Nev. rancher awarded $4.2M for 'taken' water right

[Yurt]

An almost solid win for private property rights

Nev. rancher awarded $4.2M for 'taken' water right

RENO, Nev. - A judge awarded more than $4.2 million to a late Nevada rancher's estate after finding that the U.S. Forest Service engaged in an unconstitutional "taking" of water rights out of hostility to the rancher, a property rights activist

...

In the early 1980s, the Forest Service began to notify him he was in violation of his federal grazing permit. In 1983, the Forest Service sent him 40 letters and agency officials made 70 visits to his ranch.

Smith, based in Washington D.C., said the cancellation of Hage's grazing permit because of overgrazing and trespassing did not violate the Fifth Amendment because a grazing permit is a license, not property.

However, Smith said, the taking occurred when the Forest Service made it impossible for Hage to maintain irrigation ditches, which deprived the ranch of water and made it unviable.

The government demanded that he maintain the ditches using nothing more than hand tools. As willows, pinion, juniper and other vegetation grew unchecked in the irrigation ditches, Hage had argued that his ranch lost water.

"The court finds the government's actions had a severe economic impact on plaintiffs and the governments' actions rose to the level of a taking," Smith wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/...XHLVkHrw4EtbAF

[Little-Acorn]

An almost solid win for private property rights

Until the Feds appeal it and it gets overturned.

Nevada is in the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals' jurisdiction. The rancher is toast.

The 9th Circus will hold that since the Fed Govt regularly makes laws controlling the useage of supposedly-private property, in fact the Fed Govt really "owns" the land, not the rancher. (If they said this, it would be an amazingly accurate admission of fact, so instead they will couch it in "what's best for the people as a whole" terms). And therefore, the 9th will say, the Fed can make any laws they please, no matter how restrictive, and the rancer had better start digging his miles of irrigation ditches with only hand tools or get off the land and let the government take over.

But then, when it gets to the Supreme Court, things could get interesting. Among many of the questionable things GWB has done, his USSC appointments shine. And there is reason to believe President McCain's might be just as good, when the ancient leftist extremists on the bench start dropping like flies from old age. There might finally be a majority who say that Fed laws governing usage of private land are unconstitutional (true but far too sweeping, they may restrict it to only this one instance, but still a useful precedent). And they just might find in favor of the rancher.

If they do, it will be a landmark case.

[Yurt]

probably true, but i hope not...also, i am not sure the court is right about grazing being a "privilege". the ranger presumbly purchased the grazing "rights", thus he has a property interest in the grazing.

in order for the ranger to guarantee a win in the ninth circ, he should claim the cows are homosexual and are being discriminated against by the government...

[Joe Steel]

The judge, Loren Smith, is a "takings" activist. He should have recused himself.

The rancher's widow, Helen Chenoweth-Hage, is a former US Representative and also is a "takings" activist.

This is very suspicious.