The Trump administration is turning to Indian Country in a move to “share in the prosperity of American energy dominance.”

The U.S. Department of Energy says it will allocate around $50 million to tribal nations as part of the federal government’s push for international energy superiority.

DOE’s Office of Indian Energy will take applications from tribal entities for the “Unleashing Tribal Energy Development" notice of funding opportunity until July 24, according to its website. It’s designed to provide funds for the development and planning of energy projects to support Native communities and tribal economic development.

“Tribal Nations possess extensive energy resources and are poised to share in the prosperity of American energy dominance,” a document about the funding opportunity reads.

Those entities include tribal organizations, universities and energy developers, which do not need to be certified by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to apply, the department’s website states.

Last month, the DOE held a webinar on how the funds can be used. Officials said they can pertain to workforce development, geothermal power, natural gas, data centers or other adjacent projects, but funds can not cover construction costs.

Johanna Zetterberg, deployment program manager, told tribes the funding is designed to support public-private partnerships, affordability, communication with tribal nations, and develop an energy-related tribal workforce.

“This funding opportunity is designed to help implement these vital objectives and unleash American energy in Indian Country,” Zetterberg said.

One example listed includes power generation for artificial intelligence data centers. In January, the federal government recommended that tribal nations partner with developers to house such developments as artificial intelligence infrastructure expands.

“Data centers are getting a lot of attention right now,” DOE’s website reads. “Fundamentally, they’re just big buildings that house computer systems, which have been around for a long time.”

Tribes in Oklahoma such as the Osage Nation have a large stake in energy development. The reservation is home to around 43,000 oil well bores, but estimates suggest more than 1,600 lie dormant. And in 2025, the nation reported no new drilling completions were issued for the year.

Last week, Osage Principal Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear promoted using federal funding to “unleash” oil production on the reservation.

“That money in Department of Energy and other agencies can come into the Interior Department, and we can rebuild the oil and gas energy business in the Osage,” Standing Bear said. “It can be done if you just take what your friends are offering.”

These moves follow the Trump administration’s guidelines to expand American energy output, which stem from a national emergency declared by the president last year. Since then, the administration has targeted environmental regulations, such as disallowing the Environmental Protection Agency from managing greenhouse gas emissions. That also includes cuts to renewable energy initiatives, which have lessened funding opportunities for some tribes.

Now, through “Unleashing Tribal Energy Development,” the DOE is marketing to tribes.

The DOE says selections will be announced in November and final awards will be made next February.

Oklahoma City has hit pause on allowing companies to build or expand data centers through the rest of this year.

At its meeting on Tuesday, the city council added exemptions to its moratorium, allowing some data centers to move forward.

The original moratorium, which passed on April 21, included exemptions for two facilities that were in the middle of zoning and permitting. The new amendment adds exemptions for two more data centers — at the Expand Energy Campus (formerly Chesapeake) and a facility near the OKC Outlet Mall.

The amendment allows companies to expand existing data centers or build new ones, as long as they use under 75 megawatts.

Ward 7 Councilman Camal Pennington said he appreciated that the exempted properties will still be subject to review, zoning and permitting.

“So the fact that we're not that we're just saying you're just going to have to go through the regular process, which allows the public to be heard, is a comfort to me in this,” Pennington said.

Ward 6 Councilwoman JoBeth Hamon said the exemptions feel like favoritism, because there’s already a mechanism to address any special cases.

“We have a process for folks to be heard and considered for exemptions or exceptions through the Board of Adjustment,” Hamon said. “I just have deep discomfort with including specific properties in our policy.”

The amendment passed 7-to-2. Councilmembers took an additional vote to enact it immediately.

After nearly three years of organizing, campaigning and fighting legal battles, the time has come for Oklahomans to cast their ballots on State Question 832, which will appear in the June 16 election.

If passed, the question will bring Oklahoma’s minimum wage up to $12 an hour at the beginning of 2027. It would then increase by $1.50 each year, hitting $15 an hour in 2029. Starting in 2030, it would increase with the cost of living, using the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) to determine the amount.

The question also removes some previous exemptions to the minimum wage, like agricultural workers and certain workers under 18.

The history of the question

Oklahoma’s minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour — the same as the federal minimum wage. This last increased in 2009, although there have been more recent attempts to raise it further.

State organizers in favor of raising the minimum wage began working on a proposition in the fall of 2023. It was originally designed for a 2024 vote, with the first increase coming in 2025 to $9. Then, it would increase by $1.50 each year until hitting $15 in 2029, and be tied to the CPI-W starting in 2030.

