Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 110643

Printable PDF Format

Clerk's Official Copy

File Number: 110643

File Type: Resolution

Status: Adopted

Version: 0

Reference: R-263-11

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: OPPOSE EPA PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR WATER QUAL

Introduced: 3/22/2011

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 4/4/2011

Agenda Date: 4/4/2011

Agenda Item Number: 11A13

Notes:

Title:

RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR FLORIDA AS SET FORTH IN THE “WATER QUALITY STANDARD FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA’S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS” RULING

Indexes:

LEGISLATURE

Sponsors:

Lynda Bell, Prime Sponsor

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners	4/4/2011	11A13	Adopted				P
REPORT:	Commissioner Heyman noted she appreciated taking a position against the numeric nutrient criterion for the water in Florida. She also noted this was not a current problem in this county, and several people had written letters of this kind; however, she was concerned about the quality of water countywide. Commissioner Heyman also noted her concern about the rejection of this proposal because of the high cost involved. She noted this item should not oppose the United States Environmental Protection Agency proposal because the perception would be that Florida’s position on the quality of the drinking water was not a priority because since it was not a present issue. Therefore, a delay of this new formula with this criterion would be because of the cost, and lack of funding. Commissioner Heyman noted she believed this was Federal and clearly a Legislative issue, but with an important price tag the quality drinking and flowing water was a concern. She noted the delay of implementation, and timeframe would hopefully allow time for the data and funding to become available. Commissioner Gimenez noted he wanted to inquire about the cost and receive more information. He mentioned there may be some validity to oppose the foregoing item if the cost was too high. Chairman Martinez noted the foregoing item required more information and the members of the Board would come back to this item for further discussion. Later in the meeting Chairman Martinez noted Commissioner Heyman’s suggestion to delay the foregoing resolution, rather than oppose the United States Environmental Protection Agency proposal, which Commissioner Bell as prime sponsor had not decided. Commissioner Gimenez noted upon reviewing the foregoing resolution, this could have an impact of $17 billion, and $4 billion in capital expenditures; however, he specifically noticed this was not based on science. Mr. Carlos Espinosa, Director of Department Environmental Resources Management (DERM) noted there was a dispute concerning the science of this matter as well as different opinions. Commissioner Bell noted that during her time of lobbying in Washington, District of Columbia, and after meeting with officials, the three specific issues included the following: (1) economically unattainable, and would create major hardships for every sector of Florida’s economy and local jobs (2) many other states and local agencies responsible for protecting Florida’s water have found this to be technically and scientifically unsupportive (3) the criterion was too vague, and not practical to implement. Commissioner Bell noted that as part of the concern, she received letters from Florida Senator Jack Nelson, and the Governor to basically state that the Federal Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) estimated the Federal Government mandate would impose capital cost as high as $23.6 billion on municipal waste water treatment and water utilities. She noted this did not take into account that South Florida had some fine water quality standards in the nation. Commissioner Bell named a few listed among the 57 different organizations and agencies that opposed this item, which included the Farm Credit Bureau, Farm Credit, Florida Association of Special Districts, etc. She read the briefing issued by the Florida Farm Bureau that indicated agriculture producers needed clean water and support a science based effort to further protect Florida’s waters. Commissioner Bell noted her reason for not putting the language in the foregoing resolution regarding delaying this item because the proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was based on the result of a lawsuit, and not resulting from science. She noted when 57 organizations and industries signing a petition to oppose an item, there was a need to take notice. Commissioner Bell read a portion of the briefing that concluded that it was imperative that any criteria was established scientifically defensible and could not be rushed by a litigation. In response to Commissioner Sosa’s question as to whether the approval of this proposal would go against the quality of the water for Florida, Mr. Espinosa noted the criteria that was established was for North and Central Florida, and has not been established for South Florida yet. Therefore, the cost and problems were unknown for criteria that would be proposed, at which a draft criteria would be forthcoming this fall. Mr. Espinosa further explained that only the observation of the process for Central and North Florida has taken place, but was focused on what would affect this area in the future. Following Commissioner Sosa’s comments, Mr. Espinosa noted that only the process could be opposed. He noted once the criteria has been identified, and assessed, then the implications could be determined concerning the water sewer or any other entity. Mr. Espinosa noted after observing the criteria and the process that a science based was the wanted process. Mr. Renfrow noted Miami-Dade County had a different process for disposal of sewage, and the criteria established by EPA only affected those counties with a different methodology of sewage disposal, which was surface water. He noted this criterion was based on counties that had sewage disposal into canals, lakes, and etc. Mr. Renfrow noted that without this County being the subject, and without a science process ready, future plans were unknown. He noted he would support the process if it was science based, the criteria might be necessary to protect the health of the citizens of Miami-Dade County. In conclusion, Mr. Renfrow noted as Commissioner Bell indicated there would be repercussions; however, if a strict criterion could be established in terms of treatment of the water statewide, it would require operating facilities at a costly price. Additionally, Commissioner Bell note there were other consequences to these new standards that have not been scientifically proven, no scientific merit, which were not the proper standards. She noted this would be anti-environmental because of the suggestion to recycle water, and would be environmental irresponsible with the lost of valuable water. Commissioner Bell emphasized this involved more than billions of dollars, but a billion gallons of water that was not environmentally based. She noted the need for this County to support this resolution, which was the concern other officials. Commissioner Heyman noted her concern of not knowing how this language would affect the quality of water because of the uncertainty whether it was relevant to this County. She noted that she believed everyone’s concern was to preserve the integrity of this County’s drinking water. Commissioner Heyman agreed the County should work with finite facts, and without it, there was no certainty of the quality of drinking water. Commissioner Moss noted the language in this item urged the Florida legislature and Congressional Delegation to demand any statewide numeric nutrient criterion to be established by a science driven process with adequate time to address. Therefore, he believed this legislative item should be supported; however, it was not to oppose what should be done to protect the environment, but to ensure the regulations were based on science and that an opportunity was given to respond to any issues. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution as presented.

County Attorney	3/22/2011		Assigned	Sarah E. Davis

Legislative Text

TITLE
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY�S PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR FLORIDA AS SET FORTH IN THE �WATER QUALITY STANDARD FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA�S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS� RULING

BODY
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (�EPA�) implemented a rule that takes effect in 15 months, requiring a numeric nutrient criteria for inland water bodies in Florida; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of this rule is in response to a lawsuit that determined that Florida�s existing narrative nutrient water quality standards do not meet the requirement of the Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS, this EPA rule only applies to the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida already has narrative nutrient water quality standards that were previously approved by the EPA and are currently monitored by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County has not experienced any significant degree of water quality degradation attributable to localized nutrient discharges and is planning very substantial reclamation and reuse of wastewater that will not adversely impact the quality of ground water and surface water in the County; and
WHEREAS, Florida�s cities and counties realize the importance of maintaining quality waters throughout the state, but this change in criteria and the short deadline to impose it will require aggressive and expensive modifications to all programs to meet the standards of this new criteria; and
WHEREAS, a numeric nutrient criteria will ultimately cause numerous Florida water bodies, including those that show no adverse impacts associated with nutrient pollution, to be deemed impaired and thus subject to recovery efforts by the state or local governments; and
WHEREAS, a study by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection projects these mandates could cost Florida municipal storm water systems $17.101 billion and municipal wastewater treatment systems $4.167 billion in capital expenditures; and
WHEREAS, due to the state of the economy in the State of Florida and the United States as a whole, it will be a hardship for many Florida counties and municipalities to implement the costly modifications needed to comply with the EPA�s new criteria; and
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County and many other state and local agencies responsible for protecting Florida�s water have raised serious concerns about the methodology EPA used to develop these numeric nutrient standards; and
WHEREAS, these numeric standards fail to adequately take into account the diversity of Florida�s streams, rivers and lakes and the extremely restrictive criteria will be fiscally impractical to meet, resulting in an adverse impact to Florida�s overall economy,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board:
Section 1. Urges the Florida Legislature, the Florida congressional delegation and others to demand that any statewide numeric nutrient criteria be established through a science-driven process with adequate time to address concerns of regulated entities and with an appropriate, realistic time frame for achieving compliance.
Section 2. Urges other state and local agency officials to contact their state and federal representatives and request that they demand a water quality standard that is based on science, and not an arbitrary number, to determine a water body�s pollutant level.
Section 3. Directs the Clerk of the Board to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to Governor, Senate President, House Speaker and the Chair and Members of the Miami-Dade State Legislative Delegation.
Section 4. Directs the County's federal and state lobbyists to advocate for the County�s position as set forth in Sections 1 & 2 above, and authorizes and directs the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to include this item in the 2011 and/or 2012 State and Federal Legislative Package.