State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma
DecidedJune 17, 2025
Docket4:05-cv-00329
StatusUnknown

This text of State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., (N.D. Okla. 2025).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cavanaugh v. Looney
248 U.S. 453 (Supreme Court, 1919)
O'Shea v. Littleton
414 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
456 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Kennecott UT Copper v. United Steelworkers
186 F.3d 1261 (Tenth Circuit, 1999)
Jordan v. Sosa
654 F.3d 1012 (Tenth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-oklahoma-v-tyson-foods-inc-oknd-2025.