Opinion ID: 656190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Violation of Water Rights

Text: 28 NLAA makes several arguments stemming from its assertion that its members have acquired vested water rights as a result of their previous use of water on the grazing land. Assuming arguendo that the NLAA members do have vested water rights, we nonetheless reject NLAA's arguments. An LRMP may not be invalidated on the ground that it interferes with vested water rights. 29 NLAA first contends that the Service was required to consider permittees' vested water rights in adopting the LRMP. However, the Service clearly has the right under NFMA to limit the use of water resources in national forests, since the statute directs the Service to manage conflicting uses of forest resources. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600, 1604(g)(3) (1988). We are unable to find any authority, and NLAA cites none, suggesting that the Service must consider vested water rights in its planning process. 9 30 NLAA also makes a Fifth Amendment argument that the LRMP is invalid because its impairment of vested water rights constitutes a taking of property rights without compensation. However, the Fifth Amendment is designed 'not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.'  Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 11, 110 S.Ct. 914, 921, 108 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (quoting First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 2386, 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987)). Even if the implementation of the LRMP did effect a taking under the Fifth Amendment, NLAA's remedy would be to file a suit seeking compensation. Since NLAA does not allege that it lacks an adequate procedure by which to obtain compensation, its taking claim is premature. See id. 31 Appellant's request for attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) is denied. 32 DISMISSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.