Swampbuster Case Dismissed by Federal Judge

By Cami Koons

A federal judge has ruled in favor of intervening environmental groups and dismissed a lawsuit against a decades-old rule that connects wetland protections to federal farm benefits. 

The lawsuit, filed by CTM Holdings LLC against the USDA, alleged the law, commonly known as “swampbuster,” is unconstitutional. In March, federal representatives and intervening environmental groups argued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa that CTM Holdings had no standing in the case. 

The lawsuit arose when CTM Holdings sought to farm a nine-acre portion of property that had previously been designated a wetland. The company, which rents the property to farmers, alleged in the complaint that the USDA “unconstitutionally” conditions its farm benefits through swampbuster. The company also argued the wetlands in question were dry but the federal agency would not remove the wetland designation.

Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Environmental Council, Dakota Rural Action, and Food & Water Watch intervened in the case in support of the USDA with the goal of upholding the swampbuster rule, which they argued protects water quality, habitat, and land. 

Iowa Environmental Council attorney Michael Schmidt said swampbuster serves as a “foundational conservation practice” to protect wetlands and habitat, prevent flooding, and improve water quality. 

“This court’s thorough decision upholds the practical conservation measures that have been the standard for decades,” Schmidt said in a statement. “Commonsense measures like Swampbuster support Iowa farmers and everyone downstream from them.”

Judge Says Plaintiff ‘Repeatedly’ Lacks the Standing to Bring ‘Any of Its Claims’

The intervenors argued, and Chief Justice C.J. Williams upheld that CTM Holdings had not suffered injury from swampbuster, nor had the company “exhausted its administrative remedies,” such as asking for a redetermination of the area. 

In March, during oral arguments on a motion, legal counsel from Pacific Legal Foundation and Liberty Justice Center, on behalf of CTM Holdings, said the company requested a redetermination of the land by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, but said the agency hardly ever changes a determination. 

The counsel representing the USDA said the agency’s records do not show a request for redetermination. 

Williams agreed with the USDA and the intervenors following a review of the communications and forms between the USDA and CTM Holdings. 

“If plaintiff’s intention was to request a review of the 2010 wetlands determination, nobody else in the world could possibly have known it,” Williams wrote in the ruling, adding that the company’s alleged injury was not “actual or imminent” but rather a “speculative chain of possibilities.” 

If the nine-acre area was indeed no longer wetland and the company actually requested a redetermination of the land, Williams wrote that CTM Holdings should have “no problems.” 

Arguments of Unconstitutionality Fail

The lawsuit argued swampbusters, formally known as the Wetland Conservation Compliance provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill, is unconstitutional for two reasons. 

First, it argued that government benefits cannot be conditioned. Per swampbuster, landowners must agree to avoid “any activity that alters natural wetlands” to remain eligible for USDA benefits like crop insurance and other subsidies farmers rely on. 

Williams wrote that the argument for unconstitutionality “misses the point” as it is framed in the suit. He explained that swampbuster is an “exercise” of Congress’ spending power, which may have conditions attached to it. 

The complaint also alleged swampbuster is an unconstitutional “taking” of private land, and the requirement to avoid altering the property is akin to an unpaid easement. 

Williams rejected this argument as well, noting that CTM Holding does receive reimbursement for the wetland area in the form of USDA benefits. Additionally, he noted that property owners can still do “many things” to the designated wetland while complying with the law, including logging, which CTM Holdings did. 

Williams dismissed the case “with prejudice” meaning it cannot be refiled at a later date. 

Liberty Justice Center, one of the litigation firms representing CTM Holdings in the case, said the decision was “disappointing” but the group plans to appeal the case to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. 

“We’re confident that the appellate court will ultimately rule that this federal law is unconstitutional,” Liberty Justice Center said in a statement. “This law has been taking land from farmers for years, and we look forward to continuing to fight this unconstitutional law.” 

Aaron Lehman, president of the intervening Iowa Farmers Union, said he is “very happy” with the dismissal and believes the decision will be upheld, “no matter how far the plaintiffs want to take it.” 

“Farm programs need to have integrity,” Lehman said. “When we have voluntary participation in programs, we expect that it’s going to have conservation compliance attachments that make sense for the farm, make sense for the neighbors, and (make) sense for the entire community.” 

Dani Replogle, a staff attorney with Food & Water Watch, said the decision is an “unequivocal victory” for sustainable farms and clean water. 

“The message is clear: We will not let fringe legal theories turn our wetlands into sacrifice zones for corporate landlords,” Replongle said in a statement.

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: [email protected]. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter.