1 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 3 4 5 6 IN RE: PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS, DOCKET, ID NO. 7 EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 15 DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2010 16 TIME: COMMENCED AT: 1:00 P.M. 17 CONCLUDED AT: 4:30 P.M. 18 LOCATION: TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 19 REPORTED BY: NANCY S. METZKE, RPR, CCR COURT REPORTER 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 3 MS. KEEHNER: From my notes this morning, it 4 indicates that we have -- and my coordination with 5 the staff at the registration desk, indicates that 6 there is one person from the morning session that 7 has stayed over to speak this afternoon, Richard 8 Gent, is it? 9 MR. GENT: Yes. 10 MS. KEEHNER: Number 10. 11 MR. GENT: Yes. 12 MS. KEEHNER: And what we'd like to do is go 13 ahead and invite you up to the podium so that you 14 can make your remarks and you wouldn't have to 15 necessarily sit through another half-hour 16 presentation, beginning session, with the one 17 o'clock session, so if you'll make your way to the 18 podium. 19 Is there anyone else from the morning session 20 that has come back and wishes to speak this 21 afternoon? 22 (NO RESPONSE). 23 MS. KEEHNER: As soon as Mr. Gent finishes up, 24 we will then go to the sort of overview and 25 introductory remarks. 3 1 Thank you. Please state your name and your 2 affiliation. 3 MR. GENT: Yes. Good morning. My name is 4 Richard Gent, and I'm employed by CF Industries, 5 Incorporated. I currently serve as the Director of 6 Community Affairs for CF Phosphate Operations. CF 7 is a major manufacturer and distributor of nitrogen 8 and phosphate fertilizer products throughout North 9 America, and I'm a biologist with a background in 10 water quality issues. 11 And in my 32 years of service with CF, 12 starting with my first job sampling and analyzing 13 surface waters at our Hardee Phosphate Complex, to 14 my eight years of managing CF's Tampa terminal and 15 warehouse, which is a fertilizer storage and 16 distribution complex located on Tampa Bay, I can 17 tell you that responsible management of nutrients 18 has always been at the core of CF's environmental 19 health and safety philosophy. 20 As a long-term partner in the Tampa Bay 21 Estuary Program and the Nitrogen Management 22 Consortium, CF has invested time and money over the 23 last 20 years to improve nutrient levels in Tampa 24 Bay as well as in the Peace River Basin. 25 I also serve on the Peace River Basin 4 1 Management Advisory Committee and the Charlotte 2 Harbor National Estuary Program Citizens Advisory 3 Committee, two organizations of diverse 4 stakeholders dedicated to improving water quality 5 in the Peace River watershed. These experiences 6 have convinced me of the value of the collaborative 7 approach to solving nutrient problems. 8 CF and Floridians are committed to the concept 9 of clean water. Look at the data trends on 10 nitrogen and phosphorous in Tampa Bay and the Peace 11 River Basin rather than listening to the rhetoric, 12 and it's reasonable to conclude that these trends 13 show steady improvement. 14 Sea grass populations, a useful biological 15 indicator of water quality trends, are increasing 16 in both estuaries. In Tampa Bay alone, sea grass 17 beds have increased from 14,208 acres in 1952 to 18 nearly -- to over double, 29,647 acres today. 19 I respectfully disagree with the Agency's 20 contention that Florida's nutrient problems are so 21 widespread and that our efforts are too slow in 22 addressing the issue of nutrient contamination. 23 I'm also here to tell you that Floridians from 24 across a wide spectrum, from small farming 25 operations, municipalities, labor unions, and the 5 1 business community will be telling you over the 2 next few days that this effort by EPA is 3 unnecessary, lacks a basis in sound science, and 4 singles out Florida in a way that will make our 5 economic recovery slower and our businesses less 6 competitive with the other 49 states. 7 Additionally, it has the potential to 8 significantly harm Florida's rural communities 9 where small agricultural operations are a 10 significant part of the local economy. They cannot 11 afford massive and expensive treatment systems 12 designed to meet standards that are not based on 13 science and potentially unattainable, nor can they 14 afford massive fines for noncompliance. 15 There is a better approach. There are local 16 models in front of you that have succeeded in 17 improving nutrient management in Florida. These 18 programs have been successful because they are 19 science based, stakeholder driven, and have 20 maximized the approach to problem solving, over 21 reliance on excessive regulation. 22 Yes, it does take time to reach consensus, but 23 the long-term successes of the Department of 24 Agriculture and Consumer Services' BMP approach, 25 the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, the Charlotte Harbor 6 1 Estuary Program, these are real and measurable; and 2 they have been gradually implemented without 3 harming the local economies. 4 For example, the nitrogen management 5 consortium in Tampa Bay has reduced nitrogen 6 flowing into the bay by 410 tons from 1995 to 2006 7 even as the region's population grew by a million 8 people, according to Bay Soundings, an independent 9 news journal. 10 Over the past two years, both water quality 11 and water clarity goals were met in all four major 12 bay segments for the first time since recordkeeping 13 began in 1974. The tangible result of that success 14 is more sea grass growing in the Bay than seen 15 since 1950, an increase of 3,480 acres since 1999. 16 Most importantly, it's the partnership and the 17 willingness of members to work together that has 18 made the difference, according to Holly Greening, 19 Executive Director of the estuary program. 20 We also have concerns that environmental 21 scientists in the State of Florida have a serious 22 disagreement with the EPA approach. To start with, 23 the State of Florida and DEP, and to quote Mike 24 Saul's more recent presentation to the Florida 25 House Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy 7 1 Committee, EPA's proposed criteria do not reflect 2 the true relationship between nutrient enrichment 3 and the biological health of Florida's surface 4 waters. 5 The Secretary goes on to conclude that, on 6 average, 80 percent of Florida's most pristine 7 streams will be deemed impaired based on downstream 8 protection values. He further concludes that 9 compliance will force an investment of billions of 10 dollars without environmental benefit. 11 And if we conclude that this may be one 12 person's flawed opinion, it should be noted that 13 two previous DEP secretaries are also on record in 14 opposition to EPA's approach. 15 The existing State TMDL program, while labor 16 intensive, is more science based, collaborative, 17 and represents a superior approach to establishing 18 standards. Good science-based standards in 19 educating and communicating with stakeholders takes 20 time. 21 Lastly, I would say that additional 22 stakeholder meetings should be held in Florida 23 communities. In my travels and communications with 24 scientists, agricultural stakeholders, and laymen, 25 there is a great concern that Floridians who have 8 1 so much at stake are given too little opportunity 2 for evaluation and comment. This is especially 3 true for Florida counties that are in rural areas 4 of critical economic concern, and more meetings 5 would be most welcome. 6 Thank you for your time. 7 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Gent. 8 Is there anybody else from this morning that 9 has returned and does want to speak before we move 10 into the introductory remarks for the afternoon 11 session? 12 (NO RESPONSE). 13 MS. KEEHNER: Okay. Very Good. Ephraim. 14 MR. KING: Thank you very much. 15 I'm Ephraim King. I'm the Director of Office 16 and Science and Technology in EPA's Office of Water 17 in Washington, D.C., and I'm going to share some 18 remarks about what we're going to do this 19 afternoon, and Denise will share in sort of how 20 we're going to go about it. 21 But first I'd like to welcome and introduce 22 the Assistant Administrator for the National Water 23 Program at the US EPA, Mr. Pete Silva. 24 Pete is an engineer. He has run a PODW. He 25 has decades of experience in water policy, and what 9 1 we're doing here is very much on his radar screen, 2 so he has flown down this morning to listen to some 3 of the presentations and hear some of the concerns 4 and also some of the thoughts. 5 Pete. 6 MR. SILVA: Thank you. First of all, thank 7 y'all for being here. It's very important that we 8 hear your comments so that it will help guide us as 9 we set these standards for Florida and work with 10 the State of Florida to do so. 11 As Ephraim said, I did want to be here today 12 for a number of reasons. As I mentioned, to hear 13 you but, also, to talk to people as much as I can 14 in terms of how we can set those standards so that 15 they can be implemented properly and most 16 efficiently for the State. 17 I want to comment just on a few points that 18 we've been hearing consistently in a lot of comment 19 letters and in our discussions that we've had with 20 officials and members of the public. The first is 21 a concern for the science. I can assure you that 22 we're just as concerned to make sure that we have 23 the science right. 24 It's my understanding in working with staff at 25 the State and our staff that we are using pretty 10 1 much close to the same numbers that we have from 2 the State of Florida. It's how you interpret those 3 numbers, how you set those standards really that 4 make the difference. And I can assure you -- as a 5 matter of fact, Mike Sorren and I were talking this 6 morning, I can assure you we're trying to continue 7 to work with the State to try to see if we 8 implement those standards so we can use the best 9 science available that we have for these important 10 numbers. 11 With respect to the cost, I know -- trust me, 12 we understand that these standards ultimately could 13 involve quite a bit of investment, both from the 14 public sector and private sector, especially as 15 we've heard comments from the smaller businesses, 16 farming communities that could be impacted 17 ultimately by these standards. 18 So, again, we want to make sure we have the 19 right science. We want to make sure that the State 20 has the right tools to implement these standards 21 with enough time to allow the, again, public sector 22 and private sector to have time to implement these 23 standards properly and as most efficiently as 24 possible to reduce the cost impacts to everybody. 25 But at the same time, I think you have to look 11 1 at, if we don't do these standards, you do have a 2 potential to impact Florida's economy in a bad way 3 in terms of the impacts that these nutrients can 4 have in a number of ways, both to water quality, 5 tourism, et cetera. So I mean you have to think 6 about the other costs, the avoided costs if you 7 don't do these standards. 8 There is the other concern about Florida is 9 the first -- has been sort of the first to get 10 impacted by these standards, but I can assure you, 11 this whole issue of nutrient standards and nutrient 12 impacts are an issue across the country. If you 13 look at -- we're already getting -- we've already 14 been sued in Wisconsin. That may be the next state 15 right off the bat after Florida. 16 We are doing this in a different way, but 17 certainly I think if you talk to people in the 18 Chesapeake Bay area, we are ramping down our 19 regulations to attack nutrient impacts in the 20 Chesapeake Bay in a different way, but we are also 21 clamping down there. 22 If you look at the Mississippi River, it's a 23 huge basin. We're struggling there in how we're 24 going to set standards there to try to attack that 25 hypoxia problem, not only in the Gulf of Mexico but 12 1 up and down the Mississippi River. 2 So just to say that, again, even though it may 3 feel to you that you're the first ones up to bat, 4 so to speak, I think you'll see nationwide that 5 this nutrient issue is an important matter for EPA 6 from a water quality perspective; and I would dare 7 to say, it's probably the most important one that 8 we have if you look at it from a nationwide 9 perspective. 10 And I just want to end by saying, again, that 11 we're committed to working with the State and we 12 just had some discussions this morning about how we 13 can, again, make sure that we give the State enough 14 tools, as we set these standards, to implement them 15 in a way that, again, can work with the 16 stakeholders in Florida. 17 So thank you very much. I'll be around if you 18 want to chat a little bit. I'll be here until 19 around 3 or 3:30, so we can chat in the hall if you 20 want to grab me. I'll be happy to talk to you. 21 Thank you very much. 22 MR. KING: Thank you very much, Pete. I've 23 introduced myself. Let me introduce some other 24 folks at the table here. To my right, your left, 25 is Mr. Jim Giattina who is the Division Director of 13 1 the Water Division in EPA's region four office in 2 Atlanta. And to Jim's right is Denise Keehner. 3 And she is Director of the Office of Wetlands, 4 Oceans, and Watersheds in Washington, D.C. And 5 then to Denise's right, I believe, is Jim Keating. 6 He is a senior policy and technical expert in the 7 Office of Water, and he's going to be providing for 8 the group sort of an overview of what the rule is, 9 why we're here, so we can start off on a common 10 understanding of what it is we're looking at and 11 what it is we need to get your feedback on it. 12 Let me start by just emphasizing how much we 13 appreciate everybody coming out this afternoon. 14 For many of us, this is in the middle of the day, 15 and you have had to come from other occupations and 16 other commitments; and being here for us is a 17 tremendous gift to hear from you, your comments, 18 your perspectives, where you agree, where you 19 disagree. That, for us, is incredibly valuable, 20 and we appreciate your being here. 21 EPA has undertaken an effort to establish 22 numeric water quality criteria for inland waters 23 and flowing streams in the State of Florida, and 24 that effort has been taken -- undertaken in 25 recognition that the State of Florida has a 14 1 widespread and growing challenge associated with 2 nutrients. That is not to say that the State of 3 Florida hasn't been progressive, proactive. It has 4 been. 5 The State of Florida has among the most 6 progressive and comprehensive set of architecture 7 or framework of regulations and tools with which to 8 deal with nutrients. The challenge faced is the 9 process by which to apply those regulations, and 10 the process by which you apply those tools tends to 11 be a time consuming and very expensive process. 12 And EPA believes that numeric water quality 13 criteria can expedite and can facilitate the 14 State's ability to address more water bodies 15 quicker and more effectively across the State. And 16 that's something that we're working very closely 17 with the Department of Environmental Protection to 18 develop and to be sure that they are based, as Pete 19 said, on sound science. 20 In terms of today's activities at this 21 hearing, we are here to listen. We're here to get 22 your comments and your feedback. This is the 23 opportunity for you to share with us verbally. If 24 you think there is information we haven't 25 considered, please share with us what that 15 1 information is. If you think there's information 2 we have but we haven't interpreted accurately, 3 please share that with us. If you think there are 4 some aspects of the rule that you find to be -- 5 something you support and you feel strongly about, 6 please share that with us. 7 At the end of the day, this is perhaps the 8 most important part of a federal rulemaking, which 9 is to hear from Floridians and from the folks who 10 will be affected by that rulemaking. 11 Today we have a lot of people, and so we have 12 shifted the location of this meeting to this 13 particular room. We have also expanded the hearing 14 time until 10 o'clock tonight. So if there are 15 folks that, for whatever reason, aren't able to 16 speak this afternoon, we will be here until 10 or 17 11 or whatever this evening to be sure that we hear 18 from everybody, which is our highest priority. 19 Also, if you have a chance to speak and then 20 you realize you forgot to say something or there's 21 more information you'd like to share, I just want 22 to remind you that there is a public comment period 23 open until March 29th. And, again, we would very 24 much welcome and look forward to and invite you to 25 submit any additional thoughts and information that 16 1 you think are relevant to this process. 2 Therefore, I think what I'd like to do at this 3 point is turn it over to Denise, and she's going to 4 explain to you how the hearing process operates and 5 how we're going to proceed through the afternoon. 6 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ephraim. 7 I'd like to start out with just a general and 8 very brief overview of the EPA rulemaking process. 9 The proposed rule that EPA published this past 10 January is part of a process that's termed an 11 informal or notice and comment rulemaking process. 12 Most federal rules, including almost all of the 13 rules that EPA publishes, are established through 14 this notice and comment rulemaking process. 15 The notice and comment label that we call this 16 process comes from the fact that under the Federal 17 Administrative Procedures Act, such a rulemaking 18 requires three things: The first is the 19 publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking, 20 which occurred, as I said, in January of 2010; an 21 opportunity for public comment on the rulemaking 22 through the submission of written comments. Our 23 current proposal for numeric nutrient criteria for 24 Florida's lakes and flowing waters has a 60-day 25 comment period for written comments to be 17 1 submitted. 2 And the third part of the process is the 3 publication of a final rule and what is termed an 4 accompanying statement of basis and purpose. It's 5 essentially the preamble to the final regulation. 6 Typically, not less than 30 days after the 7 promulgation of the final rule is when the final 8 rule becomes effective under federal law. 9 All of the written comments that are submitted 10 to EPA as part of the record will be included in 11 the public docket and will be accessible to the 12 public. After the close of the comment period, all 13 of the comments will be reviewed by EPA, all the 14 data and the information that will be submitted 15 will be analyzed by EPA, and that will serve as 16 part of the foundation for decision making for the 17 final regulation. 18 All significant public comments will be 19 responded to in writing in the response to comment 20 document. And when we publish the final rule, as I 21 indicated earlier, the preamble to that rule will 22 also describe how we arrived at our final decisions 23 in light of the public comments that were made. We 24 will highlight any changes that were made to the 25 regulation between proposal and final. 18 1 We're holding these hearings, as Ephraim 2 indicated, as an opportunity for us to hear 3 directly from Floridians your thoughts, 4 perspectives, and views on EPA's proposed rule. 5 You're talking to the people who are actually in 6 charge and responsible for writing these 7 regulations. Mr. King is the director of the 8 office that has that responsibility. 9 This is your opportunity to express your views 10 and provide any information that you have to EPA in 11 an oral communication format, and it's our 12 opportunity to hear directly from you. 13 We do have a fairly large number of speakers 14 today. We've tried to a lot as much time as 15 possible for folks to have the opportunity to 16 deliver remarks. We will be preparing a transcript 17 of today's hearing, and that transcript, along with 18 any written materials that are provided, will be 19 part of the administrative record for this 20 rulemaking. And all comments that are presented 21 today will be considered as EPA moves forward in 22 the rulemaking process. 23 In terms of how we're going to run the 24 remainder of the day, when you signed in and you 25 noted that you wanted to speak today, you should 19 1 have received a number. After Jim Keating provides 2 a brief overview of the proposed rule, we will go 3 through the process of, in numeric order, calling 4 you to the podium in the center of the room to 5 deliver your remarks. 6 We have allocated five minutes per person to 7 speak. I would appreciate if the subsequent 8 numbers, if Number 1 is speaking, then Number 2 and 9 3, to take the position behind the podium in those 10 chairs so that we can have a very smooth flow of 11 people through the process. It worked quite 12 effectively this morning, and it helped us to 13 really stay on track. 14 If we run out of time before you've had a 15 chance to speak, we are reconvening this evening at 16 7 o'clock for an evening session. Hopefully, we 17 will be able to get through all of the folks who 18 have signed up to speak today. 19 I have a request from Mr. Gerald Ward who 20 received Number 19 to speak this afternoon, to see 21 if -- he asked if we could accommodate him to speak 22 earlier because he has an appointment at 2:30. If 23 that's okay with the collective crowd here, I'd 24 like to be able to accommodate him. 25 Does anybody have an objection to allowing 20 1 Mr. Ward to speak earlier? 2 (NO RESPONSE). 3 MS. KEEHNER: Okay. Very good. Thank you. 4 When you are called to the podium, I would 5 appreciate it if you clearly state your name and 6 also your affiliation. So we will start out 7 with -- we'll start out with Jim Keating first, and 8 he's going to do the overview, and then we'll move 9 right to Mr. Ward. 10 MR. KEATING: Thank you, Denise. I promise I 11 will be brief. We want to hold the balance of the 12 time for you all's comments, but I did want to, as 13 Denise indicated, make sure that we have a common 14 understanding of what has been proposed and what 15 this is all about. 