Opinion

State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Court
District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
Filed
Jun 17, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 36.6%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. )

GENTNER DRUMMOND, in his capacity as )

Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma and )

OKLAHOMA SECRETARY OF ENERGY )

AND ENVIRONMENT JEFF STARLING )

in his capacity as the TRUSTEE FOR )

NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE )

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 05-CV-00329-GKF-SH

TYSON FOODS, INC., )

TYSON POULTRY, INC., )

TYSON CHICKEN, INC., )

COBB-VANTRESS, INC., )

CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., )

CARGILL, INC., )

CARGILL TURKEY PRODUCTION, LLC, )

GEORGE’S, INC., )

GEORGE’S FARMS, INC., )

PETERSON FARMS, INC., and )

SIMMONS FOODS, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

On December 3 through December 6, 2024 and December 16 and December 17, 2024, the

court held an evidentiary hearing in this matter. [Doc. 3137]. Now before the court are the State

of Oklahoma’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law From the December 2024

Hearing [Doc. 3146], as well as Defendants’ Post-Trial Brief [Doc. 3148].

I. Background/Procedural History

The State of Oklahoma brought this case against defendants alleging that defendants have

polluted and continue to pollute the waters of the Illinois River Watershed (IRW) with phosphorus

and bacteria from the waste generated from defendants’ poultry and applied to lands in the IRW.

The State initially asserted ten causes of action. Following the resolution of pretrial motions, the

case proceeded to a non-jury trial regarding the State’s right to equitable relief on the following

claims: (1) violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6972;

(2) state law public nuisance and state law nuisance per se; (3) federal common law nuisance; (4)

trespass; and (5) violations of Okla. Stat. tit. 27A, § 2-6-105 and Okla. Stat tit. 2, § 2-18.1.

The parties tried the case to the court for fifty-two days over the course of five months.

After the State rested, on defendants’ motion, the court granted defendants judgment on partial

findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) as to the state-law nuisance per se and RCRA

claims, as well as the State’s claim of bacterial pollution with the exception of the State’s

allegations and evidence related to blue-green algae. Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 05-CV-

0329-GKF, 2010 WL 653032 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 17, 2010).

The court found in favor of the State and against defendants on the State’s claims of

statutory public nuisance, federal common law nuisance, trespass, and violations of Okla. Stat. tit.

27A, § 2-6-105 and Okla. Stat. tit. 2, § 2-18.1. It further found and concluded that “actual and

ongoing injury to the waters of the IRW constitutes irreparable harm and warrants injunctive

relief.” [Id. at p. 217]; see also [Id. at pp. 207, 212-13]. The court fully incorporates those Findings

of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Doc. 2979] herein.

Following the parties’ unsuccessful efforts at mediation regarding remedies, defendants

filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that dismissal was required for two primary reasons. First,

defendants contended that the State’s claims for injunctive relief were both constitutionally and

prudentially moot. Second, defendants asserted that proceeding on the current record would

violate their due-process rights. [Doc. 3010].

In an Order of June 26, 2024, the court denied the motion to dismiss. [Doc. 3023]. The

court concluded that defendants “ha[d] failed to satisfy the ‘stringent’ burden of showing that this

matter is constitutionally moot.” [Id. at p. 7 (quoting Bldg. & Constr. Dep’t v. Rockwell Int’l

Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1491 (10th Cir. 1993))]. With respect to prudential mootness, the court

concluded that it need not decide the issue because, based on new evidence, the court would make

additional findings and conclusions. [Id. at p. 8]. Finally, the court concluded that due process

did not warrant dismissal, but, instead, expeditious resolution of the remaining issues. [Id. at pp.

8-9]. To that end, the court set this matter for evidentiary hearing beginning on December 3, 2024.

[Doc. 3038]. The court subsequently clarified that the hearing would address “the contention made

by the defendants, upon which the plaintiff has the burden of proof, that the conditions in the IRW

materially changed following the end of trial.” [Doc. 3098, p. 4]; see also [Id. at p. 37].

The court held an evidentiary hearing on December 3, 2024 to December 6, 2024 and

December 16 and December 17, 2024. [Doc. 3137]. At the close of the hearing, the court set a

January 30, 2025 deadline for the parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

or trial briefs. [Id. at p. 2].

On January 30, 2025, the State filed its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

from the December 2024 Hearing [Doc. 3146] and defendants filed a Post-Trial Brief [Doc. 3148].

II. Findings of Fact

A. Measuring Phosphorus

1. The court previously found that phosphorus concentrations in streams and rivers of

the IRW in Oklahoma are elevated beyond natural or background levels in violation of Oklahoma’s

antidegradation standards for these waters. The court further found that phosphorus concentrations

in the Illinois River, Flint Creek and Baron Fork Creek exceeded the total phosphorus criterion

applicable to scenic rivers, and the aesthetics beneficial use was impaired for total phosphorus in

violation of Oklahoma water quality standards. [Doc. 2979, p. 50, ¶ 130].

