The following guest blog is from Larry Fink, formerly the lead environmental scientist for the South Florida Water Management District. It is reprinted with permission of the author.
Gimleteye's comments: Technical aspects of state and federal water quality law have been used by polluters as a smokescreen for the continued, non-stop pollution of Florida waters. Unfortunately, federal agencies are complicit.
The tragedy is that the media has failed to explain to the public the breakdown between federal and state jurisdictions and the damage, as a result, to federal environmental laws. Federal agencies like the EPA fear the enormous power of corporate polluters. Fink writes, "(Florida) polluters are intentionally muddying the waters by using the alleged unreasonable cost of compliance to water down (federal water quality law). This political sleight-of-hand covers up Clean Water Act heresy. We need to fight the polluters and their state and federal political apologists by exposing this heresy."
We need to expose more than heresy. We need to find a way to make the public understand that spreading hatred of government, as expressed by the Tea Party for example, is a deliberate tactic of wealthy polluters. "Limited government", the mantra of the Florida legislature run by the GOP, is a code word to enable big campaign contributors to get what they want, when they want it. It is easy to see what is going on, in Florida waters.
The following video is being played throughout the state and produced by the Florida Water Coalition. It is worth your attention to read the specifics as outlined by Larry Fink.
Read on:
"Based on Federal court precedent, the cost of attaining a water quality standard (WQS) can play no role in establishing the WQS under the Federal Clean Water Act. A WQS is based solely on scientific data to protect designated uses. Under the CWA, all fresh and salt waters are assumed to be able to attain and maintain fishable and swimmable (Florida Class III) designated uses unless precluded by man-induced irretrievable conditions, e.g., from an abandoned mine.
If a water body is to be downgraded to something less than Class III designated uses, it must undergo an EPA-approved use attainability analysis and a public hearing must be held to present the results and take public comment on the dislocations that will accrue as a result of the downgrading of the water body's use classification prior to public noticing the final determination.
FDEP has made no such claims nor performed the required use attainability analyses to support such claims as regards excess nutrient-related eutrophication. However, an agency can effectively downgrade a receiving water use without following the CWA-mandated procedures if it fails to act in a timely fashion to control the impairing point and nonpoint source pollution to that water body to attain and maintain designated uses.
All Florida fresh, estuarine, and marine waters are protected for recreation, sport fishing, and commercial fishing designated uses. All states are required to promugate a set of EPA-approved narrative WQS and a set of EPA-approved numerical WQS or a set of EPA-approved procedures for translating the narrative WQS into an equivalent numerical WQS using scientific data to protect designated uses. The set of narrative WQS includes one that precludes eutrophic conditions caused by pollution from excess nutrients. All narrative and numerical Class III WQS must be met at all times in the water body, except under infrequent design extreme conditions of reduced assimilative capacity generally associated with a critical low flow or stage in the receiving water not under human control.
NPDES permits are issued to all point and nonpoint sources with technology-based and water quality-based effluent limits appropriate to its industrial category. If the technology-based effluent limits are insufficient to preclude impairment of water quality, the WQBELs are calculated so as to preclude water quality impairment. This allows pollution up to the threshold of impairment of the designated uses of the receiving water, except at or below critical design conditions.
Farms are exempt from the NPDES permit requirement. However, farm-derived polllution must be taken into account in the derivation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the watershed, farmers must make a good faith effort to implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source runoff pollution from their farming activities, and, in any case, farm-related pollution can be regulated via permits issued under the equivalent Florida water pollution control law.
If the cost of attaining and maintaining the WQS results in significant social or economic disruption, polluters can obtain a temporary variance from water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) in their NPDES permits. The variances are issued contingent on an agreed-upon schedule for all contributing point sources to come into compliance with their WQBELs during that period. Variances are reissued every three years. In general, after two consecutive variances without attainment of the WQBELs, the permit issuing authority will initiate enforcement action, because, otherwise, the agency is effectively downgrading the attainable use for the benefit of the polluter. However, there are examples where EPA has issued variances over and over. See, for example, the implementation of Phase II of the Settlement-mandated Everglades restoration plan during the Bush years.
The polluters are intentionally muddying the waters by using the alleged unreasonable cost of compliance to water down the WQS. This is political sleight-of-hand to cover up the CWA heresy. We need to fight the polluters and their state and federal political apologists by exposing this heresy.
At the same time, we should outmaneuver them at their own game and clarify that which has been muddied. Pollution impairs uses. Uses have value. Those representing the various use interest groups need to sue to recover damages for the loss of those uses. That will establish the value of pollution prevention. That will translate the implicit trade-offs being foisted off on the public by Federal and State backroom deals to protect industry- and farm-related jobs and related political contributions into cold hard cash equivalents.
When that is done by the Federal court explicitly in public using actual experts as opposed to by political hacks behind closed doors, the self-serving estimates of the cost of attainment vs. impairment will be replaced by reasonable estimates of the value of what is being lost as a result of the impairment of otherwise attainable uses. When the lost value from impaired uses is integrated over the unpolluted lifetime of the water body*, the polluters claims of significant economic dislocation will pale in comparison. This is also true of jobs created and jobs lost and state sales taxes and user fees lost as a result of use impairment.
