Landscape & Irrigation

50 May/June 2016 Landscape and Irrigation www.landscapeirrigation.com STAYING CURRENT ILLUSTRATION ABOVE ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/SMARTBOY10 ■ BY PAUL MENDELSOHN I recently wrote about Maryland's hearings on legislation to further regulate neonicotinoid (neonics) pesticides. Early in March, the Maryland Senate passed Senate Bill 198, a pollinator health bill that would eliminate the sale of neonicotinoid pesticides at the retail level; but the bill doesn't restrict neonic pesticide use by certified applicators. During debate, landscape professionals won a significant victory by successfully lobbying for the removal of the word "direct" from the legislation. Without this important revision, the proposal would have required pesticide applicators to work directly under the supervision of a certified applicator, a distinction that could potentially complicate daily business operations. The Maryland House of Delegates quickly concurred with the Senate and, as of this writing, a bill sits on the governor's desk awaiting approval. If signed as expected, Maryland will become the first state to restrict the retail sale of neonics. Maryland isn't the only location with these issues. The issue of limiting pesticides and fertilizers that lawn care and landscape professionals use on a daily basis is popping up in several different communities, often starting at the hyper-local level. The South Portland Maine City Council unanimously approved a first reading of a pesticide ban that would limit what chemicals landscape professionals can use to control lawn and garden pests in the city. The ordinance would apply to city property starting May 1 , 2 0 1 7 , a n d b r o a d e n t o p r i v a t e property May 1, 2018 — and it would prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides other than products allowed by the Organic Materials Review Institute or exempt from regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These ordinances are problematic, not only for the companies who work in the affected areas, but they should be off concern to all professionals, because they can spread. In this case, if South Portland passes the ordinance, there are several other communities in Maine — including Portland and Harpswell — that will consider adopting similar language. It is interesting that bans are proposed when people don't understand the need for them or how they work, but when there is a problem, their use is recognized and required. Recently in Minnesota, the Duluth City Council resolved to stop using neonics on city property and instructed staff members to do their best to steer clear of plants that have been treated with the insecticide. However, councilors offered one exception — authorizing the use of neonics to protect high-value ash trees from the spreading threat of emerald ash borers. Many communities, particularly those located in the east and Midwest are seeing their population of ash trees decimated by this species of beetle, and one of the most effective ways to treat and protect ash trees is with the use Local bans on pesticides and fertilizers increasing of neonics. Without the use of pesticides, thousands of healthy trees are often sacrificed in order to try to curtail the spread of emerald ash borer infestation. With increasing frequency, the effectiveness of neonics as a method to protect trees from invasive insect infestation is ignored when activists push for pesticide bans in our nation's communities. Pesticides aren't the only issue; fertilizers are also under fire. Grayslake, Ill., recently unanimously approved a law designed to prevent fertilizer pollution in rainwater runoff. The new law bans the use of phosphorus-based fertilizer for lawn care and landscaping, except in certain situations. Grayslake isn't the first community in Illinois to do this however; it joins a number of other northern Illinois towns that are limiting residential use of fertilizers with phosphorus. Proposed fertilizer bans aren't isolated to communities in the Midwest. Recently, the Suffolk County (N.Y.) legislature began to consider a proposal to ban the sale or use of any fertilizer with greater than a 10% nitrogen concentration. For non-New Yorkers, Suffolk County is better known as central and eastern Long Island. Fortunately, in this instance, landscape professionals and our industry allies were quick to respond, and sponsors of the idea tabled the idea for further discussion. So what do we learn from all of this activity? First of all, in many of our nation's communities, pesticide and fertilizer regulation is an issue under consideration. Second, these issues aren't likely to go away on their own. Third, and perhaps most important from the perspective of landscape professionals, proposals to regulate fertilizers and pesticides are often narrowly conceived and a r e d o n e s o w i t h o u t t h e a c t i v e involvement of landscape and lawn care representatives. As such, they don't take into consideration the knowledge and experience of those who provide landscape and lawn care services for a living. The National Association of Landscape Professionals is opposed to unnecessary fertilizer and pesticide bans that could negatively impact the services its members provide. There is a lot of misinformation and, too often, well-meaning city officials can be swayed by emotional rhetoric. In order for communities to make informed decisions, it is important to have all of the facts at hand, and right now that is often not the case. That is why we need local landscape professionals to become more engaged in our advocacy program. The best way to counter the arguments of special interest activists is for you to attend your town hall and council meetings to provide a first-hand account of what such a ban would mean, and to provide an expert account on the actual science of responsible fertilizer and pesticide use. Paul Mendelsohn is VP of government relations at The National Association of Landscape Professionals. Pesticides aren't the only issue; fertilizers are also under fire.

• Cover