Posted on 01/31/2002 2:49:46 PM PST by Carry_Okie
January 31, 2002
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Major Victory in Hage v. United States
Landmark Takings Case Decided in Favor of Property Rights
The long anticipated final decision on the property rights at issue in Hage v. United States, the takings case filed by Nevada ranchers, the Wayne Hage family, has finally been issued by Senior Judge, Loren A. Smith. On January 29th, Smith ruled Hage owns extensive property rights on his grazing allotments, specifically 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.
The Hages had filed their takings claim against the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in 1991 after excessive regulations and physical takings of their property had run them out of business. They filed their case in the US Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC, placing the important question before the courts what property rights do ranchers own on their grazing allotments?
"The court specifically rejected the position of the BLM and Forest Service that ranchers have no property rights on their grazing allotments," commented Hage attorney, Ladd Bedford. "The court further stated that 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 addressing the issue of the Hage's access to their water rights, Judge Smith's opinion stated the following:
"The Government cannot deny citizens access to their vested water rights without providing a way for them to divert that water to another beneficial purpose if one exists. The Government cannot cancel a grazing permit and then prohibit the plaintiffs from accessing the water to redirect it to another place of valid beneficial use. The plaintiffs have a right to go onto the land and divert the water."
The court did rule against Hage's argument that he owned the surface estate of his allotments, but plaintiffs are not troubled by the courts position.
"When you combine everything the court has ruled that we own in this final decision, it is clear that the key property rights essential to a western livestock grazing operation are recognized," noted plaintiff Wayne Hage.
The court also clarified the relationship between the rancher and the grazing permit system by stating the grazing permit is a license and the government has the authority to exercise reasonable regulations. However, because of this landmark decision, ranchers now may be protected from abusive grazing regulations if they cause the taking of access to the ranchers' 1866 Act ditch rights of ways or water rights.
"For the first time in history, a federal court has defined the balance between the western ranchers property rights and the governments ability to regulate," explained Bedford. "This decision is a major step forward for the security of federal land ranchers."
The court has set up an aggressive briefing schedule to complete the final phase of the case: determining whether the Hage's property rights as determined in the courts Final Decision were taken by the government. If the Hages prevail in this final stage compensation will be awarded to them for the taking of their property, and the rights of every other rancher affirmed in this decision will have the same protection.
"For ten years Stewards and its members have been working towards the protection of ranchers property rights," commented Frank Duran, president of Stewards of the Range. Stewards is the organization that has funded and supported this case since it's filing in 1991. "We now have the most important legal precedent ever set in modern times to protect these rights, and we look forward to wining the next and final round, proving the government must compensate western ranchers when their actions go too far."
Stewards will be providing a decision analysis by the attorneys along with the final decision through their website at www.stewardsoftherange.org
J. Zane Walley, Grantee
The Paragon Foundation 1-877-847-3443
http://www.paragonpowerhouse.org/mission.htm
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yeah, I'm in a down, cynical mood. Sorry.
and the rivers are ready for you Dave!!!Humboldt Times
Will it have any bearing on Klamath water rights?
My fingers are firmly crossed...
Stewards of the Range has the decision, order, analysis, and press release.
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.
Was that a rhetorical question or are you holding your breath?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.