Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer
373 F.3d 1035 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), materials are not 'discarded' and thus do not constitute 'solid waste' if they are destined for beneficial reuse in a continuous process by the generating industry itself.
Facts:
- Kentucky bluegrass farmers in Idaho, known as the Growers, plant and harvest bluegrass seed commercially.
- After the seed is harvested via combine, straw and stubble (grass residue) remain in the fields.
- The Growers engage in a practice called 'open field burning,' setting fire to this grass residue as part of their farming cycle.
- Safe Air for Everyone, a non-profit organization, asserts that the smoke from this burning endangers public health due to high concentrations of pollutants.
- The Growers contend that burning the residue is an integral part of a continuous agricultural process.
- The Growers claim that burning the residue provides several farming benefits, including returning nutrients like phosphorus and potash to the soil, extending the productive life of the fields, controlling insects and weeds, and blackening the soil to increase sunlight absorption for the next crop.
Procedural Posture:
- Safe Air for Everyone filed a complaint against the Growers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging a violation of RCRA.
- Safe Air also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the open burning.
- The Growers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing that addressed both motions.
- The district court granted the Growers' motion to dismiss, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the grass residue was not 'solid waste' under RCRA.
- Safe Air for Everyone appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does post-harvest Kentucky bluegrass residue, which farmers burn as part of a continuous cultivation process to return nutrients to the soil and prepare fields for the next crop, constitute 'solid waste' under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Gould, J.
No. Post-harvest Kentucky bluegrass residue that is beneficially reused by farmers in a continuous agricultural process is not 'discarded material' and therefore does not constitute 'solid waste' under RCRA. The term 'solid waste' in RCRA is defined as 'garbage, refuse... and other discarded material.' The ordinary meaning of 'discard' is to cast aside, reject, or abandon. Citing persuasive authority from other circuits, the court reasoned that materials destined for beneficial reuse in a continuous process by the generator are not 'discarded.' The Growers presented uncontroverted evidence that burning the residue serves multiple agricultural benefits, including fertilizing the soil, extending field productivity, and controlling pests. Because the Growers reuse the residue as part of their ongoing bluegrass production, it is not abandoned or given up. This conclusion is reinforced by RCRA's legislative history, which explicitly states that 'Agricultural wastes which are returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners are not considered discarded materials.'
Dissenting - Paez, J.
Yes. The post-harvest crop residue is 'discarded material' and therefore 'solid waste' under RCRA because the primary purpose of burning it is to remove it from the fields. The plain, ordinary meaning of 'discard' is to 'get rid of as no longer useful,' which is precisely what the Growers do by burning the residue to clear the fields for the next crop. The majority improperly relies on extra-circuit cases interpreting a narrower, regulatory definition of 'solid waste' rather than the broader statutory definition at issue here. Even under the majority's 'beneficial reuse' framework, a genuine issue of material fact exists because Safe Air presented expert testimony that the primary purpose of burning is disposal and that any agricultural benefits are merely incidental. The legislative history's exemption for waste returned to the soil as fertilizer should not apply to a process like burning that creates significant air pollution, a problem Congress specifically intended RCRA to address.
Analysis:
This decision establishes within the Ninth Circuit that byproducts beneficially reused by their generator in a continuous production process are not 'discarded' materials under RCRA. It narrows the applicability of RCRA's citizen suit provision by focusing the 'solid waste' inquiry on the generator's intent and the material's role in the production cycle, rather than on the environmental effects of the reuse process itself. Consequently, this ruling makes it more challenging to regulate industrial or agricultural activities under RCRA where a byproduct is reintegrated, even if the method of reintegration (like burning) causes pollution. The case shifts the legal battleground from whether a reuse process is polluting to whether the material being reused is truly 'waste' in the first place.