16 So in the materials that you were probably 17 handed at the beginning, at registration, there is 18 a copy of the slides that are going to be shown up 19 here so you don't need to, you know, worry about 20 that. That is here for your convenience. 21 So what I wanted to do is briefly talk about 22 three aspects of our proposal, and it comes right 23 from the title. I want to talk about what nitrogen 24 and phosphorous pollution is. I want to talk about 25 what water quality standards are. And then I 21 1 finally want to talk about how this applies to 2 Florida's lakes and flowing waters in EPA's 3 proposal. 4 And I'd like to start with a few images that 5 I'll show you that help demonstrate some of what 6 we're talking about here today. The first is from 7 a website called Earth Snapshot, and this is an 8 image that was taken last year. And it clearly 9 shows an extensive algal bloom that occurs across 10 the west coast of Florida and I think is really 11 illustrative of the scope and, you know, breadth of 12 nutrient pollution and nitrogen and phosphorous 13 causing algal blooms throughout the State. 14 When we talk about phosphorous and nitrogen 15 pollution, part of what we're talking about is that 16 they cause the growth of unwanted and nuisance 17 algae. Now algae aren't bad, and algae are an 18 essential part of the aquatic community, but in 19 excess amounts, it can really lead to a lot of 20 problems. 21 A couple of examples of specific unwanted 22 algae in places in amounts where they shouldn't be 23 is the algae Lyngbya which smothers eel grass, 24 which is food for endangered manatee. It also is 25 producing toxins that is potentially harmful to 22 1 humans, animals. 2 Another algae that gets a lot of attention and 3 is a lot of concern to us and others is 4 Microcystis. That's an algae that produces a toxin 5 that can cause severe liver damage to humans. It 6 can also poison livestock and wildlife. Those are 7 but a couple of examples of algal species that 8 cause real problems. 9 Excess algae, in general, can do a lot of 10 damage to stream ecology and to lake ecology. It 11 discolors the water. It destroys the natural 12 balance of species. And then upon decay and when 13 it settles to the bottom of these waters, it ends 14 up depleting the oxygen. That can lead to fish 15 kills and unsuitable habitat for a whole host of 16 aquatic life. 17 We are also quite concerned about the effects 18 of phosphorous and nitrogen pollution on human 19 health in drinking water. Excess algae that occurs 20 in nearby drinking water intakes can cause the 21 subsequent development of disinfection byproducts 22 in amounts that can -- and have effects that could 23 lead to illnesses such as bladder cancer and other 24 severe complications. 25 When we talk about nitrogen and human health, 23 1 there is also an important component of concern for 2 drinking water with respect to nitrates, which is a 3 component of total nitrogen, in particular for its 4 levels in groundwater. And we know that in Florida 5 there is quite a lot of exchange between 6 groundwater and surface water. 7 Nitrates in heavily elevated amounts in 8 drinking water can cause health concerns such as 9 Blue Baby Syndrome which is a very serious illness 10 that can lead to coma and even death. And we found 11 from published studies in Florida groundwater that 12 there are recurring exceedences of what we call the 13 maximum contaminant level for nitrates. And, in 14 fact, when we go back and examine some of the 15 studies, as much as 15 percent of the drinking 16 water wells exceed this level. 17 Florida has a lot of surface water. There is 18 over seven thousand lakes, 50,000 miles of rivers 19 and streams, four thousand square miles of 20 estuaries and, importantly, about 700 fresh water 21 springs. And a great percentage of these have been 22 found to be impaired from nitrogen and phosphorous 23 pollution already. And I'd like to share what some 24 of this can look like in Florida lakes. 25 This is a lake near Bradenton, Florida, called 24 1 Lake Manatee, and you can see visually the effects 2 of the algal bloom. The image on your right is a 3 device called a Secchi disk which measures the 4 transparency or the clarity of the water; and in 5 this case, there would be zero transparency. 6 Here is another lake near Central Florida 7 called Lake Apopka that has long been known as a 8 problem lake for nitrogen and phosphorous 9 pollution, and you can see visibly the effects of 10 the algal blooms in that water body here. 11 This is a water body called Merritts Mill 12 Pond. It's about an hour west of here in Marianna, 13 Florida. This is another good effect of algal 14 blooms that we see in Florida lakes. This is a 15 close-up of a Microcystis bloom right here near 16 Tallahassee. This is Lake Munson. 17 And nitrogen and phosphorous pollution and 18 resulting algal blooms not only affect Florida 19 lakes, but they also affect Florida's flowing 20 waters. This is an image from the Caloosahatchee 21 River that flows from Lake Okechoobee out to the 22 west. This is a Microcystis bloom that you can see 23 near Olga, Florida, where there is a drinking water 24 intake right nearby. This is a good image from the 25 Caloosahatchee River at the Franklin Lock, a 25 1 different kind of an algae bloom; but you can see 2 the difference between water that doesn't -- that 3 isn't affected by an algal bloom and one that is by 4 the barrier that is there with the lock, and you 5 can clearly see the difference. 6 This is an image toward the north of Florida 7 in St. Johns River where it's been affected by an 8 algal bloom. This is another picture of the 9 St. Johns River. We see when conditions get to 10 this point, and even when it's not quite as 11 dramatic, it puts a lot of things that we really 12 care about for our waters at risk. It puts at risk 13 recreation; it puts at risk ecology; it puts at 14 risk human health, tourism business, waterfront 15 property values. A lot of things that we care 16 about can be greatly affected by nitrogen and 17 phosphorous pollution. 18 Here is a close-up on a tributary stream in 19 the St. Johns that, again, shows some of the 20 dramatic effects that these can have in Florida 21 waters. 22 This is the St. Lucie River, about 45 minutes 23 north of West Palm. You know, again you can see 24 the effects. 25 Spring systems in Florida, unfortunately, have 26 1 had some of the most dramatic effects of nitrogen 2 and phosphorous pollution. These are a couple of 3 images from the very famous Weeki Wachee Spring 4 about an hour north of Tampa. You can see on the 5 left an image from the 1950s when it was very clear 6 dominated by the eel grasses that you want to see. 7 To the right, you have an image from this 8 decade, as most of these pictures have been, that 9 show a domination by the nuisance algae Lyngbya. 10 The nitrogen and phosphorous pollution also affects 11 some of our manmade systems and our canals, and the 12 canals drain into estuaries or other coastal waters 13 carrying the nitrogen and phosphorous pollution 14 with them. 15 Now in Florida there is narrative protection 16 of these kinds of conditions, and it basically 17 states that there shall be no levels of nitrogen 18 and phosphorous, what we call nutrients, in levels 19 that would cause an imbalance in natural 20 populations of flora and fauna which is a good 21 statement. 22 The problem that we see is that in 23 implementing that statement, it takes a lot of 24 time, and it is a slow process, and to develop 25 associated limits that provide protection. And 27 1 what we see is that there's a need to provide the 2 targets for restoration, and perhaps even more 3 importantly all too often implementing a narrative 4 is a reaction, a reactionary process that, you 5 know, really kicks in sort of after you've already 6 seen these kinds of impairments. 7 What we're interested in doing in setting 8 water quality standards is ensuring that we're 9 setting the limits in advance so that we can 10 protect waters that are currently healthy and clean 11 from getting to this condition in the first place. 12 The nitrogen and phosphorous pollution in 13 excess amounts comes from a variety of sources. It 14 comes from urban landscapes, cattle and crop 15 fields, air emissions, from cars and power plants. 16 It comes from faulty septic tanks. It comes from 17 sewage treatment works and some industrial 18 discharge. But we know the better treatment and 19 imposition of management practices can remove the 20 nutrients from the system and stop them from 21 flowing into Florida waters. 22 So with that, I want to talk a bit about water 23 quality standards and what they are. The most 24 important point I'd like to make about this is that 25 there are two principal components of standards. 28 1 There are the designated uses, and that's really 2 what we want out of our waters, okay? 3 And then there is water quality criteria which 4 are the specific levels and amounts of pollutants 5 that are necessary to achieve those designated uses 6 in water. Florida has set designated uses for 7 their inland lakes and flowing waters that are in 8 keeping with the goals of the Clean Water Act, and 9 they assign classes. Class I is potable water 10 supply; Class III, recreation, propagation, and 11 maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population 12 of fish and wildlife. 13 These are Florida's designated uses that our 14 proposed criteria are intended to protect. And the 15 criteria for both classes, both refer, you know, to 16 these important goals of what we want out of our 17 water for recreation, for human health protection, 18 and for maintenance of aquatic life. 19 The need for numeric nutrient criteria has 20 been recognized for a long time by the Agency. 21 It's been a recommendation that we've had in place 22 since 1998. And more recently, after consulting 23 with the Florida Department of Environmental 24 Protection, the Agency issued a determination that 25 numeric nutrient criteria were necessary for 29 1 protecting Florida waters; and that came out in 2 January 2009. 3 In fact, Florida and through their agency, the 4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, has 5 proposed numeric nutrient criteria back in the 6 summer of 2009 and had a number of public workshops 7 which were enormously useful for many people and 8 enormously useful for us at EPA. 9 We did enter into a legal agreement in August 10 of 2009 with environmental nongovernmental 11 organizations. This legal agreement mandated that 12 the Agency would propose nutrient criteria for 13 lakes and flowing waters by January 2010 to go 14 final by October 2010. And then as a companion of 15 the rulemaking process, we would propose numeric 16 nutrient criteria for estuaries by January 2011, 17 finalizing them in October 2011. 18 To do this proposal in January, we relied 19 very, very heavily on the extensive database and 20 the technical approaches that the Florida 21 Department of Environmental Protection had put 22 forward. We supplemented that with some analysis 23 of our own, and these methods have undergone 24 independent scientific peer review through our 25 process. 30 1 The extensive database, there are thousands of 2 sites throughout the State of Florida that have 3 been monitored, and there are tens of thousands of 4 samples that result from that monitoring. And if 5 you add up all of the observations, multiple 6 observations that comes with these samples, it 7 amounts to a staggering hundreds of thousands of 8 data points that there are to work with for the 9 variety of systems that we're addressing in our 10 proposal, more data than we typically see for any 11 other state. 12 Now in terms of lakes, we do have a specific 13 proposal for lakes and a specific definition. They 14 are open water that's contiguous, free from 15 emergent vegetation. We classified lakes in 16 Florida into three groups based on color, natural 17 color, and natural alkalinity, and we were able to 18 develop criteria both for Chlorophyll a, which is a 19 light pigment that is found in the cells of plant 20 and algae and a good indicator of excess 21 production; field correlations from data between 22 Chlorophyll a and total phosphorous and total 23 nitrogen for each of these categories of lakes. 24 We also importantly include an adjustment or a 25 procedure for adjusting the total phosphorous and 31 1 total nitrogen criteria if they are meeting the 2 Chlorophyll a targets. 3 And this, very briefly, is a summary slide of 4 the proposed criteria, and you can see for the 5 colored lakes and the clear alkaline lakes, the 6 Chlorophyll a is a little bit higher. Those lakes 7 would naturally be expected to be more productive, 8 and that's a level of production that can be 9 maintained without having risks of some of the more 10 deleterious effects on dissolved oxygen and other 11 important end points. 12 For the clear acidic lakes, those are 13 naturally more clear. They are low alkalinity. 14 They don't receive a lot of nutrient inputs in the 15 first place. They would have different 16 expectations for productivity. 17 And you can see the associated criteria for 18 total phosphorus and total nitrogen, and also the 19 allowable range for adjustment in those nutrient 20 levels should the Chlorophyll a criteria be met. 21 We are proposing that Florida have a mechanism for 22 adjusting those criteria accordingly where there is 23 sufficient data. 24 For rivers and streams, we mean water that is 25 in a defined channel and it flows. We have a 32 1 proposal that looks at underlying geology and other 2 natural features in the Florida landscape, and 3 we've divided up the State into aggregate watershed 4 boundaries to have different stream criteria that 5 match the underlying conditions. 6 And what we did for streams is we looked at a 7 tool that Florida developed for measuring stream 8 biological health. It's called Stream Condition 9 Index. And where there is quantifiable and 10 measured healthy biology and assistance, we were 11 able to identify protective levels for total 12 nitrogen and total phosphorus in these various 13 regions. And I'll briefly point out that a couple 14 of the regions really stand out in terms of, for 15 example, the total phosphorus levels. 16 There's a region called The Bone Valley that's 17 around Tampa Bay and Sarasota, another region that 18 we call North Central that's up in the Suwannee 19 drainage centered around Hamilton County. There 20 are phosphatic soils, naturally high levels of 21 phosphorous that occur in those regions, and they 22 have correspondingly higher expectations for their 23 protective levels. 24 It's very important for us in considering 25 these criteria for lakes and flowing waters, the 33 1 waters move. Rivers flow into lakes, and rivers 2 flow into estuaries, and part of meeting water 3 quality standards by our federal regulations is 4 ensuring that downstream water quality standards 5 will be attained and maintained. And we have 6 aspects of our proposal that address this 7 downstream protection because waters that are in 8 the headwaters can flow down to the waters that are 9 closer to the streams, and they carry the nutrients 10 with them where they can have effects in those 11 downstream waters. 12 For the lakes we have a simple equation that 13 relates loadings in a lake and the protective 14 criteria to stream criteria, and there is a means 15 for adjusting the stream criteria to protect a 16 downstream lake. For estuaries, we used a model 17 that the U.S. Geological Survey, the USGS, 18 published called SPARROW, and that allows us to 19 look on a watershed basis at loading amounts coming 20 from the landscape, and calibrate it to actual data 21 to determine how those loads move throughout the 22 watershed in the transport of total nitrogen. 23 I want to mention a couple of things about the 24 SPARROW model and protecting downstream estuaries. 25 We were able to not only identify the protective 34 1 loads for those estuaries, but to translate that 2 into concentration values throughout the streams in 3 the watershed. We call these downstream protection 4 values. 5 The downstream protection values for total 6 nitrogen tends to be lower than the in-stream 7 protection values for the streams themselves, not 8 necessarily unexpected. The effects of nitrogen 9 tend to manifest themselves strongly in the 10 downstream estuaries, and we have downstream 11 protection values to provide that necessary 12 protection. 13 We have options and alternatives in moving 14 forward with these downstream protection values. 15 We could go final with the ones that we proposed in 16 October 2010, or we could wait and go final with 17 them when we do our estuaries and coastal rule in 18 going final in October 2011. 19 For springs, a very important resource. These 20 are waters that kind of come up from the surface, 21 you know, of the earth and produce these very 22 clear, you know, ponds that then run on a spring 23 run into other water bodies. A wealth of 24 laboratory and field data that FDEP had assembled 25 indicates that a criterion for the nitrate and 35 1 nitrite component of springs is protective, and 2 that's what we propose for that class of water 3 bodies. 4 We also did address South Florida canals. 5 These are systems that are manmade. They're 6 largely developed for irrigation and for flood 7 control, but they do carry that designated use of 8 class III, the majority of them, for protection of 9 recreation, human health, and aquatic life. 10 In a similar fashion that we did for rivers, 11 we were able to identify these canal systems that 12 were not considered impaired and took them out, 13 looked at ones where we could reasonably infer that 14 the designated uses are met, and identify 15 protective levels for Chlorophyll a, total 16 phosphorus, and total nitrogen for the South 17 Florida canals. 18 A couple of other important provisions about 19 the rule I'd like to bring to your attention. We 20 do have an allowance for adjusting criteria on a 21 site-specific basis where FDEP, working with others 22 if they wish, could come up with a defensible, 23 protective alternative criteria, submit that to our 24 regional administrator in Atlanta; and then, upon 25 approval, we could make that the effective 36 1 criterion. 2 We also have a process, a procedure that we're 3 proposing called restoration standards. This would 4 allow communities throughout Florida working with 5 the state government and FDEP to come up with 6 interim designated uses and criteria that would 7 allow feasible progress in incremental steps to 8 occur through time to meet water quality standards 9 where immediate compliance is just not feasible. 10 We did prepare an economic analysis as part of 11 our proposal, and we looked at, you know, basically 12 baseline costs if you were going to implement 13 Florida's proposal, and additional costs for the 14 additional criteria that we were putting in place. 15 And, you know, it totals up to as much as 16 $140 million annually for the State of Florida. 17 And that's largely looking at upgraded treatment, 18 implementation of best management practices for 19 nonpoint sources, and a little bit of replacement 20 septic tanks. 21 We do have a procedure that we've hopefully 22 communicated effectively to folks for submitting 23 written comments, and we really encourage you to do 24 so. And I'd like to encourage you -- this is a 25 brief overview. There is really no substitute for 37 1 availing yourself of the wealth of material that 2 we've made available both in terms of the preamble 3 to our proposed rule and the associated technical 4 support documentation that's available up on-line, 5 and certainly encourage you to read through that 6 and get, you know, first-hand information on what 7 we're providing. 8 So just a very, very, you know, quick review. 9 Standards include those designated uses and 10 criteria to protect. Florida agrees that these 11 numeric criteria are necessary. We've used Florida 12 data. We've used many of their technical 13 approaches, some of your own. We certainly do 14 intend to continue to work together. 15 We've made this proposal for our inland 16 waters. We've used what was the best science and 17 sound science available to come up with these 18 proposals. We do have procedures for adjusting the 19 criteria if warranted, and we certainly, you know, 20 want folks to consider both what we've proposed and 21 the alternatives that we've also laid out in the 22 proposed rule. Thank you. 23 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Jim. 24 Mr. Ward, can you please approach the podium? 25 And if speakers 1 and 2 could move to the chairs 38 1 immediately behind Mr. Ward, that would be 2 appreciated. Thank you. 3 MR. WARD: Good afternoon. I'm Gerald Ward, 4 31 West 20th Street, Riviera Beach, Palm Beach 5 County. It's also the State's eastern most city. 6 Thank you, Ms. Keehner, for the courtesy of 7 the advancement. Time has caused me to focus on 8 process in these comments. 9 We welcome you to Florida, but like most 10 Washington operations, I want you to start focusing 11 on cost. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1967, 12 the Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972, 13 and the Clean Water Act of 1977 do not allow you to 14 forget cost. 15 On that note, simple things like scheduling 16 these three days of constrained hearings 17 immediately after a national holiday says you may 18 not be focusing on cost. How many employees are 19 able to take overtime because they had to travel 20 and so forth to get here? I'd like that question 21 for the record. 22 I've been involved professionally in water 23 resources in Florida since 1965. I was born here 24 before the war. And I'm also past president of the 25 Florida section of the American Water Resources 39 1 Association, during our 25th year in 1996, so we're 2 now coming up on four decades of an association 3 that is government, consultants, all types of folks 4 that practice in water resources. And I think it's 5 important for you to recognize what I'll say later. 6 What you are doing was actually required by 7 you in 1973 with an extensive report for a large 8 hundred-square-mile water control district in Lee 9 and Hendry Counties. That's in southwest Florida. 