Nutri-Blend, the biosolids company that hauls treated sewage sludge to farmlands, finally got its way last week in Campbell County. The firm delivered the first of some 1,400 tons of sludge from a Washington, D.C., wastewater treatment plant.

The sludge, or biosolids as the industry that hauls the substance prefers to call it, is a mix of treated human waste and industrial sewage.

Rich in nutrients, the material is applied to hayfields and pasture lands at no cost to the farmer who owns the land. It amounts to free fertilizer for the farmer, whose land becomes a repository for the solid waste that otherwise would have to go to a landfill. The Campbell farmer in this case is G.D. Gilliam. The sludge was spread on his 134 acres of farmland near Gladys.

But, is the material entirely safe to humans exposed to it in homes near the fields? What about the effects of runoff into nearby creeks and streams? Are there long-term hazards that no one knows about at this point? And what exactly is in the endless amounts of the stuff that Nutri-Blend and other firms that haul it are so happy to find a country home for? 

These are questions that Virginia and Campbell officials sought to answer during the permitting process that took more than a year and half. In January 2007, some 400 concerned residents crowded into the county office building in Rustburg to protest Nutri-Blend’s proposed permit modification to increase the amount of permitted land in the county to nearly 3,000 acres.

Most were concerned that the sludge could contain toxic materials that would harm the environment, including those who live nearby. They sought unsuccessfully to ban the sludge from being spread in the county.

While the state has monitored the substances as they come out of waste treatment plants and says they are safe to spread on fields, the federal Environmental Protection Agency has yet to give them a clean bill of health. The agency says further studies are needed to determine if the biosolids are completely safe for the long term.

Meanwhile, observers at the Campbell site last week said the sludge is safe and ground it up in their hands to make the point. As for complaints of sewer odor that had been raised at public hearings, there were none. The only detectable odor was an ammonia smell, which the biosolids director of the wastewater treatment plant said was a result of the treatment process.

Chris Peot confirmed that not all biosolids are treated the same way and that some do, in fact, have a temporary pungent sewer smell to them.

The treatment process for the sludge spread in Campbell — the first in the county — involves treating the suspended solids, including human waste, with lime to kill 95 percent of pathogens and allow the material to decompose. The result is a slow-releasing nutrient fertilizer for farm land.

The most alarming aspect of the substance is the 6 percent that is industrial waste that could include heavy metals such as zinc and mercury. Treatment plant officials say, however, that such metals are permitted at certain levels. Tests conducted on the material are designed to ensure the metals don’t exceed those levels.

The prolonged debate over whether to allow the spread of sludge did result in one safeguard for county residents. It brought the county in line with state standards that allow for a testing and monitoring ordinance.

That will give county officials a better idea of exactly what is in the stuff and how it is affecting the land, including the water quality of nearby creeks and streams.

Before the first 25-ton truckload was dumped, Campbell took about as thorough a study of the sludge as state law permits. Questions still abound about the long-term effects. But for now, those who questioned the wisdom of allowing the sludge to be spread must depend on the county monitors to detect any potential problems before they become hazardous to the health of those living nearby.

Lynchburg News and Advance

You can find more information about sewage sludge and the EPW hearings at Sludge News: http://www.sludgenews.org

FORGET TREKKING to Canada if you want cheap prescription drugs. Just head to the kitchen sink.

A recent Associated Press story said that trace amounts of pharmaceuticals had been found in tap water in 25 of 28 municipal water supplies tested, including the District's. The Environmental Protection Agency does not regulate these compounds in the water supply, though studies have detected them at concentrations that are thousands or millions of times lower than the concentrations allowed for those water contaminants that the EPA does regulate. Since levels are so low, experts say, the health risk that the pharmaceutical traces pose is probably negligible.

Still, little is known about the effects of long-term exposure to very low levels of drugs. Scientists have only recently been able to detect contaminants at these very low levels, so research is still in the early stages.

