Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

County Had No Legal Duty to Apply for Drought Disaster Declaration

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In A.M. Farms v. County of Codington, 765 N.W.2d 550, 2009 WL 1100936 (S.D. 2009), the Supreme Court of South Dakota held that a county owed no legal duty to livestock producers to follow the South Dakota Division of Emergency Management's instructions for requesting a drought disaster declaration.

Background

After a drought had reduced feed supplies and grazing availability in several parts of the state, the South Dakota Division of Emergency Management (DEM) sent a memo to various counties setting forth instructions and requirements for requesting a drought disaster declaration. Id. at *1. The Codington County Board of Commissioners (Board) chose not to take immediate action, but agreed to review the situation weekly. Id. Pursuant to the DEM's memo, the Board subsequently adopted a resolution allowing cattle producers to graze their cattle and harvest hay on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land. Id. In October 2002, the Board submitted a request to the United States Secretary of Agriculture to include Codington County in its list of eligible counties to receive the new federal drought relief package, Livestock Compensation Program I (LCP-I), which made payments directly to qualifying producers in drought-affected areas. Id. The United States Department of Agriculture State Emergency Board approved Codington County as a primary disaster area; however, application to the program was required before September 19, 2002, and thus Codington County producers were ineligible to apply for benefits. Id. Livestock producers brought suit against Codington County, asserting that the county breached its duty to properly follow the disaster declaration procedures set forth by the DEM. Id. The circuit court held that the County's decisions were discretionary and granted the County's motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed. Id. at *2.

Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that if the County had properly followed the procedures set forth by the DEM, they would have received LCP-I benefits. Id.

The County argued that it owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs because the decision to seek drought relief was a discretionary act. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court concluded that the County did not owe any legal duty to the plaintiffs, and thus did not reach the issue of whether the Board's decision to act was discretionary. Id. The court rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that by passing the resolution allowing grazing on CRP land, it owed a duty to follow the DEM's procedures for requesting a drought disaster declaration. Id. The court noted that the resolution had nothing to do with the LCP-1 program, and moreover the County was not even aware of the LCP-1 program until some time after the resolution had been adopted and the deadline for applying for LCP-1 benefits had passed. Id.

The case was decided on April 22, 2009.