High Court Upholds Grazing Reforms

May 17, 2000

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt’s rangeland reforms are within legal boundaries, giving the secretary the authority to cancel, modify or limit grazing permits to protect other values of public lands. Reactions from farm and ranch interests were mixed, from clear disappointment to the position that the court’s opinion provides "an element of stability to the livestock industry."

"We set out at the beginning of this administration to put in place a reform package that would modernize grazing regulations which hadn’t been significantly changed since enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 and help restore the health of western rangelands," Babbitt said. "Today’s decision is welcome news. We will continue our efforts working with ranchers and other friends of the public lands to implement those reforms."

American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman declared his organization is "clearly disappointed that the Supreme Court gave the Secretary of Interior broad discretionary authority to manipulate adjudicated livestock grazing privileges and to assume ownership of range improvements that are financed by ranchers.

"By upholding the rangeland reform regulations, the court swept away longstanding agency procedures that provided a measure of stability to western livestock producers. We are concerned that the removal of these safeguards might cause problems for ranches to obtain financing and could disrupt an already volatile industry."

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council took a more optimistic approach in reacting to the decision. "The Supreme Court opinion is a step forward for the entire West," they said, "as it will provide an element of stability to the livestock industry through new definitions that preserve critical aspects of the bureau of Land Management grazing program. This will help western family ranchers remain viable, thus preserving open space and wildlife habitat in the West that so many Americans enjoy."

NCBA, PLC and other livestock groups were plaintiffs in the case which challenged Interior’s range reform regulations that they said had the potential to radically alter the management of federal lands. The high court unanimously ruled that the grazing regulations released in 1995 do not violate the law as the plaintiffs claimed. However, the court’s decision was based on the federal government’s explanation of the regulations provided to the justices, an explanation that never had been provided to the plaintiffs, NCBA and PLC said.

One especially thorny issue at stake was ownership of range improvements, which they belonged to the permit holder or the government. The court’s opinion leaves the door open to negotiate with Interior on ownership or improvements.

"...(W)e find nothing in the statute that denies the secretary authority reasonably to decide when or whether to grant title to those who make improvements. And any such person remains free to negotiate the terms upon which he will make those improvements irrespective of where title formally lies, including how he might be compensated in the future for the work he had done, either by the government directly or by those to whom the government later grants a permit," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion.