Land And Water U.S.A.




Saturday, February 18, 2017

SYLVESTER FOUNDATION ACTING SCHOLARSHIPS

SYLVESTER FOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION
TO LEA MARLENE ACTORS STUDIO
& The Namastage Theatre
1601 S. Pearl St.
Denver, CO 80210
(720)638-2612

Scholarship Applicant
Applicant Name______________________________________________________________
Address ____________________________________________City ____________________
State _________________Zip ___________________Telephone _______________________
Acting Class ______________________________________________________________
Date begin __________________________________Date end   ________________________
Class cost $ _____________________________
Applicant must be over the age of 16.
Because the Sylvester Foundation has interest in developing great spokespersons in behalf of Domestic Resource Production, you must have a sincere interest or background in logging, mining, fishing, farming and ranching or energy production to receive a scholarship.
Explain why you want to take acting lessons: _______________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________


____________________________________________________________________________
Describe what you believe you’ll bring to yourself and your community, by taking acting lessons. ____________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please provide an essay, describing how you will use your education to further educating consumers on the importance of Domestic Resource Production.
Your signature will be your commitment to speaking in behalf of Domestic Resource Production.
Signed _________________________________________________Date _______________
Guardian/Parent _____________________________________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholarship Provider

Your scholarship has been approved and will be provided by: The Sylvester Foundation
Signature ___________________________________________________________________
You may send your thank you to:
Charles W. Sylvester Jr.
Sylvester Foundation
P.O. Box 155

LaSalle, CO 80645

Thursday, February 16, 2017

EQUAL PROTECTION BILL HB17-1141

NOTICE OF HEARING
HOUSE STATE, VETERANS, & MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SPONSOR:        Lewis
BILL #:         HB 17-1141
SHORT TITLE:    Equal Protection From Fed Employee Personal Attack
DATE:           Wednesday, February 22, 2017
TIME:           01:30 PM
PLACE:  LSB A
______________________________________________
Good Morning,

You’re receiving this notice, because you’ve expressed interest in HB17-1141, the Equal Protection bill. Your interest is greatly appreciated. Thank you. 
The Equal Protection Bill will be a tremendous “equalizer” for ranchers on Federal lands, who have to deal with federal employees on a daily basis.
In reality, Equal Protection will help all Colorado citizens in a multitude of ways. Here are some:
I.R.S. agent overreaches the defines of his or her authority in investigating your taxes.  You, the taxpayer, would have immediate recourse.
EPA agent trespasses your property and starts charging you with regulatory violations, you, the property owner would have immediate recourse.
Federal employee wants to tie up your project with claims of such as Preble’s Jumping Mouse. You have the right to demand “Just Compensation” initiates - the minute they set foot on your property.
By statute, pre-existing rights to easements (trails/roads), forage, beneficial use of water and improvements will no longer be threatened by federal employees. Instead, they will be recognized and honored. Staying these rights will sustain opportunities to trail ride, hike, fish, camp, hunt, run livestock, and whatever else property owner gives permission to do.
Basically, any who would oppose HB 17-1141, knowingly wants federal employees to continue to subject unjust, unconstitutional, statute violating, costly actions against private citizens.
Your testimony, citing your situation, will sturdy up argument to pass HB 17-1141.
We look forward to seeing you and hearing your testimony on February 22nd. Let's get Equal Protection passed into law! 
Thank you,
Charles W. and Ronita M. Sylvester
___________________________________________________
Please support the Equal Protection From Federal Employee Personal Attack.
Please ask your organization to support Equal Protection. 
If you have been subjected to a personal attack by a Federal Employee, please consider testifying February 22nd. 
Please tell your story and bring evidence as to how their actions cost you personally. 
Thank you Representative Lewis, for sponsoring Equal Protection From Federal Employee Personal Attack.  
Roni Bell Sylvester 
Testimonies will be heard - 1:30 p.m. February 22, 2017 Colorado Capitol 
_____________________________________________________________________________

                             NOTICE OF HEARING
            HOUSE STATE, VETERANS, & MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

SPONSOR:        Lewis

BILL #:         HB17-1141

SHORT TITLE:    Equal Protection From Fed Employee Personal Attack

DATE:           Wednesday, February 22, 2017

TIME:           01:30 PM
PLACE:  LSB A
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Full draft attached: 

