Oppose - Urban Turf Fertilizer Preemption

Effect of HB 457 / SB 606

• Deletes authority for counties and municipalities to adopt fertilizer management practices
more stringent than standards of the 2008 model ordinance. It establishes a ceiling for
water quality protection - a one-size-fits-all approach – and guarantees inadequate water
quality protection in parts of the state.

403.9336 Legislative findings.—The Legislature finds the implementation of the Model

Ordinance for Florida-Friendly Fertilizer Use on Urban Landscapes (2008), which was
developed by the department in conjunction with the Consumer Fertilizer Task Force, the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the University of Florida Institute
of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, will assist in protecting the quality of Florida's surface water and groundwater
resources. The Legislature further finds that local conditions, including variations in the
types and quality of water bodies, site-specific soils and geology, and urban or rural
densities and characteristics, may necessitate the implementation of additional or more
stringent fertilizer management practices at the local government level.

• Requires the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services to regulate the sale of
fertilizer, including the composition, formulation, packaging, use, application, and
distribution of fertilizer – but does not transfer responsibility for water quality to DACS
from the Dept. of Environmental Protection.
Currently, DACS’ responsibility for fertilizer is:
570.07 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; functions, powers, and duties.
—The department shall have and exercise the following functions, powers, and duties:
(16) To enforce the state laws and rules relating to:
(c) Registration, labeling, inspection, and analysis of commercial stock feeds and
commercial fertilizers.
Current law gives responsibility for pollution of air and water to DEP.
403.061 Department [DEP]; powers and duties.
— The department shall have the power and the duty to control and prohibit pollution of air
and water in accordance with the law and rules adopted and promulgated by it and, for this
purpose, to: …

• Preempts regulation of fertilizer to the state and the department retrospectively; specifying
that such regulation of fertilizer by counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions
is void;

Prevention is cheaper than Cure!

• Localities have already adopted more stringent ordinances than the model ordinance –
without negative impacts.
• Mostly, but not exclusively in SW Forida – 70% of population on river or estuary
• Mostly stormwater runoff – lawns are not agriculture

Contact: David Cullen, 941-323-2404 1

cullenasea@aol.com
 • The cost of removing nitrogen from Tampa Bay through storm water treatment projects
ranges from $40,000-$200,000 per ton (according to the treatment method used) - Tampa
Bay Estuary Program, Letter of Transmission, Nov. 25, 2008
• Nutrient pollution affects Florida businesses:
• Florida tourism is a $65.2 billion annual industry that generated 1,007,000 jobs in
20081
• Fresh and saltwater fishing generated $6.1 billion and 52,945 jobs 2
• The commercial fishing industry generated $5.6 billion and 108,695 jobs 3
Model Ordinance
• The Model Ordinance was designed as a floor, not a ceiling - a MINIMUM standard (see
language of statute)
 (2) Each county and municipal government located within the
watershed of a water body or water segment that is listed as
impaired by nutrients pursuant to s. 403.067, shall, at a minimum,
adopt the department’s Model Ordinance for Florida Friendly
Fertilizer Use on Urban Landscapes.

From the Model Ordinance:

4. APPLICABILITY
This Ordinance shall be applicable to and shall regulate any and all applicators of
fertilizer and areas of application of fertilizer within the area of
(MUNICIPALITY/COUNTY), unless such applicator is specifically exempted by the
terms of this Ordinance from the regulatory provisions of this Ordinance. This
Ordinance shall be prospective only, and shall not impair any existing contracts.
[Guidance: Local government may adopt additional or more stringent
provisions to the model ordinance. However, the local government should
consider the disadvantages of confusing jurisdictional differences and should
clearly demonstrate they meet at least one of the following criteria:
• They have verified impaired waters and are facing existing or possible TMDL
requirements (under state and federal laws); or
• They have verified harm to human health or harm to the environment that
warrants additional fertilizer requirements; or
• That they will improve water quality or prevent future impacts of fertilizers on
the environment; and that the additional regulation is the most reasonable and
cost--effective method of attaining these goals.]
• Per DACS rule 5E-1.003: urban turf is not agriculture!
• The model ordinance is less stringent than the IFAS Florida Yards and Neighborhoods
Handbook

Positive Economic impacts of local ordinances

• Big box stores – purchasing and selling products made by FLORIDA manufacturers – up
to 70-90% in 2011 from 2% in 2010!
• Pinellas Home Depot says the ordinance has simplified their inventory system and the
Regional manager is considering implementing the Pinellas program throughout his sales
territory.
• Consumer gets a simple message
• Less confusion
• Pinellas Retailers are overwhelmingly positive about the local ordinances
• All Pinellas products meet the 50% slow release target

2
Impact of ordinance on landscape applicators:
• Sarasota – no economic impact per survey
• Elsewhere – “a little more in the spring and fall” adjusting
o The ordinance regulates the use of nitrogen and phosphorous landscape fertilizers
from June 1-Sept 30. The Pinellas County ordinance does not restrict the use of
iron, magnesium, potassium, compost based fertilizers, etc.
o Many Florida fertilizer companies already offer “summer safe” products; the
shelves will not be bare. Retail bans have been in place in several northern states
and the sales ban was upheld by the courts.
• Does NOT affect the sale of:
• Plant material
• Potting soil
• Feeds

Impact of local ordinances on Water Quality

• Sarasota – no adverse effects on water quality after 3 years of summer ban on application
(despite IFAS “Unintended Consequences”) – no spikes in N pre or post seasonal ban; no
increase in nutrient run off due to weakened turf.
• Tampa Bay Estuary Program about to begin an evaluation of the effect of the ordinances
effect in March 2011

3
1
Figures from 2008: Retrieved on Jan. 25, 2011 from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/profiles/6078/
2
Retrieved on Jan 22, 2011 from http://myfwc.com/conservation/Conservation_ValueofConservation_Economic.htm
3
Retrieved on Jan. 22, 2011 from
http://myfwc.com/conservation/Conservation_ValueofConservation_EconSaltwaterImpact.htm

Attachments (available on request or in electronic format):

1. List of localities with ordinances
2. 403.9337 Model Ordinance statute
3. Model ordinance deficiencies
4. Original Task force recommendations
5. 5E-1.003 Urban Turf Rule
6. IFAS publications (FYN)
7. Pinellas County ordinance – (sales ban: resulted in FL based companies increase of market from
2% in 2010 to 70-90% in 2011)
8. Selected store surveys SRQ v Pinellas
9. List of 50% slow release compliant turf fertilizers and suppliers
10. UF scientists funded by industry article 10/24/09
11. ‘Tobacco Science’ article 1/3/11
12. Coalition submission to Water Policy
13. Bibliography of supporting documentation