Water/Natural Resources

GENERAL

204. Air Quality Standards

Particulate matter from agricultural sources should be excluded from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Without conclusive scientific evidence indicating that particulate matter from farm and ranch operations adversely affects public health, we oppose any mandatory air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter for agricultural operations. We oppose any attempt to regulate methane emissions from ruminant animals under the Clean Air Act or any other legislative vehicle; and air permits for agricultural operations that are not science based. We recommend further research into emission factors for particulate matter for agricultural operations. (W/NR)

205. Conservation Programs

We should educate our members on state and federal cost share opportunities. We should also seek ways to mitigate or ease the economic burden placed on growers that participate in these programs. (W/NR)

206. Cost Share Programs

Any mandatory environmental regulatory program must be accompanied with cost share funding equivalent to an amount historically provided. In addition, environmental enhancements can be cost shared without the need for a conservation plan. (DAIRY)

207. Dipping Vats

We recommend that federal agencies absolve present and past landowners and operators from liability and cost of clean up or damages from dipping vat sites which were established under a federally mandated program from tick eradication affecting 985 counties and 14 states. (BEEF)

208. Endangered Species

We oppose rules unreasonable and harmful to agriculture concerning endangered species. Any implementation should be postponed until further study and more user input can be provided.

We support the immediate “delisting” of those species that have reestablished viable population according to established population models and survey methods developed by the appropriate state, federal, or international governing authority. In the event a species is delisted, we oppose any new or retroactive regulation that may be more restrictive or burdensome than previously required under Endangered Species designation.

Prior to the U.S. FWS, state or local agency proposing a species for endangered or threatened status or species of special concern, we urge that a thorough investigation using sound scientific methods be made by that agency with enhanced opportunity for public input by affected landowners.

We are adamantly opposed to introduction, re-introduction or interstate transfer that may pose any threat to humans. This distribution includes any animals that prey upon livestock or native wildlife (i.e., cougars, panthers, wolves, etc.).

Any reintroduction of endangered species on public lands should be classed as an experimental population and not be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) if the species moves onto private lands.

Any rewrite of the ESA should include economic effects as a consideration in the listing of a species. The rewrite should address individual species, and include a landowner incentive program. (W/NR)

209. Environmental Mandates and Restoration

Environmental mandates or any other governmental entity’s regulatory management of agriculture must be based on sound, scientific data. Further, we recommend that in cases where an agricultural industry will be affected and removed as an accused source of pollution, that the area in question be monitored to ascertain if the removal is rectifying the problem.

We encourage legislation that provides fast track recourse for landowners who are unjustly slandered or adversely affected by environmental mandates or restoration projects.

No single sector of the economy should pay a disproportionate share of the cost of any ecosystem restoration program. (W/NR)

210. Environmental Self Audit

We support voluntary environmental self-audits conducted with the intention of preventing and correcting noncompliance, as well as identifying pollution prevention opportunities that will assure not only more effective implementation of environmental laws, but faster correction of compliance problems which put the environment at risk. The environmental audit and documents related to an environmental self-audit should be confidential. (W/NR)

211. Environmental Stewardship Certification

We support the Environmental Stewardship Certification program as a vehicle for encouraging incentive-based cost-share programs throughout the state. The Environmental Stewardship Certification is a three-part program consisting of quality assurance, education and County Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship (CARES) recognition. Within the Environmental Stewardship Certification program, the Florida Farm Bureau’s CARES program plays an integral role of recognizing farmers for their environmental stewardship. (W/NR)

212. Growth Management
Agricultural lands should be protected by incentives which ensure the economic viability of agricultural activities. The Rural and Family Lands Protection Act and Rural Stewardship Areas are good examples of incentive based growth management programs.

We continue to urge the Florida Legislature and Governor to support and establish a funding mechanism at the state level and to support cost sharing with participating local governments. (W/NR)

213. Incentive-Based Environmental Programs

We support incentive-based environmental programs and cost-share programs for agricultural operations that replace command-and-control type regulatory programs while providing positive environmental benefits. The Suwannee River Partnership is a good example of a progressive alternative to the traditional permitting approach. It has resulted in greater environmental compliance of more agriculture operations in less time than any previous regulatory program utilized in Florida.

