0001
 1                     
 2                                 
 3                                 
            DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
 4     
                           PUBLIC HEARING
 5     
 6     
 7     
                 IN RE: NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR 
 8      WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS IN 
                         THE STATE OF FLORIDA
 9     __________________________________
10     
11     
12     
13     
14     
15     
       DATE:                              February 16, 2010
16     
       TIME:                              A.M. SESSION
17                                    10:00 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
18     LOCATION:                          FSU Conference Center
                                      555 W. Pensacola Avenue
19                                    Tallahassee, Florida
20     
21     REPORTED BY:                    Yvonne LaFlamme 
                                      Court Reporter 
22                                 
23                                 
24                                 
25     
0002
 1                      A P P E A R A N C E S
 2                                 
 3     
 4     
 5               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PANEL MEMBERS:
 6     
 7     
 8                          DENISE KEEHNER
 9                            JIM KEATING
10                           EPHRAIM KING
11                           JIM GIATLINA
12     
13     
14     
15     
16     
17     
18     
19     
20     
21     
22     
23                                 
24                                 
25                                 
0003
 1                      P R O C E E D I N G S
 2                            -- -- --
 3              MR. KING:  We're going to start up real quick, so 
 4         I invite everybody to take your seat and get 
 5         comfortable.  We've got three sessions today.  It's 
 6         important that you are in a place that you can stretch 
 7         out your legs and relax.
 8              Folks, ready to go?  Do we have everybody here?  
 9         Okay.  I think we'll go ahead and get started.  
10              We'll take advantage of this opportunity to get 
11         feedback from Floridians and from all stakeholder 
12         groups on a proposal that EPA has developed and 
13         published on establishing numeric nutrient water 
14         quality standards for lakes and flowing waters in the 
15         beautiful state of Florida.  
16              My name is Ephraim King.  I am director of the 
17         Office of Science and Technology, and EPA's Office of 
18         Water.  
19              To my right and to your left is Jim Giatlina who 
20         is director of the Water Division in EPA's Regional IV 
21         office in Atlanta.  
22              To Jim's right and your left is Denise Keehner 
23         who is Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 
24         again from DC.  
25              And then, finally, to Denise's right is Jim 
0004
 1         Keating, who is one of our senior technical and 
 2         problematic experts.  And Jim in a second be will be 
 3         walking you overview through the proposed rule to make 
 4         sure we're all in the same room talking all about the 
 5         same thing, and taking the fullest advantage possible 
 6         by getting comments and feedback from everybody here.  
 7              Let me begin this morning, first and foremost,  
 8         welcoming everybody that has taken the time to join us 
 9         this morning.  We think this is an important 
10         proposal.  It is only a proposal.  And part of that 
11         means we are really here to listen and get as much 
12         feedback on technical issues and scientific issues as 
13         we can.  But this takes time out of your schedule, and 
14         you're taking the time to be here, and we very much 
15         appreciate that.  
16              The subject of today's hearing, again, is the 
17         proposed rulemaking by EPA to establish numeric 
18         nutrient water quality standards for lake and flowing 
19         waters in the state of Florida.  EPA has developed the 
20         proposal working in close coordination on a scientific 
21         and technical basis with the State of Florida, and in 
22         particular, with Florida's Department of Environmental 
23         Protection.  
24              This Rule is based on over 800,000 nutrient-
25         related data points that are from Florida and 
0005
 1         represent Florida conditions, and we are deeply 
 2         appreciative of the technical and scientific 
 3         partnership that we've been able to rely upon in 
 4         making this proposal bringing it to where it is.  
 5              Today we're here to listen.  We have got the 
 6         proposal.  It's on the table.  It represents what we 
 7         think find scientific work.  It represents a 
 8         phenomenal amount of data from the state of Florida.  
 9         It represents very, very rigorous scientific 
10         analysis.  But like any proposal and any analysis, 
11         there's always more information; there's always more 
12         data, and there may well be additional areas or 
13         additional approaches that we all can consider 
14         together to make the proposal an even better and more 
15         effective approach and path towards getting effective 
16         water quality controls and reducing pollutions in the 
17         state of Florida.  
18              Today is an opportunity to hear and listen from 
19         all of the folks in this room and to get your feedback 
20         with what you agree with, with what you disagree 
21         with.  If you think there's information we haven't 
22         included, please let us know.  If you think this 
23         information we haven't used it properly, please let us 
24         know.  
25              Since our agenda today is to reach out to as much 
0006
 1         Floridians as possible.  We have actually changed the 
 2         location to this lovely building to provide for a 
 3         larger room.  We've also extended hours of the hearing 
 4         so we have as much of an opportunity as possible for 
 5         everybody to join us today.  
 6              For folks that feel they haven't had a sufficient 
 7         opportunity to speak today, I want to invite you to 
 8         consider that the formal comment period is still open 
 9         and will remain open until March 29th.  So, if you 
10         don't have enough time today to share all of your 
11         information or you have some additional thoughts that 
12         you want to share after you speak, then we really 
13         welcome and invite you to send us some written 
14         comments in by March 29.  
15              Before we get started with public listening 
16         session of this hearing, I'd like to ask Denise 
17         Keehner to go over the rule-making contacts and the 
18         process, and the steps that we use in conducting a 
19         hearing like this, and then we'll turn to Jim Keating 
20         who will go ahead and provide an overview the Rule 
21         itself.  
22              Denise?  
23              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  I also extend my 
24         welcome and my thanks to all of you for taking the 
25         time out of your days, and very busy days for many of 
0007
 1         you, to participate in this public hearing today.  
 2              The proposed rule that EPA published is part of a 
 3         process that's called an informal or notice of comment 
 4         rule-making process.  Most federal rules that are 
 5         issued, including most of the EPA regulations are 
 6         established through this notice and comment rule-
 7         making process.  
 8              The terms of "notice and comment" comes from 
 9         under the Federal Procedures Act; the fact such acts 
10         require a notice of proposed rule making.  And many of 
11         you are very familiar with the Act published on 
12         January 26 of this year, which was our proposal for 
13         numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing 
14         waters.  So, the notice of proposed rule-making is a 
15         key part of that process.  
16              The second part of process is a opportunity for 
17         public participation of the rulemaking.  And in the 
18         context of this particular proposal, we are -- we have 
19         a sixty-day comment period which will end on March 
20         29th.  And that allows for folks to provide data and 
21         information and comments in written form to the 
22         Environmental Protection Agency through a docket 
23         process that is associated with the proposed rule.  We 
24         are also having a series, as you know, of informal 
25         hearings which are also part of the public comment and 
0008
 1         public participation process.  
 2              The third part of the federal rulemaking process 
 3         is the publication of the final rule.  And the final 
 4         regulation for lakes and flowing waters is required to 
 5         be published by October 15 of 2010, and that is an 
 6         incentive-related deadline, and thus will be a 
 7         deadline that will be met by the Agency as we move 
 8         forward.  
 9              When EPA publishes the final Rule, the final Rule 
10         will also have a full preamble special that will 
11         address all significant written comments that were 
12         received around issues.  There will be a response to 
13         comments document.  Some will be addressed to all 
14         significant issues and thus will be responding in 
15         writing to significant issues and comments that are 
16         received through the rule-making process.  
17              These hearings are basically an opportunity for 
18         the public and you to speak to us, and for us to hear 
19         from you, your thoughts perspectives on EPA's based 
20         proposal.  
21              We have a fairly large number of speakers even 
22         here this morning.  I think there's over fifty people 
23         that are registered, so we need to be able to move 
24         fairly quickly through the process of administratively 
25         getting people up to the podium and allowing you to be 
0009
 1         able to speak, and to then move so the next person can 
 2         come up and speak.  
 3              There will be a transcript prepared of today's 
 4         hearings.  We have a court reporter who is actually 
 5         transcribing the comments and the conduct of this 
 6         particular hearing, and that will be also part of the 
 7         public record.  
 8              When you signed in this morning and you indicated 
 9         that you wanted to speak today, we did give you a 
10         number.  After Jim Keating does his presentation and 
11         provides an overview of what is in the proposed rule, 
12         we will begin the process of going one by one in 
13         numeric order calling people up to the podium in the 
14         center of the room to provide and deliver your 
15         comments.  
16              What we're hoping to do is to call the first 
17         number, and then the next two numbers find the seat 
18         right behind the podium so this process can move 
19         fairly smoothly as we go through the morning.  
20              Each speaker has been allocated five minutes to 
21         speak.  We're going to have a timer to make sure we 
22         stay on target if the number of people that have 
23         signed up to speak this morning.  The timer will 
24         remind you, and we will remind you at the one-minute 
25         point that you're reaching the end of the five-minute 
0010
 1         period for you to deliver your comments.  If we run 
 2         out of time before you have a chance to speak, please 
 3         consider coming back for the afternoon session and we 
 4         will make sure that you receive an early number for 
 5         the afternoon session.  
 6              I did have a specific request this morning from 
 7         Mr. Ralph Poppell, who is from the Florida House of 
 8         Representatives.  He came in and received number 54.  
 9         He has to go back to his government business very 
10         quickly this morning, and he has asked if we can 
11         accommodate him for an earlier speaking slot within 
12         the first handful of people.  
13              And I'm going to ask if it's okay with everybody 
14         here, I'd like to accommodate Mr. Poppell.  Is there 
15         anybody that would find that not to be a positive 
16         thing to do?  Okay.  So the people are agreeable, 
17         Mr. Poppell.  
18              So what we'll be doing now, I'm going to turn 
19         over the floor to Jim Keating.  As Ephraim said, Jim 
20         is a senior policy technical expert with the Office of 
21         Science and Technology in Washington, and Jim's 
22         purpose here this morning is to provide a very brief 
23         overview of EPA's proposal so we're all on the same 
24         page with regard to what it is specifically that EPA 
25         proposes and what it's all about today.
0011
 1              MR. KEATING:  Thank you.  I'm not sure that this 
 2         microphone is on.  Can everyone hear me?  I guess I 
 3         need to raise it up a little bit.  
 4              When you walked in and registered you should have 
 5         receive a packet of materials that includes a hand-out 
 6         from my brief remarks, so just in case you don't need 
 7         to the slides will be there up on the screen, but if 
 8         you want to refer back to something you have that in 
 9         your materials.  
10              I will be briefing my remarks so I want to 
11         encourage everyone to avail themselves of the preamble 
12         text as well as the support documentation we have 
13         Online this's really no substitute for reading the 
14         primary materials.  
15              But what I would like to do today is referring 
16         back to the title we have up there, talk a little 
17         about what exactly phosphorous and nitrogen pollution 
18         is, what exactly water quality standards are, and 
19         briefly walk through how it relates to lakes and 
20         flowing waters, and the contents of our proposal.  
21              To start things off, I'm going to go through a 
22         series of images that portrays some of the conditions 
23         that have occurred over the last decade or so that are 
24         the subject of today's proposal that we're talking 
25         about.  
0012
 1              This is an image from about a year ago that's up 
 2         on a website called Earth Snapshot, and it really 
 3         shows how extensive some of the issues can be with 
 4         algal blooms; as you can see, the green area all up 
 5         and down the West Coast of the Spinnerule.
 6              What do we mean by phosphorous and nitrogen 
 7         pollution?  And I just showed a fairly benign image up 
 8         there, but excess nitrogen and phosphorous in the 
 9         environment causes the growth of unwanted nuisance 
10         algae.  
11              Not all algae are bad.  In fact, we do need 
12         algae, but the wrong kinds of algae.  One example is 
13         the algae lymbia, which smothers field grass which 
14         feeds for our manatees.  It also produces toxins and 
15         it's harmful to animals, humans, pets.  Very 
16         detrimental species produces toxins that can cause 
17         liver damage.  It can also poison livestock, 
18         wildlife.  
19              Despite these harmful aspects, there's also some 
20         subtle aspects in that can cause real problems for the 
21         ecology for freshwaters.  It can discolor the water.  
22         It can build up and then crash and die and remove the 
23         oxygen that all of the animal life in the water 
24         needs.  Or it can cause fish kill and really be 
25         detrimental to our fish and shellfish survival.  
0013
 1              There's also human health concerns.  There's 
 2         algae in the water and drinking water intake.  Well, 
 3         that material has to be removed, and through 
 4         disinfection can produce byproducts that have been 
 5         linked to cancer and other serious illnesses in 
 6         drinking water.  So there is a human health aspect 
 7         that is very important.  
 8              Another human health aspect that is very 
 9         important that's not necessarily related to algae 
10         production issue is the presence of nitrates, which is 
11         a form of nitrogen, and they can be present in heavily 
12         elevated levels in Florida ground water.  And there's 
13         a lot of exchange between surface water and ground 
14         water.  One of more severe effects of nitrates is 
15         called "Blue Baby Syndrome," which can lead to coma 
16         and even death in some situations.  
17              Throughout Florida, we see a pattern of sequences 
18         of highly elevated levels of nitrates, and in fact 
19         perhaps up to as high of 15 percent of what we call 
20         the maximum contaminate level or MCL.  
21              There are a lot of freshwaters.  Over seven 
22         thousand lakes, 50,000 miles of streams, 4,000 
23         estuaries, and 700 freshwater springs, and a fairly 
24         high percentage of them have been identified as 
25         impaired because of nitrogen and phosphorous 
0014
 1         pollution.  And I wanted to show very briefly some of 
 2         these impairments and kind of what they look like.  
 3              This is Lake Manatee.  It's near Bradenton, 
 4         Florida.  And as you can see, the algal bloom there.  
 5         The image on your right is a device which we call a 
 6         secchi disk a device that measures the clarity or 
 7         transparency of the water.  Certainly in the vicinity 
 8         of that have none.  
