A Bellwether in Florida
In January, a potentially precedent-setting EPA action in one state drew attention from the water-quality community across the country. The agency stepped in and set numeric standards for nutrient pollution in Florida, marking the first time the EPA has set legal water-quality standards for a single state.
Until now, Florida has had a narrative approach to controlling nutrients—nitrogen and phosphorus—and by all accounts, nutrient pollution there is out of control. More than a third of the state’s lakes by area, a quarter of its estuaries, and 16% of its river miles are impaired by nutrients, according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The problem might actually be worse than that, because not all waters have been assessed for nutrient impairment.
The main sources are agriculture, fertilized landscapes, and urban runoff. Too many nutrients lead to the usual problems: algae blooms, reduced oxygen, potential damage to aquatic ecosystems, and, in a state that depends on tourism, unpleasant slime in some of its recreational waters. The EPA says there is evidence the excess nutrients in the water can be harmful to humans, too, as toxins from the algae and the chemical disinfectants used to remove it from drinking water have been linked to health problems.
The nutrient problem isn’t new, and the EPA’s actions shouldn’t really come as a surprise. About 10 years ago EPA told Florida and other states to set their own nutrient limits, and the Florida DEP has been working toward a draft proposal for the state. The process took too long, though: In 2008, environmental groups sued the EPA for failing to enforce the Clean Water Act in Florida, and in August 2009, the EPA entered into a consent decree with the Florida Wildlife Federation. Under the terms of that consent decree, the EPA had to set numeric standards for Florida “lakes and flowing waters” by January 2010; it must do the same for coastal waters and estuaries by next January.
How do the EPA limits differ from those the state was considering? They’re close, but a bit tougher, especially as they apply to rivers and streams, and the EPA also put standards on canals, which the state proposal did not do. The rule, as it has been proposed, also gives EPA authority to enforce the new standards.
Advertisement
The new limits are not yet final. EPA has been accepting comments and holding public hearings; it will establish its final standards for Florida’s lakes, rivers, and streams by October 2010, and those for estuarine and coastal waters by October 2011.
Given the circumstances of how the EPA limits came about, the question is whether this action sets a precedent for similar EPA standard-setting in other states and for specific pollutants. It could be argued that the lawsuit spurred an unusual situation in this case—but of course, environmental groups have been watching the process and perhaps see this as a viable avenue for future water-quality improvements. Do you think such a trend would represent a good trend for water quality, or an undermining of local decision-making authority? Stormwater would like to hear what you think; you can e-mail me at sweditor@forester.net. Or leave your comment on this website.
Author's Bio: Janice Kaspersen is the editor of Stormwater magazine.
March-April 2010
A Bellwether in Florida
In January, a potentially precedent-setting EPA action in one state drew attention from the water-quality community across the country. The agency stepped in and set numeric standards for nutrient pollution in Florida, marking the first time the EPA has set legal water-quality standards for a single state.
Until now, Florida has had a narrative approach to controlling nutrients—nitrogen and phosphorus—and by all accounts, nutrient pollution there is out of control. More than a third of the state’s lakes by area, a quarter of its estuaries, and 16% of its river miles are impaired by nutrients, according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The problem might actually be worse than that, because not all waters have been assessed for nutrient impairment.
The main sources are agriculture, fertilized landscapes, and urban runoff. Too many nutrients lead to the usual problems: algae blooms, reduced oxygen, potential damage to aquatic ecosystems, and, in a state that depends on tourism, unpleasant slime in some of its recreational waters. The EPA says there is evidence the excess nutrients in the water can be harmful to humans, too, as toxins from the algae and the chemical disinfectants used to remove it from drinking water have been linked to health problems.
The nutrient problem isn’t new, and the EPA’s actions shouldn’t really come as a surprise. About 10 years ago EPA told Florida and other states to set their own nutrient limits, and the Florida DEP has been working toward a draft proposal for the state. The process took too long, though: In 2008, environmental groups sued the EPA for failing to enforce the Clean Water Act in Florida, and in August 2009, the EPA entered into a consent decree with the Florida Wildlife Federation. Under the terms of that consent decree, the EPA had to set numeric standards for Florida “lakes and flowing waters” by January 2010; it must do the same for coastal waters and estuaries by next January.
How do the EPA limits differ from those the state was considering? They’re close, but a bit tougher, especially as they apply to rivers and streams, and the EPA also put standards on canals, which the state proposal did not do. The rule, as it has been proposed, also gives EPA authority to enforce the new standards.
The new limits are not yet final. EPA has been accepting comments and holding public hearings; it will establish its final standards for Florida’s lakes, rivers, and streams by October 2010, and those for estuarine and coastal waters by October 2011.
Given the circumstances of how the EPA limits came about, the question is whether this action sets a precedent for similar EPA standard-setting in other states and for specific pollutants. It could be argued that the lawsuit spurred an unusual situation in this case—but of course, environmental groups have been watching the process and perhaps see this as a viable avenue for future water-quality improvements. Do you think such a trend would represent a good trend for water quality, or an undermining of local decision-making authority? Stormwater would like to hear what you think; you can e-mail me at sweditor@forester.net. Or leave your comment on this website.