Rancher’s family takes grazing fight to sheriff

Ammon Bundy, son of rancher Cliven Bundy files a criminal complaint against the Bureau of Land Management at Metropolitan Police Department headquarters, Friday, May 2, 2014 in Las Vegas. Last month, federal agents launched a cattle roundup on the Bundy ranch after they refused a court order to remove their cattle from public land and pay a grazing fee. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)

Ken Ritter
The Associated Press
Nevada Appeal

LAS VEGAS — Family members and other supporters took a Nevada rancher’s grazing rights fight against the U.S. government to the sheriff in Las Vegas on Friday, filing reports alleging crimes by federal agents against people protesting a roundup of cattle from public land.

Rancher Cliven Bundy wasn’t among those who filed handwritten complaints with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department — the agency with jurisdiction over Bundy’s ranch in the Bunkerville area and much of Clark County.

Sheriff Douglas Gillespie said through a department spokesman that the complaints would be investigated and any appropriate criminal charges would be turned over to the Clark County district attorney.

In encampments around the Bundy ranch, self-described militia members from around the country continue to camp with handguns on their hips and heavier weaponry within reach in a show of support for Bundy.

But no weapons were seen Friday among those who responded to his call for supporters and witnesses of a tense April 12 standoff beneath an Interstate 15 overpass — and lesser confrontations in preceding days — to file complaints against U.S. Bureau of Land Management police.

Ammon Bundy of Phoenix headed a delegation of three Bundy sons, two sisters and perhaps 15 other supporters who filed reports accusing Bureau of Land Management agents of wielding high-powered weapons, using attack dogs and stun guns, closing public lands, blocking roads, harassing photographers and threatening people.

“We fervently hope and pray that these heavy-handed tactics will not be used on us or any other Americans ever again,” Ammon Bundy said as he read a three-page media statement at the door of police headquarters.

“Will our sheriff keep his oath this time and use his lawful forces to stop them?” Bundy asked. “Or will the people be left to their own protection?”

Ammon Bundy said Cliven Bundy didn’t join supporters Friday in Las Vegas because he previously filed a complaint asking Gillespie to investigate.

Gillespie didn’t immediately respond to questions about Ammon Bundy’s comments.

Bureau of Land Management officials have accused Cliven Bundy of failing to pay grazing fees for 20 years, racking up more than $1.1 million in fees and penalties, and failing to abide by court orders to remove his cattle from vast open range that is habitat for the endangered desert tortoise.

The agency responded to the filing of police reports with a wry statement.

“We welcome Mr. Bundy’s new interest in the American legal system,” spokesman Craig Leff wrote.

Openly carrying a pistol or rifle is legal in Nevada, and permit holders can carry concealed weapons.

Ammon Bundy credited armed guardians with coming to the aid of his family when the sheriff in Las Vegas would not. He also worried that armed federal agents who pulled out after the standoff nearly three weeks ago will return to Bunkerville.

“Will they come back with greater force and more cunning tactics than before?” he asked.

Hundreds of people and law enforcement officers were involved in the April 12 incident. Las Vegas police officers massed nearby but remained on the sidelines while department brass negotiated a truce between Cliven Bundy and the BLM.

Well-armed bureau police and a group of roundup contractors faced off against protesters backed by a picket line of militia members on the overpass displaying handguns, AR-15 and AK-47 and other military-style arms.

“It was the most frightening thing in my life, to have federal agents of my government pointing guns at me,” said John Lauricella, 44, a Las Vegas resident who backs Bundy and said he was in the potential crossfire.

“I was walking right in the front,” he said. “They said, ‘Keep walking and we’re going to shoot you.’”

Lauricella said he filed a police report Friday accusing federal agents of violating his civil rights.

In the end, the BLM released about 350 Bundy cattle that had been rounded up during the previous week then left the area near Mesquite, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

“We believe that the BLM men who pointed guns at over 1,000 people ... committed a criminal act and that the Clark County sheriff’s office should be required to investigate,” Cliven Bundy and his wife, Carol, said in an overnight email asking supporters to file police reports.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford, who lives in Las Vegas and represents Bunkerville and Mesquite, has also called for federal authorities and Gillespie to investigate the gun-toting force that Horsford said was frightening for residents.

