Sludge haz waste

SEE FLOODS SEA LEVEL RISE

note color text below

icn gmail 12 25

Maine Was First To Ban Spreading PFAS-Contaminated Sludge on Farmland. Now Sludge Is Filling up Landfills.

BY SYDNEY CROMWELL

Well before the ban took effect, the “forever chemicals” linked to cancer, birth defects and other serious health problems had tainted drinking-water wells, vegetable roots, beef and milk in Maine.

---

an 11 25

Seven states are one flood away from a toxic sludge site spilling into the community.

Mother Jones reported Friday, "Florida, New Jersey, California, Louisiana, New York, Massachusetts, and Texas account for 80 percent" of the sites. "Most of this risk is already locked in."

More than 5,500 toxic sites across the U.S. could face coastal flooding by 2100, threatening to spill contaminants into surrounding neighborhoods within the lifetimes of Generations Alpha and Beta, new research warns.

Scientists at the University of California found that a wide range of hazardous facilities are vulnerable, including sites handling sewage, toxic waste, oil, gas and other pollutants that are not fully protected from sea level rise and severe flooding.

"After examining 23 coastal states and Puerto Rico, scientists found that flood risk is far from evenly distributed. Florida, New Jersey, California, Louisiana, New York, Massachusetts, and Texas account for nearly 80 percent of the hazardous sites expected to be at risk by 2100," the report said.

The project examined 47,600 coastal facilities in the U.S., finding that about 5,500 are at risk of frequent flooding that could send toxic materials into nearby communities.

Current environmental safeguards do little more than delay the danger. Future generations will be forced either to build stronger containment systems that can withstand flooding or face the consequences.

“Restricting greenhouse gas emissions to the low emissions scenario makes little difference in terms of the number of projected sites at risk in the near term (2050) but would reduce the number of at-risk sites from 5,500 to 5,138 (a reduction of 362 or 7 percent of sites) in the long term," the scientists found.

Read the full study at Nature Communications.

---

Packer Township wins Round One of AG's sewer sludge suit | Times ...

https://www.tnonline.com/2010/.../packer-township-wins-round-one-ags-sewer-sludge-s...

Mar 24, 2010 - Round one of Packer Township's fight to regulate the use of sewage sludge within its boundaries has been won by the township, though the ...

Missing: 14th ‎| Must include: 14th

East Penn Twp. prepares for sludge court battle | Times News Online

https://www.tnonline.com/east-penn-twp-prepares-sludge-court-battle

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

May 9, 2018 - The East Penn Township supervisors are gearing up for a legal battle to prevent the use of treated sewage sludge on a farm in the township.

Missing: 14th ‎| Must include: 14th

COMMONWEALTH v. PACKER TOWNSHIP | FindLaw

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1623095.html

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

PACKER TOWNSHIP and Packer Township Board of Supervisors, Respondents. ... the Packer Township sewage sludge ordinance” filed by the Commonwealth ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Toxic_Sludge

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Toxic_Sludge

Sewage sludge is the growing and continuous mountain of hazardous waste produced daily by wastewater treatment plants. The sewage sludge industry has created an Orwellian PR euphemism it uses in place of the words "sewage sludge"-- biosolids. The term Biosolids was chosen in a PR contest by the lobby association for U.S. sewage treatment plants, the Water Environment Federation (WEF).

The WEF, with the support of the Environmental Protection Agency, has since the 1990s been promoting spreading this hazardous waste on farms and gardens, after it proved too hazardous to landfill, incinerate or dump into the oceans. The sewage sludge lobby also includes major corporations such as Synagro, front groups such as the US Composting Council, publications including BioCycle magazine, and even the Rodale Institute.

see below:

Packer Township adopted its ordinance in 2008 to prohibit sludging on farmland, knowing that the law might be challenged. Residents decided that a ban was their only choice. They had seen the impacts of sludging directly, as the ordinance describes:

"In 1994, eleven-year-old Tony Behun from Rush Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, died from a staphylococcus infection shortly after being exposed to sewage sludge. The following year, seventeen-year-old Daniel Pennock from Reading, Pennsylvania, died from a staphylococcus infection shortly after being exposed to sewage sludge. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes staphylococcus as a potential pathogenic component of sewage sludge."

The ordinance further states, "The land application of sewage sludge in Packer Township poses a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and environment of Packer Township."

And: "In April 2002, the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which oversees state sewage sludge regulations, issued a report in which it concluded, 'EPA cannot assure the public that current land application [of sewage sludge] practices are protective of human health and the environment.'"

A key piece of the Packer ordinance is found in Section 8.12, which eliminates corporate constitutional "rights" and protections within the township. By taking this step, the township is, in effect, stripping away the waste haulers' court-conferred rights, including Fifth and 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, as well as powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

9/5/12

http://standardspeaker.com/news/packer-twp-to-revamp-biosolids-ordinance-1.1368509

Packer Township no longer has an ordinance that outlaws the use of sewage sludge as soil fertilizer.

But, according to the board of supervisors, a new, stronger ordinance will soon be in place.

The supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to rescind a 2008 ordinance that prohibited corporations and farmers from using treated sewage sludge, called biosolids, as ground fertilizer.

Controversial from the start, the ordinance was challenged in court by then-state Attorney General Tom Corbett, who was later elected governor.

The Packer Township Local Control, Sewage Sludge and Chemical Trespass Ordinance was unanimously adopted by the board of supervisors after a township dairy and crop farmer was granted a state Department of Environmental Protection permit to spread biosolids on his 100-acre farm. The boundaries of the farm lie within 75 yards of Still Creek Reservoir, which is a primary source of drinking water for the nearby borough of Tamaqua.

After the ordinance was passed, the farmer asked Corbett to review the township's biosolid law to determine whether it conflicted with existing state laws governing farming.

Corbett returned a decision that the ordinance violated state regulations that prohibit local ordinances from restricting normal agricultural operations.

The supervisors responded by invoking Article 1, Section 2, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states that citizens have the "inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."

