Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Motion to Dismiss Denied as Plaintiff
Had Standing to Bring Suit Under CWA

Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Kersenbrock v. Stoneman Cattle Co., LLC, No. 07-1044-MLB, 2007 WL 2219288 (D. Kan. July 30, 2007), the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Stoneman Cattle Company's motion to dismiss for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff established that she had standing to bring suit under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Background

Defendant Stoneman Cattle Company owned and operated a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) and held a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Id. at *1. Plaintiff owned and lived on land adjacent to the defendant's feedlot operations. Id. Plaintiff alleged the defendant operated its irrigation system in a manner that violated the NPDES and stockpiled solid waste on its property in violation of the NPDES. Id. Plaintiff further claimed that her pond had been contaminated with cattle waste that emanated from the defendant. Id.

Arguments

Defendant argued that plaintiff did not meet the case or controversy requirement under Article III as required to establish federal jurisdiction and, therefore, was not entitled to bring suit. Id. at *2. Defendant argued that plaintiff did not have injury in fact and the injury was not fairly traceable to defendant's actions. Id. Defendant alternatively argued that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. at *3. Defendant's third argument was to dismiss plaintiff's Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) claim on the basis that it was covered under the CWA. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court held that plaintiff established federal jurisdiction by showing she had suffered injury in fact, the injury was fairly traceable to the defendant's actions, and the injury could be redressed by judicial remedy. Id. at *2. The court found that plaintiff met the standing requirements to bring suit because she owned and resided upon the affected property since 1995. Id. The court further held that whether the defendant's discharges were in excess of the concentrations permitted by the NPDES permit was a question of fact and should be determined by the fact-finder. Id. at *3. Plaintiff satisfied the legal requirements to present the claim of traceability because she alleged that she owned no cattle, but her water was contaminated by cattle waste. Id. Because defendant did not raise the argument that plaintiff's claim could not be redressed by a judgment, it was presumed by the court that a judgment in favor of plaintiff would redress her injury. Id.

The court found that plaintiff had established a legitimate claim under the Clean Water Act and had alleged sufficient facts to put defendant on notice as to the nature of the claims against it. Id. The court stated that this case was in its early stages and if the case proceeded on both the CWA and SWDA theories, defendant would not be prejudiced. Id.

The case was decided on July 30, 2007; this summary was posted January 10, 2008.