1 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING 2 PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE STATE OF 3 FLORIDA'S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS DOCKET I.D. NO. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 4 5 FEBRUARY 17, 2010 (EVENING SESSION) 6 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 7 EPHRAIM KING, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. EPA OFFICE OF WATER 8 JIM KEATING, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALISTS 9 STANDARDS AND HEALTH PROTECTION DIVISION, U.S. EPA OFFICE OF WATER 10 DENISE KEEHNER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS, AND 11 WATERSHEDS, U.S. EPA OFFICE OF WATER 12 DANA THOMAS, Ph.D. 13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 14 DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2010 15 TIME: COMMENCED AT 7:30 P.M. 16 CONCLUDED AT 10:35 P.M. 17 PLACE: CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL 7899 UNIVERSAL BOULEVARD 18 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 19 STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY: TERRI S. MILLER, RPR, CLVS, FPR, CSR 20 COURT REPORTER and NOTARY PUBLIC 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MS. KEEHNER: We had a few people from the 3 afternoon session who didn't get a chance to 4 speak before we adjourned at 6:30, and what we 5 would like to do is allow those folks to go 6 ahead and make their remarks. I think there 7 are two people in that category, Number 121 and 8 Number 122. And then we will start from top, 9 which is we go through basically a brief 10 overview of the rule and then we will start 11 numerically going through the folks that have 12 signed up to speak at this evening session. 13 So what I'd like to do is ask Speaker 121 14 to come forward, and if 122 would like to take 15 a seat behind the podium, we'll be officially 16 able to finish our afternoon session. Thank 17 you. 18 Please state your name and your 19 affiliation. 20 MS. VEAUDRY: Karina Veaudry. I'm the 21 Executive Director for the Florida Native Plant 22 Society. It's a 30-year-old 23 scientifically-based organization with over 24 3,000 members throughout Florida with 34 25 chapters representing every county. 3 1 Thank you for your endurance, by the way, 2 to allow us to get all these comments in. 3 In 1998, the EPA required Florida to 4 develop numeric nutrient standards. After over 5 a decade of numeric standards development, 6 there are still no standards in Florida. 7 When EPA formally determined that nutrient 8 criteria should be established for Florida, we 9 wholeheartedly agree with this, and we support 10 the EPA's efforts to bring numeric nutrient 11 standards finally to Florida. 12 The current narrative standard in Florida 13 has been a failure at regulating pollutant 14 sources. Nutrient pollution is one of the most 15 serious sources of pollution in Florida to our 16 1700 streams, 7,800 lakes and 27 first 17 magnitude springs and coastlines of important 18 estuaries, harming economic opportunities to 19 the fishing industry, causing damage to the 20 aquatic-eco systems and hampering ecotourism 21 and diminishing our quality of life. 22 Florida estuaries with the warm and wet, 23 yet sunny, climate further contributes to the 24 increased runoff pollution and subsequent 25 eutrophication responses. 4 1 The excess nitrogen and phosphorus have 2 led to significant water quality problems 3 including harmful algal blooms, dead zones and 4 declines in wildlife and wildlife habitat, not 5 to mention the economic damage to fisheries and 6 estuaries. 7 The Florida Native Plant Society supports 8 science-based limits on nutrient pollution 9 based on the characteristics of the individual 10 body type of water. And that's an important 11 point that we wanted to make sure that we got 12 out there. 13 For those who say this is too expensive, 14 we already are paying heavily to ameliorate the 15 damage and effects of nutrient pollution. 16 We're already paying for it. We need a 17 proactive approach that tackles the issue on 18 the front end, and we all need to work together 19 to make it a reality, and now is the time. 20 It's better to regulate the pollutants and 21 keep them out of our waters rather to pay and 22 deal with it after the fact with no measuring 23 capabilities, where we are now. 24 Without the numeric nutrient standards in 25 place, it is harder to define limits of 5 1 regulation to establish a framework for Florida 2 developed restoration standards for impaired 3 waters. This is one of our main missions, and 4 we want to see something done to be able to 5 scientifically create these standards. 6 We need clean water for survival in 7 Florida and future development. Changes in the 8 environment resulting from elevated nutrient 9 levels such as algal blooms and eutrophication 10 cause a variety of damaging effects that affect 11 not only the water body but the plant species 12 and the change in habitat and available food 13 sources and resources that can induce changes 14 affecting the entire food chain. 15 EPA's goal to provide a challenging but 16 realistic incremental framework to establish 17 appropriate control measures will allow Florida 18 to retain full aquatic protections for its 19 water bodies while establishing a transparent, 20 organized-phased approach that would result in 21 planned implementation of enforceable measures, 22 which we currently do not have now and need. 23 I just want to close with saying that 24 right now the Florida Native Plant Society is 25 -- we do not feel that the current narrative 6 1 nutrient criteria alone and the resulting 2 delays ensure protection of designated uses for 3 many of the state's waters that are either 4 unimpaired now and need protection for the 5 future or have been listed as impaired and 6 require loading reductions. 7 We agree with EPA's determination and we 8 think it will strengthen the foundation for 9 identifying those impaired waters better so 10 that we can have a better restoration system in 11 Florida. 12 We've all seen the effects. I mean, all 13 throughout Florida, you can see it everywhere; 14 yet municipalities and our public agencies have 15 not taken action. That's why we welcome EPA 16 into the state to help us get to where we need 17 to be and to preserve our unique forms of water 18 in Florida and to ensure that our tourism and 19 fishing, which is one of the bases of our 20 economy, continues to be sustainable and strong 21 in the future. 22 Thank you very much. 23 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Veaudry. 24 Speaker 122 from this afternoon. 25 MR. HITCHCOCK: Good evening. Thank you 7 1 for coming. My name is John Hitchcock. I'm 2 president of the United Waterfowlers of 3 Florida. We have membership throughout the 4 State of Florida, and most of our membership is 5 also members of Ducks Unlimited; although I'm 6 here tonight representing United Waterfowlers 7 of Florida. 8 Duck hunters are kind of in the middle on 9 all of these issues with water. I think the 10 crowd would find it interesting to note that 11 the Audubon Society was started by George Bird 12 Grinnell who was a duck hunter. The Wilderness 13 Society was started by Aldo Leopold who is a 14 duck hunter. The National Wildlife Federation 15 was started by Ding Darling who was the first 16 president. He was a duck hunter. And Mike 17 Sole was a duck hunter. 18 And there is precedent for you being here, 19 obviously. The analogy I like to use is that 20 the waterfowl migrate across state lines like 21 water does. 22 This is the duck hunters' perspectives. 23 We have members that are doctors, lawyers, 24 farmers. We have members that are state 25 employees. 8 1 The places where we duck hunt -- water 2 flows downhill, and at the bottom of the hill 3 is where we duck hunt. Those places are your 4 moist soil marshes and your rivers and streams. 5 It used to be 15 years ago -- and 6 everybody still has stories about, you know, 7 beautiful places that they can go to and fish 8 or kayak; you know, nice, clean water. But the 9 places where we duck hunt are significantly 10 impaired. 11 Like I said, they're at the bottom of the 12 hill. Everything that goes in the water ends 13 up where we duck hunt. The surface waters, the 14 lakes, the streams are cloudy. You used to be 15 able to, say, fish brim and croppies, bass. 16 Now the water is clouded by the different 17 types of algae. They're not just blue-green 18 algae, but other types of algae that cause 19 water pollen. When the algae dies, it ends up 20 on the bottom as muck. You got algae that 21 veneers on the eel grass, destroys the eel 22 grass. And then your food web goes from there; 23 your invertebrates and your macro invertebrates 24 die because they don't have the habitat to live 25 in. 9 1 Not much has been said about the marshes 2 themselves. The areas along the ordinary high 3 waterline where we duck hunt mostly now, you 4 never see anybody in there except duck hunters. 5 Maybe a few guys in airboats frog gigging when 6 the water is high. But other than that, it's 7 duck hunters that go there. 8 And those areas are nutrient-laden moist 9 soils, and the willows and cattails have 10 overgrown them and destroyed the food web in 11 those areas as well. So you impact all of the 12 waterfowl in the entire food web in all of the 13 places where waterfowl migrate in and out of 14 Florida. 15 And it's important that waterfowl have 16 food when they migrate. Especially when 17 they're migrating back, they need mostly 18 vegetative for the high carbohydrates for the 19 migration back. By the time they arrive back 20 to Florida on their way north, they're 21 coordinating and beginning to breathe; and they 22 don't need to be wasting a lot of time finding 23 food. 24 So this issue impacts all waterfowl. Not 25 just ducks -- shore birds and all of the other 10 1 linked animals, mammals that are in the food 2 web. 3 What do we want to do about it? As far as 4 TMDLs go, we need TMDLs. We need to have a 5 measure for what to do. What we don't want the 6 TMDLs to do is to impede restoration. And 7 that's mostly what we're concerned with is 8 active management and restoration of wetlands 9 in Florida. 10 What we'd really like to have you do is 11 have the NRCS set up their national 12 headquarters in Florida and start making all of 13 our impounded areas into WRPs and bring all 14 their money with them. 15 There's a wonderful restoration project 16 still ongoing, the Apopka Impoundments on Lake 17 Apopka where they did set the TMDL for that 18 lake at 50 parts per billion for phosphorates 19 to manage that project. And NRCS pulled up 20 stakes recently and took all their money with 21 them. They can still use that money. And we 22 can use that money all over this state, you 23 know, rather than giving it to bankers that 24 maybe don't deserve it. 25 But I think that pretty much wraps up what 11 1 I was going to say. I thank you again for 2 coming. 3 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Hitchcock. 4 Is there anyone else who was here this 5 afternoon who didn't get a chance to speak and 6 would like to speak before we start the evening 7 session? 8 (No response.) 9 MS. KEEHNER: Okay. Ephraim. 10 MR. KING: It's my great pleasure to 11 welcome everybody here. I know it's the 12 evening session and most everybody here except 13 possibly for those of us here on the frontline 14 have somewhere to go tonight. Hopefully, they 15 get to go home and go to bed. So I'm going to 16 make this relatively brief. 17 But let me start by simply saying how much 18 we appreciate your coming this evening and how 19 much EPA values the input and feedback and 20 suggestions the folks have given us both at 21 Tallahassee yesterday and here in Orlando. 22 We are here today to present and explain a 23 proposed rule-making that EPA issued in late 24 January to establish numeric nutrient water 25 quality standards for the state of Florida, for 12 1 its lakes, its streams and rivers, springs and 2 canals. And that was proposed, I think, the 3 end of January. The comment period ends 4 March 29th. 5 And we're probably in the most important 6 part of the Federal rule-making process which 7 is the part where we reach out to stakeholders, 8 in this case the Floridians, and we ask and 9 invite and urge everybody to please share with 10 us your thoughts, your opinions, any additional 11 information you might have. 12 That really makes this the most valuable 13 part of the process because we then get 14 educated further and are able to act upon the 15 information that we receive and make the 16 proposal stronger and more effective and more 17 focused. And that really, at the end of the 18 day, that's what our goal is, to make sure that 19 these standards are as effective, focused and 20 balanced and fair as they possibly can be. 21 I think it's probably worth, for just a 22 moment, to pause on "why nutrients and why now 23 and why here." And some folks have already 24 indicated that EPA in 1998 basically issued 25 guidance and emphasized to arrange those 13 1 things. 2 The really critical importance of putting 3 numeric nutrient standards in place, because 4 those numeric standards create baselines 5 against which you can measure progress. They 6 create numeric targets against which you can 7 set goals. They create the basis for 8 partnerships across watersheds -- watersheds, 9 all of which is possible when you have numeric 10 goals in front of you that you can then work 11 with your colleagues and your partners and your 12 neighbors and sort out what is the most 13 effective and smartest way to move forward. 14 That's the valve of numeric standards. 15 Nationally, nutrients is a tremendously 16 difficult and challenging process, and EPA is 17 working with many, many states nationally, both 18 to develop numeric nutrient standards and to 19 implement those standards. 20 For example, in the Chesapeake Bay, there 21 is an executive order. We are working with 22 several states and the Chesapeake Bay to 23 implement these standards and to explore a 24 whole range of options for us effectively as 25 possible reducing nitrogen and phosphorous 14 1 loadings which are actually what comprise 2 nutrient pollution. 3 If we turn to Florida itself and we look 4 at just the current listing of impaired waters 5 in the State of Florida, not all of the waters 6 have been assessed, but the current listing, a 7 thousand miles of Florida streams and rivers 8 are presently impaired for nutrients. 9 350,000 acres of Florida's lakes are 10 presently impaired for nutrients. That's 11 roughly about a quarter of the lakes. 900 12 square miles of the state's estuaries are 13 presently listed as impaired for nutrients. 14 Again, roughly, a quarter of the square mile 15 coverage -- totally of the estuaries. 16 And so what that says to the EPA, and I 17 think that that's what that says to the Florida 18 Department of Environmental Protection, is that 19 there is a widespread and growing nutrient 20 challenge that we and the Department of 21 Environmental Protection here in the State of 22 Florida agree speaks to the need for numeric 23 nutrient standards. 24 When one thinks about Florida, the first 25 question I think any of us should be asking is 15 1 what difference does this make, what's the 2 importance of this. And I think the place the 3 EPA begins that conversation is to ask the 4 question what do we know about public health 5 effects. And as it turns out, nutrients, 6 nitrogen and phosphorus pollution have some 7 significant public health effects and they 8 raise public health risks that do need to be 9 managed. 10 If there are high levels of nitrates in 11 the groundwater and those nitrates are above 12 certain public health levels, exposure to those 13 high levels of nitrates leads to blue baby 14 syndrome which is a syndrome which babies can 15 go into either coma or die. That's something I 16 think that all doctors today are very sensitive 17 to, they respond to it. 18 But the facts of the matter are that high 19 nitrates in groundwater, in private wells, in 20 different water supplies can really create and 21 represent significant risks. 22 If you look at your drinking water systems 23 across the state, many of these drinking water 24 systems use disinfection to deal with the 25 microbes, pathogens in the drinking water 16 1 supply. 2 One of the additional side effects of 3 using those disinfectants, as these drinking 4 water systems take in more of the algae, they 5 have to treat it, they're taking in something 6 more, something called organic carbons. When 7 the disinfectants interface with the organic 8 carbons, they form something called 9 disinfection byproducts. 10 And disinfection byproducts are absolutely 11 linked to increases in bladder cancer. They're 12 linked to increases in reproductive issues. 13 They are linked to kidney and liver disease. 14 And our only point to suggest to this group and 15 to all across the country is that there are 16 risks associated, public health risks 17 associated with high levels of algae and the 18 impacts of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution. 19 I think one of the public health impacts 20 that people may be most familiar with is 21 harmful algal blooms. These you see in lakes 22 and rivers and small ponds. Harmful algal 23 blooms can be algicidal bacteria, it can be 24 blue algae. They can kill pets. They can kill 25 livestock. They can cause serious rashes and 17 1 illness and dizziness for people. 2 Again, a public health risk at an impact 3 that I think our view is, and I think many 4 Floridian's would agree with us, from what 5 we've heard anyway, that these are risks that 6 deserve to be thought about, focused on and to 7 address and to be reduced. 8 If we look at the State of Florida in 9 terms of what makes this state so special, 10 clean and safe water is a critical path that 11 supports the growing population of this state 12 which is growing rapidly. The state is widely 13 recognized for unique and irreplaceable 14 ecosystems. And those ecosystems are 15 threatened by growing nitrogen and phosphorus 16 pollution. 17 If we look to the economic prosperity of 18 this state, from what we've heard from a lot of 19 stakeholders and a lot of people in Tallahassee 20 even today, most people would agree that clean 21 and safe water is the path through which one 22 reaches the economic prosperity and the 23 continued growth in this state. 24 These are all reasons why we think, 25 particularly for Florida, the focus on nutrient 18 1 pollution and development of numeric nutrient 2 standards is a smart and effective way to go. 3 One of the things that we want to be sure 4 to share with this group is that your Florida 5 Department of Environmental Protection, your 6 state has been in the forefront of states in 7 collecting data and addressing this issue and 8 in developing probably among the most 9 comprehensive set of tools to deal with 10 nutrient pollution. 11 By tools, I mean regulations, ordinances, 12 best management of action plans, so called, 13 BMAPs for nonpoint sources. And the greatest 14 challenge when given that really impressive set 15 of tools is to ask how are the tools applied. 16 And the answer to that, in Florida they're 17 applied on a case-by-case, site-by-site, 18 expensive and fairly slow process. 19 And what numeric nutrient standards allow 20 the state to do is to take those tools and to 21 take that ability and to expand it and apply it 22 and to reach out to a much broader number of 23 impaired waters and create the path forward for 24 solutions and partnerships among more impaired 25 waters across the state. 19 1 So, really, what numeric nutrient 2 standards do for Florida is to translate 3 Florida's existing designated uses, standards 4 that the State has set, and simply translate 5 those into numeric values, and, in turn, then 6 allow the State to expand its efforts and focus 7 on a broader range of impaired waters. 8 So that very briefly is what we're here to 9 talk about today. Denise will talk about a 10 little bit about the process we're going to 11 follow, and Jim Keating will give you an 12 overview of the rule. 13 I simply want to invite you to please be 14 as forthright and as helpful or constructive or 15 just frank as you can be in terms of your views 16 of the rule that we propose. 17 For example, we've asked you to focus on 18 the scientific aspects of this sound science. 19 The EPA really is the compass that is going to 20 guide us as we move through this rule-making 21 process. 22 And if you think there is information that 23 is available we have not considered, we would 24 really invite you to please share that with us 25 or tell us where we can find it. 20 1 If there is information that we have that, 2 in your judgment, we have not interpreted 3 properly or analyzed properly, sharing that 4 information with us is really very, very 5 valuable. 6 So those are two examples of where we 7 would appreciate any feedback and suggestions 8 that you might have. 9 With that, I think what I'll do is turn it 10 over to Denise to help sort of explain to us 11 the rule-making that context we're in and how 12 that theorem works. And then from there, we'll 13 turn it over to Jim Keating who will talk about 14 sort of an overview of the rule and why we're 15 here. 16 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ephraim. I'd 17 like to also extend my appreciation for your 18 attendance at this hearing this evening. This 19 has been a very informative and useful two-day 20 process thus far. A lot of speakers, a lot of 21 perspectives and a lot of views are being 22 presented. And I do really sincerely believe 23 that good regulation starts with a good engaged 24 public and sound science. Your involvement in 25 this process is very much appreciated by the 21 1 folks in D.C. who are responsible for moving 2 this regulation forward. 3 The proposed rule that we published in 4 January is part of a process that's called an 5 informal or a notice and comment of rule-making 6 process. Most federal regulations and almost 7 all EPA regulations are established through 8 this notice and comment rule-making process. 9 The term "notice and comment rule-making," 10 that label comes from the fact that under the 11 Federal Administrative Procedures Act, these 12 kinds of rule-makings require sort of three 13 things to happen. 