0001
 1     
 2                                 
 3                                 
            DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
 4     
                           PUBLIC HEARING
 5     
 6     
 7     
                 IN RE: NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR 
 8      WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS IN 
                         THE STATE OF FLORIDA
 9                   __________________________________
10     
11     
12     
13     
14     
15     
       DATE:                              February 16, 2010
16     
       TIME:                              P.M. SESSION
17                                    7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
18   
19     LOCATION:                          FSU Conference Center
                                      555 W. Pensacola Avenue
20                                    Tallahassee, Florida
21     
22     REPORTED BY:                    Yvonne LaFlamme 
                                      Court Reporter 
23                                 
24                                 
25                                 
0002
 1                      A P P E A R A N C E S
 2                                 
 3     
 4     
 5               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PANEL MEMBERS:
 6     
 7     
 8                          DENISE KEEHNER
 9                            JIM KEATING
10                           EPHRAIM KING
11                           JIM GIATLINA
12     
13     
14     
15     
16     
17     
18     
19     
20     
21     
22     
23     
24     
25     
0003
 1                             --  -- --
 2                       P R O C E E D I N G S
 3              MR. KING:  Okay.  Why don't we get started.  My 
 4         name is Ephraim King.  I am director of Office of 
 5         Science and Technology and EPA's Office of Water in 
 6         Washington D.C.  
 7              To my right is Jim Giatlina, who is the director 
 8         of the office water in the Region Four Division Office 
 9         in Atlanta.  
10              To Jim's right is Denise Keehner, who is director 
11         of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds in 
12         Washington D.C.  
13              And then to Denise's right is Jim Keating, who is 
14         an expert in this area.  
15              We really appreciate all of the folks that are 
16         here.  I really appreciate you coming out.  And some 
17         of the folks have been with us for part of the day, 
18         and I admire and appreciate that continued engagement.
19              We're here to talk about a proposed rule that's 
20         been issued by EPA to establish numeric nutrient water 
21         quality standards for lake and flowing waters in the 
22         state of Florida.  
23              This is a proposal.  And as part of the proposal 
24         process, we always have a comment period where we 
25         invite and welcome and urge people to share with us 
0004
 1         their thoughts and reactions and comments on different 
 2         aspects of the proposal.  
 3              We ask folks if there's any information that they 
 4         feel we haven't included that we should be including 
 5         in the proposal; is there information we have 
 6         included, but in your view we haven't perhaps 
 7         interpreted it or used it correctly; are there other 
 8         perspectives that folks feel we should be all of these 
 9         set of issues.  All of these things we welcome and 
10         wish you to share with us this evening.  It's a very, 
11         very important part of this process.  
12              We're particularly interested -- tonight any 
13         way -- on getting your view on the science issues, and 
14         the technical issue.  And one of points we make is if 
15         for any reason you don't have a chance to say 
16         everything you want to this evening, or you leave and 
17         you decide, Gosh, I wish I would have added one more 
18         critical point, I just want to remind everybody here 
19         that the formal comment review is open until March 
20         29th, so there will be further opportunity and plenty 
21         of opportunity to submit written comments until March 
22         29th.  And again, we invite and welcome any thoughts 
23         you may have in that regard.  
24              We're having this evening's session in part 
25         because of a sense of real public interest on the part 
0005
 1         of Floridians, so we started this morning.  We had an 
 2         a morning session, we've had afternoon session, and 
 3         we're delighted to have you here this evening and 
 4         share any thoughts you have for this.  
 5              I think with that what I'd like to do is turn it 
 6         over to Denise Keehner, and she is going to explain 
 7         and review with us, what the whole hearing process is, 
 8         what the basis for it is, and after that, we'll turn 
 9         to Jim Keating who will give us an overview of the 
10         Rule itself.
11              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ephraim.  I appreciate 
12         your attendance this evening, and we look forward to 
13         hearing your comments and remarks.  
14              This proposed rule making that was published in 
15         January of 2010 is part of a process that is termed an 
16         informal or notice in comment rule making.  Most 
17         federal regulations, including almost all EPA 
18         regulations, are established through this notice of 
19         rule making process.  
20              The "notice of comment" label under this rule-
21         making process comes from the fact that under the 
22         Administrative Procedures Act this rule making require 
23         three events to occur.  
24              First, is the publication of a notice of proposed 
25         rule making, and as Ephraim alluded to, that was 
0006
 1         public on January 26, 2010 with a proposed numeric 
 2         nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the 
 3         state of Florida.  
 4              Second step in the process is an opportunity for 
 5         public participation.  And the public participation 
 6         process that's associated with the proposed rule is a 
 7         60-day public commenting, during which time the public 
 8         interested entities, stakeholders, have the 
 9         opportunity to file written comments with the 
10         Environmental Protection Agency.  Those comments are 
11         filed in official docket that is accessible to the 
12         public, and any folks who are interested in reading 
13         the materials that come in during the comment period.  
14              We then conclude the process with the publication 
15         of the final regulation.  When the final regulation is 
16         published, the date of this regulation to be published 
17         is by October 15 of 2010.  When the final regulation 
18         is published, we will include in that final regulation 
19         a statement basis; what's the basis for our decisions 
20         between the proposed rule and final rule.  
21              All of the written comments that we will receive 
22         during the comment period will be included in the 
23         public docket.  After the close of the comment period 
24         we will be analyzing all of those comments.  We will 
25         be doing additional data analysis, and potentially 
0007
 1         analytical and scientific work.  
 2              We will be responding to all comments that have 
 3         been significant comments that have been made in 
 4         writing to the EPA through the responsive comments 
 5         document.  
 6              When we publish the final rule, the final rule 
 7         will include a preamble which will describe 
 8         essentially how we arrived at our final decisions and 
 9         in light of all and any changes that were made to 
10         regulation between proposed and final will be 
11         highlighted in the preempt to the final regulation.  
12              We're holding these hearings to provide an 
13         opportunity for the public of Florida to express their 
14         views directly to the EPA representatives here today 
15         who have a rule-making responsibility for this 
16         particular regulation.  
17              Mr. King, who is the director of the Office of 
18         Science and Technology, is this official in charge of 
19         finalizing these regulations.  
20              This is your opportunity to express your views to 
21         us and provide any extra information you may have to 
22         EPA.  You obviously should take advantage of the 
23         opportunity during the comment period to file written 
24         comments that reflect your views, perspectives, and 
25         anything that you would like the bring to the Agency's 
0008
 1         attention.  
 2              We will be preparing of a transcript of today's 
 3         hearing, and that transcript, along with any written 
 4         materials that you might provide to us today will also 
 5         be a part of the administrative record for the rule-
 6         making, and all comments that are presented today will 
 7         be considered by EPA as we move towards development of 
 8         our regulation.  
 9              When you signed in this evening and noted you 
10         wanted to speak, we gave you a number.  After Jim 
11         Keating provides an overview of the EPA's proposed 
12         rule, we will start by calling people individually up 
13         to the podium in the center of the room to provide 
14         their remarks.  We'll go in numeric order.  
15              You'll have five minutes to present your 
16         remarks.  To make the process smoother, it would be 
17         great if the people immediately following the speaker 
18         would sit in the chairs behind the podium so we can 
19         have the process run fairly smoothly.  We've been 
20         doing this since 10:00 the morning and it seems to 
21         work fairly well to keep the process moving forward 
22         and making sure we have time for everybody who wants 
23         to present remarks or comments to have that 
24         opportunity.  
25              So without further ado, I'm going to turn the 
0009
 1         floor over to Jim Keating who will do a presentation, 
 2         an overview of EPA's proposed regulations for numeric 
 3         nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the 
 4         state of Florida.
 5              MR. KEATING:  Thank you, Denise.  And again, good 
 6         evening and thanks for coming out tonight.  I will be 
 7         brief in my overview remarks.  I want to encourage 
 8         everyone who is interested in this rule making to 
 9         avail themselves of the wealth of descriptive and 
10         technical material that we have put out on our website 
11         associated with this proposal; both the rather lengthy 
12         preamble to the proposed rule test, and also the 
13         technical support documentation that's available in 
14         the electronic version of the docket.  
15              What I would like to do real briefly is kind of 
16         walk through how we got to this place.  And taking the 
17         cue from the title of the presentation, I want to talk 
18         a little bit about what nitrogen and phosphorous 
19         pollution is, what water standards are, and how they 
20         apply in our proposal to Florida's lakes and flowing 
21         waters.  
22              To start right off on phosphorous and nitrogen 
23         pollution, one of the biggest concerns we have with 
24         excess levels of phosphorous and nitrogen, which we 
25         call nutrients, is they cause the growth of unwanted 
0010
 1         and nuisance algae.  We certainly understand that 
 2         algae is not always bad, and in fact, is many ways the 
 3         base of the food chain in necessary proper amounts, 
 4         but we see when it gets to excess levels and when it 
 5         starts to include species that aren't expected part of 
 6         the natural community that should be present there can 
 7         be real problems.  
 8              A couple of some examples of unwanted species:  
 9         The algae lyngbia which overtakes fresh water, can 
10         smother out eel grass, which is important food for 
11         creatures like manatees.  It also produces toxins 
12         which are potentially harmful to humans and to animals 
13         including our pets.  
14              The algae, microcystis, is another example of an 
15         unwanted algae that produces toxin.  This toxin can 
16         result in severe liver damage to humans.  It can also 
17         poison livestock and wildlife.  In general, excess 
18         algae can result in discolored water.  It can destroy 
19         the natural balance of expected populations in the 
20         food web that is dependent upon them.  And also, it 
21         decays and depletes oxygen in fresh waters that's 
22         needed for fish and shellfish survival, and it can 
23         result in things like fish kills and other detrimental 
24         impacts on fresh water.  
25              There's also human health concerns for excess 
0011
 1         nitrogen and phosphorous.  One of them is related to 
 2         drinking water intakes and drinking water sources.  
 3         When there's excess level of algae and it goes through 
 4         the disinfection process, there can be byproducts of 
 5         that.  These byproducts are tied to various forms of 
 6         cancer and other serious illnesses.  
 7              Another serious concern with nitrogen pollution 
 8         is elevated levels of nitrates that occur in Florida's 
 9         ground water.  We know that there's a lot of 
10         interaction between the ground water and the surface 
11         water within the state of Florida.  Elevated levels, 
12         highly elevated levels of nitrates in drinking water 
13         sources can be a cause of what we call "Blue Baby 
14         Syndrome" which is a terrible phenomenon in infants, 
15         that can lead to coma and even death.
16              And we know from scouring the data that 
17         violations of the maximum contaminate level or MCL for 
18         nitrates does occur in Florida waters.  
19              There are tremendous amounts of Florida waters 
20         that are at risk for nitrogen and phosphorous 
21         pollution.  There's over 7,000 lakes, 50,000 miles of 
22         rivers and streams, 4,000 square miles of estuaries, 
23         and over 700 freshwater springs.  And a large portion 
24         of these waters have already been identified as 
25         impaired.  And I wanted to show you some images of 
0012
 1         what nitrogen and phosphorous pollution can look like 
 2         and how it can manifest themselves in the waters that 
 3         state what we're talking about.
 4              The image here is Lake Manatee, which is in 
 5         Bradenton, Florida.  It is actually I believe 
 6         considered to be a drinking water source.  And what we 
 7         have here is a picture of an algae bloom.  And the 
 8         device on the right is what we call a secchi disk, and 
 9         it's meant to measure the clarity or transparency of 
10         that water.  As you can see, there wouldn't be any 
11         clarity, at least in this vicinity of the bloom.  
12              This is an older lake in Central Florida called 
13         Lake Apopka.  It's been one of the most well-noted and 
14         well-studied cases of excess nitrogen and phosphorous 
15         in the state, and been one that there has been a lot 
16         of attention paid to.  But as you can see on a large 
17         lake basis what the effects can be and how dramatic 
18         the effect it is.  
19              This is a pond called Merritts Mill Pond.  It's 
20         in Marianna which I believe is an hour west of here, 
21         and this is a good picture of the scum-like material 
22         that can form as a result of algal blooms.  
23              Closer to home right here in Leon County, this is 
24         a close up of Lake Munson waters, and in particular, 
25         microcystis bloom, and algal bloom problems not only 
0013
 1         in Florida lakes but also Florida rivers.  
 2              This is a picture of the Caloosahatchee River, 
 3         and this particular picture is near Olga, Florida, 
 4         which there is drinking water intake which serves a 
 5         fairly large community.  
 6              This is an image that shows the difference.  And 
 7         this is the Caloosahatchee as well, and it shows the 
 8         difference in waters that are experiencing bloom and 
 9         waters that aren't.  Because there is a lock that goes 
10         right in between, and you can very easily see the 
11         stark differences.  
12              This is another river near the north near 
13         Jacksonville.  This is the St. Johns River showing 
14         algal bloom.  This is also the St. Johns River.  
15              What we can see is the nitrogen and phosphorous 
16         pollution puts a number of things we really care about 
17         with our water at risk.  It puts at risk recreation.  