After the standoff, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada branded Bundy supporters who pointed weapons at federal agents “domestic terrorists.” Nevada Republican U.S. Senator Dean Heller called them patriots.

'Bigger than Bundy': Land agency's battles go beyond rancher dispute

April 12, 2014: The Bundy family and their supporters fly the American flag as their cattle is released by the Bureau of Land Management. (AP)

By Barnini Chakraborty
FoxNews.com

It's the most powerful agency you've never heard of -- at least, until recently.

The Bureau of Land Management, the nation's biggest landlord, found itself in the spotlight after a high-profile brawl with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and another dispute with state officials over the Texas-Oklahoma borderlands.

But the seemingly obscure agency, which is in charge of millions of acres of public land, is no stranger to controversy. History shows the power struggle over property rights and land use is one that's been fought -- fiercely -- ever since the bureau was created.

In the nearly seven decades of its existence, the BLM has struggled to find its footing and exert its power, pitted against a vocal states' rights movement.

"The federal government already owns too much land," Texas Gov. Rick Perry, one of the champions of that modern-day movement, recently told Fox News. He called for the federal government, and by extension the BLM, to "divest itself of a huge amount of this landholdings that it has across the country."

The Bureau of Land Management was formed in 1946, consolidating two now-extinct agencies into one for the purpose of overseeing public land. In the beginning, the BLM mostly focused on livestock and mines. Its mission shifted, though, in the 1970s when it took on the role of mediator between commerce and conservation, and faced a second identity crisis in the 1980s. That's when the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion gained new momentum in its push to return control of federal lands to individual states.

That "rebellion" may be underway once again, as states renew concerns about the amount of land controlled by the BLM. Congress also recently weighed in, with House lawmakers passing a bill in February that would prevent the BLM from buying new land.

Currently, the agency, which falls under the purview of the U.S. Department of Interior, oversees 247.3 million acres -- or about one-eighth of the land in the country.

It also owns 700 million acres of on-shore federal mineral estates.

The BLM is responsible for managing a large spectrum of natural resources. The federal agency regulates logging, mining and fracking practices across the country. It also administers close to 18,000 permits and leases a year held by ranchers who graze their livestock on land managed by the federal government. The permits and leases they issue usually last a decade and can be renewed.

In 2009, regulation of public lands in Western states generated $6.2 billion.

By acreage, the agency's largest stake is in Alaska where it owns 72.4 million acres. Nevada ranks second, with 48 million acres under the BLM, and then Utah, with 22.9 million acres.

In Nevada, rancher Cliven Bundy's recent refusal to hand over his family's cattle to the feds re-ignited the national debate over the BLM's power.

On the heels of that controversy, more than 50 lawmakers from nine Western states came together to protest federal land expansion. The state leaders discussed ways to combine their joint goals of taking control of oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the federal government.

"It's so much bigger than Bundy. There are issues ... all across the West where the federal government is exerting control over things it was ever supposed to control," Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory told Fox News. "The federal government was supposed to be a trustee. They do own the land. They do hold title to the land in trust ... but they have a duty to dispose of the land with all states east of Colorado."

Ivory says he wants the federal government to keep a promise it made in the 1894 Enabling Act that made Utah a state. He argues that public lands, except for congressionally designated national parks and wilderness areas, should be transferred back to the states.

So far, state lawmakers in Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington are looking for ways to transfer land management back to the states.

Utah, though, has been the most successful. Lawmakers there passed a measure demanding the federal government extinguish title to federal lands, aside from national parks. Ivory was also the primary backer of the 2012 Transfer of Public Lands Act which established a model for the transfer of certain federal lands to the state in the coming years.

The Bundy case has been largely viewed as the first leadership test for new BLM Director Neil Kornze, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office in April. The local land-use dust-up fed into a growing apprehension over just how much authority the BLM has and how far it is willing to go to maintain control.

In Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter to Kornze looking into allegations the BLM was eyeing a massive land grab in northern Texas. "Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box," wrote Abbott, a GOP gubernatorial candidate.

The agency indicated that the land in question was determined to be public property. "The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River," a BLM spokeswoman said in a written statement.

