Background

In June 2004, public health officials in Dane County, Wisconsin, issued a warning to lake swimmers: Avoid Blue-Green Algae. A heat wave and phosphorus nutrient pollution caused enormous blooms of the algae, a form of cyanobacteria, which can produce neurotoxins (affecting the nervous system) and hepatotoxins (affecting the liver). In 2002, a Dane County teen died from ingesting these algae-produced toxins while swimming in an area lake.(1) Killing blue-green algae does not diminish its impact on public health, as the dead cells still contain toxins. The only solution is to prevent the algal blooms, and the way to achieve this is to reduce phosphorus pollution in the watershed.

Public health is only one of several threats posed by phosphorus pollution. The same toxins that killed the Wisconsin teen in 2002 can damage aquatic ecosystems, fisheries, water quality, and economic values. Phosphorus pollution accelerates a process called eutrophication, which is essentially the process of a lake’s biological death due to depleted bioavailable oxygen. Algal blooms caused by excess phosohorus impact fisheries because the blooms favor the survival of less desirable fish over more desirable commercial and recreation species. They impact water quality by affecting the odor and taste of drinking water. On the economic side, excessive algal growth due to phosphorus pollution increases water treatment costs, degrades fishing and boating activities, and impacts tourism and property values.(2)

There are many examples of lakes, including Lake Erie, Lake Geneva (in Switzerland), and Lake Endine (in Italy), where eutrophication was reversed by implementing measures to reduce phosphorus pollution. These cases show that a phosphorus reduction of 70-90 percent is required to significantly reverse eutrophication and improve lake health.(3) In Minnesota, phosphorus in detergent accounts for about 19 percent of the total amount of phosphorus entering municipal wastewater treatment systems each year.(4) While this is a significant source of pollution, other sources of phosphorus inputs must be targeted, including fertilizer (agricultural and lawn), animal wastes, yard clippings, soil erosion, and detergents/cleaning agents.(5) This policy issues package targets phosphates in lawn fertilizer and household detergents/cleaning agents. The agricultural sources of phosphorus (agricultural fertilizer, animal waste, soil loss, manure spreading, and lagoon leakage) are covered in SERC’s Nutrient Management policy issues package.

The first official government action taken to reduce phosphorus pollution was the formation of the federal “Joint Industry-Government Task Force on Eutrophication” in 1967, followed by a call from Congress to end use of phosphorus in detergent by 1972. In 1994, the laundry detergent industry entered into a voluntary agreement with states to remove phosphates from their products because the costs of producing different detergents for states with phosphate bans were too high.(6) As of 1999, 27 states and the District of Columbia had passed laws prohibiting the manufacture and use of laundry detergents containing phosphorus.(7) However, phosphate content limits in automatic dishwashing detergents (ADDs) and other household cleaning agents containing phosphorus remain unchanged in most states.(8) Only states participating in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement (CBA)(9) have passed laws banning such cleaning agents. The bill featured in this package, based on a Minnesota bill introduced in 2003, would prohibit the manufacture and use of any cleaning product containing more than 0.5 percent phosphorus (an amount that could be incidental to production), with only limited exemptions allowed.

Several cities and counties have instituted a ban on phosphorus fertilizer use on commercial and private property, including Dane County, Wisconsin, and local government entities in and around the Twin Cities area of Minnesota. Minnesota recently extended the Twin Cities ban statewide. The “Phosphate Fertilizer Act” bill text featured in this package is based on this Minnesota law.

Sources:
(1) Williams, Beth and Ron Seely. “Avoid blue-green algae, people told.” Wisconsin State Journal. 10 June 2004.
(2) Jeer, Sanjay, et al. “Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Handbook for Local Government, No. 476.” Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association, December 1997, p. 31.
(3) Glennie, E.B. et al. “Phosphates and Alternative Detergent Builders – Final Report, Report No. UC 4011.” European Union Environment Directorate, 31 May 2002, p.121. Europa. 26 January 2005 <http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/phosphates.html>.
(4) Prepared by Barr Engineering Company for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources in Minnesota Watersheds.” February 2004. 26 January 2005 <http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/legislature/reports/phosphorus-report.html>.
(5) Improvements in sewage treatment also reduce phosphorus loads into the environment. However, implementing such improvements alone is not enough to reduce phosphorus loads 70-90 percent.
(6) Glennie, E.B., et al., p. 75.
(7) Litke, David W. “Review of Phosphorus Control Measures in the United States and their Effects on Water Quality, Report 99-4007.” Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality-Assessment Program, 1999. 26 January 2005 <http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nutrients/pubs/wri99-4007/>.
(8) ADDs gained an exemption from phosphate bans because of the unique way dishwashers work. Unlike washing machines with their single wash cycle, a dishwasher can have up to five separate wash cycles, yet we only load detergent once. To clean effectively, that detergent has to repeatedly soften new batches of water throughout these many cycles. Armed with this information, ADD manufacturers successfully resisted attempts to phase out the phosphates in their products. While that may have been justified in the early 1970s when the problem with phosphates was first addressed, advances since then have allowed responsible manufacturers to create high performance ADDs that work without using phosphates in their formulas. Alternative water softeners, such as sodium carbonate and citric acid, are effective products with life-cycles that have much less of an impact on the environment and human health than phosphates.
(9) In 1987, the U.S. EPA listed Chesapeake Bay as impaired body of water under the Clean Water Act. The “impaired water,” or 303(d), list is organized by river basin and is published every two years. It includes bodies of water that are not able meet their designated uses because of pollution. States with rivers that run to the Bay were ordered to take measures to reduce toxic air, sediment, and nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) pollution. Those states – Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, plus the District of Columbia – responded by entering into the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. As part of the original agreement, those entities agreed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus (nutrient) pollution 40% by 2000. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement calls for reducing nutrient and sediment pollution enough by 2010 to remove the Bay and its tidal rivers from the 303(d) list.