137 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2 PUBLIC HEARING 3 PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE STATE OF 4 FLORIDA'S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS DOCKET ID NO. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 5 6 FEBRUARY 17, 2010 AFTERNOON SESSION (Volume 2 of 2) 7 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 8 9 EPHRAIM KING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. EPA OFFICE OF WATER 10 JIM KEATING, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALISTS 11 STANDARDS AND HEALTH PROTECTION DIVISION, U.S. EPA OFFICE OF WATER 12 DENISE KEEHNER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS, AND 13 WATERSHEDS, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF WATER 14 15 DANA THOMAS, Ph.D., U.S. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF WATER 16 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2010 18 TIME: COMMENCED AT 1:00 P.M. 19 CONCLUDED AT 6:29 P.M. 20 PLACE: CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL 7899 UNIVERSAL BOULEVARD 21 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 22 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY: PAULA ROSS, Registered Professional 23 Reporter, Florida Professional Reporter and Notary Public 24 25 138 1 MS. KEEHNER: Our next speaker is Number 2 27. And if 28 and 29 could move to the open 3 chairs, we'd appreciate it. 4 Please state your name and your 5 affiliation. 6 My name is Victor Story. I live in Lake 7 Wales, Florida. I'm not here today as a city 8 commissioner for Lake Wales. I'm not here as a 9 three-time board member and chairman of the 10 Agricultural State of Florida in Polk County. 11 I'm not here as a neutral board member and area 12 vice-president. I'm not here as a member of 13 the Florida Citrus Commission. 14 I'm here today as an individual grower who 15 who is trying to compete in a very competitive 16 world with Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica. And I 17 fear that maybe your rules will make me 18 uncompetitive. Citrus growers in Florida 19 operate on a very small margin. 20 I also want you to know that I represent 21 161 people that I'm going to write a check to 22 on Friday and hundreds of other people that 23 depend on me in the supply business. I'm a 24 third-generation citrus grower. I have two 25 sons who have committed their lives to the 139 1 production of citrus and I have grandchildren 2 that are helping in the groves on summers and 3 weekends. 4 And I just want you to know that I do 5 everything that I do in mind that I have my 6 grandfather's and great-grandfather's groves 7 and I want to have that passed down to 8 generations just as it has been to me. 9 I'm proud to produce a wholesome and 10 healthful product and I hope I can continue to 11 do so. 12 I want you to know that I adhere to best 13 management practices voluntarily and I was part 14 of establishing those. I use less inputs 15 today, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, 16 than we have in the past. And we're looking 17 for more ways every day to use less. 18 However, we have to meet an economic 19 challenge. We have to raise a certain amount 20 of fruit per acre and if we don't, we won't 21 stay in business. It's just as simple as that. 22 I want you to know, also, that my family, 23 along with what I just told you about the best 24 management practices, has spent hundreds of 25 thousand of dollars on variable rate 140 1 technology, both in our fertilizer applicators 2 and our spray technology and our herbicide 3 technology. As I told you, we do it for two 4 reasons. It's the right thing to do and it's 5 the economical thing to do. 6 I want you to know, also, as it was 7 pointed out earlier we're a price-taker. We 8 can't pass on higher prices. I only can get 9 what I can get from the people that buy my 10 products. 11 Finally, I want you to know that 12 agriculturalists, just like myself, are great 13 stewards of the lands. I know an awful lot of 14 people. I sold some of my property up around 15 Bok Tower Gardens, which I don't know if you're 16 familiar with, I sold conversation easements 17 there. That land will never be built on. I'm 18 proud of that. It worried me a little bit. If 19 I get canker or something that puts me out of 20 business, I have very little use of that land. 21 So all the challenges that we have on our 22 plate today, disease, labor, trade, I hope that 23 you will take a scientific and economic 24 approach to the problems you're trying to 25 solve. And I hope that you do that. I hope 141 1 you will do it in public forums like we have 2 today. I much appreciate that I'm here to 3 speak and hear these other folks speak and to 4 let you know how we feel. 5 And, also, I would like to say that I hope 6 you involve our government officials that 7 represented government, that served this 8 country very well for a long time. 9 Thank you very much. 10 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Story. 11 Speaker number 28. And if speaker number 12 30 could move to the open seat. 13 MR. PAYNE: Good afternoon. My name is 14 James Payne and I work with Deseret Cattle and 15 Citrus Ranch located in Brevard, Osceola and 16 Orange Counties. 17 The criteria that's proposed will have a 18 significant impact on most cattle operations 19 within the State of Florida. The cattle 20 industry in the State of Florida, along with 21 DEP and the Florida Department of Agriculture, 22 have gone a long way in adopting best 23 management practices. There's some concern as 24 to what this numeric nutrient criteria will do 25 to those best management practices. 142 1 We feel that, even complying with best 2 management practices, we may not be able to 3 meet the criteria that is proposed to be 4 imposed. One of the concerns I have results 5 from a recent experience with EPA in some of 6 the proposed TMDLs that EPA has sought to 7 adopt. 8 On one particular stream EPA has stated 9 that the stream cannot meet the water quality 10 standard under natural conditions. And so I 11 asked myself if it can't meet it under natural 12 conditions, maybe there's something wrong with 13 the standard that we're trying to impose. 14 I am afraid that the standard that is 15 sought to be imposed is arbitrary and perhaps 16 it's not derived in the most 17 scientifically-based manner. Picking the 75th 18 percentile doesn't seem to be that there's a 19 strong enough correlation with the stream 20 health. Many streams are healthy that the EPA 21 says are not. The standard is statistically 22 derived and not necessarily biologically 23 derived. 24 The one-size-fits-all standard does not 25 take into account variations in soils, in 143 1 geology and naturally-occurring deposits of 2 phosphates. Just on our ranch, there are a lot 3 of different conditions. One size doesn't fit 4 all, even on our ranch, let alone on the whole 5 peninsula of Florida. 6 Nutrient criteria standards not based on 7 biological responses to nutrients, for example, 8 some of the streams that have shown to be 9 healthy biologically show to be impaired 10 according to the EPA standard. There's not 11 that definite correlation between biological 12 health and the numeric nutrient criteria that 13 is proposed. 14 The criteria will cause several streams on 15 the ranch, including Wolf Creek, Crabgrass 16 Creek and several others, to be deemed 17 impaired, even though these creeks show no 18 adverse impact from the nutrients and are 19 biologically healthy. We may be required to 20 recover health in streams. Our cattle-count 21 population does not have the financial ability 22 to chase a criteria that deems healthy streams 23 to be impaired. 24 There's been a lot said today about 25 economics, and it's true. You often wonder 144 1 just how much regulation one cow can carry on 2 her back. And we have implemented on the ranch 3 quite a number of practices to try to improve 4 water quality, including construction of 5 several retention ponds. Those things cost 6 money and it's difficult to recoup those 7 expenses in a market where you're competing 8 with Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and other states 9 that may not have to meet the same criteria 10 that we have to meet. 11 Cattle production is a very low-margin 12 business. It cannot afford to absorb 13 additional costs, especially if those costs are 14 associated with trying to chase a standard that 15 may not be biologically sound or scientifically 16 based. 17 The expense of monitoring would be a 18 significant cost that cannot be passed on to 19 the purchasers of our products. The expense of 20 treatment will be a significant cost that's 21 very difficult to pass on to the purchasers of 22 our products. 23 One other thing that is concerning is that 24 the downstream protection is overly protective 25 when translated upstream. I am not convinced 145 1 that the SPARROW model is the most appropriate 2 thing for EPA to be using in trying to 3 establish criteria for downstream protection. 4 It would be better if you used the TMDL process 5 that the State has implemented rather than 6 numeric nutrient criteria for downstream water. 7 I see that I'm out of time. Let me just 8 conclude by saying that whatever criteria is 9 adopted, it needs to be attainable and be 10 economically reasonable. If the standards 11 can't be attained without putting business out 12 of business, then the standard needs to be 13 reconsidered. 14 We are committed to try to make sure that 15 the water that leaves our property is clean and 16 that it does achieve a standard that's 17 reasonable and it can be sustainable overall 18 for our agricultural production. 19 Thank very much. 20 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Payne. 21 Speaker number 29. If speaker 31 could 22 take the empty seat. 23 MS. KANE: Hi there. Hi, Denise. How are 24 you doing? 25 I'm Delores Kane, K-A-N-E. I'm Director 146 1 of Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. 2 And I think we should all be very happy about 3 how much cleaner our water is today than 1978, 4 when it was really, really bad, and I think we 5 have a lot to thank you all for for that. 6 But I am of the opinion that the State of 7 Florida knows a lot more about what goes on in 8 this state and how to take care of it than 9 somebody in Washington or Kansas. I came down 10 here from Kansas in '54. The first thing I 11 found out, they don't have any mud here. High 12 and dry is to two and three feet higher than 13 the property next to it. Things are different 14 in Florida. 15 And I don't know where in the Constitution 16 in the enumerated powers the Federal Government 17 is given the right to have jurisdiction over 18 the waters that are strictly in the State of 19 Florida. And you've got the Tenth Amendment 20 that says the powers not delegated to the 21 United States by the Constitution nor 22 prohibited to it by the States are reserved for 23 the States respectively or to the people. So I 24 just wonder if the EPA really has jurisdiction 25 here. I wonder how they can enforce it. 147 1 And I think the State of Florida DEP is 2 really tough to work with. And I think that 3 they can take care of our waters without 4 redundant onerous and unscientific dictates 5 coming down from Washington. And I just think 6 that it's time for the citizens of the United 7 States and the other states to be against 8 things that are unconstitutional. We don't 9 need this redundancy. We'll take care of it. 10 We can take care of it ourselves. 11 And the cost -- you heard all this. They 12 cut the snapper fishing and the grouper fishing 13 over on the -- on account they had more snapper 14 and grouper than they had since 1986, and 15 they've cut the loggers from jobs out in the 16 West. They've cut the farmers in California. 17 It's time that we listen to a balanced view of 18 environmentalism instead of an unrealistic 19 unbalanced view. We're all environmentalists. 20 We all want clean water. 21 And I think there's a good balance there 22 and I wish to God you people would do it. And 23 I thank you very much. 24 (Applause.) 25 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Kane. 148 1 Speaker number 30. And if speaker number 2 32 could make their way. 3 MR. MERRIAM: I'm Jack Merriam from 4 Sarasota County. And on behalf of the 5 taxpayers and citizens of Sarasota County, I'd 6 like to thank you for taking the time to come 7 down and listen to our concerns. 8 Back in the late '80s I was involved in an 9 effort to get Sarasota Bay designated in the 10 then new National Estuary Program. And we had 11 some comments from DEP and perhaps EPA that 12 Sarasota Bay was not in bad enough condition to 13 warrant designation. And we argued that 14 protecting estuaries while we had the 15 opportunity was far more cost effective than 16 trying to fix them after we had polluted them. 17 And we were successful in getting Sarasota Bay 18 designated as a National Estuary Program. 19 Since then the City of Sarasota and 20 Sarasota County have spent millions of dollars 21 on wastewater treatment, taking septic tanks 22 offline. We have thousands of old septic tanks 23 that are causing us problems. And we are 24 sewering those as rapidly as we can. We have 25 built regional stormwater systems, in many 149 1 cases with grant money either from DEP or EPA. 2 We passed one of the first fertilizer 3 ordinances in Florida and until Pinellas County 4 passed theirs, which is now the most stringent, 5 we got a lot of criticism for having too 6 stringent an ordinance and yet beginning to 7 ratchet down all of the sources that we could 8 is our goal. 9 We adopted the first low-impact 10 development manual, developed it in conjunction 11 with the Southwest Florida Water Management 12 District over there. And I know that EPA 13 recently had a webcast talking about low-impact 14 development and your desire to implement it for 15 retrofitting our water bodies. 16 One of the things we did that was 17 interesting was we did a GIS of the age of 18 developments in Sarasota County and you can see 19 that all of our oldest development, much of 20 which was developed prior to the Clean Water 21 Act, is right on our bay, and so we have a 22 challenge for retrofitting. 23 We appreciate EPA's grant. We just 24 recently approved a 319 grant on Hudson Bayou, 25 which discharges into Sarasota Bay, and we'll 150 1 be retrofitting that with some low-impact 2 development things. 3 Biological indicators seem to be moving in 4 a positive direction in Sarasota Bay. We 5 started a seagrass monitoring program some 6 years ago and again appreciated a Gulf Guardian 7 Award from EPA for that program, which is 8 really helping us to develop a biological 9 database. 10 We also are doing biological monitoring of 11 oysters, scallops, and we've developed the 12 first tidal creek index, which looks at 13 macroinvertebrates in Florida and are using 14 that as, again, a biological indicator of how 15 well our water bodies are doing. 16 So we collectively are getting a good 17 return on our investment, I think. Sarasota 18 County is a member actually of all three of 19 those estuary programs that Rob Brown spoke of 20 earlier. We have a very small piece of the 21 Tampa Bay. We are in the Sarasota Bay estuary 22 program and the Charlotte Harbor estuary 23 program. 24 For the past ten years we collectively and 25 collaboratively have spent millions of dollars 151 1 developing science to manage these estuaries. 2 EPA and FDEP have been very active partners. 3 We feel strongly that the national estuary 4 programs are the appropriate entities to 5 develop scientifically-sound peer review, 6 regionally appropriate criteria to manage our 7 water bodies. 8 We are developing watershed management 9 plans, in which we are implementing water 10 quality, level of surface water quality 11 standards, pollutant loading model, et cetera, 12 and we are working through the estuary programs 13 because we cross county lines. We can't manage 14 Sarasota Bay without working with our adjacent 15 brothers and sisters in Manatee County, et 16 cetera. 17 So it's very important that we work 18 through the estuary programs for a whole host 19 of good reasons if we want to properly manage 20 our bays and estuaries. 21 And so I would strongly encourage you to 22 accept when the estuary programs have submitted 23 their proposed criteria that we believe will 24 allow us to continue the biological trends in a 25 positive direction. 152 1 Thank you very much. 2 (Applause.) 3 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Merriam. 4 Speaker number 31. And if speaker number 5 33 could make his or her way to the chair. 6 MS. PRICE: Good afternoon. Thank you for 7 the opportunity to comment on these rules. My 8 name is Janet Price and I'm here representing 9 Rayonier, a publicly-traded international 10 forest products company. 11 Rayonier operates four businesses, timber 12 real estate, forest fibers and lumber. On an 13 annual basis Rayonier contributes over 14 100 million dollars to the state's economy in 15 the form of property taxes, payments to Florida 16 vendors and payroll. We are the fourth largest 17 landowner in Florida with over 435,000 acres of 18 timber lands. 19 The proposed federal nutrient rule 20 represents an aggressive effort to address 21 nutrient impacts in Florida waters. Parts of 22 the rule are consistent with what the DEP has 23 proposed and were well received by the state's 24 technical advisory committee. However, other 25 portions of the rule are problematic. 153 1 It's now clear that the criteria for 2 rivers and streams will result in the finding 3 of impairment for the majority of Florida 4 waters, including many that are considered 5 pristine. This raises significant questions 6 regarding the validity of EPA's statistical 7 analysis and the SPARROW model. 8 The proposed rule has serious consequences 9 for rural landowners. For example, Rayonier's 10 forests are spread over seven major drainage 11 basins. Under the proposed rule the majority 12 of flowing waters in these regions will be 13 labeled as impaired with nutrients, although 14 many, if not all, are actually healthy. A 15 finding of impairment can trigger new 16 restrictions on land use and forest operations, 17 further limiting the economic value of timber 18 land ownership. 