Two members of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission came under fire by colleagues after filing a brief in federal court in support of the poultry industry.

The motion requesting permission to file a friend-of-the-court brief was filed Feb. 20 by commissioners Rick Stubblefield and Steven Randall. Stubblefield said the motion and supporting brief were filed out of concern for the “protection and promotion of manure transfer programs.”

Stubblefield said he believes the state’s objective in trying to secure a temporary injunction to stop the application of poultry litter within the Illinois River watershed is to label manure as a solid waste. Such a ruling would threaten manure transfer programs, Stubblefield said.

Regardless of the motives involved, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers commissioners Gerald Hilsher and Ed Brocksmith said the motion, brief and supporting documents filed by Stubblefield and Randall are not supported by the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission.

The factual allegations regarding the extent of the poultry litter problem within the Illinois River watershed set out in the brief also contradict those presented by Attorney General Drew Edmondson.

Hilsher, in an e-mail sent to media outlets in response to the Stubblefield-Randall documents, said the title of the pleading submitted is misleading.

“It is not a commission filing,” Hilsher said, citing the commissioners’ inclusion of their titles as Oklahoma Scenic Rivers commissioners and the lack of punctuation. “It is, at best, the individual opinions of two commissioners ... The only reason for the filing is to insert Stubblefield’s and Randall’s official status into the lawsuit in an attempt to embarrass the state and the attorney general.”

Brocksmith said there has been no vote by the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission nor any discussion that would lend any official support or credence to Stubblefield and Randall’s request or assertions.

A response filed Monday by Edmondson’s office said the request filed by Stubblefield and Randall should be denied “because it is not timely, useful or helpful to the court.”

The attorney general’s response points out that the brief and supporting documents presented by Stubblefield and Randall contain information that has been — or is being — presented by the defendants of the lawsuit filed to protect the water resources within the Illinois River watershed.

“These issues are already being addressed by the parties, and the movants offer no unique perspective on these issues,” M. David Riggs wrote in the state’s response to the motion. “Indeed, a number of the movants’ arguments mirror the flawed arguments being advanced by Defendants.”

Riggs argues the duplicate allegations set out by Stubblefield and Randall merely extend the length of the defendants’ briefs and should not be allowed based on precedent of the court’s previous rulings in such matters.

Riggs also points out in the state’s response that the request to file the friend-of-the-court brief came after the court began hearing arguments about a request to prohibit the application of poultry litter to land within the Illinois River watershed.

The state kicked off its case Feb. 19 and presented testimony during the course of the next four days. The defendant poultry companies opened its case Feb. 22 and will resume testimony Monday.