Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 825.0

529US3

Unit: $U57

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

750

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL v. BABBITT

O’Connor, J., concurring

sion relating to “ownership” simply provides for compensa-
tion by some future permit holder in the event that the Sec-
retary decides to grant title.

As detailed above, the Secretary did grant ownership
rights to range improvements under certain circumstances
prior to 1995. We see nothing in the statute that prevents
him from changing his mind in respect to the future. And
the Secretary has now changed his mind for reasons of ad-
ministrative convenience and because what he takes as the
original purpose of this provision (assuring that, in 1934,
ranchers would pay compensation to nomadic sheep herders)
is no longer important.
In any event, the provision retains
even the “contemplation of ownership” meaning stressed by
the ranchers, for permit holders may still “own” removable
range improvements, such as “corrals, creep feeders, and
loading chutes, and temporary structural improvements such
as troughs for hauled water,” 43 CFR § 4120.3–3(b) (1995),
which could be transferred to a new permit holder and thus
compel compensation under § 315f.

In short, we ﬁnd nothing in the statute that denies the
Secretary authority reasonably to decide when or whether
to grant title to those who make improvements. And any
such person remains free to negotiate the terms upon which
he will make those improvements irrespective of where title
formally lies, including how he might be compensated in the
future for the work he had done, either by the Government
directly or by those to whom the Government later grants
a permit. Cf. 43 U. S. C. § 1752(g) (requiring the United
States to pay compensation to a permittee for his “interest”
in range improvements if it cancels a permit).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Afﬁrmed.

Justice O’Connor, with whom Justice Thomas joins,

concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion.

I write separately to make the

following observations concerning the Court’s decision.