ping
The high country of central Nevada has lost the earthly presence of its best friend and champion. It is my hope that everyone reading this will take a moment to reflect on the greatness of spirit unmatched, the courage and the will that made a home in the most rural of places, and the faith in God that guided Wayne to leave his beloved home and travel extensively to help others fight for their property rights. Digger may now get to come in the house, but he, too, will know that the mighty physical presence has gone, though the almost tangible spirit lives on at seven thousand feet. May the pines spread the word of his passing to the cattle he raised. May Table Mountain and the Toiyabe keep his private side private as the seasons change and the years pass. May his grandchildren know the ranch he loved and choose to fight for it as his children have. May his two special wives know peace as they knew his love -- quiet and strong and always there, encircling them. Dick Carver, his friend and fellow property rights warrior, has welcomed him Home!
Thought you'd like to know.
May God comfort Helen and her family as they tend to the services for Wayne who has passed on to You, Oh Lord.
I humbly ask this in Jesus' Holy name.
Amen.
May he rest in peace. Sympathies and prayers to Congresswoman Chenoweth-Hage.
Prayers for the comfort of his family.
Vol. 18, No. 10
May 20, 2002
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/05-20-2002/vo18no10_rancher.htm
Rancher Wins Fight for Rights
by Wayne Hage
Rancher Wayne Hage's decade-long struggle for his property rights resulted in a significant victory this year in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
On January 29, 2002, the United States Court of Federal Claims handed down a decision promising to have a widespread impact on the debate over western lands and property rights in general. It also has much to do with government accountability and the federal land management agencies that, under the color of law, have been carrying out a campaign of unlawful actions to harass ranchers and drive them off of their own lands.
The decision of Senior Judge Loren Smith resulted from over 10 years of litigation in an action entitled Hage v. U.S. The circumstances leading to the ruling on January 29th began when I purchased Pine Creek Ranch in central Nevada in June of 1978. The ranch includes a base property of 7,000 private deeded acres acquired by my predecessors under the Homestead Acts over a century ago. Like most ranches in that area, it also includes thousands of adjoining acres where our family owns water and grazing rights. These private grazing allotments were initially acquired by the pioneers who harnessed the resources and later transferred as deeded property to those who own them today. In 1866, Congress recognized western water rights previously established under local law and custom on the federal lands. Numerous state laws and court cases extended and solidified those rights.
The federal government dominates the 11 states west of the 100th meridian, with agencies like the National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management controlling vast expanses of "federal" lands. However, the federal government does not possess complete ownership of these public lands. Ownership is divided in what is known as the "split estate": Various entities, both governmental and private, own water rights, grazing rights, mineral rights, and timber rights. I paid for and own the surface water, ground water, and grazing rights on my allotments. In the arid expanses of the West, it takes a lot of acres to feed a cow and water is as precious as gold. Without those water and grazing rights, my family's ranch and all others like it will cease to exist. For many years now, federal agencies and their environmentalist allies have been pretending that these genuine property rights are nonexistent, that our grazing and water rights are mere "privileges," completely subject to bureaucratic whim and regulation. This represents a major assault on the very concept of property rights, which is absolutely essential to liberty.
Dream Come True
Owning a ranch like Pine Creek had been a dream of mine since boyhood. I was born in Elko, Nevada, and grew up with ranching. During the hard winter of '51 and '52, many ranchers, some of them my relatives, were desperate for help. So, I convinced my parents to allow me to drop out of high school, providing that I'd come back and finish up school after helping out on the ranches. But after I got out on the range there was no turning back. At that time, the big cattle outfits would put out a roundup wagon and they'd just stay out on the range for maybe 10 months of the year. For a teenage boy that kind of life ? riding horseback on the open range ? was an adventure that made school pretty dull and uninteresting by comparison, so I just stayed with it.
