Maplewood could ban non-organic cosmetic lawn chemicals

Samples related to creating an ordinance, http://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/lawns-and-landscapes/tools-for-change/sample-model-policy-and-implementation-program 

I am definitely in favor of this.  Do we know whether Maplewood and South Orange use chemicals on the grass in parks and schools?  

a local ban is a total waste of time and energy, but I'm sure it will make people feel like they've accomplished something.

kind of like personal recycling.

seaweed said:

Reminds me of the town I lived in previously ... where I received a court summons for exceeding the acceptable number of dandelions on my front lawn ........... no joke

Klinker said:

krugle1 said:

The only problem is the golf course, of course.  It's very expensive for them to go organic.  I saw a list of chemicals used on golf course, which is required to be filed with fire dept.  Anyway, must have been 200 different chemicals listed on it!

I suspect that most of the chemicals used on the golf course are not really necessary.  I mean, would the world end if there was a dandelion on the putting green?  I think not.

No, but there would be an add in the jobs section of M.O.L for a new groundskeeper.

seaweed said:

Reminds me of the town I lived in previously ... where I received a court summons for exceeding the acceptable number of dandelions on my front lawn ........... no joke

Klinker said:

krugle1 said:

The only problem is the golf course, of course.  It's very expensive for them to go organic.  I saw a list of chemicals used on golf course, which is required to be filed with fire dept.  Anyway, must have been 200 different chemicals listed on it!

I suspect that most of the chemicals used on the golf course are not really necessary.  I mean, would the world end if there was a dandelion on the putting green?  I think not.

How did the summons work out?

I don't want to read this whole thread history, but have you approached the TC directly with any of these ideas? Because I do find they are quite receptive, especially of township residents have done the research and can provide it to them. You can even go the first step and essentially produce a draft ordinance for them.

tourn said:

Samples related to creating an ordinance, http://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/lawns-and-landscapes/tools-for-change/sample-model-policy-and-implementation-program 

drummerboy said:

a local ban is a total waste of time and energy, but I'm sure it will make people feel like they've accomplished something.

kind of like personal recycling.

Why is it a waste of time?

ArchBroad said:

I don't want to read this whole thread history, but have you approached the TC directly with any of these ideas? Because I do find they are quite receptive, especially of township residents have done the research and can provide it to them. You can even go the first step and essentially produce a draft ordinance for them.

tourn said:

Samples related to creating an ordinance, http://www.beyondpesticides.org/programs/lawns-and-landscapes/tools-for-change/sample-model-policy-and-implementation-program 

Don't know whether they read this thread, but discussion of this topic is on the Township Committee agenda for Tuesday's meeting.  http://www.twp.maplewood.nj.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/04052016-695?html=true

It's time to call the Organic Dutchman.

drummerboy said:

a local ban is a total waste of time and energy, but I'm sure it will make people feel like they've accomplished something.

kind of like personal recycling.

It's not "personal" it's "community".  And there are lots of communities joining in.    It's kind of like growing a movement, making change from the ground up, etc. etc.

Don't be so dismissive and patronizing.

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

seaweed said:

Reminds me of the town I lived in previously ... where I received a court summons for exceeding the acceptable number of dandelions on my front lawn ........... no joke

Klinker said:

krugle1 said:

The only problem is the golf course, of course.  It's very expensive for them to go organic.  I saw a list of chemicals used on golf course, which is required to be filed with fire dept.  Anyway, must have been 200 different chemicals listed on it!

I suspect that most of the chemicals used on the golf course are not really necessary.  I mean, would the world end if there was a dandelion on the putting green?  I think not.

No, but there would be an add in the jobs section of M.O.L for a new groundskeeper.

Yes.  Its called "job creation".

Wow! That is fantastic news that they are even considering this! I might go to the town board meeting to give my support on April 5!

"5.  Potential changes to and/or increased enforcement of leaf blower regulations/GL

6.  Consideration of banning pesticides on lawns/GL"

mjh,

Absolutely not personal. Toxic chemical used for mere cosmetic purposes are unnecessary and pollute communal land and water.

Will be interesting to see if and how they pull this off.  (Presumably this would exempt the MCC, and could not take effect anywhere until next year.)  Also curious as to whether or not fields (and school property) are treated with chemicals or not as asked above.

so are we supposed to kill the moles with a rusty hammer now?  

Well no, you can still put fertilizer down as I suspect many will do, it's just that you'll have to do it and not your landscaper.  And skip the cute little warning flags.

ctrzaska said:

Well no, you can still put fertilizer down as I suspect many will do, it's just that you'll have to do it and not your landscaper.  And skip the cute little warning flags.

http://www.scotts.com/smg/templates/index.jsp?pageUrl=MyLawnApp

The rebellion will not be televised, brother. 

But neither will it particularly hide itself either if this silliness gets pandered to.

Why is it silliness?  I am not a big user Scott's products nor do I think the ban will be particularly effective, but I think that the tons of unnecessary chemicals spread on lawns every year is bad for the environment.

Edited to add that my neighbor has a rather lush front lawn and appears to have achieved this result without applying huge amounts of poisons.

Based on the discussion at last night's TC meeting, Greg Lembrich and Nancy Adams will take up further investigation of lawn chemicals via their sub committees.  Additionally, the TC asked Robert Roe from the Health Department to also look into it and for someone in administration to connect with other municipalities in NJ and find out if this has been done elsewhere in NJ.  Mayor DeLuca stated that currently, the town itself only uses the more toxic chemicals very sparingly and each time there is a need (such as an invasive species that can't be controlled another way), the TC has to give approval.  

