Community Ass'n for Restoration of the Environment, Inc. v. Cow Palace, LLC
Docket: No. 13-CV-3016-TOR
Court: District Court, E.D. Washington; January 13, 2015; Federal District Court
Several motions are before the Court, including motions for summary judgment from Cow Palace, LLC and The Dolsen Companies, as well as various motions by the Plaintiffs to exclude expert testimony and a motion to dismiss by Cow Palace. A hearing occurred on January 6, 2015, with representation from both parties. The case involves allegations against Defendants regarding their manure management practices at Cow Palace Dairy, which the Plaintiffs claim violate the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by constituting open dumping and posing a significant threat to public health and the environment due to elevated nitrate levels in drinking water.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intervened in March 2013 with an Administrative Order on Consent to address these concerns. The core issues for the Court to resolve include: (1) the standing of the Plaintiffs; (2) the admissibility of certain evidence and expert testimonies; (3) the classification of animal waste as “solid waste” under RCRA; (4) the characterization of the Dairy's manure management as “open dumping”; (5) the potential for these practices to endanger public health and the environment; and (6) the liability of Cow Palace, LLC, Three D Properties, and The Dolsen Companies under RCRA.
Cow Palace Dairy, located in Granger, Washington, operates as a large concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), housing over 11,000 animals, including 7,372 milking cows. The Dairy produces milk, meat, crops, and manure, with plaintiffs arguing that the manure is primarily an unwanted byproduct rather than a valuable product. Annually, the Dairy generates over 100 million gallons of manure, consisting of 61 million gallons of manure-contaminated water and 40 million gallons of liquid manure. Defendants contend that the manure is valuable, being sold or given away to foster relationships, composted, and used as fertilizer for crops.
The parties dispute the impact of the Dairy's manure management on groundwater nitrate concentrations, centering around the nitrogen cycle. Manure contains organic nitrogen and ammonium, which can convert to nitrate under certain environmental conditions, but such processes are influenced by factors like soil temperature and moisture. Nitrate is mobile and can leach into groundwater if not utilized by plants. Plaintiffs challenge the likelihood of denitrification in the Dairy's soil, citing evidence that the predominant Warden soil series has high permeability and is conducive to nitrate movement, limiting the potential for nitrate loss through denitrification.
EPA gas analyses indicate no evidence of denitrification, with monitoring data showing oxygen presence across all wells, suggesting minimal potential for denitrification. Dr. Melvin, a defendant expert, acknowledged that “probably very little” denitrification occurs under Cow Palace. In contrast, defendant soil scientist Mr. Scott Stephen argued that soil compaction from large farm machinery could lead to prolonged water retention in the topsoil, creating conditions favorable for denitrification. He admitted that some soils are well-drained but maintained that there is still potential for denitrification, albeit at low rates.
To manage the substantial manure produced annually, Cow Palace Dairy must adhere to a Dairy Nutrient Management Plan (DNMP) as mandated by Washington regulations. The DNMP, initially approved in 1998 and updated in 2008 and 2012, aims to provide best management practices for handling dairy nutrients to prevent water pollution. It includes guidance on manure application, emphasizing that application rates are based on average values and should be adjusted according to actual test results.
The DNMP mandates that the Dairy test the nutrient content of its manure and soil before land application. It requires annual nutrient analysis of manure and other organic sources, including assessments of organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and phosphorus. While it estimates nitrogen content at 1.51 pounds per 1,000 gallons of liquid manure, the DNMP insists on verifying this through testing. Additionally, regular soil testing for nutrient availability is essential, with recommendations for testing close to seeding time and post-harvest soil nitrate nitrogen analysis, including spring and fall tests for double cropping scenarios prior to manure application.
The DNMP instructs the Dairy to base manure application on average crop yields from the past three to five years and emphasizes the importance of achievable yield goals. It provides specific nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium uptake estimates for Cow Palace’s primary crops, clarifying that these figures are guidelines only. Critical to agronomic practices, the DNMP advises that liquid manure application should be timed throughout the growth period and considers soil infiltration characteristics, noting that the Dairy’s fields predominantly feature deep, well-drained soil. While acknowledging that some nutrients are immediately available after application, the DNMP warns against applying manure to fields with a history of manure use without caution.
The DNMP outlines a list of recommended practices for the Dairy, including accounting for manure nutrient concentration and soil nutrient levels, applying nutrients based on realistic yield goals and environmental conditions, and maintaining comprehensive records for each field. Additionally, it provides appendices with further guidance on Best Management Practices and agronomic manure application rates. The Dairy utilizes approximately 533 of its 800 acres for manure application, viewing it as a fertilizer under the guidance of the DNMP, which the general manager, Jeff Boivin, regards as a foundational tool for manure management. While the defendants argue that Boivin performed calculations for manure application rates, plaintiffs contest this, noting that actual nutrient concentrations in manure varied significantly and suggesting the Dairy relied on estimates rather than precise calculations.
The Dairy has historically sampled manure concentrations only from the main lagoon, believing it representative of other lagoons, despite the specific lagoon being the actual source of applied manure. In 2014, the Dairy claimed it began sampling from the specific lagoon and intends to continue this practice. However, the Dairy did not account for residual manure constituents already in the fields when calculating application rates; instead, it applied less manure than crops could uptake, based on DNMP estimates, without conducting necessary spring soil samples. Instances of excessive nitrogen application were noted, such as a 2012 case where 7,680,000 gallons of manure were applied despite sufficient nitrate levels in the soil.
The Dairy did not calculate application rates according to actual yield goals, relying instead on DNMP guidelines. Mr. Boivin admitted to not tracking irrigation water applied to fields and not producing annual reports, with only water bills as records. The Dairy often applied manure to bare ground before planting, a practice they justified for nutrient availability without harming crops. There were also records indicating manure was applied until the lagoon was emptied in late fall for winter storage preparation. Evidence presented by Plaintiffs showed consistently high levels of nitrate, phosphorus, and potassium in post-harvest soil samples, raising concerns about groundwater contamination. Additionally, testimony indicated agreement among experts that the Dairy's manure applications were not agronomically sound, with both parties acknowledging that applying excess nutrients to adequately fertilized crops is unnecessary and wasteful.
