Nestled in Bruneau, Idaho, Ace Black Ranches (ABR) stands as a testament to generations of hard work and dedication. Since 1875, this family-owned, 800-acre ranch has been a cherished legacy, passed down directly from one generation to the next since 1967, with the fervent hope of preserving tradition for years to come.
However, the tranquility of this generational homestead was abruptly disrupted when a neighbor, a Fish and Game manager, raised objections in 2019 to the installation of a water-efficient center-pivot irrigation system by the Black family. Despite the lack of merit in these complaints, the neighbor persisted, escalating the issue to state agencies and eventually involving the Army Corps of Engineers, supposedly under the premise that there had been a violation of the federal Clean Water Act.
In a bewildering turn of events, ABR found themselves embroiled in a bureaucratic nightmare when, on February 10, 2021, they received a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers containing inquiries completely unrelated to their operations. Despite their immediate efforts to clarify and cooperate, the situation only worsened when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched an intrusive investigation.
Over the course of multiple years, the EPA descended upon the ranch on two separate occasions, accompanied by a warrant and armed US Marshals. Spending a total of 7 days on the property, the EPA collected samples and conducted inspections without providing any clarity on its motives or supposed findings.
Despite ABR’s efforts to engage with the EPA, including attempts to schedule meetings and seek clarification, it wasn’t until 2024 that the EPA finally sat down with ABR to discuss its supposed findings. But even there, ABR was only met with vague responses and a lack of substantive communication regarding any alleged violations.
Rather than elaborate on its findings, the EPA directed its lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice to sue ABR, which it did in February 2024. In its complaint, the federal government alleges that ABR unlawfully polluted waters that are within “federal jurisdiction,” including areas on the ABR ranch that the EPA alleges are “adjacent wetlands” that connected to the Bruneau River that flows through ABR’s property. However, for this allegation about the supposed “pollution into wetlands” to be a violation of the Clean Water Act – and even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the EPA is correct that there was any pollution of wetlands at all – the EPA must establish a direct link between ABR’s operations and the Bruneau River. Here’s the problem with that for the EPA though: while the EPA makes a superficial allegation that of course there was pollution into wetlands under the EPA’s jurisdiction, the EPA does not actually allege any facts that would support that claim.
In the past, identifying what constitutes a “wetland” “adjacent” to federal waters under the Clean Water Act has been a matter of both factual and legal uncertainty. However, the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA introduced a clear standard, notably the “Sackett adjacency test.” This adjacency test states the EPA must demonstrate two essential elements: a clear connection between the wetlands in question and larger bodies of water, and such a continuous surface connection between these wetlands and the water body that it is “difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins.” However, in the EPA’s complaint, the federal agency’s assertions fall short of meeting these fundamental requirements.
The plaintiff’s disregard for recent legal precedent is troubling. Although the agency pays lip-service to the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court “significantly tightened” the EPA’s authority to prosecute farmers and ranchers, the EPA’s accusations against ABR nevertheless lack the basic information required by the Supreme Court to establish a direct link between the ranch and the Bruneau River, and therefore to make the Clean Water Act applicable to ABR at all.
Despite ABR’s long-standing cooperation with regulatory bodies like the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and several Idaho state agencies, the EPA’s actions represent a blatant disregard of the Supreme Court. The EPA thinks that it can be its own judge and jury, never mind our federal courts. Now that the EPA has sued ABR alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, ABR asserts that the EPA’s pursuit lacks credible allegations and amounts to an abuse of regulatory authority, placing the ranch’s financial stability and property rights in jeopardy. ABR contends that the EPA’s claims – even if we assume that they are true (they are not) – fail to state anything that ABR did on supposed wetlands that was actually linked to the Bruneau River. Simply put, the EPA has not made allegations that show any reason to litigate this case at all, and the EPA should just stop harassing ABR.
If the government prevails, it could set a dangerous precedent for expansive interpretations of the CWA, undermining property rights and emboldening regulatory overreach.
In light of these concerns, ABR and Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) have asked the federal court in the District of Idaho to dismiss the EPA’s complaint, which would establish that the EPA has not even done the bare minimum to justify further harassing ABR through federal litigation. Dismissing the claims would not only protect ABR’s rights, but also mitigate unwarranted legal burdens and expenses, setting a precedent for fair and just environmental regulation.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
What’s At Stake?
For our clients, ABR faces the imminent threat of financial harm and unnecessary regulatory burdens if the EPA is allowed to press its claims in the federal court. The specter of costly remediation efforts looms large, potentially jeopardizing ABR’s livelihood and heritage. Moreover, ABR’s legal battle against the EPA carries broader implications for property rights and regulatory authority in the United States.
Case Timeline
- April 2024: Mountain States files Motion to Dismiss.
- September 2024: Idaho Court grants Motion to Dismiss.
- September 2024: EPA files amended complaint.
- November 2024: Mountain States responds to EPA’s Amended Complaint and files Motion to Dismiss
- November 2024: EPA files Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- December 2024: Mountain States and co-counsel file a motion for extension of time to respond to EPA’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- December 2024: The court grants MSLF’s motion for extension of time.
- May 2025: Case is stayed.
