Weather 
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The owners of a multigenerational cattle ranch say they are facing an “existential threat” after the Washington State Department of Ecology fined them hundreds of thousands of dollars over their stockwater ponds, and they are warning the case could have substantial implications nationwide.
The department fined Wade and Teresa King, owners of King Ranch in Grant and Douglas counties, $267,540 in 2023 for allegedly damaging regulated wetlands by digging ponds to provide water for their ranching operations. The Kings argue the areas, which they were ordered to restore, are longstanding stockwater ponds for their livestock, not regulated wetlands.
The Kings, who have been trying to get their case in front of a jury, told Fox News Digital that, not only is their financial stability at stake, so are the rights of other ranchers.
“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.”
HOW A LOBSTERMAN’S PRIVACY FIGHT REACHED SCOTUS — AND COULD RIPPLE FAR BEYOND THE WATER: ‘AIN’T OVER YET’
When the Kings were first hit with the fines and restoration orders, they immediately set out to challenge them. However, the department’s required process directed them to bring their case before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), an administrative panel that does not provide jury trials.
In March, the Kings filed a separate lawsuit in Grant County Superior Court, arguing the case should not be decided by the PCHB and that doing so would violate their right to a jury trial. Months later, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling the Kings first had to complete the administrative process.
The Kings appealed the decision, and a Washington Court of Appeals commissioner paused the PCHB proceedings in September while the court considers whether they are entitled to a jury trial.
“It’s all under the executive branch, and they very rarely go with the property owner,” Wade said, adding that Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, who was attorney general when the fight began, now has appointment authority over the board alongside the state Senate.
“They almost always side with the agencies and it’s just not a fair trial for appellants like us.”
The PCHB declined to comment due to the pending case.
Oliver Dunford, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation representing the Kings, told Fox News Digital they are prepared to petition the U.S. Supreme Court if they are unsuccessful in Washington.
HOW A SIX PACK OF BEER AND THE MAGNA CARTA COULD FINALLY FIX A PROBLEM PLAGUING AMERICANS FOR DECADES
“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 if the case reaches the Supreme Court, a ruling could have ripple effects across other states.
“If we prevail, it would have an enormous effect, certainly across the state of Washington, but hopefully across the country, and prevent these agencies from just issuing these fines and then essentially putting the burden on you to prove your innocence and take the case all the way to the Supreme Court just to get a chance at a jury trial,” he said.
The Kings’ attorneys estimate the cost of complying with the department’s orders could exceed $3.7 million. But beyond the financial toll, Teresa said the orders would be “unachievable” because the areas were never wetlands in the first place.
BLUE STATE’S WATER FAILURES COULD THREATEN FOOD SUPPLIES ACROSS US, LAWMAKER WARNS
“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 failed to give them any details on how to fix the alleged damage. He said the wetlands designation gives the department greater authority over the areas than it would if they were considered stockwater ponds.
“That’s the big reason why they want to call them wetlands when they’re not wetlands,” Wade said.
Wade and Teresa described how the fight could also hurt their children and their children’s children. The Kings have ranched in Grant and Douglas counties since the 1950s, where Teresa said multiple generations now live and work.
TRUMP ADMIN SCRAPS ‘WEAPONIZED’ WILDLIFE RULE THAT BECAME ‘BURDEN’ ON AMERICAN FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES: BURGUM
“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 the areas were previously stockwater ponds and accused the Kings of “damaging 23 naturally occurring wetlands” in Grant County.
“Ecology inspectors made site visits to these damaged areas where possible, but also used satellite imagery, aerial images dating from as far back as 1949, and other records to determine that the Kings had damaged 6.37 acres of naturally occurring wetlands by excavating, recontouring, and putting fill in them,” the department said.
The department added it “repeatedly sought to resolve concerns about the damage” but the Kings “refused to cooperate with these efforts.” They said they ordered the Kings to restore 11 more areas in Douglas County last year, bringing the total to 34, and most were on state land.
Wade said they have always protected and cared for the land that the department is now accusing them of damaging.
“We want clean water,” Wade 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 the fight is far from over, with Teresa arguing the case could jeopardize exemptions other ranchers rely on to provide water for livestock.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“It’s not just us,” Teresa said. “We are defending every rancher in the state of Washington’s exempt livestock water rights.”
Read the full article here
