Public land swap threatens Owyhee County rancher's water right, grazing preference rights

...The proposed swap of land in Owyhee County includes 11 parcels of non-wilderness federal land managed by BLM totaling 31,000 acres that would be exchanged for 40 parcels of IDL-managed state endowment trust land totaling 24,000 acres. According to IDL officials, the exchange is based on the appraised value of the lands, not the size or number of parcels. In response to questions about this issue that Idaho Farm Bureau Federation sent to the Idaho Department of Lands, IDL Public Information Officer Sharla Arledge said that because Congress in 2009 designated more than 500,000 acres of public land in Owyhee County as wilderness, IDL now manages endowment trust lands in that area that do not match the agency’s purposes. She said the exchange would enable the department to acquire federal parcels adjacent to existing state endowment trust lands “better suited to our mission and objective for the endowment beneficiaries.” According to IDL, 17 grazing leases on state land and 18 grazing allotments on BLM land would be impacted by the proposed land swap. Lowry, however, points out that .spermittees who have BLM grazing preference rights, as he does, will have those rights extinguished when the BLM land becomes state land under the exchange. Currently, as long as Lowry complies with BLM’s grazing regulations, his BLM grazing permits are renewed automatically, every 10 years. This is known as a grazing preference right, which was granted by Congress in the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. But that grazing permit renewal won’t happen automatically if the land is managed by IDL because at the end of a state grazing lease, anyone can submit a bid to graze there. Whoever the highest bidder is takes over the lease. That means Lowry could lose his ability to graze on land he used to have the right to graze on as well as the associated in-stream stock watering rights he was awarded by the Idaho Supreme Court in the Joyce Livestock decision, which ruled that the federal government couldn’t hold those rights because it doesn’t own cattle. In a letter that Lowry sent to then-IDL Director Tom Schultz in 2015, he said he believes the land swap makes sense. “However,” he added, “we have long maintained and stated at meetings, that when BLM grazing land is exchanged for state (land), the existing valid and vested rights must be recognized and acknowledged, otherwise a ‘takings’ of private property will occur.” Under IDL’s plan, Lowry would not be compensated for the loss of his grazing preference and water rights. These preference rights and water rights have a monetary value that is recognized by banks and are recognized as property rights in Idaho law. Lowry has met with IDL officials to try and come to a resolution, but no mutually agreeable solution has been reached...MORE

This is how government works. You have two government agencies and one member of the private sector. The agencies enter into a proposed action that benefits them both. Idaho gets out of the Wilderness Area which limits their ability to raise revenue for beneficiaries. BLM gains jurisdiction over all land within the Wilderness Area. The only party harmed is the private sector, in this case a rancher. Take this model - government benefits, private sector loses - and apply it across all government. It never fails.

BLM will never (willingly) agree to recognizing preference as being a compensable property right.  The rancher may have a preference, but BLM can give two years notice, dedicate the land to another use, and revoke the grazing permit. If there is a property interest in preference, BLM would have to compensate the rancher, which could limit their ability to act. Almost all federal land laws contain the phrase "subject to valid existing rights". If  a rancher has a property interest in preference, then that would be a valid existing right. The BLM, again, would view this as a limit to their authority, which they will never (willingly) give up. It will take legislation or a court decision to make the change.

Any wilderness legislation always contains language similar to the following:

Incorporation of Acquired Land and Interests in Land.--Any land 
or interest in land that is within the boundary of a wilderness area 
that is acquired by the United States shall--
            (1) become part of the wilderness area within the 
        boundaries of which the land is located; and
            (2) be managed in accordance with--
                    (A) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.);
                    (B) this Act; and 

                    (C) any other applicable laws. 

The game plan all along has been for BLM to acquire those lands, both private and state, that are within the boundaries of the Wilderness Area, and with Congress recently passing the mandatory, permanent funding of the Land & Water Conservation Fund, there will be even more acquisitions of this type.

The question then becomes was Senator Crapo, other legislators and the groups supporting the Wilderness designation ignorant of these facts? Or, were they aware and pushed the legislation anyway. Whether out of ignorance or malice, they have sacrificed the rancher upon the altar of Wilderness.