THIS IS AN URGENT CALL TO ACTION TO EMAIL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAITLAND IN CONNECTION WITH A SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 23, 2020.
On March 9, 2020, the City of Maitland’s City Council voted to schedule a public hearing on March 23, 2020, to vote on an amendment to their summertime fertilizer ban. The current ordinance allows a professional exemption to the four-month summertime ban. However, the proposed amendment removes that exemption.
GIVEN THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS ON GATHERINGS AND TRAVEL FOR SO MANY, EREF DOES NOT RECOMMEND ATTENDING THE HEARING.
HOWEVER, ACTION IS IMPORTANT. Accordingly, we strongly encourage stakeholders from the industry to let the City Council know their strong opposition to the amendment. Real people, especially locals and those with business in the City, will certainly be the most effective at getting the City Council to rethink this action. This has been proven time and time again.
The easiest and most personal way to accomplish this is to simply send an email to the City Commissioners. This can be easily done by using their single email address that will reach all members of the City Council as follows: email@example.com .
If you need some wording ideas, see the standard message at the email campaign hub shown below, or review the documents at the link below.
Alternately, and also easy, EREF has set up a central email campaign hub with a message of opposition to the amendment. Anyone going to the link below can enter their NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS, LOCATION (city of residence and/or business location), and AFFILIATION (business or association name). You may also enter an optional brief personal message, which will appear IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD MESSAGE SHOWN ON THE PAGE.
The email campaign hub can be found here: http://www.ereflorida.com/campaign/
EREF attended the City Council Meeting on March 9th and provided testimony opposing the amendment, as well as substantial support for leaving the exemption in place. Our support materials can be found in the first four links shown here: http://www.ereflorida.com/downloads/
Local Government Sewer Spills in the News
These stories appeared in Florida Politics on February 25, 2020 and and March 2, 2020, and are required reading for anyone interested in the truth about Florida’s water quality problems.
February 25, 2020 –
March 2, 2020 –
Who are the Real Polluters?
For over ten years. local governments have considered and often passed local ordinances banning the application of fertilizer on lawns and landscapes, primarily in the summer growing season (June, July, August and September). EREF was initially created in those early days to speak out against the junk science used to justify these bans. Unfortunately, local elected officials have found it easy to pass these one-size-fits-all ordinances that punish green industry professionals rather than to reveal one of the root causes of Florida’s nutrient impairments – namely their own sins.
For decades local governments dumped their sanitary sewer wastewater, loaded with nutrients, directly into Florida’s waters with impunity. For more decades, many of those same local governments neglected those systems in terms of their age or their capacity, leaving them vulnerable to breaks, spills and flood-related discharges. Talk about the need for a rainy season ban – how about NO FLUSHING FOR FOUR MONTHS. Also, for decades, many local governments failed to implement Advanced Water Treatment upgrades to their systems, which alone would have dramatically accelerated water quality improvements. In the March 2nd story above, Senator Joe Gruters is quoted as saying “…government is one of the worst polluters overall“.
So why the neglect and hand-sitting? We have a theory called “Local Control Means Blaming Others”.
Before anyone goes crazy, we support local control in most cases. Locals know what’s best for them – again, in general. However, this is a highly technical and very very expensive problem, and while local utilities have smart people on staff, funding must come from elected officials who (spoiler alert) don’t like raising rates or taxes, especially around election time. The unfortunate result is that band aids and bull feathers rule the day. And, oh yes, the scapegoating of others like the experienced and trained professionals in the green industry who provide and protect urban greenspaces – some of natures best filters. Punishing the innocent is never justifiable and it’s never good public policy.
These spills, and the mindset that causes them, are an epidemic in Florida. They happen ALL THE TIME. You haven’t heard as much about them as you should because the news often gets released in the dark of night, and the regulatory consequences of spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons on raw sewage and wastewater into sensitive systems is sometimes only A FEW HUNDRED BUCKS (see Alachua County’s GRU). That’s a pretty sweet deal, don’t you think? Even larger fines, while better, belie the massive costs of the neglected maintenance they reflect.
