0001
 1   
 2               U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 3                          PUBLIC HEARING
 4   
 5         Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of
 6                Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters
 7                 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596
 8   
 9                         Holiday Inn Airport
                           1301 Belvedere Road
10                         West Palm Beach, Florida
11   
12     Panel:
13     Ephraim King
       Jim Keeting
14     Denise Keehner
       Dana Thomas
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
25   
0002
 1               MR. KING:  We're going to start up.  Again,
 2          I'd ask folks to take a seat as a courtesy to those
 3          that are already seated so we can also take
 4          advantage of being able to hear the different
 5          speaks as we come through together, particularly
 6          the folks in the back of the room.  Can everybody
 7          hear me?  I think you can.  There you go.  Could
 8          everybody please sit down because we want everybody
 9          to be able to take advantage and listen to all of
10          the folks that are going to be sharing their views
11          with us today.  And for the folks in the back of
12          the room, we invite you as well to come up front.
13          We have some remarkably comfortable seats up front,
14          and I think you'll enjoy them.  Even for those of
15          you who have eyesight like mine, you'll be closer
16          to the front screen, and you can read the overheads
17          even better.
18               My name is Ephraim King.  I am director of the
19          Office of Science and Technology in Washington, DC
20          and we're delighted to be here today, and we're
21          delighted that you are here today to talk to us
22          about a proposal that EPA has just published to
23          establish numeric nutrient criteria for inland
24          waters in the state of Florida.  We'll talk about
25          those, but it's lakes and springs and streams and
0003
 1          canals are the scope of this particular proposal.
 2               Let me just introduce to you the folks that
 3          are with me up front today, and then I'll give you
 4          a little more information about what we hope to
 5          accomplish.  To my right is Dana Thomas, and she is
 6          the senior science expert on this particular
 7          project, and to Dana's right is Denise Keehner, and
 8          Denise is the Director of the Office of Wetlands,
 9          Oceans and Watersheds in Washington, DC, and to
10          Denise's right is Jim Keating, and Jim is the
11          programmatic and policy expert in this area, and he
12          will be providing the group with an overview of the
13          rule itself.  I think he does really an excellent
14          job with that.
15               Let me just reiterate our appreciation for the
16          time that you're taking to join us this afternoon.
17          I know that everybody here is busy, and I know that
18          you undoubtedly have a number of other things you
19          could be doing, possibly of equal importance or
20          very likely of greater importance.  So if you're
21          here and you're going to be talking to us about
22          this proposed rule, we're simply delighted that
23          you've taken the time to join us.
24               One of the things we want to talk about is the
25          national context of nutrient pollution.  This is a
0004
 1          national issue affecting many, many states across
 2          the country.  EPA since 1998 has been emphasizing
 3          to states the importance of developing numeric
 4          nutrient criteria to do a more effective job and
 5          create clearer base lines and targets for reducing
 6          loadings of nitrogen phosphorous which comprise
 7          nutrient pollution, and we're actually working with
 8          a number of states, for example in the Chesapeake
 9          Bay, we're working with a number of states in the
10          Mississippi basin, and of course we're working
11          directly with the Florida Department of
12          Environmental Protection on this issue as well.
13               For Floridians and for the Department of
14          Environmental Protection, nutrient impairment is a
15          serious and widespread problem within the state.
16          There are over a thousand miles of streams and
17          rivers that are impaired of nutrients.  As we speak
18          today there are 350 acres of lakes that are
19          impaired for nutrients, and there are over 900
20          square miles of estuaries that are impaired for
21          nutrients, and these numbers are probably an
22          underestimate because not all the area lakes and
23          rivers and streams in the state have been assessed
24          or evaluated.
25               Now, I guess the question that often comes up
0005
 1          is why is this level of impairment a concern, and
 2          why is it important that we come together and
 3          figure out a positive and effective common sense
 4          way of dealing with it, and the answer is first and
 5          foremost that the state of Florida depends upon its
 6          clean and safe water.  If there's one thing we've
 7          heard from all of the folks who have spoken to us
 8          in the last couple of days is that clean and safe
 9          water is central to the economy of this state, to
10          the prosperity of this state, and to the continued
11          economic growth of this state.  It's also essential
12          to the quality of life for many of folks who have
13          moved to Florida who are fifth, sixth and seventh
14          generation Floridians.
15               In terms of the public health impacts, which
16          is one of the things that EPA focuses on really
17          heavily.  There are a number of public health
18          concerns associated with nutrient pollution ranging
19          from elevated nitrate levels in ground water and
20          private wells to increased levels of disinfection
21          byproducts in drinking water.  Algae basically is a
22          form of organic carbon.  When that organic carbon
23          is drawn into drinking water plants that treat for
24          microbial pathogens with disinfectants, those the
25          disinfectants interact with that algae material and
0006
 1          form disinfection byproducts, and the disinfection
 2          byproducts are linked to increased levels of
 3          bladder cancer and increased reproductive health
 4          risks.  And something that I think that many of us
 5          have seen already are harmful algal blooms.  These
 6          can cause death to livestock and to pets, and they
 7          can cause rashes, dizziness and occasionally
 8          impacts to the central nervous systems of folks
 9          that are exposed.  Again, public health effects and
10          public health risks that we want to work very, very
11          hard with Floridians and the Department of
12          Environmental Protection to minimize and to reduce.
13               One of the things that we've been really
14          pleased to see is the level of interest and
15          engagement on this issue.  Candidly, there are a
16          number of folks that have strongly held opinions
17          about how we can improve the rule, and we actually
18          welcome those opinions and that input.  One of the
19          things that we've really struggled with is to be
20          sure that we have enough space so folks can
21          actually come and talk to us.
22               This room is as large a room as we could find.
23          We're going to go until about 5:00 this afternoon
24          and then start up again this evening.  If there are
25          folks who don't get a chance to speak, please come
0007
 1          back and join us this evening because we really do
 2          want to hear what you have to say.
 3               As you think about comments that you want to
 4          share with us, we first and foremost want to hear
 5          about any particular perspective or point of view
 6          that you want to bring to this issue.  A particular
 7          set of focuses that would be really helpful to us
 8          is anything you have, any thoughts or suggestions
 9          on the underlying science.  Sound science is for
10          EPA a very, very strong commitment, and it is
11          basically the compass that guides our decision
12          making at the end of the day.  We have relied very
13          heavily on Floridian data, many, many hundreds of
14          thousands of data points, and on science and
15          analysis that has been conducted in the state of
16          Florida.  But like any kind of analysis like this,
17          we've also brought our own data and our own
18          analysis to the consideration of the issue, and
19          with most scientific analysis, there's plenty of
20          room for improvement and for additional
21          information.  So if folks think that there is
22          information we haven't yet considered, we welcome
23          your identifying that information and sharing it
24          with us, and we'd be happy to carefully evaluate
25          it.  If there is information that we have that in
0008
 1          your view we have not interpreted correctly or
 2          properly, again we welcome your advice and your
 3          suggestions and your feedback on that because we
 4          think at the end of the day that leads to a
 5          stronger, a more balanced and a common sense set of
 6          numeric nutrient criteria which we think benefits
 7          everybody as well as public health, as well as the
 8          general prosperity in the state of Florida.
 9               So with those remarks, what I think I'll do is
10          I'll turn it over to Denise Keehner, who will
11          explain to you the process of the informal hearing
12          that we're engaged in and how we're going to move
13          through the day, and then we'll turn it over to Jim
14          Keating to give you an overview of the proposal
15          itself.
16               MS. KEEHNER:  I'll also like to take the
17          opportunity to thank all of you for taking the time
18          out of your day to be here with us.  As Ephraim
19          indicated, sound science is the foundation for good
20          regulation, and robust public engagement is also an
21          important element in the development of regulations
22          that ultimately work and accomplish the goals that
23          we have.
24               What I'd like to do is just spend a few
25          minutes walking briefly through what the federal
0009
 1          rule-making process is all about.  I know many of
 2          you are familiar with how state regulations are
 3          developed, but you may not be as familiar with how
 4          federal regulations are developed, and then I'll
 5          talk a little bit about how we're going to manage
 6          the process of hearing the remarks of so far 50
 7          people who have signed up to present remarks this
 8          afternoon.
 9               The proposed rule that EPA published on
10          January 26, 2010 is part of a process that is
11          called an informal or notice and comment
12          rule-making process.  Most federal regulations,
13          including almost all the regulations that EPA
14          issues, are established through this notice and
15          comment rule-making process.  The notice and
16          comment label, that terminology comes from the fact
17          that under the Federal Administrative Procedures
18          Act, such rule makings require three things to
19          occur.  The first is the publication of the notice
20          of proposed rule making, the second is an
21          opportunity for public participation in the
22          rule-making process through the submission of
23          written comments to EPA.  Our proposal that we
24          published in January of 2010 allowed for a 60-day
25          comment period, and that comment period is over on
0010
 1          March 29, 2010.  And the third element of the
 2          notice and comment rule-making process is the
 3          publication of the final regulation and the
 4          statement of basis and purpose.  Typically you may
 5          be familiar with the terminology the preamble to
 6          the final regulation.  That is the statement of
 7          basis and purpose.  It includes an explanation of
 8          how EPA arrived at -- or any federal agency arrived
 9          at their decisions about specifically what the
10          final regulation is going to say.
11               EPA is under a court-ordered deadline for this
12          particular regulation to finalize it by
13          October 15th of 2010.  All written comments that
14          are submitted to EPA during the 60-day period will
15          be included in the public record and in the docket.
16          This docket is publicly accessible and you are able
17          to access any of the information that's in the
18          docket and read it and review it yourself during
19          the rule-making process.  We will consider all
20          public comments that are made, including the
21          comments that are made at this hearing today.
22               We will respond in writing to all significant
23          comments, and typically that is done in a couple of
24          ways.  Sometimes comments are directly addressed in
25          the preamble to the final regulation, sometimes
0011
 1          significant comments are dealt with in a comment
 2          that is termed a response to comments document.
 3          That is part of the administrative record for this
 4          rule making, and that too is part of the docket and
 5          part of the rule-making process.
 6               When we publish the final rule, that
 7          regulation, as I indicated, will have the preamble
 8          that will walk through what decisions EPA made in
 9          light of all the comments that were filed during
10          the comment period.  Comments can be perspectives
11          on what's going to work or not from an
12          implementation standpoint, comments can be data,
13          comments can be analysis and different slicing and
14          dicing, I would call it, of the existing data that
15          EPA has considered in the development of the
16          regulation.  Typically the preamble to the final
17          rule will also walk through what changes have been
18          made between the proposal and the final regulation
19          as a result of the public comment period.
20               We're holding these hearings in Florida this
21          week to provide the public in Florida, Floridians
22          to express their views directly to us at EPA.
23          Mr. King is the Director of the Office of Science
24          and Technology, and that is the office at EPA that
25          is actually writing these regulations.  Mr. King is
0012
 1          the director of that office, so when you provide
 2          your remarks and your testimony, you are talking
 3          directly to the responsible manager at EPA for
 4          developing and finalizing this regulation.
 5               This is our opportunity to hear from you.  We
 6          do have, as I mentioned, about 50 speakers that
 7          have signed up both preregistration as well as walk
 8          ins this afternoon.  We are recording the remarks
 9          that are made at the hearing today.  We have a
10          court reporter here.  That transcript is going to
11          be made available again as part of the docket and
12          the administrative record for this rule-making
13          process.  All the comments that are made and all
14          the materials that are provided today and
15          throughout the comment period are part of the
16          docket and the administrative record for this
17          rule-making process.
18               When you signed in today and indicated that
19          you wanted to speak, we gave you a number.  As soon
20          as Jim Keating finishes an overview of the
21          proposal, I will be calling people up in numerical
22          order.  If you want to speak and you did not get a
23          number, please stop by the registration desk and
24          someone will provide you with a number so that you
25          will have an opportunity in an orderly way to
0013
 1          provide comments here today.  You will be speaking
 2          at the podium in the center aisle here.  When I
 3          call your number, please walk up to the podium,
 4          identify yourself and your affiliation.  What I'm
 5          also going to do is to ask the next two speakers in
 6          line to come to the front of the room and take
 7          seats in the reserved sections on either side.
 8          There's a blue piece of paper on each side saying
 9          reserved.  If we have folks who are waiting to be
10          the next speakers sitting there, it does go more
11          smoothly and we don't use up valuable time in
12          people trying to make their way up to the front of
13          the room, so I'd appreciate your cooperation in
14          that.
15               Each speaker is going to have five minutes to
16          speak, and we do have a timer that's visible to the
17          speaker so it will help you to manage your remarks
18          and the timing.  In the event that you approach the
19          one-minute mark and it appears that you have much
20          more to say, I would encourage you to find a way to
21          quickly synopsize your remaining remarks so that we
22          can move on to the next speaker.
23               Ephraim mentioned that we do have a session
24          also scheduled for this evening from 6:00 to 10:00.
25          Folks that don't get a chance this afternoon to
0014
 1          speak are absolutely welcome to return at 6:00.  If
 2          you have a number and we don't get to you this
 3          afternoon, you will be in the top of the queue for
 4          being called for the evening session.  And if you
 5          have additional comments that you were not able to
 6          complete within your five minutes, that session
 7          this evening between 6:00 and 10:00 is also an
 8          opportunity if you so desire to deliver any
 9          additional remarks.
10               With that, I'd like to turn over the floor to
11          Jim Keating who's going to provide us with an
12          overview of the federal proposal.
13               There are still some seats up in the front of
14          the room.  If anybody is standing or would like a
15          much more comfortable seat, as Ephraim indicated,
16          there is a little bit more leg room, at least two
17          more seats in the front row.
18               MR. KEATING:  They're not all in the front row
19          either.  There are some that are in the first five
20          rows or so.  Please avail yourselves of those
21          additional seating.  Can everyone hear me okay?  I
22          just want to make sure that the microphone is
23          working fine.
24               I will be brief in my remarks.  This is meant
25          to be a brief overview of EPA's proposal.  It is
0015
 1          not a substitute for the full text of our preamble
 2          to our proposed regulation or the wealth of
 3          material that we have posted online as part of the
 4          docket, including extensive support documentation
 5          that really go into a lot of the technical details
 6          that I won't have time to go into in great detail
 7          this morning for you.  But I do want to talk about
 8          three items in particular.  One is nitrogen and
 9          phosphorous pollution, what that is, what we're
10          talking about today.  I want to talk about water
11          quality standards, which is actually what we're
12          proposing and what they are, and I want to talk
13          about how they apply to Florida's lakes and flowing
14          waters, which was the subject of the proposal back
15          in January.
16               Phosphorous and nitrogen pollution, these are
17          nutrients, and they're necessary for all forms of
18          life to be supported.  The issue comes what happens
19          if they're in excess amounts, and one of the things
20          that we're most concerned about is that they can
21          cause the growth of unwanted and nuisance algae
22          species.  Now, algae aren't all bad.  In fact,
23          algae are quite necessary, but certain kinds of
24          algae and certain amounts of algae can cause real,
25          real problems in fresh waters and estuarian waters
0016
 1          and in coastal waters.
 2               A couple of examples of some algal species
 3          that are of critical importance and concern to us
 4          in Florida, one is the algae Lyngbya.  This is one
 5          that smothers eel grass which provides important
 6          habitat, and among other things it's food for
 7          species like manatee.  Also the Lyngbya species
 8          produces toxins and they're potentially harmful to
 9          humans and animals and our pets.
10               Another example of a harmful algae species is
11          Microcystis.  Microcystis produces a toxin.  It can
12          cause severe liver damage in humans.  It can also
13          poison livestock and poison wildlife.  Excess algae
14          in general causes a host of ill effects in
15          freshwater.  Among the effects can be discolored
16          water.  It can also be disruption of the natural
17          balance of species in the ecology of streams and
18          lakes, and when these excess algae die, they decay
19          and they deplete the dissolved oxygen levels that
20          are in the water, and this dissolved oxygen is
21          necessary for fish and shellfish survival.
22               We also have concerns, apart from stream
23          ecology from nutrient pollution from excess
24          nitrogen and phosphorous.  Among that is the
25          formation of disinfection byproducts in drinking
0017
 1          water intakes, and Ephraim had an opportunity to
 2          describe a little bit of that particular concern.
 3          Another human health concern is nitrate levels in
 4          ground water.  We know that there's a lot of
 5          interaction between surface water and ground water
 6          in Florida, and elevated levels of nutrients can
 7          cause serious issues for infants in particular was
 8          one rather dramatic concern, but there have been
 9          violations of the maximum contaminate level for
10          nitrates in Florida waters, and those recur at some
11          frequency each year.
12               Florida has an enormous amount of freshwater
13          resources, over 7,000 lakes, 50,000 miles of rivers
14          and streams, 4,000 miles of estuaries, and over 700
15          freshwater springs.  Now, a substantial portion of
16          these waters have already been identified as
17          impaired from nitrogen and phosphorous pollution,
18          and there are a substantial amount of waters that
19          probably have not yet to be identified as impaired,
20          and of course a substantial amount of waters in
21          Florida, as we all know, that are in clean and safe
22          and beautiful condition.
23               I'd like to share with you some images of what
24          nitrogen and phosphorous pollution can look like in
25          Florida, and I want to make it clear that I'm not
0018
 1          trying to assert that these are representative of
 2          all waters in Florida.  In fact, these are
 3          representative of some of the worst conditions in
 4          some waters in Florida, and it's what we're hoping
 5          that we can help facilitate in terms of
 6          restoration, and also what we're hoping to
 7          facilitate the prevention of.  So these are
 8          conditions that we really would not like to see,
 9          and we would like to ensure the waters that are in
10          good condition remain so.
11               This is a lake, Lake Manatee in Bradenton,
12          Florida, and you can see here a bloom, at least on
13          this day was at the fringes of that particular
14          reservoir, and the image to the right shows a close
15          up of that image with a device called a Secchi disk
16          that water quality monitoring specialists use to
17          measure the clarity or transparency of water, and
18          you can see the effect that it would have on the
19          that particular water quality measure.
20               This is another lake, this is in central
21          Florida, Lake Apopka.  This is another lake.  This
22          is an older photo image, one that's from 1995, but
23          it does illustrate what the effect of large scale
24          algal blooms can have on a large lake.  It's a
25          fairly dramatic image where you can see the boat
0019
 1          that's crossing, and that helps show the
 2          discoloration that's present.
 3               This is a water body called Merritts Mill
 4          Pond.  This is actually in the panhandle of
 5          Florida, about an hour west of Tallahassee.  This
 6          is a water body that's known for its kayaking and
 7          fishing, and that's what it's touted for.  It's
 8          actually in a state park, and you can see a rather
 9          dramatic effect of an algal bloom on that
10          particular water body.
11               This is a closeup in another lake that's out
12          in the panhandle called Lake Munson.  It's a
13          closeup of the Microcystis algae that's present in
14          that particular lake.
15               Now, we see that algal blooms not only affect
16          Florida lakes, but they affect Florida's flowing
17          waters as well.  This is an image from the
18          Caloosahatchee River.  This river flows from Lake
19          Okeechobee out to the west coast.  This is a
20          Microcystis Bloom, and it's near Olga, Florida
21          where there is a drinking water intake, and you can
22          see the image from the side of the river bank
23          there.
24               This is another picture of the Caloosahatchee
25          River, and this is a different type of algae bloom.
0020
 1          This is a more recent photo from 2008, and I think
 2          you can see the stark contrast on either side of
 3          that lock between where there's an algae bloom
 4          present and when there's not one present.  There's
 5          the lock right there.
 6               Moving further north up in the state around
 7          the Jacksonville area, this is an image of the
 8          St. John's River.  This is a river that's been
 9          subject to dissolved oxygen deprivation and algal
10          blooms.  There's another picture of the St. John's
11          River right here.  We can starkly see the algal
12          bloom that's moving past.
13               These kinds of conditions in our waters put a
14          lot of things at risk that we really care about.
15          It puts at risk ecology, it puts at risk
16          recreation, it puts at risk human health, and it
17          puts at risk tourism dollars and waterfront
18          property values.
19               Here's a closeup of a tributary of the
20          St. John's River that again shows a very stark
21          algal bloom right close by the neighborhood that's
22          present along that particular tributary.  Closer to
23          our location here, about 45 minutes to the north,
24          this is an image of the St. Lucie River from 2005,
25          and you can again see the very distinctive pattern
0021
 1          of algal blooms that's present there.
 2               Freshwater springs are a tremendous resource
 3          in the state of Florida.  This is an image of the
 4          Weeki Wachee Spring.  This is about an hour and a
 5          half west of Orlando.  What you see here is two
 6          images.  The one on your left is an image of the
 7          spring from the 1950s, and you can see that it's
 8          dominated by native eel grass populations and the
 9          water clarity is exceptional.  The image on the
10          right is one that's from this decade, and you can
11          see that the eel grass has been taken over by
12          Lyngbya algae, and the clarity and the whole
13          character of the spring is quite remarkably
14          different.
15               Phosphorous and nitrogen pollution also can
16          affect Florida's canals, and we know there are
17          several, several, you know, multiple miles of
18          canals that run through South Florida.  They drain
19          a variety of landscapes.  This particular canal
20          image is one that drains into Biscayne Bay.
21               Florida does have in place protection for
22          nitrogen and phosphorous pollution, and it's in a
23          narrative form or statement of desired condition.
24          It says something to the effect of we shouldn't
25          have excess nutrients that will cause an imbalance
0022
 1          in the natural populations of flora and fauna, and
 2          that's a good statement, and a lot of fine work has
 3          been done with that.  The issue that we see with
 4          the narrative statement is that working on a
 5          case-by-case basis to interpret it is a slow
 6          process and one that brings efforts at restoration
 7          to various water bodies in not necessarily a timely
 8          fashion to meet expectations.
 9               Numeric nutrient criteria, on the other hand,
10          can set targets that can be immediately developed
11          into limits for various sources of nutrients, and
12          it can function in a way that oftentimes the
13          narrative statement doesn't.  The narrative
14          statement is often more of a reactionary kind of an
15          approach where we see conditions like the images
16          that I showed.  We understand that we need to do
17          restoration, and we figure out how to do that.  But
18          restoring waters is a lot more expensive and a lot
19          more time consuming than preventing these
20          conditions from occurring in the first place.  With
21          numeric nutrient criteria, we'll have the means to
22          put in these limits and protect waters that are
23          already in clean and healthy condition.
24               Nutrients come from a variety of sources.
25          They come from runoff of urban landscapes, cattle
0023
 1          and crop fields, from air emissions, from cars and
 2          power plants.  They come from faulty septic tanks
 3          underground, they come from sewage treatment works
 4          and discharges from some industries.  But we know,
 5          and we've heard from many, many people this week
 6          about the work that has been going on in Florida to
 7          address these sources of nutrients.  Enormous
 8          efforts, enormous amounts of funds have been spent,
 9          and it results in better treatment and management
10          practices that actually remove these nutrients from
11          the system and prevent them from running off into
12          Florida's waters.
13               Moving a little bit more into the nature of
14          our proposal, water quality standards have two
15          principal components that I'd like to describe.
16          The first are designated uses.  This is a statement
17          of what we want from our waters.  The second
18          component is protective criteria.  These are
19          identifications of the specific levels and amounts
20          of pollutants that can be present in the water and
21          still meet those designated uses.
22               Florida has classified the designated uses for
23          their lakes and for their flowing waters, and
24          they've done so fully meeting the goals and the
25          expectations of the Clean Water Act for those
0024
 1          designated uses.  The overwhelming majority of
 2          freshwaters in Florida have either Class I for
 3          potable water supplies, or Class III for what
 4          Florida describes as recreation and propagation and
 5          maintenance of healthy, well-balanced populations
 6          of fish and wildlife.  These are Florida's goals
 7          that they have set and they have established for
 8          their waters.  The criteria that we're proposing
 9          today are intended to protect those designated
10          uses.  They protect for recreation, they protect
11          for aquatic life, and they protect for human
12          health.
13               EPA has been recommending the numeric nutrient
14          criteria to all states since 1998, and much more
15          recently, after consulting with the Florida
16          Department of Environmental Protection, the agency
17          made a determination that numeric nutrient criteria
18          are necessary to meet the Clean Water Act in
19          Florida, and we made that determination in
20          January 2009.  Following that determination, the
21          Florida Department of Environmental Protection put
22          out some draft proposed numeric criteria, held a
23          series of public workshops in the summer of 2009.
24          These workshops were attended by many experts and
25          many people in Florida, and we as agency staff and
0025
 1          representatives also attended those workshops and
 2          we learned a great deal from our colleagues in
 3          FDEP.
 4               We did enter into a legal agreement with
 5          environmental nongovernmental organizations in
 6          August of 2009 to insure that we have a federal
 7          process for putting in numeric nutrient criteria.
 8          This process called for two rule-making efforts.
 9          The first is what we're talking about today for
10          lakes and for flowing waters, a proposal by
11          January 2010 with going final by October 2010.
12          There's a second rule that is called for, and
13          that's for estuarian and coastal waters, and that
14          will take place in 2011.
15               To support our proposal in January 2009, we
16          really relied on the extensive database of
17          information and data from the state of Florida.  We
18          relied on the technical analyses that FDEP
19          developed, and we also did some of our own
20          technical analysis.  The methods that we used went
21          through an independent scientific peer review
22          process.
23               In terms of Florida data, there have been
24          thousands of sites that have been sampled
25          throughout the state that results in tens of
0026
 1          thousands of individual samples, and with multiple
 2          observations in each sample, the total database is
 3          well in excess of hundreds of thousands of data
 4          points.
 5               Specifically for lakes, we define them as open
 6          contiguous waters.  We were able to classify
 7          Florida lakes into three groups based on their
 8          natural color and their natural alkalinity.  We
 9          derive criteria based on field correlations of
10          Chlorophyll A and total phosphorous and total
11          nitrogen.  Chlorophyll A is a light pigment that
12          appears in the cells of algae and plant species.
13          It's a good measure of the primary productivity of
14          the system.  We also have an allowance for
15          adjustment of the total phosphorous and total
16          nitrogen criteria for lakes where there's
17          sufficient data to demonstrate that the Chlorophyll
18          A levels are met.
19               Here's a table that shows EPA's proposed
20          criteria.  I apologize if this table is difficult
21          to see in this long, narrow room.  There are
22          handouts I should have mentioned to you that were
23          in your registration materials, so you'll have that
24          information as you move forward today.
25               What we can see for what EPA has proposed is
0027
 1          that the Chlorophyll A levels for colored lakes and
 2          clear alkaline lanes reflect an expectation that
 3          there will be a higher level of productivity, more
 4          nutrients present in those kind of lake systems.
 5          In contrast, the clear acidic lakes, they'll have
 6          less expectation for nutrient levels, and
 7          corresponding less expectation for the productivity
 8          level for algae and plant species in those
 9          particular lakes.
10               The middle columns show the correlations from
11          the field data in terms of total phosphorous and
12          total nitrogen, and the columns on the right show
13          the range of adjustments that's possible for
14          specific lakes where the lake targets are met.  A
15          stream is a free flowing water body of a defined
16          channel.  We were able to classify streams into
17          different regions in Florida based on underlying
18          geology and other natural features as well as
19          watershed boundaries.  We derive criteria for
20          rivers and streams by examining the levels of total
21          nitrogen and total phosphorous that are present in
22          healthy, biological systems.  We use FDP stream
23          condition index, which is a very robust analytical
24          process where they can look at the biology and
25          aquatic life in particular streams and determine if
0028
 1          they are healthy and supportive of the designated
 2          uses.  We also have the proposed approach for
 3          adjusting these streams in rivers criteria to
 4          reflect the needs of downstream waters.
 5               These are the proposed criteria that EPA has
 6          for instream protection of those rivers and
 7          streams, and you can see that the levels vary by
 8          the differing geological expectations in different
 9          parts of the states.  In particular, you can see
10          that there's a region that's called the Bone
11          Valley, and another one in north central where
12          there are phosphorous rich soils, and there would
13          be differing expectations, then, for the nutrient
14          levels in those streams.
15               By federal regulation, when we establish water
16          quality standards, we have to insure that they
17          provide for the attainment and maintenance of
18          downstream water quality standards, and we know
19          that nutrients have an effect not just where
20          they're delivered or present in streams, but where
21          they go and where they travel to, and what effect
22          they can have in estuaries or downstream lakes.
23          And the water that flows from the headwaters into
24          the plains and from the plains into the estuaries
25          carry these nutrient levels with them, although
0029
 1          there are some losses from the system.
