Protecting the Quality of Our Water Resources: A presentation to the 2009 Southwest Florida Water Resources Conference Presented by Jennifer Hecker, Natural Resources Policy Manager

The Economic Value of Good Water Quality Sportsfishing in Florida generates an estimated 6 billion dollars per year and supports 100,000 jobs. Beach tourism in Florida generates $19.3 billion per year!

Manifestations of Policies that aren’t working Loss of natural freshwater storage and filtration from filling of wetlands Degraded water quality from stormwater runoff Water shortages despite having some of highest rainfall in country

Focus on Prevention “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…” In order to encourage prevention, we need to: 1.Maintain the highest standards possible closest to the source (i.e. Designated Uses, Numeric Nutrient Standards) 2.Credit pollution prevention (i.e. Statewide Stormwater Rule)

Designated Uses Designated Use  Water Quality Standard  Not Meeting ItMeeting It  If “impaired” → then Total Maximum Daily Load Set  To meet TMDL, Basin Management Action Plan Created

Designated Use Changes Currently, DEP classifies waters as: Class I - drinking water Class II - shellfish harvesting Class III - recreational uses (swimming/boating/fishing) Class IV - agricultural Class V - industrial (there are no waters in this classification at this time) New proposed classifications would include: HU1 - drinking water HU2 - shellfish harvesting HU3 - fishing and swimming - full body contact ok HU4 - fishing and limited human contact (*NEW* “splashable” standard) HU5 - limited fishing and no human contact (*NEW* “unswimmable but fishable” standard) HU6 - agricultural = Class IV HU7 - industrial = Class V Proposal is to redesignate ditches, canals and other manmade waterbodies to these new HU4&5 classifications.

“HU5” = safe to fish consumption… but not safe for human contact? Designated Use Changes

Canals run into rivers and estuaries… indeed the upper portion of the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers are canals. Designated Use Changes How will affect the waterbody’s watershed? lowering standards closer to source will lessen ability to promote or require source controls less source control passes more costs from the private sector to the public sector

Designated Use Changes What about downstream? unswimmable/splashable standards upstream will make it more difficult to meet swimmable/fishable standards downstream more pollution clean-up costs passed onto coastal communities where swimmable/ fishable standards will still apply

Flexibility in Existing Regulation Site Specific Alternative Criteria: Allows a waterbody to deviate from the state quality standards for its designated use if scientifically demonstrated it should. Would alleviate expending of resources for TMDL or BMAP development for naturally impaired waterbodies. However, does not officially change its designated use. Need UAA… Use Attainability Analysis: Allows a waterbody to change its designated use to another category if demonstrated that it has not and cannot attain its current use. Would allow downgrading where justified. However, would only allow change to another existing category like Ag or Industrial. &

Our two-fold concern with current proposal (1) Adding broad undefined use classifications not safe for human contact (2) Revamping the whole framework for determining impairment and regulating water quality

Another path to Use Changes For potential downgrading: Step 1: Identify which specific types of waterbodies cannot attain swimmable/fishable standards Step 2: Determine which water quality standards associated with the existing Class IV or Class V are appropriate for that type of waterbody Step 3: Amend existing Class IV and Class V definitions to include those specific types of waterbodies This would allow downgrading of specific waterbodies where justified, without leaving other types of waterbodies vulnerable to downgrading as well.

Another path to Use Changes For potential upgrading: Step 1: Identify which specific types of waterbodies are pristine and should have greater protection than their existing classification affords (ex. Springs, coral reefs) Step 2:Award those waterbodies the supplemental “Outstanding Resource Waters” designation This would allow upgrading of specific waterbodies where justified, without radically changing the fundamental framework for determining impairment or leaving other types of waterbodies vulnerable to downgrading.

Numeric Nutrient Criteria are Water Quality Standards How Numeric Standards and Designated Use Changes Relate Water Quality Standards differ in stringency based on their designated use. Lower designated uses equal lower numeric nutrient criteria

Nutrient Pollution Excess nutrients stem from: –Ag. Runoff –Untreated stormwater runoff –Waste-water treatment plant discharge Causing: –Harmful algal blooms –Large “dead zones”

Current Nutrient Standards Narrative Standard “Imbalance of flora and fauna” Extremely difficult to apply Cannot effectively control what we cannot effectively measure. Thus, Numeric Nutrient Standards are needed…

Is Florida the only state required to develop numeric nutrient standards? No. 7 Other States have adopted numeric nutrient criteria for estuarine waterbodies.

History of Stormwater Regulation from Southwest Florida EIS Emerging Science Southwest Florida Basin Rule

Initiated in 2007 Includes optional BMPs in addition to wet retention Could provide credit for LID and preventative BMPs (ex. Pervious pavement) Would require the lesser of not exceeding natural load rates for site or removing 85%TP development will generate Statewide Stormwater Rule

BMP Treatment Train Final Treatment and Attenuation Runoff & Load Generation Additional Treatment & Attenuation Conveyance and Pretreatment Source controls Public ed Erosion control Roof runoff Florida Yards LID Swales Catch basins Filter inlets Oil/water separators Storage tank Sediment sump Alum/PAM Retention Detention Constructed Wetlands

Statewide Stormwater Rule Concerns: Is a presumptive standard Potential pre-emption of local government or water management district Insufficient TN removal – pollutant of concern for estuaries Does not address groundwater protection outside Karst areas

Statewide Stormwater Rule Concerns cont… Counts wetlands as pollutant sources – inflating “natural” load rate target Encourages use of natural wetlands for stormwater treatment Exempts redevelopments from improved stormwater treatment

How the Statewide Stormwater Rule and Designated Uses Relate Current Impairment of current designated use Proposed Justification for more source control required prior to discharge in stormwater regulation Waterbody downgraded based on lower designated use No longer impaired No justification for increased source control

Questions