During a four-year stint in the Air Force I learned that I had some academic ability as well as horse sense. I came out at the top of all my classes, learned a lot about electronics and made up my high school with a G.E.D. test. After getting out of the service I went back to ranching, while also pursuing further education. I earned a degree in organic chemistry and a Master's degree in livestock nutrition (with a minor in economics) from the University of Nevada. I figured that my combination of schooling, practical experience, and determination would enable me to successfully operate my own ranch. My wife Jean and I started with a small ranch in northern California, just over the Nevada line. That's where our five children were born, and they grew up the western way, working the ranch alongside us. When the Pine Creek Ranch ? one of the biggest and best in Nevada ? came up for sale, it was the opportunity of a lifetime.
From Dream to Nightmare
Within two months of purchasing Pine Creek Ranch, I was contacted by the National Park Service and told they were going to purchase my ranch for a national park. I inquired as to how much they were going to pay. They offered about half of what I had just paid for the property.
I asked how they had arrived at the proposed purchase price. They explained they were only prepared to pay for the base properties. The grazing allotments, they informed me, were public lands and the federal government already owned them. I asked them about the almost two hundred springs, creek wells, and other water sources on those grazing allotments that were clearly owned by me as well as the right to graze those lands. Their answer remained the same. According to them, the United States could extinguish at will my vested water rights on the grazing allotments.
Concluding our meetings, I would tell them to go home and research the topic. If it turned out that my grazing allotments were public lands, we would talk their price. If it turned out that my grazing allotments were not public land, we would talk about my price. They never contacted me again.
Under Attack
However, not long after my meeting with the Park Service, I found myself being attacked by two other federal agencies. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) laid claim to the bulk of my water rights by filing claims on them through the Nevada State Water Engineer. Both the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) engaged in a systematic effort of harassment designed to drive me out of business. This included:
Federal employees opening gates or taking down fences so that I could be cited for trespassing when my cattle would then wander off my land.
Putting a herd of elk on my land and then citing me for failing to maintain fences that the elk destroyed.
Forest Service employees using a helicopter to scatter my cattle, making it impossible for me to collect them in time to avoid a trespassing penalty.
Citing me with a "maintenance failure" for a single missing staple along hundreds of miles of barbed wire fence.
Arbitrary cutting of my grazing allotments because, they claimed, I had not filled out the proper form.
Employing violent and threatening individuals who were frequently drunk and also were involved in narcotics trafficking. One of these USFS drunks actually forced my wife, with all the kids in the car, off the road.
To combat this harassment, I filed numerous administrative appeals with the federal agencies between 1978 and 1990. This is a very costly process, with each appeal costing me thousands of dollars, but I had no alternative. During this period, I and other affected interests in central Nevada prevailed upon Congress to investigate. Congress began three investigations on our behalf. However, in every case, Congress turned the investigations over to the USFS to investigate itself. Predictably, the only people adversely impacted by the investigations were the people calling for them. The agency people involved in the economic vandalism of the property of Nevada citizens were given a free pass.
The issue came to a head in 1991. My family was nearly driven into the ground. We were hanging on by our fingernails financially. I had no choice but to sell the cattle and the land for whatever I could and hope that I could get out of there the shirt on my back. I was in the process of gathering my cattle when the USFS came in: automatic weapons, flack jackets, snipers ? the whole works ? as if we were dangerous criminals. The USFS confiscated over a hundred head of my cattle at gun point. But when they tried to sell them no one in Nevada would buy them because they knew they were stolen. The Forest Service, a federal agency, was engaged in cattle rustling! They had stolen my cattle and were trying to steal my land as well.
On September 26, 1991, I filed a taking case in the United States Court of Federal Claims, claiming just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the property taken from me. Now the court was going to have to answer the question plaguing the western livestock industry for over a century. Does the rancher actually own the water, forage, and access rights in his grazing allotments? Or, does the rancher only have a conditional privilege to graze public lands, a privilege that can be terminated by the U.S. government without compensation?
