"E. The monies referred to in subsection A of this section may be expended for water quality projects, including, but not limited to, sewer line construction or repair and related storm or sanitary sewer projects, water line construction or repair, improvements and repairs to existing water infrastructure of rural water districts and irrigation districts, water treatment, water acquisition, distribution or recovery and related projects"

Amend / scratch Section 4. Be specific about what this bill will mean. Vague bills that allow agencies to "promulgate rules" often result in even MORE regulations and requirements and hoops to jump through. I believe the intent of this bill is to lessen restrictions and allow telemedicine for animals (which is absolutely necessary and already being used by great veterinarians, which begs the question, is telemedicine by veterinarians explicitly illegal now? If not, why this bill?) Keep it simple, explain the rules in the bill itself, and don't let this inadvertantly turn into another bureacratic overreach mess for our Vets and farmers and ranchers.

We the OKGOP believe in sunset laws, zero based budgeting and performance audits to justify government programs. Last year this was passed for public school TEACHERS' KIDS. Now you want to add CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATORS kids. Where does it end? Where is eligibility provided for everyone else's kids?

We can't continue taking away people's rights under the guise of safety and security. Let's follow the laws and policies already in place and hold those accountable.

Violates parental rights; horrible bill

Note from Millstone Press on this bill: "Senator Avery Frix’s SB 1774 (introduced in the 2026 session) amends 10A O.S. § 1-2-105 to empower the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) during child abuse/neglect investigations.

The critical addition allows district courts to order temporary emergency custody (up to 72 hours) if parents refuse to cooperate—even absent proven imminent harm. While framed as enhancing investigations, this bill risks state overreach into family autonomy, potentially punishing parents for asserting their rights.

The Bill’s Core Change

The new language in subsection B.1 states:

“If a parent refuses to cooperate with the Department in its investigation, the Department shall immediately notify the district attorney’s office of the refusal and a district court may order the child to be placed in temporary emergency custody for up to seventy-two (72) hours while the investigation is being conducted.”

This goes beyond existing tools (court-ordered access, exams, or records) by authorizing short-term removal solely for non-cooperation. Other provisions (reasonable discipline protections, multidisciplinary teams, collaborative processes) remain, but the custody trigger stands out as expansive.

Senator Frix’s Background

Frix’s conservative record on taxes, business, limited government—but this bill expands state child welfare powers.

So is Frix really Pro-Trump as this move exhibits extending government overreach, which secures more funding into Oklahoma.

Supporters may argue it prevents obstruction in legitimate probes, especially for vulnerable children (disabled, non-verbal). However, critics see it as lowering the bar for state intervention.

Major Concerns: Overreach, Parental Rights Erosion, and Constitutional Violations

This provision effectively gives OKDHS leverage to take children for “failing to participate”—a vague standard that could encompass disputing a report, demanding warrants, or invoking privacy. The 72-hour removal, while temporary, inflicts real trauma on families, particularly in erroneous or low-risk cases.

Critically, SB 1774 potentially infringes on fundamental constitutional rights. The Oklahoma Constitution explicitly protects inherent liberties that government cannot arbitrarily restrict:

• Article II, Section 1: “All political power is inherent in the people; and government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.”

• Article II, Section 2: “All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.”

These affirm that any law infringing on constitutional rights is not legal and cannot restrict our liberties without due process or compelling justification.

Parental rights to direct the care, custody, and upbringing of children are recognized as fundamental liberty interests under both Oklahoma and U.S. constitutional frameworks (see also U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Troxel v. Granville, affirming parents’ fundamental rights).

The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) reinforces this:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

As established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), “any law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” If SB 1774 enables removals that violate due process (14th Amendment) or inherent family liberties without adequate safeguards, it risks being unconstitutional and unenforceable. Broad “non-cooperation” triggers could disproportionately burden families exercising their rights to question state actions, conflicting with these protections.

The bill lacks robust checks: no explicit penalties for bad-faith reports, narrow definitions of cooperation, or mandatory post-removal reviews beyond standard procedures. In Oklahoma’s overburdened child welfare system, this invites abuse and erodes the limited-government principles Frix has championed elsewhere.

Broader Context

SB 1774 emerges amid ongoing debates over parental rights in Oklahoma (e.g., prior Parents’ Bill of Rights expansions). Yet it moves in the opposite direction by expanding state removal authority. As of now, the bill is newly introduced with no hearings scheduled.

Final Thoughts

Senator Frix’s bill prioritizes investigation convenience over family integrity, granting OKDHS troubling power to separate children for mere non-participation. The media has been plaqued with allegations of dishonest, low integrity caseworkers and this will be another tool in their bag of tricks to enter fraud into cases.

By conflicting with the Oklahoma Constitution’s inherent rights to liberty (Art. II, §§ 1–2) and the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause—principles that render infringing laws void—this measure threatens core liberties rather than safeguarding children. Oklahoma families deserve better: robust child protection without unconstitutional overreach.

Parents, constituients and Lawmakers should reject SB 1774 to respect these foundational limits on government power. Track progress at oklegislature.gov.

Contact your representatives and tell them to stop this bill in its tracks. Contact your Governor Candidates and tell them this bill needs to die in committee.

Continuing to create law that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and Oklahoma Constitution makes that law void.

A 24 page bill of amendments and new laws regarding Oklahoma Wind Energy Development Act. The primary objections/unacceptable parts are on page 20 regarding 1/4 and 1/2 mile setbacks (should be at least 1 mile) and no county option for residents to opt out.

Appears to be a duplicate bills of SB 2123 by Frix and SB 1514 by McIntosh and SB 2183 by Seifried...

YES IF increase setbacks, this is not sufficient: "1. The minimum setback for the base of any wind turbine from a nonparticipating landowner’s property line shall be equal to the greater of one quarter (1/4) of a nautical mile or two (2) times the total height of the wind turbine as measured from the ground at its base to the maximum height of the blade tip. A nonparticipating landowner may elect to sign a waiver that allows a wind turbine or group of wind turbines to be placed up to one and one-tenth (1.1) times the total height of the wind turbine as measured from the ground at its base to the maximum height of the blade tip from the nonparticipating landowner’s property line; 2. The minimum setback from the base of a wind turbine shall be one half (1/2) of a nautical mile from any residential structure that exists at the time the permit application is submitted to the Corporation Commission;