HB17-1141
Concerning the malicious deprivation of constitutional rights by a federal employee related to public lands.
LAST ACTION: 02/1/2017 | Introduced In House - Assigned to State, Veterans, & Military Affairs
SPONSORS: Rep. K. Lewis
SESSION:  
2017 Regular Session
SUBJECTS:  
   
   
The bill makes it illegal for a person who is a federal employee acting under color of law to take any action:
  • That deprives a range allotment owner of any property right appurtenant, inherent, or related to the range allotment, including the right to possess, use, dispose of, exclude other from, or defend the range allotment; and
  • For which the deprivation offends due process or is a physical or regulatory taking without the payment of just compensation.
A violation is an unclassified felony punishable by a fine of up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. An owner who suffers a loss as a result of the person's actions also has a civil right of action to recover damages.
Please print out the attached copy of HB 17- 1141.
For your convenience though, we’ve also cut and pasted:
First Regular Session Seventy-first General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO DRAFT LLS NO. 17-0494.01 Michael Dohr x4347 HOUSE BILL House Committees Senate Committees A BILL FOR AN ACT 101 CONCERNING THE MALICIOUS DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL 102 RIGHTS BY A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RELATED TO PUBLIC LANDS. Bill Summary (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill passes third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary that applies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available at http://leg.colorado.gov/.) The bill makes it illegal for a person who is a federal employee acting under color of law to take any action: ! That deprives a range allotment owner of any property right appurtenant, inherent, or related to the range allotment, including the right to possess, use, dispose of, exclude other from, or defend the range allotment; and HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Lewis, SENATE SPONSORSHIP (None), Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute. REDRAFT 1.30.17 Double underlining denotes changes from ! For which the deprivation offends due process or is a prior draft physical or regulatory taking without the payment of just compensation. A violation is an unclassified felony punishable by a fine of up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. An owner who suffers a loss as a result of the person's actions also has a civil right of action to recover damages. 1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: 2 SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly 3 finds that: 4 (a) The livestock sector of the agriculture industry of the state is 5 a critical and significant portion of the agriculture industry of the state 6 and necessary for the continued health, prosperity, and well-being of the 7 people of the state; and 8 (b) A significant number of livestock within the state spend a 9 significant part of their lives on federal range lands. 10 (2) The general assembly further finds that: 11 (a) The United States supreme court has held that stockwater 12 rights, range rights, right-of-ways, and improvements appurtenant to or 13 associated with range allotments are property rights worthy of protection 14 under the fifth amendment of the United States constitution; and 15 (b) Federal employees are required by the fifth amendment and 16 executive order 12630 to consider the takings implications of their 17 decisions and actions on the property rights of ranch or range allotment 18 owners before taking those actions. 19 (3) The general assembly declares that this act is necessary to 20 preserve public safety and welfare. 21 SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 18-8-410 as 22 follows: -2- DRAFT REDRAFT 1.30.17 Double underlining denotes changes from 1 18-8-410. Malicious deprivation of prior draft constitutional rights. (1) A 2 PERSON WHO IS A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW 3 COMMITS DEPRIVATION OF A RANGE ALLOTMENT OWNER'S 4 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN THE PERSON TAKES ANY ACTION: 5 (a) THAT DEPRIVES THAT RANGE ALLOTMENT OWNER OF ANY 6 PROPERTY RIGHT APPURTENANT, INHERENT, OR RELATED TO THE RANGE 7 ALLOTMENT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO POSSESS, USE, DISPOSE OF, 8 EXCLUDE OTHER FROM, OR DEFEND THE RANGE ALLOTMENT; AND 9 (b) FOR WHICH THE DEPRIVATION OFFENDS DUE PROCESS OR IS A 10 PHYSICAL OR REGULATORY TAKING WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF JUST 11 COMPENSATION. 12 (2) A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHO COMMITS DEPRIVATION OF A 13 RANGE ALLOTMENT OWNER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS DEEMED TO BE 14 ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ANY FEDERALLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY 15 AND, THEREFORE, OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF ANY FEDERAL IMMUNITY 16 FROM PROSECUTION, AND THE EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO BOTH A CIVIL 17 ACTION AND CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE. 18 (3) A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS PUNISHABLE AS AN 19 UNCLASSIFIED FELONY CARRYING A FINE OF UP TO FIVE HUNDRED 20 THOUSAND DOLLARS AND UP TO FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH, FOR 21 EACH SEPARATE OFFENSE. 22 (4) A PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED PURSUANT TO 23 SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION HAS A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION 24 AGAINST THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHO VIOLATED SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS 25 SECTION AND IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES. 26 SECTION 3. Potential appropriation. Pursuant to section 27 2-2-703, C.R.S., any bill that results in a net increase in periods of -3- DRAFT REDRAFT 1.30.17 Double underlining denotes changes from 1 prior draft imprisonment in state correctional facilities must include an appropriation 2 of money that is sufficient to cover any increased capital construction, any 3 operational costs, and increased parole costs that are the result of the bill 4 for the department of corrections in each of the first five years following 5 the effective date of the bill. Because this act may increase periods of 6 imprisonment, this act may require a five-year appropriation. 7