When the court rendered its final opinion in January, it sent shock waves through the federal lands bureaucracy. The court said (in a 33-page opinion) that my vested water rights for livestock grazing on my allotments were compensable property rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that any attempt by the federal government to block my access to the use of that property means the U.S. is required to justly compensate for the taking. The potential ramifications of this decision are enormous; thousands of ranchers now have good hope for redress against harassment and abuse by federal agencies.
The next phase of this litigation is to show how the U.S. took the private property and to determine how much compensation is owed. I might add, perhaps it's time for the mapmakers to find a new color and designation for that one-third of the lower 48 states that has been for so long erroneously designated as federal public lands.
My condolences to Congresswoman Emeritus, Helen Chenoweth-Hage. She's still one of this nations most admired women!!!
GUEST EDITORIAL - From Wayne Hage
http://www.nevadafullstatehood.com/HageEditorial.htm
Wayne Hage
P.O. Box 513
Tonopah, Nevada [89049]
ewayne@direcway.com
SB 76 - WRONG ANSWER TO THE WRONG QUESTION
Thomas Pynchon once said; "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." This would seem to be the case with Senate Bill 76, introduced by Senator Dean Rhodes, (R) Tuscarrora.
SB 76 is intended to amend 140 years of Nevada water law allowing the federal land management agencies to acquire water rights presently owned by Nevada ranchers and farmers.
SB 76 is billed as remedial legislation answering to a Nevada Supreme Court overturn of District Court Judge Gamble's ruling. Judge Gamble ruled that the BLM and USFS do not qualify for stockwater rights in Nevada because Nevada law requires an applicant for stockwater rights to be able to put the water to beneficial use. The BLM and US Forest Service own no commercial livestock.
The Nevada Supreme Court overturned Judge Gamble's decision, holding that the State Water Engineer must allow the federal agencies to apply for water rights on unappropriated water on the "public lands".
Senator Rhodes, in his water bill, then proceeds to ask the wrong question: How can we amend Nevada's water law to allow the federal agencies to demand all or a portion of a privately owned water right from Nevada's farmers and ranchers? How this question is answered is somewhat meaningless, if the end result is the conveyance of private water rights into the hands of the federal government without compensation. This is being done at a time when Nevada citizens are facing the largest tax increase in the history of the state.
When viewed within the world wide rush to control water supplies, we can begin to see what SB 76 may accomplish if it is passed into law. The quest for control of the world's fresh water reserves will probably prove to be the defining natural resource issue of the 21st century. An underlying problem in the West Bank, between the Israelis and Palestinians, is that the West Bank of the Jordan River is the primary source of fresh water for the entire region. The Golan Heights issue is underscored by the fact that whoever controls the Golan Heights can control the use of the water in the Jordan River, which Syria, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians all rely on. The tensions between Iraq and Turkey have been exacerbated by Turkey's control of the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and Iraq's absolute dependence on the water they carry.
Starving Ethiopia could develop massive food production areas if it could use the water of the Blue Nile River which originates in Ethiopia's mountainous northwest. The nations of Chad, Sudan, Egypt and foreign nations with investments in those countries, all live or die by the water flowing down the Nile. Any attempt by Ethiopia to develop its water resources would bring immediate retaliation from the downstream nations.
The quest for control of water is alive and well here in the U.S. For example, the water in Idaho's Boise Valley and the city of Boise itself is controlled by United Water Corporation. United Water has been diligently working to gain control of the farmers' irrigation water in the region through, in part, the Bureau of Reclamation. United Water is a sub-corporation of a company called Suez. Suez controls all the fresh water in South Korea. Their prospectus states their goal is to become the largest owner of fresh water in the world. Suez is owned by the United Arab Emirates.
Boon Pickens, the great Texas oil entrepreneur, has now turned his interest to buying as many water rights in the Ogallala Aquifer as possible to satisfy the future needs of Dallas and other Texas cities. In some
places today, a barrel of fresh water is worth more than a barrel of oil.
Here in Nevada, we have had numerous entities vying for control of Nevada's waters. Vidler Water Company, Las Vegas Valley Water District, and others, have been buying and seeking to control as many water rights as possible.
