Falmouth residents provide public comment on the draft pesticide and fertilizer ordinance at the special Town Council meeting on Feb. 10. Screenshot / Town of Falmouth

Falmouth residents again stated their opposition to a draft pesticide and fertilizer ordinance at a recent special Town Council meeting, citing unfair targeting of homeowners as the primary reason.

The draft ordinance, which would more strictly regulate pesticides and fertilizer than a 2020 ordinance it builds upon, has been consistently controversial for the town since it was introduced last spring. During the Feb. 10 public hearing, Falmouth residents largely stated opposition to further regulate the chemicals.

“Despite continuous opposition, the ordinance just seems to advance, and I don’t think you’re listening,” said Falmouth resident Thomas Terhorst during public comment.

At the end of the meeting, the council moved the ordinance to a discussion and a vote on Feb. 24.

In 2022, Falmouth’s Conservation Commission proposed updating the Falmouth ordinance to more strictly regulate pesticides and fertilizers, as many Maine municipalities have already done. A draft of a new ordinance in April 2024 maintains the restrictions from the 2020 ordinance while also banning certain pesticides, such as those containing neonicotinoids and fertilizer containing phosphorus. The draft ordinance also bans pesticide and fertilizer application within 75 feet of any body of water and has requirements for fertilizer and pesticide applicators and retailers in Falmouth.

The draft ordinance has seen many iterations since. The first draft of the updated ordinance met resistance, as 57.5% of 600 Falmouth residents who responded to a survey about the ordinance were opposed. In May, the council resolved to continue working on the pesticide ordinance and facilitate public outreach about the proposed regulations.

Following multiple workshops, forums and public comment, on Dec. 9 the Falmouth Town Council introduced a version of the draft ordinance with changes made based on public feedback. Based on an outcry about being unable to treat lawns for grubs under the original draft ordinance, the Ordinance Committee largely exempted grubs treatment from the draft ordinance.

Additionally, the prohibition of synthetic fertilizer containing phosphorus on lawns and natural turf was changed to allow for the application of 1 pound of phosphorus per 1,000 square feet for new lawns or a soil test stating phosphorus is needed, with applications limited to twice a year. The newest draft was also changed allow for select fertilizer application on lawns, limited to 2 pounds of nitrogen per 100 square feet with a maximum of two applications per year.

The draft ordinance introduced on Dec. 9 underwent minor changes based on councilor and public feedback. Reintroduced on Jan. 13, the newest draft of the ordinance clarifies requirements for retailer compliance and the registration of public utilities as they relate to selling and spraying fertilizers and pesticides. Falmouth Town Council Chair Jay Trickett described the Dec. 9 and Jan. 13 drafts as “substantially similar.”

Feb. 10 was the first time since a community feedback session in October that Falmouth residents provided in-person feedback on the proposed ordinance. While some spoke in support of the ordinance, a majority were against it, citing unfair targeting of residential homeowners and lack of clear connection to the threats to public and environmental health from the chemicals that would be banned.

Exemptions for municipal properties, sports fields and golf courses from the ban also rubbed some residents the wrong way. Under the draft ordinance, golf clubs are permitted to use pesticides and fertilizers that would be banned for private property use, except for neonicotinoids, as long as they used “best management practices” and conducted water testing.

“I live (next to) Falmouth Country club. For me to watch them use one type of fertilizer and my property bordering Falmouth Country Club, being told ‘You can’t use that,’ I don’t understand the equity or the fairness of this ordinance,” said Falmouth resident Matthew Tabenken.

“I oppose this ordinance for the simple but compelling reason that it favors the interests of private country clubs and their golf courses over the interests of residents of the town of Falmouth,” commented Neil Hurley.

Other concerns from residents included managing tree infestations under the new ordinance, lack of evidence that there is an environmental or health issue with pesticides and fertilizer runoff in Falmouth, and an overstep of local government as the chemicals restricted in the new ordinance are permitted federally and by the state.

Overall, commenters emphasized the lack of community support for the ordinance as a reason for why it should not be passed.

“My understanding is that this council is supposed to be representative of its residents. Its residents don’t want it,” said Falmouth resident Palmer Higgins. “The data doesn’t support it, the residents don’t want it, and the ordinance is targeting a hyper-specific segment of lawns. I don’t understand why we’re even contemplating it.”

“It is very concerning to me when I see our Town Council going against the wishes of the majority and the community who oppose this,” said Tabenken.

Councilors responded to public comment briefly. Councilor Peter LaFond went over the history of the ordinance and emphasized that it is best to err on the side of caution when considering the negative impacts of chemicals on human health. Councilor Janice de Lima spoke to personal freedoms versus public consideration.

“I believe in property rights. I own my home, and I don’t like people telling me what to do with my home. But there are some things that I do with my home that do impact my neighbors, and I’ve got to be sensitive about that. I don’t think anyone in this room will claim that they can prevent the runoff from their lawns going onto the neighbor’s property,” said de Lima.

“No ordinance that I’m aware of is written to such perfection that it never has to be looked at again. Things happen in increments … Is this the best ordinance that could ever be written and will never be looked at again? Probably not. But it’s a start,” she said.