CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: General Opposition 

Pages 925 - 1108 

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 Opposition 

GEN OPP - GENERAL OPPOSITION 

Comment ID 0186-1.001.004 

Author Name: DuVal C. 

Organization: 

Does the EPA believe that instituting a one-size-fits-all methodology truly benefits the State of Florida? Will this 

proposed rule continue the forward progress the state is making, or will this halt forward progress? 

Comment ID 0186-1.001.008 

Author Name: DuVal C. 

Organization: 

The proposed rule burdens the State of Florida with new regulations that will cost more to implement and that will not fit 

into the path of sustainable agriculture that is this state's vision. Is there a more effective manner in which the EPA can 

support Florida as it works to improve water quality while maintaining and increasing agriculture, industry, and 

recreational use? I urge you to find the more effective method. 

Comment ID 0484.001.001 

Author Name: Redlich P. 

Organization: 

My husband and I have been concerned for sometime regarding the regulations that are being proposed by the EPA. I 

know there are some serious challenges ahead but the impacts from such a proposal would devastate the people it 

affects and far outweigh any environmental benefit. 

This, like everything else the government sticks it's nose into, is rushing into rules that will create regulations that aren't 

scientifically based and the cost in operating and cleanup is cost prohibited. At this time, you don't even know if it will 

produce healthier, ecologically sound surface waters! I really wonder whose interest you are really looking out for...or 

should I say....whose pockets are you trying to fill? I no longer trust anything the government says is "good for us!" We 

certainly know how scientific "global warming" has turned out to be. 

We support a solution allowing DEP to continue research, through a transparent public process, based on scientific 

facts that will consider the natural variability and unique qualities of Florida waters. I'm third generation native to Florida 

and I want the waters clean, I just don't trust what you are doing and they way you are proceeding. 

Citizens have had enough...we are going to be observant of everything in this state that is going on and question every 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-925 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

motive. 

Please feel free to contact us if you would like to further discuss this. 

Comment ID 0491-1.001.006 

Author Name: Yarborough J. 

Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department 

For the above reasons it is strongly recommended that the proposed rule not be approved. 

Questions concerning this memo may be referred to me (telephone 321.952.3410, email yarboj@pbfl.org). This reply 

has also been sent electronically to ow-docket@epa.gov. 

Comment ID 0508-1.001.001 

Author Name: Wilson M. 

Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce 

The Florida Chamber of Commerce has spent the better part of the last year closely following the Environmental 

Protection Agency's actions with regard to the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. Florida's business 

community and taxpayers have been faced with months of uncertainty over the exact nature and scope of the proposed 

rules, uncertainty that could have been alleviated by the release of your agency's proposed rules last month. 

Unfortunately, Floridians were presented with a lengthy, highly-technical rule that created more questions than it 

answered. 

Comment ID 0546.001.001 

Author Name: Rhodenbaugh P. 

Organization: 

After attending the EPA hearings in West Palm Bch on February 18,2010 do not believe the Fed EPA has enough true 

accurate scientific or economic data to set any standards for Florida. I think the FDEP has spent a lot of time and 

money to come up with their findings. I question the reason for using 4 year old photos of Lake Apopka and not 

mentioning conditions improving there since action was taken, to make a point? 

I would hope the EPA is not going to crush our agricultural economy which turn would destroy the economy in Florida to 

meet a number that was created with one broad stroke rather than understanding the different environments in Florida, 

i.e. soil types, water types, etc. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-926 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

We do not wish to become like the San Joaquin Valley in California where the Government enforces its power at any 

cost including livelihoods, economy, and food source. 

Comment ID 0559-1.001.001 

Author Name: Larson J. 

Organization: Okeechobee Area Agri-Council Inc 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of the Okeechobee Ag Council. We are a non-profit group of 

individuals, producers, and industry allies that make it our mission to tell the true story of agriculture in our community, 

region, and state. Our primary concern with the proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida is that the 

proposed regional nutrient criteria ignore the variability of Florida's surface waters. 

Florida is a diverse state, with several soil types and distinct water bodies. As an agricultural association, we agree that 

clean water is necessary for successful production. However, determining the proper numerical water quality standard 

requires sound science and site specific criteria. Without site specific numeric nutrient criteria, healthy water bodies will 

be deemed impaired and resources will be wasted attempting to make those water bodies meet nutrient concentrations 

they would not naturally meet due to their natural diversity. 

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%. 

Our hope was to attend one of the EPA public hearings in the state. However, due to the limited schedule and locations 

we are unable to attend. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments in 

mind. 

Comment ID 0560-1.001.004 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

As responsible agricultural producers, our growers understand the need to protect the quality of our state's waters. We 

have worked proactively with state agencies to achieve reasonable goals and timelines. We thank the Agency for the 

opportunity to express our strong opposition to the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 0562.001.001 

Author Name: Walkinshaw J. 

Organization: Hillsborough River Watershed Alliance 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-927 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Water quality is extremely important to the state of Florida . It is the lifeblood of the state that supports residents, 

tourism, industry, and agriculture. All of these users are part of the economic engine that keeps the state functioning. 

Water has always played an important role in what attracts people to Florida . Tourism continues to be a major part of 

the state's economic health. Water pollution not only impairs our quality of life but can also kill the "golden goose" that 

provides for Florida's tourist interest . 

The HRWA believes in balancing the needs of society and the needs of the environment . We understand the reality of 

maintaining a healthy ecosystem and at the same time, maintain a viable economy. 

As Florida's population began to increase significantly in 1970s, we started to see and understand the ramifications of 

unbridled growth and lack of sensible planning. At the same time, encouraged by a national environmental movement, 

the Florida legislature had the foresight to pass the Water Act of 1972. 

Through federal EPA and the state efforts, a great effort was made to remedy point source pollution . The past thirty 

years have seen the elimination of most of these point sources. However, point pollution as we learned was only part of 

the problem, non-point pollution is now the challenge that requires a major effort. And it is no easy challenge. 

In recent years, Florida has begun a process of identifying impaired water bodies, developing plans to reduce pollution 

loading, and implementing projects and processes to meet established goals. Local regions have initiated processes for 

the planning of solutions . Basin Management Action Plans (BMAP),,and Reasonable Assurance (RA) documents have 

been approved. 

As part of my consulting work, I have been involved in several BMAP/RA processes within the state. They include the 

development of a BMAP in the lower St. Johns River watershed, a RA document for Tampa Bay, and the start of a 

BMAP process in the upper Peace River region. Each of these efforts have taken a different approach but the key has 

been the bringing together of all impacted parties. 

In the Tampa Bay region, a group of local governments, industries, environmental groups, regional regulatory agencies, 

and others have worked for over ten years in developing a plan to reduce nitrogen loading into the Bay. Projects have 

been implemented with more to come. All entities have invested in efforts to reduce their contributions. A revised RA 

document has just received approval. 

The HRWA feels that this process is working well. It has balanced the need for water quality improvement in Tampa 

Bay while maintaining the economic engine of the region. We are seeing the results of the cooperative effort to improve 

water quality in Tampa Bay and its tributaries. 

We have even seen smaller communities like the city of Winter Haven develop their own plans and implement projects 

to improve the water quality in their Chain of Lakes. They have gotten out ahead of the regional BMAP development to 

improve their lakes which support fishing and recreational boating activities that are so important to the local economy. 

Central Florida has also seen an effort by the mining industry to reduce pollution, improve land reclamation processes, 

and provide conservation easements to allow for improved filtering of stormwater. Mines now recycle up to 90 percent 

of their water use which reduces runoff from mined lands. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-928 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Before implementing the federal standards, we encourage the EPA to allow these community-based efforts to continue. 

We do expect the EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to continue their support of 

these efforts and set specific deadlines for completion of plans and implementation of the proposed projects and 

activities. Obviously, the planning process cannot go on forever. 

We ask that the EPA allow these community processes to continue while monitoring the progress and setting 

reasonable deadlines. This will let local communities move forward with water quality improvements while maintaining a 

viable economy. 

Comment ID 0566.001.001 

Author Name: Friend J. 

Organization: 

I attended the Feb. 17, 2010 hearing in Orlando on the EPA's intrusion into the State of Florida. This note is to express 

my opposition to any federal attempt to usurp states' rights in this manner. Florida has its own DEP and is spending its 

money to protect our resources to the satisfaction of our residents. We don't need Washington telling us how to live. I 

would support a constitutional challenge to any EPA ruling re: Florida's waters. 

Comment ID 0567.001.001 

Author Name: McAvoy G. 

Organization: University of Florida 

I am writing to comment on and express my opposition to the proposed imposition of nutrient numeric standards on the 

state of Florida. 

Comment ID 0581.001.001 

Author Name: Swope T. 

Organization: 

I am deeply concerned about new stringent water quality regulations being proposed by the EPA for Florida's surface 

waters. While water quality degradation of Florida's surface waters from nutrient over enrichment remains a significant 

challenge, the economic impacts from the proposed regulations would be devastating and far outweigh any 

environmental benefits. 

The EPA is rushing into rulemaking that will create regulations that are not scientifically based and therefore result in 

higher operating and cleanup costs that may not be effective in producing healthier, ecologically sound surface waters. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-929 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

I support a sensible solution that allows the DEP to continue developing, thorough a transparent public process, 

science-based standards that consider the natural variability and unique qualities of Florida's waters. 

Comment ID 0584-1.001.004 

Author Name: Holly C. 

Organization: Florida Association of Counties 

For all of these reasons, FAC urges EPA to proceed in a deliberative fashion in order to find a solution that makes 

sense both economically and for the environment. FAC has worked closely with the Florida Water Environment 

Association (FWEA) Utility Council and the Florida Stormwater Association to understand the implications and 

associated costs for county wastewater and stormwater utilities. Both entities have a significant amount of technical 

expertise available to them. Therefore, FAC respectfully requests that you carefully consider their written and verbal 

comments. 

Comment ID 0588.001.001 

Author Name: Gallagher J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

Pasco County has numerous concerns with the proposed numeric nutrient crieria for lakes and flowing waters in 

Florida, and objects to the adoption of the criteria for the reasons set forth in the attached comments from the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. 

Comment ID 0590.001.010 

Author Name: Conner R. 

Organization: Lakeland Water Utilities 

The funding that will be spent in opposing and defending this unrealistic mandate would be better spent on true 

scientific understanding of the specifics of water in Florida. It is also apparent that addressing States where this study is 

not as advanced as is the present situation in Florida would make better use of the EPA's limited funds and manpower. 

We are asking that this action be formally withdrawn. 

Comment ID 0591.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-930 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

This is the kind of federal interference in the lives of ordinary Americans that most citizens oppose. It is the result of a 

government that now believes it knows best what people need and to hell with what they actually want. 

Environmental zealots have taken over the EPA and are determined to destroy the lives of millions of residents of 

Florida for some supposed, unproven improvement in water quality. 

The result will be massive disruption in the lives of many who are already barely hanging on, huge government 

expenditures or forced individual expenditures that may have little or no effect on water quality, and resultant tax 

increases that almost nobody in the current economy can afford. 

If anyone at the EPA actually cares about the lives of those who are living NOW, as opposed to the lives they purport to 

care about and are thus "saving the planet" for those who will be living 100 years from now, they will stop this madness 

and conduct actual scientific tests before taking such drastic steps. 

A recession verging upon depression is no time to be making these reckless moves whose principal and certain effect 

will be more destruction in the lives of ordinary citizens. Only officials who are indifferent to the plight of these people 

will continue on this course of regulation without regard to actual outcome. 

Comment ID 0592.001.001 

Author Name: Wittkamp M. 

Organization: 

I am deeply concerned about new stringent water quality regulations being proposed by the EPA for Florida's surface 

waters. While water quality degradation of Florida's surface waters from nutrient over enrichment remains a significant 

challenge, the economic impacts from the proposed regulations would be devastating and far outweigh any 

environmental benefits. 

The EPA is rushing into rulemaking that will create regulations that are not scientifically based and therefore result in 

higher operating and cleanup costs that may not be effective in producing healthier, ecologically sound surface waters. 

I support a sensible solution that allows the DEP to continue developing, thorough a transparent public process, 

science-based standards that consider the natural variability and unique qualities of Florida's waters. 

Comment ID 0594.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

I am deeply concerned about new stringent water quality regulations being proposed by the EPA for Florida's surface 

waters. While water quality degradation of Florida's surface waters from nutrient over enrichment remains a significant 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-931 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

challenge, the economic impacts from the proposed regulations would be devastating and far outweigh any 

environmental benefits. 

The EPA is rushing into rulemaking that will create regulations that are not scientifically based and therefore result in 

higher operating and cleanup costs that may not be effective in producing healthier, ecologically sound surface waters. 

I support a sensible solution that allows the DEP to continue developing, thorough a transparent public process, 

science-based standards that consider the natural variability and unique qualities of Florida's waters. 

Comment ID 0595.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

I am deeply concerned about new stringent water quality regulations being proposed by the EPA for Florida's surface 

waters. While water quality degradation of Florida's surface waters from nutrient over enrichment remains a significant 

challenge, the economic impacts from the proposed regulations would be devastating and far outweigh any 

environmental benefits. 

The EPA is rushing into rulemaking that will create regulations that are not scientifically based and therefore result in 

higher operating and cleanup costs that may not be effective in producing healthier, ecologically sound surface waters. 

I support a sensible solution that allows the DEP to continue developing, thorough a transparent public process, 

science-based standards that consider the natural variability and unique qualities of Florida's waters. 

Comment ID 0596.001.007 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

Failed Rule-Making Process 

This rushed process has resulted in a flawed rule that fails on political, economic, scientific and ascetic levels . The rulemaking process needs to restart with public involvement to craft an appropriate and useable rule. 

Comment ID 0607.001.001 

Author Name: Padgett R. 

Organization: Clay County Farm Bureau 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of Clay county Farm Bureau. Florida Farm Bureau is the state's 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-932 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

largest general agricultural organization with more than 140,000 memberfamilies. My primary concern with the 

proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida is that the proposed regional nutrient criteria ignore the 

variability of Florida's surface waters. 

Florida is a diverse state, with several soil types and distinct water bodies. As an agricultural association, I agree that 

clean water is necessary for successful production. However, determining the proper numerical water quality standard 

requires sound science and site specific criteria. Without site specific numeric nutrient criteria, healthy water bodies will 

be deemed impaired and resources will be wasted attempting to make those water bodies meet nutrient concentrations 

they would not naturally meet due to their natural diversity. 

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%. 

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. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments in 

mind. 

Comment ID 0608.001.001 

Author Name: Buckley M. 

Organization: 

I believe (and try to do my share of recycling, etc.) in conservation and environmental protection! However, these 

particular regulations appear to me to be excessive in their diligence to conserve and protect. 

Comment ID 0620.001.001 

Author Name: Kelly H. 

Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party 

MR. KELLY: Henry Kelly. Fort Walton Beach Florida Tea Party. Fort Walton Beach, Florida is home of the newest 

wastewater plant in the United States. On behalf of the Fort Walton Tea Party, we would like to register our objections 

to the proposed regulations. 

Comment ID 0621.001.001 

Author Name: Kaplan M. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

MR. KAPLAN: Good morning. My name is Mark Kaplan, and I am a vice-president with Mosaic Fertilizer. Thank you all 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-933 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

for doing this morning. I'll keep it brief. I know you have a packed agenda, and I'll save much the detail. 

You know, Mr. Keating's presentation this morning was actually very well done. And from Mosaic's perspectives we 

absolutely support the efforts to protect the waters from harmful and excessive nutrients, but we believe that the 

proposed rule misapplies the science and swings too blunt of an instrument and too indiscriminate to manage. 

Comment ID 0624.001.002 

Author Name: May F. 

Organization: 

We try to be good stewards of the land and the water. We have to fertilize some. You can't grow anything in Florida but 

kudzu if you don't fertilize. And we belong to this management practice. We subscribe to it, and as Mr. Hackney said, 

was something that you helped write. And we meet the minimums here. 

But after spending I don't know how much money, millions of dollars moving dirt around so we can catch all of our runoff, which we do, I would say 95 percent of it -- now we're hit with minimums that rain waters won't even face. And it 

looks to me like if this goes through, my sons who will be the sixth generation farmers will be the last generation. This 

will totally kill agriculture in the state of Florida, and Lord only knows what it will do to develop, but it will certainly kill 

agriculture, because there's no way we can meet these minimums. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0625.001.004 

Author Name: Hackney G. 

Organization: Hackney Nursery 

Everything we do is directed towards catching our run-off. We're making every effort that we can to be good stewards to 

the land, but even after doing this I'm concerned that we can't meet these proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 0627.001.006 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida, the Florida Minerals and Chemistry Counsel, and the Florida Poultry 

Federation 

If EPA is not satisfied with Florida's work in terming appropriate interpretation of the narrowing nutrient standard then 

EPA should help, rather than force, allocation of public or private resources to this flawed approach. We would like to 

see EPA set this entire effort aside and give whatever support is requested by the Florida DEP to further the 

implementation of our TMDL program. However, we remain hopeful and in a way that EPA will resolve the water quality 

issue in a way to have both scientifically defendable and realistically achievable goals. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-934 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 0628.001.001 

Author Name: Land R. 

Organization: 

MR. LAND: Good morning. I am Rod Land, Franklin County, Florida; fifth generation farmer. My son is the sixth. Sadly, 

he could be the last. I stand here this morning with some emotions raging within me and a feeling of utter helplessness, 

because with the implementation of this proposed rule, I have absolutely no control of my destiny. 

I have been actively involved living in the Suwanee Basin on water quality issues since the late eighties. I've also been 

proud to say we were one of the first that signed onto BMPs and technologies to give us assurance that we were not 

and would not be a problem, and we continued to carry those out today. I tell folks that rather than be an environmental 

activist, I've been an active environmentalist. I've spent my own resources to insure myself and my neighbors that I am 

not a problem. 

With that said, as I look forward and look back, I've always believed that farming was risky at best, a crap shoot at 

worst. I've had faith in my God that he would not let Mother Nature put more than on us than we could bear. I've had 

enough confidence in my fellow farmers that somebody would figure out a way to deal with volatile markets that we 

could survive. So far we have. 

My worst fear has always been that some regulatory agency would come down with an unobtainable regulation that 

would be the hammer to drive the nails in our coffin. As I stand here today and I look at this regulation, where the 

experts tell me that even our timberlands cannot meet this regulation, I see that hammer. I am only a heartbeat away 

with this adoption from an overzealous regulatory employee or an environmental activist group and a lawsuit driving that 

last nail in my coffin, because I have not the financial resources to fight that battle. 

Comment ID 0632.001.001 

Author Name: Hodge R. 

Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated 

Excuse my direction, but Ray Hodge with Southeast Mill, but I had my niece make this poster, but it gives you a sense 

of four sample water bodies that I'll talk about. 

Again, Ray Hodge with Southeast Mill. You have heard earlier from one of my friends and farmers that are members of 

Southeast Mill. He is one of about 116 dairy farms in Florida that produces the fresh local milk supply that you buy at 

your local retailers in the state of Florida. We also have members outside of the state of Florida, predominately in 

Georgia. I will provide more detailed comments through expensive lawyers and engineers; money that would be better 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-935 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

spent on the ground looking at research and technologies to try and attempt to maybe, maybe, meet a portion of this 

rule. But instead, this portion is being spent in other resources. But that's the fact of life that's before us today. 

Comment ID 0632.001.005 

Author Name: Hodge R. 

Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated 

You'll hear quotes from other folks about compliance. You've showed photos of those algal blooms. These are some 

photos of these 80 percent of the most pristine water bodies located in state of Florida that will not meet your criteria. 

That really concerns me and sets us up for serious concerns in the end. In the end who is going to pay the bill -- to flip 

the bill? Farmers have no control on prices, and the consumer will scream if milk goes up 20 cents a gallon. So how are 

we going to justify how the implementation of these rules and still not be protected. Last but not least, is EPA going to 

protect us from lawsuits? These same impatient groups that will not let a team approach work are still going to be there. 

When these numeric nutrient criteria are becoming law at the end of October, are you going to be there to protect us 

liability wise? What is going to keep them from three months, six months to not go to the courts again, which has 

rewarded their impatience and sue you-all again. Is that what you want? So please realize those are the serious 

ramifications that your legal decisions are putting on our legal expenses that we in the industry are going to have to 

face. Last but not least, right now as we speak, there are thousands of folks working to feed us through society so you 

have a cheap, affordable, safe food supply. Let's keep them working for us and not let a rule like this put us out of 

business which harms you the ultimate consumer. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0640.001.003 

Author Name: Dudley S. 

Organization: Florida League of Cities in Tallahassee 

This recovery could lead to a huge waste, extremely scarce resources, local governments like the rest of the state or 

nation are cutting the work forces to delay improvement and undergoing serious belt-tightening. We do not have the 

money or manpower to deal with this huge unwanted headache. Local governments are forced to spend resources 

cleaning up water bodies that are not really impaired. 

Comment ID 0641.001.004 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Clean water is crucial to Florida's future, and assuring these water bodies is a justifiable cause. This is why the state 

has taken a proactive approach to protect our lakes, streams, and estuaries. The agricultural community is proud to 

take part in which to contribute to fixing the water degradation, and it is imperative, however, to insure the primary 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-936 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

objective is both effective and yet feasible. The EPA's proposed nutrient criteria or potentially devastating economically 

and are also seen as unobtainable. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0644.001.007 

Author Name: Janazzo J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners 

We've been doing our part. We've built new plants, 60, $72 million wastewater upgrades in the last four years. We've 

reduced our total nitrous by a factor of ten. We've consolidated city and military systems. We've mandated sewer 

connections, utilized reclaimed water for irrigation. We've extensive application of the TMDLs. We really don't think that 

one size fits all is a good way to go. 

Comment ID 0646.001.008 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

This rule, furthermore, totally discounts the work being done by the citizens of Florida to improve water quality. Many 

citizen groups such as the Choctawhatchee Basin Alliance, volunteer agencies, philanthropies, and local government 

work diligently alongside state and federal agencies to sustain our environment and protect it for the use of future 

generations. In Northwest Florida, major steps have been taken in the last 20 years to help improve water quality. 

Comment ID 0646.001.009 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

Even the EPA recognizes this by stating that the waters in the Panhandle are the best in the state. That did not just 

happen by accident or serendipity. That happened by the hard work and dedication of many, many people. EPA needs 

to get away from the Panhandle and let us carry on our work. 

Comment ID 0650.001.005 

Author Name: Cox J. 

Organization: City of Tallahassee 

Hi, I'm John Cox. I'm with the City of Tallahassee Stormwater Management Group. I am here representing underground 

utilities for the City of Tallahassee, and I'm primarily here to express our concern for the flowing waters standards that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-937 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

you are proposing, but also in terms of the lake protection values which we're still looking at as we speak here. I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd also like to thank DEP. They've been really great about listening to us and 

other people. And they've worked long and hard and deserve some well-needed respect. 

Comment ID 0654.001.001 

Author Name: Durbin D. 

Organization: 

Good afternoon. I'm Doug Durbin at 3905 Crescent Park Drive in Riverview, Florida. I'm a technical director with 

ENTRIX, and I've got 17 years of direct experience with Florida lakes, streams, and estuaries as well as a doctorate in 

limnology from Clemson University. I've done a lot of work in the water bodies of Florida, mostly focused on nutrient 

issues and also on biological responses, primarily invertebrates and algae. My dissertation work focused on algal 

ecosystems. I'm also a member of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Florida DEP as part of this ongoing process 

to develop numeric nutrient criteria, and have watched it through its infancy through today. I appreciate the time and the 

effort that EPA has put into developing proposed criteria for the State of Florida, but based on my professional 

experience and my tenure as a TAC member to DEP and a thorough review of the proposed nutrient criteria from EPA 

as well as the underlying technical support documents, I have very serious concerns. 

Comment ID 0655.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer F. 

Organization: Clay County Utility Authority 

Good afternoon. My name is Frederick Aschauer. I'm with the law firm of Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley. I'm here on 

behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority. With me today, in fact following me, will be David Bolam, who is the chief 

engineer of the Clay County Utility Authority. The Clay County Utility Authority shares many of the concerns that have 

been expressed to you all today. We will address those in writing before the comment period expires. 

Comment ID 0660.001.003 

Author Name: Ward G. 

Organization: 

I've been involved professionally in water resources in Florida since 1965. I was born here before the war. And I'm also 

past president of the Florida section of the American Water Resources Association, during our 25th year in 1996, so 

we're now coming up on four decades of an association that is government, consultants, all types of folks that practice 

in water resources. And I think it's important for you to recognize what I'll say later. What you are doing was actually 

required by you in 1973 with an extensive report for a large hundred-square-mile water control district in Lee and 

Hendry Counties. That's in southwest Florida. This document focused on not only chemical but biological water quality 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-938 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

criteria, and we made changes in that hundred-square-mile district which was partially in response to EPA's queries. So 

it was a practical exercise. 

This becomes more of a paperwork exercise which I think is extensive, and it will not necessarily produce the results, 

which is what we have been trying to do in Florida for decades. The 57 pages of the federal register are just a fraction 

of the -- what I now see yesterday was 585 documents already filed in this docket. And if you take a look at them, 

almost all of them are prepared by people of Florida. The documents that you put in the record to start with are Florida 

generated. So we do have some experience in this process. 

Now we understand that this administration did not sort of put you in the coffin. This is a 14, January, 2009 letter which 

was the prior administration. So we're not wanting to blame EPA today, the staff, because it may have been not -- sort 

of a hastily generated set of orders a year ago. But we do want to proceed with the fact that that document was so tight 

that Florida ran into a brick wall with your Agency this year. 

Comment ID 0662.001.001 

Author Name: Spitzer K. 

Organization: Florida Stormwater Association 

I'm Kurt Spitzer with the Florida Stormwater Association, and I guess I sort of wish that I wasn't here because, you 

know, opposing this rule makes it seem as though we don't care about improving water quality, and that's really not the 

case. I mean we've been about water quality improvements for 15 or 20 years now. But we think that it needs to be 

done scientifically right with robust science and taking into consideration a wide variety of factors, one of which I think is 

that you need to remember that Florida has, in my view, the best stormwater, surface water quality improvement 

programs certainly in the southeast, probably in the country. 

Comment ID 0663.001.005 

Author Name: Richardson D. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

Fourthly, you'll hear comments later from David Chiles of Hopping, Green. He's representing the Florida Water 

Environmental Association Utility Council. We are a member of that Council. We support those comments. Thank you 

very much for receiving our comments. 

Comment ID 0665.001.006 

Author Name: Parsons P. 

Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-939 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

I want to concur with the statements made today by Kevin Carter on behalf of the South Florida Water Management 

District. I also want to concur with other statements made by members of the South Florida Water Management District 

staff and board. I'm relying on press accounts of these. If they're not accurate, I apologize, but we agree with these. 

Doctor Redfield, who I believe is the Director of Research at the District considered the rules, your proposal to be 

nonsensical. Shannon Essinaw (phonetics) is the governing board member, who is the most outspoken environmental 

advocate on the Board described the rule proposal as kooky. Jerry Montgomery, probably one of the more moderate 

Board members, described the proposal as insane. I don't know if those are accurate quotes, but if they are, we 

certainly agree with them. 

Comment ID 0666.001.006 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

So I would ask that you all reconsider this and let us continue to produce the safest, most wholesome food in the world 

and, by far, the cheapest. Thank y'all very much for listening. 

Comment ID 0666.001.007 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

Cattle people have always felt that they were the stewards of the land. A lot of these families own these ranches. These 

are both family and corporate-owned ranches in Florida. I don't know if you know this, but Florida has more ranches of 

five hundred head than any other state in the country. When you go to five thousand head, we leave everybody in the 

dust. It's unreal. So we still have the big ranches in the state. Those big ranches provide a lot of the needed area for 

some of this cleanup, the nutrients, things that occur; also, wildlife habitat and other things. What's been done on these 

ranches over the years has been done in accordance with regulation and/or science that we have, fertilizer science 

mostly. And it seems a little hard for me to get my hands around -- or my arms around the fact that we're going to be 

required now to clean something up that we did that was right at the time of doing it. The cost of that -- if it's for 

everybody, then everybody needs to clean it up, not just the landowners. The landowners, they're going to foot the bill 

on the biggest part of this. Before it's over, that's what will happen, if they can. And let's face it, I think everybody would 

rather have ranches than concrete. That's what's going to happen. If we break these big ranches up, like this last land 

boom was doing, they will go to concrete. The people will go somewhere else and do what they love to do, and that's 

ranching. 

Comment ID 0667.001.001 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-940 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: 

My name is Cindy Rowe Littlejohn, and I have lived in Florida all of my life. I'm from a little rural town just east of 

Tallahassee, and I am the eighth generation of my family to be raised there. I grew up like most Floridians swimming, 

fishing, and boating in Florida. Currently, I'm 56 years old. I would like to tell you some of what I've witnessed. What I 

have to say won't be scientifically based, and yet whatever you do, it should be scientifically based. It is my wish that as 

a servant of the people that you do what is right and do not overly tax our systems of government here in Florida 

without good reason. When I was about five years old, I was with my family near Jasper, Florida, and we were near a 

pond. My cousins and I were running and playing while we were out for a walk with the rest. Because I was so young, I 

mistakenly continued running right out into a pond that was green with algae. My parents then called it pond scum. I 

disappeared and my mother's brother had to jump in to save me. I thought that the pond scum was simply an extension 

of the grass. I came out a slimey mess. My point is that we have been dealing with algae for generations in this State. 

This happened sometime around the late '50s, early '60s, over 50 years ago. Today my husband and I deal with algae 

all the time. Our pool turns green if we don't treat it with chemicals, and it happens pretty quickly in Florida in the 

summertime. Our little water fountain has to be treated as well. If water sits in this State, it turns green. Since we have 

been going through a significant drought with low flows all over the State, I wonder how much of this algae is due to 

these conditions. So that is a scientific question. Our Florida DEP has been trying to answer this question and many 

others for years. Like good citizens, they were doing their best to determine a cause and effect between our conditions 

and the health of our water bodies. It was a daunting task. Our state has over 55,000 miles of rivers, streams, and 

creeks. Florida has over 75 hundred lakes that are more than ten acres. We have over 27 hundred miles of shoreline. 

And to add to DEP's workload in the decade of the 1990s, Florida's population grew almost 24 percent. Florida has 

spent over $20 million of our hard-earned tax dollars trying to gather this data, set benchmarks, and find answers. But 

this wasn't fast enough for some people, including you, our own nation's EPA. You began giving us what I thought were 

unreachable deadlines. 

Comment ID 0667.001.003 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

Organization: 

If we blindly follow your lead, this State is headed for decades of cleanup and replumbing that may not and probably 

won't fix the problem. Florida's companies, its governments, and its residents will be paying the tab no matter what, 

whether we simply give in and put the procedures in play or whether we go to court. My guess is that our State will have 

to take you to court because we cannot afford to do otherwise. 

Comment ID 0667.001.005 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

Organization: 

My suggestion is to go back to Washington and please start over and work closer with our Florida Department of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-941 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Environmental Protection. They understand our geography, our geology, our waters and our people better; and they'll 

get the job done with a lot less pain to all of us. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0671.001.005 

Author Name: Leary P. 

Organization: North Florida Growers Exchange 

We've worked very hard, and these guys are now accepting -- you know, you're talking about 50 farm families that have 

been farming probably, you know, over 50, 70 years. We've worked very hard to come to an agreement and get these 

farmers to buy in in this process to implement these BMPs so that what we've been telling them is that, you know, 

you've got this presumption of water quality compliance. And we're there, and we're doing it, and it's -- you know, I think 

we're getting very, very positive results. 

What you're proposing will put these farmers out of business, absolutely. They cannot meet these standards. It's 

impossible. And so, you know, when we met last week, I can't -- I asked them, I said: What do you want me to tell the 

EP representatives? Well, I can't repeat it in public, but I'll try to paraphrase it for you. They basically said, tell them to 

go back to the drawing board and work with the Florida DEP in the programs, the numeric -- or the nutrient programs, 

through the TMDLs and the BMAP programs they have for those impaired water bodies in the State, to do something 

that's workable and reasonable and give us time to implement these things. 

You know, I think that, you know, we've got to look at some practicality of this. And, you know, it's very near and dear 

and personal to me. I grew up in that area and worked on those farms in high school and college and, you know, I feel 

honored that I can come back and represent them today. But, you know, the solution to this: Withdraw the rule, and let's 

go back and try to do something that works and that long-term is practical and doesn't put, you know, these farmers out 

of business. I mean, you know, we're spending millions and trillions of dollars, you know, fighting terrorism, you know, 

all over the world and yet we're about to strangle our farmers, you know, and food production in this country to the point 

where we can't compete. And, you know, ladies and gentlemen, that is a tragedy from a national security standpoint. 

And I've heard it said by many congressmen and certainly in the Florida delegation how important this is. And so I 

implore you, from the farmers that I represent, you know, let's go back to the drawing board. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0674.001.003 

Author Name: Bishop B. 

Organization: Associated Industries of Florida 

Point Number 2 is that many Floridians don't support your unilateral initiatives. 23 of the 25 members of the Florida 

Congressional Delegation have already written a letter to EPA, to Lisa Jackson, protesting, both Democrats and 

Republicans, so it's bipartisan, and they think that these standards are ludicrous. Second, two former DEP secretaries, 

a coalition of concerned citizens, businesses and stakeholders have formed a group called Don't Tax Florida. 81 groups 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-942 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

object to these overly stringent standards and the stuff that Mr. Fuller was just talking about. And DEP has proposed 

more reasonable standards, ladies and gentlemen, but y'all have rejected every one of them and you're about to try to 

design an almost perfect environment, an environment, ladies and gentlemen, that doesn't exist any more and we will 

never get back to. So in the end, I'd like to talk about a number of objections. 

Comment ID 0674.001.007 

Author Name: Bishop B. 

Organization: Associated Industries of Florida 

I would just like to make one last argument; and that is, that if you don't buy anything else that I have to say, here's my 

final argument: These standards are absolutely perfect. They're wonderful. They're great. You should implement them. 

Don't wait until October 2011. Do them tomorrow because I don't want you to just screw Florida, I want you to screw the 

entire country with these kind of standards. And I don't mean that derogatively, I'm just trying to impress upon you how 

important, how expensive we think this is and how stupid we think that any agency would suggest that Florida be the 

only state that has to meet these standards. Let's do it for all the country, because if this is what you guys think is the 

whole enchilada, what you think is really perfect, then let's do it to the entire country. Thank you very much. And, again, 

we appreciate you being here. 

Comment ID 0675.001.006 

Author Name: Childs D. 

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

So in closing, just as alchemist will never successfully turn copper into gold, you can't massage these criteria into 

scientifically defensible standard. Instead, you're going to harm Floridians, undo Florida's sophisticated TMDL program, 

and you're going to harm the environment they live on. So on behalf of the Utilities I represent, I ask you to simply stop 

what you're doing and work your way out of this corner you've painted yourself into. Let our state continue to lead its 

peers in protecting the environment from nutrient pollution. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0676.001.001 

Author Name: Alves J. 

Organization: Florida Coordinating Group 

So we urge you to regroup. This is very poorly conceived, and it absolutely should not go forward. It's a big mistake and 

we urge you to change course. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0680.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-943 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Meadows A. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

The EPA's federal intervention disrupts the water quality restoration efforts. The federal numeric nutrient criteria will be 

state water quality standards that forms the basis for ongoing restoration programs, such as the numerous total 

maximum daily load initiative. 

Comment ID 0683.001.005 

Author Name: May R. 

Organization: 

And a couple of remarks in response to other folks' remarks. The 2005 photos. 2005 if you were a farmer in Florida are 

you know that it was an extremely out of characteristically hot year, and a very dry year with lots of forest fires. Algal 

blooms happen more in drought years. And I also would like to know who I need to call to receive my check for 

complying with best management practices because they owe me about 12 years of back checks. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0684.001.006 

Author Name: Fraleigh J. 

Organization: 

I'll a sixth generation farmer in Madison County. We farm some of the same crop that were just mentioned earlier. I 

have two sons, two teenagers that have the desire to come back home, live in Florida, love Florida like is it today. But to 

think that agriculture is here and does not have any concern about what is going on with nitrates and things of that 

nature is absurd. So what I would ask you to do is reconsider, and on top of that is communicate with existing water 

management districts, Florida Department of Agriculture, and Florida Nursery Growers Association. They have a lot of 

things they can offer you for good science. 

Comment ID 0684.001.007 

Author Name: Fraleigh J. 

Organization: 

I would like to say that in moving away from my written criteria here, I was involved in living in East North Carolina with 

the Noose River Basin Act. They put in implementation of a proposal very similar to this in nitrate, and it came down to 

not only implementation but interpretation as to what you are going to determine in reducing nitrites in that water. It was 

very convoluted and very, I guess, not user-friendly. It put most of the bearing on the agricultural use. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-944 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0685.001.003 

Author Name: Gmeiner S. 

Organization: Clint Nurseries 

We at Clint nurseries of Florida, members of the Florida Nursery Grower and Association strongly oppose this 

standards, and all of the devastating effects it will have on our agricultural industry. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0686.001.001 

Author Name: Babington A. 

Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce 

Good evening. My name is Adam Babington. I'm the director of the Government Affairs for the Florida Chamber of 

Commerce. We represent over 139,000 businesses over the state of Florida, and about over a hundred local Chambers 

of Commerce that represent all facets of Florida industry. Yesterday, our President, Mark Wilson, submitted a letter to 

EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, via an e-mail outlining and some of the concerns we have and echoing some of the 

concerns we have Florida Congressional Delegation, so I'm not going to spend time talking about those this evening. 

Comment ID 0686.001.002 

Author Name: Babington A. 

Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce 

I want to talk about one of the recurring things we've heard to reiterate. This is not about clean water. We all want clean
 

water. From agriculture to water utilities to the business community to the conservation community, everyone here
 

wants clean water. This is about science and economics and how we get to the goal of clean water.
 

Let me share with you some reaction that has been published to this rule:
 

It's based on the flawed science.
 

It's not scientifically valid.
 

It's based on inaccurate presumptions.
 

It's over simplified.
 

It's arbitrary.
 

This isn't the business community that said this. This isn't agriculture that said this. This is Florida Department of
 

Environmental Protection that said this. This is their reaction to this rule. And the Agency charged with protecting
 

Florida water has come out and said this about this rule.
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-945 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0690.001.002 

Author Name: Beshears H. 

Organization: 

My family and I support the efforts to protect water quality resources. We support the adoption of numeric nutrient 

criteria as well as they're scientifically based. What you have here, what you're proposing is technically and scientifically 

unsupported, and economically unattainable. Lastly, these proposed standards appear to be a knee-jerk reaction. This 

is based on coming up with a half-hearted attempt of following through. I think we all know with making quick decisions 

without contemplation in science is always dangerous. Without science makes facts and consequences are easily 

ignored if you don't live here. You must have analysis and consideration, and consider the long-term ripple effect -­

pardon the pun -- of these proposed standards. My kids and I will not remain residents of this state if something like this 

goes through. They're unreasonable, they're unattainable, and that would be one more reason for me and my family to 

close up shop and leave the state. When we leave, jobs go with us. Monies go with us. Taxes goes with us. Future 

residents of our state goes with us. Just carefully consider what you're proposing here. Gather scientific evidence. 

Comment ID 0695.001.003 

Author Name: Grane C. 

Organization: Marion County Water Conservation District 

Let's get it right and work with DEP and work with the citizens who have made the big steps in agriculture. I, for one, 

don't want to buy my milk and my oranges from Brazil. I want them in Florida, and I think most citizens feel that way. 

And it can be done, so it's a matter of getting it right. It's a complicated issue. Let the engineers. We did the first plans 

for equine testing in the state of Florida and they're not contaminated. You know, it's so low in nitrogen it's very clean 

compared to many other agriculture industries. So I want to thank you for being here with the attention to the problem, 

but let's make sure we really have intelligent regulations, and each situation is unique. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0698.001.002 

Author Name: Provenzano S. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Mosaic has conducted a thorough review of the proposed rule. In our view, the proposed rule is overly stringent, too 

rigid and out of touch with actual conditions in Florida waters. For example, under the proposed rule 80 percent of 

pristine streams identified by DEP and 96 percent of all Florida streams would be characterized as impaired. 

Comment ID 0698.001.006 

Author Name: Provenzano S. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-946 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Mosaic is currently in the process of preparing detailed comments for submittal to EPA on the proposed rule. Our 

objective in submitting these comments includes stating our commitment to a constructive dialogue with EPA, as well as 

other stakeholders, to assist EPA and FDEP to achieve true environmental protection based on sound science and sitespecific conditions and to create a rule that balances the burden of compliance with the true needs of the receiving 

waters, to provide EPA with concrete and scientifically well-grounded solutions to the challenges inherent in setting 

nutrient criteria and making sure that we are utilizing a process that stresses good science over an artificial time line. 

