The King Ranch Wetland Case: Fines, Federal Role, and Jury Fight

The King Ranch wetland case is an unresolved, multi-front fight between Wade and Teresa King, owners of a cattle operation near Coulee City in Grant County, Washington, and the Washington Department of Ecology over roughly two dozen alkali wetland sites the state says the ranch illegally excavated in 2021. The state has imposed a $267,540 civil penalty and restoration orders the ranch’s attorneys estimate will cost more than $3.7 million to comply with. The Kings say the sites are man-made stock-watering ponds they were lawfully maintaining, and the dispute has since drawn in the USDA, the EPA, a constitutional challenge over jury trial rights, and a reported sealed criminal investigation by the state attorney general.

What the State Says Happened

Between January and April 2021, according to the Washington Department of Ecology, King Ranch excavated deep pools inside at least 23 shallow alkali wetlands near Park Lake. The agency determined the work damaged about 6.4 acres of wetland and harmed another 1.8 acres of wetland buffer with spoil deposits.¹ Of the 23 sites, 18 were on state land the ranch leased, two were on federal land, and three were on the Kings’ own property.²

Ecology describes alkali wetlands as “relatively rare” in Eastern Washington and treats them as protected under state laws barring the discharge of pollution into state waters.¹

The Fines and Orders Against the Ranch

In February 2023, Ecology issued two administrative orders. One imposed a civil penalty of $267,540 for alleged violations of the state Water Pollution Control Act. The other required King Ranch to restore the three damaged wetlands on its private land and to grant access so state crews could restore the 18 wetlands on state-leased ground.¹ The Washington Department of Natural Resources separately terminated two grazing leases the King family had held for about 60 years.³

Ecology issued an additional restoration order in January 2025. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Kings, puts the combined compliance cost above $3.7 million. Much of that cost stems from the remote terrain: crews would need helicopters to airlift heavy equipment, irrigation systems, and water to the pond sites.⁴

How the Kings Are Defending the Case

The Kings say the state has the facts and the law wrong. Their position is that the sites are man-made stock-watering ponds, not regulated wetlands, and that periodically cleaning them out is a routine ranching practice. Their attorney, Toni Meacham, has argued that RCW 90.44.050 allows the maintenance of stock ponds without a permit and that Ecology has not produced adequate evidence of illegal excavation.⁵

The ranch appealed the $267,540 fine to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board and filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reinstate the canceled grazing leases.³

Federal Agencies Weigh In

In July 2025, the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service concluded that King Ranch did not disturb wetlands and had instead been performing “the common ranching practice in the West of digging out ponds for cattle.” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins called the ponds “manmade structures” that “eventually start filling back up with sediment and need to be cleaned out.”³

On December 9, 2025, Rollins wrote to the heads of Ecology and Natural Resources, called the state’s conduct a “war on agriculture,” and said USDA was reviewing federal funding to Washington and its institutions “that may be weaponized against farmers and ranchers.” She also criticized what she described as a “secretive criminal action” by the state attorney general.³

On January 20, 2026, EPA Region 10 Administrator Emma Pokon sent her own letter to Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller and Public Lands Commissioner Dave Upthegrove, citing “grave concerns” and telling state officials to “stay within the appropriate jurisdictional bounds” on EPA-overseen programs. Pokon wrote that Washington’s actions appeared to be “impeding cattle farmers’ ability to both earn a livelihood and participate in an important economic activity critical to supplying the nation’s food supply.”⁶

Sixkiller called the USDA’s intervention “misleading” and said it interfered in a state regulatory matter with a “total disregard of the facts.”³ Ecology has maintained it is acting within its authority under state law to protect rare alkali wetlands.⁴

The Constitutional Fight Over a Jury Trial

A separate track of the case attacks the process itself. Under Washington law, someone fined by Ecology must either accept liability or appeal to the Pollution Control Hearings Board, an administrative tribunal of governor-appointed officials with no mechanism to seat a jury.⁷

The Kings argue that system violates their right to a jury trial under both the Washington State Constitution, which provides that “the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,” and the Seventh Amendment. The Pacific Legal Foundation is using the case to push a broader argument that agencies cannot impose civil penalties through administrative adjudication without a jury.⁷

The Kings filed suit in Grant County Superior Court on March 2, 2026, asking for a declaration of their jury-trial right and a halt to the Pollution Control Hearings Board proceedings. On March 20, 2026, Judge Anna Gigliotti denied their request for a preliminary injunction, ruling that under current state law and precedent she could not find the Kings had a “clear legal or equitable right” to a jury trial. She did not resolve the underlying question. A fuller hearing was set for May 21, 2026.⁸

A Reported Criminal Investigation

The Kings’ attorneys say the Washington Attorney General’s Environmental Protection Division opened a criminal investigation into the ranch through the state’s Special Inquiry Judge procedure, a sealed, grand-jury-style process. According to the reporting, the family learned of it in May 2023 when a subpoena was served on one of their employees. The attorney general’s office has declined to confirm or deny the investigation.⁵

The state has reportedly added allegations that the ranch’s activities destroyed “cultural resources,” a claim also cited in the lease termination proceedings.⁹ No criminal charges had been publicly filed as of early 2026.⁵

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, nothing is settled. The appeal of the $267,540 fine remained pending before the Pollution Control Hearings Board, with a hearing expected that summer. Ecology confirmed it had not rescinded or modified any enforcement order.¹⁰ The jury-trial challenge was still moving through Grant County Superior Court. The federal grazing-lease lawsuit was ongoing. And a separate earlier lawsuit filed by the Kings in March 2024, later transferred from Douglas County to Thurston County Superior Court, was on appeal at the Washington Court of Appeals.¹¹ The dispute now spans two separate lawsuits across four courts, with no settlement reported.

1
Washington Department of Ecology. Wetlands in Grant County
2
Spokesman-Review. Grant County Ranchers Fined for Damaging Rare Wetlands
3
Capital Press. Rollins Rebukes Washington Agencies for Fining King Ranch
4
Capital Press. EPA Defends Washington Rancher Accused of Environmental Crime
5
The Center Square. Washington Ranch Dispute
6
R-CALF USA. EPA Letter Regarding King Ranch
7
Pacific Legal Foundation. King Ranch Jury Trial
8
Capital Press. Judge: Rancher King Has No Clear Right to a Jury Trial
9
AgWeb. Weaponized: Ranching Family Targeted in Secret State Investigation
10
Tri-State Livestock News. Washington State’s King Ranch Files for Preliminary Injunction
11
Spokesman-Review. NCW Ranchers Fight State Over Wetland Penalties