10 This document focused on not only chemical but 11 biological water quality criteria, and we made 12 changes in that hundred-square-mile district which 13 was partially in response to EPA's queries. So it 14 was a practical exercise. 15 This becomes more of a paperwork exercise 16 which I think is extensive, and it will not 17 necessarily produce the results, which is what we 18 have been trying to do in Florida for decades. 19 The 57 pages of the federal register are just 20 a fraction of the -- what I now see yesterday was 21 585 documents already filed in this docket. And if 22 you take a look at them, almost all of them are 23 prepared by people of Florida. The documents that 24 you put in the record to start with are Florida 25 generated. So we do have some experience in this 40 1 process. 2 Now we understand that this administration did 3 not sort of put you in the coffin. This is a 14, 4 January, 2009 letter which was the prior 5 administration. So we're not wanting to blame EPA 6 today, the staff, because it may have been not -- 7 sort of a hastily generated set of orders a year 8 ago. But we do want to proceed with the fact that 9 that document was so tight that Florida ran into a 10 brick wall with your Agency this year. You have 11 pulled together Florida's data and thoughts but put 12 out a flawed document. 13 The ten executive orders are part of the 14 process I want you to look at. We can't focus on 15 technicalities this afternoon, but there are ten 16 administrative-type processes which have not -- we 17 have not been given a good response as to your 18 initial evaluation. I would like to suggest you 19 need to immediately return to the courts and say 20 that you have not accomplished -- have not timely 21 evaluated the amount of time necessary to do this 22 process. 23 I think you need to respond with an extension 24 of time for the rulemaking, the regulation making 25 process, and I will look forward to supplying by 41 1 the next deadline of 29 March a set of much more 2 detailed comments. But this gives you the focus of 3 the people of Florida, Mr. King, that you asked 4 for. 5 MR. KING: Thank you. 6 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Ward. 7 Speaker Number 1, please. 8 MR. JANAZZO: Is it possible to bring up 9 slide 27? If you'd be so kind. 10 Ladies and gentleman, my name is John Janazzo. 11 I'm a county commissioner from Okaloosa County. 12 For those of you who are not familiar with the 13 Florida local government, the commissioners are 14 responsible for taxes, transportation, trash, and 15 pretty much everything else no one wants to 16 handle. 17 I thank you for the chance to address you on 18 the issue. We're sorry for the chilly weather, but 19 this reminds us of why we live in Florida; and, of 20 course, it keeps the algae population down, so we 21 order it up every February. 22 Okaloosa County is in the Central Time Zone. 23 If you look over there on the blue part of the map, 24 about 180 thousand full-time people, about a 25 thousand square miles. 35 percent of it is taken 42 1 by the Eglin and Hurlburt Military Complex. 2 Another 13 percent of that land is taken up by 3 water, so you see almost 50 percent of our land 4 mass is taken up by military or water already. The 5 rest of it is agricultural land and, of course, 6 some urban. 7 We are bordered to the north by the State of 8 Alabama, a state we have no control over, by the 9 way. I have hiked, boated, flown, paddled all over 10 our county. I'm a founder of the Association for 11 Bayou Conservation in Okaloosa County. I'm a 12 member of the Choctawhatchee Bay Alliance, so I'm 13 not a burn-and-build politician. 14 So far today, we've heard Florida has in place 15 a strong water quality program. We've heard 16 firsthand accounts of how the system is working, 17 has been working and will continue to be working 18 when it's utilized properly. We've heard it's not 19 perfect but it has improved our water dramatically 20 and continues to work for Florida. 21 We've heard the science behind the proposed 22 rule is questioned by a wide range of professional 23 Floridians, all who have the best interest of our 24 future in mind. And I guess I have to question 25 15-year old photos coming from the EPA. I would 43 1 expect a little more current data than that. 2 How is Okaloosa County going to be affected by 3 the proposed rule? Well, we have a total of 13 4 water treatment facilities, not counting the 5 county, but the cities and everyone else. We have 6 industries, we have government entities who are 7 responsible for managing the stormwater, although 8 who don't add to it. We have our two new military 9 tenants, the F-35 joint strike fighter and the 10 seven special forces, and we also have our 11 agricultural, managed landscape, golf courses, 12 highway medians, et cetera. So, basically, 13 everyone is affected by this. 14 We have objections based on the financial 15 cost. Our estimates put it at 315 million just for 16 Okaloosa County. We figure there will be seven 17 additional processes required for our wastewater 18 treatment. We question why there are still TBDS in 19 the rule, a lot of assumptions that arrive to the 20 science for a very general region when they are 21 site specific. 22 Clearly, when you look at that map, the 23 Panhandle is being held to a standard half of what 24 the Tampa Bay metroplex is. We're a pristine area. 25 I just told you 50 percent of our land is water and 44 1 military ranges. That's a gross generalization 2 that clearly deserves to be relooked at. 3 We are attempting to roll back total nitrogen 4 and total phosphate to pre-colonial times, back 5 when Andy Jackson was still the governor. Clearly 6 an impaired water can and does support abundant 7 diversified biology. We see it every day. You're 8 saying that 35 percent of our most pristine waters 9 don't pass the EPA criteria. That doesn't pass the 10 common sense test. 11 For our area, mercury and bacteria are the two 12 most common things that are listed for our impaired 13 waters. Guess what? We don't have any control 14 over the mercury, coal-fired power plants that 15 aren't in our county and coming out of the 16 atmosphere. 17 We've been doing our part. We've built new 18 plants, 60, $72 million wastewater upgrades in the 19 last four years. We've reduced our total nitrous 20 by a factor of ten. We've consolidated city and 21 military systems. We've mandated sewer 22 connections, utilized reclaimed water for 23 irrigation. We've extensive application of the 24 TMDLs. We really don't think that one size fits 25 all is a good way to go. 45 1 The proposed level has clearly penalized the 2 Panhandle for starting with a very good water 3 quality. This passes the budget impact to lower 4 government agencies does not give us a guarantee 5 for success, and it's a definition of unfounded 6 mandate and your basic faulty logic. 7 Economic impacts to our county, we figure, 8 again, there are going to be seven additional 9 processes, a fifth stage anaerobic, a deep bed sand 10 filter, high and low pressure, reverse osmosis, 11 added to our new plant which we just spent 12 $63 million, brings the total to about two hundred 13 million plus another roughly 180 million in 14 recurring costs. 15 We recommend that the EPA rescind this 16 determination, go back to square one. If you can't 17 do that, then we recommend a higher percentile, at 18 the 90th percentile; require biological validation 19 before declaring impairment, as a minimum; and 20 support site-specific criteria development. 21 Thank you, again, and I know you'll find a 22 better way ahead for Florida. Thank you. 23 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Janazzo. 24 Speaker Number 3, and if I could have 25 Speakers 4 and 5 to come to the chairs behind the 46 1 podium -- I'm sorry, two. 2 MR. LACKEMACHER: My name is Paul Lackemacher. 3 I'm the assistant director for Bay County Utility 4 Services. I've been a member of AWWA, WEF 5 (phonetics); and most recently, the newly formed 6 Northwest Florida Managers Utility Council. I've 7 had over 40 years of experience in water and 8 wastewater. 9 I'd like to talk about the big picture. My 10 specific comments will come by March 29th. These 11 are general overview comments of your proposed 12 rule. 13 Florida is facing a $3 billion shortfall in 14 State revenues. And with unemployment nearly 15 12 percent, expensive initiatives are a huge 16 financial concern to Florida citizens. Florida has 17 a population of approximately 18 million people. 18 According to FDEP, general facts in 2006, 19 there are 21 hundred active domestic water 20 treatment facilities in Florida that serve 21 approximately 64 percent of the population. That's 22 11.5 million people. 23 Collectively, those of us responsible for 24 these permitted wastewater treatment facilities are 25 in agreement with Florida Water Environment 47 1 Associations Utility Council finding that Florida 2 municipal wastewater treatment utilities will spend 3 upwards to $50 billion in capital costs for 4 treatment process upgrades to meet EPA's proposed 5 rule. This translates to doubling, on average, the 6 wastewater rates across the State. 7 Presently, these same Florida wastewater 8 treatment plants are generally meeting the most 9 stringent effluent water quality standards in the 10 nation, as Mr. King talked about. In other words, 11 we are already well regulated and doing much to 12 reduce nutrients in our effluent. There has been 13 an overabundance of well-based scientific and 14 technical arguments presented to EPA that shows 15 their methodology is just plain wrong. 16 I was happy to hear from Mr. Silva that he 17 wants to look at this science. That's good. 18 EPA knows that the SPARROW model it's using is 19 not great. And, in fact, DEP flat out said they 20 wanted data and input from as many sources as 21 possible because, and I quote, they couldn't afford 22 to properly study these issues. So, Mr. Keating, I 23 say to you, we don't have the data that you think. 24 Given these facts, the environmental benefits 25 are questionable at best. EPA's milestones are 48 1 also unrealistic and cannot be met. A similar 2 initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration 3 Agreement that was discussed here by one of you, 4 was undertaken originally in 1983 with a target 5 date of 2010. They've had 27 years. It was a four 6 tier program. They've gotten to tier two. Total 7 nitrogen is only down to eight. Their goal was 8 three. 9 EPA has given Florida virtually no time. For 10 Bay County, the fact is that presently no AWT in 11 Florida can meet the proposed EPA values. There's 12 65 or 3 percent of the treatment facilities are 13 AWTs, Bay County has one. 14 EPA's methodology is fundamentally flawed and 15 suffers from a severe lack of scientific basis, 16 specifically for the Panhandle region where roughly 17 76 percent of the background waters that are not 18 affected by human activity will be deemed impaired 19 regardless of direct discharge. This fact alone 20 makes EPA's proposed values ridiculous. 21 Bay County encompasses approximately 550 22 thousand acres with an average annual rainfall of 23 65 inches. In short, there is approximately eight 24 trillion gallons of runoff. For total nitrogen 25 alone, the average total nitrogen is 0.8 milligrams 49 1 per liter, which equates to 26,000 tons per year. 2 Bay County estimates our MS4 systems will handle 3 approximately 135 billion gallons per year. 4 For total nitrogen alone, assuming we remove 5 the entire total nitrogen and runoff through these 6 systems, we will only reduce the total nitrogen 7 load by 11 tons per year, less than four tenths of 8 one percent. What is the point? 9 Capital costs, the estimated capital cost 10 improvements for our wastewater treatment 11 facilities is roughly 60 to $70 million. The 12 impact to our customers, as I said before, will 13 double their rates. 14 On the stormwater side, Bay County has 15 estimated the capital cost to be in the 16 neighborhood of 14 billion dollars. How in God's 17 good name can the taxpaying public take this on? 18 Scheduling, meeting EPA's proposed timeline 19 for compliance is not realistic. Fast tracking for 20 just our wastewater treatment facilities alone 21 would take a minimum of three to four years to have 22 a process in place. Compliance of this magnitude 23 is typically given in years. 24 I see I've run out of time, so I'll close. We 25 need to reconsider what we're doing. 50 1 One final note, Speaker Number 3, Mr. Don 2 Palmer had to leave. Thank you. 3 MS. KEEHNER: Okay. Thank you, 4 Mr. Lackemacher. 5 Speaker Number 4. 6 MR. GRISWOLD: My name is Richard Griswold. 7 And incidentally, that's the shortest speech I've 8 ever heard Paul Lackemacher give. 9 I am the general manager of Destin Water 10 Users, a professional engineer, and an 11 environmentalist. 12 The proposed rule is replete with innuendo, 13 distortion, and arrogance. It is sorely lacking in 14 science and completely divorced from reality. 15 Furthermore, this proposed rule is crafted 16 with the intention of misleading the Congress of 17 the United States. Just to get to this point, the 18 EPA may have conspired with special interest groups 19 to mislead a federal judge. 20 What is most important is that the new rule is 21 not protective of the waters in Florida. It 22 totally discounts the fact that some level of 23 nutrients is needed which may or may not be higher 24 than the limits being imposed. If all waters were 25 to achieve the limits noted, it is certain that 51 1 many waters would be degraded in their current use. 2 This rule, furthermore, totally discounts the 3 work being done by the citizens of Florida to 4 improve water quality. Many citizen groups such as 5 the Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance, volunteer 6 agencies, philanthropies, and local government work 7 diligently alongside state and federal agencies to 8 sustain our environment and protect it for the use 9 of future generations. 10 In Northwest Florida, major steps have been 11 taken in the last 20 years to help improve water 12 quality. Even the EPA recognizes this by stating 13 that the waters in the Panhandle are the best in 14 the state. That did not just happen by accident or 15 serendipity. That happened by the hard work and 16 dedication of many, many people. 17 EPA needs to get away from the Panhandle and 18 let us carry on our work. Nutrient sources for 19 Florida waters are many. Among them, atmospheric 20 deposition, both direct and indirect; rainfall 21 runoff, both point source and nonpoint source; 22 in-stream decomposition of deposit organic matter; 23 septic systems; treatment works; and inflow from 24 other states. 25 Those who will be affected and will have to 52 1 comply with the rule include but are not limited 2 to, fruit and vegetable processors; fern and palm 3 growers; fertilizer producers; power plants; 4 wastewater facilities; pulp and paper mills; 5 dairies; golf courses; city, county and state 6 stormwater systems; military installations; 7 builders and developers. 8 The EPA is not planning to regulate or impose 9 limits on the worst nutrient sources, which include 10 nonpoint source rainfall runoff; septic systems; 11 atmospheric deposition; and inflow from other 12 states. The only two sources of nutrients which 13 will enter our waters which will be ruled by this 14 proposed mandate will be point source rainfall 15 runoff and treatment works. 16 The only technology with a proven ability to 17 strip nutrients to the levels being required is 18 reverse osmosis, and a whole set of adverse 19 environmental impacts that go with this type 20 technology. For my utility customers to comply, an 21 expenditure of at least $34 million will be 22 required resulting in a 71-percent increase in my 23 customers' water and sewer bill. 24 For the entire State of Florida, publicly 25 owned treatment works will need to spend over 25 53 1 billion, probably over 50 billion. If all POTWs in 2 Florida attain the mandated limits, it would result 3 in a less than one-percent improvement in water 4 quality. 5 The city government of Destin, which serves a 6 population of about 12 thousand people, will need 7 to spend at least $300 million to capture and treat 8 the runoff from their point sources, which will 9 result in a quadrupling of property taxes. 10 I wish that I knew how much it would cost the 11 Florida Department of Transportation and 12 development to comply, but I think just a quick 13 look will result in numbers with the word trillion 14 behind it. It should be noted that the use of 15 reverse osmosis will also create at least a 16 five-percent increase in the statewide demand for 17 electric power. This then will result in more 18 nitrogen compounds entering the atmosphere and more 19 deposition on our waters. 20 The federal government is imposing a mandate 21 on the citizens of Florida which will deplete our 22 treasury, wreck our economy, and do more harm than 23 good to the natural environment. 24 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Griswold. 25 Speaker Number 5, and could Speaker Number 6 54 1 and 7 come to the seats behind the podium. 2 MS. REIMER: My name is Monica Reimer. I am 3 an attorney with Earthjustice, which is the law 4 firm that brought the lawsuit on behalf of our 5 clients that resulted in the consent decree and 6 these rules. However, I'm not here speaking on 7 behalf of Earthjustice. I am speaking as a 8 personal affected property owner. 9 I live on a pond called Second Pond. It's on 10 Woodland Drive. I am a resident of the Panhandle. 11 I live at Woodland Drive. That is in between Myers 12 Park and Indianhead Acres. 13 Second Pond is a natural pond. It is 14 connected to the aquifer by sink holes. It is very 15 deep. It never goes dry. There is a historical 16 indication that Second Pond was, in fact, the first 17 drinking water reservoir of the State -- of the 18 City of Tallahassee. 19 I bought my house on Second Pond because I 20 bought the pond. I could have cared less about the 21 house; I wanted the pond. That was back in 1998. 22 In 2007, I woke up, had my cup of coffee, went 23 to my back window. This is a photograph of a 24 Microcystis bloom on the St. John's River last 25 summer. This is what my pond looked like. 55 1 There are people who have lived on my pond for 2 30 years. It has never had a Microcystis bloom 3 ever. The bloom lasted for a month. I kept my 4 dogs out of the backyard, and I didn't want to look 5 at it. 6 The next year the Microcystis bloom came back. 7 This time the Microcystis bloom lasted for two 8 months, and it was also accompanied by a Lyngbya 9 bloom. At that point, I absolutely not only did 10 not allow my dogs, but I started warning my 11 neighbors about not using the pond because my pond 12 was toxic. 13 Last year I did not have a Microcystis bloom. 14 Last year I got philamentis algae, which I went out 15 and raked out of my pond. 16 I also want to speak about cost. I am a 17 property owner. I cannot sell my house with this 18 in my backyard. I am in the same situation that 19 the people who live on the Caloosahatchee River, 20 who live on the St. Lucie estuary, who live on the 21 beaches who cannot go out in their backyard because 22 we have over-nutrient enriched our waters in 23 Florida to the point where they are no longer safe 24 for their designated uses. 25 Cost, you have a photograph of Lake Manatee in 56 1 your Power Point. I don't know if you realize 2 this, but Lake Manatee is actually a man-created 3 drinking water reservoir that serves and provides 4 water for a good part of Manatee County. That 5 drinking water reservoir has to routinely be taken 6 offline because of the blue green algae blooms that 7 you have a photograph of. The blue green algae 8 blooms render that drinking water reservoir 9 unsuitable for drinking. 10 As everybody here knows in Florida, we are 11 running out of water. The Orlando area is 12 forecasted to run out of groundwater by 2030. 13 Every city, county in the State of Florida is right 14 now having to look at finding surface water sources 15 to provide their drinking water. What they're 16 looking at is finding Lake Manatee. It can cost 17 $200 million to upgrade a drinking water plant to 18 deal with toxic algae, and it is not just a taste 19 and odor problem. That is cost. We need to act, 20 and we need to act now. 21 We were told we were too impatient for 22 bringing this lawsuit. I think we waited way too 23 long to bring this lawsuit. We are very happy that 24 you are here. I, as a personal property owner in 25 Tallahassee that is being affected by this 57 1 personally, am also very happy that you are here. 2 And I am sure that you will gain a lot from all of 3 the things that are being said at these public 4 comments, and I thank you for the opportunity to be 5 here. 6 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Reimer. 7 Speaker Number 6. 8 MS. CASTILE: Good afternoon. I'm Colleen 9 Castile, former Secretary of the Florida Department 10 of Environmental Protection, and I am here 11 unaffiliated with anyone other than myself today. 12 Welcome to Tallahassee. It's a beautiful home 13 town, and we're glad that you all were able to come 14 here. We are sorry it's so cold. 15 As you know, we've been working on finding a 16 nutrient criteria standard for all of Florida for a 17 very long time. We appreciate all of your efforts, 18 y'all's personal efforts for working with the 19 Department of Environmental Protection over the 20 years to come to nutrient criteria standards that 21 would work for everyone. 22 In January, I stood up at a conference, a 23 press conference and stated that a 24 one-size-fits-all nutrient criteria for the State 25 of Florida was not going to work and also 58 1 recognized that the algae problems that we have in 2 this State are bad for wildlife and bad for people 3 and bad for property values and we did need to 4 take -- we did need to address that. 5 I want to commend you all for recognizing the 6 differences in the regions in Florida and 7 recognizing the differences in streams and lakes 8 and as well as estuaries. I do hope that you will 9 take the opportunity to really drill down into the 10 science and work with the people in this room, on 11 both sides of the lawsuit who have -- who have 12 Florida's best interests at heart. 