19 Under the proposed rule landowners must 20 either accept these restrictions or engage in 21 extensive studies to prove that the nutrient 22 criteria are wrong. 23 In addition, the rule is silent on the 24 matter of interstate waters, although drainage 25 basins extending into Alabama and Georgia are 154 1 clearly included. Regional regulation of 2 nutrients is beyond the scope of this rule, 3 leaving north Florida at a disadvantage from 4 both an environmental and economic standpoint. 5 The EPA should explain the means by which 6 interstate issues will be addressed, so the 7 public, including landowners such as Rayonier, 8 can assess the impact. 9 The EPA is also concerned that forestry 10 practices contribute to nutrient 11 overenrichment. The State of Florida has one 12 of the most aggressive forestry best management 13 practices in the nation. These requirements 14 include standards for forest fertilization. 15 Additionally, the Florida division of forestry 16 does biannual compliance surveys using aerial 17 selection techniques and detailed on-the-ground 18 compliance monitoring. 19 The results of these surveys indicate 20 compliance rate percentages in the high 21 nineties. The Florida DEP has also completed 22 effectiveness studies across the state 23 demonstrating that when forest best management 24 practices are used, they are effective at 25 preventing water quality degradation. 155 1 The EPA has made a determination that 2 numeric nutrient criteria are necessary to 3 protect Florida waters. However, the early 4 results show the science doesn't hold up to 5 scrutiny. The Clean Water Act and Florida's 6 rules provide other methods to address nutrient 7 problems. 8 The EPA should recognize and leverage all 9 the regulatory tools available to achieve a 10 meaningful but workable regulatory process. 11 Thank you. 12 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Price. 13 Speaker number 32. 14 MR. KELTER: Hi. I'm 32. I wish. My 15 name is -- 16 MS. KEEHNER: You don't look that old. 17 MR. KELTER: Bless your heart. I love you 18 already. 19 My name is Mike Kelter, city councilman 20 from Green Cove Springs and a former mayor. 21 During the break I welcomed y'all to 22 Florida and I told you I didn't admire your 23 science, but I do admire your demeanor, sitting 24 and listening to us for three days. And I 25 don't know what significant comment is. What 156 1 I'm hearing today is a lot of significant 2 comments. So you've got your plate full on 3 things that you've got to answer. So I hope 4 we're not checking off boxes. I hope this has 5 some effect. 6 I'm a civil engineer. I'm a P.E., 7 partially educated. I guess that offsets being 8 an idiot politician, partially. 9 As an engineer, I represent counties, 10 cities, special districts and homeowners 11 associations in Northeast Florida and we're 12 responsible for water quality, sewer effluent 13 and stormwater services. I'm the chairman of 14 the Florida Municipal Power Agency Policy Maker 15 Committee, comprised of other elected officials 16 who own electric, water and wastewater 17 utilities. A number of county commissioners, 18 mayors, board presidents have asked me to speak 19 to you on behalf of their communities regarding 20 numeric nutrients. I tried to tell them to do 21 their own work, but they told me to come here. 22 Many of them are adopting resolutions or 23 have adopted resolutions. You heard the 24 resolution from my public works director 25 yesterday in Tallahassee. 157 1 We have a number of objections to this 2 rule. First, 80 days after our communities in 3 Northeast Florida committed their treasuries to 4 the tune of 700 hundred million dollars to 5 remove nutrients from the Lower St. Johns River 6 pursuant to what are Florida TMDL rules. 7 The U.S. EPA Administrator wrote a letter 8 of determination stating that Florida's TMDL 9 program was not working and that we needed the 10 Federal Government to tell us how to clean up 11 Florida waters. Ouch. That hurts, 80 days 12 when you're trying to design a bill. 13 This is a faulty assessment, given that it 14 takes many years to design and construct 15 capital improvements to make real improvements 16 to water quality that we so value in Florida. 17 The assistant administrator needs to retract 18 that letter of determination based on the fact 19 that it was not based on current events. 20 We're working on it. We're working on it 21 hard. We're proud of what we're doing and I 22 think we're going to have results. Give our 23 program a chance to work. 24 Second, U.S. EPA has grossly understated 25 the cost of complying with the numeric nutrient 158 1 rule. It is kind of disingenuous for the U.S. 2 EPA to base incremental costs of the program on 3 the difference between the rule you are 4 proposing and an FDEP rule that was never 5 implemented. 6 On Main Street where taxpayer dollars are 7 still expended with thrift and due care, 8 incremental costs really mean the difference 9 between what we're paying now for our TMDL 10 rules and what it would cost to use EPA's 11 program, what it will really cost. 12 I was astounded as an engineer by the cost 13 estimates you show in Appendix A to your docket 14 blah, blah, blah 0996-dash-0170. I don't know 15 where you get these numbers, you guys. One 16 million twenty-four thousand dollars for the 17 Town of Orange Park wastewater treatment plant 18 to comply. Now, I designed and supervised the 19 construction of that plant. I kind of know 20 better. I can build things cheap, but not that 21 cheap. 22 Okay. Zero dollars in your appendix for 23 the City of Green Cove Springs. Are you 24 kidding me? I was public works director for 25 that city and today I stick my political neck 159 1 out every day asking for millions of dollars, 2 you know, to build plants capable of removing 3 nutrient loads. Your cost models do not 4 account for the fact that small municipal 5 wastewater plants are generally surrounded by 6 built-up urban areas. Constructing actual 7 improvements in small communities is extremely 8 difficult and extremely costly. 9 U.S. EPA totally ignores the cost of 10 treating stormwater runoff in your cost 11 analysis. Treating stormwater costs you four 12 times as much as treating nutrients in 13 wastewater treatment plants. I don't know why 14 you ignored stormwater. To paraphrase your 15 document, you basically said it's too hard for 16 us to do. 17 Third, the benefits of the rule are way 18 overstated. Your benefit analysis uses the 19 concentrated annual feeding operations 2002 20 water quality data as baseline for evidence. 21 Give me a break. 22 Four, part 7-B of the rule states the U.S. 23 EPA rule is not subject to unfunded mandates or 24 format. I know how much it costs. It's more 25 than what you say. If the Federal Government 160 1 had to do unfunded mandates program, I am 2 certain that you will write the rules 3 differently. 4 I'm almost out of time. Fifth, you're 5 forgetting about power. Moving nutrients is 6 power intensive. We have got to build power 7 plants in this state to make that last. 8 In closing, thanks for being here, thanks 9 for listening. Y'all come to Green Cove 10 Springs sometime. We'll treat you with some 11 southern hospitality, give you some barbecue, 12 show you where we're fishing in our 13 nutrient-impaired river and then we're going to 14 show you how we solve these problems on our 15 own. 16 Thank you very much. 17 (Applause.) 18 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Kelter. 19 Speaker number 33, please. And if speaker 20 number 35 could move to the empty seat. 21 MS. VAN HORN: Good afternoon. I'm Jackie 22 Van Horn. I'm the district manager for Flagler 23 Estates Road and Water Control District. We're 24 Florida Statute 298 Water Control District in 25 Southwest St. Johns County. 161 1 Our district is located within a -- the 2 Flagler Estates community. This community is a 3 community redevelopment area. It was created 4 to alleviate blight and slum and it is one of 5 the workforce housing areas for St. Johns 6 County. 7 Our district owns, operates and maintains 8 a stormwater drainage system for 23,000-plus 9 acres of land with most of that land not within 10 our jurisdiction, but yet the financial burden 11 to operate and maintain the stormwater drainage 12 system lies solely on 4900 landowners within 13 Flagler Estates and we collect those revenues 14 through assessment. 15 Two years ago our district board of 16 supervisors adopted a 90.3-million-dollar 17 capital improvement plan which included over 5 18 million dollars to improve stormwater drainage 19 treatment and to implement the FDEP TMDLs. The 20 cost to our landowners was an additional $66 21 per acre a year. That doesn't sound like much 22 to y'all or to a lot of us out here, but to 23 that community that's, you know, 24 low-to-moderate income, it's a big deal. It 25 means food in their mouths and a roof over 162 1 their head. 2 For our district to implement EPA's 3 proposed rule for numeric nutrient criteria, it 4 would put a severe financial burden on our 5 landowners and the agricultural communities 6 surrounding Flagler Estates. We will have to 7 impose an additional stormwater assessment on 8 our landowners to a community that cannot 9 afford any additional taxation at this time. 10 In closing, I would like to encourage the 11 EPA to allow the State of Florida to do what is 12 best for Florida. I believe the State of 13 Florida knows better than anyone else, 14 including EPA, what will work best for our 15 environment, our people and the state. 16 Thank you very much. 17 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you Ms. Van Horn. 18 Speaker number 34. And if speaker 36 19 could move to the open chair. 20 MS. WONG: My name is Elizabeth Wong and 21 I'm the stormwater manager for the City of 22 Northport. In case you don't know, it's 23 located within Sarasota County about three 24 hours from here. I would hate to be in your 25 shoes today and I really appreciate your care 163 1 about the environment. I'm a environmental 2 engineer, so I do care about the environment. 3 What I'm about to say is more specific 4 than what the general comments I've been 5 hearing. I want to target canals. In 6 Northport we have 213 miles of canals. We have 7 about 213 miles and 81 miles which are wet 8 canals. The rest are dry-wettish. 9 So in these canals we've got 69 water 10 control structures which act as mini dams 11 segmentalizing the canals. It acts almost like 12 mini lakes. So I'm not sure exactly where I 13 fit into your criteria. 14 But if I just look at the canals, let me 15 point to two things in the canals that I think 16 you might want to take a closer look at. One 17 is Chlorophyll, Chlorophyll of four milligrams 18 per liter. That is very low. 19 In canals, manmade canals, we don't go 20 very deep. We are using those canals for 21 conveyance and also for storing water. Shallow 22 canals, hot Florida sun, no tree canopy, 23 Chlorophyll boom, you know. Four milligrams 24 is not reasonable. I'd like you to look at 25 that limit a little more closely. 164 1 Like I said, we're compartmentalized 2 because we've got those water control 3 structures. They act more like lakes. And 4 lakes, you've got 20. I think that's a little 5 bit more reasonable. 6 Phosphorous .042 milligrams per liter. 7 Wow. I look at that and I look at stream. 8 Stream is .739. Canals are made to convey 9 water and we are cutting through the same type 10 of terrain that the streams are, laden with 11 phosphorous. Okay. So I don't understand 12 where you got .04 versus the .739 that's in 13 streams. 14 In addition, we use Mote Marine Lab. I'm 15 sure you've heard about Mote Marine Lab. And 16 their detection limit for phosphorous is .05 17 milligram per liter. So something to consider. 18 In your rules you've allowed use of SSAC, 19 S-S-A-C. I just wanted to let you know that 20 DEP is charging $15,000 per SSAC per parameter. 21 I really don't want to spend that amount of 22 money in order to change whatever rules you 23 finally decide on. So please consider the 24 natural conditions. 25 In Northport the canals are fishable and 165 1 swimmable and, by golly, there's plenty of fish 2 in there. In January, with the freeze, I saw 3 10,000 fish float up. There's plenty of fish. 4 Very nice fish. Snook, tilapia. 5 So I think you really have to take DEP's 6 advice. I'm really surprised to see this 7 document come up on DEP a couple of days ago, 8 dated January 26, 2010, with their concerns on 9 your rule. When I heard that DEP is going to 10 work with EPA to come up with this numeric 11 nutrient criteria, I said oh, good, they're 12 going to jointly work. And here I see a 13 document that tears your document apart. So I 14 don't know how much working together you all 15 did. But I do agree with most of the concerns, 16 especially what they wrote on canals. 17 I'm going to close, and I just want to let 18 you know that biology, I need you all to look 19 at the biology with respect to concentration. 20 Just don't look at concentration by itself. Is 21 it affecting the biology, the fish, the 22 grasses, the life in the canals. 23 Thank you for your time. 24 (Applause.) 25 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Wong. 166 1 Speaker 35, and if 37 could move to the 2 chair. 3 MS. FENTRESS: Good afternoon. I am Pam 4 Fentress and I'm a citrus grower representing 5 Lost Lake Groves in Highland County. I believe 6 the bottom line is farmers are the first 7 environmentalists. I'm a seventh-generation 8 Floridian, a fourth generation citrus grower. 9 Our grove, we have an actual lake called Lost 10 Lake. It's spring-fed, 35 feet deep. 11 My family has had an active, producing 12 citrus grove around Lost Lake for over 45 13 years. I served four years on the Southwest 14 Florida Water Management Governing Board and 15 during that time the District Commission, the 16 study of the lakes on the ridge, Lost Lake was 17 the second cleanest, clearest lake on the 18 ridge. And I just think that's assume that you 19 have an acting, producing citrus grove and 20 you've got one of the cleanest, clearest lakes. 21 I would just ask you to please make sure 22 that the process you use is science-based and 23 peer-reviewed. I think peer-reviewed is 24 extremely important. 25 I think the answer to cleaner water is not 167 1 a cookie-cutter approach. As an example, 2 20 miles from our grove on the ridge we have a 3 solid citrus and palm tree farm. Twenty miles 4 -- 20 miles or 20 minutes, you go from sandy 5 soil and swift mud to mucky soil and South 6 Florida Water Management District. 7 Yet, both of our farms are apparently in 8 the EPA's Peninsula Watershed, and I don't 9 understand how. 10 Just to give you a little background, it 11 can rain an inch on our grove on the sandy 12 soils and we won't irrigate for two days. That 13 same inch can fall 20 minutes away, we may not 14 irrigate for a whole month. And I just ask you 15 to please take that into consideration. 16 Both of our farms are enrolled in the BMP 17 program. I believe the EPA standard for our 18 area is unrealistic and I feel it will be 19 detrimental to small family farmers' economic 20 survivability. Please protect agriculture and 21 the environment. And I believe it can be done. 22 The other day my four-year-old daughter 23 brought such joy and pride to my heart. She 24 told me that when she grows up she wants to be 25 a farmer. I'm proud to be a farmer in Florida 168 1 and I'm also proud of the way my family has 2 taken care of the land. I hope my daughter 3 gets the opportunity to know the honor of being 4 a farmer in Florida. The farmer, the first 5 environmentalist. Thank you. 6 Sorry I got a little teary-eyed, but it 7 was so cute when she said it. She wants to be 8 a farmer. And it just almost broke my heart. 9 Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 10 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Fentress. 11 Speaker 36. 12 MS. HARTNEY: Good afternoon. I'm Mary 13 Hartney and I'm president of the Florida 14 Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association. FFAA 15 was founded in 1932. It's based in Winter 16 Haven. We are a nonprofit trade association, 17 whose members include fertilizer manufacturers, 18 dealers, distributors and industry suppliers 19 with business interests in Florida. 20 You've sat here a long time today, so I'm 21 going to revamp my comments and tell you three 22 of the concerns we have that have been very 23 well-covered to this point, give you three 24 positive things that the industry is doing, 25 leave you with three asks and one point of 169 1 rebuttal. 2 FFAA shares many of the concerns that you 3 have heard expressed very well today about the 4 use of the SPARROW model, about what is 5 happening with a standard that would make 6 pristine and reference streams be considered 7 impaired. 8 We have a question about whether there's a 9 problem with the number when natural isn't good 10 enough. 11 We also are interested in finding out more 12 about what went into the development of the 13 economic cost study. We find it short of the 14 mark. We'd like to see it revisited to 15 incorporate from start to finish the whole 16 scope of what the cost benefit will be to the 17 state, particularly as we suffer from high 18 unemployment, a strapped state budget and 19 industries reeling from the national economic 20 downturn. 21 Three things that we are doing that you 22 haven't heard about today. And the reason that 23 we're doing it is that FFAA members believe in 24 nutrient stewardship. We believe in good water 25 quality. After all, we live, work and play in 170 1 this paradise, too. 2 These are some of the things that are 3 going on that I have not heard addressed today. 4 There are over 1.9 million acres of 5 agricultural production enrolled in state best 6 management programs and we are working to up 7 that number. The state's Urban Turf Rule 8 5E-1.003 took almost two years to develop. It 9 was passed in December of 2007. It offered an 10 opportunity for the next two years for the 11 channels of trade to work their way through and 12 it was fully implemented this summer. And what 13 it did was reformulated every specialty turf 14 product labeled for use in Florida by 15 do-it-yourselfers. It changed what's in those 16 50-pounds-and-under bags, 49 pounds and under, 17 so that all of those turf fertilizers are 18 either zero phosphorous or low phosphorous. 