Editor’s Message

More federal government overreach by the USDA and ridiculous spending has the taxpayer footing the bill on an absurd lawsuit.

The USDA is in a dispute against a South Dakota farm family over a mud puddle. Said mud puddle is in the middle of prime farmland.

The USDA in all its liberal wisdom has decreed that the family may not fill in the muddy patch to plant more crops because it considers the 0.08 acre of land to be federally protected under the 1985 Swampbuster Act, which protects wetlands.

It doesn’t matter that the puddle is not connected to any waterway and not near any officially designated wetlands property. It is just a puddle in the middle of the field.

But the USDA seriously want to control this puddle to the point of threatening the farmer that if it is tampered with, they will lose access to crop insurance and other federal programs. Worse, this dispute has been going on since 2004 (USDA is using taxpayer money to fight for the puddle).

The farmer has refused to give in to the absurdity and continue filing for reconsideration. In 2016, their appeal was to the Supreme Court. The farm family continues to believe the federal government should NOT dictate how a landowner uses their land – and they shouldn’t be punished for using their own land.

Many farmers may face similar dilemmas as time goes on. The family farm, bought and paid by the owners of the property – sometimes for generations – is under attack by the USDA on many levels. While the USDA hands out farm subsidies, they are also stripping farmers of rights with hundreds of regulations.

But back to South Dakota – the farmer and his family is third generation, and the family has a long history of conservation and raising cattle, corn, soybeans and hay. They practice no-till farming and have a long history of conservation efforts dating back to 1900, when the grandfather bought the land with a loan of $1,000.

In 1938, as the Dust Bowl era saw farms across the country decimated, the grandfather planted stands of trees to prevent erosion. Today, the groves of trees are large and trap snow during the severe South Dakota winters. The spring melt creates a stream of water that seeps the lowland, thus creating the controversial mud puddle.

But it is their mud puddle to do with as they please and undaunted, the farmer has filed a new federal lawsuit with the US District Court in Sioux Falls declaring the federal government has overstepped its commerce powers and violated the farmer’s constitutional rights. The suit was file with assistance from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, pro-bon group that fights government overreach and abuse.

The lead attorney said, “Even if you’re an ardent environmentalist, I defy you to look at this puddle and say it’s worth the money the feds have and will spend.”

The farmer has this to say, “This case really is about whether Congress has the power to regulate that mud puddle. If they do, there is no constitutional limit on what they can do. The fact that dirt gets wet, so therefore they can ignore the U.S. Constitution. Absurd!”

Just remember this when you think having the federal government deeper in your life is a good thing. That could be a puddle in the middle of your yard.