[VadeRetro]

This has apparently been going on since the mid-90's, with the government indicating that the land use permits the Laney's company had were expiring in 1995 and 1996.

Looks like it's really been going on longer than that. From the article:

The Laneys, on the other hand, are the little guys, who want nothing more than to continue living where their ancestors settled in 1883, doing what their ancestors have done for more than a century. They have invested their life building their ranch to pass on to their children.

Sounds like the Laney's could argue some kind of right-of-way by "easement by prescription." They've been doing this forever.

[Jeff Head]

I understand about the 1883 history. But they only actually own 100 acres. The other acreage appears to be public lands which they Laney's have recognized as such by signing land use permits and leases.

They have felt that because of their water rights, that they would not be denied use of the land due to the water rights.

That appears to be what they are arguing...and I happen to agree with them. But, the land ownership and stewardship issue has become cloudy in the interveneing years with the advent of so many federal agencies that have statutory power (that we have given them through our representatives...shame on us). Now, the government is in essence saying that the government owns the land and unless the Laney's keep paying for the permits and or leases, then they owe the government monies for this.

The Laney's, despite having at one time signed up for the permits, have now balked at it for 7-8 years and the government is trying to collect on the arears.

That seams to be the crux of the issue regarding the majority of the land in question and its use...and it is a difficult issue once you have established precedent by recognizing the permit authority of the government.

That is my only point.