That particular case dating back about 30 years ago was not taken by Eminent Domain, and the land owner did not receive any compensation.
He had a loan that the US Government gave him, where they acknowledged the property was his, and title insurance for the land showing clear title to him.
As I understand it, he and another private party (not the Feds) had a court dispute in Oklahoma regarding the boundary, and the Oklahoma judge made the ruling, that the land belonged to neither party, but to the Feds.
So he had to continue to pay his loan off which included the price of that land, or they could have foreclosed on the entire ranch. The title insurance refused to pay.
None of which makes any legal sense to me. Now because of this case, the BLM says it owns some 116 miles of land along the Red River, and that’s about 90,000 acres. That’s seems to me like more than a small strip of no trouble.
So that’ the situation as I understand it, but I still can’t figure out any logical reason for that judge to have made such a ruling. Now, I could be mistaken, but I have read as much as I could find, and listened to the interviews of Tommy Henderson, so I am hoping that someone here will be able to get some more details.
Cattle! With power over that thin strip from mid-river to ‘the vegetation line’ the BLM can destroy the local landowners by denying cattle access to water.
... For the good of some species of gnat or crawdad.
Not sure what a “vegetation line” is. BLM probably would also claim grass isn’t ‘vegetation’...
The border of Texas has twice been decided by the Supreme Court to be the southern bank (or worse) of the Red River:http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v002/v002p298.html.
Not aware of the specific case you mentioned.