The supervisors declared an "inalienable right of local self-government" and approved an amendment to the anti-sludge ordinance that the township would no longer recognize the authority of the attorney general's office to enforce any law that denied "the right to local self-government for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community."

Through years of court briefs and motions, the attorney general's office has held its ground that the township ordinance is unauthorized, and the township has held its self-governance stand.

In 2010, the Commonwealth Court ruled the matter should be reviewed by the full court.

Board Chairman William Swineberg said the case is scheduled for court in January, but supervisors have decided, on the advice of attorneys from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund CELDF), to revoke the existing ordinance and prepare to adopt a stronger version of the law.

CELDF has provided cost-free legal council to the township in defense of the original ordinance.

"It's going to court in January and there is no way we are going to win this," Swineberg said. "But we are going to pass another one."

Swineberg said the township cannot afford the anticipated cost of expert witness testimony in court, which could range from $60,000 to $80,000.

Rather than expend a great deal of the township's limited resources on a costly court battle, Swineberg said the board has received two new versions of a similar ordinance to consider for adoption.

One of the new ordinances has been prepared by CELDF attorneys, the other is a version of an ordinance that was previously adopted in East Brunswick Township in Schuylkill County, where citizens and local elected officials fought a biosolids battle similar to the Packer Township fight.

"We're going to review them both and decide which one to adopt," Swineberg said.

mlight@standardspeaker.com

npr gets punked

...

In a muddled attack on the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and those who are concerned about produce grown in sewage sludge, "The Salt," NPR's James Beard award-winning food blog, parroted sewage sludge industry PR and misled readers with the article "Whole Foods Bans Produce Grown With Sludge. But Who Wins?" published on January 21. The article was written in response to CMD's report on January 15 that the natural and organic foods retailer Whole Foods had agreed to develop a policy to ensure it would not sell produce grown in sewage sludge. It quotes this reporter as well as two sewage sludge promoters, but fails to quote toxicologists or epidemiologists or reference any current scientific studies about the effects of spreading sewage sludge....

NPR Buys the Sludge Industry's Polished PR

For the source of "The Salt" article's claims, look to the well-funded PR companies hired by the sewage sludge industry and itslobby groups, such as the Water Environment Federation, which had a budget of**well over $20 million in 2012**and which**invented the PR euphemism "biosolids."**

"The Salt" article does not quote any consumer or environmental advocates or any of the scientists who have published the extensive list of scientific studies CMD sent to "The Salt" reporter several days before the article was published.It does rely on industry representative**Chris Peot**and sludge booster**Sally Brown**of the University of Seattle, who has unabashedly promoted the use of sewage sludge to grow food and called those who oppose the practice "**ecoterrorists**."

Brown's claim, parroted by "The Salt," that people are only concerned about the land application of sewage sludge because they're uncomfortable with "poop" flies in the face of the scientific evidence documenting substantial cause for alarm.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/12374

11-H2997 on Sep 21, 2011

Bill Sponsorship:Superfund Common Sense Act

Source: H2997/S1729

Congressional Summary:Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to exclude manure from the definition of "hazardous substance" and "pollutant or contaminant" for purposes of such Act. Defines "manure" to mean:

digestive emissions, feces, urine, urea and other excrement from livestock;
any associated bedding, compost, raw materials or other materials commingled with such excrement from livestock;
any process water associated with such items; and
any byproducts, constituents, or substances contained in, or originating from, such items or any emissions relating to such items.

Amends the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to exempt from notification requirements releases associated with manure.

Opponent's Comments (Jim Ruen on AgProfessional.com, Oct. 3, 2011): Since when can a fertilizer dealer operate without concern for environmental regulation and impact? Let's face it, we aren't talking about Ma and Pa Kettle with their six milk cows and three sows here spreading a load of manure on the back 40. We are talking about CAFO units with thousands of animals and tens of thousands or more tons/gallons of manure. While a few maybe spreading on their own land, most are selling it to area farmers. At a time when fertilizer dealers and companies have to be conspicuously careful with how they handle product, why shouldn't mega-livestock operators be equally regulated as they sell their "waste" product for its nutrient and soil building value. Since when do commercial N, P and K producers or handlers get a free ride from the EPA...or Congress?

Topic: Environment
Headline: Sponsored ending considering manure as pollutant or hazardous
Headline 2: Stop considering manure as pollutant or hazardous

Participating counts on AmericansElect question 8.

Headline: Sponsored ending considering manure as pollutant or hazardous (Answer: B)
Headline 2: Stop considering manure as pollutant or hazardous (Answer: B)
AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on Environment: Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?
- A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity
- B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected
- C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity
- D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected
- E: Unsure

Toxic Sludge is Good for Youby John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton Common Courage Press, 1995 excerpts video online video preview

As early as 1996, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) based in Washington DC began pushing factory farms through its model “Right to Farm” legislation that was soon cropping up in state capitols across the country. This work helped set the precedent for preemption, where state laws such as Wisconsin’s own Livestock Siting Legislation can trump any township or county regulations, eroding local democracy and basically forcing communities to accept factory farms whether they like them or not. For more on ALEC’s amazing influence, review the article by Jill Richardson below.

ALEC Exposed: Protecting Factory Farms and Sewage Sludge?

by: Jill Richardson, 8/4/11

Center for Media & Demcracy (www.prwatch.org)

As suburbs engulfed the rural landscape in the boom following World War II, many family farmers found themselves with new neighbors who were annoyed by the sound of crowing roosters, the smell of animal manure, or the rumble of farming equipment. In defense of family farming, Massachusetts passed the first “Right to Farm” law in 1979, to protect these farmers against their new suburban neighbors filing illegitimate nuisance lawsuits against them when, in fact, the farms were there first. Since then, every state has passed some kind of protection for family farms, which are pillars of our communities and the backbone of a sensible system of sustainable agriculture.

However, in the past few decades, intensive corporatization of farming has threatened both the future of family farming and the ability of neighbors to regulate the development of industrial agricultural operations that have transmogrified many farms into factories. Small-scale farms that resembled Old MacDonald’s farm (with an oink oink here and a moo moo there) have increasingly disappeared or been turned into enormous livestock confinements with literal lagoons of liquified manure and urine, super-concentrated smells that could make a skunk faint, or vast fields of monoculture crops grown with a myriad of chemicals and pesticides and sometimes even sewage sludge. For example, the decade before the first right to farm law was passed, it took one million family farms to raise nearly 60 million pigs but by 2001, less than ten percent (80,000 farms) were growing the same number of pigs.

Capitalizing on the sentiment of protecting traditional farming, giant agribusiness interests have convinced some states to revise their Right to Farm laws to stealthily protect the most egregious of industrial farming practices from legitimate nuisance suits. The Center for Media & Democracy has recently exposed and analyzed a cache of bills voted on by corporations and politicians behind closed doors and then introduced in state legislatures without any notice to the public of the role of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) bill factory in the production of the legislation and no disclosure of the fact that corporations pre-voted on the bills, let alone disclosures of the names of those companies. In 1996, ALEC suddenly took an interest in expanding right to farm laws. ALEC’s corporate backers, unsurprisingly, hale from the factory farm side of the equation.

ALEC’s Corporate Backers

ALEC’s corporate members and funders have included a number of agriculture interests, including Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill, and DuPont, as well as industry organizations like the National Pork Producers Council, theIllinois Corn Marketing Board, and the Illinois Soybean Association. Cargill is the nation’s second largest beef processor, third largest turkey processor, and fourth largest pork processor. In three other areas, flour milling, soybean crushing, and production of animal feed, ADM joins Cargill asthe biggest in the industry. Chemical giant DuPont is one of the world’s largest makers of numerous pesticides, and in 1999, it purchased seed giant Pioneer Hi-Bred, the world’s top seller of corn seeds, including genetically engineered seeds.

Unlike the corporations, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) is actually led by farmers … and lobbyists for multinational pork processors, like Don Butler, past president of NPPC and lobbyist for Smithfield Foods, the largest pork processor in the world. The farmers who lead NPPC tend to own farms similar to that of NPPC president Doug Wolf. Wolf’s farm produces 24,000 hogs per year – and it also has a beef feedlot and 1,200 acres of corn, soy, and alfalfa.

Perhaps the most surprising “agribusiness” donor to ALEC is the most powerful of all: Koch Industries. It turns out that an early part of the Koch empire was the Matador Cattle Company, founded in 1952. To this day, Koch Agriculture Company retains Matador Cattle Company, which has about 15,000 cattle. However, in the 1990′s, Koch Beef Company was the nation’s 10th largest cattle feeder, with feedlots that held up to 165,000 cattle. Koch bought a new feedlot in 1996 and, among other things, decided to expand its capacity by adding 20,000 more cows. The neighbors did not think that was a good idea:

Some businesses and farm owners expressed concerns over the health of their employees, some of whom would be housed within 300 feet of Koch’s cattle pens. Other neighbors cited concerns over the potential for groundwater pollution, the amount of dirt, insects, and odors added to the area contributing to health problems, a decrease in the quality of life for nearby residents, and the possible devaluation of land.

Koch overcame their objections with the ruling of a friendly regulator in Texas, winning the right to expand. With all these corporate interests in limiting regulation of factory farming, thank goodness their pals at ALEC approved a model version of a Right to Farm bill in 1996!

Why Corporations Care About Laws For Farmers

While nearly all farms in the United States are technically “family farms” (a tiny fraction are owned directly by corporations), multinational agribusiness corporations have a major stake in how these farms are operated. Often family farms take the form of Wolf L & G Farms LLC, the farm owned by the family ofDoug Wolf (mentioned above). Particularly for chickens and hogs, individual farmers often contract with meatpackers like Cargill, Smithfield, or Tyson. In contract farming arrangements, the corporations provide the animals, medications, and feed to the farmers; the farmer is responsible for the animals’ housing, manure, and the bodies of animals that die prematurely. When the animals are fully grown, they are picked up by the corporation, which slaughters, processes, and markets the animal and plays the farmer for the weight the animal gained in his or her care. The farmers have most of the debt and risk and the corporation has most of the power and profit.

Because the corporations tightly control the conditions in which the animals are raised (specifying how housing is constructed and the use of certain medications, etc., in the farmers’ contracts), they would be affected by nuisance claims by neighbors against the conditions they require of the farms. And because they need enough contracted farms in the vicinity of their slaughterhouses to keep the slaughterhouses operating year round, they would find themselves in a pickle if neighbors – and even fellow small farmers – who suddenly found their neighborly family farm mutated into an industrial agriculture operation were able to challenge and shut down animal factories.

For non-contract farms, agribusiness corporations’ stake in the farms is much more straightforward. They want as many farmers as possible to buy and use their products (or in some cases involving sewage sludge, take the product for free!). If genetically engineered crops, aerial spraying of pesticides, or application of sewage sludge were banned in an area – or subject to nuisance suits from upset neighbors – agribusiness would have to adapt in response to local concerns.

ALEC’s Model Right to Farm Act

In 1996, ALEC entered the fray with its version of a Right to Farm law. Like many such laws, it protects a farm from a nuisance suit if the farm was established before a change in land use around it (i.e. before a suburb encroached upon a rural agricultural area). However, the exemption applies even if the farm had a “change in ownership or size,” adopted dramatically different “new technology,” or changed “the type of farm product being produced.” In other words, if the same family farm next door with two pigs and a cow was bought by new owners who built a mega-dairy on the land … too bad. The types of things that cannot be the subject of a nuisance complaint under the law are defined to include “the use of manure and other nutrients, agricultural waste products, dust, noise, odor, fumes, air pollution, water pollution, food and agricultural processing by-products, care of farm animals and pest infestations.”

