Arizona Proposal to Protect Salt River Wild Horses Sparks Controversy

The U.S. Forest Service recently backed off plans to round up and auction off a popular herd of horses that runs free along the Salt River following months of fervent public protest. But the horses' future remains uncertain because the issue that prompted the removal order remains: The herd doesn't qualify for protection from the federal government. Hoping to remedy the problem, state Representative Kelly Townsend has proposed a bill that would transfer ownership of the herd to the state. If approved, House Bill 2340 would make it a class 1 misdemeanor to “actively manage, take, slaughter, or euthanize” any of the Salt River horses. “These horses are beloved by so many folks,” said Townsend, chair of the Federalism and States' Rights Committee. “This is the best we can do as a state to try to protect them.” Townsend's bill gives responsibility for managing the herd, which could include birth control and euthanization, to the Arizona Department of Agriculture, but it stipulates that the agency may collaborate with the Forest Service or delegate the work to a private contractor...more

Militiamen, ranchers in showdown for soul of Burns

The strangers carrying the whisper of danger arrived in the vast territory of the Harney Basin just before the holidays. Ammon Bundy once helped his father repulse the government in an armed showdown on a Nevada desert. He was Tasered for his effort. Ryan Payne, an electrician from Montana, joined that same standoff and boasted of organizing civilians into sniper squads that drew a bead on federal agents. And not long ago, Jon Ritzheimer worried the FBI with his threatening rants against Muslims in Arizona and elsewhere. Now, the men say, they are in Burns to help Dwight and Steven Hammond. The Hammonds are father and son ranchers, due to report to federal prison on Monday. They were convicted in 2012 of arson for lighting public land on fire adjacent to their ranch land south of Burns. They have been imprisoned once and must return for an additional term after federal appellate judges said they had been illegally sentenced the first time...The Hammonds don't want to be part of the outsiders' cause, and neither do many in Harney County. But that hasn't stopped the strangers from summoning help from militia groups across the country. They are vague about their intention and their plans, unsettling the community and putting law enforcement on edge. The militia plan a rally and a parade on Saturday, circling the county courthouse that houses the sheriff's office...The Hammonds initially accepted the militia's offer of help to avoid 

prison, Bundy said. But the Hammonds changed their minds after being warned by federal prosecutors to stop communicating with the militia, Bundy wrote in a blog post. The Hammonds declined interview requests and didn't respond to written questions about their dealings with the militiamen. A Boise lawyer representing the Hammonds said in a letter to the sheriff that Bundy didn't speak for the ranchers and that they intended to surrender as required. Bundy and Payne and their associates are persisting, though. They explain in deliberate, calm tones their reasoning. The federal government claims title to most of the land in Harney County, the ninth largest county in the United States. Bundy and Payne maintain that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution limits what the federal government can own, and that the government's claim to much of Harney County violates that limit. The federal government consequently has no authority to prosecute the Hammonds. Bundy and Payne, who said he has moved to Harney County, have pressed the matter on several fronts. They have insisted that Ward, the sheriff, protect the Hammonds. They have written other elected officials in the county and in Oregon asserting the same demand. Some residents have shown interest in the group's cause. Locals voted seven of their own onto a new Harney County Committee of Safety, including ranchers, a retired fire chief, and a tax preparer...more

A lengthy article, and as I post this there are over 3000 comments at the site linked to above.

Utah to pursue lawsuit to seize control of federal lands

The federal government controls two-thirds of the land in Utah and the state says it's prepared fight to get it back. A Republican-dominated commission of Utah legislators voted Wednesday to move forward with a lawsuit challenging the U.S. government's control of federal lands — the latest salvo in a long-running feud. The commission made the decision after a consulting team it hired said its research concluded the Constitution does not give the U.S. government power to control federal lands within state borders. The team of hired lawyers recommended the commission urge the governor and attorney general to take on the lawsuit, even while warning it could cost up to $14 million, take years to play out in the courts and saying it would be far from a sure victory. "It's a solid argument but the court has never thought about it before," said Ronald Rotunda, a constitutional law expert part of the team of lawyers. "That's what makes it a very dramatic case." The only votes against moving forward came from two Democrats, who objected to the costs and questioned the objectively of the consulting team. The decision marks the latest indication that Utah's conservative leadership remains committed to moving forward with what many consider a longshot attempt to assert state powers...more

First large-scale exercise set in military air training area

Military airplanes are taking to the skies this week for the first large-scale exercise in a training area over the Northern Plains. The exercise in the 35,000-square-mile Powder River Training Complex is scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday. Bombers, fighter jets and refueling tankers will be practicing maneuvers in the airspace over the Dakotas, Montana and Wyoming, including Campbell County. After years of consideration, the Federal Aviation Administration in March approved quadrupling the training airspace, making it the largest terrestrial training space over the continental United States. Advocates say it will boost military training while reducing costs, but some people in the region worry about disruptions to towns, ranches and civilian flights. The training area expanded from 7,000 square miles to 35,000 square miles, stretching roughly 300 miles between Billings, Montana and Bismarck, North Dakota. It includes portions of northwest South Dakota, northeast Wyoming and much of southwestern North Dakota. The majority of the space would be over southeastern Montana. The expansion fueled a lot of controversy early on, especially among ranchers in both South Dakota and Wyoming who were concerned about the effect the loud noises from the jets would have on their ability to use personal planes to check on herds and spray crops. “We treasure our peace and quiet,” said Marvin Kammerer in 2010, who ranches near Ellsworth Air Force Base in southwest South Dakota. “If it’s so safe, then why don’t they just fly over Rapid City at midnight and let them hear the sound of freedom?” Another factor that people in the area worried about the effect were those in the aviation business. Some worried that those traveling for business would be required to wait a few extra hours at times when the Air Force would redirect their flights if they conflicted with training times...more

Michigan inks unique pact to help in 3 national forests

Michigan has entered into a unique agreement with the U.S. Forest Service that will allow state natural resources officers to support conservation efforts in the national forests located here. The “Good Neighbor Authority” pact will help bolster work being done in the forests, Ottawa and Huron-Manistee national forests located in the Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula. Details of the kind of work to be done in each of the forests will be hammered out in individual contracts in the coming weeks. “Good Neighbor Authority Projects will expand our capacity to achieve forest management outcomes described in the forests’ 2006 Land and Resource Management Plans,” said Kathleen Atkinson, the U.S. Forest Service’s eastern regional forester, in a statement. “I’m excited to have a new tool that allows us to work together in unprecedented ways into the future.” Michigan Department of Natural Resources officials will assist in restoring forest, range-land and watershed areas of the national forests. It’s an arrangement federal officials believe will benefit the communities where the work is done. It will include revenue generated by timber sales from the forest lands where the work is done. “This authority is a significant way for the Forest Service to partner with state agencies to make improvements to the land, benefiting local communities and their economies with timber receipts generated from Good Neighbor Authority,” Atkinson said...more

SCOTUS declines to hear Utah’s appeal over who owns rural roads

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear Utah's appeal on a test case over rights-of-way across public land, letting stand a lower court ruling that could undermine counties' legal claims to many of these disputed routes. The underlying case involved just a handful of roads in Kane County, but the ruling the state appealed affects its fight to gain title to many roads using the frontier-era law known as RS 2477. Last year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals explored the question whether "the United States either explicitly or implicitly disputed the [state's] title" to the roads. In its ruling released last December, a three-judge panel concluded that it had not. Routes deemed open in the Bureau of Land Management's travel management plans lack sufficient controversy for the courts to determine who owns them under the federal Quiet Title Act. This reasoning was affirmed Tuesday when the high court rejected the state's and Kane County's petitions to review the lower court's decision. "The majority of the state's 12,000 claims would fall into this box of no disputed title. If the route is open, why is there this fight?" said Steve Bloch, legal director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "It's important that the federal government should regulate these roads. It comes down to who's going to manage the public estate. The feds take a longer and broader view than the parochial view of the counties." But lawyers for the state and the county argued the 10th Circuit's "constricted and unprecedented" interpretation undermines the goal of the old road statute, which was to encourage development of remote Western lands by ensuring local jurisdictions held rights to routes pioneers carved across the public domain. States today can prevail on RS 2477 claims if they can a demonstrate 10 years of continuous public use on a particular road prior to the law's repeal in 1976. The routes at stake in the appeal are not particularly controversial because they are improved roads that do not enter wilderness quality lands and see regular vehicular traffic...more

