Information from Past Shows Podcasts 

The Challenge of Biochar and Biosolids

Mike Nowak , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 20, 2018 – The proposed Obama Presidential Center is still very much a work in progress. Never was that more evident than this past week, when the Chicago Planning Commission met to consider the project. To almost nobody’s surprise, the plans were unanimously approved. However, as Curbed Chicago writes, that doesn’t mean that the meeting was without controversy.

After twelve months, 56 community meetings, and several design tweaks, the Obama Presidential Center went before the Chicago Plan Commission on Thursday for the project’s first official “yay or nay” vote.

While the commissioners voted overwhelming in support of the transformative South Side development, the volume and passion on display during the lengthy public comment period highlighted how opinions remain steeply divided regarding the “where” and “how” of the project.

The second floor of City Hall reverberated with shouts as protesters, advocates, media and other officials packed city council chambers to capacity. The Obama Presidential Center was the only item listed on the May agenda and the commissioners sat though seven hours of testimony before calling the measure to a vote.

Given what we’ve read and heard over the past year, none of this is surprising. We could probably spend a week trying to list the various stakeholders and their opinions about the proposed presidential center. But we don’t have the resources or the time. Instead, here are some of the more recent reports that have appeared in print.

“The City and Park District clearly realize and fully understand that this established law precludes the Park District from arbitrarily transferring possession, use and control of this dedicated ‘open, clear and free’ public parkland in Jackson Park to a private nongovernmental … entity’s self-determined use,” the complaint says.

Now, that land must be rezoned for different purposes, and a lease agreement with the Obama Foundation needs to be executed. In order to do that, there are five separate ordinances that need to be voted on, first by the mayoral-appointed Plan Commission and then by all 50 elected aldermen.

What many of the residents I talk to want are the amenities that would come from having the presidential center for the first African-American president located in their neighborhood.

They also want a “seat at the table.”

“Why are they so afraid to even engage with local folk?” one homeowner asks.

Right now, there is so little trust between the Obama Foundation and grass-roots activists, we might as well be talking about the Chicago Police Department and Black Lives Matter.

The Obama Foundation has also projected that the center will have a $3.1 billion impact on the city, $2.1 billion of which they say will go directly to the South Side, arguing that it will bring 700,000 visitors to the city, generate 5,000 jobs during construction and 2,500 jobs during operation.

Kyana Butler, an organizer and resident of the neighborhood adjacent to the park, is among many who are calling for a formal city ordinance that will enshrine community protections before they break ground on the project.

As you can see, this has not been a walk in Jackson Park, so to speak. Which leads us to our guest this morning–Juanita Irizarry, who is executive director of Friends of the Parks. This marks the fourth time she has been on the program in the past year–all to talk about how the organization has been working to make the OPC more “park friendly.” To be clear, FOTP is NOT the entity behind the aforementioned lawsuit. In fact, in its spring newsletter, the group responds to the question from some observers that it should be suing the Obama Foundation:

We stand firm in our commitment to principle; we do not believe that parks are an appropriate site for real estate development, even a presidential center of a favorite son of Chicago. We have told the Obama Foundation so, and we say it every time we sit down with them.

But we do not see a legal path to victory in this case. The public trust doctrine tool will not win the day this time.

That said, we don’t want to just walk away because we disagree and can’t find a legal means to get our way. We have chosen to stay in the game and try to get as much benefit for our parks as possible, seeking what is called a “park positive” outcome, which would include the replacement of all green space and recreational amenities displaced by the Obama Presidential Center.

With that as a backdrop, the Friends of the Parks’ 2nd Annual “Parks as Democracy?” Annual Luncheon and Conference takes place on Friday and Saturday, June 8 & 9 at Roosevelt University, 430 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60605. The theme this year is “In Black and White? A Continuing Conversation about Parks as Democratic Spaces.”

Friday’s keynote address is “The Fight for Democracy:  The Role of Parks and Public Space” by Dick Simpson, Professor of Political Science at University of Illinois at Chicago, former Chicago alderman and author of The Good Fight: Life Lessons from a Chicago Progressive.

The U.S. House of Representatives just took a swing at a Farm Bill…and missed.

Vox explains why this first attempt to pass the 2018 failed.

The $868 billion legislative package that subsidizes agriculture and funds food assistance programs has been mired in partisan fighting for weeks, losing support across the board.

Democrats and moderate Republicans dislike the harsher work requirements on food stamps in the bill, which experts estimate could amount to more than $20 billion in cuts to the program’s benefits and impact more than 1 million people. Conservatives don’t like it because they think those work requirements don’t go far enough. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity came out against the bill ahead of the vote, calling it a “missed opportunity” and decrying its “wasteful subsidy programs.” In the end, it lost 30 Republican votes, killing it altogether.

But as is often the case in Congress, what really sank the legislation had nothing to do with the merits of the actual bill. It’s a fight over immigration. Well, that and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

In a way, however, the bad news is the good news, because H.R. 2 (115) just wasn’t very good.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, for example, called it “toxic.” After its defeat, the organization wrote,

As it stood, H.R. 2 would have gone down in history as the most anti-family farm and anti-environment farm bill of all time. The bill sought to unravel critical conservation, local food, business development, and organic agriculture programs with long track records of success. H.R. 2 also would have created a multitude of new loopholes, allowing unlimited, unchecked taxpayer subsidies for the wealthiest mega-farms.