In ALEC’s model bill, neighbors may not intervene in a farm’s practices so long as the farm conforms to “generally accepted agriculture and management practices.” Furthermore, anyone who brings a nuisance suit against a farm and loses must pay the farm’s attorneys’ fees and any other costs incurred by the farm as a result of the lawsuit.

While such changes would undoubtedly benefit small family farmers, the changes seem much more beneficial to the huge factory farms that were emerging in the 1990s and that dominate the market today. In 2005, Indiana Senate Republicans Bob Jackman, Vic Heinold, and Brandt Hershman introduced an update to the state’s Right to Farm law that inserted language similar to that of ALEC’s mode Right to Farm Act, shielding a farm from nuisance suits even if it changes in size or adopts a new technology.

Both Hershman, who is currently the Indian Senate Majority Whip and a member of ALEC, and Jackman are farmers. Jackman operates a contract hog confinement. Heinold, while not a farmer himself, works in corporate agribusiness, and ultimately left the Senate before the end of his term in order to pursue a career with a multinational grain shipping company.

A local community that is unhappy about groundwater pollution from a large animal confinement or odor and health problems caused by a farmer spreading sewage sludge on his fields might try to pass local ordinances that prohibit those practices. Or could — until 16 states added bans on any local laws that are stricter than the state’s laws. Those states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

Sewage Sludge: More Than a Nuisance

Obviously, barring neighbors the ability to file a lawsuit over water pollution, air pollution, by-products or waste products of agricultural processing, and the fumes from the use of manure or other “nutrients” is very far reaching. One product that seems likely to implicate several of these aspects is sewage sludge, which comes from both industrial and human waste flushed down the drains. Over the past several decades sewage sludge, ruled too toxic to dump in oceans, has been promoted has a fertilizer for farms and gardens. Dioxins, PCBs, medical wastes, industrial solvents and chemicals, heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, flame retardants, and pathogens have been found in sewage sludge and sewage sludge derived products marketed to farmers and gardeners (often without any disclosure that the products are made of sewage sludge).

Extraordinary odor is just one of the negative attributes of sewage sludge but it is a powerful one. Craig Pataky, a resident of Cottage Grove, Oregon, describesthe stench of sewage sludge by saying, “It smells like all the residents of Cottage Grove are taking a crap in a field right down the road.” Another Cottage Grove resident, Les Moore, links health problems to the smell. “It was so acrid that I had a severe headache. Never have a bad headache. And I was that close to throwing up,” says Moore. A year before, residents of Rio Vista, CA, had the same problem when a nearby farm spread sewage sludge on its fields. “It made you feel energy-less,” said Bob Tillisch, a Rio Vista resident who complained about the smell.

Sewage sludge, as a currently legal agricultural practice despite the objections of many people, is one of the many “nuisances” covered by Right to Farm laws.

What other practices might be barred from suit under the ALEC bill? Please help the Center for Media and Democracy identify additional examples.

===

§ 315. Right of action

(a) Attorney General action.--The Attorney General may bring an action against the

local governmentunit in Commonwealth Court to invalidate the unauthorized local

ordinance or enjoin the enforcement of the unauthorized local ordinance.

(b) Other party action.--Notwithstanding any provision of 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 85 Subch. C

(relating to actions against local parties), any person who is aggrieved by the enactment

or enforcement of an unauthorized local ordinance may bring an action against the local

government unit in Commonwealth Court to invalidate the unauthorized local ordinance

or enjoin the enforcement of the unauthorized local ordinance

Regular Session 2005-2006

House Bill 1646

An Act amending Title 3 (Agriculture) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for a prohibition against unauthorized local government unit actions; establishing a cause of action for unauthorized enactment or enforcement of local ordinances governing normal agricultural operations; providing for duties of the Attorney General and for hearings; consolidating the Nutrient Management Act; further providing for scope, for legislative purpose, for definitions and for administration; providing for manure application; further providing for nutrient management and odor management certification; providing for odor management plans; further providing for the Nutrient Management Advisory Board, for financial assistance, for unlawful conduct, for civil penalties and for local preemption; providing for other statutes and for regulations; and making a related repeal.	An Act amending Title 3 (Agriculture) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for a prohibition against unauthorized local government unit actions; establishing a cause of action for unauthorized enactment or enforcement of local ordinances governing normal agricultural operations; providing for duties of the Attorney General and for hearings; consolidating the Nutrient Management Act; further providing for scope, for legislative purpose, for definitions and for administration; providing for manure application; further providing for nutrient management and odor management certification; providing for odor management plans; further providing for the Nutrient Management Advisory Board, for financial assistance, for unlawful conduct, for civil penalties and for local preemption; providing for other statutes and for regulations; and making a related repeal.
Prime Sponsor::{Representative HERSHEY ===}:

An Act amending Title 3 (Agriculture) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for a prohibition against unauthorized local government unit actions; establishing a cause of action for unauthorized enactment or enforcement of local ordinances governing normal agricultural operations; providing for duties of the Attorney General and for hearings; consolidating the Nutrient Management Act; further providing for scope, for legislative purpose, for definitions and for administration; providing for manure application; further providing for nutrient management and odor management certification; providing for odor management plans; further providing for the Nutrient Management Advisory Board, for financial assistance, for unlawful conduct, for civil penalties and for local preemption; providing for other statutes and for regulations; and making a related repeal.

Prime Sponsor::{Representative HERSHEY

===}:

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/theoffice.aspx?id=326

Chester County � Daily Local News

[I]Chester County�s Leading Information Source[/I]

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Protesters Picket Against ACRE Plan

[I]Opponents to proposed faming initiative commemorate Earth Day with demonstration[/I]

[I]By Marcella Peyre-Ferry[/I]

[I]Special to the Local News[/I]

[I]Photo Omitted - Caption: “Protesters assemble on Earth Day outside state Rep. Art Hershey’s office to oppose Governor Rendell’s ACRE initiative."[/I]

West Fallowfield � A group of protesters took Earth Day to Cochranville Friday, making their opposition to so-called factory farms known outside the office of State Representative Arthur Hershey (R-13th) of Cochranville.

