Appeals Court Overturns Ruling
Against Babbitt Range "Reform"

DENVER — A federal court's invalidation of three key Clinton administration grazing regulations has been reversed by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the appellate panel has upheld the June 1996 ruling by U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer of Wyoming that voided so-called "conservation-use" permits that keep cattle off federal range.

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt brought the appeal after the livestock industry challenged the new rules he had authored.

In 1996, Brimmer overturned parts of the Interior Department's rangeland "reforms," saying they would harm an industry Congress has tried to protect.

The judge rejected provisions that diluted rancher preference in renewing federal grazing leases, gave the government title to future range improvements, allowed the conservation-use permits, and made it easier for non-ranchers to obtain range leases.

In last week's ruling, the appellate court:

— Essentially reinstated the grazing preference, recognizing terms that denote priorities and specify grazing use for purposes of issuing grazing permits.

— Upheld the determination that permit applicants need not be in the livestock business but just own or control property that can be used in that industry.

— Restored title transfer to the government of future range improvements such as fences and wells.

Trying to overturn the regulations were the National Cattleman's Beef Association, American Sheep Industry Association, American Farm Bureau Federation and Association of National Grasslands.

They argued that many of the rules violated the 1935 Taylor Grazing Act and would force up to 60 percent of ranchers with federal grazing permits off the land.

"We're disappointed, but this isn't the end of the process," said Caren Cowan, executive secretary of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association. "We didn't expect this; it's definitely a setback."

Cowan said it is possible that the ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It appears imperative that we appeal this ruling," agreed Bud Eppers, president of the New Mexico Public Lands Council.

He said the rules could have the long-range effect of discouraging lending institutions from making loans to ranchers.

"This ruling could dry it up totally," he said of ranch lending.

"Being in the livestock business and having the base or the water rights to run a certain number of cattle gave a preference to ranchers when it comes to grazing permits," Eppers added.

"This is going to virtually shut down all improvements on federal lands," he continued. "Nobody in their right mind is going to pay for a new fence or drill a water well and not be reimbursed for it, then turn it over to the federal government."

"At a time when ranchers across the country are suffering from low cattle prices due to oversupply, drouth and the Asian crisis, this decision will add further economic instability to western ranchers who are struggling to make ends meet," said Public Lands Council president Brent Atkin, St. George, Utah.

Atkin said the decision could provide more incentive for Congress to pass grazing legislation this year. The House has already passed a bill — though it does not deal specifically with most of the issues involved in the court case — and Senate action is awaited.

Though the bill in question is unrelated to the court action, Atkin noted that it "does codify a grazing fee that would help stabilize the western grazing industry and assure lenders that the livestock industry is a good investment."

The ruling could devastate ranch families and ranch economies throughout the West, agreed U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo.

"Its effect will be felt harshly by public land states who depend on fair multiple use of our public lands in order to survive," he said.

The GOP will probably propose an alternative to the reforms next year in Congress, Thomas told the Casper Star-Tribune's Washington bureau.

"The principles on which the lower court based its ruling were proper and I support swift efforts to correctly reaffirm them, either on appeal or by Congressional action," he said.

Meanwhile, Thomas said he is optimistic that the Interior Department, which proposed the range reforms in 1994, has learned something since receiving strong opposition to the proposal.

"I think that (Interior Secretary Bruce) Babbitt and the Interior Department might be a little more conciliatory," he said.

Babbitt didn’t sound that way in his reaction to the ruling, however.

"I am pleased that the courts have given us a nearly complete endorsement of rangeland reform," he said. "In this long-awaited decision, the 10th Circuit Court clearly agreed that our reform program is, with one small exception, fully consistent with all requirements of law."