Member Pipeline - Legal - Alert (Leg 01-01)
To: Members & Affiliates, Legal Affairs Committee, Biosolids Management Committee
From: National Office
Date: January 19, 2001
Subject: VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS BIOSOLIDS LAND APPLICATION
Reference: Legal Alert 01-1
On January 12, the Supreme Court of Virginia in the case of Blanton et. al. v. Amelia County et. al. (No. 000277) overturned a lower court ruling that had authorized a county ban on the land application of biosolids. The state Supreme Court opinion represents a significant victory for land application because it upheld the rights of facilities which are lawfully permitted by the state to use biosolids on their land in the face of local restrictions. The court found that the county ordinance banning the use of biosolids was inconsistent with state law and regulations which "expressly authorized the land application of biosolids conditioned upon the issuance of a permit." (Blanton, at 10) The court declared the contradictory ordinance "void and unenforceable". (Blanton, at 12)
At issue in this case was the validity of several state permits held by various farms to land apply biosolids. State law and regulations detail the process under which a property owner may receive a land application permit from the state Board of Health. The process enables applicants to land apply if they can demonstrate that the biosolids "is properly treated and stabilized, land application ... is performed in a manner that will protect public health and the environment, and the escape, flow or discharge of sewage sludge into state waters, in a manner that would cause pollution of state waters ... will be prevented." (Blanton, at 5) The state issued several such operating permits to the plaintiffs. However, in 1999, the Amelia County Board of Supervisors enacted an ordinance which banned the use of biosolids in the county. The ordinance effectively prohibits the plaintiffs from using biosolids on their farms "even though they have valid permits authorizing such use." (Blanton, at 4) The plaintiffs sued the county alleging that the ordinance was inconsistent with state law and regulations.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturning the lower court’s ruling is significant because it maintains the integrity of the state’s biosolids permit as well as the existing permits already issued by the state. In determining that the local ordinance was in conflict with state public policy as embodied in its statutes, the court relied on the principle that "local ordinances must conform to and not be in conflict with the public policy of the State." (Blanton, at 9) Applying that principle, the court found that the county had not merely sought to add to the existing program, but that the county directly contradicts an enforceable state law.
The significance of this case will be highlighted at both the Legal Affairs Committee and Biosolids Management Committee in association with AMSA’s 2001 Winter Conference in San Diego, CA. If you have any questions about this case, please contact Greg Schaner at 202/296-9836.
ATTACHMENT