That kind of depends on whether it was an informal friendly thing, or if it was a declared easement, especially one to encourage them to open a business or to settle adjacent to the property.
The Southwest has a number of odd divisions of owned property, but is not the only area. When I became a young adult, I was surprised that one could own a house, but not the land it resided on. Likewise, the minerals under the land might not be part of owning the property, nor water rights of streams flowing through it, nor grazing rights for wild vegetation on it, as well as right-of-way easements.
In most of the country between the original colonies and the Rockies, aside from the desert states, the land was lotteried, auctioned off, or simply opened for claim. In the west, there were large areas which were not suitable for habitation, and the federal government divided things up differently, with water rights and access rights being very major things - often more important than the land itself, and separate from the land ownership.
Does Bundy have those other rights? I don’t know...but to understand the situation, one has to understand that to say X owns property Y doesn’t necessarily meant that the ownership is all-inclusive.
In other environments, we have communities where some owners have lake rights, and others do not. We have the 10 feet beside the road that the town actually owns, as well as easements where the phone or power company has bought perpetual rights to put up poles, lines or bury cables, and nothing else and thus neither party can build on that land.
It doesn't sound like Bundy owns anything. I understand that ownership rights can be divided. But like you, I don't know what Bundy owns. Does he own water rights. He was leasing grazing rights for a while. I don't think most people know. I think they are reacting emotionally. And they are assuming the courts are flawed.
It doesn't sound like Bundy owns anything. I understand that ownership rights can be divided. But like you, I don't know what Bundy owns. Does he own water rights. He was leasing grazing rights for a while. I don't think most people know. I think they are reacting emotionally. And they are assuming the courts are flawed.
I don't claim to be an expert but 20 years ago, before there was an internet, I read a book titled "The Great Plains", written by Walter Prescott Webb, a historian, professor, and writer, which was about settling the west. It was published in 1932 but is still considered to be the bible on that subject, and is still in publication because it is used by numerous western colleges as a textbook, required reading.
The book explains why these western lands were not fully disbursed.
The policies, as set by Congress worked very well back to the east, in the wet zone. 360 acres or 180 acres were available for cheap or often for homestead. And a settler could make a good living off of that.
Congress wanted to keep the same policies in the west, even though they were advised that no one could make a living off that in the west.
Some say it was for egalitarian reasons, Congress did not want to be giving large areas of land to benefit a few. Some say that Congress(controlled by the east) didn't want powerful land owners in the west, especially after the railroad grants. Texas disbursed her land differently and many large ranches were established, but the only one that still exists is the King ranch because it was passed down using primogeniture.
Grazing commons led to conflicts so grazing leases were used, and since they have become semi-perpetual, the problem is even worse. After dams, lakes, and irrigation systems were built by the feds, a settler could make a good living off of the smaller acres with the irrigation water, where the water was available.
As some have pointed out, these western land were still available into the 1970s. But, Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ended homesteading. That act and numerous others define policy today.
Webb's book was great, explaining grazing lands and timber lands, the significance of the invention of the Colt revolver, windmills, and barb wire to fence out the range. His explanations of riparian and prior appropriation water rights were invaluable. But that was 1932 so it didn't say anything about Reserved water rights, which didn't come til later.
If you want to blame someone blame Congress. And of course, Congress today is screwing things up like they did back then