Friday, February 10, 2017

WANTED - Cost of Bureaucrat Control

Wanted! 
An economist/mathematician/accountant - who will voluntarily gather and provide us what it "costs to do business with government(s)" - aka "Bureaucrat Control."
Bureaucrat Control costs accrued to private parties first, include: 
1) Down time costs accrued when called away from work to attend government hearings/meetings etc. Costs would include hiring someone to finish calving, haying, whatever; meals; fuel; possibly motel and photo copies. 
2) Re-do business practices to accommodate an alleged threatened species.
3) Construction, earth moving, tree planting, delayed or stop construction to accommodate an alleged threatened specie.
4) Addressing threats by government employees; would include attorney/accountant etc. fees.
5) Housing excess feral horses.
6) Cut in A.U.M's.
7) Additional paper work (includes employee and your time) due to attempts to comply with regulations.
You get the gist.
Then we need the cost to a county and state government's in trying to wade through unconstitutional regulations - such as and including EPA. Example: Presently, to protect Colorado from the very rogue EPA, our Attorney General has had to file suits. At what cost?
Or - if there are existing records on the cost of Bureaucrat Control, we'd be grateful for them! 

Monday, February 6, 2017

IS IT MAGIC?

The hidden agendas of sustainability illusions

Absurd, impractical sustainability precepts are actually a prescription for government control

