Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Farm Commodity Programs
Seventh Circuit Interprets Swampbuster Exception
Brandon WillisNational AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Horn Farms v. Johanns, 397 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2005), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that Horn Farms violated the Swampbuster statute, resulting in a denial of the commodity subsidy payments. The Swampbuster statute encourages farmers to maintain existing wetlands by prohibiting those who drain wetlands from receiving certain government subsidies. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 3821-24. Horn Farms had 6.2 acres of wetland that had been drained and cultivated, then prior to 1981 reverted to a wetland, only to be drained and cultivated again in 1998. See id. at 474. Horn Farms claimed they were exempted from the Swampbuster statute due to 16 U.S.C. § 3822(b)(2)(D), an amendment to the original Swampbuster statute which permits cultivating a wetland had been previously cultivated. See id. Horn Farms interpreted the statute to mean that any wetland cultivated before the passage of the Swampbuster statue in 1985 may be farmed again regardless of its status in 1985. Id. at 474. The Secretary interpreted the exception to apply only to wetlands that had been drained and were still used as cropland in 1985. See id. 475-476. The court found the Secretary's interpretation of the statute reasonable and concluded that the only land eligible for the exception was land that was farmed at the time the Swampbuster statute was passed. See id. Because the 6.2 acres at issue was wetlands at the time the Swampbuster statute was passed, Horn Farms violated the statute and did not qualify for the exception. See id. at 479.
The case was decided on Feb. 2, 2005; this summary was posted Sept. 15, 2005.