BLM in Texas Land Dispute

[BigRedBuster]

OK...over the weekend, someone asked me what I thought about this and I had never heard about it. So, this morning I googled it and the only place I can find it is mentioned is Fox News and Breitbart. Both places I have little to no respect for and trust in that they are telling me the truth about a subject.

 

So, what is the real story here?

 

LINK

[Junior]

I don't know anything about this specific issue... but I do find it humorous that many of the same people complaining about the BLM and their federal land grabs would be the same people wanting Obama to approve the Keystone pipeline and the eminent domain land grabs that would go along with it.

[carlfense]

The facts are hidden away at the bottom of the article . . . because they're awfully boring:

In the Texas matter, the Supreme Court incorporated the Red River as part of the border with Oklahoma nearly a century ago.

 

Congress further clarified the boundaries of the two states in 2000.

 

It’s unclear how seriously BLM might be looking at laying claim to additional boundary land.

 

BLM said it is merely in the “initial stages of developing options for management of public lands,” as part of a “transparent process with several opportunities for public input.”

 

BLM Field Manager Stephen Tryon, in a March 17 letter to Thornberry, said officials would eventually look to “ascertain the boundary” between federal and private land and acknowledged residents’ concerns that new surveys could “create cloud to their private property title.”

 

But he said no new surveys are currently planned, and reiterated that there are no federal claims to Texas land “as defined by multiple rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The bold roughly translates as "There is no evidence at all that BLM is going to lay claim to additional land."

 

 

 

What this really was about was Fox attempting their standard trick of expanding a fake scandal beyond a single incident. This is supposed to tie back to Bundy (before the network had to disappear him because of his unfortunate racial comments) and give the appearance of a rogue federal agency running amok. That story (as ridiculous as it is anyways) was hampered by the disappearance of the Bundy narrative and by the fact that this alleged BLM land grab occurred back in 1986, under the benevolent hand of one Ronaldus Magnus. They also gloss over the fact that the US Attorney sided with the private landowner back in 1986.

 

Anyways, it's just noise.

[carlfense]

I don't know anything about this specific issue... but I do find it humorous that many of the same people complaining about the BLM and their federal land grabs would be the same people wanting Obama to approve the Keystone pipeline and the eminent domain land grabs that would go along with it.

TOTALLY different. That would be handing land over for the benefit of a foreign corporation . . . so that we like? Right?

[BigRedBuster]

Before I dive into this discussion I want to make it clear that I'm not all up in arms over the BLM and I'm also not in favor of the Keystone pipe line. Not because of environmental issues but because I simply don't think it is of benefit to the US therefore not needed on our land.

 

That said.....I don't think the two issues are anywhere close to the same thing.

 

Let's assume the BLM is wanting to claim 90,000 acres of land. That would mean they would be taking private land out of private ownership and if the previous land owner wants to use it, they have to get permission and pay rent to the government for using the land.

 

If I have a pipeline across my land, I still own the land and I'm not paying rent to someone else for the use of that land. The pipeline company would have an easement to have access to my land to maintain the pipe line and I would be restricted from digging or building on top of the pipe line. But, I still own it and can use it.

[BigRedBuster]

The facts are hidden away at the bottom of the article . . . because they're awfully boring:

In the Texas matter, the Supreme Court incorporated the Red River as part of the border with Oklahoma nearly a century ago.

 

Congress further clarified the boundaries of the two states in 2000.

 

It’s unclear how seriously BLM might be looking at laying claim to additional boundary land.

 

BLM said it is merely in the “initial stages of developing options for management of public lands,” as part of a “transparent process with several opportunities for public input.”

 

BLM Field Manager Stephen Tryon, in a March 17 letter to Thornberry, said officials would eventually look to “ascertain the boundary” between federal and private land and acknowledged residents’ concerns that new surveys could “create cloud to their private property title.”

 

But he said no new surveys are currently planned, and reiterated that there are no federal claims to Texas land “as defined by multiple rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The bold roughly translates as "There is no evidence at all that BLM is going to lay claim to additional land."