London Grove Township supervisors joined two dozen protesters in opposition to Governor Rendell�s �ACRE� Initiative.

�Today is Earth Day. This is a day to celebrate the natural wonders of our planet, a day to reflect on the fragility of this Earth and all its species, to talk about what is happening in our communities that is harming people and the Earth. It is a day for people to take action�, organizer Richard Grossman said.

As described by the protesters, ACRE (Agriculture, Communities, and Rural Environment) would favor big agribusiness by restricting the local township�s ability to pass ordinances controlling farm operations.

In particular, the bill would protect commercial composting operations from restrictions on odors � an issue that has been a major concern for some Chester County residents.

�This is probably the most critical issue in our township,� said London Grove Supervisor Ed Bordas. Bordas and fellow Supervisor Tim Nelson joined the protest to express their feelings on the issue.

Bordas compared the effect of composing odors and emissions with cigarettes. �For years, they said cigarette smoking wasn�t harmful. They couldn�t prove it,� he said. �We don�t want to put anybody out of business. We want them to operate in a way that is safe and respectful to their neighbors.�

If ACRE is approved, Bordas sees it as a victory for big agribusiness. These politicians in Harrisburg are looking to make it easier for factory farms to streamline their businesses,� he said. �I don�t think they�re acting in the best interest of the people.�

London Grove resident Mary MacArthur is new to the area, but she came here from a farming community. She had no idea there was a commercial composting operation near her new home until she was wakened by the smell in the middle of the night.

�When we found out what we were facing, we were horrified. Composting, when its done in a small way, is not poisonous � it doesn�t stink,� MacArthur said.

ACRE�s opponents are not all newcomers to Chester County, and they are not anti-farming.

Grossman points out that the Pennsylvania Family Farm Coalition opposes ACRE�s provisions. One participant at the demonstration was Bill Spencer, a retired farmer from Penn in southern Chester County.

�I just don�t like to see the township lose their control. It doesn�t make any sense. The townships have to retain control,� Spencer said.

The protest even drew participants from outside the county, including Alex Wilson, who helped fight a large hog farm in the Stewartstown area.

�You�re doing a great thing by standing up and opposing ACRE,� he told protesters.

Grossman hopes the Earth Day protest will let Hershey think about his position on ACRE and withdraw his support for the bill.

PERSONHOOD

LOCAL CONTROL

http://www.celdf.org/section.php?id=199

http://celdf.org/-1-51 SLUDGE

Communities across the country are facing the many problems associated with corporate control of agriculture. Called the corporatization of agriculture, it means that fewer and fewer people (acting through corporations) are controlling more and more of our food production. These are corporate directors deciding to grow genetically-modified food, deciding to use mass production for “efficiency,” deciding to use toxic urban sewage sludge as fertilizer, and deciding to use manufactured chemicals, herbicides, and antibiotics to grow our food.

One of the symptoms of the corporate take-over of agriculture is the land application of sewage sludge on croplands. Sewage sludge is the solid waste that's removed from the water that ends up at the sewage treatment plant from homes, factories, hospitals, and anywhere you can think of that has a sink, a shower, a garage floor drain, a toilet....in fact everything that can be flushed "away."

But it doesn't really go "away." It is collected at waste water treatment plants. It's removed from the water, so that the water can be returned to the aquifers, streams and rivers with a lot less poison and pollutants in it. But what is left behind, with most of the water removed, is sewage sludge.

The dangers of sewage sludge are innumerable. It contains PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, heavy metals, bacteria, asbestos, petroleum products and industrial solvents, to name a few of the more than 60,000 contaminants. Despite the contents, it is offered as free fertilizer to farmers, who spread it on cropland.

Illnesses and even deaths have been reported in association with the "land application" (dumping) of sludge in rural communities. There have been firings of EPA researchers who spoke out about about the health and environmental risks of land applying sewage sludge, and coercive state laws that forbade rural communities from banning dumping.

How, then, is it allowed to continue?

State and Corporate Legal Authority

While most of us were taught that the U.S. Constitution was written to protect the rights of human beings, communities regularly witness sludge industry corporations wielding the constitution to override community decision-making. When residents try to prevent a corporation from spreading sewage sludge – or “sludging” – they are threatened with a lawsuit for violating the corporation’s “rights.”

Worse, residents confronting corporate sludgers learn that their state government – with the help and at the behest of corporations – has legally authorized sludging to take place. Thus when communities contact their state agency for help to stop sludging, they find that rather than helping them stop it, the agency is instead issuing permits to sludge. People discover that they face not only corporate directors who wield the constitutional “rights” of corporations to prevent residents from protecting their communities, but that their own state *preempts* them from doing so as well.

What to do?

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund has been at the forefront of this issue, helping residents, local groups, and municipal officials to ban the land application of sewage sludge and to create the communities they envision. Through grassroots organizing, public education and outreach, our Democracy Schools, research, community meetings, and the drafting of ordinances, we assist communities to learn about our system of corporate governance and what they can do to protect themselves and their community.

NRDC Calls for Better Regulation of Sewage Sludge in 2002/2003

In 2002, NRDC released a press release titled "This Just In: Sludge May Be Hazardous to Your Health."^[6] The press release states:

"The government is using outdated science in assessing the health risk of sewage sludge used as fertilizer. According to a new report by the National Research Council, the standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1993 on the use of "biosolids" for treating soil are based on an unreliable survey identifying hazardous chemicals in sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants. The NRC panel concluded that the agency needs to do more scientific study on the risks to people from exposure to chemicals and disease-causing pathogens in sludge used as fertilizer."The panel's report underscores that current federal regulations on applying sludge do not protect public health, according to NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). Earlier this year, EPA and NRDC reached a legal settlement that requires the agency to develop a plan to address NRC's recommendations."

