The Anti- Pesticide, Herbicide, and Fertilizer Resolution is currently still undergoing review by city staff. If passed as written, it would explicitly ban the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer on city terraces and, through the implementation of strict regulations regarding the conditions under which those products could be applied, essentially ban the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer on properties less than 5 acres (public and private) within the city of Appleton.
Early in March, I contacted the alderpersons who co-sponsored the resolution and asked for more details about their intentions for the resolution. At the time, Alderpersons Israel Del Toro (District 4) and Alex Schultz (District 9) were willing to answer questions and dialogue about issues related to the resolution. I had also contacted the other three alderpersons who co-sponsored the resolution, Vered Meltzer (District 2), Denise Fenton (District 6), and Nate Wolff (District 12). At the time, none of those three other alderpersons responded, but last week Alderperson Meltzer did reply.
Back on March 9th, I had asked Alderperson Meltzer the following question: “After looking at historical weather data for Appleton, it appears the various restrictions the resolution places on pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer application would effectively result in a blanket ban on the application of those chemicals on properties smaller than 5 acres. Were you aware of this when you signed on to the resolution, and was this your intention when you cosponsored the resolution?”
On March 27, Alderperson Meltzer responded, “Those restrictions are based on the ‘label is the law’ legislation that already exists to regulate the use of these products.”
That raises a few other questions.
1. The “Label Is The Law” regulation seems to apply specifically to pesticides but not to fertilizers. Why then are fertilizers included in the rules and restrictions laid out in Resolution 1-R-23?
2. The restrictions laid out in the resolution appear to be much more limiting than the labels on the products. Here are some examples:
- Roundup Dual Action Weed and Grass Killer Plus 4 Month Preventer – It says to “apply during warm, sunny weather above 60 degrees Fahrenheit” but does not warn against applying when the temperature is above 80 degrees. It says to “spray when air is calm to prevent drift to desirable plants”, but it does not provide a specific wind-speed recommendation.
- Roundup Weed Barrier Granules – It does not list any specific temperature restrictions noting only that unusually cold, excessively wet, or hot and dry conditions can reduce weed control. It generically warns against “drift” but does not lay out any specific instructions. The label explicitly instructs the user to water the product in after applying it.
- Roundup For Lawns1 Ready-To-Use (Northern) – It warns against drift, but, again, does not list a specific wind speed above which the product should not be used. Rather than limiting application to under 80 degrees Fahrenheit, the label specifically states the product can be applied in temperatures up to 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
- Dr. Earth’s Home Grown Tomato, Vegetable, and Herb Fertilizer – It does not provide any temperature or weather restrictions or warn against drift at all. [See note at end of post.]
- Expert Gardener Evergreen Tree and Shrub Plant Food – It provides no temperature or weather restrictions around application and specifically says to apply water after placing the fertilizer.
- Milorganite Long Lasting All Purpose Lawn Food – It lists no temperature or wind conditions under which it cannot be applied, and while it does say not to apply when “heavy” rain is expected it does not say anything about applying it ahead of gentle rain.
3. Finally, I did note that Alderperson Meltzer did not answer the actual question I asked which pertained to the intention behind the resolution.
As written, the resolution, through the creation of strict regulations, would essentially ban the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on properties within the city of Appleton that are smaller than 5 acres. Were the co-sponsors aware of this when they signed on and was it their intention? I think that’s a relevant question. I would expect one could find numerous examples of lawmakers sponsoring resolutions and legislation that they think will do one thing only to later find out that the impact is much more extensive than they envisioned. Is that the case in this situation with this resolution? On the other hand, sometimes lawmakers sponsor resolutions and legislation that result in major changes and reductions to actions citizens can freely engage in, and the legislators are completely aware of the full scope and implications of the proposed laws. Is that the case with this resolution? Either way, I think the public deserves to know.
I have emailed Alderperson Meltzer back and asked about all three of these issues but have not yet received a reply.
[Note: there is some question as to whether or not Dr. Earth’s Home Grown Tomato, Vegetable, and Herb Fertilizer, as an organic product, would be covered by the resolution. The resolution specifically refers to “chemical fertilizers and pesticides” which potentially does not include “organic” products, but it does not define the term “chemical fertilizers and pesticides,” nor does it explicitly separate out organic pesticides and fertilizers as not being covered by the resolution.]
Be the first to reply