|WATER||April 14, 2016|
Hage Set to Appeal Ninth Circuit Ruling in Forage Right
In January, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, in an opinion by Judge Graber, handed down a decision reversing all of the findings of Nevada Federal District Court Chief Judge Robert C. Jones in his 103-page decision in U.S. v. Hage (2007). Judge Jones had found among other things that government officials had “entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their (grazing) permits but also of their vested water rights.” The Court added, “This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm…”
During the 21-day trial in 2012, the lead Justice Department attorney assured Wayne Hage and the Estate’s attorney that the Ninth Circuit would almost certainly rule in favor of the BLM and USFS. He said the United States government was not concerned if Judge Jones ruled against them because the DOJ could get any decision they wanted out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Consistent with the Justice Department’s prediction, the Ninth Circuit panel issued a scathing ruling reversing all of the trial court’s decisions, excoriating Judge Jones for supposed bias against the government Defendants. Wayne N. Hage and the Estate of E. Wayne Hage are appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling from the Ninth Circuit runs contrary to 150 years of western water law and precedent as well as the laws governing the infrastructure across federally administered lands in the West. It denies that there is right of access to vested livestock watering rights. The Ninth Circuit decision, as handed down by the three-judge panel, is also in direct conflict with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in the related case, Hage v. U.S., (1991), (between the same parties regarding the same property). There the Court recognized access as an essential component of a water right. If a right to access to a vested water right can be subject to a government bureaucrats will, either in its use or its maintenance, then you have no water right. A person’s ownership of water becomes a mirage. State law no longer controls the time, place, or manner of use of water. A federal agency, and more particularly a federal bureaucrat, would now control the access to that water.
In addition to a conflict between rulings in two different federal courts, due to the appellate panel’s brazen violations of the appellate rules of procedure regarding findings of fact and other procedural errors, analysts believe there is an increased likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling. (Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions are available upon request.)
In order for the Ninth Circuit to overturn the findings of the trial court in U.S. v. Hage, they had no option but to assert Judge Jones had bias against the government Defendants. Under the rules of appellate procedure the Ninth Circuit was bound by Judge Jones’ findings of fact, unless the justices went to the extraordinary measure of finding the judge had bias and had abused his discretion, which they did. Interestingly, Judge Jones was not the only trier of fact to make such findings. Chief Judge Loren Smith, from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington D.C., after hearing similar testimony during two separate trials in the related case of Hage v. U.S. (1991), made virtually identical findings of fact. Two well respected, experienced jurists, both Chief Judges of their respective courts, separated by the width of the country, separated by decades of hearings, having nothing in common but considering the conduct of the U.S. Forest Service and BLM employees against the Hage family, both reached virtually identical conclusions.
Two generations of the Hage family, beginning during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, have spent nearly 40 years in courts defending their Constitutionally protected property interests in federally administered land and their right to be allowed to graze their livestock around their vested waters as Congress clearly sanctioned. They have prevailed in three administrative appeals. They have successfully litigated three substantial federal court cases at the trial level in two separate federal courts. They have successfully defended their vested water rights against competing claims by the United States in a state water adjudication. The courts in multiple published decisions have repeatedly recognized their vested water rights, easements, rights-of-ways, forage, and improvements on federally administered land. Those rights stand on appeal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is only the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel, after a 45 minute hearing, which determined that they are better arbiters of the truth than the two judges from two separate federal courts who actually saw the evidence and heard witnesses testify over a combined period of 43 trial days. The Ninth Circuit panel, in reaching their desired outcome in U.S. v. Hage has managed to significantly diminish western water law and the laws governing rights of ways for roads, ditches and canals across federally administered lands, leaving the Hages no choice but to seek relief at the U.S. Supreme Court. (Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions are available upon request.)
For those who support the Hages and their efforts to protect western water rights and ranching, donations to help fund the Supreme Court appeal would be greatly appreciated. Tax-deductible donations are being accepted and earmarked for U.S. v. Hage by:
Protect the Harvest
Direct contributions can also be sent directly to:
Analysis of U.S. v. Hage and Court Decisions available upon request. Also, for those interested in filing Amicus or Friend of the Court Briefs, contact:
Ramona Hage Morrison
Mark Pollot, Esq.
For a Summary of Hage saga:
FOX NEWS SPECIAL, “Enemies of the State”
“Enemies of the State” (shorter version)
Range Magazine Article and Winner of the “Freedom of the Press Award”
|comments powered by Disqus|