For those following the poultry waste pollution case between the state of Oklahoma and eleven poultry companies with operations in the Illinois River watershed, Susan Hylton of the Tulsa World has an article online that provides an excellent recap of the case to date, from major rulings, to important testimony.Here are some of the highlights from Hylton’s article/the case that the United States Agricultural & Food Law and Policy Blog has posted about in recent months:
1) The state was denied its request for a preliminary injunction on spreading chicken litter on crop lands and pastures.
2) US District Judge Gregory Frizzell denying the state the ability to recover the roughly $600 million sought in damages. Judge Frizzell denied the damages because the state failed to name the Cherokee Nation, which has land in the watershed, as a party to the lawsuit. In Frizzell’s view, the Cherokee Nation is an indispensible party to the suit.
3) Judge Frizzell tosses an out agreement between the Cherokee Nation and the state that essentially said the Nation agrees to allow the state to represent their interests.
4) Judge Frizzell ruled that poultry litter is not a solid waste “as defined by federal statute,” thus the solid waste claim was dismissed.
The case has been ongoing in some form since 2005, and the trial started this past September. Without the ability to recover monetary damages the state asserts its current goal is to have Judge Frizzell impose regulations on the industry that would include a ban on spreading poultry litter on pastures and crop land “for impairing the watershed.”
Such a ruling could have far-reaching effects. It has been reported over and over that other states are paying close attention to this lawsuit as it may be a determining factor in whether they bring their own lawsuits against the poultry industry.
One point of interest that Hylton raises in the article is this: if the state can’t recover damages, even if it wins, then how will the three private firms hired to work on the case be paid? The estimated accrued attorneys’ fees stemming from 2004 to date are roughly $25 million.
To read the article, which also contains key points of testimony, click here?
Posted: 12/21/09
