[mad_as_he$$]

You are wrong on a couple of points. The Bundy Family does and has owned land for over 100 years in the area. The BLM has deemed the land closed to grazing since Bundy refused to renew his agreement with them. If he doesn’t use his water rights fro six years in a row they revert to the State(big $$$$). The BLM will not allow any grazing on this range (in deference to the desert tortoise) by Bundy or anyone else.

[lavaroise]

Water rights, agenda 21. Someone is stealing his piece of the industry and chain of supply.

America used to fight monopolies...

[Scoutmaster]

I never said the Bundy family didn't own land in Nevada. The Bundy family owns a ranch adjacent to this land, but not this land. The Bundy family has never owned this land.

They used it for grazing cattle as open range, then paid grazing fees to use it when that became the law.

I never said anything about the BLM deeming the land closed for grazing to everybody. I said Bundy refused to renew his agreement and courts first ordered Bundy to remove his cattle nearly twenty years ago. That is true.

The fact that the BLM will not allow grazing on this range by anybody supports my statement that the Bundy family does not own this land. If 'anybody' could otherwise graze on this range by agreement with the BLM if not for the desert tortoise, it means that Bundy did not own the land.

As for water rights, can a party own water rights in a piece of property he or she doesn't own without a conveyance of those rights? How did Bundy obtain water rights in the BLM property? Water rights law is complex, especially in the the west, and I don't claim to know much about it. I've skimmed Nevada statutes on water rights but haven't looked at any case law.