2. Oklahoma law continues to protect the State’s waters as a “valuable resource” and

prohibits degradation of water quality. See Okla. Admin. Code §§ 252:730-3-1, et seq. To that

end, in the designated Scenic River reaches of the Illinois River, Flint Creek, and Baron Fork

Creek, “[t]he total phosphorus six month rolling average of 0.037 mg/L shall not be exceeded more

than once in a one-year period and not more than three times in a five-year period.” Okla. Admin.

Code § 252:730-5-19(c)(3).

3. The six-month rolling average of total phosphorus criteria “must be calculated

based on data from the current month and the five (5) preceding months.” Okla. Admin. Code §

785:46-15-14(c)(2)(B). The calculation “must include at least four values from four separate

months” and “[a]ll available individual data values from any given month must be included . . .

.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the calculation includes sample data from all flow regimes,

including high flows, and is not limited to base flow conditions. [Id.]; see also [Doc. 3115, pp.

22-23; Doc. 3132, p. 47]. Likewise, the 0.037 mg/L standard applies to all flow regimes, including

high flows. [Doc. 3115, p. 30; Doc. 3129, pp. 107].

B. Phosphorus in the Illinois River and Streams

4. The Arkansas-Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact Commission Environmental

Committee Report, dated September 26, 2024, demonstrates that, when high-flows are excluded,

the six-month rolling arithmetic mean of phosphorus measurements at all four permanent

monitoring stations on the Illinois River exceeds the 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion at least

66% of the time from 2019 to 2023. [OKLA_PX_258 at pp. 5-6; Doc. 3129, pp. 107-08]. The

data further demonstrates an upward tick in total phosphorus loadings from 2019 to 2023. [Doc.

3129, pp. 108-110]; see also [OKLA_PX_0258 at pp. 46, 49, 52, 55 (not discussed in trial

testimony)].1

5. When targeted high-flow water sampling from the United States Geological Survey

is included, the average annual phosphorus concentrations at the sampling stations in the

Oklahoma portion of the IRW all exceed the 0.037 mg/L water quality standard. [Doc. 3129, pp.

113-17; OKLA_PX-0231 at p. 3].

6. Seven segments of the Illinois River and its tributaries have been listed on

Oklahoma’s 2022 303(d) list as impaired for phosphorus. [OKLA_PX_0248, pp. 241-43; Doc.

3115, pp. 34-38; Doc. 3130, pp. 14-15]. The listings have been approved by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. [Doc. 3115, p. 38].

7. The court gives great weight to the foregoing testimony and evidence and finds that

phosphorus concentrations in the rivers and streams of the IRW in Oklahoma remain elevated

beyond natural or background levels in violation of Oklahoma’s anti-degradation standards for

those waters.

8. The court previously found that the elevated phosphorus concentration levels above

natural or background levels had resulted in significant increases in the algae biomass in the IRW’s

rivers and streams. The court further found that increases in algae biomass had impacted the

aesthetics of the IRW’s rivers and streams. [Doc. 2979, pp. 58-59, ¶ 168].

1 Although defendants direct the court to evidence of a downward trend in phosphorus loading, the

downward trend exists only when the data is considered beginning in 1999—twenty years prior to

trial. See [Doc. 3129, pp. 159-164; Doc. 3115, p. 73; OKLA_PX_258 at pp. 5-6]; see also [Doc.

3130, p. 22 (testimony that total phosphorus levels have not declined since 2009)]. The trend in

more recent years shows increasing phosphorus loads in the Illinois River and its tributaries. [Doc.

3129, p. 162].

9. During trial, Lance Phillips2, Environmental Programs Manager for the Rivers and

Streams Section of the Oklahoma Water Resources Boards and one of the State’s non-retained

experts, testified that it remains an accurate description of the rivers and streams of the IRW that

the elevated phosphorus concentration levels have resulted in significant increases in algal biomass

in the rivers and streams of the IRW, which has impacted the aesthetics of the IRW’s rivers and

streams. [Doc. 3115, p. 32]. Mr. Phillips’s testimony is reliable and credible and the court gives

it great weight.

10. Ed Fite, Water Quality Manager for the Grand River Dam Authority and longtime

resident of the IRW, opined of the Illinois River, “the old gal[,] . . . is not well.”3 [Doc. 3114, pp.

10 and 19]. Mr. Fite testified that, during a recent float, he observed that the Illinois River riverbed

was generally “[c]overed with algae,” and that algae growth on the river and streams was “more

pronounced” as compared to the time of trial. [Doc. 3114, p. 83]. The court finds Mr. Fite’s

testimony reliable and credible and affords it great weight.

11. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the conditions of the IRW have not

materially changed since trial, and the elevated phosphorus concentration levels have resulted in

2 Mr. Phillips has a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Management from Northeastern State

University. He has served as the Environmental Programs Manager of the Rivers and Streams

section of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board since 2012. In that position, Mr. Phillips serves

as the head of the section for rivers and streams and oversees the section’s activities, including

beneficial use monitoring and water sampling. [Doc. 3115, p. 21]; see also [OKLA__PX__0333

(Lance Phillipps – Curriculum Vitae)].

