BALTIMORE — A battle between lawyers for environmentalists and the poultry industry continued today, as a long-running court case over water pollution came before a federal judge.
Assateague Coastkeeper Kathy Phillips was expected to testify about how she got the case started: By seeing a suspicious pile of what she thought was chicken manure on a farm and testing water in ditches surrounding the property.
A day earlier, lawyers for the Waterkeeper Alliance, farmers Alan and Kristin Hudson and chicken giant Perdue Farms opened what’s expected to be a three-week trial over whether the family farm is polluting the water and who is responsible.
Jane Barrett, a University of Maryland law professor representing the waterkeepers, argued that the case is about making sure rivers are clean so that people can enjoy them.
She mentioned several members of the Assateague Coastal Trust who care deeply about the Pocomoke River and the Chesapeake Bay and would be harmed by pollution from farms: A mom who won’t take Girl Scouts out on the water, a retiree who enjoys kayaking, a waterfowl guide who helps his waterman son.
Those people, Barrett said, are the reason lawyers are expected to spend three weeks in court discussing chicken manure and water pollution.
George Ritchie, a Baltimore attorney, countered that the real people who matter in the case are his clients: the Hudsons.
Ritchie recounted the lengthy history of the “real-life farm family” that’s now under immense stress due to the lawsuit.
Ritchie said the Hudsons — who have two kids and jobs besides their farming work — have been in “an almost three-year nightmare” since the lawsuit was filed.
In addition to alleging that chickens on the Hudsons’ farm are polluting the water, the Waterkeeper Alliance is trying to prove that some of the responsibility lies with Perdue Farms, the company that contracts the Hudsons to raise chickens.
The case was spurred by the coastkeeper, Phillips, who spotted a suspicious-looking pile on the Hudson Farm in late 2009.
35 comments:
They were obeying all the rules and the pile was a purchased product with a sign off as usable fertilizer. Crucifying these people is tantamount to destroying the poultry industry in the Shore. This is extortion in its proudest form.
It seems obvious the Hudson farm IS polluting. Their own lawyer admitted as much.
He trying to say the pollution is not coming from the chickens but from the cows.
So the question is not IF they are polluting, but WHICH SPECIES is doing the polluting.
I think they already have lost this case. It has just to be determined how much they lose. AND whether Perdue gets hit.
Trespassers should have been shot. Too bad they didn't.
I bet Mrs.Phillips and her cohorts go home and enjoy a good chicken dinner after having a hard day in court testifying.
This is stupid on the waterkeepers part, biting at the hand that feeds the country. You can't do that. Plus it was not right for them to trespass onto and over the Hudson farm. That in my opinion is a privacy violation. These fools come down here and try to tell us how to run our businesses and farms. For all I care they all can move back to whatever burr they sprung from
Why didn't they sue Ocean City? That is who the sludge belonged to.
lol some of you are more upset that they may have been trespassed upon rather than being upset about pollution.
Chicken farming is not at risk. Maybe some of the policies are, but if it can be done better it should be.
In the spring every year I see this stupid environmental group running around conveniently collecting water samples shortly after the farmers have spread chicken manure. It's the only time we ever see them back where we live. If they really want to see what's polluting the bay then maybe while they are in Baltimore they can run some of the water samples up there. If you have been to the Inner Harbor you can see just how disgusting the water really is. It's just really stupid that our taxpayer money is being wasted and paying for such a ridiculous lawsuit.
6:22 it's the Perdue lawyers who are saying it from the cows! So they've admit there was pollution but trying to pass the buck and say it's not from the chickens. They've thrown the Hudson's under the bus to save their own butts. What dirty rotten scondrels.
No one was trespassing. The article clearly states the ditches were around the farm and not on the farm. I have ditches at the end of my lane and bordering my farm field that are on county property which is public.
6:38 because I'm sure the types of pollutants found come from animal waste as opposed to "biosolids" which is treated human waste. They will surely have biologists are some type of scientists testify to that.
Everyone is responsible for the pollution in the watershed. If you apply weed killer in any form, fertilize your lawn or mow to the edge of your water front property, you are a contributor to the pollution in the bay. When you use a disposable diaper or "Peanuts to pack your order" when you dispose of an aluminum can or bottle without recycling then you are a contributor. Turn on the electric light then you are at fault. And you know that Sunday chicken well a farmer grew it, and your lunch as well as your dinner.