We support the continuation of funding for Operation Cleansweep by the Florida Legislature. We support FDACS as the lead agency in cooperation with other public/private entities. (W/NR)

214. Mineral Rights

We support legislation that would require all mineral rights that have not been exercised by the non-fee owner of a parcel of land, automatically be reverted to the fee owner, after a period of twenty-five (25) years. (W/NR)

215. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III

The federal SARA Title III should be amended to require notification and reporting of agricultural facilities under Section 302 only if such facilities produce or store Extremely Hazardous Substances above the Threshold Planning Quantity.

We recommend elimination of the $5/employee fee.

We recommend a one-time activation fee with the agriculture entity being exempt from any fee or tax in the future and a simplified application and process. (W/NR)

WATER

216. Competing Uses

The Florida Legislature carefully delineated requirements for water planning, and placed an emphasis on water resource and water supply development, including funding for new alternative water supplies in F.S. 373.0831.

We support the immediate implementation of these programs by the water management districts to avoid the need for competing water-use applications. (W/NR)

217. Everglades

We support continuation of agricultural production in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), the C-139 basin and the Northern Everglades. We support the Everglades Forever Act and the Northern Everglades Protection Act. Any changes made in the Everglades Forever Act, the Northern Everglades Protection Act and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) must be based on sound scientific evidence and a cost-benefit analysis.

We support balanced implementation of the Everglades Forever Act, the Northern Everglades Protection Act and the CERP in a manner that provides for water related needs of the region, including the enhancement of water supply while maintaining flood control.
We support the Northern Everglades initiative to implement Best Management Practices throughout the Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee watersheds to reduce nutrient loading to the lake and estuaries. (W/NR) (SUGAR)

218. Existing Users

We support the existing statutory provisions in F.S. 373.233 (2), giving preference to renewal applications and F.S. 373.171 (2) and (3) relating to protecting the rights of existing users. Any rules or policies adopted by the water management districts shall comply with these provisions.

Existing legal users’ rights to permit renewals should be strengthened. In the event that two or more competing applications qualify under the provisions of F.S 373.233 (1), the governing board or the department should give preference to a renewal application over a new application.
(W/NR)

219. Federal Clean Water Act

We encourage the EPA to continue working with USDA, States and agricultural organizations toward the goals of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). We also encourage the EPA to recognize functionally equivalent programs for agricultural non-point source discharges as a means to protect and/or improve water quality. We support the establishment of incentive based BMP programs adopted by the FDACS pursuant to state law and further support the continuation of the CWA exemption for agricultural discharges.

We oppose any attempt to broaden the jurisdiction of the CWA. (W/NR)

220. Gulf of Mexico Program

We support and encourage the right of states to develop a volunteer plan of action to address the agricultural non-point source portion of the EPA’s Gulf of Mexico Program. (W/NR)

221. Lake Okeechobee

We support Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Management and alternatives that maximize protection of the water use community’s existing permitted water allocations that minimize the potential for short-term water supply shortages and assure the predictability of a continued and reliable water supply.

Everglades Forever Act mandates that 298 Districts be allowed to pump 20% of excess supply into Lake Okeechobee in times of a water emergency. We support recognition that water emergencies include both flooding and drought relief. (SUGAR)

222. Long Term Permitting

We strongly encourage the water management districts to issue agricultural water use permits for a duration of twenty (20) years as authorized by F.S. 373.236. (W/NR)

223. Mobile Irrigation Labs (MILs)

We support the state’s network of agricultural MILs and further support making these services available at no charge to participating growers. MILs perform valuable evaluations on irrigation systems and are extremely important to existing water conversation efforts and emerging policies therein. (W/NR)

224. Petitions by Third Parties

Water use permit holders who legally hold and use permits should not be harassed by frivolous challenges by third parties during the permit renewal process. Third party petitioners should bear the burden of proof of harm or negative impact caused by the permit holder. We encourage the water management districts to defend the permitting process from nuisance petitions filed by third parties. (W/NR)

225. Potable Water Testing

It is not reasonable to require installation of costly and complex systems to treat potable water based solely on the number of consumer/workers a business serves/employs, particularly when no real threat to public safety exists. Should a problem be discovered by testing or sanitary survey, reasonable corrective action, such as water treatment or providing alternative water sources, should be implemented by the business affected.

