Denali and Synagro file suit
September 20, 2023
Story by Ezra DeVore, Special to Barry County Advertiser
Two out-of-state companies have filed suit in Jefferson City, opposing regulations the companies deem unlawful.
Legally classified as fertilizer until June 30, the products of Denali Water Solutions and Synagro Central are now alternatively categorized due to the manner of their extraction - thus impacting their mobility and business model deeply through Missouri, as both are spread throughout the state.
On June 30, the Missouri Fertilizer Control Board (MoFCB) concluded all issuance of fertilizer permits to companies who dispose of another company’s waste residuals, citing the material’s lack of sufficient market value as the cause of the removal. The Missouri Fertilizer Law, the board states, does not apply to these companies’ products any longer under the tightened definition.
Denali and Synagro want a judge to overturn this terminology change.
Companies such as Denali and Synagro are contracted by other corporations such as George’s Inc. and Tyson Foods to manage their organic waste, and this is the material that was offered to farmers and ranchers freely as fertilizer from the summer of last year until July 1, 2023. Now considered processing waste or waste processing residuals, the products are no longer guaranteed the same permits as fertilizer for land application, therefore hindering Denali and Synagro from storing waste in lagoons that have been built to house all unused organic waste material, as well as continued distribution of their product to farmers and ranchers.
As of June 30, the expiry date of all former land-application permits used by these companies, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will now directly regulate these products.
This marks a significant change in the market itself, however, as the identification shift now obligates companies who deposit the residuals of processing waste such as wastewater, sludges, and biosolids to be approved for a new land application permit to continue doing so.
This move takes place after local and state officials echoed sentiments made by residents of Barry County, its surrounding counties, as well as some in northeastern Missouri in meetings and letters to the MoFCB, the agency responsible for ensuring quality control of fertilizer in the state, as well as this recent change in terms. The statements made by landowners and other residents in meetings such as the Newton County Fairgrounds assembly held in Neosho last April expressed great distaste for the company’s allegedly neglectful and possibly harmful local regulation of its materials. These concerns have led to multiple recent lawsuits filed in our state.
Statements from the MoFCB assert that because the organic waste is free of cost, the products have no market value, and it is now the stated position of the board that the Missouri Fertilizer Law applies only to products with what the board designates to be substantial market value.
Rick Horton, a landowner within five miles of the Longview lagoon, stated that he believes Denali has been exploiting a legal loophole to allow their products to be sold as fertilizer. “It’s processing waste,” he says. “I believe there’s cooking and industrial oils in it. It kills the grass. When they spread it, the smell is so bad that we can’t go outside. When they haul the waste in and dump it in the lagoon, it’s the same way.” Horton says that even inside, the stench is inescapable.
Another fact that shocked Horton to learn at the Neosho assembly is that Denali is responsible for submitting its own test sample once per year, meaning there is no third party to test the output of Denali objectively. Horton states that the company is legally allowed to send any sample they please, and he believes the company may use this to skew results of their effect on the environment.
The two litigating companies retaliate by stating their materials have market value, in that they contain fertilizing nutrients listed as a necessity in the Missouri Fertilizer Law, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as the ease of cost on customers who could otherwise suffer a higher price with another seller.
Also, the companies allege that the MoFCB used this alteration in interpretation to deny them their permits, which are crucial for companies like Denali and Synagro to continue their deposit of these materials due to these permits functioning as exemptions for Missouri’s clean water and fertilizer application laws.
Denali and Synagro state their products do indeed fall under classification by the Fertilizer Law, and therefore state that the companies’ options were then reduced to continuing business, and therefore break the Missouri Clean Water and Fertilizer laws, or to terminate all distribution and storage then immediately.
Neither company possesses the required No-Discharge permit to evade action from the Missouri Clean Water Commission, an aspect of the DNR that would exempt each from either law. The No-Discharge permit allows those without a fertilizer permit to land-apply their product.
Seventeen other companies were denied fertilizer permits for land application of their processing waste. Still, as of this publication, Denali and Synagro are the only two seeking a judicial review in the Cole County Circuit Court. Attorney Jennifer Griffin represents Denali and Synagro. A court date for the review and declaratory judgment has yet to be set.
On August 24, the citizens of a northeastern Missouri county filed suit with the DNR for exceeding its allotted power. Citizens of Randolph County Against Pollution (CRAP) allege the department allowed Denali to construct a solid waste processing facility near Jacksonville, MO, without the necessary license. No longer a fertilizer storage area and now considered waste by the Law, storage in these lagoons would invoke the Missouri Solid Waste Management Law. The DNR has until October 20 to respond, and no court date has been set. Should the case be favorable for Rudolph County residents, Denali’s two lagoons in southwest Missouri and the two in Rudolph and Macon counties could be affected.
Denali first took local public notice in mid-2022 with the construction of two lagoons in Newton and McDonald Counties, with volume capacities of approximately 13-15 million gallons. This accompanied Denali’s first months of offering free fertilizer in the area, but residents soon began to call their public officials to complain of the stench and public disturbances the spread of this product had caused. Complaints of the stench from a neighbor’s use, alongside many concerns regarding groundwater quality impact, were pelted at the DNR and officials at the time and through the following year.
In April, a crowd of landowners numbering around 200 gathered at Newton County Fairgrounds in Neosho from Newton, McDonald, and Barry Counties. State and county legislators, DNR representatives, and Denali Environmental team members were present to listen to residents’ concerns on the deposit of waste residuals. In the meeting, a Denali representative assured the residents the company was not breaking the law, but legal action soon ensued nonetheless.
The Missouri Fertilizer Control Board issues fertilizer permits to companies proving the presence of one or more plant nutrients as a component of their waste/fertilizer. Permits can be denied or limited by the DNR if pollutants are discovered, including pathogens, chlorides, oil, and grease.
In early 2020, around the time the then Russellville, Arkansas-based company was bought by a venture capital firm, TPG Growth, Denali’s fertilizer permit for the deposit of wastewater was revoked in Verona because of the consistent presence of chemicals dangerous to humans.
On July 28, Denali contacted the DNR to assist in the mitigation of their Fairview lagoon swelling with sudden and unanticipated amounts of foam. Toppling berms as operators dug trenches to contain the spill, the gray foam caused damage to nearby tree systems. No spillage escaped the lagoon, though any sudden expansion of materials in the lagoon was surprising to operators. This took place the same day Denali and Synagro filed their suit in Jefferson City.
Structural improvements were implemented, such as trenches dug and additional berms built, and the cause was expected to have been bacteria that foams in excessive heat, though the specific species causing the issue was not identified.
At the same time as their pursuit of a judicial review, Denali Water Solutions is the defendant in a property damage lawsuit in McDonald County. This lawsuit was filed by Collingsworth Land, alleging that both livestock and land were harmed by dangerous runoff from waste fertilizer applied by a Denali subcontractor to a neighboring property, in which rain is said to have moved sludge to the Collingsworth property.
Collingsworth Land, the plaintiff contesting Denali, alleges that waste gathered from Simmons Prepared Foods was deposited improperly on or around August 9, 2022, to an adjacent property and led to grievous livestock harm. Denali denies these claims though faces litigation seeking reimbursement for damages estimated to be over $25,000, in addition to court costs and fees. A pre-conference trial was scheduled for June 6 but was rescheduled to December.
Legally classified as fertilizer until June 30, the products of Denali Water Solutions and Synagro Central are now alternatively categorized due to the manner of their extraction - thus impacting their mobility and business model deeply through Missouri, as both are spread throughout the state.
On June 30, the Missouri Fertilizer Control Board (MoFCB) concluded all issuance of fertilizer permits to companies who dispose of another company’s waste residuals, citing the material’s lack of sufficient market value as the cause of the removal. The Missouri Fertilizer Law, the board states, does not apply to these companies’ products any longer under the tightened definition.
Denali and Synagro want a judge to overturn this terminology change.
Companies such as Denali and Synagro are contracted by other corporations such as George’s Inc. and Tyson Foods to manage their organic waste, and this is the material that was offered to farmers and ranchers freely as fertilizer from the summer of last year until July 1, 2023. Now considered processing waste or waste processing residuals, the products are no longer guaranteed the same permits as fertilizer for land application, therefore hindering Denali and Synagro from storing waste in lagoons that have been built to house all unused organic waste material, as well as continued distribution of their product to farmers and ranchers.
As of June 30, the expiry date of all former land-application permits used by these companies, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will now directly regulate these products.
This marks a significant change in the market itself, however, as the identification shift now obligates companies who deposit the residuals of processing waste such as wastewater, sludges, and biosolids to be approved for a new land application permit to continue doing so.
This move takes place after local and state officials echoed sentiments made by residents of Barry County, its surrounding counties, as well as some in northeastern Missouri in meetings and letters to the MoFCB, the agency responsible for ensuring quality control of fertilizer in the state, as well as this recent change in terms. The statements made by landowners and other residents in meetings such as the Newton County Fairgrounds assembly held in Neosho last April expressed great distaste for the company’s allegedly neglectful and possibly harmful local regulation of its materials. These concerns have led to multiple recent lawsuits filed in our state.
Statements from the MoFCB assert that because the organic waste is free of cost, the products have no market value, and it is now the stated position of the board that the Missouri Fertilizer Law applies only to products with what the board designates to be substantial market value.
Rick Horton, a landowner within five miles of the Longview lagoon, stated that he believes Denali has been exploiting a legal loophole to allow their products to be sold as fertilizer. “It’s processing waste,” he says. “I believe there’s cooking and industrial oils in it. It kills the grass. When they spread it, the smell is so bad that we can’t go outside. When they haul the waste in and dump it in the lagoon, it’s the same way.” Horton says that even inside, the stench is inescapable.
