EPA Calls For Scientific Review Of Proposed Runoff Standards

Congressman Adam Putnam welcomed an announcement from the EPA that it will delay a portion of its new and complex rules for nutrients in Florida waters and will invite a third party scientific review of the standards.

Advertisement

“EPA promised to review the rigor of their science when they met with me and other members of the Florida congressional delegation earlier this month,” said Putnam.  “It appears they may have known their science was lacking. This has been an example of the danger of them charging ahead on a tight deadline with thousands of technical standards for every Florida water body when Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Florida Water Management Districts don’t believe those standards are supported by science.”

In a letter to the Florida DEP, EPA said it expects to delay implementation of “downstream protection values” for nutrients in waters until 2011 and that it will consult with the FDEP on the scope of the scientific review.  The agency also said it expects to announce further details regarding the scientific review in April.

In February Putnam organized a letter to EPA from 20 members of Florida’s congressional delegation, calling for the agency to extend its comment period for the proposed rules, which are scheduled to begin going into effect later this year.  In response, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson met with the Florida delegation earlier this month to discuss their concerns. “In that meeting it was clear that there was inadequate communication between the state and federal regulators. I urge Administrator Jackson to come to Florida and sit down with FDEP Secretary Michael Sole to see firsthand and better understand the issue from Florida’s perspective.”

Top Articles
Study: Biostimulant Technologies Help Water Use in Almonds

0

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

Same song different verse. Three years ago the lawn service industry was warned that the State of Florida would pass a fertilizer ordinance restricting the amount of nitrogen that could be applied to commercial & residental lawns. Instead of using this time to develope products and operating proceedures to maintain healthy and green lawns under the proposed restrictions the turfgrass industry chose to fight the vote. They lost the vote at the state level & have lost the vote at every county level. Meanwhile there are individual companies who have reduced their nitrogen usage from the allowable 4 lbs per 1,000 sq. ft. to 2 lbs plus reduced their use of fungicides . Their operating costs have been reduced 25%. Congressman Putnam has been sent information containing universities and actual field experience showing that growers can increase their yields while reducing their input costs ie fertilier, chemical and irrigation. Despite several phone calls to his office he has never shown any interest in this science based approach. instead he is singing the second verse to the same song. Is this the type of individual we want for Comm of Agriculture.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

I confirm the statements made. DWS

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

Same song different verse. Three years ago the lawn service industry was warned that the State of Florida would pass a fertilizer ordinance restricting the amount of nitrogen that could be applied to commercial & residental lawns. Instead of using this time to develope products and operating proceedures to maintain healthy and green lawns under the proposed restrictions the turfgrass industry chose to fight the vote. They lost the vote at the state level & have lost the vote at every county level. Meanwhile there are individual companies who have reduced their nitrogen usage from the allowable 4 lbs per 1,000 sq. ft. to 2 lbs plus reduced their use of fungicides . Their operating costs have been reduced 25%. Congressman Putnam has been sent information containing universities and actual field experience showing that growers can increase their yields while reducing their input costs ie fertilier, chemical and irrigation. Despite several phone calls to his office he has never shown any interest in this science based approach. instead he is singing the second verse to the same song. Is this the type of individual we want for Comm of Agriculture.

Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

I confirm the statements made. DWS

Advertisement