 9              Fairly well known example -- (unintelligible) -- 
10         is Lake Apopka, and this is an image of the algal 
11         bloom that's present in that water.  
12              This is a location called Merits Mill Pond.  It's 
13         actually about an hour west of here in Marianna.  And 
14         you can see the image of the algal bloom.  A close up 
15         right here in Tallahassee at Lake Munson, microcystis 
16         bloom is on the screen right now.  This is curtesy of 
17         FTP's website.  Not only in lakes do we see these 
18         algal blooms, we also see them in flowing waters from 
19         Florida rivers.  Here are some images of some Florida 
20         rivers.  
21              This is the Caloosahatchee river in Olga, 
22         Florida.  There's a water intake in Olga, and that is 
23         sometimes subject to these algal blooms.  There are 
24         other images from the Caloosahatchee that you can see 
25         that show the dramatic difference between water on one 
0015
 1         side of that lock that is not affected by algal 
 2         blooms, when you can see the difference between the 
 3         water that is affected.  
 4              Towards the north Florida, near Jacksonville, is 
 5         the St. Johns River.  That's been a site of lots of 
 6         problems in algal blooms.  This is another picture of 
 7         the St. Johns River.  What we see is that, you know, 
 8         there's several aspects of what we want out of water 
 9         and water quality that get put to risk by nitrogen and 
10         phosphorous pollution, including recreation, including 
11         ecology, human health, including tourism business and 
12         waterfront property values; these are the items that 
13         we see that are at risk.  
14              This is the Saint Lucy River north of West Palm 
15         Beach.  
16              Springs are another water body that's at risk.  
17         This is the very famous Weeki Wachee Spring about an 
18         hour north of Tampa.  They have had mermaid shows here 
19         since the fifties.  And on the image on the right you 
20         can see is from this decade where it's been overtaken 
21         by the algae lyngbya.
22              It also affects canals.  This is in South 
23         Florida, a canal that flows into Biscayne Bay.  
24              So going back to water quality standards, the 
25         subject of our Rule, Florida has a narrative water 
0016
 1         criterion statement that protects for a natural 
 2         populations of flora and fauna.  And it says there 
 3         should not be an imbalance of those.  But only with 
 4         the inherent state or targets the healthy waters, and 
 5         I think perhaps more to the point, more importantly, 
 6         it's one that typically gets engaged after the fact, 
 7         after you see that I've been showing you.  What we're 
 8         really interested in, from the water body management 
 9         perspective, is prevent conditions that are happening 
10         that are currently healthy and clean.  
11              We call phosphorous and nitrogen "nutrients," and 
12         these excess levels come from run-off from landscapes, 
13         cattle, crop fields, power plants, faulty septic 
14         tanks, certainly sewage treatments works and other 
15         industries that discharge these.  We also know the 
16         better treatment and more effective -- best management 
17         practices and can actually remove these excess 
18         nutrients from the system also stop them from flowing 
19         into Florida waters.  
20              Now, water quality standards is the subject of 
21         our proposed Rule, and there's a couple of things that 
22         I want to make sure I impart to you that water quality 
23         standards include designated uses; essentially what we 
24         want from our waters, and criterion which are the 
25         specific levels that are areas in which it will be 
0017
 1         those designated uses.  And designated uses have been 
 2         set by the state of Florida, and are keeping with the 
 3         Clean Water Act.  And they classify the overwhelming 
 4         majority as either class one, which is water supplies, 
 5         or class three, which is recreation and propagation to 
 6         healthy and well-balanced fish and wildlife.  
 7              Those two classes share the same water quality 
 8         criteria for aquatic life, for human health, and for 
 9         recreation.  So these are Florida's goals we're 
10         working with.  
11              There has been identified a need for numeric 
12         criteria, reasons I just iterated to facilitate the 
13         time and restoration and prevention of adverse 
14         conditions.  We've been recommending numeric nutrient 
15         criteria since 1998.  Much more recently after 
16         consulting with Florida's own Department of 
17         Environmental Protection, the Agency made a 
18         determination that it was necessary for numeric 
19         nutrient criteria in water quality standards, and we 
20         did that in June of 2009.  
21              The Florida Department of Environmental 
22         Protection actually presented their own draft numeric 
23         nutrient criteria this past summer, having workshops 
24         that were very beneficial, I think, for all involved.  
25         EPA, we did enter into a legal agreement, that Denise 
0018
 1         referred to, in August of 2009 with several 
 2         environmental nonorganizations.  And as she iterated, 
 3         it does put us on schedule to proposed criterias.  We 
 4         did for flowing waters and lakes in January, 2010, to 
 5         be final in October, 2010.  And there's a second rule 
 6         making for estuary and coastal waters that we would 
 7         propose by January, 2011, and will make final in 
 8         October, 2011.  
 9              We rely on a lot of data from Florida.  We 
10         relayed on a lot of technical analysis from Florida.  
11         And Ephraim referred to the large database Florida 
12         has.  They have several thousand they sample.  They 
13         take tens of thousands of samples, and we add up all 
14         of the observations from those samples, and it becomes 
15         hundreds of thousands of records we have available to 
16         us.  
17              For lakes, we define a lake as an open contiguous 
18         water body.  And what we did is we divided the lakes 
19         in the state of Florida in three groups, based on the 
20         natural color level, natural alkalinity level, and we 
21         have field correlations between chlorophyll A, which 
22         you find in the cells of plant and algae, and levels 
23         of total phosphorous and total nitrogen.  We also have 
24         a procedure that we proposed for adjusting the total 
25         phosphorous and total nitrogen criteria for lakes on a 
0019
 1         lake-specific basis when the chlorophyll A levels are 
 2         met and protected.  
 3              This is a chart that basically briefly shows you 
 4         what some of our numbers are.  You can see for the 
 5         color lakes and clear, alkaline lakes there would be 
 6         an expectation of greater productivity of plants and 
 7         animals, and that's represented in the chlorophyll A 
 8         levels.  And for clear acidic lakes, there would be 
 9         lesser productivity expected.  And you can see what 
10         our baseline criteria are and ranges they can be 
11         modified to given that the chlorophyll levels are 
12         met.  
13              Streams are free-flowing waters and channels 
14         outside of South Florida, and we basically were able 
15         to classify these according to their underlying 
16         geology and by water set boundary.  And using a tool 
17         that FDP developed called a stream index, we're able 
18         to identify protective levels of total phosphorous, 
19         total nitrogen that contain those healthy biological 
20         conditions.  And you can see, they're in the visual of 
21         where these areas are and what the criteria that 
22         correlate to those areas would be.  
23              Under the proposal you'll notice that there were 
24         a couple of areas that go around the Tampa, Sarasota 
25         area, and North Central, up around Hamilton there's 
0020
 1         high phosphatic levels in soils and the total 
 2         phosphorous criteria reflect that condition.  
 3              A feature of our proposal is we also address 
 4         protection of downstream waters.  The issue is flowing 
 5         waters by their nature flow, and they flow into lakes, 
 6         and they flow into downstream estuaries, and the 
 7         nutrient levels they carry can have a profound effect 
 8         on downstream waters, and it is something by federal 
 9         regulations and water quality standards we need to 
10         insure there is protection, for not just the proximate 
11         waters, but also the waters that they flow into and 
12         thus protect their water quality standards as well.  
13              We have a procedure that we recommended and 
14         proposed for lakes.  It's an equation form.  And for 
15         estuaries we used a USGS called Sparrow.  It's a water 
16         shed based model that accounts for loadings of the 
17         landscape and their transport.  And in the case of 
18         total nitrogen, some losses of the system as it flows 
19         down.  
20              One of the things we did in addition to 
21         identifying protective loads that are needed for 
22         downstream estuaries that thus translated that into 
23         stream concentrations in all of the upstream locations 
24         and water shed factors in any losses from the system.  
25         And a feature of our proposal is downstream protection 
0021
 1         values tend to be more protective and lower, and 
 2         stream protection values.  They range from something 
 3         on the border of .34 to .95 parts per million, and in 
 4         the terminal reaches of those waters with higher 
 5         concentrations up in the higher reaches of water 
 6         shed.  
 7              We did indicate in the proposal we have a couple 
 8         of options available to us.  These downstream 
 9         protections we propose to be final in October, 2010.  
10         Or, we can continue to take comment and go forward 
11         with them in conjunction with the Estuary Coastal Rule 
12         we're doing in 2011.  
13              Springs are an important resource in Florida.  
14         And there's a wealth of field and laboratory data of 
15         protection of springs.  FDP really pioneered the 
16         coalescence of that material, and the analysis of that 
17         and our proposal is very similar to theirs in terms of 
18         criterion for nitrite and nitrate and accommodation.  
19              South Florida canals.  These are hydrogated 
20         systems.  They're basically trenches that are designed 
21         for irrigation and flood control.  But to carry those 
22         designated uses are those goals for aquatic life 
23         recreation and human health protection.  And in a 
24         similar way to the rivers and streams criteria, we 
25         were able to identify canals that are lacking 
0022
 1         impairment, and therefore can be inferred to meet 
 2         other designated uses.  And looking at those datas we 
 3         were able to identify protective levels for 
 4         chlorophyll A, phosphorous and total nitrogen in those 
 5         canals.  
 6              There are a couple of important provisions for 
 7         adjusting this criteria that is proposed.  One is for 
 8         site-specific alternative criteria. You can through 
 9         the process go through our regional office.  This 
10         would allow Florida to demonstrate that alternative 
11         protected values are appropriate.  
12              And there's another procedure that we're 
13         proposing called restoration standards that would 
14         essentially allow local communities working with the 
15         state of Florida in their Department of Environmental 
16         Protection to develop a series of interim designated 
17         uses in water quality criteria that could really give 
18         them time to make progress of containment of the 
19         standards.  
20              We did conduct an economic analysis.  We looked 
21         at it in terms of what the costs would be for 
22         Florida's proposed numbers and the incremental 
23         numbers, if you looked at it, some of the additional 
24         numbers we proposed.  If you add those together, it 
25         could be as high of 140 million dollars per year on an 
0023
 1         annual basis.  And that would mostly be for a greater 
 2         treatment cost and condition of the B&Bs for -- 
 3         (unintelligible) 
 4              The procedure for submitting comments then, we 
 5         really do encourage written comments, and we are 
 6         accepting them until March 29, 2010, and there's 
 7         several ways can avail yourself to that opportunity.  
 8         Certainly, the easiest way would be using the 
 9         mechanisms to go Online.  
10              So, real quick review:  Water quality standards, 
11         designated uses, and protective criteria.  Florida 
12         established those designated uses to protect fish and 
13         wild life, recreation, human health.  Florida has 
14         agreed that numeric criteria is necessary and done a 
15         ton of work to gather the data and do some supporting 
16         analyses.  
17              We have your entered a legal agreement, and we 
18         are bound to propose a criteria and ultimately insure 
19         they are in place by certain dates.  We have proposed 
20         criteria for lakes, rivers, streams, and South Florida 
21         canals by using sound scientific approaches.  And we 
22         have also addressed the need for downstream 
23         protection, and we have further proposed the need for 
24         site-specific conditions or time needed to achieve the 
25         restoration steps.  
0024
 1              We certainly, you know, invite all comments and 
 2         particularly any technical comments or questions you 
 3         may have, we're obligated to provide responses by 
 4         nature of proposal includes alternatives to consider.  
 5         And, you know, I encourage you to take the time to 
 6         look at those as well.
 7              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Jim.  At this time, I'd 
 8         like to invite Mr. Poppell to the podium for him to 
 9         make his remarks.  And also, speakers one and two to 
10         take seats immediately behind Mr. Poppell.  Please 
11         when you approach the podium provide your name and 
12         your affiliation.  
13              MR. POPPELL:  Is this on?  Okay.  Great.  Thank 
14         you.  I'm Ralph Poppell, Chairman of the Florida House 
15         of Representatives Natural Resource Appropriations 
16         Committee, and I would appreciate the opportunity to 
17         speak with you this morning, and appreciate you coming 
18         down and giving us this forum of which we can present 
19         some of our views and our concerns.  
20              Naturally, our concerns are not only for fresh, 
21         clean, potable water and good water for our 
22         environment, but it's also economics.  In Florida we 
23         understand water, we understand soils, we understand 
24         our native plants better, and certainly care more than 
25         anyone else and it's because it is our present and 
0025
 1         it's our future.  But it's also important as we 
 2         establish a numeric nutrient criteria that we also 
 3         understand we need to do this, and not in a reckless 
 4         manner, but in a very methodical way.  And that's what 
 5         Florida has been all about.  
 6              Florida started years ago developing the TMDLs in 
 7         conjunction with Florida DEP -- University of Florida 
 8         Department of Agriculture -- and an entire myriad of 
 9         businesses and individuals collectively working 
10         together to develop this along with best management 
11         practices.  
12              This has proven to be really a success story.  As 
13         a matter of fact, I noticed when Mr. King was speaking 
14         of it, the criteria of which we're meeting here today 
15         and evaluating came most from Florida.  So it makes me 
16         sort of wonder if we're our friends -- if we're our 
17         friend or our enemy by providing this.  
18              However, we want this to be used in a positive 
19         manner.  If we take and move towards the final goal of 
20         developing better water, better water quality, we have 
21         to look back at where does Florida come from.  
22              Number one.  Years ago we started spending 
23         billions of dollars, millions of man hours, and 
24         millions of acres of land, setting aside for all 
25         development and all under the name of better quality 
0026
 1         water and a better way of life for all Floridians.  We 
 2         also entered into a couple of decades back, an 
 3         agreement with the federal government to clean up Lake 
 4         Okeechobee of which today we have provided several 
 5         billions of dollars and the federal government only 
 6         provided about one-fourth of that.  
