On July 14, 2026, the United States Department of Justice and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management filed a civil enforcement action against Wiregrass Construction Company, Inc., an Alabama corporation with offices in Montgomery and Dothan. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama as Case 2:26-cv-00571, alleges systematic violations of the Clean Water Act and Alabama Water Pollution Control Act spanning from November 2007 through the present day.

Wiregrass Construction operated two sand and gravel mining and processing sites: the Poly Pit Site, an approximately 750-acre property in Macon County near Shorter, Alabama, and the Trace Pit Site, an approximately 400-acre property in Autauga County near Deatsville, Alabama. At both sites, the company conducted strip mining operations, processing raw sand and gravel through wet and dry separation processes that generated massive volumes of wastewater containing sediment and industrial pollutants.

The waterways at risk are not minor tributaries. Cubahatchee Creek flows through the Poly Pit Site and connects to the Tallapoosa River approximately 1.8 miles downstream. The Tallapoosa River is a traditional navigable water under the Clean Water Act and falls under the jurisdiction of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. At the Trace Pit Site, Mortar Creek flows through the property and enters the ordinary pool of the impounded Coosa River in R.E. Woodruff Lake approximately 11 miles downstream. Both creeks contain relatively permanent waters and adjacent wetlands that meet the federal definition of “waters of the United States.”

The company never obtained authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to discharge dredged or fill material at either site. While Wiregrass Construction did obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for some discharges at both sites, the government alleges the company systematically failed to comply with permit conditions and discharged pollutants from unauthorized outfalls.

The Timeline of Contamination

The violations began in November 2007 at the Poly Pit Site and continued for over a decade. According to the complaint, Defendant operated excavators, bulldozers, and other earthmoving equipment that mechanically pushed, dragged, and redeposited excavated soil material directly into federally protected waters. This equipment operation had the effect of replacing portions of waters of the United States with dry land and changing the bottom elevation of protected waterways. Under the Clean Water Act, these actions constitute the “discharge of any pollutant” and require specific authorization under Section 404, which Wiregrass Construction never obtained.

At the Trace Pit Site, violations commenced in November 2017 and continue to the present. The company conducted sand and gravel processing operations that generated process wastewater, which was discharged into retention ponds constructed directly within waters of the United States and waters of the State of Alabama. These discharges occurred without any NPDES permit authorization.

The government’s investigation documented multiple categories of permit violations:

• Unauthorized dredged or fill material discharges at the Poly Pit Site from November 2007 through April 2018.
• Unpermitted discharges of pollutants other than dredged or fill material at the Poly Pit Site from November 2007 to the present.
• Failure to comply with NPDES permit conditions at the Poly Pit Site from November 2007 to the present.
• Unpermitted discharges of pollutants at the Trace Pit Site from November 2017 to the present.
• Failure to comply with NPDES permit conditions at the Trace Pit Site from November 2017 to the present.

The Permit Shell Game

Wiregrass Construction’s permit history reveals a pattern of corporate entities transferring responsibility without ever achieving compliance. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) issued the original NPDES Permit (Permit No. AL0078131) to Lambert Materials, LLC on July 31, 2006, to authorize discharges associated with mining activity at the Poly Pit Site. On April 25, 2008, after a merger of Lambert Materials, LLC into Wiregrass Construction, ADEM issued a Permit Modification transferring the permit to the Defendant. ADEM reissued and modified the Poly Pit NPDES Permit on August 30, 2011, and again on November 1, 2013.

The most recent issuance of the Poly Pit NPDES Permit expired on October 31, 2018, but has been administratively continued by ADEM since that date. This administrative continuation allowed the company to continue operations under an expired permit framework for nearly eight years.

At the Trace Pit Site, the permit history followed a similar pattern of corporate transfers. On September 26, 2013, ADEM issued a notice of general permit coverage to Allstate Deatsville, LLC for authorization of mining and materials processing related discharges under NPDES General Permit No. ALG850043. On February 4, 2014, the permit was transferred to Allstate Materials, LLC. On April 13, 2017, ADEM issued a Notice of General Permit Coverage under renewed General Permit ALG850043 to Allstate Materials, LLC. On November 8, 2017, ADEM approved the transfer of coverage to Wiregrass Construction. The company’s coverage under the 2017 Trace Pit NPDES Permit has also been administratively continued.

This chain of corporate entities and permit transfers created a regulatory fog that obscured accountability. Each transfer reset the compliance clock while the actual contamination continued uninterrupted.

The Non-Financial Ledger

The communities downstream from these mining operations lived with the consequences of corporate decisions made in boardrooms they would never enter. Cubahatchee Creek and Mortar Creek are not abstract legal concepts. They are waterways that people see, that children play near, that feed into the rivers Alabamians depend on for drinking water, recreation, and ecological health.

