I don’t see where I’m ‘spinning’ anything.
the article you posted, http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25301551/bundys-ancestral-rights-come-under-scrutiny
pointed to Bundy’s claim:
“I’ve lived my lifetime here. My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley here ever since 1877. All these rights that I claim, have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water and the access and range improvements,” Bundy said.”
I used two of the geneological data points contained in the article to demonstrate that, indeed, his family did live ‘up and down the Virgin Valley.’ Littlefield was settled in 1865 and is 10 miles from Mesquite, down the Virgin river. Bundy can claim relatives in both. In 1869, Powell’s expedition of the Virgin River was in danger from the Northern Paiute, so it was definitely ‘pioneer times’ Did his ancestors run cows? I don’t know, haven’t had a reason to dig that deep, but my first guess would be, yes. Settlers needed meat.
water rights:
“ The doctrine of prior appropriation, commonly referred to as “first in time, first in right,” was developed in California during the 1850s.
“The miners, just as they did with the mining laws, developed their own water laws before any state or federal court or legislature spoke,” writes University of Colorado professor Charles Wilkinson in “Crossing The Next Meridian.” “If two men, or companies, came in and diverted a whole stream, so be it. If just one took the whole stream, so be it. They needed it; they depended on it; they had rights to it.”
In 1882, the Colorado Supreme Court made the definitive ruling that established prior appropriation. It remains the most important decision ever handed down in any Western court.
In “Coffin v. Left Hand Ditch Co.” the court ruled that the upstream water user who held senior water rights could legally divert an entire river out of basin, despite the burden that was placed on Coffin, a farmer who was the downstream user.
The decision meant that a river’s water, like gold in a mining claim, is a resource. It belongs to those who are smart enough, tough enough, rich enough and lucky enough to seize it.”
http://csbj.com/2013/08/20/water-wars-warriors-still-changing-history-in-west/
now, I’m sticking with the article you posted, but if you want to address a few stray cows in Lake Mead (photo evidence please), we can go there, too. By the way, the Lake Mead aspect is an issue because a conservation group threatened to withhold a large grant to the BLM for protection of the ‘willow flycatcher’ until all cattle were removed from Lake Mead (or was it just Bundy cattle?). As for who Bundy bought his ranch from, who are we to know it wasn’t a relative or family friend?
California uses a dual doctrine, both prior appropriation and riparian. As does Oregon and Washington. Because these states straddle the Cascades/Sierra Nevada, which is the western wet/dry line.
The eastern wet/dry line is the 98th meridian so those states that straddle that line use the dual doctrine(prior appropriation and riparian). TX, OK, KS, etc.
So NM, AZ, NV, UT, CO, etc use the single doctrine prior appropriation.
Those states to the east use the single riparian doctrine, which is descended from English Common law.
On top of all this, in 1908, SCOTUS established the Winters Doctrine, aka Federal and Indian Lands Reserved Water Rights, commonly called Reserved Water Rights. This established that tribes with a treaty right to farm also had a right to water for irrigation, and Reserved water rights trump prior appropriation water rights. To put it another way, First in Time, first in right becomes second in line second in right behind reserved water rights.
Then, towards the end of the 20th century, in a series of decisions, the courts re-interpreted Reserved Water Rights to include a tribes' treaty right to fish as well as flora and fauna. These new Reserved Rights manifest as a minimum flow.
And as a practical example of this, the delta smelt had a reserved water right in the form of a minimum flow, and the delta smelts' reserved water right trumped those farmers' prior appropriation water right.
Anyway, back to Bundy, the court ruled against Bundy's claim of vested rights. And when Bundy himself paid the grazing fees to Clark County rather than BLM, he acknowledged that he had no vested rights. And Bundy and his father paid grazing fees from 1954 to 1992 acknowledging that Bundy had no vested rights.