Swampbuster Stands, Part 1: Reviewing the Iowa Lawsuit Challenging Conservation Compliance

By Jonathan Coppess and Bryan Endres et.al

For forty years, conservation compliance has operated to discourage farmers from converting wetlands or native sod to cropland, as well as from farming on highly erodible fields without a conservation plan to address erosion. On April 16, 2024, CTM Holdings, LLC, (CTM) filed a lawsuit against USDA over the application of conservation compliance, specifically, wetlands compliance (known as Swampbuster) to its farm. On May 29, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa ruled against CTM and in favor of USDA and conservation compliance. This article initiates a series discussing the case and the court’s ruling, as well as the potential implications for agricultural and conservation policy. In summary, the court found that CTM did not have a cause of action for its claims or standing to bring the lawsuit. The court also went further and reiterated that Swampbuster is a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power.

Background on Swampbuster

In the landmark Food Security Act of 1985, Congress created conservation compliance to address the substantial soil erosion and other conservation challenges that arose during the acreage expansion and farm consolidation of the 1970s. The policy response built over multiple years and Congresses. One of the catalysts for conservation compliance was a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled “Protect Tomorrow’s Food Supply, Soil Conservation Needs Priority Attention” (GAO CED-77-30). Congress first responded with the enactment of the 1977 Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA) (P.L. 95-192), which required USDA to study erosion and conservation problems and report back to Congress with possible policy responses. In 1979, Representative Jim Jeffords (R-VT) introduced the first compliance legislation that would have prevented farmers from receiving farm support payments unless they had implemented conservation plans (96 H.R. 3681). In 1981, Senator William Armstrong (R-CO) made it bipartisan and bicameral introducing legislation to prohibit price supports if the crops were produced on ground that had not been farmed in the ten preceding years; applicable only to lands west of the 100^th meridian, he argued that it was not a wise use of federal funds to encourage production on such land (97 S.1825).

Congress resisted efforts to add conservation compliance to the 1981 Farm Bill or attach it to appropriations bills in 1982 and 1983. The Senate Agriculture Committee reported Senator Armstrong’s conservation compliance bill in 1983 and the House passed a version in 1984, but the bill died in conference (98 S.663). In the 1985 Farm Bill effort, Congress finally enacted conservation compliance. Congress strengthened conservation during debate, including the addition of Swampbuster. Notably, Congress conditioned farm payments on conservation compliance at a time when farmers were struggling during the depths of the Eighties farm crisis; that the provisions faced little opposition, indicated the political strength of the issue when it was enacted (Coppess, 2024).

Since enactment, compliance has been understood by courts as intended by Congress to discourage production on fields where it raises substantial natural resource concerns, including “to combat the disappearance of wetlands though their conversion into crop lands” (B & D Land & Livestock Co. v. Schafer; 16 U.S.C. § 3821). Swampbuster operates by conditioning farm benefits on conserving wetlands or establishing new wetlands in place of ones converted to crop land. Since its inception 40 years ago, multiple agribusinesses and organizations have challenged the constitutionality of the Swampbuster provision to no avail (See e.g., U.S. v. Dierckman; Horn Farms, Inc. v. Johanns).

Background on the Facts of the Lawsuit

The following background information discussed herein has been summarized from the complaint and other documents produced during discovery in the case. The plaintiff in the case is CTM Holdings, LLC, an Iowa limited liability company. CTM and an affiliated entity (B&C, LLC) own over 1,000 acres of farmland. The two LLC’s lease all land to tenants who farm it on a cash lease basis.

On September 30, 2022, CTM purchased three contiguous parcels that comprise 71.85 acres of farmland in Delaware County, Iowa. Of that total, 39.83 acres were tillable and used for farming. Another 21.62 acres are forest, of which nine were previously determined to be a wetland by USDA. The property also includes 10.4 acres that were enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) under a contract that began May 1, 2010, and expired on September 30, 2024. CTM purchased the land while it was still under the CRP contract.

The lawsuit involves the nine acres within the 21.62 acres of forest that were determined to be wetlands by USDA. Figure 1 is the map of the farm included in the wetlands determination dated January 23, 2023. That determination was the result of a request by CTM. The initial wetlands determination was dated April 16, 2010, with another map and determination dated March 18, 2009. Communications between plaintiff and USDA prior to purchase of the land indicate that the plaintiff was aware of the wetlands determination prior to purchase of the property.

The wetlands determination had been made for more than a dozen years prior to CTM’s purchase of the property. Thus, CTM purchased the property with knowledge of that fact. After purchase, CTM notified USDA of its plans to remove the trees and stumps from the forested area to prepare it for farming. CTM also indicated a plan to remove the trees but not the stumps from the wetlands acres, to avoid violating the wetlands restrictions. In response, USDA informed CTM of the need for a wetland determination on the approximately 12 acres that had not previously been determined a wetland. CTM filled out the USDA form (AD-1026) and USDA surveyed the twelve acres, determining that they were not a wetland.