FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Washington farmer charged with destroying government property after survey vehicle pushed into canal

The Spokesman-Review reports Roger Danz, 22, of Mesa, Washington, is charged with destruction of government property over a Bonneville Power Administration vehicle pushed into a canal. He has not been tried, and the case's outcome is not known.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 4:06 p.m. ET
A 22-year-old farmer from Mesa, Washington, has been with destruction of government property, according to reporting by The Spokesman-Review. The outlet identifies the defendant as Roger Danz. The government alleged that Danz used a tractor to shove a Bonneville Power Administration survey vehicle into a canal, The Spokesman-Review reported. Authorities said Danz had repeatedly objected to the power line being routed through good farm land, and had warned surveyors before the alleged act, according to the same report. A charge is an accusation, not a finding. Danz has not been tried, and he is presumed innocent unless and until he is proven guilty. The published report describing this case carried no such statement, which is one reason it is set out here. The case stands at the charging stage and nothing more. It is an open, undecided matter: there is no verdict, no plea and no dismissal on the record available for this account, and a reader coming across this story later should not read it as a resolution. What became of the charge is simply not known here. Several things remain unreported. The published account does not say when the alleged incident occurred, and it does not include any response from Danz or from a lawyer acting for him. This story rests on a single published report and is incomplete on those points.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 20:06current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.