Message Information 

Date 09/17/2010 04:18 P M 

From "Kelley, Lisa" <Ikelley@ncfc .org> 

To LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/US @EPA 

Peter Silva/DC/USEPA/USa EPA; Lawrence Elworth/DC/USEPA/US@EPA ; 

cc "jett@osec .usda .gov" <jett@osec.usda .gov> ; "Harden, Krysta" 

<Krysta .Harden@osec.usda .gov> 

Subject Letter from Stakeholders regarding NNC Policies 

Message Body 

Administrator Jackson, 

Attached is a stakeholder letter regarding the Clean Water Act numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) 

policies that are now being advanced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) across the 

U.S ., and in their most prominent and current form in Florida. 

The following organizations signed the letter : 

Agricultural Retailers Association 

American Fann Bureau Federation 

American Feed Industry Association 

American Horse Council 

American Meat Institute 

American Soybean Association 

American Sugar Alliance 

CropLife America 

Florida Fertilizer & Agrichemical Association 

National Alliance of Forest Owners 

National Association of Conservation Districts 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

National Association of Wheat Growers 

National Barley Growers Association 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

National Chicken Council 

National Corn Growers Association 

National Cotton Council 

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 

National Farmers Union 

National Milk Producers Federation 

National Pork Producers Council 

National Potato Council 

National Sorghum Producers 
National Sunflower Association 

National Turkey Federation 

National Water Resources Association 

Southern Crop Production Association 

The Fertilizer Institute 

United Egg Producers 

United Fresh Produce Association 

U.S . Apple Association 

U.S . Canola Association 

U.S . Cattlemen's Association 

US Rice Producers Association 

Western Growers 

Thank you for your attention to the issues and concerns we raise, and we look forward to your 

response. 

Sincerely, 

Lisa Kelley 

Lisa ~Y.' Kylley 

Vice President & Chief of Staff, Government Affairs 

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 

50 F Street, NW, Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20001 

P: (202) 879-0811 

F: (202) 737-6430 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : 

This e-mail transmission may contain confidential information . This information is solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom or which it was intended . If not an intended 

recipient, any review, copying, printing, disclosure, 

distribution or any other use is strictly prohibited . If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail . Please delete this e-mail from your files if you are not the intended recipient . Thank you . 

Letter to Lisa Jackson on NNC nationally and in Florida . pdf 

OEX Processing Information 

Processed Date : 

Processed By 
PO Office Category : 

Message Count 

September 17, 2010 

The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Jackson, 

The undersigned organizations are profoundly concerned with the Clean Water Act 

numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) policies that are now being advanced by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) across the U .S ., and in their most prominent and 

current form in Florida. It is apparent that EPA's development of NNC in Florida will 

establish a template for how NNC should be structured nationwide . The work underway in 

Florida is a result of a settlement agreement with activists, which is not only highly 

problematic but also raises fundamental questions of fairness and transparency, and 

effectively undermines the rights of the regulated community to customary, open 

proceedings. 

We strongly urge EPA to: 

" Delay further NNC policymaking until it has engaged with all relevant stakeholders 

in a thorough and transparent review of the strategic direction of NNC policies . 

" Revisit and update the 1998 "National Strategy for the Development of Regional 

Nutrient Criteria" (National Strategy). 

" Not finish the NNC for Florida's lakes and streams this fall and instead work on 

those in concert with the NNC that EPA is planning to finalize in August 2012 for 

all other Florida waters - and in the process answer the numerous and significant 

scientific, economic and policy questions about these NNC in an open and 

transparent manner. 

" Reject policymaking by settlement agreement, with its inherent opaqueness and the 

distrust that creates . 

We believe that revisiting and updating the 1998 National Strategy is warranted for at least 

four reasons . First, during the 12 years since the strategy was issued a considerable body 

of applied scientific knowledge and policy experience has been developed by the research 

community, states, and EPA. We estimate that more than 40 states have explored how 

they might create NNC. We understand that this work at the state-level has involved 

considerable debate on substantive matters within states, between states, and between EPA 

and the states, and that many of these debated matters remain unresolved . This substantive 
experience with the difficult scientific and practical pitfalls of NNC needs to be drawn 

upon to develop a sound path forward for NNC policies in general . In the case of Florida, 

there are significant questions about the statistical, modeling and biological science used 

by EPA. By EPA's own admission in the proposed rulemaking, there is no scientifically 

established correlation between these proposed NNC and the desired biological conditions 

in these waters . In general, we believe there is a serious lack of rigorous, generally 

accepted science that justifies the particular methods EPA adopted to generate these NNC 

in Florida . 

