Illinois River filing: ‘end this case once and for all’
Sept. 25, 2026
By Mary Hightower
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture
Fast Facts
- Parties ask for an expedited appeal of nearly $44 million settlement in Oklahoma
- The 10th Circuit stayed the December 2025 judgement
- Poultry litter, water quality case originally filed in 2005
(643 words)
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — A filing asking an Oklahoma federal judge to open the path to a settlement over water quality in the Illinois River carries with it the weight of a decades-long battle, pleading for an expedited ruling that would “end this case once and for all.”
Tuesday’s filing asks U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma to vacate his December 2025 ruling that held poultry corporations responsible for pollution in the river, required them to fund decades of cleanup and imposed restrictions on poultry litter applications.
“The parties have asked for an expedited appeal,” said Elizabeth Rumley, a senior staff attorney at the National Agricultural Law Center. “Judge Frizzell will now consider whether this new settlement, with all parties, is enough to resolve the case.”
On Aug. 17, the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit paused Frizzell’s ruling, but the appeals court declined to vacate the decision. All parties to the case have signed on to a proposed $44 million settlement of the water quality battle that Frizzell will now consider.
The parties had been given until Sept. 30 to file a motion but beat the deadline by filing Sept. 22.
“After two decades of hard-fought litigation, including two trials, multiple evidentiary hearings, multiple mediations, and a final judgment followed by seven notices of appeal, a flurry of post-judgment motions, and five more notices of appeal, everyone has had enough,” the filing said.
The 10th Circuit’s decision, “permitting the parties to seek vacatur ‘based on new circumstances that [this Court] has never considered — a settlement agreement entered into by all parties … The court should grant the motion, vacate the judgment and allow the parties’ settlement to end this case once and for all,” the filing said.
Under the July settlement, the defendants would:
- Pay $41.671 million into an Environmental Relief Fund. According to statements made in previous hearings, up to half of this money could be used to pay attorney fees. All remaining funds would be transferred to the Oklahoma Conservation Commission and used for watershed stewardship.
- Pay a combined $420,000 in penalties to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Revolving Fund.
- Fund a combined $1.9 million Auditor Fund to pay for an agreed-upon independent compliance monitor.
- Progressively reduce how much poultry litter removed from poultry houses each year is applied to the land within the watershed — from no more than 40 percent in years one and two, to no more than 30 percent in years three and four, down to no more than 20 percent in years five through seven — and litter exported from the watershed to meet those limits may not be applied to land in any other nutrient-sensitive watershed in Oklahoma.
- Fund, or secure funding for, half the cost of installing vegetative buffers on qualifying poultry farms along Lake Tenkiller and the watershed's Scenic Rivers, which filter runoff before it reaches the water.
- Submit to annual compliance certifications and audits with financial penalties for any company that does not meet its litter-reduction commitments.
The past
The fight has its origins in Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers Act of 1970, in which Oklahoma designated the Illinois River as a scenic waterway. The following decades saw Oklahoma passing a law in 1993 making it “unlawful for any person to cause pollution of any waters of the state … Any such action is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.”
Since that time, there have been several legal clashes with the same ultimate goal of regulating water quality in the Illinois River Watershed. This most recent case in that line was filed in 2005. A ruling on the merits of the case, issued by Frizzell in 2023, recognized poultry litter as a key source of pollution in the watershed.
For more information about the NALC, visit NationalAgLawCenter.org and subscribe to receive NALC communications, including webinar announcements, the Quarterly Newsletter and The Feed.
About the National Agricultural Law Center
Created by Congress in 1987, the National Agricultural Law Center serves as the nation’s leading source of agricultural and food law research and information. The NALC works with producers, agribusinesses, state and federal policymakers, lenders, Congressional staffers, attorneys, land grant universities, students, and many others to provide objective, nonpartisan agricultural and food law research and information to the nation’s agricultural community.
The NALC is a unit of the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and works in close partnership with the National Agricultural Library, a subsidiary of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service. For information about the NALC, visit nationalaglawcenter.org. The NALC is also on X, Facebook and LinkedIn as @nataglaw. Subscribe online to receive NALC Communications, including webinar announcements, the NALC’s Quarterly Newsletter, and The Feed.
About the Division of Agriculture
The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture’s mission is to strengthen agriculture, communities, and families by connecting trusted research to the adoption of best practices. Through the Agricultural Experiment Station and the Cooperative Extension Service, the Division of Agriculture conducts research and extension work within the nation’s historic land-grant education system.
The Division of Agriculture is one of 22 entities within the University of Arkansas
System. It has offices in all 75 counties in Arkansas and faculty on three campuses.
Pursuant to 7 CFR § 15.3, the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture offers
all its Extension and Research programs and services (including employment) without
regard to race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, marital or
veteran status, genetic information, sexual preference, pregnancy or any other legally
protected status, and is an equal opportunity institution.
# # #
Media Contact:
Nick Kordsmeier
nkordsme@uada.edu