Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chair, I rise to commend my colleague from Florida on his decision to withdraw his amendment to the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.

Like all Floridians, I want clean and safe water. However, the EPA's new Numeric Nutrient Criteria regulations are not over whether we want clean water for Florida; it is over how we reach that goal and at what cost.

For several years now, Florida has been working to improve its water quality. Until 2009, Florida was working cooperatively with EPA to improve our water quality standards.

However in 2009, in an attempt to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, EPA decided to abandon that cooperative approach, federally preempt our state water quality standards, and impose new criteria on the state.

Many are concerned that these new Numeric Nutrient Criteria are not based on sound science, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board, which has expressed serious concerns about the science used by EPA to support the regulation.

The EPA has repeatedly refused to allow third-party review of the science behind the proposed mandate, and they have failed to complete an economic analysis.

This EPA mandate will drive up the cost of doing business, double water bills for all Floridian families, and destroy jobs. By some estimates, this will cost Florida taxpayers an estimated $21 billion and impact over 14,000 jobs in the state.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimates that this federal mandate may force municipal wastewater and storm water utilities--many in my Congressional District--to spend as much as $26 billion in capital improvements to upgrade their facilities. These costs will be passed down to the citizens of South Florida.

Given the reality of Florida's economic situation, this is completely unacceptable.

This morning I placed a call to Ron Bergeron, the Commissioner for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and renowned expert on the Everglades, to discuss this amendment and the underlying EPA Numeric Nutrient Regulations.

Commissioner Bergeron told me in no uncertain terms, I quote, ``The EPA is setting standards that can hardly be achieved. Water standards of 10 parts/billion required by the Numeric Nutrient Criteria is more stringent than rainwater, which is 15 parts/billion, and is a quality of water that is humanly impossible to achieve. EPA is doing things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.''

Let me repeat what Commissioner Bergeron stated--``EPA is doing things that could possibly shut down the State of Florida.''

Like all Floridians, I cherish the Everglades--a unique wetland ecosystem--and want to protect and preserve it for future generations of Floridians.

I applaud my colleague from Florida for recognizing that his amendment would have been an attempt to use the Everglades as a political pawn to give the EPA the authority to have carte blanche on setting state-wide water regulations--regulations that Commissioner Bergeron said are humanly impossible to achieve, and thus withdrawing his amendment.

EPA's flawed regulation must be set aside so that the state government can return to an effort to improve Florida's water quality that is cooperative, economically feasible, and based on sound science.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source