Comment submitted by Kirk L. Burns, Office of Counsel, South Florida Water Management Dirstrict

Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515-0022
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Received Date: August 01 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: August 2 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: July 1 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: August 1 2011, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80ed2cbe
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

On July 1, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would strike certain provisions of Florida's Everglades Forever Act (“EFA”) and the Phosphorus Rule (“The Phosphorus Rule”). On behalf of the South Florida Water Management District (“District”), we respectfully request that you decline to delete subparagraph (5)(b)2 of the Phosphorus Rule relating to “cause and contribute” determinations and phosphorus reflux. During the original, State of Florida hearings on the Phosphorus Rule, there was con¬sider-able testimony documenting the process by which legacy phosphorus may be released back into the water column. Recent studies have further confirmed this process, reflecting that in impacted areas of the Everglades, (where soils contain phosphorus levels greater than 500 mg/kg), reflux will cause water column phosphorus levels to remain elevated even after significant reductions in phosphorus concentrations in discharges entering the Everglades. See, Walker, W., Modeling Phosphorus Dynamics in Everglades Wetlands and Stormwater Treatment Areas, (2010); Enhancing Sediment Phosphorus Storage in Impacted Regions of the Everglades Protection Area, (July 10, 2009). Subparagraph (5)(b)2 serves to acknowl¬edge this physical process and ensure that dischargers, such as the District, will not be unjustly held in violation of permit discharge limits in cases where legacy phosphorus (stemming from historical—and lawful—untreated discharges) contribute to the exceedance of the criterion. We understand that EPA is proposing to delete subparagraph (5)(b)2 as a result of the April 14, 2010, order entered in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States of America, et al, Case No. 04-21448-CIV-Gold (S.D. Fla.). That order, and the Court’s earlier order dated July 29, 2008, sought to invalidate the 2003 amendments to the Everglades Forever Act relating to “moderating provisions” and similar language in the Phos

Attachments:

Comment

Title:
Comment

View Attachment: View as format pdf

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 76
Anonymous public comment
Public Submission    Posted: 07/06/2011     ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515-0014

Aug 01,2011 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted Gary V. Perko and Mohammad O. Jazil, Hopping Green and Sams
Public Submission    Posted: 07/27/2011     ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515-0015

Aug 01,2011 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted by Colley Billie, Chairman, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Public Submission    Posted: 08/02/2011     ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515-0020

Aug 01,2011 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted by Kirk L. Burns, Office of Counsel, South Florida Water Management Dirstrict
Public Submission    Posted: 08/02/2011     ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515-0022

Aug 01,2011 11:59 PM ET
Comment submitted by Thomas M. Beason, General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Public Submission    Posted: 08/02/2011     ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0515-0023

Aug 01,2011 11:59 PM ET