To The Daily Sun,
There has been a lot of discussion in your paper lately about Article 3, regarding biosolids, that is on the Gilmanton town ballot for Tuesday, March 8.
At a candidate's night, I asked a selectman who is running for re-election, since the article has the words that ban biosolids and he had inquired on the town legal counsel, did that mean they were banned at the end of the day if the article was adopted? Or, as the voter's guide claimed, that it didn't affect farmers who were currently using biosolids to fertilize their land?
Interpretation of his answer was not discernible. In other words, there was no clear yes or no answer. It appears that if the article was adopted, they would be banned as of Tuesday, March 8, thus disrupting farmers who have contractual agreements with companies to spread biosolids. Or, as the voter's guide claims to state, that people presently spreading biosolids would be able to continue. Sound confusing? Sure is.
It is always good thinking that when in doubt of the effect this ban would have on our farmers, to vote "no" on Article 3.
Since there are two points of view, banning biosolids outright or allowing present users of biosolids to continue to spread, the prudent thing to do is to vote "no" on Article 3.
In an effort for more clarity about application of biosolids, one might want to go to their computer and read the report called "Manual of Best Practices for Land Application of Biosolids," published by the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, revised March 2015.
George B. Roberts Jr.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 311