Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the BLM is successful it would affect many land owners along the Texas/Oklahoma border. The difference between this and the Bundy Ranch case is that this rancher has the deed to the land and has paid taxes on it for decades.
If the BLM is successful it would affect many land owners along the Texas/Oklahoma border. The difference between this and the Bundy Ranch case is that this rancher has the deed to the land and has paid taxes on it for decades.
If you read through the American Freedom Fighters Article, I don't think you did or you would be mad at the river, not BLM. If you would take the time to read a more detailed article you would see that changes in boundaries next to rivers has been an ongoing issue well since we had rivers. They had the opportunity to comment on the proposed action in the Federal Register, but I guess it's national we hate BLM week.
I read all the links and then I went through all the links and maps on the BLM website about this new study they are doing. I'm familiar with this stretch of the Red River - for those of you who have never seen it, there isn't much "river". There is a very long bridge crossing the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma with very little water unless there has been a lot of rain. The other boundary conflicts that were mentioned are either West of this area in the disputed "Greer County" lands in 1894 or East of this area in the huge Lake Texoma area. This little piece of the Red River borders the Kiowa, Comanche, Apache confederation reservation that was created in 1867.
My main question both before and after looking at the links to articles was the entire BLM thing - why would the US Bureau of Land Management have anything as all to do with the Red River? IF they do have anything to do with the RR and Texas/Oklahoma border .... then why is it only this short stretch of the River?
This isn't about cattle grazing or even water rights (lots of battles between Texas & Oklahoma over water rights) - this is all about Oil and Gas and it started in 1918 when OIL was discovered on the Texas side of the Red River. That particular area on the North side of the River (Oklahoma) is a designated Indian Reservation and they wanted Royalties to the OIL that was found on the South side of the River ..... theory being that the Oil was also on their side.
The Feds jumped in the middle of that and claimed that part of the River that is the Souther Border of the Reservation. There were several Supreme Court rulings between 1921 & 1924 that finally came up with a way to designate the border - I have no idea why the Federal Claim stood, unless the Indians gave them the River Bed so they would fight for the Oil rights. Somebody would have to look up those old Court decisions to find how the BLM managed to claim ownership of a small stretch of the River Bed. That's the only part they lay claim to - the River Bed itself in just this small area .... very strange. Now they want to add 90,000 acres to the River Bed??? Doubtful.
Quote:
The 1894 Supreme Court decision stood until 1918 when oil was discovered on the south side of the river. Spokesmen for the Indian confederation and other private property owners demanded royalty payments for oil they claimed was being pumped from beneath their lands on the north side of the river. Asserting that the middle of the river to the southern bank was Oklahoma land, the state filed suit against Texas, an action that also reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Adding to the confusion, the federal government, while recognizing that the southern bank was the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas, claimed that it controlled the river bed and any natural resources found there. To further complicate matters, the expanding and contracting, eroding and accreting nature of the restless river bed made fixing the southern bank a very complicated matter indeed. In a series of Oklahoma v Texas rulings handed down between 1921 and 1924, the U. S. Supreme Court determined that:
"a cut bank is the relatively permanent elevation of a river that separates the bed from the adjacent upland;
that cut banks are permanent and stable enough to serve as fixed boundaries;
and for the purpose of fixing the boundary, the south bank is the cut bank of the Red River and thus forms the legal boundary between Oklahoma and Texas."
The BLM website has a study for each state - the (supposed) point of all this is to develop a "new" Resource Management Plan. I could tell right away that this particular area bordered Indian owned lands, it's interesting that the wording and maps in this new "Resource Management Plan" are ALL about Mineral rights and Oil and Gas rights. This is all done in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It's not a "Land Grab", it's an Oil Rights grabs.
Most States have a lot of Federally owned land - Texas has almost none and the same is true of Oklahoma.
The FEDs don't own much land in Texas (only what they have been given generally in bequests) because Texas was a Republic, not a US Territory and we kept the land and have extended Coastal rights that are double the Coastal rights of other coastal States. Oklahoma was a US Territory, but it was also an Indian Territory and they got the land instead of the FED's.