As a citizen petition initiative, the question needed voter signatures to get on the ballot. But before organizers could begin that process, they faced a legal challenge from the State Chamber and the Oklahoma Farm Bureau Legal Foundation. The groups argued that the petition unconstitutionally turned state legislative power over to federal entities. Oklahoma’s highest court, however, disagreed with their argument and allowed the petition to move forward.

Organizers spent 90 days in the summer of 2024 gathering signatures in support of their initiative. The Oklahoma Secretary of State’s office verified just over 157,000 of them, about 65,000 more than was needed to get on the ballot.

Following verification, the ball was in Gov. Kevin Stitt’s court to decide when the question would hit ballots. He selected June 2026, nearly two years after the signatures were confirmed. Stitt said the move was a cost-saving measure, as he wanted to avoid paying nearly $2 million for a statewide special election. Advocates, however, pointed out that Stitt had previously called a special election in March 2023 for a state question on legalizing recreational marijuana.

As Stitt’s chosen date now approaches, organizers on both sides of the cause have worked to get their messaging out to voters.

Adam Maxey, the Vice President of Government Affairs at the State Chamber, said the question rushes the process of local businesses figuring out how to navigate increased labor costs.

“For a business owner, that’s one quarter to figure out what those overhead costs are going to be,” Maxey said. “Nobody wants to find out they’re losing hours, or even their job, around Christmas.”

The State Chamber, which calls itself an “advocate for business,” has been opposing State Question 832 since its inception. The biggest cause for concern, Maxey said, is the tie to the CPI-W. The team at the Chamber fears that indefinitely raising the minimum wage in tandem with a national index, which includes data from more expensive areas than Oklahoma, will make it harder to build a business.

“To do so would create an environment where that uncertainty from the index may mean less entrepreneurship. It may mean less people being willing to take the risk,” Maxey said.

But for 832 organizers, the CPI-W link is crucial.

“Tying the wage increase after it hits $15 an hour to the cost of living is important because we shouldn't have to wait this long ever again to see the minimum wage increase,” said Amber England, a spokesperson for Raise the Wage Oklahoma. “It’s been the longest time in the history of the minimum wage that there’s not been an increase.”

The CPI-W is the same index used to adjust Social Security payments each year.

England said the increase will also bring greater spending power to low-income households, which they will use in their local economies.

“When rural workers have more money in their pocket, they're going to spend it in the towns they live,” England said. “I grew up in a small town in southern Oklahoma, and I know that the community I lived in could have benefited from my mom, who was a low-wage worker, having more money in her pocket.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), an agency that provides economic research to federal lawmakers, estimates that if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 by 2029, families that make 2.99 times the poverty threshold or less would see an overall increase to their income. However, the total real family income across the country would decrease, driven by losses among families earning six times the poverty threshold or more.

Who would be affected by the proposition?

The share of workers who make the federal minimum wage has been declining, with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimating that about 17,000 people in Oklahoma earned the minimum wage or less in 2024. But the agency also reports that 33.1% of Oklahoma jobs pay less than $15 an hour.

Workers in those roles include people like Yossi Toney. On a typical weekday, Toney wakes up before sunrise to head to her morning bus route, snaking through Norman neighborhoods to pick up kids and drop them off at school. Then, she has some free time during the day, which she often uses to put in hours at a friend’s gas station. The afternoon is spent bringing kids home from school.

Toney’s job as a bus driver pays more than $15 an hour, but only guarantees 30 hours a week during the school year. When school is out, she tries to add on summer school and library bus routes. Throughout the academic year, there are sometimes opportunities to add more hours by signing up for field trips and other excursions, but Toney also uses her job at the gas station, which pays $11.25 an hour, to supplement her income.

Affording the necessities of life has felt like a stretch for Toney. Following a divorce, she moved back in with her mom, and the two split rent. Being able to share that burden was key when she was diagnosed with cancer. She’s since been deemed cancer-free, but still faces medical bills.

Toney has been working as a bus driver in Norman for nine years. She enjoys spending time with the kids, hearing about their school days. But part of the reason she stays is due to her health insurance, which helped her shoulder the bills of cancer care and allows her to manage her diabetes treatment. Because of the benefits, she doesn’t believe leaving her job for another that pays more is the right answer for her financial challenges.

“I don’t understand when people say, ‘Go get another job,’ like I get it, but somebody has to do this job. If we weren’t there to do it, then who’s going to do it?” Toney said.