Lagoon Storage Cow Palace Dairy utilizes a series of earthen impoundments, covering over 9 acres, to store approximately 40 million gallons of liquid manure generated annually. The Dairy requires at least 30 million gallons of storage capacity during winter months when manure application is restricted. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provides guidelines for constructing such lagoons, though these are not legally binding. When lagoons are situated above an aquifer, additional protective measures, such as clay or synthetic liners, are recommended. The Dairy's lagoons sit above an aquifer used for residential drinking water, but only one lagoon has complete documentation, and none are lined with synthetic material. While Cow Palace claims compliance with NRCS guidelines, there is insufficient evidence to confirm this, particularly regarding the existence of a clay liner in one lagoon. Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the lagoons are structurally compromised, with testimony indicating they often dry, crack, and suffer from erosion and vegetative growth. Monitoring wells nearby revealed indications of significant subsurface permeability. Plaintiffs' expert estimated leakage rates from the lagoons using conservative assumptions, resulting in daily and annual leakage estimates for each lagoon and basin, with significant totals, such as 3,830 gallons per day from Lagoon 1 and 6,777 gallons per day from the pond.
Plaintiffs' expert claims that the Dairy's lagoons leak millions of gallons of manure annually, a point disputed by Defendants regarding the reliability of the calculations used. However, both parties agree that the lagoons do leak. Plaintiffs found high levels of nitrate, ammonium, and phosphorus at depths up to 18 feet from borings between the lagoons, indicating horizontal seepage that could affect groundwater. Although manure constituents were less concentrated at depths below 18.2 feet, they were detected as deep as 47 feet. Defendants' expert acknowledged that this evidence suggests seepage but contended that significant nitrate penetration is limited to the top few feet of soil. Plaintiffs also presented evidence from samples beneath a nearby abandoned lagoon, showing high concentrations of contaminants in the first two feet of soil, which they argue indicates the lagoon's role in contamination. Defendants counter that the declining concentrations of nitrates imply minimal groundwater impact and question the relevance of perched groundwater observed by Plaintiffs, which they interpret as evidence of contaminant migration pathways.
In terms of composting, Plaintiffs assert that Cow Palace's practice of composting solid manure on unlined soil allows constituents to leach into the soil, exacerbated by the manure's high moisture content. During a site visit, Plaintiffs' expert noted this high liquid content and found evidence of vertical migration of contaminants in a core sample taken to 18 feet. Defendants argue that the sample shows rapid attenuation of constituents and that it did not reach groundwater depth. They defend their composting operation by referencing their Dairy Nutrient Management Plan (DNMP), which includes runoff control measures, though they have not specified how they prevent leaching during composting.
The Dairy operates with its herd in open containment pens on unlined native soil, leading to concerns from Plaintiffs about manure constituents leaching into the soil, evidenced by sampling showing elevated nitrate levels. While contamination levels are contested, Defendants concede that manure may seep through the soil. There is consensus on groundwater contamination at Cow Palace Dairy, with nitrate levels often surpassing the EPA's maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/L. Plaintiffs argue that nitrate from the manure, not utilized by crops and lacking denitrification conditions, migrates through the soil, potentially reaching groundwater. Defendants counter that denitrification can occur and that it could take decades for nitrate to move through the vadose zone to groundwater.
The Dairy is located in the Lower Yakima Valley, bordered by Rattlesnake Hills, with two main aquifer types present: a deeper basalt aquifer and a shallower alluvial aquifer. The deeper aquifer is believed to be semi-isolated from the shallower aquifer and local streams, discharging into the Columbia River, while the shallower aquifer discharges into the Yakima River. There are disputes regarding the interaction between the aquifer and river, including contributions and water quality at their confluence. Groundwater recharge primarily comes from precipitation, with irrigation practices also impacting it, though Defendants dispute the effect of the Dairy’s operations on the aquifer.
Sediment characteristics influence groundwater movement, with coarse sediments creating preferential flow paths. Plaintiffs assert that wells along these paths may draw from different sources with varying water chemistry. They provide evidence linking the Dairy’s operations to groundwater contamination, citing potential sources such as unlined manure lagoons, excessive manure land applications, and infiltration from compost areas and confinement pens.
Due to the area's steep gradient and high groundwater flow, Plaintiffs concentrated on monitoring well data to investigate the source of nitrates in groundwater potentially linked to Cow Palace Dairy. They identified key evidence indicating nitrates may originate from the Dairy, including:
1. Tracer chemicals associated with cow manure (chloride, sodium, phosphorus, sulfate, magnesium, calcium, bicarbonate, and ammonia).
2. Dairy-related pharmaceuticals, particularly monensin, found in downgradient wells, lagoons, and manure piles, absent in upgradient wells.
3. Limited potential upgradient nitrate sources, primarily a few agricultural fields deemed unlikely contributors due to low nitrate concentrations in those areas.
Plaintiffs reported high nitrate levels in downgradient wells (5.8 mg/L to 234 mg/L) and detected small amounts of nitrate and related chemicals in upgradient wells, with the most representative upgradient well showing no human-influenced contamination. An expert acknowledged potential minor contributions from two unrelated dairies applying manure on agricultural fields upgradient of Cow Palace.
Defendants contest the significance of the well data, arguing that the historical irrigation, septic systems, and other agricultural sources must be considered. They claim that high nitrate levels reflect a historical plume rather than a current issue. Defendants also critique the pharmaceutical tracer results as inconsistent, noting some tracers appeared in both upgradient and downgradient wells, and argue that the wells chosen by Plaintiffs may not be the most representative.
Regarding monitoring wells, Plaintiffs advocate for well YVD-02 as the appropriate upgradient reference, asserting it has not been impacted by human sources, while Defendants prefer well DC-01, which they argue is more representative of contaminant inputs from other upgradient sources. Defendants point out that DC-01's elevation makes it potentially influenced by nearby agricultural fields, while Plaintiffs emphasize YVD-02's hydrological integrity.
