From Paben
Rep. Morris
Gov. Chris Gregoire has signed a bill sponsored by Rep. Jeff Morris, D-Mount Vernon, that bans lawn fertilizer with phosphorus in it.
The bill, HB 1489, is aimed at getting phosphorus out of waterways, where it results in algae blooms and causes water-quality problems. In Lake Whatcom, as you all know, it’s degrading the water quality and resulting in the need for more chemicals to help make the water drinkable.
“Lake Whatcom is under serious threat from algae blooms,” Morris stated in a press release. “This is a common-sense solution that keeps lawn care up, but also tackles a growing health and environmental threat.”
Whatcom County already bans the use of fertilizers containing the nutrient in the Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish watersheds, although the county allows them on newly established lawns in the first growing season.
The city of Bellingham also bans fertilizers with phosphorus in the watershed.
The bill still allows fertilizers with phosphorus when they’re being used to grow new or repair damaged turf. Also, they’re allow on farmland.
Rep. Kris Lytton, D-Anacortes, voted for it, and Reps. Vincent Buys, R-Everson, and Jason Overstreet, R-Blaine, voted against it.
In the Senate, Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-San Juan Island, voted for the bill, and Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, voted against it.
Gov. Gregoire
“Without this tool, the Department would be unable to effectively implement the bill,” she wrote in her veto message.
She also said she was disappointed the bill didn’t exempt fertilizers made from biosolids, manure and other organic materials.
She wrote:
These products provide a valued and beneficial use of materials that would otherwise need to be managed as waste. Since the bill is not effective until January 2013, I would entertain legislation in 2012 to exempt these organic products from the limits established in the bill.
Click here to see my previous post on this bill.
Interesting that the 42nd district electeds all voted against a bill designed to protect the drinking water that many of their constituents drink. What is that all about?? On the good news side all of my representatives in the 40th district sponsored and/or voted for the bill. This reminds me of my parents where one vote would often cancel out the other. Thanks to the electeds in my 40th district and as for the 42nd…….. well, you deserve a Ken Schramie
I agree with Stan.
Ericksen should know better, but chooses party line politics instead. No surprise there!
Overstreet and Buys are probably just ignorant, but follow party line anyway.
Time to recognize real science is apolitical!
We already have dishwasher detergent that won’t work now because the phosphorus has been removed from it. NOW, we will have fertilizer that won’t work… Don’t these clowns know that phosphorus is a naturally occurring substance in the forests around here?
Just wondering…
@Kelly: Show us the science, to demonstrate which fertilizers “work” and which don’t. Yes, it is well known that there is phosphorus in the forests, and that it is the prime item which feeds the algae growth in the lakes. So, the need is to not add more phosphorus to the lake, and the best way to do that is to not put additional phosphorus on the ground (or in the water.)
Which are you going to prefer:
a smooth green lawn, which pleases your eye, or
a clean lake, which pleases your health and your pocketbook (by the costs of treatment.)?
Kelly – Do you not rinse your dishes before they go in the dishwasher? Even when we had phosphorous-based dishwashing detergent, we always rinsed our dishes before they went in the dishwasher. Now with phosphorous-lacking detergent, they still come out clean as a whistle because we pre-rinse.
We’re surely not the only family that does this, are we? I’ve been doing it since I was a kid, and so has my wife … and we grew up 1,600 miles apart.
My dishwashing detergent works fine also.
Phosphorus may be natural, but too much of a good thing can kill you.
Sometimes I wonder how many semi-truck loads of fertilizer are spread on lawns around Lake Whatcom every year. Suppose it’s a train load? Two maybe? More?
Why would anyone vote against this? I’m really curious to know what the reasoning is. Phosphorus-free products work just as well as non-phosphorus free products. It doesn’t even affect farmers.
Is the excuse that we’re “restricting” freedom of choice to degrade the environment? And that the market will take care of it … or something like that?
Note that Phosphorus is one of three primary plant foods, along with Nitrogen and Potassium.
So-called N-P-K fertilizer recognizes this, as in a ’5-10-10′ or other blend.
Different soils require different blends.
Because Phosphorus is already adequate in our particular soils, AND because it has been identified as a primary cause of algae growth, it makes sense to eliminate its use in the Reservoir Watershed.
Eh, I buy my fertilizer out of state anyway. No sales tax to feed the evil tyranny of WA state.
Hi Lenny:
The bill states that it’s also illegal to use fertilizer with phosphorus.
This is what the bill says:
For violations, you can be fined a civil penalty up to $7,500 for each violation.
The bill also states that local governments aren’t required to enforce the law.
Jared
Kinda reminds me of Enviropigs!
….Enviropigs have been genetically enhanced so that they can digest phosphorus bound up in the plants they eat. This means that they excrete less phosphorus which, when it runs off into water bodies, can reduce oxygen levels by fertilizing algae blooms. Also, the pigs do not need expensive phosphorous supplements to help them grow.
…Enviropigs will reduce the environmental damage caused by hog wastes making allegedly unsustainable “factory” farms more acceptable to the public. Hmmm. Randomly looking around the web for retail prices, I find that free range pork chops in Minnesota cost $7.75 per pound, while conventionally raised chops in North Carolina are going for $1.99 per pound. Unless consumers want to pay a lot more for pork, it looks like the Enviropig could be good deal for them and for the environment.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/25/if-you-think-like-us-a-missive
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Gee, Sam, you have to rinse your dishes before they go in the dishwasher? Don’t you have a dog?
The owner’s manuals of all modern dishwashers specifically instruct the user NOT to pre-rinse the dishes. I’m sure there is some sort of nanny-state civil penalty for you folks for not following your dishwasher’s instructions to the letter.
I now have to wash my dishes on the most aggressive cycle to get them clean, using more water and more gas and more electricity. Really great trade off, don’t you think?
Guess what I will be stocking up on when I go to Idaho later in the year? Might even sell it on the street in little baggies . . . .
Mr. Fuller,
That’s the “Nanny-State tradeoff.”
I get to feel good for imposing a counterproductive rule on you, and you get to deal with the consequences in ways that I didn’t consider, many of which might well be worse for the “environment” than the problem I’m trying to solve.
Ain’t life grand?
I have an oldish dishwasher that I bought used, because it contains a water heater for incoming water and for washwater that is cycled through the heater during the cycle.
My dishes, which I pre-rinse, come out of the dishwasher sparklingly clean, even though I use environmentally-correct detergent.
They’re just gorgeous.
(No phosphorus at my house! I live in the watershed!)
My advice for readers here is to avoid “energy star” dishwashers, because one of the ways they save energy is by omitting any water-heating capability in the appliance. As a consequence, unless the dishwasher is very close to the water heater at your house, your dishes get washed in mostly cold water.
Yuck!
