Oklahoma Attorney General Accuses Governor of Misinformation on Poultry Pollution Judgment

In a growing rift between Oklahoma’s top officials, Attorney General Gentner Drummond has publicly accused Governor Kevin Stitt of spreading misinformation regarding a recent court judgment on poultry pollution in the state’s watershed.

The dispute centers around the interpretation of a federal court ruling that found major poultry producers responsible for contaminating the Illinois River watershed with chicken litter, which contains high levels of phosphorus and other pollutants. This watershed spans parts of northeastern Oklahoma and northwestern Arkansas and has been the subject of environmental concern for decades.

Drummond alleges that Governor Stitt has been mischaracterizing both the nature and potential impact of the court’s decision, particularly regarding remediation efforts and financial liability. According to sources familiar with the matter, the governor’s public statements have suggested a less severe interpretation of the ruling than what court documents actually indicate.

“The public deserves accurate information about this landmark environmental case,” Drummond said in a statement. “When elected officials present an incomplete or misleading picture of judicial decisions, it undermines both transparency in government and our collective ability to address serious environmental challenges.”

The Illinois River watershed has long been a flashpoint in Oklahoma environmental policy. The area serves as both an important recreational resource for the state and a vital source of drinking water for numerous communities. For years, environmental advocates have pointed to the poultry industry’s waste disposal practices as a primary contributor to water quality degradation.

The federal court judgment, which came after years of litigation, found that several major poultry producers, including some of the nation’s largest chicken processors, had contributed significantly to phosphorus pollution through improper disposal of chicken waste. The ruling could potentially lead to millions of dollars in remediation costs and changes to industry practices throughout the region.

Industry analysts note that Oklahoma’s poultry sector generates approximately $1 billion annually for the state’s economy and provides thousands of jobs, particularly in rural communities. This economic significance may be influencing the political discourse surrounding the court decision.

Dr. Eleanor Sims, an environmental law professor at Oklahoma State University who has been following the case, explains: “This judgment represents one of the most significant environmental rulings in Oklahoma’s history. The tension between state officials likely reflects the complex balancing act between environmental protection and economic interests.”

Governor Stitt’s office responded to the attorney general’s accusations by defending their interpretation of the ruling. “The Governor remains committed to protecting Oklahoma’s natural resources while also ensuring our agricultural industries can continue to thrive,” a spokesperson said. “His statements reflect a practical understanding of what this judgment means for all Oklahomans.”

The dispute highlights the often complicated relationship between Oklahoma’s independently elected governor and attorney general. As the state’s chief legal officer, Drummond has the responsibility to represent Oklahoma in legal matters, while Stitt, as governor, shapes broader policy directions.

Environmental advocacy groups have weighed in on the dispute, generally supporting Drummond’s interpretation of the ruling. “Clean water isn’t a partisan issue,” said James Wilson of the Oklahoma Conservation Coalition. “The science is clear that poultry waste has damaged our watershed, and acknowledging the full scope of the problem is the first step toward meaningful solutions.”

The controversy comes at a time when agricultural states nationwide are grappling with similar tensions between agricultural production and environmental protection. Water quality issues related to agricultural runoff have become increasingly prominent in policy discussions across the Midwest and South.

As the dispute continues to unfold, legal experts suggest that the accurate interpretation of the court ruling will be crucial for developing effective remediation plans and preventing similar environmental damage in the future.