President Barack Obama's executive order putatively tackling regulations may have handed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency another tool to bash Florida on water rules.
Contrary to media reports describing the White House's order as "reform," Obama actually muddied the regulatory waters, and opened the floodgates for even more sweeping rules.
The president's order directed the EPA to take into account such fluid standards as "equality, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts."
Florida is currently contesting EPA water-nutrient standards, which the state says will cost Floridians $1 billion annually, and more than $1 billion per year in additional indirect economic costs.
The EPA pegs the compliance tab at closer to $200 million.
Under Obama's order, concern over the costs -- whatever they are -- could be washed away by countervailing considerations.
"Equity and fairness can be defined to include more or less anything as a benefit," according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Obama's order. "Under this calculation, a rule might pass Mr. Obama's cost-benefit test if it imposes $999 billion in hard costs, but supposedly results in a $1 trillion increase in 'human dignity.'"
Such subjective adjudication dovetails neatly with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's agenda. In a July 2010 memo to senior regulators, Jackson stated that among her chief priorities is "explicitly integrating environmental justice considerations into the fabric of the EPA's process."
Neither Obama nor Jackson has indicated how such amorphous standards could be measured, but the EPA administrator maintains that scientific analysis should "encompass topics beyond just biology and chemistry."
Florida scientists, farmers and businesses may take some solace in Obama's directive, since they contend that the EPA's controversial "numeric nutrient" water rule is "scientifically unsound."
In a letter to the state's congressional delegation this week, a coalition of businesses pleaded, "Because EPA refused the delegations request for independent review of the underlying scientific basis and economic implications of the now final rule, we respectfully ask that you support the state of Florida and deny the Environmental Protection Agency funding for implementation and enforcement of this ill-conceived, unprecedented federal rule."
"Scientific basis" notwithstanding, Obama's regulatory "reform" opens a gaping loophole for bureaucrats to move through. For example, initiatives that promote "human dignity" could buttress a sweeping, controversial rule when the government's "science" is challenged.
Jackson, for one, seems unfazed by the president's order. The EPA said in a statement that it was "confident" that it wouldn't need to alter a single current or pending rule.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow at the James Madison Institute and Heartland Institute, says, "The only way EPA can remotely justify [numeric nutrient] restrictions is to factor in these amorphous, subjective, vague cost-benefit standards that are not economic and not quanitifiable."
Taylor, who has written extensively on water issues, says science "soundly contradicts" that runoff causes red tide or fresh water impairment in Florida.
"Scientists have documented that red tide is linked to Sahara dust storms, which is why it doesn't occur every year," he said.
Less publicized is Florida's running battle with the EPA over proposed air-quality rules.
A federal plan to tighten ozone standards would more than quadruple the number of Florida counties in violation of air-quality standards and smother 47,769 jobs statewide, industry reports say.
The EPA's proposed crackdown has drawn fire from business groups that say the new rules would burden industry and raise consumer costs across the country.
Currently, seven Florida counties exceed federal ozone levels. Under the tougher rules, 30 counties would be in violation. Critics of the proposal say 30 is a lowball number because additional counties, which do not now have air-monitoring devices, could be affected.
"The standard is so stringent that it is barely above background levels. As a result, in many places, nothing short of massive changes in energy use has a hope of bringing those areas into attainment," said Bill Bush of the American Petroleum Institute.
But such concerns could be airbrushed away if the federal government uses what Taylor calls "subjective standards" to argue that "clean" energy projects would promote "environmental justice" and "human dignity."
--
Contact Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 802-5341.
