CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: Economics 

Pages 4780 - 5198 

Response to Public Comments 

Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters 

November 14, 2010 

40 CFR Part 131 

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 

This document is part of a larger document 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

ECON - GENERAL ECONOMICS 

Comment ID 0491-1.001.005 

Author Name: Yarborough J. 

Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department 

Additionally, the Utilities Department is a highly leveraged enterprise and the bond rating of current bonding instruments 

would undoubtedly be downgraded if the bonds for these improvements could be secured. The downgrading of current 

bond instruments would require a substantial increase in cash being tied up for surety and would make the expense of 

compliance fiscally irresponsible. 

Comment ID 0543-1.001.002 

Author Name: Williams G. 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association

 Moreover, as the state umbrella organizations for municipal wastewater treatment utilities, public water supply 

utilities, and rural wastewater and water utilities, our experience is that utility ratepayers tend to shoulder the economic 

burdens of complying with new regulatory policies. We owe a duty to these ratepayers, particularly including the poor 

and those on fixed incomes, to determine whether the substantial anticipated costs of complying with EPA's proposed 

rule can be justified. 

Comment ID 0560-1.001.003 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

The economic overtones are also onerous. The cost burden of compliance upon Florida taxpayers is unjust and grossly 

underestimated at a time when our state is already under severe economic stress. As farmers we are also constrained 

by economic drag at retail, suffering unprecedented increases in production costs, and enduring extreme weather 

related losses. The inequity of only requiring Florida to comply with such unreasonable standards will also place our 

crop at an unfair competitive disadvantage. 

Comment ID 0567.001.003 

Author Name: McAvoy G. 

Organization: University of Florida 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4780
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

This industry is important to the economy of the state of the Florida and this area produces over $1 billion dollars of 

vegetable annually as well as 1000's of jobs. Vegetables produced in south Florida are also important to the national 

diet and provide nearly 70% of the vegetables consumed in the US from late October through May. 

Comment ID 0567.001.004 

Author Name: McAvoy G. 

Organization: University of Florida 

The vegetable growers that I work with along with the Florida Department of Agriculture, Florida DEP and the University 

of Florida have worked cooperatively for many years on developing and adopting Best Management Practices (BMP's) 

for vegetable production aimed at reducing off site nutrient movement and protection of Florida's waters. The BMP 

program has been successful and we have seen significant reductions in the rate of fertilizer application and major 

changes in fertility and water management on the farm. Adoption of the BMP's has been costly to growers requiring 

land to be set aside for water retention, installation of control structures, changes in fertilization and irrigation practices; 

all resulting in major increases in production costs for which growers receive no compensation in terms of increased 

price for the crops produced. Already adoption of existing BMP's and compliance with environmental regulations has 

greatly increased vegetable production costs adversely affecting my growers' competitiveness with producers in other 

states and countries in the global market. 

Comment ID 0567.001.009 

Author Name: McAvoy G. 

Organization: University of Florida 

I urge you to consider the negative impacts that this proposal will have on agriculture as well as other businesses. 

Florida municipal wastewater treatment utilities, agriculture, storm water utilities, and a range of commerce and industry 

will bear the substantial costs of complying with this unsound regulatory policy. The costs will put Florida agriculture, 

commerce and industry at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the country, where such non-science based 

federal standards do not exist. Additionally, as I have already noted agriculture is not able to pass along increased costs 

to its consumers. This will drive our food production from being locally grown to overseas and increase our dependency 

on foreign countries for our food. In the over 30 years, that I have worked with farmers, it is unfortunate that misguided 

government regulation has emerged as the largest threat to our continued ability to produce the food and fiber and 

promises to ultimately force agriculture and other productive enterprises out of business in the United States Agriculture 

is Florida's second largest industry and provides $100 billion annually to the states economy of Florida and has been a 

stabilizing force in the economy. Given the current weak economic climate, Florida can ill afford the negative impact that 

this proposal would have on the agriculture and it's contribution to the state's economy. I implore you to allow Florida to 

continue it's successful ongoing water quality restoration efforts and state water quality standards that form the basis for 

ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous State Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and BMP initiatives. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4781
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0572.001.001 

Author Name: Dundon D. 

Organization: 

In considering whether or not to adopt the proposed Numeric Nutrient Standards for the state of Florida, I would like to 

remind regulators of the circumstances surrounding a similar debate in the 1970s in which many utilities argued the cost 

of complying with proposed regulations to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants would 

be cost prohibitive. 

When Congress authorized a study of acid rain in 1980 it found that 5 percent of all lakes in New England were acidic 

and 6 percent of these were no longer able to sustain the survival of many marine species. Over the objections of many 

utilities, Congress in 1990 established the Acid Rain Program and a cap and trade system designed to control 

emissions of sulfur dioxide. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40 percent and according to the Pacific 

Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65 percent since 1976. By 2007, SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, 

achieving the program's long-term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline. The EPA estimates by this year, the 

overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers was $1 billion to $2 billion, about one fourth 

of what was originally predicted over the time period. 

The important fact to take away from this comparison is that cost estimates used by businesses and utilities proved to 

be wildly overblown. Yes costs were associated with the regulation and consumers did pay some of those costs. 

However, utilities and families were not bankrupted in the process as was predicted at the time. Nearly everyone 

concerned with the issue now concedes the results justify the costs. 

And while some businesses may argue an economic recession is not the time to inflict more regulatory costs on them, it 

may actually be the best time for such regulations. Necessity is the mother of invention. One of the impacts of acid rain 

regulations was to stimulate research that has in fact created jobs as utilities moved to look for ways to reduce 

emissions. 

I hope this historical perspective is useful in considering the establishment of Numeric Nutrient Standards for the state 

of Florida. Yes there will be costs involved with the regulations but the rivers of Florida in 2010 need help as did the 

lakes of New England in the 1970s. 

Comment ID 0579.001.006 

Author Name: Meinhardt N. 

Organization: 

They all agreed there are improvements needed but not the heavy handed approach the Feds introduced. Does 

California ring a bell? The cost quoted were anywhere from $24 Bill-$75 bill. Florida cannot afford job loss or additional 

taxes. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4782
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0590.001.006 

Author Name: Conner R. 

Organization: Lakeland Water Utilities 

(5) Preliminary TMDL's from the State indicated massive reductions in pollutants will be required. What we are seeing 

as discussion items from the EPA is even more stringent. The TP criteria proposed by the State for the North Prong of 

the Alafia River were 90% reductions. Reductions of that magnitude from already low numbers and already reduced 

flows are simply not possible except at prohibitory costs. Finding alternatives for our flow and the flows of other 

communities and the industrial flows will be extraordinarily expensive. Given the effect of current economic conditions 

on public and private entities alike, it is even more so. 

As the criteria are solely aimed at Florida, Floridians tasked with achieving the standards will be at a competitive 

disadvantage with outside entities. This will further complicate the process of funding the mandated improvements. 

Comment ID 0597.001.008 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

WHILE UNDER A DOLLAR A POUND TO PURCHASE, REMOVING NUTRIENTS SUCH AS NITROGEN - AFTER 

THE FACT - TYPICALLY RANGES FROM $55-$100 DOLLARS PER POUND. / DESPITE CLAIMS OF THESE 

STANDARDS BEING ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE, KEEPING POLLUTION OUT OF WATER THROUGH LOW 

IMPACT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN, MORE STORMWATER RETENTION AND TREATMENT, AND MORE 

AGRICULTURAL BMP IMPLEMENTATION IS COST EFFECTIVE - ESPECIALLY WHEN COMPARED TO THE 

ENORMOUS COSTS OF INTERCEPTING AND CLEANING UP SUCH POLLUTION AFTER IT ENTERS OUR 

WATERWAYS. 

Comment ID 0611.001.006 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

While under a dollar a pound to purchase , removing nutrients such as nitrogen -after the fact- typically ranges from 55 

to 100 dollars per pound. 

Despite claims of these standards being economically infeasible, keeping pollution out of water through low impact 

development design, more stormwater retention and treatment, and more agricultural BIVIP implementation is cost 

effective - especially when compared to the enormous costs of intercepting and cleaning up such pollution after it enters 

our waterways. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4783
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0618.001.001 

Author Name: Wright S. 

Organization: Vero Beach Country Club 

Florida municipal wastewater treatment utilities, agriculture, storm water utilities, and a range of commerce and industry 

will bear the substantial costs of complying with this unsound regulatory policy. The costs will be passed down to 

Floridians in their utility bills and will put Florida agriculture, commerce and industry at a competitive disadvantage with 

the rest of the country, where such non-science based federal standards do not exist. Additionally, agriculture is not 

able to pass along increased costs to its consumers. This will drive our food production from being locally grown to 

overseas where the state's residents do not have knowledge how their food is grown. 

Comment ID 0621.001.002 

Author Name: Kaplan M. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

We also believe there are many times that the EPA's economic analyses are often below what the people in Florida will 

actually have to pay. We're convinced that if in acting in its current form the proposed rule would impose costs on the 

people of Florida that go beyond anything that is reasonably warranted, and I would have to believe go beyond anything 

that you could have possibly intended. 

Comment ID 0623.001.007 

Author Name: Null M. 

Organization: City of Green Cove Springs 

The City Council urges the USEPA to recognize the economic impact of its actions should it go forward with 

promulgating the numeric nutrient criteria in Region Seven. 

Comment ID 0625.001.003 

Author Name: Hackney G. 

Organization: Hackney Nursery 

My concerns and concern of the 40 full-time and hundred part-time people work for me are: Can we comply? And can 

we afford any extra costs? Unfortunately, our business is very dependent on the housing industry, so things are tough. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4784
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Our state has a high unemployment rate, and any undue, like Mr. Poppell said, economic benefits is going to be tough. 

Let's continue like we have in the past to work with the industry and work with all parties at the table to keep our natural 

resources and keep our agriculture sustainable. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0640.001.005 

Author Name: Dudley S. 

Organization: Florida League of Cities in Tallahassee 

To further illustrate my point the city of Tallahassee is currently spending $220 million to currently upgrade its 

wastewater treatment facilities to the highest standards possible. This $220 million project is being paid for by the 

residents of the city through increased water utility rights with some increases as high as 50 percent. That's an amount 

that a lot of people cannot afford. 

Comment ID 0641.001.002 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Regarding the EPA's proposal for numeric nutrient criteria, we have many concerns foremost which include potential 

economic ramification as and feasibility of economic limitation. As with the rest of the country of economic hardship of 

the state of Florida and its government agencies and municipalities are struggling to manage their physical budgets. It 

has been estimated that for wastewaters and utilities alone it would cost billions of dollars to meet EPA's criteria. This 

does not taking into account the stormwater improvements. Since Florida is the only state that EPA proposed criteria 

would currently apply to it would also be forced into the cost of cleaning and maintaining impaired waters entering from 

Georgia and Alabama. These costs are ultimately the same timely passed onto the Florida taxpayers. Florida currently 

has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and all of those already struggling would have this additional 

financial wait added to their life. From a financial standpoint, it seems baffling that the EPA would announce its own 

numeric nutrient criteria when for the better part of the last decade the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

has been collecting and analyzing data from all of Florida's watersheds in the development of their own TMDL program 

to negate nutrient enrichment within our waters. At a cost of over $20 million it has been expensive and time-intensive 

process; however, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing nutrient enrichment, as does propose the 

EPA criteria, the FDEP's methodology takes into consideration each watershed's unique site specific characteristics 

when determining the overall health of those water bodies. Based on EPA's more simplistic, nonspecific approach from 

applying general criteria to very large and diverse regions of Florida, many lakes, rivers, and streams that support 

thriving like ecosystems would be considered impaired, leading to the expenditure of necessary remediation of healthy 

water bodies. Aside from the wasteful spending, these flourishing ecosystems would be subjected to meeting criteria 

that would fundamentally alter their natural states, potentially to detrimental results. The agricultural community is 

particularly apprehensive about how their individual operations could be affected. Like now, as others, economic 

downturn has greatly impacted Florida growers coupled with the devastation incurred by the recent unprecendent 

freeze, many of the agricultural community have been left feeling. Given the estimated cost of the public infrastructure 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4785
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

to meet the proposed criterias, it can mean that you assume the cost to the agricultural community would be staggering. 

It is highly doubtful that our farming communities would be able to weather the financial burden that would result from 

attempting to comply with this proposed rule. This does not only affect with agriculture operations but the main 

communities that have built up where agriculture around them is where the hub had this local. There are a myriad of 

towns throughout this state that are directly dependent on agricultures. If those operations open should cease to exist, 

those towns and communities will collapse. 

Comment ID 0643.001.003 

Author Name: Poppell R. 

Organization: Florida House of Representatives Natural Resource Appropriations Committee 

If we take and move towards the final goal of developing better water, better water quality, we have to look back at 

where does Florida come from. Number one. Years ago we started spending billions of dollars, millions of man hours, 

and millions of acres of land, setting aside for all development and all under the name of better quality water and a 

better way of life for all Floridians. We also entered into a couple of decades back, an agreement with the federal 

government to clean up Lake Okeechobee of which today we have provided several billions of dollars and the federal 

government only provided about one-fourth of that. So, we don't print money. We absolutely have to extract hard 

earned dollars, tax dollars, from our constituents in order to do the job that's set aside for us. So we look at the issue of 

something of extreme importance, or we would not be working on it, and I know you feel the same way. But help us to 

help ourselves. And help us to help others, by maybe giving us a little leeway here and giving us a little more time by 

studying the proposal and answering to some of this so we can better be prepared to give the answers we know that's 

going to help. Right now is an absolute bad time to be enforcing something that's going to cost our state any more hardearned dollars than we have. Economically, we're like most other states. We're struggling to have dollars, and we try 

meet the criteria that is not only going to give Florida the healthy lifestyle but the lifestyle they also wish and would like 

to have. So in doing so, we need to be working towards jobs, job creation, in order to have a tax to pay not only for 

clean water but our total environment picture. So we're asking you today to work with us, and I know DEP in the natural 

resource appropriations. We struggle every day. We have worked with DEP, Fish and Wildlife, Department of 

Agriculture, and also water management districts. This is our job. We do this daily, and try to come up with an area that 

is going to best provide us with the information that we need to do a better job. However, we're right within our budget 

time right now, so we're working on these very same issues. But I ask you to work with DEP and work with the 

Department of Ag and others so what we can do here today is to provide a better way of life and do it in an affordable 

manner. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0643.001.004 

Author Name: Poppell R. 

Organization: Florida House of Representatives Natural Resource Appropriations Committee 

Naturally, our concerns are not only for fresh, clean, potable water and good water for our environment, but it's also 

economics. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4786
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0651.001.003 

Author Name: Ghent R. 

Organization: CF Industries 

I'm also here to tell you that Floridians from across a wide spectrum, from small farming operations, municipalities, labor 

unions, and the business community will be telling you over the next few days that this effort by EPA is unnecessary, 

lacks a basis in sound science, and singles out Florida in a way that will make our economic recovery slower and our 

businesses less competitive with the other 49 states. Additionally, it has the potential to significantly harm Florida's rural 

communities where small agricultural operations are a significant part of the local economy. They cannot afford massive 

and expensive treatment systems designed to meet standards that are not based on science and potentially 

unattainable, nor can they afford massive fines for noncompliance. There is a better approach. There are local models 

in front of you that have succeeded in improving nutrient management in Florida. These programs have been 

successful because they are science based, stakeholder driven, and have maximized the approach to problem solving, 

over reliance on excessive regulation. Yes, it does take time to reach consensus, but the long-term successes of the 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' BMP approach, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, the Charlotte 

Harbor Estuary Program, these are real and measurable; and they have been gradually implemented without harming 

the local economies. For example, the nitrogen management consortium in Tampa Bay has reduced nitrogen flowing 

into the bay by 410 tons from 1995 to 2006 even as the region's population grew by a million people, according to Bay 

Soundings, an independent news journal. 

Comment ID 0657.001.002 

Author Name: May F. 

Organization: 

If the standards you are suggesting are implemented, we will not be able to afford the equipment necessary to meet 

them. We can't pass the expenses on to our customers. We don't have the taxpayers to fall back on; it's just us. We 

won't have a choice; we'll have to close down. These proposals could very well put agriculture out of business in the 

State of Florida. I heard somebody say earlier, tourism is the Number 1 economic engine in this state. That's true. 

Agriculture is Number two. Not only that, agriculture is the most stable. When 911 hit, tourism all but stopped in Florida, 

but ag kept on going. It held Florida up. Y'all could close down. 

Comment ID 0661.001.006 

Author Name: Ferguson D. 

Organization: Florida Association of Counties 

You're asking Florida's counties, and thus our taxpayers, to shoulder a significant economic burden during a very 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4787
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

difficult time. Many, many counties are laying off employees. They're cutting salaries, they're instituting furloughs. I was 

just speaking with Commissioner Janazzo from Okaloosa County out in the hallway a minute ago, and he told me that 

the average water bill in Okaloosa County is anticipated to go from $60 to $230 over the next ten years as a result of 

this proposed rule if it were to proceed as it is today. That's very dramatic. That's quadrupled. 

Comment ID 0662.001.003 

Author Name: Spitzer K. 

Organization: Florida Stormwater Association 

We have more stormwater utilities in Florida than in any other states. Local governments, cities, counties, and certain
 

districts spend upwards of a billion dollars a year on flood control and water quality improvements in Florida.
 

That's a lot of money.
 

You know we balance priorities every day in local governments, certainly every budget cycle: Police, transportation,
 

social services; but our estimate already is that the TMDL program in Florida, before the development of these criteria,
 

has around a $75-billion price tag in terms of capital costs for stormwater only. Adding these new levels will significantly
 

increase that cost. And so these rules and the implementation thereof need to be realistic, and they need to be
 

attainable. And they need to be able to be demonstrated that they have a real benefit to a particular ecosystem and that
 

they're necessary.
 

Comment ID 0666.001.002 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

So, you know, with that in mind, I'd like to start with saying that the Chamber, the Florida Chamber has estimated 75 

billion in order to implement these water quality standards. And then in addition to that, that would be -- or that with the 

$700-per-year annual increase in water per household. 

Comment ID 0666.001.004 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

You know, so that's one of the unintended consequences the man before me mentioned. 

In that C139 basin, what happened is it went from range and pasture to intensive agriculture, for one reason, to cover 

the cost. We had a tax on us at $4.68 an acre. My production cost on that ranch of about 120,000 acres went up ten 

percent overnight. We don't have a ten-percent margin in our business. So you can see where these are major impacts. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4788
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0667.001.004 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

Organization: 

This State is engrossed in the worst recession any of us has seen in our lifetimes. Our State is suffering 12 percent 

unemployment. We're first in the nation in loans and mortgages that are in trouble. We are second in the nation in 

foreclosures. Walk in any mall, and many of our stores are closed and shuttered. 

Comment ID 0668.001.006 

Author Name: Mann D. 

Organization: Utility Council of the American Water Works Association 

Finally, I don't know what effect you'd ever have on the Clean Water Act, but I would suggest that the Agency find some 

way to recommend to Congress that whenever you have a criteria like this, that the economic impact of that be allowed 

to be part of this. You've heard from lots of citizens here today and others about how devastated Florida is right now 

and how this is going to put us in just a huge hole. And it's not that people don't want to clean up water, the private 

sector has agreed to that and is working through the TMDL program, it's just to do it in a reasonable way. 

Comment ID 0669.001.002 

Author Name: Langford L. 

Organization: 

With all of the proposals that are coming around, I can't imagine I'm going to fair well. I'm so close in proximity to so 

many sensitive watersheds, I fear for the future of my operation. To this point, I have not heard, as far as remediation. 

We established these numbers, and we assess that there's a problem in my watershed. As far as remediation, 

removing the nitrogen and the phosphorous from the water, how do we pursue something like that? Are we going to 

have a quota for my watershed? Am I going to be in competition with other farmers for a portion of the maximum 

amount of N & P that can be put out in that watershed? Is there going to be a lottery? What is the overall cost? For the 

life of me, I can't find an assessment of here's how this will affect your bottom line. 

I understand how water treatment facilities and that sort of thing, how they can look at this and say this will cost me Xamount of dollars. I have no idea. But in coming here today, I've heard millions, and I've heard billions. I don't have any 

of that. 

I could probably spend the rest of the five minutes I have to speak fractioning that down to get you to where what I can 

afford right now in my stage in my life as a young farmer trying to switch the red pen for the black one. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4789
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0669.001.004 

Author Name: Langford L. 

Organization: 

It struck me, while I was sitting here: What would my banker think of this? We are -- there are so many question marks 

in this, and all the risks that run with farming and the bank in the climate that it is now. How do I go ask him for a 

production loan, for equipment loans, when we have a guillotine hanging over farming as we know it. This could change 

the face of how I do business, what my operation looks like, whether or not I'm even in existence. And from a banking 

standpoint, I'm glad he's not here today, and I have no intention of telling him what I'm finding out today because, if I 

was him, I'd run away from me like nobody's business. 

It just -- this feels like Florida farms and Florida farming is circling the drain here. The burden that is coming down -- like 

I said, I haven't heard anybody go lower than millions. I'm still waiting for somebody to say, this is going to hundreds of 

thousands of dollars. I don't have that, can't marginalize it. My margin is nowhere near what it would take to mitigate a 

cost like that. It will put me out of business. 

So in closing, let me ask you, just bear in mind the cost that is coming to Florida agriculture. I know a lot of young 

farmers that they had to work, a lot of them carry second jobs. They farm when they're not doing their other job. They 

couldn't be here today. But it's as important to them as it is to me. I come bearing their concerns as well and hope that 

you bear those in mind. 

Comment ID 0671.001.002 

Author Name: Leary P. 

Organization: North Florida Growers Exchange 

And I understand that economically these farmers -- and this is the second largest potato growing area in the southeast 

producing both table stock and chip potatoes. So when you eat Lay's potato chips, most of the time they're coming out 

of Hastings. 

Comment ID 0671.001.004 

Author Name: Leary P. 

Organization: North Florida Growers Exchange 

The cost to do this on a per-acre basis is somewhere between 800 and a thousand dollars; and then, you know, yearly 

you have to keep up the structures and do work in the fields to maintain these things and maintain the equipment and, 

you know, work in the process of, you know, controlling those nutrients. But they can't afford to use one ounce of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4790
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

fertilizer at the cost -- that production cost is probably their most expensive part of producing those potatoes, and their 

break-even cost is about $11 a hundred weight. 

The market right now, I think on chip potatoes is about $12. On table stock it's varying. It's up and down. There is very 

little margin for error, and certainly they don't want to use any more fertilizer than what they can use. In addition to that, 

they grow a cover crop every year that also takes up the residual fertilizers that weren't taken up by the potatoes in the 

growing process. 

Comment ID 0674.001.004 

Author Name: Bishop B. 

Organization: Associated Industries of Florida 

First, I'd like to say that none of the 15 best bass fishing lakes in the State of Florida will qualify for what you're doing. 

So when Mr. Fuller talks about tourism, trust me, we already have plenty of bass that are being caught. Tourism is not 

being hurt now. It's not going to be hurt in the future. It will survive, unless y'all implement these initiatives. Number two, 

consumers, businesses, and governments cannot afford what it's going to cost to enact these new standards. 

Comment ID 0674.001.006 

Author Name: Bishop B. 

Organization: Associated Industries of Florida 

And then I would say that President Obama who, ostensibly, is the head of the government, has indicated that his 

Number 1 job now is job creation. And the EPA is singly going to kill jobs in the State of Florida because this is going to 

hurt everybody, and it's going to take massive dollars. 

Comment ID 0675.001.002 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: FWEA Utilities Council, the FSAWA Utility Council, and the Florida Rural Waters Association 

The utilities I represent share EPA's goals of environmental protection. In addition to protecting the environment, 

however, our utilities must also protect the rate payers -- all of us that pay water and sewer bills -- from the economic 

burdens; the policies that cost a lot, but do not create the desired and environmental benefits. Unfortunately that's the 

case with this rule making. 

Comment ID 0677.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4791
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Murphy J. 

Organization: Gulf Restoration Network 

So I just want to mention something else in a broader sense. The economic impacts were often talked about, and the 

issue of jobs is often talked about. I wanted to just promote the idea that in Florida, clean water is a healthy economy. 

Florida's recreational and commercial fishing industry is directly dependent on clean, healthy waters. Another 

organization we work with are recreational and commercial fishing groups. They depend directly on healthy waters and 

healthy estuaries. You take that away, and you hurt a lot of people in Florida who are directly employed as a result of 

clean water in Florida. Our coastal businesses up and down the coast across the state of Florida, whether it's 

restaurants or hotels or whatever the case maybe, depend on clean and healthy water. The outside recreation in 

Florida, the folks who rent kayaks and canoes and jetskiis, they depend on clean water in Florida. Last but not least, 

wildlife viewing in Florida; people who just bird or hike or just recreate. Millions of people do it in Florida. It generates a 

lot of economic activity in Florida, and again, they depend on clean, healthy resources for their industry to be 

successful. We cannot afford not to do this. That's the real fundamental issue at play. 

Comment ID 0678.001.004 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

We've also heard about the lack of tax payer money that agricultural interest have to fall back on. The truth is growers 

get money for being pees, they get money for tail water recovery, for growing crops, for not growing crops, and the idea 

that taxpayers aren't the source of this money is just plain wrong. 

Comment ID 0679.001.004 

Author Name: Vogel C. 

Organization: Florida Water Quality Coalition 

Let me talk quickly about environmental benefits. Here is a quote from the highest ranking environmental official in the 

state of Florida, Secretary Mike Sole -- let me put my glasses on. "Compliance will force an investment of billions of 

dollars without environmental benefit." 

Comment ID 0680.001.004 

Author Name: Meadows A. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

So I urge you to keep us like citrus growers in mind as this rule making process on the numeric nutrient criteria in this 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4792
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

economy it would be wise for the EPA far reaching consequences on a major Florida industry. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0681.001.002 

Author Name: Tilton A. 

Organization: 

Lee County has spent several of hundreds of thousands of dollars in new treatment facilities that would no longer be 

useful if that is the case. I know South Florida has major investment in storm water treatment centers. It would be in the 

same area. Number two. The state has spent a lot of money over the last ten years, as you've acknowledged, in getting 

data and things together. And I was just looking at some stuff on Mississippi and Gulf dead zone the other day, where 

there's parts of 31 states that deliver water to the Gulf of Mexico. Many of them don't have standards at all to, according 

the literature that I can find, and yet those standards are being applied to Florida long before those areas are having to 

do anything. And there's an economic disadvantage to Florida. It also makes me ask the question, what other state 

would want to go and do all of the research that Florida has done, create the data only to have their head chopped off 

and be slapped up side the face because they decided to try and do something about poor water quality. 

Comment ID 0683.001.002 

Author Name: May R. 

Organization: 

At the same time, we have been squeezed to the brink with skyrocketing input costs, increased competition, increased 

insurance costs, increased taxes, and lower prices for our goods sold. Right now I'm selling three gallon plants at a 

cheaper price than what we were selling for in 1980 when I was three years old. We're fighting for survival. Our nursery 

currently provide employs over 150 people. Our sales are down fifty percent in three years. Our costs are up 

considerably. We cannot pass those costs on to our customers. Right now I estimate that there are over 40050 people 

employed by plant nurseries in Gadsden County alone. That is only a drop in the bucket to the nurseries that are in 

business throughout the state. 

Comment ID 0683.001.004 

Author Name: May R. 

Organization: 

I know that you are all are very tired having talked about the issue all day and all night and I do not envy you one bit. 

But I can promise you, however tired you feel now, it pales in comparison to the sleepless nights I have had in the past 

two years as I have watched my business falter under the stress of a bad economy, increased regulation and a growing 

list of unknowns and "what ifs." 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4793
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0686.001.003 

Author Name: Babington A. 

Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce 

Before advancing, Environmental Protection Agency should attain a natural academy sciences behind the rules, 

because obviously there's a fundamental disagreement between your agency and that of the state of Florida and 

certainly the reaction we have heard from the affected industries, people who will be having to implement this rule is 

quite significantly different from what we have heard from your Agency. We also urge you to commission independent 

economic analysis of this rule. Some of the cost range from a hundred million dollars a year to a hundred billion dollars 

to implement. There is a significant difference not only in science but the actual economics of what this rule will mean, 

so we need to get to the bottom of how much this is really going to cost Floridians of the cost of this will have across the 

state and we need to have an open and honest discussion with them about the cost throughout the state. That brings 

me to my final point. The cost and uncertainty for all Floridians. Let's start with retirees. We're having three workshops 

around the state Tallahassee, Orlando, West Palm Beach. One of the pictures that you have been showing on your 

slides is of the Caloosahatchee River, and my grandparents live on the Caloosahatchee. I grew up fishing on 

Caloosahatchee. There's quite a bit of people down there who are on fixed incomes who are going to be affected by 

these rules for good or for bad. Certainly it would be beneficial to hear from the people on the West Coast of Florida to 

hear what it's going to do for their communities in terms of trying to clean up water, but also people that are living on 

fixed income. A state with a 12 percent unemployment rate, small businesses that are struggling to survive, struggling 

with their unemployment compensation taxes, holding their work forces together, now they're being faced with a high 

level of uncertainty in terms of how much they're going to be incurring in order to use water. Farmers are the pillar of 

Florida economy and probably always will be. And to know that the farming community is deeply concerned about this 

rule should give any agency pause. Certainly causes the Florida Chamber to believe we should be cautious and fully 

understand the science and economics. And finally, all taxpayers. The average taxpayer doesn't have time to attend 

one of these meetings. They don't have time to submit written comments by the end of March. But they need to 

understand what this rule is going to mean. Yes, all Floridians want clean water, they all want a pristine, natural 

environment, but the question comes: What's the best way to a get there; what is our state doing to help us get there. 

We think that the rule as proposed is a question that has been raised is not ready to move forward. So we appreciate 

the opportunity to comment on it at this time. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0691.001.004 

Author Name: Tripp K. 

Organization: Save the Manatee Club 

One of our primary economic engines is our waters. We're vacation land. The fishing capitol of the USA. We're not 

going to keep these titles if we don't clean up our act. I've heard a lot of numbers tossed around as to the cost of 

implementing this criteria. The truth is, we don't know until the targets are finalized and there's an implementation plan 

designed. But we do know is that our state can't afford to go another year without numeric criteria. Preventing a problem 

is much more cost effective than cleaning one up, and with each passing day of inaction, the price tag is going up. If we 

were to actually look at the ecosystems very surfaces provided by our waterways, you know the very intangible things 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4794
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

that get left out of the cost analysis, and add those to direct benefits. These values and these benefits most certainly 

would outweigh the implementing costs of this program. 

Comment ID 0693.001.002 

Author Name: Swim D. 

Organization: 

The nutrients are clearly a problem. There's visibly a problem, and there's evidence that there's health issues, too, and 

urge you to stay strong. This kind of stuff goes on all the time. Just stay strong, please. It's your job to keep the waters 

fishable, swimable, safe, clean and healthy, and I very much am appreciative of your efforts. I just wanted to make a 

few remarks on the cost issues I heard throughout the night. I am a resident of Tallahassee, and I've been following 

spray field over time. What happened was their wastewater treatment plant discharged their partially treated sewage 

into spray field. They got an award for that, instead of putting it into -- and then they realized because it was discharging 

into parks' topography -- it was going into Wakulla's Springs -- they decided that indeed this was a connection between 

the spray field and the spring, and they spent some money to upgrade the system; that's why the cost of that particular 

system went up. I know that for a fact. I guess the other thing in my capacity as an energy lawyer is that the world is 

really changing here. We are starting to realize that what is waste material in the farm setting is actually a very valuable 

resource, and I think also in the some of the biosolids, too. So if you're doing an economic analysis of -- it's not just how 

much extra is it going to cost to treat. It could be that what you're doing is changing the economic landscape so that 

now what had been a pollution source now becomes a value to the renewable project developer who wants to use that 

to, you know, displace fossil fuels whether in the transportation sector or power sector. And so that's a really important 

part of what you're doing here. You're creating something of value of what used to be a pollutant. So that's the other 

thing I thank you for. 

Comment ID 0696.001.002 

Author Name: Wiygul R. 

Organization: Grower Affairs for Florida Citrus Mutual 

You know, it's tough being a farmer right now. We have a very thin margin of profit. When you're at the top of the 

producing chain, like we are, we take what we get. We're price-takers, we're not price-makers. We have to take what 

the processors give us, what the cattle buyers give us. You know, we have worked hard to be stewards of our land. We 

know that if we are not stewards of our land, it's all we have to pass on to our children. A lot of people have big 401Ks 

and so forth. All we have is our land to fall back on. And if we don't take care of it, we don't have it. So you're asking us 

to do something that we've already been doing. For instance, in the citrus business you know that we have gone from, 

in our -- just in our water, we've gone to microjet irrigation, from 500-gallon-a-minute walking guns to 15-gallons-an hour 

emitters. We've got some of the best BMP practices that we follow with citrus as well as cattle, and you're asking us to 

do something we think is just totally unattainable and stay in business. It's a thin line. It's a very thin line. If we're forced 

to comply with this criteria as it currently stands, ag will bear a substantial cost, as I just said. We don't know exactly 

what we'll have to do. You haven't told us yet what we'll have to do to comply. So we're sitting here wondering are we 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4795
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

going to have to build ponds, what are we going to do? And that's a scary thing. I'm worried that very heavily-handed 

and expensive regulations will push myself as well as a lot of my fellow growers and farmers out of business. And, like 

you just heard, we're fighting Brazil, which is the largest orange producer in the world. We're second. We provide the 

most grapefruit, but, still, it's a struggle, it's a real struggle. In the citrus business we're fighting canker and greening and 

Apopka root weevil, and it goes on and on. And Lord knows what's going to come in next week and hit us again. We're 

competitive. You know, we try to be competitive. But with the rules and regulations we have, we can't be competitive 

with Brazil and Mexico because they don't have the standards that people impose on us. So we're really hindered right 

now just on -- you're regulating us out of business, is what I'm trying to tell you. And I want to emphasize in closing here 

that we are good stewards of our land. We -- as I said before, we have to be. The land supports ourselves and supports 

our families. If we treat that land badly, we don't have a business anymore. The majority of citrus grown in Florida, like I 

said, is already under best management practices. Food production is too important to our future to outsource it. We 

just can't do that. We can't do that. And any new regulations just put further burden on us. We have no way of passing 

our costs along, like I said. So the more you do to impose regulations on not just citrus, but on ag in general -- and, you 

know, God forbid we have to sell out and then it does go into development property, you know, and they don't want to 

do a conservation easement, or whatever. So that land is going to go to development and there goes your recharge, 

there goes your habitat. All the stuff that ag is blamed for, there's a whole lot that we do that really helps this 

environment. Like I said, your habitat, your recharge areas, all that's there. And you can see what has happened to a lot 

of our areas after the freezes. The Clearwater area, for instance, look at that. It's just houses now and those types of 

things. So I urge you to keep the small businesses like citrus and cattle farms in mind when you make these rulemaking 

processes. As numeric criteria moves forward in this economy, it would be wise for EPA to consider the far-reaching 

consequences of their actions on a major industry in the state of Florida. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0698.001.007 

Author Name: Provenzano S. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

In closing, Mosaic believes that numeric criteria should be set at levels protective of the environment that do not inflict 

major economic injuries to Florida's residents, communities and businesses through a one-size-fits-all approach. 

Mosaic plans to submit these detailed written comments suggesting how this can be accomplished and how the 

proposed rule can be improved. Thank you for your time today. 

Comment ID 0701.001.003 

Author Name: Forward D. 

Organization: Titusville Patriots 

The cost to the city will be proportionate to the degree with which the areas are incorporated and each of the five-year 

renewal periods. Next week the city council has asked us to come and participate in the budget hearings for the next 

year. Last year we had to raise taxes. We can't this year. We just can't do it. What are we going to tell our people when 

we bring this up to them? What is our city council going to do? I don't know. I don't have any more money. I'm retired. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4796
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

But I've worked in construction. I've never done this EPA stuff. I don't know what you're really talking about. All I know is 

I can't pay for it. 

Comment ID 0703.001.005 

Author Name: Morrissey J. 

Organization: Pinellas County Utilities 

But one of the jobs that I must do is go back to my elected commissioners and to the citizens of Pinellas County and 

ask them to support spending money to implement this rule. And until there is a scientific consensus and a regulatory 

consensus, it will be very impossible to get support. And that's needed support. We're in a deep recession now. We're 

not going to be out of it for a couple of years. And if we want our citizens to spend money, there's got to be one voice for 

the environmental community and that one voice does not currently exist. 

Comment ID 0708.001.006 

Author Name: Guest D. 

Organization: Earthjustice 

We need to think about our economy. We need to think about people's property rights. And we need to think about jobs. 

The jobs on the Florida southwest coast are being decimated because of red tides caused by nutrient pollution. MR. 

GUEST: Thank you. 

Comment ID 0708.001.009 

Author Name: Guest D. 

Organization: Earthjustice 

So what I would propose to the EPA here is not, you know, do anything more than acknowledge that this is a really 

grave problem, that it is really killing the economy. It's the worst possible time for it to be happening. These aren't going 

to take effect for a while. A couple of years at the very earliest before anything happens, before anything on the street 

happens. And by that time hopefully the recession is going to be over. 

Comment ID 0711.001.001 

Author Name: Smith J. 

Organization: 

My name is Jerry Smith. I'm coming to you today as a taxpayer, like a Joe Plumber, without a job. For the last 43 years I 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4797
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

have paid taxes and I have supported people like you, your salaries, your expenses, your scientists' studies, the grants 

that are issued. But I want to talk to you about the problems we're facing as a taxpayer. I never worked with the 

government. I'm not an attorney defending the environmental groups or the EPA. But we have a lot of things coming at 

us down the road that is making us very irate with the direction that the government today is taking us. 

We think it's definitely in the wrong direction. And EPA is just one part of it. We're being told that we may have to accept 

cap in trade, common emissions problems that are causing global warming or climate change. We're being told that 

global warming is here and we have to face the fact, but you ought to read what Dr. Phil Jones just recently stated 

within the last couple of days. He's one of the scientists who said basically in the past 15 years temperature change has 

occurred or fluctuated. We're being faced with national health care being forced upon us for the entire country. 

Any one of these, cap in trade, global warming, national health care, can decimate the economy. We're against being 

told and being mandated that we have to take on these different programs. 

The South Atlantic Fisheries Management, they just recently closed the whole East Coast to catching red snapper and 

grouper. We have people in this room, commercial fishermen, that have been put out of business as a result of that. 

We've been told that we have to use the light bulb that has mercury vapor in it versus the standard light bulb. 

We're being told we should drive a green car to save the world. 

In New York they're talking about regulating salt intake for the kids to protect their health. 

In our own county over there, they're doing tests on kids to determine body fat. I don't think that's any of government's 

business, period. 

We've got a group down in Sebastian that are for eliminating plastic bags, paper bags, Styrofoam to protect the turtles, 

a bird might get his head stuck in one of the six-pack plastic things for carrying beer or the turtle may take a bite of it. 

Two weeks ago Mother Nature wiped out hundreds of thousands of fish, turtles, manatees, tarpon, tilapia, birds, you 

name it. Mother Nature did more in three days than the entire population of this state could kill if they tried to kill all the 

animals. So Mother Nature takes its course. And I realize we have to regulate these poor imbeciles out here because 

we're not intelligent enough to understand the environment. We're all environmentalists to a certain extent. Over where I 

live, and this is just a microcosm of what's happening to the Federal Government, they have a 175-million-dollar 

unfunded liabilities in their pension fund. The Federal Government has a hundred six trillion dollars in unfunded 

liabilities now. Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to pay for the pensions that aren't going to be there in my little 

town? 

The State of Florida is 3.2 billion dollars in the red now. They just voted in to go with the Sunrail system, which is going 

to add another 1.25 billion dollars to the State. Who's going to pay for all this? 

By 2020, 80 percent of all federal revenues are going to pay for social programs in this country. Eighty percent of all 

federal revenues are going to pay for the social -- and that's by 2020. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4798
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

My thoughts to you is that we don't have any more money. The country is bankrupt. The cities are bankrupt. The 

taxpayers are bankrupt. I don't know where you think all the money is going to come from. I know how you think. Well, 

it's just there. We'll get it from the taxpayers. But the end is coming. And you better hope that in this year, of November, 

that Independents, Democrats and Republicans don't take over the House and the Senate to change what you guys 

and this Congress are doing to this country. We want to get back to fiscal responsibility, smaller government. And you 

need to start abiding by the Constitution. 

Comment ID 0713.001.002 

Author Name: Merriam C. 

Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission 

But one of the things that's really difficult for us right now and part of what you're hearing from my comments, as well as 

you heard from others today, is that 40 percent of our customers base annual income is less than $35,000 a year. 

Those type of things are difficult. 

And the reason I use this, as you go through and you develop these proposed rules and move forward, we don't have 

dividend -- we don't pay dividends to stock payers -- stock -- we only have an opportunity to pass whatever new and 

increased costs come to us, being from the clean air side or from the clean water side, directly to our ratepayers. 

Comment ID 0714.001.010 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

Number five. There's a cost to everything. Cost/benefit studies should be made before arbitrarily setting numeric 

nutrient criteria and implementing them. Help us maintain and even create jobs rather than destroying jobs. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0716.001.008 

Author Name: Coughenour F. 

Organization: Plant City 

With the current economic situation, we stress that we all need to be as efficient as possible everywhere. 

Comment ID 0720.001.005 

Author Name: Selph J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4799
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Citizens of Charlotte County Farm Bureau 

Lastly, I oppose this because I think it's what we call severe economic harm to the economy in Florida. I think right now 

the Federal Government is hard on our economy enough. We don't need you to do this, to destroy it during this 

recession. 

Where would this country be if we import all of our food? We are the only thing that's producing anything, literally, in this 

state right now. That's where our economy is at. The economy is not always just in services and other items. You have 

got to produce something. And right now in this country ag is producing it. Don't destroy us, please. 

Comment ID 0721.001.002 

Author Name: Johns F. 

Organization: Lykes Brothers, Inc. 

I want to talk mainly about two things today. Economics and efficiency. I want to make three points regarding those. The 

inefficiencies of regulatory action, EPA's economic analysis of the program and the competitive disadvantage that 

Florida agricultural will be positioned potentially. Environmental Protection Agency's numeric nutrient criteria is grossly 

inefficient, flawed in its economic evaluation of the program and places unnecessary burdens on the residents, 

stakeholders and government of the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 0721.001.007 

Author Name: Johns F. 

Organization: Lykes Brothers, Inc. 

A friend of mine and fellow cattleman in South Florida once said producers have to be economically sustainable in order 

to be environmentally sustainable. I believe this wholeheartedly. 

Comment ID 0721.001.009 

Author Name: Johns F. 

Organization: Lykes Brothers, Inc. 

The ultimate goal of Florida agricultural is long-term sustainability. That is what Florida agriculture wants 

wholeheartedly, they want to be here long-term. This includes both long-term economic and environmental 

sustainability. We want to be as environmental sustainable as the next guy. However, the proposed numeric nutrient 

criteria jeopardizes the principal goal of environmental sustainability by jeopardizing the economic sustainability of 

Florida's agricultural operations. Thank you. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4800
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0722.001.001 

Author Name: Story V. 

Organization: 

My name is Victor Story. I live in Lake Wales, Florida. I'm not here today as a city commissioner for Lake Wales. I'm not 

here as a three-time board member and chairman of the Agricultural State of Florida in Polk County. I'm not here as a 

neutral board member and area vice-president. I'm not here as a member of the Florida Citrus Commission. 

I'm here today as an individual grower who who is trying to compete in a very competitive world with Brazil, Mexico, 

Costa Rica. And I fear that maybe your rules will make me uncompetitive. Citrus growers in Florida operate on a very 

small margin. 

I also want you to know that I represent 161 people that I'm going to write a check to on Friday and hundreds of other 

people that depend on me in the supply business. I'm a third-generation citrus grower. I have two sons who have 

committed their lives to the production of citrus and I have grandchildren that are helping in the groves on summers and 

weekends. 

And I just want you to know that I do everything that I do in mind that I have my grandfather's and great-grandfather's 

groves and I want to have that passed down to generations just as it has been to me. I'm proud to produce a 

wholesome and healthful product and I hope I can continue to do so. 

I want you to know that I adhere to best management practices voluntarily and I was part of establishing those. I use 

less inputs today, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, than we have in the past. And we're looking for more ways every 

day to use less. However, we have to meet an economic challenge. We have to raise a certain amount of fruit per acre 

and if we don't, we won't stay in business. It's just as simple as that. 

I want you to know, also, that my family, along with what I just told you about the best management practices, has spent 

hundreds of thousand of dollars on variable rate technology, both in our fertilizer applicators and our spray technology 

and our herbicide technology. As I told you, we do it for two reasons. It's the right thing to do and it's the economical 

thing to do. 

I want you to know, also, as it was pointed out earlier we're a price-taker. We can't pass on higher prices. I only can get 

what I can get from the people that buy my products. 

Finally, I want you to know that agriculturalists, just like myself, are great stewards of the lands. I know an awful lot of 

people. I sold some of my property up around Bok Tower Gardens, which I don't know if you're familiar with, I sold 

conversation easements there. That land will never be built on. I'm proud of that. It worried me a little bit. If I get canker 

or something that puts me out of business, I have very little use of that land. 

Comment ID 0722.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4801
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Story V. 

Organization: 

So all the challenges that we have on our plate today, disease, labor, trade, I hope that you will take a scientific and 

economic approach to the problems you're trying to solve. And I hope that you do that. 

Comment ID 0723.001.010 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

I see that I'm out of time. Let me just conclude by saying that whatever criteria is adopted, it needs to be attainable and 

be economically reasonable. If the standards can't be attained without putting business out of business, then the 

standard needs to be reconsidered. 

We are committed to try to make sure that the water that leaves our property is clean and that it does achieve a 

standard that's reasonable and it can be sustainable overall for our agricultural production. Thank very much. 

Comment ID 0724.001.003 

Author Name: Kane D. 

Organization: Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights 

And the cost -- you heard all this. They cut the snapper fishing and the grouper fishing over on the -- on account they 

had more snapper and grouper than they had since 1986, and they've cut the loggers from jobs out in the West. 

They've cut the farmers in California. It's time that we listen to a balanced view of environmentalism instead of an 

unrealistic unbalanced view. We're all environmentalists. We all want clean water. And I think there's a good balance 

there and I wish to God you people would do it. And I thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0732.001.004 

Author Name: Fulford C. 

Organization: Congressman Adam Putnam 

Were it not for the scientific data that Florida taxpayers rightfully funded, EPA would not likely have enough information 

to move forward with these regulations. Now these same taxpayers will be punished by unnecessary costs associated 

with proposed regulations. This heavy-handed approach is exactly why people have become frustrated with 

Washington bureaucrats. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4802
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0737.001.002 

Author Name: McCoy R. 

Organization: Florida Carpenters Regional Council 

Now, we've heard a lot about the science of what's going on here and I think all of us -- all my members and I believe 

that we need to have clean water, but I don't think we paid as much attention of how you're going to pay for this, the 

economic impact of this. We went into it very briefly. 

With all these thousands of waterways and lakes, how are you going to clean all these places? You don't even have a 

plan. If you don't have a plan, how do you know how much it's going to cost? Excuse me, but when I hear the Federal 

Government tell me something is going to cost a hundred forty million dollars, I hear 500 million dollars. 

We can't afford that in this state right now. We're in dire economic circumstances. I can't afford it. These men can't 

afford higher sewage bills right now. They can't afford water tax. And the industries that employ them cannot afford to 

have all these onerous regulations placed on them that are going to keep them from being competitive and end up 

costing us jobs. 

There has to be a way we can clean the water in this state and do it in a economically viable manner. And that's what 

we want. We want you guys to come up with some way and let us know, because right now we haven't seen much in 

the way of how it's going to be done. Please, in conclusion, this state does not need another unfunded federal mandate. 

We can't afford it. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0741.001.003 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

As a local government who will be obligated to spend its taxpayers' money to construct the projects and implement the 

actions which will be necessary to comply with with the proposed standards, Tampa has a fiduciary responsibility to 

honestly question these seemingly indefensible regulartory requirements. 

A previous speaker stated that the same three comments are being made. Those being, it will cost too much, it will take 

20 years and will the fish like it. Those statements were made, he said, only to create obstacles and not address toxic 

pollution or degraded waters, but he offered no specifics such as these proposed standards. 

In reality, Florida, in particular the Tampa Bay area, has been the most proactive in the restoration and protection of its 

waters. The City itself, and in partnership with the FDEP, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Southwest Florida 

Water Management, has spent millions of dollars working towards and achieving cleaner, safer water in Tampa Bay. 

Comment ID 0743.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4803
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Rossman D. 

Organization: DCR Services 

The new numeric nutrient criteria is one of the broadest and most far-reaching regulations ever proposed for Florida. To 

meet the new numeric nutrient requirements will cause significant issues for our employers and it will affect every 

Floridian. Because of the significant impact of new regulations, we want to make sure these regulations will not cause a 

loss of jobs in Florida. 

Comment ID 0751.001.005 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: 

But we can't do it by being putting out of business and that's what we're all fearful of. 

Comment ID 0752.001.004 

Author Name: Bystrak L.
 

Organization: Oklawaha Valley Audubon Society
 

Although OVA supports the new numeric criteria, we doubt they will ever be enforced because the Florida state 

legislature recently cut the TMDL budget from 20 million down to one million dollars. And that's on Page 1 and 2 of the 

handout I gave you. 

If these new criteria are not funded, along with mandatory timetables for spending, the state legislature may cut this 

program even more. Therefore, OVA urges EPA to pass the new criteria, but do more than just approve the numbers. 

We also need funding. 

Comment ID 0755.001.004 

Author Name: Gillespie P. 

Organization: Congressman Bill Posey 

If allowed to be implemented, these regulations will cause serious economic harm to our state while having uncertain 

economic benefit. If that is, the proposal is even more economically attainable. 

Comment ID 0755.001.006 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4804
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Gillespie P. 

Organization: Congressman Bill Posey 

Agricultural faces higher costs and increasing pressures due to overseas competition. The proposed regulations would 

further compromise Florida's competitiveness, result in further job loss, raise the cost of agricultural production and 

impede our recovery from recession. 

Additionally, in this era of heightened awareness of the threats of terrorism and the need to secure our nation's food 

supply, it is critically important that we retain our domestic agricultural production. Regulations that lead to the loss of 

domestic production could result in greater reliance on foreign producers, thus potentially compromising the safety of 

our nation's food supply. Many businesses are struggling to keep their doors open, and costly regulations would raise 

the cost of doing business in Florida and the United states, hampering our ability to remain competitive and create jobs 

here in Florida. With an unemployment rate of nearly 12 percent, we cannot afford to see the cost of doing business in 

Florida increased any further. 

Finally, state and local budgets are stretched thin. Not only would the loss of additional agriculture production and small 

businesses limit our state's ability to create more jobs, but the loss would also make it more difficult for the state and 

local governments to balance their budgets. 

The cost of complying with these proposed rules do come with a cost. There would be a budget tradeoff for local 

governments. Costs and regulations should not be imposed in a vacuum because they do impact every sector of our 

economy. 

Thank you for this opportunity and thank you for listening to the concerns of Florida residents. 

Comment ID 0761.001.002 

Author Name: Mauldin M. 

Organization: Pulp & Paperworkers Resource Council 

And the reason I'm here is jobs. 

In the State of Florida, there are seven pulp and paper operations that utilize the timber and resources from the State of 

Florida along with numerous mills in Southern Georgia that buy our timber. 

The pulp and paper industry in this state has spent over 400 million dollars in the last ten years in environmental 

improvements to their facilities. My mill, GP mill in Palatka, has spent over 200 million dollars alone in the last ten years 

on environmental improvements. We've reduced our phosphorous contributions by nearly 80 percent and we slashed 

our nitrogen contributions to the St. Johns River by more than 50 percent. 

Our industry is proactively engaged in achieving true environmental benefits through Florida's TMDL program, and now 

we're going to be penalized by the Federal Government for it and it could likely cause many of us our jobs. I's put our 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4805
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

industry's environmental records and investments over the last decade up against anybody in the state or the country. 

However, we're struggling to compete more and more each year with China, Southeast Asia and South America, and 

our economy cannot take losing any more jobs which we feel is the end result of this new regulation that you're putting 

on the nutrient levels. 

In my town in Palatka, 25 percent out of every payroll dollar in our county comes from our mill. If you eliminate that from 

our local economy, it would crush what little is left. 

Our unemployment rate in Putnam County is already at 13 percent. And if our facility gets any more uncompetitive than 

what it is by mandating more environmental regulations that to us benefit no person or animal, we feel that's just flat out 

wrong. 

Florida has been a natural leader in protecting the environment, and our industry has been green before most people 

even knew what green was. We generate approximately 80 percent of our own electricity from biofuels and the 

byproducts of our paper-making process. Legislation, like what the EPA is proposing, would make it impossible for our 

mill to compete any longer in a state that has demonstrated its genuine concern for the environment. 

The pulp and paper industry in the United States has lost over 300,000 jobs in the last three years, and we feel this is 

going to be leading us down the road to more job losses in this state alone. 

Comment ID 0763.001.001 

Author Name: Markle K. 

Organization: 

I'm Kathrein Markle, and I'm speaking I guess as a business person on my own behalf. I'm also a farmer. We have a 

wholesale foliage nursery in Apopka. And I'm worried about another burden on my industry. Our business was founded 

in 1965 and now we're training our third generation. We have 15 employees, and the average length of employment is 

14 years; our longest employee having been with us for 31. 

We have three consumptive use permits, one for each of our locations which limits how much water we're allowed to 

use. We are licensed as a limited use water system by the State whereby the Florida EPD as the Orange County Health 

Department requires quarterly testing for Chloroform bacteria in our wells. We're also required to test regularly for lead 

nitrates and nitrites. We pay for the permits. We pay for the licenses. We pay for the tests, and we pass them all. 

Our rainwater is retained on the property as required. The downspouts from our greenhouses direct a large portion of 

the rainwater onto the dirt floors in the greenhouses and there's minimal flow into the yard areas. There is no runoffs 

into sewers, waterways or streams. Within minutes, the rainwater perks into the sandy ground which does act as a 

natural filter. 

We operate our nursery using best management practices that have been developed by Florida's land-grant 

universities, the University of Florida in Gainesville, and this was done in collaboration with the growers and with the 

final approval of Florida's Commission of Agriculture. These practices, the best management practices, are based on 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4806
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

sound science and research. 

Most of our production is on micro-irrigation with a constant feed fertilizer injected into the water. We grow small indoor 

house plants up on benches. This conserves water and fertilizer. The plants are then put on a diet of straight water for 

two weeks before they're shipped to retail. Because of the lower light levels indoors, they will require the less nutrition 

once they're in retail. 

The drip irrigation also assures us that every plant is watered evenly and gets an equal amount of nutrients and that 

most of the crop will be saleable at the same time. The original decision to do this was in the early 1970s. We 

handmade our little emitters. The motive was purely profit. It was to decrease the cost. More plants were saleable and 

fertilizer use was down. And it turned out that what is good for business is also good for the environment. 

The fertilizer cost that Bobbie mentioned, in the last 15 years ours has gone from 7.81 for 25 pounds up to 23.51. That's 

three times as much, making it even more important not to waste even a bit. 

We buy peat moss and then we add the nutrients including the phosphates, nitrogen and potassium as well as the 

micro-nutrients specifically for what that crop requires. Intermittently during the crop, I mean with the different plants, we 

have the leaf tissue analyzed for nutrient levels of both the good plants and the ones that don't look so good so that we 

know how to adjust the nutrients specifically for that species. And we don't put a little bit of the stuff from the blue bag 

on the crop or a skosh of the powder from the red one. This is an exact process and there is no one size fits all. 

A plant that takes three months, 12 months or longer from cutting to finish with all the challenges of bright and dark 

days where light levels are adjusted by computers, automated moving curtains set to brighten the temperatures, warm 

and cold temperatures that require ventilation, heating and cooling by way of computerized weather stations, and 

temperature monitors spaced throughout the greenhouses. 

The challenges of various fungal, bacterial, viral diseases and insect pests must be treated with proper and appropriate 

plant medicines, pesticides -- medicines. 

Plants must be fed in water according to their individual daily needs and on a specific schedule. They must be tended to 

every day and will eventually sell for the same price that we got for them about 20 years ago. 

For each African violet that you're familiar with, nine months from start to finish, $1.40 wholesale. And our costs are 

going up. My cardboard costs went up 12 percent the day before yesterday. 

There is no room for error or additional expense. By applying scientific research, we are able to be more efficient, but 

there is a limit to just how efficient we can be. To conserve money at our nursery, we're doing repairs. I mean, right now 

with this economy, we're not even doing maintenance. Employees hours are being cut back. Health insurance is being 

scaled back to a less generous plan. And so far, we've been able to leave vacation/holiday time alone. 

Agriculture is one of the three legs of Florida's economic stool; tourism and construction being the other two. Agriculture 

was once the primary industry and the backbone of Florida's economy. After 9-11 and then now again, agriculture is 

coming to the fore as the quiet, unglamorous, stead, dependable, stabilizing economic force in Florida's economy. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4807
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

In Orange County an economic impact survey jointly funded by the Orange County Farm Bureau and Orange County 

government revealed that for every dollar collected in property taxes from agriculture, agriculture used 22 cents in 

services. Commercial properties used 45 percent in services. Industrial uses used 56 cents in services of every tax 

dollar collected from them. Residential properties required $1.34 for every dollar that was collected from the taxes. The 

same study done in other Florida counties has shown similar results. Agriculture and these other businesses are vying 

for an economic factor in the community since they support the residential services. Agriculture, my family and other 

families in general are all in this for the long haul. We live and work in Florida. We're not going to go home to be buried 

after 30 or 40 years of being in the state. We have an investment in our land and our future. 

Comment ID 0765.001.003 

Author Name: Murphy J. 

Organization: Gulf Restoration Network 

And, again, as you've heard mentioned both sides of this, there's a legitimate economic argument on both sides. But I 

think it's very compelling to remember, as we stated earlier, that Florida's economy fundamentally will prosper when we 

protect and clean up our waterways. 

And the amount of people employed, just in tourism in Florida is almost a million people, a 65 billion dollar year industry 

in Florida that's directly dependent on clean beaches, clean rivers and healthy fisheries. 

I just have a few points that I wanted to add tonight to what's already been said. First, perhaps I'm a bit naive in this, but 

I'm an optimist. I think that we can find solutions that both protect the economic engines that drive Florida and clean up 

our water bodies. I refuse to believe that Floridians have to choose between, you know, certain industries and a healthy 

future for our environment and our economy. We can do better than that. We have the capacity and the ability to be 

better than that. 

Comment ID 0767.001.004 

Author Name: Hurley M. 

Organization: NAIOP Central Florida 

Second, the EPA's proposed regulations will cause severe economic harm to Florida. Florida's municipal wastewater 

treatment utilities, agricultural, stormwater utilities and a range of commerce and industry will bear the substantial cost 

of complying with this unsound regulatory policy. The cost will be passed down to Floridians in the utility and property 

tax bills and will put Florida agriculture, commerce and industry at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the 

country where federal standards do not exist and where site specific analysis is permitted. 

Comment ID 0780.001.002 

Author Name: Fugler A. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4808
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Florida Pest Management Association 

We, as an industry, face escalating fuel costs. It pinches on businesses and economic challenges. And I would just 

implore you to listen to the economic arguments that have been made. 

I'm hearing cost estimates from 40 -- from 140 million dollars to 42 billion dollars. There are some scales of economy 

here which, you know, with sliding decimal points that have enormous impacts. We need to look at those. Real estates 

prices, if you haven't heard, in Florida are in trouble. The real estate industry in Florida is in trouble. To do something 

arbitrary would simply overburden an already stressed system. 

Comment ID 0780.001.005 

Author Name: Fugler A. 

Organization: Florida Pest Management Association 

because, ultimately, somebody is going to have to pay the bill whether it's 140 million dollars or it's 42 billion dollars. 

Somebody is going to have to pay that bill. And tax dollars being back and forth, who knows who it's going to be? I 

assume the burden is going to be on the 19 million Floridians -- the brunt of the burden will be on the 19 million 

Floridians. And I'm a new homeowner and I want to keep my pool clean and my grass cut, and I don't know if I can 

afford a 42 billion dollar price hike. I would simply ask that you bring not only the scientific arguments in mind, but also 

the economic impacts in mind. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0782.001.002 

Author Name: Compton P. 

Organization: Friends of the Hillsborough River 

It is not a matter of not being able to afford to clean up the Hillsborough and Florida's other sick waterways. We cannot 

afford not to. As long as these waterways are less stagnant and impaired, our local economy will also remain stagnant 

and impaired. 

So, please, let's invest in the rivers, the bays and the lakes that make our state a place the world wants to come to, 

invest in and spend their time and money in. Without clean water, we're out of business. 

Comment ID 0783.001.002 

Author Name: Bright M. 

Organization: 

My request of you, and I'm going to keep this brief because I know we're all tired, is that you need to look at Florida's 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4809
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

best interest and know that although there will be an economic hardship for some businesses and some people, in the 

long run, they and everyone will benefit. Our state does not benefit when we allow short-term economic gain and we 

don't look at -- we say, well, it's just going to cost too much now. 

If there had been politicians with foresight 50 years ago who had known the damage that would be done by the 

development that's happened in this state since then, if they had had the foresight to not allow the development and to 

allow the development that occurred to have occured in a responsible and respectful manner, we wouldn't be facing the 

costs that we're facing in this cleanup right now. Let's not say in 20 years that we have extremely high costs because 

you don't do the responsible thing today. That you very much. 

Comment ID 0794.001.002 

Author Name: Davis D. 

Organization: Glades Water Control Districts 

The cost of implementing the mandate that is proposed with the real estate values declining in the state of Florida would 

be a tremendous burden to our districts, tremendous. 

The State of Florida has been making tremendous progress, and I commend the State of Florida for the BMPs and all 

the work that they've done in the past and the storm water treatment areas. As far as agriculture, you can't grow, you 

know, green beans and corn in Kansas right now. In the state of Florida you can right now. It would be a tremendous 

impact not only to the State of Florida, but to our nation for food supply. And lastly, the algae bloom that was shown on 

the screen, you know, it's isolated. It's not forever, and this rule and regulation would be indefinite and would cripple the 

Florida economy for decades. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0795.001.008 

Author Name: McCarthy L. 

Organization: Lykes Brothers 

The ultimate goal for Florida agriculture is long term sustainability, which includes both long term economic and 

environmentally sustainability. However, the proposed nutrient criteria jeopardizes this principal goal of environmental 

sustainability by jeopardizing the economic sustainability of Florida's agricultural operations, and I made five minutes on 

the button. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4810
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0796.001.004 

Author Name: Albergo N. 

Organization: HSA Engineers and Scientists 

Setting aside the most pristine of Florida's waters, there are numerous lakes and stream segments in Florida that are 

fishable and swimmable, but do not meet the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. More importantly, these are highly 

valued waters and have viewed as assets to their communities. It would appear that these waters are at the point of 

significant diminishing returns on the cost benefit curve when one evaluates the cost of removing additional nutrients 

against the incremental improvement relied. Does it make sense to saddle already cash-strapped communities with 

such expense when so many other programs vie for funds from the same account. 

Comment ID 0807.001.002 

Author Name: Tripp A. 

Organization: Lake Okeechobee Regional Economic Alliance 

The LORE Alliance believes that the proposed numeric nutrient criteria by the EPA will cause severe economic harm to 

the state of Florida and its citizens and will bear the burden of the cost. If the numeric nutrient criteria is imposed on the 

state of Florida, the cost of complying with this unsound regulatory policy will be impossible to absorb. Our area of 

Florida is greatly comprised of water bodies, Lake Okeechobee and hundreds of miles of manmade canals which were 

created for ecological as well as economic needs. We are also compromised of a multitude of drainage and flood 

control districts who could never comply with the proposed criteria standards. Lake Okeechobee residents currently 

have one of the highest water bills in the state of Florida, if not the highest. Our residents cannot bear the burden of an 

extra $62 a month for their utility bills. The national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, and the state unemployment rate 

is 11.8 percent. But the unemployment rate for our specific region is three times higher, even surpassing the 25 percent 

unemployment rate during the worst time of the great depression. So why do these statistics matter? Because the 

reality is that our citizens and our businesses are fighting to survive. Local business will not only face higher water utility 

bills, but greater tax assessments on their property if the EPA standards are implemented. It is LORE's goal to promote 

high quality economic development in our area and to promote our assets, the greatest being Lake Okeechobee. This 

proposed EPA policy counteracts LORE's mission to support and attract businesses to our region and our efforts will be 

stifled and greatly hindered. Business growth, sustainability and development opportunities will be adversely affected 

due to the excessive water utility cost and taxes, and will cause them to look elsewhere. The EPA standards violate 

sound economic policies and could possibly cause fatal injury to our already bruised communities. George Bernard 

Shaw said, and I quote, the worst sin is not to hate a fellow creature but to be indifferent toward him. That's the essence 

of humanity. Therefore, we respectfully asked that the EPA consider the negative economic impact this will have on the 

humanity of our region and the rest of Florida and not implement your currently proposed nutrient criteria. Thank you for 

your time. 

Comment ID 0808.001.003 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4811
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Charles J. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

Now the rules are scheduled to change. Our members will be forced to spend significant and extraordinary resources 

and money to attempt compliance with the new proposed standards. 

On Tuesday I provided comments on protected costs and logistical limitations that our members will face with these 

rules, including limited land area, limited authority, eminent domain concerns and the estimated cost of at least $848 

million for just district to attempt compliance. With that in mind, we respectfully request the proposed rule acknowledge 

facilities that predate the Clean Water Act and were permitted under the Clean Water Act by providing additional 

flexibility in the rule in setting the standards themselves, in the timing and implementation, in the setup process, and in 

the setting of interim standards. 

Comment ID 0810.001.002 

Author Name: Hammock A. 

Organization: 

Florida's economy is built on a three-legged stool, tourism, agriculture and housing. We all know where housing stands, 

cut off. This nutrient standard will finish Florida. The legs of tourism and agriculture will be gone forever. People are 

hurting. The economy is in the dumps, as I suppose you know. Our church is helping over a hundred people a week 

with their food supply. As a small farmer, I can't absorb any more cost. I would have to let go 50 percent of my 

employees if additional costs were incurred. That would only be two. Me and my son would be left. Over the last four or 

five years we have endured drought, hurricanes, the tropical storms, 22 inches of rain, and now a devastating freeze. I 

cannot survive this manmade disaster that y'all are imposing. Once again our federal government is imposing rules with 

no money to pay for the schemes. We have the most safe, abundant food supply in the world. These standards would 

change. Then our nation would have to help that their food is safe from other countries that don't have water standards. 

Comment ID 0811.001.001 

Author Name: Bournique D. 

Organization: Indian River Citrus League 

Good afternoon. I've got to hand it to you. If I worked in Washington, I'd come to Florida in February any time. Good 

leadership. I'm Doug Bournique, executive vice president of Indian River Citrus League, and I currently serve on the 

governing board of the St. John's Water Management District. I also serve on the South Florida Water Management 

District Water Resources Advisory Commission and the Indian River Lagoon NEP program. The Indian River Citrus 

League is a thousand member grower trade association with 22 affiliated packing hours that represent growers from 

about here in West Palm to Daytona. Our industry is a clean industry that produces a healthy crop that's world famous. 

We employ 10 percent of the region's work force. That's about 20,000 people here in this part of Florida, and we create 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4812
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

about a 1.5 billion dollar economy here in Florida's east coast. Because of disease pressure, we are struggling. It's the 

worst time in the modern citrus industry history to current. To give you just a quick capsule, our cost of production in the 

last six years have gone from 1,000 an acre to 2,000 an acre to combat those diseases. 

Comment ID 0811.001.003 

Author Name: Bournique D. 

Organization: Indian River Citrus League 

There's no holding capacity or reservoir system. There was supposed to be, and there's planned to be. The South 

Florida Water Management District has plans to repair the system, but there's no funds available. We support that plan, 

but we're just in an economic holding pattern as you all know. 

Comment ID 0816.001.003 

Author Name: Perry M. 

Organization: Florida Oceanographic Society 

The estuary there, and it's of national significance. The Indian River Lagoon is a national estuary, outstanding Florida 

waters, aquatic preserves. We spent years going through management plans for these areas to protect these waters, to 

protect the resources that they provide, and the billions of dollars annually that are provided through the support of 

those clean systems. Those many blooms and algae things that happen and the deterioration of these waters obviously 

is a big concern not only from an environmental standpoint, but also an economic standpoint. 

Comment ID 0817.001.004 

Author Name: Martin D. 

Organization: Sierra Club 

I just finished the book Blue Ocean by Sylvia Earl, and she talked about how everything we do ends up in the ocean, 

and I think it's very, very important, as a former head of NOAA, that she was really able to express why we need to work 

on cleaning up our nutrient standards. Now, the primary argument you've heard today is we can't afford to clean up our 

nutrient standards, but the issue is we cannot afford not to clean up our nutrient standards. Right know we suffered algo 

blooms in the gulf that have suffered severe economic problems. The people who live around Lake Okeechobee have 

to spend a lot of money cleaning up their water because of nutrient problems. You would actually save people money 

by establishing these standards. This could be a great economic benefit, and to meet these standards you would bring 

jobs into the state of Florida because projects that would meet these standards. People have also argued that we can't 

meet the standards to clean up the Everglades National Park if you apply these. I don't see how that can be the case. 

You're going to tell me that if you clean up the water it's going to make it harder to clean up Everglades National Park. I 

don't think so. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4813
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0821.001.002 

Author Name: Miedema B. 

Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida 

Secondly, we would suggest that the congressional budget office undertake a review of the assessment of the cost of 

implementing this rule. We don't know how much it's going to cost. We have estimates that it could cost each household 

in Florida an additional $700 or 75 billion dollars to the state. At a time when Florida is facing some of the toughest 

economic circumstances in my lifetime, we're uncomfortable with the uncertainty of what this would take if even 

possible to achieve. 

Comment ID 0822.001.005 

Author Name: Hutchcraft M. 

Organization: King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus 

Third, we're concerned that the standards -- that you don't understand the economic impact on the agricultural uses, 

and quite frankly we think that it could result in many farmers going out of business. What you may not know is that 

farmers are price takers. We only get paid what people are willing to pay us for our products, and unfortunately we don't 

have people that we can pass the cost along to. If there's no one for us to pass the cost along to, we think that we'll be 

put into a position where we're forced to absorb these costs, and if we do that, we think you might have actually put us 

at a competitive disadvantage where other folks outside of the country can outcompete us, resulting in agriculture 

moving offshore, which we don't think is in the nation's best interest. 

Comment ID 0825.001.008 

Author Name: Wilson-Davis L. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton 

Many utilities work closely with the FDEP and have invested rate payer moneys to comply with these standards. EPA 

must adopt these water body specific standards. In public hearings, many utilities have discussed and presented 

technology issues and cost impacts, as it has also been presented that the best available biological treatment is unable 

to treat the waste water to EPA's proposed standards and the homeowners' waste water utility bills alone will at least 

double. I'm simply reiterating those facts. 

Comment ID 0827.001.003 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4814
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

The AGI, the adjusted gross income. I was at the job forum on Monday we had for the Department of Agriculture, and 

I'm sad to say that every single person that spoke there came asking for money. How do we create jobs. You've got to 

give us money. That's not truly the case. It's either money we need or we need less regulation, less restriction so we 

can continue to operate and generate our profits so we can continue to work with the environmental problems we have 

and we want to correct. The AGI of $2.5 million is probably the most counterproductive thing that I know of in our area 

for conservation of environmental goods because everybody that has big tracts of land, their gross income is certainly 

more than two and a half million dollars or they're not going to get their taxes paid. So if, you know, if y'all could help 

with that, that's one of those issues that came along in the midnight hour and we can't get through it. I think another 

thing that needs to be done, we do not have the cost of water storage in this state yet. With all the impoundments we 

have, I don't know that anybody in any of the districts can tell us the actual cost. Without that, how do we move forward 

with anything. I mean, if we don't know what it's going to cost, I don't know of any private operation that would jump into 

something if we didn't know what the projected costs were. We've been doing this for 40 years and we still don't know. 

So once we get that, and I know they're working on these numbers, I think that will help us a lot in determining what the 

real costs are going to be in some of this stuff that we're dealing with. 

Comment ID 0828.001.003 

Author Name: Zee B. 

Organization: Delray Alliance 

It is our understanding that the cost of making these lakes clean enough to meet the proposed standards of the EPA 

would be extremely cost prohibitive to our communities. In addition, we understand that additional funding for water 

reclamation would be needed. Numeric water quality values must be set with sound scientific data that relates to our 

area's unique ecosystem and to maintain our quality of life. 

Comment ID 0834.001.001 

Author Name: Mersinger A. 

Organization: South Broward Drainage District 

I in no way thought I'd be getting up here. Thank you. You guys really are amazing doing this for multiple days. 

Amazing. My name is Alanna Mersinger. I am a commissioner on the South Broward Drainage District. I am not, like 

this gentleman, a scientist. He was amazing, but I do represent 114,000 people who, when we had to raise the money, 

seven dollars a household, they went berserk. So to say I don't want clean water is an absurdity. Of course I want clean 

water. My question to you, because I have not seen it in the legislation that is coming forward, who's paying? Is the 

drainage district going to pay, or is the municipality who does the storm water or the land owner. I don't have any control 

whatsoever as to what goes into the water. I have no enforcement control from industrial or farm, but we control the 

canals because we're doing the drainage, the runoff. So are we going to have to pay to bring this up to your standards 

or down, whichever the case may be, to your standards. My question is who pays because no one has said that yet. No 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4815
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

one has really defined who has to pay for the fix. Now, I would love to see stimulus money come down for this or federal 

dollars come down for this because I don't believe the people in my district are willing to be taxed out of existence. We 

pay, unlike that other district, our people only pay $31 a unit. If we have to now put on them a couple of hundred dollars 

a unit, I think I will have armed insurrection going on, and that is unacceptable. Until we figure out a way to legitimately 

pay for this, let us think carefully because this state cannot take more taxes. We heard from other areas where you 

have a 25 percent, 25 percent unemployment rate. I know in the city that I live in Miramar, I think we're the first or 

second highest rate in foreclosures. Just what we need to go from $31 to maybe three or $400. The people can't do it. 

It's great to be in the ivory tower, but we have to come down to reality sometime, and in the real world you have to pay 

for things. And until the federal government or the state government figures out who's going to pay for this, please think 

long and hard about it. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0835.001.001 

Author Name: Schwartzberg L. 

Organization: South Broward Drainage District 

Leo Schwartzberg, director of the South Broward Drainage District. My commissioner just spoke, asked who's going to 

pay for it. I don't see any reason why the EPA can't answer that question now without waiting until you develop the law. 

Whether the science is flawed or not, completely separate question. If the EPA would publicize now who's going to be 

responsible, you would eliminate a lot of the people who stood here and complained today because you heard 

complaints from water body owners and you heard complaints from municipalities. Make that known where we stand 

now, and your lives will get a lot easier, we'll know whether we need to worry or not, and we can all focus on what we 

need to focus on. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0838.001.002 

Author Name: Fielding E. 

Organization: 

Since passage of the Federal Clean Water Act in 1972, the public has been expectantly waiting. How much longer are 

we to be denied clean water. Polluting waters may always have economic benefits for those that pollute, always. So if 

we're going to wait until we eliminate economic benefits, we will never eliminate polluted water. Are our families to 

continue to be the victims of water pollution. Hopefully one day that answer will be no, we're going to be liberated from 

that hopefully. 

Comment ID 0839.001.006 

Author Name: Musgrove M. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4816
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

We have to get a grip on the water quality, and I have heard much concern here not about so much as the standard, but 

what comes after you set a standard, the cost incurred in implementing and compliance. I must be the only person in 

the room that believes that reasonable people can negotiate these things, and I believe the letter from Mr. Grumbles to 

Mr. Sole indicated a willingness to work with Florida in developing these things. 

Comment ID 0841.001.002 

Author Name: Antrapuppy L. 

Organization: 

Untimely. You've heard everybody tell you -- everybody, many of the folks here tell you of the economic situation in the 

state of Florida. I don't know if you're from here or near here or been here. If you walk outside the Holiday Inn and you 

see the folks that are walking the streets that are coming off of the airport, people that are begging for money, there is 

over 10 percent they say registered unemployment, but there's more than that. I'm a small business owner. We are 

barely making it here in South Florida. It is not fun. And so untimely, it is absolutely untimely. And I know this process is 

probably going to take millions of dollars in litigation, but this state is going to take several years to get out of the 

economic situation that it's in. 

Comment ID 0844.001.005 

Author Name: Waldron M. 

Organization: Highland Greenhouses Delray Plants 

And Delray Plants disagrees with taxing any family or business more than their fair share to pay for pollution control. 

Comment ID 0845.001.003 

Author Name: Lassiter K. 

Organization: Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations 

We are told by engineers that these limits would require sums of moneys far larger than the State of Florida and our 

citizens can afford in present the economy. Many of our homeowners associations are in dire financial situation 

because of all the foreclosures and the people not paying their association dues. 

Comment ID 0845.001.005 

Author Name: Lassiter K. 

Organization: Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4817
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

A big part of COBRA area is in the agricultural reserve, land where development rights were purchased by a county 

bond issue. The bonds were approved by the votive of these lands to stay in agricultural production forever without 

pressure from developers. COBRA considers itself one of the guardians of the ag reserve. We realize how important it 

is to our economy and how important the winter vegetables we supply to the nation are to the nutrition of Americans. 

We also believe that locally produced vegetables, as we enjoy, are the most nutritious and the best tasting. Proposed 

limits will eliminate all financial incentive for farmers to continue producing in a part of Florida where killing frosts are 

virtually unknown. The situation would severely damage the most important sector of the Palm Beach County economy 

agriculture. 

Comment ID 0846.001.004 

Author Name: Martin P. 

Organization: Lake Worth Drainage District 

As was stated by the Florida Department of Environment that the estimated statewide clean-up will reach conservatively 

$60 billion. This is equivalent to the State of Florida's entire yearly budget, creating a future federal unfunded mandate 

and requiring huge tax increases. 

Comment ID 0848.001.001 

Author Name: Simms D. 

Organization: 

Good evening. My name is David Simms. I am from Lake Worth. I am a member of the Sierra Club. And I would like to 

urge the EPA to go forward with implementing your standards of nitrogen and phosphorus limits. I think we are all 

stewards of the land and the environment, citizens, government and businesses. And businesses are profiting from the 

land, they should take a responsibility to repair some of their damage. Now they have said that it is expensive. But there 

are practices that could be used that could reduce that expense. There's also ways of distributing that expense around ­

- around to other parties. Now they mention the cost. Well, the speaker before me mentioned the cost of not 

implementing the standards to people downstream. Well, there's another cost that we should consider, and that's the 

cost of health care for the people that get cancer and babies that have breathing problems due to the nitrates that the 

person mentioned earlier. If we don't implement these standards and the water quality remains poor and we have these 

algae blooms, that's going to cause an increase in health care cost for citizens whose health is affected. Now yes, 

there's a big cost, but clean water is a priority, and I believe it's worth the cost. 

Comment ID 0849.001.002 

Author Name: Ryan J. 

Organization: Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4818
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Florida simply can't afford what you are proposing. 

Comment ID 0849.001.004 

Author Name: Ryan J. 

Organization: Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District 

Our water control district is simply not set up to own the land for a huge retention pond or maintain water treatment 

facilities in addition to the South Florida Water Management District's stormwater treatment areas. Doing so would just 

be redundant. We already pay a tax for the South Florida Water Management District. 

Comment ID 0851.001.002 

Author Name: Ryan E. 

Organization: 

If you say to us, you know, we have to treat our -- first of all, the cost of monitoring would be excessively burdensome 

for our small community. The land in South Florida, to try to purchase land for a filter marsh in our area -- we are just 

north of Wellington and we can't afford to buy Wellington. We also, you know, would have to re-route our entire 

drainage system, you know, to try to put in any sort of water basin in between us and the C-51 canal. And from the C51, it goes into South Florida Water Management stormwater treatment Area I, which we are already paying for. So we 

are already paying taxes for a filter marsh, and now we are being told, well, you're included so you are going to have for 

pay for monitoring and also for some type of treatment or else I guess we could just flood. And given that the sea water 

for Florida is flat and there's very little difference in elevation between the lowest point in our community and the 

highest, we don't have a lot of storage capacity for water. We don't have any. This is -- people's houses would go under 

if we didn't. I am told that this would cost our community an increase of 400 percent in our taxes. For me, as a 

homeowner, my cost would be -- and I do have 20 acres of land that we live on and we run a small nursery there, and 

our increase of taxes just to the drainage district would be about $9,000 a year just for us. And that doesn't count what 

the state would cost. And this is going to be multiplied across all of these small communities who have no place to put 

the water. So really it has to be realistically implemented. I mean, basically I feel that this is -- Oh, also, you know, I am 

told that the criteria that you've established are far too stringent and cannot be met. You know, in some of our areas -­

phosphorus is mined in our areas. So, you know, we have areas that already have phosphorus in the water even 

without any -- So basically I would just like to say that I don't believe the benefits outweigh the cost and that this needs 

a lot of thought before it's put into effect in our area. 

Comment ID 0852.001.002 

Author Name: Clark D. 

Organization: Cry of the Water 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4819
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

I don't think we should put the burden just on the ag people. I know a lot of ag people have turned out for these 

meetings. I see a lot of problems with stormwater permits, lack of enforcement of stormwater permits for the coastal 

areas. I have got issues that I will bring up with you in the next group when you do the coastal issues. But there has 

certainly been a lack of the State of Florida that that authority has been delegated to them and they haven't been real 

good about implementing and enforcing the stormwater permits and rules. So we definitely need -- I don't want to see 

just the ag guys come down on. I -- really, the coastal communities need to get with the program, as well. There are 

some BMPs out there, but nobody is enforcing them. They're like, oh, those are just best management practices, we 

don't have to do that stuff. So there are some solutions. 

Comment ID 0852.001.004 

Author Name: Clark D. 

Organization: Cry of the Water 

We really want to see those BMPs in better enforcement. And I am going next week to the U.S. Task Force meeting in 

Washington where I intend on singing the praises of the EPA. And this thing has been a long time coming because I've 

been following the Everglades restoration and I kept saying well, that's great, you guys want to save a swap, you don't 

want cattails, but what about the rest of the coastal habitats? In Broward County we created expenditures in one year, 

expenditures are over $2 billion. Okay. Some people just alluded to it earlier, this is part of our income and part of what 

makes Florida and South Florida unique. Those things are what make us unique and we can't sustain those things 

unless we address what's going on in the water, coming out of the canals. 

Comment ID 0853.001.003 

Author Name: Clark S. 

Organization: Cry of the Water 

Again, I support the sewer outfall bill. And a lot of people are talking about oh, the fees are going to go up and our bill is 

already going up for water and sewer. Well, some of the cities right now, the municipalities are putting extra fees on it 

because their budgets are in so much of a crunch. They're already adding fees that have nothing do with the 

infrastructure that they need to put on to meet the standards and the things that they need to do for -- to meet the AWT 

standards. So all the sudden we're have having these fees increased and we haven't even done the work yet, because 

just to meet the budget shortfalls. So, you know, we have to watch what they're actually spending this money on. 

Comment ID 0855.001.003 

Author Name: White S. 

Organization: 

The comprehensive Everglades restoration, and I know you are well aware of all of that. Why in the world is the state 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4820
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

buying up big sugar when that land is so poisoned and so tainted? Why do they think the taxpayer is going to buy that 

and pay for it and clean it up? I don't want to clean it up. Let big sugar clean up their own mess. Yes, we need our 

drinking water, but I don't want to pay for their messes on my back. 

Comment ID 0856.001.004 

Author Name: Curry P. 

Organization: 

So I pay over $500 a year just to Indian Trail, then I pay taxes to South Florida Water Management District. So when 

you enact these standards you have to take that into consideration. Maybe it might be better to allow the various 

regional water districts handle as far as filtration, but I think the farmers or those that are polluting really needs to be the 

ones that are cleaning up the mess which is mostly being generated by them. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0859.001.001 

Author Name: Jarriel R. 

Organization: Loxahatchee Groves 

Ron Jarriel, councilman for the new town of Loxahatchee Groves. I have heard comments -- good comments from both 

sides. I want to compliment the audience for staying under control, and I want to thank you all for having us here 

tonight. But I guess my major problem is the timing of this. I know -- I think Jim mentioned that you have talked about 

this since 1998. I think our country, our whole country, not just the State of Florida, is in an economical situation that I 

personally don't think we are going to pull out of it. They said two years we would get back on our feet, head in the right 

direction. I personally don't see it. I am working on 59 years old. I grew up in the Town of Loxahatchee. 49 years out 

there. We have still got one of the best fishing holes. We have got fish, we have got turtles, we have got birds. And we 

do have our waters. We have got a professor that lives in Loxahatchee and he likes to test the waters every once in 

awhile when he's in doubt, and so far we have come up with some pretty good calculations. 

Comment ID 0859.001.002 

Author Name: Jarriel R. 

Organization: Loxahatchee Groves 

I guess my biggest point is economically, if we are talking about the estimated cost of $50 billion as far as the State of 

Florida, that, you know, I just think it's bad timing. I think it's going to hurt us more than help us. 

Comment ID 0859.001.004 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4821
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Jarriel R. 

Organization: Loxahatchee Groves 

If the internet is true, it says that Florida is probably -- is basically a national leader in protecting its waters from 

nutrients. So I think we have been doing a decent job; maybe not the best that we can maybe, but what can we afford? 

And that's just it. Economically I think it's bad timing and I think we are doing a pretty decent job compared to any other 

state in the United States. And thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 0860.001.006 

Author Name: del Real P. 

Organization: Aurora's Voice 

Two questions. With the budget that's available for this project on the side of the EPA is there money available for 

education? Somebody did mention the lack of information available to the general public. If somebody is not plugged 

into one or two types of networks you are not going to know about this issue. Is money available for education on this? 

MR. KING: The way we are going to try to do this is we will take your question and respond to yours and everybody 

else's after we move through. MR. DEL REAL: Okay. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0864.001.004 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

Organization: Friends of Loxahatchee Natural Wildlife Refuge 

The regulations are not sufficient. Let's see. With population growth, clearly things are not going to get better. The ag 

industry people say these things are too confusing and too costly. But I would, in my last couple of minutes, will say that 

it will not be too costly if we do full cost analysis that includes all the benefits, all the risks. You know, people have 

mentioned health. They have mentioned recreation. They have mentioned the reefs and the estuaries. Trashing the 

estuaries. In Florida, the environment is the economy, folks. And if we don't keep it up, we are going to lose that way. 

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We know this from the Chesapeake Bay. We know this when New 

York City decided to protect their watershed and not build costly treatment plants. The ratios vary from 80 to 100 to 1 in 

terms of what it takes to prevent things rather than doing it. Everybody has got to share in this. Cost avoidance. From 

people that walk their dogs, what you do on your lawns, air escaping. What Howard said about reuse -- I'm in Jupiter, I 

know about that. They say too costly. Our water is better and costs less than West Palm Beach. Thank you. Finally, I 

would like to argue for ecosystems services valuation that no one so far has talked about tonight. 

Comment ID 0865.001.001 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4822
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Friends of Loxahatchee Natural Wildlife Refuge 

Could I make a follow-up also? Dr. Tom Poulson again. I forgot to make a couple of things I think are important for the 

farmers, and that is economically they would like to keep as much of that fertilizer on land as possible and use less. 

There are more efficient ways of using it with trickled irrigation and lots of things. There are 25 possible parts of BMP, 

even EEA people will agree, much more than the Kissimmee basin need to use 10 of those 25 things. It would 

economically be to their advantage to keep that fertilizer on the land. 

Comment ID 0866.001.001 

Author Name: Mahr D. 

Organization: 

Here is my number, 54. My name is Dennis Mahr. I don't represent anyone. I was listening tonight and it seems to me 

that everyone wants to clean up the water, me included. That's how I make my living and I am all for it. However, 

everyone seems to look at someone else to do it. One gentleman mentioned that air conditioning is probably the root of 

all evil in Florida, and he may be actually right. I kind of have a feeling that we may have too many people that the land 

won't support. But that's going to be a problem solved pretty quickly because if we don't get a handle on this, we won't 

be able to live here. And second of all, if we do start implementing all of this at once, nobody will be able to afford to live 

here. So that's why I am kind of thinking that I do believe we need to clean up the water, I don't know what the standard 

should be, but I do believe that if we do this all at once we are going to wind up with a big monetarial problem. So 

please consider it. I know you have been studying it for a long time. I don't know why it's all of the sudden an 

emergency, but we do need to do something. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0869.001.003 

Author Name: Gray P. 

Organization: Audubon of Florida 

You guys have TMDL with the state of 140 metric tons a year. In 2000 we were told we needed to meet that by 2015. 

And there's no detectable improvement so far, 10 years into this 15 year effort. It's just going to take a really long time. 

So we understand that once you guys set the standards, we are going to have to have some sort of phased approach to 

meeting them, and it's got to be fair. We don't want to put everybody out of business. I eat food, too. So we want to 

work with the farmers. And there's a lot of things that we can do that aren't going to cost all this money. You know, 

when you put a pound of phosphorus in the public waters and try to clean it with STAs or something, it's 50 to several 

hundred dollars a pound to get that one pound of phosphorus out. The urban turf rule is allowing -- one of the 

recommendations from IFAS is about 10 pounds per acre. And you think about someone putting out 10 pounds per 

acre every year; that's a $500 liability to the taxpayers around them to clean that up. So I was going to say an ounce of 

prevention is worth a pound of cure, but one of my colleagues already said that, so I can't say that. But it's really true. 

So we can avoid a lot of costs that we're incurring right now. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4823
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0870.001.002 

Author Name: Martin P. 

Organization: 

Now I am very sympathetic to some of the individuals who have spoken already who are homeowners, small business 

owners, who are very concerned with being saddled with enormous costs. I think the people who should bear the brunt 

of the costs are the major polluters, the industrial farms, the sugarcane industry and everybody else who has had a free 

ride in Florida at the expense of the environment and most of the other citizens in the state. So again, I heartedly 

endorse the application of these rules to Florida. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0873.001.003 

Author Name: Salmon V. 

Organization: Summit Private School 

We are not going to survive as what Florida is known as if people look out the window of their hotel room and they see 

water that's black like that. Florida will cease to be what it is. Where else are we going to make any money? We need 

those people to come down. Thanks. 

Comment ID 0881.001.002 

Author Name: Dymond D. 

Organization: H & H Sod Company 

In addition, the state of our economy in Florida will only be exacerbated, by regional nutrient criteria. Citizens of the 

State of Florida cannot afford another economic burden, when current unemployment in the state is over 11%. 

I attended one of the EPA public hearings in the state. However, due to the limited schedule, I was unable to voice my 

concerns at the meeting. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments in 

mind. 

Comment ID 0883.001.003 

Author Name: Lynch T. 

Organization: Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. 

WHEREAS, the Environmental Committee has reported to the Board that the extremely restrictive criteria the EPA is 

proposing will be fiscally impractical to meet, thus resulting in adverse economic impacts to the state's overall economy; 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4824
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

and 

Comment ID 0883.001.005 

Author Name: Lynch T. 

Organization: Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. 

WHEREAS, if this current proposal is approved, every major industry will be affected including agriculture, power 

generation, mining, seaports and even recreational facilities ; 

Comment ID 0886.001.002 

Author Name: Erickson C. 

Organization: Kesko Agronomics 

Also, please consider the state of our struggling economy in Florida. The mandate of regional nutrient criteria will only 

exacerbate this current difficult situation . With unemployment toping 11% the citizens of the State of Florida cannot 

afford another economic burden. 

My hope was to attend one of the EPA public hearings in the state. However, due to the limited schedule and locations I 

was unable to attend. I urge you to accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments 

in mind. 

Comment ID 0889.001.002 

Author Name: Smoak J. 

Organization: Smoak Groves Inc. 

In the Central and Southwest Florida regions, various Smoak family members have been involved in agriculture for 

generations. We are concerned that EPA's regional criteria will cause severe economic harm to Florida . Unsound 

regulatory policies will impact not only agriculture but our state's intra structure, such as municipal wastewater treatment 

utilities, storm water utilities and a host of other commerce and industries . Some of these industries will pass the costs 

to Floridians through higher utility bills, etc and but all will be at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the country 

where such non-scientific based federal standards do not exist . 

Our Agricultural community is not able to pass these burdensome costs to the consumer. This will force many 

producers to abandon agriculture and will drive our food production from being locally grown to overseas. Then, all will 

be at the mercy of unregulated production procedures . 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4825
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0895.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Myth: The plan to impose stringent new water treatment regulations in Florida is needed and will be good for Florida. 

Fact: The drastic new regulations for water treatment in Florida that the federal government is poised to impose will 

actually impede our state's economic recovery, force Florida businesses to cut jobs, and increase the price of utilities, 

food and other necessities for Florida businesses, families and consumers. 

Comment ID 0895.001.003 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Myth: The EPA's regulations would not have any significant adverse impact on the Florida economy. 

Fact: The economic impact of these regulations would be in fact be vast and would result in significant consequences 

for Florida's economy. Numerous major industries would be affected, ranging from agriculture and power generation to 

seaports and even tourism and recreational facilities such as golf courses. Numerous artificial water bodies - including 

those mandated by other government rules of development, such as drainage facilities, stormwater ponds, agricultural 

holding ponds and flood protection systems - could be required to make enormous investments in new water quality 

technologies simply in order to continue to operate. 

Myth: The cost of these regulations would not fall on Florida consumers. 

Fact: Floridians can expect significantly higher water bills under the proposed regulations. According to the Florida 

Water Environment Association, the new EPA regulations could force utilities to spend $50 billion in capital costs that 

would be passed on to customers through higher fees and fewer services. A separate survey of nine Florida water 

utilities estimated that a household's sewer rates would increase by $62 per month, or more than $700 per year. FES I8 

ZOiQ The proponents of these regulations simply have no plan to pay for these costs. 

Myth: The new EPA regulations will not impose significant cost on FloNidians . 

Fact: According to an Aug. 26 report by the EPA's own Inspector General, "Cost is a significant obstacle to making 

headway toward developing water quality standards for nutrients. It is relatively expensive for States to develop 

individualized nutrient criteria that reflect localized conditions. . . Florida has already expended approximately $20 

million and has not completed the task."[1] 

The report further found that "Costs to implement the standards will primarily be borne by individual citizens and 

businesses (particularly agribusiness in some States) of the States . For example, if new/revised standards result in 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4826
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

stricter discharge limits for wastewater treatment plants, these plants may need to increase their user fees to support 

the construction of nutrient removal technology, which can run in the millions of dollars. Management of agricultural 

runoff and restrictions on businesses would likely increase costs." 

[1] "EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards." 

Comment ID 0895.001.011 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

What do policy analysts say about the cost of such water regulations? 

According to an Aug. 26 report by the EPA's own Inspector General, "Cost is a significant obstacle to making headway 

toward developing water quality standards for nutrients. It is relatively expensive for States to develop individualized 

nutrient criteria that reflect localized conditions . . . Florida has already expended approximately $20 million and has not 

completed the task."' 

The report found that "Costs to implement the standards will primarily be borne by individual citizens and businesses 

(particularly agribusiness in some States) of the States . For example, if new/revised standards result in stricter 

discharge limits for wastewater treatment plants, these plants may need to increase their user fees to support the 

construction of nutrient removal technology, which can run in the millions of dollars. Management of agricultural runoff 

and restrictions on businesses would likely increase costs." 

Comment ID 0895.001.014 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

What is the issue? 

The federal government is poised to impose drastic new regulations for water impede treatment in Florida that will our 

state's economic recovery, force Florida businesses to cut jobs, and increase the price of utilities, food and other 

necessities for Florida businesses, families and consumers. 

Comment ID 0895.001.018 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4827
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

How would these regulations affect Florida's economy? 

The economic impact of these regulations is vast and could result in significant consequences for Florida's economy. 

Numerous major industries would be affected, ranging from agriculture to seaports and even tourism and recreational 

facilities such as golf courses . 

Numerous artificial water bodies - including those mandated by other government rules of development, such as 

drainage facilities, stormwater ponds, agricultural holding ponds and flood protection systems - could be required to 

make enormous investments in new water quality technologies simply in order to continue to operate. 

How would these regulations affect Florida's consumers? 

Floridians can expect significantly higher water bills under the proposed regulations. According to the Florida Water 

Environment Association, the new EPA regulations could force utilities to spend $50 billion in capital costs that would be 

passed on to customers through higher fees and fewer services . 

A separate survey of nine Florida water utilities estimated that a household's sewer rates would increase by $62 per 

month, or more than $700 per year. The proponents of these regulations simply have no plan to pay for these costs. 

Comment ID 0897.001.003 

Author Name: Phillips J. 

Organization: Florida Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

Costs Of The Rule 

During the public hearing we heard industry lawyers and other industry representatives complain that adoption of the 

rule in its present form would impose substantial costs upon them. Some additional costs will occur. But what has yet to 

be discussed is the long history of inaction by the FDEP with respect to enforcement of even the modest rules that 

currently govern pollutant discharges in Florida. Florida PEER has detailed this lack of enforcement, both in 

assessments and collections, for years in reports that are based upon the FDEP's own 

data.http://www.peer.or~,,/news/news id.php?row id=1133 Sadly, actual penalty assessments against violators have 

declined over the past 20 years when adjusted for inflation.[2] In addition, even when it does assess civil penalties the 

FDEP has a poor history of recouping economic benefits derived from violating Florida's NPDES permits. 

This is not to say that all industry and agriculture in Florida are bad actors . But the fact remains that many of these 

facilities have managed to violate the Clean Water Act for years with little or no monetary consequences. We submit, 

therefore, that little weight should be given to their pleas for relaxing protections for Florida's water bodies when they 

themselves bear the majority of the blame for the impaired condition of those same water bodies . 

[2] The entire report may be viewed at http://www.peer.org/docs/fl/08_25_11_fl_rpt_historical_enforcement.pdf 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4828
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 0898-1.001.003 

Author Name: Jones D. 

Organization: Putnam County Chamber of Commerce 

WHEREAS, Floridians can expect significantly higher water bills under the proposed regulations; costing our State 

thousands of jobs, and has the potential to cause businesses to avoid Florida in favor of other states not subject to 

EPA's stringent water rules, and 

Comment ID 0898-1.001.005 

Author Name: Jones D. 

Organization: Putnam County Chamber of Commerce 

WHEREAS, such overprotective standards create burdens that some industries will simply be unable to bear; and 

WHEREAS, such standards pose a significant problem for Florida farmers who provide our citizens with food - a 

problem that ultimately could lead to significantly higher grocery prices. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 

the Putnam County Chamber of Commerce, located in Palatka, Florida opposes the regulations EPA seeks to impose 

on Florida with no regard for the technical feasibility, the massive costs to the public, or the devastating effects they will 

create for Florida's struggling economy. 

Comment ID 0899.001.007 

Author Name: Bartz R. 

Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 

• Lastly, from an economic recovery point of view, Florida is on the heels of double digit unemployment and does not 

need new mandates placed on businesses and government alike without adequate education, dialogue and debate. We 

would welcome the opportunity to discuss the above concerns in more detail or if you have questions on the positions 

represented in this letter. 

Comment ID 0921.001.002 

Author Name: Coyle F. 

Organization: Board of Collier County Commissioners 

Collier County is proud of its unique sub-tropical ecosystems and remarkable estuaries. While it is understood that 

establishing numeric nutrient criteria is needed and will help protect our valuable water resources, it is widely 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4829
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

recognized that this proposed rule will have far reaching impacts and place a steep financial burden on local 

governments to comply with the proposed standards. 

Comment ID 0935.001.007 

Author Name: Perez A. 

Organization: City of Hollywood Department of Public Utilities 

Compliance with the proposed criteria could eventually result in major capital expenses for local governments. Future 

infrastructure improvements to achieve compliance will likely be very costly for all utilities customers with minimal 

environmental benefit. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed rule. 

Comment ID 0947.001.005 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

On the second point, those of us who live and work in Agriculture in South Florida have made tremendous progress in 

reducing nutrients, both Nitrogen and Phosphorus, being discharged from our properties over the past fifteen years. We 

have gone from being accused of being "the Problem" to becoming a major part of "the Solution". I refer you to the 

result of use and treatment of "polluted" water from Lake Okeechobee. We invite your inspection of our properties and 

facilities that, in cooperation with the FDEP and the South Florida Water Management District, are making significant 

strides in the reduction of nutrients . We HAVE made progress ; we ARE making progress; we understand the problem 

and are committed to doing even more, but I request that you let the FDEP continue its work to establish numeric 

nutrient criteria based on science and local knowledge in accordance with the Clean Water Act, without specific 

dictation from Washington . Agriculture is a low-margin business-we do not set the price for our commodities; we are 

price-takers, not price-makers and therefore cannot pass on additional costs to our customers. The estimated additional 

costs to comply with your Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria may be the "straw that broke the back of the camel" . 

Comment ID 0947.001.006 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

Additionally, we must be careful of the "unintended consequences" of our actions. Example: Following a lawsuit 

involving the EAA (Everglades Agriculture Area), a settlement was made that added $25 per acre to the ad valorem tax, 

intended to help pay for the restoration (reduction of nutrients) of the Everglades. The unintended consequences of this 

was to force landowners out of the cattle business into more intensive agriculture in order to pay the significantly 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4830
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

increased tax, creating even more nutrients that must be dealt with . 

