Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 816

529US3

Unit: $U57

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

Cite as: 529 U. S. 728 (2000)

741

Opinion of the Court

of an applicable land use plan.”
And therein lies the ranchers’ concern.

Ibid. (emphasis added).

The ranchers refer us to the administrative history of Tay-
lor Act regulations, much of which we set forth in Part I.
In the ranchers’ view, history has created expectations in
respect to the security of “grazing privileges”; they have re-
lied upon those expectations; and the statute requires the
Secretary to “safeguar[d]” that reliance. Supported by var-
ious farm credit associations, they argue that deﬁning their
privileges in relation to land use plans will undermine that
security. They say that the content of land use plans is dif-
ﬁcult to predict and easily changed. Fearing that the result-
ing uncertainty will discourage lenders from taking mort-
gages on ranches as security for their loans, they conclude
that the new regulations threaten the stability, and possibly
the economic viability, of their ranches, and thus fail to “safe-
guard” the “grazing privileges” that Department regulations
previously “recognized and acknowledged.” Brief for Peti-
tioners 22–23.

We are not persuaded by the ranchers’ argument for three
basic reasons. First, the statute qualiﬁes the duty to “safe-
guard” by referring directly to the Act’s various goals and
the Secretary’s efforts to implement them. The full subsec-
tion says:

“So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions
of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and ac-
knowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the
creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit
pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not
create any right, title, interest or estate in or to the
lands.”

43 U. S. C. § 315b (emphasis added).

The words “so far as consistent with the purposes . . . of
this subchapter” and the warning that “issuance of a permit”
creates no “right, title, interest or estate” make clear that
the ranchers’ interest in permit stability cannot be absolute;