1

A T able of

Conte nts of

this Order is included as an at tach me nt to this Order.

1 UNITED STA

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA LEA D CASE N O: 04- 21448- CI V- GOL D/ Mc A LI LEY MI CC OSU KE E T RI BE OF IN DI A NS O F F L O R I D A, Pla intiff,
v. UN IT ED STA

TES OF A ME RI CA , etal. Def end ant s.

_________

_________

_________

_____/ FR IEN DS OF T HE EVE RG LA DE S, Pla intiff,
v. UN IT ED STA

TES OF A ME RI CA , etal. Def end ant s.

_________

_________

_________

_____/ OR DE R GRA NT IN G SU MM A RY JU DG ME NT ; CL OSIN G C ASE I. SUMMA RY

OF THE C OURT’S RULING 1 This ca se, and it s l ong hi sto ry , i s compl ex . I t i s a co nti nuati on of l it ig ati on ov er the Ev erg lad es th a t s tar

ted i n 1988. Si nce that ti me, th e l it ig ati on has resul ted i n numerous cour t dec is ion s, an o v erall se ttl ement ag re ement, and t hen li ti g ati on ov er it. To res olv e the litig ation (as th en pen ding), th e Florida Le gisl atu re ena cted the Evergl ade s Forev er Act in 1994, § 373. 4592, Fl or ida Sta tutes

. Mo re recent ly , th e F lor ida Leg is lat ure enacted Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 1012

amendments to the E v erg lad es Forev er Ac t in 2003, and the Stat e of F lor ida has adopt ed the P hosph or us Rul e, §§ 62-302.5 30 and 62- 302.540 , F lor ida Admi nis trati v e C ode, appl ic abl e to the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area. B oth t he 2003 a m e n d ments to t he Ev erg lad es Forev er

Ac t and the Phos phor us Rul e are the su bje ct of this l it ig ati on. No twit h s t a n d in g i t s co m p le xit y, t h e m a t t e rs a tis s u e m a y b e re d u c e d t o two essen tial question s. Th e f irst q uest io n i s wheth er the En v ironm ent al Prote ction Agen cy act ed ar bit ra ri ly and capr ic iou sl y under the Fede ra l Cl ean W ater Act , 33 U .S.C . § 1251 et. seq. (“ CW A” ), and the F ederal Admin is trati v e Procedu re s A ct, 5 U .S.C . § 701, et. seq. (“APA”), by con cluding tha t the 200 3 am end me nts to the Florida’s Everg lade s Forev er Act did n o t c h a n g e w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a rd s
. Th e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n i s w h e ther the Env ironmental Protec ti on Ag encyf u rt her er re d i n i ts subs eq uent re v iew of the S tate of Fl or ida ’s Phos phor us Rul e by findi ng co mpli ance w it h the F ederal Cl ean W ater Ac t. I c o n cl ude ag ain st the E nv ironmental Protec ti on Ag ency on b oth q uest ion s ( w it h some li mite d ex cept ion s pert ine nt t o the Phos phor us Rul e)

. Con trar y to the E nv ironmental Prote ction Agen cy ’s wr it t e n De term inatio ns, it is my v iew thatthe Florida L egislature, in 2003, by adopt ing the Stat e’s draft Long -Term P la n , as propose d by the South Fl or ida W ater M anag ement D is tr ict’ s G ov er nin g Board, c hang ed w ater q ual ity st andards u n d e r

t he Fede ral Clean W ate r Act, and v iolate d its f und am ent al com mitm enta nd prom ise to prot ect the E v erg lad es, by

extendi ng the Dec ember 31 , 2006 co mpli ance deadl ine for meeti ng the p hosph or u s cri te rio n for at lea st ten more y ears. Turni ng a “ bli nd ey e,” the Uni ted Sta tes En v ironm ent al Prote ction Agency (“EPA”) conclude d tha t the re w as no chan ge in
w ate r q uality standa rds. T he EPAis pat ent ly wrong and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in re achi ng i ts conc lus ion . I t di d so by si mply readi ng the w ords of spec ificse cti ons of the Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 2 of 1013

Amended E v erg lad es Forev er Ac t (“ Amended EFA ”) , ra ther than by co nnect ing the dots to an alyz e its true ef

fect. I t s r e vie w i s noth ing more tha n a repe ate d imp rimatu r, i.e. , acc eptanc e w it hout ind ependentanal y si s, based on t he St ate o f Fl or ida ’s represent ati on tha t the EFA Am end me nts did not cha nge w ate r q uality standa rds. The Env ironmenta l Pr o tecti on Ag ency furth er co mpounded i ts er ro r in it s subs eq uent re v iew

of the S tate of Fl or ida ’s Phosphor us Rul e for co mpli ance w it h Secti on 303 of the Cl ean W ater Ac t, 33 U .S.C . § 1313. The EPA ended i ts Nov ember 5, 2003 Determ inatio n on the Am end me nts to the EFAbyobse rv ing that “the 200 3 am end me nts, and t hei r subs eq uent impl ementati on, w ar ra nt ‘ close scrutiny. ’” EPA N ov ember

5, 2003 Det er minat ion , p. 11 [ PR -A R- 11]. Ins tead of gi v ing the Phos phor us Rul e prov is ion s t he cl ose sc ru ti ny

i t promis ed, t he EP A again d eferred to the Stat e of Fl or ida , reser v ing i ts
re vie w u n d e r t h e CW Afo r l a t e r p e rm it s
. P la in t if fs a re co rr e c tt h a t“b y ki c k in g t h e ca n d o wn the ro a d t o i n d i v i d u a l p e r mi t s , ” E P A h a s o n c e a g a i n a v o i d e d i t s d u t y t o p ro tec t t he Everg lade s. It has failed to adh ere to th e ma nda tes of the Clean W ate r Act a nd p rope rly anal yz e w hether

the Phos phor us Rul e w as a “ bla nketch ang e” to the p re v iou sl y approv ed Decem ber 31 , 200 6 com pliance dea dline fo r tho se w ho adop t the Lon g- T erm Pla n. It also act ed ar bit ra ri ly

and capr ic iou sl y

by fail ing to cons ide r the effect of t hese chang es on th e Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area as a w hol e, an d o n t he req uis it e “ propag ati on and maint enanc e o f

a h eal thy , w ell -b ala nced popul ati on of fish and w il dli fe,” a s req uired for Cl ass II I F lor ida w aters. In s hor t, w hat EPA has done is to all ow “F lor ida to radi cal ly modi fy it s w ater

q ual ity standa rds , s i mp l y

d i s av ow t ha t a c ha ng e ha d ta k en p l ac e” a nd t he n “ rel y o n F l or ida’s disavow al to avoid its man dat oryrev iew of the m odif ied sta nda rds.” Fla. Pub . In t e re st Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 3 of 1014

Res ear ch Gr oup Cit izens Lobby

, Inc. v. EPA (

FPIRG ), 386 F.3d 10 7 0 , 1 0 8 9 ( 1 1 th Cir. 200 4). T his Court is duty-boun d to giv e “close scrutiny” to the e f fect of t he EP A’s action s. EPANov em ber 5, 2 003 Determ inatio n, p. 11 [PR-AR- 11]

. I have end eavored to do so in this Order. II. T HE PA RT IES, T HE C ASE, A ND T HE PEN DI NG M OT ION S A . Th e Par

ti es This co nsol ida ted cas e has been broug ht by tw o Pl ain ti ffs: the M ic cos ukee Tri be of Indi ans of Fl or ida ( “M ic cos ukee Tri be” ) and F ri ends o f t he Ev erg lad es (“ Fr ien ds” ). The Miccosukee Tribe is a fede rally reco gniz ed Ind ian T ribe w hose m em bers reside and w ork
w it hin the Ev erg lad es. DE 147 at 2. Fr ien ds is an org ani z ati on founded for the p ro tec ti on and preser

v ati on of t he Ev erg lad es ecos y ste m, and more than 4,400 members of Fr ien ds
use the E v erg lad es on a c onti nui ng bas is for b oth recreati onal and aest heti c u ses
. DE 150 at 2- 3. The Pl ain ti ffs h av e broug ht t hei r cas es, as now co nsol ida ted, agai n st the Uni ted Stat es, the Uni ted S tates Env ironmental Protec ti on Ag ency ( “E PA” ), the Admin is trator of the E PA, and t he Reg ion al Admin is trator of the E PA, Reg ion IV (a ll co ll ect iv ely referred to
as “E PA” ). The EPA is the federal ag ency ch arg ed w it h enforc ing the Fede ra l Cl ean W ater Ac t. T he F lor ida D epar tment of Env ironment P ro tec ti on ( “D EP” ), N ew H ope Su g ar Compan y

and Oke ela nta C or porati on are i nter v enors. The Fl o rid a D epar tment of Env ironmental Protec ti on i s t he Stat e’s desi g nated env ironmental re g ula tor y ag ency
. N ew Hop e S u ga r C o m p a n y a n d O k e e la n t a Co rp o ra t io n , t o ge t h e r wi t h t h e ir a f f il ia t e d co m p a n ie s, own and farm a ppro x ima tely 190 ,00 0 acres w ithin th e Everg lade s Agr icultural Area (“ EAA ”) Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 4 of 1012

The Cl ean W ater

Ac t ( CW A) w as enact ed in 1 9 7 2 to “rest ore and maint ain the chemi cal , phy si cal and bio log ic al int eg ri ty of the N ati on’ s w aters.” As defined i n the federal re g ula ti ons w hic h i mplementthe CW A, “ w ater q ual ity st andards are prov is ion s o f State or Fede ra l law

w hic h c onsi st of a desi g nated use or uses for the w aters o f the U nit ed St ates and wa t e r qu a li ty criteria for such w ate rs based upo n such uses.” 40 C.F.R. § 13 1.3 (I). Pursuantto the s ame reg ula ti on, “ cr it er ia” are def ine d as el ements of a s tate’ s w ater q ual ity sta ndards w hic h representthe q ual ity of wa te r that suppo rta de si g nated use of a w ater body , and thes e c ri ter ia mayi ncl ude nar ra ti v e s tatement s a nd numer icco ncent ra ti ons or lev els

. Id. 5 w hic h borders t he Ever gla d es Protec ti on Area. DE 19 a t 1. The E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area ( as defined in the 1994 E FA) co v ers a pprox imat ely 3,50 0 s q uare mi les and cons is ts of Ev erglades Nation al Pa r k ( “ Pa r k ” ) , th e Lo x ahatche e Nation al W ildlife Ref uge (“R ef uge”), and W ater Con ser

v ati on Areas (W CA s) 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B. EPA Sept. 19 99 Det er minat ion at 3, 10 [EF A- AR -8 ]. The Refug e is als o re ferred to as W ater C onser v ati on Area 1 or

W CA -1

. B. T he Cas e Th i s c a s e i s n o w

b e fo re m e o n t h e Th i rd Am e n d e d C o mp l a i n t[D E 1 4 7 ] b y P l a i n t i ff Mi cc osuk ee Tr ibe and the tw o Sec ond Amend ed Compl ain ts [D E 113, DE 150] by F ri ends of t he E v erg l ad es
. Th e M i c c os uk ee Tr i be ’ s Th i rd Am en de d C om pl ai nt rai s es t hree c l ai ms under the F ederal Admin is trati v e Procedu re s A ct, 5 U .S.C . § 701, et. seq. ( “A PA” ), w it h
re g ard to the E PA’ s d eter minat ion s o n the Amendment s t o the E FA and on the Phos phor us Rul e. In Fr ien ds’ Second A mended C omplai nt w it h respect t o the Amended EFA [D E 113] , i t br ing s c lai ms und er the APA, 5 U. S.C

. §§ 702 and 706( 1) , (2 )( A) , (C ), and (D ); and the D ecl arator y Judg ment Act, 28 U. S.C . § 2201. In Fr ien ds’ Second A mended Com plaintw ith respe ct to the Ph o s p h o ru s Rule [DE 150 ], it brings cl aim s against Defendant s u nder

the CW A, 33 U. S.C

. §§ 1301( a) and (e ), 1311( a) , 1313( c) , 1342( a) ; the 2 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 5 of 101W hen a sta te s ubmit s i ts w ater qua lityst andards to t he EP A for re v iew , t he sta ndards must inc lud e: (1 ) the desi g nated uses for each body of w ater ; ( 2) w hat met hods w e re u s e d a n d a n a l y s e s c o n d u c t e d t o s u p p o rtt h e re v i s i o n s t o s t a t e w a t e r q u a li ty stan dard s; (3) w ate r q uality cr it eria, w hich con stitute s specif ic li mits on polluta nts w hich protec t t he des ig nated uses for e ach w a te r body and w hic h may

be e x press ed as ei ther a na rrativ e stan dard or a num eric conce ntrat ion l evel; and (4) an ant i-degradatio n po licy to protec t ex is ti ng us es of bodies of w ater and hig h- q ual ity

w ater

. Id. ; 40 C. F. R. § 13 1.3; 40 C .F .R . § 131.6; 40 C .F .R . § 131.12.

6 Endang ered Speci e s Act( ESA) , 16 U. S.C . § 1440; the A PA, 5 U .S.C . § 706; and t he Dec larator

y Ju dg ment Act, 28 U .S.C . § 2201. C. Summary

of Pending Motions: Ora l A rgument T his Order add re s s e s t h e p a rt ie s ’ c ro s s -m o t io n s fo r s u m m a ry j u d gm e n to n P la in t if f s’ cl aims regardin g the Amended E v erg lad es Forev er Ac t and the Phos phor us Rul e. W it h
re spect t o the Amended EFA , t he moti ons for summar y jud g ment are: ( 1) the Mi cc osuk ee Tri be’ s Mo ti o n for S ummary Ju dg ment on Cou nt I of it s Thi rd Amended Compl ain t and Fr ien ds of the Ev erg lad es’ M oti on for Par ti al Summary

Ju dg ment on it s S econd Amended Compl ain t [ DE 226] ; ( 2) the EPA’ s C ro ss -M oti on for Summary Ju d gm e n t [DE 231]; ( 3) DEP’s Cross-Motion for Sum ma ry Judgme nt [DE 234 ]; and (4) New Hope an d Okee lanta ’s Cross -M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment [ DE 239]

. W it h respect to the Phos phor us Rul e, the motions for s ummary j udg ment are: ( 1) the Miccosukee T ribe’s Motio n f o r S u m m a ry Judgmen t on Cou nts II an d III of its Third Amended C omplai nt an d Fri ends of the E v erg lad es’ M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment on it s Seco nd Ame n d e d C o mp lai nt [ DE 255] ; ( 2) the EPA’ s C ro ss -M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment [D E 274] ; ( 3) D EP’ s C ro ss -M otion for S ummary Ju dg ment [ DE 281] ; and ( 4) N ew H ope Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 6 of 1013

Plaint if fs f iled a Motion to Com plete and Supp lem entthe Ad min istrativ e Record [DE 196], a Mo ti o n to Suppl ement t he Admi nis trati v e R ecord [D E 253] , and a M oti on to Compl ete the Admini strati v e Record [DE 270]. I prev iou sl y g ra nted thes e moti ons in par t, to al low the par ti es to refer t o the se document s i n the ir br iefs w hil e reser

v ing to ru le on th e me rits of these three Motio ns.

4 T he EP A has f iled “Objectio ns to Evidence Presen ted byPlaintif fs at Sum ma ry Judg ment Hea ri ng s” [D E 322]. By w ay of ba ck g ro und, both par ti es, at the req uestof the Court, had filed power point prese nta tions to purpo rtedly summ ariz e the keypoint s in their num erou s briefs. Th e Plaint if fs, th e EPAand the In tervenors have exceeded the Cou rt’s re qu e s t b y in c o rp o ra t in g m a t t e rs b e yo n d t h e s c o p e o f t h e re c o rd a s p a rt o f t h e ir re s p e c t ive power point prese nta tions. In its object ions, th e EPAd oes noto bject to the use of Plaintif fs’ ma terials as de mo nstrat iv e exhibits, butdoe s obje ct to an y use of the m ate rials as a basis for the Cou rt’s de cision on the m erits. DE 322 , p. 2. I concu r wi th EP A. W hile I accep t all 7 and O keel anta’ s C ro ss -M oti on for Summary Ju dg ment [ DE 278]

. I hea rd oral arg ument on al l of the motion s for su mmary

j udg ment on Apr il 21, 2008, Apr il 22, 2008, and M ay 21, 2008. III . T HE A DM IN IST RA

TI VE R EC OR D UN DE R RE VIEW T he p arties ha v e argued a t length ab outw hatco nstitu tes th e ad min istrativ e record subje ct to the Court’s rev iew und er the APA on the challenges t o b o t h t h e EFA Am end me nts an d to th e Pho spho rus Rule. T he Pla intif fs ha ve s o u gh t to significa ntly suppl ement the record. I condi ti onal ly allo w ed the record to be s uppl emented, su bje ct to 3
re s o lvi n g t h e is s u e b y t h is O rd e r. I n o w d e n y t h e P la in t if fs ’ m o t io n s t o su p p le m e n twit h two ex cept ion s. I conc lud e tha t I ca n resol v e eac h c hal len g e on the record s ubmitted b y the EPA and t he D EP w it hout res orti ng to the P lai nti ffs’ su ppl emental mater ial

. Ins tead, I focus on th e plain w ording o f

t he EFA Am end me nts and t he Rule, an d on the histo ry of the case
as present ed by

the par ti es. This hi sto ry

incl udes the EPA’ s p astD eter minat ion s rela ti ng t o t h e 1 9 9 4 E F Aa s we ll a s t h e l it ig a t io n h is t o ry. My conc lus ion s on eac h of the is sues 4 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 7 of 101of the present ati ons, and suppo rt ing ex hib itbook s, for “demons trati v e purpos es, ” I do not

rely on the extraneo us informa tion co nta ined in the p ower poin t presen tatio ns an d exhibit boo ks in reaching my find ings and con clusions.

5 As state d at th e en d o f t h is O rd e r, the pa rties are instructe d to f ile electron ic v ers i o n s o f t h e f u l l M a r c h 2 0 0 3 a n d O c t o b e r 2 0 0 3 L o n g - T e r m P l a n s
. I n re s p o n s e t o my order [D E 311], the parti es deli v ered c opi es of both full Long -Ter m Pl ans to t he C our t, but the p arti es did not file thes e doc uments as par t of the dock et i n thi s c ase. 8 per ti nent to t he Pl ain ti ffs’ se parate chal len g es to t he Amendment s a nd th e R ule are bas ed sol ely on t he admi nis trati v e record c or re spond ing to each separate c hal len g e. I now address the tw o ex cept ion s. Fi rs t, at the hear ing hel d on F ebr uar y 29, 2008 and i n a s ubseq uent order [D E 311], I i nst ru cte d the par ti es to s ubmitthe full Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area Tr ibu tar y Bas ins Con cept ual Pl an for Achi ev ing Long -Ter m W ater Qaul ity Go a ls F in a l Re p o rt(“L o n g-T e rm Pla n ”), da te d Mar ch 20 0 3 , a s well a s t h e revis e d Lo n gTerm Pl an, d ated Oct ober 2003. Al thoug h the Mar ch 2003 Lo ng -Ter m Pl an w as adopted and i ncl uded by re f erence in the A mended EF A, t he EP A’ s a dmini strati v e record for the Phos phor us Rul e onl y cont ain ed ex ecut iv e summar ies of t he M ar ch 2003 an d the Oc tober 200 3 Lo ng-Term Plans, [P R-AR-32, 3-27 -200 3, do c. 6; PR-AR-29.2 8], a nd th e EPA ’s
a d m in is t ra t ive re c o rd fo r t h e A m e n d e d E F Ac o n t a in e d n e it h e r f u ll ve rs io n s n o r e xe c u t ive
summar ies of eit her

Long Term Plan. At the Febr uar y 29, 2008 heari ng , no par ty obj ect ed to i ncl udi ng the full Lo n g-T e rm P lan s for M ar ch 2003 an d October 2003 as par

t of the admini strati v e records in thi s c ase. See T ra ns. Feb. 29, 2008 at 6- 9. As suc h, I co nsi der the ful l Ma rc h 2003 and O cto ber 2003 Long -Ter m Pl ans as par t of my anal y si s o n the par ti es’ cross -mot ion s for

su mmary

j udg ment. 5 Seco nd, i n Pl ain ti ffs’ M oti on to C omplet e the Admi nis trati v e R ecord [D E 270] , t hey Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 8 of 1016

EPA als o arg ues, w it hout suppo rt ing author ity or document ati on, that alt houg h the EPA col lected the sample s used for the R EM AP repor t i n 2005, EPA

proces sed the data from thos e s amples i n 2006 and s tati sti cal ly anal yz ed th e dat a i n 2007. 9 re q uest ed th at I co nsi der an EPA document dated Aug ust 2007 an d ent it led Ever gla des EcosystemAssessm ent : W ate r Ma nag em ent

and Quality, Eu troph ication , Mercury Con tam ina ti

on, S oil s and Habitat – Monitor ing for Adapt iv e M anagem ent: A R -E

MA P Status Rep or

t (“REMAP Repo rt”). Althou gh the REMAP Rep ort w as release d to th e pu blic af ter EPA ’s M a y 2 006 dete rmina tions o n the Phosp horu s Rule, the REMAP Report is base d on data g ath ered in 2 005

. Plaintif fs argue thatI should conside r the REMAP Repo rt on th e moti ons for s ummary j udg ment bec ause the u nder ly ing data w as av ail abl e t o the EPA w hen t he ag ency co nduct ed i ts r ev iew

of the P hosph or us Rul e for it s M ay 2006 det ermin ation s. Th e EPAand the DEP arg ue th at I sho uld no t consid er the REMAP report becau se itw as dis tr ibu ted a fter t he EP A’ s M ay 2006 deter minat ion s, and therefore E PA coul d nothav e reli ed on the fin al document

. 6 T h e APA dictates that “t he cour t shal l re v iew the w hol e re cord” w hen re viewin g a challen ge to an ad min istrativ e agency action, 5 U.S.C. § 706 , and the Ele v ent h Circuit instructs th at the “focal po int for judicial rev iew of an ad min istrativ e agency’s action sho uld be the admin istrativ e record.” Pre s
. E n da n g e re d

A re a s o f C o b b ’ s Hi s to ry , In c
. (“ PE A CH ”)
v. U

. S

. A rmy Corps of Eng ’ rs , 8 7 F.3 d 12 4 2 , 1 2 4 6 (11 th Cir. 19 9 6 ) (ci ti n g Cam p v . Pitts , 411 U.S

. 138 , 142 (19 73)). A court, ho w ever, may g o be y ond the ad min istrativ e record in
cer tai n ci rc umstan ces , suc h as w here it appears that the ag ency re li ed on mater ial s n ot inc lud ed i n the admi nis trati v e record or w here the re i s a st ro ng sh ow in g of i mprop er b e h a viorby

the ag ency
. Id. at 1246- 1247, n.1. In addi ti on, t he El ev enth Ci rc uithas Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 9 of 10110

re c o g n i z e d t h a t a c o u rt ma y c o n s i d e r e xt ra - re c o rd ma t e r i a l s t h a t a re n e c e s s a r y to deter mine w hether

the ag ency

co nsi dered al l re lev ant fact ors. Sier ra Club , Inc. v. Leav

itt , 488 F .3d 9 04, 9 14 n.16 (1 1th Ci r. 2007) (“ On re mand, Si er ra Cl ub i s free to req uestthat the d is tr ict c our

t s uppl ement t he admi nis trati v e re cord w it h thes e document s or co nsi der them as extra- re cord mater ial nec ess ar y to deter mine w hether EPA cons ide re d al l re lev ant factors i n maki ng i ts deci si on. Se e, e .g ., Inland Em pir e Pub. Lands

C ounci l v. United Sta tes Forest

Serv. , 88 F. 3d 754, 760 n .5 ( 9 th C ir. 1996) ( ru li ng thata c our t rev iew ing agency action m ay look be y ond the ad min is t ra t iv e record to dete rmine if th e agency ex amined al l re lev ant fact ors) ; Un ite d S ta te s v. A k zoCo a t in g o f A m. , 949 F .2d 1 409, 1428 (6 th C ir . 199 1) ( same) .” ); see als o Ak zo C oati ngs , 949 F .2d a t 1427-1 428 ( “I t w il l often be impos si ble , es peci all y

w hen hi g hly

t e ch n ica l matters a re i nv olv ed, for the cour

t t o det ermi n e wh eth er the a gency too k into con siderat ion all relevant facto rs unless it looks out side th e record to dete rmine w hatmat ters the agency shou ld have consid ered but did not .”); Sierra Club v. United State s Army Corps of Eng ’ rs , 935 F.S upp
. 155 6, 15 66 (S.D. Al a. 19 96) (a ll ow ing Pl ain ti ff to submi t tw o post -d eci si on letters submi tted to the C or ps by EPA and t h e F i s h a n d W i l d l i fe S e r v i c e a n d n o t i n g t h a t e xt ra - re c o rd i n fo r ma t i o n ma ybe
cons ide re d by

a c our t w here the ag ency

i s a ll eg ed to hav e “ sw ept s tubbor n probl ems or serious criticism un der the rug” or w hen “such informa tion ta kes the form o f newl y dis cov ered ev ide nce w hic h under mines the sound ness of the a g ency ’s dec is ion ”) ( ci ti ng Akz o C oati ngs , 949 F .2d a t 142 9)

. Here, t he dat a and anal y si s i n the R EM AP R epor t i s u ndeni a b ly re lev ant t o the Phos phor us Rul e i n tha t t he R epor t i ncl udes infor mati on on ch a ng es in phosp hor us Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 10 of 10111

conc entrati ons in the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area. Bec ause EPA had t he dat a for the RE MAP re p ort i n i ts poss ess ion before itmade i ts Ma y 2006 deter minat ion s o n the Phos phor us Rul e and becau se the E PA i tse lf co nduct ed th e under ly ing st udi e s i n 2005, I w il l cons ide r the R EM AP repo rt as extra- re cord mater ial nec ess ar y for t his C our

t t o deter mine w hether the EPA cons ide re d all the re lev ant factors w hen i t made it s M ay 2006 deter mina ti o n s. See Le avi tt , 488 F .3d a t 914 n.16

. Therefore, I co nsi der the RE MA P Rep ort for thi s l imi ted p ur pose in myreview o f the M oti ons for Summar y Ju dg ment, and I g ra nt P lai nti ffs’ M oti on to C omplet e the Admi nis trati v e R ecord [D E 270]

. IV. STATEMENT OF TH E FACTS Non e of the par

ti es dis pute that thi s cas e is appropr iat e for s ummary j udg ment as to bo th th e EFA Am end me nts [Pla intif fs (DE 226, p. 1), EPA(DE 231, p. 1; DE 232 , p. 2), DE P ( DE 234, p. 11, DE 235 p. 2), New Hope and Okeel anta (D E 237, pp. 2- 3) ], and t he Phos phor us Rul e [P lain ti f fs (D E 255, p.1) , EP A ( DE 274, p. 1, 27 6, p. 2) , D EP ( DE 281, p. 12, DE 282, p. 3), New Hope and Okeel anta (D E 278, p. 5 ) ]. N or i s t here any

di sput e as to th e ma terial facts. Beca use o f

the len gth o f

t his Order, and t he desire nott o be und uly repet itiv e, I elect t o re fe r t o t h e u n d is p u t e d m a t e ri a l fa c t s gl e a n e d f ro m m y re vie w o f e a c h a d m in is t ra t ive
re cord i n the respecti v e s ect ion of the O rd er per ti nent to the EFA Amendments and to t he Phos phor us Rul e. No useful pur pose w oul d be ser v ed to re sta te thos e fa ct s h ere. Moreover, th e lengthy litigation history alrea dy ha s b een f ully summ ariz ed in Chief

Distri ct Judg e D av is ’ opi nio n i n Micc osuk ee Tr ibe Of Indi

ans v. United S tates, 1998 W L 18055 39 (S.D .F la

. Sept. 14, 1998) and myow n ear li er order i n Miccosukee Tri

be o f Ind

ians v. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 11 of 10112

United S tates, 200 6 W L 648 055 (S.D.Fla. F eb. 16, 20 06). I inc or porate t hese re ci tati ons b y re fe re n c e a n d co n c lu d e t h a te a c h re c it a t io n is co n s is t e n twit h t h e p a rt ie s ’ o wn sta tements of the cas e as inc lud ed in thei r br iefs. As neces sar y , I hav e ex panded on th e re ci tati on of the li ti g ati on hi sto ry i n the body

of thi s O rd er
. V. S TA ND A RD OF R EVIE W U ND ERT HE A PA The sc ope of rev iew is set forth in 5 U. S.C

. § 706. Und er thi s sec ti on, the “...
re v iew ing co urt s hal l deci de al l re lev ant q uest io ns of law , i nter pret c onst it uti onal and statu tory provisi ons, and dete rmine the m ean ing or app licability of the te rms of

an agency action .” Id. To th e extent ne cessary, the cou rt may hold un lawf ul a n d s et asid e agency act ion , findi ng s a nd c oncl usi ons of law found to be ar bit ra ry , c apr ic iou s, and abu se of discretion , or othe rw ise notin accorda nce wi th law. 5 U.S.C. § 70 6 (2)(A). As the Eleventh Circuit has recently poin ted out , “‘[t]his stan dard is e xc eed ingly def eren tial.’” Sier

ra Clubv. Van Antwer

p, 526 F .3d 1 353, 1360 ( 11th Ci r. 2008) (q uoti ng Fund for Ani

m als, Inc. v. Ric e, 85 F.3d 535, 541 (11th Ci r. 1996)) . The Elev enth Ci rc uithas made c lea r that “[ t]he cour t’ s role i s t o ens ure that th e a gen cy came to a rati onal
conc lus ion , ‘ not t o c onduc t i ts ow n i nv est ig ation a n d s ubst it ute i ts ow n j udg ment for the adm inistrative agen cy ’s decision. ’” Van Antwerp , 5 2 6 F.3 d at36 0 (quo ti n g PEA CH , 87 F. 3d at 12 46). The fine li ne betw een “d eferenti al re v iew ” and “a rb it ra ry and c apr ic iou s” ac ti on, o r action “not in accord ance with law,” is e stab lished b y the case law . An agency’s action is
ar bit ra ry and capr ic iou s “ if the ag ency reli ed on improper

factors,” “ faile d to cons ide r impor tant re lev ant fact ors,” “ offered an ex pla nati on for it s d eci si on w hic h r uns count er to Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 12 of 10113

the e v ide nce before t he ag ency ,” “c ommitt ed a cl ear error of j udg ment t hat l ack s a rati onal
conn ection b etween th e facts foun d an d the choice m ade ,” U. S. Steel C or p. v . As tr ue , 495 F. 3d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r
. 2 0 0 7 ) , o r i f t h e a c t i o n i s s o i mp l a u s i b l e t h a t i t c a n n o tbe
asc ri bed t o a d ifferent v iew poi nt or ag ency ex per ti se. Leav

itt , 488 F .3d a t 911

. Courts giv e du e de feren ce to an agency’ s interpret ation of a statu te th at it is
re spons ibl e for admini ste ri ng i f “( 1) C ong re ss has del eg ated int er preti ve author ity to the ag ency , ( 2) the sta tute is si len t or ambig uous w it h respect t o the i ss ue athand, and (3 ) the agency’s interp retat ion of the sta tute is reaso nab le.” Leavitt , 488 F .3d a t 911 -9 12 ( ci ti ng Chevron , U.S.A. , Inc. v. Natu ral Res. Def. Coun cil, Inc. , 467 U .S. 837, 843 ( 1984) ). How ev er , und er the law of thi s C ircui t, and i mport ant t o the anal y si s i n thi s c ase, “[w]he re the sta tute directly add resses an issue, w e giv e the language of the sta tute ef

fect and accord no deferen ce to th e agency’s i nte rpretat io n
. ” Leavitt , 488 F .3d a t 912 n.12 (ci ti n g Che vr

on , 467 U.S. at 842- 43)

. Si mil ar ly , if an ag ency ’s i nter pretati on c onfli cts w it h the “ pla in meanin g ” of the stat ute, the int er pretati on i s n ot en ti tl ed to Che vr on deferen ce. Fr ied m an v . M ar ket Str eet M or tg. Cor p. , 5 2 0 F .3 d 1289, 1297 (1 1th C ir . 200 8) ( ci ti ng Hei m m er m ann v . F ir st Uni on Mor tg. Cor p. , 305 F.3 d 1 2 5 7 , 126 1 (11th Cir . 200 2) (“N o deferenc e i s t o be g iv en to an a g ency inter pretati on that i s a t odd s w it h the pl ain meani ng of the s tatut e bei ng i nter preted. ”) ); Leavitt , 488 F.3d at914 (w here EPA ap proved Florida’s li st of impai re d w aters, “t he EPA’ s data- cut off deci si on cont ra dicts the CW A’ s sta tutor y and
re g ula tor y l ang uag e s uch that itis n ot en ti tl ed to deferen ce, see Che vr on , 467 U .S. at 84 2- 43" ); Fr ien ds of the Ear

th v. EPA , 446 F.3d 14 0, 14 5 (D.C. Ci r. 2006 ) ( rev iew ing EPA’s int er pretati on of the CW A’ s re q uirement of “ total max imum dai ly loa ds” for pol lut ants under Che vr on and hol din g thatEPA ’s approv als of seas onal or annual loa ds for some p oll utant s Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 13 of 10114

mu st be vacated , not ing that “EPA m ay notav oid th e Cong re s s io n a l int entclearly
ex press ed i n the text s impl y by as ser ti ng t h a t it s p re ferred approach w oul d be bette r pol icy .” ) (c it ati ons omit ted) Agency i nte rpretat ions in guidan ce lette rs, opinion le tt er s , po l i cy s ta te me nts, agency
m a n u als , or

enforc ement g uid eli nes are notenti tl ed to Che vr on deferen ce. Leavitt , 488 F.3d at 915 (“Beca use the re is no indicat ion th at th e EPA ’s g uida nce let ter w as the produ ct of a formal ag ency

adj udi cat ion , not ic e- and- comment rule m a ki ng , or any othe r ci rc umstan ces reason abl y su g g est ing thatC ong re ss ev er thou g ht of g uid ance letters a s deser v ing deferen ce, the EPA’ s g uid ance letter i s n ot en ti tl ed to Che vr on deferen ce.”) (in te rn a l quo ta ti o n s o m it te d ) (ci ti n g U nite d St ates v . Mea d C orp , 533 U .S. 218, 230- 31 (2 001) ); Chr

is tens en v

. Har ri s C ounty, 529 U .S. 576, 587 ( 2000)

. Inter pretati ons of a st atute byan ag ency that is not charg ed w it h admi nis ter ing that par ti cul ar statut e or rul e are notenti tl ed to deferen ce. Coghla n v. Nat ’ l Tr ansp. Saf

ety Bd. , 470 F.3 d 130 0, 13 04 (11 th Cir. 2006 ) ( “Furtherm ore, th ere is no sho w ing that Congress del eg ated author ity to the FAA or NTSB to impl ement 2463, w hic h i s a g eneral sta tute of li mita ti ons. Acco rd ing ly , those enti ti es’ constr uct ion and appl ic ati on of 2462 is not enti tl ed t o [ C h e v ro n ] d e ferenc e.” ); Adam s F ru it C o., Inc . v

. Ba rr ett , 494 U .S. 638, 649 ( 1990) (holdin g tha t court w ould not de fer to Secre t a ry o f L a b or’s interpreta tion o f statu te’s prov is ion es tab lis hin g pr iv ate r ig ht of ac ti on w here C ong re ss ex press ly es tabl is hed t he jud ic iar y , notthe Dep artment of Labor , as the adjudi cat or of pr iv ate r ig hts of act ion under sta tute)

. In ad dit ion , “ [a]n ag ency i nter pretati on of a rele v ant p ro v is ion wh ic h c onfli cts w it h the a g ency ’s ear li er

i nter pretati on i s ‘ enti tl ed to co nsi derabl y le ss d e f erence’ than a Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 14 of 10115

consiste ntly held agency v iew .” Am . Wildla nds v. Br owner , 94 F.S upp . 2d 11 50, 116 3 (D. Co lo . 2 0 0 0 ) (qu o ti n g Goo d Samaritan Hosp. v. Sha lala , 508 U .S. 402, 417 ( 1993) ( sta ti ng that w hil e an admini strati v e ag ency i s n ot di sq ual ified from c hang ing i ts posi ti on, t he “consiste ncy of

an agency’s position is a facto r in assessing the w eight tha t positio n is due” )) ; United

State s v. Baxte r Int’

l, Inc. , 345 F .3d 86 6 , 887 ( 11th Ci r. 2003) ( “The
cons is tency

of an ag ency ’s i nter pretati on ov er ti me i s a factor

i n det er mini ng the lev el of deferenc e due. ”) ; Fl

a. M anufac tur

ed Housi ng As s’ n, Inc. v. Cis ner

os , 53 F. 3d 1565, 1574 ( 11 th C i r
. 19 95 ) ( “ In a dd i ti on , al th ou g h an a g en c y ’ s i nt er pret at i on ma y rec ei v e s om e deferenc e ev en i f it has chang ed ov er ti me, th e c onsi ste ncyo f i ts i n ter pretati on i s a n imp ortan t facto r in determ ining the am oun t of deferen ce owed.”) Ev en i f an ag ency

i nter pretati on i s n o t ent it led to Che vr on deferen ce, it is still ent itled to “respe ct propo rtiona l to its pow er to pe rsuad e.” Leavitt , 488 F .3d a t 915 ( q uoti ng Mead Corp , 533 U .S. at 23 4- 35) ; see Gonz ale s v . O re gon , 546 U .S. 243, 256, 268 ( 2006) (s tati ng that if ag ency int er pretati on does not w ar ra nt Che vr on deferen ce, i t i s “ ‘en ti tl ed to respe ct’ only to th e e xt e n ti t has th e ‘power to persua de’, b ased on the ‘thorou ghness
ev ide nt i n i ts cons ide ra ti on, t he v ali dity of it s reason ing , i ts cons is te ncy w it h ear li er

and lat er pronounc ements , and all thos e factors w hic h g iv e it pow er to persuade , if la ck ing p o wer to co n tr o l’”) (quo ti n g Ski dm or e v . Swi ft & C o. , 323 U .S. 134, 140 ( 1944) ). I now appl y

thes e s tandards to t he EP A’ s D eter minat ion s o n the EF A Amendment s and the Ph osph orus Rule. For reaso ns tha t I w ill discu s s , I do no t f ind th at th e EPA ’s Det er minat ion s i nter pre ti ng the “p lai n l ang uag e” of the E FA Amendments or the Phos phor us Rul e are ent it led to Che vr on deferenc e. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 15 of 1017

W hil e there is some g ra mmatic al debate , I electto re fer to the “E v erg lad es” in the si ng ula r. See, e.g. , Guy M arti n, See y

ou Later , Al li gator , N .Y . Ti mes, Apr . 9, 2006.
8 40 C .F .R . § 131.12( 3) prov ide s “ W here hi g h q u a li ty w aters c onst it ute a n out sta ndi ng Nat ion al re source, su ch a s w aters o f Nati onal and Stat e par ks and w il dli fe refug es and w aters o f ex cept ion al re creati onal or ec olo g ic al si g nific ance, thatw ater q ual ity sh all be ma intain ed a nd p rotect ed. ” 16 VI. BACK GR OU ND A ND A NA LY SIS OF THE EPA DETERMINA

TIONS A

. The Ev ergla des Is Unique Few w oul d di sag re e tha t t he Ev erg lad es i s u niq ue. It is unl ik e any othe r ecos y ste m 7
on ear th. It is a na ti onal treasure and re q uires our utmos t protec ti on. The Co ng re ss of the Uni ted Stat es has sai d thi s. So has the Fl or ida Leg is lat ure. Con g re ss has dec lared th at the Ev erglades is an “ Am erican treasure” w hich i nclud es uniquely i mp ortan t and div erse
w il dli fe res ources and re creati onal oppor tuni ti es. W ater

R esources D e v elo pment A ct of 2000, Publ icLaw

106- 541, § 602 (D ec. 11, 2000)

. Con g re ss has found thatthe preser v ati on of t he pr is ti ne and natural charact er of the S outh Fl or ida ec osy ste m is cr it ic al to t he reg ion al econo my
. Id

. Base d on thes e findi ng s by Con g re ss , al ong w it h the formal desi g nati ons of Ev erg lad es Nat ion al Par k and Lox ahatc hee Nati onal W il dli fe Refug e, t he enti re Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area fits the d efini ti on of “ w aters o f ex cept ion al re creati onal and ecological sig nif icance ,” as set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 131. 12(3 ). 8 Lik e the U nit ed St ates C o n gre ss , t he F lor ida Leg is lat ure has ac know led g ed th e
w atershed’ s o ne- of-a- ki nd nature in the o peni ng parag ra ph of the 1994 E FA. Itprocl aimed that the E v erg lad es is i rrepl aceab le and s tated : “ The sy ste m is uni q ue i n the w or ld and one of Fl or ida ’s g re ates t t re asures. ” Fl a. Stat

. § 373.459 2( 1) (a ). Indeed, the Stat e of Fl or ida h a s d e s i g n a t e d t h e E v e rg l a d e s N a t i o n a l P a r ka n d t h e L o x a h a t c h e e N a t i o n a l W i l d l i fe Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 16 of 1019

The Lox ahatc hee N ati onal W il dli fe Refug e i s als o c all ed W ater C onser v ati on Area 1 or W CA 1. 17 Refug e as “ Outs tandi ng F lor ida W aters” under Sect ion s 62- 302.700 (9 (a )( 3) , 9( b) (1 7) of

9 the F lorid a A d m ini strati v e C ode, thereby prov idi ng thes e w aters t he hi g hestst andard of protec ti on. M oreov er , und er F lor ida l a w, t h e Ev erg lad es Nat ion al Par k i s a ls o an Outst and ing N ation al Resou rces W ate r. F.A.C. § 62-30 2.7 00(1 0). But , t he Par k a nd R efuge do not stand alone. The las t remnant s of the h is tor ic al Ev erg lad es inc lud e W ater C onser v ati o n A re as 2 and 3. W ater C onser v ati on Area 3 prima rily enco mp asses th e tribal land s of the Miccosuke e T ri b e
. Of impo rtance to this
ca se , t h e Mic co su ke e ’s trib a l la n d s are lo ca te d im m e d ia te ly so u th o f po in ts of

di sc h a rge into th e Everg lade s Prote c tion Are a throu gh South Florida W ate r M ana geme nt District str uctu re s. The w ater flow i s i n a s outher ly

di re cti on i nto t he tr iba l lan ds. W ater Con ser v ati on Areas 2 and 3 are a ll interconne cte d w it h the R efuge and t he Par k, and, col lecti v ely , are defined bythe Fl or ida Leg is lat ure to be th e “ Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area.” [See Appendi x

A t o thi s O rd er

for a n ov er

v iew of the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area]. B. The Ev ergla des is Endangere d by Exce ssi v e Lev els of Phosphorus

. T he Evergl ade s is an olig otrop hic sy stem , me anin g it is naturally low in nutrien ts. In t he c ase of an eco log ic all y heal thyEv erg lad es, the sy ste m is poor i n the nutr ien t phosp hor us. There i s a ls o a dis propor ti onatel y low lev el of phosp hor us in re lat ion to the presenc e of other

nutr ien ts (n it ro g en and potas si um) so that the s y ste m is des cr ibe d as not o nly ol ig otrophi c b ut “ phosp hor us li mite d,” as w ell

. Thus, the nutr ien t- lea n (oli g otrophi c) co ndi ti on of the aq uati c e cos y ste ms i s o ne hal lmar k c haract er is ti c o f the Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 17 of 10110

In t he 1988 , t he federal gove rn m e nt s ued t he Sou th F lor ida W ater M anag ement Di str ict ( “S FW MD ” or

“ the D istri ct” ) and t he F lor ida D epar tment of Env ironmental Reg ula ti on (n ow know n as the Dep artment of E nv ironmental Protec ti on (DEP )) a lleg ing tha t Florida and the District w ere no t enforcing Fl ori d a ’s w ate r q uality standa rds in Ev erg lad es Nat ion al Par k o r the Refug e. Spec ific all y , t he C omplai nt al leg ed th at a gric u lt u ra l ru n o f

f w a te r en te rin g th e Re f u ge a n d Eve rgla d e s Na ti o n a l Pa rk t h ro u gh structu res ope rated by the District v iolate d Florida’s w ate r q uality standa rds. Se e U nited Sta tes v. S. Fla. W

ate r M gm t. District , 847 F .Supp. 1567, 1569 (S .D. F la. 1992) , aff’ d in part , 28 F. 3d 1563 ( 11th Ci r. 1994)

. The par ti es entered i n to a c o mpreh ensi v e s ettl ement i n 1991. In thi s S ettl ement Ag re ement, the n ar ra ti v e phrases “i mbalan ce in natural popul ati ons of aq uati c flo ra and faun a” and “imba lance of f lora and faun a” w ere de f ined to include nutrien t add itions w hich re sul t i n the repl acementor loss of nativ e peri phyton alg al spec ies , or nati v e s aw g ra ss and w et prairies be in g re place d w ith de nse ca ttails or oth er nutrien t-altered ecosystems. Sett lementAg re ement, at 3 [C ase No. 88- 1 8 8 6 , DE 1 105, Ex .1]. I n thi s S ettl ement Ag re ement, the p arti es ag re ed th at t he ec osy ste ms of the Ev erg lad es Nat ion al Par k a nd the R efuge are c hang ed by ev en s li g ht inc re ases i n the co ncent ra ti on of phos phor us. Id. at 6. The par

ti es als o ag re ed th at t he s ur face w ater

ente ri ng the Refug e c ontai ned nut ri ent lev els w hic h c aused i mbalan ces i n v iol ati on of Fl or ida ’s w ater q ual ity st andards. Id. at 7- 8. Al thoug h the Set tl ement A g re ement s et l imi ts and l ev els of phosp hor us onl y a s to th e Refug e and the Par k, it ex pli ci tl y re cog niz ed that the “mai ntenanc e of stat e w ater q ual ity stan dard s w ithin th e W CAs is cr ucial to th e eco logy of the Pa rk.” Id. at 7. T he interim phosph orus con cent ration limits and lev els for the Ref uge and the Pa rk w ere to be at tai ned by Jul y 1, 1997, and the lon g -t er m phosp hor us conc entrati on l imi ts and lev els for t he R efuge and t he Par k w ere to by a tt a in e d by Ju ly 1, 2002. Id. at 4. The Set tlem entAgre e m e n tf urthe r prov ided thatinf low s to the Ref uge had to result in compl ian ce w it h the l ong -t er m compl ian ce lev els or F lor ida ’s C las s I II w ater q ual ity cr it er ia, w hic hev er

w as low er , by

Ju ly 1, 2002. Id. at 1 1 . Unde r the S ettl ement A g re ement, the “State Parties sha ll take such a ction a s is necessary so that w ate rs deliv ered to the Park and the Ref uge achie v e stat e w ate r quality stan dard s, includin g Class III stan dard s, by July 1, 20 02. ” Id. at 9. The par ti es als o agreed to take acti on if sta ndards w ere not being met: under the Sett lementAg re ement, the Fl o rid a D epar tment of Env ironmental R eg ula ti on ( now D EP) ag re ed to enforc e more str ing ent i nflow di sc harg e l imi ts if, by

Ju ly 1, 2002, the R efuge w as n o t in co m p lia n ce w it h th e lo wer o f th e Cla ss II I n u tr ie n t wat e r qua lit y crit e ria or t h e lo n gter m conc entrati on l ev els

. Id. at 11. In ad dit ion , t he F lor ida par ti es ag re ed to i nit iat e a reg ula tor y prog ra m w it h the g oal of reduc ing tot al phosp hor us from the Ev erg lad es Ag ri cul tural Area int o St or m Treat ment Areas, w hic h are l arg e- sc ale w etl and t reatment sy ste ms. Id. at 12, 14, 17 . Under this re g ula tor y prog ra m, per mits w oul d be re q uired for the d ischa rg e of w ater from t he EA

A. Id. Pe rmi t appl ic ati ons w oul d be re q uired to meet lon g -t er m phos phor us li mits and ins ti tute 18 unspo il ed Ev erg lad es. Se ttl ement A g re ement at7 [C ase No. 88- 1886, DE 1105, Ex .1]. 10 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 18 of 101spec ial farming pract ic es, cal led Best Ma nag ement Pract ic es (“ BM Ps” ), desi g ned to meet

int er im a nd l ong -t er m phos phor us li mits

. Id. T he Settl ement A g re ement further prov ide d that compl ian ce w it h the se phosp hor us li mits w oul d be deter mined by measu ri ng flow

and conc entrati on atthe per mit appl ic ant’ s p ro per ty bounda ry
. Id. at 18. T h e District also ag re ed to co nst ru ct o ver 3 5 ,0 00 ac re s o f Stor m Treat ment Areas (“ STAs” ) w it hin the Ev erg lad es Ag ri cul tural Area to reduce phos phor us dis charg es. Id. at 12, 1 4. On J anuar

y , 24, 1992, Seni or

D is trict Judg e W il li am M . H oev ele r all ow ed “ li mite d int er v enti on” to the M ic cos ukee Tri be for the p ur pose of pe rmi tti ng the Mi cc osuk ee Tr ibe to invoke the Court’s contin uing jurisdiction to en force sett lem entagreeme nt to protect rig hts an d int e re s t s o f

M iccosuke e T ribe. Order, Jan . 24, 199 2 [Case No. 88-18 86, DE 1193]. The Sett lementAgreement w as then approv ed byJu dg e H oev ele r and ent ered as a c onsen t dec re e on Febr uar y 24, 1992. United

State s v. S. Fla. W

ate r M gm t. District , 847 F. Supp. 1567 ( S.D . F la. 1992) , af f’ d i n part , 28 F.3d 156 3 (11th Cir . 199 4). In his order, Judg e Hoe v ele r re cog niz ed that the Sett lementAg re ement es tabl is hed bot h i nter im a nd lon g -t er m li mits on p hosph or us conc entrati o n s in E verg lad es Nat ion al Par k a nd th e Refug e. Id. at 1569. In par ti cul ar , J udg e H oev ele r noted that “t he D is tr ict or [t he F lor ida Dep artment of Env ironmental R eg ula ti on, n ow D EP] w il l re gul a te the w ater q ual ity of ag ri cul tural dis charg es throug h a p er mitt ing sc hem e by w hic h per mit appl ic ants w il l be required to com ply wit h t he d esignate d ph osph orus load allocatio ns an d ad optbest manag ement pract ic es aimed at reduci ng the le vels o f phosphor us in ag ri cul tural discha rg e.” Id. at 1570.
19 Undispu ted scientif ic research h as docu me nte d tha t long-term exposu re to excess p h o s p h o ru s a ll o ws f lo ra n o t a d a p t e d t o o li go t ro p h ice n vir o n m e n t s t o o ve rc o m e t h e n a t ive communi ti es ov e r ti me. S impl y put, the Ev erg lad es ecos y ste ms are c hang ed by ev en sl ig ht i ncreases i n nut ri ent c oncentr a ti ons, par ti cul ar ly i ncreases i n the co ncent ra ti on of phosp hor us. Id. a t 7. Ex cess ph osph orus accu mu lates in th e pe at un derlyi ng the w ate r, alt ers t he ac ti v ity

of mic ro org ani sms in the w ater , and d ist u rb s the natural spec ies
co mposi ti on of the alg al mat ( per iph yton) and other pl ant c ommunit ies i n the marsh. Id. at 7. The se distu rbed comm unitie s dep lete th e ma rsh of oxy gen and , ultima tely, result in nati v e s aw g ra ss and w et prair ie communi ti e s b e ing repl aced by dens e c attai l sta nds or other nutr ien t- tol erant ecos y ste ms. T he abil ity of the ecos y ste m to ser

v e as habi tat and Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 19 of 10111

In l ig ht of the 1994 EFA , t he U nit ed St ates , t he D is tr ict, and t he D EP j oin tl y mov ed to modi fy the cons ent decree th at J udg e H oev ele r had i ss ued i n 1992 follo w ing the 1991 Sett lementAgreement i n tha t c ase. See Omni bus Order , Apr il 27, 2001 at2 [ Cas e N o. 88
- 1886, DE 226, Ex .B] ( Hoe v ele r, J.)

. The Mi cc osuk ee Tr ibe w as an i nter v enor i n tha t c ase, and i t mov ed to enforc e th e S ettl ement A g re ement an d C onsen t D ecree and ask ed th e Cou rtto appoi nt a spec ial mast er to ov ersee impl ementati on. In hi s O mnibus Order

i ss ued on Apr il 27, 2001, Judg e Hoe v ele r modified his 1992 cons ent d ecree to reflect the t imet abl e i n the 1994 EFA , not ing thatmany of the d eadl ine s in the 1 992 c o n se n t d e cree h ad al re ady l apsed

. Id. at 2, 27

. In modi fyi ng the cons ent decree, how ev er , Judg e Hoe v ele r noted that “b y endorsi ng thi s extended sch e d u le , the Cou rtfull y

ex pect s t hat t he par

ti es w il l achi ev e compli ance as mandated by the Mo difie d Conse nt Decree and the EFA .” Id. at 24. In t he M odi fied C onsen t Dec re e, the new timetabl es track

thos e of the 1994 E FA. For ex am ple, th e Modif ied Con sentDecree provides tha t “[t]he State Parties sha ll take s u c h a c t io n a s is n e c e s s a ry s o t h a twa t e rs d e li ve re d t o t h e P a rka n d t h e Re f u ge a c h ie ve 20 forag e for the n ati v e w il dli fe is thereby g re atl y di mini shed or

des troy ed. Id. at 7. The effectof ex ces s p hosph or us on th e Ev erg lad es is not in dispute. In the Sett lementAg re ement, the S tate of Fl or ida ac know led g ed th at w ater flow ing from t he Everg lade s Agr icultural Area (“ EAA ”) into th e Ref uge and the P a rk c ont aine d excess nutr ien ts that v iol ated Fl orida’s w ater q ual ity st andards by

ca usi ng i mbalan ces i n the
n a t u ra l a q u a t i c fl o ra a n d fa u n a
. Id. at 7- 8. These v iol ati ons w ere s o s ev ere tha t t hey threa ten ed “the ecolo gical inte gr ity a nd ultim ate ly

t he surv iv al of

the Pa rk and Ref uge.” Id.
a t 7. The w ater

flow ing from t he EA

A w as caus ing “ potent ial ly dev ast ati ng deg ra dati on” of Ev erg lad es w aters, and “ threatens to dev ast ate t he ec osy stem s in the Par k a nd Ref uge.” Id. at 8. The Sett lementAg re ement es tabl is hed a sc hed u le for e nsur ing that EAA ru noff

i nto t he Ev erg lad es met s tate w ater q ual ity st andards by

2002, id. at 9, bu t this date w as lat er chang ed by modific ati ons to the Con sent Dec re e to c oin ci de w it h the date of Dec ember

31, 2006, as est abl is hed by the 1994 E FA. See Omni bus Order , Ap r. 27, 200 1 [Case No. 88-18 86, DE 226, Ex .B] (Hoeveler, J.). 11 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 20 of 101state w ate r q uality standa rds, includin g Class III stan dard s, by Decem ber 31 , 200 6.” Id. ,

Appx . A, 1 (c it ing pag e 9, parag ra ph 5 of t he C onsen t D ecree)

. In ad dit ion , t he M odi fied Conse nt Decree also provides thatp hosp horu s lo ads in discha rg es f rom the EAA w ould be reduce d to the E v erg lad es Prote ct io n A re a b y 80% by Oc tober 1, 2003 an d to the Re f ug e by

85% by F ebr uar y 1, 1999. Id. a t 2 ( c i t i n g p a g e 1 0 , p a ra g ra p h 8

. A in the Co n se n t De cre e ). Th e M o d i f ie d Co n se n t De cre e m a n d a te s t h a t in f lo ws to th e Re f u ge mu s t res ul t i n c om pl i an c e w i th th e l ow er of C l as s II I w at er q ua l i ty c r i te r i a or long term conc entrati on lev els byDecember 31, 2006. Id. at 3 ( ci ti ng pag e 11, parag ra ph 8. C of the Conse nt Decree ). 21 As recog niz ed i n the 1994 EFA , t he “E v erg lad es ecol og ic al sy ste m is endang ered
as a re sul t of ad v erse chang es in w ater q ual ity , and i n the q uanti ty , di str ibu ti on and ti ming of f lows, and, therefore, must be rest ored and protec ted.” F la. Sta t. § 373. 4592( 1) (a ) (1 994)

. The Fl or ida Leg is lat ure s peci fical ly found thatw aters flo w ing i nto t he Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area c ontai n ex ces si v e l ev els of ph ospho ru s, and that a re duct ion i n l ev els of phosp hor us w il l benefit the e col og y of the E v erg lad es P ro te cti on Area. Fl a. S tat. § 373.459 2( 1) (d ) (1 994)

. Acc ordingly, o ne of the 1994 E FA’ s p ri mary obj ect iv es w as to
re duce phosp hor us lev els ente ri ng i nto t he Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area. The 1994 E FA cont a ined many of the s ame req uirements as the Sett lement Ag re ement, but e sta bli shed different ti metabl es. S e e g e nera lly F la. Sta t. § 373. 4592 (1 994) (a nd l ater

di sc uss ion in thi s Order ). Sect ion 4 of the 1994 EFA di re cte d the Sout h Fl or ida W ater

M anag ement D is tr ict ( “D is tr ict” ) to e sta bli sh the E v erg lad es Con str uct ion Program w hich con taine d eightee n sepa rate projects. Fla. Sta t. § 37 3.4 592 (4)(a) ( 199 4). The pr imar

y component of the proj ectw as the cons tr uct ion of six Stormw ater

Trea tment Areas, or

STAs, by

2003. Id. The S TAs are tho usan d s of acres of man-made mars hes designed to f ilter phosp horo us an d oth er nutrien ts outof the EAA’s w ate r r uno f

f before it flow s i nto t he Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 21 of 10112

In 19 68, reg ula ti ons w ere promul g ated in Fl or ida w hic h enumerate d f iv e c las ses of benefic ial us es of sur

face w aters t hat w oul d be protec ted. These c las ses are: (1) C las s I : Potabl e W at e r

S u p p l i e s ; ( 2 ) C l a s s I I : S h e l l fi s h P ro p a g a t i o n o r H a r v e s t i n g ; ( 3 ) C l a s s I I I: Recreat ion, Pro pagatio n an d Mainte nan ce of a He althy, W ell-Balan ced Pop ulatio n of Fish and W il dli fe; (4 ) Cl ass IV: Agr ic ult ural W ater Suppli es; ( 5) C las s V : N av ig ati on, U ti li ty and Indus tr ial U se. F .A.C . § 62- 302.400 (1 ). The s urf a ce w aters i n the W CA s a nd th e freshw ater

porti on of

Ev erg lad es Nat ion al Par k a re C las s I II w aters. Sug ar Cane Growers Cooper ati ve v. Dep ’

t of Env ir onm ental

Pr otec ti on , Ca s e N o
. 03-02 884 RP (Final Order, 22 C

. The 10 ppb Standar d a s t h e Es se n t ia l L im ito n Wa t er Ph o sp h o r o us Co ncen trat io n Di scha rg in g in to t he Ev erg lad es Pr ot ect io n A rea The 1994 E FA codi fied and ex panded the p hosph or us re d uct ion prog ra m of the Sett lementAg re ement by the adopti on of the “E v erg lad es Prog ra m.” F la. Sta t. §3 73 .4 59 2( 2) ( h) ; ( 4) (a); ( 4) ( f) ( 19 94 )

. Th e mo s t c on trov ers i al E F A prov i s i on a t th e ti me
w as it s prog ra m for re duci ng phosp hor us loa ds to the poi nt w here they no l ong er ca used an i mbalan ce in the n atural aq uati c f lora and fauna. Micc osuk ee T ri be , 199 8 W L 18055 39, at *6 (Dav is, J. ). Like the S ettle me nt Agreem ent , the 1 994 EFA esta blished a long-term
re search and moni tor ing prog ra m to dev elo p a numer icco ncent ra ti on l ev el of phosphorous that w oul d notca use an imbal ance in the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area and the E v erg lad es Ag ri cul tural Area ( EAA) . W hil e the 1994 EFA re q uired th e St ate o f Fl or ida and the S outh F l o r i d a W a t e r

M a n a g e me n tD i s t r i c tt o e mp l o y a l l m e a n s p ra c t i c a b l e t o c o mp l e t e by De c e m b e r 3 1 , 1 9 9 8 a ll n e c e s s a ry re s e a rc h t o n u m e ri c a ll y in t e rp re t t h e e xis t in g n a rr a t ive sta ndard, id. at § 37 3.4 592 (4)(e)(1994 ), the 19 94 EFAdid not require the agencies to f inish thei r re search unti l 2001, nor di d i t req uire the St a te t o dev elo p a n umeri c c oncen trati on lev el unti l 2003. But, w hil e al l of this w as g oing on, the 1 994 EF A’ s C las s I II nar ra ti v e nut ri ent
cr it er ion remaine d i n e f f e ct as the sta te w ater q ual ity st andard appl ic abl e to the 12 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 22 of 101June 17, 2 004) [PR -A R- 35], a f f ’d , Micc osuk

ee T ri be of Indi ans v. New Hope Sug ar C o. , 906 So .2d 1 064 ( Table) ( Fl a. 1s t D CA 2005) at 50- 51 ( “A dmini strati v e Order”)

. The EAA and t he C- 139 Basi n also cont ain C las s I II w aters. EPA Sept . 199 9 D eter minat ion at 10 [AR–P H-8] (“The narrative cr iterion also app lies to all Class III w ate rs tin the EAA and C139 Basins except for the Class IV agricultural can als.”) T he foll o win g narrative criterion for nutrien ts in Class III w ate rs appe ars in Subs ect ion 62- 302.530 : (4 8) (a ) Nut ri ents – The dis charg e of nutr ien ts shal l cont inu e to be l imi ted a s nee ded to prevent vi o la t io ns of othe r standa rds conta ined in this Chapt er. Ma n- ind uced nutr ien t enr ic hment (t otal nit ro g en or total phosp hor us) sh all be cons ide re d deg ra dati on in re lat ion to the prov is ion s of Secti ons 62- 302.300 , 62-3 02. 700 , and 62-4.2 42 F.A .C.

13 Al thoug h the 1994 EFA did not d efine t he te rms “ imbal ance” or “ natural popul ati ons of aq uati c flo ra and fauna,” i t did d ire ct that the cr it er ion “ shal l not b e l ow er than the natural condi ti ons of the [Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area],” and that the c ri ter ion “ shal l tak e i nto accou nt spa tial and tem pora l v ariability.” Fla. Sta t. § 37 3.4 592 (4)(e)(2) (199 4). 23 Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area. The 1994 E FA uneq uiv ocal ly prov ide d tha t “ [i ]n n o case shall such pho spho rus crite rion allow w ate rs in the E v erglades Prote ction Area to be alte red so
as to c ause an i mbalan ce in the natural popul ati ons of aq uati c flo ra and fauna.” F la. Sta t. § 3 7 3

. 4 5 9 2(4)(e)2 (199 4) (emp hasis ad ded ). The w ords “In n o case
... .” are c lea r and absol ute. T he w ords, “ In n o case
... .” created a mandat e, w it h pow er and force, thatthe phosp hor us cr it er ion mustnot all ow w aters i n the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area to al ter the natural bal ance o f

f lo ra and fauna. As di sc uss ed bel ow , t he Amende d EF A and the Phos phor us Rul e depar t from thi s mand ate. 13 W it h reg ard to the n eed for a nu meri c c ri ter ion for p hosph or us, the 1994 E FA sta ted th a t “ [t] he phos phor us cr it er ion sh all be 1 0 par ts per bi ll ion ( “p pb” ) in the E v erg lad es Prote ction Are a in the ev entthatthe de partm ent [ DE P ] d o e s not ad optbyrule such
cr it er ion by

D ecember

31, 2003.” F la. Sta t. § 373.459 2( 4) (e )2 (1 994)

. This is referred to Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 23 of 10124

as the “ Def a u lt P ro v is ion ;” thati s, the p hosph or us numer iccr it er ion thatw oul d appl y by def ault in th e event an implem ent ing r ule w as no t time ly ado pte d. T he L egislature
re cog niz ed th at t he D EP’ s p hosph or us cr it er ion , w henev er adopt ed, w oul d s upersede the 10 ppb cr it er ion , butreq uired th at i t “ shal l not be l ow er than the natural condi ti ons of the Everg lade s Protect ion Area .” Id

. Lestthere be any

co nfusion on t he poi nt, the 1 994 EF A’ s mand ate t o adopta num eric interpreta tion o f th e n a rr a tiv e criterion, an d its interim a dop tion o f the de fault prov is ion , i s s et forth un der Sec ti on 373. 4592( 4) (e ) (1 994) , ent it led “ Ev alu ati on of W ater Qua lity Stan dard s.” U nde r subsectio n 3 o f t h a tsection , the 199 4 Florida Le gisl atu re imp osed on the Departm entor the Dis t rict th e ob lig ation to esta blish discha rg e limits in perm its for d ischarges in to the E AA cana ls a nd the Ev erglades Prote ction Are a tha t w ere nece ssaryto prevent an imba lance in the na tural pop ulatio ns of aquatic f lora or faun a in the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area and to prov ide a ne t i mprov ement i n the areas already imp acte d. Fla. Sta t. § 37 3.4 592 (4)(e)(3) (199 4). In 200 4 , t h e E P Aa p p ro v e d t h e d e fa u l tc r i t e r i o n o f 1 0 p p b fo r t h e E v e rg lad es Prote ction Are a. EPAMay 200 4 Dete rmina tion, at 1-2 [PR-AR-12]. T his w as no t the f irst ti me t h a tE P Are c o g n i z e d t h a td i s c h a rg e s i n t o t h e E v e rg l a d e s P ro t e c t i o n A re a w it h ph o spho rus conce ntrat ions in excess of 10 pp b to th e Everg lade s w ould have adverse
conse quence s to the ecosystem, causing imba lance s in natu ral p op ul at ions of aquatic f lora and fauna. In it s A mbientW ater Qual ity C ri ter ia Rec ommendati ons from December 2000 [PR-AR-27], the EP A recom me nde d a nu me ric cr iterion of 10 pp b of

tota l phosp horu s in the w ater

column as a l ong -t er m v alu e for the E v erg lad es. See PR -A R- 27 at7. In it s 1 999 De ter minat ion Approv ing the Tri be’ s W ater Qual ity Sta ndards [PR -A R- 10], the E PA Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 24 of 10125

deter mined “1 0 ppb phosp hor us is a s ci enti fical ly def e n sib le v alu e wh ich is not ove rly pr otec ti ve and wi

ll pr otect th e des ign ated use adopted by the Micc osuk

ee T ri be fo r it s Tribal wa ters .” EP A M ay 1999 Det er minat ion , at 2 (e mphasi s added) . Lik ew is e, i n 2005, the E PA l ater

found “ [s] ci enti fic d emonst ra t i o n s h a v e i n d i c ated that a l ong -t er m phos phor us criterion exceedin g 10 p pb would notbe prot ective of natu ral popu lation s of

aquatic f lora and faun a in the Ev erglades.” EPAJ a n
. 2 005 Determ inatio n, at5 [PR-AR-69]. T hus,
w it hout dis pute, both the EPA and t he F lor ida Leg is lat ure hav e recog niz ed th at i f the w ater flow ing i nto the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area has a phosphor us conc entrati on of 10 ppb, t he phosp hor us in the i nflow s o f w ater w oul d not caus e an imbal ance o f t h e natu ra l popul ati ons of aq uati c flo ra and fauna. D. Ch ief Jud ge Dav is’ Op in io n (o n rem and )( Dav is Op in io n) ; th e 1999 E PA Determina tion, and th e Dece mber 31 , 200 6 Deadli ne W hile the 199 4 EFA app ears at f irst glance to be prot ective, the 19 94 EFAin fa ct fur t h e r c h a n g e d F l o r i d a ’ s w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a rd s b y

p o s t p o n i n g c o mp l i a n c e w i t h t he
n a r ra t i v e a n d n u me r i cs t a n d a rd s fo r p h o s p h o ro u s t h ro u g h 2 0 0 6 b y a d op t i o n o f a compl ian ce sc hedul e for dis charg ers i nto t he Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area and for th e District. Of

sig nif ica n t impo rtance , the 199 4 EFA, while recognizing thata long-term phosp hor us cr it er ion ex ceedi ng 10 ppb w oul d notbe p ro tec ti v e of natural popul ati ons of aq uati c flo ra and fauna in the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area, n onethel ess enac ted a tw elv ey ear co mpli ance sc hedul e for it s i mplement ati on th ro ug h, an d i ncl udi n g, Dec ember 31, 200 6. During that time period , the 199 4 EFA altered w ate r quality stan dard s by ef fectively
sus pendi ng enf or cementof the n ar ra ti v e phos phor us cr it er ion ( and t he l ater adopt ed d e fa u ltcrit e rio n ) un ti l th e e n d o f 2 0 0 6 . Th e se iss u e s w e re in it ia lly ad d re ss e d in Ch ie f Ju d ge Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 25 of 10114

As noted in the Dav is Opi nio n, the 1994 EFA direct s t he D is tr ict, in conj unct ion w it h EAA farmers, to de v elo p and enforc e a reg ula tor y prog ra m know n as Bes t M anag ement Practices, o r BMPs. Fla. Sta t. § 373 .45 92(4 )(f) (199 4). BMPs a re f armin g practice s, such as sto rmw ater

retent ion , s edi ment c ontrol, and re str icti o n s on us e of ferti li z ers a nd pest ic ide s, that the D is tr ict det er mines to be th e mosteffect iv e w ay of i mprov ing w a ter q ual ity in agr ic ult ural di sc harg es to a lev el that bal ances w ater q ual ity i mprov ements and ag ri cul tural product iv ity . An other prov is ion es tabl is hes an Ag ri cul tural Pr iv il eg e Tax on fa rm e rs d o in g b u s in e s s in t h e E AAa n d n e a rb y a re a s
. F a rm e rs wh o u s e B MP s a n d a c h ie ve at l east a 25% re duct ion in the amount of ph ospho ro us comi ng from thei r lan d are ent it led to a re duct ion i n the tax

. Micc osuk ee T ri be , 199 8 W L 18055 39, a t * 6 . 26 Dav is ’s 1998 opi nio n, Micc osuk ee T ri be , 1 9 9 8 W L 18 0 5 5 3 9 , a n d la te r by Dis tr ictJ u d ge Patr ic ia A. S eit zi n Fr

ien ds o f th e E ve rglades v. EPA, Case No. 00 -935 -CIV-SEIT ZGARBE R (S.D.Fla. 200 1).

