As always, the crucial ingredients in a report on scientific or technical disputes is not only the central facts of the debate, but also an explicit account of who is providing those facts. Mr. Morgan is not really providing us with these story elements. He does an admirable job providing a good combination of scientific and economic evidence, both for and against the new EPA oversight. But exactly where those facts are coming from is unclear. For example, in the 10th paragraph, he lists some of the effects of high nutrient levels in Florida water systems, but does not say where who documented these phenomena, and more importantly, who is claiming a causal link between them and high nutrient levels. That being said, environmental policy debates are tremendously complex, and the author does an excellent job summarizing the crucial facets of the debate into a succinct article. It weaves together the environmental, economic, and political narratives of this story together in a balanced, informative article. Mr. Curtis did not produce the scientific journalism I want to read, but this article is a strong move in that direction.