Plaintiffs present evidence from several downgradient monitoring wells (YVD-09, YVD-10, YVD-14, YVD-15, DC-03, DC-03D) showing elevated nitrate levels attributed to the Dairy's operations and nearby dairies. While some downgradient wells, like DC-07, exhibit low nitrate levels, Plaintiffs argue these are influenced by cleaner water sources, such as excess irrigation. Defendants criticize Plaintiffs for failing to demonstrate preferential pathways for nitrate movement and the timeframe for nitrates reaching groundwater, although Plaintiffs acknowledge the variability of this timeframe. They assert that preferential pathways exist due to different soil densities, suggesting nitrates could reach groundwater more quickly in certain locations. Plaintiffs contend that the conditions beneath Cow Palace are unsuitable for denitrification, making it likely that observed nitrates will reach groundwater.
Defendants do not dispute that nitrates could reach groundwater, given sufficient water for transport, but argue that migration could take decades and challenge the established timeframe. They note Cow Palace Dairy has been operational for around 40 years. Plaintiffs highlight that nitrate movement depends on water movement rates, which are influenced by soil texture and irrigation management practices. They argue that the irrigation strategies at Cow Palace significantly affect nitrate transport through the soil. Furthermore, monitoring shows significant fluctuations in water table elevation, suggesting rapid groundwater recharge, which contradicts the idea of a decades-long recharge period. Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Shaw asserts that such fluctuations indicate active recharge, an assertion supported by Defendants' experts. Additionally, variability in groundwater temperature further supports the conclusion of a quicker recharge rate than previously estimated.
Evidence suggests that modern dairy-related pharmaceuticals found in the downgradient groundwater near Cow Palace Dairy indicate rapid groundwater recharge, with Defendants’ expert, Dr. Melvin, acknowledging that such pharmaceuticals may signify that the groundwater is less than seventy years old. The EPA’s age-dating of wells shows an average groundwater age of 31.6 years, which Dr. Melvin does not contest. Plaintiffs argue that the contamination levels in the groundwater, alongside evidence of rapid recharge, imply that the Dairy’s operations are contributing to this contamination. However, Defendants maintain that the evidence does not quantify the Dairy’s specific contribution, framing this as a disputed factual issue. Despite this, Dr. Melvin concedes there is a potential link between Cow Palace Dairy’s operations and groundwater contamination, suggesting it is "certainly possible" that manure applications are a source of nearby well water contaminants.
Plaintiffs also assert that the Dairy contributes to surface water contamination, citing soil maps that indicate a drainage pattern that could lead to runoff affecting downstream waters. They reference expert reports affirming the connectivity between contaminated shallow groundwater and nearby surface waters, with the groundwater likely reaching the Yakima River. In response, Defendants argue that Cow Palace Dairy has measures, such as catch basins, to prevent contaminated runoff.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs claim that the Dairy's manure management poses an imminent threat to public health due to nitrate contamination in groundwater, highlighting the EPA's maximum contaminant level for nitrates in drinking water set at 10 mg/L. They outline various health risks associated with nitrate exposure, including increased cancer risk, hyperthyroidism, and elevated mortality rates from strokes and heart disease. Exposure routes include drinking water, cooking, and bathing, with some nearby wells exceeding the EPA's nitrate limit.
One standee's well exhibited nitrate levels of 64.6 mg/L, while samples from 115 residences revealed that 66 exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL), with two residences exceeding 50 mg/L. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs exaggerate the nitrate exposure threat, claiming the MCL is designed for sensitive populations and that dosage and sensitivity are not adequately considered. They suggest that the absence of methemoglobinemia cases in infants indicates minimal risk. In response to concerns raised by the Yakima Herald Republic regarding groundwater contamination, the EPA investigated potential nitrate sources from February to April 2010, concluding that cluster dairies, including Cow Palace Dairy, are likely responsible for approximately 65% of the contamination, with irrigated croplands and septic systems contributing 30% and 3%, respectively. Subsequently, Cow Palace Dairy entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA, mandating actions such as providing safe drinking water to affected residents, controlling nitrogen sources, establishing monitoring wells, and ensuring effective nutrient management. In December 2014, the EPA reaffirmed its findings that the dairies, including Cow Palace Dairy, are the primary source of nitrate contamination, noting significant nitrate loading in the aquifer beneath the dairies.
The EPA's update indicates that residential septic systems contribute negligibly to nitrate contamination in monitoring and drinking water wells downgradient of dairies. Specifically, the nitrogen output from 224 residential septic systems is minor compared to that from dairies, where livestock produce significantly more waste. A three-person household generates about 30 pounds of nitrogen annually, while a single lactating cow produces approximately 365 pounds per year. In 2009, dairies reported over 24,000 animals, with the total nitrogen from the septic systems being less than 0.1% of that from the dairies. Cow Palace Dairy alone has over 7,000 milking cows.
The plaintiffs, two non-profit corporations, are suing interconnected entities: Cow Palace, LLC, Three D Properties, LLC, and The Dolsen Companies. The Community Association for Restoration of the Environment (CARE) focuses on informing residents about environmental risks and advocating for resource protection. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) aims to safeguard the environment and human health from harmful agricultural practices. The Dolsen Companies own and operate Cow Palace, with Bill Dolsen as the registered agent and a key decision-maker for both Cow Palace and Three D. In November 2013, the Dolsen Companies transferred land parcels to Cow Palace without a monetary exchange or tax implications, highlighting the interconnections among these entities.
Mr. Boivin serves as the manager of the Dairy and is considered the primary operational leader, but he reports to Bill Dolsen. Following a breach in one of the Dairy's lagoons due to nearby drilling, Boivin consulted Dolsen, who directed him to halt the drilling. Employees recognize Boivin as their supervisor while viewing Dolsen as Boivin's superior. Both Dolsens have engaged with representatives from the Washington State Department of Agriculture and the EPA on behalf of the Dairy, particularly regarding manure management practices. The final decision to accept an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the EPA was made collaboratively by the Dolsens and Boivin.
Adam Dolsen, who has authority to terminate Cow Palace managers alongside his father, testified that he worked with the EPA and allowed them access to the Cow Palace site. He described his role as Vice President of Dolsen Companies, indicating he has decision-making powers primarily related to employee matters, including hiring and firing, which he shares with his father and human resources. Dolsen Companies maintains various records related to the Dairy's operations, including manure management and safety incidents, with Boivin visiting the Dolsen Companies office monthly to access these records.
