Alan Hudson's Proposed Findings and Conclusions - University of ...

WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC.,
vs.
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 1 of 9
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Plaintiff,
ALAN AND KRISTIN HUDSON FARM,
et al.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No.:1:10-cv-00487 WMN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DEFENDANT ALAN HUDSON’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Defendant Alan Hudson, 1 by his attorneys, hereby submits these Proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law:
1. Alan Hudson (“Mr. Hudson”) adopts the Proposed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and Memorandum in Support thereof filed by Defendant Perdue Farms, Inc.
Mr. Hudson submits the following additional Proposed Facts and Conclusions of Law.
A. Farm Background
2. Mr. Hudson is 37 years old. He is married to his wife Kristin Hudson. They have
two children, Sawyer, 8 years old, and Ethan, 6 years old. See Testimony of Alan Hudson
(“Hudson Testimony”), October 17, 2012 p.m., at 62: 8-15.
3. Alan and Kristin Hudson reside at 9101 Logtown Road, Berlin, Maryland 21811.
Mr. Hudson has lived at his current address since 1997 or 1998. The farm property (“Hudson
1 By Order of this Court dated October 16, 2012, Plaintiff was given leave to amend the pleadings in this case to
change the name of Defendant “Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm” to Defendants “Alan Hudson” and “Kristin Hudson.”
As explained below, Defendant Kristin Hudson since has been dismissed from this case with prejudice.

Farm” or “the farm”) is located at 9178 Old Ocean City Road, Berlin, Maryland 21811. Id. at
62: 16-21.
4. Mr. Hudson owns the farm land located at 9178 Old Ocean City Road, Berlin,
Maryland. Kristin Hudson does not own the farm land, nor does she participate in any of the
farming operations. Id. at 66: 5-11.
5. Mr. Hudson first became an owner of the farm in 1993 or 1994 when his parents
deeded him 100 acres. Id. at 66: 15-17.
6. Plaintiff has stipulated that there is no poultry production on the property located
at 9101 Logtown Road, Berlin, MD 21811. Plaintiff has further stipulated that Kristin Hudson is
not an owner or operator of the poultry production facility located at 9178 Old Ocean City, Road,
Berlin, MD 21811. See Transcript Oct. 23, 2012, p.m. at 67: 16 – 68: 22.
7. With the Court’s approval, Plaintiff has dismissed Defendant Kristin Hudson
from this matter with prejudice. Id. at 68: 24 – 69: 6.
8. Roger Hudson, Mr. Hudson’s father, lives on the farm. See Hudson Testimony,
October 17, 2012 p.m. at 63: 3-4.
9. Mr. Hudson grew up on the farm and helped with farm work for as long as he can
remember. He began farming as a profession in 1992. Id. at 64: 18-23.
10. In addition to full-time farming, Mr. Hudson drives a school bus for Worcester
County, Maryland. His job with the County occupies about 20 to 25 hours per week of his time.
Id. at 65: 3-11.
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 2 of 9
11. The only help Mr. Hudson receives on a consistent basis on the farm is from his
father, Roger Hudson. Id. at 65: 15-18.
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
- 2 -

12. The name of the farm is Ro-Mar-lan Farm. This name is a combination of Mr.
Hudson’s parents’ names (Roger and Mary Alice) and his name. There is no corporate entity or
other kind of business entity that runs the farm. Id. at 65: 19-25.
13. The farm has been in the Hudson family for over 100 years. Alan’s father, Roger,
taught Alan how to farm. Roger’s father, Clinton Hudson, taught Roger Hudson how to farm.
Id. at 68: 14 - 19.
14. Mr. Hudson has fished in the area of Porter’s Crossing. He has also hunted ducks
in the area of Barber’s Crossing, which is close to Massey’s Crossing. Mr. Hudson has also
boated near Shad Landing Park on the Pocomoke River. Id. at 64: 4-16.
B. The Dairy Operation and Drainage from the Cow Barn Area
15. Clinton Hudson, Alan’s grandfather, established a dairy business called Clinton
Hudson and Sons, which was located on the Hudson Farm. That dairy operation ceased to exist
in approximately 1987 or 1988. Id. at 69: 9-23.
16. The old dairy operation included an old free style barn where the cows were kept
most of the time, a cement lot, a feeder, another cement lot and a holding pen. Id. at 71: 9 -
72: 10.
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 3 of 9
17. Included in the old dairy operations was a structure known as a slurry store. It
was approximately 40 feet around and 20 feet tall, and it would hold approximately 400,000
gallons of liquid manure. The manure from the dairy operation was pushed into a manure pit
previously located next to the head of Ditch 3. The manure was then pumped from the manure
pit into the slurry store. Id. at 73: 20 – 75:3.
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
- 3 -

Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 4 of 9
18. The cow barn area was designed to drain water towards the manure pit located at
the head of Ditch 3. The slope of the cow barn area is angled so that the water runs towards that
manure pit in order to make it easier to clean up the dairy operation. Id. at 78: 4 - 80: 5.
19. Cows drink approximately 100 gallons of water a day. Cows defecate on average
50 to 60 pounds a day. Id. at 84: 3-10.
20. Annual cow manure production on the farm is 500 to 600 tons. Id. at 87: 2-7.
21. The Fall of 2009 into the Winter of 2010 was an extremely wet time period.
Because the pastures were wet, Mr. Hudson set up bedding on the cement area near the old
feeder in the cow barn area so that cows could have a dry place to go to if they chose to. In the
time period between the Fall 2009 and Winter 2010, every cow went every day at least 2 to 3
times a day to the water trough located in the cow barn area to water. Id. at 87: 8 - 89:6.
C. Construction of the Chicken Houses
22. Mr. Hudson was 19 years old when the chicken houses were built. He used the
100 acres that his parents deeded to him as collateral to borrow the money from Farm Credit to
build the chicken houses. Id. at 89: 7-17.
23. Mr. Hudson has not yet paid off the Farm Credit loan, and probably has another
$50,000 more to pay off. Id. at 89: 21- 90: 2.
24. Mr. Hudson decided to build the chicken houses because poultry growing was
going to be his contribution to the farm, as there was not enough work to support him and his
family without the poultry operation. Id. at 90: 3-8.
25. Wayne Toll, a local contractor on the Eastern Shore, built the chicken houses for
Mr. Hudson based on cookie cutter designs. Mr. Hudson did not design the houses. Mr. Toll
obtained building permits for the chicken houses. Id. at 90: 21 - 91: 17.
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
- 4 -

Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 5 of 9
26. The swale and the swale pipe were part of the original design features of the
chicken houses. Id. at 91: 18 - 92: 5.
27. No one ever told Mr. Hudson that there was anything improper about the
construction of the chicken houses or the design of the chicken houses. No one ever told Mr.
Hudson that there was anything improper with the swale or the swale pipe. Id. at 92: 6-14.
28. Mr. Hudson wears a pair of shoes that have no tread on the bottom when he enters
the chicken houses. These shoes allow him to scrape off leave any chicken manure to avoid
tracking manure outside. He scrapes these treadless shoes off every day. Id. at 99: 16-25.
29. Mr. Hudson has never seen a tunnel or ventilation fan lift chicken litter off the
floor and blow it out of the house. Id. at 101:17-21.
D. Mr. Hudson Should Be Deemed To Have An NDPES Permit
30. On or about February 26, 2009, Mr. Hudson applied for and signed a Notice of
Intent to be covered by a General Permit for discharges from Animal Feeding Operations
(“Notice of Intent”). Mr. Hudson believed that his poultry operation was large enough to require
a CAFO permit. Id. at 113: 16 – 114: 2.
31. Mr. Hudson did not sign the Notice of Intent because he intended to discharge
pollutants from the farm. Id. at 114: 3-5.
32. Subsequently, Mr. Hudson was put on a waiting list to get a Comprehensive
Nutrient Management Plan (“CNMP”) because the State did not have anyone able to write the
CNMP for him. Id. at 114: 20 – 115: 2.
33. Mr. Hudson did not have the funds in 2009 to hire someone to write the CNMP
for him. Id. at 115: 20 – 116: 2.
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
- 5 -

Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 6 of 9
34. On November 5, 2009, Mr. Hudson received a letter from the Maryland
Department of the Environment (“MDE”) informing him that MDE was sending him a
compliance schedule to “legally bridge the gap in the effective date of the permit to the earliest
date that you are able to obtain a certified CNMP.” Id. at 116: 10 – 117: 13.
35. On December 18, 2009, Mr. Hudson signed a General Compliance Schedule for
applicants for CAFO coverage. Id. at 119: 4-19.
36. Mr. Hudson also signed a CAFO Supplementary Information form which was
received by MDE on December 22, 2009. Id. at 119: 25 – 120: 6.
37. Beginning in December 18, 2009, Mr. Hudson submitted CNMP status forms to
MDE in response to the November 9, 2009 letter from MDE. Id. at 118: 6 – 119: 18.
38. Code of Maryland Regulations 26.08.03.09B(3) provides that a CAFO shall
obtain permit coverage under the general discharge permit issued by the Department under
COMAR 26.08.04.09N unless the Department, in its discretion, notifies the discharger that a
separate discharge permit is required. MDE has never directed Alan Hudson to obtain an
individual permit.
E. Government Agencies Have Found No Problems With Poultry Houses On the Farm
39. On December 17, 2009, Mr. Hudson received a phone call from his wife Kristin
informing him that there were messages on their answering machine about an impending lawsuit.
The Hudsons received these messages before they ever received the Notice of Intent to Sue from
Plaintiff. Id. at 126: 15 – 121: 5; Hudson Testimony, October 18, 2012 a.m. at 3: 11-14.
40. On December 17, 2009, Dave Mister from Maryland Department of Agriculture
(“MDA”) came out to the farm to inspect and meet with Alan’s father, Roger. MDA did not ask
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
- 6 -

Mr. Hudson to take any action with respect to the farm as a result of that visit. See Hudson
Testimony, October 17, 2012, at 122: 6 – 123:2.
41. Subsequently, Brian Littlefield from MDE visited the farm and was given full
access to the farm. As a result of Mr. Littlefield’s inspection, Mr. Hudson moved the bio-solid
pile to a location selected by MDE. Id. at 123: 3 – 124: 5.
42. Mr. Hudson began receiving shipments of bio-solid sludge in the summer of
2009. Ocean City contacted Mr. Hudson and asked if he would take the product for use in the
farm fields. Ocean City did not charge Mr. Hudson any money for the biosolids. Id. at 124: 6-
23.
Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 7 of 9
43. Contrary to the Notice of Intent to Sue, there was no long standing manure pile on
the Hudson Farm. Contrary to the Notice of Intent, the Hudson Farm had not stockpiled
uncovered poultry manure next to the drainage ditch in the poultry production area. Nothing in
the Notice of Intent alerted Mr. Hudson to an alleged problem with the operation of the fans or
tracking manure on his shoes in and out of the chicken houses. See Hudson Testimony, October
18, 2012 at 2: 14- 3: 4; 5: 6- 21.
44. Mr. Hudson’s farm was visited after the Notice of Intent to Sue by representatives
of numerous government agencies. None of those representatives ever told Mr. Hudson that
there was something wrong or improper about his shoes, tracking material in and out of the
houses or the operation of fans in the chicken houses. Id. at 5: 22 – 6: 7.
45. MDE never brought any action against Mr. Hudson for any issues relating to
chicken manure or its poultry houses. Id. at 6: 21-24.
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
- 7 -

Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 8 of 9
46. Mr. Hudson recently obtained a CNMP written by George Maurer which has been
submitted to MDE for final approval. There are no recommended changes to the chicken houses
or the poultry operation in the CNMP. Id. at 13: 10-21.
F. Effect Of the Litigation On the Hudson Family
47. The Hudson family, including their young children, have suffered serious anxiety
and stress as a result of the litigation and repeated intrusions from individuals taking water
samples around the farm, and flying in airplanes over the farm. Id. at 21: 3 – 22: 8.
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
- 8 -
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
George F. Ritchie, Bar No. 22408
Gordon Feinblatt LLC
233 East Redwood Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
410-576-4131
FAX: 410-576-4269
gritchie@gfrlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant Alan Hudson

Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Document 201 Filed 11/14/12 Page 9 of 9
2430524.1 38449/112351 11/14/2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of November 2012, a copy of Defendant
Alan Hudson’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was filed and served via the
Court’s ECF system on:
Jane F. Barrett, Director
Christine M. Myers, Fellow
Environmental Law Clinic
University of Maryland School of Law
500 W. Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Chris Nidel
Nidel Law, P.L.L.C.
1225 15 th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Michael Schatzow
Thomas M. Lingan
M. Rosewin Sweeney
VENABLE LLP
750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Attorneys for Defendant Perdue Farms Incorporated
Hugh Cropper, IV, Esquire
Cowdrey Thompson P.A.
9923 Stephen Decatur Highway, D-2
P. O. Box 535
Ocean City, MD 21843
/s/
George F. Ritchie
- 9 -