The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Feb. 17 agreed to delay the implementation of federal numeric nutrient regulation on Florida waters. The EPA rules for Florida have been sharply criticized by agriculture, utilities, and industry groups, including The Fertilizer Institute and the Agricultural Retailers Association, who view the federal standards as too costly, over-reaching, and lacking sound science.
The EPA decision, which pushes the deadline for implanting 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. According to the Associated Industries of Florida (AIF), U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle’s ruling upheld the EPA numeric nutrient standards for Florida’s lakes and spring, but tossed out EPA’s standards for Florida streams and rivers as “arbitrary and capricious.”
Environmental groups and industry both claimed victory with the federal 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.
But an AIF statement countered by claiming the judge’s ruling actually supports “the position that Florida knows how best to manage its own waters.”
“The ruling issued by United States District Judge Robert Hinkle upholds the EPA lakes and springs standards that closely align with Florida’s established Numeric Nutrient Criteria,” AIF said. “However, the Court found the EPA’s conflicting standards for our streams and rivers to be arbitrary and capricious as the EPA administrator did not base criteria for rivers and streams on sound science or demonstrate that any levels other than that which she established were certain to be harmful to the flora, fauna’ and other elements of the environment.”
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.”
An administrative law hearing is scheduled to begin on Feb. 27. The water quality rules proposed by FDEP and signed by Gov. Scott are supported by agriculture and industry, but opposed by environmental groups who prefer the more stringent EPA criteria. Unlike the federal standards, the state measure requires a study to determine if pollutants are actually causing biological harm in a particular water body before any enforcement action can be taken.
According to one of the bill’s Senate sponsors, the FDEP rules are “more scientifically defensible” than the EPA standards, and are “based on years of research and designed to protect public health and preserve well-balanced Florida ecosystems.” Sen. Charlie Dean said the FDEP rules “create nutrient reduction expectations where necessary to protect Florida water bodies, while the EPA’s do so regardless of water body health. The state rules would also eliminate unnecessary procedures which do not add to water body protection and restoration.”
For its part, EPA said last week that it prefers that Florida implement its own numeric nutrient criteria. “EPA commends Florida’s co