Composting controversy goes to court

BARSTOW — The company has spoken. Hinkley residents have spoken. The lawyers have spoken. And now the judge will have his say about the controversial biosolids composting facility to be built near Hinkley.

Lawyers representing Nursery Products, LLC., the County of San Bernardino, and residents of Hinkley were in the Barstow courthouse Friday to present their arguments before Judge John Vander Feer. Vander Feer heard arguments from all three parties and will issue a written decision on the case in about 30 days, he said.

The proposed facility would ferment waste, including human waste, to form compost. Shortly after the project was approved in February 2007, members of HelpHinkley.org which opposes the project, sued Nursery Products and the county to block its development.

Vander Feer made it clear to the audience that he would only review legal arguments and would not decide the matter based on the parties’ opinions.

“I’m not here to decide whether this is a good idea or bad, whether or not this facility is environmentally friendly or not,” he said. “I’m here only to decide if the analysis that the company provided complied with the law. That’s all.”

Lawyers supporting HelpHinkley.org, who are representing the group for free, allege that the county-produced study analyzing the potential negative effects of the composting site on the environment is flawed. They say the study didn’t fully consider the facility’s potential to pollute nearby groundwater and air.

“This obliterates the very role of the California Environmental Quality Act, and its role in sounding the early-warning environmental alarm bells,” said Ingrid Brostrom, attorney for the Center on Race Poverty and the Environment.

Her co-counsel, Alicia Pradas, of Golden Gate University’s Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, argued that the study didn’t look closely enough at the option of enclosing the composting site.

After giving HelpHinkley.org’s lawyers a chance to speak, the judge allowed Nursery Products and the county time to defend its case. Company representatives called enclosure of the composting site impractical because the area lacks the needed access to water and electricity.

“There is sufficient evidence to show the impact on the profits and revenues on the facility (if enclosed) would be so bad as to render it economically unfeasible,” said the company’s attorney Kevin Haroff.

He said the composting method used at the site would have almost no impact on local water supplies.

“The fact of the matter is, this project uses a very small amount of water, less than 1,000 gallons a day,” he said.

Attorney Bart Brizee, representing the county, argued that once built, the composting site would help the environment.

“This is not some pollution-generating plant,” he said. “The facility is in fact an environmentally friendly way of dealing with the pollution that every one of us in this room contributes to.”

More than a dozen members of HelpHinkley.org attended the trial, but none testified about the project. Still, they said they felt they were listened to, said Norm Diaz, an activist with the group.

Contact the writer:

(760) 256-4126 or jason_smith@link.freedom.com