Gilbert Case is remanded for reinstatement of summary judgment in favor of appellants

On 21-DEC-2015, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a majority opinion in the Gilbert Case (Gilbert, R., et al v. Synagro Central, et al Aplts – No. 121 MAP 2014).  Please see the attached majority opinion, as well as the concurring opinion in the case.  The majority favors the application of biosolids as agriculturally normal.

Congratulations to NACWA and Beveridge & Diamond on this decisive win!

. . . . “Finally, we note the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and the PaDEP, which are involved in enforcement of the RTFA and regulation of biosolids use, hold the view that biosolids land application is a “normal agricultural operation” within the meaning of § 952. See Tritt v. Cortes, 851 A.2d 903, 905 (Pa. 2004) (interpretation of statute by those charged with its administration and enforcement is entitled to deference; such consideration most appropriately pertains to circumstances where provision is not explicit or is ambiguous). These agencies’ experience and expertise in dealing with the regulation of biosolids use and  enforcement of the RTFA also supports a finding that the land application of biosolids is an accepted, well-regulated farming practice.
”

J-32-2015co – 1024798785863570-SaylorConcurringOpinion J-32-2015mo – 1024798785863821-MajorityOpinion