Several employees of Dolsen Companies, including Bill and Adam Dolsen, are actively involved in the operations of the Dairy. Their responsibilities encompass ensuring OSHA compliance, equipment and animal safety, managing corporate records like annual reports and tax returns, renewing the Dairy’s insurance policy, analyzing financial implications of major transactions, reviewing monthly financial statements, making hiring and firing decisions for Dairy employees, and meeting with management regularly. Additionally, Bill and Adam Dolsen, along with Vern Carson, the safety director, decided to implement reverse osmosis units for drinking water in Dairy employee housing around 2011 or 2012.
The legal standards for reviewing motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are outlined. Under Rule 12(b)(1), a court assessing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not constrained by the plaintiff's factual allegations and may consider extrinsic evidence. A motion can be classified as either facial or factual, depending on whether it solely examines the complaint or considers additional evidence. The burden of proof shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence if the moving party submits additional evidence.
For summary judgment, the moving party must demonstrate the absence of genuine material fact disputes and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The non-moving party must then identify specific facts that indicate a genuine issue for trial, with mere allegations being insufficient. A fact is considered material if it could affect the suit's outcome, and a dispute is genuine if evidence exists that could reasonably support a finding for the non-moving party.
A party must present sufficient, probative evidence to proceed to trial, rather than relying on mere allegations. Speculative testimony in affidavits is inadequate to raise genuine issues of fact to defeat summary judgment. In evaluating a summary judgment motion, courts must view facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and can only consider admissible evidence. Defendant Cow Palace seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, while Plaintiffs assert no genuine dispute exists regarding their standing and request summary judgment on this issue. To meet Article III standing requirements, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete and actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct; and (3) that a favorable decision is likely to redress the injury. An organization can sue on behalf of its members if the members would have standing individually, the interests are germane to the organization's purpose, and individual participation is not necessary. Cow Palace does not contest the germane interests or the necessity of individual participation, but challenges the individual standing of the members. The Court finds that CARE has organizational standing, as its mission aligns with the interests involved, individual participation is unnecessary, and at least one member has suffered an injury in fact. Cow Palace's argument against the causation and redressability requirements is found unconvincing; they have not sufficiently demonstrated why the alleged harm does not meet the injury-in-fact criterion.
Plaintiffs assert that their members have suffered injury-in-fact due to manure pollution and nitrate contamination affecting the Yakima River watershed. They present declarations from members like Helen Reddout, who lives near Cow Palace Dairy and experiences adverse effects on her recreational, aesthetic, health, and property interests due to contaminated well water and diminished water quality in the Yakima River. Reddout reports that she has ceased activities such as swimming, gathering edible plants, and bird watching due to these concerns.
The Court finds that the members' injuries are sufficient to establish standing, as they demonstrate a reduction in the aesthetic and recreational value of the area due to the Dairy's operations. Regarding causation, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have shown their injuries are "fairly traceable" to the Dairy’s manure management practices, countering Cow Palace’s claim that no causal connection exists. Plaintiffs provide evidence from nitrate sampling indicating that the Dairy’s practices contribute to groundwater contamination, supporting their argument without needing to identify specific pollution molecules from the Dairy. Cow Palace's reliance on a previous case regarding greenhouse gas emissions does not negate the established link between their operations and the Plaintiffs' injuries.
The Ninth Circuit determined that the connection between the Defendants' alleged misconduct and the Plaintiffs' injuries was insufficiently established, relying on generalized assertions without solid evidence linking refinery emissions to the claimed harm. In contrast to the precedent set in Bellon, where claims lacked specificity, the Plaintiffs provided concrete evidence of current and imminent harm affecting their recreational, aesthetic, health, and property interests due to localized water pollution from finite sources. Unlike the global emissions context in Bellon, the Plaintiffs demonstrated that the Dairy contributed significantly to nitrate contamination in a specific area. The court clarified that Plaintiffs do not need to prove that exact nitrate molecules from Cow Palace Dairy caused their injuries but rather show that the Defendants' pollution contributes to the alleged harms in the affected geographic region. The court rejected the Defendants' argument that a higher standard of causation was necessary for standing, affirming that a plaintiff must only show that a defendant's discharges contribute to the injuries claimed. It was also emphasized that the presence of other pollution sources does not absolve a defendant from liability, as a plaintiff need only demonstrate that the defendant's actions have contributed to their injury. Regarding redressability, the court found that a favorable ruling could provide some benefit beyond existing measures outlined in the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), countering the Defendants' claims that the AOC was sufficient to address the injuries claimed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs argued that the relief they sought was broader than the AOC and would likely alleviate their injuries more effectively.
Plaintiffs are seeking to reduce contamination at Cow Palace Dairy by requiring the dairy to line its lagoons, which would incrementally address their injuries if they prevail in court. The court finds no genuine dispute regarding the Plaintiffs' standing, denying Cow Palace's Motion to Dismiss and granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on this issue.
Regarding evidentiary matters, expert witness testimony is subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires an expert to have relevant qualifications and ensure that their testimony is based on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and proper application of those methods. The Supreme Court's Daubert ruling established that trial courts must act as "gatekeepers" to ensure expert testimony meets these criteria, allowing for broad discretion in determining admissibility and reliability.
The court may consider four factors in assessing expert testimony: testing of the theory or technique, peer review, known error rates, and general acceptance within the scientific community. These factors serve as guidelines rather than strict tests.
Plaintiffs are moving to limit or exclude the testimony of Cow Palace’s experts, including Mr. Stephen, a soil scientist, questioning his qualifications in hydrology, hydrogeology, or toxicology. Cow Palace, in turn, seeks to exclude any expert testimony based on an EPA report regarding nitrate levels in water wells in the Lower Yakima Valley.
Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Stephen, who possesses an undergraduate degree in soil science but lacks education and experience in hydrology, hydro-geology, and toxicology, should not provide expert opinions in these fields. They specifically question his ability to address issues such as the relationship between nitrates in subsoils and area water, the leaching of nitrates, water movement below the root zone of Cow Palace fields, the impact of manure on water quality, groundwater contamination, and pathways of nitrate exposure to humans. Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Stephen's expertise is limited to soil dynamics for crop production, and they challenge the reliability of his opinions in soil science, suggesting that he should only testify as a fact witness based on his tasks for the Dairy.
