FDA delays raw oyster ban, Florida reaction mixed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today backed off a proposal to ban the sale of raw oysters from Gulf states during summer months by 2011.

The federal agency instead says it plans to study the issue and work with industry to develop a new timetable for possibly requiring the treatment of raw oysters. The announcement was met with mixed reviews among seafood industry supporters.

U.S. Rep. Allen Boyd, who introduced legislation aimed at blocking the proposed FDA ban announced last month, hailed the FDA move.

"Today's announcement by the FDA is a tremendous victory for our oyster farmers and great news for North Florida's coastal communities," he said.

But Kevin Begos, coordinator of the Franklin County Oyster & Seafood Industry Task Force, said the announcement did not ensure the future sale of raw oysters from Gulf Coast states in the summer.

"We're glad to see they (FDA officials) stopped their unilateral action," Begos said. "But their press release does not address all of our concerns."

About 15 people die each year in the United States from raw oysters infected with Vibrio vulnificus, which typically is found in warm coastal waters between April and October. Most of the deaths occur among people with weak immune systems caused by health problems like liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, or AIDS.

The FDA proposed requiring that all oysters harvested from April to October receive post-harvest treatment through processes including flash freezing or warm-water pasteurization. Some seafood industry officials say consumers who like raw oysters may not like the treated shellfish or may be unwilling to pay the cost.

Today, the FDA said there is a need to further examine the process for large and small oyster harvesters to gain access to processing facilities. The federal agency said it will conduct an independent study to assess how post-harvest treatment or other controls can be feasibly implemented.

"Based on subsequent conversations with the industry and concerns we have been hearing, we wanted to take a step back and ensure we are doing this in a way that affects the public health and works for the oyster industry," said Meghan Scott, an FDA spokeswoman.

David Barber, owner of Barber's Seafood in Eastpoint, said the FDA jumped the gun with its proposal last month.

"If you know you eat something that makes you sick and you eat it anyway, what can you do about it?" he said.

(Story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

Two Florida DEP heads join opposition to EPA standards

Virginia Wetherell, left, speaks to reporters while Colleen Castille waits to speak. Both are former Florida DEP secretaries.

Opponents of federal water quality standards for nutrients in Florida waterways raised their level of opposition today, unveiling a Web site and two former state environmental chiefs who are on their side.

Scientists say nutrients from a variety of sources, including farms, sewage treatment plans, industrial mills and stormwater runoff are to blame for weeds and algae that choke some Florida waterways.

To settle a lawsuit filed by environmental groups, the EPA agreed in August to set numeric limits for nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Previously the state had only a narrative criteria that prohibited levels that cause an "imbalance" of plants and animals.

Agriculture Commissioner Charles H. Bronson, along with wastewater utilities and four of the state's five water management districts, already is seeking to intervene in an attempt to block the agreement. They protested the agreement last week in appearances before the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy Committee.

Today, business and anti-tax groups along with Colleen Castille and Virginia Wetherell, both former secretaries of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, announced their opposition and the creation of a web site called www.DontTaxFlorida.com.

"For Colleen and myself, we find it very troubling that the federal government would inflict a particular set of strict -- and what we think are unreachable -- limits on this particular state when they are not looking at them for other states," Wetherell said.

The proposed court agreement, which will be considered for approval Monday by a federal judge, would more than double the monthly sewage treatment bill for the average household from $56 to $118, said Paul Steinbrecher, vice president of the Florida Water Environment Association's Utility Council. He also said utilities would be required to spend $50 billion to meet new federal water quality standards.

There was no immediate reply from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA and the Florida DEP both have said that setting numeric criteria is necessary to restore waterways in the state. EPA has said last month that it had not finalized the proposed criteria so it was unknown what actions would be needed to reduce pollution.

Monica Reimer, an attorney representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and the St. Johns Riverkeeper and other environmental groups that sued the federal government, said the opposition press conference reflected "hysteria" by the industry groups and that the economic claims were "just ridiculous."

"This entire press conference was about something that doesn't exist -- it's about what the standards are that EPA will propose," said Reimer, with the nonprofit Earthjustice law firm in Tallahassee.

"If they (the standards to be proposed) are in fact arbitrary, they (opponents) can go to federal court and claim that," she said. "If they are right, a federal court will strike them."