Toney acknowledges that raising the minimum wage may create challenges for small business owners, like her friends who own the gas station. But she said she and other workers in similar positions often face stress that shouldn’t be overlooked.

“It’s also hard for people that work these jobs that don’t get paid very much, for them to be able to live life comfortably and pay their bills without stress in every month,” Toney said. “I think that it’s very important for us to live a comfortable life in whatever we decide to do.”

Frank Arnold, the owner of Arnold’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers in Tulsa, is also feeling economic pressure. Over the past five years, inflation has forced him to charge $2 more per burger that the establishment serves. He sells about 1,400 fewer per week.

In Arnold’s view, a minimum wage increase isn’t necessary because of the limited number of jobs that are still paying minimum wage; in other words, he believes the market has corrected itself. At his restaurant, regular employees start off making $14-$15 an hour, and part-timers like high school students start around $12.

If the minimum wage increases, Arnold fears even employees making above $15 an hour will expect a raise. He might also face higher prices from suppliers who raise their employees’ pay. In order to accommodate, he’ll have to tack on further increases to burger prices — maybe another $0.50 — on top of what’s already been added due to inflation.

“We have to pass that cost on to stay in business. And it's that simple,” Arnold said. “It's no magic wand or anything.”

Arnold stresses that he does what he can for his employees. If he sees a worker who is doing well, he’ll make note of it so he can offer a raise. He’s provided pay advances to staffers who find themselves in a tight spot.

“Most of them have been there five years or more. And they stay because I take care of them, and I pay them as good as I can,” Arnold said. “And considering what their job is, you can’t pay somebody $25 an hour to make a burger.”

What does the research say the effects will be?

When it comes to minimum wage increases, many factors are at play, and even economists disagree about whether they’re effective.

David Neumark, a professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine, is against the increase. In his view, minimum wage policies are fundamentally about redistribution to those living in poverty, and increasing the minimum wage doesn’t accomplish that goal.

“I'm one who thinks the government should do redistribution, and we should worry about low-wage work. We should worry more about low income families,” Neumark said. “But this isn't a good way to do it.”

Research from the CBO estimates that, if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 an hour by 2029 and tied to the CPI-W thereafter, about 250,000 people across the country would be lifted above the poverty line by 2033. In 2023, about 36.8 million Americans lived in poverty. That equates to about two-thirds of one percent of people living in poverty seeing a change.

Instead, Neumark believes in using the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, to assist those in need. This credit provides relief specifically to low-income families. Neumark said the EITC is a stronger link to people below the poverty line than wage, as teens and young adults from middle and upper-class families take up a portion of low-income jobs, while many people in poverty may not have work at all.

In 2015, the EITC and Child Tax Credit helped lift 9.2 million people out of poverty, including 48 million children.

Individual states also have the opportunity to expand this credit with their own dollars. In Oklahoma, qualifying EITC taxpayers can receive a state refund equal to 5% of their federal credit. But in other states, that number is as high as 125%.

Increasing the minimum wage also leads to some job loss, Neumark said. The CBO estimates that, if the federal minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour by 2029, the country would lose about 300,000 jobs by 2033. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are about 162.6 million employed workers as of April 2026.

Ben Zipperer, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, sees the job loss impacts as minimal opposed to the potential gains to be had from a minimum wage hike. Employers are largely able to avoid workforce reductions, he said, because minimum wage increases bring greater employee retention. He also cites research that minimum wage increases can help reduce criminal recidivism.

Separately, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston finds minimum wage increases are connected to positive results for low-income households, like decreased overall debt, increased auto loans and greater credit access. The same study also indicates that there are some price increases as a result, especially for products in sectors dependent on low-wage workers, like fast food. A ten percent increase in minimum wage may lead to a 0.5% increase in price of food away from home, for example.

“It is correct that one way that businesses accommodate higher wage increases is by raising prices. It just turns out empirically that price increase is very small relative to the actual wage increase,” Zipperer said.

Zipperer argues these increases don’t necessarily keep customers out of businesses. Unlike when a company raises prices independently, competitors in the same industry are all facing the minimum wage hike, meaning one company doesn’t suddenly become less attractive to customers than another. Also, people are just willing to pay more to help low-wage employees, Zipperer said.

“Customers are very willing and much less sensitive to price increases when they understand that the price increase is there to actually help workers make ends meet,” Zipperer said.

Next steps

The official election for SQ 832 is June 16, but voters can cast ballots early from June 11-13. If you’re not registered to vote, the deadline is May 22. All Oklahoma voters, regardless of party affiliation or county, are eligible to decide on the proposition.

For more information and to see a sample ballot, check out the Oklahoma Voter Portal.

The first tribal nation in the U.S. to sue opioid manufacturers, Cherokee Nation is using settlement money to build a culturally competent healthcare system for people struggling with addiction, including a new treatment center opening next year.

Senate Bill 1636, written to improve the review process for solving cold cases, received approval from Gov. Kevin Stitt on Monday.

Sen. Carri Hicks, D-OKC, authored the bill, in response to the case of two sisters Cheryl Genzer and Lisa Pennington, who disappeared from an Oklahoma State Fair in 1987. The sisters, 25 and 17 at the time, were found in a shallow grave in Oklahoma City.

Their cases, along with more than 1,000 others, have never been solved, according to Hicks and the non-profit Oklahoma Cold Cases.

“People deserve answers, and so this will create a pathway for them to be able to seek those answers from law enforcement in Oklahoma and hopefully lead to closing these decades-long investigations,” Hicks said in a statement.

The new law takes effect Nov. 1 and gives relatives a formal way to request a review of their missing loved ones’ cases, sets accountability timelines for the review and mandates that law enforcement give relatives updates explaining the investigation’s findings. It also requires investigators who were not part of the original case to review it using modern tools.

If law enforcement decides no further investigation is needed, according to Hicks, the case will not be revisited for at least five years.

The passing of SB1636 has been applauded by activists in the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples Crisis and was a topic brought up during MMIP Awareness Day at the Oklahoma State Capitol on May 5.

Oklahoma lawmakers approved a bill to legalize natural organic reduction — the composting of human remains. Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed the measure during what’s expected to be the final week of the legislative session.

Natural organic reduction involves putting a body in a container with materials like wood chips or straw and allowing microbes to break it down.

House Bill 3660 would make Oklahoma the 15th state to legalize the process, according to the National Funeral Directors Association.

Opponents say human composting is an affront to human dignity. Proponents, like bill author Eddy Dempsey, R-Valliant, say it’s a personal choice for both individuals and funeral homes.

“This is just another option for us, for our families, if you want it,” Dempsey said during debate on the House floor on May 6. “Nobody is forcing you to do this. I've heard about, ‘Funeral homes don't want to buy the equipment.’ Nobody's forcing the funeral homes to buy the equipment.”

Rep. Jim Shaw, R-Chandler, has vehemently opposed the measure throughout the legislative session, saying it is an affront to his beliefs about human dignity.

“We need to be concerned about the direction we're heading as a society,” he said during House debate. “Turning people into byproducts. The way we treat our dead says a lot about what we believe as a society.”

Shaw characterized human composting as “coming from a progressive leftist worldview,” saying all 14 states in which the process is legal “were Joe Biden states in 2024.”

No states voted for Biden in the 2024 presidential general election, as he was not a candidate. Ten of the states with legal human composting did vote for Democrat Kamala Harris in that election. But it’s also legal in Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, which voted for President Donald Trump, and Maine, which split its electoral votes 3:1 between Harris and Trump.

Rep. Jonathan Wilk, R-Goldsby, argued in favor of the bill. He said many of the arguments against it were based on lies.

“Lies that it had to do with humanure.[...] Lies that it had to do with using human remains as fertilizer,” Wilk said. “Nothing in this bill prevents the dirt from this process from being buried in a cemetery, just the same as nothing in this bill prevents it from being shipped to Mars. To say it's going to be spread for commercial fertilizer is a lie.”

Rep. Scott Fetgatter, R-Okmulgee, voted against the measure in March because of what he characterized as a lack of understanding of the process. But by the time it came back from the Senate with amendments, he had changed his mind.

“I have personally embalmed bodies, and I'm going to tell you right now, there is nothing more brutal to watch or participate in than the embalming process of a human body,” Fetgatter said. “We drain all the blood out, and then we fill them with chemicals.”

House Bill 3660 passed both chambers with about 60% of the vote. The final version would also make it a felony to sell organically reduced human remains or use them to grow food for people or livestock.

Despite those provisions, Stitt vetoed the bill Tuesday, saying it “moves too far toward treating the human body as a material to be repurposed, rather than remains to be reverently laid to rest.”

Shaw hailed the veto as “a grassroots victory” on Facebook.

