A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation is set to establish numeric limits on the volumes of phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients that would be allowed in lakes, rivers, springs, canals and springs throughout Florida. Why does that matter to you?

According to Congressman Adam Putnam and opponents of the regulation, the average Floridian could be paying as much as $700 a year more in utility fees if the regulation passes, a number they say comes from a survey of nine state water utilities. Advocates of the bill, including environmental conservation groups such as the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club, say those numbers are incredibly high, unrealistic and a worst case scenario published by special interest groups.

The group most affected by the changes would most likely be agriculture. With more than 40,000 farms across 10 million acres of land throughout the state, Florida agriculture has an estimated impact of more than $100 billion annually while being directly and indirectly responsible for 766,884 jobs according to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Rusty Wiygul, director of grower affairs for Florida Citrus Mutual, a stark opponent of the bill, says that the numbers are not only very possible, but the regulations may raise taxes and even price many of Florida’s farmers and growers out of business. “The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has told us that this rule will cost millions of dollars without even yielding any cleaner water,” says Wiygul. “Municipalities are barely scrapping by as it is so one logical alternative for them is to raise taxes. “For farmers, the main problem is that we don’t know what it’s going to take for us to comply and unless they can come out and tell us, it’s a scary thing when it’s unknown,” he says. “Right now, the regulation is littered with potholes.”

Those in favor of the numerical standards, which are being developed by the EPA and the state after a 2009 lawsuit consent decree with environmental groups, say that the current system is too broad and that a numerical system must be put in place to act as a system of measurement. “We feel this is a critical need; the current narrative standards in place are an endless loop of debate that’s open to interpretation,” says Manley Fuller, III, president of the Florida Wildlife Federation.

The regulation currently reads that nutrients can’t cause a biological imbalance, but doesn’t identify what that imbalance is. “It’s like posting a speed limit sign that reads ‘Drive at a Reasonable Speed Considering Weather, Traffic and Lighting,’ it just doesn’t make much sense,” Fuller says.

The proposed regulation is set to correct this, but at an unknown cost in terms of dollars and time spent to comply with the regulations. “It’s not like we’re wasting water or not taking care of our land,” says Wiygul. “Our land is all we have. We’ve been working for years on cleaning up our water, setting new standards as research supports them, which was working well; for these regulations, the science just isn’t there yet to support possibly changing everything about the way an industry works.”

Most phosphorus and nitrogen pollution comes from storm water runoff, municipal wastewater treatment, crop fertilization and livestock manure. Too much of the elements can damage drinking water sources, increase algal blooms and form byproducts in drinking water from disinfection chemicals.

“To our opposition who say we can’t afford to do this, we say we can’t afford not to do this,” says Fuller. “Florida’s future depends on clean water here, from our beaches to our canals; it’s a big draw for the tourism economy.” At the end of the day, the Fuller says the group just wants to see all parties using more care and focus.

Wiygul says that Florida growers have already done so, in fact, he says they have been doing so for years. “Farmers are the original conversationalists and we have been cleaning up our waters and using less harmful methods for years,” he says. “Believe me, I’m not saying that we don’t have to take care of our land and our water, what I’m saying is there has to be a way to do it without imposing tougher restrictions and more cost on people.”

There have been numerous public hearings on the matter, with as many as 700 people reported at one of the hearings in Tallahassee. A recent hearing in Orlando drew more than 350, many of which, according to Wiygul, were opposed to the bill.

“We recognize someone will have to pay for this, it’s not cost-free,” says Fuller. “But we also recognize that the cost of not doing this as problems worsen is larger. What we’re advocating, we feel, is ultimately good for Florida.”

Article by Corey Gehrold