19 They contain less nitrogen. 20 These new formulations take into account 21 the research and to the agronomic needs of turf 22 grass, environmental consequences and the 23 realities of consumer behavior. They cover 24 five major turf varieties. Three diverse 25 regions are captured. And it's estimated that 171 1 the changes in the products are going to result 2 in a 65-to-70-percent reduction in phosphorous, 3 a 20-to-25-percent reduction in nitrogen. 4 Those are products available to the homeowner 5 and you don't hear about that when urban 6 fertilization practices are discussed. 7 In addition, FFAA members are dedicated to 8 sharing with growers in our communities four 9 proven nutrient stewardship principles based on 10 research developed by the International Plant 11 Nutrition Institute. These are the four Rs, 12 right source, right rate, right place, right 13 time. They have been proven with science to be 14 effective in minimizing adverse environmental 15 impacts. 16 Here are the asks. We ask EPA to grant an 17 extension of the comment period to allow more 18 time to develop and submit technical comments. 19 We respectfully support the requests made by 20 members of Florida's Congressional delegation 21 for more public hearings in other parts of the 22 state. We ask EPA to revisit its modeling 23 assumptions and its economic impact statement, 24 taking into consideration the constructive 25 criticism offered here today. 172 1 The point of rebuttal, I cannot in good 2 conscious stand here today in this public 3 hearing and not address the inflammatory 4 remarks that Cris Costello of the Sierra Club 5 leveled against the University of Florida and 6 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 7 Her beef is that the science does not support 8 the position that she has taken. It was a 9 classic case of kill the messenger when you 10 don't like the message. 11 The integrity and professionalism of the 12 University of Florida and the Florida 13 Department of Environmental Protection needs to 14 be defended. And I'm going to call it garbage 15 because it was garbage. 16 (Applause.) 17 I appreciate the opportunity to work with 18 you to make Florida better. Let's work 19 together and take the time to do this right. 20 Thank you. 21 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mrs. Hartney. 22 Speaker 38. And if speaker 39 could make 23 their way to the chair. 24 MS. FULFORD: My name is Cheryl Fulford. 25 I'm deputy chief of staff to Congressman Adam 173 1 Putnam. It's my privilege today to read 2 remarks on his behalf. 3 Thank you for the opportunity to share my 4 views on this important matter. Floridians 5 understand that water quality will determine 6 the future of our state. People from all over 7 the world come to Florida to dive on our coast, 8 fish in our rivers and swim in our lakes. In 9 addition to the natural attractions, Florida's 10 water and weather allows us to be our nation's 11 main domestic supplier of fruits and vegetables 12 during the winter months. And, simply put, 13 there is no other place on earth like the 14 Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. 15 For these reasons, Florida has done more 16 than any other state to study nutrient 17 pollution control, spending more than 20 18 million to collect data. While the Florida 19 Department of Environmental Protection has 20 already established nutrient criteria, many 21 years ago the agency was in the process of 22 developing numeric standards at the time the 23 Environmental Protection Entered into a consent 24 degree with EarthJustice. 25 Despite the difficulty in establishing 174 1 numeric standards, DEP moved forward with EPA 2 on an EPA-approved plan to establish numeric 3 standards by the year 2010. However, in August 4 2009 EPA voluntarily entered into a consent 5 decree with EarthJustice without consent or 6 consultation with DEP. The resulting 7 acceleration time line prevented DEP from 8 gathering additional useful data for protecting 9 Florida's waters. 10 Additionally, it is worth noting that even 11 though EPA is using slightly different 12 methodology to determine water quality, they're 13 relying on data DEP provided. EPA now seeks to 14 impose federal regulations based on data 15 obtained by state resources using methodologies 16 which state scientists disagreed. 17 Were it not for the scientific data that 18 Florida taxpayers rightfully funded, EPA would 19 not likely have enough information to move 20 forward with these regulations. Now these same 21 taxpayers will be punished by unnecessary costs 22 associated with proposed regulations. This 23 heavy-handed approach is exactly why people 24 have become frustrated with Washington 25 bureaucrats. 175 1 Unfortunately, these actions will have 2 chilling effects on other states, discouraging 3 future collaborative efforts with EPA to 4 restore our environment. As our state 5 struggles with an unemployment rate of 11.8 6 percent, the likely financial burdens resulting 7 from these regulations could not have come at a 8 worst time. 9 Local governments will be forced to add 10 costly nutrient pollution control measures to 11 current stormwater management programs, 12 utilities, and Florida estimates the capital 13 cost for treating wastewater could result in 14 substantial increase in utility fees and will 15 bear the cost of the litigation when a water 16 body is classified as being impaired. 17 Pollution control technologists will be costly 18 to obtain, if it is even available, to meet the 19 proposed standards. 20 According to DEP, the technology does not 21 exist for municipal wastewater facilities and 22 agricultural operations to meet EPA criteria. 23 Overall, DEP claims that cost of compliance 24 will force an investment of millions of dollars 25 without environmental benefit. 176 1 Furthermore, the proposed rule does not 2 adequately account for nutrients which flow 3 into Florida from neighboring states. 4 Floridians will be forced to bear the burden 5 for pollution caused by residents of other 6 states. The foreseeable conflicts this will 7 create between our neighboring states is like 8 watching a slow-moving train wreck. 9 In conclusion, I would once again urge EPA 10 to truly collaborate with DEP in developing a 11 table of numeric nutrient standards. To date, 12 the only collaboration I have seen is between 13 EPA and a few litigants. 14 According to the EPA, under the proposed 15 rule 80 percent of pristine Florida rivers and 16 streams will be classified as impaired. I fail 17 to see how these contradictory conclusions 18 between scientists will be helpful to the 19 public in understanding these proposed rules. 20 Indeed, despite the potential widespread 21 impacts these regulation will have on our 22 state, Floridians do not yet understand their 23 costs and benefits. They have also not been 24 subject to the debate by elective 25 representatives. More public hearings and 177 1 discussions are necessary and appropriate. We 2 all share the same goal and desire to protect 3 Florida's waterways and I believe we are close 4 to having attainable science-based standards. 5 It is my hope EPA will address these concerns 6 and use the collaborative approach as a model 7 for future environmental protection measures. 8 Thank you. 9 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Fulford. 10 Speaker 38. And if speaker 40 could move 11 to the open chair. 12 MR. JONES: I'm Richard Jones from St. 13 Johns County. I'm a potato farmer up there and 14 I'm one of the proposed, I guess, algae 15 bloomers, the cause of it, anyway. I just want 16 to speak on behalf of some of the growers up 17 there and myself, that we're doing a lot of BMP 18 work with IFAS and water management. 19 And I just want to let you know that we 20 work with a cost-share to reduce nitrogen and 21 the cost of doing business and the reduced 22 nitrogen use of 40-to-50-pounds an acre of 23 reduced yield, the cost share does not offset 24 the loss of income. There's no incentive for 25 me to do the cost-share, because I'm talking 178 1 over $200 an acre in loss of income. 2 However, on the BMP side of it, we're 3 implementing about 98 percent of that BMP now, 4 and a lot of the timber growers are a hundred 5 percent with the 200 pounds of nitrogen. It's 6 supposed to fit all soil types and crops across 7 Florida. And with our sandy soils in Florida, 8 200 pounds doesn't cut it. 9 And I want to talk a little bit about the 10 rainwater. We had our rainwater checked during 11 a thunderstorm last year and the gentleman 12 earlier talked about 60 parts per billion. We 13 had a hundred during a thunderstorm. It's 14 higher. 15 And so I've asked several people in water 16 management that has tested our waters. They 17 won't never set foot out there in a rain event. 18 What nitrogen is legal on my farm, is it the 19 nitrogen from the rain or is it what I'm using 20 for my crops? 21 And one other thing I want to tell you 22 about the BMP, we have to check our pH every 23 year, keep it up to snuff, so that the 24 nutrients I use is available to the plant, and 25 I don't know if y'all bought a load of 179 1 fertilizer in the last two or three years, and 2 I bought almost 50 of them last year, probably 3 about triple that amount. It cost me almost a 4 half a million dollars for fertilizer on my 5 farm. And you can believe one thing, I ain't 6 slinging it in ditches and rivers. I'm putting 7 it where it belongs with that kind of cost. 8 I want to say one more thing about the 9 cost of raising a crop versus our potato 10 contract. And I got a big contract with 11 Frito-Lay for 300,000 bags. I've got to have a 12 yield to make my economics come out. I can't 13 be slipping around 200, 220 bags an acre. I've 14 got to be upwards of 250 to 260. There's an 15 IFAS recommended data of 200 pounds, and it 16 won't get me there. 17 However, we're working with them to input 18 some slow-release fertilizers in our crops to 19 allow us some insurance. We're not using 20 normal fertilizer for that. We're implementing 21 some slow-release to give us a little 22 insurance. We all have hospitalization in case 23 something happens. If you grow a crop here in 24 Florida, you're not growing it in a hothouse. 25 And you've got to have a little bit of 180 1 insurance in fertilizer to carry you through 2 rainy periods. And a potato crop, before the 3 first 60 days. If you put fertilizer on after 4 that, it will rot your crop. 5 So I appreciate the time that y'all have 6 given us here today and I don't know what 7 y'all's schedule is, but I feel like that y'all 8 need to take your jacket off here now and get 9 out in the field and do some of your own 10 testing. I don't appreciate taxing authorities 11 testing my water. We need private tests 12 without an agenda. And I would appreciate a 13 visit from y'all. I live in Riverdale, 14 Florida. 15 Thank you. 16 (Applause.) 17 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Jones. 18 Speaker 39. And if the next speaker, 41 19 could move to the empty seat. 20 MR. YOUNG: My name is Kevin Young. I'm 21 an environmental engineer for Tampa Electric 22 Company in Tampa, Florida. My current job 23 responsibility is surface water discharge 24 permitting and compliance. I've been following 25 this for many years. And I also will keep my 181 1 comments brief. 2 Tampa Electric has supplied the Tampa Bay 3 area with electricity since 1999. It covers 4 2,000 square miles, all of Hillsborough County 5 and portions of Polk, Pasco and Pinellas 6 Counties. These are all counties in the Tampa 7 Bay Estuary Watershed. 8 Over the last 15 years Tampa Electric 9 Company on repowering six coal-fired units to 10 natural gas and significantly reducing air 11 pollution, a component that is knocks, which is 12 Nutrients leading to atmospheric deposition on 13 the Tampa Bay Watershed, and over the last four 14 years has spent millions of dollars installing 15 selective catalytic reduction by remote 16 controls on the four remaining coal-fired units 17 in the Tampa Bay Watershed. And currently 18 there are hundreds of workers on site finishing 19 construction of the last SCR, and this will 20 also significantly reduce NOx atmospheric 21 deposition on the Tampa Bay Watershed. And I 22 say that just to let you know that Tampa 23 Electric Company has been active in managing 24 nutrients in the Tampa Bay area for a long 25 time. 182 1 That being said, I'm not here to speak for 2 or against the numeric nutrient criteria rule, 3 but I am here to speak about three very 4 specific issues that I feel and Tampa Electric 5 feels need to be addressed. 6 The first is EPA's reference stream 7 approach. It's arbitrary. The second is EPA's 8 inappropriate use of the SPARROW model to set 9 downstream protective values. And the third is 10 the potential effect of the numeric nutrient 11 criteria on efforts to encourage domestic 12 wastewater reuse. 13 Tampa Electric believes that any numeric 14 nutrient criteria must address impairment and 15 relationship between nutrient dose and 16 biological response. EPA's referenced water 17 approach does not and cannot address this cause 18 and effect. 19 EPA's selection of the 75th percentile of 20 streams with a stream condition index bigger 21 than 40 is itself arbitrary and immediately 22 declares 25 percent of the most biologically 23 healthy waters as impaired and needing 24 restoration. This creates an unnecessary 25 demand on already scarce resources in the 183 1 state. I'm talking about monetary resources. 2 Tampa Electric believes that numeric 3 nutrient criteria must address the existing 4 condition of the water body and the best way to 5 do this is to set site-specific criteria that 6 do account for dose-response relationships. 7 Second, EPA's use of USGS's SPARROW model 8 is inappropriate for deriving estuarian loads 9 for downstream protective values. SPARROW is a 10 regional model and cannot take into account all 11 nutrient sources for a specific water body. 12 EPA's use of this model has resulted in 13 downstream protective values that are 14 oftentimes lower than natural background, not 15 taking into account the existing condition of 16 the downstream waters. This has resulted in 17 the failure of some of the state's most 18 minimally-disturbed streams to meet the 19 downstream protective value. 20 A better approach is available. EPA 21 should use water body-specific models for 22 successful management plans to set downstream 23 protective values. For example, Tampa Electric 24 supports the efforts of the Tampa Bay Estuary 25 Program and is a member of the Nitrogen 184 1 Management Consortium. The consortium is a 2 public-private partnership of over 40 3 municipalities, industrial representatives and 4 regulating bodies, including EPA. The goal is 5 to maintain full aquatic life protection in 6 Tampa Bay and that is happening. 7 The Estuary Program's approach has been 8 scientifically accepted, peer-reviewed through 9 publications and scientific journals and 10 reviewed and accepted by EPA. This is an 11 example of a water-based model that works. 12 At Tampa Electric we respectfully request 13 that EPA acknowledge the efforts of existing 14 successful nutrient management plans and 15 specifically for EPA to accept the current 16 total nitrogen/total phosphorous loads to Tampa 17 Bay determine by the Nitrogen Management 18 Consortium as downstream protective loads for 19 the Tampa Bay estuary in the final Florida 20 lakes and flowing waters rule. 21 Finally, due to the unavailability of 22 groundwater in this state, industry is 23 increasingly looking toward domestic wastewater 24 as a source of service water for its industrial 25 processes. EPA did not consider the effects 185 1 that this proposed numeric nutrient criteria 2 would have on efforts to increase reuse. 3 I'm over my time, but I'll hurry and wrap 4 it up. 5 EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria 6 will hamper efforts by municipalities to 7 increase reuse and efforts by industry to 8 accept reuse water for processes because 9 domestic wastewater cannot achieve the proposed 10 criteria. Many times for industry to reuse 11 this effluent it must be treated to achieve an 12 appropriate water quality for its intended use. 13 These treatment processes will require a backup 14 surface water discharge and EPA's proposed 15 criteria will make this unpermittable and force 16 industry to install deep-well injection, a 17 costly and imperfect disposal method that is 18 oftentimes impossible given constraints of the 19 geology of the well and the condition of the 20 injectate. And we're going through some of 21 these concerns currently at one of our 22 facilities. 23 In summary, EPA's proposed numeric 24 nutrient criteria for lakes and streams is 25 arbitrarily set and its rapid stream approach 186 1 does not address impairment or dose response 2 relationships. EPA's use of the SPARROW model 3 is scientifically inappropriate and watersheds 4 with better models are available where 5 management action plans are currently 6 successful and continue to be successful. And 7 the criteria will hamper reuse of domestic 8 wastewater in the state. 9 Tampa Electric will be submitting 10 detailed comments where we will state our 11 position for or against numeric nutrient 12 criteria. And we do thank you for the 13 opportunity to comment and thank you for your 14 time. 15 (Applause.) 16 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Young. 17 Speaker number 40. 18 MR. ALDERSON: I'm Mark Alderson. I'm 19 executive director of the National Estuary 20 Program in Sarasota. 21 In the Sarasota area we really take our 22 water quality seriously. Tourism is the number 23 one industry in Sarasota County. It's the 24 number two industry behind agriculture in 25 Manatee. And, for that reason, the National 187 1 Estuary Program was brought to Sarasota to 2 improve the conditions of the bay. 3 Since that time we spent approximately 4 300 hundred million dollars in infrastructure 5 improvements in our region and we're 6 progressing toward no wastewater discharge into 7 Sarasota Bay at all in the near -- in the next 8 ten years. 