Overview of some legal aspects of Biosolids proposals


What was the legislature doing?  Net effect of WAC 173-308 in regard to bio-solids. 


When acting against a proposal, response must always be timely.  Silence or lateness equates to approval; tacit approval.


Contractual nature of interface with the government; constitution and layers of law.


Rights of due process under the 5th and 14th amendments; fair procedures.


Addressing individuals, not an audience as a group; different power of informed individual as opposed to signing a petition; making it your own instead of following form.


Quality of response given is very important; emotions equate to noise that has little effect; transform into power; effect on gov’t. – talking their language.


Using legal citation to of applicable laws to compel action same as in DNS.


What layers of law apply? … and where to look.


Definitions of words in statutes


How to apply in comment letters.


In this case, the importance of separating out this application from the 2015 general application.  2015 license will not be up for comment until 2020.


What are your priorities of concern regarding the proposal application?


Wherever possible, show where due process has not been used (fair procedure).  When writing about each topic, tell why you don’t agree that a fair procedure has been used in review.


Explanation of SEPA rules and how it governs environmental review procedure.


How to fashion structure of legal remedy; use of 197-11-340 as basis.

What result are we looking for?  At this point we can reasonably demand that the applicant be mandated to produce an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)…  or, after having done sufficient cursory review as required under SEPA, the responsible official has the option of deny the application because it cannot be permitted at the location offered.


·       Respond to DNS in point-for-point fashion.


·       Compiling list of individual subject matters that have not been reviewed or properly addressed.


·       Importance of critical aquifer under vicinity and how toxic contaminants will move throughout area including contamination of city water over time; contamination plume.

o   Hydro-geological contours, city pump-down test effects at site, springs going to river


How could the state allow such a thing to go ahead, even promote it?  43.21.C in DNS; lack of review by responsible official; serious lack of action by county; county officials ill-informed?


Powerful county laws governing protection of water preempted by color of law; why weren’t county laws applied to our protection when they’re all over us?

Misunderstanding of RCW 70.105.240 – State preemption, because the land is in fact not yet such a facility as defined under RCW 70.105.010 – (16) “Preempted facility”.


This is serious situation that must stop and be corrected.  We must stop being run around like idiots all over all the time.


·       Form of comment letter as a demand, not a request.  340 says shall.  Remember due process.


Including hydro-geological studies as cited references to add weight to show lack of review.


Regardless of bio-solids laws for application, state has a mandate to protect…  Precedence;

Remember Flint, MI?  If the government told you to eat lead, would you?  What happened to smoking tobacco within the last 50 years?  Think of the warnings mandated in WAC 173-308-210.


Our duty to push back against improper government legislation.  Sheriffs in WA not enforcing new unconstitutional firearms restrictions.  Common sense.

Getting legislative change.

Microwave radiation and jurisdiction; 5G and tower proliferation; rewriting the laws locally.


Giving notice as a legal principle just as was done with this proposal.  Warning of suit for damages and putting officials in position of responsibility by documentation in record.

            RCW 70.105.097

            Action for damages resulting from violation—Attorneys’ fees.


            RCW 70.105D.080

            Private right of action—Remedial action costs,

            RCW 70.105D.110 – Releases of hazardous substances

 Adequately identify yourself in your letters. Describe how approval of this application will cause you harm, however you see it.  Under appeal this becomes vitally important.

Comment Letter Suggestions – Opposing Biosolids

 Make sure to comment on what you feel comfortable writing about.  Especially make sure to write lots about what you feel authoritative on.  But, don’t hesitate to write about everything you can think of that relates to the proposal.

1 – wildlife and threatened species: canada geese, wood ducks, blue heron, osprey, eagle, mink, kingfisher, gophers, elk, deer, salmon, steelhead; no threatened species study/review?

2 – listed fish species including salmon and steelhead of gene-pool nature or otherwise ;

3 – no gopher study/review?;

4 – No wetland study?;

5 – misrepresentation regarding drainage impacts to surrounding water bodies;

6 – no mention of 10 acre adjoining lake on next lot;

7 – no mention of Wheeler Creek that drains off SW corner of ranch, runs at significant volume 6 – 8 months of the year parallel to the former irrigation ditch and dives / disappears into the aquifer directly west of Bald Hill Rd.;

8 – Site contains extremely porous soils; the problem relating to contaminant leeching is not with water being too high, but with water immediately falling to aquifer levels and traveling subsurface towards the NW;

9 – aquifer recharge contamination threat to downstream city water;

10 – aquifer recharge contamination threat to downstream organic farm;

11 – aquifer recharge contamination threat to an estimated 24,000 acre feet per year downstream springs going into the Nisqually river;

12 – application does not make any mention of site application of manure from local dairy on-going for many years at this location;

13 – no professional citation regarding bio-accumulation of contaminants/chemicals/pollutants in soils on site and amount that will be mobile as transported downstream through the prairie aquifer system and into the ‘Macallister water model’;

14 – allowing bio-accumulation of contaminants in a known critical area of aquifer recharge up sub-surface gradient for drinking water used by a large population (including a municipality) is a violation of the government primary duty to protect the public health, safety, and welfare (the public trust doctrine) and therefore this proposal does not serve the public interest;

15 – site access and use restrictions, shown in landowner consent form, on account of presence of hazardous conditions defacto proves the dangerous toxicity of the biosolids materials being spread on site;

16 – no recovery from odors through entire application season from 50 truck applications per day;

17 – traffic impacts, including significant increase in need for road maintenance;

18 – noise from constant truck traffic;

19 – no adequate attention has been paid to answer questions raised about disposal of radio-active waste possibly contained in biosolids as mandated in RCW 70.105.050;

20 – conflicting parcels, acreages, application locations depicted in application documents;

21 – no alternatives offered to this project as exemplified in RCW 70.105.150 and as required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(e) .  What other routes were explored?

22 – Permitting agency did not act impartially at public hearing; unfairly acted in support of the proponent instead of taking a neutral position.