13 Cost is a significant issue here in today's 14 economy. Somewhere between the 10 million and the 15 50 billion that have been estimated, there's got to 16 be a reasonable cost that we're all willing to bear 17 to clean up our waters. And again, we appreciate 18 you bringing this proposal to us today, and 19 everyone looks forward to working with you to come 20 to a conclusion that works for everyone. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 23 Speaker 7, and if we could have 8 and 9 come 24 to the chair behind the podium. 25 MR. BORKOWSKI: Good afternoon. My name is 59 1 Winston Borkowski with the law firm of 2 Hopping, Green & Sams, and I'm here today on behalf 3 of CF Industries. 4 And I want to focus primarily on the streams 5 portion of the rule. Now EPA's regulations mandate 6 that the numeric criteria must be based on sound 7 scientific rationale and scientifically defensible 8 methods. 9 For Florida streams, EPA has conceded in the 10 rule that it was unable to establish a sufficient 11 dose relationship linking nutrient concentrations 12 to identifiable biological response variables. We 13 do not see a relationship between paraphyte and 14 biomass, the SCI Chlorophyl a. 15 That was the same conclusion that the good 16 folks of DEP here in Florida came to after ten 17 years of research and 20 million dollars in 18 expenses. To quote an EPA filed document in some 19 of the recent litigation, DEP was on the brink of 20 getting there when it came to streams and they, 21 indeed, were going forward with the process when 22 the consent decree was signed and the paradigm 23 changed. 24 The fact that EPA was forced to rely upon a 25 reference water approach is really an admission 60 1 that at this point in time we don't have the 2 science to establish statewide numeric criteria for 3 flowing waters; the science is just not there. 4 Logic dictates that if DEP, nor EPA could link a 5 relationship between nutrient concentrations and 6 response variables, one cannot simply flip the 7 variables and then look at the SCI, as a response 8 variable, and back calculate into the nutrient 9 concentrations. It just does not make sense; it is 10 not supportable. 11 More importantly, you've heard it from several 12 speakers, when you apply an arbitrary, and I 13 believe it is an arbitrary number, a percentile, 14 taking the 75th, 90th, 80th, whatever, you 15 immediately condemn your reference waters, your 16 pristine waters, the ones that you folks selected 17 as the gold standard to impaired status. 18 I keep hearing that this approach has been 19 peer reviewed. I have spoken to virtually every 20 nutrient expert I could put my hands on who would 21 talk to an attorney to ask that question, and I 22 have not had one tell me that there was any logic 23 behind a methodology that condemns your gold 24 standard waters to failure and restoration of their 25 TMDL program. 61 1 Now after the SPARROW model, and this is a 2 model built, initially, 20 years to look at the 3 entire country. The southeast example that we can 4 find in the literature includes from Mississippi to 5 parts of North Carolina to parts of Florida through 6 Georgia. It is not a model that is so specific 7 that you go into a certain basin and establish with 8 any sort of accuracy the types of numbers that are 9 in the rule. 10 And most importantly, your own regulations 11 require -- and we've heard it time and time again 12 as part of this process, that we've got to protect 13 downstream waters. The regulation in 131 actually 14 says that we have to look at the designated use and 15 criterion in downstream waters. If that is the 16 case, looking at your in-stream protective values, 17 if those numbers are protective -- if they were 18 established properly, they would be protective of 19 downstream waters. You don't need the downstream 20 protective values if you've adhered to your own 21 regulation and made your in-stream protective 22 values protective of downstream waters. 23 So one of two things has got to be true, 24 logically: The in-stream protective values are not 25 protective, or the downstream protective values are 62 1 not needed. And most importantly, the SPARROW 2 model ignores the real world. 3 Using the Tampa Bay estuary program as an 4 example, that nitrogen management consortium group 5 that's been working down in Tampa, of which CF is a 6 member, has worked for years to understand the 7 system and comply with an EPA-approved TMDL with 8 very restrictive loads. Those loads are being met, 9 chlorophyl targets are being met, and sea grasses 10 are coming back in great abundance. 11 Looking at the SPARROW model, you would have 12 to reduce nutrient loads to Tampa Bay by nearly 13 50 percent. More importantly, in my last ten 14 seconds, as the clock is going quickly, if you look 15 at the event mean concentrations in Florida that 16 have been developed by Harvey Harper and others who 17 have been doing this for years, the downstream 18 protective values, for example, for the Tampa Bay 19 area, are about half of what you would expect in an 20 event mean concentration for undisturbed plants. 21 Now with that, and my time up, I will close. 22 Thank you for this opportunity. As a last request, 23 we would like additional time to file comment. I 24 would really recommend we have an additional 60 25 days to file comments to this trule. 63 1 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Borkowski. 2 Speaker Number 8. 3 (NO RESPONSE). 4 MS. KEEHNER: Nine. 5 MR. COX: Hi, I'm John Cox. I'm with the City 6 of Tallahassee Stormwater Management Group. I am 7 here representing underground utilities for the 8 City of Tallahassee, and I'm primarily here to 9 express our concern for the flowing waters 10 standards that you are proposing, but also in terms 11 of the lake protection values which we're still 12 looking at as we speak here. 13 I want to thank you for the opportunity to 14 speak. I'd also like to thank DEP. They've been 15 really great about listening to us and other 16 people. And they've worked long and hard and 17 deserve some well-needed respect. 18 As I said, I work with city stormwater. We 19 see stormwater management as probably, since most 20 of our wastewater is offline and no discharge, as 21 the thing where these standards have the potential 22 to effect us the most. 23 Our stormwater program is progressive; it's 24 proactive. We were the first city in the State to 25 adopt the stormwater utility. Our fee is at the 64 1 top of all of the cities in the State then and now. 2 It's also at the top of all of them in the nation. 3 Okay. So where I'm going with that is you've 4 heard all of these people talk about affordability. 5 If we can't afford it, you're going to have a hard 6 time finding anybody that can. 7 We say this over and over again, but I'm going 8 to say it again. The City shares the goal of 9 preserving water quality with DEP, EPA, and the 10 stakeholders that you've heard up here, like the 11 lady that was just up a few minuets ago. We also, 12 strangely enough, see advantage in numeric nutrient 13 criteria; but I think to realize those advantages, 14 they have to be realistic. 15 This is the reality of our working 16 environment. There is a lot of competition out 17 there for the funds that we have. Improving water 18 quality after the fact is an expensive endeavor. 19 Jim can tell you, we were out a few weeks ago. 20 We've implemented $74 million worth of stormwater 21 projects in Tallahassee. They run about one to 22 $10 million a piece. When I opened your cost 23 spreadsheet the other day right after having a 24 snack, I almost became the first casualty of this 25 rulemaking effort. 65 1 To ensure that our limited funding is 2 effectively applied, you have to use due diligence 3 and realism and goal setting in rulemaking like 4 this. A failure to do so, we found, actually works 5 against water quality; people just won't do 6 anything. 7 Our first major concern with this happens to 8 be, and I've talked about this before, is the total 9 phosphorus requirement for the Panhandle where we 10 would require like an 80-percent, more than an 11 80-percent reduction in our stormwater. 12 The standards for the Panhandle are lower than 13 natural area stormwater runoff statewide. They're 14 two to four times -- our natural areas have two or 15 four times the natural concentration that you're 16 asking us to get to. 17 Forty percent of the reference streams we're 18 told by DEP, and that was confirmed by my staff, 19 would exceed the flowing water standard, and that 20 doesn't make me very optimistic. I think that a 21 hundred percent of our urban area will require 22 retrofitting if we go forward with this. 23 I've been in the stormwater business for more 24 than 30 years and, unfortunately, I can't say that 25 I have a solution as to how we could get there, and 66 1 that concerns me. 2 My second concern is the SSAC process, the 3 moderating provisions. Once you get into this 4 hundred percent thing, you can't get there, that's 5 the only option up here we're offered up here. But 6 SSACs is not an option for the City. We're not in 7 that business of doing the research that it takes 8 to set those things. 9 Our final concern is the dollar and the 10 capacity of the BMPs to meet standards. We've 11 developed cost curves. Those cost curves show that 12 they level off at 70 percent of our developed area 13 treated. The reason that that happens is because 14 beyond that you run out of land. You run out of 15 land, and you just can't get there no matter 16 whether you use advanced stormwater treatment or 17 conventional. 18 We've got -- we've just recently increased our 19 monthly rate. 27 percent provides $3 million. 20 That's one third the total amount of money per year 21 as DEP and EPA have for this whole State, and that 22 will only get us a 12-percent increase in the 23 amount of developed area treated in 30 percent of 24 our waters. And with that, I'll end it and thank 25 you very much. 67 1 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you Mr. Cox. 2 Speaker Number 10, and if Speaker Number 11 3 and Speaker Number 12 could move to the chairs 4 behind the podium, we would appreciate it. 5 MR. JANICKI: At the risk of sounding like an 6 attorney, can I approach the bench? I've got a few 7 handouts for you that you can take a look at while 8 I talk. 9 My name is Tony Janicki, and I'm here to 10 represent the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management 11 Consortium. And I'm sure you're thinking that 12 here's another Tampa Bay person; you've heard a lot 13 of them already. And rest assured, you're going to 14 hear a bunch of them tomorrow. But I think the 15 take-home message for you is, it's clear that these 16 numbers represent the care and concern and respect 17 that our community has for that resource. 18 The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 19 was formed in 1998. It's comprised of a whole 20 bunch of people, including government and 21 regulatory agencies, as well as a number of 22 phosphate companies, agricultural interests, and 23 electric utilities. Voluntarily, they've taken on 24 the responsibility of meeting the nitrogen 25 management goals that have been established for 68 1 Tampa Bay. 2 The strategy is such that we are looking at 3 controlling nitrogen loads as a result of -- and 4 resulting in increases in improvements of water 5 quality and eventually sea grass return. And what 6 we have seen is that this return has occurred over 7 the last 15 to 20 years to quite a great extent. 8 Now there are those that say that, well, 9 you're not at your goal. And we've looked at other 10 estuaries, and we're looking for other estuaries 11 that have lost 30 to 40 percent of their sea 12 grasses and have them coming back. There aren't a 13 lot of good examples of restoration of sea grasses 14 that we're seeing in Tampa Bay in other portions of 15 the United States. 16 And the reason being is that there's been a 17 significant reduction in the loadings to Tampa Bay. 18 As you can see, that the loads have been reduced by 19 a factor of almost three, from more than 8,500 tons 20 a year to approximately 3,000 tons a year, over 21 that time period of 19 -- the late 1970s through 22 the mid 1995s. 23 The response that we see as a result of those 24 reductions in loadings can be seen in chlorophyll. 25 And you can see in a very simple graphic of green 69 1 and red, that the battle days didn't look very good 2 but with those improvements in stormwater treatment 3 and, most importantly, the grizzle fig (phonetics), 4 there has been a reduction in nitrogen loads to 5 Tampa Bay that has resulted in an improvement in 6 water quality as represented by the green. 7 Now you can see there are a couple of red 8 years that occurred, now in these years where the 9 lows were higher than what we expect them to be, or 10 we'd like them to be. The important take-home 11 message here is Tampa Bay can respond favorably 12 once that load is reduced. It has the capability 13 of bouncing back, if you will, from those reduced 14 water quality conditions as a function of the 15 larger loads. 16 We have taken into account the fact that EPA 17 has invited feedback, and we are going to take 18 advantage of that, if you will, certainly over the 19 next month and hopefully into the future. We have 20 some specific concerns about the relationship 21 between the loading estimates that we've 22 established and those that are being used by EPA. 23 And I think probably the most important 24 thing -- and I took great interest in looking at 25 the pictures that you showed. You've got to admit 70 1 that's a biased view of -- I would have brought our 2 photo album of some of the nicer pictures that you 3 can see of waters in the State of Florida. 4 There are some -- all waters aren't the same, 5 obviously. We have some very, very positive and 6 improved conditions that have occurred in many 7 water bodies in the State. 8 The premise that you have in establishing the 9 downstream protective values is that all of the 10 estuaries in Florida are either at or above their 11 similar capacities. We have a problem with that, 12 especially in Tampa Bay, and you'll also see in 13 Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor that that's not 14 necessarily true; that there is not a proven 15 indication that a reduction load is necessary to 16 maintain the improvement and the restoration of sea 17 grasses in each of these areas. 18 You know, lastly, we feel that we've done what 19 you have tried to do. 14 years ago we established 20 loading estimates, and these are those values that 21 we're proposing to you to be used as numeric 22 nutrient criteria. So our request is that you 23 acknowledge that the existing TN and TP loads to 24 Tampa Bay is downstream protective loads in the 25 final Florida Lakes and Florida Flowing Waters 71 1 Rule. Thank you. 2 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Janicki. 3 Speaker Number 11. 4 (NO RESPONSE). 5 MS. KEEHNER: Twelve, okay. 6 DOCTOR BLANCHER: My name is Doctor Eldon C. 7 Blancher, II, of Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration. 8 And I am an environmental scientist who has spent 9 the larger part of my last 30 years' professional 10 life working on nutrient issues throughout Florida. 11 I've developed nutrient budgets on numerous Florida 12 systems, including Tampa Bay, Lake Okechoobee, and 13 Lake Conway, among others. And I've developed and 14 applied both empirical and mechanistic models for 15 many Florida systems. I have served as an expert 16 witness in Florida proceedings regarding nutrients 17 and their biological impacts. 18 I'm here on behalf of CF Industries, which has 19 asked that I review the scientific merits of EPA's 20 proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. I 21 have done so and found it to be fundamentally 22 flawed. 23 No one denies that there are eutrophication 24 problems within all states, but EPA has erroneously 25 determined that the State of Florida's efforts at 72 1 curbing problems from nutrients has been 2 insufficient to protect applicable designated uses. 3 In fact, substantial progress has been made 4 by -- and the action by EPA proposes by 5 promulgating nutrient numeric criteria and 6 downstream protective values based on flawed 7 science will delay the State's ongoing actions by 8 diverting valuable economic and manpower resources 9 towards nonexistent nutrient problems in many 10 systems where it exists today. 11 The State of Florida has developed a 12 sophisticated regulatory process that surpasses all 13 states in terms of nutrient monitoring and controls 14 and also developed robust scientifically based 15 measures to ensure the State's biological resources 16 remain healthy. In fact, Florida's methods have 17 been hailed by the National Academy of Sciences and 18 held up as a model to other states and regulatory 19 agencies. 20 EPA fails to consider the high productivity 21 and high turnover rates of nutrients in many of 22 Florida's tropical physiographic settings, and the 23 uniqueness of Florida water resources is 24 underscored by its intrinsic variability, including 25 systems adapted to natural high levels of 73 1 nutrients. The State has made many efforts and 2 extensive efforts for many years, based on the best 3 scientific approaches and comprehensive nutrient 4 stressor data sets and has concluded for some 5 systems, i.e. streams, that stressor response 6 relationships either do not work or are not 7 quantifiable and only explain less than ten percent 8 of the variance within the State's database. But 9 EPA ignores the scientific evidence that no simple 10 relationship that -- that no simple relationship 11 exists between nutrients in response to many 12 Florida systems, especially streams. 13 In regards to streams, the failure of simple 14 empirical modeling to describe stressor response 15 relationships is well known and expected. EPA's 16 own nutrient guidance recognizes this and admits 17 that more complex models are necessary to describe 18 the phenomena. Yet EPA ignores the scientific 19 evidence and still continues to try and force fit a 20 simple empirical relationship to explain complex 21 ecological processes. 22 EPA has prepared more complex mechanistic 23 models such as EPA's Aquatox Model for Florida 24 systems, and it would be especially beneficial for 25 EPA to share those results to see how that 74 1 methodology performed, especially in regard to 2 stream response to nutrients. 3 Estuaries are highly diverse physiographic 4 units, and the application of a uniform criteria 5 derived from a single model for all systems in 6 Florida is unscientific and unsupportable. The 7 high secondary productivity in some estuaries not 8 reflected in its planktonic productivity, i.e., 9 high Chlorophyl a is driven by high nutrient load, 10 particularly the nutrient content of the trial 11 nitrogen and phosphorous from Florida's extensive 12 wetlands. The assumption that this high nutrient 13 load is necessarily bad is a misguided regulatory 14 construct. 15 Regarding the overall application of the USGS 16 SPARROW model, we note that the calculated nutrient 17 loads from the SPARROW model are not compared to 18 any response variable directly to see how the 19 response variable relates to the loads. This 20 deficiency does not allow a key comparison if the 21 downstream protective values are to be used for 22 regulatory purposes. In other words, EPA has 23 abandoned the stressor response relationship for 24 this application. 25 Regarding the application of the USGS SPARROW 75 1 model used by EPA, the State of Florida in comments 2 made to EPA and USGS, has pointed out numerous 3 technical deficiencies with the SPARROW model as 4 applied to Florida, and these include inappropriate 5 scale, reservoirs inappropriately treated as stream 6 reaches. Incorrect transport times are predicted 7 by the model, and many other areas exist in the 8 current SPARROW implementation. 9 I agree with FDEP in urging that if this model 10 is to be for deriving loads, it must be rescaled to 11 be a suitable application for Florida watersheds. 12 It's using the wrong tool for the wrong job, 13 similar to using a monkey wrench to fix a watch. 14 We note that the USGS SPARROW model which 15 was -- that USGS has even pointed out the 16 application of SPARROW was to be developed to look 17 at all southeastern systems, and it is not 18 appropriate to be used for Florida stream 19 comparisons. 20 In our opinion, EPA's failure to include such 21 factors renders the currently proposed DPV 22 approach, at best, incomplete and, at worst, 23 erroneous science and is unsuitable for regulatory 24 purposes. We intend to develop more extensive 25 written comments addressing these issues and others 76 1 and will submit them prior to the end of the 2 comment period. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Doctor Blancher. 5 Speaker 13. 6 MR. DURBIN: Good afternoon. I'm Doug Durbin 7 at 3905 Crescent Park Drive in Riverview, Florida. 8 I'm a technical director with ENTRIX, and I've got 9 17 years of direct experience with Florida lakes, 10 streams, and estuaries as well as a doctorate in 11 limnology from Clemson University. 12 I've done a lot of work in the water bodies of 13 Florida, mostly focused on nutrient issues and also 14 on biological responses, primarily invertebrates 15 and algae. My dissertation work focused on algal 16 ecosystems. 17 I'm also a member of the Technical Advisory 18 Committee to the Florida DEP as part of this 19 ongoing process to develop numeric nutrient 20 criteria, and have watched it through its infancy 21 through today. I appreciate the time and the 22 effort that EPA has put into developing proposed 23 criteria for the State of Florida, but based on my 24 professional experience and my tenure as a TAC 25 member to DEP and a thorough review of the proposed 77 1 nutrient criteria from EPA as well as the 2 underlying technical support documents, I have very 3 serious concerns. 4 Primarily, I see that there is no reliable 5 linkage shown between the nutrient concentrations 6 and any biological response in streams with the 7 possible exception of some of the nitrate criteria 8 as it applies to spring boils and spring runs. 9 As a TAC member, I watched for years as DEP 10 struggled with a mountain of data to try to come up 11 with a connection, a relationship between nutrient 12 levels and a biological response. I've even worked 13 with my own staff with an entirely different 14 database that we've collected through the years to 15 try to come up with a response that links the two, 16 and it's not there. 