Editor's Note: The University of Florida IFAS has provided further clarification on the fertilizer study. They tell ABC Action News it will cost $250,000, as opposed to $6.2 million.
On a sunny Thursday afternoon just off of the St. Peterburg Pier, Tampa Bay was full of people enjoying the water.
And to learn more about the state of that water, ABC Action News joined Justin Tramble for a boat tour.
Tramble is the executive director of Tampa Bay Waterkeeper—a nonprofit that studies and advocates for water quality.
While on the water, he shared his thoughts.
The good—was the resilience of nature—as we saw dozens of birds nesting on an island out on the bay.
"There's pink spoonbill right there," he said.
The bad—was the damage being done to the ecosystem that Tramble says is becoming more rampant.
"Since 2016, we have lost 30 percent of the seagrass, particularly in Old Tampa Bay," he said.
And with that in mind, Tramble also shared his future concerns for the state of water in the Greater Tampa Bay Area.
More specifically, he said a new provision in the state's upcoming budget bill could make water quality worse.
If approved, it would keep local governments from creating or updating fertilizer bans—for a year—while the University of Florida carries out a state-funded study on fertilizer.
"We don't want to roll back commonsense measures that are used and that need to be used, quite frankly, more," he said.
On Monday, the state senate president, Kathleen C. Passidomo (R-Naples), chalked up the proposal to part of the budget negotiation process.
"[It was] something the house wanted and there were a lot of things we wanted that the house agreed to, and that's the give and take of the process. I have comfort that it's in the implementing bill, so it's only one year," she said.
And in a statement, her office also confirmed to us that 22 of the state's 67 counties don't have a fertilizer ordinance on the books right now.
Tramble says this move could also set a dangerous trend when it comes to proposed legislation—as most fertilizer bans are in place to keep excess nutrients from leaching into our water.
"What's being proposed is not good for water quality. Might be good for a few fertilizer companies, but it's not good for the communities that rely on water quality and clean water," said Tramble.
Dr. Mike Parsons at Florida Gulf Coast University has studied the impact of toxic red tide blooms for years, and he says this proposal should concern us all.
"Almost everywhere around the state, we do have concerns with high nutrients, excessive nutrients in our waterways leading to algal blooms, fish kills, those low oxygen conditions so this isn't a good idea for sure," he said, "If it does end up becoming law because it cannot be removed from the budget, then I think the pressure is really on us as citizens to let our elected officials know that this is a very bad idea."
If this proposal is kept in the budget as is, the University of Florida will be given state funding to get that fertilizer study done.
But we wanted to know what they'd be studying and why.
Gen Appropriation Budget by ABC Action News on Scribd
Fertilizer Language by ABC Action News on Scribd
We reached out to the UF Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) and they offered a written Q-and-A with Dr. Michael Dukes—who runs the UF/IFAS Center for Land Use Efficiency.
Question 1: Can you talk to me about the proposed fertilizer ban that is in the current state budget proposal? Is there data to support that this wouldn’t have a widespread impact on the environment/Florida waterways?
Answer 1: The current language does not ban fertilizer. It pauses enacting new or changing existing fertilizer ordinances by local governments for one year. Note that there are 130+ local government restrictions on the use of fertilizer on landscapes.
Question 2: What does the current data show when it comes to fertilizer use during rainy seasons? Are we seeing it runoff as many local municipalities predict?
Answer 2: Existing studies on the effects of fertilizer during the rainy season or otherwise are lacking. The FDEP Funded Study showed that applying fertilizer during the growing season to healthy turf did not result in excessive leaching. The results of the study were used to update the current rates for fertilizer application to turfgrass. Applying fertilizer during the non-growing season resulted in leaching. Runoff was not measured. There are more nuances explained in this Ask IFAS peer-reviewed EDIS document.
Question 3: Can you talk to me about the fertilizer research the UF/IFAS will be doing during the 2023-24 budget year? What will it entail? What questions are you hoping to answer?
Answer 3: We will focus on a literature review of more recent studies addressing urban fertilizer and losses to the environment. We anticipate this effort will point to further needed studies to determine the relationship between nutrient losses and the use of fertilizer in urban areas.
Question 4: It is my understanding that during the 2023-24 budget year, when local fertilizer bans would be on hold, the state would (at least temporarily) follow a fertilizer-use model that was developed by UF/IFAS. Is that true? And can you outline what that model entails?
Answer 4: All local governments must follow the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Model Ordinance for Florida-Friendly fertilizer use on urban landscapes, but they are allowed to enact stricter provisions. The current language pauses new or changes to existing fertilizer ordinances for one year.
Question 5: Have you all found definitive proof of a link between fertilizer that contains phosphorus or nitrogen and bigger ride tide blooms?
Answer 5: Not that I’m aware of, and this is not in my wheelhouse to provide expertise on.
Question 6: Is there anything else you’d like to add? Or any other information people may need to have a better understanding of this topic?
Answer 6: It is important to note that this is not a change to existing fertilizer ordinances already in place.
