Testimony concluded Wednesday in an environmental lawsuit against an Eastern Shore chicken grower and poultry producer Perdue Farms Inc. that is being closely watched by environmentalists and agriculture interests.
The Waterkeeper Alliance claims that the Hudson Farm is polluting a nearby river, violating the federal Clean Water Act. Lawyers for the farm and Salisbury- based Perdue argued there wasn't any evidence of pollution. Farm groups, meanwhile, said the suit could bankrupt the farm and set a harmful precedent. Environmentalists say poultry companies should be responsible for pollution by their growers.
About 10 minutes of testimony from the final witness for the Waterkeeper Alliance, environmental engineer Bruce Bell, was presented by telephone in U.S. District Court about the impact of rainfall on runoff from the farm. The two sides then agreed to file closing briefs and tentatively scheduled closing arguments Nov. 30 before District Judge William Nickerson, who will decide the non-jury trial.
16 comments:
Nothing has helped our local economy over the past decades like Perdue.The entire Eastern shore owes them a debt of gratitude for everything they have done,namely keeping tens of thousands of people out of poverty.They've been in the hot seat numerous times for various issues,but we should be remembering the great things they have done for us.Sure there have been occasional safety and pollution issues,but that goes with the territory.Truth is we're lucky Perdue did'nt leave our area entirely in the 70's and 80's.
9:16-well stated. Several years ago I asked Jim Perdue what it would take to re-locate the processing plant from Rt 50 over to the vacant Campbell Soup so the riverfront could be developed. He told me that if he was going to build another plant it wouldn't be in Maryland. Fast forward to today and you have these zealots running around wanting to preserve everything and blame the chicken industry for pollution. But you don't bankrupt a family to prove your point. THe zealots have not offered a solution so they continue payiing lip service.
this is nothing more than an attempt to destroy more of this country, whether it is the epa, the chespapeake bay foundation, the siera club, the mde, it is all about money, power and control. hopefully this judge is not in the tank.
we will see
Mr. Hudson admitted on the stand that he failed to adhere to the EPA regulations. There you have it. These "zealots" are trying to preserve the land and waterways you love and are the same lands and waterways which farmers rely upon for their livihood. There are laws and regulations. deal with it and adhere to them. You dont, then you get caught and punished. And just because Perdue has done great things for the shore doesnt mean they get carte blanche to do what they want. They, as well, must follow laws and regulations.
The true story is these contract chicken growers are and have been going broke. A quick check of MDLandRec.net will show that the Hudson's were mortgaged to the hilt way before this lawsuit was filed. What is interesting is I attended a seminar at SSU and it was brought up that there is an chicken processing facility set up and ready to go on UMES property and it sits there. I've asked around and it is common knowledge to those in the industry. Evidently it was paid for by tax payers money including USDA grants. It's brand new equipment and even has USDA facilities for inspectors or something to that effect. The growers are saying under their breaths that "politics" is preventing it from being utilized and if it were growers would abandon their restrictive contracts with the companies and go independant. I wish someone would get on this and we could find out more.
Waterkeepers Alliance is from New York, the most polluted state on the east coast. Why don't they clean up their own backyard before trying to bankrupt families and businesses all over the east coast? Because New Yorkers won't put up with their invasion of privacy, trespassing on private lands, that's why. They would be found floating on top of all that garbage in the Hudson river. If they want to preserve the land in Maryland, let them BUY the land instead of using our state tax dollars to sue one of our businesses and family's.
Anonymous 11:34 - whether or not the Hudson's were in debt prior to this lawsuit being filed is completely irrelevant. This lawsuit is an attempt by the Waterkeepers to go after Perdue, and as an attorney stated in opening arguments, the Hudson's are just "collateral damage" - they don't care about the Hudson's, other than to make an example of them to use in their next litigation. If the Waterkeepers win this lawsuit, they will just keep going after farmers who are just trying to earn a living and feed the rest of us
The Waterkeepers Alliance is an affiliate of the local Assateague Coastkeepers. As WA does have more funds with the legal expertise, they are carrying the suit. No one trespassed, aerial photographs were taken. NO Laws broken. I love the "earth be darned" mentality for the sake of money. Cant a balence be found between preserving the planet we NEED to survive and the economy? Thats what laws and regualtions seek to do. Those of you who feel all evironmentalist groups should go away and "mind their own business", lets dump all the waste on your lawn. There would be no law against it. I'm sure you wouldn't mind.
