A federal judge has upheld a Farm Bill provision known as Swampbuster, rejecting an Iowa landowner’s attempt to weaken federal protections for wetlands.
Shannon Kelleher reports for The New Lede.
In short:
- The court ruled that the Swampbuster provision, which conditions farm subsidies on the preservation of wetlands, does not violate landowners’ constitutional rights.
- The lawsuit focused on a 71-acre property in Iowa where the owner claimed nine acres were dry and unconnected to any water source, arguing the regulation amounted to an uncompensated taking.
- Swampbuster, in place since 1985, protects 78 million acres of U.S. wetlands by tying federal agricultural benefits to environmental stewardship.
Key quote:
“This decision is an unequivocal victory for sustainable farming. The message is clear: we will not let fringe legal theories turn our wetlands into sacrifice zones for corporate landlords.”
— Dani Replogle, staff attorney for Food & Water Watch
Why this matters:
Wetlands play an essential role in maintaining healthy ecosystems and supporting agriculture. They filter pollutants, control floods, and sustain biodiversity, providing critical habitat for migratory birds, amphibians, and fish. Yet these environments remain vulnerable to drainage and development — particularly in agricultural regions where land use is heavily shaped by economic incentives. The Swampbuster provision creates a powerful check on wetland destruction by tying eligibility for federal farm subsidies to environmental compliance. That makes it a quiet but vital part of U.S. conservation policy. As climate change increases the frequency and severity of floods, preserving wetlands becomes not just a matter of habitat protection but also a line of defense for surrounding communities. This case affirms the government’s ability to set conditions on public benefits in exchange for public good.
Related EHN coverage: Op-ed: Wetland protections remain bogged down in mystery