Comment ID 0947.001.009 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

5. There is a COST to EVERYTHING: Cost/Benefit Studies should be made BEFORE arbitrarily setting Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria and implementing them. Help us maintain and even create jobs rather than destroying jobs . 

Comment ID 0949.001.008 

Author Name: Kelley H. 

Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party 

In this economy, we cannot continue to pretend that taxpayers can afford every environmental whim that comes down 

the pike. We have seen agencies like NQAA threaten the entire Florida Charter Fishing fleet based on limited data, and 

are very concerned about the hard dollar cost to us as taxpayers. As f stated, Okaloosa counted invested in $60 million 

barely 60 days ago to have state of the art plant, and based on flawed science we will be asked to pay millions more. 

We cannot afford anymore, and request that you stop this action. 

Comment ID 0955.001.002 

Author Name: Putnam A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

As our state struggles with an unemployment rate of 11.8%, the likely financial burdens resulting from these regulations 

could not come at a worse time. 

- Local governments will be forced to add costly new pollution control measures to current stormwater management 

programs. Utilities in the Florida Panhandle estimate that capital costs for treating waste water could result in 

substantial increases in utility fees. 

- Private employers will bear the cost of litigation when a water body is misclassified as being impaired. 

- Pollution control technology will be costly to obtain, if it is even available to meet the proposed standards. According to 

DEP, the technology does not exist for conventional municipal wastewater facilities and agricultural operations to meet 

the EPA proposed criteria. 

- Overall, DEP claims that "the cost of compliance will force an investment of billions of dollars without environmental 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4831
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

benefit." 

Comment ID 0956.001.003 

Author Name: White C.
 

Organization: Washington County Cattlemen's Association
 

The economic impacts to everyone in Florida could be staggering and far outweigh the environmental benefits 

according to the Florida Farm Bureau, the Florida Chamber of Commerce and numerous other Florida organizations. 

Comment ID 0956.001.006 

Author Name: White C.
 

Organization: Washington County Cattlemen's Association
 

Our principal concern is the economic impact EPA's proposed nutrient criteria will have on agriculture. If agricultural 

producers in Florida are to continue having a vibrant and sustainable agricultural economy that produces a safe, healthy 

and abundant food supply then we must not be burdened with excessive water quality regulations that effectively forces 

farmers and ranchers out of business. It's already a nip-and-tuck situation with many ranchers and farmers just hoping 

to survive the financial crisis our country is facing. 

Comment ID 0957.001.006 

Author Name: Jackson J.
 

Organization: Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association
 

Those old city sewer drains were never designed to flow into grassy swales and while I would love to see instant 

engineering surely the EPA must have an idea of the economic situation in the country. But why add insult to injury and 

lawsuits and penalities for violatiing this arbitrary number system that seeks mainly to placate a vocal minority who 

brought a lawsuit agains the EPA. 

Comment ID 0958.001.001 

Author Name: Dain R.
 

Organization: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
 

1. EPA's regional criteria will cause severe economic harm to Florida. 

• Florida municipal wastewater treatment utilities, agriculture, storm water utilities, and a range of commerce and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4832
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

industry will bear the substantial costs of complying with this unsound regulatory policy. The costs will be passed down 

to Floridians in their utility bills and will put Florida agriculture, commerce, and industry at a competitive disadvantage 

with the rest of the country, where such non-science based federal standards do not exist. 

Comment ID 0960.001.003 

Author Name: Knott A. 

Organization: 

The agricultural representatives not only wanted more studies they wanted more cost/benefit analayses. They also 

claimed that they are making good progress cleaning up using best management practices. They asserted that 

implementing numberic standards would slow down or stop progress. 

It is illogical for them to state they are making progress but not wanting numeric standards which is the only way to 

accurately measure progress or lack thereof. 

It is also wrong for them to assert that they should be allowed to continue to pollute if the cost of cleanup is too high. 

I don't see how they can claim a right to pollute environment that effects all citizens if it costs them "too much". 

Comment ID 0965.001.005 

Author Name: Medintz M. 

Organization: 

Those costs are frequently not discussed in the objections to the proposal but they are very real. 

Comment ID 0965.001.008 

Author Name: Medintz M. 

Organization: 

This language was rejected by the County Commissioners as too much of a burden on development. When the 

counties and the state refuse to take even the most minimal and cost-effective action to limit contamination, by 

providing setbacks and limiting fertilizer use, then they have no right to complain about the potential costs of the USEPA 

proposals. 

Comment ID 0965.001.011 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4833
 
 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Medintz M. 

Organization: 

Unfortunately tourism has recently been down because of the recession and colder weather. Restaurants and 

businesses have closed and many people have simply left the area, frequently abandoning their homes. Simply said, 

the recovery of the economy in Florida depends on an attractive natural environment. 

Comment ID 0981-1.001.004 

Author Name: Melchiori R. 

Organization: Becker Holding Corporation 

Economic Impacts - The economic impacts to agricultural operations from implementation of EPA's proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria will be both broad and deep. The investments made in BMP programs whose positive affects are 

measurable over the past decade will in fact add to the economic burden borne by Florida's agricultural community. 

This is because the very data used by EPA to develop the proposed numeric nutrient criteria is from sampling programs 

in waterways that had already begun showing the positive affects of the BMP implementation. As such, the return on 

these investments has biased the results used in EPA's analysis resulting in more stringent requirements on agriculture 

rather than rewarding the success of these programs. The EPA's unilateral application and adoption of numeric nutrient 

criteria for Florida will have drastic affects on the economic viability of continued agricultural operations in Florida. The 

University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is preparing a well documented analysis of the 

associated costs to agricultural operations which should be published within the next few weeks. The impact of any 

additional created by the proposed rule is clearly a major concern for the Becker Family and all Florida agriculture. 

Comment ID 0981-1.001.005 

Author Name: Melchiori R. 

Organization: Becker Holding Corporation 

Beginning with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) nearly 20 years ago, agricultural interests have 

struggled to remain competitive in the marketplace. We believe we are the most productive farmers in the world, 

however, compliance with regulatory restrictions that do not exist for our international competitors creates an uneven 

playing field which we continually struggle to overcome. Through hard work and determination we have done so. 

Implementation of numeric nutrient criteria in Florida that are not implemented in other states will again unfairly burden 

Florida agriculture when compared to our domestic competition. There are obviously limits to the economic viability of 

continuing agricultural production in the face of inequitable competition that results not from the capability and capacity 

of our farmers but from one sided application of regulatory restrictions that are not scientifically well founded. When 

agricultural production is no longer economically viable, we have no choice but to look toward other profitable uses for 

our greatest resource, our land. It is important to understand that the potential unintended consequence of 

implementing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida may very well be a drastic acceleration in the conversion of agricultural 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4834
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

land to expanding land development activities. The result will not only be an increase in impervious areas, urban runoff, 

and other detriments to water quality, but also an irreversible loss in our nation's agricultural productivity. Dependence 

on foreign oil is a tremendous burden on our nation as a whole, however, it would pale in comparison to a future where 

we are dependent on foreign agriculture to feed our nation. 

Comment ID 0982.001.001 

Author Name: MacDiarmid D. 

Organization: 

Florida sets the bar for other states as far as clean water goes don't mess with perfection. Enough legislation already!!! 

We don't need or want any more mandates. The monies would be better spent on an educational program similar to the 

old"Smokey theBear" campaign. 

Comment ID 0997.001.005 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

Organization: University of Illinois 

III. NUMERIC STANDARDS ARE TOO COSTLY, ESPECIALLY IN THESE DIFFICULT ECONOMIC TIMES 

A. IN FLORIDA THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE ECONOMY so avoiding health costs, fisheries losses, and tourism losses 

in lakes, estuaries, and adjoining beaches due to fertilizer pollution makes huge economic sense. 

B. COST AVOIDANCE IS MUCH CHEAPER THAN REMEDIATION. In times of economic distress this is still true and 

perhaps we need help for some small businesses and municipalities that are already doing a good job at prevention of 

pollution. Use of IQ water should be encouraged not over-regulated. 

C. In addition to preventing sickness and saving fisheries there is the REAL, BUT HARD TO QUANTIFY, VALUE OF 

ENJOYING NATURE PASSIVELY BY NATURE-WATCHING AND ACTIVELY BY HUNTING AND FISHING. Just ask a 

duck hunter about the value of a public use marsh or a kayaker or canoer about the value of the wild and scenic 

Loxahatchee River. 

D. EP1s economic analyses show that SEWAGE PLANT AND SEPTIC UPGRADES NEEDED TO MEET THEIR 

PROPOSED STANDARDS WILL ONLY ADD 4 - 10% TO COSTS FDEP is already proposing. 

E. The costs of preventing fertilizer runoff are 50 - 80 times less than the costs of removal by STAs and other treatment. 

AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH MANY POUNDS OF CURE. The example of protecting the watershed for 

New York City1s drinking water compared to a massive new sewage treatment plant is germane where the benefit to 

cost ratio is 80 -100 to 1. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4835
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

F. It is to farmers and other landowners economic advantage to keep water and fertilizer on the land and to use the 

minimum needed for lawns, gardens, and crops. MORE BMPS AND EFFICIENT APPLICATION OF WATER AND 

FERTILIZER SAVE MORE MONEY and all landowners, municipalities, and businesses should be required to use them. 

FERTILIZER RUNOFF IS AN EXCESS BEYOND WHAT THE PLANTS NEED AND USE. 

G. ECOSYSTEMS SERVICE VALUATION IS IMPORTANT TO OUR ECONOMY. The value of OEhealthy1 waterways 

and wetlands for water filtration and recharge of aquifers is decreased by nutrient pollution. 

Comment ID 0998.001.002 

Author Name: Rimbey G. 

Organization: Citizens for the Revitalization of Temple Terrace 

Florida's business and farm leaders are screaming. "Onerous" and "idiotic" were two descriptions of the standards 

offered by Barney Bishop, president of Associated Industries of Florida, as reported by the Miami Herald. Industry 

leaders predict compliance will cost polluters $50 billion and stifle business recruitment and job growth in the state. EPA 

analysts estimate the cost at about $1.5 billion, not counting upgrades to public stormwater systems. But business, farm 

and growth interests in Florida decried the Clean Water Act before its adoption in 1972 along the same lines -- it will 

cost too much; now's not the time. They forget the economic losses this state incurs from pollution of its surface waters 

-- damaged fisheries, less tourism, health problems . . . . And they would have the public forget that years of delay 

compound the nutrient problems even as the construction costs to rid the state's waters of pollutants escalate. 

If this isn't the time for Florida to clean up its waters, there won't be a better one. 

Comment ID 1000.001.001 

Author Name: Preseau G. 

Organization: Family Rentals of Seffner, Inc. 

EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria is another "knee jerk" reaction to isolated events. To impose this criteria on 

small rural systems would be similar to forcing people to purchase healthcare insurance. Rural systems do not have the 

expertise nor the ability to operate the technology required to begin meeting the proposed criteria. My systems serves 

less than 150 people. It would be financially imposible to be able to meet the criteria proposed. EPA would need to 

provide a 100% grant to fund the costs in order to comply with the proposed criteria. Otherwise the financial burden 

would be too great. One unintended consequence would be the abandonment of small systems around the state. This 

would require the state to maintain these plants for the consumers. Finally, EPA is trying to scare the public into 

accepting this criteria when there is no factual data that shows this criteria as being valid or necessary. Before we 

increase government once again, let's think of the people first. 

Comment ID 1004.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4836
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Moser W. 

Organization: Forest Utilities, Inc. 

1) The EPa should design, consruct, operate ( within a public populated envirnoment ( ie not isolsted from contributiions 

from real world) and test a system that mets with the anticated captial and operational cost and conforms to the 

proposed rule. If EPA does not currently have the funding, how can it expect the utilities and affected industries to 

finance such a project. 

2) This proposed rule will have an unfair although unintended adverse affect on economy of the State of Florida. This 

would eventually drive buisness and industries to neighboring states that the EPA has not imposed said rule(s). 

Comment ID 1005.001.006 

Author Name: Heatherington K.
 

Organization: Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
 

The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria are imperative for maintaining our tourism-based economy and for a 

sustainable economic recovery. Harmful algal blooms triggering unsightly water and beach debris, health advisories 

and fish kills have cost Florida billions in lost fishery, real estate and tourism revenues. Creating enforceable standards 

will incentivize cost-effective preventive measures, and ultimately save millions in avoiding additional clean-up costs. 

Comment ID 1007.001.001 

Author Name: Nordstrom R.
 

Organization: Turtle Cove Condo. (Condominiums) Park
 

1) In this bad economy we do our best to comply with all state standards,but this new rule would be beyond our cost 

ability. 2) The EPA Needs to provide a 100% funding grant to pay for all the cost to comply with this proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1008.001.002 

Author Name: Cann M. 

Organization: The Forest Country Club 

additional taxes would not favor our already struggling economy in a state that has already been hit hard economically. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4837
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1008.001.005 

Author Name: Cann M. 

Organization: The Forest Country Club

 the federal govt. should fund the project but how without raising taxes and or fees to customers. 

Comment ID 1010.001.010 

Author Name: Nelson B. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Any proposed rule that has a non-attainable reduction level for its numeric nutrient criteria will adversely affect those 

individual property owners. A concern of the City of Bonita Springs is that should these entities dissolve and there is no 

entity to assume their responsibility, Bonita Springs may have to take these communities in as a default, even if there 

needs to be a special assessment for those costs . A greater problem is that if these entities can not meet the criteria 

assessed, new permits will not be undertaken and stagnation economically will occur in the community, not just 

environmentally. 

Comment ID 1011.001.024 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

Otherwise, we all run the risk that many government entities will not be in compliance or they will be bankrupted in their 

effort to get into compliance. In this time of economic slowdown where so many governments are trimming budgets just 

to stay afloat, is that really a wise use of government regulation? EPA needs to do some serious re-thinking of the costs 

involved with this unfunded mandate. I mention this to bring awareness to EPA and the general public of the potentially 

dramatic increases in costs to the taxpayer in order to provide the services they have been accustomed to in the past if 

these proposed standards become the requirement. 

Comment ID 1012.001.001 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

This action is grossly inefficient and needlessly wastes Florida's increasingly scarce financial resources to regulate 

water bodies that do not need to be regulated. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4838
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1012.001.006 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

Furthermore, the ultimate goal of Florida Agriculture is long-term sustainabilitv, which includes both long-term economic 

and environmental sustainability. However, Florida agricultural producers have to be economicallv sustainable in order 

to be environmentally sustainable. The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

jeopardizes its principal goal of environmental sustainabilitv by jeopardizing the economic sustainabilitv of Florida's 

agricultural operations. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments in 

mind. 

Comment ID 1014.001.004 

Author Name: Carlton B. 

Organization: Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association 

Today the citrus industry is faced with increased operating costs, pest and disease pressure and slim margins. All of 

these factors make it difficult for parents to encourage their children be part of the historically generational business. 

More and more growers are becoming part time farmers, as they can no longer support the family by farming alone and 

are force to find other forms of supplemental income. This is the face of the members of Peace River Valley Citrus 

Growers Association-small scale multi-generational farmers questioning their economic future . We have gone through 

a period of retrofitting our holdings in the aforementioned process. To change plans and call for landowners to stop all 

transference of waters in an area where sheet flow is the norm is simply wrong. To cost will be substantial, especially 

when added to the cost growers have bore already. Many simply will not be able to bear the additional costs. The 

economic burden is senseless when the proposed criteria are not scientifically validated, not system specific and largely 

believed to be inappropriate to accomplish the desired goal. 

Comment ID 1017.001.002 

Author Name: Wright B. 

Organization: 

I've heard comments regarding loss of profits for regulated industries. For my industry it's a matter of survival. I find it 

curious that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Ag and Consumer Services 

believe that the Florida Watershed and Restoration Act will continue to be the prevailing regulatory system for Florida 

agriculture. Unfortunately, my prior experience with the EPA, as an owner of an EPA-registered organic insecticide, has 

demonstrated the agency's predisposition to sudden, politically motivated changes in policy, often in response to public 

outcry as a result of sometimes questionable but inflammatory scientific studies. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4839
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Please reconsider the implementation of this regulation with regard to those responsible farmers who would suffer 

costly compliance issues. Florida is one of the hardest hit by this current economic recession and likely to be the 

slowest at recovery. This regulation will only add to the slowdown. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1022.001.004 

Author Name: Jones L. 

Organization: 

Getting rid of phosphorus is expensive wherever it occurs because much of it has been building up over a very long 

period of time. There are better methods of fertilizing. There are organic fertilizers and new technologies, such as 

controlled release fertilizers, that protect the environment from excessive nutrient runoff. All of these should be explored 

and emphasized as a way of saving the cost of cleaning up phosphorus and nitrogen pollution. 

Comment ID 1025.001.002 

Author Name: Heuer M. 

Organization: 

Many of the same economic arguments were made -- that are being made today, were made when the City of Sanibel 

was in the process of incorporation. However, I would argue that any economic hardship suffered by a few, and often 

heavily subsided industries, will be end up being passed along to me, the consumer, anyway. So I think that's kind of a 

moot factor. And the cleanup, after the fact, of contaminated water is a far bigger economic threat to our economy than 

preventative measures. That's true with healthcare, it's true with many things. 

Comment ID 1027.001.002 

Author Name: McAvoy G. 

Organization: Hendry County Cattlemen's Association and Hendry-Glades Farm Bureau 

And this industry generates over $9 billion, as well as tens of thousands of jobs to the area. Not only are we important 

to the local economy, we're important to the national economy. 70 percent of the vegetables consumed east of the 

Mississippi from the months of November to May are produced in South Florida. So we're not only important to the area 

we support the national diet. 

Also like to talk a little bit about cattle. Cattle is our largest land use in the area and in the state. It covers over 19 million 

acres in the State of Florida, and it provides open land, it provides habitat for wildlife, aquifer recharge. And the cattle 

industry is a very sensitive industry economically. The average cow-calf pair, we sell one cow-calf per year. It costs 

about $350 to grow that calf each year. We sell that animal for between 50 -- excuse me, between 4 and $500, meaning 

we make between 50 and $150 profit. It takes 8 acres do to that. Divide 150 by 8, and you're making about $20 an acre 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4840
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

profit. 

We've been a leader. Our businesses, agriculture and otherwise, our government has invested millions, and we work 

very hard. We need to support these efforts instead of singling Florida out of all the 50 states and putting us on a 

noncompetitive basis on a global market. So our agriculture, despite what others have said, and the governor said this 

in his state of the union -- or his state of the state speech -- agriculture and tourism are $165 billion. Agriculture brings 

over a $100 billion. We are the first largest business in the state of Florida, and we can ill afford to put that business out 

of business by imposition of overly harsh standards. 

So with that, I thank you for your time and... 

Comment ID 1029.001.003 

Author Name: Calkins S. 

Organization: 

I am a taxpayer and as such, I am willing to pay costs, if they materialize, because I know many of our government 

officials seem to be very concerned that this new criteria will be too costly. I, for one -- and I know I represent many 

others -- are willing to pay those costs if they materialize because I believe that the costs of inaction are much greater, 

not only to our personal health -- I mean, I've experienced red tide on more that one occasion. It's not pleasant and 

certainly there are costs to our recreational fishing and tourism industries. 

Comment ID 1031.001.002 

Author Name: Campbell R. 

Organization: Sanibel Island Fishing Club 

We have suffered long enough and way too long. It's time to make -- start making the changes that will bring this mess 

to a stop. We know it will cost big bucks and put enormous pressure on some businesses and communities. But when 

we allow excess nutrients to flow into our waters, we are not paying the total cost of operations. Let me say that again. 

When we allow excess nutrients to flow into our waterways, we are not paying the total cost of our operations, whether 

we are private, whether we are commercial, whether we are communities. The cost, both economic and quality of life, 

either go downstream or into the future. We should not leave this as a problem for our grandchildren. Specific standards 

put everyone on the same playing field, using the same rules. The result is a fair game can be played. That game is 

now underway. 

Comment ID 1042.001.004 

Author Name: Nelson V. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4841
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

I also wanted to point out that the better land use would save tons of money overall, just because you're not wasting so 

much product. You're not wasting fertilizer, you're not wasting insecticide, and obviously, that leads to better economics. 

I think they pointed out the tour -- I'm sure a lot of people have pointed out the tourism factor. I mean, all of this would 

lead to better tourism. I don't need to go over that anymore. 

Comment ID 1045.001.003 

Author Name: March R. 

Organization: Come Enterprises 

The impacts from this rule on Florida agriculture are potentially enormous. I've seen estimates, and we've heard other 

people give numbers today, that it could be hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars in lost revenues and 

expenses, plus thousands of lost jobs. With the stakes this high, we need to take great care in getting the science right. 

Comment ID 1045.001.005 

Author Name: March R. 

Organization: Come Enterprises 

Cost benefit curves bend upwards progressively, so you get less improvement in water quality for each additional dollar 

spent. 

Comment ID 1045.001.008 

Author Name: March R. 

Organization: Come Enterprises 

There will be a loss of economic activity, employment, and tax revenues, and this will particularly impact rural 

communities. Food costs will increase, and we will rely on more imported food. 

Comment ID 1048.001.002 

Author Name: Hanley M. 

Organization: 

Doing three tours a day in the estuary, I see on a daily basis, hour to hour, the changes and the effects of nutrient 

pollution, causing algal blooms, resulting in the loss of oysters, blue claw crabs, sea grass, fish, et cetera. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4842
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Now, in the past these have caused my coworkers to lose hours and income. That summer that we had that wretched 

red tide, all of the fishing charter captains were dismissed for the summer. They lost a whole summer's worth of income. 

This past -- we have enough trouble with natural disasters, like the cold snap that we experienced this past January, 

where fish were killed. We don't have control over the weather, in terms of cold snaps, but we do have control over 

nutrient pollution in our estuaries. 

Comment ID 1048.001.003 

Author Name: Hanley M. 

Organization: 

Tourists visit Florida, which is the number one state in the nation for fishing, and they come here to catch fish and enjoy 

wildlife viewing. So how do, as a tour guide, explain to customers on my tours the reasons for dead fish washing up in 

the mangroves; for algal mats smothering the oyster beds; for the stench of sulfur bacteria covering the bay's bottom, 

where instead sea grass should be growing; for red drift algae inundating our beaches; and for the smell of dead 

wildlife, as experienced on my kayak tours. I experience it firsthand. 

So when you say that the Florida DEP has avoided implementing numeric standards for the last 11 years, this neglect 

to set nutrient standards, has this brought us a better economy here in Florida? You know, with all the loss of jobs here 

in Florida, I think we could work together to find a way to produce more jobs by protecting the environment instead of 

destroying it. So the question also becomes then, has this coddling of polluters resulted in more jobs in our state? It 

certainly has not protected our springs or our waterways. 

Comment ID 1050.001.003 

Author Name: Cooper J. 

Organization: 

Frequently, big businesses like the phosphate industry oppose pollution limits by complaining it could decrease their 

profits. In reality, they make giant profits -- a lot of them, by the way, overseas -- and we taxpayers can't simply can't 

afford to clean up their mess, as has been pointed out by many people today. If we truly want Florida to grow positively 

and to climb out of our economic slump and increase meaningful jobs, we must start by improving our local regional 

water quality of life. That's what we need to focus on. That's what you're going to do with this thing. That 1.5 billion 

investment is a very small sum to move us forward. 

I want my kids and my grandkids to experience healthy Florida waters. It's not just part of our way of life, it's our primary 

economic magnet. We must stop using our natural waters as dumping sites for unwanted and costly pollution, which we 

have to turn around and fix. 

Comment ID 1051.001.006 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4843
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Everham W. 

Organization: 

I know that some of the critics have raised concerns about the possible costs associated with this regulatory change, 

but as other speakers have said, I don't think we can ignore the fact that environmental degradation ultimately costs 

more in the long run. And just as many citizens are concerned now with the growing national debt and the economic 

impact that has on future generations, I think we should be concerned about the mounting ecological debt and that cost 

to future generations. 

I appreciate the representation -- the representatives of the farming community that were here today. They are a 

critically important part of our economy, and most of the farmers that I know, are really careful stewards of the 

environment, and they're doing the best job that they can, both for ecological reasons and for financial reasons, not to 

be exporting too many nutrients from their landscape. 

But I don't think we can ignore that some of the critics that you've heard engaging in this issue about not putting in these 

numeric standards are really operating on the mechanism that they're able to maximize their profits by exporting their 

waste to the commons, the water that we all share, and expecting the public to collectively absorb the cost of their doing 

business. And this is wrong, and I think that numeric nutrient standards can help address this inequity. 

Comment ID 1053.001.003 

Author Name: Hale A. 

Organization: Charlotte Sierra Group 

As for the cost of things, I want to say, first of all, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are certain success stories 

that have already been tried and were cheap to install. Most noticeably, the Chesapeake Bay, for example, used 

advanced water systems, wastewater systems, and artificial wetlands to reduce their pollution in the Chesapeake Bay 

50 percent from before. The whopping, onerous price tag for cutting your pollution load 50 percent to all the people in 

the Chesapeake was $2.50 a person a year. That was the onerous price tag. 

Certain solutions are very, very affordable and very simply done. 

Comment ID 1055.001.003 

Author Name: Cowdright B. 

Organization: 

I know that those who oppose the nutrient levels are about the cost of change and loss of profits in many cases. Having 

worked in the business world for 37 years before I was retired in 2004 and moved down here, I understand there's a 

need for both profits and to maintain employment. However, I do believe that we need to add protection of the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4844
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

environment, and water quality especially is important to Florida. I think we need to change the paradigm that the 

businesses are using today, and think of water quality and the environment when we prepare any future business plans. 

Comment ID 1056.001.003 

Author Name: Guest D. 

Organization: 

Let me turn to the economics of the problem. Florida has an economic crisis and an employment crisis underway. You 

saw the pictures of toxic algae outbreaks. That's taking place all over the state. You've heard about it at the other 

hearings. They have a catastrophic effect on the economy. 

This is a largely tourist driven economy down here, and when you get red tide outbreaks and you get things like 

happened on the Caloosahatchee River, tourists that come from around the country see it. It smells like rotting garbage. 

They freak out, they tell their friends, and they don't come back. This place is deserted right now, and it's not because of 

the economy. It's because of how polluted this place has become. It's killing the economy, and it's killing jobs, and it's a 

cost that we can't afford. 

You turn to the other costs, the costs of complying with this, and it is, by comparison, relatively small. I was at a public 

hearing with Mike Sole a couple years ago, when a lobbyist for a polluting group showed up and said that it just wasn't 

going to be possible to meet the new regulations. It was just too onerous. And Mike cut him off while he was speaking, 

rightfully, and he said, I didn't want people to come here and tell us what they couldn't do. I want people to come here 

and tell us what they can do. 

And I ask you to ask the same question of the people from the sewage treatment plants and municipalities. Don't tell us 

what you can't do, tell us what you can do. And what can be done has been done in other places, and it's been well 

documented. They can and should go to advanced wastewater treatment for sewage. And it should be 3 milligrams per 

liter nitrogen. You could do better than that operationally, and you really can get down to half a milligram of phosphorus. 

That was done in other places. It's a reasonable standard, and that should be what's used to deal with these problems. 

Not everywhere -- not everywhere, of course, only about a quarter of the sewage plants here in Florida discharge to 

surface waters, but there's indirect connections, so it's more, too. There are a lot of AWT plants in Florida. The cost in 

the Chesapeake Bay was about $2.50 per month over a long term. It was a permanent change of 2.50 to get to AWT for 

everywhere. 

And to get to polishing ponds, polishing wetlands, there are places where polishing wetlands cost a family about 4 or $5 

a month to get you down to the numbers that you-all are proposing. Those are reasonable costs, and, obviously, they 

gets phased in over a real long time, and it's bonded and stuff like that, but the sewage treatment people know that. And 

I think it really is not anything serious that the sewage people come with, when they say that they want to use reverse 

osmosis. That's just, We can't do anything. And it's just not true. Let's hear what they can do, and let's hear why they 

can't do what's being done in other parts of the United States. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4845
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1063.001.010 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Additionally, the proposed EPA criteria are economically feasible. It is often said that an ounce of prevention is worth a 

pound of cure, and so it is with nutrient pollution as well. While under a dollar a pound to purchase, removing nutrients 

such as nitrogen after the fact typically ranges from 55 to $100 per pound. Despite claims of these standards being 

economically infeasible, keeping pollution out the water through low-impact development design, more storm water 

retention and treatment, and more agricultural BMP implementation is cost effective especially when compared to the 

enormous costs of intercepting and cleaning up such pollution after it enters our waterways. 

And that's not to mention that the numerous water bodies already require more stringent nutrient regulation using 

current standards. Costs in lost real estate and tourism revenue, if nutrient pollution is not adequately regulated, needs 

to be included as well in any cost benefit analysis of this proposal. 

Our environment and our economy depends on clean water. With water-based recreation and tourism, as well as 

waterfront property values, generating billions of dollars of revenue for Florida each year, we simply cannot afford to let 

this pollution continue unchecked. 

Comment ID 1064.001.001 

Author Name: Gratkowski A. 

Organization: Girl Scout Troop 319 

Considering our tourism-based economy, who would want to come see bad-smelling, murky water? From a personal 

experience I've had, it wasn't very good. Being out with my fellow forage group, looking for marine specimens for an 

upcoming event, had to be stopped from red tide. We couldn't go in the water because if one of us accidentally 

swallowed it, we could get very sick. A lot of us experienced burning in the nose and eyes, and even some of us had to 

go home because of coughing and respiratory issues. Also considering that I would like to become a marine biologist 

one day, it completely ruined the trip and the hands-on opportunity that I had. 

Comment ID 1066.001.003 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: 

The negative economic impact that the Florida Chamber of Commence said would be $75 billion to implement this over 

20 years. We had a man here today tell us that the Chesapeake Bay only cost $2.50 a person. Well, I've got news for 

you. At 75 billion that's about $4,200 a person with 18 million people in the State of Florida. 1950 there were 4 million 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4846
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

people in the State of Florida and a million cows. 60 years later we have 18 million people and still have a million cows, 

but that means we have moved 5,000 people a week into Florida for 60 years. 

Comment ID 1066.001.004 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: 

So we really need to stop and think this thing through. We've talked about the unforeseen consequences that occur. 

They're going to be monumental if we go ahead the way we are. We're in an economic crash as we are all over. We 

have a balanced budget, thank God, in this state. I don't know how we're going to clean it up. We can't even pay for our 

schools anymore. You-all better hope the tenth one isn't the first one to get closed, you know. 

Comment ID 1072.001.005 

Author Name: Holsinger M. 

Organization: Holsinger Horticultural Services 

And once it's polluted and once it's impaired, the costs go up dramatically. So I have a lot of trouble with my industry 

colleagues when they say it's too expensive. It's going to be a lot more expensive down the road than it is now. 

Comment ID 1074.001.003 

Author Name: English, Jr. J. 

Organization: 

I noted that the man from the South Florida Water Management District made mention of the fact that they were already 

in violation of some of these regulations, based on what they're doing down here in the Everglades, and that's not a 

surprise to us at all. Most of the problems that we have are as a result of projects being done by the government, which 

were ultimately financed by tax money. That's the biggest problems that we have to deal with, as citizens and taxpayers 

and people out here, just trying to make a living. 

And the failure to enforce these rules and regulations, all of them, pertaining both to water quality and water quantity, 

are going to result in a financial disaster for us private property owners out there in Northeastern Lee County from the I75 corridor all the way over into Hendry County. And I would appreciate if you-all would not only promulgate some rules 

and regulations, but that you enforce them and see that the rights of private property owners are honored, or whatever 

the word might be. We need your help. And I would appreciate you one of your cards. I may want to get in touch with 

you myself. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4847
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1077.001.004 

Author Name: Mahan R. 

Organization: OrangeCo, Inc. and C.I. Groves 

We're concerned that the broad-brush standards and numeric standards that have been placed and put at large -- large 

swaths of regional areas, are going to reduce our competitiveness against producers in Brazil and elsewhere in the 

world. 

Comment ID 1081.001.003 

Author Name: Snapp A. 

Organization: Caloosahatchee River Citizens Association or Riverwatch 

The economy of this region, people have already talked about this. I'm sure you've heard it all day long. This area of the 

economy is heavily based on tourism, as well as commercial and recreational fishing. It is -- and that economy then is 

based on a healthy sustainable environment. Without it, our economy is in jeopardy, along with the health of our 

freshwater and marine life. A tourist who visits any of our Florida beaches, only to be met by an algae bloom, will not be 

interested in finding out why it took us so long to establish these standards. They'll be gone before we finish the first 

sentence. 

Comment ID 1087-1.001.014 

Author Name: Pearson S. 

Organization: City of Gainesville Public Works Department 

DPW believes the restoration process will take more than 20 years based on the following Case Study and reasons 

presented herein. 

o The data of the study suggests that up to 80 years may be needed based on the current fiscal resources of the 

Stormwater Utility. 

o Other considerations are the current anemic economic condition which is causing the unemployment of about a 1 

million Floridians in a state with more than 18 million in persons. The latest labor statistics cited the unemployment rate 

at 10.6% where it had been about 4% previously. 

o At the local level the City of Gainesville has reduced its General Fund budget by $10 million over the last 2 years and 

is forced to reduce it by another $7 million for the upcoming fiscal year in October 2010. In 2009 43 employees left city 

employment due to an early separation incentive to long term employees and not many of them will be replaced. 

o In Fiscal Year 2011 more employees will leave due to the $7 million General Fund budget deficit. The bottom line is 

that it is very difficult at this instant in time to predict when the needed resources will be available to carry out this 

program. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4848
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1091.001.009 

Author Name: Lewis R. 

Organization: Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Florida 

Concern for reasonable and absorbable rate increases for customers during implementation or for the construction of 

infrastructure. The rule must consider the economic impacts and current technology treatment feasibility, reliability, and 

sustainability. 

Comment ID 1092.001.002 

Author Name: Kaplan A. 

Organization: Sarasota Countywide Council of Neighborhood Associations 

Given that fact, the overwhelming majority of people living in and visiting Sarasota County rely on good water quality to 

survive and to thrive. I happen to live on Siesta Key, whose beach is the biggest tourist draw in the county. We have 

suffered from beach closings each season as a result of fecal coliform and red tide outbreaks, which significantly harms 

our tourism based economy and our reputation for future tourism. 

Comment ID 1094.001.003 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

The notion that cost effective solutions don't exist is nothing more than a scare tactic. Local ordinances and education 

about the effects of fertilizer use are feasible, and encourage participation in helping improve the quality of our waters. 

I've heard claims that BMPs, or best management practices, by farmers and large animal operations are currently doing 

their job. The problem is there's no way to verify these claims. Under TMDL statute, by simply claiming BMPs are in 

place, there's a presumption of meeting water quality standards, and then an exemption for monitoring. 

This chronic -- the chronic fertilization that results from this system is fertilizer abuse, and it causes irrevocable damage 

to our natural treasures. Agriculture can implement real and effective BMPs. Just look at our waters and you'll see that 

we're overdue for that. In my own hometown I've also heard unfounded claims that sewage bills have gone up 50 

percent from the implementation of advanced wastewater treatment. The truth is in the cases of higher bills, they've 

only increased by about $10 a month for a family of three. 

Comment ID 1094.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4849
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

No one questions that Florida's economy is struggling. In 2009 we saw a decrease in tourism for our state. As 

excessive fertilizer and human and animal waste pollution increase, the number of people visiting Florida and 

contributing to our economic growth will continue to decrease. Thank you so much for your hard work and for working 

with the DEP to get something effective passed. 

Comment ID 1095.001.002 

Author Name: Riles J. 

Organization: 

The regulations that the EPA are trying to put in place will hurt our business as well as other agricultural business in the 

state of Florida. These regulations will force our businesses to put more -- more money into unnecessary water 

maintenance, which, in turn, will lower our profits. These profits are put back into our land as a way to prescribe burns, 

pasture maintenance, and other practices that keep our property environmentally friendly. 

Instead, this money will have to spent attempting to meet requirements that are, in my opinion, are unreasonable and 

irrational. There are already so many standards in effect that this would simply be a waste of funds on the citizens' part 

as well as the EPA's. We should also note that what the EPA is suggesting would turn away possible businesses that 

may be considering Florida as a location, all of this in an extremely challenging economical time. 

Comment ID 1097.001.004 

Author Name: LaSalle R. 

Organization: 

Florida is all about ecotourism, and basically, for the last 12 years, it has failed to act on the analysis and findings of its 

own data, data that could have provided direction for the present and the future sustainability of this economy. 

Florida needs help, and maybe it's a kick in the pants. This economy depends on water. Without a healthy estuary and 

harbor, Southwest Florida has nothing to offer. I'm hard-pressed to understand how this inaction has continued over a 

period of years. 

Comment ID 1098-1.001.007 

Author Name: Vance A. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4850
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

• Homeowners' and other property owners associations. Approximately 60% of roads and canals are privately 

maintained by property owners associations, who are affected by the proposed rule but the rule is silent as to impact. 

Such silence on impact is as responsible as a child thinking a parent has money because they have a credit card. Quite 

simply, impacts are not being addressed. 

Comment ID 1098-3.001.009 

Author Name: Vance A. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Any proposed rule that has a non-attainable reduction level for its numeric nutrient criteria will adversely affect those 

individual property owners. A concern of the City of Bonita Springs is that should these entities dissolve and there is no 

entity to assume their responsibility, Bonita Springs may have to take these communities in as a default, even if there 

needs to be a special assessment for those costs. A greater problem is that if these entities can not meet the criteria 

assessed, new permits will not be undertaken and stagnation economically will occur in the community, not just 

environmentally. 

Comment ID 1101.001.007 

Author Name: Williamson M. 

Organization: 

It is vital in implementing regulations that you recognize the impact that it will have on the economy of Florida; and, 

therefore, we ask that you reevaluate the science used before implementing these regulations. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1102.001.003 

Author Name: Kelley K. 

Organization: 

So I think to have more regulations, more fees, more complexity to an industry that has been struggling with the 

economy -- and I don't you want to suggest that this is just an economical issue, that we can't afford to have any other 

fees or any other time involved with bookkeeping and paperwork because that's not at all what I'm saying. 

Comment ID 1102.001.007 

Author Name: Kelley K. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4851
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

People are conscientious. We spend a lot, a lot of money on slow release fertilizers. Some of them have gotten up to 50 

and 60 dollars a bag, and that's the wholesale price. So it becomes very expensive to produce a product to make a 

living, and FNGLA has just fought recently to -- there were -- they -- we already had one increase with unemployment 

taxes. I mean, the -- our industry, the agriculture industry is being very impacted, rising fuel costs -- I mean, it just goes 

on and on. And I'm out of time. So I appreciate your time in letting us speak to you today. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1103.001.007 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

We also think there's a cost to everything. Cost benefit studies should be made before arbitrarily setting the criteria and 

implementing them. Help us maintain and create jobs, rather than destroying jobs. Thank you for coming to Florida to 

find out our concerns. 

Comment ID 1108.001.006 

Author Name: Coughenour F. 

Organization: Plant City 

The second aspect of what I wanted to touch on was the -- the doing efficiently what we have to do with -- with the 

funds we have available. It appears to me this is a -- kind of a shotgun approach to -- to regulation. We are regulating a 

number of water bodies that -- that are really in good shape, and undoubtedly, there would be a lot of funds expended 

on -- on legal costs associated with water bodies that are in good shape that -- that are determined not to be in 

compliance, and also development of site-specific criteria for those water bodies and -- and that battle. And ultimately, 

there -- there undoubtedly would be a good bit of funds spent on projects that are of a lower priority than -- than they 

are right now. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1110.001.002 

Author Name: Sherwood E. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

To date, I note -- I note those projects that have been -- have reported costs associated with them, the consortium has 

invested over 430 million dollars in various nutrient reduction products in Tampa Bay, which has led to the preclusion of 

approximately 432 tons of nitrogen in entering the bay each year. 

Comment ID 1113.001.007 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4852
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Barrera K. 

Organization: 

Our beaches face closure from these algae outbreaks, which means our 65 billions dollar per year in tourism dollars 

and jobs will be lost if our waters are not kept clean. Our state depends on clean water. And I am very adamant about 

you guys setting these numeric nutrient limits. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1115.001.004 

Author Name: Baldwin R. 

Organization: 

There is a big ecotourism industry in South America. By continuing to pollute our waters, polluters are destroying our 

ecotourism at a shockingly rapid rate. This pollution represents an unfair tax on our present and future generations. 

This pollution is not only difficult and hugely costly to clean up, but impossible to clean up when it has reached a point of 

no return. 

Comment ID 1116.001.004 

Author Name: Bucolo B. 

Organization: 

But I want to say driving up here, I noticed the -- the fellows from the union, carpenter's union and some others that are 

involved in some of the industry here. And I think that when the E.P.A. eventually institutes the changes that must 

come, I -- I hope that it and working with other government agencies actually addresses the job loss issue. Obviously, 

putting together departments of the government that can help put skilled workers to work on putting the changes you 

put through into effect would have a -- a positive effect on what the E.P.A. does, what the government does on the 

public, the general public's perception of government effects on -- on our local lives. 

Comment ID 1117.001.003 

Author Name: McCoy R. 

Organization: 

We're concerned is that we don't feel that enough consideration has been taken into the economic impact that these 

regulations are going to have. 

I noticed in your presentation, you spent a good 20 minutes talking about the effects on the water, and you took about 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4853
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

15 seconds on the economic impact. 

When we hear the federal government say 100 million dollars, we hear 500 million dollars. We want to know how this is 

going to be paid, who is going to pay for it, how much it's going to cost, and what effect it's going to have on industry. 

We -- our livelihoods are at stake here, and we just want to make sure that those concerns are taken in as well as all 

the rest of these other concerns. 

So thank you very much. 

Comment ID 1120.001.001 

Author Name: Guest D. 

Organization: 

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. David Guest representing Earth Justice. 

You know, in all water pollution cases you get the same three arguments. One is that it will take forever to do this and it 

may take 20 or 30 years to figure how out how to do it. Two is that we have already solved it. And three is the fish like 

the pollution. And we're seeing all three of those here, and I think we will hear all of those today. 

The cost of this -- of this sewage fertilizer and animal manure pollution is enormous. It's a catastrophic cost on this 

region of the state and on other parts of the state. 

The photos that you showed of the Caloosahatchee River show a staggering impact on property values. On the St. 

Lucie River alone, the toxic algae outbreak in that same year has permanently diminished the value of the property by a 

half a billion dollars. That's just one river. It's staggering. 

It's killing the economy all over the state. It's killing the economy down here between the red tides and the toxic algae 

outbreaks, and we can't afford it. In the time of high unemployment and a weak economy, it's the worst possible thing 

we can do. 

Fears are raised about the cost of compliance. The experience elsewhere has shown that those costs are really pretty 

reasonable. In the Chesapeake Bay, there was a movement to have all sewage treatment to advanced wastewater 

treatment. 

It cost $2.50 a month. To get in other places to polishing ponds that get you -- or polishing wetlands that get you pretty 

close to -- to the standards here, about 4 or $5 a month at most per family. That's a pretty small price to pay to get the 

economy back on its feet. 

There are places where that might not work and where there aren't wetlands, there isn't enough room for wetlands in 

big cities, and there you might have to go to advanced wastewater treatment and reuse without a seriously significant 

difference in costs. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4854
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

A lot of issues have been raised about the cost of urban runoff, treating urban runoff. And, you know, that's really a nobrainer, because the obvious answer is to restrict fertilizer use in cities. A lot of counties have done that, and with -- with 

great success. The documentation shows that it's very successful. 

But strangely enough, when the legislature, as it is now, considering prohibiting counties from restricting fertilizer 

ordinances, where are the municipal stormwater utilities on this? Are they for it or against it? And that's a really 

interesting and important and revealing question. 

Are they there as agents for a constituency of fertilizer companies, or are they there for the public to protect them to 

make it so their waters can be clean at really no cost. Not using fertilizer doesn't cost the public anything at all. 

Comment ID 1125.001.001 

Author Name: Hodges D. 

Organization: Palm & Pines Mobile Home Park 

I have a small mobile home and RV park in Felda, Hendry County, Florida. We have our own water system and sewage 

system which serves 47 mobile home sites and 67 RV sites. Due to the economy, we have lost a significant portion of 

our RV business. This would leave these 47 families, who are already struggling, to foot the bill for this proposed ruling. 

This is just not possible. We are barely getting our bills paid as it is. I couldn't increase the rent because my tenants 

couldn't pay it. 

Comment ID 1127.001.002 

Author Name: Reiner M. 

Organization: 

Agriculture is the second largest industry in the state. This legislation would have a huge impact on our industry. There 

are substantial costs of complying with the unsound regulatory policy. The costs will be passed down to the Floridians in 

their utility bills and will put Florida's agriculture, commerce, and industry at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of 

the country, where federal standards currently do not exist. 

Additionally, agriculture is not able to pass along increased costs to customers. This will drive our food production from 

being locally grown to overseas, where state residents do not have the knowledge of how their food is grown. 

Agriculture already has best management practices to help control nutrient runoff and improve water quality. You know, 

in closing, I fear this is going to have just such a detrimental impact to our state and the agriculture in our state. Thanks. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4855
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1130.001.005 

Author Name: McCarthy L. 

Organization: 

So we're concerned about that money being with diverted from programs that are actually implementing cleanups now 

in -- in the water bodies and in the programs that we're involved in, and that money will be diverted and there will be 

less, a lot less progress being made in the future. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1133.001.001 

Author Name: Freeman S. 

Organization: 

"This report confirms what we have all feared. The economic ramifications of this proposed rule would be devastating to 

our state. Florida's economy continues to suffer with a record high 12.3 percent unemployment rate, a weak housing 

market and a struggling agriculture industry. Now is not the time to punish Florida's small businesses, workers and 

farmers with increased costs while they struggle to survive." 

The above comments were published by Fl. Congressman Tom Rooney. I would respectfully request that you 

reconsider the proposed rule, taking into account the estimated 14 thousand plus jobs losses projected by the FL Dept 

of Agriculture. To govern well, knowledge is not sufficient alone. It must be tempered with wisdom, or more harm than 

good may result. 

Comment ID 1136.001.005 

Author Name: Underhill T. 

Organization: 

I can tell you that the difficulty and the concerns that I experience are that every year it becomes a little bit more difficult 

to be a family farmer because of the regulations and the costs, the ever and continuing costs when there is a 

consideration that perhaps we could just sell the land and let it be developed, and then you have more polluters living in 

land that was once green and once had wildlife. 

So those burdens are ones that I -- I ask that you -- you take into consideration and address in a way that you go about 

the process to implement this, because we definitely want to see cleaner water but we would like to be able to continue 

farming. And I think that -- that most of the people that -- that live next to us would like to see us continue farming as 

well. 

So it's that process that I think is important, that -- that you look at ways of -- of having management practices that are 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4856
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

cooperative. I mean, what -- what can we agree on? We can agree on that we all want cleaner water, we want clean air, 

we want good food and green places with wildlife. 

But what we need to do is find ways to work together cooperatively with management practices to find that, find ways 

that -- that don't burden agriculture in terms of the family farms to the point that we sell out, that it becomes all industrial 

agriculture or urbanization. 

So I -- I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, and hopefully look forward to cleaner water and continued 

agriculture in Florida. 

Comment ID 1138.001.005 

Author Name: Waldo E. 

Organization: 

The economic arguments, we are not going to ask -- won't ask those, either; will these kind of requirements cost the 

people of Florida much more money individually as the municipalities try to comply in making water better than pristine 

water, in some cases, as I understand it. 

I have heard numbers all over the place, whether it's $100 a person, $1,000 a person or a family, a couple thousand a 

person or a family, whatever that is, that's -- that's obviously a question that needs to be answered, but obviously not for 

today. 

The economic -- another argument -- economic argument that I won't ask is will these requirements cause an 

overwhelming burden on farms and agri business, which, again, I'm admittedly part of, love being part of the farming 

and agribusiness, farmers are some neat people and do some neat things, further putting the largest production 

industry and the second largest industry in all of Florida in financial jeopardy. 

They employ 13 -- over 13 percent of our population is in agri business. And will this have dire economic consequences 

on the state of Florida, not to mention the municipalities and the people themselves, anyone who uses electricity, those 

things. 

Comment ID 1140.001.007 

Author Name: Hilliard D. 

Organization: 

With that said, the thing that drives our interest in water regulation in Florida is economics. And we ask the single 

question if we don't deal with this now, what is it going to cost later? 

Water is the lifeblood of everything that lives on land in this state and it's the fuel for our economy. 305B report in 2008 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4857
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

indicated offshore contribution of Florida's gross product, the -- the coastal and offshore waters was 587 billion dollars. 

We suspect that that contribution in the inland waters is much, much higher. 

I thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 1141.001.008 

Author Name: Coe J. 

Organization: 

Otherwise small businesses are going to incur expenses in this. The business I work for incurs $173,000 a year in 

P.O.T.W. charges, surcharges after pretreatment. We pretreat ours before we sent it to the sewer, who sends it -- treats 

it even further to send to the bay. 

I ask if anybody would like to review this, I will be here the remainder of the evening. I have all the documentation, all 

the NELAC approved lab results, you're welcome to them. Just please start enforcing the state. 

Comment ID 1151.001.004 

Author Name: McElwain A. 

Organization: 

The -- this kind of multibillion dollar variance in cost numbers I think really defeats the credibility of it taking and given 

the E.P.A.'s more reliable estimate. 

Comment ID 1156.001.002 

Author Name: Carr R. 

Organization: 

There is no way a small campground operation could pass such a huge initial cost and ongoing operational costs on to 

the customers. Rates would become so high that folks will just stop short of Florida's borders resulting in a huge loss of 

tourism dollars which come to Florida every year. Without these seasonal visitors our campground and hundreds of 

others will not survive. If you put these campgrounds out of business you will be taking away tax dollars from the local 

areas resulting in more financial problems for an already floundering system. 

Comment ID 1164-1.001.005 

Author Name: Baer W. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4858
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: City of Altamonte Springs Public Works and Utilities 

Even in good economic times that cost would be a substantial hardship for our City given our annual water and sewer 

revenues are only $16.7 million. The per capita expense for just this component would be $2,500. Without the 

reclaimed system our consumptive use of groundwater would exceed permitted annual allowances effectively placing 

the City in violation of water management district requirements and all previous progress in water conservation made by 

the City since the 1980's would be negated. 

Comment ID 1164-1.001.006 

Author Name: Baer W. 

Organization: City of Altamonte Springs Public Works and Utilities 

The City has also been progressive in anticipating stormwater quality issues. Our stormwater design criteria currently 

exceed the water management district requirements. The City has an established stormwater utility fee which generates 

slightly less than $2 million a year. The fee is anticipated to be insufficient to meet upcoming pollutant loading 

reductions required by Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards, let alone the costs of implementing the proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria that are projected to increase stormwater costs exponentially. 

Comment ID 1165.001.005 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Financial costs and burdens may indeed exist, and in phasing-in the numerical standards perhaps a consideration could 

be given to allow enough time for the current recession to have abated to a specifically-set, numerically-determinable 

degree based on normally-obtained statistics for gross business activity and unemployment rates within the state... (No 

flexible narrative that influential interests can drag out). Though there may be expenses we don't like, there will be 

benefits that we do, and meanwhile we have been going on for years without paying what we need to in order to have a 

healthy and healthful environment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Comment ID 1166.001.003 

Author Name: Christensen C. 

Organization: Estero Bay Buddies, Fort Myers Beach Yacht Club, and the Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce 

If the proposed numeric criteria are adopted, they may place an additional burden on the agricultural industry. If it does, 

perhaps we should come to their help. If adoption means lightly higher cost for food, so be it. We've accepted higher 

production costs for things such as more fuel efficient vehicles and more energy efficient appliances. Why not for the 

food that nourishes our body? From a layman's point of view, this idea for numeric standards seems to me to be a good 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4859
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

idea. If some of the standards adopted prove to be unworkable or unrealistic, they could be modified, again based on 

sound science and without the influences of special interests or political pressures. 

Clean waters are not only a quality-of-life issue; they are extremely critical to our tourism-based economy. We cannot 

afford to continue measuring our progress using subjective criteria. 

Comment ID 1167.001.002 

Author Name: McMillan S. 

Organization: 

I think that it's a false argument to talk about the economy and jobs versus a clean environment. I think we just need to 

get away from that whole argument and start looking at that we have to do both. 

I run a business. There is regulations that get put on me, they cost me money, but I understand that that's the way it is 

when you run a business. And I am going to have to cut down somewhere else to make it work, and that's how we have 

to be. 

You know, it's not -- these rivers and our waterways are not just contained to a farmer's yard or Mosaic's yard; it's all of 

us, we all share it. And so they have a responsibility, even if it costs them more, to take care of it for the rest of us. 

Comment ID 1169.001.005 

Author Name: Hendry J. 

Organization: People for Protecting the Peace River 

I personally, even though I love it so much, I do not canoe or fish that water nearly as much, and, therefore, do not 

spend as much money with local business, such as bait and tackle shops, park entrance fees, canoe and kayak rentals, 

and find that friends and relatives are not visitors anymore. Polluted water has an overall negative impact on Florida's 

economies regardless of its source. 

Comment ID 1175.001.003 

Author Name: Rohrer K. 

Organization: 

Florida has long struggled to protect our fragile environment, while growing the economy. A portion of the problem lies 

with the underlying objectives of the growth mentality. Rather than assess available assets and scale growth to the 

ability of our landscape to support specific types of human activity, our legislative processes direct resource managers 

to maximize extraction of those resources for economic gain. Limited attention is directed toward preservation of the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4860
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

resource, leading to the degradation and eventual depletion of said resource. Political will leans toward consumption, 

not conservation. 

Comment ID 1176.001.002 

Author Name: Tilton A. 

Organization: Johnson Engineering, Inc. 

One of the things that I find interesting is how many people want to have things cleaner, but don't want to pay for it. One 

of the reasons China has the water system and it has is because it doesn't pay anything to clean it up and it sells 

products on our market at very inexpensive price. They're not willing to pay the price to clean it up, and so it's 

challenging for businesses here to compete with a business there that has a whole different operating system. 

It's the same problem that our farmers here have with being able to sell a tomato, when they compete with Mexico that 

sells a tomato grown under a whole different set of rules and regulations. Until we have some way to make those things 

equitable, this is going to be an extreme burden on the state of Florida economically. And I know people say, Well, 

economics shouldn't play into it. But if we all go out of business I don't think there will be much left here to worry about 

protecting. So somewhere there's got to be that balance, and I don't envy you, Mr. King or Mr. Keating, having to work 

on this. I think actually the DEP probably IS happy that you took the first stab at it because you get to get beat on first. 

The other thing is that I hope the people that spoke today and asked for more or better more quality from their sewage 

treatment plants, I really would like -- wish they were still here, and that they would come to the public service 

commission meetings and the other meetings when the rate increases are discussed to pay for these, and to stand up 

and say, Yes, I want higher rates for my utilities to pay for this higher water quality because it will take additional money. 

Comment ID 1179.001.007 

Author Name: Peterson M. 

Organization: Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation District 

Finally, I would like to read an excerpt of the Right to Farm Act. "The legislature finds that agricultural production is a 

major contributor to the economy of the state; that agricultural lands constitute unique and irreplaceable resources of 

statewide importance; that the continuation of agricultural activities preserves the landscape and environmental 

resources of the state, contributes to the increase of tourism, and furthers the economic self-sufficiency of the people of 

the state; and that the encouragement, development, improvement and preservation of agriculture will result in a 

general benefit to the health and welfare of the people of the state. 

Comment ID 1180.001.003 

Author Name: Jackalone F. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4861
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Sierra Club 

What are the costs of doing it? Well, I think you need to look at first what are the costs of not taking action? And those 

costs are billions of continued cleanup, which counties and cities need to do, anyway. 

There are billions of dollars in fish kills and loss to that industry. Billions of dollars when beaches are closed because of 

red tide outbreaks. Billions of dollars are lost in property values when your home on the St. Johns River sees a green 

algae slime. And who would want to buy that house where the river is continually polluted? 

Billions in healthcare costs from clean -- from dirty water and from dirty air. Now, you may know that there is a dirty 

aerosol that affects people with asthma that comes from red tide blooms, for example. And that's a big problem here in 

the gulf coast. 

We get dead sea turtles, dolphins, and manatees, and that impacts on our quality of life. That's an important coast to 

those of us who live on the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay. 

We believe that if you put these standards in force, the costs of implementing them will be done in a cost-effective way, 

that government and business will find the most cost effective way to meet those standards. 

And the obvious point is the cheapest way is don't pollute the water in the first place, that's the cheapest way to meet 

these standards, and that's the way that we need to take people in Florida. 

Comment ID 1181.001.004 

Author Name: Griffiths B. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Sierra Club 

However, I'm very concerned that the pesticide chemical -- pesticide and chemical industry representatives are turning 

out and saying that it's going to result in a loss of jobs. 

And I think this is highly exaggerated. I agree with other speakers who said that we must strive to find a way to protect 

jobs and have a clean environment. I think that those two things can coexist. 

In closing, I just want to thank you very much for being here and thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

Comment ID 1190.001.003 

Author Name: Adams K. 

Organization: 

I do not believe we should be having discussions about how our municipalities cannot afford to give Floridians clean 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4862
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

water. We have the engineering skills and knowledge, just as our space discussion, in these modern times to require 

that more of the pollutants be cleaned up at the source before it ever reaches public utilities, and therefore more of the 

expense would be the responsibility of the polluter, not the taxpayer. 

Comment ID 1191.001.013 

Author Name: Cravens M. 

Organization: Mangrove Action Group 

In response to those who oppose to EPA taking -­

MR. KING: We do need to keep going here.
 

MS. CRAVENS: Okay. It is not too expensive for you to not adopt these standards. It is too expense -- to adopt these
 

standards. It is too expensive for you to not adopt them, too expensive in dollars and too expensive in our quality of life.
 

Thank you.
 

Comment ID 1194.001.002 

Author Name: Spitzer K. 

Organization: Florida Stormwater Association 

Collectively, local governments in Florida spend about a billion dollars a year on flood control and water quality control 

programs. So that begs the obvious question as to which level of government in Florida is really doing the heavy lifting 

in terms of water quality improvements. 

And so when there are rules proposed that will significantly increase costs and they are based upon at least debatable 

science, we have some concerns, and we especially have some concerns when the rules as structured, when layered 

on top of Florida law, really threaten the foundation of Florida's water quality improvement program, which is the BMAP 

program. 

We do not have unlimited resources. And I'm not just speaking of local governments, but state and federal 

governments. We can't fund all of the improvements. We need due diligence and good science to be used to ensure 

that the limited resources that we have are effectively applied. Due diligence and good science so that the limited 

resources that we have are effectively applied. 

Adding a hundred billion dollars or so in costs does not result in a hundred billion dollars' worth of water quality 

improvements. And if the plan is impossible, there will be no improvements, if the plan is impossible. 

Comment ID 1196.001.003 

Author Name: Ryan N. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4863
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: 

In Southwest Florida, our environment is our economy. We rely heavily on tourism and ecotourism for our livelihood, 

and we have seen the devastating effects of human-induced impacts, such as water pollution, to our economy. 

Comment ID 1197.001.011 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Additionally, the proposed E.P.A. criteria are economically feasible. It's often said that an ounce of prevention is worth a 

pound of cure, and so it is with nutrient pollution as well. 

While other -- under a dollar a pound to purchase, removing nutrients such as nitrogen after the fact typically -- typically 

ranges from 55 to $100 per pound and is borne entirely by the taxpayers. 

Despite claims that these standards being economically infeasible keeping pollution out of our water through a lowimpact development design, more stormwater retention and treatment, and more agricultural B.M.P. implementation is 

cost effective, especially when compared to the enormous costs of intercepting and cleaning up some pollution after the 

fact when it enters our waterways. 

And that's not to mention that numerous water bodies already require more stringent nutrient regulation using current 

standards. 

Cost in lost real estate and tourism revenue if nutrient pollution is not adequately regulated needs to be included as well 

in any cost benefit analysis of this proposal. 

Our environment and our economy depends on clean water. With water-based recreation and tourism as well as 

waterfront property values generating billions of dollars of revenue for Florida each year, we simply cannot afford to let 

this pollution continue unchecked. 

Comment ID 1198.001.005 

Author Name: Worley K. 

Organization: 

I think we can all agree we want clean water, we want a healthy environment, and we want a strong economy. Whether 

we like it or not, a good chunk of Florida's economy is somehow related to tourism and to attracting people to the state. 

People don't want to come to a place where water quality is a problem. They don't want to come and see stinky algal 

blooms or beach closure signs. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4864
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

If we don't do something now to protect our water, and in a sense our very livelihood, for future generations, the cost is 

going to be much greater down the road. 

Prices always go up. And if we do something now to curtail environmental problems, it will be much cheaper than going 

in after a disaster and trying to pick up the pieces. 

Comment ID 1199.001.002 

Author Name: Latif C. 

Organization: 

Fourth Street is four blocks from the Gulf of Mexico, and I have witnessed fish kills on Naples' beaches and I have 

watched tourists and locals alike flee from those beaches. It is not good for our ailing economy, whether it is in the 

fishing industry, tourism, restaurants, hotels, or real estate values. 

Comment ID 1209.001.003 

Author Name: Swormstedt G. 

Organization: 

He also spoke about the costs of -- reflected in making the improvements that they need. But who is looking at the cost 

to us citizens in health problems and cost of lost recreation and lost money from the people who depend on that 

recreation. So -- and the fisheries, these -- this is all loss to us. And those costs are not reflected anywhere around. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4865
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1210.001.001 

Author Name: Hammond G. 

Organization: City of Mount Dora 

While the goal of clean water is laudable, a City the size of Mount Dora, Florida (est. pop. 11,000) is unable to afford to 

treat every storm water discharge within its boundaries. The downtown area has no room for additional treatment 

facilities. The engineering required to capture all the storm water is staggering. In addition, the nutrient reductions that 

are being proposed could potentially bankrupt the City. The budgets for City government are continuing to be squeezed 

by the reduced property appraisals. There is no additional funding available to begin a massive program like is being 

proposed. 

Comment ID 1211-1.001.006 

Author Name: Threet J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

3) Develop a Cost/Benefit Study before the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria and implementing them, Help us 

maintain and even create jobs rather than destroying jobs. 

Comment ID 1214.001.005 

Author Name: D’Avanzo E. 

Organization: The 11 Florida Chapters, Surfrider Foundation 

And as in most water pollution disputes, the polluters assert impossibly huge costs for compliance. What is "too costly" 

when it comes to our children's and our retirees' health? 

What is "too costly" when it is our coastal tourism economy that is at risk? The economic arguments being used by 

special interests to raise political opposition to EPA's nutrient standards should not play a role in setting water quality 

standards. There are already numerous ways under the law to take economic factors into account in permitting and 

designing the program for meeting attainable standards. Any impacts along our coasts would be detrimental to a 

multitude of industries. Florida's tourism numbers show that, in 2008, visitors spent $65.2 billion, and Florida collected 

$3.9 billion, in total tourism sales tax revenues. 

Comment ID 1216-1.001.003 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Northwest Florida Utility Managers Council 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4866
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

This over protection will cost utility rate payers dearly with most estimates showing a doubling of rates. If something 

significant was gained by doubling of rates, then perhaps the public will gladly accept this increase. However, we 

believe that with the proposed nile there would be no measurable difference in the water body because of strict limits on 

wastewater reclamation plants. We ask that the EPA correct the wrong they have visited on the citizens and the 

environment of the panhandle. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.011 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

6. In addition to the enormous capital costs and operating expenses that the Rule would trigger through strict, new 

limitations on the release or discharge of nutrients to Florida waters, the Rule would likely have a profound effect on 

Florida's farmers and growers, both so vital to the State and to the country as a whole. Mosaic questions whether EPA 

has fairly analyzed or appropriately considered the implications for Florida's (and the United States') vital agriculture 

industry, in assessing -- as EPA must -- the full costs of this Rule. 

Comment ID 1221.001.003 

Author Name: Krumreich T. 

Organization: 

The E.P.A. proposed water quality standards for the state of Florida would require a massive financial commitment by 

various governmental agencies in our state at a time when funding for such agencies is at extremely low levels due to 

the ongoing economic turndown. 

The E.P.A.'s own estimates range from 107 to 140 million dollars per year for a total of 1.2 to 1.5 billion dollars. And 

typically, estimates like this tend to be much lower than the reality. 

Comment ID 1222.001.004 

Author Name: MacDonald L. 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

With regard to my responsibilities, I want you to know that with regard to any costs that are incurred, I expect to pay my 

fair share of those costs, and I am very accepting of doing so. 

Besides the -- the love of my family and friends, what could be more important to me than my health? It's going to be 

paid for one way or the other. I mean, if the harm comes to me, I'm going to be paying for trying to restore my health 

later, if I can, and I would much rather it be preventing any ill health for myself and others and the life around me. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4867
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1223.001.003 

Author Name: Thomas J. 

Organization: 

I'm a taxpayer. I want to pay my taxes. If you put me as a farmer or a rancher or a vegetable grower or I grow ferns, or 

whatever I grow, if you put me at a competitive disadvantage with the man across the street, across the state line, or 

across the border down by McClelland, Texas, if you put me at a disadvantage, I cannot pay my taxes, and if I don't pay 

my taxes and everybody in this room don't pay your taxes, the economic engine that we have in this nation, if we think 

we're seeing something right now, imagine the people that was here in '29, I imagine they could tell us a whole lot more 

about it than most of the people in this room. 

I've seen five recessions since '74. Don't put anybody out of business, because we've got an unlevel playing field. Give 

us -- give an American a level -- a level playing field, and he will bring the bacon home. But if you put us at a 

disadvantage, we cannot compete, we cannot put safe food and fiber on Americans' table. I thank you very much for 

allowing me to come to speak. And I wish you the best of luck with your endeavors. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1225.001.003 

Author Name: Arquilino J. 

Organization: 

Additionally, after studying economics throughout college, it seems my professors were successful in brain-washing me 

to always looking into things from an economic point of view. It's obvious that Florida's economy depends on clean 

water. One study I recently read stated that beach tourism and related spending contributes about $40 billion to 

Florida's economy. In 2003, 62 million people visited our beaches. Further, it is estimated that tourism -- that beach 

tourism supports over 500,000 jobs. Why wouldn't we want to protect a resource that provides such a huge benefit to 

our state? 

Given the current economic conditions, it would be a complete mistake to forgo protecting a resource that provides so 

many jobs, has historically allowed Florida to prosper, both financially and aesthetically. Investing in and carrying out 

policies directed towards keeping our waters clean is imperative. And while some implementation cost may be incurred 

for our generations, what we will be protecting is priceless for ourselves and future generations. 

Comment ID 1228.001.003 

Author Name: Montelione L. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4868
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

And lastly, I just want to add, when I was a long time ago an intern with the economic development department in 

Hillsborough County, that's an office that supports and promotes tourism and agriculture. 

Both of those industries are very important to the state of Florida, as is construction and real estate. It's a three-legged 

stool here in Florida. You can't have one industry at the expense of another. All three of them are required in order for 

us to survive. 

So when the practices of one start to implement -- start having a detrimental effect on another, then it's time to look at 

something needs to change. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1240.001.006 

Author Name: Nurse K. 

Organization: 

Now, the bad news, on the other hand, is that local government is -- has less money every year. The legislature, who is 

run by a bunch of lunatics, is -- puts -- every year puts additional restraints on our ability to lose money. And so -- and 

so even when at the economy recovers, we will -- we will have less money, which means that all fixes have to be pretty 

cheap. 

Comment ID 1242.001.003 

Author Name: LarsenWalker M. 

Organization: 

Furthermore, the economic consequences of not implementing a numeric nutrient rule could be dire. Florida's 65 billion 

dollar tourist industry is centered around its star attraction, which is more alluring really than Disney World to tourists, 

and that's the beaches. 

So people come from around the world for our hospitable climate and beautiful beaches. And beach closures due to red 

tide interfere with people's enjoyment of these beaches. So if we don't take decisive action now, tourists will take their 

vacations and their credit cards elsewhere, which will in turn hurt Florida businesses. 

So economic recovery is really right now the nation's top priority. So we need to keep the workers of Florida's coastal 

hotels, restaurants, shops, attractions employed and the owners of Florida's businesses prospering here in the 

sunshine state. Okay. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1246.001.005 

Author Name: Adams C. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4869
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: 

In my own hometown, I have also heard unfounded claims that sewage bills have gone up 50 percent from instituting 

advanced wastewater treatment. And the truth is, in the case of higher bills, they have only increased by about $10 a 

month for a family of three. 

And I'm not going to build on -- as -- what Joe was talking about, Wakulla Springs, I have had wonder experiences there 

as a child, too. You know, this is a place that used to generate 20 million dollars a year in revenue, and now the boats 

aren't even running most the time. All you're going -- all you would see in -- through the glass bottom is green murk, 

anyway. 

Comment ID 1246.001.007 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

And no one questions that Florida's economy is struggling. 2009 saw a decrease in tourism for our state. But as 

excessive fertilizer and human and animal waste pollution increase, the number of people visiting Florida and 

contributing to our economic growth will continue to decrease. 

Comment ID 1246.001.008 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

I would also like to quickly address a few things that have been said by people on the other side of this argument. 

90 percent of the state's population relies on groundwater as their drinking water source. So the idea that drinking water 

is going to have to meet these standards is a little bit farfetched. 

Also, the Department of Agricultural's legislation regarding fertilizer ordinances and trying to block local governments 

from instituting those ordinances, you know, you can't complain about the cost of compliance when you're blocking a 

cost-effective measure that could be put in place. 

Using less fertilizer is going to save everybody money. It's going to save farmers money, it's going to save us money 

from having to clean up the mess, it's a good idea all around. 

Also, you know, the idea that -- that wastewater can't be treated economically is also just ridiculous. I heard some 

numbers being thrown around that 50 billion dollars was -- you know, 50 billion dollars, $700 annually per family was 

going to be the ultimate cost of -- of improving wastewater treatment. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4870
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

But, you know, with $700 a year, that's enough to put a gold-plated toilet in every house and mobile home in this state, 

so -- just to put it in perspective. 

Comment ID 1248.001.001 

Author Name: Gilbert A. 

Organization: Pleasant Hill Village 

Have you considered how the above proposed rule might affect small business and treatment facilities such as ours? 

We are a small 106 unit mobile home park in Florida. We have our own small water and sewer treatment facility. How 

can we possibly afford to upgrade our sewage treatment facility to the Numeric Nutrient Criteria you have proposed? 

What do we tell residents or our employees who depend on us? Near zero pollution is an admirable goal obviously to 

be sought by all. However it is not a realistic or affordable goal. In the real world, there are cost benefit analyses that 

must be done. The reality is that our operations and similar ones have a minimal impact on the environment. Yet it 

allows many people to meet their basic water and sewer needs at an affordable cost with minimal impact to the 

environment. The rules you are proposing are not cost effective or realistic. They will force us out of business and force 

the relocation of hundreds of residents. Nationwide, it will do the same to thousands. Is that good public policy? Smaller 

systems such as ours cannot afford to meet your new proposals. Eighty percent of smaller utilities serve populations 

under 10,000 and are unable to spread the large cost of trying to comply with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

over such a small base of customers. 

Comment ID 1249.001.001 

Author Name: Godwin L. 

Organization: Bratt-Davisville Water System 

NATIONAL ECONOMIC downturn has severly impacted Floridas rural communities.Ratepayers cannot afford 

substantial increases in utility fees that would be caused by the implementation of the proposed numeric criteria. 

Comment ID 1250.001.003 

Author Name: Roth R. 

Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce 

Now, there are some serious disagreements between E.P.A.'s data and modeling approach and that of D.E.P. Some 

are estimating that the costs could be as high as 70 billion dollars in an attempt to meet these new stringent standards 

or these proposed standards. 

This proposed rule has the potential to increase each Florida household's water bill by $700 per year. Now, Floridians 

we say cannot afford another tax from Washington by the way of regulation in this time of double-digit unemployment, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4871
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

especially since the proposed criteria is unnecessary to protect the biological health of the water bodies, are technically 

unachievable, and could create expensive, unintended consequences. 

Comment ID 1252.001.003 

Author Name: Roche J. 

Organization: 

And the last thing I wanted to say is ever since the E.P.A. brought up this -- brought up the water quality standards, 

which, as I'm sure you can guess by now, I soundly support, I've heard the cost argument, "Oh, it costs too much."

 And, of course, we hear this every time we try to do something for the good of the environment, as well as the good of 

the people. And at what point does that argument stop? It costs too much. At what point does it stop? 

Well, it probably stops at the point of which we have extracted all of the economic value there is to extract, and that 

means at precisely the point when there is very little environmental value left. 

Comment ID 1254.001.004 

Author Name: Lovely S. 

Organization: Pinellas County Utilities 

Finally, we are looking forward to continuing to work with E.P.A. regarding the current and upcoming coastal and 

estuarine rulemaking to achieve a reasonable set of criteria that are able to be implemented without significant costs in 

a time when utilities' monetary reserves are very low or nonexistent, after hundreds of millions of dollars already being 

spent to build and upgrade the existing facilities and build many, many miles of reclaimed water distribution systems. 

Comment ID 1257.001.002 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

Others have argued the scientific objections to the nutrient criteria quite well, so I want to focus on the economic 

considerations. We all support cleanup of the Florida waterways. 

However, the strawberry farms currently face many regulatories costs that are spiralling every year. Such burdensome 

expenses are impossible to pass forward in a market-based pricing system of such a highly-perishable commodity. 

These costs come directly from our bottom line and severely constrain any chance of profitability. 

Now, this winter we had very unfavorable weather conditions and our crop was quite diminished. And we rapidly saw 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4872
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

our crop supplanted in retail stores by imports from Mexico. Strawberries are extremely labor intensive, so Mexico has 

an inherent cost advantage, as well as less restrictions. 

As regulatory costs erode our margin, Florida strawberries will succumb to the competitive advantage of the only other 

country that can produce this nutritious fruit for the United States during the winter season. The additional costs of 

E.P.A. water standards to Florida farms is very difficult to absorb. 

Strawberry farms are historically good stewards, utilizing 100 percent drip irrigation to dramatically reduce our water 

consumption over the past decade as our acreage doubled. However, the costly conversion to drip was more driven by 

the ability to deliver precise nutrients via underground emitters, which ensure greater than 95 percent uptake and 

virtually zero runoff. 

Strawberries are very prone to salt damage, so our stringent best management practices are extremely cautious not to 

overapply nitrogen, while taking great care not to leach applied root -- nutrients below the root zone. We have done 

extensive scientific studies with the University of Florida to ensure such precision. 

Land is the farmer's greatest capital asset, so we do not abuse natural resources that provide our livelihood. We do not 

grow during the rainy season, to further reduce any possibility of runoff. We are a winter crop. 

Comment ID 1257.001.003 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association

 No one opposes clean water or wildlife habitat. I enjoy the otters, and the eagles, and the lakes around my home as 

much as anyone who spoke today. 

But as a Florida resident, I share our growers' concern over our state's fragile economy. Two of our economic 

mainstays, construction and tourism, are both suffering. Do not impose standards that are economically and 

technologically unattainable. 

Regardless of how you determine the cost estimates, and I have seen them manipulated upward and downward, the 

regulation will seriously threaten our state's only growth category, which is agriculture. 

Again we all want clean water, but our strawberry industry cannot survive additional expensive -- expensive regulations, 

our state cannot finance compliance, and our taxpayers are already tapped out and don't know what's coming at them. 

Comment ID 1259.001.003 

Author Name: Harrelson C. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4873
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

You know, I mean, let's -- let's just look at this. In Florida, our environment is our economy. Florida brings in 65 billion 

dollars a year in tourist revenue and it's the world's largest commercial fishery. Those are big numbers. Those are 

important numbers. 

Strong numerical standards aren't a burden, but rather, carve out a level playing field for agriculture, for business, for 

recreation, fishing, for investment. 

Comment ID 1261-1.001.005 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County 

As a result of these findings, no surface water discharge (point source or MS4) will be allowed into nutrient impaired 

waters without extremely high levels of treatment with long-term maintenance, energy consumption and carbon 

emission costs and consequences. Therefore, to support a policy with such financially onerous consequences, the 

environmental benefit has to be enormous and the science behind it exceptionally robust. 

Comment ID 1262.001.003 

Author Name: Redd W. 

Organization: Deseret Farms of Ruskin 

The additional costs required to monitor and treat surface runoff will place Florida agricultural at a competitive 

disadvantage with the rest of the country, where such non-science-based federal standards do not exist. 

Because agricultural production is highly decentralized, producers are not able to pass additional costs along to their 

consumers. Rather, when costs become prohibitive in relationship to prices dictated by the market, local producers are 

driven out of production, and consumers become dependent on products produced in foreign countries, where costs are 

much lower, and the loss of control of food quality and safety become a major concern. The American consumer still 

enjoys by far the lowest relative food cost in the world. 

Comment ID 1263.001.003 

Author Name: Rooks L. 

Organization: 

My concern is that -- that in my line of business with selling calves, I can't very well carry -- send the cost on down to the 

consumer. They came -- come in and -- and bid on my calves, and -- and I take what my agricultural product brings. 

Our -- our country's in a -- in a state of economic loss. Many of our -- through the years, our agricultural lands have 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4874
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

been through detrition, for one reason to another. I'm afraid that some more of our agricultural land is going to be lost to 

these additional input costs that's going to be incurred and -- and moved right on down to the citizens of Florida. 

As agricultural land is lost, it's also a loss in trying to -- to clean up some of our water. When agricultural land is sold, it's 

going to go to the highest and best use, it won't return to agriculture. Many of these thousands of acres are recharge 

areas for our -- for our state. 

Comment ID 1269.001.003 

Author Name: Lohman D. 

Organization: 

What I'm trying to say here very clearly is the value of my property and thousands, I don't know, maybe it's 100,000 

people live along this river and its tributaries, and a few polluters have destroyed the value of those properties 

everywhere. It couldn't possibly cost them that much to stop destroying somebody else's land and value and lifestyle. 

I use again the real estate business. I must say it would be impossible to sell a house in the summertime on the 

tributary or on the river. And it would be hard to sell it in the wintertime because everybody around here knows about it. 

You'd have to find a Yankee who doesn't know anything about it and catch him in the wintertime to sell a house. I think 

he already knows. 

Comment ID 1275.001.005 

Author Name: Freeman R. 

Organization: 

I know there's been a lot of talking about Florida being singled out. My understanding is that these are coming to the 

Mississippi River basin, they're coming all over the United States. Somebody has got to be first. I think the people in 

Florida have enough integrity and enough character to be able at the end of the day to stand up and say, you know, 

we're proud to say we were the first people to live by these standards and look what it's done to our water. We're 

predicting -- some people are predicting the economy is going to collapse. Well, some industries may decline, some 

industries may not be as profitable, some industries may die; that's just natural. That's what happens. You don't see 

Stanley Steamers on the street anymore. Things change. And this is going to bring about some change but I have to 

believe it's going to be in the best interest. 

Comment ID 1277.001.002 

Author Name: Moyer L. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4875
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

I think that EPA is selectively enforcing this standard in Florida which puts Florida at a distinct economic disadvantage. 

A lot of people have a lot of good ideas. I think that a lot of things can happen, but without an economic engine to fund 

that -- those things to happen, it's not going to work. If all of our businesses -- we can't rely solely on tourism, and if all 

of our businesses pull out because they can't afford to do business here, then the people that are supporting these 

measures to fix these things won't have the money to do it. And that's -- that's the way it is. 

Comment ID 1279.001.003 

Author Name: Sawyer W. 

Organization: HydroMentia, Inc. 

Our economy is already suffering because of this. And while excess nitrogen and phosphorus are harming our rivers 

and streams, it doesn't make sense for us to ask farmers not to use fertilizers, because less fertilizer means lower crop 

yields and higher food prices. So we need to find a way to continue using these things and then overcome the bad parts 

of their use. The expense is probably going to be huge, but so is the loss that we're going to see if we don't do anything. 

So we need to open our eyes to new technologies that have been ignored in the past, and we have to look at new ways 

of combining those technologies. We also have to find innovative ways of funding it and investigate ways of making the 

problem pay for itself. 

Comment ID 1279.001.006 

Author Name: Sawyer W. 

Organization: HydroMentia, Inc. 

So in order to make -- people make this all happen, we have to work together. We have to embrace new technologies 

and we should have to find new funding mechanisms. One way of doing that is to look at privatization, making it 

attractive for investors to carry part of the burden. If we want to pay a performance model, we could pay for nitrogen 

and phosphorus removal and then also sell off the byproducts and make it a win-win for the investors as well as for the 

environment. It would require a change in the way things are done today. We would have to have longer guarantees but 

as long as those guarantees are based on performance, it makes sense. 

In North Carolina, you also have a fund where real estate developers pay in for this kind of work, and that's working 

well. And we shall also look at a fertilizer fee earmarked for water pollution. If we do those things, over time we'll be able 

to return our rivers and streams to near background levels, we'll have a thriving economy, and we'll even an 

environment that we're proud of to our children and our grandchildren. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1282.001.006 

Author Name: Jones H. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4876
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Duval County Farm Bureau 

These standards as they are proposed are going to cause economic harm to Florida. Every Floridian is going to have to 

pay higher prices for their utilities, they're going to pay higher fees. And one thing that we as a nation and as a culture 

have not really realized is how cheap our food is. And because of our concerns for water -- and we're all concerned for 

water. We want to do our part, but we're going to have to give up some things, and part of it may be the cheap food. If 

these standards go in, Florida is going to be at a economic disadvantage. We're going to have agricultural commerce 

industry that are going to moving out of state. Food production may actually move out of the U.S. to foreign countries. 

And people say, well, that's not necessarily bad. It's not bad until you have a natural national disaster or national crisis 

that occurs or international transport in shipping becomes an issue. The reality is, Florida cannot exist without food, and 

if we start depending on others to produce our food outside the U.S., it's going to be a major problem for us. 

Comment ID 1287-1.001.001 

Author Name: Purvee L. 

Organization: Wastewater Treatment Plant # 2, City of Mount Dora Public Works and Utilities 

In response to the Proposed Nutrient Criteria (NNC) Rule for the State of Florida, following are comments and 

suggestions. 

During this" economic downturn", ratepayers will be burdened with the high cost of meeting the rule. Like most 

businesses and companies, the cost will be passed onto the consumer to defray the cost to the water supplier. This will 

be deemed as unacceptable in today's limping economy. 

Comment ID 1287-1.001.003 

Author Name: Purvee L. 

Organization: Wastewater Treatment Plant # 2, City of Mount Dora Public Works and Utilities 

If this proposal is enforced, there are bound to be systems that simply cannot absorb the cost, and may be abandoned. 

This will lead to either a private company, or others to take on the role of servicing these customers. The options are to 

have the government take over the system (which is a less than desirable option), or have the customers install septic 

systems, which will not be monitored and provide very little treatment before discharge. 

Comment ID 1287-1.001.005 

Author Name: Purvee L. 

Organization: Wastewater Treatment Plant # 2, City of Mount Dora Public Works and Utilities 

It would be very beneficial to Florida if the EPA would do their own studies, experimentation, testing, design of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4877
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

technologies to meet this rule, then come up with a way to make it affordable to all systems without putting undue strain 

on those systems. During these economic struggles that everyone is experiencing now, everyone is "under the gun" 

already. 

Comment ID 1290.001.003 

Author Name: Paradise B. 

Organization: 

I realize that the proposed improved standards will impose a cost on certain industries and on citizenry in general, but 

these costs must be paid in one way or another. If we do not reverse the present course of degradation, then we will 

impose greater costs in the future on our entire citizenry in terms of deteriorating human health and in deteriorating 

economy through the adverse impacts on tourism and fishing industries. 

Comment ID 1291-1.001.008 

Author Name: Brown A. 

Organization: The City of Pompano Beach Utilities Administration 

The City of Pompano Beach has not estimated the cost of compliance with this proposed rule. Potential costs include 

retrofit of stormwater systems and upgrades of reuse facilities to advanced treatment. Current plans for groundwater 

recharge with reuse to protect the coastal areas against saltwater intrusion may not be realized. This may result in loss 

of the coastal production wells in time. The potential costs associated with this "quick" draft rule are extremely high, at a 

time when the Florida economy is suffering and rate payers can not afford high rate increases. For those systems that 

are truly impacted with high nutrient levels, for which sound data reveals detrimental impact to receiving Natural waters, 

the businesses that apply or discharge high levels of nutrients, and those who permit them, should be held accountable 

for cleaning up the waters before they are returned to the natural systems. The downstream contributors who are not 

discharging large amounts of nutrients and do not have any control over the starting nutrient levels sent to them by the 

Water Management Districts and drainage entities should not pay the bulk of the clean up price. 

Comment ID 1299-1.001.002 

Author Name: Newlin J. 

Organization: Orange-Co, Inc. 

The citrus industry has been battered by weather and disease challenges within the past few years. Caretaking 

expenses for our groves increased by more than 100% since 2005 due to increased disease management and energy 

costs. The only reason we are able to stay in business is that prices have risen. But that price rise has been barely 

enough to cover our cost increases. We therefore have a strong incentive to minimize the amount of expense for 

fertilizer, which is nearly a quarter of our caretaking expenses. We do not want fertilizers we buy to wash away with the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4878
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

rainwater, and therefore take the necessary steps to ensure it is utilized by our trees. However the numerical nutrient 

standards appear to require discharge of storm-water with less nutrient loading than contained in rainwater, requiring us 

to starve our trees and negatively impact production. If our productivity drops as a result of inability to effectively use 

proper fertilization and/or further increased costs required to "treat" water by taking land out of production, our business 

will not be able to continue operating. 

It is unlikely prices will rise to offset such proposed new costs because we face a significant competitor, Brazil. Brazil 

produces 340 million boxes of oranges per year, compared to Florida's 130 million boxes. Brazil is the dominant world 

producer of orange juice and has the capability to ship orange juice to all parts of the US. If our costs increase any 

further, Florida producers will likely be unable to remain competitive, as Brazilian growers, we're told, do not face 

expenses such as those that we will incur if these proposed standards are not corrected. 

Comment ID 1300-1.001.002 

Author Name: Newlin J. 

Organization: CI Groves LLC 

The citrus industry has been battered by weather and disease challenges within the past few years. Caretaking 

expenses for our groves increased by more than 100% since 2005 due to increased disease management and energy 

costs. The only reason we are able to stay in business is that prices have risen. But that price rise has been barely 

enough to cover our cost increases. We therefore have a strong incentive to minimize the amount of expense for 

fertilizer, which is nearly a quarter of our caretaking expenses. We do not want fertilizers we buy to wash away with the 

rainwater, and therefore take the necessary steps to ensure it is utilized by our trees. However the numerical nutrient 

standards appear to require discharge of storm-water with less nutrient loading than contained in rainwater, requiring us 

to starve our trees and negatively impact production. If our productivity drops as a result of inability to effectively use 

proper fertilization and/or further increased costs required to "treat" water by taking land out of production, our business 

will not be able to continue operating. 

It is unlikely prices will rise to offset such proposed new costs because we face a significant competitor, Brazil. Brazil 

produces 340 million boxes of oranges per year, compared to Florida's 130 million boxes. Brazil is the dominant world 

producer of orange juice and has the capability to ship orange juice to all parts of the US. If our costs increase any 

further, Florida producers will likely be unable to remain competitive, as Brazilian growers, we're told, do not face 

expenses such as those that we will incur if these proposed standards are not corrected. 

Comment ID 1301-1.001.021 

Author Name: Hodge R. 

Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated 

In summary, I am sure SMI is offering very similar comments being made by many other individuals and organizations 

and our comments are not as technical comments as others will offer. However, the comments I share with you offer 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4879
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

the practical impact of this rule. Today, there are thousands of Floridians working in the fields, dairy barns, farms, and 

groves of this state. They do this to ensure consumers have a safe, abundant and affordable food in our refrigerators 

and pantries. At the same time they do everything within their power to be good environmental stewards but the small 

margins they face make it a challenge but it is one they are willing to take. If EPA does not change its course of action 

and moves forward with this ill advised rule, it will result in numerous farmers to go out of business and the result will be 

higher food prices, less availability of food and increased imports of food from other countries that do not have the same 

high standards of production, affecting the cost and safety of milk and food products for all Americans. 

Comment ID 1303-1.001.002 

Author Name: Bessey J. 

Organization: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners 

The proposed numeric nutrient criteria would financially overburden our municipality in effort to construct facilities to 

maintain every "Waters of the State" within our jurisdiction. 

Comment ID 1305.001.008 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

In summary, E2A (phonetic) is not opposed to numeric nutrient criteria. We currently have them on all our treatment 

plants. We have nutrient limits. We are opposed to limits that are so low that it wastes our ratepayers' money and 

provides little or possibly not even a measurable environmental gain. However, once the rule becomes effective, we 

have to comply. We do not have a printing press as the federal government. The cost must be passed on to our 

ratepayers. These ratepayers are the same ones that fund FDEP, the water management districts, and the EPA. Please 

treat them right by not implementing this rule as written. 

Thank you. Apologize for going over. 

Comment ID 1308.001.004 

Author Name: Williams B. 

Organization: 

And let me backtrack to those shrimp for a minute. In my view the shrimp are one small piece of the economic pie I'm 

talking about. You have no idea how important a clean, healthy, properly functioning St. Johns River is to both the 

commercial and the large recreational shrimp industries here in northeast Florida in the late spring, actually in the next 

few weeks. The Atlanta white shrimp, which is northeast Florida's and Florida's overall most important commercial 

species, and the species of shrimp that thousands of recreational fisherman here in northeast Florida call "river shrimp" 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4880
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

will start dropping eggs along our coast. Once hatched, the juvenile shrimp will work their way up the St. Johns, making 

it as far as Crescent Lake and Lake George. And in case you're unfamiliar with our river, that's 80 miles or more up the 

river. They'll spend the summer feeding and growing, which, of course, points out the fact that at least that portion of our 

St. Johns is essentially an estuary. In the fall they will start making their way back to the ocean. Now, the point being 

that the St. Johns and, for that matter, all of the small rivers along our coast are nurseries, nurseries that nurture not just 

the shrimp but also the economic activity that surrounds them. And mind you, the shrimp again are only one piece of 

that economic pie I'm talking about. 

Now being small business owners, we're very sympathetic to the arguments posed by the opponents of this proposal. 

We're quite familiar with useless, burdensome, nanny state government regulations. We know how they can sap energy 

and reduce productivity. We would never support more lightly any of them. But in this case it is our judgment that they 

are necessary, and they are necessary to protect and keep a viable and important traditional part of Florida's economic 

life alive. It is quite clear to us that to allow other segments of Florida economy to reduce their cost of production by 

letting them continue to degrade our waterways is not a sound, long-term economic plan. It's way past time to get on 

with these things, folks. And you used the word earlier "expedite." That's what you need to do. They've drug their feet 

long enough. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1310.001.004 

Author Name: Smith J. 

Organization: 

I'm concerned about the cost of that I will accrue to comply with the new ruling. It is hard to imagine Florida without its 

most steady and reliable economic engine, agriculture. I just can't phantom the certain depiction of our local grocery 

stores being stocked with produce from Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Canada and other countries that do not have the stringent 

restrictive regulations prohibiting viable food resource for its own citizens. It is truly beyond my comprehension that 

anyone would suggest jeopardizing the largest supplier of fresh fruits and vegetables to the eastern United States, but 

the implementation of this regulation here suggested will threaten our state with such reality. 

Comment ID 1310.001.005 

Author Name: Smith J. 

Organization: 

Will the United States become more dependent on foreign food? If we think dependence on foreign energy is bad, I 

cannot imagine the cry for our most necessary sustenance. 

What do we tell our progeny about the certainty of a safe, affordable and abundant food supply for the future and what 

do we tell our children that have hungered for an opportunity to farm? 

I am certain with the numeric nutrient proposals of the Environmental Protection Agency, targeted solely upon the state 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4881
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

of Florida, will most certainly seal such a fate for the future, at least if not for all agriculture. Please help us to change 

the direction of this regulation. And I ask you to consider the tremendous efforts already diligently and tactfully arranged 

and acted upon our state government and growers. 

Thank you for hearing my heartfelt concerns, and I pray your decisions will be positively far reaching. 

Comment ID 1317.001.002 

Author Name: Moore C. 

Organization: 

One of the main reasons that we sold our farm is because the Department of Environmental Regulation forced us into 

so many costly things that we had to do, we finally threw up our hands and we sold to a developer. Now, where there 

was cows grazing in our pasture, everybody used to enjoy watching them as they came by and stop by the farm with 

their kids, now there is asphalt, there's concrete buildings, and retention ponds. So I suppose that's progress for our 

environmental future. 

Comment ID 1317.001.006 

Author Name: Moore C. 

Organization: 

One of the problems that I can see is that agriculture cannot pass on the added cost of more stringent regulations as 

can the utility companies, and that does put a strain on agriculture. We're in competition here in Florida with other states 

and their agriculture and even outside of our country. And the food that comes from outside of our country, we don't 

know how it's grown and how it's taken care of. 

Comment ID 1317.001.013 

Author Name: Moore C. 

Organization: 

I enjoy clean water. I want us to have a clean environment, and I'm all for that. But just stop and think that what you do 

as you make the rules affects the lives and the livelihood of many farmers. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1319.001.002 

Author Name: Bouyounes M. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4882
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Bouyounes Turpentine and Kettle Company 

We have weathered 50 years of state and federal regulation both as timber farmers and as lumber mill operators. We 

appreciate the regulation. Each time it has been expensive, but each time it has made us more efficient. So far we have 

been able to change and we've not gone out of business. 

Comment ID 1319.001.008 

Author Name: Bouyounes M.
 

Organization: Bouyounes Turpentine and Kettle Company
 

Furthermore, we encourage EPA to design a federal -- excuse me, a feedback loop to modify criteria to allow maximum 

river health with minimum economic impact. 

Comment ID 1322.001.006 

Author Name: Williams G.
 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association
 

Even if the customers can afford those needed rates to comply with this, it's going to be a zero sum game in public 

health and protecting our families. A 300 percent rate increase will cause family budget reallocations which will result in 

less money for food, clothing, shelter, medicines, et cetera. 

Comment ID 1322.001.007 

Author Name: Williams G.
 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association
 

Our members and folks that operate these water and wastewater systems live in these communities, their families live 

in these communities, their friends live in these communities, so they have a very vested interest in doing everything 

they can to provide the best drinking water and the best wastewater treatment for their community. But also understand 

that this must happen in an affordable way. It is our business to clean up pollution and to protect public health. 

Comment ID 1324.001.004 

Author Name: Karney P. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4883
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

My firm designs and constructs the types of improvements that are proposed under your -- under your regulations, and 

it would be an economic boom for us. However, I cannot in good conscience support what you publish because it would 

be unethical. This is not scientifically based. It would increase energy use, which EPA continually professes should be 

reduced. It would increase the generation of greenhouse gases and increase carbon footprints, two more points that 

EPA continually professes to want to see decreased. It would cost the residents of the state of Florida. Folks talk about 

companies not being willing to pay, cities not willing to pay. This comes down to the residents having to pay increased 

costs, and it would be money that is wasted. 

Comment ID 1324.001.005 

Author Name: Karney P. 

Organization: 

And I would submit the EPA numbers are someplace between ten and 30 times below for what those investments 

would be. And that if the State of Florida were smart, it would take EPA up on its deal as low bidder and have EPA do 

the design, construction and operation of these facilities. For the money you've put in there, I don't see where you get 

much more than design of facilities, let alone construction or the day-to-day operations. So both as a riverfrontproperty 

owner and a consultant who could possibly benefit from what you're proposing, I object to these limitations as having no 

scientific basis and being a criminal waste of the resources of the individuals in the state of Florida. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1327.001.002 

Author Name: Register D. 

Organization: Baker County Chamber of Commerce 

As the owner of the last operating dairy farm in Baker County, and one of only six farms left in our five county Northeast 

Florida region, where there was once more than 90 dairy farms, I stand before you tonight to tell you that Florida's 

farmers and business owners cannot afford additional costs associated with unnecessary regulations. While it's always 

very challenging to produce milk in the state of Florida, the past 18 months have been the toughest I have ever faced in 

the 23 years that I've operated a dairy farm. The farm price received for our milk that we produce has been at historic 

lows, while the cost of grain to feed our cattle have been at historic highs. This makes for a situation where equity is lost 

quickly and additional debt is incurred just to keep operating. 

Comment ID 1327.001.005 

Author Name: Register D. 

Organization: Baker County Chamber of Commerce 

Everyone is aware of the economic challenges facing us today. This rule might just be the proverbial final nail in the 

coffin that many small businesses who are struggling to meet payroll and to keep their doors open. When businesses 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4884
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

are forced to close, our economic recovery will just be delayed even longer. Additionally, when farmers are forced out of 

business, our nation will start to become dependent on others for our food supply. We only have to look at our 

dependency on others for our oil supply to see very quickly this can't be a positive step. In closing, I stated at the 

beginning that I'm a third generation dairy farmer. Well, I can tell you without a doubt that if this course of action is not 

changed by EPA, if sound science and common sense are not used to set the path moving forward, there will be no 

fourth generation dairy farmers in my family, and I believe many other family-owned businesses in our great state will 

be facing the same fate. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1328.001.002 

Author Name: Register L. 

Organization: 

I also was a dairy farmer for 40 years, and no longer. And as Darryl just said, there's no way that farmers can take on 

more expense, especially at this time. I hope I'm the only guy here that's old enough to remember when certain grocery 

items were rationed. You didn't just go to the store and buy whatever you wanted right after World War II. You took 

whatever you could get, and you could only buy so much of most items in there. You ever thought about trying to live 

with limited food? Most of the people in this country now has never thought of such a thing. As far as Florida goes, 

agriculture provides 13.7 percent of the employment in this state and 8.4 percent of the gross state product. 

Comment ID 1330.001.004 

Author Name: Goller L. 

Organization: 

And if you really look at economic factors, what EPA is now proposing with these standards is actually more cost 

effective to the entire population of the state of Florida than it is if it wasn't put into effect. The reason why is because it 

costs more to clean up the damage after it's done to our public bodies of water than it does to stop it to begin with. Yes, 

it may raise the cost of certain agricultural products, but it's cheaper to pay for that than it is to pay for it to clean it up 

and to pay for the environmental harm, the health harms that it causes, the lack of fish and aquatic life that is caused by 

having -- what happens when these pollutants get into our water bodies. So it really does make economic sense, if 

somebody really studies the facts and really looks at it to see that this regulation is for the good of everyone. So I thank 

you and I commend you, because, unfortunately, the state of Florida has been very lax in developing a standard, and 

it's about time. 

Comment ID 1332.001.003 

Author Name: Story V. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4885
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

I want these folks here to know also that there's not many of us left. It's pretty tough being a farmer today. You've really 

got to pay attention to what you're doing, you have to have some luck, and you've got to have some folks that want to 

succeed you down the road. And so there's got to be some economic incentive for them to do it, so you don't go off and 

you want to do something else. 

Comment ID 1334.001.003 

Author Name: Milicevic M. 

Organization: 

I will tell you that I am opposed to numeric nutrient criteria proposed by EPA as presented, and I want to talk to you 

today about the economics, efficiency, and sustainability. The EPA's numeric nutrient criteria is flawed in the fact that no 

economic evaluation has been completed to determine the effects this program will have on the residents, stakeholders, 

and the state government. Once again, I feel like the federal government has stepped in and mandated a program on 

this state that has not had an economic evaluation completed to determine the impact this program will have on the 

citizens of this state. I propose, before any action is taken, a complete and thorough study of the economic impact 

should be completed. This should be coupled with the costs and benefits derived from this mandate. 

Comment ID 1334.001.005 

Author Name: Milicevic M. 

Organization: 

My third area is sustainability. This lawsuit-driven numeric nutrient criteria coming from EPA is technically and 

scientifically unsupported. It's economically unsustainable and not related to the health of Florida farming or the Florida 

waters. These are all reasons not to comply with this criteria, and if you start out with no one thinking that they can hit 

the target, then the program has failed before it starts. The consequences will be the cost of businesses exiting a state 

and landowners selling out to developers because they can't prosper any longer. Florida businesses, agriculture 

operations will be put at a competitive disadvantage relative to other states. Florida business and ag operations must be 

economically sustainable to remain environmentally sustainable. 

Comment ID 1334.001.007 

Author Name: Milicevic M. 

Organization: 

In conclusion, I would like to say that the cost and benefit of economic studies should be made before this is put into 

place. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4886
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1335.001.010 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

Organization: Florida Land Council 

We know that we will have to bear the cost of all this -- this work. We Floridians also know that these costs will place us 

at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the country where such nonscience based federal standards will not exist. 

Florida's companies, its governments and its residents will be paying the tab no matter what. I believe we're probably 

headed to court. We lack the cash and the technology to meet these criteria. We -­

Comment ID 1336.001.007 

Author Name: Crenshaw A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

It is my hope that this board will review the numeric nutrient criteria to verify its sound scientific basis. In attempting to 

understand the totality of this proposed rule, I believe it is important for the EPA to submit its proposed numeric nutrient 

criteria rule for the review to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO will be able to assess its economic impact on 

the State of Florida, local governments, small businesses, and the public. It is important that we get this right. Our 

state's most valuable resource is riding on the coordinated efforts of federal, local, state partnerships to protect our 

waters from contamination and restore our local ecosystems. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1339.001.002 

Author Name: Speed Sr. D. 

