Texas Boy Scouts: BLM Eyeing Our Camp (Video)

WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS--With the focus on the possible loss of property held for generations of ranchland owners in north Texas, others who might also be affected by the BLM’s Red River Land Grab could be overlooked. During a meeting with Texas State Senator Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), Breitbart Texas learned that land owned by the Northwest Texas Council of the Boy Scouts of America is also reportedly being targeted by the BLM land management study. Boy Scout Council President, Wayne Mansur, sat down with Breitbart Texas to explain what his organization and the young people he serves are facing.

I must be missing something here. Does the BLM own the Red River bed?

If the river moves to the South, parts of Texas could be in Oklahoma, but still owned by ranchers in Texas, and if the river moves North, parts of Oklahoma could be in Texas and owned by ranchers in Oklahoma.

So where does the BLM come in on this? This sounds more like a state issue than a BLM issue.

**********************************************************
I had similar questions, and here's what I have found so far:

Background info on the Henderson case and the Oklahoma/Texas Boundary are noted below:

The ADAMS/ONIS TREATY of 1819:
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Adams_Onis_Treaty_1819.pdf

SUPREME COURT CASES:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/172

Rule of ERROSION and ACCRETION: If a stream changes gradually due to natural erosion and accretion, the boundary changes. (With current day technology, I don't know that this is even necessary).

Rule of AVULSION: If a river suddenly leaves it’s bed and forms a new one whether by natural or some other means, the boundary does not change, even though the course of the river changes.

A brief description of each and how they impact Texas and the HENDERSON CASE.

This treaty of 1819 settled the boundaries of USA purchase/ownership of land. One of the issues was the boundary between current day Oklahoma and Texas.

Adams was determined to have the whole of the Red River belong to the USA. The Spanish representative wanted it to be the medial point of the River, but eventually acquiesced to Adams.(Note many states do use the medial line of a river as the boundary between them). If the medial point had been chosen, there would not have been as much contention.

Both parties agreed that the people of both nations could continue to use the Red River. Any islands in the River were to also be the property of the USA. Any grants made prior to Jan 24, 1818 to individuals were to be honored.

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Treaty in their decision regarding the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. There is also the treaty with the Indians to consider, which I haven’t had time to track down.

The various court rulings have resulted in the following:

1. Oklahoma Plaintiffs(Riparian Owners) awarded the lands north of the medial line of the Red River.

2. Lands lying in the bed of the river south of the medial line are in trust for the Indians (owned by USA -hence the BLM “management”).

3. Lands of the south bank belong to Texas Land Owners subject to the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion.(A bunch of twisted rules that should be outdated by modern technological ability - JMHO).

4. The bank of the river on the south side was determined by the Supreme Court to be the high water mark - not the low water mark.(I agree with the dissenting opinion here - it should have been the low water mark).

The judge who ruled on the Henderson case relied on the prior court rulings and the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion. Here’s a link to the case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986

It sucks. I think if Henderson could trace the ownership back to an original Spanish Land Grant which included ownership to the medial point of the River, or even to the low water mark, he might have been able to prevail.

His family had ownership back to the later 1800’s, IIRC from his interview with Greta, but not back to 1818.

Note: In all the agreements and info I have tracked down so far, the rights of individual landowners have been acknowledged. However, the courts are looking back to the Adams/Onis Treaty, and so far the deeds in the cases where the landowners lost have not gone back that far.

Apparently it didn't have anything to do with navigation.

It goes back to claims that the US made on the northern half of the river bed and claims that Spain, Mexico, and Texas never made. And those claims that the US made on the northern half were inherited by OK when she became a state.

The issue that precipitated this particular court case was oil. Oil was discovered and some of these Texas drillers were directional drilling to the north and producing oil from lands owned by Okies. So Oklahoma sued Texas. And in this case the US claimed the southern half of the bed, AND THE MINERAL RIGHTS BENEATH THE BED.

The other dispute is where the Red intersects the longitudinal line border. In that corner there are 3 forks to the river. Texas established the north fork as the boundary, but in a treaty with the Indians, the US established the middle fork as the boundary.

We look at this issue backwards, literally. We need to go back to 1907 and look forward to get a different perspective. 1918 and 1924 are not long after 1907.

Also, you need to realize there are other issues in play. Texas has been trying to get the water out of Oklahoma's Kiamichi River and the courts(federal) keep ruling against Texas. And, it is campaign season in Texas.

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.