A Washington farmer who returned to his family farm in 1984 is challenging $618,000 in irrigation penalties after the state Supreme Court heard his case

Photo credit: Mia Ring/Pacific Legal Foundation

A Washington farmer who returned to his family’s farm in 1984 is challenging a long-running dispute with the state Department of Ecology after penalties over irrigation threatened the future of his agricultural business. Ron Fodé and his wife, Robin, say the agency refused to help them find a lawful way to irrigate their crops before imposing penalties that originally totalled $618,000. The case has reached the Washington Supreme Court, which heard arguments on October 1, 2026. At its centre is a question about whether the state agency followed a law requiring it to provide technical assistance to water users before moving to penalties.As reported by The Spokesman-Review, Ron and Robin Fodé wrote that the dispute had nearly destroyed their business. The couple said they once farmed 4,000 acres of owned and leased land but now lease just 290 acres. According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, the public-interest legal organisation representing Ron Fodé, the case also raises questions about whether government agencies can enforce unpublished internal policies that affect people’s legal rights.

How the dispute began

Ron Fodé grew up on the family farm in Grant County, Washington. He took over its operations in 1984 when his father began experiencing health problems. He and Robin raised their four children on the farm, which grew to cover about 4,000 acres at its peak. The dispute began in 2017, when Fodé needed sufficient water rights to irrigate farmland he owned and leased, including fields used to grow potatoes. Under Washington law, farmers generally need legal water rights to withdraw groundwater for irrigation. State law also allows water users to apply for seasonal transfers, which can temporarily shift water rights from one property to another.According to the Washington Court of Appeals’ 2022 ruling, Fodé applied for a seasonal change in January 2017. On February 14, a state watermaster told him that his request had been denied and that he should not irrigate the affected parcels. Fodé maintained that other water-transfer options were available and that he wanted to find a lawful way to continue watering his crops. However, according to The Spokesman-Review, the Department of Ecology refused to accept another application because he had missed an internal February 15 deadline.Fodé and his wife said the deadline had not been adopted through a public rulemaking process and that the agency had not given them access to a permitting process that could have helped them comply with the law. The Department of Ecology subsequently issued cease-and-desist orders directing Fodé and the landowners from whom he leased farmland to stop irrigating without adequate water rights.

Why the penalties reached $618,000

The case has reached the Washington Supreme Court, which heard arguments on October 1, 2026.

Fodé continued irrigating during the 2017 growing season. The Department of Ecology later issued penalties covering 103 days of irrigation. According to the Washington Court of Appeals’ ruling, the original penalties comprised $206,000 for irrigation on land Fodé owned, $103,000 for a 65-acre property and $309,000 for 335 acres leased from another landowner. The combined amount was $618,000. The penalties were initially issued jointly to Fodé and his landlords, but the agency later withdrew the penalties against the landlords, leaving Fodé solely liable for the amounts imposed on the three parcels.Fodé did not dispute that he lacked adequate water rights for the disputed irrigation. Instead, he argued that the penalties were invalid because the agency had failed to provide the technical assistance required by state law before imposing them. In June 2019, the Pollution Control Hearings Board upheld some of the penalties but reduced the total from $618,000 to $260,000. The dispute continued through further legal proceedings.

What the farmer says the state should have done

Washington law requires the Department of Ecology to provide technical assistance to help water users identify lawful ways to comply, where applicable, before proceeding with enforcement. In their guest opinion in The Spokesman-Review, Ron and Robin Fodé argued that the agency had failed to meet that obligation. They wrote that lawmakers had recognised the complexity of the state’s water regulations and had passed a law in 2002 requiring the agency to provide technical assistance before imposing penalties. According to the couple, the agency should have helped them identify a lawful water-transfer option rather than rejecting their application because of an internal deadline.Their opinion also quoted a regional water resources programme manager at the Department of Ecology as saying, “That’s just something we didn’t do,” when asked why the agency had not provided the assistance they said the law required. The Fodés argue that the February 15 deadline effectively blocked them from applying for a seasonal transfer, even though it had not been formally adopted through a public process. They say the case is therefore about more than the penalties against their farm: it concerns whether agencies can impose rules affecting the public without following the required legal procedures. The Department of Ecology’s position and the legal questions must be assessed through the court proceedings; the couple’s guest opinion presents their account of the dispute.

What the courts have ruled so far

The Washington Court of Appeals addressed part of the dispute in a ruling dated May 12, 2022. It held that Fodé’s appeals against the cease-and-desist orders were timely under the relevant statutory definition of when an agency decision is received. The court also reversed a later trial-court order that had sent the appeals concerning the cease-and-desist orders back to the administrative board. It said the proper route was to remand the penalty appeal so that technical-assistance evidence that had been wrongly excluded could be considered. That ruling did not resolve the entire dispute over the penalties. The case subsequently moved to the Washington Supreme Court, which agreed to review the matter in June 2026. The Pacific Legal Foundation says the Supreme Court case concerns whether the Department of Ecology must comply with the legislature’s limits on its enforcement authority. The organisation is representing Fodé without charge. The Supreme Court heard arguments on October 1.

A family farm reduced to 290 acres

The prolonged dispute has had a substantial effect on the family’s agricultural operation. The Fodés said they have had to sell nearly everything they once farmed, reducing their operation from 4,000 acres of owned and leased land to 290 leased acres. They argue that the conflict could have been avoided if the agency had helped them identify a lawful route to irrigation before imposing penalties. The court’s decision will determine the legal questions before it. Until then, the dispute remains unresolved, and the Fodés continue to challenge the state’s handling of their irrigation application and the penalties that followed.