Plaintiffs highlight that Mr. Stephen did not review all relevant records to support his claim that the Dairy's manure should be classified as fertilizer rather than discarded material. They find his assertion that there is no agreed definition of "agronomic rate" concerning the Dairy's Nutrient Management Plan (DNMP) particularly concerning, given his role in its implementation. Additionally, Mr. Stephen's knowledge about manure applications only extends back to 2013, and his opinions do not consider residual nitrate in the soil. Plaintiffs note his minimal experience, lack of publications, and reliance on reading materials instead of practical expertise.
In contrast, Defendants contend that Mr. Stephen is a qualified expert due to his education and local training. They argue that Plaintiffs did not object to his original report, allowing him to testify on its contents. Defendants assert that Mr. Stephen did not opine on past manure applications being agronomic but indicated in his deposition that applications since 2011 could be considered agronomic based on available data. They maintain that his opinions are admissible as rebuttal to Dr. Shaw's conclusions rather than as affirmative expert opinions meeting scientific standards.
Defendants argue that Mr. Stephen's extensive education in various soil sciences qualifies him to provide expert testimony on nitrate migration below the root zone. The Court agrees, finding him sufficiently qualified under the Daubert standard for expert testimony due to his academic background and over 18 years of professional experience as a soil scientist, particularly in nutrient management for dairies in the Yakima Valley. Mr. Stephen can testify about the nitrogen cycle, manure as fertilizer, crop rotation, and nutrient management, relevant to the current management of the Dairy. However, his expertise is limited; he is not qualified to address topics related to water movement, manure's impact on water quality, groundwater contamination, or nitrate pathways to human populations. The Court deems Mr. Stephen's opinions reliable and relevant, affirming their admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. His insights regarding the Dairy's manure application since 2011 are pertinent and will assist the Court, while the Plaintiff retains the right to challenge the accuracy and basis of his opinions.
Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to exclude testimony from Defendant Cow Palace’s expert, James Maul, a hydrogeologist. They contend that his critiques of various reports are unreliable, arguing that he did not consider all data before forming his conclusions.
Mr. Maul acknowledged that his review of data regarding the Dairy’s contribution to nitrate contamination was limited to specific sources, including groundwater monitoring results, U.S. Geological Survey information, and initial phases of the EPA's investigation. Plaintiffs question Mr. Maul's qualifications to testify on the origins of contamination from historical agricultural practices and the public health implications of nitrate exposure. In contrast, Defendant Cow Palace argues that Mr. Maul is a qualified expert, citing his education, extensive experience, and relevant document review, asserting he is competent to evaluate the reliability of the EPA's report. The defense clarifies that Mr. Maul's role is not to independently analyze all data or disprove EPA's findings but to assess whether the EPA collected adequate data to support its conclusions. The Court finds Mr. Maul sufficiently qualified as an expert hydrogeologist, given his three decades of experience and familiarity with EPA procedures. However, it notes that he lacks qualifications in toxicology and therefore cannot evaluate the public health aspects of the EPA report. While he can critique the report’s scientific reliability, his opinions are confined to areas within his expertise. The Court emphasizes that Mr. Maul's role aligns with the standard set by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which allows expert testimony that aids the fact-finder, and finds that his limited critique of the EPA report meets the requisite reliability and relevance standards.
The Court acknowledges the limited basis for Mr. Maul's opinions, specifically noting that data collected after the EPA drafted the Report is irrelevant to his analysis. In evaluating Mr. Maul's testimony, the Court will consider these limitations alongside other evidence.
Regarding the expert testimony of Michael Backe, a hydrogeologist for the Defendant Cow Palace, the Plaintiffs seek to exclude his critique of Mr. Erickson’s waste seepage estimates and his findings from soil and water tests at the Plaintiffs’ neighboring properties. The Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Backe’s analysis lacks scientific rigor and fails to account for all pertinent data before disputing Mr. Erickson’s estimates. They highlight that Mr. Backe did not review data necessary to assess lagoon liner thickness, soil conductivity, permeability, or well drilling impacts, despite criticizing Mr. Erickson’s assumptions on these points. Additionally, Mr. Backe’s suggestion of using a "water balance method" for estimating seepage is criticized since no water balancing tests were conducted by him or any other expert.
The Plaintiffs also find Mr. Backe’s observations of the standees’ properties irrelevant, as he reported nitrate levels without contextualizing their implications. In contrast, Defendant Cow Palace defends Mr. Backe’s opinions as reliable and relevant, arguing that his role as a rebuttal expert is to disprove the Plaintiffs' conclusions rather than provide alternative analyses. The Court finds that Mr. Backe’s opinions meet the reliability and relevance standards necessary to proceed, asserting that while he must be qualified and his testimony relevant, he is not required to develop affirmative opinions to rebut the Plaintiffs' evidence. The Court will take into account the limited basis of Mr. Backe’s rebuttal opinions when evaluating his testimony relative to other evidence.
Mr. Backe’s testimony regarding soil sample results from nearby properties is deemed relevant to determining if the Dairy has contributed to nitrate contamination in groundwater. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Backe did not interpret these results, but his rebuttal report indicates that the presence of nitrates and other chemicals is likely linked to both individual and regional agricultural practices in the Lower Yakima Valley. While the evidence may hold limited value under RCRA standards, it serves to counter the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Dairy is responsible for the contamination. The Court will not exclude the testimonies of Messrs. Stephen, Maul, or Backe entirely but notes their limited value.
Defendant Cow Palace seeks to exclude expert testimony that depends on an EPA report concerning nitrate levels in Lower Yakima Valley water wells, arguing the report fails to meet Daubert reliability standards due to questionable scientific methods, lack of verification, peer review, and unknown error rates. Plaintiffs defend the report and assert that Cow Palace has not specified which testimonies to exclude, merely challenging the report's overall reliability. They also argue for deference to the EPA report as a scientific determination from a federal agency. The Court finds the testimony of Plaintiffs’ experts, which partially relies on the EPA report, to be reliable, noting that the EPA report is just one of several sources used by these experts. The Court emphasizes that Daubert factors serve as a helpful guideline for assessing reliability, and acknowledges that the report’s findings are based on informed assumptions and agency review, warranting some degree of deference to its reliability.
