ARCHIVE SITE - Last updated Jan. 19, 2017. Please visit www.NACWA.org for the latest NACWA information.
ARCHIVE SITE - Last updated Jan. 19, 2017. Please visit www.NACWA.org for the latest NACWA information.
State of Washington v. Wahkiakum CountyIn November 2014, the Washington State Court of Appeals held that a county ban on land application of Class B biosolids was unconstitutional. In 2001, Wahkiakum County in southwestern Washington State passed an ordinance banning land application of Class B biosolids. After many attempts to work with the County to find common ground, the Washington Department of Ecology filed suit in state court to overturn the Wahkiakum County ban. The state argued that a local ban on class B biosolids creates an irreconcilable conflict with the state program that sets standards for land application and issues site specific permits. In early 2013, the trial court upheld the ban. The Department of Ecology appealed the trial court ruling to the Washington State Court of Appeals. On April 29, 2015, the Washington Supreme Court denied Wahkiakum County’s Petition for Review. The November 2014 Court of Appeals decision preempting the Class B ban remains the law of the state. With regard to the first principle, the court held “that the County's ordinance prohibits what the state law permits because state law, and the corresponding Department regulations, create a comprehensive permitting scheme for the land application of class B biosolids.” Moving to the second preemption principle, the court determined that the county ordinance irreconcilably conflicted with state law because it thwarted the legislature's purpose in enacting state law:
Finally, the court held that the County's ordinance “clearly exercises power the legislature did not confer on local governments under the statutory scheme for management or disposal of biosolids.” And while the court acknowledged that the County may have the authority to further regulate land application of biosolids for compliance with other laws, it lacked the authority to completely ban land application when it conflicts with state law. NACWA’s Position NACWA applauds the court’s decision, which will provide strong binding precedent should any of Washington’s 39 counties or other local governments pass bans or extremely onerous requirements on biosolids land application. The published decision will also serve as powerful legal precedent for clean water utilities elsewhere in the nation that may have to fight similar land application bans. The court’s unequivocal language about the danger and illegality of local bans thwarting state and federal laws designed to encourage land application is especially important and can be valuable to land application proponents across the country. NACWA has participated in similar state litigation to oppose local land application bans, including in the recent Kern County case in California, and will continue to actively engage in the fight against land application bans across the country. Documents ( format)
|
Winter Conference
Next Generation Compliance …Where Affordability & Innovation Intersect
February 4 – 7, 2017
Tampa Marriott Waterside Hotel
Tampa, FL