Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has urged a federal court to adopt the state’s proposed final judgment in its long-standing poultry waste lawsuit—seeking enforceable limits on poultry litter application in the Illinois River Watershed (IRW).
Key Elements of Oklahoma’s Proposal
-
Phosphorus Application Cap: The state recommends restricting land application of poultry litter to match agronomic phosphorus needs—capped at 65 pounds per acre, based on soil tests.
-
Responsibility for Clean-Up Costs: Poultry companies would be obligated to cover all costs associated with the removal, transport, and disposal of excess litter.
-
Oversight Mechanism: A court-appointed special master would oversee remediation efforts, including monitoring, enforcement, and long-term watershed restoration.
-
Accountability for Legacy Pollution: Companies—regardless of whether they still operate in the watershed—would be held liable for remaining phosphorus pollution.
Drummond emphasized the continued environmental harm documented by the court, asserting that runoff from poultry operations remains the principal contributor to elevated phosphorus levels in the watershed.
Industry Pushback
Poultry companies argue that the proposed injunction is overly broad and lacks current scientific and regulatory backing. They maintain that existing state permitting processes for poultry waste already provide effective oversight, and they criticize the proposed penalties and cleanup framework as punitive and impractical.
Legal Context
-
Trial Background: The lawsuit dates back to 2005. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell ruled in favor of Oklahoma, affirming that pollution from poultry litter constituted a public nuisance and trespass under state law.
-
Recent Ruling: In June 2025, Judge Frizzell reaffirmed that environmental conditions have not materially changed since trial, maintaining that poultry waste continues to harm the watershed and justifying the need for injunctive relief.
-
Next Steps: The court is now reviewing the state’s proposed final judgment alongside the defendants’ objections. Drummond argues a firm injunction is essential to preserve the watershed, while poultry companies counter that such requirements exceed reasonable regulation.