Courts generally refrain from questioning the scientific evaluations made by the EPA, granting the agency significant discretion in interpreting scientific data, even if that data is incomplete. Consequently, the Court denies Defendant Cow Palace's motion to exclude expert testimony from the Plaintiffs that references EPA data. Cow Palace also seeks to exclude the EPA report as unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, arguing that the flawed science within the report could bias the determination of whether the Dairy contributed to groundwater contamination. Plaintiffs counter that Rule 403's application is limited in bench trials and argue that Cow Palace's concerns lack merit, as the judge can disregard improper inferences. Acknowledging potential bias in the EPA report, the Court concludes that its probative value is not significantly outweighed by any unfair prejudice.
Additionally, Cow Palace requests to strike the undisclosed testimony of Dr. Shaw, Mr. Erickson, and Dr. Lawrence, claiming that their expert opinions were not timely disclosed as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Although the deadlines for submitting expert reports had passed, Plaintiffs submitted new declarations shortly before their Motion for Summary Judgment. After reviewing the submissions, the Court finds no evidence of harm or prejudice to Cow Palace due to these late disclosures.
Declarations from experts demonstrate that high nitrate levels are primarily linked to recent agricultural activities, with some opinions mirroring content from original expert reports. Despite minor variations in wording, the declarations sufficiently informed Defendants of the experts' opinions. Instances where declarations included new information were derived from Cow Palace's records or discussed in depositions, allowing Cow Palace the opportunity to question these points. Since Cow Palace did not demonstrate harm or prejudice from these expert declarations, the Court will not strike the testimony.
Defendants have filed for summary judgment on all claims, while Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on specific Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) issues, including: the classification of over-applied animal waste as “solid waste,” the existence of conditions at Cow Palace Dairy that may cause imminent and substantial endangerment, violations of RCRA’s open dumping prohibition, and the designation of all named Defendants as responsible parties under RCRA.
RCRA regulates the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous waste to protect human health and the environment, allowing for citizen suits against violators. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' management of manure has contributed to both an imminent endangerment to health and environmental safety and a breach of RCRA’s open dumping provisions.
Liability under RCRA requires Plaintiffs to prove that a person has contributed to or is currently contributing to the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste that poses an imminent and substantial risk to health or the environment. Specifically, Plaintiffs must establish that: 1) a person defined under RCRA has contributed or is contributing; 2) there has been handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste; and 3) such waste may present an imminent endangerment.
Additionally, civil actions can be initiated against any individual violating RCRA permits, standards, or regulations, particularly regarding open dumping, which RCRA prohibits as any disposal method that does not conform to sanitary landfill criteria. Open dumping is defined as the disposal of solid waste at facilities not meeting specific regulatory standards. The EPA has established criteria to prevent contamination of underground drinking water sources, with a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrates set at 10 mg/L.
For the open dumping claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that: 1) solid waste is managed or disposed of at the Dairy; 2) this waste contaminates an underground drinking water source; and 3) the contamination occurs beyond the solid waste boundary. The Court will analyze whether the manure at the Dairy constitutes handling or disposal of solid waste, whether it contaminates water sources, if such contamination poses imminent and substantial risks, and whether the Defendants are responsible parties under RCRA. Furthermore, "solid waste" under RCRA encompasses various discarded materials, including garbage and refuse in solid, liquid, semi-solid, or gaseous forms.
RCRA does not define “discarded material,” but the Ninth Circuit interprets it as meaning to “cast aside; reject; abandon; give up.” Key to determining if a manufactured product is a “solid waste” is whether it has served its intended purpose and is no longer wanted by the consumer. Manure is specifically addressed in RCRA's legislative history and EPA regulations, which state that RCRA does not apply to agricultural wastes if they are returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners. A court found that manure could be considered “solid waste” when over-applied to fields or improperly managed, rendering it no longer useful as fertilizer. This decision rejected a blanket interpretation that manure used as fertilizer can never be classified as “solid waste.” The determination hinges on the fact that if manure is handled in a way that eliminates its utility as fertilizer, it may be deemed discarded. The court emphasized that there is no absolute exception for animal waste from the solid waste definition; rather, the classification depends on whether the waste is returned to the soil beneficially. Thus, questions about manure's status as waste involve factual inquiries into its application and management. Congress’s qualification of the agricultural waste exception implies that not all agricultural wastes are exempt from RCRA, allowing for the possibility that solid waste can arise from agricultural operations.
Defendants applied manure to agricultural fields without considering the specific fertilization needs of the crops, resulting in excessive applications. They stored manure in lagoons that leak and managed it on unlined soils, raising concerns about waste disposal practices. In addressing whether manure qualifies as solid waste under RCRA, Defendants argue that using a material does not classify it as waste merely because some escapes into the environment. They assert that courts do not require a precise determination of every portion of the material's usefulness, and RCRA does not mandate that fertilizer be used at an ideal rate to prevent waste classification. They maintain that manure is a useful product, sold and given away for crop fertilization.
Plaintiffs counter that the excess manure applied is “discarded material” since it cannot effectively fertilize crops, implying no beneficial use. The Court finds no dispute that when Defendants excessively over-apply manure without adhering to the Dairy Nutrient Management Plan (DNMP), this constitutes discarding the manure, thus classifying it as solid waste under RCRA. The Court notes that while the failure to follow the DNMP is not actionable under RCRA, it indicates the manure's application was not beneficial. Evidence shows Defendants did not use proper nutrient analyses or consider crop yield averages when deciding manure application rates, relying instead on DNMP estimates that did not reflect actual manure nutrient concentrations.
Defendants did not properly account for residual manure in the soil when applying new manure, leading to excessive applications that crops could not utilize as fertilizer. Mr. Boivin admitted in his deposition that millions of gallons of manure were applied to fields already saturated with nitrates from prior applications. For example, 7,680,000 gallons of manure were applied to a field where nitrate levels exceeded what the alfalfa could absorb. Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Shaw, provided multiple instances of similar misapplications, totaling tens of millions of gallons of unnecessary manure. The evidence indicates that Defendants’ practices deviated from established Best Management Practices in their nutrient management plan (DNMP). Additionally, post-harvest soil samples revealed high levels of nitrates and phosphorus below root zones, indicating over-application beyond crop needs. Consequently, the beneficial purpose of manure as fertilizer was negated.
