‘Odor and flies’: Supervisors unhappy with biosolids application. Company wants to buy more land to expand practice; county has no say
The Yuma County Board of Supervisors is not happy that “crap” is being brought in from California and deposited into the county soil. For years, companies in South County have been applying biosolids from wastewater treatment facilities to farmland to dispose of the biosolids and add nutrients to the soils.
Also for years, residents, in particular those who live in South County, have been complaining about the foul smell and flies. The problem might be growing with a company’s proposed purchase of 6,000 acres to expand the application of biosolids in the area. As required by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, AgTech LLC recently advertised its intention to buy 6,000 acres in South County for expanded biosolid application.
The additional 6,000 acres planned for purchase and biosolid application requires public notification and registration of the land with ADEQ but does not require public comment.
ADEQ regulates the permitting for biosolid application. The supervisors expressed frustration that Yuma County has no control or say over the practice.
“It’s an issue that is forefront in the minds of a lot of us,” Chairman Tony Reyes said.
On Aug. 17, at the request of the supervisors, George Amaya of the Development Services Environmental Programs Division provided an update. He reported that on June 1, due to a complaint of overwhelming sewer smells and flies in the vicinity of South Avenue B and County 19th Street, ADEQ inspected AgTech in South County. The inspection report identified potential deficiencies and
recommendations related to organic septage residuals and biosolids record keeping. In this case, organic septage residuals are dairy waste.
The deficiencies included lack of documentation showing that septage met pathogen reduction, application of biosolids without an active registration, failure to inject the septage below the surface so that no significant amount of septage is present at the surface, and soil conditions that attract significant amounts of vectors resulting in an environmental nuisance that could present a risk to human health. A vector is an organism, such as an insect, that transmits a pathogen.
County staff had a teleconference with the ADEQ Biosolids Division on Aug. 6 to discuss the inspection findings, but the agency would only discuss the issues in general due to the open review of AgTech.
“As of now, we patiently await ADEQ’s determination and action, if any,” Amaya said.
Amaya reviewed the ADEQ biosolid permitting and registration process. Land application of biosolids only requires the land to be registered as having biosolids applied to it. An aquifer protection permit is not required if both the general permit and land application registration have been obtained. Land application registration requires public notification, but public comment is not required.
He also explained that the source of biosolids is not regulated but is required to be reported to ADEQ. Certain biosolids do not require additional treatment before application. Applied biosolids must be more than 1,000 feet from any homes or covered or disked into the soil within 10 hours of application.
In addition, operators are required to report vector mitigation practices, but trapping and counting vectors such as flies or rodents is not required. A connection between the biosolids and the flies and odors has not been determined, a staff report noted.
“I don’t know if we can prove a real connection between them, but I can tell you now, the perception is going to be a problem,” Reyes said.
“There’s the real problem and then there’s the perceived problem,” he added. “The real problem obviously to us is the fact that it’s pretty difficult to justify adding another 6,000 acres to a situation that is already bad. The perception is bad.”
Reyes note the biosolids are being applied relatively close to homes, even at a distance of 1,000 feet, and very close to the highway. “People go by there, and obviously they can’t escape it,” he said.
He’s especially concerned that biosolids are being applied close to farms that grow consumables. “They’re being applied next to edible stuff, human edible stuff. They’re being applied next to date palms,” Reyes said. “Date production in Yuma County has increased exponentially … That is a big part of our produce industry, a big part of our economic development.”
He added: “If we can’t stop what’s going on, let’s not broaden it by adding 6,000 acres. Six thousand acres is a lot of land. It’s a huge, immense amount of land. How much biosolids can we take from California? And that’s going to become a quality-of-life issue if it grows by that much.”
Supervisor Darren Simmons’ concern is for the future use of that land. He questioned whether consumable crops could be grown on land that’s been injected with biosolids, or if the land could be used for future development.
“If you’re looking down the road, are you able to build, can someone put in a residential subdivision out there? By allowing this, we’re restricting on what we can do in the future. Now it’s great, but down the road, I just don’t see it being good for our kids, our grandkids,” Simmons said.
“California produces it, California takes care of it,” Supervisor Lynne Pancrazi quipped.
Supervisor Russell McCloud asked whether the county “really has no authority to stop it.” Amaya said he checked with Planning and Zoning Director Maggie Castro about zoning regulations, and that the operation is “agricultural exempted” and fits the criteria for approved ag practices.
Reyes stressed that although the county might not be the permitting agency, the supervisors still need to make sure ADEQ and state legislators know their stance.
“It’s certainly not good for the neighborhood or for the perception of the general public in terms of why we’re allowing this to happen. They might not realize that we’re not permitting it and we also have very few tools to stop it, but we sure as hell are going to try,” Reyes said.
He noted that if the additional acreage is allowed, it might mean a more widespread use in the future. “Six thousand acres might be the beginning of 10,000, 12,000 acres or 15,000, so we need to talk to our legislators and make sure they give us the tools necessary to, if not control it, manage it in a way it doesn’t impact the rest of agriculture production in Yuma County or the development of Yuma County, or South County.”
Supervisor Martin Porchas urged county officials to keep looking at the issue.
“Unfortunately, we don’t have much control of it, or any control of it at all, but I looked into this when I was the mayor for the city of Somerton because the smell and the flies at certain times of the year, you can’t be outside,” Porchas said, noting that if nothing is done to stop the practice, the land won’t be usable in the future.
Porchas suggested getting date growers and the other farmers involved to send a stronger message to the state.
Simmons thanked Craig Sellers, director of development services, and Amaya “for keeping on top of this and informing us.”
Reyes requested that they continue to “lobby” as much as they can, even if the county doesn’t have control of it. “It’s just asking for trouble. I don’t see how we’re ever going to be able to justify having this crap brought in from California and depositing in Yuma County soil without having any say about it,” he said.
County Administrator Susan Thorpe said she sent a letter to ADEQ and did not hear back. Reyes noted that a letter signed by all five supervisors might make more of an impact and directed staff to prepare a letter stating their position “before it gets any further.”