18         It puts at risk ecology, human health, tourism 
19         business, and things like waterfront property values.  
20         These are some of the things that we're concerned 
21         about with these level of nitrogen and phosphorous.  
22              Here's a close up of a tributary on the St. Johns 
23         River that again shows algal bloom.  
24              And here's an image from the St. Lucy River.  
25         This is about an hour -- or I guess less than an hour 
0014
 1         north of West Palm Beach.  
 2              This springs system in Florida are really 
 3         tremendous and a natural recognized resource.  
 4              This is a very famous one north of Tampa called 
 5         Weeki Watchee Spring.  The image on your left is the 
 6         image how it appeared in 1950s.  You can see the eel 
 7         grass present that I spoke of.  And later on this past 
 8         decade from most of the images you can see, a portion 
 9         of the spring that has been taken over by the algae 
10         lyngbia, and we see it's not the same type of system.
11              We see pollution also in Florida's canals, 
12         particularly images of South Florida canals.  This is 
13         one that flows into Biscayne Bay in Florida.  
14              Florida does have some protection for nutrient 
15         pollution in their standards.  They have a narrative 
16         statement, which is a good narrative statement.  It 
17         says you should not have nitrogen and phosphorous that 
18         causes an imbalance in natural populations of flora 
19         and fauna.  The problem, though, is only that with the 
20         narrative statement, it can be a slow process for 
21         developing quantitative limits, and applying those for 
22         water quality management.  And I think more of the 
23         point, it's also a bit of a reactive process.  It's 
24         hard to be preventative for using a narrative and be 
25         sure you're putting in the necessary levels of 
0015
 1         protection and addressing the sources so that we can 
 2         maintain the current healthy and safe condition of 
 3         waters that haven't gotten to the level that some of 
 4         these images show.  I think that's what we're really 
 5         after with looking at our proposed numeric nutrient 
 6         criteria.  
 7              Nutrients come from a variety of sources.  They 
 8         come from urban landscapes.  Rain water washes off of 
 9         them.  They come from cattle and crop fields, air 
10         emissions and cars, power plants, faulty septic tanks, 
11         sewer treatment works, and some industrial discharge.  
12              We also know the better treatment and better 
13         management practices can remove nutrients and actually 
14         stop them from going into Florida waters.  
15              I want to turn and describe for a bit what water 
16         quality standards are, and you should understand they 
17         have designated uses; an expression of what we really 
18         want out of the water and what's our objective for 
19         them.  Then there's water quality criteria which 
20         specify the amount of specific pollutants that are 
21         necessary to protect those designated uses.  
22              In our case of Florida, they have classified the 
23         overwhelming vast majority of lakes and flowing waters 
24         into designated use categories that are consistent 
25         with the goals of the Clean Water Act.  These are 
0016
 1         Class 1, potable water supplies, and Class 3 uses that 
 2         specify propagation of maintenance of healthy well-
 3         balanced populations of fish and wildlife.  And what 
 4         these designated use classes share criteria and 
 5         objectives for achieving recreational uses, protecting 
 6         human health, and having healthy aquatic life.  
 7              These are Florida's goals, and it's the one we're 
 8         trying to achieve through the proposed criteria that 
 9         we're talking about this evening.  
10              The Environmental Protection Agency has been 
11         recommending a criteria for numeric nutrients since 
12         1998.  More recently, after consulting with the 
13         Florida Department of Environmental Protection we 
14         determined that numeric nutrient criteria were, in 
15         fact, necessary for Florida to meet Clean Water Act.  
16         And that determination was made January of 2009.  
17              Later that summer by FDEP presented drafted 
18         numeric nutrient criteria they developed in public 
19         workshops.  And EPA attended those public workshops 
20         and learned a lot from the collaboration we've had 
21         with the Florida DEP.  
22              We did enter into a legal agreement with a group 
23         of environmental, nongovernmental organizations in 
24         August of 2009.  This set some requirements for the 
25         Agency in terms of insuring that numeric nutrient 
0017
 1         criteria are put in place in Florida waters.  We're 
 2         obligated to propose criterias for lakes and flowing 
 3         waters January 2010, finalizing them by October, 
 4         2010.  And as a separate rulemaking effort, addressing 
 5         estuary and coastal waters by 2011, and to go final 
 6         with these by October, 2011.  
 7              To do the proposal we're talking about tonight, 
 8         we really relied upon the extensive amount of data 
 9         that Florida has collected and the technical 
10         approaches they have developed.  We also did some 
11         technical analysis of our own. 
12              In terms of the database, Florida has sampled 
13         thousands of sites.  They have taken tens of thousands 
14         of samples, and when you add up all of observations of 
15         those samples, the results in an overall database well 
16         over a hundred thousand -- in hundreds of thousands 
17         data.  
18              In terms of our actual proposals that we've put 
19         out there for lakes, we define a lake as an open, 
20         contiguous water body, and we classify them to three 
21         groups based on natural color and natural alkalinity.  
22         We're able to derive from field data that show 
23         correlations of chlorophyll A with levels of total 
24         phosphorous and total nitrogen.  
25              Chlorophyll A is a light pigment that occur in 
0018
 1         plant and algae cells, and is a good indicate of 
 2         productivity that you would expect.  We also have a 
 3         provision of our proposal to allow for the total 
 4         phosphorous and total nitrogen criteria to be adjusted 
 5         should there be sufficient data to indicate that the 
 6         chlorophyll levels are achieved in the lake.  And here 
 7         is just a previous summary table of our proposed 
 8         criteria.  
 9              You can see for the colored lakes and clear 
10         alkaline lakes, these are lakes that would be expected 
11         to have a higher level of plant productivity in them.  
12         We would have a higher expectation for chlorophyll A 
13         levels before you would see any deleterious effect 
14         from that on the natural populations or on dissolved 
15         oxygen levels.  
16              On contrast, for clear acidic lakes, they're not 
17         expected to be as productive and would have a lower 
18         chlorophyll A target. And also in the chart depicted, 
19         the total phosphorous and total nitrogen criteria that 
20         are associated from those field correlations.  
21              The last two columns they will modified criteria 
22         are the bounds by which you would have the opportunity 
23         to adjust the criteria should you have sufficient 
24         information that chlorophyll A levels are met.  
25              We defined streams as something that is free-
0019
 1         flowing and in a defined channel.  And for streams and 
 2         rivers, we classified all of the streams in the state 
 3         to different regions.  Based on the underlying geology 
 4         of those regions and other natural features, as well 
 5         as specific watershed boundaries.  We were able to 
 6         develop our own criteria for rivers and streams using 
 7         a tool developed by the Florida Department of 
 8         Environmental Protection to measure the biological 
 9         health of streams.  It's called the stream condition 
10         index.  
11              Our proposal for streams also looks at ways 
12         adjusting criteria where it's necessary to protect 
13         downstream waters.  The criteria to protect rivers and 
14         streams themselves are on the chart that's on the 
15         screen right now. As you can see, also, the image of 
16         how we divided up the regions of the state into the 
17         Panhandle, and the Peninsula which are the largest 
18         regions one.  And then there are two smaller regions. 
19         One is called Bone Valley.  It's in the Tampa Bay, 
20         Sarasota; and the North Central which is up in the 
21         Suwannee drainage, where in both of those areas have 
22         highly enriched phosphatic soils, and it's part of the 
23         natural geology.  And so the organisms have adapted to 
24         that and you can see a difference on the total 
25         phosphorous criteria for those particular regions.  
0020
 1              We have an obligation under federal regulations 
 2         to insure water standards that we establish assure for 
 3         the maintenance and water standards in downstream 
 4         waters.  And the issues we have rivers and streams is 
 5         they flow.  They flow into lakes downstream and flow 
 6         into estuaries downstream, and they carry nutrients 
 7         that are present with them.  
 8              In some cases, for total nitrogen, for example, 
 9         there is losses through the system, but nonetheless, 
10         we have a phenomenon where they do carry these 
11         nutrients, and we have to assure that the levels are 
12         sufficient to protect the downstream lakes and 
13         estuaries.  
14              As part of the proposal for lakes we have a 
15         simple equation that relates lake criteria and stream 
16         criteria, and provide for adjustment if necessary.  
17         For estuaries, we used a United States Geological 
18         Survey to publish scientific literature.  It's called 
19         the Sparrow model.  What it allows you to do is look 
20         at loadings from watershed sources and track those 
21         loadings as they move through the system.  And it 
22         allowed us a tool to estimate protective loadings that 
23         are necessary at the amount of those estuaries.  
24              And in the case of Sparrow, and also take those 
25         protective load systems, apply them back into the 
0021
 1         watershed and streams to come up with concentration 
 2         values that are associated with that level of 
 3         protection.  We call those downstream protection 
 4         values.  
 5              A feature of the downstream levels we propose is 
 6         they tend to be lower than the levels of nitrogen that 
 7         are necessary to protect the instream ecology.  We 
 8         have a couple of choices in how to go forward with the 
 9         downstream protection values.  We can go forward with 
10         the ones we proposed in 2010, or we also indicated the 
11         ability to the -- or we wanted to take comment on the 
12         possibility of waiting until we get the estuary 
13         criteria and coastal criteria in place and then 
14         finalizing the downstream protection values in 2011.  
15              Springs are an important resource in Florida.  
16         And this is water that kind of bubbles up out of the 
17         ground and oftentimes very, very clear.  We had a 
18         wealth of field and laboratory analyses that indicate 
19         that for springs it's the nitrate and nitrite 
20         component of nitrogen that is correlated with presence 
21         of lyngbia, the nuisance algae.  And we have a 
22         criteria based in part on the work that Florida DEP 
23         did for nitrate and nitrite for the protection of 
24         springs.  
25              We also addressed South Florida canals.  These 
0022
 1         are man-made systems that do flow but they're largely 
 2         built for irrigation and flood control purposes.  
 3         However they do carry the same designated uses those 
 4         class three uses; most of them do, for protection of 
 5         aquatic life in recreation and human health.  
 6              What we did for those is a similar kind of 
 7         criteria process we did for the streams.  We're able 
 8         to identify canals that were not impaired where we can 
 9         infer that the designated uses are being met, and we 
10         can set protective levels to protect those designated 
11         uses.  
12              And those appear here on this chart:  Chlorophyll 
13         A, total phosphorous, and total nitrogen in those 
14         canals.  
15              There are a couple other features of EPA's 
16         proposal that I want to draw your attention to.  One 
17         is the allowance for site specific alternative 
18         criteria.  These can be alternatives to the numbers we 
19         proposed where it can be demonstrated that the values 
20         are protected by their designated use.  
21              Our proposal would allow the state and whoever 
22         they wanted to work with make those demonstrations, 
23         submit it to EPA to our regional administrator who 
24         could then propose them a site specific criteria to 
25         the federal rule.  
0023
 1              We also had a provision in the EPA proposed rule 
 2         for what we call restoration standards.  This would 
 3         allow communities to work with the FDEP to come up 
 4         with interim designated uses and interim criteria that 
 5         would allow time to attain these values where there's 
 6         significant issues with attaining them or meeting them 
 7         right way.  This way we would look for the maximum 
 8         feasible progress at each of those interim sets.  
 9              We did prepare an economic analysis across the 
10         could be expected through imposition of the numeric 
11         nutrient criteria.  We divided them into two 
12         categories.  One of the costs that would be associated 
13         with the numeric criteria that FDEP was proposing back 
14         this summer with incremental costs for what in 
15         addition might apply with EPA's proposed criteria of 
16         the FDEP could not address.  
17              Bottom line is costs could be as high as $140 
18         million annually for Florida, and that's largely for 
19         upgraded sewage treatment costs, imposition of best 
20         management practices on agriculture, replacement of 
21         faulty septic systems.
22              We do have fairly well-defined procedure for 
23         submitting written comments.  Again our deadline is 
24         March 29 of this year.  We would accept comments by 
25         mail or by e-mail.  Certainly, the Online system is 
0024
 1         probably the most sufficient for folks.  
 2              Quick review then of where we have been in the  
 3         overview.  Water quality standards their designated 
 4         uses and criteria to protect those uses.  Florida has 
 5         established the designated uses to support ecology, 
 6         recreation, human health.  They agree numeric nutrient 
 7         criteria are necessary.  We entered into a legal 
 8         agreement to propose and ultimately promulgate these 
 9         criteria.  We use a lot of data and many of the 
10         approaches developed by FDEP, and we continue to work 
11         with each other.  
12              In our proposal, we address lakes, rivers 
13         streams, springs, and South Florida canals using 
14         scientifically sound approaches.  We also used 
15         approaches to protect downstream waters using the 
16         equation for lakes in the USDS models for estuaries.  
17              We're further proposing procedures for modify the 
18         criteria for site specific conditions, or procedures 
19         for reaching a criteria levels in gradual steps.  I 
20         really -- in the materials that we produced I 
21         attempted to adequately describe the technical basis.  
22         We also offered some alternatives, and are really, 
23         really seeking comment on both what we proposed and 
24         the alternatives and the specific questions that we've 
25         asked.  
