Monday, March 13, 2017
Drainage Activities on Farmland and the USDA
The conservation-compliance provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill introduced the concept of “Swampbuster.” It was originally presented as only impacting truly aquatic areas and allowing drainage to continue where substantial investments had been made. The concept was met with virtually no congressional opposition, and provided that any person who in any crop year produced an agricultural commodity on converted wetlands would be ineligible for federal agricultural subsidies with regard to that commodity.
But, the Swampbuster rules have become a “quagmire” of a bureaucratic mess for many farmers and their legal counsel over the years. Today’s post takes a brief look at the issues involved in the hope that farmers and lawyers representing them can find a bit of guidance.
The original intent of Swampbuster was to deny federal farm program benefits to persons planting agricultural commodities for harvest on converted wetlands. 16 U.S.C. § 3821(a)-(b). Committee reports indicated that the Congress did not intend the Swampbuster provisions to authorize the USDA to regulate the use of private land and wanted producers to remain eligible for farm program benefits if the production of agricultural commodities occurred on converted wetlands where the impact of such conversion on wetland functional values was slight. A wetland conversion was deemed to have “commenced” when a person had obligated funds or begun actual modification of a wetland.
The legislation charged the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) with creating an official wetland inventory with a particular tract being classified as a wetland if it had (1) the presence of hydric soil; (2) wetland hydrology (soil inundation for at least seven days or saturated for at least 14 days during the growing season); and (3) the prevalence of hydrophytic plants under undisturbed conditions. In other words, to be a wetland, a tract must have hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. All three must be present, just having hydrophytic vegetation, for example, is not enough. See B&D Land & Livestock Co. v. Schafer, 584 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (N.D. Iowa 2008).
The final Swampbuster rules were issued in 1987 and greatly differed from the interim rules. The final Swampbuster rules eliminated the right to claim prior investment as a commenced conversion. Added were farmed wetlands, abandoned cropland, active pursuit requirements, Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence, a complicated “commenced determination” application procedure, and special treatment for prairie potholes. Under the “commenced conversion” rules, an individual producer or a drainage district is exempt from Swampbuster restrictions if drainage work began before December 23, 1985 (the effective date of the 1985 Farm Bill). If the drainage work was not completed by December 23, 1985, a request could be made of the USDA on or before September 19, 1988, to make a commencement determination. In addition, drainage districts must satisfy several requirements under the “commenced conversion” rules. A project drainage plan setting forth planned drainage must be officially adopted. Also, the district must have begun installation of drainage measures or legally committed substantial funds toward the conversion by contracting for installation or supplies.
On-Site Wetland Identification Criteria
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) on-site wetland identification criteria are contained in 7 C.F.R. §12.31. Those rules lay out the procedures that USDA is to use to determine whether a tract contains wetlands. But, the implementation of the procedures has also led to litigation. For example, in Boucher v. United States Department of Agriculture, 149 F. Supp. 3d 1045 (S.D. Ind. 2016), the court determined that the NRCS followed regulatory procedures found in 7 C.F.R. §12.31(b)(2)(ii) for determining wetland status on the land that was being farmed by comparing the land to comparable tracts that were not being farmed. The court also noted that existing regulations do not require site visits during the growing season and “normal circumstances” of the land does not refer to normal climate conditions but instead refers to soil and hydrologic conditions normally present without regard to the removal of vegetation. The court also determined that the ten-year timeframe between the preliminary determination and the final determination did not deprive the plaintiff of due process rights. As a result, the court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment.
Likewise, in Foster v. Vilsack, 820 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 2016), the court determined that the defendant’s method for determining hydrology by using aerial photographs taken when the tract was under normal environmental conditions was proper, given that the tract was drier than normal during the defendant’s site visit and because the plaintiffs had tilled the tract such that it was not in its normal condition at the time of the site visit. The plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant had relied on “color tone” differences in the photographs to identify the tract as a wetland was dismissed because the defendant had actually identified some of the specifically authorized wetland signatures rather than just relying on changes in color tone. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant had relied on a comparison site too distant from the tract at issue that wasn’t within the local area as the regulations required. The comparison site chosen was 40 miles away but was within the same Major Land Resource Area. As such, the comparison site satisfied the regulatory criteria contained in 7 C.F.R. §12.31(b)(2) to find a similar tract in its natural vegetative state. Accordingly, the defendant’s use of the comparison site was not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the law. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
The final rules defined “farmed wetlands” as playa, potholes, and other seasonally flooded wetlands that were manipulated before December 23, 1985, but still exhibited wetland characteristics. Drains affecting these areas can be maintained, but the “scope and effect” of the original drainage system cannot be exceeded. 7 C.F.R. § 12.33(b). Prior converted wetlands can be farmed, but they revert to protected status once abandoned. A prior converted wetland is a wetland that was totally drained to make it more suitable for farming before December 23, 1985. 16 U.S.C. §3801(a)(6). If a wetland was drained before December 23, 1985, but wetland characteristics remain, it is a “farmed wetland” and only the original drainage can be maintained.
