Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 811

529US3

Unit: $U57

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

736

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL v. BABBITT

Opinion of the Court

with 43 U. S. C. § 315f, and later the land use planning man-
dated by 43 U. S. C. § 1712 (discussed infra, at 737–738), was
authorized to reclassify and withdraw land from grazing
altogether and devote it to a more valuable or suitable use.
See, e. g., 43 CFR § 160.22 (1938); 1942 Range Code § 6(c)(4);
43 CFR § 161.6(c)(5) (1955); 43 CFR §§ 4111.4–2(f), 4115.2–
1(e)(6) (1964); 43 CFR §§ 4111.4–3(f), 4115.2–1(e)(6) (1977);
43 CFR § 4110.4–2(a) (1994); 43 CFR § 4110.4–2(a) (1998).
Third, in the event of range depletion, the Secretary main-
tained a separate authority, not to take areas of land out of
grazing use altogether as above, but to reduce the amount of
grazing allowed on that land, by suspending AUMs of graz-
ing privileges “in whole or in part,” and “for such time as
necessary.”
43 CFR § 4115.2–1(e)(5) (1964); see also 43 CFR
§ 160.30 (1938) (reservation (b)); 1942 Range Code § 6(c)(8);
43 CFR § 161.4(8) (1955); 43 CFR §§ 4111.4–3, 4115.2–1(e)(5)
(1977); 43 CFR § 4110.3–2 (1994); 43 CFR § 4110.3–2 (1998).
Indeed, the Department so often reduced individual per-
mit AUM allocations under this last authority that by 1964
the regulations had introduced the notion of “active AUMs,”
i. e., the AUMs that a permit initially granted minus the
AUMs that the department had “suspended” due to dimin-
ished range capacity. Thus, three ranchers who had initially
received, say, 3,000, 2,000, and 1,000 AUMs respectively,
might ﬁnd that they could use only two-thirds of that number
because a 33% reduction in the district’s grazing capacity had
led the Department to “suspend” one-third of each allocation.
The “active/suspended” system assured each rancher, how-
ever, that any capacity-related reduction would take place
proportionately among permit holders, see 43 CFR § 4111.4–
2(a)(3) (1964), and that the Department would try to restore
grazing privileges proportionately should the district’s ca-
pacity later increase, see § 4111.4–1.

In practice, active grazing on the public range declined
dramatically and steadily (from about 18 million to about