0025
 1              So with that, I think we're ready to hear from 
 2         you.  Thank you very much.  I appreciate your 
 3         attention.
 4              MS. KEEHNER:  Thanks, Jim.  
 5              We're ready now to begin to bring speakers to the 
 6         podium one by one.  When I call your number -- here's 
 7         number one -- please state your name and affiliation.  
 8         We will have five minutes per speaker, and hopefully 
 9         run through the next probably hour and a half to two 
10         hours with speakers.
11              Thanks.
12              MR. CHILDS:  For the record, my name is David 
13         Childs and I'm speaking with you on behalf of the FWEA 
14         Utilities Council, the FSAWA Utility Council, and the 
15         Florida Rural Waters Association.  These are the three 
16         major state umbrella organizations for municipal 
17         wastewater treatment utilities, public water supply 
18         utilities, and rural wastewater utilities.  Any time 
19         you turn on a faucet or flush the toilet in Florida, 
20         you're most likely being served by a member of one or 
21         more of these organizations.  
22              The utilities I represent share EPA's goals of 
23         environmental protection.  In addition to protecting 
24         the environment, however, our utilities must also 
25         protect the rate payers -- all of us that pay water 
0026
 1         and sewer bills -- from the economic burdens; the 
 2         policies that cost a lot, but do not create the 
 3         desired and environmental benefits.  Unfortunately 
 4         that's the case with this rule making.  
 5              We maintain that Florida does not need this 
 6         federal intervention.  At the December, 2009 meeting 
 7         of the Governor in cabinet, Secretary Sole of the 
 8         Florida Department of Environmental Protection was 
 9         asked whether nutrient problems were getting worse in 
10         Florida, and his response was, "I'm hugely confident 
11         that statement is not true."
12              The Secretary is right.  Floridians should be 
13         proud of the work that our state and local regulated 
14         industries and everyday Floridians have done to 
15         address the qualities of Florida's water.  Florida's 
16         water quality programs are as numerous as they are 
17         successful.  Just look at the sea grass in Tampa Bay, 
18         or visit the city of Tallahassee's ongoing $220 
19         wastewater system upgrades to its agricultural reuse 
20         facilities.  
21              Despite this process EPA's promulgated for 
22         Florida in the short time frames that you've imposed 
23         upon yourselves.  These statistically derived criteria 
24         are contrary to the requirements of your own 
25         regulations and the advice of your own science 
0027
 1         advisory board.  The EPA's analysis indicates that 
 2         over 80 percent of Florida's biologically healthy 
 3         extremes will not meet EPA's proposed criteria.  In 
 4         other words, Mother Nature cannot even meet your 
 5         proposed standards.  
 6              Your proposed rule confirms what we have always 
 7         known; the complex relationship between nutrient and 
 8         string biology require site specific nutrient 
 9         standards.  I was going to go into the TMDL program, 
10         but I understand the next speaker is going to hit on 
11         that.  So in addition to TMDLs there are other 
12         programs will be impacted by this rule making.  
13              In Florida we are facing significant water supply 
14         challenges and the state has implemented several 
15         regulatory programs designed to meet those 
16         challenges.  Your proposed rule, however, provides no 
17         indication that you even considered how this rule 
18         making will affect those programs and projects 
19         designed to achieve water supply demands.  
20              How it will affect the use of raw water supplies 
21         and the concentrate disposal.  Will the use of 
22         recleaned water be subject to additional regulatory 
23         hurdles due to nutrient loads; what local governments 
24         that are planned to meet water supply demands in part 
25         with reclaimed water?  If they're driven to deep well 
0028
 1         injection, they're not going to have the resource 
 2         available which will put further restraints on 
 3         traditional supplies.  
 4              One of the first questions Utilities wanted 
 5         answered when this initiative:  How much is this 
 6         federal program going to cost.  And so, they hired a 
 7         reputable engineering firm, Carillo Engineers, and had 
 8         a signed and sealed analysis performed.  The answer 
 9         was $254 billion in capitol costs just for the folks I 
10         represent, because these standards will require the 
11         unprecedented addition of reverse osmosis to their 
12         systems.  Biological treatment just cannot get you 
13         there.  
14              Your rule-making record includes cost estimates 
15         you completed, but instead of looking at the present 
16         day state of the world, you assumed DEP would have 
17         first passed its own numeric standards and cut the 
18         difference within the cost of EPA's standards and 
19         conceptual DEP standards.  So by your logic, everyone 
20         can make 25-and-a-half billion, a small number, if you 
21         just start counting at 25 billion.  You also seem to 
22         assume that DEP and your oversight authority for the 
23         MPS permitting program, that you would be approving 
24         facilities that do not meet the criteria you would be 
25         imposing.  These cost estimates were misleading to the 
0029
 1         state of Florida and quite frankly were 
 2         irresponsible.  
 3              So in closing, just as alchemist will never 
 4         successfully turn copper into gold, you can't massage 
 5         these criteria into scientifically defensible 
 6         standard.  Instead, you're going to harm Floridians, 
 7         undo Florida's sophisticated TMDL program, and you're 
 8         going to harm the environment they live on.  
 9              So on behalf of the Utilities I represent, I ask 
10         you to simply stop what you're doing and work your way 
11         out of this corner you've painted yourself into.  Let 
12         our state continue to lead its peers in protecting the 
13         environment from nutrient pollution. 
14              Thank you.  
15              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Childs.
16              Speaker number two.  
17              MR. ALVES:  Hi there.  Thank you very much.  My 
18         name is Jim Alves, A-L-V-E-S.  I'm with the law firm 
19         Hopkin, Green & Sams, and I'm here tonight on behalf 
20         of the FCG, Florida Coordinating Group, a consortium 
21         of Electric Utilities.  
22              And I have a lot to talk about TMDLs, but I feel 
23         like I need to say a few things in response to the 
24         introduction.  
25              I sort of in all candor couldn't believe what I 
0030
 1         was hearing when you're talking about nitrates.  
 2         Florida has a nitrate standard that applies in the 
 3         groundwater, and it has a permit program, and the 
 4         standard is rigorously enforced, and the permit 
 5         program is very rigorously enforced.  And you said 
 6         that there are some nitrate violations in Florida.  I 
 7         don't doubt that that's true.  I have never heard that 
 8         there's anything like a serious nitrate compliance 
 9         problem in Florida.  That would be news to me, because 
10         we have a very strong groundwater program.  
11              And so, I think it's very misleading to talk 
12         about the toxicity of nitrates and talk about blue 
13         babies, because we do not have a nitrate problem.  And 
14         if there was a nitrate problem, I don't think your 
15         rule would be responsive to it at all.  So it seems 
16         like you're trying to generate fear, in all honesty.  
17         And in saying that, I would urge you to reconsider 
18         whether you're going to continue to do that at the 
19         other workshops, because it's right on the board of 
20         being misinformation.  
21              The other thing I saw, the vast majority of the 
22         photos that y'all showed seemed to be from the second 
23         half of 2005.  And those of us who have lived in 
24         Florida know that we had a whole lot of storms that 
25         year.  2004 and 2005 we had frequent very intense 
0031
 1         storms, including many hurricanes, and everything was 
 2         topsy-turvy.  We have releases from all sorts of 
 3         waters, and that is not a representative period at 
 4         all.  
 5              You had another photo of an impaired water from 
 6         1995.  I don't know what relevance that could possibly 
 7         have in 2010.  And you have another water.  Now, you 
 8         did have a water where you showed a photo that 
 9         apparently was from 2009, and it was this photo here 
10         which is also in the literature outside of the door, 
11         hopefully.  It's called "It's Turned Into Slime."  
12         This water body now has a TMDL that has been issued by 
13         the DEP and presumably like other TMDLs will be 
14         approved by EPA.  
15              And you know, the thing about your water quality 
16         standard if it does come into effect, it's not going 
17         to be self-executing.  You know, the difficulty I 
18         think, and I think many of y'all know this with 
19         nutrients, is going to be implementation.  For 
20         example, in this case there's a lot of homes right 
21         along that water body. 
22              Again, this is your picture, and it's also out 
23         there in your the literature, and the standard is not 
24         going to clean that up.  It's going to be 
25         implementation, and the people that are going to be 
0032
 1         implementing it are the people living in those homes 
 2         along the river.  And in all candor, I don't think 
 3         they're going to like it, because they're going to get 
 4         told clean it up and they're going to have to do.  
 5         They're going to have to put in high-performance 
 6         septic tanks.  That's going to be very expensive.  
 7         They might have to change how they have the landscape 
 8         on their lawns and stop putting fertilizer on it.  And 
 9         they may stop to change what they do with their 
10         boats.  
11              The key is implementation, and the way you 
12         implement is with a TMDL program.  Florida has a 
13         strong TMDL program. It's been implemented.  It's been 
14         progressing very well for about ten years now under a 
15         1999 consent decree that EPA signed, and had a 
16         schedule that goes all the way out to 2012.  
17              And again, the key is implementation.  We have 72 
18         I think TMDLs that have been approved by EPA.  How 
19         could those waters need a numeric nutrient criteria if 
20         they have a TMDL with numeric endpoints that have been 
21         approved by EPA.  And we haven't seen anything in the 
22         federal register preamble statement or any of the 
23         background information documents that EPA has 
24         considered that contradiction.  
25              So we urge you to regroup.  This is very poorly 
0033
 1         conceived, and it absolutely should not go forward.  
 2         It's a big mistake and we urge you to change course.  
 3         Thank you very much.
 4              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Alves.
 5              Speaker number three.  
 6              MR. MURPHY:  Good evening.  My name is Joe 
 7         Murphy.  I'm with the Gulf Restoration Network.  My 
 8         comments are going to be a little different than the 
 9         previous two speakers.  Gulf Restoration is a Gulf-
10         wide non-profit organization.  We've been working in 
11         the Gulf of Mexico now for 15 years to promote 
12         protection of water quality and healthy estuaries, 
13         healthy rivers, and we're very concerned of the state 
14         of our Gulf and the state of water bodies in state of 
15         Florida.  
16              I'm a lifelong and native Floridian.  I was born 
17         here, I live here, and I will die here.  I think 
18         Florida is one of the most amazing places on earth, 
19         and in the course of my lifetime the degradation of 
20         our water bodies has been overwhelming.  And I to 
21         paraphrase Secretary Sole, am quite confident that 
22         that is the case.  I think any observation whether 
23         scientific or just as a lay person of Florida's water 
24         bodies would show that things in Florida are getting 
25         worse.  They are not getting better.  As a lifelong 
0034
 1         native Floridian, I paddle, I swim, I fish, I scallop, 
 2         I explore our water bodies, and it's been my 
 3         experience it has impacted my family and myself very 
 4         personally that water quality in Florida is 
 5         deteriorating.  It's particularly true in our 
 6         springs.  I think if you believe that the process in 
 7         Florida is working, then I have some green spring 
 8         water that I'll sell you it's not the case.  
 9              Again, I grew up on the Weeki Watchee River where 
10         the slides of the Weeki Watchee river powerfully show 
11         the difference between when my grandparents used that 
12         river and when I used it today, and it's a great 
13         example of what's going wrong in Florida and how we're 
14         heading in the wrong direction.  
15              Our springs, as I mentioned, the Weeki Watchee, 
16         Wakulla Springs, Manatee Springs, Rainbow Springs, 
17         Silver Springs, these are good examples that springs 
18         are on decline and are facing serious challenges.  Our 
19         rivers and our estuaries are no better in general are 
20         in no better shape in many cases.  The Gulf 
21         Restoration Network supports the importance of EPA, 
22         and this is an important first step in the right 
23         direction.  
24              This is a critical step and it must be taken 
25         further.  It's a step in the right direction and we 
0035
 1         applaud EPA for taking that steps, and am one of the 
 2         speakers tonight that thanks you for being here 
 3         tonight.  As a Floridian:  Come on in.  Do what must 
 4         be done.  Because clearly, the program in Florida has 
 5         not been working in protecting our water bodies, and 
 6         that is abundantly evident just from casual 
 7         observation and/or scientific information.  
 8              I had a lot of information, a lot of facts and 
 9         figures and things I was going to mention, but to be 
10         perfectly honest, I don't know what I'm going to tell 
11         you that you don't know.
12              Your initial presentation was very well done and 
13         very effective.  And I think you have the data, and 
14         you have the research, and you have the knowledge as 
15         to what the problem is in Florida, and you're taking 
16         the first critical steps towards implementing a 
17         solution and we support that.  We want to see you go 
18         further.  And obviously it's an environmental 
19         organization, we always want to see the bar raised a 
20         little higher, but we think it is a step in the right 
21         direction, and we're appreciative of that.  
22              So I just want to mention something else in a 
23         broader sense.  The economic impacts were often talked 
24         about, and the issue of jobs is often talked about.  I 
25         wanted to just promote the idea that in Florida, clean 
0036
 1         water is a healthy economy.  Florida's recreational 
 2         and commercial fishing industry is directly dependent 
 3         on clean, healthy waters.  
