PlantAmerica

This issue spans the industry and offers an opportunity for leadership.

PlantAmerica thought that the issue of water runoff was a valid topic that impacted the industry across the board.

Each segment of the industry has different experiences and different issues, but they all share three major components to dealing with runoff:

1. the shear cost of water
2. the potential for chemicals to be dispersed, and work their way into the water table
3. erosion

We thought it would be good to hear perspectives from three segments of the industry, plus from an academic point of view. We put together a panel of four people and interviewed them via a conference call about this issue. The participants included: 

• Dr. A. Martin Petrovic, Professor of Turfgrass at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York
• Charles Richardson, Vice President of Stiles Landscaping in Pompano Beach, Florida
• Kevin Riley, Owner of Rockledge Gardens in Rockledge, Florida 
• Bud Summers, Vice President and General Manager Hines Nurseries in Irvine, California 
• Donna W. Moramarco, Vice President of Knowledge Networks for PlantAmerica in Locust Valley, New York 

At the end of the hour, several things were clear. One being that this is truly an issue of concern for all segments of the industry. There are some very proactive measurements being taken. In many cases, controlling runoff will save money. And the general feeling, at least among those interviewed, was that this was almost a civic duty as we are all aware of the down side to wasting or polluting our water. Perhaps, most importantly, the group felt strongly that our industry should be leading the charge in helping our clients and customers better understand how they can have the landscape they want, and still protect the environment.

Controlling Runoff Transcript

After a round of introductions and some general conversation about the purpose of the panel and how we would conduct the interview, I began.

Moderator: I suppose one of the first questions I’d like to pose to each of you is this: What do you find as your biggest challenge in controlling runoff. Bud, since I’ve visited your operation I’d like you to share what you are doing at Hines.

BUD: Okay. Well, we have seven nursery sites across the country, and all of them have recycling centers. And so fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, I’ve been involved with most of the design work of all of them.

I think the number one challenge is really controlling and maintaining the recycled-water quality. This becomes especially true in an entirely closed system. And this means, for us, a constant requirement of measuring, monitoring the key water quality factors – pH, chemicals or pesticide trace elements, algae concentration, blend ratios. And that in itself is a very expensive task.

The other number one challenge is the mix of plant varieties you’re growing. Not all plants or plant stages will tolerate recycled water. For example, some of the annuals or perennials of color won’t tolerate it. Propagation material is very sensitive to the rooting. Other sensitive plants, like lorapetalum, for instance, won’t tolerate some of the recycled water. And so you end up having a segregation of the sensitive plants from those that will tolerate that quality.

Another expense to the production side is the separate irrigation delivery systems. Again, it’s costly. Right here, on this site in Irvine, California, we have approximately 3,000 varieties. And so you end up having separate field layout designs and separate irrigation systems.

Moderator: Are you using any bioremediation to help filter toxins from the water to help control the water quality?

BUD: No. Outside of using duckweed. I’m not sure if we introduced that or the ducks did. But we actually have systems that are designed to flush the water. So every day the entire million gallons of water at this site gets flushed out. We keep the water moving quite rapidly to control some of that. And then we — and some other warmer climates – have the advantage of losing it through transpiration or evaporation, so you’re constantly mixing fresh water with it as well.

But it’s a balancing act. It’s clearly a balancing act that keeps the quality where you need it to optimize production, growth.

Moderator: Kevin, how about you? What are some of the challenges you face in controlling runoff at your garden center?

KEVIN: Well, at the garden center itself we’ve got about 5 acres and we’re surrounded on all four sides by higher property. So runoff isn’t a big problem here. It’s almost the opposite problem. Fortunately when we have water on the property, in most instances it doesn’t stay on the surface very long at all.

We’re on a sand ridge, so it’d take a lot of rain for it to stand. And then when it stands, it’s only a matter of hours before it drains. We have a draining system in our property, so it kind of collects. I guess we do control it in some way. But we don’t worry about or have to deal with recirculating the water or dealing with the water running off because it percolates right straight through our soil.

Moderator: Do you have a well or are you using treated water for your irrigation?

KEVIN: Yes, we use reclaimed water – gray water – for all our irrigation. It comes from the city.

Moderator: Well, Charles, what do you think is the number one challenge in controlling runoff from a landscape design and installation perspective?

CHARLES: Typically runoff on our properties is dictated to by the landscape design, specifically on slopes and near retention ponds. And we have different types of soils to deal with.

