Saving Swampbuster to Strengthen Iowa

Agricultural runoff contributes the vast majority of nutrient pollution to Iowa’s waters, in part because there are few restrictions on it. One of the few conditions in place is a provision adopted in the 1985 Farm Bill called Swampbuster, which conditions federal subsidies on protecting wetlands from agricultural development. This longstanding provision has discouraged destruction of Iowa’s few remaining wetlands. But what if that protection were revoked? A land holding company is challenging Swampbuster protections through a lawsuit. 

Congress adopted the Swampbuster provisions in 1985 for good reason. In a report accompanying the adoption of Swampbuster, the House of Representatives found that “Wetlands are a priceless resource whose contributions have long gone unrecognized.” Congress went on to list benefits of wetlands that it hoped to protect: habitat protection, migratory waterfowl, flood control, water quality, groundwater recharge, and recreation. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists just released a report finding that every acre of wetlands in Midwest states saves $745 in preventing flood damage. Even though Iowa has fewer wetland acres than other states, our wetlands provide $477 million in value each year. Long-term, those savings are $6.8 billion to $15.9 billion. If Iowa restored more wetlands in upstream areas, we could reduce the impacts of heavy storms on places like Spencer, Hamburg, and Cedar Rapids – places that have been inundated, often repeatedly.  

The loss of wetlands leading up to 1985 – which the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated at 50% of all wetlands in the country – inspired Congress to discourage further destruction. Rather than allowing landowners to fill wetlands and get federal funding to farm the land, Congress conditioned future farm subsidies on not filling those wetlands. “Swampbuster” is about not using federal money to undermine public resources, including our soil, habitat, and water quality. 

Congress made clear that Swampbuster was not about regulating agriculture. The House Report for the bill specifically noted that “This bill does not, nor does it authorize the Secretary to, regulate the use of private, or non-federal land.” The law just stops paying people whose practices work against the public’s interests. 

At the same time, Congress recognized that highly erodible soils were also at risk. Federal subsidies are also conditioned on having a conservation plan if you are farming highly erodible land – everyone has an interest in keeping soil out of our creeks, streams, and rivers. These “Sodbuster” provisions reflect that not all land is the same: some shouldn’t be in row crops at all, and in other places basic conservation practices can make a big difference. Research found that after Sodbuster, soil erosion dropped by 40 percent. 

Despite the enormous value of wetlands, landowners have challenged the Swampbuster provisions several times in the past few years. None of the past cases have succeeded, with courts repeatedly finding that the law was constitutional.  

In Iowa, a land holding company sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this year and argued that the law exceeded congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. If successful, the lawsuit would end Swampbuster nationwide. Sodbuster conditions have an identical legal basis to Swampbuster, so a court decision would do the same to that program. 

With Iowa Farmers Union, Food & Water Watch, and Dakota Rural Action, IEC was allowed to intervene in the Swampbuster case on December 3. On December 6, the court denied a motion by the plaintiff for judgment in the plaintiff’s favor based on what has been filed so far. 

IEC is committed to defending the bedrock environmental protections that protect Iowans and our environment and will argue that Swampbuster is not only legal, but vital to protecting the public’s interests in wetlands. Parties are to be ready for trial by June of 2025.