What would facilitate this research, surely, would be greater willingness from water treatment authorities to release the results of tests carried out on their water. Water treatment authorities seem generally reluctant to disclose this information, citing either national security concerns (which seem laughable, given how low the concentrations are) or the potential for confusion because consumers don't understand how low the concentrations are and may be too scared to continue drinking tap water. Transparency would promote better science and consumer trust, and this confusion could easily be overcome by greater education and outreach.

Washington Post

For the average American household, lighting accounts for 15 percent of the electricity bill, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. But you can save $14 per year if you swap just one regular light bulb for a compact fluorescent light bulb. (Count how many you have and add up the savings.)

These inexpensive and easy changes -- recommended by the Good Housekeeping Research Institute -- are smart ways to slash your electric costs.

Get new bulbs

You probably know that those twisty compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) are more energy-efficient. In fact, ones that are Energy Star-qualified use about 75 percent less electricity and last up to 10 times longer than traditional incandescents. CFLs now even come in a covered style that resembles a regular bulb, so they don't look strange in certain fixtures and can hold a clamp-on lampshade.

Manufacturers also have worked to reduce that hard blue cast typical of earlier fluorescent lights. CFLs do contain a small amount of mercury, so you should follow the EPA's directions for disposal and cleanup if one breaks (epa.gov/mercury/spills).

To find out which CFLs have the best light quality and brightness, the Good Housekeeping Research Institute and consumer testers compared a standard 60-watt soft-white light bulb against 23 equivalent CFLs. The big illumination: The winner's light quality was preferred over the regular incandescent.

Turn down the lights

It's a no-brainer: The lower the lights, the less electricity used. In cases where you use regular bulbs (many CFLs aren't compatible with dimmer switches unless the package says so), setting your dimmer at 75 percent output saves an estimated 20 percent in energy -- and it can quadruple the life of the bulbs.

Because people often turn a dimmer to full blast without thinking, the Good Housekeeping Research Institute's engineers recommend a special dimmer that can cap the light output at 85 percent, automatically conserving energy.

The winning CFLs and dimmer

In the Good Housekeeping Research Institute's tests of CFLs, the overall winner was the Satco Energy Saving Mini Spiral Bulb 13W ($3.49). For a budget alternative, Good Housekeeping suggests trying Great Value Soft White Compact Fluorescent Bulbs ($7.58 per four-pack). Sylvania Soft White Compact Fluorescent 14W ($7) was the top covered bulb, though the Institute's testers preferred light from the uncovered, twisty-style bulbs in general.

If you prefer to make the switch to a dimmer, Lutron's Skylark EcoDim dimmer ($26.50) performed well in Good Housekeeping's evaluations. Testers didn't mind the lower lighting, so you likely won't either.

Power-off savings

Stairways, halls and garages get a lot of through-traffic, and people often forget to shut off lights once they've passed by. Install motion sensors that turn lights on when you walk in and off when motion is no longer detected. Indoor sensors range from $15 (with the sensor fixed in the wall switch) to $45 (a kit with a separate sensor to put where you'd like). Outdoor ones can cost from $16 (for basic floodlights) to $100 (for more decorative or powerful models). Outdoor fixtures that are solar-powered -- used for driveways and patios -- charge during the day and don't draw from house electricity ($60 to $100).

Easy eco-friendly changes

Swapping bulbs isn't the only way to save money at home while also saving the environment. Here are some other painless suggestions from Good Housekeeping.

Bathroom: Switch to low-flow showerheads. A family of four can cut water usage by as much as 280 gallons a month and not feel much difference in water pressure. Kohler's Master Shower Eco (kohler.com) or Niagara Conservation's Earth Massage (niagaraconservation.com)

Patio: Try solar-powered lighting in your yard or on your patio. Malibu's Solar Floodlight (intermatic.com)

Lawn: Today's nongasoline-powered reel lawn mowers are easier to push than the old models. They have zero emissions, and you get great exercise. If you prefer a power mower, consider a battery-operated model from Black & Decker.

