Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Major Victory in Hage v. United Sates Landmark Takings Case Decided in Favor of Property Rights
The Sierra Times ^ | 1 February, 2002 | Sierra Times Staff

Posted on 01/31/2002 3:12:58 PM PST by brityank

Major Victory in Hage v. United Sates Landmark Takings Case Decided in Favor of Property Rights
Sierra Times : 02.01.02

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."

Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: enviralists; green; michaeldobbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last
One for the good guys.
1 posted on 01/31/2002 3:12:59 PM PST by brityank (brityank@FReepmail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *landgrab; *Green; *Enviralists; farmfriend; marsh2; dixiechick2000; Helen; Mama_Bear; poet...
PING and hallelujah!
2 posted on 01/31/2002 3:14:34 PM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
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."

Jeff =
Will this help the folks in Klamath and their situation? I think this could help pry the headgates open; but like you I believe that they need to make additional arrangements to take their water access out of the hands of the governments.

3 posted on 01/31/2002 3:18:22 PM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank; M1991; cdwright; mbb bill; Zoey; kristinn; Rebeckie; Lucky; Sauropod; VinnyTex...
Guys, Things seem to be looking up. Folks are awakening, and judges are reading and applying the law as written. MUCH better than rule by the whims of man. Peace and love, George.
4 posted on 01/31/2002 3:19:15 PM PST by George Frm Br00klyn Park
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank
This is good news! Only bad news is I bet the poor guy spent a lot of his own money to prove a point, money he won't be compensated for.
5 posted on 01/31/2002 3:20:44 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Good News!
6 posted on 01/31/2002 3:21:10 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Bttt! He's fought a long time.
7 posted on 01/31/2002 3:23:58 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Well....Hurrah!!!
8 posted on 01/31/2002 3:24:27 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Carry Okie has another version of this good news here, (link to another thread on this good news!)
9 posted on 01/31/2002 3:24:52 PM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zog
I believe that he has the ability to sue for damages and recoup at least some of the funds expended, at least for his legal and court fees. As you may suspect, that's probably a drop in the bucket as against the fees and losses he's had during this imbroglio.
10 posted on 01/31/2002 3:27:15 PM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Property Rights and Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!

An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!

No Guns, No Rights !!

Molon Labe !!

11 posted on 01/31/2002 3:28:38 PM PST by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Wonderful news! Can the USFS appeal the decision?
12 posted on 01/31/2002 3:32:38 PM PST by Helix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Helix
Can the USFS appeal the decision?

IANAL but I believe they can -- and likely will. After all, it's only your money the USFS is spending, along with every other deep-pocketed taxpayer in the nation.

13 posted on 01/31/2002 3:37:46 PM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Great news; thanks for the link. Now lets see if Secretary Norton allows the USFS to appeal this. That should point to how far apart from Witt she is. Unfortunately, like you have said, 99.999999999999999999999999999% of these decisions are not under her direct purview, but rather the bureaucrats she is saddled with.
14 posted on 01/31/2002 3:42:17 PM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Helix
The administration did not appeal the coho case or the roadless case.
16 posted on 01/31/2002 4:08:25 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Does this mean that the Sagebrush Rebellion is back on?
17 posted on 01/31/2002 4:09:57 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
It stopped?
18 posted on 01/31/2002 4:16:39 PM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: brityank
bump
19 posted on 01/31/2002 4:23:07 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Frm Br00klyn Park
Oh my gosh, justice actually prevailed this time, thanks George.
20 posted on 01/31/2002 4:48:34 PM PST by Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson