The role of municipalities in regulating the land application of sewage sludges and septage

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 74-122

  Harrison, Ellen Z ^a   Eaton, Malaika M ^b,c  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b Cornell Institute for Public Affairs ^*  (United States)

^c MIT Sloan School of Management   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750649450     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (255)

1. In this article, the term "sewage sludge" will be used. This term will replace other names, such as "biosolids." This measure is being taken to avoid confusion over terminological differences. Additionally, the term "sewage sludge" is used in the major federal regulations on the topic "Part 503 defines sewage sludge as a solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works." OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., U.S. ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, EPA/832/R-93/003, A PLAIN ENGLISH GUIDE TO THE EPA PART 503 BIOSOLIDS RULE 4-5 (1994). "Part 503" refers to the major federal regulations pertaining to sewage sludge and septage.
2. "Domestic septage is defined in the Part 503 regulations as the liquid or solid material removed from a septic tank, cesspool, portable toilet, Type III marine sanitation device, or a similar system that receives only domestic sewage....domestic septage may include household septage as well as septage from establishments such as schools, restaurants, and motels, as long as this septage does not contain other types of wastes than those listed above." OFFICE OF RESEARCH & DEV., U.S. ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, EPA/625/R-95/001, PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL: LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AND DOMESTIC SEPTAGE 129 (1995).
3. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, art. II, § 2, art. III, § 2, and amend. X.
4. See id. at art. VI, cl. 2.
5. See N.Y. CONST. art. IX, § 1.
6. "Land application is the application of [sewage sludge] to land to either condition the soil or to fertilize crops or other vegetation grown in the soil." OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., supra note 1, at 25. The same definition applies to septage. The USEPA guidelines specify that sewage sludge and septage is to be applied at rates consistent with the nitrogen needs of the crops grown on the land.
7. See Franklin County v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 507 S.E.2d 460 (Ga. 1998); County of Grundy v. Soil Enrichment Materials Corp., 292 N.E.2d 755 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973); Perry v. Providence Township, 578 N.E.2d 886 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991); Talbott County, Md. v. Skipper, 620 A.2d 880 (Md. 1993).
8. See William Goldfarb et al., Unsafe Sewage Sludge or Beneficial Biosolids?: Liability, Planning, and Management Issues Regarding the Land Application of Sewage Treatment Residuals, 26 B.C. ENVTL. AFF. L. REV. 687, 713-17 (1999).
9. See id.
10. See DIV. OF SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE, NY DEP'T OF ENVTL. CONSERVATION, BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE 1 (1998).
11. See id. at 5, 23.
12. See id. at 21.
13. Note also that New York State imports sludge from other states.
14. See DIV. OF SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE, supra note 10, at 10.
15. Goldfarb et al., supra note 8, at 711-12.
16. Daniel A. Spitzer, Maybe in My Backyard: Strategies for Local Regulation of Private Solid Waste Facilities in New York, 1 BUFF. ENVTL. L.J. 87, 89 (1993). Note that this assertion is in relation to solid waste management facilities generally, and not specifically directed to land application facilities.
17. See KERN COUNTY, CA., KERN COUNTY ORDINANCE CODE § 8.05.010 (1999) (regulating biosolids land application);
18. RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY, VA., GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS, ch. 170, § 38(A)(7) (1994).
19. California Farm Bureau Federation, Farm Bureau Adopts 1999 Policy, FARM BUREAU NEWS RELEASES, Dec. 11, 1998.
20. See OFFICE OF RESEARCH & DEV., supra note 2, at 11.
21. See id.
22. See id.
23. See Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-688, 102 Stat. 4139.
24. See id. § 104B(a)(1)(B).
25. See id. § 104B(a), § 104C.
26. See OFFICE OF RESEARCH & DEV., supra note 2, at 129.
27. See Goldfarb et al., supra note 8, at 697.
28. See OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., supra note 1, at 1.
29. See id.
30. See id.
31. See 59 Fed. Reg. 9095 (Feb. 25, 1994); 60 Fed. Reg. 54,764 (Oct. 25, 1995); 64 Fed. Reg. 42,552 (Aug. 4, 1999).
32. See OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., supra note 1, at 1.
33. 33 U.S.C. § 1345(e) (1994). See also Goldfarb et al., supra note 8, at 709.
34. Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 C.F.R. § 503.5(b) (1999).
35. See OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., supra note 1, at 6.
36. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 503.10-503.18.
37. The designation "CPLR" applies to bulk sewage sludge while "APLR" applies to sewage sludge sold or given away in containers.
38. See 40 C.F.R. § 503.13.
39. See OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., supra note 1, at 6-9.
40. See 40 C.F.R. § 503.13.
41. See OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., supra note 1, at 38.
42. See id. at 38-39, 49, 51.
43. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 503.20-503.28.
44. See id. §§ 503.30-503.33.
45. See id. §§ 503.40-503.48.
46. See OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., supra note 1, at 11.
47. See id. at 15.
48. OFFICE OF RESEARCH & DEV., supra note 2, at 129.
49. See id. at 130-31.
50. See id. at 131-32.
51. See id.
52. See id. at 133.
53. Jason M. King, Standing in Garbage: Flow Control and the Problem of Consumer Standing, 32 GA. L. REV. 1227, 1227 n.3 (1998) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 6901(a)(4) (1994)).
54. See DIV. OF SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE, supra note 10, at 24.
55. Id.
56. See id. at 25.
57. N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 6, §§ 360-4.6(c), 360-4.3(h)(2) (2000).
58. See id. § 360-4.4.
59. See id. § 360-4.2.
60. See id. § 360-4.4(r).
61. See id. § 360-4.4(a) & (c).
62. See id. § 360-4.4(b).
63. See id. § 360-4.4(e)-(q).
64. See id. § 360-1.4(s) & (x).
65. See Ellen Z. Harrison, Cornell Waste Management Institute, Land Application of Septage in NYS 1 (Mar. 17, 1999) (unpublished paper, on file with author).
66. See N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 6, § 364.1(b).
67. See id. § 360-4.1(c)(3) & (5).
68. See Harrison, supra note 64, at 1.
69. See id.
70. See id.
71. See id. at 1-2.
72. See Spitzer, supra note 16, at 111.
73. Id. at 111-12.
74. See id. at 112.
75. See N.Y. AGRIC. & MKTS. LAW § 308 (McKinney Supp. 2000).
76. See Neil D. Hamilton, Right-to-Farm Laws Reconsidered: Ten Reasons Why Legislative Efforts to Resolve Agricultural Nuisances May Be Ineffective, 3 DRAKE J. AGRIC. L. 103, 103 (1998).
77. Goldfarb et al., supra note 8, at 715 n.178.
78. See Sean F. Nolan & Cozata Solloway, Preserving Our Heritage: Tools to Cultivate Agricultural Preservation in New York State, 17 PACE L. REV. 591, 613 (1997).
79. See N.Y. AGRIC. & MKTS. LAW § 305.
80. See Harrison, supra note 64, at 2.
81. Nolan & Solloway, supra note 77, at 614.
82. See N.Y. AGRIC. & MKTS. LAW § 306.
83. See id. § 308(1).
84. Id. § 308 (3). Additionally, the 1995 amendments allow the collection of attorneys' fees and costs from the losing parties in these suits "unless the court finds that the position of the plaintiff was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust." See id. § 308-a(2)(a). Provisions such as these often serve to discourage suits because of the risk of the imposition of costs, despite the fact that no instances of the imposition of these fees and costs exist. See Hamilton, supra note 75, at 11.
85. N.Y. AGRIC. & MKTS. LAW § 305-a(1).
86. See Dep't of Agric. and Mkts., Local Laws and Agricultural Districts: How Do They Relate? (Nov. 3, 1997) (on file with authors) [hereinafter NYSDAM] (citing N.Y. AGRIC. & MKTS. LAW § 305-a(1)(b)).