Organization: Douglas Speed & Associates 

The lawn service people say, "I cannot stay in business with your regulations." Well, Duval County passed a regulation 

limiting the amount of nitrogen fertilizer to 4 pounds per thousand square feet per year. Since then, numerous counties 

have passed similar but more strict regulation saying no fertilizer between the June and September period. And a hue 

and cry went up, "We can't stay in business like that." Well, here's a newspaper article on Mr. George Richardson, 

Peninsular Pest Control, who is now using less than 2 pounds of nitrogen per year and getting beautiful yards, and he's 

also cut his operating costs by 25 percent. So here's a regulation that has saved money and has saved the 

environment. 

Comment ID 1342.001.002 

Author Name: Johns D. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4887
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

My concern with the proposed nutrient criteria is the added cost to my operation. 

Comment ID 1342.001.004 

Author Name: Johns D. 

Organization: 

And the most important thing I feel -- and we've had the DEP out and the Department of Agriculture who I felt have 

been our enemy. The most important thing is that when you-all consider these regulations, that you realize the impact 

it's going to have the family farms and individual growers that are out there. So I feel it's imperative, and I would invite 

you come out to the farm any time and see what -- what we are doing and the progress we're making on everything. My 

land is my most valuable asset I have. That's how I'm able to borrow the money to put the crop in. A little passion is 

going to come through in my voice. They say that's a good thing, I guess. 

With an eye to the future on that, one person has approached me -- I live on the bottom end of a watershed and the 

water management district owns a thousand acres behind me -- is possibly take my 500 acres and use that as a 

mitigating source for the county so they can pay me to have retention areas out there. 

I'm a producer. I love to produce. It's in my blood. The last thing I want to see is something like that go on where I'm -- I 

can make more money by taking my land out of production. 

Comment ID 1342.001.005 

Author Name: Johns D. 

Organization: 

The -- it's been mentioned a couple of times on the importance of agriculture for the security of the nation. And that 

sounds pretty grandiose and all that, but that's what made America great is self-sufficiency. 

And my -- I cannot tell you how much it's going to cost my operation. I'm very concerned, though, that we're not able to 

pass our costs on. We're in direct competition with other areas of growing. And it's easy to say, "Well, it's not our fault, 

it's their fault." And that's one thing I don't want to do is get to the point of casting fingers and pointing fingers, or it's not 

our fault, it's the organization or whatever that's going on. 

But we've already lost -- when I started in 1991, we had about 200 acres of farm -- 200 -- I'm sorry, 200 farmers out 

there. We're down to about 35 now. So our land is going out of production. Agriculture I'll say is not the problem, but 

we've been working hard to be a part of the solution all the way through. 

Comment ID 1343.001.003 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4888
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Welch L. 

Organization: 

Underneath all of the technical data that we've all received and the other arguments that we've heard, remarks we've 

heard, fundamentally the reason we're here today is money. If there were no objections from industry to higher 

standards for our water body's' quality, then we wouldn't be here. Those standards would be set at the highest level. 

Money is behind the complex debate over the chemistry of our water's content. Under the surface of everything said at 

these hearings, we're debating whose lives matter most, the lives of the millions of people who health is affected by the 

quality of our waters or the financially comfortable lives of those who make money from using those waters as a sewer. 

It's obscene, that a water body's quality standards be set according to who and how much money by being able to 

pollute those waters. 

Comment ID 1346-1.001.006 

Author Name: Still D. 

Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 

While we fully support the timely development of water quality standards to protect and preserve our natural resources, 

we know that the implementation of standards will have a profound impact on the limited economic resources of our 

population. For that reason, water quality standards must be both ecologically and economically meaningful. The 

application of broad standards on our diverse systems, while conducive to efficient regulatory administration, will permit 

further degradation on some of our systems and waste scarce resource protection dollars on others that are not 

impaired. 

Comment ID 1348-1.001.003 

Author Name: Vick J. 

Organization: Gulf Power Company 

The changes to Florida's water quality standards, as set forth in the proposed NNC rule, present special problems for 

Gulf, which is constantly engaged in planning new electric generating projects, planning upgrades to pollution control 

equipment, obtaining financing, seeking permit renewals, and setting utility rates. 

Gulf Power Company employees and customers live in Northwest Florida, use Florida surface waters for recreation, 

and consume water from drinking water facilities that utilize Northwest Florida surface waters. Gulf employees and their 

customers have an interest in Gulf providing reliable electric power at reasonable prices, while also advocating for water 

quality policies, laws and regulations that are based on good science. Gulf believes that any new water policies should 

assure demonstrable environmental benefit without unnecessary or disproportionate economic impacts. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4889
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1351.001.002 

Author Name: Kaluzniak D. 

Organization: City of Atlantic Beach 

Atlantic Beach is a small coastal community with a population of approximately 14,000 in the Jacksonville area. And 

Atlantic Beach has been working diligently with the Department of Environmental Protection to meet a nutrient total 

maximum daily load, or TMDL, specifically for the lower St. Johns River. The lower St. Johns River is a unique 

combination of flowing river and saltwater tidal basin. 

Florida has been one of the nation's leaders in environmental protection and has already established several dozen 

TMDLs throughout state. Each TMDL is water body specific and approved by EPA as being protective of Florida's 

water. 

The lower St. Johns River TMDL was developed after years of scientific study and highly sophisticated modeling on this 

water body, and the resulting TMDL was fully approved by EPA. A lengthy stakeholder process that included 

environmental interests, local governments, utilities, industry, agriculture, development, the military, and regulatory 

agencies, resulted in our current implementation of a Basin Management Action Plan, or BMAP. This plan included 

stakeholder projects of over $1.2 billion, many of which are currently underway or completed already. 

As part of the BMAP, Atlatic Beach is designing improvements to our wastewater system to reduce our nutrient load. 

Costs for these improvements total over $10 million, a huge financial burden for a small city like Atlantic Beach. That 

financial burden has resulted in approximately 40 percent utility rate increases over the last several years. Our citizens 

have willingly accepted the additional costs to protect the river because of the water body specific scientific and 

stakeholder driven process that DEP and the water management district use to determine the river's needs. 

In contrast, instead of finding the least -- the best and most cost effective way to protect each water body, EPA's 

proposed nutrient criteria ignores the completed and ongoing scientific study and the existing TMDLs on Florida's 

waterways. 

If the FDEP's new criteria is implemented, it's likely that the city will have to postpone moving forward on our projects in 

order to determine how to best meet the new standards. This would delay the city's progress for improving the river's 

condition. 

The city has also incurred considerable costs on design to meet the EPA approved TMDL, as have many other utilities 

in the area. It would seem appropriate that the federal government have liability to Atlantic Beach and other utilities for 

the costs that have been incurred to meet the EPA approved TMDL if EPA hanges the rule without including the 

existing TMDL as a site specific standard in the new regulation. 

In addition, Atlantic Beach's estimated cost for meeting EPA's criteria would be about $21 million, an amount greater 

than the city's bonding capacity. The resulting utility rate increases to our citizens would be a huge financial burden at a 

time that they are already struggling in the poor economy. Even in good economic times, it's bad to waste the public's 

money. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4890
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

In summary, EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria represents not only bad environmental policy, but will further 

harm Florida's and Atlantic Beach's economy. By changing the rules in midstream, current basin management action 

plan projects may be delayed or abandoned. By ignoring variability of Florida's surface waters, limited resources will be 

wasted attempting to repair water bodies that are not impaired. And by failing to include existing EPA approved TMDLs 

of site specific standards, moneys will be spent to meet more stringent standards than needed to protect designated 

waterways. 

Based on the above, it appears that EPA should seek judicial relief from its consent decree and allow Florida's 

Department of Environmental Protection to continue with their water body specific methods of protecting Florida's water 

from nutrients. 

Should EPA's numeric nutrient criteria rulemaking proceed, EPA should adopt the existing EPA approved TMDLs and 

site specific alternative criteria directly into the rule. Thank you very much for your time. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.021 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

Take the example of Lake Hollingsworth below: 

Case Study: Lake Hollingsworth 

Lake Hollingsworth in Lakeland, (Polk County) Florida is a good example of the extent of financial commitment required 

to improve surface water quality. More work has been done on this particular water body than any other site within Polk 

County. Between 1995 and 2005, more than $16 million was spent by the City of Lakeland and the Southwest Florida 

Water Management District to improve water quality. This included major work to dredge organic sediments from the 

lake bottom, construction of wetlands to treat stonnwater runoff, conducting a whole lake alum treatment to sequester 

available phosphorus, and the installation of additional end of pipe Best Management Practices (BMP's) to collect 

sediment and debris. Water quality has steadily improved as evidenced by the decline in the Trophic State Index from 

85 to 70 over the past 10 years. These results are considered to be successful and public use of this lake for recreation 

has been steadily increasing. 

Although this improvement in water quality is impressive, the lake remains hypereutrophic and recent trends in water 

quality are relatively flat; indicating that little additional improvement can be expected in the immediate future. In 

December 2009, chlorophyll, TP, and TN concentrations were 56.1 ug/L, 0.066 mg/L, and 1.7 mg/L respectively. Since 

the lake would be classified as clear/acidic under the proposed rule, current in-lake concentrations of chlorophyll, TP, 

and TN would be 9, 6, and 3 times above the proposed thresholds, respectively. Consequently, even with the extreme 

commitment of time and financial resources, this lake would still be far from meeting the proposed EPA nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1354-1.001.006 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4891
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Tompkins H. 

Organization: St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 

The proposed nutrient criteria will cause economic hardship to Florida, potentially putting agriculture, commerce, and 

industry at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the country. Meeting the proposed standards will require 

significant capital and operations and maintenance costs for Florida residents and local governments. For instance, the 

estimated construction cost for the RST facility mentioned above is $8.4 million, excluding land-acquisition costs. 

Removing incremental nutrients delivered to waterbodies may not be technologically feasible and cost prohibitive. 

Given the potential financial burden to the County and its citizens and indeed to the state as a whole, it is troubling that 

the proposed standards do not scientifically demonstrate that their implementation will result in the protection of 

designated uses and improve water quality for each waterbody. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.059 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

Eighth, EPA must recognize that federal criteria will be directly incorporated into permits, and therefore EPA's cost 

estimate must fully account for the costs of implementing its proposed standards, to dischargers, to agriculture, to city 

storm sewer systems, and to the State as a whole. 

Comment ID 1363-1.001.009 

Author Name: Butler N. 

Organization: Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. 

EPA also has failed to consider the significant implementation issues that will arise from the application of its proposed 

nutrient criteria. Specifically, the use of TN and TP as criteria for the identification of nutrient impairment will result in the 

need for extensive and costly treatment to remove nutrient components that are not bioavailable, and result in the 

generation of large quantities of sludge that is difficult and expensive to manage. 

Comment ID 1364-1.001.006 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

A. The Numeric Nutrient Criteria will have Significant Economic Impacts 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4892
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

EPA's proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria could disproportionately affect local governments, such as Lee County, that 

operate both MS4s and wastewater treatment facilities. The Numeric Nutrient Criteria may cause significant economic 

impacts to such local governments if they are forced to meet more stringent water quality standards at the time their 

NPDES permits renew. The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria may require additional levels of wastewater treatment 

and additional pollution control measures to treat stormwater, both of which could be very costly. 

Lee County has expended significant time and money on infrastructure and upgrades to its wastewater treatment 

facilities to reduce nutrients and improve water quality. Lee County urges EPA to consider the cost of compliance 

beyond what is technically and scientifically supported versus the benefits received from the protected waterbody. 

Comment ID 1364-1.001.013 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

G. Effect of Numeric Nutrient Criteria on Land Planning Activities 

In addition to robust and innovative water quality regulations, Florida has a complex and comprehensive growth 

management act found in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which could be greatly affected by the Rule. 

Specifically, Section 163.3177(3)(b)1., Florida Statutes, has significant implications as applied to the EPA Rule. That 

Section governs the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Financially Feasible 5-year 

Schedule of Capital Improvements, and provides: 

The capital improvements element must be reviewed on an annual basis and modified as necessary in accordance with 

s. 163.3187 or s. 163.3189 in order to maintain a financially feasible 5-year schedule of capital improvements. 

An amendment to the comprehensive plan is required to update the schedule on an annual basis or to eliminate, defer, 

or delay the construction for any facility listed in the 5-year schedule. All public facilities must be consistent with the 

capital improvements element. [Emphasis added] 

Any capital improvements required to meet the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria must be identified in the Capital 

Improvements Element. These capital improvements undergo a financial feasibility analysis before they may be 

approved. After December 1, 2011, all capital improvements must be financially feasible and listed in the County's 

Financially Feasible 5-year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Lee County is concerned that the capital improvements 

required to meet the increased water quality proposed by the EPA may not be financially feasible. The result of such a 

conflict could be that local governments such as Lee County would be unable to adopt any future land use map 

amendments until the capital improvements become financially feasible. 

Comment ID 1367-1.001.003 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4893
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Massaro M. 

Organization: Orange County Public Works Department 

OCPW strongly believes that the FDEP's methodology will ultimately define the impairments more accurately, efficiently 

and effectively. OCPW does not find it economically favorable or feasible to deviate from the current FDEP process to 

address nutrient loading. OCPW must be able to have tangible means and methods to aid in the continuing efforts of 

maintaining the natural features while constructing and maintaining infrastructure. Without knowing how the rule will be 

implemented, the County cannot determine the extent of economic impact that will be incurred. It is reasonable to 

assume that if the impairments in the County double, then so will the maintenance efforts. Currently, OCPW spends 

over 16 million dollars annually to develop, upgrade, and maintain existing systems. This will undoubtedly increase 

exponentially for a method that is not scientifically sound. 

Comment ID 1369.001.003 

Author Name: Ansell V. 

Organization: Duval County Farm Bureau 

What's one thing that each woman and man carry with them most of the time? It's a purse or a wallet. What's in those 

purses or wallets? Money. What's one thing everyone buys with their money? Food. This is what I want to talk about. I 

want us to look for a moment at what the economic impact will be for Florida agricultural producers and how that will 

affect each and every Floridian. 

To me, an agricultural producer is one who puts food on my table. I am raising four teenage boys. Think for just a 

second how much food is put on that table in my house alone. Let's look at one item that's consumed at my house. Milk. 

Gallons of milk. Approximately six gallons of milk is consumed at my house every week. Right now, the price of a gallon 

of milk is about $3.50. 

The principal concern is the economic impact the EPA's nutrient criteria will have on Florida's second largest industry, 

agriculture. If agricultural producers in Florida are to have a sustainable economy that produces a safe, affordable and 

abundant food supply, then they cannot be burdened with water quality regulations that will force farmers and ranchers 

out of business. With the economy the way it is right now, many farms and farmers are just trying to survive. 

There are approximately 140 dairy farms in Florida. These farms are family owned and operated. This is not because of 

the money that is made or the quality of lifestyle. These families enjoy the everyday hard work. Dairy cows have to be 

milked twice a day every day. The dairy cows do not take a vacation. 

Farmers are excellent stewards of the land. Without keeping their land in good condition, they would be out of business. 

Farmers work to preserve the land. The land is how they make their living. 

Let's look at these gallons of milk again. It is my concern, if the numeric nutrient criteria as the way it is set up right now 

is forced upon the agricultural producers of our state, these gallons of milk will be unattainable in my household and 

possibly in every household in Florida. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4894
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

I'm sure you knew that chocolate milk didn't come from brown cows. How much milk is consumed in your house? Will 

you be able to afford the milk that your family needs? 

I'm not saying don't implement numeric nutrient criteria. I'm saying I believe that revising the criteria to reduce the 

impact on agricultural producers and the agriculture industry is what needs to be considered. Thank you for your time. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4895
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.008 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

We are concerned that the proposed rules will result in a squandering of the limited resources that are available to 

address water quality issues. No adequate cost-benefit analysis has been presented by EPA to demonstrate that the 

benefits provided to our environment and our society outweighs the costs to implement the proposed numeric nutrient 

rule. NNC have been proposed in part because EPA believes the site-specific development of TMDLs is "difficult, 

resource intensive, and time consuming" (quoted from EPA's website on Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen and 

Phosphorus Removal). In reality, the time and resources spent to implement EPA's proposal will far exceed the extra 

regulatory costs for implementing site-specific criteria via the existing Florida TMDL approach. Additionally, the 

proposed EPA rule is not clear on how existing TMDLs will be addressed. (See Attachment C for a summary of TMDLs 

in Orange County Utilities' service area.) 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.013 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

ATTACHMENT A 

CONCERNS WITH EPA'S PROPOSED NNC 

1. The proposed regulations unfairly penalize Florida by significantly increasing the cost to comply with water quality 

standards in Florida relative to other States. This places the citizens of Florida at a significant disadvantage when 

competing with other states for businesses, jobs, and skilled workers. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.021 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

9. Numeric nutrient criteria place the burden of proving that a stream is not impaired on the regulated community. No 

proof has yet been offered by EPA that implementation of numeric nutrient limits are an efficient and effective use of 

resources for solving our current water quality problems. It appears that numeric nutrient limits squander limited 

resources by forcing large amounts of money to be spent to remove relatively small amounts of nutrients from the 

reclaimed water produced by municipal water reclamation plants, when the same money spent on nutrient loads from 

non-point sources would be likely to produce greater reductions. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4896
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.024 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

11. EPA favors numeric nutrient criteria because they ease the burden of regulating water quality with a limited budget 

and an increasing workload by reducing the time needed to develop TMDLs and write NPDES permits. This transfer of 

regulatory cost to the State and regulated community must be weighed against the cost of implementing programs to 

meet the criteria for those waterbodies that have been declared impaired solely based on a statistical analysis. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.029 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

16. EPA has not considered the cost of meeting the regulations relative to the benefit being provided. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.030 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

17. The cost to ratepayers was not considered. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.033 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

20. It is unclear how this rule will be enforced, and uncertainly will only delay implementation and increase costs for 

projects intended to restore truly impaired surface waters. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.048 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

14. An economic analysis should be built into the rule making process. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4897
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.049 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

15. A cost/benefit analysis should be conducted and reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.053 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

19. EPA should fund additional research to find more economic alternatives for wastewater treatment to meet the 

reduced nutrient limits. 

Comment ID 1370.001.001 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

We are concerned that the proposed rules will result in a squandering of the limited resources that are available to 

address water quality issues. No adequate cost-benefit analysis has been presented by EPA to demonstrate that the 

benefits provided to our environment and our society outweighs the costs to implement the proposed numeric nutrient 

rule. NNC have been proposed in part because EPA believes the site-specific development of TMDLs is "difficult, 

resource intensive, and time consuming" (quoted from EPA's website on Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen and 

Phosphorus Removal). In reality, the time and resources spent to implement EPA's proposal will far exceed the extra 

regulatory costs for implementing site-specific criteria via the existing Florida TMDL approach. Additionally, the 

proposed EPA rule is not clear on how existing TMDLs will be addressed. 

Comment ID 1418-1.001.010 

Author Name: Dickerson J. 

Organization: JEA 

As an example, although several million dollars may have been spent by the regulatory agencies setting the TMDL and 

BMAP requirements for the LSJR (in an exceptionally rigorous exercise in a particularly complex waterbody), over $500 

million in projects are now in the design and implementation phases to meet the nutrient reduction targets that were set. 

In contrast, the less precise and overly conservative NNC, if now adopted for the marine portion of the basin, would 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4898
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

require approximately $1.3 billion in expenditures for JEA alone, which is just one of the many, many sources on the 

LSJR. 

Comment ID 1431-1.001.027 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

As a local government, we have a duty to spend public funding wisely, and to assure our leadership and the public that 

we are striving towards appropriate goals that protect all aspects of our aquatic resources in a fiscally responsible 

manner. 

Comment ID 1431-1.001.044 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

The County is concerned that the proposal for lakes and streams does not meet the level of technical assurance that 

will result in the effective use of our financial resources. If the EPA cannot demonstrate a link between nitrogen and 

phosphorous concentrations and a response in the biological community, local governments will be required to spend 

significant public funds without assurance that achieving these water quality limits will result in the common goal of 

healthy biological communities in its fresh water lakes and tributaries. 

Comment ID 1431-1.001.046 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

We are asking EPA to continue working with the state and local agencies to ensure that numeric nutrient criteria 

proposed for Florida will improve water quality, reflect our aquatic diversity, and result in effective and efficient 

expenditure of public funds. 

Comment ID 1434-1.001.031 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors 

Economic impacts - Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District, Highlands County, Florida EPA-HQ-OW-2009­

0596 Water quality standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 16, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4899
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

published January 26, 2010) 

E1 

Agricultural producers in Highlands County, particularly those whose operations are under the Northern Everglades and 

Estuaries Protection Plan, have already adopted and are implementing best management practices (BMPs) to reduce 

nutrient impacts to downstream waters. If these numeric nutrient criteria are adopted, the BMPs approved and 

cooperatively funded by both the US Department of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, with substantial contributions from the producer, could be determined to be inadequate to meet 

downstream protective criteria. Under this scenario, much more stringent BMPs would be developed and would have to 

be implement by the farmers. Ultimately the cost ofimplementing these BMPs will lie with farmers who have already 

invested at a minimum hundreds ofthousands ofdollars in these systems to protect surface waters. Highlands County 

requests that the additional economic impact to local farmers who have already invested substantially in protection 

ofsurface waters, be considered when these numeric nutrient criteria rules are being finalized. 

Comment ID 1443-1.001.008 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

- EPA did not adequately address the economic costs associated with development of these criteria or those costs 

associated with their implementation. While we understand that the EPA does not have to consider costs associated 

with treatment when developing water quality standards under the CWA, we do believe that they should consider the 

costs associated with implementation of poorly developed criteria that may have no direct response in the environment 

and therefore, no beneficial use. 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.001 

Author Name: Earle R. 

Organization: Analysis Group 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing 

waters throughout Florida as well as waters upstream of estuaries. In the analysis of the costs of the proposed numeric 

criteria, EPA appears to adopt an approach to limits on non-point source nutrient pollution in Florida that fails to reflect 

sound economic principles and appears to violate statutory cost-effectiveness criteria. Specifically, EPA appears to 

propose to achieve water quality standards by imposing limits on nutrient pollution in Florida through a command-andcontrol system that would require specific technologies or methodologies to be used in a variety of contexts. We have a 

number of serious concerns about EPA's approach to achieving the goals as set forth in the proposal.[1] 

[1] These comments represent the views of the authors and not those of Analysis Group or its clients and are submitted 

in the interest of advancing the public discussion of the issues. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4900
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.008 

Author Name: Earle R. 

Organization: Analysis Group 

Finding Cost-Effective Solutions 

In light of the preceding considerations on the important need to consider how most cost-effectively to reduce nutrient 

pollution in Florida, we offer several suggestions. First, the command-and-control approach of dictating specific 

technologies and methodologies fails to provide incentives for compliance that could result in more cost-effective 

compliance. While incentive approaches such as cap and trade are common for reducing point source pollutants such 

as SOx and NOx from power plants, they are less common for non-point source pollution. Nevertheless, not only is the 

economic theory of such methods for non-point source pollution well-established,[8] but such programs have been 

demonstrated in practice to be effective. Indeed, EPA appears to be well aware of the potential for the improved costeffectiveness of the regulation of non-point source pollution through incentive methods in its discussion of the 

Grasslands Bypass Project.[9] Under this program, the release of selenium from non-point sources has been 

successfully reduced through an incentive program that includes the ability for water districts with higher discharge 

reduction costs to pay water districts with lower discharge reduction costs to reduce effluent release. As a result, target 

reductions in selenium discharge have been achieved at a lower cost. 

[8] See, for example, Kathleen Segerson, "Uncertainty and Incentives for Nonpoint Pollution Control", Journal of 

Environmental Economics and Managerment, Vol. 15, 1988, p. 87-98. 

[9] http://www.epa.gov/nps/Section319III/CA.htm 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.009 

Author Name: Earle R. 

Organization: Analysis Group 

Second, if EPA continues on its present course of using an outdated and costly command-and-control approach, it 

should at the very least consider how to minimize economic damage within this approach. As discussed above, overall 

economic damages, not just direct costs, need to be considered. For instance, as a hypothetical example, if EPA had 

the authority to order shutdown of the agricultural industry in Florida, it could do so with little or no direct costs. The 

economic damage from indirect costs, however, would be, of course, huge. It would be absurd to do a cost-benefit 

analysis that ignored indirect costs. Moreover, EPA should consider the tradeoffs of different measures within a 

particular industry - settlement ponds versus filtration, for example - as well as consider the relative benefits of 

mitigation within one industry versus another. In order to do this, however, the costs of mitigation on a dollars-per-unitof-pollution-mitigated basis must be considered. Without such figures, a rational policy discussion that includes efforts 

to lessen the cost of regulation is nearly impossible. Within an industry, knowing the marginal cost of reductions would 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4901
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

allow for better choice of the technology or methodology imposed. Across industries, if it turns out that one industry 

could more cost-effectively reduce harmful discharges or runoff than another, a variety of approaches could be 

implemented in order to capture the efficiencies of having the industry with the more cost-effective mitigation reduce 

more while keeping the burden of compliance equitable. 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.011 

Author Name: Earle R. 

Organization: Analysis Group 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we urge EPA to consider both direct and indirect costs of implementing numeric criteria, evaluate the 

total costs and not just the incremental costs, examine tradeoffs amongst mitigation measures in order to achieve a 

more cost-effective solution, and adopt incentive-based solutions instead of command-and-control approaches. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.012 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

V. The Proposed Criteria will have Significant and Unnecessary Financial Impacts 

Compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria will require the construction and implementation of water 

treatment facilities and practices. Most of the water control and improvement districts do not have the physical space to 

construct new water treatment structures or retro-fit existing structures. As Attachment A demonstrates (a map of Palm 

Beach County, Florida), these districts serve urban and agricultural areas with little to no opportunity to expand their 

operations to include water treatment areas. 

Regardless of the physical limitations, any attempt to retro-fit existing facilities in order to attempt compliance with 

EPA's proposed regulations would be fiscally prohibitive. The cost of retro-fitting the thousands of miles of canal 

systems for water treatment would conservatively be in the billions of tax payer dollars. This does not include the 

additional billions of dollars that would be expended in eminent domain proceedings that would be necessary to acquire 

lands to construct the water control facilities assuming such lands exist. Ultimately, it would be the citizens of Florida 

that would bear the burden of financing these activities through increased assessments, taxes and fees. The very 

people that are being protected by these special districts would have to incur billions of dollars in assessments to 

finance infrastructure that will ultimately compromise flood protection, their safety and their welfare. The substantial 

economic impact far outweighs the benefits from the overly protective, stringent standards being proposed; especially 

when one considers that even after the implementation of the best available technology, the special districts may not be 

able to comply with EPA's scientifically questionable and overprotective standards. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4902
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Essentially, special districts would have to assess individual property owners to fund the eminent domain proceeding 

that would take the very land being assessed in order to build a water treatment facility on what use to be homes, 

businesses, and farms. Redesigning the existing canal systems would not be a feasible option as it would be 

excessively costly and any redesigned based on attenuating nutrient loads would necessarily compromise the primary 

goal of flood protection. Even after wasting billions of dollars to implement the best available water treatment 

technology, it highly unlikely that the special districts will be able to bring their manmade canals into compliance with 

EPA's standards that are based on natural flowing systems and/or unrepresentative canals. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.013 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

The Lake Worth Drainage District ("LWDD") is a representative example of water control districts and the impacts EPA's 

proposed regulations will have on their operations. LWDD is an independent taxing district of the State of Florida 

created on June 15,1915. See Attachment B. The LWDD currently operates pursuant to special legislative act and 

Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. LWDD encompasses approximately 218 square miles in southeastern Palm Beach 

County, Florida. It includes within its boundaries 11 municipalities, 120,000 acres of urban development and 20,000 

acres of agricultural land. 

LWDD was created for the legislatively expressed purpose of reclaiming the lands within its boundaries for agriculture 

and other types of development and for the purpose of water control and water supply [1] through the construction and 

maintenance of canals, ditches, water control structures and pumping stations. Its water management system provides 

comprehensive flood control and water supply protection to over 700,000 residents, 20,000 acres of prime agricultural 

land (located on LWDD's western boundary) and 120,000 acres of urban development. It does this by maintaining 

approximately 511 miles of canals, 20 major water control structures and numerous other minor structures. See 

Attachment A depicting LWDD's boundaries in yellow. 

Like all water control and improvement districts, LWDD's primary function is water control and not water treatment. As 

an urban water control district, LWDD's day-to-day operations prevent the flooding of approximately 700,000 residents 

and several agricultural operations. EPA's proposed numeric criteria would require LWDD to reduce nutrient loads; a 

requirement that would severely compromise LWDD's primary function by directing necessary resources to water 

treatment as opposed to water control. Further, as Attachment A depicts, LWDD is completely built out and thus lacks 

the necessary land to construct any water treatment facilities, such as a stormwater treatment area, at or near 

discharge points. Consequently, it would be impossible for LWDD to reduce nutrient levels. Even if LWDD had the 

necessary land to perform water treatment, LWDD lacks the financial resources to build, maintain, and operate the 

infrastructure. LWDD has limited assessment authority, and the needed resources to reduce nutrients to the levels 

being proposed would be an economic impossibility. 

[1] LWDD does not directly provide potable water to end users. Instead municipalities are permitted to treat the water 

within the LWDD system and then provide the treated water to its citizens. LWDD does not treat water and does not 

have the capacity to perform a water treatment function . 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4903
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.016 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

The cost estimate listed above does not include the economic costs that will occur due to resources being diverted from 

LWDD's primary mission of flood control/water supply to water treatment. The prohibition on downstream discharges 

that could contribute to violations of water quality standards is particularly troublesome. Mother Nature does not respect 

water quality standards when storm events, such as a hurricane, approach Florida. When these storm events occur, 

LWDD must open the canal gates and allow water to discharge to the Intracoastal Waterway. Failure to discharge water 

would result in flooding 11 municipalities and cause significant loss to property and life. LWDD is concerned that the 

proposed regulations do not account for public safety and welfare and the economic costs that are avoided by flood 

control protection. LWDD and other water control districts throughout the State must be able to function per their 

legislative mandate to protect property from flooding. The proposed rules will not only compromise LWDD's day to day 

operations but will likely shut down LWDD to the detriment of the 700,000 residents LWDD serves. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.017 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

Finally, the economic impacts to maintaining existing operations must also be considered. The imposition of numeric 

criteria for canals within the South Florida Coastal Plain Ecoregion will result in having a majority of the South Florida 

canals non-compliant with regulatory standards and will have significant adverse implications on the ability to operate 

and maintain water control facilities. As a condition of issuance of any Environmental Resource Permit or Army Corps of 

Engineers permit, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with state water quality standards. Considering that a 

majority of the South Florida canals, including LWDD's canals, will not comply with the numeric criteria, a majority of the 

special districts will not be able to obtain the necessary state and federal authorizations to construct improvements 

necessary to continue their operations. See Attachment E, water quality data for representative LWDD canals. 

Essentially, the proposed numeric criteria run the risk of shutting down these vital flood control agencies and putting 

their service areas in jeopardy. 

Comment ID 1464-1.001.003 

Author Name: Ettinger A. 

Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 

I. General Comments EPA and the other parties to this rulemaking must not lose sight of the basic principles applicable 

to establishing water quality criteria to protect existing and designated uses of our waters such as swimming, fishing 

and support of a healthy and diverse aquatic community. First, "States must adopt those water quality criteria that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4904
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

protect the designated use." 40 CFR 131.11(a). Economic considerations are not to play a role in setting water quality 

standards. Mississippi Commission on Natural Resources v Costle, 625 F.2d 1269, 1277 (5th Cir. 1980). As is 

recognized in section V and VI of the EPA proposal, there are a variety of ways under the law to take economic factors 

into account in permitting and designing the program for meeting attainable standards. Indeed, federal law expressly 

allows compliance with criteria to be phased in as possible, 40 CFR 122.47, and even allows criteria not to be applied to 

a particular water body at all if applying the criteria would cause the kind of "widespread economic and social impact" 

that some of the opponents of the criteria are hysterically claiming they would cause. See 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6). 

Because saving money by enacting water quality criteria that do not in fact protect existing and designated uses is not 

an available option under the law, much of the debate held in the hearings and elsewhere regarding the alleged costs of 

the proposed criteria is simply irrelevant to this matter. If, contrary to rational expectation, the wild cost estimates that 

have been thrown about by some of the persons who feel that they will be economically affected by the standards can 

be substantiated, the time to consider such estimates will be during proceedings conducted regarding particular permits 

and proceedings pursuant to 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6). The Clean Water Act ("CWA") requires that fishable and swimmable 

uses be achieved wherever attainable, 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2); not just wherever it is easy. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.003 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Second, the NPRM will impose significant costs on the agriculture industry, and those costs will have widespread 

impact on the Florida economy as well as on the supply of food. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.027 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

D. Estimated Benefits 

EPA estimates the benefits of its proposal to be only between $2.3 and $2.6 million a year, based on an estimate of 

"willingness to pay." Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 13. 

This meager level of benefits further undercuts EPA's rationale for taking federal action. On January 14, 2009, EPA 

determined that numeric nutrient criteria "are necessary to facilitate and expedite the identification of all nutrient 

impaired waters in Florida; thereby providing necessary protection for the State's designated uses, as required by the 

CWA." However, EPA's analysis of the costs and benefits of its proposed regulations imply that they would not do very 

much. That conclusion, of course, begs the question of why EPA is taking federal action at all. If EPA's regulations will 

have so little impact, the Agency cannot support its determination that federal nutrient criteria for Florida are necessary. 

Any benefits to the environment also should be offset by the environmental harm that will be caused by compliance with 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4905
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

EPA's proposed criteria. The Florida Fertilizer Industry study, discussed above, notes that the energy and air emissions 

impacts from implementing nutrient control measures will result in increased energy use and air emissions, 2.12 billion 

tons a year in CO2 emissions. 

E. Broader Economic Impacts of EPA's Proposed Rule. 

1. The economic burden of compliance will have a ripple effect throughout Florida's economy. 

The dramatic impact of the proposed rule on Florida agriculture will have a significant impact on Florida's economy as a 

whole, resulting in lost revenues in other sectors, lost jobs, and increased food costs. 

As of April 16, 2010 unemployment in Florida is at 12.3 percent (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/laus.pdf). This 

proposed rule will increase the percentage of people unemployed, at a time of record unemployment. The University of 

Florida and FDACS estimate the direct loss of employment in the agricultural sectors at 7,780 full-time and part-time 

jobs. Due to secondary impacts on agricultural suppliers, they estimate the Florida economy will lose a total of 14,545 

jobs. These impacts on employees and agriculture suppliers are estimated to reduce the output of Florida's economy by 

$1.148 billion annually. University of Florida/FDACS Report, at 8. 

Another asset to Florida's economy that will be negatively affected is its fertilizer mines and manufacturing sites. 

Nationwide, phosphatic fertilizer manufacturing provides a total economic contribution of $21.2 billion and almost 

90,000 jobs, of which $6.6 billion and 7,410 jobs were direct. The sector purchased a significant amount of goods and 

services from the domestic mining, trucking, and rail sectors. This economic activity is predominantly located in states 

with phosphate mines and production plants. The states with the most economic activity in this sector included Florida 

(with half of the direct contribution), North Carolina, Idaho and Louisiana. See J. Plewes, A. Smith, Economic 

Contributions of the U.S. Fertilizer Manufacturing Industry, CRA International (Aug. 2009) (attached). Given the 

importance of the fertilizer industry to the economy, the increased costs of fertilizer production resulting from the costs 

of complying with EPA's proposed standards will also have an adverse impact on suppliers and employees in Florida, 

and on the Florida economy as a whole. 

2. 2. EPA proposed nutrient standards will result in increased food prices and reduced food supply, both nationally and 

globally. 

Phosphorus is one of the three macronutrients plants require to grow; no other nutrients can be substituted for 

phosphorus. Given the costs of compliance, the proposed rule may effectively shut down these mines, and in turn block 

access to 75 percent of phosphorus reserves in the U.S. This supply shock would drastically increase the price of 

phosphate fertilizer and in turn the cost of food as the costs of food production are tightly linked to the costs of the 

nutrients needed to grow the food. Fertilizer typically accounts for an average of 27 percent of total crop production 

operating costs for major crops like corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, sorghum, barley, and oats. These costs can 

range from a high of 41 percent for corn to approximately 13 percent for soybeans and cotton. Economic Research 

Service, USDA. U.S. and Regional Costs Returns Estimates. 

The impact on the food supply will be felt in the United States due to the impacts on Florida agriculture. While Florida 

agriculture represents 2.5 percent of total domestic agriculture, it represents 68.1 percent of the domestic production of 

oranges and 26.2 percent of the domestic production of tomatoes. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/FL.htm) This 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4906
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

illustrates the importance of Florida agriculture to specialty crop production. Because Florida produces more than twothirds of the country's oranges, the supply shock could not be absorbed by other states. The impact on food supply also 

will be felt globally. There are only five countries in the world that produce 90 percent of the global phosphate 

production including the U.S. See J. Elser, S. White, Peak Phosphorus, (Foreign Policy, April 20, 2010). Available at 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosphorus?print=yes&hidecomments= yes&page=full. There 

are only 12 domestic phosphate mines in the U.S., with Florida providing 75 percent of the phosphorus used by U.S. 

farmers and representing about 25 percent of world production. With only five countries in control of such an essential 

nutrient to food production, eliminating the majority of supply from one of those five countries could have profound 

detrimental implications on global food supply. 

The U.S. Department of State (USDS) asserts that ensuring global food security will only become more challenging in 

the future as demand for food is projected to increase by 50 percent over the next 20 years. Furthermore, they state 

that currently one billion people suffer from chronic hunger. Amongst the solutions to combat this global problem is 

improved productivity in agriculture. Specifically, USDS points to U.S. investments increasing access to agricultural 

inputs, such as "seed, feed, fertilizer and irrigation systems at the right time, right price and in the right amounts." In 

addition, USDS notes that "in many cases, technologies and practices can be a win-win for increasing farmer incomes 

and for protecting the environment." USDS Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, 

http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/129952.htm. 

We agree with USDS that we must achieve increased production in agriculture to combat global hunger and rising food 

prices. It was as recently as 2008 that commodity prices dramatically spiked above all existing projections; food and 

fertilizer riots ensued in several developing nations given the resulting price impact on basic foodstuffs. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.028 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

F. EPA must provide a full Regulatory Impact Analysis For This Proposal. 

As demonstrated above, EPA's proposed criteria will have profound economic impacts in Florida, across the United 

States, and even globally. To fully understand these impacts and to comply with Executive Order 12866, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA must provide a more detailed analysis of costs, 

benefits, and alternatives. This analysis must apply an appropriate baseline, must analyze all aspects of EPA's 

proposal, including the proposed downstream protection values, and must evaluate the effects of this proposal on all 

effected parts of the economy as well the cost and supply of food. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.036 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4907
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Eighth, EPA must recognize that federal criteria will be directly incorporated into permits, and therefore EPA's cost 

estimate must fully account for the costs of implementing its proposed standards, to dischargers, to agriculture, to city 

storm sewer systems, and to the State as a whole. Because nutrients are critical for food production, EPA's economic 

analysis also must also include the adverse economic impacts from reduced food production resulting from reductions 

in fertilizer use implemented as a management practice. 

Comment ID 1473-4.001.001 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for economics from CRA International. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.037 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

E. EPA must provide a full Regulatory Impact Analysis for this proposal. As demonstrated above, EPA's proposed 

criteria will have profound economic impacts in Florida, across the United States, and even globally. To fully understand 

these impacts and to comply with Executive Order 12866, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA must provide a more detailed analysis of costs, benefits, and alternatives. This analysis 

must apply an appropriate baseline, must analyze all aspects of EPA's proposal, including the proposed downstream 

protection values, and must evaluate the effects of this proposal on all effected parts of the economy as well the cost 

and supply of food. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.069 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 D. Broader Economic Impacts of EPA's Proposed Rule. 1. The economic burden of compliance will have a ripple 

effect throughout the Florida's economy. The dramatic impact of the proposed rule on Florida agriculture will have a 

significant impact on Florida's economy as a whole, resulting in lost revenues in other sectors, lost jobs, and increased 

food costs. As of April 16, 2010 unemployment in Florida is at 12.3 percent 

(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/laus.pdf). This proposed rule will increase the percentage of people unemployed, 

at a time of record unemployment. The University of Florida and FDACS estimate the direct loss of employment in the 

agricultural sectors at 7,780 full-time and part-time jobs. Due to secondary impacts on agricultural suppliers, they 

estimate the Florida economy will lose a total of 14,545 jobs. These impacts on employees and agriculture suppliers are 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4908
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

estimated to reduce the output of Florida's economy by $1.148 billion annually. University of Florida/FDACS Report, at 

8. Another asset to Florida' economy that will be negatively affected is the fertilizer industry. Nationwide, phosphatic 

fertilizer manufacturing provides a total economic contribution of $21.2 billion and almost 90,000 jobs, of which $6.6 

billion and 7,410 jobs were direct. The sector purchased a significant amount of goods and services from the domestic 

mining, trucking, and rail sectors. This economic activity is predominantly located in states with phosphate mines and 

production plants. The states with the most economic activity in this sector included Florida (with half of the direct 

contribution), North Carolina, Idaho and Louisiana. See J. Plewes, A. Smith, Economic Contributions of the U.S. 

Fertilizer Manufacturing Industry, CRA International (Aug. 2009) (Attachment 3). Given the importance of the fertilizer 

industry to the economy, the increased costs of fertilizer production resulting from the costs of complying with EPA's 

proposed standards will also have an adverse impact on suppliers and employees in Florida, and on the Florida 

economy as a whole. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.070 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

2. EPA proposed nutrient standards will result in increased food prices and reduced food supply, both nationally and 

globally. Phosphorus is one of the three macronutrients plants require to grow; no other nutrients can be substituted 

for phosphorus. Given the costs of compliance, the proposed rule may effectively shut down these mines, and in turn 

block access to 75 percent of phosphorus reserves in the U.S. This supply shock would drastically increase the price of 

phosphate fertilizer and in turn the cost of food as the costs of food production are tightly linked to the costs of the 

nutrients needed to grow the food. Fertilizer typically accounts for an average of 27 percent of total crop production 

operating costs for major crops like corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, sorghum, barley, and oats. These costs can 

range from a high of 41 percent for corn to approximately 13 percent for soybeans and cotton. Economic Research 

Service, USDA. US and Regional Costs Returns Estimates. The impact on the food supply will be felt in the United 

States due to the impacts on Florida agriculture. While Florida agriculture represents 2.5 percent of total domestic 

agriculture, it represents 68.1 percent of the domestic production of oranges and 26.2 percent of the domestic 

production of tomatoes. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/FL.htm) This illustrates the importance of Florida 

agriculture to specialty crop production. Because Florida produces more than two-thirds of the country's oranges, the 

supply shock could not be absorbed by other states. The impact on food supply also will be felt globally. There are 

only five countries in the world that produce 90 percent of the global phosphate production including the U.S. See J. 

Elser, S. White, Peak Phosphorus, (Foreign Policy, April 20, 2010). Available at 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosphorus?print=yes&hidecomments= yes&page=full . There 

are only 12 domestic phosphate mines in the U.S., with Florida providing 75 percent of the phosphorus used by U.S. 

farmers and representing about 25 percent of world production. With only five countries in control of such an essential 

nutrient to food production, eliminating the majority of supply from one of those five countries could have profound 

detrimental implications on global food supply. The U.S. Department of State (USDS) asserts that ensuring global food 

security will only become more challenging in the future as demand for food is projected to increase by 50 percent over 

the next 20 years. Furthermore, they state that currently one billion people suffer from chronic hunger. Amongst the 

solutions to combat this global problem is improved productivity in agriculture. Specifically, USDS points to U.S. 

investments increasing access to agricultural inputs, such as "seed, feed, fertilizer and irrigation systems at the right 

time, right price and in the right amounts." In addition, USDS notes that "in many cases, technologies and practices can 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4909
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

be a win-win for increasing farmer incomes and for protecting the environment." USDS Global Hunger and Food 

Security Initiative, http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/129952.htm . TFI agrees with USDS that we must achieve 

increased production in agriculture to combat global hunger and rising food prices. It was as recently as 2008 that 

commodity prices dramatically spiked above all existing projections; food and fertilizer riots ensued in several 

developing nations given the impact on basic foodstuffs. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.010 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

The finalization and implementation of EPA's January 2010 proposal will have severe economic consequences on 

agriculture, local governments, wastewater utilities, economically vital industries, small business, and Floridians living 

below the poverty levels or on fixed incomes. 

Comment ID 1479-1.001.008 

Author Name: Reynolds J. 

Organization: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 

Achieving Balanced NNC - Given our history with meeting the state's water quality standards, we understand the need 

to strike a "balance" between protecting our water resources and assuring the approach is feasible. But if Phase 11 

criteria are more stringent than the standards already required for Monroe County, the proposed rules will undoubtedly 

require increased capital expenditures for compliance. Monroe County, FKAA and other jurisdictions are already 

pursuing additional funding options for the required wastewater projects to comply with existing state law. FKAA 

continues to fund and implement its Capital Improvement Plan, but experience has shown that meeting increased water 

quality standards will significantly impact FKAA's ability to complete that Plan. Clearly, the impact of meeting increased 

water quality standards could require reformulation of those funding approaches causing delay. 

Comment ID 1480-1.001.002 

Author Name: Wong E. 

Organization: City of Northport 

In this challenging economy, the regulatory agencies must also consider the "best bang for the buck" as the cost of 

compliance must be balanced against the benefits. 

Comment ID 1481-1.001.032 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4910
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department 

III B(2)(a). Relative to comment # T4, if the proposed rules are promulgated without modification, local governments will 

have to choose between the rigorous process of developing site-specific alternative criteria for a parameter of concern 

(SSAC per p 4217 and FAC 62-32.800(1)(a)(1-4» on lakes that do not meet these proposed numeric nutrient standards, 

regardless of their protectiveness of the surface water body, or developing TMDLs for the lake. Following the guidelines 

cited above, development of SSAC for one lake would require, at a minimum, assessment of ecological and human 

health risk associated with the alternate criteria, sufficient water sample collection to characterize the spatial, seasonal 

and diurnal variability of the parameter of concern and any parameters that affect it, and a description of impacts to the 

biology of the lake over a minimum period of time (three years). A reasonable cost to perform initial SSAC 

determination for 59 lakes in FDEP's dataset (FDEP 2010) is roughly $1,959,000 over three years. To develop TMDLs 

for each of these 59 lakes would require at least roughly an order of magnitude more funding. In the absence of state or 

federal funding for the determination of these SSAC, those burdens would fall to the tax payers of Highlands County, an 

expenditure to meet overly broadly defined regulatory goals that ultimately are not protective of aquatic life. Funding for 

these activities would be the responsibility of the citizens of Highlands County. Highlands County respectfully requests 

that the cost to the citizens of Highlands County for implementation of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria be 

considered by the EPA during the promulgation of these proposed standards. 

Comment ID 1549.001.003 

Author Name: Gilkey D. 

Organization: Gilkey Organization 

2. EPA's criteria will cause severe economic harm to Florida, meaning that water and waste water facilities, storm water 

utilities and agricultural operations will not be able to meet the requirements, or meeting the criteria will be at such a 

high cost that Florida will be at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the country, where such federal standards do 

not exist. Jobs will be lost. Affordable housing will not be able to be built . Florida, one of the hardest hit areas during 

the worst economic recession we have seen in our lifetimes, will have a difficult time recovering. 

Comment ID 1550.001.004 

Author Name: Berchtold J. 

Organization: City of Lake Butler 

-National Economic downturn has severely impacted Florida's rural communities. Ratepayers cannot afford substantial 

increases in utility fees that would be caused by the implementation of the proposed numeric criteria. 

Comment ID 1560.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4911
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Pittman J. 

Organization: Jackson County Farm Bureau 

The state of our economy in Florida will only be exacerbated, if resources are wasted. We cannot afford to waste 

valuable resources, when current unemployment in Florida is over 11%. 

Comment ID 1561.001.002 

Author Name: Dauphin M. 

Organization: Bay County Farm Bureau 

The state of our economy in Florida will only be exacerbated, if resources are wasted. We cannot afford to waste 

valuable resources, when current unemployment in Florida is over 11%. 

Comment ID 1564-1.001.003 

Author Name: Williams G. 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association 

The impact of the proposed EPA nutrient limits will disproportionably and adversely affect our smaller wastewater 

system members. In Florida, over eighty percent (80%) of domestic wastewater treatment plants have capacities less 

than 100,000 gallons per day. Most of these plants represent small communities with populations of less than 10,000 

people. Thus, the ability to adsorb the proposed EPA nutrient criteria will impose unreasonable and exorbitant costs on 

wastewater customers in most of Florida's smaller communities. 

Because of the smaller customer base and lack of economies of scale, wastewater rates necessary to support sound 

management and administration of current wastewater systems already exceed those costs imposed by larger 

wastewater utilities. As a result of this problem, Florida Rural Water Association already struggles with the fact that to 

properly operate and maintain smaller wastewater facilities, utility rates are generally inadequate for the long-term. To 

comply with this new EPA rule, our analysis indicates that to achieve compliance with the new EPA nutrient limits, 

wastewater utility bills will have to increase between 200% to 300% for these smaller systems. These rates will be 

imposed on wastewater customers in communities where Florida Rural Water Association consistently struggles to 

encourage these utilities to increase rates by moderate ranges of 5 to 10%. Rate increases; such as those necessary to 

meet compliance with new EPA rules will result in monthly utility bills of over $100.00 per month. These types of 

increases will be in many cases, an impossible financial burden for small utility customers. 

Many of Florida Rural Water Association wastewater system members live in Florida rural areas where poverty is most 

prevalent. In counties such as Dixie, Gadsden, Hamilton, Hardee, Putnam, etc., over 30% of the children in these areas 

live in poverty. Poverty in these areas is compounded by the lack of employment opportunities and the current 

recession. These statistics for select communities are alarming and statistics for other small communities would 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4912
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

produce similar trends. Implementation of EPA's new standards would devastate these communities. Imposing the 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria will result in these families having less money available for food, clothing, shelter, 

medicine, etc. The EPA standards will impose economic impacts disproportionately in Florida's most poverty stricken 

areas and result in increases in the number of children living in poverty to unacceptable levels not seen since the Great 

Depression. 

The Florida Rural Water Association believes that the implementation of th is rule should be postponed or aborted to 

allow an analysis of the economic impacts of the rule on both small and disadvantaged communities. Specifically, the 

proposed rule should be placed on hold until EPA addresses the following concerns: 

1. Due to the significant economic impact on a substantial number of small wastewater systems, EPA should convene a 

small business advocacy review panel, prepare a regulatory flexabiltiy analysis, and prepare a "Small Entity 

Compliance Nutrient Removal Guide. These procedures are needed for a rule with such a significant impact on smaller 

communities that will be faced with financing, constructing, operating and maintaining wastewater facilities that are 

significantly more complicated and expensive to operate than currently in-place. Smaller communities cannot be 

expected to entertain these types of comprehensive changes without some form of intensive technical assistance. 

2. The suggested Small Entity Nutrient Removal Compliance Guide must consider and provide, before the compliance 

date implementation, at minimum, the following: 

a. EPA should develop and describe both Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Available Affordable Technology 

(BAAT) for various size and type of both water and wastewater systems. The EPA proposed rule affects domestic 

wastewater systems with NPDES permits as well as drinking water systems that dispose of concentrate from 

membrane treatment systems to facilities with NPDES permits. It is recommended that an independent body such as 

the National Academy of Science (NAS) conduct these studies. In Florida Rural Water Association's opinion, EPA has 

neglected to suggest any reasonable methods or provided real world examples of achieving these new standards and 

has offered only anecdotal references when asked to provide technical assistance. 

b. Before implementing this rule, EPA should design, construct, test, and demonstrate the wastewater treatment 

systems that are thought to have potential for attaining compliance with this rule. The treatment technologies 

theoretically available to small communities to meet these new standards have not been demonstrated as being 

effective in real operating system environments. Communities where these new limits will be imposed in Florida should 

have assurances that their investments in installed treatment technologies and improvements are going to be effective, 

consistently achieve the very low compliance EPA compliance limits, and reliably perform before they choose, invest, 

acquire properties, and construct compliance solutions. 

c. EPA should define the operating requirements for the needed facilities. These should Include staffing, energy, 

maintenance, and replacement costs. The facilities necessary to meet the new EPA requirements will generally require 

membrane technologies that have high maintenance, energy and staffing costs that are far above those technologies 

currently in-place at smaller communities. 

3. EPA should collaborate and use the expertise of the White House OMD office and conduct a thorough economic 

impact review of the proposed rule. This study should identify the actual costs on smaller communities prior to rule 

promulgation. Florida Rural Water Association believes that compliance with this rule will be much more difficult than 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4913
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

EPA has indicated and references EPA's own technical advisory documents that recognize that smaller wastewater 

systems have more difficulty in achieving nutrient removal rates than larger systems. 

Comment ID 1564-1.001.012 

Author Name: Williams G. 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association 

Nonetheless, the criteria, if implemented, will place severe and devastating economic burdens on Florida communities 

that can least afford it. 

Compliance with new regulations must show discernible benefits in environmental protection if communities are to incur 

the cost burden. There seems to be nothing gained by rushing into implementation of these regulations and they should 

not be promulgated, unless the considerations provided herein have been addressed to the satisfaction of the 

communities that will be most impacted. 

Comment ID 1638-1.001.002 

Author Name: Rayson J. 

Organization: Central Broward Water Control District 

Implementation and compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient standards will have a substantial impact that is 

fiscally prohibitive. The cost of retro-fitting our facilities for water treatment and the cost of acquiring the necessary lands 

for water treatment will be in the millions of dollars; a cost that will ultimately be borne by the citizens we serve. 

Considering our limited assessment authority and limited resources to reduce nutrients to the levels being proposed, 

compliance is an economic impossibility. 

Comment ID 1639-1.001.001 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

When I provided public comments on April 14th in Tampa, Florida, Mr. Ephraim King asked me to further expand how 

the proposed nutrient criteria would affect Florida strawberry farms. I responded that as Florida residents we were 

impacted by the overall expense to our state with disproportional emphasis on agriculture. Although Florida strawberries 

have worked diligently to eliminate runoff, unintended consequences make our industry collateral damage. Regardless 

of how calculated, compiance will be costly. Due to our intense price competition with mexican imports during our short 

winter marketing window, Florida farmers must absorb such expenses entirely Imported Mexican strawberries already 

have substantial labor cost advantage, compounded by significantly less regulatory costs. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4914
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1639-1.001.004 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

Hillsborough County has strict regulations against removal of soil when such ponds are constructed. Therefore farms 

must pile the dirt on site - which further eliminates productive acreage. Only level land is farmable with current cultural 

practices such as drip irrigation, so implementation of water recovery and filtration systems reduces farm income while 

imposing a serious capital expense during a time of heavy market encroachment. 

Comment ID 1642-1.001.009 

Author Name: Tilton A. 

Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. 

8. The cost to treat the wastewater to meet the proposed levels will make the use of this water for irrigation very 

expensive. Initially reuse of processed wastewater for irrigation will cease as it will be less expensive to inject the water 

into a deep aquifer and find another irrigation source of water. 

Will EPA support this disposal? 

If the processing is done to meet these levels of removal, then the water will be cleaner than much of the raw water now 

used for potable water. 

Will the EPA support piping the treated effluent straight to the water treatment plant as a source for drinking water? 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.010 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Since Florida is the only State that the EPA's proposed criteria would currently apply to, it would also be forced to 

absorb the costs involved with cleaning and maintaining impaired waters entering from both Georgia and Alabama. 

These costs would ultimately be passed on to the taxpayers. Florida currently has one of the highest unemployment 

rates in the country, and now those already struggling financially would have this additional weight added to their 

burden. The agricultural community is particularly apprehensive about how their individual operations could be affected. 

Like countless others, the economic downturn has greatly impacted Florida's growers. Coupled with the devastation 

incurred by the recent, unprecedented freeze and the subsequent millions of dollars lost to crop damage, many in the 

agricultural community have been left reeling. As previously stated, Rich Budell, director of OAWP, has estimated that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4915
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

agricultural land owners have already spent upwards of $60 million in capital costs alone to implement water quality 

BMPs. Given the estimated costs to upgrade current public infrastructure to meet the proposed criteria, it can be 

assumed that the costs to the agricultural community would be staggering. The FARMS and EQIP programs receive 

limited funding, and whereas before many agriculture operations could offset their expenses by receiving cost-share 

money, these programs will not be able to cope with or provide funding for the mass influx of applications that will be 

generated as a result of the EPA's criteria. It is highly doubtful that our farming communities would be able to weather 

the financial burden that would result from attempting to comply with this proposed ruling. This not only affects the 

agriculture operations, but the many communities that have built up around them, where agriculture is the hub of their 

local economies. There are a myriad of towns throughout this state that are directly dependent on agriculture. If those 

operations should cease to exist, those towns and communities would collapse. Additionally, those agricultural 

operations closer to larger cities could wind up selling their land, potentially for development, and those large open 

green spaces, which provide water recharge to the aquifer as well as habitat for many species of wildlife, would be 

paved over and lost forever. 

Florida agriculture will also be put at a significant disadvantage in the marketplace as a result of this rule. Since only 

Florida currently will have to adhere to the EPA's criteria, the costs of compliance by its growers and producers will 

have to be passed on to the consumers, making them less competitive when faced with cheaper prices from out-ofstate and out-of-country competitors. If the agricultural operations within the state are forced to absorb the additional 

costs associated with attempted compliance, they will eventually begin to falter, and then fail. Agriculture generates 

billions of dollars a year to Florida's economy. Now that the construction industry has imploded, the state is relying 

heavily on its tourism and agriculture sectors. If Florida agriculture begins to drop off, it could lead to devastating 

economic repercussions for the state. Additionally, if these criteria eventually become a nation-wide mandate, we could 

potentially see a huge drop in domestic food production and a shift to a heavier reliance on imported produce and meat. 

The United States could eventually be facing a catastrophic national food security crisis. 

Comment ID 1670-1.001.002 

Author Name: Legg L. 

Organization: Hernando County Utilities Department 

• A large percentage of our smaller systems serve population segments under 10,000 customers with subregional 

wastewater facilities and it would not financially feasible to spread the cost of compliance with the proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria over such a small base of customers. 

Comment ID 1670-1.001.004 

Author Name: Legg L. 

Organization: Hernando County Utilities Department 

• The EPA needs to provide a 100% grant funded finance program to pay all ofthe costs incurred to comply with the 

proposed criteria to prevent the significant financial burden on Florida's already financially struggling residents. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4916
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1670-1.001.005 

Author Name: Legg L. 

Organization: Hernando County Utilities Department 

• EPA should develop "Best Available Technology" and "Best Available Affordable Technology" studies for various type 

and sizes of water and wastewater systems that will enable compliance with the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1700-1.001.007 

Author Name: Mahan R. 

Organization: MB Management 67, Inc. 

The proposed standards could have a significant negative impact on the food and agribusiness industry in Florida. 

There is not a single farmer or rancher in Florida that would prefer to pay for more fertilizer than they need; or to 

purchase such expensive inputs only to let them run off with the rainwater. That is why agricultural operations are 

constantly spending the time, effort and money to make their businesses more efficient, including optimizing their use of 

fertilizer. Particularly with the recent price increases due to rising energy costs (fertilizer pricing is highly correlated to 

energy pricing), farmers do not need arbitrary regulations to incentivize them to use fertilizer efficiently; they already 

know they lose money if the fertilizer they're buying goes into the ditches instead of being absorbed by the plants. 

Most agribusiness sectors in Florida are facing rising costs, as well as weather and disease issues that have hurt yields. 

Vegetable producers have been sorely hit with damaging freezes followed by record low prices. Citrus producers are 

battling a new, costly disease that's threatening to close down many grove operations. On top of this, competition, for 

example from tomato producers in Mexico or orange producers in Brazil, is fierce. Foreign producers not beset with 

random regulation requiring time, money and effort for testing, paperwork and "treating" their rainwater, stand at the 

ready to replace Florida producers with their crops. With an un-level playing field, their lower costs drive prices down, 

not leaving room for Florida producers to raise prices to cover increased regulatory costs. Increased regulatory costs 

will cause many farmers to go out of business. 

If this occurred in order to correct site-specific, scientifically determined actual impairments to water resources, maybe 

the loss of some Florida farmers would be worth it. HOWEVER, this is completely untenable if this happens due to 

generalized, broad-brush numeric standards that are not site-specific, nor take into consideration the high variability in 

naturally occurring elements. 

Comment ID 1722-1.001.015 

Author Name: Cunniff L. 

Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4917
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

2. The resources needed to comply with proposed criteria are not economically feasible to any level of responsible 

entity. The costs to achieve these corrective requirements are expected to increase to levels that are excessive and 

detrimental to the economic capacity of its residents. In natural dynamic systems, the costs associated with achieving 

lower concentration standards increase exponentially with every increment. When the financial burden exceeds the 

ability to achieve compliance, the entire program is doomed to failure. 

Comment ID 1722-1.001.019 

Author Name: Cunniff L. 

Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 

6. With the current proposed nutrient criteria 10 currently TMDL impaired lakes would pass the USEPA criteria. This 

creates confusion for local governments trying to allocate limited resources. 

Comment ID 1723-1.001.002 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: East Charlotte Drainage District 

Implementation and compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient standards will have a substantial impact that is 

fiscally prohibitive. The cost of retro-fitting our facilities for water treatment and the cost of acquiring the necessary lands 

for water treatment will be in the millions of dollars; a cost that will ultimately be borne by the citizens we serve. 

Considering our limited assessment authority and limited resources to reduce nutrients to the levels being proposed, 

compliance is an economic impossibility. 

Comment ID 1724-1.001.005 

Author Name: Busha M. 

Organization: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 

4. Council requests that EPA establish financial assistance programs, coupled with a phased approach for 

implementing the standards, designed to provide local governments and other affected parties the means to comply 

with new water quality standards concurrent with the establishment of the new criteria. 

Comment ID 1729.001.005 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4918
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

4. National Economic downturn has severely impacted Florida's rural communities. Ratepayers cannot afford 

substantial increases in utility fees that would be caused by the implementation of the proposed numeric criteria. 

Comment ID 1729.001.012 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

11. Eighty percent of smaller utilities serve populations under 10,000 and are unable to spread the large cost of trying to 

comply with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria over such a small base of customers. 

12. EPA needs to provide a 100% grant funded finance program to pay all of the costs incurred to comply with the 

proposed criteria to prevent the significant financial burden on Florida's already financially struggling residents. 

13. If full funding is not provided, it will be too expensive for businesses to operate in the State of Florida. It will also be 

too expensive for tourists to visit the State. An unfunded mandate of the criteria proposed by EPA would sink Florida 

into economic depression. 

14. Due to the significant economic impact of the proposed criteria on the substantial number of small entities, EPA 

must convene a small business advocacy review panel, prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, and prepare a small 

entity compliance guide. EPA must also have the White House OMB office conduct a review of the proposed criteria 

prior to promulgation. 

Comment ID 1729.001.015 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

19. EPA should consider that the proposed rule will have unintended consequences like utility abandonment. This will 

force either the State or EPA to take over the operation of utilities, or force residents to go on septic tanks that provide 

little nutrient removal. 

Comment ID 1731-1.001.003 

Author Name: Gibson T. 

Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg 

FSA comments addressing the EPA's cost estimates are fully supported by the City as the City has concerns about the 

unknown costs of implementation and the cost/benefit ratio of achieving the criteria in certain water bodies. 

Comment ID 1763-1.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4919
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: County Line Drainage District, Arcadia 

Implementation and compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient standards will have a substantial impact that is 

fiscally prohibitive. The cost of retro-fitting our facilities for water treatment and the cost of acquiring the necessary lands 

for water treatment will be in the millions of dollars; a cost that will ultimately be borne by the citizens we serve. 

Considering our limited assessment authority and limited resources to reduce nutrients to the levels being proposed, 

compliance is an economic impossibility. 

Comment ID 1766-1.001.005 

Author Name: Crotty M. 

Organization: City of Satellite Beach 

Even if the Federal Government were prepared to fully fund improvements needed to meet the criteria proposed by 

EPA - which certainly is not the case - we would object to spending still more national wealth to meet standards that are 

arbitrary and may be unattainable when there are significant other issues where funds can produce proven results. 

Comment ID 1767-1.001.008 

Author Name: Vinson R. 

Organization: TGA Sod LP and Turfgrass America 

Most agribusiness sectors in Florida are facing rising costs, as well as weather and disease issues that have hurt yields. 

Veget able producers have been sore ly hit with damaging freezes followed by record low prices. Cit rus prod ucers are 

battling a new, costly disease that's threatening to close down many grove operations. And turfgrass produ cers have 

been decimated by the real estate market downturn, as our sales are highly dependent upon new housing starts. On 

top of this, competition, for example from tomato produc ers in Mexico or orange producers in Brazil, is fierce. Foreign 

producers not beset with random regulation requiring time, money and effort for testing, paperwork and " treating" their 

rainwater, stand at the ready to replace Florida producers with their crops. With an un-level playing field, their lower 

costs drive prices down, not leaving room for Florida producers to raise prices to cover increased regulatory costs. 

Increased regulatory costs will cause many farmers to go out of business. 

Comment ID 1768-1.001.012 

Author Name: Armingeon N. 

Organization: St. Johns River Keeper 

• Economic arguments being used by polluters and special interests to raise political opposition to EPA's nutrient 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4920
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

standards should not play a role in setting water quality standards. There are already numerous ways under the Clean 

Water Act and other regulations that incorporate economic factors into permitting and meeting attainable standards. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.058 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

That being said, the recession in Florida has been more serious than the rest of the nation with an estimated 12.2% of 

the State's population unemployed. That figure represents the fourth highest unemployment rate in the nation. On the 

Space Coast, the magnitude of the downturn has been especially large with a local unemployment rate of 12.7%. 

Layoffs from the Kennedy Space Center expected from the termination of the Space Shuttle program in late 2010 will 

further impact this rate. In short, prospects for an economic rebound in the near future are dim and the impact to local 

governments is substantial. The additional capital, operational and maintenance costs associated with meeting the 

proposed nutrient criteria is expected to be a considerable burden given the local economic conditions. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.030 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

- There are numerous lakes and stream segments in Florida that are fishable and swimmable but do not meet the 

proposed NNC. More importantly, these lakes and streams are not pristine but they are high value waters and habitats 

that are viewed as community assets, It would appear that these waters are at the point of significant diminishing 

returns on the cost-benefit curve where the cost of removing additional nutrients is exorbitant, cannot be justified 

technically, and likely will not be supported/approved by the community, [See Example No, 1] 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.032 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

- Any cost of compliance must be balanced against the benefits that will result from the high level of community 

investment. 

Comment ID 1774.001.009 

Author Name: Payne J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4921
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

Our business cannot afford to chase a numeric criteria standard that is not causing a stream to be unhealthy. One stays 

in business because of competitive advantages over other areas. Those advantages may be such things as climate, 

transportation or proximity to markets. The cattle industry in Florida has a hard time competing economically with other 

states. Citrus competes directly with Brazil. Agriculture is a very low margin business. These proposed rules will add an 

additional burden to the industry compared to other states or nations further diminishing any advantages Florida 

producers may still have and reducing an already thin margin. 

Comment ID 1774.001.011 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

Assuming the standard as proposed is incorporated into regulations, the question arises as to how land owners, 

producers, municipalities and others will achieve the criteria in an effective, economical, realistic way. What can be 

done? Can it be done economically? Will it achieve results? We have constructed a wetland retention area to improve 

water quality on a portion of our land. Was it effective? Yes. But, it was a very expensive process. The retention area 

occupies 12 percent of the total land area associated with the retention area. In addition to the land cost is the cost of 

permitting and construction. In today's economic environment it is difficult if not impossible for the profits from the cattle 

that can be grown on the total land area serviced by the retention facility to pay for the facility. 

Comment ID 1775.001.002 

Author Name: Roddenberry S. 

Organization: 

3. Citizens share a common goal and with an objective that is achievable over a reasonable time period . I believe 

under the severe economic conditions we face, this rule should be not be finalized until it is determined scientifically 

defensible numeric nutrient criteria can be developed within the timeframes of the EPA's Consent Degree. It appears 

our citizens are being put in an adverse, undeserved position and potential suffering economic losses. 

4. These issues should be sorted out with particular emphasis on recognized expert economic analysis that identifies 

the cost and who pays for this additional expense. I recommend EPA provide a 100% grant funded finance program to 

pay for the costs incurred to comply with the proposed criteria. This burden should not be on the back of Florida utilities 

nor its users. 

Comment ID 1776.001.001 

Author Name: LaLonde J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4922
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: 

PLEASE READ!!!!

 Please allow me to stress to you that our financial condition of the cities and towns are in dyer straits. Government 

spending is out of control. Where is the accountability?

 The proposed Nutrient Criteria Rule will break the citizens of the U.S.

 We must find ways to reduce government and its mandates. Those of us that have been working and paying taxes 

and Social Security for the past 30 years are sick and tired of fee's, taxes, handouts, and every other bail out, give away 

program and at the same time telling us the Social Security Program is broke. What in the HELL is wrong with the 

politicians, how are supposed to be managing the tavpayers money?

 Please do the right thing and don't add more taxes or new programs that cost the tax payers more money. We can't 

take anymore. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.003 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Utility ratepayers, including the poor and those on fixed incomes, will bear the economic costs of complying with the 

criteria. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.005 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

I. Background Information on the FWEA Utility Council, FSAWWA Utility Council, and FRWA 

As the state umbrella organizations for municipal wastewater treatment utilities, public water supply utilities, and rural 

wastewater and water utilities, these comments represent the collective voice of a broad spectrum of Florida utilities. 

The FWEA Utility Council is an association of 47 local government and private utilities in Florida that own and operate 

domestic wastewater treatment, disposal, reuse, and recycling facilities. FWEA Utility Council members provide 

essential wastewater treatment infrastructure and services for over 8 million Florida residents. The membership is 

highly diverse, both in terms of the communities served and the way utility members serve them, but Utility Council 

members share a commitment to environmental protection and scientifically sound environmental policies. 

The FSAWWA Utility Council consists of over 100 utilities providing drinking water to over 9 million residents. The 

FSAWWA Utility Council's diverse membership ranges from small water utilities serving a few hundred customers to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4923
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

utilities serving over a million customers. The FSAWWA Utility Council actively assists the FSAWWA to meet the 

challenges facing the water supply industry, including representation on federal regulatory initiatives that will impact the 

ability of utilities to meet the drinking water needs of Floridians. 

The FRWA is a consortium of 1,200 rural water districts; public and private authorities; local governments; and other 

water and wastewater systems engaged in the collection, treatment, and reuse or disposal of wastewater and/or the 

treatment and distribution of water. A substantial portion of the FRWA membership provides essential infrastructure and 

services to rural areas of Florida. Absent the wastewater collection and treatment services of FRWA members, these 

rural areas would be served by conventional septic tanks that provide little treatment and virtually no nutrient removal 

prior to discharging wastewater to the surficial aquifer. Many of FRWA wastewater system members live in the noncoastal central Florida rural areas where poverty is most prevalent, including counties such as Dixie, Gadsden, 

Hamilton, Hardee, and Putnam, where over a quarter of the population of children live in poverty. The ratepayers in 

these areas cannot afford substantial increases in utility fees, and the typically small utilities serving these areas lack 

the economies of scale to implement cutting edge treatment technologies. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.046 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

EPA should promulgate a meaningful cost analysis of its proposed rule that informs the public of the drastic economic 

implications of its proposal. Further, EPA should engage in an honest dialogue with Florida's wastewater treatment and 

water supply community regarding the drastic technical challenges of reducing nutrient levels to those contemplated by 

the proposed rule. The FWEA Utility Council, FSAWWA Utility Council, and FRWA all have a successful track record of 

helping their utility members understand and comply with new environmental regulations. In particular, FRWA has 

helped small communities remain in compliance with state and federal regulations, despite the limited resources of this 

segment of the utility sector. Unfortunately, EPA appears unwilling to communicate -- or even acknowledge -- the 

substantial regulatory and treatment implications of this rulemaking. 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.006 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

Adoption of the NNC without the above considerations will result in significant economic impact to the citizens of Florida 

and GRU's ratepayers with limited or no additional environmental benefit. 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.007 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4924
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

The criteria will cause a significant economic impact on all customers' rates, including the lowest income residents and 

undermine water quality improvement projects underway under the TMDL process. 

This is particular concern to the Gainesville community because our community and the State of Florida have invested 

six years and $3.3 million in the Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project (PPSRP). The PPSRP is a $22 million 

project designed to address the Alachua Sink TMDL. The project is a cooperative effort between GRU, City of 

Gainesville, St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Alachua County, and is broadly supported by the 

community. The PPSRP is an innovative project that will improve water quality, restore 1300 acres of wetlands, protect 

the Floridan aquifer, provide wildlife habitat, and public recreation. We believe that the adoption of NNC as proposed 

could undermine this project. 

Comment ID 1785-1.001.010 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

A. The Numeric Nutrient Criteria will have Significant Economic Impacts

 EPA's proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria could disproportionately affect local governments, such as Lee County, 

that operate both MS4s and wastewater treatment facilities. The Numeric Nutrient Criteria may cause significant 

economic impacts to such local governments if they are forced to meet more stringent water quality standards at the 

time their NPDES permits renew. The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria may require additional levels of wastewater 

treatment and additional pollution control measures to treat stormwater, both of which could be very costly.

 Lee County has expended significant time and money on infrastructure and upgrades to wastewater treatment 

facilities to reduce nutrients and improve water quality. Lee County urges EPA to consider the cost of compliance 

beyond what is technically and scientifically supported versus the benefits received from the protected waterbody. 

Comment ID 1785-1.001.017 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

G. Effect of Numeric Nutrient Criteria on Land Planning Activities

 In addition to robust and innovative water quality regulations, Florida has a complex and comprehensive growth 

management act found in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which could be greatly affected by the Rule. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4925
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Specifically, Section 163.3177(3)(b)1., Florida Statutes, has significant implications as applied to the EPA Rule. That 

Section governs the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Financially Feasible 5-year 

Schedule of Capital Improvements, and provides: 

The capital improvements element must be reviewed on an annual basis and modified as necessary in accordance with 

s. 163.3187 or s. 163.3189 in order to maintain a financially feasible 5-year schedule of capital improvements. An 

amendment to the comprehensive plan is required to update the schedule on an annual basis or to eliminate, defer, or 

delay the construction for any facility listed in the 5-year schedule. All public facilities must be consistent with the capital 

improvements element. 

[Emphasis added]

 Any capital improvements required to meet the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria must be identified in the Capital 

Improvements Element. These capital improvements undergo a financial feasibility analysis before they may be 

approved. After December 1, 2011, all capital improvements must be financially feasible and listed in the County's 

Financially Feasible 5-year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Lee County is concerned that the capital improvements 

required to meet the increased water quality proposed by the EPA may not be financially feasible. The result of such a 

conflict could be that local governments such as Lee County would be unable to adopt any future land use map 

amendments until the capital improvements become financially feasible. 

Comment ID 1792-1.001.003 

Author Name: Putnam A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

The cost to Floridians must be taken into account 

An analysis by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) and the University of Florida's 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) entitled "Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture" found that "total recurring expenditures and revenue reductions for 

agriculture are estimated to range from $902 million to $1.605 billion annually." 

In addition, the report warns, "[t]he total output impacts resulting from the $631million in lost agricultural revenues and 

the secondary ripple effects on suppliers and employee spending are estimated to equal -$1.148 billion annually ... 

Annual impacts to Florida's labor income are estimated to be -$326 million, and the estimated loss of full-time, part-time, 

and seasonal jobs is -14,545." These figures are especially disturbing when Florida's unemployment rate is above the 

national average. Furthermore, there are indications that the costs of meeting these standards will be passed along to 

Florida consumers who will be forced to pay higher utility bills. One estimate claims sewer costs for the average 

household could increase by $700 per year. Even if these costs were acceptable, questions remain as to whether the 

technology exists to meet the standards EPA proposes. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4926
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID 1799-1.001.003 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: Joshua Water Control District 

Implementation and compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient standards will have a substantial impact that is 

fiscally prohibitive. The cost of retro-fitting our facilities for water treatment and the cost of acquiring the necessary lands 

for water treatment will be in the millions of dollars; a cost that will ultimately be borne by the citizens we serve. 

Considering our limited assessment authority and limited resources to reduce nutrients to the levels being proposed, 

compliance is an economic impossibility. 

Comment ID 1799-1.001.006 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: Joshua Water Control District 

Simply stated the cost of compliance will far outweigh the biological benefits that will be derived from the proposed 

criteria in both money and protection of public safety. 

Comment ID 1801-1.001.032 

Author Name: Green III K. 

Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District 

e. Regional stream criteria can prevent cost-effective balancing of load reductions designed to achieve TMDLs - An 

important aspect of achieving TMDLs is developing a cost-effective strategy for achieving the needed load reductions. 

Because some sources are more easily reduced, the most cost effective strategy will often focus on these sources. 

Diverting limited resources towards achieving a general criterion in streams that have minimal regional impact will 

inevitably lead to a reduction of resources needed to deal with regionally-significant nutrient sources. 

Comment ID 1810-1.001.003 

Author Name: Young L. 

Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida 

I. General Comments 

EPA and the other parties to this rulemaking must not lose sight of the basic principles applicable to establishing water 

quality criteria to protect existing and designated uses of our waters such as swimming, fishing and support of a healthy 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4927
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

and diverse aquatic community. First, "States must adopt those water quality criteria that protect the designated use." 

40 CFR 131.11(a). Economic considerations are not to play a role in setting water quality standards. Mississippi 

Commission on Natural Resources v Costle, 625 F.2d 1269, 1277 (5th Cir. 1980). As is recognized in section V and VI 

of the EPA proposal, there are a variety of ways under the law to take economic factors into account in permitting and 

designing the program for meeting attainable standards. Indeed, federal law expressly allows compliance with criteria to 

be phased in as possible, 40 CFR 122.47, and even allows criteria not to be applied to a particular water at all if 

applying the criteria would cause the kind of "widespread economic and social impact" that some of the opponents of 

the criteria are hysterically claiming they would cause. See 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6). 

Because saving money by enacting water quality criteria that do not in fact protect uses is not an available option under 

the law, much of the debate held in the hearings and elsewhere regarding the alleged costs of the proposed criteria is 

simply irrelevant to this matter. If, contrary to rational expectation, the wild cost estimates that have been thrown about 

by some of the persons who feel that they will be economically affected by the standards can be substantiated, the time 

to consider such estimates will be during proceedings conducted pursuant to 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6). At such time, 

however, those claiming that standards that are protective of designated uses are economically intolerable will have to 

demonstrate their contentions on the record. The Clean Water Act requires that fishable and swimmable uses be 

achieved wherever attainable, 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2); not just wherever it is easy. 

Comment ID 1812-1.001.003 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Florida Minerals and Chemistry Council Association 

Regarding the costs of implementation of the proposal, EPA attempts to justify unilateral imposition of regional numeric 

nutrient criteria as less resource-consuming than Florida's existing programs. The proposal, however, fails to recognize 

the extraordinary resources that will be required from both regulated interests and the regulatory agencies to develop 

Site Specific Alternative Criteria variances and TMDLs based on achievement of the proposed criteria. There is no 

evidence that EPA's processes will require less public or private resources than continuation of Florida's existing 

programs. 

The economic analysis in this proposal is essentially non-existent. All costs associated with this effort will be ultimately 

borne by the general public in the form of higher utility bills, higher costs for food and other products, and higher taxes 

required for local government implementation. The proposal assumes Floridians have infinite resources with which to 

comply. 

Comment ID 1814-1.001.004 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida 

Regarding the costs of implementation of the proposal, EPA attempts to justify unilateral imposition of regional numeric 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4928
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

nutrient criteria as less resource-consuming than Florida's existing programs. The proposal, however, fails to recognize 

the extraordinary resources that will be required from both regulated interests and the regulatory agencies to develop 

Site Specific Alternative Criteria variances and TMDLs based on achievement of the proposed criteria. There is no 

evidence that EPA's processes will require less public or private resources than continuation of Florida's existing 

programs. 

Comment ID 1814-1.001.005 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida 

The economic analysis in this proposal is essentially non-existent. All costs associated with this effort will be ultimately 

borne by the general public in the form of higher utility bills, higher costs for food and other products, and higher taxes 

required for local government implementation. The proposal assumes Floridians have infinite resources with which to 

comply. 

Comment ID 1832-1.001.008 

Author Name: Steele W. 

Organization: Department of Public Services, City of Crestview 

The City, as do many other utilities in the region, currently dispose of their activated sludge residuals to a privately 

owned land application site. The proposed rules will have a significant impact on the land application operation, thereby 

increasing the cost of residual disposal. 

Comment ID 1834-1.001.011 

Author Name: Bronson C. 

Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Unfortunately, beyond the scientific shortcomings, our review has also made it very clear that this current proposal by 

the EPA is likely to have such significant negative consequences for agricultural producers that the future sustainability 

of Florida's second largest industry will be threatened. 

Comment ID 1835-1.001.011 

Author Name: Nieto G. 

Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4929
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Corporation 

Beyond the agricultural industry, the proposed rule will impose significant economic costs other sectors of the state 

economy during one of the most serious economic crises in history. The Botcher estimate, which looked only at direct 

and supply chain job-loss impacts, estimated that over 14,000 jobs would be lost in Florida as a result of the Nutrient 

Rule. These numbers would be higher once secondary economic impacts are considered. EPA again did not attempt to 

quantify or consider these effects. All of this should have been studied by EPA in determining whether to propose the 

new criteria, and whether to use an approach that imposes requirements more stringent than necessary to protect 

designated uses 

Comment ID 1869-1.001.002 

Author Name: Fumero J. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 

In light of the foregoing, BSU submits the following comments to EPA concerning the proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria: 

General Cornments 

• This rulemaking effort has huge potential economic implications to utilities and ratepayers. BSU requests that EPA 

slow down the rulemaking process and perform a scientific and economic analysis to adequately assess the significant 

economic impacts the proposed rule will have on local governments and utilities, such as BSU. 

• The Numeric Nutrient Criteria will cause severe economic harm to Florida at a time when the budgets of local 

governments and utilities are stretched and the general economy is hurting. Retrofitting systems to treat water to levels 

that meet the Numeric Nutrient Criteria will be very costly. EPA has estimated that the anticipated cost for Florida to 

implement the Numeric Nutrient Criteria is $300 million. However, various organizations throughout the state have 

estimated that the actual cost of implementation is nearly 100 times this amount, or $24.4 billion. These additional costs 

will be passed directly on to the customers. EPA should consider the economic impact of implementation ofthe Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria. 

Comment ID 1869-1.001.014 

Author Name: Fumero J. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 

BSU is proud of its commitment to protection of the State's water resources while providing a safe, reliable, costeffective water supply to its customers. At the same time, BSU recognizes the need to address nutrient loading issues. 

The manner in which EPA proposes to accomplish this task imposes great regulatory uncertainty and costs on BSU and 

its customers. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4930
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

BSU respectfully requests that the aforementioned comments be made a part of the formal rulemaking record 

concerning EPA's proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria. 

Comment ID 1871.001.004 

Author Name: Lassiter K. 

Organization: Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations 

3. Please conduct an economic impact study of all proposed solutions before making a final selection of the one to 

propose. Please make these findings available for public study. 

Comment ID 1890.001.001 

Author Name: Seery P. 

Organization: 

We own a little rural 42 space mobile home park. There is no way we could raise rents high enough to comply with the 

expense of the proposed nutrient rule. 

The end result of implementation of these requirements on us, and other small rural systems, would be: 

1. If we kept trying to operate the park, EPA fines would force us to close it. 

2. Our tenants would have to move and lose their homes - because older mobile homes are not allowed to be moved to 

other mobile home parks in Florida. 

3. We would lose the park, and our life savings, in a mortgage foreclosure. 

Comment ID 1901.001.001 

Author Name: Hall S. 

Organization: 

On the proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida 's Lakes and Flowing Waters I support establishment 

of EPA Nutrient Criteria for Florida Waters. I reject the contention that it will be too expensive. I believe to the contrary 

that it is too expensive for the state of Florida not to have strong nutrient standards. Florida will no longer remain a 

viable tourist location if we do not have strong standards. 

Comment ID 1901.001.003 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4931
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Author Name: Hall S. 

Organization: 

Expenses are being exaggerated by utilities because they don't want to clean up runoff from communities that have 

been permitted to dump runoff directly into drainage canals. Also land owners need to stop applying fertilizer during 

rainy seasons and near canals. 

I believe that there is much that Florida can do to meet these standards without increasing costs to the tax payers, but 

some costs will be necessary. We must continue to improve our water quality to prevent serious algal blooms that could 

devastate our tourist economy. 

Comment ID 1920-1.001.023 

Author Name: Wise W. 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

THE COST OF INACTION 

52. Excessive fertilizer pollution reflects poor economic decisions by farmers and land owners because all fertilizer that 

ends up in Florida's rivers and lakes has been wasted. 

53. The cost of removing these waste products once they reach Florida's water bodies is enormous. 

54. A University of Florida IFAS report concluded that the cost of phosphorus removal by the operational Stormwater 

Treatment Areas that have been constructed to remove phosphorus in water discharged from the sugar cane lands in 

the Everglades Agricultural Area ranged from $369 to $1346 per kilogram for an average of approximately $1800 per 

pound (1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds) of phosphorus removed. (Exhibit I: IFAS Publication on Economic Analysis of Water 

Treatments for Phosphorus). 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit I, IFAS Publication on Economic Analysis of Water 

Treatments for Phosphorus. See original comment letter. 

55. Implementation of Florida's Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan, which includes the strategies and construction 

projects necessary to reduce the total amount of phosphorus entering the lake through its tributaries to 105 tons per 

year as required by FDEP's Lake Okeechobee TMDL, is currently estimated to cost approximately $2 billion. (Exhibit J: 

LAKE Okeechobee Protection Plan). 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit J, LAKE Okeechobee Protection Plan. See original 

comment letter. 

56. In comparison, not applying excessive fertilizers saves everyone money. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4932
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

57. Furthermore, peer-reviewed scientific research has shown that reduction of nutrient pollution through ordinances 

prohibiting fertilizer use reduces the amounts of phosphorus in streams. (Exhibit K: Reduced River Phosphorus 

Following Implementation of a Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance). 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit K, Reduced River Phosphorus Following 

Implementation of a Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1921.001.002 

Author Name: Monroe M. 

Organization: Fellsmere Farms 

The EPA proposed nutrient requirements are a good example of implementing a non-level playing field that will 

disadvantage the American Farmer and lead to further American reliance on Foreign production. 

Our production season typically runs from October to June. During peak production, Fellsmere Farms employs 

approximately 800 people and our year-around employees number just over 100, combined we are the 3rd largest 

employer in Indian River County and always in the top 10. Through employee and company efforts, we partner with 

many agencies (United Way, Habitat for Humanity, Redlands Christian Migrant Assoc.) and schools in the county. The 

threat that these reactionary EPA numeric standards pose to our local economics is real. Agriculture has played a vital 

role in the development of this community and reactionary measures imposed by the EPA can have a detrimental 

impact on the community by requiring local farmers to spend a disproportionate amount of money to achieve arbitrary 

standards that nature cannot achieve. 

Comment ID 1921.001.004 

Author Name: Monroe M. 

Organization: Fellsmere Farms 

We know that the Numeric Nutrient Water Quality criteria as proposed for Florida will negatively impact our operation . 

Through our FDACS mandated and universally accepted BMP program, we have noticed close to a 20% reduction in 

our Total P loads. If this "one size fits all" criteria were adopted for the state, our operation could be forced to do cost 

prohibitive and unnecessary remedial actions . Remedial actions could include taking land out of production for on-site 

treatment or other, even more expensive treatments. If the American Farmer must compete in a global economy, how 

can this entire cost be passed on to a consumer that has discretion not to purchase if the price is too high? Will we lay 

off workers? Shut the doors? What about foreign competitors who have no idea what a BMP is? 

Comment ID 1921.001.008 

Author Name: Monroe M. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4933
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Organization: Fellsmere Farms 

In closing, farmers have to be and have increasingly proven to be good stewards of the environment. We are supportive 

of science based requirements-such as the BMP program. We object to unnecessary and expensive requirements that 

are formed out of haste rather than using true scientific methods designed to test the enormity of the impact. This haste 

will burden the entire Agricultural community of Florida with an economic sanction that will result in Florida Agriculture 

being at a competitive disadvantage in the market place. Do we really want to potentially release the catalyst that could 

wipe out the Agricultural industry in Florida simply to move quickly to settle a dispute? 

Comment ID 1925.001.002 

Author Name: Thorn L. 

Organization: Walton County Farm Bureau 

The state of our economy in Florida will only be exacerbated, if resources are wasted. We cannot afford to waste 

valuable resources, when current unemployment in Florida is over 11%. 

Comment ID 1946.001.007 

Author Name: Sheppard M. 

Organization: 

Minutes from a gathering that I missed indicate that many of these people do not believe the science behind water 

pollution. They do believe that the FL Department of Agriculture is right in its estimate of how much money ( done two 

or three months ago) it will take to clean up as the Clean Water Act demands. 

Comment ID 2018-1.001.002 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

The City is very concerned that the adoption of the proposed water quality standards, as published, will result in a 

significant financial burden to the City in order to comply with the standards. 

Comment ID 2039-1.001.002 

Author Name: Shell K. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4934
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

The proposed rule will pass the entire cost onto every Floridian and raise the cost of construction of roads, homes, and 

agriculture. 

Comment ID 2372-1.001.014 

Author Name: Farber D. 

Organization: Patton Boggs LLP on behalf of James Hardie Building Products, Inc. 

It is unclear how the Plant City POTW will respond to EPA's federal mandate contained in the Proposed Rule. At the 

EPA hearing in Orlando on February 17, Plant City Utilities Operations Manager Frank Coughenour testified that the 

Plant City POTW cannot, using technology currently available at the Plant City facility, treat to the level required under 

the proposed TN standard. To meet the proposed standards, the Plant City's POTW may: (1) stop taking industrial 

waste water, leaving Hardie with no disposal option expect to expend tens of millions of dollars to build its own 

treatment plant; (2) spend tens of millions of dollars to upgrade the plant, which costs would be shifted to users like 

Hardie; or (3) require Hardie to undertake burdensome and costly pre-treatment before it accepts Hardie's wastewater. 

Under any scenario, Hardie will face significant compliance costs that could seriously impact its manufacturing 

operations in Florida. Like many other companies operating in Florida, Hardie has been affected by the recent downturn 

in the economy. The nationwide housing slump decreased demand for Hardie materials and forced Hardie to cut its 

Plant City workforce from 210 employees to 110 employees. Unfortunately, Florida already has one of the highest 

unemployment rates in the country, with Hillsborough County running at about 12.5 percent. New federal standards 

requiring Hardie to expend significant resources to treat its wastewater may negatively impact Hardie's ability to do 

business in Florida and further exacerbate Florida's significant unemployment problem. 

Comment ID 2373-1.001.004 

Author Name: Milowe H. 

Organization: San Marco Homeowners Association 

3. Please conduct an economic impact study of all proposed solutions before making a final selection of the one to 

propose. Please make these findings available for public study. 

Comment ID 2375.001.002 

Author Name: English G. 

Organization: South Indian River Water Control District 

Implementation and compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient standards will have a substantial impact that is 

fiscally prohibitive. The cost of retro-fitting our facilities for water treatment and the cost of acquiring the necessary lands 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4935
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

for water treatment will be in the millions of dollars; a cost that will ultimately be borne by the citizens we serve. 

Considering our limited assessment authority and limited resources to reduce nutrients to the levels being proposed, 

compliance is an economic impossibility. 

Comment ID 2375.001.005 

Author Name: English G. 

Organization: South Indian River Water Control District 

Simply stated the cost of compliance will far outweigh the biological benefits that will be derived from the proposed 

criteria in both money and protection of public safety. 

Comment ID 2376.001.002 

Author Name: Baird L. 

Organization: Barron Water Control District 

Implementation and compliance with the proposed numeric nutrient standards will have a substantial impact that is 

fiscally prohibitive . The cost of retro-fitting our facilities for water treatment and the cost of acquiring the necessary 

lands for water treatment will be in the millions of dollars; a cost that will ultimately be borne by the citizens we serve . 

Considering our limited assessment authority and limited resources to reduce nutrients to the levels being proposed, 

compliance is an economic impossibility. 

Comment ID 2376.001.005 

Author Name: Baird L. 

Organization: Barron Water Control District 

Simply stated the cost of compliance will far outweigh the biological benefits that will be derived from the proposed 

criteria in both money and protection of public safety. 

Comment ID 2380.001.002 

Author Name: Aquilino J. 

Organization: 

Additionally, after studying economics throughout college, it seems my professors were successful in brainwashing me 

into always looking at things from an Economic point of view. It is obvious that Florida's economy depends on clean 

water. One study I recently read stated that beach tourism contributes about $40 billion to Florida's economy. And in 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4936
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

2003 alone, 62 million people visited our beaches.[1] Further, it is estimated that beach tourism alone, has created 

more than 500,000 jobs! (According to 2003 numbers). 

Why wouldn't we want to protect a resource that provides such a huge benefit to our State? Given the current economic 

conditions, it would be a complete mistake to forgo protecting a resource that has historically allowed Florida to prosper 

both financially and aesthetically. Investing in and carrying out policies directed towards keeping our waters clean is 

imperative . And while some implementation costs may be incurred for our generation, what we will be protecting is 

priceless for ourselves and future generations. 

[1 ]"Tourism Paradise : The Economic Impact of Florida Beaches" 

http://www.csc .noaa.gov/cz/2005/CZ05 Proceedings CD/pdt"/o20files/Alpert.pdf 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0543-1.001.002, 0560-1.001.003, 0567.001.003, 0567.001.004, 0567.001.009, 0579.001.006, 0590.001.006,
 

0618.001.001, 0621.001.002, 0623.001.007, 0625.001.003, 0640.001.005, 0641.001.002, 0651.001.003, 0657.001.002,
 

0661.001.006, 0662.001.003, 0666.001.002, 0666.001.004, 0667.001.004, 0668.001.006, 0669.001.002, 0669.001.004,
 

0671.001.002, 0674.001.004, 0674.001.006, 0675.001.002, 0679.001.004, 0680.001.004, 0681.001.002, 0683.001.002,
 

0683.001.004, 0686.001.003, 0696.001.002, 0698.001.007, 0701.001.003, 0708.001.006, 0711.001.001, 0713.001.002,
 

0714.001.010, 0720.001.005, 0721.001.002, 0721.001.009, 0722.001.001, 0722.001.002, 0723.001.010, 0732.001.004,
 

0737.001.002, 0741.001.003, 0743.001.002, 0751.001.005, 0752.001.004, 0755.001.004, 0755.001.006, 0761.001.002,
 

0763.001.001, 0767.001.004, 0780.001.002, 0780.001.005, 0794.001.002, 0795.001.008, 0796.001.004, 0807.001.002,
 

0808.001.003, 0810.001.002, 0811.001.001, 0811.001.003, 0821.001.002, 0822.001.005, 0827.001.003, 0828.001.003,
 

0834.001.001, 0835.001.001, 0844.001.005, 0845.001.003, 0846.001.004, 0849.001.002, 0851.001.002, 0856.001.004,
 

0859.001.004, 0860.001.006, 0881.001.002, 0883.001.003, 0883.001.005, 0886.001.002, 0889.001.002, 0895.001.001,
 

0895.001.003, 0895.001.011, 0895.001.014, 0895.001.018, 0898-1.001.003, 0898-1.001.005, 0898-1.001.007, 0899.001.007,
 

0921.001.002, 0935.001.007, 0947.001.005, 0947.001.009, 0949.001.008, 0955.001.002, 0956.001.003, 0956.001.006,
 

0958.001.001, 0981-1.001.004, 0981-1.001.005, 0982.001.001, 1000.001.001, 1004.001.001, 1007.001.001, 1008.001.002,
 

1010.001.010, 1011.001.024, 1012.001.001, 1012.001.006, 1014.001.004, 1017.001.002, 1025.001.002, 1027.001.002,
 

1045.001.003, 1045.001.005, 1045.001.008, 1066.001.004, 1077.001.004, 1087-1.001.014, 1091.001.009, 1095.001.002, 1098­

1.001.007, 1098-3.001.009, 1101.001.007, 1102.001.007, 1103.001.007, 1108.001.006, 1117.001.003, 1120.001.001,
 

1125.001.001, 1127.001.002, 1130.001.005, 1133.001.001, 1136.001.005, 1138.001.005, 1141.001.008, 1151.001.004,
 

1156.001.002, 1164-1.001.005, 1164-1.001.006, 1194.001.002, 1210.001.001, 1211-1.001.006, 1216-1.001.003, 1217-2.001.011,
 

1221.001.003, 1223.001.003, 1240.001.006, 1248.001.001, 1249.001.001, 1250.001.003, 1257.001.002, 1257.001.003, 1261­

1.001.005, 1262.001.003, 1263.001.003, 1277.001.002, 1282.001.006, 1287-1.001.001, 1287-1.001.003, 1287-1.001.005, 1291­

1.001.008, 1299-1.001.002, 1300-1.001.001, 1300-1.001.002, 1301-1.001.021, 1303-1.001.002, 1305.001.008, 1310.001.004,
 

1310.001.005, 1317.001.002, 1317.001.006, 1317.001.013, 1322.001.006, 1324.001.004, 1327.001.002, 1327.001.005,
 

1328.001.002, 1332.001.003, 1334.001.003, 1334.001.005, 1334.001.007, 1335.001.010, 1336.001.007, 1342.001.002,
 

1342.001.004, 1342.001.005, 1346-1.001.006, 1348-1.001.003, 1351.001.002, 1352-1.001.021, 1354-1.001.006, 1363-1.001.009,
 

1364-1.001.006, 1364-1.001.013, 1367-1.001.003, 1369.001.003, 1370.001.001, 1370-1.001.008, 1370-1.001.013, 1370-1.001.021,
 

1370-1.001.024, 1370-1.001.029, 1370-1.001.030, 1370-1.001.033, 1370-1.001.048, 1370-1.001.049, 1370-1.001.053, 1418­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4937
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

1.001.010, 1431-1.001.027, 1431-1.001.044, 1434-1.001.031, 1443-1.001.008, 1444-1.001.001, 1444-1.001.008, 1444-1.001.009, 

1444-1.001.011, 1445-1.001.012, 1445-1.001.013, 1445-1.001.016, 1445-1.001.017, 1473-1.001.003, 1473-1.001.027, 1473­

1.001.028, 1473-1.001.036, 1473-4.001.001, 1474-1.001.037, 1474-1.001.069, 1474-1.001.070, 1477-1.001.010, 1479-1.001.008, 

1480-1.001.002, 1549.001.003, 1550.001.004, 1560.001.002, 1561.001.002, 1564-1.001.003, 1564-1.001.012, 1638-1.001.002, 

1639-1.001.001, 1639-1.001.004, 1642-1.001.009, 1647-1.001.010, 1670-1.001.002, 1670-1.001.004, 1670-1.001.005, 1700­

1.001.007, 1722-1.001.015, 1722-1.001.019, 1723-1.001.002, 1724-1.001.005, 1729.001.005, 1729.001.012, 1729.001.015, 1731­

1.001.003, 1763-1.001.002, 1766-1.001.005, 1767-1.001.008, 1768-1.001.012, 1774.001.009, 1774.001.011, 1774-1.001.030, 1774­

1.001.032, 1775.001.002, 1776.001.001, 1782-1.001.003, 1782-1.001.005, 1782-1.001.046, 1784-1.001.006, 1784-1.001.007, 1785­

1.001.010, 1785-1.001.017, 1792-1.001.003, 1799-1.001.003, 1799-1.001.006, 1801-1.001.032, 1812-1.001.003, 1814-1.001.004, 

1814-1.001.005, 1832-1.001.008, 1834-1.001.011, 1835-1.001.011, 1869-1.001.002, 1869-1.001.014, 1871.001.004, 1890.001.001, 

1921.001.002, 1921.001.004, 1921.001.008, 1925.001.002, 2018-1.001.002, 2039-1.001.002, 2372-1.001.014, 2373-1.001.004, 

2375.001.002, 2375.001.005, 2376.001.002, 2376.001.005 

Response: In response to comments, regarding economic impacts of the rule, EPA recognizes the potential economic impacts of 

implementing nutrient controls to agriculture, municipalities (stormwater, municipal waste water, flood control), industry, 

individual homeowners (with septic systems), and others. However, EPA notes that water quality standards are composed of state 

designated uses, water quality criteria, and an antidegradation policy. Water quality criteria are scientifically derived, measurable 

properties of water that, when achieved, protect the state designated uses. Thus water quality criteria are not derived on the basis of 

costs and benefits. However, federal regulations allow economic factors to be considered when implementing water quality 

standards through temporary or permanent changes to designated uses. For example, a temporary variance from water quality 

standards may be available if it can be demonstrated that attaining the current water quality standards would result in adverse 

substantial and widespread economic and social impacts. Federal regulations also address issues related to natural conditions, 

technological feasibility (including space constraints), and adverse environmental impacts associated with control solutions that 

affect other media such as land and air. 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) implements water quality standards through the issuance of National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for municipal and industrial point sources of nutrients, best management 

practice (BMP) programs for agricultural sources, and other programs or requirements as needed for other nonpoint sources (e.g., 

stormwater runoff and septic systems). FDEP evaluates the attainment of water quality standards for nutrients through their 

monitoring and assessment program. If waters are found to be impaired for nutrients, FDEP develops a total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) for the impaired waterbodies. The TMDL specifies the nutrient loads necessary to meet the water's State designated uses. 