3 Mr. Fite resides in the IRW on property that abuts the Illinois River. [Doc. 3114, pp. 19-20].

Further, as Water Quality Manager for the Grand River Dam Authority, Mr. Fite is responsible for

the water quality in all of the Grand River Dam Authority jurisdictional waters. [Id. at p. 12] Prior

to his employment, Mr. Fite was employed by the Oklahoma Scenie Rivers Commission, which

was combined into the Grand River Dam Authority by the Oklahoma Legislature effective July 1,

2016. [Id. at p. 13]. Mr. Fite testified during the prior trial of this matter.

significant increases in algal biomass in the IRW’s rivers and streams, which has impacted the

aesthetics of the IRW’s rivers and streams.

12. Likewise, Mr. Phillips testified that the current phosphorus concentrations in excess

of background or natural levels have caused excessive growth of periphyton, phytoplankton, or

aquatic microphyte communities in the rivers and streams of the IRW which impairs the aesthetics,

fish and wildlife, and beneficial uses. [Doc. 3115, p. 33]. As previously stated, Mr. Phillips’s

testimony is credible and the court gives it great weight.

13. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that conditions have not materially changed

since trial and that phosphorus concentrations in the Illinois River, Flint Creek, and Barren Fork

Creek continue to exceed the total phosphorus criterion applicable to scenic rivers and the

aesthetics beneficial use is impaired for total phosphorus in violation of Oklahoma water quality

standards.

C. Phosphorus in Lake Tenkiller

14. The court previously found that Lake Tenkiller had become eutrophic, the

eutrophication was caused by phosphorus concentrations in the reservoir, and the eutrophic

condition was manifested in a variety of ways, including an increase in amounts of algae, including

blue-green algae, a decrease in water clarity, and a decrease in dissolved oxygen. [Doc. 2979, p.

76, ¶¶ 239-40].

15. Lake Tenkiller continues to be eutrophic. [Doc. 3129, pp. 96-98; OKLA_PX_0258,

pp. 28-29]. Further, both sections of Lake Tenkiller are listed on Oklahoma’s 2022 303(d) list as

impaired for phosphorus. [Doc. 3129, pp. 98-101; OKLA_PX_00248 at 241; Doc. 3130, p. 14

(Shanon Phillips testimony)].

16. Julie Chambers4, Environmental Programs Manager for the lake section of the

Oklahoma Water Resources Board and one of the State’s non-retained experts, testified that the

current elevated phosphorus levels continue to result in increased algae growth, decreased water

clarity, and decreased dissolved oxygen levels in the lake. [Doc. 3129, pp. 97-98].

17. Ms. Chambers’s opinions are supported by the testimony of Timothy Knight, the

owner and operator of Nautical Adventures Scuba, who offered observational testimony that algae

blooms in Lake Tenkiller last longer and are “much heavier.” [Doc. 3129, pp. 57, 71-72]. Mr.

Knight also testified that, approximately ten years ago, visibility in Lake Tenkiller at 25 feet was

“much better than it is today” and, in the last ten years, the lake has “maintained a constant

reduction in visibility.” [Doc. 3129, pp. 61, 63-65]. Likewise, Mr. Fite testified that water clarity

is opaque today and has not improved since trial. [Doc. 3114, pp. 74, 76-77].

18. Ms. Chambers also testified that the decreases in the water clarity in Lake Tenkiller

are having an adverse impact on recreational activities and aesthetics. [Doc. 3129, p. 101]. Ms.

Chambers’s opinions in this regard are supported by Mr. Knight’s testimony that, due to lack of

visibility and conditions, he can no longer teach technical classes in Lake Tenkiller and, instead,

has to go to the Caribbean. [Doc. 3129, pp. 64-65].

19. Moreover, Ms. Chambers testified that phosphorus concentrations in excess of

natural or background levels have cause degradation of water quality in Lake Tenkiller and impair

4 Ms. Chambers has a Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of Central Oklahoma

and has been employed by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board since 1999. [Doc. 3129, pp. 84-

85]. She has served as the Environmental Programs Manager for the lakes section since the early

2000s. In that role, she oversees the day-to-day operations of the program, including beneficial

use monitoring and water sampling. [Id. at pp. 85-86]; see also [OKLA__PX__00332 (Julie

Chamers – Curriculum Vitae)].

its aesthetics, fish and wildlife, and public water supply beneficial uses in violation of Oklahoma’s

anti-degradation standards. [Doc. 3129, p. 102].

20. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that elevated phosphorus levels continue to

cause injury to Lake Tenkiller, as well as the biota therein.

D. Poultry Operations in the Illinois River Watershed

21. The court previously found that, in 2005, there were approximately 1,900 active

poultry houses in the Illinois River Watershed, 425 of which were located in Oklahoma. [Doc.

