The Phosphorus Question

Plans are underway today for the city council of St. Paul, Minn., to vote on an ordinance banning the use of phosphorus in lawn fertilizer. The ordinance, already passed in late September by the Minneapolis city council, identifies phosphorus as a leading cause of water pollution in the Twin City metro area because the nutrient reportedly causes algae growth. Thus far, this regulation has faced both support and opposition throughout the industry and the region.

Alison Fong, environmental inspector for the city of Minneapolis, explained that the regulation initially came about in an attempt to be proactive and stress industry-wide education. "Water quality is a very important issue here in the city, and the future is in the chain of lakes," she said. "They are directly affected by what happens in the land around them, and in many lakes phosphorus is the limiting nutrient. It's certainly easier to prevent the problem than react to it - we can prevent something bad from happening."

However, while phosphorus may exacerbate water pollution, fertilizer application may not be solely responsible for the phosphorus runoff, said Bob Fitch, executive director of the Minnesota Nursery & Landscape Association, St. Paul, Minn. "We have consistently been vocal in stating the fact that we don't believe that phosphorus fertilizer, properly applied, is contributing significantly to the greening of the lakes in the area," he said. "What's interesting is our lawn care applicators in the Twin Cites are already almost without exception at 0 percent phosphorus."

Fitch said part of the problem lies in the inconsistency of regulations from city to city, and that a state-wide law would avoid the "patchwork quilt" result of varied ordinances. This would then prevent lawn care operators from preparing several fertilizer formulations to coordinate with each city's law.

Woody Love is mayor of Shorewood, Minn., a city where the idea for the regulation partly originated. Love also emphasized the need for a consistent, state-wide law. "We're not asking for a ban, and we're aware 'ban' is not a good word to use in this country," he continued. "But in Minnesota, water quality is part of the economy and property value as well as a natural resource."

Yet, he identified large fertilizer manufacturers as obstacles when pushing for water quality and continuing education about phosphorus pollution. "A lot of money has been put in to protect our resources with programs on removing phosphorus from water bodies and additional education," he said. Manufacturers who refuse to reformulate their products thus drive costs skyward by creating a vicious cycle where phosphorus is continuously applied and removed. "Eighty percent of lawns [in this area] do not require phosphorus," he pointed out.

Further, Lisa McDonald, council member for the city of Minneapolis, originally drafted the ordinance and noted this opposition from fertilizer manufacturers. But she said the reason for regulation lies strictly in education, not the ban of a certain brand of fertilizer. "We're not saying you can't buy it, we're just limiting it, and also putting some information out there that says you don't always have to use phosphorus," she said.

On the other hand, The Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), Washington, D.C., opposes the restriction on the grounds that phosphorus contamination stems from a variety of sources other than fertilizer content. Jim Skillen, manager of formulator issues for RISE, identified alternate sources for phosphorus runoff. These include the leaching of organic phosphorus from dead vegetation during the winter and the phosphorus content in goose excrement.

In fact, according to comments from RISE in response to amending the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, "one adult goose will excrete 0.86 pounds of phosphorus a year, over two times the amount of organic phosphorus (0.42 pounds) in runoff from an acre of unfertilized turf, and almost three times the amount of organic phosphorus (0.3 pounds) in runoff from an acre of fertilized turf." Thus, Skillen stressed that additional research would reveal that phosphorus has less of an environmental impact than previously thought - and that a strict ban may too hasty of a decision. "The lack of sound science is really the problem we have with it," he said.

Nevertheless, Fong admitted that many lawn care operators have viewed the regulation as a step toward consistency, especially since many have already limited the use of phosphorus in fertilizers due to the content in the soil. Opinions remain mixed, but Fong cautioned against interpreting the ordinance strictly in either direction. "It doesn't solve the entire problem, but it is a step in the right direction," she remarked.