In Monday’s legal action in the case of the State of Oklahoma against eleven poultry companies with operations within the Illinois River watershed, the companies tried to paint a picture of a state that had the authority to do something about the pollution problem without going to court, but ultimately chose not to do so.According to an article by the Associated Press, during the cross-examination of, Ed Fite, the director of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, the companies tried to explain what could have been done by the state to address this problem prior to bringing this lawsuit, back in 2005.
Previously, Fite had testified about discussion he had with the companies about the watershed pollution and ways to curb it, but he said the “industry failed to change its practices.” The defense is trying to show, in part, that the pollution could have come from many sources. To hammer that point home, industry attorney Tom Green, “asked Fite why Oklahoma has not banned farmers from letting their cattle defecate in the valley's rivers and streams, restricted cattle from grazing in riparian areas or regulated the use of commercial fertilizer, which contains the same phosphorus that poultry litter does.” Fite responded that his commission did what it could.
Yesterday’s cross-examination of Fite marked the third day of testimony in this trial. As this blog has reported before, several other states are closely following the outcome as it may decide whether they bring challenges against the companies for their polluted watersheds.
Testimony is expected to continue today, so expect a post on what happens in court today to be summarized here.
To read the AP article click here.
Posted: 10/06/09
