Sacramento Grazing Association, Inc. v. United States
04-786
| Fed. Cl. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Sacramento Grazing Association (SGA), a family ranching association, held federal grazing permits on the Sacramento Allotment (Lincoln National Forest) and filed declarations claiming pre-1907 stock-watering rights based on continuous use dating to the 1880s.
- Between 1983–1992 the Forest Service constructed riparian exclosures around springs and wetlands to protect endangered plants (e.g., Sacramento Mountains Thistle); gates and enforcement practices varied over time.
- In 1998 the Forest Service issued an AOP amendment (effective by permit revision 1999) listing specific exclosures where livestock use was not permitted; enforcement escalated in 2000 with directives to remove cattle or face permit sanctions.
- SGA sued in 2004 alleging a Fifth Amendment physical taking of its vested New Mexico water-use rights; liability trial occurred in 2012 and post-trial administrative efforts (OSE water applications; on-the-ground mitigation) continued through 2016.
- The Court found (1) it has Tucker Act jurisdiction over SGA’s takings claim and the claims were not time-barred, (2) SGA established, under New Mexico law, a vested right to beneficial use of specific stock-water sources, and (3) the Forest Service’s actions effected a taking of those water-use rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations (accrual date) | Accrual occurred no earlier than the May 5, 1998 AOP amendment (or enforcement in Sept. 2000) when access was effectively denied | Exclosures were constructed and warnings given years earlier (1983–1992); accrual therefore predates filing and claims are time-barred | Court held accrual no earlier than the 1998 AOP amendment / 2000 enforcement; §2501 does not bar SGA’s takings claims |
| Existence of a cognizable property interest under New Mexico law | SGA’s pre-1907 continuous beneficial use, recorded Declarations of Ownership, and trial testimony establish vested stock-watering rights | Declarations insufficient or deficient; OSE did not adjudicate; plaintiff failed to prove constructed diversion works | Court found SGA proved a protected right to beneficial use of specified water sources (OSE later recognized/licensed aspects) |
| Whether New Mexico law requires physical diversion to create stock-watering rights | Beneficial use — not physical diversion — is the basis of pre-1907 rights; diversion is not a prerequisite for stock-water rights | Precedent and administrative rules indicate diversion/constructed works are required to perfect an appropriative right | Court concluded New Mexico law recognizes beneficial use (not necessarily modern diversion structures) as creating pre-1907 stock-watering rights |
| Whether Government action amounted to a physical taking | Exclosure construction and enforcement denied SGA meaningful access to its water-use rights (incremental then final deprivation) | SGA retained ability to use alternative water in the allotment; water rights are not tied to a particular source; restrictions are regulatory/fashion of permit management, not a taking | Court held USFS actions (5/5/98 AOP amendment and enforcement) effected a taking of SGA’s rights to beneficial use of listed stock-water sources; compensation issue reserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (U.S. 1922) (famous statement that government action can become a taking requiring compensation)
- Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (U.S. 2017) (property rights are defined by state law for takings analysis)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (U.S. 2002) (takings principles and limits on government burdening private owners)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (per se rule for physical occupation takings)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1987) (temporary regulatory takings require compensation for period of deprivation)
- Estate of Hage v. United States, 687 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (takings accrual and fences around water sources; accrual when physical deprivation occurs)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (water-rights takings: establish state-law right first, then determine taking)
- Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. United States, 569 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (two-step takings inquiry: identify protected property interest, then decide whether taken)