The Illinois Stewardship Alliance agrees, and urges Congress to “go back to the drawing board” because, in its current form, the bill

  • Guts local food – the House Farm Bill abandons local farmers by cutting all funding for several programs that invest in helping farmers connect to local and regional buyers and in improving healthy food access.
  • Fails beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers – the House bill misses the mark by failing to invest more in beginning farmers, military veteran farmers, and farmers of color. With the average age of farmers continuing to rise, the status quo is not enough to ensure the success of these key farmer communities.
  • Eliminates conservation resources for farmers – the House bill erases support for resource stewardship on 70 million acres (that’s an area the size of Nevada!) of working farm and ranchland by completely eliminating the Conservation Stewardship Program.  CSP is popular with Illinois farmers for its ability to improve soil, water, and profitability.

Then there are groups like the Environmental Law & Policy Center that are unhappy because the bill would eliminate mandatory funding for the popular Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). On their FarmEnergy.org site, they make their case. .

“The House Farm Bill fails to continue mandatory funding for the REAP program that delivers benefits for farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses,” said Andy Olsen, Senior Policy Advocate at ELPC. “Congress should reject this proposal and work on a Farm Bill that reflects the vast support across the country for accelerating renewable energy and energy efficiency on farms and in rural communities.”

Andy Olsen from ELPC and Liz Moran Stelk, executive director of Illinois Stewardship Alliance, join us this morning to dissect the 2018 Farm Bill and what can be done to make it better. Speaking or rural energy Olsen suggests that folks take a look at ruralsolarstories.org, which features stories about rural electric cooperatives that have successfully integrated solar energy for their community.

What the heck is biochar and where can I get my hands on some?

Like the other issues we’re discussing on today’s show, we will barely scratch the surface of this one, too. Insert joke here because we’re talking about biochar, which is a soil amendment. Get it? “Scratch the surface”? “Soil amendment?” Anyway…Wikipedia sez:

Biochar is a stable solid, rich in carbon, and can endure in soil for thousands of years.[1] Like most charcoal, biochar is made from biomass via pyrolysis. Biochar is under investigation as an approach to carbon sequestration.[1] Biochar thus has the potential to help mitigate climate change via carbon sequestration.[2][3][4] Independently, biochar can increase soil fertility of acidic soils (low pH soils), increase agricultural productivity, and provide protection against some foliar and soil-borne diseases.[5]

See all those numbers for footnotes above? Go look ’em up yourself.

But back to biochar. One person who is hoping to determine its efficacy is Dan Dinelli, who is a Certified Golf Course Superintendent (GCSAA) at North Shore Country Club in Glenview. I’ve known Dan for a number of years now and I love visiting him behind the scenes at the golf course, which is where he does his mad scientist experiments with turf, compost, and various soil amendments, including biochar.

Dinelli sees the potential of biochar to serve as a substitute for peat moss. As he noted in a presentation,

In the U.S., peat moss is almost exclusively used in the horticulture industry. Forty thousand acres of sphagnum are currently being harvested in Canada, with 90% of the product destined for the U.S. In the U.K., where peat moss is burned as fuel, nearly 94% of the lowland bogs have been altered or completely destroyed due to harvesting.

Tom Marrero, PhD, of Wakefield Biochar, also joins us on the show this morning. On his company’s website, they describe the process of creating biochar.

Biochar may look like charcoal but it isn’t made the same way so don’t start dumping your fireplace ashes into your garden. The way biochar is manufactured, it creates a high carbon level (88+% of Wakefield Biochar is carbon and certified 97% USDA Certified Biobased Product) and it is incredibly porous.

All of those pores help retain water and provide a cozy home for micro-organisms to grow and survive off of the nutrients in the soil. Their interactions are a natural way to get nitrogen and other important elements back into the roots. As the bacteria thrive so does the natural process that makes your plant grow. (Insert the Circle of Life reference). Studies have also shown that the benefits of biochar also include reducing the possibility of disease in your soil.

Can biochar be used easily and economically in the home garden? I suppose that’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question. And it does have its detractors, as witnessed in this series by DeSmogBlog called Introducing Biochar: Climate Change Solution or Greenwash Nightmare? Ouch.

And if you think that biochar is controversial, say hello to my little friend biosolids. The U.S. EPA defines them as

nutrient-rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment facility. When treated and processed, these residuals can be recycled and applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth.

That same site follows up with this question and answer.

What is the difference between biosolids and sludge?

Biosolids are treated sewage sludge. Biosolids are carefully treated and monitored and must be used in accordance with regulatory requirements.

Regardless of how you phrase that, it makes some people nervous. On the other hand, as I often state, we live on a planet with seven-soon-to-be-nine-million people. Do you have a better solution for our waste products? If so, please send a quick note in care of the Powers That Be of the world.

Which brings us to our third guest in this segment–Dominic Brose, PhD, who is an Environmental Soil Scientist in the Monitoring and Research Department of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC). In a handout that Peggy and I picked up from the MWRDGC booth at the Chicago Flower & Garden Show earlier this year, the agency notes that it offering biosolids to gardeners, park districts, golf courses and landscapers for $10 per cubic yard.

Composted biosolids are a product of wastewater treatment that improve soil quality by supplying organic matter, improving soil structure and porosity for a better plant root environment, and retaining nutrients longer which allows plants to more effectively utilize them. Composted biosolids can be used as a soil amendment or conditioner for establishing turf grass, mixing into custom topsoil blends, or adding to planter beds and pots for establishing flowers and trees.

MWRD uses woodchips with biosolids in its composting process and says that the high temperatures kill off pathogens, allowing the compost to meet Class A EQ (Exceptional Quality) standards.

Nevertheless, this should be an interesting conversation.