Nothing the township can do' about septage on Leelanau County farm
Attorney Chris Bzdok talks to attendees at a Centerville Township meeting on March 12, 2025. (Photo: Izzy Ross/IPR News)
This coverage is made possible through a partnership between IPR and Grist, a nonprofit environmental media organization.
Centerville Township's hands are tied when it comes to stopping the use of septic tank waste on a local farm, according to Chris Bzdok, an attorney with the township, which is in northern Michigan's Leelanau County.
IPR first reported on this story earlier this week. Neighbors had concerns about the use of what's called 'septage' to fertilize fields. Septage refers to sewage pumped from septic tanks.
Officials and some community members wanted to stop the use of septage on lands in the area. The township's zoning ordinance requires a special permit for septage application on land.
Bzdok said the township board asked him to look into what could be done.
'This is going to be a frustrating discussion, so I'll give you the bottom line up front,' he said as he began his briefing. 'It is my legal opinion that there is nothing the township can do under its zoning authority at this time.'
It's the latest in the Centerville septage saga spurred by a farmer who began applying septage to his fields last year.
The township sent a cease and desist letter to the landowner and Williams & Bay Pumping, the company doing the application.
But the site falls under the purview of the state Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, which had granted a permit to use septage at that site. Williams & Bay told IPR that it checked on its right to continue applying septage and that it's complying with state septage application regulations, which are found in Part 117 of Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.
In this instance, state law trumps the township's ordinances.
Bzdok said that wasn't the case in the mid-2000s, when the zoning ordinance was amended to address septage application. Back then, the township had more authority to decide on such issues. But laws changed and placed that authority with the state.
'The laws that govern these things severely curtail the township's zoning authority — any township's zoning authority — over the land application of septage waste in Michigan,' he said.
That explanation didn't go over well with those at the meeting.
'This is not acceptable on any level in my book,' said Kama Ross, a former Leelanau County commissioner, who spoke during public comment. 'This is our groundwater. This is our groundwater. My well is within distance of this. Many people in this room live very close.'
Ross urged people to take action by forming a group and talking to regulators and other leaders.
When Township Supervisor Ronald Schaub asked whether she thought it was the board's responsibility to do that, she replied, 'I would love to see you take more of a position. I'm not telling you guys what to do. I'm saying as a concerned citizen, I'm not taking this answer as the last say, it's not acceptable. It's not acceptable. It's my home.'
Bzdok said if the township were to bring a lawsuit, it would likely fail, though he said the circumstances could change.
'And if they were to change, the township could pursue enforcement of its ordinance,' he said. 'But I can't talk in public about any of the details of that, because that would sort of give the thing away.'
Bzdok recommended reaching out to the Michigan Townships Association to find out whether other townships were dealing with similar situations. And he said those who had questions about what they were seeing in the community should contact EGLE.
Still, people have concerns about what exactly is being put into the field, and about how the site is monitored.
It's fully permitted by the state, and the Benzie-Leelanau District Health Department signs off on the criteria and inspections.
But resident Rolf von Walthausen was worried about the state's capacity to enforce existing regulations.
'The one person that occupies the Cadillac office is in charge of the entire upper state of Michigan,' he said. 'That one person I don't think can possibly keep up with everything that's going on, even just in our county.'
The Cadillac office covers 10 counties in the northwest Lower Peninsula.
Meanwhile, Scott Collins, who lives across the street from the property in question, said he will take his concerns to Lansing.
'It's out of the township's jurisdiction, and it's out of the county's jurisdiction,' he said. 'So the next place is, go to the state and see what our state representatives can do and make them aware that this is actually happening and being forced upon the residents of this county and this township.'
Collins said he plans to meet with state Sen. John Damoose and Rep. Betsy Coffia later this month.