Just north of us a few miles, it’s a very sandy soil, up in the Boca areas, but to the south of us, it’s very, very dense, hardpan, and rocky soil. So whereas on one site we might get great percolation and there’s very limited runoff at all, a few miles away everything runs off, depending on the type of vegetation you have. So it’s not “one-size-fits-all” with us.

Moderator: So part of your challenge is making sure you understand the exact conditions of each site you’re working with.

CHARLES: Part of the challenge really is if we’re applying chemicals and we have a steep slope, like a 3-to-1 slope near a lake bank, we need to try to position ourselves so we’re not dumping chemicals into that lake.

DONNA: Marty, you’ve done some research that really talked about leachate and runoff, correct?

MARTY: Correct. With our work as well as other work on the cool season turf grass, generally the biggest challenge and the biggest factor that affects whether nutrients or pesticides move off a turf is actually how dense the turf is.

If we can keep density up, unless we have very unusual weather conditions, runoff is pretty minimal. So that to me is the biggest challenge, to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to maintain turf density, and that seems to take care of a good bit of the runoff issues.

Moderator: That’s a good point. It’s kind of like an ounce of prevention. Well, let’s move on to some solutions. Charles, you mentioned that it was a challenge when you’re on a slope that’s near a body of water. How are you trying to control runoff and contain it on-site in a situation like that?

CHARLES: I believe Marty touched on that a little bit. We have to be real sensitive to the quality of our turf. And if you have a weak turf, for instance –and I’ll use standardization. Let’s say most lake banks have 25 to 40 feet of turf area before the water’s edge. So, you know you have some distance there to control that runoff. And if you’re really paying attention to good turf quality and good management, there’s very limited runoff on these areas.

Soil conditions make a difference, too. We notice that on some of the older properties, and this is before folks became sensitive to this issue, that they would put turf on compacted areas, for instance, around buildings, where the construction caused compaction of the soil or perhaps it just wasn’t good soil used to backfill with. Those soils are very heavy, dense tend to run off more so than if the newer construction where it is mandated, usually by one municipality or another, that you import soil that perks a little bit better and — so we have downward movement of water rather than runoff.

Moderator: Do you do much subterranean drainage? Put in drain lines and other drain systems?

CHARLES: Yeah, we do some of that, but not a great abundance of it.

Moderator: I imagine in Florida that with the sandy soil a lot of that is probably not required.

CHARLES: Well, ironically, south of Fort Lauderdale through Miami, it’s pretty much rock. There’s not as much soil here as you might think there is.

Moderator: Bud, you talked a little bit about some of your solutions for controlling runoff. Is there anything you want to add to that?

BUD: I think there’s a couple of things. And obviously, I’m realizing now, the perspective from a large production facility is maybe a little different than the landscape and turf systems.

Obviously, I think the proper sizing of the reservoir and recycling facilities, is critical to the site’s ability to actually use recycled water systems. And we’ve learned by mistake. Larger is not better.

Large reservoirs do not allow you to flush the system and/or push the water movement to control some of the algae growth. You’ve got nutrient-laden irrigation runoff, and with warmer temperatures, algae tends to be a major problem.

But you also have to be large enough to handle the peak flows. And the nursery we’re dealing with right here in Irvine is 458 acres.

The other thing that is a solution, or something we had to change once we really adopted the best management practice of recycling, is just really hands-on crops inspection. This goes along with our IPM programs. Irrigation requirements need to be determined hourly and daily because you can’t just turn the water on and let it run for 3 hours and let the water go off.

You really do need to concentrate on drainage education of the people in the field. And so irrigation management becomes paramount to the success of a recycling center — on a production facility, anyway.

Moderator: Okay. Kevin, how about you? You said you don’t have many big issues on runoff. Do you have any thing to add?

KEVIN: We do use a drain system within the property just to control the water from running on the surface or down the sidewalks. In our beds, we have drains that pool it into two separate small retention areas for a temporary holding spot until it does drain through.

Moderator: So, if I understood correctly, you said earlier that you are using recycled water provided by the city?

KEVIN: It’s gray water. It’s treated so it comes from the city, so it’s not the water that lands onto my property. I’m not recycling runoff water. But we do have a drain system on two separate sides of the property just to bring the water down into it. And a lot of it will percolate before it ever reaches the holding area. But if it does, then it drains pretty quickly.

Moderator: And Marty, besides the density and even quality of the turf, are there other ways to control runoff?

MARTY: Yeah, there are two other issues that I have heard, and I’ll give you my comments.