As Valles Caldera moves to Park Service, pueblo’s claim to land lingers

A fog slowly lifted over the Valles Caldera National Preserve on Saturday morning as officials prepared for a dedication ceremony to mark the transition of 89,000 acres of land atop a dormant volcano to a national park. But despite Saturday’s sunny celebration of the transition — attended by high-ranking U.S. government officials and tribal elders — the matter o The pueblo’s website is soliciting contributions to the Jemez Pueblo Natural Resources Department to “help fund the final archaeological and ethnographic research to support the land claim” and to “help support litigation.” Jemez Pueblo members still consider the land sacred and use it not only for spiritual purposes, but for practical ones, too, according to an order by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the summer that allowed the pueblo to take its claims of ownership over the property back to U.S. District Court in Albuquerque. f who actually owns the land is still foggy. The fight in Washington, D.C., to bring the pristine Jemez Mountains property into the National Park Service has ended. But meanwhile, another fight about whether the United States owns the land or the Pueblo of Jemez, whose ancestors roamed this area as long as 800 years ago, is reviving in U.S. District Court. The Jemez Pueblo, fueled by a U.S. Court of Appeals decision over the summer, is engaged with the federal government in an ongoing legal dispute about its claim to the property...more

Here's hoping the Pueblo of Jemez proves their claim.  I'll bet they can make the unit pay for itself.  Could see a hunting cabins-ranch headquarters-casino combination that makes the public happy and the tribe wealthy!
 

Otero County appealing forest lawsuit

County Commissioners have decided to appeal a federal ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on a resolution authorizing them to remove trees from the Lincoln National Forest in an executive session at their regular meeting Thursday morning. According to Chief U.S. District Judge Christina Armijo, removing trees from the Lincoln National Forest without their consent is unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution County Commission Chairman Ronny Rardin said the fight on who has jurisdiction on forest lands has been an ongoing issue since he’s been elected into office in 1992 and believes the County has every right to manage those lands. “I’ve been quiet for the last year because this case has been in front of the federal courts. The judge finally ruled, which we have every reason to believe that she would vote against us, so our next step is to take this to the next level,” Rardin said. “What she said in her summary judgement is that the federal government as a whole has the authority of an exclusive legislative jurisdiction, which they don’t. If they have an enclave like Holloman Air Force Base does, they have exclusive legislative jurisdiction. Congress makes the rules, they follow the laws and they have police powers. The forest and BLM only have proprietary jurisdiction, which means that our sheriff is the law.” He said the County followed state law and has faith that the Supreme Court will rule in their favor because they follow the constitution. “We followed state law, Senate Bill 1 said we could do this, they came to sue us on that level. They’re going to have to prove to the courts that our state doesn’t have the authority to make law,” Rardin said. “Now that we have Lisa Jenkins, our new County Attorney, we’re going to go through her and we’re going to work this out and appeal it. I’m going to predict that we’re going to lose the appeal because they’re a very liberal court. The next appeal will go quickly to the United States Supreme Court and we believe that the Supreme Court, being a liberal court as well, will follow the constitution because they have in so many cases before.” Forest Supervisor Travis Moseley said that the ruling came as bittersweet but it was very important to the Forest Service as it reaffirmed their authority and jurisdiction of forest lands...more

Center for Western Priorities links Colorado push on federal lands to extremist organizations

By Joey Bunch

 The Center for Western Priorities has a new report out today that draws links to politicians who support more state and local control of federal lands in their states as extremists by showing the same cause is supported by groups that are politically unpopular for anti-federal-government positions.

The report titled “Going to Extremes: The Anti-Government Extremism Behind the Growing Movement to Seize America’s Public Lands” names Colorado Republican state Sens. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling and Kent Lambert of Colorado Springs, among other Western legislators.

“The elected officials supporting state seizure of public lands couch their arguments carefully, using innocuous rhetoric to claim that their only goal is better land management. But in reality, these politicians are following directly in the ideological footsteps of Cliven Bundy, the scofflaw rancher who owes more than $1 million in grazing fees to American taxpayers and doesn’t recognize the U.S. government as ‘even existing.'”

...The report linking politicians to extremist groups is built on their support for similar issues, not any formal membership or direct participation in any group’s more radical statements or operations.

I asked the center if this correlation between politicians and activist groups would be any different from associating Democrats who introduce legislation protecting endangered animal species with a group such as the Earth Liberation Front, for example, whose members burned down the Two Elk Lodge near Vail in 1998 over concerns for Canadian lynx habitat.

“They aren’t just supporting similar goals — they’re trying to pass legislation that goes directly to the demands and ideology of the Oath Keepers and Bundy Ranch supporters,” Aaron Weiss, a spokesman for the Center for Western Priorities, responded in an e-mail about the state-control advocates.

“When Kent Lambert mentions ‘posse comitatus’ during a floor debate, that’s a dog whistle to the Oath Keepers — there’s a tiny group of people who even know what the term means, much less cite it during the legislative session.”

Lambert said he hadn’t heard of the Oath Keepers before Tuesday, so it wasn’t a dog whistle but a reference to the “Federalist Papers, No. 29,” a letter from Alexander Hamilton to the people of New York in 1788 to the clarify the role of state militia in enforcing provisions of the Constitution.  Further, the often-cited 1878 Posse Comitatus Act limits the federal government’s role in domestic police matters. Lambert’s unsuccessful Senate Bill 39 would have recognized that state and local governments already has jurisdiction over U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

I think Senator Lambert pretty well sums it up:

Lambert said the report just seeks to vilify a political point of view the center doesn’t agree with.  “If you can’t debate an argument’s merits, then you make ad hominem attacks and try to vilify the message,”...

Calling it a report is a stretch, but you can see it here.

Can Federal Lands Save Schools? School Board member advocates state takeover

Shirley Dye, Payson Unified School District board member, thinks as Governor Doug Ducey does — the Arizona State Land Trust should pay for schools and she would like the school board to support her position. But Dye has taken it a step further; she actively advocates the state take over the federal government lands in Arizona and put them to use for schools. “ASBA (the Arizona School Boards Association) allowed us to give a presentation on the difference between the state trust lands and the federal lands (and) how both lands are being less productive because of federal regulations,” she said. Dye, like many others, believe the Environmental Protection Agency and Forest Service regulations on coal-fired energy plant emissions, mining land rehabilitation requirements, lumber harvesting and grazing limits have limited the ability of private businesses to make money off of the land. “It is all these environmental issues causing the problems,” she said. Dye believes if mines, lumber companies and ranchers start making money and paying taxes, the state budget would have enough to fully fund the schools. Currently, Arizona ranks near-last on per-student spending on schools. Dye has adopted the recommendations of The Property and Environmental Research Center report entitled “Divided Lands: State vs. Federal Management in the West.” The report took revenue and expenditure data provided by the state land trusts from Arizona, New Mexico, Montana and Idaho and compared that to federal land management numbers. The report suggests that state land trusts produce an average of $14.51 for every dollar spent on land management. In comparison, the report found that the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management only generates 73 cents for every dollar spent on land management. The PERC report came to the conclusion that the poor rate of return on federal lands stems from poor land stewardship, restrictions on using natural resources coupled with limited access...more

Utah stakes claim to Recapture Canyon citing repealed frontier-era law

The state of Utah has added a 9.22-mile "road" through Recapture Canyon to a list of 12,000 routes it is seeking to wrest from federal ownership. The archaeologically rich canyon outside Blanding, which federal authorities closed to motorized use eight years ago, was the scene of the 2014 ATV protest ride that resulted in the criminal convictions of San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman and Monticello City Council member Monte Wells. In a letter Wednesday to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, state officials say the state enjoys a "right-of-way" through the canyon under the repealed frontier-era law known as RS 2477. The law allows Western counties to claim title to routes over public lands if they can demonstrate 10 years of continuous use prior to the law's repeal in 1976. "The Recapture Canyon right-of-way is a small but important piece of the transportation system and economy of the State of Utah and San Juan County," wrote Kathleen Clarke, director of the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office. The claimed route stretches from Recapture Dam south to Perkins Road. Clarke's letter does not elaborate on the basis of the claim, but Lyman's supporters have argued that the canyon served as a historic thoroughfare between Monticello and Bluff and a conduit for cattle drives. So, the argument goes, the route should never have been closed and the protest leaders should not have been charged...more

Way to go, Utah!

PRIME Act Would Steer Meat Processing in the Right Direction

Late last week, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced a bill that would dramatically re-shape the way many animals are slaughtered for food in this country. The PRIME Act, which has several co-sponsors, including Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), would give states the option of setting their own rules for processing meat that’s sold inside state borders. That’s a power Congress took from the states and handed to the USDA in 1967. So just what is the PRIME Act, and why do we need it? As Rep. Massie told me by phone this week, the bill is intended “to enable local farmers to sell their products to local consumers without all of the red tape and expense [posed by] the federal government.” In place of that red tape, the simply worded, three-page PRIME Act would let states set their own standards. Rep. Massie, who with his family raises cattle on his Kentucky farm, knows the impact of USDA processing rules better than most. “I’m a beef farmer myself,” he tells me, “and when I take my animals to be processed, I drive past a custom facility three miles from my house and travel three hours to a USDA facility.” This is common. In talking with farmers and ranchers, it’s a story I hear time and again. As Rep. Massie explains, the facility certification process is expensive and challenging. Something as trivial as the diameter of a drainpipe in a concrete floor can make or break a certification application...more

Judge Confirms State Ownership of Mosquito Fork Submerged Lands

The U.S. Department of Justice has conceded and U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason Tuesday is signed an order confirming that the State of Alaska owns the submerged lands of the Fortymile River’s Mosquito Fork. This is a successful outcome for the State of Alaska, which filed a lawsuit in 2012 seeking to confirm state ownership of these lands. For decades, the ownership of the Mosquito Fork’s submerged lands has been a source of contention between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the State of Alaska. The beds of nearly all navigable waters in Alaska are owned by the state, but in this case, BLM disputed the navigability of all but 1.5 river miles of the Mosquito Fork. The State claimed ownership of roughly 80.5 river miles and much of those submerged lands lie within BLM’s Fortymile Wild and Scenic River Corridor...more

Normally the feds are on the other side of the navigability issue, claiming navigability to obtain jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.  But when it comes to submerged lands and Wild & Scenic rivers, they reverse policy, doing whatever it takes to maintain ownership/control. 

Cliven Bundy says Rand Paul promised to make Nevada a ‘sovereign state’ if he’s elected president

Scofflaw rancher Cliven Bundy said he met with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for nearly an hour this week and found he sees eye to eye with the GOP presidential candidate. Bundy, whose ongoing dispute over grazing rights on federally owned land sparked an armed militia standoff last year with the Bureau of Land Management, said Paul assured him he would grant the rancher’s demands and make Nevada a sovereign state if elected next year to the White House. “He said, ‘One of your biggest problems is getting Nevada to recognize its sovereignty and to stand up for its sovereignty,” Bundy told KNPR-FM. “He said he would turn over the jurisdiction authority and allow the state of Nevada to act like a sovereign state. He said it would be up to we the people to govern ourselves.” The rancher said Paul’s campaign staff escorted him to an impromptu meeting with the candidate after Bundy attended an event in Mesquite. A spokesman for the Paul campaign said he took part in no scheduled meetings during the appearance, and he said the candidate did not speak to anyone for as long as 45 minutes – as Bundy claimed. Paul said during the campaign event that he believed all land issues – including endangered species protections – should be handled by the states and not the federal government. Bundy said the candidate expressed an appreciation for the American Lands Council – a Koch brothers-funded group that is working to give states control over federally owned land through legislation and litigation. That’s the wrong approach, according to Bundy – who believes that states already own the land and hold sovereignty over its use...more

Editorial - Nevada should control its land and not settle for paltry alms

The silence is deafening.

Because so much of the West in general and Nevada in particular is controlled by the federal government and cannot be taxed, Congress four decades ago came up with a program called Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). Each year about this time the U.S. government writes checks to counties to compensation for lost tax revenue.

A year ago Nevada’s Democratic Sen. Harry Reid issued a press release bragging about all the money Nevada was getting, pointing out that “Nevada’s PILT payments rose roughly $2.1 million from $23.3 million to $25.4 million.”

“PILT funding has a remarkable impact for Nevada counties,” said Reid a year ago. “Over 85 percent of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government, making it essential that Nevada receive its fair share. These funds support rural communities across Nevada in funding high-quality education, law enforcement, and healthcare systems. I have worked hard to make sure that these crucial programs are fully-funded, and I am grateful that Congress was able to extend these provisions this year. I will work to ensure PILT is again funded for this upcoming fiscal year.”

This year no press release. Perhaps that’s because the Nevada checks this year amount to only $23.26 million, less than two years ago. Nationally PILT payouts are off by $32 million, down to $405 million from $437 million a year ago.

In a press release Interior Secretary Sally Jewell proclaimed, “PILT payments are critical for maintaining essential public services, such as firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search and rescue operations.”

The very next paragraph of the press release, without a hint of awareness of its miserly scope, reports that the “Interior Department collects about $14 billion in revenue annually from commercial activities on federal lands, such as oil and gas leasing, livestock grazing and timber harvesting,” and shares some royalties with the states.

So, the agency collects $14 billion from land that could well be held by the states, counties or private citizens and then magnanimously doles out less than 3 percent in PILT..

The state Legislature this year passed a bill urging Congress to turn over some of the federal land to the state.

A report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force noted that the BLM loses 91 cents an acre on land it controls, while the average income for the four states that have public trust land is $28.59 per acre.

READ ENTIRE EDITORIAL

Bundy blasts grazing compromise

Bunkerville, Nevada, rancher Cliven Bundy insists a settlement agreement between Northern Nevada ranchers and the Bureau of Land Management approved by an administrative law judge Wednesday will weaken his fight with the BLM and hurt other Western ranchers in similar positions. "They (the ranchers) are accepting that the federal government has unlimited power over their ranch," Bundy said. "The federal judge has no jurisdiction or authority over Nevada state land. The rancher should have protected his water, grazing and access rights to Nevada state land." Bundy, who was in a similar fight with BLM in Southern Nevada, said agreeing to compromise with the BLM was a sign of weakness in his fight for states' rights. Bundy doesn't dispute the need for good range management but said the settlement meant more than that. "I didn't hear anything in that about the rancher's rights," Bundy said. "Nothing about his water rights, his grazing rights, his access rights, his preemptive rights that were created through beneficial use. Nothing has been said about that." Administrative Law Judge James Hefferman approved the agreement in Reno between the BLM and Battle Mountain ranchers Dan and Eddyann Filippini allowing cattle to graze on the Argenta allotment that was previously closed by the BLM because of drought conditions, according to a BLM news release. The settlement announced Wednesday allows grazing on the Argenta allotment with specific conditions to prevent overgrazing on all public lands within the allotment. It was the result of 31/2 months of collaborative discussions between the BLM's Battle Mountain staff, the National Riparian Services Team, the Argenta permitees, Western Watersheds Project, John Carpenter and Nevada Lands Action Association and Public Lands Council, the BLM news release states. Key elements of the agreement include a 3-year trial period focused on adaptive management to respond to site-specific conditions; development of a stockmanship plan focused on the use of riding and supplement use to meet riparian (stream side) and upland use levels; increased attention to monitoring before, during and after seasons of use, and a commitment by BLM to complete the permit renewal process within three years based on information gained from the adaptive management trial period, the BLM said...more

Interior chief: Bundy will be held accountable

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said Wednesday she is confident that Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy, who with armed supporters faced down federal officials over grazing cattle on public land, will be held accountable. “Cliven Bundy has had multiple court orders to remove his cattle from federal public lands and he has not paid his grazing fees and he has not abided by the law,” Jewell told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “We will continue to pursue that.” Jewell spoke in Incline Village, where she was to deliver the keynote address to the Western Governors’ Association later in the day. In April 2014, Bundy supporters from around the country congregated on his remote Southern Nevada ranch after Bureau of Land Management officers tried to round up his cattle for failing to pay $1 million in grazing fees over the past 20 years. A tense standoff ensued before federal officials backed down and the cattle were released back to the range. “The safety of our law enforcement officers and the safety of people that represent land managers at every level is of paramount importance to me,” Jewell said. “The wheels of justice move at their own pace,” Jewell said. “I am confident this issue is going to be appropriately resolved.”  Source

Heinrich proposes feds have final say over power lines

Sen. Martin Heinrich wants to give the federal government the power to override state and local decisions on siting new power lines as part of an effort to help build grid capacity and boost renewable energy, but his proposal is drawing fire from Republicans concerned about federal overreach. Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, introduced legislation this week that would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to step in and approve “new priority” lines when local and state authorities can’t or won’t grant approval within a year of a project’s application. Current law allows the federal government to use eminent domain proceedings for construction of natural gas lines when local jurisdictions won’t approve them, but cities and states still have final say on electricity lines. Heinrich’s bill would change that. The senator said his legislation would only give FERC “narrow authority,” but state Land Commissioner Aubrey Dunn Jr., Gov. Susana Martinez and Rep. Steve Pearce – all New Mexico Republicans – told the Journal they oppose giving the federal government more say over state and local land use decisions...more

 

Folks shouldn't be surprised that Martin "The Federales Friend" Heinrich would introduce legislation such as this.  He doesn't believe that individuals, local gov't or state gov't have the knowledge, expertise or power to impose the environmental agenda upon us.  Put another way, he's afraid local government will pay too much attention to you and your neighbor's concerns and not enough attention to the latest national fad, in this case renewable energy.  Just pay your subsidies to the solar and wind industry, let them trounce your property rights and let Heinrich's feds have the final say.  