In the press release, Nancy Stoner, director of NRDC's Clean Water Project is quoted as calling the EPA's policy of land application of sludge "not safe." Furthermore, the press release notes that "The NRC panel's report found that EPA's sludge regulations may fail to protect the public from infectious diseases as well as toxic chemicals that cause long-term debilitating illnesses, including cancer." It goes on to note other studies that point to hazards of land application of sewage sludge: "Two years ago, the Centers for Disease Control identified Class B sewage sludge as a potential hazard for workers handling the material. In 1997, the Cornell University Waste Management Institute warned that federal sludge regulations undermine agricultural productivity and fail to protect the environment and public health. Meanwhile, two EPA inspector general reports have concluded that the agency cannot guarantee that land application protects human health and the environment because there is not enough data or enforcement."

NRDC followed up in 2003 with a press release critiquing the EPA for failing to regulate cancer-causing dioxins in sewage sludge:

"The Environmental Protection Agency today announced it will not regulate dioxins in land-applied sewage sludge, regardless of the fact that it is the largest source for dioxin exposure in the nation after backyard trash burning. Dioxins are among the most toxic substances on Earth, according to NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), and today's decision violates the Clean Water Act, which requires the agency to limit toxic pollutants that harm human health or the environment."Dioxins cause cancer and diabetes, as well as nervous system and hormonal problems," said Nancy Stoner, director of NRDC's Clean Water Project. "And the EPA is required by law to protect the public from toxic pollutants like dioxins. This decision shows the agency under this administration has forgotten its mission.""EPA was required to announce this final regulation today as part of a settlement agreement with NRDC. The settlement is the final phase of lawsuits filed by NRDC and environmentalists in Oregon more than a decade ago to require EPA to limit toxic pollutants in sludge. Although amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1987 require EPA to set limits on toxic pollutants, the agency has not yet met that obligation for dioxin or any other organic toxic pollutant."^[7]

At that time, NRDC made the following recommendations:

"Prohibit sludge application on land used for pasture or growing forage food for livestock that will be consumed by humans;
"Set a dioxins limit at 1 in one million cancer risk to protect public health;
"Ban land application to sites where dioxin levels in the soil (sic) 1 parts per trillion (based on ecological risks that cannot be alleviated by management measures, such as banning application to pasture lands, which would reduce risks to human health); and
"Require pollution prevention programs for sludges with detectible amounts of dioxins."^[8]

EDF Partners with Synagro, The World's Leader in Dumping Sewage Sludge on Farms and Gardens

It is interesting to contrast the NRDC position on :{sewage sludge:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}: with that of the :{Environmental Defense Fund:(style="background-color:#fff200"):}:. EDF creates formal corporate partnerships between itself and major corporations, such as the Carlyle Group with which it partnered in March, 2010. ^[9] The Carlyle Group, a private investment corporation, owns Synagro, the world's largest company producing sewage sludge "compost" and "fertilizer," often called "biosolids," that is dumped on farms and gardens.

According to its own guidelines ^[10], EDF does not accept direct funding from corporations that are engaged "in any significant activities that are in direct conflict with EDF’s environmental protection objectives or activities." This is misleading, since EDF does aggressively seek funding from employees, board members and investors in such corporations, including its formal corporate partners such as Carlyle Group. And EDF also considers on a case by case basis donations from foundations set up by such corporations.

It would seem that by partnering with Synagro EDF is in fact endorsing the practices of Synagro in dumping sludge on farms and gardens, and in misleading millions of people by selling its sewage sludge products as "compost" and "natural organic fertilizer."

Such partnerships are extremely lucrative for EDF since it aggressively fundraises among the individuals on the Boards of Directors, in management, and who are investors in its partners. Meanwhile, the corporate partner such as Carlyle Group can greenwash itself by pointing to its partnership with one of the world's best funded Big Green environmental groups.

In the 1970s and 1980s EDF and other major environmental groups including Natural Resources Defense Council worked closely with the sewage industry and endorsed moves by the Environmental Protection Agency to rename toxic sewage sludge as "biosolids" and dump the waste onto farmland. Until May, 2011, when EDF requested it be removed, the following quote appeared on a sludge industry website showing endorsement of this practice.

"EDF and NRDC have been steadfast proponents of reusing biosolids of appropriate quality as the best biosolids management alternative. Biosolids can be a valuable natural resource."FRED KRUP, Executive Director - JOHN ADAMS Executive DirectorEnvironmental Defense Fund - Natural Resources Defense Fund"^[11]

EDF's Sean Crowley had the quote taken down, and he points out that there is no date or citation for the quote, which likely came from a consent decree among major environmental groups and the sewage sludge industry. While it is partnered with the world's largest sewage sludge company, Synagro of Carlyle Group, Crowley claims that EDF has no position what so ever on the practice of using agricultural farms and gardens as waste dumps for sewage sludge.

NRDC, on the other hand, became a critic of sludge dumping in 2002 and 2003, based on the dioxin contaminants in sewage sludge.

How, then, is it allowed to continue?

State and Corporate Legal Authority

What to do?

Over a decade ago, we began assisting communities threatened with sludging – working with them to draft ordinances that challenged state preemption and asserted the right of people to exercise local self-governance to protect their environment, health, safety, welfare, and quality of life. Since 2012, more than 80 communities in Pennsylvania have banned corporations from engaging in the land application of sewage sludge. Our more recent ordinances enumerate the rights of communities and recognize the inalienable rights of natural communities and ecosystems to exist and flourish.

As our ordinances have evolved, today we have a model sustainable farming ordinance available for communities.

Want to learn more? Interested in what you can do to protect your community? Contact us at info@celdf.org or 717-498-0054.

Slinging Sludge

by Mari Margil, Planning magazine

August 11th, 2010

Citing health concerns, some Pennsylvania communities no longer allow sewage sludge to be spread on farmland — and now the state is taking them to court.

