So the BLM has been in the news lately and now they see to be at it again.... This case seems like this land owner is getting royaly screwed. http://www.rfdtv.com/story/25206377/oklahoma-texas-border-dispute-has-ranchers-worried http://www.inquisitr.com/1211766/bl...-not-belong-to-texas-attempts-to-seize-ranch/
At one time we owned several hundred acres of farmland/pasture. My dad said, on more than one occassion, "We don't 'own' land, it's just ours to use for a time." Today there are houses on land I used to crawfish. When I pass and see those houses, I think of what dad said. It gives me pause to realize just how insignificant our lives really are. Many of those who live in the houses don't even realize who, over the years, "owned" that land before them.
You might be surprised. With title searches done on nearly every piece of real property, this trivial information is out there. Most just don't give a shit and there is really no reason why they should.
Unlike most states, which were US territory before statehood, Texas was an independent country that joined the US under terms of a treaty that had a lot of special features. One is that there is no federal land in Texas, other than that purchased for military bases. BLM essentially has no job in Texas. Other oddities include Texas have a 3-league territorial waters line instead of the 3-mile line that Louisiana has. Texas gets much more offshore area oil and gas resources that Louisiana lose to the federal government. Texas also has the right to divide itself into as many as five states, if it so chooses. Most of the river bottoms involved here are environmentally protected wetlands that can't be developed. Much of it is also unsuitable for cattle grazing because of floods, shifting braided river channels. It's all about the mineral rights. Something similar happens in Louisiana when coastal land loss converts land into bays. All water bottoms are owned by the state. Landowners lose the land and its mineral rights when their marshes become shallow water.
It is hard to imagine this is anything more than hype. After the bags of shit people presented as factual regarding the deadbeat Cliven Bundy I just take everything with a huge grain of salt.
Bundy is simply a thief. Possibly a kook. But boundary disputes based on stream migration has been an issue for 300 years in this country.
It goes the opposite way as well. LA 70 is the only road into Morgan City from the north, but it goes between the Intracoastal Canal and Lake Palourde just before entering the city. Until about 10 years ago, there was only about 20 feet of shoreline between the highway and the lake. But they came in and built a rock jetty, then pumped in river silt until they had about 500 feet of land, of which the state claimed ownership.
So you think there is creedance to this? Why would BLM want the land? It is more for them to maintain. The agency regularly tries to get rid of or lease it's assets so they don't have to burden the costs of maintenance. I have touble seeing the motivation for a federal land grab.
Harry Reid wants the land for his Chinese backed solar farms scheme. He is heavily involved in this and it is not to save a tortoise. The BLM's new director is Big Harry's former senior advisor. Bundy has been using that land and has not paid any land usage fees. I don't think he has a legal stance, only an emotional one that drives anti-govt people to rally in support.
