As the 2012 legislative session approaches, it is becoming quite clear
that water quality and supply issues will be the focus of much attention
by the Florida Legislature. Almost immediately after the close of the
2011 session, various interest groups began meeting to discuss
water-related issues. A number of bills relating to water have been
filed, and there has been significant activity by Agriculture
Commissioner Adam Putnam, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Gov. Rick
Scott, mostly related to the federally imposed numeric nutrient
criteria.
Numeric Nutrient Limit Criteria
The
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency prompted a huge outcry from local
governments, utilities, agriculture and industry in August 2009
when it agreed to propose water-pollution limits known as “numeric
nutrient criteria” to settle a lawsuit filed by environmental groups.
Those groups had contended that Florida’s existing rules are too vague
and fail to prevent waterways from becoming polluted.
Since the
EPA announced the imposition of the numeric nutrient criteria, there has
been a concerted effort to get the agency to back down and let the
State of Florida adopt and implement criteria that are based on sound
science and Florida-specific conditions.These efforts have included
lawsuits (one by the Florida League of Cities), numerous public
hearings, and an effort during the 2011 session to enact legislation
that would bypass the EPA efforts.
On November 2, acting EPA
Assistant Administrator Nancy Stoner sent a letter to Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary Herschel
Vinyard that contained both good news and bad news in the fight
against the EPA-imposed numeric nutrient criteria.The EPA letter
expresses support for the DEP’s rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria.
However, that support comes with a number of strings attached, the most
troubling of which is an indication that any changes to the draft rule
will likely result in the EPA withdrawing its support for the rule.
Before
taking effect in Florida, there are many procedural stops for the
proposed rule – including approval by the Environmental Regulatory
Commission and legislative ratification. Because of these “strings,”
support for the DEP rule is far from unanimous, with some members of the
regulated community supportive and others strongly opposed. The
environmental community has been largely critical of the DEP-proposed
rule, claiming it is difficult to enforce and may represent a setback
for water quality protection.
On November 3, the Environmental
Regulatory Commission held a public hearing on the proposed DEP rules
that would replace the controversial federal rules.The proposed rules
will be considered at a December 8 commission meeting for final adoption and subsequently offered to the Legislature for ratification
during its 2012 session.
Some of the issues raised during the
Environmental Regulatory Commission public hearing included concerns
that if the DEP rule does not change, the EPA might approve
the rule.The letter from the EPA never unequivocally states that it will
approve the DEP rule. As drafted, the letter suggests that the EPA
might not approve the DEP rule even if it does not change.
Another
area of concern raised by the public is that the EPA never agrees
to rescind its January 2009 necessity determination that numeric
nutrient criteria limits are appropriate for Florida. Instead, the
EPA will apply recently finalized federal criteria and continue to
promulgate criteria to any waters that are not covered by the DEP rule.
In other words, South Florida canals, tidal creeks, intermittent
streams and estuaries not covered by the DEP rule will be subject to
federal numeric criteria unless the DEP promulgates numeric criteria for
those water bodies.
The EPA likewise never agrees to seek a
dissolution of the 2009 consent decree with EarthJustice. (That consent
decree was the genesis of the EPA action to implement numeric nutrient
criteriain Florida.) To the contrary, the EPA is committed to following
through with its own rulemaking, though the schedule may be contingent
on the state’s actions.
Other issues include concerns by the
EPA that the science behind the DEP biological confirmation approach
may fall short of being adequately protective of designated uses, as
well as questions about how the DEP plans toapply the numeric nutrient
criteria to canals, drainage ditches and stormwater conveyances in
Florida. The EPA letter declares that it will apply federal criteria to
these water bodies if the state does not include them in its rule.
continue>>>>
Water Spouts will speak volubly and endlessly about all the issues concerning water. The ongoing degradation, and growing scarcity, of the water supply here in the US, and the rest of the world. The continued absence of potable water in so many parts of the world. The work being done by NGOs, and charities, in the third world, to help alleviate the situation. The emphasis on WASH ( Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene ) so health and healthy water are maintained. "Water Spouts" will spout it all out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment