re: BLM vs. Nevada Rancher

quote:

---

That's fine an all and I don't disagree in principle. However, what is the basis in law for the BLM to collect grazing fees?

---

I actually appreciate rational discourse, thank you.

BLM and Its Predecessors

A Long and Varied History

The BLM's roots go back to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These laws provided for the survey and settlement of the lands that the original 13 colonies ceded to the Federal government after the War of Independence.

As additional lands were acquired by the United States from Spain, France, and other countries, Congress directed that they be explored, surveyed, and made available for settlement. In 1812, Congress established the General Land Office in the Department of the Treasury to oversee the disposition of these Federal lands. As the 19th century progressed and the Nation's land base expanded further west, Congress encouraged the settlement of the land by enacting a wide variety of laws, including the Homesteading Laws and the Mining Law of 1872.

These statutes served one of the major policy goals of the young country: settlement of the Western territories. With the exception of the Mining Law of 1872 and the Desert Land Act of 1877 (which was amended), all have since been repealed or superseded by other statutes.

Click here for a comprehensive list of all the legislation that gives BLM its "multiple-use" mission

But it's my understanding that if the federal government incurs the cost of acquisition, it's their land. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

But I think Bundy's claim is that there is more to it than simple grazing fees. He claims he has water rights in perpetuity (as well as forge rights, IINM). Basically a right of way to access water.

This is not uncommon in property law. Land owners and their heirs and assigns can maintain rights of servitude to across another's property to access their own property or a road - in perpetuity.