1. The Dav is Opinion The Da v is Opi nio n c oncl uded t hat t he 1994 EF A g av e di sc harg ers u nti l 2006 t o compl y w it h t he numeri c phospho ru s cr it er ia and to otherw is e meet the n ar ra ti v e c ri ter ion

. The Da v is Opi nio n pr imar il y focuse d on the prov is ion s w hic h al low ed per mitt ees w it hin the EA A a n d t h e C
- 1 3 9 B a s i n [ w h o p a y a fe e u n d e r t h e E v e rg l a d e s P ro g ra m a n d me e t t he Ev erg lad es BM P Prog ra m] to be ex cus ed from impl ementi ng addi ti onal w ate r qual ity 14 imp rov em entmea sures prior t o Decem ber 31, 2 006

. Fla. S tat. § 3 73. 459 2((f )(3) ( 199 4). As noted in the D av is Opi nio n, Micc osuk ee T ri be , 199 8 W L 180 553 9, at*7, the 199 4 EFA prov ide d tha t, as of Dec ember 31, 2006, all per mits , i ncl udi ng thos e i ss ued pr ior to that date, “ shal l re q uire i mplement ation o f a d dit ion al w ater

q ual ity measu re s, tak ing i nto
accou nt th e w ate r q uality treat me nt actually provided by the ST As and the ef fectiveness of the BM Ps. ” F la. Sta t. § 373.4592( 4) (f) ( 1994)

. Itmandate d tha t “ [a]s of that date, no per mitt ee’ s dis charg e s hal l caus e or co ntr ibu te t o any

v iol ati on of w ater

q ual ity st andards Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 26 of 10115

Fol low ing the Dav is Opi nio n, t he EP A, i n 1999, rev ie wed s e ct ion 4( f) of the 1994 EFA as a r e vision to F lor ida ’s w ater q ual ity st andards. The EPA ’s Sept ember 1999 Det er minat ion i s d is cus sed in detai l in thi s O rd er
. 27 in the Ev erglades Prote ction Are a.” Id. T hus, w hile certain p rov isions of the 19 94 EFAf irst declared that“in no case” w ould the p hosph or us cr it er ion all ow w aters in the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area be alt ered s o as to c ause an i mbalan ce, other prov is ion s o f the 1994 EFA g ra nted a tw elv e y ear post ponement from the date of enactmentfor c ompli ance w it h the phos phor us cr it e rion throug h 2006. As EPA lat er co mmented i n i ts September 1999 Det er minat ion , the effe ct 15
wa st o a m end

the na rrative and

numeric standards the m selves. See EPA Sept . 199 9 Det er minat ion , at6- 7, 14 -1 8 [E FA-AR -8 ]. T his aspe ct of the 19 94 EFAis i mp ortan t to this Cou rt ’s co nsi derati on of th e Amended EFA and to the c hang es in w ater q ual ity st andards that the A mended EF A enacted. Ret u r n i n g t o J u d g e D a v i s ’ O p i n i o n , I n o t e h i s c o n c e r n t h a t t h e CW A and
acc ompany ing reg ula ti ons did not all ow st ates a tw elv e ye a r compli ance per iod to meet
w ater q ual ity st andards. H e feared thatbynot re q uir ing farmers t o i mplementaddi ti onal
w ater qual ity m easures unti l 2006, the 1 994 EF A al low ed th ose dis charg es of phosphorous that v iol ated Fl or ida ’s narrati v e standard for nutri ents to cont inu e until 2006. Acco rd ing to Judg e D av is , t his w as not a reason abl e compli ance sc hedul e, bu t a de fa cto sus pensi on of, and t herefore a chang e i n, w ater q ual ity st andards. Micc osuk ee T ri be , 1 9 9 8 WL 180 553 9, at*16 (Davi s, J.). There w as another

as pectof the 1 994 EF A, a nd of Jud g e D av is ’ Opi nio n, as to
w hic h EPA

di d notco mment i n i ts 1999 D eter minat ion , butw hic h al so is of major Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 27 of 10116

The Da v is Opi nio n c it ed to numerous EPA and Depar tment stat ements su ppor ti ng the c oncl usi on th at w ater q ual ity st andards for bot h the farmers a nd th e D is tr ict di d not h a v e t o b e m e tuntil 2006. Micc osuk ee T ri be , 199 8 W L 18055 39, a t * 7 ( “D epo. of Fr it z W ag ener

of the EPAa t 2 6 ( ‘Q : So si mpli fied w hat y ou're s ay ing i s t hat p er haps w ater quality stand ards are no t bein g me t butt hey'll be me t in the year 200 6? A: I think th at's a s h o rtc h a ra c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h a t , y e s
. ’ ) ; D e p o
. o f

R o b e rtM c G h e e o f

t h e E P Aa t1 4 2 ( ‘ We re v iew ed the compl ian ce sc hedul es in the Ev erg lad es Forev er Act and w e recog niz ed th at w ater q ual ity st andard s hav e been v iol ated, are bei ng v iol ated and w il l cont inu e to be v iol ated unti l all of the a cti ons that are nec ess ar y to prev ent t hose v iol ati ons h a v e been take n.’), 154 -55 (‘it directs them to be in com pliance w ith w ate r quality stan dard s bysuch and s uch a dat e. S o they are c onti nual ly up t o tha t poi nt i n a v iol ati on mode of w ater q ual ity s t a n d a rd s
. Q : I ta ll o ws th e m t o b e in a vio la t io n m o d e u n t il t h e ye a r 20 0 6 , ri gh t , b a s ic a ll y? A: Y es. ’) ; A. R. at 203 ( tes ti mony of Frank Nea rh oof of the F lor ida D epartment of Env ironmental Protec ti on) ( ‘Q : An d str uct ures that are not i n c ompli ance do nothav e to be in compl ian ce unti l 2006 un der the sta tute. Is n't

thatco rrect ? A: That' s c orre ct.’) , 398 9, 401 3, 41 05 , 41 07 ( D ep ar tm en t of En v i ron me nt al Prot ec ti on rep or t) ( i nt en t of th e EFA i s that by D ecember

31, 2006, the s tate and t he Di str ict shal l tak e nec ess ar y ac ti on s o tha t w ater del iv ered to the Ev erg lad es compl ies w it h sta te w ater q ual ity st andards) , 615 0 ( U. S. Ar myC or ps of Eng ine ers repor t) (‘ the D is tr ict w il l

... ens ure tha t al l dis charg es, from bot h

28 si g nific ance to t his ca se. After poi nti ng out that EAA farmers d id not h av e to compl y w it h the nar ra ti v e and numer icl ev els unti l Dec ember 31, 2006, Judg e D av is w ent o n to sta te that “[ i] n fact, i t i s n ot un ti l that date that any one di sc harg ing p h o sp h o rous i nto t he Everg lade s m ust com ply w ith stat e w ate r q uality standa rds.” Id. a t *7

. As su p p o rt , J u d ge Dav is referred to the Sect ion 4(f) prov is ion disc uss ed abov e (deal ing w it h the f ar mers ), but als o di re ctl y

ci ted to S ect ion 373.4592( 10) (1994) . Sect ion 10 p ro v ide d tha t by D ecemb er 31, 2 006, the De partm enta nd the District shall take su ch action a s m ay be n ecessa ry so that w ater

del iv ered to the Ev erg lad es Protecti on Area achi ev ed state w a te r q ual ity sta ndards. By

thi s p ro v is ion , t he D is tr ict, li ke the far mers , w as re li ev ed of meeti ng the narrative a n d n um eric phosp horo us criteria for its Ev erglades Const ruction Project un til 2006. Ju dg e D av is ’ conc lus ion w as cor re ct. U n d er Sec ti on 10 of the 1994 EF A, t he 16 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 28 of 101publ icand pr iv ate i nterest s, to t he Ev erg lad es achi e ve co m p lianc e w it h appl ic abl e s tate

w ater q ual ity st andards by

D ecember

31, 2006' ”)

. 29 Di str ict w as mandated to s ubmitto the D epar tment a p e rm it m o d ific ati on to i ncor porate propose d c hang es to t he Ev ergla d e s Con str uct ion Proje ct and t o the per mits i ss ued pursuantto Sect ion 9 of the EFA

. Cr it ic all y , t he 1994 EF A prov ide d tha t “ [t] hese chang es shal l be desi gned to achi ev e s tate w ater q ual ity st andards by

D ecember

31, 2006.” F la. Stat . §37 3.4592( 10) (a ) (1 994) ( emphasi s a dded) . Si mil ar to the farmers, thi s w as a de fac to su sp e n sion of w ater q ual ity st andards as appl ied to the d is tr ict’ s E v erg lad es Con str uct ion Proje cts and Sect ion 9 pe rmi ts. F or w hatev er

reason , t he EP A c hose not t o com me nt on section (10 ) of t he 199 4 EFA and o nly add ressed t he e f fect of Section 4(f ) in it s S eptember

1999 Det er minat ion

. 2. The EPA

199 9 Determina tion Al thoug h the EPA

h a d or ig ina ll y

co ntended thatthe 1994 E FA did not re sul t i n a chang e i n w ater

q ual ity st andards, EPA chang ed it s posi ti on w hil e the D av is Opi nio n w as on appe al w it h the El ev enth Circui t. It then deci ded t o rev iew onl y “ cer tai n” prov is ion s o f the 1 994 EF A as rev is ion s to F lor ida ’s w ater q ual ity st andards. EPA

cl aimed that it ’s rev iew
c o u l d b e l i mi t e d b e c a u s e , i n i t s v i e w , t h e D a v i s O p i n i o n o n l y fo u n d p o rt i o n s o f S e c t i o n 4 ( f) of the 1994 EF A to be a ch ang e i n w ater q ual ity s tandards. Thus, the EPA chos e notto address the ide nti cal Sec ti on 10 prov is ion s o f the 1994 EFA deal ing w it h the D is tr ict. Reg ardle ss , ev en if the EPA had rev iew ed Secti on 10 as a c hang e i n F lor ida w ater q ual ity stan dard s, it no do ubtw ould have conclu d e d t hatthe cha nge w ould have likew ise const itute d a “reason able comp liance sch edu le.” Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 29 of 10117

Th e EPA w as v er

y sp eci fic a bout the record i t rev iew ed to dete rmi ne i f the com pliance sched ule setout in th e EFA w as nee ded , w as as sho rt as practicab le and did not p re cl ude ear li er

co mpli ance. In prepar ing i ts deter minat ion , EP A c ompil ed a “record” on th e “ rea so n a b le n ess ” of a tw elv e y ear co mpli ance sc hedul e. EPA Sept. 1999 Det er minat ion at 9 n.1 4 [E FA-AR -8 ]. The re cord addres sed the si z e and compl ex ity of the Ev erg l ad es and the n at ure of t he p rob l em ( id. at 9) ; the lac k of techno log y av ail abl e ( id. at 10) ; t he s tatus of the B MP s a nd STA ( id. at 11); the step s nece ssary to a c h ie ve co m p lia n ce wit h P h a se II te ch n o lo gie s; an d ava ila b ili ty of f u n d in g ( id. at 17). Th e EPAalso found itsi g nific ant t hat the tw elv e- y ear sc hedul e out li ned i n the 1994 EFA for c omplet ion of the rest orati on prog ra m w a s v er y si mil ar to the s chedu le setout in the S ettl ement Ag re ement resol v ing of the o ri g ina l Ev erg lad es li ti g ati on, and suppo rt ed by the Stat e, t he federal g ov e rn m e n t, and the M ic osuk ee Tr ibe as reason abl e ( id. at 16) . The E PA menti oned t hat d ur ing the hear ing s b efore J udg e H oev ele r o n the M oti on to Amend Sett lementAg re ement, “a g re at de al of test imony w as heard on th e reason abl eness of the 200 6 com pliance sched ule.” Id. at 17. As di sc uss ed atl eng th l ater i n thi s O rd er , non e of thes e factors a re presenti n the cu rrent E PA D eter minat ion s o n the Amended EFA and the Pho spho rous Rule, nor doe s the EP A ma ke referen ce to th em in its l ate r Determina tions. 30 I do not t ake is sue w it h the EPA for i ts 19 9 9 D eter minat ion , es peci all y g iv en th e Eleventh Circuit’s unp ublishe d af f irman ce of

Ju dge Pat ricia A. S eitz’s Order w hich uph eld it

. See footnote 18 bel ow
. F or deta il ed and sc ien ti fical lybas ed reason s s et forth i n i ts 1999 D eter minat ion , the EPAc o n clu ded t hat a mendin g the nar ra ti v e c ri ter ion by 17 inc or porati ng a reason abl e c ompli ance sc hedul e di d notv iol ate t he C W A. But, i n i ts 1999 De t e rm in a t io n , t h e E P Aa l s o m a d e i tcl e a r t h a t“a n y new interpretation of t he ph osp ho ru s cr it erio n, an y v aria nce, sit e sp ecif ic al te rn at iv e cr i t e r i o n o r o th er s imi lar in te rp ret at io n of

t he EFA t hatch ang es stan dar ds w ou ld requ ire rev iewb y EPA as a change to Wa ter Quality Standards .” EPA Se pt. 1 999 De term inatio n, at 2 n.2 [EFA-AR8] (em pha sis adde d). It ackno w ledged th at th e com pliance sch edu le “app lies to notonly t h e c u rrent na rrativ e bu t also to th e f utu re num eric cri terion .” Id. a t 5 n
. 9

. A s the E PA fra me d t h e i s s u e , “ [ w] h e re , a s h e re , a s t a t e a d o p t s a s p a rto f t h e s t a n d a rd i t s e l f a
co m p li a nce sch edu le for a particula r ex isting cr iterion, the issue for EPA’s revi ew is Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 30 of 10131

w hether the cr it er ion as s o a m e n ded i s c onsi ste nt w it h the req uirements for c ri ter ia set forth in sect ion 30 3(c)(2)(A) and 40 C.F.R. § 131 .11 .” Id. at 7. For reason s thatI w ill dis cus s, thi s s ame q uest ion i s a bsol ute ly p e rt inent t o the EF A Amendment s a nd to the adopti on of t h e Phos phor us Rul e, bu t, y et, itw as not e v en pos ed by the EPA in it s l ater Det er minat ion s o n the Amendment s o r the R ule , l et al one ans w ered i n ei ther ca se. In assessin g this issue i n 199 9, the EPA det ermin ed that, conside ring the “real w orld effect ,” i ncl usi on of an “ appropr iat ely enforc ed compli ance sc hedul e mig ht in factlead to the
m o s te xp e d it io u s a c h ie ve m e n to f t h e le ve l o f

wa t e r qu a li t y sp e c if ie d b y t h e n a rr a t ive criterion and hen ce provide the best me ans fo r prote ction in th e real w orld.” Id. at 8. Th us, EPAconclud ed that “ it w ould be possible to regard a narrativ e criterion w ith a com pliance sched ule as still p rotect iv e if t he criterion w as ‘currently unatta inab le’ due to lack of av ailable cont ro l mechani sms to en sure tha t t he appropr iat e tec hnol og y w as dev elo ped and put i nto operati on as so on as pos sibl e; a n d t h e p e rio d

o f n o n a tta in me n t

w a s li mite d tot h e t ime needed to de vel

op and im

ple m ent that tech nology with the goal of m eeti ng the criter

ion by th e end of t

he c om pli ance per

iod .” Id. a t 8 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )

. M o s t i mp o rt a n t ly , EP A
cons ide re d w hether

there w as “a n enf

orcea ble framewo rk that ensured th e numer icw ater q ual ity cr it er ion for p hosph or us w oul d b e m et by the Dec ember

31, 2006, deadl ine i n the EFA or soo n e r i f

p o ssible.” Id . at9 ( emphasi s a dded)

. It ess enti all y co ncl uded t hat t he Ev erg lad es w oul d be protec ted becau se “[ t]he EFA i ncor porated a per mitt ing sc heme, an d adopted prov is ion s to ensure that by D ecember

31, 2006, dis char

ges into theEv

er gla des Pr otec ti on Ar e a will no lon ger

ca use or

co ntr ibu te to any

vi ola ti ons of s tate water

qual it y sta ndar ds. ” I d. at 5 ( emphasi s a dded)

. It final ly co ncl uded t hat t he “ re asona ble ness and
acc eptabi li ty of t he 12 y ear sc hedul e al so ass umed that the D ecember 31, 2006, deadl ine Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 31 of 10118

O n appea l, the El e ven th C irc uitco ncl uded t hat t he EP A di d notac t ar bit ra ri ly by det ermin ing that a sta te w ate r q uality standa rd can inco rporate a reason able comp liance sc hedul e for meeti ng the sta ndard. Fr ien ds of t

he Ev er gla des , C ase No. 01- 16482, at 3 (1 1th C ir . J uly

19, 2002) [C ase No. 00- 935, DE 83].
19 In F lor ida , t he r ule maki ng body fo r th e D EP i s t he ER C. See, e.g., F la. Sta t. § 403.804

. Lik e the 1994 EF A, t h e Amended EF A prov ide d for ru lemak ing to est abl is h a num eric cri terion for pho spho rus. Th e ERC of f icially began its rulem aking for a num eric phosp hor us ru le in Ja n u ar y 2002, w hil e the 1994 EFA w as in force. See doc uments for Dec ember

11, 2001, and J anuar

y 31, 2002, ER C meeti ng s [ PR -A R- 32]. The ER C adopted the P hosph o r u s R u l e i n J u l y 2 0 0 3 , a n d t h e R u l e w a s a d mi n i s t ra t i v e l y c h a l l e n g e d a s an inv ali d ex er ci se o f

d e le gated author ity . It w as uphel d by an a dmini strati v e l aw

j udg e on June 17, 2 004. Sugar

C ane G ro wers

C oop. v. Dep ’

t of Env tl. Pr ot. , Case No. 03 -028 84RP 32 w ill be m et.” Id. at 9 n.1 5. Upon later rev iew , Judge Pat ricia A. S eitz foun d tha t the EPA did not actarbitrarily or capriciously i n decid ing tha t the w ate r q uality standa rd rev ised by the Florida Le gisl atu re compl ied w it h the C W A bas ed on the record before i t. But , J udge S e it z st ated in her
conc lus ion that“ [l ]i ke EPA, the Cou rt anti ci pates that the s tate w il l cont inu e to impl ement all necess ar

y m easures to ens ure tha t t he Ev erg lad es w il l be C las s I II w aters b y D ecember 3 1 , 2 0 0 6

. ” O rd e r d a t e d O c t

. 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 a t2 1 (S e it z, J. ) [ Ca s e No

. 0 0 -9 3 5 , DE 7 7 ]

. A s we 18
w ill see, the dea dline fo r comp liance was not me t. Inste ad, the Florida L egislature simp ly chang ed th e deadl ine for c ompli ance. E . T h e P re l u d e t o t h e Am e n d e d E F A 1. E v ent s Occ ur rin g in 2003 A number

of ev ents w ere sc hedul ed to occ ur in 2003 w hic h remain per ti nent to an y cons ide ra ti on of

the 2003 EFA Amendments . Fi rs t, the default prov is ion w as set to g o i nto effectat the e nd of 2003 bec ause no s ubst it ute p hosph orous ru le coul d be ti mely adopt ed by the Florida Environm ent al Regulation Comm ission (“ERC” ). In fact, th e EFA 19 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 32 of 101(Final Order, June 1 7, 200 4) (“Administra tiv e Order”) [PR-AR-35]. T he Ph osph orus Rule

w as subs eq uentl y

promulg ated on J uly

15, 2004, and am e n d e d on Ma y 25, 2005. The Pl ain ti ffs c hal len g e the 2005 v ersi on of the Rul e.

20 Base d on the ERC m eeti ng documents [PR- AR -3 2 and the index to PR -A R- 32], the firs t meet ing took

pl ace on D ecember

11, 20 0 1 , a n d the ER C’ s p ro ceedi ng s o n the Phos phor us Rul e off ic ial ly opened at the E RC meeti ng on J anuar y 31, 2002.
21 See Sw. Fla. W

ate r M gm t. Dist. v. Save th e Man ate e Club, In c. , 773 So. 2d 5 94, 599 ( Fl a. 1st DC A 2000) (h old ing thata reg ula ti on mus t i mplementand be bas ed upon a spec ificdel eg ati on of autho ri ty i n order to be v ali d)

. 33 Amendments were bei ng enac ted w hi le the ER C hear ing s w ere bei ng hel d. See ERC meeti ng doc uments [PR -A R- 32]. 20 Se cond, under

F lor ida l aw , t he g ov er nin g l aw , bei ng the 1994 E FA, had to be
am end ed to include any new comp liance d ead lines an d mo dera ting prov is io n s if th ose chan ges w ere to b e con sidered bythe ERC as part of the prop osed Pho spho rus Rule. T his is becau se an y

rule ado pte d ha d to b e i n accord w ith the ena bling statut e or it w ould
c o n s t it u t e a n u n la wf u l d e le ga t io n o f le gi s la t ive a u t h o ri t y. 21 Third, by Dec ember 31, 2003, the Di str ict w as re q uired, under § 373. 4592( 10) (a ) (1 994) of the F lor ida Sta tutes , to s u b m it an a ppl ic ati on for per mit modific ati on to inc or porate p ro posed ch ang es to t he Ev erg lad es Con str uct ion Proje ct, and thes e c hang es had t o be “d esi g ned” to achi ev e c ompli ance with state w ater q ual ity st andards by Dec ember

31, 2006. T his m eant actu al compl ian ce by the Di str ict w it h the narrati v e and
numer iccr it er ia. Fourth, by Decemb er 31, 2 006 , th e D e p a rt m e n ta n d t he District had to take such act ion as may

be n eces sar

y so tha t w ater

del iv ered to the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 33 of 10134

“a chi ev ed” st ate w ater

q ual ity st andards, i ncl udi ng the phosp hor us cr it er ion

. F la. Sta t. § 373.459 2( 10) ( 1994)

. F ifth, the deadl ine w as approachi ng for the far mers as w ell ; t hat i s, by D ecember

31, 200 6, no p ermitt ee’s discha rg e into the E v erglades Prote ction Area and t he EAAcana ls
co u ld cause or

co ntr ibu te t o any

v iol ati on of w ater

q ual ity st andards in the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area. Las tl y , t he dead li ne of D ecember 31, 2006 in the S ettl ement A g re ement C onsen t Dec re e w as q uic kl y

approachi ng
. Judg e H oev e ler had prev iou sl y

modi fied th e C onsen t Dec re e to extend the d eadl ine unti l Dec ember 31, 2006 and no fur ther req uestfor modific ati on of the Con sentD ecree w as pendi ng
. T hus, to sum ma riz e, imm edia tely prior to the Am end me nts to the EFA, the de fault
numer icphos phor us cr it er io n w as g oin g to be appl ic abl e to the e nti re Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area, a nd, a fter D ecem b e r 3 1, 20 06, n o di sc harg es coul d c ause phosp hor us conc entrati ons hig her

than 10 p pb any

w here i n the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area. Fur ther more, bas ed on the n ar ra ti v e cri ter ion , “i n no cas e” could the nutr ien t c oncen trati on anyw here i n the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area c ause an imbal ance of flora and fauna after Dec ember

31, 2006. 2

. Th e D raf

t Lo ng -T erm Pla n Th e b e gin n in g of the e ffort t o amend the 1 994 EF A c an be traced back to the Gov er nin g Board of the South Fl or ida W ater M anag ement D is tr ict ( “D is tr ict” ) w hic h had the obl ig ati on to submit an appli cat ion for per mit modific ati on des ig ned t o ac hie v e w ater q ual ity sta ndards by

D ecember

31, 2003. The per mit ap p lic a ti o n w as to be i n ac cordance w it h the D is tr ict’ s prop osed Long -Ter m Pl an. The or ig ina l draft Long -Ter m Pl an, a s s ubmit ted Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 34 of 10122

At t he M ar ch 27, 2 003, hear ing before the Env ironmental Reg ula ti on C ommis si on (“ ER C” ), C ommis si oner Tsc hin kel rais ed her

“ fundamental conc er n” abouta r umor that a meeti ng had been he ld to di sc uss “ v er y se ri ous and v er

y spec ificpropose d amendment s to th e Everg lade s Forev er Act.” PR-AR-33, T r. 3/27 /03 at 10, 14 (Tra nscript of ERC Hea ri ng ). She dis cov ered th ro ug h non- DE P or ER C chann els thatt h e re wa s a n “u n p re ce d e n te d

. . . in th e m id d le o f ru le m a kin g, an a tt e m p t b y on e of th e pa rt ie s t o ch a n ge the actu al-the act on w hich w e’re currently adop ting the rule.” Id. at 11. She cha ra cte ri z ed 35 by the Di st ric t’s s taff , i ncl uded a strateg y for a chi ev ing the lon g -t er m Ev erg lad es w ater q ual ity obj ect iv e “ to en sure tha t al l w aters d is charg ed to the Eve rg lad es Protec ti on Area achi ev e w ater

q ual ity st andards by

D ecember

31, 2006, cons is tent w it h the req uirements of [the E FA]

. . . .” Ex ec. Summar y , M ar ch 17, 2 003 Lon g -Ter m Pl an, a t ES -1 [PR -A R- 32, 3- 27- 2003, doc. 6]. The Lo ng -Ter m Pl an w as to fulfill obl ig ati ons “u nder both the EFA

. . . and the fede ral Ev erglades Se ttlem entAgreem ent. . . .” Id. Thus , t he or ig ina l conc ept of the Long -Ter m Pl an, a s p re sent ed to the Di str ict’ s G ov er nin g Board, w as to meet esta blished dea dlines. On M ar ch 12, 2003, the Di str ict’ s G ov er nin g Board modi fied th e Long -Ter m Pl an. It chang ed th e Pl an’ s o bje cti v e to achi ev e, throug h “ opti miz ati on, to t he max imum exte nt po ssib le , a predi cte d long term geo metr icm ean pho sphor us conc entrati on i n di sc harg es to the Everg lade s Protect ion Area . . . .” Id. a t ES-5 (emp hasis add ed). I t the n def ined “a
mo re re a li s ti c p ace tow ards achi ev ing the phosp horous cr it er ion i n di sc harg es to t he Everg lade s.” Id. at ES- 6 ( emphasi s a dded)

. The M ar ch 2003 P lan note d tha t, “[ u]pon ini ti al re v iew , it appears that the re v is ed pla n obj ect iv e does not subs tanti all y mo d ify the capi tal improv ements or s ci enti fic i nv est ig ati ons re commended in the d ra ft plan , only the sche du le for

u lt imat ely

ach iev in g th e p ho sph or ou s cr it e ri on and it s asso ciat ed nat ural v aria bi lity

in d isch arg es t o th e Ev erg lad es .” Id. (emp hasis ad ded ). 22 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 35 of 101thes e ac ti ons as a “ v er y se ri ous breach of . .

. procedu re ,” and w as conc er ned that nobody at t he D EP s poke to t hem aboutthis , espec ial ly gi v en that the ERC is “ the e x cl usi v e r ule
ma king g roup for the Dep artm entof Environm ent al Prote ction. ” Id. at 10, 1 1, 13

. 23 The 1994 E FA w as amended thro ug h tw o bil ls : CSSB No. 54 -1 ( Law s o f Fl or ida , C h. 200 3-39 4) and CSSB No. 626 (Laws of Florida, C h. 2003 -12). Beca use the s e c o n d b ill am end ed prov isions pa ssed a nd signed into law in the f irst bill, the Court’s discussion is direct ed to the final adopt ed bi ll , unl ess othe rw is e s tated

. 36 F. The A mended EFA , the E PA Nov ember

5 , 200 3 Determina tion, and th e Co ur t’ s A PA A nal ysis T he Am end ed EFAis an a droit legislativ e ef fort to obscu re t he o bvious. In certa in prov is ion s, itappears t o l eav e the n a rra ti v e and default numer iccr it er ion unc hang ed. How ev er , t he to tal ity

of the A mended EF A effectiv ely su spend s t he enfor cementof the
nar ra ti v e and default phosp hor us cr it er ion throug h 2016 and, in li eu, creates newor rev is ed
w ate r q uality cr iterion ba sed u pon TB ELs est ablishe d throu gh BAPRT [the Lon g- T erm Pl an]. But, as adroi t as it is , the amendment effort w as not i nit ial ly su cc ess ful bec ause the
or ig ina l bil l had t o be amended t o i ncl ude a sec ond “ Gl it ch Bi ll ,” Senat e Bi ll 54A, enac ted on J uly 1, 2003 [ EFA -A R- 2] thatremov ed th e mor e b la ta n t c hang es, su ch that the 23 p h o sp h o ru s crit e rio n wou ld be ac h ie ved “atth e ea rlie stpra ct ica b le da te ” an d th a t t h e Lo n gT erm Pla n w ould a chieve water quality st and ards in the E v erglades Prote ction Are a on ly “t o the m ax imum extent pract ic abl e.” EF A- AR -2 ; see § 373. 4592( 2) (a ), ( 3) (d ), ( 3) (e ), and (1 0) (a ). W hil e the Gl it ch Bi ll re mov ed thes e chang es, it kept the same “e ff e ct ” with othe r lan g uag e, as des cr ibe d bel ow
. And, at t he s ame ti me, th e Gl it ch Bi ll al so re mov ed protec ti v e l ang uag e w hic h w as in the ini ti al bil l. The G li tch Bi ll remov ed l ang uag e from t he Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 36 of 10137

or ig ina l w hic h prov ide d “ [u]nd er no c ircums tanc es shal l the p ro ject or st ra teg y [referr ing to the Di str ict’ s modific ati on’ s to the Ev erg lad es Con str uct ion Proje ct] co ntr ibu te t o v iol ati on of state w ate r q uality standa rds.” Compare F la. Sta t. § 373. 4593( 10) (a ) (M ay 20, 2003) with Fla. Sta t. § 373 .45 93(1 0)(a) (July 1, 200 3). W ithou t such restriction , the inferen ce is, g iv en th e c ontext of al l the o ther amendments , t hat s uch proje ct or st ra teg y may co ntr ibu te to v iol ati on of st ate w ater q ual ity st andards [meani ng the nar ra ti v e and numer iccr it er ion ]
so lon g as there i s c ompli ance w it h the adopt ed Long -Ter m Pl an. Judg e H oev ele r, w ho l ong presi ded ov er the Ev erg lad es li ti g ation and the Sett lementC onsen t D ecree, e x press ed hi s fr ust ra ti on, in an order dated Ma y 9, 20 03, a t the p ro ces s lea din g to the Amended EFA

. He noted, in “d is may ” that “[ t]he bil l w as mov ed q uic kl y throug h the l eg is lat iv e proces s, re por tedl y at the b ehestof more than forty l obby is ts for the su gar i ndu stry .” Order, May 9, 200 3, at2 [Case No. 88 -188 6, D E 173 3] (Hoeveler, J.). Judge Hoeveler rem arked that“[t]here is si mp ly n o explanat ion for t he spee d by w hich thi s w as acc ompli shed, gi v en the fact t hat t he dead li nes re main three and a hal f y ears o ff .” Id. H e c ommented, w it h g re at foresi g ht, that “t he treatment of the bi ll seemed ca lc ula ted to avoid fede ral participat ion or pu blic scrutiny.” Id

.

1. Whatt he A men ded EF A Accom pl ish ed and It s Ef fe ct Unde r establishe d Eleventh Circuit case law , this Court has the aut hority to caref ully
re v iew the “ ef fect” o f the Amendment s t o the EF A “ on th e w ater q ual ity st andards of Florida,” tha t is, the practica l imp act, to det ermin e w het her the Am end me n t s t o t h e E FA
cons ti tute a chang e to Fl or ida ’s w ater q ual ity st andards. F

PIR G, 3 8 6 F

. 3 d a t1 0 8 8 ( “ We ag re e w it h the pl ain ti ffs t hat t he di str ict c our t er re d by

fail ing to condu ct a th oroug h rev iew Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 37 of 10124

In FPIRG , plaint if

fs sued EPA un der the citizen suit provisi on of t he CW A to en force the A ct’ s req uirement t hat t he EP A rev iew new o r re vi sed w ater

q ual ity st andards for compl ian ce w it h the C W A. The Fl or ida D EP ha d adopt ed an adm in ist ra ti v e r ule on impai re d w aters, and t he EP A rev iew ed th is i mpaired w aters r ule b u t did not deter mine w hether it compli ed w it h the CW A. Pl ain ti ffs arg ued that the rul e chang ed F lor ida ’s w ater q ual ity st andards becau se it(1) req uired more than a si ng le sampl e to ex ceed max imum pollut antconce ntrat ions be fore a w ate r body w as con sidered impa ired, as oppo sed to just one samp le before the rule; and (2) ado pte d specif ic nutrientconce ntrat ions as th e prima ry me ans for assessing nut rient imp airme nt, and a dde d num eric criteria, w hich did no t exi st before t he ru le. The dis tr ict c our t hel d tha t t he i mpaired w aters r ule di d notes tabl is h new or rev is ed w ater

q ual ity st andards or

pol ic ies affect ing those w ater qual ity standards. The El ev enth Ci rc uitrev ersed and remanded, re q uir ing t h e di str ict c our t t o det er mine how Fl or ida ’s w ater

q ual it y standard s h ad prev iou sl y been appl ied and w hether the impai re d w aters r ule , as appl ied , c hang ed th ose sta ndards. FPIRG , 386 F .3d 1 070.

