Geography, Bundy's ancestors just happened to settle along the Virgin river. Much later, the Hoover Dam created Lake Mead by backing up the Virgin and Colorado rivers, which greatly improved the surrounding land as habitat and range land as well as for recreation, etc. Much of it is already designated state and federal park land or wilderness making any development very difficult and problematic.
Since various residential and industrial developments are going to have to pay mitigation fees to improve habitat elsewhere, it only makes sense to spend those mitigation dollars where it would be most useful to Clark County (read Las Vegas). And that would be that range land east of Lake Mead. Keeps the money in the county and easier to skim off of via pork projects that seem to cost a lot yet do very little.
He is one claiming one right on that land..grazing rights....
Both historical and contractually ....
And he is being pushed off by the Federal claiming all and total rights over the land
The thing is the rights of the various party's are intertwined...
The US acquired sovereign over the land from Mexico..
But that is not clear ownership for the US to do anything is pleases..
The US government operates under the concept there are limits sovereign over its citizens
Mr Bundy can not sell his ranch to China and that ranch become a Chinese nuclear base..because the US own sovereign right on Bundys personal land.
But conversely the US could sell its rights all back to Mexico but would it effective Bundys rights to his personal land..or would he just be under a different sovereign?
Land rights are subdivided all the time..water rights, mineral right, even sovereign rights are sold among Nations..
But just because you buy or own one right it doesn't mean you own all the others..
We are talking one small subdivide component of land rights and ownership..grazing rights...
It is not if the US own 99.9% of the rights to the land...its if the own this 00.1% of the land rights..the grazing rights..
Because that what there claiming..total rights ...including grazing rights for federal government turtles ...
If you been grazing your cattle on that land from 1880 on..
You have what appears to be historical grazing rights on that land
And if you say the federal own the grazing rights first ..
You still have a historical claim to the lease of those grazing rights...
If the Fed decide to give his grazing right to a new different rancher and push Bundys cattle off the land for a new large corporate rancher it would still be the same issue.