Florida Gets Another Reprieve, In Part, From Numerical Standards

I have written several posts about the EPA’s decision, in settlement of a lawsuit, to enact numerical standards for nutrient pollution in Florida. The original settlement called for the EPA to have issued such criteria by now. Two months ago the EPA extended the comment period for its proposed criteria – a step that many expected.

Yesterday the EPA issued a new letter to the Florida DEP stating its intention to delay the implementation of numerical standards for estuaries and coastal waters until 2011. In addition, the EPA will apparently seek “additional third party review,” to be announced next month, to review the scientific basis for water standards applicable to these environments.

For environmentalists this is bad news in as much as it delays the implementation of standards until next year. For those who oppose new environmental regulation, that regulation has just been put off a year for a large swathe of areas that would otherwise be affected.

I believe however that this announcement is a good thing in the end. Numerical nutrient regulations are probably necessary, but given their complexity should not be rushed into. If the regulations are going to be meaningful they need to be backed up by science addressing the particular environments to be regulated – something that is thin on the ground at the moment. Remember, unlike other contaminants, these are compounds that are both naturally occurring and necessary for normal aquatic ecosystems. Appropriate levels of these compounds can also vary from one water environment to another. As a result, generalized standards are neither appropriate nor possible.

Nutrient Standards Delayed 30 Days

Florida got a brief reprieve today from the enactment of numeric nutrient standards. The EPA announced today that it would extend the comment period for its proposed numeric nutrient standards for 30 days to "ensure that Florida residents voices are heard...."

This is an issue I have reported on before because of the likelihood that such standards will eventually be mandated nationwide. Numerical nutrient standards are controversial due to the cost associated with determining what the appropriate levels of nutrients are in various bodies of water.

Many in Florida are watching these proceedings with interest/apprehension.

Florida's New Water Standards

Well, it’s a new year, and I hope everyone had an enjoyable holiday season. And while most people are recovering from holiday excess, watching the fireworks in Washington, and the tragedy in Haiti, the EPA is continuing to tick along.

I have written twice before about litigation in Florida designed to force the EPA to enact numerical standards for nutrient pollution in Florida's waters. Those standards have now been issued. This begins a 60-day public comment period. Some estimate that the cost of complying with the proposed standards could exceed a billion dollars. A cost that will have to be borne by government and industry.

Certainly we can expect that the comment period – which may be extended – will be “vigorous.”

But the bigger question that has yet to play out is the impact of numerical standards on a national level – something for which this litigation has opened the door. And as expensive as numerical standards may be for Florida, the cost for other states could be even higher. Florida, unlike many states, already has a significant knowledge base regarding the quality of its waters - largely due to the diligence of various state and local agencies. States that have not been monitoring their water quality as diligently will have to do so if they are to have any hope of establishing scientifically valid nutrient standards. While the states should probably be doing this anyway, it isn't going to be cheap.

And in this age of economic woe, who is going to pay for it?

Most states are teetering on the edge of serious financial crisis – if they haven’t fallen over it already. The federal government is already up to its eyeballs in debt. And industry – at least the kinds of industry that will be affected by these new standards – isn’t exactly flush right now either.

Don’t get me wrong – I understand the compelling argument for the superiority of numerical standards over softer narrative standards. I think taking steps to prevent nutrient pollution is necessary. But the implementation of standards needs to be done in a balanced way, and the costs associated with the regulations need to be considered as part of the process. We should always strive to do better, but setting impossible or unrealistic goals only sets us up for failure.

Legislative Sabotage?

Controversy has erupted in Florida with the recent approval of Senate Bill 2080 by the Florida legislature. The purported purpose of the bill was to encourage water conservation by making it easier for homeowners to replace vegetation – like St. Augustine grass – with vegetation that requires less water.

According to some, the bill has been sabotaged.

At the last minute the bill was amended to provide sweeping power to the executive directors of Florida’s five water-management districts. If Governor Crist signs the bill into law, those five individuals will have the power to unilaterally approve water-use and wetland destruction permits for large projects without formal input from either the relevant water district governing boards or the public.

So why sabotage? Well, it turns out that no one seems to know how the amendment made it into the bill. According to Senate records, the amendment was added by one of the bill’s sponsors – Senator J.D. Alexander. Senator Alexander is apparently not commenting, but his co-sponsor, Senator Carey Baker, says the records are wrong and that neither he nor Senator Alexander knew of the amendment until after they voted for the bill. What?

Some have called for Governor Crist to veto the bill. Senator Carey says that if the Governor does not, then he will work during the next session to fix it. The concern is that concentrating this sort of authority in five people makes the permitting process highly susceptible to pressure from both politicians (who approve the hiring of the directors) and business interests seeking permits.

The arguments against the amendment are obvious and clichés about power corrupting spring easily to mind. But I am still struck by the fact that no one can seem to identify where the amendment came from. Senator Baker seems to suggest that it may have slipped into the bill accidentally. How does that happen without anyone noticing?