One is how you treat impervious areas, such as sidewalks and roadways, adjacent to turf areas. Especially if they’re [the paved areas] in storm water collection areas since that’s a direct conduit to those areas [turf areas]. That’s sometimes not the easiest thing to do.

And the other thing that some people have been suggesting, is to soil test and only apply phosphorus to the turf based on soil test recommendations.

Conceptually, I tend to agree with that, but the research on turf doesn’t necessarily show a very good correlation. So there needs to be a little bit more work to clearly use that as a tool to show that’s going to reduce phosphorus runoff.

DONNA: Let me ask a question. Marty, with this density issue with turf, are there particular turf grass species from a cool season or warm season perspective, which you would recommend that have the tendency to produce denser turf?

MARTY: The problem tends to be that with each species of grass some varieties are of better density than others, so it’s sometimes hard to talk about different species when it’s more about getting down to the variety or cultivar level.

But I think just in general for any species, if you can maximize its density you lessen the degree of runoff. Even tall fescue, maybe the least dense turf in a sense, doesn’t necessarily have significant runoff if you can maintain a reasonable density within that species.

Moderator: Moving on to the next question, Charles, has there been any regulatory or legislative action that has impacted you in regard to runoff?

CHARLES: I haven’t really noticed anything lately or have heard of anything lately that’s causing any problems right now. You know, you hear the grapevine saying this is coming and that is coming, but nothing significant that I know of.

Moderator: How about you, Bud?

BUD: Well, in Southern California we operate under a wastewater discharge permit as well. And we’ve been able to be compliant with the wastewater discharge permit for many years now.

I guess the other thing under regulatory actions that have impacted us, perhaps just as an industry for ornamental plants, is perhaps the equal enforcement of some of the local, state, and federal requirements. We have competitors within a stone’s throw of us that aren’t required to recycle.

Moderator: And why is that? Because they’re in a different county?

BUD: Good question. It’s an excellent question. Sometimes you’re the largest point source, and so that’s where the emphasis is put. We have voluntarily put recycling centers in all our facilities, and we think it’s a good thing to do.

But you will find that a majority of production facilities do not, I believe, recycle water, so they’re avoiding some of the, you know, significant costs associated with that. And that puts us sometimes at a competitive disadvantage.

Moderator: When you had your droughts, were you impacted? Have you ever been denied access to water or had to reduce your usage of water?

BUD: We were initially requested to. When that happens, I become very active with the system. Here’s one of the disadvantages, perhaps. We recycle water; a nursery down the street does not recycle. When they came out and said, “Gee, we’re in our sixth year of a drought here – this was in the late ’80s, the early ’90s — we need everybody to reduce water consumption by 40 percent.” Someone who has not been recycling, for instance, can come in and – not easily – but can recycle water and save that kind [40%] of water pretty quickly. A site that’s been recycling for many years and has been fairly effective and efficient in water use will find cutting usage by 40% a very difficult task. And what you end up doing is start trying to think about taking product out of production.

Moderator: Kevin, how about you? Have there been any restrictions that have impacted your ability to keep your garden center healthy?

KEVIN: No. Other than the fact that if I were to do any kind of additional building or something. Then I’d have to take a part of the property and set it aside for runoff. And so, because I’m restricted in my property, it restricts me on how much additional parking or buildings I can do.

Moderator: I see. And Marty, do you have any thoughts about any regulatory or legislative actions?

MARTY: Yeah, there are a couple of issues we’ve seen in New York and actually in some other states in the North. Either no use of pesticides, or only using natural organic practices. And that can be a problem because can we still maintain adequate turf density by doing those practices?

If we can’t — which I think in some situations that is impossible, such as on golf courses and even in some other turf areas, then we’re going to be losing turf density and increasing water runoff and movement of pesticides and other chemicals.

But that’s a big concern to me. And we’re actually doing studies looking at the difference between pest management systems from a traditional approach of applying a pesticide anytime there’s a pest, to a pure IPM approach of looking at controlled use and actually selecting materials that are more friendly to the environment. Then in all natural organic, we’re looking at both runoff of nutrients and pesticides and leaching of nutrients and pesticides.

I fear that natural organic may long-term cause a greater problem with runoff of phosphorus and nitrogen.

Moderator: That’s not would one would think initially. I case like so many things, you really need to take a holistic or cradle-to-grave view of these different approaches. Marty, what do you think are some of the positive aspects of controlling runoff?

MARTY: Well, you’re probably more efficiently using your irrigation water if you are irrigating, and not causing irrigation to run off. So that’s one aspect.

