King Ranch Motion Filed

Bob Larson

King’s attorney, Oliver Dunford, from Pacific Legal Foundation, says they filed a motion Monday to affirm their constitutional right to a jury trial …

DUNFORD … “We think that there are no genuine issues of fact that need to be resolved. Everyone agrees that Ecology has accused the Kings of violating the Pollution Control Act and that it wants to conduct the hearing in front of the PCHB.”

Given all that, Dunford says a hearing before the board is not how this should end …

DUNFORD … “Those are really the only questions at issue, and so we think that because Ecology seeks a civil penalty that that’s a legal claim that belongs in a court in front of a jury.”

The DOE, Dunford says has made their point …

DUNFORD … “Ecology argues that the Kings have harmed wetlands on both the Kings private property and on government-owned property that the Kings lease for cattle grazing.”

The disagreement, Dunford says is pretty simple …

DUNFORD … “The Kings believe that Ecology doesn’t have jurisdiction here, that the Kings have certain water rights under the statute, that they’ve been grandfathered in. And so, yeah, they challenge everything about the Ecology’s allegations.”

Dunford says May 21st is the day scheduled for Ecology to file a response to the King’s brief to which they can then reply.

##

A multigenerational Washington state ranching family has filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to affirm their constitutional right to a jury trial and hold that Washington cannot force them to litigate before an administrative tribunal.

Wade and Teresa King, whose family has ranched in Grant and Douglas counties since the 1950s, face millions in state-imposed compliance costs and a $267,540 civil penalty from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Department issued administrative orders against the Kings beginning in February 2023, claiming their stockwater ponds disturbed regulated wetlands and imposing the civil penalty. A separate restoration order followed in January 2025, bringing estimated compliance costs to over $3.7 million.

The Kings dispute the “wetlands” allegation and argue that the Department has no authority to regulate the property sites at issue.

“Every month this drags on, the Kings rack up legal costs defending themselves in a proceeding that never should be heard in an administrative tribunal in the first place,” said Oliver J. Dunford, Senior Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “Washington’s constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial. That guarantee means nothing if the state can simply route enforcement through agencies that answer to no one but the governor.”

With the Department’s inspection of their private property scheduled for June and the full administrative hearing set to begin in September, the Kings are asking the court to resolve the constitutional question now. Arguments on the motion are expected May 21.

A ruling for the Kings would affirm that Washington must pursue enforcement in a real court — before a jury — rather than before governor-appointed administrators.

You can read the motion for summary judgment filed yesterday here and the case page here. Please let me know if you would like to speak with one of the attorneys on this case and I am glad to set up an interview!