Branstad v. Veneman
| Decision Date | 15 May 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. C01-3030-MWB.,No. C00-3072-MWB.,C00-3072-MWB.,C01-3030-MWB. |
| Citation | 212 F.Supp.2d 976 |
| Parties | Edward A. BRANSTAD and Monroe Branstad, Plaintiffs, v. Ann VENEMAN, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Thomas A. Lawler, Lawler & Swanson, PLC, Parkersburg, IA, for plaintiffs.
Kandice A. Wilcox, U.S. Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for defendants.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................979
A. Initial Findings Of Fact ...................................................979
B. Procedural Background ......................................................981
1. Administrative proceedings ..............................................981
a. Agency action regarding Tract # 2024 .................................981
b. Agency action regarding Tract # 1475 .................................983
2. Judicial review proceedings .............................................984
a. The complaint for review regarding Tract # 2024 ......................984
b. The complaint for review regarding Tract # 1475 ......................984
c. Interim proceedings ..................................................986
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ................................................................986
A. Federal Protection Of Wetlands .............................................986
B. Standards For Judicial Review ..............................................988
C. Judicial Review Regarding Tract # 2024 .....................................989
1. Scope of review .........................................................989
2. "Mootness" of the administrative appeal .................................990
a. Arguments of the parties .............................................990
b. Merits of the "mootness" determination ...............................991
3. "Unappealability" of prior wetland determinations .......................993
a. Arguments of the parties .............................................993
b. Merits of the "unappealability" determination ........................994
i. Review of statutory and regulatory changes .......................994
ii. Analysis in light of the statutory and regulatory regime .........997
D. Judicial Review Regarding Tract # 1475 .....................................999
1. Scope of review .........................................................999
2. Arguments of the parties ................................................999
3. Merits of the denial of the appeal .....................................1000
a. Reasons relied upon by the agency ...................................1000
b. Failure to mail the appeal to the correct address ...................1003
III. CONCLUSION ...................................................................1006
These separate actions for judicial review of agency action of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) come before the court on trial on the merits on written submissions. Although these two actions have never been formally consolidated, the court nevertheless finds that a consolidated ruling on trial on the merits is appropriate, in light of substantial factual and legal overlap between the two cases. In both actions, the plaintiff producers seek judicial review of agency determinations that they violated the "Swampbuster" Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3821-24, when the agency found that they "converted" "wetlands" by repairing an existing tile drainage system on their farmland. The two actions involve the same tile drainage system, although they involve administrative action on the effect the repairs to that tile drainage system had on different, albeit adjacent, tracts of farm land. The practical effect of the agency's determinations that the producers "converted" "wetlands" is that the producers become ineligible for various farm program benefits and must repay benefits received after the "conversion." However, in both actions, this court entered preliminary injunctions preventing the USDA from pursuing any enforcement actions, including certification of the producers as ineligible for farm program benefits, during the pendency of this litigation. At trial on the merits, the producers contend that the USDA's determinations of wetlands violations should be overturned, while the USDA contends that the court should now affirm the agency's determinations, on the ground that they are neither arbitrary nor capricious.
The factual background to these cases has been discussed extensively in the court's prior rulings on motions for preliminary injunctions. See Branstad v. Glickman, 118 F.Supp.2d 925 (N.D.Iowa 2000) (Branstad I) (); Branstad v. Veneman, 145 F.Supp.2d 1011 (N.D.Iowa 2001) (Branstad II) (). There is but little to add or change now, although the court must provide sufficient factual and procedural background to put in context the court's final disposition of these matters on trial on the merits.
As mentioned above, these cases involve two adjacent tracts of farmland, which are located in Winnebago County, Iowa. Tract # 2024, which plaintiff Monroe Branstad purchased in 1995, is the subject of Case No. C 00-3072-MWB, and Tract # 1475, which plaintiff Edward Branstad, Monroe's father, also purchased in 1995, is the subject of Case No. C 01-3030-MWB. Monroe and Edward Branstad are both "operators" of both tracts for purposes of the pertinent statute and USDA regulations.
The administrative records reveal that a single tile drainage system was installed on both Tract # 2024 and Tract # 1475 sometime in the early 1900s. The tracts were used for row crops until the 1930s, then again in the 1950s, but thereafter were used primarily for pasture. The prior owners of the tracts were unable to maintain the tile drainage system and they did not contest "wetlands" determinations by the USDA on Tract # 2024 in 1987 and 1991 and on Tract # 1475 in 1991. Since purchasing the tracts, the Branstads have used them to produce corn and soybeans.
