Maine lawmakers missed an opportunity last week to help protect the health of lakes, a source of not only drinking water, but also of recreational enjoyment and economic vitality for our state.

After receiving overwhelming support from both the Senate and House earlier this session, Gov. Paul LePage vetoed L.D. 1744, a bill that would have banned the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers within 25 feet of lakes. The veto was sustained last Thursday after the Legislature failed to garner enough votes to override the governor’s action.

The bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Jeff McCabe, D-Skowhegan, and co-sponsored by Christine Powers, D-Naples, among several others, was supported on both sides of the aisle. Supporters included many environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Council of Maine, whose advocacy director, Pete Didisheim, said in testimony, “Protecting clean lakes is not a partisan issue.”

The bill also called for the Department of Environmental Protection to begin photographing the shorelines of all “great ponds” (more than 10 acres in size) in the state. The bill called for 90 percent of great ponds to be documented by 2020.

While a photographic record would be helpful to track erosion, as well as run-off sources and other factors that impact lake health at a water body’s fringes, the component of the bill that would have been of immediate benefit was the 25-foot setback. Environmental advocates in water-rich Maine have long been advocating for substantial buffers between lakeside properties and the water line. Conscientious homeowners have been “hardening” their shorelines using rock and other methods to prevent erosion. They’ve also been installing vegetation to help stop run-off from entering the lake. The Portland Water District does its best to keep Sebago Lake pristine and has taken great care to educate lakeside homeowners about the effect erosion, chemicals and fertilizers can have on the larger ecosystem. The district owns 9 miles of shoreline in Lower Bay and has been a good steward of the land and the lake, which provides drinking water to Greater Portland.

Many responsible lakeside homeowners have stepped up their lakeside resource protection efforts, as well. They’ve received the message that providing a substantial buffer between their lawns and the water, while it may degrade their unimpeded view of the lake, is necessary to prevent run-off into the lake. Many have completely eliminated their use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Some have even won the coveted LakeSmart award, which the Department of Environmental Protection gives to honor lakeside homeowners who take steps to reduce their property’s impact.

So, why is run-off of fertilizer such a problem for lake health? While chemicals in a water body are never a good idea for either fish or human health, fertilizer can be lethal to aquatic life since it contains phosphorus, a nutrient that can promote algae growth when it seeps into a lake in large quantities. Algae feed on the phosphorus and if there’s enough “food” present, algae can replicate in massive numbers, creating a green sheen on top of the lake known as an algal bloom. This is aesthetically unappealing (and not much fun to swim through, either), but, more important, the algae consume oxygen in the water and block out sunlight. Lack of dissolved oxygen leads quickly to fish kills. It’s a cycle worth avoiding at all costs.

L.D. 1744 would have been a step in the right direction. And according to Didisheim, the stakes are high: “A research paper published last summer showed that the water quality of Maine’s lakes has been declining since 1995. If this trend continues, then more Maine lakes are likely to experience significant summer algae blooms that kill fish populations, reduce shorefront property values, and make it difficult to enjoy a lake for a broad range of recreational activities, which are such an important part of the Maine experience.”

LePage criticized the bill on two main grounds: One, it would have been nearly impossible to enforce the 25-foot setback; and two, the photographic documentation of the shoreline would have put too great a burden on the already cash-strapped DEP. It’s hard to argue with the governor on those counts, but, still, approving the bill would have sent a clear message to lakeside homeowners that they play a pivotal role in the health of their lakes, and that while fertilized green grass stretching along a lakefront is visually stunning, it poses real dangers for lake health.

With Maine’s environment an economic driver both locally and statewide, the more we can do for our lakes the better. It’s just unfortunate LePage and the Legislature, which failed to overturn his veto, don’t share that same view.

–John Balentine, managing editor