The environmental issue of whether the spreading of biosolids or human waste onto Oklahoma farmlands is safe or not was resurrected last week by an Oklahoma Senate Committee.
It also revealed distinct differences in how to approach what has become a controversial topic, not just among those fighting the use of the biosolids on farm and ranchland, but among legislators.
At hand is HB3411 , a bill approved by the Senate Energy Committee after a lengthy debate led by Sen. Dave Rader, R-Tulsa and Sens. Jack Stewart, R-Yukon and Grant Green, R-Wellston. It featured Rader defending a proposed 5-year pilot study of using treated human waste or sewage as fertilizer to be spread on farmland.
“There is a team right now at Oklahoma State University that’s ready to attack this issue, and they’re going to attack it. They have an all-star lineup there that is ready to go,” he informed members of the committee.
But Sen. Green, who chairs the Energy Committee, argued why wait five years and filed an amendment to shorten the study to three years. Rader felt the bill was confusing and the state should move forward with the scientific study. Green disagreed during debate on his amendment.
“It is beyond me why this study would take five years. Secondly, if we do this study for five years and we do not have this language that I put in this bill, where are we at in five years? Then we’re starting the process of doing away with it,” he argued.
He had the support of Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee who argued a three-year study was better than a five-year review.
“What we’re talking about is human waste that is being spread on Oklahoma farmland without adequate processing, without adequate assurance to our farmers and ranchers that produce the food we eat in these nice restaurants in Oklahoma City and in Tulsa, Norman, where they eat the food that we produce. And quite frankly, I’m in favor of it moving to three. I’m in favor of it moving to one.”
Jett said waiting five more years was simply putting more toxins into the state and it was a waste of time. The amendment was approved on an 8-2 vote which then led to lengthy debate on the substitute measure introduced by Green.
Green pushed his bill saying he did research on the topic and it was time to take action.
“I think this study is something we have to do, but I am not willing to kick it down the road for years to come.”
Sen. Rader pushed for clarification and pointed to what he deemed to be a confusing part of Green’s bill. The bill called for a 25% reduction of the use of biosolids after the first year even though the focus was on a three year study.
“How can we have a three-year study that ends in 2029, but yet in 2027 we’re saying we’re going to cut due to the report saying that this is a negative way to do business or to do agriculture?” asked Rader of Sen. Stewart who carried the bill in committee. Stewart couldn’t answer and allowed Green, the author of the bill, to answer.
“It’s going to be 13 months of study, and if we don’t start rolling it back, and then at year three, they say that’s it, we’ve got to stop. It’s going to be a whole lot easier on these municipalities to start rolling this back at a slow process and at least 50% to the last year. If we do it all at once, then once again, we’re going to be pushing it down the road,” answered Green.
GREEN: “So, they’re going to have, year one, they’re going to have some data.“
RADER: ” But again, that’s part of the problem with this bill, is it not? That’s just another conflicting statement because there are two paragraphs that say upon completion of the program, if then, then that. If this, then that?”
GREEN: “I appreciate you standing up for this study because it needs to be done. I would love to share with you some of the data I have. And if you saw the data I have, you would be with me.”
Before senators voted, they heard from Chris Browning, Utilities Director and General Manager of the Oklahoma Water Utilities Trust which runs Oklahoma City’s large wastewater treatment plants. The plants generate nearly 400 tons a day of biosolids which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
Browning also explained there are no federal regulations for some of the contaminants that prompted some concerns such as PFOA and PFOS—-“forever” chemicals.”
Until then, Oklahoma City is permitted to spread the treated human waste on 11,000 acres but the spread of urban areas is forcing the city to switch to a different method of disposing of the waste. The city’s permits allow 5,000 acres in Lincoln County, 6,000 acres in Oklahoma County and a few hundred acres in Logan County.
“And until we come up with standards, health effects standards, I can’t honestly look you in the eye and say we should stop doing this. We don’t know. And that’s what this study would help us determine,” added Browning.
Before the final vote, Sen. Rader again pointed out the rush and the confusion over what Sen. Green adamantly pushed.
“I can’t count as many times, I didn’t keep count, how many times just in this brief conversation we had here that someone said, I don’t know, we don’t know, I don’t know, we don’t know, we don’t know, we don’t know, I don’t know, and we don’t know. But yet, in the next sentence, or earlier, it was said that this is bad. Really, really, really bad,” declared Rader.
Sen. Green wasn’t swayed.
“We’ve got, we need to pass this legislation. I mean, if we need to tweak it a little bit for the senator from Tulsa where he thinks there’s an issue in the language, we can do that before the floor. But anything else with substance needs to stay the way it is.”
The committee voted 8-2 in support of a Do-Pass for the bill with Sens. Rader and Jo Anna Dossett, D-Tulsa, voting no.