 4              Another organization we work with are 
 5         recreational and commercial fishing groups.  They 
 6         depend directly on healthy waters and healthy 
 7         estuaries.  You take that away, and you hurt a lot of 
 8         people in Florida who are directly employed as a 
 9         result of clean water in Florida.  
10              Our coastal businesses up and down the coast 
11         across the state of Florida, whether it's restaurants 
12         or hotels or whatever the case maybe, depend on clean 
13         and healthy water.  
14              The outside recreation in Florida, the folks who 
15         rent kayaks and canoes and jetskiis, they depend on 
16         clean water in Florida.  
17              Last but not least, wildlife viewing in  Florida; 
18         people who just bird or hike or just recreate.  
19         Millions of people do it in Florida.  It generates a 
20         lot of economic activity in Florida, and again, they 
21         depend on clean, healthy resources for their industry 
22         to be successful.
23              We cannot afford not to do this.  That's the real 
24         fundamental issue at play.  
25              My last concern that I wanted to state, and I'm 
0037
 1         very glad of the fact that there's no doubt in how 
 2         much time we have.  It's very clear.  The Gulf of 
 3         Mexico are suffering a death of a thousand cuts, 
 4         whether it's coastal developments, nutrient pollution,  
 5         loss of habitat.  A whole range of things are in play, 
 6         and the systems are much less resilient.  We see in 
 7         Florida natural systems that for years could absorb a 
 8         hurricane in the case of upland areas, or had fish 
 9         kill because of cold weather, those systems that were 
10         naturally resilient historically now have been 
11         comprised as a result of pollution.  And that's 
12         unacceptable, and we have to change that.  
13              The last thing I want to part with we should use 
14         a standard that is not only a standard that's 
15         scientific, but that's also ethical.  We have a duty 
16         to be good stewards to resource we've been entrusted 
17         with.  And my test of knowing if Florida's going in 
18         the right direction is whether or not my grandchildren 
19         will know the Florida are that my grandparents knew.  
20         Right now that's looking like that's not going to be 
21         the case, but you guys have the power and the ability 
22         to change that.  And I ask you to use that 
23         responsibility and make sure we clean up our waters in 
24         Florida and make sure future generations of Floridians 
25         know the Florida are I know, the Weeki Watchee River 
0038
 1         the way it's supposed to look, not the way it looks 
 2         now.  And we're really fighting back and making sure 
 3         we have good water quality in Florida.  
 4              Thank you very much.
 5              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
 6              Number four, please.  
 7              MR. ADAMS:  Good evening.  My name is Colin 
 8         Adams, and I'm an attorney with Earthjustice here 
 9         speaking as a deeply concerned Floridian.  
10              I was born and raised in North Florida by a 
11         nature enthusiast who himself grew up in Miami and 
12         never missed an opportunity to take me into wild 
13         Florida, in fact, he still doesn't. 
14              But let's be clear about some of the things 
15         that's been said in earlier sessions today.  When a 
16         farmer claims he's doing BMPs, there's no way to 
17         verify it.  Under the TMDL statute by simply claiming 
18         their BMPs are in place there's a presumption he 
19         meeting water quality standards, and there's an 
20         exemption from monitoring for compliance, so the 
21         chronic fertilization that results from this system is 
22         fertilizer abuse.  Because and it causes irreparable 
23         damages to our natural treasures.  
24              Agriculture can implement real and effective 
25         BMPs.  Just look at our waters and you can see that 
0039
 1         we're well overdue.  On the subject of fertilizer use 
 2         it's past time Florida banned fertilizer use all 
 3         together.  We can reduce the huge percent of nutrient 
 4         loading and financial impact on the fertilizer 
 5         industry would be minimal.  Spoiling the springs for 
 6         everyone shouldn't be a trade off for best lawn in the 
 7         neighborhood.  
 8              An earlier speaker in another session said sewage 
 9         bills have gone up fifty percent in Tallahassee.  And 
10         the truth is, in the cases where there have been 
11         higher bills, they only went up about ten dollars a 
12         month for a family of three.  
13              Another speaker discussed, one of my colleagues, 
14         lack of number on the occurrence algae blooms 
15         throughout history.  We're not arguing that blooms 
16         haven't occurred for millions of years.  The problem 
17         is algae blooms are now invading inland areas, areas 
18         where they have never been.  They happen more often 
19         and they last much longer than they should.  In fact, 
20         we're going on almost a year now in Tampa Bay of 
21         having an algae bloom out there.  This is not 
22         natural.  
23              My colleague informed me, in fact, that there had 
24         never been an algae bloom in her pond before the one 
25         she was talking about, and people have lived in that 
0040
 1         area for about thirty years now.  
 2              We've also heard about the lack of tax payer 
 3         money that agricultural interest have to fall back 
 4         on.  The truth is growers get money for being pees, 
 5         they get money for tail water recovery, for growing 
 6         crops, for not growing crops, and the idea that 
 7         taxpayers aren't the source of this money is just 
 8         plain wrong.  
 9              Turning to wastewater, it's time to focus on 
10         recreation and not allow nutrient rich wastewater 
11         discharges to foul our surface waters as they have 
12         been.  
13              And lastly, it's time to dispel the myth that 
14         pristine streams exist.  There are none, and the 
15         reason EPA's number look low is because nutrient 
16         levels are too high everywhere.  It's a skewed 
17         perception.  
18              I want to end on a personal story.  I used to go 
19         to Wakulla Springs as a kid where I could see eighty 
20         feet down into the spring head trying to spot the mass 
21         bones.  It was one of my favorite place to visit and 
22         just perfectly clear.  I just went recently within the 
23         last year and saw manatees in Wakulla Springs for the 
24         first time.  I can't tell you how heart sick it made 
25         me to see them floating on what looked like a hazy, 
0041
 1         green blanket that you couldn't see three feet into, 
 2         so I just couldn't bear it.  And I want my kids to 
 3         have their chance to spot the fossils, not be 
 4         frightened by the green monster.  
 5              Thank you.
 6              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Adams.  
 7              Speaker number five.  
 8              MS. VOGEL:  My name is Cathy Vogel.  I'm on 
 9         Florida Water Quality Coalition.  We are an 
10         organization of regulated industries which is very, 
11         very concerned about water quality in Florida.  But we 
12         are also equally concerned about having reasonable 
13         science based and achievable water quality standards.  
14              First of all, Director King and representatives 
15         of EPA, I would like to welcome you to Florida, and 
16         thank you very much for coming to our state and 
17         holding these hearings.  It is imperative that the 
18         EPA, and particularly EPA in Washington D.C., 
19         understand the convictions, concerns, and opinions of 
20         the citizens and of this state.  And I encourage you 
21         to listen carefully and take this to heart, because it 
22         is on your shoulders to take the voices of Floridians 
23         back to Washington.  
24              And having said that, I would also echo the 
25         recent congressional delegation letter from the 
0042
 1         Florida Congressional Delegation to Administrator 
 2         Jackson asking you please to consider to have 
 3         additional public hearings in Miami, Tampa, 
 4         Jacksonville, all major urban areas that are left out 
 5         of this round of hearings you're having, and to please 
 6         consider extending the public comment period on this 
 7         very, very, complex technical water quality issue.  
 8              Okay.  Having said that, I'm going to speak 
 9         generically about some issues that you're going to 
10         hear about.  
11              Economics.  With all do respect to y'all, we 
12         believe that what EPA has suggested for the economic 
13         impact on compliance with these proposed criteria is 
14         grossly, grossly underestimated.  We have analyses 
15         from Florida Water Environment Association, Florida 
16         Storm Water Association, which doesn't even take into 
17         consideration Florida Management Districts, Florida 
18         manufacturers, agriculture, power generators, upwards 
19         of a hundred billion dollars.  The cost is 
20         incomprehensible to us now.  
21              And I realize that economics is not a major 
22         concern, perhaps, of the federal government.  But if 
23         it was your farm, or your business, or your water 
24         utility customer, you might have a different 
25         perspective.  
0043
 1              Let me talk quickly about environmental 
 2         benefits.  Here is a quote from the highest ranking 
 3         environmental official in the state of Florida, 
 4         Secretary Mike Sole -- let me put my glasses on.  
 5         "Compliance will force an investment of billions of 
 6         dollars without environmental benefit."  
 7              And the concern here despite other testimony here 
 8         tonight is that we are told 80 percent of pristine 
 9         water streams and lakes and water bodies will fall 
10         under an impaired status with your proposed criteria.  
11              Now, what sense is it to clean up clean waters.  
12         I mean this is what we have to ask ourselves.  And we 
13         have to be concerned that there are really, really, 
14         impaired water bodies that demand the highest priority 
15         of limited and public and private investment to clean 
16         them up.  We're also concerned about what this will do 
17         to restoration activities in state of Florida.  If we 
18         can't bring water to the Everglades because it doesn't 
19         meet standards to go into stormwater treatment areas, 
20         is that whole program coming to a stand still?  I 
21         don't know.  
22              Finally, achievability.  And I'm going to quote 
23         two more issues from Secretary Sole:  Conventional 
24         municipal wastewater technology endorsed by the EPA in 
25         2008 cannot achieve EPA proposed criteria.
0044
 1              Number two, existing technology for agriculture 
 2         cannot achieve EPA proposed criteria.
 3              This is testimony from the secretary of the 
 4         Environmental Protection Department to legislative 
 5         committees and by extension to the people of Florida.  
 6              And one final ammunition that Secretary Sole made 
 7         in his testimony was:  Floridians be afraid.  Now, 
 8         fear is a very powerful motivator what you believe is 
 9         right and more proper and equitable.  And so maybe 
10         it's a good thing but to me it seems very 
11         disconcerting that we're hearing from officials in the 
12         state of Florida to Floridians that we need to be 
13         afraid of what the federal government is going to do 
14         to our state.  
15              Thank you.
16              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Vogel.  
17              Speaker number six.  
18              MR. MEADOWS:  Good evening.  My name is Andrew 
19         Meadows.  I represent Florida Citrus Mutual.  We are 
20         the world's largest citrus trade organization with 
21         more than 8,00 grower members.  Founded in 1948, we 
22         are in our 62nd year of existence.  Mutual board is 
23         governed by a board of 61 directors elected each 
24         year.  The vast majority are growers, and many of them 
25         are from 3rd and 4th generation Florida family farms. 
0045
 1              The Florida citrus industry covers about 570,000 
 2         acres in Florida which if contiguous would be about 
 3         the size of Rhode Island.  Citrus generates a state 
 4         wide nine billion dollars a year, and indirectly and 
 5         directly employs 76,000 people.  Everyone from fruit 
 6         harvesters to truck drivers to bankers.  
 7              Citrus serves as Florida's signature industries 
 8         and we're proud of that.  Maybe you noticed the orange 
 9         blossom on Florida license plates when you drove in.  
10         In Florida, we produce almost 75 percent of orange 
11         juice consumed in the United States.  
12              We are also the world's largest grapefruit 
13         producer.  We produce wholesome products that provide 
14         our fellow citizens with essential nutrients including 
15         vitamin C, a healthy and powerful antioxidant.  I hope 
16         y'all had your glass of orange juice this morning.  
17              Florida Citrus Mutual has several issues with the 
18         rule as written.  Numeric nutrient criteria must be 
19         site specific, otherwise healthy water bodies will be 
20         deemed impaired, and resources will be wasted 
21         attempting to make those water bodies meet nutrient 
22         concentrations they would not naturally meet, to their 
23         natural diversity.  The EPA's federal intervention 
24         disrupts the water quality restoration efforts.  The 
25         federal numeric nutrient criteria will be state water 
0046
 1         quality standards that forms the basis for ongoing 
 2         restoration programs, such as the numerous total 
 3         maximum daily load initiative.  
 4              If forced to comply with numeric nutrient 
 5         criteria rule as it currently stands, agriculture will 
 6         bear substantial costs.  Are growers going to have to 
 7         take land out of production to build huge retention 
 8         ponds or forest buffer zones?  Are we going to have to 
 9         create close systems to eliminate run-off?  These are 
10         not viable solutions.  
11              We believe their cost analysis was way off and 
12         that compliance will cost much more than you 
13         indicate.  Mutual is very worried that heavy-handed, 
14         expensive and ultimately unattainable regulations will 
15         push the Florida's citrus industry over the edge and 
16         put growers out of business.  
17              There's a razor thin margin in agriculture 
18         between staying in business and going bankrupt, and 
19         costs of regulation could tip the scale.  
20              Let me give you a quick lesson in agriculture.  
21         Being at the beginning of the supply chain producing a 
22         perishable commodity, growers can't pass additional 
23         costs on to consumers.  We are cost takers.  We get 
24         what the processing plants offer us, so any additional 
25         costs are taken straight from grower's bottom line.  
0047
 1              So what happens when growers go out of business 
 2         because they can't comply with new rules and 
 3         regulations.  Food production shifts overseas.  We've 
 4         all seen it throughout history on a number of 
 5         products, not just food stuff. 
