Sarasota County is proving that restrictions on fertilizers work
Recently, the Herald-Tribune published an article entitled “Fertilizer bans need more study.”
The article covered a report titled “Effectiveness of the Timing of Seasonal Fertilizer Restrictions on Urban Landscapes.” The report, which was commissioned by the Florida Legislature and written by the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, concluded that “Florida needs a thorough, years-long study to determine whether local fertilizer ordinances decrease water pollution that can feed algae blooms.”
However, nowhere in the report is there any suggestion that urban fertilizer ordinances, such as the one adopted by the Sarasota County Commission, are currently ineffective in reducing harmful nutrients. In fact, if you dig deeper into many of the studies referenced in the report, you will find support for fertilizer restrictions.
There is also nothing in the University of Florida IFAS report that suggests seasonal urban fertilizer bans are bad for water quality; in fact, they have made positive impacts. For one, urban fertilizer bans can be implemented at little to no cost to local governments – and fertilizer manufacturers have been producing products that comply with these ordinances for years now.
Meanwhile, cost-effective measures like urban fertilizer ordinances have greatly reduced the need for more costly infrastructure projects.
Despite all of this evidence, however, it’s not surprising that the report offered this recommendation: “To fully understand the effect of fertilizer ordinances and other strategies to mitigate nutrient pollution and improve water quality, thorough study of the topic is required.”
Unfortunately, research institutions are known for constantly promoting the need to conduct more taxpayer-funded research, which often results in paralysis by analysis.
It makes no sense to spend more hard-earned taxpayer dollars on yet another study that will simply confirm what everyone already knows: less nitrogen on the ground means less nitrogen polluting our lakes, streams, rivers and bays.
Advocates and elected officials have always recognized the lack of “perfect knowledge” because of the complications created by local environmental conditions, soil profiles, topography, weather and the multitude of other human-based nutrient sources.
It is also unfortunate that the report made the egregious contention that fertilizer bans can consume “attention, efforts, and funds that potentially could have been more effective if allocated to reducing human waste impacts” – yet provided zero evidence to support that conclusion.
In fact, Sarasota County and other Florida communities that have enacted fertilizer ordinances have been taking extraordinary steps to improve water quality. For example, here is just a partial list of Sarasota County’s efforts to combat nutrient pollution:
● Converting sewer treatment plants to advanced wastewater treatment.
● Creating the state’s first stormwater environmental utility.
● Funding one of the state’s most successful environmental lands protection programs.
● Launching habitat restoration projects such as Donna Bay and the Celery Fields.
These efforts, and many more, represent a local investment of close to $1 billion.
Elected officials have a duty and fiduciary responsibility to protect public health and spend taxpayer dollars wisely. There is nothing in the University of Florida IFAS report that would justify relaxing urban fertilizer restrictions – or making it more difficult for local officials to protect the waterways in their communities.
Jon Thaxton is a former Sarasota County commissioner and served on numerous water quality advisory committees including the Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force. He is currently a senior vice president at Gulf Coast Community Foundation and co-authored its “Community Playbook for Healthy Waterways” report.