25 The EPA sentDEP a letter on Nov ember

5, 2003, w hic h i ncl uded E PA’ s c oncl usi ons tha t it had n o dut y

u nde r th e CW A to app rov e or d isapp rov e the a me ndm ent s t o the EFA becau se they

w ere not“ at thi s ti me, new or re v is ed w ater q ual ity sta ndards. ” EPA Nov . 5, 2003 D eter minat ion , at1[P R-AR -1 1]. W it h thi s N ov ember 5, 2003, letter , EP A at tac hed its decision docu me nt in w hich EP A examine d sub section s 2, 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 4(e)(2), 4( e) (3 ), 4(f) and 10 of the Amended EFA. The EPA conc lud ed th at t he amendment s t o the EFA di d no t chang e the req uirement i n the 1994 EFA thatper mitt ees had t o meet sta ndards by

D ecember

31, 2006, and EP A als o c oncl uded t hat t he amendment s d id not “a t t his ti me ” e stabli sh a c ompli ance sc hedul e throug h 2016 for c omply ing w it h the phosp hor us cr it er ion

. Id. at 9. 38 of the effe ct

of the Im paired W ate rs Rule on the w ate r q uality standa rds of Florida”). 24 T he Elev enth Ci rc uitm ade cle ar , i n FPIRG , that the dis tr ict c our t s houl d det er mine
w hether the pract ic a l im p a ct o f the l eg is lat ion i s t o rev is e appl ic abl e w ater q ual ity sta ndards. Id. In order to do s o, “ the d is tr ict c our t w as re q uired to l ook bey ond t he F lor ida Depa rtme nt of

Environm ent al Prote ction’s (DEP) charact eriz ation of the Im paired W ate rs Rule as a m eth odo logy or ‘screening me asure ’ that did not cha nge the stand ards.” Id. at 1088. I app ly

thi s met hodol og y

wit h r e gard to the E PA’ s fin din g co ncer nin g the 2003 Amendments to the EFA in its No v ember 5, 2003, Det er minat ion [PR -A R- 11]. The EPA 25 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 38 of 10139

firs t c oncl uded t hat t he Amendment s d id not “ a t t h ist ime ” chang e the w ater q ual ity sta ndards of Fl or ida , i ncl udi ng the cr it er ia and anti -d eg ra dati on poli cy
. Seco nd, the EP A d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t h e A me n d me n t s d o n o te s t a b l i s h a n e w c o mp l i a n c e s c h e d u l e , o r m o d i fy
an ex is ti ng one, for o btai nin g co mpli ance w it h St ate w ater q ual ity cr it er ia. Thi rd , t he EP A fo u n d th a t t h e Am e n d m e n ts d o n o t ch a n ge th e us e s o f th e Eve rgla d e s wat e rs, eve n th o u gh they al low co nti nui ng di sc harg es of poll utant s from poi nt s ources i nto t he Ev erg lad es. T o un dersta nd why

EPA’s con clusions a re arbitrary , capricious a nd n ot in
acc ordance w it h l aw , i t is firs t neces sar y to understa nd w hat the p lai n w ords of the s tatut e say. T o d o s o, I mustappl y ac cept ed pr inc ipl es of stat utor y co nst ru cti on i n a mann er cons is tent w it h F lor ida l aw
. EPA has not u nder tak en s uch an analy si s. In any ev ent, I am not o bli g ated to g iv e EPA Che vr on deferen ce w hen i t, as a federa l ag ency , i s i nter preti ng a F lor ida st atute , as co mpare d to the C W A or i ts ow n re g ula ti ons. Fur ther more, w e are not deal ing w it h a sta te stat ute, or a sta te impl ementi ng reg ula ti on, w hic h has the for ce and effectof federal l aw

and w hic h c an be e n fo rced b y the EPA in federal co urt. See dis cus si on atp. 12- 15 abov e. Cf

. S ie r r a Clu b v . A d m’r , 496 F.3d 11 82, 118 6 (11th Cir

. 200 7) (conclud ing that the fact th at th e Geo rg ia Rule is a state regulatio n is not an obsta cle to ac co rd in g Che vr

on deferen ce in thi s c ase becau se the Georg ia Ru le is par t of a s tate impl ementati on pla n made pursuant to the Cl ean Ai r Act w hic h has the force and effect of fede ral law

and may be e n forced bythe EP A in fede ral court). How ever, before commenti ng on F lor ida ’s st atuto ry co nst ru cti on pr inc ipl es, I firs t add re ss D EP’ s a rg ument that Pl ain ti ffs’ ch all eng es to t he Ame n d e d E FA are moot in li g ht of the adopt ion of the Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 39 of 10140

Phos phor us Rul e and the E P A ’ s D eter minat ion thatce rt ain prov is ion s a re ch ang es in w ater q ual ity st andards. 2. Th e A men dm ent s t o th e EF A C on st it ut e a C han ge in State Wat er Quali ty Standards, a re not Dependa nt Upon Adoption of a Ru le by the Env ironmental Regula tion Co mmiss ion , a nd Con stitute a New or Rev ised C om pl ian ce Sch edu le In it s b ri efs, D EP arg ues that EPA’ s s ubseq uent deter minat ion thatthe Phos phor us Rule’s chan ges to Florida’s w ate r quality stan dard s are consistent w ith the CW A rend ers mo ot th e que s t io n of

w het her EPAfollowed its statuto ry duty in review ing the EFA Amendments auth or iz ing the promulg ati on of thatR ule

. See D EP b ri ef, DE 234, p. 28. I di sag re e. The doct ri ne of moot ness der iv es direct ly from Ar ti cl e II I of the Con sti tuti on, u nder wh ic h t h e e xe rc is e o f

j u d ic ia l p o we r d e p e n d s u p o n t h e e xis t e n c e o f a ca s e o r c o n t ro ve rs y. SEC v. Med. C om m . f

or H um an Righ ts , 404 U. S. 403, 407 (1 972)

. W hen a cas e no lon g er prese nts a con troversy

w ith respe ct to w hich the court can giv e me anin gfu l relief , the case must be di smi ss ed. Al

Najj ar v. As hcr oft , 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Ci r. 2001) ( ci tati ons and i nter nal q uotat ion s o mitt ed)

. T he EFA , as am end ed, has ne v er bee n invalidated . In lig ht of the EP A’s
acc eptanc e of t he Amended EFA as maki ng no chang es to Fl or ida ’s w ate r qua lity stan dard s, the Ame nde d EFA con tinue s to serv e as a sta tuto ry b asis for f urthe r regulato ry chang es to ou r w ater

q ual ity st andards – e.g. , if the cur re nt Phospho ru s R ule w ere to be
re sc ind ed by

D EP. Thus, thi s C our

t mus t det er mine w hether EPA per formed i ts leg al duty to rev iew the EF A Amendment s a s a pote nti al chang e i n w ater q ual ity st andards and for
cons is tency

w it h the C W A. The Ru le it sel f is author iz ed by and depends on t he Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 40 of 10126

EPA has a duty , und er

§ 30 3( c) (3 ) of the CW A (33 U .S.C . § 1313( c) (3 )) , t o rev iew any of Fl or ida ’s ac ti ons w hic h c hang e w ater q ualit y standard s a nd, a s i s c lea r from the EPA ’s ow n stat em ent s in i t s N o ve m ber 20 03 d ete rmina tion, the EP A itself w as un sure w hether the Amendments had effect ed su ch chang es. “ [S]h oul d s ubseq uent ev ents or new i nformati on i ndi cat e tha t the se amendm ents maye ff ect ch ang es in Fl or ida ’s w ater quality stand ards, [E P A ] w ill recon sider the ir status at t hat t ime. ” EPA Nov . 5, 2003 D e t e r mi n a t i o n , c o v e r

l e t t e r ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) [ P R
- A R
- 1 1 ]

. E P Ae s s e n t i a l l y deferr ed evaluation of

parts of the EFAAme ndm ent s beca use it had “no ba sis fo r acting on these provisi ons a t this time ,” id. , at 8, but not ed th at “if f utu re action s alter

our under sta ndi ng of the EFA ,” id. , at 12 (emp hasis adde d), rev iew w ould occur at th at tim e – a de ferral w hich is co ntrar

y to EPA’ s sta tutor

y obl ig ati ons. The El ev enth Ci rc uithas note d tha t “ there i s n o g uarantee that the E PA w il l condu ct thoroug h rev iews o f f uture [s tate re g ula tor y ac ti ons] .” FPIRG , 386 F . 3d at 10 88 ( EPA’ s subs eq uent rev iew of a par ti al li sti ng of

Flor ida ’s pol lut ed w aters, g enerated by

referenc e to an ear li er r ule promulg ate d by

the sta te, did not moot the q uest ion of w hether EPA ’s rev iew

of the r ule i tse lf w as condu cte d i n c ompli ance w it h the CW A as to whethe r the rule cha nged Florida’s w ate r q uality standa rds). 41 Amendments , and therefore an y anal y si s o f the R ule is ine xtr ic abl y i nter tw ine d w it h an anal y si s o f the Amendment s. I hav e bot h the auth or ity and the d uty

to ass ure tha t any future Fl or ida reg ula ti ons affect ing w ater q ual ity st andards are bas ed on sta tutor y auth or ity
w hic h has been re v iew ed c ompre hensi v ely by the ag ency

entr ust ed by

C ong re ss to enforc e the C W A. 26 Cl ear ly , Plai nti ffs’ clai ms rel ati ng to EPA’ s rev iew of the E FA Amendments are not moot – I am a ble to prov ide “ meanin g ful reli ef” ( e.g ., by req uir ing EPA to follo w it s d uti es accord ing t o t h e CW A) and I specif ically reject DEP’s sugg estion thatno con troversy
re mains ( DE 251, p. 13, fn 12)

.

3. Statutory

Construction and Interpretation of th e A mended EFA I now tur n bac k t o s tatut or

y co nst ru cti on a nd i nter pretati on of the Amended E FA. “I t i s axiom a ti c t hat a ll par ts of a st atute mustbe read t og ether i n order to achi ev e a consist e n t w hol e; c our ts shoul d av oid readi ng s t hat w oul d render par t of a s tatut e Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 41 of 10142

me an i ng l es s.” Si e rra Club v . St. Johns Ri ver

M gm t. , 816 So. 2d 687 , 693 (Fl a.5 thDCA 2 0 0 2 ) (ci ti n g For

sy the v. Longboat

Key Beach Er

osi on C ontr ol Di st. , 604 So. 2d 452, 455- 456 (Fl a. 19 92)). Likewi se, “Courts m ust avoid a n y c o n s t ruction of a statu te th at w ould prod uce an unre ason able , absu rd, or ridiculous con sequen ce.” St. Jo hns , 816 So. 2d at 693

. “ ‘[A]l l par

ts of a sta tute must be read toget her i n order to achi ev e a c onsi ste nt w hol e,’ and ‘ [w]here pos si ble , c our ts must g iv e effectto all st atuto ry

provi si ons and c onst ru e relate d stat uto ry

provi sions in ha rm o n y with one ano the r.’” Borgn er v. Brooks, 284 F. 3d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (e m p h a sis in ori gin a l) (qu o ti n g You ng v. Prog ressive Se. Ins. Co. , 753 So. 2d 80, 84 (Fl a. 200 0)). Sta tute s sh ould b e const rued t o giv e each w ord ef fect and cour ts shoul d av oid re adi ng s that w oul d re nder par t of stat utes meani ng les s. Warner
v. City of B oca Raton, 64 F.S upp .2d 127 2, 12 83 (S.D.Fla. 199 9). Moreover, w hen the legislature am end s a statu te, it is presum ed th at th e legislature int ends to c hang e the l aw
. Sm ith v. F la

. D e p ’ t of Corr. , 961 So. 2d 105 0, 10 52 (Fla. 1st DC A 2007 ); Sta te v. Hart , 372 So. 2d 1 7 4, 17 6 ( Fl a.2d DC A 1979 ); Car li li e v . G am e & Fr esh W ater F is h C om m ’

n, 354 So. 2d 362, 364 (F la. 1978)

. W hen the leg is lat ure amends
a s tatut e by

omi tti ng w ords, i t i s p re sumed that they i ntended for the st atute to hav e a different meanin g from t he meani ng i t had before the a mendment. Aetna Cas . & Sur ety Co. v. Buck, 594 So . 2d 280, 283 (Fl a . 199 2)

. In t he c ase of confli cti ng prov is ion s, the latte r ex pression w ill pre va il over the forme r unless a w ell-recogniz ed e x cept ion ap plies, S h a re r v
. Ho te l C o rp
. o f A m. , 14 4 So

. 2d 8 13 ( F l a. 1 96 2) , an d, w he re an a me nd at ory
sec ti on of a s tatut e tak es the p lac e of an ori g ina l sec ti on, i t ope ra tes tog ether w it h the uncha ng ed por

ti ons of the s tatut e ac cordin g to the n a tu re o f the c hang ed l ang uag e. Beckwith v. Bd. of P ub. Inst ru cti on of D ade C ounty, 261 So. 2d 5 04, 5 07 ( Fl a. 19 72)

. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 42 of 10127

The Amendments prov ide t h a t re v is ion s t o the Long -Ter m Pl an s hal l be incorpo rated through an “adap tiv e ma nag e m e n t app roach ” including a process dev elop m e n t and eng ine er ing co mponent to i denti fy and i mplementi ncremental “o pti miz ati on” measu re s for furth er phos phor us re duct ion . F la. Sta t. § 373. 4592( 3) (b ) (2 003)

. The Leg is lat ure defines “ opti miz ati on” to mean “max imi z ing the potent ial treatment effect iv e n e ss of

the STAs t hroug h meas ures suc h as addi ti onal co mpart mental iz ati on, improv ed flow

co ntrol, v eg etati on manag ement, or operati onal refinements , i n c ombina ti on w it h i mprov ements w here pract ic abl e i n ur ban and agricul tural BM Ps, and inc lud es int eg ra ti on w it h Cong re ss ion al author iz ed components of the Comprehens iv e Ev erg lad es Restora tion Pla n or “CERP.” Fla. Sta t. § 37 3.4 592 (2)(l) (200 3). 43 Appl y ing thes e w ell -recog niz ed pri nci ple s of statut or y co nst ru cti on, I co ncl ude t hat the EPA has mis re ad the ess enti al prov is ion s o f the EF A and it s A mendments . I al so find that the EPA’ s conc lus ion s are “not in acc ordance w it h law ” because the CW A does not
a ll o w St a t e wa t e r qu a li t y st a n d a rd s t o b e re p la c e d wit h “ a c ro s s -t h e -b o a rd ” t e c h n o lo gybased eff lue nt l imi tati ons, reg ardle ss of re sul ts, w it h an open- ended c ompli ance sc hedul e.

4. The A mended EFA ’s Long-Term Plan Prov isions It all st arts w it h the Amended EFA ’s adopt ion of the “ Long -Ter m Pl an.” By defini ti on, the “Long-Te rm Plan ” or “ Plan ” is t h e District’s “Ev erglades Prote ction Are a T ributa ry Basi ns Con cept ual Pl an for Achi ev ing Long -Ter m W ater Qual i ty Goal s F ina l Rep ort” , dat ed Ma rc h 2003, as modified by the Amended EFA

. Fl a. Stat

. § 373.459 2( 2) (j ) (2 003)

. Ev en tho ugh the Florida Legislature ad opt ed th e “ Ma rch 200 3" v ersion, the Am end ed EFA author iz es the Long -Ter m Pl an to be re v is ed by the South Fl or ida W a te r Ma nag ement Di str ict ( “D is tr ict” ), it sel f, the pr imar y di sc harg er

i nto t he Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area. The
re v is ion s o nly

need be approv ed by the DE P. Fl a. S tat. § 37 3.4592 (3 )( b) ( 2003) (“Rev isions to th e Lo ng-Term Plan sha ll be app rov ed b y the de partm ent[DEP].”) 27 In tu rn, Sect ion 3 of

the Am end me nts de clares tha t the Lon g- T erm Pla n is the “best Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 43 of 10128

The compl ete L ong -Ter m Pl an a ll ow s d is charg es int o the Ev erg lad es Protecti on Area from a ll bas ins of any tot al phosp hor us conc entrati on unt il 2016. Itco ntai ns no c ap on di sc harg es and ant ic ipa tes di sc harg es abov e 10 ppb unti l at lea st 2056. PR -A R- 29.28 ES- 3

. I t d o e s n o t d e fi n e a re q u i re d i n fl o w c o n c e n t ra t i o n a n yw h e re
. I t i s a ls o a “ mov ing targ et” and already

has been a m e n d e d a t l easttw ic e s inc e i ts adopti on by the Fl or ida Leg is lat ure. See PR -A R- 29.28 (O ct. 2003 Long -Ter m Pl an) ; PR -A R- 73, p .7 ( re ferenc ing a N ov. 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 Long- Term Pl an)

. Not abl y abs ent from the Long -Ter m Pl an i s a ny d isc u ss io n of

w h a t h a p p e n s in 2 0 1 6 i f t h e e volvin g “es ti m a te d pe rfo rm a n ce ” of th e Lo n gT erm Pla n is not me t beca use o f insuf f icient f und ing or oth er conside ration s. 29 Subs ect ion 4( e) 2 of the Amended EFA address es both the defaul t prov is ion for t he pho spho rus criterion and the rulem aking requireme nts tha t w ould supe rsede the de fault prov is ion

. See Fla. Stat. § 373 .45 92(4 )(e)2 (2003 ). 44 av ail abl e phos phor us re duct ion tec hnol og y ,” referred to i n the Amendment s a s “ BAPR T.” The Amendments define BAPR T to mean “a combi nati on of BM Ps and STAs w hic h i ncl ude
a c onti nui ng research and moni tor ing prog ra m to reduce outflo w of ph ospho ru s so as to achi ev e the phos phor us cr it er ion i n the Ev erg lad es Pr o te cti on Area.” F la. Sta t. §373.45 92( 2) (a ) (2 003)

. Se cti on 3 eq uates the Long -Ter m Pl an to BAP RT. Itst ates that 28 “[ t]he Leg is lat ure finds thatthe most re li abl e means of opti miz ing the per formance of STAs and ac hie v ing rea so n a b le f u rt h e r pr o gre ss in red u cin g ph o sp h o ru s e n te rin g th e Eve rglade s Protec ti on Area i s t o uti li z e a l ong -t er m pl anni ng p ro ces s.” F la. Sta t. § 373. 4592( 3) (b ) (2 003) . I t t hen dec lares that “t he Long -Ter m Pl an prov ide s t he best av ail abl e phos phor us re d u c t i o n t e c h n o l o g y [ B A P R T] b a s e d u p o n a c o mb i n a t i o n o f t h e B M P s a n d STAs describe d in the Plan provided th at th e Plan shall seek to achi ev e the phosphor us cr it er ion in the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area.” The Lo ng -Ter m Pl an is to be “i mplement ed” w it h “t he pla nni ng goal and object

iv e of achi evi ng the phosphor

us cr iter ion to be adopted pu rs uant tosu bp a ra g ra p h 4 (e

)2

. ” Id. (emp hasis ad ded ).

29 Und er the cl ear

w ordin g of the A mendments , th e req uirement i s n o l ong er to Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 44 of 10130

After the first ten y ear

phas e, the Flo ri da Legi sl ature contempl ates an addit ion al ten y ear “secon d ph ase. ” The A ct provides “Th e Legislature inten ds tha t a rev iew of this act at l east10 y ears a fter i mplement ati on of the ini ti al phase i s appropr iat e and neces sar y to the p ubl ici nterest .” I t furt her st ates th a t “[t]he rev iew i s t he bes t w ay

to ensure tha t t he Ev erg lad es Protec tio n A re a i s a chi ev ing st ate w ater q ual ity st andards, i ncl udi ng phosp hor us re duct ion , and the Long -Ter m Pl an i s u si ng the besttec hnol og y av ail abl e.” Fl a. S tat. § 37 3.4592( (3 )( e) ( 2003)

.

31 Othe r sections o f

t h e A m e nde d EFA, when read togethe r w ith Sect ion 3, make cl ear thatthe De cember

31, 2006, compl ian ce date w as abandoned and re pla ced w it h the Long -Ter m Pl an, w hic h w il l not be full y i mplement ed unt il 2016, or bey ond. For

ex ample, compare s ubsecti on 10( a) of the 1 994 EF A ( “b y D ecember 31, 2 006 .

. . t ake suc h ac ti on 45 “a chiev e” the phosp hor us cr it er ion , t hat i s, to m eet it , butto “ s e e k toa c h ie v

e the phosp hor us cr it er ion ,” as a pl anni ng g oal and obj ect iv e, an d, t hereby , notac tual ly meet it

. Of impo rtance , the Florida Legislature refers to the Lon g- term Pla n i t s e lf as “the be st
av ail abl e phos phor us re duct ion tec hnol og y .” Fl a. Stat

. § 373.459 2( 3) (b ) (2 003)

. If thi s w as notclear eno ugh, the Legislature the n restat es w hat is alread y include d in the Lon g- T erm Pl an. The Leg is lat ure offici all y recog niz es that “[ t]he Long -Ter m Pl an c ontai ns an i nit ial phase and a 10- y ear

se cond phase .” F la. Sta t. § 373. 4592( 3) (d ) (2 003)

. It re q uires that “[ T]he Long -Ter m Pl an s hal l be i mplement ed for an ini ti al 13- year phas e (2 003- 2016) and shal l achi ev e w ater

q ual ity sta ndards re lat ing to t he phos phor us cr it er ion i n the Ev erg lad es Prote ction Are a as de term ined bya network of mon itoring stati o n s estab lished for this pur pose. ” 30 The Amended EFA , t h e n , is a mandate that the S tate of Fl or ida “ impl ement” the Lon g- T erm Pla n, w hich itself constitu tes m ode rating prov isio ns a nd a c om pliance sched ule th a t re m o ves th e D e ce m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 d e a d lin e a n d s u b st it u te s “a n i n it ia l p h a se ” th ro u gh 201 6. Th e he art of

the m at t e r is tha t the new com pliance sched ule is legisl atively 31 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 45 of 101as maybe n eces sar y so thatw ater

del iv ered .

. . achi ev es
. . . the p hosp horu s criterion,”) w ith the 2 003 A me nde d EFA subse ction 10 language ( “By Decem ber 31, 2 006

. . . take suc h ac ti on as m ay

be n eces sar

y to implem ent the pre-2006 proj ects and strategies of the Long-Term Pla n so that w ater del iv ered .

. . achi ev es
. . . phosp hor us cr it er ion and moderating prov isions .” ). See alsosu bsecti on ( 3) (b )( 10) (“ the Long -Ter m Pl an .
. . shal l seek to achi ev e the phos phor us cr it er ion i n the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area .
. . w it h the planning goal and obj ectiv e of ach i ev ing the pho spho rus criterion”). The emp hasis is n ot ac hie v ing , buton “ seek ing ” to ac hie v e, w hic h i s o nly an a spi ra ti on. 32 As later discusse d, th e Pho sph o ru s Ru le, ba sed o n the Ame nde d EFA, m akes it cl ear thatdi sc harg e l imi ts are to be based upon “TBEL S” es tabl is hed t hroug h BAR PT and “s hal l not req uire w ater q ual ity bas ed effluent l imi tati ons throug h 2016. ” F. A.C . § 62- 302 .54 0(5)(d) (“ Pho spho rus Rule”).

33 Chi ef J udg e Dav is note d i n hi s o pin ion thatw hil e the C W A onl y al lows t he EP A to 46 incorpo rated into w ate r q uality standa rds for discharger s w ho m eetthe sta tuto ry re q uirements , as oppos ed to author iz ing compl ian ce sc hedul es in ind iv idu al per mits on a c a s e -b y-c a s e b a s is

. T h e “ e f fe c t ” o f t h e A m e n d e d E F A , t h e re fo re , i s t o r e p la c e t h e n a rr a t ive and numer icphos phor us cr it er ion w it h an esc ape cla use that al lows n on- compl ian ce, by 32
v ir tue o f both an extended compl ian ce date, and, dur ing the extens ion , a lesser st ate
w ater q ual ity st andard of compl ian ce, namel y , c ompli ance w ith the Long -Ter m Pl an and “TBEL s”

. The les ser q ual ity sta ndard i s t hen mandat ed for future per mits for d is charg es int o the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area. To further

ex pla in, disc harg es under Flor ida l aw , i ncl udi ng under the 1994 E FA and the Ame nde d EFA, are gov erne d by perm its. Bot h Sect ions 4 and 10 of the Ame nde d EFA
re ferenc e per mits for dis charg es int o and w it hin the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area. S ect ion 4( e) (3 ) per mits are i ss ued by the Dep artment or the Di str ict for di sc harg es int o the EAA
cana ls and into the Evergl ade s Protect ion Area , and S ection 1 0 Lon g- T erm Com pliance per mits are i ss ued by

the Dep artment to t he D is tr ict for poi nt s ource dis charge s. The 33 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 46 of 101directly enforce stan dard s against poin t source s, the CW A still ap plies to no npo int sou rces.

The EPA’ s o w n W ater

Qual ity Standa rd s Han dbook sta tes that nonpoi nt sources maynot caus e a v iol ati on of s tate w ater q ual ity st andards. Micc osuk

ee T ri be , 199 8 W L 18055 39, at * 18 ( Dav is , J .)

. I further co ncur w it h J udg e D av is ’ obser v ati on th at “ [t] he C W A [C lea n W ate r Act] w ould be noth ing mo re tha n a pap er tiger if it didn’t ap ply to no npo int sou rces. Itw ou l d ma k e no s en s e to ha v e an a c t th ath i g hl y reg ul at ed t he s ou r c es o f s om e pollut ant s, butg ave othe rs car te bl anche to pol lut e at w il l. The cong re ssio n a lly st ated g oal s of t he CW A show itappl ies to all s o u r c e s o f

p o l l u t a n t s
. 3 3 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 1 ( a ) ( C WA g oal i s t o ‘ re sto re and maint ain the chemi cal , phy sic a l and bi olo g ic al int eg ri ty of the Nation ’s w ate rs.’” I d. Judge Dav is stated , and I agree a s it relate s to this case , “the record does not s upport th e EPA ’s co ncl usi on th at t he EF A i s c onsi ste nt w it h the C W A. B y allowi ng nonp oint so urces to violate stat e w ate r q uality standa rds until 20 06, the EFA v iolate s both the lett er and spirit of the Clean W ate r Act.” Id.
34 Sect ion 373.4 592( 4) (e )( 3) prov ide s t hat “ [d]ur ing the impl ementati on of the ini ti al phase of the Long -Ter m Pl an, per mits is sued by the d epar tmentsh all be ba sed o n BAP RT and shall include techn olog y -base d ef f luen t limitatio ns con sistentw ith the Lon g- T erm Pl an.” ( emphasi s a dded) . Si mil ar ly , s ect ion 373. 4592( 1) (a ) prov ide s “ [d ]ur ing the impl ementation o f

t h e i nit ial phas e of the Long -Ter m Pl an, p er mits i ss ued by the depar tment shal l be b ased on BA PR T, and s hal l i ncl ude t echno log y -b ased eff lue nt li mita ti ons cons is tent w it h the Long -Ter m Pl an, a s p ro v ide d i n s u b p a ra graph 4( e) (3 ). ” (emp hasis ad ded ).

35 The Admi nis trati v e C ode prov is ion def ine s “TBELs ” as “mi nimum w ast e treatment re q uirement, est abl is hed by the Dep artment, based on treatment tec hnol og y .” F. A.C

. § 62- 47 Amended E FA uneq uiv ocal ly prov ide s i n bot h Secti ons 4 and 10 th at du ri ng the impl eme n tation of the i nit ial phas e of the Long -Ter m Pl an [ i. e. , t hroug h 2016] , per mits is sued by

the depar

tment (D EP) shal l be bas ed on BAPR T, and shal l in c lu d e t e c h n o lo gybased eff lu e n t lim itati ons cons is tent w it h the Long -Ter m Pl an. See F la. Sta t. §§ 3 7 3

. 4 5 9 2 (4 )( e )( 3 ) a n d 1 0 (a ) ( 2 0 0 3 ). T h is p ro vis io n is n o td is c re t io n a ry, b u tm a n d a t o ry, 34 by v ir tue o f the w ord “ shal l” i n c ontext w it h the remaini ng EF A Amendment s. “Tec hnol og y -b ased eff lue nt lim it a tions” or “ TBELs” are defined by the Amended EFA to mean “ the t echno log y -b ased treatment re q uirements as defined in Rul e 62- 650.200 , Fl or ida Admin is trati v e Cod e.” By defini ti on, TBEL S are less rest ri cti v e tha n the 35 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 47 of 101650.200 ( 13)

. 36 “W ater q ual ity bas ed eff lu e nt l imi tati on” ( “W QBEL” ) means an effluent l imi tati on, w hic h may

be more s tr ing e n t th an a tec hnol og y -b ased eff lue nt l imi tati on, t hat h as been deter mined necessa ry

by the Dep artment to en sure tha t w ater q ual ity st andards in a re cei v ing body

of w ater w il l not b e v iol ated. ” F. A.C . § 62- 650.200

.

48 nar ra ti v e and numer icphos phor us cr it er ion w hic h are def ine d to be “ W ater Qual ity Bas ed Eff lue nt Li mita ti ons (“ W QBELs ”)

. Thus, dur ing the per iod t h roug h 2016, per mits may 36 is sue ev en i f neith er

the nar ra ti v e nor the numer ic phosp hor us cr it er ion is met s o l ong as th e re is co m p lia n ce w it h th e Lo n g-T e rm Pla n an d i m p le m e n ta ti o n o f T BE L s. T h e ch a n ge in compl ian ce sc hedul e, c oupl ed w it h the chang es in cr it er ia, are c hang es in sta te w ater q ual ity st andards. The targ et for protec ti ng the Ev erg lade s is no l ong er the phosp hor us criterion, bu t a f utu re plan tha t cand idly conce des th at disch arges w ill be a bove the default provisi on of 10 ppb. Fla. Sta t. § 373 .45 92(3 )(b) (200 3); Ex. H, Lon g- T erm Plan at ES-3 [PR -A R- 29.28]

.

5

. Mo derat in g P ro v is io ns : a Fou rth Com pon e nt of Wa te r Q ua li ty

C rit eria T he co ntrolling wat er quality stand ard for the St ate of Florida af

ter the EFA Am end me nts w ere en acte d ma nda ted thatDEP inc lu de m ode rating prov isions in all perm its issued by DEP. F la

. S t at. § 373 .45 92(4 )(e), ( 10)(20 03). T he L egislature also author iz ed D EP t o i ncl ude moderati ng prov is ion s i n the Phos phor us Rul e, bu t i t i s c lea r f ro m th e la n gua ge o f

t h e s ta tu te t h a t t h e m o d e ra ti n g pro visio n s were , e ss e n ti a lly, t h e Lo n gT erm Pla n. Fla. Sta t. § 37 3.4 592 (4)(e)3 (2003 ). Th e EFA Am end me nts are clea r on the ir face thatthey

repl ace the 1 994 EF A’ s req uirement t hat w ater disc harg es to t he Ev erg lad es Prote ction Are a mu st me et th e ph osph orus na rrativ e criterion of no imbala nce of aquatic fl ora an d fau na b y

De c em be r

31, 200 6, byimp l em en ti ng t he L on g - Ter m P l an
. Th e s am e Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 48 of 10137

Unde r Flo ri da l aw , a w ater q ual ity st andard i s c omposed of four s eparate c o m p o n e n t s t h a tin c lu d e c la s s if ie d u s e s , wa t e r qu a li t y c ri t e ri a , a n a n t i- d e gr a d a t io n p o li c y, and moderati ng prov is ion s. F .A.C . § 62- 302.200 (3 0)

. Beg inn ing i n 1979, F lor ida ’s admi nis tr ati v e r ule s a ls o added an a nti deg ra dati on pol icy w hic h prov ide s, in par

t, that “[ p]ol lut ion w hic h c auses or co ntr ibu tes to new

v iol ati ons of w ate r q uality stan dard s or to con tinua tion o f ex isting v iolation s is harmf ul to the w ate rs of this Stat e an d sha ll not be a llow ed. W at e rs h a vin g w ate r q uality below the criteria esta blished for them shall be prot ecte d an d en han ced. ” F.A.C. § 62-3 02. 300 (15 ). T his anti deg ra dati on pol icy

appl ies to both OF W s a n d n o n- OF W w aters. See i d. The anti deg ra dati on pol icy

sp eci fical ly

address es nutr ien ts and sta tes that“ ex ces si v e nut ri ents (t otal ni trog en and total phos phorus ) co n st it ute o ne of the most sev ere w ater q ual ity prob lem s facing the St ate .” Id. at (1 3)

. The Ru le f u rt h e r prov ide s t hat i t s hal l be th e Depa rtme nt’s po licy

to limit the introdu c t io n of man -induce d nu trients into the St ate ’s w aters, w it h par

ti cul ar co nsi derati on g iv en to w aters w hic h c ontai n l ow nutr ien t conc entrati ons. Id. 49 appl ies to the d efault cr it er ion

. Pr ior to the 2 003 Amend ed EF A, mode ra ti ng prov is ion s w ere def in e d under t he Fl or ida Admi nis trati v e C ode t o be a c omponent of “w ater qual ity standards. ” T he F lor ida

37 Admin is tra ti ve Cod e s peci fical ly defined “ w ater

q ual ity ” to i ncl ude “

... the moderati ng prov is ion s c ontai ned i n this R u le a nd i n F .A.C . R ule 62- 4, ad opted pursuantto Cha pter 403, F. S,” i n addi ti on to des ig nated presentand future benefic ial u ses ( cl ass ific ati on of
w aters) , t he numer icand nar ra ti v e c ri ter ia ap p lie d to the s peci fic w ater us es or classif ication and the Florida a nti-de grada tion p olicy . F.A.C. §§ 62 -302 .20 0 (29) and (3)). Before the 2 003 Amendm e n ts to t he EF A w ere enacted, the S tate’ s “ moderati ng provisi ons” w ere limited und er Flo rida law t o “m ix ing zone, z one of discharge, site spe cif ic altern ative cri teria, exem ption , and equit a b le a ll ocat ion provisions.” See F .A.C . §§ 62- 302.300 (1 0) (b )( 2) , ( 10) (d ). Thes e “ admini strati v e” moderati ng prov is ion s w ere not “s tatut or y ” and di d nottr ump the nar ra ti v e and default cr it er ia by prov idi ng mandate d
re q uirements thatw ere to be i ncl uded i n al l per mits for d is charg es int o the Eve rgla d es Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 49 of 10138

The ter m “mode ra ti ng prov is ion s” appears now here i n the C lea n W ater Ac t and i ts impl ementi ng reg ula ti ons. The C W A c ontai ns onl y three w ater

q ual ity st andards: (1 ) the designat ed use; ( 2) the criteria, eithe r in narrative or num eric form, and (3 ) a n a n tideg ra dati on pol icy . See 33 U .S.C . § 1313( c) (2 )( A) ; 40 C. F. R. §§ 1 31.3( b) , ( f), ( I) ; 131 .10; 131 .11 ; 131 .12 . Beca use th e mo dera ting prov isions cha nged th e w ate r q uality standa rds, they sh oul d hav e been re v iew ed by EPA under Sec ti on 303 ( c) of the CW A. But, the E PA, hav ing co ncl uded t hat t he EF A Amendment s w ere depen dent upon t he adop tion of the Pho spho rus R u le , m ade no an alysi s of the im pactof

the EFAAme ndm ent s on ea ch ele ment of w ater q ual ity sta ndards. The onl y anal y si s done by the EPA (co ncer nin g w hether the E FAAmendment s c hang ed th e ant i- deg ra dati on pol icy ) w as cont ain ed summar il y

i n a footnot e i n the EF A D eter minat ion . “ The 2003 a mendments to the EFA do not rev is e Flor ida ’s anti- deg ra dati on req uirements .” EPA Nov . 5, 2003 D eter minat ion , at n.12 [PR -A R- 11]. This i s p atent ly ar bit ra ry and capr ic iou s. 50 Protec ti on Area. The EF A Amendment s, how ev er , hav e c hang ed th e s tatus of moderati ng provisi ons. The new , Amend ed EF A s tatut or y “ moderati ng prov is ion s” g o s ig nific antl y bey ond
w hat i s i n the F lor ida Admi nis trati v e C ode. The di sti nct ion i s c ri ti cal because the State of Flo rid a us es the t er m “ sta ndards” to impl y thatthe CW A’ s t hree w ater q ual ity st andards elem ent s of

(1) cr iterion, (2) de signated uses an d (3) anti-de grada tion requirem ent s are bei ng met, w hen, under the Am e n d e d EF A, mode ra ti ng prov is ion s t ru mp thos e three ele ments. Thus, the Leg is lat ure crea ted and author iz ed a fourth componen t t o the w ater q ual ity st andards, “ moderati ng prov is ion s,” w hic h i s c ontrar y to the C W A. 38 6

. The EPA ’s Pos ition on Moderating Prov isions Subs ect ion ( 4) (e )( 2) of the A mended EF A s ets forth moderati ng prov is ion for impacted a nd uni mpacte d areas w it h in the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area. Mo derati ng prov is ion s a re des ig ned t o “ moderate” or temper the impact of t he phos phor us cr it er ion on the reg ula ti on of di sc harg es int o the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area and, as di sc uss ed abov e, are s p eci fical ly

al low ed as the re sul t of l eg is lat iv e amendmentenac ted i n 2003. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 50 of 10151

Subs ect ion ( 4) (e )( 2) prov ide s, in par t: The depar

tment’ s ru le adopti ng a phosp hor us cr it er ion ma y inclu de moderati ng prov is ion s d ur in g t h e i mplement ati on of the ini ti al phase of the Long -Ter m Pl an aut hor iz ing di sc harg es based upon BAPR T pro v idi ng net imp rov em entto imp acte d area s. Discharges to u nim pact ed a reas m ay also be auth o rize d by

moderati ng prov is ion s, w hic h s hal l re q uire BAP RT, and w hic h mustbe b a se d u pon a deter minat ion by the depar

tment that the environme nta l bene f its of the disc h arge clearly

outweig h po ten tial adverse imp acts and othe rw ise com ply w ith an tidegrada tion requirem ent s. Mo derati ng prov is ion s a uthor iz ed by thi s secti on s hal l not e xtend bey ond Dec ember

2016 unl ess f u rt her

auth or iz ed by

the Leg is lat ure pursuantto para graph (3)(d). Fla. Sta t. § 37 3.4 592 (4)(e)(2) (200 3). The EPA sta tes i n i ts 2003 Det er minat ion thatsu bsecti on ( 4) (e )( 2) w as modified to “a uthor iz e,” but not req uire the inc lus ion of moderati ng prov is ion s as par t of the future ru lemaki ng to est abl is h a p hosph or us cr it er ion

