A Philadelphia investor who bought a northeast Iowa farm in 2022 now is suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture because he can’t get subsidies if he plants crops in a wetland.
The case, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, challenges one of the only remaining protections for wetlands, which filter agricultural runoff and provide wildlife habitat, after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that stripped federal safeguards for many wetlands.
CTM Holdings, represented by Libertarian law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, argues the USDA is violating the U.S. Constitution by making CTM owner James Conlan give up use of a 9-acre wetland in order to get government benefits, including Conservation Reserve Program payments and crop insurance for his renter.
Jeff McCoy, Pacific Legal Foundation
“They are essentially saying ‘give us a conservation easement so you can’t do anything in this land or we will take away these benefits,’ ” Jeff McCoy, senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation told The Gazette. “We feel like that is a taking.”
But unlike a previous court case cited in the lawsuit related to whether a developer could get a permit to build in a wetland, the Iowa lawsuit is about getting subsidies.
“We tend to give government a little more room when it’s spending its money,” said Shannon Roesler, the Charlotte and Frederick Hubbell Professor of Environmental and Natural Resources law at the University of Iowa.
Through CTM Holdings, Conlan owns 1,075 acres of farmland in Delaware, Linn, Benton and Johnson counties, according to the complaint filed in federal court. The lawsuit relates to a 71-acre parcel in Delaware County, just north of Highway 20 and east of the town of Delaware.
Conlan, an Iowa native, lives in the Philadelphia suburb of Newtown Square and is CEO of Legacy Liability Solutions, a Chicago firm that advises, acquires and restructures companies after class-action lawsuits or other major litigation.
Like many investors, Conlan rents his Iowa farmland. The tenant on the Delaware County parcels wants to plant corn and soybeans on nine acres the USDA in 2010 designated a wetland, the complaint states.
“The 9 acres of ‘wetland’ do not contain standing water and are not visibly wet,” the complaint says. “All the ‘wetlands’ on the property are at least 1,000 feet away from the small seasonal stream and are not connected to any water body.”
The Swampbuster provision of the Food Security Act of 1985 allows the Natural Resources Conservation Service to make wetland determinations and discourages farming on those wetlands by denying benefits to people who drain, level or clear vegetation on them.
But what has changed in the last year is a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that weakened Clean Water Act Protections for wetlands. In Sackett vs. EPA, the high court said wetlands must have a continuous connection to federally protected waters, such as navigable streams, to be covered by the Clean Water Act.
“Sackett did make clear what the federal government can regulate,” McCoy said. “If you can’t regulate it directly, then you can’t force someone to do it in exchange for a benefit.”
Shannon Roesler, UI law professor
Roesler, the UI law professor, said the government does have the authority to regulate industry when it infringes on the rights of others.
“We recognize land development, including farming, imposes negative externalities on the neighbors in the watershed that government does have some role in recognizing, especially if government is spending money to support agriculture,” she said.
“The argument would be that they can attach conditions that minimize those externalities by way of preserving wetlands that provide a number of social benefits to the watershed.”
Wetlands provide flood control, water filtration, ground water recharge and habitat for wildlife, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach reports. About one-quarter of Iowa once was in some form of wetlands, ISU said. Nearly all of those areas are gone, with much of the land drained for row crop agriculture.
Some areas designated as wetlands may appear dry because of a multiyear drought in much of Iowa. The U.S. Drought Monitor on Thursday showed much of northeast Iowa still in extreme to moderate drought.
www.thegazette.com
The case, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, challenges one of the only remaining protections for wetlands, which filter agricultural runoff and provide wildlife habitat, after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that stripped federal safeguards for many wetlands.
CTM Holdings, represented by Libertarian law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, argues the USDA is violating the U.S. Constitution by making CTM owner James Conlan give up use of a 9-acre wetland in order to get government benefits, including Conservation Reserve Program payments and crop insurance for his renter.
“They are essentially saying ‘give us a conservation easement so you can’t do anything in this land or we will take away these benefits,’ ” Jeff McCoy, senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation told The Gazette. “We feel like that is a taking.”
But unlike a previous court case cited in the lawsuit related to whether a developer could get a permit to build in a wetland, the Iowa lawsuit is about getting subsidies.
“We tend to give government a little more room when it’s spending its money,” said Shannon Roesler, the Charlotte and Frederick Hubbell Professor of Environmental and Natural Resources law at the University of Iowa.
Investor owns 1,000 Iowa acres
Through CTM Holdings, Conlan owns 1,075 acres of farmland in Delaware, Linn, Benton and Johnson counties, according to the complaint filed in federal court. The lawsuit relates to a 71-acre parcel in Delaware County, just north of Highway 20 and east of the town of Delaware.
Conlan, an Iowa native, lives in the Philadelphia suburb of Newtown Square and is CEO of Legacy Liability Solutions, a Chicago firm that advises, acquires and restructures companies after class-action lawsuits or other major litigation.
Like many investors, Conlan rents his Iowa farmland. The tenant on the Delaware County parcels wants to plant corn and soybeans on nine acres the USDA in 2010 designated a wetland, the complaint states.
“The 9 acres of ‘wetland’ do not contain standing water and are not visibly wet,” the complaint says. “All the ‘wetlands’ on the property are at least 1,000 feet away from the small seasonal stream and are not connected to any water body.”
The Swampbuster provision of the Food Security Act of 1985 allows the Natural Resources Conservation Service to make wetland determinations and discourages farming on those wetlands by denying benefits to people who drain, level or clear vegetation on them.
But what has changed in the last year is a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that weakened Clean Water Act Protections for wetlands. In Sackett vs. EPA, the high court said wetlands must have a continuous connection to federally protected waters, such as navigable streams, to be covered by the Clean Water Act.
“Sackett did make clear what the federal government can regulate,” McCoy said. “If you can’t regulate it directly, then you can’t force someone to do it in exchange for a benefit.”
Benefits of wetlands
Roesler, the UI law professor, said the government does have the authority to regulate industry when it infringes on the rights of others.
“We recognize land development, including farming, imposes negative externalities on the neighbors in the watershed that government does have some role in recognizing, especially if government is spending money to support agriculture,” she said.
“The argument would be that they can attach conditions that minimize those externalities by way of preserving wetlands that provide a number of social benefits to the watershed.”
Wetlands provide flood control, water filtration, ground water recharge and habitat for wildlife, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach reports. About one-quarter of Iowa once was in some form of wetlands, ISU said. Nearly all of those areas are gone, with much of the land drained for row crop agriculture.
Some areas designated as wetlands may appear dry because of a multiyear drought in much of Iowa. The U.S. Drought Monitor on Thursday showed much of northeast Iowa still in extreme to moderate drought.
Iowa lawsuit claims USDA can’t deny benefits for farming in a wetland
A Philadelphia investor who bought a northeast Iowa farm in 2022 is suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture because he can’t get subsidies if he plants crops in a wetland.
www.thegazette.com
