Associated Industries of Florida Applauds Court Decision on EPA Water Rules

Associated Industries of Florida said Monday that a federal court ruling showed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had "overreached its authority" in setting water-quality standards for the states streams and rivers.

The ruling, issued over the weekend by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, upheld the EPA lakes and springs standards that closely align with Floridas established numeric nutrient criteria. But the court tossed out the EPAs conflicting standards for streams and rivers as "arbitrary and capricious."

"The EPA administrator did not base criteria for rivers and streams on sound science or demonstrate that any levels other than that which she established were certain to be harmful to the flora, fauna and other elements of the environment," the AIF statement said.

The AIF statement added:

"We congratulate the state of Florida, Attorney General Pam Bondi and members of the AIF-led Numeric Nutrient Criteria Task Force who argued in federal court that Florida was already doing the right thing in terms of monitoring levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in our flowing waters and our water-quality standards should only be based on Floridas decades of sound, scientific data.

"AIF looks forward to our continued efforts to work in partnership with the federal government to ensure there will be clean water for future generations of Floridians without laying a heavy and unnecessary financial burden on businesses and governments that would be responsible for meeting the subjective water-quality standards suggested by the EPA.

Though Hinkle invalidated the streams and rivers standards set by the EPA, conservation groups called the judge's ruling a win.

Florida's business and agricultural groups called that unsubstantiated "spin."

"This is a huge ruling. In a rush to declare it a victory for the environmentalists, some in the mainstream media are totally missing the big picture," said spokesman Ryan Banfill.

"It is important to remember the mandate for streams and rivers reflects a significant part of the waters that would fall under regulation. You can't put into effect mandates ruled 'arbitrary or capricious' and invalidated by a federal judge."