B4Ranch,
I know you’ve been all over this issue, I’ve done a little research myself and would like to know your thoughts.
From what I can tell, it comes down to this:
BLM issues “Grazing permits” that require compliance with their Terms and Conditions. This includes a limit on the number of cattle (as a result of pressure from environmentalists)
If a Rancher has less cattle grazing on public lands he will lose the rights to the water since he is not using the water.
The BLM has been consistently shrinking the acreage for these allotments for well over 20 years.
The BLM is engaged in a two, maybe three step process to drive the rancher out of business.
They are forcing the rancher into a catch 22. Agree to the terms and they lose their water rights, without the water rights they can’t allow their cattle on public lands.
It seems to be more about the water than anything else.
Keep in mind these “water rights” are not for “resale” but for use by cattle.
The BLM has been slowly reducing access by shrinking the allotments and forcing a reduction of livestock (terms and Conditions) that, in turn forces the reduction/forfeiture of “water-rights” (lack of use), that ultimately forces the rancher out of business.
That’s my understanding.
Please point out where I may be wrong.
Then there's what I call the Reid Twist. This follows the Golden Rule. Whomever has the Gold makes the rules. So Reid has decided that he should, "Make as much money as I can because I am a very powerful Senator."
If a corporation wants to invest on what's known as BLM land, then they will pay whatever Harry thinks they should. Some will be above the table in the form of political contributions and some will be hidden out of the line of direct sight. Perhaps a land trade or shuffle something off to his family members. Whatever is necessary to get the deal done.
Now that Reid has his man in the top BLM seat, things should speed up quite a bit. The troubling thing about all this is that the BLM should not even exist. Just because some politicians decided to screw over the western states doesn't make it legal.
The Resolution of 1780, "the federal trust respecting public lands obligated the united States to extinguish both their governmental jurisdiction and their title to land that achieved statehood."
The Resolution of 1780 formed the basis upon which Congress was required to dispose of territorial and public lands when a state became a state.
Articles of Confederation, Article VI, clause 1 All engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. In Article IX "... no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States."
Formation of a "more perfect union" does not absolve that union of prior engagements,including those obligations establish by the resolution of 1780 and the Articles of Confederation.
Pretty close but it is very complicated. Grazing rights themselves have been considered part of the value of the ranch and still are in fact though the value has to be taking a huge hit with the courts ruling against the ranchers on the lease issues.
In some areas the government has cut down the amount of land available for lease and in other areas the size of the acreage stays the same but the government reduces the number of cattle allowed to graze. The outcome is the same ranchers herds are downsized by the government until they are out of business.
A couple of interesting things...in these cases I have been told the government does not try to change the numbers of cows on the rancher’s actual grazing rights...they claim the lower numbers they are allowing on a new lease are temporary and give many excuses as to reduction (usually an endangered specie) so to be clear a rancher may on paper have grazing rights for 1000 cows on his ranch and the government will only issue a lease for 100. Meaning if he tries to exercise his grazing rights and run 1000 cattle he is in violation of his lease. In other cases the government has said they want the rancher to keep cows off for say 5 years for usually some endangered specie issue. Can any business close for 5 years and stay in business?
The reason I find it interesting that the government does not seem to try to change the allotment number of cattle that the ranchers grazing rights call for, they instead change the number allowed on the lease for some “temporary” reason. That makes me wonder if the government lawyers think if they try to change the rancher’s actual grazing rights numbers/allotment numbers, animal units that go with a ranch, etc. then legally the government might lose in court because these grazing rights go back pretty far in law. By changing the lease itself and claiming it is temporary- for say 5 years or the remainder of the lease or until xyz happens- however they decide to word it they can win in court because the rancher violates that lease. If the rancher will not sign the contrived lease then he is in violation if he has more cows on the land even if his grazing rights allow it. If a rancher does not agree to the conditions of the lease, they cannot pay the lease because the government will not take the money. This is how they get the ranchers that want to take a stand on this- if they continue to run the cows they are allowed by their grazing rights without a lease they are in violation. The government will not let the rancher pay fees based on his grazing rights if he won’t sign a lease agreeing to the new conditions the government is imposing. So the government can say- cattle are trespass, rancher doesn’t have a lease or rancher didn’t pay his lease.
This is tricky to understand but there can be a difference between the number of animals a rancher has grazing rights for and the number the government will give them a lease for. The real problem is even if a rancher were financially secure enough to play the game when the government starts this shenanigans there are other issues in play. Sometimes grazing rights and water rights on ranches can be lost if they are not used for a certain number of cattle or not at all. So if a rancher plays the game and keeps signing and following the leases the government is changing the rules on he can lose his grazing rights and water rights for not using them correctly. The upshot is if the government wants your cows off of your ranch they can regulate you off.