9 The program is currently developing 10 numeric nutrient criteria in concert with FDEP 11 to maintain full life protection in Sarasota 12 Bay. We've established seagrass and water 13 quality targets and are rapidly progressing to 14 numeric criteria by May of 2010. And we're 15 really hopeful that you all are going to take 16 these criteria seriously and review them as 17 part of this process. 18 Since 1988 we've reduced total nitrogen 19 loads to our bay by 55 percent. Our seagrasses 20 have increased by 46 percent in the bay. 21 Certainly a good response in comparison. 22 Seagrasses in Sarasota Bay are currently at 23 130 percent of 1950 conditions. That's 24 30 percent above. All of our bay segments in 25 2008 were at 1950 levels or above, considering 188 1 a 5 percent margin of area. 2 With seagrass levels and corresponding 3 water quality data, we're just not seeing the 4 conditions that you've reported in your 5 technical support document. And so we have to 6 take some issue with that. Our average 7 Chlorophyll levels are relatively low, ranging 8 from 4.8 to 8.3 and that was during the 9 2001-to-2005 time period. Since our drought 10 they've been lower than that, significantly 11 lower, between 2006 and 2009. 12 Our average TN concentrations, to give you 13 a feel, in Phillipi Creek, which is our largest 14 tributary, have declined 60 percent over this 15 period from 3.12 milligrams per liter down to 16 about 1.25 milligrams per liter. And that's 17 significant action that's been taken by 18 Sarasota County to improve the condition. 19 In our other bayou, which was a 20 significant problem with regard to nitrogen 21 loading, Whitaker Bayou, our loads have been 22 reduced by 86 percent for Whitaker Bayou. 23 Again, very large load reductions. 24 Load reductions in Sarasota Bay and 25 related streams we don't think are being taken 189 1 into account as a part of the overall approach 2 in the proposed rule as far as being reset a 3 little lower, because you're looking at the 4 2002 concentrations and you're not looking back 5 over the period of time when the load 6 reductions were most significant. 7 The Lemon Bay model cited in your 8 technical support document suggests that our 9 natural conditions in our region are about .7 10 milligrams per liter for these small creeks and 11 coves running to the bay. The DPV is 12 substantially lower than that. And we're not 13 certain that we can meet conditions that are 14 below natural in our particular area and we'd 15 like to have that reviewed. 16 There's been many concerns about the 17 SPARROW model that's been presented here today. 18 We, too, have similar concerns, particularly in 19 an ungauged system like Sarasota Bay, where we 20 may not get as good of a loading 21 characterization as other models might do. 22 We generally support the comments that 23 have been made by FDEP in relation to the 24 SPARROW model and, as I said, we're going to be 25 really working with FDEP to come up with these 190 1 criteria within the next few months and we're 2 hustling on that to try to make that deadline. 3 Scallops returned to Sarasota Bay in 2008 4 and they've persisted ever since and we think 5 that's a pretty good indicator that things have 6 significantly improved in our system and we'd 7 like to have that taken into account. 8 Thank you. 9 (Applause.) 10 MS. KEEHNER: Speaker 41. And if speaker 11 42 and 43 could move to the chairs. 12 MR. WALKINSHAW: I'm John Walkinshaw. I'm 13 representing the Hillsborough Watershed 14 Alliance. It's an organization that's been 15 around since 1992 to help protect and enhance 16 the sustainability and the quality of life 17 within the Hillsborough River Watershed. And 18 we are part of the group of Tampa Bay 19 representatives here today and have been 20 working with the group there to certainly 21 improve the status of Tampa Bay. 22 As I look around the room today, I find it 23 interesting. I have about 25-plus years 24 experience in water resources and usually when 25 I come into a room where there's agricultural 191 1 people or country folk and city folk, sometimes 2 we don't always see eye to eye. And I think 3 it's interesting that on this particular 4 subject you certainly brought the whole group 5 together. 6 (Laughter.) 7 I think -- how long it will last, I'm not 8 sure, but we'll see. I'm hoping for the best. 9 But I just want to say that water quality 10 is very important to us. I'm going to take a 11 little different approach here real quick. 12 We've talked about the science, we've 13 talked about the importance, a lot of things 14 that take place in Florida. But, you know, 15 water is really the lifeblood of Florida and 16 water quality is extremely important to us all. 17 It's important to all the key things here in 18 the state that are meaningful, including the 19 residents, tourism, industry, fisheries, and I 20 don't mean to leave out agricultural. It's 21 probably one of the most important things that 22 we have going here in the state. And that's 23 very important to all of us. 24 But what I want to talk about briefly is 25 just the consummate balance and while we are 192 1 certainly at the Alliance an environmental 2 group, we also look at the reality of the 3 environment, we look at the reality of life and 4 we look at things that -- you have to look at 5 both the social and economic issues that are 6 facing us here in the State of Florida and 7 obviously in this country. 8 And so we look at the environment. Yes, 9 it needs to be protected. It's the golden 10 goose of Florida. We don't want to kill it 11 off. But at the same time we also have to take 12 into consideration the social and economic 13 situations that face everybody here. 14 I have been involved with a number of 15 processes having to do with TMDLs around the 16 State of Florida in recent years. I think what 17 has impressed me the most in those, especially 18 on some of the bigger operations such as the in 19 the Lower St. Johns River and in the Tampa Bay 20 area, where you've been able to bring together 21 a lot of different people representing a lot of 22 different groups, who, again, don't always see 23 eye to eye and have been able to sit down and 24 through a cooperative process come up with 25 solutions and plans to move forward on making 193 1 water in Florida better. And I think we need 2 to let that process continue. 3 I think it's very important if we're going 4 to get more working as a team than we are to 5 just to have somebody come in with some numbers 6 and set things for you. We know best here in 7 Florida. 8 Certainly I think -- and I commend the EPA 9 for its action and in paying attention to 10 what's going on here. I think there needs to 11 be deadlines set. I think there needs to be 12 monitoring of the processes. But I think when 13 you see what has actually taken place here in 14 Florida, and again getting beyond the science, 15 just the cooperation, that people have come to 16 the table and have been willing to compromise 17 and have been willing to work together to solve 18 these issues. 19 So I encourage the EPA to allow these 20 processes to continue, monitor them, set some 21 deadlines, but let the process continue. 22 Thank you very much. 23 (Applause.) 24 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you Mr. Walkinshaw. 25 Speaker number 42. Speaker 43. 194 1 MR. McCOY: My name is Robert McCoy and I 2 am the Central Florida business manager for the 3 Florida Carpenters Regional Council. These are 4 some of my members right here, some of the 5 5,000 members that the council represents in 6 the State of Florida. And we've come here 7 today to speak on this regulation and the 8 effect it's going to have on us. 9 Now, we've heard a lot about the science 10 of what's going on here and I think all of 11 us -- all my members and I believe that we need 12 to have clean water, but I don't think we paid 13 as much attention of how you're going to pay 14 for this, the economic impact of this. We went 15 into it very briefly. 16 With all these thousands of waterways and 17 lakes, how are you going to clean all these 18 places? You don't even have a plan. If you 19 don't have a plan, how do you know how much 20 it's going to cost? Excuse me, but when I hear 21 the Federal Government tell me something is 22 going to cost a hundred forty million dollars, 23 I hear 500 million dollars. 24 We can't afford that in this state right 25 now. We're in dire economic circumstances. I 195 1 can't afford it. These men can't afford higher 2 sewage bills right now. They can't afford 3 water tax. And the industries that employ them 4 cannot afford to have all these onerous 5 regulations placed on them that are going to 6 keep them from being competitive and end up 7 costing us jobs. 8 There has to be a way we can clean the 9 water in this state and do it in a economically 10 viable manner. And that's what we want. We 11 want you guys to come up with some way and let 12 us know, because right now we haven't seen much 13 in the way of how it's going to be done. 14 Please, in conclusion, this state does not 15 need another unfunded federal mandate. We 16 can't afford it. Thank you very much. 17 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 18 Speaker number 44. 19 MR. STEWART: Good afternoon. Thanks for 20 being here. My name is Ron Stewart. I had the 21 privilege of spending 18 years of my childhood 22 growing up in this state, riding the glass 23 bottom boats, going to Disney World when it 24 first started. My parents were born and raised 25 in Florida, as well as both sets of 196 1 grandparents. Where it goes from there, you'll 2 have to leave that to the genealogist. 3 Right now I'm speaking on behalf of the 4 Florida Pulp and Paper Association, 5 representing eight facilities that discharge 6 wastewaters into Florida's waters. 7 And I also would like to speak for the 8 40,000-plus Floridians that are earning their 9 daily living and paying their bills supporting 10 our industry. Our industry provides, like I 11 said, over 41,000 jobs in Florida. 12 And, you know, you will certainly get 13 substantive comments when we submit our 14 comments. But, just to know, the University of 15 Florida put out an economic study I think it 16 was 2004, which said that the forest products 17 industry in the State of Florida is the second 18 largest economic contributor to the State of 19 Florida. And so it's very important. 20 We, also, as you've heard, have had a 21 significant impact on water quality in Florida. 22 Florida is 47 percent forest and those 23 47 percent of the land base in Florida protect 24 the Florida aquifers that we all derive our 25 drinking water from, as well as a lot of other 197 1 -- providing recreation, fishing, hunting, 2 habitat for wildlife. So the environmental 3 benefit is vast. 4 The one thing I would like to do is I 5 would like to commend FDEP's effort on 6 establishing numeric nutrient criteria. As was 7 pointed out in this brochure, there is not a 8 lot of difference between what EPA proposed and 9 what DEP had proposed. The question I have for 10 EPA is why didn't you let DEP propose it and 11 make it an official rule? 12 There's a misperception that DEP was not 13 proceeding along the lines of rulemaking. And 14 I had the opportunity to speak to the Office of 15 Management and Budget in Washington. And I 16 told them just the opposite. We were about 17 ready to adopt this rule as final in Florida. 18 And I'm not real sure why EPA had to step in in 19 August of 2009 and sign a consent order when 20 Florida was ready to implement its own rule. 21 Like I said, we have lots of concerns. I 22 have to say, although I'm not surprised, I'm 23 very impressed by the speakers that have been 24 here today. I think you've heard a lot of good 25 sound, technical scientific reasons why the EPA 198 1 proposal just will not work in Florida. So I'm 2 not going to go through our technical comments. 3 You will get them in writing. 4 But I would like to say that there are 5 also some very significant legal hurdles, 6 statutorily and regulatorily, that Florida has 7 to go through. I'm a very practical person and 8 as I read the rule I don't see how this rule 9 can be implemented. I think someone said 10 there's a slow train wreck coming. I'm not so 11 sure it's not a fast train wreck. 12 How will permits be issued? Under what 13 conditions will they be issued? 14 We have someone looking at Lake Seminole, 15 which is on the border of Georgia, Alabama and 16 Florida. In speaking with Drew Bartlett, I 17 can't figure out what the standard for Lake 18 Seminole is going to be. Is it the outlet 19 stream? Is it the downstream protection value? 20 I mean, the rules are sort of confusing in 21 themselves. 22 I'll go ahead and wrap up and you will get 23 our substantive comments. We have submitted 24 two letters requesting extensions. The 60-day 25 commentary is far too short for a rule that's 199 1 this complex and far-reaching. 2 In addition, the two new regulatory 3 initiatives that you implemented in the rule 4 have to be understood and their impacts have to 5 be understood. 6 And, finally, data, we did not receive the 7 underlying data, the complete set of underlying 8 data until February 5th. So we weren't able to 9 completely understand the rule. 10 The other thing I would like to mention is 11 that EPA participated in the technical advisory 12 committee for development of numeric nutrient 13 criteria in Florida for a long time and I would 14 like to say and agree with some of the other 15 speakers that this rule should be deferred. We 16 should back to Florida to adopt a rule. 17 I will mention that there is a technical 18 advisory committee meeting March 10th for 19 numeric nutrients that I think EPA should 20 participate in as well. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. 23 Speaker Number 45. 24 MS. ROBBINS: Good afternoon. My name is 25 Kristan Robbins. I am a project scientist at 200 1 ENTRIX. I have a master's in biology. And in 2 the past five years at ENTRIX I have been 3 specializing in statistical analysis of 4 biological and water quality data. 5 We at ENTRIX appreciate the time and 6 effort invested by EPA in developing these 7 criteria, but based on our professional 8 experience and our extensive review of the 9 proposed rule and the technical support 10 documents, we have some serious concerns. 11 First, and, again, many people have 12 already brought this up, there's no 13 demonstrated relationship between nutrient 14 concentrations in streams and biological 15 response. 16 EPA guidance documents have always 17 emphasized the need for both causal and 18 response variables in developing numeric 19 nutrient criteria. EPA did not follow its own 20 recommendations, stating there are currently no 21 available approaches to interpret these data 22 that are scientifically supported thresholds 23 for these nutrient-specific response variables 24 in Florida streams. Instead, they used a 25 reference-room approach, using the 75th 201 1 percentile of normal distribution. 2 Our concern is, if EPA has shown no causal 3 relationship between the biological response 4 and nutrient levels, then how can stakeholders 5 and the Florida Department of Environmental 6 Protection be expected to show that the 7 nutrient values in streams are not affecting 8 the biological condition during an SSAC 9 process? 10 Second, the instream protection values 11 were derived using the arbitrary percentile of 12 75 of the nutrient values for reference streams 13 that were deemed healthy using the SCI value of 14 40 and not impaired, according to the EPA 303 15 list. 16 Using the example of the Bone Valley 17 streams, 40 percent of the 22 referenced 18 streams chosen by EPA would be impaired for 19 either TN or TP instream protection values 20 under the current rule, even though EPA 21 considered all 22 of those streams to be 22 healthy and not impaired. Therefore, the 23 current IPV percentile is still much too low 24 and could falsely identify healthy streams as 25 impaired for nutrients. 202 1 In addition to setting higher IPV 2 criteria, EPA should use a biological 3 validation procedure in its rule, so that only 4 streams with unhealthy biological communities 5 and/or other impairments are considered 6 impaired under the numeric nutrient criteria. 7 Our next point is that although EPA states 8 that a proposed criteria should in part reduce 9 the complexity of the TMDL process, the 10 proposed rule will dramatically increase the 11 number of impaired streams requiring a TMDL or 12 BMAP. 13 We used the Florida Department of 14 Environmental Protection's IWR database to look 15 at the 650 streams that had data on nutrients 16 from 2001 and 2008. One hundred sixty-eight of 17 those streams, or about a quarter, are 18 currently impaired under the FDEP verified 19 impaired list. 20 If you use the current IPV values, an 21 additional 240 streams would be considered 22 impaired under the proposed EPA rule, thereby 23 nearly tripling the number of TMDLs and BMAPs 24 that are required. This would bring the 25 number of impaired streams to 60 percent. 203 1 If you consider the EPA proposed DPV 2 criteria, the number of impaired streams would 3 increase by about another 200, bringing the 4 percentage of streams impaired in Florida to 90 5 percent of those with data. 6 EPA assigns streams to five regions, 7 including the Bone Valley, and they also assign 8 within those regions streams to watersheds to 9 assign them DPV criteria. 10 We compared the shapefile that they used 11 for the NWR regions and the Appendix B-18 list 12 of the DPV watersheds to determine if they 13 matched. We found several mistakes in the two 14 EPA files when compared to each other or when 15 compared to the Florida DEP stream list. For 16 example, 14 are listed in the DEP IWR database 17 as freshwater streams, but they are not 18 assigned a region by EPA in the shapefile. 19 Over 400 streams were given a region in 20 the EPA NWR shapefile, but they were not given 21 a watershed and Appendix B-18. Thirty-three 22 were given a watershed and Appendix B-18 that 23 is not within the larger Florida region given 24 by the EPA shapefile. 