Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond and former Attorney General Drew Edmondson are butting heads over Drummond’s recently announced settlement of the lawsuit against poultry-farms for pollution of the Illinois River in eastern Oklahoma.
Edmondson told OK Politics Today the settlement was an “utter capitulation.”
“We didn’t lose. We won,” said Edmondson, a Democrat who filed the original lawsuit when he was Attorney General. “And Drummond is giving away what we won in exchange for seven years of regulation.”
As attorney general, Drew Edmondson first tried to negotiate changes in pollution practices. When talks with the poultry industry failed, Oklahoma sued in June 2005.
The trial ended in 2010. Frizzell did not rule on liability until January 2023, finding in Oklahoma’s favor. After another hearing, he concluded in June 2025 that conditions in the watershed had not materially changed and that phosphorus runoff from land-applied poultry waste remained a significant source of pollution.
Six months later, U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell entered the final judgment now at issue. The Judge later found the poultry companies liable in 2023 and entered a final judgment in December 2025 requiring remediation, restrictions on poultry-litter application and oversight by a court-appointed special master for at least 30 years.
Edmondson said Drummond negotiated the settlement after Oklahoma had already prevailed at the trial-court level.
Asked how much of the state’s victory he believes the settlement gives up, Edmondson estimated “somewhere between 80 and 90%.”
The Attorney General’s Office disagrees.
“The Attorney General’s Office believes this settlement is in the best interest of the state, as it provides for significant monetary compensation, enforceable pollution-reduction requirements, independent compliance monitoring, and a clear framework for long-term environmental stewardship,” Press Secretary Leslie Berger said in response to questions from OK Politics Today.
The office also said the agreement preserves Oklahoma’s ability to enforce its environmental laws and represents “a balanced and responsible outcome for Oklahoma’s water resources and agricultural communities.”
Seven years, and then what?
At the center of Edmondson’s objection is what happens after the settlement’s seven-year term expires.
The agreement would progressively reduce how much litter removed from poultry houses in the watershed can be spread on land there — no more than 40% during the first two years, 30% in years three and four and 20% in years five through seven.
An independent auditor would monitor compliance, with annual certifications and financial penalties for material violations. The companies also would provide $41.67 million for watershed stewardship and litigation costs, $420,000 in penalties and $1.9 million for independent monitoring.
But the settlement lasts seven years. Its final litter-removal limits could be extended only if both sides agree in writing. After that, poultry-litter management would remain subject to Oklahoma law and state nutrient-management requirements.
“The industry is supposed to scale down their application of poultry waste over the next seven years, and then it’s over.”
— Drew Edmondson
Frizzell’s judgment takes a different approach, providing long-term court supervision through a special master, watershed monitoring and restrictions on applying poultry waste to land with high phosphorus levels. The special master would serve for at least 30 years.
Under the settlement, Edmondson said, there eventually would be no special master or continuing court monitoring. He said regulation would return largely to the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, which already regulates poultry feeding operations and nutrient-management plans.
Edmondson argues that system was not enough to prevent the pollution problem.
“That is not going to work,” he said. “It did not work in the past, and it will not work in the future. Not if you want to protect the water.”