The Muscogee Nation Supreme Court denied a series of appeals Tuesday seeking to enforce citizenship for descendants of people formerly enslaved by the tribe.

Those appeals included motions to postpone the nation’s May 30 special election, hold Principal Chief David Hill in contempt of court and issue the appellants citizenship cards “immediately.”

They were filed by Rhonda Grayson and Jeffrey Kennedy, two individuals behind the Muscogee Freedmen case decided last July. That was when the tribal court ruled Freedmen were entitled to citizenship, citing an 1866 treaty with the federal government. In the process, the justices rejected language from the 1979 constitution limiting citizenship “by blood.”

In August, Hill signed an executive order pausing the issuance of citizenship cards to Freedmen descendants, stating the court overstepped its authority and that the tribe must first update its laws in accordance with the ruling.

But the tribe’s Supreme Court wrote Tuesday that the executive branch is working toward citizenship, and that it doesn’t have the authority to resolve Grayson and Kennedy’s appeal.

“The evidence produced to the Court in response to these orders for status reports has shown conclusively that the Appellant and the Executive Branch have taken steps to comply with this Court's Order and Opinion (though, perhaps not in the manner or at the speed desired by the Respondents, and, to be frank, not at the speed this Court would prefer),” the order states. “However, the Court finds that the Respondents' pending Motions should be denied.”

It argues the matter is non-justiciable, meaning it can’t be resolved in the same way because it’s a matter of enforcement, not interpretation.

“Judgments concerning necessary legislation to implement the Court's decision, commissions that may be necessary to prepare for expected changes resulting from the sudden influx of new citizens, and how much time is necessary to responsibly implement these changes are political questions that must be left to the branches of government assigned those tasks under the Nation's Constitution,” the court wrote.

Within the order, the court included a message directed at the political branches of its government and its citizenry.

The court wrote the Muscogee Nation is a sovereign nation due to the actions of its ancestors, including the signing of the Treaty of 1866. It argued ignoring certain aspects of the treaty poses a “danger” to sovereignty.

Last month, the Muscogee National Council issued an overwhelming vote of no confidence against five of its Supreme Court justices, arguing the judicial branch’s Freedmen decision violated the 1979 constitution. Only one member opposed the measure.

“It is clear to this Court that, like our ancestors, many among our citizens today are also dismayed at the prospect of this Court's Order and Opinion, and would have preferred that the Court had ruled differently,” the order reads. “Also like our ancestors, this Court's fervent hope in this case, and in every case that finds its way to our docket, is that our decision will secure a better future for our Nation, and make clear to all that the Judicial Branch of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation produces just results to all parties, honoring both our tradition and our legal precedent, even if some results may be hard.”

A spokesperson for the Muscogee Nation said the tribe would not comment on the court’s decision. Representatives for Grayson, Kennedy and the Muscogee Creek Indian Freedmen Band did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Oklahoma lawmakers have proposed several constitutional reforms this year. Here are the ones voters can expect to see on the ballot this election season — and when.

Four legislative state questions have already been sent to the Oklahoma Secretary of State’s office for final review of the language voters will see on the ballot.

Scheduled for the August 25 primary runoff are State Questions 844 and 846, which relate to local government reimbursements for lost ad valorem revenues caused by corporate tax incentives, and requiring voter ID at the ballot, respectively.

In November, voters will see State Questions 845, dealing with judicial selection reform, and 847, aimed at limiting property valuation increases to slow the steady rise in the cost of homeowners’ insurance.

Secretary of State records show that upon reviewing the ballot titles for each of the proposed questions, State Attorney General Gentner Drummond determined none of the four were sufficiently clear in explaining their impact to Oklahomans, as written by the legislature.

That means Drummond gets to rewrite the ballot titles within 10-15 days of his notification that they are insufficient. Rewritten ballot titles are share with legislative leaders in both the House and the Senate upon Drummond filing them.

One more possible state question still floating around in the legislature is Senate Joint Resolution 50, which, if approved and sent to the secretary of state this week, would let voters decide, in part, whether to pluck Medicaid expansion language from the state Constitution and insert it into statute if the federal government’s match for the program falls below 90%.

SJR 50 is the combination of two bills proposed by the House, each aiming to reduce Medicaid costs for Oklahoma and allow law makers to alter Medicaid expansion eligibility language. After the Senate adjourned until further notice last week, the only way to force them to consider the measures was to gut one of their bills and replace it with House language.