17 The EPA guidance documents and the EPA staff 18 representation in the TAC process always emphasized 19 the need for a causal variable and a response 20 variable, each of which was to have established 21 nutrient criteria or numeric criteria. EPA didn't 22 follow its own recommendations. 23 And, in fact, I think the very telling 24 statement in the preamble document is, quote, there 25 are currently no available approaches to interpret 78 1 these data to infer scientifically supported 2 thresholds for these nutrient specific response 3 variables in Florida streams. And it would seem 4 like that a following comment would be; therefore, 5 we're unable to do it, but we know that's not what 6 happened. 7 The derivation of the in-stream protection 8 values that are based on nutrient regimes that are 9 from streams that exceeded a particular biological 10 index value doesn't mean anything unless there's a 11 relationship between that biological index and the 12 nutrient levels. Without those relationships, it's 13 impossible for the proposed in-stream protection 14 values to be equated with the protection of 15 designated uses. 16 The proposed nutrient criteria for lakes would 17 effectively prevent any lake from being eutrophic. 18 And on its face, that sounds like it should be a 19 good thing, but we have to remember from a 20 limnological perspective, the eutrophication 21 process is something natural. It's in any limno 22 textbook. In addition, many Florida lakes can be 23 shown through paleoecology or other methods to be 24 naturally eutrophic independent of any 25 anthropogenic inputs. 79 1 It's always noteworthy to point out that many 2 of the highly productive lakes in Florida are world 3 renowned for their sport fishing and commercial 4 fishing which you might equate with an important 5 designated human use. 6 I also think it's inappropriate to use the 7 same nutrient criteria levels for lakes throughout 8 the State because there has been important work 9 done on the geologic regions of the State including 10 looking at nutrient levels that are associated with 11 that geology, and that should be taken into account 12 more than it has in the current proposal. 13 As we've heard several times today, I would 14 agree that the SPARROW model, at least in its 15 current form, is not adequate to derive these 16 downstream protection values. It lacks sufficient 17 spatial and temporal resolution. Using simply a 18 50 percent value of the nonatmospheric fraction as 19 the target loading is completely arbitrary, which 20 again means that the downstream protection values 21 that are trying to protect estuaries are not 22 logically linked to the protection of a designated 23 use. 24 Throughout my career, I've dealt with numeric 25 water quality standards of various types and found 80 1 them to be generally defensible and reasonable for 2 our surface water protection, and I believe 3 defensive nutrient criteria can be developed for 4 Florida; but many of EPA's proposed values are not 5 linked to designated uses and are at least 6 arbitrary, if not dramatically and needlessly 7 overprotective. 8 Instead, I think these criteria will simply 9 dilute our precious water resource management 10 funding and manpower so that slower progress is 11 actually made on some of the systems we saw photos 12 of and we'll put more energy into systems that are 13 not needing any of our restoration efforts. So in 14 summary, I believe that more time and effort is 15 absolutely essential to doing this correctly. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Doctor Durbin. 18 Our next speaker is Speaker Number 14. 19 MR. ASCHAUER: Good afternoon. My name is 20 Frederick Aschauer. I'm with the law firm of 21 Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley. I'm here on behalf of 22 the Clay County Utility Authority. With me today, 23 in fact following me, will be David Bolam, who is 24 the chief engineer of the Clay County Utility 25 Authority. 81 1 The Clay County Utility Authority shares many 2 of the concerns that have been expressed to you all 3 today. We will address those in writing before the 4 comment period expires. 5 Indeed, because we are early in the comment 6 period and because the rule was formally 7 promulgated in the federal register late in 8 January, we may even amend the comments we make 9 today, so we reserve the right to do so. 10 What I'd like to talk to you about first is a 11 compliance schedule. The EPA has in its preamble 12 indicated that it would like to see or offers as an 13 alternative a water quality restoration -- or 14 restoration water quality standard. I submit to 15 you that you underestimate the Florida APA and the 16 time it will take to institute restoration water 17 quality standards. Indeed, any restoration water 18 quality standard would undoubtedly be challenged by 19 many interests, some of whom are represented in 20 this room. 21 That would have to go through a process 22 whereby an administrative law judge -- if a Florida 23 agency such as DEP seeks it, an administrative law 24 judge would have a hearing on it, conduct it. 25 There would be a recommended order -- proposed 82 1 recommended orders actually submitted by the 2 parties, recommended order, final order. It's a 3 lengthy process. 4 So the first thing that the Clay County 5 Utility Authority would ask the EPA to consider is 6 a grace period, allowing the state to attempt to 7 adopt water quality -- restoration water quality 8 standards, if that's the State's desire. So we'd 9 ask that you consider a grace period as part of the 10 rule. 11 We'd also ask that you expressly within the 12 rule allow the NPDES permit writers to build in 13 compliance schedules for regulated dischargers. 14 Right now there is a cursory -- or there is 15 language in the preamble that discusses a 16 compliance schedule. I think when you compare it 17 to say something you all did with the Beach Act, 18 it's cursory in nature. I think that because EPA, 19 in this instance would be promulgating the 20 standard, it would be appropriate for the EPA to 21 build into the rule a compliance schedule. 22 So those are my comments. Again, 23 Mr. David Bolam will follow me. We will be 24 following up with written comments, and we do thank 25 you for coming and offering us the opportunity to 83 1 speak today. 2 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Aschauer. 3 Mr. Bolam. 4 MR. BOLAM: Thank you. Again, my name is 5 David Bolam, and I'm the chief engineer for the Clay 6 County Utility Authority. The Clay County Utility 7 Authority was an active participant and a 8 stakeholder in the lower St. Johns River TMDL 9 process. It was a lengthy process. It lasted 10 about seven years. And most of the stakeholders in 11 that process felt that the final TMDL was 12 protective of the river. 13 What I'm here today is to ask that EPA 14 consider grandfathering this TMDL as well as the 15 many others that the State has into its proposed 16 numeric nutrient criteria. The site-specific 17 targets that were established by DEP are more 18 scientifically based than arbitrary standards, and 19 we would like to see the TMDLs exempted from the 20 NNC rule. 21 However, if you can't find it in your heart to 22 do that, we would like to point out that EPA noted 23 in the preamble to this rulemaking the exceptional 24 job Florida did in accumulating very good 25 scientific data in establishing the TMDLs and, in 84 1 fact, noted the number of TMDLs that Florida has 2 developed. 3 And, as part of the rule, we would ask that 4 you acknowledge the work that Florida has done as 5 adequate already to develop the site-specific 6 alternative criteria. We'd like to see, as part of 7 the rulemaking, a mechanism to be put into the 8 rule, to use the target criteria that were used to 9 develop the TMDLs by Florida to calculate TMDL as 10 SSAC. 11 In the future, if the proposed standards are 12 adopted, it appears to us that the only new TMDLs 13 EPA will be able to approve are ones that 14 demonstrate compliance with the new standards, 15 unless an SSAC is approved. 16 Again, EPA should recognize the science the 17 State used to develop TMDL is site specific and 18 therefore more accurate than the standards and 19 allow EPA and Florida to continue to adopt TMDLs 20 without the need for an additional SSAC 21 determination. They should go hand in hand. 22 And, lastly, I'd like to ask that an exemption 23 be provided for Apricot Act discharges to surface 24 waters from wastewater treatment facilities. If 25 you're not familiar with the Apricot Act, it's an 85 1 act in the Florida statute that allows -- it was 2 enacted to promote the use of reclaimed water to 3 conserve our potable water supplies, and it allows 4 the wastewater facility to discharge up to 5 30 percent of its reuse capacity to surface waters 6 as long as the discharge meets AWT standards. 7 Without this exemption, many facilities that 8 may or are contemplating implementing reclaimed 9 water systems will be compelled first to provide 10 the costly treatment to achieve the numeric 11 nutrient criteria standard; and therefore, there 12 will be less incentive and certainly less money at 13 that time to fund a reuse system. 14 We, in fact, meet the Apricot Act for three of 15 our facilities, and we've spent nearly $80 million 16 on our reuse system, and we're looking at having to 17 spend close to $123 million to achieve compliance 18 with this rule. We don't think that's a good use 19 of the public's funds. Thank you very much. 20 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Bolam. 21 I believe that we're at speaker Number 16. If 22 17 and 18 can move to the chair behind the podium, 23 it would be appreciated. 24 MR. MAY: My name is Fred May. I'm a fifth 25 generation farmer and nurseryman here in North 86 1 Florida. 2 In our operation, we employ approximately 150 3 people during our peak season. We make every 4 effort to be good stewards of the environment that 5 God has blessed us with. We capture 95 percent of 6 our runoff. We regularly take soil samples, 7 foliage samples, and water samples. We're 8 continuously tweaking our production decisions as a 9 result of these tests. 10 If the standards you are suggesting are 11 implemented, we will not be able to afford the 12 equipment necessary to meet them. We can't pass 13 the expenses on to our customers. We don't have 14 the taxpayers to fall back on; it's just us. We 15 won't have a choice; we'll have to close down. 16 These proposals could very well put 17 agriculture out of business in the State of 18 Florida. I heard somebody say earlier, tourism is 19 the Number 1 economic engine in this state. That's 20 true. Agriculture is Number two. 21 Not only that, agriculture is the most stable. 22 When 911 hit, tourism all but stopped in Florida, 23 but ag kept on going. It held Florida up. Y'all 24 could close down. 25 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. May. 87 1 Speaker Number 17. 2 MS. LOWERY: Good afternoon. I'm Terry 3 Lowery. I'm a vice president with the engineering 4 firm of Jones Edmunds & Associates, and I'm also 5 the chair of the Florida Chamber's Environmental 6 Committee. And the thing about being Number 17 is 7 most of the things that are really critical items 8 have already been said. 9 So instead of reading what I wrote, what I 10 want to do is just to kind of let's talk about what 11 this feels like. It's been stated several times, 12 and I think that it's an undeniable fact that in 13 the State of Florida we have more water quality 14 data than anyone else in the United States by far. 15 And so what it feels like is the story that my 16 husband told me. 17 He said he was on a football team when he was 18 in high school, and he showed up one Saturday for a 19 practice and only about half the team showed up. 20 And the coach got so mad that he made the folks 21 that showed up run wind sprints the entire 22 practice. 23 And this is what it feels like to the 24 businesses, to the local governments, and as a 25 citizen, you know, I heard he was a fifth 88 1 generation. I'm a fifth generation Floridian, and 2 I'd like to see my children have clean water here 3 in the State, so I'm not opposed to a numeric 4 nutrient criteria. But what I'd like to see is us 5 working together toward the same goal, just not 6 things imposed on us as a state, as a business, as 7 a community. 8 So we're looking for the opportunity to get 9 some feedback that there are going to be timelines, 10 that there are going to be things that we can do to 11 work together; that we're not -- that you're just 12 not going to make us run wind sprints. Because I 13 agree with the gentleman ahead of me, it will put 14 the State of Florida out of business in many ways. 15 And I do have those concerns for my children who I 16 would like to see stay here in the State of 17 Florida. 18 I do appreciate your time and concerns for the 19 State of Florida and hope that you will take into 20 serious consideration the things that have been 21 said here today. 22 Thank you. 23 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Lowery. 24 Speaker Number 18. 25 MR. CHARLES: My name is James Charles. I'm 89 1 an attorney with the law firm of Lewis, Longman & 2 Walker. 3 I have the pleasure of being here today to 4 speak on behalf of the Florida Association of 5 Special Districts. Considering that we will be 6 providing written comments, I will keep my oral 7 comments brief. 8 Our association has represented the interest 9 of independent and dependent special districts in 10 Florida since 1976. Special districts are limited 11 purpose, governmental units that provide services 12 that are traditionally provided by your local 13 governments. Our membership includes water control 14 and improvement districts who have the primary 15 purpose, if not the sole purpose, of protecting the 16 public welfare and safety through flood control. 17 They're not water treatment districts; they're 18 flood control districts. There are approximately 19 94 such districts in the State of Florida, and they 20 dominate the landscape of South Florida. 21 Our association cannot support the proposed 22 criteria that was published in the January Federal 23 Register. We have several concerns with the 24 methodology that is being employed or being 25 proposed. We believe it's more of a product of 90 1 complying with time frames, unreasonable time 2 frames that were set forth in a consent decree and 3 not on developing sound science. 4 We're particularly concerned with the approach 5 being employed for south Florida canals. It's our 6 understanding that the reference sites approach, 7 the canals that were chosen in the approach, were 8 primarily fed by groundwater and not by surface 9 water flow. 10 The majority of the canals in South Florida 11 are fed by surface water, and we believe it's more 12 appropriate to choose canals that are fed by 13 surface water. It would be representative of the 14 numbers that you would expect to see for artificial 15 canals. 16 We're also concerned that the canals that were 17 selected in this reference base approach for South 18 Florida canals are those canals that were 19 protective of class III designated uses. As you're 20 well aware of, the State of Florida has the 21 class III -- it's the catchall classification that 22 includes natural systems and artificial systems. 23 The State of Florida's Department of 24 Environmental Protection has recently recognized 25 and acknowledged that comparing canals to natural 91 1 systems is not a reasonable approach, and they're 2 in the process of creating a subclass for 3 artificial canals. We believe that the EPA should 4 also recognize it's unreasonable to compare canals 5 to natural systems, and by selecting canals that 6 are protective of class III designated uses is 7 basically comparing canals to natural systems, and 8 we would recommend that you select more appropriate 9 canals that are more representative of the limited 10 designated uses as DEP is doing. 11 Finally, we're extremely concerned over the 12 potential -- the costs that will be incurred to 13 implement these rules. We believe the costs will 14 be significant and will be unreasonable. 15 To add context to that statement, I'd like to 16 give you an example of Lake Worth Drainage 17 District. Lake Worth Drainage District is one of 18 our members. It's an urban water control district 19 in Palm Beach County. 20 In 2003, they conducted an assessment of what 21 the estimated costs would be to provide stormwater 22 treatment in connection with NPDES permitting. The 23 estimated costs were approximately $848 million. 24 And that's a conservative estimate because it's 25 based on 2003 dollars, and it was also based on 92 1 complying with discharge standards that are much 2 less restrictive than what you're proposing under 3 these numeric criteria. 4 Now how does that translate to the public and 5 the impact on the public? The same water control 6 district performed an assessment of what a project 7 that cost $420 million, how that would translate to 8 increase assessments to the public that they serve. 9 The average assessment was expected to increase to 10 477 percent, and that's for a project that's half 11 the estimated cost of what is being proposed. 12 Simply stated, it will cripple -- the proposed 13 criteria, the proposed rules, and the proposed 14 approach that you're taking will cripple our 15 members from performing the primary function of 16 flood control by requiring resources be diverted to 17 water treatment. And as I stated before, our 18 members are primarily flood control districts and 19 are not water treatment districts, and that's based 20 on statutory authority. 21 Thank you for your time. We hope you consider 22 our comments, both oral and written. 23 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Charles. 24 Speaker Number 19 has already spoken, so we're 25 going to move to Speaker Number 20. And if 93 1 Speakers 21 and 22 could move to the chairs behind 2 the podium, it would be appreciated. 3 MS. FERGUSON: Thank you. My name is Diana 4 Ferguson. I'm the legislative staff attorney for 5 the Florida Association of Counties. And first I 6 just want to thank the Environmental Protection 7 Agency for allowing us the opportunity to provide 8 you with our comments today on the proposed rule. 9 I also want to make it clear that the Florida 10 Association of Counties supports the development of 11 science-based numeric nutrient criteria. We don't 12 dispute the need for the criteria, but we are 13 rather skeptical that they can be developed in such 14 a short time frame in a scientific way and in a way 15 that properly balances the economic impact with 16 environmental protection. 17 We're particularly concerned that 80 percent 18 of DEP's reference waters would not meet downstream 19 protection values under this proposed rule. Some 20 of these waters are in fully protected and publicly 21 owned lands. And this seems to be a pretty clear 22 indicator that something is wrong with the 23 methodology that's being used to derive the 24 numbers. 25 It's critical that EPA gets the numbers right; 94 1 otherwise, local governments are going to be 2 wasting taxpayer dollars on projects that won't 3 achieve any environmental benefit. And with 4 counties' limited resources, we want to ensure that 5 the projects they undertake achieve the most 6 environmental benefit possible. 7 Getting the numbers wrong can also result in 8 environmental damage, which is something that no 9 one wants. You're asking Florida's counties, and 10 thus our taxpayers, to shoulder a significant 11 economic burden during a very difficult time. 12 Many, many counties are laying off employees. 13 They're cutting salaries, they're instituting 14 furloughs. I was just speaking with Commissioner 15 Janazzo from Okaloosa County out in the hallway a 16 minute ago, and he told me that the average water 17 bill in Okaloosa County is anticipated to go from 18 $60 to $230 over the next ten years as a result of 19 this proposed rule if it were to proceed as it is 20 today. 21 That's very dramatic. That's quadrupled. 22 We're receiving reports from some counties that 23 some of the proposed criteria are simply 24 unattainable, and there's no amount of money they 25 could spend to achieve compliance; and that's a 95 1 very real problem that needs to be addressed. 2 Now while there will be a process for 3 site-specific criteria, this alone is not a silver 4 bullet. Receiving approval for a site-specific 5 criterion is a time consuming and expensive 6 process. It might or might not ultimately succeed 7 in any given case, so it would be much better to 8 invest the time and the effort into criteria that 9 are more accurate so there is less need to deviate 10 from them. They should be the exception rather 11 than the rule. 12 Each application for an alternative criterion 13 also brings with it the risk of litigation. And 14 each time this happens, more money is wasted on 15 litigation and less money is spent on making actual 16 water quality improvements. So for all of these 17 reasons, the Florida Association of Counties urges 18 you to proceed in a deliberative fashion in order 19 to find a solution that makes sense both 20 economically and for the environment. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Ferguson. 23 We're going to take two more speakers, 21 and 24 22, and then we'll take a 15-minute break. 25 Speaker 21. 96 1 MR. SPITZER: I'm Kurt Spitzer with the 2 Florida Stormwater Association, and I guess I sort 3 of wish that I wasn't here because, you know, 4 opposing this rule makes it seem as though we don't 5 care about improving water quality, and that's 6 really not the case. I mean we've been about water 7 quality improvements for 15 or 20 years now. 8 But we think that it needs to be done 9 scientifically right with robust science and taking 10 into consideration a wide variety of factors, one 11 of which I think is that you need to remember that 12 Florida has, in my view, the best stormwater, 13 surface water quality improvement programs 14 certainly in the southeast, probably in the 15 country. 