Is Tampa Bay Estuary mis-characterizing Lowe’s position on the proposed fertilizer ban in Tampa?
As the Tampa City Council considers a proposal to ban the sale and use of certain fertilizer, it’s important that the facts about this debate make its way into the public debate. I’ve followed this issue at the local level in Pinellas and I know first-hand how some in the environmental lobby tend to manipulate what they call facts to bolster their argument (like the stunt Sierra Club tried to pull during the legislative session).
Case in point is Tampa Bay Estuary’s attempt to imply (in this presentation) that Lowe’s supports proposals like the one coming before the Tampa City Council. However, take a look at what Lowe’s has to really say about this issue:
There is little reason to doubt Tampa Bay Estuary and the Sierra Club on this issue, more power to them.
No.TBEP is clearly providing anecdotal evidence from one local Lowe’s store manager. And the more important point is the fact that preventing nitrogen loading to the bay and other water bodies is cheaper to the taxpayers and rate payers than cleaning it up after it has entered the system. The example of SWFWMD paying $36,000/pound of nitrogen removed is especially important – with a 36% budget reduction and future revenue cap, the agency will not be able to continue to fund projects like those highlighted in the presentation to remove nitrogen and improve water quality in the region. Unless we are satified with water that is not swimmable, fishable or drinkable, prevention through the implementation of a summertime ban seems like a pretty important strategy to keep on the table.