Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

David Stock Farm Services v. Natural Resources Conservation Service and USDA.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale- cour inférieure
Date
Sep 27, 2010
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Juge
Schiltz, P.J.
Numéro de référence
No. 09-CV-0902
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Agriculture et développement rural, Terre et sols, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes
Mot clé
Zones humides Développement agricole Agriculture et environnement Produits agricoles Terrains agricoles Émissions
Résumé
This case arises under the so-called Swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 3801, 3821-24. Despite their name, the Swampbuster provisions are designed not to bust swamps, but to protect them by preventing the conversion of wetlands. A wetland is “converted” if it is filled, drained, dredged, leveled, or otherwise manipulated for the purpose of producing (or improving the production of) an agricultural commodity . A “prior converted” wetland is a wetland that was totally drained before December 23, 1985. They can be farmed, but they revert to protected status once they are abandoned. 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 to its “original scope and effect. In this case, a Minnesota farming operation disputed a final Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ruling that it violated the Swampbuster provisions by filling-in a 2-acre wetland in 2007. The land in question was located in a corner of an 80-acre tract that had been designated as “prior converted” wetland in 1988 by NRCS. But, it contained numerous wetland plants including cattails and bulrushes. In 2007, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) received a “whistleblower” complaint that accused the farming operation of converting a portion of the wetland. The farming operation did not contest that the area in question was a wetland, nor that it had been filled. Instead, the farming operation maintained that the drainage and filling had occurred before the effective date of the 1985 farm bill. After an investigation of the site, the NRCS issued a “preliminary technical determination” that the farming operation had converted the wetland in 2007 by “filling” the area. That decision became final on October 22, 2008. The farming operation appealed NRCS’ determination to USDA’s National Appeals Division (NAD). In February of 2009 NAD issued a final determination which upheld the NRCS final determination. NAD concluded that the un-decomposed corn stalks in the fill were not result of deep tilling- a farming practice that deepens the soil profile and disperses crop residue deeper into the soil- as the farming operation argued. The NAD hearing officer found that if the vegetation in the soil was the result of deep tilling, the corn stalks would have been distributed uniformly throughout the soil. The evidence indicated that there was no uniform distribution. Upon judicial review, the court noted that a federal agency determination will be upheld if it is supported by some substantial level of evidence - even if it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. With that in mind, the court first examined the presence of un-decomposed corn stalks in the top soil and the farming operation’s claims of deep tilling practices resulting in the presence of the stalks. But, the court believed that the corn stalks would have been evenly dispersed if deep tilling had occurred. The court next addressed the aerial photographs presented by NRCS. Despite testimony from the wetland delineator of the farming operation pointing out that the wetland was not smaller in 2008 than it was in 1989, the court found that the evidence did not “substantially undermine” NAD’s conclusion that the wetland decreased in size over the years. The court noted that the photographs of the NRCS and the farming operation depicted the wetland at different scales and at different exposures, resolution, coloration and level of detail. As such, the court could not identify the size and shape of the wetland area. Finally, the court looked to the farmer’s “source” argument. Even though no “borrow site” was evident on the 2007 aerial photographs, NRCS’ job was to determine when fill was placed, not where it had come from. The court did scold NRCS and NAD to a certain extent with regard to the farmer’s argument. The court would have “preferred” that the NAD officer would have responded to the farmer’s argument on the merits, instead of making assumptions that his argument was implausible. However, the court deferred to “substantial agency expertise” and relied on NRCS’ opinion that the evidence clearly indicated filling in 2007. Thus, the court upheld all of NRCS’ and NAD’s determinations.
Texte intégral
COU-158390.pdf