 6              Right now the Florida citrus industry is locked 
 7         in a competitive battle with Brazil.  Over the past 
 8         three decades, Brazilian orange juice has taken a 
 9         large portion of Florida's market share.  And do you 
10         know why?  It's not quality, I can tell you that.  
11         It's because Brazilian growers aren't bound to the 
12         same standards to US growers; in other words, by what 
13         they put on their crop or what they pay their 
14         employees.  So they can produce their citrus much 
15         cheaper than we can here in Florida.  
16              The new numeric nutrient criteria would be 
17         another competitive advantage enjoyed by Brazilian 
18         growers.  The rule will pound another nail in the 
19         coffin for Florida's citrus.  Food production is too 
20         important to the future and security of our country to 
21         just hand it over to foreign countries.  Any new 
22         regulation that puts additional costs burden on the 
23         Florida citrus grower will be disastrous.  That's not 
24         hyperbaly, that's fact. A Brazilian monopoly on citrus 
25         also raise retail prices.  
0048
 1              Focusing on the economic impacts those 
 2         regulations doesn't mean that Florida citrus growers 
 3         want to pollute in order to make money.  Florida 
 4         citrus growers are good stewards of the land.  We have 
 5         to be.  The land and water support our businesses and 
 6         our families.  If we treat it badly, we don't have a 
 7         business.  Evolving production practices are more 
 8         environmentally friendly than ever.  A vast majority 
 9         of citrus grown in Florida is cultivated through BMPs, 
10         which as you know are cultivated on production 
11         strategies scientifically shown to preserve water 
12         quality unless the environmental impact in 
13         agricultural.  
14              Through BMPs have utilized techniques to minimize 
15         fertilizer run-off like scheduling applications to 
16         avoid Florida's rainy season, and variable application 
17         technology where machine reuses sensors to deliver a 
18         specific amount of fertilizer right to the tree has 
19         maximize deficiency.  
20              So I urge you to keep us like citrus growers in 
21         mind as this rule making process on the numeric 
22         nutrient criteria in this economy it would be wise for 
23         the EPA far reaching consequences on a major Florida 
24         industry.  
25              Thank you.
0049
 1              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Meadows. 
 2              Speaker number seven, please.  
 3              MR. TILTON:  Good evening.  Andy Tilton from 
 4         Johnson Engineering for the record.  
 5              I thank you for being here and think that numeric 
 6         nutrient standards are something that we need in this 
 7         state.  I just have some things I would like you to 
 8         consider as you're determining what those standard 
 9         would be.  
10              One, there are several canals across South 
11         Florida there are that are merely conduits from a 
12         developed area to a treatment area.  As a conduits 
13         they fall into the same classification -- the way I 
14         read the rule as drafted -- as one that delivers tide 
15         water.  What it would mean is those canals would have 
16         to have pretreatment before the treatment.  It's sort 
17         of like having to treat your wastewater before it gets 
18         from your toilet to the wastewater plant.  Not a real 
19         practical situation.  
20              Lee County has spent several of hundreds of 
21         thousands of dollars in new treatment facilities that 
22         would no longer be useful if that is the case.  I know 
23         South Florida has major investment in storm water 
24         treatment centers.  It would be in the same area.  
25              Number two.  The state has spent a lot of money 
0050
 1         over the last ten years, as you've acknowledged, in 
 2         getting data and things together.  And I was just 
 3         looking at some stuff on Mississippi and Gulf dead 
 4         zone the other day, where there's parts of 31 states 
 5         that deliver water to the Gulf of Mexico.  Many of 
 6         them don't have standards at all to, according the 
 7         literature that I can find, and yet those standards 
 8         are being applied to Florida long before those areas 
 9         are having to do anything.  And there's an economic 
10         disadvantage to Florida.  It also makes me ask the 
11         question, what other state would want to go and do all 
12         of the research that Florida has done, create the data 
13         only to have their head chopped off and be slapped up 
14         side the face because they decided to try and do 
15         something about poor water quality.  
16              Third issue I don't quite understand -- and there 
17         are parts of it I do understand and there were parts 
18         of I don't understand -- and that is different 
19         portions of values from different portions of the 
20         state.  And I realize that natural deposits of 
21         phosphate materials maybe part of that answer, but 
22         when the Peace River enters the Gulf of Mexico, not 
23         directly but indirectly through Charlotte Harbor it's 
24         right next to the Caloosahatchee, and phosphorous 
25         level is about six and a half times different.  And I 
0051
 1         don't quite understand how it's different to the Gulf 
 2         of Mexico when the red tide in the Gulf of Mexico is 
 3         put towards too much nutrients.  So I'm not how the 
 4         Gulf of Mexico knows or if it comes out of the 
 5         Caloosahatchee or if it comes from the Imperial as 42 
 6         parts per billion if I'm reading it correctly in the 
 7         draft rule.  
 8              So I've got three rivers roughly within about 60 
 9         or 80 miles of each other, and we've got 40 to 749 
10         parts per billion,  I don't fully understand how the 
11         Gulf of Mexico knows the difference.  
12              Fourth item is -- and maybe this is just a 
13         confusion on my part on reading the rules -- is on one 
14         hand it says it deals with class one and class three 
15         water bodies.  Storm water ponds don't have a 
16         classification under the state regulations, but they 
17         also are impounded artificial bodies of water, and 
18         that in the same part of the general information talks 
19         about existing surface waters being regulated by 
20         this.  
21              So if it's just my understanding of storm water 
22         ponds being included as a surface water, great, it's a 
23         wonderful thing.  If the storm water ponds also have 
24         to meet this, we also have the same problems as the 
25         canals that I talked about earlier about we're having 
0052
 1         to treat the water before it gets to the treatment 
 2         system.  
 3              And the last thing is in looking at rainfall in 
 4         South Florida and actually across the state in South 
 5         Florida there's rainfall deposition of phosphorous in 
 6         15 to 80 parts per billion.  And in most of the south 
 7         Florida we're going to have to treat the water to 42 
 8         parts or less.  I'm not sure how this is possible when 
 9         the rain fall falling in most situations on clean 
10         sheet of glass would have to be treated before it 
11         could run off the tide water.  
12              So I'm kind of hard-pressed to understand what 
13         really we're shooting for in doing this.  If maybe we 
14         could treat the water -- treat the businesses in 
15         Georgia that we get aerial deposition from then we 
16         wouldn't get as much aerial deposition then we 
17         wouldn't have to treat it before it gets to our storm 
18         water. 
19              Thank you.
20              MS. KEEHNER: Thank you.  
21              Speaker number eight.  
22              MR. ARMINGEON:  Good evening I'm Neil Armingeon.  
23         I'm the St. Johns water keeper from Jacksonville, 
24         Florida.  I'm going to vacillate vastly from the 
25         script you've heard most of the day.  We are glad you 
0053
 1         are hear.  In fact, we are one of reasons you are 
 2         here.  Our organization is one of plaintiffs.  
 3              I'm glad I saw the slide show, because for the 
 4         last four hours, I've asked myself how can people come 
 5         up to this microphone and say over and over and over:  
 6         What we're to go is working.  So when I see that slide 
 7         slow, many of those slides I know personally because I 
 8         spend a lot of time on the St. Johns River, and we had 
 9         toxic algae bloom this summer that was not some trick 
10         photo shopped photo of a canal.  The river was sick.  
11         That algae bloom extended from Walocka which is about 
12         80 miles upstream of Jacksonville through Jacksonville 
13         past JU out into the mouth of the St. Johns River.  So 
14         it is not some trick photograph that brings you here.  
15              The truth is the St. Johns river and many bodies 
16         of water in Florida are impaired.  It's not me saying 
17         that, it's the Department of Environmental 
18         Protection.  And because of that, 12 years ago the 
19         Department entered into an agreement to address this 
20         problem, and my organization and me personally for 
21         almost the last nine years has been involved in trying 
22         to find a solution to this.  
23              You have heard a lot about the TMDL process, and 
24         I was one of the stakeholders until it came time to 
25         really calculate what it would take to produce a clean 
0054
 1         and healthy St. Johns River.  When that number came 
 2         out, approximately 60 percent reduction in nutrient 
 3         inflow.  Those who used river in depose of waste 
 4         products say we're not going to accept this.  And 
 5         through some trickery and chicanery a number was 
 6         cooked up that the polluters accepted, but low and 
 7         behold, violated state water quality standards.  And 
 8         my organization and the Clean Water Network of Florida 
 9         challenged that TMDL, and we were successful.  And the 
10         EPA stepped in and said we need to reduce nitrogen by 
11         60 percent, but that wasn't good enough.  
12              Then DEP bent over backwards to establish 
13         something you've hear over and over today, site 
14         receive alternative criteria.  What I have heard today 
15         is how far parts of Florida are willing to go to 
16         maintain the status quo.  It's what we're hearing.  
17         Everything is fine despite data that says otherwise.  
18         If Secretary Sole thinks that the waters of Florida 
19         are not impaired, I invite him and some of his staff 
20         to come to the St. Johns River and talk to the people 
21         who fish that river who see that river, who see that 
22         river, who smell that river every summer since 2005 
23         and beg to differ with them.  
24              I can tell you the names of people who live in 
25         Walocka who have had an algae bloom in front of their 
0055
 1         house from April until the first cold snap or the 
 2         first cold snap here in January.  
 3              Here's what I'm here to say.  There are many 
 4         people who are not represented in this room tonight 
 5         who support what you're doing, who could not come here 
 6         today, who could not afford attorneys or consultants 
 7         or other people to drive to Tallahassee to say:  We 
 8         support this.  
 9              So I don't want you leaving this hearing thinking 
10         that what you've heard is six or seven citizens who 
11         are able to, who are blessed enough in their jobs to 
12         be able to come and say to you there are many of 
13         thousands of people outside of this room who are 
14         concerned about the continuing degradation of the 
15         waters of Florida.  
16              And if anybody in this room doesn't think that 
17         those photos extend beyond the borders of Florida, 
18         that people around the country may hear about what 
19         Florida is doing for water quality but those pictures 
20         tell a different story.  What I would ask you to do is 
21         stay fast, avoid some of the pitfalls that await you, 
22         we and others are watching you.  We have faith in this 
23         process, and hopefully you will find the courage, and 
24         those of you in Washington will find the political 
25         support to carry through in this very important 
0056
 1         mission that you have undertaken.  
 2              I appreciate the opportunity to be with you.  
 3              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Armingeon.
 4              Speaker number nine.  
 5              MR.  MAY:  Good evening.  My name is Richard 
 6         May.  I'm not a consultant.  I'm not a lawyer.  I'm a 
 7         farmer.  My family lives in Quincy, Florida.  We have 
 8         a wholesale nursery.  We also have a crop farm and 
 9         timber.  
10              I live in Quincy, Florida with my wife my two 
11         daughters and another baby on the way.  My family owns 
12         and operates a wholesale nursery in Gadsden County, 
13         Florida,one of the poorest counties in Florida.  
14         Gadsden County also boasts one of the highest 
15         unemployment rates in the state of Florida.  
16              I want to tell you a little bit about my family's 
17         history in Florida.  We have been farming in Gadsden 
18         County for over 150 years, succeeding six generations.  
19         We purchased our farm in 1849 and since then we have 
20         grown cattle, corn, peanuts, tomatoes, tobacco, soy 
21         beans, sod, cotton, timber, and nursery plants. 
22              We have survived heat, drought, freezes, 
23         hurricanes, recessions, depressions, market 
24         fluctuations and international competition.  At the 
25         same time, we have been squeezed to the brink with 
0057
 1         skyrocketing input costs, increased competition, 
 2         increased insurance costs, increased taxes, and lower 
 3         prices for our goods sold.  
 4              Right now I'm selling three gallon plants at a 
 5         cheaper price than what we were selling for in 1980 
 6         when I was three years old.  We're fighting for 
 7         survival.  Our nursery currently provide employs over 
 8         150 people.  Our sales are down fifty percent in three 
 9         years.  Our costs are up considerably.  We cannot pass 
10         those costs on to our customers.  
11              Right now I estimate that there are over 40050 
12         people employed by plant nurseries in Gadsden County 
13         alone.  That is only a drop in the bucket to the 
14         nurseries that are in business throughout the state.  
15              I am an outdoors man.  I'm a tree lover, a 
16         naturalist, and an avid plant collector and plant 
17         explorer.  I probably spend more time in the forests 
18         and waters of Florida than over 90 percent of the 
19         citizens of the state including all of the so-called 
20         environmentalists.  I love the outdoors.  I will never 
21         intentionally do anything to harm the environment that 
22         I enjoy so much.  
23              Our farm operates according to best management 
24         practices that were set up by the Florida Department 
25         of Environmental Protection, the Department of 
0058
 1         Agriculture, and funded by you, the US Environmental 
 2         Protection Agency.  
 3              We use slow-release fertilizer.  We capture our 
 4         run-off water.  We actively monitor all of our 
 5         nutrient levels every week.  We only fertilize when 
 6         our nutrient levels fall to a level that necessitates 
 7         additional fertilizer.  Fertilizer costs money, and a 
 8         lot of it, and it doesn't make sense to waste our 
 9         fertilizer.  
