Ted Cruz Challenges BLM on Texas Land Grab

Sen. Cruz told BLM Director Neil Kornze that the public statement the BLM offered on its website does not address the questions raised by General Abbott. Sen. Cruz requested Kornze respond directly to the questions raised, to include new points of inquiry from the junior U.S. Senator.

Sen. Cruz responded to the BLM’s public statement where it denied any expansion of federal land holdings.

“…this response does not answer General Abbott’s concerns. In addition, BLM’s statement does not address whether the agency takes the position that the 90,000 acres of land in question along the Red River is already BLM land, which would make the agency’s “categorical denial” an act of deceptive sophistry.”

“Please confirm that BLM does not take the position that it has rights to ownership or control of any of the 90,000 acres of land along the Red River that are at the center of this controversy or similarly situated land. If it claims any such rights, please identify with specificity the acreage, location and legal basis for claiming those rights.”

Requesting a response from the BLM as soon as possible, Sen. Cruz said, “If BLM indeed does not intend to claim any land which it does not already administer along the Red River, the answers to these questions should be quite straightforward.”

Probably going to have to look into whatever treaty the US made with the Indians too. They have established through the courts that the property between the medial point of the river and the vegetation line on the south bank is the property that they are to hold in trust for the Indians.

Why do the Indians need the Feds to do that? The Indian tribes are educated, and perfectly capable of managing stuff these days it would seem to me.

Here's a very good link to one of the Supreme Court Cases Oklahoma v Texas Decided 1/15/23. It is quite interesting.

It defines what is meant by the South bank as being the high water mark. However, I find compelling the arguments of the dissenting opinion, that the boundary should be the low water mark.

Primarily because the Treaty of 1819 clearly intended to let the people on both sides of the river full access and use. Using the low water mark accomplishes this.

Using the High-water mark leaves a strip of ground that would be foreign territory to the occupants of the remaining Spanish territory, which is not likely. Also the fact that it was necessary to state in the treaty that the islands were USA territory.

There would be no need to do this if the high water mark was intended to be the boundary. Also, this finding means that there is no set boundary, as it is subject to change of the river by accretion.

Using the low water mark would make for a more set/permanent boundary. JMHO Supreme Court erred in deciding to use the high water mark. I am not a lawyer, but I do think logically.

The decision to use the high-water mark essentially robs the Texas landowners of there riparian rights, since for example, their cattle can only access the river by crossing land that is now claimed to be held in trust for the Indians, and under BLN control.

Using the low water mark, would give them direct access to the river, at all times.

The boundary issues really came up when oil was discovered along the river. Oklahoma and USA tried to extend the boundary as far south as possible. Texas tried to extend it's claim North to the medial point of the river.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606 The Texas/Oklahoma boundary compact now speaks of the vegetation line on the South bank. I'm not sure that is going to be of any more benefit to the people living on the Texas side of the Red River. It may be that Texas is once again going to have to go to court in order to preserve the property rights of their citizens. With the current court, I am not sure that's gonna work.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.