"Southerland's and Putnam's credibility on this issue, not to mention Gov. Rick Scott's, is questionable at best, considering all three were exposed last month for going on a hunting trip to the King Ranch in Texas that was hosted and at least partially paid for by Big Sugar, arguably the biggest of Florida's corporate polluters. The state's recent track record on water - slashed water-management budgets, relaxed water standards, lax enforcement and declining water quality and supply - hardly gives us reason to trust Florida's leaders to do right by our wetlands and waterways. Putnam … should be embarrassed to be carrying water for some of Florida's biggest polluters. (He) should be working, instead, to clean up our endangered waterways, like Silver and Rainbow springs, and to stop the steady depletion of our aquifer. That would be in the best interests of their constituents and state. Yet, (he) seems more interested in serving the biggest GOP donors than addressing Florida's biggest environmental problem. Go figure." excerpted from the Ocala Star Banner
Letter from enviro groups to Congress:
Audubon Florida * Audubon of Southwest Florida * Audubon of the Western Everglades Caloosahatchee River Citizens Association * Center for Biological Diversity Conservancy of Southwest Florida * Everglades Foundation * Everglades Trust Florida Wildlife Federation * Friends of the Everglades * Hendry-Glades Audubon Society National Parks Conservation Association * Ocean Research and Conservation Association Peace River Audubon Society * Reef Relief * Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation Sierra Club * South Florida Audubon Society * Tropical Audubon Society
September 8, 2014
Dear Representatives:
This is a letter to the entire Florida Congressional Delegation, Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi. As organizations dedicated to protecting Florida’s natural resources, we ask you to oppose H.R. 5078, the “Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014.” This bill, introduced by Representative Steve Southerland (R-FL), is an unnecessary overreaction to the proposed rule “Definition of Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act” that clarifies federal jurisdiction to protect America’s wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes.
The proposed rule developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a long overdue effort to resolve confusion about which waterways are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Two Supreme Court decisions resulted in uncertainties about federal protections surrounding at least 20 million acres of wetlands.
Loss of wetlands
Clarifying the wetlands that will be protected is important. Florida for instance, has lost almost half of the state’s historic wetlands. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently documented that nationwide from 2004-2009, an average of 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands have been destroyed annually. This is 25% faster than losses that occurred from 1998-2004.1 This continued degradation is a key issue for the state.
NOAA reports also suggest that for every acre gained through wetlands restoration, two acres of wetlands are lost. When billions are being invested to restore America’s Everglades and other ecosystems, protecting remaining wetlands must also be a priority.
1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the Conterminous United States 2004-2009.
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/highlights/coastalwetlandsreport.html. See also National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Change Analysis Program. Land Cover Atlas. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/lca/

Economic impact
In Florida, the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. For example, the 13,000 acre Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Southwest Florida was once the site of the nation’s largest Wood Stork nesting colony and is now a thriving eco-tourism business. However, loss of 80% of the most vital wetlands surrounding the property has resulted in a 90% drop in nesting productivity. Loss of wetlands led to a loss of birds which in turn has led to a loss of business.
Simply put, protecting wetlands helps the local economy.
The proposed rule would provide an estimated $388 million to $514 million annually of benefits to the public, including reducing flooding, filtering pollution, providing wildlife habitat, supporting hunting and fishing, and recharging groundwater. The public benefits significantly outweigh the costs of about $162 million to $278 million per year for mitigating impacts to streams and wetlands, and taking steps to reduce pollution to waterways.
2 Current draft rule
The proposed rule does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act. The rule actually proposes to reduce jurisdiction and exclude certain ephemeral and intermittent ditches. All historical exclusions and exemptions for agriculture are preserved and the proposed rule provides exemptions for many farming, timber and other land-use activities, leaving important waters at risk to these operations.
The public comment period for the proposed rule closes in October, so there is the opportunity for state and local officials and stakeholders to be involved before the rule is finalized. H.R. 5078 would stop the public process in its tracks and prevent public input. Instead of supporting this bill, we urge all those concerned with the proposed EPA rule engage in the rule making process to achieve a better outcome for everyone’s interests.
Protecting streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands is critical to clean water, flood control, and drinking water supply as well as supporting habitat for threatened and endangered species.
We urge you to oppose H.R. 5078 that would weaken important waterway protections and undermine the Clean Water Act.