 7              So, we don't print money.  We absolutely have to 
 8         extract hard earned dollars, tax dollars, from our 
 9         constituents in order to do the job that's set aside 
10         for us.  
11              So we look at the issue of something of extreme 
12         importance, or we would not be working on it, and I 
13         know you feel the same way.  But help us to help 
14         ourselves.  And help us to help others, by maybe 
15         giving us a little leeway here and giving us a little 
16         more time by studying the proposal and answering to 
17         some of this so we can better be prepared to give the 
18         answers we know that's going to help.  
19              Right now is an absolute bad time to be enforcing 
20         something that's going to cost our state any more 
21         hard-earned dollars than we have. Economically, we're 
22         like most other states.  We're struggling to have 
23         dollars, and we try meet the criteria that is not only 
24         going to give Florida the healthy lifestyle but the 
25         lifestyle they also wish and would like to have. So in 
0027
 1         doing so, we need to be working towards jobs, job 
 2         creation, in order to have a tax to pay not only for 
 3         clean water but our total environment picture.  
 4              So we're asking you today to work with us, and I 
 5         know DEP in the natural resource appropriations.  We 
 6         struggle every day.  We have worked with DEP, Fish and 
 7         Wildlife, Department of Agriculture, and also water 
 8         management districts.  This is our job.  We do this 
 9         daily, and try to come up with an area that is going 
10         to best provide us with the information that we need 
11         to do a better job.  However, we're right within our 
12         budget time right now, so we're working on these very 
13         same issues.  
14              But I ask you to work with DEP and work with the 
15         Department of Ag and others so what we can do here 
16         today is to provide a better way of life and do it in 
17         an affordable manner.  Thank you.
18              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Poppell.  
19              Speaker number one.  And if speaker number three 
20         can join the seat that would be great.  
21              MR. KELLY:  Henry Kelly.  Fort Walton Beach 
22         Florida Tea Party.  Fort Walton Beach, Florida is home 
23         of the newest wastewater plant in the United States.  
24         On behalf of the Fort Walton Tea Party, we would like 
25         to register our objections to the proposed 
0028
 1         regulations.  
 2              We support responsibility to protect our 
 3         environment, and our taxpayers -- our tax dollars 
 4         going to build a brand new, $60 million wastewater 
 5         treatment center is tangible proof of our commitment 
 6         to the environment.  The EPA was not needed to approve 
 7         this new facility, so we question how it can now 
 8         inject itself into a state and local matter.  
 9              We believe the proposed rules are only applying 
10         to the state of Florida and do not apply to the other 
11         49 states, we believe this may be a violation of the 
12         equal protection clause of the US Constitution.  
13              There is no clear science behind the rules.  The 
14         numeric criteria contained for maximum containment 
15         levels are ridiculously low, and there is no 
16         scientific data to back up the extremely lows MCLs for 
17         nitrates.  There is also limited data to support the 
18         idea of wastewater plants are a significant source of 
19         contamination in surface water bodies.  We believe 
20         that agricultural run off, lawn fertilizers, and golf 
21         courses are contributing to a higher of the nitrate 
22         contamination of Florida surface waters, and 
23         wastewater facilities are way down the list.  
24              In the Florida Panhandle we are actually punished 
25         with these regulations for doing a good job of 
0029
 1         protecting our surface waters by having extremely 
 2         strict MCLs; in other words, you will actually punish 
 3         you for having the cleanest water in the state, and we 
 4         will have to improve on that because based on this 
 5         flawed science, the EPA believes that other regions in 
 6         Florida should be treated more leniently.  There is 
 7         not a single wastewater treatment facility in Florida 
 8         that can currently meet the new limits.  The cost for 
 9         retrofitting every plant in Florida is estimated to be 
10         in the billions of dollars despite what you show on 
11         your slides.  In order to pay for the enormous cost of 
12         coming in compliance, catastrophic double or triple 
13         rate increases for all wastewater utility customers 
14         will be required.  
15              There is no accounting for the profound increase 
16         that these regulations will have on the carbon 
17         footprint of the retrofitted plants.  If these plants 
18         adopt a reverse osmosis system, it will greatly 
19         increase operating costs, ironically, and increase the 
20         amount of carbon-based energy needed to meet these 
21         unscientific standards.  So in the process of trying 
22         to kill the patient -- in the process of trying to 
23         save the patient, we will kill the patient by using 
24         more greenhouse gases.  
25              Additionally, FDS yesterday challenge the 
0030
 1         standard being put forth by the EPA.  In this economy 
 2         we cannot continue to pretend to that we taxpayers can 
 3         avoid every environmental program that comes down the 
 4         pike.  As I stated, Okaloosa County has invested 60 
 5         million dollars barely 60 days ago to have a state-of-
 6         the-art water treatment plant.  Now based on flawed 
 7         science data we will be asked to pay millions more.  
 8         We cannot afford any more, and we request you stop 
 9         these regulations.  Thank you.
10              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
11              Speaker number two.  
12              MR. LEE:  My name is Jerry Lee.  I have worked in 
13         the nursery industry for the last thirty-five years.  
14         I've spent probably a great deal of the last 20 years 
15         in trying to understand especially -- (unintelligible) 
16         -- in the southeast.  I can tell you based on what 
17         I've seen, the numbers that I've seen in streams 
18         exceed in the vast majority of cases the numbers that 
19         have been proposed, especially with the Panhandle 
20         area.  That concerns me over the fact also that these 
21         standards are based on the 75th percentile of river 
22         and streams, rather than on science that determines 
23         the levels at which biological degradation occurs.  
24         And I'm not sure how much we'll be able to increase 
25         the diversity with the dollars spent.  
0031
 1              Also, using utility in which also includes 
 2         organic nitrogen and in many cases may not be found in 
 3         a natural environment.  The drinking water standard 
 4         for nitrate nitrogens, just for a reference point is, 
 5         ten parts per million, but this standard for total 
 6         nitrogen is 12 times more stringent than the drinking 
 7         standard.  Also, I pulled up data from the 2008, from 
 8         the National Atmospheric Probe from the Quincy station 
 9         just a few miles from her.  In that of the 37 weekly 
10         samples of rainfall that were sampled in 2008, over 27 
11         percent exceeded these nitrogen standards.  When I 
12         look at any of the samples that exceed fifty percent 
13         of the proposed standards for the Panhandle, it 
14         included all samples except six.  
15              I do want to say that both the industry I'm in, 
16         we do support the streams being in their designated 
17         use.  We have been, as far as agriculture goes, I 
18         think we're somewhat of a forerunner in that area.  
19         But I just really want to say if numeric criteria is 
20         to be met, we need to be very, very careful with what 
21         that letter says.
22              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Lee.  
23              MR. KAPLAN:  Good morning.  My name is Mark 
24         Kaplan, and I am a vice-president with Mosaic 
25         Fertilizer.  Thank you all for doing this morning.  
0032
 1         I'll keep it brief.  I know you have a packed agenda, 
 2         and I'll save much the detail.  
 3              You know, Mr. Keating's presentation this morning 
 4         was actually very well done.  And from Mosaic's 
 5         perspectives we absolutely support the efforts to 
 6         protect the waters from harmful and excessive 
 7         nutrients, but we believe that the proposed rule 
 8         misapplies the science and swings too blunt of an 
 9         instrument and too indiscriminate to manage.  
10              We also believe there are many times that the 
11         EPA's economic analyses are often below what the 
12         people in Florida will actually have to pay.  We're 
13         convinced that if in acting in its current form the 
14         proposed rule would impose costs on the people of 
15         Florida that go beyond anything that is reasonably 
16         warranted, and I would have to believe go beyond 
17         anything that you could have possibly intended.  
18         Because the proposed rule relies on flawed science, 
19         and the proposed numeric nutrient criteria simply do 
20         not correlate.  
21              I suspect that you'll hear a litany of those 
22         flaws over the coming day.  To highlight just to few, 
23         pristine streams identified by Florida's DEP are 
24         characterized using the proposed data, biologically 
25         healthy lake with productive fish populations would 
0033
 1         now be characterized impaired; river and stream 
 2         approach disregard to year, much of site-specific data 
 3         collected by TEP stakeholders and estuary programs and 
 4         modeling techniques have an unacceptable margin of 
 5         error and have not been invented for these type of 
 6         specific watershed types of applications.  
 7              We're working with independent experts to provide 
 8         you the type of comments that you have solicited and 
 9         technical concrete and scientifically well-grounded 
10         solutions to the challenges that your rule narrative 
11         seems to acknowledge on inherent setting of nutrient 
12         criteria.  
13              So, in our written comments you can expect us to 
14         address the proper instream analogy and downstream 
15         protective values that should be met, and scientific 
16         base in which for doing so; the flaws we see in EPA's 
17         methodology and how Mosaic believes it could be fixed; 
18         specific suggestions to make sure the different forms 
19         of the much-needed flexibility provide under the rule 
20         actually work, and how to make good use of all that's 
21         been learned in and been accomplished in TMDL 
22         necessary programs.  
23              It is achievable and necessary that the current 
24         numeric nutrient criteria be protective of the 
25         environment without inflecting major economic injuries 
0034
 1         on Florida's people.  Our goals is to help EPA and DEP 
 2         to achieve true environmental protection based on 
 3         sound science and site-specific conditions so that the 
 4         challenging burden of compliance are matched with the 
 5         true needs of receiving works. 
 6              Again, thank you for your time and 
 7         professionalism.  And I really do hope you'll take the 
 8         comments as far as DEP and all the stakeholders you're 
 9         going to hear over the next few days and bring back a 
10         scientifically sound and practical approach.  Thank 
11         you.
12              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Kaplan.  
13              Speaker number four?  
14              MR. HACKNEY:  Good morning.  My name is George 
15         Hackney.  I am president of Hackney Nursery located in 
16         Gadsden County, Florida which is near Greensboro, 
17         Florida.  Thank y'all for coming.  I would like to 
18         welcome you.  I know it's a great hardship to leave 
19         that wonderful weather in DC and spend a little time 
20         in Florida.  
21              When we moved to Florida in 1991, our family and 
22         I, and bought an existing nursery that totaled at that 
23         time about 38 acres of irrigating rolling beds, I was 
24         told when I made this move from another state just 
25         north from here that my largest obstacle for future 
0035
 1         growth would be water; both water availability and the 
 2         regulation of water.  
 3              We have been able to grow our business.  
 4         Currently, we have over 225 acres of irrigated beds, 
 5         because we have worked with the Northwest Florida 
 6         Water Management District and Department of 
 7         Environmental Protection and Department of Agriculture 
 8         and University of Florida, mainly using the Best 
 9         Management Practices Guide for producing container-
10         grown nursery stock.  This guide has many useful 
11         common sense techniques that are directed at enhancing 
12         and protecting water quality.  The original version of 
13         this was printed in 1997 by leading professor, several 
14         from universities, including the University of 
15         Florida.  
16              The original of the BMP was funded in part by a 
17         grant from the United States Environmental Protection 
18         Agency through the nonpoint source management program, 
19         but pursuant to 319 in the Florida Clean Water Act, so 
20         you guys had a big part in these BMPs.  As we begin 
21         our expansion when we had to build the nursery, we had 
22         to catch our irrigation run-off.  This made good sense 
23         to us, not only from a water quantity issue, but also 
24         a water quality issue. 
25              Over the several years, we've spent several 
0036
 1         millions of dollars constructing 14 new ponds and 
 2         lakes and retrofitting the original ponds that were 
 3         there when we bought there.  We've worked with the 
 4         water management district, engineers, construction 
 5         people moving dirt to drain all of our irrigation into 
 6         these ponds.  I'm proud to say we're not catching 100 
 7         percent or our irrigation run-off today.  We're 
 8         catching 99.99 percent of it.  
 9              Everything we do is directed towards catching our 
10         run-off.  We're making every effort that we can to be 
11         good stewards to the land, but even after doing this 
12         I'm concerned that we can't meet these proposed 
13         numeric nutrient criteria.  
14              There are many unanswered questions I have.  As I 
15         stated above, we have the ability to contain our 
16         irrigation run-off.  What happens in the event of a 
17         storm discharge?  What happens in the event of a 
18         tropical depression?  What happens right now?  
19         According to the Tallahassee Democrat, and at the 
20         airport we've had 23-plus inches of rain since 
21         December 1, 2009.  Our plants are basically dormant 
22         right now, so our water needs right now are very 
23         minimal.  
24              What happens some of this rain water leaves our 
25         catch ponds?  Where are you going to measure this 
0037
 1         run-off leaving our property, or at the point it leads 
 2         or downstream somewhere?  And why are we just throwing 
 3         out all of the wonderful work in the day compiled by 
 4         the DEP and BMP manuals.  My concerns and concern of 
 5         the 40 full-time and hundred part-time people work for 
 6         me are:  Can we comply?  And can we afford any extra 
 7         costs?  Unfortunately, our business is very dependent 
 8         on the housing industry, so things are tough.  
 9              Our state has a high unemployment rate, and any 
10         undue, like Mr. Poppell said, economic benefits is 
11         going to be tough.  Let's continue like we have in the 
12         past to work with the industry and work with all 
13         parties at the table to keep our natural resources and 
14         keep our agriculture sustainable.  Thank you.  
15              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Hackney.  
16              Speaker number five?  
17              Six and seven can have a seat.  
18              MR. WHITE:  Good morning.  My name is Clifford 
19         White.  I'm the vice-president of the Florida 
20         Cattleman's Association.  We are an affiliate of 
21         Florida Cattlemen's Association consisting of about 
22         4,000 members statewide.  