10              So many people think that agriculture hurts 
11         Florida.  These are the same people who think that 
12         tomatoes come from the second shelf on the right when 
13         they walk into the grocery store.  In reality, farmers 
14         are the original environmentalists.  We forego money, 
15         suburban lifestyle in exchange for open places, 
16         outdoor office and hard work.  Agriculture is the 
17         unknown backbone of the state of Florida.  We are the 
18         only thing standing between wide, open green spaces 
19         and wall to wall suburbia strip malls and concrete.
20              I know that you are all are very tired having 
21         talked about the issue all day and all night and I do 
22         not envy you one bit.  But I can promise you, however 
23         tired you feel now, it pales in comparison to the 
24         sleepless nights I have had in the past two years as I 
25         have watched my business falter under the stress of a 
0059
 1         bad economy, increased regulation and a growing list 
 2         of unknowns and "what ifs."  
 3              And a couple of remarks in response to other 
 4         folks' remarks.  The 2005 photos.  2005 if you were a 
 5         farmer in Florida are you know that it was an 
 6         extremely out of characteristically hot year, and a 
 7         very dry year with lots of forest fires.  Algal blooms 
 8         happen more in drought years.  And I also would like 
 9         to know who I need to call to receive my check for 
10         complying with best management practices because they 
11         owe me about 12 years of back checks.  
12              Thank you.
13              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. May.  
14              Speaker number ten.  
15              MR. FRALEIGH:  Good evening, my name is Jay 
16         Fraleigh and I'm from Madison, Florida, and I'm 
17         representing the nursery and agricultural segment of 
18         Florida, and also I'm on the Suwannee River Management 
19         District appointed by Governor of the state of 
20         Florida.  
21              I'm not going to echo a lot of the same things 
22         Richard just mentioned, but I just wanted to point out 
23         some specific things in regards to your proposal that 
24         you have put of us.  The numeric nutrient criteria 
25         must be set specific otherwise healthy a water bodies 
0060
 1         will be deemed impaired, and resources will be wasted 
 2         in attempting to make those bodies meet nutrient 
 3         concentrations they would not normally need due to the 
 4         natural diversity.  I think that's already been said 
 5         in this and it needs to be reiterated.  
 6              I will say in conjunction to that we are in 
 7         Madison County and Gadsden Counties and most counties 
 8         we are border counties, and obviously there is another 
 9         state above us that has no way of regulating it and 
10         attributaries and nitrates that infiltrate our state 
11         due to what's going on north of us.  And to think we 
12         can regulate that and we're not in conjunction in 
13         communicating with that on a state-by-state level, I 
14         think we're fooling ourselves to think that it's all 
15         based in Florida and Florida alone.  
16              Florida is the natural protector from nutrient 
17         pollution that is the reason why thirty percent of the 
18         natural water quality data is from Florida and it's 
19         because the state of Florida has been working hard to 
20         protect its rivers and streams.  Contrary to a lot of 
21         misinformation that has been presented in the media, 
22         business, and local governments have invested millions 
23         to restore impaired watershed, protect healthy rivers 
24         and streams.  The state has worked hard to develop 
25         scientifically defendable numeric nutrient criteria 
0061
 1         that will protect and restore Florida water bodies in 
 2         equitable and cost-effective ways.  EPA should support 
 3         these efforts instead of singling out Florida for 
 4         scientifically flawed federal standards.  
 5              I would like to say that in moving away from my 
 6         written criteria here, I was involved in living in 
 7         East North Carolina with the Noose River Basin Act.  
 8         They put in implementation of a proposal very similar 
 9         to this in nitrate, and it came down to not only 
10         implementation but interpretation as to what you are 
11         going to determine in reducing nitrites in that 
12         water.  It was very convoluted and very, I guess, not 
13         user-friendly.  It put most of the bearing on the 
14         agricultural use.  
15              And back to a little bit more of the economic 
16         impact, we were forced as a nursery there to be a 
17         self-enclosed nursery, and the environmental impact 
18         that we had to do to that piece of property with 
19         roads, the ditches, the culverts, the recycling pond 
20         all of the silting areas.  We changed a 300-acre sight 
21         that was once pristine just to comply to some of these 
22         nitrate issues that we were dealing with.  
23              So the environmental impact is not only is from 
24         what these requirements could place onto the farm and 
25         agriculture has got to be considered.  Because it's 
0062
 1         not just best management practice.  It's also all of 
 2         the things that we've been doing for years and years, 
 3         and not just slow-release fertilizers.  
 4              I, myself, at our nurseries, we took it upon 
 5         ourselves and our costs, we implemented a new system.  
 6         It's referred to as "Grow Eco" where we have no 
 7         irrigation run-off.  We're implementing only the 
 8         nutrients into the plant material itself.  We've 
 9         reduced water consumption by 85 percent.  
10              What I want to make clear here in regards to 
11         anybody in farming and citrus industry and those in 
12         agricultural, we were the first stewards of lands.  
13         I'll a sixth generation farmer in Madison County.  We 
14         farm some of the same crop that were just mentioned 
15         earlier.  I have two sons, two teenagers that have the 
16         desire to come back home, live in Florida, love 
17         Florida like is it today.  But to think that 
18         agriculture is here and does not have any concern 
19         about what is going on with nitrates and things of 
20         that nature is absurd.
21              So what I would ask you to do is reconsider, and 
22         on top of that is communicate with existing water 
23         management districts, Florida Department of 
24         Agriculture, and Florida Nursery Growers Association.  
25         They have a lot of things they can offer you for good 
0063
 1         science.
 2              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Fraleigh. 
 3              Speaker number 11.
 4              MS. GMEINER:  Hello and good evening.  I am 
 5         Sheila Gmeiner and I am employed very proud and 
 6         fortunate to be employed in agriculture industry in 
 7         the state of Florida and an ornamental plant nursery 
 8         in Gadsden County, Clint Nurseries of Florida.  Clint 
 9         Nurseries is also an active member of the Florida 
10         Nursery Growers and Landscape Association.  
11              We as growers are stewards to the environment, 
12         and conduct ourselves professionally to appreciate and 
13         protect it.  We operate under the guidelines, created 
14         a collaboration of wonderful scientific research, 
15         Department of Agricultural Consumer Affairs and 
16         government agencies.  Of course, you've heard it's, 
17         BMP, best management practices, a guide for Florida 
18         container nurseries.  Our cultural activities are 
19         carefully monitored.  We take substraight pH readings 
20         and salt readings daily.  
21              Just as an offsight, I brought the manual and I 
22         wanted to just share some of the table of contents.  
23         It's very inclusive of a lot of details that pertain 
24         to agriculture and nursery container growing:  You 
25         have nursery lay out.  You have the container 
0064
 1         substraight and planning practices; fertilization 
 2         management; container substraight nutrient monitoring; 
 3         irrigation water quality; irrigation application; 
 4         irrigation uniformity; erosion control and water 
 5         run-off management; pesticide management; and waste 
 6         management.  There's a lot of very detailed and 
 7         important activities for all of us that are in any 
 8         growing operation.  
 9              We've also conducted workshops to put water and 
10         nutrient BMPs into practice, which we're very proud 
11         of, and it's something that by the attendance that we 
12         have it is clearly a desirable interest to continue to 
13         learn and improve our water quality, and just our way 
14         of life, because this is a way of life.  The EPA's 
15         criteria will disrupt this beneficial program and its 
16         funding for future success.  This role of red tape 
17         will turn our green intentions black.  
18              We at Clint nurseries of Florida, members of the 
19         Florida Nursery Grower and Association strongly oppose 
20         this standards, and all of the devastating effects it 
21         will have on our agricultural industry.  
22              Thank you.
23              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  
24              Speaker number 12.  
25              MR. BABINGTON:  Good evening.  My name is Adam 
0065
 1         Babington.  I'm the director of the Government Affairs 
 2         for the Florida Chamber of Commerce.  We represent 
 3         over 139,000 businesses over the state of Florida, and 
 4         about over a hundred local Chambers of Commerce that 
 5         represent all facets of Florida industry.  
 6              Yesterday, our President, Mark Wilson, submitted 
 7         a letter to EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, via an 
 8         e-mail outlining and some of the concerns we have and 
 9         echoing some of the concerns we have Florida 
10         Congressional Delegation, so I'm not going to spend 
11         time talking about those this evening.  
12              I want to talk about one of the recurring things 
13         we've heard to reiterate.  This is not about clean 
14         water.  We all want clean water.  From agriculture to 
15         water utilities to the business community to the 
16         conservation community, everyone here wants clean 
17         water.  This is about science and economics and how we 
18         get to the goal of clean water.  
19              Let me share with you some reaction that has been 
20         published to this rule:  
21              It's based on the flawed science.  
22              It's not scientifically valid.  
23              It's based on inaccurate presumptions.  
24              It's over simplified.  
25              It's arbitrary.  
0066
 1              This isn't the business community that said 
 2         this.  This isn't agriculture that said this.  This is 
 3         Florida Department of Environmental Protection that 
 4         said this.  This is their reaction to this rule.  And 
 5         the Agency charged with protecting Florida water has 
 6         come out and said this about this rule.  
 7              Before advancing, Environmental Protection Agency 
 8         should attain a natural academy sciences behind the 
 9         rules, because obviously there's a fundamental 
10         disagreement between your agency and that of the state 
11         of Florida and certainly the reaction we have heard 
12         from the affected industries, people who will be 
13         having to implement this rule is quite significantly 
14         different from what we have heard from your Agency.
15              We also urge you to commission independent 
16         economic analysis of this rule.  Some of the cost 
17         range from a hundred million dollars a year to a 
18         hundred billion dollars to implement.  There is a 
19         significant difference not only in science but the 
20         actual economics of what this rule will mean, so we 
21         need to get to the bottom of how much this is really 
22         going to cost Floridians of the cost of this will have 
23         across the state and we need to have an open and 
24         honest discussion with them about the cost throughout 
25         the state.
0067
 1              That brings me to my final point.  The cost and 
 2         uncertainty for all Floridians.  Let's start with 
 3         retirees.  We're having three workshops around the 
 4         state Tallahassee, Orlando, West Palm Beach.  
 5              One of the pictures that you have been showing on 
 6         your slides is of the Caloosahatchee River, and my 
 7         grandparents live on the Caloosahatchee.  I grew up 
 8         fishing on Caloosahatchee.  There's quite a bit of 
 9         people down there who are on fixed incomes who are 
10         going to be affected by these rules for good or for 
11         bad.  Certainly it would be beneficial to hear from 
12         the people on the West Coast of Florida to hear what 
13         it's going to do for their communities in terms of 
14         trying to clean up water, but also people that are 
15         living on fixed income.  
16              A state with a 12 percent unemployment rate, 
17         small businesses that are struggling to survive, 
18         struggling with their unemployment compensation taxes, 
19         holding their work forces together, now they're being 
20         faced with a high level of uncertainty in terms of how 
21         much they're going to be incurring in order to use 
22         water.  
23              Farmers are the pillar of Florida economy and 
24         probably always will be.  And to know that the farming 
25         community is deeply concerned about this rule should 
0068
 1         give any agency pause.  Certainly causes the Florida 
 2         Chamber to believe we should be cautious and fully 
 3         understand the science and economics.  
 4              And finally, all taxpayers.  The average taxpayer 
 5         doesn't have time to attend one of these meetings.  
 6         They don't have time to submit written comments by the 
 7         end of March.  But they need to understand what this 
 8         rule is going to mean.  Yes, all Floridians want clean 
 9         water, they all want a pristine, natural environment, 
10         but the question comes:  What's the best way to a get 
11         there; what is our state doing to help us get there.  
12         We think that the rule as proposed is a question that 
13         has been raised is not ready to move forward.  
14              So we appreciate the opportunity to comment on it 
15         at this time.
16              Thank you.
17              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  
18              Speaker number 13.
19              MS. JONECK:  I'm Debra Joneck with the Florida 
20         Growers Landscape and Nursery Association.  Oh, lucky, 
21         me, I'm number 13.  
22              I know you guys are tired and we appreciate what 
23         you're doing.  I actually have a few questions, 
24         because I really can't add anything incredibly new to 
25         anything that's already been said, and I don't intend 
0069
 1         to bore you.  
 2              I have questions about the TP and TN coming in 
 3         from Georgia and Alabama, and how that is going.  
 4              Does it suddenly become new water, Florida water, 
 5         and then we have to then clean it up as it goes 
 6         downstream?  And it has to get cleaner and cleaner and 
 7         cleaner, and I understand that, but what happens at 
 8         the border?  This concerns me.  
 9              I also wonder about historical phosphorous.  
10         There's quite a bit of it in the middle of the state, 
11         coming down the Kissimmee River Valley.  Let me 
12         explain.  I am also a resident of the South Florida 
13         Water Management District and know quite a bit of all 
14         16 counties and how it comes into Lake Okeechobee and 
15         down to Miami-Dade, so historical phosphorous concerns 
16         me.  
