CITY OF VICTOR FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST CITY OF DRIGGS OVER WASTEWATER POLLUTION, OVERBILLING, AND BROKEN AGREEMENTS

CITY OF VICTOR FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST CITY OF DRIGGS OVER WASTEWATER POLLUTION, OVERBILLING, AND BROKEN AGREEMENTS

Teton County, Idaho (March 5, 2026) – The City of Victor has filed a lawsuit and demanded a jury trial against the City of Driggs, alleging years of contract breaches, chronic pollution violations, and financial misconduct tied to a shared wastewater treatment arrangement between the two neighboring cities. The suit contends that Driggs repeatedly failed to operate its wastewater treatment plant in compliance with environmental and contractual obligations, forcing Victor to absorb higher costs while its residents’ wastewater was treated at a facility that could not meet legal standards.

“Driggs has repeatedly failed to meet its obligations under the wastewater agreement, and Victor is taking this step to protect our residents and our aquifer,” said Will Frohlich, Mayor of Victor.

According to the complaint, Victor and Driggs entered into a 2011 Inter‑City Agreement under which Driggs agreed to accept, convey, and treat Victor’s wastewater at Driggs’ upgraded wastewater treatment plant, which was to be “of sufficient size and capable” of treating anticipated flows from both communities in accordance with federal and state water‑quality requirements. Victor alleges that the upgraded plant has never been capable of consistently meeting its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits and that Driggs has become a “perennial polluter,” discharging inadequately treated wastewater into Woods Creek, which flows into the Teton River, Henry’s Fork, Snake River, Columbia River, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean.

The complaint cites EPA and Idaho Conservation League records indicating thousands of permit violations and ranking Driggs’ facility among the worst‑performing wastewater plants in Idaho over multiple multi‑year periods. Victor further points to a 2018 EPA consent agreement and a 2025 federal consent decree that required Driggs to identify upgrades, complete construction, and bring its plant into compliance, alleging Driggs has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines, sampling requirements, and effluent limits and has not kept Victor adequately informed.

Victor also alleges that Driggs mishandled and misrepresented finances under the Inter‑City Agreement, including: failing to conduct required annual independent audits until 2024, not fully cooperating with that audit, and overbilling Victor for trunk line and plant debt service, as well as operations and maintenance costs. An independent auditor concluded that Victor has been overpaying on debt service related to a DEQ loan for wastewater facility and trunk line upgrades, and the complaint alleges that Driggs retained payments instead of properly applying them to debt service while also allocating non‑O&M expenses to the wastewater account.

The complaint outlines a breakdown in attempts to renegotiate the inter‑city relationship, alleging that Driggs delayed providing a new proposed wastewater agreement, then presented terms that would have required Victor to pay higher rates and a disproportionate share of costs stemming from Driggs’ own permit violations and necessary plant upgrades. Victor asserts that, in light of the escalating costs and ongoing non‑compliance, it has no choice but to pursue construction of its own wastewater treatment plant—estimated at approximately 35 million dollars for land acquisition, design, construction, and operation—which it claims is a direct consequence of Driggs’ breaches and lack of good faith.

In addition to wastewater and billing issues, the lawsuit includes a claim that Driggs breached a written mediation agreement between the cities and tainted the jury pool by disclosing confidential mediation communications to the media and in response to a public records request, allegedly to disparage Victor and misrepresent the value of a settlement proposal. Victor contends these disclosures damaged the city’s reputation, forced it to incur legal and public relations support costs, and violated confidentiality and good‑faith obligations expressly adopted in the mediation rules.

The complaint asserts causes of action for multiple breaches of contract (including failure to provide and operate a compliant plant, failure to comply with audit requirements, overbilling, and breach of a mediation agreement), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Victor seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement of amounts it alleges Driggs wrongfully retained, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief deemed just and equitable, and it has requested a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Media Contact:

Jeremy Besbris

Victor City Administrator

208.274.7082 ext. 7