Gilbert v. Synagro Central, LLC

Summary

This concurring opinion addresses whether the application of biosolids constitutes an agricultural operation protected by Pennsylvania's Right to Farm Act statute of repose. Chief Justice Saylor agrees with the majority's categorical treatment of biosolid application while noting that substantially unusual implementation methods or future evidence concerning odor-control practices could affect whether a practice is agriculturally normal.

Holdings

1. The majority held, and the concurrence agreed, that application of biosolids is appropriately categorized as an agricultural operation for assessment under section 954(a) of the Right to Farm Act.
2. The majority held, and the concurrence agreed, that the manner in which biosolids are applied at a particular site is not determinative of the practice's normalcy under section 954(a); instead, whether the practice is normal is assessed categorically by focusing on the practice in general, while the particular manner of implementation goes to the underlying merits of the nuisance claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the application of biosolids to farmland constitutes a single agricultural operation for purposes of the Pennsylvania Right to Farm Act's statute of repose.
2. Whether the manner in which biosolids are applied, including the use or nonuse of odor-control practices, determines whether the agricultural practice is normal under section 954(a) of the Right to Farm Act.

Disposition

other