25 And then, finally, 48 were given a region 204 1 in the shapefile that is not consistent with a 2 region assigned to other streams with the same 3 hydrologic code. 4 So, our last concern is that we tried to 5 contact EPA several times to find out how 6 exactly the EPA changed the nutrient targets 7 for estuaries and assigned DPVs in their 8 SPARROW modeling. But, although we have gotten 9 responses, the answers have been very generic 10 and did not answer the specific questions that 11 we posed. 12 Because of all of our concerns, we suggest 13 that both the comment period for the EPA 14 criteria be extended and that additional 15 thought be put into the proposed EPA criteria. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Robbins. 18 Speaker number 46. And if 47 and 48 could 19 move to the open seats. 20 MR. LEE: I'm Charles Lee, Director of 21 Advocacy of Audubon of Florida. Our address is 22 1101 Audubon Way, Maitland, Florida. 23 We're here today to state support for 24 EPA's moving forward with the adoption of these 25 nutrient standards for Florida. 205 1 I'd like to say by way of background that 2 my own involvement in -- professionally in the 3 environmental arena goes back now going into my 4 39th year, and it is not lost on me, but the 5 entire rubric of how water pollution control 6 has evolved in the United States has always 7 required federal intervention, going back to 8 the interpretation of the 1899 Rivers and 9 Harbors Act, including the early days of the 10 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 11 If it were not for federal requirements, 12 sometimes backed by the threat of withholding 13 federal dollars from states that fail to 14 comply, I am confident that not just in 15 Florida, but in any state, we would still be 16 seeing raw sewage being dumped into the waters 17 of our state. The reality is that local 18 officials are often far too close to the 19 special interests that dominate the field in 20 local political circles to get the job done 21 without federal intervention. 22 So we are personally glad that you are 23 here. And we would note that it's not lost on 24 us when we talk about the Everglades, which now 25 has 10-part-per-billion phosphorous standard 206 1 adopted, that started with the necessity of a 2 federal lawsuit and federal consent decree 3 before the state would sit up and listen and we 4 would move into that arena. And so it is 5 somehow sort of consistent with history that we 6 are here following a federal consent decree. 7 We believe that the adoption of these 8 standards is crucial. At the same time, we do 9 have some questions. We have some thoughts 10 that looking at the numbers, particularly as we 11 are familiar with them, with regard to 12 phosphorous in the Bone Valley area and in the 13 North Central area, the numbers which range to 14 739 parts per billion, frankly, from the basis 15 of our experience, which ranges both the sort 16 of instream sampling that took place in the 17 Everglades that was followed by dose response 18 evaluation, both of which directed us to the 19 10-part-per-billion standard in the Everglades. 20 I believe if you did dose response on 21 characteristic organisms, you would probably 22 find adverse responses with 739 parts per 23 billion. At the same time in the same streams, 24 while I realize there is a phosphorous 25 substrate that accounts for the rationale 207 1 behind elevating the phosphorous number, I'm 2 not sure why those same streams show nitrogen 3 numbers at the level of 1,798 parts per 4 billion. So I would urge some attention at 5 looking at those numbers. 6 The other thing that I would suggest is 7 that you need to have in mind what the outcome 8 of this is. I'm very sympathetic to the 9 gentleman who started out by saying that we had 10 750,000 cows in Florida in the year 1950 and a 11 million people and now we have 18 million 12 people. 13 I do believe that the green slides you 14 showed of those algae are not primarily due to 15 agriculture with perhaps the exception of feed 16 lots and muck-farming-dominated agriculture. 17 The target of this should not be the cattlemen 18 in Florida or the citrus growers in Florida. I 19 believe it is the 18 million people that put 20 fertilizers on their lawns, put sewage in the 21 water, generate that reclaimed water that is 22 high in nutrients, that are at the heart of 23 this problem. 24 In conclusion, I would like to deliver to 25 you a couple of Audubon products. In the year 208 1 2007 we thought the Florida legislature had 2 banned the main source of most of the new 3 nutrients being introduced into the Okeechobee 4 Watershed, which we have researched and 5 detected to be resultant from sewage residuals 6 in land spread. 7 Frankly, the Department of Environmental 8 Protection has, in our opinion, dragged its 9 feet and we still do not have the legislative 10 ban on spreading residuals in Okeechobee that 11 we thought we got in the legislative session. 12 The Department has come up with one excuse 13 after another to allow the residual spreading 14 to keep going. 15 So I would like to leave with you two 16 items, which I'll bring up. One is a report 17 which Audubon has prepared as of July of last 18 year and the other is our November 19, 2009 19 letter to Secretary Sole at DEP with regard to 20 the sewage residual issue. 21 If as an outcome of setting these nutrient 22 standards you do not target the response, then 23 we may end up with a scattergun effect that 24 does not get the most bang for the buck. We 25 think the most bang for the buck lies with 209 1 looking at where the most intense anthropogenic 2 sources of nutrients are coming from and we 3 believe that, at the very top of the heap, the 4 unnecessary spreading of sewage residuals on 5 large tracts of land in Florida is one of the 6 reasons we are seeing nutrients escalate. 7 We think there are ways to resolve that 8 that do not involve the necessity for that 9 spreading. We would urge EPA to look to that 10 for a remedy and to help us push the Department 11 of Environmental Protection to begin enforcing 12 the law we thought was passed in 2007, which 13 would at least ban that practice in the 14 Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee 15 Watersheds. 16 I'll bring these up. Thank you very much. 17 MS. KEEHNER: Thank, Mr. Lee. 18 Speaker 47. 19 MS. McLEAN: I'm speaker number 48. So 20 that's why I hesitated. 21 MS. KEEHNER: Okay. Number 47 must have 22 decided there's a better way to spend his or 23 her time. 24 MS. McLEAN: Good evening. My name is Jan 25 McLean. I'm an Assistant City Attorney with 210 1 the City of Tampa. And I would like to thank 2 you for the opportunity to speak here today on 3 behalf of the administration of the City of 4 Tampa. 5 The City is one of the original members of 6 the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and a full 7 participant of the Nitrogen Management 8 Consortium, representatives of both which have 9 already spoken here today. 10 The City holds an MS-4 permit for its 11 stormwater system as well as an MPDS permit for 12 a 96-million-gallon-a-day advanced wastewater 13 treatment plant on Tampa Bay. 14 I'm here today to support those statements 15 and positions already conveyed by Pinellas, 16 Hillsborough, Manatee and Sarasota Counties, 17 Plant City, Tampa Electric and the Tampa Bay 18 Estuary Program. 19 The city's position is that the proposed 20 water quality standards are not technically 21 sound or scientifically based. 22 As a local government who will be 23 obligated to spend its taxpayers' money to 24 construct the projects and implement the 25 actions which will be necessary to comply with 211 1 with the proposed standards, Tampa has a 2 fiduciary responsibility to honestly question 3 these seemingly indefensible regulartory 4 requirements. 5 A previous speaker stated that the same 6 three comments are being made. Those being, it 7 will cost too much, it will take 20 years and 8 will the fish like it. Those statements were 9 made, he said, only to create obstacles and not 10 address toxic pollution or degraded waters, but 11 he offered no specifics such as these proposed 12 standards. 13 In reality, Florida, in particular the 14 Tampa Bay area, has been the most proactive in 15 the restoration and protection of its waters. 16 The City itself, and in partnership with the 17 FDEP, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the 18 Southwest Florida Water Management, has spent 19 millions of dollars working towards and 20 achieving cleaner, safer water in Tampa Bay. 21 The imposition of broadbrush regulations 22 do not recognize the achievements of areas such 23 as Tampa Bay and, in particular, the Tampa Bay 24 Nitrogen Management Consortium's participants' 25 compliance with its Federal TMDL and 212 1 implementation of its reasonable assurance 2 document, which has proven to achieve the 3 restoration and protection of Tampa Bay. 4 Why must an area such as Tampa Bay defend 5 itself by seeking a site-specific criteria 6 designation when actually the regulation should 7 be implemented in reverse, that is, require 8 those specific areas referenced by speakers 9 such as EarthJustice to restore and protect 10 those specific areas. These standards 11 seemingly punish the successful responsible 12 actions of a public-private partnership such as 13 the Nitrogen Management Consortium that has 14 generated decades of data which supports what 15 the eye can see, that being a cleaner bay, 16 regrowth of seagrass and improved habitat. 17 Therefore, the City respectfully requests 18 that the EPA reconsider and revise its proposed 19 standard to officially recognize and 20 incorporate the Tampa Bay Estuary's nitrogen 21 management criteria as its standard for 22 downstream protective values, extend the 23 comment period and revisit its economic impact 24 statement to reflect the actual costs which 25 will be imposed by these regulations. 213 1 Thank you for your time. 2 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. McLean. 3 Speaker 49. 4 MR. BRITT: Hello. My name is Mike Brit. 5 I'm the natural resources director for the City 6 of Winter Haven in Central Florida, in Polk 7 County. 8 A couple of things, I think, maybe that 9 have not been testified to yet include some of 10 the initial slides that you showed were of some 11 significant Microcystis blooms that happened 12 throughout the state. I've been with the City 13 about 20 years and in that time we've 14 implemented about nine large stormwater 15 treatment projects. A lot of that has been 16 done in conjunction with the Southwest Florida 17 Water Management District and a couple of 319 18 grants thrown in to complete that work. 19 And since about the mid-1990s we've had 20 very few Microcystis blooms. Before that time 21 we could count pretty regularly the times, 22 probably three or four times a year, we would 23 have pretty major blooms. But since then those 24 blooms have been reduced, so we feel like we've 25 had some positive benefits. 214 1 Even so, even with all that, those same 2 lakes do not even come close to meeting the 3 criteria that you're presenting here. I'm 4 specifically talking about the southern Chain 5 of Lakes. We have 16 interconnected lakes that 6 get used significantly for recreation and 7 fishing and wildlife observation, those kind of 8 things. But, yet, we don't perceive those to 9 be impaired to the extent that we're being 10 looked at here. 11 One of the suggestions we would make is to 12 make sure that the criteria are geared towards 13 making sure that those lakes don't flip into a 14 blue-green algae situation. I don't think that 15 criteria is 20. I'm not a scientist with 16 enough background to say what that criteria 17 should be. I don't know that the science is 18 there to support what that criteria should be. 19 But somewhere above 20, probably in the 35-40 20 range is just a number that I would guess at 21 from my limited background. 22 So I think the criteria need to be geared 23 towards making sure that those blue-green algae 24 blooms are not proficient. 25 A couple other things that are really 215 1 significant. We're in an urbanized watershed 2 area. We have one of the few stormwater 3 utilities, I think in the state, that are 4 geared just towards stormwater quality 5 treatment. We charge a fee just based on 6 pollutant loading into the stormwaters. We 7 generate about a million dollars a year for a 8 population of about 35,000 people. 9 Winter Haven has 50 lakes in and around 10 the city. About 20 of those are listed as 11 impaired now. Under the new rules, almost 12 every lake in the city would be listed as 13 impaired. 14 We feel like the nutrients and the algae 15 as listed here are not our most significant 16 impairments. Just about every lake in Winter 17 Haven has hydrilla. I kind of tease the people 18 a little bit and I say I can fix those water 19 quality criteria. If we just let the hydrilla 20 grow, it will clear up the water and we'll meet 21 all the criteria we want. But my residents, if 22 we let the hydrilla grow, we will hear from 23 them really quickly. You know, so hydrilla is 24 there. 25 One of the lakes that we did three 216 1 stormwater quality treatment projects on is 2 Lake Howard. Over the course of about a 3 four-year period we completed three large 4 stormwater treatment projects. And we treat 5 over half of that entire watershed area that's 6 been urbanized. The initial results of that 7 showed a very significant water quality 8 improvement and that lasted about a year and a 9 half. 10 You know what happened in the meantime, is 11 hydrilla took over about half the lake. You 12 know, that water quality started clearing up, 13 the hydrilla took over. We came along, with 14 all the complaints we had, we treated all the 15 hydrilla in phases. 16 You know what? Next year the lake was 17 just as green as it was before we did all those 18 water quality treatment projects. So we were 19 pretty disappointed about that. And it's not 20 that we don't think that was a good idea. We 21 still are glad we did the work. But it's not 22 the only impairment that we need to address. 23 A couple other things. I talk about 24 permanent impairments. Winter Haven is at the 25 tip-top part of the Peace River Watershed. 217 1 We're in the middle of the Bone Valley area, up 2 in that area. We think lakes should get the 3 same consideration as rivers and streams. It 4 should be a geographic approach towards that 5 background. We think that's very critical. 6 Also, we look at hydrologic impairments as 7 being more significant than nutrients, as well. 8 We don't think we can meet the nutrient 9 criteria until we fix the hydrology behind 10 that. There's been a hundred years of ditching 11 and draining in Winter Haven, lowering of the 12 aquifer levels, where lakes leak water a lot 13 faster than they used to. Until we get that 14 fixed, it doesn't really matter how much of 15 these stormwater solutions we fix, we're still 16 going to be impaired. Based on these criteria, 17 we could spend millions and millions and 18 millions of dollars and still not reach those 19 goals that we could if we took a more systems 20 approach. 21 We would rather fix wetlands. We'd rather 22 look at submerged aquatic vegetation and how 23 that ecosystem balances itself than really a 24 one-fix solution of just treating the 25 stormwater. So those are our major 218 1 considerations. 2 (Applause.) 3 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 4 Speaker number 50. 5 MR. ROSSMAN: Dale Rossman. I am 6 president of DCR Services and Chairman of the 7 Floridians for Industry, Jobs and Growth. 8 DCR Services is a group of companies based 9 in Central Florida that provides advanced 10 technology in the construction services to the 11 agricultural, energy, alternative energy, 12 water, wastewater and many more industrial 13 operations throughout Florida. We employ 14 approximately 350 people, including engineers, 15 technicians and highly-skilled craftsmen. 16 I'm also Chairman of Floridians for 17 Industry, Jobs and Growth, a grassroots 18 coalition of industrial workers in Florida, 19 representing approximately 25,000 workers in 20 Florida. 21 I'm here to make sure that you clearly 22 understand the message that the industrial 23 workers, their families and their communities 24 support our industrial and municipal employers 25 and their viable contributions to Florida. 219 1 The issues regarding water quality are 2 part of the operational requirements that are 3 just one of the challenges faced every day by 4 facilities operating in Florida. 5 The new numeric nutrient criteria is one 6 of the broadest and most far-reaching 7 regulations ever proposed for Florida. To meet 8 the new numeric nutrient requirements will 9 cause significant issues for our employers and 10 it will affect every Floridian. Because of the 11 significant impact of new regulations, we want 12 to make sure these regulations will not cause a 13 loss of jobs in Florida. 14 In order to adequately address these 15 issues, we believe the following items must be 16 addressed prior to implementation of the new 17 numeric nutrient requirements. We're 18 requesting additional time to allow our 19 employers in government agencies an opportunity 20 to identify and evaluate all the challenges 21 created by implementing the new regulations. 22 We're requesting additional hearings in 23 more locations throughout Florida to allow all 24 Floridians the opportunity to be heard. We 25 want to make sure the new regulations are based 220 1 upon sound science and protect the unique, 2 diverse and numerous bodies of water in 3 Florida. The new regulations must include 4 consideration for each body's unique 5 characterization and a plan to retain or return 6 each water body to its intended use. 7 The new regulations must address measures 8 provided in the transition period from present 9 requirements to the new numeric nutrient 10 requirements. 11 During the transition period you must not 12 delay or cancel projects in the design and 13 construction phases, the new numeric 14 requirements do cause private businesses and 15 operations in Florida to relocate or impede 16 future site selections for businesses that are 17 relocating to Florida. 