23              We have serious concerns about EPA's proposed 
24         numeric nutrient standards that applies to Florida but 
25         no other state.  Most experts reports I have read 
0038
 1         state that numeric nutrient standards may be nearly 
 2         impossible to meet, and will certainly be incredibly 
 3         expensive to implement, thereby causing severe 
 4         economic harm to agriculture.  This will put Florida 
 5         agriculture at a competitive disadvantage with the 
 6         rest of the country where the numeric nutrient 
 7         standard do not exist.  
 8              Furthermore, the criteria is technically and 
 9         scientifically flawed according to numerous scientific 
10         experts in the state who have analyzed the data.  The 
11         economic impacts to everyone in Florida could be 
12         staggering and far outweigh the environmental 
13         benefits, according to the Florida Farm Bureau, 
14         Florida Chamber of Commerce, and numerous other 
15         Florida organizations.  
16              I do not take issue with the adoption of numeric 
17         nutrient water quality criteria as a way to more 
18         effectively protect Florida water quality to meet the 
19         requirements of the Clean Water Act.  However, this 
20         must be done in a manner that makes sense, using the 
21         best scientific information available and applying 
22         common sense.  
23              I think it is very important that you understand 
24         agriculture producers, including cattlemen, do 
25         everything reasonably possible to keep our waters 
0039
 1         clean and plentiful.  After all, land is where our 
 2         homes are, where we raise our families and make our 
 3         living.  We take numerous protective measures to keep 
 4         our waters from being contaminated from phosphorous 
 5         run-off from our farms and ranches.  For example, I 
 6         have enrolled in the best management practices for my 
 7         ranch located in Washington County, Florida.  This is 
 8         a program administered by the Florida Department of 
 9         Agriculture Consumer Services to insure agricultural 
10         producers meet water quality standards.  Currently 
11         there is about 2.1 million acres of agriculture 
12         enrolled in the VMP program.  In addition to VMPs I 
13         have enrolled in various water conservation programs 
14         administered by the US Department of Agriculture, 
15         Natural Resource and Conservation Service, commonly 
16         known as NRCS.  The NRCS provide technical and 
17         financial assistance to landowners and managers.  One 
18         of the NRCS deals directly with clean water and clean 
19         water conservation. Watershed water is designed to 
20         insure that quality of service waters and ground water 
21         is improved and maintained to protect public health 
22         and support a hit a health environment  and encourage 
23         a healthy landscape, and that water is conserved and 
24         protected to insure an abundant and reliable supply 
25         for the nation.  
0040
 1              The important point I want to make is we in 
 2         agriculture are make our living off of the land.  As 
 3         agriculture producers we're rewarded for our sternship 
 4         efforts.  I strongly believe environment departments 
 5         administered by the USDA and the Florida Department of 
 6         Agriculture help guarantee Floridians have a healthy 
 7         and a protective agricultural sector and high quality 
 8         environment.  The principle concern is the economic 
 9         impact EPA's nutrient criteria will have on 
10         agriculture.  If agriculture producers in Florida are 
11         to continue having a vibrant and sustainable 
12         agriculture economy that produces a safe, healthy, and 
13         abundant food supply, then we must not be burdened 
14         with water quality regulations that effectively forces 
15         farmers and ranchers out of business.  It's already a 
16         nip-and-tuck situation with many farms and farmers 
17         just hoping to survive the financial crisis our 
18         country is facing.  
19              The last point I would like to make is whether 
20         EPA has had sufficient time to develop the numeric 
21         nutrient criteria that makes common sense while using 
22         the best scientific data available.  
23              What would be the consequence if EPA has it 
24         wrong?  Thank you for allowing me to speak.
25              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Fine.  
0041
 1              Speaker number six.  
 2              And speaker eight, come to the chair.  
 3              MR. THOMPSON:  I'm Chet Thompson.  I'm the 
 4         environmental program manager for a limited 
 5         partnership.  I'm a professional engineer in the state 
 6         of Florida, and my comments this morning relate to the 
 7         proposed downstream protective values for the 
 8         Apalachee Bay and the Caloosahatchee river basin.  
 9              I would like to first comment that the 
10         conclusions expressed in the proposed methods and 
11         approaches for developing numeric nutrient criteria in 
12         Florida waters, section 14, the pre-document proposed 
13         rule, that anthropogenic loads should be reduced by 50 
14         percent reducing in roughly 30 percent in TN loads, 
15         because the Apalachee contains a whippet that in 
16         inherent for nutrients is a wrong conclusion.  There 
17         is only one impaired whippet in all of the Apalachee 
18         that has been listed for nutrient impairment, and 
19         that's the Fenholloway River Estuary.  The remainder 
20         of the Apalachee has been shown by numerous studies to 
21         have excellent, unimpaired eutrophic healths and 
22         existing loads to insure the Apalachee are protected 
23         at minimum.  
24              In 2009, USEPA Region IV completed created a TMDL 
25         for the Fenholloway Estuary using a calibrated time 
0042
 1         variable hydrodynamic water quality model on the 
 2         eutrophic condition of the nearby local Ekafeena 
 3         Estuary as an appropriate reference stream 
 4         demonstrating good eutrophic health.  
 5              The current EPA proposed rule would require a 
 6         reduction of the TN of that good efficient stream -- 
 7         Estuary.  
 8              I would like to further comment that this Sparrow 
 9         model has inaccurately modeled the current TN loading 
10         to the Apalachee Bay.  
11              We compared the EPA's output file and Sparrow for 
12         the reference of the Ekafeena (phonetic) and found it 
13         to only find it to only qualify two-thirds of field 
14         data of the calibrated existing TN loads for the TMDL 
15         model.  They are not the same.  So as proposed, if the 
16         Ekafeena is representative of the rest of the 
17         Apalachee -- my guess it is -- and downstream 
18         protective value for the Apalachee would require a 30 
19         percent reduction of a current load already 
20         underestimated by 30 percent.  
21              Lastly, I want to comment my support for proposed 
22         site-specific criteria alternative approach.  In 2009, 
23         ester in nutrient TMDL found that in the Fenholloway 
24         that it can receive two times the TN load as the 
25         Ekafeena.  And still, the Ekafeena limiting eutrophic 
0043
 1         factor is not nutrients.  There are a wide-ranging 
 2         factors that affect the water bodies throughout the 
 3         state and having a method to address the individual 
 4         waters is critical.  
 5              So in summary, the Apalachee Bay including the 
 6         Ekafeena Sea Coast and Basin has demonstrated to be in 
 7         good eutrophic health, except for the Fenholloway, 
 8         which the EPA has just established a TMDL to address.  
 9         The existing TN and TP at current loads at minimum the 
10         downstream protective values for the Apalachee Bay.  
11              Second, the existing TM load for the Apalachee in 
12         the proposed rule is inactive.  Field data can and 
13         should be used to calculate existing loads which are 
14         at minimum the appropriate downstream protective 
15         value. 
16              And last, have a robust site-specific criteria is 
17         critical for the Rule because of the highly variable 
18         eutrophic controlling factors associated with Florida 
19         waters.  
20              Thank you very much.
21              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you very much.  
22              Speaker number seven?
23              MR. NULL:  My name is Mike Null, and this is an 
24         abbreviated version of resolution by the City of Green 
25         Cove Springs, Florida, regarding the adoption of the 
0044
 1         numeric criteria by the USEPA.  
 2              Whereas since its conception City's Wastewater 
 3         Department has as a goal to provide the highest 
 4         quality service and value for its customers.  And 
 5         whereas the City recognizes the highly created 
 6         wastewater -- (inaudible) -- and protecting the 
 7         environment, in the City's case the Lower St. Johns 
 8         River.
 9              Whereas the City's engaged Florida's DEP TMDL 
10         lower St. Johns River.  
11              Whereas a scientific research and detailed 
12         computer modeling conducted by the DEP and the 
13         St. Johns Water District to determine TMDLs in the 
14         Lower St. Johns River.  
15              Whereas there was a general consensus of most of 
16         the stakeholders that the limits established in the 
17         TMDL were based on sound science and most stakeholders 
18         were very satisfied that analysis of nutrient limits 
19         are protective of the fresh and marine sections of the 
20         St. Johns.  
21              Whereas TN and TP were both constituents in the 
22         Lower St. Johns River during the TMDL process; and 
23         whereas the City already is vesting in biological 
24         decree to go above and beyond the secondary standard 
25         in an effort to save the citizens of Green Cove 
0045
 1         Springs millions of dollars.
 2              And whereas the USEPA recommended the numeric 
 3         nutrient in region seven, the region that includes the 
 4         City.  And whereas the USEPA recommended the numeric 
 5         nutrient criteria for total phosphorous was .04 
 6         milligrams per liter, and for total nitrogen .9 
 7         milligrams per liter.  
 8              And whereas the EPAs recommended nutrient 
 9         criteria are not the result of an established -- 
10         (inaudible) -- for identifying the cause/effect 
11         relationship for subject waters through monitored 
12         scientific analysis.  
13              And where as these recommended numeric nutrient 
14         are significantly lower than water treatment down.  
15              And whereas the City has estimated that it would 
16         cost approximately 12 million dollars to construct the 
17         facilities to attempt to comply.
18              And whereas the City maintains that the USEPA's 
19         recommended criteria increase to seven as they're 
20         applied to the City are not scientifically defensible 
21         in that they are not the result of scientific analysis 
22         necessary to establish those response relationship; 
23         whereas papers from and related to case number, 
24         400324-RHWCS make clear that the EPA is litigation 
25         strategy and not based upon any scientific evidence on 
0046
 1         the regions surrounding the City.
 2              And whereas the City estimates if this is 
 3         approved and the City is to need improvements in the 
 4         amount of 12 million dollars.  The city's rates could 
 5         increase as much as 40 percent which would cause 
 6         significant harm to the City's citizens and customers; 
 7         whereas the rules for numeric criteria proposed apply 
 8         to all waters in the state of Florida.  
 9              And where as the USEPA has by their own admission 
10         understated the instrumental costs in numeric nutrient 
11         criteria rules in the state of Florida.  
12              And whereas Florida businesses will be placed in 
13         a position of competitive disadvantage with businesses 
14         in other states as a result of higher wastewater 
15         costs; and whereas USEPA administrator submitted on 
16         January 14, 2009 that the termination letter that the 
17         Florida's TPL rule will not work.  And whereas less 
18         than 90 days prior to the submittal of the termination 
19         letter the City of Green Cove Springs and other 
20         stakeholders in the Lower St. Johns River Basin began 
21         the implementation phase of the TMDL collectively 
22         submitted hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, 
23         permit, and construct improvements that will lead to 
24         water quality improvements as to this issue.
25              And whereas Assistant Administrator Grumples had 
0047
 1         no basis in fact to state that the TMDL program wasn't 
 2         working without allow the stakeholders to fully 
 3         implement the program.  
 4              Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council 
 5         and City for Green Cove Springs that the City Council 
 6         opposes consent to agree to case number 
 7         408CV00324RH7VS.  
 8              The City Council opposes the USEPA promulgating 
 9         numeric nutrient criteria to increase to seven; that 
10         it's not scientifically defensible and/or are the 
11         result of litigation strategy.  
12              The City Council urges the USEPA to recognize the 
13         economic impact of its actions should it go forward 
14         with promulgating the numeric nutrient criteria in 
15         Region Seven.  
16              The City Council urges the Congressional 
17         Delegation in the state of Florida to take the 
18         necessary steps to delay promulgation now and until 
19         the completion of the implementation of the current  
20         TMDL -- (inaudible). 
21              The City Council urges Assistant Administrator, 
22         Mr. Grumbles, to retract the letter submitted on 
23         January 14, 2009.  
24              Done and resolved by the City Council of Green 
25         Cove Springs, the second day of February, 2010.
0048
 1              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Null.
 2              Speaker number eight, please?
 3              MR. MAY:  My name is Fount May.  We have a family 
 4         farm in Gadsden County.  We have a farm north of 
 5         Quincy where we rotate out cotton, soybeans, peanuts, 
 6         and we have a nursery in Havana, and it's strictly a 
 7         family business.  My children, my two sons are now in 
 8         it.  
 9              We try to be good stewards of the land and the 
10         water.  We have to fertilize some.  You can't grow 
11         anything in Florida but kudzu if you don't fertilize.  
12         And we belong to this management practice.  We 
13         subscribe to it, and as Mr. Hackney said, was 
14         something that you helped write.  And we meet the 
15         minimums here.  
16              But after spending I don't know how much money, 
17         millions of dollars moving dirt around so we can catch 
18         all of our run-off, which we do, I would say 95 
19         percent of it -- now we're hit with minimums that rain 
20         waters won't even face.  And it looks to me like if 
21         this goes through, my sons who will be the sixth 
22         generation farmers will be the last generation.  This 
23         will totally kill agriculture in the state of Florida, 
24         and Lord only knows what it will do to develop, but it 
25         will certainly kill agriculture, because there's no 
0049
 1         way we can meet these minimums.  Thank you.
 2              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. May.  
 3              Speaker number 9, please.  And speaker 11, 
 4         please, take a seat at the chair.  
 5              MS. STEPHENS:  Good morning, my name is Nancy 
 6         Stephens, and I'm speaking on behalf of the 
 7         Manufacturers Association of Florida, the Florida 
 8         Minerals and Chemistry Counsel, and the Florida 
 9         Poultry Federation.  As you can see, no one is 
10         untouched by this proposal.  