 2               For lakes, we have a simple equation that
 3          relates lake concentrations to stream
 4          concentrations, and allows us to look at the lake
 5          criteria and the corresponding stream
 6          concentrations and adjust the rivers and streams
 7          concentrations and criteria accordingly.  For
 8          estuaries we relied on a United States geological
 9          survey model called the SPARROW model.  SPARROW is
10          a model that can be produced on various regional
11          scales, and there has been one that's produced for
12          the southeast United States.  It's a watershed
13          scale model that relies on data from Florida to
14          calibrate the delivery of nutrients from the
15          various landscape sources and its transport through
16          the watershed.  It allows us to provide estimates
17          of total protective loading that the estuaries need
18          to see at their mouth.  And again, we can adjust
19          the corresponding rivers and streams criteria in
20          that watershed to provide for protection of the
21          downstream estuaries.
22               One of the things we have proposed is a series
23          of what we call downstream protection values.
24          These are the concentrations that we develop using
25          the SPARROW model, and they represent what would be
0030
 1          protective of the downstream uses in those
 2          estuaries.  They tend to be lower than the instream
 3          protection values because nitrogen tends to have a
 4          more profound effect in the downstream estuaries
 5          than they do necessary at the same concentrations
 6          in the streams.
 7               We did indicate that there are choices we have
 8          in the rule-making process for going final with
 9          these downstream protection values.  We could do so
10          in 2010, or we could defer action on the downstream
11          protection values until we go forward with our
12          estuary and coastal criteria proposals in 2001.
13               In terms of springs, these are the waters that
14          bubble out of the ground like the Weeki Wachee
15          system that I just showed an image of.  We were
16          able to rely on a wealth of laboratory and field
17          studies that FDEP compiled to identify a protective
18          criterion for a specific component of total
19          nitrogen, the nitrate and nitrite component, and we
20          have a specific numeric criteria recommendation for
21          the spring system.
22               South Florida Canals.  We know the canals are
23          trenches, they're manmade systems, and they were
24          principally developed for flood control and
25          irrigation purposes.  However, the state of Florida
0031
 1          does classify them with the same designated uses as
 2          other rivers and streams that carry Class III
 3          designated uses for aquatic life protection,
 4          recreation and human health protection.  In a
 5          similar fashion that we were able to develop
 6          protective criteria for rivers and streams, we were
 7          able to identify a database from canals that are
 8          not impaired, and that we can infer that the
 9          designated uses are being met.  From that database,
10          we can set criteria for Chlorophyll A, for total
11          phosphorous and for total nitrogen.  Our proposal
12          in no way affects the application of the criteria
13          that are in place for the Everglades, the ten part
14          pavilion criteria that applies to the marshes and
15          the canals that run through the Everglades already.
16               A couple other features of EPA's proposal I'd
17          like to highlight and bring your attention to.  One
18          is an allowance for site specific alternative
19          criteria.  This is something that the state of
20          Florida can avail themselves of where they can
21          demonstrate that values that are different than the
22          ones that we're proposing are protective of the
23          designated uses for the waters that they would
24          apply.  This is a process that they can use where
25          they can submit the supporting documentation and
0032
 1          the alternative criteria directly to the EPA and
 2          the regional administrator in Atlanta in taking
 3          action to put them in place for Clean Water Act
 4          purposes.  We also have a procedure for what we
 5          call restoration standards, and this recognizes
 6          that restoration, in meeting these kind of nutrient
 7          levels, in many cases may take time and may occur
 8          in gradual steps.  It allows the state to work with
 9          their communities to identify interim designated
10          uses and interim criteria along the way to make
11          feasible progress towards attaining these criteria
12          that are fully protective of the designated use.
13               EPA did conduct an economic analysis, and the
14          way we did this is we looked at the various
15          important sources of nutrients.  For waste water
16          treatment plant, we assumed that plants were
17          necessary using the highest and best available
18          biological treatment.  We looked at nonpoint
19          sources and what would be best management practices
20          that they could put in place.  We also looked at
21          replacement of faulty septic tanks.  Our estimates
22          for total cost, when you factor in what Florida had
23          proposed in 2009 and any incremental differences
24          between what we have proposed in January of 2010,
25          we came up with a figure of $140 million on an
0033
 1          annual basis.  I know that the numbers that people
 2          have been putting up there are substantially
 3          higher, and we often talk about total costs.  Our
 4          total costs would be approximately 1.5 billion.
 5               We did not look at storm water management
 6          costs.  It was a little bit unclear to us how
 7          existing requirements for storm water control would
 8          be altered to meet any additional requirements.  It
 9          might be that the things that are already in the
10          works would also take care of the nutrient issue,
11          but of course this is an issue we're hearing quite
12          a lot about, and I think there's lots of viewpoints
13          and opinions on that.  We certainly recognize that.
14               Hopefully we've made clear what our procedures
15          are for submitting the comments.  We are expecting
16          to have these comments by March 29th.  I hope that
17          everyone can avail themselves of the electronic and
18          internet based ways to communicate these comments.
19          But of course there are many numerous alternate
20          ways to get your comments to us.
21               A real quick review, water quality standards
22          include designated uses and protective criteria.
23          Florida has established those designated uses for
24          their waters.  They agree that numeric nutrient
25          criteria are necessary for their protection.  EPA
0034
 1          has entered into this legal agreement to do these
 2          rule making efforts.  We've used the enormous
 3          amount of data in many, many of the technical
 4          approaches developed within the state by the FDEP.
 5          We have criteria proposed for lakes, streams,
 6          rivers, springs and South Florida canals.  We used
 7          approaches for protecting downstream waters using
 8          the lakes equation and the USGS SPARROW model.  We
 9          further have procedures in place for adjusting
10          these criteria for site specific conditions and for
11          conditions that are going to need time and gradual
12          steps for their attainment.
13               We have to respond to all these comments that
14          we're getting, and we really, really welcome the
15          comments that we're getting.  It's been enormously
16          beneficial what we're hearing from folks, and it's
17          going to allow us to produce the best possible
18          result that we can.  We've asked for some specific
19          questions in our proposal, and we've offered some
20          alternatives that I wish you would take a look at
21          as well.  With that, we're very delighted that
22          you're here, and we really are anxious to hear from
23          you.  Thank you very much.
24               MS. KEEHNER:  Okay.  We're ready to move into
25          the portion of the hearing that provides you with
0035
 1          an opportunity to talk directly to us.  I'd like to
 2          invite speaker number one to the podium, and also
 3          speakers two and three, if you could come to the
 4          front of the room and take the reserved seats in
 5          the front row, that would be much appreciated.
 6               MR. GILDAN:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 7          Phillip Gildan, and I'm with Greenberg Traurig law
 8          firm.  My comments today are on behalf of the East
 9          Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility Board,
10          which is located here in West Palm Beach,
11          colloquially referred to as the ECR.  The ECR is a
12          separate and local entity created by the Town of
13          Palm Beach, the City of Riviera Beach, the City of
14          Lake Worth, the City of West Palm Beach and Palm
15          Beach County to treat and dispose of the waste
16          water collected within their service areas.  The
17          ECR owns and operatives a 70 million gallon a day
18          water reclamation facility.  It's currently
19          permitted for 64 mgd, but the facilities are in
20          place for 70, and the current average daily flows
21          are approximately 40 million gallons a day.
22               The ECR comments are as follows, but I do want
23          to note that these comments are the ECR board's
24          comments and not the comments of the individual
25          entities who created the board lest there be any
0036
 1          confusion there.  The first thing is the ECR would
 2          recommend that the South Florida canal section of
 3          the proposed rules be deleted and that the current
 4          narrative nutrient criteria utilized by FDEP for
 5          the South Florida canals remain in place.  ECR
 6          believes that provides a superior alternative that
 7          more adequately and efficiently protects the South
 8          Florida canals and better serves the overall public
 9          interest.  The FDP current rule permits for a
10          case-by-case application that addresses each
11          specific canal and tailors a response to meet the
12          environmental needs of such canal, taking into
13          account the specific inflows into those water
14          bodies and the outflows from those water bodies.
15               The next issue we'd like to raise, the ECR
16          would urge the EPA to consider the negative
17          environmental impacts that we believe
18          implementation of the rule would create,
19          particularly in South Florida.  In order to meet
20          the rule requirements on a numeric basis,
21          technologies to reduce nutrient loadings in
22          reclaimed water and/or treated waste water to the
23          levels being proposed by the EPA would require
24          implementation of very intensive membrane
25          technologies.  These membrane technologies require
0037
 1          high energy usage to force the effluent waste water
 2          through membrane filters with a result in
 3          substantial increase in a treatment facility's
 4          existing carbon footprint and the substantial
 5          impact on global warming at this point.  It would
 6          also create a concentrated side stream that must
 7          then be disposed of with additional impact on the
 8          environment.  These negative environmental impacts
 9          do not appear to have been significantly considered
10          by EPA, and the ECR board believes that if you're
11          looking at a rule making, the negative impact must
12          be weighed against the projected incremental
13          environmental benefits anticipated to be gained by
14          implementation of the rule.
15               Finally, as mentioned earlier, the capital
16          costs of the rule that would impose on public
17          utilities we think far exceed the amounts estimated
18          in the proposal.  The installation of membrane
19          technologies and the affiliated integration
20          facilities, plus the disposal facilities that would
21          have to be put in place to deal with the
22          concentrate, plus the cost of the additional
23          electric facilities that would be needed in order
24          to power those membrane facilities we think far
25          exceed what you're looking at.  Our estimates are
0038
 1          somewhere in the range of eight dollars per gallon
 2          of treated effluent.  For instance, if applied to
 3          the 70 mgd, our facilities would equal a 560
 4          million dollar capital cost, together with a
 5          significant increase in the operating cost for
 6          electricity and membrane and operating replacement
 7          for those facilities.  We think that these
 8          compliance costs and the breadth and scope of them
 9          may not have been thoroughly analyzed and
10          considered in the EPA proposal, in which case we
11          really do and hope that you can take a look at that
12          and make sure when you're looking at the costs and
13          weighing that and those environmental other impacts
14          against the proposed incremental benefit, that
15          you'll come to the conclusion that we've reached
16          then hopefully to maintain the current FDEP
17          narrative requirements, which we think FDP does a
18          tremendous Florida, particularly in South Florida.
19          I can't speak to north Florida or central, but in
20          South Florida we think they do a tremendous job in
21          regulation and keeping our waters clean under the
22          current rule.  Thank you very much.
23               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Gildan.  Speaker
24          number two.  Speakers three and four can please
25          make their way to the reserved seats.
0039
 1               MS. WESSEL:  Good afternoon.  My name is Rae
 2          Ann Wessell, and I'm here today on behalf of the
 3          Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation and to
 4          speak on behalf of the Caloosahatchee River.  I
 5          serve at the SCCF as the natural resource policy
 6          director, I'm a limnologist and a resident of South
 7          Florida for the past 32 years.  In those 32 years
 8          I've watched the water quality decline, impacting
 9          the health and variety of water bodies, dwindling
10          the ability of me to enjoy and my neighbors to
11          enjoy my quality of life, sailing, boating,
12          swimming, fishing, diving.
13               The health of our inland waters is fundamental
14          to the economy of our communities and our state.
15          Inland waters are our economic engine, and they
16          feed our coastal waters.  The cleaner the fresh
17          waters are, the cleaner our downstream waters.
18          It's a simple equation.  The contribution of
19          healthy waters to the economy can be told through
20          the numbers.  In Lee County alone, three billion
21          dollar industry is based on a clean and healthy
22          environment.  People come from all over the state,
23          all over the world to visit these natural
24          resources.  124,000 jobs are involved.  In 2004 to
25          2006 the Caloosahatchee experienced devastating
0040
 1          blooms of algae, toxic algae bloom known by their
 2          nicknames as Annie, Fannie and Mike, including
 3          Lyngbya and trichodesmium.  It turned our rivers
 4          green and our beaches red.  The health department
 5          had to post warnings to keep people away from the
 6          water.  The water plant, which you showed a photo
 7          of, had to be shut down, a plant that receives
 8          40,000 homes.  In 2007 the algal blooms and the
 9          impacts earned the Caloosahatchee the dubious
10          distinction of being the seventh most endangered
11          river in the country.  And Lee County alone
12          experienced a $40 million loss in the economy.  We
13          lost the freshwater grasses, 18 kilometers of
14          freshwater grasses through the Caloosahatchee.
15               In the economics of Everglades restoration,
16          missing pieces in the future of South Florida,
17          economist Richard Weisskoff computed that within
18          the Everglades ecosystem of South Florida,
19          conservatively the value of total ecosystem
20          services is 58.7 billion dollars or 68.2 billion
21          adjusted for 2000 prices, year 2000 prices.
22          Tourism is the largest industry in Florida
23          contributing over 53 billion annually to our
24          economy.  Wildlife-related recreation constitutes a
25          significant portion of that total with fishing,
0041
 1          hunting, wildlife viewing generating 7.2 billion
 2          annually.  Investing in the health of our southern
 3          penannular is an investment in our community and
 4          our economy.
 5               We need numeric nutrient criteria.  We needed
 6          them years ago, decades ago.  The narrative
 7          criteria simply has not worked.  We need to set
 8          standards now, and we need to delay no further.  If
 9          we had simply frozen water quality standards at any
10          point in the past, pick a date, we'd be further
11          along than we are today.  Every day we wait is a
12          day we waste.
13               Limits need to be based on sound science, but
14          waiting and fighting over the absolute perfect
15          science -- we know enough.  We do have guidelines.
16          We need to put them forward.  The cost of not going
17          forward is to pass this problem on to future
18          generations, and the cost is far too great.  The
19          longer we wait, the worse the problem will be, and
20          the higher the cost.
21               We continue to review the proposed rule
22          making, and will be submitting final comments in
23          writing, but I thank you for taking the time today
24          and over the past three days.  You must be kind of
25          tired.  Thank you.
0042
 1               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Wessell.  Speaker
 2          number three?  And if we could have speaker number
 3          five make their way up.
 4               MR. HAMMILL:  Good morning.  I'd like to echo
 5          the comments as far as having you all here and
 6          listening to the public comment.  For the record,
 7          my name is Ron Hammill, and I'm executive vice
 8          president of the Gulf Citrus Growers Association.
 9          We represent the citrus industry in southwest
10          Florida, Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry and Lee
11          Country.  We have over 140,000 acres in our region
12          and represent about 25 percent of Florida's total
13          nine billion dollar industry.
14               Our association has been actively engaged in
15          water management issues for over 25 years.  We've
16          been very active in trying to address a lot of the
17          concerns related to water management and water
18          quality.  We have a BMP manual.  I don't know if I
19          want to leave that for you, but I certainly will,
20          that has been developed with multi agencies, and
21          our growers are actively engaged in putting the
22          program together.
23               We're here to express a few concerns about the
24          proposed rule.  First, I'd like to say that we feel
25          that a lot of the points are too broad, that we
0043
 1          know from working with various water bodies in our
 2          region, Lake Trafford, Lake Okeechobee and the
 3          Caloosahatchee River areas that were concerned that
 4          the science behind some of the recommendations was
 5          questionable, and in fact Mike Sole, the secretary
 6          of our Department of Environmental Protection has
 7          commented on that.  In fact, I think FDEP has put
 8          together a list of scientific concerns.  So if your
 9          agency truly wants to respond to that science, and
10          I believe credibly you are, we certainly would
11          encourage you all to take a hard look at that.
12               We're also very concerned about the canal
13          issue.  The University of Florida soil scientists
14          reviewed that and kind of gave us a warning on that
15          one saying that in order to meet some of these
16          phosphorous standards, we would have to
17          tremendously reduce our inputs and our crops,
18          therefore having a ripple effect on the ability to
19          grow citrus and other agriculture in the region.
20          So again, you know, we certainly support science,
21          but we want to make sure the science is sustainable
22          to our industry.  So if we are forced out of
23          business and not have agriculture and that good
24          Florida orange juice, I don't think anybody in
25          America will be too happy about that, so we want to
0044
 1          make sure that whatever we come up with
 2          scientifically is validated.
 3               Then the economic concerns.  I think you all
 4          have indicated that in the report, and I perused
 5          that report.  I'm not an economist, but my cursory
 6          look regarding our industry were classified under
 7          specialty crops and citrus, and I think your base
 8          costs were over $20 per acre per year, which was a
 9          significant amount to our industry, particularly
10          when we're fighting a lot of pests and diseases and
11          now trying to sustain our industry, adding
12          particularly to the smaller growers $20 per acre
13          more of just the compliance cost.  Now that doesn't
14          indicate either if we have to cut back on our
15          fertilizer use and other material use the reduction
16          in crop to meet that.  So when you cut one, there's
17          another effect coming down, and that needs to be
18          addressed.  And again, you know, that's going to
19          impact us, and you've got fewer growers, you're
20          going to have fewer citrus to pack and to process,
21          so you're going to impact that sector of the
22          industry and the jobs that are linked to the
23          growing, the processing and all the way up the
24          line, the drivers, the pickers.  Everybody in our
25          industry is going to be impacted.
0045
 1               We're also concerned with some of the
 2          environment engineering professional quotes that
 3          are coming out regarding this total impact, and I
 4          think a couple of the speakers had already
 5          mentioned that one.  We think your numbers are way
 6          low when it comes to that.  And of course being
 7          citizens of the state of Florida ourselves, we're
 8          concerned that we could bump our utility bills $60
 9          a month for the average citizen, which obviously
10          has us quite concerned.
11               But in closing, we certainly do appreciate you
12          all addressing these water issues.  We certainly
13          support a lot of the efforts that have been done in
14          our state.  We're a participant in this all the way
15          across the board both with the Department of
16          Agriculture, both in the state, USDA.  We look
17          forward to staying in the process, and we sincerely
18          encourage you all to take a hard look at that
19          science.  Our colleagues are serious about this,
20          and we appreciate it.  And again, thank you for
21          coming here.
22               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Hammill.  Speaker
23          number four?  Would speaker number six make their
24          way up to the front?
25               MR. ULIVICH:  Good afternoon.  My name is Bob
0046
 1          Ulivich, and I'm the administrator of the St.
 2          John's Improvement District and Sebastian River
 3          Improvement Districts, both of which are located in
 4          western Indian River County.  Both of these
 5          districts are agricultural districts.  Relative to
 6          this discussion, both these districts are located
 7          within the peninsula stream nutrient region.  These
 8          agricultural districts comprise approximately
 9          42,000 acres with St. John's being the larger of
10          the two with 30,000.
11               The dominant agriculture product produced is
12          the famed, iconic Indian River citrus, globally
13          known and recognized as one of the premier, if not
14          the premier citrus.  In fact, the St. John's
15          Improvement District is the largest remaining
16          concentrated stand of this famed citrus globally,
17          globally.  This is it amongst a diminishing number
18          of its, and we are desperately trying to preserve
19          it.  For the sake of the allotted time, I will
20          focus my dialogue on St. John's District, not to
21          discount the Sebastian District as it also shares
22          in its end user concerns.
23               St. John's is a dike levy system where water
24          is provided gravity through irrigation and
25          recovered through pump.  It is an enclosed
0047
 1          circulatory system much like the human body and
 2          probably as close to a class IV system as we may
 3          find.  There's only one discharge point per 30,000
 4          acres, that being in the upper St. John's system as
 5          operated by the St. John's River Water Management
 6          District.  As an encapsulated system, the
 7          St. John's is land locked.  Of the 30,000 acres,
 8          25,000 is privately owned agriculture of which
 9          95 percent is citrus.  Given the surface water
10          elevations can be five to 10 feet higher than the
11          ground elevations, balancing the delicate love/hate
12          relationship between citrus and water is a
13          challenge, even under ideal conditions.  My job is
14          to make sure this citrus/water marriage stands the
15          test of time.  During weather events, the
16          difference between survival and failure is measured
17          in the hundreds of a foot, fractions of inches.
18          Any action which would require an adjustment to
19          surface water attenuation and potentially increase
20          surface water storage would tilt this delicate
21          balance toward failure.  Given my almost 40 years
22          of water management experience in water management
23          in Florida, and specifically in these geographical
24          areas, I can only presume that any attempts to move
25          toward these standards would look at increased
0048
 1          water storage and/or restricted discharges.  For
 2          us, that would be our ruination.  We do not have
 3          that capability.  Given our physical internal
 4          limitations and our hydraulic placement at the
 5          extreme head water at the upper St. John's, we must
 6          react quickly to provide effective and safe water
 7          management to the residents.
 8               In the case of the St. John's I ask you to
 9          visualize a bathtub whereby the furthest point from
10          the drain is our improvement district.  We are so
11          from the drain that the only thing behind us in
12          this example is the bathtub ring.  We must react
13          quickly to conditions as we are on the hydraulic
14          edge, preferable cutting edge, and if our system is
15          handicapped in any fashion by its ability to
16          discharge as required, we have violated our
17          critical flood control objective.  And I'm sure I
18          don't have to remind a lot of folks that the
19          project which created our Florida system, the
20          federal project and the agency which was created
21          was the Central and South Florida flood control
22          project in the Central and South Florida Flood
23          Control District, my first employer in Florida.
24               I often compare our efforts to that of the
25          Alamo where we are continually fighting against
0049
 1          incredible odds which surround us.  In attempting
 2          to sustain and maintain our viability, we have
 3          fought the devastation of hurricanes, canker,
 4          citrus green.  We are committed to sustaining the
 5          viability of this famed agricultural product and to
 6          be good stewards of the environment as evidenced in
 7          our citrus BMTs of 1998 and our ongoing efforts to
 8          reconnect the water management districts to keep
 9          hundreds of thousands of water from the lagoon.  We
10          are committed as the pig in the fable of the ham
11          and the egg.  We need your commitment to ensure us
12          that you will join in this commitment to help
13          preserve these agriculture areas to be able to
14          sustain their productive viability, that your
15          actions be one of many positive actions which will
16          provide for our successful continuation and not our
17          demise.  Thank you?
18               THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Ulivich.  Speaker
19          number five.  And if speaker number seven can make
20          their way to the reserved seat.
21               MR. PARSONS:  I'm Philip Parsons.  I'm
22          speaking today for the Everglades Agricultural
23          Environmental Protection District, which was the
24          district that was created by the Florida
25          legislature in the late '80s, funded by a per acre
0050
 1          tax on agricultural land, and has generated
 2          research work funded with the water management
 3          district and others a number of investigations into
 4          enviromental resource management, best management
 5          practices, storm water treatment area improvements.
 6          And from the late '80s through this fiscal year the
 7          district will have funded a little over 50 million
 8          dollars in research, and we believe it's made a
 9          positive contribution to understanding of these
10          issues.
11               Among the projects that have been funded,
12          there are two that I think are particularly
13          relevant to your proposed criteria.  Both these
14          research reports will be submitted for the record.
15          But to explain these to you, each project of the
16          two in particular that we'll submit were based on
17          canal sampling in different ways.  Of the two, the
18          one that's probably of more interest to you is one
19          in which we took over 30 years of data consistently
20          gathered by the Reedy Creek Improvement District,
21          which is south of Orlando, and serves the Disney
22          complex.  And they used Hester-Dandy samplers, and
23          under the state's water quality criteria,
24          Shannon-Weaver Index interpreting that data is the
25          basis for our biological integrity criteria.  So
0051
 1          for 30 years throughout the district, more than 30
 2          years actually, but for purposes of our report 30
 3          years.  They've taken this data consistently, and
 4          it gives you a way to compare canal systems to
 5          natural streams, and it gives you a way to compare
 6          a variety of nutrient inputs and biological
 7          responses, and what it shows generally is that
 8          natural streams can support healthy, well-balanced
 9          aquatic life at nutrient levels much higher than
10          those that you're proposing, which I don't think is
11          a surprise, and secondly, that canals or streams
12          that have been channelized for some time don't
13          provide an adequate habitat to support nutrient
14          sensitive species.  So that even if you achieve the
15          levels that you've proposed, there may be limited
16          environmental benefit from the expenditure of the
17          funds.  But this Reedy Creek data and the report
18          that interprets it is the issue that I think you'll
19          have the most interest in.
20               Reedy creek was entirely natural, remains
21          natural today, had a fairly constant flow, and for
22          many years Reedy Creek had background levels of
23          phosphorous at about 70 parts per million, and for
24          15 or 20 years, though, they had a permitted
25          discharge that elevated the ambient phosphorous to
0052
 1          around 300 parts per million, and then the effluent
 2          was removed that was used for beneficial irrigation
 3          in the Disney complex.  But the Hester-Dandy sample
 4          data had no significant change before.  During or
 5          after, the results were essentially the same.
 6          There was no difference at all in what was
 7          reflected in that.
 8               Now, I understand that this is one of several
 9          ways to monitor aquatic health.  It does tend to
10          integrate a number of factors and has been relied
11          on as a way to get a fairly accurate and useful
12          measure of aquatic health.  So the second point is
13          that Bonnet Creek was channelized long before the
14          sampling began, always had the background levels of
15          phosphorous at 70 parts per billion.  And even when
16          Reedy Creek's effluent elevated its ambient to 300
17          and you compared Bonnet Creek which was channelized
18          at 70 to Reedy Creek at 300, Bonnet Creek never
19          matched the aquatic health of Reedy Creek because
20          it was habitat limited.  That was the only
21          difference between the two in this 30 years of
22          record, and we will submit all that to you, along
23          with other research projects that we've had.  Thank
24          you.
25               THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Parsons.  Speaker
0053
 1          number six?  Speakers seven and eight can make
 2          their way to the front.
 3               MR. MARCH:  Good afternoon.  I am Raymond
 4          March.  I'm a professional engineer.  I've been
 5          practicing in the state of Florida for over 25
 6          years.  This afternoon I want to make some comments
 7          on behalf of Collier Enterprises and Orange Co.
 8          These are companies with substantial interests in
 9          the state of Florida in citrus, farming, ranching
10          and land development.
11               First I'd like to say that we agree with some
12          of the previous speakers regarding their concerns
13          on the science behind the rule as well as the
14          economic impacts, but I want to make some more
15          specific comments as well.  We have a number of
16          questions about the proposed rule and how it will
17          be implemented and how it will ultimately impact
18          our operations.
19               We've been incorporating water quality
20          improvement practices in our operations for some
21          time.  We currently have a number of structural
22          BMPs, primarily storm water impoundments that are
23          in various stages of planning, design and
24          construction.  The State of Florida, through the
25          Department of Ag and the DEP, have programs to
0054
 1          address water quality improvements that we have
 2          relied upon to make economic decisions for these
 3          projects.  The uncertainty associated with the
 4          EPA's rule is an impediment to progress on these
 5          projects.
 6               I'd like to highlight a couple of particular
 7          areas of concern.  The proposed criteria is based
 8          on average water quality concentrations without
 9          regard to flow quantities.  One of our most
10          effective BMPs is storm water retention
11          impoundments, and these systems reduce nutrient
12          loading reliably, but are less effective at
13          reducing nutrient concentrations.
14               It is difficult to justify going forward with
15          these projects without knowing how they will be
16          evaluated under the proposed rule.  An additional
17          concern is that all of the information that we have
18          indicates that water quality nutrient
19          concentrations vary significantly with several
20          variables, especially rainfall, soils, topography
21          and vegetation.  Water quality standards that do
22          not adequately take these variables into account
23          will not provide the flexibility necessary to
24          design cost effective water quality improvement
25          facilities.  We need a regulatory process that
0055
 1          takes these variables into full account, and one
 2          that is practical and predictable.  Thank you.
 3               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. March.  Speaker
 4          number seven?
 5               MR. DAVIS:  David Davis, district manager for
 6          the Glades water control districts.  It's a
 7          pleasure to be here and thank you for you guys
 8          being here.
 9               Historically the existing network of canals
10          provide both necessary drainage and flood control,
11          and I'm hoping the EPA has considered the
12          implications should a hurricane or a large rain
13          event impact the legislative mandated mission of
14          our district's flood control.  The cost of
15          implementing the mandate that is proposed with the
16          real estate values declining in the state of
17          Florida would be a tremendous burden to our
18          districts, tremendous.
19               The State of Florida has been making
20          tremendous progress, and I commend the State of
21          Florida for the BMPs and all the work that they've
22          done in the past and the storm water treatment
23          areas.  As far as agriculture, you can't grow, you
24          know, green beans and corn in Kansas right now.  In
25          the state of Florida you can right now.  It would
0056
 1          be a tremendous impact not only to the State of
 2          Florida, but to our nation for food supply.  And
 3          lastly, the algae bloom that was shown on the
 4          screen, you know, it's isolated.  It's not forever,
 5          and this rule and regulation would be indefinite
 6          and would cripple the Florida economy for decades.