12:17.... You missed the point. Hudson admitted on the stand he broke the law. Regulatory agencies and environmental groups WILL go after the law breakers. Dont break the laws and you're fine. They dont want to ruin the industry that feeds us. Us 1 oz of brains, please without so much baseless venom. Law breakers = bad.
Mr. Hudson admitted on the stand that he failed to adhere to the EPA regulations. There you have it. There are laws and regulations. deal with it and adhere to them. You dont, then you get caught and punished. And just because Perdue has done great things for the shore doesnt mean they get carte blanche to do what they want. They, as well, must follow laws and regulations.
October 25, 2012 10:56 AM
That sounds pretty plain and simple to me.
What some others have been describing, and suggesting, reeks of the old boys club.
They can do what they want because of who they are or who they know.
Hopefully that will never be the case in a court of law.
The point was made relevant by Perdue and the farm bureau and SaveFarmFamilies.org because they made debt that a very relevant talking point in their public relations campaign claiming this lawsuit was bankrupting the Hudson's 12:17. The point of the comment was in defense of the Hudson's who were obviously struggling previously and other farmers who are barely making ends meet in order to feed us and how they should have and do need other options to make farming a viable profession.
12:23 - No, I did not miss the point. The comment began with the Hudson's being in debt, which, again, has no bearing on the case. Yes, Mr. Hudson made a mistake - however, the Maryland Department of Environment visited his farm, told him to move the piles and cover them, and fined him. After going back to the farm, they found him in compliance and waived the fine.
My 100% use of my brain tells me that should have been the end of it. The MDE is the regulatory agency - the Waterkeepers are not.
Baseless venom? I have read a great deal about this lawsuit; the Waterkeepers have used this suit as an example for other waterkeeper/riverkeeper/coastkeepergroups to go after what they consider "pollution" - and again, by their own admittance, they are volunteer citizens -NOT regulatory or law enforcement.
If, as you say, "they" don't want to ruin the industry that feeds us, tell me why Perdue was dragged into the lawsuit?
12:20 - if the Waterkeepers "have more funds with the legal expertise, they are carrying the suit" - why do they need free representation from the University of Maryland Law Clinic?
Mr. Hudson did not "make a mistake." He broke the law. Theres a difference. It was also proven in court that the MDE failed to fully enforce the regulations. As all the agencies involved are volunteer as you said, they cannt enforce anything so when those entrusted to be the enforcers fail the system, the citizens have the right, duty and ability to shed light on the entire system failure. As far as Perdue goes, they own the product, dont they? They pay the farmers to maintain that product dont they? You cant seperate the two. And I love the italics around the word pollution. As if you dont believe that polution exists. If you knew anything about chemistry then you would know what fecal contamination can do in high concentrations to the soild and waterways. As far as the MD law school, they make their services available to anyone who asks. ANYONE. WA asked first. Had the Hudsons asked first, they would have been represented.
You have totally missed the point 1:22. You stated "I did not miss the point. The comment began with the Hudson's being in debt, which, again, has no bearing on the case "
You've missed the point because no where was it ever stated that debt had anything to do with the case only that it was made into a talking point for public relations. The defendants turned debt into an issue when they brought it up or allowed it to be brought up and the point was it is a disingenuous claim since other farmers are in the same financial situation and aren't even involved in a lawsuit.
I totally sympathize with farmers who due to over regulation which BigAgri business lobbies for the real true family farm is almost nonexistance and factory farming is becomming the norm with the farmers being paid a pitance and the large corps making hugh profits.
"If, as you say, "they" don't want to ruin the industry that feeds us, tell me why Perdue was dragged into the lawsuit?"
Because according to the terms of Perdue's own contract (which they fought tooth and nail to keep from being released to the public) they not only say they own the chickens but dictate every step of the growing operation including selling their own concoction of feed to the growers.
The basis then of Perdue being also named as defendants is their own words, they own the chickens and therefore wouldn't it be reasonable to say they also then own the waste?
Post a Comment