On another matter

It's your little secret: The bare floors under your bed, sofa and bookcases rarely get cleaned because they're just too difficult to reach. Well, now the resident bunnies will have to find another hutch to hide beneath -- Good Housekeeping says the new Good Grips Under Duster ($25) has a special joint in the handle that bends a full 90 degrees, so the mop easily can slip below furniture that's low to the ground. The duster's microfiber pad is washable and extra wide. But if you prefer a dry disposable cleaning cloth, just attach one to the head.

Roanoke Times

Drinking water around the country contains pharmaceuticals, The Associated Press reported this week. It found hormones, antibiotics, cholesterol-lowering drugs and other chemicals in cities' water supplies.

There are trace amounts of plenty of things in drinking water that cause no harm. The science is still out on pharmaceuticals, and there is certainly no need to panic.

All the same, that does not justify ignoring the potential problems. For starters, people could stop flushing medication or washing it down the drain. Those are two ways trace amounts end up in the water supply.

The Western Virginia Water Authority, which serves Roanoke and Roanoke County, assures drinkers the region's water is fine. Great! Where's the analysis? Conjecture about how Carvins Cove is a naturally protected environment and a quarter of the water comes from wells rings hollow in light of the national findings.

The water authority says it will test for pharmaceuticals if the state mandates it. Then let's get that state mandate in place. Uniform standards for testing from the State Department of Health would beat a hodgepodge of practices among different utilities.

If Virginia water companies know what is in their product, they will be able to react quickly should the science someday discover risks.

Moreover, the test results would give Virginians the data they need to make an informed decision about their water. They should not have to rely exclusively on a utility spokesman.

More than drugs

For too long, Americans have treated water cavalierly. Pharmaceuticals are only the most recent taint.

Weather permitting this weekend, many homeowners will fertilize their lawns. They should think twice. Nitrogen and other chemicals tend to find their way from lawns to the watershed.

At least the General Assembly this year took steps to mitigate this, by requiring fertilizer companies to test lawns before applications.

Lawmakers also passed a bill to reduce phosphates that have been contributing to environmental problems in the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. Virginia will ban them from home dishwasher detergents in 2010.

Water is necessary for life as we know it. If we do not respect it, the trace amounts of bad things will grow. The first step to minimizing the risk is finding out where we stand now by testing the water.

Roanoke Times

The Washington Post

My farm is in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in southwestern Virginia. Like many others who have recently made the transition from tobacco to organic farming, we sell our produce through local and regional channels, including the farmers market in the nearby town of Abingdon, population 8,000.

Of late, a number of commentators have disparaged local food economies, based on two claims: First, that shipping food long distances in fully loaded tractor-trailers is more efficient than local transactions; and, second, that consumers travel much further to buy local foods, creating more, not less carbon emissions. They're wrong.

A full tractor-trailer hauls about 32,000 pounds of produce. On average, according to the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, this food travels about 1,750 miles from farm to market, in trucks that get about 5.5 miles per gallon. That's 320 gallons of fuel to transport 32,000 pounds, or about a gallon of fuel for every 100 pounds of food.

My farm is an eight-mile round trip from the Abingdon farmers market. Our '94 Toyota pickup gets 15 miles to the gallon, fully loaded, so my trip to and from the market uses just over a half gallon of gas. We take and sell an average of 1,600 pounds of fresh produce every Saturday morning. This works out to 3,200 pounds of food for every gallon of fuel expended. That's 32 times more efficient.

Of course, not every farmer lives four miles from his or her market. But our local experience, along with studies carried out in Austin and Toronto, indicate that most farmers stay within a 50-mile radius. Assuming they carry about 1,000 pounds -- a third less than we do -- the average local food transaction delivers 500 pounds of food per gallon of fuel, five times more efficient than conventional transport.