In September of 1996, after the Branstads purchased the two tracts, the Branstads sought permission from the USDA to repair the existing tile drainage system on Tract # 2024. The USDA contends that the request for and grant of permission to repair the tile drainage system pertained only to Tract # 2024, not to Tract # 1475, even though the same tile drainage system drains both tracts. There is no evidence in the agency record of a separate request to repair the tile drainage system on Tract # 1475. However, the Branstads submitted detailed information about the existing drainage system and their plans to repair it, which indicated that Tract # 1475 was also involved or would be affected. See Agency Case Record for Case No. C 00-3072-MWB (NAD Case No.2000E000635) (hereinafter "Record for Tract # 2024"), 145-62.
Mark Sandvik, the District Conservationist of the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the USDA, responded to the Branstads' request to repair the tile drainage system by letter dated September 16, 1996. That letter stated the following, in its entirety:
This letter is in response to your request dated 9/10/96, go [sic] improve drainage on your farm located in Winnebago Count, identified as farm # 3778 and Tract # 2024.
We have reviewed the previous wetland determinations for this tract. The most recent wetland determination was completed and signed by our office on 2/12/91. There are 28.1 acres of Farmed Wetland on this tract.
The areas you identified for drainage repair will not effect [sic] any classified wetlands if the repair is made only to original size and depth of tile. Proceed with your repair project as planned. For any further drainage improvements in the future you will need to complete a new AD-1026 form at the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
Id. at 47 (emphasis in the original) & 144 (same letter).1
The Branstads repaired the tile drainage system in 1997 with smaller plastic drain tile that the Branstads contend, the agency's own record shows, and the court finds, did not exceed the size or depth of the original tile system's drainage field. Obviously, the repairs did have the effect of improving drainage from the affected tracts as compared to the effectiveness of the system in recent years — after all, that was the goal of the repairs. However, there is no evidence in the agency record that the repairs exceeded the scope and effect of the drainage system as originally installed on the two tracts. The USDA inspected the installation of the repaired tile system without requiring any changes or initiating any agency action against the Branstads regarding either tract.
However, on September 29, 1998, a neighbor filed a "whistleblower" complaint with the USDA alleging that repair of the tile drainage system had resulted in drainage of wetlands on Tract # 2024, which did prompt agency action. See Record for Tract # 2024 at 326-27, ¶¶ 10-11 (Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact). Eventually, the entities at the lowest rungs of the agency determination process, the NRCS and the FSA, determined that there had been wetlands violations as to Tract # 2024, as recounted more fully in the next section. Considerably later, apparently in February or March of 2000, a neighbor filed another "whistleblower" complaint alleging a potential wetlands violation involving Tract # 1475, prompting further agency action involving that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Veneman, C 02-3051-MWB.
...I, 118 F.Supp.2d at 943. In its Branstad cases, including its disposition of those cases on the merits, see Branstad v. Veneman, 212 F.Supp.2d 976 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (Branstad III), this court discussed in considerable detail the public interest embodied in the Swampbuster Act. As in Branstad ......
-
B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Veneman
...(N.D.Iowa 2000) (Branstad I); Branstad v. Veneman, 145 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1014 (N.D.Iowa 2001) (Branstad II); Branstad v. Veneman, 212 F.Supp.2d 976 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (Branstad III). Therefore, the court will not reiterate that legal background here. Suffice it to say that the purpose of the "Sw......
-
B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Schafer
...protection under the "Swampbuster" Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3801, 3821-24. See B & D II, 332 F.Supp.2d at 1208; Branstad v. Veneman, 212 F.Supp.2d 976 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (Branstad III); Branstad v. Veneman, 145 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1014 (N.D.Iowa 2001) (Branstad II); Branstad v. Glickman, 118 F.Supp.2d 92......
-
Branstad v. Veneman
...on enforcement action in Case No. C 01-3030-MWB), and trial on the merits on written submissions. See Branstad v. Veneman, 212 F.Supp.2d 976 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (Branstad III). 2. The court's After trial on the merits, the court concluded that the "final" agency determinations in the two cases ......