87. See Letter from John F. Rusnica, Senior Attorney, Department of Agriculture and Markets, to Ellen Harrison, Director, Cornell Waste Management Institute, 4 (Dec. 2, 1999) (on file with authors).
88. Id.
89. See id.
90. See NYSDAM, supra note 85.
91. Letter from John F. Rusnica, Senior Attorney, Department of Agriculture and Markets, to Kenneth Nolan, Supervisor, Town of Butternuts, 1 (Sept. 23, 1996) (on file with authors).
92. N.Y. AGRIC. & MKTS. LAW § 305-a (1)(a) (McKinney Supp. 2000).
93. See id. § 308(3).
94. See id. § 305-a(1).
95. See NYSDAM, supra note 85.
96. See Spitzer, supra note 16, at 115-17.
97. See id. at 117-19.
98. See id. at 127.
99. Id.
100. See id. at 122-23.
101. Id.
102. See id. at 123.
103. See id. at 128.
104. See id.
105. See N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW §§ 27-0701 & 27-0711 (McKinney 1997).
106. Note that these ordinances have been analyzed in the context of this article. Therefore, the interpretations in this article may or may not be consistent with actual practice or enforcement
107. Note that federal and state rules address many of these issues specifically. Localities interested in regulating land application should familiarize themselves with the federal and state requirements.
108. In drafting an ordinance, care is required to ensure that it addresses only the activities that are of concern. Activities such as backyard composting or composting of yard wastes may be unintentionally restricted if language is unclear.
109. See Auburn, N.H., The Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge and Septage, art. 3.20, § C (Mar. 14, 1995).
110. Gwen Filosa, No Sludge in Webster! 155 to 62; no class B, no class A! SUNDAY MONITOR, Mar. 15, 1998, at B-4. Note also that Orangetown, N.Y. has a similar provision exempting its own sludge from a prohibition against disposal of other sludges.
111. See Orangetown, N.Y., A Local Law Implementing a Waste Flow Enforcement Program in the Town of Orangetown (Mar. 15, 1991).
112. See Starkey, N.Y., A Local Law Intending to Regulate the Disposal of Sludge on Lands Located in the Town of Starkey in Order to Protect the Environment of the Town and to Promote the Health and General Welfare of the Citizens of the Town § V (Sept 29, 1988) [hereinafter Starkey].
113. See Ridgeway, N.Y., Solid Waste Disposal and Sanitary Landfill Law of the Town of Ridgeway § VI (E) (Jan. 28, 1991).
114. Spitzer, supra note 16, at 121-22.
115. Augusta, N.Y., A Local Law Regulating the Storage and Land Spreading of Septic and Sewage Waste in the Town of Augusta § VII (Local Law #1, 1992).
116. See N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 6, § 360-1.14 and 360-4.4 (2000).
117. "Groundwater means water below the land surface in a saturated zone of soil or rock. This includes perched water separated from the main body of groundwater in an unsaturated zone." N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 6, § 360-1.2(b)(81).
118. See Laurens, N.Y, Regulations for the Storage, Disposal and Land Application of Septage, Sewage and/or Sludge Wastes, their Derivatives and/or By-Products § VI(1) (Jan. 19, 1999) [hereinafter Laurens].
119. See Union, Me., Town of Union Sludge Ordinance § V (June 22, 1998) [hereinafter Union].
120. See id.
121. WASHINGTON COUNTY, VA., MUNICIPAL CODE, part a., art. 10, § 66-883 (1994) (regulating land application of sludge) [hereinafter Washington].
122. See Clinton, Me., Draft Septage and Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance § V(i) (Sept. 1999) (on file with authors) [hereinafter Clinton].
123. Union, supra note 117, § V.
124. See Sandwich, N.H., Sludge Application Ordinance (Feb. 2, 1998) [hereafter Sandwich].
125. See EAST KINGSTON, N.H., ZONING ORDINANCES, art XIV, § 14.3.14 (1996) (regulating septage/sludge disposal facilities) [hereinafter East Kingston].
