Item T11
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date November 20,2002
Bulk Item: Yes C No .
Division: Board of County Commissioners
Department: George R. Neugent
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
DlscusslOll. and possible action on seeking representation on greater Everglades
ec:x.ystem restoration committees (specifically South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force Working Group and the State. Water Resources Advisory Committee)
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Everglades restoration directly impacts the Florida Keys and Florida Bay. Our tourism and
commercial fishing Indusbies are heavily dependent on the health of marine resources,
especially the Bay. South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts, centered around the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) aim to redirect the quantity, quality,
timing and dlsbibutlon of South Florida's water. The committees making these decisions
meet mostly on the mainland and have little input from the Florida Keys and none from
Keys governments. Many CERP projec.ts, not just those taking place In the Keys, have
direct Impacts on Keys resources. The County Commission should consider seeking seats
on the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Working Group and the Water
Resources Advisory Committee. The commission may also consider hiring a lobbyist
experienced the Everglades restoration to represent Monroe County (saving staff time,
b'avel and gaining an a~~dy experienced and respected representative).
,
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT I AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: YES C NO C
COST TO COUNTY: $
~~
REVENUE PRODUCNG: YES C NO C AMT PER MONTH: YEAR:
APPROVED BY: COUNTY AlTY COMB/PURCHASING C RISK MANAGEMENT C
APPROVAL:
-:JY'L-fn-- q~
Commissioner GEOR) . NEUGENT
DISfRICT II
DOCUMENTATION: INCLUDED C TO FOLLOW C NOT REQUIRED .
DISPosmON:
AGENDA ITEM #
//J
.
NOV-07-02 17.03 FROM.MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10.3052923516
PAGE
1/1
Commissioner George Neugent
..SOLunON NO.
.2DD2
"
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONRO!
COUNTY. FLORIDA CONCeltNING THe DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMeNTAL
PROTECTION STAPP'S PROPOSED NUMERICAL CRITERION OF 10 PARTS
PER BILLION OF PHOSPHORUS BASED ON THE FOCUS OF EVERGLADES
USTORATlON
WHEREAS;. Monroe County hcss a vital Interest In the outcome of the deliberations of the
State Environmental Regulatory Commission;
WHER.EAS; Monroe Countyr consisting of mainlcsnd Everglades and a series of Islands
extending, from the penlnsulars southern COCIst, Is the ultimClte recipient of the SOuth Florida
watershed that is the focus of Everglades restoration;
WHEREAS; Monroe Countyrs economy IS almost entirely dependent on the health of its
natural n;lSOurces, as It Is based on tourism largely surrounding fishing and diving as well as one
of the nation's most valuable commercial fisheries;
WHEREAS; Florida Bay and the coral reef ecosystem depend on clean water in order to
survive CIS nationally significant marine resources and the basis for the aforementioned
economies;
WHEREAS; the natural marine resources of the Keys are considered significant enough to
merit their designation in two OiItional parks, the nation's most visited niltlonal marine senctuary
and Floridars most-visited state park; now, therefore
BE IT. RESOLVED THAT THE MONROE COUNlY COMMISSION hereby agrees to strongly
support the Department of Environmentill Protection staff's proposed numerical criterion of 10
parts per billion of phosphorus: and
The Monroe County Commission approves sending the attac;hed letter to the membel"5 of
the ERC as well as relevant public; officials.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commisslonel"5 of Monroe County, Florida,
at a regular meeting of Aid 8oCl.~ held on the 20th day of November, 2002.
CommiSSiOner McCoY
Commissioner Nelson
Commissioner Neugent
Commissioner Rice
Commissioner Spehar
(SEAL)
Attest Danny L.Kolhager Clerk.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNlY, FlOR.IDA
By
By
Mayor/Chairperson
Deputy Clerk
evergladesDEP
DRAFT LETTER - Monroe County
(Individually addressed to)
Ken Wright, Chairman
Shutts & Bowen
300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1000
Orlando, FL ~2802-4956
Tracy Duda Chapman, Vice Chair
A. Duda & Sons, Inc.
PO Box 620257
1975 W. SR 426
Oviedo, FL 32765
Victoria J. Tschinkel
310 West College Avenue
Tallahassee, FI 32301
(850) 681-1874 FAX: (850) 681-3948
Lisa A. Tropepe
Shalloway, Foy, Rayman & Newell
1201 Belvedere Road
West Palm Beach, FL 33405
Marcia P. Tjoflat
Pappas, Metcalf, Jenks & Miller
200 West Forsyth Street, Suite 1400
Jacksonvillc, FL 32202
Anthony J. Clemente
PBS&J
2001 Northwcst 107 Avcnuc
Miami, FL 33172
Marjorie F. Guillory
Tampa Water Departmcnt
306 East Jackson Street, 5E
Tampa, FL 33602
Dear
The citizcns of Monroe County have a vital interest in the outcome of the deliberations you are
now undertaking concerning the establishment of a criterion for phosphorus in the Everglades
Protection Area.