Sincerely,
(signatures waived to expedite delivery)
Dirty water politics
Ocala.com - Editorial
September 4, 2014
A proposed rule that would clarify what bodies of water fall under federal regulation has created a political firestorm here in Florida, pitting dozens of environmental groups against a powerful coalition of big business, big agriculture and conservative politicians.
The idea originally was to bring clarity to what waters and wetlands fall under Environmental Protection Agency purview, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. But so far, the only thing that is clear is that the opposition, led by Congressman Steve Southerland, R-Panama City, and Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, are more concerned about protecting big business and agriculture interests than protecting our state's steadily deteriorating rivers, lakes and springs. Southerland has introduced a bill in Congress, disingenuously named the "Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act," or H.R. 5078, that would virtually strip the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of any authority over Florida waterways and wetlands. Instead, Southerland would hand that power to the states.
"Florida can better regulate its water than bureaucrats in D.C.," Southerland said at a news conference last month in Tallahassee, with Putnam at his side.
The congressman and commissioner cannot expect anyone to take that statement seriously. Certainly even they know that Florida's waters are increasingly polluted from Pensacola to the Everglades, with our own Silver Springs serving as ground zero for a growing citizen-led water-quality movement.
The fact is, the proposed rule is not a "power grab" nor would it include "puddles and ditches to farmland ponds" as Southerland claims in his own verbal overreach.
In fact, EPA officials say the rule clarification would change very little in terms of current regulation of farms, forestry or development.
Yet, not only does Southerland's bill seek to strip the EPA and the Corps of regulatory authority, it would shut off all public comment on the rule.
Even more curious is why Marion County's own congressional representatives, Republicans Rich Nugent and Ted Yoho, are co-sponsoring this misguided and reckless legislation.
Southerland's and Putnam's credibility on this issue, not to mention Gov. Rick Scott's, is questionable at best, considering all three were exposed last month for going on a hunting trip to the King Ranch in Texas that was hosted and at least partially paid for by Big Sugar, arguably the biggest of Florida's corporate polluters. The state's recent track record on water - slashed water-management budgets, relaxed water standards, lax enforcement and declining water quality and supply - hardly gives us reason to trust Florida's leaders to do right by our wetlands and waterways. And besides, the U.S.. Corps that regulates wetlands development in Florida is located in Jacksonville, not D.C., and is staffed by Floridians.
Putnam, Nugent and Yoho should be embarrassed to be carrying water for some of Florida's biggest polluters. They should be working, instead, to clean up our endangered waterways, like Silver and Rainbow springs, and to stop the steady depletion of our aquifer. That would be in the best interests of their constituents and their state. Yet, they seem more interested in serving their biggest donors than addressing Florida's biggest environmental problem. Go figure.
Letter from enviro groups to Congress:
Audubon Florida * Audubon of Southwest Florida * Audubon of the Western Everglades Caloosahatchee River Citizens Association * Center for Biological Diversity Conservancy of Southwest Florida * Everglades Foundation * Everglades Trust Florida Wildlife Federation * Friends of the Everglades * Hendry-Glades Audubon Society National Parks Conservation Association * Ocean Research and Conservation Association Peace River Audubon Society * Reef Relief * Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation Sierra Club * South Florida Audubon Society * Tropical Audubon Society
September 8, 2014
Dear Representatives:
This is a letter to the entire Florida Congressional Delegation, Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi. As organizations dedicated to protecting Florida’s natural resources, we ask you to oppose H.R. 5078, the “Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014.” This bill, introduced by Representative Steve Southerland (R-FL), is an unnecessary overreaction to the proposed rule “Definition of Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act” that clarifies federal jurisdiction to protect America’s wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes.
The proposed rule developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a long overdue effort to resolve confusion about which waterways are subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Two Supreme Court decisions resulted in uncertainties about federal protections surrounding at least 20 million acres of wetlands.
Loss of wetlands
Clarifying the wetlands that will be protected is important. Florida for instance, has lost almost half of the state’s historic wetlands. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently documented that nationwide from 2004-2009, an average of 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands have been destroyed annually. This is 25% faster than losses that occurred from 1998-2004.1 This continued degradation is a key issue for the state.
NOAA reports also suggest that for every acre gained through wetlands restoration, two acres of wetlands are lost. When billions are being invested to restore America’s Everglades and other ecosystems, protecting remaining wetlands must also be a priority.
1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the Conterminous United States 2004-2009.
