I thought he had won the case several years before his death, and this ruling was about the monetary damages.
As I recall, he traveled and lectured to other lease holders on perfecting their water rights.
Yes.
The case establishing the private split estate rights on the so called “public” or federal lands was settled a few years ago. This is the monetization and Fifth Amendment takings claim decision. It means that they are not property rights in name only. It means that USFS and BLM decisions reagrding grazers that ignore the existence of these valuable property rights and the right to their continued use and enjoyment brings substantial monetary penalties upon the federal government.
When environmentalists/back packers/elk and wild horse devotees/ and bicyclists pressure federal land management agencies to remove livestock grazing, (as they are currently doing in California,) the USFS can’t just buckle and walk away. There are big monetary consequences for ignoring the longstanding property rights of many of these grazers.