Ballanger bought a farm in Missouri. The seller told him that it did not have any wetlands on it. Ballanger cleared five acres of vegetation to extend the planting area on the farm. Later, the County Farm Service Agency asked the Conservation Service if Ballanger's farm complied with regulations concerning protection of wetlands. The Conservation Service determined that the five acres that had been cleared were wetlands and that Ballanger was not due crop payments of $40,316 that he had received. He was ordered to repay the money. Ballanger contested the decision, but the Department of Agriculture ruled against him. Ballanger sued. The district court upheld the administrative ruling. Ballanger appealed that the process of the agency was abusive. Is that a good argument? [Ballanger v. Johanns, 495 F.3d 866, Eighth Cir. (2007)]