A History of the Kissimmee / Lake Okeechobee Protective and Restoration Program

February 2002
David (Bo) Griffin - Project Manager, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service
Submitted by: Pat Hogue - Okeechobee County Extension, Livestock Agent III

According to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) reports, phosphorus inputs into Lake Okeechobee -nearly tripled during the 1970s and 1980s, resulting in periodic algal blooms that were representative of an upset in the lakes natural balance. The algal blooms sparked public outcry and drew the attention of the Florida Legislature who, in 1987 directed the SFWMD to design and implement a program to protect the water quality of Lake Okeechobee. The result was the Lake Okeechobee Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan.

The SWIM plan specified that phosphorus inputs into the lake needed to be reduced by 40% (136 tons) to meet the targeted loading rate. In an-attempt to achieve this goal, several programs were implemented such as the SFWMD's Works of the District Program, the DEP Dairy Rule, the Dairy Buyout Program, and research and monitoring plans. Implementation of these rules resulted in a period of declining phosphorus inputs to the lake, but; not by 40% as specified in the SWIM plan. In recent years this positive trend has reversed, the loads increased through most of the 1990s. In fact, the latest SWIM plan update states that research and modeling has shown that strict regulatory enforcement on out-of-compliance sites would only result in a 23 ton reduction. For this and other reasons new non-regulatory, incentive-based initiatives have been undertaken, including the Florida Watershed Restoration Act and the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act of 1972. The act provides the basic framework for pollution control in the nation's water bodies. Sections of the Clean Water Act describe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocation and implementation. A TMDL is basically a measure of the amount of pollutant that a water body can absorb arid still meet state water quality standards for designated uses, such as drinking water supply and recreation. Up until a couple of years ago, the EPA had not been enforcing this provision of the Act, preferring to rely on other Clean Water Act programs.

In 1998, the Florida Wildlife Federation and others filed suit against EPA to compel Secretary Carol Browner to enforce the TMDL section of the Act. A settlement was reached where EPA directed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to establish and implement TMDLs for Lake Okeechobee and other impaired water bodies in the state. This process is continuing to date. With EPA mandated TMDLs looming, the 1999 Florida Legislature recognized the need for a comprehensive implementation arid funding strategy and, therefore, created the Florida Watershed Restoration Act while addressing the needs and concerns of affected landowners.

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act, which addresses priority water bodies state wide, is unique in many ways. First the law establishes a framework where federally mandated TMDLs can be implemented through an innovative non-regulatory, incentive-based program whose agricultural component is to be administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This program is based upon the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as those found in the Cow/Calf BMP manual, to achieve desired phosphorus load reductions. As you know, BMPs are generally common sense management practices that most agricultural producers are already employing to one degree or another. Other BMPs can be a little more involved, especially those that are designed for water management, and may require engineering assistance. As noted earlier, the program is non-regulatory but landowners or operators have the option of choosing a regulatory approach by demonstrating compliance with water quality standards through monitoring. Monitoring is probably not the best option due to the high expense involved but, nevertheless, is available to the landowner for consideration.

Another unique and important aspect of the program is that producers who implement and maintain BMPs on their property receive a "presumption of compliance" with state water quality standards. The presumption of compliance provision means that the landowner or operator who has implemented BMP's in good faith is not subject to regulatory action by either FDEP or the South Florida Water Management District for water quality violations. In a case where someone has implemented and maintained BMPs for a reasonable length of time but water quality has not improved, that landowner or operator and the local Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services representative will reevaluate the situation, possibly agreeing to additional BMPs, all the while maintaining the presumption of compliance.

Another incentive to implementing BMPs under the program is that there are funds available for cost sharing. A companion bill to the Florida Watershed Restoration Act provides around $2.5 million per year for ten years to off set the costs of implementation. Finally, the law addresses all land uses, not just agriculture. Components of the urban program are being developed and will be administered by the FDEP. The urban program will address the retrofit of secondary storm water management systems, homeowner fertilization practices, and septic system tie-in to sewer connections, among other things.

The Lake Okeechobee Protection Program (LOPP), authorized by the 2000 State Legislature, is similar to the Florida Watershed Restoration Act except that this program is Lake Okeechobee watershed-specific. The program strives to coordinate various governmental phosphorus reduction strategies, such as the P-Source Grant process, the Isolated Wetland Restoration initiative and BMP implementation programs as closely as possible. This law also addresses topics not covered in the other statute such as noxious vegetation control and phosphorus contained in lake sediments. The law specifies that BMPs are to be implemented in the same non-regulatory, incentive-based manner as directed in the Florida Watershed Restoration (TMDL) Act, complete with all important presumption of compliance and an even greater level of technical funding assistance.

At this point, a good question might be "So what does all this mean to cow/calf producers in the Lake Okeechobee watershed"? Simply stated, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and others, want to assist landowners and operators in working toward mutually beneficial water quality goals that have been mandated as previously mentioned. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is responsible for administering the agricultural components of the Florida Watershed Restoration (TMDL) Act and the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program through a non-regulatory, incentive-based, cooperative program. The legislation allows the use of interim measures, nutrient management assessments, and verified BMPs as contained in conservation / nutrient management plans, as phosphorus reduction strategies. It should also be noted that the 2001 State Legislature has passed a law guaranteeing that production and financial information provided to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is to remain confidential and is not subject to public distribution. This was done to protect proprietary interests of landowner and operators.

Due to the large number of individually owned parcels in the watershed, a two-pronged approach is planned, with each eventually reaching the same end point. In the first approach, a number of producers, on a space available basis, will be asked to undergo a nutrient management assessment on their property, conducted by a consultant whose services are to be paid for by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services but who, in reality, works for the landowner or operator. These assessments will help to identify BMPs that will be included in a subsequently developed conservation / nutrient management plan (the U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service will also be involved in conservation planning). Once identified, BMPs can then be implemented with technical and financial assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and others. Once the verifies BMPs have been implemented, and as long as those BMPs are maintained and proper records are kept, the landowner or operator is presumed to be in compliance with state water quality standards.

The second approach is an interim approach that should be applied prior to performance of a nutrient management assessment and plan development. Since the number of consultants and planners available for this project are limited, all assessments can not be completed as quickly as some would like. Therefore, the interim approach relies on landowners and operators to conduct assessments on their own property as specified in the nutrient management section of the Cow/Calf BMP Manual. For the interim approach, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services will ask the landowner to sign a "Letter of Intent" stating willingness to conduct the self assessment, implement the suggested BMPs as indicated in the Cow / Calf BMP Manual, keep appropriate records and, as space becomes available, participate in the nutrient management assessment and planning process which will likely identify additional BMPs for implementation. This approach, although only an interim measure, provides landowners and operators the same presumption of compliance mentioned earlier. In addition, several of the BMPs identified through this type of assessment may be eligible for cost share.

The end result of the process described above is a nutrient management plan that is tailor-made for an individual piece of property. The plan will be a working document that considers all aspects of agricultural production and water quality management, including off-site influences. The plan is required to be flexible, economically feasible, and user friendly. In fact, consultant produced plans developed under this program will be very similar to those produced by the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The last point to make is probably the most important. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the UF/IFAS Extension Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the other coordinating agencies urge landowners and operators to take full advantage of this program. Producers are urged to work diligently with the consultants and planners to develop a plan that meets the needs and goals of those who work the land.

Return to top