FDEP subsequently implements TMDLs through its water quality programs, including developing basin management action plans 

(BMAPs) that are State-derived “blueprints” for restoring impaired waters. These broad-based plans are developed with local 

stakeholders and are adopted by Secretarial Order to be enforceable. 

EPA is promulgating numeric nutrient water quality criteria to protect the designated uses Florida has assigned their waters. These 

numeric nutrient criteria are designed to help the State implement its narrative nutrient provision at Florida Administrative Code 62­

302-530(47(b)) which provides that: “[i]n no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an 

imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The waters identified as impaired under the numeric nutrient criteria in 

this rule are likely to be many of the same waters that would eventually have been identified as impaired under the State's narrative 

criteria. However, the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria in this rule will have the effect of accelerating the identification of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4938
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

currently impaired waters and the development of actions that allow waters to meet Florida's designated uses in a more timely 

manner, and help protect waters currently not impaired from becoming impaired from nutrient over-enrichment. In cases where 

waters may exceed the numeric criteria but continue to meet designated uses, site-specific criteria (SSAC) may be adopted under 

existing State and federal regulations, or under the federal SSAC process established by this rule, if an adequate scientific 

demonstration is made that the alternative criteria will protect the designated use. The State of Florida may use their existing water 

quality standards program, processes and procedures to evaluate, restore and protect designated when applying the numeric nutrient 

criteria in this rule. 

Although this rule does not directly establish any requirements applicable to regulated entities or other sources of nutrient 

pollutions, EPA has nevertheless analyzed the potential costs of implementing nutrient controls that may be necessary to prevent 

further nutrient pollution and to restore waters identified as nutrient-impaired using the numeric criteria in this rule. This analysis is 

described in the document entitled: "Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing 

Waters in Florida." EPA has carefully considered all available data and information on nutrient pollution and existing State water 

quality standards implementation procedures, including TMDLs and Basin Management Action Plans that have already been 

developed for nutrient impaired waters in Florida. EPA has also carefully considered data, information, and analyses submitted by 

commenters, and has revised its analysis accordingly. 

EPA disagrees with the commenters assertions that this rule will result in excessive costs to Florida citizens. Several important 

factors are not considered in the commenters’ analyses of costs and economic impacts. These factors include consideration of the 

most cost-effective control technologies, grants or cost sharing for controls, the timing of controls, costs to one sector becoming 

jobs/revenues to another, and controls resulting in positive impacts on economic sectors dependent on clean water such as 

recreation, tourism, and municipal drinking water facilities. As described previously, the numeric nutrient criteria in this rule are 

scientifically derived concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or chlorophyll-a that support attainment of uses the State of 

Florida has designated for their waters. EPA is promulgating numeric nutrient criteria in Florida to help insure that waters currently 

attaining State designated uses continue to be protected, and to help identify waters that are impaired so that actions to restore them 

can be undertaken. Restoring impaired waters and preventing future impairments (which is less expensive than restoring waters that 

are already impaired) will help support the economic activity in Florida that is dependent on the State’s fresh water lakes, streams, 

and springs. 

The water quality criteria in this rule represent the numeric targets that support State designated uses and the economic benefits 

associated with them. In this regard, EPA acknowledges the economic importance of attaining water quality standards as described 

by commenters 0572.001.001, 0597.001.008, 0611.001.006, 0643.001.003, 0643.001.004, 0677.001.002, 0691.001.004, 

0693.001.002, 0708.001.009, 0765.001.003, 0782.001.002, 0816.001.003, 0817.001.004, 0848.001.001, 0864.001.004. 

0870.001.002, 0873.001.003, 0897.001.003, 0965.001.011, 0997.001.005, 0998.001.002, 1005.001.006, 1029.001.003, 

1031.001.002, 1042.001.004, 1048.001.002, 1048.001.003, 1050.001.003, 1051.001.006, 1053.001.003, 1055.001.003, 

1063.001.010, 1072.001.005, 1081.001.003, 1092.001.002, 1094.001.003, 1094.001.005, 1097.001.004, 1113.001.007, 

1115.001.004, 1140.001.007, 1165.001.005, 1166.001.003, 1167.001.002, 1169.001.005, 1180.001.003, 1190.001.003, 

1191.001.013, 1196.001.003, 1197.001.011, 1198.001.005, 1199.001.002, 1209.001.003, 1214.001.005, 1222.001.004, 

1225.001.003, 1228.001.003, 1242.001.003, 1246.001.005, 1246.001.007, 1246.001.008, 1252.001.003, 1259.001.003, 

1269.001.003, 1275.001.005, 1290.001.003, 1330.001.004, 1464-1.001.003, 1810-1.001.003, 1901.001.001,1901.001.003, 1920­

1.001.023, 2380.001.002. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4939
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment IDs: 0560-1.001.003, 0567.001.009, 0590.001.006, 0681.001.002, 0721.001.002, 0767.001.004, 0822.001.005, 

0889.001.002, 0958.001.001, 1127.001.002, 1223.001.003, 1262.001.003, 1277.001.002, 1282.001.006, 1334.001.005, 

1335.001.010, 1354-1.001.006, 1549.001.003, 1639-1.001.001, 1647-1.001.010, 1700-1.001.007, 1767-1.001.008, 1774.001.009, 

1921.001.002, 1921.001.004, 1921.001.008 

Response: In response to the comments about a level economic playing field with other states, EPA notes that the requirements of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) and EPA’s implementing regulations apply similarly to all states. In response to these commenters’ 

concerns about foreign competition, much economic activity in Florida depends on clean water, and a degradation of water quality 

in Florida may result in reduction in economic activity in the State. Furthermore, the economic impacts the commenters cite do not 

consider the benefits of meeting water quality standards. 

Comment IDs: 0752.001.004, 0811.001.003, 1004.001.001, 1007.001.001, 1008.001.002, 1670-1.001.004, 1729.001.012, 

1775.001.002 

Response: In response to the comments, EPA acknowledges that financing nutrient controls can be challenging for the State, 

municipalities, and individual dischargers. EPA describes several sources of funding for agricultural controls in its economic 

analysis. State revolving fund loans may also be available to municipalities. In response to comments on funding for education, 

EPA generally defers to FDEP on education and outreach matters because FDEP is the State agency that implements CWA 

programs consistent with the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations. EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State 

implements the numeric nutrient criteria in this rule. 

Comment ID: 1444-1.001.008 

Response: In response to the comment about incentive-based regulations, EPA notes that water quality standards are required under 

the CWA. Water quality criteria are scientifically derived, measurable properties of water that protect designated uses, and do not 

contain any direct requirements for sources of pollutants. Federal water quality standards regulations allow the flexibility to use 

least cost solutions to attain and maintain state designated uses. 

Comment IDs: 1370.001.001, 1722-1.001.019, 1784-1.001.007 

Response: In response to the comments about how existing TMDLs will be addressed, federal regulations at 130.7(c)(1) provides 

that TMDLs must establish pollutant levels necessary to attain and maintain “applicable narrative and numerical water quality 

standard.” TMDL targets for waters with numeric water quality criteria for the pollutant of concern are usually the criteria itself. 

When water quality standards are revised after TMDLs are established, the revised standard becomes the applicable standard. 

Although there is no federal requirement that determines whether or when a TMDL must be re-established to address a revised 

water quality standard, waterbodies should be re-assessed against the revised water quality standard for listing purposes. If 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4940
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

reassessment under the new standard results in a determination of impairment, the waters should be again listed as impaired, and the 

TMDL should be revised. Although a revised standard is now applicable, the original TMDL will likely contain a substantial 

amount of information relevant to the development of the new TMDL and discharge limits, such as waterbody-specific modeling 

information, identification of other sources of the pollutant of concern which must be considered in developing discharge 

limitations, hydrodynamics of the waterbody, and information on how the pollutant of concern affects attainment of water quality 

standards in that waterbody (e.g., nutrient effects on DO). Alternatively, the existing TMDL target may provide the basis for sitespecific alternative criteria, where it can be demonstrated that the target is protective of the designated use. 

Comment ID: 1642-1.001.009 

Response: In response to the comment on reuse for irrigation and drinking water treatment, the criteria apply to the waters. Reuse 

water is not discharged directly to surface waters and thus EPA's criteria do not apply to the discharge point. Control strategies for 

achieving nutrient reductions often involve effluent reuse. 

Comment ID: 1729.001.015 

Response: The commenter does not provide evidence or a rationale why the rule will result in “utility abandonment” or force 

additional use of septic tanks. EPA does recognize that some homeowners with septic systems may be required to repair and/or 

upgrade their systems. However, actual requirements and their costs will depend on site-specific conditions and Florida's water 

quality standards implementation strategy. 

Comment ID: 0678.001.004 

Response: EPA acknowledges that taxpayer dollars fund activities including pollution controls in different sectors including 

agriculture. 

Comment ID: 0703.001.005 

Response: EPA acknowledges that scientific consensus facilitates public support for spending. 

Comment ID: 0716.001.008 

Response: EPA agrees that economic efficiency is desirable. 

Comment ID: 0721.001.007 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4941
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Response: EPA agrees that economic sustainability is important for environmental sustainability. 

Comment ID: 0724.001.003 

Response: EPA acknowledges the concern for cost and a balanced approach to clean water; EPA has evaluated the costs and 

benefits of the rule (see the economic analysis accompanying the final rulemaking). 

Comment ID: 0783.001.002 

Response: EPA agrees that pollution prevention is less costly than remediation and believes that numeric nutrient criteria will assist 

in expediting identification of impaired conditions and implementing controls. 

Comment ID: 0825.001.008 

Response: EPA believes that the best available biological treatment is the most reasonable treatment approach for municipal 

wastewater, and that more costly advanced treatment such as reverse osmosis is not justified. If municipal wastewater dischargers 

cannot meet water quality based effluent limits with advanced biological nutrient removal, variances may be needed. See also 

response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0838.001.002 

Response: EPA believes that numeric nutrient criteria will assist in expediting identification of impaired conditions and 

implementing controls. 

Comment ID: 0839.001.006
 

Response: EPA also assumes that implementation strategies can be developed.
 

Comment ID: 0841.001.002
 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment ID: 0849.001.004 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4942
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Response: EPA’s rule does not require specific controls on any source, including water control districts. 

Comment ID: 0852.001.002 

Response: EPA agrees that controls need to be implemented by sources targeted for nutrient loading reductions within the context 

of a TMDL in order to attain the criteria in the rule. 

Comment ID: 0852.001.004
 

Response: EPA agrees that nutrient BMP implementation is important to attaining the criteria in the rule.
 

Comment ID: 0853.001.003
 

Response: EPA agrees that utility financial responsibility is important to attaining the criteria in the rule.
 

Comment ID: 0855.001.003
 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment but it is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
 

Comment ID: 0859.001.001
 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment ID: 0859.001.002
 

Response: EPA disagrees with this cost estimate referred to by the commenter. For example, see response to comment 1688­

5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 0865.001.001 

Response: EPA agrees that nutrient management can result in cost savings to farmers. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4943
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID: 0866.001.001 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0869.001.003
 

Response: EPA agrees that pollution prevention is cost-effective in attaining water quality standards.
 

Comment ID: 0947.001.006
 

Response: EPA agrees that avoiding negative unintended consequences in attempts to pay for restoration and clean up is important.
 

Comment ID: 0957.001.006
 

Response: In response to the comment, the rule does not require any specific controls on any sources. See also response to comment 

1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0960.001.003 

Response: EPA believes that numeric nutrient criteria will assist in expediting identification of impaired conditions and 

implementing controls, including BMPs. 

Comment ID: 0965.001.005 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA acknowledges that there are costs to the proposal. See the revised economic analysis 

accompanying the final rulemaking. See also response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0965.001.008
 

Response: EPA agrees that pollution prevention is cost effective in controlling nutrient pollution.
 

Comment ID: 1056.001.003 

Response: EPA agrees that advanced nutrient removal is reasonable for municipal wastewater. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4944
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID: 1064.001.001
 

Response: See the benefits analysis in the revised economic analysis accompanying the final rule.
 

Comment ID: 1066.001.003
 

Response: EPA disagrees with the cost estimate referred to by the commenter. EPA’s estimates of cost to attain the criteria are in 

the economic analysis accompanying the final rulemaking. 

Comment ID: 1074.001.003 

Response: EPA agrees that water quality and water quantity problems need to be addressed in Florida. EPA believes that numeric 

nutrient criteria will assist in expediting identification of impaired water quality conditions and implementing controls. Water 

quality also affects water quantity. 

Comment ID: 1102.001.003
 

Response: EPA’s rule does not contain any fees or controls specific to any sources.
 

Comment ID: 1110.001.002
 

Response: EPA acknowledges the costs and pounds reduced referred to by the commenter for Tampa Bay.
 

Comment ID: 1116.001.004
 

Response: EPA agrees that costs to one sector become revenues and jobs to others.
 

Comment ID: 1175.001.003
 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment regarding political will with respect to encouraging consumption rather than 

conservation. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4945
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID: 1176.001.002 

Response: EPA acknowledges the contradiction brought up by the commenter regarding desire for clean water not being 

accompanied by a desire to pay for clean water. 

Comment ID: 1179.001.007 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA’s rule does not preclude farming.
 

Comment ID: 1181.001.004
 

Response: EPA agrees that jobs and a clean environment can coexist.
 

Comment ID: 1254.001.004
 

Response: EPA does plan to promulgate criteria protective of state designated uses for estuaries.
 

Comment ID: 1279.001.003
 

Response: EPA agrees that innovation in nutrient management may be beneficial. See also response to comment 1011.001.019 in 

issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1279.001.006
 

Response: EPA agrees that innovative funding mechanisms may be beneficial to attaining the criteria.
 

Comment ID: 1319.001.002
 

Response: EPA agrees that businesses can adapt and remain profitable.
 

Comment ID: 1319.001.008 

Response: The rule contains provisions for adopting site-specific alternative criteria. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4946
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID: 1322.001.007 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1324.001.005 

Response: EPA disagrees that the criteria have no scientific basis and that investments in attaining nutrient criteria protective of 

designated uses is a waste of resources. 

Comment 1339.001.002
 

Response: EPA agrees that nutrient management is cost effective.
 

Comment ID: 1343.001.003
 

Response: EPA agrees that many people are adversely affected by nutrient pollution in Florida’s waters. EPA’s criteria are based 

on science, to protect designated uses. 

Comment ID: 1431-1.001.046 

Response: EPA’s criteria are based on science, to protect designated uses. EPA’s criteria are for the waters; the state will 

implement the criteria through TMDLs and control strategies. 

Comment ID: 1946.001.007
 

Response: See response to comment 1647-1.001.011 in issue category BL_NPS_AG regarding FDACS’ analysis.
 

Comment ID: 0491-1.001.005
 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG; analysis of the potential for substantial and 

widespread economic and social impacts takes into consideration existing leverage and the financial health of the community. 

Comment ID: 1772-1.001.058 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4947
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Response: Expenditures on capital and operations and maintenance for pollution controls also represent local jobs and incomes, as 

do revenues that accrue from sectors that depend on clean water (e.g., tourism). See also response to comment 1011.001.019 in 

issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0845.001.005 

Response: The rule contains numeric criteria for applicable waters and does not include any limits directly applicable to farmers. 

Much of Palm Beach County is already under existing State regulations to attain a nutrient TMDL for Lake Okeechobee. See also 

response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0671.001.004 

Response: EPA estimated the cost of agricultural practices to control nutrients based on estimates that reflect the best professional 

judgments of experts in Florida regarding capital, operations and maintenance, and opportunity cost of lost production. 

Comment ID: 1008.001.005 

Response: The federal government does provide funding for pollution controls in agriculture and other source categories (e.g., 

wastewater). Whether such funding results in increases in taxes or fees involves more than the circumstances of this regulation. 

Comment ID: 1022.001.004
 

Response: EPA agrees with this comment
 

Comment ID: 1308.001.004
 

Response: EPA agrees that clean water is essential for a healthy economy.
 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.059
 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA has revised the “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for 

Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” located in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0956). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4948
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Economics 

Comment ID: 1481-1.001.032 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA has revised the “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for 

Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida,” located in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0956) and considered 

TMDL costs and site-specific alternative criteria adoption. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4949
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS - COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS DOCUMENT 

Comment ID 1087-1.001.010 

Author Name: Pearson S. 

Organization: City of Gainesville Public Works Department 

Case Study - City of Gainesville, Florida 

Nutrient Removals for Compliance with the Numeric Nutrient Rule Proposal 

The following case study presents the fiscal resources and watershed restoration data based on experience gathered
 

recently from the City's activities focused on removing nutrients from water sheds within its jurisdiction. There are 8
 

watersheds with Gainesville, of these, 6 have impairments; Sweetwater Branch, Tumblin' Creek, Calf Pond, Little
 

Hatchett, Hogtown and Possum. Two are not known to have impairments; Lake Forest and Hatchett. For purposes of
 

this case study several assumptions were made:
 

Total nitrogen (TN) was selected as the surrogate for all pollutants for this analysis. The basins will capture other
 

pollutants however the need for simplicity limited the discussion to that pollutant.
 

The data available in Sweetwater Branch was extrapolated to the other watersheds due the absence of actual data and
 

modeling was performed to project the amount of nutrients removed and costs of the removal.
 

Inflation was not included in the model.
 

Future maintenance and monitoring costs are not included in the study
 

It is assumed that the State of Florida TMDL process is equal to the proposed Nutrient Rule.
 

FISCAL RESOURCES
 

Summary of Capital Revenues - A portion of the Stormwater Utility fees noted above are dedicated to capital
 

improvements. Beginning in 2004 the City Commission dedicated a portion of the current $7.90 per month fee to capital
 

improvement. This portion of the fee provides between $800,000 and $1,000,000 a year over a 20 year fiscal period
 

from 2011 thru and including 2031. Additionally there is about $3.2 million in cash on hand for current projects.
 

Projections based on the current fee conclude that the Stormwater Utility will have about $22.6 million for capital
 

improvements between Fiscal Years 2011 and 2031.
 

WATERSHED RESTORATION - SWEETWATER BRANCH PROJECTS
 

The Sweetwater Branch watershed has three projects that provide data for this analysis:
 

Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration (JEA 2010)
 

Depot Park Stormwater Basin (City data)
 

Sweetwater Branch Watershed Management Plan (JEA, 2004)
 

Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration
 

This project involves the creation of a 125 acre treatment wetland at the bottom end of the drainage basin to reduce
 

nitrogen to Alachua Sink (WBID 2720A). The Total Daily Maximum Load analysis determined that the non-point urban
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4950
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

runoff contributes 28,218 lbs/yr of total nitrogen and that it needed to be reduced by 45% or 12,698 lbs/yr to achieve the 

nutrient reduction goals. The Stormwater Utility share of the $20 million project is about $6 million which with about $2 

million in grants leaves a balance of $ 4 million to be paid by the Utility for its share of the load reduction. The unit cost 

to construct the facility to remove 1 lb of nitrogen per year is about $ 470 based on the $ 6 million expense. 

This project reduces the balance of available capital to $18.6 million. 

One problem though is that the project does nothing to reduce the stream impairments in several segments upstream of 

the project. Another project, the Depot Park Stormwater Basin may assist with this deficiency. 

Depot Park Stormwater Basin 

This project involves building a wet detention basin in the mid point of drainage basin that captures runoff from more 

than 100 acres of downtown Gainesville. The basin is designed using current State of Florida criteria for flow 

attenuation and nutrient reduction. It is estimated to reduce nitrogen to Sweetwater Branch by 646 lbs/yr. The facility is 

partially constructed due to phasing but when complete is expected to cost about $7.4 million. The unit cost to remove 

the 1 lb of nitrogen per year is about $10,990. The remainder of the facility to be constructed has a $ 4.1 million budget 

with $1.6 million in grants. 

The balance of $ 2.5 million ($4.1M -$1.6M) reduces the balance of available capital to $16.1 million. 

The project will reduce the impacts of unimpeded runoff and will contribute to nutrient reduction but the physical 

outcomes (reduction in impairments) will have to be assessed after the project is fully implemented in late 2011 and the 

stream habitat has had time to adjust to the new conditions. 

Sweetwater Branch Watershed Management Master Plan 

This planning document from 2004 evaluates and nominates 8 additional sites in the Sweetwater Branch watershed for 

opportunities where additional nutrient reduction might occur through construction of wet detention facilities. The report 

notes that the sites afford nutrient reduction for about 20% of the watershed, presents estimates of construction and 

identifies a combined total nitrogen reduction of 1,471 lbs/yr. The construction estimates have been updated to 2010 by 

application of the Consumer Price Index and the addition of land acquisition, engineering fees for design, permitting and 

construction phase services and a contingency. The addition of the cost components ends with a project budget of 

about $9.6 million. The capital unit cost for removing the nutrient, total nitrogen, is on the order of $6,539. 

Whether or not these projects need to be implemented is dependent on the impairment reductions achieved by the 

Depot Park Stormwater Basin project and its effect on the lower reaches of the stream and if there are no impairments 

upstream of that project. Assume for purposes of this analysis that a $2.5 million (25% of Plan cost) is necessary for 

additional impairment reduction in the upper reaches of the stream. 

This reduces the balance of available capital to $13.6 million. 

WATERSHED RESTORATION - OTHER WATERSHEDS IN GAINESVILLE 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4951
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Table 1 presents the additional watersheds that have impairments and will need some restoration in the future. This 

table also presents projected costs for the other watersheds assuming a removal of 45% of the TN using the same 

methodology as was applied in the Sweetwater watershed: a treatment wetland at the bottom end and additional basins 

dispersed throughout the watershed to solve stream segment impairments. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Nutrient Model for Selected Watersheds Non-Point 

Source loads and reductions – Gainesville. See original comment letter. 

*Notes: This approach also uses a weighted unit cost of $920 per pound of TN to develop the cost component of the 

study. It is derived from the data associated with Paynes Prairie, Depot Park and 25% of the Sweetwater Branch 

Watershed Master Plan; TN is 12,698#, 646# and 370#, respectively and the costs are $5,968,060, $4,224,194 and 

$2,416,161, respectively. Note that the $6539 unit cost was used for Depot Park in lieu of the $10,990 presented 

earlier. This adjustment was made due to some mitigating circumstances associated with that project that merited the 

adjustment. 

As is seen in Table 1 the costs for nutrient reduction are huge ($71.4 million) compared the Utilities ability to fund the 

activity. At the last accounting there was $13.6 million left in the capital account. Table 2 below summarizes the prior 

project costs and the funding projected for the activity. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. Watershed Restoration Cost & Funding Summary. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1087-1.001.013 

Author Name: Pearson S. 

Organization: City of Gainesville Public Works Department 

Ancillary Issues for Consideration as Related to the Docket 

Sovereign Immunity - In the last several years the City of Gainesville and other municipalities operating a stormwater 

utility have been in litigation with public entities (e.g. Department of Transportation and School Districts) on the issue 

that their sovereign immunity, as entities of the state, precludes the collection of the user fees being levied by the 

municipal stormwater utility operators. This litigation diverts funds from the operation of the Utility and, if successful 

against the utilities, will reduce the revenue available to operate the utility. Both the Federal and State legislative bodies 

need to pass legislation that removes the veil of sovereign immunity from these entities and end these attempts to avoid 

payment of their share of operating the community stormwater system. 

EXAMPLE - The County School Board opted to stop paying the $12,000 per month Stormwater Utility fee in December 

2009 and are now in a mediation process with the City Commission. The Gainesville Sun reports on March 5, 2010 that 

the "School Board and the city are still at an impasse over stormwater fees charged to the district." If the School Board 

prevails, then the prior twenty year revenue projection is reduced by $2.9 million; from $22.6 million to $ 19.7million. 

State Revolving Fund - The State Revolving Fund is one source of funding to be considered by municipalities for 

financing any improvements to the stormwater system. In our opinion the administrative regulations need to be changed 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4952
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

on this funding source to allow the use of this funding to be a match for any other grants the Utility might be awarded for 

a particular project. Auditors consider the State Revolving Fund a grant because of the attached interest rate. The result 

is that only local funding can be used to match the Fund dollars. This exclusion precludes the use of all other grant 

sources that a municipality might use to assist in the financing of the projects. This present practice requires that grant 

mapping must be performed so the match eligible dollars get matched up with the grant. This change will allow less 

effort to be expended on the financial management of the utility and more effort to be spent on the technical issues of 

improving water quality. 

Response 

Comment ID: 1087-1.001.010 

Response: EPA notes that costs to restore existing impaired waters (noted by the commenter in Pond, Little Hatchett, Hogtown and 

Possum watersheds) are not attributable to the rule. In addition, EPA does not agree with the commenter’s analysis of the two 

unimpaired watersheds (Lake Forest and Hatchett). First, the commenter does not indicate if those waters have been assessed for 

compliance with Florida’s current narrative nutrient criteria. Second, the commenter acknowledges that there is not data upon which 

to evaluate the lakes' impairment status against EPA’s numeric criteria because no monitoring data are available. EPA estimated 

costs for all waters with sufficient data in FDEP’s IWR run 40 data set for TN and TP, that are not already listed as impaired for 

nutrient-related parameters (i.e., baseline impairment), and are not within watersheds of other listed waters (e.g., the other impaired 

watersheds in Gainesville identified by the commenter), as part of its economic analysis accompanying this rule entitled: 

“Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida.” In addition, the 

issue of how a particular control is funded at the local level is locality-specific, and local funding issues are not within the scope of 

EPA’s economic analysis. 

Comment ID: 1087-1.001.013 

Response: Issues regarding how a particular control is funded at the local level is locality-specific, and local funding issues are not 

within the scope of EPA’s economic analysis. 

EA_SUP - GENERAL STATEMENT OF SUPPORT OF THE DOCUMENT 

Comment ID 0901.001.007 

Author Name: Brant T. 

Organization: American Health Trust, Inc. and Santa Fe Lake Dwellers Association 

Federal analysts estimate that compliance will require $1.1 to $1.5 billion over 20 years. This is nearly the same as the 

cost estimates to implement a plan that was under consideration by the state of Florida that would have been less 

protective of our waterways. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4953
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.031 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

EPA's cost estimates were based upon a baseline of the criteria proposed by FDEP in July of 2009 being implemented. 

Although FDEP's criteria were never adopted, these criteria were already proposed as of July 2009 and were 

anticipated to be adopted in October 2009 according to the Secretary of FDEP. Therefore, EPA was justified in using 

FDEP's proposed criteria as the baseline in conducting a cost assessment of the costs associated with the additional 

stringency of the EPA proposed criteria. 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0901.001.007, 1482-1.001.031 

Response: EPA has revised its estimates of potential costs that may be associated with State implementation of the numeric nutrient 

criteria, and its comparison to the potential cost of controls that could have been necessary to attain FDEP’s July 2009 draft numeric 

nutrient criteria (see the economic analysis accompanying the final rulemaking). 

EA_OPO - GENERAL STATEMENT AGAINST THE DOCUMENT 

Comment ID 0508-1.001.002 

Author Name: Wilson M. 

Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce 

With reliable estimates that the cost of compliance will exceed $75 billion, far surpassing your agency's contention that 

the costs will be minimal, Floridians deserve a more transparent process than what has transpired so far. This proposed 

rule has the potential to increase the average Floridian's water bill by over $700 each year, costing our state thousands 

of jobs, cause businesses to avoid Florida for states not subject to EPA's stringent water rules, and potentially rendering 

existing Florida businesses to be rendered non-competitive. Floridians deserve to hear more from your agency about 

how these regulations would work, why they are necessary right now, and why the agency believes it can proceed with 

adopting rules that even it concedes may not produce the intended improvements. 

Comment ID 0579.001.003 

Author Name: Meinhardt N. 

Organization: 

The cost EPA came up with is Much less than these groups. Cost to growers, towns, taxpayers Enormous. Could put 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4954
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

growers out of business, & make us dependent on other countries for these food products. Never mind loss of jobs and 

some towns closing down who are dependent on this industry. 

Comment ID 0584-1.001.002 

Author Name: Holly C. 

Organization: Florida Association of Counties 

With the current state of the economy, Florida's counties currently face severe budget constraints. EPA is asking 

Florida's counties, and thus our taxpayers, to shoulder a significant economic burden during a very difficult time. 

Counties are laying off employees, cutting salaries, and instituting furloughs. We are receiving reports from counties 

that some of the proposed criteria are simply unattainable, and there is no amount of money they could spend that 

would allow them to achieve compliance. That is a very real problem that needs to be addressed. 

And it is critical that EPA gets the numbers right. Otherwise, local governments will be wasting taxpayer dollars on 

projects that will not achieve any environmental benefit. With counties' limited resources, it is important to ensure that 

the projects they undertake achieve the most environmental benefit possible. Getting the numbers wrong can also 

result in environmental damage, which is something that no one wants. 

Comment ID 0588.001.008 

Author Name: Gallagher J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

EPA's estimate of economic costs is inadequate 

- EPA inappropriately used DEP's draft criteria to establish baseline costs 

- DEP's criteria were never adopted 

- EPA's estimate of incremental cost ($5 to $10 million) is a gross underestimate given how much lower the proposed 

downstream protection values are then DEP's draft criteria 

- EPA's estimate of baseline and incremental costs much too simplistic 

- Assumed that entities would be granted variances or receiving waters would be downgraded, which is not likely 

- Criteria are not achievable for domestic wastewater, and will require alternative disposal methods 

- If reuse systems are chosen as an alternative, they would need to have a back-up surface water discharge or deepwell injection 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4955
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

- EPA's analysis seems dependent on their statement that "rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable 

to regulated entities or other sources of nutrient pollution", which is clearly misleading 

Comment ID 0589.001.015 

Author Name: Foy J. 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 

15. Although it is much too early to estimate costs as we don't know what the rules and regulation will be or how they 

will be implemented; it is the undersigned's opinion that the costs could be badly underestimated by two to three orders 

of magnitude. In other words multiply the EPA estimated costs by 100 to 1000 for billions instead of millions. 

Comment ID 0596.001.004 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

Program Costs are Unacceptable 

The economic impact of achieving the proposed baseline levels will bankrupt local government. The unfunded mandate 

that this implies will not be enforceable by any home rule body in Florida. The office holders would be impeached for 

raising the tax rate to the levels that funding this program would require. The agency has failed to assess the 

cost/benefit analysis in a realistic manor. 

Comment ID 0640.001.008 

Author Name: Dudley S. 

Organization: Florida League of Cities in Tallahassee 

To wrap up, Florida League of Cities has serious concerns about the nutrient criteria proposed by the EPA. We're 

working to provide a full cost analysis of the proposed criteria on Florida cities, but we are certain that the magnitude of 

the costs will be astronomical. 

Comment ID 0674.001.002 

Author Name: Bishop B. 

Organization: Associated Industries of Florida 

Number one is the economic cost effectiveness analysis. Your cost projections are woefully low and are inaccurate, but 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4956
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

I would suggest this to you: That if you live -- if you want to live by your numbers on what you think it's going to cost, 

then I'll get Florida to write you a $130 million check and y'all pick up the cost for everything else and we'll be glad to do 

what you'd like to do. 

Comment ID 0679.001.003 

Author Name: Vogel C. 

Organization: Florida Water Quality Coalition 

Okay. Having said that, I'm going to speak generically about some issues that you're going to hear about. Economics. 

With all do respect to y'all, we believe that what EPA has suggested for the economic impact on compliance with these 

proposed criteria is grossly, grossly underestimated. We have analyses from Florida Water Environment Association, 

Florida Storm Water Association, which doesn't even take into consideration Florida Management Districts, Florida 

manufacturers, agriculture, power generators, upwards of a hundred billion dollars. The cost is incomprehensible to us 

now. And I realize that economics is not a major concern, perhaps, of the federal government. But if it was your farm, or 

your business, or your water utility customer, you might have a different perspective. 

Comment ID 0721.001.005 

Author Name: Johns F. 

Organization: Lykes Brothers, Inc. 

EPA's economic analysis is also flawed in my personal opinion. EPA's economic analysis is based on FDEP's draft 

criteria to establish baseline cost. However, FDEP draft criteria has never been adopted, therefore EPA's analysis is 

based on assumptions and not facts. FDEP's draft criteria does not assume the level of protection for the downstream 

waters that EPA's numeric nutrient criteria will require either. As the level of protection for downstream water increases, 

the cost of compliance increases exponentially. Thus, it is inaccurate to use FDEP draft criteria as a baseline for the 

economic analysis of the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 0727.001.004 

Author Name: Kelter M. 

Organization: Green Cove Springs 

Second, U.S. EPA has grossly understated the cost of complying with the numeric nutrient rule. It is kind of 

disingenuous for the U.S. EPA to base incremental costs of the program on the difference between the rule you are 

proposing and an FDEP rule that was never implemented. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4957
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 0731.001.003 

Author Name: Hartney M.
 

Organization: Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association
 

We also are interested in finding out more about what went into the development of the economic cost study. We find it 

short of the mark. We'd like to see it revisited to incorporate from start to finish the whole scope of what the cost benefit 

will be to the state, particularly as we suffer from high unemployment, a strapped state budget and industries reeling 

from the national economic downturn. 

Comment ID 0741.001.007 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

and revisit its economic impact statement to reflect the actual costs which will be imposed by these regulations. Thank 

you for your time. 

Comment ID 0746.001.003 

Author Name: Long A.
 

Organization: Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed 


Additionally, as just previously pointed out, and by a number of other speakers, the information being presented by the 

EPA is misleading at best. The financial impacts that are being set forth by the EPA's material is artificially low. 

Comment ID 0773.001.002 

Author Name: Kelly R.
 

Organization: Southern Dr. Phillips Homeowners Coalition
 

We tend to be the people who are at the end of the food chain when it comes to regulations like this because we wind 

up having to pay additional taxes. 

You've had several members from numerous utilities explain to you how this is going to be an impact upon their 

operations. And in order to meet these new regulations, they would have to include additional charges for all the potable 

water as well as the return water for effluent. 

Those kinds of charges are typically passed to consumers. And I find it hard to the believe that the EPA's numbers that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4958
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

are on the back of this briefing shows that they're estimating only somewhere between 102 million, then plus another 7 ­

- 4.7 million for one more impact, plus 1.5 billion capital cost is supposed to be the only impact to this. There's numbers 

that come from the opposing view that show 24 billion dollars in capital costs, and a monthly additional cost, adding up 

to about $740 per year per household in Florida. 

I hope you're aware of the magnitude of the disparaging numbers because your numbers are nothing close to what your 

opposition says. And I think that's a problem for us consumers and voters because we're in the middle looking at this 

and saying this is the agency that brought us a 2009 decree that carbon-dioxide that we exhale while we speak is now 

going to be another regulated gas under the EPA. 

Comment ID 0774.001.004 

Author Name: Carter K. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

In the minute or so that I have left, I'd like to touch on some topics and themes that you-all have heard up in 

Tallahassee and here in Orlando and you're most likely going to hear tomorrow in West Palm Beach. It involves time 

and money. 

First, let's address cost. As far as the district is concerned right now, our focus is looking at your rule, and based on 

your initial estimates that you put in the proposed rule, we strongly urge you to go back and reconsider your 

calculations. We feel you may have underestimated and not taken into account all things as you calculate the costs of 

this implementation of this rule. You have heard a lot of stakeholder estimations and we ask that you consider those 

when you go back. 

Comment ID 0795.001.006 

Author Name: McCarthy L. 

Organization: Lykes Brothers 

The economic analysis I think is pretty flawed. Since DEP has not adopted and is unlikely to adopt their proposed 

nutrient criteria when it's going to be trumped by EPA's, I don't think that you ought to use their proposed values as the 

basis for comparison. It should be what's existing and being used now. 

Comment ID 0802.001.002 

Author Name: Todd K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4959
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Please keep in mind another practical result of these proposed standards. The estimated annual costs of a hundred to 

$130 million for compliance cost is way too low. In order to achieve these proposed standards, many municipalities and 

counties will have to spend millions of dollars each to retrofit existing drainage and waste water facilities in order to 

comply. The estimated cost to achieve the proposed values will be somewhere in the 50 billion dollar range just for the 

utilities in this state to deal with the reclaimed water issue. The cost to governmental or private entities such as golf 

courses or HOAs which will need to retrofit their existing drainage facilities is estimated to be statewide somewhere in 

the neighborhood of 75 billion dollars. If these low standards, particularly for South Florida are made final, there will be 

a huge cost associated with the retrofits that will be necessary to bring these existing systems into compliance. 

It is also incumbent upon EPA to set a very reasonable time frame associated with the effort to bring all of these water 

bodies into compliance. Otherwise, we all run the risk that many governmental entities will not be in compliance or they 

will be bankrupt in their effort to get into compliance, and I ask in this time of economic slow down when so many 

governments are trimming budgets just to stay afloat, is this really a wise use of governmental regulation. EPA needs to 

do some serious rethinking about the cost for this unfunded mandate. I mention this to bring awareness to both EPA 

and the general public of the potentially dramatic increases in costs to the tax payer in order to provide the services 

they have been accustomed to in the past if these proposed standards become the requirement. 

Comment ID 0815.001.006 

Author Name: Carter K. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

The time I have left -- we've heard a common theme as we've joined you over the last three days, time and money. We 

urge you to listen to the different cost estimates that you've heard over the last three days from all different 

stakeholders. We believe you need to reevaluate the cost that you've looked at in your rule. 

Comment ID 0837.001.002 

Author Name: Butler R. 

Organization: 

With that in mind, one comment that I want to make is that 114 or 140 million that I've heard today, that won't do one 

county, one county's municipality system. So the economic impact is definitely great from the standards, this numeric 

standard that you might set. 

Comment ID 0840.001.001 

Author Name: Bell D. 

Organization: Central Broward Water Control District 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4960
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

I never thought you'd get to me. Douglas Bell. I'm the attorney for South Broward Drainage District. I'm an attorney for 

irrigation and soil conservation district and I'm a commissioner on Central Broward Water Control District. One of the 

main concerns that I think that we all have and as I've heard through these presentations is the cost of what's going to 

happen. You in your presentation back up documents you've got a cost which looks like it's 107 million to 140 million 

per year, and for the state I think it's extremely unrealistic. Where that came from I think I would love to know who put 

those figures together. They just don't seem proper at all. Another thing in that same light, there's a number of districts, 

at least the ones that have ad valorem tax, you have a cap of so much tax. I don't know how many are close to the cap, 

I'm sure some are, that if you have this additional expense put on top of it, you may be unable to even raise the funds to 

put some of these requirements into effect that are being proposed. 

Comment ID 0861.001.001 

Author Name: Rockett J. 

Organization: 

Good evening. My name is Jim Rockett, I am a resident from Loxahatchee Groves. What I would like to do tonight is to 

call on this agency to require an independent assessment of the cost associated with these proposed standards. You 

are finding estimated costs in the millions where other estimates are being purported to be in the billions. Clearly there's 

something better that we can come up with. I would like to also remind you that your responsibility includes looking out 

for the economic good, as well as environmental good for those affected by standards imposed by the agency. It should 

be a clear and proven benefit to all Floridians for any costs that would burden our residents. 

Comment ID 0891.001.005 

Author Name: Hushon J. 

Organization: 

EPA's cost assessment approach to rule development is appropriate to assess the costs and benefits of enacting this 

rule. 

Comment ID 1004.001.002 

Author Name: Moser W. 

Organization: Forest Utilities, Inc. 

4) The Epa has grossly under estimated both the cost of implementation, operation and overall adverse impact of the 

prosed rule. 

Comment ID 1011.001.017 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4961
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

The following comments are made concerning the economic aspects of the proposed rule: 

1) The EPA estimated annual cost of $100-140 million dollars is way too low. In order to achieve these proposed 

standards, many municipalities and Counties will have to spend millions of dollars each (far in excess of EPA's 

estimate) to retrofit existing drainage/wastewater systems in order to comply. 

Comment ID 1011.001.020 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

Palm Beach County respectfully requests that EPA give adequate consideration to the comments provided and 

undertake the necessary changes to amend the final Rule. We are particularly concerned that a fair representation of 

the costs has not been adequately estimated nor has the feasibility of addressing the criteria been assessed in a 

technically sound manner. 

Comment ID 1012.001.003 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

In addition to redundant and inefficient water body regulation, the Environmental Protection Agency's Document 

"Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with the Environmental Protection 

Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida" is fundamentally flawed in its economic evaluation of the 

Environmental Protection Agency's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

The Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis is based on the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection's draft water quality criteria . However, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's draft criteria 

does not assume the level of protection for downstream waters that the Environmental Protection Agency numeric 

criteria will require . Thus it is inaccurate to use Florida Department of Environmental Protecfion's draft criteria to 

establish baseline costs for the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. The cost of 

compliance increases exponentially as the level of protection for downstream waters increases. 

As a result of the increased compliance costs associated with the Environmental Protection Agency's Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria, Florida Agriculture will be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage relative to other states and 

countries. Additionally, various agricultural activities may become unprofitable if subjected to increased compliance 

costs. The unintended consequences of such actions will likely cause production shifts into commodities that will bear 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4962
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

the cost of compliance and are likely more intensive. Or, will shift land use into a use that will bear the cost of 

compliance such as commercial and residential real estate development . As an agricultural association and as 

residents of the State of Florida, we implore the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the long term 

consequences of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1100.001.003 

Author Name: Hartney M. 

Organization: Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association 

Talking about your economic impact statement, we ask E.P.A. to fully account for the cost of implementing its proposed 

standards, both to dischargers here in Florida, to those that are in upstream states, to Florida agriculture, to city 

stormwater systems, and to Florida as a whole. 

You are factoring some of this in, but I am here today because I believe that there are some holes in your agricultural 

impact. 

Nutrients are essential for food production. So we ask you to please consider the adverse impact impacts -- adverse 

economic impacts from reduced food production resulting from either reduced fertilizer use or land taken out of 

production to implement best management practices through the engineering and building or construction of structures 

to address water quality. 

We understand that doing this will have an economic impact to both Florida's farmers, businesses in the agricultural 

supply chain, agricultural workers, and ultimately, bread winners as they try to put food on their family's table. 

We ask you to be transparent in your discussion of these costs and to compare these costs to your estimate of the 

benefits. 

Having shared these concerns, we respectfully request that E.P.A. take into account the constructive criticism offered 

here today, revisit your modelling assumptions and your economic impact statement. And we will be submitting written 

comments before April 28th. 

Thank you for being here, and I hope Jacksonville treats you just as nicely. 

Comment ID 1108.001.002 

Author Name: Coughenour F. 

Organization: Plant City 

The City will be presenting a -- a number of legal and technical concerns in writing, but the -- the items I'm going to 

touch on deal with the realities of -- of engineering trying to do wonderful things with limited amounts of money. And -­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4963
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

and I want to talk about the E.P.A.'s cost assessment particularly. The 1.2 to 1.5 billion dollars seems to be, to me, 

grossly underestimated. I've seen a -- seen a number of studies that estimate 10 to 20 times that amount. 

Comment ID 1130.001.003 

Author Name: McCarthy L. 

Organization: 

I agree with the gentleman who spoke way in the very beginning that there is not enough emphasis or attention placed 

on economics. The economic analysis that's been done is flawed. It doesn't adequately address impacts to agriculture. 

And we commented on that earlier, but hadn't noticed that E.P.A. was going to be redoing or hadn't heard that if E.P.A. 

was going to be redoing that economic analysis and include anything. 

Comment ID 1164-1.001.002 

Author Name: Baer W. 

Organization: City of Altamonte Springs Public Works and Utilities 

In addition, the cost analysis purported by the Environmental Protection Agency to meet the proposed criteria is 

significantly underestimated. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.010 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

5. EPA's estimate of the economic impact of the Rule understates the consequences of the Rule for Florida industries, 

municipalities and taxpayers. EPA's cost estimates analyze the Rule compared to the abandoned FDEP 2009 proposed 

rule, rather than compared to current regulatory circumstances, which is an improper point of departure. Additionally, 

EPA's cost estimates assume that Florida wastewater dischargers would obtain waivers or variances to mitigate 

compliance costs, which effectively "assumes away the issue" to be analyzed. The cost estimates of numerous 

stakeholder groups, including Mosaic's estimate of the costs to the phosphate industry, show that EPA's total cost 

estimate is off by several orders of magnitude (i.e., billions, not millions, of dollars). Mosaic is not opposed to incurring 

reasonable costs to achieve actual environmental benefits where impaired waters are actually harmed by nutrients (as 

opposed to by other conditions or materials). However, in this case the real costs of the Rule are substantially 

disproportionate to its theoretical benefits. EPA should revise its cost estimate to accurately reflect the true impacts of 

the Rule. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4964
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.020 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

5. Mosaic Comments On The Cost Impacts Of The Proposed Rule 

EPA estimates the cost impact of the Rule to be between $4.7 million and $10.1 million per year (with an estimated 

annual benefit of $2.5 million). 75 Fed. Reg. 4,222. Mosaic believes that EPA has significantly underestimated the cost 

impact of the proposed criteria. Other stakeholders will doubtlessly provide EPA with extensive analyses of the cost 

impact of the proposed criteria to Florida industries and taxpayers. Mosaic addresses below major flaws in EPA's cost 

estimate, and provides more specific information on the anticipated costs to the Florida phosphate mining industry. 

a. EPA Cost and Benefit Analysis 

EPA's underestimation of the cost impact of the Rule stems from several misassumptions. First, EPA's estimate begins 

from a cost baseline that assumes that the FDEP July 2009 proposed numeric nutrient criteria are already in place. A 

proper cost estimate should compare the costs and benefits of EPA's proposal to the status quo, not to a hypothetical 

projection of what the State might have done had EPA not initiated this rulemaking. EPA estimates the costs of FDEP's 

proposal at $102 million to $130 million per year. Mosaic believes that these cost estimates are substantially 

understated as well, based on the much higher estimates of the impacts of the Rule on the Florida phosphate industry 

alone, as discussed below. 

Second, EPA has omitted compliance costs for non-point sources in the south region of the State.[50] This plainly 

understates total costs, and these costs should be included. 

[50] Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida, U.S. E.P.A. Office of Water, January 2010, Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-017-0, at 8-9. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.057 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Fifth, EPA does not account for secondary economic impacts beyond the immediate costs of compliance. The 

increased costs of doing business resulting from the Rule will translate into job loss in the agricultural, construction, and 

industrial businesses sectors. The higher costs of compliance imposed on utilities and municipal wastewater treatment 

facilities will translate into higher user fees and higher local taxes. Since the Rule will impose these requirements only 

on Florida, Florida agriculture and businesses will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with those in other 

states, creating further pressure on wages, jobs and investment -- likely causing losses in all three areas. In addition, as 

noted earlier, it appears from the record that EPA either has discounted or disregarded the potentially extraordinary 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4965
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

changes in farming and other agricultural practices that implementation of these stringent, sweeping nutrient criteria 

may bring about. None of these costs appear to have been considered in the EPA cost estimate. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.058 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Sixth, EPA did not conduct a sensitivity analysis for risk and uncertainty, as required by the Federal Office of 

Management and Budget ("OMB") guidance documents.[52] EPA's own guidance indicates that economic analyses 

should "present outcomes or conclusions based on expected or plausible values; provide descriptions of all known key 

assumptions, biases, and omissions; perform sensitivity analysis on key assumptions; and justify the assumptions used 

in the sensitivity analysis".[53] EPA's analysis did not include these steps. 

[52] See Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Office of 

Management and Budget, October 29, 1992, at 11-12. 

[53] See Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis, U.S. E.P.A., Office of the Administrator, EPA 240-R-003, 

September 2000, at 26, available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.060 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Finally, EPA's economic analysis provides little quantitative information about actual conditions in Florida, so its 

assessment of economic costs and benefits is necessarily vague. For example, EPA's analysis assumes, without 

examples or empirical data, that reductions in nutrient discharges will reduce the cost of water treatment for 

consumptive use. EPA similarly assumes that water-based recreation will increase with improved water quality, but the 

Agency cites no evidence or data to support the purported correlation between reduced nutrient levels and 

enhancement of designated uses. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.062 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Solution: Improve the Economic Impact and Benefit Analysis 

Mosaic recommends that EPA follow the relevant OMB guidelines for developing economic analyses.[54] These 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4966
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

guidelines recommend that economic estimates thoroughly analyze baseline conditions, potential benefits, distributional 

and socio-economic impacts, long-term impacts, and risk and uncertainty.[55] Further, Mosaic recommends utilization 

of actual data from the regulated community and water treatment technology experts to assess accurately the economic 

impacts of the Rule. EPA should provide the regulated community and the public with a more realistic economic 

estimate before proceeding with this controversial and unprecedented Rule. 

[54] See Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Office of 

Management and Budget, October 29, 1992. 

[55] Id. 

Comment ID 1217-9.001.001 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for the Economic of Numeric Nutrient Criteria from 

Mosaic Fertilizer LLC. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1255.001.005 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

You have heard from others today that asserting the financial implications of the proposed standards is a spurious 

argument from special interests. The City of Tampa is here to say that it whole heartily disagrees with these statements. 

The financial implications to the City of the standards is an estimated minimum 340 million dollars, which is another 

example that demonstrates the inadequacy of the E.P.A.'s economic analysis of the impositions of these standards. 

The imposition of these standards do not recognize the local water quality standards and wrongfully creates an 

unbearable financial liability on the City and its citizens. 

Comment ID 1270.001.004 

Author Name: Parsons P. 

Organization: Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

My final point relates to economic impacts. Many others have commented at this and other hearings on the cost of 

complying with your proposal. And you have statewide a very low estimate of the cost of compliance, because you 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4967
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

conclude that the costs your criteria will impose are limited to the difference between what DEP draft proposal would 

have imposed and your proposal. But that limitation doesn't apply to south Florida canals, because the DEP never 

proposed or tried to derive criteria for those canals, so that your justification for the limitation doesn't apply there. 

Comment ID 1270.001.005 

Author Name: Parsons P. 

Organization: Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

We believe and we'll submit information that the cost resulting from your proposal in south Florida canals alone exceeds 

the cost that you've estimated for the entire state. And we'll supply that in our written comments. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1286.001.006 

Author Name: Reese T. 

Organization: Friends of Brooker Creek Preserve 

As far as economics, I think your numbers are too high. And I state that because litigation is currently going on, I am 

representing Al and Cindy Davis in a current suit that has been pending for a year against E.P.A. concerning the failure 

of Florida to actually implement the ag degradation policies. 

They are not being used in doing your section 303(D) impaired waters list. They are going to have to be -- there are 

many, many water bodies in Florida that are going to have to be restored for ag degradation reasons, and that I think 

will affect your economic analysis, and, actually, for the nutrient rule itself, I think your estimate is a little high, because 

there are going to be other factors that are going to be causing some of this restoration. 

Comment ID 1301-1.001.010 

Author Name: Hodge R. 

Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated 

Economics of the Rule:
 

The EPA cost estimates on this Rule are unrealistic and inaccurate. Compliance for all the sectors impacted will run into
 

the tens of billions of dollars. The Florida DEP Secretary stated: "Compliance will force an investment of billions of
 

dollars without environmental benefit." "Existing technology for agriculture cannot achieve EPA proposed criteria".
 

Comment ID 1357-1.001.003 

Author Name: Schwartzberg L. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4968
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: South Broward Drainage District 

If at some point, the EPA does develop a rule that is based on local conditions and what is technologically realistic, two 

other matters must be addressed before implementation. 

First is the cost of applying the rule. All of the parties who have calculated the cost to their agencies believe that the 

EPA's estimates are unrealistically low, by orders of magnitude. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.020 

Author Name: Andes F.
 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition
 

IV. COST AND BENEFITS ANALYSIS 

In the docket for this NPRM, EPA has included a "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits 

Associated with EPA's Numeric Criteria For Florida," document number EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0170 (hereinafter 

Preliminary Cost Estimate). This document presents the remarkable conclusion that EPA's proposal will - 25 - cost a 

mere $4.7 to $10.1 million a year for compliance. However, this cost estimate does not withstand scrutiny. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.022 

Author Name: Andes F.
 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition
 

B. Compliance Costs 

1. EPA's estimate of the costs of complying with EPA's proposal. 

EPA grossly underestimates the cost of compliance by the regulated community. This is the result of EPA's 

inappropriate use of draft criteria as a baseline, as discussed above. EPA's estimate is further distorted by EPA's 

remarkable assumption that no entity would actually have to meet the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.031 

Author Name: Andes F.
 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition
 

As a result of its flawed baseline and assumptions, EPA assumes that the total annual costs of compliance with its 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4969
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

proposal would be only $4.7 to $10 million a year. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.041 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

Finally, EPA has stated that it intends to apply the federal nutrient criteria it promulgates for Florida to dischargers 

located in other states, if they discharge into waterbodies that flow into Florida waters. Accordingly, the costs of 

compliance to those dischargers also must be included in EPA's cost estimate. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.053 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

A. Baseline 1. Full compliance with Florida's July 2009 draft nutrient criteria is not an appropriate baseline. To 

estimate the costs associated with the NPRM, EPA assumes full compliance with the draft numeric criteria proposed by 

the State of Florida in July 2009 and then estimates only the additional costs that would be incurred as a result of the 

fact that EPA's proposal would lead to a greater number of waters being considered impaired. However, Florida's July 

2009 draft criteria are not an appropriate baseline to determine the costs of EPA's proposal. Under OMB Circular A-4, 

a baseline should represent the conditions that would occur if the regulatory action is not taken. For this regulatory 

action, that baseline is the existing narrative standard for nutrients in Florida. FAC 62-302-530(47)(b). EPA cannot 

assume the outcome of an uncompleted regulatory action and use that as a baseline. EPA's Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses EPA 240-R-00-003, September 2000 (hereinafter Economic Analysis Guidelines) recommend 

generally assuming full compliance with existing regulatory requirements as a baseline. Economic Analysis Guidelines, 

at 24. However, nowhere does EPA's guidance suggest that assuming full compliance with a proposed regulation is an 

appropriate baseline. In fact, even where some in the regulated community anticipate that draft regulations will become 

final and begin compliance, EPA's guidance recommends incorporating the costs of early compliance into the costs of 

the policy action, and not into the baseline. See Economic Analysis Guidelines, at 22. Because the choice of baseline 

has a significant impact on the estimated benefits and costs of EPA's proposal, at a minimum, EPA should have 

evaluated alternative baselines, identifying uncertainties. OMB Circular A-4, at 15. EPA also should have carried out a 

sensitivity analyses to test the impacts of alternative assumptions. OMB Circular A-4, at 42. 

Comment ID 1361-1.001.004 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

- The NCDWQ is concerned that appropriate information to determine the potential fiscal impacts to the citizens of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4970
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Florida was not evaluated. EPA's approach to cost estimations was inappropriately simplistic. North Carolina has years 

of experience in development of site-specific nutrient management strategies that incorporate stringent point and nonpoint source control measures. For example, the calculated costs associated with the management of nutrients in a 

single NC reservoir exceeded by more than tenfold the US EPA calculated costs for all freshwaters located in the entire 

State of Florida. Additionally, NCDWQ is concerned that costs to neighboring states have not been fully addressed. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.034 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

21. The cost analysis presented in EPA publication "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits 

Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida" only considers costs for meeting limits beyond 

FDEP's draft water quality standard changes. Since these standards were never implemented to a rule, dischargers of 

the State are not yet meeting these criteria, causing a gross underestimate of the costs to meet the requirements of this 

rule. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.052 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

18. Costs and technical ability to monitor water quality under this rule should be considered in the cost/benefit analysis. 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.011 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

IV. EPA~S ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IS FLAWED 

Lastly, EPA's economic analysis of the Nutrient Rule's impacts to agriculture is unrealistic, excessively low and fails to 

account for numerous factors required for compliance. It further fails to account for the secondary economic impacts 

that will assuredly occur as a result of the rule. For example, increased costs of compliance includes lower crop yield, 

higher commodity prices necessary to recoup lost costs, loss of revenues, and loss of jobs. None of these costs were 

considered by EPA, yet will result in a very real and significant economic impact to the viability of the agricultural 

industry as a whole, and to U.S. Sugar specifically. 

Preliminary examinations of partial compliance costs have been conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services (Botcher 2010). This report, included in the Joint Submittal, demonstrates that simple first 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4971
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

steps toward compliance will impose costs in excess of $1.6 billion annually to Florida agriculture, with no 

corresponding determination by EPA that such costs are necessary to protect designated uses. These projected costs, 

while by no means an exhaustive review of economic impacts, demonstrates that EPA's own review of costs and 

benefits of the Nutrient Rule grossly underestimates compliance costs. Furthermore, EPA makes assumptions in 

calculating the economic costs and many of which are incorrect. EPA assumes that DEP's water quality criteria has 

been adopted, which it has not. EPA further assumes, for purposes of its economic estimates, that the regulatory 

community is in compliance with the draft DEP criteria, which it is not. 

EPA's economic analysis is far too simplistic, ignoring basic and fundamental considerations necessary to produce a 

reliable and accurate economic assessment of the Nutrient Rule. Because the costs of compliance will be so high and 

profound to the agricultural community in Florida and to U.S. Sugar, EPA must revamp and reassess its analysis before 

the Nutrient Rule can be promulgated. 

Comment ID 1417-1.001.003 

Author Name: Durbin M. 

Organization: City of Kissimmee 

In addition we feel the cost estimates to implement the NNC are understated and the enforcement and compliance 

language relating to Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) is confusing and cyclic. 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.005 

Author Name: Earle R. 

Organization: Analysis Group 

First, it is not clear that EPA's assertion, based on its incremental cost approach, that costs of compliance with its 

regulations do not cross the $100 million threshold, can withstand scrutiny. EPA only considers direct costs and does 

not factor in the indirect costs of compliance in terms of the economic impacts on productivity, employment, and capital 

investment. As such, even assuming that it is appropriate to consider costs incremental to those of complying with 

Florida's own regulations, at a minimum excluding indirect costs grossly underestimates cost impacts and the need to 

seek cost-effective solutions.[6] 

[6] The statute reads that EPA must consider expenditures over $100 million by governments or private entities. EPA 

appears to adopt a strict interpretation of the statute that suggests a narrow understanding of the apparent intent of the 

rule by limiting consideration to direct expenditures. After all, if EPA could hypothetically order the shutdown of entire 

industries, this would not require any direct expenditures by any entity, but result in great economic harm. 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.006 

Author Name: Earle R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4972
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Analysis Group 

Second, EPA's approach of looking only at incremental costs (i.e., in addition to the costs imposed by Florida's 

regulations) will have a perverse and stifling effect on state initiatives to regulate pollution. Any state government 

considering action to regulate pollutants that might be subject to EPA action will, in considering appropriate regulation, 

be concerned that the EPA only takes into account direct and incremental costs to any possible state regulation. As a 

result, states will face disincentives to regulate in the form of costs imposed by EPA's direct cost-only and incrementalcost only approach. That is, based on EPA's proposal for Florida, only if states fail to implement regulations will EPA 

have to evaluate the full costs of its proposals in determining whether to employ cost-effective regulations. 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.007 

Author Name: Earle R. 

Organization: Analysis Group 

Third, as described above, it appears that EPA does not expect that the methods used to analyze costs of the currently 

proposed regulation will necessarily result in compliance with the proposed numeric criteria. This is highly disturbing if 

the prospect is a cascading series of regulations whose cost-effectiveness is only considered on an incremental basis. 

EPA's Cost-Benefit Comparison 

While our comments mainly address how to reach EPA's targets in Florida in a more cost-effective manner, it is worth 

noting as an aside that EPA does perform a type of cost-benefit comparison. However, as noted above, it is unclear that 

the costs calculated reflect the full cost of compliance with the proposed standards whereas the benefits calculated by 

EPA appear to be based on full compliance. As a result, it is not clear that the cost and benefit numbers are comparable 

and therefore whether any conclusion can be made as to whether the benefits do in fact exceed the costs. Moreover, 

the willingness-to-pay methodology employed by EPA to evaluate the benefits of its criteria has some deep flaws.[7] 

When the numeric estimates of benefits are very similar to the cost estimates (as they are in this case), caution should 

be used in drawing any policy conclusions. 

[7] Willingness-to-pay methodologies, for example, tend to be insensitive to the magnitude of the benefit. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.036 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

IV. COST AND BENEFITS ANALYSIS 

In the docket for this NPRM, EPA has included a "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits 

Associated with EPA's Numeric Criteria For Florida," document number EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0170 (hereinafter 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4973
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Preliminary Cost Estimate). This document presents the remarkable conclusion that EPA's proposal will cost a mere 

$4.7 to $10.1 million a year for compliance. However, this cost estimate does not withstand scrutiny. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.045 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Eighth, EPA must recognize that federal criteria will be directly incorporated into permits, and therefore EPA's cost 

estimate must fully account for the costs of implementing its proposed standards, to dischargers, to agriculture, to city 

storm sewer systems, and to the State as a whole. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.051 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 A. Baseline 1. Full compliance with Florida's July 2009 draft nutrient criteria is not an appropriate baseline. To 

estimate the costs associated with the NPRM, EPA assumes full compliance with the draft numeric criteria proposed by 

the State of Florida in July 2009 and then estimates only the additional costs that would be incurred as a result of the 

fact that EPA's proposal would lead to a greater number of waters being considered impaired. However, Florida's July 

2009 draft criteria are not an appropriate baseline to determine the costs of EPA's proposal. Under OMB Circular A-4, 

a baseline should represent the conditions that would occur if the regulatory action is not taken. For this regulatory 

action, that baseline is the existing narrative standard for nutrients in Florida. FAC 62-302-530(47)(b). EPA cannot 

assume the outcome of an uncompleted regulatory action and use that as a baseline. EPA's Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses EPA 240-R-00-003, September 2000 (hereinafter Economic Analysis Guidelines) recommend 

generally assuming full compliance with existing regulatory requirements as a baseline. Economic Analysis Guidelines, 

at 24. However, nowhere does EPA's guidance suggest that assuming full compliance with a proposed regulation is an 

appropriate baseline. In fact, even where some in the regulated community anticipate that draft regulations will become 

final and begin compliance, EPA's guidance recommends incorporating the costs of early compliance into the costs of 

the policy action, and not into the baseline. See Economic Analysis Guidelines, at 22. Because the choice of baseline 

has a significant impact on the estimated benefits and costs of EPA's proposal, at a minimum, EPA should have 

evaluated alternative baselines, identifying uncertainties. OMB Circular A-4, at 15. EPA also should have carried out a 

sensitivity analyses to test the impacts of alternative assumptions. OMB Circular A-4, at 42. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.053 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4974
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

B. Compliance Costs 1. EPA's estimate of the costs of complying with EPA's proposal. EPA grossly underestimates 

the cost of compliance by the regulated community. This is the result of EPA's inappropriate use of draft criteria as a 

baseline, as discussed above. EPA's estimate is further distorted by EPA's remarkable assumption that few entities 

would actually have to meet the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.108 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Perhaps recognizing the legal vulnerability of its position that federal water quality standards do not directly apply to 

dischargers, EPA did prepare an analysis of the costs of meeting the proposed federal standards as well as a 

"RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis for Water Quality Standards for Nutrients in Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida." 

As discussed below, EPA's estimate woefully under-estimates the cost of implementation of these standards, 

inappropriately uses draft state standards as a baseline, and then inaccurately interprets Florida's watershed 

management program. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.020 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

EPA's estimate of incremental costs is a gross understatement and EPA's estimate of baseline and incremental costs is 

much too simplistic. 

Comment ID 1480-2.001.007 

Author Name: Wong E. 

Organization: City of Northport 

EPA's estimate of economic costs is inadequate 

• EPA inappropriately used DEP's draft criteria to establish baseline costs 

• DEP's criteria were never adopted 

• EPA's estimate of incremental costs ($5 to 10 million) is a gross underestimate given how much lower the proposed 

downstream protection values are than DEP's draft criteria 

• EPA's estimate of baseline and incremental costs much too simplistic 

• Assumed that entities would be granted variances or receiving waters would be downgraded, which is not likely 

• Criteria are not achievable for domestic wastewater, and will require alternative disposal methods 

• If reuse systems are chosen as an alternative, they would need to have a back-up surface water discharge or deep11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4975
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

well injection 

• EPA's analysis seems dependent on their statement that "rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable 

to regulated entities or other sources of nutrient pollution", which is clearly misleading 

Comment ID 1559.001.007 

Author Name: Bonde J. 

Organization: Village of Wellington 

-The rule fails to adequately estimate the financial impacts of the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1563-1.001.012 

Author Name: Ward G. 

Organization: Coastal-Environmental 

Again, your economic estimates are substantially low for compliance. You appear to have tried in your technical 

proposals, but, failed in your economic analyses. A number of economists need to work on the revisions. 

Comment ID 1617-1.001.009 

Author Name: Ammerman D. 

Organization: Florida Water Environment Association and WateReuse Florida 

In addition, we believe the costs required for point sources to meet the proposed criteria will be significant. We would 

like to understand the details of the EPA stated estimate of $102 to $130 million dollars per year for the State of Florida 

to meet the proposed criteria (reference Part VII(C) of the proposed rule). This estimate seems woefully inadequate for 

a state with 18+ million residents, a treatment requirement of 2.4 billion gallons per day and over 2,100 permitted 

treatment facilities. The proposed criteria limits are well beyond even the most advanced limits of treatment technology 

currently employed, and to reach these limits will require a significant upgrade to the current facilities, likely costing 

billions of dollars. Furthermore, we can also envision economic impacts caused by the inability to comply and/or by 

delays in permitting and compliance associated with the implementation of these very stringent criteria and wonder if 

these economic impacts were considered. Please provide us details on how to achieve these limits within the EPA 

estimated costs. 

Comment ID 1671-1.001.006 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4976
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

4) Economic Cost Estimates

 The cost estimates provided by EPA for the implementation of the criteria appear to significantly underestimate the 

costs to wastewater facilities, municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), and agricultural sources. The 

Department has compiled the cost estimates from various parties and interests into one attached document for your use 

and consideration. It is possible that the EPA estimates are significantly less than those compiled by the Department 

because EPA has made assumptions about implementation. If EPA anticipates implementation actions that moderate 

the actions to achieve compliance with the proposed criteria, such actions should be clearly articulated. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida 

EPA's Economic Analysis stated 

EPA conducted a preliminary estimate of the potential incremental compliance and state resource costs associated with 

EPA's proposed nutrient criteria for lakes and streams in Florida. Incremental costs associated with the proposed rule 

represent the costs above and beyond the costs that would be incurred for compliance with the baseline criteria. For 

this analysis, baseline costs represent the costs necessary for compliance with FDEP's draft water quality standard 

(WQS) changes (Chapter 62-302 and 62-303; July 2009), and any costs incurred to reduce nutrient loads to waters on 

the existing state Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list or with an existing total maximum daily load (TMDL). The 

preliminary cost estimates described in Attachment #1 to this Report are based on criteria representative of these draft 

changes[1], and thus, represent potential baseline expenditures. 

The incremental costs (cost savings) associated with implementation of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria include 

incremental compliance and government resource costs. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes the preliminary estimates of 

compliance costs; actual costs will depend on the procedures for assessing waters for compliance and the site-specific 

source reductions needed to attain the criteria. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit ES-1. Preliminary Estimates of Potential Annual 

Control Costs Under the Proposed Rule (2009 dollars) [DEP note – the costs listed in Exhibit ES-1 of the EPA 

document did not match the summary costs in the summary table (Exhibit 8-1) in Chapter 8 – it is assumed that the 

Chapter 8 costs, which are consistent with those set forth in the individual chapters, are correct. Therefore, the 

corrected costs are shown in the revised table below]. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.004 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4977
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Overall Comment: The above cost estimates significantly underestimate those that would be incurred for compliance 

with EPA's proposed criteria. 

The Department performed a cost estimate that indicates that the EPA significantly underestimated the costs to achieve 

the proposed EPA criteria. One of the primary reasons is that EPA assumed for all the estimates that certain costs 

would have already been incurred in order to meet the Department's proposed numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). This 

assumption is invalid because the Department's proposed NNC have not yet been adopted. Therefore, all of the 

Department's estimates are based on additional costs that would be incurred above the currently implemented controls 

in order to achieve EPA's proposed criteria. In addition, the Department has used the best available technical 

information to perform a more comprehensive analysis, which has also resulted in increases in the cost estimates. The 

specific reasons for the increases are as follows and are described in more detail in the discussion regarding each of 

the assessed source sectors: 

• For domestic wastewater facilities, the level of technology used by EPA to estimate costs was not sufficient to achieve 

the proposed criteria. Additional technologies, such as reverse osmosis, will likely be required to meet the proposed 

criteria. 

• For industrial wastewater facilities, EPA used an assumption that process controls on the order of $25,000 per year 

would be sufficient for industrial wastewater facilities to meet the proposed criteria. However, source controls alone will 

not be sufficient to meet the proposed criteria. Some industrial facilities, such as pulp mills, have organic wastewaters 

similar to domestic wastewater in nature, and will require tertiary treatment similar to domestic wastewater treatment 

systems to meet the proposed criteria. Other industrial facilities, such as fertilizer manufacturing facilities, have 

inorganic wastewater streams high in nitrogen and phosphorus that are not amenable to biological treatment and will 

require the use of chemical and physical treatment systems, such as reverse osmosis, to meet the proposed criteria. 

• EPA failed to estimate any costs for the treatment of urban stormwater needed to meet the proposed criteria. Even 

though Florida has had stormwater treatment requirements for new development since the early 1980s, it is highly likely 

that "older" urban areas will need to construct stormwater system retrofits to meet the proposed EPA criteria. 

• For agriculture, EPA significantly underestimated the affected acreage of agriculture (6.13 million acres versus 13.6 

million acres for the FDACS estimate). In addition, the EPA cost estimate assumed that only a subset of typical BMPs 

(nutrient retention, forested buffers and livestock fencing) would be needed to achieve the criterion. In contrast, the 

FDACS estimate assumed that ALL typical BMPs would be necessary (FDACs has developed BMP manuals for a 

variety of agricultural operations, and the BMP manuals developed to date and a map showing the locations of BMPs 

implemented are provided as supplemental information to DEP's comments). In fact, based on modeled reduction 

estimates for typical BMPs, the FDACs estimate concluded that additional on-farm water treatment/retention facilities 

would be necessary to achieve the EPA's proposed criteria. 

A comparison of the Department's estimated annual costs for each source sector with the EPA estimated cost for that 

source sector is shown in Table 1, below. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4978
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1 - A Comparison of FDEP estimated annual costs with 

EPA estimated annual costs (M$). See table original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.026 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Conclusions

 In summary, the cost estimates to comply with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria compiled by the Department 

indicate that EPA underestimated the costs. The Department's estimates indicate annual costs ranging from $6 - $12+ 

billion a year. While the State of Florida is very interested in ensuring our waters are restored and protected, the 

magnitude of these costs underscore the need to develop correct and accurate criteria using the best science available. 

In addition, the costs also underscore the need to ensure that the implementation of numeric nutrient criteria is done in 

a manner that makes efficient and effective use of Florida's resources. 

Comment ID 1715-3.001.071 

Author Name: Wilson C. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

Other Issues 

Failure to Consider Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule will have far reaching economic consequences on Florida agriculture, and on the larger state 

economy. USEPA's proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because the agency has not properly analyzed or 

considered these effects, nor given adequate consideration to whether the economic harm of the NNC rule could be 

lessened while still protecting the actual uses of the regulated water bodies. 

A preliminary examination of partial compliance costs has been conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (Botcher 2010). This report, which is attached, shows that just the first steps toward compliance will 

impose costs in excess of $1.6 billion annually to Florida agriculture, with no corresponding determination by USEPA 

that such costs are necessary to protect designated uses. These projected costs, while by no means an exhaustive 

review of economic impacts, show that USEPA's own review of costs and benefits of the NNC Rule grossly 

underestimates compliance costs. 

Even these more detailed cost estimates are only a partial analysis of the first steps to compliance, as the measures 

analyzed are in all likelihood insufficient to achieve compliance and thus reflect just part of the direct compliance cost to 

Florida agriculture. Additionally, the impact of compliance costs, higher commodity prices necessary to recoup those 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4979
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

costs, and loss of substantial agricultural acreage for compliance measures threaten the viability of Florida's sugar mills 

and other agricultural facilities due to inadequate feedstock amounts and increased feedstock prices that place them at 

a competitive disadvantage to other food production areas. All of this threatens farreaching economic impact, and 

threatens the competitive viability of Florida agriculture. These economic effects are exacerbated by the fact that Florida 

has been singled out by USEPA for application of these stringent nutrient criteria, placing it at a disadvantage relative to 

neighboring states. Yet, USEPA did not consider these issues, nor make any attempt to craft the NNC Rule to avoid 

unnecessary economic impacts. 

Beyond the agricultural industry, the proposed rule will impose significant economic costs on urban water users and 

other sectors of the state economy during one of the most serious economic crises in history. The Botcher estimate, 

which looked only at direct and supply chain job-loss impacts, estimated that over 14,000 jobs would be lost in Florida 

as a result of the NNC Rule. These numbers would be much higher once secondary economic impacts due to the 

reduced economic contribution from agriculture are considered. EPA again did not attempt to quantify or consider these 

effects. All of this should have been studied by EPA in determining whether to propose the new criteria, and whether to 

use an approach that imposes requirements more stringent than necessary to protect designated uses. 

Comment ID 1764-1.001.012 

Author Name: Mowry G. 

Organization: Marion County Stormwater Section 

An overriding issue with EPA's proposed rule is that it could increase significantly the number of impaired waterbodies 

across the state. This will create a financial burden to meet the TMDLs. To date, Marion County has only two adopted 

TMDLs with a few more pending. Many utilities in other municipalities have already been upgrading their wastewater 

treatment systems to meet current TMDLs. These facilities may be looking at more capital costs to install even higher 

efficiency treatment systems to meet the numeric criteria. The impacts to the County, City, and private utilities could be 

substantial and, with the economy in its current state, devastating. It was estimated by FDEP that the cost for permitted 

municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) alone could be over $70 billion. This averages out to $359 per 

household per year within permitted MS4s statewide. In comparison, Marion County's current stormwater assessment is 

$15 per year. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.025 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

V. Economic Analysis 

A. Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida (January 2010) 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4980
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

One of the most telling conflicts between EPA and the various Florida entities is the level of anticipated economic 

effects of the Proposed Rule, with the EPA seemingly underestimating compliance costs by as much as an order of 

magnitude. With this in mind, Florida communities are taking stock of their current facilities and operations, and 

assessing for themselves the potential costs to comply with the Proposed Rule. The Florida Chamber of Commerce 

commissioned a cost analysis which currently estimates that Florida communities will be required to spend over $75 

billion over the next 20 years to comply with the proposed criteria, compared to EPA's estimate of $2-3 billion. 

In its Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Coasts and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January 2010) ("Cost Report") document, the EPA significantly under estimates the costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.026 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

First, the Cost Report uses a set of draft numeric nutrient criteria standards prepared by DEP staff in July 2009 as the 

baseline for estimating the incremental costs of the new standards, rather than using existing water quality standards. 

However, the DEP never adopted these draft numeric nutrient criteria standards and utilities never incurred any costs 

for meeting these draft criteria. Thus, the Cost Report fails to account for the costs that utilities will incur to upgrade their 

systems from the current treatment standards to the treatment levels that would have been required under the draft 

DEP standards. Based on this inappropriate baseline, the EPA substantially under estimates the actual costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.049 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

V. Economic Analysis 

A. Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida (January 2010) 

In its Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Coasts and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January 2010) ("Cost Report") document, the EPA significantly under estimates the costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

First, the cost estimates use a set of draft numeric nutrient criteria standards prepared by DEI' staff in July 2009 as the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4981
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

baseline for estimating the incremental costs of the new standards, rather than using existing water quality standards. 

However, the DEI' never adopted the draft numeric nutrient criteria standards and utilities never incurred any costs for 

meeting these draft criteria. Thus, the Cost Report fails to account for the costs that utilities will incur to upgrade their 

systems from the current treatment standards to the treatment levels that would have been required under the draft 

DEP standards. Based on this inappropriate baseline, the EPA substantially under estimates the actual costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4982
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.059 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

V. Economic Analysis 

A. Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida (January 2010) 

One of the most telling conflicts between EPA and the various Florida entities is the level of anticipated economic 

effects of the Proposed Rule, with the EPA seemingly underestimating compliance costs by as much as an order of 

magnitude. With this in mind, Florida communities are taking stock of their current facilities and operations, and 

assessing for themselves the potential costs to comply with the Proposed Rule. The Florida Chamber of Commerce 

commissioned a cost analysis which currently estimates that Florida communities will be required to spend over $75 

billion over the next 20 years to comply with the proposed criteria, compared to EPA's estimate of $2-3 billion. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.061 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

In its Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Coasts and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January 2010) ("Cost Report") document, the EPA significantly under estimates the costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

First, the Cost Report uses a set of draft numeric nutrient criteria standards prepared by DEP staff in July 2009 as the 

baseline for estimating the incremental costs of the new standards, rather than using existing water quality standards. 

However, the DEP never adopted these draft numeric nutrient criteria standards and utilities never incurred any costs 

for meeting these draft criteria. Thus, the Cost Report fails to account for the costs that utilities will incur to upgrade their 

systems from the current treatment standards to the treatment levels that would have been required under the draft 

DEP standards. Based on this inappropriate baseline, the EPA substantially under estimates the actual costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.053 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

V. Economic Analysis 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4983
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

A. Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida (January 2010) 

One of the most telling conflicts between EPA and the various Florida entities is the level of anticipated economic 

effects of the Proposed Rule, with the EPA seemingly underestimating compliance costs by as much as an order of 

magnitude. With this in mind, Florida communities are taking stock of their current facilities and operations, and 

assessing for themselves the potential costs to comply with the Proposed Rule. The Florida Chamber of Commerce 

commissioned a cost analysis which currently estimates that Florida communities will be required to spend over $75 

billion over the next 20 years to comply with the proposed criteria, compared to EPA's estimate of $2-3 billion. 

In its Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Coasts and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January 2010) ("Cost Report") document, the EPA significantly under estimates the costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

First, the cost estimates use a set of draft numeric nutrient criteria standards prepared by DEP staff in July 2009 as the 

baseline for estimating the incremental costs of the new standards, rather than using existing water quality standards. 

However, the DEP never adopted the draft numeric nutrient criteria standards and utilities never incurred any costs for 

meeting these draft criteria. Thus, the Cost Report fails to account for the costs that utilities will incur to upgrade their 

systems from the current treatment standards to the treatment levels that would have been required under the draft 

DEP standards. Based on this inappropriate baseline, the EPA substantially under estimates the actual costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.054 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

V. Economic Analysis 

A. Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida (January 2010) 

One of the most telling conflicts between EPA and the various Florida entities is the level of anticipated economic 

effects of the Proposed Rule, with the EPA seemingly underestimating compliance costs by as much as an order of 

magnitude. With this in mind, Florida communities are taking stock of their current facilities and operations, and 

assessing for themselves the potential costs to comply with the Proposed Rule. The Florida Chamber of Commerce 

commissioned a cost analysis which currently estimates that Florida communities will be required to spend over $75 

billion over the next 20 years to comply with the proposed criteria, compared to EPA's estimate of $2-3 billion. 

In its Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Coasts and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January 2010) ("Cost Report") document, the EPA significantly under estimates the costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4984
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

First, the Cost Report uses a set of draft numeric nutrient criteria standards prepared by DEP staff in July 2009 as the 

baseline for estimating the incremental costs of the new standards, rather than using existing water quality standards. 

However, the DEP never adopted these draft numeric nutrient criteria standards and utilities never incurred any costs 

for meeting these draft criteria. Thus, the Cost Report fails to account for the costs that utilities will incur to upgrade their 

systems from the current treatment standards to the treatment levels that would have been required under the draft 

DEP standards. Based on this inappropriate baseline, the EPA substantially under estimates the actual costs 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.040 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

X. EPA's Cost Analysis is Indefensible and Misinforms the Public 

In conjunction with its proposed numeric nutrient criteria, EPA completed a preliminary estimate of compliance costs 

and benefits for its proposal in a document entitled "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits 

Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida" (hereinafter, "Cost Estimate").[107] EPA's Cost 

Estimate includes numerous unsupportable assumptions, resulting in a misinformed and unrealistic estimate of the 

costs of complying with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

[107] Office of Water, EPA, Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida [hereinafter Cost Estimate] (2010), available at 

http://www.flcitrusmutual.com/files/3b8175e3-d681-44c5-8.pdf. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.041 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

The threshold flaw in EPA's Cost Estimate is that EPA inappropriately used DEP's draft criteria to establish baseline 

costs. Instead of calculating costs based on the present state of regulations in Florida, EPA assumes that FDEP would 

have or has already passed its own numeric nutrient standards. EPA then cuts the difference between the costs of 

EPA's standards and conceptual DEP standards (i.e. the baseline is the difference between "the costs necessary for 

compliance with FDEP's draft water quality standard ... and any costs incurred to reduce nutrient loads to waters on the 

existing state Clean Water Action ... Section 303(d) list or with an existing total maximum daily load (TMDL).")[108] By 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4985
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

this logic, one can transform a large number, such as 50 billion, into a much smaller number with a simple adjustment: 

start counting at 49.5 billion. 

This approach cannot be defended. FDEP itself has stated that "EPA inappropriately used [F]DEP's draft criteria to 

establish baseline costs."[109] FDEP's draft rule, which has now been abandoned as a result of EPA's Consent Decree 

with EarthJustice, never progressed beyond the most initial stages of Florida's rule development process. Neither the 

regulatory costs nor the purported environmental benefits that might flow from the abandoned preliminary draft rule can 

therefore be taken as a given or as sunk costs that have already been incurred. Any of FDEP's cost estimates related to 

the former draft rule should not be weighed heavily and cannot be relied upon, as they would only be very rough 

estimates based on a rule that was only in informal development.[110] 

[108] Cost Estimate, supra note 107, at executive summary 1. Even here, EPA obfuscates what it actually proposes. It 

takes the liberty of using a baseline that "differ[s] slightly" from the draft FDEP rule. Id. at n.1. It is not immediately clear 

that it is only a slight, inconsequential difference for EPA to combine two regions from the draft FDEP rule into one. In 

addition, it does not appear that EPA provides for any way to grandfather TMDLs already developed in Florida, unlike 

the draft FDEP rule. 

[109] FDEP, Main Concerns with EPA Proposal, at 2. 

[110] FDEP did not reach the advanced rulemaking stage where the agency would have been required to prepare a 

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs pursuant to state law. See §§ 120.54-.541, Florida Statutes. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.042 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Notwithstanding that, EPA proposes to treat the costs associated with draft rule as given, or as sunk costs, that must be 

incurred regardless of whether EPA's proposal is adopted. Yet that is simply not the case. Based on the rigors of 

Florida's Administrative Procedures Act, it would be highly unlikey for FDEP's draft rule to have been adopted as-is. In 

fact, EPA's very proposal led to FDEP's abandonment of the draft rule. Thus, a proper baseline for EPA's Cost Estimate 

is the situation today, not the hypothetical situation after a draft, now-defunct rule was adopted. EPA implicitly 

acknowledges this by including an analysis of how much it would cost to implement FDEP's draft rule, but this $102-130 

million is left out of any total cost estimates.[111] 

[111] See Cost Estimate, supra note 107, at executive summary; id. at attachment 1 8-1. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.036 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4986
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Utilities Face Significant Costs to Meet Nutrient Reduction Requirements 

Given that EPA's proposed Florida nutrient criteria will become state standards and be used to impose effluent limits for 

dischargers, estimating the cost of EPA's proposal is both critical and complicated. EPA's cost estimate is detailed in a 

report entitled "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida" dated January, 2010. In this study, EPA noted that Florida already has in place 

narrative nutrient criteria, and had published July 2009 draft changes to its nutrient water quality standards to put in 

place numeric limits for phosphorous and nitrogen. EPA assumed that these standards were the baseline condition for 

its cost estimate, and that the state of Florida, in the absence of the federal proposed rule, would have finalized what it 

had proposed for state nutrient standards - this is a major assumption that has a significant impact on EPA's cost 

estimate. Dischargers in Florida had expressed significant concerns with FDEP's earlier proposal and it is not clear 

what changes may have been made to that proposal before being finalized. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.042 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Clearly there must be a better approach that includes a common understanding of how nutrient standards will be 

implemented and translated to effluent limits so that EPA and utilities can share a common baseline from which to 

estimate the capital and operating cost implications of the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1795-1.001.005 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

Utilities have many other issues that are going to require large expenditures of money and other areas where the 

money could be better spent. Pensacola is an old city and it has some old infrastructure that needs to be replaced. We 

could better spend money on septic tank abatement rather then on this rule and the environment would be better off 

We do not understand how FDEP or EPA obtained their cost estimates for compliance with this rule. There are orders 

of magnitude differences in numbers quoted by EPA and the cost just for wastewater utilities. This difference does not 

include stormwater systems and other entities that may somehow be regulated by this rule. 

We are aware that there are surface water problems in Florida. But this rule will require vast sums of money to be spent 

on problems that don't exist and/or on solutions that won't make a difference. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4987
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.015 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

The EPA's analysis uses the numeric nutrient criteria proposed by the FDEP in July 2009 as the baseline. This is a 

flawed baseline, as the FDEP's July 2009 proposed numeric nutrient criteria was nothing more than a proposal, and has 

not been implemented by the state. 

Comment ID 1802-1.001.002 

Author Name: Torres E. 

Organization: City of Casselberry 

The baseline cost from EPA is insufficient due to the unsuitable or nonexistent use of the Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP)'s draft criteria. Also, EPA's incremental cost estimate is a gross underestimate by several orders of 

magnitude. This underestimate is due in part to the requirement of alternate disposal methods for domestic wastewater, 

the need for deep-well injection or back-up surface water discharge, and the assumption of the unlikely event that 

receiving waters would be downgraded. EPA needs to conduct a more efficient economic impact investigation as well 

as an attainability analysis. 

Comment ID 1837-1.001.006 

Author Name: Brom M. 

Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White 

Springs 

• The economic impact analysis proposed by EPA is completely inadequate. 

The full economic study of the impact of implementation of this proposed rule on Florida's phosphate industry is 

included in the comments presented by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI). The impact on PCS Phosphate - White Springs' 

Florida operations is part of that study. 

EPA appears to have justified its failure to perform an adequate economic impact analysis by considering its proposed 

rule as being incremental to the FDEP's proposed rules on this same issue. That purported justification was rendered 

false by FDEP's suspension of its rulemaking process after EPA announced that it would propose these rules. It should 

also be noted that the FDEP analysis was a very preliminary draft that did not include all costs to Florida citizens, 

businesses or governmental entities. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4988
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 2233.001.017 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

-EPA should realistically characterize the true costs and benefits of its regulatory proposal. 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0508-1.001.002, 0579.001.003, 0584-1.001.002, 0588.001.008, 0589.001.015, 0596.001.004, 0640.001.008, 

0674.001.002, 0679.001.003, 0731.001.003, 0741.001.007, 0746.001.003, 0773.001.002, 0774.001.004, 0802.001.002, 

0815.001.006, 0837.001.002, 0840.001.001, 0861.001.001, 0891.001.005, 1004.001.002, 1011.001.017, 1011.001.020, 

1012.001.003, 1100.001.003, 1108.001.002, 1130.001.003, 1164-1.001.002, 1217-2.001.010, 1217-2.001.020, 1217-2.001.057, 

1255.001.005, 1301-1.001.010, 1357-1.001.003, 1359-1.001.020, 1359-1.001.053, 1370-1.001.052, 1361-1.001.004, 1370­

1.001.034, 1372-1.001.011, 1444-1.001.005, 1444-1.001.006, 1444-1.001.007, 1474-1.001.036, 1474-1.001.045, 1474-1.001.051, 

1474-1.001.053, 1474-1.001.108, 1477-1.001.020, 1480-2.001.007, 1559.001.007, 1563-1.001.012, 1688-5.001.026, 1764­

1.001.012, 1769-1.001.025, 1782-1.001.040, 1782-1.001.041, 1782-1.001.042, 1786-1.001.036, 1786-1.001.042, 1795-1.001.005, 

1802-1.001.002, 2233.001.017, 1480-2.001.007, 1688-5.001.004 

Response: EPA notes that the comments do not include the source or justification of the cost of the economic impact estimates that 

are cited. With respect to how the regulation would be implemented, EPA is promulgating water quality criteria to protect State 

designated uses of lakes, and flowing waters in Florida. Water quality standards, which include state designated uses and the water 

quality criteria that support those uses, apply to waterbodies and do not contain specific requirements for any entities. The State of 

Florida implements water quality standards through issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits 

for municipal and industrial point sources of nutrients, Municipal Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits for stormwater, best 

management practice (BMP) programs for agricultural sources, and other programs or requirements as needed for other sources. 

The State of Florida identifies impaired waters, develops total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for waters identified as impaired, and 

implements TMDLs through basin management action plans (BMAPs). 

In January, 2009 EPA made a determination that the State of Florida needed numeric nutrient criteria because of the growing 

problem of nutrient over-enrichment of its waters and the lack of progress in addressing that problem with narrative nutrient criteria.

 EPA determined that numeric criteria are necessary to establish clear water quality goals and reduce the amount of time-consuming 

site-specific analysis work that was necessary for implementing those narrative criteria. Numeric criteria should be more effective 

and expeditious in preventing waters from becoming degraded by nutrient over-enrichment and for identifying waters that are 

impaired so that actions to restore them (i.e., TMDLs and BMAPs) are undertaken. Protecting waters that currently attain 

designated uses from future impairments from nutrient pollution is less costly than restoring designated uses once impaired. In 

addition, slowing or reversing degradation of currently impaired waters will reduce the cost of restoring these waters in the future. 

Water quality criteria are scientifically derived, measurable properties of water that, when achieved, protect state designated uses of 

waterbodies. Federal regulations allow economic factors to be considered when implementing water quality standards through 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4989
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

temporary or permanent changes to water quality standards. For example, a temporary variance from water quality standards may 

be available if it can be demonstrated that attaining the current water quality standards would result in adverse substantial and 

widespread economic and social impacts. Federal regulations also address issues related to natural conditions, technological 

feasibility (including space constraints), and adverse environmental impacts associated with control solutions that affect other media 

such as land and air. 

EPA is promulgating numeric nutrient water quality criteria in Florida to protect State designated uses of Florida's inland surface 

waters. The numeric nutrient criteria EPA is promulgating could be considered a translation of Florida's existing narrative nutrient 

criteria. Thus, it is likely that many waters identified as impaired for nutrients using the numeric criteria promulgated under this 

rule would over time be identified as impaired under the State's narrative criteria. In either case, however, the State of Florida is 

free to use the existing process to restore and protect designated uses. With the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria in this 

rule, Florida will be able to accelerate the identification of currently impaired waters, develop actions that allow waters to meet 

Florida's designated uses in a more timely manner, and protect waters from becoming impaired from nutrient over-enrichment. In 

cases where waters exceed the numeric criteria but continue to meet designated uses, site-specific criteria may be adopted under 

existing State and federal regulations if there is an adequate scientific demonstration made that alternative criteria will protect the 

designated use. 

EPA has revised its economic analysis for the final rule to address comments, where appropriate. Please see EPA’s accompanying 

economic analysis document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing 

Waters in Florida” and section VI of the rule. 

The Agency has made the decision not to promulgate the downstream protection values for protecting estuaries in this rule, but will 

instead address them in a subsequent rulemaking to establish numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries and coastal waters. Therefore, 

we have not included costs associated with meeting these downstream protection values in the cost analysis for this rule. In 

addition, EPA has carefully considered all data, information, and analyses submitted by commenters and has revised its analysis 

accordingly, including costs associated with downstream protection values. Also see responses to comments 1474-1.001.045, 1688­

5.001.004. Please also see responses to comments in 0675.001.005, and 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG, and 0543­

1.001.002 and 1642-1.001.009 in issue category ECON. 

Comment IDs: 1217-2.001.058, 1217-2.001.062 

Response: Water quality standards are applied to waterbodies and do not have any direct requirements on any entities. As such, 

EPA’s cost estimates were derived on the basis of an implementation scenario modeled on current implementation procedures in the 

State of Florida. Uncertainties in EPA’s cost analysis are discussed in its economic analysis document entitled: “Economic Analysis 

of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients Numeric for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” and section VI of the rule. 

Comment ID: 0508-1.001.002 

Response: The commenter did not explain why it believes the agency conceded that this rule may not produce the intended 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4990
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

improvements. 

Comment IDs: 0584-1.001.002, 0588.001.008, 1301-1.001.010, 1359-1.001.053, 1361-1.001.004, 1370-1.001.034, 1372­

1.001.011, 1444-1.001.005, 1444-1.001.006, 1444-1.001.007, 1474-1.001.036, 1474-1.001.045, 1474-1.001.051, 1474-1.001.053, 

1474-1.001.108, 1477-1.001.020, 1480-2.001.007, 1559.001.007, 1563-1.001.012, 1764-1.001.012, 1782-1.001.040, 1782­

1.001.041, 1782-1.001.042, 1786-1.001.036, 1786-1.001.042, 1795-1.001.005, 1802-1.001.002, 2233.001.017 

Response: The flexibility described above (in response to comment 0508-1.001.002) also applies to the evaluation of use 

attainability, including situations in which criteria cannot be attained for natural or manmade reasons, including manmade 

conditions that would cause more environmental harm to remedy. With regard to the baseline used for the economic analysis, one 

interpretation of the effects of this rule is to correct deficiencies in FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria. Under such an 

interpretation, using FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria as a baseline for EPA’s economic analysis is appropriate. An alternative 

interpretation of today’s rule is to correct deficiencies in Florida’s current narrative nutrient criteria. Under this interpretation, using 

current conditions as baseline for EPA’s economic analysis is appropriate. EPA’s current economic analysis for today’s rule now 

provides estimates of costs and benefits using both approaches. See also EPA’s accompanying economic analysis document 

entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” and section 

VI of the rule. 

Comment ID: 1217-2.001.062 

Response: EPA has revised its economic analysis for the final rule. EPA notes that it uses actual data from the regulated 

community in its analysis of costs, where applicable. For example, EPA used information on municipal wastewater treatment trains 

compiled by FDEP, data from EPA’s Permit Compliance System, and treatment technology costs from case study BNR upgrades. 

Comment IDs: 1617-1.001.009, 1795-1.001.005 

Response: EPA notes that the details of its compliance cost estimate are contained in the economic analysis that accompanied the 

proposal. EPA has revised the analysis for the final rule and similarly provides the details pertaining to the estimate of costs. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.045 

Response: EPA notes that FDEP’s TMDL Protocol document and existing nutrient TMDLs do not require the incorporation of 

criteria directly into permits. The document and examples are discussed below, in response to comments 0721.001.005, 1688­

5.001.004, 0588.001.008, 0727.001.004, 0795.001.006, 1217-2.001.020, 1217-2.001.062, 1217-9.001.001, 1359-1.001.022, 1359­

1.001.031, 1359-1.001.053, 1361-1.001.004, 1370-1.001.034, 1372-1.001.011, 1444-1.001.005, 1444-1.001.006, 1444-1.001.007, 

1474-1.001.036, 1474-1.001.045, 1474-1.001.051, 1474-1.001.053, 1474-1.001.108, 1477-1.001.020, 1480-2.001.007, 

1559.001.007, 1563-1.001.012, 1617-1.001.009,1671-1.001.006, 1688-5.001.026, 1764-1.001.012, 1769-1.001.026, 1782­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4991
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

1.001.040, 1782-1.001.041, 1782-1.001.042, 1786-1.001.036, 1786-1.001.042, 1795-1.001.005, 1797-1.001.015, 1802-1.001.002, 

1837-1.001.006, and 2233.001.017, which raise a number of issues that EPA disagrees with. Incremental compliance costs 

represent expenditures above and beyond those that would be needed without the rule. FDEP’s March 2009 numeric nutrient 

criteria development plan indicates that FDEP intended to submit numeric water quality criteria for lakes and streams to the 

Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) by 2011 (the ERC considers scientific and technical validity, economic impacts, and 

relative risks and benefits to the public and the environment of all proposed rules and standards related to environmental resources).

 One interpretation of the effects of this rule is to correct deficiencies in FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria. Under such an 

interpretation, using FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria as a baseline for EPA’s economic analysis is appropriate. An alternative 

interpretation of today’s rule is to correct deficiencies in Florida’s current narrative nutrient criteria. Under this interpretation, using 

current conditions as baseline for EPA’s economic analysis is appropriate. EPA’s current economic analysis for today’s rule now 

provides estimates of costs and benefits using both approaches. See EPA’s accompanying economic analysis document entitled: 

“Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” and section VI of the 

rule. 

For domestic wastewater facilities, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) 

would need to install reverse osmosis (RO) under the proposed rule for compliance with water quality based effluent limits 

(WQBELs) in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Point source dischargers receive numeric 

WQBELs after the permit writer determines that the discharge has reasonable potential (RP) to cause or contribute to a violation of 

water quality standards (WQS). The numeric value and averaging period on which the numeric value is determined are based on the 

WQS and the assimilative capacity of the receiving waterbody. Dischargers to unimpaired waters may receive dilution credits. 

Dischargers to impaired waters will be covered under a TMDL and assigned wasteload allocations (WLAs). In addition, FDEP’s 

2006 TMDL protocol indicates that comparative cost-benefit analyses can be performed to compare options for point and nonpoint 

sources. Because domestic and industrial wastewaters are generally already highly treated, FDEP’s TMDL protocol recommended 

that the first control strategy should simulate application of nonpoint source BMPs to 45% of land area. If necessary, the second 

strategy should simulate application of nonpoint source BMPs to 90% of land area. If neither of these alternatives results in the 

necessary load reductions, then load reduction requirements for both point and nonpoint sources may be considered. 

In practice, WLAs for point sources in Florida nutrient TMDLs are typically established as either long-term averages or maximum 

allowable loads (based on permitted flow and existing effluent limits). Only seven TMDLs contain WLAs that represent reductions 

from current or permitted loads. As a result of these seven TMDLs, FDEP has revised only a small number of NPDES permits 

reflecting TMDL WLAs, and there is no indication that those permittees with revised effluent limits plan to implement RO for 

compliance. For example, under the Alachua Sink TMDL, the Gainesville-Main Street WWTP (permit # FL0027251) must reduce 

its TN discharge by approximately 55% from 88,748 lbs/yr to 40,380 lbs/yr. Based on the average discharge flow from 1998 to 

2004 (6 mgd), these loads correspond to TN concentrations of 4.9 mg/L to 2.2 mg/L (which is below the advanced wastewater 

treatment limit of technology of 3 mg/L). However, there is no mention of installing RO to meet the WLA. Instead, the facility is 

proposing a number of controls including increasing reuse capacity, upgrading to advanced wastewater treatment for nitrogen, 

adding alum to reduce TP to 0.3 mg/L, constructing wetlands at the outfall, and restoring sheet flow to Payne’s Prairie (which 

would essentially recreate natural conditions prior to development of the area for cattle ranching). FDEP has issued the facility a 

compliance schedule, which provides time for the facility to these implement controls and achieve the WLA by April 1, 2019. 

Under the Lower Saint Johns River BMAP, dischargers have WLAs that represent starting load reductions ranging from 0% to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4992
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

60%. Starting point load reductions are calculated on the basis of initial loads (1997-1998 flows and concentrations) and growth 

estimates for the subsequent five years, which in some cases increase loads two to three fold. However, regardless of the magnitude 

of the load reduction necessary, no facility is proposing to implement RO for compliance with the WLAs. In addition, there are no 

data that show reverse osmosis can actually achieve the necessary low concentration of nutrients from WWTPs. Currently, there 

are no WWTPs in the country that have installed RO for compliance with numeric effluent limits for nutrients. 

In FDEP’s cost estimate, costs were based on implementation of RO for all industrial municipal WWTP dischargers and RO for a 

gypsum stack system (for phosphatic fertilizers with phosphogypsum stack systems). Again, existing TMDLs or BMAPs do not 

suggest that industrial dischargers would install RO to comply with revised WQBELs. In addition, FDEP estimated capital costs 

based on maximum daily discharge flows (rather than the reported design capacity from EPA’s PCS database or its own WARF 

database). In some cases the maximum daily flow is more than double the design capacity, resulting in greatly overestimated costs 

(equalization basins or storage tanks could be used to handle peak flows). 

For municipal stormwater, FDEP did not exclude MS4s already covered under an existing or proposed TMDL or located in 

watersheds already listed as impaired for nutrients on the State’s 303(d) list (and thus not applicable to this rule). Under Florida’s 

Water Resources Implementation Rule (Chapter 62-40, F.A.C.) new stormwater discharges must implement controls that provide at 

least an 80% reduction in the average annual discharge of pollutants (95% for discharges to Outstanding Florida Waters), and 

existing stormwater discharges must comply with the stormwater treatment performance standards requiring the reduction of 

pollutants as needed to protect, maintain, or restore State beneficial uses of the receiving water. Thus, MS4s covered under a 

TMDL, regardless of system age, would already have to reduce nutrient loads through implementation of stormwater controls in the 

absence of the proposed rule and should not be included FDEP’s cost estimates for MS4s. 

FDEP also estimated stormwater control costs to MS4s already covered under EPA’s Phase I and Phase II stormwater rules. These 

rules already require dischargers to develop and implement stormwater management programs (SWMPs), with the goal of 

controlling pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The management programs specify the best 

management practices (BMPs) for public education and outreach, public participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection 

and elimination, construction runoff control, post-construction runoff control, pollution prevention, and good housekeeping. 

