The issue does not seem to be the feds coming into Texas, as such. The disagreement is over where the border of Texas is.
Other news outlets go into more detail and have noted that the BLM is basically looking for a pretext to take land.
The issue does not seem to be the feds coming into Texas, as such.
***********
Well that’s one way of looking at it but the bottom line is that the land would be
removed from Texas. The ownership would have to be placed in elsewhere.
From AG Abbott’s letter:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/oagnews/release.php?id=4718
snip
Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of
the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was
the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923).
More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation”
and stated that “[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress
establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.” Further, the BLM
determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the “south geologic
cut bank as the boundary,” which could have resulted “in up to 90,000 acres” of newly
delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.
Instead, in 2000, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation ratifying an interstate boundary
compact agreed to by the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma. With Congress’
ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, federal law now provides that the boundary
between Texas and Oklahoma is “the vegetation on the south bank of the Red River . . .”—not
the “south geologic cut bank.” Given this significant legal development, it is not at
all clear what legal basis supports the BLM’s claim of federal ownership over private
property that abuts the Red River in the State of Texas.
end snip
Red River Boundary Compact - Texas Statutes
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/NR/htm/NR.12.htm