NORMAN — Editor, The Transcript:
The Transcript’s Feb. 27 article, “Protecting Norman’s Water Supply,” did a great job reporting on city council’s efforts to improve water conservation and safeguard the lake from over-fertilization. Council passed a measure requiring drought resistant plants to be used in the landscaping of city property.
These are important steps forward, but lots of work still remains. That this multi-pronged approach now seems to be endorsed by the council majority is good news for anyone relying on the municipal water supply.
Leaders have negotiated timely responses to meet the water crisis head on. Most of these are non-controversial, easily marketable policy solutions. As one council member skeptically put it, we are at least “learning” in the right direction. His skepticism is warranted. Stronger regulations, though welcome, won’t be enough.
While a citywide ban on phosphate fertilizers and detergents would seem to be in order, this was evidently too divisive. The voluntary measures, while limited, will at least help publicize the harm done by lawn fertilization. Phosphates content feeds the harmful algae growth seen at many lakes in these increasingly hot and dry Oklahoma summers. The blooms can limit access to some lakes for both recreation and drinking water. If we’re lucky, this information may help to discourage irresponsible use, but there’s still no reliable mechanism for enforcement.
The fertilizer ordinance easily won favor with the developers and their lobbyists.
Certainly, it will have little impact on their harmful land use practices. In getting behind such ordinances, they can appear to support water quality issues while blocking stronger regulations that would require changes in their behavior. Limiting development in sensitive areas, preserving the flood plain; this is all part of the hard work and “bolt cutting” that lies ahead.
Despite broad support for the fertilizer ordinance, two notable dissenting votes came from Wards 5 and 8. Their insistence on absolutely denying the city’s legitimacy in passing voluntary measures was backed, somewhat confusingly, by a standard refrain denouncing any limit of “freedom.”