Permittees implement BMPs through an adaptive management or iterative approach. However, full implementation of BMPs to the 

MEP may not be complete in many areas. For example, EPA recently sent orders to 79 municipalities in south central Pennsylvania 

requiring improvements to MS4 programs to come into compliance with their Clean Water Act permits. EPA also reissued a permit 

for the District of Columbia’s MS4 that requires implementation of additional, new BMPs for controlling stormwater runoff. 

FDACS estimated costs for agriculture on the basis of 13.6 million acres of agricultural land requiring the implementation of BMPs 

and edge of farm treatment. However, FDACS assumed all agricultural land will require nonpoint source pollution controls, 

including acreage in watersheds where waters are not expected to become listed as impaired, have already been listed as impaired, 

or will require controls under existing regulations (e.g., animal feeding operations). In contrast, EPA estimated 6.13 million 

agricultural acres near potentially impaired waters that may require BMPs to assure attainment of State designated uses. FDACS 

justifies its higher estimate of 13.6 million acres by incorrectly claiming that EPA's lower estimate of 6.13 million acres was 

because EPA used FDEP's proposed numeric criteria as the baseline. In fact, EPA's estimate of 6.13 million acres was calculated 

using Florida's existing narrative nutrient criteria as the baseline. The FDACS report also estimates BMP costs using studies of the 

highly agricultural Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Caloosahatchee watersheds. These studies suggested that very expensive on11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4993
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

farm water treatment/retention controls may be needed. FDEP’s assumption that the same level of controls is necessary throughout 

the State may vastly overestimate agricultural BMP costs. Nevertheless, EPA has refined its economic analysis for the final rule. 

With regard to the baseline used for the economic analysis, one interpretation of the effects of this rule is to correct deficiencies in 

FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria. Under such an interpretation, using FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria as a baseline for 

EPA’s economic analysis is appropriate. An alternative interpretation of today’s rule is to correct deficiencies in Florida’s current 

narrative nutrient criteria. Under this interpretation, using current conditions as baseline for EPA’s economic analysis is 

appropriate. EPA’s current economic analysis for today’s rule now provides estimates of costs and benefits using both approaches. 

See also EPA’s accompanying economic analysis document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for 

Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” and section VI of the rule. 

Comment ID: 0721.001.005 

Response: EPA disagrees with the comments regarding downstream protection values. If FDEP adopts criteria that are not 

protective of downstream waters, then downstream waters may become impaired or fail to be restored through a TMDL, thus 

resulting in a need for additional controls on upstream sources. However, preventing downstream impairments from excessive 

nutrient loadings is less costly than restoring designated uses. 

Comment ID: 0802.001.002 

Response: The comment does not identify the specific reclaimed water issue that is the subject of the comment. Nevertheless, this 

rule does not apply to reuse facilities. With respect to establishing a reasonable time frame for bringing waterbodies into 

compliance, those NPDES permittees that receive revised nutrient limits will likely receive them during the permit renewal process.

 Furthermore, when a permit is issued or reissued by the State, a schedule of compliance for water quality-based limitations may be 

included, as necessary. 

Comment ID: 1217-2.001.060 

Response: EPA has revised its economic analysis to include more information on current conditions in Florida and an expanded 

qualitative and quantitative analysis of economic benefits. 

Comment IDs: 1217-2.001.062 

Response: EPA revised its estimates of cost for the final rule, including analysis of alternative baselines, and also included analysis 

of benefits for the final rule. EPA’s analysis of costs does utilize data from the regulated community (e.g., point source effluent 

concentrations) and water quality experts in Florida (e.g., regarding agricultural BMPs). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4994
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1417-1.001.003 

Response: EPA has revised upward its cost estimates for the final rule (see the economic analysis accompanying the final 

rulemaking). 

Comment IDs: 1270.001.004, 1270.001.005 

Response: This rule does not apply to flowing waters in South Florida. However, EPA has revised upwards of its cost estimates for 

the final rule (see the economic analysis accompanying the rulemaking). 

Comment ID: 1286.001.006 

Response: EPA agrees that actions required in the absence of the rule may have costs. However, EPA’s economic analysis pertains 

only to costs associated with today’s rule. 

Comment IDs: 1359-1.001.041, 1361-1.001.004 

Response: EPA did not identify costs to out of state dischargers because today’s rule is only applicable to the State of Florida. 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.001 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment which states the economic analysis EPA conducted for the proposed rule. EPA has 

revised its economic analysis for the final rule (see the economic analysis accompanying the final rulemaking). 

INC_NC - COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL COSTS AND 

THE PROPOSED NUMERIC CRITERIA (1.1) 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

INC_IMP - COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL COSTS AND 

THE INCREMENTAL IMPAIRMENTS (1.2) (THIS INCLUDES THE 

COSTS TO DEVELOP TMDLS) 

Comment ID 1481-1.001.033 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4995
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department 

Current cost estimates to restore lakes requiring TMDLs to unimpaired levels is roughly placed at $10,000 per acre of 

lake, with substantial additional costs for continued maintenance of these lakes. Highlands County contains several 

surface water bodies that have been verified as impaired by FDEP (FDEP 2008); the costs for TMDL regulation 

development and restoration will be the responsibility of local government. The proposed numeric nutrient criteria would 

unnecessarily classify most of the surface waters of Highlands County as impaired and would possibly require 

development of TMDLs that would set unachievable restoration targets. Given that the economic burden would increase 

by several orders of magnitude, Highlands County requests that these proposed numeric nutrient criteria be 

reevaluated, and the classification criteria modified, to more accurately reflect environmental conditions in the County. 

Response 

Comment ID: 1481-1.001.033 

Response: The commenter does not provide a basis for their estimate of control costs per acre of impaired lakes. The commenter 

also does not provide a basis for the assertion that the criteria in the rule are not appropriate for most of the surface waters in the 

county or that the economic burden would increase by several orders of magnitude under the rule compared to existing 

requirements. Since much of the land in Highlands County is in the watershed for Lake Okeechobee, controls are needed on many 

sources without the rule, in order to meet nutrient reductions necessary to protect Lake Okeechobee. See response to comment 

1481-1.001.034 in issue category INC_NPS_AG, and 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

INC_PS_M - COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL COSTS AND 

THE COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL (WWTP) POINT SOURCES (1.3) 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

INC_PS_I - COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL COSTS AND 

THE COSTS FOR INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES (1.3) 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

INC_NPS_SW - COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL COSTS 

AND THE COSTS FOR NONPOINT SOURCES – STORMWATER (1.4) 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4996
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

INC_NPS_AG - COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL COSTS 

AND THE COSTS FOR NONPOINT SOURCES – AGRICULTURE (1.4) 

Comment ID 1481-1.001.034 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department 

Agricultural producers in Highlands County, particularly those whose operations are under the Northern Everglades and 

Estuaries Protection Plan, have already adopted and are implementing best management practices (BMPs) to reduce 

nutrient impacts to downstream waters. If these numeric nutrient criteria are adopted, the BMPs approved and 

cooperatively funded by both the US Department of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, with substantial contributions from the producer, could be determined to be inadequate to meet 

downstream protective criteria. Under this scenario, much more stringent BMPs would be developed and would have to 

be implement by the farmers. Ultimately the cost of implementing these BMPs will lie with farmers who have already 

invested at a minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars in these systems to protect surface waters. Highlands County 

requests that the additional economic impact to local farmers who have already invested substantially in protection of 

surface waters, be considered when these numeric nutrient criteria rules are being finalized. 

Response 

Comment ID: 1481-1.001.034 

Response: Any additional BMPs that may be required of farmers in Highlands County under the Northern Everglades and Estuaries 

Protection Plan are not attributable to this rule. Furthermore, FDEP could submit the TMDL targets for the lake as site-specific 

alternative criteria (SSAC), under the federal SSAC procedure established in the rule. For more information on the SSAC process, 

please refer to section V.C of this rule. In addition, the commenter does not cite the underlying data or rationale for the assertion 

that currently implemented BMPs would be inadequate to attain current TMDL targets. See response to comment 1011.001.019 in 

issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

INC_NPS_OWTS - COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL COSTS 

AND THE COSTS FOR NONPOINT SOURCES – SEPTICS (1.4) 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

INC_BEN - COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL COSTS AND 

BENEFITS 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4997
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

INC_OTHER - OTHER COMMENTS RELATED TO INCREMENTAL 

COSTS 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

BL_NC - COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS AND THE 

PROPOSED NUMERIC CRITERIA (1 AND 2) 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

BL_IMP - COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS AND THE 

INCREMENTAL IMPAIRMENTS (3) (THIS INCLUDES THE COSTS TO 

DEVELOP TMDLS) 

Comment ID 0627.001.002 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida, the Florida Minerals and Chemistry Counsel, and the Florida Poultry 

Federation 

Regarding the costs of implementation. EPA attempts to justify unilateral imposition of regional numeric nutrient criteria 

as less resource consuming than Florida's use of these programs. The proposal, however, failed to recognize the 

extraordinary resources that will be required from both regulated interest and the regulatory agencies to develop site 

specific alternative criterias, variances, and TMDLs based on the achievement of the proposed criteria. There's no 

evidence that EPA's process will require less public or private resources than continuation of Florida's existing 

programs. 

The economic analysis in this proposal is essentially non-existent. All costs associated with this effort will be ultimately 

born in the form of higher utility bills, higher cost for food and other products, and higher taxes required by local 

government. None of us have infinite resources, but the proposal assumes that we do. 

Comment ID 0717.001.008 

Author Name: Brown R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4998
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department 

Also, it appears that the proposed criteria would cause the number of impaired water bodies to increase by over a 

hundred percent. It's economically infeasible for local governments to implement proposed monitoring and treatment 

both from point sources and stormwater required to comply with forthcoming TMDLs. A true economic evaluation of the 

proposed rule needs to be developed and provided to the citizenry of the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1155.001.005 

Author Name: Kollinger R. 

Organization: Polk County 

Currently, the D.E.P. charges $15,000 per parameter to implement site-specific criteria analysis. In Polk County, 20 

percent of our lakes are within the Bone Valley region, and that would require us to submit applications for over a 

hundred lakes, which would equate to 1.5 million in application fees alone to the State. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.055 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Third, EPA's estimate assumes that those dischargers which will be unable to meet the proposed criteria will in each 

case obtain a variance, an SSAC or some other form of regulatory relief. Id. at 6 - 7. This, of course, "assumes away 

the question;" and nothing in the Rule itself assures, much less guarantees, this result. Further, the fact that EPA 

anticipates that compliance with the Rule will be infeasible or impossible for a significant number of regulated entities is 

itself indicative of how highly consequential the Rule will be economically. 

Additionally, though EPA assumed broad and extensive use of the Rule's regulatory relief mechanisms, the Agency 

failed to include in its estimate the anticipated costs of using those mechanisms. For example: 

• EPA does not consider the costs to develop the many TMDLs that will be immediately needed because of the broad 

reach and extreme consequence of imposing the criteria State-wide on day one. The administrative costs of those 

mechanisms ( not to mention the consequent compliance costs under modified criteria) will be between $6,000 and 

$154,000 per waterbody segment; 

• Similarly, EPA does not consider the costs of applications for SSACs, variances, and use attainability analyses 

("UAAs"), nor the greater costs of compliance with the standards imposed under any approved alternative criteria; 

• EPA does not consider the State's costs to review and develop SSACs, variances, and UAA applications, which costs 

will be very substantial. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-4999
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.021 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

2. In using Florida's draft criteria to determine baseline conditions, EPA has misconstrued how those criteria would 

apply. 

EPA's baseline is incorrect not only because it assumes full compliance with a draft proposal, but also because EPA 

mischaracterizes Florida's water quality protection program and assumes many more water bodies will be considered 

impaired under Florida's draft nutrient criteria than would be the case. In the Preliminary Cost Estimate, EPA identifies 

973 Florida lakes and streams "as potentially exceeding FDEP's draft WQS changes." Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 4. 

EPA assumes that the cost of the development of TMDLs and implementation of nutrient controls for all 973 of these 

water bodies are baseline costs that are not attributable to EPA's proposal. According to EPA, its proposed regulations 

would result only 190 additional water bodies being considered impaired. Id. at 5. 

However, EPA's analysis completely ignores Florida's watershed management approach. Under the 1999 Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act, Florida scientifically evaluates the quality of its waters on a watershed basis. Florida uses a 

rotating basin approach and assesses each of its 52 basins every five years. Through this approach, Florida verifies its 

lists of impaired waters and then adopts these lists by Secretarial Order. Florida Statutes, 403.067; Impaired Waters 

Rule, FAC Chapter 62-303. Florida's 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment lists 128 streams, 157 lakes, and 94 

estuaries as impaired for nutrients. According to EPA, Florida currently lists 146 lakes and 137 streams as impaired. 

Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 2-10. 

In contrast to Florida's practice of verifying impairments, EPA's proposal would require any water body in Florida that 

does not meet the federal criteria to be considered impaired. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4216. Thus, under EPA's proposal, the 

federal criteria would apply to a greater number of water bodies than the draft Florida criteria, further distorting EPA's 

cost estimate. EPA's baseline condition should use the number of water bodies currently on Florida's impaired waters 

lists. Using that baseline, EPA's proposal would cause an additional 1163 water bodies to be considered impaired. The 

cost of developing and implementing TMDLs and nutrient controls for these water bodies should be included in the 

estimates of the costs of EPA's proposal. 

EPA's estimate of the number of waters that would become newly impaired under its proposal also does not include 

consideration of its proposed downstream protection values. Without any explanation or support, EPA assumes that the 

number of water bodies that would be considered impaired because they do not meet downstream protection values will 

be small. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 12. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.032 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5000
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

2. EPA's estimate of the costs of complying with Florida's draft nutrient criteria. In an attachment to the Preliminary 

Cost Estimate, EPA estimates that the costs of complying with Florida's draft numeric nutrient criteria would be between 

$102 million and $130 million. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 8-1. This estimate is based on EPA's 

assumption that under Florida's proposed regulation 335 additional lakes and 638 additional streams would be 

considered impaired, increasing the number of impaired waters by 973. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.040 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

In addition, EPA must incorporate the cost of meeting its proposed downstream protection values. As noted above, EPA 

has no basis for assuming that more stringent criteria will not increase both compliance costs and the number of water 

bodies that will be considered impaired. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.026 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

C. Costs to Florida 

EPA also fails to accurately estimate the costs to the state of Florida of implementing EPA's proposed criteria. With far 

more water bodies being considered impaired, Florida will have to develop far more total maximum daily loads, Basin 

Management Action Plans, and Site Specific Alternative Criteria. And, if EPA's criteria apply to waterbodies without any 

confirmation that the waterbody is biologically impaired, the costs of implementing EPA's proposed criteria will be even 

higher, for no increased environmental benefit. As Florida states: 

Spending resources reducing nutrients when either the site is biologically healthy or when some other factor is 

responsible for biological degradation (e.g., habitat or hydrology) would waste limited restoration resources with no 

environmental benefit. Additionally, spending resources processing site specific criteria every time a biologically healthy 

site does not attain the criteria would waste resources with no environmental benefit. Therefore, DEP strongly believes 

that biological confirmation and stressor identification must part of any criteria for streams, especially given the relative 

lack of a dose-response relationship and the limitations of the reference site approach. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and 

Springs/Clear Streams (draft March 12, 2010), at 43, 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/fdep_comments_streams_criteria.pdf 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.052 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5001
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

2. In using Florida's draft criteria to determine baseline conditions, EPA has misconstrued how those criteria would 

apply. EPA's baseline is incorrect not only because it assumes full compliance with a draft proposal, but also because 

EPA mischaracterizes Florida's water quality protection program and assumes many more water bodies will be 

considered impaired under Florida's draft nutrient criteria than would be the case. In the Preliminary Cost Estimate, EPA 

identifies 973 Florida lakes and streams "as potentially exceeding FDEP's draft WQS changes." Preliminary Cost 

Estimate, at 4. EPA assumes that the cost of the development of TMDLs and implementation of nutrient controls for all 

973 of these water bodies are baseline costs that are not attributable to EPA's proposal. According to EPA, its proposed 

regulations would result only 190 additional water bodies being considered impaired. Id. at 5. However, EPA's analysis 

completely ignores Florida's watershed management approach. Under the 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act, 

Florida scientifically evaluates the quality of its waters on a watershed basis. Florida uses a rotating basin approach and 

assesses each of its 52 basins every five years. Through this approach, Florida verifies its lists of impaired waters and 

then adopts these lists by Secretarial Order. Fla. Stat. §403.067; Impaired Waters Rule, FAC Chapter 62-303. Florida's 

2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment lists 128 streams, 157 lakes, and 94 estuaries as impaired for nutrients. 

According to EPA, Florida currently lists 146 lakes and 137 streams as impaired. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 

1, at 2-10. In contrast to Florida's practice of verifying impairments, EPA's proposal would require any water body in 

Florida that does not meet the federal criteria to be considered impaired. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4216. Thus, under EPA's 

proposal, the federal criteria would apply to a greater number of water bodies than the draft Florida criteria, further 

distorting EPA's cost estimate. EPA's baseline condition should use the number of water bodies currently on Florida's 

impaired waters lists. Using that baseline, EPA's proposal would cause an additional 1163 water bodies to be 

considered impaired. The cost of developing and implementing TMDLs and nutrient controls for these water bodies 

should be included in the estimates of the costs of EPA's proposal. EPA's estimate of the number of waters that would 

become newly impaired under its proposal also does not include consideration of its proposed downstream protection 

values. Without any explanation or support, EPA assumes that the number of water bodies that would be considered 

impaired because they do not meet downstream protection values will be small. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 12. TFI 

strongly disagrees with this assumption. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.059 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

2. EPA's estimate of the costs of complying with Florida's draft nutrient criteria. In an attachment to the Preliminary 

Cost Estimate, EPA estimates that the costs of complying with Florida's draft numeric nutrient criteria would be between 

$102 million and $130 million. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 8-1. This estimate is based on EPA's 

assumption that under Florida's proposed regulation 335 additional lakes and 638 additional streams would be 

considered impaired, increasing the number of impaired waters by 973. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.067 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5002
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 c. Costs to Florida. EPA also fails to accurately estimate the costs to the State of Florida of implementing EPA's 

proposed criteria. With far more water bodies being considered impaired, far more TMDLs, BMAPs, and SSACs will be 

required. Absent a mechanism for confirming an actual biological impairment, the costs of implementing EPA's 

proposed criteria will be even higher, for no increased environmental benefit. As Florida states: Spending resources 

reducing nutrients when either the site is biologically healthy or when some other factor is responsible for biological 

degradation (e.g., habitat or hydrology) would waste limited restoration resources with no environmental benefit. 

Additionally, spending resources processing site specific criteria every time a biologically healthy site does not attain the 

criteria would waste resources with no environmental benefit. Therefore, DEP strongly believes that biological 

confirmation and stressor identification must part of any criteria for streams, especially given the relative lack of a doseresponse relationship and the limitations of the reference site approach. Draft Florida Stream Comments, at 43 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.003 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

The EPA report also notes that "In addition, state resource costs to complete TMDLs for the 973 potential incrementally 

impaired waters could be approximately $2.5 million per year, based on national average costs, assuming a 9-year 

implementation schedule. This estimate does not include the potential cost saving that could be associated with the 39 

waters currently listed as impaired for nutrients that may not exceed the numeric criteria, or incremental costs and cost 

savings associated with completed TMDLs for which the current TN and TP targets are higher or lower than FDEP's 

draft criteria." 

[1] Note that FDEP's draft numeric nutrient criteria differ slightly from those used to estimate preliminary baseline 

compliance costs. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.042 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

• The criteria wiil significantly increase FDEP permitting workload, with the cost of increased workloads being passed 

onto permit applicants. 

Comment ID 1837-1.001.016 

Author Name: Brom M. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5003
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White 

Springs 

The EPA economic analysis is also inadequate in its assessment of the cost of implementation to the State of Florida. 

While implementation of this proposed rule is not well considered or defined, it is clear that the State of Florida will incur 

substantial costs in applying the impaired waters rule process to nearly 2000 defined waterbodies in Florida and in the 

processing of unprecedented numbers of applications for site specific alternative criteria (SSAC) and other potential 

relief mechanisms. EPA should not promulgate this rule without a valid economic impact analysis. 

Response 

Comment ID: 0627.001.002 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment regarding resources for the development of site-specific criteria, variances, and TMDLs 

under the rule. However, EPA disagrees that the economic analysis is “non-existent.” EPA’s analysis identified the potential 

sources that may need to be controlled, and associated costs, consistent with the state’s current process for restoring impaired 

waters. Furthermore, the economic analysis for this final rule has been revised and is now more comprehensive than the economic 

analysis for the proposed rule. For example, the economic analysis for the final rule now estimates stormwater costs, uses more 

sophisticated BMP programs to estimate agricultural costs, and uses a random sample of incrementally impaired industrial facilities 

to estimate industrial point source costs. EPA disagrees that the rule assumes resources are infinite. In cases where control costs 

would result in substantial and widespread adverse economic impacts, federal water quality standards regulations allow entities 

and/or states to seek relief (e.g., variances, use changes) (See also response to comment 0543-1.001.002 in Issue Category ECON). 

Comment ID: 0717.001.008 

Response: The commenter does not cite the underlying data or rationale for asserting that the number of impaired waterbodies will 

increase by over a hundred percent and that monitoring and treatment requirements that may indirectly result from this rule are 

economically infeasible. EPA notes that monitoring and treatment are required under Florida’s existing narrative criteria. EPA has 

carefully considered all public comments and has refined the economic analysis of this final rule. 

Comment ID: 1155.001.005 

Response: The commenter does not cite the underlying data to support the assertion that site-specific criteria would be appropriate 

for 20% of lakes in Polk County. 

Comment ID: 1217-2.001.055 

Response: EPA considers the costs of developing TMDLs, site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC), and ambient monitoring in its 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5004
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

economic analysis for this rule (see economic analysis document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for 

Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” accompanying this rule). The number of future SSACs, variances, and use 

attainability analyses that are pursued as a result of this rule is uncertain. EPA notes that substantial costs are currently required 

under the existing narrative criteria to monitor, assess, verify, and list impairments, and develop TMDLs and BMAPs. In addition, 

cleanup/restoration of degraded waters (if feasible) is usually much more costly than preventing impairments. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.021 

Response: This rule does not ignore Florida’s “watershed management approach.” Despite FDEP's efforts to diagnose and evaluate 

nitrogen/phosphorus pollution under its narrative nutrient criteria, substantial and widespread water quality degradation from 

nitrogen/phosphorus over-enrichment has continued and remains a significant problem. A significant challenge faced by Florida’s 

water quality program is its dependence and current reliance upon an approach involving resource-intensive and time-consuming 

site-by-site data collection and analysis to interpret non-numeric narrative criteria. This approach is used to make water quality 

impairment determinations under CWA section 303(d), to set appropriately protective numeric nitrogen and phosphorus pollution 

targets to guide restoration of impaired waters, and to establish numeric nitrogen and phosphorus goals to ensure effective 

protection and maintenance of non-impaired waters. EPA determined that Florida’s reliance on a case-by-case interpretation of its 

narrative criterion in implementing an otherwise comprehensive water quality framework of enforceable accountability mechanisms 

was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses, which criterion provides that “[i]n no case shall nutrient 

concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” Of waters 

that will be listed under the rule, some of these might have been listed under the existing narrative nutrient criteria once fully 

assessed. In cases where the numeric nutrient criteria is inappropriate (i.e., overprotective or underprotective on a site-specific 

basis), this rule authorizes and allows derivation of federal site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) based upon EPA review and 

approval of applicant submissions of scientifically defensible recalculations that meet the requirements of EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 131, specifically 40 CFR 131.11. Total maximum daily load (TMDL) targets submitted to EPA for 

consideration as new or revised WQS would be reviewed under this SSAC process. 

With regard to the baseline of the economic analysis, incremental compliance costs represent expenditures above and beyond those 

that would be needed without the rule. Given that FDEP’s March 2009 numeric nutrient criteria development plan indicates that 

FDEP intended to submit numeric water quality criteria for lakes and streams to the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) 

by 2011 (the ERC considers scientific and technical validity, economic impacts, and relative risks and benefits to the public and the 

environment of all proposed rules and standards related to environmental resources), FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria 

represent a reasonable estimate of requirements that would be applicable in the absence of EPA’s proposed rule. One interpretation 

of the effects of this rule is to correct deficiencies in FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria. Under such an interpretation, using 

FDEP’s draft numeric nutrient criteria as a baseline for EPA’s economic analysis is appropriate. An alternative interpretation of 

today’s rule is to correct deficiencies in Florida’s current narrative nutrient criteria. Under this interpretation, using current 

conditions as baseline for EPA’s economic analysis is appropriate. EPA’s current economic analysis for today’s rule now provides 

estimates of costs and benefits using both approaches. See also response to comment 1474-1.001.045 in issue category EA_OPO. 

With regard to DPVs, EPA’s economic analysis has been revised to include potential costs associated with DPVs. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5005
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment 1359-1.001.032 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. It is a restatement of EPA's economic analysis. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.040 

Response: EPA’s economic analysis has been revised to include potential costs associated with DPVs. 

Comment ID: 1473-1.001.026 

Response: A significant challenge faced by Florida’s water quality program is its dependence and current reliance upon an 

approach involving resource-intensive and time-consuming site-by-site data collection and analysis to interpret non-numeric 

narrative criteria. EPA has determined under Clean Water Act section 303(c)(4)(B) that new or revised water quality standards in 

the form of numeric water quality criteria are necessary to protect the designated uses from nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that 

Florida has set for its Class I and Class III waters. Under this rule, FDEP can develop TMDLs for waters that exceed the numeric 

criteria the same way FDEP develops TMDLs under the existing narrative criteria. These TMDLs can be developed utilizing 

biological information and implemented to most cost-effectively attain and maintain designated uses. If the appropriate numeric 

nutrient targets are found to differ from the numeric nutrient criteria in this rule, a site-specific alternative criterion can be pursued. 

However, waiting to identify biological impairment before designating the water as impaired may result in higher costs to 

attain/maintain designated uses as restoration costs can exceed costs of controls to protect designated uses in the first instance. See 

also response to comments 1217-2.001.055 and 1359-1.001.021. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.052 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.021. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.059 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. It is a restatement of EPA’s estimate of the number of waters that EPA estimated 

would be “incrementally impaired” as a result of the rule. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.067 

Response: See response to comment 1473-1.001.026. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5006
 
 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.003 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. It is a restatement of what EPA’s report said about the costs of additional TMDLs 

under the rule. 

Comment ID: 1774-1.001.042 

Response: See response to comment 1473-1.001.026. 

Comment ID: 1837-1.001.016 

Response: See response to comment 1473-1.001.026. 

BL_PS_M - COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS AND THE 

COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL (WWTP) POINT SOURCES (4.1) 

Comment ID 0491-1.001.001 

Author Name: Yarborough J. 

Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department 

This letter is in submitted in response to requested comments concerning the EPA's proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

(NNC). It is strongly recommended that the rule not be adopted as proposed for the following reasons: The proposed 

rule for the very low NNC, if imposed as end-of-pipe effluent limits, will require the City of Palm Bay's two Wastewater 

Treatment Facilities (combined permitted treatment capacity of 5.2 MGD) to have significant and costly improvements. 

The two wastewater treatment plants would need to be upgraded to Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) limits and then 

to achieve proposed NNC limits the AWT effluent would have to be further treated by using a high-pressure membrane 

process (reverse osmosis). 

The cost of these improvements and the annual costs associated with the resulting processes are summarized below; 

the basis for the capital expenditures are described in the attached consultant memorandum, subject as above, dated 

January 27, 2010. 

Capital Cost for Improvements to both plants $31,000,000.00 

Debt Payment (30 years with 5% interest) $ 2,040,000.00 

Annual Maintenance Cost ($1.00 per 1,000gal) $ 520,000.00 

Annual Energy Cost Increase (2 x current cost) $ 381,300.00 

The above capital expenditure with associated debt service and the annual maintenance and energy costs are 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5007
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

estimated to increase the yearly sewer rate per household by $600 to $700. 

Comment ID 0491-1.001.009 

Author Name: Yarborough J. 

Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria Capital Cost Estimate for Palm Bay 

To further determine the impact of the implementation of a NNC type effluent permit limit on the City of Palm Bay 

wastewater treatment facilities, Wade Trim has prepared a planning level cost estimate for the plant upgrades at the 

two wastewater treatment facilities to AWT effluent standards and then providing further RO tertiary treatment. The cost 

estimate was developed using a variety of resources, including other recent projects and the St. Johns River Water 

Management District Technical Publication SJ2008-SP10. The planning level costs are summarized below and the 

details of each estimate can be found on the accompanying attachments. 

Original comment letter contains additional information regarding cost estimates in Table 2. Planning Level Cost 

Estimate to Upgrade the City ot Palm Bay Wastewater Treatment to the Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria End-ofPipe Effluent Limits. See original comment letter. 

In summary, the estimated probable construction costs to upgrade the existing Palm Bay wastewater treatment facilities 

from typical secondary effluent limits to the possible numeric nutrient criteria type effluent limits are on the order of 

$5.00 to $6.00/gallon of treatment capacity. This cost estimate does not include any other plant upgrade/modifications 

which might be recommended to be completed if this type of plant improvements were to be further considered. It 

should be pointed out that currently, the City of Palm Bay disposes of its treated effluent via deep well injection and 

reuse. It would be expected that the NNC criteria would initially be applied to wastewater treatment facilities that 

discharge to surface waters before being applied to wastewater treatment that discharge via other methods. Please feel 

free to contact me if you have any further questions. 

Comment ID 0558.001.003 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Such circumstances cannot be acceptable to EPA when the EPA considers the impact of this rule to the state of 

Florida. By way of example, CCUA has estimated that its capital cost expenditures to comply with the proposed rule 

would exceed $120,000,000.00. 

Comment ID 0587.001.003 

Author Name: Gildan P. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5008
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Greenberg Traurig on behalf of the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility 

4. Technologies to reduce nutrient loadings in reclaim water or advanced waste treated water to the levels being 

proposed by the USEPA will require implementation of energy intensive membrane technologies. These membrane 

technologies require high energy usage to force effluent through membranes with a resultant substantial increase in the 

treatment facility's existing carbon footprint (and with a significant increase in annual electricity operating costs), and 

create a concentrate side stream that must then be disposed of with additional impact on the environment. The 

environmental impacts of increased energy usage and concentrate side stream disposal (and capital and operating 

costs impacts), which will result from application of this rule to wastewater utilities has not been considered by the 

USEPA, but must be taken into account as a negative impact and weighed against the projected incremental 

environmental benefits anticipated to be gained by implementation of this new rule for South Florida Canals. Further, 

the capital costs that will be imposed on public utilities for compliance with the USEPA proposal, including installation of 

membrane technologies and affiliated integration facilities can exceed $8 per gallon of treated effluent (if applied to the 

70 MGD ECR facilities, this would equal a $560 million capital cost). These costs were not adequately considered in the 

USEPA proposal. 

The ECR respectfully requests that USEPA give adequate consideration to the comments provided and undertake the 

necessary changes to amend the final Rule. 

Comment ID 0601.001.005 

Author Name: Kelley H. 

Organization: 

4. There is not a single wastewater treatment facility in Florida that can currently meet the new limits. 

4 to 8 times higher per [illegible handwritten comment] 

5. The cost for retrofitting every plant in Florida is estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars. In order to pay for the 

enormous costs to come into compliance, catastrophic double digit rate increases for all wastewater utility customers in 

Florida will be required. EPA has estimated that it will cost $4 million to retrofit all of Florida's plants to come into 

compliance with the new rules. This is another ridiculous number that has no scientific data behind it. 

In this economy, we cannot continue to pretend that taxpayers can afford every environmental whim that comes down 

the pike. We have seen agencies like NOAA threaten the entire Florida Charter Fishing fleet based on limited, and are 

very concerned about the hard dollar cost to us as taxpayers. As I stated, we in Okaloosa counted invested in $60 

million barely 60 days ago to have state of the art plant, and based on flawed science we will be asked to pay millions 

more. We cannot afford anymore, and request that you stop this action. 

Comment ID 0620.001.004 

Author Name: Kelly H. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5009
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party 

There is not a single wastewater treatment facility in Florida that can currently meet the new limits. The cost for 

retrofitting every plant in Florida is estimated to be in the billions of dollars despite what you show on your slides. In 

order to pay for the enormous cost of coming in compliance, catastrophic double or triple rate increases for all 

wastewater utility customers will be required. 

There is no accounting for the profound increase that these regulations will have on the carbon footprint of the 

retrofitted plants. If these plants adopt a reverse osmosis system, it will greatly increase operating costs, ironically, and 

increase the amount of carbon-based energy needed to meet these unscientific standards. So in the process of trying to 

kill the patient -- in the process of trying to save the patient, we will kill the patient by using more greenhouse gases. 

Additionally, FDS yesterday challenge the standard being put forth by the EPA. In this economy we cannot continue to 

pretend to that we taxpayers can avoid every environmental program that comes down the pike. As I stated, Okaloosa 

County has invested 60 million dollars barely 60 days ago to have a state-of-the- art water treatment plant. Now based 

on flawed science data we will be asked to pay millions more. We cannot afford any more, and we request you stop 

these regulations. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0623.001.002 

Author Name: Null M. 

Organization: City of Green Cove Springs 

And where as these recommended numeric nutrient are significantly lower than water treatment down. And whereas the 

City has estimated that it would cost approximately 12 million dollars to construct the facilities to attempt to comply. 

Comment ID 0623.001.004 

Author Name: Null M. 

Organization: City of Green Cove Springs 

And whereas the City estimates if this is approved and the City is to need improvements in the amount of 12 million 

dollars. The city's rates could increase as much as 40 percent which would cause significant harm to the City's citizens 

and customers; whereas the rules for numeric criteria proposed apply to all waters in the state of Florida. 

And where as the USEPA has by their own admission understated the instrumental costs in numeric nutrient criteria 

rules in the state of Florida. 

And whereas Florida businesses will be placed in a position of competitive disadvantage with businesses in other states 

as a result of higher wastewater costs; and whereas USEPA administrator submitted on January 14, 2009 that the 

termination letter that the Florida's TPL rule will not work. And whereas less than 90 days prior to the submittal of the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5010
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

termination letter the City of Green Cove Springs and other stakeholders in the Lower St. Johns River Basin began the 

implementation phase of the TMDL collectively submitted hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, permit, and 

construct improvements that will lead to water quality improvements as to this issue. 

Comment ID 0642.001.003 

Author Name: Bennett A. 

Organization: City of Clearwater 

But EPA's own estimates this numeric criteria will increase our costs by about 3.17 a gallon per day to treat wastewater. 

That's to get a very small incredible increase of current three parts per million of total nitrogen down to a proposed 

1.798 parts per million. And to get a very small incredible mental improvement from one part per million total 

phosphorous down to 1.739. For the City of Clearwater, that's eight million dollars. Or approximately 800 dollars for 

every man, woman and child. That's just for the capitol cost, and there's ongoing operations that maintenance costs in 

addition to that. I think you'll see that we have years and years of science. It's based on biological assessments and 

responses that show the Tampa bay is responding to what's being done at this time, and that increase reductions are 

not needed for the recovery of Tampa bay. 

Comment ID 0644.001.005 

Author Name: Janazzo J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners 

We have objections based on the financial cost. Our estimates put it at 315 million just for Okaloosa County. We figure 

there will be seven additional processes required for our wastewater treatment. 

Comment ID 0644.001.009 

Author Name: Janazzo J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners 

Economic impacts to our county, we figure, again, there are going to be seven additional processes, a fifth stage 

anaerobic, a deep bed sand filter, high and low pressure, reverse osmosis, added to our new plant which we just spent 

$63 million, brings the total to about two hundred million plus another roughly 180 million in recurring costs. 

Comment ID 0645.001.002 

Author Name: Lackemacher P. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5011
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Bay County Utility Services 

I'd like to talk about the big picture. My specific comments will come by March 29th. These are general overview 

comments of your proposed rule. Florida is facing a $3 billion shortfall in State revenues. And with unemployment 

nearly 12 percent, expensive initiatives are a huge financial concern to Florida citizens. Florida has a population of 

approximately 18 million people. According to FDEP, general facts in 2006, there are 21 hundred active domestic water 

treatment facilities in Florida that serve approximately 64 percent of the population. That's 11.5 million people. 

Collectively, those of us responsible for these permitted wastewater treatment facilities are in agreement with Florida 

Water Environment Associations Utility Council finding that Florida municipal wastewater treatment utilities will spend 

upwards to $50 billion in capital costs for treatment process upgrades to meet EPA's proposed rule. This translates to 

doubling, on average, the wastewater rates across the State. 

Comment ID 0645.001.004 

Author Name: Lackemacher P. 

Organization: Bay County Utility Services 

Capital costs, the estimated capital cost improvements for our wastewater treatment facilities is roughly 60 to $70 

million. The impact to our customers, as I said before, will double their rates. On the stormwater side, Bay County has 

estimated the capital cost to be in the neighborhood of 14 billion dollars. How in God's good name can the taxpaying 

public take this on? Scheduling, meeting EPA's proposed timeline for compliance is not realistic. Fast tracking for just 

our wastewater treatment facilities alone would take a minimum of three to four years to have a process in place. 

Compliance of this magnitude is typically given in years. I see I've run out of time, so I'll close. We need to reconsider 

what we're doing. One final note, Speaker Number 3, Mr. Don Palmer had to leave. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0646.001.006 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

For my utility customers to comply, an expenditure of at least $34 million will be required resulting in a 71-percent 

increase in my customers' water and sewer bill. For the entire State of Florida, publicly owned treatment works will need 

to spend over 25 billion, probably over 50 billion. If all POTWs in Florida attain the mandated limits, it would result in a 

less than one-percent improvement in water quality. The city government of Destin, which serves a population of about 

12 thousand people, will need to spend at least $300 million to capture and treat the runoff from their point sources, 

which will result in a quadrupling of property taxes. I wish that I knew how much it would cost the Florida Department of 

Transportation and development to comply, but I think just a quick look will result in numbers with the word trillion 

behind it. It should be noted that the use of reverse osmosis will also create at least a five-percent increase in the 

statewide demand for electric power. This then will result in more nitrogen compounds entering the atmosphere and 

more deposition on our waters. The federal government is imposing a mandate on the citizens of Florida which will 

deplete our treasury, wreck our economy, and do more harm than good to the natural environment. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5012
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 0648.001.003 

Author Name: Castile C. 

Organization: 

Cost is a significant issue here in today's economy. Somewhere between the 10 million and the 50 billion that have 

been estimated, there's got to be a reasonable cost that we're all willing to bear to clean up our waters. And again, we 

appreciate you bringing this proposal to us today, and everyone looks forward to working with you to come to a 

conclusion that works for everyone. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0656.001.002 

Author Name: Bolam D. 

Organization: Clay County Utility Authority 

We, in fact, meet the Apricot Act for three of our facilities, and we've spent nearly $80 million on our reuse system, and 

we're looking at having to spend close to $123 million to achieve compliance with this rule. We don't think that's a good 

use of the public's funds. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0663.001.001 

Author Name: Richardson D. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

Good afternoon. I'm David Richardson. I'm with Gainesville Regional Utilities. I'm an Assistant General Manager. 

Gainesville Regional Utilities is a municipal utility that provides electric, water, wastewater, natural gas, and 

telecommunications. I'm responsible for the water and wastewater part of the organization. 

We serve a population of about 180 thousand people. As a community organization, we absolutely are supportive of 

environmental protection. We want to make sure that that's done in a cost-effective manner, and that's really what I'm 

going to be speaking about today. 

We have two water reclamation facilities. One is our Main Street Water Reclamation Facility. It discharges to a stream, 

Sweet Water Branch, which flows into Alachua Sink and recharges the Floridan aquifer. 

We have long been involved in the TMDL process, establishing a TMDL for Alachua Sink and going through the BMAP 

process to make sure that we're identifying cost-effective means for achieving the proper level of treatment, to make 

sure that there is no impairment of the receiving water bodies. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5013
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

After extensive data collection and modeling, stakeholders, including Gainesville Regional Utilities and DEP, of course, 

arrived at a model to predict the trophic state index in Alachua Sink. What we found was Alachua Sink is nitrogen 

limited. Some of the streams coming into the sink cut through phosphatic soils, so there is phosphorous -- a high 

background concentration of phosphorous. The TMDL process identified then the limiting nutrient to be nitrogen, and 

that is the nutrient of concern. 

So the TMDL is oriented toward nitrogen, production of total nitrogen. There are many sources of total nitrogen in the 

basin, many from natural systems, but a few point sources. We're one, and we proposed a project to reduce the total 

nitrogen. And that will be reduced primarily by constructing a wetland that would then rehydrate a large portion of 

Payne's Prairie that has been dyked and drained over time. 

So we'll be able to meet our TMDL requirements for total nitrogen reductions through this project as part of the NPDES 

permit that, of course, we're under right now and are obligated to proceed with the projects that have been identified in 

the BMAP. What we found through the process is that the nutrient levels, determined to be appropriate for Alachua 

Sink, were actually background levels for Alachua Sink; and they are above the proposed numeric criteria. So the 

numeric criteria are above background levels for the sink. The cost that it will cost us to construct the treatment wetland 

and meet the TMDL is approximately $20 million. 

Now we're the big driver in that. We're paying the bulk of that. But also included in that is other parts of the City of 

Gainesville, the stormwater utility, as well as the Florida Department of Transportation. And so this project really is a 

project that will meet a number of needs for our communities. 

If we were not to do that, our alternative to meet the numeric criteria would be to construct biological nutrient removal, 

microfiltration and reverse osmosis at a cost of about $85 million. So the difference is between 20 and $85 million. And 

if we had to do that to meet the numeric criteria, there's no benefit to us to doing the rest of the project. We would do 

that as opposed to doing the sheet-flow restoration project. And I'll describe some of the other benefits. What we found 

through this process, this stakeholder process, and I think exactly what the TMDL is designed to do is park managers 

needed more water for the prairie. Historically the water flow to the prairie has been reduced. Great. We have water. As 

long as it's the right quality, it can be put to a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial use. 

So they're very interested in high quality water. They're going to use it to rehydrate about 1300 acres of Payne's Prairie, 

as I indicated. So, unfortunately, the numeric criteria, as it's been proposed, undermines the efficient use of water 

resources on the prairie because, if we have to meet it some other way, we will not be doing this project. 

And, unfortunately, we're all sitting in a box right now in that the TMDL is part of the NPDES permit. We've got to 

proceed with this project. We are spending millions of dollars on a project right now we know will not meet the numeric 

criteria. 

Comment ID 0673.001.004 

Author Name: Fuller M. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5014
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

We think that, you know, Florida is -- people have talked about negative economic consequences of meeting these 

standards. We think that there's negative economic consequences of not cleaning up our waterways. We think that 

beach closure days, degraded springs, springs which have gone from a macrophyte-based system of the plants to an 

algal dominated system, we think that declining water qualities in Florida lakes, that doesn't help fishing. That doesn't 

help draw tourists to the State. We think that -- you know, this was representing a lot of change; but with change will 

come opportunities. We think that in the future there will be more people who are involved in smart fertilizer reduced, 

use the minimum effective dose of fertilizer, get the fertilizer to the plant, the target plant's roots, don't disseminate it 

across the landscape and have it end up in the waterways. You can have a great reduction in lawn fertilizers. We think 

that the figures that you've heard about, reverse osmosis requirements, are incorrect. We think that the figures -- we 

certainly are not saying that they'll be cost free, but we think that the projections that you've heard are based on 

technologies which will not be required to meet your standards. 

Comment ID 0674.001.008 

Author Name: Bishop B. 

Organization: Associated Industries of Florida 

Number 2, the Florida Water Environment Association, which is the public and private utilities in the State of Florida, 

they have estimated themselves at the cost to municipal governments in Florida is going to be $50 billion. You've heard 

that figure several times. We did a survey of nine utilities across the State, and the increase to consumers will be about 

$700 a year for an average water consumer. If you have a bigger family than a normal family, it's going to cost more; 

business will cost more. 90 percent of the State waters do not meet the standards that you're trying to do. 

Comment ID 0675.001.005 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: FWEA Utilities Council, the FSAWA Utility Council, and the Florida Rural Waters Association 

One of the first questions Utilities wanted answered when this initiative: How much is this federal program going to cost. 

And so, they hired a reputable engineering firm, Carillo Engineers, and had a signed and sealed analysis performed. 

The answer was $254 billion in capitol costs just for the folks I represent, because these standards will require the 

unprecedented addition of reverse osmosis to their systems. Biological treatment just cannot get you there. Your rulemaking record includes cost estimates you completed, but instead of looking at the present day state of the world, you 

assumed DEP would have first passed its own numeric standards and cut the difference within the cost of EPA's 

standards and conceptual DEP standards. So by your logic, everyone can make 25-and-a-half billion, a small number, if 

you just start counting at 25 billion. You also seem to assume that DEP and your oversight authority for the MPS 

permitting program, that you would be approving facilities that do not meet the criteria you would be imposing. These 

cost estimates were misleading to the state of Florida and quite frankly were irresponsible. 

Comment ID 0678.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5015
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

An earlier speaker in another session said sewage bills have gone up fifty percent in Tallahassee. And the truth is, in 

the cases where there have been higher bills, they only went up about ten dollars a month for a family of three. 

Comment ID 0703.001.003 

Author Name: Morrissey J. 

Organization: Pinellas County Utilities 

And the cost estimates for these [WWTF upgrades], I know they vary widely from EPA estimates to studies utilities have 

done. But even at the most modest cost estimate, it's $10 per family, $120 per year per family, which is a considerable 

amount of money. And our utility has been successful in getting rates to support treatment. The people of Florida have 

always put money for environmental protection. I'm sure you've already heard some of the prior speakers and some of 

the past speakers how they are willing to spend money that's well-developed and well thought out. 

Comment ID 0727.001.006 

Author Name: Kelter M. 

Organization: Green Cove Springs 

On Main Street where taxpayer dollars are still expended with thrift and due care, incremental costs really mean the 

difference between what we're paying now for our TMDL rules and what it would cost to use EPA's program, what it will 

really cost. I was astounded as an engineer by the cost estimates you show in Appendix A to your docket blah, blah, 

blah 0996-dash-0170. I don't know where you get these numbers, you guys. One million twenty-four thousand dollars 

for the Town of Orange Park wastewater treatment plant to comply. Now, I designed and supervised the construction of 

that plant. I kind of know better. I can build things cheap, but not that cheap. 

Okay. Zero dollars in your appendix for the City of Green Cove Springs. Are you kidding me? I was public works 

director for that city and today I stick my political neck out every day asking for millions of dollars, you know, to build 

plants capable of removing nutrient loads. Your cost models do not account for the fact that small municipal wastewater 

plants are generally surrounded by built-up urban areas. Constructing actual improvements in small communities is 

extremely difficult and extremely costly. 

Comment ID 0732.001.005 

Author Name: Fulford C. 

Organization: Congressman Adam Putnam 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5016
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Unfortunately, these actions will have chilling effects on other states, discouraging future collaborative efforts with EPA 

to restore our environment. As our state struggles with an unemployment rate of 11.8 percent, the likely financial 

burdens resulting from these regulations could not have come at a worst time. 

Local governments will be forced to add costly nutrient pollution control measures to current stormwater management 

programs, utilities, and Florida estimates the capital cost for treating wastewater could result in substantial increase in 

utility fees and will bear the cost of the litigation when a water body is classified as being impaired. Pollution control 

technologists will be costly to obtain, if it is even available, to meet the proposed standards. 

Comment ID 0748.001.003 

Author Name: Godlewski V. 

Organization: City of Orlando Wastewater Division 

But let me tell you a story about best available treatment technology. I think we have a good story to tell. The city of 

Orlando has developed a lot of expertise in the area of biological nutrient removal. We have a facility called the Iron 

Bridge Regional Water Reclamation facility. It's a supporting MGD plant. It's designed for AWT standards. In 

conjunction with that, we have the Orlando Easterly Wetlands System, which is 1200 acres of manmade wetlands. 

Our annual average discharge for nitrogen in calendar year 2009 was 2.02 milligrams per liter from the plant. 

Phosphorous was 0.154 milligrams per liter. About 15 million gallons a day on average was discharged to the wetlands 

system last calendar year. The total nitrogen concentration emerging from our wetlands was 1.16 milligrams per liter 

and our phosphorous was .029 milligrams per liter. 

We're getting close. Now, it's been at a terrific expense to get that close. We've probably invested over 75 million 

dollars, in present-day dollars, to produce that system. Right now it's very difficult for us to really assess what the impact 

is going to be on our system. The rule isn't finished. If we assume that 50 percent of our nutrient load will reach the 

estuary -- remember, we're an inland system -- we're getting close on the nitrogen. We're not really sure about 

phosphorous. We think we might be there. If we're not there, we're potentially going to be spending, who-knows-what, 

maybe 70 to a hundred million dollars to upgrade treatment. 

But just to put things into perspective, our system costs about two million dollars per million gallons per day of 

treatment. And we enjoy a pretty good economy of scale. For our smaller facilities, which comprise most of Florida, 

they're probably going to see double to triple that in trying to implement this technology to get down to the nutrients 

we're talking about. 

Comment ID 0748.001.005 

Author Name: Godlewski V. 

Organization: City of Orlando Wastewater Division 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5017
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

And, as a utility manager, you start looking at what's going to be the most cost effective for us. You know, it may be that 

less desirable options like depo injection become more desirable because our ratepayers aren't going to be able to 

afford it. But I would like to invite you all to come and see our system. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0753.001.007 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

We're also concerned that the proposed rules will result in limited resources that are available to address water quality 

issues. The cost benefit analysis that has been presented by the EPA to demonstrate the benefits provided to our 

environment or our society outweigh the costs to propose the numeric nutrient rule. In Orange County, meeting the 

NNC rule would cost our ratepayers 150 million dollars in capital and an additional 17 million dollars in expenses simply 

for the nine million gallons of discharge to the Econolockahatchee River and the Lake Martin situation that I mentioned, 

this equates to an additional $200 a year for every household that we serve. 

Comment ID 0757.001.005 

Author Name: Guest D. 

Organization: Earthjustice 

The costs -- the costs that we get thrown around here are enough to buy -- a hundred billion dollars, that's enough to 

buy a gold-plated toilet for every house and mobile home in this whole state. It's ludicrous and we ought not to take it 

seriously. 

AWT, advanced wastewater treatment -- I'm sorry to use the acronyms. In fact, the way advanced wastewater treatment 

uses and works in Florida - and the utilities, I'm sure, would agree with this - they actually are being -- they tend to meet 

1.8 or 1.9, you know, milligrams per liter total nitrogen in their output which is pretty close to your standard already. So I 

think all this screaming about all these changes and the quadrillions of dollars, that's just really not true. The 

phosphorous fix is pretty cheap, and you-all know that, I think. 

Comment ID 0766.001.001 

Author Name: Mattiacci T. 

Organization: City of Lakeland Water Utilities Department 

Good evening. I'm Tom Mattiacci, City of Lakeland Water Utilities Department. 

The effect that this regulation is going to have on municipalities is for the municipalities that do not currently have AWT 

treatment works on their POTWs. They will need to install them, and utility rates for wastewater will double or triple for 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5018
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

those municipalities. 

Comment ID 0770.001.002 

Author Name: Wheeler B. 

Organization: Tohopekaliga (Toho) Water Authority 

Obtaining the nitrogen levels proposed for the Kissimmee River is not possible with the existing biological nutrient 

removal technology. Meeting the proposed nitrogen criteria would require the addition of membrane treatment, perhaps 

even reverse osmosis as some consultants have suggested. 

The estimated cost for TWA to upgrade its water reclamation facilities just to meet the nitrogen requirements is in the 

range of 70 to 75 million dollars. This cost is in addition to the 70 to 100-million dollars the authority will have to spend 

over the next several years to develop additional potable water supplies. This estimate only covers the capital cost of 

compliance and does not include the increase in operational costs that result particularly in energy use associated with 

the membrane treatment. 

If Toho Water Authority is going to be asked to make this level of investment in its wastewater treatment system and 

ask its 80,000 customers to pay significantly higher rates as a result, the authority will want some level of confidence 

that the criteria being proposed are necessary and at the right level. 

Comment ID 0781.001.002 

Author Name: Yarborough J. 

Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department 

That being said, we have some real issues with the potential impact of this rule on our ability to reclaim the water from 

the wastewater treatment. We don't know what this is going to do to our ability to provide reuse water in an economical 

fashion. 

I asked our engineers, please go out and find out what this looks like, how can we meet these regulatory challenges. 

And they came back and gave me a price tag and it knocked me on my butt, to be honest. We are looking at 31 million 

dollars. And then if you -- we don't have that in the checkbook, so if we go out and borrow it at five percent, you're 

looking at like a two million dollar debt service payment annual for the next 30 years. 

If the technology we use in order to meet the rule is implemented, and we think reverse osmosis is basically the only 

way to get there, we don't think we can get there in totality with chemical treatment and additional processes. We're 

looking at operational and maintenance costs of an additional $900,000 a year to our system. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5019
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Let's boil this down. What does this mean for our customers? You get grandma and grandpa who are going to pay from 

$45 a month in their wastewater bill on top of their $30 water bill, now they're going to go from paying for their 

wastewater $45 a month to 95 to $110 a month. So you're looking at a six to $700 increase from grandma and 

grandpa's wastewater bill. We're not a rich community, although we're the second largest city in the Central Florida 

area, in the seven-county area, with Orlando being larger. We don't have Disney World in our background -- in our 

backyard. We don't have the same employment opportunities. We are construction, and that went the way. And we 

have the Kennedy Space Center and that's doing something else. Who knows what that's doing. So we're of limited 

means. We have some manufacturing but we don't have a lot. I don't know how we can get from here to there if you're 

looking to implement this rule on reclaimed water. It just ain't going to happen. 

We don't have the money. We are so leveraged. We have 107 million dollars worth of debt on the system. If you expect 

us to add 31 million dollars on top of that, it ain't going to happen. I don't know how we can do it. We can't get from here 

to there. 

So we would ask that you reevaluate the reclaimed water component and what this rule will have an effect on that 

component. I thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 0788.001.004 

Author Name: Gildan P. 

Organization: East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility Board 

Finally, as mentioned earlier, the capital costs of the rule that would impose on public utilities we think far exceed the 

amounts estimated in the proposal. The installation of membrane technologies and the affiliated integration facilities, 

plus the disposal facilities that would have to be put in place to deal with the concentrate, plus the cost of the additional 

electric facilities that would be needed in order to power those membrane facilities we think far exceed what you're 

looking at. Our estimates are somewhere in the range of eight dollars per gallon of treated effluent. For instance, if 

applied to the 70 mgd, our facilities would equal a 560 million dollar capital cost, together with a significant increase in 

the operating cost for electricity and membrane and operating replacement for those facilities. We think that these 

compliance costs and the breadth and scope of them may not have been thoroughly analyzed and considered in the 

EPA proposal, in which case we really do and hope that you can take a look at that and make sure when you're looking 

at the costs and weighing that and those environmental other impacts against the proposed incremental benefit, that 

you'll come to the conclusion that we've reached then hopefully to maintain the current FDEP narrative requirements, 

which we think FDP does a tremendous Florida, particularly in South Florida. I can't speak to north Florida or central, 

but in South Florida we think they do a tremendous job in regulation and keeping our waters clean under the current 

rule. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0843.001.005 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Southeast Florida Utility Council 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5020
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

The cost associated with the wastewater treatment plant upgrades necessary to meet the proposed criteria will prohibit 

this practice; therefore, the proposed numeric nutrient criteria standards, an exorbitant cost to meet those standards, 

with dubious environmental impact have the potential to curtail the beneficial use of reclaimed water and significantly 

crippling the water supply needs of Floridians. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0871.001.005 

Author Name: Mahoney S. 

Organization: Sierra Club, Miami group 

The claim that -- I have heard claims that some people have said that we will top huge costs that may be at high as $50 

billion to upgrade Florida's sewage treatment plants. This really is not something that is realistic at all. For example, cost 

of all sewer treatment upgrades in the entire U.S. between 1988 and 2007 was, according to a source I have, $58 billion 

there. That's the entire U.S. upgrades. So I think the $50 billion claim comes from treatment based on reverse osmosis, 

which is not needed for in many places. It may be needed in some situations, but that's only in extreme circumstances 

there. Reverse osmosis, as we know, is expensive, but it's not likely to be needed in most cases. The numeric criteria 

really are essential because I think without them the treatment plants - water treatment plants are now allowed to dump 

affluents that has not been treated as well as it could be. The costs could be spread out, new standards I am sure 

would be phased in as permits come up for renewals, so they won't hit everybody at one time. And for consumers, it's 

likely to cost perhaps a few dollars extra per person per month phased in over a period of time, over a number of years. 

A small cost with enormous benefit. Thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 0884.001.006 

Author Name: Wertephy A. 

Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program 

A cost estimate was prepared by Carollo Engineers for the Florida Water Environmental Association Utility Council that 

indicates that Florida's municipal wastewater treatment facilities would spend an estimated $50 billion in capital 

improvements for additional treatment facilities and would incur an estimated $1 .3 billion per year in additional 

operating costs (copy attached). This could result in an additional $700/year/household bill (just for wastewater 

treatment facility upgrades). 

This does not include the cost from all the other source sectors, most notably the urban 

stormwater sector which has not even been estimated. Florida's Farm Bureau states that almost 75% of Florida's 2.1 

million acres or irrigated lands currently embrace voluntary agricultural best management practices. The Farm Bureau 

admits that technology may not exist for the agricultural entities to meet the proposed criteria. Implementation of best 

management practices will not in itself meet these proposed nutrient criteria. Structural improvements will most likely be 

necessary and the annual costs for these types of improvements would be in the billions of dollars not millions of 

dollars. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5021
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

As coordinator for the Palm Beach County MS4 NPDES Co-Permittees (41 governmental entities), I respectfully 

request that U.S . EPA give adequate consideration to the comments provided and undertake the necessary changes to 

amend the final Rule. We are particularly concerned that a fair representation of the cost has not been adequately 

estimated nor has the feasibility of addressing the criteria been technically assessed. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (561) 683-3113, extension 231. 

Comment ID 0906-1.001.002 

Author Name: Lackemacher P. 

Organization: Bay County Utility Services 

Funding: 

Bay County's preliminary analysis/evaluation of additional treatment process needs is expected to exceed forty million 

dollars ($ 40,000,000.00). EPA's proposed NNC rule is an unfunded mandate! Bay County Utility Services does not 

have a cash reserve sufficient to fund the required process up grades at the present time nor is there a funding 

mechanism to achieve this goals within the time frames laid out in this proposed rule. 

The fact is the capital needed to fund these initiatives will result in customer wastewater rates increasing by 104 %. Bay 

County citizens, our customer base, cannot afford a drastic cost increase such as this. This especially true given the 

questionable scientific data basis and questionable benefits the proposed NNC rule will derive. 

Comment ID 0914.001.002 

Author Name: Lackemacher P. 

Organization: Bay County Utility Services 

Funding: Bay County's preliminary analysis/evaluation of additional treatment process needs is expected to exceed 

forty million dollars ($ 40,000,000.00). EPA's proposed NNC rule is an unfunded mandate! Bay County Utility Services 

does not have a cash reserve sufficient to fund the required process up grades at the present time nor is there a 

funding mechanism to achieve this goals within the time frames laid out in this proposed rule. 

The fact is the capital needed to fund these initiatives will result in customer wastewater rates increasing by 104 %. Bay 

County citizens, our customer base, cannot afford a drastic cost increase such as this. This especially true given the 

questionable scientific data basis and questionable benefits the proposed NNC rule will derive. 

Comment ID 0915-1.001.002 

Author Name: Stephens G. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5022
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. 

2. The technology most likely to be employed in an attempt to meet these limits would be chemical addition, filtration 

and reverse osmosis. A preliminary opinion of probable cost for the additional treatment is $30M capital cost and $2M 

per year for O&M cost. This would increase the average customer's sewer bill by $500 per year. 

Comment ID 0921.001.007 

Author Name: Coyle F. 

Organization: Board of Collier County Commissioners 

Florida wastewater utilities will spend an estimated $24.4 to $50.7 billion in capital costs for additional treatment 

facilities, and will incur an estimated $0 .4 to $1.3 billion dollars per year more in increased operating costs [Carollo 

Engineers] . Having to comply with numeric nutrient criteria that are not appropriate would waste financial resources, 

defer funds from other important County projects, and place undo financial burden on local governments and thereby, 

tax payers and rate payers. 

Comment ID 0949.001.006 

Author Name: Kelley H. 

Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party 

5. The cost for retrofitting every plant in Florida is estimated to be in the tens of-billions of dollars. In order to pay for the 

enormous costs to come into compliance, catastrophic double digit rate increases for all wastewater utility customers in 

Florida will be required. Meanwhile, the EPA has estimated that it will cost $4 million to retrofit all of Florida's plants to 

come into compliance with the new rules. This is another ridiculous number that has no scientific data behind it. 

Comment ID 0993.001.002 

Author Name: Rigsby J. 

Organization: Riverbend Homeowner's Association 

If the proposed nutrient content criteria are implemented, R/O systems such as ours will have to discharge brine into 

deep wells. This would be prohibitively expensive for us and could lead to problems with the underground storage 

(aquifers). 

Comment ID 1011.001.018 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5023
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

2) EPA's cost estimate is based on assumptions that potential controls will reduce total phosphorus and total nitrogen 

but not to the levels required by the proposed criteria. There is no documentation in the technical support document that 

any of these potential controls will meet the proposed nutrient criteria for any of the source sectors identified. There is 

no indication that the proposed nutrient criteria is achievable particularly in Palm Beach County. The biggest line item of 

EPA's estimated annual cost is associated with municipal WWTPs. Advance wastewater treatment will only achieve 3 

mg/l of TN and 1.0 mg/l of TP, significantly higher than the proposed criteria of 1.6 mg/l for TN and 0.042 mg/l of TP 

(South Florida Canals). Although it appears EPA is anticipating treatment will reduce TP to 0.1 mg/l, this can only be 

achieved at a tremendous cost, if it can be achieved at all. Many of the WWTPs provide reuse water directly to private 

development lakes in order to recharge these lakes for irrigation system supply usage within development projects. This 

is done in an attempt to use this resource as an alternative water supply. Florida, like many other states, faces 

significant water supply challenges. Reuse water could cause the urban (private and public) users to be in violation of 

the proposed criteria. This in turn could lead to the abandonment of a significant dollar investment for the reclaimed 

facilities (over $220 million in the case of Palm Beach County) . 

Comment ID 1011.001.022 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

A cost estimate was prepared by Carollo Engineers for the Florida Water Environmental Association Utility Council that 

indicates that Florida's municipal wastewater treatment facilities would spend an estimated $50 billion in capital 

improvements for additional treatment facilities and would incur an estimated $1.3 billion per year in additional operating 

costs. This could result in an additional $700/year/household bill (just for water treatment facility upgrades). 

Comment ID 1013.001.003 

Author Name: Hibbard F. 

Organization: Clearwater City Council 

Should the EPA continue with its current plan, the City of Clearwater estimates the following impacts to each of our 

residents: 

There would be required an estimated $ 40 million Capital Investment in our Water Pollution Control Facilities resulting 

in increases to sanitary sewer customers of approximately 12% per year for a typical residential customer. This equates 

to an additional $ 70 per year, per residence, with even larger increases for commercial properties . 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5024
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1108.001.003 

Author Name: Coughenour F. 

Organization: Plant City 

The -- particularly, the cost estimated for domestic wastewater seem to focus on the current level of technology, 3 

milligrams per liter of nitrogen and either .5 or .1 milligrams per liter of phosphorus, but -- but the -- the end stream 

protected values and -- and the downstream values that we've seen before are significantly more strict than that, and 

we -- we are certain that the compliance costs would be exponentially higher. 

Comment ID 1155.001.010 

Author Name: Kollinger R. 

Organization: Polk County 

In addition, Polk County operates ten wastewater treatment facilities that supply reclaimed water for irrigation and 

industrial cooling uses. It's anticipated that the costs of additional treatment to meet the proposed criteria is 15 million 

dollars. And again, that's just for capital improvements and doesn't cover any of the costs to operate and maintenance. 

This essentially will double the cost of the average utility customer. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.056 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Fourth, EPA's estimate assumes that wastewater treatment plants will only need to achieve reductions to the limits of 

effluent removal technologies, regardless of whether that achieves compliance with the new criteria. Id. EPA provides 

no basis for this assumption, which results in a significant cost difference. EPA estimates the financial impact of 

compliance to municipal wastewater treatment plants up to the limits of technology to be $300 million in capital costs 

and $24 million in annual operating costs. By contrast, the Florida Water Environmental Association ("FWEA") 

estimates the actual costs of compliance with the criteria in the Rule will be between $24.7 and $50.7 billion in capital 

costs, with an additional $0.4 to $1.3 billion in annual operating expenses.[51] Disparate assessments of this magnitude 

need to be addressed by the Agency. 

[51] See Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation Facilities, Florida 

Water Environmental Association, November 18, 2009, (available at 

http://www.fweauc.org/PDFs/FWEAUC%20letter%20to%20Crist%20re%20NNC%20Cost%20Implications%20for%20Fl 

a%20POTWs%20with%20attachment.pdf) (this study analyzed the cost impact of the FDEP July 2009 draft numeric 

nutrient criteria proposal.) 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5025
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1273-1.001.002 

Author Name: Shaw D. 

Organization: City of Bartow Public Works Department 

8. The Impacts to Polk County Utilities and their Customers 

The proposed EPA numeric nutrient criteria rule will have a direct impact on PCU's water and wastewater treatment 

systems. It is not clear how the regulations will be applied to the wastewater facilities that discharge to rapid infiltration 

basins or through restricted and public-access reuse systems. Additionally, since PCU's potable drinking water systems 

produce water that exceeds the current limits for phosphorus, irrigation and other outdoor uses will likely not be in 

compliance with the proposed rule. 

While none of our wastewater and public water facilities discharges to surface waters, it is fully anticipated that the EPA 

proposed numeric criteria will be applied in some fashion to these treatment plants. To meet the proposed nitrogen and 

phosphorus limits, these facilities would require major overhauls to include microfiltration or reverse osmosis. A brine 

concentrator and the subsequent disposal of solids would also be required. At present, the average customer on Polk 

County Utilities has a wastewater bill of $56.87. Capital costs of $14 to $16 million per million gallons a day flow is 

projected to meet the proposed nitrogen and phosphorus limits. Operational costs would increase by $1.00 to $1.50 per 

1000 gallons. Additionally, brine disposal is estimated at $1.10 to $3.00 per 1000 gallons. An overall annual increase of 

$673 to $726 per customer or $56 to $60 per month is anticipated. This will be a doubling of the wastewater bills to Polk 

County Utility customers. 

Comment ID 1284.001.006 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

How about the inflated cost of compliance through wastewater treatment? These numbers are greatly exaggerated to 

cause hysteria and, more importantly, they're wrong. Realistically it's more like $120 per family for a family of three 

annually, not $700. 

Comment ID 1301-1.001.015 

Author Name: Hodge R. 

Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated 

• The record amply demonstrates that the rule will inevitably result in dramatic new costs for public utilities, will shift 

substantial resources away from existing resource protection initiatives, and will render prior improvement projects 

obsolete. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5026
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5027
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1305.001.005 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

Is deep well disposal a good option? It's our only option. I don't think it's a very good option. But those are minor issues 

compared to the cost impact. We believe the cost for the capital and operation and maintenance required will more than 

double our current sewer rates. 

Other options? Upland disposal. Again the costs are staggering. Good land is not available around our plants and 

where it is, availability is very low permeability. The land alone costs more than 100 million, much less the distribution 

system, the piping, and all the improvements. 

Comment ID 1305.001.006 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

Public access reuse? It rains a lot in northwest Florida. We had 88 inches of rain last year. We need a backup, which 

gets you back to your surface water and discharge limit. Site specific criteria, even if you could determine it, it's not 

cheap, three different plants, three different water bodies, three different studies. Even if we did develop it and were 

able to meet them, would that solve the problem? What stops future septic tanks? What stops stormwater runoff? What 

stops more nonpoint source? We do not have that authority. We spent millions and still haven't stopped the problem. 

And while we're talking about money, I cannot fathom where EPA and DEP get their cost estimates for implementing 

this rule. The costs are staggering. If we were to upgrade the standards and spend hundreds of millions, what would 

this gain us? If you look at our Main Street plant that we're moving, by removing its discharge from the bay we're 

removing about 1 percent of the total nutrients coming to the bay. Our current results even without AWT in the boil of 

the discharge from our Main Street plant is usually within a couple hundreds of a milligram per liter of the background in 

the bay. 

Are there issues with water quality in Florida? Certainly, but this rule will also require vast sums of money to be thrown 

on problems that don't exist and on solutions that won't make a difference. This rule is too broad a brush for nutrients 

and leaves too many unknowns. There should not be a one size fits all even for northwest Florida. 

Comment ID 1322.001.005 

Author Name: Williams G. 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5028
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

A couple of things I do want to point out, though. A lot of our members are small community water systems who lack the 

expertise and the economies of scale to operate the technology required to meet this proposed rule. The cost to comply 

for many of our systems will result in increases in water and wastewater rates of up to 300 percent, or amounts well 

over $100 a month in utility bills. We've even analyzed a few of our members that will have to comply, and it's going to 

increase their wastewater rates by up to $250 a month in order to implement technology to comply with this. 

Comment ID 1322.001.008 

Author Name: Williams G. 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association 

Another unintended consequence that I want to mention that should be considered is because of the cost and the 

inability to comply, likely wastewater utility systems may face and may have to employ abandonment of their systems 

which could cause customers back into less desirable treatment techniques, such as septic tanks, and at that point we 

lose a lot of the environmental protection that these centralized systems were designed and built to achieve. We don't 

want to see this happen. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.004 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

While none of our wastewater and public water facilities discharges to surface waters, it is fully anticipated that the EPA 

proposed numeric criteria will be applied in some fashion to these treatment plants. To meet the proposed nitrogen and 

phosphorus limits, these facilities would require major overhauls to include microfiltration or reverse osmosis. A brine 

concentrator and the subsequent disposal of solids would also be required. At present, the average customer on Polk 

County Utilities has a wastewater bill of $56.87. Capital costs of $14 to $16 million per million gallons a day flow is 

projected to meet the proposed nitrogen and phosphorus limits. Operational costs would increase by $1.00 to $1.50 per 

1000 gallons. Additionally, brine disposal is estimated at $1.10 to $3.00 per 1000 gallons. An overall annual increase of 

$673 to $726 per customer or $56 to $60 per month is anticipated. This will be a doubling of the wastewater bills to Polk 

County Utility customers. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.026 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

For municipal wastewater treatment plants, EPA assumes that once they meet Florida's draft criteria, they will have 

already reached the limit of technology. Accordingly, EPA assumes that adjusted lake criteria, variances, site-specific 

alternative standards, restoration standards, or changes to designated uses will be employed to ensure that municipal 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5029
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

wastewater dischargers need do no more. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 6-7. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.033 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

To meet Florida's draft criteria, EPA estimates that municipal wastewater treatment plants will have to expend 

approximately $252 million in capital costs at major plants and $48 million in capital costs at minor plants, with operation 

and maintenance at $19 million and $5 million respectively. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 4-7. On an 

annualized basis, this would mean an expenditure of $42.7 million a year for large plants and $9.3 million a year for 

smaller plants. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 8-1. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.039 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

Similarly, EPA assumes no increase in costs above its flawed baseline for municipal discharger. Further, EPA's 

estimates for the cost of upgrading to advanced nutrient treatment are ridiculously low. For example, the Florida Water 

Environmental Association estimated the cost upgrading to advanced nutrient treatment to be between $24.7 and $50.7 

billion in capital costs, with an additional $0.4 to $1.3 billion in annual operating expenses. See Technologies to Meet 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation Facilities, Florida Water Environmental Association, 

November 18, 2009, (available at 

http://www.fweauc.org/PDFs/FWEAUC%20letter%20to%20Crist%20re%20NNC%20C 

ost%20Implications%20for%20Fla%20POTWs%20with%20attachment.pdf) . EPA must develop a full economic 

analysis of its proposal that includes costs of compliance for all dischargers. 

Comment ID 1365.001.001 

Author Name: Lovely S. 

Organization: Pinellas County Utilities 

Regarding Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida' Lakes and FLowing 

Waters, I would like to clarify my oral comments made @ the EPA Hearing on April 14, 2010 in Tampa, Florida. My 

comments were made ~ 2nd to last in the afternoon session. My clarification is regarding the cost of upgrading our 

South Pinellas Wastewater Facility to meet the current TP proposed criteria of 107 ug/L, not TN as I stated and the cost 

would be $20 million for both process trains, not $10 million for both process trains. Please be sure that this information 

regarding the monetary costs to meet the proposed TP criteria get to the correct EPA department that is developing the 

cost impact analysis of implementing this proposed TP criteria. Thank you! 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5030
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.002 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

In this letter, we provide some general context regarding Orange County Utilities' operations and summarize our main 

concerns with EPA's proposal. Detailed lists of our specific concerns and recommendations are provided in Attachment 

A. One key concern is that we believe EPA has significantly underestimated the cost impact to implement the proposed 

NNC; therefore, Attachment B provides a detailed estimate of the potential cost to modify our water reclamation 

facilities to meet the proposed NNC. Furthermore, Attachment C summarizes existing total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs) affecting Orange County Utilities and our current and planned basin management action plan (BMAP) 

commitments. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.009 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Based on historical costs for upgrading existing wastewater treatment plants to microfiltration followed by reverse 

osmosis (MF/RO) technology, meeting the NNC at end-of-pipe by upgrading only existing flows from each plant 

discharging surface waters, would cost our ratepayers $150 Million in capital and an additional $17 Million in annual 

operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses. This equates to an additional $200 per year for every household. If 

upgrades to the entire treatment capacity of each WRF are required, the costs to upgrade are facilities are estimated to 

be $1.9 Billion in capital and $100 Million in annual O&M costs, resulting in an additional $1,700 per year user charges 

for each household. To meet the proposed criteria with the existing surface discharge flows will cost about $7,000 per 

pound of nitrogen removed and $2,300 per pound of phosphorus removed at our NWRF, and about $8,800 per pound 

of nitrogen removed and $33,000 per pound of phosphorus removed at our EWRF. The incremental benefit for this 

huge cost is troublesome when these funds could be used to remove nutrients from other sources, such as non-point 

sources, where it is reasonable to expect that treatment will be more economical. (See Attachment B for the details of 

cost estimate.) 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.010 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

The financial burden to our ratepayers is not the only cost to be considered in evaluating the proposed NNC. Much of 

the increase in operating costs for these facility upgrades can be attributed to power consumption. We anticipate that 

these upgrades will increase overall power demand by 110 million kilowatt-hours/year. Moreover, based on data 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5031
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

published by the Department of Energy on CO2 emissions by power plants, the additional power consumption will 

increase CO2 emissions in Orange County by 148 million pounds per year. These are costs to the quality of air that 

must be considered when evaluating the benefits of lower nutrients in the water. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.011 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

As discussed in the EPA document titled "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated 

with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida," the limit of technology (LOT) for treatment of municipal 

wastewater is 3 mg/l total nitrogen (TN) and 0.1 mg/l total phosphorus (TP). Cost estimates in this EPA document were 

made for upgrading existing wastewater treatment plants to lOT for both TN and TP. Where the proposed criteria are 

below what is feasible due to technology limitations, assumptions were made that the end-of-pipe limits for the 

wastewater treatment facilities would be LOT levels. Many of the plants in Florida are already meeting AWT limits, 

which are at 3 mg/l TN and 1 mg/l TP. Therefore, LOT for nitrogen is already being met and upgrades may be required 

for meeting the 0.1 mg/l TP standard. If municipal wastewater treatment plants can only be expected to meet LOT, we 

feel this is an important detail that should be included in the proposed rule. Additionally, recommended technologies for 

upgrading to LOT for TP should be included. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.059 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

2.0 CAPITAL 

A summary of the capital costs for upgrading the total treatment plant capacity for the three WRFs in Orange County is 

presented in Table 1. Table 2 shows the capital costs for upgrading only the surface water discharge capacity of each 

plant. For the total treatment capacity upgrades (Table 1), NWRF is already designed to meet AWT limits and therefore 

has no capital cost associated with AWT. SWRF requires AWT upgrades of the entire treatment capacity, and EWRF 

requires AWT upgrades to only 5 mgd of the plant capacity because this is the only portion not designed for AWT. For 

the surface discharge capacity upgrades (Table 2), there is not an AWT capital cost associated with EWRF or NWRF 

because they already have capacity equal or greater to the surface discharge capacity that meets AWT limits. SWRF is 

excluded from surface discharge upgrades because there are no surface discharges from this plant. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1 which shows the Total Capacity Upgrade - Capital 

Cost (in Million Dollars). See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2 which shows Surface Discharge Capacity Upgrade ­

Capital Cost (in Million Dollars). See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5032
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.060 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

3.0 OPERATING 

The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with operating the total treatment plant capacity are shown in 

Table 1. Table 2 shows the O&M costs associated with operating the upgraded surface discharge capacity of the 

treatment plants. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Total Capacity Upgrade – Operating Cost (in Million 

Dollars) and Table 2. Surface Discharge Capacity Upgrade – Operating Cost (in Million Dollars). See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.061 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Equivalent annual cost 

The equivalent annual costs over 30 years for capital and O&M for upgrading the total treatment capacity of the three 

WRFs are shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the equivalent annual costs for upgrading only the surface water discharge 

capacity. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3. Total Capacity Upgrade – Annual Cost (in Million 

Dollars) and Table 4. Surface Discharge Capacity Upgrade – Annual Cost (in Million Dollars). See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1432-1.001.004 

Author Name: Bell D. 

Organization: Counsel to Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District 

The District's engineers have estimated that to retrofit and construct deep wells/R.O. water and wastewater treatment 

with BNR's and chemical addition, along with drainage wells with pretreatment would cost the District in excess of $50 

million and have an incremental increase in operational costs of approximately $2 million per year . This could result in 

an overall cost impact without damages up to $150 million over a 30 year period. These estimates are planning level 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5033
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

estimates required to attain the EPA numeric nutrient criteria for a 1mgd water and 0.5mgd wwtp and stormwater flow 

used in previous calculations. These expenses would severely impact the overall budget and operations of the District 

and do not include inverse condemnation, business or other potential damages. 

Comment ID 1432-1.001.005 

Author Name: Bell D. 

Organization: Counsel to Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District 

The estimated cost statewide of up to $140 million dollars per year to meet the FDEP and EPA's proposed criteria as 

stated in the documents provided at the public hearings is unrealistically low. This is quite apparent as Broward 

County's estimate to bring the county into compliance is in excess of $2 billion dollars. 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.002 

Author Name: Earle R. 

Organization: Analysis Group 

The Mitigation Measures Used in the Cost Analysis Do Not Clearly Result in Attainment of the Proposed Numeric 

Criteria 

In making cost estimates of compliance with the numeric criteria, EPA appears to evaluate the cost of approaches that 

might not result in the attainment of the proposed numeric criteria. For instance, in the discussion of waste water 

treatment plants (WWTP), EPA assumes that all WWTP would treat to the limit of technology (LOT). However, EPA 

also admits that "[with respect to] waters where the criteria are below the LOT, it may be infeasible to meet the criteria 

instream due to technology limitations."[2] Another example appears in EPA's discussion of urban runoff in which it says 

that "it is uncertain if controls beyond those required under the baseline would be needed."[3] As a result, it appears, 

that EPA's cost estimates are not, in fact, estimates of the costs of meeting its proposed numeric criteria, but rather 

estimates of the costs of some measures that might be imposed only as part of an effort to meet its numeric criteria. As 

such, in cases such as those mentioned above, it is likely that the actual costs of meeting the proposed numeric criteria 

could be significantly higher. 

[2] Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2010, p. 6-7. 

[3] Ibid, ES-9. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.054 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5034
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

For municipal wastewater treatment plants, EPA assumes that once they meet Florida's draft criteria, they will have 

already reached the limit of technology. Accordingly, EPA assumes that adjusted lake criteria, variances, site-specific 

alternative standards, restoration standards, or changes to designated uses will be employed to ensure that municipal 

wastewater dischargers need do no more. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 6-7. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.060 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 To meet Florida's draft criteria, EPA estimates that municipal wastewater treatment plants will have to expend 

approximately $252 million in capital costs at major plants and $48 million in capital costs at minor plants, with operation 

and maintenance at $19 million and $5 million respectively. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 4-7. On an 

annualized basis, this would mean an expenditure of $42.7 million a year for large plants and $9.3 million a year for 

smaller plants. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 8-1. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.113 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Further, EPA grossly underestimates the costs that municipalities must incur to upgrade to advanced nutrient removal 

technology, estimating capital costs of only $300 million when the Florida Water Environmental Association has 

estimated the cost to be between $27.4 and 50.7 billion. See Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at 

Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation Facilities, Florida Water Environmental Association (Nov. 18, 2009). 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.008 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

On page 4-4 of the document Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January, 2010) EPA identifies reuse of reclaimed water as a suitable 

approach to decrease the volume of nutrientcontaining water discharged to receiving water bodies. The LRD applauds 

EPA's recognition of the value of reuse programs; nonetheless, we believe EPA must clarify their position regarding 

reuse of reclaimed water relative to the interpretation and application of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. In 

particular, the LRD requests reuse (reclaimed) water used for landscape irrigation be specifically excluded from the 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5035
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.009 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

On page A-1 of the document Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January, 2010) EPA provides a cost estimate for the Loxahatchee RV 

Reg WWTP (presumably the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District's WWTP) to come into compliance with 

FDEP's draft numeric nutrient criteria (and by extension to EPA's draft numeric nutrient criteria). The LRD has three 

permitted disposal options, which are (1) a deep injection well, (2) reuse (i.e., publicaccess, landscape irrigation), and 

(3) an emergency surface water discharge point that discharges into the brackish portion of the Southwest Fork of the 

Loxahatchee River - note this emergency discharge point has never been used during LRD's 30 years of existence. 

Given our permitted disposal options, why did EPA provide a cost estimate for the LRD's WWTP to come into 

compliance with EPA's numeric nutrient criteria? Additionally, what was the basis for EPA's cost estimate for the 

Loxahatchee RV Reg WWTP? 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.032 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Additionally, FDEP's comments stating that "EPA's estimate of baseline and incremental costs are much too simplistic" 

are not soundly backed by relevant data. Although the proposed criteria would require domestic wastewater facilities in 

some cases to install upgrades or implement alternative disposal methods, the cost of doing so would be no where near 

the rumored $50 billion price tag. In fact, the cost of all the sewer plant upgrades in the entire U.S. including federal 

grants, state contributions, and leveraged bonds, between 1988 and 2007 was $58 billion so $50 billion for Florida 

alone to upgrade its facilities is outlandish.[23] For the most part, the majority of the plants in Florida would only need 

add-ons that use readily available wastewater treatment processes for nutrient removal. Extremely low nutrient levels 

can be attained with these processes. For most of these infrastructure improvements, capital costs would be about 

$1.50 to $2.00 per gallon capacity - resulting in only a few cents per gallon per month in additional operating and 

maintenance costs. 

[23] EPA National information Management Systems Report. Cumulative U.S. Clean Water SRF investment. last 

updated October 24, 2008 Accessed at http://epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/cwnims/pdf/invus.pdf 

Comment ID 1530.001.030 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5036
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

IV. THE EPA ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, TITLED PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE COSTS 

AND BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EPA'S PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR FLORIDA, IS 

DISINGENUOUS IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE LIMITS OF TECHNOLOGY AND ITS ASSUMPTION THAT THE 

COSTS OF COMPLYING WITH FDEP'S DRAFT NUMERlC CRlTERlA SHOULD BE THE BASELINE FOR THE 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. 

CCUA has reviewed in detail EPA's "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with 

EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida." (See App. L.1.) It appears EPA's estimates are based on the 

incremental cost of upgrading Florida's WWTFs to meet certain TN and TP effluent limits which EPA refers to as LOT. 

The LOT are stated on page 6 for biological nutrient removal (BNR) and only facilities that currently do not provide 

some form of BNR are candidates for upgrade. There does not appear to be any analysis of whether the facilities that 

do provide some form ofBNR can achieve the LOT. 

The writer acknowledges that the LOT result in end-of-pipe concentrations that are greater than the proposed numeric 

standards but suggests the following alternatives to achieve compliance: 

1. Lake criteria adjustment or reallocation procedure of the DPV methodology for estuary protection 

2. Site-specific alternative criteria 

3. Restoration standards 

4. Variances 

5. UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. 

Additionally, in the actual Proposed Rule, mixing zones are given as an alternative as well, but this would only be 

available if TN and TP concentrations in the water body were below the proposed criteria, which is highly unlikely. 

None of these alternatives are easy to achieve, and without some level of comfort that these alternatives could be 

granted by the agency, it is irresponsible to limit the economic analysis to the limits oftreatment set forth in this 

document. 

The LOT noted in the document are for BNR and give limits of 3.0 mg/L for TN and 0.1 mg/L for TP. The source 

references for these limitations are as follows: 

1. Metcalf and Eddy, 2003, and 

2. Jeyanayagam, 2005. 

CCUA has researched both of these documents and there appears to be several inaccuracies in EPA's statements 

about the total phosphorus LOT. 

In the Metcalf and Eddy publication on page 624, it states "Treatment plant effluent discharge limits have ranged from 

0.1 to 2.0 mg/L of phosphorous depending on plant location and impact on receiving waters." This is in a chapter on 

biological phosphorus removal but does not say that it is achievable. In fact, on page 803 of this same publication under 

a section on processes for biological phosphorous removal, it states "Present experience indicates that the 

phosphorous can be removed biologically to dissolved concentrations as low as 0.20 to 0.30 mg/L, provided sufficient 

rbCOD is available." Therefore, it appears to CCUA that the Metcalf and Eddy publication clearly states the limit of 

biological phosphorus removal technology is 0.20 to 0.30 mg/L and for FDEP to have reasonable assurance, the limit 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5037
 
 

 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

would necessarily need to be at the higher end of 0.30 mg/L. 

The second article referenced is from a Florida Water Resources Journal from January 2005 by Sam Jeyanayagam 

titled, "True Confessions of the Biological Nutrient Removal Process" wherein he cites on page 41 that Effluent TP is 

the sum of soluble fraction and the particulate fraction as represented in the following equation: 

"Effluent TP = (Soluble-P) + (Particulate-P)" 

Mr. Jeyanayagam provides a table on this same page that cites the Technology Limit of each fraction is based on a 

combination of several process including microbial uptake (or biological removal), chemical precipitation, and solids 

removal which he references in the document as granular filtration. The LOT stated for the soluble fraction is 0.10 mg/L 

and for the particulate fraction is < 0.05 mg/L. Therefore the total LOT based on his article should be the sum of these 

or 0.10 + <0.05 </= 0.15. Again, FDEP's reasonable assurance criteria would dictate the higher level or 0.15 mg/L of 

TP. Furthermore, in reading this document it clearly states the same findings as in the Metcalf and Eddy text that, 

"Reaching less than 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L effluent TP would require granular filtration." 

Because the cost data presented in EPA's economic analysis is only based on upgrading municipal wastewater 

treatment plants for BNR only, as stated on page 6 of the document, and the LOT are clearly misrepresented as 

presented above, it calls into question the entire economic analysis. Certainly, CCUA would expect filtration costs would 

need to be included in the estimates as well as chemical addition costs to achieve the LOT as referenced in the 

Jeyanayagam (2005) Florida Water Resources Journal Article. Mr. Jeyanayagarn further states in this article "Still lower 

TP levels «0.05 mg/L) can be achieved with membrane filtration or ballasted flocculation which increase solids capture 

capability." 

CCUA believes EPA's analysis needs to include the costs for this additional level of TP removal to achieve compliance 

with the proposed standard at the point of discharge to avoid the uncertainty of agency approval of one of the six 

alternatives previously mentioned. Lastly, CCUA believes it is inappropriate and irresponsible to present an incremental 

cost analysis because Florida never adopted numeric criteria and, secondly, because the State had provisions for 

grandfathering the TMDL's already established for certain impaired water bodies. 

Per the numeric nutrient criteria in the Proposed Rule, considering that CCUA is in Peninsular Region, CCUA would be 

required to reduce its nutrient concentrations from AWT levels to the following concentrations: 

Total Nitrogen 1.205 mg/L 

Total Phosphorus 0.107 mg/L 

To achieve this level of treatment would require CCUA to build a micro-filtration plus reverse osmosis facility at each of 

its WWTFs with concentrate discharge through deep well injection. The estimated the costs for constructing these 

facilities are shown in following Table I: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1 - Opinion of Costs for Upgrading CCUA Facilities to 

meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria. See original comment letter. 

The capital costs presented in Table 1 do not consider operational costs which CCUA estimates would add an 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5038
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

additional $2.24 Million dollars per year in power consumption costs alone to CCUA's existing budget. Additional 

Operating Costs for manpower is estimated to add $0.5 Million dollars per year to CCUA's operating budget. Assuming 

CCUA could obtain bond financing at its current rate of approximately 5%, a 30-year bond for $123 million dollars would 

add an extra $8.02 million dollars per year to our existing debt service. The total estimated annual cost for the additional 

treatment is $10.76 million dollars. 

As of February 28, 2010, CCUA provides sewer service to 40,709 active equivalent residential customers (ERCs). The 

estimated annual rate increase per customer to meet the new standards for each ERC would be $10.76 million/40,709 

ERCs = $264.32/year. CCUA's average residential customer bill is $757.85/year, so the additional cost to comply with 

the numeric nutrient criteria would require an estimated 35% rate increase (CCUA's average yearly rate increases are 

in the 3 to 4% range, with the largest ever being 11.5% in Fiscal Year 2005/2006). When compared to the alternative, 

these costs are not only significant, but unnecessary. 

SUMMARY 

Based upon the information presented in this Comment, there is ample support for the EPA to adopt the targets in the 

EPA-approved TMDLs or to adopt the TMDLs as SSACs. Furthermore, CCUA has demonstrated that its APRICOT Act 

discharges have no significant (practically no impact) to the receiving water bodies. Accordingly, the EPA should adopt 

either CCUA's suggestion that (1) TMDL targets be adopted in the Proposed Rille or (2) TMDLs be adopted as SSACs 

expressly as part of the finalization of the Proposed Rule. In addition, based upon the sound scientific analysis of 

LinmoTech, exemption for APRICOT Act discharges should be expressly written in the final version of the Proposed 

Rule. 

The adoption of CCUA's suggested regulatory changes in these regards will allow CCUA to continue to provide its highquality service without any unplanned capital construction. Simply put, the EPA can still see environmental benefit when 

adopting CCUA's suggested regulatory changes without imposing upon CCUA the immense capital costs associated 

with the construction of a micro-filtration plus reverse osmosis facility at each of its WWTFs with concentrate discharge 

through deep well injection. On this point, Jerry Brooks, FDEP Environmental Assessment and Restoration Director, 

told the Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations that "we will be implementing very, very expensive 

actions to achieve reductions that will have no benefit associated with it." (see DEP Details Objections to EPA Water 

Rules to Panel, by Keith Lang, March 8, 2010; attached as Appendix R). 

In March 2010, the SJRWMD staff reported that projected groundwater withdrawals in Northeast Florida were not 

sustainable without impacting minimum flows and levels in two water bodies in Clay County: Wadesborough Springs 

and Lake Geneva. To offset the demand for fresh groundwater for irrigation, CCUA has built an extensive reclaimed 

water distribution system that supplied an average of 3.62 million gallons of reclaimed water per day in 2009. However, 

the SJRWMD has advised that between now and 2030, the Northeast Florida public supply water demand will exceed 

the sustainable groundwater supply by 91 MGD and CCUA, along with all of the other public water supply utilities, is 

being asked to commit to regional alternative water supply projects. CCUA does not know the exact costs of these 

projects at this time but preliminary estimates indicate that these projects could cost CCUA's rate payers tens to 

hundreds of millions of dollars. 

The economic impact of compliance with the Proposed Rule, and the need to develop alternative water supplies in the 

very near future will, no doubt, severely impact CCUA's geographic region and the state of Florida. CCUA expects that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5039
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

many of its existing customers will not be able to afford the projected rate increases and CCUA could see an overall 

loss of customers as businesses layoff employees or are forced to close. Water is a necessity for people to live, and, as 

a result, it is highly likely that people will pay their water bill before they will pay their house payment. Therefore, it is not 

beyond the realm of possibilities that Clay County will see a rise in housing foreclosures do to these tremendous rate 

increases, with resulting reduced revenues to CCUA to pay for WWTF services. Future potential customers looking to 

locate to CCUA's service area will most likely consider other less expensive regions of the country. This projected loss 

of customer base will compound the problem as CCUA will have to enact additional rate increases on a dwindling 

number of customers. The loss of jobs and customers may force the bonding companies to lower CCUA's overall rating 

as the bonding companies could view CCUA as a risky investment. This would then likely cause CCUA's interest rates 

to rise adding more costs to the equation. Eventually, CCUA may not be able to sustain its operations or meet its 

financial obligations, which could then force CCUA into bankruptcy eliminating the environmental benefit that CCUA's 

WWTFs provide today. 

Comment ID 1530.001.054 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Beyond these comments noted above, CCUA discusses significant flaws in, and arguments against, the Proposed Rule 

in Sections VIII through XI. One such section, Section IV, discusses the EPA's economic analysis, titled Preliminary 

Estimate ofPotential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for 

Florida. In Section IV, CCUA notes the flawed approach taken by EPA through highlighting the documents that underlie 

the assumptions in EPA's analysis. In this regard, the EPA's analysis is flawed because the LOT discussed therein are 

clearly misrepresented by EPA. To correct this flaw, EPA must start over again with this analysis, this time recognizing 

the correct LOT, not those currently used by EPA. In so doing, CCUA also suggests that EPA should not begin its 

analysis with the assumption that Florida has enacted a rule on numeric nutrient criteria, as such an assumption is not 

supported by the circumstances; no such rule exists and FDEP does not plan on pursuing a rule to establish numeric 

nutrient criteria. If EPA recognizes these flaws and revisits it analysis, a correctly-done analysis will undoubtedly result 

in considerably higher estimated compliance costs to Florida. One way to avoid such significant compliance costs, 

however, is to recognize the site-specific analysis associated with the various nutrient TMDLs proposed by FDEP and 

accepted by EPA. To ignore these site-specific analyses, in spite of the analysis offered by CCUA herein, would be 

arbitrary and capricious. 

Comment ID 1562-1.001.002 

Author Name: Stewart G. 

Organization: Nabors Giblin & Nickerson on behalf of the Florida Governmental Utility Authority 

Under the proposed Rule, the Golden Gate Facility in Collier County, the Lehigh Acres Facility in Lee County, and the 

Seven Springs Facility in Pasco County would be significantly impacted by the proposed Rule. It is estimated that the 

cost of compliance with the proposed Rule would be between 80 to 100 million dollars to build treatment facilities that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5040
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

would be in compliance with the proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1564-1.001.007 

Author Name: Williams G. 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association 

9. EPA should consider that the proposed rule has a signif icant number of potentially costly and unintended 

consequences.Some of these are identified as follows: 

It is apparent from Florida Rural Water Association's experiences in working with these smaller communities that when 

costs are too high the likely solution is utility system abandonment, not compliance. This may force customers back into 

less desirable treatment technologies such as septic tanks resulting in greater nutrient discharge and degradation to 

both surface and ground waters than the centralized wastewater treatment disposal systems they'll replace. 

When wastewater rates become unaffordable, the se costs can often be hidden as mortgage payments as oppo sed to 

up-front wastewater connection fees when constructing new homes. With a suppressed housing market, placing 

additional burdens on an already lagging economic condition only will exacerbate the housing problem. Or smaller 

communities are already more highly impacted than larger communities. Any increase in housing costs in a depressed 

housing economy is unacceptable. 

Energy consumption for the membrane facilities that will be needed to meet these new EPA nutrient limits has already 

been mentioned as a major new cost to small systems. When these systems transition to membrane filtration, the only 

proven technology to meet these new regulations, energy costs will significantly increase. Increasing energy costs now 

in an era of national energy policy reduction is not a well thought through program. 

Not only will energy costs increase to smaller systems, but also the combustion of fossil fuel used to generate this 

energy increase by threefold. The byproducts of fossil fuel combustion are both nitrogen released to the atmosphere 

(the type that EPA is regulating) and other toxic substances that will be felt by Florida residents in air pollution. 

EPA has not taken into consideration that smaller systems cannot produce the level of treatment that larger systems 

provide when using the same types of treatment. Smaller systems are much more susceptible to changes in quality and 

quantity of wastewater flow than are larger systems. Levels of Technology (LOT) treatment efficiencies are about 50% 

of those of larger systems. In essence, small systems will have extreme difficulty in meeting these new regulations even 

if provided the state of the art facilities were provided at no cost. 

EPA has not considered the level of training and staffing necessary to operate the new membrane treatment facilities. 

Many smaller facilities are manned by part-time staff or contact operators who visit them a few times per week and 

staying an hour or two at each visit. The types of facilities contemplated to meet these new EPA limits will demand full 

time staffing, increased maintenance, larger inventories, additional tools and equipment, in essence these facilities will 

require the same level of attention than that of facilities treating millions of gallons of wastewater per day. Small 

systems are just not equipped to provide this level of service. Potential increases in operating costs to smaller 

communities will be significant and have not even been identified at this juncture. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5041
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

EPA nutrient limits group all nitrogen discharge from wastewater plants as total nitrogen as if all components of nitrogen 

are problematic. This is not an accurate assessment of how wastewater discharge affects receiving bodies. It is a wellknown fact that only certain forms of nitrogen are bioavailable or capable of causing algal growth of the kind that EPA 

intends to reduce with its new nutrient limits. What is missing from the EPA assessment is the acknowledgement that 

biological removal systems in the wastewater plants currently used by many of our small and medium members have 

already reduced the bioavailable nitrogen to significantly low concentrations. The nitrogen targeted by EPA's rules will 

cost millions of dollars to our members to remove, yet will achieve insignificant results in limiting algal growth. 

Impacts from the generation of significant quantities of the concentrated brine produced by the new membrane facilities 

that will result as part of the EPA actions will be problematic and costly to dispose of for smaller communities. This 

increased brine disposal will have potential for contaminating both groundwater and surface waters. Brine disposal is 

the most significant cost of membrane treatment for small facilities, often costing several million dollars for a single 

location. None of this is addressed by EPA's new nutrient limits. 

Comment ID 1614-1.001.004 

Author Name: DeBogory P. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Attached is a preliminary cost estimate prepared by our consulting engineers Baskerville-Donovan, Inc. which indicates 

a capital cost of $16.5M to meet the nutrient limits published by FDEP in July, 2009. This cost estimate of $16.5M 

assumes our WWTP has already spent $17.4M to achieve AWT standards. Additional costs will be incurred in order to 

meet the proposed EPA standards. 

Comment ID 1641-1.001.012 

Author Name: Littrell J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System 

Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs of Compliance 

Modifying and upgrading the OCWS wastewater treatment facilities to include the additional treatment systems required 

to comply with the EPA proposal will demand an unreasonable amount of capital. This in turn will require OCWS to 

pass these costs on to rate payers, increasing rates by an extraordinary amount. The following Table provides and 

Order of Magnitude 20-yr present worth cost associated with upgrades to each of the three OCWS Wastewater 

Treatment Systems. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table titled Order of Magnitude Preset-Worth Costs to 

upgrade OCWS Facilities to meet EPA's NNC Rules on page 9 of the pdf. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5042
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

These costs represent an unfunded mandate by the Federal Government onto local governments. In doing so, EPA 

severely restricts the end users' access to due process. The proposed action deprives the individual of their rights under 

Florida law to participate in the rule making process and this approach is dictatorial and draconian. 

Further, there will be significant negative environmental consequences resulting from the installation of these types of 

treatment systems in order to meet these low levels of nitrogen and phosphorous. These include the additional energy 

required to operate these systems, especially the RO systems, evaporators, and sludge driers, required to reduce the 

water content in the waste streams from the RO units and also to produce Class AA biosolids. These will require large 

amounts of natural gas and electricity. These increased energy demands will result in large discharges of green house 

gases into the atmosphere. The residuals from the evaporators will place additional stress on sanitary landfill systems. 

Additional chemical costs associated with the removal of phosphorous. These systems will also place an unreasonable 

increased demand on the State's limited energy resources. 

EPA's analysis grossly underestimates the costs associated with the proposed action. EPA's proposal estimates the 

cost of implementing this proposal to be between $106 to $140 million per year. According to FDEP data, there are 

2,114 domestic wastewater treatment facilities in the State of Florida with a combined treatment capacity of 

approximately 2,626 MGD. Assuming they will all be faced with similar problems and capital requirements for up-grades 

to meet the proposed water quality standards as OCWS at $16 per gallon of treatment the combined present worth 

value of the potential capital needs to comply with these proposed rules over the next 20 years will be over $42 billion 

dollars. The capital costs alone represent more than $26 billion dollars and the annual operation and maintenance costs 

would run more than $1 billion per year. The impact to the citizens of Florida would be dramatic. These numbers do not 

account for the costs associated with existing industrial, agricultural and stormwater treatment facilities nor does it 

account for the cost of regulatory implementation of the rule. This estimate is just for the existing domestic facilities and 

not potential future facilities. EPA does not provide any detail regarding their computation of the estimated annual costs 

to the State of Florida. By estimation EPA is not even in the same galaxy. 