Can you imagine the outrage that would follow if PICK-A-NAME LANDSCAPING made such a discharge? Of course you can – and the hypocrisy is epic.
Fortunately, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection usually steps in and forces the issue. Elected officials can then conveniently blame the state for what they failed to do when it should have been done and when it would have been much more affordable. Maybe even lobby for a bailout. Very discouraging.
The conclusion? For starters, there needs to be a statewide policy on fertilizer management to replace the jurisdictional chaos that now exists, and it needs to be based on real peer-reviewed science. Ultimately, the overdue improvements to local infrastructure will just have to be made as well. It looks now like the Legislature is getting wise to the shortcomings of local control on water quality management, particularly as it relates to sewer spills and septic, and are stepping in to make things better. We really hope it goes somewhere.
On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, EREF authorized its law firm, Manson, Bolves, Donaldson, Varn, P.A. (Tampa, Florida) to send a letter to the City of Naples demanding that it repeal its fertilizer ordinance within 30 days or face legal action by EREF. A copy of the letter can be found HERE.
In addition, EREF authorized the issuance of a related press release which can be found HERE.
Throughout Florida, water managers, local governments and industry leaders are talking about water supply. With the ongoing growth of Florida’s population and the expansion of its urban footprint, water is needed for drinking, industry and irrigation, all without impairing Florida’s critical natural resources, wetlands, springs, rivers and estuaries.
The big question is: Will there be enough water for all these needs? The answer depends on who you are talking to, but there is considerable concern about future water supplies and what can be done now, and in the future, to ensure critical needs are met.
Without delving too far into the weeds, water supplies are being extensively studied, usually on a regional basis, over long future periods up to 50 years. These studies simultaneously look at existing and potential future water supplies and compare them to estimated future uses. It is inevitable that a spotlight falls on landscape irrigation uses, the latter often being referred to as nonessential.
With that said, no one seriously argues that irrigation is more important than ensuring an ample supply of safe drinking water. However, what is arguable are efforts to prematurely legislate restrictions on irrigation before exploring the remarkable benefits of existing best management practices (BMPs) which are by no means fully deployed, and of future BMPs which will improve water conservation and irrigation efficiency. At EREF, we believe you can have your cake and irrigate it too (or something like that).
For many of us in the industry, it is frustrating to see landscape ordinances to limit turf and plants on home sites, to restrict certain types of turf and plants from being used at all, to promote “turf replacement” programs, and other similarly-targeted programs when so many great alternatives exist. Here are just a few for consideration:
- Expansion of conservation technologies like soil-moisture sensors and smart irrigation controllers across the urban spectrum
- Incorporation of smart irrigation design directly into the Florida Building Code – it is almost incomprehensible that it currently is not!
- Systematic replacement of clock and calendar water management with water budgets, thus allowing homeowners and other water consumers to employ a reasonable amount of irrigation water as they see fit (versus some local government or water authority’s notion of what that might be).
- Utilization of soil-quality measures to promote healthy landscapes, including the use of modern soil amendments and additives which dramatically improve water conservation and plant health.
- Incentives for the above items, consistent with the effective incentives offered historically for water-conserving and power-conserving appliances, etc.
- Promoting the principles of Florida Friendly Landscaping properly through extension, education and industry outreach.
Until all of these are fully explored, regulations and restrictions are simply unnecessary. Beyond that, industry is constantly expanding its efforts and developing new turf and plant varieties, increasing the use of suitable native plant materials, and developing ever more practices that taken together make smart irrigation a sustainable part of Florida’s long-term water future.
The origins of EREF date back to some of the very first summertime fertilizer blackouts in Florida. As you know, many local governments believe that eliminating ALL fertilizer applications during the summer will result in improved water quality, particularly if they have impaired or polluted water bodies. However well-meaning these ordinances may be, they do not square with the evidence and are likely more harmful that beneficial.
