Save the bay, ban the fertilizer
When people think about pollution choking the Chesapeake Bay, they often focus on sewage treatment plants, leaky urban storm drains, or farmers spreading poultry manure on their fields.
But what about those suburban lawns? Fertilizing farm fields is one thing. At least farmers do that for a socially useful purpose, to grow food for the rest of us to eat. But lawn fertilizer is an aesthetic thing. No one will starve without it. Some folks just like the look of a bright green spongy chemically enhanced lawn. It's kind of like a carpet outside your house -- and kind of like nature on steroids.
By some calculations, lawn fertilizer makes up 11 percent of the pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. That would make it at least as big of a problem as poultry manure, which makes up about 10 percent of the pollution flowing into the estuary from Maryland.
In an open letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley, a former Maryland Department of the Environment official, Vincent H. Berg, makes the case that the state should consider a ban on lawn fertilizer containing the phosphorus, a pollutant that helps to spur excessive algae growth. Similar bans on laundry and dish detergent containing phosphorus have been passed in recent years by the state. Perhaps it's time for the focus to shift to lawn fertilizer.
Check out Berg's letter to the Governror (which follows). And then stay tuned to see if he gets a response.
An Open Letter to the Governor of Maryland
October 25, 2007
Honorable Martin O’ Malley, Governor
State of Maryland
Maryland State House
Annapolis, Maryland, 21401
Re: Urban/Suburban Lands: Causing the Failure of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Dear Governor O’Malley:
There have been many stories about the Chesapeake Bay Program over the last several months. I thought I would give you my perspective concerning the Chesapeake Bay Program having lived with the Program for the past 25 years. I have worked closely in the urban/suburban programs (county and state level), forestry programs and agricultural programs of the Bay during my career. I have also been a member of the State Water Quality Advisory Committee, Middle Potomac Tributary Team, and local land conservation, agriculture and forestry committees.
The three main land use and facility areas of Bay Restoration are Agriculture, Wastewater and Urban/Suburban Lands. All of these groups must reach 100% of their goals if the Bay Restoration efforts are to be marginally successful. A great deal of progress has been made in two of these areas, Agriculture and Wastewater. As you can see from the enclosed tables (1 to 5) from the presentation by the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Office, based on Bay Restoration Goals, reductions for Agriculture are 45% for Total Nitrogen, 49% for Total Phosphorus and 43% for Sediment. The Wastewater component has reduced Total Nitrogen loads by 72% and Total Phosphorus by 87%.
Remember all three elements are needed to have a successful Bay Program with the established goals to be reached by the year 2010. Also consider that about 9% (18% in Maryland) of the Chesapeake Watershed area is in the Urban/Suburban category. After 25 years, the Urban/Suburban Lands component has increased the Total Nitrogen load by 90%, increased the Total Phosphorus load by 87% and increased the Sediment load by 57%. After 25 years the Urban/Suburban Lands programs is nearly twice the distance away from their required Chesapeake Bay Goals. How could such a situation have occurred with so many government agencies and technical people looking after this issue? The impact of Urban/Suburban Lands is now nearly twice as great (22%) on the Bay and a minor source is now a major source of pollutants and growing fast.
The basic problem is the entire population of the watershed (people), and the way we do not control our every day activities and the impacts of our urban/suburban life-style has on the watershed. In 2001 45% of the total nutrients (fertilizer) tonnage used in Maryland (farm and non-farm) was used on urban/suburban lands and it is projected to reach half of all nutrient (fertilizer) use shortly (see chart 9). We regulate and control agricultural nutrients, but have placed no controls on urban/suburban use of fertilizers in Maryland. As a major first step to control urban fertilizer use, many organizations have been supporting the need for retail sales of ‘Zero Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer’ to reduce nutrient loadings (this product should be less costly than current lawn fertilizer). I strongly urge you to move forward on this important legislative initiative this year.
The next issue is how we control or do not control the runoff from urban developing lands, redeveloping lands and infill development. Maryland Laws do not require documented improvement in runoff and water quality conditions when development occurs, only that Best Management Practices (BMPs) be employed on development projects. Your own environmental agency has said that development of urban/suburban lands reduces nutrient and sediment loads (TN= 25%, TP= 40% and TSS=40% all reductions) to the Bay. If this were true the attached graphics would be quit different. How is this false information helpful and honest to the Chesapeake Bay Program?
The Stormwater and New Development Task Group (SNDTG) within the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office has been assigning efficiency ratings to Urban/Suburban BMPs to be used in the Bay Model. The Bay Model will be used to predict progress in meeting the Bay’s Goals. The efficiencies the SNDTG are using are based on very little science and mostly on individual’s best judgment to assign efficiencies to the BMPs. To make matters worse they are assigning the first operational year (highest efficiency) to the BMPs as the efficiency rather than the mid life efficiency of each BMP. The model is being skewed to look better for Urban/Suburban BMPs than it will be in reality over the life of the BMPs. An honest Bay Model is needed to project accurate progress.
The need to utilize new, proven and innovative BMPs and the need for retrofitting existing developed areas with stormwater controls has not been the priority of your environmental regulatory agency. There should be documented "no net increase" in nutrient and sediment loads from all new development and major reductions from redevelopment projects.
As you know Senator Bernie Fowler has tried for 30 years to have one tributary of the Bay restored to a healthy condition and the "Wade In" has shown a continuous decline for the past 10+ years. It is unfortunate that during one of the greatest development periods in the history of Maryland we were not able to make positive progress towards the Urban/Suburban Goals of the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay Restorations.
It is my hope that I and the many constitute groups that have a stake in the ultimate success of the Chesapeake Bay Program can provide additional support and advice to your Office in developing more effective means for the protection and restoration of Maryland’s waters and reversing the Urban/Suburban Lands problems quickly or the Bay Restoration effort will be lost.
Sincerely,
Vincent H. Berg, P.E.,
Vincent H. Berg, P.E. has worked on urban environmental issues for the past 34 years. Mr. Berg was the former Director of the Sediment and Stormwater Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment from 1989 to 1992. Mr. Berg is currently a member of the Middle Potomac Tributary Team and local land conservation, agriculture and forestry committees.
I report on the environment and Chesapeake Bay. A native of West Virginia, I have focused mainly on Maryland's environment since moving here in 1983. Along the way, I've crewed aboard a skipjack in the bay, canoed under city streets up the Jones Fall from the Inner Harbor, and gone deep underground in a western Maryland coal mine. Recently, I have been covering the growth and development transforming the landscape. I love seafood, rambles in the country and good stories. I hope to share some here.