18 The new numeric criteria requirements 19 cannot create an additional burden on our 20 municipal wastewater systems that would delay 21 already necessary infrastructure requirements. 22 The numeric nutrient requirements must 23 reflect a true relationship between the 24 nutrient enrichment and the biological health 25 of the bodies of water. 221 1 The State of Florida has worked hard to 2 protect its rivers and streams. Floridians 3 have invested millions to restore impaired 4 watersheds and protect Florida's rivers and 5 streams. 6 Florida has worked hard to develop 7 scientific-based principles and criteria to 8 protect and restore Florida water bodies in 9 equitable and cost-effective ways. The EPA 10 should support Florida and not single Florida 11 out for federal standards that will cause a 12 further loss of jobs in Florida. 13 Thank you for the opportunity to present 14 my concerns and allowing me to participate in 15 this process. Thank you. 16 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Rossman. 17 Speaker number 51. 18 MR. KOVACH: Good evening. My name is 19 Craig Kovach. I'm a professional geologist in 20 Florida with 23 years of water resources 21 experience. I'm also a second-generation 22 native. I'm employed by CF Industries as their 23 Director of Environmental Affairs and Phosphate 24 Operations in Florida. I appreciate the 25 opportunity to provide comment this evening. 222 1 We've heard over the last few days from a 2 number of scientists and stakeholders who have 3 told the EPA that waters are improving across 4 the state. I think there are a number of 5 regulatory frameworks and programs that have 6 demonstrated to be effective in that regard. 7 And I think you have also heard some valid 8 technical criticisms of the proposal today. I 9 am not going to retread any ground because it's 10 getting late and there's not a lot of time, but 11 I would certainly echo the comments of the 12 Tampa Bay Estuary Program, the Nitrogen 13 Management Consortium. 14 CF itself has been actively involved in 15 those programs for a number of years. I've 16 served on management boards and technical 17 boards with the Tampa Bay group. And I think 18 we continue that improvement today. 19 I did prepare a number of other comments. 20 Like I said, I'm not going to go over those. 21 Instead, I would like to address the 22 presentation that EPA has provided here today 23 and yesterday. There are a number of people, 24 probably today that haven't actually read the 25 rule. Maybe they have read summaries or heard 223 1 about it. And I think it's important to 2 address what you presented to them publicly 3 today. 4 With all due respect, I think it's 5 reprehensible to spread misinformation and fear 6 about health impacts unrelated to regulatory 7 proposal. Your presentation suggests that 8 bladder cancer and liver damage may result from 9 nutrient pollution. But I don't believe the 10 agency has actually provided any information 11 that there's been any link to that. 12 Also, there's no blue baby epidemic in 13 Florida. I would challenge the agency to link 14 blue baby syndrome to any nitrification of 15 surface waters in this state or even to show a 16 case of blue baby syndrome in the last decade 17 or two. That kind of information is really not 18 helpful. 19 You have a number of slides of algal 20 blocks. These slides, I think others have 21 pointed out, are somewhat misleading. It's 22 obvious that some of these photos are outdated. 23 Lake Apopka in 1995, five years before the TMDL 24 program. All of the slides that you showed are 25 highly-altered segs, hydrologically-altered 224 1 urbanized settings. You know, each one out 2 context without more information. There were 3 four lakes, actually one manmade reservoir, one 4 pond and two lakes out of 7,700 in the state, 5 you know, six streams out of 50,000 miles of 6 waterways. I think in your presentation you 7 noted that 1,000 miles of waterways were 8 impaired. Well, at least 98 percent of those 9 waterways are unimpaired. 10 In that regard, I wanted to suggest that 11 the agency consider if you felt that you needed 12 to adopt criteria today, you might consider 13 backstopping existing nutrient levels in 14 unimpaired streams and then setting to backstop 15 criteria that could be set based on 16 site-specific conditions. 17 So, in other words, if you wanted to set 18 statewide numbers, you could actually backstop 19 existing streams at their current loads, their 20 current concentrations if they're currently 21 unimpaired. Just a suggestion. 22 I don't have much time left, so I'm going 23 to read something to you that was published in 24 The Outing Magazine. 25 The little stream turned and twisted in 225 1 the most tortuous channel I ever saw, and often 2 it was with difficulty that we managed to turn 3 the boat around the sharp and narrow corners. 4 At length, after paddling in this fashion for 5 over half a mile, we emerged. 6 It seemed more like a river than a lake, 7 for though by its various windings and 8 twistings it was several miles long, it was 9 never, in its widest part, over 60 yards wide, 10 and throughout most of its length not over 11 yards. The banks were lined by impressive 12 trees that towered upward to a height of 13 80 feet or more. From their branches hung long 14 festoons and trails of Florida moss, while the 15 roots of the trees, half out of water, assumed 16 such weird and fantastic shapes that they 17 seemed like immense serpents that had become 18 suddenly petrified in their writings. So dense 19 was the foliage that it formed an impenetrable 20 wall to both sun and wind, and the sunlight 21 never touched the water except between the 22 hours of 12 and 2 p.m. Not a breath had 23 stirred the waters for years, and they were 24 covered to a depth of several inches in green 25 vegetable slime, so that the appearance was 226 1 that of a beautiful level floor on which one 2 might walk. 3 When the hand was thrust through the 4 slime, the water had a horrible slimy, warm 5 feeling. The fish came up cold and firm, firm 6 showing that below the water was clear and 7 cold. 8 This account was written by W.R. Hamilton 9 in 1888 in a travel up the Perdido River. 10 With that, I'll close. I just want to say 11 that we understand and embrace the need for 12 nutrient criteria management. We support, CF 13 supports, I support the development of 14 scientifically-supported dose, response-based 15 numeric criteria. Unfortunately, we don't 16 believe that the current proposal meets that 17 goal. We'll be providing detailed, written 18 comments. 19 Thank you again. 20 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Kovach. 21 Speaker number 52. 22 MR. FREY: Good evening. I'm Carlos Frey. 23 I'm an engineer with the City of St. Petersburg 24 I'll keep this brief, like Mr. Kovach. 25 As you've noticed, a lot of speakers 227 1 representing Tampa Bay and the members of the 2 Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Nitrogen 3 Management Consortium have spoken in support of 4 the reasonable assurance plan that has been 5 developed by the Nitrogen Management Consortium 6 and submitted. As the City of St. Petersburg 7 is a member of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program 8 and a member of the Nitrogen Management 9 Consortium, we support the protection of Tampa 10 Bay and we support the reasonable assurance 11 plan that has been developed. It is protective 12 of the Federal TMDLs. 13 We certainly support the comments made 14 today by the stakeholders, and particularly the 15 comments made by Holly Greening, and by 16 Pinellas County and other counties and the 17 industry as well, too. 18 The City of St. Petersburg has a 100 19 percent reclaimed wastewater system. We've had 20 that since the 1970s. We have a zero 21 discharge, surface water discharge. We have a 22 stormwater utility fund that our residents pay 23 into and we commit those funds to a very robust 24 stormwater management program. 25 You know, there are data out there that 228 1 suggests that there are impairments around the 2 City of St. Petersburg. We also -- experts 3 also tell us that even if we cleaned up the 4 nitrogen and phosphorous to levels that are 5 suggested, dissolved oxygen won't be improved 6 because dissolved oxygen is more temperature 7 dependent versus nutrient dependent or more 8 affected by the nutrients. So even by cleaning 9 up the standards, we still won't effect -- we 10 won't be having compliance totally on something 11 like dissolved oxygen. 12 I heard mentioned that the site-specific 13 alternative criteria cost $15,000 to develop. 14 As I understand, that's the application fee by 15 the Department of Environmental Protection. 16 But to get to a position of submitting an 17 application you have to commit, depending on 18 the size of the watershed from tens of 19 thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands 20 of dollars to develop both the background data 21 and any scientific information you need. 22 Just to summarize real quickly, we do 23 support the reasonable assurance plan that's 24 been submitted by Tampa Bay and wish that EPA 25 adopts that for Tampa Bay and also consider 229 1 developing or tying development of downstream 2 protective values with rulemaking down the 3 road, but not today. Thank you for your time. 4 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Frey. 5 Speaker 53. Fifty-four? 6 MS. LONG: Thank you. My name is Anna 7 Long. I'm an attorney with the law firm of 8 Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed in 9 Orlando, Florida. I'm not here to represent 10 any particular client. I have over 30 years -- 11 I'm really looking young, though, I know you 12 all are thinking that -- in the environmental 13 arena as a regulator, as a biologist and as an 14 attorney. 15 Instead of reiterating everything you that 16 you've heard today, I thought you might be 17 interested in some of the statistics I gathered 18 as I was listening. 19 Out of the 47 speakers today, 42 spoke in 20 opposition, five in support, 89 percent in 21 opposition. In order to assist you in 22 determining what was significant today, as one 23 of the previous speakers suggested might be a 24 difficult task, I offer the following. Every 25 speaker speaking in opposition to the current 230 1 proposed criteria spoke in support of 2 site-specific numeric criteria based on sound 3 scientific methodology and data. 4 Every speaker spoke in support of the DEP 5 as being the agency of authority to develop and 6 implement such criteria. 7 Many of our speakers, those within the 8 scientific community with a technical 9 background, spoke to the fact that the SPARROW 10 model is inappropriate use in its current 11 application for downstream criteria. 12 Additionally, common sense should provide 13 that if the standard is less than the naturally 14 occurring condition, the proposed site was 15 not -- excuse me the proposed standard was not 16 derived with appropriate science or peer 17 review. 18 Additionally, as just previously pointed 19 out, and by a number of other speakers, the 20 information being presented by the EPA is 21 misleading at best. The financial impacts that 22 are being set forth by the EPA's material is 23 artificially low. The photos being used are 24 not representative of the water bodies as they 25 are presented to depict. In addition to those 231 1 referenced for Manatee County, the one that 2 shows Lake Apopka is over 16 years old. 3 Stating that the proposed criteria is 4 based on data and information that is in part 5 DEP-derived is also misleading for the FDEP's 6 fact sheet regarding the propose criteria dated 7 February 15th, 2010. 8 While there may be statewide support from 9 many entities and individuals for specific 10 scientific, sound, peer-reviewed numeric 11 criteria, there is very little support for the 12 criteria as it is submitted today. 13 Along with the overwhelming majority of 14 those here, I also encourage you to extend the 15 commenting period to allow for peer review of 16 the information and for your review of the 17 information as submitted. 18 Whether the cost to implement the 19 standards is a thousand dollars or hundreds of 20 thousands of dollars, spending any amount 21 without a proven end game is simply bad for the 22 environment, bad for business and certainly, in 23 its concurrent, state bad for the State of 24 Florida. 25 Thank you. 232 1 (Applause.) 2 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Long. 3 Speaker 55. 4 MS. COE: Good afternoon. My name is 5 Alisa Coe and I'm the attorney with 6 EarthJustice. 7 The question was asked earlier who is 8 going to pay for all of this? 9 Well, let's talk for a minute about who is 10 already paying. During a toxic algae outbreak 11 on the entire St. Lucie River and Estuary in 12 2005, Martin County homeowners found their 13 waterfront property posted with health warning 14 signs from the local health department warning 15 of the dangers posed by the pollution in their 16 backyard. It has been estimated that outbreak 17 and polluted condition of the St. Lucie River 18 has resulted in a drop of a half a billion 19 dollars in property value in Martin County 20 alone. 21 Red drift algae, which is linked to 22 nutrient runoff from land, has been washing up 23 all over our beaches. It piles up. It stinks 24 like raw sewage. It can cause a gag reflex and 25 drive tourists home. The cost of cleaning up 233 1 one outbreak at one beach can run $30,000. 2 In June 2008 a water treatment plant 3 serving 30,000 people was forced to shut down 4 after a toxic blue-green algae outbreak on the 5 Caloosahatchee River. 6 The cost of upgrading one single drinking 7 water plant to address recurrent algae 8 outbreaks can run 200 million. 9 And let's talk about our springs. Our 15 10 state parks named after springs collect 8.6 11 million dollars annually. Visitors to Wakulla 12 Springs generate 22 million dollars for their 13 local economy. The St. Johns River Water 14 Management District has documented that in one 15 year visitors to Silver Springs generated 61.4 16 million dollars, which amounted to a thousand 17 and sixty jobs and 12.6 million dollars in 18 wages. 19 Unfortunately, our springs are not in the 20 greatest shape. Just a few examples. Visitors 21 have reported rashes from swimming in Wakulla 22 Springs, caused by the elevated levels of algae 23 toxin. Over 20 similar incidents have happened 24 at Ichetucknee Springs and again at Wakulla, 25 where the water used to be so clear that they 234 1 would film Hollywood movies there. The glass 2 bottom boats don't run anymore. There's no 3 point because you can't see to the bottom. 4 Someone is paying all of these costs 5 already. And it oftentimes is the taxpayer. 6 It is cheaper to clean up pollution at a source 7 than to go back and try to restore things after 8 they're already polluted. 9 That's why we need local fertilizer 10 ordinances to prevent fertilizer from being 11 wasted and applied improperly or running off 12 during the rainy season. 13 We also need to work together to find 14 creative solutions to reduce pollution from 15 fertilizer, sewage and manure. 16 But even before we get there, we need to 17 find out what the real limits are for 18 pollutions in our water. That's what this rule 19 is about. 20 I thank you for being here and I urge you 21 to move forward in helping us to protect 22 Florida's waters. Thank you. 23 (Applause.) 24 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Coe. 25 Speaker number 56. 235 1 MR. GODLEWSKI: Good evening. My name is 2 Vic Godlewski. I am the division manager for 3 the City of Orlando's wastewater division. 4 Every day our three treatment facilities 5 process about 40 million gallons per day of 6 wastewater and we take out about six tons of 7 nitrogen and about a ton of phosphorous each 8 day. 9 We understand the need to protect surface 10 waters. Back in the mid-'80s, during the 11 initial authorization of the Clean Water Act, 12 we halted discharge to Shingle Creek. With our 13 partner, Orange County, we developed the Water 14 Conserv II Citrus Irrigation Project, that's 15 still in operation today, providing reclaimed 16 water to groves and urban uses in West Orange 17 County and East Lake County. 18 At the time we enjoyed a lot of federal 19 participation in that project. We enjoyed 20 grant monies that helped finance that, and we 21 do appreciate that. 22 One of the things that we find lacking in 23 this present rule is any assistance to local 24 governments. We try to abide by the rules that 25 are promulgated. So we would suggest that you 236 1 consider that. I know that's going to be a 2 tough one. 3 But let me tell you a story about best 4 available treatment technology. I think we 5 have a good story to tell. The city of Orlando 6 has developed a lot of expertise in the area of 7 biological nutrient removal. We have a 8 facility called the Iron Bridge Regional Water 9 Reclamation facility. It's a supporting MGD 10 plant. It's designed for AWT standards. 11 In conjunction with that, we have the 12 Orlando Easterly Wetlands System, which is 13 1200 acres of manmade wetlands. 14 Our annual average discharge for nitrogen 15 in calendar year 2009 was 2.02 milligrams per 16 liter from the plant. Phosphorous was 0.154 17 milligrams per liter. About 15 million gallons 18 a day on average was discharged to the wetlands 19 system last calendar year. The total nitrogen 20 concentration emerging from our wetlands was 21 1.16 milligrams per liter and our phosphorous 22 was .029 milligrams per liter. 23 We're getting close. Now, it's been at a 24 terrific expense to get that close. We've 25 probably invested over 75 million dollars, in 237 1 present-day dollars, to produce that system. 2 Right now it's very difficult for us to 3 really assess what the impact is going to be on 4 our system. The rule isn't finished. If we 5 assume that 50 percent of our nutrient load 6 will reach the estuary -- remember, we're an 7 inland system -- we're getting close on the 8 nitrogen. We're not really sure about 9 phosphorous. We think we might be there. 10 If we're not there, we're potentially 11 going to be spending, who-knows-what, maybe 70 12 to a hundred million dollars to upgrade 13 treatment. 