Still don't think he's the fed's best friend?  Just look who is exempt.  The articles says, "The expanded FERC authority would not apply to transmission lines crossing federal lands such as military bases or Indian reservations."  Your property isn't exempt, state property isn't exempt, but certain federal lands are exempt.  Their friend is watching out for them, but not for you.

Cliven Bundy helps renew old debate, but will things change?

by Michelle Rindels 

CARSON CITY, Nev. – When rancher Cliven Bundy arrived at the Nevada Capitol with hundreds of supporters recently to urge legislators to pass a bill demanding state control of federally owned lands within Nevada's borders, it renewed a fight over grazing rights that turned into an armed standoff last year. But it also represented the latest push in a decades-old tug-of-war that surfaces regularly in political debates and policy discussions.

This year, federal lands bills are being considered in 11 Western states, including Nevada. Here are some questions and answers about the debate:

•What's in dispute?
Several federal agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, administer land within state borders that isn't owned by private or other public entities. About 4 percent of land east of the State of Colorado is managed by federal agencies, while that figure is much higher in the West and is more than 80 percent in Nevada.  Much of this acreage is wilderness, and agencies including the BLM lease some of it for grazing and oil and gas development.

•What's being proposed?
Public lands bills in Western states run the gamut from measures that would study the cost of the state managing federal land, to measures asking or demanding Congress turn over property.
Nevada's measure is the most far-reaching and would lay claim to almost all federally managed public lands and water rights in the state.

•Why do such bills come up so regularly?
Part of it has to do with politically conservative values that prefer local control and resist federal overreach. It's also rooted in the belief that federal authorities are standing in the way of ranchers and developers who say they can use the land to create jobs and boost the economy.

•Who wants federal control maintained?
Conservationists worry that states would sell the land to oil and gas companies and mineral exploration firms, cutting off public access and allowing iconic landscapes to be destroyed.

•Why haven't the efforts succeeded?
The bills are largely considered to be unconstitutional because they put state authority ahead of federal law. But sometimes they do succeed, even if the effect is muted. In Utah, for example, legislators passed a law in 2012 demanding that the federal government turn over about 31 million acres of public land by the start of this year. The deadline for the transfer passed with no action, however, in a move predicted by both critics and supporters.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

The author pretty much quotes experts who give the movement short shrift. We shall see...

Public lands takeover bill draws Bundy crowd but is doomed

Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and about 100 supporters of a bill challenging federal control of Nevada public lands descended on the capital Wednesday to support the measure, but it will all be for naught. Assembly Majority Leader Paul Anderson, R-Las Vegas, said the Legislative Counsel Bureau has told leadership that Assembly Bill 408 from Michele Fiore, R-Las Vegas, is unconstitutional. “I wouldn’t expect us to move on that bill any further than it is now just because of the constitutionality of it,” Anderson said before the hearing began. Those attending the rally in support of the bill were quiet and orderly. The only minor dust-up occurred with an exchange between Bundy and a Native American man holding a sign saying “Bundy get off my property” who declined to be identified. Bundy said in his remarks that supporters of the bill are exercising their rights to have access to the 80-plus percent of Nevada land that is controlled by federal agencies. “We’re here to take our state back,” he said. At a rally in opposition to the bill, a crowd of about 50 called for the Legislature to keep Nevada’s public lands open to all. Critics say Fiore’s bill is unconstitutional and is based on a flawed legal theory about public lands, noting that on numerous occasions the U.S. Supreme Court has described the federal authority over public lands as “without limitation.” The hearing began with Fiore challenging the LCB legal opinion, noting that Nevadans have legalized medical marijuana despite a federal law to the contrary and the state has successfully fended off the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository for decades, both of which she said call into question federal authority over Nevada. More than two hours of testimony was presented by both supporters and opponents of the measure. But a further blow to the bill came in a fiscal note attached by the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which estimated it would cost the Division of State Lands $95 million to implement if an estimated 60 million acres of lands were taken over by the state. The committee took no action on the bill...more