The Kentucky Steward LLC, R. M. True
An Op-ed, as Published in The Madison Courier & The Trimble Banner | September 20, 2024 | Expanded Report embedded below
CALL FOR STEWARDSHIP
On September 26, 2024 the Board of Adjustments (BOA) of Trimble County, KY will either approve or deny a conditional use permit application that proposes domestic septic waste spreading on hay fields to “provide a service to [the] community.” Now, every citizen who aspires to service their community deserves to be heard. However, when considering the implications of landfarming human biosolids within that community, I believe it is critical to ensure that such aspirations are environmentally and civically ethical, as well as responsible.
The proposition of landfarming human biosolids in rural Trimble County, KY calls to attention The Kentucky Steward, an LLC predicated on characterizing and encouraging the ethical stewardship—be it environmental or cultural—of Kentucky with an emphasis on “one’s own place”. As founder of The Kentucky Steward, the proposed landfarming operation at hand poses considerable risks to the environment and the people it fosters of my own place being my home county of Trimble. Make no mistake, this is a complex issue that calls for not only the concerned, but informed, experienced professionals.
Having worked seven years as a geotechnical/environmental engineer for a top, globally ranked engineering firm on a multitude of civil engineering projects that have involved complex geotechnical, environmental, and hydrogeological engineering site investigations as well as designs, I feel I have the experience to offer my concerns. My experience, too, is rather convenient, as I have not only worked on some of the largest capital projects in the greater Louisville, KY area—namely, $200 million dollar deep bedrock tunnels that bore challenging geotechnical and environmental considerations—but more aptly in this context, several human biosolids processing projects for the Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District involving biosolids dewatering and thermal hydrolysis pretreatment totaling over $300 million dollars.
Thus, following a meticulous review of 902 KAR 10.150/160 and 40 CFR 503.10-18 (among other related federal and state references), it is my professional opinion that there are significant deficiencies regarding several processes of domestic septage disposal in Kentucky that resultantly introduce and perpetuate environmental risks, especially at “non-public sites”. Unfortunately, and rather unsurprisingly, the deficiencies are too many in number and too great in magnitude to fully encompass in this op-ed. Therefore, as a preface to my expanded report (.pdf embedded below), I have provided a shortlist of deficiencies respective to the following lens:
- Opposition to the Department of Public Health’s Domestic Septage Disposal Approval Process
- Deficiencies regarding the septage disposal site application approval process and the DFS-345 (Site Evaluation) Form itself
- Opposition to Systematic Deficiencies with Delegation of Regulatory Compliance, Record Keeping, and Public Awareness
- Deficiencies regarding local health department professionals lacking the engineering/geologic expertise to properly enforce 902 KAR 10.150*/160; *whether deficient as currently enforced or not
- Deficiencies regarding the local health department’s septage disposal site monitoring relating to thoroughness and monitoring frequency and the DFS-315 (Site Monitoring) Form
- Deficiencies regarding the local health department’s record keeping (or document controls) of active/inactive septage disposal sites
- Opposition to Systematic Deficiencies regarding EPA federal enforcement of 40 CFR Part 503, especially regarding “non-public” disposal sites
- Deficiencies regarding regulatory order of hierarchy (i.e. there are greater deficiencies observed in federal law than state, so there is no federal “safety blanket” mitigating Kentucky’s deficiencies)
With respect to my Opposition Point No. 1, it is my opinion, the significant gaps associated with the domestic septage disposal site evaluation criteria could (and likely already have) lead to environmental and public health risks. Regarding soil characterization and hydrogeological considerations, the current DFS-345 Form (which summarizes inspectors’ rendering of 902 KAR 10.150 – Section 4) as provided in part below is grossly inadequate for protecting environmental and public health.
Additionally, not only are the site evaluation criteria with respect to soil mechanics and hydrogeology grossly deficient, there is no observable consideration relative to the integrity of soil and water resources associated with the Department of Public Health’s DFS-315 (Monitoring Report) Form. As you can see on the below section of DFS-315, when local health department professionals “monitor” active disposal sites, there is NO component that accounts for the health of the soil and water resources following the initial site approval process (which is itself deficient as currently enforced). Meaning, should the septage disposal process adversely affect the health soil and water resources (which is probable), local health department professionals have no incentive or requirement to “re-assess” ground conditions following their initial disposal site assessment. If the proposed septic disposal operations are approved, considering the inevitability of operational equipment, wet-weather events, and the adverse influence of septage on soil health, excluding long-term monitoring requirements for soil and water resource integrity is a severe deficiency.
