## Facts

- Nevada ranchers operated Twin Springs Ranch on deeded land and held federal grazing permits in the Reveille Allotment on extensive public lands.
- In an arid area where usable water was largely artificially produced, the ranchers developed “Deep Well” under a federal range-improvement permit issued under the Taylor Grazing Act.
- The permit allowed the ranchers to develop wells at their own expense but required that water produced be made available to “wildlife” and that improvements or changes affecting access to water be subject to BLM approval.
- When the permit issued in 1967, wild horses were not present in significant numbers near the well and were not contemplated as beneficiaries of the “wildlife” requirement.
- After enactment of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, several hundred wild horses used the allotment and competed with cattle for forage and water.
- To reduce wild-horse use of the well and surrounding forage, the ranchers installed highway guardrails arranged to discourage wild horses while still allowing cattle and other wildlife to drink.
- BLM determined the guardrails violated the permit, ordered removal, and then cancelled the well permit when the ranchers refused.

## Issues

1. Whether installing guardrails around the well without BLM approval violated the range-improvement permit by impermissibly restricting access to water.
2. Whether “wildlife” in the permit’s water-availability requirement included wild horses, requiring water access for wild horses.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the ranchers.
- The court held the guardrails did not violate the range-improvement permit.
- The court agreed that, in the context and intent of this permit when issued, wild horses were not included within “wildlife” for purposes of the water-availability condition.
- The court upheld reversal of the Interior Board of Land Appeals and reinstated the well permit.

## Legal Principles

- Ambiguous permit terms may be construed in light of the parties’ intent and circumstances at the time of issuance, including the statutory purposes informing the permit’s context.
- Later-enacted statutes protecting additional public-land uses do not necessarily retroactively change the meaning of earlier permit conditions absent clear indication.
- Where a dispute turns on historical intent and expectations embedded in a permit, district court findings on those matters are reviewed for clear error.
- A modification designed to deter a non-covered user from access does not breach a “make available to wildlife” condition if access remains for covered wildlife and permitted livestock use is preserved consistent with the permit.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the ranchers’ guardrails around a permitted well did not breach the range-improvement permit because the permit’s “wildlife” requirement, understood as of issuance and in context, did not obligate water access for wild horses, and the agency’s cancellation of the permit was improper.


Fallini v. Hodel, 963 F.2d 275 (9th Cir. 1992)