Among the comments EPA can anticipate from Mosaic are: One, what are the proper instream and downstream 

protective value criteria that should be set and on what technical or scientific grounds. What flaws we perceive in EPA's 

methodologies and how Mosaic believes they can and should be corrected. Specific suggestions to ensure that the 

different forms of flexibility provided in the current rulemaking which actually work, that they can be implemented, and 

that the communities, businesses, industries and agricultural sectors of the Florida economy can comply with 

appropriate protective numeric criteria. Finally, we want to make sure that we build upon the good use -- excuse me -­

that we build upon and make good use of all that has been learned and accomplished in the TMDL Estuary Programs 

across the state. 

Comment ID 0700.001.001 

Author Name: Wright J. 

Organization: 

My name is Joe Wright and I'm not a technical guy. I'm just a dairy farmer. I operate my wife's family dairy. We're third 

generation. I've been in the same location in Hardee County, Florida since 1964. In 1990 we voluntarily approached the 

State of Florida environmental regulators. I want to repeat. Voluntarily approached the regulators. We wanted a permit 

and got a wastewater permit and then later an NDSS permit. Since 1990 we spent two million dollars of our own money 

on environmental infrastructure. In that same 20 years we spent over one million dollars operating that environmental 

infrastructure. In 1998 we were awarded the Florida Commissioner of Agricultural's Environmental Ag Leadership 

Award. We have so much wildlife that lives on and visits our farm, you'd have to give me a half hour to talk, about it. We 

remain proactive. This past fall looking at some of our national policy, some of it I believe misguided, like using corn for 

ethanol instead of feeding people and cows. We converted our dairy form from a combining facility to a rotational 

grazing facility. We absolutely are state-of-the-art. You cannot get more environmentally friendly than our dairy farm is. 

But I am very, very worried about this rule. First of all, it seems like it's an indictment of the Florida DEP. And I want to 

tell you something. I have dealt with them and their predecessors for 20 years. They have not always been easy to deal 

with, but they've always been fair. And, frankly, we've learned together over the last 20 years. And I think that's worth 

something. (Applause.) And my real concern -- I mean, there's a lot of people in this room that claim they're 

environmentalist, that claim they're conservationists. I put my three million dollars where my money is. And I don't want 

to be collateral damage from changing the rules. I'm somewhat encouraged by Mr. Keating, I guess it is, saying there 

will be some kind of option for site-specific criteria. I hope someone or myself is given that opportunity and it doesn't 

cost me another three million, because I won't spend it. Okay? But one parting comment. I am somewhat concerned 

that this is more a battle of ideology than it is either science or economics. And I know it's another -- it's not -- it's not 

what's at issue today, but it is your agency. I want to get back to this corn ethanol thing. We recently had two or three of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-947 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

the largest corn crops ever. We used one-third -- we've taken it away from feeding people, away from feeding animals -­

and, by the way, it's cost me a lot of money. Corn used to be two-and-a-quarter a bushel. It now goes for three-fifty and 

it hit a high of seven-sixty. I've grown corn. I know the water requirements, I know the nitrogen requirements. And how 

the Environmental Protection Agency can think that that's part of saving the environment to use it for corn ethanol for 

fuel is beyond me. So I'm going to do this very leary. Y'all don't have much credibility with me. So I do hope that it's not 

just an ideological battle. I do hope you really partner with the Florida DEP because, frankly, they know what they're 

doing. 

Comment ID 0701.001.005 

Author Name: Forward D. 

Organization: Titusville Patriots 

But listen. In parting, we, the people, have been taxed enough already. We do not need any new cost for this 

environmental stuff. The EPA is always giving us stuff. The government is always handing out things to us. It's time we 

hand you something back. We, the people, give you the Constitution. 

Comment ID 0703.001.001 

Author Name: Morrissey J. 

Organization: Pinellas County Utilities 

Joseph Morrissey, Pinellas County Utilities. I speak in opposition to the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. I represent 

Pinellas County Utilities. 

Comment ID 0706.001.002 

Author Name: Grace L. 

Organization: Space Coast Patriots 

Good afternoon. I'm Lynn Grace and I'm a member of the Space Coast Patriots, American citizen, third-generation 

Floridian. And I welcome the EPA here, all of you, indeed, as tourists to our state, but, frankly, I wish you'd all go home. 

I don't mean to be rude to you individually. I respect your great knowledge. I'm sure it's far beyond mine. 

Comment ID 0713.001.009 

Author Name: Merriam C. 

Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-948 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

In my position, having done a lot of science and stuff in the state, especially with the agricultural community and many 

others, it's always been a blessing that at the end of the day when you work with them closely they probably have an 

answer that will get you there, in many cases without the need to implement a rule and in many cases it's only for the 

right reasons. 

So, with that, I thank you very much for your time and for coming to Florida. 

Comment ID 0714.001.002 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

The EPA's proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for Florida concerns me due to the following: Number one. 

The numeric criteria appear to have been arbitrarily set without benefit of science. 

Comment ID 0716.001.009 

Author Name: Coughenour F. 

Organization: Plant City 

I appreciate Mr. Keating's comment that this proposed rule may be the most efficient way for EPA to complete their 

obligations, but I also suggest that it's not the most efficient way for us to accomplish the improvements that are 

necessary around the state. 

Comment ID 0720.001.008 

Author Name: Selph J. 

Organization: Citizens of Charlotte County Farm Bureau 

And, with that, I appreciate it. I, too, believe in clean water. I like to fish. I like to hunt. But I think y'all are going about it 

the wrong way. I think you need to let FDEP and our water management districts handle this in the State of Florida. And 

thank you. 

Comment ID 0727.001.005 

Author Name: Kelter M. 

Organization: Green Cove Springs 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-949 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

In closing, thanks for being here, thanks for listening. Y'all come to Green Cove Springs sometime. We'll treat you with 

some southern hospitality, give you some barbecue, show you where we're fishing in our nutrient-impaired river and 

then we're going to show you how we solve these problems on our own. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0730.001.004 

Author Name: Fentress P. 

Organization: Lost Lake Groves 

Both of our farms are enrolled in the BMP program. I believe the EPA standard for our area is unrealistic and I feel it will 

be detrimental to small family farmers' economic survivability. Please protect agriculture and the environment. And I 

believe it can be done. The other day my four-year-old daughter brought such joy and pride to my heart. She told me 

that when she grows up she wants to be a farmer. I'm proud to be a farmer in Florida and I'm also proud of the way my 

family has taken care of the land. I hope my daughter gets the opportunity to know the honor of being a farmer in 

Florida. The farmer, the first environmentalist. Thank you. 

Sorry I got a little teary-eyed, but it was so cute when she said it. She wants to be a farmer. And it just almost broke my 

heart. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Comment ID 0731.001.008 

Author Name: Hartney M. 

Organization: Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association 

The point of rebuttal, I cannot in good conscious stand here today in this public hearing and not address the 

inflammatory remarks that Cris Costello of the Sierra Club leveled against the University of Florida and Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. Her beef is that the science does not support the position that she has taken. 

It was a classic case of kill the messenger when you don't like the message. 

The integrity and professionalism of the University of Florida and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

needs to be defended. And I'm going to call it garbage because it was garbage. (Applause.) 

I appreciate the opportunity to work with you to make Florida better. Let's work together and take the time to do this 

right. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0732.001.012 

Author Name: Fulford C. 

Organization: Congressman Adam Putnam 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-950 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

We all share the same goal and desire to protect Florida's waterways and I believe we are close to having attainable 

science-based standards. It is my hope EPA will address these concerns and use the collaborative approach as a 

model for future environmental protection measures. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0733.001.002 

Author Name: Jones R. 

Organization: 

So I appreciate the time that y'all have given us here today and I don't know what y'all's schedule is, but I feel like that 

y'all need to take your jacket off here now and get out in the field and do some of your own testing. I don't appreciate 

taxing authorities testing my water. We need private tests without an agenda. And I would appreciate a visit from y'all. I 

live in Riverdale, Florida. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0736.001.001 

Author Name: Walkinshaw J. 

Organization: Hillsborough River Watershed Alliance 

I'm John Walkinshaw. I'm representing the Hillsborough Watershed Alliance. It's an organization that's been around 

since 1992 to help protect and enhance the sustainability and the quality of life within the Hillsborough River Watershed. 

And we are part of the group of Tampa Bay representatives here today and have been working with the group there to 

certainly improve the status of Tampa Bay. As I look around the room today, I find it interesting. I have about 25-plus 

years experience in water resources and usually when I come into a room where there's agricultural people or country 

folk and city folk, sometimes we don't always see eye to eye. And I think it's interesting that on this particular subject 

you certainly brought the whole group together. 

I think -- how long it will last, I'm not sure, but we'll see. I'm hoping for the best. 

Comment ID 0738.001.003 

Author Name: Stewart R. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association 

Like I said, we have lots of concerns. I have to say, although I'm not surprised, I'm very impressed by the speakers that 

have been here today. I think you've heard a lot of good sound, technical scientific reasons why the EPA proposal just 

will not work in Florida. So I'm not going to go through our technical comments. You will get them in writing. 

Comment ID 0741.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-951 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

I'm here today to support those statements and positions already conveyed by Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee and 

Sarasota Counties, Plant City, Tampa Electric and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 

The city's position is that the proposed water quality standards are not technically sound or scientifically based. 

Comment ID 0744.001.006 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

With that, I'll close. I just want to say that we understand and embrace the need for nutrient criteria management. We 

support, CF supports, I support the development of scientifically-supported dose, response-based numeric criteria. 

Unfortunately, we don't believe that the current proposal meets that goal. We'll be providing detailed, written comments. 

Thank you again. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-952 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0746.001.005 

Author Name: Long A.
 

Organization: Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed 


While there may be statewide support from many entities and individuals for specific scientific, sound, peer-reviewed 

numeric criteria, there is very little support for the criteria as it is submitted today. 

Comment ID 0751.001.003 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: 

So I would ask, as a rancher and an ag person, that y'all stop, step back a minute and let's cooperate together. We've 

got to bring the stakeholders into this. Without stakeholders buying in, this isn't going anywhere. You have never seen a 

pushback like you're going to see from Florida if this thing is pushed down our throat. 

Comment ID 0753.001.002 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

We do support environmental and clean water programs. However, we do reject the manner and form of the numeric 

nutrient criteria as proposed by the EPA. 

Comment ID 0753.001.008 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

In conclusion, we feel the implementation of numeric nutrient criteria is a hurried and simplistic solution to a complex 

problem and implementing these numeric nutrient criteria is neither resource efficient nor an economical solution. 

Florida has a sophisticated and scientifically-based process that targets nutrient loads from specific sources based on 

site-specific material. Let us get on with the work of improving the water quality in our state. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0754.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-953 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

I provided written comments in the basket outside. I'm not going to read them to you. I am just going to read the 

headings. 

Number one, the model is wrong. Two, the color is measured incorrectly. The phosphorous levels are not scientifically 

measured. Program costs are unacceptable. Wastewater industry is decimated. This process is in denial of due 

process. And you've got a failed rulemaking process. 

Comment ID 0754.001.005 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

This thing needs to be rethought. Your process for rulemaking is too rushed and that's why you've got a mistake here. 

You need to back up on this thing and bring the DEP, bring the citizens of Florida into this conversation and use the 

local knowledge that you have been presented with at these hearings. You've got a lot of smart people that have been 

coming and talking to you. You need to listen to them. Because what you're about to march off into is simply -- what can 

Maitland do? The only thing it can do is to take you on in court and to tie this thing up, as one of these speakers earlier 

said. We don't want to do that. We want to fix this, too. 

We've been spending our own tax dollars on doing this. You didn't make us do that. DEP didn't make us do that. We did 

it on our own because we wanted our property values to be enhanced. We saw this as an investment in our tax base. 

But we can't get 35 billion dollars to pay for this over a 30-year period. So we don't have a chance to fix this. 

Comment ID 0754.001.007 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

This needs to be readdressed. You've made a mistake here. It's too quick. It's too fast. Step back and rethink this. This 

is -- this won't work and you're just going to get into a big lawsuit with everybody and that's not going to benefit any of 

us. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0755.001.001 

Author Name: Gillespie P. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-954 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Congressman Bill Posey 

I'm Pam Gillespie with Congressman Bill Posey. And thank you very much for letting me speak and go now. 

Congressman Posey has this to put into the public comment: I would like to take just a couple of minutes to express my 

concerns about the proposed regulations and how they would adversely impact our local businesses, our state's critical 

agricultural community and the state and local government budgets. 

There is strong opposition to the proposed EPA regulations based on sound reasons. Concerns over the regulations 

have been expressed to me by small business owners, agricultural producers and elected officials. 

I would urge the EPA to listen to the concerns that are expressed today, to take these concerns into consideration and 

to adjust your approach to accommodate these concerns in this particularly trying economic time. 

Comment ID 0755.001.005 

Author Name: Gillespie P. 

Organization: Congressman Bill Posey 

The EPA should set aside the proposed regulations and begin to work again closely with the State of Florida to utilize 

the state's existing efforts to enhance water quality rather than disrupt Florida's ongoing efforts and divert limited 

resources to initiatives that may not be the most effective. 

Comment ID 0763.001.002 

Author Name: Markle K. 

Organization: 

We are not going to ruin it with short-sighted practices. We have a responsibility to our community and to our 

employees. Many of us could earn higher incomes in other fields but we don't because we love agriculture and we love 

the nursery business. And we're doing it under the burden of more and more fees, more licenses, permits, registration 

and taxes. So please, you know, keep ag in mind. I think we're part of the solution; not the problem. 

Comment ID 0767.001.001 

Author Name: Hurley M. 

Organization: NAIOP Central Florida 

Good evening. My name is Mary Hurley, and I am president of NAIOP Central Florida. NAIOP is a commercial real 

estate development association. And this association and its members have significant concerns regarding the 

proposed regulations. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-955 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0768.001.003 

Author Name: Wood J. 

Organization: 

As far as water quality goes -- I've been a lifetime resident in this state. I started out in Miami, saw the dairies run out of 

Dade County because -- allegedly because they were politically incorrect and they wanted the land for Miami 

International. They wanted the land for this purpose or that purpose. So they ran them out with legislation. 

They moved up to Highlands County, about an hour from here, many of them did, Hardee County. Then the regulations 

came in and then they all had to front the costs for perk ponds and everything to purify their water from their waste and 

what have you. 

The agricultural community has always -- always reacted in a positive manner toward water quality. And we do not need 

Washington telling our state how to run our state. I just can't agree with it in any capacity. 

And I realize Sierra Club and all those organizations got plenty of money and farmers don't, but, hopefully, there will be 

somebody that we can join in with to help fight this because I'm very strongly against it. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0769.001.005 

Author Name: Mahan R. 

Organization: Orange-Co, Inc. 

I guess as a final comment, being from Lee County, as I just mentioned earlier, and I know people have mentioned the 

issue about fertilizers. I think we have to be careful of unintended consequences. 

Just about a month and a half or two months ago, I saw a neighbor putting out fertilizer. They were doing so because -­

they did it after fertilizer restrictions had gone off. Well, after those restrictions had gone off, we had a cold spell hit and 

they were putting fertilizer out during a cold spell. We were certainly allowed to do that. But I can tell you right now that 

with the temperatures that are outside right now, St. Augustine will no have -- about a zero uptake on nitrogen right 

now. So the rains that happened, the rains that happened in the past couple of weeks, washed whatever fertilizer they 

put out down into the drains and down into the systems. 

And my concern is that we have unintended consequences just like that, that really our goal is not really achieved. We 

may have done something and we can say, well, you know, we did something, but the impact of what we did is not 

really getting us to what our goal is. So take that into consideration, please. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0770.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-956 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Wheeler B. 

Organization: Tohopekaliga (Toho) Water Authority 

Fortunately and unfortunately, the present recession and resulting stagnation in growth in this state provides an 

opportunity for EPA to go back to the drawing board in conjunction with FDEP and develop a set of numeric nutrient 

criteria standards that correspond to the environmental conditions in Florida, and, therefore, provide a basis for utilities 

such as Toho Water Authority to justify whatever expenditures and resources are needed to protect the health of our 

water bodies. Thanks. 

Comment ID 0773.001.003 

Author Name: Kelly R. 

Organization: Southern Dr. Phillips Homeowners Coalition 

I do think it's being rushed. I also think the science is questionable going back to the EPA's role in decreeing carbon 

dioxide as being a hazardous gas that needs to have clean air regulations implemented against it. 

Comment ID 0773.001.005 

Author Name: Kelly R. 

Organization: Southern Dr. Phillips Homeowners Coalition 

I think when the Florida EPD with their experience in trying to get their job done by being hamstrung with this rush for 

EPA assistance, I think is not going to go well with voters. So I do wish that you would go ahead and reconsider this 

and also recognize that we really don't want to pay a lot for more unfunded mandates coming from Washington. Thank 

you. 

Comment ID 0775.001.003 

Author Name: Snyder P. 

Organization: Florida Turf Grass Association 

The point is that the research that was done by IFAS is sound and untainted. Please rely on it. Peer review science is a 

stronger indicator of what needs to be done than rules based on statistical modeling. Let IFAS do its job. Let DEP do 

its job. Please don't add another layer of bureaucracy. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0784.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-957 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Morrell B. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

Good evening. My name is Bob Morrell. I'm a practicing water and wastewater professional engineer and been 

practicing in Central Florida for the last 30-plus years. I also am an active member of the Florida Engineering Society 

where I've worked for about 20 years on the Conservation and Environmental Quality Committee. Our job there is 

primarily to focus on environmental regulatory issues in the State of Florida. And, generally, our organization has been 

very supportive of protective regulations and rules that are based on good science and that make good economic 

sense. And I think that's where some of our issues are. 

Comment ID 0790.001.006 

Author Name: Hammill R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

But in closing, we certainly do appreciate you all addressing these water issues. We certainly support a lot of the efforts 

that have been done in our state. We're a participant in this all the way across the board both with the Department of 

Agriculture, both in the state, USDA. We look forward to staying in the process, and we sincerely encourage you all to 

take a hard look at that science. Our colleagues are serious about this, and we appreciate it. And again, thank you for 

coming here. 

Comment ID 0791.001.002 

Author Name: Ulivich B. 

Organization: St. John's Improvement District and Sebastian River Improvement Districts 

We need your commitment to ensure us that you will join in this commitment to help preserve these agriculture areas to 

be able to sustain their productive viability, that your actions be one of many positive actions which will provide for our 

successful continuation and not our demise. Thank you? 

Comment ID 0810.001.003 

Author Name: Hammock A. 

Organization: 

We have all kind of wildlife on our farm, ospreys, otters, fox, wood stork. They eat right out of the ditches. I haven't seen 

any dead wood storks lately. I think the water is pretty clean. They flourish in our fields, and the water is clean enough 

for them. The best example of the problem with what you're proposing is when I heard that Perrier water would be 

illegal to pour in the Everglades, then how clean are we going to have to get it. Can we survive these nutrient numbers 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-958 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

that you're proposing. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0815.001.002 

Author Name: Carter K. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Through all this scientific assessment and work, we as the district definitely believe that numeric nutrient criteria are 

important, they need to be established, but they need to be established within sufficient time frames to allow appropriate 

criteria to be adopted for our state's ecological diversity. 

Comment ID 0822.001.007 

Author Name: Hutchcraft M. 

Organization: King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus 

Given that, I'd like to propose a couple of suggestions. First, we would encourage you to take more time, continue 

working with FDEP and the landowners, incorporate the data and the knowledge that's out there to achieve appropriate 

and desirable outcomes. 

Comment ID 0823.001.001 

Author Name: Roth R. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

Good afternoon. My name is Rick Roth. I'm a farmer in the Everglades agricultural area. I've been the major owner and 

operator of my operation for the last 25 years, which means basically I've been living through most of the Everglades 

restoration efforts. I'm also the vice president of Florida Farm Bureau, an ag organization that's very instrumental in 

Florida in addressing issues like this. As the vice president, I can tell you that agricultural people take very seriously our 

stewardship responsibilities, and we spend untold hours dealing with issues such as these, trade issues, food safety, 

water quality, and we are always looking for ways to do things better. I really don't have a lot of good solutions for you 

today. I do have a couple of common sense concepts I'd like to pass onto you, though. Let's call this kind of a good 

news/bad news story. The bad news is, you know, we just feel very strongly that this is not the way to do water quality 

standards. To be settling a lawsuit, you know, a consent decree, you know, legislation, you know, EPA is basically 

ignoring the scientific process that DEP has been developing for the last ten years and has been identifying impaired 

water bodies. They spent over 20 million dollars plus, and we have more water quality data than any other state. 

So to basically pass a law in Congress to encourage numeric standards leading to a lawsuit leading to a settlement 

becoming a rule and now we have regulation and enforcement coming down the pike, and in a very, very short period of 

time. You've heard people talk today how Everglades restoration has basically been a 20-year process and we've been 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-959 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

very successful. Some people think oh, great. We have solved the problem. Now EPA is on board. This is great. No, it's 

not. This is no way to solve the two biggest problems that we have facing us in the world today. How are we going to 

continue to feed the growing population of over six billion people in this world while using limited resources in a way that 

is environmentally 

sustainable. I think people will tell you if you delve into South Florida agriculture production and what's going on in the 

world today, that we have a very professional approach to the way we do business here in South Florida, and we are 

finding 

much better ways to farm, produce more food using a lot less inputs. Most of the people you hear say in scare tactics 

about what's going on in the world, you know, the reason they say that is because they're not farmers. They don't know 

what's changed. Let's talk a little bit about what's changed in the last 40 years. Do you realize today that everybody 

under the age of 40 considers themselves to be an environmentalist, that they actually believe green is the right 

approach. We have green building standards, we have organic food production going through the roof, and we have 

businesses like Subaru telling us they have almost zero discharge out of their factories, and oh by the way, they make 

good cars, too. Today the marketplace is the place where people are being rewarded for good stewardship. 

So what is my point? My point is very clear. We need a solution based, reward based, incentive based way to deal with 

these problems. We are no longer in the same situation we were 40 years ago where we can just say we'll set the 

standard and you just spend however much it takes to do it. Does anybody remember what happened in August of 

2008, the sub prime mortgage melt down. Announced the other day that Greece is fixing to be in bankruptcy because 

they have a debt exceeding their GDP. Do we know that the United States, if you exclude social security, has a 64 

percent debt to its GDP. So that means in about ten years if we go the same way we're going today, United States is 

going to be bankrupt. So to cut to the chase, one size does not fit all. We need to go back and allow the process that 

was started by DEP and their knowledge base to be used in setting the standards. We think Florida should be rewarded 

for its efforts, not punished as we're being done. 

As you've heard earlier today, the best management programs that have been set up in the state of Florida, the 

mandatory one that I've been under for over 15 years now and all the voluntary ones that are going on throughout the 

state of Florida show you that agriculture is not the problem but the solution to the problem. So we have achieved great 

things, and with your help we can achieve greater things. It's called feeding the world and having a sustainable 

environment. 

Thank you. 

Comment ID 0824.001.001 

Author Name: Overdorf T. 

Organization: Crossroads Environmental 

Good afternoon. Toby Overdorf with Crossroads Environmental. I live in Palm City, Florida. I also am a Florida senate 

appointee to the Small Business Regulatory Council and am a small business owner. I've watched firsthand the St. 

Lucie River and the associated destruction of the St. Lucie River and the deposition of muck over years and years and 

years. I also had the pleasure of working on the restoration of the Kissimmee River during my graduate years and 

working with my Master's Degree there. However, I find that there's a major dichotomy here when we're looking at this 

type of plan being implemented in Florida. The federal government is continuing to delay elements of our restoration 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-960 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

plan within the Everglades. We are not spending as much money as we should be spending, not only within the 

southern Everglades, but also within the northern Everglades restoration. The NPDS program. We're allowing the 

discharge across various water control structures, and everyone else has to play by the rules, but maybe not the federal 

government has to play by the rules. The only way really to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. You're trying to eat the 

entire elephant in one bite. We need a well thought out plan, and this is not it. Instead of embracing large land owners 

and municipalities, this plan really alienates them. So is the solution to throw out the entire plan? Well, I hope not. I 

believe your plan needs one single element, and that is common sense. Instead of ramming this through, fund regional 

plans led by local experts and local land owners. Where are the water quality mitigation banks in this discussion. We 

can't even plan to help based on where this plan currently sits. Instead of alienating Florida and potentially putting folks 

out of work and costing billions of dollars to our state and the local municipalities, embrace the ingenuity of our current 

regulatory environment here within Florida and the folks that have been studying this for years. Don't try to eat this 

elephant in one bite. Allow the people and the businesses of Florida to help you so you won't choke. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0825.001.001 

Author Name: Wilson-Davis L. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton 

Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Wilson-Davis. I'm the program policy coordinator for the City of Boca Raton Utility 

Services Department, and I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak on this matter. I'd like to address the EPA's 

numeric nutrient standards on three levels, the first being over arching concerns regarding the EPA's presentation and 

statements made. Also from a utility industry perspective, and then more specifically addressing the potential impacts of 

this rule to the city of Boca Raton and our customers. 

Comment ID 0826.001.001 

Author Name: Welch C. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

Good afternoon. My name is Casey Welch. I'm the director of congressional affairs for Florida Citrus Mutual. We are the 

world's largest citrus organization. We represent over 8,000 grower members across the state of Florida, which 

represents over 570,000 acres across the state of Florida, which is roughly about the size of Rhode Island. Hopefully 

none of you are from Rhode Island, which is about the size of Polk County, which is the heart of the Florida citrus 

industry just in the center of the state. Several points I want to bring up about our industry. We're a nine billion dollar 

industry. We directly and indirectly support 76,000 jobs across this state. That's banks, that's fertilizer producers, that's 

workers and packing houses. There are a whole series of small towns that start in North Central Florida in between 

Tallahassee and Orlando and work their way all the way down to the center of the state that rely on this industry for 

their production. Some of the growers who spoke before me who represent fruit and vegetable and sugar operations 

also support these small towns these will be the first towns that would be impacted by these numeric nutrient criteria, 

and I think you guys know that as well as everyone else. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-961 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0826.001.002 

Author Name: Welch C. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

It's very important to us because growers are very worried that these expansive and ultimately we think unattainable 

regulations will push Florida citrus industry over the edge. We have been in a locked battle with pest and disease issues 

since 1998 with citrus cancer and citrus greening disease which both come from overseas. The federal government has 

spent over 1.2 billion dollars to maintain the fruit and vegetable industry, those pest and disease issues, and it is very 

important to the economy of the state of Florida that we maintain that. As this relates to this numeric nutrient criteria, 

Florida is in a locked battle with only one state, and that is Sao Paulo, Brazil for citrus production. Florida produces 75 

percent of the entire orange juice consumed by the United States citizens. The rest is produced by Brazil. If the Florida 

citrus industry fails, the importation will be a hundred percent of orange juice will be from overseas from Brazil, period. 

The standards are something that growers who have voluntarily, as a grower ahead of me mentioned, all of citrus's 

acreage is currently under a best practices standards with the Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. So growers are very concerned in the context of stepping up and 

already implementing with their pocketbook and with shovels in the ground on doing these best management practices 

and having to turn around and throw that out and start from scratch again and have to meet what they consider 

unattainable numbers. In closing, I just want to say on behalf of our industry, we want to work with the federal 

government. We are stewards of the land. We want to continue to be stewards of the land. We love the water bodies 

around us. It supports our crops. Dirty water does not grow good citrus, period. We want to work with the government to 

make sure that we maintain the clean water systems. 

Comment ID 0833.001.001 

Author Name: Louda B. 

Organization: 

Good afternoon. My name is Bill Louda. I'm the environment chemistry teacher at Florida Atlantic University here at 

Boca Raton. My title there is senior scientist. I'm also an environmental bio geochemist doing research in the KOE 

system, Kissimmee, Okeechobee, Everglades. For the past 20 years I've been studying algal blooms in Okeechobee, 

periphytons in the Everglades, and most recently the synechococcus blooms in Florida Bay. Before I go on, the last 

speaker, did he really say one milligram to three milligrams per liter of phosphorous. That's a thousand to 3,000 parts 

per billion. Wow. Okay. I hope mixing zone is on your property. Okay. So what I do is I use bio marker pigments for 

rapid community assessment of micro algo communities. I'm also a councilman in Loxahatchee Groves. Vice Mayor 

Lipp spoke. I live out there, about 15 miles west of here. We do have canals we're worried about having to implement 

them. But before really going on, let me tell you what my mindset on this whole problem is. The same year I was born 

Marjorie Stoneham Douglas said there are no Everglades in the world. There is only one Everglades in the world, so I 

am a staunch environmentalist or I wouldn't be in the job I am. I believe we need numeric criteria, but like you've heard 

today, it's got to be used with common sense. I mean, you know, would I like to see all of Florida waters go to ten parts 

per billion tomorrow? I'm not Professor Dumbledore. I can't do that. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-962 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0836.001.003 

Author Name: Boyd B. 

Organization: 

All this information is being comingled, or all the water is being comingled between everybody. All the runoff is coming. 

We have no way of living up to a specific number that can change every time it rains, every time they back pump, every 

time they pump out, and yet we're going to be held accountable for that.I've heard people slam the BMPs, best 

management practices. The reason they do, maybe they just don't understand how the county of Palm Beach County or 

the State of Florida has approached a little business like me. They want us to be good stewards of the water. They 

didn't coerce us, but they strongly suggested that to avoid litigation and fines and penalties, you might strongly adhere 

to the best management practices that we're going to lay down. Now, they came in with specific criteria for us to do 

these things, so we don't take it lightly. It's very serious for us. It hits us in the pocketbook, and anything that hits you in 

the pocketbook you're very serious about. It seems to me that we have a lot of regulation that on the grass roots we 

can't control over what's going to happen with the water, we can't control over what regulation comes down, but there's 

enough science that people are objecting to, there's enough politics where people are objecting to it. 

Comment ID 0841.001.001 

Author Name: Antrapuppy L. 

Organization: 

Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Antrapuppy. I'm a professional engineer licensed in the state of Florida. I'm a small 

business owner. I am the district engineer for Indian Trail Improvement District, which is approximately 45,000 people 

out in the western portion of Palm Beach County with probably over a 150 miles of manmade canals. I'm also an 

elected official. I'm a commissioner in the Town of Palm Beach Shores on the east side of the county, so I have many 

hats. Lastly, I was commissioner for the Environmental Regulation Commission under the DEP, Florida DEP during the 

gubernatorial administration of Governor Jeb Bush. At that time we did many great things. We passed the rules for 

TMDLs, we had numeric nutrient criteria for the EPA, the Everglades Protection Area. We based it on special and 

temporal variability, but I have to tell you, with all due respect, the information that you all have given us in this proposal 

is untimely in my opinion, untimely, irresponsible and somewhat insulting. 

Comment ID 0841.001.004 

Author Name: Antrapuppy L. 

Organization: 

I am not against cleaning up the environment. I'm a professional engineer. I was trained to create environments where 

the environment and human beings can live together, and I find it somewhat insulting that when I hear your 

presentation, giving us the perception that we didn't do anything here in Florida is insulting to me. I've been following 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-963 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

this for over a decade, and I volunteered my time being on the Environmental Regulation Commission because I truly 

am concerned about the environment, and so is everybody else that has spoken to you and have sat in this room. It's 

just a question of how do you get to the means and methods of where you want to go. But what you're proposing right 

now does not make any sense. It is untimely, irresponsible, and insulting. And to not even compliment the folks and 

landowners that have done their best management practices over a decade is just insulting. So please take another 

look at this. This is not something that needs to happen right away. We've been working on it for years. Let us continue 

to work on it. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0849.001.001 

Author Name: Ryan J. 

Organization: Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District 

Good evening. My name is John Ryan. I am a member of the Board of Supervisors of the Loxahatchee Groves Water 

Control District. I have read substantial background information, including the federal register, and I am aware of data 

that's being sent to EPA by scientific and economic experts that challenge your science and your economic data. I don't 

pretend to be one of those experts, but I do represent water control district and landowners who could have to pay bills 

associated with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. Regarding EPA's proposed criteria, I have a general comment 

and a few specific comments. The general comment is that I hope that your public hearings in Florida give EPA a 

similar concern that Admiral Yamamoto had after he thought about the consequences of attacking Pearl Harbor in 

1941. The quote was, "I fear all we have done is to awake a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." 

Comment ID 0862.001.002 

Author Name: Bachman T. 

Organization: 

How are you? My name is Todd Bachman. I live in Boca Raton, Florida. I come -- it's kinds of odd, for some of these 

people I am kind of going to be the demon in Florida. I am a young businessman. My family owns a tractor business. So 

we understand the ag side well, we understand the construction side well. And it's very odd as you hear oh, these 

farmers are doing this, these farmers are doing this. No, these farmers are sitting in rooms, they have kids, they have 

families, they care about the water as much as anybody. These people are doing the right thing. And to say that we 

over fertilize. No, fertilizing costs are what's driving these guys out of business. These guys are good businessmen. 

Earlier they talked about Highland Greenhouses. Jake is probably one of the smartest business guys you have ever 

seen. I mean, this guy, he knows every way and angle to cut and he's just - he's a true steward of the earth. And, 

frankly, it's insulting to hear some of these people talk about these guys. They employ hundreds, thousands of people. 

So how dare you insult these people. MR. KING: We need to focus. MR. BACHMAN: No, that's okay. But I'm saying, 

understand -- that brings me to my point, is that we all believe in the water. We all believe that it needs to be clean. We 

understand it needs to be healthy. Let's sit down to a table. I think we just learned a clear lesson in Congress. Let's not 

try to run something through. The farmers, the builders, the tractor guys like myself, let's sit down, let's figure this out. 

Let's have the Sierra Club put everybody at a table. There's going to be arguments over science. We don't need to rush. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-964 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

We have had three hearings for something that could truly, truly change our state. Slow down. Please hear what we 

have to say and set up a table. Let's break bread together. I mean that a in a figurative way. But let's discuss the issues 

that are at hand. Let's not demonize one side. I think your guys' intentions are well. I believe what you want to do is 

well. I am not going to come up here and criticize you and say how dare you come down from D.C. and do this. It's not 

my intention. But there's clearly common ground that can be met here. And I think that in our processes these days 

we're too polar. We have got to come to the middle. And I come to you in saying that also as a young businessman that 

has a long future. I am 30 years old. I pray to God that the way Congress and the way these meetings -- and even the 

one in Orlando last night, the way that went with just the ruckus, even though I kind of agree with what some of them 

had to say, the dialogue doesn't need to be that way. We ought to be adults. We don't need to scream. We don't need 

to yell. We don't need to rush to judgment. I mean, I think there are - there are questions about some of the science that 

is used here. I think that for anyone to say that there is consensus on the science being used here, it would be untrue to 

say that. There is not consensus. So let's come together. Let's share the costs. Ask all of us to share the costs in the 

getting the solution we can all work for. But today, the way this is, I fear that the economic restraints would be difficult. I 

can tell you that from what's coming from the nursery growers, what's coming from the farmers, what the economy has 

done to them and then what it has done to our sales, and then what it does to my manufacturers, this is a real trickledown effect. So I would ask before we were to do something as outrageous - I mean outrageous in the fact of how 

mind-blowing and how changing this would be to this area and to this state and to our economy - that we just sit down 

and just kind of cool our jets and really, let's all work together for a solution versus, you know, it seems that everybody 

is kind of at each other and this and that. But the truth is, we all care about the water, we all have children, we all have 

common beliefs and we need to slow down and do the right thing here. 

Comment ID 0880.001.002 

Author Name: Farr W. 

Organization: Farm Credit of Southwest Florida 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of the members of Farm Credit of Southwest Florida. 

Southwest is part of the Nation's largest Agricultural lender to Rural America, the' Farm Credit System . Our members 

have a major concern with the proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida because the proposed 

regional nutrient criterion ignores the variability of Florida's surface waters. 

As an agricultural association and lender, we support clean water. Florida is a diverse state, with several soil types and 

distinct water bodies . However, determining the proper numerical water quality standard requires sound science and 

site specific criteria and the opportunity to study the criteria upon which standards are set . Without site specific numeric 

nutrient criteria, healthy water bodies will be deemed impaired and resources will be wasted attempting to make those 

water bodies meet nutrient concentrations they would not naturally meet due to their natural diversity. 

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%. 

Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments in mind. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-965 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0882.001.001 

Author Name: Phillips J. 

Organization: Certi-Fine Fruit Company, Inc. 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of Certi-Fine Fruit Co., Inc. Certi-Fine has been in business 

many years managing our family's citrus groves . 

I do not believe the proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida adequately take into account the 

variability of Florida's surface waters . Florida has many different soil types and different water bodies . I agree that 

clean water is very important. However, without sound science based on site specific criteria, healthy water bodies will 

be deemed polluted and unhealthy when in reality they perfectly healthy. This will mean resources wasted attempting to 

make healthy water bodies meet unrealistic nutrient concentrations . We cannot afford to waste valuable resources 

meeting unnecessary and unrealistic criteria, especially when our current unemployment in Florida is over 11% 

We are citrus growers and are concerned for the environment. Our family has for over 20 years used reclaimed waste 

water instead of pumping from the aquifer for our irrigation needs. We follow BMP for our Nitrogen applications and do 

many other things to protect our natural resources and the environment. The proposed changes in numeric nutrient 

water quality standards are overkill and will cause undo hardship to farmers who are unable to pass along increased 

costs to consumers, unlike municipalities. 

I was not able to attend one of the EPA public hearings. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise 

this rule with theses comments in mind. 

Comment ID 0883.001.007 

Author Name: Lynch T. 

Organization: Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PALM BEACH COUNTY 

LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC., THAT: 

SECTION 1 : The Board of Directors of the Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. (the "Board") hereby opposes the 

proposal of the EPA to enter into a consent order in the federal lawsuit subjecting the State of Florida to federal criteria; 

and respectfully requests our leaders in Washington, Tallahassee and at the local levels to intervene and demand that 

statewide numeric nutrient criteria be established through a science-driven process with adequate time to address 

concerns of regulated communities and with appropriate realistic time-frames for achieving compliance. 

SECTION 2: The Board hereby requests that this resolution be sent directly to the EPA to be considered as public 

comment testimony in opposition to the proposed measures and to all other interested parties by March 29, 2010. 

SECTION 3: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Board of Directors of the Palm Beach 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-966 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

County League of Cities, Inc. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2010. 

Comment ID 0890.001.003 

Author Name: Berman W. 

Organization: Davie Dairy, Inc. 

My comments do not come from a person unconcerned with the health of Lake Okeechobee. I have worked hard over 

many years to make a positive impact on the situation and intend to continue my efforts whatever the outcome of your 

ruiemaking . You need to encourage new and creative BMP's that approach the problem using best science and 

technology and stay away from arbitrary rulemaking that does not solve any problems. 

Comment ID 0894.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

I AM OUTRAGED THAT ONCE AGAIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS APPLYING IT'S POWER TO GOVERN 

THE STATES AND GO BEYOND ANYTHING NECESSARY TO CREATE A TAX BURDEN FOR THE PEOPLE OF 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA. tHE SEVERITY OF THIS BILL IS RIDICULOUS. 

Comment ID 0895.001.005 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Myth: There isn't anything average Floridians can do to prevent this policy from hurting our economy. 

Fact: Floridians can make their voices heard and help protect our state from harmful federal regulations by contacting 

their elected leaders in Washington, Tallahassee and local communities and encouraging them to intervene in ongoing 

legal proceedings to request that Florida's water quality regulations be established through a science-driven process ­

rather than a litigation-driven one. 

Comment ID 0895.001.013 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-967 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: 

What can Floridians do to help prevent this policy from hurting our economy? 

Floridians can make their voices heard and help protect our state from harmful federal regulations by contacting their 

elected leaders in Washington, Tallahassee and local communities and encouraging them to intervene in ongoing legal 

proceedings to request that Florida's water quality regulations be established through a science-driven process - rather 

than a litigation-driven one. 

Comment ID 0895.001.023 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Florida needs broad public participation in these hearings to let policymakers know that our state's water policies should 

be developed using sound science in partnership with key stakeholders to ensure that the policies that protect our 

streams, lakes and rivers will be effective, realistic and scientifically sound. 

Comment ID 0895.001.026 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Florida needs broad public participation in these hearings to let policymakers know that our state's water policies should 

be developed using sound science in partnership with key stakeholders to ensure that the policies that protect our 

streams, lakes and rivers will be effective, realistic and scientifically sound. 

Comment ID 0897.001.001 

Author Name: Phillips J. 

Organization: Florida Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

On behalf of Florida PEER I would like to take this opportunity to comment on EPA's Proposed Water Quality Standards 

for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters as published on January 26, 2010. I also addressed your panel with 

regards to this issue on February 16, 2010 at its 7 p.m. hearing in Tallahassee, Florida. 

