COST DOCUMENT

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions about the Federal Government's Plan to Single Out Florida with Costly Water Regulations:

What is the issue?

The federal government is poised to impose drastic new regulations for water treatment in Florida that will impede our state's economic recovery, force Florida businesses to cut jobs, and increase the price of utilities, food and other necessities for Florida businesses, families and consumers.

Why would these new regulations be imposed?

The new regulations would not come from new legislation nor be based on sound, peer-reviewed science, but instead would be imposed as a result of a lawsuit filed by the group EarthJustice.

How early could these restrictions be put in place?

These regulations could be imposed by federal Environmental Protection Agency as early as October 2010, as the result of the lawsuit. This deadline is driven by the ongoing litigation between the EarthJustice group, the State of Florida, the EPA and other Florida-based groups.

How many other states would be subject to such federal regulations?

As it stands, Florida would be the only state singled out by the EPA with these strict deadlines and stern federal oversight - despite the fact that Florida has been a national leader in enforcing aggressive water quality standards to protect our streams, lakes, rivers and estuaries.

Not only would Florida be the only state forced to meet such stringent regulations, but these restrictions would make Florida and its citizens responsible for cleaning rivers and other waterways that have been polluted by other states.

Will Florida be able to abide by such regulations?

The truth is that the extremely restrictive and one-size-fits-all regulations the EPA is seeking will be impossible to meet. Environmental regulators would measure the concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous in Florida's most pristine lakes and waterways - and then apply those standards to all water bodies in the state.

However, it is generally impossible for water discharged from developed areas with urban, commercial, agricultural and public water utilities to replicate absolutely pristine conditions. That is a simple fact, which the proposed restrictions cannot change.

How much more restrictive would these new restrictions be compared to current regulations?

By way of an example, the newly proposed regulations concerning the acceptable amount of phosphorus in the Panhandle are 14 times more restrictive than the current standard for advanced wastewater treatment. There is simply no economically viable way to meet such stringent standards successfully at this time.

How would these regulations affect Florida's economy?

The economic impact of these regulations is vast and could result in significant consequences for Florida's economy. Numerous major industries would be affected, ranging from agriculture and power generation to seaports and even tourism and recreational facilities such as golf courses.

Numerous artificial water bodies - including those mandated by other government rules of development, such as drainage facilities, stormwater ponds, agricultural holding ponds and flood protection systems - could be required to make enormous investments in new water quality technologies simply in order to continue to operate.

How would these regulations affect Florida's local governments and water utilities?

The proposed regulations could hit local governments especially hard in terms of paying for massive retrofits to drainage facilities and public utilities. There are no planned budgets in place for paying for such retrofits.

Utilities in Palm Beach County alone estimate that the cost simply to continue to store reclaimed water could reach as high as $125 million. Panhandle utilities have estimated that increased wastewater treatment costs could range from $4 to $8 per gallon.

In this devastating economic climate, Florida's finances - including those of state and local governments, of its businesses and most especially of its families - simply are not capable of meeting such outsized obligations without suffering severe hardship. This fact was underscored in September when the Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research estimated that Florida will face a budget gap of $923 million in 2010 - a hole that could grow as large as $2.3 billion by 2011-2012.

What is Florida doing now to protect water quality?

It is a puzzling fact that these unfair proposed federal restrictions would punish Florida even though it's been a national leader in protecting clean lakes and rivers through its model Total Maximum Daily Loads program.

For nearly 10 years, Florida's TMDL program has spent tens of millions of dollars to scientifically evaluate the quality of Florida's surface waters and promote the mechanisms necessary to clean up pollution. This process is lengthy and time-intensive because of the state's vast, varied and unique ecosystems - ranging from the Everglades and tropical mangrove estuaries in the South to cold springs, sinkholes and forest streams in the North.

It would be far more effective in terms of safeguarding our state's water resources if Florida were given the latitude to continue its existing TMDL program. This program uses painstaking scientific analysis to determine what water quality regulations are needed to protect specific local ecological areas. The process is much preferable to Floridians than having our state's water policy written for us in a courtroom due to a lawsuit.

What do policy analysts say about the cost of such water regulations?

According to an Aug. 26 report by the EPA's own Inspector General, "Cost is a significant obstacle to making headway toward developing water quality standards for nutrients. It is relatively expensive for States to develop individualized nutrient criteria that reflect localized conditions... Florida has already expended approximately $20 million and has not completed the task."

The report further found that "Costs to implement the standards will primarily be borne by individual citizens and businesses (particularly agribusiness in some States) of the States. For example, if new/revised standards result in stricter discharge limits for wastewater treatment plants, these plants may need to increase their user fees to support the construction of nutrient removal technology, which can run in the millions of dollars. Management of agricultural runoff and restrictions on businesses would likely increase costs."

How will this lawsuit affect water quality in other states?

Due to Florida's leadership in improving water quality over the past decade, our state actually accounts for more than a third of all the nutrient-related water-quality samples in the national water quality database.

However, it is a disappointing fact that this initiative to improve our scientific knowledge about the health of our state's waters has actually made it easier for groups such as EarthJustice to punish Florida through the legal system with these extremely costly water restrictions.

This turn of events is all the more unfortunate because other states will now be less likely to invest in more aggressive efforts to improve their own water quality if they see a national leader such as Florida have our hard work used against us to impose such unfair and expensive water restrictions.

What can Floridians do to help prevent this policy from hurting our economy?

Florida needs citizens to contact their elected leaders in Washington, Tallahassee and local communities and encourage them to intervene in ongoing legal proceedings and request that Florida's water quality regulations be established through a science-driven process rather than a litigation-driven one.

Florida also needs to hear and address questions and concerns from regulated communities such as city and county governments, public and private water utilities, land managers, farmers, businesses and the public at large.

Finally, Florida needs broad public participation to let policymakers know that our state's water policies should be developed using sound science in partnership with key stakeholders to ensure that the policies that protect our streams, lakes and rivers will be effective, realistic and scientifically sound.