Document: 445 U.S. 715 100 S.Ct. 1450 63 L.Ed.2d 739 Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of Interior, Petitioner,v.State IDAHO et al. No. 79-260. Argued Feb. 25, 1980. Decided April 16, Syllabus The Carey Act 1894, in order to aid covered States the reclamation desert lands, "authorize[s] and empower[s]" Interior (Secretary), with President's approval, upon proper application by a State donate, grant, patent such not exceeding specified acreage, as should cause be irrigated, reclaimed, occupied, provided however, that lands may restored public domain if requirements are satisfied within stated time limits. Under 43 U.S.C. § 643, was also authorized, request State, withdraw temporarily from prior State's submission formal plan under Act. Acting pursuant Idaho requested certain tract land withdrawn pending proposed development Office Bureau Land Management rejected part because some had already been for other purposes, including portion being used stock driveway. appealed Board Appeals respect previously stock-driveway petitioned reclassification suitable use Ultimately, affirmed rejection Idaho's returned case initial action on petition further remaining temporary withdrawal. Meanwhile, filed suit Federal District Court declaration its rights That court held entitled up 2.4 million acres which obligated contract terms Act; Act, grant praesenti, did have an absolute right particular it happened select; another statute, remedy reclassification, could arbitrarily deny. affirmed. Held : 1. There is real or controversy issue presented United States' certiorari whether, then must reserve appropriation private uses, just entitlement purposes were involved Department appeal. Throughout administrative judicial proceedings, parties taken contrary positions whether absolutely select regardless designates only statutory preconditions satisfied. Pp. 722-725. 2. It apparent language legislative history Congress intend any specific number does prevent committing otherwise available parts uses authorized various statutes relating management lands. oblige automatically chosen even conforms statute. Hence, though selection has need always approve application. 725-731. 9 Cir., 595 F.2d 524, reversed part. Stuart A. Smith, Washington, C., petitioner. David H. Leroy, Boise, Idaho, respondents. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 ch. 301, 4, 28 Stat. 422, 641, "to public-land States" authorizes agree, . binding patent" provided, would begun plans carried out Originally, each limited one acres; but 1908, ceiling raised three acres. Also, 1910, 36 237, 643 (1970 ed.).1 2 Of all patents issued, large majority issued early century, scarcity water irrigation primarily responsible absence past 30 years. Improved technology pumping deep sources, among things, revived interest reclaiming arid 3 In 1974, acting identified 27,400 required January 1975, Office, Management, purposes.2 7 Taylor Grazing 48 1272, amended, 49 1976, 315f, 4 Board, decision July 31, found applicable regulations prevented withholding petition.3 assertion took precedence over withdrawal subsequent date praesenti when conditions fulfilled, related back adhered Wyoming, L.D. 399 (1908), "the acceptance offer matter wholly discretion Department." so, no whatsoever approved. repeated Wyoming's statement presumption "conclusive," claim hearing "for purpose determining [the Secretary's] properly exercised." Id., at 400. therefore, 5 February through appropriate officials, complaint against Interior. alleged virtue "has bound itself lands," "these subject and/or segregation State's] request," "without deny once requested," now asserts "he will allow requests right." prayed Act.4 Secretary's answer admitted he denied remainder foregoing allegations. 6 On cross-motions summary judgment, submitted immediately effective least firmly acreage preconditions. view, applications withdrawals. Secretary, wrong withdrawal, purposes. States, contrary, asserted granted nothing selected merely he, his unbridled discretion, saw fit do so. committed error exceeded authority law Court, memorandum 15, giving went hold, (1) "guaranteed maximum cannot deprived meets Act"; (2) "[t]he obligation preserve enough fulfill entitlement, Government donate accordance (3) "[t]o extent purposes" desires development, "its reclassify entry," event reclassification," ruling thereon review Administrative Procedure 706. 417 F.Supp. 873, 881 (1976). indicate affirmance Appeals' this motion judgment. 8 moved reconsideration modification decision. again heard oral argument. After first suggesting erred construing instead sustaining action, agreed proceeded declaratory judgment dimension. position placed him enter into State. respect, judge expressed disagreement August 26, entered which, amended minor respects November prayer demand without regard previous classifications withdrawals Appeals; declared "entitled patented domain," there sufficient satisfies "bound contract, compliance conditions, exceed [of land], sum reduced presently remedy, desire initiate "is [Secretary] Sec. duty entertain act said petitions laws America due procedures." 10 Ninth Circuit "[u]pon basis carefully written opinion" Judge. 524 (1979). We writ presenting single question "requires indefinitely eventuality able willing Act." 444 914, 227, 62 168 11 * argument between anything than appeal; or, put way, certiorari, namely, development. Although urged appeal whatsoever, withdrawal,5 apparently argument; jurisdictional brief; Solicitor General jurisdiction judgments appear record. same view. 12 From very outset, land, satisfy Whether designated driveway, view selected. hand, state These respective rejecting adopting position. 