LANDER - Private property rights advocate Wayne Hage believes his court battle against the federal government represents a sea change on how the law looks at water rights and grazing on federal grazing allotments.

The Nevada rancher was the key speaker of a day-long private property rights seminar in Lander on Saturday, focused on the federal court case Hage vs. U.S., which began in 1991 and is still ongoing.

"We connect the dots by teaching ranchers and farmers what it means to the court to own vested water rights, fee land grazing allotments, rights-of-way and patented land - how to protect those rights from unwarranted search and seizures by the federal government," said Helen Chenoweth-Hage, his wife and a former Republican congresswoman from Idaho.

Fremont County Commissioner Crosby Allen welcomed over 100 participants to the gathering, praising the private property rights speakers as "champions" for the ranching way of life. The seminar was sponsored by the Wyoming Farm Bureau, People for Wyoming and People for the USA.

Hage's grazing permits on two federal allotments in Nye County, Nev., were pulled after 72 citations were issued against him. He countersued, claiming the federal government was required to compensate him for a "takings" of his grazing rights. Hage also has water rights adjudicated by the state of Nevada.

Hage's theory is that a property right is not always a physical right, but a matter of what an individual can do with what he has.

Assembled ranchers in the audience followed ramifications of the case in a workbook, while speakers illustrated aspects of the case on a point-by-point basis.

Hage explained that ranchers face very poor odds in suing the federal government over rules and regulations written by federal agencies. He believes that his recent court victory in the United States Court of Federal Claims was focused on private property rights. If the federal government wants to take his private property rights, fine, said Hage, as long as he's legally compensated for the loss of those rights. In Hage's case, those include rights to water, forage, the consumption of forage by his cattle, range improvements and rights-of-way.

"The only thing left to resolve now is how much the government has to compensate me for keeping me off my grazing allotments for 12 years," Hage said, referring to a final court proceeding scheduled for 2004.

Meanwhile, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are in a state of panic, Hage said, as their grazing permits come under attack by his case. Hage believes that ultimately, grazing permits will not be required by the courts. Yet the court did not hold that the plaintiff can legally graze livestock on federal lands administered by the USFS or the BLM without a grazing permit.

In Hage v. U.S., Senior Judge Loren Smith of the United States Court of Federal Claims in San Francisco ruled, "This court finds that plaintiffs presented evidence at trial that showed by the preponderance of evidence that the plaintiffs and their predecessors appropriated and maintained a vested water right in the following bodies of water on the Ralston and McKinney allotments. In addition to certificates of appropriation that were entered into evidence, the plaintiffs also submitted an exhaustive chain of title which showed that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest had title to the fee lands where the following springs and creeks are located."

At issue was whether Hage had a right to put to beneficial use the water that flowed through certain ditches. Hage complained that cancellation of federal grazing permits deprived him of his right to graze cattle; that he was deprived of his water when the Forest Service cancelled the grazing permits; that the Forest Service forbade Hage's access to the ditches; that elk consumed forage and drank water reserved for cattle; and that the Forest Service impounded Hage's cattle.

Angus McIntosh, a professor of the University of New Mexico, said it doesn't matter that the federal government owns federal lands. Hage and McIntosh argued that Hage doesn't own the federal grazing allotment lands, but that he does own what can be done on those lands because he has legal water rights, rights-of-way, forage, range improvements and patented parcels.

Once the court completes the remaining two phases of this litigation - whether a taking has occurred and, if so, how much compensation is required - either party may file an appeal with the Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. According to a BLM information bulletin issued last month, the court's 2002 opinion is not binding authority on other federal courts, or even other Federal Claims Courts judges. In addition, courts in other jurisdictions are free to disagree.

Attempts on Saturday to contact attorneys representing environmental organizations were unsuccessful.