EDITOR'S NOTE: This story updates, expands and clarifies our first report posted April 20.
As Pinellas County goes, so goes Florida -- so environmentalists hope.
But the Florida Retail Federation says Pinellas' ban on the sale of certain fertilizers in the summer months would sow chaos for business if that prohibition were to randomly spread city by city, county by county.
Attempting to nip local bans in the bud, the Retail Federation supported an amended version of House Bill 1445 to authorize the state's agriculture commissioner to regulate fertilizer sales.
"We understand there are federal water quality guidelines and that each area of the state has unique issues. We also believe this is best handled at the state level," said Sally West, director of government affairs for the Retail Federation.
Pinellas County's trailblazing new regulation bans the sale of all nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers from June 1 to Sept. 30.
"This poses problems, because most of our retailers operate on a statewide basis. It's an even bigger issue for local independents who would lose business to neighboring counties," West said.
The plan also has drawn fire from the Florida Nursery Growers and Landscape Association, based in Orlando.
Calling local prohibitions "very problematic," Jim Spratt, director of government relations for the 2,000-member group, said, "The Department of Environmental Protection has a model regulation. Deference should be given to the professionals."
Spratt estimates that 150,000 workers are employed by landscaping and nursery businesses statewide. The industry fears that a ban on nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers -- among the most commonly sold -- could wreak havoc on many firms.
"It has the potential to shut down businesses like Tru-Green Chem Lawn," West said.
Pinellas County officials dispute that claim, noting that Sarasota has restricted summer fertilizer applications since 2007 and that firms there reported "no economic impact from the ordinance."
They also rebut critics' charges that the ban would extend to the sale of plants grown in prohibited fertilizers.
"The ordinance does not regulate plants no matter what they are grown in, potting soils, grass seeds that come with fertilizer, etc.," said Kelli Levy, division director of the Pinellas County Environmental Management Watershed Management Division.
University of Florida research questions the value and viability of fertilizer bans, noting that most fertilizers currently on the market are "slow release" and thus pose a diminished pollution threat through runoff.
In a letter to Pinellas officials on Oct. 13, 2009, Terril Neil, environmental horticulture chair at UF's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, stated:
"We have conducted a broad range of research related to landscape and fertilizer management with special emphasis on water quantity required to maintain the landscape and minimize the impact on water quality from the landscape. We are not able to support fertilizer management recommendations unless we can document the science upon which they are based.
"The state model ordinance is backed by sound science and we are recommending that cities and counties adopt this ordinance until additional science is available."
Neil concluded, "There is no scientific basis to support a restricted fertilizer period. In fact, more leaching and runoff may occur if healthy turfgrass is not maintained.
"Since there is no scientific basis for a fertilizer restricted period, removing fertilizer from retail shelves is not a valid option."
Cris Costello, a regional representative of the Sierra Club in Sarasota, discounted the IFAS research, saying it "was produced by UF at the request of its turf and fertilizer industry funders."
--
Contact Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 802-5341.
