Love of the outdoors and the ability to work "in" nature and not gaze at it through a pane of glass is the primary reason I and many of my peers are in the green industry.  So I have no problem with, and in fact agree with many of the concerns addressed in this document.  Nutrient loading of waterways is not a new topic to our profession, but rather something that has been at the forefront for years.  That is why the industry has been proactive in developing slow-release fertilizers, encouraging buffer zones, and developing best management practices.

My concern with governmental regulation is that it typically is painted with a broad brush.  Rarely are all the factors calculated.  Specifics like: type of turfgrass (warm season vs. cool season); type of fertilizer (quick release vs. slow release); new establishment or maintenance of turf; different soil types; sports turf (where constant growth and recovery are essential) or low maintenance turf; etc.  Such is the case with the proposed regulations, specifically page 95, section VI.

Good, sound science based information is available from Virginia Tech, the Virginia Turfgrass Council, the United States Golf Association Green Section, and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America addressing nutrient issues.  I would hope that these organizations would be consulted and this information given proper consideration.