United States v. Peterson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1687
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- 1966 wetlands easement granted to FWS covering the west 1/2 of Section 15 and portions of six other sections; easement summary lists 314 acres of wetlands but no section-by-section map.
- Joe and Emma Peterson owned the land; Peterson leased the west 1/2 of Section 15 to Alvin Peterson beginning in 1954; a 1973 hand-drawn map purported to delineate wetlands on Section 15 but was signed by Alvin, not by the owners.
- Peterson drained wetlands on Section 15 in 1999 and 2003, was convicted under 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(c),(f)(2), and later sentenced to probation with restoration requirements.
- After restoration, Peterson had a contractor remove man-made plugs and breach wetland basins on Sections 3, 5, and 8, causing substantial water level reductions; a new violation notice followed.
- Peterson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on W0900741 for Section 15 wetlands, but the district court and this court concluded the evidence supported the conviction under the wetlands easement.
- The appeal centers on whether the drained wetlands were in existence at the time of conveyance, whether they were covered by the 1966 easement, and Peterson’s knowledge of the easement’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drained wetlands existed at easement conveyance | Peterson argues wetlands may not have existed in 1966. | Government shows 1962 aerials and maps indicate wetlands existed. | Substantial evidence supports existence in 1966. |
| Whether drained wetlands were covered by the 1966 easement | No map/sectional delineation makes coverage uncertain. | Easement covers all wetlands then existing on the seven sections. | 1966 easement covers wetlands on Section 15 existing in 1966; evidence sufficient. |
| Whether Peterson knew the parcel was subject to a federal easement | Knowledge alleged to be insufficient without a contemporaneous map. | 1973 map signed by Peterson shows knowledge; prior conviction also notice. | Substantial evidence supports knowledge of easement. |
| Whether the drainage amounted to unlawful draining rather than permissible clearing | Action may be mere clearing of waterways. | Contractor removed earthen plugs and breached wetland basins. | Peterson’s actions exceeded permissible clearing; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johansen, 93 F.3d 459 (8th Cir. 1996) (knowledge and scope of easement standard; proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Vestero, 828 F.2d 1234 (8th Cir. 1987) (easement coverage may extend to wetlands existing at conveyance)
- United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2005) (sufficiency review standard for criminal convictions)
- United States v. Barletta, 565 F.2d 985 (8th Cir. 1977) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)