Tom Feeney: Proposed EPA water rules are too costly for Fla. governments

Florida’s geology, topography and watercourses are like no other state, dominated by vast floodplains along the coast and myriad wetlands, rivers, streams and lakes inland.

Virtually all of these features are connected underground by our precious aquifer system through sandy soils and porous limestone.  Because Florida’s elevation is only slightly above sea level and relatively flat, its history is replete with, and its lifestyle is dependent upon, the effective management of stormwater.

Additionally, Florida leads the nation in water quality efforts, recently approving numeric nutrient standards designed to keep its waters healthy and clean.

As a result, Florida is crisscrossed by man-made ditches, canals and ponds for flood control, irrigation, stormwater management and water quality improvement.  All of these factors, both natural and man-made, make Florida particularly susceptible to the proposed rule changes by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to the “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.

The Associated Industries of Florida has formed the Florida H20 Coalition. It is concerned about the EPA defining what waters will be covered by the Clean Water Act because the scope of the proposed changes and the legal reform in permitting is pretty drastic.  We believe that if the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were to expand the scope of federal jurisdiction under the definitions laid out, it would hurt local governments, farmers and other landowners.

Already, Florida is getting ready to implement the new numeric nutrient criteria.  This will be an expensive water-quality program, which utility customers will have to pay for.  Just last year, Florida negotiated the right to write its own NNC rule, after the EPA was scientifically off the mark when first presenting the rule.  Now, the EPA is looking to put another federal mandate on the backs of Floridians, using the same confusing tests to make their decision that they claim to be “clarifying.”

We also have reason to believe that the economic projections prepared by the EPA significantly underestimate compliance costs.  While the EPA’s economic impact analysis estimates all 50 states will be on the hook for $231 million, a recent fiscal impact study completed in Florida indicates that four of Florida’s 67 counties are looking at an estimate of $4 billion. Seminole County alone faces an estimate of $1.53 billion.  Florida simply cannot afford for the EPA to move forward with this rulemaking without more discussion with affected stakeholders.

So what are some examples of how local governments will be hurt by the EPA’s ruling?  Pinellas County is a member of a coalition with the sole mission of restoration and protection of Tampa Bay and should the proposed rule be adopted, “Pinellas County would have to divert money from these critical waterbodies” to meet the NNC in the newly identified jurisdictional waters. This is contrary to enhancing Florida’s overall environmental quality, and the expansion of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction to marginal waters, such as stormwater ditches and ponds, will prevent financially constrained local governments from addressing other important environmental initiatives.

Similar challenges would face other local governments that are dealing with the cost of sea-level rise and the restoration of critical natural waters, such as the Indian River Lagoon, the St. Lucie Estuary or the springs of North Florida.  Instead of funding these important efforts, counties would have to direct limited resources toward municipal storm system upgrades.  This leads us to believe that the EPA and USACE should share our belief that environmental restoration, and not stormwater system expansion, is a more prudent use of taxpayer dollars.

We believe it is time for the EPA and USACE to take a very hard look at its economic analysis and extend the comment period for affected stakeholders in an effort to get a more accurate cost estimate, while creating opportunities to identify more cost-effective approaches that still protect  the environment.

Even the Small Business Administration Office of Agency agreed this week that the rule was too costly and would hurt small businesses, and urged the EPA to withdraw the proposed regulation.

At this juncture, we support Congressman Steve Southerland’s H.R. 5078, the WOTUS Regulatory Overreach Protection Act, which recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives.  We believe the bill leads to a better rule and requires the EPA and USACE to conduct a transparent, representative, and open consultation with state and local officials to develop a consensus about those waters that should be under federal jurisdiction.

The bill is consistent with the CWA and would allow all other waters to remain under the jurisdiction of the various states where they can appropriately address the diversity and availability of water and land features and how best to protect them.  This legislation would lay a foundation that will achieve environmental benefits and ensure our nation’s ability to engage in the kind of robust economic activity that sustains and supports Americans.

Tom Feeney is President & CEO of the Associated Industries of Florida. AIF’s Florida H2O Coalition brings together stakeholders interested in water quantity and quality issues in Florida and seeks to review and make recommendations on state and federal water laws and rules affecting Florida.