But the measure is still held up, along with several other House bills and proposed veto overrides, as lawmakers in the Senate haven’t shown up to work since adjourning last week. Still, both chambers have agreed to formally end the 2026 session by this Thursday, May 14. But with work still left to do, it’s unclear whether that date will hold.

There is also State Question 832, a citizen-led ballot initiative to raise the state minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2029, which will hit the ballot during the June 16 primary election. That state question came about from an initiative petition.

Oklahoma has been locked in a court battle with a handful of large poultry companies for more than two decades. But for the first few months of this year, it seemed like the lawsuit might be coming to a close.

In early March, dozens of people filed into Judge Gregory K. Frizzell’s Tulsa courtroom to hear him weigh proposals to resolve the case and end most of the appeals.

Poultry professionals packed the benches hip-to-hip behind lawyers representing Tyson Foods, Cargill and Peterson Farms Inc. Across the gallery, the rest of the audience had a little more room to spread out behind the attorneys representing the state.

Despite the clear divide, people on both sides of the courtroom are eager for the case to conclude.

In fact, for the first time, the state and the poultry companies were asking the judge for the same thing. They wanted Frizzell to approve consent judgments — legally binding compromises — on how to clean up existing damage in the watershed and how to deal with poultry litter moving forward.

“The attorney general is not standing here in front of the court today telling the court that he got everything that he wanted in this settlement,” said Garry Gaskins with the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office. “This is an agreement that the attorney general believes is in the best interest of the state and he got the best terms that he believed he could get in this case.”

Steve Butler was one of the poultry growers in the audience. He said the terms of the settlements weren’t ideal for the poultry companies either.

“I couldn't believe they gave in that much,” Butler said in an interview the week after the hearing. “But these agreements were made. And they presented to him [Frizzell]. And then they play white noise. And then he gets up and says, ‘Adjourned.’ You don't know if he's going to wait 13 years to rule on that.”

Frizzell did not — he nixed the settlements about a month later.

Now, Oklahoma poultry growers and environmental advocates alike are wondering when they’ll be able to move past this, while the judge works to turn the uncertainty of the past two decades into a meaningful legal outcome.

A lifestyle and a business

Butler loves being a poultry grower.

“It's been good to us as far as a way of living, being able to work with your family,” he said in an interview on March 18. “But, you know, obviously we like to make money. So it's the best way to make a good living in eastern Oklahoma on a farm.”

Butler’s operation, Green Country Farms, is based in Watts, Oklahoma. As a third-generation poultry producer, he has been in the watershed since before the lawsuit was filed.

The defendants in the lawsuit are poultry integrators — the large companies that own the birds and coordinate their lives, deaths, processing and distribution. The largest still operating in the Illinois River Watershed are Tyson Foods, Simmons Foods and Cobb-Vantress Inc., which is owned by Tyson.

But the people who actually deal with the chickens are poultry growers, like Butler.

A grower’s business is to care for the birds, feed them and deal with their waste. The growers are not technically involved in the lawsuit.

“We never sued farmers,” said Drew Edmondson in an interview on March 31. “The poultry companies tried to bring farmers in as third-party defendants. And we opposed it. And the judge denied it.”

But Butler said growers have never been insulated from the lawsuit. He said in the mid-2000s, helicopters flew over poultry operations to take photos, and unmarked police cars were often in the area.

“The folks around here got pretty mad,” he said. “They don't like being spied on. But then it became a real nuisance when we'd have to do depositions…. I had to spend the entire hours that they were allowed in depositions. We had to have lawyers representing us when we weren't a party to the suit.”

Now, the effects on growers are more about economic uncertainty.

Butler said it’s particularly difficult because his company exports all its litter out of the Illinois River Watershed. He’s spent decades building a customer base of farmers, many in Kansas, who will buy his litter to use on their land.

He’s also been part of the non-profit Illinois River Watershed Partnership.

“We all got along and worked together to try to improve the Illinois River,“ Butler said. “But then in the meantime, I'm sitting here wondering if I will get to stay in business, and so it's frustrating that way.”

Tyson in particular has been clear about its intention to stop contracting growers in the Illinois River Watershed. Before Frizzell rejected the settlement agreements, Tyson announced that it would not renew contracts with growers in the watershed unless and until the settlement went through.

In documents obtained by KOSU, the company sent letters to at least two Northwest Arkansas growers, saying it would not renew their contracts unless the settlement was approved.

With contracts for nearly 7 million birds in the four counties containing the Illinois River Watershed, Tyson is the second largest integrator there. The largest is Simmons, which did not put forward a settlement agreement with the state.

Both companies have been contracting fewer birds in the IRW since Frizzell released his ruling in 2023 than they were before, according to data from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

Butler said he’s grateful to Tyson for staying in the watershed at all.

“Much like other companies have done, they could have just left, said, ‘We're done,’” Butler said. “But they've stayed here and tried to do business. I respect that. Are they a big mean company? Yeah. But the bottom line is: They are trying to do business right here.”

Crystal clear waters

But as business goes on, the watershed and the people who love it are also stuck in limbo.

“We have lost 20 years of being able to remediate the damage caused by 60 years of land application of chicken litter throughout the watershed,” said retired attorney Gerald Hilsher.

Hilsher served on Gov. Frank Keating’s Animal Waste and Water Quality Protection task force starting in 1997 and on Oklahoma’s Scenic River Commission after that.

But his love for the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller started long before, when he was a student at Northeastern State University in Tahlequah.

“Back in 1974 to ‘76, when I was a student there, Lake Tenkiller was a strikingly clear lake,” he said. “It was a place where scuba divers loved to go because they could see 15, 20, 30 feet underwater and because the lake was so clear. When I returned to Oklahoma after law school in 1979, you could already see the effects of phosphorus pollution on Lake Tenkiller.”

Hilsher said phosphorus pollution and the resulting algae growth left 60-80% of the lake without oxygen, “basically dead.”

Scuba divers still go to Lake Tenkiller, and hundreds of thousands of people still float the Illinois River each year. He said the people living on top of the watershed are feeling the impact of pollution.

“The businesses like your canoe operator, the recreational and touristry business, and also your municipal or county wide water treatment plants that have to deal with the expanding load of water treatment to supply potable water to their communities,”Hilsher said.

Statewide, tourism generates about twice as much economic activity as the poultry industry. Both industries are particularly concentrated in the Illinois River Watershed.

Alongside the concern that the poultry industry could move out of the watershed, there’s worry that tourism isn’t what it could be, and that it will decline if river conditions don’t improve.

Time has not stood still in the watershed. Conservation efforts across state lines, including trucking litter out of the watershed and soil sampling, have softened the poultry industry’s impact on the area. But Hilsher said the watershed still needs work.

“It is true that a lot has been done,” Hilsher said. “But the fact remains that we have destroyed Lake Tenkiller. We had degraded the Illinois River and Barren Creek and down in Lake Wister.”.

But he said he understands why Frizzell took his time on a ruling, and why he didn’t approve settlement agreements more lenient than his final order.

“Part of me says, ‘Gee whiz, it's been way too long,’” Hilsher said. “And on the other hand, I say, ‘Well, this has taken a lot of time and effort and I've just got to trust Judge Frizzell that he has moved it along as quickly as he could.’”

In his rejection of the settlements, Frizzell wrote the integrators rolled the dice rather than settling earlier, in hopes they’d receive favorable judgment. Hilsher said the “dice rolling” isn’t an approach he’s seen in his 45 years as an appellate lawyer.

“This is a very curious lawsuit. It doesn't look like anything I've ever been a part of or experienced,” Hilsher said.

Politics at play

Edmondson brought the state’s lawsuit against the poultry integrators when he was Oklahoma Attorney General.

Since his term ended in 2011, the lawsuit has been in the hands of six different acting attorneys general, although none of them have had much to do on it until current Attorney General Gentner Drummond.

Butler has his suspicions about the 13-year pause between the courtroom arguments and Frizzell’s ruling.

“We always wondered why nothing happened,” he said. “But then 13 years later, three days after the attorney general [Drummond] takes office, the judge rules.”

Edmondson also thinks the timing may have been calculated.

“Several of those predecessors especially — and I will mention Scott Pruitt — if the judge had ruled during his term, I don't think it would have been pursued,” Edmondson said. “I think they would have reached a sweetheart deal and deep-sixed it. That's what I believe.”

Drummond's term as attorney ends next year and while working on the case, he is running for governor.

In a hearing on February 27 to discuss the proposed settlement with George’s, Inc, Frizzell asked Drummond if political pressure was influencing his handling of the case. Earlier, the case cost Drummond an endorsement from the Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association.

“I do respond to political reality,” Drummond said “I have 10 months left in my tenure and no guarantee to be governor. And when my tenure is up, and if I’m not governor, then you can anticipate this case is dismissed. And there is no remedy to the State of Oklahoma.”