Another fact that shocked Horton to learn at the Neosho assembly is that Denali is responsible for submitting its own test sample once per year, meaning there is no third party to test the output of Denali objectively. Horton states that the company is legally allowed to send any sample they please, and he believes the company may use this to skew results of their effect on the environment.
The two litigating companies retaliate by stating their materials have market value, in that they contain fertilizing nutrients listed as a necessity in the Missouri Fertilizer Law, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as the ease of cost on customers who could otherwise suffer a higher price with another seller.
Also, the companies allege that the MoFCB used this alteration in interpretation to deny them their permits, which are crucial for companies like Denali and Synagro to continue their deposit of these materials due to these permits functioning as exemptions for Missouri’s clean water and fertilizer application laws.
Denali and Synagro state their products do indeed fall under classification by the Fertilizer Law, and therefore state that the companies’ options were then reduced to continuing business, and therefore break the Missouri Clean Water and Fertilizer laws, or to terminate all distribution and storage then immediately.
Neither company possesses the required No-Discharge permit to evade action from the Missouri Clean Water Commission, an aspect of the DNR that would exempt each from either law. The No-Discharge permit allows those without a fertilizer permit to land-apply their product.
Seventeen other companies were denied fertilizer permits for land application of their processing waste. Still, as of this publication, Denali and Synagro are the only two seeking a judicial review in the Cole County Circuit Court. Attorney Jennifer Griffin represents Denali and Synagro. A court date for the review and declaratory judgment has yet to be set.
On August 24, the citizens of a northeastern Missouri county filed suit with the DNR for exceeding its allotted power. Citizens of Randolph County Against Pollution (CRAP) allege the department allowed Denali to construct a solid waste processing facility near Jacksonville, MO, without the necessary license. No longer a fertilizer storage area and now considered waste by the Law, storage in these lagoons would invoke the Missouri Solid Waste Management Law. The DNR has until October 20 to respond, and no court date has been set. Should the case be favorable for Rudolph County residents, Denali’s two lagoons in southwest Missouri and the two in Rudolph and Macon counties could be affected.
Denali first took local public notice in mid-2022 with the construction of two lagoons in Newton and McDonald Counties, with volume capacities of approximately 13-15 million gallons. This accompanied Denali’s first months of offering free fertilizer in the area, but residents soon began to call their public officials to complain of the stench and public disturbances the spread of this product had caused. Complaints of the stench from a neighbor’s use, alongside many concerns regarding groundwater quality impact, were pelted at the DNR and officials at the time and through the following year.
In April, a crowd of landowners numbering around 200 gathered at Newton County Fairgrounds in Neosho from Newton, McDonald, and Barry Counties. State and county legislators, DNR representatives, and Denali Environmental team members were present to listen to residents’ concerns on the deposit of waste residuals. In the meeting, a Denali representative assured the residents the company was not breaking the law, but legal action soon ensued nonetheless.
The Missouri Fertilizer Control Board issues fertilizer permits to companies proving the presence of one or more plant nutrients as a component of their waste/fertilizer. Permits can be denied or limited by the DNR if pollutants are discovered, including pathogens, chlorides, oil, and grease.
In early 2020, around the time the then Russellville, Arkansas-based company was bought by a venture capital firm, TPG Growth, Denali’s fertilizer permit for the deposit of wastewater was revoked in Verona because of the consistent presence of chemicals dangerous to humans.
On July 28, Denali contacted the DNR to assist in the mitigation of their Fairview lagoon swelling with sudden and unanticipated amounts of foam. Toppling berms as operators dug trenches to contain the spill, the gray foam caused damage to nearby tree systems. No spillage escaped the lagoon, though any sudden expansion of materials in the lagoon was surprising to operators. This took place the same day Denali and Synagro filed their suit in Jefferson City.
Structural improvements were implemented, such as trenches dug and additional berms built, and the cause was expected to have been bacteria that foams in excessive heat, though the specific species causing the issue was not identified.
At the same time as their pursuit of a judicial review, Denali Water Solutions is the defendant in a property damage lawsuit in McDonald County. This lawsuit was filed by Collingsworth Land, alleging that both livestock and land were harmed by dangerous runoff from waste fertilizer applied by a Denali subcontractor to a neighboring property, in which rain is said to have moved sludge to the Collingsworth property.
Collingsworth Land, the plaintiff contesting Denali, alleges that waste gathered from Simmons Prepared Foods was deposited improperly on or around August 9, 2022, to an adjacent property and led to grievous livestock harm. Denali denies these claims though faces litigation seeking reimbursement for damages estimated to be over $25,000, in addition to court costs and fees. A pre-conference trial was scheduled for June 6 but was rescheduled to December.
