Saving the Illinois

By JANET PEARSON Associate Editor
2/3/2008

Who or what is to blame?

If you’re among the estimated 155,000 people who enjoy recretional activities on the Illinois River and its tributaries, you might want to read this.

Then again, you might not. Each year, about 347,000 tons of poultry waste is generated in the Illinois River watershed, and most of that eventually ends up on the ground.

By springtime, when recreational use ramps up, much of that litter has found its way into the Illinois and its tributaries. These are the contentions of a key federal court filing that is to be the subject of a pivotal hearing to start on Feb. 19.

“The accumulated evidence is now clear and indisputable: The rains that follow this disposal cause large quantities of this poultry waste, and the fecal bacteria that it contains, to run off into the rivers and streams of the Illinois River watershed and seep into the groundwater,” argues the motion filed by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

“The fecal bacteria levels in the water running off from the fields where the waste has been spread can approximate the bacteria levels typically found in raw sewage.”

Edmondson, who is asking a federal judge to halt all application ofpoultry litter in the Illinois River watershed, contends the resulting bacteria levels in these waterways “pose substantial and immediate threats to the health and safety” of those who come in contact with the water.

Representatives of the poultry companies Edmondson has sued see things differently, not surprisingly.

The Poultry Community Council says there is no “imminent and substantial endangerment to public health from the safe, government-regulated practice of using poultry manure as fertilizer.”

The council also contends Edmondson’s motion lacks specific locations and data, and insists litter used as fertilizer “is a benefit to every farmer and rancher in the watershed.”

U.S. District Judge Greg Frizzell faces the difficult task of determining who is right, and his decision could portend the final outcome of this long-simmering controversy. If an injunction halting litter application is granted, it could be argued Edmondson has proved at least some of his case.

Edmondson and staff spent years in talks with poultry companies in an attempt to settle litter- disposal issues, but resorted to a lawsuit when the talks broke down.

A trial likely won’t occur until the summer of 2009, but Edmondson feels conditions are so serious in the watershed action is needed right away.

“The more we’ve sampled, the more we feel we cannot wait until July of ’09,” he said. Sampling indicates eight tributaries of the Illinois are “impaired” from the poultry runoff, he said, which means that human body contact could be dangerous.

Edmondson also notes that more than 1,700 groundwater wells in the watershed could be endangered.

In his motion for a preliminary injunction, Edmondson says that this region has some of the “most concentrated poultry feeding operations in the entire country,” generating 347,000 tons of poultry waste each year.

He argues that most of the land in the watershed “does not reasonably require additional application of poultry waste as a ... fertilizer under good agronomic practices,” and concludes land application of the litter should therefore be considered waste disposal.

Affected runoff contains fecal bacteria and possibly other pathogens which can cause a host of human conditions, Edmondson contends: various infectious diseases; massive gastrointestinal hemorrhaging; infections of the urinary tract, blood, respiratory tract and central nervous system; and serious wound infections, to name a few.

The lawyers produce state Health Department records which indicate some disease rates are higher than state averages in a couple of counties in the watershed.

But a halt in litter application in the watershed could lead to “substantial improvement” in water quality within a year and a reduction in the threat to human health, Edmondson said.

But who exactly has been harmed? That’s the question the poultry council raises. “In fact, we’re not aware of evidence of a single person suffering health effects from the use of poultry litter in the watershed,” its statement says.

It’s not necessary to prove a single person has been harmed, Edmondson counters. Citing other cases, the AG argues “it is not necessary that Plaintiffs show the contamination is damaging, or will damage, health or the environment.

It is enough to show that such endangerment ‘may’ exist.”

But wait: Isn’t litter actually a good fertilizer? That’s the stance of the poultry industry. “As the cost of commercial fertilizer continues increasing, the demand for poultry litter also rises. Farmers have seen the value of this natural fertilizer for years, and now others — homeowners, landscapers, golf course managers, nurseries and others — are seeing it as well.”

Again, Edmondson has an answer. So much litter has been applied in the watershed for so long, most of the land doesn’t need any more for agricultural purposes. What’s more, the “massive land application” of poultry waste in the watershed is the result of defendants’ cost-cutting business practices of concentrating production in a relatively small geographic area.

Poultry representatives claim Edmondson’s injunction request is a “PR stunt” and a “ploy to draw attention to a matter that will undermine the agricultural industry” in this region.

Edmondson has noted the poultry industry has spent plenty on PR, pointing to extensive advertising aimed at bolstering the industry’s image. And he also argues it’s the policies of poultry companies that have harmed small farmers by making them responsible for the poultry litter.

Other contributing sources of contaminants, such as cattle, wildlife, septic systems and muncipal sewage sludge, are being ignored by Edmondson, the industry claims. Not so, says the attorney general, who points to evidence he says proves the poultry industry is responsible for the vast majority.

The council also argues Edmondson is attempting to undermine the state Legislature, which has determined poultry litter application is safe when performed in accordance with the law.

That argument gets the strongest response from Edmondson, who hotly replies: “The rules and statutes say in no event should surface application lead to runoff into the water. That is why we have the harm that is occurring.”

Those of us who are not lawyers can’t easily sort out the legal tit for tat. But this we do know: The once-pristine waters of the Illinois basin are not what they used to be, and somebody is responsible for it.

Janet Pearson 581-8328
janet.pearson@tulsaworld.com

By JANET PEARSON Associate Editor