This goes back to just having higher quality turf conditions to reduce runoff, and if it’s on athletic settings, that means the quality of those play fields will be better.

Those, I think, are really positive reasons for controlling runoff; the conservation, the cost in relationship to that, as well as having better turf in the long run.

Moderator: Charles, what would you say are some of the positive aspects of controlling water runoff?

CHARLES: Well, we’re in an unusual situation here in south Florida. From West Palm Beach south we’ve been in an extreme drought, which is not the norm here at all. We’re in a modified phase 3, which really limits the amount of water that we can use. And the plant industry — nurserymen, and the green industry across the board — has really spoken up to the effects of wasting water.

I believe it’s really brought to the forefront what this is all about. And with the heavy population growth in the area, the lack of water becomes even more accentuated.

And I think Bud was addressing that, too, a little bit earlier with what the nursery industry can do to promote good use of water. I think what it’s doing is it’s causing us to look at the environment around us as leaders and not just sit back and take water for granted, you know, allowing people to look at it in a positive light. And so out of all this chaos has come something pretty good, I believe.

Moderator: So, Charles, do you find it impacts your designs, and as a result maybe you reduce turf areas or you use more drought-tolerant plants or are things like that taking place?

CHARLES: Well, as you move through Florida, what you can do in Rockledge you cannot necessarily do in West Palm Beach or Miami. Drought-tolerant plants? Lantana, for instance, is a drought tolerant plant.

And thrives in dry conditions. But in the summertime it gets fungus and just doesn’t do well here. So what you might be planting as a drought-tolerant plant really doesn’t cut it in the heavy summer rains.

And vice versa; if you plant tropicals that need all this water, how are you going to get them through the typically drier winter?

Slopes are a big deal. We have generally flat terrain here, but near lake areas and waterway areas where you have steep slopes, they’re generally quite steep — 3 to 1. And the runoff in those areas is really pretty significant. And if you’re using, as Marty said, heavy doses — or let’s say bad management practices and applying turf fertilizers and heavy phosphorus and nitrogen, you’re going to have some real pollution problems.

So we really try to modify that and pay attention to what we’re putting on and where we’re putting it.

Moderator: Bud, besides the obvious sheer savings of money that controlling your runoff brings to your business, what would you say are some of the more positive aspects of controlling water runoff?

BUD: Well, you hit it. The overall cost of water, I mean, in the neck of the woods we’re in right now, you’re paying well over $200 an acre-foot.

Moderator: Wow.

BUD: We are not under well water here in Southern California, so it’s all imported water. So the cost savings can be significant. And I think being a good community citizen or corporate

citizen in the conservation efforts certainly pays off. The Irvine facility has won numerous conservation awards. And it just plays well with being a good corporate citizen.

And everybody’s talking about controlling runoff. For me, controlling runoff means not letting it run off the nursery and recycling it and reusing it somehow. And it’s just a best management practice. And I believe we ought to, industry-wide, be looking at it in terms of the production facilities because of the vast amount of water that is used to produce plants, especially containerized plants. In terms of good community relationships, it’s just an environmentally sound practice.

Moderator: So do you think this is something that nurseries of almost any scale could implement?

BUD: We produce shrub plants and, in general, woody ornamentals. I think when you get into the bedding plant business, I think there’s very little runoff from those facilities. So maybe there are other technologies that make more sense.

I think for large-scale production of ornamentals, containerized ornamentals, with the amount of water that’s required to produce them to the quality we need, I think it’s very doable.

Recycling centers are not much more sophisticated than digging a hole down at the bottom end of the property where the water runs, collecting it. You do have to control the quality, and so you have to do constant analysis. But collecting it, filtering it, blending it with other water to make it suitable for production, and then reusing it.

But it does take a very different skill set to constantly monitor that water quality, and that’s something I’m not sure the nursery industry is used or done historically. Those sites that have learned how to work within the recycled-water systems are doing it very well now and have learned there are things you’ve got to watch out for.

But I think with the import and the training associated with dealing with these biological systems — and that’s what a recycle system really is, is a separate biological system — I think it’s very doable. And it should be a best management practice or standard that, you know, gets adopted industry-wide.

Moderator: Kevin, how about you? What do you see as some positive aspects of water runoff?

KEVIN: I think probably the publicity around it. My dealings are with the public more than the industry. I deal with the public daily and they’re conscious of that and they’re asking me about that, as far as applying herbicides or insecticides or fertilizers or whatever.

By me, the key is educating them and saying, “Well, you know, you don’t have to use as much or if you do this, or this one might be a little less problem with the ecology,” or whatever. So I think the education aspect is a positive.

And also, with the water restrictions and the publicity around that, people are becoming a little bit more aware of how they’re watering. A lot of people, when they get an irrigation system installed they just want to watch it run every day, which really isn’t healthy for anything around, in most cases. So this issue is making them do a little better job at taking care of their landscape, forcing them to do what they think is opposite to a healthy garden but turns out to be a good thing.

Moderator: Can you think of a downside to doing this?

KEVIN: Well, you have to educate the public. If the media’s starting to say, “Oh, you know, we’re going to be in water restrictions, which means you can only water twice a week,” I think people start to think, “Oh, I better not plant anything, if can only water twice a week.” Well, you know, that’s not the true story.

First off, there’s usually a clause in they can water every day for the first month of a new installation or they can hand-water if they have to. But for the established landscapes, in most cases twice a week’s fine in our area.

Moderator: Bud, can you think of a downside to controlling your runoff?

BUD: It does cost you more and potentially makes you less competitive in the marketplace against a competitor that doesn’t have that cost to bear.

You know, again, I think it’s just a more complex system to deal with than traditional nurseries have been used to dealing with. But I think the complexity and the cost are probably the two things that – if there is a downside – that’s what it would be.

Moderator: Charles, how about you?

CHARLES: I really do think it costs more to control runoff and to apply pesticides properly rather than just go out and wholesale spray any particular chemical. It certainly costs a lot more to do business.

Moderator: Have you found your clients are willing to accept that and appreciate that?

CHARLES: Generally, yes. Generally, because the folks like to be proactive, have stature in the community, and say, “We’re out there promoting this, we’re doing things.” It gets a lot of press here right now, with people doing good things.

Moderator: That’s good.

CHARLES: It’s really positive in educating the public in general.

Moderator: Marty, can you think of any downside to controlling runoff?

MARTY: No, but I think I’ve heard a lot of good points being made.

Moderator: Bud, you were mentioning the quality control issues. Do any of you know of good sources of information that you could turn to or recommend to people trying to look at ways to control runoff? Are their agencies or publications that you’re aware of? Or are you just sort of learning along the way?

KEVIN: I really don’t know of any.

Moderator: How about you, Bud?

BUD: I think when we first started this back in the early ’90s, there wasn’t a lot out there specifically for, ornamental especially – containerized ornamental production. I think we’ve learned and developed a lot of in-house technologies. Like I said, we’ve built six different systems — not different systems -we’ve built six systems now and the last three have been cookie-cutters from the previous. Because we, we just learned what works and what you have to watch out for.

I don’t know of anything right offhand outside of our internal knowledge base.

Moderator: How about you, Charles?

CHARLES: Well, I can certainly recall, you know, talking about erosion control and such 20 years ago and thinking in terms of how that helps us out.

Moderator: You’re landscape architect, correct?

CHARLES: Yes.

Moderator: I finished my masters in landscape architecture a long time ago and I don’t know to what degree water conservation is being taught in the schools today. Do you have idea if it is being taught in any of the programs — either nursery production or landscape architecture? Are you at all aware if the curriculum reflects?

MARTY: Well, I think we do to the landscape and nursery students and turf students. We integrate that into all our management courses. We have a landscape architecture program here at Cornell, both graduate and undergraduate, and only a few of them, probably, get that type of course work, which I think is unfortunate. They’re more concerned about the design aspect of things.

CHARLES: I would like to say “attaboy” to Marty, because I think he’s right on the button with that.

Moderator: Yeah, it’s just amazing what they’re not being taught.

CHARLES: I think landscape architects are emphasizing the design on a computer and horticulturally I think they’re losing some ground in how to manage some of these little problems, such as water runoff.

Moderator: Marty, can you think of some sources of information for either how to maintain water quality control or bioremediation or anything like that? Are there sources that come to mind for you?

MARTY: I’m trying. I knew you were going to ask me that. I don’t think there’s one good publication. There’s been a fair amount of work in California on that and actually, there was a symposium several years ago, kind of looking at using reclaimed water, but it talked about a lot of the issues in relationship to runoff. And that was published, I think, by the U.S. Golf Association. But wasn’t just about golf courses, but they were one of the co-sponsors of it.

But as far as I can tell there are a lot of bits and pieces of things, but I think there still needs to be a good best management practices from that perspective.

Moderator: I was perusing the EPA site recently I saw a whole section devoted to this. And I know the ASLA, in both the magazine and the organization, have done a fair amount of publishing on the topic, and I think there are some manuals about bioremediation to help control the water quality.

Well, is there anything else you’d like to add or offer? Any closing comments?

MARTY: No, I think, have been pretty much covered.

Moderator: Charles?

CHARLES: Well, I’d just like to say that as an industry, the green industry, we have to do what we can to make sure that we’re protecting our waterways.

And certainly I think we need to take a leadership role amongst the general public and educate the homeowner that says he’s out there spraying whatever he’s spraying on his yard to keep it green, to keep it away from the waterways and understand how it can get to the waterways. And we need to provide for safe drinking water and safe recreational waterways. And I think we just need to take a big step in getting out in front of it.

I don’t know that we want to treat our industry selfishly and worry so much about increased costs of doing business. I know that’s easy to say, and we all have to manage our budget, but we really have to look at our – or the – environment as a whole and take on the role of being that person that steps out front and looks it in the eye and fixes the problem.

Moderator: Here, here. Bud, any closing comments or thoughts you want to add?

BUD: Yeah, I think I would echo what I just heard – louder and maybe more clear throughout the production part of the world. I think we need to take the initiative to implement some of these best management practices and technologies and try to keep the horticulture industry as environmentally friendly as the product we grow and plant and see.

The public is becoming much more aware and much more sensitive regarding pollution and management of some of our natural resources, and water being one key. Especially in this part of the world. I think it’s only a matter of time before some of these systems and technologies to control runoff and recycle water become operational standards, if not mandated.

This is kind of looking in the future, but I think in many ways the implementations of systems or technologies, like water recycling, may very well identify some of those companies that will remain in business over the foreseeable future.

Moderator: Does ANLA have any position on this, or are they promoting this type of recycling in production?

BUD: You have to understand the membership of the associations. I would assume – I am assuming at this point — that the majority of nurseries do not recycle water. And to really take a strong position and to increase the

production costs for that part of the membership would be probably not be looked upon favorably.

Moderator: So is ANLA not particularly recommending this or promoting it?

BUD: I think they promote it. I think we just have to be cognizant of the fact that in some areas it is not as sensitive an issue as in other areas. And some facilities and operations may look upon it as “it’s not being required so why should I spend the extra money and deal with the extra complexity of having a system like this?”

But I do think it’s becoming more and more a standard of newer facilities that are being constructed. I know all of the ground we’re opening up now in Northern California is completely designed from the get go to have recycling centers.

The problem is that to go back and retrofit a site that’s been in operation for a while is extremely expensive. Not only do you have to try to regrade it to get all the water in one area or into the least number of collection points as

Possible, you have to replumb your facility and that’s a major undertaking. We’ll spend well over a million dollars on a facility just for recycling.

Moderator: Then your belief is that in the long run it pays off?

BUD: Oh, I believe so. I mean, if you’re spending $220, $240 an acre-foot and you have a large facility, do the math. It doesn’t take long to get a payback. In fact, that will be one of the quicker paybacks you get in any investment you make. But it is more complex, and it can be very tricky to maintain the water quality.

Moderator: Kevin, do you have any closing comments or anything to add?

KEVIN: Yeah, I’d just say I agree with Charles in that our industry needs to educate the public and ourselves and the powers that be, because if we don’t, they are going to put down regulations we might not be able to live with.

So if we take the leadership and say, “This are the right ways to do this,” then they’ll kind of take a little bit more hands-off approach. We can be doing a good job without shutting down our industry.

Moderator: And Donna, do you have anything else or anything you want to add?

DONNA: I think it’s easier if the industry is a part of writing those rules and having some ownership to them from the start. That will make it much easier down the road if we all have to live with them. So I think you’re absolutely right about that.

Let me just say that I have a whole new appreciation for some of the things that people like you, Bud, have to go through in a major growing operation out in California. And I really appreciate the time that you all have taken to spend with us this afternoon.

Moderator: And I, too, appreciate your time very much. Even more, I’m really impressed. Maybe it was just a roll of the dice that we got you four, but there seems to be a genuine awareness of the importance of doing this and in taking leadership and being the standard bearer to educate our industry and the public.

Because I do agree with what I think you were saying, Kevin, that often if we’re being proactive and visibly so, then it does reduce the likelihood of mandates coming down, or it increases the likelihood of our involvement in helping mold those regulations and laws.

But I learned a lot and thank you for your time. I guess that wraps it.

DONNA: Thanks, everybody.

CHARLES: Thank you for having us. I’d like to do it again.