The serious environmental problems caused by unchecked wild horse populations on western rangelands are well known to state and local governments, Native American tribes, ranchers and farmers. Efforts, however, to prompt the U.S. Department of Interior (“Interior Dept.”) and its Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) to address widespread environmental damage and other impacts caused by wild horse overpopulation have been largely unsuccessful. Environmental and other issues caused by thousands of wild horses on federal lands are perhaps most pronounced in Nevada. The Silver State is estimated to be home to nearly half of the country’s wild horse population. Because BLM is not doing enough to address exponential population growth, wild horse herd sizes are increasing by 20% annually.
The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burros Act, 16 U.S.C. §1331 et seq., (“Wild Horse Act”) governs the Interior Dept.’s duties with respect to wild horses on federal lands. The Wild Horse Act mandates that the Interior Dept. protect and manage wild horses and burros, including the responsibility to “maintain a current inventory of wild free-roaming horses and burros on given areas of the public lands.” 16 U.S.C. §1333(b)(1). Under the Wild Horse Act, a “natural ecological balance” among wild horse and burro populations, domestic livestock, wildlife and vegetation must be achieved.
In order to achieve that balance, the Interior Dept. determines whether Appropriate Management Levels (“AMLs”) should be achieved by the removal or destruction of excess animals. BLM describes as “the number of wild horses and burros which can graze without causing damage to the range.” In establishing AMLs, BLM relies on studies of grazing utilization, trends in range condition, weather data and other factors. BLM also takes into consideration populations of wildlife, permitted livestock and wild horses and burros in the area. Id. BLM sets AMLs following public involvement through an in-depth environmental analysis and decision process. Id. In enacting the Wild Horse Act, Congress expressly required the Interior Dept. to “immediately remove excess animals” from the range so as to achieve AMLs when it is determined that “an overpopulation exists on a given area of the public lands and that action is necessary to remove excess animals.” 16 U.S.C. §1333(b)(2).
With these seemingly clear statutory mandates in mind, several Nevada counties, farming and ranching associations and other interested parties have attempted, with limited success, to prompt BLM to address the problem of wild horse overpopulation on Nevada rangelands. Based on BLM’s inaction and ever-worsening damage to public resources and increased threats to private water rights, the Nevada Association of Counties and the Nevada Farm Bureau (“Counties”) sued the Interior Dept. in federal court in Reno during December 2013, alleging constitutional violations and seeking judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).
On February 12, 2015, Federal District Court Judge Miranda Du issued her opinion in Nevada Association of Counties v. Interior Dept., dismissing the Counties’ complaint with prejudice. Judge Du concluded that she lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the Plaintiffs’ amended complaint “failed to identify a final agency decision” by BLM that was being challenged. The Court noted that the Wild Horse Act does not provide for a private cause of action and that any challenge to federal action brought under the APA must be based either on “final agency action that warrants judicial review or any inaction that may be compelled.” Order, at 4.
The crux of the Court’s decision was founded on its determination that the plaintiffs “sought review of flaws in the entire program” to “compel compliance with the Act and refashion [BLM’s] management of wild horses and burros in Nevada.” Id., at 7. In describing the Counties’ lawsuit as a “programmatic attack” on the entire BLM program, the Court focused on the Plaintiffs’ failure to allege that BLM failed to set “a single AML or inventory” or any another specific final agency action. Judge Du also dismissed the Counties’ constitutional claims because the amended complaint failed to allege a property interest that was taken or otherwise affected by BLM’s mismanagement of wild horses, or how BLM’s responses to the Plaintiffs’ notices that wild horses were outside designated management areas or were interfering with water access fell short of due process.
The dismissal of the Counties’ lawsuit is the latest chapter in a lengthy and still unfinished book about wild horses on the Western range. Although BLM has removed over 100,000 wild horses during the past decade from federal lands, the equine overpopulation problem continues to expand in every state and most tribal lands from the Cascades to the Mexican border. Congress has again foreclosed horse slaughter as an option for reducing herd size, despite a thriving market abroad and several domestic facilities that received (or were eligible to receive) FSIS grants of inspection during 2012. While an appeal of the decision is possible, this is likely an uphill battle it would need to be filed in the generally unfriendly Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
In light of the District Court’s decision, states, tribes and other stakeholders may need to go back to the drawing board. Because Judge Du took issue with the Plaintiffs’ failure to identify particular BLM decisions with respect to specific inventories or AMLs, next steps could include identification of specific herd management areas where BLM has failed to conduct inventories or set AMLs or identifying herd management areas where severe erosion and other ecological damage exists, conducting wild horse herd population surveys in those areas (assuming data does not already exist), and then filing petitions with BLM seeking the establishment of inventories or AMLs and demanding that the Bureau conduct removal activities in accordance with the Wild Horse Act. This will take considerable time and effort, all while wild horse populations will continue to increase and environmental and other harms from equine foraging, especially to water quality, will not be addressed. What is clear is that there likely will be no swift resolution to the environmental and animal welfare problems associated with this hotly-debated symbol of the West.
A copy of the District Court’s decision in Nevada Association of Counties v. U.S. Department of Interior can be found here.