14 But just to put things into perspective, 15 our system costs about two million dollars per 16 million gallons per day of treatment. And we 17 enjoy a pretty good economy of scale. 18 For our smaller facilities, which comprise 19 most of Florida, they're probably going to see 20 double to triple that in trying to implement 21 this technology to get down to the nutrients 22 we're talking about. 23 We're continuing with the development of a 24 comprehensive reclaimed water system, which is 25 eventually going to take more of that water 238 1 away from the wetlands and move it towards 2 urban uses. Our discharge will become more and 3 more intermittent. But we're still going to 4 need it because we need to manage the water 5 every day it's coming. 6 And we'd like to see the EPA take sort of 7 a waste-load allocation perspective on this, 8 because if we're not discharging it every day, 9 it would give us more flexibility when we need 10 to discharge, primarily during the wet weather 11 conditions, and frankly our loads into the 12 river system is going to be far less than 13 what's coming from nonpoint sources. 14 And we believe the reclaimed water systems 15 are potentially going to be impacted by this 16 rule. Nitrate requirements potentially in 17 groundwater will be influenced, lake waters, 18 other surface waters could force other 19 utilities to, even us, to take even more care 20 in treating our reclaimed water. 21 And, as a utility manager, you start 22 looking at what's going to be the most cost 23 effective for us. You know, it may be that 24 less desirable options like depo injection 25 become more desirable because our ratepayers 239 1 aren't going to be able to afford it. 2 But I would like to invite you all to come 3 and see our system. My number is area code 4 (407)246-3221. Thank you. 5 (Applause.) 6 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Godlewski. 7 Speaker number 57. 8 MR. GORNTO: Yes. My name is Randy 9 Gornto. I'm a livestock agent for Highlands 10 County. I get a chance to work with a lot of 11 livestock producers throughout the area. There 12 are big cow-calf operations and it is an area 13 that they can use a lot of land, property. 14 In that amount of land there's several of 15 these creeks that go through these properties. 16 There may be several miles that go through some 17 of these particular ranches. As it goes 18 through those ranches, there are going to be 19 places and stuff that we try to protect because 20 we're going to be the stewards of that land. 21 In trying to do this, it is something very 22 difficult to know, because in most of our 23 properties in there we have a phosphorous level 24 that's down anywhere from 18, 24 inches down 25 below the surface in some of those areas. So 240 1 we got a lot of natural phosphorous brought 2 back into it. 3 We take the science and stuff that's made 4 available to you us from the University on the 5 soil testing, and we do a lot of tissue 6 samplings of all the grasses to be sure what 7 we've got in there. We have no phosphorous or 8 anything in there unless it is necessary to 9 keep a root base on the grass. 10 If we do not do those kind of things back 11 into it, then we lose our root space and then 12 we have erosion. So we try to do that to 13 prevent part of that erosion. It's not 14 something that we're trying to do in any other 15 form or fashion except to make sure we have 16 something that's going to be able to be our 17 barriers and our filters. 18 As we go through these ranches and our 19 BMPs that we are doing on those properties, 20 it's done to make sure that we get the right 21 kind of results to make sure that the impact is 22 going to be there for the long term. 23 We do manage those areas along those 24 creeks. We are fencing a lot of those areas 25 off and we keep the cattle out of them when 241 1 they're wet, because we do want to try to avoid 2 those kind of erosion-type problems. And we do 3 raise them in the wintertime and we take a lot 4 of those type nutrients back off of the 5 properties. So we're removing a lot of it. 6 We're also working with a lot of the other 7 environmental organizations to be sure that we 8 take and retain water on some of these 9 properties. We also take and filter back 10 through some of our marshes out of some of the 11 public aquifers, back through and use them to 12 take out some of those things because if we can 13 slow that water down, we take and have a chance 14 for a lot of those nutrients to settle out. 15 We're doing a lot of those things today. 16 We're looking at different ways to try to 17 continue to do those kind of issues, but, at 18 the same time, we have got to have something 19 that's a scientifically based and a means that 20 we can get to. If it doesn't make sense from a 21 science standpoint, it doesn't make sense to 22 put them in practice. It just means it's going 23 to cost somebody some money that can't be 24 proven. 25 I always believe, like my father always 242 1 told me, it's one thing if you can prove it to 2 me that it's going to work. And without the 3 science and stuff to back it, there is no 4 proof. Then why should I not take a shotgun 5 out there and just shoot in a particular area, 6 which I feel is what we've done with these 7 particular numbers. 8 Using a broad-base Band-Aid across a wide 9 bleeding artery is not the answer. The answer 10 is to address those issues one at a time in 11 each of those types of areas. Because there's 12 some lakes that have a higher nutrient balance 13 normally, naturally, we can't set a standard 14 that is going to be the same for Okeechobee 15 it's going to be for some of the others. It's 16 just not possible if you set a single water 17 standard. 18 Now, I realize that we have some different 19 areas, but there's a lot of lakes in those 20 areas and all of them have a different value. 21 If we don't address them from a standpoint of 22 what those particular values are and what the 23 needs in that particular area is, then you've 24 got to look at what's in those lakes. There's 25 a lot of those lakes, if we go to some of those 243 1 nutrient standards we're looking at, can't 2 survive. Have we not just done what we tried 3 to prevent? 4 If we don't do that from a background of 5 knowing what it is and taking the records we've 6 done, because we know what some of those 7 standards are on those lakes. It's a matter of 8 being able to take and utilize that 9 information. And I have a hard time believing 10 that you from Washington can take and know what 11 that's going to be. I think that's why we have 12 those departments and stuff here, is to make 13 sure that happens. 14 Thank you. 15 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Gornto. 16 Speaker number 58. 17 MR. HANDLEY: Yes. My name is Jim 18 Handley. I am here representing Floridians and 19 a group of some 16,000 environmentalists that 20 call themselves the cattle ranchers. 21 We are very proud of our industry. We 22 have had cattle in Florida since the 1520s. We 23 have had a tremendous working relationship with 24 the citizens in the state. Our industry 25 encompasses some six and a half million acres 244 1 of the 33 million acres in the state of 2 Florida. 3 We are the original environmental 4 stewards. We believe and practice every day 5 taking care of the water, the air, the habitat, 6 the plants and animals. We rely on that 7 property to sustain our industry. 8 It's a very low-margin business, but we do 9 everything based on what's going to take care 10 of our property and pass it on to our next 11 generation. I happen to be a fifth-generation 12 Floridian. I happen to have experience all 13 over the state. I've lived in several 14 different areas. You can't apply one rule 15 that's going to fit all the different soil 16 types and the basins throughout the state. 17 To think that a rule is going to be 18 imposed on Florida and when you go across the 19 I-10 ribbon, waters come in from Georgia and 20 Alabama, we can't control that, but we're at 21 the mercy of what comes to us. 22 The same case stands for our waters on our 23 property. Should we choose to hold up water 24 and try to clean that water on ranch lands, 25 we're at the mercy of the plumbing in South 245 1 Florida in the name of flood control, all the 2 canals that have been put in place. When they 3 pull the plug or open the locks, water tends to 4 leave. 5 Certainly a lot of water is being consumed 6 by our growing population. But we can coexist. 7 We offer the water recharge and filtration 8 areas. I implore you to consider sound 9 science. I can't stand here as a biologist or 10 a chemist. We are an animal scientist. But we 11 certainly understand and implemented best 12 management practices on a voluntary basis 13 strictly to manage in an economic manner 14 nutrient runoff. We understand that we need 15 clean water and we are implementing BMPs. 16 I applaud the work of the Department of 17 Environmental Protection, the Florida 18 Department of Agriculture, our water management 19 districts. Certainly we push and pull and have 20 strained relationship with some of those 21 agencies, but we have worked in a collective 22 manner. 23 I challenge you to look at other states 24 and see if anybody has collected the data, 25 invested the money and has their industries 246 1 moving in the same direction that we have. We 2 have come a long, long way. Our state has 3 grown tremendously in people population. 4 But I believe if this rule is carried 5 out -- we don't even know how it's going to 6 impact us. We don't know how to plan for the 7 future. I don't know how to tell ranchers and 8 farmers what to do because we don't understand 9 the -- we haven't been told what the rule 10 really is going to be and what it means. 11 But ultimately I think it will be 12 counter-productive if we impose something and 13 run agriculture out of this state. It will all 14 turn into asphalt and concrete, and that is not 15 what we want. 16 I would just plead with you to let the 17 scientists and the data and the sound data 18 drive the train and not the lawyers and people 19 that want to take this to court. Let's let 20 science and the data that we've collected 21 really control the agenda. 22 I beg of you to come see the waterways, 23 come see the ranch lands, come see our best 24 management practices. And this goes across all 25 ag commodities. I think it will surprise you 247 1 that we have come a long ways and we are going 2 to get there, but we need to do it in a sound 3 manner that makes economic sense. 4 Thank you for the opportunity. We will be 5 submitting additional comments in writing. 6 Thank you. 7 (Applause.) 8 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Handley. 9 Speaker 59. 10 MR. GRIGSBY: Yes, ma'am. I'm Wade 11 Grigsby, again with Cattlemen, but speaking as 12 an individual today. Thank you again for 13 taking time to be with us and we appreciate 14 your concerns. 15 Let's go back a little bit in time and 16 think about Florida and how it was originally 17 settled. The cattle were here from the 1500s. 18 The people that came to Florida came here early 19 on in seek of free cattle on range lands. 20 Along with that came the outlaws and the 21 scammers. So we've eventually gotten rid of 22 the scammers in the 1920s and '30s with all the 23 land scams and the outlaws, most of them are 24 gone or have been killed over time. So we're 25 left basically with the original ranchers. 248 1 Those families are still here. And those 2 ranchers, you've heard people talk about being 3 fifth, sixth, eighth generation cattle people. 4 Those are the people who came here and bought 5 this environment and settled it. They are the 6 last people that want to see anything happen to 7 what they have and what they're trying to pass 8 on to their future generations. 9 So, you know, the people who have come 10 here in the last 50 years -- you know, the old 11 joke is when somebody from New York moves in 12 next to you, he didn't come here because he 13 wanted to be in Florida. He came here because 14 he wanted to be with some other New Yorkers. 15 So we fought that all along and we will. 16 But, you know, in the ag side of things 17 we've got 2.1 million acres in voluntary BMPs 18 out of about nine and a quarter million acres 19 in farm or ranch lands. That doesn't include 20 forests. They've got their own BMPs. 21 There's 3.8 million acres in Florida that 22 have either been purchased by the State or in 23 conservation easements, along with all the 24 wetlands that are being protected for -- that 25 provide natural nutrients. Those are 249 1 throughout the entire state. 2 An interesting thing -- this is -- a great 3 deal of this has all been done voluntarily. 4 The land has been sold to the State, fee-simple 5 sales. The conservation easements, again, 6 those were voluntary. 7 An interesting thing that I thought about 8 last night driving home, 30 years ago we were 9 all told, these little farm ponds that you 10 have, ponds that, you know, they fill up and 11 they're this clear water and everything is 12 great. Well, how do you make them better? You 13 throw fertilizer in them. We were told to 14 fertilize your ponds once a week until you 15 stuck your arm elbow deep and you could barely 16 see your fingers move, then that was healthy 17 water. And, you know what, stuff grew in it, 18 fish came along and you could have fish in your 19 pond at that point. Until then, it would take 20 years for that to develop, I guess, but that 21 was a rapid way of producing it. Those farm 22 ponds are still there today. 23 So I would ask, as a rancher and an ag 24 person, that y'all stop, step back a minute and 25 let's cooperate together. We've got to bring 250 1 the stakeholders into this. Without 2 stakeholders buying in, this isn't going 3 anywhere. You have never seen a pushback like 4 you're going to see from Florida if this thing 5 is pushed down our throat. 6 And one thing we have learned is, they 7 talked about the 12 years that nothing has been 8 done, that's because the first eight or nine of 9 it was here, take this and love it. We didn't 10 do it, you know. And now it's coming and we 11 understand and we want to help. But we can't 12 do it by being putting out of business and 13 that's what we're all fearful of. 14 So I would ask that we all come together, 15 all the stakeholders, the scientists, the 16 attorneys, and let's try and work something out 17 that will work for everybody and that we can 18 make work. And we all want it to work. And I 19 think that is what you heard today and 20 yesterday, is everybody wants our water clean 21 in our area. Nobody wants to have a problem 22 with that. 23 So, with that, I'll leave and I thank you 24 all again very much. 25 (Applause.) 251 1 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Grigsby. 2 Speaker number 60. Speaker number 101. 3 102? 103. 104? 105. 106. 107. 4 Anybody in the 100s that is still here 5 that wants to speak before we break? 6 What number are you? 7 MR. FLOWERS: 115. 8 MS. KEEHNER: How about we do 114 first, 9 and have a seat in that chair. 10 MR. FLOWERS: Okay. 11 MR. HANSON: Good evening. My name is Ray 12 Hanson. I'm Director of Orange County 13 Utilities here in Orlando, Florida. I'd like 14 to first thank you for having this session in 15 Orlando. 16 We provide water, wastewater, reclaimed 17 water for about 200,000 homes in the Orlando 18 area. We do support environmental and clean 19 water programs. However, we do reject the 20 manner and form of the numeric nutrient 21 criteria as proposed by the EPA. 22 Orange County Utilities over the years has 23 invested hundreds of millions of dollars to 24 eliminate surface water discharges from our 25 water reclamation facilities. Are facilities 252 1 are permitted to treat over 70 million gallons 2 of wastewater each day. 3 If you're staying at this hotel, more than 4 likely you are leaving behind nutrients that 5 are processed by our South Water Reclamation 6 Facility. This 40-million-gallon-a-day 7 facility is about two miles from here and that 8 facility, along with the City of Orlando, 9 supplies irrigation to water the citrus crops 10 about 20 miles to the west of here, for 11 residential and commercial landscape irrigation 12 and also to recharge the aquifer through the 13 rapid infiltration basis. 14 Like the City of Orlando, we have not 15 discharged the flow of nutrients from our 16 facilities since 1985. 17 We do have surface water discharge from 18 our Eastern Water Reclamation Facility, which 19 is about six million gallons per day. It's 20 processed by advanced waste treatment to a high 21 degree and then followed by manmade and natural 22 wetlands. These wetlands move additional 23 nutrients, such as the nutrients that we do 24 discharge to the Econolockahatchee River, a 25 tributary to the St. Johns, are a small 253 1 fraction of the total nutrients. And these 2 wetlands would be dry if it were not for the 3 hydration provided by our reclaimed water. 4 All the flow that we reuse is water that 5 would otherwise be discharged to surface water 6 bodies. By embracing reuse, we prevent many 7 thousands of pounds of nutrients from entering 8 our surface waters and conserve precious 9 potable water supplies. 10 I would like to add to a comment that a 11 previous speaker, Mr. Godlewski from the City 12 of Orlando, made regarding waste load 13 allocations. These reuse systems provide 14 tremendous flexibility to not discharge at all 15 when there is demand for reclaimed water and be 16 able to discharge during wet weather events and 17 still achieve a lower overall annual discharge 18 of nutrients in surface waters. 19 We have a specific situation I do want to 20 mention to you in our Northwest Water 21 Reclamation facility. We have a 22 three-million-gallon-per-day discharge to 23 manmade wetlands that now flow to Lake Martin. 24 Lake Martin was a dry lake before being 25 hydrologically restored by reclaimed water. 254 1 Lake Martin is completely isolated from other 2 water bodies and its only discharge is into the 3 aquifer. Lake Martin is entirely on county 4 property and it has always been exempt from 5 surface water quality standards. Because it 6 has been restored by the county's treated 7 wastewater and has no downstream impacts, we 8 feel like Lake Martin should remain exempt from 9 water quality standards. The proposed rule 10 does not state how manmade and historic water 11 bodies would be regulated. 