EREF’s approach to fighting these ordinances has evolved and can be summarized in the following bullets:
- EREF supports the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) updated Model Fertilizer Ordinance, as well as the findings in its comprehensive fertilizer study which can be found at this link. https://wfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/turfgrass-science/nutrient-management-research/fdep-funded-study/
- The fertilizer blackout ordinances are not supported by FDEP, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), any of the State’s water management districts, nor any academic/research institutions.
- While exemptions to the summertime blackouts exist in many of the ordinances for certain industry stakeholders, it is false comfort – the blackouts erode public confidence in industry best practices across the board.
- There is ZERO peer-reviewed evidence of adverse impacts resulting from properly-applied urban fertilizer, and considerable peer-reviewed evidence supporting its safe and sustainable application by professionals and BMP-trained homeowners.
- There is ZERO evidence of benefit to any of the jurisdiction who HAVE adopted blackouts. In most cases, other causalities have been clearly identified including septic discharges and others unrelated to urban fertilizer.
In an effort to minimize the adverse impacts of the blackouts and to support the universal goal of protecting water quality in Florida, EREF has taken the following position in recent public hearings:
- EREF believes blackout ordinances can serve two beneficial purposes – to educate the public about the proper application of fertilizer, and to reduce the potential impacts associated with those who do not follow best practices, specifically those who fertilize driveways and sidewalks, and who blow grass clippings into storm drains.
- Exemptions for BMP trained professionals are earned, appropriate and should be immediately extended to licensed lawn-care professionals in many jurisdictions where only golf, sports turf and farming are currently exempted.
- Regardless of exemptions, blackout periods should coincide with dormant/cooler months and not be imposed during the active growing season for plants and turf. Legislating that fertilizer can only be applied outside of the growing season serves to dramatically increase the likelihood of adverse consequences resulting from reduced take up by plant materials in or near dormancy.
This simple approach is an important first step in conforming public policy on managed greenspaces to the clear and convincing evidence. Amending existing ordinances to extend exemptions to licensed lawn-care professionals is a key EREF strategy, along with resisting any expansion of summertime blackouts elsewhere in the state.
EREF’s efforts extend beyond these issues as well. Please follow EREF on Twitter @EREFlorida, on Facebook @EREFlorida, and please support your industry by making a donation on our website at www.EREFlorida.com/support.
Many municipalities in Florida have adopted restrictive fertilizer ordinances that are unsubstantiated by science. It is encouraging that some municipalities are now adopting ordinances that restrict use of fertilizers during winter months rather than during active growth seasons. Both UF/IFAS Extension and Florida’s water management districts offer education regarding ordinances applicable in their service regions in which the ultimate goal is to provide non-biased science based education that supports optimal landscape performance with minimal inputs. There are many facets of a fertilizer education campaign. Campaigns that focus primarily on skipping fertilizer miss the opportunity to educate consumers on applying proper amounts at the right time using proper application methods. Improper application during any period including non-restricted periods can contribute to ecosystem contamination. Summer ban campaigns also fail to educate citizens on the physiological nutritional needs of plants during active growth to remain dense healthy stands which in turn reduce erosion, runoff and leaching.
Although, other nutrient sources such as Iron (helps with Nitrogen metabolism and chlorophyll synthesis hence the temporary greening), Potassium, Magnesium and Manganese can help plants get through periods of stress and times of potential disease pressure, the point is to manage plant growth appropriately to reduce stress that may cause thin and unhealthy stands resulting in increased erosion, runoff and disease.
Although, there is little question that improperly applied lawn and garden fertilizers can potentially contribute to ecosystem contamination, other nutrient sources represent the greatest nitrate contributors to surface and groundwater contamination. These include: waste water treatment plants, livestock/poultry wastes, fossil fuel emissions, septic systems and domestic animal wastes as well as lawn clippings and leaves left or blown into the street and entering storm drains. Citizens should be educated on all possible nutrient source contributors and actions they can take to help reduce all sources.
