It’s Time To End The Slime
A Primer On EPA’s Proposed Rule
To End Sewage, Fertilizer And Animal Manure Pollution
Of Florida’s Waters:
The Problem, Its Causes, And Practical Solutions
Note: Thank you to The Florida Water Coalition for this summary.
The Problem
In 2008, testing by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection revealed that 1,000 miles of the state’s
rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of Florida’s lakes and 900 square miles of its estuaries were contaminated by sewage, fertilizer or manure pollution.
“The actual number of miles
and acres of waters impaired [by these pollutants] is likely
higher,” the DEP noted, “as many waters that have yet to
be assessed may also be impaired.” All across Florida, the
effects of this pollution can be felt and these effects jeopardize
public health, our ability to swim and boat in lakes
and rivers, and undermine our tourist economy.
Algae outbreaks plague many of our lakes, rivers and springs. The outbreaks can make boating and swimming
dangerous or impossible, result in massive fish kills, and cause permanent reductions in waterfront
property values. From coast to coast, Floridians are horrified to see their beloved lakes and rivers turn to
green slime. For example, almost the whole Caloosahatchee
River in Southwest Florida recently suffered a massive
blue-green algae outbreak. The St. Lucie River and estuary
also suffered a massive toxic algae outbreak which
caused a permanent loss of a half billion dollars in waterfront
property values.
Some of these algae outbreaks can be toxic. Exposure to
toxic algae can cause rashes, skin and eye irritation, allergic
reactions and gastrointestinal upset. Swimming can cause
serious illness or even death if water is ingested. Some algae
are known tumor promoters, producing “neurotoxins”
which interfere with nerve cell function and “hepatotoxins”
which attack the liver.
During the St. Lucie River outbreak, the
County Health Department posted signs warning against contact with the water. Visitors to Wakulla
Springs – for a century hailed as one of Florida’s Crown Jewels – reported getting skin rashes after swimming
in the spring. The rashes were attributed to toxic algae triggered by sewage pollution.
Farther south,
over twenty similar incidents were reported at Ichetucknee
Springs. There, the outbreak was from unregulated manure
from industrial dairy operations. For the past several years,
major portions of the St. Johns River suffered from a massive
toxic blue-green algae outbreak which was dubbed “The Green
Monster” for the fluorescent green slime created on the surface
of the water. Toxin levels were recorded at 50 – 140 times
above the World Health Organization’s recommended limits
and many people reported respiratory problems, raw throats,
and irritated eyes. Boat traffic on stretches of the St. Johns
River has had to be shut down due to algae outbreaks.
The effects are by no means limited to freshwaters. Red tide
and red drift algae have been linked to nutrient pollution on
Florida beaches.
The stench produced by red drift algae smells like raw sewage
and drives away beachgoers. Red tide causes respiratory
problems and often results in closed beaches during the tourist
season. These closures have a devastating effect on the
tourist economy because most beachgoers come from outof-
state or from Europe and return home with horror stories
about Florida beaches.
Fertilizer, sewage and animal manure pollution can also endanger
drinking water. Algae outbreaks are drawn into water
intake pipes and attempts to disinfect the algae-laden water often
cause the algae to suddenly release dangerous toxins. In June 2008, a water treatment plant serving
30,000 people was forced to shut down after a toxic blue-green algae outbreak
on the Caloosahatchee River made the drinking water plant unusable.
The cost of upgrading one single drinking water plant in California to address
drinking water contamination caused by nutrient-fueled algae outbreaks
was over $200 million.
Its Causes
Sewage.
Even after sterilization and removal of solids, sewage effluent still
contains very high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen – the essential components
of fertilizer. Insufficiently treated sewage effluent is often allowed to
be discharged directly into rivers or piped into near-shore coastal areas.
The result is a ready food source for nuisance species such as algae. Even
the solid residue of water treatment, known as sludge or “biosolids,” contains
very high levels of phosphorus and nitrogen. Often this sludge residue
is disposed of on land or marketed as fertilizer. When it rains, sludge gets
washed into rivers and lakes, where it acts as a potent fertilizer.