16 We've had stormwater runoff rules for 25 or 17 30 years. We have a science-based listing process 18 to determine impairment of a water body. We have a 19 science-based process to develop TMDLs and 20 implement remediation measures. Most of these 21 waters you see over here now have a TMDL that has 22 been adopted on them. 23 We have more stormwater utilities in Florida 24 than in any other states. Local governments, 25 cities, counties, and certain districts spend 97 1 upwards of a billion dollars a year on flood 2 control and water quality improvements in Florida. 3 That's a lot of money. 4 You know we balance priorities every day in 5 local governments, certainly every budget cycle: 6 Police, transportation, social services; but our 7 estimate already is that the TMDL program in 8 Florida, before the development of these criteria, 9 has around a $75-billion price tag in terms of 10 capital costs for stormwater only. Adding these 11 new levels will significantly increase that cost. 12 And so these rules and the implementation 13 thereof need to be realistic, and they need to be 14 attainable. And they need to be able to be 15 demonstrated that they have a real benefit to a 16 particular ecosystem and that they're necessary. 17 Let me give you a couple of examples. 18 Sarasota County, Florida, I believe the first 19 MS4 within the southeast, they volunteered to be 20 the first MS4 because they believe in water quality 21 improvements. They have a very robust stormwater 22 utility. Their target for the Sarasota Bay is to 23 restore sea grass on the bottom to 1950 levels. 24 Well, they've hit that now just this past 25 year. Sea grasses have been restored to the levels 98 1 that existed in 1950, yet your new rules would 2 require a 70-percent reduction in nutrients going 3 into the Bay. And some would have to say: Why? I 4 mean what's the objective of that? 5 Seminole County, the Econ River, an 6 outstanding Florida water, has been the beneficiary 7 of about ten years of special consideration by the 8 State of Florida as a DEP reference stream. It's 9 impaired under these rules. And if that water body 10 is impaired, there must be every water body in 11 Seminole County that will be impaired by these 12 regulations. 13 One comment on science, very briefly, and 14 we'll follow with some written comments to you. 15 Many parts of the rules that we have suggestions 16 and concerns with, but primarily the use of the 17 SPARROW model is a main concern. And even the 18 scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey have 19 expressed concerns to DEP over the use of that 20 model in Florida. It's designed for a large, and 21 when I say large, I mean very large watersheds, not 22 for the State of Florida. 23 You know, most of these criteria come to be 24 unattainable, and if 80 percent of the DEP 25 reference streams will not meet these criteria, I 99 1 fear that it creates this sense of hopelessness 2 with this process. And I think it would result in 3 more litigation. I think it will result in less 4 targeted protections, and I think it will result in 5 a much poorer integration of the outstanding 6 program that we have in Florida for water quality 7 improvement with region four and with EPA. And I 8 think that works against everybody's objectives. 9 Thank you. 10 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Spitzer. The 11 final speaker before our break, Speaker Number 22. 12 MR. RICHARDSON: Good afternoon. I'm David 13 Richardson. I'm with Gainesville Regional 14 Utilities. I'm an Assistant General Manager. 15 Gainesville Regional Utilities is a municipal 16 utility that provides electric, water, wastewater, 17 natural gas, and telecommunications. I'm 18 responsible for the water and wastewater part of 19 the organization. 20 We serve a population of about 180 thousand 21 people. As a community organization, we absolutely 22 are supportive of environmental protection. We 23 want to make sure that that's done in a 24 cost-effective manner, and that's really what I'm 25 going to be speaking about today. 100 1 We have two water reclamation facilities. One 2 is our Main Street Water Reclamation Facility. It 3 discharges to a stream, Sweet Water Branch, which 4 flows into Alachua Sink and recharges the Floridan 5 aquifer. 6 We have long been involved in the TMDL 7 process, establishing a TMDL for Alachua Sink and 8 going through the BMAP process to make sure that 9 we're identifying cost-effective means for 10 achieving the proper level of treatment, to make 11 sure that there is no impairment of the receiving 12 water bodies. 13 After extensive data collection and modeling, 14 stakeholders, including Gainesville Regional 15 Utilities and DEP, of course, arrived at a model to 16 predict the trophic state index in Alachua Sink. 17 What we found was Alachua Sink is nitrogen 18 limited. Some of the streams coming into the sink 19 cut through phosphatic soils, so there is 20 phosphorous -- a high background concentration of 21 phosphorous. The TMDL process identified then the 22 limiting nutrient to be nitrogen, and that is the 23 nutrient of concern. 24 So the TMDL is oriented toward nitrogen, 25 production of total nitrogen. There are many 101 1 sources of total nitrogen in the basin, many from 2 natural systems, but a few point sources. We're 3 one, and we proposed a project to reduce the total 4 nitrogen. And that will be reduced primarily by 5 constructing a wetland that would then rehydrate a 6 large portion of Payne's Prairie that has been 7 dyked and drained over time. 8 So we'll be able to meet our TMDL requirements 9 for total nitrogen reductions through this project 10 as part of the NPDES permit that, of course, we're 11 under right now and are obligated to proceed with 12 the projects that have been identified in the BMAP. 13 What we found through the process is that the 14 nutrient levels, determined to be appropriate for 15 Alachua Sink, were actually background levels for 16 Alachua Sink; and they are above the proposed 17 numeric criteria. So the numeric criteria are 18 above background levels for the sink. The cost 19 that it will cost us to construct the treatment 20 wetland and meet the TMDL is approximately 21 $20 million. 22 Now we're the big driver in that. We're 23 paying the bulk of that. But also included in that 24 is other parts of the City of Gainesville, the 25 stormwater utility, as well as the Florida 102 1 Department of Transportation. And so this project 2 really is a project that will meet a number of 3 needs for our communities. 4 If we were not to do that, our alternative to 5 meet the numeric criteria would be to construct 6 biological nutrient removal, microfiltration and 7 reverse osmosis at a cost of about $85 million. So 8 the difference is between 20 and $85 million. 9 And if we had to do that to meet the numeric 10 criteria, there's no benefit to us to doing the 11 rest of the project. We would do that as opposed 12 to doing the sheet-flow restoration project. And 13 I'll describe some of the other benefits. 14 What we found through this process, this 15 stakeholder process, and I think exactly what the 16 TMDL is designed to do is park managers needed more 17 water for the prairie. Historically the water flow 18 to the prairie has been reduced. Great. We have 19 water. As long as it's the right quality, it can 20 be put to a cost-effective and environmentally 21 beneficial use. 22 So they're very interested in high quality 23 water. They're going to use it to rehydrate about 24 1300 acres of Payne's Prairie, as I indicated. 25 So, unfortunately, the numeric criteria, as 103 1 it's been proposed, undermines the efficient use of 2 water resources on the prairie because, if we have 3 to meet it some other way, we will not be doing 4 this project. 5 And, unfortunately, we're all sitting in a box 6 right now in that the TMDL is part of the NPDES 7 permit. We've got to proceed with this project. 8 We are spending millions of dollars on a project 9 right now we know will not meet the numeric 10 criteria. 11 We request a number of things of EPA. One is 12 that you recognize the existing nutrient TMDLs and 13 incorporate them directly into the proposed rule. 14 Secondly is that you ensure any new numeric 15 nutrient standards are scientifically based, 16 water-body specific standards that account for the 17 parameters that drive the biological response 18 indicators. 19 Thirdly, please work with DEP to develop a 20 process for establishing site-specific alternative 21 criteria to address specific water bodies. 22 Fourthly, you'll hear comments later from 23 David Chiles of Hopping, Green. He's representing 24 the Florida Water Environmental Association Utility 25 Council. We are a member of that Council. We 104 1 support those comments. 2 Thank you very much for receiving our 3 comments. 4 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Richardson. 5 We're now going to take a 15-minute break which 6 will bring us back at 25 after three. 7 (BRIEF RECESS). 8 MS. KEEHNER: I'd like to invite up to the 9 podium Speaker 23. 10 MR. STEINBRECHER. My name is Paul 11 Steinbrecher. I'm the Director of Permitting and 12 Regulatory Conformance for JEA in Jacksonville, 13 Florida. We're the eighth largest municipal 14 utility in the United States. We serve the 15 residents in Duval County and surrounding 16 metropolitan area with water, sewer, and electric 17 service. 18 My comments today to you are really focused on 19 Florida's existing numeric nutrient criteria 20 standards, the solutions that are already underway 21 to each of the pictures that were shown earlier 22 today. As you know, there was a federal consent 23 decree in 1999 that resulted in the establishment 24 of Florida's TMDL program. 25 Under that consent decree, several dozen TMDLs 105 1 for nutrients have been developed for Florida's 2 waters, including nutrient TMDLs applicable to the 3 lower St. Johns River, which flows through my 4 community. These nutrient TMDLs have water body 5 specific numeric end points right now. And these 6 nutrient TMDLs have been approved by EPA already, 7 very specifically approved as restoring and 8 protecting Florida's waters from nutrient 9 impairment. Moreover, under Florida's progressive 10 TMDL legislation, these nutrient TMDLs are being 11 implemented in a manner that goes well beyond what 12 is required by the Federal Clean Water Act. 13 I am pleased to report to you that wastewater 14 treatment facilities are very close, within ten 15 percent, of meeting their allocations on the TMDL 16 for both total phosphorus and total nitrogen in the 17 fresh water section of the St. Johns. 18 With respect to meeting the marine TMDL 19 allocation for total nitrogen, we are over halfway 20 there. There have been total nitrogen reductions 21 of over 500,000 kilograms per year. This TMDL was 22 adopted in 2007. 23 There are additional nutrient reduction 24 projects being implemented by the wastewater 25 treatment facilities and additional projects about 106 1 to be implemented to meet these EPA approved 2 nutrient allocations. In total, point sources have 3 committed to and have about $500 million in 4 projects underway right now that are expected to 5 address the periodic nutrient impairment over the 6 lower St. Johns. 7 EPA's proposed regulations appear to signal 8 the end of this highly effective nitrogen loading 9 reduction process in Florida. EPA's new approach 10 appears to ignore reliance on water body specific 11 biological indicators as currently required under 12 Florida's existing TMDL program. 13 If EPA's proposed numeric criteria go into 14 effect, planned water quality improvements projects 15 on the book right now will need to be suspended 16 immediately, perhaps for several years, as the 17 regulated community considers how it possibly can 18 meet EPA's new less flexible standards. 19 Even if site-specific alternative criteria are 20 available to get relief from EPA's new numeric 21 criteria, the new pollutant loading projects will 22 need to be suspended while the existing 23 EPA-approved TMDLs are resubmitted for EPA's 24 re-approval, this time as site-specific alternative 25 criteria. This unfortunately will delay the 107 1 imminent restoration of the water bodies. Also, 2 there is no guarantee that EPA will grant this 3 action. 4 Please keep in mind that many MS4s and other 5 facilities along the lower St. Johns also have made 6 great strides in meeting their nutrient reduction 7 allocations, and they have plans for additional 8 projects as well. These projects, too, will be put 9 in limbo by EPA's proposed rules. 10 The bottom line is this: EPA's proposed rules 11 will thwart historic progress in reducing nutrient 12 loading to lower St. Johns. This is bad 13 environmental policy, and it's really not right. 14 Waters that have EPA-approved nutrient TMDLs 15 do not need new numeric standards; and therefore, 16 EPA's proposed rule must incorporate these existing 17 TMDLs as the scientifically derived nutrient -- 18 numeric nutrient criteria for these water bodies. 19 This problem needs to be addressed now in the 20 context of EPA's rule. It should not be pushed 21 down the road with vague assurances that this 22 problem could be addressed in the context of SAC 23 applications. 24 Failure to adopt these TMDLs as site-specific 25 standards would mean that EPA's numeric nutrient 108 1 criteria rule represents a giant step backwards, 2 not forwards for Florida. Under EPA's rule, as 3 proposed in the Federal Register right now, 4 site-specific and numeric nutrient requirements 5 previously approved by EPA under the TMDL process 6 will be scuttled in favor of less specific regional 7 criteria, and good pollutant reduction projects 8 will be put on hold. 9 I do thank you all for being here. I know you 10 have three long days, and I thank you for your 11 consideration of these comments. 12 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Steinbrecher. 13 Our next speaker is Speaker Number 24. And if 14 25 and 26 could move to the chairs, I'd appreciate 15 it. 16 MR. PARSONS: I'm Philip Parsons. I'm 17 speaking today for the Florida Sugar Cane League. 18 The members of the league are the growers and 19 processors in the area generally known as the 20 Everglades Agricultural Area. There are some 21 activities close to that, outside of the area, but 22 it's the agricultural area of rich organic soils 23 identified by the Corps of Engineers through soil 24 surveys that preceded the South Florida -- central 25 and southern Florida Flood Control District. 109 1 We are served primarily by class IV canals. 2 Our direct discharges are, for the most part, 3 discharges to class IV canals. But those canals 4 flow into the class III canals of the Water 5 Management District that are covered by your 6 proposal. And those canals, as they are currently 7 operated for flood control and water supply, are 8 critical to the continuation of our activities. 9 This concern will be shared by many in South 10 Florida because all of the canals of the central 11 and southern Florida project maintained by the 12 South Florida Water Management District are class 13 III. 14 I want to concur with the statements made 15 today by Kevin Carter on behalf of the South 16 Florida Water Management District. I also want to 17 concur with other statements made by members of the 18 South Florida Water Management District staff and 19 board. 20 I'm relying on press accounts of these. If 21 they're not accurate, I apologize, but we agree 22 with these. 23 Doctor Redfield, who I believe is the Director 24 of Research at the District considered the rules, 25 your proposal to be nonsensical. Shannon Essinaw 110 1 (phonetics) is the governing board member, who is 2 the most outspoken environmental advocate on the 3 Board described the rule proposal as kooky. Jerry 4 Montgomery, probably one of the more moderate Board 5 members, described the proposal as insane. 6 I don't know if those are accurate quotes, but 7 if they are, we certainly agree with them. 8 We concur with the requests of others who in 9 correspondence and in requests today are seeking 10 additional time for comment. I won't spend time 11 now to elaborate on the reasons for that, but there 12 are reasons unique in our area because DEP did not 13 propose a basis for either reference site dose 14 response or any other method for deriving criteria 15 in our area. So we are starting from scratch with 16 a very short period of time. 17 What I do want to focus on is the method that 18 you use. The reference site method which, as you 19 know, just by the streams or water bodies you pick 20 as reference sites will determine the outcome, that 21 together with the percentile that you pick as 22 acceptable. And that method, in this case, failed 23 to recognize fundamental differences between canals 24 in South Florida. And I only have time to 25 illustrate my point with one example which will 111 1 expand on comments made earlier by James Charles. 2 The Biscayne aquifer is unique as a formation 3 in Florida, probably in the country. It's highly 4 transmissive. The flows through that honeycombed 5 aquifer are a thousand times greater, the 6 transmissivity is a thousand times greater than the 7 sandy soils that prevail in South Florida. And 8 with the design of the central and southern flood 9 control project, the Corps holds water levels in 10 the Everglades to the west four feet higher than 11 the water levels to the east in the canals that 12 you've used as your reference sites. 13 Most of the reference sites come from canals 14 in Dade and Broward, or at least the greatest 15 percentage. We haven't been able to figure that 16 out entirely, but they are clearly skewing the 17 result. And even though that is Everglades water 18 with incredibly low nutrients, and it's 19 groundwater, it doesn't represent conditions in any 20 other system in the State. 21 But those are the dominant reference sites 22 you're using for South Florida, including our 23 canals, which are much more similar to the 24 phosphate areas where the natural phosphate 25 deposits influence as phosphorous in the water. In 112 1 our area, nitrogen is a natural component, which 2 you've excluded all of our canals from the 3 consideration. 4 You've also determined that 25 percent of 5 these incredible pristine sites in the Biscayne 6 aquifer are not -- are excluded; they're not in 7 compliance. You've taken the 75th percentile, 8 which means 25 percent of those fail. I don't 9 think that's a rational basis for establishing 10 criteria that will apply. 11 And that leads to unintended consequences that 12 I can see I won't have time to address, but I will 13 in written comments. But the unintended 14 consequence, real quickly is, it's a goal of the 15 restoration of the Everglades to stop that flow, to 16 keep that million acre feet of water in the 17 Everglades. And when you do that, those are two of 18 the most cost-effective projects proposed. 19 You're going to change the water quality and the 20 dynamics in this area of Biscayne water aquifer in 21 Dade and Broward. 22 And because of the adverse impact on those 23 people, the greater number of taxpayers in the 24 district, you probably won't have a local sponsor 25 for one of the critical restoration projects. And 113 1 I don't think you've had time to consider these 2 impacts, but I think you need to. Thanks. 3 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Parsons. 4 The next speaker is Speaker Number 25. 5 MR. GRIGSBY. I'm Wade Grigsby with the -- 6 President of the Florida Cattlemen's Association. 7 Thank y'all for coming and being part of this. We 8 appreciate you taking our comments. 9 One of the things I'd like to start off with 10 is back at the early part of the 20th century, 11 Florida had about a million people and about a 12 million cattle. Today we have 18 million people 13 and about a million cattle. 14 So I ask: Where is the problem? So, you 15 know, with that in mind, I'd like to start with 16 saying that the Chamber, the Florida Chamber has 17 estimated 75 billion in order to implement these 18 water quality standards. And then in addition to 19 that, that would be -- or that with the 20 $700-per-year annual increase in water per 21 household. 22 Florida has the largest number of test and 23 monitoring stations. I think that number is 24 somewhere in the 40 thousand range, and most of the 25 data being collected from Florida, I feel similar 114 1 to the lady who expressed the comment about the 2 football team. You know, are we being penalized 3 for having done good to begin with? 4 Much of Florida is -- most of Florida is still 5 in ag. Ag has taken a pretty good hit in this deal 6 all along. We would ask that some of that be 7 looked at. 8 You know, Florida has adopted Swim Program. 9 They've adopted -- we've got 79 TMDL systems set up 10 and approved ready to go. And then, you know, all 11 of this is going to be for naught. 12 I've been on the ten parts per billion. I was 13 fortunate, if that's how we want to call it, for 14 managing a large ranch next to the sugar cane 15 growing area. In the C139 basin in South Florida, 16 we were required at ten parts per billion 17 phosphorous. Never achieved. Not on the 18 properties, not off the properties, not in the 19 discharge of the stormwater treatment area. 20 So, you know, we need to look at that. That 21 treatment area, to my knowledge, has yet to 22 discharge water at ten parts per billion. And if 23 it has, it hasn't done it two years in a row. So, 24 you know, the science has to be questioned. Can we 25 even do it, much less do it economically? 115 1 Cattle people have always felt that they were 2 the stewards of the land. A lot of these families 3 own these ranches. These are both family and 4 corporate-owned ranches in Florida. I don't know 5 if you know this, but Florida has more ranches of 6 five hundred head than any other state in the 7 country. When you go to five thousand head, we 8 leave everybody in the dust. It's unreal. So we 9 still have the big ranches in the state. 10 Those big ranches provide a lot of the needed 11 area for some of this cleanup, the nutrients, 12 things that occur; also, wildlife habitat and other 13 things. What's been done on these ranches over the 14 years has been done in accordance with regulation 15 and/or science that we have, fertilizer science 16 mostly. 