 7          Thank you.
 8               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Davis.  Speaker
 9          number eight?  If speakers nine and ten could move
10          to the front.
11               MS. McCARTHY:  I'm Linda McCarthy with Lykes
12          Brothers.  Lykes Brothers owns between 330 and
13          340,000 acres of land in Glades and Highlands
14          County.  We go from just southeast of Lake
15          Istokpoga down to the western edge of Okeechobee
16          and almost to the Caloosahatchee River.  It's
17          pretty much a contiguous parcel of property.  Our
18          primary agriculture activity is cattle, so it's a
19          fairly low intensive area, although we do have some
20          higher intensity areas of citrus, vegetable, sugar
21          cane and forestry products, eucalyptus and pine.
22               I'm going to be jumping all over the place
23          because I wanted to get a couple comments in on
24          some technical issues and then hit on the
25          economics.  I don't think that the model you used
0057
 1          is appropriate.  You've used a model that the
 2          developers of the model, the USGS and your own
 3          science advisory committee have expressed concerns
 4          over the way that you've applied it.  The model was
 5          calibrated for use at a regional scale, not for use
 6          in a single state watershed, and using it in
 7          Florida for site specific determinations of
 8          downstream protection values I think is
 9          inappropriate.
10               On the 75 versus the 90th percentile that
11          you've chosen, you've chosen to set the numeric
12          nutrient criteria for the most part using 75th
13          percentile values and not the 90th as was proposed
14          by FDEP.  This appears to be a policy selection and
15          not a technical selection.  Florida has the most
16          water quality data of any other state in the
17          country.  DEP spent more than 20 years evaluating
18          the effects of nutrients in various water bodies
19          all around the state.  You should have a much
20          higher level of comfort in using the higher
21          confidence limit values.  The volume of data and
22          biological knowledge for the reference water body
23          available doesn't merit using the 75th percentile
24          confidence limit I don't think.
25               The methods used to develop the proposed
0058
 1          numeric nutrient criteria haven't used a biological
 2          confirmation that the nutrient values that are
 3          higher than those proposed, the water bodies that
 4          have those higher nutrient values actually have
 5          biological impairment.  Many of the lakes and
 6          streams currently meet or exceed their designated
 7          use criteria.  They're fishable, swimmable, have a
 8          lot of healthy -- but yet will be classified as
 9          impaired based solely on the concentration of one
10          or more nutrients.
11               There's quite a few high estimates on the
12          number of those water bodies that will be affected.
13          I have no idea which is the right number, but there
14          seems to be quite a bit.  It's not really clear
15          what good it will do to implement a program, a very
16          costly program to fix those when there's not
17          necessarily any environmental benefits associated
18          with the fix.
19               Also ignoring the existing TMDLs that the
20          state has set I think is a mistake.  They've got
21          quite a few that they've developed.  They've gone
22          through the EPA process and been accepted as
23          protected.  I don't understand why you would
24          require a separate process, another site specific
25          criteria that you'd have to go through.  It could
0059
 1          put current programs that have already been
 2          implemented, started and are making progress, it
 3          could put them in jeopardy.
 4               The economic analysis I think is pretty
 5          flawed.  Since DEP has not adopted and is unlikely
 6          to adopt their proposed nutrient criteria when it's
 7          going to be trumped by EPA's, I don't think that
 8          you ought to use their proposed values as the basis
 9          for comparison.  It should be what's existing and
10          being used now.
11               The economic impact analysis isn't
12          comprehensive with respect to agriculture.  It
13          fails to account for all the economic effects
14          associated with the various BMPs.  I think for
15          information on that, there's a lot of information
16          in this state on the cost of that from DEP, DEX,
17          the South Florida Water Management District.
18          They're all very familiar with these programs, and
19          I think you can get some cost information from
20          them.
21               You'll also put Florida agriculture at a
22          competitive disadvantage relative to other states
23          and countries by implementing it if we're subject
24          to increased compliance costs as a result of this.
25          What that would do if it's unprofitable in Florida,
0060
 1          we're going to either shift to another commodity,
 2          and companies like mine who are fairly low
 3          intensive, we're going to go to much higher
 4          intensive and you'll have a lot of intended
 5          consequences associated with that, or it will be
 6          relocated to other parts of the country or state or
 7          out of the country, and you'll have a food source
 8          that's not necessarily -- maybe not very safe.
 9               The ultimate goal for Florida agriculture is
10          long term sustainability, which includes both long
11          term economic and environmentally sustainability.
12          However, the proposed nutrient criteria jeopardizes
13          this principal goal of environmental sustainability
14          by jeopardizing the economic sustainability of
15          Florida's agricultural operations, and I made five
16          minutes on the button.
17               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. McCarthy.
18          Speaker number nine?
19               MR. ALBERGO:  Good afternoon.  My name is Nick
20          Albergo.  I'm a professional engineer and president
21          and CEO of HSA Engineers and Scientists.  We're a
22          Florida-based environmental and water resources
23          consulting firm of about 270 professionals.  We
24          provide our services to the State of Florida,
25          Department of Environmental Protection, the water
0061
 1          management districts, and the regulated community,
 2          and have been involved with water quality issues in
 3          Florida for over 20 years.  I want to thank you for
 4          taking an interest in Florida and allowing us the
 5          opportunity to express our views here today.  I
 6          recognize you have been inundated with a variety of
 7          negative comments and concerns regarding the
 8          agency's approach to establishing numeric nutrient
 9          criteria.
10               Now, almost all of our clients understands
11          that the agency seeks to improve water quality,
12          protect public health, aquatic life and the long
13          term recreational uses of Florida's waters.
14          However, rules that establish standards that seek
15          to achieve this goal, be it mandated by statute or
16          not, should give due consideration to the
17          feasibility of rule implementation, consider the
18          economic impacts, and should place great weight on
19          the specific data and site conditions.  Further,
20          the more balanced approach to your presentation
21          today and your clarification of the purpose of your
22          pictures, some dating back 15 years as a means of
23          defining the challenges that Florida can face is
24          appreciated.  And as you know, the DEP, the water
25          management districts and the regulated community
0062
 1          have made enormous strides over the past decade in
 2          terms of water quality improvement.  Florida has
 3          some of the most comprehensive and innovative water
 4          resource, regulatory and planning programs in the
 5          nation, and there are plenty of examples with
 6          what's right in Florida.  I live in Tampa, for
 7          example, and we're very proud of the strides made
 8          to restore Tampa Bay.
 9               I am concerned that EPA has, in effect,
10          singled Florida out as enacting standards that many
11          highly respected engineers and scientists assert
12          are technically and scientifically unsupported,
13          arguably economically unattainable, and as you've
14          heard loud and clear in Tallahassee create major
15          hardships for virtually every sector of Florida's
16          economy and local governments.  More specifically,
17          the agency's application of a reference approach
18          for stream criteria is rife with technical black
19          holes.  Use of large echo region mapping doesn't
20          properly address the high degree of variability
21          that characterizes most watersheds in Florida.
22          There appears to be no link between the proposed
23          criteria and impairment.  Shouldn't a stream
24          receive some measure of biological validation
25          before listing it as impaired.  It appears that the
0063
 1          model presumes all Florida estuaries are impaired,
 2          and existing data confirms that this is not the
 3          case.  Does it make sense that 35 percent of
 4          Florida's most pristine surface waters would fail
 5          EPA's instream criteria as proposed.
 6               Setting aside the most pristine of Florida's
 7          waters, there are numerous lakes and stream
 8          segments in Florida that are fishable and
 9          swimmable, but do not meet the proposed numeric
10          nutrient criteria.  More importantly, these are
11          highly valued waters and have viewed as assets to
12          their communities.  It would appear that these
13          waters are at the point of significant diminishing
14          returns on the cost benefit curve when one
15          evaluates the cost of removing additional nutrients
16          against the incremental improvement relied.  Does
17          it make sense to saddle already cash-strapped
18          communities with such expense when so many other
19          programs vie for funds from the same account.
20               I'm also concerned that there appears to be
21          greater focus on point sources, which I understand
22          is an obvious target, but it's often the nonpoint
23          sources that contribute greatest to nutrient
24          loading, and as such probably need to receive some
25          greater focus.
0064
 1               EPA's proposed rule could affect
 2          municipalities that operate both MS4s and waste
 3          water treatment facilities.  If meeting the numeric
 4          criteria for the receiving of downstream water body
 5          requirements the more stringent limits to be put in
 6          place when their MPDES permit is renewed.  The
 7          downstream protection approach, combined with the
 8          requirement that MS4 discharges achieve end of the
 9          pipe compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient
10          criteria could effectively preclude the development
11          of more cost effective regional treatment
12          facilities, and at times undermine the other
13          critical projects and initiatives.  EPA is
14          proposing to use an equation to adjust instream
15          total phosphorous criteria to protect downstream
16          lakes, and a different methodology to adjust
17          instream total nitrogen criteria to insure
18          protection of water quality standards for
19          downstream estuaries.
20               Putting aside the complexity of the methods,
21          and maybe I missed it, but I can't even clearly
22          distinguish the application of estuarine from
23          freshwater standards.  The rules talk about what is
24          predominant, but salinity levels change with the
25          tide and season and geographically.  And I'm really
0065
 1          baffled by the agency's treatment of canals in
 2          South Florida.
 3               In closing, and assuming you can successfully
 4          navigate through the myriad of technical criticisms
 5          of the agency's well-intentioned efforts, this is
 6          not so much a matter of if we need sign-based
 7          numeric nutrient standards, but how such standards
 8          will be implemented.  Rules of this magnitude
 9          mandate due consideration of all the issues.  And I
10          guess my message is slow down.  We all need more
11          time to review the reliability, applicability,
12          implementability and consequences of these rules.
13          I thank you for your time and thoughtful
14          consideration.
15               THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Albergo.  Speaker
16          No. 10?  Speakers 11 and 12 can make their way to
17          the front.
18               MR. SINIAWSKY:  Good afternoon.  My name is
19          Jeffrey Siniawsky.  I'm the attorney for the
20          Plantation Acres Improvement District.  One quick
21          bit of housekeeping.  Both our district engineer
22          and I signed up to speak.  Our district engineer
23          will not be speaking, so we will not be speaker
24          number 17.  I'll speak on behalf of our
25          organization.
0066
 1               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.
 2               MR. SINIAWSKY:  As I said, I represent the
 3          Plantation Acres Improvement District, which we
 4          colloquially refer to as PAID by its initials.
 5          PAID is a special district, independent special
 6          district of the state of Florida it's located in
 7          the western portion of the city of Plantation in
 8          Broward County, a small district, approximately
 9          2,000 acres.  It's a small district that has a very
10          limited budget.
11               I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to talk
12          to you about the science.  I wouldn't even know
13          where to begin, but I do want to talk with you
14          about a couple of practical considerations that
15          needed to be entered into this equation.
16               As an independent special district of the
17          state of Florida, PAID was created by the Florida
18          legislature and has only that authority and those
19          powers expressly and specifically granted to it by
20          the Florida legislature.
21               Now, PAID was originally created in 1960 by
22          the legislature as the Dixie Drainage District.
23          Its name says it all.  In 1982 PAID was created as
24          the successor to the Dixie Drainage District with
25          the power, the authority and the mission to provide
0067
 1          flood control, water control, as well as other
 2          infrastructure that was necessary or desirable to
 3          make land available for development.  That meant
 4          build roads, build bridges, lighting, sidewalks,
 5          things of that nature.  Its main purpose is to
 6          drain land, to provide flood control, and to move
 7          water, and it's limited to those powers that have
 8          been granted to it by the Florida legislature.
 9               Now, PAID in the course of its
10          mission operates a drainage system of approximately
11          11 miles of canals as well as swales to collect and
12          move water to carry it off.  It's essentially a
13          complex plumbing system.  What it's not is
14          recreational.  The canals are very narrow, they're
15          very shallow.  There's no boating, there's no
16          fishing, there's no swimming.
17               The canals were not designed, nor is the
18          system designed in any way to mimic the natural
19          flowing systems.  It's not designed for the natural
20          attenuation of nutrients, and it was never designed
21          to accommodate water treatment facilities or
22          structures.  In fact, PAID is at a build out
23          situation, almost entirely residential, so there's
24          no physical space within the district to create
25          structures and facilities that may be necessary for
0068
 1          water treatment.
 2               The second practical consideration, even
 3          assuming that PAID had the authority from the
 4          legislature to be involved in water quality and to
 5          build the facilities and the structures necessary
 6          to try to come into compliance with your criteria,
 7          cost is a big factor.  We operate on a budget of
 8          approximately a million dollars.  It's a non ad
 9          valorem assessment of $500 per year per acre.
10          Again, these are mostly residential.  These are
11          homeowners who are bearing this cost to provide
12          this service to themselves.
13               We agree with previous speakers that we think
14          you have seriously underestimated the cost of
15          compliance, the retrofitting of canals, the
16          acquisition of land to build facilities.  These are
17          all quite costly and could potentially compromise
18          the primary objective, which is water control.
19               What we see happening is essentially a one
20          size fits all approach, and it may not and probably
21          won't work.  We believe that it wouldn't.  I
22          believe it was the very first speaker who you've
23          heard this afternoon who suggested and we concur
24          and urge you with the same suggestion, delete South
25          Florida's canals from these criteria.  Allow the
0069
 1          DEP's narrative criteria to remain in place for
 2          South Florida's canals.  Issues, problems can be
 3          properly addressed with the application of those
 4          narrative criteria.  We don't need a one size fits
 5          all approach which may not accomplish anything but
 6          providing a severe and serious tax bill to the
 7          people who expect to have a loss.  Thank you.
 8               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Siniawsky.
 9          Speaker 11, please?  Speaker 13 can make their way
10          to the front.
11               MR. CRONE:  Good morning and welcome to South
12          Florida.  For the record, I am Ronald Crone,
13          manager and district engineer for Lake Worth
14          Drainage District.
15               The Lake Worth Drainage District is also a
16          special drainage district, and it was created in
17          1913.  Four years later in July 1917 Lake Worth
18          Drainage District had received all the necessary
19          certifications and set out to do what it was
20          created to do, dig canal.  A ladder system of
21          canals was dug so land could be drained for
22          development.  The canal ladder system coverage was
23          from two miles west of what is now State Road 7 to
24          a chain of lakes on the east which partially remain
25          today as Lakes Clarke, Osborne, Webster, Boynton
0070
 1          and Ida, and from the Hillsboro Canal on the south
 2          to what is now Okeechobee Boulevard on the north.
 3          In 1910 the lands through pre-Lake Worth Drainage
 4          District were divided into small residential tracts
 5          along the east to larger agriculture tracts in the
 6          west ranging from five to 40 acres.  District
 7          records indicate that included in today's district
 8          system are canals that were constructed as early as
 9          1910, with the majority being constructed in the
10          1920s.  Is this significant?  We think so.
11               The district's canals, as you see them today,
12          have been in existence for the last 80 to a hundred
13          years.  Just a few more facts about Lake Worth
14          Drainage District as it relates to Palm Beach
15          County.  The county is comprised of 2,200 square
16          miles with the Lake Worth Drainage District
17          encompassing 220 square miles.  That's 10 percent
18          of the county's land mass.  Palm Beach County has
19          approximately ten miles of canals.  South Florida
20          Water Management has approximately 110 miles of
21          canals.  There are several other drainage districts
22          in Palm Beach County, and they account for
23          approximately 400 miles of canals.  Lake Worth
24          Drainage District has approximately 475 miles of
25          canals.  What's this mean?  This means that Lake
0071
 1          Worth Drainage District has 50 percent of the
 2          county's total canals, but only represents
 3          10 percent of the county's area.
 4               Now if we can fast forward a hundred years to
 5          the year 2010.  After a hundred years with no
 6          assistance or involvement from the federal
 7          government to maintain storm protection and water
 8          supply to the Lake Worth Drainage District, we find
 9          the federal government has come to an agreement
10          that we were not even participants in to clean the
11          waters of the hundred year old canals which in the
12          year 2010 are surrounded by residential usage.
13               It is my understanding that the scientists
14          have established numeric values that are now older
15          than those found in many of the Florida natural
16          streams and lakes.  Is it wrong or bad to set
17          numeric nutrient standards, absolutely not.  Lake
18          Worth Drainage District would be one of the first
19          to start working on meeting nutrient values if they
20          were values that realistically be obtained without
21          bankrupting the residents it serves.  Utilizing
22          current South Florida water management techniques
23          while removing nutrients from the waters, the Lake
24          Worth Drainage District would use 21,000 acres of
25          cleaning ponds to potentially meet the current
0072
 1          federal numbers.  That represents 15 percent of the
 2          district's total area.  Are we asking the federal
 3          government to ignore the Clean Water Act?
 4          Absolutely not.  Are we saying that Florida does
 5          not need nutrient criteria?  Absolutely not.  We
 6          are only asking the federal government to use good
 7          common sense in setting the numeric values.  We are
 8          also asking the federal government to work as equal
 9          partners in Florida in setting these values.  Thank
10          you very much.
11               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Crone.  Speaker
12          number 12?  Speaker number 14 can move to the
13          front.
14               MS. CROOKS:  Good afternoon.  I'm Amber Crooks
15          on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida
16          and our over 6,000 members.  We are here today to
17          express our strong support for the EPA developing
18          numeric nutrient standards for Florida water
19          bodies.  In the 11 years since EPA sent a letter
20          requesting that DEP set numeric nutrient standards,
21          countless development projects have been permitted
22          with insufficient storm water treatment.  Nutrient
23          pollution which could have been prevented through
24          proper source control has now accumulated to unsafe
25          levels downstream.  Of the ten estuary watersheds
0073
 1          in Southwest Florida, none are meeting their state
 2          water quality standards presently, with 43 to
 3          100 percent of their total watershed area currently
 4          classified as impaired.
 5               The Conservancy is one of the groups who
 6          nominated the Caloosahatchee as America's most
 7          endangered river in 2006, based in part the toxins
 8          produced from a nutrient induced blue green algae
 9          outbreak.  Our members can speak to nutrient
10          pollution as not only being an environmental risk
11          but a serious human health risk as well.
12               We, like others, support science-based numeric
13          criteria, and the EPA has used over 80,000 water
14          quality samples obtained from DEP in creating those
15          criteria.  Many of the same criticisms that DEP is
16          raising about the models EPA used have been raised
17          for models that DEP has and is currently using.
18          DEP raises concerns that natural pristine reference
19          sites would not meet these criteria, but DEP's
20          reference sites include waterways like the canal
21          along Interstate I-75 Alligator Alley.
22               The criteria proposed by EPA closely parallel
23          those proposed by DEP itself in 2008 with little
24          exception.  As the Department of Environmental
25          Protection, the DEP should be actively providing
0074
 1          support for this imperative step towards restoring
 2          our water quality, but in lieu of them doing so, it
 3          is appropriate for EPA to step in and ensure that
 4          the Clean Water Act is properly implemented in
 5          Florida.  Our environment and our economy depends
 6          on clean water.  With water-based recreation and
 7          tourism as well as waterfront property values
 8          generating billions of dollars of revenue in
 9          Florida each year, we simply cannot afford to let
10          this pollution continue unchecked.
11               It is often said that an ounce of prevention
12          is worth a pound of cure, as it is with nutrient
13          pollution as well.  While under a dollar to
14          purchase a pound, removing nutrients such as
15          nitrogen after the fact typically ranges from 55 to
16          $100 per pound.  Despite claims of these standards
17          of being economically unfeasible, keeping pollution
18          out of water through low impact development design,
19          more storm water retention and treatment, and more
20          agricultural BMP implementation is cost effective,
21          especially when compared to the enormous cost of
22          intercepting and cleaning up pollution after it
23          enters our waterways.  The time is now.  We
24          urgently need protective and effective numeric
25          nutrient standards that encompass the headwaters to
0075
 1          the estuaries.  We cannot effectively control what
 2          we cannot effectively measure.  Just like speed
 3          limits are needed to give guidance to the public of
 4          what is a safe driving speed, these standards are
 5          needed to ensure that the public knows what
 6          pollution limits are needed for protecting our
 7          waters and our health.  As such, we urge EPA to
 8          continue to improve, finalize and adopt these
 9          criteria in a timely manner.  Our environment and a
10          sustainable economic recovery for Florida depends
11          on it.  Thank you.
12               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Crooks.  Speaker
13          13?  Speaker 15 move to the front.
14               MS. KAMENER:  Hi.  My name is Karen Kamener,
15          and I'm representing the concerned citizens of
16          Bayshore.  Bayshore is located due south of Cecil
17          Webb Wildlife Management area, and we're just a
18          couple miles downstream from the Olga picture that
19          you had up on the screen.
20               I'm kind of new at this.  I don't have a
21          formal education but I've been reading about CAPCA
22          application for a water management ERP, and also
23          I'd read other applications on the water manager
24          Web site that concern our area, and we found a lot
25          of lack of enforcement.  For example, about a
0076
 1          thousand feet northeast of me there's a man that
 2          has been pumping 21 million gallons a day on us for
 3          30 years without a permit.  When he applied for a
 4          permit to water management, he said it's been doing
 5          it for 30 years, to the Army Corps he said it was
 6          25 years.  Both applications were made out on the
 7          same day.
 8               We've had someone put up a three-quarter mile
 9          berm in the middle of one of the flow ways, and
10          this is in the Popash Creek watershed.  This
11          watershed goes nine miles up into Charlotte County.
12          People are diking, canaling, doing all kinds of
13          things that add to our water quality problems.
14               I'm going to read to you a few things from Lee
15          County's petition for administrative hearing
16          because my issue is that the protection that we
17          have now is not working.  People are not following
18          it, and I would hope that no matter what EPA
19          decides to do as far as all the science, I'm not an
20          expert on the science, but I would hope that
21          someone will try to clean up the mess that we have
22          and force the protections that we currently have
23          even because I think if they were enforced, we
24          might have some hope.
25               But anyway, as a result of the proposed agency
0077
 1          action, Lee County will suffer an injury in fact to
 2          its substantial interest which of sufficient
 3          immediacy to entitle it to an administrative
 4          hearing and its substantial interest of a type or
 5          nature which the proceeding is designed to protect.
 6          Anyway, it says Lee County owns, controls, manages
 7          or regulates significant property within Lee County
 8          downstream from the project.
 9               Disputed issues of material fact.  Lee County
10          disputes whether the application has provided
11          reasonable assurance to FAC Rule 40E and so on.
12          And it says that the project will not cause adverse
13          water quality impacts to receiving waters and
14          adjacent lands located within and owned,
15          controlled, managed or regulated by Lee County.
16          Lee County disputes whether it will not cause
17          adverse flooding to property located within, and
18          I'm not going to keep repeating this for each
19          paragraph.  Will not cause adverse impacts to
20          existing surface water storage and conveyance
21          capabilities of facilities located within the
22          county, will not adversely impact the value of
23          functions provided to fish and wildlife, will not
24          adversely affect the quality of receiving waters,
25          and it goes on and on and on with these concerns.
0078
 1          And what's happened now is that Babcock has
 2          suggested the language for the settlement is one
 3          paragraph.  They're going to do some models 18
 4          months down the road after they start turning, you
 5          know, dirt, and it's like we feel these things
 6          should be taken care of before they get their
 7          permits.
 8               And then I want to read one more thing
 9          because, I mean, this application is just full of
10          stuff that I feel is very questionable.  Anyway, it
11          says considering that the current surface water
12          management system under the district permit
13          contains interdependent control structures and
14          conveyances throughout all three properties, the
15          BRC permit should not be considered in isolation,
16          even if we assume that the proposed permitting
17          actions under permits, and there's the three permit
18          numbers, Lee County, State of Florida, and then the
19          Babcock Ranch community, are determined to be valid
20          by a DOAH judge.  It is not clear what permit
21          conditions would apply to each permittee.  The
22          result would create a compliance and liability
23          quagmire for all parties involved, including the
24          SFWMD.
25               So anyway, I'm just here to ask you to please
0079
 1          protect us.  You know, my neighbors, they hear me
 2          read all this stuff, and when I told them about the
 3          neurotoxins and the algae, they're like oh, well, I
 4          have issues, and I wonder if it's coming from my
 5          water because, you know, I read to them that it's
 6          not all filtered out.  So thank you very much.  I
 7          appreciate your time.
 8               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you Ms. Kamener.  Speaker
 9          14?  Speaker 16 can move to the open seat.
10               MS. DALTRY:  Good afternoon.  My name is Marty
11          Daltry.  I am the conservation organizer for the
12          Sierra Club, Fort Myers office, as well as past
13          president and current member of the board of
14          directors for the Caloosahatchee River Citizens
15          Association.  I've also been a resident in Lee
16          County for 34 years.
17               For many years our waters have been impaired
18          due to excessive nutrient runoff.  In southwest
19          Florida we have suffered through various algal
20          blooms, including severe episodes of red tide and
21          toxic blue green algae.  The impacts of these
22          harmful algae blooms have affected our health, our
23          tourism economy and our environment.  The cost of
24          emergency room and doctor visits, the loss of
25          tourism revenue in our area, the decline of value
0080
 1          of our waterfront properties, and the loss of fish,
 2          birds, turtles and marine life is monumental.  In
 3          one month alone in September of 2005 the estimated
 4          economic impact of poor water quality on tourism
 5          was between 1.8 and $2 million.
 6               As another example on the extent of the
 7          devastation to our water bodies, in 2006 the
 8          Caloosahatchee River was ranked seventh out of the
 9          ten most endangered rivers in America by the
10          American Rivers Organization.  While this is not a
11          designation that we're proud of, it does designate
12          the magnitude of pollution problems in our local
13          waters.
14               Visitors are estimated to have spent
15          $2.9 million in Lee County during 2008.  This does
16          not include the revenues generated by thousands of
17          winter residents that spend the winters in our
18          area.  It's imperative that our tourists and our
19          winter residents continue to enjoy a pleasant
20          experience while vacationing with us, whether they
21          stay for a week or several months.  We want our
22          seasonal visitors to return year after year and
23          bring their friends.  Red tide and other harmful
24          algal blooms leave a negative and lasting
25          impression that can seriously damage this
0081
 1          relationship.  The establishment of numeric
 2          nutrient standards in Florida will make it easier
 3          to identify nutrient impaired waters and provide
 4          restoration targets for TMDLs.  Local governments
 5          will be able to target water quality restoration
 6          efforts with greater precision, saving taxpayer
 7          dollars.  We need immeasurable numeric nutrient
 8          standards to replace the existing, vague,
 9          unquantifiable narrative standard that has failed
10          to regulate pollutant sources.  Thank you very
11          much.
12               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Daltry.  Speaker
13          16, and if speaker 17 could move to the front?
14               MR. TODD:  Good afternoon.  For the record my
15          name is Ken Todd.  I'm a registered professional
16          engineer in the state of Florida.  I'm the water
17          resource manager for Palm Beach County, and today
18          I'm speaking on behalf of Palm Beach County.
19          Everyone is for clean water, and Palm Beach County
20          certainly supports that goal.  However, we are very
21          concerned about the way EPA has gone about
22          developing the standards to determine what water
23          bodies need to be cleaned up.  The standards
24          proposed by EPA were developed so quickly and
25          without sufficient input from state regulators and
0082
 1          effective parties that one has to wonder how
 2          applicable they are to many waters within the
 3          state.  It appears that the methodology being used
 4          is one of accepting Florida DEP impaired water body
 5          list and then using the data from water bodies that
 6          are not on that list to establish the nutrient
 7          criteria for all state water bodies.  There appears
 8          to be no attempt by EPA to evaluate why a
 9          particular water body made the impaired list.
10          Please note that not all these water bodies are
11          impaired because of nutrients.  In Palm Beach
12          County there are virtually no water bodies that are
13          not on the impaired list.  Only using data from
14          water bodies that are not on the impaired list
15          skews the data by creating a biased data set, the
16          end result being that the average nutrient levels
17          will be at a much lower threshold than they would
18          be if all the water bodies not impaired by
19          nutrients were considered.  In fact, in a
20          presentation made to the Florida House Agricultural
21          and Natural Resource Policy Committee earlier this
22          month, DEP stated that over 80 percent of the
23          state's pristine water bodies would be considered
24          impaired by the proposed standards.  This
25          illustrates the need to work collaboratively to
0083
 1          develop the appropriate standards.  We urge EPA to
 2          work with DEP and other interested parties to
 3          develop standards that are scientifically based and
 4          reflective of the uses made for that water body.