There was another case before the US Supreme Court in 2013 on the Texas/Oklahoma Red River - this one is about water rights. IF the BLM manages to "steal" all this Texas land (with it's Oil and Gas), then you can bet it will go to the Supreme Court again. Texas and Oklahoma have a lot of Oil and Gas, it's not so much that the Oil and Gas is here and it is that the Federal Government doesn't control it. No leases, no giant red tape to waddle through - just deal with the happy land owner that will get the Royalties.
There is an old story here in New England about the Yankee river bottom farmer that suffered through a massive flood. The river changed its course and, as the state boundary is the West bank of the river, moved the fellow from Vermont to New Hampshire. When he was asked what he thought of the situation he commented that it was a good thing because "I just could not stand another Vermont winter".
I have no idea what these Texans are complaining about. The BLM is the country's biggest welfare agent. When the BLM and the Forest Service start charging the same rate for grazing land the private owners charge the government will gain some credibility.
Kibby - Thanks for posting that information while I was creating my little missive. Texas and Oklahoma - Yeah, it had to be about oil.
To progs, Mammon is government, government, government. All worship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
I read all the links and then I went through all the links and maps on the BLM website about this new study they are doing. I'm familiar with this stretch of the Red River - for those of you who have never seen it, there isn't much "river". There is a very long bridge crossing the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma with very little water unless there has been a lot of rain. The other boundary conflicts that were mentioned are either West of this area in the disputed "Greer County" lands in 1894 or East of this area in the huge Lake Texoma area. This little piece of the Red River borders the Kiowa, Comanche, Apache confederation reservation that was created in 1867.
My main question both before and after looking at the links to articles was the entire BLM thing - why would the US Bureau of Land Management have anything as all to do with the Red River? IF they do have anything to do with the RR and Texas/Oklahoma border .... then why is it only this short stretch of the River?
This isn't about cattle grazing or even water rights (lots of battles between Texas & Oklahoma over water rights) - this is all about Oil and Gas and it started in 1918 when OIL was discovered on the Texas side of the Red River. That particular area on the North side of the River (Oklahoma) is a designated Indian Reservation and they wanted Royalties to the OIL that was found on the South side of the River ..... theory being that the Oil was also on their side.
The Feds jumped in the middle of that and claimed that part of the River that is the Souther Border of the Reservation. There were several Supreme Court rulings between 1921 & 1924 that finally came up with a way to designate the border - I have no idea why the Federal Claim stood, unless the Indians gave them the River Bed so they would fight for the Oil rights. Somebody would have to look up those old Court decisions to find how the BLM managed to claim ownership of a small stretch of the River Bed. That's the only part they lay claim to - the River Bed itself in just this small area .... very strange. Now they want to add 90,000 acres to the River Bed??? Doubtful.
The BLM website has a study for each state - the (supposed) point of all this is to develop a "new" Resource Management Plan. I could tell right away that this particular area bordered Indian owned lands, it's interesting that the wording and maps in this new "Resource Management Plan" are ALL about Mineral rights and Oil and Gas rights. This is all done in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It's not a "Land Grab", it's an Oil Rights grabs.
Most States have a lot of Federally owned land - Texas has almost none and the same is true of Oklahoma.
The FEDs don't own much land in Texas (only what they have been given generally in bequests) because Texas was a Republic, not a US Territory and we kept the land and have extended Coastal rights that are double the Coastal rights of other coastal States. Oklahoma was a US Territory, but it was also an Indian Territory and they got the land instead of the FED's.
There was another case before the US Supreme Court in 2013 on the Texas/Oklahoma Red River - this one is about water rights. IF the BLM manages to "steal" all this Texas land (with it's Oil and Gas), then you can bet it will go to the Supreme Court again. Texas and Oklahoma have a lot of Oil and Gas, it's not so much that the Oil and Gas is here and it is that the Federal Government doesn't control it. No leases, no giant red tape to waddle through - just deal with the happy land owner that will get the Royalties.
