By: Ron Hall
With Apologies To Charles Dickens, the ’06 Grassroots Lawn Care Forum in Washington, D.C., this past July revealed “the best of times” and the “worst of times” for the North American lawn care industry.
It shed a light on some of the biggest pesticide-related challenges facing the industry but, more importantly, what we as an industry can do to meet these and future challenges.
Best of times? Admittedly, that’s stretching a point. But the U.S. lawn care industry, even with its explosive growth during the last generation, is a vibrant industry with few industry-wide threats to its long-term viability. Millions of U.S. homeowners and businesses value professional turf care. The vast majority of consumers trust the safety of the chemical tools that the industry uses in delivering its services.
Worst of times? From the industry’s standpoint the regulatory contagion infecting local governments across Canada can hardly become more challenging.
“Every local council in Canada has at some point looked at or has considered a pesticide bylaw,” said Jennifer Lemcke, COO for Turf Holdings, Toronto. “The activists have made the pesticide issue a political nightmare for city councils, and most municipal councilors just want it to go away.”
Lemcke was one of six presenters at the Forum that Landscape Management, partnering with the Professional Landcare Network (PLANET), hosted this past July in Washington, D.C.
The company she represents, which has multiple Weed Man locations in Canada, is being targeted by a well-organized and well-funded coalition of activist organizations. Hundreds of other independent application companies struggle with the same issues there.
“We’re faced with many obstacles when trying to service our customers because each municipality has the right to restrict or ban products,” she added. “There are times when we are servicing one side of the street that has one bylaw and on the other side of the street we are faced with another bylaw.
“It has been an extremely costly and frustrating process. Our company alone has devoted thousands of hours to attend council and committee meetings to help educate local government officials,” she added.
The number of villages, towns and cities across Canada passing bylaws that ban, regulate or restrict pesticide use on private property is approaching 100. Most of these bylaws target professional application companies.
By some estimates, more than 30 percent of the country’s 32.6 million people will live in communities affected by these pesticide regulations once all regulations kick in—the regulations approved as of this writing, that is. And the number is expected to continue growing, albeit at a slower pace, even though anti-pesticide agitation remains red hot.
What accounts for the dramatic difference in the state of lawn care regulation in Canada and the United States? The answer is found within a single word—preemption.
While the supreme courts of both countries have ruled that local governments, such as towns and cities, are not excluded from passing pesticide regulations to protect the health and safety of their citizens, subsequent events in each country went in wildly different directions.
This includes industry’s actions in the wake of these decisions.
Ranks start to mobilize
Even before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 21, 1991, that FIFRA does not preempt local governments from regulating pesticides, CropLife America, which had been watching anti-pesticide activities, spun off a partner group called Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE). CropLife America is the key lobbying group of the agriculture pesticides industry. RISE represents the non-agricultural side of the pesticide industry.
Soon after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, more than 100 industry organizations and associations (including the American Farm Bureau and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) joined CropLife America and RISE in forming a coalition to lobby state governments to pass preemption laws to keep towns and villages from regulating pesticides.
Their argument is that local municipalities:
- don’t have the technical expertise to make these kinds of decisions and that the products that industry uses have already been thoroughly tested and approved at the federal level,
- won’t have the manpower or finances to administer and enforce pesticide regulations,
- will create a tangle of local pesticide regulations that will seriously and unnecessarily hamper industry’s efforts to provide its services.
The coalition’s efforts at the state level bore almost immediate fruit. To date, more than 40 states have written some version of preemption into their pesticide laws.
By contrast, pesticide manufacturers and end user/business groups did not coalesce into a similar multi-industry effort and did not mount a coordinated campaign in Canada—at least not in time.
The professional lawn application industry there is paying the price.
Hudson ignites a spark
In May 1991 the small community of Hudson in Quebec Province passed a bylaw banning pesticides that set off a decade-long legal battle with lawn application companies doing business there. After the issue progressed through lower courts, the Canadian Supreme Court in June 2001 ruled that Hudson could indeed regulate pesticides. This emboldened anti-pesticide activists to go on the offensive. And they were eager to go. They had spent the previous decade networking with other activist organizations, building alliances and probing for weaknesses in industry’s position.
The local bans, which began in Quebec Province and for months after the ruling remained mostly confined there, began sprouting elsewhere as industry critics used each local success to pressure city officials in communities elsewhere to pass similar legislation.
They had built themselves a working template to use from one community to another. It included model ordinances and bylaws passed elsewhere.