The rules for primary inorganic, volatile organic and other chemical sampling are so complex that there should be a burden on the DEP and the health departments to minimize sampling requirements. (W/NR)

226. Water Management District Ag Teams

We support the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s establishment of Ag Teams. These Ag Teams consist of water management district personnel who specialize in agricultural-related permitting issues. We encourage other water management districts to establish similar teams to act as liaisons to the agriculture community. (W/NR)

227. Water Management Districts

We support legislative, regulatory and administrative efforts to simplify, streamline and make water management districts more responsive to the water needs of local communities and their citizens.

• Regional Management & District Boundaries
  We support the continued regional management of water resources through the water management districts with no consolidation at the state level. Without scientific and public policy justification, we oppose any change in current water management district boundaries.
• Local Sources First
  We support the “local sources first” statute (F.S. 373.223(3) (a-g) and philosophy in regional water supply planning statewide.
• Agriculture Exemptions
  We recommend the Florida Legislature require those agencies that promulgate surface water rules, recognize the provisions of F.S. 373.406, exempting agricultural activities.
• Water Management District Boards
  We urge the Governor to appoint water management district board members with commercial-agricultural backgrounds, and we support continuing the process of appointments by the Governor rather than elected board members.

  We support the retention of basin boards of the water management districts as described in F.S. 373.0693.

• Lake Okeechobee Backpumping
  We support the South Florida Water Management District’s authority to replenish Lake Okeechobee’s water supply from other available sources as it deems necessary, including the EAA.
• Fee, Fines & Taxes
  We oppose any increases in permitting fees by the water management districts. In the event of permit fee increases, agricultural fees should be separate and held at a lower level.

  We oppose water management districts’ seeking legislative authority to create an administrative fine system.

  We oppose the use of ad valorem taxes for the purchase of property.

  We oppose water user fees or any self-supplied water use tax.

• Metering & Monitoring
  We should cooperate with the water management districts to obtain accurate groundwater consumptive use date. However, we oppose the mandatory metering and testing of wells on private property. When such metering and monitoring are required by any governmental agency, that agency should underwrite the total cost of those programs and growers should be allowed to use reasonable alternative methods when appropriate.
• Minimum Flows & Levels
  We support the Water Management Districts’ utilizing peer review in establishing and adoping Minimum flows and Levels and recovery strategies.
• Flood Control/Excess Water
  Due to the importance of flood control protection to the citizens of Florida, flood control projects and systems of locks and dams shall be preserved and not materially diminished without specific legislative approval.

  We oppose rules and regulations that prevent the removal of excess water from agricultural lands, and that agriculture retain the right to remove excess water in an economically feasible manner to maximize production.

• Alternative Water Supply
  We strongly encourage research into alternative water sources. We support legislation and policies that encourage or require urban and public water utilities to utilize and enhance water supplies through alternative sources.

  We support water storage on private lands when the property owner is adequately compensated and held harmless from such action. (W/NR)

228. Water Quality

Agricultural practices should be protective of surface and ground water quality. We support a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards in F.S. 373.4595, 403.067, 576.045 and 597.004 and release from liability as provided by F.S. 376.307(5) for producers who have implemented appropriate BMPs on their operation. We support continuing the self-tax on fertilizer for BMP research.

If required by permit conditions, we support the simplification of testing procedures and justification for water quality so as to reduce the unusual burden and expense to the agricultural community. (W/NR)

229. Water Use Permit Relocation

We support the ability of an agricultural water use (consumptive use) permittee to relocate their water use permit, consistent with permit criteria with no penalty or loss of allocated quantities, based on the permit maintaining the same ownership, use and quantity of the existing permit. (W/NR)

230. Wellhead Protection

We oppose the development of wellhead protection ordinances or rules by any unit of government without specific and scientifically, peer-reviewed based criteria. (W/NR)