05/30/09 - The Town Council has banned the use of herbicides and pesticides on town lands, but why stop there? Fertilizers, when badly used, also threaten our water supplies. If the use of products is prohibited on town land, why should they be used on private land?

Some will complain about over-regulation, about government nosing in on private business. But the federal government and all states have concluded that protection of water resources is indeed public business, and many local governments have concluded that the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides must be controlled or banned.

In Florida, 10 cities and counties on the Gulf of Mexico coast forbid the use of fertilizers during the rainy season, June to September. At other times, the use of slow-release fertilizers is stipulated and fertilization within 10 feet of a water body is not allowed. The purpose is to combat the red tide scourge by stemming the flow of nutrients into the Gulf.

In Suffolk County, Long Island, a new law prohibits homeowners from using fertilizers between November 1 and April 1 — fertilizer spread on cold soil isn’t absorbed well but instead leaches into waterways where it stimulates algae growth and threatens the shellfish.

In Westchester County, N.Y., the county legislature has just banned phosphorus lawn fertilizers and Larchmont is considering its own pesticide policy.

New Jersey has agreed to phase out phosphorus-rich fertilizers by next year, as Chesapeake Bay states had done earlier, and communities around distressed Barnegat Bay are considering fertilizer regulations. In Madison, Wis., phosphorus was banned from lawn fertilizers in 2005.

In Canada, the target is “cosmetic” herbicides and insecticides, used to zap dandelions and other harmless weeds and innocuous little bugs. This spring, the province of Ontario supplanted 35 local ordinances with a sweeping ban of about 250 products from use on home lawns, gardens and parks. Herbicides to control poison ivy and pesticides to control insects that bite and sting are exempt; businesses, golf courses and agriculture operate under their own rules.

Quebec had enacted similar legislation earlier; Halifax has had a pesticide ban since 2003.

In Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin, and in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria, the use of chemical fertilizers is discouraged by a special tax.

This world tour is relevant to Block Island. Can we be less careful?

The prevailing ethic here, at least among long-time residents, has been that fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides must be used very carefully because they could leach into our sole-source aquifer and threaten our water supplies. That’s why it was a surprise that the town recreation director wanted to control the weeds on Heinz Field with a herbicide containing 2,4-D. Ned Phillips, chair of the Conservation Commission, knows a thing or two about chemical additives and he protested.

It’s a little irrelevant that the EPA considers the product safe. This is Block Island and we have issues that the EPA standards may not recognize.

The council’s 3-1 vote in favor of the ban is gratifying, but that ought to be the beginning of a discussion, not the end. The council, the Conservation Commission and concerned citizens should now organize to evaluate the threats these products pose to our water resources, the uses that might be safe and the uses that should be controlled or prohibited — on all island land.