1125 Hage v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 570, 587-88 (Fed. Cl. 2002); see Estate of Hage, 687 F.3d at 1291-92; see also Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312, 327 (1893) (“The legislature may determine what . . . property is needed for public purposes[,]” but determining the measure of compensation “is a judicial, and not a legislative, question.”); Hage v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 147, 170 (Fed. Cl. 1996) (“[B]ased upon the language and history of the Granger-Thye Act and the Taylor Grazing Act, . . . Congress had no legislative intention of creating a property interest in the permit just as Congress had no legislative intention of creating a property interest in the underlying federal lands.”).1126 Fuller, 409 U.S. at 491-92. Congress has provided for administrative payments for losses due to cancellation of Taylor grazing permits for war purposes. See 43 U.S.C. § 315q (2012); United States v. Cox, 190 F.2d 293, 296 (10th Cir. 1951). But these administrative benefits created by statute are separate from compensation under the Fifth Amendment, and beyond the scope of the appraiser’s assignment to estimate market value. See United States v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 339 U.S. 261, 263-64, 264 n.2 (1950); United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 379- 80 (1945); United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 510 (1945).