With respect to my Opposition Point No. 2, it is my opinion, the delegation of authority and enforcement (or rather lack thereof) to/of local health departments is antithetical to their cause. With local health department professionals being certified through KRS 211.360(1) (i.e. an unnamed state employee disclosed to me that this is a single course offered through the University of Kentucky), their authority over and enforcement of biosolids landfarming is analogous to a citizen who is CPR/First Aid certified serving as a surgeon at a trauma center. Sure, both roles involve life saving measures, but clearly contrast with respect to educational requirements, liability, vocational specialization (i.e. does the specific responsibility align with the majority of responsibilities), effectiveness in performing the work, as well as a matter of ethics regarding stakeholders of the work. Therefore, it is evident the domestic septic disposal site approval and monitoring processes (to ensure conformance to KAR/KRS) lack necessary engineering expertise. In my opinion, considering the deficiencies I discuss pertinent to Opposition Point No. 1, to properly approve and enforce the practice of biosolids landfarming at either public or non-public sites, it is necessary for the Department of Public Health to either employ engineering experts (specializing in geotechnical and environmental engineering) or retain through contract engineering expert consultants. In doing so, and in conjunction with a complete overhaul of 902 KAR 10.150 – Section 4 (and the site monitoring process as well), risks to the environment and public health would be significantly mitigated.
With official approval and enforcement of domestic septage disposal, especially at “non-public” sites (like the ones proposed in Trimble County, KY) assumed by the Department of Public Health, I could not think of a more troubling irony. Given the significant deficiencies regarding site soil mechanics and hydrogeology, there is nothing “non-public” about “non-public” sites. There remains no observable ‘health’ in this regard being offered to, or upheld, on behalf of the public by the Department of Public Health and its local health departments.
It is from this realization that I believe it would be a grave error in judgment for the Trimble County, KY BOA to approve the conditional use permit application. Further, as The Kentucky Steward considers all places Kentucky when under threat of environmental—and thus cultural—risk, I believe it would be a grave mistake for other-alike community governing administrations to approve domestic septage disposal operations until a significant overhaul of KAR/KRS regulations is executed. Even so, other cultural factors—such as (unmitigable) odor control, proximity to stakeholder residences, property value loss, and internal/external community public perception may, and rightfully, hold precedent to influence local governing administrations to deny such applications from corporations or individuals alike, no matter their good intention.
With these thoughts in mind, it should be stated that The Kentucky Steward, and specifically this discourse and my expanded report, is in no way anti-farmer, anti-private property owner’s rights, or anti-landfarming; it does, however, adamantly oppose the malpractice of the landfarming itself which is substantiated by the deficiencies discussed herein. The Kentucky Steward also conditionally recognizes that other cultural factors like odor control and property value loss, regardless of whether the Department of Public Health could verify through necessary complex engineering risk mitigation measures that the environment would be unaffected, would still hold precedent and justify a denial of conditional land use.
I, like many in rural communities, farm hay fields just the same as the conditional use applicant. After purchasing my farm in May in neighboring Henry County, my first cut in June was ‘fair to middling’. But, after minimal rain this Summer, it is unlikely there will be a second cut. Now, I am afforded the right to propose to my local governing administration to spread septage on my hay fields in an effort to remedy this shortcoming, as did the applicant of Trimble County. However, with my hay fields resting atop a steep declination to the beautiful Drennon Creek below—with its wondrous oxbow ponds and steady flow despite drought—my individual right does not hold precedent over the health of my surficial soil and the integrity of a creek which progresses downstream through the county gracing dozens of healthy farms until its terminus in the Kentucky River.
As stewards of the state and our local communities, I believe it is each Kentuckian’s calling to ensure we pursue furthering our personal and familial well-being, but not at the expense of significant risks to the greater environment and, by extension, community. As it stands, the BOA will either deny or approve the conditional use permit application on September 26, 2024. The application proposes two biosolids landfarming locations, both of which are near dry-weather and wet-weather steady-flow streams that grace several farms prior to terminating in the Little Kentucky River. In light of this fact, and the significant deficiencies noted herein (and in my expanded report), the wisdom of local farmer, and famed Kentucky writer, Wendell Berry comes to mind:
“Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you.”
—
To reiterate, I welcome all concerned parties, especially fellow stewards, to review my expanded discourse on the subject embedded below. There you will find a more thorough discussion surrounding specific deficiencies regarding the malpractice of domestic septage disposal in Kentucky, as well as a closer lens on the situation at hand in Trimble County, KY. Note: If you experience technical difficulties viewing the Expanded Report, please reach out to [email protected] and I will personally provide you with a copy (.pdf).
Leave a Reply