Legal News Headlines

 
Copyright 2009 Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.

 November 5, 2009 Thursday

SECTION: NORTHWEST ARKANSAS

LENGTH: 554 words

BYLINE: ROBERT J. SMITH ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

BODY: 

TULSA - Oklahoma Secretary of Environment J.D. Strong said Wednesday that he felt "intimidated" when asked why he didn't push Arkansas to toughen its regulations on using poultry litter as fertilizer.

Strong, who was testifying on the 17th day of what's scheduled to be a 50-day federal trial over claims of environmental damage to the Illinois River watershed caused by poultry litter, acknowledged he had opportunities to talk to Arkansas officials about three laws approved in 2003 by the Arkansas Legislature, but said he never did speak up. He didn't speak to Arkansas officials at meetings about it, and he didn't send letters or e-mails expressing his concerns.

"You don't think the Arkansas regulations are as good as Oklahoma's?" Tyson Foods attorney Mark Hopson asked Strong.

"There are some deficiencies, yes," Strong said.

Attorneys never said what those deficiencies in the law are or why Strong felt too intimidated to discuss the issue.

The three laws require Arkansas property owners who use litter and commercial fertilizer to follow state-approved nutrient management plans, require poultry farms to be registered with the state and establish certification requirements for spreading the bird manure on farm fields.

The federal lawsuit filed by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson in 2005 accuses Tyson Foods of Springdale and six other poultry companies of polluting the watershed. Farmers who raise chickens and turkeys for the companies spread litter - a combination of wood chips, rice hulls and bird manure - on farm fields as fertilizer. The lawsuit claims the litter puts too much phosphorus into the watershed and is a health hazard.

The other defendants are Simmons Foods of Siloam Springs; Cargill Inc. of Minneapolis; Cobb-Vantress Inc. of Siloam Springs; George's Inc. of Springdale; Peterson Farms Inc. of Decatur; and Cal-Maine Foods Inc. of Jackson, Miss.

At times Wednesday, Strong frustrated attorneys for the poultry companies with his constant use of the word "possibly" in his answers and uncertainty about what he may or may not have done as secretary of environment or in his previous role as the office's chief of staff.

Among Strong's more definitive answers was that he was "somewhat sure" he had never asked the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry or the Oklahoma Legislature to pass regulations to reduce the amount of manure farmers are allowed to spread on pastures.

"Why not?" asked Scott McDaniel, an attorney representing Peterson Farms.

"I'm not sure it would have done any good," Strong responded.

"Why not?" McDaniel asked again.

"The majority of the phosphorus comes from the Arkansas side," Strong told him. McDaniel later asked Strong whether the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality had a "duty" to investigate concerns about spreading poultry litter in the watershed. Strong seemed puzzled by the question, mentioning "statutory authority" in his response.

"Not statutory authority?" District Judge Greg Frizzell said. "Do you have a duty?" "I don't understand the meaning of that word," Strong told him.

Later, Strong explained he did know what the word "duty" means.

"I meant I didn't understand the legal distinction between duty and statutory authority," he told Frizzell.

Testimony is scheduled to resume today.

This article was published 11/05/2009

LOAD-DATE: November 5, 2009