UPDATE ON THE POULTRY LITIGATION IN OKLAHOMA Poultry litter is not a solid waste under RCRA
The Oklahoma State Attorney General sued several poultry companies for polluting the Illinois River and its watershed in Eastern Oklahoma as a result of the application and disposal of poultry litter in the watershed. State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et. al. Case No. 05-CV-329-GFK(PJC). The suit alleged claims under CERCLA, RCRA, and nuisance among other things. You are referred to the articles posted March 9, 2009 an September 3, 2009 for particulars regarding the claims.
Two weeks before trial, the Cherokee Nation moved to intervene in the case as a necessary party, but the Judge wouldn’t allow it. The Court decided that the damages claims would not be tried, but that the injunctive claims as well as the state penalty claims could be tried with the absence of the Cherokee Nation in the suit. The reasoning was, among other things, that the Cherokee Nation would be potentially prejudiced if the remaining damage claims went forward without it, but that would not be the case if the remaining injunctive claims and state law penalty claims were tried. Although the Cherokee Nation filed an immediate appeal with the Tenth Circuit, it did not ask that the case be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
The case has now been tried to the Court. It began on September 24, 2009 and only this month concluded with closing arguments. However, during the trial the Court ruled, in response to a Rule 52(c) motion, among other things, that:
- Poultry litter is an agricultural commodity for which there is both a market and a market value in the watershed.
- Poultry litter has market value because it can be beneficially used as a fertilizer and soil amendment.
- The State did not produce sufficient evidence to convince the Court that farmers, ranchers or other applicators of poultry litter in the Illinois River Watershed land-applied poultry litter within the watershed solely to discard it.
- Under the applicable law and the evidence produced at trial, poultry litter is not a “solid waste” under RCRA, and therefore the State’s RCRA claim was dismissed.
This ruling is very important because of the focus on nutrient issues under the Clean Water Act Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA states on its website that “States report that nonpoint source pollution is the leading remaining cause of water quality problems.” Indeed, EPA has a “National Nutrient Strategy” and is focusing more on these issues than ever before.
When Does The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Trump the Clean Water Act?
United States v. Milner, Nos. 05-35802, -36126, 39 ELR 20232 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2009)
In a suit brought by the United States against homeowners for common law trespass to tidelands held in trust for a Native American tribe, the Ninth Circuit held that waterfront homeowners who built shoreline defense structures on this property are liable for common law trespass and for violating the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (RHA).
Between 1963 and 1988, the homeowners leased the tidelands from the tribe, giving them the right to erect shore defense structures on the tidelands. After the lease expired, the homeowners refused to remove the structures or enter into a new lease agreement. The homeowners argued that they cannot be liable for trespass, despite the movement of the tideland boundary, because their structures were lawfully built on the homeowners' property landward of the mean high water (MHW) line.
The court disagreed. Under common law, however, the boundary between the tidelands and the uplands is ambulatory, changing when the water body shifts course or changes in volume. Because both the upland and tideland owners have a vested right to gains from the ambulation of the boundary, the homeowners cannot permanently fix the property boundary, thereby depriving the tribe of tidelands that they would otherwise gain. And although the structures may have been legal as they were initially erected, the court found that this is not a defense against the trespass action nor does it justify denying the tribe land that would otherwise accrue to them.
The court also determined the homeowners are liable under the RHA because they have maintained at least part of their shore defense structures below the MHW line and because the structures alter the course, location, condition, or capacity of a navigable U.S. water. Addressing whether the homeowners had also violated the Clean Water Act (CWA), the court held that it was unclear from the evidence whether the high tide line actually reached the area where the homeowners discharged fill material during their maintenance of the structures. The court emphasized that although the jurisdictional reach of the CWA is generally broader than that of the RHA, the RHA is concerned with preventing obstructions, whereas the CWA is focused on discharges into water. Since the two laws serve different purposes, their regulatory powers will diverge in some circumstances, such as this one.