2979, p. 94, ¶ 314]. The court further found that each of the defendants had generated and—with

the exception of defendants Peterson and Cal-Maine—was generating significant quantities of

phosphorus-rich poultry waste in the IRW. [Doc. 2979, p. 101, ¶ 338]

22. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (ODAFF) records

indicate that, in 2023 in the Oklahoma portion of the IRW, there were 94 active, Oklahoma

registered poultry feeding operations (PFO), 419 poultry houses, and 8,741,500 bird capacity per

flock. [Doc. 3121, pp. 36-37 (Lynnette Jordan testimony)].5

23. Of the 94 PFOs and 419 poultry houses in the Oklahoma portion of the IRW, 69

PFOs and 355 houses were affiliated with defendants6 [Doc. 3121, pp. 37-38]—specifically:

5 Lynnette Jordan is the Assistant Director for Agricultural Environmental Services at the

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (ODAFF). [Doc. 3121, pp. 5-6]. In that

role, Ms. Jordan maintained electronic records of information submitted pursuant to the Oklahoma

Poultry Feeding Operations Act and the Poultry Waste Applicators Certification Act. [Id. at pp.

6-9]. The records are collected and maintained through the ordinary course of ODAFF’s regular

business. [Id. at pp. 17-18].

6 As previously stated, the court has concluded that defendants Peterson and Cal-Maine ceased

poultry operations in the IRW and therefore were no longer generating significant quantities of

phosphorus-rich poultry waste in the IRW. [Doc. 2979, pp. 7 n.1, 88, 101, ¶¶ 294-95, 338]. The

State offered no evidence that either Peterson or Cal-Maine has resumed poultry operations in the

IRW since trial.

• 21 PFOs were affiliated and 158 houses were affiliated with Tyson, for a capacity

for total birds of 4,159,100 [Id. at pp, 30-31];

• 23 PFOs and 110 houses were affiliated with Simmons, for a capacity of total birds

of 3,104,200 [Id. at pp. 32-33];

• 18 PFOs and 49 houses were affiliated with Cobb-Vantress, for a capacity of total

birds of 381,300 [Id. at pp. 33-34];

• 6 PFOs and 18 houses were affiliated with Cargill, for a capacity of total birds of

226,600 [Id. at pp. 34-35]; and

• 1 PFO and 3 houses were affiliated with George’s, for a capacity of total birds of

60,000 [Id. at pp. 35-36].7

24. In fiscal year 2023, approximately 55,992 tons of poultry waste was generated in

the Oklahoma portion of the IRW. [Doc. 3121, pp. 41-44]. Further, from 2015 to 2024, a total of

approximately 446,045 tons of poultry waste was generated in the Oklahoma portion of the IRW.

[Doc. 3121, pp. 56-58; Doc. 3131, pp. 13-14].

25. With respect to the Arkansas portion of the IRW, due to statutory privacy

protections, data reflecting the number of PFOs, the integrator affiliation of those PFOs, the

number of poultry houses, and the bird capacities per flock is not publicly available. See Ark.

Code Ann. § 15-20-904(f); see also [Doc. 3145, p. 125; Doc. 3135, pp. 31-34, 45 (testimony

regarding Arkansas privacy protections)].

7 Defendants point out that the Nutrient Management Plan for the PFO affiliated with George’s—

Pugh Farms—indicates that the PFO is located in the Eucha-Spavinaw Watershed, rather than the

IRW. [Doc. 3148, pp. 13-14 n.4; Doc. 3121, pp. 61-63]. However, the GPS coordinates of the

houses confirm that they are located in the IRW. [Doc. 3121, p. 35]. Further, defendants’ own

exhibits demonstrate that seven of the growers affiliated with George’s identified by this court as

operating in the IRW in 2008 to 2009 remain in operation in the IRW in 2024. See [DJX2-0219-

B].

26. However, public reports prepared by the Arkansas Department of Agriculture’s

Livestock and Poultry Division demonstrate that, during fiscal year 2023, there were 1,004 houses

with a total bird capacity of 23,042,949 in Benton County, Arkansas and 729 houses with a total

bird capacity of 19,086,239 in Washington County, Arkansas.8 [DJX2-0207]. In 2023, in Benton

County, 205,433 tons of poultry litter was generated and, in Washington County, 102,106 tons of

poultry litter was generated. [Id.].

27. Further, defendants concede that, of the growers identified by the court as operating

in the IRW in 2008 to 2009, 106 poultry growers continue to operate in the IRW. [DJX2-0219-

B]. Further, defendants’ expert, Todd C. McDonnell9, admitted that defendants are “some of the

biggest operators within the watershed.” [Doc. 3138, p. 73].

28. Mr. Fite also testified that, based on his personal observations, poultry operations

are the same or have increased in the Arkansas portion of the IRW, and defendants are still

delivering chickens to growers in the IRW. [Doc. 3114, pp. 40-41].

29. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that defendants have continued poultry

operations and generated poultry waste throughout the IRW.

8 Defendant’s non-retained expert, Patrick Fisk, testified that approximately one-third of Benton

County is within the IRW and a little less than half of Washington County is within the IRW.

[Doc. 3145, p. 129]. Mr. Fisk serves as the Director of the Livestock and Poultry Division for the

Arkansas Department of Agriculture. [Doc. 3145, p. 87]; see also [DJX2-0325 (Patrick Fisk

Resume)]. The records are collected and maintained through the ordinary course of the Arkansas

Department of Agriculture’s regular business. [Doc. 3145, pp. 112-13].

9 During the evidentiary hearing, the court qualified Dr. McDonnell as an expert in environmental

science and watershed assessment. [Doc. 3138, p. 22]; see also [DJX2-0219-A (Todd C.

McDonnell Curriculum Vitae)].

E. Phosphorus Content of Poultry Waste

30. The court previously found that poultry waste generated by defendants’ birds in the

IRW contained, among other things, phosphorous, zinc, copper, and arsenic, and the average

concentration of total phosphorus in the waste was high—19,723.31 mg/Kg. [Doc. 2979, p. 96, ¶

324].

31. Defendants suggest that the use of the enzyme phytase in broiler chicken feed has

resulted in a fifteen to twenty-five percent (15% to 25%) reduction in the amount of phosphorus

in the manure that’s contributed to the litter, despite Dr. McDonnell’s concession that he had not

undertaken any kind of quantitative assessment of the changes in poultry litter since trial. [Doc.

3138, pp. 33-34, 36]. Further, Dr. McDonnell testified that he did not know when phytase was

first utilized in the IRW, but that its use “really started picking up” industry-wide around 2005—

years prior to trial. [Id. at pp. 83-84]. Moreover, Dr. McDonnell indicated that phytase was only

used in broiler chicken feed, but not all poultry houses are broiler houses. [Doc. 3138, p. 34; Doc.

3130, pp. 117-18] and there is no evidence that phytase was in the chicken feed utilized in breeder,

brood, or turkey houses. Finally, Dr. McDonnell’s testimony in this regard is contrary to the

testimony of defendants’ own non-retained expert, Mr. Fisk, who testified that, due to wind-

rowing, the litter is more nutrient rich and higher in phosphorus as a general matter. [Doc. 3138,

pp. 85-88; Doc. 3135, pp. 14, 16-19]. For all of these reasons, the court affords Dr. McDonnell’s

opinions regarding the effect of phytase little to no weight.

32. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that, since trial in this matter, each of the

defendants—with the exception of defendants Peterson and Cal-Maine—has generated significant

quantities of phosphorus-rich poultry waste in the IRW.

F. Legacy Phosphorus

33. The court previously found that: (1) the majority of the poultry waste generated by

each of the defendants’ birds had been land applied in the IRW, usually on or in close proximity

to the growers’ farms; (2) land application of poultry waste had caused the soil in many areas of

the IRW to have STP levels in excess of any agronomic need for phosphorus10; and (3) historically,

defendants had done little, if anything, to provide for or ensure the appropriate handling or

management of the poultry waste generated by their birds at their growers’ houses. [Doc. 2979,

p. 108, ¶¶ 361-63].

34. With respect to historical application of poultry waste, Gregory Scott11, Soil

Scientist and Geomorphologist for the Oklahoma Conservation Commission and the State’s non-

retained expert, testified that phosphorus cannot be created or destroyed in the environment. [Doc.

3120, p. 44]. When phosphorus is land-applied beyond the agronomic need, the phosphorus

becomes available for runoff as dissolved phosphorus or erosion as particulate phosphorus. [Id. at

48-49].

10 The court previously found that the agronomic critical level for phosphorus in the IRW was 65

lbs/acre STP [Doc. 2979, p. 35, ¶ 81], but, in nutrient-limited watersheds, Oklahoma law at the

time of trial, through incorporation of Oklahoma-NRCS Code 590, permitted land application of

litter to a STP level no greater than 300. [Doc. 2979, p. 32, ¶¶ 70-71]. There have been no material

changes in the standards since trial—the agronomic critical level for phosphorus remains 65

lbs/acre STP and the ODAFF permits phosphorus to be placed on the land up to 300 STP. [Doc.

3120, pp. 77-78; Doc. 3130, pp. 36-37].

11 Mr. Scott received his Bachelor’s of Science in Soil Science and his Master’s Degree in

Environmental Science with an emphasis on Geomorphology from Oklahoma State University.

Mr. Scott previously worked in various positions for the Natural Resources Conservation Service

in Oklahoma from 1976 to 2013, ending his career at the NRCS as the State Soil Scientist for

Oklahoma. [Doc. 3120, p. 42]. He is currently employed by the Oklahoma Conservation

Commission as a Soil Scientist and Geomorphologist. [Id. at p. 41]; see also [OKLA__PX__0334

(Gregory Scott – Curriculum Vitae)].

35. In the chert geology of the Ozark uplift in the IRW, some of the phosphorus from

the soil may enter the upper ground flow of water, which includes both the horizontal surface flow

as well as the groundwater, and ultimately enters the IRW’s streams and rivers. [Doc. 3120, pp.