Regarding manure stored in lagoons, Plaintiffs argue that leakage transforms it into "solid waste" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), losing its fertilization value. Defendants counter that their lagoons meet NRCS standards and serve only as temporary storage for future application. The Ninth Circuit has addressed similar issues, determining whether materials escaping into the environment during intended use qualify as solid waste under RCRA.
The Ninth Circuit determined that a wood preservative, PCP, released into the environment during its intended use is not automatically classified as ‘solid waste’ under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, it acknowledged that there may be scenarios where materials that accumulate in the environment after serving their purpose could qualify as solid waste under RCRA, referencing a precedent involving lead bullets and clay target debris. In the case at hand, the manure leaking from the Defendants’ lagoons is not a typical outcome of its intended use; instead, it results from inadequately designed storage features, which transforms the manure into solid waste due to its abandonment to the soil. Although the Defendants claimed compliance with NRCS standards for lagoon construction, these standards permit permeability, leading to leaks. The Court noted that these leaks could result in dangerous nitrate accumulations in the soil, potentially exceeding three million gallons annually, and that evidence indicated significant nitrate presence at considerable depths. Given that the underlying soil does not support denitrification, the nitrates will continue to migrate toward the aquifer. Therefore, the manure is classified as discarded material and thus regarded as solid waste under RCRA.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants improperly compost manure on unlined native soils, leading to leaching and nitrate accumulation, which renders the manure a solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Sampling indicated that manure nutrients have seeped deep into the soil, preventing beneficial use. The Court concurs that the manure in the unlined area is both intentionally abandoned and accumulating dangerously, thereby classifying it as solid waste. This leaching into the soil, a natural outcome of the composting process, transforms what could be a beneficial product into discarded waste. Sampling suggests that nitrate constituents are accumulating without mitigation through denitrification or crop uptake, posing a risk of further contamination of the aquifer.
Plaintiffs also contend that excess manure application and improper storage contribute to high nitrate levels in groundwater, while Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to quantify the Dairy's impact or provide evidence regarding nitrate migration times. Despite disputes over the significance of the Dairy’s contributions, there is consensus that nitrates from the compost area will continue to migrate toward the aquifer, creating no triable issue regarding environmental contamination from the Dairy's operations.
Sampling by Plaintiffs, the EPA, and Defendants indicates significant nitrate contamination in groundwater, with levels reaching 234 mg/L in some monitoring wells. AOC monitoring wells downgradient from Cow Palace Dairy consistently show high nitrate levels exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), while upgradient wells exhibit low nitrate levels unaffected by human sources. Tracer chemicals and dairy pharmaceuticals found in downgradient wells further suggest that the Dairy contributes to groundwater contamination.
Defendants’ expert claims regarding soil denitrification potential are undermined by evidence that the Dairy’s soils lack the capacity for significant nitrate loss, compounded by the mobility of nitrates facilitated by permeable soils. Despite Defendants' assertions of delayed contamination effects, evidence shows rapid groundwater recharge influenced by surface activities, contrary to earlier claims of a 70-year timeline for impacts.
The Dairy, operational for about 40 years, has a substantial impact on groundwater quality, producing over 100 million gallons of manure annually, with significant leakage and improper application. Comparatively, a single lactating cow contributes more nitrogen than a household septic system, highlighting the Dairy's disproportionate role in nitrate contamination. Plaintiffs are not required to pinpoint the exact contribution of the Dairy but must demonstrate that its operations contribute to potential public health threats from solid waste disposal.
Contaminating is defined under 42 U.S.C. 6903(3) and 40 C.F.R. 257.3-4(a) as causing groundwater to exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or exacerbating existing exceedances. Evidence suggests that the Dairy's operations are significantly contributing to high nitrate levels in groundwater, which will persist as nitrates migrate from below the root zone. Plaintiffs argue that the Dairy also contaminates surface water via interconnected shallow groundwater and direct runoff, while Defendants challenge the evidence linking their activities to surface water impacts. Due to contested material facts, the Court will address surface water contamination at trial.
Plaintiffs further assert that the Dairy's contamination extends beyond the defined "solid waste boundary," which is the outer perimeter of waste disposal. Given that groundwater flows south and southwest beneath the Dairy, nitrates migrating into the aquifer could be drawn from wells or reach surface waters, with data indicating high nitrate concentrations downgradient from the Dairy. This supports that contamination occurs beyond the waste disposal area.
Regarding potential health and environmental risks, Plaintiffs claim that elevated nitrate levels in groundwater may pose a substantial and imminent endangerment. Notably, courts have interpreted the term "may" in the context of risk for liability under RCRA as sufficient to establish potential harm without requiring immediate evidence of actual harm. The term "imminent" conveys that potential harm does not necessitate immediate occurrence, and "substantial" indicates serious risk. The EPA's nitrate MCL is set at 10 mg/L due to serious health risks, including cancer. Plaintiffs also present evidence suggesting risks to public health may exist even at levels below the MCL.
Defendants’ testing revealed that 66 out of 115 residences within one mile of the Dairy exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrates, with some residences reaching levels above 50 mg/L. Independent testing by Dolsen Companies confirmed high nitrate concentrations in dairy employee housing, where seven of eight residences also exceeded the MCL, the highest being 72.8 mg/L. Defendants, particularly Cow Palace, suggested delaying action until a health crisis occurs, specifically citing methemoglobinemia risk to infants. However, RCRA does not require proof of immediate harm; it suffices to show potential or threatened harm. The evidence indicates that wells downgradient from the Dairy exceed EPA's MCL for nitrates, establishing a continued risk to residents, despite measures like reverse osmosis filters. The Court questions whether Defendants genuinely regard this risk as overstated, given their installation of these filters. RCRA allows private parties to sue any entity contributing to hazardous waste disposal that poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. The Ninth Circuit interprets "contribute" broadly, requiring that the defendant had some control over the waste at disposal or was actively involved in the disposal process.