14 The first is the publication of a notice 15 of proposed rule-making. And for the numeric 16 nutrient criteria, that was published on 17 January 26th, 2010 for Florida lakes and 18 flowing waters. 19 The second piece is an opportunity for 20 public participation in the rule-making by the 21 submission of written comments to the record. 22 In this particular rule-making in January, we 23 included a 60-day comment period as part of the 24 notice of proposed rule-making. That comment 25 period closes on March 29th of 2010, and that 22 1 is the closing comment period for written 2 comments to be filed with EPA. 3 The third piece of the notice of comment 4 of rule-making process is the publication of 5 the final regulation and the accompanying 6 statement basis and purpose. 7 For those of you familiar with federal 8 regulations, that's the preamble to the final 9 regulation. Typically, not less than 30 days 10 after the regulation is finalized, the rule 11 becomes effective. For this particular 12 rule-making, we are under a consent to decree 13 deadline to promulgate the final regulation by 14 October 15th of 2010. 15 And that's the case unless Florida submits 16 and EPA approves standards for inland waters 17 and Florida lakes and flowing waters prior to 18 that date. So Florida does have the 19 opportunity between now and October to actually 20 complete the process of developing numeric 21 nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters, 22 submitting them to the EPA for approval. And 23 if the EPA were to approve them, there would no 24 longer be an obligation for EPA to finalize the 25 regulation by October 15th of 2010. 23 1 All written comments that are submitted to 2 EPA will be included in the public docket, and 3 that public docket is accessible to anyone. 4 You can review any materials that are part of 5 this rule-making process and part of the 6 record. 7 After the close of the comment period, EPA 8 will be considering all the public comments 9 that have been received. We will be 10 considering the comments from these public 11 hearings. We will be considering data, 12 information that is submitted, analyses that 13 are submitted, and just perspectives and 14 thoughts and comments that are submitted to the 15 agency during the comment period. 16 EPA will respond in writing to all 17 significant public comments, and the response 18 to comments document will be part of the 19 administrative record and it will be accessible 20 to everyone in the docket and the 21 administrative record for the rule-making. 22 When we do publish the final rule, as I 23 indicated, the preamble to the final rule will 24 in addition to explaining how we ended up at 25 the places that we end up at in terms of final 24 1 decisions, it with also highlight any changes 2 that occurred between the proposed rule and the 3 final rule. 4 We're holding these hearings in Florida to 5 provide an opportunity for the public to 6 express their views to the EPA representatives 7 that are here today. The folks here today, 8 Mr. King, who is the Office Director for the 9 Office of Science and Technology, is the EPA 10 manager in charge of this regulation 11 development process. So when you testify today 12 or provide your remarks today, you are speaking 13 directly to the manager at EPA who has the 14 responsibility for moving this process forward. 15 This is your opportunity to express your 16 views and to provide any information that you 17 have to EPA that will help us move forward in 18 this rule-making process. It is our 19 opportunity to hear directly from you. 20 We have -- I think this evening we have 33 21 speakers, give or take, that have signed up to 22 speak this evening. We have allocated about 23 five minutes per person for remarks. So what 24 does that mean? Well, it means that we're in 25 for about two-and-a-half, almost three hours of 25 1 remarks from the folks that have signed up 2 already, just to give you an insight into what 3 is like to be the length of the hearing today. 4 The hearing is being recorded by a court 5 reporter. There will be a transcript that is 6 going to be made available, and that transcript 7 along with any written material that is being 8 provided today will be also part of the 9 administrative record. 10 All the comments that we hear today, as I 11 said, will be considered by EPA as we move 12 forward. 13 When you signed in and you noted that you 14 wanted to speak here this evening, we gave you 15 a number. After Jim Keating provides a brief 16 overview of EPA's proposed rule, I will call 17 you up in numerical order. If you want to 18 speak tonight and you have not yet received a 19 number, please just drop by the registration 20 desk and they will provide you with a number. 21 You'll be speaking at this microphone and 22 podium in the center of the room. Our court 23 reporter, as I indicated, will be recording 24 your comments, so please state your name and 25 your affiliation prior to beginning to make 26 1 your remarks. 2 We have allocated five minutes per 3 speaker. And we will let you know at about the 4 one-minute mark that things are -- that you 5 have about one minute to finish up. 6 Over the course of the last two days in 7 the hearings that we have held, folks have been 8 so good about keeping within the five minutes. 9 I don't think I've had to interrupt more than 10 two people out of hundreds, really, that have 11 testified so far and provided remarks. So I 12 think it seems to be a fairly good process and 13 people seem to have sufficient time to get 14 their key points across. 15 It is our intent to stay here this evening 16 as long as it takes to hear everybody and to 17 listen to your comments and your perspectives 18 on this proposed rule. So without further ado, 19 I'm going to turn the floor over to Jim 20 Keating, who is going to provide an overrule of 21 the federal proposal. 22 MR. KEATING: Thank you, Denise. 23 Can everyone hear me through this 24 microphone? Wonderful. 25 I want to just draw your attention TO the 27 1 packet of materials that you received when you 2 registered. We also have some handouts that 3 have copies of the slides that we're showing, 4 so that's available to you. You don't need to 5 follow along because they will be shown right 6 up there on the screen. 7 What I wanted to do this evening, in 8 addition to welcoming you and thank you for 9 coming, is to provide a brief overview of what 10 we have proposed and also talk about three 11 things coming from the title of the 12 presentation. 13 I want to talk a little bit about nitrogen 14 and phosphorus pollution. I want to talk a 15 little bit about water quality standards are. 16 And then I want to talk how about they apply to 17 Florida's lakes and Florida waters as part of 18 our proposal. 19 Briefly, phosphorous and nitrogen 20 pollution, a lot of what we're talking to you 21 about with these excess nutrients is that when 22 they are present in levels that are excessive, 23 they can cause growth of unwanted and induces 24 algae species. 25 A couple of examples of these kinds of 28 1 species you've heard a lot about in Florida 2 waters; one is Lyngbya. This is an algae that 3 can smother natural eel grass that is present 4 in Florida waters. Eel grass is, among other 5 things, food for endangered manatee. Lyngbya 6 also produces toxins that are potentially 7 harmful to humans as well as the animals. 8 Another algae that we're concerned about 9 and has been the subject of a lot of blooms in 10 Florida, there's one called Microcystis. 11 Microcystis produces a toxin that can cause 12 severe liver damage and it can poison livestock 13 and wildlife. 14 More generally, we're concerned about 15 excess algae and what it does to the natural 16 waters. It not only discolors them, it can 17 destroy the natural ecology of fresh waters. 18 And after you see significant levels of excess 19 algae, they can die, they can decay and deplete 20 the water body of necessary dissolved oxygen 21 that all animals, fish and shellfish need to 22 survive. 23 These are the kinds of concerns we have 24 from an ecological side. There's also concerns 25 for recreation. There's also concerns for 29 1 human health. I think Ephraim had an 2 opportunity to talk a little bit about some of 3 the concerns we have with disinfection 4 byproducts and some of the concerns that we 5 have, specifically, with elevated levels of 6 nitrates, particularly as they appear in 7 groundwater and wells. 8 We know in Florida there's a lot of 9 interaction with the surface water and 10 groundwaters, and there are some very specific 11 human health concerns with elevated levels of 12 nitrates that we do see occur in the State of 13 Florida waters. 14 Florida has a large number of waters, not 15 just along the coastline, but really a wealth 16 of freshwater lakes, miles and miles and miles 17 of freshwater streams, an enormous acreage and 18 square mileage of estuaries and over 700 19 freshwater springs. 20 There's a substantial number of these 21 waters that have already been identified as 22 impaired for nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. 23 Not all the waters have been assessed. There 24 are probably others that are impaired. And 25 these are the things that we're concerned 30 1 about. This has been the subject of the 2 proposed rule. 3 I'd like to show some images of what 4 nitrogen and phosphorus pollution can look like 5 in Florida waters. As I've given this 6 presentation, I keep learning more about these 7 specific waters. As I go to places, and people 8 actually know the waters and have a lot of 9 experience with the waters, occasionally they 10 come up to the podium and are very helpful in 11 explaining to me, you know, further than what 12 I'm seeing. 13 So I want just to explain -- I'm not 14 trying to misrepresent any of these waters. 15 They are pictures that have occurred mostly in 16 the past decade throughout Florida waters. But 17 what I'm intending to show you is what 18 conditions can look like when they have 19 nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. 20 The first one is a lake. It's in 21 Bradenton, Florida. You can see a Microcystis 22 bloom that's along the fringe of this lake, and 23 then there's a closeup you can see what it 24 looks like when you try to measure clarity or 25 transparencies. 31 1 This is an old picture. This is from 2 1995. This is Lake Apopka. It's near to our 3 location here in Orlando. But it's before the 4 TMDL was adopted. But it very clearly shows 5 what a large lake that's subject to these -- 6 and it's very sensitive of what can algae look 7 like. 8 Here's a picture of a smaller reservoir in 9 the Panhandle of Florida about an hour west of 10 Tallahassee. It's a place called Mariana. 11 This is Merritts Mill Pond. I think it very 12 clearly shows some of the effects of nitrogen 13 and phosphorus pollution manifesting themselves 14 through an algal bloom. 15 This a close-up, again another Panhandle 16 lake in Leon County right in Tallahassee. It's 17 a close-up of a Microcystis bloom that's 18 present. 19 We not only see algal blooms in Florida 20 lakes, but we do see them in Florida rivers and 21 flowing waters. This is an image from 22 Caloosahatchee River that drains in Lake 23 Okeechobee. It flows west towards the Gulf of 24 Mexico. This is in an location of older 25 Florida near. It's near a drinking water 32 1 intake. And you can see very clearly the 2 Microcystis bloom and the signature green color 3 that comes with it. 4 This is also the Caloosahatchee. It's a 5 different species of algal bloom that's present 6 from a couple of years ago. This is a nice 7 image that kind of shows the difference between 8 the river when it has a bloom and when it 9 doesn't because it's separated by a lock there. 10 You can see the distinction. 11 Further north in Florida, this is the 12 St. Johns River near Jacksonville. You can see 13 the bloom that occurs along the channel of that 14 river there. Here's another picture of an 15 algal bloom on St. Johns River. 16 And we can see from a lot of these images 17 here that nitrogen and phosphorus pollution put 18 a lot of things that we really care about with 19 water at risk. They put ecology at risk. They 20 put recreation at risk. They put human health 21 at risk. It puts tourism business at risk. 22 And waterfront property values, they're at risk 23 as well. 24 And here's a closeup of a tributary to 25 St. Johns River that shows in full bloom. It's 33 1 really kind of a deep green color there. 2 This is a picture of the St. Lucie River 3 about 45 minutes northwest of West Palm Beach, 4 again showing the effects of an algal bloom. 5 We also see problems with nitrogen and 6 phosphorus pollution in Florida springs. And 7 this is a picture of the Weeki Wachee Spring. 8 It's about an hour and a half west of here and 9 about an hour north of Tampa. The image that 10 you see on your left is a picture of the Weeki 11 Wachee Spring from the 1950s. You can see that 12 it is dominated by the natural eel grass. 13 The image on the right is from this 14 decade. You can see that this portion of the 15 Weeki Wachee, of natural eel grass, has been 16 supplemented and overtaken by Lyngbya. And 17 it's a much different -- a much different 18 picture. 19 We also see the effects of phosphorus and 20 nitrogen pollution in Florida canals. And 21 specifically I'm talking about the canals in 22 South Florida. And these are systems that 23 drain a variety of areas, but they do flow into 24 coastal estuaries. This particular canal flows 25 into Biscayne Bay. 34 1 So there is a protection that's in place 2 for Florida water quality standards. It's a 3 narrative statement, and it says something to 4 the effect of we don't want to have excess of 5 levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that cause an 6 imbalance in natural populations for flora and 7 fauna. 8 And that's a very good statement. But it 9 does lead to a fairly slow process of coming up 10 with specific numeric targets necessary for 11 cleanup of waters that I've identified as 12 impaired. 13 And perhaps, more importantly, it's kind 14 of a reactionary process that tends to go away 15 from that. Once there's a pyramid, then you 16 can see that the standard is violated and then 17 you can develop plans to restore it. 18 Well, what does it do about all of the 19 waters that are currently in a clean and 20 healthy condition? We have to have water 21 quality standards to protect those waters and 22 keep them in a clean and healthy condition. 23 And that's part of what we're talking about 24 when we talk about the need for numeric 25 nutrient criteria. 35 1 Nutrients come from a variety of sources. 2 They come from urban landscapes. They come 3 from cattle and crop fields. They come from 4 air emissions, cars, power plants. They come 5 from faulty septic tanks. They come from 6 sewage treatment works and they come from 7 discharge from some industries. 8 We know the better treatment -- we've 9 heard a lot about better treatment that a lot 10 of people in Florida have done this week and 11 it's been quite educational for us, as well as 12 best management practices that several 13 agricultural interests have been doing again. 14 It's been great to hear all that information. 15 And we know, and they have let us know, that 16 that can move nutrients and stop them from 17 flowing in the Florida waters. 18 I want to talk a little bit about water 19 quality standards. That's what our proposed 20 rule is about. There are two principal 21 components in water quality standards. 22 The first is the designated uses. This is 23 an expression of what we want out of our 24 waters. It's the management objective. 25 The second part of water quality standards 36 1 that's important and relevant to this proposed 2 rule is protective criteria. This is the 3 specific levels and amounts of pollutants that 4 can be present in the waters and still maintain 5 and protect those designated uses. 6 Now, Florida has gone through the process 7 of assigning designated uses. And the ones 8 that they apply to the vast majority of the 9 surface waters and lakes and flowing waters are 10 ones that are consistent with the goals of the 11 Clean Water Act. 12 Specifically they have Class I Waters that 13 are for potable water supply. Class III waters 14 that are specified for recreation and 15 propagation and maintenance of healthy, 16 well-balanced populations of fish and wildlife. 17 What these classifications, designated 18 uses share for Class I and Class III is 19 protection of recreation, human health and of 20 aquatic life. And these are the designated 21 uses that our proposed criteria are designed to 22 protect. 23 We have been recommending a numeric 24 nutrient criteria since 1998. More recently 25 after consultations with Florida's own 37 1 Department of Environmental Protection, EPA 2 made a determination and sent out a letter that 3 said the numeric nutrient criteria were in fact 4 necessary to meet the goals of the Clean Water 5 Act. That was done in January of 2009. 6 And then subsequent to that, EPA worked on 7 and proposed numeric nutrient criteria and 8 actually presented them to the public and held 9 several workshops over the summer of 2009. The 10 EPA attended these workshops, had numerous 11 meetings with FDEP and learned a great deal 12 from our interaction with those scientists. 13 We did enter into a legal agreement in 14 August 2009 with environment non-governmental 15 organizations to propose and promulgate numeric 16 nutrient criteria as far as the federal rules. 17 Two rules: One for lakes and flowing waters, 18 we talked about that. Proposed in January of 19 this year, final in October. The second rule 20 for estuaries and coastal criteria will be 21 coming in 2011. 22 We relied on Florida's extensive database 23 and many of the technical approaches and 24 analyses that were conducted by the Florida 25 Department of Environmental Protection. We 38 1 also did some analyses of our own to support 2 our proposal. The methods and approaches that 3 we have used have undergone independent 4 scientific peer review. 5 In terms of the database, there are 6 thousands of sites that have been sampled. 7 Tens of thousands of samples selected from 8 those sites and with all multiple observations, 9 there's hundred of thousands of records that 10 were available for our efforts. 11 Now, for lakes, we define lakes as an open 12 contiguous water body. We have classified 13 Florida Lakes in three groups based on natural 14 color expectations and natural alkalinity 15 expectations. 16 We were able to derive criteria based on 17 field correlations; Chlorophyll a levels with 18 levels of total nitrogen and total phosphorus. 19 Chlorophyll a is a light pigment that is part 20 of plant and animal cells and it's a good 21 indicator of the production level of that base 22 of the food chain, the primary production. 23 We also have in our proposal an 24 opportunity to adjust the total phosphorus and 25 total nitrogen criteria in lakes should there 39 1 be sufficient information that indicates that 2 the Chlorophyll a targets and Chlorophyll a 3 criteria are met. 4 Briefly, here's a table that summarizes 5 our numeric nutrient criteria proposal for 6 lakes. You can see that for colored lakes and 7 clear alkaline lakes in terms of the 8 Chlorophyll a levels, those are waters that 9 received -- that are expected to receive more 10 nutrients and have a greater level of primary 11 production in them; whereas, the contrast in 12 clear acidic lakes would have a much lower 13 expectation for the level of production of 14 plants and algae in them. 15 The middle column shows the baseline 16 criteria for those correlations that have total 17 phosphorous and total nitrogen levels to 18 protect the uses. And the columns on the far 19 right there are the levels that those total 20 phosphorus and total nitrogen criteria could be 21 adjusted to should there be sufficient data to 22 indicate that the Chlorophyll a levels are met. 23 We define rivers and streams as water that 24 flows in a defined channel. We classify 25 streams into regions based on the underlying 40 1 geology, other natural features and watershed 2 boundaries. We derive criteria for our rivers 3 and streams by looking at where there was 4 associated measured and documented levels of 5 healthy stream biology. We use the Florida 6 Department of Environmental Protection Stream 7 Condition Index as the indicator of healthy 8 biological streams and we were able to use that 9 and look at the associated total nitrogen and 10 total phosphorus levels to set protective 11 criteria. We also address the need to protect 12 downstream waters, and I'll talk about that in 13 a moment. 14 Here are the criteria of what we call the 15 Instream Protection Values. These are the 16 values to protect those streams and stream 17 resources. And you can see how we've divided 18 up the state into various areas. 19 There are a couple areas of the state; one 20 is called Bone Valley down here in the Tampa 21 Bay/Sarasota area. The other is the North 22 Central and the Suwanee drainage. 23 There are phosphorus rich soils in these 24 areas so there are different expectations 25 because of that different geology. You can see 41 1 that in the results for the phosphorus levels 2 that there -- they're much higher in those 3 regions than the corresponding nutrient levels 4 for the larger peninsula and larger Panhandle 5 areas. 6 There is a requirement under federal 7 regulations to ensure that water quality 8 standards provide for the attainment and 9 maintenance of water quality standards in 10 downstream waters. And one of the things that 11 we know is that waters flow. Rivers and 12 streams flow into lakes. Rivers and streams 13 flow downstream into coastal estuaries. And 14 with that flow, they carry the nutrient levels 15 with them and they can cause nutrient pollution 16 in those downstream waters as well. 17 So we had to -- well, we chose and elected 18 to in our proposal to ensure that we're 19 protecting those downstream uses through a 20 couple different procedures that we're 21 proposing. 22 For lakes we have an equation that comes 23 from published literature that relates lake 24 criteria -- criteria and concentration levels 25 of lakes to that of streams so we can adjust 42 1 the stream criteria to protect the downstream 2 lakes. 3 For estuaries we use the watershed model 4 called the SPARROW model that was developed and 5 published in peer review literature by the 6 United States Geological Survey. We worked 7 with the researchers who actually put that 8 model together in the application for the 9 southeastern states. 