55-56]. Thus, phosphorus is both horizontally and vertically transported. [Id. at p. 56]. In nutrient-

limited water sheds, where the soil is particularly thin, groundwater additions through “preferential

flow paths” are particularly significant to the entry of phosphorus into the water. [Id. at pp. 52-53,

55]. Further, the cherty geology of the IRW contains voids that result in higher than expected

permeability such that phosphorus coming off of smaller parts of the surface will impact the water

in the streams, the Illinois river, and Lake Tenkiller. [Id. at pp. 101-02].

36. Mr. Scott testified that “legacy phosphorus”—phosphorus above the natural soil

content that is the result of human activities—can leak out of the soil into water until equilibrium

is achieved in the soil. [Doc. 3120, pp. 74-75]. Specifically, Mr. Scott opined that, following

cessation of land application, it would take up to thirty years of hay production and removal to

remove legacy phosphorus placed in the soil up to a STP of 300. [Id. at p. 79]. During that time,

if there was water available, phosphorus would continue to leak into the water. [Id. at 80].12

37. Mr. Scott’s opinions are consistent with the court’s prior findings. See [Doc. 2979,

p. 112, ¶ 375].

38. The critical measurement point in a complex watershed system is where the water

exits the watershed system. [Doc. 3120, p. 81]. Where streambank erosion results in adsorbed

12 Although he had performed no analysis relative to the issue, Dr. McDonnell conceded that it

was possible that higher flows as a result of urbanization are causing legacy phosphorus in soil to

be flushed downstream. [Doc. 3138, pp. 60-61].

phosphorus flowing into a terminal lake, the phosphorus is held in place until anaerobic

biochemical reactions can release it out of the sediments as dissolved phosphorus. [Id. at p. 91].

39. Likewise, Shanon Phillips13, Water Quality Division Director at the Oklahoma

Conservation Commission and the State’s non-retained expert, testified that, as phosphorus levels

build up beyond rates recognized as moderate levels, there’s a greater propensity for phosphorus

to leach out from soils during runoff events, where it washes into the streams and rivers. [Doc.

3130, pp. 22-23].

40. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that “legacy phosphorus” resulting from

past application of poultry litter continues to affect the water quality in the rivers and streams of

the IRW.

G. Continued Application of Poultry Litter in the Illinois River Watershed

41. Ms. Baker testified, that, in fiscal year 2023, 6,211 tons of the poultry waste

generated in the Oklahoma portion of the IRW were land-applied in the IRW by PFOs at the PFOs’

own farms. [Doc. 3121, p. 43]. The remaining 49,781 tons generated in fiscal year 2023 were

transferred or sold off of the PFO’s property, although not necessarily outside of the IRW.14 [Id.

at p. 44].

42. OKLA_PX_00230 demonstrates that, between 2014 and 2024, 25,926 tons of

poultry litter was land applied on PFOs affiliated with defendants Tyson, Simmons, Cobb, and

Cargill in the Oklahoma portion of the IRW.

13 Ms. Phillips received her Bachelor’s of Science in Biology from Kansas State University and

her Master’s in Zoology from Oklahoma State University. [Doc. 3115, p. 81]. Ms. Phillips

testified during the original trial of this matter. [Id. at 82].

14 Defendants point out that some litter is stored. However, Mr. Fite testified that he had personally

observed piles of uncovered litter in the IRW. [Doc. 3114, p. 46].

43. With respect to the Arkansas portion of the IRW, public reports prepared by the

Arkansas Department of Agriculture’s Livestock and Poultry Division demonstrate that, during

the fiscal years 2014 to 2023, hundreds of thousands of tons of litter was land-applied in Benton

and Washington County, which includes portions of the IRW. [DJX2-0348 (summary of land

application in Benton and Washington Counties)]; see also [Doc. 3145, pp. 127-28].

44. Further, although defendants point to the increase in the amount of litter transferred,

Mr. Fisk testified that, in the Arkansas portion of the IRW, transferred litter included litter

transferred within the IRW. [Doc. 3145, p. 128; Doc. 3135, p. 20]. In fact, based on exhibits

prepared by Mr. Fisk, only 46.83 percent of the litter—or less than half of the litter removed—was

transferred out of the IRW. [DJX2-0212-B; Doc. 3135, p. 20].

45. Although these numbers reflect application on a county-wide basis, rather than

being limited to the IRW, Mr. Fisk testified that he considered the data regarding export indicative

of trends within the IRW. [Doc. 3135, p. 21]. The court finds the Arkansas government data to

be credible. Based on the data and Mr. Fisk’s testimony, the court concludes that the data regarding

Benton and Washington County is indicative of trends within the IRW and therefore the court

finds and concludes that land-application of significant volumes of poultry litter continues in the

Arkansas portion of the IRW.

46. The court gives substantial weight to OKLA_PX_00230, the Arkansas public

records regarding Benton and Washington County. Based on the foregoing evidence, the court

finds significant amounts of poultry waste generated by defendants’ birds have been, and continue

to be, land-applied in the IRW, in close proximity to the growers’ farms.