The federal government has participated, seeking to use the BLM and Forest Service as surrogates, to wrest water rights away from private individuals and into the hands of government and its creditors. Most of the water in Nevada is controlled by the state's farmers and ranchers. The basic strategy behind the water grab is to use environmental rules and regulations through the BLM and USFS to drive ranchers out of business. Then some entity, such as Nature Conservancy, can obtain control of the ranch and its water for pennies on the dollar. Nature Conservancy, or some other environmental group, can then convey the valuable asset to the hands of government or the government's creditors, at a handsome markup.
This attack is impacting virtually every farmer and rancher in the state. SB 76 will be an extension of this ongoing effort to take control of Nevada water resources and convey them to outside entities where their full profit potential can be exploited.
The Nevada Supreme Court did not rule that the state engineer must issue water rights to the BLM. It only stated that the state engineer must allow the BLM to file on unappropriated waters, if any of those exist. SB 76 opens the door for the BLM and USFS to extort water rights from private individuals and/or drive them out of business in the process. The valuable water resource then eventually finds its way into the hands of one of the water monopolies; like Suez. In the meantime, if some property owners wake up and bring a "taking" and compensation action against the federal government for the value of their property, SB 76 has shifted liability from the feds to the state of Nevada. Nevada taxpayers would then pay the bill.
The solution: obviously SB 76 needs to be recognized for what it is, and deep-sixed into oblivion before it can accomplish the mischief it will bring about. The best solution though, is for the individual water right
holder to make sure their title to water rights and fee land is perfected. Remember, the Nevada Supreme Court only said BLM could apply for unappropriated water on public lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has
clearly stated: "It is well settled that lands to which any right or claim of another attaches is not public land". Grazing allotments are not public lands and the water rights on them are not unappropriated.
Nevada water law created these rights and has protected them well for almost 140 years. Let's not tamper with success. Leave the amending of Nevada water law alone, but make sure we use Nevada water law properly.
Who owns "public" land?
By Henry Lamb
web posted December 1, 2003
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1203/1203publicland.htm
Nearly 100 ranchers gathered in Farmington, New Mexico, recently to listen to Wayne Hage, and his wife, former Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage, explain how the "public" land on which their cattle graze may not be "public" at all. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims found, in Hage v. United States, that the ranchers, not the federal government, may be the true owners of the property referred to as "public" land.
Environmental organizations, and agencies of the federal government, have been trying to rid the West of cattle for decades. The Hage decision demonstrates that the "ownership" of the forage, water, and migration routes, may actually belong to the ranchers, and not to the government.
The doctrine of "prior appropriation" governed land and water acquisition in the West long before there was a United States. This doctrine means that the first person to find water, and put it to beneficial use, had the exclusive right to use the water and the adjacent land and forage sufficient to maintain the livestock the water would support.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in 1848, decided the boundary between Mexico and the United States. Article Eight of this treaty declares that citizens living within the area assigned to the United States, would "retain all the property they possess without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever."
Virtually every land law enacted since this treaty contains language that protects the existing rights of those who "possess property" as the new laws enter into force.
For half a century, there was no thought or question about whether the federal government owned the land on which the ranchers grazed their cattle. The feds got involved to help resolve conflicts among the ranchers who claimed grazing rights on the same land. Since grazing rights flowed from the prior appropriation of water rights, access to water became the basis for establishing the extent of grazing rights.
In the late 1800s, the federal government established a mechanism for adjudicating these conflicts. Based on established and recorded rights to water, the adjudicators developed a way to measure the forage that would be required to support the cattle that could be supported by the available water. This measure was called AUM Animal Units per Month. An AUM represents the forage required by a cow and a calf for one month. Conflicts among the ranchers were resolved by the federal adjudicators, who awarded an appropriate number of AUMs to each rancher involved in the dispute, and surveyed and defined the geography in which the cows could graze.
