Otero County v. USFS

feddoc

Long Time Member
Messages
7,434
It's happening again; this time in southern NM.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hts-feds-over-water-rights/?intcmp=latestnews

WEED, N.M. ? The latest dispute over federal control of land and water in the West has erupted along the banks of the Agua Chiquita, a small spring-fed stream in the mountains of southern New Mexico where the federal government has installed metal fences and locked gates to keep cattle out.

The move has enraged one rural county, where the sheriff has been ordered by the county commission to cut the locks. The U.S. attorney for the district of New Mexico hoped a meeting Friday would ease tensions enough to avoid an escalation like the armed standoff last month over grazing rights in Nevada.










The discussion resulted only in more frustration and disappointment.

Otero County Commissioner Ronny Rardin said after the meeting that the dispute was far from over.

"Ultimately, it is incumbent upon the commission, the sheriff and the citizens of Otero County to stand up for our constitutional rights," he said.

In a statement, U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico said no resolution was reached during the meeting and that the office will continue to monitor the situation "to ensure that public safety is preserved" in Otero County.

"To that end, the U.S. Attorney's Office will make every effort to facilitate a dialogue between county officials and the Forest Service," the office said.

Decades in the making, the dispute in Otero County centers on whether the Forest Service has the authority to keep ranchers from accessing Agua Chiquita, which means Little Water in Spanish. In wet years, the spring can run for miles through thick conifer forest. This summer, much of the stream bed is dry.

The Forest Service says the enclosures are meant to protect what's left of the wetland habitat. Forest Supervisor Travis Moseley said the metal fences and gates simply replaced strands of barbed wire that had been wrecked over the years by herds of elk.

The Otero County Commission passed a resolution earlier this week declaring that the Forest Service doesn't have a right to control the water. Ranchers say they believe the move is an effort by the federal government to push them from the land.

"If we let them take over our water rights, that's the first step. Then we would have nothing left here," said Gary Stone, head of the Otero County Cattleman's Association.

U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., said what's happening in Otero County is another example of overreach by the federal government.

"These disputes could be easily avoided if federal bureaucrats would stick to their constitutional oath and respect property rights," he said.

With no resolution in sight, Sheriff Benny House said Friday he plans to continue investigating whether forest employees are breaking state law by fencing off the water. The commission is also seeking a congressional hearing on the matter.

Rancher Ed Eldridge is next in line to see a fence erected around the water on his allotment.

"I don't think any foreign power could take us over, but we might lose our country from within our borders if we lose our constitutional rights," Eldridge said.

Still, Eldridge, Stone and other residents said they aren't looking for an armed standoff with the federal government. They just want their water and property rights recognized and respected, they said.

Attorney Blair Dunn, who is representing the county, said he's worried that transparency and a media spotlight could be the only things that prevent the dispute from reaching a dangerous boiling point.

"Generally, cooler heads prevail when we're able to sit everybody down and figure out something that works," Dunn said.

Moseley of the Forest Service said he's not surprised by the conflict, given the pressure the agency is under to manage the land for different uses.

"I can't speak to a broader spectrum of federal regulations and how they affect private businesses and lives, but I don't believe there is a conspiracy per se," he said when asked about ranchers' claims of being pushed from the land.

County Commissioner Tommie Herrell disagreed. Describing the agency's actions as tyranny, he said the Forest Service is unwilling to temporarily open the gates while the parties search for long-term solutions.
 
Another building block, Once there is a bunch of them(building blocks) it will be a war to see who wins the court battle..

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
If the said rancher had a valid water right the feds are violating a law by denying him access to his water. The point of diversion for stock water is a cow's nose.
 
This is right next to my house. This creek runs intermittently depending on the drought.
Right now it is not the worse I have seen it, but, one of the worse years.
I think if the Forest is going to fence off water to supposedly "protect habitat" (by the way elk and pigs can get in there) then they should provide water at their expense for these cattle leases.

I really try to see both sides of this stuff, but, eff the hopping mouse, and spotted owl. We need to quit buying the EPAs agenda driven lies.
 
life changes, why is it that ranchers think they can still live like we did a 100 years ago,,,,?? we all dream of old days, BUT,,,,.. ( they should provide water at their expense, Nmpaul who the hell do you think( they )are??
 
>life changes, why is it that
>ranchers think they can
>still live like we did
>a 100 years ago,,,,?? we
>all dream of old days,
>BUT,,,,.. ( they should provide
>water at their expense,
>Nmpaul who the hell do
>you think( they )are??

I just saw that as a potential solution. I have not put a lot of thought into it since I do not directly have a dog in the fight.

How much could it cost for the USFS to put a metal tank on the outside of the fence and pump some water from the spring into it? Compared to the attorneys, bad publicity, etc.....

There is precedence for the cattle to water there and it is being taken away.
 
This story is more complicated that it first looks. According to an article in ABQ Journal today, the fence was paid for by Game & Fish (habitat stamp) and Wild Turkey Federation. So it's not just a "battle" against the Feds, there are local interest at odds also. The article also said there are a couple of spots where cattle can get water, the whole stream is not fenced off.
 
It would have been much easier for FS to do what they have done for years. Fence off the area in question and divert some of the water to tanks/troughs away from exclusion zone. If there is not enough water to flow to tank,then there's not enough water this year. Livestock user has to move to where there is water and feed.
Riparian habitat gets priority and all the wildlife benefit.
We moved water miles in black pipe to new drinkers this way.
The bunny huggers were happy. FS was happy. Stockman was happy.
The snail/mouse/butterfly/flycatcher were all happy.