Unfortunately, the polluters will point to their Federal and state permits to pollute as a protection from CWA-related lawsuits. However, because no federal or state permit can authorize the impairment of a use, individually or in combination with all point and nonpoint sources in the watershed, without a variance and a compliance schedule, they have no shield, and the issuance of a variance is a legal point of entry into the regulatory process.
Once we've made the obligatory statements at EPA- and FDEP-sponsored public hearings and sent the obligatory letters to officials to no avail, we must sue to protect the public interest in the public trust and the public purse. If the environmental groups won't sue over this at the appropriate legal point of entry into the process, let's hire a lawyer to protect the public interests in his matter and do it ourselves.
Slime applies to the cause as well as the effect of unregulated eutrophication. I want my state back from the political slime who have sold out the public interest in the public trust and the public purse. Enough is enough. Occupy Everywhere, including the court system."
Larry E. Fink, M.S.
Waterwise Consulting, LLC
*A planning horizon based on some arbitrary number of years of social, economic, or political significance works in the favor of the polluter. Using the unpolluted natural lifetime of the water body works in the favor of the environment and the public who make recreational and commercial use of it's unpolluted condition over its natural lifetime. This is also true of the environmental services that water body provides over that same period of time, e.g.,recharge of an aquifer for drinking water supply. Foreshortening of its natural lifetime via accelerated eutrophication takes the water body out of public service prematurely. This results in a huge cumulative loss to the public trust and the public purse in terms of foregone sales taxes, boating license fees, and fishing license fees and the cost of having to dig deeper wells or build drinking water plants because of the loss of groundwater recharge services.
Gimleteye's comments: Technical aspects of state and federal water quality law have been used by polluters as a smokescreen for the continued, non-stop pollution of Florida waters. Unfortunately, federal agencies are complicit.
The tragedy is that the media has failed to explain to the public the breakdown between federal and state jurisdictions and the damage, as a result, to federal environmental laws. Federal agencies like the EPA fear the enormous power of corporate polluters. Fink writes, "(Florida) polluters are intentionally muddying the waters by using the alleged unreasonable cost of compliance to water down (federal water quality law). This political sleight-of-hand covers up Clean Water Act heresy. We need to fight the polluters and their state and federal political apologists by exposing this heresy."
We need to expose more than heresy. We need to find a way to make the public understand that spreading hatred of government, as expressed by the Tea Party for example, is a deliberate tactic of wealthy polluters. "Limited government", the mantra of the Florida legislature run by the GOP, is a code word to enable big campaign contributors to get what they want, when they want it. It is easy to see what is going on, in Florida waters.
The following video is being played throughout the state and produced by the Florida Water Coalition. It is worth your attention to read the specifics as outlined by Larry Fink.
Read on:
"Based on Federal court precedent, the cost of attaining a water quality standard (WQS) can play no role in establishing the WQS under the Federal Clean Water Act. A WQS is based solely on scientific data to protect designated uses. Under the CWA, all fresh and salt waters are assumed to be able to attain and maintain fishable and swimmable (Florida Class III) designated uses unless precluded by man-induced irretrievable conditions, e.g., from an abandoned mine.
If a water body is to be downgraded to something less than Class III designated uses, it must undergo an EPA-approved use attainability analysis and a public hearing must be held to present the results and take public comment on the dislocations that will accrue as a result of the downgrading of the water body's use classification prior to public noticing the final determination.
FDEP has made no such claims nor performed the required use attainability analyses to support such claims as regards excess nutrient-related eutrophication. However, an agency can effectively downgrade a receiving water use without following the CWA-mandated procedures if it fails to act in a timely fashion to control the impairing point and nonpoint source pollution to that water body to attain and maintain designated uses.
All Florida fresh, estuarine, and marine waters are protected for recreation, sport fishing, and commercial fishing designated uses. All states are required to promugate a set of EPA-approved narrative WQS and a set of EPA-approved numerical WQS or a set of EPA-approved procedures for translating the narrative WQS into an equivalent numerical WQS using scientific data to protect designated uses. The set of narrative WQS includes one that precludes eutrophic conditions caused by pollution from excess nutrients. All narrative and numerical Class III WQS must be met at all times in the water body, except under infrequent design extreme conditions of reduced assimilative capacity generally associated with a critical low flow or stage in the receiving water not under human control.
NPDES permits are issued to all point and nonpoint sources with technology-based and water quality-based effluent limits appropriate to its industrial category. If the technology-based effluent limits are insufficient to preclude impairment of water quality, the WQBELs are calculated so as to preclude water quality impairment. This allows pollution up to the threshold of impairment of the designated uses of the receiving water, except at or below critical design conditions.
Farms are exempt from the NPDES permit requirement. However, farm-derived polllution must be taken into account in the derivation of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the watershed, farmers must make a good faith effort to implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce nonpoint source runoff pollution from their farming activities, and, in any case, farm-related pollution can be regulated via permits issued under the equivalent Florida water pollution control law.