By Paul Driessen

As President Trump downgrades the relevance of Obama era climate change and anti-fossil fuel policies, many environmentalists are directing attention to “sustainable development.”
Like “dangerous manmade climate change,” sustainability reflects poor understanding of basic energy, economic, resource extraction and manufacturing principles – and a tendency to emphasize tautologies and theoretical models as an alternative to readily observable evidence in the Real World. It also involves well-intended but ill-informed people being led by ill-intended but well-informed activists who use the concept to gain greater government control over people’s lives, livelihoods and living standards.
The most common definition is that we may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability thus reflects the assertion that we are rapidly depleting finite resources, and must reduce current needs and wants so as to save raw materials for future generations.
At first blush, it sounds logical and even ethical. But it requires impossible clairvoyance.
In 1887, when the Hearthstone House became the world’s first home lit via hydroelectric power, no one did or could foresee that electricity would dominate, enhance and safeguard our lives in the myriad ways it does today. Decades later, no one anticipated pure silica fiber optic cables replacing copper wires.
No one predicted tiny cellular phones with superb digital cameras and more computing power than a 1990 desktop computer or 3-D printing or thousands of wind turbines across our fruited plains – or cadmium, rare earth metals and other raw materials suddenly required to manufacture these technological wonders.
Mankind advanced at a snail’s pace for thousands of years. As the modern fossil-fuel industrial era found its footing, progress picked up at an increasingly breathtaking pace. Today, change is exponential. As we moved from flint to copper, to bronze, iron, steel and beyond, we didn’t do so because mankind had exhausted Earth’s supplies of flint, copper, tin and so on. We did it because we innovated – invented something better, more efficient or practical. Each advance required different raw materials.
Who today can foresee what technologies future generations will have 25, 50 or 200 years from now? What raw materials they will need? How we are supposed to ensure that those families meet their needs?
Why then would we even think of empowering government to regulate today’s activities today based on the wholly unpredictable technologies, lifestyles, needs, and resource demands of distant generations? Why would we ignore or compromise the needs of current generations, to meet those totally unpredictable future needs – including the needs of today’s most impoverished, energy-deprived, malnourished people, who desperately want to improve their lives?
Moreover, we are not going to run out of resources anytime soon. A 1-kilometer fiber optic cable made from 45 pounds of silica (Earth’s most abundant element) carries thousands of times more information than an equally long RG-6 cable made from 3,600 pounds of copper, reducing demand for copper.
In 1947, the world’s proven oil reserves totaled 47 billion barrels. Over the next 70 years, we consumed hundreds of billions of barrels – and yet, in 2016 we still had at least 2,800 billion barrels of oil reserves, including oil sands, oil shales and other unconventional deposits: at least a century’s worth, plus abundant natural gas. Constantly improving technologies now let us find and produce oil and natural gas from deposits that we could not even detect, much less tap into, just a couple decades ago.
Sustainability dogma also revolves around hatred of fossil fuels, and a determination to rid the world of them, regardless of any social, economic or environmental costs of doing so. And we frequently find that supposedly green, eco-friendly and sustainable alternatives are frequently anything but.
U.S. ethanol quotas eat up 40% of the nation’s corn, cropland the size of Iowa, billions of gallons of water, and vast quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, tractor fuel and natural gas, to produce energy that drives up food prices, damages small engines and gets one-third less mileage per gallon than gasoline.
Heavily subsidized wind energy requires standby fossil fuel generators, ultra-long transmission lines and thus millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals and fiberglass. The turbines create chronic health problems for people living near them and kill millions of birds and bats – to produce intermittent, wholly unreliable electricity that costs up to 250% more than coal-based electricity. For all that, on a torrid August 2012 day, Great Britain’s 3,500 giant wind turbines generated a mere 12 megawatts of electricity: 0.032% of the 38,000 MW the country was using at the time. The United Kingdom also subsidizes several huge anaerobic digesters, intended to convert animal manure and other farm waste into eco-friendly methane for use in generating electricity. But there is insufficient farm waste. So the digesters are fed with corn (maize), grass and rye grown on 130,000 acres (four times the size of Washington, DC), using enormous amounts of water, fertilizer – and of course diesel fuel to grow, harvest and transport the crops to the digesters. Why not just drill and frack for natural gas?
That brings us to the political arena, where the terminology is circular, malleable, infinitely elastic, the perfect tool for activists. Whatever they support is sustainable; whatever they oppose is unsustainable; and whatever mantras or protective measures they propose give them more power and control.
The Club of Rome sought to build a new movement by creating “a common enemy against whom we can unite” – allegedly looming disasters “caused by human intervention in natural processes” and requiring “changed attitudes and behavior” to avoid global calamities: global warming and resource depletion.
“Building an environmentally sustainable future requires restricting the global economy, dramatically changing human reproductive behavior, and altering values and lifestyles,” said Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown. “Doing this quickly requires nothing short of a revolution.”
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable,” Canadian arch-environmentalist Maurice Strong declared.
“Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change,” former Vice President Al Gore asserted – “these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” Environmental activist Daniel Sitarz agreed, saying: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions intended to be implemented by every person on Earth. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”
“Sustainable development,” the National Research Council declaimed in a 2011 report, “raises questions that are not fully or directly addressed in U.S. law or policy, including how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, and how to encourage the development of sustainable communities, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic development, and climate change controls.” In fact, said Obama science advisor John Holdren, we cannot even talk about sustainability without talking about politics, power, and control. Especially control.
Of course, the activists, politicians and regulators feel little pain, as they enjoy salaries and perks paid by taxpayers and foundations, fly to UN and other conferences at posh 5-star resorts around the world, and implement agendas that control, redesign and transform other people’s lives.
It is We the Governed – especially working class and poor citizens – who pay the price, with the world’s poorest families paying the highest price. We can only hope the Trump Administration and Congress will dismantle and defund sustainable development, the alter ego of cataclysmic manmade climate change. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org ), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

OUR DEDICATED FARMERS


To our Farmers, farming is not just a job. Dedication to feeding everyone, is their way of life.
By Lorrie Boyer 

EQUAL STANDING BILL

DRAFT   -   -  EQUAL STANDING BILL   -  -   DRAFT



A BILL FOR AN ACT CONCERNING THE MALICIOUS DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE RELATED TO RANGES OF THE STATE.

