Owners of a multigenerational cattle ranch in Washington state are facing a $267,540 fine and millions in potential compliance costs after state regulators accused them of illegally excavating stockwater ponds in regulated wetlands. Wade and Teresa King, who operate the King Ranch across Grant and Douglas counties, received the penalty from the Washington State Department of Ecology in 2023. The agency alleges the family damaged 6.37 acres of naturally occurring wetlands by digging ponds, recontouring land, and placing fill without permits.
The Kings maintain that the disputed sites are longstanding stockwater ponds used for their cattle operations rather than regulated wetlands, and they are fighting for the right to present their case to a jury. Under the state’s administrative procedures, however, challenges to such penalties must first go before the Pollution Control Hearings Board, an administrative panel that does not offer jury trials.
In March, the family filed a lawsuit in Grant County Superior Court to bypass the board and secure a jury trial, arguing that the administrative setup violates their constitutional rights. A local judge dismissed the suit, ruling that the Kings had to finish the administrative process first. The family appealed, and a Washington Court of Appeals commissioner paused the Pollution Control Hearings Board proceedings in September while the appellate court weighs the jury trial question.
It’s all under the executive branch, and they very rarely go with the property owner,
Wade King said. He added that Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, who served as attorney general when the dispute began, now holds appointment authority over the board alongside the state Senate.
The Pollution Control Hearings Board declined to comment on the matter due to the ongoing litigation.
Lawyers Prepare to Take Property Rights Dispute to Supreme Court
Oliver Dunford, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation representing the Kings, said the legal team is prepared to take the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. 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.
Dunford noted that a favorable ruling from the high court could carry broad implications across the country by limiting the ability of state agencies to issue heavy fines and shift the burden of proof onto property owners.
Beyond the initial fine, the Kings’ attorneys estimate that complying with the department’s restoration orders could exceed $3.7 million. Teresa King argued that the restoration demands are practically impossible to fulfill because the land was never a wetland originally. 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.
The Department of Ecology stated that its investigators found no evidence that the sites previously operated as stockwater ponds. Agency inspectors utilized site visits, satellite imagery, and aerial photographs dating back to 1949 to determine that 23 natural wetlands in Grant County were impacted. The agency added that it issued restoration orders for 11 additional areas in Douglas County last year, bringing the total to 34, with most located on state land.
The department stated that it repeatedly attempted to resolve the violations cooperatively, but the Kings refused to participate. State officials have not detailed specific methods for reversing the alleged damage, leaving the family uncertain how to satisfy the restoration mandates.
The King family has operated the ranch since the 1950s, with fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-generation members currently living and working on the property. Teresa King warned that the outcome of the dispute could threaten broader exemptions that ranchers rely on for livestock water rights throughout the state.
