The point is this... There is an unstated assumption that development is bad and natural is good.  Therefore, the environmentalists assume that "natural vegetation" is the ideal condition to have bordering water bodies and any developed land is therefore worse for the environment.  It's a fatal mistake on our part to concede this argument before any negotiation begins on buffers.  It simply isn't true and this study gives us proof.  ANYTHING alongside the water will have some effect and natural is not necessarily better.  Decaying vegetation produces larger quantities of nutrients than developed land.  Natural buffers are actually MORE harmful to water bodies than well cared-for and maintained developed property.

When presented with this evidence see how people respond.  If they reject it without question, that is proof they are not really pro-environment, but anti-development.  If someone is really concerned about protecting the environment, then they should welcome methods to achieve better results.  However, if their real goal is to damage property owners, they won't want to hear the truth.  Their reaction to this information will reveal their true motives.