Packer Township}:, Pennsylvania (pop. barely 1,000), is a rural community some 100 miles northwest of Philadelphia. Though small, Packer has found itself in the middle of a very big fight that is putting it at the forefront of the sewage sludge debate.

Concerned about the environmental and public health effects of spreading sewage sludge on farm fields, the township has prohibited its use. Packer is one of nearly 80 Pennsylvania communities to have taken this step. Rather than seeking to regulate sludging by putting restrictions on the practice, these laws prohibit it outright.

Packer, like so many communities across Pennsylvania and the country, has seen small and family farms disappear as agriculture has become corporatized. However, visitors can still see row after row of corn and even visit a local alpaca farm.

Now the state attorney general is suing Packer Township, arguing that the municipality doesn't have the authority to ban corporations from sludging. It's a David and Goliath fight with consequences that may reach well beyond the tiny township.

Packer Township, a holdout against sewage sludge

What is sludge?

Sewage treatment plants process all sorts of waste: human, hospital, industrial, radioactive — anything that is either flushed down a toilet or goes down a drain. At the treatment plant, the waste is separated into liquids and solids. The liquid — called effluent — is eventually returned to lakes, rivers, and streams. The remaining solid is sewage sludge, what the waste management industry calls "biosolids." It's this waste that is the subject of the debate.

In response to the growing pollution of U.S. waterways, Congress in 1972 adopted the Clean Water Act, which required communities to eliminate pollutants from the liquid discharged by sewage treatment systems. Municipal treatment plants moved forward with cleansing the effluent, but as a result those pollutants ended up in the solid, rather than the liquid, waste. (The law also called for the removal of all pollutants from waterways by 1985, but that goal wasn't met.)

The effluent that reaches the waterways may still contain nitrates, phosphates, heavy metals, and other toxins. The result can be massive algae blooms that deprive a lake or pond of oxygen and kill the life within them.

And what of the sludge itself? According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates sewage sludge treatment and disposal, even treated sludge may contain organic solids, nutrients, pathogens (bacteria, viruses), heavy metals and inorganic ions, and "toxic organic chemicals from industrial wastes, household chemicals, and pesticides."

According to the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, "(H)undreds of people have fallen ill after being exposed to sewage sludge fertilizer — suffering such symptoms as respiratory distress, headaches, nausea, rashes, reproductive complications, cysts, and tumors." The EPA monitors only nine of the thousands of pathogens commonly found in sludge, so there could be even greater risks to humans and the environment.

The sludge and agricultural industries argue that the land application of sludge is safe when conducted in accordance with government regulations. In a fact sheet, the Water Environment Federation, the main lobbying arm of the sludging industry, makes its case by citing a 2008 review of sewage sludge pathogens that was published in the Journal of Environmental Quality. The article states that the "risks to human health posed by many microbiological entities within biosolids have been shown to be low if current EPA regulatory guidelines are followed. In addition, risks from indirect exposures such as aerosolized pathogens or contaminated groundwaters appear to be particularly low."

Sludge disposal

Until the late 1980s, it was common for municipalities to transport their sludge by barge to the :{nearest ocean and dump it 12 miles offshore. That changed in 1984 as increasing evidence showed that ocean dumping was harming marine ecosystems, and the EPA issued new regulations requiring sewage sludge to be dumped at least 106 miles offshore. Just four years later, in 1988, Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act to prohibit the practice altogether.

The waste management industry, which hauls sludge away from sewage treatment plants, was forced to find another place to dump the waste. What it found was farmland. Today, the EPA estimates that half of the millions of tons of sewage sludge produced each year is applied to farmland.

According to some estimates, sludge hauling is now an $11 billion a year industry. Sludge haulers — such as Houston-based Synagro Technologies, the largest of the companies involved and the owner of Waste Management, plus numerous subsidiaries — give farmers the sludge for free to apply to agricultural land where crops are grown.

Last year, the EPA reported findings from its Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey, the fourth such survey since 1982. The latest survey sampled sewage sludge from some of the largest treatment plants in the country. Every sample studied contained flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, steroids, heavy metals, and other chemicals, but the report stated further that "inclusion of pollutants in the TNSSS does not reflect a determination that their presence in sewage sludge adversely affects human health or the environment."

Public health advocates across the country are convinced there is a danger from exposure to sewage sludge spread on fields. Advocates have spent years lobbying Congress, the EPA, and state regulators to end the practice of land application.

In the 2008 case of McElmurray v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, the federal district court in the Southern District of Georgia ordered the USDA to pay compensation to a rancher whose cows died after exposure to land-applied sewage sludge. The sludge was found to contain PCBs, arsenic, and heavy metals. Lawsuits continue to be filed as more people and livestock have fallen ill.

Saying "no"

The sludge itself

...Communities that try to stop sludging face a host of state and federal environmental regulatory laws such as Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management Act and the federal Clean Water Act — that legally authorize the land application of sewage sludge. They also find that the agencies administering these laws are actively promoting "biosolids recycling" on farmland — working with the waste haulers.

The EPA has joined with the Water Environment Federation to form the National Biosolids Partnership, which promotes the land application of sewage sludge. The partnership's website includes biosolids "success stories."

"In 1994, eleven-year-old Tony Behun from Rush Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, died from a staphylococcus infection shortly after being exposed to sewage sludge. The following year, seventeen-year-old Daniel Pennock from Reading, Pennsylvania, died from a staphylococcus infection shortly after being exposed to sewage sludge. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes staphylococcus as a potential pathogenic component of sewage sludge."

In adopting those provisions, Packer joined a dozen other communities across the U.S. that have found it necessary to take on over 100 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence that confers the Bill of Rights and other protections onto corporations.

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to expand and affirm corporate constitutional rights (this year's Citizens United decision is just one example of this trend). These communities do not expect the courts or government agencies to agree that corporate constitutional rights are illegal and illegitimate; instead, they are building a people's movement to drive such change upward to the state and federal levels. In the Packer Township lawsuit, the attorney general is arguing that the section of the township's ordinance that removes corporate constitutional rights "obviously is unconstitutional."

Pennsylvania fights back

In response to community ordinances banning sludging, as well as the dozen or so local ordinances prohibiting factory farming,:{ the Pennsylvania state legislature adopted the Agriculture, Communities, and Rural Environment Act in 2005. The ACRE law, adopted at the urging of the agribusiness industry, authorizes the Pennsylvania attorney general to sue local townships to overturn these ordinances, and to sue at the request of agribusiness companies. ALEC?

This very step was taken in 2007, when Attorney General Thomas Corbett sued East Brunswick Township in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, at the behest of a sludging corporation. The aim was to overturn the township's anti-corporate sludging ordinance. A year after the suit was filed and before a decision could be issued in the case, the East Brunswick Board of Supervisors voted to rescind the ordinance and replace it with another that simply regulated sludging.

The new ordinance restricted the hours when sludge could be spread and required farmers to notify the township before it was applied. The state attorney general sued East Brunswick a second time to overturn the new ordinance, arguing that the community was not authorized to regulate sludge more stringently than the state. Having settled the case with the state, the township is now allowed to prohibit sludge application on certain days such as major holidays.

Meanwhile, other communities moved forward with their own anti-sludging ordinances, including Packer. A month after the Packer ordinance was adopted, in July 2008, Corbett sent a letter to the township indicating that a corporation had asked his office to review the ordinance and consider suing the township to overturn it. The supervisors responded in an open letter to the attorney general stating that state law permitting sludging "was drafted and adopted by agribusiness corporate interests, using the legislature as a vehicle."

The letter continued: "It is an undemocratic and illegitimate law under a system in which the consent of the people directly affected by such governing decisions is made irrelevant ... and we refuse to recognize its enforceability."

Last fall, the attorney general sued Packer and filed a motion for summary relief — arguing that the ordinance should be immediately overturned. In March, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied the request, giving Packer Township a partial initial victory. However, the court also ruled that the township does not have the authority to countermand the attorney general's authority to enforce state law.

If Corbett pursues a trial (this is an election year and he is running for governor), the court will focus on two key questions. First, whether the land application of sewage sludge is a "normal agricultural practice," as the state argues. And second, whether the land application of sewage sludge constitutes a direct threat to human health and safety, as Packer asserts. The state and its expert witnesses are arguing that it is not. This will be the first time such questions are directly considered in a court of law. NOT corp personhood?

The state's expert witness, Herschel Elliott of Pennsylvania State University, argues that the land application of sewage sludge is safe, writing, "Many of the chemicals and toxicants present in biosolids are also present in our food and drinking water. ... It is not the presence or absence of toxins that define risk, but rather their concentrations and frequency of exposure."

In May, the township supervisors unanimously adopted an ordinance that enables the municipality to enact and enforce environmental protection standards exceeding those set by the state legislature. The new ordinance asserts that laws overriding local controls "have violated the right of Packer Township residents to govern their own community." It also declares that building a sustainable community means opposing illegitimate law, requiring "the people of Packer Township to refuse to recognize the authority of the attorney general or the courts, when those entities attempt to enforce the legislature's illegitimate acts."

Taking on the system

Packer Township is at the forefront of the fight on sewage sludge, but similar discussions are happening in other Pennsylvania communities — and communities in New Hampshire and Maine, as well as places like Spokane, Washington, and Mt. Shasta, California. These places are rethinking an entire structure of law and governance that puts them at the losing end of the stick.

These efforts follow decades of battles over environmental justice. But while those earlier fights have led to some increased regulation of adverse environmental impacts, they have failed to challenge the legal authority that has been reserved for corporations — and their directors — to override community decision making.

Now communities are challenging the system head-on. As Tom Gerhard, chairman of the Packer Township Board of Supervisors, explained at an anti-sludge rally this spring at the state capitol in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, "We have the right of self-government. Don't stop us and don't challenge us. It is my responsibility to keep the township healthy and safe. I'm doing my job."

http://celdf.org/slinging-sludge---published-in-the-augustseptember-2010-issue-of-planning-copyright-2010-by-the-american-planning-association

Sludge disposal

Until the late 1980s, it was common for municipalities to transport their sludge by barge to the nearest ocean and dump it 12 miles offshore. That changed in 1984 as increasing evidence showed that ocean dumping was harming marine ecosystems, and the EPA issued new regulations requiring sewage sludge to be dumped at least 106 miles offshore. Just four years later, in 1988, Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act to prohibit the practice altogether.

Saying "no"

The sludge itself

Communities that try to stop sludging face a host of state and federal environmental regulatory laws — such as Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management Act and the federal Clean Water Act — that legally authorize the land application of sewage sludge. They also find that the agencies administering these laws are actively promoting "biosolids recycling" on farmland — working with the waste haulers.

The EPA has joined with the Water Environment Federation to form the National Biosolids Partnership, which promotes the land application of sewage sludge. The partnership's website includes biosolids "success stories."

Pennsylvania fights back

In response to community ordinances banning sludging, as well as the dozen or so local ordinances prohibiting factory farming, the Pennsylvania state legislature adopted the Agriculture, Communities, and Rural Environment Act in 2005. The ACRE law, adopted at the urging of the agribusiness industry, authorizes the Pennsylvania attorney general to sue local townships to overturn these ordinances — and to sue at the request of agribusiness companies.

14TH AMENDMENT

synagro sludge tip fee

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/porter_township_ordinance/

In U.S. First, Local Government Refuses to Recognize Corporate Claims to Civil Rights

News from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund

December 13, 2002

The elected municipal officials of Porter Township, Clarion County – a municipality of 1,500 residents an hour north of Pittsburgh in Northwestern Pennsylvania – became the first local government in the United States to eliminate corporate claims to civil and constitutional privileges. The Township adopted a binding law declaring that corporations operating in the Township may not wield legal privileges – historically used by corporations to override democratic decisionmaking – to stop the Township from passing laws which protect residents from toxic sewage sludge.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-personhood/