a public hearing in West Palm Beach, the last of three the EPA scheduled around the state. Most speakers, aside from a handful of environmentalists, urged the agency to go back to the drawing board on rules they branded as flawed and costly.

Nicholas Albergo, president of a Tampa-based engineering firm with a long list of agricultural, utility and other clients, argued the proposed standards were inflexible, rife with ``technical black holes’’ and would ``create major hardships for virtually every sector of Florida’s economy, as well as local governments.’‘

He urged three top EPA officials not to rush to adopt the rules, which are scheduled to be finalized in October. ``I guess my message is, slow down,’’ he said.

Critics — backed by a regiment of attorneys — raised a long list of concerns, some of which they called unintended consequences of the complex regulations.

Farmers said cutting fertilizer use would reduce yields and raise crops prices. Utilities want South Florida’s canal system removed from protection, and warned the rules would undermine state efforts to recycle waste water.

OVERRIDING FEAR

The overriding fear was cost. A coalition of foes — including Associated Industries of Florida, Florida Farm Bureau, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Stormwater Association, Florida Tax Watch, Sugarcane Growers Cooperative of Florida and some 60 other organizations that collectively wield considerable political clout — has put the estimate at $50 billion, a staggering price tag for a state reeling from a collapsed housing market and high unemployment.

The EPA’s economic analysis put costs at no more than $140 million a year — only $5 million to $10 million more than rules proposed by Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Before the meeting, Ephraim King, director of EPA’s office of science and technology in Washington, described some critics’ cost estimates as unrealistic. ``They’re extreme and I think they create fear,’’ he said. ``I think they create the impression in the minds of many Floridians that you have to make a choice between the economy and clean water. You don’t.’‘

The agency, in a brief presentation explaining the rules, tried to tamp down concerns, stressing that industries and communities could cut pollution in phases with as long as 15 years to hit the targets. King also said the agency would listen to feedback that could improve its proposal.

SERIOUS CONCERNS

But he stressed Florida has serious water quality concerns that undermine property values, harm recreation and tourism and put fish, wildlife and public health at risk. By the state’s own measure, 16 percent of rivers, 36 percent of lakes and 25 percent of estuaries are impaired by pollution.

To settle a federal lawsuit brought by environmental groups, the EPA agreed last year to impose the regional numeric standards, saying Florida’s effort was too slow and inefficient. It’s the first time the agency has tried setting nutrient standards for a state. Environmentalists applauded the effort, saying the state had coddled industrial polluters with vague rules.

``This should have been done years ago,’’ said Marti Daltry, a Sierra Club member from Fort Myers, who said she has seen water quality deteriorate. ``All I know is when my water is green, something is not right.’’

Click here to view this article online