Famers should not be accountable for polluting effects of manure spreading in Wye Catchment, say environment lawyers

Famers should not be accountable for the polluting effects of manure spreading in the Wye Catchment, say environment lawyers who are representing thousands of residents of the Wye Catchment in their legal claim against food production giants Avara Foods and sewage operators Welsh Water. 

Wye pollution environmental lawyers at Leigh Day have criticised messaging by defendant Avara Foods Ltd, part of the US based Cargill conglomerate, which appears to shift responsibility on to local farmers in response to allegations that the industrial poultry producer has materially caused the pollution of the rivers Wye and Lugg, and their tributaries.  

Responding to the legal claim filed at the High Court in autumn 2025, Avara stated that “individual farmers are responsible for how nutrients are used in their arable operations”.  

Leigh Day lawyers representing residents in the Wye catchment say this echoes the defence tactics of Avara’s ultimate parent company, Cargill Inc, when facing multiple similar cases in relation to pollution from industrial poultry production affecting US rivers and lakes.  

The Wye legal claim relates to pollution in the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk, which residents say has negatively impacted property values, local businesses, and people’s enjoyment of the rivers.  

It is alleged that a large portion of this pollution has been caused by poultry farm operations run by Avara Foods Limited and its subsidiary Freemans of Newent Limited. 

It is argued that run-off from the industrial-scale quantities of chicken manure produced by the supply chain of these companies has resulted in high concentrations of phosphorus leeching into the rivers, causing environmentally damaging algal blooms. 

The claim, which now has more than 4,000 participants, argues that these companies market themselves as having full control over their supply chain, and exercise substantial economic and contractual dominance over the local farms that supply them. As a result, members of the community are bringing a legal action asking these companies to take accountability for the scale of the manure they have caused to be produced and spread within a single UK river system. 

After Avara was officially served with the legal claim in October, and in response to media reports, it stated: 

“Where poultry manure is used as fertiliser, it is for other produce in other agricultural sectors. Individual farmers are responsible for how nutrients are used in their arable operations. Avara is not involved in any arable operations and has no control over this activity.” 

The statement is disputed by the claimants in the Wye, Lugg and Usk claim, who feel that no individual farmer can be responsible for the pollution of an entire river system spanning three counties.  

The claim argues that responsibility should lie with industrial scale meat production, and the companies that have profited from it. 

Lawyers representing Wye, Lugg and Usk residents say that the tactic of shifting blame on to individual farmers echoes that of large companies which have faced similar river pollution allegations in the US; including Cargill Inc, the ultimate parent company of Avara Foods Limited and Freemans of Newent Limited. 

The first US river pollution case relates to the Illinois River in Oklahoma, where a US court held that pollution in the river had been caused by industrial-scale poultry operations overseen by large food companies, with Tyson Foods and Simmons Foods also named as defendants to the legal action.  

Responding to the claim in 2018, Cargill stated in a court filing that it "has neither the ability nor authority to control or affect the timing, manner and location of the application of poultry litter.”  

This year, the defendant companies filed their objections to the judgment stating the pollution was “not defendants’ conduct”. They say the claim "is asking for penalties to be imposed on defendants for actions taken by growers, farmers, cattle ranchers, litter applicators, and other third parties", and “the only thing defendants did personally was fail to use their economic leverage to require different conduct from some of these company-contracted growers”. 

The second US pollution case relates to lakes Eucha and Spavinaw in Tulsa, where the claimant argued that six poultry companies including Cargill Inc should be held liable for the pollution of the watershed of the city of Tulsa. The defendant companies are reported to have settled for $7.3 million. 

The US court noted in a 2003 summary judgment decision that the “poultry defendants dispute that the poultry litter is owned by them or that they control the growers' land application of litter” and that the companies argued “the manure and wastes generated by poultry while under the care of the growers is vested in the growers and therefore they lack authority to prohibit the growers from land application of litter.” 

Lawyers representing people in the Wye, Lugg and Usk claim say Avara’s response to the claim stating “individual farmers are responsible for how nutrients are used in their arable operations” mirrors these pasts attempt by Cargill in the US case to shift responsibility for the alleged environmental cost of their industrial activities on to local farmers. 

In 2023, the district court in Oklahoma determined that the companies were “vicariously liable for poultry waste causing phosphorus to physically invade” and concluded that poultry waste run-off from land surrounding the river had caused damage to it, and that the companies defending the claim had been aware “since at least the mid-to-late 1980s” of the damage caused to the river by phosphorus run-off. 

This holding mirrored the 2003 summary judgment decision in the Tulsa case, which also noted that “in the mid to late 1990s, the industry became aware of the potential environmental impact from the phosphorus or phosphates contained in poultry litter”, and that Cargill had claimed to be meeting with its growers in the lakes’ watershed regarding manure management since 1996.  

Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland, who represents claimants in the Wye, Lugg and Usk claim, said: 

“The claimants in the Wye, Lugg and Usk case do not agree with Avara’s statement regarding local farmers. They do not believe that it can reasonably be argued that individual farmers are responsible for the widespread pollution of the Wye and Lugg, which spans an entire river system across three counties.  

“This claim argues that responsibility instead lies with industrial scale poultry production, in what is a traditionally rural agricultural area, and the corporation supplying and profiting from the majority of these operations.  

"The two rulings in the US indicate that members of this corporate group have known about the severe environmental impact of manure produced by intensive poultry units within river catchments since at least the 1980s. This claim aims to hold alleged polluters in the Wye, Lugg and Usk catchments to account for the damage caused there.”