Sanders Land & Cattle Co. v. Department of Agriculture , 49 F. App'x 211 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 9 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SANDERS LAND & CATTLE
COMPANY; DAVID SANDERS;
DAVE C. SANDERS; DON C.
SANDERS, individually,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and No. 01-2305
(D.C. No. CIV-00-1115-PJK/RLP)
CAROLYN SANDERS, (D. N.M.)
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior
Circuit Judge.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiffs Sanders Land & Cattle Company, and David Sanders and his
sons, Dave C., and Don C. Sanders, appeal from an order of the district court
affirming the decision of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the United States
Department of Agriculture to deny their application for enrollment in the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). We affirm.
The CRP encourages owners of highly erodible lands with eligible
cropping histories to take the land out of agricultural production to conserve and
improve soil and water resources. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 3801, 3831-3836; 7 C.F.R.
§ 1410.3(a)-(c). Farmers enrolled in the program receive annual rental payments
in exchange for converting their land to soil conservation uses.
David Sanders and his wife Carolyn bought farm land located in
New Mexico. After they purchased the land, they formed the joint venture
Sanders Land & Cattle Company. Their sons operated the farm for approximately
six months prior to the deadline for applying for the CRP. In their application,
the Sanders listed Dave C. and Don C. Sanders as the owners of the farm and
Sanders Land & Cattle Company as the operator. See Aplt. App. at 31. The FSA
-2-
denied the application because Sanders Land & Cattle Company did not meet the
owner or operator eligibility requirements for the CRP and the sons had not
operated the farm for twelve months prior to the application deadline.
On appeal, appellants argue that Sanders Land & Cattle Co. owned the land
and was eligible to participate in the CRP. They note that David and Carolyn
Sanders formed Sanders Land & Cattle Co. as a joint venture under the laws of
New Mexico, after they purchased the land. While agreeing that the warranty
deed is in David and Carolyn Sanders individual names, appellants assert David
and Carolyn Sanders intended that the joint venture own the farm. Appellants
argue that their intention that Sanders Land & Cattle Co. own the property should
control, not the record title. They further contend the district court failed to
review the FSA’s determination de novo as required. They maintain the FSA
erred as a matter of law, in determining that Sanders Land & Cattle Co. was not
eligible for enrollment in the CRP. They further note that they presented the
Hearing Officer with income tax returns on which they recorded income received
from the farm as a joint venture.
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 5 U.S.C. § 704.
We review the district court’s decision de novo. N.M. Cattle Growers Ass’n v.
United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. , 248 F.3d 1277, 1281 (10th Cir. 2001). The
Administrative Procedure Act permits us to set aside an agency’s action, findings,
-3-
and conclusions if we determine they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
“Under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, this court must give the
agency’s decision substantial deference.” Utahns for Better Transp. v. United
States Dep’t of Transp. , No. 01-4216, 2002 WL 31053978, at *13 (10th Cir.
Sept. 16, 2002). “We review matters of law de novo.” Hasan v. United States
Dep’t of Labor, 298 F.3d 914, 916 (10th Cir. 2002) (quotations omitted).
The regulations provide that only owners, operators, or tenants of eligible
land may apply to enroll in the CRP. 7 C.F.R. § 1410.5(a)(1). An owner is a
person or entity whom the FSA determines has “sufficient legal ownership of the
land.” 7 C.F.R. § 1410.2. An operator is “ a person who is in general control of
the farming operation on the farm.” Id. An operator who wishes to participate in
the CRP “must have . . . operated . . . the eligible land for at least 12 months prior
to submission of an offer.” 7 C.F.R. § 1410.5(b).
The FSA did not hold that Sanders Land & Cattle Co. was not a joint
venture, but rather that Sanders Land & Cattle Co. did not own the property under
CRP eligibility regulations. The agency determined no evidence existed “that
[ David and Carolyn Sanders ] have transferred ownership of the land to the joint
venture.” Aplt. App. at 49.
-4-
The FSA has issued guidelines for determining the date ownership of
property commences. These guidelines state that the county offices making the
determination shall look to the deed. Aplee. Supp. App. at 8. The guidelines do
not violate the Constitution or any federal statute. They are consistent with the
regulations and, thus, are not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Cf. S. Utah
Wilderness Alliance v. Norton , 301 F.3d 1217, 1228 (10th Cir. 2002) (“[A]s long
as an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations does not violate the
Constitution or a federal statute, it must be given controlling weight unless it is
plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”) (quotation omitted).
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-5-