Listen to the article
Oklahoma Attorney General and Governor Clash Over Poultry Pollution Case
OKLAHOMA CITY — A public dispute between Oklahoma’s top officials intensified Monday as Attorney General Gentner Drummond accused Governor Kevin Stitt of deliberately misrepresenting a landmark federal court judgment against out-of-state poultry corporations responsible for polluting the Illinois River Watershed.
“Governor Stitt is completely misrepresenting this case, the court’s judgment, and Oklahoma’s interests,” Drummond said in a strongly-worded statement. “The State of Oklahoma has never sued a single farmer, and the court has not entered judgment against any Oklahoma person or Oklahoma company.”
The conflict centers on a long-running environmental lawsuit that reached a critical juncture in early 2023 when a federal court found major poultry corporations liable for significant pollution damage to one of Oklahoma’s most important watersheds. The Illinois River Watershed, which spans approximately 1,660 square miles across Oklahoma and Arkansas, has suffered decades of environmental degradation from poultry waste runoff.
Drummond accused Stitt of political posturing and prioritizing corporate interests over environmental protection. “If anyone has failed Oklahoma, it is Kevin Stitt—who stood idle while the Illinois River Watershed suffered extensive and preventable damage, all to protect corporate interests,” Drummond said.
The Attorney General further alleged that Stitt and his predecessor attorney general, John O’Connor, had 18 months to manage the litigation but chose inaction instead. “Only now, after the court has ruled, is he attempting to deflect from his own failure of leadership,” Drummond added.
Environmental experts have long identified industrial-scale poultry farming as a primary source of phosphorus pollution in the watershed. Phosphorus from poultry litter can trigger algal blooms that deplete oxygen levels in waterways, harming aquatic life and degrading water quality for recreational and municipal use.
The case has significant economic implications for Oklahoma’s poultry industry, which generates approximately $4.3 billion annually and employs over 15,000 people across the state. Industry representatives have expressed concerns that strict remediation requirements could impact operations and potentially lead to job losses in rural communities.
According to Drummond, his office sought compromise solutions immediately after taking office, pursuing mediation with the poultry companies to find workable remediation plans that would protect both the environment and industry jobs. However, he claims the corporations refused to engage meaningfully, “choosing obstruction, misinformation, and litigation over accountability.”
Despite these challenges, Drummond said his office continued negotiating in good faith with companies willing to participate, seeking realistic solutions to mitigate economic impacts while addressing environmental concerns.
“Despite their current unwillingness to negotiate, I remain open to settlement even after entry of the judgment,” Drummond stated. “A negotiated settlement gives all parties more certainty and flexibility for cleaning up the watershed while ensuring a thriving poultry industry in Oklahoma.”
The Attorney General emphasized that his goal remains balancing environmental protection with economic stability. “I stand ready to bring the poultry corporations to the table for negotiations that will ensure clean water and a strong poultry business in Oklahoma. The question is whether Governor Stitt will finally stop interfering.”
This dispute highlights broader tensions between economic development and environmental protection that have characterized Oklahoma politics in recent years. It also underscores the complicated relationship between state-level Republican officials who often find themselves at odds despite shared party affiliation.
Drummond concluded with a sharp critique of the governor’s approach: “Stitt’s attempt to stoke fear among innocent producers serves only the interests of out-of-state corporations, not Oklahoma’s farmers or their communities. I will continue enforcing the law and holding powerful interests accountable, no matter how loudly they protest.”
Governor Stitt’s office had not responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
It’s disappointing to see the Governor apparently siding with the poultry companies over the health of the watershed. The Attorney General is right to call out this misrepresentation of the facts. Transparency and accountability should be the top priorities here.
The poultry industry has long been a major contributor to pollution issues in the Illinois River Watershed. I’m glad to see the court holding these corporations responsible, even if the Governor seems intent on downplaying their role. Environmental justice should be a top priority.
Absolutely, the Governor needs to put the interests of the people and the environment ahead of corporate interests in this case. It’s encouraging to see the Attorney General taking a strong stance in defense of the state’s natural resources.
The poultry industry’s impact on the Illinois River Watershed has been a longstanding issue, and it’s encouraging to see the court holding these corporations accountable. The Governor’s apparent attempts to downplay their role are troubling and deserve scrutiny.
This dispute between the state’s top officials highlights the complexities involved in balancing environmental concerns with economic interests. I hope they can find a way to work together to protect the watershed while also addressing the needs of the local community and industry.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between environmental conservation and economic development. While the poultry industry is important to the local economy, the health of the Illinois River Watershed should be the top priority. I hope the state’s leaders can find a balanced solution that addresses both sets of concerns.
This is an important environmental case that could have significant implications for the poultry industry and the protection of sensitive watersheds. I’m curious to see how this dispute between the state’s top officials plays out and what the ultimate outcome will be.
Agreed, the Governor’s stance on this issue is concerning and seems to prioritize corporate interests over environmental protection. It’s good that the Attorney General is standing up for the state’s interests and the integrity of the court’s judgment.
This is a complex environmental issue with competing interests at play. It’s good to see the Attorney General pushing back against the Governor’s misrepresentation of the facts. Transparency and accountability are crucial when it comes to protecting our natural resources.
The Attorney General’s strong response to the Governor’s claims is a welcome sign that the state is taking this environmental issue seriously. It’s crucial that the facts and the court’s judgment are not misrepresented, as that could undermine efforts to address the pollution problem.
I agree, the Governor’s stance seems to prioritize corporate interests over environmental protection, which is concerning. The Attorney General’s defense of the court’s ruling and the state’s interests is an important counterpoint that deserves attention.