10 This model allows us to look at loadings 11 coming in from the watershed and to track their 12 stream support and in some cases losses from 13 the system as it moves down. They test the 14 stream criteria accordingly based on that. 15 SPARROW is calibrated using monitored data 16 from Florida and it can attribute and account 17 for all of the loadings from the system and how 18 that moves down to the coastal waters. 19 What we can do with protective loads that 20 we identified using that model is we can 21 identify the corresponding stream 22 concentrations, what we call Downstream 23 Protection Values that would be necessary and 24 would allow that loading into the mouth of the 25 estuary. That is protected from that. 43 1 These Downstream Protection Values do tend 2 to be lower than the corresponding stream 3 protection values. That's a feature of the 4 proposal that you can see. 5 We have choices on what to do with these 6 Downstream Protective Values. We can go 7 forward with the ones we proposed in January 8 and October of this year. We also described an 9 option of where we can go forward with 10 Downstream Protection Values associated with 11 the estuary range and coastal criteria that we 12 will be proposing in January of 2011. 13 Springs are waters that bubble up from the 14 surface. And what we found from the wealth of 15 the data that FDEP collected from field 16 observations and field studies and laboratory 17 studies is that its the nitrate-nitrite 18 component in total nitrogen that is related to 19 the presence of those nuisance algae like the 20 Lyngbya slide that I showed. And the criteria 21 that we have there, it's just shown on the 22 slide as 0.35 parts per million. 23 Canals. These are trenches, man-made 24 structures that are mostly designed for flood 25 control and for irrigation. It carries the 44 1 same designated uses, these Class III uses that 2 we see for rivers and streams. So what we were 3 able to do is look at data comparable to a 4 process that we use for rivers and streams. 5 But it doesn't apply to those canals that are 6 non impaired where we can infer that the 7 designated uses are being met and set 8 protective levels. 9 We've had proposed criteria for 10 Chlorophyll a, for total phosphorus and for 11 total nitrogen for the South Florida canals. 12 A couple of other provisions of our rule 13 I'd like to draw your attention to. One is an 14 allowance for the development of site specific 15 alternative criteria. This is separate and 16 apart from the state process that you may be 17 familiar with. This is an independent process 18 that would come in place with our rule. It 19 would allow Florida to submit to us alternative 20 criteria with supporting documentation that 21 those criteria will, in fact, protect the 22 designated use to the regional administrator 23 who could then put them in effect for Clean 24 Water Act purposes. 25 We also have a proposal for what we call 45 1 restoration standards. This basically would 2 allow communities to work with the State of 3 Florida to develop interim designated uses and 4 criteria that would reflect maximum feasible 5 progress toward obtaining these protective 6 criteria when you know that it may take some 7 time, you know, longer than immediately meeting 8 those numbers for the right kinds of production 9 and action to take place to eventually meet the 10 goal. 11 We did prepare an economic analysis. We 12 looked at potential costs for implementing this 13 rule. We did divide it up by what the cost 14 would be for Florida's proposed criteria and 15 then any implemental costs, what the difference 16 is and what we're proposing versus what FDEP 17 had proposed this past summer. 18 The distinction isn't that important. The 19 total cost, if you add those together, is 20 something along the lines of $140,000,000 per 21 year. That might be on an annual basis. Total 22 cost somewhere around 1.5 million dollars. We 23 attribute that to upgraded treatment for the 24 best available biological treatment for sewage 25 treatment plants and also for the imposition of 46 1 cost effective and reasonable BMPs on nonpoint 2 sources as well as replacement of some faulty 3 septic systems. 4 Again, we are accepting written comments. 5 We certainly encourage everybody here to do so 6 by March 29th. There's a variety of ways of 7 doing that. Hopefully, we've communicated that 8 process effectively. 9 I'm going to skip the Quick Review area. 10 You have that on the slides. What I really 11 want to do is to be sure that we give you time 12 for all of your comments, and it's now time to 13 get to that. We really want to hear from you 14 and spend as much time to do that this evening 15 to do that. Thank you. 16 MS. KEEHNER: Thanks, Jim. 17 I'd like to invite Speakers Number 1, 2 18 and 3 to come toward the podium, and if 19 Speakers 2 and 3 could take seats immediately 20 behind the podium, and Speaker 1 can start. 21 Please state your name and your 22 affiliation, please. 23 MR. CHILDS: My name is Ernie Childs. I 24 am with Archaea Solutions, Inc. I have with me 25 John Kolochesky (phonetic) who works with us 47 1 here in Florida. 2 At Archaea Solutions we work with 3 organisms in the archaea domain of biology. A 4 few years ago the organization of biology 5 changed because of archaea and we went from 6 five kingdoms that we all were taught actually 7 in elementary, high and college, to three 8 domains; Eukaryota, Prokaryotes and Archaea. 9 Archaea are generally considered the 10 oldest organisms on earth. The name is a 11 derivative of the term "archaic." The first 12 fossils are about three and a half billion 13 years old. They were here by themselves for 14 about a billion years. I think science more 15 and more is beginning to feel archaea 16 bio-remediated the earth originally and made it 17 more bio-friendly. 18 They're very stable. They don't mutate 19 very easily. Their enzymes are adequately 20 specific. They're used for DNA fingerprinting. 21 They actually represent about 35 percent of the 22 biomass on earth so they're not an 23 over-here-in-the-corner set of organisms. 24 And I think more and more we're realizing 25 they're key in the nitrogen and carbon cycles. 48 1 Recent publications suggest they're 3,000 fold 2 more ammonia-oxidized genes from archaea in 3 soil than from all of the organisms combined. 4 Nitrate-modifying genes are also there. 5 In nature more bacteria are associated 6 with archaea actually side-by-side than anyone 7 once thought. The difficulty is archaea divide 8 every 36 hours to 11 days, according to current 9 literature, and I'm certain that range will 10 expand as we go forward with more people 11 working on it. 12 But when you get into situations where 13 there's a higher waste load, the bacteria take 14 off and just leave the archaea behind. So in 15 its simplest form what we try to do is fill 16 that gap and get the amount of archaea to 17 bacteria back to how it is in nature. And it's 18 really kind of amazing what good things happen. 19 Archaea are safe. We check them according 20 to U.S. EPA protocols in an independent lab for 21 acute and chronic reproductive and 22 developmental toxicology. NIH has sponsored 23 about five years of research trying to find 24 pathogenic archaea without doing so. All 25 reason and all likelihood is they're just so 49 1 genetically far from pathogens who are evolving 2 towards their host, not towards ancient 3 bacteria. 4 We have been at this for ten years and we 5 have made a living helping people who have real 6 problems with nitrogen, with phosphorus, with 7 excess carbon, with excess sludge and who can't 8 afford always the steel and concrete that's 9 needed to take other solutions. So we tend to 10 work with those who don't quite have the money 11 but still need the solution. And we regard 12 those as the more vulnerable people in 13 situations like this. 14 We have good science that's peer reviewed. 15 John will be happy to share those things with 16 you. Ten years of experience in North America, 17 Europe and Africa, over 200 customers. And in 18 2006, we won the BP Helios award for the most 19 outstanding green project in the world, which 20 was elimination of sludge from terephtlalic 21 acid production which is highly toxic. 22 Basically what we do with archaea is 23 increase the health of microbes in wastewater 24 systems and then increase the rate and extent 25 of waste background -- or breakdown. 50 1 Archaea actually bind with individual 2 bacteria. As the bacteria accumulate waste 3 from breaking down large molecules, instead of 4 those waste poisoning the bacteria, they 5 transfer them into the archaea which takes it 6 on down to waters, CO2, or methane, nitrogen 7 gas, actually, if ammonia has been there. 8 When we begin working with archaea, often 9 the first noticeable effect is elimination of 10 off odors and then a cleaner effluent from a 11 lagoon or a wastewater treatment plant. That 12 lagoon can be municipal or industrial, or 13 actually, agricultural. 14 As far as nitrogen is concerned in 15 municipal plants and lagoons, you routinely get 16 ammonia to one part per million, and nitrate is 17 at that same place. 18 We've taken a lot of plants in the 19 northeast to under two parts per million, total 20 nitrogen. This occurs also in the winter. 21 In industry, probably our most spectacular 22 case for a munitions manufacturer, ammonia 23 nitrate, we released his -- release from two 24 tons a day of ammonia and nitrate to less than 25 20 pounds. For the last year, he's been at 51 1 about a pound. 2 Good job on CAFO farms. With phosphorus 3 in municipalities, in industry and on farms, we 4 usually do a 95- to 99-percent reduction. In 5 addition, in recent work with the City of 6 Phoenix, Carollo Engineering in Black Beach, 7 for some reason, the archaea drive or reduction 8 coliforms and fecal coliforms of two long 9 cycles, and that's very well substantiated. 10 We would appreciate the opportunity where 11 appropriate to prove our value both 12 scientifically and economically. We know that 13 being innovated is one thing, but if you can 14 save your customer money, you have a chance to 15 be accepted. 16 We're willing to work our way through any 17 system. We are a science company first and 18 foremost and look forward to an opportunity to 19 be of help. I thank you very much. 20 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Childs. 21 Speaker Number 2. 22 MR. GUEST: David Guest with Earthjustice. 23 I thank you for the chance to speak, and I'll 24 be brief as I can. 25 Just some points of fact. Lake Manatee is 52 1 not in the wonderful shape that some folks have 2 said that it's in. It gets fed by -- to a 3 substantial extent, it's irrigation return flow 4 from heavily irrigated rogue currents. That 5 was a big algae bloom on it that keeps coming 6 back. So that story wasn't true. 7 Tampa Bay's proposal to say, well, this 8 whole thing is totally fixed. The TMDLs are 9 just made in the shade. You know, just leave 10 it. I don't think they also told you that 11 there was a big algae bloom last year in the 12 summer that lasted three months in Tampa Bay. 13 So it obviously doesn't work and it needs some 14 more work. 15 A word about Lexicon that just grates on 16 my nerves here. Y'all talk about toxic algae 17 blooms. Blooms are things that you give to 18 your sweetheart on Valentine's Day. These 19 aren't blooms. These are outbreaks like the 20 Ebola virus or something. We should call them 21 outbreaks and not blooms. And these aren't 22 really nutrients either. The nutrients elicits 23 an image of boxes of Special K. That's not 24 what this is. This stuff is poison in the 25 water and if you drink too much of it, it will 53 1 kill you. It's sewage, it's fertilizer and 2 it's manure. We should be calling it that. 3 The TMBL process that you-all have heard 4 so much about, we think it's fundamentally 5 flawed in Florida. And the reason for it is 6 that it's a stakeholder process, in that what 7 happens is that the people who have an economic 8 interest in it being higher, which is less 9 protective, end up having a big say with what 10 the number is, which is a little bit like 11 having the Hell's Angels gang decide what the 12 County sound ordinance is going to be. 13 It's just not going to be right. Of 14 course, it's not going to be right because it's 15 the wrong people doing it. It's illustrated by 16 the TMDL in St. Johns. The scientists said it 17 should be one thing and then the stakeholders 18 got together and decided that the load ought to 19 be a whole lot higher. That's not science. 20 The TMDL's are supposed to be science; not 21 politics. And that's what we're here for. 22 The costs -- the costs that we get thrown 23 around here are enough to buy -- a hundred 24 billion dollars, that's enough to buy a 25 gold-plated toilet for every house and mobile 54 1 home in this whole state. It's ludicrous and 2 we ought not to take it seriously. 3 AWT, advanced wastewater treatment -- I'm 4 sorry to use the acronyms. In fact, the way 5 advanced wastewater treatment uses and works in 6 Florida - and the utilities, I'm sure, would 7 agree with this - they actually are being -- 8 they tend to meet 1.8 or 1.9, you know, 9 milligrams per liter total nitrogen in their 10 output which is pretty close to your standard 11 already. So I think all this screaming about 12 all these changes and the quadrillions of 13 dollars, that's just really not true. The 14 phosphorous fix is pretty cheap, and you-all 15 know that, I think. 16 The DEP issue that people constantly raise 17 with you-all, I think that should be reiterated 18 that your role is very, very similar, almost 19 the same in -- virtually the same, as what the 20 DEP was proposing. So all this we want DEP to 21 do it, I don't really understand it. It 22 doesn't make any sense. And even you-all's 23 methodology is almost exactly the same. 24 And we looked at their comments and 25 without going into a lot of detail, some of 55 1 those are well taken and we agree with them. 2 Some of them are just dribble and you ought to 3 just ignore them. And we'll write some 4 comments about that, too. 5 But we would like you to work harder, if 6 you can, on playing a more collaborative role 7 with EPA because you can tell that from the 8 screeching that their feelings were hurt and it 9 probably would better to work closely with 10 them. 11 Finally, I would like to say that the 12 agricultural contribution is a significant and 13 important one. But farmers are really in a 14 different -- in a different position than most 15 other folks because what happens when you 16 require the sewage people to reduce their 17 nutrients level, they got to pay some money to 18 do that. And when you -- when you require the 19 Ms4's to do it other than, of course, the smart 20 fertilizer ordinances, they've got to do some 21 treatment to do that. 22 But for farmers, fertilizer is an expense 23 and it's a big one. The price of fertilizer 24 has just gone through the roof. And if you 25 want innovation in great ways to figure out how 56 1 to do water pollution, to improve it, the 2 farmers are folks that you can turn to and 3 listen to and collaborate with. It really 4 makes in big improvements. They're great 5 people and wonderful stewards of the land and 6 we hope that they can be brought in as 7 collaborators in this process. 8 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Guest. 9 Speaker Number 3. 10 MS. COE: My name is Alisa Coe and I'm 11 with Earthjustice. I spoke to you earlier as 12 an attorney, but if I may, I'd like to speak 13 for a moment as a Floridian. 14 I grew up here in Florida and when I was 15 14 my family moved from Tampa to Tallahassee. 16 One of the first things that our neighbors told 17 us to go do was to check out Wakulla Springs. 18 Well, we quickly fell in love with it. On a 19 hot day, we would drive down to the springs for 20 a chance to go swimming in the cool water and 21 to dive off the diving platform. 22 When friends and family would come to 23 town, we would take them out for lunch at the 24 lodge and we'd show them Old Joe, the 11-foot 25 gator, stuffed gator, who had a plaque that 57 1 proclaims that he was murdered by an assailant 2 unknown despite never having harmed man or pet. 3 And we would take them out on a river boat 4 and we would show them the osprey and we'd show 5 them cypress trees. And then we'd take them 6 out so they could see where Tarzan was filmed 7 and Creature from the Black Lagoon. 8 Then we'd go out on the glass bottom boat 9 and they could see all the way down to the 10 bottom where the mastodons bones were and where 11 they actually excavated a mastodon skeleton 12 that's on display at the Florida Museum of 13 History. 14 They would fall in love with the place. 15 And for many of them, it was their only 16 experience with wild Florida; most of them only 17 knowing the resorts and the theme parks. 18 Well, I went off to school, and when I 19 came back to Florida about five years ago, I 20 went out to the springs. I couldn't believe 21 what I saw. The water was cloudy and colored. 22 You couldn't see down to the bottom. You could 23 only see maybe a foot down. The glass-bottom 24 boats weren't running. The nutrient-laden 25 water had allowed Hydrilla to take over. And 58 1 despite the feverish efforts of park staff, it 2 was still all over the place. 3 Then I read reports about algal mats in 4 the spring, how they were surrounding the 5 spring head and swimmers were reporting rashes 6 from swimming there. 7 The pollution turned out to be coming from 8 the City of Tallahassee and mostly from the 9 city's spray field at its utility. And after 10 some litigation and a settlement, measures are 11 now being undertaken to start to reduce the 12 nutrient load going into the spring. And, God 13 willing, it may be a decade from now, we'll see 14 clear waters and the glass-bottom boats running 15 again at the spring. 16 But it shouldn't take the mere destruction 17 of our springs before we undertake protective 18 measures. Every kid in Tallahassee grows up 19 going to the spring. It's the largest 20 attraction in the area. It is as much a part 21 of Florida's heritage as the Capitol building. 22 That's why it's so important that we protect 23 these resources now. And I urge you to move 24 swiftly ahead in helping to provide Florida's 25 waters the critical protection that they've 59 1 been lacking for too long. 2 Thank you. 3 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Coe. 4 Next speaker, Speaker Number 4. 5 MS. COSTELLO: Hello. Chris Costello from 6 the Sierra Club. I spoke to you earlier today 7 and I have just another brief comment about the 8 same subjects that -- some of the same subjects 9 that I dealt with earlier. 10 I wanted to comment regarding the last 11 speaker of the afternoon, what he said about 12 $20,000 the cost to clean up one pound of 13 nitrogen in the -- in Maitland Lake. 14 That's a really high figure, $20,000 to 15 clean up one pound. I am actually going to 16 request documentation of those figures from the 17 City of Maitland, and I'm going to submit them 18 with my written comments when I send those in. 19 Our research, the Sierra Club's research, 20 comes up with a little different number. Our 21 research shows that it costs about 22 five pounds -- or five dollars a pound of 23 nitrogen when you go into Home Depot or Lowes 24 or your corner hardware store, and it cost 25 close to $250 a pound to clean up that pound of 60 1 nitrogen. 2 Either clean-up cost figure is a very 3 strong argument for the prevention of nutrient 4 pollution as opposed to cleaning it up after 5 it's there. 6 As I related this afternoon, there has 7 been a successful movement along the Gulf Coast 8 of this state to bring very strict residential 9 fertilizer management ordinances to the 10 communities that have experienced -- there's a 11 myriad of them. 12 We've experienced red tide, hypoxic zones, 13 red drift algae has wrought its damage. 14 Microcystis in our inland waters; Pyrodinium; 15 the bahamense which plagued Tampa Bay this 16 summer; Takayama tuberculata that was off the 17 coast of Marco Island, Collier County. And 18 other harmful and nuisance algae blooms. 19 They have done a lot of damage to the Gulf 20 Coast, not only to our tourist economy which is 21 what we're based on. People come to the Gulf 22 Coast for the beaches, for the water. 23 But also to human health. Emergency room 24 visits increased by 50 percent for respiratory 25 ailments when we have like red tide outbreaks. 61 1 The average age in the City of Venice in 2 Sarasota County is 69. So we not only have the 3 increased number of asthmatics that exist in 4 the world today, but we have an elderly 5 population that is especially stricken by the 6 toxin, the brevetoxin that is given off by 7 Karenia brevis. 8 And then there's the quality of life. 9 People that live here or visit want to go to 10 the beach, and when you can't go to the beach, 11 your vacation plans or your weekly plans are 12 messed up, to say the least. 13 The Sierra Club and its allies understand 14 that less fertilizer on the ground means less 15 fertilizer in our waterways. We get a lot of 16 the rain in the summer, it washes into our 17 waterways. It's kind of a no-brainer; put less 18 down; less is going to get off of your lawn. 19 We've had really strong allies in this 20 campaign. The campaign to bring strong 21 ordinances, for example, in the Tampa Bay area, 22 we've just succeeded in getting a -- the 23 strongest in the state in Pinellas County. But 24 this campaign over the last six to eight months 25 has brought in 100 coalition partners. That's 62 1 organizations, churches, businesses, coastal 2 businesses. In fact, our coalition campaign 3 has even been supported by the Chambers of 4 Commerce on the beaches. They understand the 5 importance of nutrient pollution prevention as 6 a way to promote their economy. 7 The Gulf Coast understands this issue 8 because we've lived through the harmful bloom 9 nightmare. And perhaps some of the people 10 in -- the speakers in the audience today 11 haven't lived through what we have lived 12 through in the Gulf Coast, but I can assure you 13 that Gulf Coast Floridians, the ones that come 14 to Florida for the water, they live here, they 15 stay here for the water, their family comes to 16 visit them for the water, we understand this 17 issue and we are thankful that you're here and 18 helping us out. Thank you very much. 19 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Costello. 