Wastewater treatment plant, heck Joe pointed that out years ago and it still dumps raw sewage, look at the river and the trash in it, or Baltimore city with it's pipes dumping direct and the inner harbor. So it is not just Farmers it is all of us.
If the Hudsons lose their farm, it will be interesting to see who ends up with the property. Something smells here and it's not just chicken poop.
6:22 it's the Perdue lawyers who are saying it from the cows!
Yes, AND the Hudson' lawyer, Mr. Ritchie.
George Ritchie, a Baltimore attorney, countered that the real people who matter in the case are his clients: the Hudsons.
Ritchie and the attorneys for Perdue are expected to try to poke holes in the waterkeeper theories with their own expert. They think cows on the Hudson Farm are a likelier source of water pollution than the chickens.
The industry should not recklessly pollute. We all eat chickens. But only a few of us raise them. Do it responsibly. If you take reckless shortcuts that harm our environment you should pay for the damages.
There are different standards / regulations on chicken & cow manure. If the state wants to change that they are free to do so. However, you can't change rules on the fly & expect a farmer to comply or sue them based on an unwritten new law.
7:09 PM
read article again. their lawyer said it also.
Others who say polluting is ok because others do it, inner harbor etc., are not helping.
If you give everyone a pass because someone else does it, it would never stop.
Lawsuits are not something to necessarily be scared of, ask Joe.
It sometimes is just a means to get something into a court of law to get a decision and a ruling.
It will not only affect the Hudsons but others as well, and future generations.
I'm not saying make them go bankrupt or to jail. Make it known what needs to be done and show there are consequences for not following the law.
It should be a no brainer but I'm sure Perdue is dragging it out to save money in fines and whatever expenses they can save. That's business.
It was Michael Schatzow, one of
Perdue's lawyers that argued the contamination found in the ditches came from the 66 cows the Hudsons raise. He's not mentioned in this article linked but he is the one who said the cow statement. Geo. F.
Richie the Hudson lawyer is not admitting to any pollution and as a matter of fact, is on the record as saying that the state inspectors who scrtinized the farm after being contacted by Waterkeepers took no action.
7:22, Perdue's not denying at this point that pollutants weren't found. They had asked to be dismissed from the suit but judge denied that request. They are saying it's not or chickens, it's the cows.
Contrary to popular belief Perdue and the Hudson's aren't in this together. They each have separate lawyers or a team. The outcome can be that one or both can be found liable or they can both be found not liable for the pollution. It's not about money either it appears because I haven't seen in any of the docs posted online money involved. More on the line of who's reponsiblity is the manure-the company whose own contracts dictate that they own the chickens or the grower who has virtually no say so in how they are raised.
"Anonymous said...
There are different standards / regulations on chicken & cow manure. If the state wants to change that they are free to do so. However, you can't change rules on the fly & expect a farmer to comply or sue them based on an unwritten new law.
October 10, 2012 7:50 PM"
It's going to end up being a battle of the experts and where the poop pollutants came from-the chickens or the cows. If it's believed it was from the cows, there are no specific federal laws regulating pasture runoff so both defendants Perdue and the Hudsons can not be found liable.
if you are a millionaire farmer who donates to dems,this wont happen to you.
Correct, it was both lawyers but note, it says "LIKELIER" as in if there is any pollution at all it's more likely from the cows and not the chickens. No one threw anyone under the bus. Not yet anyway.
The sad part is The Waterkeepers Alliance is using taxpayer money to bring this suit up, by using The Universary of Maryland Lawyers......FREE! While the poor family is paying out the rear ends
Obviously none of these water keepers or their lawyers have been in a chicken house. Manure is not expelled through the exhaust fans, feathers yes, sometimes but not manure. As wet as that litter is, it's not going to be sucked up by the fans, and now with the misters in summer the litter is even more wet than when not in use. This whole thing makes me sick.
I have to believe that if the Alliance really wanted to improve bay water quality they would be going after direct source pollutants...such as the thousands of gallons of untreated sewage that goes directly into the bay and runoff from direct bayfront properties and all the runoff from streets. But thats a much harder road to hoe. 66 cows acres away from the river is nothing compared to the geese who frequent areas right next to the water...you should see the ground around the pond down the road from my house covered with geese droppings. I am convinced there are people in this world who just enjoy making people do something they dictate. I think its called power.
