Florida Water Watch State Water Quality is a Regulatory Hot Potato
Florida, the nation’s 22nd largest and fourth most populated state, is also geographically diverse. That is why a 2010 move by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that changes the way pollution is measured is having a controversial impact on the state’s efforts to conserve its natural water supply. The Florida Aquifer comprises a hidden tributary of water, scrubbed by the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia and flowing underground all the way south to the Everglades. North Florida’s spring- fed Suwanee River is one of the clean- est in the nation, and numerous North Florida sources, such as Zephyrhills and Blue Springs, are tapped and bottled for their water’s purity. Traditionally, state regulations gov-
erning water quality have been based upon a specific waterway’s official designated use. Evidence of degrada- tion, such as becoming unsafe for swimming or for the survival of certain
types of fish, yields the designation of “impaired.”
In 2009, the EPA determined that
Florida’s narrative form of monitoring did not uphold the national Clean Wa- ter Act; federal regulators decided that
a numerical method, already used in dozens of other states, is a better way to keep tabs on water quality. This method records data on a regular basis and compares it to baseline standards, in an effort to detect and address pollution as it occurs, rather than wait for evidence of damage to show up after the fact. The current controversy arises
because the EPA is applying certain standards on a statewide basis using averages of data samples, although un-
derground conditions vary widely. For example, in some areas, such as Central and North Florida, natural rock forma- tions contain high levels of phosphates and nitrates, which in other areas could be byproducts of fertilizer runoff. Critics claim that the new EPA standards seek to reduce some levels of phosphates and nitrates to below what has been naturally occurring and constant for 150 years. The number of designated impaired sites would increase from hundreds to thousands, causing needless, costly mitigation and tying up shrinking funds that could be better used for bona fide environmental protection. The building industry lobby also sees the new pollution standards as a reason to limit development in the state. Proponents proclaim that the new standards will serve citizens better by helping to maintain a more habitable environment through the generations.
Debate about Florida’s liquid heritage is ongoing. To become informed about the issue and its impact on a particular local area, visit CleanWaterNetwork-fl. org and
Water.epa.gov/action.
June 2011 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60