For reasons that will be more fully set forth below, Florida PEER supports the concept of adopting nutrient criteria 

standards for the State of Florida. Past assertions that Florida should move beyond the single use of narrative nutrient 

criteria have been strenuously fought and ultimately rejected by both industry as well as the very agency that is charged 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-968 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

with protecting Florida's environment, the Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). We therefore 

applaud EPA's efforts in this regard . Nevertheless, it is our belief that any standards that are ultimately adopted must 

be fully protective of Florida's environment. We are concerned that the current, proposed standards do not meet that 

test. 

Comment ID 0898-1.001.001 

Author Name: Jones D. 

Organization: Putnam County Chamber of Commerce 

RESOLUTION BY THE PUTNAM COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN OPPOSITION TO EPA'S ANNOUNCED 

NEW WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS THAT WOULD APPLY TO FLORIDA AND ONLY FLORIDA 

WHEREAS, on January 15, 2010, the U.S. EPA announced new water regulations that would apply to Florida and only 

Florida; and 

WHEREAS, the new water regulations presented from Washington are lengthy, highly technical rules that created more 

questions than it answered and will impose major economic hardship on Florida's battered economy with questionable 

benefits to our environment; and 

Comment ID 0902.001.001 

Author Name: Bliss J. 

Organization: 

EPA is attempting to create rules that are not enforceable. 

Comment ID 0906-1.001.003 

Author Name: Lackemacher P. 

Organization: Bay County Utility Services 

EPA's proposed NNC rule is simply a knee jerk reaction to its own precarious legal situation and has literally thrown 

sound scientific basics out the window. Bay County Utility Services is a proponent of environmental initiatives that 

produce positive benefits. However, EPA's proposed NNC rule lacks a sufficient scientific base that does not guarantee 

positive environmental results. Furthermore, Bay County Utility Services cannot justifiable place the financial burden 

this proposed rule on its customers. Therefore, Bay County Utility Services strongly opposes EPA's proposed NNC rule 

in its present form. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-969 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0914.001.004 

Author Name: Lackemacher P. 

Organization: Bay County Utility Services 

EPA's proposed NNC rule is simply a knee jerk reaction to its own precarious legal situation and has literally thrown 

sound scientific basics out the window. Bay County Utility Services is a proponent of environmental initiatives that 

produce positive benefits. However, EPA's proposed NNC rule lacks a sufficient scientific base that does not guarantee 

positive environmental results. Furthermore, Bay County Utility Services cannot justifiable place the financial burden 

this proposed rule on its customers. Therefore, Bay County Utility Services strongly opposes EPA's proposed NNC rule 

in its present form. 

Comment ID 0918.001.001 

Author Name: Pistilli C. 

Organization: 

I am very concerned about this move. I feel it has moved to quickly and that much more research should be conducted 

before a step of this magnitude is taken. 

Comment ID 0921.001.001 

Author Name: Coyle F. 

Organization: Board of Collier County Commissioners 

This letter provides Collier County's formal comments to the above referenced Docket on EPA's Proposed Rule for 

Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. Collier County does not support the 

January 14, 2010, proposed numeric nutrient criteria. We would like to take this opportunity to express our concerns 

specifically regarding the South Florida canal criteria and financial impacts associated with complying with criteria that 

are not appropriate. 

Comment ID 0921.001.004 

Author Name: Coyle F. 

Organization: Board of Collier County Commissioners 

We encourage the EPA to ensure that any rulemaking processes rely upon sound science and include meaningful 

stakeholder participation. To that end, we echo the concerns that the FDEP published on their Web site on February 17, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-970 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

2010, regarding the methodology EPA used to develop the proposed criteria and estimates of economic impact. 

We encourage the EPA to work with the FDEP, local governments, and stakeholders to determine best fit criteria that 

would not be under- or over-protective of the designated uses. The numeric criteria should be realistic, appropriate, 

attainable, practicable, and implementable. If the standard is under-protective, then impairment could continue and 

valuable resources could be lost. If the standard is over-protective, we will invest resources where they are not needed. 

Comment ID 0924.001.003 

Author Name: Collins C. 

Organization: 

In closing, by implementing more rules I can only see the "little guy" getting hurt. In the model that was presented at the 

EPA meeting in February 2010 in Orlando, it seems to me that if there is too much pollution (exceeds your new rules) 

the state/local government will only close down those who have limited resources and can not fight back. 

The task that EPA has been required to take on, is difficult. I wish you luck. Please, be careful when making your new 

rules, and be ready to enforce your rules at a federal level. It has been my experience that state and local agencies 

claim to not have the funds or just prefer to cater to people that have the politicians ear. 

Comment ID 0925.001.001 

Author Name: Greene W. 

Organization: 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of William E. “Bubba” Greene, of 

Greene’s Timber Farms, a family tree farm. I am a member of the Florida Forestry Association 

and Florida Farm Bureau Federation. I am on the Board of the Madison County Farm Bureau and sit on their State 

Forestry Advisory Board. We create policies and guidelines for the forestry industry. One of our main priorities is the 

Best Management Practices. I feel that additional rules and regulations would not be beneficial and would hinder the 

good programs we have set in place. 

Please consider my comments in not accepting the adoption of the Numeric Nutrient Water 

Quality Standards for Florida. 

Comment ID 0932.001.001 

Author Name: Levitt H. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-971 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

I am opposed to the following docket item. 

Comment ID 0938.001.001 

Author Name: Morgan J. 

Organization: 

As a Florida Citizen I protest in the strongest possible terms the imposition of new water quality standards by the 

Federal Government without providing the scientific peer tested reasons for, cost of, and expected effects of the new 

regulations. Environmental activists have exceeded their authority in lobbying Congress to pass unwarranted rules and 

laws expected to be paid for by American citizens, without their express approval through majority votes in a formally 

scheduled vote preceeded by extensive information perportedly supporting such an issue and any opposing information 

or scientific studies containing opposite conclusions. Please withdraw this excessive proposal and schedule it to be 

done in the correct way. 

Comment ID 0944.001.001 

Author Name: Flanders K 

Organization: 

Writting to express my opposition to the rule which impose excessive regulations on state and local governments. 

I am all for clear water and environment. 

The cost of this endeavor is unacceptable nor sensible. When our tax dollars are already being wildly spent and used in 

some instances as punishment (to speak). 

We are already struggling with a slow, very slow minimal jobs availible, mortgage payment, even day to day existance. 

This is completly unecessary and not in our best interest. We do not need any more control by government in every 

aspect of our lives. 

Comment ID 0947.001.008 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

4. We want Numeric Nutrient Criteria, BUT WE WANT THEM BASED ON SCIENCE-based on FLORIDA Water Bodies 

and Soils and Conditions, not arbitrarily set. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-972 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0947.001.010 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

What am I asking for today? What are Floridians asking for today? What are CONCERNED CITIZENS asking for 

today? 

1. We want you to work WITH US to accomplish the purposes and goals of the Clean Water Act of 1972. 

Comment ID 0947.001.011 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

2. We want clean water and we are committed to achieve this, in a responsible manner. 

Comment ID 0949.001.009 

Author Name: Kelley H.
 

Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party
 

Fort Walton Beach is the home of the newest wastewater plant in the United States. On behalf ofthe Fort Walton Beach 

Tea Party, we would like to register our objection to these proposed regulations. 

Comment ID 0954.001.001 

Author Name: Crenshaw A.
 

Organization: United States House of Representatives
 

There is a reason why 30% of the national water quality data is from Florida; it is because the State of Florida has been 

working hard to protect its rivers and streams, contrary to a lot of misinformation that has been presented in the media. 

Businesses, local governments, the State of Florida, and the Federal government have invested millions to restore 

impaired watersheds and protect healthy rivers and streams. We need continued coordinated efforts through federal/ 

local/ state partnerships to protect our waters from contamination and restore our local ecosystems. The EPA should 

support the efforts made by the State of Florida, who have developed a scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria 

instead of singling out Florida for scientifically flawed federal standards. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-973 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0954.001.005 

Author Name: Crenshaw A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

Make no mistake about my voice of opposition to this proposed rule, water is the lifeblood of Florida, and we must do 

everything within our power to protect it. The ecological health of our waters is tied directly to the economic vitality of 

our State . Successful long-term water management- of our precious natural resources - requires continuous 

conservation, cooperation and communication. 

Comment ID 0955.001.004 

Author Name: Putnam A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

In conclusion, I once again urge EPA to truly collaborate with DEP in developing attainable numeric nutrient standards. 

To date, the only collaboration I have seen is between EPA and a few litigants. According to DEP Secretary Sole, under 

the proposed rule, 80% of pristine Florida rivers and streams will be classified as "impaired." I fail to see how these 

contradictory conclusions between scientists will be helpful for the public in understanding these proposed rules. 

Indeed, despite the potentially widespread impacts these regulations will have on the state, Floridians do not yet 

understand their costs and benefits. They have also not been subject to debate by elected representatives. More public 

hearings and discussions are necessary and appropriate. We all share the same goal and desire to protect Florida's 

waters. And I believe we are close to having attainable, science-based standards. It is my hope EPA will address these 

concerns and use the collaborative approach as a model for future environmental protection measures. 

Comment ID 0956.001.004 

Author Name: White C. 

Organization: Washington County Cattlemen's Association 

I do not take issue with the adoption of numeric nutrient water quality criteria as a way to more effectively protect 

Florida's water quality to meet the requirement of the Clean Water Act. However, this must be done in a manner that 

makes sense using the best scientific information available and applying plain common sense. 

Comment ID 0956.001.010 

Author Name: White C. 

Organization: Washington County Cattlemen's Association 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-974 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

The last point of concern I would like to make is whether EPA has had sufficient time to develop the numerical nutrient 

criteria that makes common sense while using the best scientific data available. What would be the consequences be if 

EPA has it wrong? 

Comment ID 0957.001.002 

Author Name: Jackson J.
 

Organization: Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association
 

If I have learned one thing in working with nature and the outdoors it is that you can't pidgeon hole nature and put it in a 

neat little box. Flooding rains, wind blow debris, record pollen counts like now are falling and draining into rivers and 

lakes and man can't do a darn thing about that. He can and is minimizing his inputs due to waste water discharge, 

septic tank drainage, fertilizer use, drainage, retention and detention of surface waters. 

Comment ID 0957.001.003 

Author Name: Jackson J.
 

Organization: Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association
 

We need to get back to good science and hard reality before imposing this draconian measure on the citizens of Florida 

and then the rest of the USA. 

Comment ID 0957.001.004 

Author Name: Jackson J.
 

Organization: Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association
 

When 80% of the Top 20 fishing lakes in FL are considered to be in violation of the new numeric standard something is 

awfully wrong. 

Comment ID 0958.001.004 

Author Name: Dain R.
 

Organization: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
 

For these reasons, I hope you carefully consider the consequences prior to taking any future legislative action. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-975 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0958.001.005 

Author Name: Dain R. 

Organization: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America 

As a resident of Florida and registered voter, I am writing to you today to express my concern regarding the EPA 

Numeric Nutrient Standard. 

Comment ID 0970.001.001 

Author Name: Kearley D. 

Organization: 

The very concept that the Federal EPA should put forth rules specifically targeting the waters of one state is abhorrent. 

Florida is perfectly capable of protecting the quality of the resources of the State. Federal intervention can only be seen 

as what it is: creeping intrusion into the daily lives of the citizens of a sovereign state. New federal rules will lead to 

further suppression of commerce and jobs in the state of Florida and will be a revenue generating tool for the federal 

government. I oppose any new Federal regulations. 

Comment ID 0976.001.001 

Author Name: Brayton P. 

Organization: Charlotte Harbor Water Association, Inc. 

The Charlotte Harbor Water Association strongley opposes the proposed rule. We are a member owned non-profit 

association that was formed in the 1960's to provide potable drinking water for residents who had no other means of 

getting water. 

Comment ID 0987.001.001 

Author Name: Baldwin S. 

Organization: Friends of Wildlife 

I want to thank you for coming to Ft Myers to speak on the proposed rules. I would like to see the proposed rules for 

water standards even STRONGER than you propose. We must ignore those who let their pockets speak for them and 

want no water protection at all or limited protections, these people do not speak for the majority of us, some of whom 

actually LIVE or work on the water. If we dont make haste to clean up florida water now we will pay MUCH more in the 

future to do so. Thinking short term is of no benefit. Improving the water is a win - win, nobody likes to drink dirty water, 

even the fish. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-976 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 0991.001.001 

Author Name: Brayton P. 

Organization: Charlotte Harbor Water Association, Inc. 

The Charlotte Harbor Water Association strongley opposes the proposed rule. We are a member owned non-profit 

association that was formed in the 1960's to provide potable drinking water for residents who had no other means of 

getting water. 

Comment ID 1009.001.002 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners 

EPA's intent to establish NNC for Florida lakes and streams will impose additional significant effort and cost on local 

communities and utilities with no environmental benefit. Because of these steep costs, the NNC for Florida waters must 

be based on sound scientific evidence that supports the claim that the selected criteria will result in balanced biological 

communities indicative of stream health . 

Comment ID 1010.001.002 

Author Name: Nelson B. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Introduction 

This memorandum is being prepared as comments from the City of Bonita Springs, consistent with the January 14, 

2010 Federal Regulation proposal released by the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency to establish numeric nutrient 

criteria and Florida's lakes and flowing waters, including canals . Written comments are to be submitted to the EPA no 

later than April 28, 2010. The comments are intended to convey that the City of Bonita Springs is not necessarily 

opposed to having a numeric nutrient criteria assigned to its waterways, but is concerned that the proposed rule, as it 

may be implemented from Florida Department of Environmental Protection, may significantly impact the City of Bonita 

Springs and residents as specifically addressed within this comment letter. 

Background 

The City of Bonita Springs is located in the southwest area of Florida. While there are very few lakes in Bonita Springs 

that were not manmade, the City of Bonita Springs does have manmade lakes and canals . It also has the Imperial 

River flowing through the City of Bonita Springs, and several natural creeks. There is at least one naturally occurring 

spring that discharges into Oak Creek that is privately owned . The river and creeks run to the Estero Bay waterbody, 

and outstanding Florida water. After Estero Bay, the water proceeds to the Gulf of Mexico. Simply put, the City of Bonita 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-977 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Springs is the recipient of other waters as it then becomes the downstream estuarine and coastal waters within its 

corporate area .

 Bonita Springs as a municipality has limited agriculture uses that preceded its existence . It is impacted by agricultural 

areas located in the rural parts northeast of the City, as they provide sheet flow of storm water which proceeds into the 

City boundaries. In 2006 the City hired an engineering firm to implement a water quality monitoring program . Incoming 

samples showed a higher incidence of phosphorus and nitrogen than test sites downstream, apparently meaning that 

the City of Bonita Springs effectively acts as a filter for phosphorus and nitrogen as the waters travel downstream . 

Comment ID 1010.001.011 

Author Name: Nelson B. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Conclusion The City of Bonita Springs is not opposed to having a numeric nutrient criteria assigned to its waterways, 

but believes that it can only be done when its concerns are addressed, including the need of the U .S. Environmental 

Protection Agency to adequately prepare the economic impact and regulatory alternatives as required by federal law. 

There are many technical and financial points raised by Bonita Springs Utilities, Lee County Board of County 

Commissioners, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, etc., that are applicable within the City of Bonita 

Springs and the City respectfully requests that those comments referenced are treated as though they are specifically 

incorporated within this comment letter. 

Comment ID 1012.001.007 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of The Florida Cattlemen's Association . Our primary concerns 

with the proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida are that the proposed regional nutrient criteria 

ignore the variability of Florida's surface waters and will place unjustifiable economic burdens on Florida's struggling 

economy. 

Comment ID 1013.001.004 

Author Name: Hibbard F. 

Organization: Clearwater City Council 

Given these financial impacts to our citizens, and considering the minimal environmental benefit that can be achieved, 

the City of Clearwater fully supports the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium request that EPA recognize the 

Consortium adaptive nutrient management strategy for defining protective nutrient loads for the estuary in its proposed 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-978 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

rules for lakes, flowing waters and estuaries of the State of Florida. Thank you for your consideration 

Comment ID 1014.001.005 

Author Name: Carlton B.
 

Organization: Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association
 

Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association opposes the proposed Nutrient Criteria Standards and the impact it will 

have on current water quality improvement programs . Our opposition focuses on two items of concern-the unique 

nature of our system and its exact needs and the economics of what you are proposing. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-979 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1017.001.001 

Author Name: Wright B. 

Organization: 

MR. WRIGHT: My name is Bill Wright. I'm a nursery owner and a local from the Fort Myers area. I grew up here. I also ­

- well, interesting observation by one the previous speakers a moment ago that most of the farmers here were possibly 

farmers. That may be the case I use low-impact fertigation through drip when possible. Otherwise, only slow-release 

IFAS-approved coated fertilizers. I have to agree that this proposed regulation appears to be a good thing for Florida's 

aquatic environments, but as a nurseryman who was only beginning to recover from Hurricane Charley when the 

building industry collapsed in 2006, I can only see more hardship ahead with the implementation of these regulations. 

The nursery industry has been proactive in adopting best management practices and has generally been in the forefront 

in adopting responsible horticultural practices. It is possibly the most carbon positive of Florida's major industries, yet 

many of its most progressive growers are struggling for survival. This is not a good time to be dropping an expensive 

regulatory burden on us. 

Comment ID 1020.001.001 

Author Name: Williams C. 

Organization: 

MS. WILLIAMS: I wish you would thank the people who gave up their seats for us to let us go early.

 MR. KEATING: Yes. If there's anyone who's still here who decided to wait for this evening, thank you very much. We 

do appreciate that. 

MS. WILLIAMS: My name is Carol Williams, and I live in Palm Beach County, the largest agricultural county in the state 

with a great population of urban dwellers also. I know from working with the farmers that this area -- in this area that 

they take this issue very seriously. Our growers have been using best management practices for over 15 years. In fact, 

Florida farmers are some of the most progressive and environmentally aware farmers in the world. They do not misuse 

chemicals because it is not a good practice for their business or their land. It is very expensive and, most important, 

their families there live there. 

They are caretakers of the land and natural resources, specifically water, and with their care, it will continue on. They 

have invested millions to clean their water, reducing nutrients to the point where they are well under the required levels, 

making the water cleaner than rainwater. They continue to do more with less every year, but when is enough, enough? 

When is regulation on agriculture unreasonable? There must be logic and reason. Regulations must be driven -- must 

not be driven by fanatical environmental extremists and lawsuits. 

Comment ID 1040.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-980 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Hamel R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

We appreciate the opportunity to be here and participate. However, we have to express our opposition to the proposed 

criteria as currently drafted. Here's a few of the reasons. 

Comment ID 1066.001.001 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: 

Good evening, guys. Welcome back to Florida. Little warmer than it was when you were here last time. Thanks for 

coming, and you know we certainly know this is a very important engaging in discussion. 

I'm Wade Grigsby. I live in Venus, Florida. I have the privilege to live on the Fisheating Creek and have a condo down in 

Ten Thousand Islands in Goodland. So I've got the best of both worlds. I've got the uplands, the creeks, and Ten 

Thousand islands to play in. But I'm here as two things, two hats. As the cattlemen president, certainly this has -- as a 

land area, we have the -- we will be impacted the greatest. The least number of people, the greatest land area, and 

always the least number of people become the target. 

Interestingly, I've been here all day. Two or three times I've made a round around here, trying to find a water fountain. 

Lee County must be pretty worried about their water because either -- they don't have public water fountains for one of 

two reasons. Either they want to sell water, or they're worried about the liability of it. And it sure seems funny that all 

these problems we've heard about today have always been in the areas where large concentrations of people live, 

unlike where we live and don't have these problems. 

Guys, I was at Alico, when the land -- Alico donated to the university, to the state to build the university. We knew it was 

going to be an environmental study university. As a land-based agriculture company, do you think we would have put 

the tenth university in the state in as a $50 million donation for the right -- for the purpose of you-all to regulate us out of 

business? Heck, no. 

Comment ID 1091.001.003 

Author Name: Lewis R. 

Organization: Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Florida 

Recently the Chamber of Southwest Florida hosted a half-day seminar to provide members a multifaceted and detailed 

description of EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. Among the speakers who addressed our audience were the 

FDEP secretary, Mike Sole, and Kenneth Ammon, the deputy executive director of South Florida Water Management 

District. We had over a 125 concerned members of our community attend the event, and they have since given their 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-981 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

comments regarding the proposed rule. And today we would like to share some of those thoughts with you. 

It is the consensus of the chamber members that we support the development of numeric nutrient criteria, but we 

believe the criteria should be based on sound science, ensure adequate time for development, and consider our diverse 

water resources and the many restoration activities that are currently underway. The FDEP and the South Florida Water 

Management District and many of our local municipalities, including Lee and Collier Counties, have made strides to 

address water quality and nutrient loading issues. 

Comment ID 1095.001.004 

Author Name: Riles J. 

Organization: 

No one is more aware of the ecological sensitivity of the state than the farmers and ranchers. We live with it every day. 

We need no further regulations. Thank you for your consideration. 

Comment ID 1098-3.001.001 

Author Name: Vance A. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Introduction 

This memorandum is being prepared as comments from the City of Bonita Springs, consistent with the January 14, 

2010 Federal Regulation proposal released by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish numeric nutrient 

criteria and Florida's lakes and flowing waters, including canals. Written comments are to be submitted to the EPA no 

later than April 28, 2010. The comments are intended to convey that the City of Bonita Springs is not necessarily 

opposed to having a numeric nutrient criteria assigned to its waterways, but is concerned that the proposed rule, as it 

may be implemented from Florida Department of Environmental Protection, may significantly impact the City of Bonita 

Springs and residents as specifically addressed within this comment letter. 

Comment ID 1098-3.001.010 

Author Name: Vance A. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Conclusion 

The City of Bonita Springs is not opposed to having a numeric nutrient criteria assigned to its waterways, but believes 

that it can only be done when its concerns are addressed, including the need of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-982 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Agency to adequately prepare the economic impact and regulatory alternatives as required by federal law. 

There are many technical and financial points raised by Bonita Springs Utilities, Lee County Board of County 

Commissioners, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, etc., that are applicable within the City of Bonita 

Springs and the City respectfully requests that those comments referenced are treated as though they are specifically 

incorporated within this comment letter. 

Comment ID 1102.001.001 

Author Name: Kelley K. 

Organization: 

Hello. My name is Kent Kelley. I'm a fifth generation, born in Fort Myers, Florida. I oppose the EPA getting involved with 

the water quality of Florida. I think that the DEP and DACS is working on that. And although the speed at which the 

water quality is not improving as quickly as it should, -- I don't disagree that the water needs to be worked on and 

cleaned up, but I'm here to help represent agriculture, and I don't want them to get a bad wrap. 

Comment ID 1117.001.002 

Author Name: McCoy R. 

Organization: 

Now, first off, we would like to say that I as well as my members and I believe everybody in this room believes that we 

need to have clean water, that Florida's lakes and rivers do need to have something done to them. 

Comment ID 1125.001.003 

Author Name: Hodges D.
 

Organization: Palm & Pines Mobile Home Park
 

I see neither a necessity, nor the means to carry this out. I am against this proposal. I believe it would be ruinous for my 

small family business. 

Comment ID 1136.001.001 

Author Name: Underhill T. 

Organization: 

Hi, my name is Todd Underhill. I live in Sarasota. I was born in Sarasota. I'm an eighth-generation Floridian, and my 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-983 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

family has been in -- in Florida since it was a Spanish Colony. 

I'm a -- I'm a family rancher, and I have grown citrus in the past. I speak only for myself. I happen to be a member of 

Sarasota County's Farm Bureau, the Cattlemen's Association, and I am also an elected official serving on Sarasota's 

Soil and Water Conservation District, which -- of which I serve as the chair currently. 

I am an advocate for clean water and for recognizing the impacts of polluters, which I think it's important to recognize 

that if you live in Florida, you are a polluter. 

We currently have over 16 million people in this state. Some projections show that in the next 50 years, that may 

double. That's a lot of people, and that's a lot of polluters, and a lot of impacts. 

I think it -- I think it's commendable the actions to -- to seek clean water. But I want to speak about some of my 

concerns as a -- as a family farmer. 

Comment ID 1137.001.001 

Author Name: Richards J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

I'm Joe Richards, Assistant County Attorney for Pasco County. And to save some time, I'll adopt the comments of the 

Nutrient -- I mean, the Nitrogen Management Consortium, which Pasco County is participant in, and also those 

comments of Hillsborough County and Pinellas County. 

Comment ID 1137.001.004 

Author Name: Richards J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

And also, I would like to say in closing that Pasco County property owners currently pay over 15 million dollars per year 

to fund the county's stormwater utility. And before we have to increase these stormwater fees, we want to make sure 

that the scientific deficiencies are addressed. 

Comment ID 1153.001.002 

Author Name: Ghent R. 

Organization: CF Industries 

And I'm here today to tell you that unlike 20 years ago, there is no nutrient crisis in Tampa Bay, and E.P.A.'s proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria are not the most effective way to manage nutrients. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-984 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1155.001.001 

Author Name: Kollinger R. 

Organization: Polk County 

Good evening. For the record, my name is Robert Kollinger, I am the water resources manager from Polk County, I am 

an environmental engineer, and my primary duties are implementing, monitoring, and reporting on the M.P.D.S. 

activities required by our municipal stormwater permit. To give you some background, Polk County was a phase 1 

municipality permitted in 1996 by E.P.A. The permit covers not only the County, but 17 municipalities within the county, 

as well as the Department of Transportation and the turnpike authority. The county is predominantly rural in nature. 

We've got over 2,000 square miles of area. We have 554 lakes and the tributaries to six major river systems in the 

central Florida. We've got over 350 M.P.D.S. stormwater outfalls that go to these surface waters, and these are within 

the County's jurisdiction, not -- not counting any of the 17 municipalities. We've been monitoring surface water within 

the county since 1986, and while we agree that there is room for improvement in the water quality, we disagree with the 

numeric criteria being proposed for several reasons. 

Comment ID 1155.001.006 

Author Name: Kollinger R. 

Organization: Polk County 

Although the numeric standard does not accurately evaluate whether or not a designated use of the surface water is 

being met, that's one of the issues we have with the criteria that are being proposed. 

Comment ID 1163.001.002 

Author Name: Carroll R. 

Organization: Carroll Brothers Nursery 

And I would like to talk a little bit about the water, how this is going to hurt the efforts of cleaning up the water as far as 

the best management practices in the future, coming down through. And I would like to impress upon your minds about 

using sound science and being site specific. 

Comment ID 1164-1.001.001 

Author Name: Baer W. 

Organization: City of Altamonte Springs Public Works and Utilities 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-985 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

This letter is submitted to provide notice of the City of Altamonte Springs' objection to the Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596 regarding proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. Based upon our review of the criteria and on 

discussions with our peer groups, Florida Stormwater Association (FSA), Florida Local Environmental Resource 

Agencies (FLERA), and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the City maintains that these 

criteria are arbitrary, capricious, and onerous to the community it serves. 

Comment ID 1164.001.001 

Author Name: Baer W. 

Organization: City of Altamonte Springs Public Works and Utilities 

The City of Altamonte Springs is submitting this letter to provide notice of the City's opposition to Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596 regarding proposed numeric criteria for Florida. 

Comment ID 1172.001.001 

Author Name: Wideman J. 

Organization: Pine Grove Village 

I am a member of the Board of Directors of Pine Grove Village, a small over-55 residential development in Boynton 

Beach, FL. We have had our own public water treatment facility for the past 45 years. We strongly object to this new 

rule as it will adversely impact our residents and there is absolutely no way we can connect to another public water 

system in the foreseeable future. 

Comment ID 1172.001.003 

Author Name: Wideman J. 

Organization: Pine Grove Village 

The Florida DEP has a superior understanding of Florida's ecosystems to EPA and should be allowed to continue it's 

site specific assessments through the State's proven TMDL program. 

I could go on and on to prove that there are more negatives than positives in EPA's NNC proposal. We strongly object 

to it and will be watching to see if our government works for us or ignores us and runs full speed ahead with their 

agenda. 

Comment ID 1179.001.002 

Author Name: Peterson M. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-986 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation District 

So we support FDEP. We support the TMDL program. We feel that by restructuring our water quality standards and 

regulations to an impossible goal, by far agriculture in Florida will suffer the most. We don't want to punish a valuable 

tax base to our state, when the biggest offenders are really the uneducated homeowners in suburban and urban areas. 

Comment ID 1184.001.001 

Author Name: Stephenson R. 

Organization: 

I am opposed to this regulation and fear the impact it would have on one of this country's best economies. Sincerely, 

Ramona Stephenson R.N. 

Comment ID 1186.001.001 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: Florida Growers 

Just say no to these proposed rules. 

Comment ID 1194.001.004 

Author Name: Spitzer K.
 

Organization: Florida Stormwater Association
 

We fear that these rules as structured at the present time, and we have a lot of time to change them, but at the present 

time, it really may have some unintended consequences to what you and we want to attain. 

Comment ID 1211-1.001.002 

Author Name: Threet J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

The EPA's proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida concerns me due to the following: (1) the 

Numeric Criteria appear to have been arbitrarily set without benefit of science; (2) the Numeric Criteria appear to be 

unattainable with current technology and without very aggressive and very expensive practices, and (3) it took until 

2000-01 for the EPA to publish technical guidance for anyone to develop numeric nutrient criteria. The development 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-987 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

plan entered into between FDEP and EPA in July 2004 to establish Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida was suddenly 

declared, on January 14, 2009, "insufficient to ensure protection of the state's waterbodies as required by the Clean 

Water Act" (Note: the Clean Water Act became effective October 18, 1972, almost 38 years ago). 

Comment ID 1216-1.001.001 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Northwest Florida Utility Managers Council 

The Northwest Florida Utility Managers Council is an organization of utility managers and consultants representing the 

interests of over half the population of the panhandle of Florida. The Council is expressly and intensely opposed to the 

proposed rule setting standards for nutrient concentrations in the lakes and streams of our region. The water resources 

of this area are varied and complex and our waters are some of the best anywhere. The standards being established for 

the panhandle are flat wrong in that they are not related to the protection of the water quality in this area. They are more 

likely to be either over protective or under protective than they are of being protective. In most cases we believe them to 

be extremely over protective. This area has a strong history of taking care of our water resources but; because we have 

done such a good job, we are now being punished for being successful in defending our water resources and for being 

proactive in that effort. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.026 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

III. Conclusion 

Mosaic believes that EPA's Rule is flawed because it lacks a good scientific foundation, relies upon overly presumptive 

and uniform criteria, and reflects several unsound policy choices. The Rule will unquestionably result in costs to 

Florida's taxpayers, municipalities, businesses, and agriculture that will vastly exceed EPA's estimates; and the 

purported "benefits" to be gained are far more speculative and less studied than they should be. While the Rule reflects 

a recognition of the need to afford flexibility in compliance and implementation, the mechanisms are too cumbersome 

and vaguely drafted to provide meaningful relief or assure appropriate flexibility. As a result, the outcome of the Rule 

will be more stringent regulation than EPA recognizes is warranted. 

The Rule, as proposed, would have unnecessarily severe impacts on Florida's economy and on all those who contribute 

to or depend upon it, unless the Rule is revised to incorporate the kinds of practical refinements proposed in these and 

other comments. Absent revisions, the Rule will be vulnerable to legal challenge on grounds of its being arbitrary and 

capricious and contrary to law. Mosaic stands ready and eager to work constructively with EPA to fashion a wellgrounded and well-focused Rule; and Mosaic would welcome the opportunity of further dialog with EPA regarding the 

issues raised and the modifications advocated in these comments. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-988 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1229.001.001 

Author Name: Payne J.
 

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

Good afternoon, my name is James Payne, and I work with Farmland Reserve. 

All of us would like to see clean water. We all depend upon it regardless of what we do. I think the important thing is to 

avoid spending resources unnecessarily for restoration efforts without any corresponding environmental benefit. 

In my particular case, there is a high degree of natural diversity among streams and water bodies on the property where 

I work. Some streams are listed as not meeting the criteria while others are listed as meeting the criteria. 

The two basically have the same management regimen, so it's difficult to know whether the variation is man induced or 

whether it's the result of natural variation in the data. It's my belief that both streams are healthy. 

Comment ID 1237.001.001 

Author Name: McClellan D. 

Organization: 

Yes, sir, my name is Dale McClellan. I'm a dairy farmer. I'm opposed to the E.P.A. getting involved in Florida business. 

I'm in favor of the total maximum daily load process that we currently are using in the state of Florida. 

Comment ID 1237.001.003 

Author Name: McClellan D. 

Organization: 

And I am very hopeful that our government, be it Florida or on a national level, will not allow emotion to make 

regulations, that they will allow actual science. 

So thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 1248.001.002 

Author Name: Gilbert A. 

Organization: Pleasant Hill Village 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-989 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

With all the other problems this country is facing including unemployment, homelessness, hunger, and an inability to 

meet basic needs, do we really need to raise the bar so dramatically without any scientific basis? I implore you not to 

decimate our small business, our residents, and our economy with this dramatic rule. Please reconsider. 

Comment ID 1257.001.004 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

Therefore, I join my farmers in questioning E.P.A.'s broad criteria regulations. We need prudent standards to avoid 

economic disaster, and this requires good science and efficient use of our resources. 

Comment ID 1258.001.002 

Author Name: Frey C. 

Organization: City of St. Petersburg 

So I just want to say that the City of St. Petersburg supports the many comments made today, particularly Pinellas 

County and by -- those by the estuary program themselves, but -- and as well the other members as well, too. 

So we appreciate it. Thank you for your efforts that you've put forth here and for the time you've given us to speak as 

well as for your considerations that you have given us for the comments we have made at the last public hearing. Thank 

you. 

Comment ID 1260-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hurner L. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

Florida Citrus Mutual is the largest citrus trade organization in the world with more than 8,000 grower members. 

Founded in 1948, Mutual is governed by a 21-member Board of Directors made up of citrus growers from across the 

state. As the only state-wide citrus trade organization we offer members services in the areas of: trade, legislative 

assistance at the state and federal levels, economic/pricing information and pest and disease research information. 

The Florida citrus industry covers about 570,000 acres, which if contiguous would roughly cover the entire state of 

Rhode Island. Citrus generates a statewide economic impact of $9 billion a year and directly and indirectly employs 

about 76,000 people, everybody from fruit harvesters to truck drivers to crop insurance agents to bankers. In Florida we 

produce almost 75% of all orange juice consumed in the United States. The state is also the world's largest grapefruit 

producer. Florida citrus growers supply a wholesome product that provides citizens with essential nutrients including 

Vitamin C, a powerful and healthy antioxidant. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-990 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Due to the significant global impact of our industry, Florida Citrus Mutual is extremely concerned with the proposed EPA 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria. We have grouped our concerns into three general areas: scientific basis, ongoing 

environmental improvements and economic impact. 

Comment ID 1260-1.001.005 

Author Name: Hurner L. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

Conclusion: 

Florida Citrus Mutual is very WORRIED that expensive and ultimately unattainable regulations will push the Florida 

citrus industry over the edge and put growers out of business. There is a razor thin margin between staying in business 

and going bankrupt and costly regulation could tip the scale. 

So what happens when growers go out of business because they can't afford to comply with unattainable rules and 

regulations? Food production shifts overseas. We've all seen it throughout history on a number of products, not just 

foodstuffs. 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. 

The new Numeric Nutrient Criteria regulations as written would be another competitive advantage enjoyed by Brazilian 

growers. The rules will pound another nail in the coffin of Florida citrus. 

Food production is too important to the future and security of the United States to essentially hand it over to foreign 

countries. Any new regulation that puts additional cost burden on the Florida citrus grower will be disastrous, not only to 

our industry but the economy of Florida as well. 

Comment ID 1261-1.001.002 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County 

EPA's intent to establish NNC for Florida lakes and streams will impose additional significant effort and cost on local 

communities and utilities with no justifiable environmental benefit. The proposed regulations will unfairly penalize 

Florida by significantly increasing the cost to comply with water quality standards 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. Because of these steep costs, the NNC for Florida waters must be based on sound scientific evidence that 

supports the claim that the selected criteria will result in balanced biological communities indicative of stream health. 

The potential for these steep cost impacts in Volusia County is reflected in the associated map and table provided in 

Attachment 1 that show additional waters that would be impaired under EPA's proposed NNC. Much of Volusia 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-991 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

County's unincorporated land mass is comprised of water bodies, wetlands, forested and open areas as evidenced by 

the land use/land cover coverage developed by the St. Johns River Water Management District (Figure 1). As shown on 

the map, much of this land has been maintained in its natural condition so that the proposed rule would pose even more 

of a hardship in trying to achieve nutrient criteria that are not even exhibited by the natural water bodies in Volusia 

County. 

Original comment letter contains additional information on land cover in Volusia County in Figure 1, See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1261-1.001.018 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County 

Final General Conunent: EPA's approaches, although based to a large degree on FDEP data and analyses, do not 

provide sufficient scientific validation to warrant the significant fiscal consequences to surface water discharges in 

Florida, nor do they demonstrate that Florida waters need nutrient protection to this degree. 

Comment ID 1262.001.002 

Author Name: Redd W. 

Organization: Deseret Farms of Ruskin 

The imposition of region-wide nutrient content criteria without specific scientific supporting data will cause significant 

economic harm to Florida's agricultural producers. 

Comment ID 1262.001.007 

Author Name: Redd W. 

Organization: Deseret Farms of Ruskin 

My concern is that the proposed E.P.A. numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams and rivers does not take into 

account the variability of Florida's surface waters. 

In many cases, resources will be wasted, both mine and the taxpayers', attempting to make water bodies meet nutrient 

concentrations that they would not naturally meet even in the absence of human interaction. 

Numeric nutrient content criteria must be site specific and based on scientifically-established individual targets in order 

to be achievable -- achievable, equitable, and effective in protecting Florida's surface waters. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-992 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Thank you for taking your time to listen to us in this matter. 

Comment ID 1264.001.002 

Author Name: Melton K. 

Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission 

O.U.C. supports the E.P.A. and D.P. -- D.E.P.'s efforts to improve water quality across the state of Florida; however, we 

disagree with the E.P.A.'s numeric nutrient criteria standards in the proposed rule. In addition to the questions regarding 

the science behind the proposed rule, we believe there are a number of unintended consequences that the E.P.A. has 

failed to consider. 

Comment ID 1266.001.003 

Author Name: Morrissey J. 

Organization: Pinellas County 

And the numeric criteria as they are posed, I think a lot of citizens are viewing those as quick and easy fixes to the 

algae blooms and to the -- you know, the other issues that you laid out in your slide show. A lot of those blooms come 

from items other than the nitrogen. 

And to the extent that either the agency or the D.E.P. propose that these will be fixes, there is going to be a lot of 

disappointed Floridians, particularly when you view the amount of money that utilities and general funds will spend on 

either sewer plant improvements or stormwater improvements. 

The slide presentation criticized the State of Florida and their narrative criteria as being too slow. It is a slow process, 

I'm sure you are familiar with the Florida process and the Florida rules. And Florida is not an easy state to permit, it 

doesn't currently have easy regulations. 

But the mechanisms that the agency proposes in this rule, the allowances for site-specific criteria that Florida can 

demonstrate to the E.P.A. as being protective is going to put another layer of controversy, litigation, bureaucracy in 

between the goal that everybody has in improved water quality and a standard that can be met. 

The allowance for state-issued and E.P.A.-approved restoration standards poses the same problem. The rule I think 

allows for up to 20 years for a restoration. Sometimes that will be too slow, sometimes that will be too fast, but one can 

almost guarantee that it will slow process rather than speed it. 

Anytime there is -- there is the -- the ability for somebody to protest, somebody will. And it -- it makes a challenging 

state permit even more challenging with an additional layer of federal government in addition to state government. 

Thank you very much, and I hope you have an opportunity to visit some of our beautiful waters while you are here. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-993 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1273.001.001 

Author Name: Shaw D. 

Organization: City of Bartow Public Works Department 

The City of Bartow being a co-permittee with Polk County and the annual NDPES permit, stands behinds and supports 

the County and the comments presented in the attacthed document. The City of Bartow contains several outfalls and 

feels the implementation of the nutrient criteria rule would would be a difficult process in stormwater retrofit treatment 

due to a low overall budget and manpower issues. 

Comment ID 1277.001.001 

Author Name: Moyer L. 

