Major Victory in Hage v. United States

email | 1/31/02 | Jay Walley

[brityank]

Proof that E-Mail IS faster than News!
Great news; I posted this from Sierra Times too. Now I hope that Wayne and Helen can recoup some of their losses and funds expended in fighting this for all of us over the past eleven years.

[meadsjn]

This appears to be a ruling for the people, and it is good news, unless it's overturned by a higher court or ignored by the bureaucrats who started the conflict.

[RightOnline]

Excellent; nothing short of outstanding. I love it when the Good Guys win.

[hattend]

Why do I think this will be appealed until Hage dies or gives up.

Yeah, I'm in a down, cynical mood. Sorry.

[fish hawk]

BUMP

and the rivers are ready for you Dave!!!Humboldt Times

[BlackbirdSST]

One for flyover country! Blackbird.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the feedback! I have to stay in this area for a week or so. I will be on the coastal rivers around here this Friday!

[DeaconBenjamin]

Judge Smith is a great American.

[Free the USA]

bump

[Carry_Okie]

We'll see. Wayne is tough and committed. This was a Federal Court of Claims, which is the correct venue. It means that if the bureaucrats try something this case can be used as a precedent for a TRO against them.

[Still Thinking]

Even this apparent victory could turn out Pyrrhic if the federal government is allowed to pay out of general funds. Then the taxpayers are the ones who have been hit. The BLM should be made to pay any judgement and prohibited from recouping it in any way or having this cost play into any future Bureau budgets. If done in this way, it would actually cut into the resources they have with which to trample on honest citizens (the ones with jobs), rather than the bad guys get a pass and the taxpayers take it up the tailpipe like usual.

[annalex]

Very good news, thank you for the bump.

Will it have any bearing on Klamath water rights?

[Carry_Okie]

Indirectly perhaps. It is a precedent for a regulatory taking and will certainly teach litigants to use the Court of Claims instead of Federal Court.

[okie01]

Between Klamath and the Hage case, I make the people 2-for-2 this week.

My fingers are firmly crossed...

[sasquatch]

G-dam; THAT DOG HUNTS!!!!
WHOOPEE!!
aside,there are many landowners looking for pig hunters
on the north county coast. Want ham?
D.

[Ben Ficklin]

"I'd be interested in reading the opinion."

Stewards of the Range has the decision, order, analysis, and press release.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This is bigger than the Demoncrat's efforts with the ENRON mess!!!
Where or when will the Media report this?

[martian_22]

This article insinuates that Federal takings of this nature have been going on long before 1991. I find this disturbing since RR is one of my favorite ideologues.

[Carry_Okie]

The importance of this decision is its specific rejection of the position of the BLM and Forest Service that ranchers have no property rights on their grazing allotments. Although Judge Smith rejected the Hages’ claim that they owned the surface estate of their grazing allotments, they do have private property rights, i.e., water rights, 1866 Act ditch rights of way, the right to have their livestock consume the forage adjacent to their waters and ditches, and the right of access thereto. If the Government’s interference with these rights makes it impossible for the rancher to use them, the Government will be required to pay compensation for their loss.

In his decision, Judge Smith made it clear that the mere fact that a rancher holds a grazing permit confers no valid property interest. However, if by revoking the Hages’ grazing permits, the Forest Service and BLM prevented the Hages from accessing and using their vested water rights, then those agencies may have taken the Hages’ water rights. Those water rights are a property right, and not a license like the grazing permits. This decision will be of great help to ranchers who have vested property rights on their allotments, such as water rights and 1866 Act ditches. However, this decision will be of little or no aid to those ranchers who have no such vested property rights on the allotments their livestock graze.

[Carry_Okie]

Where or when will the Media report this?

Was that a rhetorical question or are you holding your breath?