Pond Boss Forums AQUATIC VEGETATION Controlling unwanted plants Lily Pads Have Taken Over

John; in the interest of avoiding a lengthy straw man debate, let�s move on.
By the way, my son is considering your floating island design as his future Eagle Scout project for our community�s ponds. So, thanks for your input and insights.

Cecil; your theory has a basis, as witnessed by the eventual aquatic registrations of numerous herbicides that initially held only terrestrial registrations (including glyphosate, imazapyr, fluridone, diquat, flumioxazin, etc). It takes far longer, and much more $, to secure an aquatic registration in comparison to terrestrial registrations. Thousand$ more? Not hardly! Try millions!
In the case of terrestrial glyphosate products versus aquatic glyphosate products, the issue of aquatic-safety is not glyphosate. Rather, at issue is the tallow-amine surfactant that is typically formulated with terrestrial versions of glyphosate. So, why are tallow-amines used in terrestrial glyphosate formulations if they�re so risky to aquatic sites? Simple! They represent the most cost-effective type of surfactant for glyphosate�s performance. Surfactants that are acceptable within aquatic sites and which possess comparable performance-characteristics to tallow-amines, are more costly in comparison.
There are many terrestrial herbicides that could make incredible aquatic herbicides IF it weren�t for some significant issues (toxicological, environmental, degradation/metabolites, etc). I won�t mention any by name, but one such product has been previously discussed on the board (it sounds like a south-of-the-border auto dealership).
Bottom line: Market segmentation and cost-burdening are often the underlying reasons for multiple labels and registrations for some specific chemistries. With glyphosate, however, there are technical reasons for the aquatic-vs-terrestrial formulations that are not disclosed on the respective labels.