Also,what happened to review of lease/use permit/water use permit?
They can be changed, but not without review. At least that was the USDA-FS policy a few yrs ago. At the very least a small posting of changes to be considered and discussion....in public.
 
>It would have been much easier
>for FS to do what
>they have done for years.
>Fence off the area in
>question and divert some of
>the water to tanks/troughs away
>from exclusion zone. If there
>is not enough water to
>flow to tank,then there's not
>enough water this year. Livestock
>user has to move to
>where there is water and
>feed.
>Riparian habitat gets priority and all
>the wildlife benefit.
> We moved water miles in
>black pipe to new drinkers
>this way.
>The bunny huggers were happy. FS
>was happy. Stockman was happy.
>
>The snail/mouse/butterfly/flycatcher were all happy.
>
>Also,what happened to review of lease/use
>permit/water use permit?
>They can be changed, but not
>without review. At least that
>was the USDA-FS policy a
>few yrs ago. At the
>very least a small posting
>of changes to be considered
>and discussion....in public.

That makes sense to me.
 
Too often in life, we are let down by the "things that shouldn't happen". If we live our lives expected to be taken care of if we are effected by the "things that shouldn't happen", how are we to evolve and adapt? Life ain't fair....ask anyone. Life throws us sh!t sometimes....survivors get through it best they can or they are diminished and perish. Sounds like in this case, all of the arguing is deemed necessary because they ALL want the water. I like the idea of the last post. Figure it out and make it happen.

Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
Like someone else said ,I don't have a dog in this fight. I am not informed enough on this topic to address it, or debate it. With that said, what little I did read in the original thread from Feddoc, there are a couple things I think most of you folks have missed.
"In a statement, U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico said no resolution was reached during the meeting and that the office will continue to monitor the situation "to ensure that public safety is preserved" in Otero County" I ask you this, Why is the FED. U.S. Attorney's office monitoring anything to do with "Public safety" When the sheriff and county commission are involved.Could the phrase "Public Safety" be used a "Promoter word" by the U.S. attorney. To make people think this IS for the good of the public in General.
"Ultimately, it is incumbent upon the commission, the sheriff and the citizens of Otero County to stand up for our constitutional rights," Now, I may be just another dumb a$$ here at this camp fire but as I "learned it" County commissions are usually another name for local folks that either like the power to nanny over their pears, or they have a "Dog in the fight" a lot of the time., or a few actually care about the people who they live near and are concerned about the well being of not just the people but the area. This last group is usually the rarity in my experiences. I also know that the County Sheriff Answers to the constitution, And NOT anyone from the Federal Government. If the Sheriff is waiting for an "Interpretation" of the Constitution, Then I hope it isnt the Feds who are giving it.
This is in my opinion the scariest quote of all..."Moseley of the Forest Service said he's not surprised by the conflict, given the pressure the agency is under to manage the land for different uses". I would like to know what the agenda is for the use of this forest land, Who is putting the " Pressure" on his agency. And is this "Management" going to be based on Laws already in place. And if so have the laws been enforced,.or are there going to be new laws placed. And again if so by whom and who's enforcement?
Some of you here don't like Cattle on public ground, I am not a cattleman. I don't care one way or another. I say if its legal go for it. If you dont like it try to get the law changed. BUT, AND THIS YOU BETTER LISTEN TO WELL MY FRIENDS. The current administration that is trying to run this country. Will not stop at their friends the EPA's agenda, They want more, Obummer doesn't even hide the fact he hates mining,Drilling, ect.. You may not care for this either on public land. BUT! He, Obummer, Also would love to do away with the 2nd Amendment. After all the "Federal land" has been closed to grazing,Private property rights stomped on, (Water rights are private property you buy them and are taxed on them) And you no longer have firearms to hunt with, Are you going to archery hunt? and if so how long before the Peta folks and the government will " Allow any type of Hunting" You actually have a RIGHT to firearms. NOWHERE in the constitution do you have a RIGHT TO HUNT. Remember this! Be very careful who you will jump into bed with. When you need someone to stand by you to maintain your interests, there needs to be someone with whom you have stood by to protect theirs. Its not just a catchy little phrase when said " United we stand, divided we fall"
 
Maybe they need to get that guy in Wyoming to build some Ponds along the Stream?:D










[font color="red"]From My Smokin Cherry Red Hot Barrel & My Dead Cold Hands I Shall go down Fighting for American Pride & Rights!
I Know I'm Out Numbered by Pusssies & Brainwashed Democrats that'll Throw Their Hands in the air & I know I can't Lick the U.S. Military by Myself when they Turn on us but I'll make
you one Guarantee,They'll be Enduring a Situation where I Hope to Hell All Americans become True Americans once again & Stand up for their Rights!
 
The USDA-FS is more afraid or in bed with big money special interest groups like SC, WEG, & big money extraction interests to care about the rest of us normal everyday users.
Those folks just sue them and the Forest Circus folds... they get their way.
If average Joe wanted to contest it ,their on their own.

I just recently saw a blurb about Dept. of Interior buying lots of armaments. To keep out the bad everyday users when they see fit?
When is Ag Dept. going with more enforcement folks than now for same reason.
As usual gubberment agencies forget they work for us, and it's ours. Not special intrest groups.
 
I think Stonefly is right. Some day they will come after us hunters. What positive influence do hunters have on public land? We trash the place, make our own roads, disrupt the natural order of the environment, and shoot guns at random.

Don't cry if loggers, miners, and ranchers shrug and look the other way.

Eel
 
just make sure when you back the dog. it isn't a cur living on gov handouts for 3 generations?? demanding more?
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom