Meyers v. The United States
| Decision Date | 23 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-538 C,09-538 C |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER MEYERS, KATHERINE MEYERS, SARA MEYERS STARWALT, and TARA MEYERS CASLEBERRY, dba MEYERS RANCHES, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, RCFC 12(b)(1); Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, RCFC 12(b)(6); Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2006); Money-Mandating Source of Law; Conservation Security Program, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3838-3838c (2006); Fifth Amendment Takings Claim.
Alan I. Saltman, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. Ruth G. Tiger and Aron C. Beezley, Washington, DC, of counsel.
Kenneth D. Woodrow, United States Department of Justice, with whom were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director, Washington, DC, for defendant.
Now pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss, which has been fully briefed and is ripe for a decision by the court. Because this court lacksjurisdiction over Counts I and II of plaintiffs' complaint, those counts must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). With respect to Count III of the complaint, the court holds that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Count III of the complaint must be dismissed pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6). For those reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby granted.
In this case, the owners and operators of two cattle ranches seek damages under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2006), for payments they would have received from the government if they had been allowed to participate in an agricultural conservation program authorized by Congress. Under the program, 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 financial assistance. In response to spending limitations imposed by Congress, the agency charged with implementing the statute limited eligibility for the program to properties located within several watersheds designated by the agency on an annual basis. Because their property was not located within any of the designated watersheds, plaintiffs did not enroll in the program. Plaintiffs now seek monetary damages for the payments they would have received if they had been allowed to participate in the program between 2004 and 2010. In the alternative, plaintiffs allege that the government has taken their property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
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. Compl. ¶ 5. 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 (CSP), which is now codified as amended at sections 3838 through 3838c in Title 16 of the United States Code (the CSP statute). Compl. ¶ 6.
Under the CSP, defendant provides financial and technical assistance to eligible producers who adopt specified conservation practices on eligible land.2 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). The CSP statute defines the Secretary as "the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service [(NRCS)]." 16 U.S.C. § 3838(12). As originally enacted, the legislation required the NRCS to establish and implement the CSP in each of fiscal years (FY) 2003 through 2007. 116 Stat. 225. Congress later extended authorization for the CSP through FY2011. See Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, tit. I, § 1202, 120 Stat. 4, 5-6.
The CSP statute provides that eligible land includes private working lands such as "cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pasture land, and rangeland," as well as "land under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe... and forested land that is an incidental part of an agricultural operation...." 16 U.S.C. § 3838a(b)(2). However, the statute further provides that working lands that are already enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program or the Grassland Reserve Program are not eligible for enrollment in the CSP. 16 U.S.C. § 3838a(b)(3). In addition, the statute provides that any previously uncultivated land converted to cropland following the enactment of the 2002 Farm Bill is similarly ineligible for enrollment in the CSP. Id.
In order to become eligible for participation in the CSP, an agriculturalproducer must:
Under the CSP statute, potential participants in the program must first develop a conservation security plan to be approved by the NRCS. 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, and must indicate the tier of the conservation security contract under which the plan will be implemented. 16 U.S.C. § 3838a(c)(1). In determining which conservation practices are eligible for compensation under the program, and the applicable criteria for implementing and maintaining those conservation practices, the NRCS is directed to consult its National Handbook of Conservation Practices. 16 U.S.C. § 3838a(d)(3)(A). Although the eligibility of specific conservation practices is to be determined by the NRCS, the CSP statute sets forth a list of various broad categories of practices that a producer may implement under a conservation security plan. 16 U.S.C. § 3838a(d)(4).
Once the NRCS has approved a producer's conservation security plan, it must enter into a conservation security contract with that producer to enroll the land covered by the plan in the CSP. 16 U.S.C. § 3838a(e)(1). The CSP statute directs the NRCS 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. 16 U.S.C. §§ 3838a(d)(1)(A), 3838a(d)(5). The three contract tiers differ from one another in their duration, the number of natural resources that must be protected, and the portion of the agricultural operation on which the specified conservation practices must be applied. See id. 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 bedetermined and approved by the NRCS. 16 U.S.C. § 3838a(d)(6).
Under the CSP statute, the government is authorized to make an annual payment to each eligible producer who has entered into a conservation security contract with the NRCS. Annual payments under such contracts are composed of as many as three separate components: a specified percentage of the base payment (which the court will refer to here as the "adjusted base payment"); a cost-sharing payment; and an enhanced payment. The CSP statute provides that 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. 16 U.S.C. § 3838c(b)(1)(A). In the alternative, the statute provides that the NRCS may instead adopt as the base payment "another appropriate rate for the 2001 crop year that ensures regional equity." Id. Once the NRCS has determined the applicable 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, respectively, of the applicable base payment. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 3838c(b)(1)(C)(i), 3838c(b)(1)(D)(i), 3838c(b)(1)(E)(i).
The CSP statute also provides for cost-sharing payments, which reimburse eligible producers for the cost of adopting and maintaining both new and existing conservation practices on their properties. In general, eligible producers may receive up to seventy-five percent of the 2001 average county cost of approved practices implemented pursuant to a conservation security contract. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 3838c(b)(1)(C)(ii), 3838c(b)(1)(D)(ii), 3838c(b)(1)(E)(ii). In addition, "beginning farmers or ranchers" may receive a higher cost-sharing payment of up to ninety percent of the 2001 average county cost of the conservation practices implemented under their contracts. Id.
Finally, eligible producers may receive an enhanced payment for the adoption or maintenance of certain conservation practices that exceed the minimum requirements for the applicable tier of conservation security contract. See 16 U.S.C. § 3838c(b)(1)(C)(iii). Enhanced payments may be received for addressing local conservation priorities, participating in a research or pilot project and...
To continue reading
Request your trial