New Mexico Ranchers Win Court Battle But Fear War on Water Rights

Spike Goss/Sacramento Grazing Association – Weed, New Mexico: “I’ve got pictures of the many elk in here and they’re saying, well, no, elk don’t do the damage. It’s the cows. I know that’s not true.” Spike Goss ranches on a federal grazing allotment in New Mexico’s Sacramento Mountains, where the “sky island’s” natural resources have provided generations a livelihood from the land. His chain of title stretches back to the late 1800s but Goss fears his way of life is under attack. Spike Goss/Sacramento Grazing Association – Weed, New Mexico: “My rights come long before New Mexico became a state. Long before there was a U.S. Forest Service. But yet, they won’t recognize that.” More than 50 years ago, the land was federally designated part of the Sacramento Ranger District. The District covers about half the area of the over one million acre non-contiguous Lincoln National Forest. Spike Goss/Sacramento Grazing Association – Weed New Mexico: “Most allotment owners around here don’t understand what’s going on...I don’t believe. After we’re gone, they’re coming next.” Goss believes a tangled web of old laws and newer regulations have been misinterpreted through policy over time – leaving split estate public land use fundamentally altered through “sue and settle” litigation. Spike Goss/Sacramento Grazing Association – Weed, New Mexico: “They want our water. If they can get the water, they can control us. They have us. I mean we’re finished without water.” Goss’ Sacramento Grazing Association pushed back against the federal government for decades before suing the U.S. Forest Service in 2004. But not until last year did a judge uphold Goss’ assertion that fences erected by the Forest Service to safeguard critical riparian habitat fit the Fifth Amendment’s definition of illegal takings – by preempting stream access for his thirsty cattle. Goss says the federal agency has largely disregarded the court decision, but as the post-trial damages phase continues, USDA Forest Service officials told Market to Market they are unable to comment on the ruling...MORE

UPDATE 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "New Mexico Ranchers Win Court Battle But Fear War ...":

Mike is certainly correct about one thing and that it is only a matter of time before all grazing permits are not renewed. The permit only gives the holder the right of application after a ten year period. It is all politics and the ranchers are loosing because they proclaim that they own the permits. Nonsense! Unfortunately the permit is only a privilege, just like your drivers license. It says privilege in the permit itself. Why base your fight on a privilege? To win the political battle you need to win the politics and ranchers have not figured out how to do that. When President Trump appointed a Secretary who could have done that the left immediately got him removed for some insipid reason and I'll bet not a single grazing association raised a voice in favor of the man. If grazing permitees want to gain some recognition in congress then ALL grazing permittees must form an alliance nation-wide and proceed to the battle in a unified front. Currently you are being conquered by the left because you are disorganized and you huddle on your permits complaining instead of doing battle (not violent, but legal and political). In your current unorganized state you are victims of the Alinsky method of attack. Get smart because the time is ripe to be heard in congress at least for the next 6 years.

  Frank DuBois said...

Thanks for your very interesting comment, and I agree this a political battle. I do have a question about this statement:

"When President Trump appointed a Secretary who could have done that the left immediately got him removed for some insipid reason and I'll bet not a single grazing association raised a voice in favor of the man."

Trump appointed Ryan Zinke as Interior Secretary and he hasn't been removed from office as of yet. He has jurisdiction over grazing on BLM lands and so far has done almost nothing to change the grazing program.

The person to whom you refer is probably the former head of the EPA who has very little to do with grazing on federal lands.

Floyd Rathbun said...

The Goss family dispute is with the US Forest Service which is under the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of Agriculture. Under this administration, the Secretary appointed a long time USFS employee to serve as acting head of the USFS and may be permanent now just like the BLM still has no confirmed leader under Secretary of Interior.

USFS seems to have been placed under the USDA following the Forest Reserve Act designations and a long time prior to the Taylor Grazing Act under DOI. There is no obvious reason for the US Forest Service to still be a separate agency. Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service do identical activities with identical staff positions which means the taxpayers are funding duplicate agencies and many ranches are subject to regulation by both.

Those Forest Service controlled lands are still the responsibility of the US Dept of Interior especially with respect to easements, land title, surface disturbance, and mineral claims but the surface uses are also controlled by the US Dept of Agriculture under the process of land withdrawal. That withdrawal could simply be rescinded and the cost of duplication of expensive efforts be cut in half.

Frank DuBois said...
Floyd is correct, the Goss family's long fight has been with the Forest Service, under USDA Secretary Perdue.

