Senior farm and ranch broadcaster Ron Hays has talked several times this week with Oklahoma State Representative David Hardin of Sallisaw, who is raising concerns about the real-world impact this decades old lawsuit could have on Oklahoma agriculture and rural communities.
At the Oklahoma House Agriculture Committee this week, Hardin brought forward a reworked version of Senate Bill 722—not with the intention of passing it, but to spark conversation. That conversation has taken a turn in the wrong direction as Judge Gregory Frizzell on Wednesday has thrown out the settlement deal put together by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. Hardin was quick to react:
“The Attorney General and his team worked to bring forward settlement agreements that would have provided a clearer path forward in this case. Those agreements reflected months of negotiation and an effort to bring stability to a situation that has remained unresolved for far too long.
“With the court declining to move those agreements forward, the uncertainty surrounding this case continues, and it’s being felt most by the families who rely on poultry production to make a living.
“In eastern Oklahoma, poultry growers are family operations that have made significant investments and taken on real financial risk. Without long-term certainty, many of them are now facing difficult decisions about whether they can continue operating.
“At this point, I believe it is appropriate to reevaluate the direction of this case. I am urging the Attorney General to consider withdrawing the lawsuit so we can prevent further economic strain on rural communities and avoid pushing more families to the brink.“
Hardin explained the proposal he offered to the House Ag Committee on Monday aimed to highlight a growing concern tied to litigation brought by the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office. “The original what I ran yesterday basically said that if the Department of Agriculture has to enforce rules or regulations that were imposed by a court in a lawsuit that was filed for the state of Oklahoma by the Attorney General, and that they as a result of enforcing those rules or regulations, any agriculture entity that would have to file bankruptcy, the Oklahoma State Department of Ag would have to make them whole,” he said.
Lawsuits and Their Ripple Effects
Hardin emphasized that the goal was to draw attention to the broader consequences of legal action against agricultural companies—especially the ongoing poultry-related case.
“So the point of the bill was to bring attention to what’s going on with our ag community, and with this lawsuit in particular, but others that may be coming down the line,” he said.
He warned that the fallout from such lawsuits could be severe and far-reaching.
“These lawsuits…can take a generational farm, or somebody that’s starting a farm and put their life into it and bankrupt them, you know, in just a matter of months, which is what’s happening right now,” Hardin said.
Importantly, he stressed that producers often bear the burden despite following the rules.
“Absolutely, you know, they followed the rules that state of Oklahoma makes, they follow them as strictly as possible that they can,” he said. “And as of no fault of theirs…you put these producers, these farmers, you put them into bankruptcy.”
Rural Communities at Risk
Hardin outlined the cascading economic impact that could follow if farms are forced out of business.
“The counties are going to lose that valorem tax, the commissioners are going to lose funding in their county. The sheriff’s going to lose funding. The schools are going to lose funding,” he said. “The jobs that are associated with that industry could very well perish too. So it’s a lose, lose situation for everybody in that case, except the attorney.”
Looking Ahead to Legislative Solutions
After discussion in committee, Hardin chose to hold the bill for further work rather than push it forward.
“as we went on there were a lot of questions,” he said. “The last thing I wanted to do was to put our Oklahoma Department of Agriculture in jeopardy…trying to make some of these entities whole probably would exceed the state budget.”
Still, he made it clear this issue is far from over.
“Absolutely, we do need to look at this and try to put some guardrails,” Hardin said. “I realize the Attorney General’s Office has a job to do and I want them to do that job. But…some of these lawsuits need to be looked at by the legislature and look at the possible effects.”
Hardin says work is already underway on future legislation.
“So yeah, we are looking at putting some language together for next year,” he said.
As discussions continue, the focus remains on balancing legal accountability with the long-term sustainability of Oklahoma agriculture.
Back to Judge Frizzell Denying the AG’s Motions
The judge showed no interest in allowing the proposed settlement between Drummond and the Poultry Companies. He said there is nothing in the deals that shows pollution of the watershed will end: “Settling defendants have presented no evidence that run-off from land-applied poultry waste has ceased to be a source of phosphorous, causing injury to the IRW waters such that the objectives of the Judgment — abatement of the nuisance and compliance with federal law — have been achieved.”
In the order, Frizzell lists additional reasons for denying the settlements:
- The proposed settlements don’t “limit the application of poultry waste to reduce phosphorus runoff in the Illinois River Watershed.”
- They aren’t long enough to remove legacy phosphorus in the watershed.
- The proposed “Monetary Relief Fund” in the settlements doesn’t provide enough money for remediation.
- Under the proposed settlements the defendants would pay no penalties to the Oklahoma DEQ Revolving Fund for their violations.
- The proposed judgements don’t assure that the amount of poultry waste applied in the watershed will decrease.
- Their structures are unworkable because two of the defendants have not settled and due to differences between the settlements.
- The proposed settlements don’t properly fund the duties of the special master.
- Oklahoma’s attorney fees and costs would not be subject to judicial review. Although Drummond said in a Feb. 27 hearing that the state could not use more than 50% of the money from the companies on attorney fees, Frizzell noted that limit is not laid out in the settlement agreements.
- The proposed judgements contain releases of nonparty contract growers who were under contracts with the defendants and this beyond the scope of the case and the court lacks jurisdiction.
- Although there is concern of the economic harm to contract growers in the watershed, it’s too speculative to justify a finding of exceptional circumstances.
