The Evansville Courier & Press reports today (here) that "A federal judge has ruled Tyson Chicken Inc. - or its parent company, Tyson Foods Inc. - has responsibility to report ammonia emissions from large poultry operations if they exceed federal air-quality standards. U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley rejected arguments by Tyson, one of the nation's largest meat processors, that responsibility for environmental problems rests with the people who raise animals under contract for the company." More:
The judge in his order said "no reasonable juror could differ on the issue whether Tyson Chicken Inc., is a 'person in charge'" of houses operated by both the company and its contract growers. * * *The Louisville Courier Journal reports here:"This court has ruled that Tyson is responsible for the pollution it causes," said Sierra Club attorney Barclay Rogers at the environmental group's San Francisco offices. "Previously, Tyson had argued it was not responsible for pollution even though it was actively engaged in the management of its operations. The court saw through Tyson's arguments, ruling essentially when it calls the shots, it's on the hook for the pollution."
"This really sends a message to Tyson, to poultry growers and to all confined animal feeding operations," said Aloma Dew of Owensboro, conservation organizer for the Sierra Club's Cumberland Chapter. "They had better follow the law because the Sierra Club doesn't intend to have Kentucky's air and water ruined by corporate greed."
Gov. Paul Patton on two occasions in recent years attempted to extend liability for environmental damages caused by animal feeding operations to the companies that own the livestock through regulations administered by the state's Cabinet for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection. The state's General Assembly, though, refused to enact those regulations into law.
In a ruling that may have national implications, a federal judge in Owensboro said that Arkansas-based Tyson Foods shares responsibility for air pollution from three factory-scale farms it helps to operate in Western Kentucky.I was able to obtain a copy of the 50-page Western District of Kentucky ruling. You may access it here.Although the ruling by District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. is binding only in the Western District of Kentucky, "It really establishes, under federal environmental laws, that you have to view these operations as an integrated whole," said Frankfort lawyer Philip Shepherd, an attorney for the Sierra Club and several neighbors of Western Kentucky chicken farms.
An attorney representing local farmers agreed that the ruling has the potential to be "devastating to the poultry industry of West Kentucky" and could subject other large animal-feeding operations — such as those for pigs or cattle — to similar lawsuits from the Sierra Club. * * *
In the ruling, issued Friday, the judge concluded that Tyson was, indeed, "an operator" of the farms and detailed the company's close relationship with its Kentucky business affiliates.
"Tyson Chicken is involved in the facility design and equipment specifications," the judge wrote in his opinion. "Tyson Chicken directs growers how to build and orient the houses, how to heat, cool, ventilate the buildings, and how to illuminate the house(s) to ensure optimum chicken growth."
THE JUDGE also noted that Tyson owns the chickens "throughout the production process" and provides technical and medical support to the growers.
"Most importantly, Tyson Chicken technical advisors monitor ... the facilities (and) test ammonia levels inside the house(s) and direct ventilation program(s) to exhaust ammonia into the environment," the judge wrote.
He also found that ammonia emissions from all 16 to 24 chicken houses at each of the farms should be added together for purposes of compliance with federal environmental laws.
Tyson and its local growers had argued that each chicken house should be considered a separate facility. That's a key point because federal law requires all facilities that emit more than 100 pounds of ammonia a day to report releases to a federal National Response Center.
Two earlier Indiana Law Blog entries may also be of interest here. The first is this report from June 14, 2003 on poultry processors' liability for farmers' practices -- it discusses Maryland's efforts at a co-permitting rule, which would have required poultry companies to share waste disposal responsibilities with their contract chicken growers.
The second is this Indiana Court of Appeals decision from June 26, 2003. The question here involved who was responsible for the death of a business invitee, Tyson or their contract chicken grower. At the time, I noted: "This case is interesting in that it explains how Tyson Chicken works with its independent contractors."
Posted by Marcia Oddi at November 11, 2003 03:35 PM