. It found the same thi ng to be tr ue i n s ubsecti on 10. It sta tes that the Amendments to the EFA do not define “t he t ype of moderati ng provisi on to be de v elop ed, the exte nt of chan ge allow ed th rough the mod eratin g provisi ons, or w hether the moderati ng prov is ion appl ies to outflow f ro m phosp hor us sources or to the ambien t w ate r q ual ity

cr it er ia suppo rt ing the desi g nated uses of the E PA.” EP A N ov . 5, 2003 D eter minat ion at 8 [P R-AR -1 1]. Thus, the ess ence of EPA’ s D eter minat ion , and the argume nts includ ed in its v arious briefs, is th at referen ces to “mo dera ting prov isions” only
create the “ poss ibi li ty ” of f uture enactment of these “mode ra ti ng pro visions” and “d o not themse lv es chang e the des ig nated uses or w ater q ual ity cr it er ion cr it er ia of the [E v erg lad es Prote ction Are a] atthis time .” Id. at 8. As the E PA pu ts it , “ by us ing the w ord ‘ m a y’ the statu te simp ly

auth oriz es DEP to crea te such provi sions if t he Dep artm ent , in the e x ercise Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 51 of 10139

The Tri be and Fr ien ds arg ue w it h meritthat the Amended EFA w as “c ra ftil y

drafted” to attempt to ev ade EP A rev iew . D E 247, at 5. They f u rt h e r a ssert “ EPA eit her does not see the S tate’ s tr ue i ntentor ch ooses to tur n a b li nd ey e to the t ru th an d i ts duti es under the Clean W ate r Act. EPA’s rev iew , w hich consisted of read ing the w ords o f sp e cif ic sec ti ons of the Amendment s, ra ther than con nect ing them to an alyz e i ts tr ue effect, w as arbitrary and capricious.” Id. 52 of its di sc re ti on, d eter mines they are appropr iat e.” D E 231, at 15. 39 The EPA’ s l imi ted d is cus si on of the 2003 E FA Amendments es sent ial ly su bst it utes f u t u re ru le -m a k in g a n d f u t u re p e rm it t in g t o a vo id re vie wi n g t h e p re s e n tle gi s la t ive aut horizations as de fa cto chang es in w ater q ual ity sta ndards re q uired to be re v iew ed und er the CW A. T he ch anges to the “Lo ng-Term Plan” und er the Am end ed EFAare dis mis sed by

EPA as impos ing no compl ian ce sc hedul e “ at t his ti me.” EP A N ov . 5, 2003 Determ inatio n, at9 [PR-AR-11]. T he EP A likew ise dismi s s e s the Am end ed EFA ’s leg is lat iv e findi ng s a s b ein g i ncons eq uenti al w it hout future ru le- maki ng i n pl ace: W hil e the se [findings ] c lea rl y co ntempl ate t hat t he Long -Ter m Pl an for re duci ng phosphor us enter ing the [Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area] w il l extend bey ond 200 6 (the ini ti al phas e runs unti l 2016, and t here i s t o be a s econd phase after

that ), i n our

v iew , t hey

do n ot s et a new , l ater co mpli ance date with o u t f u rt h e r ru le -m a kin g. EPA Nov . 5, 2003 Det er minat ion , at10 [ PR -A R- 11]. W hil e the 1999 EPA Det er minat ion ra ti fied a defini te D ecember 31, 2006, deadl ine for c ompli ance w it h the C W A, t he EP A co ncl udes in it s 2 003 D eter minat ion thatthe prev iou sl y

i mposed compl ian ce deadl ine ca n be ev ade d s impl y by not re ferr ing to or chang ing the compl ian ce sc hedul e i tse lf. The E PA s ay s t here i s n o c hang e to the compl ian ce sc hedul e bec ause “[ t]he amended l ang uag e does not spec ific all y refer t o the 2006 de adl ine

. . . .” EPA N ov . 5, 2003 Det er minat ion , at11 [ PR -A R- 11]. T he EP A’ s c on c l us i on i s a r bi trar i l y a nd w ron g l y

p rem i s ed u po n th e i nc or rect Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 52 of 10153

ass umpti on th at ev en th ough th e Amendment s t ell D EP w hat t he moderati ng prov is ion s are ( the L ong -Ter m Pl an) , how l ong they

sh oul d be in pla ce (a t l eastthroug h 2016) , and that the L ong -Ter m Pl an i s B APR T for pur poses of pe rmi tti ng , they are “ not b ind ing ” on th e Stat e bec ause the S tate’ s p ro posed r ule on t he phos phor us numer ic cr it er ion had not b een prom ulgated at the time th e Am end me nts to t h e E F Ahad passe d. W hen v iew ed a s a
w hol e, t he Amende d EF A mandat es the mode ra ti ng prov is ion s in the Phos phor us Rul e. The EPA av oid s s cr uti niz ing the sta tute as a w hol e and ins tead f o cu se s o n a cramped
ana ly sis of

the word “ ma y .” Giv en th e con text, the use of the w ord “ ma y ” instea d of “shall” is g amesmans hip and seemi ng ly an e ffort by

the Stat e to av oid EPA sc ru ti ny
. The EPA ig nores that the key

components of

the moderati ng prov is ion s had to be ex pli ci tl y i ncl uded in t h e A m e n d e d E F Ain o rd e r fo r t h e P h o s p h o ru s Ru le t o su rvi ve a n a d m in is t ra t ive chal len g e as an u nla wful del eg ati on of l eg is la ti ve a u th o ri ty . W hen read as a w hol e, t he EFA Am end me nts creat e a m and ato ry duty that cha nges w ate r q uality standa rds. 7. “M ay ” m eans “S hal l” W h ile t h e s ta tu to ry m a n d a te op e ra te s in d e p e n d e n tl y of su b se ct io n (4) (e ) to ch a n ge Fl or ida ’s w ater

qual ity standards, subsec ti on 4(e) , nonethel ess , must be c onsi dered i n pari
m ater ia to all of t he Amended EFA sta tutor y chang es. The EPA’ s Det er minat ion does not consid er, giv en th e tot ality of the Am end ed EFAstatu tory requireme nts an d f rame w ork,
w hether the w ord “may ” act ual ly means “s hal l” for sta tutor y pur poses in the co n te xt of subs ect ion 4( e)

. By tak ing the w ord “ may ” in Sect ion 4 an d ex amini ng i t i n i sol ati on from all othe r re v is ion s t o the EF A, t he EP A has ac ted a rb it ra rily a n d c a pr ic iou sl y , and i n a
m a n n e r i n c o n s is t e n twit h a p p li c a b le la w. Base d on my rev iew , the EFA Am end me nts est ablish o n the ir face , in accorda nce Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 53 of 10154

w ith the ir plain terms, that th e Florida Legisl atu re actu ally ma nda ted tha t the Lon g- T erm Pl an, the moderati ng prov is ion chos en by the Leg is lat ure, be impl emented w it hout del ay and di re cte d tha t i t be inc lud ed i n a ll p e rm it s i ss ued by the DE P. F la. Sta t. §§ 373 .45 92(3 )(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 4(e), an d 10 (2003 ). T he Florida Legisla ture also mandated that al l per mits w oul d be is sued based on t he prov is ion s o f the Long -Ter m Pl an,
w hic h i ncl udes the c ompli ance sc hedul e c ontai ned t herein ( and now adopt ed by

st atute ) and t he proje cte d di sc harg es of phosphor us w hic h ex ceed the d efault numer iccr it er ia. The moderati ng prov is ion s are immedi atel y appli cabl e throug h the adopt ed Long -Ter m Pl an as BAPR T, alo ng w it h it s TBELS and the re q uirement to inc or porate them int o al l p e rm it s is sued. EPA improper ly g iv es li ttl e effectto the mand ator y , non -d is creti onar

y co mponents of subs ect ion ( 4) (e )( 2) , w hic h req uire tha t, dur ing the impl ementati on phas e of the ini ti al phase of t he Long -Ter m Pl an, di sc harg es under the propose d r ule mustbe “ base d upon BA PRT ” (t he Long -Term P lan ) prov idi ng net improv ement t o i mpacte d areas; that discha rg es to un imp acte d area s may also be aut horized b y m ode rating p rov isions, “w hich shal l req u i r e BA PRT ;” that , und er su bsecti on 4( e) (3 ), and that “[ d]ur ing the impl e me n t a t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l p h a s e o f t h e L o n g - Te r m P l a n , p e r mi t s i s s u e d bythe depar tment shal l be base d on BA PRT , and sh all i ncl ude t e ch n o log y bas ed effluent li mita ti ons cons is tent w it h the Long- Term Plan. ” T hese mandator y co mponents , i n l ig ht of other EF A Amendments, spell out that the Amended E FA mandates moderati ng prov is ion s and now el ev ates them to s tatut or y st atus as a c omponent of Fl or ida ’s water q ual ity Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 54 of 10140

W hil e one subs ect ion of the s tatut e s tates thatD EP “ may ” impl ement moderati ng prov is ion s in the phosphor us rul e in 4(e) , other secti ons of the Amende d EF A di cta te t hat the Long-Te rm Plan shall be imp lem ent ed “w ithou t dela y ,” a nd de clare that“all perm its” is sued must inc or porate B APR T, w hic h i s t he Long -Term Plan i tse lf. See Fl a. S tat. §§ 373 .45 92(2 )(j) , (3)(b), ( 3)(d), (3)(e), ( 4)(e), (10) and (10)(a). 55 stan dard s. 40 Subs ect ion 10 t hen repeats the key l ang uag e i n the per mitt ing se cti on ( as dis cus sed
a b o v e ) , a n d t h e n re q u i re s t h e D i s t r i c t , byD e cemb er 3 1, 20 06 , t o tak e s uch act ion to impl ement t he pre- 2006 proje cts and strateg ies of the L ong -Ter m Pla n s o tha t w ater del iv ered to the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area ac hie v es the p hosph or us cr it er ion and
mo derat in g pr ov isio ns. N othi ng q ual ifies thi s req uirement w it h l ang uag e s uch as, e.g. , “if mo dera ting provisi ons a re ado pte d by r ule.” Not on ly that , butthe 20 03 Am end ed EFA
re q uires, by

D ecemb er 3 1, 20 03 , the D is tr ict “ shal l ,” under su bsecti on 10( a) , s ubmitan appl ic ati on for per mit modific ati on to achiev e state w ater qual ity st andards, i ncl udi ng the phosp hor us cr it er ion and moderating prov isions . W hy w ould the Florida L egis lature
re q uire the D is tr ict t o s ubmitan a ppl ic ati on to i ncl ude “ moderati ng prov is ion s” pri or to the ado ption of

the Ph osph orus Rule if they w ere no t alread y m a n d a t o ry u nde r the EFA Am end me nts? The onl y log ic al conc lus ion , cons is tent w it h the pl ain w ordin g of the s tatut e, i s t hat
suc h appl ic ati on for per mit modific ati on must inc lud e moderati ng prov is ion s a s s peci fied in the Amended EFA and the Long- Term Plan, reg ardle ss of w hether a ru le is adopt ed by that ti me. T he ot her

obv iou s i nferenc e from t he s tr uct ure of the sta tute is thati t mandat es that moderati ng prov is ion s b e puti n the Phos phor us Rule. Nei ther of thes e s ect ion s dis cus s a ppl y ing moderati ng prov is ion s o n a c ase- by -ca se b a sis, as EPA co ntends , nor Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 55 of 10156

do th ey giv e any d iscretion to DEP to base perm its on an ything oth er than BAPRT , w hich
are tec hnol og y -b ased eff lue nt l imi tati ons cons is tent w it h the Long -Ter m Pl an. W hen read
as a w hol e, t he EF A Ame ndments ch ang e w ater q ual ity st andards by

neg ati ng the criterion, m an d a t in g tha t discha rg es be allow ed th at are inco mp atible w ith the antid egradat ion po licy , and bychan ging the de signated use of the water body until at least 2016. These c hang es are notdi sc re ti onar y . W hil e the wo rd “may ” in a s tatut e c re ates a presumpt ion of some d eg re e of dis creti on, t his presumpt ion ca n be defeated by i n d icati ons of leg is lat iv e i ntentto the cont ra ry or

by obv iou s i nferenc es from the str uct ure and pur poses of the s tatut e. Cor tez Byr d Chi ps, Inc

. v. Bi

ll Har ber t C onst r. C o., 5 2 9 U

. S

. 1 9 3 , 1 9 8 -1 9 9 (2 0 0 0 )( T h e wo rd “m a y” in a statu te “usua lly

implies som e de gre e o f discretion, but th is comm on-se nse p rinciple of stat utor

y co nst ru cti on .
. . ca n be defeated by i ndi cat io n s o f

l e gisl ati v e i ntentto the cont ra ry or byobv iou s i nferenc es from the str uct ure and pur pose of the s tatut e” ); Us m ani
v. U. S. A ttor

ney Gen. , 483 F .3d 1 147, 1150- 1151 ( 11th Ci r. 2007) ( The w ord “ may ” in a sta tute creates a presumpt ion of some deg re e of disc re ti on, but “thi s pres umpti on c an be defeated by

i ndi cat ion s o f leg is lat iv e i ntentto the cont ra ry or obv iou s inferences from t he str uct ure and pur pose of the s tatut e” )( q uoti ng D i r ec tT V, In c
. v

. Br own , 371 . F .3d 8 14, 8 17 (1 1th C ir . 200 4) ); see a lso My les v. Sta te , 602 So. 2d 1 278, 1281 ( Fl a. 19 92) ( “W e real iz e,
as the c our

t bel ow note d, t hat t he s tatut e i n q uest ion us es the w ord ‘may ’ in tal ki ng about
e le c t ro n ic c o m m u n ic a t io n s
. Ho we ve r, itis se t t le d t h a tt h e wo rd ‘m a y’ i s n o ta lwa ys per mis si v e, bu t may

be a w ord of mandate in an appropr iat e c ontext.” ); Com coa, Inc. v. Coe , 587 So.2 d 47 4, 47 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 199 1) (“Specif ically , an im pera tiv e ob lig at ion is someti mes reg arded as i mposed by a s tatut or

y prov is ion notw it hst andi ng thati t i s c ouche d Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 56 of 10141

At o ra l arg ument, the D EP an d EPA did not ev en k now i f the F ar mers had met t he Dec ember

31, 2006, deadl ine or

i f that da te w as bei ng enforc ed by D EP. See, e.g. , M ay 21, 2 008 H ear ing Tr. at 50- 52. 57 in perm issiv e, directo ry , or ena bling language.”) Such i s t he c ase here.

8. Sub sect io n 4( f) an d th e F arm ers The EPA (a nd In ter

v enors) al so mis re ad Secti on 4( f). Mu ch atten ti on w as prev iou sl y

g iv en to Sec ti on 4( f) of the 1994 E FA in Chi ef Judg e D av is ’ Opi nio n, an d i n the 1999 E PA D eter minat ion , bec ause of the pot enti al for har m to t he Ev erg lad es from d isc h a rge s f ro m t h e E vergla d e s Agr icu lt u ra l Ar e a
. N o w, t h e E PAr e lie s o n t h e la n gua ge of 4(f ) to conclud e tha t beca use th is sec t io n wa s “no t chan ged” by the 20 03 EFA Amendments , t here has been no chang e in the December 31, 2006, compl ian ce sc hedul e. EPA als o makes the same arg ument in rel ati on to subsec ti on 10(a) w here it conten ds that thi s s ect ion st il l re q uires w ater qua li ty st andards to be met b y D ecember

31, 2006. The EPAis w rong in its i nte rpretat ion of the law on b oth accou nts. Sub section 4(f )(4) had required tha t, by D ecem be r 3 1 , 2 006 , all permitt ees’ dis charg es w ere prohi bit e d from c ausi ng or co ntr ibu ti ng to any

v iol ati on of w ater

q ual ity sta ndards in the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area. The key lan g uag e is “c ause or co ntr ibu te t o a v iol ati on of w ater q ual ity sta ndards. ” EPA i g nores that the A mended EF A now defines
w ate r q uality s t a n d a rd s t o includ e the Lon g- T erm Pla n [BA PRT ], w hich is a com pliance
sc hedul e tha t al lows a ll per mitt ees to s ubst it ute t he Long -Ter m Pl an for act ual ly meeti ng the p hosph or us cr it er ion i n al l w ater del iv ered to the Eve rg lad es Protec ti on Area by Decem ber 31 , 200 6. This stat uto ry schem e exists “ in d epe nde nt” of rulema king and is 41 self-implem ent ing by

v irtue of Section s (3)(b)- (e), 4(e)(3), and (10 )(a). T hus, a perm ittee ’s Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 57 of 10142

T h e view th a t a se ct io n o f th e Am e n d e d EF A th a t “gover n s p e rm it s” c a n n o t c h a n ge w ater q ual ity st andards is i ncor re ct. Se cti on 4( f) of the 1994 E FA, w hic h g ov e rned per mite es in the E v erg la d e s A g ri cul tural Area, w as prev iou sl y found by

the EPA to be a chang e i n w ater

q ual ity st andards after EPA w as re q uired by t h e C our

t t o rev iew

i t, beca use it cha nged th e com pliance sched ule for me eting t h e ph osph orus criterion un til Dec ember

31, 2006. EPA

Sept. 1999 Deter minat ion [EFA- AR -8 ]. T he EPA arg ues that the 2 003 EF A Amendment s i ncl ude no suc h c omparabl e and uneq uiv ocal su spensi on lan g uag e. The “ shal l not be re q uired to i mplementw ater q ual ity st andards” of subs ect ion 4( f)( 3) has t he s ame effectas per mitt ing BAPRT throu g h 2016. In both cas es, there is no re q uirement t o meet the phosp hor us cr it er ion

. Both prov is ion s s uspen d the nar ra ti v e and default numer ic phosp hor us cr it er ion , ev en thoug h the w ordin g is different. W hat is cr uci al is the “ef fect.”
43 Base d on myr uli ng thatEPA ’s 2003 Det er minat ion that the A mended EF A does not chang e F lor ida ’s w ater qual ity st andards is ar bit ra ry

and capr ic iou s, I nee d notreach the 58 dis charg e c annot caus e or co ntr ibu te t o a v iol ati on o f “w ater q ual ity st andards in the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area ,” F la. Sta t. § 373. 4592( 4) (f) (4 ), si nce the L ong -Ter m Pl an, alon g w ith its TB ELs an d com pliance sch edu le, esta blishes a new w ate r quality stan dard tha t s upersedes the nar ra ti v e and numer icphos phor us cr it er ion , or at best , mak es compl ian ce opti onal

. Gi v en thi s anal y si s, the admini strati v e re cord does not s uppor t t he EPA ’s f inding tha t the Am end ed EFA §§ 37 3.4 592 (4)(f) (3) and (4) requires EAA farme rs to meetst ate w ater

q ual ity st andards by

2006 ra ther

than 2016. 42 F or al l of these re asons , t he Amende d EF A c hang es Fl o rida’s w ater q ual ity sta ndards by

auth or iz ing co nti nui ng v iol ati ons of the nar ra ti v e and num e riccr it er ion for phosp hor us and other

nutri ents . By

al low ing co nti nued ha rmful dis charg es of nutr ien ts int o the E v erg lad es, the Amended E FA al so v iol ates the sta te’ s a nti -d eg ra dati on pol icy . The
re sul t of the EPA’ s posi ti on is to v acat e its pri or 1999 Det er minat ion and to en sure tha t t he de fa ctosuspe nsion of

enforcem entand comp liance wi th state w ate r quality stan dard s w ill cont inu e for an i ndeter minat e per iod , a re sul t that cannotbe permi tted under the CW A. 43 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 58 of 101Pl ain ti ffs’ arg ument t hat t he EP A i s b ar re d by admi nis trati v e res jud ic ata from cha ng ing the compl ian ce sc hedul e. I co ncur w it h the meri t of P lai nti ffs’ arg ument, how ev er , i ndependen t of a ny r es j ud i c at a effect, t ha t th e EP A c an no t ev ad e i ts p r i or fi nd i ng s o n th e prev iously impos ed c ompli ance deadl ine by si mply re sorti ng to mechani sms suc h as future r ule
maki ng and per mitt ing . U nli ke it s a nal y si s i n th e 1 999 D eter minat ion , t he EP A does not cons ide r, in its 2003 Det er minat ion , w hether the new Amended EFA

deadl ine ca n be met, or w hether

reli abl e s ci enti fic e v ide nce demonst ra tes that the Ev erg lad es coul d w it hst and ten more y ears o f dis charg es that are notprotec ti v e.
59 The EPA’s findi ng thatthe Amended E FA does not c hang e F lor ida ’s w ater q ual ity sta ndards is ar bit ra ry , capr ic iou s, and not suppo rt ed by the admini strati v e record. Pursuantto 5 U .S.C . § 706( s) , t he C our t w il l set as ide the EPA’ s D eter minat ion

. G. Th e St at e o f Fl or id a’s P ho sph or us Ru le: F .A .C . § 62- 302.540 1. Introduction T he partie s’ se cond se t of cross-m otion s for sum ma ry judgmen t relate to the EP A’s CW A rev iew

of Florida’s Phosp horu s Rule (“ Ru le ”) , F.A.C. § 62 -302 .54 0. T he Rule
or ig ina lly w as adopted by the Stat e of Fl or ida Env ironmental R eg ula ti on C ommis si on (“ ER C” ) on J uly

15, 2004. Itw as lat er

amended on M ay 25, 2 005. As final ly adopt ed, t he Pho spho rus Rule esta blishes water qua lity st and ards for p hosp horu s, includin g a nu me ric pho spho rus criterion, w ithin th e Everg lade s Prote ction Area. F.A.C. § 62 -302 .54 0 (1)(a). T he water q uality standa rds ado pte d include the followi ng elem e n t s : “ (1 ) a num eric in t e r p re t a t i o n o f t h e C l a s s I I I n a r ra t i v e n u t r i e n t c r i t e r i o n fo r p h o s p h o r u s ; ( 2 ) the esta blishm entof

mod eratin g provisi ons for perm its auth oriz ing discharges into the EPA in compl ian ce w it h w ater

qual ity standards, incl udi ng the numer icphos phor us cr it er ion ; and ( 3 ) a met hod for deter mini ng ac hie v ement of the numer icphos phor us cr it er ion , w hic h tak es int o ac countco nsi d e ra t i o n o f s p a t i a l a n d t e mp o ra l v a r iab il ity , nat ural back g ro und c ondi ti ons Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 59 of 10144

1. DE P’ s s ubmis si on of secti ons of the Pho sphor us Rul e to EPA On Januar

y 12, 2005, DE P submitted the Phosphor us Rul e to the E PA pu rs uant to the CW A. In DEP’ s acc ompany ing letter , t he D EP’ s g eneral couns el re present ed th at D EP w as sub mitt ing sections (3), (4), (6) an d (7) for re v iew p ursua nt to the CW A and 40 C.F.R. 131.13. DE P J an. 1 2, 20 05 Letter , at1- 3 [P R-AR -1 8]. W it h respect t o s ubsecti ons (6 )( a) and (6)(b), the lette r noted tha tt hese subse ctions p rov ide m ode rating prov isions w hich maybe is sued on a cas e- by -c ase basi s in ass oci ati on w it h permi ts is sued under se cti on (5 ) of the Pho sphor us Rul e. Id. at 2. The le tter

ex pla ine d tha t D EP w as not s ubmitti ng the follo w ing se cti ons for rev iew under the CW A as a chang e in w ater q ual ity sta ndards: se cti on ( 1) , ent it led “ Pur pose and Scop e;” section (2), entitled “Fi ndin gs;” section (5), e nt i tl ed “Lo ng-Term Comp liance Pe rmit R e q u i re me n t s fo r P h o s p h o r u s D i s c h a rg e s i n t o t h e E P A ; ” a n d s e c t i o n ( 8 ) , enti tl ed
“ C on ti ng en c i es .” Id. a t 2. Al ong w it h the R ule and the g eneral couns el’ s l etter , D EP submi tted a d ocumententi tl ed “ Techni cal and Reg ula tor y Infor mati on i n Supp ort of the Stat e of Fl or ida ’s Adopt ed Pho sphor us Cr it er ion Contai ned in Rul e 62- 302.540 F .A.C ” to facil it ate E PA’ s rev iew

. 2. EPA ’s Janua ry

24, 20 05 Det ermin ation on the Phosp horu s Rule Fol low ing D EP’ s Janua ry 12, 2005 s ubmis si on, E PA s ent D EP i ts Det er minat ion on the P hosph or us Rul e on Janua ry 24, 2005. EPA Jan. 24, 2005 D eter minat ion [PR -A R- 69]. EPA’ s letter noted that the attac hed Det er minat ion rev iew ed onl y se cti ons (3 ), ( 4) , ( 6) and (7 ) becau se thos e w ere the se cti ons submi tted for rev iew by D EP. EPA noted in it s l etter

that , for the p ur poses of CW A re v iew , “ the w ater q ual ity cr it er ion as w ell as thes e pol ic ies and procedu re s must, tog ether , ass ure the d esi g nated use of the w a te r b o dy , as a w hol e, i s p ro tec ted. Id. at 1. In i ts Det er minat ion , t he EP A approv ed th e s ubmitted s ect ion s o f the Phos phor us Ru le , w it h the ex cept ion of subpa ra g ra ph ( 4) (c )( 1) , bec ause EPAc oncl uded t hat t his su bparag ra ph l imi ted t he appl ic abi li ty

of the p hosph or us cr it er ion to cer tai n por ti ons of the R efuge. 3. EPA’ s J uly

27, 2005 D eter minat ion Fol low ing EPA ’s Ja nuar y 24, 2005 Det er minat ion , Fl or ida adopted rev is ion s t o the Phos phor us Rul e on Ma y 5, 2005, and DE P submi tted thes e rev is ion s t o EPA

. See EPA July 27, 200 5 Dete rmina tion, at 1 [PR-AR-70] . Based on EPA’s rev iew of the revisi ons, it deter mined that the P hosph or us Rul e no lon g er l imi ted t he a p p lic abi li ty of it s c ri ter ion to onl y the int er ior

por ti o ns of the R efuge. Id. at 2. On J uly 27, 2005, EPA approv ed th e 60 and conf iden ce in labo ratory results.” F.A.C. § 6 2-30 2.5 40(1 )(b)(1-3). T his Order w ill add ress th e E P A Determ inatio ns on the Ph osph orus Rule w ith regard to ea ch of these ele ments. Before turn ing to the s e i s sues, I men tion a s f urthe r background thatthe Rule consists o f

eight sections. E PA rev iew ed the se section s in four sep arate Determ inatio ns. 44 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 60 of 101rev isions as be ing consisten t w ith the CW A and 40 C.F.R. § 131 and w ithdre w its Janua ry 24, 2005, d is approv al of subparag ra ph ( 4) (c )( 1)

. Id. The EPA w ro te t hat i t had co mplet ed it s rev iew

of the P hosph or us Rul e. Id. 4. DEP’s May

5, 200 6 lette r to EPA on the Ph osph orus Rule On M ay 5, 2006, DE P’ s g eneral couns el senta l etter to EPA w hic h “ re it erate[d ]” thei r re centco nv ersat ion s reg ardin g subsec ti ons (1 ), (2) , and (5) of the Phos phor us Rul e. DEP May 5, 20 06 L ette r at 1 [PR-AR-72]. In th is letter, the g ene ral counse l again re presen ts that subs ect ion s ( 1) and (2 ), respecti v ely enti tl ed “ Pur pose and Sc ope” and “F ind ing s,” do n ot c ontai n any reg ula tor

y req uirements and do notch ang e F lor ida ’s w ater q ual ity st andards. Id. at 2. In addit ion , the lette r st ates that subsecti ons (5 )( a) -( c) are not c h a n ge s t o Fl o ri d a wa t e r qu a li t y st a n d a rd s b e c a u s e t h e y o n ly re s t a t e e xis t in g F lo ri d a la w. Id. W it h respect to subs ect ion (5 )( d) , D EP’ s l etter as ser ts that thi s s ubsecti on “ cont ain s per mitt ing prov is ion s a nd req uires the p er mittee t o u se the b estav ail abl e phos phor us re duct ion tec hnol og y

( “B APR T”) to achi ev e compl ian ce w it h the 10 p pb c ri ter ion as so on as practica ble.” Id. DEP’s g ene ral counse l fu rther represe nts th a t“ [ i] f t h e pe rmitte e is unabl e to prov ide reason abl e as surance that a T BE L s b a sed on BA PR T is su ff ic ien t t o me et the c r i te r i on , th en t he p er mi t mu s t be a c c om pa ni ed b y a n ap prop r i at e me c hanism (such as a m ode rating prov ision, variance, com pli an c e sche dule , etc.) tha t doe s not require the perm ittee to imm edia tely me et an ef f luen t limit base d on the 10 ppb .” Id. 5. EPA’ s M ay

8, 2006 D eter minat ion After I granted a stay

in this case on March 23, 2005, the EP A rev iew ed s ubsecti ons (1 ), ( 2) and (5 ) of the Phosph or us Rul e to deter mine if theyare new or rev is ed St ate w ater q ual ity st andards. EP A M ay

8, 2006 D eter minat ion , at1 [ PR -A R- 71]. In it s M ay 8, 2006 Det er minat ion , t he EPA concl uded that subs ect ion s (1) , (2) and (5 )( a) -( c) are notnew or re v is ed w ater

q ual ity st andards. Id. How ev er , EPA det er mined that parag ra ph ( 5) (d ) w as a new or rev is ed w ater q ual ity sta ndard and sta ted t hat i t w oul d approv e or di sapprov e tha t prov is ion i n a subs eq uent deter minat ion , dependi ng on w hether ( 5) (d ) w as cons is tent w it h the C W A. Id. 6. EPA’ s M ay

31, 2006 D eter minat ion On M ay 31, 2006, EPA is sued it s D eter mina ti on i n w hic h i t app ro v ed parag ra ph (5 )( d) of t h e P h o s p h o r u s R u l e a s a n e w o r re v i s e d w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a rd b a s e d on i ts conc lus ion thatparag ra ph ( 5) (d ) is co nsi ste nt w it h the C W A. EP A Ma y 3 1, 20 06 Det er minat ion , at1 [ DE 141 at 4]

. Acc ordin g to the E PA, Parag ra ph ( 5) (d ) prov ide s t hat d isc h a rge l imi ts for di sc harg es int o the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area s hal l be bas ed on tech nolo gy

base d ef

f luen t limitatio ns (TB ELs), e s t a b lish ed th rough bestav ailable phosp hor us re duct ion tec hnol og y ( BAPR T). Id. at 2 [D E 141 at 5]

. Parag ra ph (5) (d ) al so pro v ide s that dis charg e l imi ts for per mits al low ing di sc harg es int o the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area “ shal l not req uire w ater q ual ity bas ed effluent li mita ti ons throug h 2016. ” F .A.C . § 62-3 0 2 .5 4 0 (5 )( d) ( “P hosph or us Rul e” ). The E PA int er preted thi s l ang uag e, “[ c]o nsi ste nt w it h the F DE P’ s int er pretati on of this prov is ion ,” to be l imi ted t o s it uati ons w here a m o d e ra ting prov is ion had been g ra nted by D EP for an ind iv idu al per mit and appro v ed byEPA. EPA May 31, 2006 Dete rmi nati on at3 [ DE 141 61 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 61 of 101at 6] ( ci ti ng D EP’ s M ay 5 , 2 0 0 6 l etter ). EP A referred to thi s ty pe of prov is ion as an

“a uthor iz ing prov is ion ,” and sta ted t hat E PA f irst rev iews a n aut hor iz ing prov is ion and then subse quently review s each app lication o f the pro v ision to a pa rticular discharger. I d. at 4. In c oncl udi ng i ts Det er minat ion , EP A approv ed parag ra ph (5 )(d ) a s a w ater q ual ity sta ndard bec ause itfound thatparag ra ph (5 )(d ) impl ements su bsecti on ( 6) i n a mann er cons is tent w it h 40 C. F. R. § 13 1.10. 62 It w as ar bit ra ry

and capr ic iou s for

the EPA to cons ide r each sec ti on of the R ule i n i sol ati on and notrev iew

the Rul e as a c ompre hensi v e, i nteg ra ted w hol e f o r co mpli ance w it h the CW A and its implem ent ing regulation s. A n integrate d co nside ration o f t he Rule reveals that iti s l ay ered w it h “ av oid anc e mech ani sms” thatare l ink ed to g ether and functi on to
ex cus e non- compl ian ce w it h the 10 ppb phosp hor us cr it er ion

. In order to understa nd th e effectof the R ule , t hese mechani sms must be v iew ed i n c onj unct ion w it h eac h oth er , not
s e p a ra t e ly. W hat the EPA w as cal led upon to do, and w hat t his C our t mus t rev iew

i n ter ms of EPA’ s a dmini strati v e act ion s, is to deter mine w hether the Rul e foll ow s t he mandat e of the CW A an d p ro te cts the Ev erg lad es from l ong -t er m phos phor us conc entrati ons abov e 10 ppb, w hic h c auses an i mbalan ce in the E v erg lad es’ aq uati c flo ra and fa u n a
. EPA Jan. 2005 D eter minat ion , at 5 [PR -A R- 69]. W here, as dis cus sed bel ow , the Rul e affords ev en par ts of t he Ev erg lad es no protec ti on from lon g -t er m phosp hor us conc entrati ons abov e 10 ppb, EPA’ s approv al of the Rul e as protec ti v e of the desi g nated use of the “ w ater body as a w hole ,” id. a t2 , is a rb it ra ry an d c a p ri c io u s , re ga rd le s s o f t h e le n gt h o f

t h e a d m in is t ra t ive
re cord i nv olv ed. In i ts Janua ry

2005 Det er minat ion [PR- AR -6 9], EPA conducted a se lecti v e rev iew of only Sect ions 3 (“Def initions”), 4 (“Phosp horu s Cri terion ”), 6 (“M ode rating Prov isions”) and 7 (“ Doc ument Incor porated by Referenc e” ) as re v is ion s to w ater q ual ity st andards, and Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 62 of 10163

approv ed th em as cons is tent w it h the CW A, ex ceptfor s ubsecti on 4( c) (1 ). This su bsecti on conc er ned t he c ompli ance methodol og y for a chi ev ing the phosp hor us cr it er ion i n the Refug e ( W CA

1) . After rev is ion , t he EP A approv ed th at s ubsecti on i n i ts Jul y 27, 2 005, Det er minat ion [PR -A R- 70]. Ini ti all y , t he EP A decl ine d to re v iew Sec ti on 1 (“ Pur pose and Sc ope” ); Sec ti on 2 (“ Fi ndi ng s” ), and Sect ion 5 (“ Long -Ter m Compl ian ce Per mit Req uirements for P hosph or us Discharge into EPA ”). EPAJan. 20 05 Det ermin ation , at 11 [PR-A R- 6 9 ]

. Noneth eless, af ter this Court’s orde r of Februa ry

16, 20 0 6 [ DE 1 24] , EPA e lected to rev iew these
sec ti ons. I t c oncl uded t hat Sect ion s 1, 2 and 5 (a ) throug h ( c) w ere notch ang es in w ater quality stand ards, bu t tha t subse ction 5 (d) (setting discharge li mits for pe rm it s ) w as a c h a n g e i n w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a rd s
. E P A M a y 8 , 2 0 0 6 D e t e r mi n a t i o n [ P R
- A R
- 7 1 ]

. It
conc lud ed th at s ubsecti on 5( d) di d notco nflict w it h the C W A b e cause i t w as “n ot an aut horizi ng prov ision for com pliance sched ules.” EPA Ma y 31, 2006 D eter minat ion , at23 [D E 141]

. I f ind th at th e EPAw as arbitrary and capricious an d in v iol a t io n o f t h e CW A in
conc lud ing thatpor

ti ons of subs ect ion s 1 , 2, 3, a n d 5 we re not chang es in w ater q ual ity cr it er ion