Organization: 

MR. MOYER: Hi. My name is Larry Moyer. I'm with Bay County Utilities. Just a few points. First of all, the fact that 

humans are on the planet impacts our rivers, lakes, and streams, and the fact that Florida is one of the most populace 

states in the country leads to that impact. Probably not the pristine waters that people were used to when they came 

here many, many years ago, but we caused our own problem. And anybody -- how we're going to go back, I don't think 

we can. So the thing is that I think that everybody has to realize that there's moderate -- there's moderate changes that 

need to be made and we have to recognize the impact that we have that we're not going to be able to fix. We are not 

going to make this a pristine environment anymore, not unless you're going to ban people from your state. 

Comment ID 1277.001.004 

Author Name: Moyer L. 

Organization: 

And I want to point out a couple of things. That Chesapeake Bay, which the EPA has been in charge of for a long, long 

time, is a failed policy, and tried to put nutrient limits on point sources. It failed. The bay is still dead. And millions, 

hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent there and those people do not see anything as a result of your policy 

and the enforcement that was put there. You now have given the Chesapeake area 25 years to comply with what is 

called "enhanced nutrient removal." Well, enhanced nutrient removal is an order of magnitude higher than what you're 

proposing for Florida wastewater systems, and you're giving them 25 years to make it there. 

And I think that we have to be realistic. 

Comment ID 1277.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-994 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Moyer L. 

Organization: 

You guys couldn't get -- I mean, I hate to be a little bit crude, but you guys couldn't get out of your own chattel in a year 

and you're expecting all these utilities to comply with this in a very short time frame. We've got a bid process just like 

you do. We've got to hire engineers, we've got to hire consultants, and we've got to be responsible to our ratepayers. 

Our ratepayers deserve -- if we spend a dollar of their money, they deserve to see what that's going to get them. And if 

you make all these wastewater plants in this state comply with this standard, you will not see one bit of change in the 

estuaries and river systems. The wastewater systems are not the problem, and until you guys want to face where the 

problem is and fix it, we're not going to get anything for our money and it's a wasted effort. 

And I think everybody here wants to see something including, us. Us who are in the wastewater industry have been 

environmental stewards for a long time. We've been trying to do the right thing. We've been trying to get our plants on 

line. Florida has some of the most technically advanced wastewater systems in the country, and we're ahead of where 

Chesapeake is. So I think the problem is a lot more complex than anybody wants to admit. 

Nutrients are necessary for plants. They always have been. And in natural systems, you have runoff that occurs, you 

have drought that occurs, and these things happen, some of these things that we're seeing. I think that we have to get 

realistic. We have to put more scientific proof into the study so that we can make the most use out of our dollars and we 

need to regulate the right components. That's all I've got to say. 

Comment ID 1278.001.002 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

My first comment is I want to say that I listened patiently to the opening comments you two made. I could only conclude 

that you're very confused right now. We hope through this process that we can help you out with the mess that you 

have made. Earthjustice has made public statements that estimates of cost of compliance running into the billions are 

ludicrous. Their statements come from a place of extreme ignorance. Their spokesman, David Guest, is not a scientist 

or an engineer. He is not trained, equipped, or knowledgeable to understand the treatment of the water, nor can he 

support his statements. 

I think that billions might not be the word that we should be using. I think we need to talk more in the terms of trillions. 

The Florida Department of Transportation in the development operates the most extensive stormwater management 

system in Florida. Their investment to comply with the water quality criteria in the proposed rule could easily run to half 

a trillion dollars. Cities and counties will easily need a half a trillion dollars to meet the water quality standards being 

imposed. 

Wading through the smoke screen purposely thrown up by the EPA, the rule requires that stormwater drains 

discharging to a water course cannot discharge water that does not meet the standards in the proposed EPA rule. This 

means that at some point prior to discharge the water in these systems has to be captured, transported to a treatment 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-995 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

facility, most likely reverse osmosis plant, where it can be stripped of the nutrients it contains. These plants are 

expensive to build and to operate and they are extreme energy hogs. I'm not for sure where Florida will get the 

electricity needed to power these treatment facilities. 

Reading comments made by some of these -- these are comments in the docket made by the special interest groups 

represented by Earthjustice reveals a lack of understanding of the proposed rule. Many of the comments made by 

members of the Sierra Club point to their support of the rule because of runoff from the land and discharge from septic 

tanks which are polluting the water courses. This rule is not going to regulate either one of those sources of pollution. 

So it appears that just as EPA has misled the Congress of the United States, possibly lied to a federal judge, it appears 

that you've now misled your co-conspirers. 

Other comments made by organizations such as the Clean Water Network of Florida are bogus. It's been my 

experience that their leader in Florida is very good at not letting facts stand in the way of a good story. I read comments 

from a few members of these special interest groups that are in the docket who say they support the EPA but then state 

that each water body is different and a standard needs to be set for that individual water body. They're absolutely 

correct in that. This rule does not accomplish that. Addition, many of the individuals making these comments recognize 

that all contributors to nutrient balance should work together. Again, the EPA rule does not recognize this as important. 

It is prescriptive in nature. 

Pretty much what the people from these advocacy groups are stating is what Florida is already doing, using the TDML 

program to methodically analyze each water body, establish a specific nutrient limit that is protective of that water body, 

and then collaboratively working together with all contributors to decrease the amount of nutrients entering that specific 

water body. The proposed mandate on the citizens of Florida is a poorly thought out rule that will not be protective of 

the waters of Florida and have as much chance of doing harm as of doing good. Next. 

Comment ID 1281.001.002 

Author Name: Frost Jr. J. 

Organization: 

MR. FROST, JR.: We have the written BMP issue which one of you gentlemen talked about in Orlando, and nitrogen 

was found in groundwater on the ridge. And a study group was put together with podox (phonetic), University of Florida, 

and the water management districts. And they set up their monitoring sites, and they came up with a proposed interim 

rule, and the growers adopted it. And at those monitored sites where the interim rule was adopted, the groundwater 

nitrogen decreased. The final rule was adopted in October of 2002. Technology came along at the same time. Tree 

seed technology, where you have an eye system on the spreader, turns the spreader on and off where there is no tree, 

it applies different rates to different size trees, and it reduced the amount of fertilizer applied to orange groves by 25 

percent on average across all the acres. So less fertilizer was put on the ridge. Fertilizer wasn't applied to where there 

weren't any trees. 

BMP has been developed for Indian River citrus lagoon, Peace River basin, Manasota basin, gulf citrus, the fern 

industry in Putnam County. It's applying science, fadatz (Phonetic), it's a state law. It's aimed at reducing fertilizer. It's 

cooperative in nature, interaction between DEP, water management districts, University of Florida, and growers. We're 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-996 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

trying to do our job. Have you guys funded any research in Florida on water pollution? 

MR. KING: We're here to hear your comments, and if that's something you'd like us to respond to on the record, we'd 

be happy to. 

MR. FROST, JR.: But I'm for rules, I'm just for the process that DEP was following. And I was under the impression that 

you guys, they were communicating with you-all through a series of meetings starting in the 2000 time frame as they did 

their research working towards a numeric criteria, and there was an agreement in -- a year ago about coming -- you 

know, their final rule for numeric standards was going to be in place and this was all before the lawsuit. So I don't 

understand. I mean, they were working towards a numeric rule. It's their research. I don't get, you know -­

Comment ID 1285.001.002 

Author Name: Putnam T. 

Organization: Langdale Company 

We are concerned that the EPA's rule could have a negative impact on our ability to balance environmental protection 

with economic utilization. We share Florida's goal of protecting its water from all forms of pollution. And the silviculture 

Best Management Practices that we use in our forest lands have resulted in sustainable and diverse habitat for both 

plant and animals species. As the Florida Forestry Commission has noted in its comments, a peer review published 

study of streams in five forest sites concluded nutrients were relatively low both before and after harvest. We support 

the Florida DEP's use of a two-tiered approach in stream evaluation. Numeric nutrient criteria followed bio assessment 

gives a much best picture of a waterway's overall condition. This is an important component in the evaluation of a 

stream's impairment, and the EPA's rule does not include this provision. 

Finally, we have a vested interest in keeping Florida's streams healthy and have made significant investments to 

achieve that end. The rule that the EPA has proposed would result in some of Florida's most pristine waterways being 

classified as impaired when, in fact, they're clearly not impaired, and such an approach is counterproductive to 

protecting Florida's waters. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1291-1.001.005 

Author Name: Brown A. 

Organization: The City of Pompano Beach Utilities Administration 

I have read countless comment letters listing reason after reason why this draft rule would be detrimental to Florida. We 

have attempted to come up with benefits from implementation of this rule and were unsuccessful. Thank you again, for 

considering our comments and if you would like to discuss any of the comments please feel free to contact us. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-997 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

The attached report comprises the comments of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) 

relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the 

State of Florida. 

NCASI is an independent, non-profit research institute that focuses on environmental topics of interest to the forest 

products industry. Members of NCASI represent over 90% of the pulp and paper production in the United States. In its 

capacity as a research organization, NCASI has a long history of collaboration with EPA on numerous environmental 

topics related to the forest products industry including effluent regulation, water quality management, and relationships 

between human and natural stressors on aquatic ecosystems. In keeping with NCASI's mission as a science-based 

organization, the information presented in the attached report reflects a detailed, scientifically-oriented analysis of the 

data and decisions underlying EPA's proposed criteria for Florida waters. We are hopeful that EPA will give serious 

attention to the analyses presented in the report, and the suggestions predicated upon them, for improving the methods 

used to manage nutrient pollution. The attached report references a number of NCASI publications (NCASI technical 

bulletins) which are being added to the docket under separate cover. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.002 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) is an independent, non-profit research institute that 

focuses on environmental topics of interest to the forest products industry. Members of NCASI represent over 90% of 

the pulp and paper production in the United States. In its capacity as a research organization, NCASI has a long history 

of collaboration with EPA on numerous environmental topics related to the forest products industry including effluent 

regulation, water quality management, and relationships between human and natural stressors on aquatic ecosystems. 

The NCASI staff includes more than 30 research professionals and support staff that specialize in areas related to 

water quality measurement, management, and aquatic ecosystem health. Many of these staff have undertaken nutrientrelated research and were directly involved in reviewing the scientific basis of the EPA numeric nutrient criteria proposal 

for Florida waters. Their input has been incorporated in these comments with the expectation that EPA will take 

advantage of their expertise as the Agency considers approaches for managing water quality challenges related to 

nutrient pollution. Some of the comments presented in this report are responsive to inquiries communicated to NCASI 

by the Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs (FPPAEA) and its members. 

In keeping with NCASI's mission as a science-based organization, the information presented herein reflects a detailed, 

scientifically-oriented analysis of the data and decisions underlying EPA's proposed criteria for Florida waters. We are 

hopeful that EPA will give serious attention to the analyses presented in this report and the suggestions predicated 

upon them for improving the methods used to manage nutrient pollution in a responsible way. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-998 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.008 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Section 6 of this report shows that nutrient-related TMDLs that have included refined water quality modeling efforts 

have shown that nutrient levels protective of water quality and aquatic life can be higher than the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1296-1.001.001 

Author Name: Drew H. 

Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing 

Buckeye Florida, L.P. (Buckeye) is submitting these comments in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (EP A's) proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters within the State of 

Florida and the downstream protection values for estuaries. Buckeye would also like the record to reflect that it supports 

the comments that are being provided by the Florida Pulp & Paper Association Environmental Mfairs (FPP AEA). 

Comment ID 1296-1.001.002 

Author Name: Drew H. 

Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing 

The comments that follow demonstrate the criteria proposed by EPA are not scientifically defensible and are overly 

protective of the designated uses of flowing waters and estuaries in the Apalachee Bay Watershed (EDA Code: G090x) 

and the Econfina/Steinhatchee Coastal Drainage· Area (CDA Code: G086x). Unless the final regulations recognize and 

correct these problems or fail to include appropriate provisions to accommodate site-specific conditions, such as 

sitespecific alternative criteria (SSAC), the potential costs associated with the proposed rule will be extremely 

burdensome and may still result in criteria that cannot be achieved. 

Comment ID 1297-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hurt T. 

Organization: City of St. Cloud 

Administrator Jackson: 

The City of St. Cloud, FL has been monitoring the EPA's rulemaking process for the proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Loading rule. The City of St. Cloud supports the preservation of Florida's environment, but is unable to support the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-999 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

proposed rule as it is currently written. 

The City of St. Cloud is supportive of the comments and concerns presented by the Florida Stormwater Association 

(FSA) and the Florida Section of the American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) regarding the EPA's Numeric 

Nutrient Loading requirements. 

We also support the efforts of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water 

Management District as they work diligently to implement standards that preserve our local water bodies. If you have 

any questions please feel free to contact me at (407) 957-7301. 

Comment ID 1299-1.001.001 

Author Name: Newlin J. 

Organization: Orange-Co, Inc. 

Orange-Co produces 5 1/2 million boxes of oranges that are squeezed into 40 million gallons of orange juice annually, 

directly employing over 154 people in Desoto and Charlotte Counties, and directly impacting the employment of more 

than 500 additional people through products and services we purchase.. We manage our citrus trees and land yearround, harvesting the fruit from October through June. Our combined economic impact is significant, particularly at our 

primary citrus grove site of 19 thousand acres in Desoto County: a rural, agricultural community of just over 35 

thousand people. 

Orange-Co owns over 20 thousand acres of Florida land in two locations within the Prairie Creek and Shell Creek 

watershed management areas. We are members of the Joshua Water Control District and the East Charlotte Drainage 

District, which encompass more than a hundred like-minded citrus growers. Orange-Co, like most Florida landowners, 

is dedicated to being a good steward of its land and the related natural resources, including water. We understand and 

operate with the knowledge that our own long term best interests are served by responsible use and management of 

our natural resources. The proposed water quality standards proposed by the EPA are therefore significant to us. These 

standards, if implemented as proposed, will have a significant negative impact on our business and our industry, and 

will be detrimental to the state of Florida, its people and the environment. 

Comment ID 1299-1.001.006 

Author Name: Newlin J. 

Organization: Orange-Co, Inc. 

The people of Florida, both directly and through our businesses and government agencies are already doing the hard 

work to protect our water resources, and we do not need the EPA to set arbitrary "numeric standards" that have no, or 

the wrong scientific basis, and are too broad and do NOT consider each individual water body and system's unique 

needs. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1000
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

An example of the use of incorrect "science" in determining these standards is the indication of the use of the 

SPARROW model developed by the US Geological Survey. We have been told by knowledgeable experts that the US 

Geological Survey does NOT recommend use of the SPARROW model in cases where the water system is significantly 

impacted by ground water. To us, it would seem that all water bodies in Florida are impacted by groundwater; certainly 

those in the southern regions of which we are very familiar. 

If the EPA feels compelled to be involved, then we invite you to roll up your sleeves, join with us in doing the hard, timeconsuming work of evaluating and setting standards for each water body and system and reverse this course of setting 

broad-brush standards that will work contrary to everyone's goal of having healthy water systems. 

Comment ID 1300-1.001.001 

Author Name: Newlin J. 

Organization: CI Groves LLC 

CI Groves, LLC produces nearly 700 thousand boxes of oranges that are squeezed into 4~ million gallons of orange 

juice annually. We manage our citrus trees and land year-round, harvesting the fruit from October through June. Our 

combined economic impact is significant, with over 2,800 acres of land in Desoto County, a rural, agricultural 

community of just over 35 thousand people. 

We are a member of the Joshua Water Control District, which encompass more than a hundred Iikeminded citrus 

growers. CI Groves, like other Florida landowners, is dedicated to being a good steward of its land and the related 

natural resources, including water. We understand and operate with the knowledge that our own long term best 

interests are served by responsible use and management of our natural resources. The proposed water quality 

standards proposed by the EPA are therefore significant to us. These standards, if implemented as proposed, will have 

a significant negative impact on our business and our industry, and will be detrimental to the state of Florida, its people 

and the environment. 

Comment ID 1300-1.001.005 

Author Name: Newlin J. 

Organization: CI Groves LLC 

The people of Florida, both directly and through our businesses and government agencies are already doing the hard 

work to protect our water resources, and do not need the EPA to set arbitrary "numeric standards" that have no, or the 

wrong scientific basis, and are too broad and do NOT consider each individual water body and system's unique needs. 

If the EPA feels compelled to be involved, then we invite you to roll up your sleeves, join with us in doing the hard, timeconsuming work of evaluating and setting standards for each water body and system - and reverse this course of 

setting broad-brush standards that may work contrary to everyone's goal of having healthy water systems. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1001
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1301-1.001.022 

Author Name: Hodge R. 

Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated 

We suggest that EPA withdraw this ill advised rule and instead reach the goal of improving water quality by letting DEP 

continue working with all stakeholders on improving water quality through the TMDL process. This process allows 

stakeholders to work together to develop numeric nutrient criteria on a basin/water body specific approach. EPA has 

been and would continue to play a part in this process and EPA has ultimate approval of the TMDLs. Sounds like a 

reasonable approach and an approach that was on track to ultimately have numeric criteria for the entire State of 

Florida-isn't that what EPA wants? 

Thank you for your attention to the points I have made in this letter and we look forward to EPA acting upon some of the 

recommendations being offered and stand ready to assist you in this effort. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.007 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

For the reasons provided with these comments, and as described in further detail in the accompanying reports, the 

proposed regulation ignores the scientific method and violates Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements for the 

development of numeric criteria. The proposed rule also deviates from EPA regulations and guidelines, with no 

reasoned explanation for the deviation. The legal concerns (see Appendix E of these comments) related to the 

proposed rule include fundamental flaws in EPA's notice and public participation processes, errors in separate legal 

requirements for the adoption of federal regulations, the lack of necessary relief mechanisms for nutrients in Florida, the 

importance of including important implementing provisions in the final rule to address site-specific circumstances, and 

the consideration of upstream states and dischargers. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.008 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

These comments summarize the essential conclusions of the separate technical reports provided with these comments. 

An attachment (Attachment 2) provides a detailed listing, in bullet form, of these and other technical flaws in the 

proposed regulation. FPPAEA has also collaborated with several state and national organizations submitting 

comments. Specifically the Association has coordinated its efforts with the American Forest and Paper Association 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1002
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

(AF&PA) and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). FPPAEA fully supports their 

comments and incorporates them by reference. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.009 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

The Agency must give serious consideration to the wide range of comments submitted and the depth and breadth of 

opposition to the proposed standards. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.015 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

HydroQual is an engineering firm that specializes in, among other services, the mathematical modeling to evaluate the 

fate and transport of pollutants and the effect of their presence in natural water systems. The Association requested 

HydroQual's expertise to help understand the scientific basis of the proposed standards and what other, more 

scientifically appropriate, approaches are available to establishing appropriate nutrient loads protective of designated 

uses. The comments from HydroQual are also supportive of the FDEP's analysis and NCASI's assessment. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.062 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

The FPPAEA would prefer the withdrawal of the proposed rule and to allow Florida to develop nutrient criteria in 

accordance with accepted scientific principles, long-standing EPA guidance, and taking into account the diverse 

ecological conditions that exist in Florida 

Comment ID 1306.001.002 

Author Name: Schwab R. 

Organization: 

We don't need an overreaching government agency coming in here and explaining to us what we need to do. We know 

what to do. We applied science, we applied -- provide common sense and what's best for the environment. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1003
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1317.001.010 

Author Name: Moore C. 

Organization: 

So when you put regulations that don't take that into concern in our specific area here in Florida, then just we're 

throwing away money trying to fix something that can't be fixed. 

Comment ID 1320.001.005 

Author Name: Johns C. 

Organization: 

And, that's -- that's about it. And we're not necessarily against criteria, but -- but we -- I just want to ensure that this 

criteria is actually going to solve the problem and it's based on something other than, you know, emotional, you know, 

irrational just emotion. And, again, thank you-all. 

Comment ID 1322.001.003 

Author Name: Williams G.
 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association
 

Good evening. I changed that from good afternoon. I'm Gary Williams. I'm with the Florida Rural Water Association. 

We're an association for over 1300 drinking water and wastewater utilities in Florida. This proposed rule will have a 

major impact on many of our members in many of these systems. For that reason, we are opposed to the rule, the 

proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1323.001.002 

Author Name: Reynolds G.
 

Organization: First Coast Manufacturers Association
 

I am for clean water. I'm against the Green Monster. But the current NNC rule as proposed we do not support. And I 

want to offer up some specifics suggestions. 

Comment ID 1329.001.006 

Author Name: Assaf R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1004
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau and Florida Cattle Association 

And now they're scheming to put Florida under some nutrient criteria. With all the variables of the Florida surface water, 

it's an expense and an exercise in frustration. We've already had ongoing battles where high nutrients or nitrogen 

content has been blamed on agriculture, and other lengthy battles and expenses, and we find out that the nitrogen -­

the nitrogen levels going into the farms via the rivers and creeks are higher than they are going out of the farms. We 

have had a Duval County -- there's a man -- gentleman mentioned numerous dairies. We're down to one. And when the 

dairies were in operation, we didn't have green in our rivers, so it couldn't have been their fault. They're no longer even 

here. 

Comment ID 1329.001.009 

Author Name: Assaf R. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau and Florida Cattle Association 

The government's number one priority, as I read it -- and I spent 28 years in the military. Got in as a private; got out as a 

major. But as I understand it, our number one priority is to protect our borders, and our government has failed miserably 

in that category. How about taking word to them from me and tell them to put all of their resources to work in that area, 

and when they're finally successful at that, y'all come back, and we'll talk about our water. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1331-1.001.004 

Author Name: Aldstadt S. 

Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works 

San Bernardino is concerned that EPA intends to use the approach proposed for Florida as a template for nutrient 

criteria and restoration standards in other states. 

Accordingly, and because San Bernardino has significant concerns with EPA's approach, we offer these comments [1]. 

Our comments address EPA's proposed regional nutrient criteria for streams in Florida, overlay nutrient criteria to 

protect downstream uses and restoration water quality standard provisions. In addition, San Bernardino supports the 

detailed comments submitted by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) on the proposed rule. 

San Bernardino respectfully requests that EPA not adopt the proposed rule, but instead work with states and other 

stakeholders to develop a technically and scientifically defensible and workable approach [2] to control nutrient levels in 

the nation's waters.[3] 

[1] Also of concem to San Bernardino is that EPA proposes the rule for a state that has a well-developed and 

sophisticated water quality program. Like Florida, California administers the CWA's NPDES program and has adopted 

narrative warer quality standards for nutrients subsequently approved by EPA. In addition, California also has 

developed and implemented, and continues to develop and implement, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) with point 

and nonpoint source controls based on the narrative standards and using site-specific numeric targets. Any action in 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1005
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

California similar to EPA's proposed action in Florida would further complicate efforts to address nutrients. 

[2] The scientific literature and EPA's Science Advisory Board consistently indicate that numeric nutrient criteria are not 

the only approach that regulators may use to protect designated uses. (See e.g., Science Advisory Board, Ecological 

Processes and Effects Committee, draft Advisory Report - For Quality Review (January 2010) at p.5.) 

[3] San Bernardino understands that NACWA is convening a summit this summer to identify potential solutions to 

nutrient-related water quality issues. NACWA is inviting its members and stakeholders from the states and EPA to 

participate in the summit. This would be a good opportunity for EPA to further the dialogue necessary to develop an 

appropriate approach to address nutrient issues. 

Comment ID 1331-1.001.021 

Author Name: Aldstadt S. 

Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works 

D. Conclusion 

San Bernardino appreciates your consideration of these comments. Given the proposed rule's significant implications 

for Florida and the rest of the nation, San Bernardino respectfully requests that EPA not adopt the proposed rule. 

Rather, EPA should collaborate with states and other stakeholders to develop a more reasonable and scientifically and 

technically sound approach to control nutrients in our nation's waters. Any approach taken must provide certainty that 

nutrient reductions will improve water quality for designated uses and account for economic impacts. If you have any 

questions or San Bernardino can be of further assistance on the proposed rule, please contact Valerie Housel at (909) 

384-5095 or housel_va@sbcity.org. 

Comment ID 1332.001.006 

Author Name: Story V. 

Organization: 

I just would like -- as Mr. Alexander just spoke a minute ago, I would like you to base all your decisions on sound 

science. I would also like them on attainable objectives and sound business practices. 

Comment ID 1334.001.008 

Author Name: Milicevic M. 

Organization: 

EPA should withdraw its unscientifically generated criteria and replace it with the FDEP TMDL quality standards. Now, I 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1006
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

appreciate this. I'm out of time, and if you want to see some of these BMPs that are being utilized and in use, you're 

more than welcome to come to Florida produce and ag producers, and we'll be glad to show you what we're doing. 

Thank you. 

Comment ID 1335.001.008 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

Organization: Florida Land Council 

Hundreds of people testified last February, and we kept track of how many people testified in opposition. It was a five to 

one ratio. They requested that you please reevaluate your numbers, but as far as we can tell, you haven't. And I believe 

that that's why you're hearing less and less from this side of the argument. 

Comment ID 1336.001.002 

Author Name: Crenshaw A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

This is the statement of U.S. Representative Ander Crenshaw: Make no mistake about my voice of opposition to this 

proposed rule. Water is the lifeblood of Florida and we must do everything within our power to protect it. The ecological 

health of our waters is tied directly to the economic vitality of our state. Successful long-term water management of our 

precious natural resources requires continuous conservation, cooperation, and communication. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1007
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1336.001.003 

Author Name: Crenshaw A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

I believe Florida is a leader in water quality programs that include ongoing cooperative efforts to limit nutrient loads 

through its total maximum daily load program. There is a reason why 30 percent of the national water quality data is 

from Florida. It is because the State of Florida has been working head to protect its rivers and streams, contrary to 

misinformation that has been presented in the media. Businesses, local governments, the State of Florida, and the 

federal government have invested millions to restore impaired watershed and protect healthy rivers and streams. We 

need continued coordinated efforts through federal, local, state partnerships to protect our waters from contamination 

and restore our local ecosystem. The EPA should support the efforts made by the State of Florida who have developed 

a scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria instead of singling out Florida for scientifically flawed federal 

standards. 

Comment ID 1336.001.006 

Author Name: Crenshaw A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

The regulations being proposed will impact every citizen, local government, and the business community. Working with 

the EPA, Florida has worked to develop EPA approved nutrient total maximum daily loads and has utilized site specific 

alternative criteria to develop numeric criteria for its vast and different water bodies. Further, the EPA has its own 

science advisory board that is well regarded for the expertise of its members. 

Comment ID 1338-1.001.001 

Author Name: Champion T. 

Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC 

Georgia-Pacific, LLC (GP) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments on the U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Water Quality Standards (WQS) for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing 

Waters (40 CFR 131, Subpart D, Section 131.43). Georgia-Pacific is one of the world's leading manufacturers of tissue, 

pulp, paper, packaging, consumer products, building products and related chemicals. GP has over 300 manufacturing 

facilities across North America, South America and Europe, ranging from large facilities, such as pulp, paper and tissue 

operations; to moderately sized facilities, such as gypsum plants, chemical plants, and building products complexes; to 

small facilities, such as Dixie® product plants and box plants. Georgia-Pacific has several operating facilities in Florida 

including a major pulp and paper mill, woodyards, wood products plants, and chip mills. GP also operates pulp and 

paper mills in Georgia and Alabama that discharge into waterbodies that flow into Florida waters. Many of these 

facilities possess NPDES permits and will be affected by decisions that the EPA makes regarding numeric nutrient 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1008
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

water quality criteria for the State of Florida. 

The protection of the environment is a top priority for Georgia-Pacific, and we support sciencebased efforts to protect 

the waterways of Florida, but we have significant concerns regarding the methods and approaches taken by EPA to 

develop the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. EPA's proposed rule will have specific and significant impacts on our 

operations in the State of Florida and on our operations in adjoining states that are located on streams that enter the 

State of Florida. 

Georgia-Pacific is a member of the American Forest and Paper Association(AF&PA), the national trade association of 

the forest, paper, and wood products industry, Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

(FPPAEA), and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). Through its membership in AF&PA, GP 

is also a member of the Federal Water Quality Coalition (FWQC). Georgia-Pacific fully supports, and as a member of 

these organizations, incorporates the comments submitted by the AF&PA, FPPAEA , NCASI and the FWQC into and as 

part of GP's comments. 

Comment ID 1338-1.001.002 

Author Name: Champion T. 

Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC 

We believe the basis of EPA's proposed rulemaking is scientifically unsound and the proposed rule would hinder the 

economic viability of the State of Florida as well as "upstream states" that have facilities discharging into waters that 

flow into Florida. 

For the reasons set forth below and in the comments submitted by the AF&PA, FPPAEA, NCASI and FWQC, GeorgiaPacific respectfully requests that the EPA withdraw the proposed rule and reconsider its approach in the regulation of 

nutrients in Florida waters. 

Comment ID 1347.001.003 

Author Name: McAuley R. 

Organization: Alabama Pulp & Paper Council 

Secondly, EPA's proposal undermines work that the state of Florida has done and is doing to establish sound and 

reasonable approaches to managing nutrient impairments in Florida watersheds. This process could ultimately affect 

other states, thus our concern in Alabama. It is simply poor public policy and should not be done as proposed. Thank 

you for the opportunity to comment. 

Comment ID 1348-1.001.005 

Author Name: Vick J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1009
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Gulf Power Company 

2. Federal NNC Standards Are Not Necessary for Florida It should be noted that Florida has an existing water quality 

standard for nutrients. It is called a narrative standard, and it is like the nutrient standard in most other states. Despite 

the substantial growth that occurred in Florida over the past few decades, there has been success in cleaning up 

Florida's waters under the narrative nutrients standard. 

Specifically, ten years ago, there was a federal Consent Decree, requiring Florida to create TMDLs to clean up water 

bodies under Florida's narrative nutrient standard. These TMDLs have been created, and are being implemented. EPA 

has approved these nutrient TMDLs as protective of Florida's waters. 

Several of Gulf's existing and future environmental planning decisions are heavily based on Florida's existing narrative 

nutrient standard, the 1999 Consent Decree, Florida DEP's development of TMDLs, and EPA's approval of those 

TMDLs. Many others in the regulated community also are moving forward with new projects based on the same 

approach. 

Comment ID 1348-1.001.007 

Author Name: Vick J. 

Organization: Gulf Power Company 

The current approach in Florida, the narrative standard coupled with development and implementation of TMDLs, has 

facilitated progressive and innovative partnerships and projects to reduce mass loading of nutrients into Florida's 

waters. This TMDL process in Florida produces water-body specific and numeric endpoints that get implemented. We 

request that EPA carefully consider whether the much less flexible approach reflected in EPA's proposed regulations 

(strict concentration limits) might in many cases hinder the type of progress that is being made and that we all want. 

EPA has acknowledged in the Federal Register that Florida has spent over $20 miIlion collecting and analyzing data 

related to nutrients and biological health in Florida waters. EPA also stated that Florida "is one of the few states that 

have in place a comprehensive framework of accountability that applies to both point and nonpoint sources and 

provides the enforceability to address nutrient reductions in impaired waters based upon the establishment of sitespecific total maximum daily loads." Additionally, EPA referred to Florida's regulatory nutrient accountability system as 

an "impressive synthesis of technology-based standards, point source control authority, and authority to establish 

enforceable controls for nonpoint source activities." 75 Fed. Reg. at 4175, 181, 4182. Based on these observations, it is 

unclear why EPA takes an approach opposing a program that has been so successful in the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1350-1.001.002 

Author Name: Schwartz J. 

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1010
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

AF&PA members own and operate facilities subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) permits that are issued in compliance 

with water quality standards, such as those in EPA's Proposal. In addition, an AF&PA member owns forest land that 

could be required to change its sustainable forest management practices as a result of Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) developed pursuant to the final rule EPA will issue in this rulemaking. Finally, this is the first time EPA is 

promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for a state and the first time it is using its ecoregion approach; AF&PA views this 

as an action that likely would set national precedent affecting other AF&PA members around the country. As a result of 

the foregoing, AF&PA has a direct interest in this action. AF&PA has collaborated with several organizations submitting 

comments on the Proposal. Specifically, we have worked with the Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental 

Affairs, Inc. (FFPAEA), as well as the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). We fully support 

their comments and we incorporate them by reference. Similarly, we are members of the Federal Water Quality 

Coalition (FWQC or Coalition), and incorporate their comments by reference, as well. Finally, AF&PA and many 

organizations are also today submitting a set of joint comments which indicate those organizations common critique of 

the Proposal, their belief that the criteria lack a sound scientific basis, and suggestions for alternative approaches. We 

urge EPA to give serious consideration to the breadth and depth of the opposition to its Proposal and work with these 

organizations to develop a more scientifically defensible approach to managing nutrients in our nation's waters. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.002 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

The following comments and associated supporting information document specifically why Polk County disagrees with 

the numeric nutrient criteria proposed by the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Polk County requests that 

the comments contained here in are given due consideration and urges the EPA to revise its proposed rule accordingly. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.005 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

Summary of Issues 

The following summarizes Polk County's points of contention with the proposed EPA nutrient criteria rule: 

1. The proposed EPA statewide nutrient standards are inappropriate and indefensible. 

2. Stream nutrient criteria should be indicative of site-specific properties. Stream health should not be evaluated through 

a reference approach and by nutrient chemistry alone. 

3. Lake nutrient levels are geographically influenced and standards should be based upon the University of Florida's 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1011
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

lake region properties and individual lake pre-distnrbance sediment analyses. 

4. The State of Florida's Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) process should govern nutrient reduction strategies in 

impacted watersheds. 

5. Stormwater retrofits should only be implemented where benefits to receiving waters can be realized. In 

hypereutrophic lakes affected significantly by internal sediment nutrient loads, the benefits of stormwater retrofits may 

be negligible. 

6. The EPA nutrient criteria rule is essentially an unfunded mandate requmng municipalities to pay for implementation. 

Significant Federal funding should accompany this EPA rule. 

7. Healthy water bodies are those water bodies meeting their designated uses. Nutrient chemistry alone is not a reliable 

indicator that in-system productivity adversely impacts designated uses. 

8. Atmospheric deposition, groundwater, and the natnral nutrient content of soils should constitute background levels of 

nutrients. Any proposed reduction requirements of permitted MS4 entities should not require treatment ofbackground 

nutrient levels. 

9. The proposed EPA statewide nutrient standards are lower than the existing background water quality constituents 

requiring the utility customers to pay for the clean up and restoration of the environment rather than their designated 

uses. 

10. PCU's water treatment facilitates are required by regulations to reduce iron, lead and copper from drinking water, 

which causes exceedances of the proposed nitrogen and phosphorus limits. 

11. The energy requirements of increased treatment will significantly increase the production ofCO2 and other harmful 

greenhouse gasses. 

Comment ID 1354-1.001.001 

Author Name: Tompkins H. 

Organization: St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners 

St. Johns County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Water Quality Standards for Florida's Lakes 

and Flowing Waters published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2010. We request that the EPA delay the 

adoption of these standards to further refine the modeling approach and stressor-response variables, to address the 

role of draft and adopted TMDLs, and to fully investigate the financial implications of the proposed standards. 

Comment ID 1355-1.001.001 

Author Name: Barker V. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1012
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

On January 14,2010, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

for lakes and flowing waters in Florida. Scientifically valid numeric water quality standards could be highly valuable for 

identifying, assessing, and managing water quality to prevent excessive nutrients from damaging Florida ecosystems 

and/or diminishing Florida's recreational assets. However, incorrect or misguided numeric criteria could direct 

tremendous public resources unwisely and lead to unintended deleterious consequences. This letter is submitted in 

response to EPA's request for public comment on the proposed NNC, due April 28, 2010. 

Comment ID 1356-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hayes D. 

Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of 

Florida' s Lakes and Flowing Waters (Docket ID No. EPA-HW-OW2009- 0596). 

Manatee County staff and watershed management partners have reviewed the proposed rule and reference 

documents. While the County supports the establishment of appropriate numeric nutrient criteria for lakes, flowing 

waters and estuaries within the State, it is imperative that these standards be based on defensible science, and are 

reasonable and cost effective to implement. 

Manatee County has the privilege of being an active participant in three (3) National Estuary Programs (Tampa Bay, 

Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor) and understands well the importance of appropriate watershed management to 

protect these estuaries of national significance. Significant resources have been allocated to the evaluation and 

implementation of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans for these waterbodies and we ask EPA to 

consider the Estuary Programs strategies and goals when setting numeric nutrient criteria for these systems. 

Comment ID 1357-1.001.001 

Author Name: Schwartzberg L. 

Organization: South Broward Drainage District 

The South Broward Drainage District (SBDD) is opposed to the proposed nutrient criteria rule published on January 26, 

2010 relating to "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters". 

While SBDD favors numeric criteria for relevant nutrients in its canals, the District is opposed to a "one size fits all" 

approach to the issue. The District also objects to the application of specific standards that do not consider the intent 

with which water bodies were created or their use 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1013
 
 

 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1357-1.001.004 

Author Name: Schwartzberg L. 

Organization: South Broward Drainage District 

The second question is, who will be responsible for enforcing the rules and who will be responsible for complying with 

them? The unfunded mandated that is being forced on to local governments by the EPA will result in additional pain for 

already cash strapped municipalities. 

Comment ID 1357-1.001.005 

Author Name: Schwartzberg L. 

Organization: South Broward Drainage District 

This rule should be postponed until: 

- Local considerations can be evaluated. 

- Goals are clear and the steps necessary to meet those goals are rationally determined. 

- Costs estimates are prepared accurately with local input. 

- Responsibility for enforcement and implementation are identified. 

Florida's local governments are already working hard on water quality issues. Implementing this rule according to an 

arbitrary schedule isn't as important as developing a good rule. Please take the time to make this rule as practical as 

possible. 

Comment ID 1357-1.001.006 

Author Name: Schwartzberg L. 

Organization: South Broward Drainage District 

SBDD has worked closely with the SFWMD to educate the area's nurseryman about BMPs. We have provided a venue 

for seminars on the subject and we have participated in a phosphorus sampling program since 2001. Most recently we 

have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Town of Southwest Ranches and the SFWMD with the 

goal of reducing pollution discharges into our canals. The activities described above relate primarily to agricultural and 

low density residential areas. To address water quality in urban areas, SBDD implemented a drainage system 

recertification program seven years ago. This program requires every drainage system in the District to be recertified 

every five years. The result has been hundreds of catch basins cleaned and pollutant retardant baffles repaired or 

replaced. Theses water quality activities of the South Broward Drainage District are relevant because they 

demonstrate the District's commitment to water quality. The EPA is proposing to promulgate water quality regulations 

from afar without considering the steps that have already been implemented. The existing programs may be the extent 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1014
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

of practical water quality measures available. For the EPA to assume otherwise fails to give credit to scientists and 

engineers that have developed these programs.. 

Comment ID 1358.001.001 

Author Name: Cooksey J. 

Organization: 

I'm 37. My name is John Cooksey and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I've worked as an analytical 

chemist for an environmental firm in south, Florida, and I've worked for Department of Oceanography at Florida State 

University on various environmental research projects. I have a bachelor's degree in chemical science and a master's 

degree in entomology. 

I grew up on the St. Johns River, and since I was old enough to walk, I spent most of my free time fishing, canoeing, or 

just enjoying the river. I've seen the algae blooms that everyone has talked about, and I, like everybody else, are 

repulsed by it. They're horrible. I'm a sixth generation Floridian, and for 160 years my family has been involved in 

agriculture in one form or another in this state. 

I'm here today representing the Florida Pest Management Association. I along with many other members of my 

association are in the business of growing one of the largest crops in this state, 6 million acres of turf grass. 

Unfortunately, because of the use of the fertilizer, our crop gets a very bad reputation, even though research done by 

the University of Florida has proven that with its dense ground cover and root system, turf grass remains one of the best 

nutrient filters available. 

I represent an industry that has worked with the state to self-impose Best Management Practices and, as an 

association, we're in the business of being stewards of the environment. We promote the judicious use of fertilizers and 

promote integrated pest management using least toxic options of first choice. 

I represent hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs in this state. As an industry, we cut our nitrogen output by 33 

percent through the Best Management Practices that we've imposed. I ask you to let us continue to work with the State 

of Florida to improve our water quality and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. 

Thank you. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.002 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

I. OVERVIEW OF EPA'S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR FLORIDA 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1015
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

In the NPRM, EPA is proposing numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes, streams, springs and clear streams, and 

canals. EPA is taking this action because it has determined that federal nutrient criteria in Florida are "necessary to 

meet the requirements of the Act." Clean Water Act, § 303(c)(4)(B). 

For lakes, EPA is proposing chlorophyll a, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) criteria based on the stressorresponse approach. EPA's proposed criteria are based on chlorophyll a production (the biological response) related to 

TN and TP levels (the stressors) in Florida three categories of Florida lakes: colored, clear and alkaline, clear and 

acidic. EPA also is proposing to allow the state to adjust the lake TN and TP criteria, within bounds, where the state 

demonstrates that the chlorophyll a criterion will still be met. 