13 thus odds construction discretion. If correct meaning denial incorrect; better find undeniable approval turned what rights, any, 1894 yet decided, Art. III sense existed; and, event, appellate procedures soon exhausted. accepted involving requiring 14 proceeding address issues tendered both Secretary. select. approach, denying immediate driveway; quite claiming application, insofar 15 elements included Court's supported opinion. barrier entry objects misconstruction unwarranted extension constitute substantial interference manage II 16 As set above, "entitled" "bound" putting fairly read, obligate so withdrawn, complied conditions.6 submits drastically limit He understands these provisions mean "must hold eventual disposition approximately unappropriated lands." Brief Petitioner 8. At much says, reserved uses. provide many words, arguable trial intended, particularly opinion, made own, "guaranteed" "which Secretary," "obligation development" entitlement. precise we pursue; understand neither requires nor obliges selects those 17 Act7 empower[s]," direct, This permissive language, compared obligatory contracted contractual conditions. Furthermore, President, provision strongly suggests broader face requirements.8 18 ascertaining relevant important note circumstances adoption 1894. version adopted Senate amendment appropriations bill passed House. amendment, offered Senator form still before House committee. bill, proof suitably reclaimed. conferees brought where substitute Representative McRae after full debate. Conference Committee substitute, became known 19 For present principal difference former automatic reservation latter not. explained, 26 Cong.Rec. 8391 (1894): "The proposition makes outright make possible indefinite period. President situated. ." And again, id., 8431: "This all, gives contracts reclaimed." indications during debates, originating proponents opponents provision, perhaps more substantive intended; undercuts explanation markedly different contained substitute. Nor persuasive several later additions amendments development.9 20 consistent relied case, stands much; cases accorded considerable deference agency's statute administers. Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co., 436 604, 613-614, 98 2002, 2007-2008, 56 570 (1978); Udall Tallman, 380 1, 85 792, 801, 616 (1965); Cameron 252 450, 460, 40 410, 412, 64 L.Ed. 659 (1920). ascertainable Congressional Record, reflecting proceedings connected 1908 eight 2.72 less half amount, 1.12 acres, approved 200,000 gone patent. One reasons rejections they legitimate considered. 42 6437 (1908).10 21 Against background, conclude sought withdrawn. clear prompting eliminate finally adopted, applied case,11 application.12 22 therefore remitting declaring it. 23 reasons, 24 So ordered. 25 STEVENS, dissenting. Everyone agrees correctly now-abandoned constituted absolute, might designate future. But require express questions discusses today. 27 record necessary justify Act.1 I question. suggest imminent likelihood federal available.2 Unless until appears, decide fact 85-year life about one-fifth rather resolution consequence either party. 29 short, believe volunteered advice ripe simply vacate purely advisory portions refrain deciding legislation prompted speculative filings project. S.Rep.No. 367, 61st Cong., 2d Sess. (1910); H.R.Rep.No. 662, (1910). repealed 704(a) Policy 1976 (FLPMA), Pub.L. 94-579, 90 2792. 204 FLPMA, 1714, general withdrawals, construes failure final. cited providing "[l]ands driveways disposition" acquisition shall rejected. CFR 2313.1(c) (1974). regulation, 2091.1(a) (1974), pertinent "applications filing future availability interests [w]ithdrawal Board's effect. "by existing amounts money excess $10,000, exclusive costs interest." "pursuant P. (5 701 seq.)." recite relief Declaratory Judgment 2201, understood seeking relief. Appeals, conceded existed become moot repeal 643. concedes, power See n. supra. cross holding take respondent entitled, absent cross-petition, bring us; favorable enlarge course urge, may, recognized provides part: "To therein, settlement, cultivation sale thereof small tracts actual settlers, empowered, time, situated free cost survey price cultivated settlers ten years Section 641 periods, restore authorize deadlines. purported support conclusion Irrigation Co. Gooding, 265 518, 521, 44 618, 619, 68 1157 (1924), recited "binds" States. passage referred to, say instance. dispute company owners company; describing background scope Attaching great significance recitation unwarranted. conclusions obligations. 1896, supplied settlement cultivation. liens reclamation. June 11, 434, 642. 642 refers "grant" context indicates word loosely refer enacted fact, stresses it, like specifically Act's "grants land" acceptances obtain Respondents 12-13, 6. Subsequent touch all. additional two 645 Joint Res. 28, 60th 1st see 35 577; Wyoming. 645. 1909, extended Arizona New Mexico, 646, Ute Indian Reservation Colorado. 647. indicated text, adopted. 1911, Fort Bridger Military 90, 913; Nevada 1920 unsuccessful projects. 644. 1921, extend period failed construct anticipated works. 641. way administering case. During discussion, Gaines Tennessee asked French explain why applications. replied: reason this: national reclaimed; law; ownership desert-land laws. Sometimes happens overlaps propositions land." Prior ruled covering unwithdrawn land. Water Resources, I.B.L.A. (1976); 314 questioned indicating refusal aside arbitrary capricious. Neither To disapprove inconsistent direct challenge aspect standards agency reject, [Secretary Interior] Plaintiff." App. suggested 8.5 "susceptible Tr. Oral Arg. 33. date, received 600,000

Category: 7