Attention on the Bundy-BLM battle has lately turned to racially insensitive remarks that Bundy made in several media interviews and appearances.

Conservative and libertarian lawmakers like Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, initially came to Bundy's defense, calling his situation the latest example of big government overreach. Both, though, have since scaled back their comments in light of Bundy's remarks.

"Senator Paul spoke out against federal over-regulation and BLM handling of a situation," Paul spokesman Doug Stafford said in a written statement. "He has never spoken to or met Mr. Bundy and is not responsible for the vile comments that come out of his mouth."

Others say Bundy was at fault, failing to pay $1.1 million in fees for letting his cattle graze on government grass for more than two decades.

"I wish Mr. Bundy would mind his law requirements and not try to play to the television cameras about confronting the evil federal government," former BLM director Patrick Shea told KSL TV. Shea has been on both sides of the land-use debate. He represented activist Tim DeChristopher who took on the BLM over the 2008 sale of controversial oil and gas leases in Utah.

The BLM has run into trouble elsewhere.

In March, BLM officials rounded up a horse herd in Wyoming after area ranchers and farmers complained that the herd grazed down pastures and damaged cattle rangeland. The horses were turned over to Wyoming officials. The state then quickly sold all 41 horses to a Canadian slaughterhouse. Animal rights groups protested the sale and slaughter.

A year earlier, BLM agents in Nevada announced they would be removing 50 wild horses from a herd that had grown too large to be sustained.

But the complaints go beyond horses. In 2011, several Utah counties filed a lawsuit against the agency over exceeding its authority by establishing wilderness protections without the consent of Congress.

Back in the nation's capital, House lawmakers passed a package in February that includes a collection of public land access and restoration provisions. They also adopted two amendments that extend the length of grazing permits on federal lands to 20 years from 10 years and also allow expired or transferred permits to remain effective until new ones can be issued.

Calls to the BLM for comment were not returned.

Congressman wants to cut funding for federal ‘paramilitary units’ after BLM dispute

Protesters arrive at the Bureau of Land Management's base camp on April 11, 2014 where cattle seized by the BLM were being held. (Reuters)

FoxNews.com

A Republican congressman wants to crack down on the proliferation of armed law enforcement units within the federal government, on the heels of the standoff last month between supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and a federal land agency.

Both sides of that standoff -- agents with the Bureau of Land Management, and states' rights protesters who streamed into Nevada -- were armed, leading the BLM to back down for fear of violence.

But Utah GOP Rep. Chris Stewart told The Salt Lake Tribune that the BLM doesn't need an armed unit in the first place. He's reportedly looking at ways to cut funding for what he calls "paramilitary units" and require them to rely on local law enforcement instead.

"There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team," he told the newspaper. "They're regulatory agencies; they're not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us."

The bill could apply to a host of federal agencies, including the BLM, IRS and others.

FoxNews.com previously reported, followed controversy over a separate armed raid by the EPA last year in Alaska, that 40 federal agencies have armed divisions. This includes nearly a dozen typically not associated with law enforcement.

The agencies employ about 120,000 full-time officers authorized to carry guns and make arrests, according to a June 2012 Justice Department report.

Though most would expect agents within the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Prisons to carry guns, agencies such as the Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board also employ armed officers.

Among those with the largest armed units are the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Park Service.

A BLM spokeswoman told the Tribune that the BLM and Park Service had law enforcement on the scene in Nevada to ensure safety -- and that, with just 300 officers covering millions of acres of public land, they already coordinate with local law enforcement.

But Stewart says they should be able to rely on the local sheriff in these types of incidents.

Other lawmakers, though, are focusing more on the armed militia members who showed up to protest agents taking Bundy's cattle over a grazing fee dispute.

KLAS-TV in Las Vegas reported that Sgt. Tom Jenkins, of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said officers were concerned for their lives.

"We didn't show any fear that day, but I can tell you, we all thought in the back of our minds, we all thought it was going to be our last day on earth, if it went bad," he reportedly said.