Comment ID 1645-1.001.012 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

Following are accurate and supportable estimates of cost of compliance on the community of Destin, Florida: 

Compliance Costs for Destin Water Users, Inc. required to comply with the proposed EPA mandate on nutrient limits . 

To comply with the limits for the panhandle as shown in this rule, a reverse osmosis treatment plant will be needed to 

treat the current discharge from the DWU Wastewater Reclamation Facility. DWU has investigated the use ofreverse 

osmosis for treating brine water to drinking water standards and the numbers from that study were used in the 

estimates below. The new reverse osmosis plant will need to treat 6,000,0000 gpd. The concentrate from that process 

must then be disposed with the likely disposal option being deep well injection. At present no known aquifer has been 

investigated by any agency and it is speculated that any injection well will need to be at least 2500 feet deep. This 

estimate is based simply on observance of a few petroleum exploration logs from the 1950's. 

DESTIN WATER USERS, INC. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5043
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

NNC COMPLIANCE COSTS 

30-Jul-09 

Infrastructure required for 6 mgd plant 

Concentrate storage and pumping: $551,000 

R.O. Building and electrical: $4,150,000 

Filters, pumps, reverse osmosis system: $4,570,000 

Plant piping: $250,000 

Site Preparation: $1,500,000 

Concentrate disposal(deep wells): $9,000,000 

subtotal: $20,021,000 

Engineering, permitting, surveying, etc: $5,000,000 

Contingency (30%): $6,000,000 

subtotal: $31,021,000 

Legal and financing costs: $3,000,000 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.028 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Economics General Discussion As with the rest of the country during this time of economic hardship, the State of 

Florida, its government agencies and its municipalities are struggling to balance their fiscal budgets. Funding for 

numerous programs has either been substantially reduced or dried up all together. To meet the EPA's criteria, it has 

been estimated that for wastewater and utility improvements alone, the capital costs could range from $24.4 to $50.7 

billion, with an estimated $0.4 to $1.3 billion per year in additional operating costs. This roughly translates to an 

additional $673 to $726 in yearly costs to customers (Carollo Engineers 2009). This does not take into account the 

costs of the required storm water infrastructure improvements. 

Comment ID 1667-1.001.003 

Author Name: Gierach D. 

Organization: CPH Engineers, Inc. and the City of Sanford 

Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Limits 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5044
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

The following treatment technologies may be added to meet numeric nutrient limits (Reardon, 2009): 

• High-pressure membranes (reverse osmosis and nanofiltration) 

• Adsorption (activated carbon and reactive filtration) 

• Oxidation (ozone, UV, peroxide) 

• Chemical coagulation and precipitation 

• Ion exchange 

• Natural system including submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands 

However, most of these technologies are typically used for application other than nutrient removal for reclaimed water; 

there is not sufficient information on evaluating their performance in removing nitrogen and phosphorus in this 

application. 

According to Reardon (2009), the total capital cost to upgrade a 10 MGD water reclamation facility that does not already 

meet AWT limits to meet the numeric standards by addition of MF/RO treatment could be in the range of $140 to $160 

million, and operation cost could increase by at least $1 per thousand gallons treated, not including concentrate 

disposal costs. As a matter of fact, concentrate disposal could be a big hurdle in Florida. The capital cost is around $15 

million to upgrade 1 MGD water treatment facility. SNWRF has a capacity of 7.3 MGD and SSWRC has 2.0 MGD 

capacity. The estimated cost would be around $110 million for SNWRF and $30 million for SSWRC. This estimation is 

far higher than the EPA's estimation for SNWRF, which is only $7.7 million (EPA, 2010) using biological nutrient 

removal approach. However, the limit of technology of the biological nutrient removal is 3 mg/L for TN and 0.1 mg/L for 

TP which could not meet the proposed TN of 1.205 mg/L and at the edge of proposed TP of 0.107 mg/L (EPA, 2010). 

Other approaches such as chemical precipitation and / or membrane filtration are still needed in order to meet the 

proposed requirements. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.009 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Municipal WWTPs 

EPA estimated 47 major and 53 minor municipal discharges to lakes and freshwater streams that would be affected by 

the proposed rule. EPA considered the limit of technology (LOT) for biological nutrient removal to be 3 mg/L for TN and 

0.1 mg/L for TP. EPA's cost estimate acknowledged that "All of the proposed TN criteria are below the LOT" and 

"Proposed TP criteria for flowing waters are at or below the LOT in three of the five regions" and "proposed TP criteria 

for lakes are below the LOT". The EPA cost estimates were based on retrofitting existing biological treatment trains to 

achieve the LOT for TN and TP. The estimates noted that "where it may be technologically infeasible to attain the 

standards, a use attainability analysis may be needed". 

The Department performed a cost estimate, which assumed technologies such as reverse osmosis could be used to 

meet the proposed criteria, or that facilities may elect to cease their surface water discharges through the use of less 

costly deep well injection. The Department's analysis indicates that the EPA estimates significantly underestimate the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5045
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

costs to achieve the proposed criteria for the following reasons: 

• The EPA cost estimate assumed that only a few facilities would be required to upgrade to meet the EPA WQC 

because most facilities would already be upgraded to meet the proposed DEP numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). This 

assumption is invalid, since the proposed DEP NNC have not yet been adopted. This estimate includes costs 

associated with meeting the proposed EPA NNC over and above the cost of meeting current discharge limitations. 

• The EPA cost estimate was based on a level of treatment (LOT) for biological nutrient removal that would not meet the 

EPA WQC. For example, in the panhandle region the EPA cost estimate was based on a LOT of TN < 3 mg/L and TP < 

0.1 mg/L. However, EPA's WQC for the region was TN < 0.824 mg/L and TP < 0.043 mg/L. 

• For the most part, the EPA Report used capital and Operational and Maintenance (O & M) unit costs derived from 

CAPDETWorks for various treatment schemes. Unit costs that were used in the EPA Report appeared to be low when 

compared to comparable facilities constructed in Florida. 

• Costs for two facilities on EPA's list were not included since one was inactivated and the other no longer discharges to 

surface water. 

To highlight EPA's significant under-estimation of costs, the city of Cross City (0.4 million gallons/day permitted 

capacity) estimated its capital costs to comply with the proposed nutrient criteria to be $5,800,000. The EPA Report 

estimated Cross City's capital costs at $422,799 (see Appendix A of EPA Report). 

Table 3 below summarizes the Department's estimates for total capital costs, O & M costs, and annual costs for 

domestic wastewater treatment facilities in the State that currently discharge to freshwater streams and lakes: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3 - Cost Estimates for Domestic Wastewater Facilities 

from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.011 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Assessment Procedure 

1. Only domestic wastewater facilities discharging to fresh waters (streams and lakes) with NPDES permits were 

included in the estimate. The lists of domestic wastewater facilities contained in both Exhibit 8 (page 7) and Appendix A 

of the EPA's Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida, January 2010, ("EPA Report") were used. 

2. Advanced biological treatment and reverse osmosis were assumed to be needed to meet the proposed EPA water 

quality criteria (WQC) for both nitrogen and phosphorus prior to discharge to surface waters. Disposal by injection wells 

after filtration/high level disinfection instead of surface water discharge were assumed feasible in lieu of advanced 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5046
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

biological treatment and reverse osmosis in Florida counties with existing domestic injection well disposal systems. 

3. Permitted flow capacity was used to calculate capital costs. 

4. Unit capital costs to upgrade were based on: 

• For facilities that do not currently provide advanced biological wastewater treatment - $16.30/gallon (advanced 

treatment ($8.20/ gallon)+ reverse osmosis ($5.00/ gallon)+ brine disposal ($3.10/ gallon)); 

• For facilities that currently provide advanced biological wastewater treatment - $8.10/gallon (reverse osmosis ($5.00/ 

gallon)+ brine disposal ($3.10/ gallon)); and 

• For facilities that are located in counties with existing domestic injection wells that are assumed to cease their current 

surface water discharges - $2.10/gallon (filtration/high level disinfection ($1.00/gallon) + and injection well disposal 

($1.10/gallon)).

 5. Twenty five percent was added to unit capital costs for planning, engineering and construction contingencies. 

6. Fifty percent of the permitted flow capacity was used to calculate O&M costs as facilities typically operate at less than 

their permitted capacities. 

7. Unit operation and maintenance costs were based on: 

• For facilities that do not currently provide advanced waste treatment - $4.00/1000 gallons (advanced 

treatment/membrane filter/reverse osmosis ($1.00/1000 gallons) + brine disposal ($3.00/1000 gallons)); 

• For facilities that currently provide advanced biological wastewater treatment - $3.00/1000 gallons (brine disposal 

($3.00/ 1000 gallons)); and 

• For facilities that are located in counties with existing domestic injection wells that are assumed to cease their current 

surface water discharges - $1.60/1000 gallons (filtration/high level disinfection ($0.50/1000 gallons) + injection well 

disposal ($1.10/1000 gallons)). 

8. The 30-year annualized cost assumed a 5% interest rate. 

9. The following unit costs were obtained from the report prepared for the Florida Water Environment Association 

Utilities Council, Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Wastewater Reclamation 

Facilities, March 2, 2010, by Carollo Engineers ("FWEA Report"). The unit costs contained in the FWEA Report were 

extensively documented and determined by the Department to be reasonable. 

• Unit capital costs - advanced treatment ($8.20/ gallon), reverse osmosis ($5.00/ gallon), brine disposal ($3.10/ gallon), 

and injection well disposal ($1.10/gallon); and 

• Unit operation and maintenance costs - advanced treatment/membrane filter/reverse osmosis ($1.00/1000 gallons), 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5047
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

brine disposal ($3.00/1000 gallons), and injection well disposal ($1.10/1000 gallons). 

10. The following unit costs were obtained from cost curves contained in EPA's Innovative and Alternative Technology 

Assessment Manual (EPA-430/9-78-009) updated for 2010 costs: • Unit capital costs - filtration/high level disinfection 

($1.00/gallon); and • Unit operation and maintenance costs - filtration/high level disinfection ($0.50/1000 gallons). 

Detailed costs for each NPDES domestic wastewater facility are set forth in Appendix 1. 

Comment ID 1688-6.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Estimated Costs to Upgrade Domestic 

WWTPs for Compliance with EPA's Proposed Nutrient Criteria, April 2010. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1688-8.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Cost Analysis for Municipal Discharge using 

30 Year Annualization, and Florida MS4 Numeric Nutrient Criteria Cost Estimation. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1713-1.001.004 

Author Name: Wheeler B. 

Organization: Tohopekaliga (Toho) Water Authority 

Without knowing the specific applicability of the proposed rule to the Authority's water reclamation facilities and their 

discharge limits, an evaluation was performed by the Authority's general consultant, CH2M Hill, of the potential 

estimated costs of compliance. The evaluation assumed that the Authority's facilities would have to meet the proposed 

NNC at the levels stated in the proposed rule. The consultant's assessment of the Authority's facilities indicates that the 

total estimated capital cost of upgrades for eight of the Authority's nine facilities is approximately $207 million and the 

total estimated annual increase in operations and maintenance expenses is approximately $7.5 million. Converting 

these costs to an estimated impact on the average individual residential customer's wastewater bill indicates that the 

average wastewater bill would increase by about $15 per month. While these costs by themselves are not exorbitant 

when combined with other regulatory, maintenance, water supply development, and inflationary costs, the increased 

economic burden will contribute to significantly increasing cost and affordability pressures. The Authority is presently 

faced with a requirement for the development of new alternative water supplies for future needs at some significant 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5048
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

costs, too. 

Comment ID 1729.001.019 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

23. EPA has grossly underestimated the costs and the effects of implementing the proposed nutrient criteria in Florida. 

A Florida study shows that capital costs to municipal wastewater treatment facilities will be a minimum of $24 billion and 

annual operating costs will be a minimum of $0.4 billion dollars. This does not include the costs to other industries, 

agencies, businesses, residents and visitors of Florida. 

Comment ID 1761-3.001.004 

Author Name: Merrill M. 

Organization: Hillsborough County 

3. Hillsborough County's advanced domestic wastewater treatment plants currently meet very stringent nutrient criteria, 

as imposed by Section 403.086, Florida Statutes . It is not clear at this point how the proposed numeric criteria will be 

implemented with regard to our point discharges. Alternate criteria and mixing zones are very difficult, if not impossible, 

to obtain. If the numeric criteria are applied as "end-of-pipe" limits, our facilities could not attain these levels without 

spending hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading our facilities. Additional annual O&M costs would be very significant, 

as well. Preliminary cost estimates for adding ultra-filtration, reverse osmosis, and brine disposal for all our wastewater 

facilities range from $333 million to $500 million. O & M costs are estimated to range from $47 million to $90 million 

annually, above our current O & M costs. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.027 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

Second, the cost estimates are based on EPA's more lenient in-stream protection values rather than the more stringent 

downstream protective values for flowing waters. Because the downstream protection values are more stringent, 

additional treatment and costs will be required to meet these standards. In order to meet these more stringent 

standards, utilities will be required to upgrade their facilities with additional treatment methods to further reduce the 

nutrient levels. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.030 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5049
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

Finally, the cost estimates are only calculated for upgrading the treatment plants to the LOT, not to meet the criteria 

levels in the Proposed Rule. EPA assumes in the report the LOT for domestic wastewater biological nutrient removal is 

3 mg/L Total Nitrogen and 0.1 mg/L Total Phosphorus. However, it is unclear whether these standards are based on an 

annual average or some other frequency. The EPA should clarify the frequency in the Cost Report. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.031 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

Although EPA acknowledges this LOT will be inadequate to comply with the lake standards, the South Florida Canal 

standards and the standards in 3 out of 4 stream regions, the report inexplicably concludes that wastewater treatment 

plants would only have to upgrade their treatment technology to the LOT in order to comply with the proposed rule. The 

Cost Report goes on to estimate the cost of upgrading existing treatment to the LOT for 94 wastewater treatment 

plants, which EPA believes will be impacted by the proposed standards. Cocoa's wastewater facility was not included in 

the Cost Report as a facility that will be required to update its facility to meet the proposed criteria. However, Cocoa will 

incur significant costs in order to comply with the Proposed Rule. Cocoa's wastewater facility on average discharges to 

the Indian River Lagoon with TN at 6.0 and TP at 0.5. Assuming only the LOT limits must be met (TN of 3.0 and TP of 

0.1), our wastewater processes would need to be significantly upgraded. An enhanced alum process with ultrafiltration 

could cost $15,000,000 with operation and maintenance fees at approximately $500,000 per year. If EPA enforces 

stricter standards beyond the LOT, the costs will be even higher. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.050 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

Second, the cost estimates are based on EPA's more lenient in-stream protection values rather than the more stringent 

downstream protective values for flowing waters. Because the downstream protection values are more stringent, 

additional treatment and costs will be required to meet these standards. In order to meet these more stringent 

standards, utilities will be required to upgrade their facilities with additional treatment methods to further reduce the 

nutrient levels. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.053 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5050
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

Finally, the cost estimates are only calculated for upgrading the treatment plants to the limits of technology ("LOT"), not 

to meet the criteria levels in the Proposed Rule. EPA assumes in the report the LOT for domestic wastewater biological 

nutrient removal is 3 mgIL Total Nitrogen and 0.1 mg/L Total Phosphorus. However, it is unclear whether these 

standards are based on an armual average or some other frequency. The EPA should clarify the frequency in the Cost 

Report. 

Although EPA acknowledges this LOT will be inadequate to comply with the lake standards, the South Florida Canal 

standards and the standards in 3 out of 4 stream regions, the report inexplicably concludes that wastewater treatment 

plants ("WWTP") would only have to upgrade their treatment technology to the LOT in order to comply with the 

proposed rule. The Cost Report goes on to estimate the cost of upgrading existing treatment to the LOT for 94 

wastewater treatment plants, which EPA believes will be impacted by the proposed standards. 

Appendix A to the Cost Report identifies the Plant City WWTP (FL0026557) among the 94 plants potentially impacted 

by the rule. The appendix indicates the existing treatment technology at the plant meets the LOT for total phosphorus, 

but does not meet the LOL for total nitrogen. The appendix estimates the City would have to expend $5,479,134 in 

capital cost and $293,684 in armual operation and maintenance cost to upgrade the plant to the LOT. However, to meet 

the proposed criteria levels, these costs will be significantly increased. 

Additionally, it is unclear whether compliance with the proposed LOT standards for municipal wastewater facilities 

allows for future growth of those facilities. For example, Plant City is currently permitted at 8 MOD, and our surface 

water discharge is permitted at 2.68 MOD. However, if Plant City wishes to increase its permitted amounts, it is unclear 

whether it will be held to the permitted 2.68 MOD in the future, even if it continues to meet the LOT. The EPA should 

address this issue in the Cost Report. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.060 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

As the owner/operator of a wastewater utility in Florida, Seminole County is among this group of potentially affected 

communities. Currently, the EPA has suggested that the County's current wastewater treatment facilities would not 

require any additional treatment to meet the proposed limits, and would thus be unaffected. In response, County staff 

requested Reiss Engineering, Inc. ("Reiss") perform a brief review of its current wastewater treatment facilities, the 

application of proposed surface water standards as related to these facilities, and current facility performance in order to 

determine the County's ability to comply with the Proposed Rule, and the costs the County could potentially incur to 

upgrade the facilities sufficiently to satisfy the Proposed Rule standards. A copy of the Reiss Report is attached hereto 

as Exhibit "G". Assuming implementation of the new nutrient criteria as part of a standard permit renewal process, 

Seminole County could be required to take these upgrade actions within the next four to seven years (depending on the 

time period given to comply under a new permit). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5051
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.062 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

Second, the cost estimates are based on EPA's more lenient in-stream protection values rather than the more stringent 

downstream protective values for flowing waters. Because the downstream protection values are more stringent, 

additional treatment and costs will be required to meet these standards. In order to meet these more stringent 

standards, utilities will be required to upgrade their facilities with additional treatment methods to further reduce the 

nutrient levels. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.065 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

Finally, the cost estimates are only calculated for upgrading the treatment plants to the LOT, not to meet the criteria 

levels in the Proposed Rule. EPA assumes in the report the LOT for domestic wastewater biological nutrient removal is 

3 mg/L Total Nitrogen and 0.1 mg/L Total Phosphorus. However, it is unclear whether these standards are based on an 

annual average or some other frequency. The EPA should clarify the frequency in the Cost Report. 

Although EPA acknowledges this LOT will be inadequate to comply with the lake standards, the South Florida Canal 

standards and the standards in 3 out of 4 stream regions, the report inexplicably concludes that wastewater treatment 

plants would only have to upgrade their treatment technology to the LOT in order to comply with the proposed rule. The 

Cost Report goes on to estimate the cost of upgrading existing treatment to the LOT for 94 wastewater treatment 

plants, which EPA believes will be impacted by the proposed standards. 

Appendix A to the Cost Report identifies a Seminole County WWTP (FL0042625) and the Orlando Iron Bridge WWTP 

(FL0037966) among the 94 plants potentially impacted by the rule. The appendix indicates the existing treatment 

technology at plant meets the LOT and the County will not have to expend any capital or operation maintenance cost in 

order to comply with the new standards. However, as discussed herein and in the attached Exhibit "G" Reiss Report, 

Seminole County will incur additional costs to comply with the new standards. 

The Reiss Report contains a discussion of two alternative treatment technologies, alum coagulation followed by an 

ultrafiltration ("UF") membrane separation process ("Alum-UF Process") and UF treatment followed by a reverse 

osmosis process ("UF-RO Process"), which may be required to meet the TP and TN requirements in the Proposed 

Rule. 

Based on the Alum - UF treatment process described above, both the Iron Bridge Facility and the Yankee Lake Facility 

would require construction of alum addition and UF facilities, and potentially an expansion of solids handling systems 

(solids handling not included in cost estimates at this time). Alum feed facility improvements addressed in this 

evaluation would include alum dosing equipment and chemical storage tanks. Downstream of the facilities' existing 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5052
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

media filters, ultrafiltration membrane treatment would be used as polishing to remove the remaining suspended 

particles. However, this process would likely not satisfy the TN requirements. 

The UF-RO process would satisfy both the LOT and NNC standards for TP and TN, and would be considered the most 

capable technology reasonably applicable to a treatment facility. The primary drawbacks of such a process change are 

cost, which is significantly higher in both capital and operation and maintenance ("O&M"), and the appreciable loss of 

water when using RO. Specific improvements required to implement the integrated UF - RO treatment technologies 

include a facility to house both the UF and RO equipment, multiple pumping units for both treatment processes, 

equalization storage tanks, ultra-violet treatment equipment, and deep well injection facilities for the RO concentrate 

stream. 

Construction of both the Alum-UF Process and the UF-RO Process would require significant improvements to the 

treatment processes at both WRFs. Detailed costs associated with upgrading each facility with necessary treatment 

structures under both processes are detailed in the attached Reiss Report. In sum, construction of the Alum-UF 

Process at Yankee Lake WRF for Phase II 3.5 mgd-adf is approximately $14,840,000.00 in capital costs and 

$549,000.00 total annual average operating and management costs. Construction of the Alum-UF Process at Yankee 

Lake WRF for Phase III 5.0 mgd-adf is approximately $5,108,600.00 in capital costs and $740,000.00 total annual 

average operating and management costs. Construction of the complete plant capital cost for the Alum-UF Process at 

Iron Bridge WRF is approximately $171,206,000.00 in capital cost of which Seminole County would be responsible for 

$36,381,800.00, and $7,947,000.00 total annual average operating and management costs, of which Seminole County 

would be responsible for $1,707,000.00. 

Construction of the UF-RO Process at Yankee Lake WRF for Phase II 3.5 mgdadf is approximately $21,318,000.00 in 

capital costs and $12,040,000.00 total annual average O&M costs. Construction of the UF-RO Process at Yankee Lake 

WRF for Phase III 5.0 mgd-adf is approximately $1,489,000.00 in capital costs and 2,120,000.00 total annual average 

operating and management costs. Construction of the complete plant capital cost for the UF-RO Process at Iron Bridge 

WRF is approximately $205,030,000.00 in capital costs, of which Seminole County would be responsible for 

$43,569,400.00, and $23,510,000.00 total annual average operating and management costs, of which Seminole County 

would be responsible for $4,996,000.00. 

Based on this conceptual review of several potential treatment scenarios, Seminole County will incur a significant level 

of capital costs, and O&M increases, in order to comply with these new standards. Depending on USEPA's enforcement 

of either the LOT standards (less restrictive) or the NNC directly (more restrictive), the County could conceivably incur 

capital costs from $40-80 million for these improvements, and operate under increased O&M costs of $2-7 million per 

year over current expenditures. 

In addition to these wastewater treatment costs, other aspects of the EPA's rulemaking could cause Seminole County to 

incur much greater costs in the future. The current form of the rules gives a broad latitude to EPA in implementing 

environmentallyprotective measures, including the potential to apply stringent nutrient limits on stormwater discharges, 

and possibly even control over the use of reclaimed water. Should the Proposed Rule be applied in such a manner, 

Seminole County's Greenwood Lakes WRF would also be affected, with tens of millions of dollars of additional costs 

required for upgrading that facility as well. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5053
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.054 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

Second, the cost estimates are based on EPA's more lenient in-stream protection values rather than the more stringent 

downstream protective values for flowing waters. Because the downstream protection values are more stringent, 

additional treatment and costs will be required to meet these standards. In order to meet these more stringent 

standards, utilities will be required to upgrade their facilities with additional treatment methods to further reduce the 

nutrient levels. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.057 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

Finally, the cost estimates are only calculated for upgrading the treatment plants to the limits of technology ("LOT"), not 

to meet the criteria levels in the Proposed Rule, EPA assumes in the report the LOT for domestic wastewater biological 

nutrient removal is 3 mg/L Total Nitrogen and 0.1 mg/L Total Phosphorus. However, it is unclear whether these 

standards are based on an annual average or some other frequency. The EPA should clarify the frequency in the Cost 

Report. 

Although EPA acknowledges this LOT will be inadequate to comply with the lake standards, the South Florida Canal 

standards and the standards in 3 out of 4 stream regions, the report inexplicably concludes that wastewater treatment 

plants would only have to upgrade their treatment technology to the LOT in order to comply with the proposed rule. The 

Cost Report goes on to estimate the cost of upgrading existing treatment to the LOT for 94 wastewater treatment 

plants, which EPA believes will be impacted by the proposed standards. Titusville's wastewater treatment plant is 

among the 94 facilities referenced in the EPA report. 

Appendix A to the Cost Report identifies the Titusville Blue Heron Wastewater Treatment Plant (FL0103349) among the 

94 plants potentially impacted by the rule. The appendix indicates the existing treatment technology at the plant meets 

the LOT and the City will not have to expend any capital or operation maintenance cost in order to comply with the new 

standards. However, this is incorrect. 

Substantial treatment improvements would be required at the Titusville Osprey Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(FL0103268) to achieve the 3 mg/l Total Nitrogen and 0.1 mg/l Total Phosphorus limits so their effluent could be used 

for reclaimed water. Additional storage for substandard (reject) water may be required on-site or the capability to divert 

it to the wetland treatment system at the Blue Heron Plant. Additional equipment, chemicals and/or processes would be 

required at the Blue Heron Plant to assure compliance with the proposed limits. The facility is capable of maintaining a 

Total Nitrogen of 3.0 mg/l, but meeting the Total Phosphorus criteria limits of 0.1 mg/l would require the addition of a 

precipitating chemical on a daily basis, at a minimum. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5054
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

The Blue Heron Plant does not meet the LOT (0.1 mg/l) for Total Phosphorus. The plant was designed to reduce this 

nutrient to 1.0 mg/l. If the reclaimed water is required to comply with the Proposed Rule, both the Osprey and Blue 

Heron Plants would not meet the criteria. 

The attached spreadsheet, identified as Exhibit "D", is the 2009 Water Quality Annual Averages for Titusville. The 

information provided for the Osprey and Blue Heron Plant summarizes the level of nutrients present in the reclaimed 

water. To meet the proposed nutrient limits at the Blue Heron Plant for reclaimed water purposes, an estimated 

$150,000 - $200,000 in chemicals per year plus another initial $200,000 in capital costs for improvements to the 

existing chemical feed systems would be incurrred. The Titusville Osprey Wastewater Treatment Plant would require 

major treatment process improvements totaling several million dollars along with incurring an estimated $150,000 ­

$200,000 of annual chemical costs to comply with the proposed criteria if the Proposed Rule applies to reclaimed water. 

As discussed above, the City of Titusville conducted water quality monitoring in 1992 to evaluate the level of pollutant 

load discharged to the Indian River Lagoon. Comparison of those results with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

shows that: • 100% of phosphorus levels discharged from the northern portions of the City do not meet the standard 

(136-498 percent above the proposed standard); 

• 44% of phosphorus levels discharged from the central portions of the City do not meet the standard (104 to 183 

percent above the standard); 

• 30% of nitrogen levels do not meet the standard (102 to 165 percent above the proposed standard). 

In addition to structural and process modifications to the City's Wastewater Treatment Plants, significant investment will 

also be required for the City's stormwater management infrastructure in order to increase retention time and enhance 

water quality treatment will require significant investment for planning, construction and operation/maintenance. 

Structural pollution controls that are anticipated to be needed include land purchases, baffle box installation at individual 

sites and City outfalls, more and larger areas for swales, and implementation of low impact development strategies. In 

addition, an expanded public education and outreach will also be necessary. 

EPA is requiring that NPDES permits, upon renewal, be consistent with the wasteload allocation for applicable TMDL's 

and that the permitee develop an implementation plan that identifies enhanced controlled measures to meet the 

wasteload allocation. Implementation of the BMAP will have significant consequences. The cost to the City will be 

proportional to the degree with which the criteria are incorporated into each four (4) year renewal period of the City's 

NPDES permit. The cost of meeting EPA's criteria will in addition to the costs of implementing the I3MAP. If water 

quality criteria are included in the NPDES permit, the City of Titusville will have four years from the permit renewal date 

of 2012 to implement structural and non-structural improvements. According to estimates made by the Florida 

Stormwater Association, the cost of attaining stormwater compliance with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria is 

expected to be four to six times the cost of meeting current FDEP TMDL requirements. Any cost of compliance must be 

balanced against the benefits that will result from the high level of community investment. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.055 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5055
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Second, the cost estimates are based on EPA's more lenient in-stream protection values rather than the more stringent 

downstream protective values for flowing waters. Because the downstream protection values are more stringent, 

additional treatment and costs will be required to meet these standards. In order to meet these more stringent 

standards, utilities will be required to upgrade their facilities with additional treatment methods to further reduce the 

nutrient levels. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.058 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

Finally, the cost estimates are only calculated for upgrading the treatment plants to the LOT, not to meet the criteria 

levels in the Proposed Rule. EPA assumes in the report the LOT for domestic wastewater biological nutrient removal is 

3 mg/L Total Nitrogen and 0.1 mg/L Total Phosphorus. However, it is unclear whether these standards are based on an 

annual average or some other frequency. The EPA should clarify the frequency in the Cost Report. 

Although EPA acknowledges this LOT will be inadequate to comply with the lake standards, the South Florida Canal 

standards and the standards in 3 out of 4 stream regions, the report inexplicably concludes that wastewater treatment 

plants would only have to upgrade their treatment technology to the LOT in order to comply with the proposed rule. The 

Cost Report goes on to estimate the cost of upgrading existing treatment to the LOT for 94 wastewater treatment 

plants, which EPA believes will be impacted by the proposed standards. 

Appendix A to the Cost Report identifies the Orlando Iron Bridge WWTP (FL0037966) and the Orange County Eastern 

Regional WWTP (FL0038899) among the 94 plants potentially impacted by the rule. The appendix indicates the existing 

treatment technology at both plants meets the LOT and that neither plant will have to expend any capital or operation 

maintenance cost in order to comply with the new standards. However, as discussed herein, OUC will incur additional 

costs to comply with the new standards. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.008 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 On page A-1 of the document Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January, 2010) EPA provides a cost estimate for the Loxahatchee RV 

Reg WWTP (presumably the Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District's WWTP) to come into compliance with 

FDEP's draft numeric nutrient criteria (and by extension to EPA's draft numeric nutrient criteria). The LRD has three 

permitted disposal options, which are (1) a deep injection well, (2) reuse (i.e., publicaccess, landscape irrigation), and 

(3) an emergency surface water discharge point that discharges into the brackish portion of the Southwest Fork of the 

Loxahatchee River - note this emergency discharge point has never been used during LRD's 30 years of existence. 

Given our permitted disposal options, why did EPA provide a cost estimate for the LRD's WWTP to come into 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5056
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

compliance with EPA's numeric nutrient criteria? Additionally, what was the basis for EPA's cost estimate for the 

Loxahatchee RV Reg WWTP? 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.013 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 If reuse of reclaimed water is not exempted from EPA's numeric nutrient criteria (or if mixing zones and zones of 

discharge are not effectively used to promote the beneficial use of reclaimed water) then water reuse programs will only 

be possible if wastewater treatment facilities design, construct, and operate nutrient removal facilities at a huge 

expense (see Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida - though Carollo Engineers believe the true cost estimate is significantly higher than 

EPA has proposed). In either case, nutrient removal is an expensive exercise in terms of cash, energy, and greenhouse 

gasses produced. We suggest removing nutrients from water destined for landscape irrigation is counterproductive in 

today's ‘green' economy. Presently, nutrients in reclaimed water offset the fertilizer demand (i.e., one pound of nitrogen 

in reclaimed water offsets the need for one pound of nitrogen in fertilizer). If nitrogen and phosphorus must be removed 

from reclaimed water before it is deemed suitable for application as landscape irrigation water, then wastewater 

treatment facilities will have to generate significant energy (think unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions) to remove 

these nutrients while the golf courses will have to increase the amount of fertilizer they apply, which means more 

fertilizer mining must occur (think additional, unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions). Regulations that necessitate 

nutrient removal for reuse (reclaimed) water to be deemed suitable for landscape irrigation would result in reuse 

programs becoming unsustainable (i.e., economic and environmental costs would far outweigh the potential benefit). 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.044 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

The third serious flaw with the Cost Estimate is that it is much too simplistic. EPA has not properly considered the 

technologies that will be necessary to comply with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. Although EPA cites Metcalf 

and Eddy (2003) and Jeyanayagam (2005) for the limits of technology (LOT) it has proposed for total phosphorus, EPA 

mischaracterizes these studies. A proper reading of these studies supports a LOT of 0.3 mg/L-TP for biological nutrient 

removal (BNR), and a LOT of 0.15 mg/L-TP for granular filtration. Consequently, the Cost Estimate should include 

estimates for implementing granular filtration, as well as estimates for whatever technology EPA proposes to get lower 

than 0.15 mg/L. Upgrading a single 30 mgd facility in Florida from basic secondary treatment to AWT is more than 

EPA's estimated costs to achieve numeric nutrient criteria throughout the state. This fact alone renders EPA's cost 

ludicrous. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5057
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.045 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Even disregarding EPA's misunderstanding of these studies, the EPA Cost Estimate prominently errs in disregarding 

the costs of compliance where the criteria are below the LOT cited by EPA. EPA acknowledges that there are 

numerous waters that where the LOT cannot achieve the criteria, and it speculates that these facilities discharging in 

these waters will successfully utilize one of EPA's proposed implementation mechanisms: "(1) lake criteria adjustment 

or reallocation procedure of the DPV methodology for estuary protection, (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) 

restoration standards, (4) variances, [and/or] (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses."[117] EPA simply 

assumes away the costs of compliance with no analysis and provides no assurance that these implementation 

mechanisms will suffice for all-or even most-facilities. EPA seems unaware of the very real limitations of actually 

employing these implementation mechanisms. FDEP, however, analyzed these alternatives and concluded that they 

are likely unusable.[118] Further, FDEP further concludes that the proposed criteria are not achievable for domestic 

wastewater and will require alternative disposal methods; if reuse systems are chosen as an alternative, they would 

need to have a back-up surface water discharge (presumably, such discharges would have to achieve the criteria) or 

deep-well injection.[119] 

In light of this reality, the FWEA Utility Council, in cooperation with FRWA and the FSAWWA Utility Council, retained a 

reputable engineering consulting firm, Carollo Engineers, to evaluate the technological and economic implications of 

EPA's proposed rule. This report determined that in order to comply with the rule, Florida municipal wastewater 

treatment utilities will spend an estimated $24.4 to $50.7 billion in capital costs for nonconventional treatment facilities 

and incur an estimated $0.4 to $1.3 billion dollars per year in additional operating costs.[120] 

Consistent with FDEP's analysis, Carollo treated EPA's proposed criteria as "end of the pipe" limits, and Carollo 

acknowledged that the criteria would impact the beneficial use of reclaimed water. Further, Carollo noted the substantial 

energy demands (and associated greenhouse gas emissions) required to comply with the proposed nutrient criteria. 

[117] Id. at 6. 

[118] FDEP, Main Concerns with EPA Proposal, at 2. 

[119] Id. 

[120] Carollo Engineers, Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation 

Facilities (2010); see also, FDEP Secretary Sole, Presentation before the House Agriculture & Natural Resources 

Policy Committee, Feb. 3, 2010 ("Conventional municipal wastewater technology (EPA, 2008) cannot achieve EPA 

proposed criteria"). Secretary Sole's presentation also notes that "[c]ompliance will force an investment of billions of 

dollars without environmental benefit." (Emphasis added). 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.027 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5058
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

VIII. EPA Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Below is the specific numeric nutrient criteria EPA proposed in January 

2010. GRU falls within the Pennisula region and must meet TN=1.205 and TP=.107. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table from the federal register of the proposed stream 

criteria. See original comment letter. 

IX. Impact of EPA's Proposed Criteria on Ongoing Projects: The EPA proposed criteria could undermine the Paynes 

Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project. If the utility is required to meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at the point of discharge, 

the Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project would provide no further regulatory benefit. Without GRU's 

participation, the PPSRP will likely not be completed. This would result in the loss of significant grant money and 

committed funds from the Water Management District and other agencies. This would result in other stakeholders not 

having a solution to reduce nutrients in the environment. 

GRU is currently under an Administrative Order to construct the Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project. The 

MSWRF DEP Permit No.FL0027251 and Administrative Order No. AO 136 NE requires GRU to maintain a schedule of 

activities related to the PPSRP that require additional investment in planning, engineering, monitoring, and construction 

costs over the next several years. Expending these funds and staff time are a good faith effort to meet the TMDL and 

therefore state and federal requirements for discharge from the MSWRF. 

The Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project is not compatible with proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) 

because of the more stringent nutrient levels required prior to discharge to Sweetwater Branch for the MSWRF. The 

estimated capital cost of improvements or site specific alternative criteria at the MSWRF to meet numeric nutrient 

criteria range from $82,000,000 million to $120,000,000, not including concentrate disposal. Wastewater treatment plant 

modifications to meet NNC could be 4 times the cost, increase energy consumption by 50%, neither create or restore 

any wetlands, and have no public benefit compared to the endorsed and preferred Paynes Prairie Sheetflow 

Restoration Project. 

The second of GRU's water reclamation facilities is the Kanapaha Water Reclamation Facility (KWRF) which is located 

in the southwest portion of the City of Gainesville. GRU is currently permitted to discharge treated effluent to 

underground injection, land application of reclaimed water, and surface water discharge to Lake Kanapaha. The surface 

water discharge to Lake Kanapaha has been used historically on an extremely limited basis. In the past 10 years GRU 

has discharged twice to Lake Kanapaha both of which were during extreme conditions such as hurricanes and extreme 

wind events. 

The numeric nutrient criteria could require KWRF to be upgraded to meet the numeric nutrient criteria because of this 

emergency discharge condition. The estimated capital cost of improvements at the KWRF to meet numeric nutrient 

criteria range from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000, not including concentrate disposal. 

(Reference Document: Appendix F: KWRF Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit, Permit #FL0112895 (Major)) 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.029 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5059
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

The cost to prepare an application and gather data to support a SSAC for Sweetwater Branch, Alachua Sink and Lake 

Kanapaha is approximately $2,000,000. 

The total cost to GRU to construct treatment plant improvements at both water reclamation facilities range from 

$182,000,000 to $320,000,000. In addition, operation and maintenance costs would be significantly increased to 

accommodate significant increases in energy usage. 

In addition, budget constraints caused by the increased funds to meet NNC may also preclude investment in 

environmentally beneficial wetlands projects, both for water quality and wildlife habitat. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.037 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

The EPA cost report only identified 6 dischargers (all in the South region) and estimated that the total incremental 

capital cost for its new criteria is $35 million with an annual operation and maintenance cost of $538,000. The estimate 

excludes dischargers to the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, bayous, lakes and also assumes that essentially all plants 

are meeting LOT. 

Utilities in Florida point to significantly higher estimates, predicting capital costs of between $24 billion and $50 billion 

and an estimated $0.4 to $1.3 billion dollars per year more in increased operating costs. EPA's assumption that its 

proposal would only impose a small, incremental increase over what Florida had proposed in 2009 explains much of the 

discrepancy between EPA's cost estimate and the utilities' estimates. EPA also notes that their estimate is only for 

inland waters, but that the utilities are including costs for all utilities statewide. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.038 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Other assumptions that EPA made, noted below, also impact its costs estimate: 

• The EPA analysis used as its basis a report titled "Biological Nutrient Removal Processes and Costs." Observations of 

the approach taken by EPA are as follows:

 o The study reviewed a number of biological nutrient removal (BNR) facilities of varying sizes and locations, 

principally in Maryland and Connecticut.

 o The study did not differentiate between retrofits of existing treatment plants and new facilities. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5060
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

o The study did not consider the variation in effluent performance of the facilities. Thus, information on plants that 

were designed to produce an effluent TN of 7 to 10 mg/l was combined with information from plants that could produce 

effluent TN of 3 to 5 mg/l. The report did not produce an estimated cost of a facility that was considered to meet the 

Best Available Technology (3 mg/l of TN, since TN is the most challenging nutrient to remove).

 o Some in the utility community have been highly critical of this report, noting that based on realworld information, it 

significantly underestimates costs. 

• The January 2010 EPA analysis assumed that the limit of technology (LOT) for biological nutrient removal is 3 mg/l TN 

and 0.1 mg/l for TP. The report notes that most of the proposed in-stream nutrient standards for Florida are below the 

LOT, and thus it may be infeasible to meet the criteria instream due to technology limitations, especially if the water is 

dominated by wastewater discharges. The report states that if that is the case, alternative approaches would then be 

sought, such as a variance. 

• EPA's cost estimates do not include cost to stormwater agencies because the need for incremental controls is 

uncertain. EPA has estimated that retrofitting storm sewer systems in the Chesapeake Bay region to address nutrient 

pollution would cost over $7.9 billion. 

• For the purposes of the EPA cost study, it was assumed that the plants would meet the limit of technology. EPA 

defines the limit of technology as a BNR process and did not include microfiltration/reverse osmosis. 

• The EPA cost report assumes that if a plant has an operating BNR process that is capable of treating to limit of 

technology, then it would not cost more money to treat to the limit of technology. This assumption ignores the reality 

that BNR is a biological process that will have inherent variability in its performance, and that variability will increase as 

the treatment goal is lowered. 

• The EPA cost report does not appear to include plants that have ocean and estuary discharges. It only includes plants 

that discharge to lakes and streams. 

• The unit costs that have been used by EPA appear to underestimate the potential costs for biological nutrient removal. 

For example, for a plant that is already treating for TP, the cost to add facilities to removal TN to less than 3 mg/l is 

given by EPA as only $0.68/gallon. The utilities in Florida estimate that the expected cost to upgrade a secondary plant 

to advanced treatment is about $8.20/gallon, which is more consistent with actual observed costs. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.040 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Levels below those assumed by EPA are achievable using advanced wastewater treatment with microfiltration followed 

by reverse osmosis. As detailed in the cost estimate developed by utilities in Florida, treatment process trains beyond 

advanced nutrient removal that include reverse osmosis are much more costly than EPA has estimated, however EPA 

has assumed that this level of protection would not be required. 

Comment ID 1789-1.001.004 

Author Name: Dozier J. 

Organization: Georgia Association of Water Professionals and Georgia Member Association of the Water Environment Federation 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5061
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

III. COST FOR COMPLIANCE 

EPA on page 4222 of the proposed rules states 

• Costs for compliance is between $4.7 and $10.1 million per year with the assumption that water quality is already 

meeting yet to be enacted standards Florida had previously drafted. 

• Florida DEP had projected costs for dischargers to meet the draft DEP criteria to be and $102 million and $130 million 

annually 

• Municipal, industrial, and general NPDES dischargers facing only an incremental cost of $1 million per year 

• Stormwater dischargers were not taken into consideration 

EPA's cost projection is flawed because it assumes a baseline of yet to be enacted draft Florida DEP standards and is 

only for fresh water and not marine waters. Furthermore there is a very large disparity with cost projections others have 

made. 

The Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) is, like GWEF, affiliated with Water Environment Federation. The 

FWEA's Utility Council had a technical and engineering study performed by Carollo Engineers which determined the 

cost to sewer users would double and that: 

"The total municipal wastewater treatment cost to the people of the State of Florida will range from $47.6 to $98.7 billion 

dollars over the next 30 years. The actual cost within this anticipated range will depend upon how many utilities would 

be required -- besides those discharging directly to surface water streams -- to meet these criteria." 

There is a very large difference in cost projections from what utilities, which actually are responsible for operation of 

wastewater facilities, have determined from what EPA has stated. EPA should also properly determine what the costs 

would be for other States to comply if upstream States are responsible for downstream States' water standards. 

The potential additional cost to utilities' customers in Florida and Georgia is very significant and would be an even 

greater burden for citizens and businesses in this time of economic hardship. What makes this cost burden most 

onerous is that EPA could not establish in the proposed rule "a scientifically defensible cause and effect relationship" 

which would have demonstrated a real benefit for the large sums that would have to be spent for compliance. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to comment. 

Comment ID 1795-1.001.003 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

The upland soils that are available are low permeability soils and it would take approximately 5,000 acres, or almost 

eight square mile to dispose of the 20 mgd flow for our third plant. If this land could be found it would cost more than 

100 million dollars just to buy the land. It would be spread out over the northern area of the county and the pipe network 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5062
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

and distribution system could cost another 100 million. 

If public access reuse is used for irrigation of golf courses, lawns, etc. the cost is even more, as to get the capacity 

needed the distribution system would be spread out all over the county. 

Comment ID 1800-1.001.011 

Author Name: Gong S. 

Organization: CH2M HILL 

Wastewater Treatment Facility Effluent Discharge Compliance 

Within the document, Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida (EPA, January 2010), EPA adopted the term Limit of Technology (LOT) 

for addressing wastewater treatment facility treatment levels it viewed as likely to be required for a given NPDES permit 

holder to potentially be able to continue to discharge effluent to inland surface waters. The LOT was defined as 

treatment achieving total N concentrations of 3.0 mg/L or less, and total P concentrations of 0.1 mg/L or less. This LOT 

needs to be formally reaffirmed. The document contains indications that Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations 

(WQBELs) would need to be developed through studies that would account for dilution and presumably nutrient 

assimilation within the water body using modeling and/or field studies. Mixing zones, site specific alternative criteria 

studies, or use attainability studies would be potential elements of the investigations leading to WQBEL definition. 

In economic evaluations done to date by many utilities, the results indicate that the capital, operations, and 

maintenance cost to achieve compliance with the LOT via use of best available technologies will be high. Also, 

unintended side effects such as additional greenhouse gas emissions and additional solids production from the 

operation of new treatment processes have not been quantified. Before utilities can evaluate whether such costs for 

treatment upgrades should be integrated into their long-term wastewater management plans, a full understanding is 

needed of the potential costs associated with the instream investigations supporting WQBEL development. Before 

those costs can be estimated, a clearer delineation is needed of procedures and metrics that the agency responsible for 

compliance evaluation/permitting would require be applied. 

We respectfully request that EPA work with FDEP to define these procedures and metrics, and explain to the regulated 

community the likely scope of such investigations as well as who would be allowed to conduct those investigations on 

behalf of point or nonpoint source dischargers that will be affected by the EPA's proposed NNC. Lastly, the effect of the 

proposed NNC on utilities that do not directly discharge to surface waters but may indirectly contribute to nutrients in 

surface water is unclear and should be clarified ( such as discharge to rapid infiltration basins or land application where 

the groundwater is hydrologically connected to surface water). 

Comment ID 1838-1.001.006 

Author Name: Manson D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5063
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland 

Cost of Compliance 

Additional cost to the City would be required for increases in rates for its domestic wastewater service. The City 

presently sends all its domestic wastewater flows to the cities of Altamonte Springs and Orlando. No reclaimed water is 

returned to the City; therefore reclaimed water has no water quality impact to the City within its boundaries. Because 

the wastewater collected by the City will have to be treated to the new levels proposed by the EPA's proposed rule, the 

cost impact of the additional treatment is expected to be borne by the City's wastewater customers. Based on an 

analysis by the Florida Water Environment Association, the City has detennined the "additional cost" to meet the 

proposed rules will result in an annual increase in wastewater treatment charges of $2.7 million. This equates to about 

$744 per City household per year or $62 per month. 

Comment ID 1894.001.007 

Author Name: Fields G. 

Organization: City of Lakeland 

Cost Estimates 

The proposed rule is internally inconsistent when addressing the potential cost of complying with the new criteria. 

Municipalities like the City of Lakeland are specifically listed as an example of entities potentially affected by the rule. 

Later in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA Administrator Jackson certifies that "this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." Immediately following that certification, EPA estimates that 

the cost of compliance to the regulated community would be $4.7 million to $10.1 million per year over a baseline costbased upon compliance with draft criteria never finalized by the Florida DEP-of $102 to $ 130 million per year. 

A study funded by the Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, concluded that, in order to comply with the 

rule, Florida municipal wastewater treatment utilities will spend an estimated $24.4 to $50.7 billion in capital costs for 

nonconventional treatment facilities and incur an estimated $0.4 to $1 .3 billion dollars per year in additional operating 

costs. [2] 

Whether millions or billions, the City of Lakeland respectfully suggest that the proposed criteria are not supported by a 

sufficient technical basis to justify any significant expenditure of public funds on projects designed to meet the total 

nitrogen and total phosphorus targets. 

[2] Carollo Engineers, Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation 

Facilities . 

Comment ID 2372-1.001.006 

Author Name: Farber D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5064
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Patton Boggs LLP on behalf of James Hardie Building Products, Inc. 

Rather than undertaking an independent analysis of the potential costs of its proposed standards, EPA calculated the 

"baseline" cost put forward by the FDEP in July 2009, and added "incremental costs" in the amount of $4.7 to $10.1 

million per year. 75 Fed. Reg. 4222 (Jan. 26, 2010). However, EPA's standards in the Proposed Rule are far more 

restrictive than FDEP's draft criteria proposed in July 2009. Whereas most POTWs could have achieved FDEP's criteria 

using existing technology, the large majority of POTWs will not be able to treat to EPA's standards at the end-of-pipe 

without making significant upgrades. EPA's rushed and incomplete cost analysis resulted in a proposed rule that 

ignores the potential costs to POTWs and to severely underestimate the incremental costs of POTW users in complying 

with EPA's numeric criteria. 

First, EPA "incremental" cost analysis does not account for the fact that the Proposed Rule would enforce standards 

that are not currently achievable by POTWs using the current available technology. Upgrades to POTW facilities to 

allow for new treatment technologies - such as reverse osmosis - could cost anywhere from $20 to $80 million dollars 

per plant. Even if municipalities can pass through some or all of the upgrade cost to their customers, these costs should 

nonetheless be included in EPA's overall cost analysis. 

Response 

Comment ID: 0491-1.001.001 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 0491-1.001.009 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA’s criteria apply to surface waters only. The commenter states that the discharge is not 

to surface water. EPA estimates that there would be no impact of the rule to this waste water discharger because it does not 

discharge to surface water. 

Comment ID: 0558.001.003 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and comment 0713.001.008 in issue category 

BL_BEN. 

Comment ID: 0587.001.003 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 1370-1.001.010. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5065
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 0601.001.005 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN. 

Comment ID: 0620.001.004 

Response: See response to comment 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN, 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO, and 

1370-1.001.010. 

Comment ID: 0623.001.002
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 0623.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and comment 1277.001.002 in issue category 

ECON. 

Comment ID: 0642.001.003 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA’s rule is for fresh water lakes and streams and does not include estuaries such as 

Tampa Bay. In addition, see response to comment 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN and 1688-5.001.004 in issue category 

EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 0644.001.005
 

Response: See response to comment 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN and 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 0644.001.009
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 0645.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5066
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: See response to comment 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN, 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO, and 

0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 0645.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN and 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 0646.001.006
 

Response: See response to comment 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN, 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO, and 

0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 0648.001.003
 

Response: See response to comment 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN and 0675.001.005.
 

Comment ID: 0656.001.002
 

Response: In response to the comment, the commenter does not indicate why they would need to spend $123 million for 

compliance. Furthermore, this rule applies only to discharges to inland surface waters. Also, see response to comment 1688­

5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 0663.001.001 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. For TMDL targets that are less stringent than 

applicable EPA criteria but appropriate for the protection of designated uses as determined by site-specific data and analysis, such 

targets could be submitted to and approved by EPA as FDEP as site-specific criteria under this rule. 

Comment ID: 0673.001.004 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for support of the rule. EPA agrees that there are significant adverse ecological effects, 

economic impacts, and social welfare losses from nutrient impairments to Florida lakes and rivers. 

Comment ID: 0674.001.008 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5067
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 0675.001.005 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. In addition, the cost estimate is based on the 

assumption that all treatment plants in the State would incur costs attributable to the rule, including discharges to waters not covered 

by rule and non-NPDES dischargers (high end of range only). The commenter also did not account for current BNR treatment in 

place or coverage under an approved TMDL. Both of these factors result in overestimates of costs attributable to EPA’s rule. 

Comment ID: 0678.001.002 

Response: EPA recognizes disparities in public perceptions regarding water wastewater treatment costs. 

Comment ID: 0703.001.003 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Also, see response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 

0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 0727.001.006 

Response: The City discharges to the Lower Saint Johns River that is already covered under an existing TMDL to reduce nutrients. 

Because requirements under existing TMDLs would occur absent EPA's rule, the controls necessary to meet the TMDL is not 

attributable to this rule. Thus, EPA estimated the incremental impact of the rule as zero. See also response to comment 

0663.001.001. 

Comment ID: 0732.001.005 

Response: See response to comment 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN. 

Comment ID: 0748.001.003 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5068
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 0748.001.005 

Response: EPA recognizes that the most wastewater facilities utilize the most cost-effective treatment options to minimize costs. 

Comment ID: 0753.001.007 

Response: The commenter does not indicate why it would need to spend $150 million in capital and $17 million in O&M. See 

response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and comment 0543-1.001.002 in issue category ECON. 

Comment IDs: 0757.001.005, 0871.001.005, 1284.001.006
 

Response: In response to the comments, EPA believes that costs proposed by some stakeholders have been overestimated.
 

Comment ID: 0766.001.001
 

Response: In response to the comment. EPA agrees that POTWs may need to install AWT. See response to comment 1011.001.019 

in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0770.001.002
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 1370-1.001.010.
 

Comment ID: 0781.001.002
 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA’s rule only applies to discharges into surface water. Also, see response to comment 

1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN. 

Comment ID: 0788.001.004 

Response: In response to the comment, South Florida canals are not covered under EPA’s rule. Also, see response to comment 

1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0753.001.007. 

Comment ID: 0843.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5069
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: See response to comment 0543-1.001.002 in issue category ECON and 0781.001.002. 

Comment ID: 0884.001.006 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID 0906-1.001.002 

Response: The commenter does not indicate why it would need to spend $40 million on additional treatment. Also, see response to 

comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN. 

Comment ID: 0914.001.002
 

Response: See response to 0906-1.001.002.
 

Comment ID: 0915-1.001.002
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 0921.001.007
 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005 and 0884.001.006.
 

Comment ID: 0949.001.006
 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005 and 0620.001.004.
 

Comment ID: 0993.001.002
 

Response: The commenter has not indicated where the RO system brine is currently being discharged, if at all. The rule only covers 

inland lakes and flowing streams not in South Florida. 

Comment ID: 1011.001.018 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5070
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: EPA’s rule only covers fresh water lakes and streams that are not in South Florida, and private development lakes would 

not be covered by this rule if they are not waters of the United States. In the event that such lakes are required to meet the applicable 

criteria, i.e., if they are waters of the U.S. and are outside of South Florida, see response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue 

category EA_OPO and 0781.001.002. 

Comment ID: 1011.001.022 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 1013.001.003 

Response: The commenter does not indicate why it would incur costs of $40 million. Also, see response to comment 1688­

5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1108.001.003 

Response: The commenter does not provide the underlying data or rationale to support the assertion that compliance costs would be 

exponentially higher than current estimates. 

Comment ID: 1155.001.010, 

Response: The rule only applies to surface waters, and the commenter does not indicate why it would need to spend $15 million. 

Also, see response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN. 

Comment ID: 1217-2.001.056 

Response: See response to 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 1273-1.001.002 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA’s criteria apply to surface water only. The commenter states that the discharge is not to 

surface water. EPA estimates that there would be no impact of the rule to this wastewater discharger. Also see response to comment 

1475-1.001.008. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5071
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1301-1.001.015 

Response: The commenter does not provide the underlying data or rationale to support the assertions that utility bills will go up 

dramatically, would shift substantial resources away from existing initiatives, and render prior improvement projects obsolete. 

Comment ID: 1305.001.005 

Response: The commenter’s wastewater treatment plants discharge to estuarine waters (e.g., bays and ocean). This rule does not 

apply to estuarine waters. 

Comment ID: 1305.001.006
 

Response: See response to comment 1305.001.005 and 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID 1322.001.005
 

Response: The commenter does not indicate why costs will increase by $250 per month per customer. Also, see response to 

comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN. 

Comment ID: 1322.001.008
 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment ID: 1352-1.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005.
 

Comment IDs: 1359-1.001.026, 1359-1.001.033
 

Response: EPA acknowledges these comments. They are restatements of EPA’s economic analysis. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.039 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5072
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005. 

Comment IDs: 1365.001.001, 1370-1.001.002 

Response: EPA has considered all information and data available and has revised its economic analysis as appropriate. 

Comment ID: 1370-1.001.009
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1370-1.001.010
 

Response: EPA does not believe waste water treatment plants will need to install reverse osmosis as a result of the rule (see 

response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO). Thus, the increased power demand associated with such 

treatment is not applicable. 

Comment ID: 1370-1.001.011 

Response: EPA accounts for existing treatment processes in estimated costs to waste water treatment plants. Discussion of 

available treatment technologies for achieving the limit of technology for total phosphorus can be found in EPA's economic analysis 

accompanying the rule." 

Comment ID: 1370-1.001.059
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1370-1.001.060
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.061 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5073
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1432-1.001.004 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1432-1.001.005 

Response: The commenter does not indicate why it would need to spend $2 billon. See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in 

issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1444-1.001.002 

Response: EPA has revised its cost estimates. In addition, it is not possible to identify the exact mix of controls needed to meet the 

criteria in every waterbody without site-specific water quality modeling (which may be performed during TMDL or implementation 

plan development). EPA’s costs represent an estimate of the types of controls that could be needed based on current efforts 

throughout the State. Also, see response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.054
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.026.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.060
 

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s reiteration of EPA’s economic analysis.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.113
 

Response: See response to 0675.001.005.
 

Comment ID: 1475-1.001.008
 

Response: In response to the comment, whether reductions in nutrients are necessary for reuse water will depend on its contribution 

to instream loads. This determination can only be made in the context of a TMDL. However, because existing TMDLs and BMAPs 

do not typically require actions with regard to reclaimed water, it is unlikely that use of reclaimed water will be significantly 

affected by the rule. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5074
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1475-1.001.009 

Response: EPA did not perform a site-specific analysis of compliance costs for every waste water treatment plant in the State. 

Instead, EPA assumed that waste water treatment plants would need to upgrade to advanced biological nutrient removal regardless 

of available mixing zones unless such treatment already exists because EPA believes biological nutrient removal will in most cases 

be the most practical option. Although EPA attempted to confirm existing treatment controls for each plant, the information 

required to do so was not always available. Also, EPA did not obtain data for all treatment plants to determine discharge conditions. 

Thus, the point source cost estimates are intended to represent an overall estimate of, not individual discharger costs for, actual 

controls that may be needed to meet the final criteria. Note that EPA revised its cost estimate to account for changes in the proposed 

rule and public comments. 

Comment ID: 1482-1.001.032 

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that FDEP’s economic analysis overestimates potential compliance costs. See Section 

VI of the rule and EPA's document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and 

Flowing Waters in Florida” for details. 

Comment ID: 1530.001.030 

Response: EPA chose the low end of the range presented in a 2003 study by Metcalf and Eddy (Wastewater Engineering: 

Treatment and Reuse. Fourth Edition, McGraw Hill: Boston) because this level (0.1 mg/L) is generally accepted as a 

technologically feasible and cost-effective advanced biological nutrient removal treatment level for total phosphorus (as cited in 

EPA 2008, Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies Reference Document. Volume 1 - Technical Report, EPA 832-R-08-006). In 

addition, under Tier 4 of the 2002 Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Task Force (Chesapeake Bay Program, 

Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations for Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, November), total 

phosphorus and total nitrogen levels achievable for waste water treatment plants are 0.1 mg/L and 3 mg/L, respectively. EPA 

disagrees with the assertion that the economic analysis should not account for various forms of regulatory flexibility allowed in the 

water quality standards program, because those actions are likely to occur when the criteria are implemented by FDEP. Also, see 

response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO, 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN, 0781.001.002, and 

0663.001.001. 

Comment ID: 1530.001.054 

Response: See response to comment 1530.001.030. Also, EPA revised its cost analysis. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5075
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1562-1.001.002 

Response: The commenter does not indicate what type of treatment it believes would be needed for compliance with the rule. Also, 

see response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1564-1.001.007 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG, 1322.001.008, 1370-1.001.010 and 1688­

5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. Also, note that smaller systems are more likely to receive dilution and not have effluent 

limits that require meeting the criteria at the point of discharge. Smaller systems are also more likely to be considered a minor 

source of nutrients under a TMDL and receive WLA that reflects their small contribution (e.g., based on existing discharge levels). 

EPA’s numeric criteria are in the form of total nitrogen. Thus, EPA evaluated compliance based on total nitrogen concentrations. 

Comment ID: 1614-1.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1641-1.001.012
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO, 0675.001.005, and 1011.001.019 in issue category 

BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1645-1.001.012
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1647-1.001.028
 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005 and 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN.
 

Comment ID: 1667-1.001.003 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5076
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.009 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment IDs: 1688-6.001.001, 1688-8.001.001 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comments, and has considered all additional information and data available in its revised 

economic analysis. 

Comment ID: 1713-1.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1729.001.019
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0713.001.008 in issue category BL_BEN.
 

Comment ID: 1761-3.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1769-1.001.027
 

Response: EPA revised its cost analysis. Also, DPVs for estuaries are not included in the final rule.
 

Comment ID: 1769-1.001.030
 

Response: EPA revised its cost analysis.
 

Comment ID: 1769-1.001.031 

Response: EPA revised its cost analysis. The City of Cocoa is not included in the revised analysis because it discharges to an 

estuarine water that is not covered under the rule. Also, see response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5077
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1770-1.001.050 

Response: EPA revised its cost analysis to include consideration of downstream protection values for streams to protect 

downstream lakes. To estimate costs to WWTPs, EPA assumed that dischargers would receive effluent limits equal to the numeric 

nutrient criteria (i.e., assumption of no dilution). Where criteria are below target performance levels of 3 mg/L for TN and 0.1 mg/L 

for TP (consistent with current cost-effective nutrient removal technology), EPA assumed that dischargers will either implement 

technology consistent with levels that attain an annual average of 3 mg/L for TN and 0.1 mg/L or less for TP and achieve 

performance at levels that meet the WQBEL, or cannot achieve the required performance level and pursue other means of 

complying with WQS such site-specific criteria, variances, or use designation modifications. Also, see response to comment 1688­

5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1770-1.001.053 

Response: See response to comment 1770-1.001.050. In addition, any new or expanded discharge to a high quality water would 

need to undergo an antidegradation review to determine impacts on water quality in the absence of EPA’s rule. Thus, any costs 

associated with increasing WWTP capacity are not attributable to this rule. 

Comment ID: 1771-1.001.060 

Response: The Seminole County WWTP is not only already operating advanced BNR (5-stage Bardenpho), but it is also covered 

under an existing TMDL in which it has both TN and TP WLAs. Thus, under the assumption that the State would adopt existing 

TMDL targets as site-specific alternative criteria, once in compliance with existing WLAs the facility would not incur incremental 

control costs as a result of EPA’s rule. 

Comment ID: 1771-1.001.062 

Response: See response to comments 1770-1.001.050 and 1771-1.001.060. 

Comment ID: 1771-1.001.065 

Response: See response to comments 1771-1.001.060, 1688-5.001.004 in the issue category EPA_OPO, and 1273-1.001.002. 

Comment ID: 1772-1.001.054 

Response: See response to comment 1770-1.001.050. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5078
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1772-1.001.057
 

Response: Response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in the issue category EPA_OPO and 0896-2.001.001 in issue category I.B.
 

Comment ID: 1773-1.001.055
 

Response: See response to comment 1770-1.001.050.
 

Comment IDs: 1773-1.001.058, 1688-5.001.004
 

Response: In response to these comments in the issue category EPA_OPO and 0896-2.001.001 in issue category I.B.
 

Comment ID: 1778-1.001.008
 

Response: See response to comments 0993.001.002 and 0781.001.002.
 

Comment ID: 1778-1.001.013
 

Response: See response to comment 0884.001.006 and 0781.001.002.
 

Comment ID: 1782-1.001.044
 

Response: See response to comment 1530.001.030.
 

Comment ID: 1782-1.001.045
 

Response: See response to comments 0675.001.005 and 0781.001.002.
 

�
 

Comment ID: 1784-1.001.027
 

Response: EPA is not defining point source effluent limits or the point of compliance with those limits for discharges with this rule,
 

rather just the criteria for surface waters. EPA’s economic analysis provides estimates of point source treatment and costs; ultimate
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5079
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

state implementation may differ. See also response to comments 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0663.001.001. 

Comment ID: 1784-1.001.029 

Response: The commenter does not provide the basis for asserting that site-specific alternative criteria would be needed, or why 

they believe they will need the treatment described. EPA’s revised economic analysis accompanying this rule contains estimates of 

the cost for the Gainesville Regional Utilities, which are lower than those provided by the commenter. Also, see response to 

comment 1784-1.001.027. 

Comment ID: 1786-1.001.037 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 1786-1.001.038 

Response: In response to the comment, unit costs from EPA’s 2008 study: Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies Reference 

Document. Volume 1 - Technical Report (EPA 832-R-08-006) used in EPA’s cost analysis (“Economic Analysis of Final Water 

Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida”) are based on the group of dischargers categorized as 

achieving total nitrogen of 3 mg/L and total phosphorus of either 0.5 mg/L or 0.1 mg/L. The rule only applies to lakes and streams, 

and does not include estuaries and coastal waters. Thus, only dischargers to applicable waters are included in the analysis. See also 

response to comments 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and 0896-2.001.001 in issue category I.B. 

Comment ID: 1786-1.001.040 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 1789-1.001.004 

Response: See response to comments 0884.001.006, 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO, and 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 1795-1.001.003 

Response: See response to comment 0727.001.006. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5080
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID:1800-1.001.011 

Response: The commenter does not cite the specific economic studies supporting the assertion that compliance costs “will be 

high.” EPA also disagrees with the commenter’s characterization of EPA's economic analysis. EPA used the term "limit of 

technology" with respect to the specific technology of biological nutrient removal. States adopt implementation procedures for 

calculating water quality-based effluent limits in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. For EPA's 

analysis, EPA used FDEP procedures that relied on EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) for Water Quality-based Toxics 

Control (EPA/505/2-90-001). For municipal wastewater, EPA estimated costs to reduce effluent concentrations to 3 mg/L or less 

for total nitrogen and 0.1 mg/L or less for total phosphorus using advanced biological nitrogen/phosphorus removal (BNR). 

Although reverse osmosis and other treatment technologies may have the potential to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus 

concentrations even further, EPA believes that implementation of reverse osmosis applied on such a large scale has not been 

demonstrated to be practical or necessary (see section VI of this rule and EPA's support document entitled: “Economic Analysis of 

Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” for explanation). Should state-of-the-art 

BNR technology together with other readily available physical and chemical treatment demonstrated to be effective in municipal 

WWTP operations not result in compliance with permit limits that may be necessary for meeting the new numeric 

nitrogen/phosphorus criteria, then entities may seek out other available means of attaining water quality standards such as reuse, 

nonpoint source reductions, site-specific alternative criteria, variances, and designated use modifications. 

With respect to impacts on dischargers that do not discharge to surface waters, water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES 

permits are not applicable. TMDLs for impaired waters identify sources of nutrients and allocate load reductions. In Florida, basin 

management action plans identify the plans for controlling nutrient sources and how they will be enforced. 

Comment ID: 1838-1.001.006 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 1894.001.007 

Response: See response to comment 0675.001.005. 

Comment ID: 2372-1.001.006 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

BL_PS_I - COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS AND THE 

COSTS FOR INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES (4.2) 

Comment ID 1024.001.003 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5081
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Fuller M. 

Organization: 

We think that the -- that the regulated community and representatives -- and their representatives and some people in 

the fertilizer industry, we think that they've presented you with exaggerated cost estimates. We think that people just 

need to look at a top-to-bottom analysis, how can we reduce nutrient discharges into waters. That's what we need to do. 

We think you're on the right track. 

Comment ID 1217-10.001.001 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

1.0 Introduction and Background 

On January 26, 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed numeric nutrient water 

quality standards for all lakes and flowing waters within the State of Florida.[1] ENVIRON International Corporation 

(ENVIRON), on behalf of the member facilities of the Florida Phosphate Industry (FPI), has prepared this assessment of 

financial impact on phosphate mining and mineral processing (herein referred to as "the White Paper") that presents an 

assessment of the financial impact of complying with the proposed standards for discharges of stormwater and 

stormwater commingled with process water (herein referred to as "stormwater") from permitted NPDES outfalls 

associated with the phosphate mining (Minerals) and phosphate fertilizer production (Concentrates) facilities. This 

White Paper specifically presents an evaluation of the impact with respect to costs to comply (i.e., cost for providing 

treatment) and associated multi-media impacts. 

The proposed State of Florida nutrient standards that EPA has currently proposed are for instream protective values 

(IPV) for Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorous (TP). The currently proposed standards that are specific to the 

existing discharges (based on receiving waterbody type and location) from the member facilities are IPV standards for 

TN ranging from 1.479 mg/L to 1.798 mg/L; and for TP ranging from 0.359 to 0.739 mg/L. Proposed downstream 

protective values (DPV) for TN, which were originally proposed but have since been deferred by EPA until 2011, range 

from 0.55 mg/L to 1.05 mg/L. Therefore, for the purposes of the evaluation provided in this White Paper, compliance 

impact costs assumed that the currently proposed limiting standards of 1.479 mg/L TN and 0.359 mg/L TP would need 

to be met. The technologies selected for review are available today and should be able to meet either standard.[2] This 

approach provides for a reasonable margin of safety for those discharges that fall within the total IPV range. 

This White Paper includes the following: 

• Effluent Data Review and Design Basis Development; 

• Technology Evaluation; 

• Selected Technologies Capital and Operating Cost Estimates; 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5082
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

• Selected Technologies Multi-Media Impacts Evaluation; and, 

• Statewide Compliance Costs and Multi-Media Impacts Evaluation. 

2.0 Effluent Data Review and Design Basis Development 

ENVIRON has reviewed and characterized the effluent data of stormwater discharges provided by the FPI member 

facilities ("subject facilities") in order to develop a design basis. Specific data currently available from the FPI subject 

facilities included outfall-specific flows, TN, and TP. 

The number of discharges (from individual outfalls) of the FPI subject facilities that could be impacted from the 

proposed TN and TP standards were based on a historic review of the TN and TP arithmetic maximum concentrations, 

flows, and receiving stream type of the individual outfall (i.e., outfalls currently discharging to estuaries were not 

included since no standards for estuaries are currently proposed). Based on the review, for this evaluation the number 

of outfalls from the FPI subject facilities that could be impacted from the proposed TN and TP standards was calculated 

to be 51. 

Table 2-1 provides a histogram summary of the flow data reviewed that were used as the basis for the compliance cost 

assessment provided in this White Paper. Based on the evaluation and as summarized in the table below, ENVIRON 

has assumed three discharge flow volume scenarios that occur 80% of the time for the outfalls evaluated: 5, 20, and 50 

million gallons per day (MGD or mgd). 

It is anticipated that the FPI subject facilities discharges would still be able to achieve the necessary TN and TP 

reductions at the upper range of flows most of the time; therefore, ENVIRON concluded the 80% flow values would be 

reasonably appropriate for the design of a treatment/discharge option alternative for the purposes of development and 

comparison of costs and associated multi-media impacts. However, in actuality during high flow events (such as from a 

rain event exceeding a 24-hour 100-year storm or from extended heavy rainfall from tropical storms or hurricanes), part 

of the flow would likely need to be bypassed to storage or discharged without treatment. Therefore the necessary 

reductions necessary to meet the proposed TN and TP standards may not be able to be achieved at all times, and 

additional surge storage or some form of regulatory relief may be required for compliance under extreme conditions. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 7 of the pdf of a summary of the data 

showing the range of flows (mgd);Minerals and Concentrates shown [3]. See original comment letter. 

For TN and TP concentrations, ENVIRON is assuming TN and TP influent concentrations (i.e., existing outfall effluent 

concentrations) of 5.0 mg/L and 5.0 mg/L, respectively, based on the FPI subject facility outfall data review. Because 

consistent analytical data were not available on the forms of TN (or TP), ENVIRON assumed that most of the TN in the 

discharges from the Minerals operations is comprised of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) while most of the TN in the 

discharges from the Concentrates facilities is comprised of Ammonia-Nitrogen, based on discussions with and 

consensus of the FPI member companies. For TP, ENVIRON has made no assumptions regarding the type of prevalent 

forms present in discharges from the subject facilities. 

With respect to other parameters that could impact design-specific parameters for treatment technology/option type 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5083
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

and/or efficiency, it is assumed that most of the water that would be treated originates from rainfall (i.e., stormwater) 

and therefore would have similar characteristics with respect to alkalinity, hardness (low), and pH (slightly below 

neutral) to rainwater. With respect to TDS, it is assumed to be slightly higher than the rain water (500 to 1000 mg/L) due 

to potential commingling with process wastewater and as confirmed by analytical data. 

3.0 Technology Evaluation 

This section presents an evaluation of currently available technologies and/or discharge options capable of reducing TN 

and TP concentrations in stormwater discharges similar to those found from discharges associated with the FPI 

member subject facilities. Technologies evaluated focused on end-of-pipe technologies/discharge options that can treat 

both TN and TP together. Those technologies/discharge options that have been demonstrated to reliably achieve the 

needed reduction to both the TN and TP proposed standards were selected for cost development and multi-media 

impact analysis. 

The technologies/discharge options evaluated for end-of-pipe TN and TP reduction are the following: 

• Reverse Osmosis/Deep Well Injection; 

• Deep Well Injection; 

• Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/ Dechlorination; 

• Floating Treatment Wetlands; 

• Constructed Treatment Wetlands; 

• Algal Turf ScrubberTM; 

• Algaewheel®; and, 

• Reverse Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge. 

3.1 Reverse Osmosis/Deep Well Injection 

Reverse osmosis (RO) is a membrane-specific process that has been widely used for operations requiring high-purity 

waters, like boilers, and therefore would be suitable for the treatment of the TN and TP in the discharges from the 

subject facilities to reliably achieve the proposed TN and TP standards. The RO process consists of a series of semipermeable membranes by which waters that require treatment are pumped at extremely high pressures through the 

void spaces between the membranes, resulting in the concentrating of ions to produce a reject stream on the exterior of 

the membrane. The reject stream then would need to be managed/disposed. 

For the stormwater discharges from the subject facilities, it is assumed that pre-treatment consisting of filtration would 

be required for the influent, and the reject stream from a single RO membrane system would be of a quality that would 

allow it to be further treated via a second RO membrane system.[4] The reject from the second-stage RO would then be 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5084
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

disposed of via deep well injection. 

Deep well injection of wastewater involves the practice of placing fluids in a permeable underground formation or 

aquifer by gravity flow or under pressure through an injection well. This method of wastewater disposal is considered 

viable at locations where hydrogeologic formations have sufficient confinement, porosity, and permeability to accept the 

fluids without endangering underground sources of drinking water (USDW). In general, an USDW is defined as an 

aquifer that contains a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of less than 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and 

must be protected. 

The most common type of industrial injection well is classified as a Class I well and is used to inject nonhazardous 

waste or municipal waste below the lowermost USDW. There are more than 125 active Class I wells in Florida. The 

majority of the Class I injection facilities in Florida dispose of non hazardous, secondary-treated effluent from domestic 

wastewater treatment plants. At locations where hydrogeologic conditions are suitable and where other disposal 

methods are not possible or may cause contamination, subsurface injection below all USDWs is considered a viable 

and lawful disposal method. There are favorable hydrogeologic conditions in Florida where the underground formations 

have the natural ability to accept and confine the waste, though these vary in depths across the State of Florida, 

ranging to as deep as 6,000 feet below ground surface (bgs). Given the variability in depths, it has been assumed that 

the construction of extremely deep wells would be required for disposal of the treated stormwater based on review of 

the geology of central Florida. 

In summary, the Reverse Osmosis/Deep Well Injection technology/discharge option alternative would be effective to 

reliably treat both the TN and TP to below the proposed standards and therefore will be retained for costs and multimedia impacts evaluation. 

3.2 Deep Well Injection 

The deep well injection discharge option assumes that the stormwater is directly pumped via the injection wells without 

pre-treatment. Because RO is not employed for this option, the discharge volumes would be significantly higher (about 

10 times higher) and therefore larger wells and equipment (e.g., pumps and headers) would be required. Since this 

discharge option alternative would be effective in eliminating the discharges associated with the subject facilities, 

thereby not requiring compliance with the proposed standards, it has been retained for costs and multi-media impacts 

evaluation. 

We note, however, that complete sequestration of rainfall and stormwater runoff is not considered a viable alternative 

for mining (Minerals) facilities, which are required under other state and federal rules to maintain normal hydrologic 

flows to downstream lands and waters. Therefore, this option would be available only to Concentrates facilities. 

3.3 Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination 

Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination Systems are conventional and welldemonstrated technologies for treatment of wastewaters that require aggressive treatment to meet low concentration 

objectives. 

The TP reduction will be addressed via the chemical precipitation/filtration step. This step will consist of the addition of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5085
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

iron for precipitation followed by sand filtration for the removal of the precipitated TP. This step has been well 

demonstrated for treatment of TP and therefore is appropriate for the subject stormwater discharges. 

The TN (only the ammonium portion) reduction would be addressed via the breakpoint chlorination step. The TN would 

be removed via its conversion from ammonium to nitrogen gas by the addition of sodium hypochlorite. Before 

discharge, the wastewater streams typically have to be dechlorinated via the addition of an additional chemical such as 

sodium bisulfite. It is unknown if the breakpoint chlorination technology would be effective on forms of TN that do not 

primarily consist of ammonia-nitrogen (i.e., the effectiveness is mixed with forms of TN primarily comprised of TKN). 

Though the effectiveness for multiple forms of the TN is unknown at this time, given its welldemonstrated effectiveness 

for reduction of the TP and its proven effectiveness for reduction of the forms of TN primarily consisting of ammonianitrogen, this technology has been retained for costs and multi-media impact evaluation. 

3.4 Floating Treatment Wetlands 

Floating treatment wetlands are artificial marshes or swamps that are specifically designed and constructed for 

treatment of discharges such as wastewater, stormwater runoff, and sewage treatment. Among the many pollutants that 

can be treated via wetlands are nutrients (both TN and TP). Floating treatment wetlands are constructed areas in which 

free-flowing water is allowed to pass through the wetland medium and the plant rhizosphere. For TN, treatment is 

primarily via microbial nitrification and subsequent denitrification releases, such as nitrogen gas, to the atmosphere. For 

TP, it is primarily removed via co-precipitation with iron, aluminum, and calcium compounds located in the root-bed 

medium. 

Limited full-scale data exist for both TN and TP removal effectiveness. TN removals have been reported from 60 to as 

high as 86 percent with the potential for the effluent TN objective of under 1 mg/L to be achieved with detention times 

ranging from 15 to 20 days.[5] For TP, removal efficiencies are less effective due to the limited opportunity for the TP in 

the wastewater to come into contact with the root-bed medium. 

Required overflow rates for wetlands generally range from 16,000 to 54,000 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac), and are 

highly dependent on site-specific conditions. For the subject facility flow scenario of 5 MGD, this would result in a 

required area ranging from about 100 to as large as 300 acres with about a 6 day retention time. For the required 15 to 

20-day retention time, this would require an area ranging from about 250 to about 800 acres. 

In limited cases, such expanses of land may be available to implement this option; however, based on our 

understanding of typical mining (Minerals) and processing (Concentrates) facility operations and lands, we have 

concluded that this alternative would rarely be an option. Given the unknown efficiencies with respect to TP removals 

for floating treatment wetlands coupled with the significantly large treatment areas required, this technology will not be 

further evaluated. 

3.5 Constructed Treatment Wetlands 

Constructed treatment wetlands are similar to floating treatment wetlands with the primary difference being subsurface 

flow versus the free-water flow for the floating treatment wetlands. With the exception of TP removal, which is expected 

to be greater for constructed treatment wetlands given the increased contact of the TP in the wastewater with the root11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5086
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

bed medium, constructed treatment wetlands are not as efficient as floating treatment wetlands. Therefore, it is 

anticipated that for similar performance constructed treatment wetlands would be significantly larger than floating 

treatment wetlands and thus this technology will also not be further evaluated. 

3.6 Algal Turf ScrubberTM 

Algal Turf ScrubberTM Systems are biological treatment systems that reduce pollutants by a multitude of biological 

processes. For TN and TP specifically, the primary removal mechanism is via biological uptake. Pursuant to the 

company website, typical area requirements for an Algal TurfTM Scrubber System would be 0.25 acres per 1 MGD, 

resulting in minimum area requirements for subject discharges to be 2.5 acres (for the 5 MGD flows) up to 12.5 acres 

(for the 50 MGD flows). However, no data on full-scale applications for treatment of these types of discharges could be 

found, nor could any data with respect to anticipated TN and TP removal efficiencies. Given the limited data, this 

technology will not be evaluated further. 

3.7 Algaewheel® System 

The Algaewheel® system is a patented biological treatment technology capable of producing substantial amounts of 

algae for a variety of uses, including nutrient removal. A review of this technology via the company website indicated 

the implementation of full-scale applications, but it appears to be used mainly for municipal sanitary systems. Pursuant 

to the company website information, treatment would also require upfront filtration followed by downstream clarification, 

thereby increasing the cost for installation. Given that no specific information, data, or information could be found for the 

technology in general and specifically for the treatment effectiveness with respect to TN and TP, this technology will not 

be evaluated further. 

3.8 Reverse Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge 

The Reverse osmosis (RO)/Zero Liquid Discharge System is a process in which the RO reject (the process of which is 

described in detail in Section 3.1) is disposed via a zero liquid discharge (ZLD) process. The ZLD process is an 

evaporator followed by a crystallizer. The salts, which are remaining after the crystallizer step, then need to be 

managed off-site as a solid waste. 

RO/ZLD is a well demonstrated technology for treatment of wastewaters with all types of contaminants and therefore 

would be very effective for the treatment of the TN and TP within the FPI subject stormwater discharges. Therefore, this 

technology will be retained for costs and multi-media impact evaluation. 

4.0 Selected Technologies Capital and Operating Costs Estimates 

This section summarizes the cost estimates for the selected technologies/discharge options identified in the previous 

section. As described in Section 2.0, costs were developed for three discharge flow scenarios: 5 MGD, 20 MGD, and 50 

MGD. 

Capital costs and annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs were developed for Reverse Osmosis/Deep Well 

Injection (RO/Deep Well), Deep Well Injection, Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint 

Chlorination/Dechlorination (Chemical Treatment), and Reverse Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge (RO/ZLD) alternatives. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5087
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

The capital costs for each technology/discharge option assumes a total installed cost, which includes the purchased 

cost of the major equipment and any supporting and/or ancillary necessary equipment (e.g., buildings, concrete support 

pads, holding tanks, pumps, chemical feed equipment, controls, electric conduits, piping, etc.), costs for installation 

(including contractor indirect expenses and overhead and profit), engineering costs for design, including electrical, 

controls, and contractor expenses, and a 30% contingency. 

The O&M costs for each technology/discharge option includes assumed costs for labor to operate[6], energy[7], 

chemical, solids disposal[8], and maintenance[9] (i.e., parts and equipment necessary to purchased on a regular basis 

to maintain proper operation). For the O&M costs associated with solids disposal, an assumption has been made that 

these solid wastes will not require management as characteristic hazardous wastes, which would result in significantly 

higher disposal costs than those assumed for this White Paper. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 14-15 of the pdf of summaries of both the 

capital and operating costs for each treatment/discharge option and design flowrate. See original comment letter. 

4.1 Reverse Osmosis/Deep Well Injection 

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the capital and O&M costs for the 5 MGD stormwater flow scenario, Tables 4-3 and 4-4 

for the 20 MGD stormwater flow scenario, and Tables 4-5 and 4-6 for the 50 MGD flow scenario. 

The Reverse Osmosis (RO)/Deep Well Injection alternative consists of the construction of a 2- Stage RO for treatment 

of stormwater (including upfront filtration of the water prior to the 1st Stage RO to protect the membranes) before 

discharge via the existing outfall, and construction of a deep well for disposal of the 2nd Stage RO reject waters. A 

conceptual process schematic is provided on Figure 4-1. 

4.2 Deep Well Injection 

Tables 4-7 and 4-8 summarize the capital and O&M costs for the 5 MGD stormwater flow scenario, Tables 4-9 and 4-10 

for the 20 MGD stormwater flow scenario, and Tables 4-11 and 4-12 for the 50 MGD flow scenario. 

The Deep Well Injection alternative consists of the construction of a deep well for disposal of all the stormwater flow for 

the three cases. Please see Figure 4-2 for a Conceptual Process Schematic. 

4.3 Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination 

Tables 4-13 and 4-14 summarize the capital and O&M costs for the 5 MGD stormwater flow scenario, Tables 4-15 and 

4-16 for the 20 MGD stormwater flow scenario, and Tables 4-17 and 4-18 for the 50 MGD flow scenario. 

The Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination alternative consists of the 

construction tanks for the addition of the iron for the precipitation process, followed by sand filters for the filtration 

process, sludge filter press and associated dewatering equipment for collection and management of the solids from the 

filtration process backwash waters, and chemical tanks and associated chemical feed systems for the breakpoint 

chlorination/dechlorination process for treatment of the stormwater before discharge via the existing outfall. A 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5088
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

conceptual process schematic is provided on Figure 4-3. 

4.4 Reverse Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge 

Tables 4-19 and 4-20 summarize the capital and O&M costs for the 5 MGD stormwater flow scenario, Tables 4-21 and 

4-22 for the 20 MGD stormwater flow scenario, and Tables 4-23 and 4-24 for the 50 MGD flow scenario. 

The Reverse Osmosis (RO)/Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) alternative consists of the construction of a 2-Stage RO for 

treatment of stormwater before discharge via the existing outfall; and construction of a ZLD consisting of an evaporator 

followed by a crystallizer (for solids disposal) for treatment of the 2nd Stage RO reject waters. A conceptual process 

schematic is provided on Figure 4-4. 

5.0 Selected Technologies Multi-Media Impacts Evaluation 

Construction, installation and operation of the selected technologies will have impacts to other media that include solid 

waste, energy, and air emissions. Projected solid waste, energy and emission impacts are presented on Tables 5-1 

through 5-12 for the selected technologies. 

Solid waste impacts involve generation of solids and associated annual landfill space requirements. The solids 

generated from the selected technologies include the filtration solids (from the Multi-Step Chemical 

Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination alternative) and the dry salt cake solids (from the RO/ZLD 

alternative). 

Projected impacts of energy consist of the trade-off with an equivalent population and additional impacts with respect to 

the indirect (i.e., offsite) air emissions as a result of producing the power necessary for operations of the selected 

technologies/discharge options. 

Please note that the multi-media impacts summarized as part of this White Paper are conservative given that they do 

not include all the impacts such as transportation impacts (e.g., the delivery of the solid waste to the landfill), landfill 

operation impacts (e.g., more equipment will be necessary for management of the waste at the landfill), and local 

impacts specific to the FPI member facility (e.g., the loss of land needed for construction and operation of the selected 

technology/discharge option). 

5.1 Reverse Osmosis/Deep Well Injection 

Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 summarize the multi-media impacts associated with the implementation and operation of the 

Reverse Osmosis/Deep Well Injection alternative for the 5 MGD, 20 MGD, and 50 MGD flow scenarios, respectively. 

Multi-media solid waste (from filtration solids), energy, and indirect air emission impacts are calculated for 

implementation and operation of the Reverse Osmosis/Deep Well Injection alternative. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a table on page 17 of the pdf regarding Reverse 

Osmosis/Deep Well Injection Multi-media Impacts Summary. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5089
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

5.2 Deep Well Injection 

Tables 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6 summarize the multi-media impacts associated with the implementation and operation of the 

Deep Well Injection alternative for the 5 MGD, 20 MGD, and 50 MGD flow scenarios, respectively. 

Because no significant multi-media solid waste impacts are anticipated for implementation and operation of the Deep 

Well Injection alternative, only multi-media energy and indirect air emission impacts are calculated with the 

implementation of this alternative. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a table on page 18 of the pdf regarding Deep Well Injection 

Multi-media Impacts Summary. See original comment letter. 

5.3 Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination 

Tables 5-7, 5-8, and 5-9 summarize the multi-media impacts associated with the implementation and operation of the 

Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination alternative for the 5 MGD, 20 MGD, 

and 50 MGD flow scenarios, respectively. 

Multi-media solid waste (from filtration solids), energy, and indirect air emission impacts are calculated for 

implementation and operation of the Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination 

alternative. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a table on page 18 of the pdf regarding Multi-Step Chemical 

Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination Multi-media Impacts Summary. See original comment 

letter. 

5.4 Reverse Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge 

Tables 5-10, 5-11, and 5-12 summarize the multi-media impacts associated with the implementation and operation of 

the Reverse Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge alternative for the 5 MGD, 20 MGD, and 50 MGD flow scenarios, 

respectively. 

Multi-media solid waste (from filtration and dry salts cake solids), energy, and indirect air emission impacts are 

calculated for implementation and operation of the Reverse Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge alternative. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a table on page 18 of the pdf regarding Reverse 

Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge Multi-media Impacts Summary. See original comment letter. 

6.0 Statewide Compliance Costs and Multi-Media Impacts Evaluation 

This section presents a summary of the Statewide Compliance Costs and Multi-media Impacts for the FPI subject 

facilities to meet the proposed TN and TP standards. 

For this evaluation for the Minerals Facilities, where the majority of the form of TN present is as TKN, the Reverse 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5090
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Osmosis/Deep Well Injection alternative was chosen as the technology most appropriate for reliably meeting both the 

TN and TP standards proposed in January 2010.[10] 

For this evaluation for the Concentrates Facilities, where the majority of the form of TN present is as AmmoniaNitrogen, the Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination alternative was chosen 

as the technology most appropriate for reliably meeting both the TN and TP standards proposed in January 2010.[10] 

Table 6-1 summarizes the Statewide Compliance Costs and Multi-media Impacts analysis. For determining the 

statewide compliance cost, the outfall flow histogram presented as Table 2-1 and the costs per flow scenario presented 

in Section 4.0 were scaled based on the most appropriate discharge flow per outfall. 

The following equation was used for scaling the capital costs: 

Scaled Cost (@ 80% Outfall flow) = Cost (at closest 5, 20, or 50 MGD flow scenario) x (80% Outfall flow / Flow scenario 

flow) ^0.6. 

A linear curve fit analysis using all three flow scenarios (5, 20, or 50 MGD) was performed for calculating operation and 

maintenance costs and associated multi-media impacts. 

As summarized on Table 6-1, capital and associated annual O&M costs to comply with the proposed TN and TP 

standards statewide are $1.6 billion capital and $59 million/yr O&M respectively. The associated multi-media impacts 

would be a total energy impact resulting in direct trade-offs with 4,000 residential customers (13,000 people), indirect air 

emission impacts resulting in equivalent CO2 emissions of 31,000 ton/yr, SOx emissions of 100 ton/yr, NOx emissions 

of 50 ton/yr, and equivalent mercury (Hg) emissions of 10 lb/yr. 

As previously discussed in Section 2.0, the statewide costs and associated multi-media impacts presented in Table 6-1 

were based on 80% flow values, which are assumed to be reasonably appropriate for the design of a 

treatment/discharge option alternative for the purposes of development and comparison of these costs and associated 

multi-media impacts. However, in actuality during high flow events (such as from a rain event exceeding a 24-hour 100­

year storm or from extended heavy rainfall from tropical storms or hurricanes), part of the flow would likely need to be 

bypassed to storage or discharged without treatment. Therefore as previously discussed the necessary reductions 

necessary to meet the proposed TN and TP standards may not be able to be achieved at all times, and additional surge 

storage or some form of regulatory relief may be required for compliance under extreme conditions. 

With respect to the costs for complying with the stricter DPV standards for TN of 0.55 mg/L that may be imposed in 

January 2011, the capital costs and associated multi-media impact costs presented in Table 6-1 are anticipated to be 

approximately similar with potential increases of Operation and Maintenance Costs of up to 10% for the Reverse 

Osmosis/Deep Well Injection, Multi-Step Chemical Precipitation/Filtration/Breakpoint Chlorination/Dechlorination, and 

Reverse Osmosis/Zero Liquid Discharge alternatives primarily associated with additional treatment chemicals that may 

be required. 

In addition to the financial impacts presented in this White Paper, the time needed for implementation is also an 

important factor to consider for meeting the proposed TN and TP standards. At a minimum, implementation of the 

chosen alternative would require time to obtain the necessary permits, perform bench-scale/field-scale pilot studies, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5091
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

prepare the design package for procurement, procure the required equipment, coordinate with the necessary 

contractors, oversee the construction, and conduct the start-up and testing activities. Without delays in associated 

regulatory and engineering processes, this would be expected take a minimum of 3 to 5 years. 

[1] Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / Proposed Rule. 

[2] Please note that TN and TP standards would more than likely be converted to monthly average and daily maximum 

effluent limits for compliance within an effective National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. 

Without the allowance for mixing, the monthly average effluent limits would be approximately equivalent to the proposed 

TN and TP standards. 

[3] The 50th percentile flow range is greater than the 80th and 90th percentile flows due to the lack of individual flow 

data points for some Concentrates facilities that would be necessary to calculate percentiles. 

[4] Please note that this is an assumption based on limited knowledge of the design-specific parameters. Without the 

second RO membrane treatment, the resulting reject volume would be approximately double. 

[5] Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design Manual, EPA Office 

of Research and Development, September 1988 (EPA/625/1-88/022). 

[6] Labor rate assumed to be $30 per man-hour. 

[7] Energy costs based on electrical cost rate of $0.07 per Kilowatt-hour. 

[8] Solids disposal costs assumed to be $30 per ton. 

[9] Maintenance costs assumed to be 3% of capital equipment costs for each technology and for those technologies 

that includes deep well injection, 2% of deep well injection installed costs. 

[10] Please note that compliance with other water quality parameters (such as conductivity) would also have to be 

evaluated before implementation of the chosen technology. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.061 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Mosaic and its consultants have provided additional information and observations regarding EPA's economic analysis, 

set forth in Attachment 6. We urge the Agency to consider these points as well. 

b. Impact of Rule on the Florida Phosphate Industry 

The Florida Phosphate Industry ("Industry") retained a third-party water treatment technology consultant to evaluate the 

economic impact of compliance with the Rule IPVs (a full copy of which is provided in Attachment 7). This economic 

evaluation assessed the cost of Industry compliance with the IPVs based on existing flow and parameter 

concentrations, as measured by compliance monitoring for the Industry's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System ("NPDES") permits. The assessment considered proven full-scale treatment technologies and water 

management solutions to determine how the Industry's currently permitted discharges might achieve compliance with 

the Rule. Only two technologies were identified as reliable means to achieve compliance with EPA's proposed criteria: 

(1) reverse osmosis coupled with deep-well injection; and (2) multi-step chemical precipitation/filtration/breakpoint 

chlorination/dechlorination. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5092
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Using these two technologies, it is estimated that compliance with EPA's proposed Rule for the Industry alone would be 

$1.6 billion in capital expenses and $59 million in annual operation and maintenance expenses. This does not include 

permitting costs, costs of treatment of reclaimed lakes or streams, or costs of application for and compliance with 

regulatory relief alternatives. This figure also does not include compliance costs incurred to meet the proposed DPVs 

for lakes. This independent, grounded estimate, detailed in Attachment 7, certainly raises questions about the accuracy 

of EPA's estimate of the costs of the proposed Rule. 

Moreover, the estimate of total Industry costs submitted by Mosaic does not consider the impacts of increased energy 

consumption and air emissions that will be direct consequences of Rule compliance. The energy required to operate the 

necessary treatment technologies would be equivalent to the energy necessary to power 4,000 residential customers 

(13,000 people). Air emissions would increase in the following amounts: equivalent carbon dioxide emissions of 31,000 

ton/yr, sulfur dioxide emissions of 100 ton/yr, nitrous oxide emissions of 50 ton/yr, and equivalent mercury emissions of 

10 lb/yr. Nor does the Industry estimate include the impacts of compliance with EPA's proposed estuary DPVs, which 

were included in the proposed Rule, but have since been postponed by EPA until the 2011 rulemaking. Should EPA 

ultimately adopt DPVs in that rulemaking that are similar to its original January 2010 proposal, the total costs of this 

rulemaking would increase substantially. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.005 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

The Association has undertaken an engineering study to determine what the cost of implementing the proposed 

standards might be. The Agency should recognize that there is no proven technology to achieve the limits proposed by 

EPA and the costs of implementing the [unproven] technology, identified in the engineering study, would be exorbitant. 

The estimated costs associated with the rule as proposed will be extremely burdensome, and result in criteria that are 

shown to be well below the limits of existing technology. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.048 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

In addition, in contrast to EPA's estimate of the cost impact of the proposed rule, the Technology and Cost Report 

prepared by AWARE and AquAeTer estimates the eight FPPAEA mills will incur capital costs in excess of $288 million 

to install nutrient reduction technology that is not even expected to consistently meet the proposed criteria. Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated to total approximately $141 million for an annualized cost of $169 million. 

In addition to the tremendous financial burden that controlling nutrients will place on the industry, the operation of the 

control technologies themselves will result in the generation of a large amount of solid waste, approximately 875,000 

tons/year state-wide, and an additional release greater than 90,000 T-CO2e per year. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5093
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.049 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

For the purposes of assessing treatment technologies and estimating compliance costs for the mills, the Technology 

and Cost Report started with the various criteria proposed for the ecoregions that include the mills. Based on the 

characterization of effluent from the mills in Florida, discussions with NCASI staff, and discussions with technology 

vendors, the report was based on target design values essentially equivalent to the TN and TP criteria for the North 

Central region and greater than the TN and TP criteria proposed for two of the other three ecoregions. Although the 

Agency may promulgate the criteria as proposed and require dischargers to meet such criteria as a discharge limitation 

(achieve "end of pipe" limits for TN and TP), vendors of the control technologies for estimating the capital and O&M 

costs were not confident that those low values could be achieved (or achieved on a consistent basis or both depending 

on the circumstances), thus the higher values of 1.5 TN mg/L and 0.36 TP mg/L (greater than two applicable ecoregion 

criteria) were chosen as the design targets. The majority of Florida's mills are located within these two ecoregions with 

lower criteria. 

Further summary of the conclusions of this report are given below. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.055 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

Cost Estimation 

Table 6-3 of the Technology and Cost Report summarizes the estimated capital costs for the eight Florida pulp and 

paper mills. Please note that these costs are based on average effluent flow for the eight mills. These do not take into 

account actual mill site conditions. The feasibility cost estimate to upgrade the existing model wastewater treatment 

plant is $17.5 million dollars for a 5 MGD plant. Scaling up these costs, from the 5 MGD design basis to current mill 

flows, estimates the capital investment costs to the Florida mills at $288 million dollars. The total operating and 

maintenance costs for these mills are estimated at $142 million. The total recurring annual costs, which include the 

amortized initial capital costs [3], are estimated to be $169 million. 

[3] Amortized initial capital cost are based on 7% interest and amortized for twenty years. 

Comment ID 1338-1.001.014 

Author Name: Champion T. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5094
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC 

Despite the technological difficulties in meeting the proposed limitations, as part of the FPPAEA comments, AWARE
 

Environmental, Inc. has prepared preliminary cost estimates for the eight FPPAEA mills to install and operate nutrient
 

removal equipment. Based on that estimate, we believe that the cost will be tens of millions of dollars for our Palatka
 

mill to upgrade its treatment system to meet the proposed criteria at the discharge point.
 

The implementation of this option would present the following additional complications and environmental impacts:


 Increased energy consumption.


 A corresponding increase in the generation of greenhouse gases.


 Additional landfilling costs and the need to permit and install new disposal areas for the increased amounts of sludge
 

generated from these processes.


 Increased chemical consumption for precipitation processes.
 

Comment ID 1350-1.001.006 

Author Name: Schwartz J. 

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association 

IV. Contrary to EPA's Analysis, the Implementation of EPA's Numeric Criteria Would Result in Significant Compliance 

Costs for Pulp and Paper Mills A. EPA's Cost Analysis is Not Consistent with EPA Guidance and is Not Credible. As 

discussed in more detail in the FWQC's comments, EPA's estimate for the total annual compliance cost to all 

dischargers, nonpoint sources and any other entity potentially subject to the final criteria would be only $4.7 to $10 

million per year.[18] The primary basis for this incredibly low estimate is that EPA assumed costs incurred to comply 

with Florida's draft criteria are included in the baseline and are, therefore, not included in the cost estimate for the 

Proposal.[19] Additionally, EPA assumes the implementation procedures discussed above will be available for 

municipal dischargers, minimizing their compliance costs. As the FWQC makes clear in its comments, including costs to 

comply with potential regulations in the baseline is inconsistnt with EPA guidance, and grossly underestimates the 

actual costs that will be incurred to comply with a final EPA rule.[20] For industrial dischargers, because of the 

baseline assumption and without other substantiation, EPA assumes industrial facilities will incur compliance costs of 

approximately $25,000 per year for things like Best Management Practices (BMP) revisions, product substitution, etc. 