Editor's note: Kama Ross, who was quoted in this story, is a member of IPR's Community Advisory Council. The council has no editorial control over stories.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business Upturn
27-05-2025
- Business Upturn
Tata Motors gains control over Fiat's 2.0-litre Multijet diesel engine: Report
Tata Motors has made a significant breakthrough in its powertrain strategy by acquiring licensed development rights to the 2.0-litre Multijet II diesel engine, a move that grants the company freedom to upgrade and modify the engine independently, according to Autocar India. This engine currently powers the Tata Harrier and Safari SUVs and is produced at the Ranjangaon plant by Fiat India Automobiles Pvt Ltd (FIAPL) – a joint venture between Tata Motors and Stellantis. While the intellectual property rights (IPR) for the engine remain with Stellantis, Tata Motors now holds full control over engine development, ECU calibration, performance upgrades, and emission compliance modifications for its own use. The development was first reported by Autocar India. 'Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles (TMPV) and Stellantis have entered into a License Technology Agreement in Q4 FY25 under which TMPV has acquired licence… enabling technical changes in the 2.0-litre diesel engine,' a Tata spokesperson stated. What changes with this deal? Tata can now recalibrate ECU settings and unlock new power outputs without seeking external approvals or paying hefty licensing fees. The license enables Tata to meet upcoming emission norms and introduce multiple power tunes , a flexibility it previously lacked. This also lowers the investment requirement significantly when compared to developing a new engine platform from scratch. Previously, any calibration—even minor ECU tweaks—required Stellantis' approval and incurred steep costs, reportedly as high as €10 million. This restricted Tata to a single 170hp calibration during the BS6 transition. In contrast, rivals like Mahindra offer multiple tunes and drive modes using its in-house 2.2-litre mHawk diesel, giving them a competitive edge. Tata had long aimed to boost the Multijet's output to 180hp, especially for the Harrier and Safari facelifts. However, Stellantis' involvement made such changes slow and expensive. Now, with development autonomy, Tata is positioned to bridge the performance gap with Mahindra and respond to evolving market demands more swiftly. No change to production, Jeep and MG remain unaffected (for now) Tata has clarified that engine manufacturing will continue at FIAPL, supplying both Stellantis and Tata Motors, while IP rights for the base engine stay with Stellantis. Tata, however, will own the IP for its modifications. Jeep models like the Compass and Meridian will continue to use the existing 2.0-litre diesel. The engine also powers the MG Hector, but it's unclear if MG Motor India will benefit from Tata's upgrades. Industry speculation suggests MG may discontinue the diesel variant by 2026. Tata's move to acquire licensed control — rather than building a diesel engine from scratch — brings cost efficiency and agility at a time when the future of diesel remains uncertain. The 2.0-litre Multijet II, though not cutting-edge, remains relevant for large SUVs, and with this deal, Tata Motors now has the freedom to evolve it further. The engine's lineage is notable — Fiat's 1.3-litre Multijet, dubbed the 'national engine of India,' once powered over 24 models across 5 brands. The 2.0-litre Multijet continues that legacy and, with Tata now at the helm of its evolution, it could fuel a new phase of diesel performance in India.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Yahoo
The GOP says states' rights matter — unless it's California
This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. For nearly 60 years, California has enjoyed the ability to set its own standards governing air pollution from automobiles, as long as they're more stringent than the federal government's. This rule, written into the Clean Air Act, was meant to recognize the state's long-standing leadership in regulating air emissions. The US Senate undermined that authority on Thursday when it voted 51-44 to revoke a waiver the Environmental Protection Agency approved allowing the Golden State to implement and enforce a de facto ban on the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The Senate also rescinded waivers allowing California to set stricter emissions standards for new diesel trucks and mandating the adoption of zero-emission trucks. Environmental groups quickly decried the votes, saying that California's standards are essential to protecting public health and achieving nationwide emissions reduction targets. The rules are seen as a sort of national benchmark since automakers don't create separate product lines: one for California and another for everyone else. A provision in the Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt the Golden State's standards; 16 states and the District of Columbia have adopted many of the rules established by the California Air Resources Board. 'These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems,' Dan Lashof, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement. On a wonkier level, however, legal and policy experts objected to the way senators rescinded California's waiver: They used the 1996 Congressional Review Act, or CRA, a law enacted to allow Congress to overturn some federal actions with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes. Two government watchdogs said the act did not apply to the state's waiver. 'Republicans twisted the Senate's own rules,' Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. UCLA law professor Ann Carlson warned in a blog post ahead of the vote that Congress 'may be opening up a Pandora's box it can't close' and that 'there will be no limit on using the CRA to overturn all kinds of actions that the act doesn't cover.' At the heart of the controversy is whether the air pollution waiver that the EPA granted to California last year qualifies as a 'rule' under the CRA. Both the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight agency, and the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan appointee tasked with interpreting congressional rules and procedures, issued advisory opinions earlier this year saying that it doesn't. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) appeared to agree with this interpretation: A one-pager on a bill he proposed to repeal California's waiver said that the exemptions 'cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act because the waiver granted by EPA is not a rule as that term is defined in the CRA.' Party leaders don't usually contravene the parliamentarian's guidance. If they do, they run the risk of their opponents doing the same when they are in power. 'Republicans should tread carefully today,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, told NPR on Thursday. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said in a statement that 'radical Republicans' had 'gone nuclear on the Senate rule book.' 'It won't be long before Democrats are back in the driver's seat again,' Padilla added. 'When that happens, all bets will be off. Every agency action that Democrats don't like — whether it's a rule or not — will be fair game, from mining permits and fossil fuel projects to foreign affairs and tax policies.' Dan Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law, told Grist that the Senate's capricious interpretation of the CRA means it could be used to rescind waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing states to modify Medicaid requirements or broadcasting licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The act could also be used to revoke pollution permits that the EPA grants to states. He clarified, however, that the Senate only nullified specific waivers in California affecting the sale of gasoline-powered cars. It did not repeal provisions in the Clean Air Act that allow the EPA to issue new waivers, as long as they're not 'substantially the same' as the rescinded ones. 'I think that California still has the power to put forward, and EPA has the power to approve, different emissions regulations in the future,' Farber said. 'Changing the deadlines by a few years could be enough.' California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold within the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, ratcheting up to 100 percent of new sales by 2035. President Donald Trump revoked California's waiver allowing such regulations in 2019 during his first term, but that move was challenged in court and the waiver was restored by Joe Biden's administration. Although automakers have previously backed California's air pollution standards, industry groups cheered the vote on Thursday. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, said in a statement that the Senate deserved 'enormous credit.' 'The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,' he said. 'Automakers warned federal and state policymakers that reaching these EV sales targets would take a miracle, especially in the coming years when the mandates get exponentially tougher.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta objected to the Senate vote and vowed to challenge it in court. 'Reducing emissions is essential to the prosperity, health, and well-being of California and its families,' he said in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom said undoing his state's air pollution rules risked 'ced[ing] American car-industry dominance to China.'