20 Speaker Number 5. 21 MS. BERNANDY: Hi. My name is Meaghann 22 Bernandy. I'm here with Physicians for Social 23 Responsibility. Physicians for Social 24 Responsibility is a nonprofit advocacy 25 organization. It is a medical and public 63 1 health voice for policies to prevent the toxic 2 degradation of the environment. 3 As a native Floridian and a lifelong Girl 4 Scout, I could go on about how beautiful and 5 precious our Florida waterways are. As a 6 scientist, I could explain how nitrogen and 7 phosphorus create an algal bloom and bacteria 8 and, like all bacteria, follow a growth curve 9 of proliferation plateau and inevitable death 10 and stagnation leaving behind a dead zone 11 devoid of oxygen and ensuring death to all 12 oxygen-requiring species. 13 But in my current capacity as a healthcare 14 provider, I'm concerned about the effects of 15 nitrogen pollution on our health. We know that 16 runoff contains endocrine disruptors that have 17 consequences on how our bodies function. With 18 the ever-rising cost of healthcare, will the 19 proposed price increases compensate for an 20 increase in future healthcare costs? Out of 21 concern for the citizens of Florida and their 22 well-being and health, we as healthcare 23 providers support nutrient standards. 24 Thank you. 25 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 64 1 Speaker Number 6. 2 MR. MAULDIN: Good evening. Thank you for 3 the opportunity to speak. My name is Mike 4 Mauldin. I am a resident of Florida. And, 5 fortunately, I was born here and lived here all 6 my life as did many generations of my family 7 before me. 8 I'm here representing the Pulp & 9 Paperworkers Resource Council. We're a 10 grassroots coalition of hourly employees that 11 educate our elective officials on issues and 12 regulations that directly affect our jobs. And 13 the reason I'm here is jobs. 14 In the State of Florida, there are seven 15 pulp and paper operations that utilize the 16 timber and resources from the State of Florida 17 along with numerous mills in Southern Georgia 18 that buy our timber. 19 The pulp and paper industry in this state 20 has spent over 400 million dollars in the last 21 ten years in environmental improvements to 22 their facilities. My mill, GP mill in Palatka, 23 has spent over 200 million dollars alone in the 24 last ten years on environmental improvements. 25 We've reduced our phosphorous contributions by 65 1 nearly 80 percent and we slashed our nitrogen 2 contributions to the St. Johns River by more 3 than 50 percent. 4 Our industry is proactively engaged in 5 achieving true environmental benefits through 6 Florida's TMDL program, and now we're going to 7 be penalized by the Federal Government for it 8 and it could likely cause many of us our jobs. 9 I's put our industry's environmental 10 records and investments over the last decade up 11 against anybody in the state or the country. 12 However, we're struggling to compete more and 13 more each year with China, Southeast Asia and 14 South America, and our economy cannot take 15 losing any more jobs which we feel is the end 16 result of this new regulation that you're 17 putting on the nutrient levels. 18 In my town in Palatka, 25 percent out of 19 every payroll dollar in our county comes from 20 our mill. If you eliminate that from our local 21 economy, it would crush what little is left. 22 Our unemployment rate in Putnam County is 23 already at 13 percent. And if our facility 24 gets any more uncompetitive than what it is by 25 mandating more environmental regulations that 66 1 to us benefit no person or animal, we feel 2 that's just flat out wrong. 3 Florida has been a natural leader in 4 protecting the environment, and our industry 5 has been green before most people even knew 6 what green was. We generate approximately 80 7 percent of our own electricity from biofuels 8 and the byproducts of our paper-making process. 9 Legislation, like what the EPA is 10 proposing, would make it impossible for our 11 mill to compete any longer in a state that has 12 demonstrated its genuine concern for the 13 environment. 14 The pulp and paper industry in the United 15 States has lost over 300,000 jobs in the last 16 three years, and we feel this is going to be 17 leading us down the road to more job losses in 18 this state alone. 19 We feel the EPA's regional criteria ignore 20 the variability in Florida's surface waters. 21 Numeric nutrient criteria must be site 22 specific, otherwise healthy water bodies will 23 be deemed impaired and resources with be 24 wasted attempting to make those water bodies 25 meet nutrient concentrations that they would 67 1 not naturally meet. 2 Thank you again. 3 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Mauldin. 4 Speaker Number 7. 5 MR. BEAGLES: Good afternoon. Glad you're 6 down here. Washington's kind of cold, isn't 7 it? 8 MS. KEEHNER: It can be. 9 MR. BEAGLES: My name is Bobby Beagles. 10 I'm a cattle farmer. I'm new to the business. 11 We've been in business 54 years. 12 But I'm going to tell you a little story 13 about the first 11 1/2 years of my life. I 14 lived about two miles right down the road here. 15 None of this was here. I hunted, I fished, and 16 I walked these woods with my grandfather for 17 years and years. But, as you know and I know, 18 things change, not always to the good, not 19 always for the bad. 20 But being in the cattle business, we have 21 changed, too. Twenty-five percent of this 22 county is in agricultural. Twenty-five percent 23 of this county belongs to other municipalities 24 that pays zero taxes. 25 We in the cattle business have suffered 68 1 terrible in the last five years. I have seen 2 diesel fuel, off-road diesel fuel go over three 3 dollars a gallon. We had to change our 4 operations on things that we do on our ranch. 5 We also had to change from using regular 6 fertilizer and go to liquid fertilizer because 7 we could not afford regular fertilizer. 8 When ten ton of fertilizer cost $4,000 9 including to truck it to your ranch, we went to 10 liquid because it was cheaper. 11 But there are several things that we do. 12 We went to a steel shank drag to drag our 13 pastures to break up the cow manure. And we 14 started fertilizing our pastures, which liquid 15 fertilizer is good for about 30 days. It seeps 16 into the ground and it dissipates a whole lot 17 better than granular. I'm not suggesting that 18 everybody go to liquid fertilizer because then 19 I won't be able to afford liquid fertilizer. 20 But we do our part. I have two 21 tributaries that go across my ranch. The last 22 thing I want to have to do is fence those 23 tributaries off where my cows cannot water. I 24 do not want to have to run a water line a mile 25 deep toward cattle because they can't get to 69 1 the tributaries. 2 I would urge you very carefully to leave 3 agriculture out of what you're doing. We're 4 not the problem. We've never been the problem. 5 If you'll go back and check and when 6 you're in Washington and you look at Mount 7 Vernon, go over to George Washington's home and 8 go down to the basement and look at the plans 9 that he formed in rotating crops in the early 10 1900s and that will tell you there; agriculture 11 has been in business a long time, and we do 12 what we can do to protect because we make our 13 living off of agricultural. 14 Again, I thank you for being here. Orange 15 County has not always been this way. I can 16 tell you the way it was in the '50s. That's 17 before Mickey Mouse, before Wet-N-Wild and 18 before Martin Marieta. Thank you. 19 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 20 Speaker Number 8. 21 MS. MARKLE: I'm Kathrein Markle, and I'm 22 speaking I guess as a business person on my own 23 behalf. I'm also a farmer. We have a 24 wholesale foliage nursery in Apopka. And I'm 25 worried about another burden on my industry. 70 1 Our business was founded in 1965 and now 2 we're training our third generation. We have 3 15 employees, and the average length of 4 employment is 14 years; our longest employee 5 having been with us for 31. 6 We have three consumptive use permits, one 7 for each of our locations which limits how much 8 water we're allowed to use. We are licensed as 9 a limited use water system by the State whereby 10 the Florida EPD as the Orange County Health 11 Department requires quarterly testing for 12 Chloroform bacteria in our wells. 13 We're also required to test regularly for 14 lead nitrates and nitrites. We pay for the 15 permits. We pay for the licenses. We pay for 16 the tests, and we pass them all. 17 Our rainwater is retained on the property 18 as required. The downspouts from our 19 greenhouses direct a large portion of the 20 rainwater onto the dirt floors in the 21 greenhouses and there's minimal flow into the 22 yard areas. There is no runoffs into sewers, 23 waterways or streams. Within minutes, the 24 rainwater perks into the sandy ground which 25 does act as a natural filter. 71 1 We operate our nursery using best 2 management practices that have been developed 3 by Florida's land-grant universities, the 4 University of Florida in Gainesville, and this 5 was done in collaboration with the growers and 6 with the final approval of Florida's Commission 7 of Agriculture. These practices, the best 8 management practices, are based on sound 9 science and research. 10 Most of our production is on 11 micro-irrigation with a constant feed 12 fertilizer injected into the water. We grow 13 small indoor house plants up on benches. This 14 conserves water and fertilizer. The plants are 15 then put on a diet of straight water for two 16 weeks before they're shipped to retail. 17 Because of the lower light levels indoors, they 18 will require the less nutrition once they're in 19 retail. 20 The drip irrigation also assures us that 21 every plant is watered evenly and gets an equal 22 amount of nutrients and that most of the crop 23 will be saleable at the same time. 24 The original decision to do this was in 25 the early 1970s. We handmade our little 72 1 emitters. The motive was purely profit. It 2 was to decrease the cost. More plants were 3 saleable and fertilizer use was down. And it 4 turned out that what is good for business is 5 also good for the environment. 6 The fertilizer cost that Bobbie mentioned, 7 in the last 15 years ours has gone from 7.81 8 for 25 pounds up to 23.51. That's three times 9 as much, making it even more important not to 10 waste even a bit. 11 We buy peat moss and then we add the 12 nutrients including the phosphates, nitrogen 13 and potassium as well as the micro-nutrients 14 specifically for what that crop requires. 15 Intermittently during the crop, I mean 16 with the different plants, we have the leaf 17 tissue analyzed for nutrient levels of both the 18 good plants and the ones that don't look so 19 good so that we know how to adjust the 20 nutrients specifically for that species. And 21 we don't put a little bit of the stuff from the 22 blue bag on the crop or a skosh of the powder 23 from the red one. This is an exact process and 24 there is no one size fits all. 25 A plant that takes three months, 12 months 73 1 or longer from cutting to finish with all the 2 challenges of bright and dark days where light 3 levels are adjusted by computers, automated 4 moving curtains set to brighten the 5 temperatures, warm and cold temperatures that 6 require ventilation, heating and cooling by way 7 of computerized weather stations, and 8 temperature monitors spaced throughout the 9 greenhouses. 10 The challenges of various fungal, 11 bacterial, viral diseases and insect pests must 12 be treated with proper and appropriate plant 13 medicines, pesticides -- medicines. 14 Plants must be fed in water according to 15 their individual daily needs and on a specific 16 schedule. They must be tended to every day and 17 will eventually sell for the same price that we 18 got for them about 20 years ago. 19 For each African violet that you're 20 familiar with, nine months from start to 21 finish, $1.40 wholesale. And our costs are 22 going up. My cardboard costs went up 12 23 percent the day before yesterday. 24 There is no room for error or additional 25 expense. By applying scientific research, we 74 1 are able to be more efficient, but there is a 2 limit to just how efficient we can be. To 3 conserve money at our nursery, we're doing 4 repairs. I mean, right now with this economy, 5 we're not even doing maintenance. Employees 6 hours are being cut back. Health insurance is 7 being scaled back to a less generous plan. And 8 so far, we've been able to leave 9 vacation/holiday time alone. 10 Agriculture is one of the three legs of 11 Florida's economic stool; tourism and 12 construction being the other two. Agriculture 13 was once the primary industry and the backbone 14 of Florida's economy. After 9-11 and then now 15 again, agriculture is coming to the fore as the 16 quiet, unglamorous, stead, dependable, 17 stabilizing economic force in Florida's 18 economy. 19 In Orange County an economic impact survey 20 jointly funded by the Orange County Farm Bureau 21 and Orange County government revealed that for 22 every dollar collected in property taxes from 23 agriculture, agriculture used 22 cents in 24 services. Commercial properties used 45 25 percent in services. Industrial uses used 56 75 1 cents in services of every tax dollar collected 2 from them. Residential properties required 3 $1.34 for every dollar that was collected from 4 the taxes. The same study done in other 5 Florida counties has shown similar results. 6 Agriculture and these other businesses are 7 vying for an economic factor in the community 8 since they support the residential services. 9 Agriculture, my family and other families 10 in general are all in this for the long haul. 11 We live and work in Florida. We're not going 12 to go home to be buried after 30 or 40 years of 13 being in the state. We have an investment in 14 our land and our future. We are not going to 15 ruin it with short-sighted practices. We have 16 a responsibility to our community and to our 17 employees. Many of us could earn higher 18 incomes in other fields but we don't because we 19 love agriculture and we love the nursery 20 business. And we're doing it under the burden 21 of more and more fees, more licenses, permits, 22 registration and taxes. 23 So please, you know, keep ag in mind. I 24 think we're part of the solution; not the 25 problem. 76 1 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Markle. 2 Speaker Number 9. 3 MS. SANTELLA: Good afternoon. My name is 4 Erice Santella. I serve as TruGreen's tech and 5 regional manager to 16 Florida branches. In 6 this capacity, I'm responsible for directing 7 our agricultural, economic and horticultural 8 programs. I've been a resident of Lake County, 9 a little bit north of here, and a homeowner for 10 the last 25 years. 11 As the name sounds, there's a lot of lakes 12 in Lake County to get that name. I also live 13 on the Wekiva River Basin. 14 As the chair of the Florida Pest 15 Management Association Green Industry Task 16 Force, I have spent the last 27 years here in 17 Florida working in the field of turf and 18 ornamental plant healthcare. I have a Masters 19 and Bachelors degree in agronomy, and I like 20 growing plants. 21 I'm pleased to have the opportunity to 22 share our point of view from the lawn care 23 industry and ornamental care industry when it 24 comes to setting nutrient criteria for Florida 25 waters. 77 1 TruGreen really is on the front line of 2 environmental stewardship every day and we've 3 been an active leader in developing the 4 training processes to strengthen the health of 5 Florida plants while protecting our state's 6 water quality. 7 Myself, I actually chaired -- was the 8 industry chair of the state's Green Industry 9 Best Management Practices for the green's 10 industry professionals. I almost feel like 11 this is a really well kept -- unintentioned 12 well kept secret, it would appear that not many 13 people know that there are urban best 14 management practices for professionals. And 15 this is the only BMP program that has a 16 certification program for frontline employees. 17 And this -- certification will be required for 18 anyone that applies fertilizer for hire, many 19 counties have already required, by 2014, anyone 20 that applies for fertilizer for hire must have 21 this certification. 22 And the green industry -- to ensure its 23 workers are fully trained in these green 24 industry best management practices, I 25 personally spend a great deal of time training 78 1 both people in my company and in our industry. 2 In fact, earlier today I was in Jacksonville 3 doing one of these BMP sessions. Usually when 4 I see 9:00 and I'm in public, it's a.m. not 5 p.m., so sorry if I'm sounding a little jumbled 6 at some point. And since the beginning of 2010 7 I've personally conducted seven of these 8 sessions throughout the State of Florida, and 9 next week I'll be in the City of Plant City in 10 Hillsborough County working with their 11 landscaping division. 12 Our industry takes this certification 13 process very, very seriously. By the end of 14 this quarter, 100-percent of the frontline 15 applicators in our company will be certified in 16 the Best Management Practices and we will have 17 certified trainers throughout Florida. 18 While the industry does support the idea 19 of taking aggressive action, as many of our 20 speakers have said, this is a controllable 21 expense for businesses. 22 Phosphorous really is not an issue in our 23 industry. We've pretty much removed it. It's 24 a controllable expense, and why have it in 25 there if you don't need it. Our Best 79 1 Management Practices state that unless a salt 2 test indicate a need, don't apply phosphorous. 3 However, over the last several years, 4 we've seen many local governments placing 5 highly restrictive fertilizer ordinances -- I 6 hesitate to call it water quality ordinances 7 because they don't address everything in the 8 Best Management Practices. As other speakers 9 has talked, it's not just about fertilizer. 10 And somehow some local governments seem to 11 have the mistaken notion that banning 12 fertilizer, restricting it during the growing 13 season is a way to protect water quality. The 14 science does not support that; the science from 15 our land-grant universities, the science from 16 everywhere from Florida throughout the United 17 States. 18 The situation really got so bad with local 19 governments passing non science-based 20 ordinances that the state legislation stepped 21 in. Last year it passed a legislation 22 outlining a science-based model ordinance that 23 localities with impaired bodies are required to 24 pass. 25 Even with this guidance, local governments 80 1 are coming up with ordinances that are based on 2 restricting fertilizer use and really not 3 delving into the entire Best Management 4 Practices. 5 This really can be a lost-lost 6 proposition, not only since many of these 7 ordinances -- well, actually all of them have 8 had not a single enforcement activity. So 9 really you're going by people's integrity to 10 follow these, you're at a competitive 11 disadvantage. But there are some thoughts in 12 the university community that these can have 13 unintended consequences and actually lessen 14 water quality. 15 So I'm asking that the EPA really look 16 hard at what DEP, what the State's been doing, 17 the land-grant universities and I thank you for 18 your for time. 19 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Santella. 20 Speaker Number 10. 21 MR. MURPHY: Good evening. My name is Joe 22 Murphy. I'm here tonight with the Gulf 23 Restoration Network. I'm here tonight on 24 behalf of the thousands of members of the Gulf 25 Restoration Network who live between Florida 81 1 and Texas who are very concerned about water 2 quality and are very concerned about the future 3 of the Gulf of Mexico and the water lines 4 across the Gulf. 5 As you know, the Gulf Restoration Network 6 has been working for over 15 years to protect 7 water in the Gulf of Mexico and to improve 8 water quality. 9 I'm going to be perfectly honest, we don't 10 always agree with the EPA. And when we don't 11 agree with the EPA, we express that position 12 vocally and vociferously and sometimes legally. 13 But in this instance, we are very glad the 14 EPA is here tonight. We're very glad the EPA 15 is here in Florida. We're very glad that EPA 16 is stepping in to take a critical first step in 17 truly and fundamentally addressing nutrient 18 pollution here in Florida. 19 These first steps are critical and they're 20 the first steps that we need to undertake to 21 protect Florida's lakes, rivers, springs and 22 estuaries. Our members, the members of the 23 Gulf Restoration Network are fishermen, they're 24 paddlers, they're crabbers, they're birders, 25 they're sailors, they're divers, they're 82 1 coastal business owners, they're people who 2 directly depend on water quality for their 3 health and their livelihood. 4 And, again, as you've heard mentioned both 5 sides of this, there's a legitimate economic 6 argument on both sides. But I think it's very 7 compelling to remember, as we stated earlier, 8 that Florida's economy fundamentally will 9 prosper when we protect and clean up our 10 waterways. 11 And the amount of people employed, just in 12 tourism in Florida is almost a million people, 13 a 65 billion dollar year industry in Florida 14 that's directly dependent on clean beaches, 15 clean rivers and healthy fisheries. 16 I just have a few points that I wanted to 17 add tonight to what's already been said. 18 First, perhaps I'm a bit naive in this, but I'm 19 an optimist. I think that we can find 20 solutions that both protect the economic 21 engines that drive Florida and clean up our 22 water bodies. I refuse to believe that 23 Floridians have to choose between, you know, 24 certain industries and a healthy future for our 25 environment and our economy. We can do better 83 1 than that. We have the capacity and the 2 ability to be better than that. 3 Future generations of Floridians shouldn't 4 have to bear the brunt of our mistakes because 5 we failed to make fundamentally clear and 6 important choices based in sound science and 7 based on good public policy. 