 

 

 

What this really was about was Fox attempting their standard trick of expanding a fake scandal beyond a single incident. This is supposed to tie back to Bundy (before the network had to disappear him because of his unfortunate racial comments) and give the appearance of a rogue federal agency running amok. That story (as ridiculous as it is anyways) was hampered by the disappearance of the Bundy narrative and by the fact that this alleged BLM land grab occurred back in 1986, under the benevolent hand of one Ronaldus Magnus. They also gloss over the fact that the US Attorney sided with the private landowner back in 1986.

 

Anyways, it's just noise.

 

 

I fully understand what you are saying and I'm sure Fox is trying to blow this whole issue up bigger than it needs to be. However, would think there would need to be something a little more than just "noise" if the Texas AG is getting involved.

[carlfense]

However, would think there would need to be something a little more than just "noise" if the Texas AG is getting involved.

I wish that were true. Honestly.

 

Do you think the fact that the Texas AG is running for governor might be playing a role?

[BigRedBuster]

However, would think there would need to be something a little more than just "noise" if the Texas AG is getting involved.

I wish that were true. Honestly.

Which part?

[carlfense]

Let's assume the BLM is wanting to claim 90,000 acres of land. That would mean they would be taking private land out of private ownership and if the previous land owner wants to use it, they have to get permission and pay rent to the government for using the land.

That's not accurate. The discussion (no action!) was about management of land that is already owned by the government.

 

The landowner is a bit confused as to what happened back in 1986 and clearly doesn't understand the present situation either.

[carlfense]

However, would think there would need to be something a little more than just "noise" if the Texas AG is getting involved.

I wish that were true. Honestly.

Which part?

I wish that the AG would only be involved if this were a real issue. It's genuinely disheartening to see people who know better playing to those who don't.

[BigRedBuster]

Let's assume the BLM is wanting to claim 90,000 acres of land. That would mean they would be taking private land out of private ownership and if the previous land owner wants to use it, they have to get permission and pay rent to the government for using the land.

That's not accurate. The discussion (no action!) was about management of land that is already owned by the government.

 

The landowner is a bit confused as to what happened back in 1986 and clearly doesn't understand the present situation either.

 

So, the AG is confused also? I would like to see a map of the area showing what has happened over the years to the border and ownership of the land.

[BigRedBuster]

However, would think there would need to be something a little more than just "noise" if the Texas AG is getting involved.

I wish that were true. Honestly.

Which part?

I wish that the AG would only be involved if this were a real issue. It's genuinely disheartening to see people who know better playing to those who don't.

 

 

So..please clarify for me. Is the 90,000 acres right now privately owned?

[carlfense]

So, the AG is confused also?

Most certainly not . . . but he would very much like to be elected governor. I'd imagine that the timing could have been better for him . . . he hitched onto the BLM outrage spewing from the Bundy story the day before Bundy's racial comments came out. I wonder if the AG would have sent that letter if he would have waited until Friday before joining the action? My guess is that it would have been quietly filed away instead.

 

I would like to see a map of the area showing what has happened over the years to the border and ownership of the land.

That 1986 case (that the landowner claims, and why why would he know?, is being used as precedent) is about accretion and avulsion. Basically, when a property line is a river, and the river moves, what happens to the property line? The short version is that it depends on whether the river moves suddenly, like in a flood, or slowly over time.

 

Decent intro to the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avulsion_(legal_term)

[carlfense]

So..please clarify for me. Is the 90,000 acres right now privately owned?

The 90,000 figure is a fiction. From what I can tell it's from a 1994 hearing that resulted in no legislation whatsoever. Now it's being tossed around by the AG, this rancher, and Fox like it's real.

 

Of course, they could disprove that notion by providing evidence . . . instead of outlandish claims . . . but that might prove difficult.

[BigRedBuster]

I guess this is something that I just don't understand. But, if I own land along, let's say, the Nebraska/Iowa Border and the Missouri river changes course and it is now running a mile west of my property. And, let's say the river is supposed to be the border between Neb and Iowa. Why wouldn't I then just own land in Iowa? Why would the BLM come in and claim it?