 5          Part of the new criteria may need to include a
 6          narrative criteria for certain uses as is currently
 7          the standard.
 8               Please keep in mind another practical result
 9          of these proposed standards.  The estimated annual
10          costs of a hundred to $130 million for compliance
11          cost is way too low.  In order to achieve these
12          proposed standards, many municipalities and
13          counties will have to spend millions of dollars
14          each to retrofit existing drainage and waste water
15          facilities in order to comply.  The estimated cost
16          to achieve the proposed values will be somewhere in
17          the 50 billion dollar range just for the utilities
18          in this state to deal with the reclaimed water
19          issue.  The cost to governmental or private
20          entities such as golf courses or HOAs which will
21          need to retrofit their existing drainage facilities
22          is estimated to be statewide somewhere in the
23          neighborhood of 75 billion dollars.  If these low
24          standards, particularly for South Florida are made
25          final, there will be a huge cost associated with
0084
 1          the retrofits that will be necessary to bring these
 2          existing systems into compliance.
 3               It is also incumbent upon EPA to set a very
 4          reasonable time frame associated with the effort to
 5          bring all of these water bodies into compliance.
 6          Otherwise, we all run the risk that many
 7          governmental entities will not be in compliance or
 8          they will be bankrupt in their effort to get into
 9          compliance, and I ask in this time of economic slow
10          down when so many governments are trimming budgets
11          just to stay afloat, is this really a wise use of
12          governmental regulation.  EPA needs to do some
13          serious rethinking about the cost for this unfunded
14          mandate.  I mention this to bring awareness to both
15          EPA and the general public of the potentially
16          dramatic increases in costs to the tax payer in
17          order to provide the services they have been
18          accustomed to in the past if these proposed
19          standards become the requirement.
20               The drainage network constructed in Palm Beach
21          County in the early 1900s was done so to offer
22          flood protection for the residents of the county,
23          and when that system was designed many decades ago,
24          it did not consider the functions that these
25          proposed regulations are taking into account now.
0085
 1          There needs to be some recognition that a drainage
 2          system that was designed for one function cannot be
 3          revised in a short period of time to meet a
 4          different set of functions without bankrupting the
 5          entity responsible for complying with these
 6          proposed standards.
 7               Palm Beach County would like to thank you for
 8          providing us with an opportunity to be able to
 9          explain to you some very real concerns that we have
10          concerning this proposed rule.
11               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker 16.  And
12          speaker number 17 and 18 move to the front.  Oh,
13          that's right.  18 and 19.
14               MR. FERNANDEZ:   My name is Jerry Fernandez.
15          I'm associated with HSA Engineers and Science.
16          I've been intimately involved in water quality
17          issues in Florida for over 40 years, commencing
18          with doing my PhD at the University of Florida, and
19          my dissertation was on eutrophication factors on
20          north central Florida lakes.  In fact, some of the
21          work is referenced in the EPA document.
22               Since that time I've been a member of the
23          scientific advisory group for the Everglades, the
24          Lake Okeechobee technical advisory group, and also
25          the ETAG, the Everglades Technical Advisory Group,
0086
 1          and I've had the opportunity to review the
 2          document, and I'd just like to take a couple of
 3          minutes to talk about what I feel are the most
 4          significant concerns, at least from my viewpoint
 5          and having had 40 plus years of experience with
 6          Florida water quality.
 7               The most troubling aspect of the document I
 8          feel is the downstream protection values and how
 9          they were derived.  I found in reviewing it that
10          it's very confusing.  There's enumerable
11          assumptions and a model utilized quite extensively
12          that I think experts would agree is kind of on the
13          margin of applicability for this particular
14          situation.  And I'd just say if I can't understand
15          it or I find it confusing, then people that are
16          going to be affected by this as a regulation
17          definitely find it confusing, and I think EPA needs
18          to take some special effort after these workshops
19          of really defining that better because if people
20          don't understand something, they're suspicious of
21          it, and this is something that is not very
22          understandable.
23               Another area that I think is people are
24          looking at this as a be all to end all.
25          Established numeric criteria is going to be a new
0087
 1          forefront in regulation, and I think as EPA
 2          indicated in their objective slide, it's a target,
 3          it's a tool, and I think by establishing downstream
 4          protection values and so on, I think you're taking
 5          it too far.  I always felt that if we had a
 6          loading, a permissible loading for an estuary.  We
 7          were at a good level to implement a control
 8          program.  EPA has taken some of these loadings and
 9          they've made assumptions and so on, working back to
10          a concentration.  I think that's almost a step
11          backwards.  If we got a protective loading for a
12          body of water like a TMDL or a permissible loading
13          for an estuary, why are we working so hard to come
14          up with a concentration which is just a number,
15          it's just a numeric number.
16               And the final issue that I feel, as a matter
17          of fact, I've got a lot of experience in canals.
18          I've been involved as an expert at testifying in
19          some hearing on canals why they're different.  I
20          think what I see, the chlorophyll criteria for
21          canals at four, I think that's completely
22          inappropriate.  Chlorophyll is not an appropriate
23          water quality indicator for canals, period.  And
24          four, which is even lower than the level that they
25          have for the most sensitive lakes I think is
0088
 1          completely off base.
 2               So I thank you for the time, and I'll give my
 3          minute to somebody else.
 4               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you Mr. Shannon.  Speaker
 5          number 18?
 6               MR. JUDAH:  Good afternoon.  My name is Ray
 7          Judah.  I'm a Lee County Commissioner in Lee
 8          County.  I'm representing the board of Lee County
 9          Commissioners.  Let me first of all thank you
10          personally and EPA for hosting the public
11          workshops, and also encouraging you to definitely
12          move forward to implement the nutrient numeric
13          criteria.
14               You know, it just astounds me when I think
15          about the fact that the EPA's 1998 national
16          strategy for the development of regional nutrient
17          criteria encouraged all states to adopt numeric
18          nutrient water quality criteria as a more effective
19          way to protect water resources from nutrient
20          enrichment.  The state of Florida ignored you.  In
21          fact, I would submit that the state has been
22          negligent and has abdicated its responsibility to
23          protect critical water supplies.
24               Relying on narrative nutrient criteria or
25          voluntary BMPs have obviously not been the approach
0089
 1          to satisfactorily provide the responsible
 2          stewardship of our critical water resources, and
 3          all you have to do is look at the Gulf of Mexico,
 4          to look at Lake Apopka, Lake Okeechobee, Lake
 5          Trafford, our coastal estuaries, the Everglades,
 6          Florida Bay, the Florida Keys to understand that
 7          what we have done in the state of Florida is to put
 8          us in a position where we're jeopardizing public
 9          health, fish and wildlife habitat and our economy.
10          We do need the numeric nutrient criteria.
11               Lee County is downstream to a couple of
12          watersheds, the Peace River and the Caloosahatchee
13          watershed.  With regards to the Caloosahatchee,
14          particularly over the last ten years we have had to
15          experience a couple of words that used, Mr. Keating
16          used in his introduction.  Lyngbya, Microcystis.
17          Those are not uncommon words to people in Lee
18          County.  We well recognize the deleterious impact
19          of Lyngbya suffocating our grass beds, the very
20          basis of our marine food system.  We well
21          understand the problem with Microcystis being a
22          threat to human health and our own public health
23          department having to put out public notices,
24          particularly in 2004 and 2005 with regards to the
25          devastating release of water from Lake Okeechobee
0090
 1          heavily laden with nitrogen phosphorous.  We do
 2          understand the impact of phosphate mining
 3          particularly not only now but in the future of some
 4          150,000 acres to be mined over the next 30 years,
 5          and its deleterious, raving impacts on the Peace
 6          River watershed and the excessive amount of
 7          phosphorous being discharged into Charlotte Harbor,
 8          one of our main estuaries for a multi-million
 9          dollar commercial fin and shellfish fisheries
10          resource.  So we do appreciate the fact that in
11          order to allow us in Lee County to have some
12          opportunity to be able to have a healthy and clean
13          environment, which we market to the world -- we
14          have a three billion dollar tourism industry
15          predicated on clean water, and I would submit to
16          you that while we are certainly doing our level
17          best, and certainly the state has stepped up now
18          with the potential opportunity to acquire some
19          83,000 acres of land in the Everglades agricultural
20          area, the U.S. Sugarland to provide storage and
21          treatment of water runoff, we have got to come to
22          grips with the need to control the excess of
23          pollutant loading of nitrogen phosphorous.
24               I will tell you this, and I'm asking you
25          please to look at what you've already heard from
0091
 1          some speakers of local specific site conditions.
 2          We feel that your criteria for nitrogen and the
 3          coastal estuaries and the Caloosahatchee River in
 4          our area is too high.  That is a limiting nutrient
 5          on the west coast, and we would submit that you are
 6          going to further cause harm if you set that level
 7          too high.  That, plus the phosphorous at just the
 8          right ratios create a devastating impact to our
 9          grass beds and to our marine fisheries resource.
10          So I would ask that you look at local data.  We
11          certainly have a lot of data.  We're asking the
12          South Florida Water Management District to do what
13          the Southwest Florida Management District has done
14          in their watershed, and that is provide essential
15          funding to be able to collect the data that's
16          already been assembled over the years so that it
17          will be available to you to make those specific
18          conditions applicable to localized areas.  We would
19          also submit that with the impact to our water
20          treatment plant and the Caloosahatchee River that
21          utilities actually will benefit from numeric
22          nutrient criteria.  We end up having to clean up
23          all that blue green algae because of the nitrogen
24          phosphorous that's in our waterway.  And quite
25          frankly, what we're looking at is maybe you'd
0092
 1          consider looking at loading versus concentration
 2          because with loading, we now reclaim some 70 to 80
 3          percent of waste water effluent, and that's really
 4          what you want to do is incentivize utilities to do
 5          that, and that may be an approach to take versus
 6          the concentration.  I implore you also, do not
 7          eliminate the South Florida canals.  That's what's
 8          creating the impact with the nutrient loading into
 9          our natural water bodies.  Thank you very much.
10               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker number 19.
11          Speaker 21 can move to the front.
12               MR. SUMNER:  Good morning.  My name is Jeff
13          Sumner.  I'm a professional engineer, and I serve
14          as the district engineer for six Chapter 298 water
15          control districts in the Everglades agricultural
16          area south of Lake Okeechobee.  First of all, thank
17          you for your time, and I commend you on your
18          endurance for being able to make it through three
19          days of these hearing.
20               Like many other speakers, our primary concern
21          is over the proposed criteria for South Florida
22          canals.  The proposed rule as written establishes a
23          nutrient criteria that is neither realistic nor
24          attainable when applied to these manmade systems.
25          Because of that unattainable nature, it would seem
0093
 1          also that a realistic assessment of the cost of
 2          implementing these criteria has not and likely
 3          cannot be made.  Incidentally, we operate
 4          approximately 340 miles of these canals within our
 5          districts.
 6               The canals within these districts were
 7          designed, and so are operated for their legally
 8          required purposes, which you've heard from some
 9          other districts this morning, which are to provide
10          for flood protection and irrigation to the
11          landowners within those districts.  Another thing I
12          will point out, particularly in our districts in
13          response to the Everglades Protection Act over the
14          last 10 to 12 years, we have implemented at
15          significant cost to not only our landowners but
16          also the state and federal government diversion
17          projects which take, as you know, Mr. King,
18          80 percent of the water that used to be, minimum of
19          80 percent of the water that used to be discharged
20          to Lake Okeechobee, sends that water south where
21          the water is then treated prior to being
22          discharged.  In the case of these diversion
23          districts, that raises what I think is a legitimate
24          question.  When proposing these numeric criteria on
25          our canals, what exactly are the downstream waters
0094
 1          that we're attempting to protect.
 2               I encourage the agency to slow down and look
 3          at the true purpose of these manmade systems, what
 4          they were designed for, and take that into account
 5          before moving forward with the proposed rule that
 6          would establish a criteria that both does not fit
 7          and would be prohibitively expensive, and I'll
 8          yield back the rest of my time.
 9               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Sumner.  Speaker
10          20?  Would speakers 21 and 22 move to the front,
11          please?
12               MR. STOPYRA:  Good afternoon.  My name is
13          Thomas Stopyra.  I work for Packers of Indian
14          River.  Packers of Indian River owns about 7,000
15          acres of land.  We produce fresh fruit for export
16          for about 4,000 acres of citrus.  We own properties
17          in Charlotte County, Indian River County, and in
18          Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County.  Packers employs
19          60 full-time grove workers plus 125 seasonal
20          workers to run the packing facility during the
21          grapefruit season which is October through the end
22          of April.  In addition, we also employ harvesting
23          subcontractors which harvest our fruit, our crop in
24          the hundreds.  All of this is contingent upon
25          having a crop.
0095
 1               In 2001, Packer signed a notice of intent to
 2          comply with water quality, water quantity best
 3          management practices for Indian River area.  My
 4          name is in this book.  I was a member of two
 5          committees, one for nutrients and one for
 6          pesticides.  I worked on this and helped write this
 7          manual.  This is an articulated agreement between
 8          the DEP, Florida DEX and the grower community.  By
 9          signing this notice of intent to comply with these
10          best management practices we have been granted a
11          presumption of compliance.
12               I make fertilizer recommendations for Packers
13          of Indian River.  I'm a certified crop advisor.
14          I've lived in Florida for 25 years.  I'm a graduate
15          of Cornell University's agronomy program.  The
16          fertilizer recommendations are based on research
17          from University of Florida scientists.  This book
18          summarizes decades of work by the University of
19          Florida scientists, The Nutrition of Florida Citrus
20          Trees.  I would like to take the opportunity to use
21          this as a teachable moment, if I may?
22               I don't have any fancy power point slide, but
23          I've got a piece of paper here that shows basically
24          how it is that we make decisions about how we
25          fertilize citrus trees.  If you're down here at the
0096
 1          bottom, you're underfertilizing your trees.  If
 2          you're here at the top, you fertilize your trees
 3          for maximum production.  If you don't have maximum
 4          production, you're out of business.
 5               This data is summarized in The Nutrition of
 6          Florida Citrus Trees.  It is found on SL253.  It's
 7          published on the Web site.
 8               The only real fact to maintain production is
 9          that hundreds of pounds of fertilizer must be
10          applied annually which replaces the nutrients
11          removed during harvest and provides new growth.  We
12          also have a problem in Florida with soil
13          variability.  We have 50 different soil series in
14          Florida.  The vast majority are in three major
15          groups, alpha soils, spodA soils and entA soils.
16          All of them are sandy.
17               We use soil and tissue samples in order to
18          make our recommendations.  Each grower takes their
19          own samples, they're sent to a laboratory, and
20          based on that we apply fertilizer in what's known
21          as variable rate technology.  My company recently
22          spent $20,000 to buy a variable rate machine.  It's
23          a double-sided machine.  You apply fertilizer based
24          on soil type and on size of the tree.  Any change
25          in the current balance of nutrient applications,
0097
 1          crop removal and sandy soils will place undue
 2          hardship on citrus growers.  Any decision by the
 3          EPA to limit fertilizer applications or modify
 4          production practices in citrus groves must be based
 5          on sound science and be economically feasible.
 6               As a stake holder in this battle, I want it to
 7          be clear that these decisions must be based on
 8          sound science.  Thank you.
 9               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Stopyra.  Speaker
10          21.  No 21?  Speaker number 22.
11               MS. TRIPP:  Good afternoon.  My name is Ashley
12          Tripp, and I'm the president of the Lake Okeechobee
13          Regional Economic Alliance in Palm Beach County.
14          Our alliance was founded in 2004, and its mission
15          is to see a vital economy that offers business and
16          career opportunities building on the diversity,
17          beauty and natural and human assets of the Lake
18          Okeechobee region.  We are a nonprofit, volunteer
19          organization comprised of local stakeholders
20          representing the tri cities of Belle Glade, Pahokee
21          and South Bay, the chambers of commerce,
22          businesses, Workforce Alliance, Palm Beach State
23          College and the farming industry.  The LORE
24          Alliance believes that the proposed numeric
25          nutrient criteria by the EPA will cause severe
0098
 1          economic harm to the state of Florida and its
 2          citizens and will bear the burden of the cost.  If
 3          the numeric nutrient criteria is imposed on the
 4          state of Florida, the cost of complying with this
 5          unsound regulatory policy will be impossible to
 6          absorb.
 7               Our area of Florida is greatly comprised of
 8          water bodies, Lake Okeechobee and hundreds of miles
 9          of manmade canals which were created for ecological
10          as well as economic needs.  We are also compromised
11          of a multitude of drainage and flood control
12          districts who could never comply with the proposed
13          criteria standards.  Lake Okeechobee residents
14          currently have one of the highest water bills in
15          the state of Florida, if not the highest.  Our
16          residents cannot bear the burden of an extra $62 a
17          month for their utility bills.  The national
18          unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, and the state
19          unemployment rate is 11.8 percent.  But the
20          unemployment rate for our specific region is three
21          times higher, even surpassing the 25 percent
22          unemployment rate during the worst time of the
23          great depression.  So why do these statistics
24          matter?  Because the reality is that our citizens
25          and our businesses are fighting to survive.  Local
0099
 1          business will not only face higher water utility
 2          bills, but greater tax assessments on their
 3          property if the EPA standards are implemented.  It
 4          is LORE's goal to promote high quality economic
 5          development in our area and to promote our assets,
 6          the greatest being Lake Okeechobee.
 7               This proposed EPA policy counteracts LORE's
 8          mission to support and attract businesses to our
 9          region and our efforts will be stifled and greatly
10          hindered.  Business growth, sustainability and
11          development opportunities will be adversely
12          affected due to the excessive water utility cost
13          and taxes, and will cause them to look elsewhere.
14               The EPA standards violate sound economic
15          policies and could possibly cause fatal injury to
16          our already bruised communities.  George Bernard
17          Shaw said, and I quote, the worst sin is not to
18          hate a fellow creature but to be indifferent toward
19          him.  That's the essence of humanity.
20               Therefore, we respectfully asked that the EPA
21          consider the negative economic impact this will
22          have on the humanity of our region and the rest of
23          Florida and not implement your currently proposed
24          nutrient criteria.  Thank you for your time.
25               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Tripp.  Speaker
0100
 1          number 23.
 2               MR. CHARLES:  James Charles.  I'm with the law
 3          firm of Lewis, Longman and Walker.  I have the
 4          pleasure of speaking on behalf of Florida
 5          Association of Special Districts again today.
 6          Again I appreciate the opportunity to provide
 7          comment today and over the past two days.  I hope
 8          EPA has a better understanding of who we are and
 9          why we are.
10               As I stated yesterday, several of our members
11          were created in early and mid 1900s, meaning much
12          of if not all of their infrastructure predate the
13          Clean Water Act.  Although they would predate the
14          Clean Water Act, they were legally created under
15          state and federal law.  In fact, much of the
16          extensive South Florida canal system was in part of
17          the central and southern flood control program,
18          meaning that it was constructed pursuant to
19          congressional direction and federal funding.
20               For the canals and structures that were
21          permitted or constructed or altered after the Clean
22          Water Act, they were authorized by the federal
23          government pursuant to the Clean Water Act.  In
24          connection with the state and federal permitting,
25          these canals and structures that came after the
0101
 1          Clean Water Act, they were certified to be
 2          protective of instream and downstream water quality
 3          as set pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
 4               Consequently we believe it's important to
 5          acknowledge the alleged human cause and condition
 6          that this rule is intended to address as it relates
 7          to our canal system were in fact authorized by the
 8          federal government and for many canals constructed
 9          with federal funding.  Now the rules are scheduled
10          to change.  Our members will be forced to spend
11          significant and extraordinary resources and money
12          to attempt compliance with the new proposed
13          standards.
14               On Tuesday I provided comments on protected
15          costs and logistical limitations that our members
16          will face with these rules, including limited land
17          area, limited authority, eminent domain concerns
18          and the estimated cost of at least $848 million for
19          just district to attempt compliance.  With that in
20          mind, we respectfully request the proposed rule
21          acknowledge facilities that predate the Clean Water
22          Act and were permitted under the Clean Water Act by
23          providing additional flexibility in the rule in
24          setting the standards themselves, in the timing and
25          implementation, in the setup process, and in the
0102
 1          setting of interim standards.
 2               My final comment on behalf of the Association
 3          of Special Districts is a process-related comment.
 4          After the Tallahassee hearing, Jim asked me what I
 5          thought of the hearing.  He's not here right now,
 6          but I appreciate him asking me such a candid
 7          question, and I think it's only respectful to the
 8          rest of you that I share my response that I gave to
 9          him.
10               I firmly believe that before I can be
11          understood, I must first understand you, and while
12          I understand EPA's overview that you've given over
13          the past three days, it's just that, an overview.
14          And after attending three days of hearings, I
15          honestly can say I don't have a better
16          understanding of the proposed methodologies, the
17          justifications of the data.  We fully understand
18          and appreciate the need to accommodate public
19          comment.  However, more substantive discussion of
20          methodologies, justifications and data would have
21          been extremely helpful for us as the regulated
22          community.  Until that discussion takes place,
23          there's going to be a disconnect between EPA and
24          the regulated community.
25               The success of any regulatory program depends
0103
 1          on the cooperation of the regulated community, and
 2          cooperation depends on open and full communication.
 3          As I've said, and as you're well aware since you
 4          recognized me when I came up, we've attended all
 5          three hearings, we've provided comment at all three
 6          hearings so you can have a better understanding of
 7          who we are, what we do, what our concerns are and
 8          what our limitations are.  We've done our part to
 9          bridge that disconnect.  We respectfully request
10          EPA help us bridge the disconnect by providing a
11          more substantive discussion of the methodology,
12          justification and data.
13               With that I appreciate your time and
14          consideration, and wish you a safe trip back up.
15               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker number 24.
16          Could 25 and 26 come to the front to the right of
17          the room?
18               MS. DIFFENDERFER:  Good afternoon.  My name is
19          Michelle Diffenderfer.  I'm an attorney with the
20          law firm of Lewis, Longman and Walker.  I'm here
21          today representing the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
22          The Seminole Tribe of Florida, as you already
23          should know, has five reservations within the state
24          of Florida and multiple trust properties, we're
25          also adjacent to many federal properties as well as
0104
 1          completely surrounded by the state of Florida,
 2          sharing common borders and waters with the state of
 3          Florida.  We also have -- are co-responsible for a
 4          critical Everglades restoration project with the
 5          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which receives
 6          50 percent federal funding.
 7               As you know and you have identified in the
 8          proposed rule, there is a special relationship that
 9          exists between the federal government, the agencies
10          of the federal government and the Seminole Tribe
11          known as a trust responsibility or government to
12          government.  These are acknowledged in the
13          constitution, the treaties, statutes, executive
14          orders and court decisions, and as such we are
15          recognized as a domestic dependent nation with
16          special protection from the federal government.  In
17          fact, the federal government has a fiduciary
18          responsibility and role to ensure that our best
19          interests are met and that the self-determination
20          of tribes is protected.  This has been further
21          explained by President Obama and by Administrator
22          Lisa Jackson in this last 2009.  Therefore, the
23          agency works to encourage tribes to develop their
24          own policies, your agency, and she'll defer to
25          tribes in the establishment of standards.  And as
0105
 1          you know, the tribe has been working with EPA on
 2          the development of nutrient criteria for our
 3          reservations, and we do actually have a plan for
 4          implementation.  However, the tribe does have
 5          concerns with EPA's efforts to set standards for
 6          Florida in that it may interfere with the tribe's
 7          right to establish its own criteria.
 8               One issue pushed here is a trust
 9          responsibility.  Of course, in the attempt to set
10          standards by October of this year, well in advance
11          of the tribe setting of standards on its own
12          reservations, we are concerned that your setting of
13          standards for the state will preordain
14          methodologies that will inevitably apply to us and
15          our trust lands and reservations.  This will limit,
16          we believe, our flexibility in developing our own
17          standards.  This is inconsistent with EPA's policy
18          that Indian tribes are the primary parties for
19          setting standards on their reservations.
20               The second point that we want to bring is this
21          downstream protection aspect of your proposed rule.
22          In your watershed modeling, by necessity our
23          waters, Seminole Tribe of Florida waters have been
24          included when they were within a watershed of the
25          state of Florida.  By them setting standards for
0106
 1          those downstream waters that are downstream from
 2          the tribe, you are in essence, we believe,
 3          dictating loading values for upstream tribal
 4          waters.  Again, this is inconsistent, we believe,
 5          with your policy and trust responsibilities to the
 6          tribe.
 7               The next comment relates to upstream standards
 8          and the impact on our water entitlement from the
 9          state.  We have a water rights compact with the
10          state executed in 1987, adopted as both federal and
11          state law.  That compact, among many things,
12          provides us with certain quantities of water for
13          both our Big Cypress and Brighton Reservations.
14          These are known as water entitlements.
15               We are concerned that due to the setting of
16          the standards of the state, that the South Florida
17          Water Management District may not be able to live
18          up to its commitments to us for these water
19          entitlements, while at the same time complying with
20          the standards being set by the EPA, and therefore
21          this would jeopardize the supply of water to our
22          reservation, and worse yet, put the state into a
23          conflict as to whether they should be violating the
24          Clean Water Act and its standards or violating its
25          promises to the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
0107
 1               It is critical to the Seminole Tribe that
 2          these water entitlements not be adversely impacted
 3          by the imposition of standards that cannot be met
 4          by the district.  In addition, it puts the tribe in
 5          a catch 22 as to whether to receive waters from
 6          outside the reservation boundaries due to the
 7          potential resulting for us to have to clean up that
 8          water before it is then discharged from our
 9          reservation back to state waters.  This tribe will
10          not be put in a position where it is made
11          responsible to clean up water that originates from
12          off its reservations.  However, we will not be
13          denied our rights a supply of water from the state
14          of water.
15               We appreciate the massive undertaking that you
16          have before you to set standards for the state of
17          Florida, although we are not sure there is such
18          need for haste, but we understand that is your
19          decision.  We do appreciate the efforts you have
20          taken to assist us with the development of water
21          quality standards on our reservations and the
22          continuing work that you do to help us move forward
23          with nutrient criteria for our reservation.  Thank
24          you for being here today.
25               MR. KING:  Are you going to submit written
0108
 1          comments?
 2               MS. DIFFENDERFER:  We will be, yes.
 3               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Diffenderfer.
 4          We'll take two more speakers and then we'll take a
 5          15-minute break.  Speaker 25?
 6               MR. HAMMOCK:  Thank you for coming here today
 7          to hear our comments.  I'm a small farmer who is
 8          currently meeting --
 9               MS. KEEHNER:  Excuse me.  Could you identify
10          yourself?
11               MR. HAMMOCK:  Alan Hammock.  Sorry.  My heart
12          is about to jump out of my chest.  I'm a small
13          farmer who is currently meeting best management
14          practice required by the Florida Department of --
15          DEP.  Now EPA proposes rules that will devastate my
16          family farm and all farming in Florida, rules that
17          came from a consent decree, not from a court.  Not
18          only are the criteria not science based, but the
19          technology to monitor will be too costly, if it
20          even exists.  Where is the common sense?  As a
21          farmer I cannot stay in business without using
22          common sense every day to guide me along with the
23          facts and the science.  I would also ask where is
24          the science.  What happened to using facts and
25          science to drive water quality.
0109
 1               Florida's economy is built on a three-legged
 2          stool, tourism, agriculture and housing.  We all
 3          know where housing stands, cut off.  This nutrient
 4          standard will finish Florida.  The legs of tourism
 5          and agriculture will be gone forever.
 6               People are hurting.  The economy is in the
 7          dumps, as I suppose you know.  Our church is
 8          helping over a hundred people a week with their
 9          food supply.  As a small farmer, I can't absorb any
10          more cost.  I would have to let go 50 percent of my
11          employees if additional costs were incurred.  That
12          would only be two.  Me and my son would be left.
13               Over the last four or five years we have
14          endured drought, hurricanes, the tropical storms,
15          22 inches of rain, and now a devastating freeze.  I
16          cannot survive this manmade disaster that y'all are
17          imposing.  Once again our federal government is
18          imposing rules with no money to pay for the
19          schemes.
20               I'm sure you've heard through the years if you
21          thought gas lines were long, wait until the food
22          lines become long.  But they won't be waiting at
23          the stores.  They'll be coming in your back door to
24          take your food.