A federal judge is scheduled to consider the proposed court agreement on Monday. If approved, the EPA would be required to propose standards in January and adopt them by October 2010.

The groups represented at the news conference today included Florida TaxWatch, Associated Industries of Florida, the Florida Alliance for Concerned Taxpayers and the Florida Chamber of Commerce. They are among 26 businesses and groups that have joined the opposition coalition.

Outside the news conference at the Florida Press Center in Tallahassee, staff of Earthjustice held poster-sized photographs of algae blooms in waterways including a St. Johns River tributary.

Previous stories:
Nov. 4, 2009: "House members vent against EPA water standards"
Oct. 2, 2009: "Bronson sides against EPA agreement on waterways"
Aug. 24, 2009: "EPA, groups settle water dispute; Industry groups threaten challenge"

(Story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

Florida PSC wants to consider new conservation goals

Saying that it wants more flexibility, the Florida Public Service Commission today unanimously directed its staff to develop new proposed conservation goals for seven utilities by Dec. 1.

Environmental groups had objected to the PSC staff recommendations, which they said in some cases established weaker goals than the state's largest utilities had proposed. The commission, under fire from some lawmakers and environmentalists in recent weeks for appearing to be too cozy with utilities, voted to ask staff develop new goals including possible use of a new test of proposed conservation programs.


"I want that flexibility as a commissioner," said PSC member Nathan Skop. "I don't want my hands tied in adopting something that is embraced by the utilities."

If new goals are adopted by the PSC on Dec. 1, the utilities will be given 90 days to respond. The utilities whose conservation goals are subject to review under state law are Florida Power & Light Co., Florida Public Utilities Co., Gulf Power Co., JEA, the Orlando Utilities Commission, Progress Energy Florida and Tampa Electric Co.

The Legislature in 2008 amended the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA) to give the PSC broader authority to maximize energy efficiency in Florida. The PSC says it was directed to evaluate the technical potential of conservation measures including demand-side renewable energy systems.

Commissioner Nancy Argenziano said she agreed with Skop that the proposed goals were too low. But she also said the Legislature may have placed too much emphasis in state law on weighing the cost-effectiveness of such conservation programs.

"It may have to be we let the Legislature know, 'You say get to these conservation goals, but you restricted us,' " she said. "When you have cost-effectiveness as the main restriction or driving factor (in conservation) you may never get there."

A consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which had intervened and opposed the goals recommended by agency staff, applauded the PSC decision to consider new goals.

"They were getting misleading claims from staff that it (conservation) would cost ratepayers more," consultant George Cavros said. "Energy efficiency saves customers money by reducing utilty fuel costs and by diverting new power plant construction."

Florida Power & Light spokesman Mayco Villafana, while stating in an e-mail that his utility has the largest energy efficiency program and lowest bills in the Florida, added: "We look forward to staff's recommendation on this important issue."

(Story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

Senate president calls for study of "complicated" drilling issue

Senate President Jeff Atwater today announced that Senate committee staff would conduct a detailed and comprehensive review of the implications of offshore drilling with no timeline for completion.

The House earlier this year approved a bill to allow oil drilling in Florida's Gulf waters as close as three miles to the coast. But the Senate refused to act on the bill, which faced environmental opposition.

With drilling legislation expected to come back in 2010 or earlier in a special session, Atwater, R-Palm Beach, said outlined the issues that must be studied by the Senate Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee.

"Offshore drilling is a complicated issue with significant ramifications for our state," Atwater said. "The citizens of Florida deserve a thoughtful and deliberative conversation free of rancor or hyperbole, and the Senate intends to provide a structure for that conversation within our body."

Other groups including Florida State University and the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida are also conducting their own analyses with possible results prior to the 2010 session, Atwater said. But a Senate news release indicated that the analysis "will be driven by the need for dispassionate review, not timelines or schedules."

Eric Draper, an outspoken drilling opponent and a vice president of Audubon of Florida, said Atwater's announcement was encouraging.

"Finally we've got a legislative leader who is slowing the process down to decide on an evaluation," he said. "When they finish looking at everything they may end up deciding maybe we don't need to consider this legislatively."

Ryan Banfill, a spokesman for Florida Energy Associates, said of Atwater's announcement: "The facts are on our side and we support moving forward with this historic discussion about establishing an energy sector in our economy that will create jobs for Floridians and generate money for the state."

