The former attorney general says Oklahoma would surrender most of a federal court judgment in exchange for a seven-year settlement. The Attorney General’s Office says the agreement will produce results the litigation did not.
Correction: This story was corrected after statements were inaccurately attributed to Attorney General’s Office press secretary Leslie Berger in an earlier version.
OKLAHOMA CITY — The man who filed Oklahoma’s 2005 lawsuit over poultry pollution in the Illinois River Watershed does not like the way the case may end.
Former Attorney General Drew Edmondson says the nearly $44 million settlement negotiated by Attorney General Gentner Drummond would give up most of what Oklahoma finally won in federal court.
“It’s an utter capitulation, in my judgment, on the major issues after we won,” Edmondson told OK Politics Today.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell 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.
“We didn’t lose. We won,” Edmondson said. “And Drummond is giving away what we won in exchange for seven years of regulation.”
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 says Drummond and Edmondson disagree about what will best protect the river now.
“The Attorney General respects Mr. Edmondson and the fact that he brought this case,” Berger said. “They disagree about what serves the Illinois River now.”
Berger noted that the lawsuit was filed in 2005 and tried in 2009 and 2010, followed by a wait of more than a decade for a ruling. That ruling was on appeal when Drummond’s office reached the agreement.
“In 20 years of litigation, that judgment has not kept a single pound of phosphorus out of the watershed,” Berger said. “This settlement does.”
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.”
A fight older than the lawsuit
Edmondson’s connection to the Illinois River predates the lawsuit. His father, former U.S. Rep. Ed Edmondson, participated in earlier litigation involving pollution flowing into the river from Arkansas.
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, Frizzell entered the final judgment now at issue.
The settlement says the parties considered the risk of an adverse decision on appeal and concluded the agreement would guarantee funding and support for remediation.
Edmondson acknowledged that settling could make sense if Drummond believes Oklahoma faces a serious risk of losing on appeal.
“He could feel that there’s a real chance we’ll lose on appeal, and that this settlement would be better than nothing at all,” Edmondson said. “In which event, he’d be right.”
But Edmondson does not share that assessment.
“I don’t think we’re going to lose,” he said.
Judgment stayed, but not erased
The settlement has been signed, but it has not yet replaced Frizzell’s judgment.
On Aug. 17, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the December judgment and sent the issue back to Frizzell for the limited purpose of deciding whether the settlement justifies setting his judgment aside.
The appeals court did not vacate the judgment. It denied that request for now, allowing the parties to renew it after the district court acts.
The settlement calls for the judgment ultimately to be vacated and Oklahoma’s claims permanently dismissed. If the courts reject that effort — or if six months pass without the judgment being vacated — certain funds held in escrow would return to the companies and the settlement would become unenforceable.
For now, Frizzell’s judgment remains in place but stayed while he considers whether the settlement should take its place.
Edmondson thinks Oklahoma should defend the judgment instead.
“We won at the trial level, and we should be confident in the result going to the 10th Circuit on appeal,” he said.
For Edmondson, the argument ultimately goes back to why he pursued the case in the first place. He remembers an Illinois River clear enough to see deep into the water and a Lake Tenkiller that once attracted scuba divers from outside Oklahoma.
“A whole generation now won’t remember it the way it used to be,” Edmondson said. “And if we don’t move to protect it now, future generations will never see it the way we saw it.”
