Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Mai 13, 2009
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Juge
Kelly, Ebel and Murphy.
Numéro de référence
No. 08-5154
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Déchets et substances dangereuses, Eau, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Normes de qualité de l'eau Pollution des eaux douces/qualité des eaux douces Substances dangereuses Eaux usées/déversement Responsabilité/indemnisation
Résumé
In the present case the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has refused to grant an injunction to the state of Oklahoma that would have stopped the use of "poultry litter" as field fertilizer. Poultry litter includes bedding materials of poultry as well as poultry feces. As such, poultry litter includes bacteria, E. coli, salmonella and campylobacter. Many contract production, industrial poultry farms are located in northwest Arkansas and northeast Oklahoma, in an area comprising the Illinois River watershed. That area is also used for water recreational activities and provides drinking water supplies for the area. The state of Oklahoma sued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in an attempt to enjoin Tyson from personally applying or allowing its contract producers to apply poultry waste to land located within the watershed. But, the trial court held that Oklahoma had failed to establish a sufficient causal connection between poultry litter and bacteria in the watershed. That's a fairly low hurdle to cross, and the state couldn't do it. The court noted that the presence of bacteria in the watershed came from numerous sources, including cattle manure, wildlife and human sources, and not just poultry litter. So, the state's inability to make the necessary evidentiary link meant that it could not establish that poultry litter in the watershed may have posed a risk of harm to human health. In addition, Tyson argued that its methods for storing and using poultry litter destroyed any bacteria by drying the litter before it was applied to fields and exposed to the sun. The 10th Circuit agreed, noting that the district court properly viewed the evidence in concluding that Oklahoma had insufficiently established a link between land-applied poultry litter and bacteria in the watershed. Accordingly, injunctive relief was not appropriate. A dissenting judge opined that the trial court had utilized an incorrect legal standard, and that the state should have only been required to demonstrate a substantial risk of harm rather than being required to prove causation.
Texte intégral
COU-158392.pdf