Over irrigation is also attributed to soil erosion and runoff from landscapes. Many citizens don’t know how much rain has fallen or understand how to adjust irrigation systems to account for rainfall and evapotranspiration. Efforts to encourage citizens to adopt smart irrigation controllers and soil moisture sensors would be a positive measure toward reducing erosion and runoff. Since soils in this region are phosphate available, efforts to reduce erosion will reduce algae blooms which when they die can cause fresh water eutrophication.
To truly help address these issues effectively, citizens need to be educated regarding all potential ecosystem contamination sources and actions that they can take to protect the waters. The best possible outcomes can be achieved by all stakeholder groups working together to promote legitimate science-based management practices and promoting citizen education regarding all nutrient source ecosystem contamination contributors and alternative corrective actions and strategies.
Commercial Hort / IPM / Small Farms Agent
UF/IFAS Extension Hillsborough County
I recently observed the anniversary of the passing of my father, Howard Carraway. Dad was originally a newspaper man of the old school, which is to say that he actually practiced journalism. He was simultaneously a businessman, operating a printing business in his homeland of South Carolina until he moved his young family to Fort Pierce, Florida in early 1959. There, he continued his business, and worked for The News Tribune as an investigative reporter and as a writer of a column called Cracker Barrel. It was something we would think of as a lifestyle column today, in which he reflected on all manner of things, including the natural beauty of Florida’s interior, as you will see below.
Dad was all about personal freedom and personal responsibility, and bridled at intrusive government. It is not ironic at all that he could have that kind of sensibility and still appreciate what many of us love about Florida – its natural places. Sounds like most of the people I know in the Green Industries. It is personally insulting to me (and probably to you too) that there are people who would condemn the urban landscape as anathema to those natural places. Let me just say that’s just crazy talk. And even in 1959, Dad saw the complete compatibility of the two.
I am proud to share this with you, because I believe you will find his writing to be special, and his storytelling to be both charming and inspiring.
Cracker Barrel / By Howard Carraway / October 6, 1959
Florida is a beautiful land, naturally. Although a late comer, a new arrival, I’m no snowbird. It was Florida in the winter that I came to see and visit, but it is Florida in the spring and summer that I have stayed to enjoy and admire equally, and that is to say, excessively.
Such lushness of growth, such cleanness of air, such wetness of water! It is a fine combination of excess and moderation that appeals to me, and the wilder and more “original” it is, the more it appeals.
The prairies are the places I have like the best of all I’ve seen in seven months. Enough of them should be preserved permanently to give a fellow a place to go and lose himself in the vastness and isolation almost like a desert. The coast is delightful, and the water is, of course, fine. The highways are beautiful and efficient, and the city is a joy to live in. Yet there is a magnificence about the back country that defies comparison. It is unique, yet to me it was as familiar the first time I saw it as though I had been there before. There was, in the roughest sense, a communion of spirits, and even the mosquitoes seemed to know me. They flew right up and sat down.
The first trip into the back country, it was to fish in the ditches of an abandoned tomato field. Isn’t that something, now, to drive 40 miles, much of it over rough, swampy country, leaving behind some of the finest fishing waters in the world, to cast a plug in a ditch you could spit across? It may seem dizzy, but after the first cast which brought a scrappy five-pound bass onto the bank, it makes the best kind of good sense.
There was much more than just hungry black bass to appeal to one, too. Two whooping cranes, so rare as to be practically extinct, launched themselves almost awkwardly to the air, and blasted their hoarse, hollow klaxon horns over the savanna. It was one of the most exciting events of my outdoor life. I saw them again foraging in the palmettos.
I saw wild turkeys, an alligator, and huge herds of slick, red beef cattle miles from the nearest barn. I saw quail in great abundance, a hundred varieties of birds, some of which I had never seen before and others that had been so long unseen as to be practically forgotten. I saw great cottonmouths, and turf freshly rooted up by wild pigs. Deer trails, raccoon tracks, and what seemed like thousands of crows.