17              I also thought of something else.  We're the 
18         lightening capitol of the world, and we have a whole 
19         lot of thunderstorms.  Now, I have a canal in -- let's 
20         say Luxahatchee Florida, and I have tested, and just 
21         been through five evenings of horrific thunderstorms.  
22         Guess what comes out of thunderstorms?  Nitrogen.
23              So have you taken that into consideration with 
24         what Mother Nature just hands to us?  How do we do 
25         this?  And how are we going to do the total nitrogen 
0070
 1         and total phosphorous as it moves through the 
 2         network.  
 3              And as usual, that's all I have, and I've never 
 4         taken my entire time and I thank you.
 5              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you very much.  
 6              Do we have other preregistered speakers.  Are you 
 7         number 14?  My list say 13 as of 7:15.  
 8              Thank you.  
 9              MR. KNOX:  Good evening, I'm Monty Knox.  I am 
10         president of Florida Nursery Grower Landscape 
11         Association, vice-president to Knox Nursery, Inc. 
12         which is the 97 nursery in America.  
13              I have 15 acres in production.  I utilize 97 
14         percent of my square footage.  One of the previous 
15         speakers had so many interesting comments; more 
16         nutrients got put out over this ten square feet than I 
17         put out in 13 years on my fifteen acres.  He was just 
18         completely and totally wrong.  
19              BMPs.  On BMPs, I have no tractors and trailers 
20         on my property.  I have no nutrient run-off.  
21         Everything I do is by a BMP.  I have 12 hot water 
22         heaters.  I have over six miles of piping for that.  
23              I have no water loss for it's completely self-
24         including system.  I have no tractors.  I have no 
25         trailers.  I've got over 12 miles of railing that 
0071
 1         supports my moving bench system that is pushed by my 
 2         employees.  Of my square footage, 97 percent is 
 3         covered by a bench, and of that 97 percent, 98 percent 
 4         of the benches are covered with plants.  
 5              There's no wasted space.  Our old nursery that we 
 6         closed five years ago had a chemical room.  It's 20 
 7         foot by 20 foot.  At my nursery that I opened in 1997 
 8         that is still in operation, I have 20 high school 
 9         lockers.  That is my chemical room.  
10              98 percent of my chemical application is 
11         low-impact backpack sprayers that are five gallons.  
12         There's no drift.  My fertilization is through my 
13         overhead boom irrigators which are mist, and they 
14         could not -- they don't mist onto the walkways.  
15         There's no run-off.  It's just a mist.  There's no 
16         drift and no run-off.  
17              That's in my plug division.  In my finished 
18         division, we dropped our plastic pot program.  We were 
19         the first nursery in the United States of America who 
20         dropped its plastic pot program.  We went to cloth and 
21         fiber.  If we wanted to, we could get the 
22         biodegradable, but it's got to have its own BP grade, 
23         because I need it for 45 days.  The roots grow through 
24         it, around it.  No plastic pots.  
25              I have a fertilizer charge and a fungicide charge 
0072
 1         in it.  I don't do overhead fertilization out there.  
 2              BMPs are our rule and you can measure it.  
 3         Absolutely.  I deliver to 48 states, Canada, to the 
 4         Caribbean.  I bring in over eight and a half million 
 5         dollars in annual sale.  75 percent is from out of 
 6         state.  My competition is in North Carolina, Ohio, 
 7         Michigan, Colorado, California.  How do I compete with 
 8         those folks?  
 9              One of the interesting things is someone said 
10         that, you know, there's been no change.  They're dead 
11         wrong.  My location is less than two miles from Lake 
12         Apopka.  You want to talk one of the filthiest lakes 
13         ever?  That was 16 years ago.  
14              When I built my location, I had to put an acid 
15         injector there to lower the pH.  It was seven parts 
16         per million.  A year and a half ago -- and the reason 
17         we the was the root hairs take up fertilizer with a 
18         little bit of acid in it.  So instead of going on a 
19         constant feed for my plugs which have got less than 
20         one square inch of soil, this way they were taking up 
21         the nutrients in slightly over 24 hours.  So I could 
22         water and then have two wet cycles of pure water 
23         without fertilization.  
24              We couldn't figure out what the heck was going 
25         on.  We were not have the fertilizer take up.  It was 
0073
 1         because Lake Apopka had cleaned itself and the state 
 2         had cleaned Lake Apopka so much I had to go to 18 
 3         parts per million to get acid back in the soil.  So 
 4         guess what?  Florida is doing it.  Florida is working 
 5         it and Florida, you know, I know that you mean -- 
 6         well, but as president of the I didn't -- (inaudible)
 7              Thank you very much.
 8              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Are there any more 
 9         preregistered speakers?  Is there a number fifteen?  
10         Okay.  We'll go to the folks that signed up as they 
11         this evening.
12              Speaker 51.  52?  
13              MR. PHILLIPS:  My name is Jerry Phillips.  I'm 
14         director of Public Employees For Environmental 
15         Responsibility.  First of all, I'd like to thank you 
16         for taking the time and the effort and the expense to 
17         work on this issue.  We applaud it.  We support it.  
18         This is obviously the first step in what's going to be 
19         a long process of adopting these nutrient criteria.  
20              And as I understand it the stream condition index 
21         is probably -- the foundation that's used to identify 
22         these reference sites for which nutrient criteria are 
23         established.  And as such, I think it's imperative 
24         that SCI be fundamentally sound, scientifically 
25         sound.  To that end -- and these are more questions 
0074
 1         than answers -- but I couldn't tell from looking 
 2         through the materials on your site, whether this rule 
 3         development, whether you submitted the SCI and 
 4         nutrient criteria to the development process that you 
 5         use in your guidelines.  If not, we would advocate 
 6         that you do submit those to the development process 
 7         your guidelines that you normally use.  
 8              And then the second thing is in looking at the 
 9         two and a half percentile, which I believe equates to 
10         roughly a 40 on the SCI scale, does that adequately 
11         account for the safety factor that EPA normally uses 
12         to establish water quality criteria.  Frankly, it 
13         looks in reading through all of this it lacks to us as 
14         though -- and there are reasons for this, sure -- but 
15         it looks like when there's a skewed to absolutely make 
16         sure that there's no unimpaired waters -- and it is 
17         laudable and the impaired-decision making -- it's 
18         laudable, but at the same time the question is has the 
19         bar been set too low.  
20              And that's what we would appreciate you taking a 
21         strong look at.  On your sight, you have a 
22         bioassessment and criteria group that's identified.  
23         And I was wondering if that group was review of the 
24         SCI and it's use in the proposed rule.  If not, if 
25         they did we would like to -- I guess we would like to 
0075
 1         submit a formal request -- but we would like to obtain 
 2         a copy of their comments.  And if they didn't, we 
 3         would like to -- for them to review these since they 
 4         were involved in the development safety implementation 
 5         by a criteria.  
 6              And then were there any internal peer reviews 
 7         conducted?  If not, we submit that they should be.  
 8              And then lastly, I don't want to disparage any of 
 9         the groups that have been here before, but frankly, 
10         this is all too predictable.  Somebody who used to 
11         work for DEP as an attorney who was involved in the 
12         TMDL, frankly -- there is an old commercial that 
13         says:  This is Florida.  The rules are different 
14         here -- when talking about tourism.  
15              Our TMDL rule was largely developed through 
16         industry.  It was fought.  We contested it.  Industry 
17         lined up with the DEP, and the issue of chlorophyll A 
18         and numeric nutrient criteria was heavily fought.  
19         They thought it was too stringent then.  And if they 
20         had allowed stricter criteria back then in 2001 we may 
21         not be here today.  
22              Lastly, we track the enforcement aspect of DEP.  
23         This is an agency that has historically been very 
24         laxed on civil penalty enforcement.  They don't 
25         typically assess for economic benefit, gain through 
0076
 1         permit violations, and now these same industries are 
 2         coming of you saying, please have mercy on us.  
 3              There has been a lot of mercy over the last 
 4         decades.  And again, we applaud this rule.  We just do 
 5         have those questions particularly regarding the SCI.  
 6         Thank you very much, and enjoy your stay.
 7              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
 8              Speaker 53.  
 9              MR. BASHEARS:  Good evening.  My name is Halsey 
10         Bashears.  I don't have a five-dollar handle behind my 
11         name.  Frankly I know y'all are too tired for me to 
12         sit up here and qualify myself to who I, am so I 
13         appreciate your patience and persistence, but just 
14         know I'm hear as a concerned father, I'm here 
15         concerned businessman, and a concerned American.  
16         Okay?  
17              I'm in the nursery business and I'm from North 
18         Florida as well.  My family and I are farmers, and we 
19         are the original stewards of the earth.  No one takes 
20         better care of our land and our water than us.  I 
21         promise you that.  
22              My family and I support the efforts to protect 
23         water quality resources.  We support the adoption of 
24         numeric nutrient criteria as well as they're 
25         scientifically based.  What you have here, what you're 
0077
 1         proposing is technically and scientifically 
 2         unsupported, and economically unattainable.  
 3              Lastly, these proposed standards appear to be a 
 4         knee-jerk reaction.  This is based on coming up with a 
 5         half-hearted attempt of following through.  
 6              I think we all know with making quick decisions 
 7         without contemplation in science is always dangerous.  
 8         Without science makes facts and consequences are 
 9         easily ignored if you don't live here.  
10              You must have analysis and consideration, and 
11         consider the long-term ripple effect -- pardon the 
12         pun -- of these proposed standards.  My kids and I 
13         will not remain residents of this state if something 
14         like this goes through.  They're unreasonable, they're 
15         unattainable, and that would be one more reason for me 
16         and my family to close up shop and leave the state.  
17              When we leave, jobs go with us.  Monies go with 
18         us.  Taxes goes with us.  Future residents of our 
19         state goes with us.  Just carefully consider what 
20         you're proposing here.  Gather scientific evidence.  
21         Hold more hearings, please.  Three hearings appears to 
22         be a dog and pony show.  Take the time to come up with 
23         a feasible plan that will ultimately help rather than 
24         hurt.  Again, thank you for your time and patience.  
25              Thank you.
0078
 1              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  
 2              Speaker 54?  
 3              MS. TRIPP:  Good evening.  My name is Katie 
 4         Tripp.  I'm a director of science and conservation for 
 5         Save the Manatee Club.  Since 2001, at least 381 
 6         endangered manatees have died from red tide exposure 
 7         in this state.  101 of those deaths actually occurred 
 8         when I worked in 2001 with the State with their marine 
 9         mammal pathobiology facility, and we were completing 
10         as many as eight necropsies a day before this 
11         outbreak.  In days before this, I had started seeing 
12         fish wash up on the beaches of Pinellas County, and I 
13         knew it was only a matter of time when the manatees 
14         would start suffering as well.  
15              For manatees, red tide acts as a neurotoxin.  It 
16         give them seizures that cause them to be disoriented 
17         and to drown.  So in a very brief time, red tide turns 
18         a very perfect a manatee into a carcass.  And the 
19         toxin can even accumulate in sea grass so that once a 
20         bloom has subsided, manatees can still be ingesting 
21         fatal doses of these toxins.  
22              At the path lab we always knew when a manatee 
23         would be diagnosed as a red tide death, because as 
24         soon as we cut into the carcass, our eyes would water 
25         and some of us would start coughing from the toxin.  
0079
 1              Of course, we when talk about manatees in 
 2         Florida, springs are another important issue for us, 
 3         and others in this room have touched on it tonight.  
 4         We're in this room because we've identified a 
 5         problem.  We know our numeric nutrient standard is not 
 6         working.  We found a way to control the nutrient 
 7         criteria but what we need now is the determination to 
 8         implement and enforce this solution.  
 9              Our state's legacy so far has been on 
10         sustainability, but we can change that, and we need to 
11         change that.  
12              As I thought about what I would say tonight, I 
13         wondered where would we be back 12 years ago in 1998 
14         if we had put a numeric standard in place; what state 
15         would our waters be in.  One of our primary economic 
16         engines is our waters.  We're vacation land.  The 
17         fishing capitol of the USA.  We're not going to keep 
18         these titles if we don't clean up our act.  
19              I've heard a lot of numbers tossed around as to 
20         the cost of implementing this criteria.  The truth is, 
21         we don't know until the targets are finalized and 
22         there's an implementation plan designed.  But we do 
23         know is that our state can't afford to go another year 
24         without numeric criteria.  Preventing a problem is 
25         much more cost effective than cleaning one up, and 
0080
 1         with each passing day of inaction, the price tag is 
 2         going up.  
 3              If we were to actually look at the ecosystems 
 4         very surfaces provided by our waterways, you know the 
 5         very intangible things that get left out of the cost 
 6         analysis, and add those to direct benefits.  These 
 7         values and these benefits most certainly would 
 8         outweigh the implementing costs of this program.  
 9              I was at a meeting on Friday where someone said 
10         if we can't control ourselves, someone else has to, 
11         and unfortunately that's where we are today.  There 
12         are things that could be changed in our state.  
