Liberty
Matters News Service
October 28, 2004
Hage v. US Comes to a Close
It's been nearly fourteen years since Nevada rancher, Wayne
Hage and his late wife, Jean, filed their takings case against the United
States. On Thursday, October 21, 2004, ranchers from at least five states
crowded into the small courtroom and spilled out into the hallway to hear the
closing arguments in this landmark case being heard by Judge Loren Smith of the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims. From the time Hage purchased Pine Creek Ranch in
1978 until he filed the takings case in 1991, Hage spent countless hours
fighting the BLM and the Forest Service over his water rights and grazing
allotments. The mission of the government agencies was clearly to reclaim the
use of the federal lands where Hage held grazing permits and owned the water
and ditch rights of ways, by whatever means necessary, including fencing off
Hage's springs and the eventual confiscation of his cattle. During the three
week takings trial held in Reno last May, the Judge heard how the government's
actions harassed and interfered with Hage to the point at which this profitable
ranch was no longer a viable economic operation. Now that all the briefs have
been filed and closing arguments have been made, the Court must decide whether
the government took the property rights from Hage it had previously ruled he
owned, and if so, how much compensation Hage is due for the takings.
www.stewards.us
King County Passes 65-10 Rule
Back in July Liberty Matters
reported that King County, Washington government officials were considering the
most restrictive land use regulations in the country known as the 65/10 Rule.
The ordinance passed this week and will require landowners to maintain 65
percent of their property in a natural state and "allow" them to build on only
10 percent of it. Seven Democrats voted in favor and the 6 Republicans opposed
the measure. Wildlife and the environment are the winners according to
proponents who chose to ignore the human consequences. "For generations to
come, this legislation will help prevent flooding and erosion and protect our
drinking water, streams and wetlands being degraded by new development," said
Dow Constantine, chief architect of the regulation. Preston Drew, a private
property rights advocate, said county officials "[gave] the preservationists
their big payoff." And Richard Bonewits said, "This set of regulations is not
going to go down well with rural landowners," "…and no amount of lipstick
on a pig" [will change their attitudes]. Councilman David Irons said legal
avenues are already being explored to work on a referendum to overturn the
draconian land use regulations on the 2005 ballot.
Opponents of New County Land Rules
Consider Their Next Move
Russian Duma Approves Kyoto Protocol
The Duma, the lower house of Russia's
parliament voted to approve the Kyoto Protocol last week. All that remains is
for the upper house to approve it and President Putin's signature will set the
wheels in motion for worldwide adoption of the controversial climate control
treaty. The European Union has long worked to persuade Russia to join the
ratification club and its recent agreement to support Russia's membership in
the World Trade Organization must have done the trick. French President Jacques
Chirac praised Putin for his wisdom in a weekend phone call and said Europe and
the whole world appreciated his cooperation. The United States and Australia
still refuse to sign the treaty, maintaining it will cost jobs and raise energy
prices to astronomical levels. Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman,
Jeff Fiedler said, "The Russian government's decision to adopt the Kyoto
Protocol leaves the United States alone as the largest and most important
industrialized nation to not adopt the treaty." ... "The U. S. must get its own
house in order by putting in place a national mandatory limit on global warming
emissions [and join] the international community in addressing this global
problem," he continued.
Russian Duma Votes to Ratify Climate
Protocol
Court Ruling Affects ESA
It may not be business as
usual for radical environmental activists now that a Court of Appeals judge has
decided the government must pay for what it takes. Judge John Paul Wiese ruled
that the federal government owes California farmers a lot of money for taking
their water to protect Chinook salmon and delta smelt back in 1992 and 1994.
Judge Wiese awarded the farmers $13.9 million in damages, agreeing that denial
of their water rights did indeed constitute a "taking" of their property
rights. That figure could balloon to $26 million when interest over the three
years is added. Environmental groups view the decision with alarm, fearing it
could lead to similar awards that might adversely impact the government's
willingness to take property rights to "benefit" fish and wildlife. "The
purpose of these suits is simply a backdoor attack on environmental laws,"
complained Barry Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And frankly,
it's to bust the federal budget as the price tag for complying with
environmental protection laws," he continued. The environmentalists have used
taxpayers' money to finance their schemes for way too long and the day of
reckoning is long overdue. Former regional director of the Bureau of
Reclamation, Lester Snow, seemed to recognize the ESA may have to be handled
differently. "It makes the decision [to enforce the ESA] harder because there's
direct financial consequences up front. It's a sea change in the way they
manage the Endangered Species Act," he said.
Water Wars: Fighting to Recover
Water