I read all the links and then I went through all the links and maps on the BLM website about this new study they are doing. I'm familiar with this stretch of the Red River - for those of you who have never seen it, there isn't much "river". There is a very long bridge crossing the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma with very little water unless there has been a lot of rain. The other boundary conflicts that were mentioned are either West of this area in the disputed "Greer County" lands in 1894 or East of this area in the huge Lake Texoma area. This little piece of the Red River borders the Kiowa, Comanche, Apache confederation reservation that was created in 1867.
My main question both before and after looking at the links to articles was the entire BLM thing - why would the US Bureau of Land Management have anything as all to do with the Red River? IF they do have anything to do with the RR and Texas/Oklahoma border .... then why is it only this short stretch of the River?
This isn't about cattle grazing or even water rights (lots of battles between Texas & Oklahoma over water rights) - this is all about Oil and Gas and it started in 1918 when OIL was discovered on the Texas side of the Red River. That particular area on the North side of the River (Oklahoma) is a designated Indian Reservation and they wanted Royalties to the OIL that was found on the South side of the River ..... theory being that the Oil was also on their side.
The Feds jumped in the middle of that and claimed that part of the River that is the Souther Border of the Reservation. There were several Supreme Court rulings between 1921 & 1924 that finally came up with a way to designate the border - I have no idea why the Federal Claim stood, unless the Indians gave them the River Bed so they would fight for the Oil rights. Somebody would have to look up those old Court decisions to find how the BLM managed to claim ownership of a small stretch of the River Bed. That's the only part they lay claim to - the River Bed itself in just this small area .... very strange. Now they want to add 90,000 acres to the River Bed??? Doubtful.
The BLM website has a study for each state - the (supposed) point of all this is to develop a "new" Resource Management Plan. I could tell right away that this particular area bordered Indian owned lands, it's interesting that the wording and maps in this new "Resource Management Plan" are ALL about Mineral rights and Oil and Gas rights. This is all done in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It's not a "Land Grab", it's an Oil Rights grabs.
Most States have a lot of Federally owned land - Texas has almost none and the same is true of Oklahoma.
The FEDs don't own much land in Texas (only what they have been given generally in bequests) because Texas was a Republic, not a US Territory and we kept the land and have extended Coastal rights that are double the Coastal rights of other coastal States. Oklahoma was a US Territory, but it was also an Indian Territory and they got the land instead of the FED's.
There was another case before the US Supreme Court in 2013 on the Texas/Oklahoma Red River - this one is about water rights. IF the BLM manages to "steal" all this Texas land (with it's Oil and Gas), then you can bet it will go to the Supreme Court again. Texas and Oklahoma have a lot of Oil and Gas, it's not so much that the Oil and Gas is here and it is that the Federal Government doesn't control it. No leases, no giant red tape to waddle through - just deal with the happy land owner that will get the Royalties.
One thing is confusing to me... most boundary law I'm aware of allows that a boundary may be defined by a moving natural object, but it must be set at a single point in time. For example, the Mississippi river is the boundary between TN and AR, as well as MS and AR. But if you take a look at the boundary (say, in Google maps), you'll see lots of places where the loops of the boundary don't follow the loops of the river. I.e., the boundary was set where the river was located at the time the boundary was legislated. The river changed, but the boundary didn't. So you have pieces of TN on the west side of the river and pieces of AR on the east side of the river.
Mr. Reid I have enjoy your post and you are spot on! What is reality of this is this is happening across the US. The current President and the DOJ has been Hell Bent in controlling free loving Americans. The Feds just may get a wake call when the masses say " no, enough is enough".
It is sad that we as Citizens have to fear the US Government and their over reaching powers. Mid terms are coming just around the corner and the American People will have to decides this very question when placing their vote.
Its post like this and guys like your self that is not bashful when it comes exercise one right to be "American:!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, I don't think you did or you would be mad at the river, not BLM. If you would take the time to read a more detailed article you would see that changes in boundaries next to rivers has been an ongoing issue well since we had rivers. They had the opportunity to comment on the proposed action in the Federal Register, but I guess it's national we hate BLM week.
Federal Power
