LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation has filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Oklahoma in the case of a preliminary injunction sought by Okla. Attorney General Drew Edmondson in his ongoing lawsuit against 14 poultry companies, several of which operate in the state of Arkansas.

Edmondson is seeking a preliminary injunction that would stop farmers’ use of poultry litter as a natural fertilizer in the Illinois River watershed.

Arkansas Farm Bureau’s amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief was submitted to U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell. The American Farm Bureau has also filed a brief with the court.

“Our brief is in front of the court for review and acceptance, and we believe Judge Frizzell will benefit from the perspectives offered by the largest agricultural advocacy organization in Arkansas,” said Stanley Reed, president of Arkansas Farm Bureau. “We believe Arkansas’ poultry producers haven’t been heard from in this case, and we believe the court needs to hear their voices.”

Arkansas Farm Bureau seeks to present the “unique Arkansas perspective to this dispute,” the brief states. “The Arkansas perspective includes the history of water and environmental management by the states of Oklahoma and Arkansas as set forth in various agreements between the two parties and resulting legislation.”

Arkansas Farm Bureau contends its members “will be affected directly or indirectly by the decision on the pending motion for preliminary injunction as any final ruling on the complaint filed in this case.”

The Arkansas Farm Bureau brief highlights the case of Washington County poultry producer Gene Pharr, who filed a complaint in Pulaski County Circuit Court against the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission and sought a declaratory judgment regarding his rights to spread poultry litter in a manner compliant with Arkansas regulations. He received a consent judgment, enabling him to apply litter in compliance with a state-approved nutrient management plan.

“ARFB and its members have faithfully participated in the passage and implementation of legislation to care for the water and environment of Arkansas pursuant to agreements reached with the State of Oklahoma,” the brief reads. “Like the State of Arkansas, ARFB and its members have relied upon the interstate agreements and the right to farm in compliance with legislation passed to implement the agreements.”

Arkansas Farm Bureau believes if Edmondson’s motion for preliminary injunction is granted, it would “operate, either directly or indirectly, to circumvent (if not negate) valid interstate agreements and the legislation passed to implement those agreements.

“More importantly to ARFB and its members, granting the motion for preliminary injunction would have a severe (and) negative impact on the ability of poultry producers to continue farming from both an economic and operational standpoint. Therefore, ARFB urges the court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction and to carefully consider the interests of all persons, whether named in the pleading or not, before deciding these important issues.”