11              We all understand the value of clean water, but 
12         we must temper that with sound science, a deliberative 
13         process that we know in Florida, and sensitivity to 
14         cost.  We believe EPA has failed to demonstrate the 
15         necessity for numeric nutrient criteria.  The 
16         characterization of EPA's January, 2009, declaration 
17         as a necessity, termination does not meet minimum 
18         standards for such determination.  
19              This declaration was not supported by scientific 
20         analysis.  A real necessity determination would have 
21         included a demonstration that numeric nutrient 
22         criteria were actually necessary to achieve clearly 
23         defined water quality objectives.  EPA's proposal 
24         acknowledges that water quality objectives in Florida 
25         can be achieved through continued implementation of 
0050
 1         total maximum daily load program.  
 2              Regarding the costs of implementation.  EPA 
 3         attempts to justify unilateral imposition of regional 
 4         numeric nutrient criteria as less resource consuming 
 5         than Florida's use of these programs.  The proposal, 
 6         however, failed to recognize the extraordinary 
 7         resources that will be required from both regulated 
 8         interest and the regulatory agencies to develop site 
 9         specific alternative criterias, variances, and TMDLs 
10         based on the achievement of the proposed criteria.  
11         There's no evidence that EPA's process will require 
12         less public or private resources than continuation of 
13         Florida's existing programs.  
14              The economic analysis in this proposal is 
15         essentially non-existent.  All costs associated with 
16         this effort will be ultimately born in the form of 
17         higher utility bills, higher cost for food and other 
18         products, and higher taxes required by local 
19         government.  None of us have infinite resources, but 
20         the proposal assumes that we do.  
21              EPA has failed to meet basic standards for 
22         justification of this proposed criteria for streams.  
23         In fact, EPA acknowledges that there's no 
24         scientifically supportable stressor response 
25         relationship that would numeric nutrient criteria.  
0051
 1         The effect to proposing criteria without that 
 2         justification is to invert the burden of proof for 
 3         criteria.  Any entity proposing site-specific 
 4         criterias, for example, will be required to 
 5         demonstrate the absence of adverse responses as it's 
 6         proposed values when EPA and DEP before has shown the 
 7         utility of such analysis.  
 8              EPA has advocated its responsibility for well-
 9         reasoned scientifically sound approaches to 
10         environmental protection to nongovernmental 
11         litigants.  Development of policy by litigation 
12         circumvents statutory authority and violates all 
13         pretense of open government.  The settlement 
14         negotiations were in stark contrast to the open 
15         process that are characteristic of Florida's 
16         regulatory programs.  
17              In this case, narrowly focused activist groups 
18         are determining EPA's priorities and allocation of 
19         resources rather than follow its statutory guidance.  
20         EPA should dedicate the resources  misallocated to 
21         this process to support the Florida existing 
22         programs.  
23              It's clear that water body's specific evaluation 
24         is the best approach to water quality standards 
25         especially when there's no demonstration of cause and 
0052
 1         effect relationships.  EPA recognizes that all water 
 2         bodies have unique conditions.  If EPA is not 
 3         satisfied with Florida's work in terming appropriate 
 4         interpretation of the narrowing nutrient standard then 
 5         EPA should help, rather than force, allocation of 
 6         public or private resources to this flawed approach.  
 7         We would like to see EPA set this entire effort aside 
 8         and give whatever support is requested by the Florida 
 9         DEP to further the implementation of our TMDL 
10         program.  However, we remain hopeful and in a way that 
11         EPA will resolve the water quality issue in a way to 
12         have both scientifically defendable and realistically 
13         achievable goals.  
14              Thank you for your time.
15              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Stephens.  
16              Speaker number ten.  
17              MR. LAND:  Good morning.  I am Rod Land, Franklin 
18         County, Florida; fifth generation farmer.  My son is 
19         the sixth.  Sadly, he could be the last.  I stand here 
20         this morning with some emotions raging within me and a 
21         feeling of utter helplessness, because with the 
22         implementation of this proposed rule, I have 
23         absolutely no control of my destiny.  
24              I have been actively involved living in the 
25         Suwanee Basin on water quality issues since the late 
0053
 1         eighties.  I've also been proud to say we were one of 
 2         the first that signed onto BMPs and technologies to 
 3         give us assurance that we were not and would not be a 
 4         problem, and we continued to carry those out today.  I 
 5         tell folks that rather than be an environmental 
 6         activist, I've been an active environmentalist.  I've 
 7         spent my own resources to insure myself and my 
 8         neighbors that I am not a problem.  
 9              With that said, as I look forward and look back, 
10         I've always believed that farming was risky at best, a 
11         crap shoot at worst.  I've had faith in my God that he 
12         would not let Mother Nature put more than on us than 
13         we could bear.  I've had enough confidence in my 
14         fellow farmers that somebody would figure out a way to 
15         deal with volatile markets that we could survive.  So 
16         far we have.  
17              My worst fear has always been that some 
18         regulatory agency would come down with an unobtainable 
19         regulation that would be the hammer to drive the nails 
20         in our coffin.  As I stand here today and I look at 
21         this regulation, where the experts tell me that even 
22         our timberlands cannot meet this regulation, I see 
23         that hammer.  I am only a heartbeat away with this 
24         adoption from an overzealous regulatory employee or an 
25         environmental activist group and a lawsuit driving 
0054
 1         that last nail in my coffin, because I have not the 
 2         financial resources to fight that battle.
 3              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Land.  
 4              Speaker number 11.  
 5              MR. BASSETT:  Good morning.  My name is Bill 
 6         Bassett, and I am the president of Florida Dairy 
 7         Products Association.  My members are the processors 
 8         and distributors of milk and dairy products who serve 
 9         the citizens of Florida.  I am also a former dairyman 
10         from Monticello, Florida.  
11              I have a few points of concern with the proposed 
12         rule.  The EPA criteria that will be placed on Florida 
13         will have a tremendous economic hardship on everyone 
14         and everything in Florida.  How do we know what 
15         environmental benefits we will receive from the 
16         billions of dollars we will have to invest?  
17              I have been told that the conditional municipal 
18         waste technology cannot achieve the EPA proposed 
19         criteria.  Existing technology criteria for 
20         agriculture cannot achieve the EPA proposed criteria.  
21         EPA has issued their proposed rule for consideration, 
22         but they have not told us how those rules will be 
23         implemented.  Many ongoing restoration projects today 
24         have been invested in and are having positive 
25         benefits.  Do we just drop those initiatives and throw 
0055
 1         away the money we spent on that?  All of these 
 2         concerns create more questions with more concerns.  We 
 3         need to take our time and make sure we know what we 
 4         want to accomplish, and then figure out how to get 
 5         there the most direct way, yet the most cost-effective 
 6         way.  Thank you.
 7              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Bassett.  
 8              Speaker number 12.  
 9              MR. DeGROVE:  Good morning.  My name is Bruce 
10         DeGrove.  I'm an environmental consultant speaking 
11         today on my own behalf.  Your dramatic pictures 
12         notwithstanding Florida's water quality has improved.  
13         Previously degraded water bodies are now healthy, 
14         successfully.  This is due in large part to a change 
15         in regulatory structure where we have an impaired 
16         water rule and the requirement for total maximum daily 
17         loads and basic plan.  Numeric nutrient criteria are a 
18         value appropriate for water bodies.  Criteria too lax 
19         won't provide sufficient protection; criteria too 
20         stringent will be wastefully expensive and from the 
21         environmental prospective even harmful.  
22              Nutrients are not toxics.  Nitrogen and 
23         phosphorous are necessary for all life.  Nutrient are 
24         only pollutants when in excess.  You are likely to 
25         hear a number of speakers over these three days 
0056
 1         speaking about the work of the estuary program.  The 
 2         estuary program has been focused in nitrogen loading 
 3         at bay.  However, this rule is generating concerns 
 4         that the proposed downstream protective values can 
 5         result in decreased productivity causing reduced 
 6         fisheries and negative impacts that the bird 
 7         communities that depend on.  
 8              A similar concern was also previously expressed 
 9         by members of VEP numeric nutrient criteria technical 
10         advisory committee with regard to some of Florida 
11         lakes that will not meet the proposed lake criteria, 
12         yet are some of the best fishing lakes in Florida.  
13         This is why incorrect numeric nutrient criteria are 
14         worse than no criteria at all, especially when Florida 
15         already has narrative nutrient criteria that are 
16         having a positive effect on the state.  
17              The EPA proposed downstream protective values 
18         would require a loading reductions for every estuaries 
19         in Florida.  But not every estuary needs loading 
20         reduction.  Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay and Charlotte 
21         Harbor all have estuary programs funded by EPA that 
22         have determined that their estuaries are healthy and 
23         need to be protected not restored.  They do not 
24         require nutrient reductions in this estuary.  
25              In fact, Tampa Bay has a total maximum daily load 
0057
 1         of MDL adopted by EPA as protected for the Bay, and 
 2         yet, EPA is proposing through its downstream 
 3         protective value a loading of less than half of what 
 4         currently goes to Tampa Bay.  To further emphasize the 
 5         concerns of proposed protective values, analysis by 
 6         DEP indicates that 80 percent of Florida's most 
 7         pristine streams would be deemed impaired based on 
 8         these downstream protective values.  Those are the 
 9         most pristine streams in the state.
10              I understand the effort that EPA has made to 
11         develop scientifically numeric nutrient criteria, but 
12         effort alone does not make a functional rule.  Cause 
13         and effect relationship to adopt and discover a 
14         reference stream approach is inadequate for this.  To 
15         make it worse, the protective values are based on 
16         using the 75th percentile of this stream that were 
17         determined to be biologically healthy.  So 25 percent 
18         of the biologically healthy streams are not good 
19         enough.  I can't understand that logic.  
20              So what would I recommend EPA do the improve the 
21         Rule?  I would strongly urge estuary programs in 
22         Florida and other scientist groups to insure this 
23         local work is the basis for any nutrient criteria that 
24         are ultimately -- (inaudible) -- downstream protective 
25         values needed to be based on good, local science 
0058
 1         whenever it is available.  Downstream protective 
 2         values should be load based.  Estuary response to 
 3         nutrient loads not nutrient concentrations.  
 4         Downstream protective values should apply if the 
 5         boundary between the stream and the estuary.  The 
 6         estuary doesn't care what an upstream conservation 
 7         is.  It only cares what's being received.  
 8              In stream protective values should be causal.  If 
 9         EPA insists on noncausal criteria, criteria should not 
10         be based on the 75th percentile.  
11              All or at least virtually all of the data should 
12         be used, and this is still overprotective since 
13         criteria are supposed to support data uses, not just 
14         define the qualities of the best waters.  
15              Thank you.
16              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. DeGrove.  
17              Speaker number 13, please.  
18              MR. HODGE:  Excuse my direction, but Ray Hodge 
19         with Southeast Mill, but I had my niece make this 
20         poster, but it gives you a sense of four sample water 
21         bodies that I'll talk about. 
22              Again, Ray Hodge with Southeast Mill.  You have 
23         heard earlier from one of my friends and farmers that 
24         are members of Southeast Mill.  He is one of about 116 
25         dairy farms in Florida that produces the fresh local 
0059
 1         milk supply that you buy at your local retailers in 
 2         the state of Florida.
 3              We also have members outside of the state of 
 4         Florida, predominately in Georgia.  I will provide 
 5         more detailed comments through expensive lawyers and 
 6         engineers; money that would be better spent on the 
 7         ground looking at research and technologies to try and 
 8         attempt to maybe, maybe, meet a portion of this rule.  
 9         But instead, this portion is being spent in other 
10         resources.  
11              But that's the fact of life that's before us 
12         today.  Along with that, I do ask for more time in the 
13         comment period to allow these technical staff to 
14         hopefully help you make your decision.  
15              My one question is what is the rush?  And I know 
16         what the answer is.  The rush is because many 
17         individuals that challenge EPA in the courts were 
18         impatient; would not allow the systems that were in 
19         place, the partnerships, the coalitions that were 
20         working, none of those individuals were at the table 
21         working with us coming up with creative solutions, 
22         goal and plans and funding at the federal level to try 
23         and provide a cost share to farmers, businesses, and 
24         government entities.  
25              So why is EPA proposing this?  It sort of reminds 
0060
 1         me of a NATO exercise where they bring a coalition of 
 2         folks together to strategically look at how to 
 3         strategic strikes so you limit casualties.  Then all 
 4         of a sudden someone returns in and says, they were 
 5         late to the party and to the coalition, and from under 
 6         pressure from other folks comes in and says no, we 
 7         want immediate results.  We don't care of about the 
 8         casualties, car bombs; strikes are out of the window.  
 9         That's what I get a sense from this process from this 
10         deadline that EPA agreed to.  Your staff at a certain 
11         level -- I don't know how high it went up the 
12         ladder -- agreed to this timeline.  And so you will 
13         not be surprised by the number responses that you're 
14         going to get under such a small time.  
15              So please allow us more time to educate you on 
16         our concerns and have the technical-minded folks 
17         communicate with you.  
18              Last -- but on second point I want to make, how 
19         are local governments, farmers, businesses going to 
20         comply with this?  It's been many times alluded to but 
21         not specifically on the canal criteria.  I was in 
22         South Florida last week with the South Florida Water 
23         Management District and made this quote:  "Compliance 
24         with scientific grounds for applying nutrient criteria 
25         to canals is weak."
0061
 1              They are working on a task force and will be 
 2         providing you information in hopefully in the next 
 3         couple of months.  So indeed, those folks need more 
 4         time, not just folks in the industry.  You'll hear 
 5         quotes from other folks about compliance.  You've 
 6         showed photos of those algal blooms.  These are some 
 7         photos of these 80 percent of the most pristine water 
 8         bodies located in state of Florida that will not meet 
 9         your criteria.  That really concerns me and sets us up 
10         for serious concerns in the end.  