H. Poultry Litter as a Source of Phosphorus

47. The court previously found that nonpoint source contributions of phosphorus

loading to the rivers and streams of the IRW and Lake Tenkiller were greater than point source

contributors, and that nonpoint source phosphorus was a significant source of the phosphorus

causing injury to the rivers and streams of the IRW and to Lake Tenkiller. [Doc. 2979, p. 87, ¶¶

287-88]. Nonpoint source phosphorus includes poultry waste, among other things. [Id. at p. 79, ¶

258].

48. Ms. Phillips testified that land application of poultry waste continues to

significantly contribute to nutrient loading dominated by non-point sources. [Doc. 3130, pp. 19-

22, 146].

49. Further, Mr. Scott testified that, in the normal course, if land application of litter

and grazing continue, he would not anticipate STP to drop. [Doc. 3120, p. 60].

50. Defendants point to regulations requiring nutrient management plans as mitigating

any risk of excess phosphorus. [Doc. 3148, pp. 15-17]. However, despite characterizing nutrient

management plans as “an important change over time,” defendants’ expert as to water quality and

water quality impacts, John Connolly, Ph.D.,15 admitted that Oklahoma began requiring nutrient

management plans in 1998—a decade prior to trial—and that he had no personal knowledge as to

the evolution of those plans in the next fourteen years. [Doc. 3132, p. 12; Doc. 3124, pp. 19-20];

Likewise, Arkansas imposed best management practices in 2003, with an update in 2010, and there

has been no material change in those laws since the 2010 update. [Doc. 3135, p. 12].

15 Dr. Connolly has a Bachelor of Engineering, Civil Engineering from Manhattan College, a

Master of Engineering, Environmental Engineering from Manhattan College, and a Ph.D. in

Environmental Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. See [DJX2-0217-A (John

Connolly – Curriculum Vitae]. Dr. Connolly testified during the earlier trial of this matter.

51. Further, Dr. Connolly conceded that he had performed no quantitative analysis as

to whether nutrient management plans or best management practices had any impact on

phosphorus pollution in the IRW over the past fifteen years. [Doc. 3132, pp. 8, 11-13]. Likewise,

defendants’ environmental and watershed expert, Dr. McDonnell, testified that he had not

undertaken a quantitative assessment of poultry management practices’ impact on poultry litter.

[Doc. 3138, p. 36, ¶¶ 89-90]. Finally, neither expert had undertaken an analysis of the effects of

legacy phosphorus in the IRW. [Doc. 3138, pp. 92-93; Doc. 3132, pp. 9-10].

52. In contrast, Ms. Phillips testified that she does not believe any evidence exists to

suggest that litter management plans have led to a reduction in phosphorus because the plans result

in phosphorus application above the agronomic need. [Doc. 3130, pp. 137-38]. This is consistent

with Mr. Fisk’s testimony that, in most cases, the pastures in the IRW have sufficient phosphorus

to grow the grasses, but most of the application of poultry litter is for the nitrogen value of the

litter. [Doc. 3135, p. 18].

53. The court has considered Dr. Connelly’s and Dr. McDonnell’s testimony and

provides the testimony some weight insofar as the experts opine that the increased regulatory focus

on compliance with litter management plans constitutes a change since trial. However, the court

is not persuaded that the change has led to a reduction in phosphorus in light of the credible

testimony of Ms. Phillips and Mr. Fisk and given that neither Dr. Connelly nor Dr. McDonnell had

performed a quantitative analysis.

54. The defendants suggest that increased population and urban growth have adversely

impacted phosphorus contribution to the waters of the IRW. [Doc. 3148, pp. 24-26]. Dr. Connolly

testified that increased population results in increased wastewater and hence an increased flow of

wastewater into the rivers.16 [Doc. 3124, p. 17]. However, phosphorus loading from wastewater

treatment plants has remained similar since the trial, despite the increase in population in the IRW,

due to improvements in waste water treatment. [Doc. 3132, pp. 6-7].

55. Dr. Connolly conceded that, at the Baron Fork testing station at Eldon, a fairly large

differential existed between the waste water treatment plant total phosphorus load and the total

phosphorus load in the river, with the total phosphorus load in the river being consistently higher.

[Doc. 3132, pp. 30-31]. Further, Dr. Connolly recognized the limitations of his own data as, in

many cases, the loads were based on only a few samples. [Id. at pp. 32-33].

56. Dr. Connolly testified that nonpoint sources impact the base amount of soluble

reactive phosphorus at higher flows.17 [Doc. 3124, pp. 41-42]. Though nonpoint sources do not

significantly contribute phosphorus at low flow conditions, Dr. Connolly recognized that, as

stream banks erode, the soil entering the waters contains phosphorus that likely originated from

non-point sources. [Doc. 3132, pp. 9-10]. Dr. Connolly further admitted that run-off associated

phosphorus deposited in sediments that settled out during a high-flow event may be present in

locations in the Illinois River. [Doc. 3124, p. 88]. Likewise, phosphorus from the alluvium

discharges into the river following high-flow events. [Id.].18

16 Dr. Connolly testified that, in the last fifteen years, the population of the Illinois River Watershed

has increased by approximately twenty-four percent (24%). [Doc. 3132, p. 5].