Although there are other settled cases concerning excess phosphorus and water, Edmondson said State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods sets a precedent, providing other states a template of what is achievable.

Throughout the consideration of the consent judgments, Frizzell’s final order from December has remained in place. The poultry companies will continue to appeal his order and his denial of the settlements. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver could consider the case.

Edmondson said, though, it’s unlikely an attorney general could dismiss the case now that Frizzell has issued a ruling.

“We don't know what's going to happen once he [Drummond] leaves the office,” Edmondson said. “But we're in better shape on that than we were before the judge ruled, I think almost certainly.”

Butler said his ideal scenario would have been for Frizzell to approve the settlements — Tyson’s requirement for renewing grower contracts in the watershed.

“I don't see a positive outcome other than him approving that,” Butler said. “So we don't have a real good outlook right now.”

Hilsher also sees a long road ahead.

“I wish I could be more optimistic than I am,” Hilsher said. “I'm concerned that we're going to spend another three to five years waiting for a final decision from the Court of Appeals, which may then either go to the Supreme Court and have more delay.”

The Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in southwest Oklahoma will celebrate its 125th anniversary on June 2 with 100-year-old time capsule projects. Those hoping to have their messages sealed in the new time capsule have until May 20 to deliver them to refuge staff.

President William McKinley established the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge as a forest reserve in 1901. Since then, the refuge has helped preserve wildlife such as bison, longhorn, elk and about 60,000 acres of mixed-grass prairie.

To celebrate its past, a 100-year-old time capsule, buried in 1926 at Lost Lake Dam, will be unveiled, along with a screening of a new film about the refuge.

However, the event isn’t just a reflection of its history; it also looks forward.

The new headquarters building in the refuge will have its grand opening, and a new time capsule will be sealed.

Currently, there is an open call for letters that the general public can submit to be entered into the capsule. The deadline is May 20.

Suggested prompts include what visitors 100 years from now can learn from current visitors, what their hopes are for the refuge and why the Wichita Mountains matter.

Letters can be submitted in person at the visitor’s center in Cache. They can also be mailed to the refuge at 21088 State Hwy 115 or emailed to wmr_visitorservices@fws.gov, using the subject line “Time Capsule Project.”

The 125th anniversary event is scheduled to take place from 1:30 p.m to 4:30 p.m at the headquarters building, east of the visitor’s center on June 2.

More information can be found at the refuge’s website.

A bill to ensure Oklahoma maintains federal milk compliance is almost at Gov. Kevin Stitt’s desk. Supporters of Senate Bill 2071 say it will allow dairies to continue selling milk out of state.

The measure is a request bill from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

Every three years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviews the department’s food safety division. For the past two regular reviews, Scott Yates, director of food safety at the department, said the federal agency recommended Oklahoma align with federal rules regulating milk from all hoofed animals.

“So if this language isn't changed, FDA would have the authority, and to be honest I don't know what the timeline would be, but they would have the authority to take away the state's Grade A status,” Yates said.

This means no milk or milk products could leave the state, affecting dairies, dairy processors or farms in out-of-state co-ops. There were 298 dairies in Oklahoma in 2022, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture.

The state legislators are hoping to wrap up the session soon, but the bill must clear its final chamber before reaching the governor’s desk. It passed the House of Representatives in a 58-31 vote and the Senate in a 25-20 vote.

Although it has already cleared both legislative bodies once, senators have to approve it again because language was changed. Originally, SB2071 included a fee increase from 1 cent to 2 cents per hundred gallons of milk to allow the food safety program to pay for itself.

Yearly total expenses, including milk sampling, salaries to pay employees and travel is $400,000, Yates said. But with the current 1-cent fee, revenue is about $250,000.

Because more money is spent than is brought in, he said the department is subsidizing the program with other ODAFF funds. Without the fee increase, that will continue.

While the fee increase is no longer in the bill, it was unpopular with some lawmakers. One of the bill’s authors, Sen. Casey Murdock, R-Felt, said in a February committee meeting that the fee’s update is about food safety, would still keep Oklahoma’s cost lower than other states, including Kansas and Texas and allow the program to carry its own weight.

The measure’s other author, Rep. Carl Newton, R-Cherokee, said in an April committee meeting that this bill would mainly impact large dairies like Braum’s and Hiland Dairy. He said right now, the fee for a 50,000-pound milk tanker is about $5, and with the fee increase, it would be about $10.