## Facts

- The Secretary of the Interior administers federal grazing on public rangelands under the Taylor Grazing Act, which authorizes grazing districts and permits, provides limited statutory preferences, requires that grazing privileges be “adequately safeguarded,” and states permits create no property right in public lands.
- Longstanding regulations treated grazing privileges as limited, leasehold-like interests subject to agency control, including modification, cancellation, suspension of authorized use, and reclassification or withdrawal of lands.
- In 1995, Interior amended grazing regulations, including:
  - Redefining “grazing preference” from a fixed quantity of animal unit months tied to base property to a priority concept in the allocation process, and introducing “permitted use” tied to applicable land use plans.
  - Revising permit eligibility to remove a regulatory requirement that permittees be “engaged in the livestock business,” while retaining a requirement that permittees be “stock owners.”
  - Providing that the United States would hold title to future permanent range improvements, with cooperative agreement mechanisms addressing implementation and compensation.
- Public Lands Council and related ranching organizations and permittees brought a facial challenge to multiple 1995 regulations, alleging the Secretary exceeded statutory authority and diminished protected grazing privileges.
- The district court invalidated four challenged rules; on appeal, the Secretary sought reversal of parts of that judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Taylor Grazing Act authorizes Interior to redefine “grazing preference” and rely on land use planning concepts in allocating authorized grazing use.
2. Whether Interior may allow “stock owners” to qualify for permits without requiring that they be “engaged in the livestock business.”
3. Whether Interior may assign the United States title to future permanent range improvements installed under the grazing program consistent with statutory protections for grazing privileges and the Act’s disclaimer of property rights.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court in relevant part and upheld the challenged 1995 rules at issue on appeal.
- The court held the Taylor Grazing Act grants the Secretary broad discretion to manage public rangelands and to determine how grazing privileges will be safeguarded consistent with the Act’s purposes.
- The redefinition of “grazing preference” and addition of “permitted use” tied to land use plans were valid exercises of regulatory authority and did not unlawfully diminish safeguarded grazing privileges.
- The removal of the “engaged in the livestock business” requirement was consistent with the statute’s use of “stock owners” and the qualified nature of statutory preference language.
- The rule vesting title to future permanent range improvements in the United States was consistent with the program’s limited, non-vested grazing privileges and the Secretary’s authority to set terms for improvements and conservation management.

## Legal Principles

- The Taylor Grazing Act authorizes the Secretary to manage grazing through permits that do not create a right, title, interest, or estate in public lands.
- Statutory language requiring that grazing privileges be “adequately safeguarded” does not confer absolute stability; it permits administrative change consistent with statutory purposes, including conservation and prevention of range deterioration.
- Agencies may structure grazing allocations through land use planning mechanisms when the statutory scheme contemplates planning and multiple-use management.
- Qualified statutory preference provisions allow administrative implementation choices that do not convert preferences into fixed entitlements.
- Assigning federal ownership of future permanent improvements on public lands may be a permissible condition of the grazing program where cooperative mechanisms remain available to address permittee participation and compensation.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit sustained key 1995 grazing regulation revisions, holding that redefining grazing preference, expanding eligibility to stock owners not necessarily engaged in the livestock business, and vesting title to future permanent range improvements in the United States were permissible exercises of the Secretary of the Interior’s authority under the Taylor Grazing Act.


Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999)