FERTILIZER ORDINANCE

MANUFACTURED FERTILIZER ORDINANCE

A publication of the City of Ann Arbor, Waste Watcher, fall/winter 2006/2007, contains an article, at p.18, entitled Protecting Our Water Quality, apologizing for the sweeping anti-phosphorus ordinance which took effect on January 1, 2007. It is asserted, without citing authority, that the prohibition of certain fertilizer containing phosphorus on lawns is an effective way to meet a federal requirement of reducing phosphorus in the Huron River.

This peculiar ordinance doesn’t prevent all use of phosphorus fertilizer. It is allowed on turf grasses under certain circumstances, not all of them very clear. Why is it that phosphorus applied to “gardens, farms or landscape amenities” is allowed but spread upon a lawn is an illegal environmental disaster? There are a lot of trees and shrubs that would be very hard to fertilize without getting some fertilizer on turf grasses.

Even on lawns, phosphorus fertilizer may be used if it is not “manufactured”, meaning “a commercially manufactured substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrients”. Why? Is the phosphorus in manufactured fertilizer worse than phosphorus in other fertilizer? This distinction in the ordinance creates some other questions. The city operates a compost manufacturing facility and sells compost that contains phosphorus. Is it going to prevent its customers from applying this compost to turf grasses? If they gave it away instead of selling it, the product would seem to miraculously lose its commercial character. What has the commerciality of the fertilizer got to do with water quality in the river?

Another interesting curiosity is the pronouncement that “Fertilizer does not include unmanipulated animal and vegetable manures…”. There is no definition of “unmanipulated” but it would seem that ignored dog doodoos would come under this umbrella. Closer to the boundary, but who know on which side, would be those doodoos that have been plastic bagged by their owners.

Here’s another one. “Manufactured fertilizer shall not be applied prior to April 1 or after November 15 in any year due to the inability of frozen soil to absorb nutrients, unless the soil temperature at a depth of 2 inches has been measured, and is greater than 37° Fahrenheit.” We are not told how to measure the soil temperature 2 inches down. Could this be merely a ruse to discourage off-season fertilizing? After all, what is so magic about 37 degrees or 2 inches? We all know that around here water freezes at 32 and that the critical thing is the temperature at the surface, not 2 inches down. We also know how to tell if the ground is frozen. Try to stick a shovel in the ground. Another question. Why is it ok to spread frozen ground with fertilizer that is not manufactured?

With such legislation on the books is it any surprise that there is not much respect for the law? Will the EPA really fall for this?

Why not try something else? We could offer a property tax credit of, say $50 per year to the owner of any single family detached home on a lot where there is no more than 2000 sq. ft. of grass lawn. Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick.