Posted on 04/25/2014 11:34:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, issued the following letter April 24 to the Bureau of Land Management asking the agency to respond to concerns raised by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott about the Red River Boundary Compact and associated lands.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Honorable Neil Kornze
Director
Bureau of Land Management
United States Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW, Room 5665
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Kornze,
In a letter dated April 22nd, 2014, the Attorney General of Texas Greg Abbott asked for responses to five specific inquiries regarding Bureau of Land Management land claims along the Red River.
These concerns were prompted by reports from BLM field hearings that the federal government may claim up to 90,000 acres of land along the Red River.
Atty. General Abbott issued a letter to BLM asking for the following concerns to be addressed, in writing. I also would like BLM to respond to these requests.
1. Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
2. Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
3. Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.
4. Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.
5. Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.
Though BLM issued a statement from April 23, 2014 in which the agency states that: “BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River,” this response does not answer General Abbott’s concerns. In addition, BLM’s statement does not address whether the agency takes the position that the 90,000 acres of land in question along the Red River is already BLM land, which would make the agency’s “categorical denial” an act of deceptive sophistry.
Therefore, I would like to make an additional inquiry:
6. Please confirm that BLM does not take the position that it has rights to ownership or control of any of the 90,000 acres of land along the Red River that are at the center of this controversy or similarly situated land. If it claims any such rights, please identify with specificity the acreage, location and legal basis for claiming those rights.
If BLM indeed does not intend to claim any land which it does not already administer along the Red River, the answers to these questions should be quite straightforward.
I ask that you or your staff respond in writing to General Abbott and me, answering our questions directly and specifically, as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Ted Cruz
U.S. Senator
I assume any changes made then were under Eminent Domain, with compensation to owners,
Also that changes in a river’s course are ‘old stuff’ legally.
Haven’t seen a good article on the issues involved. Doesn’t seem like the BLM could cause much trouble about the thin strip they ‘hold in trust’ for the Indians.
That particular case dating back about 30 years ago was not taken by Eminent Domain, and the land owner did not receive any compensation.
He had a loan that the US Government gave him, where they acknowledged the property was his, and title insurance for the land showing clear title to him.
As I understand it, he and another private party (not the Feds) had a court dispute in Oklahoma regarding the boundary, and the Oklahoma judge made the ruling, that the land belonged to neither party, but to the Feds.
So he had to continue to pay his loan off which included the price of that land, or they could have foreclosed on the entire ranch. The title insurance refused to pay.
None of which makes any legal sense to me. Now because of this case, the BLM says it owns some 116 miles of land along the Red River, and that’s about 90,000 acres. That’s seems to me like more than a small strip of no trouble.
So that’ the situation as I understand it, but I still can’t figure out any logical reason for that judge to have made such a ruling. Now, I could be mistaken, but I have read as much as I could find, and listened to the interviews of Tommy Henderson, so I am hoping that someone here will be able to get some more details.
Also that changes in a river’s course are ‘old stuff’ legally
***************************************************
George Bush signed the agreement making the boundry line the south bank of the Red River at the vegetation line. That’s not so old.
It also means that the boundary line for the states changes when the river channel changes. The real estate that I am familiar with usually starts at the mid point of the river or stream, but the person on the North or South still own the property North or South from the mid-point - it’s not used as an excuse to give it to someone else.
Cattle! With power over that thin strip from mid-river to ‘the vegetation line’ the BLM can destroy the local landowners by denying cattle access to water.
... For the good of some species of gnat or crawdad.
Not sure what a “vegetation line” is. BLM probably would also claim grass isn’t ‘vegetation’...
The border of Texas has twice been decided by the Supreme Court to be the southern bank (or worse) of the Red River:http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v002/v002p298.html.
Not aware of the specific case you mentioned.
The border of Texas has twice been decided by the Supreme Court to be the southern bank (or worse) of the Red River:http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v002/v002p298
*****************************************************
Yes, I knew about the Supreme Court cases. This case was decided in a Federal District Court located in Oklahoma. Texas Landowner Tommy Henderson lost over a hundred acres, but as I understand it, it was between him and some other person (not BLM).
I have read a few articles about the case, but have yet to see any that give enough particulars to find it, and review the case, nor has there been any links.
Like I said, I am just hoping that someone is able to find it and enllighten us all. I thought by asking the question, maybe someone else would pick up on it.
Wish I knew, Nanette. I just found the image in the wild and posted it here because it expresses everything we're about. If I run into a source for them, I'll let you know.
Question if either of you have any info/observations.
Looking at a map of Red River along the Texas/Oklahoma border it seems to me the
map shows the state boundary varying to both sides of the Red River.
example:
Take the following map and explode it until you get a close up of the Tx/Ok, Red River
area and look at the supposed state boundary.
The Red River Boundary Compact
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/NR/htm/NR.12.htm
or
multiple articles here:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sa=N&tab=lw#q=red+river+boundary+compact
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v002/v002p298.html
“...Red River is an extraordinarily crooked stream with many sharp bends, turns and convoltions; so that the length of the river bounding Oklahoma is 539 miles where in a direct line the distance is but 321 miles. It developed that in times of floods, by the action known as avulsion the river would cut across a bend and make a new channel, and a tract of land formerly north of the river and therefore in Oklahoma would thereafter be south of the river, and vice versa.
The [Supreme] court decided that where intervening changes in the bank have occurred through the natural and gradual processes known as erosion and accretion, the boundary has followed the change; but where the stream left its former channel and made for itself a new one by avulsion, the boundary has not followed the change but has remained on and along what was the south bank before the change occurred. “
Sure does make for a messy border.
buuuump!
Thanks for the links, especially the statutes. As I had expected, the statute specifically states that the boundary agreed to may change from time to time, but will in no way impact the property owners other than for which state can tax the property, when/if the boundary changes.
So there was no reason for a judge from Oklahoma to award any acreage to the US government/BLM. Any dispute between property owners should be resolved in favor of one or the other property owners.
Still searching for the link to the court proceedings for the Henderson case of about 30 years ago, which gave Henderson’s land to the FEDS.
If you can get the following to load it is the genisis of this BLM land review. It list the goals which culminate in 2017.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/219455667/OFO-Newsletter-Final-i
The Tommy Henderson thing was back in 1986 in a US Federal District Court in Oklahoma. Try the following or search for Currington v Henderson 1986.
Take care.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986
Thanks I was missing the other name, and tried a bunch of stuff using the date and Henderson to no avail. This should help. Thanks again.
Ok. Thanks again for the links. That court case defined the River north of the midpoint of the Red River to belong to the OK. land owners.
The part of the river from the midpoint to the southern boundary as belonging to the US Gov’t held in trust for the Indians.
And the land to the South of the OK/Texas boundary as belonging to the Texas property owners.
This court relied on Supreme Court decisions and a prior case James v Langford.
It appears that the language used in the original land deal from Spain cuts the Texas side off from owning any land under the Red River.
Will have to read the other cases to see how exactly the US was able to claim anything on behalf of the Indians.
I’m a big Cruz fan, and I am TICKED at him for posting that moronic tigerskin rug post on FB. I don’t know if the tigerskin is real or polyester, but it looks real, and it is MAJOR fodder for attack ads later on. He was an idiot to post that. He needs to take it down, apologize, and do a tiger conservation fundraiser or something. This one stupid post will come back to bite him later if he doesn’t defuse it now.
Cruz is brilliant in that he is able to move to the “core issue” almost immediately and put the government on the defensive with his direct questions.
OK, thanks. I would love an actual flag - or a bumper sticker.
Or, he could just say “so what?” to his accusers. That would defuse it way more than an “apology.” The Left knows that people can’t be cowed unless they let themselves be. That’s why Leftists get away with so much - they just don’t care what other people think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.