Feedstuffs is part of the Informa Markets Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Farm Bureau tells USDA it must end NRCS abuses

Farm Bureau tells USDA it must end NRCS abuses

Indiana farm family caught in legal battle over whether 2.8 acres of trees are a wetland.

Farmers and ranchers are being denied due process as part of an abuse of discretion by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), according to a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The ruling was highlighted in a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) calling on Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to enact much-needed reforms in the agency.

In a statement, AFBF explained that the letter focuses on the case of an Indiana farm owned by David and Rita Boucher and Rita Boucher’s 17-year saga of unfair treatment by NRCS staff. The Bouchers removed nine trees on 2.8 acres, and NRCS, in turn, demanded that they plant 300 trees per acre as compensation.

AFBF said the court found that NRCS wrongly accused the Bouchers of harming a nonexistent wetland on their property but made no effort to correct the record even after the accusations were shown to be groundless. The NRCS judgment made the farm ineligible for a wide variety of government programs, creating a roadblock for the Bouchers to obtain the loans and crop insurance necessary to stay in operation.

“The USDA repeatedly failed to follow applicable law and agency standards,” the court wrote. “It disregarded compelling evidence showing that the acreage in question never qualified as wetlands that could have been converted illegally into croplands, and the agency has kept shifting its explanations for treating the acreage as converted wetlands. The USDA’s treatment of the Bouchers’ acreage as converted wetlands easily qualifies as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.”

The Bouchers are not the only victims of NRCS regulatory abuse, as noted in the letter and as AFBF has previously conveyed to USDA.

“The wrongs identified by the Seventh Circuit are systemic throughout NRCS and representative of the experience of countless farmers,” AFBF wrote. “We hope that you find this case as shocking and troubling as does the Seventh Circuit."

The letter continued, “USDA’s implementation of its conservation compliance programs transcends politics: The Bouchers’ battle began in the beginning of the Bush presidency and continued through the Obama and Trump administrations. The unanimous judges on the Seventh Circuit were appointed by Presidents [Ronald] Reagan, [Bill] Clinton and [Barack] Obama, and the actions by USDA were not limited to a few individuals but were endemic through all levels of review and appeal.”

AFBF is calling on Perdue to accept the Seventh Circuit decision and compensate Rita Boucher for costs incurred in her fight against the federal government. More broadly, the letter urges USDA to view its finalization of an interim final rule as an opportunity to correct the problems identified in the ruling.

The letter explains, “In reality, affected farmers typically have been unable to challenge the agency’s decisions because they simply cannot afford to lose eligibility or the costs of a fruitless appeal. Generally, farmers follow the direction of the agency to avoid ineligibility instead of appealing.”

Additionally, AFBF is asking USDA to:

  • Retrain National Appeals Division judges and agency directors on how to provide a fair and balanced hearing;
  • Require USDA to provide the entire record or decisional documentation to the farmers at the time of alleged compliance violation;
  • Allow the farmer and his or her counsel to call NRCS technical staff as witnesses in the appeal;
  • Accept evidence provided by the farmer as true, absent substantial evidence to the contrary, and
  • Compensate the farmer for legal fees when the farmer wins an appeal – i.e., when the farmer is forced to incur costs as a result of an incorrect decision from NRCS.
TAGS: Policy
Hide comments

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Publish