Earman v. United States
| Decision Date | 12 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-617 C,10-617 C |
| Parties | KENNETH EARMAN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Alan I. Saltman, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Richard W. Goeken, Washington, DC, and Charles W. Surasky, Atlanta, GA, of counsel.
Sharon A. Snyder, United States Department of Justice, with whom were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Bryant G. Snee, Deputy Director, Washington, DC, for defendant. Joshua Schnell, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, of counsel.
Now pending before the court are defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to RCFC 56. These motions have been fully briefed. Oral argument was held on October 31, 2013. For the reasons described below, the court grants defendant's motion to dismissand motion for summary judgment, and denies plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.
The Conservation Security Program (the CSP or the Program) is a federal conservation program administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (the Service or the agency) within the United States Department of Agriculture (the USDA). Under the CSP, potential participants develop and submit for approval plans to adopt specified conservation practices on their agricultural property. Upon the government's approval of such a plan, the participant then enters into a written contract with the government to implement the approved conservation practices in exchange for technical and financial assistance.
Kenneth Earman, the plaintiff in this case, is the holder of a CSP contract seeking damages under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2006), for increased payments pursuant to his CSP contract. Mr. Earman alleges that the government has breached his contract - as well as the contracts of a putative class of similarly situated CSP participants - by calculating CSP payments in a manner inconsistent with the CSP statute and the Service's implementing regulations. Mr. Earman also argues that he and others similarly situated are entitled to reformation of their contracts to excise certain provisions on the ground of mutual mistake. Further, plaintiff asserts that he and others similarly situated possess a contractual right of renewal which was breached when Congress enacted legislation in 2008 that prohibited the renewal of CSP contracts after September 30, 2008. Finally, Mr. Earman alleges that the government's alleged repudiation of his and similarly situated CSP participants' contractual right of renewal constitutes an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In May 2002, Congress enacted the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Farm Bill), Pub. L. No. 107-171, 116 Stat. 134, which is now codified as amended at sections 3838 through 3838c in Title 16 of the United States Code (the CSP statute). Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 7. The 2002 Farm Bill amended several portions of the Food Security Act of 1985 (the 1985 Farm Bill), Pub. L. No. 99-198, 99 Stat. 1354 (), and created a voluntary conservation program known as the Conservation Security Program. Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 8. As originally enacted, the legislation required the Service to establish and implement the CSP in each of fiscal years (FY) 2003 through 2007. 2002 Farm Bill, sec. 2001, § 1238A, 116 Stat. at 225. Congress later extended authorization for the CSP through FY 2011. See Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, tit. I, sec. 1202(a), § 1238A(a), 120 Stat. 4, 5 (2006); Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 10.
The CSP statute explains that the purpose of the program is "to assist producers of agricultural operations in promoting, as is applicable with respect to land to be enrolled in the program, conservation and improvement of the quality of soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and any other conservation purposes, as determined by the Secretary." 16 U.S.C. § 3838a(a); see Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Revised Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Facts (Pl.'s Resp. to DPFUF) ¶ 8. The CSP statute defines "producer" as "an owner, operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper" who "shares the risk of producing any crop or livestock" and "is entitled to share in the crop or livestock available for marketing from a farm (or would have shared had the crop or livestock been produced)." 16 U.S.C. § 3838(9)(A). The statute defines "the Secretary" as "the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service." Id. § 3838(12).
In order to become eligible for participation in the CSP, an agricultural producer must:
Id. § 3838a(b)(1).
Under the CSP statute, potential participants in the program must first develop a conservation security plan to be approved by the Service. The statute provides that all such plans must identify the land and resources to be protected, must describe the specific conservation practices to be implemented, must set forth a schedule for the implementation and maintenance of those practices during the term of the conservation security contract, and must indicate the tier of the conservation security contract under which the plan will be implemented. Id. § 3838a(c)(1).
Once the Service has approved a producer's conservation security plan, it enters into a conservation security contract with that producer to enroll the land covered by the plan in the CSP. Id. § 3838a(e)(1). The CSP statute directs the agency to offer eligible producers three tiers of conservation security contracts - Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III - pursuant to which CSP payments may be made to such producers. Id. § 3838a(d)(1)(A), (d)(5). Although the CSP statute sets forth general requirements for the three contract tiers, the statute provides that the specific minimum requirements for each contract tier are to be "determined and approved by the Secretary." Id. § 3838a(d)(6).
The CSP statute provides for two forms of assistance to eligible producers who adopt specified conservation practices on eligible land. First, the statute provides that "[f]or each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance to producers for the development and implementation of conservation security contracts, in an amount not to exceed 15 percent of amounts expended for the fiscal year." Id. § 3838c(g). Technical assistance refers to conservation planning, design, and implementation assistance that the Service provides to producers, including assisting producers to enroll in the CSP. Pl.'s Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact (PPFUF) ¶ 4; see also 7 C.F.R. §§ 1466.3 (), 1469.9(b) ().
Second, the statute authorizes the government to make an annual payment to each eligible producer who has entered into a conservation security contract with the agency. Annual payments under such contracts comprise as many as three separate components: (1) a specified percentage of a base payment for the type of land covered by the contract (which the court refers to as an adjusted base payment);2 (2) a cost-sharing payment; and (3) an enhanced payment. 16 U.S.C. § 3838c(b)(1).
Under the CSP statute, the base payment is equal to the 2001 average national per-acre rental rate for the particular type of land use covered by the contract. Id. § 3838c(b)(1)(A)(i); Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 15. In the alternative, the statute provides that the Service may instead adopt as the base payment "another appropriate rate for the 2001 crop year that ensures regional equity." 16 U.S.C. § 3838c(b)(1)(A)(ii); see also Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 15. Once the Service has determined the base payment for the enrolled property, the adjusted base payment is calculated according to the appropriate contract tier for that property. For Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III contracts, the adjusted base payment is equal to five percent, ten percent, and fifteen percent of the base payment, respectively. 16 U.S.C. § 3838c(b)(1)(C)(i), (b)(1)(D)(i), (b)(1)(E)(i); Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 15.
The CSP statute also provides for cost-sharing payments, which reimburse eligible producers for the cost of adopting new conservation practices and maintaining existing conservation practices on their properties. In general, eligible producers may...
To continue reading
Request your trial