By HYONHEE SHIN
Dec. 8, 2009
LANSING, Mich. — Some Michigan lawmakers are seeking to protect streams and lakes by restricting phosphorus lawn fertilizer use.
Under a bill by Rep. Terry Brown, D-Pigeon, property owners wouldn’t be able to use lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus unless a soil test concludes the existing level of phosphorus is too low or they’re growing new turf.
Allegan, Ottawa, Muskegon, Van Buren, Bay and Saginaw counties have adopted a ban, as has Ann Arbor, according to the Department of Agriculture. Similar ordinances have been adopted by Battle Creek, Novi, Ferrysburg, East Grand Rapids and Cannon, Bloomfield, Spring Lake and Pittsfield townships.
Michigan State University Extension offices offer a soil test for about $8, Brown said. If the test verifies the need for phosphorus fertilizers, property owners could use it for three years under the proposal.
Brown said phosphorus may cause water pollution.
“When you overfertilize a lawn with phosphorus and there’s leftover on driveways, where does it go? That gets washed away with rain down into sewers, then out to rivers, streams and lakes, and it’s polluting,” said Brown.
Charles Bauer, an analyst with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Water Bureau, said most soils in Michigan have sufficient phosphorus to support turfgrass growth.
“In some cases, additions of phosphorus are needed but generally not,” said Bauer. “Most homeowners don’t test their soil to determine whether phosphorus addition is needed and likely are overapplying it if they use standard phosphorus fertilizer mixes.”
Bauer said the primary hazard of phosphorus fertilizers is that they often end up on impervious surfaces such as sidewalks and driveways where direct runoff occurs.
“When phosphorus gets into the water, it’s like fertilizing the river and you boost growth of aquatic plants,” he said. “This can lead to a nuisance condition in our rivers and lakes.”
Kevin Frank, an Extension turfgrass specialist in Michigan State University’s Crop and Soil Sciences Department, said simple practices such as sweeping or blowing fertilizer back onto the lawn can minimize such risks.
“Phosphorus is an essential nutrient required for plant growth and development, especially during establishment,” he said. “I don’t perceive the proper use of phosphorus-containing fertilizers as a hazard.”
However, Frank’s primary concern is homeowners who apply complete fertilizers containing high phosphorus levels.
“In these instances, the amount of phosphorus is mostly excessive,” Frank said. “If a soil test is taken on whether phosphorus is needed, any risk of applying phosphorus when not necessary would be eliminated.”
April Hunt, bulk storage and fertilizer program manager with the Department of Agriculture, said the use of such fertilizers could be reduced.
“I don’t think it’s being used too abundantly, but excessive phosphorus fertilizers may cause problems with water and algae blooms. Not just fertilizer, but phosphorus itself could be harmful to organism in general,” said Hunt.
Concern with excess nutrient runoff has led a number of municipalities and counties to ban or restrict phosphorus fertilizers, but the effectiveness of such laws had been an open question until a University of Michigan study on the bans’ impact.
Researchers found that phosphorus levels in waterways dropped by an average of 28 percent over two years after Ann Arbor prohibited the use of phosphorus on lawns in 2006.
Janis Bobrin, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, said she’s seen a significant reduction in phosphorus concentrations in the Huron River since the city ordinance took effect.
“Additional analysis is being performed to determine more about the relationship between the ordinance, water quality improvement and other variables, but the ordinance is undoubtedly a factor,” Bobrin said.
She said the Middle Huron Watershed is under a federal mandate to reduce phosphorus levels in its waterways by 50 percent, and reducing lawn care chemicals will be important in achieving that target.
Bans on phosphorus fertilizers have been imposed throughout the country. Minnesota in 2004 became the first state to enact a statewide restriction. In Florida, statewide restrictions went into effect in 2008.
Hunt, at the Agriculture Department, said about 4,000 kinds of zero-phosphorus fertilizers are available.
Joe Rathbun of the DEQ Water Bureau said Brown’s bill would measurably lower the amount of phosphorus getting into water bodies.
“The point is not to ban all fertilizer use, just the excessive use,” Rathbun said. “The trick is to not use more fertilizer than is necessary to maintain a healthy lawn, plus follow other practices of environmentally friendly lawn care — keep grass clippings, don’t use more herbicide or insecticide than is absolutely necessary and cut grass high enough to tolerate dry spells.”
Dave Dempsey, a board member of the Alliance for the Great Lakes and communication director for Conservation Minnesota, a Minneapolis-based nonprofit organization, said phosphorus fertilizers do more harm than good in most situations.
“If Michigan is serious about protecting the Great Lakes, it should enact a statewide ban on the sale of phosphorous lawn fertilizers. Minnesota has done so and lawns are still green in the summer,” said Dempsey, a former environmental advisor to ex-Gov. James Blanchard.
Co-sponsors include Reps. Daniel Scripps, D-Leland; Fred Miller, D-Mount Clemens; Gabe Leland, D-Detroit; Ellen Cogen Lipton, D-Huntington Woods; Tim Bledsoe, D-Grosse Pointe; Marie Donigan, D-Royal Oak; Sarah Roberts, D-St. Clair Shores; and Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing.
The bill is pending in the House Great Lakes and Environment Committee.
Hyonhee Shin reports for Capital News Service
© 2009, Capital News Service, Michigan State University School of Journalism. Not to be reproduced without permission.
It is recognized by the UNESCO on December 4, 1999 as a World Heritage Site.
This resort is in the prime location of buffer zone of the
Ha Do Park Side. Just how an ancient population,
now long gone, managed to pile up huge stones in the absence of modern equipment and put exquisite carvings into them still amazes me to this day.
Phosphorus is not available in all soils. Statements implying that our soils have enough phosphorus for our lawns…..What about phosphorus need for the trees. Recent soil samples at a depth necessary for tree root growth shows a lack of phosphorus. Example: Sample in a “natural woody” environment – lab soil analysis is only 17% – 34% of the desired Phosphorus levels. Did we forget about the need for phosphorus in the trees?????????
I agree with Alex
Pingback: More of our favorite reader comments from 2009 | Great Lakes Echo
Like the article says, phosphorus is a critical element for plant growth. It also says that the vast majority of owners do not conduct soil tests. In areas where phosphorus is deficient in the soil and is not being supplied in general maintenance fertilizers because of a ban, does this pose a significant risk of an unintended consequence? Won’t turfgrass begin to decline and thin, leading to erosion and pollution of bodies of water from soil and silt? What about the other causes of pollution to bodies of water in Michigan? Tree leaves naturally wash into our stormwater systems at much greater quantities than fertilizer spills, and contain greater amounts of phosphorus. What about people who deliberately rake or dump leaves or other yard waste into bodies of water? Shouldn’t this be addressed as well? I agree, that an over enrichment of bodies of water may exist, but I’m not convinced that fertilizers are even close to being the biggest culprit.
Soil tests should be required. It took me some time but I finally got a landscape contractor to do a soil test on my client’s property that should that Phosphorous was off the charts. When people have tests that include explanations of the results (UMASS does a good job of this) people know exactly what to buy.
The idea of a phosphorus ban may have technical merit, but how is it enforceable? Do we need an invasive government department taking lawn samples? Would a reduction in use occur if fertilizer prices rose considerably?
Thank you for taking the time to reply. Please stay on this issue as it is certainly of interest to the environmental community (and I hope it is of interest to the greater Michigan population!)
Thank you for your interest in my article. During research, I found an implication of opposition among manufacturers but all of those I contacted declined to make comments. However, I learned that zero-phosphorus manufacturing is now a dominant industrial trend along with environmental concerns.
Also, there’s a companion bill introduced by Rep. Mary Valentine which would ban the display for retail sale of phosphorus fertilizers and require signage to make it available only upon request for permitted uses. I found that currently most objections regarding phosphorus lawn fertilizers focus on whether the sale ban should accompany the fertilizer ban.
Organizations like Michigan Townships Association are saying that without the companion bill, the state would be better off leaving in place current and future local ordinances to protect water bodies. In this context, I also received an Email from a reader from the Michigan Chapter Soil and Water Conservation Society, mentioning he’s found it difficult to find lawn fertilizers without phosphorus in local retailers.
I hope this helps you clear some of concerns. I’ll come back and let you know when I see any move from the Legislature.
This is a great article and congrats to Rep. Terry Brown. Questions: who is opposing this bill? Will it fly through? What does the fertilizer industry say about this?