Blame cattle manure. That’s what the defense in the ongoing poultry pollution trial between the state of Oklahoma and eleven poultry companies are arguing to Judge Gregory Frizzell according to David Harper’s story on the trial in the Tulsa World online.On Tuesday the defense, in presenting its side of the case, called to the stand veterinary toxicologist Billy R. Clay. Clay reiterated the positions he laid out for the trial in his November 2008 expert report. In that report Clay “noted that cattle manure is deposited directly to the land surface in the watershed while poultry manure is allowed to undergo drying and fermentation before it is available for land application as fertilizer or exported.” Roughly 230,000 tons of dry cattle manure is deposited in the watershed yearly.
Going further, Clay pointed out that poultry waste has been safely used and regulated in the Illinois River watershed for a long time, and Clay stated that poultry litter provides benefits in that it can be used as a fertilizer on crop lands.
The state argues that this same litter is the reason why the Illinois River watershed has become polluted and is posing a health risk to the citizens of Oklahoma. During its presentation the state pointed out that the chemical composition of poultry waste, which includes phosphorous and arsenic, is different than that of cattle waste.
Still, in his report Clay states cattle waste is responsible for 46 percent of the phosphorous “deposited in the relevant area” and poultry litter is only responsible for 35 percent of the total.
The state challenged Clay’s methods and calculations, but Clay responded that he was comfortable with the methods and approach used in his report.
Also on Tuesday, the defense called Steven P. Larson to the stand. Larson, a hydrologist, “told the court that the ground-water sampling data he analyzed showed no significant relationship between items such as phosphorus, copper, zinc and the existence or density of poultry houses in the area.”
Curtis Killman, also with the Tulsa World, reports that on Monday the defense called a government regulator, a Larson, and an avid fisherman to the stand. Their testimony covered a range of topics from Arkansas’ efforts to regulate “nutrients in the watershed,” an examination of testimony provided by the state’s experts, and the view of a regular person who uses the watershed for recreational purposes.
Larson provided the testimony calling into question the state’s expert testimony, while Earl Smith, an Arkansas Natural Resources Commission official who led the Water Resources Management Division stated that much is unknown at this point about the affect of nutrients in the watershed. Smith stated that there are ‘“…a lot of unanswered questions out there [.]”’
Meanwhile, Springdale, Arkansas school counselor and “self-described avid fisherman,” Ron Duncan told of his numerous experiences in the watershed, and under direct questioning from Judge Frizzell Duncan testified “he could not recall seeing any algae clinging to rocks that witnesses for the state claim is pervasive along the river.” Duncan also said he recalled running into cattle while on his fishing trips, but he could not recall seeing any poultry houses.
The defense continues its presentation today.
Posted: 01/06/10