17 Wastewater treatment plants are point sources because the source of the pollution is from a

specific, discernible location. See [Doc. 2979, p. 78, ¶ 252].

18 The court previously found as follows: “The alluvium—the soil area adjacent and contiguous

to the rivers and streams—is recharged by surface water in rivers and streams during high flow

events; once the rivers or stream level drops, the water from the recharged alluvium drains back

into the river or stream.” [Doc. 2979, p. 13, ¶ 4].

57. Moreover, although defendants point to the increase in persons served by

wastewater treatment plants in the Illinois River Watershed [DJX2-0221 at p. 0013 (table 2)]19 and

“significant upgrades” to wastewater treatment plants between 2009 and 2012 [Doc. 3124, p. 18],

Public National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Data for Wastewater Treatment Plants in the IRW

for the years 2007 to 2020 demonstrates that the annual total discharge of phosphorus per year

from wastewater treatment plants was generally comparable in 2010 (36,308 lbs. per year) and

2020 (36,418 lbs. per year). [Doc. 3132, pp. 5-7; OKLA_PX_0374; Doc. 3124, p. 18].

58. Finally, the defense experts acknowledged that they had performed no quantitative

analysis as to the effect of urbanization or population growth on phosphorus contributions in the

IRW. [Doc. 3132, p. 7 (Connolly); Doc. 3145, pp. 62, 64, 74 (Vlasspolous); Doc. 3138, pp. 94-

95, 101 (McDonnell)].

59. The court has considered Dr. Connelly and Dr. McDonnell’s testimony regarding

urbanization, population growth, and waste water treatment plants, but affords it little weight given

the identified deficiencies and discrepancies in the data, as well as Dr. Connelly’s admissions.

60. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that phosphorus run-off from land-applied

poultry waste continues to be a significant source of phosphorus causing injuries to the waters of

the IRW.

III. Conclusions of Law

61. “An injunction should issue only where the intervention of a court of equity ‘is

essential in order effectually to protect property rights against injuries otherwise irremediable.’”

19 Defendants’ retained expert Dimitrios Vlassopoulos testified regarding the increase in persons

served by wastewater treatment plants in the Illinois River Watershed. Dr. Vlassopoulos has,

among other degrees, a Doctorate in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia.

[DJX2-0221-A (Curriculum Vitae – Dimitrios Vlassopoulos)]. During the evidentiary hearing,

the court qualified Dr. Vlassopoulos as an expert in environmental science. [Doc. 3145, p. 10].

Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982) (quoting Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248

U.S. 453, 456 (1919)). “The Court has repeatedly held that the basis for injunctive relief in the

federal courts has always been irreparable injury . . . .” Id.

62. “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or

controversy regarding injunctive relief, however, if unaccompanied by any continuing, present

adverse effects.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974).

63. The court concludes that the continuing actual and ongoing injury to the waters of

the IRW constitutes irreparable harm.

64. Because phosphorus run-off from land-applied poultry waste continues to be a

significant source of phosphorus which is causing actual and ongoing injury to the waters of the

IRW, the conditions in the IRW have not materially changed since trial.

65. In light of the ongoing injuries, remedial measures in this case “will have some

effect in the real world.’” Citizens of Responsible Gov’t State Pol. Action Comm. v. Davidson,

236 F.3d 1174, 1182 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Becker, 186 F.3d

1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 1999)). Thus, this matter is not constitutionally moot.

66. The Tenth Circuit has recognized that, “[e]ven if a case is not constitutionally moot,

a court may dismiss [a] case under the prudential-mootness doctrine if the case ‘is so attenuated

that considerations of prudence and comity for coordinate branches of government counsel the

court to stay its hand, and to withhold relief it has the power to grant.’” Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d

1012, 1024 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, 601 F.3d at 1121). “Prudential

mootness therefore ‘addresses not the power to grant relief[,] but the court’s discretion in the

exercise of that power.’” Jordan, 654 F.3d at 1024 (quoting S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Smith,

110 F.3d 724, 727 (10th Cir. 1997)).

67. Phosphorus run-off from land-applied poultry waste continues to be a significant

source of phosphorus which is causing actual and ongoing injury to the waters of the Illinois-River

Watershed. Thus, circumstances have not “changed since the beginning of litigation that forestall

any occasion for meaningful relief.” S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 110 F.3d at 727. Accordingly,

this matter is not prudentially moot.”°

IV. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, plaintiff State of Oklahoma ex re/. Gentner Drummond, in his capacity as

Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment

Jeff Starling, in his capacity as the Trustee for Natural Resources for the State of Oklahoma, has

satisfied its burden to show that conditions have not materially changed in the Illinois River

Watershed following trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

° The court notes that, in the Post-Trial Brief, defendants raised a number of other arguments.

[Doc. 3148, pp. 40-49]. These issues are outside of the stated scope of the December 2024

evidentiary hearing.

-22-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.