Posted on 11/08/2017 4:13:34 PM PST by Tammy8
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – A U.S. court has sided with a New Mexico ranching family in a decades-long battle over access to water on national forest land, providing more certainty that state law allows for the protection of water rights dating back more than a century.
The case of the Goss family has been closely watched by thousands of ranchers who hold grazing permits across the West. Attorneys and others say the outcome could have ripple effects on ranchers and rural communities that have often complained about federal land managers trampling property rights.
The Goss family claimed the federal government violated its constitutional rights by not providing just compensation after condemning property — in this case water rights that had been established before Lincoln National Forest was created.
U.S. Court of Federal Claims Chief Judge Susan Braden agreed. On Friday, she ordered the family and the U.S. Forest Service to determine whether alternative water sources are available that can allow the family — operating as the Sacramento Grazing Association Inc. — to operate a viable cattle business.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...
Braden was appointed Chief Judge by President Trump.
Wasn’t Harry Reid involved in the background of this dispute?
Wow. Thanks for the info. Now all he has to do is remove that idiot judge from HI who keeps stalling with the muslim travel ban.
This is a very important decision, and a just one. I think it will affect the whole country, as part of the process of reversing all those destructive left-wing regulations.
Federal judges don’t serve at the pleasure of the sitting President (if they did, they’d be cleared out every 4 or 8 years, both good and bad). They can only be impeached by Congress, and Democrats would never allow that to happen.
I have only heard Harry Reid’s name in connection with the Bundy issues, and other ranchers in Nevada.
This case is in New Mexico and is a case that has been pretty low profile, as far as not covered nationally. The issue of ownership of water rights has been at the core of most rancher disputes with the federal government.
I see.
It is an important decision, not sure if there will be an appeal process. It should interest those interested in States Rights as well because the state of New Mexico did and does recognize the Goss claim of water rights. The issue was the feds did not recognize that.
That’s refreshing!
.
This decision should not have been necessary.
Scotus ruled in the late ‘80s that water rights were property that required compensation when taken.
.
Not only that, but there was no environmental reason for doing it whatever. The Feds pay the factory farmers up north huge subsidies for planting and harvesting corn to wreck gasoline, which buys the Dems a ton of votes. Then they turn around and go after ranchers who have carefully preserved the lands they feed their cattle on for more than a hundred years. Its all a matter of pork and votes.
Yep, Trump did good promoting her.
The concept of Federal land long ago outlived it’s intent. Originally intended to manage land that states were unable to manage themselves does anyone still think that states cannot now do so?
At this point so many things have changed I have no idea what a real solution would be to be honest. The original intent was for western lands to be homesteaded out like they were in the East and Midwest. The problem was in the arid west it was impossible to make a living on a homestead size property. The government should have made homesteads bigger in the arid areas but instead ended up keeping the land. Later the idea was to turn federal land (other than actual National Parks, Monuments and that type of set aside) over to states but that didn’t happen either.
One problem I see with simply turning it over to the states now is the same liberals that hounded the federal government to save various critters and get rid of ranching and farming now have quite a bit of power in the western states. It would result in returning power that comes with land to states, which I would normally be all for, but who knows. I don’t know with the mindset of most liberals and many others for that matter if it would help ranching, farming, mining, logging, ETC.
I really don’t know what it will take for people to realize how important the growing of their food is, most don’t even have a clue where their food comes from before it gets to the store. Not to mention how importing mining is, hard to operate many things without copper for example. Logging is needed to maintain healthy forests so they don’t end up being an inferno of destruction. So many people don’t understand how anything really works, those that do are dying of old age.
Did the Hage family near Tonopah, Nevada, EVER get the financial payout that a Federal Judge ordered years ago?
The interest keeps b uilding on that judgement every day. Started out near $14 million, IIRC.
IF it hasn’t been paid yet, Trump needs to step in & demand it get paid. NOW.
Paying a one time price for water taken from ranchers living on the land for generations isn’t economically viable for those ranchers, either.
Driving ranchers out of the cattle raising business will eventually impact the food supply in the USA.
IF this topic is of interest to you, try to find a copy of RANGE MAGAZINE, which is printed in Carson City, Nevada. They have a website.
.
I used to subscribe to Range, but ran out of time to read it.
They do understand the power inherent in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
.
I have read about the Hage story, their big win was overturned:
The government plays a game where they decrease the number of cattle allowed, increase fees to the point the rancher will go out of business. If a rancher takes them to court the rancher has a big issue...if they don’t sign whatever the government is offering them in the way of grazing then they cannot legally graze cattle at all. If they do sign they destroy their own case. These things drag on for years and the government will not allow the rancher to pay one cent of grazing fees without a signed agreement so by the time it all drags through court the rancher “owes” a large sum of money in fines and interest. Then it becomes a legal battle over grazing cattle without paying which is always a losing battle for the rancher, both legally and in getting support for their issue.
These things always begin with the government trying to put the rancher out of business- and that is usually what happens. Few will fight because it has always been a battle lost and at great cost- financial ruin and mental and physical stress on the whole family. The rancher usually owns water rights but the government does not recognize that and does not want to pay for taking the water rights which happens when the rancher can no longer run cattle on the land where he owns the water rights. The core issue legally in the beginning is the water rights. If the government takes away the grazing rights that is not really legally defensible by the rancher (it should have been the way they were historically set up but at this point it doesn’t work legally) but if legally water rights are upheld at least the government would have to pay the rancher for them and not just get the water rights for free as a result of putting the rancher out of business- which is the usual result. This has happened to many, many ranchers but only a few have fought back:
Those in the Sagebrush Rebellion, including Hage family, and in reality the Bundy family and others.
Wally Klump in Arizona
Kit Laney in New Mexico
Now the Goss family with this case, which is why this case may turn out to be really important- it was a water rights ruling. Epic if it stands!
There are others who have fought legally, most give up quickly as it dawns on them what they are taking on. It is interesting reading about the various battles, and very sad. Some ranchers have gone to jail during the process, ended up divorced- even suicide/family murder in one family while the mess drug on. A stunning number of ranchers have simply walked away and let the government get rid of them with no compensation for their loss of water rights or any other loss as a result. As bad as imminent domain can be- what if the government could just take without paying? That is what is happening.
The federal government got around that easily by simply denying the ranchers own the water rights. It is such a financial burden to legally fight the government most ranchers walk away. Those that do file legal claims are few, and the issues generally get twisted by the government, and it is luck of the draw to get a judge that follows the law.
Read my post #19 then look into some that fought for their water rights to be recognized.
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.