25               We have the most safe, abundant food supply in
0110
 1          the world.  These standards would change.  Then our
 2          nation would have to help that their food is safe
 3          from other countries that don't have water
 4          standards.
 5               We have all kind of wildlife on our farm,
 6          ospreys, otters, fox, wood stork.  They eat right
 7          out of the ditches.  I haven't seen any dead wood
 8          storks lately.  I think the water is pretty clean.
 9          They flourish in our fields, and the water is clean
10          enough for them.
11               The best example of the problem with what
12          you're proposing is when I heard that Perrier water
13          would be illegal to pour in the Everglades, then
14          how clean are we going to have to get it.  Can we
15          survive these nutrient numbers that you're
16          proposing.  Thank you.
17               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Hammock.  Speaker
18          26.
19               MR. BOURNIQUE:   Good afternoon.  I've got to
20          hand it to you.  If I worked in Washington, I'd
21          come to Florida in February any time.  Good
22          leadership.
23               I'm Doug Bournique, executive vice president
24          of Indian River Citrus League, and I currently
25          serve on the governing board of the St. John's
0111
 1          Water Management District.  I also serve on the
 2          South Florida Water Management District Water
 3          Resources Advisory Commission and the Indian River
 4          Lagoon NEP program.
 5               The Indian River Citrus League is a thousand
 6          member grower trade association with 22 affiliated
 7          packing hours that represent growers from about
 8          here in West Palm to Daytona.  Our industry is a
 9          clean industry that produces a healthy crop that's
10          world famous.  We employ 10 percent of the region's
11          work force.  That's about 20,000 people here in
12          this part of Florida, and we create about a 1.5
13          billion dollar economy here in Florida's east
14          coast.  Because of disease pressure, we are
15          struggling.  It's the worst time in the modern
16          citrus industry history to current.
17               To give you just a quick capsule, our cost of
18          production in the last six years have gone from
19          1,000 an acre to 2,000 an acre to combat those
20          diseases.  We have a lot of issues with what you're
21          proposing, but the two key ones are first on
22          Florida's east coast there is an old canal system,
23          the C series canal systems in Martin and St. Lucie
24          Counties that drains the majority of our citrus
25          that was designed to drain that region 60, 70 years
0112
 1          ago.  There's no holding capacity or reservoir
 2          system.  There was supposed to be, and there's
 3          planned to be.  The South Florida Water Management
 4          District has plans to repair the system, but
 5          there's no funds available.  We support that plan,
 6          but we're just in an economic holding pattern as
 7          you all know.
 8               Secondly and foremost, in 1998 growers in my
 9          office decided to be proactive.  They live here,
10          work here, play here.  Most of my growers are four
11          and five generation Floridians.  They decided to
12          take it upon themselves to create best management
13          practices with the idea of cleaning the water but
14          saving money.  It was a win win if we could do it.
15          We had no idea if we could.  They actually -- they
16          kicked me out of my own meeting because they didn't
17          believe we could do it out of my own office because
18          they thought I was nuts.  We lobbied them, got them
19          back in the room, and they decided that maybe, just
20          maybe this might work.  They started to think about
21          ways of circulating their water, of when and how to
22          apply fertilizer specifically to young trees versus
23          old trees with smart sprayers.  It grew from there
24          and it grew and grew and grew into where it became
25          really the blueprint for BMPs in the state of
0113
 1          Florida, and since 1998 it has spread statewide
 2          because of a buy in by those people.  They realized
 3          they can save the environment, save money and
 4          produce a heck of a nice crop.  It worked.
 5               Everybody involved is proud of that.  15
 6          agencies and 200 growers worked on that manual that
 7          you've seen earlier with other speakers, 200.  I
 8          mean, that had a hell of a good buy in.  If EPA
 9          puts unattainable standards beyond the practical
10          capability of our land owners in the state of
11          Florida, they will lose that important
12          relationship.  Growers just -- they can only do so
13          much, and we have pushed that needle as far as we
14          can economically in my region.  I've been there for
15          30 years, I have worked with these growers my whole
16          professional life, I know what they can and can't
17          do, and if they have pushed the limit, they have
18          done this on their own.
19               This will be tragic.  I truly people believe
20          if you push the needle too far, people are going to
21          throw up their hands and say the heck with it.  I'm
22          done with BMPs.  I just can't meet the standard.
23          Go ahead, take me to court.  I'm going to walk away
24          from my property.  Two million acres are in the BMP
25          program in Florida, two million.  That's a heck of
0114
 1          a great program.  So we urge the EPA to be
 2          proactive by utilizing this BMP practice model, to
 3          use that and work with Floridians, work with us and
 4          not against us to make a cleaner, healthier
 5          Florida.  Thank you.
 6               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you very much.  We're
 7          going to take a 15-minute break.  We'll start up at
 8          roughly quarter of 3:00.  Thank you.
 9               (Recess.)
10               MS. KEEHNER:  Our next speaker is speaker 27,
11          and if I could ask speaker 28 and 29 to also come
12          to the front of the room.
13               MS. BRANDON:  Good afternoon.  My name is
14          Karen Brandon.  I'm a professional engineer with
15          the firm of AECOM, and I'm speaking on behalf of
16          Palm Beach County municipal NPDA steering committee
17          which coordinates the NPDS permit program for 41
18          governmental entities in Palm Beach County, and I'm
19          reading a statement that was prepared by our
20          consultant, Alan Wertepny.  He was unable to be
21          here today.
22               Our NPDS permit covers all municipal storm
23          water facilities and requires each entity to
24          implement storm water management programs with the
25          goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants into
0115
 1          receiving water bodies.  If promulgated, EPA's
 2          nutrient criteria will impose a considerable
 3          financial impact on the municipalities.  The
 4          proposed rule recommends that nutrient criteria be
 5          applied to all discharges into and out of manmade
 6          lakes and manmade canals.  The proposed nutrient
 7          levels for these manmade canals in the South
 8          Florida Region are about three times more stringent
 9          than the proposed levels for natural rivers and
10          streams.  This seems unreasonable, particularly
11          when you consider that the purpose of these systems
12          is conveyance for flood protection and water
13          supply, and that they were never intended for the
14          creation and support of aquatic communities.
15          Comparing the existing water quality data with the
16          proposed rule indicatives approximately 60 percent
17          reduction in nutrient levels in Palm Beach County
18          canals will be necessary.  EPA identified five
19          sources for this nutrient reduction, including
20          publicly owned waste water treatment plants,
21          industrial dischargers, urban runoff from the MS4s
22          and private developments, agricultural runoff and
23          private septic systems.  EPA estimated that the
24          annual statewide cost from these identities to meet
25          the proposed criteria is approximately
0116
 1          $140 million.  However, the cost estimate did not
 2          include the urban sector, and review of EPA's
 3          technical support data indicates the potential
 4          control measures used and the cost estimate for
 5          some of the sources did not meet the criteria.
 6               Estimates by the Florida Water Environment
 7          Association Utility Council for the waste water
 8          treatment plant indicated that the cost is in the
 9          billions of dollars annually, not millions of
10          dollars.  The Palm Beach County NPDS MS4s recommend
11          that EPA work closely and the Florida Department of
12          Environmental Protection and the South Florida
13          Water Management District to develop reasonable and
14          achievable nutrient criteria.  We also request that
15          a fair representation of the cost be presented.  We
16          will be also submitting written comments of a more
17          technical nature via mail.  Thank you.
18               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Brandon.  Speaker
19          number 28.  Speakers numbers 29 and 30 please come
20          to the front.
21               MR. TEICH:  Hi.  Larry Teich, City of Fort
22          Lauderdale Environment Resource Supervisor.
23               The derivation of a nutrient criteria for the
24          South Florida region, specifically the City of Fort
25          Lauderdale is not scientifically valid for the
0117
 1          following reasons:  Chlorophyll A is not an
 2          appropriate response.  It's a species dependent
 3          analysis as indicated by EPA's own method 445.
 4          There are only 18 independent labs in the state
 5          that are currently certified under the NELAK
 6          protocols to conduct this analysis.  Based on
 7          personal experience, the analysis variability will
 8          be significant for intralaboratory studies,
 9          especially at the proposed four PCB criteria.
10               The causal relationship between the response
11          and casual variables was not fully evaluated in
12          this proposed criteria.  Nutrient impaired waters
13          were not demonstrated to have a direct correlation
14          from the nutrient load to the Chlorophyll A
15          concentration, and the downstream impact was not
16          evidenced through the study.  Basically the use of
17          canals for fishing and public use was not
18          demonstrated to be impaired for its intended
19          function.
20               Out of the 3,400 canal sites in South Florida
21          that were studied, only 500 were used based on
22          existing nutrient data.  Of those 500, the data
23          were further whittled down based on whether it had
24          Chlorophyll results associated to total nitrogen
25          and total phosphorous.  That resulted in analysis
0118
 1          of 258 records from 725 sites.  It appears that no
 2          other sites were evaluated as far as this
 3          progression analysis for justification that's used
 4          as an indicator.
 5               The current SCAs that are used by the South
 6          Florida Water Management District that are designed
 7          to mitigate nutrient enrichment are currently not
 8          able to obtain the Everglades protection area
 9          criteria of 10 PPB.  This forebodes that the
10          criteria proposed currently is set up for failure.
11          The criteria probably should have been first
12          developed for the downstream receiving bodies prior
13          to the upstream.
14               There is a general lack of information on
15          implementation enforcement in this rule that will
16          result on MS4s being forced to come up with an
17          alternative plan to submit for water quality
18          standards the approval process and variance
19          submittal to the EPA and ongoing mitigation plans
20          that could run in perpetuity.  There are
21          significant costs associated to this preliminary
22          estimate of potential compliant costs uses DEP
23          draft criteria to establish baseline cost.  The
24          draft criteria was never adopted, so this cost
25          basis is conjectural at best.  The numbers
0119
 1          presented by EPA appear misleading because they are
 2          only accounting for what is above and beyond the
 3          DEP draft criteria.
 4               For waste water the costs were estimated at
 5          approximately 50 billion.  It is not including the
 6          MS4s or other costs that would be associated and
 7          does not include the continued maintenance.  The
 8          cost will be borne by the already overburdened
 9          taxpayers for unknown environmental benefits.  The
10          costs implementation will divert resources from
11          other projects that have significant environmental
12          benefits.
13               As for the city MS4s, the cost increase will
14          be on their permit fees.  MS4s were projected to be
15          four to six times the costs in meeting the current
16          TMDL program costs.  As an example, we have two out
17          falls currently that we're retrofitting with
18          pollution control devices at a cost of three
19          quarters of a million dollars.  They probably won't
20          be removing dissolved phosphate and nitrogen, but
21          they will be taking care of sedimentation as well
22          as flotsam that could be in the waterways.
23               The City of Fort Lauderdale resides for the
24          most part east of the salt water barriers, yet all
25          of our waters except the lakes maybe are designated
0120
 1          by this rule as canals.  The clarity of salt water
 2          vs. estuarine vs. fresh water isn't in the rule, so
 3          right now we're going to be modified under the
 4          modified rule for NS and salt water.  Additional
 5          comments will be forwarded.
 6               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker number 29.
 7          Speaker number 30.
 8               MR. FOY:  Good afternoon.  I don't envy you.
 9          You probably feel like the messenger that got shot,
10          or maybe even worse, the sacrificial lamb.  My name
11          is Jay Foy.  I have 35 years of experience or more
12          in water resources.  I represent the City of
13          Atlantis, the Town of Haverhill.  I'm on the
14          steering committee, so I also represent the NPDS
15          steering group of Palm Beach County as well as my
16          myself and my firm.  I have a ten-page letter that
17          has been submitted to you by mail yesterday.  It
18          has 15 points on it.  I'm going to mention ten of
19          them, and only concentrate on two.
20               First was I have a lot of experience.  Second
21          is Southeast Florida is a lot different than South
22          Florida.  Furthermore Palm Beach County is
23          significantly different from the rest of Southeast
24          Florida.
25               Second or number three on my letter would be
0121
 1          establishing appropriate criteria is important.  We
 2          need this.  I don't think there's a debate.  I just
 3          don't think that the cause/effect relationship has
 4          been established.
 5               Point number five in my letter is the cause
 6          effect.  I don't know why I jumped.  Number six is
 7          one of the two that I want to concentrate on, and
 8          that is that the derivation method ignores the fact
 9          that when you have a nutrient limiting a
10          designation, that one of the two nutrients is
11          limiting.  That means that the other nutrient is
12          not limiting.  Taking the data and saying that the
13          criteria is there for both means scientifically
14          50 percent of it is wrong.  The worst part of that
15          is we don't know which 50 percent it is, so it's
16          not based in science or logic.  The conclusion that
17          you have a specific level when you don't know which
18          one it is is not logical.  It's not scientific.
19               Next point, number seven in my letter is the
20          other point I want to concentrate on, and that is
21          the ground water in South Florida, Southeast
22          Florida is significantly different than any other
23          part in Florida.  We've got a matrix of canals.  In
24          Dade and Broward you've got the Biscayne aquifer, a
25          solution ridden limestone aquifer that flows
0122
 1          essentially that there is no difference.  My
 2          suspicion, but people don't measure typically the
 3          exchange water is that down there because one of
 4          the sources of the water is the nutrient desert,
 5          the phosphorous desert of the Everglades, that that
 6          is too low, that the water is very, very low, and
 7          when you use that, the phosphorous criteria is
 8          going to be too low.
 9               In Palm Beach County the opposite is true.  My
10          belief from the data I've seen is that the water
11          levels are high, which I believe the water levels,
12          the phosphorous levels in groundwater dissolve,
13          that gets through the ground is actually higher
14          than the 42 parts per billion proposed.  I think
15          it's in the 60s.  There is no scientific base to
16          try to achieve 42, nor do I think it's possible in
17          Palm Beach County.
18               Chlorophyll A, it is the indicator, good
19          indicator.  Once you establish criteria, you don't
20          need it.
21               Point number 12, 75 percentile, and I'm sure
22          you've heard this before, is that that's an
23          interesting number.  Is it scientifically
24          justifiable?  Why not 65 percent, 90 percent.  It
25          doesn't really have a good scientific base.  You
0123
 1          need something that relates cause/effect back to
 2          percentage.
 3               Point number 13, and so far we've been
 4          ineffective in getting DEP to change this, canals
 5          are not streams or rivers, and we really do need a
 6          different criteria, a different classification.
 7          The class III limited which is currently proposed
 8          is not different.  It's still class III.  So canals
 9          are not rivers, are not streams.  They're deep,
10          narrow water conveyances that were not meant for
11          biological activity.
12               The last item, number 14 that I'll mention
13          before I get to the conclusions are I took some
14          data provided by Palm Beach County of the corporate
15          wildlife area.  The 75 percentile of that pristine
16          area is 51 and 52 parts per billion phosphorous.
17          The proposed criteria is 42.  To put it crudely, we
18          ain't going to make it.
19               Conclusions are two, that the -- where are my
20          conclusions.  The proposed criteria is too low in
21          Palm Beach County, and you need to drop the
22          Chlorophyll A as a criteria.  I hope I have gotten
23          through, and I don't envy your position.
24               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Foy.  Speaker 31.
25               MR. CARTER:  Good afternoon.  Kevin Carter,
0124
 1          South Florida Water Management District.  Welcome
 2          to West Palm Beach, day three of three.  We
 3          appreciate EPA holding your public meetings in
 4          Tallahassee on the 17th, Orlando yesterday, and
 5          today in our hometown, West Palm Beach, Florida.
 6               The district has been a leader in restoration
 7          science and a promulgation of numeric nutrient
 8          criteria.  We were an integral part of the first
 9          numeric nutrient criteria in the State of Florida,
10          the landmark criterion for the Everglades, which
11          took 11 years to do, and shows the complexities
12          that are involved and the time that can be
13          necessary to do numeric nutrient criteria in an
14          appropriate manner in South Florida.
15               We have been deeply involved, and I am
16          actually a tack member of the Florida Environment
17          Protection numeric nutrient criteria.  Through the
18          findings of that tack, as you know, the DEP put out
19          the drafts of state criteria last year.  Through
20          all this scientific assessment and work, we as the
21          district definitely believe that numeric nutrient
22          criteria are important, they need to be
23          established, but they need to be established within
24          sufficient time frames to allow appropriate
25          criteria to be adopted for our state's ecological
0125
 1          diversity.
 2               The potential ramifications of proposed
 3          criteria on federally mandated restoration
 4          projection further necessitates that criteria are
 5          being developed on sound science, even though this
 6          requires more time.  One of the district's key
 7          initiatives is Everglades restoration.  The state
 8          of Florida has already invested over two billion
 9          dollars in this process.  We have concerns that
10          this rule will entail costly overhauls for projects
11          that we currently have in the ground, projects that
12          we've partnered with the federal government, and
13          that we also have to have additional administrative
14          processes that will hinder our ability to expedite
15          these important restoration projects.
16               For example, many of the projects that we have
17          are focused on total phosphorous reduction.  As we
18          go through our review of this rule, we're wondering
19          how these projects will be impacted by the other
20          parameters that you've proposed.  We strongly urge
21          EPA to consider and address how the criteria can be
22          implemented to not negatively affect the ability of
23          the district and our federal partners to continue
24          achieving the progress towards the important
25          Everglades restoration, and I think we could also
0126
 1          echo that with all the other important restoration
 2          projects being done throughout the district,
 3          including Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River
 4          Basin, and our very important coastal watersheds.
 5               As the district has 2300 miles of canals, I'd
 6          also like to touch on the criteria that were
 7          developed for the South Florida canals.  We have
 8          now currently observed analyses to support the
 9          conclusion that the concentrations that you have
10          proposed in your draft rule will, if there are
11          concentrations that are higher than those, they
12          will affect negatively the designated uses of the
13          canals.  We have not seen the link between
14          nutrients and biology within the canals.  We do not
15          feel this has been clearly determined.  In fact, a
16          project that we're currently working on as a
17          district, we're inventorying the ecological science
18          that's been done shows that these symptoms have not
19          been studied to the extent of other systems within
20          South Florida, for example the Everglades.  In
21          fact, the FDEP also found this as a problem in
22          setting numeric nutrient criteria for canals and
23          did not recommend the use of any of the EPA
24          guidance documents in setting criteria here.  And
25          as you remember, FDEP decided not to set numeric
0127
 1          nutrient criteria for canals in their draft rule
 2          last year.  So we urge you to reconsider the use of
 3          the inference model and the development of a
 4          reference approach for canals in South Florida.
 5               The time I have left -- we've heard a common
 6          theme as we've joined you over the last three days,
 7          time and money.  We urge you to listen to the
 8          different cost estimates that you've heard over the
 9          last three days from all different stakeholders.
10          We believe you need to reevaluate the cost that
11          you've looked at in your rule.  Time, we hope you
12          allow more time for this rule to go forward, and we
13          definitely think you need to allow more time from
14          input from stakeholders throughout our state.
15               With that, I thank you for your time because I
16          know the last three days has been very busy, and
17          you've shown a lot of patience and understanding.
18          Thank you.
19               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Carter.  Speaker
20          32.  33 and 34 can move into the reserve seats.
21               MR. PERRY:  Mark Perry.  I'm the executive
22          director for the past 32 years of Florida
23          Oceanographic Society and also a member of the
24          Water Resource Advisory Commission with the
25          district and I'm the state co-chair for the
0128
 1          Everglades coalition and also member of the rivers
 2          coalition up in Martin, St. Lucie County area.
 3               Basically you have a challenge ahead of you.
 4          I mean, the water quality standards for the state,
 5          particularly with Florida's lakes and flowing
 6          waters, have dramatically changed.  Those lakes and
 7          flowing waters changed dramatically in the course
 8          of the past century and even the last 50 years.  If
 9          you looked at Kissimmee River, for instance, a nice
10          meandering river system, we channelized that system
11          and made a C38 canal out of it in 1969.  We diked
12          around Lake Okeechobee, a natural lake system that
13          used to flow south to the Everglades back in the
14          1930s, and we did that for flood control.  So a
15          system of canals and lots of systems have been
16          built for -- particularly starting for flood
17          control in the 1940s on up to now for also doing
18          drainage and water supply for agriculture and other
19          uses.  Those canals are now dumping into estuaries
20          and coastal waters, they're dumping into other
21          bodies of waters, into lakes that need to be
22          addressed because we're trying to treat a lake like
23          a natural lake system, we're trying to look at a
24          river as a natural river system, and over in our
25          area we have the St. Lucie estuary right up north
0129
 1          here, and I notice in your Tallahassee slides you
 2          didn't have one, but in this slide you did of the
 3          Microcystis algae bloom in 2005 in the St. Lucie
 4          estuary, which came from Lake Okeechobee.  The lake
 5          was connected to the St. Lucie estuary back in the
 6          1930s, and it needs to be addressed because that
 7          canal directly flows into the system.
 8               The estuary there, and it's of national
 9          significance.  The Indian River Lagoon is a
10          national estuary, outstanding Florida waters,
11          aquatic preserves.  We spent years going through
12          management plans for these areas to protect these
13          waters, to protect the resources that they provide,
14          and the billions of dollars annually that are
15          provided through the support of those clean
16          systems.
17               Those many blooms and algae things that happen
18          and the deterioration of these waters obviously is
19          a big concern not only from an environmental
20          standpoint, but also an economic standpoint.  Right
21          now there are like 28 tributaries that enter into
22          the St. Lucie Estuary.  These are streams, creeks,
23          those kind of waters, and we're wondering if those
24          criteria are going to have to be met at the stream
25          conditions.  Sometimes the discharges from the lake
0130
 1          into the C44 canal which comes into the St. Lucie
 2          get in excess of 4.6 billion gallons a day.
 3          Through all the canals we dump 1.7 billion gallons
 4          a day to the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico.  That's a
 5          tragic waste of just fresh water resource alone,
 6          much less to say what it does on the way out.
 7               When we get down to looking at the loading
 8          factors, and in St. Lucie Estuary from the canal
 9          alone, C44, we've got 83 metric tons of phosphorous
10          annually average coming in, and also about a 1,008
11          metric tons of nitrogen annually.  That's three
12          times of any other of the six watershed portions of
13          that -- components of the watershed that enter into
14          the st. Lucie.
15               We need to look at not just concentrations,
16          but I note that you quote the protective loading
17          rate which is calculated to look at kind of
18          downstream protected values.  Those are going to be
19          important kind of terms as you move along in this
20          process, and that ties into the term that you've
21          indicated that you're going to derive some sight
22          specific alternative criteria or allow the state to
23          develop those site specific alternative criteria,
24          and that leads to whether the state or local
25          governments can have a more restrictive water
0131
 1          quality standard in order to achieve it.
 2               The classification of water systems in
 3          Florida, the class I, class II, class III and class
 4          IV and class V waters also address, and you're
 5          addressing class I and class III, which is potable
 6          water, and then the recreation propagation
 7          maintenance of healthy, well-balanced populations
 8          of fish and wildlife.  Class II is for shellfish
 9          propagation and harvesting, and we do have some of
10          those.  Class IV is agricultural water supplies
11          which may not be included in this system, and class
12          V is navigation, utility and industrial use.
13               What we get down to is really how do we, if we
14          do implement a numeric standard, and I hope that
15          all the other 70 parameters that do apply to water
16          quality standards in Chapter 62 of Florida
17          Administrative Code still apply and still take
18          place for those other class of waters.  It's going
19          to get down to the Clean Water Act of 1972, you
20          know, 40 years ago, and then finally getting the
21          state in 1998 to recognize you've got to implement
22          water standards.  It took a long time.  Finally, we
23          need the federal help to develop these water
24          quality standards, and we hope that you continue to
25          do that and move forward in this process.  Thank
0132
 1          you.
 2               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Perry.  Speaker
 3          33.
 4               MR. MARTIN:  Yes.  My name is Drew Martin.
 5          I'm a member of the Soil and Water Conservation
 6          District here in Palm Beach County, received over
 7          200,000 votes when I ran.  I am not representing
 8          the Soil and Water Conservation District.  I am
 9          representing myself.  I am also here representing
10          the Sierra Club.  I'm the Everglades chapter chair
11          for the Everglades National Park, and I was
12          co-chair with Mark Perry of the Everglades
13          coalition.
14               But I do want to say that many, many people
15          here in Palm Beach County support what you are
16          doing today, and I'm disappointed that so many of
17          our water officials who profess did not have enough
18          money to work with you to meet the standards have
19          plenty of money to come here and fight the
20          standards.  And what I've said to our officials at
21          our water districts is this is where you need to
22          change your focus.  Your focus needs to be on
23          working with EPA.
24               Now, here in Palm Beach County a number of
25          years ago someone fell into a lake while they were
0133
 1          jet skiing.  They died the next day because the
 2          water was so polluted, and it had to do with, in my
 3          impression, I'm not a scientist and I'm not a
 4          forensic doctor, but it was my impression from
 5          reading the article that it had to do with algal
 6          problems in the water.
 7               So I don't think the majority of the voters
 8          here in Palm Beach County don't want to see you do
 9          something, and I don't want you to leave today with
10          the impression that the majority of people in Palm
11          Beach County don't want to see you do something to
12          clean up the water.  Why are you here.  You're here
13          because the state hasn't done a proper job.  That's
14          not to say the state hasn't tried, and there have
15          been issues, TMDLs, BMPs.  But unfortunately we
16          have a tendency to overuse chemicals in the state
17          of Florida.  Part of it has to do with the quality
18          of our soils for farming.  But the reality is, we
19          can't go on doing that.
20               I just finished the book Blue Ocean by Sylvia
21          Earl, and she talked about how everything we do
22          ends up in the ocean, and I think it's very, very
23          important, as a former head of NOAA, that she was
24          really able to express why we need to work on
25          cleaning up our nutrient standards.  Now, the
0134
 1          primary argument you've heard today is we can't
 2          afford to clean up our nutrient standards, but the
 3          issue is we cannot afford not to clean up our
 4          nutrient standards.  Right know we suffered algo
 5          blooms in the gulf that have suffered severe
 6          economic problems.  The people who live around Lake
 7          Okeechobee have to spend a lot of money cleaning up
 8          their water because of nutrient problems.  You
 9          would actually save people money by establishing
10          these standards.  This could be a great economic
11          benefit, and to meet these standards you would
12          bring jobs into the state of Florida because
13          projects that would meet these standards.
14               People have also argued that we can't meet the
15          standards to clean up the Everglades National Park
16          if you apply these.  I don't see how that can be
17          the case.  You're going to tell me that if you
18          clean up the water it's going to make it harder to
19          clean up Everglades National Park.  I don't think
20          so.
21               The other argument that's been used often by
22          the other side is that canals should not be part of
23          the system.  But the problem is, all the streams,
24          when they built those canals, where did they build
25          them, where there were existing streams and rivers.
0135
 1          Those canals replaced the existing streams and
 2          rivers, so you have to focus on that because that's
 3          where the water is flowing.  You cannot not focus
 4          on that.  We need to make canals operate more like
 5          the original streams and rivers.
 6               The other issue is we can do a lot at point
 7          source.  People don't have to use so much
 8          fertilizer on their lawns.  One of the biggest
 9          problems is that St. Augustine grass and Bahia
10          grass, sod requires a huge amount of chemicals.  If
11          we change how people garden, a lot of these water
12          districts could improve their water quality, so we
13          need to look at point source.  We need to look at
14          ways to reduce the amount of water coming off our
15          farms so that the fertilizer is not getting into
16          the streams and the canals.  And the other thing we
17          need to focus on is to continue to work with the
18          farmers to improve the BMPs to make them so that
19          they reduce the amount of nutrients coming off the
20          land so that we can improve our environment.  We
21          need to stop the panic and work cooperatively.
22          Thank you.
23               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Martin.  Speaker
24          34?
25               MS. SHERREFFS:  Good afternoon.  My name is
0136
 1          Dawn Sherreffs.  I'm here representing the 55,000
 2          members in Florida Clean Water Action.  I really
 3          want to thank you guys for your stamina today and
 4          for giving us the opportunity to comment.
 5               We really believe that the EPA proposed
 6          standards will finally allow Florida to protect all
 7          of our water bodies, our drinking water supply, our
 8          economy and our public health.  Florida's economy
 9          relies heavily on its water resources.  States 14
10          billion dollar fishing industry, 55 billion dollar
11          tourism cannot endure harmful algal blooms which
12          close beaches, poison water supplies, kill fish,
13          choke marine life, and can be toxic to human
14          health.  Clean water bodies will also support the
15          state's vital agricultural economy.  According to a
16          recent report by the University of Florida's
17          Institute of Food and Agricultural Services, in the
18          short term numeric standards are not expected to
19          have a great effect on agriculture.  The report
20          also goes on to state the addition of the numeric
21          standards will make the best management practices
22          easier to access.