For streams, EPA is proposing criteria based on the reference waterbody approach. EPA has divided Florida into four 

different watershed-based regions within Florida, identified unimpaired streams using Florida's stream condition index 

(SCI), and, based on the TN and TP levels in the reference streams, is proposing TN and TP criteria for each region. 

EPA also is proposing an equation to lower the instream TN and TP criteria where the stream discharges into a 

downstream lake. EPA also proposed a methodology to lower the criteria where the stream discharges into a 

downstream estuary, but has since stated that it will defer promulgation of "downstream protection values" (DPVs) for 

estuaries until 2011 when EPA plans to propose criteria for Florida estuaries and coastal waters and following a peer 

review of the scientific basis for these DPVs. See letter dated March 17, 2010, from Peter Silva, Assistant Administrator, 

EPA Office of Water to Michael Sole, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

 For springs and clear streams, EPA is proposing a nitrate-nitrite criterion that EPA asserts is based on experimental 

laboratory data and field evaluations that show algal growth in response to nitrate-nitrite concentrations. 

For canals in south Florida, EPA is proposing chlorophyll a, TN, and TP criteria that EPA asserts are based on levels 

found in canals that are meeting their designated uses with respect to nutrients. 

In the NPRM, EPA admits that its proposed lake criteria do not account for natural lake variability (75 Fed. Reg. at 

4191), and that its proposed streams criteria "may be either more stringent than necessary or not stringent enough to 

protect designated uses" (75 Fed. Reg. at 4192). However, rather than admit that the magnitude of these flaws for 

defensible and scientifically sound nutrient criteria, EPA attempts to provide relief through variances, changes in 

designated uses, or the use of site- specific alternative criteria. Alternatively, EPA suggests that dischargers may be 

able to delay meeting the new criteria through compliance schedules or new restoration standards. As discussed below, 

these tools would be difficult to implement and do not make the criteria any more scientifically defensible. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.003 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

II. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REVIEW AND ANALYSIS 

Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or CWA) requires all states to promulgate 

water quality standards. Water quality standards have two main components: designated uses and criteria to protect 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1016
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

those uses. CWA section 303(c). State water quality standards are subject to EPA review and approval. Florida has 

adopted narrative water quality standards for nutrients that have been approved by EPA. Further, Florida had been 

developing numeric nutrient criteria based on EPA regulations and guidance, and state law. Notwithstanding state 

primacy in the standards program and Florida's impressive record on water quality management, on January 26, 2010, 

EPA proposed nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and flowing waters. If finalized, the criteria will become part of Florida's 

water quality standards and will have a direct bearing on NPDES permitting, 303(d) listing decisions, and total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs). However, as discussed below, EPA's proposed criteria are not supported by the CWA, 

do not comply with EPA's regulations, and cannot lawfully be adopted. We submit that significant revisions are 

necessary before EPA proceeds any further. 

Comment ID 1360-1.001.004 

Author Name: Cook R. 

Organization: Daytona Beach Utilities Department 

- These limits remove local control and response. The TMDL program has been effective in the restoration of impaired 

waters in Florida. These limits likely will not provide any added benefit over the current TMDL program, yet the cost 

would increase. 

Comment ID 1363-1.001.001 

Author Name: Butler N. 

Organization: Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. 

Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. ("Smurfit-Stone") is one of the largest manufacturers of paperboard and 

paper-based packaging in the United States. It is also a global leader in the collection of recycled paper. Smurfit-Stone 

owns and operates 140 facilities across the country, including three paper mills, four corrugated container (box) plants 

and eight recycling facilities in the State of Florida. Through its network of manufacturing facilities in Florida, SmurfitStone directly employs more than 1,800 people and indirectly supports thousands of additional jobs in the State, many 

of which are in Florida's forestry sector. 

Two of Smurfit-Stone's paper mills in Florida discharge directly to surface waters under individual National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") that have been issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

("FDEP"). These mills will be directly affected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") 

proposed rule establishing numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and flowing waters (75 Fed. Reg. 4174, January 

26, 2010) (the "Proposed Rule"). A third Smurfit-Stone mill and eleven of the company's box and recycle plants in 

Florida discharge to NPDES-permitted municipal wastewater treatment systems. These municipal treatment systems 

will likely be forced to require Smurfit-Stone facilities and other indirect dischargers to make nutrient reductions or fund 

expensive capital projects to install additional technology for compliance with EPA's proposed nutrient criteria. SmurfitStone facilities also may be subject to increased sewer rates as municipalities attempt to cover their costs of 

compliance with the Proposed Rule. Further, Smurfit-Stone owns and operates facilities across the country that are 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1017
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

regulated under the NPDES permitting program, and the company will be impacted by any national precedents that 

EPA may establish with respect to nutrient water quality standards. As a result of the foregoing, Smurfit-Stone has a 

direct and substantial interest in EPA's proposed action to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and 

flowing waters. 

Smurfit-Stone is a member of the Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. ("FPPAEA") and the 

American Forest & Paper Association ("AF&PA"). Company representatives have participated in and contributed to the 

development of the detailed comments Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. EPA Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OW-2009­

0596 Page 2 both organizations have submitted to EPA regarding the Proposed Rule. Smurfit-Stone fully supports the 

comments made by FPPAEA and AF&PA and is incorporating their comments on the Proposed Rule by reference. In 

the following sections of this letter, Smurfit-Stone will supplement the points made by FPPAEA and AF&PA by 

highlighting several aspects of the Proposed Rule that will have a specific and significant impact on its operations in 

Florida, particularly at its three pulp and paperboard mills in the State. 

Comment ID 1364-1.001.003 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

II. Summary of Comments from Lee County 

• Lee County recognizes the problem of over enrichment of nutrients in our water bodies and, consequently, supports 

the need for numeric nutrient criteria. 

• EPA's proposed Rule should be based on sound science and should encourage the use of site specific alternative 

criteria when site specific water quality data exists. 

• The proposed Rule establishes a "one size fits all" approach which does not recognize the unique attributes and 

needs of the Caloosahatchee River and other water bodies in South Florida. 

• EPA's proposed Rule fails to provide clarity on compliance measurement methodologies and implementation 

procedures. 

• Lee County is very progressive and has made great progress in reducing nutrient levels through investment in water 

quality improvement and nutrient reduction programs. However, the County is concerned about the loss of its 

investment of time and money for this progress and requests that EPA's implementation of the proposed Rule not 

penalize the County's previous efforts. Lee County suggests that EPA allow a phased, step-wise approach for 

implementation that builds upon existing infrastructure. 

• Lee County has significantly reduced discharges through utilization of reclaimed water and wishes to continue with 

these improvements. To encourage the continued use of reclaimed water, the proposed Rule should be based on 

loading measurements rather than strict concentration. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1018
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

• Reclaimed water is critical to reduce nutrient loads in the Caloosahatchee River. Rule implementation that allows for 

continued and expanded reclaimed water programs is necessary to provide an alternative which will reduce nutrient 

discharge into the receiving waterbody. 

Comment ID 1364-1.001.015 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

V. Conclusion 

Lee County is proud of its commitment to protection of the State's water resources. The County has expended 

substantial time and resources undertaking water quality restoration and enhancement projects. We further recognize 

the need for numeric nutrient criteria to protect Florida's water resources. However, the County has multiple objectives 

and must balance a number of interests and goals - providing a safe, reliable, cost-effective water supply to its 

residents, and protecting its water resources. There is a need for the EPA Rule to address, in detail, uncertainty in the 

areas of compliance and implementation. 

Lee County respectfully requests that the foregoing comments be incorporated in and made part of the record of the 

rulemaking process for the proposed EPA Rule. 

Comment ID 1367-1.001.004 

Author Name: Massaro M. 

Organization: Orange County Public Works Department 

OCPW supports the regulatory protection of surface waters. However, the NNC being proposed by EPA is inappropriate 

and will result in unnecessary expenditures of government funds. The EPA should allow the continued efforts of the 

FDEP and local jurisdictions to determine the appropriate nutrient loads for Central Florida's unique natural resources or 

adopt the FDEP's methodology. 

Comment ID 1369.001.002 

Author Name: Ansell V. 

Organization: Duval County Farm Bureau 

I am against numeric nutrient criteria as the way it is proposed. In what I have to say to you, you will not find a bunch of 

statistics. I hope to relate a simpler message. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1019
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Orange County Utilities provides water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and solid waste services for about 200,000 

homes in the Orlando area. We support environmental and clean water programs. However, we object to the manner 

and form in which EPA has proposed numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). We are concerned that these proposed NNC will 

not solve the problem of impairment of our surface waterbodies and believe that the proposed rule is not an efficient or 

equitable solution to the problem. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.012 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

In conclusion, we believe the implementation of NNC as originally proposed is a hurried and simplistic solution to a 

complex problem, and implementing these NNC is neither a resource-efficient nor an economical solution. Florida has a 

sophisticated and scientifically based TMDl process that targets nutrient loads from specific sources based on sitespecific criteria. let us, and FDEP, get on with the work of improving the water quality in our state. 

Questions concerning this letter may be referred to me (telephone 407-254-9809, email ray.hanson@ocfl.net). This 

reply has also been sent electronically to owdocket@epa.gov. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.035 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Suggested Improvements to EPA's Proposed NNC 

1. Allow the FDEP to continue to develop and use its science based TMDLs and consensus building BMAP processes. 

If schedule is really the major concern, establish an expedited schedule for completing TMDLs for impaired waters. 

Comment ID 1371-1.001.002 

Author Name: Porta T. 

Organization: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1020
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Water quality standards provide an effective foundation for water quality management and addressing impairments 

caused by many pollutants. However, as natural and necessary components of healthy ecosystems, nitrogen and 

phosphorus present unique challenges to following an approach that was mainly devised and designed to address 

threshold pollutants, especially those which are toxic in the environment. Also, because arguably "natural" and "healthy" 

conditions exist along a broad scale of enrichment, most states continue to struggle, even after a 10-year investment of 

state and federal resources, to develop viable and broadly applicable effects-based numerical water quality standards 

for nutrients. Therefore, we believe that the water quality standard development processes that USEPA has devised to 

date, and followed for Florida's proposed standards, should not be seen by EPA as a "blueprint" for states to follow. 

EPA should allow states to utilize credible scientific principles to establish standards to control nutrient impacts on 

waters. ASIWPCA appreciates the opportunity to comment on behalf of its members. And will expand on these and 

related concerns. 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.001 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

USSC incorporates, by reference, the Technical Comment Paper submitted by the Everglades Agricultural Area 

Environmental Protection District (EPD), as well as the "Joint Submittal" to the Administrative Record. The Joint 

Submittal Index is attached as Exhibit A to this letter.[1] In addition, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) completed and 

finalized its peer review of EPA's Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation on April 27, 2010, which is 

attached as Exhibit B. Please include this comment letter, EPD's Technical Comment Paper, the final SAB Report and 

the Joint Submittal as part of the Administrative Record for the Nutrient Rule. 

USSC has a particular interest in the Nutrient Rule because it directly impacts the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in 

which a majority of USSC's land and farming operations are located. In addition, USSC holds various regulatory 

approvals and permits which may be affected by the adoption of this Rule. 

USSC produces sugar cane and refined cane sugar and is one of Florida's major producers of oranges and orange 

juice products. Dependent upon weather, growing conditions and federal market allocations, USSC produces over six 

million tons of sugar cane each year, which equates to approximately 700,000 tons of sugar each year, providing nearly 

eight percent of the sugar produced in America. In total, USSC owns and operates over 187,000 acres of agricultural 

lands in Florida. 

In order to manage its farming operations, USSC has obtained numerous regulatory permits addressing water quality, 

water quantity, natural resources and the consumptive use of water which may be affected by the Nutrient Rule. USSC 

alone is responsible for numerous Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other source control efforts on its 

agricultural lands. 

[1] The Joint Submittal documents were sent to the EPA under separate cover and includes electronic copies of all 

documents listed on Exhibit A. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1021
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.002 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

As farmers and stewards of the land, USSC is committed to ecosystem restoration and to continuing efforts to improve 

the environmental sensitivity of its farming operations. However, we respectfully believe that the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) haste to complete the Nutrient Rule has resulted in a rule that is contrary to 

federal law. The Nutrient Rule violates the Federal Administrative Procedures Act and the Clean Water Act (CWA or 

Act). 

For all the reasons discussed in this comment letter, as well as the EPD's Technical Comment Paper, the Nutrient Rule 

constitutes an abuse of the agency's discretion and is arbitrary and capricious. USSC believes that the Nutrient Rule 

and specifically the south Florida canal portion should be withdrawn. Should the EPA finalize the Nutrient Rule as 

proposed, USSC believes it would not withstand an administrative challenge, pursuant to the requirements in the 

Federal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.c. 551-559, 701-706. 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.014 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

VI. U.S. SUGAR INCORPORATES OTHER THIRD PARTY COMMENTS 

U.S. Sugar reserves its right to challenge any finalized Nutrient Rule based on the objections raised in this letter and 

those raised by other interested parties. U.S. Sugar fully incorporates the Technical Comment Paper submitted by the 

EPD, and the documents contained in the attached Joint Submittal to the Administrative Record (Exhibit A). U.S. Sugar 

further incorporates the comments of the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services, Palm Beach County, The 

Orlando Utilities Commission, and the Florida Stormwater Association. 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.015 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

CONCLUSION 

As stated above, U.S. Sugar respectfully requests that EPA include these comments, the EPD's Technical Comment 

Paper and the Joint Submittal into the formal rulemaking record as required by the Federal Administrative Procedures 

Act. Based on the totality of these comments, the Nutrient Rule should not be finalized in its present form because it 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1022
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

constitutes an abuse of the agency's discretion, exceeds EPA's congressional authority and is arbitrary and capricious. 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.021 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

U.S. Sugar believes the south Florida canal portion of the Nutrient Rule should be withdrawn or, at a minimum, deferred 

until a scientifically sound basis, as required by EPA's own rules, can be developed. Should the EPA finalize the 

Nutrient Rule as proposed, U.S. Sugar believes it will not withstand an administrative challenge, pursuant to the 

requirements in the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.c. 551-559,701-706. 

U. S. Sugar restates its belief that the Nutrient Rule will be invalidated under the provisions of the Federal 

Administrative Procedures Act, because it is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and is not supported by 

substantial evidence. 

Comment ID 1374.001.001 

Author Name: Coultas P. 

Organization: A. Duda & Sons, Inc. 

Duda is a farming operation based in Florida and has operated here for over 83 years. I have worked for Duda for over 

25 years. We have multiple locations throughout the State all with unique water use regimes. My current responsibilities 

at these locations span all aspects of water use. The first "water" project that I was involved with was Lake Apopka. 

Duda was a leader in modifying their operation and constructing treatment reservoirs to help reduce nutrient loading to 

the Lake. The treatment reservoir system that was installed and considered to be the best available technology was 

unable to meet the phosphorus nutrient criteria imposed by the State. Ultimately, farming along the north shore of Lake 

Apopka ceased and the low-lying lands have been converted back to marshland. This criteria imposed back in the late 

80's was significantly higher than those currently under consideration. Given this experience, it is safe to assume that 

with even lower numbers, this model will accelerate and repeat itself throughout the State and farms will disappear. 

These farms cannot afford to move to other land. I have spent considerable hours attending the State's TMDL 

workshops and BMP committees, along with other farmers and agricultural leaders. The Florida Ag community has 

already invested in solving water quality issues throughout the State. The EPA criteria is an unnecessary layering of 

expense on expense. Driving agriculture from Florida or the US is not the answer to water quality improvement. 

Identification of control technology and assistance with implementation is the answer for all land uses. Anything else 

simply adds cost without actually affecting water quality and will push food production overseas, where we don't (but 

should) worry about environmental consequences. I have lived in Florida for over 45 years and the snapshots of 

"scummy" waters presented in the recent EPA workshops are not representative of the waters that I regularly enjoy. 

Comment ID 1375-1.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1023
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Stewart G.
 

Organization: Nabors Giblin and Nickerson on behalf of the City of Sunrise
 

The City believes the proposed Rule is indefensible and poses a significant fiscal impact to it. The following comments 

and associated supporting information sets forth specifically why the City disagrees with the numeric nutrient criteria 

proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The City requests the comments contained herein be 

given due consideration and it urges EPA to revise its proposed rule accordingly. 

Comment ID 1416-1.001.002 

Author Name: Alves J.
 

Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. 


As explained below, EPA's premise for developing a proposed NNC rule applicable to Florida is fallacious, the proposed 

rule itself is profoundly flawed, and the appropriate course of action is to retract the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1416-1.001.028 

Author Name: Alves J.
 

Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. 


Conclusion
 

The FCG Environmental Committee requests that EPA abandon this rule adoption effort.
 

Comment ID 1417-1.001.001 

Author Name: Durbin M. 

Organization: City of Kissimmee 

The City of Kissimmee, FL has been monitoring the EPA's rulemaking process for the proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Loading rule. While the City of Kissimmee strongly supports the preservation of Florida's environment, we are unable to 

support the proposed rule as it is currently written. 

Comment ID 1417-1.001.004 

Author Name: Durbin M. 

Organization: City of Kissimmee 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1024
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

The City of Kissimmee is supportive of the comments and concerns presented by the Florida Stormwater Association 

(FSA) and the Florida Section of the American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) regarding the EPA's Numeric 

Nutrient Loading requirements. 

We also support the efforts of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water 

Management District as they work diligently to implement standards that preserve our local water bodies. 

Comment ID 1418-1.001.011 

Author Name: Dickerson J. 

Organization: JEA 

Truly, from the overall public's point of view, the greater planning effort and site-specific consideration on the front end 

in setting efficient and effective nutrient reduction targets pays for itself many times over as it yields better outcomes for 

society. 

Comment ID 1431-1.001.002 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

While Pinellas County agrees that standards must be developed to protect our waters, there are numerous technical 

concerns with the current proposal for numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. Analysis 

completed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, 

the Florida Stormwater Association and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program reflect many our concerns regarding the 

science used to propose criteria for Florida's freshwater aquatic systems. 

Comment ID 1432-1.001.001 

Author Name: Bell D. 

Organization: Counsel to Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District 

On behalf of the Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District, an independent special district located in 

Broward County, Florida, I have been requested to state the District's opposition to the proposed rule and numeric 

nutrient criteria published on January 26, 2010 relating to "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and 

Flowing Waters". 

The District which is a governmental entity created by the Florida Legislature in 1951 regulates storm water drainage 

within the area of its jurisdiction. The District also operates and maintains a water and wastewater treatment plant and 

related facilities. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1025
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

While the District is in agreement that the quality of surface waters throughout the District, Broward County and the 

State of Florida must be protected from degradation and impairment, the proposed numeric nutrient criteria sets 

standards which are virtually unattainable and which will result in significant expenses to bring the waterways and lakes 

throughout the State into compliance with the current proposed rule. More specifically, the proposed rule, which 

implements arbitrary, capricious and onerous criteria, will result in an unfunded mandate, the cost of which to comply 

with will significantly impact the District's operations and annual budgets. 

Based on an analysis of the overall impact to property within the District, unintended consequences associated with 

implementing the proposed numeric nutrient criteria could be regulatory inverse condemnation, flooding, damages of 

various types and unrealistic costs with no measurable benefit. 

Comment ID 1432-1.001.008 

Author Name: Bell D. 

Organization: Counsel to Tindall Hammock Irrigation and Soil Conservation District 

In closing, to emphasize the concerns of the District in having to meet the proposed criteria, based on the presentations 

at the public hearings, it appears that rain water, bottled water and many near pristine waterways throughout the state 

will not be in compliance with the unrealistically stringent standards/criteria which are proposed. 

Should you have any questions please contact either the District's Chair, H. Collins Forman, Jr. at 954-764-0005, Gerry 

Hartman, the District's Engineer at 407-423-8398 ext. 3125, me at 954-524-8526 or my email address at 

bell8526@bellsouth.net. 

Comment ID 1433-1.001.001 

Author Name: McIndoe J. 

Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is pleased to provide the attached comments 

regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed numeric nutrient criteria for inland waters in the 

State of Florida. The proposed criteria represent a significant change in EPA's traditional approach to surface water 

quality criteria development. ADEM has serious concerns about some of the methods used to derive the criteria and 

some of the provisions in the proposal. The Department appreciates the opportunity to participate in the criteria 

development process and looks forward to working with EPA as this process continues. 

If we can provide any additional information, please contact Lynn Sisk at (334) 271-7826 or by email 

atlS@adem.state.al.us. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1026
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1433-1.001.002 

Author Name: McIndoe J. 

Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

Introduction 

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria for surface waters in the State of Florida published on January 19, 2010 and made 

available for public review and comment. ADEM is supportive of the development of scientifically defensible numeric 

nutrient criteria that are protective of existing designated uses established by the states. However, ADEM has a number 

of concerns regarding the approaches used to develop numeric nutrient criteria for lakes, flowing waters, and springs in 

the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1434-1.001.001 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors 

On behalf of the Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District (HSWCD), I am submitting comments on the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida 's Lakes and 

Flowing Waters. The HSWCD is in favor of protecting our surface waters and achieving the goal of improving water 

quality. However, the HSWCD has concerns both regarding the technical details of these proposed water quality 

standards and their economic impact on Highlands County and our citizens. Thank you for allowing us to express those 

concerns regarding these proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1434-1.001.003 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors 

We are very concerned about the approach that EPA is taking in attempting to implement numeric nutrient criteria that 

will determine whether a water body is impaired and what water bodies are in need of restoration. The standards 

proposed by EPA for the state of Florida are curiously simple for a state with more than 7800 lakes, thousands of miles 

of rivers and more square miles of estuarine waters than almost any other state. The HSWCD urges the EPA and the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to come up with water body classifications that more closely 

reflect the diversity of lakes, streams and other flowing waters in the state. We also urge EPA, working with FDEP, to 

develop standards that are not only scientifically based, but also relative to the use of the water body. Additionally, the 

EPA's estimate ofeconomic impacts is well below the actual costs of implementation of this Rule; we are concerned that 

neither the actual costs nor the feasibility of implementing this Rule have not been given a fair and accurate 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1027
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

representation in this proposal. 

The HSWCD respectfully requests that the EPA give adequate consideration to the comments provided and undertake 

the necessary changes to amend the final Rule. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 863-402­

6545 or by return mail. 

Comment ID 1443-1.001.002 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

We would like to begin by providing general comments regarding the approach that the EPA has used in developing the 

nutrient criteria for Florida. The Department understands the pressing issue of nutrient pollution that is contributing to 

aquatic life use and aesthetic/recreational use impairments in waters across the country. We concur that nutrient 

overenrichment must be addressed proactively, but we also believe that it must be done with a sound, scientificallydefensible basis. Water quality standards, including criteria, are the foundation for our water quality management 

programs and, more specifically, provide benchmarks for implementation of NPDES limits, to assess water quality 

conditions and use attainment, and ultimately address use impairments through total maximum daily load (TMDL) 

development. Since water quality standards are the basis for the various, divergent purposes within our water 

programs, what value we develop and ultimately select for the criteria must provide scientificallydefensible assurances 

that the number is an accurate and representative measure for the threshold for adverse effects. Our concern is that the 

EPA has not provided sufficient evidence, that when closely scrutinized at the waterbody specific level, that their 

process to ascertain the proposed values is the correct process to be used in the development of nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1443-1.001.004 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

Further, while the Department fully agrees with the EPA that establishing numeric nutrient criteria for all waters is a 

good goal. In practical terms where waters do not indicate any presence of a negative biological response to nutrients, 

where there is no prevailing trend in water chemistry parameters, or where no change in the surrounding watershed 

would make it likely for nutrients to become an issue, it is not prudent to spend our limited resources to develop such 

criteria. It further is not reasonable to require expensive controls for point sources to require limit of technology controls 

to achieve very low nutrient levels that indeed may not be necessary to maintain healthy waters. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.002 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1028
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria will have severe adverse impacts to FASD's membership and their ability to 

conduct their intended operations protecting the public safety. FASD maintains that the proposed criteria for in-stream 

protection are not based on sound scientific principles or methodologies and will result in the expenditure of significant 

resources without deriving the intended environmental benefit. Specifically, FASD is providing the following comments: 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.018 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

VI. Conclusion 

In summary, EPA's proposed in-stream criteria for flowing waters are not based on sound science. EPA's reference site 

selection process for streams and canals is arbitrary and excludes naturally occurring features resulting in artificially 

overly protective standards that are not representative of Florida's surface waters. This scientific deficiency is further 

augmented by the EPA's reliance on flawed and incomplete data. It is curious that the proposed numeric criteria was 

derived from data sets that are far less compelling than data EPA will require from the water control and improvement 

districts for compliance assessment and for Site Specific Alternative Criteria. The data and the reference site 

methodologies employed by EPA are not representative of Florida's flowing waters and therefore the criteria derived are 

arbitrary. 

Further, there is little guidance on implementation of the numeric nutrient criteria leaving the regulated community 

guessing or subject to implementation protocols that were developed without the benefit of public comment. What is 

clear is that EPA's lack of adequate reference site selection and data collection will have to be offset by the regulated 

community through the timely and costly SSAC process or similar avenues. 

Finally, the implementation of the proposed criteria will impose immense economic costs on FASD's membership that 

will sky rocket into the billions of dollars. The cost of compliance will not only bankrupt many flood control agencies but 

will diminish the public safety protection they provide. Such a high economic cost is arbitrary when it is clear that there 

is no biological relationship between nutrients and biological responses. Resources should be directed to the primary 

causes of biological responses within flowing waters. 

We therefore request EPA withdraw the proposed rule for further analysis and development based on robust data and 

sound science. 

Comment ID 1462-1.001.001 

Author Name: Helfrich C. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services 

On behalf of the City of Boca Raton, I am submitting written comments regarding the Environmental Protection 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1029
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Agency's (EPA) proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria rulemaking efforts. 

On April 13, 2010, the City Council of the City of Boca Raton passed Resolution 43-1010 "A resolution of the City of 

Boca Raton opposing the proposal by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to enact new numeric 

nutrient water quality standards to be applicable for all lakes, streams, and other flowing Class III waters located in and 

adjacent to the State of Florida as an amendment to 40 CFR Par 131.43 and the Clean water Act, Section 303(c); 

providing for severability providing for repealer; providing and effective date". A copy of the resolution is included as an 

attachment to this letter. 

Comment ID 1462-1.001.015 

Author Name: Helfrich C. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services 

The City of Boca Raton appreciates the opportunity to provide comments and input regarding this rulemaking; however, 

passing a mandated unfunded regulatory compliance rule that utilizes bad science during the current economic times 

that would result in additional customer costs while providing minimal additional protection to customers and our 

environment is not a prudent government practice. The utility industry, the FDEP, and the EPA have a common goal "to 

protect the public health and safety and provide quality water to all citizens". Continued careful and collaborative efforts 

between utilities, the FDEP, and the EPA will result in rulemaking that utilizes good science ensures and provides 

responsible protection to public health and safety. 

Comment ID 1463-1.001.001 

Author Name: Cole T. 

Organization: Oertel, Fernandez, Cole and Bryant, P.A. 

This will supplement a legal memorandum by our firm in support of comments made by the Florida Pulp and Paper 

Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. on the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. The legal memorandum 

was included as an attachment to the comments of the Association. 

EPA's Science Advisory Board on April 27, 2010 issued a review of EPA's draft guidance document titled Empirical 

Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (EPA-SAB-IO006). The final document was posted on EPA's website today, 

April 28, 2010, at: 

Original comment letter contains additional information regarding EPA's draft guidance document titled 

Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (EPA-SAB-IO006) througha website link. 

See http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBOARD/recentadditions. An earlier draft of that document has 

been cited by other commenting parties. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1030
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

We are submitting and relying on the Science Advisory Board review as a supplement to the materials in yesterday's 

submittal. A full copy of the Science Advisory Board review dated April 27, 2010 is attached to assure its addition to the 

record of the proceedings and further demonstration of the lack of scientific basis and thus arbitrary and capricious 

nature of the proposed regulation. 

Comment ID 1465-1.001.012 

Author Name: Ornberg K.
 

Organization: Seminole County Public Works
 

Seminole County Public Works (SCPW) also concurs with the comments made by the Florida Stormwater Association 

(FSA), and thus has attached a copy of those comments to be recorded as part of the SCPW comments (Attachment 

A). 

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions regarding the comments presented herein, please do not 

hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (407) 6652417 or e-mail at Kornberg@seminolecountyfl.gov . 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.004 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Finally, given these issues, for agriculture producers, EPA should adopt an alternative approach, relying on nutrient 

management rather than numeric criteria. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.039 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Based on these facts, we respectfully submit that the record does not support EPA's determination that Federal statewide numeric nutrient criteria in Florida are necessary. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.001 

Author Name: Rudd F.
 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society
 

The Florida Engineering Society (FES) has been a long-standing and consistent supporter of the Florida Department of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1031
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Environmental Protection (DEP) and its efforts to bring technical integrity to Florida's water quality permitting process. 

We supported passage of landmark Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) legislation in 1999 and equally important 

amendments to that body of law in 2004. TMDL statutes and rules provide Florida with what is arguably the Nation's 

most advanced "cradle to grave" approach to identifying and restoring impaired waters. 

The FES has also stood firm with DEP in its efforts to comprehensively manage Florida's waters by integrating water 

quality and quantity programs. These efforts culminated in passage of Senate Bill 444 in 2005. This important 

legislation established water conservation and reuse as part of an integrated component of water quality management 

which is now well recognized as an integral part of the TMDL process. 

The FES intervened on the side of DEP and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a legal proceeding which 

eventually resulted in important amendments to Florida's Impaired Waters Rule which further refined and strengthened 

Florida's TMDL process. The FES has also consistently supported the need for adequate funding and staffing within 

DEP necessary to identify and restore Florida's impaired waters through the application of Florida‘s science-based and 

technically defensible TMDL program. 

It is within this context of past support and cooperation that we must now express our strong concerns regarding EPA's 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria. We express these views as practicing Licensed Professional Engineers registered in 

the State of Florida without regard to any particular client interests. These comments, which are based on our 

professional experience under widely varying circumstances while performing services on behalf of both the public and 

private sectors, are as follows: 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.004 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

Florida's TMDL program is the chosen mechanism for establishing site specific nutrient standards for water bodies 

determined to be impaired and for restoring water bodies to the extent that Florida's narrative nutrient criterion is 

achieved. Florida's TMDL program, which has been recognized by EPA as one of the best in the nation, is used to both 

assess water quality within a watershed and to establish scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria for the 

watershed. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.005 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

Florida's TMDL laws and rules set forth a seamless process for confirming impairment of waters within a watershed, 

developing appropriate numeric nutrient criteria for the watershed, and implementing corrective measures through the 

adoption of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) by order of the DEP Secretary. BMAPs are designed to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1032
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

comprehensively identify all point and nonpoint sources of impairment and to provide corrective action necessary to 

treat all sources of over enrichment within the impaired watershed. BMAPs are developed through a collaborative 

stakeholder based process under the supervision of DEP and in accordance with DEP's order establishing the BMAP. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.021 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

Given the above, the FES respectfully requests that EPA reconsider its present course of action and work 

collaboratively with DEP in developing a more workable process for enhancing Florida's existing programs devoted to 

preventing and reducing nutrient over enrichment. We also suggest that the most significant challenges that Florida 

faces with respect to nutrient over enrichment involve the lack of adequate financial investment in prevention and 

restoration programs, and not a lack of adequate water quality planning and regulatory laws, rules, and programs. The 

adoption of EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria would only serve to foster lawsuits which could slow or even 

reverse the substantial progress Florida has made and is making in its efforts to address nutrient over enrichment. 

Comment ID 1479-1.001.002 

Author Name: Reynolds J. 

Organization: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 

FKAA supports EPA's objectives in developing numeric nutrient criteria ("NNC") that are protective of our water 

resources and improve our water quality while being achievable and feasible. 

Comment ID 1479-1.001.003 

Author Name: Reynolds J. 

Organization: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 

Fundamentally, we believe that the work that has already been completed related to Monroe County's water quality 

issues must serve as a starting point for establishing any further water quality criteria. While we understand that Phase I 

of the proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, 40 CFR Part 131 may not 

have as much of an impact on our potable water and wastewater service as Phase II will (for marine and coastal 

systems), it is still important to begin discussions now relative to some of the issues that have been raised in this 

process so far. The process for promulgating standards for Phase II will likely be similar to the approach to develop 

standards for predominately freshwater systems; therefore, please incorporate FKAA's comments related to this 

rulemaking process into the record. Protection of FKAA Water Resources - FKAA has a vested interest in EPA and 

FOEP requiring water quality standards for surface waters in South Florida because it bears the burden of treating 

surficial ground water to EPA's drinking water standards. FKAA's sources of groundwater withdrawals are the Biscayne 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1033
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

and Floridan aquifers in southern Miami-Dade County. These sources of groundwater withdrawal are also proximate to 

natural areas subject to heightened protection such as Everglades National Park. Because of these limitations, FKAA 

has recently been required to construct Floridan Aquifer Production Wells, a Floridan Aquifer Reverse Osmosis 

Treatment Facility, and Concentrate Disposal Well. FKAA has made other significant investments in alternative water 

resource development. These investments notwithstanding, FKAA's ability to treat water withdrawn for potable use is 

dependent upon several factors including the impact of nutrient discharges from land uses adjacent, or proximate, to its 

well fields. Even though its water complies with, or exceeds, all current drinking water standards noticeable increase in 

nitrate concentrations have been identified and monitored over the past several years. It is clear that FKAA has an 

interest in assuring its groundwater resources are protected and in order to provide safe drinking water cost effectively 

this trend must be halted and reversed. 

Comment ID 1480-1.001.004 

Author Name: Wong E. 

Organization: City of Northport 

I will like to endorse all the comments provided by the Florida Stormwater Association. 

Comment ID 1480.001.001 

Author Name: Wong E. 

Organization: City of Northport 

The City of North Port is very concerned and proactive with protecting our precious water resources. In evaluating the 

EPA January 14, 2010 proposed draft numeric nutrients criteria (NNC) rule for total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) 

and chlorophyll a, we must consider first the need for the regulation and the goals the regulation strives to achieve. 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. Any proposed NNC must be realistic, appropriate, attainable, 

practicable and implementable. I will like to endorse all the comments provided by the Florida Stormwater Association. 

The attached document provides detailed additional comments 

Comment ID 1481-1.001.001 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department 

On behalf of Highlands County, Florida, I am submitting comments on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) document Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. Highlands County is in 

favor of protecting our surface waters and achieving the goal of improving water quality. However, the County has 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1034
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

concerns both regarding the technical details of these proposed water quality standards and their economic impact on 

Highlands County and our citizens. Thank you for allowing us to express those concerns regarding these proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1481-1.001.037 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department 

We are very concerned about the approach that EPA is taking in attempting to implement numeric nutrient criteria that 

will determine whether a water body is impaired and what water bodies are in need of restoration. The standards 

proposed by EPA for the state of Florida are curiously simple for a state with more than 7800 lakes, thousands of miles 

of rivers and more square miles ofestuarine waters than almost any other state. Highlands County urges the EPA and 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to come up with water body classifications that more 

closely reflect the diversity of lakes, streams and other flowing waters in the state. We also urge EPA, working with 

FDEP, to develop standards that are not only scientifically based, but also relative to the use ofthe water body. 

Additionally, the EPA's estimate of economic impacts is well below the actual costs of implementation ofthis Rule; we 

are concerned that neither the actual costs nor the feasibility of implementing this Rule have not been given a fair and 

accurate representation in this proposal.. 

Highlands County respectfully requests that the EPA give adequate consideration to the comments provided and 

undertake the necessary changes to amend the final Rule. Ifyou have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me 

at 863-402-6545 or by return mail. 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.003 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

We believe that the numeric nutrient standards proposed by EPA are necessary, scientifically sound, legally proper and 

economically reasonable. We have however, included specific information in the following comments to support and 

strengthen the proposed standards - in order to ensure they are sufficiently protective. 

Comment ID 1483-1.001.005 

Author Name: McCrea D. 

Organization: Pinellas County 

IV. Conclusion 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1035
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Adaptive management of complex systems should be the goal that environmental laws and policies are developed on. 

Adaptive management is science-based and promotes the very foundations of the scientific method. As described 

above, developing the numeric water quality standards for nutrients in Florida can easily allow for a certain style of 

adaptive managerial techniques to be implemented. 

Failing to account for the complexity and wide variability in Florida's waters, simply because of the perceived costs and 

the substantial expenditure of time to perform such research, is unacceptable science and policy. [27] The methodology 

depicted above outlines a rational and cost effective approach that can move us towards understanding and 

recognizing the variability and complexity of our watersheds. It is time to let go of our front-end controls and learn to 

adapt to the changing environments. It's time for EPA to embrace change. 

[27] Supra note 9 at 73 

Comment ID 1530.001.002 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

For the reasons expressed herein, CCUA maintains that the EPA's Proposed Rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in 

excess of statutory authority, or limitations, or short of statutory authority; and without observance of procedure required 

by law. 

CCUA is suggesting changes to the regulatory language in the EPA's Proposed Rule throughout its Comment. Adoption 

of CCUA's proposed changes will undoubtedly improve the EPA's Proposed Rule. However, by suggesting such 

changes to the regulatory language of the Proposed Rule, and by participating in this comment period, CCUA is not 

waiving any argument that CCUA may have that the EPA's Proposed Rule is unlawful. Simply stated, adoption of 

CCUA's suggested changes shall not be construed to preclude CCUA from challenging the Proposed Rule to the fullest 

extent provided by law. 

Included for your convenience is a disc containing CCUA's comment in electronic format (pdf). 

Comment ID 1530.001.004 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

CCUA opposes the issuance of the Proposed Rule without the suggested changes offered by CCUA herein. 

Comment ID 1530.001.049 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1036
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

XVII. CONCLUSION. 

The Clay County Utility Authority (CCUA) maintains that EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria are not necessary for 

the state of Florida to ensure that Florida's water quality is protected. That said, in an effort to improve the Proposed 

Rille, CCUA thoroughly reviewed the Proposed Rule and hereby offers this Comment. 

Comment ID 1530.001.055 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Ultimately, CCUA views its suggested changes as improving the Proposed Rule. Allowing for criteria to be based on 

EPA-approved TMDLs respects the site-specific conditions in the area impacted by the TMDL, while at the same time 

protecting the water body and allowing it to meet its designated use. Exempting APRICOT Act discharges will not 

negatively impact the environment - quite the opposite is true. Encouraging water reuse provides a much needed 

alternative water supply for landscape irrigation and other uses and protects our country's precious resources. 

Additionally, increased availability of reclaimed water will result in less groundwater withdrawals, which, CCUA posits, is 

a net benefit to the environment. Finally, all of this can be accomplished without CCUA being compelled to pursue 

unnecessary additional treatment to its several WWTFs to comply with the criteria proposed in EPA's Proposed Rule. 

Accordingly, to the extent that the EPA proceeds forward with this rulemaking, CCUA respectfully requests that for 

those watersheds where there has been a nutrient-related TMDL, EPA take such TMDL into account and either (1) 

adopt criteria based upon such TMDL or (2) adopt the TMDL as a SSAC. Furthermore, CCUA respectfully requests that 

the Proposed Rule expressly exempt APRICOT Act discharges from compliance with the criteria in the Proposed Rule. 

CCUA respectfully requests that the EPA use Florida's BMAPs and reasonable assurance plans as Restoration Water 

Quality Standards. CCUA also respectfully requests that the EPA, where EPA has approved the initiation of the 

Restoration WQS process and the watershed includes discharges covered by the APRICOT Act, deem such APRICOT 

Act discharges to be insignificant contributors of pollutants, and no further reductions shall be required beyond those 

required to meet APRlCOT Act requirements. 

In addition to the foregoing suggested changes to the Proposed Rule's regulatory language, CCUA also has requested 

that, assuming EPA decides not exempt APRlCOT Act discharges as a whole, CCUA's APRlCOT Act discharges be 

exempted from the criteria in the Proposed Rule based upon LimnoTech's analysis, presented above in Section II. 

Finally, CCUA has requested that EPA permit utilities to conduct a site-specific analysis of the receiving water body 

prior to being required to construct any new facility/facilities. 

CCUA maintains that each and every change offered by CCUA herein is individually, and for that matter collectively, 

reasonable and would improve the Proposed Rule. EPA's failure to adopt any of CCUA's changes will cause the 

Proposed Rule to continue to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1037
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory authority, or limitations, or short of 

statutory authority; and without observance of procedure required by law. 

Comment ID 1532-1.001.015 

Author Name: Stacey P. 

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

CTDEP hopes that EPA will seriously consider these comments. While we all recognize the urgency to act, the top 

priority should be to get it right. While the risks of not proceeding may be large, the risks of proceeding in the wrong 

direction provide greater concerns socially, economically and environmentally. Connecticut has worked with EPA and 

the other states for over a decade, and will continue to do so until we find the right solution, supportable by science and 

which has the best outcome for the environment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Comment ID 1549.001.004 

Author Name: Gilkey D. 