Okay, I've only read through some of the comments...Where are the golf courses...where are most of them...on the water...what do they do...fertilize and weed kill...why aren't they being sued? And some golf courses are on "protected land"? Can you say Light House Sound?
It was Michael Schatzow, one of
Perdue's lawyers that argued the contamination found in the ditches came from the 66 cows the Hudsons raise. He's not mentioned in this article linked but he is the one who said the cow statement. Geo. F.
Richie the Hudson lawyer is not admitting to any pollution 8:58 PM
Sigh.
Perdue attorney Michael Schatzow questioned the motives of the Waterkeeper Alliance, alleging a long-term strategy to wage a “war on Maryland’s poultry industry.”
He IS mentioned in the article.
Ritchie and the attorneys for Perdue are expected to try to poke holes in the waterkeeper theories with their own expert. They think cows on the Hudson Farm are a likelier source of water pollution than the chickens.
ALL lawyers said it was more LIKELY to be the cows that CAUSED the pollution. Not one lawyer, not two lawyers, ALL lawyers. Neither said there was NO pollution. They only suggested other sources are responsible for the POLLUTION.
If the Hudsons win the lawsuit, they can recoup their legal fees from the losing party.
They are suing on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay, a public entity, so it's reasonable for public funds to be used on it's behalf.
I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything like that but have all of you read the article?
What I have been quoting is in the article except for the number of cows on the ranch. Not sure where that number (66) came from, or if it matters.
I'm sure there are other facts I am not aware of, but all I have to go on is what I read in the article.
OK...but what do they REALLY want from this lawsuit??? Another government agency to oversee all farming activity? Because if they really want to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay they are barking up the wrong tree. In my opinion. Thanks for reading.
Is the Wicomico Environmental Trust's super lawyer Michael Pretl involved in this travesty of justice too?
I'm guessing 7:50 & 9:11 are onto something here since neither has been refuted.
Okay. What I glean here is that the Big Pile of Poop was treated, licensed waste product purchased from the Town of Ocean City WWTP.
This begs two highly important questions:
1) Is the Town named in the lawsuit?
and...
wait for it...
2) How do you get 66 cows and 4,000 chickens to poop in Ocean City toilets?
I'll wait for that answer!
No pollution is acceptable, but why aren't these people suing Salisbury and Baltimore City? Go after all the polluters, not just the farmers. Salisbury's sewage plant hasn't been working correctly for years. Also, every year I read about Baltimore City having a pipe burst or overflow that sends 10 million gallons of raw sewage into the Bay. So, how do these entities, and they are just a few examples, get off free year after year?
I don't have a problem with the U of MD Law Clinic representing Waterkeepers because the students who have done the research and have helped to write alot of the legal papers quite possibly when they start their careers could be representing the farmers at some point.
10:31, the 66 number came from other articles. I admit I didn't read the one linked carefully, but I've read probably close to 20 others on this case and the legal docs that are posted online at Nidel Law, PLLC.
11:34, I believe what they are asking is that Perdue shoulder some of the responsibility of the waste so it's not all on the backs of the growers. It's a question of who owns the manure-The company, who in their own contracts the growers sign, makes it clear that the company owns the chickens. WK's is saying if they own the chickens then they own the waste and need to shoulder the responsibility of removing the waste in an environmentally sound way and not leave it completely up to the farmers who are already operating under the slimmest of profit margins.
Too bad we don't have an eviromental group that cares about the Wicomico River....the city of salisbury would be screwed for sure on that one. All that disgusting sewage that is spewed into our River is an enviromental nightmare! The article mentioned the Mom who wouldnt take the Girl Scouts out of the water....Can you imagine what that Mom would say if she saw our river??
The crazy thing is that I'm sure Kathy Phillips goes to bed every night feeling good about ruining a local farming family. And the big money, big city liberals who back her efforts could care less also. Kathy Phillips wanted the spotlight on her and her cause and she is getting it. End of story. Kathy Phillips is a huge steaming pile of manure.
Post a Comment