Many of these things can be seen closer to the centers of civilization than I was on this memorable first journey into the interior. But I don’t believe they will be found in such abundance, nor in such compatible surroundings. A wild turkey trotting through the palmettos at daybreak looks just as natural as an alley cat darting across 26th street at dusk.
Floridians take them for granted, but the newcomer is quite a while accepting them as natural phenomena, for the hammock is a thing of beauty too, like a landscaper had forced it into that shape. It fits where it is, and you wouldn’t want it moved or changed. Until you finally come to recognize it as a natural occurrence, you think someone is playing tricks on you.
A hammock is an oasis, a natural place for life to gravitate. I feel drawn to one as though my chair and slippers were waiting, and the evening paper opened to the sports page.
In three stories or editorials (May 19th 29th and 30th, 2015) the Bradenton Herald wrote about the tremendous recovery in seagrass beds in Tampa Bay – news all Floridians should be absolutely thrilled about. A reading of these pieces includes far more than a suggestion that there is a cause-and-effect connection between the seagrass bed recoveries and the fertilizer blackout component of the relevant fertilizer ordinances passed in the region (Pinellas-2010; City of Tampa-2011; Manatee-2011).
Confessing that this blog advocates for the Green Industries (turfgrass, landscape, golf, professional lawn care, etc.), and that I have strong feelings about personal property rights, I’ll defer offering my own assessment of those editorial suggestions. Instead, let me use the information offered by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) itself.
The following comes from an article published on TBO.com on March 22, 2014. In that article, the TBEP was attributed as stating that 34,642 acres of seagrass beds had recovered through 2012, only 3,358 acres shy of the TBEP’s total goal of 38,000 acres. The TBEP went on to say that 1,745 of those recovered acres happened from 2010 – 2012. That means that the balance of the recovery (32,897 acres) occurred in 2009 or before. For starters, that means that 87% of the TBEP goal is indisputably UN-attributable to the fertilizer blackout policies. Stated another way, that means that 95% of the 34,642 recovered acres happened before 2010 when the first blackout was passed. Finally, that means that looking at the implementation years (passage-year plus 1) of the blackouts (Pinellas-2011; City of Tampa-2012; Manatee-2012), it is clear to see that 0% of the recovered acres could be attributable to blackout policies.
Fast-forward to the TBEP’s most recent inventory of 40,295 acres of recovered seagrass beds. That is an additional 5,653 acres from the 2012 count (i.e. in 2013 and 2014). Looking again at the implementation dates, at the acknowledged fact that the blackouts are largely unenforced, at the enormous scale of the endeavor, at the relatively slow seagrass growth rates (studies of compensatory seagrass replacement suggest average density recoveries ranging from 3 to 17 years), and given the beneficial impact of the significant “side populations” of already-recovered beds, no reasonable person could say that these recoveries have any significant connection whatsoever to the blackout element of the fertilizer ordinances noted. In addition, you must logically say that the blackouts have not added anything material to the improvement of the bay – what was working before 2012 (pre-blackout) is simply still working.
OK, so what happened then? I feel like I can express an educated opinion on this, completely apart from my involvement with the Green Industries. Having spent two terms on the SWFWMD’s Manasota Basin Board, and having been a consistent supporter in that role of the TBEP and its efforts connected with Tampa Bay, the answer is, in a way, easier than you might think. Further, the TBO.com article really makes my case. Namely that subsequent to the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, local governments and industry got seriously busy doing the right things. They quit dumping effluents in the bay, they adopted strict management techniques for stormwater and nutrient management, and they partnered with the FDEP, SWFWMD and TBEP on huge reclamation and treatment projects. And in the ensuing decades, like a battleship on a new bearing, those efforts continued, the bay started to respond, and it has picked up the glorious head of steam it now enjoys. Once again, the efforts and forces at work, worked! Kudos of the highest order to all involved.