Organization: Gilkey Organization 

3 . EPA's criteria does not acknowledge and recognize the great work that Florida has been doing in water quality 

restoration over the years, particularly its total maximum daily load (TMDL) initiatives . Florida has made good progress 

with this program and EPA should embrace and look for ways to improve on this specific program. 

4. Florida has been a national leader in protecting its waters from nutrient pollution and it is important that those efforts 

continue. 

Comment ID 1549.001.006 

Author Name: Gilkey D. 

Organization: Gilkey Organization 

5. Increased nutrient pollution in Florida's water ways is certainly an issue that needs close attention, however your 

proposed criteria is not the answer. I would ask that you work more closely with Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection in taking the current programs that have been developed in Florida, based on many years of study and 

actual practice, and develop criteria that can be effectively implemented and not burden the state with over-regulation 

by the federal government. 

Comment ID 1550.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1038
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Berchtold J. 

Organization: City of Lake Butler 

I am very concerned about EPA's proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida. There are several reasons 

for my opposition: 

Comment ID 1556-1.001.002 

Author Name: Horenstein B. 

Organization: Tri-TAC 

Tri-TAC has significant concerns about the implications to our members if the USEPA took a similar approach to that 

proposed in the State of Florida to setting numeric nutrient standards in California. 

Our comments are focused on three key areas, which include: 

1. Fundamental concerns regarding the numeric nutrient standards approach; 

2. Concerns with the technical approach used to derive the proposed Florida standards for flowing waters; and 

3. Compliance ramifications of the proposed standards to regulated communities based on data from California 

POTWs. 

There is often no clear linkage between nutrient concentrations and impairment of beneficial uses, as provided in the 

examples in the following detailed comments. These examples indicate that generic problems associated with algal 

blooms cannot necessarily be resolved through adoption and implementation of numeric nutrient water column 

standards. The Florida standards for flowing waters are based on a reference stream approach, which provides no 

definitive connection between the standards and the implied benefits. Standards established without definitive benefit, 

through an approach that is questionable for protecting stated beneficial uses, can cause significant compliance issues 

for NPDES permittees. If this approach and these standards were applied in California the result would be significant 

fines due to mandatory minimum penalties, which require automatic, nondiscretionary payments by POTWs for 

exceedances of NPDES permit limits. As a result, Tri-TAC requests that the proposed numeric standards be withdrawn 

and reconsidered to address the issues raised in the detailed comments below. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1039
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1557.001.001 

Author Name: Christmas R. 

Organization: Washington County Farm Bureau 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of Washington County Farm Bureau, the counties largest 

general agricultural organization with more than 1,400 member families. Our primary concern with the proposed 

numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida is that the proposed regional nutrient criteria ignore the variability of 

Florida's surface waters. 

Florida is a diverse state, with several soil types and distinct water bodies. As an agricultural producer/association, we 

agree that clean water is necessary for successful production. However, determining the proper numerical water quality 

standard requires sound science and site specific criteria. Without site specific numeric nutrient criteria, healthy water 

bodies will be deemed impaired and resources will be wasted attempting to make those water bodies meet nutrient 

concentrations they would not naturally meet due to their natural diversity. 

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%. 

Our hope was to attend one of the EPA public hearings in the state. However, due to the limited schedule and locations 

we were unable to attend. Please accept these written comments and continue to revise this rule with these comments 

in mind 

Comment ID 1559.001.001 

Author Name: Bonde J. 

Organization: Village of Wellington 

The Village of Wellington, Florida hereby formally objects to the EPA's proposed Numeric Water Quality Rule for the 

State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1559.001.003 

Author Name: Bonde J. 

Organization: Village of Wellington 

Our objections can be summarized as follows: 

-The proposed rule does not recognize Wellington's existing agreements and accomplishments. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1040
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1562-1.001.003 

Author Name: Stewart G. 

Organization: Nabors Giblin & Nickerson on behalf of the Florida Governmental Utility Authority 

The FGUA believes the proposed Rule is indefensible and poses a significant fiscal impact to it. The following 

comments and associated supporting information sets forth specifically why the FGUA disagrees with the numeric 

nutrient criteria proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The FGUA requests the comments 

contained herein be given due consideration and it urges EPA to revise its proposed rule accordingly. 

Comment ID 1564-1.001.001 

Author Name: Williams G. 

Organization: Florida Rural Water Association 

The Florida Rural Water Association appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments addressing critical 

implementation and compliance issues associated with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed 

nutrient criteria rule. While the Florida Rural Water Association believes that this rulemaking is unwarranted and to that 

end is submitting detailed analysis opposing this rulemaking in joint comments with the FWEA and FSAWWA Utility 

Councils, FRWA also recognizes that EPA may nevertheless finalize its flawed proposed rule. In light of this potential, 

the following comments focus on the need for EPA to address the impractical issues associated with the statewide 

imposition of federal numeric nutrient criteria prior to any finalization of the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1565-1.001.005 

Author Name: Wedgworth G. 

Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida 

We thank you for allowing us to cornrnenton the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria and hope you suspend your effort 

to propose a rule in October. 

Comment ID 1610.001.007 

Author Name: Haycock M. 

Organization: Tropicana Products, Inc. 

Tropicana must respectfully object to the EPA rule, as currently proposed, because it would produce little, if any, 

environmental benefit and will impose a significant and unfair competitive burden on Florida agriculture, including 

Tropicana. For Tampa Bay, a wide range of existing programs are already assuring that designated uses within the bay 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1041
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

are met. 

Tropicana appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and trusts that EPA will weigh them accordingly and 

consider them in the good-faith, constructive spirit in which they are offered. 

Comment ID 1614-1.001.006 

Author Name: DeBogory P. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

In conclusion, SWU is not against rules that protect the environment. Rather, SWU has shown by our action that 

protecting the environment is our most important job and that we take it seriously. What we are against is a rule that is 

arbitrary, a rule that is based upon statistics instead of dose/response science, and a rule that will drive up costs 

substantially without any demonstrable benefit to the environment or our members. 

Comment ID 1615-1.001.003 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County Public Works 

EPA's intent to establish NNC for Florida lakes and streams will impose additional significant effort and cost on local 

communities and utilities with no justifiable environmental benefit. The proposed regulations will unfairly penalize 

Florida by significantly increasing the cost to comply with water quality standards 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. Because of these steep costs, the NNC for Florida waters must be based on sound scientific evidence that 

supports the claim that the selected criteria will result in balanced biological communities indicative of stream health. 

The potential for these steep cost impacts in Volusia County is reflected in the associated map and table provided in 

Attachment 1 that show additional waters that would be impaired under EPA's proposed NNC. Much of Volusia 

County's unincorporated land mass is comprised of water bodies, wetlands, forested and open areas as evidenced by 

the land use/land cover coverage developed by the St. Johns River Water Management District (Figure 1). As shown on 

the map, much of this land has been maintained in its natural condition so that the proposed rule would pose even more 

of a hardship in trying to achieve nutrient criteria that are not even exhibited by the natural water bodies in Volusia 

County. 

Comment ID 1617-1.001.004 

Author Name: Ammerman D. 

Organization: Florida Water Environment Association and WateReuse Florida 

We do not support the EPA's current broad-brush approach to setting nutrient criteria and believe it will have a 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1042
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

detrimental effect on Florida's water reuse programs. Our fear is that the NNC rule as currently written will impede the 

implementation and expansion of reclaimed water systems, and result in less environmentally sound means of effluent 

disposition. 

Comment ID 1638-1.001.001 

Author Name: Rayson J. 

Organization: Central Broward Water Control District 

The Central Broward Water Control District is a Special District established pursuant to Chapter 298 of the Florida 

Statutes for the express purpose of providing necessary drainage, flood control, environmental oversight and other 

important water management services to the residents of Broward County located within the boundaries of the District 

and has done so continuously since 1917, and is a member of the Florida Association of Special Districts. Through the 

Florida Association of Special Districts, we have become aware of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

proposed rule development that would establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's flowing waters (including canals) 

and lakes. We fully support the comments that the Florida Association of Special Districts will be filing on behalf of the 

Association and all its members. 

Comment ID 1638-1.001.003 

Author Name: Rayson J. 

Organization: Central Broward Water Control District 

We understand that the development of numeric nutrient criteria is the result of a consent decree EPA has entered into 

that specifies deadlines for establishing such criteria. We are concerned that the timeframes set forth in the consent 

decree are too ambitious and have thus resulted in hastily formulated standards that are not scientifically sound. While 

this point is detailed in the Florida Association of Special District's comments, it is worth noting that there is no 

relationship between nutrient levels and the biological health of flowing waters. This point was acknowledged by EPA 

during a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Technical Advisory Committee meeting discussing the 

development of numeric criteria for Florida waters. Controlling nutrient levels in flowing waters, especially man-made 

canals, does not control the biological response within a given flowing water. 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 1638-1.001.005 

Author Name: Rayson J. 

Organization: Central Broward Water Control District 

We appreciate the difficulties and scientific complexities in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Therefore, such an 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1043
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

initiative should not be done in haste. Instead, it should be done with scientific diligence and not driven by litigation 

deadlines. We respectfully request that EPA postpone adoption of numeric nutrient criteria at this time so that the 

development of numeric criteria can be further assessed and derived based on sound science. 

Comment ID 1639-1.001.005 

Author Name: Campbell T.
 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association
 

I repeat that everyone wants clean waters, and cost of cleanup obviously increases with delay. However if criteria are 

set too broadly, we could be wasting precious resources attempting to clean waterways that are actually normal or 

irrelevant. We request the agency consider Florida's Department of Environmental Protection's scientific 

recommendations to manage our widely varied waters with appropriate diversity of criteria. 

Comment ID 1640.001.004 

Author Name: Pugh T. 

Organization: Source, Inc. 

I urge you to question these items more fully and you will realize that there is not compelling rationale for the proposed 

water quality changes. 

Comment ID 1640.001.006 

Author Name: Pugh T. 

Organization: Source, Inc. 

The human species is a nitrogen and phosphorus producing being. As long as we are present in a region we will have 

some degree of impact on that region. The key is to work to strike a balance between the environmental concerns and 

the function of the population. Further investigation and a stepped phase-in approach will best achieve this balance. 

If you should have any questions, please contact me. 

Comment ID 1641-1.001.002 

Author Name: Littrell J.
 

Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System
 

Having educated ourselves as to the specifics of the EPA proposal, the basis for its development, and the methods 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1044
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

proposedby EPA for implementing these standards, we are united in our opposition to EPA's plan of imposing these 

water quality standards in lieu of allowing Florida to work within their established framework of regulations and rule 

making procedures to implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act. EPA's propsed legislation represents an 

unfunded mandate; an inappropriate application of Florida's Integrated Water Quality Assessment 2008; is based on 

faulty assumptions; is technically unsound; and given the current state of domestic wastewater technology, is virtually 

impossible to achieve. Further, EPA's approach circumvents Florida's sovereignty and appears to punish Florida for 

having an outstanding water protection program. 

Comment ID 1641-1.001.010 

Author Name: Littrell J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System 

Okaloosa County Water and Sewer System (OCWS) Description 

OCWS is responsible for providing water and wastewater service to the unincorporated parts of Okaloosa County, 

Florida, located in the Florida Panhandle. In 2008 there were 179,693 citizens in Okaloosa County. At present OCWS 

has approximately 30,000 customer accounts. OCWS recently assumed responsibility through an interlocal agreement 

for the treatment and disposal of the wastewater from within the City of Fort Walton Beach, adding another 9,000 

customers to the system. OCWS is also a member of the Niceville Valpariso Okaloosa County System. Figure 1 

provides a map of the service area. 

OCWS operates 3 wastewater treatment facilities, 19 water tanks and 22 water wells into the upper Floridan aquifer. 

Average daily water demand to the system is 7.0 MGD. The wastewater treatment facilities have a combined capacity 

of 12 MGD. The wastewater treatment facilities are advanced activated sludge plants. Each of the wastewater 

treatment facilities includes process to remove nutrients. OCWS has invested substantial capital funds in the 

development of these facilities including the land application systems that were developed in keeping with FDEP 

policies favoring these systems over direct discharge to water surfaces. 

OCWS is nearing completion of a $65 million program to replace the Garniers Wastewater Treatment Facility, and a $7 

million program to upgrade the Bob Sikes Water Reclamation Facility. Both the new Arbennie Pritchett WRF and the 

upgraded Bob Sikes WRF will provide up to a combined 2.5 MGD of public access reuse quality reclaimed water. 

OCWS takes pride in developing their systems to meet the challenges of protecting the environment. However, these 

improvements will not be adequate to meet the challenge presented in the proposed criteria. Major additions to each of 

these facilities will be required to meet the proposed criteria. Notwithstanding EPA's concern for the nutrient impairment 

of Florida Waters, we do not believe that the additional investments that will be required are not justified with respect to 

the anticipated benefits. 

Comment ID 1641-1.001.013 

Author Name: Littrell J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1045
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System 

It appears to OCWS that EPA is high-jacking the process in favor of litigating the issues with an external interested 

party. This in our opinion is hasty, will not result in a better water quality protection system, nor will it improve water 

quality any faster that would otherwise occur if Florida were given the opportunity to proceed with the development of 

these standards. Therefore, we respectfully implore EPA to reconsider its proposal. 

Comment ID 1642-1.001.001 

Author Name: Tilton A. 

Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. 

There are several concerns about the rule and its consequences. This proposed rule is important to the quality of life, 

but comes with an unequal cost to the business and residents of Florida compared to the remainder of the United 

States. Besides answering the questions below, the EPA must work with Florida to an equitable way to implement this 

rule with the remainder of the states. 

Comment ID 1642-1.001.003 

Author Name: Tilton A. 

Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. 

2. The EPA has developed a set of numeric values to govern the water quality for the State of Florida based on data 

collected by the State over the past ten years. While some say that Florida has taken too long to establish values for 

itself; where are the standards for those states that drain to the Mississippi River? The Gulf of Mexico has a very large 

dead zone created by excessive nutrients from many states. According to a petition for Rulemaking under the Clean 

Water Act entitled "Numeric Water Quality Standards for Nitrogen and Phosphorus and TMDLs for the Mississippi River 

and the Gulf of Mexico" most of the 31 states did not have phosphorus standards and none had nitrogen standards 

about one year ago. That is when the push to set standards for Florida was gaining ground in the courts. Even if those 

states have numeric standards, it is apparent that they do not work. 

With such a large dead zone caused by the Mississippi River runoff, why is there so much attention on Florida without 

address ing a much larger problem? 

It is not fair to cause Florida to spend billions of dollars to fix much smaller problems than are experienced by other 

parts of the country without addressing them at the same time. If Florida must go first because it has the most data, that 

is penalizing the state for being a leader. 

Why would any other state try to improve water quality or anything else when the reward is to be slapped with more 

restrictions and penalties? 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1046
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1642-1.001.010 

Author Name: Tilton A. 

Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. 

An answer to the questions would be appreciated. In summary, numeric values for nutrients can be a valuable tool to be 

used any place in the United States and not just here in Florida. The values must be fair and reasonable with the 

definitions of water bodies clear. The solutions to treat water must be such that they are practical and financially 

feasible. Please deliver that to the citizens or there is no reason for them to support the effort or pay for it. 

Comment ID 1645-1.001.017 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

The EPA approach to considering nutrient limits is not well thought out and is in fact erroneous. EPA is trying to treat 

nutrients as if they were any other toxin or pollutant, which they are not. Nutrients are absolutely required for life. Using 

a statistical approach to setting a one size fits all limit is like a physician ordering the same dosage of a life saving drug 

to all patients. If a physician were to use the approach that all patients react the same to the same dosage then they 

would quickly be challenged as to their fitness to practice . EPA is essentially practicing medicine without a license and 

the patients are the waters of the State of Florida . 

Comment ID 1645-1.001.018 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

This proposed rule is only being mandated for a very few contributors to nutrient loads entering our waters. If all those 

contributors somehow miraculously could meet the proposed limits, the impact of that effort on the water quality in the 

State of Florida would be minimal to insignificant. 

The proposed rule is vague in many areas and perhaps unenforceable in others. The use of the terms estimate and 

approximate are everywhere in the document. No certainty of result is stated anywhere in the proposed rule. If EPA 

thinks that the rule will improve Florida's waters, then they need to state this unequivocally, and if they find later that it 

has not achieved the results they desire, then they should agree to stand good for all measures needed to correct and 

all damages created . Really, EPA needs to put up or shut up. EPA also states that implementation be done in the 

proposed rule. Each implementation measure and each prescribed compliance and enforcement effort by the State will 

be subject to scrutiny by EPA and by the plaintiffs bar. The proposed EPA mandate represents a windfali bonanza to 

consultants, attorneys, and bureaucrats. The losers in this rule are the citizens and the waters of the State of Florida. In 

fact the enforceability by the State of Florida is unlikely because of the rulemaking process in Florida. Scientific 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1047
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

defensibility is a cornerstone and the rule being proposed by the EPA does not meet that standard. This means that 

EPA would be forced to assume all permitting and enforcement activities related to this rule stripping Florida of its' 

sovereign rights. 

Comment ID 1646-1.001.001 

Author Name: Gardner P. 

Organization: City of Eagle Lake 

The City Commission of the City of Eagle Lake, Florida, at the April 19, 2010 Commission Meeting approved the 

attached resolution expressing opposition to the proposed adoption by EPA of nutrient water quality criteria for central 

Florida lakes and streams. 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.003 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

The Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association (FFVA) and its agricultural grower and producer members oppose the EPA's 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria and the following discussion topics and comments are in response to this proposed 

rule. 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.005 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

The EPA's hastily constructed numeric nutrient criteria have raised a multitude of questions and concerns from a 

plethora of private stakeholders (representing a diverse cross-section of various industries within the state), average 

citizens, city and county governments, water management districts and the FDEP itself. The overwhelming consensus 

is that the EPA, in its rush to meet its legal obligations resulting from the signed consent decree, failed to adequately 

and accurately apply the necessary science instrumental in the formulation and promulgation of proven, appropriate 

and feasible phosphorus and nitrogen limiting criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. The temerity of the agency 

to expedite such complicated criteria by essentially taking shortcuts (i.e. non-site specific blanket criteria, not using 

stressor-response relationships for streams and canals and inappropriate use of the SPARROW modeling program for 

estimating downstream loads) leads one to question the EPA's scientific acumen. Florida's diverse aquatic ecosystems 

should not be relegated to a "one-size-fits-all" approach when determining nutrient impairment criteria. The variability of 

our lakes, springs, streams and their respective habitats is staggering, and therefore warrants the required investment 

of time necessary to determine appropriate impairment thresholds and stressor-response relationships. To consider any 

alternative approach runs the potential risk of causing irreparable ecological damage as a result of artificially regulating 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1048
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

and altering nutrient concentrations in those healthy water bodies with naturally higher levels of N and P. There is also 

the wasteful financial aspect of spending time and money to remediate non-impaired lakes, rivers, springs, streams and 

canals. 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.027 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Conclusion 

For over a decade, the state of Florida has been developing and implementing scientifically sound and proven, 

economically feasible, site-specific programs aimed at the prevention of water degradation. By utilizing a transparent 

process involving government, academia, and local stakeholder participation, the FDEP, FDACS and water 

management districts have made substantial impacts with their collaborative TMDL, BMAP and BMP programs. In 

contrast, the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria is riddled with questionable science, lacks any plan for 

implementation, is economically wasteful, unrealistic and ruinous, and fails to recognize the immense diversity among 

the states lakes and flowing waters. 

In representation of our agricultural members, the FFVA cannot support the EPA's numeric nutrient criteria and 

requests that the agency either withdrawal the proposed rule or make the necessary revisions 

Comment ID 1667-1.001.005 

Author Name: Gierach D. 

Organization: CPH Engineers, Inc. and the City of Sanford 

Summary 

EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters are very stringent, even too stringent to be achieved by 

traditional methods. The City's wastewater treatment facilities and stormwater system will bear substantial cost in order 

to comply with the proposed criteria. Just the cost for upgrading of the wastewater treatment system could exceed 

$2,000 per resident and the stormwater upgrades could be substantially higher than this cost. This mandate would 

appear to be an excessive financial hardship on the citizens of the City of Sanford. 

We greatly appreciate it if EPA could further consider the following: 

• Acceptance of the scientifically established TMDL standards in Florida; 

• The feasibility and the necessity of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria; 

• The possibility of maintaining the City's reclaimed water reuse program which has been a primary approach to reduce 

the nutrient loading to the surface water; 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1049
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

• The financial burden to the citizen of Sanford when implementing the proposed criteria; and 

• Cooperation with FDEP to finalize the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1693.001.001 

Author Name: Barker V. 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

I have just submitted our comments to EPA on their proposed numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). Brevard County hired 

Janicki Environmental, Inc, to review and evaluate the technical and scientific validity of EPA's proposal, identify specific 

water bodies within the county whose water quality exceeds the proposed criteria, and prepare written comments to be 

submitted to EPA. I have attached the county's cover letter to EPA, Janicki's report and the table identifying water 

bodies within the county that exceed the proposed criteria. I understand that the proposed criteria also impose 

aggressive nutrient standards for use of reclaimed water from treatment plants as irrigation water (see attached 

comments from assorted FL water utility associations). 

I encourage you to submit comments by tomorrow's deadline. FDEP's website 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm posts their comments and an instruction sheet on how to 

submit written comments to EPA. Please do not hesitate to echo or reference the county's concerns as attached. In 

order to implement what is best for local water quality, we need unfunded federal mandates to at least be scientifically 

sound. I understand that if EPA decides to proceed with their proposed rule despite overwhelming objections due to 

numerous technical flaws, only parties who submitted timely objections will have legal standing to appeal the federal 

rule. 

Comment ID 1694-1.001.001 

Author Name: Buss J. 

Organization: City of Tallahassee 

The City of Tallahassee (City) has reviewed the above referenced proposal and is hereby submitting fornlal comment 

as part of the public review process to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For decades the City has been 

leading the way toward solutions to improve and protect the area's water quality and environmental resources. We 

support EPA's effort to reassess existing water quality goals and enhance the protection of our water resources. As an 

active and heavily impacted stakeholder in this effort, we support the development of numeric nutrient criteria if they are 

practical and scientifically sound so that real improvements can be attained. 

In addition to the comments we are providing in this letter, which are more directly related to the operations of the City, 

we support the concerns expressed to EPA on this matter by the Florida Stormwater Association (FSA). To avoid 

duplication, the City incorporates the FSA comments by reference as if attached hereto. The City has been a charter 

member of FSA since 1998 and actively engaged in FSA's goal of promoting effective and efficient stormwater 

practices. The City also participates in FSA's programs regarding science-based watershed protection. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1050
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1694-1.001.011 

Author Name: Buss J. 

Organization: City of Tallahassee 

The City's position on these comments herein is believed to be "significant"; therefore, we request that EPA not move 

forward with rule promulgation until these issues have been resolved. We would like to thank the EPA for the 

opportunity to comment on the referenced docket and look forward to working with EPA and the FDEP in this process 

and remain committed to the enhancement of the area's water resources. Should you have any questions regarding 

these comments, please feel free to contact John Cox at 850-891-6867.. 

Comment ID 1695-1.001.003 

Author Name: Wiley N. 

Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Issues and Recommendations 

Ultimately, it is the implementation and enforcement of these criteria that could have the greatest impact on the FWC's 

ability to manage fish and wildlife resources. We support efforts to improve impaired water quality. Good water quality is 

important to fish and wildlife and their habitats. Because habitat degradation is the most important impact to fish and 

wildlife populations, we have active programs restoring, enhancing, and maintaining quality fish and wildlife habitat 

Some of our activities in this area can cause short-tenn perturbations in nutrient concentrations. We would like clear 

assurances that the regulation of these activities consider the long-term benefits of our endeavors, and not become a 

cause for the listing of impairment. 

The FWC also has concerns about the level of protection afforded by several of the proposed criteria and whether 

implementation is overly protective. Nutrients do require management in many Florida waters; however, nutrients 

should be managed at a level required for nonnal ecosystem function. This level of management should not include 

creating adverse biological effects that are inconsistent to the CWA charge to "protect the physical, chemical, and 

biological integrity" of the State's waters. Moreover, we are concerned that some lakes and streams will be incorrectly 

classified as being impaired because numeric criteria are overly restrictive. 

Comment ID 1695-1.001.010 

Author Name: Wiley N. 

Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

Summary 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1051
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Water quality is one of the key considerations in the maintenance of habitat for Florida's fish and wildlife. The FWC 

supports the continued improvement and protection of water quality and would like to be actively involved with the EPA 

and DEP to more fully understand the relationships between stressors, including, but not limited to nutrients, and 

maintenance of healthy populations of fish and wildlife. We recommend reevaluation or refinement of aspects of the 

proposed criteria for streams, lakes, and canals with consideration for how implementation of the criteria might impact 

ongoing efforts in managing fish and wildlife resources. 

Comment ID 1700-1.001.006 

Author Name: Mahan R. 

Organization: MB Management 67, Inc. 

Florida's waterways and water resources are precious and highly variable. Applying these non-specific, broad 

"standards" even by region will not be beneficial for anyone, and will end up damaging our water resources in the long 

run. Resources are always limited. These crudely developed standards will cause resources to be diverted from 

beneficial, positive private and municipal projects to "fix" water bodies that are not truly impaired in any way. 

Rather than allowing for occasional "Site Specific Alternative Criteria", the EPA should, in cooperation with Florida's 

Department of Environmental Regulation, spend the time and hard work necessary to develop the correct criteria for 

each water body. This would be helpful, and much more beneficial to the State of Florida than rushing to throw together 

a set of numbers without site-specific, scientific basis under an artificial time constraint. 

Comment ID 1715-1.001.012 

Author Name: Wilson C. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

As stated above, the EPD respectfully requests that USEPA include these comments, the Technical Comment paper 

and the Joint Submittal into the formal rulemaking administrative record as required by the Federal Administrative 

Procedures Act. The EPD reserves its right to challenge any finalized rule based upon the objections contained herein, 

objections raised by any other interested parties, or based on the materials contained in the Joint Submittal. In addition, 

the EPD incorporates by reference the comments submitted by the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services, 

Palm Beach County, The Orlando Utilities Commission, and the materials contained in the Joint Submittal. � 

Comment ID 1715-3.001.004 

Author Name: Wilson C. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1052
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Although the science behind the proposed rule provides some basic insights into issues affecting Florida's surface 

waters, the EPD experts have concluded that the USEPA failed conduct a rigorous analysis of the available information. 

The proposed criteria are therefore not supported by "sound scientific rationale" and therefore are arbitrary and 

capricious. The proposed criteria are overly protective and implementing these criteria in their present form will a) 

create a great deal of confusion and concern among the regulated community, b) will not likely result in protection of the 

designated uses; and c) result in implementation of costly control measures that will create economic hardship for 

farmers, local governments and water managers. 

The following sections summarize technical issues raised by the EPD scientists. More detailed analysis of the issues 

and conclusions presented here can be found in the attached technical documents and affidavits. A number of general 

concerns with the approach taken by USEPA have been identified by technical experts. These concerns relate to 

underlying assumptions that were the basis for rule development, procedures used to compile and analyze the data, 

and methods that were considered as alternatives to the selected process. Subsequent sections of this report are 

organized under eleven major topics as follows: 

Lack of Adequate Scientific Peer Review. 

Failure to Recognize Sub-regions within South Florida 

Selective Nature of the Data Set 

Statistical Issues 

Chlorophyll as a Criterion for EAA Canals 

Reference Condition Approach 

Nutrient Issues 

Biological Resources Related to Nutrients 

Lakes 

Estuaries 

Other Issues 

Comment ID 1722-1.001.014 

Author Name: Cunniff L. 

Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 

Impacts 

1. There is no evidence that the implementation of these proposed criteria would attain the goals of the Clean Water 

Act, or result in any realistic, long term sustainability. 

Comment ID 1722-1.001.021 

Author Name: Cunniff L. 

Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1053
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

In conclusion, EPD cannot support the proposed rule for Florida. Whereas EPD supports the regulatory protection of 

surface water systems from controllable degradation, the numeric nutrient criteria being proposed by USEPA is flawed 

and unrealistic. As a result, substantial funds and resources would be incurred without any reasonable assurance that 

the protection of water quality would or could be achieved. EPD urges the USEPA to re-evaluate the proposed 

methodology to consider a more realistic, achievable approach. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (407) 836-1405. 

Comment ID 1723-1.001.001 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: East Charlotte Drainage District 

The East Charlotte Drainage District District is a Special District established pursuant to Chapter 298 of the Florida 

Statutes for the express purpose of draining and conserving the lands and is a member of the Florida Association of 

Special Districts. Through the Florida Association of Special Districts, we have become aware of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule development that would establish numeric nutrient criteria for 

Florida's flowing waters (including canals) and lakes. We fully support the comments that the Florida Association of 

Special Districts will be filing on behalf of the Association and all its members. 

Comment ID 1723-1.001.005 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: East Charlotte Drainage District 

We appreciate the difficulties and scientific complexities in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Therefore, such an 

initiative should not be done in haste. Instead, it should be done with scientific diligence and not driven by litigation 

deadlines. We respectfully request that EPA postpone adoption of numeric nutrient criteria at this time so that the 

development of numeric criteria can be further assessed and derived based on sound science. 

Comment ID 1729.001.001 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

If this is implemented it would put me out of business - I have had tremendous losses, already, (due in part) to FWRA 

requiring (illegible) McHomes being 10' above flood level since the 1st time in 100 yr history of county we had a flood in 

1993 No-Name storm. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1054
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1729.001.011 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

10. The Florida DEP has a superior understanding of Florida's ecosystems to EPA and should be allowed to continue 

it's site specific assessments through the State's proven TMDL program. 

Comment ID 1731-1.001.001 

Author Name: Gibson T. 

Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg 

The City of St. Petersburg submits the following comments on the Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC). Verbal 

comments were, also, provided during the public workshop sessions. Comments made by Pinellas County during the 

public hearing have specific application to the City of St. Petersburg and as such, the City has expressed their support 

of Pinellas County's comments as well as other comments by other stakeholders in the Tampa Bay region made at the 

workshop. The City supports the County's written comments to be submitted by April 28,2010. 

The City is a member of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) and the Florida Stormwater 

Association (FSA) and supports the written comments made by those organizations. Their comments are attached as 

part of this document. Additional information has been submitted to the docket by these organizations but is not 

attached to this letter. Please refer to the docket for complete information. 

The City has spent considerable time and money for the development of the NMC's Reasonable Assurance Plan (RA) 

designed to meet the federal TMDLs for Tampa Bay. The goals of the plan are discussed in the NMC's comments and 

the City requests that the EPA fully considers the management approach used by the NMC for Tampa Bay in lieu of the 

proposed standards in this rulemaking. The RA has identified many projects to which the City has committed its 

resources. Additionally, the City has a robust stormwater maintenance program supported by the taxpayers of St. 

Petersburg through a stormwater utility fee. Besides funding the programs identified in the RA plan, the stormwater 

program has a very aggressive street sweeping program removing thousands of cubic yards of material annually from 

our streets that would otherwise end up in our bays. These actions are in full support of the RA plan that EPA needs to 

consider for the Tampa Bay region. 

Comment ID 1732-1.001.001 

Author Name: Chesney E. 

Organization: City of Clearwater 

Please accept these comments on behalf of the City of Clearwater Stonnwater Engineering Department for the above 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1055
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

referenced subject. I represent the City of Clearwater on the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) Management Board 

and we fully support their efforts and those of the Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) concerning the proposed 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNe). For that reason I have attached the comments prepared by the NMC which address 

many of our concerns as well. 

The City is committed to improving water quality, and our capitol improvement projects of the past, present and future 

are testament to that. We are committed and ready to work with the State and Federal agencies, along with our 

neighbors Pinellas County, Dunedin, Largo and others on this process. 

Comment ID 1748-1.001.001 

Author Name: Choi C. 

Organization: Progress Energy on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

Progress Energy is a regional energy company focusing on the high-growth Southeast region of the United States. The 

Company is organized as a holding company that operates regulated utilities in the Carolinas and Florida that serve 

more than 3.1 million retail customers. Progress Energy Service Company, on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation 

d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), offers the following comments in response to the proposed numeric nutrient 

criteria water quality standards for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters [75 Fed. Reg. No. 16 (January 26, 

2010)]. Please note that PEF is a member of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG) and supports 

comments submitted by that consortium as well as comments submitted by the Federal Water Quality Coalition. 

Comment ID 1748-1.001.008 

Author Name: Choi C. 

Organization: Progress Energy on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

In summary, we believe EPA's adoption of numeric nutrient criteria in the State of Florida is unnecessary based on the 

trends which show overall reductions in nutrient levels over the past 25-30 years. More importantly, it will result in just 

the opposite effect, whereby water users who may be considering beneficial reuse of alterative supplies, which act to 

reduce overall nutrient loading to receiving water bodies, will now shy away from these sources due to the risk of 

exceeding numeric criteria during intermittent discharge events. 

Progress Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment on these extremely important regulations. If you have any 

questions or require further information, please contact me at (919) 546-3775 or Mr. Doug Yowell at (727) 820-5228. 

Comment ID 1761-1.001.001 

Author Name: Merrill M. 

Organization: Hillsborough County 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1056
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Attached please find Hillsborogh County's comments on EPA's Proposed Rule regarding Water Quality Standards for 

the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, as published in the Federal Register in Volume 75, No. 16 on January 

26, 2010. Hillsborough County has been following this rulemaking closely, and County representatives provided more 

detailed comments, and hope these comments will be useful ot EPA in reviewing, revising and improving the Proposed 

Rule. In addition, the County is an active member of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Tampa Bay Nitrogen 

Management Consortium. We fully support the Consortium's request to EPA in its letter of March 8, 2010, that EPA 

recognize the Consortium's adaptive management strategy and accept the Consortium's Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total 

Phosphorus (TP) loads as the protective loads used in determining downstream protective values (DPVs) for inland 

waters, and as the protective Estuarine Nutrient Criteria for Tampa Bay. 

Comment ID 1762-1.001.001 

Author Name: Smith D. 

Organization: DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners 

DESOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA 

RESOLUTION NO. 2010 - 26 

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISISONERS OF DESOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN 

OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S (EPA) PROPOSED 

NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR FLORIDA AS SET FORTH IN THE "WATER QUALITY STANDARD FOR THE 

STATE OF FLORIDA'S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS" RULING; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 

WHEREAS, the EPA is proposing numeric nutrient water quality standards that in some cases are unrealistic; and 

WHEREAS, the State of Florida already has nutrient water quality standards that were previously approved by the EPA 

and are currently monitored by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); and 

WHEREAS, the proposed numeric standards don't consider the existing nutrient balance and the proposed changes in 

nutrient concentration of a water body may cause an imbalance in Florida's aquatic ecosystem; and 

WHEREAS, Florida's agricultural production, as we know it today, requires aggressive and expensive modifications to 

all programs as necessary to achieve the elevated nutrient discharge criteria; and 

WHEREAS, that the EPA's water quality goals have not provided insight as to how cities and counties would handle the 

issue of wastewater disposal systems and stormwater systems, and the likely cost to meet these goals may cause rate 

increases; and 

WHEREAS, the Board finds adoption of this Resolution is in the best interest of the residents of DeSoto County, 

Florida. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1057
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESOTO COUNTY, 

FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: 

Section 1. That the foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby 

incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution. 

Section 2. That the Board of County Commissioners is opposed to the EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality 

Criteria for Florida as set forth in the "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" 

ruling published in the Federal Register on January 26th, 2010. 

Section 3. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of April, 2010 

Comment ID 1763-1.001.001 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: County Line Drainage District, Arcadia 

The Count Line Drainage District is a Special District established pursuant to Chapter 298 of the Florida Statutes for the 

express purpose of draining and conserving the lands and is a member of the Florida Association of Special Districts. 

Through the Florida Association of Special Districts, we have become aware of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's proposed rule development that would establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's flowing waters (including 

canals) and lakes. We fully support the comments that the Florida Association of Special Districts will be filing on 

behalfofthe Association and all its members. 

Comment ID 1763-1.001.003 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: County Line Drainage District, Arcadia 

We understand that the development of numeric nutrient criteria is the result of a consent decree EPA has entered into 

that specifies deadlines for establishing such criteria. We are concerned that the timeframes set forth in the consent 

decree are too ambitious and have thus resulted in hastily formulated standards that are not scientifically sound. While 

this point is detailed in the Florida Association of Special District's comments, it is worth noting that there is no 

relationship between nutrient levels and the biological health of flowing waters. This point was acknowledged by EPA 

during a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Technical Advisory Committee meeting discussing the 

development of numeric criteria for Florida waters. Controlling nutrient levels in flowing waters, especially man-made 

canals, does not control the biological response within a given flowing water. 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. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1058
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1763-1.001.005 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: County Line Drainage District, Arcadia 

We appreciate the difficulties and scientific complexities in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Therefore, such an 

initiative should not be done in haste. Instead, it should be done with scientific diligence and not driven by litigation 

deadlines. We respectfully request that EPA postpone adoption of numeric nutrient criteria at this time so that the 

development of numeric criteria can be further assessed and derived based on sound science. 

Comment ID 1764-1.001.002 

Author Name: Mowry G. 

Organization: Marion County Stormwater Section 

Therefore, Marion County is very concerned about the implications of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 

establisllrnent of numeric nutrient criteria in the State of Florida. The ramifications are significant in a state that is 

already doing more than any other in regards to water resources, is a leader at the national level in water policy, and 

has experienced a significant economic downturn before most other states in the nation. 

Comment ID 1765-1.001.002 

Author Name: Stewart K. 

Organization: Office of the Mayor, City of Jacksonville 

Based on participation and support of the TMDL and BMAP process, clearly the COJ strongly supports the 

establishment of Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) that is attainable and based on a sound scicntific approach and 

methodology such as that used to derive the LSJR TMDL. Therefore, EPA must ensure that any NNC for Florida 

surface waters is based on similar sound scientific methodologies and that they recognize established, and EPA 

approved, nutrient TMDLs as the governing Site Specific Alternative Criteria without requiring additional regulatory 

steps. 

Comment ID 1766-1.001.001 

Author Name: Crotty M. 

Organization: City of Satellite Beach 

The City of Satellite Beach takes pride in its efforts to improve the natural environment in this heavily urbanized coastal 

region of Florida. Our small community continues to invest millions of dollars in stormwater improvement projects even 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1059
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

as we attempt to find ways to continue providing services to our residents in the face of tough economic times. 

As a small community with no scientists on staff, we must rely on volunteers and cooperative support by Brevard 

County and other organizations to properly analyze and understand the ramifications of complex technical issues such 

as nutrient loading impairment of waterways. We share many of the concerns Brevard County and the American 

Waterworks Association in Florida have already submitted to you. 

Comment ID 1767-1.001.001 

Author Name: Vinson R. 

Organization: TGA Sod LP and Turfgrass America 

Our company is a producer of turfgrass. We have spoken with several scientists knowledgeable about Florida's waters 

and the numeric standards proposed by the EPA. We are very concerned, as we've been told the following: 

Comment ID 1767-1.001.007 

Author Name: Vinson R. 

Organization: TGA Sod LP and Turfgrass America 

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 optimzing 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. 

Comment ID 1767-1.001.010 

Author Name: Vinson R. 

Organization: TGA Sod LP and Turfgrass America 

I urge you to rescind this recommendation and go back to the drawing board. Our Department of Environmental 

Regulation in Florida, in cooperation with farmers, municipalities and all stakeholders, is more than up to the task, and 

is already doing the correct work to protect our water resources. However if the EPA would like to help, then, please, ro 

ll up your sleeves and join us in doing the real, hard work of developing the site specific criteria for each water body and 

waterway. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1060
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.002 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

I. Description of Commentator The City of Cocoa, located in Brevard County, Florida, consists of 5,312 acres, with 92 

miles of streets and its utility serves 7,662 connections. Cocoa has one wastewater facility, the Sellers Water 

Reclamation Facility, designed for a flow capacity of 4.5 million gallons per day ("mgd"). Currently, this facility has an 

average daily influent flow of 2 MGD and utilizes the Five Stage Bardenpho nutrient removal technology. Cocoa's 

reclaim water system consists of approximately 23 miles of pipe with approximately 1900 connections. We are 

concerned the nutrient levels in the Proposed Rule will interfere with our ability to discharge treated wastewater effluent 

to the Indian River Lagoon since the proposed levels will be difficult to achieve utilizing the technology in place at the 

Sellers Water Reclamation Facility. Attempts to reduce present levels of nutrients in the effluent (to the proposed levels) 

will involve the addition of processes that employ new or advanced technology, which would initially create a large 

capital outlay. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.005 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

Although the Proposed Rule includes a section discussing the EPA determination regarding Florida, it appears the 

Proposed Rule fails to resolve the issues raised by the EPA. The Proposed Rule states the "EPA determined that 

Florida's narrative nutrient criterion alone was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses [3] ." Yet, 

Florida's water quality protection program is multi-faceted and ensures the protection of water bodies through many 

programs including the total maximum daily load ("TMDL") program, a bioassessment program, designation of 

Outstanding Florida Waters, BMAPs and comprehensive NPDES permit regulations. While EPA recognizes the 

existence of these programs, it does not appear to consider the value of these programs and the substantial steps the 

State of Florida has taken to protect and improve water quality. 