Without specific federal or provincial authority to prevent local authorities from passing pesticide laws, activists began demanding that local lawmakers take action against “non-essential” or “cosmetic” use of pesticides. Key to their argument is the “precautionary principle”—if there’s any health or safety risk associated with pesticide use (regardless of extensive product testing to the contrary), pesticides shouldn’t be used.
Even without conclusive evidence to support their claims, activists have been successful, mostly because industry has not had the manpower or the resources to fight each individual battle at the grassroots level, say Green Industry supporters.
Close to home
Could the same thing happen in the United States?
It’s unlikely, at least to the same extent, thanks to the cooperation established among pesticide user groups, associations and the business community. But it’s hardly out of the question, said Frank Gasperini, state affairs director of RISE.
“Could the pesticides and fertilizers you need to do your job become illegal?” he asked rhetorically at the Grassroots Forum. “I think you know the answer to this. And the answer is yes.
“The activists have a game plan. They don’t just go out and throw rocks at us like they used to. They have websites. They talk and they plan,” he said. Indeed, they’re committed to leveraging their local Canadian successes to the national and provincial governmental levels, he’s convinced. They’re also eyeing the northern tier of U.S. states, such as New York and Minnesota, for increased pressure on pest control products.
This pressure may not — and probably will not — be directed at local pesticide bans as such, but at related issues, said Stacey Pine, who was retained by RISE this past spring to monitor and manage grassroots issues on behalf of the Green Industry.
“I came on in May,” Pine said. “Since then our team has addressed 16 to 20 issues. And you know what? We have not duplicated any of the issues. I’ve not dealt with the same issue twice. They’re [activists] getting very creative.”
One example is neighbor notification. Several counties in New York require that lawn care companies notify adjacent property owners at least 48 hours prior to the application of liquid chemical lawn care products. The law was passed in 2000 and allows counties to decide for themselves whether they want neighbor notification or not, something that many lawn care companies do on their own. Lawn care business owners contend that mandatory notification of every neighbor added unnecessary administration and expense to their services, in the end costing consumers more.
“We spent months on the phone, months in office visits talking to people and telling our story. We had great information and we gave it to our representatives,” said Greg Adams, president of One Step Tree & Lawn Care, North Chili, N.Y.
“But the issue never is about science. It’s all about politics and it’s all about emotion.”
The chances of activist activity achieving local pesticide regulations (in the United States the initial target is typically public properties like parks and school grounds) rises when it can cut a deal with one segment of the Green Industry and target another.
Indeed, said RISE’s Gasperini, because of the growing sophistication and aggressiveness of activist organizations such as Washington, DC-based Beyond Pesticides, a clearinghouse of anti-pesticide activity, it’s increasingly unwise for any user group to tackle issues—in particular local issues — alone. “Their goal is to divide and conquer industry groups,” he said at the Forum. “If they can pit lawn care against the golf course interests or the tree people or the farmers or the pest control people they will do it in a heartbeat because they know that it works.”
His advice, and that of about every presenter at the Forum: Watch grassroots issues closely, organize and network (even with competitors) to address them. Advise and seek the assistance of larger industry organizations, including RISE, right away.
Tice’s 8 rules of engagement
Richard Tice is the kind of guy you want on your side in a fight, in particular a battle that involves government regulations affecting the Green Industry. As the former longtime owner of a lawn care company, he’s been knocked about enough by industry critics to have developed a tough hide. He’s knowledgeable and he’s outspoken.
Tice, who serves as executive director of the Environmental Industry Council (EIC) and the Connecticut Groundskeepers Association, is both the industry’s watchdog and bulldog for regulatory or legislative issues in Connecticut.
He told the Forum gathering that years of experience dealing with industry regulation have taught him:
1. Never relax your vigilance in tracking, monitoring and addressing developing local issues.
2. Establish relationships with local lawmakers, but don’t believe everything they tell you.
3. Always behave like a professional.
4. Realize that data and facts may not mean a thing when all is said and done.
5. Develop an efficient communication system among your supporters. Communicate often and be persistent.
6. Provide easy-to-use, easy-to-understand talking points for supporters.
7. Have a plan and work it. Chances are you may have to adjust it but keep your main goals intact.
8. Stay organized. Stay together. Don’t break ranks.
How the City of London was lost
On more than a few occasions these past four years, small mobs of agitated activists, minus pitchforks and torches, have stormed into the city council chambers in London, Ontario, demanding action. What so inflamed their passions?
In a phrase—lawn care chemicals.
This controversy, rife with charges of intimidation and harassment, saw dozens of people (including a handful of “experts”) rail against lawn care chemicals at a seemingly endless string of public meetings these past four years.
This past June 12, city councilors in this city of 340,000 people voted 13-6, approving a bylaw to ban lawn care pesticide use on private property.