There have been legal and ethical questions leveled at Zinke, and clearly he is the left's next target, which is why I used him as the example in my comment, plus the fact he has done nothing to revise the grazing program. As far as I can tell, neither has the FS under the USDA.

UPDATED 

Anonymous said...

My mistake about the dismissed Secretary. However, the EPA dismissed Secretary had more to do with removing some of the very reg's that plague the permit holder. Namely the requirement that every renewed permit undergo a environmental analysis before it is reissued. This is nothing but a choke point put there by the greens. Also consider the constant implementation of pseudo endangered species to spot grazing. Perhaps you don't remember the emergence of the meadow jumping mouse in the 70's which was ignored for a while until the political atmosphere changed. Or how about the 1900's antiquities act which currently can stop the building of a corral, digging post holes etc.. Also the fencing off of the riparian areas on allotments is directly related to EPA meddling reg's which are all designed to stop grazing not only on all government lands but private lands as well. Yes the Sec of Ag can make changes to the grazing permit, but the real squeeze comes from the environmental crowd.
My concern about the lack of a unified approach by permit holders still stands regardless of who is Secretary of Ag or EPA. Thanks for the comment.

7:25 AM

Frank DuBois said...

Thank you again for your comments, and once again I agree with your points concerning this being a political battle and the need for a unified front. However, there are some statements that require clarification.

“However, the EPA dismissed Secretary had more to do with removing some of the very reg's that plague the permit holder. Namely the requirement that every renewed permit undergo a environmental analysis before it is reissued.”

In the case of the BLM, they started requiring NEPA analysis on the reissuing of each grazing permit, not because of EPA, but because of a 1997 decision by the Interior Board of Lands Appeals (IBLA), National Wildlife Federation, et al, vs. the Bureau of Land Management (40 IBLA 85) https://www.oha.doi.gov/IBLA/Ibladecisions/140IBLA/140IBLA085.pdf

Prior to that IBLA decision, the BLM policy was that continuing a previously authorized activity under previously authorized terms and conditions did not require a site specific NEPA analysis. This is a self-imposed requirement by the Dept. of Interior and the BLM, not EPA. It was also the BLM who made the decision that livestock could not be turned out until the NEPA analysis was completed. This requirement was annually overturned by Congress in appropriation bills until finally enacted into statute in 2015.

“Perhaps you don't remember the emergence of the meadow jumping mouse in the 70's which was ignored for a while until the political atmosphere changed.”

The change there was caused by a court decision (Native Ecosystems vs Salazar, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7409241243072061165&q=Center+for+native+ecosystems+v.+salazar&hl=en&as_sdt=6,32&as_vis=1) and the withdrawal of a Memorandum of Opinion by the Solicitor of the DOI.

“Also consider the constant implementation of pseudo endangered species to spot grazing.”

This is primarily caused by Biological Assessments by the BLM or Biological Opinions issued by the USFWS (https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2010-084-1), all caused by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

My primary point here is that the bad actors and those that have inflicted the greatest harm on livestock grazing are the DOI and the USDA, through their policies, regulations and interpretations of the statutes and various court decisions.

None of this is to belittle the harm caused by EPA, especially through their implementation of the Clean Water Act.

Let’s also keep in mind the NEPA reg’s (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA-40CFR1500_1508.pdf) are issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, which comes directly under the President.

All of this illustrates my concerns about the proposed reorganization of Interior. It changes none of the laws, regulations, or policies that are imposing these damages. My concerns, so far, can be seen here https://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2018/09/dubois-column-moving-swamp-to-west-and.html and here https://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2018/09/gehrke-moving-big-piece-of-interior.html and there are more to come.

Thank you again for your comments.

Anonymous said...

Frank, you have certainly clarified my clumsy efforts and that is appreciated. A couple of more comments and then I'll quit. A united front must result in a congressional bill promoting the grazing of federal lands and a presidential signature on that bill. It appears the time is ripe for something like this if significant republican majorities can be achieved in 2018. The other thing is that unless this happens then permittees on public lands are going to be displaced permanently in favor of a minority of the public being able to walk on public land without stepping in cow dung or being chased by livestock guardian dogs in sheep herds.
The other thing is that over-grazing and over-use are two radically different terms. One is a physiological response of plants to grazing and the other is a political term where use levels are set by bureaucrats for scenic quality as an example.
Frank thanks for your very studious response to my comments. I learned much.