Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 6 · column 5 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
“It helps to improve soil quality and acts as a fertilizer to help improvj; productivity,” he said, discussing some advantages of sludge usage. “K also helps the Virginia forestry. It can increase the growth rates and the size of timber.” *
While few argued with Mr, Hayes’ explanation, their discussion continued to be centered on one subject — power — and whether thf state or the localities should regulate using sludge on agricultural lands. ,«•
McCarthy told the committee lhi» Rappahannock Board of Supervisors in 1993 adopted a zoning ordinance amendment as well as an amendment to the health section of the county code banning all land application of sewage sludge.
Then in 1994, three farmers who objected to the ban filed lawsuits against the Board of Supervisors arguing the ban was arbitrary. Cases were heard both in Circuit Ccourt id Rappahannock County and in federal district court in Charlottesville* Judges in both courts ruled in favor of the county.
“The legislation before you renders those victories irrelevant and further erodes local governments’ powers,” Mr. McCarthy said.
Deeta Davis, a resident of Wis$ County, said if the assembly passes the bill it would strip local, govern? ments of their police powers to regulate waste.
“They (the bills) would take away the authority of the localities to regulate usage of sewage sludge,” she said. “Major food companies like Heinz, Gerber and Del Monte have said they will not buy crops that an; grown on land that sludge has been applied to.”
Del. Terry G. Kilgore, R-Gate City, also spoke against the measure."
“It should be up to the localities " he said, adding that the local cities and towns should have the right t<) decide whether to ban sludge because they are closer to the people
Following the hearing, Mn McCarthy said Rappahannock board members would not be coming back for the vote in the full House but would lobby House members “by telephone, by fax, by whatever means necessary.”
Apparently Rappahannock offi-, cials were not the only ones lobbying against the bills as the vote in the futt House against the bill showed senti. ment in the state as a whole was not reflected in the Agriculture Committee’s vote.
There were no similar bills introduced in the State Senate, so the issue is dead for another year.
92.8%