Shannon Grady and her husband own a 24-acre homestead in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania, where they raise goats, ducks, turkeys, chickens, and rabbits with their five children. The family purchased the property in 2019 and gradually converted a former horse pasture into a functional family space, including a small pond from a natural spring used for recreation and animal watering.
What began as emergency storm repairs following Hurricane Ida in 2021 has since escalated into a years-long legal conflict with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) – which the Grady family feels was initiated out of vengeance by state and local authorities due to their outspoken advocacy against COVID restrictions.
After Hurricane Ida destroyed the family’s private driveway crossing over a small drainage ditch, cutting off access to the home. Grady says the crossing became impassable, creating an urgent safety concern. Within a day, the family installed a 10ft long metal culvert and placed stone fill to restore access, an arrangement common on rural properties in the area.
Days later, following an anonymous complaint alleging earth disturbance, representatives from the Chester County Conservation District (CCCD) and DEP entered the property without a warrant. Grady describes the visit, and several that followed, as “raids,” saying officials entered despite posted “No Trespassing” signs and explicit objections. An inspection report by DEP aquatic biologist Carol Canigianai documents a confrontation in which the property owner challenged the officials’ presence and was told they had a legal right to enter and that refusal could result in enforcement action.
During that initial inspection, officials identified a pond on the property that gave them their next excuse to harass the family. Subsequent DEP reports alleged multiple violations, including unpermitted earth disturbance exceeding one acre, discharge of sediment into “waters of the Commonwealth,” construction of an unpermitted culvert, failure to implement erosion and sedimentation controls, and unlawful obstruction or encroachment upon wetlands. The natural spring pond was described as impermeable and potentially polluting.
Grady disputes these findings. She maintains the natural spring pond is permeable, smaller than an acre, and environmentally beneficial, converting what was previously a muddy, runoff-prone pasture into a stabilized, grassed area that serves as a water source for livestock. She says she has never been shown evidence of pollution or downstream harm, nor have any neighbors filed complaints alleging damage.
Additionally state aerial imagery shows only minor soil displacement consistent with normal rainfall. Grady notes that no soil or water tests were ever made by state authorities to prove environmental damage – demonstrating the politicized nature of the situation.
Grady, who serves as chair of Moms for Liberty in Chester County and is active in conservative advocacy, has refused to sign permit applications or compliance documents, viewing them as an illegitimate “forced contract” imposed on private landowners. She contends the statutes cited by DEP regulate commercial or statutory entities, not private property owners and insists that the DEP’s “public nuisance claim” along with any claim of environmental harm must be proven in a court of law before a jury, not in an administrative proceeding.
According to Grady, complying with DEP’s demands would cost nearly $500,000, including permit fees, hiring a certified wetland specialist, delineating wetlands, preparing restoration plans, and submitting a Notice of Intent for an individual NPDES permit. This is another example of weaponized government being used to harm private property owners.
Between 2021 and 2024, government officials visited the property at least eight times, sometimes accompanied by armed police officers. Grady says only two of those visits involved warrants, which she claims were invalid due to lack of probable cause or improper execution. Each time, she says, officials refused to leave when asked.
On April 5, 2024, DEP conducted another inspection under an administrative search warrant with West Pikeland Township police present. The agency alleged that additional fill had reduced the size of the pond, that fill was spread into wooded areas without erosion controls, and that wetlands were obstructed, resulting in stormwater runoff and pollution.
On July 11, 2024, DEP issued an Administrative Order citing violations of Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law and Dam Safety and Encroachments Act. The order defined “pollution” broadly to include sediment that could potentially impair public health, welfare, or aquatic life. Now, the family was (issued an “Administrative Order” without due process and cited on numerous violations of industrial regulations and ordered to consent to Federal and state regulatory permits as well as performing permanent property alterations with threat of fines, sanctions, and contempt for non- compliance as the efforts to punish them and remove them from their land severely escalated.
The Administrative Order required the Gradys to cease all earth disturbance until authorized, obtain permits, fund professional assessments, restore affected areas, and allow further inspections. Grady responded by issuing her own cease-and-desist notice to DEP, accusing the agency of harassment and constitutional violations.
When the matter reached Commonwealth Court on May 28, 2025, Grady represented herself pro se, focusing her questioning on the state’s authority to enter private property absent consent. On June 23, 2025, Judge Matthew S. Wolf granted DEP’s petition to enforce the Administrative Order. The court retained jurisdiction and warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions, including contempt.
In her filings, Grady argued that DEP officials acted inappropriately to coerce compliance through administrative processes she claims are unconstitutional as applied to private property. She asserted that no evidence had been presented showing substantial harm to public health, safety, or welfare—thresholds she argues are necessary for state intervention.
Public records show DEP involvement dating back to at least April 2022, including references in West Pikeland Township meeting minutes. The case has drawn attention on social media, where supporters characterize it as an example of regulatory overreach. Grady is alleging violations of rights and emotional distress. She says the dispute has taken a toll on her family, particularly her youngest child, who experiences anxiety when vehicles approach the driveway.
“This experience has shown me we don’t have the freedoms we think we have,” Grady said. “If this can happen to us, it can happen to anyone.”
As a result, the Grady Family has since filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with claim of unconstitutionality along with a request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the DEP from enforcement actions against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection, and bureaucrats Carol Canigiani, Thomas Buterbaugh and Robert Page. The motion would prevent the state from enforcing environmental orders, contempt of court proceedings and further invasive searches.
The motion is backed by “multiple independent constitutional claims, each supported by clearly established Supreme Court precedent” and the “likelihood of success [is] overwhelming,” which “would entitle Plaintiffs to relief.” It is expected to be heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the coming weeks. Populist Sentinel will continue to provide updates in this case.