Long History of BLM's Agressive Cattle Seizures

Bureau of Land Management law enforcement officers block the Overton Beach Road at the Lake Mead National Recreation Area near Overton, Nev. Thursday, April 10, 2014, as protestor's shadows are seen in the foreground. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

by KERRY PICKET
Breitbart.com

Every month, Raymond Yowell, the 84-year-old former chief of the Shoshone Indian Tribe in northeastern Nevada, has almost $200 garnished from his $1,150 Social Security check, and it all dates back to a 5:00am phone call on a Friday morning in 2002.

That morning, a government official from the Bureau of Land Management told him to come down to a seizure site where the 132 cattle he owned were about to be impounded.

When he arrived, men brandishing handguns told him he couldn't get any closer than 250 yards from his cattle. He watched from a distance as the government loaded the livestock onto stock trailers.

Within a week, the cattle had been sold at a private auction – for what Yowell estimated to be a quarter of their market price. The proceeds belonged to BLM, officials told him, paying a portion of the grazing fees he suddenly owed. It wasn't enough to cover the full debt, and BLM sent Yowell a bill for $180,000.

Yowell has been fighting the BLM in court ever since, but while the case moves its way through the system, his Social Security check takes a hit every month.

The story, ranchers in Nevada say, is far from unique. Beginning in the late 1980s, BLM adopted aggressive tactics in the West, leading to large-scale cattle seizures and a disruption of life for ranchers that had utilized public lands for decades prior.

While the press has showered attention on Cliven Bundy, a polarizing man who prompted a tense standoff between Bundy's well-armed militia supporters and federal police, the struggle between ranchers and the BLM is much broader.

In 1994, Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt rushed through a total overhaul of cattle and sheep grazing regulations on over 260 million acres of land that was managed by the BLM and Agriculture Department's U.S. Forest Service, The Washington Post reported.

The 1994 “Rangeland Reform” regulations included doubling the current fees charged to ranchers for public forage and further environmental rules to prevent “overgrazing.” Opponents noted that in the runup to the new regulations, the National Academy of Scientists – a preeminent scientific authority on which federal agencies rely for expert analysis – had issued a report concluding so little was known about the condition of U.S. range lands that the new standards were essentially a shot in the dark. But Babbit forged ahead anyway.

At the time, former-Sen. Pete Domenici ripped the plan, a version of which he had defeated in Congress when it was a legislative proposal the year before. "The last thing we should do is hurry decisions that have far-reaching effects on western states," he said.

Underlying the move to raise fees was BLM's view that the fees on public lands were too low – much lower than fees to graze on private land, for example.

But as Heather Smith Thomas, an Idaho rancher, noted in a 1994 article in Rangelands, a peer-reviewed academic journal, the private grazing fees were artificially high because the government owns so much land in the West.

“What many people do not understand is that the ‘low’ fee is just one small portion of the rancher's many costs in using public land. The total costs amount to much more than renting private pasture, yet the rancher is locked into this situation, totally dependent on the public range. He can't just walk away if the fee gets too high, and rent pasture elsewhere; there is not sufficient private pasture available,” Thomas wrote.

The new fees imposed upon ranchers in the 90’s were skewed, according to Thomas, because the fee was based on private land lease rates, but private lease rates were high due to the scarce availability of private land and the lack of regulations on private land compared to federally owned land.

Thomas noted the“BLM states that "land treatment solely oriented toward meeting livestock forage requirements will be discontinued". Additionally the reforms have less emphasis on grazing, “yet the BLM wants to charge the rancher more for something that is being made much more difficult to use.”

Before the Babbit rule, fees were based on a formula that reflected annual changes in the costs of production.

“All the legislative history involving FS and BLM fees show that grazing fees were intended to be based on the rancher's ability to pay, not on some arbitrary value of forage or budget needs of the administrative bureau,” Thomas said of the 1978 legislation.

Ranchers found themselves in court for years fighting the BLM immediately following 1994 regulations.

Idaho Republican Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage and her husband Wayne Hage, lost their grazing permit on their Nevada ranch property for federal lands in 1991, when the federal government refused to renew it. This incident started a 20-year battle with the BLM. The government also denied access to the Hage family’s water rights, which pre-dated the implementation of the 1934 Taylor Act’s grazing permit requirement, by not allowing access to streams and wells. Eventually, the agency built fences around any water source, so the cattle could not drink. The BLM seized Hage’s cattle and filed a civil trespass action against Hage.