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/highlights/coastalwetlandsreport.html. See also National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Change Analysis Program. Land Cover Atlas. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/lca/

Economic impact
In Florida, the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. For example, the 13,000 acre Audubon Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Southwest Florida was once the site of the nation’s largest Wood Stork nesting colony and is now a thriving eco-tourism business. However, loss of 80% of the most vital wetlands surrounding the property has resulted in a 90% drop in nesting productivity. Loss of wetlands led to a loss of birds which in turn has led to a loss of business.
Simply put, protecting wetlands helps the local economy.
The proposed rule would provide an estimated $388 million to $514 million annually of benefits to the public, including reducing flooding, filtering pollution, providing wildlife habitat, supporting hunting and fishing, and recharging groundwater. The public benefits significantly outweigh the costs of about $162 million to $278 million per year for mitigating impacts to streams and wetlands, and taking steps to reduce pollution to waterways.
2 Current draft rule
The proposed rule does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act. The rule actually proposes to reduce jurisdiction and exclude certain ephemeral and intermittent ditches. All historical exclusions and exemptions for agriculture are preserved and the proposed rule provides exemptions for many farming, timber and other land-use activities, leaving important waters at risk to these operations.
The public comment period for the proposed rule closes in October, so there is the opportunity for state and local officials and stakeholders to be involved before the rule is finalized. H.R. 5078 would stop the public process in its tracks and prevent public input. Instead of supporting this bill, we urge all those concerned with the proposed EPA rule engage in the rule making process to achieve a better outcome for everyone’s interests.
Protecting streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands is critical to clean water, flood control, and drinking water supply as well as supporting habitat for threatened and endangered species.
We urge you to oppose H.R. 5078 that would weaken important waterway protections and undermine the Clean Water Act.
Sincerely,
(signatures waived to expedite delivery)
Dirty water politics
Ocala.com - Editorial
September 4, 2014
A proposed rule that would clarify what bodies of water fall under federal regulation has created a political firestorm here in Florida, pitting dozens of environmental groups against a powerful coalition of big business, big agriculture and conservative politicians.
The idea originally was to bring clarity to what waters and wetlands fall under Environmental Protection Agency purview, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. But so far, the only thing that is clear is that the opposition, led by Congressman Steve Southerland, R-Panama City, and Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, are more concerned about protecting big business and agriculture interests than protecting our state's steadily deteriorating rivers, lakes and springs. Southerland has introduced a bill in Congress, disingenuously named the "Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act," or H.R. 5078, that would virtually strip the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of any authority over Florida waterways and wetlands. Instead, Southerland would hand that power to the states.
"Florida can better regulate its water than bureaucrats in D.C.," Southerland said at a news conference last month in Tallahassee, with Putnam at his side.
The congressman and commissioner cannot expect anyone to take that statement seriously. Certainly even they know that Florida's waters are increasingly polluted from Pensacola to the Everglades, with our own Silver Springs serving as ground zero for a growing citizen-led water-quality movement.
The fact is, the proposed rule is not a "power grab" nor would it include "puddles and ditches to farmland ponds" as Southerland claims in his own verbal overreach.
In fact, EPA officials say the rule clarification would change very little in terms of current regulation of farms, forestry or development.
Yet, not only does Southerland's bill seek to strip the EPA and the Corps of regulatory authority, it would shut off all public comment on the rule.
Even more curious is why Marion County's own congressional representatives, Republicans Rich Nugent and Ted Yoho, are co-sponsoring this misguided and reckless legislation.
Southerland's and Putnam's credibility on this issue, not to mention Gov. Rick Scott's, is questionable at best, considering all three were exposed last month for going on a hunting trip to the King Ranch in Texas that was hosted and at least partially paid for by Big Sugar, arguably the biggest of Florida's corporate polluters. The state's recent track record on water - slashed water-management budgets, relaxed water standards, lax enforcement and declining water quality and supply - hardly gives us reason to trust Florida's leaders to do right by our wetlands and waterways. And besides, the U.S.. Corps that regulates wetlands development in Florida is located in Jacksonville, not D.C., and is staffed by Floridians.
Putnam, Nugent and Yoho should be embarrassed to be carrying water for some of Florida's biggest polluters. They should be working, instead, to clean up our endangered waterways, like Silver and Rainbow springs, and to stop the steady depletion of our aquifer. That would be in the best interests of their constituents and their state. Yet, they seem more interested in serving their biggest donors than addressing Florida's biggest environmental problem. Go figure.
1 comment:
Thank you for the commentary. It was very thorough.
Post a Comment