The meeting was held at the Sequoyah Outing Club on the shore of the beautiful Illinois River. Thank you, Sequoyah Club members, for use of the Club House facility and the BBQ dinner. Thanks also go to Paul Rowsey, STIR president and club member for his hospitality.
Martha Brocksmith-Brennan, Tulsa, Oklahoma native
The NSU Foundation will administer the scholarship awards for junior and senior students studying science courses, including biology, freshwater science studies, the environment, and geography. STIR presently helps fund the NSU Freshwater Science Studies Program.
The new scholarship program is funded by a generous gift to STIR by the late Martha Brocksmith-Brennan, RN, PN of Euclid Ohio.
Brocksmith-Brennan, an original STIR member, believed that science education will benefit the understanding of the need for clean water, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers and Lake Tenkiller's protection and restoration.
***
Drew Edmondson's Statement on 10/17/2026
After Judge Frizzell issued his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law he directed both sides to work on an actual Judgmentthat followed his Findings. That never happened. The Attorney General submitted a proposed judgment, the poultry companies did not. Judge Frizzell issued his own ruling which was very favorable to the State and the River. The poultry companies filed a motion to set aside the judgment on the grounds that the conditions in the watershed had improved during the 13 years between the end of trial and the Judgment and that made the issue moot.
Judge Frizzell ordered an Evidentiary Hearing to determine whether the conditions had really changed. The hearing showed that the industry was shipping more waste out of the watershed but that the number of poultry houses had increased dramatically. Ultimately the court ruled that conditions had not changed; that the watershed remained"impaired" and that the remedial measures in his Judgement were necessary to repair the harm.
Both sides filed their appeals at the 10th Circuitin Denver.
While the issue was on appeal, the Attorney General announced he had reached a Settlement with the companies. He had previously attempted a settlement but Judge Frizzell rejected it as inadequate to meet the harms and not consistent with his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The 10th Circuit remanded the new proposed settlement to the trial court to determine whether it was satisfactory. Judge Frizzell has not yet responded.
There are many flaws in the proposed settlement:
It provides supervision for only seven years with a ratcheting down of how much litter could be applied. The judgment supervised for 30 years.
After seven years, regulation returns to the Department of Agriculture, which obviously failed in that task in the past.
Much less money for remediation.
No Special Master to monitor compliance.
No injunction on application of waste on lands already impaired.
Since the flaws are very similar to the flaws in the first attempted settlement there is good reason to believe the judge will also reject this one, in which case the appeal will proceed.
There is reason to hold great faith that the state will prevail on appeal, but Frizzell must first reject the proposed settlement.