8 There is overwhelming scientific and 9 analytic evidence based on the comments tonight 10 and over the last couple of days, both from 11 scientists and citizens that Florida is in a 12 water quality crisis. 13 Your presentation earlier tonight was a 14 great example of what Florida is facing in 15 terms of nutrient pollution. The time to act 16 is now. The solutions are in hand here in 17 front of us. 18 The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972. 19 The majority of my life -- I was one year old 20 when the Clean Water Act was passed. The 21 majority of my life the United States has had a 22 Clean Water Act. Think about the fundamental 23 power of that, that in 1972 the people of the 24 United States came together throughout congress 25 and through the President of the United States 84 1 and said it's so important for this country to 2 have clean, safe water that we're going to pass 3 a historical law that sets bold, ambitious 4 goals of making our waterways fishable, 5 swimable, drinkable, et cetera. 6 Here we are -- all my life, this act has 7 been in place. All my life there's been a 8 Clean Water Act on the books that's -- you 9 know, is the guiding principle, so to speak, 10 for clean water in Florida, and yet here we are 11 wrestling, you know, many, many years later 12 with the same fundamental issue yet again. 13 It's time for the Clean Water Act to 14 really matter in Florida. It's time for us to 15 get it right. This is the time to act. We 16 can't afford not to do this. And, again, we 17 can't doom future generations to a more limited 18 set of choices or more limited opportunities 19 because we failed to have the political courage 20 and the will at this moment in time to take 21 some strong steps and make some strong 22 decisions. 23 I just want to mention one other quick 24 thing in the time that I have left. I always 25 enjoys speaking at the same forum as Erica and 85 1 we have very different opinions on the 2 fertilizer ordinances, but I will say that a 3 number of governments in Florida now, local 4 governments, have passed strong local 5 fertilizer ordinances. And they did that 6 because they were tired of waiting for the 7 State of Florida or other agencies to step in 8 and do the right thing. 9 So in response at the local level to save 10 taxpayers money to protect their local 11 economies, business leaders and political 12 officials got together and made sure that these 13 ordinances were passed. So communities ranging 14 from Pinellas County in St. Pete all the way 15 down the coast to Lee County have passed these 16 ordinances, and we think that's a great 17 reflection of the political will at the local 18 level to make sure clean water is a priority. 19 I'll just conclude with this quick 20 thought, and I had mentioned this before. I 21 want my grandchildren to know the Florida my 22 grandparents knew. And part of that is being 23 able to fish and swim and paddle Florida's 24 waters and be safe and make sure that our 25 economy and our future is grounded in clean, 86 1 healthy water, and that's our legacy for future 2 generations. 3 Thank you very much. 4 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. 5 Speaker Number 11. 6 MR. MATTIACCI: Good evening. I'm Tom 7 Mattiacci, City of Lakeland Water Utilities 8 Department. 9 The effect that this regulation is going 10 to have on municipalities is for the 11 municipalities that do not currently have AWT 12 treatment works on their POTWs. They will need 13 to install them, and utility rates for 14 wastewater will double or triple for those 15 municipalities. 16 As for the stormwater BMPs, I do not think 17 that the stormwater BMPs will be reasonable, 18 and I think that the people utility taxes -- or 19 excuse me, stormwater taxes will be going up an 20 order of magnitude, if not more, to be able to 21 pay for the debt service and LMN to enact the 22 stormwater BMPs. 23 Several decades ago the Federal Government 24 would be able to easily enact this type of 25 regulation without challenge, but during the 87 1 1990s, there had been some court cases that 2 kind of limited the Federal Government's 3 ability to burden the states. 4 I think to survive the legal challenges 5 that are already coming in on this issue, the 6 EPA is going to have to, more or less, have a 7 compelling federal interest, narrowly tailored 8 with least restrictive means in response to 9 Florida not taking reasonable means to self 10 regulate itself. 11 I don't think Florida is doing that. I 12 think they're waiting both sides of the issues, 13 the cost versus regulation and how to do that. 14 But Florida has already been a leader in 15 environmental stewardship. Florida enacted 16 Grisso fate (phonetic) almost a generation ago. 17 Florida has led the United States in 18 environmental regulation. They collected a lot 19 of data. And, unfortunately, right now the 20 U.S. EPA is using this information that Florida 21 collected to Florida's detriment against our 22 federalist principles. 23 No matter how much is tried, we are not 24 going to go back to pre-Columbian levels with 25 18 million people living in the State of 88 1 Florida. The Federal Government should require 2 Florida to self regulate. And if Florida does 3 not self regulate, impose sanctions using the 4 spending clause of the Constitution and not 5 give Florida any money, or be prepared to 6 impose the same draconian principles or 7 draconian limits throughout the United States 8 that you're getting ready to enact in Florida. 9 Thank you. 10 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Mattiacci. 11 Speaker Number 12. 12 MS. HURLEY: Good evening. My name is 13 Mary Hurley, and I am president of NAIOP 14 Central Florida. NAIOP is a commercial real 15 estate development association. And this 16 association and its members have significant 17 concerns regarding the proposed regulations. 18 While we recognize the importance of 19 ensuring that water bodies throughout the state 20 are protected and kept free from pollution, we 21 think it's equally important to ensure that the 22 regulations reflect a truly scientific 23 relationship between nutrient standards and the 24 health of Florida surface waters. 25 It appears that the only reason these 89 1 regulations are being fast-tracked is to settle 2 a lawsuit. This is an improper basis for 3 implementing scientific rules. 4 Our organization is still under the 5 process of evaluating the proposed regulations 6 and we will likely add additional prior input 7 prior to the close of comment period. However, 8 for the purposes -- for the purposes of being 9 at this public hearing, NAIOP 10 is offering the following objections: 11 First, the EPA's regulations ignore the 12 diversity of Florida's water bodies in 13 geographic areas. The Florida Department of 14 Environmental Protection determined that the 15 proposed criteria do not reflect a true 16 relationship between the nutrient enrichments 17 and biological health of Florida surface 18 waters. 19 The EPA is proposing standards derived 20 from statistical modeling from a small select 21 group of water bodies. Imposing these 22 arbitrary numeric nutrient criteria will very 23 likely result in otherwise healthy water bodies 24 being designated as impaired. 25 Second, the EPA's proposed regulations 90 1 will cause severe economic harm to Florida. 2 Florida's municipal wastewater treatment 3 utilities, agricultural, stormwater utilities 4 and a range of commerce and industry will bear 5 the substantial cost of complying with this 6 unsound regulatory policy. The cost will be 7 passed down to Floridians in the utility and 8 property tax bills and will put Florida 9 agriculture, commerce and industry at a 10 competitive disadvantage with the rest of the 11 country where federal standards do not exist 12 and where site specific analysis is permitted. 13 Third, the EPA's public hearing and 14 comment period fails to provide adequate time 15 for interested parties to participate in this 16 process. It is unrealistic to believe that 17 meaningful public hearings can be conducted 18 three weeks after the initial publication of 19 this rule into the Federal Registrar. Three 20 weeks is insufficient time to evaluate the 21 regulations and provide meaningful comment. 22 Furthermore, a 60-day period of the rule 23 of this complexity is insufficient of time to 24 allow for the analysis of scientific assumption 25 behind the standards proposed by the 91 1 regulation. 2 Four, Florida should be considered as a 3 receiving state. Particular attention should 4 be given to the fact that Florida is a 5 receiving state of interstate waters. 6 Attention should be given to receiving waters 7 and estuaries downstream and Florida should be 8 considered as such as it downstream from its 9 neighboring states. Without upstream controls, 10 it would make the burden of meeting downstream 11 criteria difficult and detrimental to Florida, 12 its people and its industries. 13 NAIOP of Central Florida respectfully 14 objects to the regulations as proposed and 15 requests that the comment period be extended to 16 follow for a full and fair evaluation of the 17 scientific data and methodology used for these 18 standards. 19 Thank you for your consideration to these 20 very viable positions. Thank you very much. 21 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Hurley. 22 Speaker Number 13. 23 MR. WOOD: My name is James Wood, and I'm 24 a hog farmer. And I'm not well prepared 25 tonight because of the short notice. I just 92 1 started my day at 6:30 this morning and just 2 finished at 8:30 tonight. Like many farmers, I 3 work long hours six or seven days a week. 4 Don't get federal holidays off and don't get 5 paid vacations. We're just salt-of-the-earth 6 people trying to make a living. 7 And, no, we're not happy that the EPA is 8 here. I don't think you belong here. I think 9 DEP can do the job very well. I've worked with 10 DEP in agriculture on various issues. I've 11 worked with DEP as a property owner on a lake. 12 I've seen what they can accomplish. I know 13 what they can accomplish. 14 And I don't think the Constitution of the 15 United States gives you-all the right to be 16 here. I'm in total disagreement of you being 17 here. And I hope that somebody puts a lawsuit 18 for an injunction to stop it. This is just 19 unbelievable and un-American in my opinion. 20 And the only way for us to change it as 21 citizens of this land is, I guess, just vote 22 our congressmen out and get someone in there 23 who will listen to us because the ones we've 24 got don't seem to want to. 25 As far as water quality goes -- I've been 93 1 a lifetime resident in this state. I started 2 out in Miami, saw the dairies run out of Dade 3 County because -- allegedly because they were 4 politically incorrect and they wanted the land 5 for Miami International. They wanted the land 6 for this purpose or that purpose. So they ran 7 them out with legislation. 8 They moved up to Highlands County, about 9 an hour from here, many of them did, Hardee 10 County. Then the regulations came in and then 11 they all had to front the costs for perk ponds 12 and everything to purify their water from their 13 waste and what have you. 14 The agricultural community has always -- 15 always reacted in a positive manner toward 16 water quality. And we do not need Washington 17 telling our state how to run our state. I just 18 can't agree with it in any capacity. 19 And I realize Sierra Club and all those 20 organizations got plenty of money and farmers 21 don't, but, hopefully, there will be somebody 22 that we can join in with to help fight this 23 because I'm very strongly against it. 24 Thank you. 25 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Wood. 94 1 Speaker Number 14. 2 MR. MAHAN: Good evening. My name is Ron 3 Mahan. I am with Orange-Co, a company based in 4 DeSota County right outside of Arcadia. I 5 personally grew up in High Springs, Florida, 6 spending much of my summer days going down the 7 Ichetucknee Springs, going to Blue Springs on 8 the Santa Fe River and thoroughly enjoyed the 9 water resources we have in Florida. It's an 10 important -- it's always been an important part 11 of my life. I'm glad to report that I'm able 12 to take my kids there now, and it still seems 13 to be as good as it was when I was a kid. 14 My company, Orange Cove, we -- well, 15 roughly, about 35, 36 million gallons of orange 16 juice are squeezed out of the oranges that my 17 company grow every year. We own about 20,000 18 acres of land and operate citrus groves there. 19 We employ over 300 people directly and probably 20 a couple -- some multiple times at that 21 people -- people whose employment and jobs 22 depend upon our business and operations. 23 Having said that, we in agriculture, 24 particularly in my company, it's a large 25 company, our success, I think has been due to 95 1 the fact that we pay a lot of attention to 2 detail. As you've heard earlier, people have 3 mentioned BMPs. We have worked closely with 4 the University of Florida, Institute of Food & 5 Agricultural Sciences as well as Florida's DEP 6 in developing best management practices. 7 Every bit of fertilizer I don't put out 8 means more to the bottom line. And that 9 certainly is always a concern. We also want to 10 use less water in our operation. We have 11 implemented tailwater recovery systems in our 12 grove operations. And, you know, recognizing 13 these will have a positive benefit for the 14 environment, but they certainly have a positive 15 benefit for our operations. 16 I understand based on, you know, 17 everything that I do with our business that you 18 have to be able to measure things. Numerical 19 measurements can -- numerical objective 20 measurements can often be the key to obtaining 21 a successful goal. 22 My concern as I've looked at the 23 legislation and talked -- I'm a farmer. My 24 background is food resource economics. But 25 I've talked to a lot of different people, 96 1 people knowledgeable, engineers and 2 environmentalists and so forth. 3 My concern is that the artificial 4 deadlines being set by a lawsuit may cause us 5 to sidestep some of the science. And as I've 6 looked at the proposed rules and regulations, a 7 couple of concerns that I have that I've heard 8 from people that I respect and believe that 9 know -- a couple of examples would be the fact 10 that -- I guess, Jim, you had mentioned the 11 SPARROW model being used in setting some of the 12 criteria, particularly the criteria for 13 downstream estuary nutrient level numerical 14 standards. 15 My understanding is that the U.S. 16 geological surveys indicated that the SPARROW 17 model shouldn't be used when there is a 18 significant groundwater impact on the water 19 bodies being studied. And that being the case, 20 that most of the water bodies in Florida have a 21 significant impact from groundwater. I think 22 that's something that needs to be looked into. 23 I'm concerned that there are many 24 waterways that would be declared as impaired, 25 but, yet, I think that we're trying to do such 97 1 a broad brush with these numerical standards 2 that, you know, when you show the map up there, 3 the five regions of the state, the state is 4 very different even within some of the areas 5 that I've work and live in in Southwest 6 Florida. 7 I think setting a numerical standard for a 8 water body within DeSota County at the same 9 level that you might set that standard, say, in 10 Charlotte County, could be detrimental 11 because -- only because I think that the water 12 bodies are very different. 13 I think if we're going to set numerical 14 standards, we need to take the time to use the 15 correct science to make sure that we do that on 16 an individual basis so that those numerical 17 standards will be meaningful. 18 I guess as a final comment, being from Lee 19 County, as I just mentioned earlier, and I know 20 people have mentioned the issue about 21 fertilizers. I think we have to be careful of 22 unintended consequences. 23 Just about a month and a half or two 24 months ago, I saw a neighbor putting out 25 fertilizer. They were doing so because -- they 98 1 did it after fertilizer restrictions had gone 2 off. Well, after those restrictions had gone 3 off, we had a cold spell hit and they were 4 putting fertilizer out during a cold spell. We 5 were certainly allowed to do that. 6 But I can tell you right now that with the 7 temperatures that are outside right now, 8 St. Augustine will no have -- about a zero 9 uptake on nitrogen right now. So the rains 10 that happened, the rains that happened in the 11 past couple of weeks, washed whatever 12 fertilizer they put out down into the drains 13 and down into the systems. 14 And my concern is that we have unintended 15 consequences just like that, that really our 16 goal is not really achieved. We may have done 17 something and we can say, well, you know, we 18 did something, but the impact of what we did is 19 not really getting us to what our goal is. So 20 take that into consideration, please. 21 Thank you. 22 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Mahan. 23 Speaker Number 15. 24 MR. WHEELER: Good evening. I'm Brian 25 Wheeler with Toho Water Authority. Toho Water 99 1 Authority operates nine water reclamation 2 facilities in Osceola County and in the 3 northeast part of Polk County. 4 None of the facilities have a surface 5 water discharge. F1 disposal is accomplished 6 through a comprehensive land application system 7 that includes extensive residential and 8 commercial landscape irrigation, golf course 9 irrigation, rapid infiltration basins, 10 percolation ponds and effluent spray fields. 11 Through this comprehensive and extensive 12 land application irrigation system, effluent 13 from the water reclamation facilities enters 14 the surficial aquifer. Hopefully a significant 15 portion of the effluent is taken up by the 16 landscape and turf; however, a portion will 17 blend into the surficial aquifer and migrate 18 through the ground. We know then that the 19 surficial aquifer contributes flow to the 20 surface water bodies that flow into the 21 Kissimmee River. 22 The proposed numeric nutrient criteria 23 regulations states that any entity that 24 influences or contributes to the water quality 25 of lakes and the flowing waters might be 100 1 affected by the rule. 2 This would appear to indicate that these 3 proposed criteria may apply to wastewater 4 systems like to the water authorities with 5 extensive reclaimed water systems. The 6 application of these proposed criteria to 7 reclaimed water systems needs to be clarified. 8 TWA has developed and implemented a 9 strategy over the past 20 years of developing 10 an extensive reclaimed water system that has 11 transitioned from being an effluent disposal 12 system to becoming a key component of our water 13 supply strategy. 14 Half of our potable water demand is for 15 landscape irrigation. The TWA has invested 16 substantially over the years in this strategy. 17 FDEP and the water management districts have 18 encouraged and promoted this strategy for our 19 utility as well as many others in Central 20 Florida. 21 Obtaining the nitrogen levels proposed for 22 the Kissimmee River is not possible with the 23 existing biological nutrient removal 24 technology. Meeting the proposed nitrogen 25 criteria would require the addition of membrane 101 1 treatment, perhaps even reverse osmosis as some 2 consultants have suggested. 3 The estimated cost for TWA to upgrade its 4 water reclamation facilities just to meet the 5 nitrogen requirements is in the range of 70 to 6 75 million dollars. This cost is in addition 7 to the 70 to 100-million dollars the authority 8 will have to spend over the next several years 9 to develop additional potable water supplies. 10 This estimate only covers the capital cost of 11 compliance and does not include the increase in 12 operational costs that result particularly in 13 energy use associated with the membrane 14 treatment. 15 If Toho Water Authority is going to be 16 asked to make this level of investment in its 17 wastewater treatment system and ask its 80,000 18 customers to pay significantly higher rates as 19 a result, the authority will want some level of 20 confidence that the criteria being proposed are 21 necessary and at the right level. 22 Based on the information that I have read 23 over the past several weeks, there appears to 24 be significant disconnect between the criteria 25 being proposed by EPA and the work that has 102 1 been done on the numeric nutrient criteria by 2 FDEP. 3 The fact that a significant percentage of 4 the FDEP reference streams be classified as 5 impaired under the EPA criteria indicates that 6 there was a problem with proposed criteria. 7 Reference streams should act as a basis 8 for calibrating or testing the proposed 9 criteria for some sense of validity. The fact 10 that a majority of the reference streams will 11 be classified as impaired under the proposed 12 criteria indicates that there is a problem with 13 the methodology that produce the criteria. 14 It appears that the proposed criteria 15 could in some areas establish limits 16 significantly lower than necessary to maintain 17 a healthy water body resulting in an 18 unnecessary expenditure of significant 19 resources. This appears to contradict the 20 principles of sustainability being emphasized 21 by EPA. Expending significant resources, 22 including energy resources, to achieve an 23 unnecessary low environmental standard 24 contradicts the concept of sustainability. 25 For the past several years, FDEP has been 103 1 working diligently to develop numeric nutrient 2 standards for Florida. In fact, in 3 correspondence to DEP on several occasions, EPA 4 commented on the FDEP process -- commented that 5 the FDEP process was reasonable and the FDEP 6 work is some of the most aggressive in the 7 nation. 8 Following EPA's letter of January 14th, 9 2009 informing Florida of the adoption of the 10 numeric nutrient criteria if necessary, FDEP 11 submitted a revised nutrient criteria 12 development plan in March of 2009 with an 13 implementation schedule that appeared to be 14 only 12 months longer than the schedule that 15 EPA has proposed. Today, apparently, the DEP's 16 work is no longer considered feasible and 17 progressive. 