Community Ass'n for Restoration of the Environment, Inc. v. George & Margaret LLC
954 F. Supp. 2d 1151
E.D. Wash.2013Background
- Defendants operate dairies with large animal populations and manure management, including composting, field application, and lagoon storage.
- CARE alleges manure can be a RCRA solid waste when over-applied or leaked from lagoons, causing nitrate contamination of underground drinking water.
- EPA entered a Consent Order under SDWA in March 2013 to reduce nitrates, aiming for 10 mg/L in the local aquifer.
- CARE filed a RCRA citizen suit in February 2013 seeking endangerment and open-dumping relief; amended complaint filed April 2013.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and strike declarations; court limited consideration to the pleadings, incorporated materials, and judicially noticed consent order.
- Court denied Defendants’ motion to strike as moot and denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manure is a RCRA solid waste given alleged over-application/leakage. | CARE argues manure becomes discarded when over-applied or leaked, thus meeting solid waste. | Defendants contend manure is a useful byproduct not discarded when used as fertilizer. | Not dismissed; court finds plausible that manure can be solid waste under these facts. |
| Whether RCRA anti-duplication provision bars the suit due to SDWA Consent Order. | CARE argues anti-duplication does not preclude the RCRA suit; statutes can coexist. | Defendants argue SDWA consent precludes RCRA claims overlapping with SDWA. | Not barred; court finds potential non-duplication and allows discovery. |
| Whether relief sought is foreclosed because EPA already granted relief under the Consent Order. | CARE seeks broader injunctive relief beyond the Consent Order. | EPA action already addresses substantial endangerment. | Not barred; CARE may seek relief beyond the Consent Order. |
| Whether NOI adequately supports broader contamination claims beyond underground nitrates. | NOI disclosed multiple contamination concerns; court limits to underground nitrates. | NOI insufficient to cover surface water/phosphorus/ metals. | Court limits analysis to nitrates in underground water for NOI sufficiency; claims may proceed. |
| Whether the case is precluded by existing government action or scope of the Consent Order. | Relief not encompassed by Consent Order; room for injunctive relief beyond agency efforts. | Consent Order covers the issues; relief would be duplicative. | Not dismissed on this basis; scope allows broader injunctive relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (definition of solid waste; discarded material analysis in context of agriculture)
- Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2013) (solid waste/discarded material; intended use and post-use consequences)
- Water Keeper Alliance, Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., — (—) (cited for principle that determining discard status is factual; not a controlling reporter citation here)
- Meghrig v. RFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1996) (definition of RCRA endangerment; citizen suit standards)
- U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (materials beyond pleadings can be judicially noticed or incorporated by reference)
- Vernon Village, Inc. v. Gottier, 755 F. Supp. 1142 (D. Conn. 1990) (SDWA vs. RCRA interplay; agency and dual remedies)