17 And it seems a little hard for me to get my 18 hands around -- or my arms around the fact that 19 we're going to be required now to clean something 20 up that we did that was right at the time of doing 21 it. The cost of that -- if it's for everybody, 22 then everybody needs to clean it up, not just the 23 landowners. The landowners, they're going to foot 24 the bill on the biggest part of this. Before it's 25 over, that's what will happen, if they can. 116 1 And let's face it, I think everybody would 2 rather have ranches than concrete. That's what's 3 going to happen. If we break these big ranches up, 4 like this last land boom was doing, they will go to 5 concrete. The people will go somewhere else and do 6 what they love to do, and that's ranching. You 7 know, so that's one of the unintended consequences 8 the man before me mentioned. 9 In that C139 basin, what happened is it went 10 from range and pasture to intensive agriculture, 11 for one reason, to cover the cost. We had a tax on 12 us at $4.68 an acre. My production cost on that 13 ranch of about 120,000 acres went up ten percent 14 overnight. We don't have a ten-percent margin in 15 our business. So you can see where these are major 16 impacts. 17 Buck Island Ranch, which is under Archibald 18 Ecological System had a three-year study on 19 phosphorous runoff. Interestingly, we found that 20 stocking rate, the number of animals per acre or 21 acres per animal, had no effect on phosphorous. 22 The phosphorous was in the spodic layer or at the 23 spodic layer, and it ran off in big rain flushes. 24 So I would ask that you all reconsider this 25 and let us continue to produce the safest, most 117 1 wholesome food in the world and, by far, the 2 cheapest. Thank y'all very much for listening. 3 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Grigsby. 4 Speaker Number 26. 5 MS. LITTLEJOHN: My name is Cindy Rowe 6 Littlejohn, and I have lived in Florida all of my 7 life. I'm from a little rural town just east of 8 Tallahassee, and I am the eighth generation of my 9 family to be raised there. 10 I grew up like most Floridians swimming, 11 fishing, and boating in Florida. Currently, I'm 12 56 years old. I would like to tell you some of 13 what I've witnessed. 14 What I have to say won't be scientifically 15 based, and yet whatever you do, it should be 16 scientifically based. It is my wish that as a 17 servant of the people that you do what is right and 18 do not overly tax our systems of government here in 19 Florida without good reason. 20 When I was about five years old, I was with my 21 family near Jasper, Florida, and we were near a 22 pond. My cousins and I were running and playing 23 while we were out for a walk with the rest. 24 Because I was so young, I mistakenly continued 25 running right out into a pond that was green with 118 1 algae. My parents then called it pond scum. 2 I disappeared and my mother's brother had to 3 jump in to save me. I thought that the pond scum 4 was simply an extension of the grass. I came out a 5 slimey mess. 6 My point is that we have been dealing with 7 algae for generations in this State. This happened 8 sometime around the late '50s, early '60s, over 50 9 years ago. Today my husband and I deal with algae 10 all the time. Our pool turns green if we don't 11 treat it with chemicals, and it happens pretty 12 quickly in Florida in the summertime. Our little 13 water fountain has to be treated as well. If water 14 sits in this State, it turns green. 15 Since we have been going through a significant 16 drought with low flows all over the State, I wonder 17 how much of this algae is due to these conditions. 18 So that is a scientific question. Our Florida DEP 19 has been trying to answer this question and many 20 others for years. 21 Like good citizens, they were doing their best 22 to determine a cause and effect between our 23 conditions and the health of our water bodies. It 24 was a daunting task. Our state has over 25 55,000 miles of rivers, streams, and creeks. 119 1 Florida has over 75 hundred lakes that are more 2 than ten acres. We have over 27 hundred miles of 3 shoreline. And to add to DEP's workload in the 4 decade of the 1990s, Florida's population grew 5 almost 24 percent. 6 Florida has spent over $20 million of our 7 hard-earned tax dollars trying to gather this data, 8 set benchmarks, and find answers. But this wasn't 9 fast enough for some people, including you, our own 10 nation's EPA. You began giving us what I thought 11 were unreachable deadlines. At this point, the 12 entire part of the work done for rivers and streams 13 became, in my eyes, flawed science. DEP wasn't 14 able to find a significant influence between 15 nutrients and the health of these streams. 16 And so we feel that you as our EPA threw 17 Florida under the bus. First you required DEP to 18 begin playing with the statistical studies, models, 19 and numbers. You pushed them to use methodologies 20 that they were uncomfortable using, until DEP now 21 has numbers that I'm not so sure will stand up in a 22 court of law. 23 You yourself have admitted that your nutrient 24 criteria are not based on biological responses to 25 nutrients; so instead, you established a regional 120 1 criteria based on a simplistic averaging method and 2 then overlaid it with a model, a downstream model, 3 to further reduce the criteria for streams flowing 4 into our lakes and estuaries. 5 If we blindly follow your lead, this State is 6 headed for decades of cleanup and replumbing that 7 may not and probably won't fix the problem. 8 Florida's companies, its governments, and its 9 residents will be paying the tab no matter what, 10 whether we simply give in and put the procedures in 11 play or whether we go to court. My guess is that 12 our State will have to take you to court because we 13 cannot afford to do otherwise. 14 This State is engrossed in the worst recession 15 any of us has seen in our lifetimes. Our State is 16 suffering 12 percent unemployment. We're first in 17 the nation in loans and mortgages that are in 18 trouble. We are second in the nation in 19 foreclosures. Walk in any mall, and many of our 20 stores are closed and shuttered. 21 My suggestion is to go back to Washington and 22 please start over and work closer with our Florida 23 Department of Environmental Protection. They 24 understand our geography, our geology, our waters 25 and our people better; and they'll get the job done 121 1 with a lot less pain to all of us. 2 Thank you. 3 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 4 Speaker 27. 5 MR. MANN: Good afternoon. Doug Mann with the 6 Utility Council of the American Water Works 7 Association, the Florida Section. 8 What has impressed me today here has been the 9 large number of water experts that you've heard 10 from who basically say that something is flawed in 11 the science that you're using. And it's not just 12 one person, but it's a large number of people who 13 have been involved in looking at Florida's rivers 14 and streams for a long time. 15 I think, basically, one of the messages I've 16 gotten is that the SPARROW method just won't fly in 17 Florida. It's just not -- it's not the right model 18 for this problem at all. 19 In addition to that, Florida has a long 20 reputation of doing excellent work in water 21 quality. The TMDL program is one of the best in 22 the country; and, of course, everyone wonders why 23 Florida was singled out as the only state to go 24 forward in this. 25 What probably is not recognized is that, as 122 1 Mr. Parsons talked about unintended consequences, 2 there is one that is not readily apparent to some 3 people; and that has to do with Florida's water 4 supply. It's hard to believe that Florida has a 5 water shortage, but it does. We have our droughts 6 and wet cycles too. 7 But with our growth over the last 20 years, we 8 expect that between now and -- roughly in the next 9 15 years, to generate two billion more gallons per 10 day for our citizens. And where this plays a part 11 in what you're doing is that we've made an effort 12 in Florida to start addressing this in the last 13 five years aggressively. 14 We've received state funding for the first 15 time. That's matched by water management district 16 funding and local utility funding. That's helped 17 enormously in trying to reach that objective. 18 But a major part of that effort has been to 19 try to use reclaimed water to do this. And it's 20 like you're almost getting a two-fer. You're 21 cleaning up the water and using it again and 22 putting a lot less stress on the aquifer, and this 23 is helping Florida. And maybe it's a way out of 24 this water supply dilemma that we face. 25 If we had these standards applied to us, in 123 1 the St. Johns region, we'd have about 433 million 2 gallons per day of reclaimed water that would have 3 to be replaced. In southwest Florida, it would be 4 413 million gallons per day that we're now using in 5 reclaimed water that because it would either have 6 to be cleaned to a much higher level, which is very 7 expensive, or find another source. And in South 8 Florida where a large part of our population is, it 9 would be somewhere in the range of about 508 10 million gallons per day. 11 So I would encourage you, again, to see the 12 problem not from just that people's utility rates 13 are going to up, their sewer rates $62 dollars a 14 month, and other factors; but that in an effort to 15 clean up a problem, you may be creating another one 16 here. 17 Finally, I don't know what effect you'd ever 18 have on the Clean Water Act, but I would suggest 19 that the Agency find some way to recommend to 20 Congress that whenever you have a criteria like 21 this, that the economic impact of that be allowed 22 to be part of this. 23 You've heard from lots of citizens here today 24 and others about how devastated Florida is right 25 now and how this is going to put us in just a huge 124 1 hole. And it's not that people don't want to clean 2 up water, the private sector has agreed to that and 3 is working through the TMDL program, it's just to 4 do it in a reasonable way. 5 And secondly, just like our Florida 6 congressional delegation has asked the 7 administrator, and that is to extend these hearings 8 for another 60 days. We think it's very important 9 to have public hearings and comments. When you're 10 beginning something like this, it's huge. We need 11 to have more time for the public to absorb this and 12 let you know how it's going to impact us and maybe 13 develop some common solutions. 14 Thank you for coming to Florida. I appreciate 15 it. 16 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 17 Next speaker, Speaker Number 28. 18 MR. LANGFORD: Good afternoon. My name is 19 Luke Langford. I'm a Holmes County cattle and 20 produce grower. I'm just about a hundred miles to 21 the due west of here. 22 Forgive me for being underdressed. I hopped 23 out of a tractor to come here. When I'm going 24 back, I'm hopping straight back in. We're in our 25 busy time of the year, but I wanted to take the 125 1 time to come here. This is something that I think 2 is very important. It's very critical to the 3 future of my operation. 4 In keeping with the recent speakers, I wanted 5 to give you guys a couple of numbers. 97, that's 6 the number of years that my farm has been in my 7 family. I'm the fourth generation to carry it on. 8 I have two sons, five years and one year old, and 9 they're going to be my future farmers. 10 My farm is 1,100 acres. We have 62 acres of 11 water. They're gone now, but the pictures that 12 were over there against the wall, I've seen zero 13 instances of anything like that on my farm. I've 14 never seen anything that looked close. If I did, 15 that would be priority one to fix something that 16 looked so ghastly. 17 I live three, seven, and approximately 18 11 miles away from three of the 33 class I karst 19 springs in the State of Florida. I'm in the 20 watershed of all three. I live one mile away from 21 the Choctawhatchee River. 22 With all of the proposals that are coming 23 around, I can't imagine I'm going to fair well. 24 I'm so close in proximity to so many sensitive 25 watersheds, I fear for the future of my operation. 126 1 To this point, I have not heard, as far as 2 remediation. We established these numbers, and we 3 assess that there's a problem in my watershed. As 4 far as remediation, removing the nitrogen and the 5 phosphorous from the water, how do we pursue 6 something like that? Are we going to have a quota 7 for my watershed? Am I going to be in competition 8 with other farmers for a portion of the maximum 9 amount of N & P that can be put out in that 10 watershed? Is there going to be a lottery? What 11 is the overall cost? For the life of me, I can't 12 find an assessment of here's how this will affect 13 your bottom line. 14 I understand how water treatment facilities 15 and that sort of thing, how they can look at this 16 and say this will cost me X-amount of dollars. I 17 have no idea. But in coming here today, I've heard 18 millions, and I've heard billions. I don't have 19 any of that. 20 I could probably spend the rest of the five 21 minutes I have to speak fractioning that down to 22 get you to where what I can afford right now in my 23 stage in my life as a young farmer trying to switch 24 the red pen for the black one. 25 Alabama -- Choctawhatchee River runs right on 127 1 Alabama. We've got nutrients coming in from there. 2 How do you assess my responsibility for cleaning up 3 their water? It seems that there's an unfair 4 burden coming down on us that just seems 5 unattainable for me to have to go all the way to 6 the state line and start going farm by farm and 7 looking at, well, these guys are going to have to 8 clean up this much, these guys are going to clean 9 this much. How do you assign and mitigate the 10 water coming out of Alabama? How do we clean it 11 up? 12 It struck me, while I was sitting here: What 13 would my banker think of this? We are -- there are 14 so many question marks in this, and all the risks 15 that run with farming and the bank in the climate 16 that it is now. How do I go ask him for a 17 production loan, for equipment loans, when we have 18 a guillotine hanging over farming as we know it. 19 This could change the face of how I do 20 business, what my operation looks like, whether or 21 not I'm even in existence. And from a banking 22 standpoint, I'm glad he's not here today, and I 23 have no intention of telling him what I'm finding 24 out today because, if I was him, I'd run away from 25 me like nobody's business. 128 1 It just -- this feels like Florida farms and 2 Florida farming is circling the drain here. The 3 burden that is coming down -- like I said, I 4 haven't heard anybody go lower than millions. I'm 5 still waiting for somebody to say, this is going to 6 hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't have 7 that, can't marginalize it. My margin is nowhere 8 near what it would take to mitigate a cost like 9 that. It will put me out of business. 10 So in closing, let me ask you, just bear in 11 mind the cost that is coming to Florida 12 agriculture. I know a lot of young farmers that 13 they had to work, a lot of them carry second jobs. 14 They farm when they're not doing their other job. 15 They couldn't be here today. But it's as important 16 to them as it is to me. I come bearing their 17 concerns as well and hope that you bear those in 18 mind. 19 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 20 Next speaker, Speaker Number 29. 21 MR. COLE: Yes. I'm Terry Cole. I practice 22 law in Tallahassee, and I want to express 23 appreciation to y'all for a long day. I've been in 24 your position a time or two and know how trying it 25 is as many people come up. 129 1 And just one comment in terms if you do any 2 further public involvement beyond these three. 3 This has been arduous enough. You probably won't 4 want to come back after doing that. But a number 5 of questions are getting asked as we go through 6 this. You obviously don't have time and you can't, 7 and we all recognize that and appreciate that and 8 respect that. 9 But a lot of questions are coming up on 10 modeling, for instance this SPARROW model, a very 11 critical item in terms of downstream waters. And I 12 think one thing that a lot of the clients I 13 represent -- and if I didn't say that, by the way, 14 I'm here -- I represent a number of clients in 15 this, Florida Pulp and Paper being one of the 16 primary ones. 17 But I have some folks like USGS here with 18 y'all and your technical folks discussing the 19 appropriateness of the model, how it works, how it 20 doesn't, what are its strengths, what are its 21 weaknesses; likewise, why were certain waters that 22 DEP used that were picked out as somewhat pristine 23 and y'all disagreed with that -- and I'm not 24 commenting either way -- but just what was the 25 rationale? 130 1 There are a lot of things like that that go 2 into it that y'all could not answer the questions 3 today and no one expected you would. You have to 4 manage this in a way that's fair to all and 5 wouldn't get bogged down, but that would be 6 something good to consider, I think, as you go 7 through the process. 8 And like another speaker earlier, I wanted to 9 make just a couple of points that are hopefully 10 nonrepetitive -- I've been here for most of the 11 day, not all of it -- that were made before. And 12 this deals with some questions of state law that 13 need to be considered as you do this. 14 Part of the assumption, and as I was reading 15 the proposal that you put out, is the assumption 16 that if and when you adopt these numbers that then 17 DEP will be implementing them, presumably through 18 the delegated permitting programs. One of the 19 things you need to consider is like you have a 20 Federal APA that binds you, Congress has told you 21 certain procedural steps you need to go through and 22 certain procedural rights that people have, you 23 have to follow that. DEP has a similar type of 24 process here. 25 And that APA, the legislature has told them 131 1 that policy will be implemented only by rule. And 2 so if we're going to write a permit based on your 3 nutrient criterion, then they have to do that by 4 rule. And that means that they have to adopt here 5 at the state level the rule that you did in that 6 case. 7 And unlike the way the federal process and the 8 federal APA where there's a presumption of 9 correctness when EPA adopts that and it will be 10 overturned only if it's arbitrary or capricious. 11 If a Florida rule is challenged, the State 12 agency has the burden of demonstrating the 13 scientific and technical validity of that rule. 14 And that's a considerable difference on something 15 like this as complex as this rule is. And I'd just 16 like to suggest that I think it's going to be very 17 difficult for them to be able to adopt this rule. 18 And if so, some of the thoughts you need to be 19 given are: Who is going to be doing the NPDES 20 permitting? Do you end up having to -- if they 21 can't use your numbers when they write a permit and 22 if you disagree, then you obviously have the 23 ability to disagree and to veto that permit, pull 24 it back, and write it. 25 And unlike dioxin, where that's a situation in 132 1 Florida right now but there's a handful of 2 facilities that are directly affected by that, for 3 nutrients that are so ubiquitous and there are so 4 many potential, that it looks like that this down 5 the road threatens the viability of the delegation 6 to Florida, if it goes as it's looking at right 7 now. 8 And then just a second point, and it would be 9 hard to cover it in the last minute and a half, but 10 I'll do my best to get it in. But it also looks 11 like this is not just an ambient number that you're 12 proposing, but it is end-of-the-pipe limitation 13 for several reasons. The first is that Florida 14 does not do mixing zones for nutrients and they do 15 not do a mixing zone where a water is impaired for 16 a particular pollutant. They have a prohibition on 17 causing or contributing to a violation of water 18 quality standards. 19 So it looks like a mixing zone is not 20 available. Under the SAC process, the first type 21 is usually not applicable for the types of 22 situation we are dealing with here, which are 23 basically reference types waters. Their second 24 type, both of which have been approved by you, is a 25 type 2 SAC is not allowed for nutrients. 133 1 So under the current rules and the current 2 federal water quality standards for Florida that 3 are in place today, neither of those would be 4 available. Likewise, for variances, there is a 5 provision in the statute put in at the EPA's 6 request when the program was delegated, that they 7 cannot do a variance for something -- for a 8 provision less stringent than a comparable federal 9 provision. 10 So that means if they have something with less 11 stringent nutrients, they could not do a variance 12 for it. So overall, and I had some comments on 13 restoration standards in which I'll cover in the 14 written comments of why that's a good idea, but as 15 it now stands under Florida law, it won't work 16 either unless the Florida law has changed. 17 So anyway, we appreciate your patience, and 18 good luck the rest of the afternoon. I hope y'all 19 get a restful evening. 20 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Cole. 21 Speaker Number 30. 22 MR. LEARY: Good afternoon. My name is Phil 23 Leary. I represent the North Florida Growers 24 Exchange. That's farmers and producers in 25 northeast Florida, about 50 farm families farming 134 1 about 30,000 acres of potatoes and vegetables. 2 Some of my farmers would have been here today, but 3 they're dealing with ten inches of rain and trying 4 to get a crop planted, so a pretty busy time. 5 We have participated with the Florida 6 Department of Environmental Protection and the 7 Water Management District over the last five years 8 in the TMDL and BMAP process for the lower St. 9 Johns River Basin which all of this acreage is in, 10 and we've come up with what we think are workable 11 solutions for reduction of phosphorous and nitrogen 12 from these farms. 