. I al so find th at EP A was a rb it rary and capr ic iou s, and i n v iol ati on of the CW A,
w hen it determ ined thatsubse ctions 5 (d) and 6, w hich w ere changes in w ate r q uality, w ere in com pliance with th e CW A. I af f irm, ho w ever, the EPA’s con clusions a dop ting the use of a lo ng -t er m g eometr icmean of 10 ppb, as impl emented throug h the F our-P art Testand data sc re eni ng
. I s tar

t t he di sc uss ion w it h the se aff ir mances
. 2. Th e 10 PPB Ph osp ho ru s C rit eria It self is Vali d F.A.C. § 62 -302 .54 0(4)(a) estab lishes a nu me ric cr iterion for pho spho rus for w ate rs Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 63 of 10145

The numer iccri ter ion for cri ter ion for

Clas s III w aters is “ a l ong -t er m g eometr icmean of 10 ppb, but s hal l not b e l ow er than the natural condi ti ons of t he [Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area] a nd sh all tak e i nto a cc ount spat ial and temporal v ar iab il ity .” F .A.C . § 62- 302 .54 0(4)(a) (Phosp horu s Rule). 64 o f th e Eve rgla d e s P ro te ct io n Are a
. T h e r e co rd i s re p le te w it h de te rm in a ti o n s a n d f in d in gs 45 that a 10 ppb of tot al phosp hor us in the w ater co lumn as a l ong ter m v alu e, t aki ng i nto
acc ount spat ial and temporal v ar iab il ity , i s p ro te ct ive of the desi g nated use and of the nat ural f lora and faun a in the Ev erglades and co mp lies with 4 0 C.F.R. S ection 1 31. 1. PRAR -6 9 at 5. Mu ch sc ien ti fic l it erature s uppo rt s thi s c oncl usi on, i ncl udi ng an E PA p u b licati on from D ecember 2000, enti tl ed Am bi en t Wate r Qu al

ity Criteria Rec om m endati

onsI nfor m ati on Suppor

ti ng th e D evel

opm ent o f St

ate a nd T

ri be N utr ien t Criteria for

Wetland in Nutrient

Ec or egi on XI I, EPA 822- B- 00- 23. The EPA act ed
cons is tent w it h the C W A i n findi ng thatthes e conc lus ion s are re asona ble

. PR -A R- 70 at6- 10. Th e record likewi se sup ports th e EPA ’s co nclusion t hatlim its h igher th an 10 ppb are not prot ect iv e and w oul d lik ely lead to an imbal ance of aq uati c flo ra and fauna in the w ater body

. See E P AJa n
. 2 0 0 5 D e t e rm in a t io n a t5 [ P H- A R- 6 9 ] ( “S c ie n t if icd e m o n s t ra t io n s h a ve in d ic a t e d t h a ta lo n g- t e rm p h o s p h o ru s cr it e ri o n e xc e e d in g 1 0 p p b wo u ld n o tb e p ro t e c t ive of natu ral popu lation s of

aquatic f lora and faun a in the Ev erglades.”) Pla in tiffs’ ch all eng es to t he R ule do n ot g o to the 1 0 ppb cr it er ion as su ch (o ther t h a n t o t h e u s e o f a g e o me t r i cm e a n ) , b u tt o t h e re ma i n i n g p ro v i s i o n s o f t h e R u l e ( 4 ( b )
- ( f)
w hic h avoi

d appl ic ati on of

the 10 ppb cr it er ion . These remain ing parag ra phs of Subsecti on 4 address how

ac hie v ement of

t h a t cr it er ion sh all be d eter mined, adj ust ment of achi ev ement met hods, and data sc re eni ng
. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 64 of 10146

T h e De fe n d a n t s p la c e co n s id e ra b le e m p h a s is o n t h e f in a l o rd e r of the ad min istrative law j udg e i n Sugar

Cane Grower

s Coope ra ti ve v. Dep ar

tm ent o f En vi

ro nm ental

Pr otec ti on , Cas e N o. 03 02884R P ( Fi nal O rd e r, Ju ne 17, 2004) (P R-AR -3 5) , a f f ’d , Micc osuk

ee T ri be of Indi ans v. Ne w Hop e Suga r Co. , 906 So. 2d 1064 (Ta ble)(Fla.1st DCA 2005 ). W hile this Order is w ithou t dou bt com preh ensive in addre ssing state law adm inistrative issues, it is nei ther co ntroll ing , nor

p a rt ic ula rl y

hel pful here, be caus e thi s c ase is aboutthe federal CW Aa n d it s i m p le m e n t in g re gu la t io n s a s a p p li e d t o t h e E n vir o n m e n t a l P ro t e c t io n A ge n c y. The ul ti mate i ss ue dec ide d by the admini strati v e j udge d id not deal w it h federa l law , but w it h “

... w hether

the Propose d R ule is a n i nv ali d ex er ci se of deleg ated leg is lat iv e aut hor ity ....” Id. at 8 5 , ¶ 194. W here us eful for back g ro und pur poses , I hav e c it ed to the admini strati v e order

for referenc e. 65 I first address thos e por ti ons of t he Rul e w hic h per tai n to per mits and moderati ng prov is ion s. I t hen retur n to c onsi der the Pl ain ti ffs’ arg uments on t he metho ds of achi ev ing the p hosph or us cr it er ion

. 46

3. Perm its and Moderating Prov isions
a. EPA

A rb it rar ily

a nd Cap rici ou sly

A pp ro v ed a R ul e t hat Contains a Blanke t Exe mption From Compliance and a Change in t he Co mp lian ce Sched ul e U ntil 2016 as an Ele men t of Wat er Qu ality St and ard s. W h ile ag ency

ac ti on i s g enerall y

enti tl ed to deferen ce under the proper ci rc umstan ces , the agency acti on at iss ue here cons is ts of leg al int er pretati ons by the EPA in it s CW A rev iew

of the Rul e. If that int er pretati on i s “ not i n ac cordance w it h l aw ,” i n l ig ht
o f th e pl a in w o rd in g of

th e CW A a n d t h e Ru le , n o ti o n s o f de fe re n ce are w it h o u t m e a n in g. Al so, al thoug h an ag ency ’s inter pretati on of i ts ow n reg ula ti on i s u sual ly g iv en s ubst anti al defe re n ce , “[ a]n a g ency i nter pretati on of a rele v ant p ro v is ion w hic h c onfli cts w it h the
a gen cy’s ear li er int er pretati on is ‘en ti tl ed to cons ide ra bly les s deferenc e’ than a consiste ntly held agency v iew .” Cmty. H o sp. Of Mo nter ey Peni nsul a v . T hom pson, 323 F. 3 d 78 2 , 7 9 2 ( 9 th C ir. 20 0 3 )(c it in g I.N.S. v. Car doza- Fons eca, 480 U.S. 421 n. 30 (19 81)). Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 65 of 10147

In i ts N o vem b e r 5, 20 03 D eter minat ion , t he EP A c oncl uded t hat t he s ubsecti on 4( e) (3 ) amendator

y l ang uag e [“ Dur ing the impl ementati on of t he ini ti al phase of the L ong Term Pl an, per mits is sued by the depar

tment shal l be bas ed on BAPR T, and s hal l inc lud e tec hnol og y -b ased eff lue nt l imi tati ons cons is tent w it h the Long Term Pl a n ”] d o es not “ on it s face forec los e i ncl usi on of addi ti onal , or m o re s t ri n ge n te f f lu e n tli m it a t io n s t o a c h ie ve w ater q ual it y st a n dards. ” EPA Nov . 5, 2003 Det er minat ion , at10 [ PR -A R- 11]. The 5( d) Rule do es exactly tha t by statin g tha t discha rg es into the Ev erglades Protection Area “shall not” req uire w ater

q ual ity bas ed effluent l imi tati ons throug h 2016.

66 Att h e s a me t i me , w h e n a n i n t e r p re t a ti on is b a s e d o n a ra t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n , e v e n i f I dis ag re e, de ferenc e i s req uired.

b. Su bsec ti on 5( d) o f th e R ul e Subse ction 5 (d) of the Rule a ddre sses Lo ng-Term Comp liance Pe rmit Requireme nts for Pho sp h o ru s Discharges i nto the Evergl ade s Protect ion Area . Th is prov is ion , on it s face, forec los es the i ncl usi on of addi ti onal or more s tr ing ent e ff lue nt li mita ti ons to ac hie v e w ater q ual ity st andards throug h 2016. I t prov ide s: 47 Di sc harg e li mits for per mits all ow ing dis charg es int o the EPA sh all be b ased upon TBELS es tabl is hed t hroug h BAP RT and sh all not re q uire w ater q ual ity ba s e d e ffl u e n t l i mi t a t i o n s t h ro u g h 2 0 1 6

. S u c h TB E L s s h a l l b e a p p li ed as ef f luen t limitatio ns as de f ined in subsect ion 22 -302 .20 0(10 ), F.A.C. Thus, u n t i l 2 0 1 6 , d i s c h a rg e l imi ts for per mits al low ing di sc harg es int o the Ev erg lad es Prote ction Are a sha ll be base d on TB ELs [T e c h n o lo gy Base d Ef f luen t Limita tions] est abl is hed t hroug h BAP RT [ the L ong -Ter m Pl an], not the lon g ter m g eometr icmean of 10 ppb phosp hor us. This R ule su bsecti on foll ow s a nd appl ies Sec ti ons 4( e) (3 ) and 10( a) of the Am end ed EFAw hic h p ro v ide th at “[d]u ring the implem ent ation of the initial ph ase of the Long -Ter m Pl an, p er mits i ss ued by the depar

tment shal l be based on BAPR T, and shal l inc lud e technol og y based effluent l imi tati ons cons is tent w it h the Long -Ter m Pl an .. ..” Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 66 of 10148

T he Cou rt’s read ing of the clear language i s supp orted by a key f inding of the Rule it sel f. Th e E n viro nmental R eg ula ti on C ommis si on found th at t he R ule must“ inc or porate a ‘ flex ibl e approach’ tow ards the a ppl icati on of the numer icphos phor us cr it er ion for phosp hor us in order

to g uid e the i mplement ati on of phos phor us re duct ion i n the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area.” F .A.C . § 62- 302.540 (2 )( l)

. The Commi ss ion cl aimed that it s “f lexi ble ap proa ch” is autho riz ed b y Florida law

and EPA Regulation s se t forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 13 1, an d tha t it ex ercised its au tho rity by “includ in g in this rule bo th a nu me ric int er pretati on of the phosp hor us cr it er ion and [by] .

. . per mitt ing and moderati ng provisi ons. ”

49 A w a ter q ual ity st andard v ar ian ce is a s hor t- ter m ex empti on from meet ing the other w is e appl ic abl e w ater

qual ity standards. PR- AR -6 9 at 11 ( ci ti ng 40 C .F .R . §13 1.13) Und er EPA reg ula ti ons, a v ar ian ce is poll utantspeci fic and mustbe rev iew ed ev er y three y ears. PR -A R- 69 at13 ( ci ti n g 40 C .F .R . 131 .20( a) ; PR -A R- 4 at 5- 11. The EPA w ater quality han d b o o ks t a t es tha t the State mustdem onst rate th at m eet ing the stan dard is unatt ain abl e as par

t of the procedu re fo r o btai nin g a v ar ian ce. PR -A R- 4 at 5- 11 to 5- 12. The EPA ar bit ra ri ly charact er iz es the ty pe of v ar ian ce under the Rul e as “ shor t- ter m,” but that is in directco ntradi cti on to the fact th at t he v ar ian ce procedu re under the Rul e i s t o be appl ied for a per iod of at l east10 y ears, throug h 2016. It is ir ra ti onal to cons ide r thi s “ shortte rm ” whe n , at th e sa m e ti m e , th e EP A ca te gor ica lly a ck n o wled ges th a t an y d i s c h a r ge abov e the 10 p pb s tandard i s not protec ti v e of t he Ev erg lad es. Besi des, as w e hav e s een, the tota l cumm ulative blanke t v ariance since the ena ctm entof the EFAis now

22 years. 67 §§373.4 592( 4) (e )( 3) and 10( a)

. The prov is ion s [ impl ementi ng BAP RT and not re q uir ing 48 spec ificdisc harg e limi ts for pho sphor us] are i n v iol ati on of the re q uirements of the C W A, §§ 3 01(b )(1)( c), 402(a )(1) and (2), and 510 and circumvent 40 C.F.R. § 122 .44 (d)(1)( i), (ii) , (iii ), and vii (A), and 4 0 C.F.R. §12 2.4 4(d)(5). Th e provisions are also in direct con f lict
w it h the ex press mandate of the CW A, w hic h re q uires impos it ion of W QBELs w hen TBELs are inad equate . 33 U.S. C. § 1 3 1 2 (a ); 4 0 C.F.R. § 122 .44 (d). Such across th e bo ard appl ic ati on i s contrar

y to the C lea n W ater

Act and reg ula ti ons w hic h al low v ar ian ces to

49 appl y onl y t o p e rm ithol ders t hat mak e a req uest , w hil e the under ly ing w ater q ual ity sta ndard remai ns in effectfor the remaind er

of the w ater

body

. See Ida ho MiningAss’ n v. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 67 of 10150

In Idaho, the EPA created the ru le for Idaho col d w ater cr it er ia for cer tai n w ater bod ies. T he d istrict court fo und : “EPA’s v ariance proced ure at 4 0 C.F.R. § 131 .35 (d) ... is another method by

w hic h w ater

q ual ity cr it er ia maybe a dju ste d to re flectl ocal co ndi ti ons w ithou t af

fecting the inten ded lev el of protect ion of

a particu lar w ate r bod y . Pursua nt to this proce dure , the Regi ona l Adm inistrato r is aut horized to g rant ind iv idua l NPDES perm it hol ders v ar ian ces f ro m w ater q ual ity st andards w here the per mit hol der demons trates that cer tai n c ondi ti ons re nder att ain ment of the sta ndards infeasi ble

. S ee 4 0 C .F .R . § 131.33( d) (3 ). Howev

er , t he v ar ian ce appl

ies onl y to theper

m it ho lde r re quest

ing the var ian ce, and the u nder

ly ing water qual it y s tandar

d r e main s in effec t. 40 C .F.R

. § 1 3 1

. 3 3 (d )( 1 ). ” (e mphasi s a dded)

. In con trast, u n d e r the Phosp horu s Rule, the und erly ing w ate r q uality cr iteria is modified ac ro ss -t he- board by the subs ect ion 5( d) and subs ect ion 6 prov is ion s. W hil e the Rul e may est abl is h 10 ppb, that is not w hat i s mand ated. Thus, a pe rmi ttee that follo w s t he Long -Ter m Pl an need not do anythi ng , inc lud ing a use attai nabi li ty anal y si s, to recei v e an extende d com pliance sched ule in imp acte d area s unt il 2 0 1 6 , and beyond th at da te in uni mpacte d areas, reg ardle ss of t he bio log ic al impacts of the di sc harg es to t he Ev erg lad es and t he i mbalan ce that is ca used.

51 Parag ra ph 5( a) of the R ule al so impl ic ates the Co urt’ s dis cus si on. I t prov ide s t hat “[ I]n addi ti on to meeti ng al l other appl ic abl e per mitt ing cr it er ia, an a ppl ic ant mus t prov ide re asona ble as surance s th a t t he di sc harg e w il l compl y w it h s tate w ater

q ual ity st andards as setforth i n thi s s ect ion .” EPAi n te rpret s t his se cti on to req uire a p er mit appl ic ant “ to provide reason able assuran ce tha t the discha rg e w ill com ply w ith the pho spho rus cr iter ion esta blished in subsect ion 4 of the Rule. ” PR-AR- 71 a t 9. Ho we v er, the actua l Rule lan g u a g e , o n i t s fa c e , d o e s n o tre q u i re c o mp l i a n c e w i t h t h e “ c r i t e r i o n , ” b u tw i t h t he
“ s ta nd ard” in this

se cti on . Su bsecti on 5( b) (3 ), bei ng i n tha t s ect ion , prov ide s t hat dis charg es int o the EPA shal l be deem ed in compl ian ce w it h s tate w ater q ual ity st andards upon a demonst ra ti on th at t he di sc harg es compl y w it h the moderati ng prov is ion s p ro v ide d by the Rule. T hus EP A’s interpret ation fails as a ma tter of law

. W hile the EPAcontin ues, throu ghout its Dete rmina tions on the Ru le, to refer t o “w ate r q uality standa rds,” it does so w it hout re g ard to the S tate’ s u se of the te rm “w ater q ual ity standard” to inc lud e moderati ng provisi ons (a compo nen t of w ate r quality und er Sta te l aw) w hich i s notrecogniz ed a s such under the CW A. Thi s i s a ls o ar bit ra ry and capr ic iou s a nd noti n ac cordance w it h l aw
. 68 Br owner , 90 F.Su pp. 2d 1 078 , 110 3 n.1 1 (D. Idah o 20 00). 50

c. Sub sect io n 6 o f th e R ul e If a disc harg er

is unabl e to prov ide reaso nabl e as surance that a TBELS based on BAPR T is su ff ic ien t t o meet subs ect ion 5( d) , then the d is charg er may rely on s ubsecti ons 6(a)(1) a nd 6 (a)(5). Th ese su bsect ions est ablish “m ode rating prov isions” w hich pe rmit 51 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 68 of 10152

Subs ect ion ( 6) (a )( 3) prov ide s t hat t he Long -Ter m Pl an shal l cons ti tute BAPR T, and that “[ T]he ‘pl anni ng goal ’ of the Long -Ter m Pl an i s t o ac hie v e c ompli ance w it h the cr it er ion setforth i n s ubsecti on ( 4) of thi s r ule [t he phos phor us cr it er ion ].”

53 The p a rt i e s a rg u e a t l e n g t h c o n c e r n i n g w h e t h e r t h e N P D E S p e r mi t s fo r S TA 2, 5 and 6 cons ti tute ev ide nce that subs ect ion s 5 (d ) and 6 create a “ bla nketex empti on” from p e rm it ti n g requ ire m e n ts . I do no t re a ch th is qu e st io n be ca u se I rely o n th e cle a r la n gua ge of the R ule i tse lf.

54 Unde r subsectio n (1)(h) of the Rule, the Lo ng-Term Plan con s t it u tes a “c ompre hensi v e prog ra m to o pti miz e the STAs and BM Ps to achi ev e further phos phor us re duct ion s a nd th ereby ac compl is h i mplement ati on of Bes t Av ail abl e Phos phor us Redu ction T echn ology

(BAPRT ).” T his me ans th at, in im pact ed a re as, disch arges are perm itted so lo ng a s t he ST As and BMPs are “optim iz ed. ” T he Rule comp letes th is circle by dec lar ing that“ [o]pt imi z ati on of ex is ti ng STAs, i n c onj unct ion w it h BM Ps, i s c ur re ntl y the 69 discha rg es into or w ithin th e “impa cted areas” of th e E v erglades Prote ction Are a un til Dec ember

31, 2016, “u si ng net improv ement” and bey ond t hat d ate in uni mpacte d areas for hy drorest orati on pur poses
. Und er thi s p ro v is ion , t he numer icphos phor us cr it e rion becomes a “ plan nin g g oal .” Ins tead of meeting the 10 ppb cr it er ia, di sc harg es int o 52 impacted a re as “s hal l be per mitt ed” us ing net improv ement as a moderati ng provi si on. Even if th e ph osph orus nu m e ri cc rite rion (and the na rrativ e criterion) are no t me t in
acc ordance w it h the R ule ’s ac hie v ement met hodol og y , t he Rul e is uneq uiv ocal that“ [n]o act ion s h a l l b e re q u i re d , p ro v i d e d t h e n e ti mp ro v e me n to r h y d ro p a t t e r n re s t o rati on prov is ion s o f s ubsecti on (6 ) bel ow are met.” No act ion transl ates int o “ no enfor cement ” of the p ro tec ti v e 10 ppb c ri ter ia. 53 The phrase “n et improv ement” is not def ine d in the Rule , but the Rule prov ide s t hat

“ [i]m plem ent at i on o f BA PR T will resul t i n neti mprov ement i n the i mpacte d areas of the EPA” reg ardle ss of w hether su ch “ne t improv ement” causes in an imbal ance of Ev erg lad es a qua ti c f lo ra an d fa u n a
. F. A. C. § 6 2 -3 0 2 .5 4 0 (6) (a )(3 ). T o us e an exa m p le , if a d isc h a rge 54 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 69 of 101most cos t- effect iv e and env ironmental ly preferabl e means to achi ev e furt her phos phor us re duct ion s t o the EPA

and to rest ore i mpacte d areas. ” F. A.C . § 62- 302.540 ( 2) (e )( 2)

.

55 The R u l e p ro v i d e s fo r a s e c o n d fo r m o f mo d e ra t i n g p ro v i s i o n d e a l i n g w it h dis charg es int o or

w it hin “ uni mpacte d areas. ” These ty pe of di sc harg es are per mitt ed for “h ydro p a tt e rn res to ra ti o n pu rp o se s” if a p e rm itap p lic a n t c a n sh o w th a t (1 ) th e di sc h a rge w il l be a b l e t o i mp l e me n to r c a u s e t o b e i mp l e me n t e d B A P R T; ( 2 ) t h e e n v i ro n me n tal benefits of est abl is hin g the dis charg e clear ly outw eig h the poten ti al adv erse impacts that ma y re su lt in the ev ent t he phos phor us lev el in the d is charg e ex ceeds the cr it er ion ; and (3 ) the d is charg e c ompli es w it h ant i- deg ra dati on re qui re ments. U nli ke the mode ra ti ng provisi ons for impa cted areas, th ere is n o dat e com para ble to 201 6. T he clea r infe rence is that m o d e ra t in g p ro vis io n s fo r u n im p a c t e d a re a s ca n b e p e rm it t e d in d e f in it e ly , regardless of w hether

the 10 ppb cr it er ia is ac hie v ed. 70 was a t 5 0 pp b bu t re d u ce d th ro u gh B AP RT to 4 0 p p b , th e re is a ne t im p ro vem e n t, al th o u gh the “n et improv ement” i s n ot protec ti v e at the e sta bli shed 10 ppb as acc epted by the EPA. No n e t hele ss, the Rule is unequiv ocal th at “Until 201 6, . . . perm its shal l i n c lud e tec hnol og y -b ased eff lue nt l imi tati ons co n si ste nt w it h the Long -Ter m Pl an.” This se cti on must be read i n para m ate ria w it h subsecti on (5) (b )( 3) w hic h prov ide s t hat “ dis charg es int o t h e E P A w i l l be ‘ d e e m ed’ in compl ian ce w it h s tate w ater q ual ity st andards upon a demonst ra ti on th at .

. . discha rges w ill comply with m ode ratingp ro v isions of th is rule .” T hus, ev en if

the ph osph orus levels i n the discharge w ill not be at or bel ow the p hosph or us lev els se t fort h i n the R ule ( see subse ction 5 (b)(1)), or even if such discha rg es w ill cau se
or co nt rib ut e t o exceed ence s of the p h o sp h o rus c ri ter ion se t fort h i n the R ule ( see subs ect ion 5(b) (2 )) , t he di sc harg es w il l be all owed so lon g as suc h di sc harg e c ompli es w it h
mo dera ting prov isions. This “blan ket exemp tion, ” w ithou t the Sta te first performin g a “use 55 attai nabi li ty

anal y si s” i s c ontrar

y to the C W A. 4. The EPA has f

aile d to Act In Accorda nce w ith Law by NotRequiring th e St at e o f Fl or id a t o Perfor m a “U se A tt ain abi lity

A nal ysis” as a Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 70 of 10171 Preco nd it io n to Ado pt in g a Bl anke t Exemp ti on o r V aria nce Pro cedu re in t he Pho sph or us Ru le Subs ect ion 5( d) and the “ modera ti ng prov is ion s” of subs ect ion 6 c re ate “ bla nket exemp tions or variance s.” T he EPAitse lf reco gniz ed this in its letter to th e DEP, da ted July 7, 20 03, i n w hic h i t prov ide d i ts comments on t he draft Phos phor us Rul e. EPA Jul y 7, 2003 L e tt e r, at 4- 5 [P R-AR -1 3]. For reason s t hat remain undi sc los ed, t he EP A does not
re fer to thi s l etter, or th e St ate’ s fai lure to address the conc er ns setforth , i n any of it s Det er minat ion s. In referring in its comm e n tary to w hatare now renu mb ered subse ctions (5)(d), (6 )(a )(1 ) an d 6(a )(5 ), th e EP A a ck n o wled ged th a t “[ t ] h e s e se ct io n s sp e cify tha t t h ro u gh 201 6 discha rg es “shall be” permitte d base d on TB ELs est ablishe d throu gh BAPRT .” Id. at 4 [P R-AR-13]. Of

impo rtance , the EPA w enton to sa y “[t]he e f fect of this provi sion is t o a u to m atically gran t compliance w ith the criteria fo r discharges implem ent ing BAPRT
w hether or not the d is charg er

needs t h e ex tended ti me frame for compl ian ce. The app aren t pres u m p t io n in the Rule is tha t all discharges w ill nee d the add itiona l 10 y ears f rom 2 006 to achie v e com pliance w ith the criterion.” Id. ( emphasi s a dded)

. Nei ther the CW A, nor it s impl ementi ng reg ula ti ons, refer t o “ moderati ng prov is ion s.” The EPA ass umed moderati ng prov is ion s w ere eq uiv ale nt t o “ v ar ian ces ,” al thoug h nei ther the Ame nde d EFA no r the Pho spho rus Rule uses the w ord “ v ariance .” W hile it is correct that the C W A prov ide s reli ef f ro m a c ri ter ion i n c ertai n c ircums tanc es, i t m u st firs t be demonst ra ted t hat t he c ri ter ion ca nnot be met. To dete rmi ne th is , t he C W A prov ide s t hat (1 ) sta tes may

auth or iz e v ar ian ces from t he appl ic abl e w ater q ual ity sta ndard i f a sta te c an jus ti fy that the c ur re nt us e and suppo rt ing cr it er ion is not attai nabl e at the ti me for any one Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 71 of 10156

The reason s for

not bei ng feasi ble i ncl ude: (1 ) natura lly oc cur ri ng pol lut ant conc entrati ons prev ent t he at tai nment of the use ; ( 2) natu ra l, ephemeral, i nter mitt ent o r low flow condit ion s o f w ater

l ev els prev ent t he at tai nment of the us e, un les s t hese condi ti ons maybe c ompensat ed for by the disch a rge o f

suff ic ien t v olu me of eff lue nt di sc harg es w it hout v iol ati ng Sta te w a te r cons er v ati on req uirements to enabl e us es to be met; (3 ) human c aused co ndi ti ons or so ur ces of pol lut ion prev ent t he at tai nment of the us e and c a n n o tb e r e m e d ie d o r wo u ld c a u s e m o re e n vir o n m e n t a l d a m a ge t o co rr e c tt h a n t o le a ve in pla ce; ( 4) dams, di v ersi ons or othe r ty pes of hy d ro lo gic modi ficat ion s p re cl ude t he attai nment of the us e, an d i t i s n ot feasi ble to re sto re the w ater body to it s or ig ina l condi ti on or to operate s uch modific ati on i n a w ay thatw oul d resul t i n a w ay thatw oul d resul t i n the attai nment of the us e; ( 5) phy si cal co ndi ti ons re lat ed to the natural features of the w ater body , s uch as the l ack

of a proper

substrate cov er , f low , depth, pool s, r iffles, and the l ik e, unrela ted t o w ater

q ual ity , precl ude attainment o f aqu ati c l ife protec ti on us es, or ( 6) cont rols more stringentthan those required b y Section 3 0 1 (b ) a nd 3 06 o f the Actw ould re sul t i n s ubst anti al and w ide spread ec onomicand soc ial i mpact. 72 of the rea sons sp ecif ied in 40 C.F.R. § 131. 10(g); or ( 2) state s may auth oriz e a com pliance
s c h e d u l e fo r

d i s c h a rg e s t o c o m p l y

w i t h d i s c h a rg e l i m i t s i n 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 2 2

. 4 7

. T h e C WA
re g ula ti ons spec ific all y

prov ide thata s tate “ must” conducta use attai nabi li ty analy si s, as specif ied in § 1 3 1

. 3 (g ), w hen it propose s to ado pt sub cate gories of uses spe cif ied in Sect ion 101( a) (2 ) of the Act w hic h req uire l ess st ri ng ent c ri ter ia. S ee 4 0 C.F.R. §13 1.1 0(j)(2) (to tha t ef fect). I add re ss now

the firs t opt ion

. Un der 40 C .F .R . §13 1.10( g ), st ates may remov e a desi g nated use w hic h i s n o t a n ex is ti ng us e, or estab lish sub-cate gories of a use , i f the sta te c an demons trate t hat a ttai nin g the desi g nated use is not feasibl e becau se of one of si x reason s. In i ts J u ly 7, 2003, co mmentar y on t he draft Rul e [P R-AR -1 3], the E PA 56
re v iew ed th e opt ion s av ail abl e to the State of Fl or ida i n i ts draft Rul e, i ncl udi ng thi s o pti on. W hil e the EPA

recog niz ed th at a “t emporar y v ar ian ce ” m a y

be g ra nted to an “ ind iv idu al dis charg er ,” i t w ar ned t he F lor ida D EP t hat: I n fa r le s s c o m m o n s it u a t io n s , a t e m p o ra ry var ia n c e f ro m t h e p ro t e c t ive Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 72 of 10157

T he EP A, in its July

7, 200 3, lett er to Florida DEP f urthe r com me nte d on th e ef fect of a “ bla nketva ri ance. ” It sta ted: “[ I]f the Rul e treats the moderati ng prov is ion as a “ bla nket v ar ian ce, ” EPA w il l li kel y hav e to re v iew

thes e doc uments ( the L ong -Ter m Pl an) , as p art of th e Ru le rev iewp ro cess , to dete rmi ne i f reg ula tor y req uirements for t he demons trati on and justif ication for a “blanke t v ariance ” have been satisf ied. Sin ce the Lon g- T erm Plan is s u bje c tt o ch a n ge , u s in g i tt o d e m o n s t ra t e s p e c if icf in d in gs m a y t ri gge r a d d it io n a l r e vie ws as the Long -Ter m Pl an i s c hang ed.” EPAJu ly 7 , 200 3 Let ter a t 5 [PR-AR-13] (em pha sis add ed). No such deta iled rev iew of the Lon g- T erm Plan occurred as part o f t h e Rule re v iew proces s, nor

hav e any

adopt ed re v is ion s to the Long -Ter m Pl an been s ubmitted t o t h e E P Afo r f u rt h e r r e vie w. 73 cr it er ion for a g ro up of di sc harg es, su ch as a c ateg or y of dis charg es facing si mil ar treatment ne e d s, maybe g ra nted upon ap prov al by EPA ( i. e., a bl a nk e t v a riance ). Th e EPAapp rov al req ui res an a deq uate demonst ra ti on/j ust ific ati on bas ed on th e factors a t 40 C. F. R. §131. 10( g ). If itis th e in te nto f th is R ul e t o prov id e a “ bl anke t v aria nce” for all disc harges into the EPA thr o u g h 2 0 1 6 , t h e § 131 .10 (g) demonstration/justification must be prov ided to EPA in conj unction w it h th e R ul e. Id. at 4. The E P A re c o mm e n d e d t o t h e F l o r i d a D E P t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f S e c t ion 6 [ as renu mb ered ] be m odif ied to av oid a “blan ket variance.” T he EPA said the language sho uld
re ad “ The foll ow ing moderati ng prov is ion s may be appl ied to the extent jus ti fied unde r the law on a “ cas e- by -c ase” bas is for d is charg es int o or w it h in t h e EPA

for t he phos phor us cr it er ion se t fort h i n the R ule

. Id. at 5. In ot her w ords, the EPA spec ific all y req uest ed t he F lo ri d a DE P t o ch a n ge t h e la n gu a ge t o sa y t h a t t h e y wo u ld b e im p le m e n t e d o n a ca s e -b ycas e bas is , i nst ead of ac ro ss -t he- board. The EPA sta ted t hat it w as “.