11              In the end who is going to pay the bill -- to 
12         flip the bill?  Farmers have no control on prices, and 
13         the consumer will scream if milk goes up 20 cents a 
14         gallon.  So how are we going to justify how the 
15         implementation of these rules and still not be 
16         protected.  
17              Last but not least, is EPA going to protect us 
18         from lawsuits?  These same impatient groups that will 
19         not let a team approach work are still going to be 
20         there.  When these numeric nutrient criteria are 
21         becoming law at the end of October, are you going to 
22         be there to protect us liability wise?  What is going 
23         to keep them from three months, six months to not go 
24         to the courts again, which has rewarded their 
25         impatience and sue you-all again.  Is that what you 
0062
 1         want?  So please realize those are the serious 
 2         ramifications that your legal decisions are putting on 
 3         our legal expenses that we in the industry are going 
 4         to have to face.  
 5              Last but not least, right now as we speak, there 
 6         are thousands of folks working to feed us through 
 7         society so you have a cheap, affordable, safe food 
 8         supply.  Let's keep them working for us and not let a 
 9         rule like this put us out of business which harms you 
10         the ultimate consumer.
11              Thank you.
12              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Hodge.  
13              Speaker number 14, please.  
14              My name is Philip Gornicki, and I'm on staff with 
15         the Florida Forestry Association.  Our association 
16         currently represents about 1600 members of Florida's 
17         Forestry community, ranging from the owners of small 
18         tractor forested lands to the largest of a full range 
19         of forest products.  All of our members count on the 
20         continued ability to grow and harvest timber as part 
21         of an economically viable operation.  
22              The Florida Forestry Association shares some 
23         serious concerns regarding your nutrient proposal, and 
24         that's what I'd like to share with you now.  
25              First, our review of this proposal leads us to 
0063
 1         believe that EPA's approach does not fully recognize 
 2         the natural variability of baseline of nutrients 
 3         across Florida.  Because EPA approach wants to paint 
 4         water bodies with the broad brush, many naturally high 
 5         levels of nutrient such as phosphorous are likely to 
 6         be listed as impaired. Watershed result could lead to 
 7         costly efforts to reduce nutrient concentrations to 
 8         less than that of which naturally occurs.  So, numeric 
 9         nutrient criteria must be site specific.  
10              Another concern of ours is related with the 
11         bioassessments in determining surface water 
12         impairments or in the case of this EPA approach or 
13         lack thereof.  Florida DEP was two-tier assessment 
14         approach, with the first tier being met numeric 
15         nutrient criteria, and a follow up second tier that 
16         was a biological assessment of the water body to 
17         provide a biological confirmation that nutrient 
18         concentrations above the numeric standards actually 
19         resulted in biological impairment of the water body.  
20         We believe it is vital that the biological assessment 
21         play a role in determining which water bodies are 
22         actually functionally impaired.  
23              In light of this proposal, we are concerned about 
24         our ability to continue to conduct normal forestry 
25         practices.  Florida's forestry community has been an 
0064
 1         active partner in the implementation of sylviculture 
 2         best practice managing in Florida since 1979.  
 3         Florida's forestry communities have been using these 
 4         BMPs but providing during forestry operations, the 
 5         sylviculture best management practices were carefully 
 6         developed by a technical advisory committee of diverse 
 7         composition and represent a set of guiding principles 
 8         balance to achieve protection of environmental 
 9         standard and yet allow the economic utilization of our 
10         forest land.  
11              Overall BMP compliance averages about 94 percent 
12         since 1981 when the records were first being kept.  A 
13         peer-reviewed and published study of Sylviculture Best 
14         Management Practices conducted by our DEP and Florida 
15         Division of Forestry in 2004 showed that forestry is a 
16         study of lands, sample springs associated with five 
17         forestry sites, both before and after the forests were 
18         harvested following the application of BMPs which 
19         included those for fertilizers applications.  The 
20         study concluded nutrients were relatively low at all 
21         sites both before and after the forestry operation.  
22              Regardless of this type of success story, we now 
23         faced the process of having to develop new and 
24         expensive practices to attempt to reach water quality 
25         standards set to inappropriate and conceivably 
0065
 1         impossible to achieve requirements.  
 2              We believe that Florida is a national leader in 
 3         protecting its water from all forms of pollutants 
 4         including nutrients and including forestry.  
 5         Businesses associated with all lands, including 
 6         forestry have invested much time and money to protect 
 7         all of Florida's surface waters.  Our state DEP is 
 8         working to develop a scientifically defendable site-
 9         specific numeric nutrient criteria that will protect 
10         and restore Florida water bodies in an equitable and 
11         cost-effective way, and we believe EPA should support 
12         those efforts rather than mandating a separate 
13         approach.
14              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  
15              Speaker number 15.  
16              And could speakers 16 and 17 move to chairs 
17         behind the podium.  
18              MR. MARKEY:  Good morning.  My name is Mike 
19         Markey, and I'm with Gulf Power Company.  Our service 
20         territory covers from the Alabama line over to the 
21         Apalachicola River.  And I thank you for hosting these 
22         hearings today.  
23              I have followed the developments concerning EPA's 
24         proposal for numeric nutrient criteria with great 
25         interest.  As a person responsible for environmental 
0066
 1         licensing and compliance for Gulf Power, and also in 
 2         my role in the Florida Electric Power Coordinating 
 3         Group.  
 4              Please note that Florida has an existing water 
 5         quality standard.  It is called a narrative standard, 
 6         and is like the nutrient standard in most other 
 7         states.  Despite the substantial growth that has 
 8         occurred to Florida over the last few decades, there 
 9         has been success under narrative nutrient standards.  
10         More specifically, ten years ago there was a federal 
11         consent requiring Florida to create TMDLs to clean up 
12         water bodies; Florida's narrative nutrient standards.  
13         These TMDLs have been created and are being 
14         implemented.  Significantly, EPA specifically approved 
15         these nutrient TMDL as protective of Florida's 
16         waters.  
17              Several of Gulf Power's existing and future 
18         environmental planning positions are heavily based on 
19         Florida's existing narrative standards, the 1999 
20         consent decree, Florida DEP's development from TMDLs, 
21         EPA's approval of TMDLs, also.  I know that others in 
22         the regulated community are also moving forward with 
23         new projects based on the same approach.  For example, 
24         Gulf Power has been working closely with the Emerald 
25         Coast Utility Authority, EPA Region 4, and DEP.  We 
0067
 1         have finished permitting highly reclaimed wastewater, 
 2         and the subsequent build-out of a new wastewater 
 3         treatment system serving the community in Escambia 
 4         County.  This project will result in a very 
 5         substantial reduction of up to 20 million gallons a 
 6         day of surface water reductions, and very substantial 
 7         reductions and nutrient loading to Pensacola Bay.  It 
 8         will be a win for the environment and all citizens in 
 9         this area.  
10              Significantly, this partnership has been a 
11         component in obtaining funding for this very important 
12         water quality improvement project.  The environmental 
13         analysis for permitting for Gulf Power, Emerald Coast 
14         has all been promised for the existing regulatory 
15         program that is utilizing Florida's existing narrative 
16         nutrient standards for the development of water body 
17         specific TMDLs.  
18              Another ongoing project is the Escambia Bay TMDL 
19         process wherein stakeholders have been working closely 
20         with DEP and EPA.  The proposed EPA rule places a 
21         cloud of uncertainty on work today on that effort.  I 
22         am sure this is not the intention of EPA's numeric 
23         nutrient criteria to do progressive reuse on pollutant 
24         reduction projects like the Gulf Power, EPA 
25         partnership, or the promising stakeholders associated 
0068
 1         with the Escambia Bay TMDL.  But unless the proposed 
 2         rules of carefully reconsider, these types of project 
 3         may no longer be feasible.  The current approach in 
 4         Florida the narrative standards coupled with the 
 5         standards of TMDLs has facilitated progressive and 
 6         innovative partnerships and projects to reduce mass 
 7         loadings of nutrients into Florida's water.  
 8              Keep in mind, this TMDL process in Florida 
 9         produces water specific and numeric end points that 
10         get implemented.  Please carefully consider whether 
11         the much less flexible approach reflected in EPA's 
12         proposed regulation and strict concentration limits 
13         might in many cases actually hinder the type of 
14         progress that is being made and that we all want.  
15         Thank you for considering these comments.
16              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.
17              Speaker number 16.  
18              And speaker number 18.
19              MR. GUEST:  Thank you.  David Guest with 
20         Earthjustice.  We represent the plaintiffs in a case.  
21         I have a photograph to show y'all which is -- this is 
22         Orange Lake.  It's outstanding Florida water typical 
23         of the problems we see throughout the state of 
24         Florida.  This is a huge toxic algae outbreak and it's 
25         happening everywhere.  It's happening more rapidly all 
0069
 1         the time.  The story we heard a little bit ago about 
 2         the determination was wrong and improvidently reached, 
 3         that whole thing was addressed by the Federal Court.  
 4         Everyone has heard and the Court said it wasn't true, 
 5         and it's not true.  
 6              The folks of y'all that have seen this Rule know 
 7         well that this Rule is very, very, similar to the DEP 
 8         rule, and that DEP was deeply involved in methodology 
 9         and had a great deal of input into it.
10              The question is raised:  Is this too fast? 
11         Watershed project was started in 1998.  Twelve years 
12         ago.  That's not too fast.  We hear this story about 
13         we need another twelve years.  Or we need another 20 
14         years.  Well, time is passing.  And waterwaste like 
15         this are being destroyed as we go.  Around here, 
16         Wakulla Springs.  
17              You all know what Wakulla Springs was like, 
18         right? It was one of the most beautiful places in this 
19         whole country.  People from around the world came to 
20         Wakulla Springs, because it was beautiful and it was 
21         clear.  And during the course of that 12 years, 
22         Wakulla Springs was destroyed by nutrient pollution.  
23         It will be generations before it comes back.  
24              The reason for it was because there were no 
25         standards.  So yes, the science is there.  The time is 
0070
 1         now.  It's the right thing to do.  DEP said it was 
 2         right, and they were right.  
 3              Now, let's get another thing straight.  The story 
 4         of the Suwannee River.  What actually happened was in 
 5         the Suwannee River, the dairies from South Florida 
 6         that were causing so many problems in Lake Okeechobee 
 7         were forced to go north because the problems in Lake 
 8         Okeechobee had become so great.  So, they came north 
 9         to Suwannee River Basin, and what happened is they 
10         brought their problems with them.  
11              The pollution problems became very, very great.  
12         A lawsuit had to be filed because State Department of 
13         Environmental Protection would not comply with its 
14         legal obligations under the Clean Water Act.  And what 
15         they had done is a team effort -- and what the team 
16         effort did was it had secret preambles that were not 
17         disclosed to the public, had an agreement to remove 
18         the monitoring levels on what -- to show what their 
19         pollution and contamination.  
20              Ultimately the court held that DEP had acted 
21         inexcusably, and very harshly written word, and the 
22         appeals court were just utterly disbelieving and 
23         asked:  What in the world happened to DEP?  What 
24         happened in the mean time during these 12 years in the 
25         Suwannee river is just as you expect?  The river -- 
0071
 1         springs on the river have been filled with slime.  The 
 2         Ichetucknee Springs was one of the most beautiful 
 3         streams in the state; again, people from around the 
 4         country.  Now has turned into this green slime all 
 5         over the bottom.  That's happening all over North 
 6         Florida.
 7              And, you know, the argument is made that we have 
 8         all of these wonderful BFPs.  And the state definition 
 9         of BMP is a practice that either makes the farmer 
10         money or is cost nutrient; that's the state 
11         definition.  The policy is that agriculture doesn't 
12         have to pay any cost to comply with it.  
13              I think it has gotten out of control.  There has 
14         been a suggestion that it might -- that the standards 
15         for the Panhandle are so stringent that it will starve 
16         the oysters.  The oysters were doing fine before they 
17         had sewage and fertilizer.  And right now, 
18         Apalachicola Bay is closed to oystering because of 
19         sewage pollution, and it's been chronically closed.  
20              Yes, the oysters can survive without that level 
21         of pollution and they will.  These are good 
22         standards.  We have issues with them.  We'll talk to 
23         y'all about them.  We'll file written comments.  It 
24         can be approved.  We encourage y'all to listen and 
25         come up with the best scientific rule that you can 
0072
 1         come up with.  Thank you.
 2              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you Mr. Guest. 
 3              Speaker number 17?  
 4              MR. ORTH:  Hi.  I'm Jimmy Orth, or St. Johns 
 5         river keeper.  I'm here representing our approximately 
 6         1500 households and businesses who are members.  We're 
 7         here to say we support the proposed numeric standards, 
 8         and we, as the previous speaker mentioned, the state 
 9         of Florida has had nearly 12 years to address this 
10         problem.  They have not gone far enough and they have 
11         not moved fast enough.  
12              I represent the St. Johns region, and we have 
13         been experiencing significant algal bloom, as you see 
14         in the photographs, for several years now.  And I want 
15         to just speak -- I'm not going to talk technically 
16         right now, because we will submit formal comments or 
17         written comments, but I want to a represent some of 
18         the members of our organization that could not come 
19         here today.  Sometimes I think we're in a finance 
20         committee hearing because we're hearing about all of 
21         the financial impacts, and I know that's not what 
22         you're here for, but I want to address from our 
23         member's perspectives.  
24              We represent a lot of small businesses who depend 
25         on clean and healthy water.  I'm here today to 
0073
 1         represent some of those, they couldn't take off work.  