A little over twenty years later, however, seven years after Hage and his wife died, Hage’s children, Wayne Jr. and Ramona Morrison Hage won a victory for the family in court.

Last May, U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones ruled that “the government and the agents of the government in that locale, sometime in the ’70s and ’80s, entered into a conspiracy, a literal, intentional conspiracy, to deprive the Hages of not only their permit grazing rights, for whatever reason, but also to deprive them of their vested property rights under the takings clause, and I find that that’s a sufficient basis to hold that there is irreparable harm if I don’t … restrain the government from continuing in that conduct.”

Judge Jones found the government’s demand for trespass fines and damages from innocent ranchers to be “abhorrent to the Court and I express on the record my offense of my own conscience in that conduct. That’s not just simply following the law and pursuing your management right, it evidences an actual intent to destroy their water rights, to get them off the public lands.”

Jones went further and accused federal government personnel of racketeering under the federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations) statute, and accused them of extortion, mail fraud, and fraud, in an attempt “to kill the business of Mr. Hage.”

Morrison Hage, a member of the Nevada Agriculture Board, told Breitbart News that “In the west our governors almost conduct themselves as if they’re a colonial governor and as if they’re only governor over the private land, adding “They take their hands off the steering wheel even though all state power emerge from the state. They take their hands off the steering whenever there’s anything to do with federal land management.”

Harvey Frank Robbins became a Wyoming dude ranch owner in 1994, after buying a piece of land in the state, but Robbins troubles began soon after his purchase. He told Live Stock Weekly, "The government — the Forest Service, the BLM and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department — were trying to buy the ranch," he explains. "They had these plans of grandeur of having this sanctuary of elk and trout fishing and all the things they could do. Then this guy from Alabama comes in at the last minute, not knowing any of this, and buys this ranch."

Robbins accused BLM employees of trying to force him to renew an easement to the point of almost putting him out of business. When Robbins refused to do so, according to his lawyer, Karen Budd Falen, BLM employees broke into his house and demanded to be allowed on to his property without a court order, among other things. While Robbins won victories in lower courts, a RICO case against the BLM employees eventually went before the Supreme Court in 2006, where the majority ruled the BLM agents were not liable for the alleged actions against Robbins.

Justice David Souter wrote opinion for the majority, stating, “Souter wrote that "we think [that] any damages remedy for actions by Government employees who push too hard for the Government's benefit may come better, if at all, through legislation."

Legislative changes could very well happen in the near future. New legislation to reform how much land the government does own could be headed to Capitol Hill. The meeting of western lawmakers in Utah last week signaled such a plan. Additionally, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced the Lone State’s plan to defend its own land from BLM seizures.

Supervisor Opposes Settlement with U.S. on County Roads in Mojave National Preserve

Secret settlement a disservice to the public and property owners

Highland Community News

SAN BERNARDINO – Despite leading the effort that resulted in perhaps the first-ever legal recognition of County rights of ownership of roads on federal lands, San Bernardino County Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt ultimately opposed and voted against the resulting settlement between the county and the federal government that was announced today.

Supervisor Mitzelfelt’s opposition was based on concerns about future vehicular access and convenience of the public as well as property owners within the Mojave National Preserve.

“I recommended that the Board of Supervisors initiate this lawsuit five years ago to ensure the county’s rights to maintain the roads in the Mojave National Preserve, not to turn the roads over to the National Park Service,” Supervisor Mitzelfelt said. “The Board’s final decision was not consistent the Board's original intent and certainly not consistent with my intent to preserve access and county control of roads in the preserve on behalf of our residents and visitors.”

The Mojave National Preserve takes in 1.6 million acres between Interstates 15 and 40 west of and bordering the Nevada State Line. The roads – including Kelbaker, Ivanpah, Essex, Lanfair and Morning Star Mine Roads – are important routes for travelers and commerce across the desert. But one example of disputes over authority between the county and the Park Service was the Park Service’s action posting signs prohibiting commercial vehicles when the preserve was first established by the Desert Protection Act in 1994.

Supervisor Mitzelfelt said the county believes the settlement represents the first time the federal government has formally recognized that county roads on federal land are valid and protected rights-of-way under a federal law passed in 1866.

