Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:20:15.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discerning liability for contamination by poultry integrators and producers under US federal law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2010

T.J. CENTNER
T.J. CENTNER*
Affiliation:
313 Conner Hall, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 USA
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The application of poultry litter on land over many years may lead to excessive quantities of nutrients in soils and water contamination. In a watershed in Oklahoma and Arkansas, litter applications by large numbers of poultry producers have led the state of Oklahoma to bring a lawsuit against poultry integrators under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Oklahoma alleges that poultry waste is being disposed of as a hazardous substance, and that the poultry integrators are facilitating the disposal by placing birds at facilities that deposit litter on fields that do not need additional nutrients. Oklahoma is requesting that the integrators be ordered to pay for all monetary damages suffered and incurred by the state to remedy such wrongful conduct. The state also seeks a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to abate their pollution-causing conduct and other relief, including punitive and exemplary damages. While poultry litter may not appear to be a hazardous substance, in 2005 a federal district court found that it was a substance regulated by CERCLA. Thus, the poultry industry and producers might avoid liability by qualifying for a CERCLA exception. Two are available: federally permitted releases and normal applications of fertiliser. However, despite qualifying under these exceptions, it is incumbent on producers and the industry to recognise that public concerns about environmental contamination require greater efforts. All producers should be employing best management practices and limit applications of litter to only those amounts needed for crop production. Additional voluntary and mandatory oversight might be advantageous in precluding shirkers from engaging in unacceptable practices that contaminate land and water resources.

Keywords

poultry litternutrient contaminationliabilityregulationCERCLA
Type
Review Article
Information
World's Poultry Science Journal , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 5 - 16
Copyright
World's Poultry Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

ARAJI, A.A., ABDO, Z.O. and JOYCE, P. (2001) Efficient use of animal manure on cropland: Economic analysis. Bioresource Technology 79: 179-191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ARKANSAS CODE ANNOTATED, (2008) Sections 15-20-1101 to 15-20-1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION RULES, (2008) Sections 2101.1 to 2108.1; 2201.1 to 2206.4.Google Scholar
BAKHSH, A., KANWAR, R.S. and KARLEN, D.L. (2005) Effects of liquid swine manure applications on NO3–N leaching losses to subsurface drainage water from loamy soils in Iowa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 109: 118-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CENTNER, T.J. (2008) Courts and the EPA interpret NPDES general permit requirements for CAFOs. Environmental Law 38: 1215-1238.Google Scholar
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), (2001) State compendium: Programs and regulatory activities related to animal feeding operations. EPA Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), (2003) National pollutant discharge elimination system permit regulation and effluent limitations guidelines and standards for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); final rule. Federal Register 68: 7176-7227.Google Scholar
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA), (2008) Revised national pollutant discharge elimination system permit regulation and effluent limitations guidelines and standards for concentrated animal feeding operations in response to the Waterkeeper decision; final rule. Federal Register 73: 70418-70486.Google Scholar
GREEN, C.H., ARNOLD, J.G., WILLIAMS, J.R., HANEY, R. and HARMEL, R.D. (2007) Soil and water assessment tool hydrologic and water quality evaluation of poultry litter application to small-scale subwatersheds in Texas. Transactions of the ASABE 50: 1199-1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ILLINOIS COMPILED STATUTES ANNOTATED, (2008) Chapter 510, section 77/20.Google Scholar
KINGERY, W.L., WOOD, C.W., DELANEY, D.P., WILLIAMS, J.C. and MULLINS, G.L. (1994) Impact of long-term land application of broiler litter on environmentally related soil properties. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 139-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MINNESOTA RULES, (2003) Section 7020.2225.Google Scholar
OKLAHOMA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, (2008) Sections 35:17-5-1 to 35:17-5-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OKLAHOMA STATUTES, (2008) Sections 10-9 to 10-9.19a.Google Scholar
PETERSEN, S.O., SOMMER, S.G., BELINE, F., BURTON, C., DACH, J., DOURMAD, J.Y., LEIP, A., MISSELBROOK, T., NICHOLSON, F., POULSEN, H.D., PROVOLO, G., SORENSEN, P., VINNER, B., WEISKE, , A, , BERNAL, M.-P., BOHM, R., JUHASZAND, C. and MIHELIC, R. (2007) Recycling of livestock manure in a whole-farm perspective. Livestock Science 112: 180-191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RAMOS, M.C., QUINTON, J.N. and TYRREL, S.F. (2006) Effects of cattle manure on erosion rates and runoff water pollution by faecal coliforms. Journal of Environmental Management 78: 97-101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SHARPLEY, A. (1999) Agricultural phosphorus, water quality, and poultry production: Are they compatible? Poultry Science 78: 660-673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US CODE, (2000) Title 33, sections 1251-1387; title 42, sections 9601, 9603, 9607.Google Scholar
US CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (USCFR), (2008) Title 40, part 122.Google Scholar
US PUBLIC LAW, NO. 96-510 (1980) US Statutes 94: 2767 (codified at US Code, title 42, sections 9601-9675).Google Scholar

