Several Iowa farmers are teaming up with the federal government to defend a key Farm Bill provision that protects wetlands.
This comes in response to a legal challenge from a Chicago-based investor and two libertarian law firms.
The case, which will be heard Monday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, could have major consequences for wetlands nationwide and change how the government sets eligibility for federal farm programs.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, over 30 million acres of wetlands in the Upper Midwest — including more than 640,000 acres in Iowa and 1 million in Illinois — are at risk of being destroyed by industrial agriculture.
The provision in question, known as Swampbuster, has been in place since 1985. It discourages farmers from draining wetlands by making them ineligible for federal benefits like subsidies, loans, and insurance if they do.
Food and Water Watch estimates that Swampbuster protects about 78 million acres of wetlands — two-thirds of the remaining wetlands in the continental U.S., which have already been reduced by half since the 1780s due to agriculture, development, and climate change.
Wetlands play a crucial role in preventing flooding by absorbing excess water and filtering out pollutants before they reach local waterways.
They also provide a vital habitat for many plant and animal species.
The plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit last April in federal court, argue that Swampbuster represents government overreach by protecting wetlands not covered under the Clean Water Act.
“Just because Congress couldn’t regulate it directly doesn’t mean they can threaten to take away existing programs to get the same result,” said Jeffery McCoy, a lawyer with Pacific Legal Foundation, representing investor James Conlan.
McCoy called Swampbuster “coercive.” His firm previously won a Supreme Court case that weakened the Clean Water Act’s wetland protections.
Fifth-generation Iowa farmer Aaron Lehman disagrees. He called Swampbuster “simple” and “reasonable.”
“No one is forcing us to sign up for farm programs. It’s strictly voluntary,” said Lehman, president of the Iowa Farmers Union. “Protecting our soil and water is a fair requirement if we’re going to receive government assistance.”
Lehman has set aside about 20 acres of his 50-acre farm to comply with Swampbuster and its companion program, Sodbuster, which encourages farmers to take highly erodible land out of production.
Lawyers representing the farmers warn that the lawsuit could also threaten Sodbuster and other federal farm programs.
“The plaintiff is making a very extreme claim that the federal government lacks the authority to decide who qualifies for taxpayer funding,” said Dani Replogle, an attorney with Food and Water Watch.
McCoy acknowledged that the case could reshape how the government sets eligibility requirements and said his team is prepared to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if needed.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has not yet commented on the case.
Farmers are particularly concerned about the local impact if wetlands protected by Swampbuster are drained. ‘
Lehman worries that losing upstream wetlands could lead to erosion, flooding, and water pollution on his farm.
Homeowners could also face consequences. Wetlands in the Upper Midwest prevent an estimated $23 billion per year in residential flood damage.
As storms become more severe due to climate change, that protection could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in avoided damage, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Katie Garvey, an attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center representing the farmers, stressed the importance of the case.
“The stakes are huge for farmers, the American public, and the environment, but the stakes are nothing for the plaintiff,” Garvey said.
Conlan, who rents his land to farmers and sells it to developers through his company CTM Holdings, does not participate in farm programs.
“Our farms benefit when everyone follows the same rules if they want government support,” said Lehman. “The fact that someone who isn’t even part of the system is challenging this is disturbing.”
The judge is expected to take several weeks to decide. If no resolution is reached, a full trial is scheduled for June.
Disclaimer- Our team has thoroughly fact-checked this article to ensure its accuracy and maintain its credibility. We are committed to providing honest and reliable content for our readers.