[3] Id. at 4181. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.032 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

VI. Suggested Changes to Proposed Rule 

Without waiving our objections to the science and methods upon which the Proposed Rule is based or our position 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1061
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

regarding the EPA's authority to adopt the Proposed Rule, we offer the following suggestions to address these concerns 

and minimize their potential impact. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.020 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

I. Description of Commentator 

Plant City, located in Hillsborough County, Florida, has a population of approximately 37,500, with approximately 

12,500 total connections, and 5 Significant Industrial Users. One central facility treats the domestic and industrial 

wastewater produced by these customers. The facility was upgraded in 2008 at a cost of approximately $53 million and 

is permitted to operate at 8 million gallons per day ("MGD"). It provides treatment to meet Florida "Grizzle-Figg" 

standards contained in Section 403.086, Florida Statutes (5 mg/L CBOD5, 5 mg/L Total Suspended Solids, 3 mg/L TN, 

and 1 mg/L TP), and the facility also meets high level disinfection standards necessary for Public Access Reuse in 

Florida. 

Four interconnected drinking water plants serve the same customers. Each facility includes a well drawing water from 

the Floridan Aquifer. The water quality is very good and minimal treatment is required; only disinfection and 

polyphosphate addition are provided. The facilities have a combined capacity of almost 10 MGD. Plant City's 

stormwater system is regulated as a co-permittee under Hillsborough County's MS4 NPDES Permit. Plant City is 

involved in two existing major stormwater treatment projects, and stormwater treatment is an integral component of 

local project development. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.023 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

Although the Proposed Rille includes a section discussing the EPA determination regarding Florida, it appears the 

Proposed Rule fails to resolve the issues raised by the EPA. The Proposed Rille states the "EPA determined that 

Florida's narrative nutrient criterion alone was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses [3]." Yet, 

Florida's water quality protection program is multi-faceted and ensures the protection of water bodies through many 

programs including the total maximum daily load ("TMDL") program, a bioassessment program, designation of 

Outstanding Florida Waters, BMAP and comprehensive National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") 

permit regulations. While EPA recognizes the existence of these programs, it does not appear to consider the value of 

these programs and the substantial steps the State of Florida has taken to protect and improve water quality. 

[3] Id. at 4181. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1062
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.056 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

VI. Suggested Changes to the Proposed Rule 

Without waiving our objections to the science and methods upon which the Proposed Rule is based or our position 

regarding the EPA's authority to adopt the Proposed Rule, we offer the following suggestions to address these concerns 

and minimize their potential impact. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.027 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

I. Description of Commentator 

Seminole County is located in central Florida. approximately 35 miles west of the Atlantic Ocean and approximately 120 

miles east of the Gulfof Mexico (see Figure 2-1). The County encompasses approximately 344 square miles and had an 

estimated 2008 population of 423,759. Seven municipalities are included within the County and include the Cities of 

Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, Lake Mary, Longwood, Oviedo, Sanford, and Winter Springs. The county seat of 

government is the City of Sanford located on Lake Monroe. 

The County 's utility system is divided into four geographical serv ice areas: Southeast, Southwest, Northeast and 

Northwest. These areas include a number of subsystems corresponding to distribution/collection systems served either 

by County-owned facilities or through wholesale purchase agreements with other utilities. The System serves an 

aggregate geographic area of approximately 158 square miles or approximately 46 percent of Seminole County's land 

area. As of September 2009. the number of water connect ions served by Seminole County was 43,515 and 

wastewater connections totaled 31,316. 

Groundwater is currently the source of all of the potable water that is supplied by Seminole County. Water is withdrawn 

through wells that are drilled into the upper portions of the Floridan Aquifer. This is the same source of water that 

supplies all of the utilities in Orange and Seminole County. The withdrawal of groundwater is regulated by the St. Johns 

River Water Management District ("SJRWMD"). 

Wastewater generated in the County is treated at the Greenwood Lakes and Yankee Lake Water Reclamation Facilities 

("WRF"), which are County-owned facilities, or at the City of Orlando's Iron Bridge Water Pollution Control Facility 

("WPCF"), the City of Altamonte Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant ("WWTP"), the City of Sanford's WWTP, or 

Utilities, Inc. WWTP pursuant to agreements with the municipal or private owners of the facilities. The County's 

wastewater treatment facilities have a total permitted capacity of 7.0 MGD. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1063
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

This utility is concerned with the Proposed Rule as it relates to any potential impact the rule would have on current and 

future wastewater effluent discharge from County-owned WRFs via wetlands (i.e. surface water) systems, rapid 

infiltration basins ("RIBs") as well as public access reclaimed water systems. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.030 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

Although the Proposed Rule includes a section discussing the EPA determination regarding Florida, it appears the 

Proposed Rule fails to resolve the issues raised by the EPA. The Proposed Rule states the "EPA determined that 

Florida's narrative nutrient criterion alone was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses[3]." Yet, 

Florida's water quality protection program is multi-faceted and ensures the protection of water bodies through many 

programs including the total maximum daily load ("TMDL") program, a bioassessment program, designation of 

Outstanding Florida Waters, BMAPs and comprehensive NPDES permit regulations. While EPA recognizes the 

existence of these programs, it does not appear to consider the value of these programs and the substantial steps the 

State of Florida has taken to protect and improve water quality. 

[3] Id. at 4181. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.066 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

VI. Suggested Changes to Proposed Rule 

Without waiving our objections to the science and methods upon which the Proposed Rule is based or our position 

regarding the EPA's authority to adopt the Proposed Rule, we offer the following suggestions to address these concerns 

and minimize their potential impact. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.021 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

I. Description of Commentator 

The City of Titusville is located on the "Space Coast" in east central Florida, in northern Brevard County. It is bounded 

to the east by the Indian River Lagoon and the Kennedy Space Center and to the west by the Upper St_ Jolms River. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1064
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Titusville's population is estimated at 44,987 and encompasses approximately 24 square miles with 22,120 housing 

units_ The per capita income of Titusville is $24,485. 

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_ This 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/early 2011 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. 

The City of Titusville Stormwater Utility, which was established by ordinance in 1991, currently provides services that 

reduce flooding and improve water quality in both the Indian and St. John's Rivers. The Utility is responsible for 

operating and maintaining 50 miles of drain pipes, 30 miles of canals and ditches, and over 2,500 inlets and junction 

boxes. Maintenance includes replacement of metal pipes, vegetation control in ditches and canals, and regularly 

scheduled cleaning of all ditches and inlets. The Utility also constructs neighborhood drainage improvements and 

implements regional master plan projects that serve entire drainage basins. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.024 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

Although the Proposed Rule includes a section discussing the EPA determination regarding Florida, it appears the 

Proposed Rule fails to resolve the issues raised by the EPA. The Proposed Rule states the "EPA determined that 

Florida's narrative nutrient criterion alone was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses [3]." Yet 

Florida's Water quality protection program is multi-faceted and ensures the protection of water bodies through many 

programs including the total maximum daily load ("TMDL") program, a bioassessment program, designation of 

Outstanding Florida Waters, BMAPs and comprehensive NPDES permit regulations. While EPA recognizes the 

existence of these programs, it does not appear to consider the value of these programs and the substantial steps the 

State of Florida has taken to protect and improve water quality. 

[3] Id. at 4181. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.059 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

VI. Suggested Changes to Proposed Rule Without waiving our objections to the science and methods upon which the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1065
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Proposed Rule is based or our position regarding the EPA's authority to adopt the Proposed Rule, we offer the following 

suggestions to address these concerns and minimize their potential impact. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.024 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

I. Description of Commentator 

OUC's water system is comprised of water supply/treatment facilities and an extensive transmission/distribution pipe 

network. The water system serves an area that measuring 200 square miles with over 135,000 active service 

connections. Treated water is produced at seven water supply/treatment facilities. The source of the water is the Lower 

Floridan aquifer, which is about 1,100 feet below land surface. The groundwater is treated using ozone. In 2009, OUC 

treated and distributed approximately 78 million gallons per day ("mgd") of groundwater for its customers. OUC does 

not own or operate a reclaimed water system, but is required under the consumptive use permit ("CUP") issued by the 

St. Johns River Water Management District to use at least 11.1 mgd of reclaimed water within the OUC service area by 

2020. Currently, the City of Orlando and Orange County Utilities supply a total of approximately 10 mgd of reclaimed 

water to the OUC service area. 

OUC's CUP also requires construction of a reclaimed water transmission main to City of Apopka (Project RENEW). The 

reclaimed water will be supplied by the City of Orlando. Project RENEW will supply 8.55 mgd to Apopka when 

completed. 

The cost of complying with the Proposed Rule will impact OUC's approach to using this reclaimed water. In order to 

avoid the nutrient requirements for reclaimed water under the Proposed Rule, OUC may be forced to redirect reclaimed 

water away from its current irrigation users. As a result, OUC will need to pursue other sources of alternative water 

supply to meet this demand, which will impose significant cost implications. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.027 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

Although the Proposed Rule includes a section discussing the EPA determination regarding Florida, it appears the 

Proposed Rule fails to resolve the issues raised by the EPA. The Proposed Rule states the "EPA determined that 

Florida's narrative nutrient criterion alone was insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses[3].'' Yet, 

Florida's water quality protection program is multi-faceted and ensures the protection of water bodies through many 

programs including the total maximum daily load ("TMDL") program, a bioassessment program, designation of 

Outstanding Florida Waters, BMAPs and comprehensive NPDES permit regulations. While EPA recognizes the 

existence of these programs, it does not appear to consider the value of these programs and the substantial steps the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1066
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

State of Florida has taken to protect and improve water quality. 

[3] Id.at 4181. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.059 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

VI. Suggested Changes to Proposed Rule 

Without waiving our objections to the science and methods upon which the Proposed Rule is based or our position 

regarding the EPA's authority to adopt the Proposed Rule, we offer the following suggestions to address these concerns 

and minimize their potential impact. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.007 

Author Name: Payne J. 

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

Many of the comments below consider the scientific support of the proposed NNC in light of the demand for strong 

justifications in light of the fiscal consequences. In general, even though EPA used many of the scientific methods 

considered by the FDEP, EPA added a number of methodologies that do not stand up to the balance of scientific 

support and fiscal consequence. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.023 

Author Name: Payne J. 

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

In general, we believe that the approach as contemplated by the proposed rules does not provide sufficient scientific 

validation to warrant the very significant fiscal response that will be expected of local governments and the private 

sector, nor does it demonstrate that Florida waters need nutrient protection in this maimer or to the degree as may be 

required by the proposed rules. 

We respectfully suggest that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection be allowed to proceed with and 

conclude its development of numeric nutrient criteria and related implementation measures within a time certain. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed criteria. We are available to respond to any questions that 

the Agency may have concerning our comments. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1067
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.027 

Author Name: Payne J. 

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

Assessment of Impacts 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria are onerous and expensive, But they are here to stay and must be realistic, appropriate, 

attainable, practicable and implementable, 

Comment ID 1774.001.002 

Author Name: Payne J. 

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

General Concerns with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

We are concerned that the approach taken by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish numeric nutrient 

criteria may be scientifically flawed and too inflexible to appropriately address water quality in Florida. The use of limited 

data, generalized nonspecific formulas and broad criteria may be too simplistic to govern the water quality standards for 

systems with such a high degree of natural diversity and a large variety of site specific conditions that shape ambient 

nutrient water quality and the resulting impacts on a wide range of aquatic ecosystems. Our concern is that too many 

lakes, springs, streams and rivers that support healthy and well functioning aquatic ecosystems will be deemed 

impaired. This may cause an unwarranted expenditure of effort, time and money on a healthy, well functioning aquatic 

ecosystem. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has determined that a large percentage of the 

"reference" or pristine sites established as healthy based on biological validation methods would be deemed impaired 

water bodies when measured by EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. Our belief is that this apparent contradiction 

is unacceptable and must be resolved before numeric nutrient criteria are adopted in the State of Florida. Further, it 

would seem reasonable to us to expect that if the impaired status of a water body is contested, the final determination 

should be based on a biological validation process and not a numeric standard created without demonstrating a 

definitive cause and effect relationship between dosage-response to water body health. 

Comment ID 1774.001.010 

Author Name: Payne J. 

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

Moreover, the State has recently adopted best management practices for the cow-calf industry. I would request that the 

EPA allow these BMP programs already adopted to have sufficient time to be implemented fully and achieve their 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1068
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

desired results. 

Comment ID 1774.001.022 

Author Name: Payne J. 

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

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments on EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. Our hope is that 

our concerns will be taken seriously and conscientious consideration will be given them during the rule making process. 

It is our desire that solutions to environmental protection issues be effective and equitable while at the same time not 

overly burdensome to individuals or public agencies. We take our responsibility for environmental stewardship very 

seriously and expect EPA to commit the required resources and take the time necessary to thoroughly reevaluate 

critical elements of your proposed numeric nutrient criteria and make changes that will in the end satisfy the 

requirements of the Clean Water Act in a manner that is scientifically sound and mutually acceptable. 

Comment ID 1777-1.001.001 

Author Name: Blanchard B. 

Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the 

proposed U.S. EPA national ruJemaking to establish water quality standards for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing 

waters. FDOT has a strong interest in the proposed rulemaking, as it will substantially impact stormwater programs 

within the Department. 

The Department's comments are discussed on the next pages. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding EPA's proposed rulemaking on water quality standards for the 

State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1069
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1779-1.001.001 

Author Name: Smith P. 

Organization: Public Services Department, City of Tarpon Springs 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding site specific analysis that should be used instead of the 

general approach identified in the Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing 

Waters (Docket ill No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). The City of Tarpon Springs supports Pinellas County's stance 

regarding TMDL issues and Numeric Nutrient Criteria. 

Comment ID 1780-1.001.007 

Author Name: Piper R. 

Organization: Florida Power and Light Company

 In sum, EPA's proposed NNC rule is not necessary, and it could interfere with Florida's good progress under the 

existing narrative nutrient standard and the TMDL program. EPA's statistical methodology is deeply flawed and the 

reference stream approach overall is totally unworkable, as evidenced by the fact that a substantial percentage of 

Florida's cleanest waters cannot meet the proposed criteria. Additionally, the proposed rule will interfere with Florida's 

important and environmentally beneficial water reuse efforts. Thank you for considering these comments. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.001 

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 Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council (FWEA Utility Council), Florida Section of the American 

Water Works Association Utility Council (FSAWWA Utility Council), and Florida Rural Water Association (FRWA) 

hereby file these comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

for Florida's lakes and flowing waters, including canals.[1] 

FWEA Utility Council, FSAWWA Utility Council, FRWA members share significant concerns regarding EPA's proposed 

nutrient criteria, which if adopted would severely and negatively impact our members and the communities they serve. 

[1] 75 Fed. Reg. 4174 (Jan. 26, 2010). 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.004 

Author Name: Childs D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1070
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

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 has not -- and indeed cannot -- justify this rulemaking initiative. The only reasonable outcome is for EPA to seek 

relief from the Consent Decree and then re-empower the State of Florida to continue leading its peers in the regulation 

of nutrients. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.012 

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 

Therefore, the FWEA Utility Council, FSAWWA Utility Council, and FRWA request that EPA seek judicial relief from its 

consent decree with EarthJustice, because it is obvious that EPA's derivation methodology and resulting proposed 

regional nutrient criteria are scientifically flawed. Just as an alchemist will never successfully turn copper into gold, EPA 

cannot massage these crude proposed criteria into scientifically defensible standards. EPA must completely rethink its 

approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria. We recommend revoking the necessity determination and reempowering the State of Florida to manage its own sophisticated water quality standards program without the specter 

of an unwarranted federal usurpation. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.019 

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 

IV. Florida does not need EPA's numeric nutrient criteria to comply with the Clean Water Act 

The FWEA Utility Council, FSAWWA Utility Council, and FRWA believe that EPA's numeric nutrient criteria rulemaking 

is unwarranted. If and when EPA rethinks its approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria, EPA should defer to the 

State of Florida, which has a long, proud history of progressively dealing with nutrient issues. Such due deference 

would be directly in line with the cooperative federalism established by Congress in the CWA. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.030 

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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1071
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

EPA cannot justify its proposed rule based on claims that it will facilitate administration of the state's TMDL program. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.048 

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 

XII. EPA must seek Judicial Relief from the Consent Decree 

EPA has provided no sound basis for its proposed numeric nutrient criteria; EPA's proposed nutrient criteria are 

scientifically invalid; and the finalization of EPA's proposed criteria would cause significant negative economic and 

policy consequences. In light of the foregoing, the FWEA Utility Council, FSA WWA Utility Council, and the FRWA 

request that EPA revoke its necessity determination and seek judicial relief from its Consent Decree. 

In response to a question from Judge Hinkle of the United States Northern District Court of Florida about whether the 

Consent Decree obligated EPA to finalize invalid criteria, United States Department of Justice Attorney, Martha Mann, 

explained: 

...It is not forced to promulgate something that is not a good rule just because there is a deadline in the consent 

decree.[123] 

Further, she acknowledged that EPA may revoke its necessity determination: 

I think that if EPA were to conclude that numeric nutrient criteria were not necessary in the state of Florida, we would 

have to come back to you and seek a termination of the consent decree, because it would still be obligated under the 

terms. ...[124] 

We ask that you follow the parameters outlined by the court and your legal counsel for terminating the Consent Decree. 

The State of Florida does not need EPA's crude nutrient criteria. Instead, EPA should allow the State of Florida to 

continue to lead its peers in nutrient water quality regulation. 

[123] FWF v. EPA, Official Transcript of Motion Hearing Before Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District 

Judge. 79 (Nov. 16. 2009). 

[124] Id. at 81. 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.009 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1072
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

DETAILED COMMENTS 

Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) hereby files these comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA's) proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. GRU has significant concerns that if 

EPA's proposed nutrient criteria were adopted they would severely and negatively impact our community and 

customers we serve. 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.035 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

GRU has significant concerns that if EPA's proposed nutrient criteria were adopted as proposed they would severely 

and negatively impact our community and customers we serve. GRU recognizes and recommends the following: 

Comment ID 1785-1.001.022 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

V. Conclusion

 Lee County is proud of its commitment to protection of the State's water resources. The County has expended 

substantial time and resources undertaking water quality restoration and enhancement projects. We further recognize 

the need for numeric nutrient criteria to protect Florida's water resources. However, the County has multiple objectives 

and must balance a number of interests and goals - providing a safe, reliable, cost-effective water supply to its 

residents, and protecting its water resources. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.002 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Beyond the obvious impacts on NACWA's members in the state, the proposal introduces new concepts that will likely 

impact clean water agencies nationwide as states continue to develop and implement numeric nutrient water quality 

criteria. Accordingly, NACWA has conducted a comprehensive review of the proposal and offers the comments and 

recommendations below. New approaches discussed in the proposal show promise in aiding implementation of nutrient 

controls, but concerns remain over whether they will work in real-world applications. In addition, NACWA believes that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1073
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

the situation in Florida exemplifies the Association's over-arching concerns with EPA's rigid approach to setting nutrient 

criteria. NACWA's members feel strongly that new approaches are needed that recognize the unique aspects of 

nutrients in the water environment. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.061 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

None of the existing regulatory mechanisms, however, cover all of the factors that NACWA believes are needed for an 

effective national program. And these mechanisms only address implementation, not the underlying criteria 

development process. Above all, none of the approaches address equity or require nonpoint source reductions. 

NACWA will be evaluating the current approaches to nutrient goal development and the various implementation 

mechanisms in advance of and during its Summit this summer. NACWA has already been exploring some of the 

innovative approaches being considered by states and other stakeholders. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.064 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Conclusion and Recommendations for Next Steps 

NACWA believes the situation in Florida is symptomatic of a larger underlying problem with EPA's current approach to 

addressing nutrient over-enrichment, and underscores the need for new approaches. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.066 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Again, NACWA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposal which will have impacts on NACWA's 

members in Florida and implications more broadly for the nation. NACWA will work with EPA as it convenes its Summit 

and looks forward to a collaborative dialogue with EPA, the states and other stakeholders on the issue. 

Please contact Chris Hornback at 202-833-9106 or chornback@nacwa.org if you have any questions or would like 

to discuss NACWA’s comments further. 

Comment ID 1787-1.001.013 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1074
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Spratt J. 

Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association 

For over a decade, the state of Florida has been developing and implementing scientifically sound and proven, 

economically feasible, site-specific programs aimed at the prevention of water degradation. By utilizing a transparent 

process involving government, academia, and local stakeholder participation, the FDEP, FDACS and water 

management districts have made substantial impacts with their collaborative TMDL, BMAP and BMP programs. In 

contrast, the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria is riddled with questionable science, lacks any plan for 

implementation, is economically wasteful, unrealistic and ruinous, and fails to recognize the immense diversity among 

the states lakes and flowing waters. 

In representation of our nursery, landscape, retail and allied members, the FNGLA cannot support the EPA's numeric 

nutrient criteria and requests that the agency either withdrawal the proposed rule or make the necessary revisions. 

Comment ID 1787-1.001.015 

Author Name: Spratt J. 

Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association 

The FDEP's TMDL and BMAP programs' transparent approach to nutrient impairment correctly takes the required time 

to properly apply the necessary science in its determination of the site-specific health of Florida's water bodies. Due to 

these facts, FNGLA strongly advocates its support for the continuation of the FDEP's programs in lieu of the EPA's 

proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1792-1.001.001 

Author Name: Putnam A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

Floridians well understand that water policy will determine the future of our state. People from all over the world come to 

Florida to dive off our coasts, fish in our rivers, and swim in our lakes. In addition to the natural attractions, Florida's 

water and weather allow us to be our nation's main domestic supplier of fruits and vegetables during the winter months. 

For all these reasons, Florida has long been a national leader in establishing water quality standards. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to impose numeric nutrient criteria was made 

by lawyers in a courtroom as opposed to scientists in the field, and without a debate from elected officials. Indeed, 

EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria poses a threat to Florida's already weakened economy with significant doubt 

as to the benefit of these new standards as well as their costs, and technological ability to comply. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1075
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1792-1.001.006 

Author Name: Putnam A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

I anticipate that EPA will hear from many Florida stakeholders during the comment period. I urge you to address their 

concerns and the unanswered questions which continue to plague this proposal. The people of Florida literally cannot 

afford the EPA ignoring the consequences of its actions. 

Comment ID 1793-1.001.001 

Author Name: Haring S. 

Organization: Layton City Council 

Please accept this letter concerning the above referenced docket item as an unequivocal endorsement of the 

comments presented by Monroe County in their letter to you dated April 21, 2010. 

The City of Layton is surrounded by Long Key State Park, all residential properties and commercial properties are 

located on canals or open water and, therefore, we all share a concern for the many issues involving water quality. As 

stated in the Monroe County comments, the City of Layton is well ‘ahead of the curve' in wastewater, stormwater and 

environmental issues and the city continues to support the leadership demonstrated by Monroe County. 

As in the past, we look forward to working with the EPA, Monroe County and our fellow stakeholders in protecting the 

Florida Keys fragile environment. 

Comment ID 1794-1.001.010 

Author Name: Taylor W. 

Organization: US Department of the Interior 

National Park Service Comments on USEPA Proposed Nutrient Criteria For Inland Surface Freshwaters in Miami-Dade 

County, Florida 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has proposed nutrient criteria for inland surface freshwaters for 

Florida, including South Florida, where two national parks and a national preserve are located (Figure 1). We have 

reviewed these proposed nutrient criteria and have determined that these criteria likely would not provide adequate 

protection to aquatic and marine ecosystems in Biscayne Bay (Biscayne National Park) and Florida Bay (Everglades 

National Park) and their watersheds. 

Comment ID 1795-1.001.008 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1076
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

In summary, the ECUA is not opposed to NNC. We currently have numeric limits on all our treatment plants. However, 

we are opposed to limits that are so low that it wastes our rate payers' money and provides little or possibly not even a 

measurable environmental gain a short distance away. We have no choice once the rule becomes effective. We have to 

comply or face fines and penalties, and then comply. The cost to comply will have to be passed on to the rate payers. 

These rate payers are generally the same ones who fund FDEP, the water management districts and even EPA. We 

cannot keep sewer rates affordable with rules like this and in so doing will promote the proliferation of septic systems 

and other options such as relocation of rate payers to out of the state. 

Comment ID 1796-1.001.002 

Author Name: Mizrahi C. 

Organization: National Potato Council 

The NPC opposes the "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" rule proposed by 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 26, 2010. The rule places nitrogen and phosphorus numeric 

nutrient quality criteria on both natural and manmade bodies of water in the state of Florida, including Lakes, flowing 

waters, estuaries, coastal waters and canals. The rule also requires the development of restoration standards for waters 

which exceed the proposed limits for the nutrients. While the NPC believes in the importance of clean water in the state 

of Florida, we also believe that the EPA is misguided in both its overly general definition of what an impaired body of 

water is as well as its plan for treating those bodies of water. 

Comment ID 1796-1.001.009 

Author Name: Mizrahi C. 

Organization: National Potato Council 

The NPC has reviewed the extensive technical comments submitted by the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. We 

support those comments and believe that their analysis and intimate knowledge of the current water quality programs in 

Florida provide the EPA with a realistic assessment of the extreme shortcomings of the proposed rule. 

The EPA's "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" rule simply is not a viable 

replacement for or improvement upon Florida's current system. The proposed rule would have severe economic 

repercussions in the agricultural community, and could potentially cause serious harm to the state's diverse 

ecosystems. 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.039 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1077
 
 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

X. Conclusion 

The EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria will broadly classify waters throughout the State of Florida as impaired, 

force communities and agricultural operations to reduce nutrients regardless of demonstrated need, and unnecessarily 

exhaust the state's critical economic resources. Predicting that nutrients are causing problems, even in areas classified 

by the state as pristine, demonstrates that the proposed rule bears no reasonable relationship to actual environmental 

needs. The EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria, in many instances, will produce a net environmental detriment by 

wasting energy and severely impacting local economies. 

Florida Farm Bureau Federation requests that the EPA seriously consider withdrawal of the proposed numeric nutrient 

criteria rule and allow the FDEP to develop scientifically defensible criteria. 

Comment ID 1799-1.001.002 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: Joshua Water Control District 

We fully support the comments that the Florida Association of Special Districts will be filing on behalf of the Association 

and all its members. 

Comment ID 1799-1.001.008 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: Joshua Water Control District

 We appreciate the difficulties and scientific complexities in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Therefore, such an 

initiative should not be done in haste. Instead, it should be done with scientific diligence and not driven by litigation 

deadlines. We respectfully request that EPA postpone adoption of numeric nutrient criteria at this time so that the 

development of numeric criteria can be further assessed and derived based on sound science. 

Comment ID 1800-1.001.004 

Author Name: Gong S. 

Organization: CH2M HILL 

Roughly a decade ago, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) attempted to include nitrogen11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1078
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

related criteria into the Florida Administrative Code during the Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards following an 

approach not unlike that being applied by EPA in 2010. Stakeholder reaction was similar to what EPA is seeing this 

year, and the proposed criteria were ultimately withdrawn - deferred pending development of better justified proposed 

criteria. Subsequently the FDEP agreed to proceed with a stakeholder-engaged and science-based program directed at 

developing the technical tools and basis for NNC development applicable to Florida water body characteristics. 

Over the past decade, the State's investment toward that NNC development process has been substantial (reported to 

be in the millions of dollars), and although consensus has not yet been fully achieved, the agency and regulated 

community have progressed collaboratively toward nutrient regulations that all parties can work with while avoiding 

time-consuming and costly litigation. We believe that the FDEP process for NNC development is the right one, and in 

contrast that EPA's process has resulted in serious disruption of Florida's progress in NNC development. Where 

possible, we would recommend that EPA defer to Florida's NNC development and rule making processes. 

Comment ID 1804-1.001.001 

Author Name: Gleckler D. 

Organization: Department of Public Works, City of Lakeland 

The City of Lakeland Division of Lakes & Stormwater of the Department of Public Works would like to take this 

opportunity to comment on the proposed 40 CFR Part 131 - Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes 

and Flowing Waters published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register, Volume 

75, No. 16 Tuesday, January 26,2010 Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 (aka Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes 

and Streams.) Our comments are of a general nature and address simply that the criteria is unattainable and does not 

address the nutrients that already exist within our lakes. We respectfully offer the following comments in order to help 

with the development of targeted, attainable, and protective regulations that are cost effective to the City's constituency. 

Comment ID 1804-1.001.002 

Author Name: Gleckler D. 

Organization: Department of Public Works, City of Lakeland 

As the City of Lakeland's corporate and MS4 limits are situated within the Peace, Alafia, and Hillsborough River Basins 

of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and maintains active membership of the Florida Stormwater 

Association as well as being a co-permitee with Polk County, Florida under the NPDES MS4 program, we would like to 

add their formal comments to ours rather than reiterate the comprehensive technical analysis of the development and 

application of the proposed criteria to this document. We support their conclusions and recommendations. 

Lakeland was highly altered and developed before Clean Water Act regulations. Significant landscape and flow 

characteristic alterations in the area are directly related to the occurrence of phosphorus in the surface and near surface 

geology. Lakeland and Polk County were the epicenter for phosphate mining and fertilizer production during a 

significant portion of the 20th century. The very activity that supported the growth of this country contributed to and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1079
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

continues to influence the water quality of the 38 named lakes within the City's limits, Polk County and the Phosphate 

Ridge Lakes (aka Bone Valley) formation. 

The development within the watershed that occurred during the first 70 percent of 20th century locked the subject lakes 

within an envelope of individual industrial, commercial and residential stakeholders for which flood control is a primary 

concern. The City and County governments responded to this need by engineering and constructing stormwater 

conveyance systems to provide this service and safety for its citizenry. Unfortunately, during this period of development, 

nutrient accumulation was occurring beneath the surface of the lakes that would ultimately be defined as exceeding the 

assimilative capacity of the water bodies. This accumulation is manifested as significant muck deposits that continue to 

contribute to overlying water column nutrient metabolic processes. This muck layer and internal cycling of nutrients is 

indicative of"Urban Lakes." 

Comment ID 1804-1.001.003 

Author Name: Gleckler D. 

Organization: Department of Public Works, City of Lakeland 

Since regulatory mandates altered the approaches to stormwater management to require onsite treatment for new and 

redevelopment, reductions in existing and potential nutrient sources is assumed. Nevertheless, the metabolic burden 

placed on productive lake zones by the benthic nutrient stores will nullify any changes affected by reductions in 

watershed contributions. Stormwater contributions of nutrients will need to be reduced below the assimilative capacity 

of the water bodies in their current condition to affect a net loss of benthic stores; this approach will not restore impaired 

water bodies within an acceptable time frame if at all. Without removal of the muck to achieve historical conditions, the 

true assimilative capacity of a water body cannot be determined with any accuracy nor achieved. Unfortunately, the 

extremely cumbersome and restrictive nature of dredge and fill and wetland related environmental regulations and their 

application by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection prevent cost effective and expeditious sediment 

removal restoration programs from being developed and implemented. 

Comment ID 1806.001.001 

Author Name: Bacchus S. 

Organization: Applied Environmental Services, LLC 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comments regarding the proposed "numeric standards" for water quality 

in Florida. Following is a brief description of my background, followed be a summary of the gross inadequacy of the 

proposed approach of adopting "numeric standards" to resolve the widespread destruction of Florida's water quality due 

to nutrient pollution. 

Background 

My experience in evaluating environmental impacts, including those from violations of the narrative water-quality 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1080
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

standards, extends back to the late 1970s, when I served as an expert on waters of the state for the Florida Department 

of Environmental Regulation (predecessor of Florida Department of Environmental Protection). I have published more 

than 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers, books and book chapters in my multi-disciplinary field as a hydroecologist, 

including publications regarding the destruction of Florida's waters from nutrient pollution Additionally, I have served as 

an expert witness for numerous hearings since the late 1970s. As a third generation Floridian, I have witnessed the 

destruction of Florida's crystal clear waters by nutrient contamination in a single generation. 

Numeric Standard vs. Enforcement of State and Federal Water Quality Laws and Cumulative Impacts 

In my opinion, the widespread destruction of Florida's water quality due to nutrient pollution is the result of lack of 

enforcement of existing federal and state laws rather than the lack of "numeric standards" for nutrient discharges. I have 

attached a copy of the Order dated 4/14/10 from the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Lead Case No. 04­

210448CIY- GOLD (Attachment A) as the first example supporting my conclusion. In this case, a specific numeric 

standard was set for phosphorus for the Everglades but neither the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) nor the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) enforced that standard. In fact, the USEPA's failure to 

enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA) has continued for years in Florida, with similar agency enforcement failures in 

Georgia. In support of my claim, please specifically see the following sections from that Order: page 4, paragraph 6; 

page 5 footnotes; page 8, paragraph 10; page 10, paragraph 11; page 11; page 13 quotation; page 15; page 17; pages 

26 and 27; page 28, paragraph 22; page 31; page 43 and page 44. 

Although it was scientifically possible in the 1970s for those with related training to identify water quality violations in 

Florida using only the narrative standard, scientific advancements during the past 20 years have increased the 

precision and applicability of techniques for detecting water quality violations in Florida using only the narrative 

standard. In fact, current techniques not only allow confirmation that violations of the narrative standard are occurring, 

but also allow confirmation regarding the source of those violations. Yet, neither FDEP nor EPA has taken enforcement 

action against the myriad documented violations of existing water quality standards in Florida. As support for this claim I 

have attached copies of two published scientific papers: 2005 Bacchus and Barile (Attachment B) and 2007 Lapointe 

and Bedford (Attachment C). 

In my opinion, it is too late to adopt numeric standards, even if numeric standards were a viable concept, because 

Florida's waters already are contaminated from long-term, excessive nutrient discharges from both surface and ground 

water discharges. Furthermore, in my opinion, any adopted numeric standards will be incapable of addressing 

cumulative impacts of nutrient contamination in Florida. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the exercise of 

adopting numeric standards for water quality in Florida is a gross waste of staff time and tax dollars, particularly at a 

time of financial crisis. Both agencies simply need to enforce the existing, adequate narrative standards for water 

quality. 

Comment ID 1812-1.001.008 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Florida Minerals and Chemistry Council Association 

We would like to see EPA set this entire effort aside and give whatever support is requested by the Florida DEP to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1081
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

further the implementation of the TMDL program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to a scientifically defensible and affordable outcome to this 

rulemaking. 

Comment ID 1813-1.001.011 

Author Name: Britt M. 

Organization: Natural Resources Division, City of Winter Haven 

This proposal will place a tremendous burden on Florida's residents who will ultimately have to pay the billions of dollars 

this regulation is going to cost. 

Comment ID 1814-1.001.009 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida 

It is clear that water body-specific evaluation is the best approach to water quality standards, especially where there is 

no demonstration of broadly valid cause-and-effect relationships. EPA recognizes that all water bodies have unique 

nutrient conditions. If EPA is not satisfied with Florida's work in determining appropriate interpretations of the narrative 

nutrient standard, then EPA should help, rather than forcing the reallocation of public and private resources to this 

flawed approach. We would like to see EPA set this entire effort aside and give whatever support is requested by the 

Florida DEP to further the implementation of the TMDL program. 

Comment ID 1816.001.001 

Author Name: Quasius P. 

Organization: 

I completely support and endorse the comments and concerns expressed in the letter from the Lee County Board of 

Commissioners of April 28th, 2010 (attached) on the proposed EPA nutrient standards for Florida. 

Comment ID 1835-1.001.002 

Author Name: Nieto G. 

Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta 

Corporation 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1082
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

For the reasons set forth below, in the Technical Comment Paper, and in the comments, technical reports and 

supporting documents incorporated by reference herein, New Hope submits that the Nutrient Rule as proposed is 

arbitrary and capricious, constitutes an abuse of agency discretion, violates the Federal Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), and would not withstand an administrative challenge, pursuant to the 

requirements in the APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559, 701-706. 

The following summarizes New Hope's objections to the Nutrient Rule, which are more fully documented in the 

comments, technical reports and supporting documents incorporated by reference herein. 

Comment ID 1835-1.001.010 

Author Name: Nieto G. 

Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta 

Corporation 

For these reasons and those discussed in the comments, technical reports and supporting documents incorporated by 

reference herein, New Hope submits that the Nutrient Rule, as proposed, is arbitrary capricious, an abuse of agency 

discretion and unsupported by evidence or sound science. It should therefore be withdrawn or deferred until these 

fundamental defects are fully addressed. 

Comment ID 1836.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the proposed water quality standards for the State of 

Florida's lakes and flowing waters published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in Volume 

75, No. 16 of the Federal Register on January 26, 2010 . The District is charged by statute with the implementation of 

programs for the management, conservation, preservation, enhancement and utilization of Florida waters pursuant to 

the Florida Water Resources Act, codified in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. USEPA's proposed standards can greatly 

affect the District's ability to fulfill those responsibilities, especially through the District's regulatory and financial 

incentive programs. 

Comment ID 1836.001.007 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

- Ignoring the established State and Federal TMDLs, Reasonable Assurance Plans, and Basin Management Action 

Plans, such as those proposed by the three National Estuary Programs within Southwest Florida (Tampa Bay, Sarasota 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1083
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Bay, and Charlotte Harbor). 

Comment ID 1837-1.001.001 

Author Name: Brom M. 

Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White 

Springs 

The following comments are submitted on behalf of PCS Administration (USA), Inc. (PotashCorp) and its affiliate 

company operating in the State of Florida, White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate - White 

Springs. PCS Phosphate - White Springs operates a phosphate mining and fertilizer manufacturing facility in Hamilton 

County, Florida. That facility includes lakes, flowing waters, and regulated discharges to flowing waters, and is directly 

affected by the proposed rule. In addition, PotashCorp affiliates have marketing interests in agriculture in Florida, as 

well as in domestic and international markets for fertilizers and animal feed supplements. Furthermore, PotashCorp 

affiliates have mining and manufacturing interests in North Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Ohio, Nebraska, Missouri, and 

Illinois, all of which would be directly affected by the precedential nature of the proposed rule if and when applied in 

other states. 

PotashCorp specifically endorses and incorporates by reference the comments submitted to this docket on behalf of 

The Fertilizer Institute, of which PotashCorp is a member. EPA should consider those comments as having been made 

on PotashCorp's behalf even if not repeated in this letter. PotashCorp also reserves all rights available to us to submit 

further comments, to provide supplemental information to the docket, and to administratively and judicially challenge or 

contest the rule in any or all its parts if promulgated. Neither the headings nor content of this letter limit the scope of any 

future comments or challenges. 

PotashCorp also incorporates the various files contained on the disk transmitted to this docket by Environmental 

Services & Permitting, Inc on April 27, 2010 on behalf of PCS Phosphate - White Springs as attachments to this letter. 

Comment ID 1837-1.001.010 

Author Name: Brom M. 

Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White 

Springs 

• EPA specifically requested comment on various items in the proposal. 

The proposal includes a number of subjects on which EPA specifically requested comment. PotashCorp's general 

comment that the proposed rule in its entirety is unnecessary, invalid, and should be withdrawn applies to each of these 

specific comment requests. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1084
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1838-1.001.002 

Author Name: Manson D.
 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland
 

The City of Maitland ("City") has significant concerns regarding EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria, which if 

adopted would severely and negatively impact the City. 

Comment ID 1838-1.001.004 

Author Name: Manson D.
 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland
 

EPA Proposed Rules 

Although the City shares the EPA's concern for environmental protection, we do not believe that the proposed rules will 

improve the environmental function of the lakes and streams in the City and this fruitless effort will cost significant 

financial resources for a very little benefit, if any. The EPA numeric nutrient criteria will place a significant financial 

burden on the City's citizens. The City's ability to fund this program is uncertain given the enonnous costs associated 

with compliance. 

Comment ID 1838-1.001.009 

Author Name: Manson D.
 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland
 

Conclusion 

The City requests that the EPA consider these and all the comments and respond by terminating its ill-founded effort to 

create crude nutrient criteria by federal regulation. Instead, the EPA should allow the State of Florida, a leader in the 

country in environmental protection, to continue its efforts to restore and regulate its water bodies. 