“They pulled a fast one on us. We successfully batted it (the bylaw) back five times,” says John Matsui, who represented the London Professional Lawn Care Association in the ongoing battle. “The last time it came back at an inopportune time — just before a municipal election.”
The ban takes effect September 2008. It covers professional applicators and homeowners although the city will still be allowed to use chemical pest controls on properties such as youth sports fields, right of ways and boulevards. Golf course, including the three municipal courses, are exempt from the bylaw too. Retail sales of lawn care pesticides will reportedly remain unaffected.
“There are so many exemptions in this bylaw that we do not think it’s going to stand up in court,” Matsui says. “The way the bylaw is written the only people that cannot use the products are the professionally trained and certified members of the industry.” Matsui would not comment on the possibility of a suit by the London Professional Lawn Care Association.
Matsui says the debate over lawn care chemicals is, in reality, part of a bigger power struggle between two political ideologies — leftist and pro-business.
“The political group that was behind the bylaw knows that what they accomplished has nothing to do with the environment or safety,” claims Matsui. “It has more to do with gaining political power in the city.”
To date, city council has not determined how will it enforce the ban or what the penalties will be for ignoring it.
What follows are some of the highlights (lowlights) of the last two years of the four years of wrangling, cajoling, confusion and, in the end, politicking that resulted in the passage of the bylaw:
Dec. ’04: A citizens committee, set up by council to make a recommendation on a possible pesticide ban, drops the issue back into city council’s lap. It can’t agree because it’s composed of equal numbers of pro-and anti-pesticide supporters.
March 22, ’05: More than 40 people, most them opposed to pesticides, demand that council’s six-member Environment and Transportation Committee recommend that council ban pesticides for public health reasons. Henry Valkenburg, Great Lakes Lawn Care, counters that professionals are well trained and use only products that have been thoroughly tested and approved by the government.
April 26, ’05: Members of the London Coalition Against Pesticides (LCAP) rain catcalls and call out in disgust as the Environment and Transportation Committee rejects a ban on pesticide. The committee says it wants to see how a court appeal of a similar ban in Toronto turns out.
May 13, ’05: The Ontario Court of Appeal rules in favor of Toronto’s ban.
July 18, ’05: The committee considers recommending a bylaw that promotes integrated pest management and IPM-accredited companies to continue their pest control services. A vocal LCAP member calls IPM “too complicated, cumbersome and ultimately unenforceable.” The LCAP keeps hammering away for a total ban.
July 25, ’05: City council, in a 10-8 vote, approves a bylaw that encourages citizens not to use pesticides and promotes IPM. LCAP is not appeased. It says it will continue to fight for a ban.
November ’05: City council defeats a bylaw that would have allowed spraying of pesticides on up to 20% of a property owner’s lawn, reducing that to 10% by 2010.
March 27, ’06: In an apparent about-face, city council votes 16-3 to instruct the Environment and Transportation Committee to develop a bylaw that phases out “non-essential use of pesticides” by September 2008.
March ’06: Superintendents at golf courses within the city, including its three municipal courses, say a pesticide ban on golf courses “would be devastating” to the operation of the courses, hence revenues would drop.
April 26, ’06: City residents, responding to a media campaign launched by the London Professional Lawn Care Association, bombard city council with more than 300 faxes, 100 phone calls and an unknown number of e-mails opposing a ban on pesticides. Lawn Care pro Valkenburg says he has hundreds of other letters of support.
May ’06: With municipal elections just six months away council members appear to be openly divided in two camps. The pesticide issue is in the middle of this political battle. A Health Canada official explains the process that it uses to approve pesticides for use. Anti-pesticide activists accuse the speaker of conflict of interest, claiming 25% of its funding and “many of the scientific studies are provided by industry.” Pro lawn care supporters wear green T-shirts saying “Council Keep Off My Grass.” As many as 60 people speak at the public meeting that lasts for almost seven hours, reports the local media.
June ’06: The Canadian Cancer Society launches a Web site urging Londoners to send e-mails to city council in support of a ban. “That was too much for a couple of the councilors that were on the fence and they went to the other side,” says Matsui. “Obviously, the Society has become more political.” Matsui says that neither the American Cancer Society nor the National Institute for Cancer, a research arm, take the same position as the CCS.
June 12, ’06: Council votes to ban non-essential uses of pesticides, starting in September 2008. Costs to administer a ban and to conduct an education campaign are expected to cost the city as much as $1 million over three years. Exemptions to the ban include golf courses, farms, swimming pools, utility rights of way and for threats to human health and insect infestations.
