Impact of COVID-19 on Agriculture

Illinois Farmer Stands His Ground Against Wrongful NRCS Wetlands Determination

News / FBNews September 25, 2019

Kurt Wilke   Credit: Illinois Farm Bureau   

When Kurt Wilke’s father-in-law, Carl Hoffee, wanted to expand his central Illinois farm in 2010, he purchased 80 acres of land on which crops had grown for more than 100 years – land that USDA’s forms verified as non-wetland. However, soon after Hoffee began improving the farm’s drain tile system, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service asserted the farm had 22 acres of wetlands. The assertion, based on undated aerial photographs taken on a single day, forced Hoffee to stop his drain tile repairs and await the agency’s formal determination, which came in 2012.

Hoffee appealed to USDA’s National Appeals Division, which ruled in his favor.

“But the NRCS didn’t appeal that order. Instead, they just re-issued the exact same determination, forcing a ‘do-over’ and dragging us back through the entire process all over again,” Wilke explained.

Not satisfied, NRCS issued the same determination two more times, pulling Hoffee back through the time and expense of a flawed appeals process. NAD ruled in favor of Hoffee in the second appeal but NRCS withdrew its determination just before a third hearing in 2015. Hoffee died as the third determination and appeal were playing out and Wilke continued with the appeal.

Almost beyond belief, NRCS marched on with a fourth do-over, resulting in Wilke having to appeal again in 2016. As they had twice before, NAD found in Hoffee’s favor. Currently, NRCS has not asked for a fifth determination and Wilke is still waiting to learn if the agency will pay for his and Hoffee’s legal fees and costs, a request he made in 2017 after the NAD ruling in the fourth appeal.

Hoffee and Wilke not only had the facts on their side, unlike most other farmers, they had the benefit of being attorneys who could represent themselves in preparing and making their case. Still, as Wilke emphasized, it’s an expensive and daunting process.

“This cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through that five-year battle. These appeals also cost the farm almost $100,000 for technical experts and consultants to map and scope the entire drain system. We even had to hire and pay our own court reporter to take the transcript at all these hearings,” Wilke said.

Wilke’s determination to repeatedly stand up to NRCS was largely driven by his father-in-law’s unwillingness to “be knuckled under,” but few farmers can afford this kind of fight.  

“In fact, in the fourth trial, the sworn testimony was presented. We asked the government, ‘Why can you do this over and over and over again? How is that fair?’ Because unlike the government, if we had lost any of those appeals, we would not have had any opportunity to redo it. And their testimony was, ‘Well, if you would just accept our decision, you wouldn't have to go through this.’ That's in the transcript. It was unbelievable. But Carl was very tenacious, he would not give in,” Wilke said.

Don Parrish, American Farm Bureau Federation senior director of regulatory relations, said Wilke and Hoffee’s experience was far from unique.

“I wish I could say that this horror story is an isolated occurrence, but unfortunately, I can’t.  It is hard to say how many calls I get from farmers with similar stories or how many times I’ve heard them say that NRCS just ignores evidence they provide or that the agency doesn’t even follow its own regulations and guidance,” Parrish said.

He continued, “NRCS’ unlimited ability and resources for ‘do-overs’ is one of the most unsettling aspects of this story. There is nothing fair about allowing the agency to continue to drag farmers back through this ‘process,’ while farmers only get one shot if they lose. Farmers deserve due process and a fair chance.”

Share This Article

Credit: Liz West / CC BY 2.0 

The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation today petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take their case against California’s Proposition 12, which would ban the sale of pork from hogs that don’t meet the state’s “arbitrary” production standards.

Full Article
Credit: Pixabay // CC0 

America’s top biofuel and farm advocates called on the White House to take immediate action to address reports that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may soon seek to destroy demand for billions of gallons of low-carbon biofuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The following joint statement was issued by the Advanced Biofuels Business Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, Growth Energy, National Biodiesel Board, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, and Renewable Fuels Association: “While a formal proposal has not been released, the expected standards would destroy a decade of progress on low-carbon biofuels and brazenly violate the promises that President Biden made to farmers, green voters, and his own allies in Congress. “We are deeply concerned that this administration is favoring the oil industry over the environment, rural communities, and hardworking farmers by providing handouts that eclipse those obtained by fossil fuel advocates under the previous administration. A move to cut U.S. biofuel requirements would be a devastating blow to rural families and derail this White House’s plan to decarbonize the transportation and agriculture sectors. Reports even suggest the agency could eliminate renewable fuels from past obligations, effectively giving select petroleum companies a retroactive license to force more fossil fuels into the U.S. energy mix. “We urge the president to ensure the EPA avoids a mistake that would undermine the Biden-Harris administration’s relationship with farmers, biofuel producers, and climate advocates across rural America.”

Full Article