in biosolids regulation is discussed in Blanton, where the Virginia Supreme Court held that “[t]he General Assembly, by its enactment of Code § 32.1-164.5, has expressly authorized the land application of biosolids conditioned upon the issuance of a permit.” Blanton, 540 S.E.2d at 873. Based in part on this holding, the Blanton Court struck down an Amelia County ordinance that prohibited the land application of biosolids because such a prohibition was contrary to the express authorization of the General Assembly. Id. at 875. According to the standard set out in Blanton, in order to prevail on their state law preemption claim Plaintiffs must show that the Appomattox ordinances preclude the use of biosolids that is authorized by a valid VDH permit. See Blanton, 540 S.E.2d at 874 (<HOLDING>). The General Assembly reacted to Blan-ton by
holding ripe plaintiffs claims where violation of challenged ordinance could subject plaintiffs to heavy fines  and possible revocation of their licenses and permits holding ordinances invalid because they forbid certain plaintiffs from using biosolids on their farmland even though those plaintiffs have obtained licenses under the state program holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the csra when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the csra provided plaintiffs with no remedy holding certain plaintiffs did not have standing to attack ordinance governing sexually oriented businesses where the record did not reveal that any one of these plaintiffs was subject to the ordinance even though the city attorney conceded at oral argument before the supreme court that one or two of them had had their licenses denied under the ordinance holding that the plaintiffs claims arose from a certain contract because the subject matter of the plaintiffs suit was intertwined with requirements referred to in the contract