These AUMs and the defined territory became the "allotments" attached to the water rights of the ranchers. Both the right to the water, and to the forage, and access (rights of way) to the forage, were already owned by the ranchers. The allotments were simply the adjudicated division of pre-existing rights of the ranchers. The ranchers were required to pay a fee to the government, for the cost of this adjudication.
This simple process of adjudicating the existing rights of ranchers, evolved, to enlarge the fee to cover not only the adjudication costs, but to also provide a portion to local government, and to create a "range improvement fund," which could be used by the ranchers to help defray the cost of capital improvements to the range.
Environmentalists, and in recent years, the federal government have ignored these historical facts, and have held that the land and water in the West belong to the federal government, and may be used by the ranchers only with the permission of the government, expressed through the allotment of AUMs for which the ranchers pay.
This new interpretation of the ownership of "public" land was imposed on Wayne Hage a decade ago, when his cattle were taken by the government and sold, because Wayne did not have the permits the government said were necessary. The government has gone on a rampage in recent years, to remove cattle from the West, using the same assumptions and techniques against ranchers whom the feds say are "trespassing" on federal land.
The Hage case may pull the rug, floor, and foundation from the government's efforts to exercise control of land that it may not own, after all. In his ruling in the Hage case, Judge Loren A. Smith said, "...the Court is not of the Opinion that the lack of a grazing permit that prevents access to federal lands can eliminate Plaintiff's vested water rights...that predate the creation of the permit system."
Ranchers who can demonstrate a clear chain of title to water rights and the adjacent forage may well, in fact, own the "public" land which the federal government claims.
http://www.inlibertyandfreedom.com/sagebrush.htm
Sagebrush: America Foreclosed
By Wayne Hage - Stewards of the Range 11.29.01
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/nov/29/arwg112901.htm
Liberty Matters News Service
January 31, 2002
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Major Victory in Hage v. United Sates
Landmark Takings Case Decided in Favor of Property Rights
http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2002/newsservice1_31_02.htm
The long anticipated final decision on the property rights at issue in Hage v. United States, the takings case filed by Nevada ranchers, the Wayne Hage family, has finally been issued by Senior Judge, Loren A. Smith. On January 29th, Smith ruled Hage owns extensive property rights on his grazing allotments, specifically water rights, 1866 Act ditch rights of way, the right to have their livestock consume the forage adjacent to their waters and ditches and the right of access thereto.
The Hages had filed their takings claim against the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in 1991 after excessive regulations and physical takings of their property had run them out of business. They filed their case in the US Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC, placing the important question before the courts what property rights do ranchers own on their grazing allotments?
The court specifically rejected the position of the BLM and Forest Service that ranchers have no property rights on their grazing allotments, commented Hage attorney, Ladd Bedford. The court further stated that if the governments interference with these rights makes it impossible for the rancher to use them, the Government will be required to pay compensation for their loss.
In addressing the issue of the Hages access to their water rights, Judge Smiths opinion stated the following:
The Government cannot deny citizens access to their vested water rights without providing a way for them to divert that water to another beneficial purpose if one exists. The Government cannot cancel a grazing permit and then prohibit the plaintiffs from accessing the water to redirect it to another place of valid beneficial use. The plaintiffs have a right to go onto the land and divert the water.
The court did rule against Hages argument that he owned the surface estate of his allotments, but plaintiffs are not troubled by the courts position. When you combine everything the court has ruled that we own in this final decision, it is clear that the key property rights essential to a western livestock grazing operation are recognized, noted plaintiff Wayne Hage.
The court also clarified the relationship between the rancher and the grazing permit system by stating the grazing permit is a license and the government has the authority to exercise reasonable regulations. However, because of this landmark decision, ranchers now may be protected from abusive grazing regulations if they cause the taking of access to the ranchers 1866 Act ditch rights of ways or water rights.
For the first time in history, a federal court has defined the balance between the western ranchers property rights and the governments ability to regulate, explained Bedford. This decision is a major step forward for the security of federal land ranchers.
