This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiffs, owners of a cattle ranch in New Mexico, held grazing permits for federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Following inspections in 1996, the Forest Service revoked the permits due to overgrazing and drought conditions. The Plaintiffs continued grazing without permits, asserting property rights to the land. The United States brought a trespass action, and the Plaintiffs were ordered to remove their cattle. They later claimed that the revocation of permits constituted a taking of property rights under New Mexico law, seeking compensation for alleged water, forage, and grazing rights (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Walker v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 57 (2005): The Court of Federal Claims ruled that New Mexico law determines the nature of the Plaintiffs' alleged property interests and certified questions to the New Mexico Supreme Court regarding forage rights (paras 5-6).
- Walker v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 222 (2005): The Court of Federal Claims further examined the Plaintiffs' claims and certified the questions to the New Mexico Supreme Court (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs: Argued that New Mexico law recognizes a limited forage right implicit in their vested water rights and right-of-way for water use. They claimed historical practices and state statutes supported their property rights to graze on federal land (paras 8-9, 29-30, 43-44).
- Defendant (United States): Contended that New Mexico law does not recognize forage rights as implicit in water rights or rights-of-way. They argued that grazing on federal land is a privilege, not a property right, and that federal law governs the use of public lands (paras 14-17, 50-52).
Legal Issues
- Does New Mexico law recognize a limited forage right implicit in a vested water right historically used for stock watering?
- Does New Mexico law recognize a limited forage right implicit in a right-of-way for the maintenance and enjoyment of a vested water right?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Supreme Court answered both certified questions in the negative, holding that New Mexico law does not recognize a limited forage right implicit in either a vested water right or a right-of-way for the maintenance and enjoyment of such a right (paras 54-55).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Chávez CJ., Minzner, Serna, and Maes JJ. concurring):
Water Rights and Forage Rights: The Court emphasized that under New Mexico law, water rights are separate from land rights and are not appurtenant to land except in the context of irrigation. The Plaintiffs' argument that forage rights are implicit in water rights was inconsistent with established principles of prior appropriation and beneficial use (paras 21-28, 37-40).
Statutory Interpretation: Section 19-3-13, cited by the Plaintiffs, was interpreted narrowly. The Court held that it does not grant a possessory interest in federal lands but merely regulates priority among users of the range. Historical case law, including Hill and Yates, confirmed that grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a property right (paras 29-31).
Customary Practice: The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' reliance on historical practices, stating that customary use of public lands does not create enforceable property rights. The Court also noted that federal law governs the use of public lands, and grazing permits are revocable privileges (paras 43-46).
Right-of-Way Scope: The Court held that a right-of-way for water use under New Mexico law is limited to the storage and conveyance of water. It does not include a right to forage or graze livestock on the surrounding land (paras 48-53).
Clarification of Precedent: The Court clarified that earlier cases, including McNew and KRM, do not support the Plaintiffs' claims. It explicitly overruled dicta in KRM suggesting that non-irrigation water rights could be appurtenant to land (paras 41-42).
In conclusion, the Court found no legal basis under New Mexico law to recognize the Plaintiffs' claimed forage rights, either as implicit in their water rights or as part of a right-of-way.