13 And I understand that economically these 14 farmers -- and this is the second largest potato 15 growing area in the southeast producing both table 16 stock and chip potatoes. So when you eat Lay's 17 potato chips, most of the time they're coming out 18 of Hastings. 19 We've worked, you know, with the department, 20 and water management districts and the TMDL 21 executive committee on best management practices 22 that were adopted and developed by the Department 23 of Agriculture in conjunction with the University 24 of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural 25 Science, my alma mater. 135 1 These are the experts, the soil scientists, 2 the agronomists, the agriculture engineers, and all 3 of the specialists and scientists that come up with 4 provisions for implementing and adopting BMPs that 5 would reduce those nutrient discharges, nonpoint 6 discharges to the river. 7 Some of the practices are laser leveling, 8 water control structures, banding, where they 9 actually have to change their equipment and band 10 fertilizer directly into the row. And then, of 11 course, the most important one is the fertilization 12 rates that have been designated by IFAS and are 13 included in the BMP manuals. 14 The cost to do this on a per-acre basis is 15 somewhere between 800 and a thousand dollars; and 16 then, you know, yearly you have to keep up the 17 structures and do work in the fields to maintain 18 these things and maintain the equipment and, you 19 know, work in the process of, you know, controlling 20 those nutrients. But they can't afford to use one 21 ounce of fertilizer at the cost -- that production 22 cost is probably their most expensive part of 23 producing those potatoes, and their break-even cost 24 is about $11 a hundred weight. 25 The market right now, I think on chip potatoes 136 1 is about $12. On table stock it's varying. It's 2 up and down. There is very little margin for 3 error, and certainly they don't want to use any 4 more fertilizer than what they can use. 5 In addition to that, they grow a cover crop 6 every year that also takes up the residual 7 fertilizers that weren't taken up by the potatoes 8 in the growing process. 9 We've worked very hard, and these guys are now 10 accepting -- you know, you're talking about 50 farm 11 families that have been farming probably, you know, 12 over 50, 70 years. We've worked very hard to come 13 to an agreement and get these farmers to buy in in 14 this process to implement these BMPs so that what 15 we've been telling them is that, you know, you've 16 got this presumption of water quality compliance. 17 And we're there, and we're doing it, and it's -- 18 you know, I think we're getting very, very positive 19 results. 20 What you're proposing will put these farmers 21 out of business, absolutely. They cannot meet 22 these standards. It's impossible. And so, you 23 know, when we met last week, I can't -- I asked 24 them, I said: What do you want me to tell the EP 25 representatives? Well, I can't repeat it in 137 1 public, but I'll try to paraphrase it for you. 2 They basically said, tell them to go back to 3 the drawing board and work with the Florida DEP in 4 the programs, the numeric -- or the nutrient 5 programs, through the TMDLs and the BMAP programs 6 they have for those impaired water bodies in the 7 State, to do something that's workable and 8 reasonable and give us time to implement these 9 things. 10 You know, I think that, you know, we've got to 11 look at some practicality of this. And, you know, 12 it's very near and dear and personal to me. I grew 13 up in that area and worked on those farms in high 14 school and college and, you know, I feel honored 15 that I can come back and represent them today. 16 But, you know, the solution to this: Withdraw 17 the rule, and let's go back and try to do something 18 that works and that long-term is practical and 19 doesn't put, you know, these farmers out of 20 business. I mean, you know, we're spending 21 millions and trillions of dollars, you know, 22 fighting terrorism, you know, all over the world 23 and yet we're about to strangle our farmers, you 24 know, and food production in this country to the 25 point where we can't compete. And, you know, 138 1 ladies and gentlemen, that is a tragedy from a 2 national security standpoint. 3 And I've heard it said by many congressmen and 4 certainly in the Florida delegation how important 5 this is. And so I implore you, from the farmers 6 that I represent, you know, let's go back to the 7 drawing board. 8 Thank you. 9 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Leary. 10 Next speaker is Speaker Number 31. 11 MS. REED: I'm a little nervous. I'm not used 12 to doing this, and public speaking is not my forte. 13 I wrote -- tried to write everything down so 14 if I forgot anything, it would be in there. One 15 thing I forgot to add is that my mother is at least 16 a six-generation Floridian, and we're probably part 17 Cherokee Indian as well, so we've been here for a 18 while. The joke is we're part swamp. 19 My name is Kathleen Reed. I live beside 20 Garnier's Bayou in Shalimar, Florida, which is in 21 the Choctawhatchee Bay Basin. I have an AA in 22 biology, a bachelor's degree in animal science. I 23 raise guppies at home. I tinker around with 24 biospheres and kind of try to figure out how this 25 fish and algae thing all works together. I try to 139 1 help the environment when I can. I donate to local 2 environmental causes, such as Choctawhatchee Basin 3 Alliance. I do water testing for Choctawhatchee 4 Basin Alliance when I can, sometimes I can't. 5 When they need fish samples down in St. 6 Petersburg and we've got a fish kill up there, I'm 7 one of the people that's willing to go out there 8 and wade around in the red tide and pick up a dead 9 fish or a dying fish and try to get it to them 10 before it goes bad so they can figure out what's 11 going on with it. 12 I've lived beside Garnier's Bayou for most of 13 my 47 years. I have seen the water go from clear 14 colored to black, red, green, all kinds of 15 different colors in between. On my printout I 16 colored the section about water color. This is one 17 of the colors that bayou turns that I never saw 18 when I was a kid. 19 One day I walked down to my bayou, and it was 20 the color of antifreeze, and it had that weird 21 sheen like antifreeze, and I didn't have any way to 22 collect a sample. By the time I got back down 23 there, it had changed. And by the time I got back 24 down there, it had changed again because that's 25 what it does. It's a big system, and the nutrients 140 1 or whatever pass from one thing to another. 2 On here I included a picture. The things that 3 I believe are causing the difficulties for our 4 waters, our ponds, our lakes, our streams, our 5 bayous, the Gulf of Mexico because that's where it 6 all ultimately trickles down to, are sewage, pet 7 waste, and fertilizer. 8 And I put an illustration of somebody's dog 9 poo on the beach. You know, that's a swimming area 10 with somebody's dog poo, and they said, oh, well 11 Fifi's little pile doesn't matter. They're right, 12 Fifi's little pile doesn't matter, but when you add 13 Fifi's and the millions of other little Fifi's, it 14 does matter; it all adds up. 15 We all care about protecting our water. It's 16 very valuable to us. We all need it to drink. We 17 don't want to live with dirty, nasty water. And 18 most of us are being careful to use methods that in 19 the past have been shown to be unharmful. However, 20 when multiple thousand and multiple millions 21 start -- insignificant amounts can add up to huge 22 killing amounts; and as our population grows, the 23 pollution is increasing. As can be seen across the 24 State of Florida, old methods of dealing with 25 pollution have not done enough to protect the 141 1 environment. 2 In the middle of this page, I have a picture. 3 On the left side is a water sewage treatment side; 4 on the right side is a water sewage treatment 5 plant. That's the head of my bayou. I live on 6 Garnier's Bayou. 7 We have a huge water -- well, I think it's 8 huge -- water sewage treatment plant on your left 9 and a smaller one on your right, okay? That's 10 sand hill -- what is it? Pine wood sand hill. 11 Those are sand dunes that that water is being 12 sprayed. And I don't see equivalent amounts of 13 nutrient things coming out of there, such as hay, 14 such as a crop. 15 And that's leading to my next, my next point; 16 and that is, that if we keep spraying the nutrients 17 on the ground and we don't collect them before they 18 wind up in the groundwater, they're going to seep 19 into the groundwater and into the creeks and into 20 the lakes and into the bayous, and the bays, and 21 the Gulf; and then we wind up with more algal 22 blooms. 23 So what do I think we can do? Well, first of 24 all, I think that we have our nutrient levels 25 possibly set too high. I looked up the nitrogen 142 1 levels that are allowable in groundwater, and they 2 are set for what would cause blue baby disease, 3 which would be if you fed an infant formula mixed 4 with this nitrogen, that the baby would start 5 turning blue because they wouldn't be able to 6 process oxygen in their blood. 7 I think it needs to be lower than that. I 8 think it needs to be low enough so that when that 9 groundwater winds up in the main bodies of water 10 it's not making the fish sick and it's not killing 11 things. I think we need bio assays to go back and 12 make sure that what we think we're doing right is 13 actually working on the other end. 14 I've noticed in our watershed the bio assay 15 got passed over this last time around, and the two 16 previous, we failed. We had some failures, and it 17 got passed over this time, and they did some water 18 testing instead. 19 My last point, my main point was part of the 20 solution I believe, and I don't know how to do this 21 myself, I've got some ideas, is to develop a 22 nutrient budget. That way the people that are not 23 scientists, the people that have not had too many 24 nutrition classes, the people that really don't 25 understand how all this stuff works together will 143 1 have a place they can plug in numbers, and they can 2 pump out numbers and see if they're balancing. And 3 if they're not, if they've got too much going in 4 and not enough product coming out, look for 5 product. 6 I hear people worried and scared to death 7 about the expense of this thing, and at the same 8 time, I'm looking at all of these nutrients, all of 9 this free fertilizer that's getting away from us. 10 And it's going out and it's killing the Gulf of 11 Mexico; it's killing the bayous; it's killing the 12 creeks; it's filling up our ponds with scum. It's 13 free fertilizer. That's money down the drain. 14 So anyway, thank you very much for your time. 15 Did you have any questions? Or I kind of skipped 16 around a bit. 17 MS. KEEHNER: Well, for someone who doesn't do 18 public speaking often, you did a tremendous job, so 19 thank you. 20 MS. REED: Well, thank you. Can I plug where 21 to download this if other people want a copy? 22 Okay, if you want a copy of this, it's at 23 www.g, as in George, n, as in Nate, t as in Thomas, 24 dot net, forward slash, letter R, Z-O-O, forward 25 slash water quality report 2010 dot doc. And that 144 1 water quality report 2010 has no spaces, no lines 2 or anything in between it, and you can get your own 3 copy of this if you're wondering what I was talking 4 about. Thank you. 5 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 6 We're now moving on to the speakers who were 7 not preregistered, and it starts with Speaker 8 Number 51. 9 (NO RESPONSE). 10 MS. KEEHNER: 52. 11 (NO RESPONSE). 12 MS. KEEHNER: 53. 13 (NO RESPONSE). 14 MS. KEEHNER: 54. 15 (NO RESPONSE). 16 MS. KEEHNER: 55. 17 (NO RESPONSE). 18 MS. KEEHNER: 56, yea. Also if there is 19 anyone still remaining in the room that would like 20 an opportunity to speak, please just let us know. 21 MR. FULLER: Hello. I'm Manley Fuller. I'm 22 President of the Florida Wildlife Federation. We 23 are glad that EPA is taking the actions that you 24 have. We encourage there to be ongoing dialogue 25 with DEP and the public regarding some refinement. 145 1 We wonder why your numbers are higher in the 2 Bone Valley than what DEP recommended, that sort of 3 thing. We think that -- you know, there are a lot 4 of people who are working hard, and we don't mean 5 to disparage in any way people who have worked to 6 try and deal with water quality problems, but we 7 think that the trends are really negative in a lot 8 of places, in a lot of water bodies in the State. 9 We have impaired lakes, our springs -- if you 10 look at the numerical figures for springs all 11 across Florida, the trend is in the wrong 12 direction. We have a lot of water bodies like 13 that. We think that measurable numerical water 14 quality standards are a good thing. 15 I'm a landowner near the Wakulla River. My 16 organization and I personally have been involved in 17 litigation to protect the water quality in Wakulla 18 Springs. That resulted in a settlement agreement 19 with the City of Tallahassee where they are going 20 to reduce nutrient levels significantly. 21 We think that, you know, Florida is -- people 22 have talked about negative economic consequences of 23 meeting these standards. We think that there's 24 negative economic consequences of not cleaning up 25 our waterways. We think that beach closure days, 146 1 degraded springs, springs which have gone from a 2 macrophyte-based system of the plants to an algal 3 dominated system, we think that declining water 4 qualities in Florida lakes, that doesn't help 5 fishing. That doesn't help draw tourists to the 6 State. We think that -- you know, this was 7 representing a lot of change; but with change will 8 come opportunities. 9 We think that in the future there will be more 10 people who are involved in smart fertilizer 11 reduced, use the minimum effective dose of 12 fertilizer, get the fertilizer to the plant, the 13 target plant's roots, don't disseminate it across 14 the landscape and have it end up in the waterways. 15 You can have a great reduction in lawn 16 fertilizers. We think that the figures that you've 17 heard about, reverse osmosis requirements, are 18 incorrect. We think that the figures -- we 19 certainly are not saying that they'll be cost free, 20 but we think that the projections that you've heard 21 are based on technologies which will not be 22 required to meet your standards. 23 So we think that -- we're supporting what 24 you're doing, and we'll have specific detailed 25 written comments. I noted that in a recent debate 147 1 that I was on the Florida Public Radio, it was -- 2 people were saying, oh, you're going to have 3 standards so high that the oysters in Apalachicola 4 Bay will starve, and there's -- what we're -- 5 you're trying to get back what we'd like to see, is 6 get back to a historic, known historical nutrient 7 quality, water quality. 8 And a lot of this goes back to work that was 9 done by Doctor Howard Odom in the '50s. There was 10 a previous speaker who indicated there was natural 11 phosphate in the Everglades agricultural area and 12 that resulted -- and that had the effect on some 13 numbers. Well, Doctor Odom said in 1954, I believe 14 it was, that essentially there was no phosphorous 15 in the EAA prior to 1954 except for where 16 fertilizer was applied. 17 And then there have been some other 18 criticisms -- I haven't heard it today -- but about 19 the reference streams being -- and the DEP 20 reference streams being pristine water bodies. In 21 many cases, those are -- those water bodies have 22 received within their drainage fertilizer, and as 23 typically in a silviculture situation. 24 So we think that -- we're glad you're doing 25 what you're doing. We signed the -- our attorneys 148 1 signed the consent decree with EPA, and we look 2 forward to working with you as this is refined. 3 And we'll be giving -- submitting detailed comments 4 within the comment period. 5 Thank you very much. 6 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 7 Are there any other speakers who wish to come 8 forward? 9 MR. BISHOP: I'm Number 57. 10 MS. KEEHNER: Oh, okay. 11 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Welcome, appreciate you 12 coming to Florida, appreciate you listening to all 13 of our comments. 14 My name is Barney Bishop. I'm President and 15 CEO of Associated Industries of Florida. We are 16 known as the voice of Florida business since 1920. 17 I appreciated the comments from the 18 plaintiff's attorney from Earthjustice, that she 19 was concerned about the algae bloom on her water. 20 Perhaps she took too many law and not enough 21 science classes because algae blooms, red tides 22 have been happening for tens of millions of years, 23 and we could have told her that. She could have 24 saved herself buying property on the waterfront. 25 But I'd like to really talk about three things 149 1 right now. Number one is the economic cost 2 effectiveness analysis. Your cost projections are 3 woefully low and are inaccurate, but I would 4 suggest this to you: That if you live -- if you 5 want to live by your numbers on what you think it's 6 going to cost, then I'll get Florida to write you a 7 $130 million check and y'all pick up the cost for 8 everything else and we'll be glad to do what you'd 9 like to do. 10 Number 2, the Florida Water Environment 11 Association, which is the public and private 12 utilities in the State of Florida, they have 13 estimated themselves at the cost to municipal 14 governments in Florida is going to be $50 billion. 15 You've heard that figure several times. 16 We did a survey of nine utilities across the 17 State, and the increase to consumers will be about 18 $700 a year for an average water consumer. If you 19 have a bigger family than a normal family, it's 20 going to cost more; business will cost more. 21 90 percent of the State waters do not meet the 22 standards that you're trying to do. 23 Point Number 2 is that many Floridians don't 24 support your unilateral initiatives. 23 of the 25 25 members of the Florida Congressional Delegation 150 1 have already written a letter to EPA, to Lisa 2 Jackson, protesting, both Democrats and 3 Republicans, so it's bipartisan, and they think 4 that these standards are ludicrous. 5 Second, two former DEP secretaries, a 6 coalition of concerned citizens, businesses and 7 stakeholders have formed a group called Don't Tax 8 Florida. 81 groups object to these overly 9 stringent standards and the stuff that Mr. Fuller 10 was just talking about. 11 And DEP has proposed more reasonable 12 standards, ladies and gentlemen, but y'all have 13 rejected every one of them and you're about to try 14 to design an almost perfect environment, an 15 environment, ladies and gentlemen, that doesn't 16 exist any more and we will never get back to. 17 So in the end, I'd like to talk about a number 18 of objections. First, I'd like to say that none of 19 the 15 best bass fishing lakes in the State of 20 Florida will qualify for what you're doing. So 21 when Mr. Fuller talks about tourism, trust me, we 22 already have plenty of bass that are being caught. 23 Tourism is not being hurt now. It's not going to 24 be hurt in the future. It will survive, unless 25 y'all implement these initiatives. 151 1 Number two, consumers, businesses, and 2 governments cannot afford what it's going to cost 3 to enact these new standards. 4 Number 3, because Florida is the leader in 5 TMDLs, you are going to punish us for providing you 6 the data to turn around and impose upon us these 7 standards. Not only is that a disincentive to us 8 to report any more TMDLs to you, but you're not 9 going to be encouraging any other state to follow 10 Florida's lead in what we're doing. In fact, it's 11 to going be to a disincentive because Florida, in 12 reporting our TMDLs, is giving you and the 13 plaintiffs in this litigation the documents, the 14 data that they need to make these issues. 15 And then I would say that President Obama who, 16 ostensibly, is the head of the government, has 17 indicated that his Number 1 job now is job 18 creation. And the EPA is singly going to kill jobs 19 in the State of Florida because this is going to 20 hurt everybody, and it's going to take massive 21 dollars. 22 I would just like to make one last argument; 23 and that is, that if you don't buy anything else 24 that I have to say, here's my final argument: 25 These standards are absolutely perfect. They're 152 1 wonderful. They're great. You should implement 2 them. Don't wait until October 2011. Do them 3 tomorrow because I don't want you to just screw 4 Florida, I want you to screw the entire country 5 with these kind of standards. And I don't mean 6 that derogatively, I'm just trying to impress upon 7 you how important, how expensive we think this is 8 and how stupid we think that any agency would 9 suggest that Florida be the only state that has to 10 meet these standards. 11 Let's do it for all the country, because if 12 this is what you guys think is the whole enchilada, 13 what you think is really perfect, then let's do it 14 to the entire country. 15 Thank you very much. And, again, we 16 appreciate you being here. 17 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 18 MR. KING: Thank you. 19 MS. KEEHNER: Are there any other speakers? 20 (NO RESPONSE). 21 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you very much for your 22 time, attention, and the respectfulness of the 23 hearing today and respect that was shown to 24 other -- 25 MS. REED: Can I have the left-over time? 153 1 MS. KEEHNER: -- to other participants. 2 MS. REED: Am I allowed, just the last three 3 pages? 4 MR. KEATING: Why don't you come up and talk 5 to us? 6 MS. REED: Oh, okay. 7 MR. GIATTINA: Because I think everybody here 8 gets five minutes, and we're trying to be fair. 9 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 10 (WHEREUPON, THE AFTERNOON SESSION WAS 11 ADJOURNED). 12 13 14 * * * * 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 154 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF LEON ) 4 5 I, NANCY S. METZKE, RPR, CCR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the 6 foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 7 DATED this 6th day of March, 2010. 8 9 10 _________________________ 11 NANCY S. METZKE, RPR, CCR Court Reporter 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25