List of legal cases

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. United States, (2009) Supreme Court Reporter 129: 1870-1886 (US Supreme Court).Google Scholar
California Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, and Inc., (2007) Federal Reporter 3rd 508: 930-941 (9th Circuit Court of Appeals).Google Scholar
City of Tulsa v. Tyson Foods, and Inc., (2003) Federal Supplement 2nd 258: 1263-1312 (US District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma).Google Scholar
City of Waukegan v. National Gypsum Co., (2008) Federal Supplement 2nd 560: 636-647 (US District Court, Northern District of Illinois).Google Scholar
Colorado v. Idarado Mining Company, (1990) Federal Reporter 2nd 916: 1486-1499 (10th Circuit Court of Appeals).Google Scholar
Dartron Corporation v. Uniroyal Chemical Company, (1996) Federal Supplement 917: 1173-1185 (US District Court, Northern District of Ohio).Google Scholar
Esso Standard Oil Company v. Perez, (2004) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19954: 1-55 (US District Court of Puerto Rico).Google Scholar
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, and Ltd, (2004) U.S. Dist LEXIS 23041: 1-54 (US District Court, Eastern District of Washington).Google Scholar
Tyson Foods I (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, and Inc) Answer, (2005) Case No. 4:05-cv-00329-JOE-SAJ, Answer and affirmative defences of defendants Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Poultry, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc., and Cobb-Vantress, Inc. to the first amended complaint (US District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma).Google Scholar
Tyson Foods I (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, and Inc) Complaint, (2005) Case No. 4:05-cv-329. Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma (US District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma).Google Scholar
Tyson Foods I (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, and Inc) Motion, (2009) Case No. 05-CV-329-GKF-SAJ. Defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment on counts 1 and 2 of the second amended complaint and integrated brief in support (US District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma).Google Scholar
Tyson Foods I (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, and Inc) Response, (2009) Case No. 05-CV-329-GKF-SAJ. State of Oklahoma's response in opposition to ‘defendants joint motion for summary judgment on counts 1 and 2 of the second amended complaint’ (US District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma).Google Scholar
Tyson Foods II (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, and Inc), (2008) Case No. 05-CV-329-GKF-SAJ, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91390: 1-27 (US District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma).Google Scholar
Tyson Foods III (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, and Inc), (2009) Federal Reporter 3rd 565: 769-789 (10th Circuit Court of Appeals).Google Scholar
United States v. Alcan Aluminum Corporation, (1991) Federal Supplement 755: 531-545 (US District Court, Northern District of New York).Google Scholar
United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company, (2007) Federal Reporter 3rd 520: 918-952 (9th Circuit Court of Appeals).Google Scholar
United States v. Vertac Chemical Corporation, (1995) Federal Reporter 3rd 46: 803-813 (8th Circuit Court of Appeals).Google Scholar
Waterkeeper Alliance, and Inc. v. EPA, (2005) Federal Reporter 3rd 399: 486-524 (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals).Google Scholar