Oklahoma Attorney General Accuses Governor of Misinformation on Poultry Pollution Ruling

Oklahoma’s top prosecutor and governor are locked in a public dispute over the handling of a significant federal court judgment against poultry corporations, highlighting growing tensions within the state’s executive branch.

Attorney General Gentner Drummond has publicly accused Governor Kevin Stitt of deliberately spreading misinformation about a recent federal court ruling targeting out-of-state poultry producers responsible for pollution in Oklahoma waterways.

The conflict centers on how the state should proceed following what appears to be a landmark judgment against poultry corporations that have allegedly contaminated Oklahoma watersheds. According to Drummond, the governor has mischaracterized both the court’s decision and the appropriate remedial actions needed to address the environmental damage.

“The governor’s statements regarding this critical environmental judgment demonstrate either a fundamental misunderstanding of the court’s ruling or a deliberate attempt to mislead Oklahomans,” said a spokesperson from the Attorney General’s office, who requested anonymity to discuss the ongoing dispute.

The federal court judgment, delivered after years of litigation, found several major poultry producers responsible for watershed pollution in eastern Oklahoma, an area known for its concentration of poultry farming operations. These operations have faced scrutiny for decades over waste management practices that environmental experts say have compromised water quality in the region.

The dispute between Oklahoma’s top officials appears to center on how aggressively to pursue remediation from the poultry companies and what form that remediation should take. Sources familiar with the matter indicate Drummond favors a comprehensive approach that would hold the corporations fully accountable, while Stitt reportedly advocates for what he terms “workable solutions” that critics suggest might be more lenient toward the industry.

Environmental advocates have long pointed to the poultry industry’s impact on Oklahoma’s water resources. The Illinois River watershed, which spans portions of Oklahoma and Arkansas, has been particularly affected by runoff containing phosphorus and other contaminants from poultry waste.

“This judgment represents years of fighting for Oklahoma’s natural resources,” said Sarah Meadows, director of Clean Water Oklahoma, an environmental nonprofit. “How our state leaders respond will determine whether we see meaningful restoration of our watersheds or just symbolic action.”

The disagreement highlights the delicate balance between environmental protection and agricultural interests in a state where both are economically significant. Oklahoma’s poultry industry generates approximately $1 billion annually and employs thousands of residents, particularly in the eastern part of the state.

Former Attorney General John O’Connor, Drummond’s predecessor, had previously worked on the case before Drummond took office in January 2023. Legal experts suggest the transition between administrations may have contributed to differing approaches to enforcement.

“These types of complex environmental judgments require consistent state action,” explained Dr. Robert Jenkins, professor of environmental law at Oklahoma State University. “When political leadership changes, sometimes enforcement priorities shift as well, creating confusion about the state’s position.”

Governor Stitt’s office defended his statements, insisting they accurately reflected the court’s decision and protected the interests of Oklahoma farmers who might be affected by overly stringent regulations.

“The governor has always prioritized protecting Oklahoma’s natural resources while ensuring our agricultural producers can continue operating without unnecessary bureaucratic interference,” said a statement from the governor’s office.

The public dispute comes amid broader tensions between Drummond and Stitt on several policy issues, from tribal relations to state agency management. Political analysts note that both officials represent different factions within Oklahoma’s Republican Party, with Drummond often taking more moderate positions compared to Stitt’s more conservative approach.

As the disagreement continues, environmental remediation efforts hang in the balance, with local communities in affected watersheds watching closely to see how the state will ultimately address the pollution issues identified by the federal court.

The outcome of this high-profile dispute could set precedents for how Oklahoma balances environmental protection with agricultural interests for years to come.