Sludge bill would have empowered town residents
Copyright © 2003 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
Members of the Legislature's Natural Resources Committee missed an important opportunity to reaffirm the values of local government and self governance earlier this week when they voted against a change in state law governing sludge disposal.
Sen. Chris Hall, D-Bristol, has sponsored a bill that would permit local municipalities to enact sludge and septage rules more stringent than the standards adopted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Just as important, the bill would have required property owners who spread sludge, septage or composted sludge on their fields to record that fact with the county register of deeds.
Sludge is the common name for the residual produced by the wastewater treatment process. Farmers use the nutrient laden material as a soil additive and fertilizer. The first thing nonfarmers may notice, on the other hand, is the smell. But opponents of unrestricted sludge spreading fear that heavy metals, pathogens and other possible toxins may also be introduced into drinking water sources.
Hall told the committee at a public hearing that the sludge issues was "to my surprise, the most emotional and troubling in my district."
Although some proponents of the bill say state laws are too lax when it comes to sludge spreading, many of those local activists who supported Hall's plan said it was really a matter of enforcement. They pointed out that the DEP simply doesn't have the resources to monitor sludge operations across the entire state. Jane Russo, a Whitefield resident, says that a recent controversy over out-of-state sludge that did not meet Maine's existing state standards became public only after townspeople raised the issue themselves.
"I don't think anybody wants to ban the use of sludge," Russo says. "Farmers want to use it, and they are our neighbors. What we wanted was some kind of voice in the process."
Under Hall's bill, a municipality such as Whitefield could require sludge spreaders to notify abutters when they are going to apply products to their fields. Towns could require greater setbacks from property lines or significant aquifers than currently required. Theoretically, towns could even try to prohibit certain kinds of sludge from being spread, although in New Hampshire, where towns do have the ability to employ stricter standards, only a handful of communities have taken that action.
As a matter of home rule, permitting towns to pass stricter regulations than the state is consistent with other zoning and environmental rules. Municipalities can enact tougher shoreland zoning than the state does; they can also pass higher air quality standards. Hall's bill would have made state sludge rules the floor of regulations, not the ceiling.
Hall's bill would have also led to greater disclosure about sludge spreading activities. While it may be an emotional issue, as Hall noted, there's no reason to try and keep sludge spreading sites secret. Neighbors and residents deserve to know where sludge and composted sludge are being used, so they can vigilantly protect other natural resources.
Finally, the bill — if it were to become law — would encourage sludge handlers, such as municipal wastewater treatment plants and brokers such as New England Organics, to engage more people in discussions about the benefits of sludge spreading and composting, and to educate others about the safety precautions already built into the process. These professionals — many of whom are engineers, scientists and environmentalists — make a strong case that sludge spreading isn't merely an inexpensive approach to disposal, but one that leads to cleaner water, a cleaner environment and an important source of income and fertilizer for farmers.
Unfortunately, the Natural Resources committee voted against recommending the bill to the full Legislature. We would encourage members to reconsider the bill and make improvements to Hall's plan, if they feel so inclined. At the very least, the full Legislature ought to hold some floor debate on the matter instead of accepting the committee report without question.
Empowering townspeople to make better decisions for the health of their community ought to be a first principle of the legislature, and this bill would have done exactly that.