.. co ncer ned t hat itmay b e d if fi cul t fo r FD EP to pro v id e t he adeq uat e j ust if icat io n need ed to su pp or t a §131. 10( g) v aria nce, p art icu larl y o n a “ bl anke t” b asis .” Id. (emp hasis ad ded ). 57 T he just if ication re f e rr e d to by the EPA can only be co nside red thro ugh a use atta inab il it y a n alysi s. Such an an alysi s is a “ structu red scient if ic assessm entof facto rs Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 73 of 10158

Th e v e r y c o n c e p to f “ i mp a c t e d ” a re a s c o n t ra d i c t s t h e u se fo r “ ma i n t e n a n c e o f a heal thy , w ell -b ala nced popul ati on of fish and w il dli fe,” req uired by the Cl ass II I des ig nati on. T h e i d e a s e e m s t o b e i f y o u d e g ra d e i t , y o u c a n c o n t i n u e t o d o s o
. T h e g o a l o f t h e C WA is to sto p the pol lut ed di sc harg es, not to d o wng ra de or i g nore the des ig nated use. A c c o rd in gl y, a state may onlytake such liberty in implem ent ing a w ate r q uality standa rd tha t create s a mo re stringent, or mo re prote ctiv e, sta nce th an th e fede ral g ui d e lines. Dubo is v. Dep’

t of Ag ric. , 102 F .3d 1 273, 1300 ( 1stC ir . 199 6) (“ Stat es maynot set stan dard s thatare less stringent tha n the CW A.”)
74 affect ing the attai nment of the us e w hic h may inc lud e phy si cal , c hemic al, bi olo g ic al, and
econ om ic fa c t ors as describe d in § 13 1.1 0(g).” 40 C.F.R. § 131 .3(g). T he p rocess requires a notice a nd o ppo rtunity fo r a public hea ring. 40 C.F.R. § 131. 10(e ). H ere, t he record i s u ndi sput ed, a nd i t w as conc ede d a t oral arg ument, that the Stat e of Fl or ida di d notco nducta us e att ain abi li ty anal y si s. N e vert hel ess , i t ado pted bla nketmoderati ng prov is ion s t hat c re ated sub cat ego ries of impacted a nd uni mpacte d
w a te rs with in the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area, w here al l w aters a re C las s I II and Outs tandi ng F lor ida W aters. In the impac ted areas, less str ing ent cr it er ia (TBEL s b ased on BA PRT ) w ere required. By creatin g imp acte d and unim pact ed areas of Class III w ate rs in the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area, t he Pho sphor us Rul e es tabl is hes tw o s ubcat eg or ies of desi g nated use for th e Ev erg lad es w it hout compl y ing w it h federal re g ula ti ons and foll ow ing the proced ure for downgradin g a use . 40 C.F.R. § 131 .10 (g ). 58 The Fl or ida D EP di d notacceptthe EPA’ s recommended lan g uag e c hang e. I nst ead of chang ing the lan g uag e, t he D EP G eneral Cou nsel w ro te t o the EPA and stated i n a letter , w ri tten after the R ule wa s a dopted, w hat t he R ule di d notsa y . H e s aid : “ Any is suanc e of

a moderati ng prov is ion under P arag ra ph ( 6) (a ) or ( 6) (b ) w il l be i n as soc iat ion
w it h per mits on a ca se- by -c ase basi s.” D EP J anuar y 12, 2005 Le tter , at2 [ PR -A R- 18]. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 74 of 10159

In i ts deter minat ion thatthe Rul e c ompli es w it h the mandate s of t he C W A, t he EP A de t e r mi n e d t h a tt h e m o d e ra t i n g p ro v i s i o n s re p re s e n ta “ v a r i a n c e a u t h o r i z i n g p ro v is ion ,” ra ther than a bl anketex empti on ex cus ing non- compl ian ce wit h the phos phor us cr it er ion for ent ire c ateg or ies of dis charg es. EPA Ma y 31, 2006 D eter minat ion , at4. In mak ing i ts deter minat ion s, EPA re li ed atl easti n par t o n a n i n ter pretati on urg ed by an a ttor ney

for Fl or ida D EP i n tw o i nformal l etters d ated Janua ry 12, 2005 [ PR -A R- 18] and Ma y 5, 2006 [PR -A R- 72 at3]. The E PA ad opted the F lor ida D EP’ s i nter pretati on l ink ing Sec ti ons 5( d) and 6 and re f e rrin g to the moderati ng prov is ion s a s “ v ar ian ce procedu re s,” findi ng that Fl or ida D EP’ s o w n i nter pretati on of i ts ru les i s “ author it ati v e,” notw it hst andi ng thatthe DEP’s interpre tatio n w as in a lette r en tirely deta ched f rom th e forma l rule-making process.
60 EPA re lies on Def

ender s o f Wildli

fe v . EP A , 415 F.3d 11 21, 112 7-28 (10th Cir. 200 5) to sup port th at it is entitled to rely on th e Sta te’s inte rpretat ion of its ow n regulation s. 75 Rathe r than rel y ing on the p lain langua ge of the Rule a nd co mp rehe nsively anal yz ing i ts effecton the entire Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area in ter ms of des ig nated use,
w ate r q uality cr iterion an d the anti-de grada tion policy, EP A arbitrarily relied u pon t he af

terthe- fact let te r from the DE P at tor ney
. The EPA reli ed on the a ss urance that “s hal l not 59 require W QBEL s through 20 16" did notmea n w hatit said and w ould app ly o n ly for a par ti cul ar per mit. PR -A R- 71 at24; PR -A R- 72 at1, 3. W h il e the D EP attor ney ’s l etter admit s t hat a moderati ng prov is ion pursuantto subs ect ion ( 6) of the R ule , or othe r
v ariance , w ould tem pora rily make the criterion less stringent tha n 10 ppb , EPA ca priciously ignores thatsubse ctions 5 (d) and 6 d o t he very same thing by

chan ging the com pliance
sc hedul e. It is i ncredul ous that EPA w oul d pla ce it s impr imat ur on a n att or ney ’s after-t hefact and sel f-ser

v ing l etter

w hic h c oncl udes that the Rul e (w hic h spec ific all y foll ow ed t he Am e n d e d EF A) di d no t a u th o r ize a ne w co m p lia n ce sch e d u le w h e n th e cle a r la n gua ge ex pli ci tl y s a id othe rw is e. B ecaus e the D EP attor ney ’s co ncl usi on i s c ontrar y to the c lea r wo rd in g o f

t h e Ru le , I p la c e n o we ig h to r r e li a n c e o n it s la wye r’ s so -c a ll e d “a d m in is t ra t ive int er pretati on.” 60 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 75 of 101This cas e is not persuas iv e or co ntroll ing . H ere, on ly

the Fl or ida Env ironmental R eg ula ti on Commi ss ion w as empowere d t o s p eak for th e St ate o f Fl or ida , as the sta ndards set ti ng bod y on the Rule, notan att orne y for the a gency in advocatin g an a f ter-the -f a ct rule int er pretati on. B esi des , t he R ule i s n ot ambi g uous, su ch that itw oul d req uire an interp retat ion. Ad dition ally , lette r interpreta tions b y agencies of

th e irr e gulations a re generally held to be less reliable than of f icially ado pte d agency provisi ons and th us less deser v ing of deferenc e. See Leavitt , 488 F .3d a t 915 ( decl ini ng to g ra nt Che vr on def eren ce to ag ency

g uid ance letter

bec ause itw as not t he productof a formal ag ency adj udi cat ion , noti ce- and- comment ru le- maki ng , or any other ci rc umstan ces reason abl y su g g est ing that Con g re ss ev er

thou g ht of g uid ance letters as deser v ing deferenc e) . Thi s i s p arti cul ar ly tr ue w hen i t i s n ot t he EP A’ s o w n i nter pretati on of i ts r ule s b ut an i nter pretati on reli ed on by the EPA comi ng from t he s tate. Itw oul d be odd, ind eed, if a federal cour t had to g iv e Che vr

on deferenc e to a DE P lawy er w ho is adv ocat ing a pos it ion to conv inc e the EPA not to foll ow the l aw
. 76 I furt her rej e ct , a n d find ar bit ra ry and capr ic iou s, the E PA’ s e x pla nati on th at t he subs ect ion 5( d) and 6 prov is ion s s impl y co nst it ute a “ pol icy ” that merel y i dent if ies t he “met hods for i mplement ing su ch a pol icy . . . .” 40 C .F .R . § 131.12( a)

. See N w. E nvtl. Advo cates v. EPA , 268 F. Supp.2 d 1255, 1265 (D . O r. 2003) (“ An omni bus re ferenc e tha t the s tate’ s enti re w ater

qual ity standards w il l be imple mented” ca nnot ra ti onal ly be read as a ‘ pol icy ’ that spec ific all y i denti fies the ‘ methods for i mplement ing su ch a pol icy . . . .’ 40 C. F. R. § 131.12( a) ). ” The EPA canno t esc ape the noti ce and comment re q uirements for chang ing i ts v ar ian ce re g ula ti on at40 C .F .R . §13 1.10 “b y l abel ing a major

su bst anti v e l eg al add ition to it a me re interpret ation .” Appalachia n Power Co. v. EPA , 208 F .3d 1 015, 1024 (D .C . C ir . 200 0)

.

5. The EPA

has Acted A rbitraril y , and Not In Accorda nce W ith Law , by Faili ng to Conclude that the Remov al of Water Qual ity Based Effluent Li mit at io ns Th ro ug h 2016 C on st it ut es a De FactoC han ge in Co mp lian ce Sch edu le R equ iri ng a D et erm in at io n of R easo nab len ess
. The EPA has condo ned, w it hout the req uis it e anal y si s, a de fa ctomorator ium on compl ian ce w it h the phosp hor us cr it er ion for a n ent ire c las s o f dis charg ers w ho i mplement Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 76 of 10161

T o the exten t tha t EPA m ay now cl aim thatthe ad opt ion of the Lo ng-Term Plan in the Phos phor us Rul e s houl d be cons tr ued as a “reason abl e” compli ance sc hedul e, i t fail ed to do so i n the D eter minat ion s, and may not now do s o i n i ts br iefs.
62 T he EP A ma kes the unte nab le argume nt th at au t h orityfor the “com pliance sched ule” in perm its rests w ith § 40 3.0 88(2 )(e) of th e Florida Sta t u t e s a nd, therefore, it follows tha t the language in subse ctions 5 and 6 do do es no t create a co mp liance sched ule. DE 29 8 at 3, 4. W hile § 40 3.0 88(2 )(e) g iv es general au tho rity for com pliance sc hedul es for an ind iv idu al per mit on a cas e- by -c ase basi s, the P hosph or us Rul e c ar ri es out t he ac ro ss -t he- board l eg is lat iv e mandate that W QBELs shall not be met unti l 2016, as lon g as al l per mitt ees follo w the re q uirements of subs ect ion s 5 and 6 of the Rul e. Sect ion 403 .08 8(2) of

the Florida St atu tes do es n o tapp ly to the Ame nde d EFA’s an d the Rule’s bla nketex empti on. 77 BAP RT atleast thro ugh 201 6. T he e xten sion and expansio n of this com pliance sched ule through the Amended EF A and the R ule bey ond t he D ecember 31, 2006 da te, as prev iou sl y

approv ed by

the EPA, i s a chang e to w ater q ual ity st andards jus t as the
or ig ina l 1994 E FAc ompli ance sc hedul e c onst it uted a c hang e. The E PA ha d a d uty to 61 anal yz e w hether

the ten a ddi ti onal ye ars ( or more) to meet t he 10 ppb pho sphor us cr it er ion
w as “reason abl e” under the CW A, j ust as it did in it s 1 999 D eter minat ion on t he s ig nific ant del ay w ro ug ht bythe 1994 EFA, w hic h at the time itw as pass ed al low ed tw elv e y ears for
c o m p li a n c e
. Att h a tt im e , t h e E P Aa d d re s s e d t h e qu e s t io n “[ d ] o e s Fl o ri d a ’s n a rr a t ive nutr ien t c ri ter ion , as amended by the compl ian ce sc hedul e, s ti ll sa ti sfy CW A s ect ion 303 (c)( 2)(A) and 40 C.F.R. 131. 11? ” and [d ]oe s t h e r ecord supp ort the comp liance
sc hedul e [as reason abl e]?” PR -A R- 9 at 7- 9. This sa me q uest ion i s s ti ll p e rt in e nt an d
unans w ered i n ter ms of the Amended E FA and Ph ospho ru s R ule

. Ins tead of address in g the hard q uest ion s, the E PA ar bit ra ri ly co ncl uded t hat t he dea d l i n e d i d n o t c h a n g e
. P R
- A R
- 7 1 a t 2 3

. A re v i e w o f t h e P h o s p h o r u s R u l e , a n d the 62 Amended E FA, es tabl is hes on th eir face t hat t he D ecem b e r 3 1, 20 06, d eadl ine had Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 77 of 10178

chan ged, an d thatthere is no lon ger a date certa in w hen the ph osph orus criterion w ill
ev en be met. A cl ear re adi ng of t he Rul e est abl is hes w it hout ambig uity thatsu bsecti ons 5(d) and 6 extend th e com pliance d ead line previously app rov ed b y

the EP A. Th e EPA ’s
a rg u me n t t o t h e c o n t ra r y fa i l s a n y t e s t o f re a s o n
. Th e S t a t e o f F l o r i d a w o u ld hav e no reaso n to includ e the Decem ber 31 , 201 6, exten sion part of the water q uality standa rds in the A mended EF A and the R ule i f the 2006 deadl ine had re mained i n effect

. Fi nal ly , in its Rule Deter minat ion s, the EPA fail s to mention, l et al one c onsi der , t he
cum ulative impa ct on th e ph osph orus criterion, th e de signated use, a nd th e an tideg ra dati on pol icy

of all ow ing su ch dis charg es based on TBEL s i nto t he Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area for another ten y ears, in cl udi ng f ro m farmer permittees w it hin the EAA and the C -1 39 Bas in. In fact, the EPA nev er cons ide rs the effect of s ubsecti on 5( d) on t he EA A Best M a n a gem e n t P ra ct ice s u n d e r Se ct io n 37 3 .4 592( 4) (f) ( enti tl ed “ EAA best manag ement pract ic es” ) w hic h al low ed farmers to poll ute t hroug h 2006 and now , by v ir tue o f the Amended E FA and t his R ule prov is ion , al lows far mers , di re ctl y or i ndi re ctl y , t o furt her d isc h a rge in to th e Eve rgla d e s P ro te ct io n Are a ba s e d up o n T BE L s e st a b lis h e d th ro u gh BAPR T w it hout re g ard to w ater q ual ity eff lue nt s tandards through 2 0 16. The si g nific ant
c o n c e rn s vo ic e d in Ju d ge Da vis ’ Or d e r, a n d e va lu a t e d in E P A ’s 1 9 9 9 De t e rm in a t io n , h a ve si mply dropped o ff

EPA ’s cu rrent radar

sc re en. Nothin g could justif

y a sched ule so slow and “g lacial” as to def eatthe CW A’s goals. See Idaho Spor

tsm en’ s C oal it ion v. Br owner , 951 F .S u p p
. 962, 967 ( W .D . W ash. 1996) (fin din g that “ nothi ng i n the l aw co uld j ust ify

so g lac ial a pa ce” i n di sc uss ing a 25 -y ear sched ule for developm entof T MDLs und er the CW A.). “Simp ly put, the CW A provides a federal floor , nota c eil ing , on env ironmental protec ti on. I f a sta te seek s t o prov ide a Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 78 of 10179

stan dard thatis less stringent tha n the f ede ral Clea n W ate r Act ’s flo or, or seeks to app ly
a sta ndard in a w ay that is other w is e inv ali d under federal law , then federal ag enci es and federal court s are obl ig ated to res olv e the appl ic ati on of the federal C lea n W ater Ac t i n any case th at prop erly

come s before it.” Dub ois v. D ep’ t of Agr ic ., 102 F.3d 12 73, 130 0 (1st Cir. 1996). 6. Geome tric Mean and Method for Achie v ing the Numeric Phosphorus

Criterion.
a. Achi ev emen t of

C rit erio n in Ev erg lad es N at io nal Par k

. Achi ev ement of the phos phor us cr it er ion in the Park is based on the methods set forth in Appendi x

A of the Settl ement Ag re ement Cons ent D ecree unl ess the Sett lement Agreem entis r escind ed o r termina ted . F.A.C. § 62-3 02. 540 (4)( c) . Th e Depa rtme nt is
re q uired to rev iew

data from i n f lo ws i nto t he Par k a t l ocat ion s e sta bli shed pursuantto A p p e n d ix Ao f

t h e S e t t le m e n tA gr e e m e n t

. T h e p h o s p h o ru s c o n c e n t ra t io n l im it s fo r i n f lo ws int o t h e P a rk m u st not v iol ate t hose li mits

. Id. The Plaintif fs do no t even challen ge this methodol og y , and had pre v iou sl y consent ed to the Sett lementAg re ement w hic h adopt ed it

. b. Achie v eme nt of Criterion in th e Refuge is A rbitra rya n d Cap rici ou s. The measurementof achi ev ement of the phos phor us cr it er ion i n the R efuge, how ev er , i s a nother

matte r. T h e E PAi g nored i n i ts final R ule dete rmi nati ons that a si g nific ant p orti on of the Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area i s c omposed of t he Refug e w hic h has
a more protec ti v e cl ass ific ati on of w ater q ual ity than Cl ass II I. The Lox ahatc hee N ati onal W ildlife Re f uge (W CA 1) is an Ou tstan ding Florida W ate r. F.A.C. § 62-30 2.7 00(9 )(a)(3), 9( B) (1 7) . Thi s c las si ficat ion means thatt h e S tate “ shal l afford the hi g hestprotec ti on to Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 79 of 10163

Sub section 5(c) of th e Rule provides tha t discha rg es into the Park mu st notresult in a v iol ati on of the conc entrati on l imi ts est abl is hed for the P a rk in A p p e n d ix A o f the Sett lementAg re ement Cons ent Dec re e as dete rmi ned t hroug h the methodo log y se t fort h in subs ect ion 4. I read t his prov is ion to prev ail ov er su bsecti on 5(d ) a n d s ubsecti on 6 moderati ng prov is ion s, suc h that dis charg es int o the Par k’ s i mpacte d areas or uni mpacte d areas w oul d notbe permi tted as bla nketva ri ances if the c oncen trati on l imi ts est abl is hed for th e Par k i n Appe ndi x A o f the Con sent Dec re e are not met. Admittedl y , the Rul e is not tota lly clear on this questio n be cause the m ode rating prov isions ap ply to th e en tire Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area, a nd th e R ule i tse lf r e f e rs to “ impacted a re as” i n the Ev erg lad es Nat ion al Par k. See subs ect ion ( 4) (b )( “A chi ev ement of the phos phor us cr it er ion for w aters in the E PA s hal l be det er mined separatel y i n i mpacte d and uni mpacte d areas in . . . the Everg lade s Nationa l Park.”) How ever, the sam e prote ctiv e provisions thatapp ly to t he Par k are not set forth in the Rul e for the Refug e, w hic h is des ig nated an Ou tst andi ng Florida W ate r and the refore entitled to a higher level of protect ion th an Class III W ate rs. 64 The foll ow ing i s a n ex chang e from t he M ay 21, 2008, oral arg ument: Court: In fact, the E PA sento ut this lette r to t he dep artm entsa y ing he re are the v ar iou s w ay s that thi s probl em w e hav e w it h re g ard to per mits bas ed on BAPR T throug h 2016 can be addres sed, and if i t’ s a bl anketv ar ian ce, then th e re ha s t o be , a cc o rd in g to th e EP A, co n si d e r a t i o n o f th e § 1 3 1 .1 0 (g) demonst ra ti on j ust ific ati ons w it h publ ichear ing , r ig ht? Mr. R ave: Th at’s correct, Your Hono r. Mr . M ancus i- Ung aro: That’ s c or re ct. The Co urt: That w asn’ t don e. Mr . R av e: That’ s cor re ct, becau se after cons ult ing w it h the st ate a nd g etti ng the state ’s interpreta tion o f w hatthatprovi sion m ean t, w e de term ined thatit w ould have to be ap plied o n a case -by -case ba sis. The Co urt: If I det er mine that not o nly y our methodo log y

but al so y our conc lus ion w as cont ra ry to law and ar bit ra ry

and ca p ric ious an d, i n fact, bla nketv ar ian ce prov is ion s w ere s et, then EPA nev er co nside re d w hether 80 such w ate rs an d no degrada tion is to b e perm itted .” F.A. C. § 62-30 2.7 00(1 ). M oreo v er, the Ref uge is subject to the Conse nt D ecree tha t also g overns Everg lade s Nation al Park. W hatis cr itical (in addition to conce rns re garding W ate r Conserv ation Areas 2 an d 3) is t h a tsu b s e c t io n 5 a n d 6 m o d e ra t in g p ro vis io n s a p p ly t o , a n d wo u ld a u t o m a t ic a ll y a ll o w, dis charg es int o the impacted areas of the R efuge under bl anketv ar ian ces
. See Ma y 21, 63 2008 H ear ing Tr. , at17- 18. Thi s i s a n i nappropr iat e s ubcat eg or y of the O uts tandi ng 64 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 80 of 101that w oul d be a v iol ati on of the set tl ement ag re ement as w ell i n any

deter minat ion

. Mr. R ave: Th at’s correct, Your Hono r. Ma y 21, 2008 H ear ing Tr. at 17- 18.
65 W hil e EPA

cl aims that for some basi ns, spec ific prog re ss w il l be ac hie v ed s ooner than 2016, thi s c lai m is co ntradi cte d bythe Long -Ter m Pl an w hic h s how s t hat t he 10 ppb phosp hor us cr it er ion w il l not b e m e t b y 2056 i n al l basi ns anal yz ed. P R-AR -6 9 at 14; Ex hib itK; PR -A R- 29.28, Table ES- 3. 81 Fl or ida W ater

des ig nated use under

the CW A. The effect w oul d be to ex pand i mpacte d
areas int o pr is ti ne areas and al low g re ate r ex pansi on of thes e i mpacte d areas for th e addi ti onal ten y ears p er mitt ed by the EFA Amendment s a nd th e Phos phor us Rul e. 65 In its July 7, 20 03, letter on the draft Pho spho rus Ru le, the EPA m ade these ex act poin ts to Florid a D E P

. T h e EPA recom me nde d de letion f rom th e draft Rule of those portio ns w hich did not suf f iciently prote ct the Ref uge. EPA July 7, 20 03 L ette r, at 2-3 [PRAR -1 3]. It sta ted: This se cti on als o prov ide s that phosp hor us conc entrati ons in inflo w s t o the Refug e c an ex ceed the cri te rion if the dis charg e c oncen trati on does not ex ceed the Tec hnol og y Bas ed Effluent Limi ta ti o n ( TBELS) w hic h i s b ased on Bes t Av ail abl e Phos phor us Red u ct io n Techno log y ( BAPR T). As noted a b o ve , d is c h a rg e s o f

p h o s p h o ru s a b o ve t h e c ri t e ri o n o f 1 0 p p b co u ld h a ve an adv erse impact on re cei v ing w aters. In addi ti on, t he R efuge is des ig nated an Ou tst andi ng F lor ida W ater ( OF W ) u n d e r the F lor ida w ater q ual ity stan dard s (62-302 .70 0), (sic) discha rg es are no t allow e d to ‘significa ntly deg ra de’ the w ater

body ( see 62- 4.242( 2) (a )) .” Id. at 3. The EPA ig nore d t h e e f f e ct of its ow n ear li er

w ar nin g and, furth er , di d notev en consid er, in its f inal Determ inatio ns, wheth er t he subse ction 5(d) and 6 blanke t v ariance prov is ion s v iol ated the S ettl ement A g re ement an d C onsen t D ecree to wh ich the Uni ted Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 81 of 10166

The Ru le prov ide s t hat “a chi ev ement,” meanin g “meas urement” of the p hosph or us criterio n i n Ev erg l ad es N at i on al Pa r k w ou l d be ba s ed on th e me th od s as s et forth in Appendi x

A o f t he Sett lement Ag re ement. F. A.C

. § 62- 302.540 (4 )( c) . There i s n o ex cl usi on of the Pa rk from subse ction 5 (d) and th e sub section 6 mo dera ting prov isions. Rath er, thes e prov is ion s a ppl y

for d is charg es int o or

w it hin the Par k.
67 The EPA als o ac ted c ontrar y to it s o w n procedu re s. In A ug ustof 1994, the E PA up da te d i ts W

ate r Quality Stan dards Handb ook [EF A- AR -9 ]. The EPA W QS H andbook makes cl ear

thatst ate reli ef proc edures that are a p art of w ater qual ity standards “mus t be cons is tent w it h the req uirements of 48 C .F .R . § 131. See 4 0 C. F

. R. § 1 3 1

. 1 3 (“ S t a t e s m a y, at th eir discretion, includ e i n t h e ir stat e stan dard s, policies genera lly af fecting the ir a p p l i c a t i o n a n d i mp l e me n t a t i o n
. ” B u t , t h e E P Aw i l l c o n t i n u e to ap p ro v e s t a t e - g ra n t e d re l i e f, if, among othe r thi ng s, the S tate demonst ra tes thatmeeti ng the sta ndard i s “ unatt ain abl e” b a se d up o n on e or m o re of th e gro u n d s ou tl in e d in 40 C.F .R . § 13 1 .1 0 (g) fo r re m o ving a desi g nated use. 82 Stat es is a pa rty . Su ch act ion i s a rb it ra ry and ca p ric io u s and notsu ppor ted b y any 66
sc ien ti fic rati onal e. 67 Of si g nific ant im p o rtance , i f the s tandard tes ts are notmet for measu ri ng achi ev ement, “n o a ct ion ” is req uired i n the R efuge, prov ide d tha t neti mprov ement or hy dropatt er n rest orati on prov is ion s o f the moderati ng prov is ion s o f subse cti on 6 are met. See F .A.C . § 62- 302.540 (4 )( d) (2 ). The E PA di d notev en c onsi der w hether thi s “ esc ape cl ause” co nst it utes a c hang e of desi g nated use in the R efu ge, a c h a n g e i n c ri ter ion , a
v iol ati on of

t h e C W A’ s a nti -d eg ra dati on prov is ion s, or a v iol ati on of the Sett lement Ag re ement. This i s a rb it ra ry and capr ic iou s, and c ontrar y to the C W A.
c . E P A P r o p e r l y D e t e r m i n e d t h a tt h e C r i t e r i o n M e a s u re d b y a Geome tric Mean, and Implem ented Through the Four-Part Test, is P ro te ct iv e o f th e D esig nat ed Use s. I now tur n to cons ide ri ng the Rul e’s methodo log y for measu ri ng the achi ev ement of the phospho ru s cr it er ion in the Clas s III Fl or ida W aters o f Cons er v ati on Areas 2 and 3,
w hic h i ncl ude t he Tr ibe ’s his tor ic al ances tral lan ds. I find no is sue under the CW A w it h the Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 82 of 10183

use o f a g e o me t r i c me a n , c o u p l e d w i t h a mu l t i p l e - s t e p t e s t a n d d a t a s c re e n i n g
. I do, how ev er , hav e s ig nific ant C W A c oncer ns w it h oth er as pect s o f the R ule ’s ac hie v ement
m e t h o d o lo gy. The Plai nti ffs chal len g e the m easurement of the phosp hor us cr it er ion uti li z ing the “g eom etric me an” as cont em plate d by the Ame nde d EFA an d the Rule. T he Pla intif fs’ main
o bje ct io n is t h a t t h e us e of a ge o m e tr ic m e a n fo llo ws m u lt ip le s cre e n in g leve ls a gai n sthi gh phosp hor us measurements , s o tha t it re -s creens data that is al re ady sc re ened s ev eral ti mes. DE 294, p. 5. I do notfind t he us e of a “g eometr icm ean” to be in v iol ati on of the CW A, o r that the E P A ’ s a p p ro v a l o f i ti s ar b i t ra r y or ca p r i c i o u s
. A l t h o u g h th e Pl a i n t i ffs cr i t i c i z e th e u s e o f a geom etric me an, rathe r tha n an arithme tic me an, the y prese nt no com pell in g s c ie n tif ic
e v i d e n c e t h a tu s e o f a g e o me t r i c me a n i s n o tp ro t e c t i v e o f t h e d e s i g n a t e d u s e
. P l a i n t i ffs als o do not a ddress the fact th at t he s tudi es on w hic h th e cri ter ion i s b ased found that
w ater co ncent ra ti ons w it h a g eometr icmean of 10 ppb s uppor ted a bal anced bi olo g ic al communi ty

ty pic al of the l ow

nutr ien t Ev erg lad es env ironment. The EPA ’s approv al of the
cr it er ion i s t hus suppo rt ed by the ev ide nce in the record and shoul d be aff ir med. It is note w orthy

thatthe “g eometr icmean” st andard w as inc lud ed in the 1 994 EF A. It w as nev er

ch all eng ed by

the Pl ainti f

fs foll ow ing adopt ion . Al so, the re cord es tabl is hes that the u se of a g eometr icmean i s a co nv enti onal w ay of de ter mini ng numer ic cr it er ia and ele ments in w ater

q ual ity st andards th a t gover n ambi ent w ater q ual ity , as w ell as compl ian ce w it h s uch sta ndards. See also , Ad mini strati v e Order , at132. Beca use the c ri ter ion i s e x press ed in ter ms of a lo ng -t er m av erag e c oncen trati on, th e R ule al so cont ain s a n ac hie v ement met hodol og y i ntended to li mit the a mount of Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 83 of 10168

The fourth par

t of the tes t is that“in div idu al st ati ons in the netw or k s hal l be deemed to be uni mpacte d for pur poses of thi s r ule i f t he fiv e- y ear g eometr ic mean i s l ess than or eq ual to 10 p pb a nd th e a n n u a l geo me tric mea n is less than or equal to 15 pp b.” F.A.C. § 62- 302.540 ( 4) (d ).

69 Pl ain ti ffs cr it ic iz e the f actthat one of the analy ses performed for the EPA to ev alu ate the Four-Part T est on ly ex am ined data f rom th e Park and Re f uge. How ever, th e EPAalso re li ed on a s tati sti cal anal y si s o f t he Four-P art Test condu cte d by the Stat e i n W CA -2 and W CA -3 . PR -A R- 18 at

6- 7. 84 temporal and s pati al v ar iab il ity al low ed i n meeti ng the sta ndard. S peci fical ly , t he achi ev ement met hodol og y prov ide s t hat the cr it er ion is met if the fiv e y ear g eometr icmean averaged across all station s is less tha n or equal to 10 ppb and (1) the ann ual geom etric
me an av eraged across all statio ns is less tha n or equal to 10 ppb for three of f iv e y ears, (2 ) the a nnual g eometr icmean av erag ed across all st ati ons is less than or equal to 11 ppb, and ( 3) the annual g eometr icmean atal l ind iv idu al sta ti ons is l ess than or eq ual to 15 ppb. Subs ect ion 4( d) ( the “ Four-P art Test” ). In cons ide ri ng the matter , t he EP A c oncl uded, that 68 the c ri ter ion , as i mplement ed by the Four-P art Test , i s p ro tec ti v e of the desi g nated use, par ti cul ar ly si nce all four par

ts must be met for th e w ater body to meet t he c ri ter ion

. W hile Pl a in t iffs raise a num ber of cogent argume nts w hich at tack th e “Four-Part T est,” I cann ot ignore, in my limite d rev iew f unct ion, tha t the reco rd e v iden ce suf f iciently esta blishes th at Florida DEP a nd EP A performe d statistica l ana ly sis of the Fou r-Part Te st and deter mined thatcompli ance w it h the tes t ac curatel y measu re s w ater

co ndi ti ons that suppo rta ba lan ced popul ati on of f lora and fauna. PR -A R- 18 at5- 6; P R-AR -3 0; P R-AR -3 1; Na t ’ l Wi ld l i f e F e d ’ n v . E PA, 2 8 6 F

. 3 d 554 , 560 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“particular de feren ce is g iv en by the cour

t t o an ag e n cy

w it h reg ard to sc ien ti fic matters i n i ts area of tec hni cal expertise”). Accordin gly , I do not find tha t the EPA ’s Determ inatio n as to th e Fo u r- part

69 Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 84 of 10185

Test i s a rb it ra ry , c apr ic iou s o r not i n ac cordance w it h l aw
.

d. EPA ’ s A pprov al of the D ata Sc ree ning Prov isions Is not A rb it rar y o r C apr icio us In order to ensure tha t ano malous ev ents do n ot un dul y sk ew the av erag e v alu e, t he Rul e al so prov ide s for

a data sc re eni ng m ethodol og y . Subsec ti on 4(f) of the Rul e prov ide s that data from moni tor ing st a ti o ns w il l be rev iew ed and ex cl uded i f it does not meet min imu m requirem ent s for data q uality or if the dat a is aty pical du e to extreme ev ent s such as f ire, f lood , drought, or hurricanes; tem pora ry hum an o r natura l disturban ces such as air boa t traf f ic, auth oriz ed resto ration activ ities, alligator holes, or b ird roo keries; or hydrologic condi ti ons outs ide the ra ng e of cond it ion s e sta bli shi ng the cr iter ion

. The EPA has
re v iew ed th e R ule ’s data sc re eni ng prov is ion and has dete rmi ned t hat t he ex cl usi on of thes e ty pes of data i s appropr iat e, and not in v iol ati on of t he Cl ean W ater Act , in ensur ing that monit or ing data prov ide an a cc urate d epi cti on of con dit ion s i n the w ater bo dy that
w oul d ac tu all y

affectthe int eg ri ty

of the w ater , as oppos ed to temporar y or l ocal iz ed
a b e r ra t i o n s t h a ta re n o tt r u l y re fl e c t i v e o f ty p i c a l a mb i e n tc o n d i t i o n s
. W h i l e t h e P l a i n ti ffs
ra is e a number of c oncer ns, none ri se to a lev el that suppo rt s ar bit ra ry an d ca p ri ci ous act ion bythe EPA, especi all y gi v en the record on appeal w hic h suppor ts thi s a spect of the EPA’ s D eter minat ion

.

7. Th e EPA ’s A pp ro v al o f a Po rt io n of Su bsec ti on 4 (d )( 3) o f th e R ul e [P ro v id in g fo r “ No Act io n” i f th e C rit erio n is N otM etPr ov id ed Moderating Prov isions A re Met] is A rbitrary and Capric i o u s a nd Not P r o t e c t i v e o f

t h e W a t e r

B o d y I undersc ore tha t t he “ achie vement methodol og y ” dis cus sed abov e i s w it hout pract ic al si g nific ance in the R ule bec ause, under the Rul e, “ no ac ti on” i s re qui re d i f the criterion is no t achi ev ed , prov ide d tha t t he s ubsecti on 6 modera ti ng cri ter ia are met. ( “I f Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 85 of 10186

thes e l imi ts are notmet [ phosp hor us cr it er ion ], no act ion sh all be req uired, p ro v ide d tha t the net im proveme nt or h yd ro p a t tern resto ration provi sions of subse ction (6) belo w

are met.” ) F .A.C

. § 62- 302.540 (4 )( d) (2 ). I already hav e di sc uss ed th e i mpact of this prov is ion on th e R efuge. I t als o i s o f equ al conc er n i n reg ard to the C las s I II w aters o f W CA s 2 and 3, pa rt ic ula rl y

to the Tr ibe as a do w nst re am w ater us er
. The subse ction 4 (d)((2) avoidance mech anism scr e e n s o u t high mea surem ent s in “i mpacte d areas” and ex cus es non- compl ian ce unti l 2016 ( and i ndefini tel y i n uni mpacte d
area s) so l ong as a discha rg er follows the “Long-Te rm Plan ” or prov ides hydropa ttern
re sto ra ti on. This p rov is ion , w hen c oupl ed w it h the su bsecti on 6 prov is ion s, v iol ates the CW A

. T h e in c lu s io n o f

t h is p ro vis io n is n o ts c ie n t if ic a ll y d e fe n s ib le , a n d itis n o tp ro t e c t ive of desi g nated uses
. See NRD C v. EPA , 16 F. 3d 1395 , 140 2 ( 4th C ir . 199 3 ) (E PA’s duty
u n d e r t h e C W A“ i s t o e n s u re th a tth e un d e r l y i n g cr i t e r i a , w h i c h are us e d as t h e b a s i s o f a par ti cul ar state’ s w ater

q ual ity st andard, are s ci enti fical ly defensi ble and are protec ti v e of desi g nated uses .” ). In rev iew ing thi s a v oid ance mechani sm, it is impor tant to note that the R ule prov ide s that achi ev ement of the phos phor us cr it er ion “ shal l be det er mined sepa ra tel y in i mpacte d and unim pact ed a reas in ea ch . . . w ate r bo d [ y]

. . . . ” F.A. C. § 62-30 2.5 40(4 )(a). T his
means that the a chi ev e m e n t methodol og y i s t o be done s eparatel y for e ach w ater

body
a n d t h e n d o n e se p a ra t e ly i n e a c h im p a c t e d a re a a n d u n im p a c t e d a re a o f e a c h wa t e r b o d y. Beca use all di sc harg e poi nts are in impac ted area s, thi s separati on of the w ater

bodyand
mo dera ting p rov isions for im pact ed area s a ssures discha rg e pe rmits for all dis charg es int o the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area, reg ardle ss of phosp hor u s co n centra ti ons, prov ide d the dis charg ers fol low

the Long -Ter m Pl an. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 86 of 10187

The record prov ide s n o reason abl e as surance that the desi g nated use of t he “ w ater b o d y as a w h o le ” is b e in g pro te ct e d

. By a llo wing fo r “n o ac ti o n ,” th e Ru le cre a te s a ch a n ge in desi g nated use. The EPA act ed cont ra ry to t he C W A by approv ing su ch a c onv olu ted dic hotomy

