National Wildlife Federation v. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservational Service

• Decision Date: 19 April 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-5474,89-5474
• Citation: 901 F.2d 673
• Parties: 20 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,801 The NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION and the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, Appellants, v. The AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Bottineau County Water Resource District, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 673

901 F.2d 673

20 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,801

The NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION and the North Dakota

Wildlife Federation, Appellants, v. The AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE, an

agency of the United States Department of

Agriculture, and the Bottineau County

Water Resource District, Appellees.

No. 89-5474.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 1990.

Decided April 19, 1990.

Anthony N. Turrini, Bismarck, N.D., for appellants.

Patricia M. Bryan, Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, BEAM, Circuit Judge, and HANSON, Senior District Judge. ^*

HANSON, Senior District Judge.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether appellants have standing to challenge the decision of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) to exempt approximately 6,500 acres of prairie wetland in North Dakota from the protection of the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. The 6,500 acres constitute the Bottineau County Water Resource District--a drainage district heavily regulated by the laws of North Dakota. The District Court, the Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, ruled that appellants lacked standing. We reverse, holding that the National Wildlife Federation and the North Dakota Wildlife Federation (Wildlife Federations) have the right to present their claim in federal court. ¹

Background

The wetland conservation (Swampbuster) provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 provide that "any person who in any crop year produces an agricultural commodity on converted wetland shall be ineligible for" federal agricultural subsidies with regard to that commodity. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3821 (1988). The affected subsidies include: any type of price support or payment; farm storage facility loans; federal crop insurance; agricultural disaster payments; a farm loan made, insured or guaranteed by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA); and commodity storage payments. Id. Thus, the law provides substantial economic disincentives to any landowner considering converting wetland into cropland, although it does not actually prohibit such conversion.

There are four exemptions to the Swampbuster provisions, including an exemption for converted wetland where "the conversion of such wetland was commenced before December 23, 1985." 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3822 (1988). The legislation is administered by state and local ASCS committees under the supervision of ASCS. 7 C.F.R. Sec. 12.6(b)(1) (1989). This lawsuit arose after the Bottineau County ASCS committee, in September of 1988, granted the Bottineau County Water Resource District (Bottineau District) a blanket exemption for the 139 square miles at issue finding that the "commenced before December 23, 1985" exemption applied to the entire area. A similar determination made by the same committee in January of 1987 had been reversed by the ASCS Deputy Administrator (Administrator) in Washington D.C. in April of 1987. Appellants brought this suit after the Administrator declined their request to similarly reverse the September 1988 determination.

The Wildlife Federations asserted in their complaint that granting the exemption for the entire 6500 acre area violated the Swampbuster provisions, and they requested an injunction compelling the ASCS to reverse and rescind its decision granting the Bottineau District an exemption. The suit was brought on behalf of the Wildlife Federations and their members living and working within the affected area.

The district court dismissed appellants' complaint prior to the completion of discovery, and without reaching the merits, holding that they lacked standing to challenge the ASCS decision to grant the exemption. The court did recognize that Sec. 10 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) grants a cause of action to a "person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702 (1988). However, it held that appellants' injuries were insufficient to give them standing under Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972). National Wildlife Federation v. ASCS, No. A4-89-067, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Aug. 2, 1989).

The Wildlife Federations argue that they alleged sufficient injury to establish standing. Paragraph 27 of their complaint alleges:

[w]ithout the financial disincentives of Swampbuster, the District and the producers in the White Spur/Stone Creek project area will convert wetlands to cropland, thereby injuring Plaintiffs' members who have a significant interest in preserving these valuable resources. Several of Plaintiffs' members live in the White Spur drainage area. Other members work or recreate there. Plaintiffs' members appreciate the aesthetic values of the intact wetlands and enjoy watching, feeding and photographing wetland wildlife. * * * Plaintiffs' members enjoy the hunting opportunities afforded by the threatened wetlands. * * * One of Plaintiffs' members leases wetland acreage in the White Spur drainage area specifically for hunting purposes. Plaintiffs' members also benefit from the flood control, groundwater recharge, and water purification capabilities of the wetlands. Several members rely on groundwater sources within the project area and are threatened by water shortages and pesticide contamination. The drainage of the wetlands in the White Spur/Stone Creek drainage area as a result of the commenced determination granted by the Bottineau County ASCS committee will permanently deprive Plaintiffs' members of the use and enjoyment of these natural resources.

Appellants also provided affidavits from six of their members living within the exempted area, who alleged they would suffer the specific injuries outlined in the complaint unless the exemption were withdrawn. The affidavit of James and Deanna Lauckner is representative of these affidavits. It asserts that: they are members of the National Wildlife Federation; they own, operate and live on a farm in the exempted area and are opposed to the exemption; they enjoy and benefit from the aesthetic values of the affected wetlands including watching, feeding and hunting wetland wildlife; the granting of the exemption will deprive them of their use and enjoyment of the wetlands because it will result in increased wetland conversion resulting in decreased wildlife populations; and the exemption will threaten their use of well water for domestic water needs because the conversion of additional wetland will both lower the water table and decrease water purity.

Standing Analysis

The standing requirement arises from the Constitution's limitation of the power of federal courts to deciding actual "cases" and "controversies". U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2. It focuses on whether the party seeking to bring a complaint before a federal court "is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 100, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1952-53, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968). "To be a proper litigant, the party must have 'alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues.' " Defenders of Wildlife v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1035, 1038 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 72, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 2630, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978)).

The Supreme Court has specified three requirements that must be met to satisfy this constitutional requirement. The party must show he "personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant." Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758-59, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). The injury must be "fairly" traceable "to the challenged action," and it must be likely that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id. Appellants must also satisfy the prudential requirement that "the alleged injury was to an interest 'arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated' by the" Swampbuster provisions. Defenders of Wildlife, 851 F.2d at 1039 n. 2 (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. at 733, 92 S.Ct. at 1365).

Actual or Threatened Injury

Morton and United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), are the landmark cases for determining whether appellants have alleged sufficient personal injury to satisfy the first of the Constitutional requirements of standing. Additional guidance is provided by our opinions in Defenders of Wildlife and Coalition for the Environment v. Volpe, 504 F.2d 156 (8th Cir.1974).

In Morton the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Sierra Club had standing to challenge a government decision to develop an extensive skiing resort in Mineral King Valley in Sequoia National Forest. The Court ruled that harm to aesthetic or environmental well-being can constitute injury sufficient to support standing. 405 U.S. at 734, 92 S.Ct. at 1365-66. "We do not question that this type of harm may amount to an 'injury in fact' sufficient to lay the basis for standing under Sec. 10 of the APA. Aesthetic and environmental well-being, like economic well-being, are important ingredients of the quality of life in our society." Id. at 734, 92 S.Ct. at 1366. However, the Court ruled that the Sierra Club lacked standing to bring its challenge because it had failed "to allege that it or its members would be affected in any of their activities or pastimes by the * * * development. Nowhere in the pleadings or affidavits did the Club state that its members use Mineral King for any purpose." Id. at 735, 92 S.Ct. at 1366.

Two years later the Supreme Court explained and expanded on the Morton holding in United States v. SCRAP. In SCRAP an organization consisting of five law students, Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), brought suit to...