## Facts

- Diamond Bar Cattle Company and Laney Cattle Company, owned by Kit and Sherry Laney, had long grazed cattle on lands later included in the Gila and Apache National Forests.
- After the federal government withdrew the lands from the public domain, the companies continued grazing under Forest Service grazing permits.
- The Forest Service issued 10-year permits: a 1985 permit for the Laney allotment in the Apache National Forest and a 1986 permit for the Diamond Bar allotment in the Gila National Forest.
- The permits expired by their terms in 1995 and 1996; despite notice, the companies did not renew and refused to sign new permits unless the Forest Service recognized claimed “valid existing rights.”
- The companies asserted they held pre-withdrawal New Mexico prior-appropriation water rights and argued those water rights carried an inseparable right to graze the surrounding federal range.
- After permit expiration, the Forest Service treated continued grazing as unauthorized use; the United States pursued trespass remedies, and the companies sought declaratory relief recognizing alleged property rights to graze.

## Issues

1. Whether state-law water rights created a vested private property right to graze cattle on national forest lands without a federal grazing permit.
2. Whether continued grazing on national forest land after permit expiration, without renewal or replacement permits, constituted trespass.
3. Whether any alleged grazing rights incident to water rights qualified as “valid existing rights” limiting the Forest Service’s permitting authority.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the United States.
- The court held the companies’ asserted water rights did not create a private right to graze on federal lands absent a Forest Service permit.
- The court upheld trespass liability for grazing after the permits expired and were not renewed.
- The court rejected the claim that an inseparable grazing right qualified as a protected “valid existing right” against federal regulation.

## Legal Principles

- Grazing on national forest land is a federally controlled, permit-based use and does not become a vested private property right through historical practice absent a clear grant.
- State-law water rights may exist on federal lands, but they do not by themselves confer a right to use the federal surface estate for grazing beyond what federal law authorizes.
- “Valid existing rights” protection requires a legally cognizable property interest at the time of federal withdrawal or reservation; longstanding permissive use under federal oversight is insufficient.
- When a term grazing permit expires and no new permit is issued, continued grazing on federal land is unauthorized and may be treated as trespass.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the companies’ claimed pre-withdrawal water rights did not carry an enforceable right to graze national forest lands without a permit, and that grazing after permit expiration without renewal was trespass subject to federal remedies.


Diamond Bar Cattle Co. v. United States, 168 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 1999)