The bill makes it illegal for a person who is a government employee acting under color of law to take any action harmful to any ranch unit or range allotment owner that deprives that owner of any property rights without first giving due consideration to those rights by: Accessing property with permission; Conducting a thorough takings implication assessment; Giving the owner due process; and, paying just compensation as required by law. 
A violation is an unclassified felony punishable by a fine of up to $500,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. An owner who suffers a loss as a result of the person's actions also has a civil right of action to recover damages.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
1. Legislative declaration. 
The general assembly finds that: (a) The livestock sector of the agriculture industry of the state is - A critical and significant portion of the agriculture industry of the state And necessary for the continued health, prosperity and well-being of the People of the state; and (b) A significant number of livestock within the state spend a significant part of their lives on ranges of the state.
The general assembly further finds that: (a) The United States Supreme Court has held that stockwater Rights, range rights, right-of-ways, and improvements appurtenant to or - Associated with range allotments and ranch units are Constitutional rights worthy of protection - Under the Fifth Amendment of the United States constitution; and  (b) Government employees are required by the Fifth Amendment and Executive Order 12630 to consider the takings implications of their Decisions and actions on the property rights of ranch unit or Range Allotment Owners before taking those actions. (3) The general assembly declares that this act is necessary to preserve public safety and welfare. 

Malicious deprivation of constitutional rights. (1) A PERSON WHO IS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW COMMITS MALICIOUS DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN THE PERSON TAKES ANY ACTION HARMFUL TO ANY RANCH UNIT OR RANGE ALLOTMENT OWNER THAT DEPRIVES THAT OWNER OF ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT FIRST GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO THOSE RIGHTS BY: (a) ACCESSING PROPERTY < {the allotment or the ranch unit}> WITH PERMISSION; (b) CONDUCTING A THOROUGH TAKINGS IMPLICATION  ASSESSMENT; (c) GIVING THE OWNER DUE PROCESS; AND (d) PAYING JUST COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW. (2) A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO COMMITS MALICIOUS DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS DEEMED TO BE ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ANY GOVERNMENT DELEGATED AUTHORITY AND, THEREFORE, OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF ANY GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION, AND THE EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO BOTH A CIVIL ACTION AND CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE. (3) A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS PUNISHABLE AS AN UNCLASSIFIED FELONY CARRYING A FINE OF UP TO FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND UP TO FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH, FOR EACH SEPARATE OFFENSE. (4) A PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION HAS A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO VIOLATED SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION AND IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.




Monday, January 2, 2017

WESTERN LANDS ISSUES 101



Western Lands Issues 101

By Dr. Angus McIntosh                                                          January 2, 2017
Executive Director RAO 

Contact: 970 213-1005        RangeAllotmentOwners@gmail.com

Western Lands Issues 101

Art 1 Sec 8 cls 17 US Const. (the "Enclave Clause") allows Congress "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; " Read carefully this section is about "exclusive Legislation" and "Authority". Or, what the Courts have called Police Power Jurisdiction. It also allows the US to exercise authority over places purchased with the consent of the State legislature. Art 4 Sec 3 cls 2 (the "Property Clause") says "Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory and other property belonging to the United States". Thus the US can own land and interests in land within the boundaries of a State yet have NO civil or criminal jurisdiction whatsoever (unless granted by the state legislature for specific military or federal purposes). Also, under the "Property Clause” the primary duty of Congress was to "dispose of" the public lands of the Territory. No later State was allowed to enter the union until it gave up its claims to the "unoccupied" public lands. This allowed Congress to continue disposing of the public land without interference from the State. Congress followed an unwavering policy of disposing of the land to the actual persons in possession and occupancy of the land. This was done first on Indian Reservations under the General Allotment Act of 1887, then under the Forest Reserve Act 1891/1897 and the StockRaising Homestead Act/Taylor Grazing Acts 1916/1934. Also, acquired land within "resettlement projects" (national grasslands) was also disposed of under the Bankhead Jones And Farmers Home Administration Acts of 1937/1946. These were all split-estate disposal laws that disposed of a surface "fee title" in the allotment to the rancher while retaining the minerals and commercial timber for separate disposal. Thus when a National Monument is proclaimed but contains language protecting "valid existing rights" all "Grazing Allotments" are legally unaffected. See Watt v Western Nuclear 1983, Kinney Coastal Oil v Kieffer 1928, US v New Mexico 1978.

Followers