Local vs State Control of our Water Resources


By Tom Wilson, Section City Hall
Posted on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM CST

Recently there has been a common theme uniting many of the most critical issues facing our local elected officials and civil servants; namely, what authority does county and local government have, and how much is that authority being usurped by State and Federal government. Whether we are talking about flood control dams, confined animal feeding operations, highway building or landspreading of municipal and industrial sewerage waste sludge, we have been forced to scramble and play catch-up just to maintain a local voice in how our communities will be administered.

For the most part, this local control is being taken away, not by major edict, but from seemingly small changes to bills (even budget bills) that often get passed unnoticed.

More in the full story...

Recently the State Senate passed SB 197.  According to the Legislative Reference Bureau, this bill "generally prohibits the application of fertilizer that contains phosphorus to lawns, golf courses, and other mowed grassy areas (turf)."

 The bill is clear that is does not apply to land used for agricultural production and there are numerous exceptions to establish grass during the first growing season or if a soil tests show the area is deficient in phosphorus, etc.

This may be a good thing.  In many areas, algae blooms from over-application of phosphorus lawn fertilizer is a major cause of water pollution, as we saw at Jersey Valley. What is most unsettling is Amendment 3  that was added in the Senate: "A political subdivision may not regulate the distribution or labeling...when that use is in accordance with agronomic directions on the labeling except that this prohibition does not apply to regulation under an ordinance in effect on the effective date of this subsection."

Madison environmentalists tell me that this clause is intended to relate only to Melorganite®, a private-brand of composted sewage sludge. Whether one supports this special-interest concern or not, do we really want this authority to be stripped from our local governments? And who says this amendment could not be interpreted to include the United Liquid Waste sludge pit and landspreading permit that we fought so hard just a couple of years ago.

Hopefully, this amendment will be stripped out of the bill in the Assembly. At the very least, our County Board should expedite the action on  the Sludge-Biosolids Disposal Ordinance now under consideration so local authority on this matter can be grandfathered in.

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Related Links

+ Also by Tom Wilson
Display: Sort:
Local vs State Control of our Water Resources | 1 comment (1 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
I would add another... (none / 0) (#1)
by borges on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:49:49 PM CST
Another loss of local control is in Non-Metallic Mining.  If we do not have stricter standards in place before the State acts, we have to abide by the State rules.  We would have more control generally if we had zoning in all jurisdictions, but that is another topic for another day I suppose.

Local vs State Control of our Water Resources | 1 comment (1 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

create account | faq | search