13              I was actually really encouraged to hear a lot of 
14         the farmers and growers talk about their ecofriendly 
15         practices.  That's amazing and it's wonderful, and I 
16         think there are very few people that pollute this 
17         state on purpose.  Unfortunately, not every farmer 
18         prescribes to those standards.  
19              For water bodies that aren't already impaired, I 
20         think that these criteria will enhance their 
21         protection by helping us to be proactive.  You know it 
22         was mentioned that the narrative standard is very 
23         reactive.  We need to get ahead of the curve on this 
24         with a clear target and follow-up to make sure the 
25         follow up criterias will be working, we can improve 
0081
 1         management.  
 2              As a species, we fear change.  In the seventies 
 3         the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act.  
 4         People came to hearings like this and said, My, God.  
 5         You're going to shut down our economy.  That's not 
 6         what's happened.  Instead these laws have made us more 
 7         sustainable.  
 8              I think it's really beneficial that the criteria 
 9         you proposed have a restoration standard with 
10         benchmarks to be achieved over time.  I've heard 
11         concerns about misclassifications of water bodies as 
12         impaired.  I think the site specific alternative 
13         criterias can help deal with that, but only to help, 
14         not to be used as a loophole.  
15              I know that there were differences between what 
16         DEP and EPA has proposed, but there's also a lot of 
17         overlap, and that's what I'm focusing on because 
18         that's encouraging.  I'm hoping it's going to be 
19         possible for your two agencies to continue to work 
20         together and borrow from your expertise.  We have a 
21         really great opportunity to create a better future for 
22         our state, but with each day the problem is getting 
23         harder to fix.  
24              I thank you for being here.  I do agree there is 
25         much more work to be done, but I do think this is a 
0082
 1         step in right direction.  
 2              Thank you very much.
 3              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker 55.  
 4              MR. DIAMOND:  Good evening.  My name is Craig 
 5         Diamond and I'm here on behalf of the Florida 
 6         Department of Community Affairs.  I don't have so much 
 7         comment as a request for information that perhaps 
 8         Mr. Keating clarity on.  I had the pleasure of 
 9         navigating the 197-plus page rule in the numerous 
10         references to the phrase "land use" and context of 
11         nutrient loading, and with respect to model that's 
12         applied.  But there was no specific equation captured 
13         in the proposed rule, in the docket or the methodology 
14         as it was outlined.  There was reference to an 
15         external model, but there was difficulty and going 
16         ahead and trying to find that through EPA's site. So 
17         there was a shortage in information.  
18              My interest is in understanding the land use 
19         water quality link in the context of the proposed 
20         rule, and as it might end up affecting local land use 
21         decision making and in form potential state use 
22         planning regulations.  
23              So if you could perhaps shed some light on that, 
24         that would be greatly appreciated.
25              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  
0083
 1              Speaker 56.
 2              MS. SWIM:  Hi, I'm Deb Swim.  I'm here as a 
 3         citizen tonight.  I'm an attorney.  I'm experienced in 
 4         the area of environmental law and energy law.  I 
 5         support the numeric nutrient criteria that you want to 
 6         establish, and the restoration criteria, and the site 
 7         specific criteria, although I'm frankly a little 
 8         concerned it can turn into a loophole.  
 9              I'm a native Floridian.  I grew up fishing, 
10         swimming and enjoying the healthy and safe waters of 
11         my home state, and I'm so appreciative of what you're 
12         doing.  Thank you.  
13              The nutrients are clearly a problem.  There's 
14         visibly a problem, and there's evidence that there's 
15         health issues, too, and urge you to stay strong.  This 
16         kind of stuff goes on all the time.  Just stay strong, 
17         please.  
18              It's your job to keep the waters fishable, 
19         swimable, safe, clean and healthy, and I very much am 
20         appreciative of your efforts.  I just wanted to make a 
21         few remarks on the cost issues I heard throughout the 
22         night.  
23              I am a resident of Tallahassee, and I've been 
24         following spray field over time.  What happened was 
25         their wastewater treatment plant discharged their 
0084
 1         partially treated sewage into spray field.  They got 
 2         an award for that, instead of putting it into -- and 
 3         then they realized because it was discharging into 
 4         parks' topography -- it was going into Wakulla's 
 5         Springs -- they decided that indeed this was a 
 6         connection between the spray field and the spring, and 
 7         they spent some money to upgrade the system; that's 
 8         why the cost of that particular system went up.  I 
 9         know that for a fact.  
10              I guess the other thing in my capacity as an 
11         energy lawyer is that the world is really changing 
12         here.  We are starting to realize that what is waste 
13         material in the farm setting is actually a very 
14         valuable resource, and I think also in the some of the 
15         biosolids, too.  So if you're doing an economic 
16         analysis of -- it's not just how much extra is it 
17         going to cost to treat.  It could be that what you're 
18         doing is changing the economic landscape so that now 
19         what had been a pollution source now becomes a value 
20         to the renewable project developer who wants to use 
21         that to, you know, displace fossil fuels whether in 
22         the transportation sector or power sector.  And so 
23         that's a really important part of what you're doing 
24         here.  
25              You're creating something of value of what used 
0085
 1         to be a pollutant.  So that's the other thing I thank 
 2         you for.
 3              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker 57?  
 4              MR. CULLEN:  I'm David Cullen for Sierra Club 
 5         Florida.  First of all, thank you very much for 
 6         holding these hearings.  
 7              Sierra Club was party to the original lawsuit 
 8         that resulted in the consent, so I'm not going to go 
 9         over that.  You know where we stand or else we 
10         wouldn't have signed on.  Basically, after ten years 
11         of delay, plus we felt that the threats to public 
12         health, property values, the environment, and our 
13         tourist economy had not been adequately addressed with 
14         respect to nutrients phosphorous from sewer manure.  
15         And instead of blue baby standard, we think we should 
16         have a blue algae standard.  
17              Tonight I want to talk a little bit about 
18         downstream numbers.  We think that it's best to stop 
19         pollution at the source.  The various entities, and 
20         wastewater treatment, agriculture, residential, it's 
21         listed in your powerpoint at the beginning, have 
22         externalized the cost of their behaviors and sometimes 
23         of their businesses to their downstream neighbor.  And 
24         eventually the estuaries and coastal waters.
25              These are the areas that -- first of all, it's 
0086
 1         not fair to push their pollution downhill.  Water 
 2         flows.  You have to deal with a downstream effects of 
 3         nutrient pollution.  And it has a profound effect on 
 4         both the interior of state with respect to the -- 
 5         particularly the Caloosahatchee and the St. Lucy 
 6         Rivers when Lake Okeechobee flows with significant 
 7         rain, and also to all of the coastal waters.  Our 
 8         tourist economies, the beaches, so we urge you to 
 9         stick with it, to stand strong.  And we appreciate 
10         that you're here, and we have great confidence that 
11         you will promulgate good rules.  
12              Thank you.
13              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Cullen.  
14              Speaker number 58?  
15              MS. GRANE:  My name is Catherine Grane.  I'm from 
16         Marion County.  I served on the Water Conservation 
17         District there. I'm the current chair.  We've been 
18         wrestling with this for some time in our county and 
19         recently passed ordinances for it.  
20              It's complicated as I'm sure you all are very, 
21         very aware.  And I think one of the most difficult 
22         things from my perspective looking at this process 
23         going on, is that government sometimes regulates 
24         before it has all of the information, and this can be 
25         a real problem.  
0087
 1              I've watched Wakulla County implement these 
 2         performance based septic tanks that are very 
 3         expensive, and from my perspective don't believe 
 4         they're very effective.  
 5              We all know we have a problem.  I mean, the folks 
 6         here any way know we have a problem.  The current 
 7         condition of Silver Springs is appalling.  The problem 
 8         is the money hasn't been spent to determine where that 
 9         nitrogen is coming from.  We know some is organic.  We 
10         know some is inorganic.  
11              The fertilizer is obviously is a big point.  
12         Education alone on that point would make a huge 
13         difference.  And I've listened to some of these 
14         nursery men here, and they are some of the most 
15         educated people we have about fertilizer, and they 
16         really know what they're doing, and they have made 
17         huge increases in their standards.  You know, the 
18         people that are in the water and see the damage are 
19         horrified.  But frequently the blame gets placed in 
20         the wrong court.  And we have regulations coming down 
21         that there are phosphorous rules that require run-off 
22         forms to be lower than rain water.  I mean, this is 
23         absurd.  And this is the sort of thing I think 
24         citizens fear and people in agriculture fear.  It we 
25         needs to be looked at.  We need to look at water 
0088
 1         treatment facilities, large municipalities.  We need 
 2         to look at stormwater.  
 3              From the studies I've seen, as you get rid of 
 4         agriculture and bring in more roads and more rooftops, 
 5         you actually have more pollution.  Everybody thinks if 
 6         ag went away things would get better.  That's not the 
 7         case.  
 8              Agriculture in Marion County is horse farms.  
 9         They provide a recharge value that is immeasurable.  
10         As our water volumes have dropped, naturally the 
11         nitrogen levels have increased.  
12              There's less water flows, so whatever nitrogen 
13         was in the system has become concentrated.  We don't 
14         know how much of a problem is because we have lower 
15         water levels.  Hugely lower water levels.  In some 
16         places we have had 42 percent reductions in our 
17         wetlands, rivers and streams.  Can we say it's the 
18         fault of the farmer?  I don't think so.  This is just 
19         excessive groundwater pumping, so that development can 
20         put in lawns that look like ones in the northeast 
21         where the people are retiring from.  If we just grew 
22         native plants and didn't water and didn't fertilize, 
23         we would make huge, huge leaps toward less fertilizer 
24         and less watering.  So less groundwater pumping.  
25              But getting that word out has been difficult.  It 
0089
 1         doesn't require huge regulation.  It requires 
 2         education.  So many of these things in the citizen's 
 3         court require education.  When they're dealing large 
 4         municipalities and huge corporate entities then you 
 5         may need the regulation.But the citizens are working 
 6         very, very hard and it seems to me it's on their back 
 7         that the regulation falls.  
 8              And I don't want to see the EPA come in here and 
 9         regulate in a way that is not appropriate to the 
10         specific conditions.  When I hear you say .35 for 
11         nitrogen in springs, you cannot expect the same 
12         standard in a spring that is completely surrounded by 
13         state forest, and another one that is in downtown 
14         city.  It's just not going to work.  
15              You know, I would love to see springs clear.  
16         I've been here for 40 years.  I've watched them go 
17         from crystalline to absolutely contaminated in many 
18         cases, but in many cases we don't even know where it's 
19         coming from.  We need the resources to do the kind of 
20         work that says this nitrogen is coming from that 
21         source, and that nitrogen is coming from that source, 
22         and it's ten percent ag, and it's 90 percent the 
23         treatment facility.  
24              Please don't regulate -- and I don't want to 
25         see -- that's not my point.  It breaks my heart to see 
0090
 1         the shape it's in, but let's not get it wrong.  Let's 
 2         get it right and work with DEP and work with the 
 3         citizens who have made the big steps in agriculture.  
 4              I, for one, don't want to buy my milk and my 
 5         oranges from Brazil.  I want them in Florida, and I 
 6         think most citizens feel that way.  And it can be 
 7         done, so it's a matter of getting it right.  
 8              It's a complicated issue.  Let the engineers.  We 
 9         did the first plans for equine testing in the state of 
10         Florida and they're not contaminated.  You know, it's 
11         so low in nitrogen it's very clean compared to many 
12         other agriculture industries.
13              So I want to thank you for being here with the 
14         attention to the problem, but let's make sure we 
15         really have intelligent regulations, and each 
16         situation is unique.  
17              Thank you.
18              MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  
19              Are there any other folks who will like to make 
20         any remarks tonight?  If not I'd like to thank you for 
21         attention and the time you've dedicated to this issue 
22         this evening.  And I appreciate the respectfulness and 
23         speaking, the peers that spoke, and also your patience 
24         with the process.  
25              Thank you.
0091
 1              (P.m. Session concluded.)
 2     
 3     
 4     
 5     
 6     
 7     
 8     
 9     
10     
11     
12     
13     
14     
15     
16     
17     
18     
19     
20     
21     
22     
23     
24     
25     
0092
 1                      CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
 2     
 3     STATE OF FLORIDA)    
 4     COUNTY OF LEON)
 5     
 6              I, Yvonne LaFlamme, Court Reporter and Notary 
 7     Public, certify that I was authorized to and did 
 8     stenographically report the foregoing proceeding; and that 
 9     the transcript is a true and complete record of my 
10     stenographic notes.
11              I further certify that I am not a relative, 
12     employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor 
13     am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 
14     attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I 
15     financially interested in the outcome of this case.
16     
17              Dated this 10th day of March 2010.
18     
19     
20                                  _______________________
21                                 Yvonne LaFlamme
                                   Court Reporter
22                                 Notary Public
                                   State of Florida at Large
23              
24   
25