12 Today I would like to state a few of many 13 concerns we have on the proposed numeric 14 nutrient criteria. Our first concern is the 15 lack of relationship between the nutrient 16 criteria and the designated uses. The criteria 17 were not based on biological responses, but 18 rather statistical averaging of the five large 19 regions of Florida, each with diverse 20 ecosystems and designated uses. 21 EPA's statistical method guarantees that a 22 large fraction of all the water bodies in 23 Florida will be declared impaired regardless of 24 any demonstration of actual impairment. 25 We are concerned that the proposed 255 1 criteria may unintentionally discourage the 2 reuse of highly-treated reclaimed water for 3 environmentally beneficial purpose. 4 Florida Water Management Districts and the 5 DEP all have a long history of encouraging, 6 even requiring greater amounts of reclaimed 7 water be used. 8 Numeric nutrient criteria do not consider 9 site-specific conditions and hinder 10 unnecessarily a utility's ability to permit 11 beneficial reuse of surface water. We believe 12 that anything that reduces beneficial reuse 13 will tend to result in the use of more potable 14 water for nonpotable applications, which 15 creates a sudden significant environmental 16 impact. 17 We're also concerned that the proposed 18 rules will result in limited resources that are 19 available to address water quality issues. The 20 cost benefit analysis that has been presented 21 by the EPA to demonstrate the benefits provided 22 to our environment or our society outweigh the 23 costs to propose the numeric nutrient rule. 24 In Orange County, meeting the NNC rule 25 would cost our ratepayers 150 million dollars 256 1 in capital and an additional 17 million dollars 2 in expenses simply for the nine million gallons 3 of discharge to the Econolockahatchee River and 4 the Lake Martin situation that I mentioned, 5 this equates to an additional $200 a year for 6 every household that we serve. 7 In conclusion, we feel the implementation 8 of numeric nutrient criteria is a hurried and 9 simplistic solution to a complex problem and 10 implementing these numeric nutrient criteria is 11 neither resource efficient nor an economical 12 solution. 13 Florida has a sophisticated and 14 scientifically-based process that targets 15 nutrient loads from specific sources based on 16 site-specific material. Let us get on with the 17 work of improving the water quality in our 18 state. 19 Thank you. 20 (Applause.) 21 MS. KEEHNER: Thanks you, Mr. Hanson. 22 Speaker 110. 23 MS. BYSTRAK: I didn't think I was going 24 to get to speak until tonight. The name is 25 Linda Bystrak, and I've given you the letter 257 1 that my group is sending you. I'm representing 2 the Oklawaha Valley Audubon Society, which has 3 over 650 member households in Lake and Sumter 4 Counties. 5 We support the proposed new numeric 6 nutrient criteria that you are proposing for 7 the State of Florida, plus more. Our 8 organization has been a member of the Upper 9 Oklawaha TMDL working group since 2005. But we 10 did not sign on to that group's V-pack because 11 it did not address sewage issues in our basin. 12 We noticed that EPA is still not 13 addressing the sewage issues in these new 14 criteria. Only the nitrogen component of 15 sewage is addressed, not the fecal colaform or 16 even the E. Coli that can be found as part of 17 the fecal colaform. We have concerns about the 18 fecal colaform because according to the DEP's 19 own newsletter, which I have given you, on Page 20 4, you will see that fecal colaform is 21 responsible for 35 percent of our impaired 22 waterways in group one and that's 1,767 23 waterways just in group one. 24 How much of that bacteria is E. Coli? We 25 don't know. Because no government agency will 258 1 take ownership of the fecal colaform issue and 2 the E. Coli that can be contained in that fecal 3 colaform, in that fecal colaform test. 4 Health departments only look at swimming 5 beaches and sewage spills on land. They do not 6 look at sewage on water. And many of our lakes 7 have no beaches, therefore, there's never any 8 fecal colaform testing done. 9 In Lake County, where I live, Haynes Creek 10 behind my house is a perfect example of what 11 happens when a freshwater body is impaired 12 because of fecal colaform. First, after a 13 minimum two years of water monitoring, the data 14 showed fecal colaform levels of 400 in a 15 hundred milliliters of water in more than 10 16 percent of our samples and a single-day of 17 reading over 800. Therefore, it was declared 18 impaired. Please see the attachment that you 19 have about our rules for impairment. 20 However, even though it was declared 21 impaired with fecal colaform, no signs were 22 ever posted for that waterway to warn the 23 public. No mandatory testing to monitor for 24 the E. Coli was even required. In fact, no 25 attempt to find the source was required. 259 1 Fortunately, we were able to find grant 2 money to pay for most of the 13-week monitoring 3 program, done by trained volunteers, some of 4 which were done by members of our local Audubon 5 Club in a Lake County sheriff boat. Samples 6 were taken weekly and taken to a Lake County 7 licensed water quality lab. They were analyzed 8 and at least four hot spots were identified in 9 Haynes Creek. Unfortunately, only one of these 10 hot spots was ever cleaned up due to budget 11 cuts and lack of personnel. 12 So Haynes Creek, nine miles long and as 13 wide as a river, and you have an attachment 14 there showing you, remains impaired due to both 15 nutrients and fecal colaform. Even though we 16 found fecal colaform readings as high as 2,200 17 and E. Coli readings of 391, -- 200 is all that 18 is needed to close a beach -- today there are 19 still no warning signs on Haynes Creek. 20 On December 14th, only two months ago, our 21 club sponsored an annual Christmas bird count 22 on the marsh by Lake Yale. My territory was 23 Lake Yale. Piling in my kayak without my 24 bifocals and in a very dense fog, I did not 25 realize that the pollen I thought was covering 260 1 the lake was really an algal bloom until the 2 fog disappeared. 3 At about that time I noticed what appeared 4 to be a muskrat thrashing around in the water 5 apparently drowning. As I watched for almost 6 ten minutes, I realized he was dying from the 7 toxin in the water. I collected a sample, took 8 it to a nearby St. Johns Water Management 9 District facility and it was identified as 10 Microcystis. 11 Upon further research, I discovered a bar 12 graph created by the staff, which you have that 13 graph with you. That graph shows an increase 14 in total phosphorous in Lake Yale of 15 103 percent. 103 percent total phosphorous 16 increase between '92 and 2007. Both Haynes 17 Creek and Lake Yale are good examples of how 18 dangerous Florida surface waters can be, 19 especially to kayakers like me. I paddle with 20 four different Central Florida kayakings 21 groups. We have direct contact with the water. 22 And although the water we paddle contains 23 alligators and deadly poisonous snakes, it's 24 the E. Coli and the Microcystis that I worry 25 about the most. Both are associated with too 261 1 many nutrients. 2 Although OVA supports the new numeric 3 criteria, we doubt they will ever be enforced 4 because the Florida state legislature recently 5 cut the TMDL budget from 20 million down to one 6 million dollars. And that's on Page 1 and 2 of 7 the handout I gave you. 8 If these new criteria are not funded, 9 along with mandatory timetables for spending, 10 the state legislature may cut this program even 11 more. Therefore, OVA urges EPA to pass the new 12 criteria, but do more than just approve the 13 numbers. We also need funding. Also make it 14 mandatory to post signs on waterways impaired 15 due to fecal colaform and also require 16 follow-up testing for E. Coli and make it 17 mandatory to try and locate the source. 18 This issues needs to be addressed now in 19 this phase of your nutrient criteria. 20 Thank you for time and consideration. 21 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Bystrak. 22 Speaker 115? 23 DR. FLOWERS: Good evening. I'm Dr. Jeff 24 Flowers. I am a councilman from the City of 25 Maitland, so I think I'm your second elected 262 1 official to show up today. 2 I provided written comments in the basket 3 outside. I'm not going to read them to you. I 4 am just going to read the headings. 5 Number one, the model is wrong. Two, the 6 color is measured incorrectly. The phosphorous 7 levels are not scientifically measured. 8 Program costs are unacceptable. Wastewater 9 industry is decimated. This process is in 10 denial of due process. And you've got a failed 11 rulemaking process. 12 As I said, I'm a councilman in the State 13 of Florida for the City of Maitland and we are 14 required to operate in this state as councilman 15 under a law called the Sunshine Law. And we 16 have a public process in Florida and we are 17 required to offer public comment in our 18 meetings. And if we were to deny people 19 entering into one of our meetings, like this 20 meeting did, we would be -- I would be going to 21 jail the next day. I find that completely 22 unacceptable. 23 MS. KEEHNER: I'm sorry? 24 DR. FLOWERS: People told me that they 25 were not allowed to come into the room. 263 1 MS. KEEHNER: Because of the fire code? 2 Is that what the issue was? 3 DR. FLOWERS: That's their fault? This is 4 the only public chance they get to come and 5 talk to you? 6 MS. KEEHNER: We have tonight. We're 7 going as late as it takes tonight. I mean, we 8 are genuinely interested. 9 DR. FLOWERS: You can convince yourself 10 that this is a fair process. You cannot 11 convince me. 12 MS. KEEHNER: No, I am just saying we 13 haven't prohibited somebody from coming in 14 other than the fire code issue. 15 DR. FLOWERS: Well, then, you should have 16 rented a larger room. 17 MS. KEEHNER: We already expanded to this 18 room. 19 DR. FLOWERS: You didn't get it big 20 enough. 21 MS. KEEHNER: Apparently not. 22 23 DR. FLOWERS: We've held meetings in gyms 24 when we had to in my city when it was required. 25 But we've never denied a citizen a chance to 264 1 address his council in a public forum, as you 2 have done today. So I find that appalling to 3 be a part of that kind of public process. 4 MR. KING: I disagree that we have 5 denied -- those folks are welcome to come back. 6 We will be here. 7 DR. FLOWERS: You have designed a process 8 that prevents them from coming. 9 I want the clock stopped if we're going to 10 be in dialogue. 11 You don't see the challenge you present 12 when you have a room too small for the people 13 to fit into? When I came in here, there were 14 like a hundred people standing in the back. 15 They couldn't sit down. I mean, nobody can 16 stand, that I know of, at my age, for six 17 hours. Okay? I mean, that's an inappropriate 18 facility for a public meeting. You have not 19 provided adequate access to this process. 20 I have in my possession a letter to your 21 administrator. It was signed by the 22 legislative delegation from the State of 23 Florida. And that's an incredible statement, 24 number one, that you could get the entire 25 legislative group, all of our senators, all of 265 1 our congressmen, to agree on anything. It's a 2 very rare thing for the city council to do 3 that. It's amazing that you have gotten the 4 entire federal delegation to do that. And 5 they're all asking for the same thing that I 6 am, which is access to the public of Florida to 7 come talk to you about this. And you're not 8 providing it with this process. 9 And I'm telling you that as a public 10 elected official. I represent 17,000 people in 11 Maitland and they're -- I'm required to sit 12 here all day with my utilities director while I 13 wait until I address you because I couldn't 14 talk any sooner than this. 15 So that's an upsetting thing, if you have 16 a process that is that restrictive. As I say, 17 I have provided public comment to you. 18 Also, the cost analysis that you have 19 provided in this thing are ludicrous. As a 20 person who has to vote to raise people's taxes, 21 I am very concerned about what I am spending 22 their money on. 23 We have in Maitland a stormwater master 24 plan. We've had it since 1996. I was chair of 25 the Lakes Advisory Board that wrote it. 266 1 We've spent in Maitland, using tax dollars 2 from the citizens of Maitland, over ten million 3 dollars funding that to clean up Maitland's 4 lakes, 22 lakes, in that time frame. These 5 lakes comprise 1.6 square miles of Maitland's 6 land area. 7 The calculation that I've used is that we 8 would exceed your nitrogen standard in this 9 thing by .25 milligrams per liter. Calculating 10 the volume of that water, I can come up with 11 the pounds of nitrogen that that would 12 represent and it would be 2.2 million pounds. 13 In order to clean up 2.2 million pounds of 14 dissolved nitrogen in the lake water, -- I know 15 that number, too -- it takes about $20,000 a 16 pound to remove a nutrient once it's in a lake. 17 And how do I know that? Because I wrote 18 the SLMP in which we came up with cost 19 estimates for doing BMP cleanup of Maitland's 20 lakes, and that's what the number is. Assuming 21 a $15,000-per-pound price, which we'll get a 22 discount, that would come up to a 23 35-billion-dollar cost for my city. The 24 millage necessary to fund that over a 30-year 25 pay-back period, to buy that loan, would be 70 267 1 mil. 2 The Constitution of the State of Florida 3 forbids any local authority from raising the 4 millage over ten mills. We can't do it. We 5 can't fund that. 6 Number one, we don't have the bonding 7 capacity for 70 billion dollars. Nobody is 8 going to give the City of Maitland of 17,000 9 people 35 billion dollars for anything, number 10 one. 11 Number two, we couldn't pay it back. 12 So you've got an economic model here 13 that's crazy. I mean, it's not just a little 14 bit off. It's not hundreds of millions of 15 dollars off. It's billions off. Now, I'm 16 talking about stormwater. I'm not talking 17 about sewage. Most of the people who have 18 talked to you today have been talking about 19 sewage because they know that number, but I 20 know stormwater because I've done it and I 21 funded it over the last decade and a half. 22 This thing needs to be rethought. Your 23 process for rulemaking is too rushed and that's 24 why you've got a mistake here. You need to 25 back up on this thing and bring the DEP, bring 268 1 the citizens of Florida into this conversation 2 and use the local knowledge that you have been 3 presented with at these hearings. You've got a 4 lot of smart people that have been coming and 5 talking to you. You need to listen to them. 6 Because what you're about to march off 7 into is simply -- what can Maitland do? The 8 only thing it can do is to take you on in court 9 and to tie this thing up, as one of these 10 speakers earlier said. We don't want to do 11 that. We want to fix this, too. 12 We've been spending our own tax dollars on 13 doing this. You didn't make us do that. DEP 14 didn't make us do that. We did it on our own 15 because we wanted our property values to be 16 enhanced. We saw this as an investment in our 17 tax base. 18 But we can't get 35 billion dollars to pay 19 for this over a 30-year period. So we don't 20 have a chance to fix this. 21 The man from Orlando, we buy our sewage 22 capacity from him. If Orlando can't take 23 Maitland's sewage, we don't have a sewage 24 plant. You know, he's talking about doing 25 deep-well injection in order to get rid of this 269 1 and avoiding using the systems that of reuse 2 that we built in our state. Reuse is one of 3 the most important things Florida has done. 4 I'm a lab director. I have four labs in 5 Florida and we analyze reuse systems throughout 6 the State of Florida. If it wasn't for those 7 reuse systems, you would have a big salt dome 8 here where you wouldn't have any fresh water. 9 It's because we're pumping that fresh water 10 back into our aquifers here through our reuse 11 systems that we're able to maintain our water 12 supply. So you're talking about ruining what I 13 have spent my career as a scientist, as a 14 chemist, building. 15 This needs to be readdressed. You've made 16 a mistake here. It's too quick. It's too 17 fast. Step back and rethink this. This is -- 18 this won't work and you're just going to get 19 into a big lawsuit with everybody and that's 20 not going to benefit any of us. 21 Thank you very much. 22 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Flowers. 23 We're going to break for an hour. We will 24 resume at 7:30 and probably call the earlier 25 numbers just in case the earlier people in the 270 1 100s decided to come back at 7:30. So we'll 2 see you in about an hour. 3 (Session concluded at 6:29 p.m.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C E R T I F I C A T E 25 THE STATE OF FLORIDA,) 271 1 COUNTY OF ORANGE.) 2 I, Paula Ross, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary, State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify I was 3 authorized to and did report said proceedings in stenotype; and that the foregoing pages are a true and correct 4 transcription of my shorthand notes of said proceedings. 5 6 I further certify that said proceedings were taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and that the taking of 7 said proceedings was commenced and completed as hereinabove set out. 8 9 I further certify that I am not attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any 10 attorney or counsel or party connected with the action. 11 12 The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless 13 under the direct control and/or direction of the certifying reporter. 14 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5th day of March 2010. 16 17 18 ________________________________ 19 Paula Ross Registered Professional Reporter 20 Florida Professional Reporter Notary Public in and for the State 21 of Florida My Commission expires 4/23/12. 22 Commission #DD 752072 23 24 25