EPA uses this figure to calculate an annual industrial compliance costs of $2.9 million.[21] B. Compliance with the 

Proposed Criteria Will Cost AF&PA Members in Florida Almost $ 300 Million in Capital Costs The FPPAEA retained 

two firms to develop a report estimating the cost for its 8 member facilities to comply with the Proposal (all FPPAEA 

members are also AF&PA members).[22] In contrast to the EPA estimate, the Cost Report estimates the 8 mills will 

incur capital costs totaling $288 million. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated to total $141 million, for 

an annualized cost of $169 million.[23] For the purposes of designing treatment technologies and estimating 

compliance costs for the mills, the Cost Report started with the various criteria proposed for the ecoregions that include 

the mills. The authors of the Cost Report, after considering the existing nutrient composition of mill effluents, and based 

on extensive discussions with technology vendors, chose target design values essentially equivalent to the TN and TP 

criteria for the North Central region and greater than the TN and TP criteria proposed for two of the other three 

ecoregions. Thus, as discussed above, even though dischargers may well face requirements to achieve "end of pipe" 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5095
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

limits for TN and TP, because vendors of the control technologies for which costs were estimated were not confident 

that those low values could be achieved, values of 1.5 TN mg/L and 0.36 TP mg/L (greater than two applicable 

ecoregion criteria) were chosen as the design targets. This analysis identifies several important points applicable to 

pulp and paper mill dischargers: • The nutrients composition of pulp and paper mills wastewaters is significantly 

different than the nutrients composition of municipal wastewaters, in that mill wastewaters generally are nutrient 

deficient. In many cases, mills need to ADD nutrients to the wastewater treatment system to enable mills to comply with 

permit limits for other pollutants, such as BOD or TSS. This is in sharp contrast to nutrient rich wastewaters discharged 

from municipal treatment systems. Thus, treatment technologies designed for municipal facilities would not be expected 

to perform similarly when applied to pulp and paper mill effluents. • Generally, most North American mills are not 

capable of achieving the low target levels called for by the criteria. Despite performing a literature review and other 

investigations, the authors of the Cost Report were unable to find mills consistently discharging 1.5 Mg/L TN. For TP, 

while there are some mills achieving .36 mg/L TP, they are not typical mills, and the Cost Report concludes that "from 

available data on pulp and paper wastewater, no treatment has been shown to consistently reduce TP to below 0.1 

mg/L."[24] Note that even 0.1 mg/L is greater than the TP criterion applicable in the Panhandle ecoregion. • Tertiary 

treatment would be needed at 8 of the 9 mills (those with Aerated Stabilization Basins or ASBs), Tertiary treatment 

technologies with little history of application in pulp and paper mills were investigated and designs using those 

technologies were developed for the Florida mills. • Operation of these technologies, which, as stated, do not have a 

track record of performance at industry mills would result in much greater use of chemicals and the generation of much 

greater amounts of sludge, requiring management or disposal. • Application of the treatment technologies would 

significantly increase the carbon footprint of the Florida mills, generating approximately 95,000 tons CO2-e/yr. In short, 

in return for little apparent environmental benefit, compliance with EPA's Proposal will result in the expenditure of 

hundreds of millions of dollars by AF&PA members on uncertain technology-technology that could not be designed to 

achieve the most stringent potentially applicable criterion, because vendors were unable to identify technology options 

that could reliably achieve that level of nutrient treatment. In addition, this technology has its own adverse impacts, 

including additional chemical usage, generation of significant amounts of sludge that would need to be managed or 

disposed of, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. C. If Applied on a National Basis, the Proposal Could be Very 

Costly for the Pulp and Paper Industry As stated, AF&PA considers this rulemaking to establish national precedent for 

the management of nutrients. There are a number of assumptions in the Cost Report that are specific to the Florida 

mills and EPA's Proposal for Florida waters that may not be applicable in other states. Nonetheless, to the extent EPA 

applies the same methodology for developing criteria in other states without their own numeric criteria, AF&PA 

members across the country could easily incur over a billion dollars in nutrient related compliance costs. For example, 

just considering capital costs, the Cost Report estimates that the 8 mills in Florida will incur capital costs totaling $288 

million. Approximately 100 (or roughly 40%) of the 242 active direct discharge mills in the U.S. discharge to downstream 

receiving waters with one or more nutrient-related impairments, and 33 (13.6%) of these discharge to a an immediate 

receiving water that is listed as impaired for "nutrientrelated" causes, such as: Nutrients, Organic Enrichment/D.O., Chla (Algal), and Turbidity. If only 8 mills of those mills would incur $288 million in nutrient-related capital compliance 

costs, it is very likely that the industry's remaining 233 mills discharging to nutrient-impaired waters could easily expend 

$712 million in capital costs for compliance. The installation of new nutrient treatment technology at some of those mills 

would undoubtedly contribute to removing nutrient impairments. In light of the scientific deficiencies in EPA's criteria, 

however, and the results of the long term study discussed in Section V. immediately below demonstrating the general 

overall compatibility of modern pulp mill effluents with healthy aquatic ecosystems in receiving waters, it is very likely 

that this expenditure would not be accompanied by a commensurate environmental benefit. 

[18] Coalition Comments, page 24. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5096
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

[19] Coalition Comments, page 22. 

[20] Coalition Comments, pages 22-24. 

[21] Coalition Comments, page 25. 

[22] Treatment Technologies Assessment for Removal of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Pulp and Paper Wastewater, 

Prepared for FPPAEA by AWARE Environmental, Inc. and AquAeTer, Inc. April 29, 2010 ("Cost Report"). This analysis 

does not include costs, if any, that may be incurred by the AF&PA member owning forest land in Florida that may result 

from the promulgation of final criteria. 

[23] Cost Report, page iii. 

[24] Cost Report, p.18. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.027 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

For industrial dischargers, EPA assumes that most would not incur additional costs under the proposed rule because it 

has inappropriately assumed Florida's draft criteria represent the baseline. In fact, EPA states that there are only five 

dischargers (all in the South region) that may incur costs under the proposed rule. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 8. For 

those dischargers, EPA assumes that reductions will be achieved through best management practices, product 

substitution, process modifications, or process optimization rather than treatment. Id. EPA does not provide an estimate 

of compliance costs for industrial facilities, but simply picks $25,000 a year as an illustrative number to reach illustrative 

annual costs to the industrial and general-permitted dischargers of $125,000. This number is not supported by any data 

or analysis and should not be presented in the cost estimate. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.034 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

EPA does not provide an estimate of the costs industrial wastewater dischargers would have to incur to meet Florida's 

proposed standards, instead again using $25,000 per year per source as an illustrative cost, with no analysis to support 

it. This assumption results in total annual costs for industrial dischargers of $2.9 million. Preliminary Cost Estimate, 

Attachment 1, at 4-8. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.038 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

3. EPA's cost estimates are gross underestimates. EPA assumes that industrial dischargers can comply with its 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5097
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

proposed criteria merely by engaging in management practices, product substitution, process modifications, or process 

optimization and that these activities will cost only $25,000 a year per discharger. Thus, EPA assumed no treatment 

costs for industrial dischargers. EPA's assumptions have no support in the record or in reality. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5098
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1363-1.001.004 

Author Name: Butler N. 

Organization: Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. 

3. The Costs of Compliance Have Not Been Fully Evaluated By EPA And Are Significantly Understated in the Proposed 

Rule. 

In its evaluation of the Proposed Rule, EPA has assumed that industrial facilities will incur compliance costs of 

approximately $25,000 per year to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) revisions, product substitution, and 

the like. In contrast to EPA's estimate of the cost impact of the Proposed Rule, the Technology and Cost Report 

prepared by AWARE Environmental and AquAeTer on behalf of FPPAEA estimates that its eight member mills will incur 

capital costs in excess of $288 million to install nutrient reduction technology. Additionally, Operation and Maintenance 

(O&M) costs associated with nutrient removal technology are estimated to total approximately $142 million. While the 

extraordinarily costly nutrient treatment forced by EPA's Proposed Rule will not yield any definite, positive impact in 

terms of protecting designated uses for Florida lakes and streams, it will have a number of unintended and expensive 

consequences, including the requirement to manage large quantities of solids from the chemical precipitation process. 

These solids will be difficult to manage and, in many cases, may end up in landfills. EPA must develop a full economic 

analysis of its Proposed Rule that accounts for the costs of compliance with the wide range of issues that will result 

from implementation of its proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.025 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

B. Costs to the Fertilizer Industry 

For industrial dischargers, EPA assumes that most facilities would not incur additional costs under the proposed rule 

because EPA has inappropriately assumed Florida's draft criteria represent the baseline. In fact, EPA states that there 

are only five dischargers (all in the South region) that may incur costs under the proposed rule. Preliminary Cost 

Estimate, at 8. For those dischargers, EPA assumes that reductions will be achieved through best management 

practices, product substitution, process modifications, or process optimization rather than treatment. Id. 

EPA does not provide an estimate of compliance costs for industrial facilities, but simply picks $25,000 a year as an 

illustrative number to reach illustrative annual costs to the industrial and general-permitted dischargers of $125,000. 

This number is not supported by any data or analysis and should not be presented in the cost estimate. EPA also does 

not provide an estimate of the costs industrial dischargers would have to incur to meet Florida's proposed standards, 

instead again using $25,000 per year per source as an illustrative cost, with no analysis to support it. This assumption 

results in total annual costs for industrial dischargers of $2.9 million. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 4-8. 

Looking at the costs to the fertilizer industry alone demonstrates that EPA grossly underestimates the cost of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5099
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

compliance with its proposed criteria. 

The Florida Phosphate Industry has prepared an assessment of the financial impact of meeting EPA's proposed 

instream protection value criteria for streams on both phosphate mining and phosphate fertilizer production facilities. 

See "Assessment of Financial Impact on Phosphate Mining and Mineral Processing: Complying with EPA's Proposed 

Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Florida," (ENVIRON, April 2010) (Attachment 2). For the purpose of its analysis, 

the Florida Phosphate Industry assumed that the industry would have to meet limits of 1.479 mg/L TN and 0.359 mg/L 

TP. These are the limits proposed for the North Central ecoregion, but they fall roughly in the middle of the sets of limits 

proposed by EPA for the four separate ecoregions in Florida (the proposed limits are higher for the Bone Valley, but 

lower for the Panhandle and the Peninsula). The analysis is conservative in that it does not assume compliance with 

more stringent downstream protection values. 

Although no technology may be able to ensure compliance during a tropical storm or a hurricane, to consistently meet 

these instream protection values in stormwater discharges from phosphate mining, the Florida Phosphate Industry has 

determined that facilities would likely utilize reverse osmosis and deep well injection. For stormwater discharges from 

phosphate fertilizer production facilities, the Florida Phosphate Industry has determined that facilities would likely utilize 

a multi-step treatment option including chemical precipitation, filtration, breakpoint chlorination, and dechlorination. The 

estimated capital costs to the Florida fertilizer industry to install these technologies are $1.35 billion. The estimated 

annual operation and maintenance costs associated with these technologies are $40 million a year. These estimated 

fertilizer industry costs do not include any lost revenues associated with a reduction in demand for fertilizer that may be 

associated with the proposed criteria. However, given the severe impacts on the agriculture industry in Florida, a 

reduction in demand for fertilizer may occur. 

Comment ID 1473-2.001.001 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for Assessment of Financial Impact on Phosphate 

Mining and Mineral Processing: Complying with EPA's Proposed Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Florida from 

ENVIRON International Corporation. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.055 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 For industrial dischargers, EPA assumes that most would not incur additional costs under the proposed rule because it 

has inappropriately assumed Florida's draft criteria represent the baseline. In fact, EPA states that there are only five 

dischargers (all in the South region) that may incur costs under the proposed rule. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 8. For 

those dischargers, EPA assumes that reductions will be achieved through best management practices, product 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5100
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

substitution, process modifications, or process optimization rather than treatment. Id. EPA does not provide an estimate 

of compliance costs for industrial facilities, but simply picks $25,000 a year as an illustrative number to reach illustrative 

annual costs to the industrial and general-permitted dischargers of $125,000. This number is not supported by any data 

or analysis and should not be presented in the cost estimate. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.061 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 EPA does not provide an estimate of the costs industrial wastewater dischargers would have to incur to meet Florida's 

proposed standards, instead again using $25,000 per year per source as an illustrative cost, with no analysis to support 

it. This assumption results in total annual costs for industrial dischargers of $2.9 million. Preliminary Cost Estimate, 

Attachment 1, at 4-8. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.065 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 3. EPA grossly under-estimates compliance costs. TFI believes EPA grossly under-estimates the cost of compliance 

with EPA's proposed criteria. In these comments, TFI provides specific comments on the compliance costs for the 

fertilizer industry, as well as the agriculture industry in general. a. Fertilizer industry costs. As noted above, in its 

Preliminary Cost Estimate, EPA assumes that industrial dischargers can comply with its proposed criteria merely by 

engaging in management practices, product substitution, process modifications, or process optimization and that these 

activities will cost only $25,000 a year per discharger. Thus, EPA assumed no treatment costs for industrial dischargers. 

TFI strongly disagrees that its members can comply with EPA's proposed criteria through management practices, 

product substitution, process modifications, or process optimization, unless EPA includes shutting down operations to 

be within the definition of a management practice or a process modification. Thus, for the fertilizer industry, the costs 

imposed by this rule would be substantially greater than the $25,000 a year. The Florida Phosphate Industry has 

prepared an assessment of the financial impact of meeting EPA's proposed instream protection value criteria for 

streams on both phosphate mining and phosphate fertilizer production facilities. See "Assessment of Financial Impact 

on Phosphate Mining and Mineral Processing: Complying with EPA's Proposed Nutrient Water Quality Standards for 

Florida," (ENVIRON, April 2010) (Attachment 1). For the purpose of its analysis, the Florida Phosphate Industry 

assumed that the industry would have to meet limits of 1.479 mg/L TN and 0.359 mg/L TP. These are the limits 

proposed for the North Central ecoregion, but they fall roughly in the middle of the sets of limits proposed by EPA for 

the four separate ecoregions in Florida (the proposed limits are higher for the Bone Valley, but lower for the Panhandle 

and the Peninsula). The analysis is conservative in that it does not assume compliance with more stringent downstream 

protection values. Although no technology may be able to ensure compliance during a tropical storm or a hurricane, to 

consistently meet these instream protection values in stormwater discharges from phosphate mining, the Florida 

Phosphate Industry has determined that facilities would likely utilize reverse osmosis and deep well injection. For 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5101
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

stormwater discharges from phosphate fertilizer production facilities, the Florida Phosphate Industry has determined 

that facilities would likely utilize a multi-step treatment option including chemical precipitation, filtration, breakpoint 

chlorination, and dechlorination. The estimated capital costs to the Florida fertilizer industry to install these technologies 

are $1.35 billion. The estimated annual operation and maintenance costs associated with these technologies are $40 

million a year. These estimated fertilizer industry costs do not include any lost revenues associated with a reduction in 

demand for fertilizer that may be associated with the proposed criteria. However, given the severe impacts on the 

agriculture industry in Florida, a reduction in demand for fertilizer may occur. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.112 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

EPA also provides no estimate of the costs to industrial wastewater dischargers. Instead EPA uses $25,000 per year 

per source as an illustrative cost, with no analysis to support that number. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.012 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Industrial Dischargers 

The EPA estimate noted that "In most cases, it is more cost effective for industrial dischargers to control the source of 

nutrients in the effluent through BMPs, product substitution, process modifications, or process optimization than to treat 

the entire effluent prior to discharge." Their estimate also noted that such costs would be highly site specific. To 

illustrate the potential magnitude of costs, EPA estimated that, if dischargers spend an average of $25,000 per year on 

source control and process optimization to reduce nutrient loads, total annual costs to the industrial and generalpermitted dischargers (Exhibit 2-2) would be $2.9 million. 

The Department performed a cost estimate, which assumes that source controls alone would be insufficient to meet the 

proposed criteria, and that reverse osmosis would be required to meet the proposed criteria. The Department's analysis 

indicates that the EPA estimates significantly underestimate the costs to achieve the proposed criteria for the following 

reasons: 

• For industrial wastewater facilities EPA used an assumption that process controls in the order of $25,000 per year 

would be sufficient for industrial wastewater facilities to meet the proposed criteria. However, source controls alone will 

not be sufficient to meet the proposed criteria. Some industrial facilities, such as pulp mills, have organic wastewaters 

similar to domestic wastewater in nature, and therefore will require tertiary treatment similar to domestic wastewater 

treatment systems to meet the proposed criteria. Other industrial facilities, such as fertilizer manufacturing facilities 

have inorganic wastewater streams high in nitrogen and phosphorus that are not amenable to biological treatment, and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5102
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

will require the use of chemical and physical treatment systems, such as reverse osmosis to meet the proposed criteria. 

• EPA assumed 94 Industrial Wastewater (IW) facilities would be affected by numeric criteria. The Department excluded 

certain Standard Industrial Code (SIC) categories unlikely to discharge nutrients and added other SIC categories, 

resulting in a net total of 78 facilities. 

• EPA assumed a 20 year payment period with a fixed interest rate of 7%. The Department used the values of 30 years 

and 5% to be consistent with the estimates for domestic wastewater and urban runoff. 

Table 4 below summarizes the Department's estimates for total capital costs, operational and maintenance costs, and 

annual costs for industrial wastewater facilities discharging to fresh water streams or lakes: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 4 - Cost Estimates for Retrofit of Industrial and General 

Dischargers. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.014 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Assessment Procedure 

1. This estimate is restricted to IW facilities that discharge to freshwater flowing streams and lakes under individual 

NPDES permits.

 2. The list of facilities is further restricted to: 

a. facilities that have numeric discharge limitations for any form of nitrogen and/or phosphorus in their NPDES IW 

permits, 

b. facilities that are required to report the concentration of any form of nitrogen and/or phosphorus in their NPDES IW 

permits, and 

c. other NPDES permitted IW facilities that are not currently required to monitor nutrients, but are in the SIC categories 

for a and b, above. 

3. The following facilities are not included: 

a. Potable water facilities (SIC 4941) that use membrane processes, primarily Reverse osmosis (RO), for 

demineralization are not included in this exercise. This exercise assumes that the reject wastewater stream from 

membrane separation processes will be disposed by other means than surface water discharge; 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5103
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

b. Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) (SIC 3822) developed for Everglades restoration efforts within the Everglades 

Protection Area have separate criteria and are not included. 

c. NPDES permitted facilities in various SIC categories that meet the criteria in items 1 and 2, above, but which have 

not discharged to surface water within the past five years, based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

Permit Compliance System (PCS) database. 

4. RO is likely needed for treating IW effluent to meet numeric nutrient criteria. RO produces a concentrated wastewater 

stream that will need to be disposed by other means than surface water discharge. 

5. Discharge estimation assumptions are as follows: 

a. The discharge flows used are based on data obtained from WAFR/PCS, as reported on Discharge Monitoring 

Reports (DMRs) from permitted facilities for the five year period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2009. 

Only data for outfalls with nutrient limits are used in the analysis. 

b. Estimated annual discharges were assumed for 340 days/year of discharge, except for facilities that are known to 

have intermittent discharges, in which case actual or estimated days/year for discharge were used. 

c. Monthly average flows were used as the flow basis in estimating annual O&M costs. 

d. Daily maximum flow data were used as a rough equivalent of maximum design capacity for estimating capital costs. 

6. Cost estimation assumptions are as follows: 

a. Costs assume that reverse osmosis (RO) will be used to provide tertiary treatment to meet the proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria. 

b. Unit costs for reverse osmosis from the FWEA Report were used, under the assumption the unit costs were 

applicable to both domestic and industrial wastewater. However, costs for reverse osmosis for industrial wastewaters 

are likely to be significantly higher than those for domestic wastewater. Industrial wastewaters may be concentrated, 

higher strength wastewaters with more variation in their characteristics that may result in low RO membrane recoveries 

and require additional pre and post RO treatment. 

c. A unit cost of $3.00/1,000 gallons RO treatment with brine concentrator, cited in the FWEA Report, was used to 

estimate annual O&M costs. 

d. Capital cost estimates assumed a rate of $8.10/gallon of maximum design capacity per facility for construction 

($5.00/gal for RO system construction + $3.10/gal for brine disposal system construction). An additional 25% was 

added to the construction cost for engineering and contingency. 

e. The thirty year annualized cost assumed a 5% interest rate. 

7. There is some limited experience and cost data available in the use of RO to treat process waters from gypsum stack 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5104
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

systems associated with fertilizer manufacturing facilities (SIC 2874). These costs have been in the range of $15-$25 

per thousand gallons of water treated using RO and are indicative of the high strength nature of process wastewater. 

These costs included both capital and O&M costs. During operation a fertilizer manufacturing plant does not discharge, 

except during unusual rain events. However, when a plant ceases operation, process water contained in the Gypsum 

stacks and cooling ponds must be treated and discharged over a five year closure period, followed by post-closure 

treatment and discharge of water draining from the gypsum stack systems over periods of up to 50 years. An average 

unit cost of $20/1000 gallons was multiplied by the estimated process water volumes over the closure and post closure 

periods obtained from closure cost estimates developed by the owners of the gypsum stacks and maintained by the 

Department'sc Bureau of Mining and Minerals Regulation. The total additional costs for treating 55.54 billion gallons of 

process water from gypsum stacks by RO to meet the proposed EPA criteria are estimated at $1,110,800,000. A 30­

year annualized cost was calculated using a 5% interest rate. The resultant annual costs were $72 million. 

Detailed costs for NPDES Industrial wastewater facilities in affected SIC categories are provided in Appendix 2. 

Comment ID 1688-7.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the table titled EPA Proposed Nutrient 

Criteria - A Basic Cost Analysis on Nutrient Discharging Facilities. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1837-1.001.015 

Author Name: Brom M. 

Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White 

Springs 

The context for the impact on the Florida phosphate industry can be given additional perspective by reference to United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) publications. In the latest Minerals Yearbook for Florida, published in April 2010 for 

2007, the USGS identifies Florida as the nation's largest source of phosphate rock. For the two year period described 

(2006-2007) in the report, the average annual production of phosphate rock in Florida was 29.9 million metric tonnes, 

with an average value of $40.94 per metric tonne. 

The economic impact of this proposed rule for the Florida phosphate industry alone is $1.6 billion in capital costs, with 

annual operating and maintenance costs estimated at $59 million. If a five-year compliance schedule were assumed, 

total spending over that period would be $12.57 per tonne, or more than 30% of the value of the phosphate rock 

produced. These companies, including PCS Phosphate - White Springs, face narrow profit margins in a global 

commodity market, and would be faced with very difficult choices if required to implement this rule. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5105
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 2233.001.011 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

8. EPA has grossly underestimated the financial impact of its regulatory proposal on Florida. 

CF believes EPA has understated the number of affected entities and underestimated the magnitude of direct and 

indirect costs of compliance and implementation of the proposed rule. EPA's estimate of cost impact is only $4.7 to 

$10.1 million per year above an assumed "baseline" cost of $102 to $130 million per year (based on its projection of 

cost if DEP had promulgated its proposed numeric nutrient criteria in 2009). CF interprets EPA's cost estimate to thus 

represent $107 to $140 million per year for all affected entities State-wide (industries, agriculture, municipalities, 

domestic wastewater facilities, water management districts, etc.). 

The Florida Phosphate Industry, which comprise all companies engaged in phosphate mining and minerals processing 

in Florida, retained a third-party civil engineering consultant to perform an analysis of end-of-pipe compliance with IPV 

criteria for TN and TP as proposed in the rule. The analysis considered only proven technologies that are currently 

available for full scale implementation and that could be applied to meet compliance at existing surface water discharge 

flows and nutrient concentrations associated with mining and minerals processing operations in Florida. For the 

Phosphate Industry alone, compliance with EPA's proposed nutrient criteria is estimated to be $1.6 billion in capital cost 

and $59 million in annual operation and maintenance expenses. This disparity relative to EPA's estimates for _all 

entities in the State (not. just phosphate) is cause for serious concern, and CF believes it is an indication of the 

unrealistic nature of EPA's estimate. 

A full copy of the economic impact analysis prepared on behalf of the Florida Phosphate Industry is included as 

Attachment C . 

Comment ID 2372-1.001.007 

Author Name: Farber D. 

Organization: Patton Boggs LLP on behalf of James Hardie Building Products, Inc. 

Second, EPA's cost analysis does not account for the potential cost to local businesses if POTWs refuse to accept 

industrial wastewater discharges in order to meet EPA's Proposed Standards. If the Plant City POTW were to refuse 

Hardie's wastewater, for example, Hardie would be forced to pay substantial sums to dispose of the wastewater in 

another way. EPA did not consider or account for these potential costs in their analysis. 

Third, EPA's cost analysis does not account for the potential cost to local businesses if POTWs require industry to 

undertake burdensome and costly pre-treatment before accepting wastewater. By ruining the economy of scale created 

by the POTW, local business will be forced to spend large sums of money to treat their own wastewater before 

discharge. These costs should be considered as part of EPA's estimated total cost of the regulation. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5106
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response 

Comment ID: 1024.001.003 

Response: EPA agrees that some cost estimates by some stakeholder groups overestimate potential compliance costs. 

Comment ID: 1217-10.001.001 

Response: EPA disagrees with the assumptions used by the commenter to estimate costs. The commenter failed to consider 

existing treatment capabilities and the possibility that some dischargers may be currently discharging below EPA criteria, or may be 

receiving allowances for dilution that result in compliance with projected limits or the need for smaller pollutant reductions (and 

reduced treatment controls). Neglecting these factors can significantly overestimate costs by including controls that may not be 

needed to meet the water quality standard. Furthermore, the commenter failed to consider facilities that may be covered under an 

existing TMDL for which nutrient load reductions sufficient to meet EPA’s criteria are already required and thus not attributable to 

this rule. Nevertheless, EPA has revised its methodology for analyzing costs for industrial dischargers by evaluating a sample of 

industrial dischargers in industrial categories potentially affected by this rule and extrapolating those costs to all potentially affected 

industrial dischargers. This revised approach takes into account site-specific factors and existing/baseline requirements. In addition 

see response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1217-2.001.061 

Response: See response to comment 1217-10.001.001. 

Comment ID: 1304-1.001.005 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1304-1.001.048 

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s economic assessment. EPA has identified only four pulp and paper mills in its 

Permit Compliance System database that discharge to inland lakes and streams in Florida. Three of these mills are covered under an 

existing TMDL for nutrients which require load reductions that are likely to result in compliance with effluent limits based on 

EPA’s numeric criteria. The other discharger currently is discharging into waters with assimilative capacity for nutrients and would 

not likely receive permit limits that require meeting the criteria at the discharge point. In addition, the literature review as part of the 

technology identification analysis could be used to justify a water quality standards variance based on a use attainability analysis for 

those dischargers unable to meet water quality based effluent limits at criteria concentrations. EPA has revised its analysis of costs 

for industrial dischargers by evaluating a sample of industrial dischargers in industrial categories potentially affected by this rule 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5107
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

and extrapolating those costs to the universe of all potentially affected industrial dischargers. This revised approach takes into 

account site-specific factors and existing/baseline requirements. 

Comment ID: 1304-1.001.049 

Response: See response to comment 1304-1.001.048. 

Comment ID: 1304-1.001.055 

Response: See response to comment 1304-1.001.048. In addition, economies of scale are usually gained as flow increases. Thus, 

using unit costs based on a 5 mgd model plant may overestimate costs to plants with much greater design flows (e.g., EPA’s PCS 

database indicates that the four pulp and paper mills discharging to inland lakes and streams have design flows ranging from 28 

mgd to 58 mgd). 

Comment ID: 1338-1.001.014 

Response: See response to comment 1304-1.001.048. Also, the Georgia Pacific Palatka Mill is already covered under the Lower St. 

Johns River TMDL which requires a 35.7% reduction in TN loads and a 48.05% reduction in TP loads. Thus, it is uncertain whether 

controls beyond those needed to meet the wasteload allocations under the TMDL would be needed to meet effluent limits based on 

EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID: 1350-1.001.006 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and comment 1304-1.001.048. Also, EPA’s rule 

only applies to inland lakes and streams in Florida. See response to comment 1359-1.001.041 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.027 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. Also, EPA has revised its point source cost 

analysis. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.034 

Response: EPA has revised its point source cost analysis. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5108
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.038
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.034.
 

Comment ID: 1363-1.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 1304-1.001.048.
 

Comment ID: 1473-1.001.025
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.027 and comment 1217-10.001.001.
 

Comment ID: 1473-2.001.001
 

Response: See response to comment 1217-10.001.001.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.055
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.027.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.061
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.034.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.065
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.034 and 1217-10.001.001.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.112
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.034.
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5109
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.012
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.014
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1688-7.001.001
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 1837-1.001.015
 

Response: See response to comment 1217-10.001.001 and comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment ID: 2233.001.011
 

Response: See response to comment 1217-10.001.001.
 

Comment ID: 2372-1.001.007
 

Response: EPA estimated the cost to WWTP to comply with revised permit limits based on EPA numeric nutrient criteria. 

Compliance options did not include refusal to accept indirect discharger wastewater or modifications to existing pretreatment 

programs. If Plant City WWTP determines that Hardie is a significant contributor to nutrients in its effluent it may be more cost 

effective to reduce nutrients in the Hardie effluent prior to entering the WWTP system. 

BL_NPS_SW - COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS AND THE 

COSTS FOR NONPOINT SOURCES – STORMWATER (5) 

Comment ID 0509-1.001.002 

Author Name: Garza, Jr. A.
 

Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works
 

In 2001 the City established a stormwater utility fee which generates about 1.9 million dollars a year to address capital 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5110
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

needs associated with improving stormwater quality. In addition to creating a dedicated funding source to address 

stormwater quality the City established strategies and objectives which set a goal of 50% stormwater pollution reduction 

by 2012 and 80% reduction by 2020 citywide. During the past eight years a total of 22 million dollars has been allocated 

to stormwater quality projects from the stormwater capital construction fund along with other City funding sources. 

During 2009 the City completed an evaluation of its efforts related to stormwater pollution reduction to determine its 

standing with regard to meeting the 2012 goal of 50% pollution reduction. As a summary ofall stormwater activities the 

City documented reductions of 54.32% Total Suspended Solids, 30.42% Total Nitrogen and 33.44% Total Phosphorus 

citywide. 

The City concurs in concept with EPA's proposed water quality standards for Florida lakes and flowing waters from the 

standpoint of ensuring continued water quality of the Florida panhandle waterways, but has very serious concerns with 

regard to the effect its implementation will have on the City's retrofit efforts and the impacts they will have on new 

development: 

1. The City's strategy for stormwater retrofits has been structured around the concept of 80% total suspended solids 

removal as being the most cost effective alternative in developed areas. This course of action was developed knowing 

that the average event mean concentrations for total nitrogen and phosphorus for the City is 1.40 mg/l and 0.19 mg/l 

respectively. In 2000 the City reviewed stormwater concerns and determined that 52 million dollars would be required to 

mitigate existing developed areas to 80% total suspended solids removal. Should the proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

be imposed on retrofit type projects, the associated cost to mitigate existing developed areas could increase 4 to 5 

times. In most cases, the need to acquire property for construction would be one of the major items associated with 

increased project costs and the issue of taking existing residential or commercial properties would not be considered 

politically acceptable. 

2. In the midst of a depressed economy the competition for new developments is ever increasing between local 

jurisdictions and between neighboring states. With the panhandle region having a common border with the State of 

Alabama, Florida jurisdictions will have another negative element to overcome in attracting new industry or 

developments (stormwater requirements). Determinations of acceptable levels of nutrients at state borders will take 

time to define and develop; thereby creating an uneven playing field for the downstream jurisdictions. Combined with 

the condition that a waterbody could be considered impaired as it flows into Florida, the situation for the downstream 

jurisdiction is again complicated by the establishments of FloridalEPA Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDLs). 

3. Future businesses will most likely look to redevelop existing facilities as opposed to constructing new projects sites. 

The proposed nutrient limitations will double existing stormwater land requirements and significantly increase the cost of 

project site development. The redevelopment scenario will have a side benefit of revitalizing existing buildings; however 

it will do nothing with regard to improving stormwater quality. 

4. As has been documented by the Florida Department of Environmential Protection it is likely that the number of 303(d) 

impaired waters will increase based on the proposed numeric nutrient criteria; thereby resulting in TMDLs and possible 

inclusion on NPDES permit renewals. Due to the lack of implementation technology, local jurisdictions will be placed in 

a position of non-compliance as it relates to obtaining nutrient reductions associated with TMDLs approved action 

plans. Non-attainment with TMDLs objectives could create compliance issues which may result in restrictions on new 

construction/development. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5111
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 0589.001.030 

Author Name: Foy J. 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 

15. The costs as estimated by EPA are believed to be grossly understated (100 to 1000 times) for the proposed NNC. 

The criteria as proposed could result in stormwater treatment plants for every MS4 and other areas in the State. No 

further explanation is offered herein. 

Comment ID 0637.001.003 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

All right. Cost estimates are very low. The MS4 process according to the Florida Stormwater Association, they'll testify 

this afternoon, 75 billion dollars, and they feel that's low. 

Comment ID 0650.001.001 

Author Name: Cox J. 

Organization: City of Tallahassee 

Okay. So where I'm going with that is you've heard all of these people talk about affordability. If we can't afford it, you're 

going to have a hard time finding anybody that can. We say this over and over again, but I'm going to say it again. The 

City shares the goal of preserving water quality with DEP, EPA, and the stakeholders that you've heard up here, like the 

lady that was just up a few minuets ago. We also, strangely enough, see advantage in numeric nutrient criteria; but I 

think to realize those advantages, they have to be realistic. This is the reality of our working environment. There is a lot 

of competition out there for the funds that we have. Improving water quality after the fact is an expensive endeavor. Jim 

can tell you, we were out a few weeks ago. We've implemented $74 million worth of stormwater projects in Tallahassee. 

They run about one to $10 million a piece. When I opened your cost spreadsheet the other day right after having a 

snack, I almost became the first casualty of this rulemaking effort. To ensure that our limited funding is effectively 

applied, you have to use due diligence and realism and goal setting in rulemaking like this. A failure to do so, we found, 

actually works against water quality; people just won't do anything. 

Comment ID 0650.001.004 

Author Name: Cox J. 

Organization: City of Tallahassee 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5112
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Our final concern is the dollar and the capacity of the BMPs to meet standards. We've developed cost curves. Those 

cost curves show that they level off at 70 percent of our developed area treated. The reason that that happens is 

because beyond that you run out of land. You run out of land, and you just can't get there no matter whether you use 

advanced stormwater treatment or conventional. We've got -- we've just recently increased our monthly rate. 27 percent 

provides $3 million. That's one third the total amount of money per year as DEP and EPA have for this whole State, and 

that will only get us a 12-percent increase in the amount of developed area treated in 30 percent of our waters. And with 

that, I'll end it and thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0659.001.004 

Author Name: Charles J. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

Finally, we're extremely concerned over the potential -- the costs that will be incurred to implement these rules. We 

believe the costs will be significant and will be unreasonable. To add context to that statement, I'd like to give you an 

example of Lake Worth Drainage District. Lake Worth Drainage District is one of our members. It's an urban water 

control district in Palm Beach County. In 2003, they conducted an assessment of what the estimated costs would be to 

provide stormwater treatment in connection with NPDES permitting. The estimated costs were approximately $848 

million. And that's a conservative estimate because it's based on 2003 dollars, and it was also based on complying with 

discharge standards that are much less restrictive than what you're proposing under these numeric criteria. Now how 

does that translate to the public and the impact on the public? The same water control district performed an assessment 

of what a project that cost $420 million, how that would translate to increase assessments to the public that they serve. 

The average assessment was expected to increase to 477 percent, and that's for a project that's half the estimated cost 

of what is being proposed. Simply stated, it will cripple -- the proposed criteria, the proposed rules, and the proposed 

approach that you're taking will cripple our members from performing the primary function of flood control by requiring 

resources be diverted to water treatment. And as I stated before, our members are primarily flood control districts and 

are not water treatment districts, and that's based on statutory authority. Thank you for your time. We hope you 

consider our comments, both oral and written. 

Comment ID 0702.001.002 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

Pinellas County has been active in water resources management since the 1970s, when we began our stormwater 

master planning process. From 2000 to 2014 we have spent and encumbered forty million dollars for water quality 

improvement projects, nutrient source tracking studies and comprehensive watershed planning efforts. This money 

does not include the millions of dollars that we expend annually to implement the conditions of our National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System regulating our stormwater discharges, which includes an extensive surface water quality 

monitoring program. Furthermore, the county just recently improved the most stringent urban fertilizer use in the entire 

state of Florida. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5113
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 0710.001.003 

Author Name: Charles J. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

That estimate that I provided to you yesterday for approximately 848 million dollars to implement stormwater treatment 

practices was based -- included those costs of imminent domain and so forth. 

I'm kind of concerned that the cost estimate that's being provided by EPA doesn't factor in those costs that will occur. 

And we ask for you to take a second look at the economic impact analysis. Thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 0710.001.004 

Author Name: Charles J. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

Finally, with regards to the interim-type treatment that seems to also be an intent of the proposed rules, it's important to 

note that a majority of our members are flood control improvement districts that can be characterized as urban water 

control districts. For example, Lake Worth Management District, provided as an example yesterday, with costs and 

assessments, it's an urban district. It simply does not have the land area to construct treatment facilities or treatment 

areas. In order to do so, that would mean they would have to take by imminent domain residential homes, commercial 

properties and agricultural operations in order to have suitable land mass to create these water treatment areas. That's 

going to be a significant cost and loss to people's homes, businesses and livelihood. 

Comment ID 0727.001.007 

Author Name: Kelter M. 

Organization: Green Cove Springs 

U.S. EPA totally ignores the cost of treating stormwater runoff in your cost analysis. Treating stormwater costs you four 

times as much as treating nutrients in wastewater treatment plants. I don't know why you ignored stormwater. To 

paraphrase your document, you basically said it's too hard for us to do. 

Comment ID 0728.001.002 

Author Name: Van Horn J. 

Organization: Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5114
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Two years ago our district board of supervisors adopted a 90.3-million-dollar capital improvement plan which included 

over 5 million dollars to improve stormwater drainage treatment and to implement the FDEP TMDLs. The cost to our 

landowners was an additional $66 per acre a year. That doesn't sound like much to y'all or to a lot of us out here, but to 

that community that's, you know, low-to-moderate income, it's a big deal. It means food in their mouths and a roof over 

their head. 

For our district to implement EPA's proposed rule for numeric nutrient criteria, it would put a severe financial burden on 

our landowners and the agricultural communities surrounding Flagler Estates. We will have to impose an additional 

stormwater assessment on our landowners to a community that cannot afford any additional taxation at this time. 

Comment ID 0754.001.004 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

Also, the cost analysis that you have provided in this thing are ludicrous. As a person who has to vote to raise people's 

taxes, I am very concerned about what I am spending their money on. 

We have in Maitland a stormwater master plan. We've had it since 1996. I was chair of the Lakes Advisory Board that 

wrote it. We've spent in Maitland, using tax dollars from the citizens of Maitland, over ten million dollars funding that to 

clean up Maitland's lakes, 22 lakes, in that time frame. These lakes comprise 1.6 square miles of Maitland's land area. 

The calculation that I've used is that we would exceed your nitrogen standard in this thing by .25 milligrams per liter. 

Calculating the volume of that water, I can come up with the pounds of nitrogen that that would represent and it would 

be 2.2 million pounds. In order to clean up 2.2 million pounds of dissolved nitrogen in the lake water, -- I know that 

number, too -- it takes about $20,000 a pound to remove a nutrient once it's in a lake. And how do I know that? 

Because I wrote the SLMP in which we came up with cost estimates for doing BMP cleanup of Maitland's lakes, and 

that's what the number is. Assuming a $15,000-per-pound price, which we'll get a discount, that would come up to a 35­

billion-dollar cost for my city. The millage necessary to fund that over a 30-year pay-back period, to buy that loan, would 

be 70 mil. 

The Constitution of the State of Florida forbids any local authority from raising the millage over ten mills. We can't do it. 

We can't fund that. 

Number one, we don't have the bonding capacity for 70 billion dollars. Nobody is going to give the City of Maitland of 

17,000 people 35 billion dollars for anything, number one. 

Number two, we couldn't pay it back. So you've got an economic model here that's crazy. I mean, it's not just a little bit 

off. It's not hundreds of millions of dollars off. It's billions off. Now, I'm talking about stormwater. I'm not talking about 

sewage. Most of the people who have talked to you today have been talking about sewage because they know that 

number, but I know stormwater because I've done it and I funded it over the last decade and a half. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5115
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 0759.001.002 

Author Name: Costello C. 

Organization: Sierra Club 

I wanted to comment regarding the last speaker of the afternoon, what he said about $20,000 the cost to clean up one 

pound of nitrogen in the -- in Maitland Lake. That's a really high figure, $20,000 to clean up one pound. I am actually 

going to request documentation of those figures from the City of Maitland, and I'm going to submit them with my written 

comments when I send those in. Our research, the Sierra Club's research, comes up with a little different number. Our 

research shows that it costs about five pounds -- or five dollars a pound of nitrogen when you go into Home Depot or 

Lowes or your corner hardware store, and it cost close to $250 a pound to clean up that pound of nitrogen. 

Either clean-up cost figure is a very strong argument for the prevention of nutrient pollution as opposed to cleaning it up 

after it's there. 

Comment ID 0766.001.003 

Author Name: Mattiacci T. 

Organization: City of Lakeland Water Utilities Department 

As for the stormwater BMPs, I do not think that the stormwater BMPs will be reasonable, and I think that the people 

utility taxes -- or excuse me, stormwater taxes will be going up an order of magnitude, if not more, to be able to pay for 

the debt service and LMN to enact the stormwater BMPs. 

Comment ID 0812.001.002 

Author Name: Brandon K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County Municipal NPDA Steering Committee 

EPA identified five sources for this nutrient reduction, including publicly owned waste water treatment plants, industrial 

dischargers, urban runoff from the MS4s and private developments, agricultural runoff and private septic systems.EPA 

estimated that the annual statewide cost from these identities to meet the proposed criteria is approximately $140 

million. However, the cost estimate did not include the urban sector, and review of EPA's technical support data 

indicates the potential control measures used and the cost estimate for some of the sources did not meet the criteria. 

Estimates by the Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council for the waste water treatment plant indicated 

that the cost is in the billions of dollars annually, not millions of dollars. The Palm Beach County NPDS MS4s 

recommend that EPA work closely and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida 

Water Management District to develop reasonable and achievable nutrient criteria. We also request that a fair 

representation of the cost be presented. We will be also submitting written comments of a more technical nature via 

mail. Thank you. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5116
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 0813.001.002 

Author Name: Teich L. 

Organization: City of Fort Lauderdale 

For waste water the costs were estimated at approximately 50 billion. It is not including the MS4s or other costs that 

would be associated and does not include the continued maintenance. The cost will be borne by the already 

overburdened taxpayers for unknown environmental benefits. The costs implementation will divert resources from other 

projects that have significant environmental benefits. As for the city MS4s, the cost increase will be on their permit fees. 

MS4s were projected to be four to six times the costs in meeting the current TMDL program costs. As an example, we 

have two out falls currently that we're retrofitting with pollution control devices at a cost of three quarters of a million 

dollars. They probably won't be removing dissolved phosphate and nitrogen, but they will be taking care of 

sedimentation as well as flotsam that could be in the waterways. 

Comment ID 0896-2.001.015 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners 

• According to the Florida Stormwater Association, in general terms, the cost of attaining stormwater compliance with 

the proposed criteria for Florida local governments is expected to be 4x - 6x the cost of meeting the current FDEP 

TMDL requirements. Where and when will there be funding to assist federally mandated local government initiatives to 

enhance and protect water quality? 

Comment ID 0921.001.006 

Author Name: Coyle F. 

Organization: Board of Collier County Commissioners 

Collier County also expresses concern regarding the estimated cost associated with complying with criteria that are not 

appropriate. The Florida Stormwater Association estimates that the cost for local governments statewide to comply with 

the increase number of impaired water bodies through the Total Maximum Daily Load program would increase to well 

over $75 billion. 

Comment ID 1011.001.023 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5117
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

The costs to governmental or private entities, such as golf courses and Home Owner Associations, which will be 

needed to retrofit their existing drainage/water management systems is estimated statewide to be a minimum of $75 

billion dollars by the Florida Stormwater Association. If these very low standards are made final, there will be an 

enormous cost associated with the retrofits that will be necessary to bring existing systems into compliance, particularly 

in south Florida. It is also incumbent upon EPA to set a very reasonable time frame associated with the effort to bring all 

these water bodies into compliance. 

Comment ID 1013.001.005 

Author Name: Hibbard F. 

Organization: Clearwater City Council 

There would be required an estimated $ 85 million Capital Investment in our stormwater collection and treatment 

system resulting in increases to the stormwater utility fee of approximately 15% per year for a typical residential 

customer. This equates to an additional $ 67 per year per residence, with an even larger increase for commercial 

properties. 

Comment ID 1088-1.001.005 

Author Name: Henry B. 

Organization: Broward County 

The Economic Consequences 

The fact that Broward County can demonstrate such an extensive history of ardent water quality protection and present 

low nutrient values but is unable to meet the EPA's proposed standards suggests a great need for the agency to 

reevaluate the proposed standards and method of application. The implications are otherwise astounding. If 

impairments are established based on exceedance of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria and this leads to basinwide development of TMDLs utilizing the existing Water Body ID approach used in the State's TMDL program, it is 

expected that all of urban Broward County would be included in a TMDL effort focused on one or more identified 

pollutants. At an average estimated cost of $8,000 per acre for stormwater BMPs, as realized in other parts of the state, 

the cost to Broward County is estimated at $2.2 Billion. This would impose an enormous and unmanageable economic 

burden on the county and its residents for the purpose of achieving nominal improvements in water quality of 

questionable biological and ecological benefit. 

Comment ID 1108.001.004 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5118
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Coughenour F. 

Organization: Plant City 

Additionally, the -- the stormwater -- we saw very little, if any, discussion on the costs of bringing stormwater systems 

into compliance. I would like to see more explanation of -- of how that was achieved, particularly in light of not just the 

current requirements of the M.P.D.S. MS4 systems, but -- but with this new, more strict standard and the additional 

work they would have to go to to achieve those standards. 

Comment ID 1155.001.003 

Author Name: Kollinger R. 

Organization: Polk County 

We have estimated the costs based on the current level of treatment required to improve water quality from stormwater 

at 237 million dollars. This is over the next 20 years, and it only covers the cost of infrastructure improvement and not in 

the operational or maintenance costs. 

Comment ID 1271.001.003 

Author Name: Pearson S. 

Organization: City of Gainesville 

Next I'd like to speak to the topic of nutrient reduction costs in Gainesville's watershed. Gainesville has eight 

watersheds, six of which are known to have impairments, one of which we're working on right now to reduce total 

nitrogen on the order of 45 percent. We have three projects in the planning for -- to do this 45 percent reduction. One is 

a bottom end wetland treatment system that's going take out about 13,000 pounds. We have a mid base and it's going 

to take care of about 108 acres of downtown Gainesville. That's going to cost -- that's going to take out about 650 

pounds. And then the -- then there's another upper basin project that we are anticipating also. Combined, they're going 

to take out between 13 and 14,000 pounds of nitrogen per year. The capital cost averaged over those is $920 a pound. 

And the cost for that one basin is $9 million. 

We had the other five basins, we did a projection on the 45 percent nitrogen reduction there also, and we believe it's 

going to cost us about $71 million to do that. Totally, $80 million. We then compared that number against the EPA 

estimate of 140 million in their -- published in the Federal Register. We prorated that cost based on population of 

125,000 against 18.7 million in Florida. We came up with 950 -- or $950,000 a year EPA would estimate for the 

endeavor. Over 20 years, that's $20 million contrasted to $80 million for the projects. This seems to be order of -­

several orders of magnitude difference in opinion on what this is going to cost. 

Gainesville stormwater utility collects $7.90 a month. One dollar of that is for CIP which yields about $8 million a year. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5119
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Over 20 years that means we would have $19 million in cash plus 3 million on hand right now. So we would -- cash flow 

there of about $22 million. If we're constrained to the 20 years, then we're going to have a $3 a month rate increase 

starting in October, and that's 38 percent. I guess you understand the constraints we're up against right now, a very 

anemic economy, and it's difficult in this instant in time to be able to say that we would have the necessary funding. 

Conundrum we face, is this going to be money constraint or time constraint. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.001 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

This letter has been prepared by Polk County, Florida in response to 40 CFR Part 131- The Water Quality Standards for 

the Stare of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters--as published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, January 26, 2010. 

Polk County determines that the proposed rule is indefensible and poses a significant fiscal impact to the County via the 

requirements anticipated to be incorporated in our NPDES permit. If the rule is adopted as published, Polk County will 

be responsible for retrofitting the majority of our stormwater structures at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in an 

attempt to meet unattainable numeric nutrient limits in receiving waters. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.024 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

As is illustrated in the table, implementation of the proposed EPA nutrient criteria will financially impact the County 

significantly. However, these cost estimates do not include the long term operation and maintenance of retrofit projects. 

The Florida Stormwater Association (FSA's) cost estimate below should also be considered by the EPA. 

FSA's Cost Estimate 

The Florida Stonnwater Association is a leading authority of stormwater management in Florida. It should be noted that 

their estimate of the statewide cost of implementing stormwater retrofits is a very reliable indicator of the true financial 

burden of the proposed EPA nutrient criteria. The FSA states that the proposed rule will likely cost local governments 

more than $75 billion (2009). FSA's estimate includes long term maintenance and operation of implemented retrofits; 

factors not included in our inhouse $332 million estimate of cost over 20 years. Assuming that the $75 billion cost is 

distributed evenly across the counties in the state, it is evident that long term costs to Polk County would be over $1 

billion. However, since the majority of the State's lakes are situated in Central Florida, the long term cost to Polk 

County, and other Central Florida counties, will likely be much higher. 

At a minimum, the EPA should provide technical assistance, implementation guidelines, and funding to meet any 

adopted numeric nutrient standard. NPDES MS4 permits require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the 

Maximum Extent Practicable in accordance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The technology presently used to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5120
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

satisfy this MEP standard may not be sufficient to meet the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. It is requested that the 

EPA provide guidance on specific Best Management Practices that will satisfy the MEP standard so that 

implementation by municipalities will provide a presumption of compliance with the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1353-1.001.010 

Author Name: Barnes F. 

Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 

Comment 5 - Unnecessary Economic Burdens Due to Overprotective Criteria 

5-1) The current economic analysis performed by EPA to attain compliance with the proposed criteria is grossly 

underestimated. The estimated total costs of $1.5 billion does not take into account the associated costs for both 

Georgia and Alabama to achieve compliance with the standards. Stormwater controls, which are particularly important 

given that there are numerous large cities along coastal Florida, are also not factored into the economic analysis to 

achieve compliance with the criteria. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.028 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

EPA provides no estimate of costs for stormwater controls, saying they are too uncertain. However, for the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed, EPA was able to estimate the cost of reducing both phosphorus and nitrogen in stormwater runoff and 

estimated that retrofitting storm water systems to achieve this result would cost $7.9 billion a year throughout the 

watershed. See The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: A Revised 

Report Fulfilling Section 202a of Executive Order 13508, at 24. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.035 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

EPA also does not provide an estimate of the costs to municipal separate storm sewer systems due to Florida's 

proposed standards. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 5-3. 

Comment ID 1431-1.001.034 

Author Name: Levy K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5121
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

Economic analysis 

EPA's economic analysis was grossly underestimated as the agency was unable to estimate costs for Municipal Storm 

Sewer Systems due to unknown costs for incremental controls. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.015 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

In 2003, the LWDD conducted another financial study to evaluate the costs associated with providing stormwater 

treatment in connection with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting. The estimated costs in 2003 

dollars were $424,470,000.00 to meet 45% level of treatment and $848,940,000.00 to meet 90% level of treatment. See 

Attachment D, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permitting Analysis. Again, these estimates are based 

on 2003 dollars and based on water quality standards that are nowhere near as stringent as what EPA is currently 

proposing. Consequently, the cost of providing water quality treatment to comply with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient 

criteria will likely be much higher and exceed over a billion dollars just for one water control district. Considering there 

are approximately 94 water control and improvement districts in the State, the total statewide cost will likely be billions 

of dollars for just one sector of the regulated community. 

Again, even if LWDD were to incorporate water treatment facilities, it is highly unlikely that current levels could be 

reduced to the levels EPA is proposing. Consequently, EPA's approach is not the most cost-effective manner to reach 

the regulatory objective and it is not the least burdensome alternative. Instead, it is an approach driven by an unrealistic 

timeframe the agency agreed to in a Consent Decree. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.056 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 EPA provides no estimate of costs for stormwater controls, saying they are too uncertain. However, for the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed, EPA was able to estimate the cost of reducing both phosphorus and nitrogen in 

stormwater runoff and estimated that retrofitting storm water systems to achieve this result would cost $7.9 billion a year 

throughout the watershed. See The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake 

Bay: A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202a of Executive Order 13508, at 24. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.062 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5122
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 EPA also does not provide an estimate of the costs to municipal separate storm sewer systems due to Florida's 

proposed standards. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 5-3. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.109 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

In particular, as discussed below, EPA provides no estimates of the cost of the rule on municipal separate storm sewer 

systems in Florida, even though for the Chesapeake Bay, EPA estimates that the cost of retrofitting storm sewer 

systems will be $7.9 billion. See The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake 

Bay: A Revised Report Fulfilling Section 202a of Executive Order 13508, at 24. 

Comment ID 1645-1.001.013 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS: $34,021,000 

Annual capital cost (20 yr, 6%): $3,000,000 

Required revenue for cap recovery with 1.3 coverage: $3,900,000 

Annual NNC operating and maintenance costs: $3,020,000 

Total Required annual revenue for NNC compliance: $6,920,000 

DWU Current Total annual Rate Revenues: $9,700,000 

NNC requirments will require rates to increase: 71% 

Comment ID 1645-1.001.014 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

The City of Destin operates a stormwater system that cannot achieve the water quality required for discharge by this 

rule. In order to comply, the City will need to capture discharge from their system before it reaches a water body, 

transport that water to a reverse osmosis treatment facility and then return the treated water for discharge and finally 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5123
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

dispose of the concentrate by deep well injection. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 10 of the pdf titled NNC COMPLIANCE 

COST ESTIMATE FOR STORMWATER CITY OF DESTIN. See original comment letter. 

This cost of compliance will result in an annual cost including capital recovery and operating costs in excess of 

$30,000,000. 

This amount will have to be funded by property tax revenues. Currently City property taxes generate S10,000,000 

annually. The impact on property owners be a quadrupling of current tax rates. This is a disaster and will destroy 

property values in the City. 

No effort was made to determine the cost of compliance on private stormwater systems but based on watershed areas, 

a like amount will be spread among all these systems. 

Costs of compliance with the rule for the State of Florida will easily run into the trillions of dollars. One county in Florida 

has done an estimate of costs required to bring their stormwater system into compliance with the rule and it exceeds 

$14 billion. The Florida Department of Transportation and Development operates the most extensive stormwater 

management system in Florida and their cost to capture, transport, and treat stormwater before it reaches a water body 

could easily approach $500 billion. 

Comment ID 1667-1.001.004 

Author Name: Gierach D. 

Organization: CPH Engineers, Inc. and the City of Sanford 

Impact on the Stormwater System 

The City's stormwater system collects stormwater runoff and discharges it to Lake Monroe through the EPA National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Lake Monroe is classified as colored lake in the Peninsula 

region and it has to meet the criteria of Chlorophyll a 20 ug/L, TN 1.205 mg/L and TP of 0.107 mg/L (FDEP, 2010). 

Under the proposed EPA numeric criteria, the collected stormwater has to meet the nutrient criteria before discharging 

to the Lake, which could be very expensive because of the land and treatment requirements. It is difficult to estimate the 

cost. Even EPA could not estimate the potential control of stormwater and the cost because the need for incremental 

control is uncertain (EPA, 2010). The cost for treating stormwater will be significantly higher than the cost for treating 

the wastewater. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.015 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5124
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Urban Storm Water 

The EPA did not estimate costs for implementation of additional nonpoint source controls because "the need for 

incremental controls is uncertain", although the EPA document did note that "Numeric nutrient criteria may affect urban 

storm water dischargers through changes to permit requirements or the TMDL and BMAP process." In order to provide 

an estimate for such potential costs, the Department performed analyses as set forth in the following procedure. The 

estimate is restricted to NPDES municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) that are covered under either a Phase I 

individual permit or the Phase II Generic Permit and only those permitted MS4s that either have 100% of the 

stormwater discharge to freshwater bodies, or the relative portion of the MS4 that has a discharge to freshwater bodies. 

Total costs, O&M costs, annual costs and annual costs per household are in Table 5 below: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 5 – Cost Estimates for Retrofit of MS4 Projects[1]. See 

original comment letter. 

[1] The above costs do not account for urban nonpoint source runoff coming from lands within local government 

jurisdictions, especially for counties, that are not part of the permitted MS4 system. This urban nonpoint stormwater is 

covered by a Load Allocation within an adopted TMDL and local governments are responsible for meeting these load 

reductions. This, this estimation of urban stormwater costs underestimates the total costs likely to be incurred to reduce 

urban stormwater loadings as needed to meet the proposed EPA criteria. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.017 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Assessment Procedure 

1. The estimated total urban land area for the MS4s in Florida was determined from the 2000 U.S. Census[1]. 

2. The subtotal of the pre-1982 urban area that discharged to freshwater was estimated from a GIS analysis. The 

analysis involved creating overlaying GIS layers of the urban areas and the freshwater WBIDs that overlapped the pre1982 urban areas and then determining the freshwater subtotal from the resultant overlapping layers. The total urban 

area discharging to freshwater was determined to be 3,009,297 acres. 

3. The subtotal of the area determined in step 2 that was developed prior to 1982 was then determined. For the 

purposes of this estimate, it was assumed that implementation of urban stormwater measures subsequent to the 1982 

stormwater rules would achieve the proposed EPA criteria, but that urban areas without such measures would not. The 

urban land use data from 1982[2] indicated that there were 3,141,631 urban land use acres at that time. That area 

increased to 4,032,659 acres based on the 2000 U.S. Census urban area information, for a percent change of 

approximately 22%. Therefore, for the purpose of this estimate it was assumed that this relative percentage would apply 

uniformly to all urban areas assessed. Therefore the urban area requiring treatment was determined by multiplying the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5125
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

urban areas discharging to freshwaters by 78% (3,009,297 x ~78% = 2,344,242 acres). 

4. Florida has undertaken numerous retrofit projects to address pollutant loading from municipal stormwater runoff, 

many of which required monitoring in order to show the effectiveness of the retrofit. The data from these projects have 

been compiled into a database by the Department, which include information on the acreage of the area that was 

retrofitted. This information was used to derive a cost per unit acre to retrofit urban areas for nutrient removal. The 

median cost per acre for such retrofit projects was $7,295 per acre, with a range of $863 per acre to $37,002 per acre 

from the 10th to the 90th percentile. For the purposes of this estimate, the median value was used. 

5. Using the acreage derived in step 3 and the unit area retrofit costs in step 4, the total capital cost to implement such 

retrofit projects was estimated as $17,100,683,851. 

6. The O&M costs were estimated based on literature available [3]. Although actual costs can often exceed this rate, a 

conservative estimate of 5% of the capital outlay was chosen for this estimate. The O & M costs were not escalated for 

inflation. The resultant estimated annual O & M costs were $855,034,192. 

7. A 30-year annualized cost was calculated using a 5% interest. The resultant annual costs were $1,967,458,217.92 

8. Using the 2000 Census data, the number of households in the State of Florida within the freshwater portion of the 

urban area was calculated at 5,475,652. This value was determined by dividing the urban area population (13,470,104) 

by the average number of persons per household (2.46) in 2000. The 30 year annualized cost per household was then 

calculated by dividing the 30 year annualized costs by the number of households. The resultant annual cost per 

household was approximately $359. 

Detailed costs for each MS4 are set forth in Appendix 3. 

[1] The Florida Statutes that regulate the MS4 program reference the urbanized areas of the most recent decennial U.S 

Census as the method for determining the regulated MS4 community. In addition, the urban boundaries were readily 

available as a GIS layer that could be used to estimate their area. 

[2] The 78 percent value is a statewide percentage taken from the document entitled Land Use Changes in Florida's 

Urbanized Areas (UF, 1991). 

[3] The Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Urban Watersheds - U.S. EPA, 2004; Stormwater: The Journal 

for Surface Water Quality Professionals, Nov.-Dec., 2008. 

Comment ID 1694-1.001.010 

Author Name: Buss J. 

Organization: City of Tallahassee 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5126
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

The proposed numeric criteria will result in unreasonable and unnecessary reduction goals that will have 

insurmountable financial impacts on the Tallahassee area, which would be detrimental to the City's efforts to protect our 

local water resources. 

The January 2010 EPA Cost Benefit Estimate for compliance with the proposed criteria grossly underestimated the 

financial burden to stakeholders in Florida. To ensure that the limited funding is effectively applied, diligence and 

realism must be used during the goal setting and rulemaking processes. A failure to do so actually works against 

improving water quality as funds are misdirected (e.g. listing pristine waters as impaired) or reductions are just 

technologically impossible to attain. 

Over the past 10 years, the City of Tallahassee has spent approximately $74 million to fund 45 capital projects; many of 

which have substantial stormwater water quality improvement elements in their design. The City of Tallahassee's 

Stormwater Management program is recognized as being among the most progressive and proactive in Florida. In 

1987, the City was the first in Florida to adopt a user fee to fund stormwater Management programs. Our current user 

fee on developed property ranks among the highest in Florida and the USA at $7.95 per equivalent residential unit. In 

2005 an increase of $1.70 to the fee was earmarked to generate an additional $60 million over 20 years that is 

dedicated solely to improve stonnwater water quality. Generating about $3 million a year is equivalent to about one third 

of EPA's 319 (stonnwater) grant program's annual budget for the entire State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.028 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

Third, the cost estimates for reuse/stonnwater runoff compliance are not included. While stonnwater runoff is discussed 

in Section 5 and Table 8.2 of Attachment I to the Cost Report, there is little substantive material regarding how these 

costs are considered. There is a recurring reference to MS4s being required to treat "to the maximum extent 

practicable". However, this statement is very ambiguous and unclear. The EPA should clarify whether or not the 

Proposed Rule applies to MS4s. Additionally, the anticipated costs description as "Not Estimated" is unacceptable. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.051 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

Third, the cost estimates for reuse/stormwater runoff compliance are not included. While stormwater runoff is discussed 

in Section 5 and Table 8.2 of Attachment 1 to the Cost Report, there is little substantive material regarding how these 

costs are considered. There is a recurring reference to MS4s being required to treat "to the maximum extent 

practicable". However, this statement is very ambiguous and unclear. The EPA should clarify whether or not the 

Proposed Rule applies to MS4s. Additionally, the anticipated costs description as "Not Estimated" is unacceptable. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5127
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.063 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

Third, the cost estimates for reuse/stormwater runoff compliance are not included. While stormwater runoff is discussed 

in Section 5 and Table 8.2 of Attachment 1 to the Cost Report, there is little substantive material regarding how these 

costs are considered. There is a recurring reference to MS4s being required to treat "to the maximum extent 

practicable". However, this statement is very ambiguous and unclear. The EPA should clarify whether or not the 

Proposed Rule applies to MS4s. Additionally, the anticipated costs description as "Not Estimated" is unacceptable. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.055 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

Third, the cost estimates for reuse/stormwater runoff compliance are not included. While stormwater runoff is discussed 

in Section 5 and Table 8.2 of Attachment I to the Cost Report, there is little substantive material regarding how these 

costs are considered. There is a recurring reference to MS4s being required to treat "to the maximum extent 

practicable''. However, this statement is very ambiguous and unclear. The EPA should clarify whether or not the 

Proposed Rule applies to MS4s. Additionally, the anticipated costs description as "Not Estimated" is unacceptable. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.056 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

Third, the cost estimates for reuse/stormwater runoff compliance are not included. While stormwater runoff is discussed 

in Section 5 and Table 8.2 of Attachment 1 to the Cost Report, there is little substantive material regarding how these 

costs are considered. There is a recurring reference to MS4s being required to treat "to the maximum extent 

practicable". However, this statement is very ambiguous and unclear. The EPA should clarify whether or not the 

Proposed Rule applies to MS4s. Additionally, the anticipated costs description as "Not Estimated" is unacceptable. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.020 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

As reported to the State, Florida general and single-purpose local governments spend approximately $1 billion per year 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5128
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

on flood control and water quality improvements. There are more stonnwater utilities in Florida than any state in the 

nation. At the present time and under the current narrative criteria, well over 17 million acres of watersheds that drain 

into impaired waters, not including waters impaired for mercury. 

Adding a significant number (likely doubling) of nutrient impaired waters to the responsibility of local governments when 

the scientific basis of the proposed criteria is questionable and the implementation process uncertain is ill-advised at 

this time. The additional cost to MS4 jurisdictions alone will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Expenditures of this 

amount must be based on robust, scientifically-defensible criteria that must account for the significant variations that 

naturally exist in Florida's soils, natural systems and waters; such is not the case with the proposed rules. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.026 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

• In addition to the long-term costs of construction, operation and maintenance of stonnwater treahnent facilities, MS4s 

expect to see sigluficant increases in permitting fees since 90% of the costs of FDEP's permitting programs are feefunded. 

• Therefore, FSA's previous estimate of local government's cost of compliance (stormwater, capital costs only) With the 

TMDL program of $75 billion will be much, much higher. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.028 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

Criteria Must Be Realistic 

- Any target concentration/criteria must be robust (based on good data and good science) if it is to justify the required 

long term community investments in construction, operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment facilities required 

to achieve compliance. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.046 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

4. Community Stormwater Treatment Investments 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5129
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

The City of Tallahassee's Stormwater Management program is recognized as being among the most progressive and 

proactive in Florida. In 1987, the City was the first in Florida to adopt a user fee to fund Stormwater Management 

programs. Their current user fee on developed property ranks among the highest in Florida and the USA at $7.95 per 

equivalent residential unit. $1.70 of the current fee was earmarked in 2005 to generate an additional $60 million over 20 

years that is dedicated solely to improve stormwater quality. Generating about $3 million a year is equivalent to about 

one third of EPA's 319 (stormwater) grant program's annual budget for the entire State of Florida. 

Over the past 10 years, Tallahassee has spent approximately $74 million to fund 45 capital projects - many of which 

have substantial stormwater quality improvement elements in their design. Even so, this targets only 20 out of the 145 

watersheds within the jurisdiction. The program is expected to produce a 10% reduction in tile existing nutrient loadings 

in the affected waters. TMDLs based on tile EPA standards for flowing waters (0.043 mg/L) would require an additional 

75% removal of phosphorus from current levels, and will require more than doubling the monthly charge for stormwater 

residential utility rates. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.047 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

• In general terms, the cost of attaining stormwater compliance with the proposed NNC for Florida local governments is 

expected to be 4x to 6x the cost of meeting current FDEP TMDL requirements (based on twice the number of TMDLs 

and 2x to 3x the construction, operation and maintenance costs for the stormwater treatment facilities required to 

comply with the proposed NNC). [See Example No. 4] 

Comment ID 1838-1.001.007 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland 

As described earlier, the City has a very robust stormwater management program and as such has a thorough 

understanding on how their stormwater system functions on a quantity and quality basis. The City has a sophisticated 

financial system and is able to estimate with confidence the cost to comply with the proposed rule criteria for lakes and 

streams. Based on the present level of treatment for stormwater discharges into the City's lakes, the capital expenditure 

to enhance treatment to the levels mandated by the proposed rule is estimated to cost $54.7 million. If this amount were 

amortized over 30 years at current interest rates, the impact to the City would be $3.1 million per year or $876.00 per 

year per household or $74.00 per month. The total cost impact to the citizen's of the City to meet the proposed rule for 

the total nutrient load reduction would be the sum of the wastewater and stormwater costs. This results in an additional 

cost of $5.8 million per year or $1620.00 per household per year or $135.00 per household per month added to the 

wastewater and stormwater service charges. The Summary of the additional financial impact to City citizens to comply 

with EPA numeric nutrient criteria: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5130
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for general waterbodies from City of Maitland [p. 3 on 

costs for stormwater and wastewater]. See original comment letter. 

The City has, and will continue to, dedicate significant resources to ensure high environmental quality of its lakes and 

streams. The diversion of City funds for compliance with these proposed rules would prevent real projects and 

maintenance that will provide proven environmental benefit to the City's lakes and streams. 

Response 

Comment ID: 0509-1.001.002 

Response: The commenter does not provide a clear rationale for why load reductions allocated to stormwater sources in TMDLs 

for impaired waters beyond the existing 80% reduction strategy would be required, resulting in increased costs by a factor of 4 to 5. 

Costs of potential controls for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) areas already covered under an existing or proposed 

TMDL or located in watersheds already listed as impaired for nutrients on the State’s 303(d) list are not attributable to this rule. 

Furthermore, Florida’s Water Resources Implementation Rule (Chapter 62-40, F.A.C.) provides that new stormwater discharges 

must implement BMPs that provide at least an 80% reduction of the average annual loading of pollutants (95% for discharges to 

Outstanding Florida Waters), and existing stormwater discharges must comply with the stormwater treatment performance 

standards requiring the reduction of pollutants as needed to protect, maintain, or restore the beneficial uses of the receiving 

waterbody. Thus, any MS4s covered under a TMDL, regardless of system age, would already have to reduce nutrient loads through 

implementation of BMPs in the absence of the proposed rule. Furthermore, MS4s already covered under EPA’s Phase I and Phase II 

stormwater rules require dischargers to develop and implement stormwater management programs with the goal of controlling 

pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The management programs specify the best management practices (BMPs) 

that will be used in the following areas: public education and outreach; public participation and involvement; illicit discharge 

detection and elimination; construction runoff control; post-construction runoff control; and pollution prevention and good 

housekeeping. Permittees implement BMPs through an adaptive management or iterative approach. For example, EPA recently 

sent orders to 79 municipalities in south central Pennsylvania requiring improvements to MS4 programs to come into compliance 

with their Clean Water Act permits. EPA also reissued a permit for the District of Columbia’s MS4 that requires implementation of 

additional, new BMPs for controlling stormwater runoff. Thus, in most areas full implementation of BMPs to the maximum extent 

practicable may not be complete. 

Regarding the concern for a level economic playing field with other states, EPA notes that the requirements of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) and the federal Water Quality Standards Regulation apply to all states. In addition, the federal Water Quality Standards 

regulations at 40 CFR section 131.10(b) provide that states must ensure that their “water quality standards provide for the 

attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.” 

Comment ID: 0589.001.030 

Response: The commenter does not provide a rationale for why load reductions allocated to stormwater and other sources in 

TMDLs would require stormwater treatment plants for every MS4. Existing basin management action plans implementing current 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5131
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

nutrient TMDLs in Florida do not call for stormwater treatment plants for every MS4. If current basin management action plans in 

highly nutrient-impaired waters do not require such aggressive treatment, EPA believes it is unlikely to be required in the future. 

Comment ID: 0637.001.003
 

Response: See response to comment 0921.001.006.
 

Comment ID: 0650.001.001
 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment ID: 0650.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment ID: 0659.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 0589.001.030 and 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment ID: 0702.001.002
 

Response: EPA acknowledges the investments Pinellas County has made for water treatment.
 

Comment ID: 0710.001.003
 

Response: EPA has revised its economic analysis for this rule. See also response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category 

BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0710.001.004
 

Response: See response to comment 0508-1.001.002 in issue category EA_OPO.
 

Comment ID: 0727.001.007 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5132
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. See response to comment 0896-2.001.001 in issue category I.B. 

Comment ID: 0728.001.002 

Response: See response to comment 0896-2.001.001 in issue category I.B and 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0754.001.004 

Response: In response to the comment, load reductions allocated to stormwater sources in TMDLs for impaired waters, and 

implementation strategies, will be site-specific. See also response to 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 0759.001.002 

Response: EPA acknowledges this comment responding to another commenters comment. 

Comment ID: 0766.001.003 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment IDs: 0812.001.002, 0813.001.002 

Response: EPA disagrees with the estimates provided by the Florida Water Environment Association (see section VI of the 

preamble to EPA’s final rule for details). See also response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. EPA 

carefully considered public comments and new information and data made available, and has revised its cost estimates for the final 

rule accordingly. 

Comment ID: 0896-2.001.015 

Response: The comment does not provided the underlying data or rationale to support the assertion that current FDEP TMDL 

requirements are not yet known because FDEP has not yet developed TMDLs for all waters on the impaired waters list for nutrients. 

Furthermore, existing TMDL targets are not very different than the criteria in this rule (see EPA’s economic analysis document for 

details). Funding sources, including low interest loans, will vary by source, and additional sources may be required. See also 

response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5133
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 0921.001.006 

Response: See response to comment 0896-2.001.015. If the criteria are not appropriate for a particular water, site- specific 

alternative criteria may be developed. The organization the commenter cites as asserting increased TMDL program costs of well 

over $75 billion does not cite the underlying data or rationale for that cost estimate. 

Comment ID: 1011.001.023 

Response: In response to the comment, the basis for the cost estimate is not clear. See also response to comment 1011.001.019 in 

issue category BL_NPS_AG. With regard to an effective date, EPA notes that this rule is not independently enforceable, but will 

instead be implemented through orderly State processes that take into account Florida’s existing regulatory framework for 

implementation of water quality standards. See the preamble to the final rule for more details regarding the effective date. 

Comment ID: 1013.001.005 

Response: In response to the comment , the basis for the cost estimate is not clear. See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue 

category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1088-1.001.005 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1108.001.004 

Response: EPA’s economic analysis document provides discussion of the issues associated with incremental controls for MS4s as a 

result of the rule. 

Comment ID: 1155.001.003 

Response: The commenter does not provide the underlying data or rationale supporting the assertion that stormwater treatment 

costs will be 237 million dollars over the next 20 years not including operation and maintenance. 

Comment ID: 1271.001.003, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5134
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: The costs for currently planned and ongoing nutrient reduction projects, and those that would be necessary for waters 

that are currently impaired by nutrients for which FDEP has not yet developed TMDLs, would be necessary even without EPA’s 

rule and, as such, are not included in EPA’s estimate of the incremental cost of the rule. EPA acknowledges that in many cases 

resources are constrained. See also response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1352-1.001.001 

Response: See response to comment 1108.001.004 and 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1352-1.001.024 

Response: In response to the comment, the basis for the commenter’s assertions is not clear. See also response to comment 0896­

2.001.015. Furthermore, the commenter does not provide the data or rationale for the claim that stormwater BMPs implemented to 

the maximum extent practicable would not be sufficient to meet the numeric nutrient criteria. EPA’s website provides extensive 

guidance on stormwater BMPs at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm, and the State of Florida provides 

guidance on stormwater BMPs at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/index.htm and 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm. 

Comment ID: 1353-1.001.010 

Response: See response to comment 1108.001.004. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.028 

Response: In response to the comment, for the Chesapeake Bay UAA, EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office utilized the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed and water quality models to analyze the economic impact of different control scenarios for nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and sediment throughout the multi-state Bay watershed to evaluate use attainability. Although these control scenarios 

provided potential costs for different levels of practices, EPA did not determine which level of practice would be necessary nor did 

they attempt to distinguish between existing or incremental requirements. In the economic analysis of this rule, EPA noted that the 

economic impact of some stormwater controls are not applicable to this rule because they are already required under existing state 

and federal stormwater regulations. Furthermore, the load allocations that will be identified under TMDLs for waters identified as 

impaired under this rule and the additional controls that may be needed to achieve those load reductions require site-specific 

analyses and thus are not currently available to use in estimating costs. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.035 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5135
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: See response to comments 1108.001.004 and 1359-1.001.028. 

Comment ID: 1431-1.001.034 

Response: See response to comments 1108.001.004 and 1359-1.001.028. The uncertainty in estimating costs for Municipal Separate 

Storm Sewer Systems was due to the uncertainty in estimating the nutrient reductions that will be achieved after existing 

requirements are fully implemented, and the uncertainty in the additional reductions that may be necessary to assure attainment of 

the new standard. Additional analyses were performed for the economic analysis of this rule for the purpose of reducing some of 

this uncertainty. These analyses are described in the accompanying document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality 

Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida.” 

Comment ID: 1445-1.001.015 

Response: The relationship between the cited cost estimates and the incremental impacts of this rule are not clear. See also response 

to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.056 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.028. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.062 

Response: See response to comments 1108.001.004 and 1359-1.001.028. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.109 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.028. 

Comment ID: 1645-1.001.013 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1645-1.001.014 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5136
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: In response to the comment, the rule does not require reverse osmosis treatment for stormwater. See response to 

comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1667-1.001.004 

Response: In response to the comment, the commenter does not cite the underlying data or rationale for asserting that collected 

stormwater has to meet the nutrient criteria before being discharged into Lake Monroe. Water quality criteria apply to a waterbody, 

not an individual discharger. If the receiving water is not impaired, dilution may be available so that a discharge concentration 

above the water quality criteria does not result in impairment of the receiving water, i.e., so that it meets WQS. If the receiving 

water is impaired, a basin management action plan may allocate load reductions elsewhere in the watershed in order to attain the 

criteria overall. See response to comments 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO and response to comment 0543-1.001.002 in 

issue category ECON. 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.015 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA has revised its economic analysis to include stormwater costs. 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.017 

Response: EPA has reviewed the data and method submitted by the commenter and has made appropriate revisions to its economic 

analysis of the final rule. See EPA’s “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing 

Waters in Florida” for details. 

Comment ID: 1694-1.001.010 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. See response to comment 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG. 

Comment ID: 1769-1.001.028 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA has revised its economic analysis to include potential stormwater costs. The term MEP 

is typically left to permitting authorities to determine. The commenter should refer to EPA’s stormwater program website at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=6 for further information. See also response to comment 1359-1.001.028. EPA 

has revised its economic analysis for the final rule to better explain the relationship between this rule and stormwater pollution 

control. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5137
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1774-1.001.020 

Response: The commenter does not provide the underlying data or rationale to support the assertion that stormwater costs will be in 

the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Comment ID: 1774-1.001.026
 

Response: See response to comments 0921.001.006 and 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment ID: 1774-1.001.028
 

Response: In response to the comment, EPA recognizes the importance of having scientifically defensible criteria supporting State 

designated uses. 

Comment ID: 1774-1.001.046
 

Response: See response to comment 1694-1.001.010.
 

Comment ID: 1774-1.001.047
 

Response: See response to comment 0896-2.001.015.
 

Comment ID: 1838-1.001.007
 

Response: See response to comment 0754.001.004 and 1011.001.019 in issue category BL_NPS_AG.
 

Comment IDs: 1770-1.001.051, 1771-1.001.063, 1772-1.001.055, 1773-1.001.056
 

Response: See response to comment 1769-1.001.028.
 

BL_NPS_AG - COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS AND THE 

COSTS FOR NONPOINT SOURCES – AGRICULTURE (6) 

Comment ID 0680.001.003 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5138
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Meadows A. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

If forced to comply with numeric nutrient criteria rule as it currently stands, agriculture will bear substantial costs. Are 

growers going to have to take land out of production to build huge retention ponds or forest buffer zones? Are we going 

to have to create close systems to eliminate run-off? These are not viable solutions. We believe their cost analysis was 

way off and that compliance will cost much more than you indicate. Mutual is very worried that heavy-handed, 

expensive and ultimately unattainable regulations will push the Florida's citrus industry over the edge and put growers 

out of business. There's a razor thin margin in agriculture between staying in business and going bankrupt, and costs of 

regulation could tip the scale. Let me give you a quick lesson in agriculture. Being at the beginning of the supply chain 

producing a perishable commodity, growers can't pass additional costs on to consumers. We are cost takers. We get 

what the processing plants offer us, so any additional costs are taken straight from grower's bottom line. So what 

happens when growers go out of business because they can't comply with new rules and regulations. Food production 

shifts overseas. We've all seen it throughout history on a number of products, not just food stuff. Right now the Florida 

citrus industry is locked in a competitive battle with Brazil. Over the past three decades, Brazilian orange juice has 

taken a large portion of Florida's market share. And do you know why? It's not quality, I can tell you that. It's because 

Brazilian growers aren't bound to the same standards to US growers; in other words, by what they put on their crop or 

what they pay their employees. So they can produce their citrus much cheaper than we can here in Florida. The new 

numeric nutrient criteria would be another competitive advantage enjoyed by Brazilian growers. The rule will pound 

another nail in the coffin for Florida's citrus. Food production is too important to the future and security of our country to 

just hand it over to foreign countries. Any new regulation that puts additional costs burden on the Florida citrus grower 

will be disastrous. That's not hyperbaly, that's fact. A Brazilian monopoly on citrus also raise retail prices. Focusing on 

the economic impacts those regulations doesn't mean that Florida citrus growers want to pollute in order to make 

money. Florida citrus growers are good stewards of the land. We have to be. The land and water support our 

businesses and our families. If we treat it badly, we don't have a business. Evolving production practices are more 

environmentally friendly than ever. A vast majority of citrus grown in Florida is cultivated through BMPs, which as you 

know are cultivated on production strategies scientifically shown to preserve water quality unless the environmental 

impact in agricultural. 

Comment ID 0723.001.008 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

There's been a lot said today about economics, and it's true. You often wonder just how much regulation one cow can 

carry on her back. And we have implemented on the ranch quite a number of practices to try to improve water quality, 

including construction of several retention ponds. Those things cost money and it's difficult to recoup those expenses in 

a market where you're competing with Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and other states that may not have to meet the same 

criteria that we have to meet. Cattle production is a very low-margin business. It cannot afford to absorb additional 

costs, especially if those costs are associated with trying to chase a standard that may not be biologically sound or 

scientifically based. The expense of monitoring would be a significant cost that cannot be passed on to the purchasers 

of our products. The expense of treatment will be a significant cost that's very difficult to pass on to the purchasers of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5139
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

our products. 

Comment ID 0790.001.005 

Author Name: Hammill R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

Then the economic concerns. I think you all have indicated that in the report, and I perused that report. I'm not an 

economist, but my cursory look regarding our industry were classified under specialty crops and citrus, and I think your 

base costs were over $20 per acre per year, which was a significant amount to our industry, particularly when we're 

fighting a lot of pests and diseases and now trying to sustain our industry, adding particularly to the smaller growers $20 

per acre more of just the compliance cost. Now that doesn't indicate either if we have to cut back on our fertilizer use 

and other material use the reduction in crop to meet that. So when you cut one, there's another effect coming down, 

and that needs to be addressed. And again, you know, that's going to impact us, and you've got fewer growers, you're 

going to have fewer citrus to pack and to process, so you're going to impact that sector of the industry and the jobs that 

are linked to the growing, the processing and all the way up the line, the drivers, the pickers. Everybody in our industry 

is going to be impacted. 

We're also concerned with some of the environment engineering professional quotes that are coming out regarding this 

total impact, and I think a couple of the speakers had already mentioned that one. We think your numbers are way low 

when it comes to that. And of course being citizens of the state of Florida ourselves, we're concerned that we could 

bump our utility bills $60 a month for the average citizen, which obviously has us quite concerned. 

Comment ID 0795.001.009 

Author Name: McCarthy L. 

Organization: Lykes Brothers 

The economic impact analysis isn't comprehensive with respect to agriculture. It fails to account for all the economic 

effects associated with the various BMPs. I think for information on that, there's a lot of information in this state on the 

cost of that from DEP, DEX, the South Florida Water Management District. They're all very familiar with these 

programs, and I think you can get some cost information from them. 

Comment ID 0797.001.003 

Author Name: Siniawsky J. 

Organization: Plantation Acres Improvement District 

The second practical consideration, even assuming that PAID had the authority from the legislature to be involved in 

water quality and to build the facilities and the structures necessary to try to come into compliance with your criteria, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5140
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

cost is a big factor. We operate on a budget of approximately a million dollars. It's a non ad valorem assessment of 

$500 per year per acre. Again, these are mostly residential. These are homeowners who are bearing this cost to 

provide this service to themselves. 

We agree with previous speakers that we think you have seriously underestimated the cost of compliance, the 

retrofitting of canals, the acquisition of land to build facilities. These are all quite costly and could potentially 

compromise the primary objective, which is water control. 

Comment ID 0818.001.002 

Author Name: Sherreffs D. 

Organization: Florida Clean Water Action 

Florida's economy relies heavily on its water resources. States 14 billion dollar fishing industry, 55 billion dollar tourism 

cannot endure harmful algal blooms which close beaches, poison water supplies, kill fish, choke marine life, and can be 

toxic to human health. Clean water bodies will also support the state's vital agricultural economy. According to a recent 

report by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Services, in the short term numeric standards are 

not expected to have a great effect on agriculture. The report also goes on to state the addition of the numeric 

standards will make the best management practices easier to access 

Comment ID 0822.001.009 

Author Name: Hutchcraft M. 

Organization: King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus 

Fourth, we'd ask that rather than treating farmers like the problem, that you begin to recognize that these solutions are 

already being implemented by landowners. To this end, rather than spending money on duplicating regulatory 

standards that you actually make that funding available to work with land owners in a collaborative manner for 

environmental services programs which there is no funding for right now. And lastly, we would request that you 

understand the impacts, the economic impacts of what you're going to do to Florida and Florida agriculture before you 

do it. We're concerned that if you underestimate your impacts and the costs are more like what we think it's going to be, 

you're going to drive us out of the business and there won't be an economic stimulus program big enough to bring us 

back. 

Comment ID 1011.001.019 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

3) Florida's Farm Bureau states that almost 75% of Florida's 2.1 million acres of irrigated lands currently embrace 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5141
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

voluntary agricultural best management practices (BMPs). The Farm Bureau admits that technology may not exist for 

the agricultural entities to meet the proposed criteria. Implementation of BMPs will not in itself meet these proposed 

nutrient criteria. Structural improvements will most likely be necessary and the annual costs for these types of 

improvements would likely be in the billions of dollars. Given Palm Beach County is the largest agricultural county in 

Florida, these rules will have a tremendous financial impact on that industry and potentially on the County's economy if 

attainable standards are not developed. 

Comment ID 1040.001.005 

Author Name: Hamel R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

Third, this whole economic impact analysis. We feel that we reviewed your report. It indicates about $20 per acre per 

year. Recently, and I know you-all are going to be receiving a copy of this, the University of Florida scientists and a lot 

of quality people, as well as the Florida Department of Agriculture has just released an economic evaluation of the 

impact of this on agriculture. And I'd just like to hit a couple of the highlights. 

They did a much more comprehensive analysis of this, and what it would take for agricultural to comply with the BMPs 

by commodity -- by specific commodity. The three that they indicated are going to inherit the greatest impact would be 

the citrus growers, the dairy people, and the beef industry, not to say that it's considerable for the vegetables. 

But here's an example. I believe in your report it indicated about $20 per acre. This indicates, just to get set up at the 

level that is being required, it would take roughly 4 -- $700 per acre for setting up BMPs, and it's estimated that it would 

also cost over $230 per acre per year to continue those. So if you look at Florida's 600,000 acres of citrus, you can see, 

you know, just to get this going, it's going to be about a billion-dollar operation for our citrus industry to comply, just on 

an initial basis, and then millions of dollars annually. 

So, again, we certainly encourage you-all to take a hard look at these numbers. We want to do what we can to comply 

and meet these criteria and work with all parties. Also, we've heard that, you know, the possibility of us being able to 

adapt the technology as quickly as we need to, to be able to meet these standards is of great concern, and we've heard 

that through several of the engineers and people that work closely with the industry. So we certainly want you-all to be 

aware of that concern. 

In closing, we certainly appreciate you-all coming back to Florida and hearing the citizens. We want to do our part to 

meet our water quality standards and to continue to implement these BMPs, but we want it to be realistic and also be 

economically viable so that we can stay in business while doing this. You know, on one hand we're having to cut our 

ability to produce if we reduce our fertilizers, and on the other hand we're adding a tremendous amount of expense to 

our operation. So it's kind of a double-edged sword for us. So again, thank you, and I'll leave this for the -­

Comment ID 1151.001.002 

Author Name: McElwain A. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5142
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: 

I would also like to address, earlier today, the Farm Bureau brought up the issue that it is going to cost 70 billion dollars 

to comply with numeric nutrient standards. This was an increase from an earlier estimate that I was given a few weeks 

ago of 50 billion dollars. 

Comment ID 1260-1.001.004 

Author Name: Hurner L. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

Economic Consequences: 

The Florida Department of Agriculture in conjunction with the University of Florida/IFAS Food and Resource Economics 

Department has put together a report title, "Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture". This study estimates that the total initial costs for Florida agriculture to 

implement all applicable practices under the numeric nutrient criteria will range from $855 million to $3.069 billion. 

The total recurring (annual) costs will range from $271 to $974 million, the report states. Lost revenues associated with 

land taken out of production to implement on-farm water treatment/retention practices are estimated to be $631 million 

annually. Thus, total recurring expenditures and revenue reductions for agriculture are estimated to range from $902 

million to $1.605 billion annually.

 Beyond the direct impact on the agricultural sector, the study says, Florida's economy as a whole will be affected by 

losing $631 million in agricultural revenues. The secondary ripple effect on suppliers and employee spending is 

estimated to equal negative $1.148 billion annually. The annual impact on Florida's labor income is estimated to be 

negative $326 million while losing 14,545 full-time, part-time, and seasonal jobs. 

These numbers are astonishing. For citrus alone the estimated costs of typical Best Management Practices that will 

have to be followed to comply with the rule are over 325 million dollars for implementation and over 100 million on an 

annual basis thereafter. This equates to an initial cost of almost 500 dollars per acre with an additional annual cost of 

over 155 dollars per acre. In an industry where every dollar of revenue is already accounted for to stay in business 

these additional costs will be devastating to say the least. 

Comment ID 1301-1.001.011 

Author Name: Hodge R. 

Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated 

The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and Florida Department of Agriculture this month 

released a report and the following are highlights from their report findings: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5143
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

* EPA's analysis of economic impact to Florida agriculture and related industries was incomplete, both in terms of the 

estimated number of agricultural acres affected and the methods used to determine economic impact. 

* Even using EPA's estimates of affected acreage (6.13 million acres), excluding the direct implementation costs of all 

applicable practices, annual lost revenues associated with land taken out of production to implement on-farm water 

treatment/retention practices would be approximately $350 million a year. 

* A more realistic assessment, using water quality modeling and monitoring data, shows 13.6 million acres of 

agriculture will experience direct costs. 

* Rather than the $34.9 million total annual cost suggested by EPA, the authors assert that a more justifiable estimate 

of direct costs is from $902 million to $1.605 billion annually, with additional indirect economic impacts to the state of 

$1.148 billion annually. 

The above costs are for all of Florida agriculture. The report also estimates the cost of this rule to the dairy industry in 

the state. The report projects that the cost for the dairy farms to add additional Best Management Practices and fund 

additional on-farm water treatment/retention for Florida dairy farmers to comply with the EPA-proposed Rule to be 

initially $222.8 million and annual costs of $70.8 million. 

EPA's proposed rule also places the dairy industry at a competitive disadvantage. Dairy farmers in other states that do 

not have to meet these costly compliance measures will be able to produce milk at a competitive advantage and dump 

milk into the Florida market, driving Florida dairy farmers out of business. If Florida dairy farms go out of business, and 

the dairy industry is consolidated, supply will decrease and consumers will be forced to pay greater costs. This will add 

to the burden placed on Floridians. In addition, the transportation of milk into the State of Florida, would increase 

environmental impacts and also raise food safety concerns. 

The dairy industry, like all of production agriculture, does not have the ability to pass the costs of compliance with the 

proposed rule on to consumers. It is a price taker, not price maker. The cost of compliance is significant. Several dairy 

farms are spending millions on efforts to retain runoff and current technology is currently not enough to meet the 

proposed criteria. Ultimately, agricultural land, that provides valuable green space, water recharge, and local food 

production, could be converted into urban subdivisions which will exacerbate challenges with the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1302-1.001.011 

Author Name: Parsons P. 

Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 

10. EPA's economic impact analysis of its proposed criteria is particularly flawed as it relates to the impact of the 

proposed criteria for South Florida Canals. EPA only estimated the economic impact resulting from the more restrictive 

EPA proposal compared to the draft criteria proposal by DEP. This estimate failed to recognize that DEP made no 

proposal for South Florida Canals and thus this comparison is not applicable. The Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (DACS) together with IFAS of University of Florida provided estimates of the costs of compliance 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5144
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

for Sugar Cane production which is wholly within the area beyond DEP's draft proposal. The DACS estimate for Sugar 

Cane alone was $150 million in construction and land costs together with an annual operating cost of $50 million. 

Further, Tthe management measures evaluated by DACS and IFAS may not be adequate to achieve the proposed EPA 

criteria. Combined with compliance costs of other economic sectors in South Florida, the costs of compliance in that 

region alone are likely to exceed the costs estimated by EPA for the entire State of Florida. 

We are grateful for this and other opportunities to provide comment on the Nutrient Criteria proposed for the State of 

Florida. 

Comment ID 1346-1.001.005 

Author Name: Still D. 

Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 

Furthermore, there are fewer than 40 permitted point sources in the SRWMD, so the cost of attainment will fall mostly 

on agricultural non-point sources. A majority of agricultural producers in the District already participate in voluntary 

nutrient reduction best management practices (BMPs). Development and implementation of BMPs has cost tens of 

millions of dollars to the producers, the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, and the state, who have no assurance that public and private investments in BMPs will result in attainment. 

SRWMD requests that EPA determine the full cost of attainment, including monitoring, research, and enforcement, on 

this economically-stressed area. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.029 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

EPA assumes annual costs of less than $1.3 million to control agricultural runoff. The basis for this low number is EPA's 

assumption that only sources located near the 190 water bodies that EPA believes would be considered newly impaired 

under its proposed rule would have to incur any additional costs. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 9. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.036 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

For agricultural operations, EPA estimates nutrient management would cost $27.9 million a year, forested buffers would 

cost $5.1 million a year, and fencing would cost $1.9 million a year. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 6-4 to 

6-5. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5145
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5146
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1444-1.001.010 

Author Name: Earle R. 

Organization: Analysis Group 

Third, EPA does not seem to have considered monitoring costs in its proposal. These costs could be substantial and 

would likely affect what the most cost-effective practice would be. For example, there were over 40,000 commercial 

farms in Florida in 2007.[10] Monitoring of practices at thousands of locations is likely to be expensive, and some 

understanding of the estimated costs will be essential in the formulation of sensible policy. 

[10]Florida Agriculture Statistical Highlights, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2008. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.024 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

II. Costs of EPA's Proposed Criteria. 

A. Costs to Agricultural Producers. 

In the docket for this NPRM, EPA has included a "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits 

Associated with EPA's Numeric Criteria For Florida," document number EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0170 (hereinafter 

Preliminary Cost Estimate). This document presents the remarkable conclusion that EPA's proposal will cost a mere 

$4.7 to $10.1 million a year for compliance. However, this cost estimate does not withstand scrutiny. 

EPA assumes that its proposed criteria will result in annual costs of less than $1.3 million to control agricultural runoff. 

The basis for this low number is EPA's unsupported assumption that only sources located near the 190 water bodies 

that EPA believes would be considered newly impaired under its proposed rule would have to incur any additional 

costs. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 9. 

To estimate the costs associated with the NPRM, EPA also assumes full compliance with the draft numeric criteria 

proposed by the state of Florida in July 2009 and then estimates only the additional costs that would be incurred as a 

result of the fact that EPA's proposal would lead to a greater number of waters being considered impaired. However, 

Florida's July 2009 draft criteria are not an appropriate baseline to determine the costs of EPA's proposal. 

EPA has provided its own estimate of the costs to agricultural producers to comply with Florida's July 2009 draft criteria. 

For agricultural operations, EPA estimates that nutrient management would cost $27.9 million a year, forested buffers 

would cost $5.1 million a year, and fencing would cost $1.9 million a year. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 

6-4 to 6-5. However, EPA's cost estimate is highly unrealistic because traditional best management practices are 

unlikely to be sufficient to meet EPA's proposed criteria. 

To provide a more realistic cost estimate, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5147
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

the University of Florida have prepared a report analyzing the costs of EPA's proposed criteria to the agriculture 

industry, and to Florida's economy as a whole. See Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA 

Numeric Criteria for Florida Agriculture, Budell, et al, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office 

of Agriculture Water Policy; Hodges, et al, University of Florida, and Bottcher, Soil and Water Engineering Technology, 

Inc. (April 22, 2010) (Attachment 1) (hereinafter University of Florida/FDACS Report). The estimates in this report are 

based on the recognition that EPA's proposed criteria will cause many more water bodies to be considered impaired, 

affecting all 13.6 million acres of agricultural land in Florida. Further, these estimates are based on modeling that 

demonstrates that agricultural operations in Florida will not be able to rely solely on typical best management practices 

to achieve the needed reductions and will have to construct additional treatment/retention facilities. 

According to the University of Florida and FDACS, the total initial costs for Florida agriculture to implement the best 

management practices needed to meet EPA's proposed criteria are between $855 million and $3 billion. If those costs 

are amortized and ongoing operation and maintenance costs are added, the cost to all sectors of Florida agriculture 

would be between $271 million and $974 million annually. The report states the higher ends of the estimates are more 

likely based on modeling and empirical water quality data. Lost agricultural revenues from taking land out of production 

to build treatment/retention facilities are estimated to be $631 million, so the total annual costs to the agriculture 

industry in Florida would be between $902 million and $1.605 billion. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.057 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

EPA assumes annual costs of less than $1.3 million to control agricultural runoff. The basis for this low number is EPA's 

assumption that only sources located near the 190 water bodies that EPA believes would be considered newly impaired 

under its proposed rule would have to incur any additional costs. Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 9. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.063 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 For agricultural operations, EPA estimates nutrient management would cost $27.9 million a year, forested buffers 

would cost $5.1 million a year, and fencing would cost $1.9 million a year. Preliminary Cost Estimate, Attachment 1, at 

6-4 to 6-5. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.066 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5148
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

b. Agriculture industry costs. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and the 

University of Florida have prepared a report analyzing the costs of EPA's proposed criteria to the agriculture industry, 

and to Florida's economy as a whole. See Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA Numeric Criteria 

for Florida Agriculture, Budell, et al, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Agriculture 

Water Policy; Hodges, et al, University of Florida, and Bottcher, Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. (April 22, 

2010) (Attachment 2) (hereinafter University of Florida/FDACS Report). The estimates in this report are based on the 

recognition that EPA's proposed criteria will cause many more water bodies to be considered impaired, affecting all 13.6 

million acres of agricultural land in Florida. Further, these estimates are based on modeling that demonstrates that 

agricultural operations in Florida will not be able to rely solely on typical best management practices to achieve the 

needed reductions and will have to construct additional treatment/retention facilities. According to the University of 

Florida and FDACS, the total initial costs for Florida agriculture to implement the best management practices needed to 

meet EPA's proposed criteria are between $855 million and $3 billion. If those costs are amortized and ongoing 

operation and maintenance costs are added, the cost to all sectors of Florida agriculture would be between $271 million 

and $974 million annually. The report states the higher ends of the estimates are more likely based on modeling and 

empirical water quality data. Lost agricultural revenues from taking land out of production to build treatment/retention 

facilities are estimated to be $631 million, so the total annual costs to the agriculture industry in Florida would be 

between $902 million and $1.605 billion. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.114 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Finally, as discussed below, EPA completely ignores the significant adverse economic impacts on the entire farm 

economy in Florida even though EPA's proposed criteria could impose costs on the farm sector of between $902 million 

and over $1.6 billion a year and could result in the loss of 7780 full-time and part-time jobs held by persons employed in 

businesses in the agricultural supply chain as well as agricultural workers. 

Comment ID 1565-1.001.002 

Author Name: Wedgworth G. 

Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida 

The IFAS report found that if EPA's proposed NNC are adopted, "the total recurring expenditures and revenue 

reductions for agriculture are estimated to range from $902 million to $1.605 billion annually." Further, the report 

concludes that the, "annual impacts to Florida's labor income are estimated to be a loss of $326 million translating in the 

loss of 14,000+ jobs." Florida' s economy has often been described as a three-legged stool-tourism, construction and 

agriculture. To slash the one segment of Florida's economy that has remained standing during this historic economic 

recession is counter to all the efforts that Congress has undertaken to stabilize the economy and create new job s and 

economic recovery. We find EPA's effort quite disturbing. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5149
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1639-1.001.002 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

Ths cost of implementing compliant tailwater recovery systems on strawberry farms ranges from $3,700 to $4,500 per 

acre. Our industry occupies about 9,000 acres, so for only half to become compliant would cost tens of millions of 

dollars in capital equipment and involve several other significant hurdles. 

Comment ID 1639-1.001.003 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

Strawberry farms are quite fragmented with average size just below 30 acres. To be effective in scale, recovery ponds 

require 5% of the acreage; which must obviously be removed from agricultural production. On the smaller than average 

farms, such loss of productive acreage combined with installation cost is completely prohibitive. On an average farm 1.5 

acres would be lost to production, and installation could cost well over $120,000. 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.011 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Impending Impacts on Agriculture - FDACS Report 

FDACS, along with the University of Florida/IFAS and Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc., have issued a 

report estimating the potential economic impact to Florida's agriculture community as a result of attempted compliance 

with the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. The report provides a projection of costs and total economic impacts 

for Florida agricultural producers through the implementation of typical Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 

additional on-farm storm water treatment and retention facilities. In addition to the full range of typical owner 

implemented BMPs, including fertilizer management, grazing management, and livestock exclusion from waterways, 

the authors of the report have concluded that on-farm water treatment and retention practices, which include wetland 

restoration, water recovery and re-use systems, and on-site water treatment and retention systems, will be required by 

all sectors of Florida agriculture to attempt compliance. It should also be noted that implementation of all the applicable 

practices mentioned in the report will not guarantee attainment of the EPA-proposed nutrient criteria (Budell et al. 

2010). 