126. See Riverside, Ca., An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating the Land Application of Sewage Sludge, Ordinance No. 696, § 9(C) (Mar. 26, 1991) [hereinafter Riverside].
127. See Groton, N.Y., A Local Law Regulating Solid Waste Management Facilities § 4(C)(6) (Mar. 21, 1988) [hereinafter Groton].
128. See Laurens, supra note 116, § VI(2).
129. See Starkey, supra note 110, § VIII & X(O).
130. Sutton, N.H., Land Application of Sewage Sludge, Amendment to the Sutton Zoning Ordinance § N(2)(e) (Mar. 12, 1996) [hereinafter Sutton].
131. Groton, supra note 125, § 4(C)(4).
132. See Laurens, supra note 116, § VI(1).
133. See Union, supra note 117, § V.
134. See Sutton, supra note 128, § N(2)(b). Note that this provision only applies to the application of Class B sludge.
135. See Union, supra note 117, § V. Note that another requirement (of 500 feet) applies for intermittent streams. See Groton, supra note 125, at 4(C)(15).
136. "[T]he land susceptible to being inundated by a flood that has a one percent or greater chance of recurring in any given year (or 100-year floodplain)." N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 6, § 360-1.2(b)(67).
137. See Starkey, supra note 110, § X(M).
138. See Riverside, supra note 124, § 9(K).
139. See id.
140. See id.
141. See Union, supra note 117, § V.
142. See Groton, supra note 125, at 4(A)(15).
143. See East Kingston, supra note 123, at 14.3.11.
144. See Laurens, supra note 116, at § VI(13). Note also that Laurens specifies that the signs must contain the skull and crossbones and be maintained on the site for one year.
145. See id. at § VI(2).
146. See Groton, supra note 125, § 4(C)(1).
147. See Starkey, supra note 110, § X(R)-(S).
148. Id. § X(F).
149. See Lansing, N.Y., A Local Law Regulating Solid Waste Management Facilities § 4(C)(7) (Mar. 14, 1988).
150. See Laurens, supra note 116, § VI(2).
151. See Ellen Z. Harrison et al., Land Application of Sewage Sludges: An Appraisal of the U.S. Regulations, 11 INT'L J. ENV'T & POLLUTION 1, 1 (1999).
152. See Sandwich, supra note 122.
153. See Laurens, supra note 116, § VI(7).
154. Starkey, supra note 110, § X(H).
155. Id. § X (E).
156. See id. § IV. Note that a "verified complaint" is any complaint received by the Town officer that can be verified by the officer to be from the sludge operation (not other agricultural odors). Any complaints received within one 24-hour period are considered one complaint for the purposes of the ordinance.
157. See Laurens, supra note 116, § VI(9).
158. See U.S. ENVT'L PROTECTION AGENCY, 1998 TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY PUBLIC DATA RELEASE REPORT 2-12 (2000), chapter two available at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tri98/pdr/ chap_2.pdf. Note that this is a combination of the 3,045,974 pounds transferred to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) for disposal and the 266,724,175 pounds transferred to POTWs for further waste management and additionally includes only reported releases.
159. See Washington, supra note 119, at art. X, § 66-882, pt. 3.
160. See Riverside, supra note 124, § 8.
161. See Pendleton, N.Y., Solid Waste Management Facility, Incineration, Recycling and Landfills Law, art. VIII(1) (Local Law #1, 1988) [hereinafter Pendleton].
162. Sandwich, supra note 122.
163. See Stanislaus County, Cal., Draft Disclosure Statement Regarding Land Application of Sewage Sludge in the Unincorporated Area of Stanislaus County (n.d.) (unpublished document, on file with authors).
