80 F. Supp. 3d 1180
E.D. Wash.2015Background
- Case involves Cow Palace Dairy and related entities alleged under RCRA for manure management causing groundwater contamination and open dumping concerns.
- Dairy operates CAFOs in Yakima Valley with lagoons, composting, land application, and storage; EPA AOC actions are in play.
- Plaintiffs CARE and CFS sue for environmental and health injuries to members from nitrates in groundwater and surface waters.
- EPA's AOC and subsequent updates are central to regulatory backdrop and potential relief.
- Court addresses standing, evidentiary Daubert issues, and the core RCRA claims (solid waste, open dumping, endangerment, and responsible parties).
- The court denies various dispositive defenses and resolves standing in plaintiffs’ favor while reserving trial on remaining remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of plaintiffs’ members | CARE has injury-in-fact and traceable redressable harms | Standing Deficient for individual plaintiffs | CARE has organizational standing; individual standing shown; standing resolved in plaintiffs’ favor. |
| Whether manure management qualifies as solid waste under RCRA | Excessive, non-beneficial disposal over DNMP makes manure discardable | Manure generally fertilizer; not discarded material | Material creates solid waste under RCRA when over-applied and discarded via lagoons/composting. |
| Whether lagoons, storage, and composting constitute open dumping | Nitrates leaking from unlined lagoons constitute open dumping | Lagoons designed per NRCS; leakage is anticipated | Open dumping shown; disposal of solid waste violates open dumping provisions. |
| Whether contamination poses imminent and substantial endangerment | Groundwater and surface water contamination threaten health | Risk is uncertain and delayed; regulatory actions mitigate | Contamination may present imminent and substantial endangerment; relief warranted. |
| Liability of Cow Palace, Dolsen Companies, and Three D Properties as responsible parties | All three entities control or participated in waste disposal | Corporate separateness shields liability | All three are responsible parties under RCRA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (gatekeeping and admissibility standards for expert testimony under Daubert)
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 236 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2000) (traceability in standing need not prove exact molecules; contribution suffices)
- Ecological Rights Found. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2013) (solid waste exclusion and agricultural waste considerations under RCRA)
- Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (1996) (RCRA remedial scope and citizen suits context)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert factors are guideposts, not strict checklist)