Hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee - "EPA's Takeover of Florida's Nutrient Water Quality Standard Setting: Impact on Communities and Job Creation"

Statement

We convene this hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to examine the impact of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent rulemaking setting federal numeric nutrient water quality criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing water and overruling Florida's own process for setting the relevant standards. This is the sixth hearing in the Subcommittee's regulatory reform series as well as the
Subcommittee's first field hearing. Regulatory reform has been a priority of this Subcommittee in the 112th Congress and this hearing continues its examination of potentially burdensome and costly federal regulation that will stifle job creation and economic growth.

As Floridians work to get back on their feet, the federal government's efforts must be focused on improving our economy and creating jobs. Unfortunately for the 982,000 currently unemployed Floridians, EPA's unprecedented and potentially costly water mandates threaten to harm Florida's citizens, local governments, and vital sectors of our economy -- with no certain benefit for improved water quality.

Nutrient pollution presents unique challenges that are difficult to remedy through the EPA's non-site specific approach of setting numerical water quality standards. This approach is not universally appropriate for substances like nutrients that are both widely variable, naturally occurring, and a necessary component of healthy ecosystems.

Disturbingly, EPA's approach may result in numerous waters being labeled as "impaired," even though they are not, and direct taxpayer resources away from necessary environmental work, while blocking business growth and jobs creation in the meantime.

For example, Cross Bayou, within the Tampa Bay Estuary System, has an extensive oyster reef that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has described as pristine. Yet the water quality of this area does not come close to meeting EPA's standard. This is not sensible regulation.

Despite the well-known challenges with setting numeric nutrient standards, Florida had for several years been working to set such standards, with EPA's support, until January 2009 when EPA abruptly called for federal standards. Although Florida continued to collaborate with the federal authorities for a workable solution, EPA chose in August 2009 to abandon Florida's process and to impose its own broad-brush standards by certain dates.

We will hear today how EPA's actions to take over Florida's well-regarded process places tens of millions of dollars of ongoing water quality projects into jeopardy and threatens billions of dollars of economic -- job creating -- decision-making. Witnesses today will provide perspective from the state, municipalities, water utilities, the labor community and the agriculture community, all of which must confront the regulatory
challenges and uncertainties presented by EPA's take over of Florida's standard setting.

Ironically, the same EPA bent on imposing its standards despite scientific and economic uncertainty about the impacts, also asserts that -- according to a March 16, 2011 memorandum from Nancy Stoner, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water to EPA's Regional Administrators -- "states need room to innovate and respond to local water quality needs, so a one-size-fits-all solution to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is neither desirable nor necessary." Clearly, EPA is acting against its own advice in Florida.

There are serious questions about the necessity of EPA actions, the quality of the analysis supporting its decisions, and the economic and jobs impact for complying with its federal numeric standards.

The State of Florida's initial $5.7 billion to $8.4 billion annual cost estimate for implementing EPA's standards is 20 to 40 fold higher than EPA's estimates. Another study by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the University of Florida concluded that EPA's mandated regulations could cost Florida's agricultural community $1.1 billion annually and eliminate 14,545 full-time and part-time
jobs.

My hometown of Ocala, Florida estimates their direct costs to range from $90-$150 million in associated upgrades and Clay County Utility Authority estimates their capital cost expenditures to comply with EPA's mandate to exceed $120 million, resulting in a 35%-40% increase to their customers' utility bills. These multiple, independent estimates provide a much clearer picture of the actual impacts of this regulation on Florida's businesses and family budgets. It is simply unreasonable to place this exorbitant financial
burden on communities already facing significant economic challenges.

As we will hear this morning, EPA simply assumes away these unnecessary burden's and economic realities, and appears to ignore the good efforts by state authorities to set scientifically defensible, EPA-approved, nutrient standards.

We all support clean water but at a time when our State and its communities are suffering from high unemployment, budget deficits, and depressed real estate values, we must be cautious about forcing unaffordable and scientifically questionable federal mandates on our communities, hardworking families and employers.

While I don't want to see the EPA dictate these potentially burdensome and expensive regulations, I do want the EPA and the State of Florida to work together in developing an economical solution to safeguard our water quality. Preserving our State's natural resources is a sound environmental policy. If EPA will work with the State of Florida and our municipalities and businesses to develop sensible regulations, it can be
economical as well.

Source