NEWSLINK, V4N4 Summer 2000: Taking on the Environmental Protection Agency

At first, he thought it was part of the movie, “A Civil Action.” Just weeks earlier, James Knott, owner of Riverdale Mills Corporation, had agreed to allow producers of the Hollywood film starring John Travolta to shoot scenes for the movie at his Northbridge, MA company. But what took place on November 7, 1997 was not fiction. It was real life.

“I was sitting at my desk when I saw a man wearing a black jacket with POLICE written across the back,” recalls Knott. Minutes later, 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency law enforcement officers were swarming over the firm's office suites.

“I went into the lobby and met another man who said, `I'm looking for James M. Knott, Sr.'”

Knott demanded to see a search warrant. The agent reportedly said, “I will leave you a copy when we are through.” But Knott was insistent. “You are not going to do anything until you show me the warrant. The agent produced the warrant which asserted “probable cause” that RMC was dumping acidic water into the public sewer system. The warrant was based on a sampling of wastewater from a nearby manhole taken on October 21.

Knott was perplexed. He considered himself a good corporate neighbor. RMC employs environmentally safe, cutting edge technology in the manufacture of wire mesh and employs 150 people. The mesh is used for lobster traps, prison gates and as flooring for chicken coops. His products are also used in horticulture and to control erosion.

After reading the warrant, Knott concluded that someone had committed perjury in obtaining it. He told the official, “You may proceed with your inspection.” But Knott would not permit the charges to go unanswered.

The EPA team then went about interrogating and videotaping RMC's employees. When they were finished, they took away thousands of documents, some containing trade secrets. "More than 95% of the paperwork hauled away had nothing to do with wastewater treatment," says Knott.

The wastewater RMC released had to pass through a treatment system that ensured that acidity remained within legal levels. Knott was being charged with dismantling the filtering systems, allowing acid levels to exceed legal limits.

Knott's water had been tested twice. The October 21 test, taken without his representative present, had showed that the acidity levels were illegally high. A second test had showed acidity levels to be within allowable limits. The warrant had been issues based solely on the October 21 results.

In the months that followed, Knott tried to convince federal agents that the samplings were wrong. Finally, on July 17, 1998, a third inspection was carried out. This showed the amount of acidity moving into the sewer system to be within acceptable limits.

Nevertheless, on August 28, 1998, a grand jury indicted Knott and RMC, charging the defendants with two counts of violating the Clean Water Act. Knott faced a six-year prison sentence and a $1.5 million fine if convicted. In announcing the indictment, U.S. Attorney Donald Stern strongly implied that RMC “chose to violate our environmental laws” by releasing acidic water into the adjacent Blackstone River.

Knott's reputation was tarnished: his credit now suffered because of concerns related to potential fines. He was forced to spend large sums of money mounting a legal defense. And he was forced to devote long hours defending himself against evidence that he knew was fabricated.

As part of his defense, Knott's lawyers demanded that the original paperwork for the first test (on which the warrant had been based) be examined by professional handwriting experts. The conclusion: the original numbers had been altered.

“Someone had changed one of the logbook entries from a seven to a four and changed a series of sevens to twos,” says Knott. A reading of seven indicates acidic neutrality.

During a five-hour pre-trial hearing, Knott and his lawyers highlighted the discrepancies in the sampling results filed by the EPA.

After this, the tide began to turn. On February 16, 1999, a federal judge suppressed the sampling results, finding that the EPA had violated Knott's Fourth Amendment rights by sampling wastewater without a representative of the company present. On April 23, 1999, the U.S. Attorney dropped the case, citing a lack of evidence. One month later, a federal judge dismissed the indictment.

An internal review by the Department of Justice found that a warrant for the July 1998 search had omitted certain facts about the samplings at manholes near the plant.

End of the story? For the government, yes. Not so for Knott. He never found out how and why the case came about in the first place, but he believed that the government should be held accountable for the damage it had inflicted on him and on his company. He therefore filed a countersuit to recover the legal expenses that RMC had incurred.

This July, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. government must reimburse Knott for nearly $69,000 in legal fees incurred in a case that turned out to be both flimsy and capricious. He also ruled that the EPA had harassed Knott and failed to reveal evidence that would have cleared him.

The ruling was a victory for the rule of law, civil liberty and property rights. It was also a rare victory for the so-called Hyde Amendment, which allows an exonerated defendant to recover legal fees if the case brought against him is “vexatious, frivolous and in bad faith.”

The dismissal of the case in 1999 and July's rulings aren't enough for Knott, an Army veteran who takes his constitutional rights seriously. On August 8, in an effort to reign in the EPA, Knott filed a $13 million suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

“The EPA has never filed felony criminal charges for such trivial infractions,” comments Paul Kamenar, Washington Legal Foundation's Senior Executive Counsel. “Even cases of serious pollution are handled in administrative and civil proceedings.”

Knott, however, isn't surprised by the EPAs overreaction. “This runs throughout the bureaucracy,” he says. “I think a lot of people would just be willing to reach a financial settlement with them, but not me.”

James Knott refuses to let the government off the hook. Striking a blow against unreasonable searches and seizures, he is now seeking to tame a leviathan that he sees as out of control, out of touch and a threat to liberty.

Taking on the EPA