(Audubon's Eric Draper was incorrectly identified as a drilling supporter in an earlier version of this story. FloridaEnvironments.com regrets the error.)

(Story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

Florida officials react to proposed federal oyster ban

Some Florida elected officials this week urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration not to ban raw oysters from the Gulf of Mexico during warmer months.

The FDA proposes banning the sale of raw oysters unless the shellfish are treated to destroy bacteria that are potentially deadly to certain risk groups. But Agriculture Commissioner Charles H. Bronson said treatment options are limited and some people don't like the treated oysters.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Monticello, were among the congressmen from Gulf Coast states who this week filed legislation to block funding for the federal proposal, which seafood industry officials say threatens their livelihoods.

“The FDA has gone overboard in proposing a ban on raw oysters,” Nelson said. “It’s like trying to kill a gnat with a sledgehammer. Well, there's some of us in the Senate that are going to try to not let this happen."

About 15 people die each year in the United States from raw oysters infected with Vibrio vulnificus, which typically is found in warm coastal waters between April and October. Most of the deaths occur among people with weak immune systems caused by health problems like liver or kidney disease, cancer, diabetes, or AIDS.
 
"Seldom is the evidence on a food-safety problem and solution so unambiguous," Michael Taylor, a senior adviser at the Food and Drug Administration, told a shellfish conference in Manchester, N.H., according to the Associated Press.

Bronson sent a letter to the FDA on Wednesday asking the agency to withdraw its proposal. And he talked about the proposal this week before House committees at Florida's capitol.

"You can make every law in the world but I don't think you are going to be able to overcome personal responsibility," Bronson told the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Committee on Wednesday. "This is a little bit of an overstep. We're asking them to reconsider their decision on this."

His department has scheduled a series of workshops beginning Nov. 30 on a previous state proposal for more stringent oyster handling requirements that include quicker removal from the water and cooling in processing plants. For more information, click here.

On Tuesday, Bronson told the House Natural Resources Appropriations Committee that he thinks the FDA proposal could create black market for those who still want fresh oysters. "There will be more of a chance of getting people sick that way," Bronson said.

Rep. Leonard Bembry, D-Greenville, said he was concerned about oyster beds being closed to harvesting as a result of the ban and possible state budget cuts on oyster testing.

State Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Panama City, said the federal proposal would "dissolve the economy" of Franklin County, where 95 percent of Florida's oysters are harvested from Apalachicola Bay.

(Story and photo copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

House members vent against EPA water standards

Members of a Florida House panel complained today about the potential cost of water quality standards that could be proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in January, agreeing with industry representatives who said businesses and households will be affected.

Scientists say high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus are contributing to algal blooms in springs, rivers and beaches across the state. But the state lacks specific numeric limits for nitrogen and phosphorus and instead only prohibits levels that cause an imbalance among fish and wildlife.

The EPA in August agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by environmental groups by proposing numeric limits in January for some water bodies and adopting them by October. A federal judge will consider approving the settlement agreement at a court hearing on Nov. 16.

But wastewater utilities, agriculture and industry groups say they're concerned that the proposed limits will be too strict. And members of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Committee overwhelmingly echoed those concerns as industry representatives urged the state to try to block the agreement.

Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers and committee chairwoman, opened the workshop by saying that establishing the specific limits is "reckless during these economic times." She said the workshop was the first of several to be held by the committee on the issue.

Representatives of the Florida Water Environment Association, representing wastewater utilities, told the committee that the federal standards are expected to more than double the average monthly combined water and wastewater bill in Florida from $56 to $118.

Although EPA has not yet proposed any limits, an association representative said the estimate was based on a similar statistical approach taken by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection earlier this year toward setting nutrient limits. The state put its rule-making on hold in August after the environmental groups, including the Florida Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and St. Johns Riverkeeper, announced the proposed settlement with EPA.

The utility association today filed its own federal lawsuit challenging EPA's decision earlier this year that the numeric criteria were required. Industry groups said they favored the state's approach toward setting criteria that were suitable for individual waterways rather than any alternative being developed by EPA.

"This idea we are talking about today is the stupidest idea to come down the pike in my 35 years of water management," said Henry Dean, former director of the South Florida and St. Johns River water management districts. He said he now represents several municipalities, which he did not name.

Representatives of the Florida DEP said they have not objected but they stopped short of saying they would not take action.

