Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Act



Pennsylvania statutes are accessible online through the Unofficial Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes website. Be aware that this information is subject to change as a result of subsequent amendments. Please consult an attorney if you are in need of the most up-to-date statutory information.



  • State Conservation Commission, 25 Pa. Code §§ 83.201 - 83.812 (see Chapter 38)
    • Nutrient Management, 25 Pa. Code §§ 83.201 - 83.491
    • Nutrient Management Funding Program: Statement of Policy, 25 Pa. Code §§ 83.501 - 83.528
    • Facility Odor Management, 25 Pa. Code §§ 83.701 – 83.812

Case Law

Some of these cases may be available at a law library or accessible online for those with LexisNexis, Westlaw, or other electronic database accounts.

U.S. District Courts:

  • Synagro-WWT, Inc. v. Rush Township, PA, 299 F.Supp.2d 410 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (determining Nutrient Management Act (NMA) does not preempt the township ordinance; finding NMA regulates “nutrients” with respect to “certain agricultural applications which generate or utilize animal manure” and legislative history of NMA indicates that the NMA is geared toward agricultural activities; finding Synagro is not engaged in agricultural operations, and their activities do not fall under NMA’s definition of agricultural applications; holding the NMA did not preempt the ordinance because Synagro’s activities are not regulated by NMA).

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court:

  • Com., Office of Atty. Gen. ex rel. Corbett v. Locust Twp., 2012 WL 2912024 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jul. 17, 2012) (granting Attorney General's motion for summary judgment in part, holding that municipal ordinances requiring setback requirements for farms and odor and nutrient management plans were preempted by the Nutrient Management Act making the setback requirements invalid and submission voluntary).
  • Commonwealth v. Richmond Twp., 2 A.3d 678 (Pa. Commw. 2010)(summary judgment granted for the Attorney General against the township’s ordinance that impermissibly conflicted with and was preempted by the Manure Nutrient Management Act).
  • Walck v Lower Towamensing Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 942 A.2d 200 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008) (holding that the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) and its regulations do not pre-empt enforcement of a local zoning ordinance; finding farmer’s operation was not a CAO and therefore an approved nutrient management plan under the NMA was not required; determining the operation was an “intensive agricultural activity” prohibited by the ordinance; determining  local ordinance was not inconsistent with, or more stringent than, the NMA regulation and therefore not pre-empted by the NMA; holding farmer in violation of ordinance).
  • Burkholder v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Richmond Twp., 902 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (finding that both the finishing building and the addition were manure storage facilities under Nutrient Management Act (NMA) definitions and  the NMA therefore preempted the local ordinance; looking to the legislative history of NMA and the language of the regulations itself, containing criteria and standards for manure storage facilities, as well as setbacks; finding that characteristics of both the finishing building and the addition qualified them as manure storage facilities within the meaning of the NMA because their primary purpose would be for containing manure; holding the NMA preempted setback requirements of the local ordinance).
    • Case Summary (provided by Ag Law Resource and Reference Center)

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas:

  • Adam v. Zoning Hearing Bd. Of Twp. Of Perry, 93 Berks L.J. 89 (C.P. Berks) (No. 99-4176, filed Oct. 24, 2000) (finding swine operation is a CAO, and is subject to the Nutrient Management Act (NMA); holding NMA, requiring manure removal on a seasonal basis, preempted a local ordinance requiring that manure be removed from the site daily).
    • Case Summary (provided by Ag Law Resource and Reference Center)
  • McClellan v. Granville Twp. Bd. Of Supervisors, 3 Bradford L.J. 272 (C.P. Bradford) (No. 99 EQ000016, filed April 6, 2000) (finding that a local ordinance’s setback requirements for CAO manure storage facilities were in conflict with, or more stringent than the NMA’s requirements; finding that hog operations are subject to the NMA; holding that the NMA preempted the local ordinance).
    • Case Summary (provided by Ag Law Resource and Reference Center)

Government Agencies

Federal Resources: 

Pennsylvania Resources:


Some of these articles may be available at a law library or accessible online for those with LexisNexis, Westlaw, or other electronic database accounts. Some hyperlinks may only be available for those users with access to HeinOnline.

Law Review Articles:

Other Publications:


Penn State Resources: 

Pennsylvania Resources:

Other Resources:


twitter icon Twitter
facebook icon Facebook
youtube icon YouTube
linkedIn icon LinkedIn
Instagram icon Instagram
Google+ icon Google+
flickr icon Flickr
webmail icon Webmail

Make a Gift >
Apply Now >


View Sitemap