The owners of a family cattle ranch say a state penalty over ponds used to water their livestock poses an “existential threat” to their business. They warn the dispute could also affect ranchers elsewhere.
In 2023, the Washington State Department of Ecology fined Wade and Teresa King $267,540, alleging they had damaged protected wetlands while digging ponds on King Ranch, which spans Grant and Douglas counties. The department ordered the couple to restore the areas. The Kings say the ponds have long been used to water their cattle and are not regulated wetlands.
The couple have been trying to bring the dispute before a jury. They say both their financial future and the rights of other ranchers are at stake.
“Losing this fight would be an existential threat,” Wade said. “I don’t know how we would recover from that, to be honest with you.”
After receiving the fines and restoration orders, the Kings challenged the department’s actions. But the process required them to take the case to the Pollution Control Hearings Board, an administrative body that does not hold jury trials.
In March, they filed a separate lawsuit in Grant County Superior Court, arguing the dispute should not be decided by the board and that denying them a jury trial would violate their rights. A judge dismissed the lawsuit several months later, ruling that the couple first had to finish the administrative process.
The Kings appealed. In September, a Washington Court of Appeals commissioner put the board proceedings on hold while the court considers whether the couple are entitled to a jury trial.
Wade said the board operates within the executive branch and, in his view, rarely rules in favor of property owners. He also noted that Gov. Bob Ferguson, who was the state’s attorney general when the dispute began, has appointment authority over the board along with the state Senate.
“They almost always side with the agencies, and it’s just not a fair trial for appellants like us,” he said.
The board declined to comment while the case is pending.
Oliver Dunford, a senior attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation who represents the Kings, said they may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case if they lose in Washington.
“We have to ask them one question: to rule that the Seventh Amendment does apply against the states, and then to argue that the Kings should have had a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment,” Dunford said.
He said a Supreme Court decision could have consequences beyond Washington. If the Kings prevail, he said, it could limit agencies’ ability to impose fines and leave property owners to challenge them through lengthy proceedings before getting a jury trial.
The Kings’ lawyers estimate that following the department’s restoration orders could cost more than $3.7 million. Teresa said the requirements would also be impossible to meet because, in the couple’s view, the areas were never wetlands.
“How do we as ranchers turn these into wetlands and comply with everything that Ecology wants us to?” she said. “It’ll be unachievable and it would just spin us in the ground financially.”
“How are we supposed to make wetlands from non-wetlands?” Wade added.
Wade said the department has not explained how the couple should address the alleged damage. He believes the wetlands classification gives the state more control over the areas than it would have if they were treated as stockwater ponds.
“That’s the big reason why they want to call them wetlands when they’re not wetlands,” he said.
The couple said the dispute could affect their children and future generations. Their family has ranched in Grant and Douglas counties since the 1950s, and Teresa said several generations now live and work on the land.
“It’s fourth generation, then we have fifth and sixth living and working on this ranch and we want to continue with this,” she said. “We just want to be left alone.”
The department said its investigation found no evidence that the areas had previously been stockwater ponds. It accused the Kings of damaging 23 naturally occurring wetlands in Grant County.
According to the department, inspectors visited the affected sites where possible and reviewed satellite imagery, aerial photographs dating back to 1949 and other records. It concluded that excavation, recontouring and fill had damaged 6.37 acres of wetlands.
The department said it repeatedly tried to address its concerns with the Kings, who it said declined to cooperate. It also said it ordered the couple last year to restore 11 additional areas in Douglas County, bringing the total to 34. Most of those areas were on state land.
Wade said the family has always looked after the land the department now accuses them of harming.
“We want clean water,” he said. “Why would we pollute or cause damage to the land or the water that we rely on in our livelihood? We’re generational. Why would we do something to harm ourselves that way and harm the environment?”
The Kings said they intend to keep fighting the case. Teresa said the outcome could put at risk exemptions that ranchers use to provide water for livestock.
“It’s not just us,” she said. “We are defending every rancher in the state of Washington’s exempt livestock water rights.”