 2         They couldn't afford to take off work; they asked me 
 3         to speak on their behalf.  For instance, the board 
 4         member that's on our board of directors, his family 
 5         owns a marina.  The economy has already hurt the 
 6         marina significantly.  Last season's algal bloom, 
 7         nobody wanted to boat or work on their boat, so they 
 8         lost a significant amount of income because of those 
 9         blooms that were persistent throughout the entire 
10         summer.  
11              I'm here to represent the ecotourism business, 
12         the kayak outfitters who had said nobody wanted to 
13         take a tour during the summer on the St. Johns when 
14         there's an algal bloom.  It's affected those 
15         businesses, and it's hard to stay in business for just 
16         a small operation.  
17              I'm here to represent the fishermen and the 
18         commercial fishermen.  We also actually have a member 
19         who owns seafood people his market during the summer 
20         don't want to come in and buy seafood as much.  Even 
21         if it's a saltwater species they still have the 
22         perception this is something that is still affecting 
23         all of the wildlife.  Even that perception can hurt 
24         his business.  He says it's off significantly during 
25         those algal blooms.  
0074
 1              I'm here to represent a major corporation.  I'm 
 2         not going to mention it because he didn't give me 
 3         permission, but who just withdrew their membership 
 4         from the Florida Chamber of Commerce because they do 
 5         not support the opposition to these standards that the 
 6         Chamber has put forth.  So there are members within 
 7         that organization, too, that support us.  And we've 
 8         been told off of the record by some folks it would be 
 9         detrimental if it was known publicly.  
10              I also represent the farmer.  I'm also a member 
11         of CSA.  And the farmer that has told me he's fully 
12         supportive of it and thinks it will be good. 
13              I just want to leave and say we can't afford not 
14         to do something about this serious significant 
15         problem.  And we keep hearing about the economic 
16         impacts, but we're not talking about the economic 
17         impacts that are occurring right now because our 
18         waterways are unhealthy.  This is an investment in the 
19         future of Florida and an investment in our quality of 
20         life, and I urge you to please stay strong and 
21         withstand the political pressure that I'm sure you 
22         will endure to deviate from your scientific and legal 
23         obligation in this process.  
24              Thank you.
25              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Orth.  
0075
 1              Speaker number 18.  
 2              And if 19 and 20 can take their seats behind the 
 3         podium, that would be great.  
 4              MR. Littlejohn:  I'm Chip Littlejohn.  I 
 5         represent the Florida Engineering Society today.  I 
 6         want to tell you a little about Florida Engineering 
 7         Society.  We're professional engineers, we speak, 
 8         obtain permit, all for various aspects.  We've been a 
 9         longstanding and consistent supporter of the improved 
10         water quality in Florida.  
11              We have supported passing the TMDL legislation in 
12         1999 and revisions in 2004.  As you can gather, it's 
13         widely understood that Florida has -- (inaudible) -- 
14         in the programs in the nation.  I think even EPA has 
15         said that.  
16              We've also worked very hard in Florida on 
17         integrating water qualities with water quantities 
18         issues.  Water management in Florida involves -- 
19         (inaudible), and making the TMDL in the process of 
20         Florida.  So we're strong components of better water 
21         quality.  
22              Having said that, we have a lot of concerns about 
23         this proposed approach to adopt and impose numeric 
24         nutrient standards on Florida the way you're going 
25         about doing it.  First of all, and I'm going to focus 
0076
 1         on streams and rivers because that's really where the 
 2         issues seem to be.  The reference is a method 
 3         approximating what a standard should be.  It's very 
 4         different from a criteria and impairment and we fell 
 5         that EPA should and -- (inaudible) for us in.  A spare 
 6         model in the long FDS film that this spare model is 
 7         not a good model for its use the way it's been used 
 8         today.  It's being implied and the spare model itself 
 9         has not been applied appropriately, and for instance 
10         in areas where there's significant ground water 
11         inputs, there's much of Central Northeast Florida as 
12         well as all of South Florida.  The spare model is 
13         according to FGS not an appropriate model to use in 
14         this circumstance, so that's roughly half of the 
15         state.  
16              The model apparently presumes all of Florida's 
17         water Estuaries are impaired, and that's certainly not 
18         the result.  And we have a standard.  We have those 
19         standards that are much more stringent that it is said 
20         that 80 percent of the Florida's most pristine water 
21         bodies as are likely to become required these 
22         standards, and we don't disagree with that.  All 
23         right.  Cost estimates are very low.  The MS4 process 
24         according to the Florida Stormwater Association, 
25         they'll testify this afternoon, 75 billion dollars, 
0077
 1         and they feel that's low.  
 2              The domestic wastewater facilities have a hard 
 3         time complying with this rule.  They typically provide 
 4         the mixes zone.  Florida law does not allow for mixing 
 5         zone for Florida.  There are questions on what's 
 6         impaired, and we feel much a lot of pristine water 
 7         bodies don't have to be impaired on this standard.  
 8         Particular concern the impact on Florida TMDL program 
 9         EPA testified on to say they're one of DEP workshops 
10         that numeric nutrient criteria were being under a 
11         separate body of law, and that a site specific 
12         calculation under Florida program would not 
13         necessarily override a numeric standard.  We feel that 
14         would be very unfortunate and that would affect the 
15         (inaudible).  
16              And I guess lastly, I guess the issues of Florida 
17         as a very...  Extreme conditions there has to be an 
18         outlet for surface water, and those surface waters are 
19         determined to be impaired at least on paper then that 
20         discharge will not be permitted.  And it's hard to 
21         understand how the previous program will operate with 
22         that, and so I feel that's an intended consequence but 
23         it's a consequence to think about. 
24              Thank you for the opportunity to speak.  We'll be 
25         submitting our written comments, much more sensible.
0078
 1              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Littlejohn.  
 2              Speaker number 19.  
 3              20 and 21 could join behind the podium.  
 4              MS. YOUNG:  Good morning.  My name is Linda 
 5         Young.  I'm the director of the Clean Water Network of 
 6         Florida, and I thank you for your presentation that 
 7         you gave, especially the slides that you showed with 
 8         the all of the different -- or some samples of the 
 9         algal blooms that have been plaguing our state.  It 
10         has been assuring to me that you do understand the 
11         full magnitude of the problem that we have in 
12         Florida. 
13              And I'm going to depart a little bit from my 
14         comments I plan to make.  We're going to be submitting 
15         detailed written comments for you.  But I want to make 
16         sure you understand that a lot of what you're seeing 
17         today is the result of many months of organizing that 
18         been done by the Department of Environmental 
19         Protection, and Department of Agriculture, and our own 
20         state government to hold meetings around the state 
21         with local governments, farmers, and other regulated 
22         interest and scaring the heebie-jeebies out of them as 
23         to the rule, and this is why these people are 
24         panicking, because these people have been misinformed 
25         by our own tax payer funded agencies.  And it's 
0079
 1         unfortunate that our state government can work against 
 2         the federal government for something that should be a 
 3         lot more cooperative, and is a very critical problem.  
 4         But that's what you're seeing here.
 5              The gentleman from Fort Walton that was so happy 
 6         to share the information with you about the new sewage 
 7         treatment plan.  But that community has been spreading 
 8         untreated sewage through neighborhoods for a long 
 9         time, and they've definitely needed an upgrade there.  
10         But he was saying you're too protective.  Well, I'm a 
11         fifth generation Florida farmer myself, and I live in 
12         the Panhandle, and I've been here most of my life.  
13         And I can tell you we have some of the worst water 
14         quality in the state, in the Panhandle, in the 
15         Chockahatchee Bay, which Fort Walton has been plagued 
16         with red tides and algal blooms for the last several 
17         years.  
18              Over 200 dead dolphins washed up on the shores of 
19         the Chockahatchee Bay that die from red tide.  You go 
20         next door to where the guy from Gulf Power is bragging 
21         about how great things are getting, Pensacola Bay 
22         system is the most polluted water body, estuary, 
23         according to EPA and others in the state of Florida.  
24         Except for Perdita Bay which is on the Florida-Alabama 
25         border; that estuary is completely dead.  It also has 
0080
 1         a paper mill on it which has been a big contributor to 
 2         that.  
 3              So yes, the Panhandle used to be a really 
 4         pristine incredible place.  And now, not last summer 
 5         which was remarkably wonderful, but I live Navarre 
 6         Beach.  Two summers before that, I was never able to 
 7         will go in the Gulf of Mexico, which I will be in 
 8         every day if we're not having a hurricane 
 9         practically.  There was so much red tide out there for 
10         weeks and weeks that I had to hold my breath and run 
11         to get from my house to my car.  And the beaches were 
12         deserted.  
13              So we can talk economics, we can talk public 
14         health, but water quality is essential.  And as 
15         Mr. Guest pointed out, this has been going on and on 
16         and on, and the Department of Environmental Protection 
17         has been neglecting their duties, and you have been 
18         allowing them to do that, particularly under the Bush 
19         Administration.  You know it's true.  You've been 
20         allowing them to find all sorts of circuitous results 
21         under the Clean Water Act, and I'm here to tell you 
22         the Clean Water Act is as dead as the Fenholloway 
23         River in this state.  There is barely any programs 
24         under the Clean Water Act that function; no wonder why 
25         you're waters are dying.  
0081
 1              We want you to do your job.  We're happy that are 
 2         you here.  We're happy that we finally gotten to a 
 3         place where maybe we can get some protection for our 
 4         waters.  So I ask you to stick to your guns and do 
 5         what you know is right, and protect our waters in 
 6         Florida.  You have the authority.  Our state 
 7         government is not ever going to do it.  And so we 
 8         appreciate your help. 
 9              Thank you.  
10              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Young.  
11              Speaker number 20.
12              MR. CARTER:  Good morning.  My name is Kevin 
13         Carter, and I'm representing the South Florida Water 
14         Management District.  We welcome this opportunity to 
15         provide comments to EPA.  We thank you for holding 
16         this forum regarding proposed numeric nutrient 
17         criteria.  
18              District is a regional district covering 16 
19         counties from Orlando to the Florida Keys serving the 
20         population of 7.5 million residents.  Our agency is 
21         responsible for managing and protecting water 
22         resources in south Florida by balancing and improving 
23         water quality, flood control, natural systems, and 
24         water supply.  We operate more than 2,300 miles in 
25         canals, 61 pump structures, 200 primary control 
0082
 1         structures, as well as 2,000 smaller control 
 2         structures, which one federal, central and southern.  
 3              The district has long been a leader in ecosystem 
 4         restoration and developing the sound science that is 
 5         necessary for from promulgating numeric nutrient 
 6         criteria in the state of Florida.  We were deeply 
 7         involved in the development of the Florida total 
 8         phosphorous criteria for the Evergrades protection 
 9         area, a landmark area to develop stringent numeric 
10         nutrient criteria for the Everglades that took 11 
11         years.  If indicative of complexity of science and 
12         analyses necessary for setting standards appropriate 
13         and protective of South Florida's unique ecosystem, 
14         we've been part of the DEP tact which leads to the 
15         draft of the DEP numeric nutrient criteria last July.  
16              We support the establishment of appropriate and 
17         scientifically numeric nutrient criteria that 
18         recognizes Florida ecological diversity.  
19              With that in mind we recommend the following 
20         technical comments and concerns be carefully 
21         considered.  We will be submitting written comments, 
22         but for today due in part to our large extensive 
23         network on canals, we will focus on the South Florida 
24         canal project.  
25              We have not observed analyses to support the 
0083
 1         conclusion that concentration for now proposed canal 
 2         criteria will affect the designated uses of the 
 3         canals.  The links between nutrients and biology in 
 4         canals has not been clearly demonstrated.  They have 
 5         not found convincing evidence canals or nitrogen or 
 6         phosphorous.  
 7              Furthermore, current effort by the district in 
 8         which we were inventorying the number of ecological 
 9         studies within canals, demonstrated that these systems 
10         have not been studied to the degree of other South 
11         Florida water bodies, such as the Everglades.  The DEP 
12         Numeric Nutrient Tact, which I'm a member, also 
13         observes there's a relative lack of information on 
14         conditional water quality, ecology, and links to 
15         designated uses.  
16              The tact did not recommend the use of current EPA 
17         guidance for developing numeric nutrient criteria.  
18         For this reason, this in part led to the DEP not 
19         assigning numeric nutrient criteria to the South 
20         Florida canals in their draft criteria last July.  
21         Further evidence of the South Florida canal proposed 
22         rule does not designate, is on the chlorophyll A 
23         criteria as quoting for the rule "EPA considered 
24         chlorophyll A to be an appropriate indicator of 
25         nutrient impairment in canals on the basis of observed 
0084
 1         seasonal flow regime.  It is not linked to the flora 
 2         and fauna types of canals that exist in South 
 3         Florida."
 4              In addition to lines of evidence, approach used 
 5         in justifying correlating criteria for lakes was not 
 6         established for canals.  We would also note that there 
 7         are no criterion for canals in Peninsula watershed or 
 8         anywhere else in the state.  It is very important we 
 9         establish sound science in this numeric nutrient 
10         criteria rulemaking process.  The potential 
11         ramifications of that criteria on federally mandated 
12         area further necessitates that the criteria be 
13         developed based on sound science, even if it requires 
14         additional time.  The currently proposed criteria will 
15         require costly overhauls, redesigns of major projects, 
16         and create another layer of the administrative process 
17         to expedite federal projects for clearer waters and 
18         natural system.  
19              In closing, as I have 17 seconds and counting, 
20         this is not enough time.  This is not enough time to 
21         create rules.  This is not enough time for public 
22         comment, and we urge you to extend the comment period 
23         and allow more input from Florida where you got most 
24         of the science and most of the data from.  
25              Thank you.
0085
 1              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Carter.  
