OKLAHOMA CITY — A federal judge ruled this week regarding poultry litter pollution remaining in the Illinois River Watershed (IRW) in Oklahoma following a trial.

The latest ruling from Oklahoma Northern District Judge Gregory Frizzell wrote that “run-off from land-applied poultry waste continues to be a significant source of phosphorus causing injuries to the waters of the IRW.”

A final ruling has not been made in this case, which began in 2005, involving then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson’s investigation into improper poultry litter disposal and environmental damage to the state’s water by poultry companies.

The current Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond released a statement saying he believes an agreement can be reached for clean water and a robust poultry industry.

“I’m committed to finding a path forward that restricts poultry producers from polluting the Illinois River and allows us to clean up the watershed to preserve it for future generations,” Drummond said. “We very much value the poultry companies and want them to remain in Oklahoma. But that doesn’t mean the industry can pollute the Illinois River, one of our state’s greatest treasures. Having a clean river doesn’t mean we can’t also have good industry. Both can, and should, exist.”

On June 18, the court set up dates for a proposed final judgment and brief by Drummond and the State of Oklahoma for July 9. The defendant will seek a combined response to the proposed final judgment a few weeks later.

In December 2024, the court held an evidentiary hearing on this matter, during which both sides presented their cases again.

Poultry companies listed in the order include Tyson Foods Inc., Cobb-Vantress Inc., Cargill Inc., George’s Farms Inc., Peterson Farms Inc. and Simmons Foods Inc., along with other subsidiaries operating in Oklahoma.

Frizzell ruled in favor of the case brought by the State of Oklahoma in January 2023. However, later in the year, mediation between the two sides failed, and the case remains unsettled.

After a cleanup plan could not be agreed upon the poultry companies filed a motion to dismiss the ruling citing changes in the laws since the start of the case.