Fertilizer.
Floridians use huge amounts of fertilizer to keep their yards
green. Florida’s agricultural sector also applies vast amounts of fertilizer on everything from tomatoes to
pine trees. And then there’s the golf courses!
Most fertilizer is applied at the wrong time and in excessive
amounts. As a result, most of it is washed off into rivers, lakes and estuaries. Fertilizing in the summer
rainy season is almost the same as dumping fertilizer directly into the nearest stream. The result is like
Miracle-Gro for algae.
Manure.
Florida agricultural operations include large numbers
of industrial-scale dairy operations and huge beef cattle calving
operations. These operations produce massive amounts of manure.
When manure is not correctly handled on site, it washes
into groundwater and streams when it rains. This problem is
compounded by the fact that cattle like to congregate around
streams and lakes and seek shade under trees that grow near
the edges of water. This means large amounts of manure are
deposited at the water’s edge or even directly in the water.
The manure water then triggers algae outbreaks downstream.
Sewage isn’t treated well enough.
Cow manure pollutes rivers and lakes.
Fertilizer is applied to lawns
and agricultural operations.
Most of it is washed off by
rainfall.
The Proposed EPA Rule
EPA’s proposed numeric nutrient rule provides standards for lakes,
streams, springs and clear streams, and canals. It also contains nitrogen
standards for estuaries consistent with the freshwater standards.
Despite the claims made by the rule’s detractors, EPA is not
taking a one-size-fits-all approach. Lakes are categorized into three
groups (colored, clear & alkaline, clear & acidic) and specific standards
are proposed for each group.
For streams, EPA is proposing
four different watershed-based regions within Florida with different
nitrogen and phosphorous criteria for each region. EPA also
took into account the need to protect downstream water bodies by
proposing equations that would be used to further limit nutrient
levels when necessary to protect downstream lakes and estuaries.
For springs and clear streams, EPA is proposing a nitrate-nitrite
criterion that would prevent nuisance algae. The rule also proposes
nitrogen and phosphorus limits for South Florida canals.
In order to allow time for affected polluters to implement the necessary measures to comply with the new
rules, EPA is proposing a new water quality regulatory approach called a “restoration standard.” This approach
would allow Florida to set incremental water quality stair steps for nutrients that will be stepped
down over time to achieve the required ultimate nutrient limit. If a water body does not meet the stair step
level for nitrogen or phosphorus at the end of each stair step, the restoration standard would be terminated
and the ultimate nitrogen and phosphorus limits would apply immediately. This method would allow
polluters the time needed to adjust to the new rule while ensuring that each stair step is complied with.
EPA has also proposed a site-specific criterion which is an alternative water quality standard that protects
the lake or stream and is based on sound science but is tailored to a specific site where special natural conditions
may exist. These criteria may be more or less stringent than the applicable general nutrient standard
and allow for scientific considerations to bring added precision to the necessary nutrient standard at
that specific location. This approach would add even more flexibility and make certain that good science is
being considered in on-the-ground decision-making.
The Consent Decree
EPA has proposed the new nutrient standards as a
result of a lawsuit by conservationists. Currently,
Florida has an unenforceable narrative nutrient
standard that says that nutrients can’t cause a
biological “imbalance.” This is like posting a speed
limit sign on I-75 that reads “Drive At A Reasonable
Speed Considering Weather, Traffic and
Lighting Conditions As Well As Other Relevant
Factors.” Numeric standards are like speed limit
signs with numbers on them—like “SPEED LIMIT
55 MPH.”
After watching algae
outbreaks threaten water
bodies across Florida
and uncovering EPA
documents which
stated explicitly that
numeric nutrient standards
were necessary
under the Clean Water
Act, Earthjustice sued
EPA on behalf of Florida
Wildlife Federation, Sierra
Club, Conservancy
of Southwest Florida,
Environmental Confederation
of Southwest
Florida, and St. Johns
Riverkeeper.
The suit sought to require EPA
to promptly set numeric
standards. The Florida
Department of Agriculture,
the South Florida
Water Management
District, the Phosphate
Mining and Sewage
Utilities Councils, and
many associations of
farming and industrial
polluters intervened in
opposition to the establishment
of numeric
limits.
After extensive negotiations,
EPA entered into
a settlement agreement
with the conservationists.
Finding that sewage,
fertilizer, and animal
waste pollution
have worsened or not been reduced from unacceptably high levels, the federal court found that Florida’s
narrative standards had not solved the problem. Thus the federal court entered a Consent Decree, meaning
that it approved the settlement as fair, reasonable and in the public interest.
The Consent Decree requires
EPA to finalize numeric standards for lakes and streams by October 2010 and to finalize standards for estuaries
a year later. The court’s order forecloses the argument that EPA can abandon or postpone setting enforceable
numeric standards for Florida.
Practical Solutions
Smart Lawns.
Floridians love to keep beautiful yards,
but applying too much fertilizer means that huge
amounts of fertilizer are washed into streams, lakes
and estuaries every time it rains. Runoff from fertilizer
in residential areas causes a third of the problem.
In most of Florida, no fertilizer at all is needed to
have a beautiful lawn. What’s worse, three-fourths of
it washes off when it rains, meaning that most of it is
wasted. That’s why many counties and cities in Florida
have adopted Smart Fertilizer ordinances that ban
lawn fertilizer during the summer rainy season.
These
ordinances also encourage planting of native trees
and shrubs that need no fertilizer. Homeowners save
money and don’t have to pay local government taxes
for new expensive water treatment systems for stormwater polluted by fertilizer. While a pound of nitrogen
fertilizer costs only about $5, the cost of a water cleanup project for nitrogen pollution is $225 per
pound of nitrogen. Smart Fertilizer rules save everybody money.
Smart Farms.
Cleaning up polluted waterways can be expensive, so the best way to treat nutrient pollution is to eliminate it at its source. This means being smarter about how we use fertilizer on our farms.
The only fertilizer that runs into lakes and rivers is fertilizer that’s wasted. Properly applied, it is supposed to be used by the plants. All that fertilizer runoff wastes money too. Instead of this waste, farms need to implement smart fertilizer practices. These include: 1) controlling runoff on farms; 2) performing scientific soil testing– down to where the roots actually reach - to determine the actual needs of crops; 3) applying fertilizer only to the root zone of the plants; and 4) applying fertilizer only in the amount needed by the plant.
If we
required fertilizer to be used more carefully on our farms, we
could go a long way toward protecting our waters without
wasting money on unnecessary fertilizer or costly restoration
projects.
Better Sewage Treatment.
The claim that it will take over $50
billion to upgrade our sewage treatment plants to comply
with the new rule is claptrap. Upgrading all the sewage treatment
plants in the entire United States (including federal
grants, state contributions, and leveraged bonds) from 1988
to 2007 only cost $58 billion.
The $50 billion claim is based on treatment by reverse osmosis – the method Saudi Arabia uses to convert sea water to fresh water!
Some wastewater treatment
plants will have to spend serious money to clean up
their act. That’s because these plants are now allowed to
dump effluent that hasn’t been filtered and treated very well.
Some have no permit limits on their phosphorus and nitrogen
discharges at all. Others with spray fields in North and
Central Florida will need much better treatment for nutrients
because of underground connections to springs and rivers.
But most plants in Florida would only need add-ons that use
chemical treatment or biological uptake systems. Extremely
low levels can be attained with these processes. For most of
these, capital costs would be about $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon
capacity with a few cents per gallon per month in operating
and maintenance costs. The new standards will also be
phased in as permits come up for renewal.
So instead of the scary numbers opponents to the rule throw around,
it is
more likely to cost a few dollars extra per person per month
phased in over several years, and it is likely that there would
be state and federal money to help out with these costs.
The
alternative of not establishing protective numeric standards
for our streams, lakes and estuaries will only make the problems
worse and the cleanup more expensive.
Better Manure Management.
Some dairy operations
have thousands of cows that each generate
140 pounds of manure per day. These massive
amounts of manure should be disposed of responsibly.
Manure - including wash water from barn floors
- should be dried and recycled as fertilizer or disposed
of in land fills. Otherwise, manure moves
through ground and surface water to contaminate
springs and downstream waters. A major source of
cow manure is from cow calf operations where manure
washes into rivers and streams.
The water
management districts and the state Department of
Environmental Protection should require cow calf
operations to fence cows out of streams and rivers
and require the construction of shade structures such
as pole barns. Cows eat in the open pastures and then
congregate in the shady areas near water as they digest
grass. Large amounts of manure accumulate in
these areas. The construction of shade roofs provides
the cows with shade away from the water and concentrates
manure in a place where it can be removed with
a tractor.
Controlling manure at the source saves taxpayers
money in the long term by avoiding clean-up
costs and the cost of multibillion dollar pollution treatment
projects.
Editorials
St. Petersburg Times: Toward Clean Water
Nov. 23, 2009
“The state has sat on its hands for 11 years while runoff from farms, sewer plants, golf courses and homes
has put the environment, public health and the tourist economy at risk…Public waterways should not be
dumping grounds for industrial waste. Clean water has a cost - but so do polluted springs, closed beaches,
toxic rivers and tainted drinking water supplies…The nutrient limits should help reduce pollution in the short
term and force regulators and manufacturers to rethink how Florida farms, builds and disposes of its sewage
and industrial waste.”
Miami Herald: New EPA Water Rules Worth Every Penny
Jan. 20, 2010
“Despite the opposition of a coalition of agriculture and business groups, state residents should support the
EPA's proposals. It's in the interests of every Floridian to have healthy estuaries, rivers, lakes, streams and
canals, which not only are used for recreation but also supply some communities' drinking water. Polluted
streams and rivers can contaminate offshore fish hatcheries, too, threatening commercial and recreational
fishing industries.”
The Tampa Tribune: Clean Water Won't Hurt Economy
Dec. 3, 2009
“This widespread contamination is a far bigger threat to Florida's economy than water-quality rules. And the
feds would not have gotten involved if the state had addressed the situation.”
Florida Times-Union: Nutrient Limits For St. Johns River Are Essential To Its Health
Nov. 17, 2009
“…the EPA action will help protect our greatest natural resource, the St. Johns River, and finally force polluters
to clean up their acts instead of treating the river as a sewer.” – Ron Littlepage
TC Palm: Thumbs Up: Government To Set Standards For Assuring Clean Water
Nov. 20, 2009
“The Treasure Coast has experienced the results of pollution from urban and agricultural runoff for many
years. With scientific restrictions on pollution, perhaps an end is in sight and the clean water, which should
be a right for the citizens of this region and state, will become reality.”
Florida Today: Clean Water Victory; Court Ruling Big Step In Protecting Florida, Brevard County Waters
Nov. 22, 2009
“Opponents will likely continue fighting the new rules, but the Obama administration and courts should
stand fast and protect Florida’s waters.”
Daytona Beach News Journal: Nutrient Overload: Cleaning Polluted Surface Waters No 'Burden' To Florida
Dec. 8, 2009
“In a state much favored with surface water, citizens shouldn't have to sue their government to assure those
waters run clean. Florida's commerce can prosper without destroying its springs, lakes, rivers and estuaries.
That is the point of the federal (Clean Water) Act. It should be the result of strict EPA standards and welcome
compliance by Florida's business and agricultural community.”
Orlando Sentinel: Feds’ Water Grab Is Coming, and We Might Deserve It
Feb. 20, 2010
“Listening to the lobbyists complain about the lack of scientific justification for the EPA action is amusing for
those of us who have grown up here. I don't need a study to see what we have done to our most important
resource.”