In the report, it was estimated that the total initial costs for Florida agriculture to implement all applicable BMPs would 

range from $855 million to $3.069 billion. Initial (capital) costs for implementation of all practices include materials, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5150
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

labor, and engineering. The total recurring annual costs, including the amortized initial capital costs, were estimated to 

range from $271 to $974 million. It is also anticipated that a significant amount of agricultural land will be displaced from 

production due to implementation of on-farm water treatment and retention systems. The report estimates that 

approximately 10 percent of the agricultural land affected by the EPA-proposed criteria will be needed to construct onfarm water treatment and retention systems (2010). It is the opinion of FFVA that this percentage is very conservative, 

and that the actual percentage of land required to be taken out of production to accommodate on-farm water treatment 

systems will be closer to 15 to 20 percent. Per Budell et al. 2010, lost revenues associated with land taken out of 

production to implement on-farm water treatment and retention practices were estimated to be $631 million annually. 

Total recurring expenditures and revenue reductions for agriculture are estimated to range from $902 million to $1.605 

billion annually. 

Estimated to incur the largest initial costs in implementing additional on-farm water treatment and retention practices 

are Row Crops, Silviculture, and Citrus, at $681, $534, and $337 million respectively. At $216, $169, and $107 million 

per year, respectively, these same three sectors are also projected to incur the largest recurring annual costs for 

implementing these BMPs. The individual agricultural sectors expected to experience the greatest initial total costs for 

implementing all applicable BMPs are Row Crops, Citrus, and Silviculture, at $754, $663, and $641 million, 

respectively. Recurring annual costs for the operation, maintenance, and debt service for all applicable practices over 

all agricultural sectors are estimated to total $974 million. Among the agricultural sectors, total annual costs for all 

applicable BMPs combined were greatest for Row Crops, Citrus, and Tree Plantations, at $239, $211, and $203 million 

per year, respectively (Budell et al. 2010). 

As stated in the report, beyond the direct impact on the agricultural sector, Florida's economy as a whole will be 

affected significantly by these lost agricultural revenues. The total output impacts are estimated to equal -$1.148 billion 

annually and the value-added impacts of these lost agricultural revenues are estimated to equal -$682 million per year. 

The annual impacts to Florida's labor income are estimated to be -$326 million, and the estimated loss of full-time, parttime, and seasonal jobs is 14,545. Other industries projected to incur significant employment impacts include Retail 

Trade (-284 jobs), Health and Social Services (-269 jobs), Government (-252 jobs), and Accommodation and Food 

Services (-155 jobs) (2010). 

The EPA estimated the annual costs for implementation of agricultural BMPs at $34.8 million with the initial capital costs 

estimated at $112.9 million. The EPA's cost estimates were calculated under the assumption that the FDEP draft 

numeric nutrient criteria would already be in place as part of Florida's water quality standards; however, no such criteria 

have been proposed for adoption by the FDEP. The assumption made by the EPA results in an estimate that only 45% 

of Florida's agricultural lands (6.13 million acres) would be affected by its proposed criteria. Based on modeling and 

water quality data, the authors of this economic report have concluded that the EPA's proposed criteria, if adopted, will 

more realistically affect 13.6 million acres of agricultural land rather than the EPA estimated 6.13 million acres (2010). 

Not mentioned in the report are additional technologies that some experts deem will be essential to comply with the 

EPA's proposed criteria. These include high-pressure membranes (reverse osmosis and nanofiltration), adsorption 

(activated carbon and reactive filtration), oxidation (ozone, UV, peroxide), chemical coagulation and precipitation, and 

ion exchange (Carollo Engineers 2009). To employ these technologies to remove N and P could prove to be extremely 

cost-prohibitive to Florida's agricultural community. Additionally, the implementation of such technologies would 

necessitate the consumption of large amounts of energy. This translates to increased electricity consumption by the 

state's agricultural community, which not only equates to additional power costs and byproduct disposal fees, but to an 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5151
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

increased carbon footprint for these operations. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.018 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Agriculture 

EPA estimated that annual costs for implementation of agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be $27.8 

million for nutrient management, $5.0 million for forest buffers, and $1.9 million for livestock fencing. Nutrient 

management costs were based on a useful life of 3 years and a discount rate of 7%, the forest buffer costs were based 

on a useful life of 30 years and a discount rate of 7%, and the livestock fencing costs were based on a 10-year useful 

life and a rate of 7%. These estimates assume that there are no O & M costs and that the Department's proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria are already in place. 

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), in coordination with the University of Florida 

Institute for Food and Agricultural Science and Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc., performed an independent 

cost estimate [4] (Appendix 4) that indicates that the EPA estimates significantly underestimate the costs to achieve the 

proposed criteria for the following primary reasons: 

• The EPA cost estimate assumed that only 6.13 million acres of agricultural land would be required to implement BMPs 

to meet the EPA WQC because most agriculture in the state would already have BMPs implemented to meet the 

proposed DEP numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) and that the proposed EPA criteria would have only an "incremental" 

impact. This assumption is invalid, since the proposed DEP NNC have not yet been adopted. The full estimate resulted 

in a gross area of affected agricultural land of 13.60 million acres. 

• The EPA cost estimate assumed that only a subset of typical BMPs (nutrient retention, forested buffers and livestock 

fencing) would achieve the criterion. The FDACS estimate assumed that ALL typical BMPs would be necessary. In 

addition, based on modeled reduction estimates for typical BMPs, the FDACs estimate concluded that additional onfarm water treatment/retention facilities would be necessary to achieve the EPA's proposed criteria. Thus, additional 

costs for the on-farm water treatment/retention facilities would be incurred. These additional costs account are reflected 

in the upper end of the range shown. 

Total capital costs, annual operational and maintenance costs, and 20-year annual costs are in Table 6 below: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 6 - Cost Estimates for Agriculture. See original 

comment letter. 

[4] Economic Impacts and compliance Costs of Proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture. FDACS, 

U of F/IFAS, SWET, Inc. April 22, 2010. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5152
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.020 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

In addition to the additional capital and O & M costs estimated to be incurred by the agricultural industry, the FDACS 

estimate also estimated regional economic impacts of production land displacement, since approximately 10 percent of 

agricultural land was estimated to be taken out of production due to implementation of on-farm water 

treatment/retention systems. Those economic impacts were estimated to be a $631 million direct loss of annual 

agricultural industry output and a total direct loss (includes other affected sectors) of $1.148 billion. The loss of 

employment was estimated to be 7,780 agricultural jobs and 14,545 total jobs. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.021 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Assessment Procedure 

1. The net and gross area (acres) of land used in Florida for each agricultural industry or commodity subject to the 

proposed EPA standards was taken from the 2007 Census of Agriculture [5] and the Forest Inventory and Analysis [6] 

(USDA-Forest Service). Agricultural sectors were classified according the North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). 

2. The estimated per-acre costs for agricultural producers to implement BMPs were taken from a report prepared for the 

South Florida Water Management District [7]. BMPs included the full range of typical owner-implemented practices, 

such as fertilizer management, grazing management, and livestock exclusion from waterways. Additional on-farm water 

treatment/retention practices include wetland restoration, water recovery/re-use systems, and on-site water 

treatment/retention systems. 

3. Initial capital cost estimates include materials, labor and engineering. 

4. Total annual costs include O & M (estimated at 20 percent of the capital costs) and amortization of the capital 

investment at 10 percent interest over 20 years. 

[5]USDA-NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Florida, Vol 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 9, State and County Data 

[6] USDA-Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis. Data for Florida, 2007 

[7] Soil & Water Engineering Technologies, Inc. (SWET), 2008. Nutrient Loading Rates, Reduction Factors and 

Implementation Costs Associated with BMPs and Technologies, Appendix A. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5153
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1688-9.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for agriculture and economics from Florida DEP 

proposed nutrient criteria comment reports (Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture) See original comment letter for supplemental report. 

Comment ID 1712-1.001.002 

Author Name: Temple A. 

Organization: B&W Quality Growers, Inc. 

The proposed rule would impact our operations. We may be required to set aside land for water treatment with an 

estimated $440 per acre equating to $440,000. This would not only take the productive land out of farming but would 

add to the cost of production. The ongoing annual costs are estimated at $139.70 per acre adding annual costs at 

$139,000. All this would be a serious economic hardship to our operations 

Comment ID 1715-1.001.008 

Author Name: Wilson C. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

Lastly, EPA's economic analysis of the Nutrient Rule's impacts to agriculture is unrealistic, excessively low and fails to 

account for numerous factors required for compliance. It further fails to account for the secondary economic impacts 

that will assuredly occur as a result of the rule. For example, increased costs of compliance includes lower crop yield, 

loss of revenues, loss of jobs. None of these costs were considered by EPA, yet will result in very real and significant 

economic costs to the agricultural industry as a whole and to the EPD specifically. Furthermore, EPA makes gross 

assumptions in calculating the economic costs, and many of these assumptions are incorrect. EPA assumes that DEP's 

water quality criteria has been adopted, which it has not. EPA further assumes that the regulatory community is in 

compliance with the draft DEP criteria. EPA's economic analysis is far too simplistic and must be assessed to consider 

there additional economic impacts. 

Comment ID 1787-1.001.012 

Author Name: Spratt J. 

Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5154
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

As with the rest of the country during this time of economic hardship, the State of Florida, its government agencies and 

its municipalities are struggling to balance their fiscal budgets. Funding for numerous programs has either been 

substantially reduced or dried up all together. To meet the EPA's criteria, it has been estimated that for wastewater and 

utility improvements alone, the capital costs could range from $24.4 to $50.7 billion, with an estimated $0.4 to $1.3 

billion per year in additional operating costs. This roughly translates to an additional $673 to $726 in yearly costs to 

customers. This does not take into account the costs of the required storm water infrastructure improvements. Since 

Florida is the only State that the EPA's proposed criteria would currently apply to, it would also be forced to absorb the 

costs involved with cleaning and maintaining impaired waters entering from both Georgia and Alabama. These costs 

would ultimately be passed on to the taxpayers. Florida currently has one of the highest unemployment rates in the 

country, and now those already struggling financially would have this additional weight added to their burden. The 

agricultural community is particularly apprehensive about how their individual operations could be affected. Like 

countless others, the economic downturn has greatly impacted Florida's growers. Coupled with the devastation incurred 

by the recent, unprecedented freeze and the subsequent millions of dollars lost to crop damage, many in the 

agricultural community have been left reeling. As previously stated, FDACS has estimated that agricultural land owners 

have already spent upwards of $60 million in capital costs alone to implement water quality BMPs. Given the estimated 

costs to upgrade current public infrastructure to meet the proposed criteria, it can be assumed that the costs to the 

agricultural community would be staggering. Programs such as the Facilitation Agricultural Resource Management 

Systems (FARMS) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) programs receive limited funding, and 

whereas before many agriculture operations could offset their expenses by receiving cost-share money, these 

programs will not be able to cope with or provide funding for the mass influx of applications that will be generated as a 

result of the EPA's criteria. It is highly doubtful that our nursery operations and other agricultural producers would be 

able to weather the financial burden that would result from attempting to comply with this proposed ruling. This not only 

affects the agriculture operations, but the many communities that have built up around them, where agriculture is the 

hub of their local economies. There are a myriad of towns throughout this state that are directly dependent on 

agriculture. If those operations should cease to exist, those towns and communities would collapse. Additionally, those 

agricultural operations closer to larger cities could wind up selling their land, potentially for development, and those 

large open green spaces, which provide water recharge to the aquifer as well as habitat for many species of wildlife, 

would be paved over and lost forever. 

Florida agriculture will also be put at a significant disadvantage in the marketplace as a result of this rule. Since only 

Florida currently will have to adhere to the EPA's criteria, the costs of compliance by its growers and producers will 

have to be passed on to the consumers, making them less competitive when faced with cheaper prices from out-ofstate and out-of-country competitors. If the agricultural operations within the state are forced to absorb the additional 

costs associated with attempted compliance, they will eventually begin to falter, and then fail. Agriculture generates 

billions of dollars a year to Florida's economy. Now that the construction industry has imploded, the state is relying 

heavily on its tourism and agriculture sectors. If Florida agriculture begins to vacate lands; it could lead to devastating 

economic repercussions for the state. Additionally, if these criteria eventually become a nation-wide mandate, we could 

potentially see a huge drop in domestic agriculture production and a shift to a heavier reliance on imported produce and 

meat and other agricultural products. 

FDACS, along with the University of Florida/IFAS and Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc., have issued a 

report estimating the potential economic impact to Florida's agriculture community as a result of attempted compliance 

with the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. The report provides a projection of costs and total economic impacts 

for Florida agricultural producers through the implementation of typical Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5155
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

additional on-farm storm water treatment and retention facilities. In addition to the full range of typical owner 

implemented BMPs, including fertilizer management, grazing management, and livestock exclusion from waterways, 

the authors of the report have concluded that on-farm water treatment and retention practices, which include wetland 

restoration, water recovery and re-use systems, and on-site water treatment and retention systems, will be required by 

all sectors of Florida agriculture to attempt compliance. It should also be noted that implementation of all the applicable 

practices mentioned in the report will not guarantee attainment of the EPA-proposed nutrient criteria. 

In the report, it was estimated that the total initial costs for Florida agriculture to implement all applicable BMPs would 

range from $855 million to $3.069 billion. Initial (capital) costs for implementation of all practices include materials, 

labor, and engineering. The total recurring annual costs, including the amortized initial capital costs, were estimated to 

range from $271 to $974 million. It is also anticipated that a significant amount of agricultural land will be displaced from 

production due to implementation of on-farm water treatment and retention systems. The report estimates that 

approximately 10 percent of the agricultural land affected by the EPA-proposed criteria will be needed to construct onfarm water treatment and retention systems (2010). It is FNGLA's opinion this percentage is very conservative, and that 

the actual percentage of land required to be taken out of production to accommodate on-farm water treatment systems 

will be closer to 15 to 20 percent. Notwithstanding our opinion, the estimates contained with the previously mentioned 

study capture lost revenues associated with land taken out of production to implement on-farm water treatment and 

retention practices at an estimated to be $631 million annually. Furthermore, total recurring expenditures and revenue 

reductions for agriculture are estimated to range from $902 million to $1.605 billion annually. 

The individual agricultural sectors expected to experience the initial total costs for implementing all applicable BMPs for 

Plant Nursery operation are $44.4 million. Recurring annual costs for the operation, maintenance, and debt service for 

all applicable practices over all agricultural sectors are estimated to total $974 million. As stated in the report, beyond 

the direct impact on the agricultural sector, Florida's economy as a whole will be affected significantly by these lost 

agricultural revenues. The total output impacts are estimated to equal -$1.148 billion annually and the value-added 

impacts of these lost agricultural revenues are estimated to equal -$682 million per year. The annual impacts to 

Florida's labor income are estimated to be -$326 million, and the estimated loss of full-time, part-time, and seasonal 

jobs is 14,545. Other industries projected to incur significant employment impacts include Retail Trade (-284 jobs), 

Health and Social Services (-269 jobs), Government (-252 jobs), and Accommodation and Food Services (-155 jobs). 

The EPA estimated the annual costs for implementation of agricultural BMPs at $34.8 million with the initial capital costs 

estimated at $112.9 million. The EPA's cost estimates were calculated under the assumption that the FDEP draft 

numeric nutrient criteria would already be in place as part of Florida's water quality standards; however, no such criteria 

have been proposed for adoption by the FDEP. The assumption made by the EPA results in an estimate that only 45% 

of Florida's agricultural lands (6.13 million acres) would be affected by its proposed criteria. Based on modeling and 

water quality data, the authors of this economic report have concluded that the EPA's proposed criteria, if adopted, will 

more realistically affect 13.6 million acres of agricultural land rather than the EPA estimated 6.13 million acres. 

Not mentioned in the report are additional technologies that some experts deem will be essential to comply with the 

EPA's proposed criteria. These include high-pressure membranes (reverse osmosis and nanofiltration), adsorption 

(activated carbon and reactive filtration), oxidation (ozone, UV, peroxide), chemical coagulation and precipitation, and 

ion exchange. To employ these technologies to remove N and P could prove to be extremely cost-prohibitive to 

Florida's agricultural community. Additionally, the implementation of such technologies would necessitate the 

consumption of large amounts of energy. This translates to increased electricity consumption by the state's agricultural 

community, which not only equates to additional power costs and byproduct disposal fees, but to an increased carbon 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5156
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

footprint for these operations. 

Comment ID 1796-1.001.006 

Author Name: Mizrahi C. 

Organization: National Potato Council 

Economically, the proposed EPA rule would place an enormous burden on Florida's agricultural community. Based on 

an unrealistic assumption that certain FDEP requirements would be put in place, EPA estimated the impact of the 

proposed rule from the cost of implementing additional BMP's to be $34.8 million and the associated capital costs 

capital cost to be $112.9 million. As a result the EPA concludes that only 45 per cent of Florida's agricultural land would 

be affected by the proposed rule. Studies by the Florida Department of Agriculture and the University of Florida/IFAS 

and Soil and Water Engineering Technology Inc. estimated that the likely affected acreage will be nearly 90 per cent or 

more than 13.6 million acres. In addition this study estimated that nearly 10 per cent of the affected acres would have to 

be removed from production to construct on farm treatment and retention facilities. The lost income from the removal of 

this acreage from production could exceed $600 million a year. This loss of land, coupled with estimated total annual 

expenditures will mean an impact on growers of $900 million to $1.600 billion. This would take a serious toll on the 

farmers and will result in the loss of an estimated 14,545 full-time, part-time and seasonal jobs. The loss of land and 

increased expenses would also necessitate increased prices, seriously hindering the ability of Florida's farmers to 

compete with outside markets. Additionally, because the proposed rule would only be applied to Florida, they would 

need to dedicate significant resources to cleaning the waters which flow in from Georgia and Alabama, two states that 

would not face the same nutrient restrictions. 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.016 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

The EPA assumes that most of the costs will fall on non-point sources and the categories of point sources that would be 

primarily affected are municipal wastewater treatment plants and industrial and general discharges.[28] A significant 

portion of the agricultural industry is considered non-point sources and will bear a substantial portion of the costs if the 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria are implemented. 

[28] Id. 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.022 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5157
 
 

 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

c. Economic Contribution of Florida's Agricultural, Natural Resource, Food and Kindred Product Manufacturing, 

Distribution and Service Industries in 2008 

The state of Florida has nearly 24 million acres (36,000 square miles) in forests, croplands, and ranches.[31] Florida 

agricultural and natural resources industries have a significant economic impact on the state's economy, accounting for 

approximately 8.4% of the Gross State Product and 13.7% of the state's total employment.[32] In 2008, Florida's 

agricultural and natural resources industries output or sales were approximately $133.65 billion. Total foreign and 

domestic exports of goods and services to customers outside of Florida were approximately $52.52 billion. As a result 

of the indirect and induced multiplier effects arising from export sales, the total output impacts were estimated at 

$162.70 billion.[33] 

Direct employment in Florida's agricultural and natural resources industry was 1.38 million fulltime and part-time jobs. 

The total earned income impact of agricultural and natural resources employee wages and benefits and business 

proprietor income was $47.04 billion. The indirect business tax impacts paid to local, state and federal governments 

were $9.28 billion.[34] 

It must be noted, that while the agricultural and natural resources industries experienced considerable growth between 

2001 and 2007, growth in the industry mirrored the overall Florida and U.S. economy and significantly slowed during the 

2007-2008 year.[35] 

d. Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs for Florida Agriculture of Proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

The economic impacts and compliance costs of implementing the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria will be 

significant for Florida's agricultural industry. The FDACS, the UF/IFAS, and Florida agricultural engineer Del Bottcher, 

have prepared a study which analyzes the economic impacts and compliance costs of the EPA's proposed rule.[36] 

The EPA's analysis of estimated agricultural acreage, as well as methods used for analysis was incomplete and 

inaccurate. The EPA estimated in the proposed rule that 6.13 million acres of agricultural land will be directly affected 

by the implementation of numeric nutrient criteria. However, based on water quality data and modeling, a more accurate 

acreage of agricultural land directly impacted by the implementation of numeric nutrient criteria would be 13.6 million 

acres.[37] 

Florida agricultural producers will most likely have to implement BMPs in addition to on-farm storm water treatment and 

retention practices, and still may not be able to meet the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria.[38] The total initial 

costs for implementing both typical BMPs and on-farm storm water treatment and retention practices for all agricultural 

sectors in Florida is estimated to be $3.069 billion.[39] 

Approximately 10 percent of agricultural land will need to be taken out of production to construct the facilities, with a 

total annual revenue loss of $631 million.[40] This scenario would lead to a direct loss of 7,780 full-time and part-time 

employment opportunities in the state's agricultural industry. In addition, the state economy would lose approximately 

14,545 jobs.[41] 

Since the EPA's proposed rule fails to provide for agricultural implementation, the economic impact assessment 

presents a range of costs.[42] The estimated total initial costs for Florida agriculture to implement all applicable 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5158
 
 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

practices will range from $855 million (for implementing typical BMPs) to $3.065 billion (for combined costs of 

implementing typical BMPs and additional on-farm water treatment/retention).[43] The annual recurring costs will range 

between $271 million and $974 million.[44] 

Rather than the EPA's suggested estimated annual costs of $34.9 million, the agricultural and natural resources 

economic impact assessment asserts that a more justifiable estimate of direct costs is from $902 million to $1.605 

billion annually, and indirect economic impacts to the state would reach $1.148 billion annually.[45] 

e. Florida's Agricultural Industry will be Placed at a Competitive Disadvantage 

As mentioned before, agriculture is not able to pass along increased costs to its consumers. Therefore, Florida 

agriculture will be placed at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the country, where federal numeric nutrient 

criteria do not exist. This could create food safety concerns, driving our food production from being locally grown to 

overseas where the state's residents will not have knowledge of how their food is grown. 

[31] Hodges, A.W., Rahmani, M., Economic Contributions of Florida's Agricultural, Natural Resources, Food and 

Kindred Product Manufacturing, Distribution and Service Industries in 2008, University of Florida/IFAS, Food & 

Resource Economics Department, February 4, 2010, 1. (To view the study in its entirety, refer to Attachment A). 

[32] Id. at 8. 

[33] Id. at 3. 

[34] Id. 

[35] Id. at 8. 

[36] Budell, R., Pride, T., Stone, H., Clements, J., Hodges, A.W., Stevens, T.J., Rahmani, M., Borisova, T., Bottcher, D., 

Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs for Florida Agriculture of Proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria, Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Agriculture Water Policy, University of Florida/IFAS, Food 

& Resource Economics Department, and Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc., April 22, 2010. (To view the 

study in its entirety, refer to Attachment B). 

[37] Id. at 7. 

[38] Id. at 1. 

[39] Id. at 4. 

[40] Id. at 6-7. 

[41] Id. at 8. 

[42] Id. at 1. 

[43] Id. at 1, 5-6. 

[44] Id. at 1, 5-6. 

[45] Id. at 12. 

Comment ID 1834-1.001.004 

Author Name: Bronson C. 

Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5159
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

As a result, and this is clearly reOected in the EPA economic analysis, the Agency unrealistically underestimates both 

the amount of agricultural land affected and the practices that would be required on these lands to meet the proposed 

numeric nutricnt criteria. By contrast, Florida's analysis, performed by experts in FDACS with experience in 

implementing highly structured rule-adopted Best Management Practice programs, and joined by agricultural 

economists at the University of Florida and private sector agricultural engineers, assess the economic impacts to 

agriculture, and the resultant impacts to the state's economy as a whole, at over $2 billion annually to implement the 

proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1834-3.001.001 

Author Name: Bronson C. 

Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

This document provides a projection of costs and total economic impacts for Florida agricultural producers to attempt to 

meet the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed numeric nutrient criteria through the implementation of 

typical Best Management Practices (BMPs) and additional on-farm storm water treatment and retention practices. 

Because the agricultural implementation of the proposed criteria has not been described in the EPA proposal, there is 

uncertainty in estimating the final compliance costs. For this reason, the assessment is presented as a range of 

compliance costs. Throughout the state and among all agricultural sectors, these costs will vary and may require 

expenditures in excess of those estimated, depending on the implementation requirements. Furthermore, 

implementation of all described applicable practices will not necessarily lead to attainment of the EPA-proposed nutrient 

criteria. 

The total initial and recurring costs for Florida agriculture (including planted tree farms) to implement all applicable 

practices necessary to attempt to meet the EPA-proposed numeric nutrient criteria will vary depending on the amount of 

land involved and the types of practices required. In addition to typical BMPs such as nutrient management, irrigation 

management, fencing and rotational grazing, the authors conclude that more extensive additional practices including 

the construction of on-farm water treatment/retention facilities will be necessary for all sectors of Florida agriculture. It is 

estimated that the total initial costs for Florida agriculture to implement all applicable practices will range from $855 

million to $3.069 billion. The total recurring (annual) costs, which include the amortized initial capital costs, are 

estimated to range from $271 to $974 million. Lost revenues associated with land taken out of production to implement 

on-farm water treatment/retention practices are estimated to be $631 million annually. Thus, total recurring 

expenditures and revenue reductions for agriculture are estimated to range from $902 million to $1.605 billion annually. 

Beyond the direct impact on the agricultural sector, Florida's economy as a whole will be affected significantly by these 

lost agricultural revenues. The total output impacts resulting from the $631 million in lost agricultural revenues and the 

secondary ripple effects on suppliers and employee spending are estimated to equal -$1.148 billion annually. The 

value-added impacts of these lost agricultural revenues are estimated to equal -$682 million per year. Annual impacts 

to Florida's labor income are estimated to be -$326 million, and the estimated loss of full-time, part-time, and seasonal 

jobs is -14,545. 

Introduction 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5160
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

The numeric nutrient criteria for Florida water bodies recently proposed by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) would establish acceptable nutrient concentrations in surface waters at extremely low levels. This has created a 

great deal of controversy among stakeholders throughout the state, including local governments, utilities, businesses, 

agricultural producers, and others who are concerned that compliance with the proposed criteria may be impossible to 

achieve and may cause significant economic damages. Agricultural interests are particularly concerned that 

enforcement of these criteria would threaten the viability of agriculture in the state. The collective stakeholder concern is 

further escalated by the uncertainty and lack of transparency of the scientific basis from which the proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria were derived. 

In its preliminary estimate of potential compliance costs, EPA estimated the annual costs for implementation of 

agricultural BMPs at $34.8 million ($27.9 million for nutrient management, $5.0 million for forest buffers, and $1.9 million 

for livestock fencing [1]). Initial capital costs for these BMPs were estimated at $112.9 million. EPA's cost estimates 

were generated using the assumption that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) draft numeric 

nutrient criteria would already be in place as part of Florida's water quality standards, that actions would have been 

taken and paid for to meet those criteria, and that EPA's proposed criteria would have only an "incremental" impact. 

However, no such criteria have even been proposed for adoption by the FDEP. EPA's assumption results in an estimate 

that only 45% of Florida's agricultural lands (6.13 million acres) would be affected by its proposed criteria. This 

document was developed to provide a more realistic projection of compliance costs and total economic impacts for 

Florida agricultural producers to attempt to meet the proposed criteria, based on the fact that Florida has not yet 

adopted numeric nutrient criteria and the authors related conclusion that the EPA-proposed criteria, if adopted, will 

affect 13.6 million acres of agricultural land rather than the EPA-estimated 6.13 million acres. 

Costs of BMP & Water Treatment/Retention Implementation for Compliance 

A range of estimated BMP and on-farm water treatment/retention costs for various agricultural land uses are presented 

in Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c. Table 1a represents the low end of the compliance cost estimates, and was created using net 

(harvested) agricultural acres and estimated costs per acre of typical BMPs. Typical BMPs are practices that would only 

be applied to harvested acres as defined in the Census of Agriculture. Table 1b represents the incremental costs of 

additional on farm water treatment/retention facilities that would be applied not only to harvested acreage, but to the 

gross farm area. Based on modeled reduction estimates for typical BMPs, it is assumed that these additional 

treatmen/retention facilities will be required to altempt to achieve EPA-proposed nutrient criteria. Table 1c includes both 

typical BMP and water treatment/retention costs added together, and represents the high end of the estimated cost of 

compliance. 

The net and gross area (acres) of land used in Florida for each agricultural industry or commodity that would be subject 

to the new standards was taken from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDANASS, 2009) and the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (USDA-Forest Service). While the agricultural sectors shown in Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c were classified 

according to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), some sectors represent an amalgamation of 

several different commodities; for example, row crops includes oilseeds, grains, vegetables and melons, tobacco, 

cotton, peanuts, strawberries, and other crops. The net area of specified agricultural land uses in Florida for 2007 was 

11.63 million acres, including 4.85 million acres for tree plantations, 4.55 million acres for improved/unimproved pasture 

for beef cattle, 665,000 acres for citrus, 379,000 acres for sugarcane, and 331,000 acres for row crops. Gross farm 

area of specified agricultural land uses in 2007 was 13.60 million acres. Note that the silviculture acreage in tables 1a 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5161
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

and 1b includes only managed (planted) acres. 

The estimated per-acre costs for agricultural producers to implement the required BMPs were taken from a report 

prepared for the South Florida Water Management District by Soil & Water Engineering Technology, Inc. (SWET, 

2008). The cost estimates in the SWET report are based, in part, on actual expenditures by the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services for agricultural BMP implementation and cost-share programs during the eight-year 

period prior to the report. Subsequently, the cost estimates in the report formed the basis of annual budget requests to 

the Florida Legislature to fund the agricultural component of the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection 

Program. 

The initial and annual operating costs per acre for each agricultural sector or land use are itemized in Tables 1a and 1b. 

BMPs covered in this analysis is included the full range of typical owner-implemented practices, such as fertilizer 

management, grazing management, and livestock exclusion from waterways. Additional on-farm water 

treatment/retention practices include wetland restoration, water recovery/re -use systems, and on-site water 

treatment/retention systems. Initial (capital) costs for implementation of all practices include materials, labor, and 

engineering. Annual operating costs were estimated at 20 percent of the initial costs, consistent with good engineering 

practice, plus amortization of the capital investment at 10 percent interest over 20 years. 

Initial costs per acre for typical BMPs range from $22 for Tree Plantations to $1,045 for Dairy farms, while annual costs 

per acre range from $8 to $332 (Table 1a). Initial costs per acre for additional onfarm treatment/retention range from 

$73 for Beef Cattle Ranching, to $750 for Dairy farms, while annual per-acre costs for additional practices range from 

$23 to $238 (Table 1b). 

The estimated statewide total initial and annual costs to comply with the proposed EPA numeric nutrient criteria were 

calculated simply by multiplying the average cost per acre against the appropriate total acreage for each agricultural 

sector in the state (Tables 1a & 1b). The combined total costs were calculated by simple addition (Table 1c). Total initial 

costs for the implementation of typical BMPs were highest in the Citrus, Dairy, and Beef sectors, at $326, $130 and 

$115 million respectively. The largest total annual costs for typical BMPs occurred in the same three sectors, at $104, 

$41, and $36 million per year, respectively (Table 1a). Row crops, Silviculture, and Citrus are estimated to incur the 

largest initial costs in implementing additional on-farm water treatment/retention practices, at $681, $534, and $337 

million respectively. The same three sectors are also projected to incur the largest recurring annual costs for 

implementing these practices, at $216, $169, and$107 million per year, respectively (Table 1b). 

Both modeling (Watershed assessment Model, SWET) and empirical water quality data (STORET, FDEP) indicate that 

all applicable typical BMPs and additional on-farm water treatment/retention practices would be required to attempt to 

meet the EPA-proposed numeric nutrient criteria. For this reason, the combined estimated costs shown in Table 1c 

reflect the best estimate of the costs of implementation to attempt to comply with EPA-proposed criteria. The total initial 

cost for implementing both typical BMPs and water treatment/retention practices for all agricultural sectors in Florida is 

estimated to be $3.069 billion (Table 1c). The individual agricultural sectors expected to experience the greatest initial 

total costs for implementing all applicable practices are Row Crops, Citrus, and Silviculture, at $754, $663, and $641 

million respectively. Recurring annual costs for the operation, maintenance, and debt service for all applicable practices 

over all agricultural sectors are estimated to total $974 million (Table 1c). Among the different agricultural sectors, total 

annual costs for all applicable practices combined were greatest for the same three sectors (Row Crops, Citrus, Tree 

Plantations), at $239, $211, and $203 million per year, respectively. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5162
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1a. See original comment letter. 

Table 1a. Estimated Costs of Typical BMPs for Florida's Agricultural Producers to Comply with EPA Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1b. See original comment letter. 

Table 1b. Estimated Costs of Additional On-Farm Water Treatment/Retention for Florida Agricultural Producers to 

Comply with EPA- proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1c. See original comment letter. 

Table 1c. Estimated Combined Costs of Typical BMPs and Additional On-Farm Water Treatment/Retention for Florida 

Agricultural Producers to Comply with EPA-proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

Regional Economic Impacts of Production Land Displacement 

For Florida agricultural producers to attempt to comply with the EPA-proposed numeric nutrient criteria, it is anticipated 

that a significant amount of agricultural land will be displaced from production due to implementation of on-farm water 

treatment/retention systems. According to estimates provided by Florida agricultural engineer Del Bottcher, 

approximately 10 percent of the agricultural land affected by the EPA-proposed criteria will be needed to construct onfarm water treatment/ retention systems (personal communication). This will lead to a recurring reduction in agricultural 

industry output (revenues). 

It is expected that agricultural producers will strive to locate on-farm treatment/retention systems on marginal or nonproductive lands to the extent possible. such that overall production volume and value would decrease by less than 10 

percent. Economic research has documented that farmers respond to reductions in their production acreage through a 

variety of adaptive strategies, including intensification of production on the remaining land base, and shifting cultivation 

to less marginal land [2]. The effective reduction in product ion volume is typically 60 to 80 percent of the acreage 

reduction. For this analysis, we chose a mid-range value of 70 percent, meaning that for a 10 percent reduction in 

production acreage, production volume would fall by 7 percent. 

Total industry output (revenue) for agricultural sectors in Florida was about $9.02 billion in 2008 (latest data available, 

Table 2). Therefore, if the projected 7-percent decrease in annual output due to land displacement occurred uniformly 

across all agricultural sectors, the total annual revenue loss would be $631 million (Table 2). The largest changes in 

direct output would occur for Vegetable and Melon Farming ($152 million), Greenhouse and Nurseries ($135 million), 

and Fruit Farming ($138 million). Note that this analysis includes some additional agricultural sectors/commodities 

beyond those evaluated in Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c. 

Exhibit 6-1 in the January 2010 Economic Analysis report by EPA indicated that the total area of agricultural and forest 

lands in Florida surrounding water bodies incrementally affected by their proposed numeric nutrient criteria is 6.13 

million acres (Figure 1)[3]. This contrasts with a total of 13.6 million acres estimated by the USDA to be used for 

agricultural and planted forestry activities in Florida. Thus, by EPA estimates, only around 45 percent of Florida's 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5163
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

agricultural lands will be affected by EPA-mandated numeric nutrient criteria (though this percentage varies across 

different agriculture sectors). 

The authors contend that, rather than 6.13 million agricultural acres being affected by the EPA proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria, a more realistic estimate of affected acres, based on modeling and water quality data, is 13.6 million 

acres. EPA assumed that Florida had adopted into its water quality standards draft numeric nutrient criteria being 

developed by FDEP and that agriculture is already in compliance with these FDEP draft criteria. However, no such 

criteria have been proposed or adopted into Florida law, and virtually all agricultural acreage statewide will be subject to 

implementation of typical BMPs and additional on-farm water treatment/retention practices to attempt to comply with 

EPA's proposed criteria. Consequently, the analysis that follows uses the latter estimate of affected agricultural acres to 

derive a high-end estimate of economic impact and uses the EPA-estimated acreage to derive a low-end estimate of 

economic impact. The analysis is includes direct and indirect impacts to agriculture and related industries. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. See original comment letter. 

Figure 1. Incrementally Impaired Waters and Point Sources with Potential to Discharge Nutrients (Exhibit 6-2. EPA Jan. 

2010) 

The total regional economic impacts of reduced output by Florida agriculture were estimated using the Impact Analysis 

for Planning (IMPLAN) input-output software, and 2008 state dataset for Florida (Minnesota Implan Group, Inc., 2009). 

Input-output analysis is a well-established methodology for estimating the economy-wide effects of changes in industry 

activity arising from associated changes in business supply chain purchases of inputs and employee household 

spending. known as the indirect and induced multiplier effects, respectively. [4] 

As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the high-end economic impact scenario results in a direct loss of annual industry output of 

$631 million, which leads to a total output impact of -$1.148 billion, including the indirect (supply chain) and induced 

(employee spending) effects. The direct loss of employment to the agricultural sectors is estimated at 7,780 full-time 

and part-time jobs, and total employment losses to the Florida economy are estimated at 14,545 jobs. Total valueadded impacts to the state are estimated at -$682 million, including -$327 million in impacts on labor income (wages, 

salaries. benefits, proprietor income), and -$317 million in impacts on property income (rents, dividends, interest, etc.). 

Impacts on indirect business taxes paid to local and state governments were estimated at -$38 million, including taxes 

on property and sales, as well as other minor taxes, licenses and fees. 

While total economic impacts of BMP implementation would be greatest in the agricultural sector, significant impacts 

would also occur in other industries due to the indirect/ induced multiplier effects, as shown in Table 4. Other industries 

projected to incur significant employment impacts include Retail Trade (-608 jobs), Health and Social Services (-578 

jobs), Government (-538 jobs), and Accommodation and Food Services (-333 jobs). 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. See original comment letter. 

Table 2. Current Industry Output in Florida Agricultural Sectors and Projected Reduction in Output due to 

Implementation of On-farm Water Treatment/Retention for Compliance with EPA-proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5164
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Table 3. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts in Florida from Change in Agricultural Industry Output due to 

Implementation of On-farm Water Treatment/Retention for Compliance with EPA-proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria on 

13.6 Million acres (2008 dollars) 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 4. See original comment letter. 

Table 4. Total Economic Impacts in Florida, by Major Industry Group, of Change in Agricultural Industry Output due to 

Implementation of On-farm Water Treatment/Retention for Compliance with EPA-proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria on 

13.6 million acres (2008 dollars) 

The reductions in agricultural revenues under the low-end scenario, based on EPA estimates of affected agricultural 

acres, are shown in Tables 2, 5, and 6. The projected decrease in annual output on affected acreage due to land 

displacement to construct on-farm water treatment/retention facilities would be about $350 million per year. The largest 

changes in direct output would occur for Vegetable and Melon Farming ($124 million), Greenhouse and Nurseries ($85 

million), and Fruit Farming ($50 million) as shown in Table 2. 

The direct loss of annual industry output of $350 million leads to a total output impact of -$635 million, including the 

indirect (supply chain) and induced (employee spending) effects. The direct loss of employment to the agricultural 

sectors is estimated at 3,546 full-time and part-time jobs, and total employment losses to the Florida economy are 

estimated at 6,660 jobs (Table 5). Table 6 shows total value-added impacts for the state, which are estimated at -$388 

million, including -$177 million in impacts on labor income (wages, salaries, benefits, proprietor income), and -$190 

million in impacts on property income (rents, dividends, interest, etc.). Impacts on indirect business taxes paid to local 

and state governments are estimated at -$21 million, including taxes on property and sales as well as other minor 

taxes, licenses and fees. 

While total economic impacts would be greatest in the agricultural sector, significant impacts would also occur in other 

industries due to the indirect/induced multiplier effects, as shown in Table 6. Other industries projected to incur 

significant employment impacts include Retail Trade (-284 jobs), Health and Social Services (-269 jobs), Government (­

252 jobs), and Accommodation and Food Services (-155 jobs). 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 5. See original comment letter. 

Table 5. Summary of Annual Economic Impacts in Florida from Change in Agricultural Industry Output due to 

Implementation of On-farm Water Treatment/Retention for Compliance with EPA-proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria on 

6.1 Million acres (2008 dollars). 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 6. See original comment letter. Table 6. Total Economic 

Impacts in Florida, by Major Industry Groups, of Change in Agricultural Industry Output due to Implementation of Onfarm Water Treatment/Retention for Compliance with EPA-proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria on 6.1 Million acres 

(2008 dollars) 

Summary 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5165
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

EPA's analysis of economic impact to Florida agriculture and related industries was incomplete, both in terms of the 

estimated number of agricultural acres affected and the methods used to determine economic impact. Even using 

EPA's estimates of affected acreage (6.13 million acres), our analysis, excluding the direct implementation costs of all 

applicable practices, reveals that annual lost revenues associated with land taken out of product ion to implement onfarm water treatment/retention practices would be $350 million a year. A more realistic assessment, using water quality 

modeling and monitoring data, shows that 13.6 million acres of agriculture will experience direct costs. Rather than the 

$34.9 million total annual cost that EPA suggested, the authors assert that a more justifiable estimate of direct costs is 

from $902 million to $1.605 billion annually, with additional indirect economic impacts to the state of $1.148 billion 

annually. 

[1] U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs 

and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida". January, 2010. Costs of BMP & 

Water Treatment/Retention Implementation for Compliance 

[2] For example, see paper by Erickson, M.H. and K. Collins, Effectiveness of acreage reduction programs. USDAEconomic Research Service, AER-530, Agricultural-Food Policy Review, July 1985, pp. 166-84. 

[3] Incrementally impaired waters represent those water bodies that would not meet the new water quality standard 

above and beyond the baseline standard. This differs from the basis used in estimating compliance costs in Tables 1a, 

1b, and 1c. 

[4] Miller, R.E. and P.O. Blair, Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Press, 750 

pages, 2009. 

Comment ID 1835-1.001.009 

Author Name: Nieto G. 

Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta 

Corporation 

6. EPA failed to conduct an adequate economic analysis. 

The proposed rule will have far-reaching economic impact on Florida agriculture, and on the larger state economy. 

EPA's proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because EPA has not properly analyzed or considered these effects, 

nor given adequate consideration to whether the economic harm of the Nutrient Rule could be lessened while still 

protecting the actual uses of the regulated water bodies. 

A preliminary examination of compliance costs has been conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (Botcher 2010). This report, contained in the Joint Submittal, shows that compliance will impose 

costs in excess of $1.6 billion annually, and potentially far more. While by no means an exhaustive review of economic 

impacts, these projections show that EPA's own review of costs and benefits of the Nutrient Rule grossly 

underestimates compliance costs. Furthermore, EPA makes demonstrably incorrect assumptions regarding Florida's 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5166
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

draft nutrient criteria in calculating the economic costs. 

Additionally, the impact of compliance costs, lower crop yields, higher commodity prices necessary to recoup those 

costs, and loss of substantial agricultural acreage for compliance measures threaten the competitive viability of Florida 

agriculture and Florida's sugar mills and other agricultural facilities. EPA did not consider these issues, nor make any 

attempt to craft the Nutrient Rule to avoid unnecessary economic impacts. 

Comment ID 1919-1.001.012 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 

C. EPA's Proposed Rule Will Not End Florida Agriculture as We Know It. 

The Florida Department of Agriculture (an intervenor in the lawsuit that prompted this rule) has helped create an 

economic impact statement on the cost of compliance with the proposed rule for Florida agriculture - which no doubt will 

be filed with EPA. The authors of the document are staff with the Department, some professors with University of 

Florida IFAS, Food and Resource Economics Department and an agricultural engineer. The document states that 

enforcement of the criteria "would threaten the viability of agriculture in the state" and estimates the total initial cost of 

compliance will range from $855 million to $3.69 billion and total recurring expenditures in revenue reduction are 

estimated to range from $902 million to $1.605 billion annually. Professors from other departments (and one from the 

same department) within University of Florida/IFAS published an official document with a much different opinion on the 

cost of compliance:[35] 

Specifically what does the proposed rule mean to agriculture? During the next 10 to 20 years, the sustainability of 

Florida's agricultural production as we know it today will be a hotly debated topic.[36] In the short term, numeric 

standards are not likely to have a great effect on agriculture. The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) of 1999 

and subsequent revisions to it govern Florida's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The FWRA specifies that 

the Best Management Practice (BMP) program administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services (DACS) is the method agriculture will use to meet water quality standards. The perspective of DEP and DACS 

is that the FWRA will continue to govern agriculture, regardless of numeric standards imposed by EPA. Agricultural 

operations that implement appropriate BMPs after filing a notice of intent to do so will receive a presumption of 

compliance with water quality standards even after acceptance of numeric criteria by DEP. The state of Florida is highly 

invested in the BMP program, and it is not likely to go away any time soon. However, in the long term, the requirements 

of the BMP program will likely change as a result of numeric nutrient criteria. With numeric standards, the success of 

the existing BMP program will be much easier to assess. It is likely that more aggressive and expensive practices will 

be required. It will be important to document the success of existing BMPs to ensure credit is established for on-going 

commitments. 

[35] Appendix 8: Obreza, Thomas, et al., A Guide to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality for Florida, 

University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Soil and Water Science Department Publication SL316 (February 2010). The 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5167
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

document is authored by thirteen professors within University of Florida, IFAS Extension. 

[36] Regulation of agriculture to improve water quality is not the only issue confronting agriculture in Florida. Regulation 

of consumptive use of water is also a hotly debated issue. For example, in 2010, strawberries growers in the Tampa 

area pumped one billion gallons of water for freeze protection over the course of eleven days. The pumping caused the 

aquifer to drop 60 feet resulting in 85 sinkholes that swallowed homes and required the evacuation of an elementary 

school. Depressions and cracks in the highways caused a partial closing of Interstate 4 and U.S. 92 near Plant City, 

along with parts of 15 other roads. Property values plummeted. The county also had to distribute bottled water to 

homeowners whose wells had gone dry. Editorials and local property owners called for regulation of the growers and 

the local water management district is studying the issue. Later in the season the farmers destroyed their strawberry 

crops in the field because an over abundant crop had depressed the price to the point where harvesting the 

strawberries was not economically feasible. Appendix 25. 

Comment ID 1919-1.001.013 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 

The officially published document is correct. By rule, best management practices required by statute for non-point 

sources of pollution must be "cost-effective" which means only those BMPs can be required that do not cost the farmer 

money to implement. 

12) The Department shall assure that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all 

new and existing point sources, and all cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source 

control. For the purposes of this rule, highest statutory and regulatory requirements for new and existing point sources 

are those which can be achieved through imposition of effluent limits requited under Sections 301(b) and 306 of the 

Federal Clean Water Act (as amended in 1987) and Chapter 403, F.S. For the purposes of this rule, cost-effective and 

reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control are those nonpoint source controls authorized 

under Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., and Department rules. Ch. 62-302.300(12), Fla. Admin. Code. 

In other words, a BMP which costs a farmer money is off the list as a source control. In addition, statutes mandate 

consideration of economic considerations which similarly limit BMPs' effectiveness as a source control: 

(a) "Best management practice" means a practice or combination of practices determined by the coordinating agencies, 

based on research, field-testing, and expert review, to be the most effective and practicable on-location means, 

including economic and technological considerations, for improving water quality in agricultural and urban discharges. 

Best management practices for agricultural discharges shall reflect a balance between water quality improvements and 

agricultural productivity. § 373.4595(2)(a), Fla. Stat. 

(2) "Best management practices" means practices or combinations of practices determined by research or field testing 

in representative sites to be the most effective and practicable methods of fertilization designed to meet nitrate 

groundwater quality standards, including economic and technological considerations. § 576.011(2), Fla. Stat. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5168
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1919-1.001.014 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 

Which is why the next section of FDEP's rule has been a total failure - as evidenced by the ongoing deterioration of 

Lake Okeechobee, the Santa Fe River and Orange Lake due to nutrient pollution: 

13) The Department finds that excessive nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) constitute one of the most 

severe water quality problems facing the State. It shall be the Department's policy to limit the introduction of maninduced nutrients into waters of the State. Particular consideration shall be given to the protection from further nutrient 

enrichment of waters which are presently high in nutrient concentrations or sensitive to further nutrient concentrations 

and sensitive to further nutrient loadings. Also, particular consideration shall be given to the protection from nutrient 

enrichment of those waters presently containing very low nutrient concentrations: less than 0.3 milligrams per liter total 

nitrogen or less than 0.04 milligrams per liter total phosphorus. Ch. 62-302.300(13), Fla. Admin. Code. 

The professors who wrote and published the official document (and the Department of Agriculture as cited in that 

document) are correct. The rule by itself will not impose any costs on farmers. Farmers are protected by Florida law 

from having to implement BMPs that cost them money. What the agricultural industry fears is that the official publication 

is correct, and that implementation of numeric standards will make assessments of BMPs possible, that those 

assessments will show that the BMPs fail to provide effective nutrient reductions, and that Florida might finally decide to 

hold agriculture responsible for its waste stream - which has not happened up until this point. 

Comment ID 2394.001.005 

Author Name: Hamel R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

Third, Gulf Citrus Growers are very concerned with the "economic impacts" of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

EPA's report entitled : "Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs Associated with EPA's Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida" addresses some of the compliance "costs" for "Specialty Crops", including citrus . EPA's estimate 

suggests the "basic" costs for citrus groves to be about $20 per acre per year! GCGA feel's that this EPA estimate is 

very, very . . .low, and unrealistic! 

A recent study by University of Florida, IFAS economists, entitled, "Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs for Florida 

Agriculture of Proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria" considered "more comprehensively" the costs for our state's 

citrus/agricultural industries to comply. These UF economists were assisted by Florida Department of Agriculture's 

Office of AG Water Policy staff, who are experienced in the implementation of agricultural BMPs . Estimated costs were 

projected from producers' attempts tc meet EPA's "proposed" nutrient criteria through the use of BMPs, and included . . 

.initial "set-up" costs, annual recurring costs, and "impacts" due to land being taken out of production! According to this 

report, the highest implementation and annual costs for "compliance" BMPs were in the citrus, dairy and beef sectors! 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5169
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

On average, the state's citrus growers could face $700 per acre "set up" costs, and annual expenses of $230 per acre . 

Based on Florida's 665,000 acres of producing citrus groves . . .the UF economists estimate that the cost of compliance 

with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria . . .for the state's citrus growers . . .could be well over one half-billion 

dollars initially . . .and several million dollars annually! 

This latest University of Florida economic estimate does not include the economic impact of reduced citrus production 

per acre due to reduced fertilizer usage! Since Florida's growers must compete with other U.S. and international 

growers, we are concerned that these increased compliance costs and reduced crop sizes will force many small, midsize and even larger growers out of business! Citrus crop reductions will also impact citrus processing and packing 

facilities, and these losses will, in turn, reduce jobs in our citrus sector! In its "summary statement" the UF economic 

impact study concludes that EPA's analysis of economic impacts to Florida agriculture was "inadequate" both in terms 

of the estimated number of acres affected, and the methods used to determine the economic impact! We respectfully 

ask the EPA to "re-calculate" the economic impacts of the proposed criteria on Florida's $9-billion citrus industry, and 

the state's other AG commodities. 

We are also quite concerned with reports by environmental engineering professionals who indicate that. . . even with 

the expenditure of billions on the latest technology. . . Florida's agricultural operations and public utilities will not be able 

to achieve EPA's proposed nutrient criterial And, we are concerned that utility economists and officials estimate that the 

average Floridian's water/sewer bill could increase by over $60 per month! 

Response 

Comment ID: 0680.001.003 

Response: The commenter does not cite data or information to support the assertion that taking land out of production for best 

management practices would not be a viable solution. Furthermore, financial viability of current and incremental state BMP 

requirements are site-specific. EPA acknowledges the concern for out of country competition. EPA also notes that cost share 

programs exist to assist farmers with BMP costs. 

Comment ID: 0723.001.008 

Response: See response to comment 0680.001.003. 

Comment ID: 0790.001.005 

Response: Nutrient management may reduce fertilizer costs because it is designed to reduce unnecessary fertilizer applications by 

determining realistic yield expectations and nutrient requirements, and adjusting application methods and timing to minimize 

pollution. Thus, farmers would not be expected to reduce fertilizer use in a way that results in reduced crop production, but rather 

optimize fertilizer application to yield the same crop yield with fewer environmental impacts. See also responses to comments 

1647-1.001.011 and 1011.001.019. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5170
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 0795.001.009
 

Response: For the final rule, EPA has incorporated information from Florida State agencies, where appropriate.
 

Comment ID: 0797.001.003
 

Response: EPA has revised upwards its cost estimates for the final rule (see the economic analysis accompanying the final 

rulemaking). 

Comment ID: 0818.001.002
 

Response: See response to comment 0612.001.003 in issue category BL_BEN.
 

Comment ID: 0822.001.009
 

Response: See response to comment 0723.001.008 and 0680.001.003.
 

Comment ID: 1011.001.019
 

Response: Water quality criteria are applied to the waters to protect state designated uses. The attainability of the standards, where it 

is an issue, is addressed through a use attainability analysis (UAA). A UAA can address the potential for substantial and widespread 

economic and social impacts from water quality standards. 

Comment ID: 1040.001.005
 

Response: see response to comment 0790.001.005 and 1647-1.001.011.
 

Comment ID: 1151.001.002
 

Response: See response to comment1647-1.001.011.
 

Comment ID: 1260-1.001.004
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5171
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: See response to comment 1647-1.001.011. 

Comment ID: 1301-1.001.011 

Response: See response to comment 1647-1.001.011. EPA’s economic analysis also describes programs that provide cost sharing 

for agricultural BMPs. If farmer shares of BMP costs would result in substantial financial impacts, and these would be widespread 

within a watershed, a use attainability analysis can be performed. The rationale for why the commenter believes this rule could 

result in the conversion of agricultural land into urban subdivisions is not clear. 

Comment ID: 1302-1.001.011 

Response: This rule no longer applies to waters in South Florida. 

Comment ID: 1346-1.001.005 

Response: EPA has developed an economic analysis of the potential compliance costs for the proposed rule and revised the analysis 

for the final rule. As with existing BMAPs to implement TMDLs under the current narrative nutrient criteria, initial control actions 

may or may not be sufficient to attain compliance. If attainment is not feasible for economic or technological reasons, a change in 

the designated use may be appropriate. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.029 

Response: EPA agrees with the comment. EPA did not include control costs for waters that do not exceed the numeric criteria. The 

rule does not establish requirements for any sources. Should the State require agricultural controls in waters that are not impaired, 

the corresponding benefits would be the prevention of future impairments and the associated loss of designated uses, values for 

those uses, and economic impacts of lost uses. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.036 

Response: EPA has revised the “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters 

in Florida,” located in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0956) for the final rule. 

Comment ID: 1444-1.001.010 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5172
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.036.
 

Comment ID: 1473-1.001.024
 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO, 1359-1.001.029, and 1647-1.001.011.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.057
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.029.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.063
 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.036.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.066
 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011.
 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.114
 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011 and 1011.001.019.
 

Comment ID: 1565-1.001.002
 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011 and 1011.001.019.
 

Comment ID: 1639-1.001.002
 

Response: See response to comment 1301-1.001.011.
 

Comment ID: 1639-1.001.003
 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019.
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5173
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1647-1.001.011 

Response: EPA disagrees with the FDACS report referred to by the commenter for a number of reasons. As the commenter points 

out, in estimating costs attributable to the rule for agriculture, FDACS assumes all agricultural land will require typical owner 

implemented BMPs as well as additional on-farm stormwater treatment and retention facilities. The land used as the basis for 

FDACS’ assumptions includes acreage in watersheds where waters do not exceed the numeric criteria in the rule, have already been 

listed as impaired under the current narrative nutrient criteria, or will require controls under existing regulations even in the absence 

of the rule. Controls that will be required in the absence of the rule are not attributable to the rule. Waters that are not impaired 

under the rule may or may not become impaired (and may or may not have become impaired under the existing narrative criteria). 

Whether or not the State of Florida will implement agricultural requirements in unimpaired watersheds to protect waters from future 

impairment is uncertain. For this final rule, EPA has revised its assessment of acreage in incrementally affected watersheds, 

including those that may be affected by downstream protection values for lakes. 

FDACS also appears to estimate required agricultural load reductions and thus needed BMPs and costs on the basis of modeling 

specific to the Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Caloosahatchee watersheds. Whether watershed modeling specific to these highly 

agricultural, high-priority, nutrient-impaired watersheds is representative of the level of controls that will be necessary in 

watersheds with waters that exceed the EPA criteria (but are not already listed under the existing narrative criteria) is uncertain. The 

additional (edge-of-farm) treatment is not yet required in the Lake Okeechobee basin. 

With respect to economic impacts, it is unclear how FDACS calculated their estimates because they did not describe the inputs to 

the Impact Analysis for the Planning (IMPLAN) model they used. Nevertheless, the FDACS report suggests that they did not 

consider expenditures on BMPs as income to the other sectors of the local economy, or the cost savings from reduced fertilizer use 

with nutrient management. It is also not clear if FDACS accounted for any cost share funds to farmers that would be equivalent to 

the input of federal tax dollars into the State of Florida. In addition, it appears that FDACS calculated lost revenue from land taken 

out of production based on gross acreage instead of the more appropriate acreage used/harvested and did not consider the timing of 

required controls. These omissions and oversights could vastly misrepresent the potential economic consequences of EPA's rule on 

the Florida economy. In addition, see response to 0675.001.005 in issue category BL_PS_M and section VI of the rule. 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.018 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011. 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.020 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5174
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.021 

Response: EPA evaluated FDEP’s assessment procedure and cost analysis for agriculture and updated the economic analysis for the 

final rule as appropriate. EPA only estimated the costs for agricultural controls within the watersheds of waters that would exceed 

the criteria in the rule (based on existing monitoring data) but that are not within the watersheds of waters already on the 303(d) list 

or under a nutrient-related TMDL. EPA notes that the BMP costs prepared for the South Florida Water Management District reflect 

modeling specific to highly agricultural, high priority nutrient-impaired basins. Whether this modeling is representative of the level 

of agricultural controls that will be needed in waters that are not currently impaired under the state’s existing narrative criteria but 

exceed EPA’s numeric criteria is uncertain (TMDLs and the type of control modeling performed for the South Florida Water 

Management District for the Lake Okeechobee watershed is not available for the waters incrementally impaired under the rule). 

Comment ID: 1688-9.001.001 

Response: EPA evaluated FDEP’s cost study and data and updated the economic analysis as appropriate for the final rule 

Comment ID: 1712-1.001.002 

Response: See response to comment 0680.001.003 and 1011.001.019. 

Comment ID: 1715-1.001.008 

Response: See response to comment 0790.001.005, 1647-1.001.011, and 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. EPA has 

revised the “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida,” located 

in the docket (docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0956) for the final rule. 

Comment ID: 1787-1.001.012 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019, 1301-1.001.011, 1647-1.001.011. See also response to comment 1359­

1.001.041 in issue category EA_OPO. Cross boundary waters can be addressed through TMDLs involving both states. 

Comment ID: 1796-1.001.006 

Response: See response to comment 1011.001.019, 1647-1.001.011. See also response to comment 1359-1.001.041 in issue 

category EA_OPO. Cross boundary waters can be addressed through TMDLs involving both states. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5175
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1797-1.001.016 

Response: EPA agrees with this comment. See response to comment 1301-1.001.011. 

Comment ID: 1797-1.001.022
 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011.
 

Comment ID: 1834-3.001.001
 

Response: See response to 1011.001.019 and 1647-1.001.011.
 

Comment ID: 1834-1.001.004
 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011.
 

Comment ID: 1835-1.001.009
 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011 and 1011.001.019.
 

Comment ID: 1919-1.001.012
 

Response: EPA has reviewed the economic impact statement referred to by the commenter; see response to comment 1647­

1.001.011. 

Comment ID: 1919-1.001.013
 

Response: EPA does not agree that cost-effective means zero cost to the farmer.
 

Comment ID: 1919-1.001.014
 

Response: In its economic analysis, EPA assumed that controls on agricultural sources of nutrients would be needed given the 

extent of agricultural land use in the watersheds of waters that may be assessed to be impaired under the rule. In watersheds with 

agricultural land use, it may not be possible to attain EPA’s criteria without controlling this source. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5176
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 2394.001.005 

Response: See response to 1647-1.001.011 and 1011.001.019. 

BL_NPS_OWTS - COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS AND 

THE COSTS FOR NONPOINT SOURCES – SEPTICS (7) 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.030 

Author Name: Andes F.
 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition
 

Finally, EPA assumes costs between $2.4 million and 7.8 million a year to upgrade septic systems. Preliminary Cost 

Estimate, at 10. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.037 

Author Name: Andes F.
 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition
 

According to EPA, septic system retrofits would cost $12.4 to $40.2 million a year. Preliminary Cost Estimate, 

Attachment 1, at 7-2. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.058 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 Finally, EPA assumes costs between $2.4 million and 7.8 million a year to upgrade septic systems. Preliminary Cost 

Estimate, at 10. As a result of its flawed baseline and assumptions, EPA assumes that the total annual costs of 

compliance with its proposal would be only $4.7 to $10 million a year. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.064 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5177
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

According to EPA, septic system retrofits would cost $12.4 to $40.2 million a year. Preliminary Cost Estimate, 

Attachment 1, at 7-2. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.022 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Septic Systems 

The EPA cost estimate assumed that only a limited number of septic system upgrades would be necessary to meet the 

EPA proposed numeric nutrient criteria because many septic systems in the state would already have septic system 

upgrades necessary to meet the proposed DEP numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) and that the proposed EPA criteria 

would have only an "incremental" impact. As we have noted previously, this assumption is invalid, since the proposed 

DEP NNC have not yet been adopted. The EPA analysis estimated the number of septic systems in incrementally 

impaired waters at approximately 177,200. The EPA noted that the septic systems could be required to upgrade when 

they failed and based their annual costs on an average failure rate of 3.49%[8]. Their estimated costs to upgrade the 

failed systems to achieve nutrient removal were in the range of $2000 to $6500 per system. The annualized costs were 

estimated to range from $12.4 million to $40.2 million. The Department performed a cost estimate for septic system 

upgrades necessary to achieve the proposed EPA criteria. The Department's analysis assumed that conventional septic 

systems on lots larger than three acres would be able to achieve the proposed EPA criteria[9], thus no additional costs 

were assumed. 

[8] Florida Department of Health (DOH). 2009. Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Installed in Florida. 

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/OSTDS/statistics/ostdsstatistics.htm. 

[9] FDEP/FDOH developed a draft spreadsheet calculation tool that can be used to estimate appropriate type of septic 

system to achieve certain levels of treatment for various lot sizes. The 3 acre lot size is based on a standard 3 bedroom 

house with 

an estimated sewage flow of 300 gpd (Shanin SpeasFrost, FDEP, Personal Communication). 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.023 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Assessment Procedure 

1. Florida Department of Health reviewed permit records to determine how many of Florida's 2.6 million septic systems 

are on lots less than 3 acres in size. The review indicated that approximately 83% of new septic systems were on lots 

less than 3 acres and approximately 90 % of old systems were on lots less than 3 acres1. For the purpose of this 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5178
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

estimate a value of 85% was chosen. 

2. The Department's estimate for urban stormwater indicated that approximately 75% of Florida's urban areas discharge 

to fresh waters. It was assumed that proportion would be a reasonable assumption to make in order to calculate septic 

system costs. 

3. Construction costs for estimate were taken from an Interim Report prepared for the Department entitled Onsite 

Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Evaluation for Nutrient Removal January 7, 2010, Stormwater Management 

Academy, University of Central Florida. Costs for septic systems with high levels of nutrient removal ranged from 

$9,320 to $18,200 per unit. Operation and maintenance costs were also estimated from this report, which indicated 

values ranging from $200 - $1,800 per year. 

4. 20-year annualized costs were calculated using an assumed interest rate of 5%. The O & M costs were not escalated 

for inflation. 

5. The above method is a worst case scenario based on a complete replacement in the first year of all systems on 

smaller lots than 3 acres and discharging to groundwater that eventually becomes freshwater. The method produces 

annual cost estimates ranging from approximately $1.6 - $5.5 billion. Since immediate replacement of septic systems 

may not be justifiable or feasible, a more reasonable estimate and one more consistent with the EPA estimate would be 

a replacement rate of 5% a year, which is still higher than the repair rates of 0.5 - 1 % per year[10] 

The resultant total capital costs, annual operational and maintenance costs, and 20-year annual costs are in Table 7 

below: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 7 - Cost Estimates for Septic Systems. See original 

comment letter. 

[10] Eberhard Roeder, FDOH, Personal Communication. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.029 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

Fourth, the cost estimates for septic systems are not included. The last comment in Exhibit 8-2 provides "...Municipality 

may also decide to connect [a] home to a sewer system rather than repair the septic system." This seems to imply that 

the municipalities may be obligated to address these systems. However, it is unclear whether the municipalities or the 

state is required to implement "advanced nutrient treatment" standards for failing septic systems. The municipalities will 

directly incur additional costs if required to implement the advanced nutrient treatment standards. Alternatively, 

municipalities may incur indirect costs if the Proposed Rule results in septic system owners becoming unable to meet 

new permitting standards and being forced to connect to sewer systems. If sewer connections and lines are not already 

in place, municipalities will incur additional costs with expanding their service area. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5179
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.052 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

Fourth, the cost estimates for septic systems are not included. The last comment in Exhibit 8-2 provides " ...Municipality 

may also decide to connect [a] home to a sewer system rather than repair the septic system." This seems to imply that 

the municipalities may be obligated to address these systems. However, it is unclear whether the municipality or the 

state is required to implement "advanced nutrient treatment" standards for failing septic systems. The municipalities will 

directly incur additional costs if it is required to implement the advanced nutrient treatment standards. Alternatively, 

municipalities may incur indirect costs if the Proposed Rule results in septic system owners becoming unable to meet 

new permitting standards and being forced to connect to sewer systems. If sewer connections and lines are not already 

in place, municipalities will incur additional costs with expanding their service area. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.064 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

Fourth, the cost estimates for septic systems are not included. The last comment in Exhibit 8-2 provides "...Municipality 

may also decide to connect [a] home to a sewer system rather than repair the septic system." This seems to imply that 

the municipalities may be obligated to address these systems. However, it is unclear whether the municipalities or the 

state is required to implement "advanced nutrient treatment" standards for failing septic systems. The municipalities will 

directly incur additional costs if required to implement the advanced nutrient treatment standards. Alternatively, 

municipalities may incur indirect costs if the Proposed Rule results in septic system owners becoming unable to meet 

new permitting standards and being forced to connect to sewer systems. If sewer connections and lines are not already 

in place, municipalities will incur additional costs with expanding their service area. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.056 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

Fourth, the cost estimates for septic systems are not included. The last comment in Exhibit 8-2 provides " ...Municipality 

may also decide to connect [a] home to a sewer system rather than repair the septic system." This seems to imply that 

the municipalities may be obligated to address these systems. However, it is unclear whether the municipality or the 

state is required to implement "advanced nutrient treatment" standards for failing septic systems. The municipalities will 

directly incur additional costs if it is required to implement the advanced nutrient treatment standards. Alternatively, 

municipalities may incur indirect costs if the Proposed Rule results in septic system owners becoming unable to meet 

new permitting standards and being forced to connect to sewer systems. If sewer connections and lines are not already 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5180
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

in place, municipalities will incur additional costs with expanding their service area. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.057 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

Fourth, the cost estimates for septic systems are not included. The last comment in Exhibit 8-2 provides " ... 

Municipality may also decide to connect [a] home to a sewer system rather than repair the septic system." This seems 

to imply that the municipalities may be obligated to address these systems. However, it is unclear whether the 

municipalities or the state is required to implement "advanced nutrient treatment" standards for failing septic systems. 

The municipalities will directly incur additional costs if required to implement the advanced nutrient treatment standards. 

Alternatively, municipalities may incur indirect costs if the Proposed Rule results in septic system owners becoming 

unable to meet new permitting standards and being forced to connect to sewer systems. If sewer connections and lines 

are not already in place, municipalities will incur additional costs with expanding their service area. 

Response 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.030 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. It is a restatement of EPA’s cost estimate for upgrading septic systems as a result of 

the rule. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.037 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. It is a restatement of EPA’s cost estimate for retrofitting septic systems as a result of 

the rule. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.058 

Response: EPA has revised its economic analysis using current conditions as the baseline and more refined assumptions. See 

EPA’s economic analysis document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and 

Flowing Waters in Florida.” 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.064 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. It is a restatement of EPA’s cost estimate for retrofitting septic systems as a result of 

the rule. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5181
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

� 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.022 

Response: In response to the comment, much of the comment is a restatement of EPA’s cost estimate for retrofitting septic systems 

as a result of the rule, and a restatement of FDEP’s response to this analysis. See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue 

category EA_OPO regarding the baseline for evaluating the incremental impact. 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.023 

Response: See response to comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO regarding the baseline for evaluating the 

incremental impact. In addition, EPA disagrees with the premise for point 2 because only those fresh waters incrementally affected 

by the rule are relevant for estimating potential costs. EPA notes that Florida’s basin management action plans for existing nutrient 

TMDLs do not call for immediate replacement of all septic systems. 

Comment IDs: 1769-1.001.029, 1770-1.001.052, 1771-1.001.064, 1772-1.001.056, 1773-1.001.057 

Response: EPA’s economic analysis now includes an estimate of potential additional costs to septic systems that may be indirectly 

associated with this rule. Florida’s basin management action plans for existing nutrient TMDLs call for both more study to identify 

the impact of septic systems on impaired waters, and for phasing out the use of septic systems. The load reduction and controls that 

may be needed from septic systems are site-specific. Nonetheless, EPA believes the most likely outcome of a need to reduce 

nutrient loads from septic systems is upgrading existing systems to advanced nutrient treatment. Thus EPA’ economic analysis 

estimates total costs on the basis of upgrading potentially affected systems to advanced systems. 

BL_BEN - COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS AND 

BENEFITS 

Comment ID 0612.001.003 

Author Name: Daltry M. 

Organization: Sierra Club - Ft. Myer's Office 

The cost of emergency room and doctor visits, the loss of tourism revenue in our area, the decline in value of our 

waterfront properties and the loss of fish, birds, turtles and marine life is monumental. In September 2005, the 

estimated economic impact of poor water quality on tourism was between $1.8 - $2 million dollars. 

Comment ID 0612.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5182
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Author Name: Daltry M. 

Organization: Sierra Club - Ft. Myer's Office 

Visitors are estimated to have spent $2.9 billion in Lee County during 2008. This does not include the revenues 

generated by the thousands winter residents who own homes in Southwest Florida and spend the winters in Southwest 

Florida. It is imperative that our tourists and our winter residents continue to enjoy a pleasant experience while 

vacationing with us; whether they stay for a week or several months. We want our seasonal visitors to return year after 

year and bring their friends. Red Tide and other harmful algal blooms leave a negative and lasting impression that can 

seriously damage this relationship. 

Comment ID 0629.001.002 

Author Name: Bassett B. 

Organization: Florida Dairy Products Association 

I have a few points of concern with the proposed rule. The EPA criteria that will be placed on Florida will have a 

tremendous economic hardship on everyone and everything in Florida. How do we know what environmental benefits 

we will receive from the billions of dollars we will have to invest? 

Comment ID 0713.001.008 

Author Name: Merriam C. 

Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission 

And one of the things, is the benefit to this proposed rule equal to or better than the average impacts on ratepayers and 

the citizens of Florida. 

Comment ID 0727.001.008 

Author Name: Kelter M. 

Organization: Green Cove Springs 

Third, the benefits of the rule are way overstated. Your benefit analysis uses the concentrated annual feeding 

operations 2002 water quality data as baseline for evidence. Give me a break. 

Comment ID 0732.001.007 

Author Name: Fulford C. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5183
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Congressman Adam Putnam 

Overall, DEP claims that cost of compliance will force an investment of millions of dollars without environmental benefit. 

Comment ID 0747.001.001 

Author Name: Coe A. 

Organization: Earthjustice 

Good afternoon. My name is Alisa Coe and I'm the attorney with EarthJustice. 

The question was asked earlier who is going to pay for all of this? 

Well, let's talk for a minute about who is already paying. During a toxic algae outbreak on the entire St. Lucie River and 

Estuary in 2005, Martin County homeowners found their waterfront property posted with health warning signs from the 

local health department warning of the dangers posed by the pollution in their backyard. It has been estimated that 

outbreak and polluted condition of the St. Lucie River has resulted in a drop of a half a billion dollars in property value in 

Martin County alone. 

Red drift algae, which is linked to nutrient runoff from land, has been washing up all over our beaches. It piles up. It 

stinks like raw sewage. It can cause a gag reflex and drive tourists home. The cost of cleaning up one outbreak at one 

beach can run $30,000. In June 2008 a water treatment plant serving 30,000 people was forced to shut down after a 

toxic blue-green algae outbreak on the Caloosahatchee River. 

The cost of upgrading one single drinking water plant to address recurrent algae outbreaks can run 200 million. 

And let's talk about our springs. Our 15 state parks named after springs collect 8.6 million dollars annually. Visitors to 

Wakulla Springs generate 22 million dollars for their local economy. The St. Johns River Water Management District 

has documented that in one year visitors to Silver Springs generated 61.4 million dollars, which amounted to a 

thousand and sixty jobs and 12.6 million dollars in wages. 

Unfortunately, our springs are not in the greatest shape. Just a few examples. Visitors have reported rashes from 

swimming in Wakulla Springs, caused by the elevated levels of algae toxin. Over 20 similar incidents have happened at 

Ichetucknee Springs and again at Wakulla, where the water used to be so clear that they would film Hollywood movies 

there. The glass bottom boats don't run anymore. There's no point because you can't see to the bottom. Someone is 

paying all of these costs already. And it oftentimes is the taxpayer. It is cheaper to clean up pollution at a source than to 

go back and try to restore things after they're already polluted. 

Comment ID 0786.001.004 

Author Name: Veaudry K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5184
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Organization: Florida Native Plant Society 

For those who say this is too expensive, we already are paying heavily to ameliorate the damage and effects of nutrient 

pollution. We're already paying for it. We need a proactive approach that tackles the issue on the front end, and we all 

need to work together to make it a reality, and now is the time. It's better to regulate the pollutants and keep them out of 

our waters rather to pay and deal with it after the fact with no measuring capabilities, where we are now. 

Comment ID 0789.001.002 

Author Name: Wessell R. 

Organization: Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation 

The health of our inland waters is fundamental to the economy of our communities and our state. Inland waters are our 

economic engine, and they feed our coastal waters. The cleaner the fresh waters are, the cleaner our downstream 

waters. It's a simple equation. The contribution of healthy waters to the economy can be told through the numbers. In 

Lee County alone, three billion dollar industry is based on a clean and healthy environment. People come from all over 

the state, all over the world to visit these natural resources. 124,000 jobs are involved. In 2004 to 2006 the 

Caloosahatchee experienced devastating blooms of algae, toxic algae bloom known by their nicknames as Annie, 

Fannie and Mike, including Lyngbya and trichodesmium. It turned our rivers green and our beaches red. The health 

department had to post warnings to keep people away from the water. The water plant, which you showed a photo of, 

had to be shut down, a plant that receives 40,000 homes. In 2007 the algal blooms and the impacts earned the 

Caloosahatchee the dubious distinction of being the seventh most endangered river in the country. And Lee County 

alone experienced a $40 million loss in the economy. We lost the freshwater grasses, 18 kilometers of freshwater 

grasses through the Caloosahatchee. In the economics of Everglades restoration, missing pieces in the future of South 

Florida, economist Richard Weisskoff computed that within the Everglades ecosystem of South Florida, conservatively 

the value of total ecosystem services is 58.7 billion dollars or 68.2 billion adjusted for 2000 prices, year 2000 prices. 

Tourism is the largest industry in Florida contributing over 53 billion annually to our economy. Wildlife-related recreation 

constitutes a significant portion of that total with fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing generating 7.2 billion annually. 

Investing in the health of our southern penannular is an investment in our community and our economy. 

Comment ID 0801.001.002 

Author Name: Daltry M. 

Organization: Sierra Club 

The impacts of these harmful algae blooms have affected our health, our tourism economy and our environment. The 

cost of emergency room and doctor visits, the loss of tourism revenue in our area, the decline of value of our waterfront 

properties, and the loss of fish, birds, turtles and marine life is monumental. In one month alone in September of 2005 

the estimated economic impact of poor water quality on tourism was between 1.8 and $2 million. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5185
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 0801.001.004 

Author Name: Daltry M. 

Organization: Sierra Club 

Visitors are estimated to have spent $2.9 million in Lee County during 2008. This does not include the revenues 

generated by thousands of winter residents that spend the winters in our area. It's imperative that our tourists and our 

winter residents continue to enjoy a pleasant experience while vacationing with us, whether they stay for a week or 

several months. We want our seasonal visitors to return year after year and bring their friends. Red tide and other 

harmful algal blooms leave a negative and lasting impression that can seriously damage this relationship. 

Comment ID 0829.001.002 

Author Name: Quashus P.
 

Organization: Collier County Audubon Societies of Southwest Florida
 

The numbers are huge. But as my county commissioner mentioned, we're talking about a three billion dollar a year 

tourist industry for Lee County alone. We're talking a 50 billion dollar tourist industry that is largely dependent on the 

coastal waters. 

Comment ID 0871.001.002 

Author Name: Mahoney S. 

Organization: Sierra Club, Miami group 

The consequences of these kinds of things, well, can be greatly detrimental to our tourism-based economy with things 

like beach closings, for example, due to problems of fowling of the beaches and so forth. 

Comment ID 0896-2.001.003 

Author Name: * *
 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners
 

LEE COUNTY COMMENTS 

I. Water Resources are critical to Lee County's quality of life and tourism based economy. 

• Lee County is an 804-square-mile metropolitan area of some 600,000 residents located along the Gulf Coast of 

Southwest Florida. It encompasses the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary and Estero Bay, Florida's first Aquatic 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5186
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Preserve - resources of statewide and national significance. 

• Known for its 50 miles of white sand beaches on the Gulf of Mexico, Lee County tourism employs 1 out of every 5 

people within the County. 

• Lee County receives approximately 5 million visitors a year that generate approximately $3 billion in economic impact. 

• Protection of our precious natural and water resources are critical to Lee County and its residents, as well as to our 

tourism industry and economy. 

• While the economic impact of the tourism industry can be measured in dollars and cents, Lee County's residents and 

visitors also benefit from the quality of life to which a healthy ecosystem contributes. 

Comment ID 1049.001.002 

Author Name: Hill A. 

Organization: 

And a couple of things that I wanted to bring out today, we've had some very good comments on the science side, but 

what I would like to maybe highlight is some of the economic impacts. We do know that the -- how the economic engine 

is driven in Southwest Florida, is where people come down to visit, be it visiting family, be it on business. 40 percent of 

the visitors to Southwest Florida will fish, according to the Jack Wert, who's in the charge of the tourism development 

council in Collier County. 

40 percent of the people will fish. And let me make one point clear, if it hasn't been made by the previous speakers: 

Dead fish don't sell well. With that in mind, if we break the economic cycle by not having control over our ecosystem, 

that will kill our economic engine for years to come, as we saw back after the huge red tide episode we saw several 

years ago. 

Second thing, the impact of sport fishing tourism is not measured in thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of 

dollars. It's measured in billions of dollars. We can't -- that -- tourism actually is a larger industry than agriculture, 

although I don't think tourism spends as much money as they should on lobbyists, as we know that the sugar industry 

spends more on lobbyists than does any other part of the agriculture industry, which certainly does very well in 

supporting lobbyists. Maybe the Girl Scouts who were here earlier should hire a lobbyist to protect their interest in the 

years to come. 

A couple other points that I would like to make is that your PowerPoint presentation indicated a cost of the expenditure 

is approximately $1.5 billion, if I remember correctly. Now, let's take that and look at what the value is of our ecosystem. 

Sport fishing, I know, is a multibillion dollar industry. That's a, I believe, about $5 billion annual impact to this -- to 

Florida. Now we add in tourism -- it's a big number. So if we compare that to only a billion and a half dollars over 20 

years, doesn't that make -- I don't know if that's a cost or an investment. Maybe you ought to change your PowerPoint 

before you head off to Tampa tomorrow, and call it an investment, and I think that's a better way to characterize what 

we can do there. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5187
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID 1075.001.005 

Author Name: Judah R. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners 

Again, the industry has got to realize that we cannot sacrifice a $2.5 billion tourism industry right here in Lee County 

alone, where we rely on water quality that allows us to market the area to the world. And while I know you have been -­

your integrity has been impugned, you've been criticized, you are on the right track. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.059 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Seventh, EPA's economic analysis estimates the benefits of the Rule to be valued at approximately $2.5 million 

annually. This conclusion rests on two critical assumptions, neither of which are documented or explained in EPA's 

analysis. First, EPA assumes that the reduction in nutrient levels required by the Rule will result in improvements in the 

biological and ecological health of Florida waterbodies, even though EPA does not and cannot identify any particular 

waterbody that will undergo any particular or measureable improvement in biological health as a result of the new 

criteria prescribed by the Rule. Second, EPA further assumes that these presumptive biological improvements will 

result in tangible economic gains. Yet, EPA does not identify any of the waterbodies whose biological revitalization 

would be the basis for these purported economic benefits. Nor does EPA document particular economic gains from any 

such waterbody improvements. EPA merely assumes broadly that nutrient reduction will lead to biological improvement 

which will lead to economic gain. Absent more concrete evidence or data to support these conclusions, EPA's analysis 

is unpersuasive. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.023 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

C. Estimated Benefits 

Due in part to the Agency's assumption that its proposal does not accomplish very much beyond the suggested 

baseline, EPA estimates the benefits of its proposal to be only between $2.3 and $2.6 million a year, based on an 

estimate of "willingness to pay." Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 13. 

This meager level of benefits further undercuts EPA's rationale for taking federal action. As discussed above, on 

January 14, 2009, EPA determined that numeric nutrient criteria "are necessary to facilitate and expedite the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5188
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

identification of all nutrient impaired waters in Florida; thereby providing necessary protection for the State's designated 

uses, as required by the CWA." However, EPA's analysis of the costs and benefits of its proposed regulations imply that 

they would not do very much. That conclusion, of course, begs the question of why EPA is taking federal action at all. If 

EPA's regulations will have so little impact, the Agency cannot support its determination that federal nutrient criteria for 

Florida are necessary. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.068 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

 C. Estimated Benefits. EPA estimates the benefits of its proposal to be only between $2.3 and $2.6 million a year, 

based on an estimate of "willingness to pay." Preliminary Cost Estimate, at 13. This is meager level of benefits further 

undercuts EPA's rationale for taking federal action. As discussed above, on January 14, 2009, EPA determined that 

numeric nutrient criteria "are necessary to facilitate and expedite the identification of all nutrient impaired waters in 

Florida; thereby providing necessary protection for the State's designated uses, as required by the CWA." However, 

EPA's analysis of the costs and benefits of its proposed regulations imply that they would not do very much. That 

conclusion, of course, begs the question of why EPA is taking federal action at all. If EPA's regulations will have so little 

impact, the Agency cannot support its determination that federal nutrient criteria for Florida are necessary. Any 

benefits to the environment also should be offset by the environmental harm that will be caused by compliance with 

EPA's proposed criteria. The Florida Fertilizer Industry study, discussed above, notes that the energy and air emissions 

impacts from implementing nutrient control measures will result in increased energy use and air emissions, 2.12 billion 

tons a year in CO2 emissions. 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.033 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

If Florida were to reject these standards and continue to allow excessive nutrient pollution to occur in our waters, the 

cost to the state and to the citizens will be enormous. The cost of the No-Action alternative would be much greater than 

the estimated yearly costs of these proposed criteria being implemented, even if the yearly costs are "underestimated". 

In assessing the costs of these proposed standards, those costs should be weighed against the costs of lost real estate 

and tourism revenue from the harmful algal blooms and fish kills resulting from nutrient pollution if effective standards 

are not adopted. Conservative estimated economic impacts from harmful algal blooms are estimated to result in the 

loss of at least $15-25 million per year (or $19-32 million in 2007 dollars) for the state of Florida alone. [24] One study 

estimated the costs incurred by the lodging and restaurant sectors in just the Walton Beach1 Destin area to be at $3.7 

million and $2.8 million per month due to HABs and red tides. [25] Another study conducted by researchers at the 

University of Florida looked to examine the "financial and managerial" impacts of red tide events on city governments 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5189
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

responsible for managing various public beaches on the Gulf coast of Florida. Below are the results for Sarasota 

County and Pinellas County: 

Sarasota spent an average of $4.87 per linear foot of beach to provide the labor and equipment necessary to remove 

the dead fish resulting from a single red tide event that occurred in October 2006 through February 2007. In Pinellas, 

seven cities were reimbursed an average of $14.27 per linear foot of beach for red tide-related cleaning required 

throughout 2005; however, incidence and duration of the events were not mentioned, and city expenditures may have 

exceeded county reimbursements due to in-kind labor and equipment reallocations. [26] 

Other cities, such as Longboat Key and Naples, have actually placed red tide cleaning costs in their annual budgets, 

ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. 

For example, in August of 2005, a large red tide event occurred of the western coast of Florida. This event stretched 

from Hernado County all the way south to Sarasota County and reached between 3 to 23 miles offshore. In total, Fish 

and Wildlife Institute estimated that all the bottom communities within the 2,100 square mile red tide bloom were 

affected in an adverse manner. A few of the affected organisms included "dead fish present on the bottom (ranging from 

baitfish to goliath grouper) as well as dead sponges, corals, worms, mollusks, crabs, sea urchins, starfish, and sea 

turtles." [27] 

While studies have been able to capture the economic impacts in monetary terms, it is impossible to place a dollar 

value on the marine life affected in these conditions. Many protected and endangered animals are killed due to HABs 

caused by nutrient pollution. Given the extremely low remaining numbers of these certain species, it is vital to protect 

each and every living individual in all conditions. It is also extremely important to include the aesthetic and recreation 

value of having clean water in Florida. While economists have calculated the monetary loss suffered due to HABs, no 

dollar amount can be placed on the enjoyment tourists and citizens receive from recreation opportunities in our waters. 

Unclean and unsafe water can destroy tourist's view of Florida and in the long run could ruin Florida's reputation. 

Overall, having effective numeric nutrient standards should create incentives for pollution source control and prevention. 

Stopping the pollution prior to it entering our waterways is the most cost effective way to clean our waters. Simple 

things, such as limiting the amount of excess fertilizers used in lawn care and crop production can help to avoid 

impairing more of our waterways with nutrient pollution. This will help to reduce the occurrence of eutrophication in 

lakes, streams, and ponds, while also decreasing the frequency of detrimental HABs along our coastlines. In doing so, it 

will save the state a massive amount of money that may have previously been spent on removing those nutrients from 

our waters. While a pound of nitrogen fertilizer costs between $2 to $3 per pound (prices varies), the cost of clean up for 

nitrogen pollution is $225 per pound of nitrogen. [28] The preventative solution of applying numeric nutrient standards 

will alleviate individual cities from the high costs of water clean up and beach clean up projects that result from 

eutrophication and HABs. 

[24] IBID 

[25] Larkin. S.L,, C.M. Adams. 2006. Harmful Algal Blooms and Coastal Business: Economic Consequences in Florida. 

University of Florida- Dept of Food and Resource Economics. Gainesville. FI. 

[26] Larkin. S.L,, C.M. Adams, R.L. Degner. 2006. Final Report: Economic Effects of HABs on Coastal Communities 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5190
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

and Shellfish Culture in Florida. University of Florida. Gainesville. FI. Accessed at h!lp 1lcfp:rb cpa gov~nceraoslraclsi~ndecxf mli,s~act onld splay aoslractDe1a llabstracV74241:eponlF 

[27] Florida Fish and Wildlife conservation commission Offshore Red Tide- Associated moralities and FWRI Event 

Response. FWRI. Last updated 2005, Accessed at: http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=25276 [28] 

"Its Time to End the Slime: A Primer on EPA's Proposed Rule to End Sewage, Fertilizer and Animal Manure Pollution of 

Florida's Waters." Prepared by EarthJustice 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.025 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Benefits Analysis 

The Department did not undertake a separate benefit analysis to compare with the EPA estimate. However, we would 

note that the Department's cost estimates lead to an annual cost of approximately $313 - $458 per person [11], 

compared to the Willingness to Pay values in EPAs estimate of $0.34 - $0.37 per person. 

[11] Based on the FDEP costs in Table 1 and an assumed Florida population of 18,328,340 people. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.043 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

The second flaw with the Cost Estimate is that, while EPA's benefits analysis provides an impression of precision, in 

reality it is so misleading and cursory it is completely as to be nearly useless. EPA prominently touts the estimated 

benefits associated with water quality improvements from its proposed numeric nutrient criteria.[112] Additionally, EPA 

insists that there are numerous "unquantified benefits" in this analysis.[113] However, in its actual analysis, EPA 

indicates in bold type that its presentation is "a very rough benefit estimate."[114] Further, EPA explains that its analysis 

"depend[s] on a number of assumptions that we have not rigorously tested or been able to validate in other data or the 

literature."[115] The analysis concludes, "[p]robably most importantly, our assumptions about the nature of Florida water 

quality and expected changes heavily influence the results. If changes are larger than we were able to roughly estimate 

then benefits may be substantially higher."[116] The obvious corollary to this is if the estimated water quality changes 

are less than estimated, benefits would be substantially lower. Thus, due to the tenuous nature of its analysis, EPA's 

benefits estimate should not be considered as mitigating the regulatory cost burden of the proposed standards. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5191
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

112 See Cost Estimate, supra note 107, at 2, 13-14.
 

113 Id. at 14.
 

114 Id. at Attachment 2-2.
 

115 Id. at Attachment 2-8.
 

116 Id. 


Comment ID 1784-1.001.008 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

The NNC could require the construction and installation of extremely expensive technologies to meet these criteria at 

an estimated cost of $320 million to the citizens of Alachua County, with no additional environmental benefit. 

Comment ID 1919-1.001.007 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 

B. NUTRIENT POLLUTION HAS A SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC COST 

Nutrient pollution has a substantial economic cost. An economic study on the contribution of just one Florida spring to 

the local economy found that non-resident visitors to Wakulla Springs in Wakulla County, Florida directly contribute over 

$22 million dollars a year to the local economy and generate an estimated $4.33 million in salaries and wages 

supporting 347 jobs.[14] Nutrient pollution of that same spring has resulted in a nearly uncontrolled growth of slimey 

green algae and filamentous algae growth, along with explosive growths of nuisance aquatic plants, that occluded the 

entire Spring.[15] The then Attorney General of the State of Florida intervened in a lawsuit brought to halt the pollution 

because of the serious decline in revenues in spring-related business which were a direct consequence of the nutrient 

pollution of just one spring.[16] There are over 700 springs in Florida, twelve of which are State Parks; they are one of 

the state's most valuable natural resources with millions of visitors per year.[17] Springs around the state are being 

similarly adversely affected by nutrient pollution across the state.[18] Thus the potential $20 million loss from the 

demise of Wakulla Springs is but a small example of the economic cost of nutrient pollution on just one water resource 

of this state. 

[14] Appendix 12: Economic Impact of Selected Florida Springs on Surrounding Local Areas by Dr. Mark A. Bonn, 

Dedman School of Hospitality, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida and Dr. Frederick W. 

Bell, Department of Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, for The Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Division of State Lands Florida Springs Task Force (April 10, 2003). 

[15] Appendix 2: Comments of Dr. William Wise at p. 8. 

[16] Id. at pp. 8-9. 

[17] Appendix 12 at p. 1. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5192
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

[18] Appendix 13: Graph of Nitrate Levels in Springs from 2008 Integrated Report at p. 110. 

Comment ID 1919-1.001.010 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 

One location being considering for a new water supply plant is in an area of the River subject to blue-green algae 

blooms.[25] Blue-green algae creates two drinking water issues: taste and order problems and algal toxins.[26] In a 

study, the District concluded that algal toxin removal "should be efficient at plants which comprise both an ozonation 

and an activated carbon adsorption process."[27] Ozonation and use of activated carbon to deal with algae related 

drinking water problems is extremely expensive. The North Texas Municipal Water District's addition of ozonation 

facilities to its water treatment plant (to address "taste and odor" problems) is projected to cost $140-150 million 

dollars;[28] a retrofit to a drinking water plant in California to deal with algae problems in a surface water reservoir cost 

$241 million,[29] and impoverished small towns on the south shore of Lake Okeechobee have recently had to find 

funding to build a $50 million reverse osmosis drinking water plant (that treats saline groundwater to drinking water 

standards) because of nutrient pollution and algae blooms in Lake Okeechobee.[30] 

[25] Appendix 18: CH2M HILL, St. Johns River Water Supply Project: Literature Review Of Surface Water Treatment 

Technologies (May, 2002). 

[26] Id. at 65-66. 

[27] Id. at 69. 

[28] Appendix 19: North Texas Municipal Water District Fact Sheet (January 12, 2010). 

[29] Appendix 20A: Press Release from MWD; Appendix 20B: Bid Request on MWD Drinking Water Plant. 

[30] Appendix 21: Florida Legislature Budget Request for Lake Region Treatment Plant. 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0612.001.003, 0612.001.005, 0789.001.002, 0801.001.002, 0801.001.004, 0829.001.002, 0.871.001.002, 0896­

2.001.003, 1049.001.002, 1075.001.005, 1482-1.001.033, 1919-1.001.007, 0747.001.001, 0786.001.004, 1919-1.001.010 

Response: EPA agrees that excessive nutrient pollution can impair Florida lakes and flowing waters, resulting in adverse ecological 

effects, economic impacts, and social welfare losses. EPA also agrees that there are economic benefits to protecting Florida’s 

waters. 

Comment IDs: 0747.001.001, 0786.001.004 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for supporting the rule. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5193
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 0727.001.008 

Response: Implementation of numeric nutrient criteria will result in reduced nutrient concentrations in lakes and flowing waters in 

Florida that will provide a variety of ecological benefits and enhance the provision of environmental goods and services provided 

by these waterbodies. EPA’s economic analysis was revised to qualitatively describe the scientific and economic basis for these 

benefits. EPA also further revised its quantitative benefits assessment that uses a Water Quality Index (WQI) approach to translate 

measurements of various water quality parameters into a single numerical indicator. This approach is a widely accepted method of 

monetizing environmental benefits. Nevertheless, it is likely that this approach underestimates the benefits of the rule due to a 

variety of technical limitations that are detailed in EPA’s economic analysis document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water 

Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida.” 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.025 

Response: See response to comment ID 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment IDs: 0629.001.001, 1217-2.001.059 

Response: Water quality criteria are scientifically derived, measurable properties of water that, when achieved, protect state 

designated uses. Because a significant portion of Florida’s economy is dependent on health of Florida waters covered under this 

rule, the protection of State designated uses will have a substantial economic benefit to many Florida residents. Some of these 

benefits are described in EPA’s economic analysis document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for 

Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida.” In addition, in response to comments 0713.001.008, 0732.001.007, 1782­

1.001.043 and 1474-1.001.068, water quality criteria are not established on the basis of monetized benefits or economic impacts. 

Water quality criteria are scientifically derived, measurable properties of water that, when achieved, protect the State designated 

uses. Water quality criteria are not established based on a balancing of costs and environmental benefits. However, federal 

regulations allow economic factors to be considered when implementing water quality standards through temporary or permanent 

changes to designated uses. For example, a temporary variance from water quality standards or designated use change may be 

available if it can be demonstrated that attaining the current water quality standards would result in adverse substantial and 

widespread economic and social impacts. Federal regulations also address issues related to natural conditions, technological 

feasibility (including space constraints), and adverse environmental impacts associated with control solutions that affect other media 

such as land and air. Although accurately monetizing benefits of an environmental regulation can be challenging, EPA has 

attempted to better convey the benefits of this rule by also qualitatively describing the benefits of reduced nutrient pollution and are 

described in EPA’s economic analysis document accompanying this final rule. 

Comment IDs: 1688-5.001.025, 1784-1.001.008 

Response: EPA disagrees with the assumptions underlying cost estimates developed and referred to by commenters (see response to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5194
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

comment 1688-5.001.004 in issue category EA_OPO). Although EPA’s economic analysis for the proposed rule estimated 

monetized benefits, monetizing all possible benefits were beyond the scope of that analysis. For this final rule, EPA has revised its 

economic analysis to include a more complete qualitative description of benefits attributable to this rule. Although EPA’s 

economic analysis of this rule also further refined estimates of monetized benefits, limitations and uncertainties in this analysis 

likely result in an underestimation of benefits. These limitations and uncertainties are described in EPA’s economic analysis 

document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida." 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.023 

Response: See responses to comment 0727.001.008, 0629.001.001, 0713.001.008. 

Comment IDs: 1782-1.001.043, 1474-1.001.068 

Response: The water quality standards program flexibility described in response to 1359-1.001.023 in issue category EA_OPO also 

applies to the evaluation of use attainability, including situations in which criteria cannot be attained for natural or manmade 

reasons, including manmade conditions that would cause more environmental harm to remedy. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.068 

Response: EPA considers biological nutrient removal the most reasonable treatment technology. Energy use associated with 

biological nutrient removal overhead and maintenance is included in EPA’s cost estimates associated with waste water treatment 

plants. In addition, biological nutrient removal is not typically an energy intensive process. In fact, for certain plants, upgrading to 

biological nutrient removal could result in energy savings. A discharger would not be required to meet the numeric nutrient criteria 

at the point of discharge unless there is no assimilative capacity in the receiving waterbody and other less costly options are 

unavailable. Water quality standards, and EPA’s rule specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State may 

use existing (or propose in the future) regulatory relief mechanisms that allow implementation flexibility where demonstrated to be 

appropriate. See the preamble to the rule, in particular section V. Alternative Regulatory Approaches and Implementation 

Mechanisms, which describes the tools the State has at its disposal to exercise flexibility such that the rule is not a one-size-fits-all 

rule. 

BL_OTHER - OTHER COMMENTS RELATED TO BASELINE COSTS 

Comment ID 0884.001.004 

Author Name: Wertephy A. 

Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program 

The potential controls and cost considered by U.S. EPA are included in the Table below: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5195
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a table for control source types from Palm Beach County 

NPDES. See original comment letter. 

The cost estimates in this Table is based on combining the information from Exhibits ES-1 and ES-8 (Attachment 1) to 

the Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Cost and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Number Nutrient 

Criteria for Florida, January 2010. 

Comment ID 0899.001.002 

Author Name: Bartz R. 

Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 

• Cost of compliance exceeding $75 billion. 

Comment ID 1301-1.001.019 

Author Name: Hodge R. 

Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated 

It also failed to account for cost to point and nonpoint sources in Georgia and Alabama, including dairies, that may have 

to provide additional treatment to insure Florida standards are met. 

Comment ID 1431-1.001.035 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

According to Pinellas County staff research, Nutrient Source Tracking studies in an urban environment cost 

approximately $30/acre. Watershed Management Plans cost approximately $80/acre. Pinellas County total acreage 

nears 173,000. Since most of Pinellas County waters would be impaired for nutrients under these proposed criteria, we 

can estimate that: 

-�Nutrient source tracking studies for Pinellas County would cost over $5 million. -�Watershed Management Plans for the 

County would near $14 million. 

-�EPA's own estimated potential costs to bring Pinellas County's South Cross Waste Water Treatment Plants into 

compliance with these standards were over $34 million. 

-�According to documentation on existing urban SSAC, the average cost to provide scientific documentation is over 

$200/acre. Table 1 below represents estimated SSAC costs for Pinellas County Watersheds likely to require SSAC. 

-�These numbers are only inclusive of costs to identify the problems, and solutions to remedy the problems, and do not 

include costs to implement these solutions. As EPA stated, these costs are highly variable and can only be calculated 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5196
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

on a case-by-case basis. 

-�Implementation costs can be conservatively estimated by looking at existing nitrogen and phosphorus removal cost 

data. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection maintains a database of funded Total Maximum Daily Loads 

projects and the associated nitrogen and phosphorus removal costs. According to FDEP data, the 50th percentile cost 

to remove 1 ton of Nitrogen is $1,234, and the 50th percentile cost to remove a ton of Phosphorus is $5,976. Table 2 

below illustrates what removal costs estimates for a selection of Pinellas County Watersheds. Loading data were not 

available for all watersheds. As shown in Table 2, the annual costs to remove nitrogen and phosphorus will be a 

significant expense to the public. 

Comment ID 1688-5.001.007 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Background on Preliminary Cost Estimates 

The Department performed a cost estimate for each source sector identified in the EPA cost estimates. The 

methodology and assumptions used in deriving these estimates are described in detail in the section covering each 

source sector. Table 2 shows the potential source controls employed in the Department's estimate for each source 

sector and the resultant annual costs associated with those controls. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2 - FDEP potential controls and associated annual 

costs for source sectors. See original comment letter. 

Response 

Comment ID: 0884.001.004 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment presenting EPA’s cost estimates. Note that the final criteria do not apply to South 

Florida canals. Also, the area in the Lake Okeechobee watershed boundary is already subject to requirements to reduce nutrients. 

Therefore costs associated with reducing nutrients in that area are not attributable to this rule. See EPA’s economic analysis 

document entitled: “Economic Analysis of Final Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida” 

for further explanation. 

Comment ID: 0899.001.002 

Response: The commenter does not provide an explanation for the underlying data or rationale used to develop the cost estimate 

cited. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5197
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Cost Benefit Analysis Document 

Comment ID: 1301-1.001.019 

Response: See response to comment 1359-1.001.041 in issue category EA_OPO. 

Comment ID: 1431-1.001.035 

Response: Although the commenter does not provide the underlying data or methodology, it appears that the costs cited by the 

commenter are not attributable to this rule. EPA’s analysis indicates that Pinellas County is not within watersheds that would be 

newly identified as impaired under this rule. In addition, existing requirements under Phase 1 MS4 programs are not attributable to 

this rule. 

Comment ID: 1688-5.001.007 

Response: EPA has reviewed the data and analysis provided by the commenter and updated its economic analysis where 

appropriate. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-5198