18 One of the three considerations cited as a 19 need for the accelerated numeric nutrient 20 criteria schedule is the rapid growth and 21 development in Florida. That should no longer 22 be a consideration now that the State has 23 experienced a net population loss over the last 24 year. 25 Fortunately and unfortunately, the present 104 1 recession and resulting stagnation in growth in 2 this state provides an opportunity for EPA to 3 go back to the drawing board in conjunction 4 with FDEP and develop a set of numeric nutrient 5 criteria standards that correspond to the 6 environmental conditions in Florida, and, 7 therefore, provide a basis for utilities such 8 as Toho Water Authority to justify whatever 9 expenditures and resources are needed to 10 protect the health of our water bodies. 11 Thanks. And just one last thing. I guess 12 it doesn't befit this discussion for you-all to 13 continue to bring up the issue of Blue Baby 14 Syndrome associated with nitrogen 15 contamination. It's a whole order of magnitude 16 greater than what's associated with algae 17 blooms. And, really, the present water 18 standards in Florida are highly protective of 19 that situation, so I'd think it would be better 20 for our discussion if we put that off to the 21 side and just focused on the real issue at hand 22 here which is the algae situation. 23 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 24 Speaker Number 16. 25 MR. HAMMOND: Hi. Good evening. My name 105 1 is Dan Hammond. I'm a project scientist with 2 ENTRIX, a natural resource management and 3 environmental consulting firm. I have 4 extensive experience in implementing Florida's 5 stream condition index methodology and I have 6 been audited by FDEP to do so. 7 I've also been involved in multiple 8 projects contracted by DEP to collect water 9 quality samples and SCI data for the strategic 10 monitoring program for TMDL purposes as well as 11 the dissolved oxygen and nutrient study for 12 revision of Florida's nutrient water quality 13 standard. 14 Prior to being with ENTRIX, I was with the 15 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 16 Commission for three and a half years in their 17 harmful algal blooms toxins section. 18 In addition, I have a Master's in 19 environmental science focusing on water quality 20 issues in Florida's streams. 21 I appreciate the substantial effort 22 invested by EPA and I understand the difficulty 23 in researching and developing the proposed 24 criteria. I believe that a scientifically 25 defensible numeric nutrient criteria can and 106 1 should be developed for Florida; however, after 2 careful review of the proposed rule and 3 technical support documents, I have significant 4 concerns about the methodologies employed in 5 the defensibility of the proposed criteria. 6 First, EPA's technical guidance manual 7 recommends a need for both causal and response 8 variables for criteria development. However, 9 EPA and DEP admittedly cannot find significant 10 correlations between the biological response 11 indicators of Chlorophyll a, purafil biomass or 12 SCI and the TN and TP concentrations. 13 The proposed rule states the agency cannot 14 confidently predict a specific biological 15 response such as an SCI score for an individual 16 stream solely -- from the Associated Stream 17 Measurements of the TN nor TP concentration. 18 If there is no link between the SCI score and 19 the nutrient concentrations, then there is no 20 scientifically defensible justification for 21 choosing only sites with healthy SCI scores to 22 represent acceptable nutrient conditions. 23 Deriving the IPVs without a relationship 24 to a biological response variable cannot and 25 will not be protective of instream biological 107 1 integrity or of designated uses. 2 Second, EPA's dataset for the criteria 3 development consisted of nutrient values 4 collected at the same time as the SCI sampling, 5 the grab sample, the long-term geometric mean, 6 which is called the site average, or the annual 7 geometric mean, the site year average. Because 8 the EPA only use nutrient data collected at the 9 same time as the SCI using DEP's IWR database, 10 some sites have very limited or no long-term 11 data at all. 12 For instance, in the Bone Valley, 19 of 13 the 22 stations had only one year of data used 14 in the analysis which means that the grab 15 sample average was essentially the same as the 16 site average was the same as the site year 17 average for those sites. In addition, only one 18 of the 22 sites had more than two years of 19 data. Therefore, for the Bone Valley, the 20 dataset used to set the IPV values was not very 21 robust. The more appropriate method would be 22 to recalculate the IPVs using expanded datasets 23 that include long-term data from stations near 24 where the SCI was calculated or within the same 25 limit as the SCI calculation. 108 1 Third, there is no scientific 2 justification for choosing nutrient 3 concentrations at the 75th percentile of 4 unimpaired and biologically healthy streams. 5 This concern was also mentioned by a reviewer 6 during the external peer review of EPA's 7 proposed methodologies. 8 In the Bone Valley, 40 percent of the 22 9 stations -- of the 22 reference streams that 10 were deemed unimpaired and biologically healthy 11 would be considered in exceedance of the 12 proposed water quality standard for either 13 total nitrogen or total phosphorus. 14 Additionally, in a Harvey Harper report 15 prepared for DEP in 2009, runoff from some 16 natural vegetation communities with no human 17 impact also exceeded the proposed IPV criteria. 18 This exemplifies the over-protective 19 nature of the IPV criteria that would 20 incorrectly identify healthy reference streams 21 as impaired. 22 Fourth, concerning the DPV methodology in 23 the SPARROW model, arbitrarily choosing a 24 50-percent reduction in anthropogenic nutrient 25 loading to estuaries is not linked in any way 109 1 to any biological response that would indicate 2 the load is protective. 3 In the case of Tampa Bay, data collected 4 by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program indicates a 5 protective TN load more than double that 6 proposed by EPA, is protective of Tampa Bay 7 based on the attainment of Chlorophyll a target 8 levels and the measured increase in sea-grass 9 coverage. 10 DPV based on an inaccurate estimation of 11 total nitrogen load cannot serve to be 12 protective of designated uses of downstream 13 estuaries. Protective loads to estuaries need 14 to be based on a biological response indicator 15 similar to those established for Tampa Bay. 16 In my opinion, these concerns need to be 17 addressed before scientifically defensible 18 numeric nutrient criteria can be developed for 19 streams in Florida. As it stands, the proposed 20 rule significantly increase the number of 21 streams deemed impaired forcing the 22 implementation of time-consuming and costly 23 restoration measures that are not likely to 24 provide an ecological benefit, taking the focus 25 off of systems actually in the need of the 110 1 scarce water resource management manpower and 2 funding. 3 Thank you. 4 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Hammond. 5 Speaker Number 17. 6 MS. HEIGHT: Good evening. I have a 7 written comment to submit. 8 My name is Cecelia Height. I am a 9 volunteer with the Sierra Club of Central 10 Florida. And as stated by my colleagues prior 11 to me, the Sierra Club supports the EPA 12 proposals. 13 I serve on the executive committee of the 14 Sierra Club of Central Florida and I also serve 15 as a member of the Friends of Lake Jessup. And 16 I have a colleague that will go into much more 17 detail about Lake Jessup. 18 Lake Jessup is a prime example of why we 19 need stronger criteria in Florida. Lake Jessup 20 is the largest lake in Seminole County and one 21 of the most polluted lakes in the State of 22 Florida. It used to be one of the bass and 23 speckled perch destinations, fishing 24 designations, of the country, if not the world. 25 It is now one of the most polluted and 111 1 dangerous lakes in Florida. 2 I actually have gone and participated in 3 replantings and suffered, you know, leaches, 4 and I had a friend that used to do lake 5 monitoring who would get sores on his arms 6 after getting samples from lake watch. 7 We've worked -- it's been so polluted. A 8 lot of the things that contributed have been 9 alleviated. There's no more dairy farms, but 10 there have been direct discharges from 11 municipalities in Orange County and Seminole 12 County. 13 I am a stakeholder. I live in the Lake 14 Jessup basin. And we have tried to encourage 15 the cleanup of Lake Jessup for many, many 16 years. And there has been a lot of work done. 17 And, as I said, a lot of the things that 18 contributed to its degradation have been 19 alleviated, but there's still, with 20 development, there's degradation. 21 And one of the big things that through the 22 years has really bothered me is the whole turf 23 industry and the whole issue relating to 24 St. Augustine grass and the ornamentals that 25 are non-native. 112 1 And I think one of the things that we 2 should really be looking at in addition to 3 would be the use and proliferation of native 4 plans because you don't need to have 5 fertilizers with native plants. 6 I'm proud to say that through education 7 and time, about 60 percent of my property is 8 now native plants. And I compost and I do not 9 buy fertilizers anymore. I don't need to. 10 I would also encourage people to 11 understand that while I applaud the people of 12 agriculture who have made best management 13 practices -- and I've heard them, and they're 14 really impressive. 15 The fact is that it is what it is. Lake 16 Jessup is polluted. Lake Apopka is polluted. 17 There was an algae bloom on the east coast this 18 past summer. 19 So even though people are worried about, 20 you know, what may happen if we implement these 21 things, the fact of the matter is that we have 22 a crisis. We have a water quality crisis. We 23 have a health and safety crisis. 24 People's health -- I'm a registered nurse. 25 I'm a hospice nurse. And I've seen 113 1 firsthand -- I also do pediatric nursing. And 2 I can see what happens when the quality of 3 lakes near the homes that I take care of these 4 kids on trachs, they are impacted. And they're 5 on trachs and they're in vents and they have 6 oxygen, and they suffer when water quality puts 7 organisms in the air. 8 I had a patient who told me that she grew 9 up in Central Florida in the 1930s and '40s. 10 She said that she could go swimming every day 11 during the summer because the lakes were clear. 12 They're not clear now. My husband is a native 13 Floridian. He says the same thing. 14 So I understand and I truly feel the 15 potential pain, but we have a crisis now. It 16 is what it is. I would never go swimming in 17 Lake Jessup or Bear Lake or Lake Apopka or any 18 of those other lakes. But we really do need to 19 change what we're doing now and we must clean 20 up our water quality because it is our right 21 and the right of future generations for clean 22 water and clean air. 23 Thank you for being here and for your 24 patience. 25 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Height. 114 1 MS. HEIGHT: And I have my comment. Do I 2 give it to this lady? 3 MS. KEEHNER: Give it -- sure. That will 4 be fine. Thank you. 5 Speaker Number 18. 6 MR. KELLY: Hello. I'm Robert Kelly from 7 the Southern Dr. Phillips Homeowners Coalition. 8 We represent about 10,000 homes which are just 9 west of here in the area called Dr. Phillips. 10 It's ZIP code 32836. 11 We tend to be the people who are at the 12 end of the food chain when it comes to 13 regulations like this because we wind up having 14 to pay additional taxes. 15 You've had several members from numerous 16 utilities explain to you how this is going to 17 be an impact upon their operations. And in 18 order to meet these new regulations, they would 19 have to include additional charges for all the 20 potable water as well as the return water for 21 effluent. 22 Those kinds of charges are typically 23 passed to consumers. And I find it hard to the 24 believe that the EPA's numbers that are on the 25 back of this briefing shows that they're 115 1 estimating only somewhere between 102 million, 2 then plus another 7 -- 4.7 million for one more 3 impact, plus 1.5 billion capital cost is 4 supposed to be the only impact to this. 5 There's numbers that come from the 6 opposing view that show 24 billion dollars in 7 capital costs, and a monthly additional cost, 8 adding up to about $740 per year per household 9 in Florida. 10 I hope you're aware of the magnitude of 11 the disparaging numbers because your numbers 12 are nothing close to what your opposition says. 13 And I think that's a problem for us consumers 14 and voters because we're in the middle looking 15 at this and saying this is the agency that 16 brought us a 2009 decree that carbon-dioxide 17 that we exhale while we speak is now going to 18 be another regulated gas under the EPA. And 19 then we see you coming into Florida working 20 diligently to meet some schedule for a lawsuit 21 and overruling our own Florida EPD that's been 22 doing a fine job trying to reach its own water 23 quality standards. 24 I do think it's being rushed. I also 25 think the science is questionable going back to 116 1 the EPA's role in decreeing carbon dioxide as 2 being a hazardous gas that needs to have clean 3 air regulations implemented against it. 4 I think the science -- I've heard from 5 several people in here who are scientists in 6 various disciplines point to some of the 7 fallacies in using the five regions of the 8 state, the six regions of the state, and trying 9 to make one size fit all. 10 I'm a geologist by education and I know 11 that the Florida aquifer and the surface water 12 is so close to the surface, that the migration 13 of water through even the natural deposits of 14 phosphorus, which you can see when you fly over 15 Florida in the daytime, you see numerous 16 deposits, very large deposits of phosphorus. 17 It's all over the place. 18 So trying to assign a point source, which 19 I haven't even heard really discussed here -- 20 trying to cite point sources as being a 21 contribution to a water quality condition, I 22 think it's going to be very difficult no matter 23 what standards you apply to what region of the 24 state. 25 I do want to draw attention to I think 117 1 some astounding numbers on your distribution of 2 the numbers on your four regions of the state. 3 You have regions that go 2X of nitrogen and 4 then you have a range that goes 20X of 5 phosphorus. I think the damage that you're 6 anticipating of either one of those pollutants 7 and water quality does not have the flexibility 8 of being 1/20th at one place and 20 times 9 somewhere else and having the same standard. I 10 don't see how you can achieve that. 11 I think the science is a little weak at 12 this point. I would really urge you to 13 reconsider implementing this at this time 14 because I don't think you're going to meet the 15 sniff test when it comes to more of a public 16 exposure of this. 17 I think when the Florida EPD with their 18 experience in trying to get their job done by 19 being hamstrung with this rush for EPA 20 assistance, I think is not going to go well 21 with voters. So I do wish that you would go 22 ahead and reconsider this and also recognize 23 that we really don't want to pay a lot for more 24 unfunded mandates coming from Washington. 25 Thank you. 118 1 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 2 Number 19. 3 MR. CARTER: Good evening. Kevin Carter, 4 South Florida Water Management District. We 5 thank the EPA for holding this public forum 6 this evening and the one you held this 7 afternoon and, of course, yesterday in 8 Tallahassee. 9 We look forward to commenting on the 10 numeric nutrient criteria and we will be 11 putting forth written comments. Tonight I will 12 briefly go through some more of our concerns 13 and comments in our initial review of your 14 proposed rule. 15 The district is responsible for managing 16 and protecting water resources across 16 17 counties starting here in Orlando all the way 18 down to the Keys. So we're 7.5 million 19 residents. We're leaders in developing the 20 science necessary for environmental restoration 21 and the promulgation of numeric nutrient 22 criteria. 23 We were at the forefront and deeply 24 involved in the development of total 25 phosphorous criteria for the Everglades. We 119 1 have been very involved and members of the 2 Florida Department of Environmental 3 Protection's Technical Advisory Committee, TAC. 4 Through the work of this TAC, the DEP, of 5 course, came out with their draft of numeric 6 rules last summer. 7 We've also been involved in the 8 development of your guidance documents that 9 were put out in 2001 on the proper ways to put 10 out numeric nutrient criteria. 11 Through all the science, we support the 12 establishment of appropriate and scientifically 13 established nutrient criteria as long as they 14 recognize Florida's ecological diversity and 15 enough time is allowed for sound science to be 16 their basis. 17 Because of potential ramifications of the 18 proposed criteria on federally-mandated 19 restoration projects further necessitates that 20 sound science rule the day. 21 One of the key district initiatives is 22 Everglade's restoration, the largest 23 environmental restoration project in the United 24 States. One of the largest in the world. To 25 date, the State of Florida has spent over two 120 1 billion dollars reaching the goal of 2 restoration of the Everglades. 3 The Federal Government has also been 4 stepping up to the plate over the last year or 5 so, as we've initiated several groundbreakings 6 and look forward to continuing the progress of 7 the Everglade's restoration. 8 Many people in this room, of course, are 9 aware of the Kissimmee River restoration 10 project, another federal and state partnership. 11 We also work on Lake Okeechobee and coastal 12 watersheds throughout our district restoring 13 these ecosystems. 14 The potential for costly overhauls and 15 redesigns of the projects that have been 16 planned or are either in the ground or being 17 designed, because of this rule, has a potential 18 to not allow the district to expedite our 19 restoration of these important ecosystems. 20 The administrative process alone could 21 allow delays and, of course, additional costs 22 as we work toward implementation. For example, 23 many of our current nutrient reduction programs 24 and projects currently in the ground, or again 25 being planned, are focusing on total phosphorus 121 1 reduction. 2 We're not certain how this current rule 3 will affect those as we move forward. So we 4 strongly urge the EPA to consider and address 5 these criteria as they are implemented and to 6 not negatively affect the ability of the 7 district and our federal partners to continue 8 achieving the progress for the restoration of 9 the Everglades, Kissimmee River, Lake 10 Okeechobee and our coastal ecosystems. 11 In the minute or so that I have left, I'd 12 like to touch on some topics and themes that 13 you-all have heard up in Tallahassee and here 14 in Orlando and you're most likely going to hear 15 tomorrow in West Palm Beach. It involves time 16 and money. 17 First, let's address cost. As far as the 18 district is concerned right now, our focus is 19 looking at your rule, and based on your initial 20 estimates that you put in the proposed rule, we 21 strongly urge you to go back and reconsider 22 your calculations. We feel you may have 23 underestimated and not taken into account all 24 things as you calculate the costs of this 25 implementation of this rule. 122 1 You have heard a lot of stakeholder 2 estimations and we ask that you consider those 3 when you go back. 4 Finally, time. We remain hopeful EPA will 5 forge its artificially established timelines to 6 invest the time and thought necessary for 7 proposing appropriate criteria for the State of 8 Florida. 9 And, lastly, as I said yesterday, we need 10 more time to go through this rule and to give 11 you public comment. We ask you to extend the 12 public comment period including some more 13 public workshops so you can hear from the 14 stakeholders of Florida, the scientists of 15 Florida, people's data that you view to set 16 this criteria. 17 Thank you for your time. We look forward 18 to seeing you tomorrow in West Palm Beach. 19 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Carter. 20 Speaker 101. 21 MR. SNYDER: No, 20. 22 MS. KEEHNER: Oh, I didn't have 20 on my 23 list. Speaker 20. 24 MR. SNYDER: Thank you. My name is Pete 25 Snyder. I'm Executive Director of the Florida 123 1 Turf Grass Association. 2 I, too, am very concerned about water 3 quality, but I am equally concerned about the 4 methodology that's going to be applied to the 5 rules that are bound to come from this 6 exercise. 7 My father taught statistics at the 8 University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of 9 Business. Now, I must confess I wasn't very 10 good at statistics. In fact, I was God awful. 11 But I do recall one of his most compelling 12 lessons was that statistics can be used and can 13 be manipulated to argue any side of any 14 discussion. 15 I mention this because I would like to see 16 common sense applied to the application of 17 statistics and statistical modeling. For 18 example, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program projects 19 a greater reduction in nitrogen loads from a 20 blackout period for residential fertilizer 21 applications than the amount of nitrogen 22 actually applied in that target geography, and 23 the statistical modeling projects a 50-percent 24 compliance rate. 25 This statistical modeling simply does not 124 1 make sense. Banning residential applications 2 of fertilizer doesn't make sense. I'm a 3 believer in science and the scientific method. 4 And numerous scientific studies from across the 5 nation prove that healthy turf -- and I stress 6 healthy turf based on BMPs -- they help to make 7 the water cleaner. It is an excellent filter 8 of nutrients. 9 This fact is further reinforced by 10 research from the University of Florida and 11 IFAS. Now, I understand environmental 12 activists have called into question the work 13 done by IFAS. In fact, they have insulted and 14 questioned the honesty of several -- several 15 highly respected scientists. 16 And why? Because my association has 17 provided partial funding for some of their 18 research. Yes, industry has chipped in. We 19 have contributed in the past four years 20 $505,000 in a research budget of 22 million 21 dollars. That's less than 2.3 percent of the 22 overall research needed, IFAS. I candidly 23 don't consider that very much financial muscle. 