So the argument that shipping food in tractor-trailers is more efficient than local food transactions doesn't hold up. But are consumers traveling so much farther to get to farmers markets that their additional fuel use offsets any efficiency gains? Though the data are a bit sketchy, two points stand out. First, in spite of the dramatic growth of Wal-Mart and other "one-stop shopping" outlets, our shopping miles are steadily increasing. As author Stacy Mitchell has pointed out, we Americans increased our travel -- just for shopping -- by over 90 billion miles from 1990 to 2001. That's billion with a "B." It's safe to say that most of those new miles were not spent seeking out local food.

Second, several studies indicate that consumers are not willing to travel more than six to eight miles or 15 to 20 minutes by car to shop at a local market, perhaps slightly more than what people will travel to reach the big-box store. And with farmers markets proliferating across the country, from 1,750 in 1995 to nearly 4,500 now, they're getting closer to consumers and farmers every year.

One last thing: So far as I know, no food ever arrives at a farmers market by airplane. Yet air freight, which generates 10 to 30 times as much carbon per mile as trucking, is becoming a major part of the global food system.

When my wife and I get up at 5 on Saturday morning to start packing our truck, a cup of strong coffee and a glass of orange juice make it a little easier. So we're not dogmatic about local foods. But we also know, first hand, that locally produced foods are increasingly abundant, convenient and rewarding. The critics notwithstanding, buying local food is a sensible way to eat well, save fuel and reduce your carbon footprint.

Anthony Flaccavento, Abingdon, Va.

The writer is a food and society policy fellow and director of Appalachian Sustainable Development.

A barely noted bill now in conference committee in the General Assembly would throw an unnecessary cloak of secrecy over Virginia's conservation easement program.

The bill would amend code that defines confidential tax documents to include "any document containing information on the transactions, property, income or business of any person, firm or corporation that is required to be filed with any state official" as part of the land preservation tax credit program.

It is illegal for any state official to disclose confidential tax documents, which are exempt from Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for this legislation because officials feared that confidential information sent to the department with applications for conservation tax credits would not be covered by current law.

We don't understand that fear, since current law makes it "unlawful for any person" to release confidential tax documents.

But even if the concern is valid, the remedy is overly broad.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation handles applications for conservation tax credits of more than $1 million.

That's a lot of money, and the public needs to know that tax credits are given wisely.

Unscrupulous landowners in the past found ways to exploit the tax credit program, obtaining easements for undevelopable land with inflated assessments.

The Virginia Coalition for Open Government worked to get an amendment passed in the Senate that would allow the names of applicants and the locations of their property to be released.

The House refused that amendment, and the two sides are attempting to work out the difference in committee.

The state gives out $100 million in tax credits every year. The worthwhile program helps preserve green space in the state. But with that kind of money at stake, the public needs to be able to ensure the program is not abused.

Applicants' confidential tax information should remain private. But people should know who is applying for the credit, and what property they want to apply it to.

The Senate version should prevail.

With the Iowa caucuses a memory, Congress now can hold a rational discussion about biofuels. The rush to use them will not solve the world's climate troubles; it will make them worse.

Washington likes biofuels -- fuel created from corn, sugar or other plants -- for a few reasons. They play well in early-voting Iowa, whose farmers have long demanded ethanol fealty from both parties.

They also reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil. "America can grow its way to energy independence," makes a snappy sound bite.

Most important, Congress wants to look like it is doing something about global climate change. The working assumption had been that biofuels are carbon neutral because the plants extract carbon from the atmosphere while they grow.

It turns out that assumption is wrong. Two independent studies that appear in the current issue of the journal Science found that relying on traditional biofuels would be worse for the environment than burning gasoline.

One found that corn-based ethanol would produce twice as much greenhouse gas over the next 30 years. The other found that converting wild lands to farm uses to feed the biofuel demand would further increase global warming gases for more than a century.

America must look elsewhere.

To start, Congress can pursue obvious options such as adopting tougher conservation standards.

The more productive steps, however, will require courage. Lawmakers should end subsidies for corn-based ethanol. That money could become the seed for a massive research project to find new and improve old alternative energy technologies.

The enormity of the problem demands thinking along the lines of the Apollo and Manhattan projects. To reach the moon and develop the atomic bomb, America invested huge sums. It brought together the brightest scientists and engineers, challenging them to find new solutions to difficult problems.

Corn and other crops that require vast acreage will not create energy independence, and they will not end global warming. America must invest elsewhere as it tries to break its addiction to fossil fuels.

The Roanoke Times

A study of the potential benefits and pitfalls of uranium mining in Virginia seems reasonable.

A study paid for by the uranium industry does not.

A bill working its way through the state Senate would set up a 17-member commission to oversee a National Academy of Sciences study. Its purpose would be to determine whether uranium mining and milling could be done safely in Virginia, possibly ushering in an end to the state's 25-year ban.

The study would be paid for with industry donations. Bad idea.

Oh, we know that the chairman of Chatham-based Virginia Uranium Inc., which hopes to mine deposits that lie beneath the family farm in Pittsylvania County, has said his company will pay for the study and live by the results, whatever they are.

But, tight as money is in Richmond these days, the state should decline the offer and pick up the tab. An industry-financed study might settle nothing, at least in the minds of the people who would be most affected -- the residents of Pittsylvania County and downstream Halifax County.

If the findings suggested that mining would be disastrous to people's health and to the environment, skeptics would accept them as an impressive display of scientific objectivity.

If the findings suggested that uranium could be mined safely, skeptics would regard them as tainted, bought by interests that then could exploit what is believed to be the largest uranium concentration in the country, one that could be worth billions of dollars.

The Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee amended the bill to include all of Virginia in the study. It initially was limited to two Southside planning districts, but uranium deposits have been identified in other parts of Virginia's Piedmont.

As the Southern Environmental Law Center pointed out, a law tailored just to meet the needs of a special interest might not be constitutional. It surely would be less credible than one that could impact any place in Virginia where uranium might be found.

State funding is another necessary change.

The Roanoke Times

Virginia is blessed with some of the most spectacular gifts that nature has to offer anywhere. The Blue Ridge Mountains, the Chesapeake Bay, thousands of miles of trout waters, white water, the dismal swamp and Lake Drummond, and on and on. We often take all of this grandeur for granted, because we live in it and play in it every day, and are used to it being there for us when we want or need it.

Managed properly, for the benefit of all Virginians, these natural resources will continue to flourish for generations. Managed for the benefit of special interests, they could be lost overnight.

In Virginia we have done a very good job of environmental management for decades. The system that's been in place for 60 years vests the responsibility and authority to manage our environment in citizen boards. These boards consist of five or seven members and are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the General Assembly. In the areas of air and water quality protection, the boards have the authority to adopt regulations, issue environmental permits and enforce laws and regulations. In the solid and hazardous waste areas, the Virginia Waste Management Board adopts regulations and the Department of Environmental Quality is the permitting and enforcement authority. These boards depend on the citizens of Virginia for help with this important job.

We all know not to litter, to recycle paper and aluminum and to conserve water and electricity for the benefit of the environment, but for some citizens, this obligation goes further. Many take the opportunities offered by the citizen boards to participate in the regulation and permit development processes, they attend the board's meetings and offer suggestions and recommendations on development and implementation of the state's environmental policy, they offer a wide spectrum of perspectives on environmental management issues, they inform the process. The system works very well, but all of this may be changing.

We may soon turn over this authority and responsibility to special interests and politics. Bills will be working their way through the General Assembly this year to abolish the State Water Control Board, Virginia Air Pollution Control Board and the Virginia Waste Management Board or transfer their authority to the director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The checks and balances of multimember board processes will be gone, replaced with severely reduced opportunities for public participation in environmental decision-making and planning and unilateral authority vested in a single political appointee. All of this is happening because a few powerful influences think the decisions being made by these boards are too pro-environment.