“While I am pleased we were able to convince the federal government to agree to recognize our road rights-of-way, it is largely a symbolic victory unless and until someone can successfully convince a federal authority that it set some kind of a precedent,” Supervisor Mitzelfelt said. “The agreement specifically says it does not set a precedent, but I still hope our county or perhaps even another county or state will be able to derive some benefit from what was agreed to in this settlement.”

Added Mitzelfelt: “I also feel that the settlement process, carried out in secret, which under federal court rules and procedures is perfectly legal and proper, has nevertheless done a disservice to the public and the property owners within the preserve by not giving them a voice in the matter until after a final decision had been made.”

In October 2006, the County filed a “quiet title” action against the United States and the U.S. Department of the Interior seeking acknowledgement that 14 county maintained roads within, and adjacent to, the Mojave National Preserve are permanent and protected rights-of-way under Revised Statute 2477, part of the Mining Act of 1866, which allowed construction of roads across public lands.

R.S. 2477 was repealed in 1976 and replaced with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which subjects the county to extensive environmental review and regulatory costs when it is invoked on county roads not established or authorized under R.S. 2477 before it was repealed.

Because the county was never able to secure official acknowledgment or documentation of R.S. 2477 rights from the Department of Interior, despite extraordinary efforts to do so, it decided to file suit to force the issue.

During settlement negotiations, the idea was advanced that the federal government could recognize the county’s assertion of control over the roads but then the County could turn over most of the roads to the federal government. Although the Board of Supervisors was not directly involved in the negotiations, Supervisor Mitzelfelt was briefed on the matter throughout because the preserve is located within his district. When negotiations turned toward ceding roads to the federal government despite his personal opposition to the idea, he began pushing for binding provisions that the roads would be maintained, and most importantly, kept open, in the event they were transferred to federal ownership.

The county and Park Service agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding requiring the two agencies to work together on issues of maintenance and safety improvements, along with acknowledgement of the county’s need to keep the roads open for public use. But Supervisor Mitzelfelt said he feels that the MOU and settlement may not sufficiently bind the federal government to keep routes open.

“Based on my own conversations with the Park Service, I have little confidence that they will be appropriated enough funding to properly maintain and improve those roads,” Supervisor Mitzelfelt said. “As far as a process to prevent arbitrary closure of roads, such a provision exists in the settlement. But I fear the Park Service will simply go through the public process and consultations with the county and attempt to close roads anyway based on lack of funds.”

The Supervisor said he hopes that does not occur, and if it does it would be after his term of office. But if it does happen, “I hope the county will legally challenge any future road closures in the Mojave National Preserve.”

Supervisor Mitzelfelt said one favorable provision of the settlement is that the county will continue to own and maintain two roads on the edges of the Mojave National Preserve located on U.S. Bureau of Land Management property – Nipton Road and Goffs Road – under the county’s normal regulatory regimen for road maintenance in the area.

County settles suit over Mojave National Preserve roads

Supervisors sell out property owners for an annual $53,000 savings

From Staff Reports
Victorville Daily Press

Environmental groups reached a settlement with San Bernardino County this week in an ongoing legal dispute over roads in the Mojave National Preserve.

The dispute centered on how many roads the county could claim within the preserve and how the roads affected sensitive wildlife.

The county had sued the federal government in 2006 in hopes of retaining access to 14 county-maintained roads within the 1.6 million-acre preserve between Interstates 15 and 40, west of the Nevada State Line. The federal government agreed to preserve the roads — including Kelbaker, Ivanpah, Essex, Lanfair and Morning Star Mine roads — and take responsibility for maintaining them, the county said.

First District Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt said the county believes the settlement represents the first time the federal government has formally recognized that county roads on federal land are protected rights-of-way under a federal law passed in 1866.

However, Mitzelfelt blasted the settlement, saying he did not think the National Park Service would have enough funding to maintain the roads and that he fears they may ultimately restrict access to the public.

“Based on my own conversations with the Park Service, I have little confidence that they will be appropriated enough funding to properly maintain and improve those roads,” Mitzelfelt said in a statement Friday. “As far as a process to prevent arbitrary closure of roads, such a provision exists in the settlement. But I fear the Park Service will simply go through the public process and consultations with the county and attempt to close roads anyway based on lack of funds.”