23               In Florida we all live downstream.  It can
24          make that really difficult to set targets for water
25          bodies, and we understand that.  For example,
0137
 1          Miami-Dade County and areas within Monroe and
 2          Hillsboro County have significant different
 3          geochemical constructions which alter phosphorous
 4          holding rates.  Instead of allowing this challenge
 5          to derail implementation of the Clean Water Act,
 6          the EPA should consider exempting nonimpaired water
 7          bodies from current proposed criteria and benchmark
 8          their existing phosphorous nitrogen and chlorophyll
 9          loads as the numeric standards for these water
10          bodies.
11               The Clean Water Act was intended to protect
12          all waters, and it's important to recognize that
13          Florida's canals and those included in the
14          southeast do support recreational and subsistence
15          fishing as well as discharge ground water into
16          outstanding Florida waters and the aquifer.  Over
17          the last 26 years DEP has had its chance to protect
18          our waters and failed to act in time to prevent
19          these current pollution problems.  In order to
20          uphold and enforce pollution limits, it is
21          essential that applications for site specific
22          alternative criteria be reviewed and approved by
23          the EPA for Florida's waters.  Please revive the
24          promise of the Clean Water Act and uphold strong,
25          science-based numeric nutrient standards.
0138
 1               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Sherreffs.
 2          Speaker number 35.  Speaker 36.
 3               MR. CLARCHICK:  Hello.  My name is Mike
 4          Clarchick.  I'm here representing myself.  I am not
 5          an authority on nitrogen, nor am I an authority on
 6          phosphorous.  I'm a lead AP, and I know a teeny,
 7          tiny bit about low impact development which
 8          unfortunately hasn't been mentioned very much here
 9          today.  I do know that if we reduce our runoff,
10          we'll reduce our pollutant control, and those of
11          you who know about low impact development will know
12          that that is the case.  I also know that we're
13          talking about storm water here today, and storm
14          water seems to be a four-letter word.  It's the
15          largest four-letter word that I know, and we look
16          at storm water as a hindrance.  In reality it's a
17          resource.
18               My comments today are in regard to urban areas
19          of storm water runoff.  On the average, there are
20          60 inches of rain water that drops in Florida a
21          year.  Water management district discharges about
22          60 percent of the water that they capture directly
23          to the ocean.  This method does not only carry
24          pollutants, but it does not allow for the natural
25          recharge of our aquifers.  Low impact development
0139
 1          best management practices must be implemented in
 2          urban areas to allow for a more natural treatment
 3          of rain water.  Point source controls will reduce
 4          pollutants by reducing volumes.  These same
 5          controls can filter out pollutants prior to
 6          discharge.  Government projects should lead the way
 7          by incorporating pervious pavements, green roots,
 8          bio retention and cisterns, just to name a few.
 9               Low impact development techniques have been
10          used in many areas successfully, not just in the
11          United States, but in many countries throughout the
12          world.  Indeed, cost has been a major comment here,
13          and anybody who's done research on the U.S. EPA
14          site would know that low impact development sites
15          are actually less costly than conventional methods,
16          saving money to builders in both their capital
17          cost, as well as their life cycle cost.  We, the
18          stewards of the state of Florida must take action
19          to save our most important resource.  Every
20          individual branch of government should have a low
21          impact development office.  Those that argue
22          against low impact development has simply not
23          invested the time to do the research and to follow
24          the facts.
25               This technology is there and has been proven
0140
 1          successful by many cities throughout the United
 2          States such as Philadelphia, PA, Portland, Oregon,
 3          Seattle, Washington, Washington, DC, Fairfax,
 4          Virginia, just to name a few.  These cities have
 5          implemented these techniques, and they've done so
 6          successfully, in some cases reducing volume of
 7          storm water by 98 percent.  Once again, if we
 8          reduce the storm water runoff, we've reduced the
 9          pollutants, the nitrogen.  These cities have
10          approached their storm water runoff with a can do
11          attitude.  This is the approach that needs to be
12          taken in Florida.  We need to think outside the
13          box.  Instead of modifying our existing systems
14          that don't work, we need to create new systems that
15          do work.  It must be mandated by a law which is
16          achievable, and goals that can be maintained and
17          measured.
18               Those who have stood at this podium before me,
19          the design community, the building community, the
20          industrial community, the government bodies, to all
21          of those who say that this is an impossible task, I
22          ask you this.  Does your institution have a rain
23          garden.  Are you using a rain barrel or a cistern.
24          Is your roof a green roof.  Are your roadways,
25          parking lots, patios and courtyards pervious.  Are
0141
 1          you really doing everything that you can do.
 2               Thank you for your time.
 3               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Clarchick.  Are
 4          you speaker 35?
 5               MR. KOLOJESKI:  Yes.
 6               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker 35.
 7               MR. KOLOJESKI:  Good afternoon.  Thank you for
 8          your time.  My name is John Kolojeski, and I am
 9          corporate vice president and counsel to Archaea
10          Solutions, Inc., and I am in charge of the Florida
11          office in Orlando, and I thank you for convening
12          these meetings, and most of all I thank all of you
13          who have attended.  I've been present for the last
14          two days, and so I've had the opportunity and I've
15          listened most keenly to those in three particular
16          areas impacted by the proposed regulation, and
17          those are municipal waste water treatment
18          facilities and operators in districts, those in the
19          food processing industry such as juices, beef, et
20          cetera, and thirdly the agricultural interests of
21          this state which we have great direct interest.
22               Our key for those who do not know is the
23          oldest living organism known to man on this planet.
24          Fossils from as long as 3.5 billion years have
25          yielded archaea microbes.  Archaea itself, and this
0142
 1          is not a history lesson so I'll give a brief
 2          review.  Archaea itself was not discovered until
 3          1977.  It was predicted by the great scientist,
 4          Dr. Crick back in 1958, the nobelist, co-discoverer
 5          of DNA, and as I say, it was not discovered until
 6          1977 by Dr, Woos, a Yale biophysicist who
 7          discovered it in the laboratory in the University
 8          of Illinois.  Of course it caused a revolution in
 9          the understanding and concept of human life.  So if
10          you went to high school or college when I did back
11          in the '60s or '70s right up through the '90s,
12          archaea -- at that time there were five kingdoms of
13          bio classification, bacteria, protozoa, fungi,
14          plants and animals.  After archaea it was reduced
15          to three domains, procaryotes, which are bacteria,
16          the lowest form of life, eucaryots, which are the
17          highest form of life which range all the way from
18          protozoa to animals to man, and finally archaea.
19          Now, why is this of any relevance to this
20          proceeding?
21               Well, a little over ten years ago Archaea
22          Solutions was formed by a group of scientists, and
23          we remain to this day a very scientific-oriented
24          company.  We found through use experimentation,
25          both field, laboratory, et cetera, that archaea
0143
 1          could produce a drastic reduction in water in BOD,
 2          COD, and more specific for these hearings, ammonia,
 3          nitrogen and phosphorous.  Incidentally but
 4          nonetheless significantly, it also eliminates
 5          disease-bearing organisms like chloroform and e
 6          coli which can be not only of great public health
 7          interest, but to those farming with large animals.
 8               We found this through a great deal of trial
 9          and error, and today we use a proprietary of
10          archaea organisms and other selected microbes using
11          indigenous organisms.  We use this blend.  We've
12          been able to develop a sophisticated process that
13          is of course proprietary, and we are able to adapt
14          to all environmental conditions, pH, temperature,
15          salinity, you name it, we have worked them
16          successfully by adjusting and manipulating our
17          combinations.
18               Basically I'd like to focus on three things in
19          the last minute I have.  It works, it is safe or I
20          would not be here, and it's highly cost effective.
21          We have clients here in the state of Florida, as I
22          mentioned, those three areas, municipal waste water
23          treatment.  In municipal waste water treatment we
24          are able to reduce nitrogen levels to less than a
25          part per million.  We've been able to do the same
0144
 1          in both food processing and on large agricultural
 2          farms.  In the area with respect to phosphorous, we
 3          have demonstrated anywhere from a 95 to 99 percent
 4          reduction in phosphorous in all three of those
 5          areas.  In agricultural operations, we're
 6          sophisticated enough to even preserve enough of the
 7          two so that additional fertilizer is not required
 8          for sorghum fields, et cetera.
 9               We're here to help.  We're here to help
10          Florida no matter what these numeric standards ends
11          up being.  As I mentioned, we've been tested by all
12          U.S. EPA standards on safety, and we've been used
13          in an environment such as Hawaii where you have to
14          be safe, in small countries in Europe where we're
15          considered the cutting edge of technology.  To
16          demonstrate our sophistication, in 2006 we were
17          awarded the Helios Award by a very sophisticated
18          company.  That's their highest award on an
19          international basis.
20               I just want to conclude by saying the
21          following.  We would appreciate the opportunity to
22          prove our value, both scientifically and
23          economically, in any of the venues of Florida.  We
24          cannot help those with huge capital budgets of
25          multi-million dollars who can afford additional
0145
 1          steel and concrete, and we do not compete with
 2          that.  Unfortunately for us, we tend to be called
 3          in when no one else can do the job and 90 percent
 4          of the budget has already been spent.  Even in
 5          those situations, we have had remarkable success.
 6          So we're here to help the state of Florida in any
 7          fashion we can.  We've given all our materials over
 8          to state DEP so they're familiar with us, and I'm
 9          going to give federal EPA one additional document,
10          even though we gave them some last night outlining
11          some of the detailed information.  Thank you very
12          much.
13               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Kolojeski.
14          Speaker number 37.  Speaker 38.
15               MS. MIEDEMA:  Good afternoon.  My name is
16          Barbara Miedema.  I'm with Sugar Cane Growers
17          Cooperative of Florida.  We're located in Palm
18          Beach County.  We're made up of 46 individual
19          grower/owner members.  Most of our growers grow
20          sugar cane as well as winter vegetables.  We're
21          here today to ask you respectfully to extend the
22          time period for comments.  We have a large
23          technical team that's trying to understand the
24          science and modeling assumptions behind this rule.
25          They've been working 24/7 trying to get to the
0146
 1          bottom of things so we can understand it.  So
 2          please, we need some more time to have a thorough
 3          understanding of the science behind this.
 4               Secondly, we would suggest that the
 5          congressional budget office undertake a review of
 6          the assessment of the cost of implementing this
 7          rule.  We don't know how much it's going to cost.
 8          We have estimates that it could cost each household
 9          in Florida an additional $700 or 75 billion dollars
10          to the state.  At a time when Florida is facing
11          some of the toughest economic circumstances in my
12          lifetime, we're uncomfortable with the uncertainty
13          of what this would take if even possible to
14          achieve.
15               Third, we'd like the National Academy of
16          Science to review the statistical approach behind
17          the rule.  We need an independent entity that
18          understands all of the ramifications to understand
19          what's going on.
20               Lastly, we don't believe that using national
21          rivers and streams is appropriate for manmade
22          canals conveyance systems.  We're in the Everglades
23          agricultural area, and we rely on the canals to get
24          water supply and for flood protection.  It would
25          undermine Everglades restoration.  We wouldn't be
0147
 1          able to use the storm water treatment areas that
 2          the state and farmers paying the agricultural
 3          privilege tax has spent over a billion dollars in
 4          building.
 5               Nitrogen is naturally occurring in the
 6          Everglades agricultural area.  It's not something
 7          that we're adding in fertilizer.  There is no way
 8          for us to meet the standard.  What's already in the
 9          soil is three times greater than what you're asking
10          for.  So we get thrown out of the box before we
11          even do a single thing.
12               We are willing to work with you.  We're
13          willing to work with the Florida Department of
14          Environmental Protection, and we have done so and
15          have a traffic record of this.  We have been
16          implementing on farm agricultural best management
17          practices since 1994 with full scale implementation
18          since 1996.  Our long term average reduction of
19          phosphorous is at 54 percent with a 68 percent
20          reduction last year.  This means that over 2,000
21          metric tons of phosphorous has been removed on the
22          farm at the farm level before water enters the
23          Everglades.  The storm water treatment area has
24          removed another thousand tons.  We have been a
25          partner with the state in assuring that we have
0148
 1          clean water for the Everglades.
 2               Please keep these comments in mind and
 3          consider extending the time frame, and give us a
 4          chance to work with the state for a comprehensive
 5          solution.  Thank you.
 6               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Miedema.  Speaker
 7          39.
 8               MR. HUTCHCRAFT:  Good afternoon.  My name is
 9          Mitch Hutchcraft.  I'm with King Ranch and
10          Consolidated Citrus.  I want to thank you for
11          taking the time to come and hear from us.
12               King Ranch and consolidated citrus are
13          agricultural companies, and we grow citrus,
14          vegetable, nursery stock, sugar cane and even
15          gators and hogs on our property.  We've got a
16          little bit of wildlife.  Our property is in six
17          counties in Central and South Florida, and we
18          recognize that clean and reliable water resources,
19          they're critical to us as an agricultural company.
20          King Ranch has 150 year history of stewardship in
21          land management, and from that perspective we
22          certainly support the goal of clean water.
23          However, having said that, like many others that
24          you've heard from, we've got significant concerns
25          over the proposed numeric nutrient standards that
0149
 1          you're proposing.  Four specific come to mind.
 2          First we're concerned with the sound science behind
 3          it.  I'm not a scientific expert, but we have
 4          concerns when we hear FDEP say that they don't
 5          think that your outcomes represent a true
 6          relationship between nutrient loading and health.
 7          That gives us concern.  We are also concerned when
 8          we hear USGS say that they don't think the use of
 9          the SPARROW model is the most appropriate
10          application of that model, so we have concerns
11          about the appropriateness of the science behind the
12          standards that you're proposing.
13               We're also concerned that these standards are
14          arbitrary and are too generalized.  You've
15          established standards that are a blanket approach
16          to a very complicated natural system, and we
17          believe that will result in diverting very limited
18          resources to waters that don't need additional
19          treatment and attention from waters that do need
20          additional treatment and assessment.
21               Third, we're concerned that the standards --
22          that you don't understand the economic impact on
23          the agricultural uses, and quite frankly we think
24          that it could result in many farmers going out of
25          business.  What you may not know is that farmers
0150
 1          are price takers.  We only get paid what people are
 2          willing to pay us for our products, and
 3          unfortunately we don't have people that we can pass
 4          the cost along to.  If there's no one for us to
 5          pass the cost along to, we think that we'll be put
 6          into a position where we're forced to absorb these
 7          costs, and if we do that, we think you might have
 8          actually put us at a competitive disadvantage where
 9          other folks outside of the country can outcompete
10          us, resulting in agriculture moving offshore, which
11          we don't think is in the nation's best interest.
12               We think these standards don't take into
13          consideration the benefit of best management
14          practices, and we've heard a lot of discussion
15          about that today.  Our citrus groves are a part of
16          the 500,000 acres of citrus groves that incorporate
17          best management practices, including reducing the
18          irrigation from the large gallon per acre walking
19          guns down to very low gallonage emitters, also the
20          reduction of fertilizer through variable rate
21          technology.  We think that these are important
22          uses, and they're already in place.  In fact,
23          through best management practices and partnerships
24          with large land owners, we think that there are
25          instances where the water coming from Lake
0151
 1          Okeechobee has 200 parts per billion total
 2          phosphorous, and we bring that onto our properties,
 3          and when it leaves our properties it has 70 parts
 4          per billion.  That's a significant improvement, but
 5          it won't meet your standard.  We think that's
 6          important, particularly in the EAA where your
 7          standard is ten parts per billion.  The water
 8          coming wouldn't even meet that.  Over and above
 9          that, rainwater won't meet that.  That's a very
10          difficult standard for us to meet, and we're
11          concerned that it might require a higher authority
12          than the federal government to get rainwater to
13          meet the standard.  Further, we're concerned that
14          the current technology that is available might
15          prevent us from actually being able to achieve
16          those standards, so we have a very real concern
17          that we won't be able to meet the standards that
18          you've met.
19               Given that, I'd like to propose a couple of
20          suggestions.  First, we would encourage you to take
21          more time, continue working with FDEP and the
22          landowners, incorporate the data and the knowledge
23          that's out there to achieve appropriate and
24          desirable outcomes.  Secondly, we request that you
25          utilize site specific data to take into account
0152
 1          geographic and geologic differences to provide for
 2          more reasonable and achievable standards.  As
 3          you've indicated, there's a great variety between
 4          properties.
 5               We also would suggest that you look at section
 6          five of your alternative regulatory approaches to
 7          modify and streamline your site specific standards
 8          and make them easier to get local variations based
 9          on site specific data.
10               Fourth, we'd ask that rather than treating
11          farmers like the problem, that you begin to
12          recognize that these solutions are already being
13          implemented by landowners.  To this end, rather
14          than spending money on duplicating regulatory
15          standards that you actually make that funding
16          available to work with land owners in a
17          collaborative manner for environmental services
18          programs which there is no funding for right now.
19               And lastly, we would request that you
20          understand the impacts, the economic impacts of
21          what you're going to do to Florida and Florida
22          agriculture before you do it.  We're concerned that
23          if you underestimate your impacts and the costs are
24          more like what we think it's going to be, you're
25          going to drive us out of the business and there
0153
 1          won't be an economic stimulus program big enough to
 2          bring us back.
 3               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Hutchcraft.
 4          Speaker number 40.
 5               MR. ROTH:  Good afternoon.  My name is Rick
 6          Roth.  I'm a farmer in the Everglades agricultural
 7          area.  I've been the major owner and operator of my
 8          operation for the last 25 years, which means
 9          basically I've been living through most of the
10          Everglades restoration efforts.  I'm also the vice
11          president of Florida Farm Bureau, an ag
12          organization that's very instrumental in Florida in
13          addressing issues like this.  As the vice
14          president, I can tell you that agricultural people
15          take very seriously our stewardship
16          responsibilities, and we spend untold hours dealing
17          with issues such as these, trade issues, food
18          safety, water quality, and we are always looking
19          for ways to do things better.
20               I really don't have a lot of good solutions
21          for you today.  I do have a couple of common sense
22          concepts I'd like to pass onto you, though.  Let's
23          call this kind of a good news/bad news story.  The
24          bad news is, you know, we just feel very strongly
25          that this is not the way to do water quality
0154
 1          standards.  To be settling a lawsuit, you know, a
 2          consent decree, you know, legislation, you know,
 3          EPA is basically ignoring the scientific process
 4          that DEP has been developing for the last ten years
 5          and has been identifying impaired water bodies.
 6          They spent over 20 million dollars plus, and we
 7          have more water quality data than any other state.
 8          So to basically pass a law in Congress to encourage
 9          numeric standards leading to a lawsuit leading to a
10          settlement becoming a rule and now we have
11          regulation and enforcement coming down the pike,
12          and in a very, very short period of time.  You've
13          heard people talk today how Everglades restoration
14          has basically been a 20-year process and we've been
15          very successful.  Some people think oh, great.  We
16          have solved the problem.  Now EPA is on board.
17          This is great.  No, it's not.  This is no way to
18          solve the two biggest problems that we have facing
19          us in the world today.  How are we going to
20          continue to feed the growing population of over six
21          billion people in this world while using limited
22          resources in a way that is environmentally
23          sustainable.  I think people will tell you if you
24          delve into South Florida agriculture production and
25          what's going on in the world today, that we have a
0155
 1          very professional approach to the way we do
 2          business here in South Florida, and we are finding
 3          much better ways to farm, produce more food using a
 4          lot less inputs.  Most of the people you hear say
 5          in scare tactics about what's going on in the
 6          world, you know, the reason they say that is
 7          because they're not farmers.  They don't know
 8          what's changed.
 9               Let's talk a little bit about what's changed
10          in the last 40 years.  Do you realize today that
11          everybody under the age of 40 considers themselves
12          to be an environmentalist, that they actually
13          believe green is the right approach.  We have green
14          building standards, we have organic food production
15          going through the roof, and we have businesses like
16          Subaru telling us they have almost zero discharge
17          out of their factories, and oh by the way, they
18          make good cars, too.  Today the marketplace is the
19          place where people are being rewarded for good
20          stewardship.
21               So what is my point?  My point is very clear.
22          We need a solution based, reward based, incentive
23          based way to deal with these problems.  We are no
24          longer in the same situation we were 40 years ago
25          where we can just say we'll set the standard and
0156
 1          you just spend however much it takes to do it.
 2               Does anybody remember what happened in August
 3          of 2008, the sub prime mortgage melt down.
 4          Announced the other day that Greece is fixing to be
 5          in bankruptcy because they have a debt exceeding
 6          their GDP.  Do we know that the United States, if
 7          you exclude social security, has a 64 percent debt
 8          to its GDP.  So that means in about ten years if we
 9          go the same way we're going today, United States is
10          going to be bankrupt.
11               So to cut to the chase, one size does not fit
12          all.  We need to go back and allow the process that
13          was started by DEP and their knowledge base to be
14          used in setting the standards.  We think Florida
15          should be rewarded for its efforts, not punished as
16          we're being done.
17               As you've heard earlier today, the best
18          management programs that have been set up in the
19          state of Florida, the mandatory one that I've been
20          under for over 15 years now and all the voluntary
21          ones that are going on throughout the state of
22          Florida show you that agriculture is not the
23          problem but the solution to the problem.  So we
24          have achieved great things, and with your help we
25          can achieve greater things.  It's called feeding
0157
 1          the world and having a sustainable environment.
 2          Thank you.
 3               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Roth.  Speaker
 4          41.
 5               MR. OVERDORF:  Good afternoon.  Toby Overdorf
 6          with Crossroads Environmental.  I live in Palm
 7          City, Florida.  I also am a Florida senate
 8          appointee to the Small Business Regulatory Council
 9          and am a small business owner.
10               I've watched firsthand the St. Lucie River and
11          the associated destruction of the St. Lucie River
12          and the deposition of muck over years and years and
13          years.  I also had the pleasure of working on the
14          restoration of the Kissimmee River during my
15          graduate years and working with my Master's Degree
16          there.  However, I find that there's a major
17          dichotomy here when we're looking at this type of
18          plan being implemented in Florida.
19               The federal government is continuing to delay
20          elements of our restoration plan within the
21          Everglades.  We are not spending as much money as
22          we should be spending, not only within the southern
23          Everglades, but also within the northern Everglades
24          restoration.
25               The NPDS program.  We're allowing the
0158
 1          discharge across various water control structures,
 2          and everyone else has to play by the rules, but
 3          maybe not the federal government has to play by the
 4          rules.  The only way really to eat an elephant is
 5          one bite at a time.  You're trying to eat the
 6          entire elephant in one bite.  We need a well
 7          thought out plan, and this is not it.  Instead of
 8          embracing large land owners and municipalities,
 9          this plan really alienates them.  So is the
10          solution to throw out the entire plan?  Well, I
11          hope not.
12               I believe your plan needs one single element,
13          and that is common sense.  Instead of ramming this
14          through, fund regional plans led by local experts
15          and local land owners.  Where are the water quality
16          mitigation banks in this discussion.  We can't even
17          plan to help based on where this plan currently
18          sits.  Instead of alienating Florida and
19          potentially putting folks out of work and costing
20          billions of dollars to our state and the local
21          municipalities, embrace the ingenuity of our
22          current regulatory environment here within Florida
23          and the folks that have been studying this for
24          years.  Don't try to eat this elephant in one bite.
25          Allow the people and the businesses of Florida to
0159
 1          help you so you won't choke.  Thank you.
 2               MS. KEEHNER:  Speaker 42.
 3               MS. WILSON-DAVIS.  Good afternoon.  My name is
 4          Lisa Wilson-Davis.  I'm the program policy
 5          coordinator for the City of Boca Raton Utility
 6          Services Department, and I'd like to thank you for
 7          this opportunity to speak on this matter.
 8               I'd like to address the EPA's numeric nutrient
 9          standards on three levels, the first being over
10          arching concerns regarding the EPA's presentation
11          and statements made.  Also from a utility industry
12          perspective, and then more specifically addressing
13          the potential impacts of this rule to the city of
14          Boca Raton and our customers.
15               First and foremost, the presentation and data
16          presented are misleading.  Even though at the
17          beginning it was pointed out the photos may be old,
18          they are still misleading for those who just
19          download them on the internet.  The 15-year-old
20          photo of Lake Apopka bears no relationship to the
21          present day Florida.  The photo predates Florida's
22          TMDL program by four years and also predates
23          substantial efforts to improve the water quality in
24          that lake.  Even the friends of Lake Apopka Web
25          site states current data shows considerable
0160
 1          improvements in decreased phosphorous levels, and
 2          recent reports indicate fishing has improved
 3          dramatically.
 4               The presentation also includes data states a
 5          thousand miles of the 50,000 rivers and streams are
 6          impaired by nutrients.  This means that 98 percent
 7          of the Florida rivers and streams are not impaired
 8          by nutrients, and therefore the pictures depicting
 9          green waters represent only two percent of
10          Florida's rivers and streams, many of those of that
11          two percent already have TMDLs number which are
12          numeric nutrient water quality standards designed
13          for the recovery of those water bodies.  It is
14          through the TMDL process that such problems are
15          intended to be addressed and not by changing water
16          quality standards.
17               One last concern is the apparent
18          misinformation and fear mongering in the reference
19          to blue babies.  There is no methemoglobinemia or
20          blue baby syndrome epidemic in Florida.  Unlike
21          most states, Florida has nitrate groundwater
22          standards for drinking water.  In fact, FDEP's
23          drinking water standard Web site it states drinking
24          water that meets the EPA standard is associated
25          with little to none of this risk and is considered
0161
 1          safe with respect to nitrate.  So I ask, do
 2          isolated events of violations of existing standards
 3          really justify new surface water quality criteria.
 4               Secondly, I'd like to address the impacts of
 5          the proposed numeric nutrient criteria on the
 6          utility industry.  We fully support the efforts and
 7          comment presented on behalf of the Florida Water
 8          Environmental Association's utility council.
 9          Numeric nutrient criteria must be developed in a
10          scientifical sound manner.  The SPARROW model
11          utilized to calculate standard for streams and
12          canals does not account for the numerous nutrient
13          sources nor groundwater influences, particularly in
14          the canals of South Florida.  The relationship
15          between nutrients and stream biology requires site
16          specific nutrient standards rather than
17          unscientific and arbitrary regional values.  Every
18          TMDL has been approved by the EPA.  Many utilities
19          work closely with the FDEP and have invested rate
20          payer moneys to comply with these standards.  EPA
21          must adopt these water body specific standards.
22               In public hearings, many utilities have
23          discussed and presented technology issues and cost
24          impacts, as it has also been presented that the
25          best available biological treatment is unable to
0162
 1          treat the waste water to EPA's proposed standards
 2          and the homeowners' waste water utility bills alone
 3          will at least double.  I'm simply reiterating those
 4          facts.
 5               Thirdly, I'd like to share with you the
 6          potential direct impacts the proposed numeric
 7          nutrient criteria data will have on the City of
 8          Boca Raton Utility Services Department and our
 9          customers.  Realizing that the amount of
10          traditional water sources available for future
11          growth in South Florida were inadequate in order to
12          protect the regional water supply and prevent
13          future depletions of that supply.  In 2006 the
14          South Florida Water Management District enacted the
15          regional availability rule.  This placed limits or
16          capped the amount of water that can be withdrawn
17          from traditional sources such as the Biscayne
18          aquifer.  Additional water supply needs for
19          residents in South Florida would have to come from
20          alternative water supplies, including the reuse of
21          reclaimed water.  Subsequently, on June 30, 2008,
22          Senate Bill 1302, also known as the Ocean AT Fault
23          Bill was signed into law.  This law replaced
24          requirement on five utilities in South Florida, one
25          requirement being the reuse of 60 percent of
0163
 1          reclaimed water.  An effective and environmentally
 2          sound way to meet these is to use reclaimed water,
 3          and the City of Boca Raton embarked on ambitious
 4          efforts to implement, expand and maximize the
 5          beneficial reuse of reclaimed water.  The
 6          technology requirements and the cost associated
 7          with the numeric nutrient criteria standards with
 8          dubious environmental impact had the potential to
 9          curtail the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water,
10          significantly crippling the water supply and needs
11          of Floridians.  Thank you.
12               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you Ms. Wilson-Davis.
