C&H Hog Farms, Inc. (Newton County, Arkansas): Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment in Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Proceedings

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

Download PDF

The parties litigating the denial by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) of a Regulation 5 permit for the C&H Hog Farms, Inc. (“C&H”) before the Arkansas Pollution Control of Ecology Commission have filed motions for either partial summary judgment or a response to such motion.

The filings include:

  • C&H’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
  • ADEQ’s Response to C&H’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
  • Intervenor’s Joint Response to C&H’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
  • Intervenor’s Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

As previously noted, C&H filed a January 18th Request for Adjudicatory Hearing and Commission Review challenging ADEQ’s denial of a Regulation 5 permit for a liquid animal waste management system at the company’s facility located near the community of Mt. Judea in Newton County, Arkansas (see previous blog post).

ADEQ is a party to the appeal supporting its decision to deny the permit. Further, the Ozark Society, Inc. and three individuals filed a January 26th Motion to Intervene in support of the denial of the permit (see previous blog post).

C&H’s Motion is based on certain facts it argues are not in dispute and states:

  • The applicable laws and regulations provide for C&H’s continued coverage under the expired General Permit.
  • ADEQ’s decision to not issue the Regulation 5 permit did not terminate C&H’s continued coverage under the expired NPDES General Permit.

ADEQ’s Response to C&H’s Motion disputes certain facts and states:

  • C&H’s coverage under the expired NPDES General Permit continues only pursuant to the Commission’s stay of the Director’s final permitting decision denying their individual permit.
  • Before the Director’s final decision to deny C&H’s Commission Regulation 5 permit application, C&H’s coverage under the NPDES General permit continued pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. § 8-4-203(m)(5)(D).

The Intervenors argue in support of a Response to C&H’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and its own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment:

  • Coverage exists under a General Permit only until a permitting decision is made on an individual permit application and not until a permit is granted.
  • Coverage under a General Permit terminates when an individual permit is denied.
  • C&H misconstrues the federal regulations requiring General Permit holders to apply for individual permits.

A copy of the parties’ motions can be downloaded below:

C&H Hog Farms, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

ADEQ’s Response to C&H’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Brief in Support

Intervenors’ Joint Response to C&H’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Intervenors’ Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Written by:

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide