The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Feb. 17 agreed to delay the implementation of federal numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for Florida waters. The EPA rules for Florida have been challenged by agriculture, utilities, and industry groups, including The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), who view the federal standards as too costly, over-reaching, and lacking sound science.
The EPA decision, which pushes the deadline for implementing federal water quality rules in Florida back from March 6 to June 2, came one day after Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed state legislation (Senate Bill 2060 / House Bill 7051) that proposes water quality rules developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as an alternative to the EPA standards.
On Feb. 18, however, a federal judge in Tallahassee ruled that the March 6 deadline for enforcement still stands, at least for some aspects of the EPA standards. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle’s ruling upheld most of the EPA numeric nutrient standards for Florida’s lakes and springs, but tossed out EPA’s standards for Florida streams and rivers as “arbitrary and capricious.”
Environmental groups and industry both claimed victory with the judge’s ruling. “It was a victory on everything we wanted, except for a few technical details,” said Andrew McElwaine, president and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida in Naples, one of several environmental groups that have challenged the state’s proposed alternative to the EPA standards.
Earthjustice, another environmental group that first challenged EPA in court in 2008 to enforce the Clean Water Act in Florida by developing NNC, also praised Hinkle’s ruling, saying it would end a “decade of delays in setting limits on sewage, manure, and fertilizer contamination in Florida waters.”
But TFI issued a statement on Feb. 24 applauding the ruling as a restriction on EPA’s authority to impose numeric nutrient criteria in Florida. The decision, TFI said, found that biological harm, not just an increase of nutrients above background concentrations, must be the basis for EPA’s numeric nutrient standards. “A significant and potentially precedent setting part of the Court’s ruling found that the Agency did not demonstrate that increases in nutrients result in a harmful increase in flora or fauna in streams,” TFI said.
“TFI is extremely pleased with the outcome of this litigation and the overall efforts of a unified industry and agriculture community,” said TFI President Ford West. “While we rarely seek the assistance of the court, we strongly believed that the potential harm EPA’s NNC posed to Florida’s phosphate industry and Florida agriculture, along with the precedent setting nature of the EPA rule, merited a legal challenge. EPA should now return to Florida the authority to protect its own water resources."
An AIF statement also claimed a victory for industry and for the state of Florida, saying the judge’s ruling actually supports “the position that Florida knows how best to manage its own waters.” Added AIF spokesman Ryan Bantill, “It is important to remember the mandate for streams and rivers reflects a significant part of the waters that would fall under regulation. You can’t put into effect mandates ruled ‘arbitrary or capricious’ and invalidated by a federal judge.”
ARA also voiced support for the judge’s decision. “We are very pleased with the court’s finding that EPA’s proposed stream criteria, as well as certain aspects of the downstream protection values (DPV) for lakes, are both arbitrary and capricious,” ARA’s Carmen Stacy told Green Markets. “The court agreed that EPA’s method of de