 2              Speaker number 21.  
 3              And if speaker number 22 and 51 could...
 4              MR. DUDLEY:  I'm Scott Dudley with the Florida 
 5         League of Cities in Tallahassee.  I represent 410 
 6         cities that will all be impacted by the numeric 
 7         nutrient criteria being proposed by the EPA and the 
 8         implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria.  
 9              League of Cities is pretty basic for us in terms 
10         of we believe that Florida wants to protect its 
11         waters.  Local governments have taken a strong role in 
12         doing that.  Our tourism, housing, development, 
13         business, essentially our way of life depends on 
14         clean, available water.  The protection of Florida 
15         waters is what drives many local governments to adopt 
16         fertilizer restrictions or other types of regulation 
17         to participate in such programs as the Tampa Bay or 
18         Indian River Lagoon Estuary program to regulate 
19         wetlands and adopt other regulations and ordinances to 
20         protect the waters.  
21              Florida's local governments, as I said, have 
22         taken the lead.  
23              We also believe that bad science makes for bad 
24         public policy.  And we believe the recommendations for 
25         numeric nutrient criteria are in fact bad science, if 
0086
 1         they can be considered science at all.  We might 
 2         suggest science fiction might be the more appropriate 
 3         term.  EPA admits that some of its own documents that 
 4         nutrients for flowing waters are not based on 
 5         biological responses to nutrients.  Then the 
 6         convoluted model to protect downstream uses is 
 7         overlayed on top of that, and to such a degree the 
 8         numbers become essentially impossible for most of the 
 9         people out here that are speaking -- impossible for 
10         them to try and meet.  
11              The result of this bad science is an unrealistic 
12         and unreasonably low set of numeric values below which 
13         all water bodies would be considered impaired without 
14         having any consistent adverse biological responses 
15         having been on received by the proposed target. 
16         Watershed methodology will ultimately cause Florida 
17         water bodies including those that show now impacts 
18         associated with impact solution to be deemed impaired, 
19         and thus subject to recovery efforts by state or local 
20         governments.  
21              This recovery could lead to a huge waste, 
22         extremely scarce resources, local governments like the 
23         rest of the state or nation are cutting the work 
24         forces to delay improvement and undergoing serious 
25         belt-tightening.  We do not have the money or manpower 
0087
 1         to deal with this huge unwanted headache.  Local 
 2         governments are forced to spend resources cleaning up 
 3         water bodies that are not really impaired.  
 4              By way of example Moore Lake is a beautiful 
 5         60-acre lake found on the Apalachicola National Forest 
 6         that by all reasonable standards have considered 
 7         pristine, but under the EPA would be considered 
 8         impaired.  The cause of the impairment is naturally 
 9         occurring inputs of ammonia that would impact the 
10         total nitrogen concentration of the lake.  
11              To further illustrate my point the city of 
12         Tallahassee is currently spending $220 million to 
13         currently upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities 
14         to the highest standards possible.  This $220 million 
15         project is being paid for by the residents of the city 
16         through increased water utility rights with some 
17         increases as high as 50 percent.  That's an amount 
18         that a lot of people cannot afford.  
19              As you know the expensive wastewater system won't 
20         be sufficient meeting the EPA proposed water 
21         requirements it obsolete when it comes online because 
22         the nutrient levels in the treated waters would exceed 
23         the nitrogen established by the EPA by four times or 
24         more.  
25              In another fain relating to we talked about water 
0088
 1         quality, but quantities is also going to be affected 
 2         by what the EPA is trying to do.  Because I don't know 
 3         if you know it, but Florida is one of the leaders in 
 4         the reuse of domestic wastewater.  And we do know that 
 5         reclaimed water does contain higher nutrients than 
 6         regular wastewater.  Have impact on Florida's reuse 
 7         efforts.  As you know, reclaimed water is on a lower 
 8         cost alternative, but if the cost is too high and 
 9         investment too risky, there will no longer water 
10         supply there makes the issue of numeric nutrient 
11         criteria water quantity based as well as water 
12         quality.  
13              To wrap up, Florida League of Cities has serious 
14         concerns about the nutrient criteria proposed by the 
15         EPA.  We're working to provide a full cost analysis of 
16         the proposed criteria on Florida cities, but we are 
17         certain that the magnitude of the costs will be 
18         astronomical.  We hope that you can extend the time 
19         period for comment and work closely with all of the 
20         another effective parties to come up with a reasonable 
21         alternative and solution for these problems.  
22              Thank you.
23              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.
24              We are now at 12:05, and I have a proposal to 
25         finish up with two additional speakers, number 22 and 
0089
 1         51, and then we will break for lunch and reconvene at 
 2         1:00.  
 3              Is there anybody who is scheduled to speak in 52 
 4         through 59 that cannot come back?  
 5              Great.  Thank you.  
 6              MR. KATES:  Good afternoon, my name is Kerry 
 7         Kates.  I'm with the Florida Fruit and Vegetable 
 8         Association.  I'm here on behalf of our agricultural 
 9         members.  To begin, I'd like to say we all recognize 
10         the obvious importance of having clean water, 
11         especially here in the state of Florida.  It is 
12         fundamental to the health of our ecosystems and to the 
13         health involving every person fortunate enough to call 
14         this state home.  This is why in Florida agricultural 
15         community has made such concerted efforts to work with 
16         the local municipalities and safety agencies 
17         implementing practices aimed at reducing surface and 
18         ground water degradation including the removal of 
19         excess nitrogen and phosphorous. 
20              Currently there are approximately two million 
21         acres of agricultural and postural land within the 
22         state are enrolled and participating in the best 
23         management proposals program.
24              Regarding the EPA's proposal for numeric nutrient 
25         criteria, we have many concerns foremost which include 
0090
 1         potential economic ramification as and feasibility of 
 2         economic limitation.  As with the rest of the country 
 3         of economic hardship of the state of Florida and its 
 4         government agencies and municipalities are struggling 
 5         to manage their physical budgets.  It has been 
 6         estimated that for wastewaters and utilities alone it 
 7         would cost billions of dollars to meet EPA's criteria.  
 8         This does not taking into account the stormwater 
 9         improvements.  Since Florida is the only state that 
10         EPA proposed criteria would currently apply to it 
11         would also be forced into the cost of cleaning and 
12         maintaining impaired waters entering from Georgia and 
13         Alabama.  These costs are ultimately the same timely 
14         passed onto the Florida taxpayers.  Florida currently 
15         has one of the highest unemployment rates in the 
16         country, and all of those already struggling would 
17         have this additional financial wait added to their 
18         life.  
19              From a financial standpoint, it seems baffling 
20         that the EPA would announce its own numeric nutrient 
21         criteria when for the better part of the last decade 
22         the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has 
23         been collecting and analyzing data from all of 
24         Florida's watersheds in the development of their own 
25         TMDL program to negate nutrient enrichment within our 
0091
 1         waters.  
 2              At a cost of over $20 million it has been 
 3         expensive and time-intensive process; however, as 
 4         opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing 
 5         nutrient enrichment, as does propose the EPA criteria, 
 6         the FDEP's methodology takes into consideration each 
 7         watershed's unique site specific characteristics when 
 8         determining the overall health of those water bodies.  
 9              Based on EPA's more simplistic, nonspecific 
10         approach from applying general criteria to very large 
11         and diverse regions of Florida, many lakes, rivers, 
12         and streams that support thriving like ecosystems 
13         would be considered impaired, leading to the 
14         expenditure of necessary remediation of healthy water 
15         bodies.  
16              Aside from the wasteful spending, these 
17         flourishing ecosystems would be subjected to meeting 
18         criteria that would fundamentally alter their natural 
19         states, potentially to detrimental results.  
20              The agricultural community is particularly 
21         apprehensive about how their individual operations 
22         could be affected.  Like now, as others, economic 
23         downturn has greatly impacted Florida growers coupled 
24         with the devastation incurred by the recent 
25         unprecendent freeze, many of the agricultural 
0092
 1         community have been left feeling.  
 2              Given the estimated cost of the public 
 3         infrastructure to meet the proposed criterias, it can 
 4         mean that you assume the cost to the agricultural 
 5         community would be staggering.  It is highly doubtful 
 6         that our farming communities would be able to weather 
 7         the financial burden that would result from attempting 
 8         to comply with this proposed rule.  
 9              This does not only affect with agriculture 
10         operations but the main communities that have built up 
11         where agriculture around them is where the hub had 
12         this local.  There are a myriad of towns throughout 
13         this state that are directly dependent on 
14         agricultures.  If those operations open should cease 
15         to exist, those towns and communities will collapse.  
16              Lastly, the rule itself offers no evidence or 
17         guidance with regard to the methods or technology that 
18         should be utilized and employed during implementation.
19              In South Florida for example, how would the 
20         nutrient control be implemented for the existing 
21         network of canals while simultaneously providing a 
22         central drainage for flood relief, the task for which 
23         they were originally intended.  
24              The FDEP has even questioned if existing 
25         technology or both agriculture and convention use for 
0093
 1         municipal wastewater facilities could even achieve the 
 2         new proposed the EPA criteria.  
 3              Clean water is crucial to Florida's future, and 
 4         assuring these water bodies is a justifiable cause.  
 5         This is why the state has taken a proactive approach 
 6         to protect our lakes, streams, and estuaries.  The 
 7         agricultural community is proud to take part in which 
 8         to contribute to fixing the water degradation, and it 
 9         is imperative, however, to insure the primary 
10         objective is both effective and yet feasible.  The 
11         EPA's proposed nutrient criteria or potentially 
12         devastating economically and are also seen as 
13         unobtainable.  
14              Thank you.  
15              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Gates.  
16              And speaker 51, please.  
17              MS. BENNETT:  I'm Ann Bennett.  I'm assistant 
18         director of public utilities for the City of 
19         Clearwater.  
20              Clearwater is a community of about a hundred 
21         thousand people from the Tampa Bay.  In the Tampa Bay 
22         region, we've effectively had numeric nutrient 
23         criteria for more than 20 years.  We call it the 
24         Grizzle figure (phonetic).  It's an act that dictates 
25         the level of affluent that will be discharged into the 
0094
 1         Tampa Bay or any of the contributories thereof.  
 2              And about 20 years ago, we invested millions of 
 3         millions, tens of millions of dollars in the case of 
 4         City of Clearwater, where we have you're wastewater 
 5         treatment plant, so we've been operating at that 
 6         level.  
 7              In addition to that, we didn't sit back down on 
 8         our laurels and say we've done our part in the 
 9         mid-'80s and '90s we instituted the stormwater 
10         utilities using that funding to increase the treatment 
11         of stormwater and to develop some sort of very good 
12         water quality projects such as K-Pock Park (phonetic) 
13         and (inaudible) Oaks Park.  We've also instituted 
14         quite a bit of public parking to reclaim water systems 
15         to reuse this water in a beneficial way, and to get 
16         the nutrients into the soil and in and out of the 
17         surface waters.  
18              We've been active in funding members of the Tampa 
19         Bay water management resource and working towards the 
20         recovery of Tampa Bay.  Later today you'll hear from 
21         some of our consultants about the success we're 
22         having.  We've experienced great success in Tampa Bay, 
23         even estuary.  
24              But EPA's own estimates this numeric criteria 
25         will increase our costs by about 3.17 a gallon per day 
0095
 1         to treat wastewater.  That's to get a very small 
 2         incredible increase of current three parts per million 
 3         of total nitrogen down to a proposed 1.798 parts per 
 4         million.  And to get a very small incredible mental 
 5         improvement from one part per million total 
 6         phosphorous down to 1.739.  
 7              For the City of Clearwater, that's eight million 
 8         dollars.  Or approximately 800 dollars for every man, 
 9         woman and child.  That's just for the capitol cost, 
10         and there's ongoing operations that maintenance costs 
11         in addition to that.  
12              I think you'll see that we have years and years 
13         of science.  It's based on biological assessments and 
14         responses that show the Tampa bay is responding to 
15         what's being done at this time, and that increase 
16         reductions are not needed for the recovery of Tampa 
17         bay.  I feel this money that would be imposed on just 
18         the wastewater side would be better spent on the 
19         nonpoint sources we have identified as needing further 
20         work, and I would request that the EPA either 
21         acknowledge that grizzle figure and existing total 
22         nitrogen and total phosphorous loads for Tampa Bay are 
23         to protective downstream loadings or wait to determine 
24         that until the estuary nutrient criterias are related 
25         down the line. 
0096
 1              Thank you.
 2              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Bennett.  We're 
 3         going to now break for about 45 minutes for lunch, and 
 4         we'll be back and 1:00 sharp. 
 5              (A.m. Session closed at 12:15 p.m.)
 6                                 
 7                                 
 8                                 
 9                                 
10                                 
11                                 
12                                 
13                                 
14                                 
15                                 
16                                 
17                                 
18                                 
19                                 
20                                 
21                                 
22                                 
23                                 
24                                 
25     
0097
 1                      CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
 2     
 3     STATE OF FLORIDA)    
 4     COUNTY OF LEON)
 5     
 6              I, Yvonne LaFlamme, Court Reporter and Notary 
 7     Public, certify that I was authorized to and did 
 8     stenographically report the foregoing proceeding; and that 
 9     the transcript is a true and complete record of my 
10     stenographic notes.
11              I further certify that I am not a relative, 
12     employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor 
13     am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 
14     attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I 
15     financially interested in the outcome of this case.
16     
17              Dated this 10th day of March 2010.
18     
19                                  _______________________
20                                 Yvonne LaFlamme
                                   Court Reporter
21                                 Notary Public
                                   State of Florida at Large
22              
23   
24   
25