Pollution Lawsuit Against Poultry Interests Sparks Legislative Initiative in Maryland
Acting on behalf of environmental interest groups, a University of Maryland School of Law student clinic has filed a lawsuit against a chicken farmer and the company that owns and processes the farm’s chickens, alleging that the farm’s poultry waste is being discharged into and polluting navigable waters of the United States in violation of the Clean Water Act. Assateague Coastkeeper v. Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm, No. 10-487 (D. Md., filed March 1, 2010). The plaintiffs purportedly tested downstream waters and found high levels of fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria, as well as nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia. They allege that the water carried from the farm eventually empties into the Chesapeake Bay.
In response to the lawsuit, the Maryland Legislature reportedly approved a measure that requires the clinic to disclose its clients and budgets from the preceding two years. An early version of the bill would have penalized the university by pulling $250,000 from its budget if the information is not forthcoming. State legislators contend that the clinic should not be able to use taxpayer dollars to bring environmental lawsuits against small farmers. State Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R) was quoted as saying, “Small family farms on the lower Eastern Shore have survived only because of the poultry industry. If we have this harassment in the courts, they’re going to go away.”
According to a news source, the American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) president released a statement defending the clinic, claiming that the information demanded is confidential because law clinics are “bound by the same ethical constraints” as law firms. ABA President Carolyn Lamm reportedly said, “The proposed legislation is such an intrusion on the attorney-client relationship because of the information that is required to be revealed that it is not tolerable.” Apparently, some 20 percent of law schools had an environmental law clinic in 2008, and a number of them have also faced legislative ire when taking on controversial cases.
The associate law professor who heads the Maryland clinic reportedly said, “I don’t think that having an interest in clean air, clean water, safe neighborhoods, a healthy and productive Chesapeake Bay, is a special interest, or somehow at odds with the interest of the states. If the Chesapeake Bay continues to decline . . . then that’s going to affect additional fisheries; it’s going to affect recreation. Those are economic interests. Should the state be paying for that? Absolutely. We’re not doing anything other than trying to make sure that the laws that Congress and our state legislatures passed are actually implemented.” She also pointed out that agribusiness giants, and not lawsuits, are forcing small farmers out of business, noting that the lawsuit also named a major chicken processor as a defendant, alleging it should be held responsible for the waste produced by its suppliers.
Maryland’s agriculture secretary reportedly issued a statement indicating that the 80,000-bird farm sued by the clinic has gone above and beyond its legal responsibilities, having moved its sludge to a covered location away from the drainage ditch that leads to the bay. He apparently said, “The family finds itself defending against a lawsuit and negative public opinion generated by the waterkeeper’s accusations. By suing the Hudsons, the waterkeepers are threatening thousands of small farmers, who are not much different than most working families across Maryland that are trying to make ends meet.” See The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times, April 1, 2010; The New York Times, April 3, 2010; Greenwire, April 8, 2010.
