The pollution court case that could reach far beyond the banks of the River Wye

The River Wye was once full of wild salmon. Today there is a lot of algae here.

And the winding waterway, which has long attracted fishermen, tourists and poets, is now the subject of serious attention. pollution lawsuit

The case against a British water company and two chicken producers, who all deny responsibility, has been heard. launched on behalf of nearly 4,000 people who say river pollution is negatively impacting their lives. And although lawsuits brought against river polluters not newthe UK has never had a case with so many plaintiffs.

A wide range of people suing may add legitimacy into a court case, making it harder to ignore than a case brought by a small group of activists.

This case is also known as a “strategic” lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the Wye case (which also includes the rivers Usk and Lugg) are not only suing to seek compensation for losses they say they suffered as a result of pollution. They are also trying to raise awareness of the plight of some of the UK's most valuable waterways and trying to secure policy change to clean them.

Similar legal tactics are often used:and successfully– has been used by large groups in an attempt to address climate change, with strategic litigation brought against companies, especially major oil companies, to help portray them as the culprits for climate damage. The Whye pollution case also focuses heavily on great food companies rather than placing the responsibility on individual farmers.

At the center of Wye's case is the “nutrient overload” of the chemicals nitrogen and phosphorus in river water from agriculture and wastewater. This causes excessive algae growth, which robs the water of oxygen and kills fish, plants and invertebrates.

Much of the nitrogen and phosphorus is said to come from the excrement of chickens raised near the River Wye and the fertilizer made from it, which is used in other forms of agriculture.

From the point of view of global climate change, chicken, as a meat product, is greener alternative to beef and lamb due to their much smaller carbon footprint (chickens produce less methane than cows and sheep).

But campaigners say this ignores the local environmental picture, where the concentration of the chicken industry and its nutrients in one area is a major problem. It was stated that about quarter chickens in the UK are produced near the River Wye.

Responsibility for the river

An important element of the River Wye lawsuit will be the question of what emissions each company is responsible for. Again, lawyers can look to climate change litigation for inspiration.

This is because companies internationally are increasingly obliged or encouraged report so-called Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions—those that result not directly from a company's activities, but from what happens downstream (for example, when oil company fuel is used in cars).

In contrast, in response to the River Wye lawsuit, one of the defendants, chicken producer Avara Foods, argued that its direct operations did not cause nutrient contamination.

Indeed, they claim that their farms meet some of the highest standards in the world. The problem, they say, lies elsewhere: farmers farming nearby are using bird droppings as fertilizer for your harvest.

So here we have a livestock producer apparently blaming another agricultural sector (arable), claiming that individual farmers “responsible for how nutrients are used in their […] operations”.

As such, Avara Foods attempts to limit its liability to only direct nutrient releases resulting from its operations. However, if you produce many tons of chicken manure and then sell it for use as fertilizer, some might argue (as others have argued against Big Oil) that you are responsible for mitigating the impacts that occur later.

About this Avara argued that it “does not participate in or control any arable operations.”

Avara further noted that as of January 2024, she exported all the manure from its supply chain that was previously sold locally as fertilizer.

But one of the applicants, Justine Evans proposed that this happened under the pressure of the ongoing legal case, and there is still a long period until the moment for which Avara could potentially be held responsible.

A company spokesman told the BBC it shared concerns about the River Wye, adding: “We believe this legal action is based on a misunderstanding because the poultry farms Avara Foods supply do not store or spread manure.”

They continued: “Instead, the focus needs to be on solutions that will improve the health of the river, addressing all forms of pollution and the impacts of climate change, and taking action accordingly.” Another poultry company being sued, Freemans of Newent Ltd, is a subsidiary of Avara Foods.

Welsh water said the company has made “significant investments in recent years” and achieved “real improvements in water quality.”

Whatever happens in this case, the urgency of solving the problem of these three and other polluted rivers will increase in parallel with the urgency of solving the problem climate change. As the UK faces warmer weather and periods of drought, rivers will increasingly suffer from low flow levels. This in turn will worsen water pollution from nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus because there is less water to dilute them.

This article has been republished from Talk under Creative Commons license. Read original article.