Court Rules in Favor of Swampbuster

OMAHA (DTN) -- A U.S. District Judge in Iowa has upheld the 40-year-old conservation compliance provision known as "swampbuster" in a ruling handed down Thursday, but lawyers for the Iowa landowner in the case have vowed to appeal the decision.

U.S. District Judge C.J. Williams, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, rejected a case brought by an Iowa landowner who was challenging USDA's wetland determinations over nine acres of ground. The landowner and attorneys from private-property rights organizations maintain that USDA's conservation compliance rule amounts to taking of property without compensation.

The case is a victory for USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the conservation compliance provisions in the 1985 farm bill. The Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Environmental Council, Food & Water Watch, and Dakota Rural Action were also intervenors in the case, asking the court to uphold the swampbuster provisions and arguing there would be broad environmental impacts if farmers no longer had to comply with wetland protections.

Aaron Lehman, president of the Iowa Farmers Union, praised the ruling, saying it is important to have a farm program that supports farmers but conserves the land as well. Iowa Farmers Union had argued that eliminating the swampbuster provision would harm perceptions of farm programs in the minds of the public. Lehman said it was a significant step for Iowa Farmers Union to intervene in the lawsuit.

"Our policy was pretty clear on this so our members, when we asked about it, they were thinking that it is our responsibility to step into it," Lehman said.

James Conlan is the landowner who had purchased a 71.85-acre tract in Delaware County, Iowa, in 2022 under his business, CTM Holdings. Conlan owns about 1,000 acres of farmland in Iowa.

Conlan was represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center. His attorneys had filed a motion asking for a summary judgment while USDA and intervenors in the case opposed it.

Responding to the ruling, the Liberty Justice Center stated the group is disappointed in the ruling and will appeal the decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Swampbuster unconstitutionally takes farmers' land by requiring them to keep wetlands in a perpetual conservation easement without paying compensation, and it unconstitutionally conditions USDA benefits on the relinquishment of the constitutional right to compensation. We're confident the appellate court will ultimately rule that this federal law is unconstitutional. This law has been taking land from farmers for years, and we look forward to continuing to fight this unconstitutional law," the Liberty Justice Center posted on X.

Lehman noted it wasn't surprising that the case is being fought over a nine-acre tract as groups are looking for cases to bring against conservation rules.

"They're trying to make a larger point and that's unfortunate. We're always going to have questions about individual farms and what represents a wetlands and what doesn't and the best way to protect them," Lehman said, "and balancing all of those things, those questions have to be answered at the local level as much as we can. But making a broad statement out of a local question is not the route to go."

SWAMPBUSTER RULES

Written into the 1985 farm bill, the purpose of the "Swampbuster Act" is to preserve wetlands by halting their conversion into cropland. NRCS created regulations around the certification of wetlands and how landowners could request a review of that certification, but only if a natural event changes the topography or hydrology of the land to the extent that the conditions on the property have changed.

As the ruling noted, "Swampbuster, at its base, is a condition upon federal farm benefits."

If a producer converts a wetland into cropland, they are disqualified from receiving federal farm benefits, which include commodity and conservation programs, and crop insurance premium subsidies.

DETAILS OF CASE

In 2010, USDA had determined that nine acres of the Delaware County property were a wetland. In 2022, when buying the ground, Conlan had planned to clear 21 acres of forestry through logging. While he was under contract to buy the property, Conlan asked USDA to issue a redetermination on the ground.

USDA responded that logging or widespread tree removal could potentially create a wetland violation. The court cited each side agreed that cutting down trees in a wetland doesn't necessarily create a violation, but removing the stumps of trees would generally lead to a wetlands violation.

As the ruling detailed, Conlan and staff from the NRCS went back and forth in late 2022 over a USDA AD-1026 Form, which declares compliance with highly erodible land conservation and wetland certification.

Conlan had maintained he wanted a redetermination of whether the nine acres was a wetland. NRCS informed him in a letter that the time period to request an appeal on a wetland determination had expired.

Conlan argued the nine acres that have been determined to be a wetland are indistinguishable from the rest of the forested ground on the property.

Conlan sued USDA over the wetlands issue last April.

In his ruling, Williams detailed that Conlan didn't exhaust all of his administrative options with USDA and remedies before bringing the case. Williams' ruling also addressed last year's Supreme Court ruling known as Loper Bright, which reduced agency discretion in interpreting laws handed down from Congress. Williams noted NRCS has more experience in making wetland determinations than the court's expertise. Thus, NRCS's swampbuster rule is in line with the text of the 1985 farm bill provision.

Beyond the arguments from both sides about the wetlands determination, Conlan also argued the swampbuster provision creates an unconstitutional condition on benefits and amounts to "taking" of property. In addressing that argument, the judge stated, "The issue here is whether swampbuster is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause."

The court noted the Supreme Court has held Congress has the power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning the receipt of federal funds with compliance requirements.

"Swampbuster is an exercise of Congress's spending power," the ruling stated, adding, "Swampbuster is a condition on federal benefits. Congress has chosen to provide certain benefits to farmers conditioned upon compliance with swampbuster provisions."

A similar case is being adjudicated in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota in what has been a long-standing battle over a wetlands determination on a 0.8-acre tract.

See, "SD Farmer Foster: Wait on Wetlands Review 'Frustrating' in Court Case," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Also see, "Farm, Environmental Groups Seek to Defend Challenges to 1985 Swampbuster Rule," https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.