If the cost of attaining and maintaining the WQS results in significant social or economic disruption, polluters can obtain a temporary variance from water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) in their NPDES permits. The variances are issued contingent on an agreed-upon schedule for all contributing point sources to come into compliance with their WQBELs during that period. Variances are reissued every three years. In general, after two consecutive variances without attainment of the WQBELs, the permit issuing authority will initiate enforcement action, because, otherwise, the agency is effectively downgrading the attainable use for the benefit of the polluter. However, there are examples where EPA has issued variances over and over. See, for example, the implementation of Phase II of the Settlement-mandated Everglades restoration plan during the Bush years.
The polluters are intentionally muddying the waters by using the alleged unreasonable cost of compliance to water down the WQS. This is political sleight-of-hand to cover up the CWA heresy. We need to fight the polluters and their state and federal political apologists by exposing this heresy.
At the same time, we should outmaneuver them at their own game and clarify that which has been muddied. Pollution impairs uses. Uses have value. Those representing the various use interest groups need to sue to recover damages for the loss of those uses. That will establish the value of pollution prevention. That will translate the implicit trade-offs being foisted off on the public by Federal and State backroom deals to protect industry- and farm-related jobs and related political contributions into cold hard cash equivalents.
When that is done by the Federal court explicitly in public using actual experts as opposed to by political hacks behind closed doors, the self-serving estimates of the cost of attainment vs. impairment will be replaced by reasonable estimates of the value of what is being lost as a result of the impairment of otherwise attainable uses. When the lost value from impaired uses is integrated over the unpolluted lifetime of the water body*, the polluters claims of significant economic dislocation will pale in comparison. This is also true of jobs created and jobs lost and state sales taxes and user fees lost as a result of use impairment.
Unfortunately, the polluters will point to their Federal and state permits to pollute as a protection from CWA-related lawsuits. However, because no federal or state permit can authorize the impairment of a use, individually or in combination with all point and nonpoint sources in the watershed, without a variance and a compliance schedule, they have no shield, and the issuance of a variance is a legal point of entry into the regulatory process.
Once we've made the obligatory statements at EPA- and FDEP-sponsored public hearings and sent the obligatory letters to officials to no avail, we must sue to protect the public interest in the public trust and the public purse. If the environmental groups won't sue over this at the appropriate legal point of entry into the process, let's hire a lawyer to protect the public interests in his matter and do it ourselves.
Slime applies to the cause as well as the effect of unregulated eutrophication. I want my state back from the political slime who have sold out the public interest in the public trust and the public purse. Enough is enough. Occupy Everywhere, including the court system."
Larry E. Fink, M.S.
Waterwise Consulting, LLC
*A planning horizon based on some arbitrary number of years of social, economic, or political significance works in the favor of the polluter. Using the unpolluted natural lifetime of the water body works in the favor of the environment and the public who make recreational and commercial use of it's unpolluted condition over its natural lifetime. This is also true of the environmental services that water body provides over that same period of time, e.g.,recharge of an aquifer for drinking water supply. Foreshortening of its natural lifetime via accelerated eutrophication takes the water body out of public service prematurely. This results in a huge cumulative loss to the public trust and the public purse in terms of foregone sales taxes, boating license fees, and fishing license fees and the cost of having to dig deeper wells or build drinking water plants because of the loss of groundwater recharge services.
2 comments:
I support the tea party principles (e.g., reduced government spending and following our Constitution) and I hate big government and big business. Where have you ever seen the tea party endorse the influence of big corporations? It hasn't happened. It dilutes your argument when you include a nonsensical rant against tea party activists in your message.
Paul is right.
The principles of original Tea Party advocates are not borne of a "hatred of government," but a hatred of the immoral practice of having one generation spend and consume more than it pays for, shifting the resulting debt to others, most particularly those in the next generation too young to vote and protect themselves.
The original Tea Party movement had at its core, not a "hatred of government," but a distaste for the corruption of government and a use of its power to tilt the playing field to the favor of the powerful -- like Big Sugar and the other corrupters of the political process.
Tea Party principles loathed externalizing costs and socializing expenses - which is exactly what polluters like Big Sugar are doing. Tea Party principles (original) were aimed at a revolt against BOTH corporatized political parties that are wholly owned subsidiaries of corporations that do exactly that. Whether it's wall street investment banks trying to make off with billions by dumping the cost of their bad mortgage bets on the taxpayer, or whether it's Big Sugar trying to dump the cost of cleaning up their pollution onto the backs of taxpayers, the original Tea Party principles and activists set out to stop them.
Sadly, the manipulation of the duopoly of equally corrupt political parties that collude to manipulate one group of citizens against another is succeeding when it succeeds in obscuring this, and convincing natural allies with common philosophy to attack one another.
In attacking Big Sugar, there is a natural alliance that is being wasted here. Back in the mid-90s, environmental groups and right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute joined forces to attack the U.S. sugar program. Although the effort narrowly failed, it was the most successful effort in the history of the program to curtail its destructive influences on the Everglades.
Isn't it time for that kind of pragmatic approach to bringing all possible alliances to bear in the fight?
Post a Comment