Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization

Chicken Manure Used in Worm Farm
Is Not "Solid Waste"

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Littleton v. Whatcom County, 86 P.3d 1253 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004), the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that agricultural manure used in an agricultural operation was not "solid waste" as that term was defined in Washington's solid waste management statute, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 70.95. The court therefore held that a worm farmer who utilized chicken manure in his operation was not required to obtain a solid waste handling permit. See id. at 1254.

Background

Plaintiff Monte R. Littleton operated a worm farm in Whatcom County, Washington. See id. Prior to commencing operations, the plaintiff sought approval for his worm farm from Whatcom County. See id. In response to his request, the county Land Use Division Manager instructed the plaintiff that his farm was in compliance with current zoning law. See id. Approximately one year later, however, County Health and Human Services told the plaintiff that he was required to obtain a solid waste handling permit because he utilized chicken manure as part of the worm food mixture. See id. The plaintiff filed an action for a declaratory judgment. See id. The trial court ruled that chicken manure was "solid waste" and "that the plaintiff was required to apply to Whatcom County for a solid waste handling permit." Id. The plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling to the Washington Court of Appeals. See id.

Arguments

Relying upon the definitions of "agricultural waste" and "solid waste" contained within the Washington Department of Ecology (hereinafter referred to as "DOE") regulations, Wash. Admin. Code § 173-304-100(2), (73), Whatcom County argued that chicken manure is "solid waste." See id. at 1255. According to this argument, the plaintiff was required to obtain a solid waste handling permit pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 70.95.170. See id. at 1254-55.

The plaintiff argued that "the word 'waste' in the 'solid waste' definition implies that the material is useless and intended for disposal." Id. at 1256. Since the chicken manure is his operation was intended for use and not disposal, the plaintiff argued that it was not "solid waste", and therefore was not required to obtain a solid waste handling permit. See id. The plaintiff further argued that the DOE regulations that defined agricultural manure as "solid waste" were "invalid because they exceed[ed] DOE's statutory authority." Id. at 1258.

Analysis and Holding

After reviewing the legislative history of Washington's solid waste management statute, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 70.95, the court held that "chicken manure is not a solid waste." Id. at 1258. The court "interpret[ed] the statutory definition of 'solid waste' to exclude agricultural manures used for agricultural purposes." Id. at 1256. It noted that the statute, when originally enacted in 1969, specifically included "manure, vegetable or animal solid and semisolid wastes" within the definition of "solid waste." Id. Only one year later, the legislature amended the statute to remove these items from the definition of "solid waste." See id. Based upon this change, the court presumed that the legislature did not wish to classify agricultural manure as "solid waste." See id. Noting its "duty to avoid any 'absurd or strained consequences' while interpreting a statute," the court found that the "legislature could not have intended" that farmers who spread manure in their fields could be subject to criminal prosecution for failing to obtain a solid waste handling permit. Id. at 1256-57. Because the DOE regulations including agricultural manure within the definition of "solid waste" were inconsistent with the statute, the court invalidated these regulations. See id. at 1258.

The case was decided on April 5, 2004; this summary was posted Oct. 13 2004.