Second, since the development of the 1998 National Strategy, there has been little or no 

significant or organized public participation in NNC policy development from a strategic 

perspective . Such an open and transparent process is essential if specific NNC being 

advanced by EPA and the states are to be embraced. This is certainly a far more 

acceptable process than letting policy be driven by settlement agreements developed 

behind closed doors solely with activist groups, as has been the recent case with NNC and 

in other important Clean Water Act policy areas . 

Third, one of the most serious drawbacks of the 1998 National Strategy is that it failed to 

undertake any substantive analysis of the economic costs and benefits of NNC; for the 

regulated community, for the economy as a whole, or for the public sector that must 

develop and administer the NNC. In the particular case of the Florida NNC it is very clear 

that adopting the wrong criteria can cause enormous economic harm - both in the direct 

costs to the regulated community but also for the economy as a whole. The Florida 

Department of Agriculture estimates that the total initial cost for agricultural producers to 

comply with the NNC for lakes, rivers and streams to be between $855 million to $3 .069 

billion, and the subsequent annual compliance costs to be $902 Million to $1 .605 billion . 

As a result, it estimates that the size of the Florida economy will be reduced by $1 .148 

billion a year and that 14,545 full and part time jobs would be lost. 

Not just agriculture is at risk, of course. The Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection estimates that the total capital cost for utilities to comply with these NNC would 

be $4.167 billion . The Florida Water Environment Association estimates the cost for 

compliance with all of the NNC that EPA has under development to be $47 .6-$98.7 billion 

over 30 years. They also estimate that the average household utility bill will increase 

$673-$726 a year. 

The size of these costs for Florida alone are reason enough to justify revisiting the National 

Strategy to ensure that a sound and responsible path forward is developed . 
Lastly, with regard to the substance of the proposed NNC EPA needs to fully consider the 

implications and outcomes that will result if it sets the NNC for the lakes and streams at 

standards that are far too stringent, impractical and unattainable for Florida and the rest of 

the United States. The goals of the Clean Water Act must not be set and pursued in 

isolation from all of the other important goals and priorities of society, including 

promoting vibrant, strong job-creating businesses, economically strong communities, and 

the productive and valuable use of the land for agricultural and other purposes. 

For all these reasons, we believe it is imperative that EPA open a meaningful, working 

dialogue on the strategic direction of NNC policies . We believe that is best accomplished 

by using as a starting point the 1998 National Strategy . The dialogue must be carried out 

with all the relevant stakeholders in an open and transparent manner, not simply with the 

activist NGOs. 1n the particular case of the Florida NNC, given the host of legitimate 

economic and scientific questions and issues, we believe the NNC for lakes and streams 

should not be finalized this fall, and instead subjected to further scientific development and 

review as part of EPA's broader effort involving the NNC for the other waters of the state. 

This work on the Florida NNC should be carried out in parallel to the national working 

dialogue we have suggested. 

S incere ly, 

Agricultural Retailers Association 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Feed Industry Association 

American Horse Council 

American Meat Institute 

American Soybean Association 

American Sugar Alliance 

CropLife America 

Florida Fertilizer & Agrichemical Association 

National Alliance of Forest Owners 

National Association of Conservation Districts 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture 

National Association of Wheat Growers 

National Barley Growers Association 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

National Chicken Council 

National Corn Growers Association 

National Cotton Council 

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 
National Farmers Union 

National Milk Producers Federation 

National Pork Producers Council 

National Potato Council 

National Sorghum Producers 

National Sunflower Association 

National Turkey Federation 

National Water Resources Association 

Southern Crop Production Association 

The Fertilizer Institute 

United Egg Producers 

United Fresh Produce Association 

U .S . Apple Association 

U.S . Canola Association 

U.S. Cattlemen's Association 

US Rice Producers Association 

Western Growers 

cc : Secretary Tom Vilsack, USDA