24 And what did we fund? The public record 25 will show -- but let me read some of these 125 1 projects: Breeding Bahiagrass for reduced 2 flowering period and dwarfness. Breeding 3 Bermuda grass for improved response to Sting 4 nematode. Comparative maintenance of past 5 Paspalum and Bermuda grasses. Best management 6 practices for a culturally diverse workforce. 7 Effective nitrogen on the Southern Chinch bug. 8 Root-knot nematode on turf in Florida. 9 Not one project -- and I will be glad to 10 give you the list of projects that we funded -- 11 not one project that we funded has anything to 12 do with fertilizer or nutrients. 13 The point is that the research that was 14 done by IFAS is sound and untainted. Please 15 rely on it. Peer review science is a stronger 16 indicator of what needs to be done than rules 17 based on statistical modeling. 18 Let IFAS do its job. Let DEP do its job. 19 Please don't add another layer of bureaucracy. 20 Thank you. 21 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Snyder. 22 Speaker 101. 23 MR. CLICK: Hello. My name is David 24 Click. I'm with a company called StormTech, 25 but I'm also a 30-year resident of Orlando. I 126 1 live in the Windemere area and spend a lot of 2 time on the Butler Chain, which I think at one 3 time was described as the second cleanest lake 4 in Florida. It's still a great lake to go out 5 on the chain of 13 lakes. 6 In my capacity with StormTech, I'm the 7 Director of International and Southern U.S. 8 operations. It's kind of rare that I'm even in 9 town, but I happen to be here tonight, and 10 heard about this from a coworker. 11 StormTech is involved in underground 12 sub-surface systems. And sub-surface systems 13 offer a lot of advantages, but I'm not going to 14 taint that to -- or at least discuss that so 15 much. I want that to be a part of the 16 consideration. 17 And one thing I'd like to say right up 18 front is my company and myself, personally, 19 spends a lot of time with all the districts in 20 Florida and they're extremely capable people. 21 And personally as a citizen of Florida, I have 22 confidence in what they do day-in, day-out to 23 protect the citizens of Florida. 24 And I know that there's regulations in 25 process right now through the Florida EPD, 127 1 maybe partially driven by this. But I've been 2 involved in that process and I have confidence 3 in that process. 4 I'm not so much saying that outsiders 5 don't need to be in Florida. I'm not that 6 protective. But I believe that in the State of 7 Florida there's a lot of good citizens and a 8 lot of good regulators that want to protect 9 this state regardless of what somebody from 10 another part of the country may say. 11 So I want to just tell you a little bit 12 about underground systems, is my company 13 prescribes a treatment train aspect which 14 basically looks at -- when you think of 15 nitrates, you not only look at what you can't 16 see but it's what you can see. There's a lot 17 of organic matter that can be collected in 18 catch basins and removed, and maintenance is a 19 big part of that. 20 We have a system called an Isolator Row 21 that actually traps TSS and phosphorus. And 22 we've had studies, third-party peer reviewed 23 studies from the University of New Hampshire as 24 well as Tennessee Tech that have shown any 25 removal rates from 94 to 97 percent of TSS but 128 1 50 percent of phosphorus. We don't prescribe 2 to trap any nitrates. That needs to be done by 3 different mechanisms. 4 But in this treatment train process, there 5 is no reason we couldn't develop a treatment 6 train that might have sand filters on the 7 outlet side that would provide removal of 8 nitrates at much lower flow rates on the outlet 9 side. So there's a lot of things that can be 10 done underground. 11 And I think one of the problems is it 12 doesn't get recognized for all of the advances 13 and research that has been done in the industry 14 way beyond my company. There's tons of 15 companies that are doing it. I spent a lot of 16 time with the Scottish EPA and overseas, and 17 believe it or not, they're behind us in many 18 ways but they are catching up. 19 So I think that when you have this 20 discussion, you need to realize that the 21 developers, private developers want to do the 22 right thing. They don't want to get fined. So 23 they will do what is prescribed as long as it 24 makes sense and helps the environment. They're 25 not always the bad guys. 129 1 So I'd like to kind of summarize by saying 2 that what I propose is sub-surface systems to 3 be looked at as a technology that can be part 4 of the solution, but also establish standards 5 for removal rates for systems so we can hit 6 those standards and with third-party peer 7 review research. And, ultimately, you need a 8 maintenance schedule. 9 And I think all of these things are being 10 addressed by the Florida EPD in their new 11 regulations. So I don't know all the -- I've 12 not read really very much at all about what's 13 going on here with this proposal, and if the 14 numbers are outrageous and not possible, then 15 we all have to be realistic. 16 But, again, I have the upmost confidence 17 in the regulators in Florida to do the right 18 thing. That's pretty much all I have. 19 Thanks. 20 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Click. 21 Speaker 102. 22 MR. KING: Good evening. Robert King, 23 2211 Black Hammock. I don't live too far from 24 here, two miles north. 25 I guess the first thing to do is welcome 130 1 you to Florida and to tell you it's a very 2 special place. It's a state full of good 3 people. It's a state with a lot of potential. 4 But there's a reason why you're here. The 5 reason that you're here is because we just 6 can't seem to get there. And I've done my turn 7 in the barrel. I've been an environmental 8 activist, I guess you'd call it, but I sat as a 9 chairman for a lake restoration group for the 10 last ten years. And, quite frankly, I'm just 11 about done with it because of being that close 12 and watching how this process works and how the 13 mechanism works. 14 One of the celebrities on TV tickled me. 15 She asked the question, so how's that working 16 for you. Well, I think that's -- at a common 17 sense level, that's what we've got to do. 18 We've got to step back and say how's that 19 working for you. And it's not. And that's 20 really where -- you know, to stand here and say 21 that we like the way things are and we want to 22 keep them the same way, or for somebody to 23 stand up here and say we hate the way things 24 are and we want them changed, that really boils 25 down to whether the system is working for you, 131 1 whether it's doing what you want it to do for 2 you, whether it's manageable, whether I can 3 come in and get what I want from the 4 environmental regulation process or if I can't 5 come in and get what I want from the 6 environmental regulation process, and, more 7 importantly, what the end result is at the end 8 of the day when we look around, what's going to 9 be left of the state. 10 Some of the examples that come to mind -- 11 and I don't want to bash any particular 12 agencies, but the minimum flows and levels, 13 that's a water management district thing. A 14 lot of effort went into it. They spent all the 15 scientists and all the energy that you could 16 possibly put into something. And what was 17 flawed was the psychology, what was going into 18 it. 19 And, in my mind, you know, in 1940, in the 20 State of Florida, we knew that the aquifer was 21 fragile and we needed to take care of it and we 22 needed to do what we needed to do. And we just 23 kept doing the wrong things. We just kept 24 doing too much of it and we just kept messing 25 it up. 132 1 And we have established this minimum flows 2 and levels to supposedly protect the function 3 of the rivers and the springs, and the bottom 4 line is that we've not -- the aquifer has been 5 deteriorating for 50 years. It's in sad 6 condition and it's getting worse every day. 7 And we're not -- this minimum flows and levels, 8 the established guidelines that we have in 9 place, there is no -- no psychology to return 10 it back to a better condition. 11 What we're going to do is we're going to 12 squeeze it out like a sponge and take 13 everything that we can possibly take out of it, 14 just till it almost chokes and dies, and that's 15 where we're going to hold it to, the minimum 16 flows and levels. That's the minimum before it 17 just dies completely. 18 The truth is the whole system in Florida 19 is dying. And what they don't want to happen 20 is for it to die all at once or for it to die 21 on somebody's watch, because then they're going 22 to have to explain why it died on my watch, but 23 it's perfectly okay for it to die over three 24 generations. 25 All the people that are in office, all the 133 1 people that are in the agencies, all the 2 citizens who are working -- as I said, I worked 3 hard on Lake Jessup trying to do something with 4 it and been involved in the TMDL process and 5 the BMAP process. We have a TMDL established 6 by rule. We have a BMAP in place that is ready 7 to be voted on. It's going around now. And 8 the lake is slap full of mud. It's filthy. 9 And it got that way because of just absolute 10 neglect of the environmental regulation aspects 11 of things. 12 And the fact is is that the BMAP process 13 that we're fixing to adopt is probably not 14 going to do much to clean up the fact that the 15 lake is full of mud for at least another 15 16 years. 17 And so to me, you know, the question is 18 how is that working for you. Now, if I was 19 somebody who wanted to get an ERP, a permit to 20 build something or to destroy the environment 21 or to withdraw water with a consumptive use 22 permit, and I could go along and I could jerk 23 the system around and I could get what I 24 wanted, I'd be up here telling you how good it 25 was. But I can't get what I need. My lake is 134 1 dead and I can't -- it's not going to be clean 2 in my lifetime. I'm not going to see it. My 3 grandkids aren't going to see it. 4 So with that said, I'm glad you're here. 5 I think the role that you've got to do is not 6 necessarily argue the technical details, 7 scientific details of criteria, although a lot 8 of people like to pick that nit. 9 I think what you've got to do in concept 10 is you've got to come down here and to provide 11 both the support and the impetus for the 12 environmental agencies to get it right, to get 13 this thing fixed. And I think this is probably 14 a good start. If you needed to come down here 15 and shake the cage, that's what had to happen. 16 And I think I pretty much burned my 17 bridges. I don't need to go back and deal with 18 it again. But I'm just telling you this is 19 what's got to happen. We've got to get 20 poignant. We've got to fix what's in the 21 mindset that's behind this thing, that it's 22 okay to destroy this state, because that's what 23 everybody -- that's where we're all at right 24 now; is we can destroy it slowly, as long as it 25 lasts till I get out of here. 135 1 Thank you. 2 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. King. 3 MR. COLLINS: I'm John Collins. I'm a 4 private citizen. As an engineer, I'm very 5 happy the EPA is proposing some numeric limits 6 for nutrients but have some concerns that echo 7 what many of the previous speakers said. 8 I think there are already too many 9 ineffective rules already in place. We've got 10 water management districts, DEP, EPA, counties 11 and cities. And there's an uneven and unfair 12 and inconsistent enforcement. 13 I don't believe that the present 14 enforcement process works very well. And 15 merely enacting new rules without going back 16 and fixing the enforcement process is not going 17 to give you the results you desire. 18 I think what we need is -- in two months, 19 tax date, April 15th, comes along. Why does it 20 work? The taxes, the threat of an audit, the 21 TCMP, Taxpayer Compliance Monitoring Program. 22 I think the EPA needs to work with some of the 23 compliance agencies in Florida to institute a 24 PCMP, a Permit Compliance Monitoring Program, 25 because I know personally and a lot of people 136 1 who bring up antidotal evidence, that people 2 sign permits and never intend to abide by all 3 the terms and conditions. 4 There is no threat of an audit. What you 5 should do - and it's profiling - but profiling 6 is one of the most effective ways to take 7 science resources like government compliance 8 and make it work. Anybody who has multiple 9 permits for government agencies, on a periodic 10 basis unannounced, you audit them, and if his 11 permits have problems - just like the IRS goes 12 back years - you audit multiple permits. 13 You'll see compliance go up very much. 14 Sound science. People were talking about 15 sound science. I don't believe this sound 16 science is a settled matter. I don't think you 17 can sell it to the people of Florida. You're 18 talking about spending a billion dollars over 19 ten years. 20 Mr. Keating talked about the -- I've spent 21 30 years in the simulation industry, simulation 22 and modeling. You talked about you're the user 23 community. EPA talked to the developer, USGS. 24 What you need to do is have an IVMV, 25 independent verification validation of the 137 1 models. 2 Questions were raised about SPARROW, some 3 of the other models were based on Mississippi 4 and Tennessee. You need to do verification and 5 validation and verify that the model is 6 accurate and gives you the results you expect. 7 Validate that the assumptions were appropriate. 8 And the important word there is 9 "independent." You cannot -- we call it 10 drinking the Kool Aid. If you have the user 11 and the developer saying everything's fine, no, 12 sir. You need an independent -- spend a 13 hundred grand, spend two hundred grand. That's 14 a lot money but it's nothing compared to ten 15 billion. You need to do some independent 16 verification validation. 17 Benefits versus cost. Where is the point 18 of diminishing returns? Are we -- a gentleman 19 talked about the law of unintended 20 consequences. I only had this morning at lunch 21 a half an hour, maybe some of this is moot, but 22 to read over this rule. 23 You talk about DPVs, Downstream Protection 24 Values. The law of unintended consequences. 25 You're passing rules but are you creating a 138 1 geographic, advantageous or a disadvantage in 2 that if somebody has a dirty operation and it's 3 at Jacksonville close to the ocean, are you 4 going to create -- because of the way you've 5 put thresholds for these nutrients, are you 6 going to create an economic advantage for that 7 person to move his operation to a pristine 8 area, the headwaters? Oh, great. We just made 9 an economic advantage in this environment. 10 People will move. And instead of having people 11 decrease the overall pollutants, you've taken 12 dirty operations from -- you know, there 13 shouldn't be -- there's a fairness aspect but 14 there shouldn't be a capitalist economic 15 advantage to take a dirty operation from a 16 downstream area where everybody has been 17 dumping stuff in the river and move to a 18 pristine area. You're creating -- you know, 19 that isn't the intent, but that's the law of 20 unintended consequence. 21 The final point -- I'm not an 22 environmental. I'm not a zealot. I'm not a 23 developer. I'm a realist. My wife and I 24 bought a piece of property. It was with five 25 acres. We hand-cleared it. But our moving 139 1 into that area, it's in the econ river basin, 2 created -- we were permitted to create a 3 property. Our rights to enjoy the highest and 4 best use of that land extend no further than 5 the four corners of our property. And we 6 developed it and we made sure that we didn't 7 have any negative effects downstream. 8 What I hope that you do when you pass this 9 rule and you change your enforcement to make 10 sure and you collect metrics, because if you 11 don't go out -- nothing talked about collecting 12 metrics to make sure that what you intended to 13 have happen did happen -- you make sure that 14 other people do not develop their property and 15 dump their water problems on me. 16 Thank you. 17 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Collins. 18 Speaker 104. 19 MS. COLLINS: I'm Candy Collins. I just 20 wanted to reiterate what my husband spoke about 21 and also tell you personally what has happened 22 to us in the last 20 years. 23 I came to Orlando in 1966. My father was 24 in the Navy. We lived in all areas of 25 Florida from Key West to Jacksonville to 140 1 Pensacola. This was a beautiful area. 2 I had not a clue just how unregulated 3 everything is. Like my husband said, we had 4 five acres near UCF, University of Central 5 Florida. It was flooded out. We lived there 6 for the first six years on a piece of property 7 that was above the 500-year flood plane. 8 In one season after seeing development 9 next to us, it went underwater. We had eels in 10 our driveway and dead baby gopher turtles. We 11 fought that for ten years. 12 And who were we fighting? The 13 regularatory systems. They didn't want anybody 14 to know that they had put in unnatural wetlands 15 that they were experimenting and that all the 16 retention ponds and detention ponds along the 17 confluence of the Little Econ and the Big Econ 18 were going underwater in big rain events. 19 So instead, what happened, mysteriously 20 water that used to go from the north starts 21 flowing back to the south through our property. 22 We fought it through a hearing without a lawyer 23 and we won. We got out of there as soon as we 24 could without much profit, just selling the 25 house, and then moved over to Volusia County 141 1 where the same thing is happening again. 2 We bought a house, a little cracker house 3 with another little house behind it, and we 4 were thrilled, on 20 acres with a half acre of 5 wetland on one end of it. We have gone through 6 all kinds of horrible things with people 7 digging in the wetlands. Same thing as before; 8 ditching, draining, diking. 9 And in both incidences, it was through 10 unrecorded subdivisions. And I can tell you 11 that the regulatory systems are using these 12 unrecorded subdivisions to move water to solve 13 their own problems. 14 I'm asking you not only to look at what's 15 going on with the effluent but with stormwater 16 systems that are being put in without any 17 environmental studies, with, I would say 18 County -- I can't definitely say this, but with 19 governmental engineers figuring out solutions 20 to solve their own problems. 21 We've had people putting cement in pipes. 22 We now have water from five different wetland 23 areas. One is a lake -- two of them are lakes, 24 one was a ditch that was dug from the middle of 25 the lake towards us. And then they've sent it 142 1 all down to one wetland which is a half acre on 2 our property and they diked it, and now it's 3 filling up our pasture, 20 acres. This 4 property has been there a hundred years. 5 I'm asking you to also not just blame 6 agriculture, not just blame certain businesses, 7 but to take this a little bit slower and start 8 finding a way to make the regulatory systems in 9 this state responsible, because that's what is 10 really going on here. Quit blaming companies 11 and everything until you know the real facts. 12 I have no one to go to to look into this. 13 DEP says, Go to St. Johns. St. Johns has an 14 open permit violation on this. They say -- 15 told some people that we had look into this for 16 us, that it doesn't matter, that they're 17 looking at the bigger picture. 18 So what are they doing? They're dumping 19 all this into one wetland and then they're 20 diking it for that half inch, inch and a half 21 of water that that developer is supposed to 22 hold. He's not having to do ponds. He's not 23 having to do anything. He's using the 24 wetlands, two of them, both adjacent to our 25 property, to dump all of the water, and the 143 1 rest of them are drying out. 2 We had sandhill cranes for the first four 3 years that we lived here. They had two babies 4 every year until they started this stuff. They 5 haven't had a baby since. We had a pond, 6 both -- these are marshlands. They're supposed 7 to be dry half the year. They're so wet 8 that -- the environment is changing. 9 So I'm asking you -- I'm hearing all 10 these, you know, taking things back and 11 restoring. I'm a private property owner. This 12 is a two-edge sword for me. I'm asking you 13 please don't let these people use our property 14 to take advantage of it. 15 Thank you very much. 16 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Collins. 17 Speaker 105. 18 MR. FUGLER: Good evening. Do we all need 19 to stand up and stretch at this point? Is it 20 the seventh inning yet? 21 My name is Allen Fugler. I'm the 22 Executive Vice President of the Florida Pest 23 Management Association. I run the association 24 that Ms. Santella chairs, the Greens Industry 25 Task Force. 144 1 And at the risk of echoing a lot of these 2 sentiments already stated, the BMPs are 3 champions and trophies of the Greens Industry. 4 We are hunters. We are fishermen. We are 5 boaters. We are recreationalists. We enjoy 6 those same waters. We protect those waters. 7 We have been champions of the BMP's and their 8 implementation and their model ordinance across 9 the state. 10 We share some differences of opinion with 11 the regulation of fertilizer application as it 12 plays a portion of protecting water quality. 13 But water quality is paramount in Florida and 14 of importance to all of us. 15 We represent 3800 companies. We represent 16 50,000 workers, all of whom carry credentials 17 in this state, all of whom will be required to 18 have BMP training by the 2014 as designated by 19 the state legislature. 20 So we are in the business of using 21 fertilizers, and pesticides for that matter, 22 judiciously and with the idea of keeping 23 customers happy and protecting the environment 24 and water quality included in mind. 25 We, as an industry, face escalating fuel 145 1 costs. It pinches on businesses and economic 2 challenges. And I would just implore you to 3 listen to the economic arguments that have been 4 made. 5 I'm hearing cost estimates from 40 -- from 6 140 million dollars to 42 billion dollars. 