Opinion ID: 3053418
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants failed to establish their prior

Text: administrative costs; (2) Defendants failed to establish that additional inspections would really be required; (3) Defendants’ assertion of increased costs for staff time was belied because they were not planning to hire additional staff; (4) The vast majority of endowment lands leased for grazing are isolated parcels within larger grazing allotments, so Defendants’ manage- ment costs already reflect that fact; LAZY Y RANCH LTD v. BEHRENS 13793 (5) Other than in connection with past efforts by conservationists to obtain state grazing leases, Defendants have rarely if ever cited similar concerns to deny a state lease; (6) The IDL regularly loses money on endowment lands because its administrative costs outstrip the modest revenues from leases; (7) The IDL rarely undertakes the supervision necessary to ensure that other grazing lessees com- ply with management requirements for land preservation; (8) Defendants ignored the possibility that the denial of Lazy Y’s lease would lead to litiga- tion costs. Lazy Y also alleges that the “administrative costs” rationale appeared after Behrens, Wiggins, and IDL Assistant Director George Bacon spoke with representatives of the local livestock industry in meetings that excluded Lazy Y. In response to the eleventh-hour assertion of administrative costs, Lazy Y wrote to Wiggins on August 3, 2006, offering to “provide additional fencing and/or pay for additional administrative costs incurred, up to $30,000 over the course of the new ten-year leases, or such additional amount as may be shown as reasonably necessary.” Notwithstanding Lazy Y’s additional offer, the Land Board denied Lazy Y all six leases at its August 2006 meeting, and instead awarded them to the second highest bidders. Lazy Y alleges that the Board members — Idaho Governor Jim Risch, Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, Superintendent of Schools Marilyn Howard, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, and State Controller Keith Johnson — summarily dismissed its offer to cover increased costs, thus evidencing their discriminatory treatment of Lazy Y. 13794 LAZY Y RANCH LTD v. BEHRENS Lazy Y filed its complaint on August 28, 2006, and quickly amended it to include similar allegations concerning denial of a seventh lease in September 2006. The first amended complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.