. T h e s it u a ti on bec omes e v en more g ri ev ous w hen, as here, t here i s n ot ev en a sound sc ien ti fical ly -b ased sta ndard and methodol og y for i denti fyi ng the act ual l ocat ion and extent of impact ed and unimp acte d area s w ithin ea ch ba sin. Th e ph rase “impa cted areas” is defined to mean thos e areas of the E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area w here tot al phosp hor us co n ce n tr a ti o n s in th e up p e r 10 ce n ti m e te rs o f th e so ils is gre a te r th a n 50 0 m g/k g. Subs ect ion ( 3) (d ). The R ule i s n ot ac compani ed by a for mal a n d sci enti fical ly co mplet e mappin g of t he Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area show ing the loc ati on of “ impa ct e d areas; ” how ev er , i nformal co mputer b a sed mappin g sh ow s e xtens iv e i mpacte d areas in W ater Conse rv ation Areas 1 (the Ref uge), 2 a nd 3 as w ell a s so me sm all a reas w ithin the Park. See M ap from F eb. 2 003 present ati on by D EP to E RC [PR -A R- 32, 2 -2 7&28- 2003, Fi le No. 11], attac hed t o thi s O pin ion as Appen dix B. In it s letter of J uly 7, 2003 to the Fl or ida DE P, the EPA ex press ed its co n cerns re g ardin g the defini ti on of “ impacted a re as” as not bei ng sc ien ti f ica lly establ is hed or suf f iciently prote ctiv e, an d a s co nstitu ting a n inap prop riate assignme nt of a subca tegory of the F lor ida C las s I II desi g nated use. These conc er ns w ere nev er respo nded t o by

the F lo r i d a D E P

. T h e E P Aa c t e d a rb it ra ri ly a n d ca p ri c io u s ly b y ig n o ri n g i t s o wn re commendat io n s a n d al low ing the Phos phor us Rul e to be adop ted i n a mann er that
v iol ated the C W A. The Jul y 7, 2003 l etter

st ated in par

t: Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 87 of 10188

The draft ru le ess enti all y se ts up tw o s ubcat eg or ies of Fl or ida ’s C las s I II desi g nated use for th e Ev erg lad es: an “ impacted u se and an “un impacted use. ” The subcate g or ies m ay di ff er i n how the protec ti v e c ri ter ion i s a ppl ied (d ependi ng on w hether ce rt ain amendments to Sect ion 5 are ac cept ed or not) , butthe pr imar

y di ff erence is in the ava il abi li ty of the “n et i mprov ement” moderati ng prov is ion . I n the curre n t d raft Rul e, us e of the moderati ng prov is ion i s more rest ri cte d for “u nimpacted” areas. Since the moderating prov ision is intended to al l o w discha rges of phosphorus abov e the protectiv e crite rion of 10 ppb, additional a dv ers e impac ts to the recei v in g w at ers of

t he Ev erg lad es Pr ot ect io n A rea cou ld o ccur . Th erefore, a scien ti fi cally def ensi bl e def in it io n of “im pact ed” is crit ical. The draft Rul e i denti fies “i mpacte d a re a s” as areas of the [E v erg lad es Protec ti on Area] w here the tot a l p h o sphor us soi l conc entrati on i s g re ater than 500 mg/kg. Si te- spec ificdata from t he EP A i ndi cat e pr is ti ne (u nimpacted) areas w it h soi l conc entrati ons in ex ces s of 50 0 mg /kg and 600 mg /kg . ( See R eddy

et al. 1991, Cra ft a n d Ric hardson 1993, W alk er and Kad lec 199 6, EP A 200 0b, FDEP and SFW MD 2002). In addition some of the WCA -2A

stations w hich the Department conside red “unimpac ted” fo r t he pu rp ose of der iv in g th e 10 pp b crit erio n w ou ld n owb e re def in ed as “ imp act ed. ” By using 5 0 0 mg/ kg as the definition of “impacted area s,” pris tine (u ni mp act ed) are as w ill be id ent if ied as ‘im pact ed. ’ Th is co ul d allo w an inappropria te applica tion of the “ne t improv eme nt” moderating p r o v i s i o n , a n d a s s u c h , wo u l d b e v i e wed u n d e r t h e CWA as a n in app ro pr iat e assi gn men t of a su bcat ego ry

o f th e F lo rida C la ss II I desi gn at ed use. ” RE CO MM EN DATION : The us e of g re ater than 600 mg /kg so il phos phor us conc entrati on i s recommended as an i ndi cat or of impai rmentco ncur re nt w it h other i ndi cat ors s uch as “a dja centto an inflow and the p re senc e of cattai l or other bi olo g ic al ind ic ators o f imbal ance. ” EPAJuly 7, 200 3 Le tter, at2 [PR-AR-13] (em pha sis adde d). The prog ra m data that did ex is t in 2005 (d ur ing the EPA re v iew ) i ndi cat ed th at t he
area of the Ev erg lad es w it h s oil tot al phosp hor us conc entrati ons ex ceedi ng 500 mg /kg w as 24.5 percent( plu s/mi nus 6.4 percent ) of t he 2,063 sq uare mi les sa mpled. This data w as sum ma riz ed in EP A’s re centREMAP Re port w hich ind icates th at th e imp acte d area s are ra pid ly ex pandi ng throug hout the E v erg lad es. See REMAP Report at pa ge 62, f ig. 47 [DE Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 88 of 10170

The EPA als o v iol ated 40 C.F .R . § 131.10( b) by fail ing to cons ide r the e ff ect s o n the dow nst re am w ater

us er , t he M ic cos ukee Tri be, s inc e a s ig nific ant por ti on of t he i mpacte d areas li e di re ctl y

abov e the Tri be’ s la n ds. “ In de si g nati ng us es of a w ater body and the appropr iat e c ri ter ia for th ose uses , t he St ate s hal l tak e i nto c onsi derati on th e w ater q ual ity sta ndards of dow nst re am w aters a nd s hal l ensure that it s w ater q ual ity st andards prov ide for the attai nment and maint enanc e of t he w ater q ual ity st andards of dow nst re am w aters.” 40 C .F .R

. § 131.10( b)

. The re cord does not e v en c ontai n an ov er lay of the Tr ibe ’s l ands in re lat ion to the c omputer g enerated est imat e of impacted a re as w it hin W CA 3.
89 270]; cf. DE P Techn ic al Reg ula tor y Infor mati on i n Supp ort of the Ru le a tt ached to the submi ss ion to EPA dated Janua ry 12, 2005 [PR -A R- 18]. Ex press ed i n l ay

ter ms, co nti nui ng to dis charg e phos phor us int o the i mpacte d
areas at l ev els bey ond w hat i s p ro tec ti v e w il l caus e the i mpacte d areas to ex pand i nto t he
more pr is ti ne uni m p a ct e d areas. The un impacted a re as then become impacted a re as
w hic h the n al low

for fur ther di sc harg e abov e the protec ti ve standard under the Rul e. Beca use “n o ac ti on” i s req uired i f the presc ri bed 10 ppb l imi ts are not m et, the p ro ces s c an cont inu e at lea st throug h 2016 in impacted a re as. Itmay co nti nue i ndefini tel y

“ w it h o ut act ion ” in the more pr is ti ne, u nimpacted a re as w it h hy dropatt er n rest orati on ( more w ater flow ) si nce that moderati ng prov is ion i s n ot t ime- bar re d under the Rul e. The cumul ati v e effectfail s to prote ct the desi g nated use, v iol ates anti -d eg ra dati on principles an d ne gates the pho spho rus criterion. The EPA ’s app rov al of such a sche me is
ar bit ra ry and v iol ates Sec ti ons 4( b) -( e) of the C W A. It is i n di re ct cont ra v enti on to the CW A’ s re qui re m e n t fo r EP A t o in st it u te pro gre ss ivel y mo re st rin gen t e f f lu e n t d isc h a rge guidelines so as to “tighten th e no ose for pollute rs.” Cit izens Coa l Cou nci

l v. EPA , 66 F .3d 784 , 789 (6th Cir. 2006 ). 70

8. EPA ’s C onclusi on that Sec tions 1, 2 and 5(a-c) of t h e P hosphorus Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 89 of 10171

See discussion abo v e explaining why su bsect ions 5(a), (b)(3), a nd ( c) of the Rule chang e the nar ra ti v e c ri ter ion and neg ate t he 10 ppb numer ic cr it er ion , becau se they deem compl ian ce w it h the se w ater q ual ity cr it er ion to be achi ev ed if the dis charg er si mply meets the mode ra ti ng prov is ion cr it er ia. 90

Rul e a r e N o t Ch anges in Water Qua lity Standards is A rbitrary and Caprici ous I hav e p re vi ousl y

found thatEPA

ac ted a rb it ra ry

and capr ic iou sl y

by parsi ng i ts
re v iew of t he Phos phor us Rul e. W hil e the EPA re v iew ed cer tai n prov is ion s a s ch a n ges in w ate r q uality, it d e c lined to rev iew othe r prov isions un til ordered to do so . At this jun ctu re , I co ncl ude t hat E PA further act ed ar bit ra ri ly and capr ic iou sl y

by not cons ide ri ng that the s ubsecti ons (1 ), ( 2) and (5 )( a- c) , which di re ctl y i nter re lat e w it h s ubsecti ons 5( d) and 6, l ik ew is e c onst it ute c hang es in Fl or ida ’s w ater q ual ity st andards under

the CW A. The EPA act ed ar bit ra ri ly i n not re v iew ing the int er re lat ion shi p betw een s ubsecti ons 5( d) and 6 w it h the foll ow ing additi onal se cti ons of the Pho sphor us Rul e: ( I) su bsecti on ( 1) (b )( 2) (estab lishing mode rating prov isions as an el em entof w ate r q uality standa rds); (ii ) subse ction (2)(e)(2)(h ) (p ro v iding that th e Lo ng-Term Plan acco mp lishes BAP RT); (iii) subs ect ion ( 2) (e )( l) ( findi ng thatthe Rul e must inc or porate a flex ibl e approach tow ards the appl ic ati on of the numer icphosphor us cr it er ion ); (iv ) subs ect ion (3) (a ), ( b) ,( c) , ( d) , ( h) , and (I ) (e sta bli shi ng defini ti ons direct ly appl ic abl e to chan g es in w ater qual ity standards) ; and (v ) subs ect ion 5( a) , ( b) (2 ) and ( c) (w hic h, w hen t aken tog ether, p e rm it di sc harg es as moderati ng prov is ion s)

. These prov is ion s, w hen c oupl ed w i t h t h e c h a ng es in w ater q ual ity 71 already recog niz ed by EPA in subs ect ion s 5( d) and (6 ), alt er the nar ra ti v e c ri ter ion and the designat ed u se by creat ing subclasses of Class III and Outsta ndin g Florida W ate rs. Accordin gly , und er the CW A, the EPA ha d a d u ty to f urthe r ev alua te th ese ch anges in Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 90 of 10172

Pl a in ti f f Frie n d s’ S e co n d Am e n d e d Co m p la in t in co rre ct ly cit e s 1 6 U.S .C . § 14 4 0 (g) as a bas is for j ur is dicti on and re ferenc es 16 U .S.C. § 4 6 0 i n t he req uestfor reli ef under Coun t III (DE 150 ).

73 EPA arg ues that ev en i f I had j ur is dicti on, t here i s no basi s for a findi ng that the E SA w as v iolate d be cause EPA complied w ith the ESA during its rev iew of the Ph osph orus Rule by consu lting w ith the United St ate s Fish and W ildlife Service ( Service). EPAadm its, how ev er , t hat i t di d notse parate ly c o n su lt w it h the Ser v ic e as to sec ti on ( 5) (d ) of the Pho spho rus Rule (DE 274, p . 50, f n 9), beca use EPAd ete rmine d tha t neith er section s (1), (2 ), nor ( 5) (a ) th ro u gh (5 )(c) are c hang es to F lor ida ’s w ater q ual ity st andards. D E 298, p.13. 91 acc ordance w it h C W A c ri ter ia.

VII. F RI EN DS ’ EN DA NG ER ED SPE CI ES ACTC LA IM Pl ain ti ffs h av e c hal len g ed th e EPA under the Endang ered Spe ci es Act( ESA) , 16 U.S.C. § 1540 (g ), in Coun t III of the com plaint f iled by Plaint if f Friends of the Ev erglades. 72 EPA arg ues that thi s C our t l ack s j ur is dicti on bec ause Pl ain ti ffs h av e fail ed to co mply w it h the n oti ce re q uirement of the ESA

. The E SAprov ide s t hat “ [n]o act ion may be 73
commenc ed .

. . [und er this citi z en s uitse cti on of the ESA] pr ior to si xty day s a fter w ri tten not ice of the v iolation h as bee n giv en to th e Secre tary and to any alleged v iolato r of [this
sec ti on of the ESA] .” 16 U .S.C . § 1540( g )( 2) (A ). Plai nti ff Fri ends’ complai nt i s s il ent a s t o any action taken to f ulf ill this statu tory not ice requireme nt and, as such, I dism iss this claim
as spec ific all y

pl ead und er

the ESA. Ho we ve r, P laintif

fs claim tha t such no tice w as no t required, as the ir action is premis ed on the A dmini strati v e Procedure s Ac t (A PA) , and thatthey are i nv oki ng the prov is ion s under the ESA not for jur is dicti on but ra ther to demonst ra te t hat E PA’ s a cti ons
w ere noti n ac cordance w it h l aw
. W hil e this arg ument is interest ing , i t i s n ev erthel ess the
cas e tha t C ount III of Pl ain ti ffs’ C omplai nt prov ide s n o s uppor t for suc h formul ati on of the Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 91 of 10174

40 C .F .R . § 122.47 address es “s chedu les of compl ian ce” l eadi ng to c o mp l i a nce w it h the C W A and re g ula ti ons. The reg ula ti ons sta te t hat N PD ES pe rmi ts is sued to a “n ew source” or

“ new di sc harg er” shal l cont ain a c ompli ance sc hedul e only w hen nec ess ar

y to all ow a rea s on ab l e op po rtu ni ty to at ta i n c om pl i an c e an d on l y for th ree y ea rs
. N ot hi ng in thi s record s how s t hat t he di sc harg ers a re “ new so ur ces ” or

“ new di sc harg ers.” 92 cl aim and t herefore di smi ss al is appropr iat e.

VIII . INVOCA

TION OF EQUITA BLE POWE RS Fede ral law

doe s not au tho riz e an ything like a t we n ty- tw o y ear com pliance
sc hedul e, w hic h i s w hat t he 1994 EFA , the Amended EFA and the P hosph or us Rul e now all ow w it h reg ard to achi ev ing the nar ra ti v e and numer icphosphor us cr it er ion ( the o ri g ina l EFA took effecti n 1994 but c omp lia n ce is not cont emplat ed unt il 2016)

. The ac ti ons 74 inc lud ed in the 1994 EFA , c oupl ed w it h i ts sc hedul e of cons tr uct ion proje cts , w ere i ntended to re sult in the a ttai nment by D ecember

31, 2006, of the l ev el of w ater q ual ity as e sta bli shed by

the nar ra ti v e c ri ter ion and the l ater the default numer icphos phor us cr it er ion

. Pr ior to it s l ates t round of D eter minat ion s, the E PA ha d c onsi ste ntl y found thatthe attai nment by 2006 w as neces sar y to protec t and maint ain the desi g nated uses of the Ev erg lad es sy ste m. Bot h thi s D is tr ict C our t and the El ev enth Ci rc uitC our t of Appea ls reli ed on th ese ass urances to aff ir m the re asons for e xtens ion

. Any furth er del ay in enforc ement mus t nec ess ar il y rais e hei g htened conc er ns, i f not sk epti ci sm, and resul t i n c areful judi ci al sc ru ti ny
. Such sc ru ti ny appears w ar ra nted w hen itw as the E PA i tse lf, jus t a few y ears p re v iou sl y , t hat c oncl uded t hat t he “ reaso nab len ess and acc eptabili ty ” of the initial 12 y e ar sc hedule promulgate d by the 1994 EFA
assu med thatthe De cemb er 31, 2006, dead lin e w ou ld b e me t, and t hat “ there w as an enforc eabl e framew or k t hat ‘ensured’ the numer icw ater q ual ity cr it er ion for p hosph or us Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 92 of 10193

w oul d be met bythe Dec ember 31, 2006, deadl ine i n the EF A or so oner i f possi ble .” EPA Sept. 15, 1999 D eter minat ion , at 9, n.15 (e mphasi s added) [EF A- AR -8 ]. I now co ncl ude that any f urther undue del ay

throug h endles s, undi re cte d rounds of re mands to E PA t o do its duty, w hich it stea dfastly has ref used to do, is, alone, insuf f icient, a n d t h at it is imperati v e tha t t his C our t ex er ci se it s eq uit abl e pow ers to av oid env ironmental inj ur y to the Ev erg lad es throug h the implement ati on of the Amended EFA

and the P hosph or us Rul e as a resul t of the use of blank et ex empti ons. C a s e s i n v olv ing e n v i ro n me n t a l i n j u r i e s a re p a rt i c u l a r l y s u i t e d t o i n j u n c t i v e re l i e f. Alaska Cente r fo r the En v’ t v. Reilly, 796 F .Supp. 1374, 1377 (W .D . W ash. 1992) (“ Mo re ov er , t he Sup re me C our t has found that env ironmental i nju ry i s u niq uel y

des er v ing of inj unct iv e reli ef: ‘E nv ironmental i nju ry , by it s nature, can sel dom be adeq uatel y remedie d by m o n e y d a m a g es and i s o ften per manent o r at l eastof lon g durati on, i .e., i rreparabl e. If suc h i nju ry

i s suff ic ien tl y

l ik ely , t herefore, the b ala nce of harms w il l usual ly fav or the is suanc e of an inj unct ion to protec t the env ironm e n t. ’”) (q uoti ng Am oco Pro d. Co. v. Gambell , 480 U.S. 531 , 545 (1987 )) Und er the law of thi s C ircui t, inj unct ion s fal l int o at lea st three c a teg or ies : F irst, “t ra dit ion al” i nju nct ion s, used to remedy brea ch e s o f common l aw , s tatut or y , or cons ti tution a l ri g hts , may be g ra nted if the mov ing par ty sh ow s “ (1 ) ithas a s ubst anti al li kel ihood of suc ces s o n the mer it s; (2 ) ir re parabl e i nju ry w il l be s uffered unl ess the inj unct ion i ss ues; ( 3) the threatened inj ur y to the mov ant o utw eig hs w hatev er damag e the prop osed injunctio n ma y cause the opp osing p arty; an d (4) if issu ed, t he inju nction w ould notbe ad v erse to th e pu blic inte re s t .” Klay v. United Healthg roup , Inc. , 376 F .3d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r
. 2 0 04) (furth e r s t a t i n g t h a tfo r

a p e r ma n e n ti n j u n c t i o n , t h e p l a i n t i ff Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 93 of 10194

must show

ac tual su cc ess on t he mer it s i nst ead of justa li kel iho od)

. Seco nd, c our ts may g ra nt stat utor

y i nju nct ion s w here a s tatue sp eci fies that a c our t may g ra nt an i nju nct ion to
e n fo rc e t h e st a t u t e , a n d t h e s e in ju n c t io n s m a y b e gra n t e d b a s e d o n t h e st a t u t e ’s o wn cr it er ia plu s a consi derati on of the tradi ti onal req uirements for i nju nct ion s. Id. at 1098- 99. T hird, cou rts may grant injunct ions pursuan t to the All W rits Act, 28 U.S.C. § 165 1, w hich
s t ate s, “Th e Sup reme Court and all courts estab lished b y Act of Congress may i ssue a ll
w ri ts neces sar

y or appropr iat e in aid of

their respe cti v e jur is dicti ons and agreeabl e to the usages an d principles o f law .” Id. at 1099. The All W ri ts Actempow ers c our ts to i ss ue injunct ions to ef

fectu ate or protect th eir judgme nts, and to “prevent the f rustration of orders it has prev iously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction oth erw ise obt aine d.” Id. at 1100, n. 11 (qu o ti n g United S tates

v. N.Y. Tel. C o. , 434 U.S. 159 , 171 (1977 )). Unde r the law of this Circuit, a w rit issued un der the All W rits Act may be directed a t a no n-pa rty if th at pa rty

is “i n a p osi ti on to frus trate t he impl ementati on of a cour t order or the proper

admi nis trati on of jus ti ce, and

. . . ev en thos e w ho hav e not t aken any aff ir mati v e ac ti on to hi nder j ust ic e.” Kl ay , 3 7 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 0 (quo ti n g N. Y. T el. C o. , 434 U.S. at 17 4). Furtherm ore, cou rts are empow ered to g ra nt s uch a w ri t “ w henev er i t is cal cul ated in the c our t’ s s ound j udg ment to ach ieve the end s of

ju stice ent rusted t o it, and n ot only w hen it is nece ssaryin the sen se tha t the court cou ld noto the rw ise physically d ischarge its . . . duties.” Id. ( int er nal ci tati ons
o m it te d ) (qu o ti n g Adam s v . U nited St ates , 317 U .S. 269, 273 ( 1942) ). In a cas e broug ht un der the APA, a d ist ric t cour t has the author ity

to is sue an inj unct ion to effectreli ef. Fr ien ds of t

he Wild Swan v . EP A , 74 Fed. Appx . 718 , 721 -7 22 (9 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( “I n wa ivi n g s o ve re ig n im m u n it y, t h e A P A s p e c if ic a ll y a n t ic ip a t e s in ju n c t ive
re li ef w it hout li miti ng i t t o s peci fic s ect ion s. See 5 U.S.C. § 70 2

. He n c e , we reject Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 94 of 10195

Appel lan ts’ arg ument t hat, under the APA, 5 U. S.C . § 706( 2) , c our ts are notauth or iz ed to impos e i nju nct iv e reli ef.”) ; 5 U. S.C . § 702 ( “A n ac ti on i n a c our t of the Uni ted S tates seek ing reli ef other

than money

damag es and sta ti ng a cl aim that an ag ency or an o ff ic er or empl oy ee th ereof acted or fail ed to ac t i n an off ic ial ca p aci ty or under co lor of leg al aut hority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be de nied on the g roun d tha t is against the United St ate s or that th e United State s is an indispe nsab le party.”) T he Su prem e Court ha s sugg este d tha t in rare circumsta nces, it is app ropriate in
cas es broug ht under the APA for cour ts to g o bey ond si mply re mandin g a matter back to the a g ency
. See Fl

or ida Power & Light v

. Lor ion , 470 U .S. 729, 744 ( 1985) ( sta ti ng that “t he proper

co urse, ex cepti n rare c ircums tanc es, is to remand t o the ag ency for a ddi ti onal investig ati on or ex pl an at i on ” )

. Ba s ed on th i s de c i s i on an d a c ou rt’ s eq ui ta bl e po w ers in general, Circuit cou rts have uphe ld district court de cisions to rem and w ith spe cif ic ins tr uct ion s t o t h e a gen cie s i n c ases broug ht un der the APA. See Earth Islan d Inst . v. Hog ar th , 494 F. 3d 757,770 (9 th Ci r. 2007) (s tati ng “ [w]e ag re e w it h the di str ict c our t t hat the g ov er nment’ s i ntransi g ence in follo w ing C ong re ss ’ mandate [on “dol phi n- safe” lab eli ng of tuna] re nders t his ca se one of the ra re ci rc umstan ces w here g ener icremand i s n ot
a p p ro p ria te ” an d vaca ti n g th e Se cre ta ry’s f in d in g of no ad vers e im p a ct ) (ci ti n g Fl or ida Power & L igh t, , 470 U .S. at 74 4) ; Sier ra Clubv. EPA , 346 F.3d 95 5, 96 0, 96 3 (9th Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) ( wh e re E P A is s u e d f in a l ru le f in d in g t h a t a p a rt ic u la r ar e a in Ca li fo rn ia wo u ld h a ve attai ned nat ion al ambien t ai r q ual ity st andards by

the appl ic abl e dat e pursuantto the C lea n Air Act, if not for em issions em ana ting f rom outside the United Sta tes, the N inth Ci rc u it held thatthis w as an e x cept iona l case in w hich it w as prop er to rem and w ith instructio ns, and remanded w it h i nst ru cti ons that EPA cl ass ify the par ti cul ar area as a s er iou s Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 95 of 10196

n o n a tt a in m e n t a re a ) (ci ti n g Fl or ida Power

& L igh t , 470 U. S. at 744) ; Friends of the W ild Swan, , 74 F ed

. Ap px
. at 72 1- 72 2 ( ho l di ng th at c ou rt di d no t ab us e i ts di s c retion in impos ing of a s chedu le for dev elo pment of T MD Ls pursuantto the CW A and li miti ng the is suanc e of new

per mits , bec ause itw as su p por ted b y M ontana’ s h is tor

y of del ay and EPA’ s repeated fail ure to re q uire the st ate t o ti mely dev elo p TMD Ls, w here c our t ado pted
a sc hedul e that the sta te l eg is lat ure had ini ti all y adopt ed) ; Alaska Cen ter for the Env’ t v. Br owner, 2 0 F

. 3d 9 81, 986 -87 (9th Cir . 199 4) (upho lding district court decision w hich orde red EPAto sub mit rep ort to Cou rt on the ade quacy of w ate r q uality monito ring in Alaska and propo se a sche dule for estab lishme nt of TMDLs be cause the district cou rt act ed w it h re strain t in re q uir ing onl y the ste ps neces sar y for dev elo pment of TM DLs , i n the fa c e o f t h i rt e e n y e a r

d e l a y , a n d b e c a u s e c o u rtl e fts u b s t a n c e a n d m a n n e r o f a c hie v ing
com pliance to EPA ); Abra mow itz v. EPA , 8 3 2 F

. 2 d 1 0 7 1 , 1 0 7 2
- 7 3 ( 9 t h C i r
. 1 9 8 8 ) ( “ We
conc lud e tha t t he EP A ex ceede d i ts a u th o rityunder the Cl ean Ai r Actby

approv ing the cont ro l measures w it h o u t d eter mini ng w hether thos e meas ures w oul d demons trate atta inm entb y

t he Decem ber 31, 1 987 st atu tory dea dline. Be cause w e f ind no ev iden ce in the record to ind icate th at EP A inten ds to ta ke f inal action before 19 88, w e rem and this
cas e w it h the sp eci fic i nst ru cti on th at E PA di sapprov e the rele v ant p orti ons of the [State Impl ementati on Pl an] a nd face u p to impl ementi ng the measures w hic h are to be tr ig g ered by fail ure to meet attai nment req uirements .” ), super seded by sta tute, 1990 A mendments to C lea n Ai r Act ; Nat ’

l Tr easur y E m ployees U nio n v . Hor ner , 854 F.2d 490 , 500 (D.C. Cir. 198 8) (stating “To be sure, the [Su prem e] C ourt sugg este d tha t und er ‘rare circumsta nces’ itmig ht be appropr iat e for the cour t to condu ct it s o w n i nq uir y , reach it s o w n c oncl usi on, and order more int ru si v e reli ef,” b ut de cl ini ng to do s o bec ause nei ther par ty req uest ed i t, Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 96 of 10197

and remandin g for t he di str ict c our t t o es tabl is h an ex pedi ted s chedu le for furt her rulem aking). In this Order, I have conclu ded t hatthe EP A has a cted arbitrarily and capriciously in findi ng thatpor

ti ons of the Pho sphor us Rul e (as di sc uss ed abov e) are consi ste nt w it h the C W A, a nd th at t h e Amended Ev erg lad es Forev er Ac t ( and c ertai n prov is ion s o f the Phos phor us Rul e) do not cons ti tute a chang e in w ater q ual ity st andards under

the CW A. As suc h, an d as prov ide d in the APA, I shal l setas ide the per ti nent EPA’ s D eter minat ion s and remand to the EPA for furt her sp eci fic a cti on c onsi ste nt w it h Par t I X of thi s O rd er
. In addi ti on, findi n g t h i s c a s e as one w her e a g ener ic r emand i s n ot al one appropr iat e, I enj oin the DE P from i ss uin g per mits p u rsu ant t o tho se sec ti ons of the Phos phor us Rul e tha t I hav e s e t asi de, a nd enj oin the DE P from c onsi der ing bl anket
ex empti ons or v ar ian ces under the cur re nt Phos phor us Rul e pendi ng co mpli ance w it h the CW A and it s i mplement ing reg ula ti ons. I furth er enj oin the DE P f ro m e n forci ng the “n o act ion ” prov is ion i n s ubsecti on 4 of the Phosphor us Rul e, an d from ut il iz ing su bsecti on 4 and 5( b) (3 ) of the Pho sphor us Rul e to av oid the 10 ppb phosp hor us numer iccr it er ion as other w is e es tabl is hed by

the Phos phor us Rul e. I grantthis injunctio n pu rsuan t to the co urt’s a uth orityund er the AP A, w hich clea rly cont emplat es inj unct iv e reli ef. See Fr ien ds of t

he Wild Swan , 74 Fed. Appx

. at 72 1- 722 (h old ing thatdi str ict c our t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on in l imiti ng the is suanc e of new per mits , bec ause itw as suppo rt ed by M ontana’ s h is tory o f

d e lay and EPA’ s repeated failure to require the state to time ly develop limits for specif ic polluta nts). I add itiona lly g ra nt t his i nju nct ion based on myco ncl usi on th at t he Pl ain ti ffs h av e met the req uirements fo r a “ t ra d it io n a l” i n ju n c t io n : b a s e d o n m y a n a lys is in t h is O rd e r: (1 ) P la in t if fs h a ve sh o wn Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 97 of 10175

Al thoug h the South Fl or ida W ater Ma nag ement Di str ict (t he “D is tr ict” ) is not a par ty or an i nter v enor i n thi s a cti on, I w il l cons ide r a moti on, a s may be n e ce ss a ry, b y

the Pl ain ti ffs to e n jo in the D is tr ict from is sui ng per mits di sc harg ing i nto, or w it hin , t he Everg lade s Protect ion Area , in a ma nne r i n consiste nt w ith the provi sions of this Order, based on my

pow ers u nder

the Al l W ri ts Act

. Beca use the D is tr ict i s e mpow ered to g ra nt per mits under

ce rt ain ci rc umstan ces , t he D is tr ict i s “ in a pos it ion to frust ra te t he imp lem ent ation of

a court orde r or the prop er adm inistration of justice .

. . .” Kl ay , 376 F .3d at 11 00.
98 actu al success on the me rits, (2) irreparab le injuryt o the Ev erglades an d to Pla intif fs w ill be s uffered unl ess thi s inj unct ion i ss ues, ( 3) the threatened i nju ry to the P lai nti ffs a nd th e Everg lade s outweig hs w hat ever dama ge this injunction ma y cause the op posin g partie s, and ( 4) thi s i nju nct ion w oul d not be adv erse to t he publ ici nterest

. Se e Kl ay , 376 F .3d a t 1097. T he Florida DEP is prop erly a subje ct of this injunct ion becau se, as an intervenor, DE P i s t re ated as if it w ere an or ig ina l par ty to the l it ig ati on. Baysho re Ford Truck Sales, Inc . v . F or d Motor Co. (In re For

d Motor C o.) , 471 F.3d 12 33, 124 6 (11th Cir . 200 6) (“Once
a court grants inter

v enti on, w hether

of rig ht or by

per mis si on, t he ‘ int er

v enor i s t re ated as if [i t] w ere an or ig ina l par ty and has eq ual st andi ng w it h the or ig ina l par ti es. ”) ( q uoti ng Ma rc aid a v . R asc oe , 569 F.2d 82 8, 83 1 (5th Cir. 197 8)). 75 IX. JUDGMENT A ND ORD ERS OF THE COURT I tis h e re b y OR DE RE D A ND A DJU DG ED : 1. Summary jud g ment is g ra nted in fav or of t he Tri be and Fr ien ds on th eir M oti on for Summar

y Judg ment on the EFA Amendmenti ss ues [D E 226] , i n the manner , and for the reason s, setforth in this Order . The moti on is g ra nted to the extent thatthe Cou rtfinds th e A m endments to the E v erg lad es Forev er Ac t c hang e F lor ida ’s prev iou s w ater q ual ity Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 98 of 10199

stan dard s and orde rs Defend ant EPA to comply w ith its dut y und er the Clea n W ate r Act to a p p ro v e o r d i s a p p ro v e t h o s e c h a n g e s i n a ma n n e r c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e fi n din g s a nd conclu sions setforth in th is Order. 2. The C ro ss -M oti ons for Summa ry J u d gment fil ed by the EPA, D EP an d N ew Hop e/Ok eel anta [D E 231, 234 and 239] on the E FA Amendment is sues are deni ed, i n the
ma nne r, and for the rea sons, set forth in th is Order. 3. S ummary

j udg ment i s g ra nted, i n par t, and den ied i n par

t, fo r the Tri be and Fr ien ds as per

tai nin g to the M oti on for Summary Judg ment on the P hosph or us Rul e i ss ues [ DE 2 5 5 ] , in t h e m a n n e r, a n d fo r th e re a s o n s , s e t fo rt h in t h is O rd e r. I n P a ra gr a p h 6 b e lo w, I clarify whi c h p ro visions of the Ph osph orus Rule are valid, and w hich provisions are inv ali d, un der

the CW A. 4. S ummary

j udg ment i s g ran te d, i n par t, and den ied i n par

t, for th e EPA

and the DEP as pe rtaining to the ir Cross- Motio ns for S um ma ry Ju dgme nt on the Phosp horu s Rule is sues [D E 274 and 281 ], and den ied as to N ew H ope/O keel anta on i ts Mo ti on for Sum ma ry

Judgme nt [DE 27 8], in th e ma nne r, and for the rea sons, set forth in th is Order. 5. The Tr ibe and Fr ien ds’ M oti ons to C omplet e and Suppl ement t he R ecord [D E 253 and 270 ] a re den ied, su bject to the two ex cept ions discu ssed in Pa rt III (above) of this Orde r. I n a c corda nce wi th foot not e 5 ab ove, the pa rties are instructe d to f ile electron ic
v ersi ons of the full M ar ch 2003 an d October 2003 Long -Ter m Pl ans w it h the C ler k o f the Cou rtw it hin 30 d ay s from the date of this Order

. 6. I aff ir m the E PA Dete rmi nati ons findi ng thatsu bsecti ons 4( a) and 4( d) (1 ) and 4( d) (2 ), ex ceptas st ated in thi s p arag ra ph, c omply w it h, an d meet the req uirements of, t he Cl ean W ater

Ac t. For reason s stat ed in this Order I conc lud e tha t t he por

ti on of sub sec ti on Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 99 of 101100

4( d) (2 )( c) ( prov idi ng “ [i ]f thes e l imi ts are notmet, no ac ti on shal l be req uired, p ro v ide d tha t the net im proveme nt or h yd ro p a t tern resto ration provi sions of subse ction (6) belo w

are met” ) does not meet the prov is ion s o f the C lea n W ater Ac t and i s t hereby

dec lared i nv ali d. I furt her co ncl ude, for reason s s tated i n thi s O rd er , t h at s ubsecti ons 5( b) (3 )( “D is charg es
w il l compl y

w it h moderati ng prov is ion s a s prov ide d in this rul e” ), 5(d) and 6 do not meet the prov is ion s o f the C lea n W ater Ac t and a re hereby dec lared i nv ali d. The E PA Det er minat ion s fin din g to the c ontrar y are hereby

se t as ide

. 7. O n remand, t he EPA shall req uire the State of F lor ida to meet t he req uirements of the Cl ean W ate r Act, and i ts imp lem ent ing regulation s, in a ma nne r consiste nt w ith this Order , pr ior

to DE P’ s o r EPA’ s a pprov al of anysu b seque nt v ar ian ce to t he Pho sphor us Cr it er ion as es tabl is hed by su bsecti ons 4( a) , ( c) , ( d) (1 ) and ( 2) [w it h the ex cept ion of the “n o ac ti on” prov is ion ], and 5( a) ,( b) (1 ) or ( 2) of the P hosph or us Rul e. 8. T he EPA ’s Det ermin ation s t hatS ection s 1 , 2 and 5 (a-c) of the Ph osph orus Rule
are notch ang es in w ater q ual ity st andards under the CW A are hereby

se t as ide , for the
re asons se t forth in thi s O rd er
. Acc ordin g ly , I order the EPA on remand to co mply w it h i ts duty unde r th e C lea n W ater Ac t t o approv e or

di sapprov e tho se chang es in a manner cons is tent w it h the findi ng s a nd c oncl usi ons setforth i n thi s O rd er
. 9. T he Def end antEPA’s mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t [DE 2 7 4 , p
. 4 8-51 ] is g ra n te d ag ain st Pl ain ti ff F ri ends’ Endan g ered Spe ci es ActC lai m, tha t c lai m as inc lud ed Fr ien ds’ Sec ond Amend ed C omplai nt i s d is mis sed. 10. The DE P i s e njo ine d from g ra nti ng any per mits for di sc harg es in, or w it hin , t he Ev erg lad es Protec ti on Area under subs ect ion s 5( b) (3 ), 5( d) and 6 of the Phos phor us Rul e, or the “no action ” prov ision of subse ction 4 (d)(2)(c)

. Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 100 of 101101

11. This case is C LOS ED. ORDERED thi s 2 9th d ay of Jul y , 200 8.

_________ _________

_________

_ THE H ON ORABLE ALAN S. GOLD UN ITED STATES D ISTRI CT J UD GE
cc: U. S. M ag is trate J udg e C hr is M . M cAl il ey All counse l of

record Case 1:04-cv-21448-ASG Document 323 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2008 Page 101 of 101