Comment ID 1869-1.001.004 

Author Name: Fumero J.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc.
 

• The State of Florida has some of the most robust, innovative and comprehensive water quality planning and regulatory 

programs in the country. It remains unclear why Florida is the first state in the country subjected to the Numeric Nutrient 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1085
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Criteria rulemaking effort. Florida's existing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program should be allowed to continue 

as the means of reducing nutrient loading in the state's water bodies. 

Comment ID 1869-1.001.009 

Author Name: Fumero J. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 

• Florida already has an extensive database of water quality data which are utilized in developing Total Maximum Daily 

Loads ("TMDL") and Best Management Action Plans ("BMAP"). EPA should utilize this extensive water quality database 

and encourage the continued use of State process for TMDLs and BMAPs, instead of creating water quality standards 

that are not based on sound science. 

Comment ID 1870.001.001 

Author Name: Skitka D. 

Organization: 

A Nov. 16, 2009 federal court action has brought Floridians a closer to having to pay what would in effect be a federal 

water tax of billions of dollars for onerous standards applicable to Florida and only Florida that are based on a lawsuit 

Instead of sound science. 

How did the environmental advocates react? 

'We got exactly what we wanted," said an environmental lawyer in a published report following the ruling; 

Exactly what we wanted? Expensive and unprecedented new standards that lack a valid scientific basis are hardly what 

we need: 

In the middle of a hard recession, Florida's families and employers can't afford higher costs. With a million unemployed 

in our state, people facing foreclosure because they can't find a job can't afford Job-killing litigation. 

We need you, our representatives in Congress, to do all that is in your power to stop the multi-billion-dollar tax Increase 

on Florida. 

Otherwise, Florida will face a disastrous road ahead, filled with even higher unemployment, an exodus of employers 

and jobs from Florida, higher utility bills and local taxes and a stalled economic recovery. 

As a Floridian, I am deeply concerned about the EPA's Intent to single out Florida in an onerous, one-size-fits-all water 

quality requirement that will devastate Florida's economy, put Florida citizens out of work and punish a state that is a 

national leader in water clean up - all at the expense of Florida taxpayers. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1086
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

We support water dean up based on good science, not lawsuits. Please stop this unfair, expensive and ineffective 

federal experiment on Florida! 

Comment ID 1871.001.001 

Author Name: Lassiter K. 

Organization: Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations 

The Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations studied the proposed guidelines for nutrients in storm water 

runoff into Florida Lakes and Flowing Waters and we are appalled . All the Boards of Directors of our 89 member HOA 

and Condo associations instructed their Delegates to vote FOR recommending to the EPA: 

Comment ID 1885.001.004 

Author Name: Connor T. 

Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County 

Sarasota County welcomes numeric nutrient criteria that protect our lakes, streams, and estuaries from excessive 

nutrients. With the assistance of local experts and extensive data analysis, the Florida DEP and the USEPA have made 

admirable progress toward understanding the profound complexity of Florida's water bodies. The very protective 

approach proposed is very suitable for toxic pollutants. Because nutrients are necessary to all life, regulatory standards 

cannot simply have additional layers of restriction to be more effective. We recommend that EPA and DEP continue to 

investigate the ecological regimes involved in nutrient dynamics. Until strong cause and effect relationships between 

nutrients and ecological responses have been established, Sarasota County will continue to strive in partnership with 

local scientists, FDEP, and USEPA to develop the correct management targets to ensure that we continue to have 

healthy sustainable ecosystems for current and future generations. 

Comment ID 1887-1.001.001 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of Nestle Water North America 

Our firm represents Nestle Water North America on water issues in the State of Florida. On behalf of Nestle Water 

North America ("Nestle"), we file these policy comments regarding the EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for 

Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, including canals, as set forth in 75 Federal Register 4174 (January 26,2010). 

Nestle's concerns regard the science utilized in the Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for springs. 

Nestle has retained Entrix , Inc. as its scientific consultant and has attached their comments for review and 

consideration. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1087
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

As stated in the Entrix comments, Nestle believes that the EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Rule should be improved 

and that the EPA should consolidate their efforts with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to address 

the concerns of all ofthe stakeholders in Florida and to develop a scientifically based numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1887-1.001.002 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of Nestle Water North America 

On behalf of Nestle Waters North America (Nestle) , ENTRIX, Inc. respectfully submits these technical comments 

concerning EPA's recently proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (40 

CFR Part 131, Subpart 0, Section 131.43). ENTRIX has completed a review of the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed numeric nutrient criteria rule, as well as EPA's Technical Support Documents and 

data used in their analysis. Nestle appreciates the extensive work completed by the EPA and by the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and provides these technical comments for consideration by the EPA and for 

inclusion prior to the October final rulemaking. Nestle's water bottling operations in Florida include withdrawals from 

several Florida springs, such as Madison Blue Spring and Crystal Springs, so Nestle is heavily invested in protecting 

the quality of these important economical and ecological assets. Our comments below focus on the science and 

management implications ofthe EPA's proposed springs criteria. 

Comment ID 1888-1.001.002 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Wiregrass Ranch Inc. 

On behalf of Wiregrass, we file these comments regarding the EPA's Proposed Rule Numeric Nutrient Criteria for 

Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, including canals, as set forth in 75 Federal Register 4174 (January 26, 2010). 

Wiregrass has significant concerns regarding the proposed rules which if adopted would severely and negatively impact 

Wiregrass. Initially, Wiregrass questions whether EPA has the authority to implement numeric nutrient criteria in the 

State of Florida for streams in the method proposed. We are attaching a thorough analysis, commenting in each and 

every portion of the proposed rules prepared by Janicki Environmental, Inc. and Applied Technology and Management 

dated April 27, 2010 ("Report"). Fundamentally, the standards are only being promulgated because of a settlement 

voluntarily reached by EPA that mandated an unrealistic time period for setting numeric nutrient criteria on a broad 

scale across the State of Florida while ignoring the vast difference between its water bodies, especially streams, 

throughout the state. 

Comment ID 1888-1.001.006 

Author Name: Manson D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1088
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Wiregrass Ranch Inc. 

Wiregrass recommends that you consider the scientific data, and policy comments and abandon this federal takeover of 

the environmental water quality regulation in the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1890.001.002 

Author Name: Seery P. 

Organization: 

These nutrient requirements don't even make any sense for us. Our water is tested a minimum of eight [8] times a 

month by a Florida DEP certified technician. 

It is very good water and always tests well within acceptable ranges. Our tenants don't even buy bottled water because 

our water tastes so good, washes clothes clean, and makes great coffee. 

EPA needs to do a far better analysis of the unintentional consequences and hardship resulting from the blanket 

implementation of this Rule. 

Comment ID 1891.001.004 

Author Name: Hutchens D. 

Organization: Public Works and Utilities, City of Dunedin 

We would also direct your attention to comments from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida 

Stormwater Association, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, the Florida Water Environment Council and others that call 

into question the currently proposed NNCs and the science behind them. 

The City believes the EPA should revisit this item to ensure that nutrient criteria are scientifically defensible, that 

needed nutrient reductions are tailored to individual water bodies (as currently happens under the existing narrative 

standard) and that protect utility ratepayers from the economic burdens of unsound regulatory policy. 

Thank you for your consideration in this regard . 

Comment ID 1894.001.001 

Author Name: Fields G. 

Organization: City of Lakeland 

The City of Lakeland is pleased to submit the following comments in response to EPA's proposed rule establishing 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1089
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters. The following comments are submitted in addition to a letter submitted 

February 22, 2010, by Mr. Robert Conner, Assistant Director of the City's Water Utility. Representatives of the City have 

carefully reviewed EPA's proposed rule and have identified a number of areas of concern demanding of EPA's careful 

reconsideration as detailed herein. 

Comment ID 1894.001.003 

Author Name: Fields G. 

Organization: City of Lakeland 

In sum, several lines of evidence confirm that nutrient discharges from the City's wastewater treatment and stormwater 

facilities are not negatively impacting the Alafia River or Tampa Bay. However, as proposed, the numeric nutrient 

criteria would force the City to spend (potentially) millions of dollars to remove nutrients from its permitted surface water 

discharges. Consequently, the need for the proposed criteria seems questionable at best. 

Comment ID 1894.001.008 

Author Name: Fields G. 

Organization: City of Lakeland 

The City of Lakeland appreciates this opportunity to submit these comments to the EPA for its careful consideration. [3] 

While the City applauds EPA's efforts to assist the State in protecting its valuable water resources, the City does not 

believe the proposed criteria are of sufficient scientific rigor to be finalized and applied by EPA. 

[3] The City of Lakeland is a member of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (FCG) and the Tampa Bay 

Estuary Program Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC). Both the FCG and NMC have submitted detailed 

comments addressing EPA's proposed rule. The City submits its comments in addition to and in support of the NMC 

and FCG submissions. 

Comment ID 1900.001.001 

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. 

Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey 

Attached are the Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey's comments on EPA's Proposed Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. Our Association is 

very concerned about the structure and content of this proposal and the precedent it sets by deviating from accepted 

and scientifically-defensible criteria derivation procedures. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1090
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 1921.001.005 

Author Name: Monroe M. 

Organization: Fellsmere Farms 

EPA and DEP were on their way to developing an appropriate criteria in 2007. In 2008 a lawsuit with the Florida Wildlife 

Federation unjustly forced the EPA to abandon their efforts with FDEP and implement a one size fits all criteria that 

could prove to be detrimental to water bodies and estuaries in the state of Florida. 

We urge you to reconsider the value of the progress that was made by EPA and FDEP in 2007 before the lawsuit and 

allow them to pick up where they left off. When you evaluate the actual EPA data set (145+MB of Data) including one 

file (5/12/09) that contains over 446,000 data points that must be analyzed, there is not enough time to decipher and 

organize it to effectively test the science. 

Comment ID 1923.001.001 

Author Name: Knight R. 

Organization: City of Winter Park 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond regarding your Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards for the 

State of Florida with specific comments for the City of Winter Park, Florida (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW 2009-0596). 

This letter contains the official comments of the City of Winter Park, Florida. 

The City of Winter Park staff have reviewed EPA's Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes 

and Flowing Waters as well as materials presented at the February 17, 2010 Public Hearing conducted by EPA 

representatives in Orlando, Florida. 

While the City of Winter Park recognizes the need for reasonable numeric nutrient criteria for natural surface waters in 

the State of Florida, we want to urge the EPA to recognize what is actually being and has been done by our city to 

improve, manage and restore its lakes and streams. We also would like the EPA to take into consideration the impacts 

of off-site or out of jurisdiction impacts on the water quality of those municipalities downstream of stormwater runoff. 

Please allow us to inform you of the success of the Winter Park, Florida stormwater management system as well as 

comment on your proposed rules. Please consider the following comments before taking final action on the proposed 

rule and please understand that these comments are intended not as simple criticism or resistance to change but as 

constructive efforts to build a sound rule, provided by Florida surface water management experts with a track record of 

planning and implementingtormwater strategies that have resulted in real and dramatic improvements to our lakes and 

streams. 

1. The supporting information presented by EPA as the reason for this rule seemed to imply that nothing is being done 

to stop nutrient enrichment in Florida's surface waters and that most, if not all, of our waterways are continuing to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1091
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

degrade. This implication was more than unsettling to managing entities like the City of Winter Park that have been 

actively managing stormwater for over 30 years and have not only halted nutrient degradation of our lakes, but have 

effected significant and continue to produce measurable improvements. 

2. Winter Park has had a stormwater utility in place, providing a dedicated source of funding for stormwater 

management, since 1991 . Since the utility's inception, the City has spent approximately $22,000,000 from this fund on 

restoring our lakes. When general fund sources that were used prior to the implementation of the utility and as a 

supplement to the utility are considered, it is conservatively estimated that the City has spent over $40,000,000 

managing stormwater runoff since 1980. These expenditures have been overseen by professional engineers and 

scientists and focused in a systematic approach to achieve greatest reduction of nutrient loading to our lakes that is 

practicable. Winter Park has seen water clarity increases of 100 to 500 percent and reductions in ambient phosphorus 

levels of 50 to 80 percent in our largest recreational lakes. In spite of our successes we have only continued to focus 

harder on improving our program to ensure that we see further improvements and that we can safely ensure that these 

improvements can be sustained. 

Comment ID 1923.001.008 

Author Name: Knight R. 

Organization: City of Winter Park 

While the City of Winter Park encourages the use of appropriate numeric nutrient criteria for its lakes and streams, we 

believe that the currently proposed freshwater numeric nutrient criteria are inadequate and inaccurate for the central 

Florida climate, landscape, geomorphology and hydrologic cycle. Furthermore, designing treatment practices for 

additional water quality improvements where much has already been done to restore surface waters to near pristine 

conditions is wasteful of our tax dollars. Therefore, we request that the adoption of the proposed freshwater numeric 

nutrient criteria be delayed until accurate models and nutrient-limit values can be adjusted to reflect the true ecological 

conditions in Florida. 

Comment ID 1926.001.001 

Author Name: Koons J. 

Organization: Water Resources Task Force 

The Palm Beach County Water Resources Task Force (WRTF) was created in 2008 from Resolutions approved by the 

Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, the Palm Beach County League of Cities, and the South Florida 

Water Management District . These entities have representation on the WRTF as well as several Utilities and Drainage 

Districts and all work collaboratively to identify and evaluate potential regional and sub-regional water supply strategies 

and solutions of appropriate water quality to meet countywide future water resource needs and water conservation 

goals that are most efficient and cost effective and to make recommendations based on that evaluation. 

The WRTF members have discussed the EPA's Nutrient Numeric Criteria at the last two WRTF meetings. Many of the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1092
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

members expressed concern over the proposed criteria. The WRTF members were provided with a copy of the letter 

written by Palm Beach County, Florida, that provided comments on the U.S . EPA (EPA) document Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters . This letter is written to serve as an endorsement of the 

Palm Beach County letter as it addresses many of the concerns expressed at the WRTF meeting by the members. A 

copy of the Palm Beach County letter is attached for reference. 

Comment ID 2018-1.001.001 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

The purpose of this letter is to submit the City of Tampa's (City) formal comments on the above referenced EPA docket 

item. The City appreciates the opportunity to provide its comments regarding the proposed water quality standards for 

the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters, published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) in Volume 75, No. 16 of the Federal Register, on January 26, 2010. The City attended two listening sessions 

convened by the USEPA in Florida, in Orlando and Tampa, and provided oral comments for the record transcripts at 

those times. 

The City holds both a NPDES permit for its Advanced Wastewater Treatment plant on Tampa Bay, as well as an MS4 

permit for its stormwater system. The City is one of the original members of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) as 

well as a major participant in the Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) of the Estuary program. In addition to the 

attached report, prepared for the City by Janicki Environmental, Inc., the City submits, and incorporates by reference, 

the comment letters provided to the USEPA docket item by the Policy Board of the TBEP and the NMC, attached hereto 

as Attachments "B" and "C" respectively. 

Comment ID 2018-6.001.002 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

11. I have reviewed the aforementioned materials and data and can state with certainty, based upon my 37 years of 

experience and extensive work with the Florida DEP in trying to establish numeric nutrient criteria, that USEPA has not 

proposed scientifically defensible statewide numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's freshwater lakes and flowing waters. 

12. Surface waters have an assimilative capacity and can accept significant quantities of nutrients without an adverse 

biological effect. However, under certain circumstances, excess nutrients entering a water body can be deleterious. 

Comment ID 2022.001.001 

Author Name: Seery P. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1093
 
 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

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. 

These nutrient requirements don't even make any sense for us. Our water is tested a minimum of eight [8] times a 

month by a Florida DEP certified technician. 

It is very good water and always tests well within acceptable ranges. Our tenants don't even buy bottled water because 

our water tastes so good, washes clothes clean, and makes great coffee. 

EPA needs to do a far better analysis of the unintentional consequences and hardship resulting from the blanket 

implementation of this Rule. 

Comment ID 2039-1.001.001 

Author Name: Shell K. 

Organization: 

The proposed Water Quality Standards for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters is seriously flawed.
 

I am very concerned about the effectiveness and the cost of the rule.
 

The EPA has adopted three key enforcement goals to guide its work and make a real difference in the protection of
 

human health and the environment in communities across the nation. The goals they stated are: 

- Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities. 

- Reset our relationship with states. 

- Improve transparency. 

Comment ID 2039-1.001.003 

Author Name: Shell K. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1094
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

When the Clean Water Act was passed into law 1972, the premise was that dilution was NOT the solution to pollution. 

Somewhere along the way, the EPA has decided to change this philosophy. This rule will require the nitrogen level 

allowable to be discharged will be the same as drinking water. 

The real pollution problem is in the older developments in Florida that directly discharge into canals and rivers. 

Homeowners do over fertilize that runs into existing canals and rivers that cause a host of problems. NO EFFORT has 

been done in 38 years to remedy this situation. 

Now the EPA is proposing that "dilution IS the solution to pollution". 

Why not address all issues, not put contractors out of work, nor harm the farmers who have been doing the best 

management practices in our State. 

EPA scientists need to get out from behind their desks and really look at what they are proposing and all the 

ramifications of this rule. 

Please re-think this rule. 

I agree there is a pollution problem, but I believe this is totally the wrong way to go about how try to correct it. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

The following comments and supporting materials are submitted on behalf of CF Industries, Inc. (CF). As longstanding 

environmental counsel for CF, our firm has been asked to provide the following legal analysis of EPA's proposed rule 

establishing numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters . Based upon the results of our review, which is supported by the 

accompanying technical analysis by Dr. Eldon C. Blancher, II, we submit that the proposed rule suffers substantial and 

pervasive legal and technical flaws and, on behalf of CF, we respectfully request that EPA withdraw its rule as 

proposed. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.003 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

While CF supports scientifically sound environmental regulations and policies that will protect and restore Florida 

waters, CF has serious concerns as to EPA's proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and 

Flowing Waters as published in the Federal Register on Tuesday January 26, 2010. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1095
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.035 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

• The development of numeric nutrient criteria is site specific and must be done on a waterbody by waterbody basis 

comparable to Florida's rotating basin approach to establishing TMDLs for impaired surfaces waters; the Florida DEP 

reviews the status of its several thousand surface waters every five years; this process is inherently protective of 

unimpaired waters. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.049 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

III. Request for Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in response to 

EPA's proposed rule on behalf of CF Industries. As a result of the many substantive technical and legal shortcomings of 

the rule, CF recommends and respectfully requests that EPA withdraw its proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida 

waters. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.051 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

However, we believe that USEPA's premise that Florida is not making progress toward solving nutrient issues within the 

State is without foundation. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.059 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Consequently, USEPA should withdraw its proposal. Florida's waters are too diverse, and available data are too limited, 

to develop regional criteria for the State; as detailed herein, the obstacles to establishing such criteria are evident from 

the numerous technical deficiencies identified in the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.086 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1096
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Conclusions 

On January 26, 2010, the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published proposed numeric nutrient 

criteria for flowing waters of the State of Florida including lakes, streams and springs. We believe this proposed rule is 

neither necessary, nor based on sound scientific relationships between nutrients and observed water quality impacts. 

We conclude that the proposed rule is scientifically flawed to the extent that it is not workable and should be 

abandoned. 

Comment ID 2233.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

CF Industries, Inc., (CF) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments and supporting materials to the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning its proposed rule, Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters. [75 FR 4174-4226] CF's comments comprise the following components : 

~ Cover correspondence with narrative comments prepared by CF Industries . 

~ Attachment 1 : Regulatory, legal, and technical review: Comments on EPA's Proposed Water Quality Standards for 

the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, Winston Borkowski, Esq ., Hopping Green & Sams, Tallahassee, 

Florida; April 26, 2010 (with Attachments) 

~ Attachment 2 : Technical and scientific review: Comments on USEPA's Proposed Nutrient Water Quality Standards 

for the State of Florida, Eldon C. Blancher, Ph .D., Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration, LLC, Birmingham, Alabama; 

April 26, 2010 (with Attachments) 

~ Attachment 3: Economic impact evaluation : Assessment of Financial Impact on Phosphate Mining and Mineral 

Processing: Complying with EPA's Proposed Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Florida, Environ International 

Corporation, April 2010 

BACKGROUND 

CF Industries, Inc. 

CF Industries, Inc. (CF) is a global leader in nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and distribution, serving 

both agricultural and industrial customers throughout the world. CF maintains substantial operations in Florida, which 

include : 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1097
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

-3.5 million-ton/year phosphate mine complex located in Hardee County 

-2.1 million-ton/year fertilizer manufacturing complex in Hillsborough County 

-100,000-ton bulk fertilizer storage and shipping facility and a bulk ammonia storage and loading terminal in the Port of 

Tampa 

-decommissioned fertilizer complex undergoing permanent closure, long-term care and monitoring in Polk County 

-combined land holdings covering 31,000 acres (49 square miles) located within the Central Florida Bone Valley 

Phosphate Region 

As part of our operations, CF is required to maintain numerous state and federal environmental permit authorizations, 

including surface water discharge approvals under the NPDES permitting program. Accordingly, CF will be directly and 

substantially affected by the Agency's nutrient water quality standards (WQS) rule if adopted as proposed. 

CF's Commitment to Responsible Watershed Management 

CF is deeply committed to clean water and environmental stewardship . It is the policy of CF to conduct its business 

and operate its facilities in a manner that is designed to protect the environment, the health and safety of our 

employees, and the communities in which we operate. And CF is committed to full compliance with all environmental 

laws, rules and regulations. These principles are fundamental to the company's corporate environmental, health, and 

safety policy. 

CF also understands and embraces the need for sound nutrient management, and we support science-based 

regulatory policies that are achievable and that result in measurable benefits to public health, welfare, and the 

environment. The company does not support burdensome or costly overregulation without commensurate public 

benefit. 

CF has been an engaged, long-term participant in numerous stakeholder-based watershed management, restoration 

and protection programs in central Florida where our facilities operate, including: 

-Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Programs 

-Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) Management Board and Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) 

-Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) 

-Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program TAC and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) 

-Agency for Bay Management 

-Hillsborough River Greenways Task Force and Hillsborough River Watershed Alliance 

-Peace River Basin Management Advisory Committee 

CF's commitment to watershed protection is real. Over the past 12 years in the Tampa Bay basin, for example, the 

company has funded and completed millions of dollars in projects that have resulted in nitrogen load reductions totaling 

50 tons per year within the watershed. CF is proud to be a founding member of the Nitrogen Management Consortium, 

the first voluntary public-private partnership of its kind in the nation, which has been responsible for developing, funding, 

and implementing nutrient reduction projects that have successfully offset nutrient loads from growth, while at the same 

time reducing nutrient loads in Tampa Bay to levels that have met or exceeded established targets for water quality and 

clarity. Most recently, the NMC has successfully developed and implemented watershed-wide and entity specific 

wasteload allocations for Total Nitrogen (TN). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1098
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

In the Peace River basin in Hardee County, CF has voluntarily developed a unique Aquifer Recharge and Recovery 

Project designed to store, treat and recharge to the drinking water aquifer 2 to 4 million gallons per day of municipal 

treated wastewater and captured stormwater by utilizing treatment wetlands, sand filtration and deep well injection. 

When completed in 2012, the $8-10 Million project will not only result in nutrient load reductions to the Peace River and 

Charlotte Harbor, it will generate water that meets all drinking water standards and will be suitable for recharging the 

Floridan Aquifer in the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). 

And CF is not alone in this level of commitment. Review of the Tampa Bay Action Plan Database 

(http://www.tbeptech.org: NMC Response to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria) reveals that just 85 of 212 

completed nutrient reduction projects, including both public and private stakeholders, total between $375 and $430 

Million. These figures represent only 40% of the completed projects for which cost data have been included - the actual 

total in the Tampa Bay watershed is probably closer to one billion dollars. 

The fact is that the Florida DEP, the Water Management Districts, and public and private stakeholders in watersheds in 

central Florida and around the State have been hard at work restoring, managing, and protecting surface water 

resources in recent years, particularly with respect to nutrients. CF strongly supports these types of cooperative 

stakeholder approaches to nutrient and watershed management, which have proven to be very effective in achieving 

measurable improvements in water quality in Florida. 

Comment ID 2233.001.002 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

COMMENTS CONCERNING EPA'S PROPOSED RULE 

CF is not opposed to the establishment of technically sound nutrient criteria for Florida's vital and unique subtropical 

surface waters. Nonetheless, CF has fundamental concerns about EPA's proposed rule, which we believe is both 

unnecessary and seriously flawed for various reasons. As noted above, CF is including detailed review comments on 

the Agency's proposal as prepared by our legal and technical experts on nutrient water quality issues (see Attachments 

1 and 2, respectively). In addition, CF offers the following global comments on EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

for Florida. 

Comment ID 2233.001.018 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

In addition to the comments and suggestions included herein, CF supports comments provided to EPA by the Fertilizer 

Institute, other Florida Phosphate Industry members, and the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium. CF 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1099
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Industries appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to EPA. 

Comment ID 2372-1.001.001 

Author Name: Farber D. 

Organization: Patton Boggs LLP on behalf of James Hardie Building Products, Inc. 

James Hardie Building Products, Inc. ("Hardie") appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the Environmental 

Protection Agency's ("EPA") Proposed Rule concerning Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and 

Flowing Waters, 75 Fed. Reg. 4174 (Jan. 26, 2010) (the "Proposed Rule"). Hardie has been closely following the statewide debate over water quality standards, and EPA's proposed rule represents a milestone change for the worse in 

addressing these issues. The Agency's proposal is unsupported by the science, is not justified under law, and is not 

appropriately proposed based upon its own cost estimates. Moreover, the proposed rule will not protect the 

environment, but instead will impose arbitrary "one size fits all" requirements across the state and its complex 

watersheds. For these reasons, along with the reasons set forth below, Hardie requests that the proposal be withdrawn, 

and that EPA revise its Proposed Rule to account for sound scientific and technological principles, current ecosystem 

health, and the costs to the regulated community. 

Part I of these comments provides a brief background of Hardie's manufacturing operation in Plant City, Florida, and 

explains how EPA's Proposed Rule will negatively affect Hardie's operation by imposing unattainable water quality 

standards on the Plant City publicly opened treatment works ("POTW"). 

Part II addresses EPA's flawed method for estimating the total cost of the Proposed Rule. This part demonstrates that 

EPA grossly underestimated the cost of its proposed standards because the Agency failed to consider the cost of 

bringing POTWs into compliance, and failed to analyze the potential costs faced by local businesses that discharge to 

POTWs. 

Part III explains how EPA has failed to address its obligations under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and has failed 

to fulfill its statutory obligation to inform, educate and advise Plant City officials on how to comply with the proposed 

standards using existing treatment technology. The inability of Plant City officials to provide details about its strategy for 

compliance has, in turn, prevented Hardie from understanding the full impact of the Proposed Rule and from 

meaningfully participating in the rulemaking process. 

Finally, Part IV asserts that EPA's instream protection value for Bone Valley is arbitrarily low, and recommends that 

EPA set higher instream protection value criteria for Bone Valley Streams and include a biological validation procedure 

in its rule, so that only streams with unhealthy biological communities and/or other impairments are considered 

impaired. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1100
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Comment ID 2372-1.001.012 

Author Name: Farber D. 

Organization: Patton Boggs LLP on behalf of James Hardie Building Products, Inc. 

V. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, EPA should undertake an independent analysis of the full costs associated with its Proposed 

Rule, and specifically address costs to POTWs and local businesses that discharge wastewater to POTWs. To remedy 

its violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, EPA should develop a Small Government Agency Plan and inform, 

educate, and advise Plant City officials on how it might use the existing technological tools available in the Plant City 

POTW to comply with the standards in the Proposed Rule. Finally, EPA should set higher instream protection value 

criteria for Bone Valley Streams, and include a biological validation procedure in its rule so that only streams with 

unhealthy biological communities and/or other impairments are considered impaired. 

Comment ID 2373-1.001.001 

Author Name: Milowe H. 

Organization: San Marco Homeowners Association 

The San Marco Homeowners Association studied the proposed guidelines for nutrients in storm water runoff into Florida 

Lakes and Flowing Waters and we are appalled. The Board of Directors instructed their delegates to vote FOR 

recommending to the EPA: 

Comment ID 2373-1.001.003 

Author Name: Milowe H. 

Organization: San Marco Homeowners Association 

2. Please conduct a valid scientific study of the problems and all possible solutions, working in concert with the State of 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Comment ID 2374-1.001.002 

Author Name: Hollander R. 

Organization: The Western Coalition of Arid States 

The members of WESTCAS concur with and endorse the comments on the cited documents submitted by the National 

Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), dated April 28, 2010. The NACWA comments are thorough and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1101
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

thoughtful and fully represent the concerns that our members have with the proposed Florida nutrient criteria. 

To emphasize the importance of these comments to WESTCAS members, we are particularly concerned that the 

approach to establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida would become standard practice among other states. The 

issues raised by NACWA are expected to have serious ramifications in the arid states, where the receiving streams are 

often effluent dominated. The presence of nutrients has got to be linked to the demonstrated impacts on the biological 

health of the stream on a stream-specific basis. 

If there are any questions about these comments, please contact Robert Hollander, WESTCAS President, at 480-371­

0015 or at rhollander@apaienv.com 

Comment ID 2375.001.001 

Author Name: English G. 

Organization: South Indian River Water Control District 

The South Indian River Water Control District is a Special District established pursuant to Chapter 298 of the Florida 

Statutes for the express purpose of water control and is a member of the Florida Association of Special Districts. 

Through the Florida Association of Special Districts, we have become aware of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's proposed rule development that would establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's flowing waters (including 

canals) and lakes . We fully support the comments that the Florida Association of Special Districts will be filing on behalf 

of the Association and all its members. 

Comment ID 2375.001.007 

Author Name: English G. 

Organization: South Indian River Water Control District 

We appreciate the difficulties and scientific complexities in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Therefore, such an 

initiative should not be done in haste. Instead, it should be done with scientific diligence and not driven by litigation 

deadlines. We respectfully request that EPA postpone adoption of numeric nutrient criteria at this time so that the 

development of numeric criteria can be further assessed and derived based on sound science. 

Comment ID 2376.001.001 

Author Name: Baird L. 

Organization: Barron Water Control District 

The Barron Water Control District is a Special District established pursuant to Chapter 298 of the Florida Statutes for 

the express purpose of managing water and is a member of the Florida Association of Special Districts. Through the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1102
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Florida Association of Special Districts, we have become aware of the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's 

proposed rule development that would establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's flowing waters (including canals) 

and lakes. We fully support the comments that the Florida Association of Special Districts will be filing on behalf of the 

Association and all its members . 

Comment ID 2376.001.007 

Author Name: Baird L. 

Organization: Barron Water Control District 

We appreciate the difficulties and scientific complexities in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Therefore, such an 

initiative should not be done in haste. Instead, it should be done with scientific diligence and not driven by litigation 

deadlines . We respectfully request that EPA postpone adoption. of numeric nutrient criteria at this time so that the 

development of numeric criteria can be further assessed and derived based on sound science . 

Comment ID 2377.001.001 

Author Name: Tight B. 

Organization: Westchester Master Association 

The Westchester Master Association studied the proposed guidelines for nutrients in storm water runoff into Florida 

Lakes and Flowing Waters and we are appalled . The Board of Directors for our Association, which represents over 

1800 homes, has unanimously voted FOR recommending to the EPA: 

1 . Please delay the implementation of the proposed guidelines. 

2. Please conduct a valid scientific study of the problems and all possible solutions, working in concert with the State of 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

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. 

The Westchester Master Association is a not-for-profit civic organization of over 1800 Homeowners in unincorporated 

Palm Beach County. Without your acceding to our recommendations, we fear that the implementation of your 

Guidelines would have a severe negative impact upon our Homeowners bordering on the catastrophic, particularly in 

these current economic times. 

Please seriously consider our earnest plea. Thank you. 

Comment ID 2394.001.001 

Author Name: Hamel R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1103
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

For the record, my name is Ron Hamel and I am the executive vice president of the Gulf Citrus Growers Association . 

Our association is comprised of 140 citrus growers in the Southwest Florida counties of Charlotte, Collier, Glades, 

Hendry and Lee. Our region has over 140,000 acres of citrus groves, represents about 25% of Florida's citrus, and 

contributes over $1-billion of economic impact to our region! Our association has over 25 years of "pro-active" water 

management experience. And, our members have been recognized for their "progressive" conservation practices . 

These include the development and implementation of the "Gulf Citrus Best Management Practices Manual", to address 

water quality in SW Florida! WE APPRECIATE AND SUPPORT OUR STATE'S CONTINUING EFFORTS TO 

ADDRESS FLORIDA'S WATER QUALITY CONCERNS! 

Comment ID 2394.001.002 

Author Name: Hamel R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

We appreciate this opportunity to participate in the process... and EXPRESS our "opposition" to EPA's "proposed" 

numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. 

Comment ID 2394.001.006 

Author Name: Hamel R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

In closing, we respectfully request that the EPA takes the "public" input from these hearings into consideration! And that 

EPA makes a "renewed" effort to work with Florida's DEP and the credible scientists of our state . ..who know and 

understand Florida's surface water bodies . . .to incorporate their input into the federal process of setting water quality 

standards for the "Sunshine State"! Thank You! 

Comment ID 2395.001.002 

Author Name: Hauck A. 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations 

We believe that the EPA is implementing numeric nutrient criteria as a result of a settlement over a lawsuit filed by 

Earth Justice - not because they thought it was the right thing to do. 

Comment ID 2395.001.008 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1104
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

Author Name: Hauck A. 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations 

While the [majority of folks at this hearing are speaking against the establishment of protective criteria to satisfy the 

special interests of their clients, the silent majority wants clean, safe water]Stikethrough AND FOR THE EPA TO DO 

ITS JOB! We are not buying the EPA's spin campaign. 

Comment ID 2417.001.001 

Author Name: Standley M. 

Organization: Regional Utilities Operated by Florida Community Services Corporation of Walton County, Incorporated (Inc.) 

As you are quite aware, utility companies in Florida are very discouraged by the E.P.A's attempt to adopt the Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria (NNC) Rule. This rule would have a devastating effect on Florida's already desperate attempt to 

recover from the worst economic turn of events in almost 75 years. There are no conventional technologies available 

that have been proven to meet this rule and would require untold amounts of money to even attempt to comply. This 

rule, if not funded by the E.P.A., should not be imposed on the already cash strapped Floridians . It is almost impossible 

to add more costs to Florida utilities to pass on to end users and justify. It is our hopes that if the U.S. E.P.A. does not 

pick-up the entire costs of the rule, its attempts to adopt it be stopped . 

Comment ID 2427.001.001 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland 

On behalf of the City of Maitland, Florida, ENTRIX, Inc. respectfully submits these technical comments concerning 

EPA's recently proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (40 CFR Part 

131, Subpart D, Section 131.43). ENTRIX has completed an extensive review of the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed numeric nutrient criteria rule, as well as EPA's Technical Support Documents and 

data used in their analysis. The City appreciates the extensive work completed by EPA and the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) and contends these technical comments are substantive and should be considered 

by EPA before final rulemaking. 

The City of Maitland has approximately 800 acres of waterways including lakes and streams within its boundaries 

(Maitland State of the Lakes Report 2006-2009) and is committed to improving and maintaining water quality throughout 

all of its waterbodies by encouraging education and community service programs to protect valuable water resources. 

As part of this commitment to water quality, the City of Maitland offers these comments that, if addressed in the final 

rule, would improve the scientific defensibility of the criteria while providing adequate and necessary water quality 

protection. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1105
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

The City of Maitland is proud of its lake dominated community, and protection of lake resources is of paramount 

importance. The City currently spends millions of dollars each year to improve and maintain the 22 lakes and four canal 

systems within the City's jurisdiction and considers the lakes an important tangible asset to the residents of the City. For 

this reason, these technical comments focus on EPA's proposed lakes criteria. While the City recognizes the 

importance of providing benchmarks to measure water quality with respect to nutrients, the proposed rule as written will 

inaccurately deem many lakes as impaired forcing costly management efforts with little benefit. 

A few of the lakes within the City of Maitland are currently verified as "impaired" for nutrients under Florida's Impaired 

Waters Rule, and Total Maximum Daily Loads will be developed (Lake Sybelia, Park Lake, and Lake Shadow). Maitland 

continues to work proactively with the State of Florida and other public and private entities to restore water quality 

conditions in those lakes. Maitland is of the opinion that the generically-derived criteria proposed by EPA in their current 

form will not accelerate or improve either the nature or the outcome of the lake stewardship work being accomplished 

today. 

Comment ID 2427.001.008 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland 

Conclusion 

The City of Maitland appreciates the opportunity to submit its comments on the EPA proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

rule. The City believes that a combination of (1) greater consideration of natural historic conditions, (2) provision for 

natural regional variability, and (3) appreciation of a range of productivity levels across which designated uses are still 

being met for a variety of purposes, will result in far more meaningful and implementable nutrient criteria for Florida's 

lakes. The current proposed rule, as written, will significantly increase the number of Florida lakes deemed impaired 

forcing the implementation of time consuming and costly restoration measures that may not provide ecological benefit, 

taking the focus off of lakes actually in need of scarce water resource management and funding. The City encourages 

EPA to continue to work with FDEP and the myriad of stakeholders in Florida to develop scientifically defensible 

numeric nutrient criteria. 

Response 

Comment IDs: All 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comments and concerns expressed in opposition to EPA's rulemaking to establish numeric 

nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA appreciates the comments and feedback received on this rule, however, 

the Agency disagrees that EPA should not proceed with finalizing and promulgating the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes 

and flowing waters discussed in the preamble to the final rule. 

In this final rule, EPA is promulgating numeric nutrient criteria that translate Florida’s own existing nutrient narrative water quality 

standards into numeric values for Florida's lakes and flowing waters that are scientifically defensible and protective of applicable 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1106
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

designated uses consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 

CFR part 131. This final rule establishes numeric nutrient criteria, which will be effective for purposes of the Clean Water Act, that 

are protective of Florida’s inland surface waters designated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as Class I 

and Class III waters. As a result, promulgation of this rule serves to protect human health, aquatic ecosystems, recreation in and on 

the water, and drinking water supplies from water quality degradation due to the negative impacts of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution.

 Numeric nutrient criteria will create clear water quality goals and easily measurable quantitative baselines to support stronger 

collaboration and more effective partnerships with both point and nonpoint source dischargers of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. 

Regarding the request for a delayed effective date pertaining to the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters 

finalized in this rule, please refer to the preamble to the final rule, section III.E Applicability of Criteria When Final. 

The preamble to the final rule discusses the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria, derived to account for the natural variability 

exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses 

to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. EPA reminds commenters that water quality criteria are set to protect 

the designated uses of waters. Criteria are not set at levels based on whether they are affordable for dischargers to meet. 

Nonetheless, the CWA, EPA's implementing regulations, and Florida's companion regulations are equipped to recognize and 

respond with flexibility in cases where affordable technology is insufficient to meet water quality targets. If the facilities receive 

end-of-pipe limits based on criteria that are below the level of treatment of biological nutrient removal, they could examine any of 

the following alternatives: (1) the lakes criteria adjustment procedure, (2) site-specific alternative criteria, (3) variances, (4) 

compliance schedules, or (5) UAAs and resulting changes to designated uses. In the case that nonpoint source contributions are the 

limiting factor in a water meeting the new criteria, the same alternatives could apply subsequent to implementation of reasonable 

and cost-effective best management practices, as required by Florida State law. Water quality standards, and this final rule 

specifically, do not specify how to achieve protective levels. The State of Florida will determine how to implement the standards in 

a way that best meets the needs of its citizens and environment. 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 final 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. In response to comments regarding the 

estimated costs to Florida, please also refer to the preamble of this final rule, specifically section VI. Economic Analysis, and EPA's 

“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 this final rulemaking, for cost estimates associated with implementation of the numeric 

nutrient criteria finalized in this rule and the assumptions upon which those estimates are based. 

EPA and (FDEP) share a commitment to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. Florida established the designated uses that 

are applicable to Florida's waters, are consistent with the Clean Water Act, and are set to manage clean water program objectives for 

Florida’s waters affected by this final rule. The numeric nutrient criteria finalized in this rule establish levels necessary to support 

these uses. Among the “benefits” of Florida’s waters that are at risk from nutrient pollution are the natural beauty of Florida waters, 

ecology that supports natural populations of fish and wildlife, health and welfare of Florida residents, recreational value for Florida 

citizens and visitors, waterfront property values, and tourism business and revenue. 

EPA will continue to collaborate with FDEP as the State implements the numeric nutrient criteria finalized as part of this rule, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1107
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Opposition 

which will be the effective criteria for purposes of the Clean Water Act. FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own 

rulemaking process at any time and EPA looks forward to working with Florida as the State implements these federal criteria while 

it moves to adopt its own criteria in the future. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1108