Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 - Continuing

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to amendment 13, which would defund Florida's new clean water rules. This amendment will harm Florida's economy and threaten the natural ecosystems on which we rely.

This past November, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved a final regulation setting new water quality standards for Florida's lakes and streams. This clean water rule is desperately needed to address the nutrient pollution contaminating more than 1,000 miles of State rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles of estuaries.

Potential tourists to Florida often envision images of pristine beaches, beautiful waterways, and vibrant coastal ecosystems with great fishing and recreational opportunities. That is why so many people flock to our State. Florida's waterways, beaches, and coastal ecosystems are critical parts of the economic engine that drive Florida's $65 billion a year tourism industry.

But without the new clean water standards, this could all evaporate. Already algae outbreaks plague many of our lakes and rivers, depleting oxygen levels and suffocating living organisms. Nutrient pollution results in massive fish kills, waterways clogged with toxic green slime, beach closures, and reduced waterfront property values.

We need these new clean water standards because the current standards for determining when someone is polluting is vague, and therefore unenforceable. Waiting until the waterway is choked with sewage, fertilizer, or manure is simply no way to manage our water.

For over 10 years the State of Florida labored to produce a clean water rule but never quite got there. In the absence of State action, EPA had to act to protect Florida's waters. EPA produced a rule built on years of data collected by the State and based on the best science available.

The clean water rule is also the product of tens of thousands of public comments, numerous public meetings and workshops, and years of consultations between the State of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

While EPA took over finalizing new standards, they did not take a ``my way or highway'' approach. They listened to Florida's citizens and regulated entities, made many adjustments, and included plenty of flexibility.

To begin with, the final nutrient standards are comparable to the State's own draft standards. In some areas they are more stringent, but in other areas, they are less stringent. The major difference between the State and Federal rule is that the EPA actually finalized it rather than continuing the foot-dragging.

And as a practical matter, all this amendment will really do is hurt the very stakeholders its proponents say they want to help.

EPA built in a 15-month delayed implementation to allow it to provide technical assistance to stakeholders and ensure compliance is achieved in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. EPA is using this time to hold workshops, seminars, and other meetings of regulated entities to achieve this end. But with this amendment, that all goes away. These regulated entities will still have to comply with the law, but now they'll be on their own.

Perhaps even worse for the regulated entities, this amendment will prevent State water managers from utilizing the flexibilities of the rule. It would prevent the EPA from working with the State to develop and implement a process to review and approve site-specific alternative criteria proposed by regulated entities. This makes no sense.

This rule provides flexibility to regulated entities and to the State. If the amendment passes, it would be devastating to Florida's economy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source