House bill addresses city sewage sludge

This week we debated and voted on nearly 50 bills on the House floor. I was floor manager for two of those bills, and I will get to those in a second, but first I want to talk about a bill I introduced to address the issue of city sewage sludge being spread on farmland.

  Buy Photo

Just before the legislative session began, some constituents alerted me to the fact that municipal sewage sludge was being spread on a field adjacent to their fields. Why is this a problem?

For some time, various cities across the country have paid farmers to haul the sludge from their sewage treatment plants and spread it on their cropland. This was viewed as a win-win solution: cities got rid off their sewage sludge, and farmers received “free” fertilizer.

Unfortunately, here’s what we’ve started to learn about this sludge.

The EPA has been testing sewage sludge around the country for a number of years. They have found over 700 different chemicals in sewage sludge so far.

The EPA now has a searchable database of those chemicals. On a whim, I typed in “fentanyl,” and, sure enough, fentanyl has been found in sewage sludge. But that’s just one example. So have lots of other toxins that end up going down city drains.

Some of the toxins found in sewage sludge are PFAs, often called “forever chemicals.” The EPA has said that PFAs are unsafe for humans in drinking water at any level.

PFAs resist heat, grease, oil and water, so they are used in all kinds of applications. You can find PFAs in things like textiles, food packaging, cookware, paints and cleaning products. They are pretty much everywhere.

In Maine, a dairy’s milk was tested, and it was discovered that PFAs were in the milk. The milk was destroyed, and the dairy was shut down. It turned out that the cows had been grazing on pasture where sewage sludge had been spread. In 2022, Maine became the first state to ban the spreading of sewage sludge on farmland.

Ranchers in Texas have also reported several deaths from cattle who grazed on land that sewage sludge was spread on. The ranchers believe the cause of death is PFAs in the sewage sludge.

The impact of PFAs is not limited to sewage sludge. PFAs are an important ingredient in firefighting chemicals. This hit close to home in our district when PFAs were found to have contaminated wells near The Eastern Iowa Airport. The theory is that run-off from airport firefighting foam was responsible.

As I said, I am just learning of this problem, and I don’t want to rush to judgment. However, I am very sensitive to the fact that soil and water are the source of Iowa’s wealth. I am concerned that sewage sludge might permanently poison our soil and water. I am concerned that we might have cities transferring massive environmental liabilities to farmers.

Incineration of sewage sludge may be a solution. Cedar Rapids incinerates its sewage sludge, and I have read that some European countries do as well.

Johnson County just passed a massive conservation bond. Before building any more bike trails, I think it would be wise for Johnson County to consider whether it needs to incinerate its sewage sludge. I would be happy to work with the county supervisors on this issue.

If you want to do some personal research, there is a great deal of information on the internet, and there also is a film about sewage sludge on YouTube called “BioSludged.”

I introduced a bill (HF 723) at the end of session to get the conversation going on this sewage sludge/PFAs issue. Even though the bill was introduced too late to survive the legislative funnel, Reps. Dean Fisher, Craig Johnson, Craig Williams and Mary Madison held a subcommittee hearing on the bill. I thank them for that, and I was pleased to hear several other interested parties speak at the hearing.

I am still in the investigation/learning stage. I will keep working on this issue after the session ends.

House File 573: Mental Illness/Substance Abuse

This week, I floor-managed my first bill. HF 573 slightly changes the procedure for involuntary commitment and involuntary hospitalization.

A short anecdote illustrates the problem we are trying to fix:

A pregnant, paranoid and schizophrenic woman was by herself in Polk County, posting lots of concerning material and threatening to commit suicide.

Her parents — hundreds of miles away in a different county — had initiated involuntary hospitalization proceedings to help their daughter. They saw the social media posts and called Polk County law enforcement and EMS, requesting that someone go get their daughter to protect her from herself. Unfortunately, they were told that they first needed an order from a Polk County court.

Sometimes every second matters when you are trying to help someone who is suffering from serious mental illness or severe substance abuse. We do not want a cumbersome legal process to prevent us from getting to someone in time to help them.

This bill will help speed up the legal process and get emergency assistance to those who need it.

HF 573 passed unanimously through the Iowa House with a vote of 96-0.

House File 602: Closed-Circuit TV Testimony by a Minor

I also floor-managed HF 602. For decades, child victims of abuse have been allowed (in rare cases) to testify against their abusers from a separate room. The goal is to prevent further trauma to the child, and this system is generally allowed in all 50 states and at the federal level.

Iowa code requires that the prosecutor and defense counsel are in that room with the child. The practice has always been that one-way closed-circuit television is set up so that the judge, jury, and defendant can see and hear the child’s testimony. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this system meets the requirements of the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

However, last year, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that using one-way closed-circuit television violates the Iowa Constitution. Although the Iowa Supreme Court did not explicitly say whether two-way closed-circuit television would meet the requirements of the Iowa Constitution, it is my opinion that they strongly implied that it would.

With two-way closed-circuit television, those in the courtroom can see and hear what is happening where the child is testifying, and those in the other room — particularly the child — can see and hear the defendant.

So this bill simply changes the relevant statute to say that the closed-circuit television must be two-way rather than one-way. The purpose of the bill is to make our law comply with the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion.

There is a curveball here, though. In response to the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion, Attorney General Bird has introduced an amendment to the state constitution that states that a defendant’s right to confront their accuser may be limited by law. I consider a constitutional amendment to be very serious, and this is a challenging issue. More to come on the proposed constitutional amendment.

House File 472: Protecting First Amendment Rights

This week (March 14) the House unanimously passed a bill that came from the Judiciary Committee. The bill, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, protects the right of Iowans to express their opinions freely and is especially important for people who speak out on public issues, whether in meetings, on social media or in the press.

Under this bill, if you are sued for your opinion, you can ask a court to quickly dismiss the lawsuit. When this request is filed, all other legal activities related to the case will be paused, meaning that no further actions will take place until the court decides on the request.

The court is required to hold a hearing to discuss the request within 60 days, ensuring that cases involving free speech are resolved promptly.

If the court determines that the law applies and the person suing cannot prove their case, the lawsuit will be dismissed. This protects individuals from baseless claims for simply expressing their opinions.

Additionally, if the request to dismiss the lawsuit is successful, the individual who was sued can recover legal costs.

HF 472 represents a significant step forward for free speech in Iowa. It helps ensure that individuals can share their opinions without the fear of being sued.

By making it easier to dismiss unfounded lawsuits, the law encourages open discussions about important topics that affect the community. The Uniform Public Expression Protection Act supports the right to speak out and express views without worry, marking a positive change for everyone in the state, no matter what their views are.