Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 815

529US3

Unit: $U57

[09-26-01 12:19:03] PAGES PGT: OPIN

740

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL v. BABBITT

Opinion of the Court

provision in the Taylor Act stating that “grazing privi-
leges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately
safeguarded . . . .” 43 U. S. C. § 315b. Before 1995 the reg-
ulations deﬁned the term “grazing preference” in terms of
the AUM-denominated amount of grazing privileges that
a permit granted. The regulations then deﬁned “grazing
preference” as

“the total number of animal unit months of livestock
grazing on public lands apportioned and attached to base
property owned or controlled by a permittee or lessee.”
43 CFR § 4100.0–5 (1994).

The 1995 regulations changed this deﬁnition, however, so
that it now no longer refers to grazing privileges “appor-
tioned,” nor does it speak in terms of AUMs. The new
deﬁnition deﬁnes “grazing preference” as

“a superior or priority position against others for
the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease.
This priority is attached to base property owned or
controlled by the permittee or lessee.” 43 CFR
§ 4100.0–5 (1995).

60 Fed. Reg. 9921 (1995).

The new deﬁnition “omits reference to a speciﬁed quantity
of forage.”
It refers only to a
priority, not to a speciﬁc number of AUMs attached to a base
property. But at the same time the new regulations add a
new term, “permitted use,” which the Secretary deﬁnes as

“the forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an
applicable land use plan for livestock grazing in an al-
lotment under a permit or lease and is expressed in
AUMs.”

43 CFR § 4100.0–5 (1995).

This new “permitted use,” like the old “grazing preference,”
is deﬁned in terms of allocated rights, and it refers to AUMs.
But this new term as deﬁned refers, not to a rancher’s forage
priority, but to forage “allocated by, or under the guidance