While the citizens in, and local governments representing all Counties in South Florida have an
interest in the outcome of these proceedings, Monroe County is literally at the "end of the pipe"
when it relates to all of the possible outcomes of Everglades Restoration, and the implementation
of the Everglades Forever Act. Our entire economy is linked directly to the health of Florida
Bay, the deliveries of clean fresh water to the bay via the South Florida Water Management
District's system and Everglades National Park, and the ultimate success or failure of Everglades
Restoration.
With these thoughts in mind, our County Commission has directed me to make the following
comments with regard to the proceedings now underway before the ERC regarding Section
302.540, F.A.C., the Proposed Phosphorus Criterion for the Everglades Protection Area as
required by Sectiori 373.4592(~)(d), Florida Statutes.
1. The Monroe County Commission strongly supports the Department Staffs proposed
numerical criterion of 10 parts per billion. We believe that the impressive compendium of
scientific research, much of which has been presented to you by DEP and Water
Management District witnesses in the last several months, amply supports this number under
any reasonable standard of proof or evaluation. It is noteworthy that the task of the ERC that
has been directed by the Legislature is very clearly described; the task is not to speculate
upon what a water quality standard ought to be considering many general factors. The task is
instead defined precisely as deriving a criterion number which reflects the already existent
standard for phosphorus written in the law - avoidance of imbalance in natural populations of
Florida and Fauna. Florida has over 60 water quality standards, most expressed in numerical
terms. It would be worthwhile for the ERC to ask DEP staff to present an analysis of the
amount of scientific research and documentation that was presented to your ERC
predecessors in the 1970's and 1980's when most of these standards were adopted.
Unquestionably, you would find through such an exercise that the quality and quantity of
scientific work supporting the proposed 10 ppb standard is unprecedented in the history of
Florida water quality rulemaking, and exceeds by several orders of magnitude the record of
evidence supporting other water quality standards that are in effect throughout the state
today.
2. While we applaud the DEP staff for their presentation of solid evidence supporting the
appropriate 10 ppb phosphorus criterion, we are deeply concerned by other recent
recommendations of the DEP staff to the ERC. Specifically, we have great concern regarding
the conceptual proposals made by DEP at your last meeting which would allow the
possibility of "moderating provisions" such as variances, or the determination by rule that the
"net improvement" requirement of the Everglades Forever Act might somehow be
interpreted to stand as a substitute for compliance with the criterion in "impacted areas". It is
clear that the Legislature intended the criterion established for phosphorus in the Everglades
Protection Area to function differently than previous failed attempts to apply water quality
standards with their many variances, mixing zones, site specific alternative criteria. In fact,
the Legislature specifically acted in Section 373.4592 (11) to preclude the use of these
moderating provisions in the Everglades Protection Area except for "nonphosphorus
parameters". In the place of traditional "moderating provisions" otherwise present
conceming water quality standards, the Legislature structured within the Everglades Forever
Act a system of "Long-Tenn Compliance Permits" which are intended to function and
require particular outcomes under both conditions of compliance and non-compliance of
discharges with the adopted phosphorus criterion. In the event of compliance, these pennits
would require monitoring and maintaining that compliance. In the event of any discharges
that exceed the phosphorus criterion, these pemlits would require the immediate development
ofremcdial measures in the foml of a plan, funding mechanisms, and implcmentation
schedules to achicve compliancc.
In conclusion, we urge the Environmental Regulation Commission to quickly proceed with the
adoption of the 10 ppb phosphorus criterion, and to avoid acting upon any recommendations
which would revert the considerable progress made since the passage of the Everglades Forcver
Act to the old failed system of variances, excuses, and "looking the other way" which prevailed
conceming Everglades water quality until those practices were challenged by litigation brought
by the Federal Govemment in 1988.
Neither the Everglades, nor Monroe County can afford action by the ERC which would allow a
platfonn for continued delay in compliance with the necessary 10 ppb phosphorus criterion.
The ERC should adopt a straightforward and unequivocal phosphorus criterion of 10 parts per
billion. The DEP should then get on with the next steps in the process, which begin with the
submission by dischargers of penn it applications for Long Teml Compliance Pennits as required
by the Everglades Forever Act.
Sincerely,
CC: David Struhs, Secretary, DEP
Govemor Jeb Bush
Monroe County Legislative Delegation