The court has set up an aggressive briefing schedule to complete the final phase of the case: determining whether the Hages property rights as determined in the courts Final Decision were taken by the government. If the Hages prevail in this final stage compensation will be awarded to them for the taking of their property, and the rights of every other rancher affirmed in this decision will have the same protection.
For ten years Stewards and its members have been working towards the protection of ranchers property rights, commented Frank Duran, president of Stewards of the Range. Stewards is the organization that has funded and supported this case since its filing in 1991. We now have the most important legal precedent ever set in modern times to protect these rights, and we look forward to wining the next and final round, proving the government must compensate western ranchers when their actions go too far.
Stewards will be providing a decision analysis by the attorneys along with the final decision through their website at www.stewards.us
Helen Chenoweth-Hage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Helen P. Chenoweth-Hage (born January 27, 1938) is a Republican politician from the U.S. state of Idaho.
Chenoweth was born in Topeka, Kansas and attended Whitworth College. After graduating, she worked as a manager and consultant at various medical enterprises, and then entered political work. She married Nick Chenoweth of Orofino, Idaho in 1958. They had two children, Michael Chenoweth and Margaret Chenoweth. They divorced in 1975 and Chenoweth moved to Boise, Idaho. From 1975-77, she was executive director of the Idaho Republican Party; after this, she worked as a chief of staff and campaign manager for 1st District Congressman Steve Symms. After this job, she returned to the private sector. She became a noteworthy lobbyist in Idaho's capital city.
In 1994, Chenoweth won the Republican nomination for Idaho's 1st District, located in the western part of the state and based in Boise. She pledged to serve no more than three terms in the House of Representatives if elected. She defeated two-term Democratic incumbent Larry LaRocco by almost 11 points in the Republican wave that saw that party take control of the House for the first time in 40 years. While Chenoweth's victory was one of many instances of historically Republican districts reverting to form after being held by Democrats, it was still somewhat surprising considering that LaRocco had won reelection in 1992 by almost 21 points.
Contents [hide]
1 Congressional career
2 Electoral history
3 References
4 External links
[edit]
Congressional career
As one of the "true believers" in the Republican freshman class of 1995, Chenoweth was one of the most conservative members of the House. She insisted on being addressed as "Congressman Chenoweth," unlike most female Representatives.
She was referred to by critics as a "poster-child for the militias". While in Congress, she claimed that federal agents were using "Black helicopters" to enforce the Endangered Species Act. Chenoweth was a severe critic of President Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal and was one of the first to call for his resignation over the affair, although she admitted that she had an affair with a married man in the 1980s. She claimed that her case was different from the Clinton/Lewinsky case since she was divorced and a private citizen at the time. Largely due to the controversy surrounding her, she was never able to establish a secure footing in her district. She faced reasonably well-funded challenges in 1996 and 1998, especially considering the 1st's heavy Republican tilt.
Chenoweth later declared that term limits were bad policy but nonetheless honored her three-term pledge and did not run for reelection in 2000. She was succeeded by Idaho lieutenant governor Butch Otter, a fellow Republican.
In 1997, she introduced H. J. Res 83 in the 103rd Congress, essentially a revival of the famous Bricker Amendment.[1] It was referred to the House Judiciary committee, subcommittee on the Constitution, and made no further progress.[2]
Chenoweth married rancher Wayne Hage in 1999.
[edit]
Electoral history
1998 Race for U.S. House of Representatives - 1st District
Helen Chenoweth (R) (inc.), 55%
Dan Williams (D), 45%
1996 Race for U.S. House of Representatives - 1st District
Helen Chenoweth (R) (inc.), 50%
Dan Williams (D), 48%
1994 Race for U.S. House of Representatives - 1st District
Helen Chenoweth (R), 55%
Larry LaRocco (D) (inc.), 45%
America has lost a man the founders would have been proud to call countryman. May he rest in peace and may God's peace be with his family.