Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Commodity Programs
Court Upholds USDA Denial of
Swampbuster Benefits
Amy K. MillerNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Holly Hill Farm Corp. v. United States, 447 F.3d 258, 260 (4th Cir. 2006), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the USDA's denial of farm benefits because Holly Hill Farm failed to comply with Swampbuster and provisions in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act, also known as the 1990 Farm Bill. Aerial photographs clearly show that woody vegetation was cleared from Field 16 after November 28, 1990. Id. at 266.
In a letter dated February 7, 1990, the Soil Conservation Service ("SCS") designated Field 16 as "woodland." Id. at 264. Although "action in reliance of a previous certified wetland determination by the National Resources Conservation Service" ("NRCS"), 7 C.F.R. § 12.5(b)(6)(i) (2005), is justifiable, there was no evidence on the record to show such actual reliance by Holly Hill Farm. Id. Furthermore, such statements would not justify the clearing of woody vegetation after November 28, 1990, when Congress enacted the 1990 Farm Bill , a law providing for stricter restrictions on the wetland conversions. Id. at 264.
In 1991, SCS certified a revised wetland determination for Holly Hill Farms making no reference to Field 16. Id. at 261. Although the failure to address Field 16 suggests SCS implicitly concluded Field 16 was not a wetland, disclaimer statements on both the initial and final determination affirm that the wetland determinations apply only "for areas specifically delineated." Id. at 265. The court concluded the USDA's determination that Holly Hill could not reasonably rely on the 1991 determination was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. Id.
Holly Hill argued for the first time on appeal that any alleged conversion had only minimum effects. . Id. at 265-66. The court concluded that USDA's initial failure to make the minimal effects determination was not a clear error because the regulations suggest that "a person seeking benefits must request consideration for this exemption." Id. at 268. Because Holly Hill had numerous opportunities to raise the minimal effects argument at the administrative level and before the district court, the court concluded that its refusal to entertain the argument did not constitute a plain error. Id.
The case was decided on May 5, 2006; this summary was posted Feb. 26, 2006.