Idaho regulators claim they lack jurisdiction over cattle owned by an Idaho ranch that were allegedly contaminated by a spill from a phosphate slurry pipeline.

Meanwhile, the J.R. Simplot Co., which owns the pipeline, argues that emergency relief is unnecessary in the case because the ranch’s cattle weren’t actually harmed by the phosphate slurry.

The dispute springs from a lawsuit brought by ranchers Lynn and Glenna Rasmussen of Grace, Idaho, who claim the pipeline breach has devastated their cattle operation.

As part of their complaint, which seeks roughly $280 million in damages, the Rasmussens have asked for emergency relief that would require Idaho regulators to condemn 740 head of cattle and Simplot to pay for their disposal.

The couple alleges a pipeline that transports slurry from a phosphate mine to a Simplot fertilizer facility ruptured in 2023, exposing cattle on their federal grazing allotment to hazardous material that has harmed the animals.

“The Rasmussens have not been able to market or sell the cattle, due to the potential risk to human and animal health, and the liabilities the Rasmussens would incur if the cattle were allowed onto the open market,” according to the emergency relief motion.

However, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture argues the agency is protected from the lawsuit by sovereign immunity and that it lacks the authority to condemn cattle exposed to heavy metal contamination.

The agency said its jurisdiction is limited to “contagious, infectious or communicable disease,” so Idaho law does not authorize it to take action when livestock are contaminated by heavy metals.

“Heavy metal contamination or exposure is not a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease,” according to ISDA.

Meanwhile, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality claims it’s “being improperly named as a defendant” in the case, as the agency has “no statutory duties to oversee cattle, cattle contamination, or determining the proper disposal of cattle.”

Simplot agrees that Idaho regulators lack jurisdiction in the matter but further argues the ranchers have “not met their burden of proof or persuasion to obtain preliminary injunctive relief” requiring the company to pay for the cattle’s disposal.

The agribusiness company claims the rupture of the pipeline, which transports phosphate slurry for processing into fertilizer, “has already been abated under supervision of regulatory agencies,” with the affected area having been “fenced to keep cattle out.”

The ranchers haven’t proven they’re likely to succeed on their claims, as their allegations that Simplot conspired with Idaho regulators to avoid responsibility for the spill are “demonstrably false,” the company said.

“They cherry-pick data, misinterpret data, speculate without expertise or personal knowledge, engage in ad hominem attacks on the integrity of anyone who disagrees with them, and ultimately draw all the wrong conclusions,” according to Simplot.

After learning of the pipeline breach, Simplot said it worked under the supervision of the U.S. Forest Service, which owns the grazing allotment, to remove and clean up the phosphate ore and install sediment traps to prevent downstream movement of any remaining slurry.

“Although slurry was deposited on a small fraction of the soil in the area, the area is safe for grazing,” with tests showing that water and vegetation won’t expose cattle to dangerous levels of phosphorous, cadmium, vanadium or selenium, the company said.

The ranchers claim that 740 cattle were affected by the spill, but the slurry affected only 2% of their grazing lease area, according to Simplot.

The plaintiffs say the breach directly harmed 280 animals and 460 offspring — however, they provide no evidence the calves were contaminated, according to Simplot.

Expert analysis of cattle necropsy results indicate some organ samples have higher than normal cadmium concentrations but still fall within the normal range and weren’t necessarily caused by exposure to phosphate slurry, the company said.

“In sum, despite plaintiffs’ speculation, innuendo, and material omissions, all the veterinary and toxicology experts in the record agree: There is no evidence the cattle were contaminated by the slurry,” Simplot said. “There is no proof the cattle are unmarketable. Plaintiffs merely fear they are. There is no risk to human health from consumption of these cattle.”

Apart from disputing the emergency relief motion, Simplot argues for the dismissal of several claims in the complaint for which the plaintiffs “are not entitled to relief as a matter of law.”

For instance, the Rasmussens accuse the company of trespass, which isn’t a valid claim because the spill occurred on federal land onto which they’re permitted to release livestock, according to Simplot.

“If Simplot allegedly trespassed on federal lands, the trespass claim would be the federal government’s, not plaintiffs’,” the company said.