164. Sandwich, supra note 122.
165. See Clinton, supra note 120, § VII(c).
166. Pendleton, supra note 159, at art. V(1)(a).
167. Laurens, supra note 116, § X.
168. See Letter from John F. Rusnica to Ellen Harrison, supra note 86, at 4.
169. Napoli, N.Y., Solid Waste Disposal Law of the Town of Napoli, § IV (Local Law #1, 1990).
170. See Union, supra note 117, § IV.
171. See Groton, supra note 125, § 4(C)(10).
172. See Starkey, supra note 110, § XII(A).
173. See Groton, supra note 125, § 4(C)3.
174. See id. § 4(C)(10).
175. See Starkey, supra note 110, § XII(C).
176. See Merced County, CA, An Ordinance Regulating the Land Application of Sewage Sludge, Ordinance 1505, § 9-52-110(A)P) (Nov. 8, 1994). Note that this ordinance requires composited samples to be obtained monthly from the sludge applied, but also requires composited tests to be done for all POTWs whose sludge is land applied in Merced County. Finally, the ordinance requires that pathogen and vector sludge treatment records be made available to the County to ensure compliance.
177. See Groton, supra note 125, § 4(C)(9).
178. See Laurens, supra note 116, § VII(1); Sutton, supra note 123, § N(e).
179. U.S. ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, REPORT NO. 2000-P-10, BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT, at ii (2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/ oigearth/audit/list300/00P0010.pdf.
180. Spitzer, supra note 16, at 104-05.
181. As discussed supra notes 5-9 and accompanying text, there is a possibility of implicit preemption of local regulations where a state has adopted extensive and comprehensive laws and regulations on the same topic. However, also as noted, preemption issues must be considered in light of the substantial home rule powers granted to localities in New York State. See N.Y. CONST. art. IX, § 1. See also Incorporated Village of Nyack v. Daytop Village, Inc., 583N.E.2d928, 929-30 (N.Y. 1991); supra Part 2.2.5. In the case of solid waste management issues, such as local regulation of sewage sludge and septage, localities may adopt laws provided they are not inconsistent with the state law. See supra notes 71-73 and accompanying text. Local laws in this arena have been deemed consistent provided the standards they set are not below the state law minimum. See supra note 72 and accompanying text Therefore, a court would be unlikely to find that a locality adopting the state standards as its own was implicitly preempted because the state law itself allows for concurrent local regulations; the law must be read in light of the strong provisions for home rule in New York, and enforcement of the local law would not undermine the purpose of the state scheme.
182. See Minden, N.Y., Waste Management Facilities Law of the Town of Minden § VII(A) (Jan. 25, 1999);
183. Eden, N.Y., Waste Management Facilities Law § VII(A) (Mar. 23, 1994).
184. See Groton, supra note 125, § 6 (providing for a public hearing, advertised in advance, prior to issuance of a permit for land application activities).
185. See Laurens, supra note 116, § IV(2).
186. See Riverside, supra note 124, § 5.
187. See Union, supra note 117, § IV.
188. See Starkey, supra note 110, § IX.
189. See Riverside, supra note 124, § 9(1) & 14.
190. KERN COUNTY, CA., ORDINANCE CODE § 8.05.040G.1 (1999) (regulating biosolids land application).
191. See RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY, VA., GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS, ch. 170, § 38(A)(7) (1994).
192. Id.
193. See Welch v. Bd. of Supervisors, 860 F. Supp. 328, 329 (W.D. Va. 1994), aff'd 888 F. Supp. 753 (W.D. Va. 1995). Please note that this discussion is limited to the federal case. Plaintiffs filed a separate case under state law that is not discussed here.
194. See id. at 330.
195. See Id. at 330-01.
196. See Welch v. Board of Supervisors, 888 F. Supp. 753, 755 (W.D. Va. 1995), aff'g, 860 F. Supp. 328 (W.D. Va. 1994).
197. See id.
198. See id. at 758. The Pike test is stated as follows: Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to affect a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits....If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interests involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate commerce. Id.
199. Id. at 759.
200. See id.
201. See id. at 759-60.
202. Id. at 759.
203. See id. at 760.
204. King, supra note 52, at 1228 n.11.
205. 437 U.S. 617, 618 (1978).