The National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity joined the suit in an attempt to force the county to consider the impacts of the road proposal on sensitive wildlife. The groups had attempted to negotiate a settlement with the county for five years, the Center for Biological Diversity said.

The groups agreed to allow the county to claim two roads — Nipton Road and Goffs Road — on public lands bordering the preserve that were used for travel before 1976, as well as eight other roads within the preserve. But the county was required to give up claims to additional roads in the preserve that the groups say threaten sensitive species like Joshua trees and desert tortoises.

“The sweeping vistas and dark night sky in the preserve will be safeguarded — an important conservation goal as development pressures mount in the Southern California deserts,” Kim Floyd, conservation chair for the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.

County officials said they expected to save $53,000 per year by having the federal government maintain the roads.

MOJAVE DESERT: Military seeks OHV area for exercises

By DAVID DANELSKI
The Press-Enterprise

The military wants to expand its Twentynine Palms training grounds to take in more than two-thirds of the popular Johnson Valley off-road recreation area southeast of Barstow, according to U.S. Marine Corps documents released Friday.

Under the Marines' preferred plan to expand the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, the military would control 146,667 acres in the Johnson Valley that now is a designated off-highway vehicle recreation area. The valley draws tens of thousands of off-road enthusiasts each year.

The 932-square-mile combat center also could add another 21,304 acres at its southeast corner, northeast of Twentynine Palms.

The proposal is among six alternatives being considered by the military to prepare troops for desert and urban warfare.

All but one alternative involves taking most of the 189,000-acre Johnson Valley OHV area.

The disclosures contained in the 941-page environmental study fit with earlier statements by Marine Corps officials. Military officials at Twentynine Palms did not return a call Friday.

Lt. Col. James McArthur said in an interview in late 2008 that Marine officials had determined that the Johnson Valley is best for live-fire exercises and maneuvers because it provides a natural extension of training corridors on the base.

The expansion is needed, the military has said, so that Marines have enough space for three battalions to maneuver simultaneously using live ammunition accompanied by air support. Each battalion would have about 1,000 Marines aided by other troops performing command and logistics duties.

Ray Pessa, a Yucca Valley resident who builds dune buggies, said the preferred plan is not a complete loss to off-roaders.

He was part of a group that met with military officials and explained the importance of the Johnson Valley to various groups, including hikers, campers, wind sailors and rocket clubs.

The preferred plan would allow public access on 38,137 acres in the southeast part of Johnson Valley for about 10 months each year. That would allow the popular "King of the Hammers" four-wheel-drive rock-crawler race to continue, he said. The annual event attracts about 8,000 people, Pessa said.

Still, 108,530 acres of the Johnson Valley would be for military use only, including the Rock Pile and Bessemer Mine Road areas.

"I am not in a position to argue with the military," Pessa said. "If the U.S. Marines say they need that area, then they do."

Pessa added that off-roaders also are being pushed from public land because of new wildlife protections.

"All over the country, public lands are being taken away," he said.

The military's environmental impact statement will be open to public comments through May 26. It can be viewed at www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/las. Comments can be mailed to Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Attention: Twentynine Palms EIS Project Manager, 1220 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92132-5190.

The Marines will host public meetings on April 12, 13, and 14 in Joshua Tree, Ontario and Victorville, respectively.

The military's news release did not state when a final decision is expected.

Developer to pay $753 per acre for tortoise mitigation

By MARK WAITE
Pahrump Valley Times

Corrections Corporation of America will pay a fee of $753 per acre for disturbing desert tortoise habitat, in a biological opinion for the federal detention center approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

That would amount to $51,957 for 69 acres of disturbed habitat in an agreement approved Oct. 9. The check will be paid to the Clark County Desert Tortoise Conservation Program for habitat enhancement and acquisition for desert tortoises in the wild.

The agreement was released after the filing of a Freedom of Information Act request by the Pahrump Valley Times.

A tortoise-proof fence will be required around the perimeter of the project, including the detention center water storage tank and drainage ditch. Another 51 acres of the 120-acre property will not be disturbed, the opinion said.

