An Iowa farm company has brought suit against the USDA regarding the “swampbuster” statute that requires the relinquishment of farmland for conservation easements. The farm alleges that not receiving fair compensation for the taking is unconstitutional.
CTM Holdings LLC owns a 71-acre parcel of land in Delaware County, IA. The USDA has designated nine acres of this land as a wetland. According to CTM Holdings’ suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, if the nine acres are developed or farmed, CTM will lose USDA benefits such as crop insurance, loans and federal payments for all properties owned by the company.
The lawsuit argues that the USDA imposes an unconstitutional condition on its benefits, requiring recipients to grant conservation easements over sections of their property, which the company alleges is a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation. Furthermore, USDA’s rule, which includes wetland conversion definitions and redetermination criteria, exceeds its statutory authority, the suit read.
“While well-intentioned, this conservation scheme is unconstitutional,” said Loren Seehase, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, who, along with Pacific Legal Foundation, represents CTM Holdings in the case.
“The government cannot condition benefits on the waiver of a constitutional right—in this case, the Fifth Amendment right to be compensated when the government takes some or all of your land,” Seehase continued.
The “swampbuster” statute was introduced in the 1985 Farm Bill as part of the Wetland Conservation Compliance Provisions. According to USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), landowners must not have produced crops on wetlands after Dec. 23, 1985, and must not have converted or developed wetlands after Nov. 28, 1990, to be eligible for USDA benefits.
NRCS said there are exceptions for lands converted before 1985, artificial wetlands, determination of minimal impacts or offset mitigation efforts.
According to court documents, CTM and another affiliated entity own approximately 1,075 acres of Iowa farmland. The property in contention was purchased in September 2022, which contains approximately 39 acres used for agriculture, 10 acres designated as erodible land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program and 21 forested acres. USDA had previously designated nine acres as wetlands.
The suit stated CTM submitted a form to the USDA office, seeking benefits eligibility for their newly acquired property and requesting a redetermination of prior wetlands status. However, on Jan. 23, 2023, the NRCS field office issued a letter denying CTM’s request, confirming a previous wetlands determination from 2010, which categorized the nine acres of the property as wetlands without providing scientific evidence for this classification, according to the suit.
CTM said the nine acres lack standing water or visible dampness, similar to the surrounding 12 acres of “nonwetland” area. Additionally, the property features a small seasonal stream passing through the 12 acres, and all designated wetlands units on the property are situated at least 1,000 feet away from the seasonal stream and are not linked to any water body.
CTM contends that while the nine acres have no signs of being “wetlands,” they cannot challenge this ruling or seek a new determination due to administrative regulations. Consequently, CTM is compelled to forfeit all usage rights for the nine acres to maintain USDA benefits for themselves and their tenants across the entire 1,075-acre property.
The lawsuit states that the swampbuster law “exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” and that USDA cannot regulate the wetlands portion of CTM’s property. It continues that under the swampbuster law, the federal government does not offer fair compensation for the conservation or loss of use of the portion of land designated as wetlands in violation of per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
The lawsuit asks the judge to declare the law unconstitutional and in excess of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. It also asks the judge to declare the provision in the law defining converted wetlands as arbitrary and capricious. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
