BERLIN -- When the dust settled after a U.S. District Court judge ruled late last week in favor of a Berlin farm family and Perdue over alleged pollution violations dating back to 2009, parties on both sides reacted in a variety of ways from joy and relief to disdain and angst.
In March 2010, the New York-based Waterkeeper Alliance, along with the Assateague Coastal Trust (ACT) and the Assateague Coastkeeper, filed suit in U.S. District Court against Perdue and Berlin’s Hudson Farm, a contract factory farm operation of about 80,000 birds. The suit was filed after sampling in ditches adjacent to the property allegedly revealed high levels of harmful fecal coliform and E. coli in concentrations that exceed state limits.
After months and months of legal posturing, the case went to trial in October and concluded after 10 days of testimony by both sides. Closing arguments were heard in early December and U.S. District Court Judge William Nickerson reserved final judgment to review the facts. Last Thursday morning, Nickerson issued his ruling in the case, siding in favor of the defendants Alan Hudson and Perdue.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
80,000 birds? Lmao.did this farm have a quarter of a chicken house?
ReplyDeleteI'm a hard core conservative who thinks we aren't entitled to much of anything except clean air, clean waterways and the right to have our land not contaminated by irresponsible companies. Waterkeepers doesn't bother me because forget the EPA regulating since they are nothing but a way for big corps to skirt anti trust laws.
ReplyDeleteBut I do have a problem with Waterkeepers being unprepared for this lawsuit. If you are going to take someone to court make sure all i's are dotted and t's crossed or don't do it.
the EPA and many groups like this across our nation overstep their bounds continually. they are the ones that need to be shut down for good and let the local citizens decide what is right for them. we're a lot more educated regarding this issue than we were years ago, so just shut down your operations and go away. it will be good for everyone...
ReplyDelete12:49 but you apparently do not know the facts of this case. First they said the farm had a pile of chicken manure on the ground causing pollution in a ditch- they didn't. Then they attempted to claim that (literally) the DUST ON THEIR SHOES caused the problem. It betrayed their organization as a radical one that was willing to put a family farm out of business in an attempt to save face. I'm all for clean water and regulations that keep our water safe, but this group is not the answer.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteJudge Nickerson wrote:
"As counsel might detect, there are elements of this litigation that the Court finds disturbing. Particularly from the deposition testimony of former Plaintiff Kathlyn Phillips and the documents referenced in that deposition, it seems clear that the original Plaintiffs in this action were looking for an opportunity to bring a citizen suit under the CWA against some chicken production operation under contract with a major poultry integrator. When Phillips discovered a large pile on the Hudson Farm that she believed to be chicken litter, she concluded that she had found her "BAD APPLE." After the pile proved to be something other than chicken litter, Phillips continued to represent, apparently without any evidence, that the pile was tainted with chicken manure. Plaintiff’s case has now gone from a large pile of uncovered chicken manure to small amounts of airborne litter from the exhaust fans, trace amounts brought out on shoes and tires, and a dustpan of litter left on the heavy use pads."
He also had a few words for the Environmental Law Clinic.
I know the facts 1:58 and not from what I read 2nd hand but from the actual court docs posted on line at Nidel Law and also from the judge's ruling (50 pgs). The judge in his ruling said Waterkeepers did not meet their obligation. He also chastised them for not doing adequate sampling and testing that could have established pollution run off. In other words the judge doesn't exonerate the defendants but says the Waterkeepers failed to offer the necessary proof.
ReplyDeleteIf you do read the judge's ruling it's clear that neither the Hudson's nor Perdue can in good faith claim victory. The judge's decision was based solely on his inability to conclusively determine if poultry waste was an issue which he clearly says was due to inadequate testing.
ReplyDeleteE coli was found and the defendants didn't argue that it wasn't but that it was from the cows and not the chickens. Since it wasn't proven conclusively that it was from the chickens the judge couldn't act on that because cow waste isn't governed by the Clean Water Act.
probably responsible for resignation of epa leader.
ReplyDeleteRevel in the "victory" and enjoy the sky high cancer rates.
ReplyDeleteThe e coli was likely from the herd of cattle, which is not regulated by the law they were attempting to use in their suit. As 2:13 showed through copying from the judge's decision, the group absolutely pivoted when the pile was found not to be chicken manure.
ReplyDeleteThe Hudson's nor Perdue should be expected to make the plaintiff's case, so there was no way they were going to spend even more money in an attempt to figure out what the plaintiff found and from whence it came.
When their initial accusation of a pile of chicken manure was PROVED WRONG they should have dropped the case. I hope 2:26 & 3:00 you are never sued by a group based on a false assumption, but have to spend your life savings to defend against it. But if you were, I would expect that you'd understand a little more how malicious this failed suit was.
Yeah, 9:45 that's what is happening. To clue you in EVERYONE wants clean water. The problem with this case was that the plaintiff found a pile of bio solids and CLAIMED & SUED WITH NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CHICKEN MANURE! It wasn't. When confronted with THE FACT that it wasn't they chose to be vindictive instead of being honorable. They attempted to put a small family farmer out of business on false assumptions. This kind of thing is not going to lead to anything positive. I'm an environmentalist and I can tell you that our job of partnering with farmers on the eastern shore just got a lot harder. The group had good intentions, but were too prideful to admit their error. Now we will all suffer for it as more people retreat to their foxholes and communication breaks down.
ReplyDelete