I have been engaged in the field of environmental protection in Virginia for more than 35 years. I have served in the public sector and have served the private sector. I believe these bills represent the greatest threat to our air and water quality that I have ever seen. If our system were not so well balanced, perhaps a credible argument for change could be made, but it is balanced. Forbes magazine and CNBC have rated Virginia the best state in the country in which to do business, in part, because of an especially good regulatory climate. At the same time we enjoy an exceptional quality of life because of the high quality of our environment.

If the system changes and citizens are cut out of the process, we will lose their perspective, we will lose the type of knowledge and experience that only they have, the system will lose its integrity -- we will all lose. If you want Virginia's environment to remain well-protected, if you enjoy our high quality of life, if you'd rather not have the fox guarding the henhouse, then you, like me, will oppose every attempt to eliminate or emasculate our citizen environmental regulatory boards. Once they're gone, they're gone, and our quality of life with them.

Robert G. Burnley
Burnley is the former director of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and lives in Richmond.

The recent discussion about uranium mining and milling in Virginia in The Free Lance-Star concerning uranium deposits in Pittsylvania County and citizen concerns requires more discussion ["Can uranium be mined safely in Orange?" Dec. 28].

Walter Coles, who is chairman of Virginia Uranium Inc., owns much of the land, and his family and fellow stockholders stand to benefit the most financially from the mining and milling activity.

In 1980, my family stood to gain much from uranium activities as, according to the scintillometer tests, I owned the most radioactive hill in Northern Virginia. Some of the same men who have approached Mr. Coles approached me nearly 30 years ago. But my family would not take on the responsibility of potentially contaminating neighbors' wells and the Rapidan River, possibly for generations, for personal benefit. We came to this decision after visiting a number of mines and mills in Colorado and Utah and conducting follow-up research.

Safety is the issue. The current moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia says it is up to the industry to prove it can be done safely before mining and milling is permitted in Virginia. A "study committee" set up by the state legislature might sound like a good idea. The problem is that every year the state legislature approves many studies and appropriates little or no money for their execution. Therefore, most legislative studies are superficial, less than scientific, and in this case may just allow the elephant's trunk inside the tent without proper scrutiny. A proper, impartial scientific study would be a good thing, but it needs to be conducted and peer-reviewed before the General Assembly gets involved in a debate over whether to lift Virginia's longstanding ban on uranium mining.

Here are some important facts to consider before removing our moratorium on uranium mining:

1. We are dealing with radioactive exposure to our air, water supplies, miners, and neighbors. Underground uranium miners are under constant exposure to radio-activity while they work. In the American Southwest, uranium miners have historically had a much higher incidence of lung cancer than the normal population.

As recently as November 2007, the job-deficient Navajo Reservation in Arizona has been resisting renewed uranium mining interests because of previous experience of cancer rates, livestock deaths, and water contamination.

2. Never in this country has uranium been mined in an area with a climate as wet as Virginia's. In the semi-arid West (10 to 15 inches of rain a year), radioactivity and associated toxic metals have shown up miles away from the mining site in time. Our rainfall averages up to four times what is seen out West. As a result, tailings ponds and piles could leach and/or overflow into our water supplies much faster and with more dire consequences than in the West. Once leaching starts, the consequences can go on for generations.

3. Never in this country has uranium been mined in a community with such a dense population near the mine site. This is not to say uranium can never be mined safely anywhere. In fact, I know of a mine in Utah that was doing it right in the 1980s. The rainfall there was less than 18 inches a year, the outflow from tailings ponds was processed to the point where trout lived in the streams below, and the nearest house was plus or minus 25 miles away. Contrast that to the situation in Pittsylvania County, where homes and a private girls school are within close proximity to the proposed mine site.

Again, safety is the issue. Legislation and regulations will change neither our population density nor our rainfall levels. Before it is mined, uranium is like a coffee bean--a relatively harmless mass. But when crushed and mixed with water, that bean becomes a cup of coffee. More than 95 percent of the radioactivity associated with uranium ore is retained in the tailings and its byproducts (its radioactive half-life is 500,000 years or forever, whichever comes first).