Congress intended for the term “contribution” to be broadly interpreted, encompassing any involvement in activities related to hazardous waste disposal that may pose a risk. In this context, Cow Palace, Dolsen Companies, and Three D Properties are identified as past or present owners of the land utilized by the Dairy. Dolsen Companies previously owned 425 acres, including critical infrastructure such as cow pens and lagoons, which were transferred to Cow Palace after litigation began. Currently, Three D and Cow Palace own the land, with Three D holding about fifty percent, some of which was transferred from Dolsen Companies during the litigation.
All three entities qualify as “past or present owners” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Despite claims by Three D and Dolsen Companies of being mere “passive landowners” with no operational control, evidence suggests they had significant influence over manure management practices at the Dairy. Testimony indicates that Mr. Boivin, in charge at Cow Palace Dairy, ultimately reports to Bill Dolsen, who holds multiple leadership roles across the entities.
The interconnectedness of these entities is further evidenced by their operational relationships, including Bill Dolsen's authority over real property decisions and his involvement in regulatory compliance. Both Dolsens participated in decision-making related to the Dairy's operations, including addressing lagoon breaches and managing personnel. They also maintain extensive records pertinent to the Dairy's operations. Notably, they made decisions regarding the installation of drinking water systems for employees.
Collectively, these factors demonstrate that, despite their legal separateness, the entities exercised control over the Dairy and shared responsibility for its management practices. The failure to adhere to corporate distinctions in managing the Dairy's operations implicates all three entities in liability.
Defendants The Dolsen Companies, Three D, and Cow Palace are deemed responsible parties under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for their management of manure at Cow Palace Dairy, which the Court finds violated RCRA’s provisions concerning substantial and imminent endangerment and open dumping. The Court has determined that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding these violations, reserving remedial issues and other remaining matters for trial.
Several motions have been ruled on: Cow Palace, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the motions for summary judgment by The Dolsen Companies and Three D Properties are all denied. Additionally, various motions to exclude expert testimony from Scott Stephen, James Maul, and Michael Backe are also denied. Cow Palace, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss is denied, while Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part. Cow Palace, LLC’s Motion to Strike Undisclosed Expert Testimony is denied as well.
The Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed on October 6, 2014, and it notes the significant volumes of stormwater runoff involved. The document discusses the conversion of nitrogen in manure to ammonia gas, which may later redeposit onto fields, and acknowledges the possibility of nitrates reaching groundwater, though Defendants contest the timeframe and conditions for this migration. Testimony from an employee of the South Yakima Conservation District reveals guidance provided to Cow Palace Dairy on implementing its Dairy Nutrient Management Plan (DNMP), although there are discrepancies regarding the advice on soil nitrate levels and manure application rates. Despite taking manure samples, the Dairy did not consider these samples when determining application rates. Defendants assert that nitrates reaching groundwater is contingent on the presence of water to transport them, suggesting it could take decades for such movement to occur, if it happens at all.
The vadose zone is described as the area between the ground surface and the water table. Dr. Melvin, the defendant's expert, disagrees on the time it takes for nitrates to reach groundwater but agrees that once nitrates leach below the effective rooting zone, they are destined to reach groundwater, albeit over a long time. Under the agreement, Cow Palace must demonstrate that its lagoons and storage ponds meet NRCS permeability standards, having only documented compliance for Lagoon 4. Darcy's Law, which explains fluid movement through porous media, is referenced for estimating seepage rates, though the defendants argue it is more suitable for comparing lagoon designs rather than actual seepage. Mr. Erickson calculated seepage rates for Lagoon 4 based on laboratory tests, with Mr. Trainor estimating a potential leakage of 924 gallons of manure per day per acre. The court restricted Plaintiffs from drilling for soil samples beneath the lagoons to prevent contamination. Defendants dispute the proof of preferential pathways beneath the Dairy. An EPA report suggests that significant amounts of nitrate from dairies may eventually reach groundwater, and Mr. Melvin estimates groundwater recharge may take up to seventy years based on a 1969 model. Plaintiffs challenge whether current actions adequately protect public health and the environment. Additionally, communications regarding lagoon breaches and employee references are noted.
CARE has established standing, rendering the need to evaluate CFS's standing unnecessary. Defendant Cow Palace previously contested the Plaintiffs' standing, arguing that since the relief sought has already been granted by the AOC, the Plaintiffs lack a valid claim. The parties agree that the Plaintiffs have met the pre-suit requirements under RCRA and that no state or federal proceedings preclude their action. Groundwater is acknowledged as an underground drinking water source with a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate set at 10 mg/L. The Plaintiffs did not address potential contamination of surface water, limiting the Court's analysis to groundwater contamination.
The Court finds insufficient briefing on whether manure from confinement pens qualifies as solid waste, reserving this issue for trial. While Plaintiffs argue that Defendants applied manure to bare ground, the DNMP advises against this but acknowledges a breakdown lag for nutrients. The Court questions the significance of evidence regarding lagoon emptying in relation to effective fertilization.
Recent EPA findings indicate that Cow Palace Dairy's fields exceeded acceptable nitrate levels, with historical sampling showing high residuals in soil that are unusable by crops. Dr. Melvin revised his groundwater recharge timeline upon reviewing evidence of rapid recharge. The Plaintiffs claim that the Dairy's operations pose environmental harm risks, although the extent of contamination remains unclear. The Court concludes that the manure poses a risk to human health and likely to the environment as well.
RCRA defines "person" to encompass a broad range of entities, including individuals, corporations, government bodies, and other organizations (42 U.S.C. 6903(15)). All Defendants in the case are acknowledged as "persons" under this definition. At this stage, the court does not need to determine the available remedies under RCRA for the Plaintiffs or the specific responsibilities of each Defendant as past and current owners of the site. Under 42 U.S.C. 6972(a), courts have the authority to restrain individuals contributing to hazardous waste handling and to order necessary actions or impose civil penalties. The Supreme Court ruling in Meghrig clarifies that RCRA is not primarily aimed at cleaning up toxic waste sites or compensating those involved in remediation efforts. Instead, it establishes that plaintiffs facing imminent threats from hazardous waste may seek injunctions for cleanup. Remedies under RCRA consist of civil penalties, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.