"I will tell you there is nobody in this room who has interacted with EPA more than I have and I can tell you I have no idea what EPA will propose," said Jerry Brooks, director of Florida DEP's Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration.

But committee members rejected any notion of waiting for EPA to propose its standards as they seemed to accept Dean's suggestion that they adopt a resolution opposing the court agreement.

"This is out of your hands now," Rep. Greg Evers, R-Baker, told Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole. "You continue to do your job ... I think it's up to this committee and the Legislature to take care of the feds at this point in time."

Representatives of the Florida Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club were present but did not speak. Sierra Club regional representative Cris Costello of Sarasota told FloridaEnvironments.com she disagreed with House members who said Florida was being singled out. She also said there was little mention of the harm to tourist-related businesses when algal blooms spread across Florida waterways.

"We are surrounded by water on three sides," she said. "I think it is being very short-sighted to talk about the cost of preventing pollution and protecting water quality when the cost of not preventing pollution or protecting water quality is mind-boggling."

(Story copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)

Florida land-buying program absorbs more revenue

With the downturn in the state's economy, Florida's conservation land-buying program is sucking up an increasingly larger share of tax revenue from real estate transactions, a state finance official told House members today.

Florida's land-buying program is the largest in the nation, having acquired more than 2 million acres since 1990. But the program received no new money this year for the first time since 1990 in part because of House concerns about its cost.

Division of Bond Finance chief Ben Watkins told a House panel that annual revenue from real estate transactions declined from a peak of $4.1 billion in 2006 to $1 billion projected for fiscal year 2009-10. That's because of the slowdown in real estate transactions and home sales, analysts say.

Yet the annual cost of repaying bonds to buy land increased from $375 million to $449 million during the same period, Watkins told the House Natural Resources Appropriations Committee. That debt service for bonds increased from 9 percent of documentary stamp tax revenue in 2006 to 41 percent in 2010.

"The requirement for debt service does not go down regardless of the revenue stream used to fund it," Watkins said. "Because the obligation for debt service is a long-term fixed recurring obligation -- so it continues."

Rep. Ralph Poppell, R-Vero Beach and House committee chairman, said the presentation was "an eye-opener" that he said shows that land-buying supporters frequently underestimate the programs cost. But supporters representing The Nature Conservancy dismissed the presentation as unremarkable because they said similar cost figures were presented by Watkins to the Legislature last year.

Meanwhile, the Division of Bond Finance in early 2010 is expected to sell the remaining $250 million in bonds approved by the Legislature in 2008, Watkins said. The sale of those bonds was delayed earlier this year because documentary stamp collections were lower than projected, which Watkins said discouraged investors from buying the bonds.

Selling the bonds will allow the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to move forward on land purchases that now are stalled, said Andrew McLeod, director of government affairs for The Nature Conservancy's Florida chapter.

"We are hopeful (bonds will be sold) as soon as possible," he said. He said there is an urgency to buy now because landowners are more willing than ever to sell and because land prices are down.

The Florida Forever program helps state agencies buy land for parks, state forests, wildlife management areas and coastal areas. Local parks, working cattle ranches and seafood waterfront projects also receive money through the program.

Supporters have said the Legislature can continue the program for another year simply by appropriating $12 million to $15 million for interest on the $300 million in bonds. But Poppell said Watkins' presentation shows it isn't that simple.

"I have a new saying, 'We'll pay the first $12 (million), you pay back the bond if you think it's so cheap," Poppell said. "It's the bonding that hurts us -- it really costs a lot of money.' "

Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson repeated his argument made in Cabinet meetings against additional land purchases. He said they hurt property tax collections by local governments -- even though Florida Forever also supports working ranches, which he advocates.

McLeod said the land-buying and affordable housing programs were considered the main recipients of the documentary stamp tax revenue when Florida Forever's predecessor program was created in 1990. He said other money later was siphoned away for transportation and general government operations as documentary stamp revenues soared during the real estate boom.

The stabilization and expected increase in revenue helps the program as supporters seek new funding for it in 2010, McLeod said. There is broad public support for borrowing money to buy land for protection of wildlife and water supplies, he said.

"We will borrow today to buy an asset... that is only available today and is so valuable to the public that it warrants borrowing," he said.

(Story and photo copyrighted by Bruce Ritchie and FloridaEnvironments.com. Do not copy or redistribute without permission.)