206. See id. at 626-27.
207. Id. at 628.
208. See Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334, 336-37 (1992).
209. See id. at 344-45.
210. See Letter from John F. Rusnica to Kenneth Nolan, supra note 90.
211. See id. The Local Law prohibited the spreading of septage within the Town. See Town of Butternuts v. Davidsen, 686 N.V.S.2d 239 (App. Div. 1997).
212. Letter from John F. Rusnica to Kenneth Nolan, supra note 90. Note that a "dump" was defined loosely as "a place used for the disposal and leaving of paper, garbage, rubbish and waste materials of any nature" and was determined by the Town Board to include landspreading activities.
213. Id. at 1-2.
214. Id. at 2.
215. NYSDAM, supra note 85. Note that the power to issue an order to comply is pursuant to section 36 of the AML.
216. See Town of Butternuts, 686 N.Y.S.2d at 240-41.
217. NYSDAM, supra note 85.
218. See Harrison, supra note 64, at 3.
219. See Town of Butternuts v. Davidsen, No. RJI-01-97-ST7955 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 9, 1997) (dismissing Article 78 proceeding).
220. See id. Note, however, that the Town did not present any evidence of a link to health or safety threats other than anecdotal evidence stating that the law was intended to address public health. Therefore, this ruling may not be indicative of a NYSDAM challenge to a locality that can produce evidence of a threat to public health and safety.
221. See id.
222. See Town of Butternuts v. Davidsen, 686 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1999).
223. See Bormann v. Bd. of Supervisors, 584 N.W.2d 309, 311-12 (Iowa 1998), cert. denied sub nom., Girres v. Bormann, 119 S.Ct. 1096 (1999).
224. See id. at 312.
225. See id.
226. See id. at 311.
227. Id. at 316.
228. See id.
229. Petition for writ of certiorari was denied on February 22, 1999. See Girres v. Bormann, 119 S.Ct. 1096 (1999).
230. See Rutter v. Carrolls Foods of the Midwest, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 876 (N.D. Iowa 1999).
231. 668 N.Y.S.2d 248 (App. Div. 1998).
232. Id. at 249.
233. No. 2690-97, slip op. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 25, 1999).
234. See id. at 3.
235. See id. at 7.
236. See id. at 8-9.
237. Id. at 9.
238. See id.
239. Id. at 10.
240. Id. at 10-11.
241. See OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MGMT., supra note 1, at 52-53. Note here that contaminated sludge (i.e. not "normal" sludge) is considered a release under CERCLA. Non-contaminated sludge falls under the fertilizer exclusion. See Fallowfield Dev. Corp. v. Struck, 1994 U.S. Dist LEXIS 12758, at *70 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Liability issues will be further discussed below.
242. 468 A.2d 150 (N.J. 1983).
243. See id. at 154.
244. See id.
245. Note that some courts have found some activities commonly associated with agriculture to be an "abnormally dangerous activity." In Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., the court found that defendants' crop spraying activities were an abnormally dangerous activity considering the circumstances of the case. In this case, some of the pesticides sprayed were deposited on plaintiffs' organic crop, causing plaintiffs to be permanently de-certified as organic growers. The court found that the crop spraying was an abnormally dangerous activity in this context. See Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., 567 P.2d 218, 220 (Wash. 1977).
246. Ventron Corp., 468 A.2d at 157. Note that the court lays out the elements of an "abnormally dangerous activity" as follows: (a) existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattels of others; (b) likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great; (c) inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care; (d) extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage; (e) inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and (f) extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes. Id. at 159. All of these elements need not be proved for a positive finding of an abnormally dangerous activity.
247. Id. at 160.
248. See Goldfarb, supra note 8, at 741-43.
249. United States v. Cooper, 173 F.3d 1192 (1999), cert denied, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 7783 (1999).
250. See id. at 1196.
251. See id. at 1196-98.
252. See id. at 1201.
253. Id.
254. Id.
255. As noted above, the challengers of the Rappahannock ordinance did not present evidence of an effect upon interstate commerce, other than the individual effect on their personal activities. Such individual effects are not protected by the Commerce Clause.