At least to me, it seems like a worthwhile subject to look into.  

tjohn said:

Why is it silliness?  I am not a big user Scott's products nor do I think the ban will be particularly effective, but I think that the tons of unnecessary chemicals spread on lawns every year is bad for the environment.

Edited to add that my neighbor has a rather lush front lawn and appears to have achieved this result without applying huge amounts of poisons.

Studies have been done in Canada where almost every Province now has a ban on cosmetic use of lawn pesticides which show significant reductions in those pesticides being detected in local streams. Bans have been passed in a town in Maine and recently in a county in Maryland. There are probably more. However, many States have passed legislation lobbied by the pesticide industry which prevents municipalities from creating bans. Thankfully, New Jersey is one of a few States which can allow municipalities to have more strict controls on pesticides by just petitioning the State to do so. At this time, petitioning the State would just entail asking/notifying the NJDEP Pesticide Bureau. Why not do it?! Practically the whole country of Canada has done it! Maplewood is the perfect model for the first town in NJ to do this. Most of the storm water in Maplewood runs into the East Branch of the Rahway River, a potable water source for thousands of people downstream. 

See http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/10/maryland-county-bans-cosmetic-lawn-pesticides-on-all-land-in-county-one-million-people-affected/

Also see http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-should-localities-ban-pesticides.html

That Canada (!), Ogunquit, Maine (!!) and Montgomery County, MD (!!!), of all places (pick one) have done it is your argument?  Two localities in the US, and we should be looking to stroke our collective green egos with self-congratulatory press for being the third?  It's so far from a justification to doing it here I'm not sure where to even begin. 

I particularly liked the part about the law having no teeth in MD, and the need to rely on neighbors ratting out neighbors to have any residential enforcement.  That's pretty cool.

And unless I'm mistaken, you've been at this for years--rattling cages for keeping chickens in town, banning pesticides, etc.-- BUT YOU DON'T LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR HERE.  So, with all due respect, doncha think you can find a board a wee bit more local to trumpet your causes and see if your own town can get something enacted?  Maybe YOU can be third in the US!  Boy, that'd be swell, wouldn't it?  I bet it would.

ctrzaska said:

That Canada (!), Ogunquit, Maine (!!) and Montgomery County, MD (!!!), of all places (pick one) have done it is your argument?  Two localities in the US, and we should be looking to stroke our collective green egos with self-congratulatory press for being the third?  It's so far from a justification to doing it here I'm not sure where to even begin. 

I particularly liked the part about the law having no teeth in MD, and the need to rely on neighbors ratting out neighbors to have any residential enforcement.  That's pretty cool.

I like the part about how pesticides are dangerous to kids, pets, and cause cancer, etc. I really like the study in Canada that shows banning cosmetic use of lawn chemicals really works to reduce chemicals in water supplies! You see, in Canada, the law actually favors humans and not chemical companies shamelessly making money hawking frivolous poisons.

Ah the old big bad Monsanto argument.  Love it.  Anyhoo, if you get a moment, please pop over a few peer-reviewed studies conclusively tying pesticides and herbicides in local lawn use to cancer.  Would love to read them.

Regardless of the documented or undocumented health issues, I agree it would be great to have a law like this. And though I also agree it would be difficult to enforce, that alone shouldn't negate having the law.

I feel this is a bit like the speed limit. Just about everyone goes 10-20 mph over on the highways and hardly anyone gets pulled over, but it doesn't make sense to not have a speed limit. Everyone knows it saves gas and lives.

This proposed ordinance is a no brainer.  I'm surprised that more municipalities around the country hasn't enacted something similar.

ctrzaska said:

Ah the old big bad Monsanto argument.  Love it.  Anyhoo, if you get a moment, please pop over a few peer-reviewed studies conclusively tying pesticides and herbicides in local lawn use to cancer.  Would love to read them.

Why are you so hung up on scientific data and facts? The ability to feel validated by using the force of law to control the actions of your neighbors regardless of fact is its own justification for so many things.

In other words- you will get nothing, or you will get a crackpot link from some group that put together a phony study (see the study that stampeded Ontario as an example- you know, the Ontario where over half of residents want the ban to go away now that the facts are in).

You need to focus on what's important- telling the unenlightned what is good for them not through force of argument, but by threatening them with criminal sanctions.

Don't see this as a debate about the "safety" of pesticides. The EPA doesn't even allow the use of the word on the package.  It is about implementing common sense regulation. This is why we have government. Canada is just one example of how it has worked on a large scale. The time to do it here in the USA is way over due. Maplewood can lead in NJ. 

tourn said:

Don't see this as a debate about the "safety" of pesticides. The EPA doesn't even allow the use of the word on the package.  It is about implementing common sense regulation.

Common sense is overrated.

At one time the common sense said the world is flat. If you go too far you'll fall off the edge. If only they passed a maritime regulation prohibiting ships from going more than 50 miles from a shore.

At one time common sense said blacks should not mix with whites. If only they passed laws segregating blacks. Oh, snap, they did.

ctrzaska said:

Ah the old big bad Monsanto argument.  Love it.  Anyhoo, if you get a moment, please pop over a few peer-reviewed studies conclusively tying pesticides and herbicides in local lawn use to cancer.  Would love to read them.

So would I.