Supreme Court Upholds Grazing Reform
by Tom Darin
In a stunning victory for grazing reform on public
lands, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Bureau of Land Management’s
(BLM’s) 1995 initiative to improve rangeland conditions. In May, the high
Court unanimously held that three essential elements in the rangeland reform
rule did not violate the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act.
The Court’s opinion, penned by Justice Steven Breyer,
began with an artfully worded history of grazing in the West, detailing
the cattle ranching boom in the late 19th century and the introduction
of sheep to the western range in the 1870s. Justice Breyer wrote that overgrazing
and other contributing factors, including "population growth, forage competition,
and inadequate range control," in subsequent decades precipitated the need
for serious reform. That reform came with the passage of the Taylor Grazing
Act (Act) in 1934.
Federal grazing reforms
The Act’s central goals are to "stop injury" to the
public rangelands from "overgrazing and soil deterioration," to provide
for the "use, improvement and development," of these lands and to "stabilize
the livestock industry dependent on the public range." The Act clearly
states that grazing privileges are just that—privileges and not rights.
These privileges do not "create any right, title, interest, or estate in
or to the lands." Unfortunately, passage of the Act failed to rein in overgrazing;
a series of congressional studies in the 1960s and 70s documented that
the majority of public lands were still in fair or poor condition.
In 1995, in a proactive effort to improve public
rangeland conditions, the Secretary of Interior amended federal grazing
regulations by promulgating the Rangeland Reform initiative. The new regulations
sought to accelerate the restoration of public lands degraded by overgrazing
and incorporate ecosystem concepts into management principles in order
to attain healthier public lands.
Livestock industry sues
Several livestock industry groups filed suit in Wyoming
Federal District Court challenging 10 of the new regulations. In 1996,
the court ruled that four of the new regulations were illegal. On appeal,
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals partially reversed the Wyoming district
court, upholding three of the four regulations the lower court found to
be unlawful. Livestock industry groups appealed these three regulations
to the Supreme Court. The Secretary of Interior did not appeal the remaining
regulation that the appellate court sustained as invalid.
The three regulations initially ruled illegal by
the district court, and subsequently reversed by the Tenth Circuit, involved
changing the definition of "grazing preference," allowing grazing permits
to individuals not involved in the livestock business, and granting the
United States title to certain rangeland improvements made by grazing permittees.
Importantly, the Supreme Court upheld the Tenth
Circuit on these issues, finding that the discretion vested in the Secretary
of Interior included the right to promulgate these regulations to improve
rangeland conditions. The first issue concerned the new definition
of "grazing preference," which switches the focus concerning forage amounts
that are tied to a permit from Animal Unit Month (AUM)-dominated amounts
to levels allocated in BLM land use plans. In short, the livestock industry
argued that the Secretary of Interior violated his duty to safeguard grazing
privileges by re-defining grazing preferences. The Court rejected this
argument, repeating the Act’s clear mandate that grazing preferences are
a privilege, and do not constitute a right, title or interest in public
lands.
The second challenge involved the Act’s provision
that limits grazing permits to "settlers, residents and other stock owners."
The Secretary of Interior’s original regulation limited permits to those
who owned livestock. At issue before the Supreme Court was the new regulation
that allows permits for those not engaged in the livestock business, meaning
that now, those stockowners who are not necessarily "engaged in the livestock
business" can hold permits. Essentially, the livestock appellants contended
that the new regulation violates the Act because the term "stock owners"
implicitly means people actively engaged in the livestock business. The
Court rejected this claim, dismissing ranchers’ concerns that large conservation
groups would thwart the public grazing system by tying up allotments on
which only a few cattle would be held, with no intention to graze large
herds.
The third livestock industry challenge involved
ranchers’ title to non-structural and non-removable improvements they make
on public rangelands. Again, the high Court upheld the Secretary of Interior’s
rulemaking that title to such improvements is vested in the federal government.
The Court held that the Interior Secretary has the authority to change
the rule, since he is essentially the landlord of the public lands, while
permittees are the tenants.
A decisive victory
The Supreme Court decision was a decisive victory
for the Secretary of Interior’s authority under the Taylor Grazing Act
to enact reform initiatives to improve public range conditions. The Court’s
opinion repeatedly noted that grazing on our public lands is a privilege,
not a right, that public lands are intended for every citizen’s use and
enjoyment, and that allowing someone to occupy them under the concept of
multiple use does not convey any ownership of, interest in or title to
this "property."
Unfortunately, the one regulation affirmed as invalid
by the appeals court, and not raised before the Supreme Court, was the
Secretary of Interior’s regulation allowing grazing permits to be held
solely for conservation purposes. Importantly, however, each of the three
issues appealed to the Court were decided unanimously in favor of the Secretary’s
discretion under the Act to promulgate regulations for rangeland improvement.
Note: The Supreme Court’s Opinion is available
at http://caselaw.findlaw.com |
Privacy Policy