For 19 years, untreated wastewater flowed from the Poly Pit Site. For nine years, the same pattern repeated at the Trace Pit Site. During that time, families downstream had no way of knowing whether the water flowing past their properties met federal safety standards. They had no notification system telling them that the mining company three miles upstream was operating under expired permits and discharging from unauthorized outfalls.

The complaint describes wetlands as “areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances did support, a prevalence of trees and other vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” These are not empty legal words. Wetlands are ecosystems. They are habitats for amphibians, nesting sites for birds, filtration systems for groundwater, and buffers against flooding. When a company builds retention ponds directly inside wetlands, they destroy these functions.

At both sites, Wiregrass Construction manipulated the landscape by grading, constructing berms, and creating diversion ditches. They captured wastewater and stormwater, directed it to retention ponds, and then discharged it through outfalls into protected waters. Some of this discharge was authorized under permits. Much of it was not. The government alleges that “effluent from previously mined areas flowed without appropriate treatment into Cubahatchee Creek and its tributaries and their adjacent wetlands through one or more outfalls not covered under the 2013 Poly Pit NPDES Permit.”

The phrase “without appropriate treatment” is clinical. The reality it describes is industrial wastewater carrying sediment, biological materials, and chemical residues flowing directly into creeks that feed major Alabama rivers. The people downstream did not consent to this. They were not consulted. They were simply expected to live with it.

Legal Receipts

The government’s complaint provides verbatim documentation of the legal framework Wiregrass Construction violated. These quotes establish the company’s knowledge of its obligations and the deliberate nature of its noncompliance.

“Section 101(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a), provides that ‘[t]he objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.'”

“Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the ‘discharge of any pollutant by any person’ without authorization, e.g., except as in compliance with a permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers or an authorized state pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, which applies to discharges of dredged or fill material; or a permit issued by EPA or an authorized state pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, which applies to discharges of pollutants other than dredged or fill material.”

“Defendant violated the requirement in Part II.A.1. of the 2013 Poly Pit NPDES Permit to ‘at all times operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit.’ During Defendant’s operations at the Poly Pit site, berms and dams/levees at various times had not been built in accordance with the Permit and associated plans, berms and dams/levees were not properly maintained, and waters of the state identified prior to mining were not adequately protected with setbacks/buffers.”

“Part II.D.1.f of the 2013 Poly Pit NPDES Permit provides that ‘the discharge of a pollutant from a source not specifically identified in the permit application for this Permit and not specifically included in the description of an outfall in this Permit is not authorized and shall constitute noncompliance with this permit.'”

“Defendant violated the requirement in Part IV.A.2. of the 2017 Trace Pit NPDES Permit to properly implement, maintain and update the facility’s Pollution Abatement Plan (‘PAP’) as there were discrepancies between the March 2020 PAP and the conditions at facility, including lack of berms where specified in the PAP and a failure to conduct needed pond maintenance.”

“Part V.G.5 of the 2017 Trace Pit NPDES Permit provides that the discharge of wastewater ‘not identified specifically in the description of an outfall in the NOI is not authorized by this Permit.'”

These permit conditions are not vague aspirational goals. They are enforceable legal requirements. Wiregrass Construction signed documents acknowledging these obligations. The company received site-specific permits detailing exactly which outfalls were authorized and which treatment systems were required. And then the company systematically violated those conditions for years.

Societal Impact Mapping

Environmental Degradation

The ecological damage from nearly two decades of unpermitted discharges extends far beyond the immediate footprint of the two mining sites. Cubahatchee Creek flows 1.8 miles from the Poly Pit Site before entering the Tallapoosa River. Mortar Creek travels 11 miles before entering R.E. Woodruff Lake on the Coosa River. Along those miles of creek bed, sediment settles, smothers benthic organisms, alters water chemistry, and degrades habitat.

Wetlands adjacent to these creeks function as natural filtration systems. They trap sediment, absorb nutrients, and buffer against flooding. When Wiregrass Construction built retention ponds directly within these wetlands, the company destroyed that filtration capacity. The contaminated water that would have been partially filtered by natural wetland vegetation instead flowed directly into the creek channels.

The complaint describes how the company “manipulated” the landscape through grading, berms, and diversion ditches. This is engineering language for terraforming. Wiregrass Construction reshaped the hydrology of two watersheds to serve industrial mining operations. Water that would have flowed across natural wetlands and through vegetated buffers was instead channeled through retention ponds of the company’s design and then discharged through outfalls into protected waters.

The long-term ecological recovery timeline for these watersheds remains unknown. Sediment contamination can persist for decades. Aquatic ecosystems that lose key species due to chronic pollution may never fully recover their original biodiversity.

Public Health

The Tallapoosa River and Coosa River are not isolated wilderness waterways. They are part of the drinking water supply network for communities across Alabama. Any contamination entering these rivers from upstream sources like Cubahatchee Creek and Mortar Creek travels downstream into reservoirs and water treatment intakes.

The complaint does not detail the specific chemical composition of the untreated wastewater Wiregrass Construction discharged, but sand and gravel mining operations typically involve diesel fuel and hydraulic fluid from heavy equipment, chemical flocculants used in settling ponds, and elevated levels of suspended sediment. Sediment alone can overwhelm water treatment systems and create turbidity that interferes with disinfection processes.

For 19 years, downstream water treatment facilities processed water that may have contained elevated pollutant loads from unauthorized mining discharges. The operators of those facilities had no advance warning that upstream contamination was occurring outside the bounds of permitted activity.

Economic Inequality

Industrial pollution follows predictable geographic patterns. Mining operations locate in rural areas where land is cheaper and political opposition is weaker. The communities near the Poly Pit Site and Trace Pit Site did not choose to host these operations. They lack the economic resources to conduct independent water quality testing or to hire legal counsel to challenge permit violations.

Wiregrass Construction operated profitably for 19 years while externalizing the environmental costs onto the surrounding watershed and downstream communities. The company extracted sand and gravel, processed it through water-intensive operations, and sold the finished product. The contaminated wastewater became someone else’s problem.

The economic value of the sand and gravel extracted from these two sites over 19 years is not stated in the complaint, but sand and gravel mining is a multi-million dollar industry. The company’s revenue during this period funded equipment purchases, employee salaries, and shareholder returns. None of that revenue funded the ecological restoration that will now be required to repair the damage.

Meanwhile, property values near contaminated waterways decline. Families who built homes along Cubahatchee Creek or Mortar Creek saw the quality of their local environment degrade over nearly two decades. They received no compensation. They were simply collateral damage in the pursuit of corporate profit.

What Now?

The United States Department of Justice filed this enforcement action on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management joined as a co-plaintiff under state law authority. The case is assigned to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

The government seeks three categories of relief:

1. Injunctive relief prohibiting further unauthorized discharges, including by requiring compliance with any permit issued under Sections 402 or 404 of the Clean Water Act.
2. Injunctive relief compelling restoration, remediation, stabilization, and mitigation of the impacts of the unauthorized discharges.
3. A civil penalty award in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant.

The Clean Water Act authorizes civil penalties for each day of violation. Section 309(d) of the CWA subjects violators to penalties that are adjusted for inflation. Given the 19-year duration of violations at the Poly Pit Site and the 9-year duration at the Trace Pit Site, the potential penalty exposure is substantial.

However, penalties flow into the U.S. Treasury, not to the communities harmed by the contamination. The families downstream from these sites will not receive checks. The ecological damage to Cubahatchee Creek and Mortar Creek cannot be undone with a fine.

The meaningful relief in this case will come from the injunctive orders: whether the court compels Wiregrass Construction to remove contaminated sediment, restore wetlands, and implement permanent monitoring systems. The details of that restoration will determine whether these waterways recover or remain degraded for decades.

Watchlist

Public oversight of this case requires monitoring at multiple levels:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 (Atlanta, GA): The federal enforcement authority with jurisdiction over Clean Water Act violations in Alabama.
• Alabama Department of Environmental Management (Montgomery, AL): The state agency responsible for issuing and enforcing NPDES permits in Alabama.
• U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama: The court where Case 2:26-cv-00571 will be litigated. Court filings and settlement agreements will be public record.
• Wiregrass Construction Company, Inc. (Corporate office: 1830 Hartford Hwy, Dothan, AL 36301): The defendant corporation. Future compliance depends on whether this lawsuit produces structural changes in company operations or merely a financial settlement.

Next Steps for Communities

Residents of Macon County and Autauga County near these sites have legal standing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act regarding water quality monitoring data from Cubahatchee Creek and Mortar Creek. The EPA and ADEM are required to maintain records of permit violations and inspection reports.

Community members can also organize independent water quality testing through university extension programs or environmental nonprofits. Baseline data collected now will be critical for measuring whether court-ordered restoration efforts succeed.

Local organizing efforts should focus on demanding real-time discharge monitoring at both sites, public access to that monitoring data, and mandatory notification systems that alert downstream communities when permit violations occur. These protections should have been in place 19 years ago. They must be in place moving forward.

This case is not unique. Across Alabama and across the United States, industrial operations violate Clean Water Act permits with limited consequences. The pattern repeats: contamination occurs for years or decades, regulatory agencies eventually file enforcement actions, companies pay fines, and the public never learns the full extent of the harm.

Breaking that pattern requires communities to assert their right to clean water as loudly and persistently as corporations assert their right to profit. The legal system provides tools for enforcement. Those tools are only effective when people use them.