H.R.3818 - Stop Poisoning Florida Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 3818, the "Stop Poisoning Florida Act," aims to prohibit discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee through specific lock and dam structures (S-308 and S-80) when the water exceeds the EPA's recommended maximum concentration of microcystins for recreational waters. This prohibition is based on tests conducted by the Secretary of the Army, another Federal agency, or the State of Florida. The bill references the EPA's guidelines outlined in "Recommended Human Health Recreational Ambient Water Quality Criteria or Swimming Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin."
The bill seeks to address the issue of harmful algal blooms and their impact on recreational waters and public health in Florida. It specifically targets discharges from Lake Okeechobee, a major source of water for the region.
By setting a standard based on EPA guidelines, the bill aims to protect public health and the environment from the harmful effects of microcystins.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to restrict the Corps of Engineers' ability to discharge water from Lake Okeechobee under certain conditions. Specifically, discharges would be prohibited when microcystin levels exceed EPA recommendations.
This could lead to reduced exposure to harmful algal blooms for individuals using recreational waters. It may also necessitate alternative water management strategies for Lake Okeechobee.
The bill could also lead to legal challenges or debates over the interpretation and enforcement of the water quality standards.
Potential Benefits
- Improved water quality in areas downstream of Lake Okeechobee.
- Reduced risk of exposure to harmful algal blooms for recreational users.
- Potential positive impact on tourism and the economy related to recreational activities.
- Enhanced protection of aquatic ecosystems.
- Increased public awareness of water quality issues.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for increased water levels in Lake Okeechobee if discharges are restricted.
- Possible negative impacts on agricultural water supply if alternative discharge routes are limited.
- Potential economic costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the discharge prohibition.
- Possible legal challenges regarding the interpretation and application of the EPA's water quality criteria.
- Potential for unintended consequences if the bill leads to unforeseen changes in water management practices.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the general welfare clause of the Constitution, as it aims to protect public health and the environment. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) could also be relevant, as the regulation of waterways and their impact on interstate commerce has been historically justified under this clause.
Congress's power to legislate on matters related to navigable waters has been established through numerous Supreme Court cases. The bill's focus on water quality and its potential impact on interstate commerce provides a basis for its constitutionality.
However, the bill's specific requirements could be subject to legal challenges based on arguments related to federal overreach or the taking of private property without just compensation (Fifth Amendment), depending on its impact on water rights and property values.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).