Given this information, is it simply OK now to say of the blackouts “OK, no harm, no foul”? No, no, no. There is a flagrant foul in the form of the punitive impacts on an industry that was in fact a partner in the solution. Then there is a foul in the blackout legacy that is adversely impacting other communities (e.g. the Indian River Lagoon / IRL area). Having attended numerous public hearings in that region, I heard blackout enablers say over and over and over again “Look at Tampa Bay’s recovery that happened because of their blackout ordinances – you need to do that here too”. Sadly, in spite of the Green Industry’s extensive efforts to provide the local media and local elected officials the crystal-clear facts above, some of those local governments opted to include the blackout element in their ordinances, and, in my opinion, their citizens were sold a bill of goods that the IRL was going to miraculously recover because of it. Spoiler alert – it hasn’t. The reality is that until those local governments take the hard (and expensive) steps that were taken in southwest Florida to address the real root causes, including septic reform, reclaimed water redirection, and aggressive stormwater management and treatment, the IRL is going to remain impaired. Low-hanging fruit in this issue is a myth. I lay the legacy of false hope squarely at the feet of the leadership of the blackout enablers who perpetrated a real fiction on those east coast elected officials and residents looking for answers.
To those who say the blackouts are a means of educating the public on responsible fertilizer use, I would suggest that we try a radical approach that the SWFWMD has used very successfully in natural resource protection matters (in lieu of a punitive regulatory-first mentality). Wait for it – it’s called… education! I think people want to do the right things and should be given the benefit of the doubt – not a 2 x 4.
Based on the TBEP data then, the informed outcome would be to repeal the blackouts. Short of that, they should be revisited with meaningful stakeholder workshops to get a thorough and balanced look at the science and the facts. Then having done some actual due diligence, we can come up with something a little more sophisticated than the blackouts. Isn’t that what good government is supposed to do?
Over the life of EREF, we have all seen a lot of environmental “activism” taking place. It covers a broad range of opinion, attitude and accuracy (or lack thereof!).
Part of the evolution of EREF has been in how to best serve the Green Industries in order to deal with that broad range of activities, particularly when it starts to impact policy making at all levels of regulation and government – including water management districts, local/regional water authorities and city / county / state governments. We have seen efforts in each of these arenas aimed at changing what we do and how we do it. More often than not, if left unchecked, these changes hurt us and our business unfairly, unnecessarily or disproportionately.
Having spent over twenty years dealing with water-management issues, I can attest to the complexity of the subject and how overwhelming it can seem when in the midst of a rulemaking, regulatory or legislative process that imposes negative consequences on the industry. But as importantly, I have been involved in enough of these processes to say that in many cases, there is a core of people from the relevant stakeholder groups who really want to find a workable solution for everyone. I think it is in our nature to be problem solvers and so this is the “sweet spot” where we really need to try to be.
That said, there are going to be exceptions too – extremists who will never be happy with anything less than the eradication of man’s footprint from the State of Florida. I won’t name any names but you can picture some of these folks from past dust-ups who would portray you and what you do as monstrous, and who will say incredibly scary and untrue things about the impacts of improved lawns and landscapes in order to move public opinion toward bad policies.
Listen, I know you and the heart of this industry, and better yet, you know it yourselves. Some of the most inspirational messages I have heard in these discussions around the state about water quality and water use come from those of you who live and work in the business every day, and who would never endanger the beauty and special nature of Florida’s water resources for any reason.
We say it over and over because we need to – the Green Industries have been developing, improving and implementing highly-effective practices for decades, which have been integral to virtually every clean-water and water conservation outcome out there – Tampa Bay being an excellent example (more about that soon).
When we get down to it, EREF and its industry partners and friends, have to take their positive message to others to let them know what we do and how we do it. We have to win the hearts and minds of the public and ultimately those who are responsible for policy making that impacts us. We intend to accomplish that with research, education, good science and collaboration – but we’ll certainly fight if we need to!
Keep Living Green Florida!