I would suggest that those concerned with making Virginia and its residents guinea pigs in this potential experiment oppose a legislative study on uranium mining and milling until it has been properly studied independently and scientifically--without politicians in Richmond getting into the mix. In the meantime, we need to maintain the moratorium on mining and milling of uranium.

Carbon offsets are for those who want to feel better about the impact they're having on the environment.

The idea is simple: If you can't -- or don't want to -- reduce your carbon emissions, you pay someone to plant trees, which soak up carbon, or you invest in solar plants, wind farms or other activities that reduce emissions.

It works for individuals trying to salve their environmental consciences or corporations trying to burnish their green image.

But as these offsets become more popular -- automakers, computer manufacturers and others are offering them to consumers to offset the emissions from their products -- the question becomes whether the offsets people and corporations buy actually mean anything.

"The carbon market is a leading example of the challenge of making sure that when people put their money into what they hope will improve their planet, that there is real follow-through," Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale University, told The New York Times.

The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, is taking a belated interest in the topic. The FTC hasn't updated its environmental advertising guidelines -- its Green Guides -- since 1998.

The guidelines don't deal with concepts like offsets, renewable energy or sustainability. With the growth of green marketing, "there's a heightened potential for deception," FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras told The Times.

The FTC is asking for help to minimize that potential. It won't be easy. "Greenwashing" -- making unfounded environmental claims -- isn't always easy to spot.

A Business Week article last year, for instance, found that TerraPass, a carbon offset marketer, claims a methane-extraction system at a huge Arkansas dump as one source of offsets. (Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.)

But it turns out that the landfill operator essentially was forced by the state to install that system to keep the methane from contaminating groundwater. It had nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions -- that was just a happy side-effect.

As Business Week concluded, "it appears that the main effects of the TerraPass offsets in this instance are to salve guilty celebrity consciences and provide Waste Management, a $13 billion company based in Houston, with some extra revenue."

Whatever new guidelines the FTC comes up with, perhaps the lesson here should be that a checkbook is no substitute for lifestyle changes that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Lynchburg News and Advance

The headline of the Jan. 8 editorial in The News & Advance: “Public gets a greater voice over sludge.” Unfortunately, this is a false statement.

Evidence that the public is being disenfranchised was apparent from the first meeting of the “expert” panel arranged by the state’s secretary of Health and Human Resources and secretary of Natural Resources.

 The first meeting minutes reflected no statements from the public’s testimonials. Also, the Natural Resources secretary appointed an anti-citizen member as a “citizens’ representative.” The panel itself is composed of two-thirds majority of “paid sludge promoters,” with the remaining third voluntary contributors of time and resources.

The Department of Environmental Quality is not health-oriented, therefore leaving those affected by sludge pollution constituents still in harm’s way.

The Virginia Department of Health, though found inept to administer the Biosolids Use Regulations and sludge pollution disposal programs, still has input with the policies of DEQ.

Isn’t it obvious that the General Assembly has granted DEQ millions of dollars and staff-hiring authority; the same argument that VDH uses why it did not perform its duties properly? It is public knowledge, the General Assembly finally saw the ineptness in VDH and made adjustments to DEQ.

The public is still in harm’s way as the permits continue and the ill health effects continue.

The Lynchburg News and Advance

Regarding the possibility of Oakwood Country Club selling its golf course for high-density, mixed-use development, wouldn’t this land be an excellent acquisition by the city as an additional park? I would respectfully request the city work with the state to explore funding opportunities to acquire the Oakwood property for a public park.

We are constantly losing wooded, open recreation space to high-density redevelopment. Such redevelopment without the consideration of complementary open space negatively affects traffic and air quality, as well as putting increased pressure on our city’s infrastructure. This marvelous piece of land in close proximity to residential areas would make an excellent addition to the Lynchburg park system and would enhance the quality of life for all of Lynchburg’s citizens.