Vox
23-05-2025
- Vox
The GOP says states' rights matter — unless it's California
California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold in the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, and 100 percent by Grist This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. For nearly 60 years, California has enjoyed the ability to set its own standards governing air pollution from automobiles, as long as they're more stringent than the federal government's. This rule, written into the Clean Air Act, was meant to recognize the state's long-standing leadership in regulating air emissions. The US Senate undermined that authority on Thursday when it voted 51-44 to revoke a waiver the Environmental Protection Agency approved allowing the Golden State to implement and enforce a de facto ban on the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The Senate also rescinded waivers allowing California to set stricter emissions standards for new diesel trucks and mandating the adoption of zero-emission trucks. Environmental groups quickly decried the votes, saying that California's standards are essential to protecting public health and achieving nationwide emissions reduction targets. The rules are seen as a sort of national benchmark since automakers don't create separate product lines: one for California and another for everyone else. A provision in the Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt the Golden State's standards; 16 states and the District of Columbia have adopted many of the rules established by the California Air Resources Board. 'These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems,' Dan Lashof, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement. On a wonkier level, however, legal and policy experts objected to the way senators rescinded California's waiver: They used the 1996 Congressional Review Act, or CRA, a law enacted to allow Congress to overturn some federal actions with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes. Two government watchdogs said the act did not apply to the state's waiver. 'Republicans twisted the Senate's own rules,' Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. UCLA law professor Ann Carlson warned in a blog post ahead of the vote that Congress 'may be opening up a Pandora's box it can't close' and that 'there will be no limit on using the CRA to overturn all kinds of actions that the act doesn't cover.' At the heart of the controversy is whether the air pollution waiver that the EPA granted to California last year qualifies as a 'rule' under the CRA. Both the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight agency, and the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan appointee tasked with interpreting congressional rules and procedures, issued advisory opinions earlier this year saying that it doesn't. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) appeared to agree with this interpretation: A one-pager on a bill he proposed to repeal California's waiver said that the exemptions 'cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act because the waiver granted by EPA is not a rule as that term is defined in the CRA.' Party leaders don't usually contravene the parliamentarian's guidance. If they do, they run the risk of their opponents doing the same when they are in power. 'Republicans should tread carefully today,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, told NPR on Thursday. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said in a statement that 'radical Republicans' had 'gone nuclear on the Senate rule book.' 'It won't be long before Democrats are back in the driver's seat again,' Padilla added. 'When that happens, all bets will be off. Every agency action that Democrats don't like — whether it's a rule or not — will be fair game, from mining permits and fossil fuel projects to foreign affairs and tax policies.' Dan Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law, told Grist that the Senate's capricious interpretation of the CRA means it could be used to rescind waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing states to modify Medicaid requirements or broadcasting licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The act could also be used to revoke pollution permits that the EPA grants to states. He clarified, however, that the Senate only nullified specific waivers in California affecting the sale of gasoline-powered cars. It did not repeal provisions in the Clean Air Act that allow the EPA to issue new waivers, as long as they're not 'substantially the same' as the rescinded ones. 'I think that California still has the power to put forward, and EPA has the power to approve, different emissions regulations in the future,' Farber said. 'Changing the deadlines by a few years could be enough.' California's current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold within the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, ratcheting up to 100 percent of new sales by 2035. President Donald Trump revoked California's waiver allowing such regulations in 2019 during his first term, but that move was challenged in court and the waiver was restored by Joe Biden's administration. Although automakers have previously backed California's air pollution standards, industry groups cheered the vote on Thursday. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, said in a statement that the Senate deserved 'enormous credit.' 'The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,' he said. 'Automakers warned federal and state policymakers that reaching these EV sales targets would take a miracle, especially in the coming years when the mandates get exponentially tougher.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta objected to the Senate vote and vowed to challenge it in court. 'Reducing emissions is essential to the prosperity, health, and well-being of California and its families,' he said in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom said undoing his state's air pollution rules risked 'ced[ing] American car-industry dominance to China.'