13          Speaker 43.
14               MR. WELCH:  Good afternoon.  My name is Casey
15          Welch.  I'm the director of congressional affairs
16          for Florida Citrus Mutual.  We are the world's
17          largest citrus organization.   We represent over
18          8,000 grower members across the state of Florida,
19          which represents over 570,000 acres across the
20          state of Florida, which is roughly about the size
21          of Rhode Island.  Hopefully none of you are from
22          Rhode Island, which is about the size of Polk
23          County, which is the heart of the Florida citrus
24          industry just in the center of the state.
25               Several points I want to bring up about our
0164
 1          industry.  We're a nine billion dollar industry.
 2          We directly and indirectly support 76,000 jobs
 3          across this state.  That's banks, that's fertilizer
 4          producers, that's workers and packing houses.
 5          There are a whole series of small towns that start
 6          in North Central Florida in between Tallahassee and
 7          Orlando and work their way all the way down to the
 8          center of the state that rely on this industry for
 9          their production.  Some of the growers who spoke
10          before me who represent fruit and vegetable and
11          sugar operations also support these small towns
12          these will be the first towns that would be
13          impacted by these numeric nutrient criteria, and I
14          think you guys know that as well as everyone else.
15               It's very important to us because growers are
16          very worried that these expansive and ultimately we
17          think unattainable regulations will push Florida
18          citrus industry over the edge.  We have been in a
19          locked battle with pest and disease issues since
20          1998 with citrus cancer and citrus greening disease
21          which both come from overseas.  The federal
22          government has spent over 1.2 billion dollars to
23          maintain the fruit and vegetable industry, those
24          pest and disease issues, and it is very important
25          to the economy of the state of Florida that we
0165
 1          maintain that.
 2               As this relates to this numeric nutrient
 3          criteria, Florida is in a locked battle with only
 4          one state, and that is Sao Paulo, Brazil for citrus
 5          production.  Florida produces 75 percent of the
 6          entire orange juice consumed by the United States
 7          citizens.  The rest is produced by Brazil.  If the
 8          Florida citrus industry fails, the importation will
 9          be a hundred percent of orange juice will be from
10          overseas from Brazil, period.
11               The standards are something that growers who
12          have voluntarily, as a grower ahead of me
13          mentioned, all of citrus's acreage is currently
14          under a best practices standards with the
15          Department of Environmental Protection and the
16          Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
17          Services.  So growers are very concerned in the
18          context of stepping up and already implementing
19          with their pocketbook and with shovels in the
20          ground on doing these best management practices and
21          having to turn around and throw that out and start
22          from scratch again and have to meet what they
23          consider unattainable numbers.
24               In closing, I just want to say on behalf of
25          our industry, we want to work with the federal
0166
 1          government.  We are stewards of the land.  We want
 2          to continue to be stewards of the land.  We love
 3          the water bodies around us.  It supports our crops.
 4          Dirty water does not grow good citrus, period.  We
 5          want to work with the government to make sure that
 6          we maintain the clean water systems.
 7               At the end of the day, we think it is very
 8          important that the EPA slows down this process,
 9          takes a look at National Academy of Sciences and
10          have a third party review have a longer look at the
11          economic impact to the states and the industries
12          that will be affected.  The site specific rules I
13          think can't be overstated here.  The types of soil,
14          the types of water bodies, the way our land across
15          the state and just across our citrus regions, I
16          mean, we are only based in 32 citrus-producing
17          countries.  There are 67 in the state.  We are
18          divided in four areas based on soil types alone on
19          that score.  It will be devastating if a one size
20          fits all approach is placed on us at this time.  So
21          anyhow, I encourage you to look at those outside
22          sources on economic activity and impact, and also
23          on the National Academy of Sciences, and we thank
24          you very much.
25               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Welch.  Are you
0167
 1          speaker 44?
 2               MR. GRIGSBY:  Yes, ma'am.  I'm back again.
 3               MS. KEEHNER:  Good to see you again.
 4               MR. GRIGSBY:  I've enjoyed your smiling faces
 5          for three days, a lot more time than I've had to
 6          see my wife this week, and I'm sure y'all are the
 7          same way.  Again, thank you all very much for
 8          coming.  I'm Wade Grigsby, the president of Florida
 9          Cattlemen's Association.
10               I would like to correct one thing earlier.
11          Mr. Martin was talking about Bahia grass and
12          needing a lot of the nutrients and pesticides.
13          Actually, I think we find that the turf grasses are
14          just the opposite.  This one is a very persistent
15          grass that requires very little water or
16          fertilizer.  It will hang.  I notice he wasn't
17          here, but I just wanted to make that statement.
18               But I will say as incredibly preposterous as
19          it sounds, there's certainly nothing wrong with
20          making a profit.  Today we've been driven into the
21          fact that people who make a profit, and especially
22          corporations who make large profit are a bad thing,
23          but without that, there isn't any taxes or anything
24          to drive us forward.  I would propose that we look
25          at a little different approach here, and the land
0168
 1          owners are struggling to keep their places
 2          together, and I think they would be very much in
 3          favor of a public/private cooperative to try and
 4          use their lands to farm water or farm storage or
 5          what we want to call it in order to clean it up or
 6          hold it over a period of time, maybe for reuse
 7          before it's gone.
 8               Along these rivers where we've seen some of
 9          these pictures, the land owners along there, the
10          ranchers I know, I have talked with the district
11          and others about some of that.  They would be
12          tickled to death if there were some kind of a cost
13          share program to put the structures in place that
14          they would need to do that.  So those are things
15          that I live, they would certainly like to be.
16               The FRES program, I don't know if you're
17          familiar with FRES.  Unfortunately I don't know
18          what the acronym is, but it is a/public private
19          corporation with eight ranchers down in South
20          Florida, World Wildlife fund is involved with it,
21          and it's doing very well.  They have private
22          negotiation on who's going to pay for it.  It's a
23          pilot project, and it seems to be working well.  I
24          would certainly encourage more of those type of
25          activities.
0169
 1               The AGI, the adjusted gross income.  I was at
 2          the job forum on Monday we had for the Department
 3          of Agriculture, and I'm sad to say that every
 4          single person that spoke there came asking for
 5          money.  How do we create jobs.  You've got to give
 6          us money.  That's not truly the case.  It's either
 7          money we need or we need less regulation, less
 8          restriction so we can continue to operate and
 9          generate our profits so we can continue to work
10          with the environmental problems we have and we want
11          to correct.  The AGI of $2.5 million is probably
12          the most counterproductive thing that I know of in
13          our area for conservation of environmental goods
14          because everybody that has big tracts of land,
15          their gross income is certainly more than two and a
16          half million dollars or they're not going to get
17          their taxes paid.  So if, you know, if y'all could
18          help with that, that's one of those issues that
19          came along in the midnight hour and we can't get
20          through it.
21               I think another thing that needs to be done,
22          we do not have the cost of water storage in this
23          state yet.  With all the impoundments we have, I
24          don't know that anybody in any of the districts can
25          tell us the actual cost.  Without that, how do we
0170
 1          move forward with anything.  I mean, if we don't
 2          know what it's going to cost, I don't know of any
 3          private operation that would jump into something if
 4          we didn't know what the projected costs were.
 5          We've been doing this for 40 years and we still
 6          don't know.  So once we get that, and I know
 7          they're working on these numbers, I think that will
 8          help us a lot in determining what the real costs
 9          are going to be in some of this stuff that we're
10          dealing with.
11               And I would leave this.  The landowners that
12          are the good stewards that are profitable
13          progressive landowners today, you can go to their
14          ranches or their properties and you're going to see
15          things that you all are talking about and we are
16          talking about, they're already implementing.
17          They've got the capital to do it and moving forward
18          with it on their own.  It's the rest of us that are
19          just kind of bouncing along that need the help, so
20          I think some of these partnerships will work.
21               And the last thing I want to say is I don't
22          think there's any doubt that profitable
23          sustainability will create environmental
24          sustainability for us.
25               Thank you all very much, and I hope y'all have
0171
 1          a safe trip home.
 2               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Grigsby.  I'm
 3          going to miss you tomorrow.  Let's see, is there a
 4          speaker 45?
 5               MS. ZEE:  Thank you very much for allowing me
 6          to speak.  My name is Barbara Zee, and I'm vice
 7          president for the Delray Alliance.  This is an
 8          alliance of residential associations in Delray
 9          Beach, and what we did is so that we could be very
10          efficient with our time, a letter was written up
11          and it explains what we have to say, and then of
12          course if you have any questions I'd be glad to
13          answer them after that.
14               This is the Alliance of Delray Residential
15          Associations, the hearing statement proposed water
16          quality standards for Florida submitted by Margie
17          J. Walden, executive VP of the Alliance of Delray.
18          The Alliance of Delray Residential Associations,
19          Inc. is a community-based organization comprised of
20          70 condominium and homeowners associations in
21          Delray Beach.  We work towards building a strong
22          community that serves the best interests of our 70
23          plus thousand residents by addressing issues that
24          improve quality of life, enhance property values
25          and protect the condo and homeowners rights.  The
0172
 1          Alliance of Delray understands that the EPA is in
 2          the process of setting numeric nutrient water
 3          quality criteria for Florida.  We can all agree
 4          that there is a water quality problem in Florida
 5          that needs to be rectified.  However, the Alliance
 6          of Delray wants to share our deep concern that the
 7          EPA set numeric values based upon scientific
 8          research and that they consult with the Florida
 9          Department of Environmental Protection to ensure
10          that numeric data specific to Florida and our
11          unique ecosystem is utilized.
12               Florida is a large state with a very varied
13          ecosystem.  The area of South Florida where we
14          reside has seen a great amount of farmland turned
15          into senior residential housing over the last 30
16          years.  The residential communities are
17          interspersed with farms located with the Everglades
18          to our west and the beach to the east.  Many of our
19          communities were designed with lakes to be utilized
20          as retention ponds for storm runoff and for
21          watering our common grounds.  It is our
22          understanding that the cost of making these lakes
23          clean enough to meet the proposed standards of the
24          EPA would be extremely cost prohibitive to our
25          communities.  In addition, we understand that
0173
 1          additional funding for water reclamation would be
 2          needed.  Numeric water quality values must be set
 3          with sound scientific data that relates to our
 4          area's unique ecosystem and to maintain our quality
 5          of life.
 6               We are strongly encouraging the EPA to
 7          establish reasonable numeric standards that are
 8          site specific for our area that address the broad
 9          mixed use of residential, farm and environmentally
10          protected areas.  The Alliance of Delray also
11          strongly recommends that the EPA immediately
12          establishes a source control program to limit the
13          amount and type of fertilizer utilized throughout
14          our communities and an educational program that
15          focuses on reducing nutrients at the source could
16          help to quickly reduce the load of nutrients
17          affecting water quality.  Once a source control
18          program is implemented, testing can be continued
19          for the EPA to set appropriate water quality
20          criteria in conjunction with the Florida Department
21          of Environmental Protection based on scientific
22          data relative to our local environment.  The 70
23          communities of the Alliance of Delray will settle
24          for nothing else.  And I have a copy of this for
25          each one of you, and if you have any questions I'd
0174
 1          be glad to answer them now.
 2               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Zee.
 3               MS. ZEE:  Thank you.
 4               MS. KEEHNER:  Are there any other speakers
 5          that are in the 40s.  No?  Okay.  We're going to go
 6          to the folks that signed in when they came this
 7          morning and didn't preregister.  I'll start with
 8          101.  102?
 9               MR. QUASHUS:  Well, isn't that a pleasant
10          surprise.  I was getting ready to use my old line
11          about everything that needs to be said but not by
12          me, but you've got more time to go so I won't.
13               I'm Pete Quashus.  I represent Collier County
14          Audubon Societies of Southwest Florida, and I'm on
15          any number of boards that are concerned with water
16          quality.  I'd rather be fishing.  I was a guide, an
17          Orvis guide down in Naples, and I'm concerned with
18          the water quality that we have.
19               We're all trying to do the right thing.  We
20          are seeing finally significant progress on the
21          coastal homeowners associations dealing with
22          fertilizer, dealing with storm water runoff.  We
23          know that our new developments are more sensitive
24          to dealing with the issues.  I also know that ten
25          years ago when I used to be a guide on the
0175
 1          Caloosahatchee it was one of the most productive,
 2          most eco friendly environments you could ever
 3          imagine.  It's now dead.  It used to produce a
 4          significant part of the blue crabs that went to the
 5          Chesapeake every day by airplane, much to the
 6          chagrin of the people in Maryland, but that's where
 7          they came from.  We used to be able to harvest
 8          shellfish down near Sanibel.  There used to be
 9          crabs.  There used to be innumerable opportunities.
10               The sad story is that despite the best efforts
11          that are going on with Everglades restoration and
12          billions of dollars in planning and even in some
13          projects with the limitation of best management
14          practices, we're not making much progress.  Our
15          waters continue to deteriorate and our environment
16          continues to suffer.  The numbers are huge.  But as
17          my county commissioner mentioned, we're talking
18          about a three billion dollar a year tourist
19          industry for Lee County alone.  We're talking a 50
20          billion dollar tourist industry that is largely
21          dependent on the coastal waters.
22               The limiting factor for the coastal waters is
23          not phosphorous, it's nitrogen.  We're in a marine
24          environment.  We've got a different kind of issue.
25          We don't have the technologies to deal with the
0176
 1          nitrogens that are coming into our -- as we convert
 2          from septic tanks to sewers to do all the rest.  We
 3          need to develop appropriate nutrient standards.
 4               We're in a unique situation down in Southwest
 5          Florida.  We get water both from Bone Valley, the
 6          richest phosphorous source naturally in the United
 7          States, and at the same time we get additional
 8          increments of phosphorous coming down the
 9          Caloosahatchee from a water source to which we were
10          not historically linked.  What happens in Orlando
11          now goes past my dock.  Unfortunately, it comes
12          past my dock a lot sooner than it used to.  I mean,
13          we channelized the Kissimmee, we've diked Lake
14          Okeechobee, we've channelized, we've flash flooded,
15          we've removed many of the impediments to the
16          natural system.  It's going to take a lot of money
17          and a lot of time to try and get it right.
18               I think we are all strongly supportive of
19          establishing nutrient standards, numeric nutrient
20          standards.  We need to have some benchmarks to deal
21          with it, but we need to work the system not from
22          the top down, but from the bottom up.  We have to
23          take a look at what the needs of the receiving
24          waters are and then work our way back to see what
25          is possible.  We have to do some serious cost
0177
 1          benefit analysis to see if there's any low hanging
 2          fruit.  Nobody wants to put us out of the food
 3          business.  I like to eat.  I like to drink orange
 4          juice in the morning, but I also want some kind of
 5          quality of life, and I need to look after the
 6          environment of Southwest Florida.  Every gallon of
 7          water that comes to Southwest Florida, we need that
 8          fresh water for our grasses and for our salinity
 9          balance.  It's every bit as important to us as that
10          gallon of water to the orange groves or to the
11          sugar fields or to the vegetable farming.  It's all
12          one water system and we need to make it right for
13          all of us.  We need to adjust it for the specific
14          conditions that we have in the coast and in some of
15          our natural rivers.  We need to address the fact
16          that some of the manmade canals that currently have
17          some biological value will have to be treated in a
18          special way.  We need to realize, I think, that
19          some of my colleagues have noted that where those
20          canals were once our natural streams and rivers,
21          and there has to be some kind of addressing of
22          that.
23               The Caloosahatchee where I live is still a
24          wide estuary with lots of nice islands, lots of
25          mangrove shoreline, not many snook anymore.  One of
0178
 1          the saddest things that happened, we just had this
 2          huge freeze.  Indian River Lagoon had literally
 3          tens of thousands of dead snook.  We had tens of
 4          thousands of snook dead down in the Keys.  I didn't
 5          have a single dead snook.  The water got just as
 6          cold.  It used to be written up regularly in
 7          Florida Sportsman as the place to go fishing for
 8          snook in the winter.  I guess maybe they were
 9          somewhere else.
10               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you Mr. Quashus.  Speaker
11          103?  104?  105?
12               MR. LIPP:  Good afternoon.  My name is Dennis
13          Lipp.  I serve as the vice mayor of the rural town
14          of Loxahatchee Groves here in Palm Beach County,
15          and I'm speaking on behalf of the town today.  My
16          comments are short.
17               Our town was incorporated just a few years
18          ago, but the State of Florida through the 298
19          process established Loxahatchee Groves in 1917.  So
20          we've been a community long before certain other
21          communities here in Palm Beach County and we're
22          based on canals.  If it wasn't for the canals
23          throughout Loxahatchee Groves during the wet
24          season, we would be totally flooded, and during the
25          dry seasons we would be on fire.  During the
0179
 1          process we have box cut canals.  Most of the year
 2          we just keep our water in our canals because that's
 3          also our fire suppression means.  And during the
 4          dry season we actually have permission from South
 5          Florida Water Management District to actually back
 6          pump to keep our waters at a prescribed level.  So
 7          when we look at the canals as far as being a class
 8          III system, yeah, but really no.  It's more of a
 9          class IV.  You know, we have the occasional otter
10          that will come through, but they don't live there.
11          And we'll have a few turtles.  That's the Seminole
12          for Loxahatchee is turtle waters.
13               We're a small community.  The impact of
14          needing to meet nitrogen and phosphorous standards
15          will be a great impact to us.  We don't have a
16          great tax base.  We're a rural community, farmers
17          horsemen and some residents that just like to live
18          on a big piece of land.
19               Thank you for your time, and I hope you do
20          make the right decisions for us.
21               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Lipp.  Speaker
22          106?  107?  108?
23               MR. RITTER:  Hello.  How are you doing.  I
24          don't know where to start.  I've heard so much
25          stuff and I'm not going to try to reiterate a lot
0180
 1          of the other points, but there's actually only one
 2          person who actually touched on what I'm trying to
 3          touch on.
 4               My name if Frederick Ritter, and I'm founder
 5          of a company called Nature's Own Solutions.  We
 6          provide alternatives to all the toxic chemicals
 7          that are used in fertilizing, weed control, wood
 8          preservation and chemical pesticides.  One of the
 9          things -- as you know, that's one of the greatest
10          threats to our water quality here in the state is
11          unregulated use in many different industries,
12          whether it be agriculture, golf courses,
13          municipalities.  I sit on several subcommittees for
14          the West Palm Beach Green Task Force trying to get
15          these kind of things.  A lot of people only talk
16          about saving water and conserving energy and
17          recycling, and they don't look at the ground floor,
18          if you will, of being green, and I think a lot of
19          the concerns that have been voiced here today could
20          be handled if we are able to educate people that
21          there are alternatives to all the chemicals that
22          they're using now.
23               Products I promote have been tested by the
24          EPA, the USDA, the FDA.  The pesticide, the
25          chemical we use for insect control is on your 25B
0181
 1          list of minimum risk pesticides, so the stuff has
 2          been tested for years and years, but we can't
 3          outspend the chemical companies.  It takes people
 4          like me going out to places like this, task force,
 5          county school board commission meets just to get
 6          the word out.  This stuff does work.  It has worked
 7          for years and years.  There are golf courses around
 8          the country that are completely green that don't
 9          use any toxic chemicals, and they're up north.  I
10          know they can work here.  I have people that are
11          doing and working with it.
12               One of the things I've come across, it seems
13          that Florida discourages green products by placing
14          registration surety bonds just to be able to market
15          a product that has no toxic chemicals.  Even a
16          seaweed product I can't get into the state without
17          paying thousands of dollars in surety bonds and
18          registrations, and the companies that I deal with
19          tell me the same thing.  They can't get in there,
20          and they even said to me that they think Florida is
21          almost working against itself in that respect, but
22          they don't have it on other products, green
23          cleaning products.  They don't have the same, you
24          know, requirements.  So one of the ways you could
25          help us to urge states to relax these type of
0182
 1          restrictions for green and organic products.
 2               The levels allowed should be low enough, and I
 3          guess they are low enough from what everybody's
 4          saying.  But to force industries, homeowners to
 5          look at other alternatives, nobody wants to put
 6          anybody out of business, but unless they know it's
 7          out there, they're not going to be able to access
 8          it and to try it.  I mean, I have cancelled True
 9          Green, Chemlawn, Nozzle Nolan.  My dog no longer
10          gets spot drop meds.  We have products for all this
11          stuff, and they work.  I wouldn't be here today
12          after a year of knocking my head against walls
13          trying to get people to listen to this.
14               Like I said, everyone has spoken that many of
15          the costs, like I said, will be alleviated if the
16          people who use these products will embrace organic
17          alternatives which have been tested by many and
18          shown to be viable alternatives from Texas A&M,
19          Iowa State, Rutgers University, Auburn University.
20          I currently have the University of Florida
21          nematologist looking into using these products to
22          try for nematode, white fly.  One product to take
23          care of all these insects, not 15 different
24          products.
25               I was hoping these standards were tough
0183
 1          enough, and from the comments I see that they are.
 2          I hope this will initiate the investigation of the
 3          organic alternatives because this is an alternative
 4          that has not even been considered as a viable means
 5          to the protection of our water.  I'm a native
 6          Floridian.  I've seen in my time being a fisherman,
 7          a hunter and a diver what these chemicals have
 8          done, you know, over the 48 years I've been here in
 9          this state.  As I said, protection of our water,
10          and it seems would answer most of the concerns
11          voiced here today if it was implemented in some of
12          these best management practices.  I've talked to
13          several people, and they say well, I've got to go.
14          But everywhere I turn, I get people looking at me
15          like I'm talking about science fiction.  Insects
16          don't build up resistance to natural products.
17          Every two years there's another product come down
18          the pike to take care of something that something
19          else took care of because the insects developed a
20          resistance.  Nature doesn't have that thing
21          happening.
22               I hope that you will look into these type of
23          alternatives to either spur the states to embrace
24          them, give incentives for people to try them
25          because all they do is divert money from what
0184
 1          they're currently buying to buying something
 2          different.  You don't have to redo water treatment
 3          plants, you won't have to investigate all of these
 4          other alternatives to clean the water because from
 5          the source points it will be much cleaner going in.
 6          Thank you for your time.
 7               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Ritter.  Speaker
 8          109?
 9               MR. STEWART:  Good afternoon.  Ron Stewart
10          with Florida Pulp and Paper.  I had the opportunity
11          to speak to you yesterday in Orlando, and I
12          appreciate an additional opportunity to speak to
13          you today.  Yesterday I told you generally about
14          what our concerns and what our comments would be.
15          Today I'd like to speak more specifically on what
16          our interpretation of EPA's proposal is and how
17          that affects implementation and permitting and
18          cost.
19               It's our interpretation of the proposed
20          regulation that although the criteria or instream
21          values for flowing waters and streams that, in
22          fact, these will be necessary to implement as an
23          end of pipe criteria, and the reason we say that is
24          currently the Florida Administrative Procedure Act
25          does not require or will not require -- it requires
0185
 1          adoption of a standard prior to rule
 2          implementation, and I'm reading here, it also
 3          requires an agency to demonstrate the scientific
 4          validity of a rule if challenged, and DEP cannot
 5          likely do this.  Florida DEP cannot implement a
 6          policy or standard without first adopting the rule,
 7          and if DEP attempts to adopt the rule and implement
 8          EPA's criteria, it will likely be challenged and
 9          permits not issued.  So that's our interpretation.
10          Our interpretation is that variances, site specific
11          alternative criteria, mixing zones and the existing
12          TMDLs that will be approved will not allow for
13          deferred implementation or implementation over a
14          time period, so that puts us in a little bit of a
15          predicament.
16               So you've heard comments about the scientific
17          underpinnings of the criteria.  We're going to
18          address those as well.  But one thing I would like,
19          and it would be best if it were some type of
20          dialogue so that we could understand which target
21          we're shooting at.  But given this assumption that
22          we have to implement this criteria into pipe, this
23          is what we're currently studying.  We have a team
24          of scientists and of engineers.  They're looking at
25          our effluent treatment facilities, which are
0186
 1          currently -- we discharge about 160 million gallons
 2          a day of effluent into Florida streams.  They have
 3          an average of three milligrams per liter of total
 4          nitrogen.  85 percent of that is recalcitrant, so
 5          we're going to have to treat that in a different
 6          way, and our average is about one milligram per
 7          liter.  So the idea that we can do process
 8          optimization or something up in the plant to
 9          actually meet these limits is just not true.  We're
10          going to have to add something into the pipe.  And
11          if these are true end of the pipe criteria, this is
12          what we're looking at.  We're looking at adding an
13          oxidation stage, an anoxic stage, clarification,
14          precipitation stage, filtration stage, sledge
15          handling and disposal.  And by the way, if we go to
16          chemical precipitation and phosphorous and then
17          filtration, we'll be looking at generating six to
18          eight tons of solid waste for every ton of
19          phosphorous we remove.  And I guess, you know,
20          that's where we're at right now and that's the path
21          we're proceeding down.  If Florida and EPA can't
22          get together and decide how we're going to
23          implement variances, how we're going to implement
24          site specific alternative criteria, how we're going
25          to approve the TMDLs that have already been
0187
 1          approved as site specific alternative criteria,
 2          then these are the costs that we're going to incur
 3          and we're considering these real costs, and so I
 4          wanted to really bring that to your attention.
 5          Again, we started studying this back in November.
 6          I mean, we've certainly been working through the
 7          TMDL process, and we made the assumption way back
 8          last fall to start working on this issue, and we're
 9          still struggling to meet the March 29th deadline,
10          and so again another request for extension would be
11          great.  Appreciate your time.
12               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
13               MR. KING:  Mr. Stewart, one question for you.
14          Let me echo back what I thought I heard you say.
15          You're proceeding on a costing basis that most of
16          the implementation tools won't be available because
17          of an assumption of the state's challenge in
18          defending the rule when they get around to adopting
19          it?
20               MR. STEWART:  Right.  I mean, right now the
21          statutes and the regulations in Florida will not
22          allow variances and mixing zones and site specific
23          alternative criteria for nutrients.  There have to
24          be statutory and regulatory changes.  So unless EPA
25          proposes regulatory language or standards in the
0188
 1          Federal 131, there's nothing in Florida that will
 2          allow for implementation and use of mixing zones or
 3          variances or anything like that.
 4               MR. KING:  Thank you.
 5               MS. KEEHNER:  Speaker 110?
 6               MR. LOUDA:  Good afternoon.  My name is Bill
 7          Louda.  I'm the environment chemistry teacher at
 8          Florida Atlantic University here at Boca Raton.  My
 9          title there is senior scientist.  I'm also an
10          environmental bio geochemist doing research in the
11          KOE system, Kissimmee, Okeechobee, Everglades.  For
12          the past 20 years I've been studying algal blooms
13          in Okeechobee, periphytons in the Everglades, and
14          most recently the synechococcus blooms in Florida
15          Bay.
16               Before I go on, the last speaker, did he
17          really say one milligram to three milligrams per
18          liter of phosphorous.  That's a thousand to 3,000
19          parts per billion.  Wow.  Okay.  I hope mixing zone
20          is on your property.  Okay.  So what I do is I use
21          bio marker pigments for rapid community assessment
22          of micro algo communities.
23               I'm also a councilman in Loxahatchee Groves.
24          Vice Mayor Lipp spoke.  I live out there, about 15
25          miles west of here.  We do have canals we're
0189
 1          worried about having to implement them.  But before
 2          really going on, let me tell you what my mindset on
 3          this whole problem is.
 4               The same year I was born Marjorie Stoneham
 5          Douglas said there are no Everglades in the world.
 6          There is only one Everglades in the world, so I am
 7          a staunch environmentalist or I wouldn't be in the
 8          job I am.  I believe we need numeric criteria, but
 9          like you've heard today, it's got to be used with
10          common sense.  I mean, you know, would I like to
11          see all of Florida waters go to ten parts per
12          billion tomorrow?  I'm not Professor Dumbledore.  I
13          can't do that.
14               Anyway, I did some rapid soluble reactive
15          phosphorous tests this past week.  My well water is
16          29 parts per billion.  I used your certified test
17          with traceable standards, so these are real
18          numbers.  My pond is 55 parts per billion.  My
19          Zephyrhills bottled water, depending on whether I
20          get it out of a polypropylene or a peat bottle is
21          55 or 65 parts per billion.  The interesting thing
22          about that is for the past 12 years I've had
23          undergraduate students looking at different bottled
24          waters, and Zephyrhills has gone from 40 to 55 or
25          66 parts per billion in those 12 years due to
0190
 1          primarily agricultural runoff.
