Today, federal judge C.J. Williams of the Northern District of Iowa ruled in favor of sustainable agriculture groups and family farmers in a Project 2025-motivated lawsuit, CTM Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sought to gut longstanding clean water and wetlands protections.

The ruling is a victory for wetlands, habitat, and water quality throughout the United States. Environmental and sustainable agriculture groups including Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Environmental Council, Dakota Rural Action, and Food & Water Watch intervened in the case to defend longstanding “Swampbuster” Farm Bill provisions from the plaintiff’s effort to have the program deemed unconstitutional.

ELPC Staff Attorney Katie Garvey said: “Everybody pays a price when wetlands are lost, but those who live downstream will pay the highest costs. This decision is a win for family farmers who know that Swampbuster is fair, makes sense, and is worth protecting.”

Food & Water Watch Staff Attorney Dani Replogle said:

“This decision is an unequivocal victory for sustainable farming, clean water and wetlands, and a significant loss for Project 2025 zealots. The message is clear: we will not let fringe legal theories turn our wetlands into sacrifice zones for corporate landlords. The federal government’s uncontroversial ability to encourage sustainable farming practices has been upheld yet again. We remain vigilant for any efforts to appeal to a higher court, and applaud this decision as case closed for wetland protections in Iowa and nationwide.”

Iowa Environmental Council General Counsel Michael Schmidt said: “Swampbuster has been a foundational conservation practice for decades. It was approved by Congress to protect wetlands, prevent flooding, improve water quality, and retain habitat. This court’s thorough decision upholds the practical conservation measures that have been the standard for decades. Commonsense measures like Swampbuster support Iowa farmers and everyone downstream from them.”

The intervenors are represented by the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC), Food & Water Watch, and the Iowa Environmental Council. Counsel from ELPC provided oral argument in defense of Swampbuster before the federal court in March.

Background

The federal Farm Bill sets agricultural and conservation policy nationwide. Two provisions, Swampbuster and Sodbuster, commonly referred to as “conservation compliance” are implicated in CTM Holdings, LLC vs USDA. Starting in 1985, the Farm Bill put conditions on the receipt of federal subsidies: farmers must not drain wetlands (“Swampbuster”) or plant crops on highly erodible land (“Sodbuster”) if they want to receive the subsidies.

Swampbuster has protected wetlands, safeguarded clean water, and supported farmers for nearly four decades. If the plaintiffs were successful, the program could have been revoked entirely, along with its sister program, Sodbuster. The programs are credited with a whopping 40 percent reduction in soil erosion, making farmland more productive and reducing water pollution. Wetlands also provide much-needed resiliency against droughts and flooding. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the 30 million acres of wetlands in the Upper Midwest alone are responsible for preventing $23 billion per year in residential flood loss costs.

The plaintiff landholding company in this lawsuit, represented by the notoriously anti-environmental Pacific Legal Foundation, seeks to further a key Project 2025 objective: unhitching federal farm financing from basic conservation requirements.

This case is among the Pacific Legal Foundation’s portfolio of lawsuits seeking to roll back wetlands protections, following its victory before the Supreme Court last year in Sackett v. EPA, which revoked Clean Water Act protection from many of the nation’s wetlands. Pacific Legal Foundation has made it clear it intends to use CTM Holdings, LLC vs USDA to upend Swampbuster regulation entirely, ultimately angling for a Supreme Court ruling.