I, and others as well, hope that Mayor Foster, the City Council and Del. Shannon Valentine will work to pursue this opportunity.

The Roanoke Times

The General Assembly should reject a proposal to gut citizen boards that oversee environmental permitting in Virginia.

The original bill would have consolidated the Air Pollution Control, State Water Control and Waste Management boards into one. A proposed revision would abandon the consolidation, but still strip the boards of nearly all their authority over environmental permits.

The director of the Department of Environmental Quality would be given most of the boards' authority.

At a hearing last week, environmental groups and others protested the legislation.

"I don't think unilateral power should be transferred from these boards to a single appointed bureaucrat," said former DEQ Director Robert G. Burnley.

The bill, H.B. 3113, passed last year with a re-enactment clause, meaning it must pass again this year before it takes effect.

The reasons for proposing this change are vague. Del. Steven Landes, R-Augusta, who introduced the bill last year, said the purpose is to bring consistency to the permitting process. He also questioned the technical competence of the citizen boards.

"Do they have the scientific and environmental background to make the decision?" he asked.

The boards are made up of citizens appointed by the governor -- and confirmed by the General Assembly -- to four-year terms. They have technical staffs and attorneys to advise them.

Gov. Tim Kaine supports shifting permitting authority to the DEQ director, though his spokesman was equally vague when asked why.

Many opponents believe frustration over delays in approval for the King William Reservoir in Newport News contributed to the push, and Newport News officials have lobbied strongly for the bill -- as has the Virginia Chamber of Commerce.

Both have sent letters to raise money for their lobbying efforts.

"Both letters demonstrate that business leaders and local governments are soliciting monies statewide from those who will pony up big dollars to try to influence this process," said Chesapeake Bay Foundation spokesman Chuck Epes.

The current system is anything but broken. Because the boards consist of appointees from different governors, they represent broad viewpoints. They have expert guidance and they offer a very public process for input from citizens.

It would be an enormous mistake to place these boards' broad permitting power into the hands of a single political appointee. Think of the damage a governor like George Allen, who tried to eviscerate the entire DEQ, could accomplish with a single bad appointment.

The General Assembly should waste no time in killing this egregious bill.

The Roanoke Times

Early this month, Gov. Tim Kaine said the biggest wastewater treatment plants and industries in the Chesapeake Bay's Virginia watershed were on target to meet nutrient reduction goals by the end of 2010. Woo-hoo!

Excessive nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are killing off the plant and animal life in the nation's largest estuary.

Yet when Kaine met days later with the governors of Maryland and Pennsylvania and the mayor of Washington, D.C., -- today's leaders of the signatories to the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement -- Virginia's governor conceded: "Candor compels us to say, we're not going to be where we want to be by 2010."

Not even close.

In its annual State of the Bay report, the nonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foundation said the health of the bay actually had declined a bit from last year and gave it a "D."

Still, the governor wasn't wrong in either instance.

Virginia has, indeed, spent a lot of money to upgrade sewage treatment plants. The state's major point source polluters expect to meet nutrient reduction goals by the 2010 deadline through a combination of nutrient trading, which lets existing facilities transfer credits among themselves to get down to their required limit, and the installation of pollution control technology.

The bay is getting no healthier, though, because of a steady increase in nonpoint source pollution: the runoff from farms and subdivisions, the latter with all of their water-impermeable surfaces -- the buildings, the driveways, the sidewalks and streets that cover over the naturally acting filter of the soil.

Environmentalists, close to despair, note that since 1950, the population in the bay's 14,700-square-mile watershed has more than doubled, to 16.7 million people.

So after 30 years and billions of dollars, the massive "Save the Bay" campaign is not even close to reaching its goal. The best that can be said is that without those efforts, the damage would be much worse.

That is not good enough for a natural wonder once abundant with oysters, blue crabs and ot