7 There are some scales of economy here which, 8 you know, with sliding decimal points that have 9 enormous impacts. We need to look at those. 10 Real estates prices, if you haven't heard, 11 in Florida are in trouble. The real estate 12 industry in Florida is in trouble. To do 13 something arbitrary would simply overburden an 14 already stressed system. 15 I am different from a lot of people in the 16 room. I'm a new Floridian. I've been here two 17 years. My home state is Louisiana. And, as 18 you know, coastal restoration and environmental 19 problems are paramount in that state as well; 20 enormous problems, enormous challenges there. 21 I'll be a new homeowner in Lake County, 22 hopefully, God-permitting, any creeks don't 23 rise, in the next few months. And out in my 24 backyard is an orange grove and I have a great 25 view of Lake Louisa, one of the many lakes in 146 1 Lake County, appropriately named. So I'm going 2 to enjoy those water resources as well, so I've 3 got a vested interest in maintaining that. 4 I would also implore you to listen to the 5 arguments of the scientists, all of whom have 6 more credentials than I do. I'm a journalist 7 by training, so all I know how to do is 8 collect, organize and disseminate information. 9 The gentleman from ENTRIX, I believe, 10 spoke very credibly about -- in language I 11 don't pretend to understand at this point, 12 about the need for additional measurements, 13 additional standards to be made. I would 14 simply implore you to work with the state 15 agency, perhaps enlarge the tent, and bring 16 these very knowledgeable scientists, all of 17 whom have a local knowledge of water systems, 18 of soil hydrology, of the local geology, into 19 the process so we can look at a science-based 20 applicable and enforceable standard for Florida 21 water quality because, ultimately, somebody is 22 going to have to pay the bill whether it's 140 23 million dollars or it's 42 billion dollars. 24 Somebody is going to have to pay that bill. 25 And tax dollars being back and forth, who knows 147 1 who it's going to be? I assume the burden is 2 going to be on the 19 million Floridians -- the 3 brunt of the burden will be on the 19 million 4 Floridians. 5 And I'm a new homeowner and I want to keep 6 my pool clean and my grass cut, and I don't 7 know if I can afford a 42 billion dollar price 8 hike. 9 I would simply ask that you bring not only 10 the scientific arguments in mind, but also the 11 economic impacts in mind. 12 Thank you. 13 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 14 Speaker 107. 15 MR. YARBOROUGH: Good evening. I'm Jason 16 Yarborough, Publics Utilities Rep with the City 17 of Palm Bay. 18 Our utility system is made up of 30,000 19 water customers, over 14,000 wastewater 20 customers and over 400 reuse water customers. 21 The city went heavily into debt in the 22 early '90s to acquire the system from 23 ultimately a development company, the Journal 24 Development Corporation which went belly-up. 25 The city saw the writing on the wall and took 148 1 control of the utility system. But they 2 leveraged themselves out and they spent a lot 3 of money to upgrade the system. 4 We've put in -- gone after alternative 5 water for our drinking water supply which is 6 brackish, so we put in two reverse osmosis 7 water plants and we've made numerous 8 improvements to our wastewater treatment 9 facilities. We got into the reclaimed water 10 business. 11 We've recently converted a lot of our sand 12 filter systems over to -- over to cloth media 13 filtration in order to provide a better 14 effluent. We are the first utility in the 15 nation to have all our divisions, all of our 16 sections, ISO 14,001 certified simultaneously. 17 We didn't know you couldn't do that because no 18 one else had done that. We didn't know that. 19 But we did it in 18 months. 20 We've reduced our electrical consumption 21 for water production over the last 24 months by 22 17 percent. We are good stewards of the finite 23 resources we're given authority over. 24 That being said, we have some real issues 25 with the potential impact of this rule on our 149 1 ability to reclaim the water from the 2 wastewater treatment. We don't know what this 3 is going to do to our ability to provide reuse 4 water in an economical fashion. 5 I asked our engineers, please go out and 6 find out what this looks like, how can we meet 7 these regulatory challenges. And they came 8 back and gave me a price tag and it knocked me 9 on my butt, to be honest. We are looking at 31 10 million dollars. And then if you -- we don't 11 have that in the checkbook, so if we go out and 12 borrow it at five percent, you're looking at 13 like a two million dollar debt service payment 14 annual for the next 30 years. 15 If the technology we use in order to meet 16 the rule is implemented, and we think reverse 17 osmosis is basically the only way to get there, 18 we don't think we can get there in totality 19 with chemical treatment and additional 20 processes. We're looking at operational and 21 maintenance costs of an additional $900,000 a 22 year to our system. 23 Let's boil this down. What does this mean 24 for our customers? You get grandma and grandpa 25 who are going to pay from $45 a month in their 150 1 wastewater bill on top of their $30 water bill, 2 now they're going to go from paying for their 3 wastewater $45 a month to 95 to $110 a month. 4 So you're looking at a six to $700 increase 5 from grandma and grandpa's wastewater bill. 6 We're not a rich community, although we're 7 the second largest city in the Central Florida 8 area, in the seven-county area, with Orlando 9 being larger. We don't have Disney World in 10 our background -- in our backyard. We don't 11 have the same employment opportunities. We are 12 construction, and that went the way. And we 13 have the Kennedy Space Center and that's doing 14 something else. Who knows what that's doing. 15 So we're of limited means. We have some 16 manufacturing but we don't have a lot. 17 I don't know how we can get from here to 18 there if you're looking to implement this rule 19 on reclaimed water. It just ain't going to 20 happen. 21 We don't have the money. We are so 22 leveraged. We have 107 million dollars worth 23 of debt on the system. If you expect us to add 24 31 million dollars on top of that, it ain't 25 going to happen. I don't know how we can do 151 1 it. We can't get from here to there. 2 So we would ask that you reevaluate the 3 reclaimed water component and what this rule 4 will have an effect on that component. 5 I thank you for your time. 6 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you. 7 Speaker 108. 8 MR. COMPTON: I'm so sorry to keep you 9 waiting. Good evening. I'm Phil Compton, and 10 I'm representing the Friends of the 11 Hillsborough River, Incorporated, over in 12 Tampa. 13 I live in the middle of Tampa, on the 14 Hillsborough River, the lower river, to be 15 precise. I've been there for 20 years. It's 16 about a mile -- where I live about a mile below 17 the City of Tampa's reservoir at Rowlett Park 18 and Busch Gardens. 19 Our organization, Friends of the River, is 20 celebrating its tenth anniversary this month. 21 Ten years ago this river was written off as 22 dead. It had several problems. Its most 23 critical was the utter lack of a minimum daily 24 flow of freshwater most days of any given year 25 for the past 33 years. 152 1 Friends of the River had to legally 2 challenge the Southwest Florida Water 3 Management District rule on the minimum flows. 4 I got the district to study the river. 5 Sure enough, the results of five years of 6 scientific study showed that the river needed 7 more than twice as much water than the 8 district's first rule had set up. 9 Our appeal and the application of 10 scientific research to the establishment of 11 public policy, and that application I can 12 assure you is something that we made certain 13 that was actually put in place, did result in 14 giving in the river starting to recover from 15 these decades of abuse and neglect. It's now 16 on its third year of getting the bit of fresh 17 water that every day that a tidal river needs 18 to function as an estuary. This is, in this 19 case, a major estuary for the Tampa Bay. 20 Now, the result is the fishing is better. 21 All wildlife is more prevalent and diverse. 22 And our property values are holding up better 23 than other areas as riverfront neighborhoods 24 are now more prized than before. We've got 25 manatees and alligators and ospreys increased, 153 1 snook, and even now we got tarpon in there 2 coming up the river again. 3 Now, that gives me hope that things can 4 get better. But this river still has serious 5 problems. Nutrient input from over a thousand 6 homeowners like myself and more up river, the 7 rural areas up river in Hillsborough County, 8 the streets of the city that drain a third of 9 Tampa directly into the river, that all makes 10 this river very, very sick. We still have 11 large clumps of algae in the river. The river 12 is still at risk of having massive fish kills 13 after heavy rains, and occasionally 14 neon-bright, green algae blooms that kills 15 everything. Sewage still gets into the river 16 all too often. 17 I've never dared to swim in this river in 18 my backyard. But could that old-time pleasure 19 ever be restored? If we want it to, it could 20 be. Well, I want it to. And when I swim, I go 21 down to a city pool. It's a wonderful concrete 22 chlorinated, heated pool that the City of Tampa 23 had to build at Sulphur Springs. 24 Sulphur Springs was a natural resource 25 where people beginning around 1910, went to as 154 1 a huge tourist resort and swam until the late 2 '80s when nutrient pollution in the 3 groundwater -- Sulphur Springs is where the 4 water comes up that drains 30 miles north of 5 there into Pasco County. That got so bad with 6 the nutrient pollution that there's clumps -- 7 there's huge clumps of algae in there in the 8 springtime. 9 Ten years ago, our river was written off. 10 Now it is considered the heart of Tampa, the 11 city's number one natural resource where the 12 Riverwalk being built along it downtown, where 13 our brand new art museum just opened with a 14 great view of the river. Ever since Henry 15 Plant built what's now the University of Tampa, 16 it's been the city's heart but abuse and 17 neglect made us forget that. 18 Now that our city has rediscovered this 19 resource, it's heart, our city's people are 20 motivated to clean it up to protect it from 21 abuse to make sure it flourishes. It is an 22 investment in the economic health and vitality 23 of this major city whose plans for the future 24 are now finally, completely focused on the fact 25 that Tampa has a river running through it. 155 1 It is not a matter of not being able to 2 afford to clean up the Hillsborough and 3 Florida's other sick waterways. We cannot 4 afford not to. As long as these waterways are 5 less stagnant and impaired, our local economy 6 will also remain stagnant and impaired. 7 So, please, let's invest in the rivers, 8 the bays and the lakes that make our state a 9 place the world wants to come to, invest in and 10 spend their time and money in. Without clean 11 water, we're out of business. 12 Now, you've heard some people tonight say 13 you all shouldn't be here. I think we settled 14 that about 1865; the Federal Government has a 15 role in the state's business. 16 I've heard people say there's a rush doing 17 this. Well, it took five years to study 18 Hillsborough River. That seemed like a long 19 time. This has taken us 12 years, since 1998. 20 Did we even know what a digital phone or a 21 digital camera was back then? 22 You know, we can do this. The State could 23 have done this. Thank you so much for 24 responding to this lawsuit and saying, you know 25 what, you're right, Florida's had its chance. 156 1 Let's work with the State, though, and let's 2 work with the knowledge and the data that we've 3 gathered here and put together some standards 4 that do work. 5 But the people who say that nutrients 6 don't run off into the water, they don't make 7 things grow are really the people who have a 8 hand in causing that problem to happen. And, 9 you know, it's just a matter of adjusting their 10 business model. 11 But the rest of us really applaud you 12 being here and really want our water quality 13 restored because that's what our quality of 14 life is all about here in Florida. 15 Thank you. 16 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Compton. 17 Speaker 109. 18 MS. BRIGHT: Hello. My name is Mary 19 Bright, and I'm from Tampa, Florida. Excuse 20 me. I've been up since 6:00 this morning. I 21 worked eight to five and car-pooled over here 22 this evening because this is such an important 23 issue. 24 I'm a Florida native, and I have to tell 25 you thank you for coming to Florida because 157 1 Florida needs your help. I've watched in my 2 almost 50 years of life the Florida politicians 3 for too long have allowed developers and 4 business interests that did not have Florida's 5 best interest at heart do terrible things to 6 our state. 7 My father -- as a child, my father took us 8 all over this state when I was growing up. He 9 had such an appreciation of this beautiful 10 state. And I often travel the state by bicycle 11 now, and I'm sad to see its waterways in a 12 terrible state of degradation. 13 My request of you, and I'm going to keep 14 this brief because I know we're all tired, is 15 that you need to look at Florida's best 16 interest and know that although there will be 17 an economic hardship for some businesses and 18 some people, in the long run, they and everyone 19 will benefit. Our state does not benefit when 20 we allow short-term economic gain and we don't 21 look at -- we say, well, it's just going to 22 cost too much now. 23 If there had been politicians with 24 foresight 50 years ago who had known the damage 25 that would be done by the development that's 158 1 happened in this state since then, if they had 2 had the foresight to not allow the development 3 and to allow the development that occurred to 4 have occured in a responsible and respectful 5 manner, we wouldn't be facing the costs that 6 we're facing in this cleanup right now. 7 Let's not say in 20 years that we have 8 extremely high costs because you don't do the 9 responsible thing today. 10 That you very much. 11 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Bright. 12 Speaker 110. 13 MR. MORRELL: Good evening. My name is 14 Bob Morrell. I'm a practicing water and 15 wastewater professional engineer and been 16 practicing in Central Florida for the last 17 30-plus years. I also am an active member of 18 the Florida Engineering Society where I've 19 worked for about 20 years on the Conservation 20 and Environmental Quality Committee. Our job 21 there is primarily to focus on environmental 22 regulatory issues in the State of Florida. 23 And, generally, our organization has been 24 very supportive of protective regulations and 25 rules that are based on good science and that 159 1 make good economic sense. And I think that's 2 where some of our issues are. 3 And I'm not going to tell you that we're 4 totally done reviewing your proposed rules, but 5 I can tell you that, at least at this point, 6 our biggest issues are probably in the rivers 7 and streams. Lakes, not so much. I think 8 there was an attempt to use science there, and 9 there is some reasonable science when it comes 10 to the standards for lakes. 11 We appreciate the fact that you 12 differentiated between colored and clear lakes. 13 At the same time, we're disappointed that there 14 is no -- no really consideration to the depth 15 of water of the lake, the detention time in 16 lakes, the type of vegetation, emergent and 17 submergent, that might be in a lake. You know, 18 factors that also greatly impact chlorophyll 19 production and algae production, which is the 20 concern. 21 And, also, in Florida, we have a couple of 22 unique situations. Lakes in the St. Johns 23 River that at times act like lakes and at times 24 act like rivers. I'm not sure based on this 25 rule where they fall. Do they fall under the 160 1 lake regulations or in the streams and rivers 2 regulations? I'm not sure that these standards 3 would really apply to those types of lakes. 4 When it comes to rivers and streams, and I 5 think previous speakers have already spoken 6 very eloquently about it, but, generally, our 7 impression is that the science is very weak and 8 we hardly would call it a science. It's a lot 9 of association of numbers, but with little and 10 no cause and effect of relationship, and that's 11 not good science. 12 And just looking at the results of it, 13 comparing and developing numbers based on 14 reference streams, which is supposed to be our 15 best streams, and then taking the top -- you 16 know, lopping off the top 25 percent, I think 17 it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to 18 think that by the time we're all said and done, 19 we could end up having impaired bodies of 20 water -- impaired streams that represent maybe 21 more than 50, maybe 80 or 90 percent of our 22 streams and rivers in the State of Florida. 23 And in your preamble you mentioned, you 24 know, trying to get our attention that about a 25 thousand miles of our rivers and streams have 161 1 already been declared impaired. And that's out 2 of 50,000 miles. Now, that's two percent. I 3 mean, imagine the amount of impaired bodies 4 that we would have if we're talking about 50 to 5 80 percent impaired surfaces -- surface water, 6 rivers and streams in Florida. And if that's 7 the case, I think you could imagine the 8 economic impact of dealing with all that 9 impaired water. I think it would be a lot 10 greater than the estimates that I've seen so 11 far. 12 So I will just leave it at that. I think 13 that the EPA has had to rush to come up with 14 these numbers, and I don't think they're really 15 ready for prime time. I would urge you to slow 16 down. It has a big impact in Florida. And 17 also, I think this is going to have national 18 implications and it's worthwhile to slow down 19 and try to make it right. 20 Thank you. 21 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Mr. Morrell. 22 Speaker 111. 23 MS. GRIFFITHS: Good evening. My name is 24 Beverly Griffiths. I'm a native Floridian. I 25 was born in Tallahassee and I grew up in Miami. 162 1 I now live in the Tampa Bay area. 2 I'm a volunteer leader with the Tampa Bay 3 Sierra Club. And I want to welcome you here 4 and I appreciate your staying so late tonight 5 to hear us all out. 6 I'm here to voice very strong support for 7 EPA's proposed numeric nutrient rule which I 8 believe will provide a reasonable science-based 9 process to clean up the sources of nutrient 10 pollution that have plagued our state waters 11 for many years. 12 We can no longer afford to ignore the 13 declining health of Florida's waterways, and 14 this can be evidenced by algae blooms found 15 everywhere. 16 I'm talking about even from our lowly 17 retention ponds which have replaced our natural 18 wetlands systems. They're all over the place. 19 We jokingly refer to them as shopping cart 20 wetlands because they're rectangular, they're 21 made out of cinder blocks and they have a fence 22 around them and they're slimy and green and 23 they're full of trash all the time. It's quite 24 disturbing. And all the way from that to our 25 rivers, streams, lakes and bays. This 163 1 pollution is detrimental to human health, 2 wildlife, our fisheries, our recreational 3 opportunities and our tourist economy. 4 And studies show that it is far more 5 costly to clean up impaired waters than it is 6 to prevent the pollution at their point of 7 source. 8 We cannot -- not allow opponents to weaken 9 this rule that's coming forward. I believe 10 that businesses will be given ample time and 11 opportunity to comply through the incremental 12 regulatory approach that's being offered here. 13 And I also want to let you know that some 14 of the our state legislators are working. 15 Right now they've got shell bills ready to 16 delay and weaken this rule. They're working -- 17 as we are here trying to solve this problem, 18 they're working against us. 19 I've spent a lot of time in the Keys, and 20 I don't know whether or not this problem is 21 related to water pollution, but there is a 22 turtle hospital in the middle Keys, and these 23 turtles are turning up with these massive 24 tumors, multiple tumors on their body, inside 25 and out. No one knows why. 164 1 When I was down in the Keys, I went to 2 Bahia Honda State Park and could not swim there 3 because the beach was closed because of sewage, 4 a sewage problem. It's happened on a couple of 5 occasions when I've been down there. 6 In the Tampa Bay area, we've had Ben T. 7 Davis, which is a county beach, closed multiple 8 times because of sewage leaks. 9 So Hillsborough County has a very serious 10 antiquated, outdated infrastructure that needs 11 serious upgrading. 12 I simply urge the EPA and the Obama 13 administration to stand their ground on this 14 issue. And I thank you very. 15 MS. KEEHNER: Thank you, Ms. Griffiths. 16 Are there any other folks in the audience 17 that are interested in providing any remarks 18 before we close the hearing for today? 19 (No response.) 20 Thank you very much for your patience and 21 your respectfulness to all the speakers. Good 22 night. 23 (THEREUPON, the public hearing was 24 closed at 10:35 p.m.) 25 165 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 3 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 4 I, TERRI S. MILLER, RPR, FPR, CLVS, CSR, 5 certify that I was authorized to and did 6 stenographically report the proceedings of the U.S. 7 Environmental Protection Agency Public Hearing on 8 Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of 9 Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters on February 17, 10 2010, to the best of my ability, and that Page 1 11 through 164 is a true and complete record of my 12 stenographic notes. 13 I further certify that I am not a relative, 14 employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the 15 parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of 16 the parties' attorneys or counsel connected with the 17 action, nor am I financially interested in the 18 action. 19 Dated this 4th day of March, 2010. 20 21 ____________________________________ TERRI S. MILLER, RPR, CLVS, FPR, CSR 22 23 24 25 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25