Drainage activities on land designated as “farmed wetlands” have led to litigation. In Gunn v. United States, 118 F.3d 1233 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. den., 522 U.S. 1111 (1998), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that conversion from wetland to farmland of the land in question did not begin before 1985 even though the land had been cropped for 85 consecutive years after the county drainage district installed a tile main to drain the land for crop production in 1906. Because wetland traits occurred over time in wet years as the drainage system became incapable of draining the land, a portion of the farm was classified as “farmed wetland” and a 1992 replacement of the 1906 tile main with an open ditch was held to be an illegal improvement in the drainage beyond that which existed on December 23, 1985. The court reached this conclusion even though drainage district assessments had been paid on the land for decades.
Unfortunately, the Gunn court did not precisely address the issue of the original “scope and effect” of the 1906 drainage activities. Under USDA regulations, farmed wetland can be used as it was before December 23, 1985, and a hydrologic manipulation can be maintained to the same “scope and effect” as before December 23, 1985. The USDA is responsible for determining the scope and effect of original manipulation on all farmed wetlands. Arguably, if the 1906 drainage allowed crop production to occur on all of the land at issue at that time, then the effect of the 1906 drainage on the wetland was to convert it to crop production, and that status could be maintained by additional drainage activities after December 23, 1985. However, for farmed wetlands, the government has interpreted the “scope and effect” regulation such that the depth or scope of drainage ditches, culverts or other drainage devices be preserved at their December 23, 1985, level regardless of the effect any post-December 23, 1985, drainage work actually had on the land involved. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit invalidated the government’s interpretation of the “scope and effect” regulation. Barthel v. United States Department of Agriculture, 181 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 1999). The court held that a proper interpretation should focus on the status quo of the manipulated wetlands rather than the drainage device utilized in post-December 23, 1985, drainage activities.
Changes in the Rules
In 1990, the Congress tightened the Swampbuster rules by adding a new provision which provided that “any person who in any crop year subsequent to November 28, 1990, converts a wetland by draining, dredging, filling, leveling, or any other means for the purpose, or to have the effect, of making the production of an agricultural commodity possible on such converted wetlands shall be ineligible for USDA farm benefits. 16 U.S.C. § 3821(b)-(c). The rules were also changed to add a stronger penalty for wetland conversions. While converting a wetland before Nov. 28, 1990, resulted in only a proportional loss of benefits, conversion after that date results in the loss of all USDA benefits on all land the farmer controls until the wetland is restored or the loss is mitigated. 16 U.S.C. § 3821(c) (2008). After the 1990 Swampbuster rule change, the USDA took the position that activities that made ag production “possible” on converted wetland meant that any activity that made such land more farmable was prohibited. The USDA’s regulatory position was upheld by Clark v. United States Department of Agriculture, 537 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2008). but rejected by Koshman v. Vilsack, 865 F. Supp.2d 1083 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
Under the 1996 Farm Bill, a farmed wetland located in a cropped field can be drained without sacrificing farm program benefit eligibility if another wetland is created elsewhere. Thus, through “mitigation,” a farmed wetland can be moved to an out-of-the-way location. In addition, the 1996 legislation provides a good faith exemption to producers who inadvertently drain a wetland. If the wetland is restored within one year of drainage, no penalty applies. The legislation also revises the concept of “abandonment.” Cropland with a certified wetland delineation, such as “prior converted” or “farmed wetland” is to maintain that status, as long as the land is used for agricultural production. In accordance with an approved plan, a landowner may allow an area to revert to wetland status and then convert it back to its previous status without violating Swampbuster.
While the Congressional intent behind the Swampbuster rules was a good one, the actual implementation has created difficult problems for farmers and ranchers. Will a new Administration and new heads of federal agencies bring more common sense to the application of that original intent of the Congress? Only time will tell.