Iowa Farmers Union (IFU), Iowa Environmental Council (IEC), Dakota Rural Action (DRA), and Food & Water Watch (FWW) moved to intervene today in a federal lawsuit seeking to invalidate the “Swampbuster” provision of the 1985 Farm Bill which has protected wetlands in Iowa and nationwide for nearly four decades. The Plaintiff in this lawsuit seeks to further one objective of Project 2025, eliminating U.S. Department of Agriculture’s conservation compliance requirements. Without the intervention of sustainable agriculture groups, a future Trump administration could choose not to defend these important programs.

“The farm bill conservation programs have worked for nearly 40 years. Family farmers know that conservation is essential to protect our land, and the Swampbuster law is the key way of doing that,” said Aaron Lehman, President of Iowa Farmers Union. “Iowa farmers have been successful because we care about our water and soil – and Swampbuster supports us in that.”

The federal Farm Bill sets agricultural and conservation policy nationwide. Starting in 1985, it put conditions on receiving Farm Bill subsidies: farmers must not drain wetlands designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture if they want to receive the subsidies. This is informally called “Swampbuster.” The law imposed similar conditions to protect highly erodible land (called “Sodbuster”). The two provisions are often called “conservation compliance.”

“Wetlands are critical for improving water quality and reducing flooding – we need more wetland protections, not fewer,” said Sarah Green, IEC Executive Director. “The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy calls for 7.7 million acres of wetlands, and we won’t get there for another 900 years with Swampbuster in place. Eliminating it would only send us backwards.” 

The lawsuit, filed by the libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of a land holding company, asks an Iowa court to deem Swampbuster unconstitutional. In their court filing, the prospective intervenors called out inaccuracies in the land holding company’s claims and highlighted the importance of the conservation program to farmers and clean water.

Pacific Legal Foundation’s filing is the firm’s latest effort to rollback wetlands protections, following their victory before the Supreme Court last year in Sackett v. EPA, which revoked Clean Water Act protection from many of the nation’s wetlands. The firm has made it clear they intend to use CTM Holdings LLC vs USDA to upend Swampbuster regulation entirely, ultimately targeting a Supreme Court ruling. 

Food & Water Watch Staff Attorney Dani Replogle said, “This case is a politically motivated attack on longstanding environmental protections that have supported farmers and clean water for decades. Swampbuster has kept flooding at bay, preserved vital ecosystems, and protected clean water, while supporting generations of farmers. In seeking to make a mountain out of a molehill, this case threatens to undermine USDA’s uncontroversial ability to encourage responsible farming practices — we can’t let that happen.” 

Dakota Rural Action member Nick Nemec stated, “The Sodbuster and Swampbuster provisions of the farm bill are a small price to pay for the protections they provide for American farmers. Besides, farmers who oppose these provisions are always free to farm outside the protections. Sodbuster and Swampbuster protect our nation’s resources while ensuring future generations of farmers can continue to farm.”

Environmental Law and Policy Center Staff Attorney Katie Garvey, representing Iowa Farmers Union, said: “The plaintiff who filed this lawsuit – a Chicago attorney who happens to own land in Iowa – does not speak for farmers. The court needs to hear from farmers who understand that destroying wetlands is not only bad for the environment, it also threatens their livelihoods.”

Swampbuster and Sodbuster apply nationwide, have the same legal basis, and are both implicated in this case, the intervening groups noted in today’s filing. Sodbuster is credited with a whopping 40 percent reduction in soil erosion, which makes farmland more productive and reduces water pollution. 

The case was initially filed in April 2024 in federal court in the Northern District of Iowa. Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Agriculture responded in July. Based on a proposed timeline, the case would go to trial in mid-2025.