 2               The one thing that surprises all my students
 3          when I tell them about phosphorous is I say you
 4          know, it's absolutely illegal -- they mentioned
 5          Perrier water, that's true.  But it's absolutely
 6          illegal to take any water out of a tap of a city
 7          and put it into the Everglades as well.  Two days
 8          ago Boca ran 470 parts per billion phosphorous
 9          because we use phosphates to get rid of water
10          hardness in city waters.
11               What I'd like to see is Loxahatchee Groves had
12          a problem with phosphates due to horse manure being
13          brought over from Wellington.  Wellington put in
14          some best management practices to get rid of their
15          phosphorous, okay, so we ended up with some of the
16          problem.
17               But what can be done is -- there's a lot of
18          phosphorous.  They instituted a best management
19          practice that said you can't use a fertilizer in
20          Wellington that zero is not the middle number,
21          phosphorous, okay.  It's nitrogen, phosphorous,
22          potash.  I'd like to see Florida implement the same
23          law.  It's illegal, with a fine, to use a
24          fertilizer with anything above zero on it in the
25          middle for any lands, lawns, agriculture -- not
0191
 1          agriculture -- landscaping that's using city water
 2          or reclaimed water.  You don't need to add any
 3          phosphorous.  It's already in the water.  How much
 4          would that save in the canal system of Lake Worth
 5          Drainage District or our own.
 6               If you get to remediation for phosphorous
 7          laden sediments, don't let people use aluminum.
 8          Aluminum hydroxide clogs fish gills.  One other
 9          nutrient that should be added to regulatio is
10          sulfur.  I've got a grant from the Department of
11          the Interior.  I've got a fellow working on
12          gathering all of the data on mercury methyl mercury
13          that's ever been collected for the Everglades.  I
14          had to buy a one terra byte external hard drive to
15          hold this stuff.  Sulfur is driving -- somebody
16          mentioned archaea before it's the archaea bacteria
17          down there that's sulfate reducing.  So there's a
18          lot of things that can be done.
19               I think the biggest one right now is get the
20          citizens involved.  The homeowner is really a bad
21          actor when it comes to pollution.  Thank you for
22          your time.
23               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker 111?  112?
24               MS. MERSINGER:  I in no way thought I'd be
25          getting up here.  Thank you.  You guys really are
0192
 1          amazing doing this for multiple days.  Amazing.
 2               My name is Alanna Mersinger.  I am a
 3          commissioner on the South Broward Drainage
 4          District.  I am not, like this gentleman, a
 5          scientist.  He was amazing, but I do represent
 6          114,000 people who, when we had to raise the money,
 7          seven dollars a household, they went berserk.  So
 8          to say I don't want clean water is an absurdity.
 9          Of course I want clean water.  My question to you,
10          because I have not seen it in the legislation that
11          is coming forward, who's paying?  Is the drainage
12          district going to pay, or is the municipality who
13          does the storm water or the land owner.  I don't
14          have any control whatsoever as to what goes into
15          the water.  I have no enforcement control from
16          industrial or farm, but we control the canals
17          because we're doing the drainage, the runoff.  So
18          are we going to have to pay to bring this up to
19          your standards or down, whichever the case may be,
20          to your standards.
21               My question is who pays because no one has
22          said that yet.  No one has really defined who has
23          to pay for the fix.  Now, I would love to see
24          stimulus money come down for this or federal
25          dollars come down for this because I don't believe
0193
 1          the people in my district are willing to be taxed
 2          out of existence.  We pay, unlike that other
 3          district, our people only pay $31 a unit.  If we
 4          have to now put on them a couple of hundred dollars
 5          a unit, I think I will have armed insurrection
 6          going on, and that is unacceptable.  Until we
 7          figure out a way to legitimately pay for this, let
 8          us think carefully because this state cannot take
 9          more taxes.  We heard from other areas where you
10          have a 25 percent, 25 percent unemployment rate.  I
11          know in the city that I live in Miramar, I think
12          we're the first or second highest rate in
13          foreclosures.  Just what we need to go from $31 to
14          maybe three or $400.  The people can't do it.  It's
15          great to be in the ivory tower, but we have to come
16          down to reality sometime, and in the real world you
17          have to pay for things.  And until the federal
18          government or the state government figures out
19          who's going to pay for this, please think long and
20          hard about it.  Thank you.
21               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Mersinger.  113?
22               MR. SCHWARTZBERG:  Leo Schwartzberg, director
23          of the South Broward Drainage District.  My
24          commissioner just spoke, asked who's going to pay
25          for it.  I don't see any reason why the EPA can't
0194
 1          answer that question now without waiting until you
 2          develop the law.  Whether the science is flawed or
 3          not, completely separate question.  If the EPA
 4          would publicize now who's going to be responsible,
 5          you would eliminate a lot of the people who stood
 6          here and complained today because you heard
 7          complaints from water body owners and you heard
 8          complaints from municipalities.  Make that known
 9          where we stand now, and your lives will get a lot
10          easier, we'll know whether we need to worry or not,
11          and we can all focus on what we need to focus on.
12          Thank you.
13               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker 114?  115?
14               MR. BOYD:  Hello, and thank you for giving me
15          the opportunity to speak.  My name is Bill Boyd,
16          and I have a nursery in Palm Beach County, and I've
17          been in the nursery business for over 30 years in
18          Palm Beach County.  If you're looking at the
19          pecking order in the county, go down to the bottom.
20          We're at the roots part of the grass roots.  My
21          neighbors, the residential properties around me,
22          we're the people that work the 12-hour days, the
23          six-day weeks.
24               As the rain water comes into Florida, South
25          Florida Water Management will regulate their canals
0195
 1          either if they've got too much they're dumping it
 2          out if they're trying to keep salt water intrusion
 3          from coming in they back it up.  And as those
 4          canals raise and lower, the people are helping the
 5          nurseries out in the Loxahatchee area, they're back
 6          pumping and storing water.  As that back pumped
 7          water comes, it stores in our drainage ditches
 8          which we have surrounding our entire property, not
 9          counting the fact that our neighbor's property
10          drains into those same ditches, and we have on our
11          other nursery, which we used to have, we had 13
12          homes, they were draining.  So we have rain falling
13          on everybody, water being pushed back and forth and
14          around and around, and we're going to come up with
15          a number that the last one on the rung is going to
16          be responsible for, which would be me and the
17          thousands of people just like me.
18               All this information is being comingled, or
19          all the water is being comingled between everybody.
20          All the runoff is coming.  We have no way of living
21          up to a specific number that can change every time
22          it rains, every time they back pump, every time
23          they pump out, and yet we're going to be held
24          accountable for that.
25               I've heard people slam the BMPs, best
0196
 1          management practices.  The reason they do, maybe
 2          they just don't understand how the county of Palm
 3          Beach County or the State of Florida has approached
 4          a little business like me.  They want us to be good
 5          stewards of the water.  They didn't coerce us, but
 6          they strongly suggested that to avoid litigation
 7          and fines and penalties, you might strongly adhere
 8          to the best management practices that we're going
 9          to lay down.  Now, they came in with specific
10          criteria for us to do these things, so we don't
11          take it lightly.  It's very serious for us.  It
12          hits us in the pocketbook, and anything that hits
13          you in the pocketbook you're very serious about.
14               It seems to me that we have a lot of
15          regulation that on the grass roots we can't control
16          over what's going to happen with the water, we
17          can't control over what regulation comes down, but
18          there's enough science that people are objecting
19          to, there's enough politics where people are
20          objecting to it.  I would ask that perhaps you
21          could approach it on a state level and go back to
22          the state and say listen, we want to partner with
23          you, we want to give you incentives, not punitive
24          damages.  We want to give you helpful hints on how
25          you could direct our energies and efforts because
0197
 1          we want clean water.  I don't know anybody who
 2          doesn't want clean water.  Nobody's arguing that
 3          point.  It's just how we're accomplishing it.  And
 4          if the things haven't worked in the past, maybe
 5          there has to be a new think tank of how you deal
 6          with the state so the state can deal with the
 7          county and the county can deal with the city and
 8          the city could come out to guys like me and say
 9          this is how it's going to have to be done.  But
10          right now I would see, if everybody's going to be
11          held to these numbers, we're going to have one
12          number against another neighbor, a business against
13          a neighbor, a business against a city, a city
14          against a city, a city against a city, a county
15          against the county, county against the state, state
16          against the state.  Shoot, we're already fighting
17          with Georgia over this, over water.  So unless we
18          have some way of dealing with this in a more
19          practical way, it seems to me that we've got a huge
20          blanket of legislation which is going to be very,
21          very difficult for people to adhere to, setting
22          aside the finances of it.  Maybe there could be
23          some partnering and some direction, whether it's
24          incentives or who's paying for what, but you could
25          put some pressure on the state of Florida to start
0198
 1          accomplishing this because we want the water to be
 2          clean.  We all live here, we all use it.  We want
 3          it to be here for our children.  Thank you for your
 4          time.
 5               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Boyd.
 6               MR. KING:  Mr. Boyd, a quick question for you,
 7          two questions.  Do you happen to know what your
 8          ditches are classified as, what category?
 9               MR. BOYD:  I'm sorry, what was that?
10               MR. KING:  Do you happen to know what category
11          your ditches are categorized as?
12               MR. BOYD:  My what are categorized in?
13               MR. KING:  The ditches or the water around
14          your property, what category?
15               MR. BOYD:  I purchased an old orange grove in
16          1999, and it was used at that point as drainage for
17          the orange grove.  And what I put in there was old
18          culverts that had crushed -- the Town of
19          Loxahatchee required that I put in ones where they
20          drained up so that they could drain up into me and
21          use me for storage capacity.  I don't know the
22          technical term, but there was very many
23          restrictions on even the angle which I contoured
24          the land.  We had to hold a certain amount of water
25          on the property.
0199
 1               MR. KING:  Thank you.
 2               MR. BOYD:  They back pump onto our property,
 3          so.
 4               A VOICE:  We're 3s.
 5               MR. KING:  3s.  That's what I wanted to know.
 6          Thank you.
 7               MS. KEEHNER:  Speaker 116?  117?  118?  119?
 8               MR. BUTLER:  Hello.  My name is Roger Butler.
 9          I'm a dairy farmer from Highlands County.  A lot's
10          been going through my mind here this afternoon.  As
11          a matter of fact, I left all my notes at the chair
12          because there's been a lot of outstanding comments
13          today made to y'all, I think a lot of common sense
14          comments.  I just wanted to bring you maybe up to
15          speed of what -- this is new to a lot of these
16          people in the room.
17               I had a dairy in the Lake Okeechobee basin,
18          had a dairy rule imposed on us 22 years ago.  We
19          were one of the first dairy farms to implement the
20          retention of all the stormwater from the high
21          intensity area and all of our waste wash water.  We
22          just recently a farm that -- and let me back up a
23          little bit.
24               This has all been through the help and design
25          and support of the State of Florida, the Department
0200
 1          of Agriculture.  There's been some projects that
 2          the water management district has been highly
 3          involved in.  Our last project that we did on the
 4          farm consisted of a 3.2 million stormwater
 5          retention project on 1350 acres.
 6               With that in mind, one comment that I want to
 7          make is that 114 or 140 million that I've heard
 8          today, that won't do one county, one county's
 9          municipality system.  So the economic impact is
10          definitely great from the standards, this numeric
11          standard that you might set.
12               I don't have a problem competing when I'm
13          competing with someone or in a game of any sort
14          that I'm competing under the same rules as
15          everybody else is.  I've dairied for the last 22
16          years under a different set of rules than
17          competitors 45 miles in each direction have been
18          under.  I don't feel like the state needs to be
19          under this, too.  The State of Florida does not
20          need to operate under different rules than other
21          states in this country.  That's wrong.
22               We've dealt with it in the dairy business.  I
23          will say that I produce less milk today than I did
24          25 years ago because of the economic burden of
25          dealing with environmental issues that don't make
0201
 1          my dairy any money.  They allow me the right to
 2          stay here where I was born and raised.  That's all
 3          I've ever done.  I don't want to dairy in Georgia,
 4          I don't want a dairy in Idaho, I don't want to
 5          dairy in Utah.  There's no market.  We've supplied
 6          milk all my life for the Miami market.  That's why
 7          we elected to stay here when these programs came
 8          available.  We felt we had the land mass available
 9          to do these projects and we implemented them.  They
10          have been hard on our business.
11               My son, a student at the University of
12          Florida, will probably never come back into the
13          dairy business because he has watched me for the
14          last 22 years and what we've been through trying to
15          stay in business in the only business I know.  I've
16          never done anything else.  I was born following
17          cows around in Broward County where our dairy
18          originated at a site some people may know, TY Park.
19          Sheridan Street come right through the middle of
20          where the farm was.  It's all I've ever done, so I
21          don't want to change.
22               But I do have to commend where we are on the
23          farm.  These regulations that you may set I'm not
24          too worried about because we're already ready for
25          them.  It's nice to see the counties and the
0202
 1          municipalities finally realize that these numbers
 2          will affect everybody in this state.  20 years ago
 3          everybody was saying yeah, let them dairies take
 4          care of their problem.  Well, now everybody's got a
 5          problem.  Now we're all at the table, which is
 6          where we need to be working these things out
 7          through sound science, working with the state
 8          Department of Environment Protection, South Florida
 9          Water Management District.  That's the only way
10          these things are going to get done.  I do support
11          projects done on private land.  I think water
12          management has learned a lot, that it's a lot
13          cheaper to deal things on private property than it
14          is to own them, maintain them and everything else.
15               I'm down to two seconds.  Thank you very much
16          for your time.  Y'all have set and listened to a
17          lot of stuff.  Thank you.
18               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Butler.  Speaker
19          120?  121?
20               MR. FIELDING:  Thank you.  Ed Fielding,
21          resident of Martin County.  Establishing effective
22          scientifically determined numeric water quality
23          criteria is essential.  In addition, we must not
24          allow waters from private property to flow via
25          canal into public waters without requiring quality
0203
 1          control.  Good goals, difficult implementation.
 2          Certainly complex issues of equity, certainly.
 3               In Martin County we have the most bio diverse
 4          estuary system of anywhere in the United States,
 5          but we're under assault, we're under attack.  Our
 6          public health department has warned us not to swim,
 7          not to contact the waters, and certainly not to eat
 8          the fish.  Now that varies from time to time, and
 9          occasionally that ban is lifted, but that's a
10          horrible thing to happen, terrible, and that's why
11          we're here.  There isn't a soul that's been here
12          that would say we're not worried about quality of
13          water, and I think we see that water is becoming
14          the ward of the future internally between neighbor
15          and neighbor, between municipality, between the
16          rural area and the city areas.  It's a different
17          thing that's going to happen, but we can't sit back
18          and say this is too hard.  We've got to attack this
19          difficulty now.  We've got to come up with
20          solutions because it's not going to get easier.
21               Clean water is a right.  It is a basic human
22          right.  Polluted water most frequently results from
23          some self-benefiting economic activity frankly.
24          I'm in that area too, so I'm not saying I'm not
25          guilty.  All of us are guilty to some extent.
0204
 1          Unfortunately, polluted water is detrimental to the
 2          general public.
 3               Since passage of the Federal Clean Water Act
 4          in 1972, the public has been expectantly waiting.
 5          How much longer are we to be denied clean water.
 6          Polluting waters may always have economic benefits
 7          for those that pollute, always.  So if we're going
 8          to wait until we eliminate economic benefits, we
 9          will never eliminate polluted water.  Are our
10          families to continue to be the victims of water
11          pollution.  Hopefully one day that answer will be
12          no, we're going to be liberated from that
13          hopefully.
14               Just a passing comment.  Total maximum daily
15          loads at best will maintain the level of pollution.
16          It's not a solution.  It's just a maintaining of
17          pollution.  Thank you very much.
18               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you.  Speaker 122?  123?
19               MS. MUSGROVE:  Hi.  My name is Martha
20          Musgrove.  I live at 2432 Edgewater Drive in West
21          Palm Beach, Florida, and I am here to support the
22          EPA's determination that new and revised water
23          quality standards for nutrients are necessary to
24          meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.  I am
25          speaking on behalf of members of the Science and
0205
 1          Technology Committee of the Arthur R. Marshall
 2          Foundation and for the Florida Wildlife Federation,
 3          all of which are in support of your rule.  We will,
 4          however closely, follow the development, and all of
 5          us are expecting to submit detailed comments and
 6          recommendations.
 7               This West Palm Beach hearing is being held,
 8          I'm not sure if you're aware of it, in the heart of
 9          the congressional district, of the late Paul D.
10          Rogers, representative, who was the author of the
11          Clean Water Act.  I knew Paul.  And by the way, his
12          district went all the way up to Vero Beach, from
13          Fort Lauderdale to Vero Beach.  I knew Paul.  He
14          considered the Clean Water Act to be a crowning
15          achievement, and was very pleased of how
16          effectively it was used by the EPA to attack point
17          source pollution.  I believe he would be equally
18          pleased at the approach outlined in the January 14,
19          2009 letter to Mike Sole, the Secretary of Florida
20          Department of Environmental Protection from
21          Benjamin Grumbles, your assistant administrator of
22          EPA in attacking nonpoint source pollution that has
23          continued to overwhelm, and to this day, our water
24          bodies here in Florida.
25               We believe the data gathered by the Florida
0206
 1          Department of Environmental Protection, the 800,000
 2          nutrient-related data points on Florida waters
 3          across the state are sufficient to establish base
 4          line and site specific nutrient standards for
 5          Florida's waters.  The data also makes the case
 6          that it is necessary to do so now.  Of 823 water
 7          bodies listed in 2002 by the state as impaired,
 8          60 percent were impaired as a result of excess
 9          nutrients, runoffs from farms, suburban and urban
10          yards, leaching from septic tanks, and septic tanks
11          remain a tremendous problem in South Florida and
12          the rest of Florida, especially on the west coast
13          of Florida, discharges from the suburban water
14          systems and the discharges through canals to the
15          sea where they are feeding algae blooms, destroying
16          near shore reefs.
17               I want to point out that Lake Okeechobee is a
18          very tragic case in point.  It has an accumulated
19          legacy of phosphorous so polluting that the
20          lakeside communities can no longer afford to draw
21          water from the lake and treat it for drinking.  It
22          is the largest lake in the state and you can't
23          treat the water for drinking cost effectively.
24               The Seminole Indian Tribe, which happens to
25          service many of the unincorporated communities
0207
 1          along the northwest shore of the lake, Clewiston on
 2          the west shore, the east shore municipalities of
 3          South Bay, Belle Glade and Pahokee have all been
 4          forced for public health reasons, public health
 5          reasons to go to wells at total costs in excess of
 6          a hundred million dollars.  These are small
 7          communities.
 8               Okeechobee, the city and county's water
 9          utility now blends lake water with well water
10          before treating it.  During summer months, algae
11          blooms covered vast reaches of the lake, which
12          depending on conditions are discharged into the
13          Caloosahatchee Rivers and St. Lucie Rivers and the
14          C-51, the West Palm Beach canal, which was never a
15          river, but it discharges into Lake Worth Lagoon and
16          then out to sea.
17               I have sat in the offices, third floor offices
18          of the South Florida Water Management District that
19          looks down on the C-51 canal and seen it pea green,
20          pea green.  It's very distressing.  And that canal
21          has a larger flow of water than many of the rivers
22          on the eastern seaboard.
23               I do think that special standards are going to
24          have to be set for the canals of South Florida, the
25          canals within the central and southern Florida
0208
 1          flood control district.  I'm not familiar with what
 2          canals may exist in North Florida or in West
 3          Florida over in the Pensacola area.  I'm not even
 4          sure there are, but these are very, very large
 5          water bodies.  And yes, we use them to move water
 6          all over the place.  We have to get a grip on the
 7          water quality, and I have heard much concern here
 8          not about so much as the standard, but what comes
 9          after you set a standard, the cost incurred in
10          implementing and compliance.  I must be the only
11          person in the room that believes that reasonable
12          people can negotiate these things, and I believe
13          the letter from Mr. Grumbles to Mr. Sole indicated
14          a willingness to work with Florida in developing
15          these things.  If no specific goals are
16          established, then conditions will rock on just as
17          they have for 31 years since Florida labeled
18          certain waters in the state as outstanding waters
19          and promised no degradation, and unfortunately
20          degradation has occurred and continues to occur.
21               I do have and will submit some comments
22          regarding soils and phosphorous loading of soils
23          and the application of fertilizer not increasing
24          crop yields.  The effort has to go to controlling
25          Ph levels to release phosphorous that is already in
0209
 1          the soil.  We have seen that in studies on Lake
 2          Okeechobee into the Lake Okeechobee basins.  Thank
 3          you so much.
 4               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Ms. Musgrove.
 5          Speaker 124?  125?  If we get to 126 we've taken
 6          care of everyone who signed up.
 7               MR. BELL:  I never thought you'd get to me.
 8          Douglas Bell.  I'm the attorney for South Broward
 9          Drainage District.  I'm an attorney for irrigation
10          and soil conservation district and I'm a
11          commissioner on Central Broward Water Control
12          District.
13               One of the main concerns that I think that we
14          all have and as I've heard through these
15          presentations is the cost of what's going to
16          happen.  You in your presentation back up documents
17          you've got a cost which looks like it's 107 million
18          to 140 million per year, and for the state I think
19          it's extremely unrealistic.  Where that came from I
20          think I would love to know who put those figures
21          together.  They just don't seem proper at all.
22               Another thing in that same light, there's a
23          number of districts, at least the ones that have ad
24          valorem tax, you have a cap of so much tax.  I
25          don't know how many are close to the cap, I'm sure
0210
 1          some are, that if you have this additional expense
 2          put on top of it, you may be unable to even raise
 3          the funds to put some of these requirements into
 4          effect that are being proposed.  Of course, as
 5          senior back up, canals and lakes in South Florida
 6          are not like the ones in North Florida which you
 7          have streams flowing or rivers which are flowing.
 8          These are pretty much, I won't say stagnant, but
 9          unless you have a stormwater event, water doesn't
10          move.  It just sits there.  They don't respond to
11          nutrients in the same manner as the natural flowing
12          streams in the northern part of the state, again
13          generally constructed for conveying stormwater for
14          flood control, and they should be treated totally
15          difficult than the ones in the northern part of the
16          state.
17               Also, the nutrient standards that you come up
18          with, I think they're better than what I thought
19          was going to happen, but they're still
20          unrealistically low, which are requiring us to
21          implement, and this is going to be very difficult
22          to attain, and scientifically you may not even be
23          able to match it, the water which is existing, or
24          even the ground waters come through is the same or
25          higher standards in which you're proposing to
0211
 1          happen.  I've even been told rain water is higher
 2          than what you're proposing, which makes it
 3          difficult.
 4               I think the main concern is the enforcement of
 5          who is going to be the one who's going to have to
 6          put these standards into effect.  You've got a
 7          canal and you have a property owner who's maybe got
 8          a fertilizer which is going into the canal.  Is he
 9          the one that is going to be required to put this
10          into effect, or is it the district that the water
11          flows into, and again as you get further
12          downstream, who's ultimately going to have to
13          implement this requirement.
14               I'll close it with that.  I will say Tendal
15          Hammock, their board of supervisors last night
16          indicated they will be submitting a separate
17          statement on behalf of the district.  Thank you
18          very much.
19               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you, Mr. Bell.
20               MS. ANTRAPUPPY:  Good afternoon.  My name is
21          Lisa Antrapuppy.  I'm a professional engineer
22          licensed in the state of Florida.  I'm a small
23          business owner.  I am the district engineer for
24          Indian Trail Improvement District, which is
25          approximately 45,000 people out in the western
0212
 1          portion of Palm Beach County with probably over a
 2          150 miles of manmade canals.  I'm also an elected
 3          official.  I'm a commissioner in the Town of Palm
 4          Beach Shores on the east side of the county, so I
 5          have many hats.  Lastly, I was commissioner for the
 6          Environmental Regulation Commission under the DEP,
 7          Florida DEP during the gubernatorial administration
 8          of Governor Jeb Bush.  At that time we did many
 9          great things.  We passed the rules for TMDLs, we
10          had numeric nutrient criteria for the EPA, the
11          Everglades Protection Area.  We based it on special
12          and temporal variability, but I have to tell you,
13          with all due respect, the information that you all
14          have given us in this proposal is untimely in my
15          opinion, untimely, irresponsible and somewhat
16          insulting.
17               Untimely.  You've heard everybody tell you --
18          everybody, many of the folks here tell you of the
19          economic situation in the state of Florida.  I
20          don't know if you're from here or near here or been
21          here.  If you walk outside the Holiday Inn and you
22          see the folks that are walking the streets that are
23          coming off of the airport, people that are begging
24          for money, there is over 10 percent they say
25          registered unemployment, but there's more than
0213
 1          that.  I'm a small business owner.  We are barely
 2          making it here in South Florida.  It is not fun.
 3          And so untimely, it is absolutely untimely.  And I
 4          know this process is probably going to take
 5          millions of dollars in litigation, but this state
 6          is going to take several years to get out of the
 7          economic situation that it's in.
 8               Irresponsible.  42 parts per billion.  I'm
 9          just going to talk about that.  I've had people
10          testify before me, just like this gentleman over
11          here, Zephyrhills water at 60 parts per billion.
12          I've had people testify before me that said that
13          rain water is over 30 parts per billion.  To say 42
14          parts per billion is irresponsible.
15               Where are the numbers?  Where are the dollars
16          that you've had people come before you and say
17          several billion, but I can tell you as an elected
18          official, we have not calculated how much it would
19          cost us on the east coast because, you know, that's
20          coming up next year supposedly.
21               We have not done an economic analysis at
22          Indian Trail Improvement District to tell you how
23          much it's going to cost to meet 42 parts per
24          billion.  We haven't even told you that.  So as an
25          elected official, I could tell you that the Palm
0214
 1          Beach County League of Cities hasn't even discussed
 2          this issue.  Let's be responsible.  42 parts per
 3          billion, one size does not fit all.
 4               I am not against cleaning up the environment.
 5          I'm a professional engineer.  I was trained to
 6          create environments where the environment and human
 7          beings can live together, and I find it somewhat
 8          insulting that when I hear your presentation,
 9          giving us the perception that we didn't do anything
10          here in Florida is insulting to me.  I've been
11          following this for over a decade, and I volunteered
12          my time being on the Environmental Regulation
13          Commission because I truly am concerned about the
14          environment, and so is everybody else that has
15          spoken to you and have sat in this room.  It's just
16          a question of how do you get to the means and
17          methods of where you want to go.  But what you're
18          proposing right now does not make any sense.  It is
19          untimely, irresponsible, and insulting.  And to not
20          even compliment the folks and landowners that have
21          done their best management practices over a decade
22          is just insulting.
23               So please take another look at this.  This is
24          not something that needs to happen right away.
25          We've been working on it for years.  Let us
0215
 1          continue to work on it.  Thank you.
 2               MS. KEEHNER:  Thank you Ms. Antrapuppy.  I
 3          think we're done with the afternoon session.  Is
 4          there anyone else who would like to make remarks
 5          before we adjourn?  Looks like we have one more.
 6               MR. PETIT:  I'm sorry, I'll be quick.
 7          Christopher Petit for Shannon Estevez, the
 8          governing board member for the South Florida Water
 9          Management District.  Ms. Estevez just asked me to
10          enter into the record a letter from her that
11          provides context and correctly interprets a comment
12          that was made during a recent governing board
13          meeting.  It was reported in the paper, has also
14          been referenced during the proceedings.  She just
15          wanted me to enter into the record a letter
16          clarifying that.
17               MS. KEEHNER:  Okay.  Thank you.  Very good.
18          Thank you.  All right.  Thank you for your patience
19          and your respectfulness of all of the speakers here
20          this afternoon.  We're going to adjourn right now
21          and we're going to reconvene at 6:00.  Thank you.
22               (Thereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the afternoon
23          session was adjourned.)
24   
25   
0216
 1   
 2     STATE OF FLORIDA     )
                            )  SS:
 3     COUNTY OF PALM BEACH)
 4   
 5               I, CHARLOTTE CRANDALL, Registered
 6     Professional Reporter, certify that I was authorized
 7     to and did stenographically report the foregoing
 8     proceedings, and that this transcript is a true
 9     record of the proceedings.
10   
11               I further certify that I am not a relative,
12     employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties,
13     parties' attorney, or counsel connected with the
14     action, nor am I financially interested in the
15     action.
16   
17               Dated this 3rd day of March, 2010.
18   
19   
20   
21               ___________________________________
                 CHARLOTTE CRANDALL, RPR, FPR
22   
23   
24   
25