Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Resources Conservation Service
767 F.3d 554
6th Cir.2014Background
- STEW Farm owns 300 acres in Ohio and sued NRCS, Pickaway County Soil and Water Conservation District (PCSWCD), Watershed Management LLC, and individual Doug Kohli claiming grass waterways on the property were negligently designed, built, inspected, and certified.
- The waterways were installed under an arrangement where the prior owner (Neff) contracted with Watershed and received NRCS certification and federal reimbursement; Neff later sold the land to STEW Farm.
- STEW Farm seeks money damages and declaratory relief asserting violations of federal statutes/regulations (including provisions of Title XII of the Food Security Act and NRCS regulations) and argues Watershed was a Technical Service Provider (TSP).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and on other grounds; the district court dismissed all claims (federal claims for lack of a private cause of action/sovereign immunity waiver; state claims without prejudice).
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding STEW Farm pointed to no statute or regulation that creates an express or implied private right of action against the federal government or federal supervisory actors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APA (5 U.S.C. § 702) permits declaratory relief against NRCS | APA waives sovereign immunity and permits review of NRCS actions/regulatory violations | NRCS actions are committed to agency discretion; statutes cited lack a judicially manageable standard | Held: Dismissed — no meaningful standard under cited statutes; actions committed to agency discretion, APA review unavailable |
| Whether Little Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346) or other federal law permits money damages against NRCS | Little Tucker Act and federal law authorize monetary relief for agency design/supervision failures | No substantive federal source creates a private right to recover damages; Little Tucker Act is jurisdictional waiver only | Held: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to identify a substantive federal cause of action; no waiver creates damages remedy |
| Whether 7 C.F.R. § 652.4(d) or related regulations create an express private right against TSPs or supervising agencies | Regulation imposes TSP liability and thus provides a federal cause of action | Regulations cannot create private rights of action; Congress must create such rights | Held: Dismissed — regulation does not create an express federal cause of action |
| Whether Title XII / "Conservation Program Statutes" imply a private right to sue TSPs or supervising agencies | Statutes and scheme imply Congress intended to protect landowners and allow damages suits | Statutes focus on regulation/certification of providers, not on conferring private rights; no Congressional intent to create private remedy | Held: Dismissed — no implied private right of action; disputes remain state-law matters |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (agency decisions committed to agency discretion preclude APA review)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (interpretation of APA jurisdictional limits)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (statute must be fairly interpreted to mandate government compensation)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (no cause of action against the United States absent Congressional consent)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (private rights of action must be created by Congress)
- Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (rights of action derive from statute, not regulations)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (factors for implying a private right of action)