Q&A with The Frontier: Why Oklahoma’s Poultry Pollution Case Still Matters

This article is reprinted courtesy of : https://www.readfrontier.org/

For nearly two decades, a massive environmental lawsuit between Oklahoma and some of the country’s largest poultry producers has quietly moved through the courts. But year before last, something rare happened: after a 13-year wait, a federal judge issued a ruling in favor of the state. Now, Attorney General Gentner Drummond is asking the court to fine the poultry companies millions and force them to clean up pollution in the Illinois River watershed. That push could have ripple effects across the state.

This week, we caught up with Frontier investigative reporter Clifton Adcock, who has been covering the case and tracking how politics, water quality, and agriculture have collided. He explained how the case reached a turning point, what issues have caused the case to drag on for so long, and what broader environmental impact the final judgment could have on other watersheds across Oklahoma. Clifton also shares how changes to poultry practices — and shifts in political power — are shaping the next chapter of this long-running legal fight.

Clifton Adcock, reporter for The Frontier

Q&A with Frontier reporter Clifton Adcock

Dylan: This lawsuit has been winding through the courts for nearly 20 years. What made now the right time to revisit it, and what prompted Drummond’s push for a final judgment?

Clifton: When the trial in this case ended in 2010, it took the judge 13 years, until January 2023, to issue his decision in favor of the state. The judge then told Attorney General Drummond and the poultry companies to work out a deal for how to proceed with remediation and penalties, but they never could reach an agreement. Instead, the poultry companies said that the evidence the judge relied on to make his decision had become stale during the 13 years between trial and his findings. So an evidentiary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the findings still held true or if conditions in the Illinois River Watershed and industry practices had changed enough to make the findings no longer relevant. After that hearing in December, the judge found that the findings still held true and ordered Drummond’s office to submit a proposal for a final order, which would impose penalties against those companies and outline a plan to clean up the pollution.

Dylan: How unusual is it for a judge to wait more than a decade after a trial to issue a ruling, like Judge Frizzell did here?

Clifton: Very. There are other civil court cases where it took decades for a definitive resolution, but those, like this case, tend to be the exceptions rather than the rule. And the length of time it took for Judge Frizzell to enter a judgement has even experienced attorneys who have been following the case scratching their heads. Granted, it was a highly technical case with mountains of evidence to review, but 13 years still seems like a very long time. Even after the judge issues his final order in this case, which is expected some time after mid-August, the case will likely not be closed yet, as almost everyone involved expects the poultry companies to appeal to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dylan: Did you get a sense that industry practices have actually changed since the lawsuit was first filed? Or are companies largely operating the same way?

Clifton: There have been several significant changes that poultry companies have made since the lawsuits were first filed. Poultry houses and the flocks they hold have gotten bigger, meaning many of the smaller contract operations are either no longer around or consolidated into one of the larger operations. There have also been significant changes to nutrient management practices, litter storage and spreading, and the composition of poultry feed that the poultry companies say have helped keep the phosphorus in chicken litter out of the water system. However, there are still large poultry farms in the Illinois River Watershed, and though a large portion is hauled out of the basin, there are still incidents of it being spread on fields within the watershed. In addition, poultry litter has been spread on some of these fields in the watershed for decades, going back to at least the late 1940s. Those years’ worth of previous land application still leaves a mark and, according to the judge, still impacting the water quality of the river and Lake Tenkiller.

Dylan: What impact could this ruling have beyond the Illinois River watershed? Are there other parts of the state watching this case closely?

Clifton: Yes. Shortly after Judge Frizzell issued his findings of fact and conclusions of law in 2023, Attorney General Drummond said he hoped to see a final order that also protected other watersheds, such as the Grand Lake/Neosho River Watershed. The proposed order filed by the state would not only cover the Illinois River Watershed, but any “Nutrient Sensitive Watershed,” which the proposed order defines as “any watershed, located in whole or in part in Oklahoma,” that is on the federal Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list (link to list) of impaired or threatened waters that are impaired or threatened by nutrient-related causes including nitrogen, phosphorus, low dissolved oxygen in lakes or high chlorophyll-a concentrations, or has been designated by the state under Oklahoma’s water quality standards as a nutrient-limited watershed. There are literally hundreds of Oklahoma water bodies on the federal 303(d) list, and though most of those are not impaired from nutrients there are numerous ones that are, including lakes Eucha and Spavinaw, which are sources for Tulsa’s drinking water.

Dylan: There’s clearly political tension around this case, with the governor opposing it and Drummond pushing it forward. How has that affected the tone or progress of the case?

Clifton: The most obvious example of this was when Stitt fired his Secretary of Energy and Environment Ken McQueen via a social media post, after McQueen attended the first day of the evidentiary hearing in the case, despite being a named plaintiff in the case thanks to his cabinet position. Stitt has made clear that he supports the poultry companies in the case and that the lawsuit will hurt what he says is Oklahoma’s business-friendly reputation. Meanwhile, executive branch data and documents related to the poultry industry, such as regular reports on new and expanding poultry feeding operations, have been removed from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry website, as have litter hauling and spreading reports. The corporate oil and gas attorney who Stitt replaced McQueen with, Jeff Starling, has also said he opposes the lawsuit, though the state has already won it and he is now a plaintiff in the case. Starling is now running for Attorney General to replace Drummond, who is running for governor. The poultry companies know they have an ally in Stitt and Starling, and if Starling becomes attorney general, it might simply be a waiting game for the poultry companies for a top state law enforcement officer who is sympathetic to their cause.

Read Clifton’s Reporting

• July 10: Oklahoma asks court to fine poultry companies for Illinois River pollution

• June: AG Drummond still hopes for a cleanup agreement in long-running lawsuit

Clifton adcock is a frontier reporter, frontier is a tulsa nonprofit:

https://www.readfrontier.org/stories/meet-the-frontier-clifton-adcock/