Competition for scarce water in dry regions has a long and sometimes violent history. Washington state has been the scene of a legal battle between a cattle-ranching family and state regulators over the family’s use of water in the dry eastern region of the Evergreen State. Tensions have escalated in tandem with the state’s enforcement efforts, pitting stewardship of natural resources against the economic survival of a family farm. Now, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have joined the fray.
Wetlands or Cow Ponds?
News reports claim that Wade and Teresa King have operated their Washington cattle ranch for six or seven decades. The state of Washington determined that the ranch contains “alkali wetlands” that are protected under state law. The Kings argue that the term is undefined, and that all they have done is maintain ground ponds for watering livestock, just as they have for decades. Washington levied a fine exceeding $267,000, prompting a legal case that blossomed into a second lawsuit after the state terminated land leases, an act the Kings assert was a retaliatory punishment.
A fine of that size can be devastating to a modest business. So, too, can the withdrawal of essential grazing lands needed for the King cow herd. Without sufficient water and pastureland, cows cannot be profitably raised: The herd must be reduced through sale or slaughter, which in turn slashes turnover and income.
The Kings claim federal constitutional protections are at issue because the state has effectively administered harsh penalties that amount to a punishment requiring judicial review and implicating due process rights. Their suit alleges it is unconscionable for the state to penalize them so severely, not only to incentivize compliance but to destroy their multi-generational way of life and livelihood.
Washington State vs Washington DC
But now the feds have stepped in. Secretary Rollins has declared she will fight for American farms. In 2025, she announced that a Joe Biden-era criminal prosecution against South Dakota ranchers Heather and Charles Maude would be terminated. She has labeled Washington’s enforcement actions against the Kings “out of control” and a “war on agriculture.”
Even more unusual is the EPA’s involvement, not to protect precious water but to defend farmers’ rights. The agency avers that state wetlands enforcement overlaps with federal clean water rules, and overly aggressive state regulatory actions could conflict with broader federal roles and unfairly target family ranches and farms.
During the last administration, the opposite scenario was more likely. President Biden oversaw an expansion of federal regulation of ranch lands through endangered species classifications, federal land disputes such as that of the Maudes in South Dakota, and efforts to implement burdensome SEC climate-reporting mandates. Such regulatory actions impose burdensome compliance costs, reduce available grazing space, and create confusion about future operations on small businesses already struggling under adverse drought, market, and inflation conditions.
Farmers Over Bureaucrats?
Some commentators allege that the Kings had not changed their longstanding stewardship of maintaining water collection in ponds used for their cows, but rather the state of Washington had changed its enforcement under capricious interpretations of statute. The family was subjected to a fine by the Washington Department of Ecology, an appeal heard by the state’s Pollution Control Board, lease cancellation by the Washington Department of Natural Resources, and a criminal investigation by the state attorney general’s office. None of these bureaucratic determinations was subject to judicial review, leading the Kings to argue that their constitutional rights to due process were violated because this phalanx of punishments was devastating to their business and reputation.
The Kings’ dispute with Washington state has drawn national attention for its novelty and importance, not only for farmers but also an array of small businesses that could be similarly regulated by state actors. The involvement of two federal agencies has balanced the dispute, so that the King family is no longer alone in the proverbial hot seat. The case may never answer the legal questions raised about constitutionality because settlement discussions are reportedly underway. However, state agencies may think more carefully about the boundaries of their legal authority in future exchanges with farmers, ranchers, and other American businesses.