The issuance kicks off an 18-month period in which CCA is expected to construct and have ready for occupancy a federal detention center to house up to 1,500 inmates awaiting trial in federal court or deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The fee is much higher than the $550 per acre for a high-habitat zone and $250 in a low-habitat zone proposed in a habitat conservation plan covering up to 150 acres in Pahrump Valley -- a plan that was rejected by Nye County commissioners.

After months of haggling with the Fish and Wildlife Service, county officials balked at paying a fee suggested by consultant Julene Haworth to submit the plan after being told the plan would be free.

"I think there is definitely still a need because there are still species affected on private land," said Amy LaVoie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife deputy assistant field supervisor. "The urgency may have dropped a little bit because of the economy. I know there were a lot of planned developments in the Pahrump area."

County Commissioner Gary Hollis said he was belatedly engaging in discussions on desert tortoise mitigation plans so state USFWS Director Bob Williams "didn't send his storm troopers" down to Pahrump.

County Commission Chairman Joni Eastley had concerns the agency could stop construction in Pahrump if contractors didn't have the necessary agreement for an accidental take of desert tortoise.

"We have not decided whether to enact any enforcement at this time, especially with some of the developers coming forth and wanting to do their own plan," LaVoie said.

Pahrump is awaiting a desert tortoise habitat conservation plan for the 426-acre site on Highway 160 just southeast of Dandelion Road formerly planned for a fairgrounds and now being considered for a water park and western theme village.

In March 2007, the USFWS said the desert tortoise was a species that may be present at the proposed federal detention center site at 2250 E. Mesquite Ave. in Pahrump. A site visit on Nov.12-13, 2007, found 13 desert tortoise burrows but no actual tortoises. The service estimated the site would have very low densities ranging from zero to 10 tortoises per square mile.

"Human activity in the area may result in tortoise mortality from vehicle encounters, increased predation from ravens, illegal collection of tortoises and degradation of the habitat from disturbance, fragmentation and the spread of non-native plants," the opinion said.

However, the USFWS concluded that based on mitigation measures, already increased levels of disturbance in the area and the small area of disturbance proposed for the center, "The project, as proposed and analyzed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened desert tortoise."

A qualified biologist will be required to direct the placement of temporary fencing along East Mesquite Avenue during construction, in areas next to desert tortoise habitat, a recommendation made by the Fish and Wildlife Service to the consultant for the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee.

That was the result of a site visit and past observations of tortoises crossing the road, Williams wrote.

A field contract representative approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service would be hired to implement an education program for construction workers; conduct a pre-construction clearance survey flagging any burrows, feeding sites or nesting sites; define disturbance areas and install desert tortoise exclusion fencing before construction.

A biologist will be on call during construction to move any desert tortoises out of the project area.

If the installation of the tortoise proof fence occurs during their active period from March to October, an authorized biologist will be present to ensure no tortoises are harmed. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates two tortoises could be killed during construction. The fencing would be monitored daily.

Order bans moving water rights closer to Devil's Hole pupfish

COUNTY PROTEST SEEN AS LIKELY

By MARK WAITE
Pahrump Valley Times

State Engineer Tracy Taylor officially drew a line in the sand, ruling his office will deny any applications to change the point of diversion for water rights within 25 miles of Devil's Hole, home of the endangered pup fish.

The Nov. 4 order only pertains to the Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Basin, which is considered an overappropriated basin. That means the permitted water rights exceed the perennial yield.

A ruling in a federal lawsuit specifies the water level to be maintained at Devil's Hole. Taylor said information provided at an administrative hearing Sept. 5-6, 2007, showed the water level was only 0.6-0.7 foot above that threshold.

There are three exceptions to the order: applications that keep the existing place of use of water rights; applications to appropriate two acre feet per year or less; and projects requiring changes of multiple existing water rights that could be used to compare the net impact to Devil's Hole.

A companion ruling by the state engineer noted the National Park Service expressed concerns about the cumulative impact of moving water rights closer to Devil's Hole, changing the pumping center in the Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Basin. The state engineer found neither the NPS nor the dairy was able to clearly demonstrate the effects of regional pumping on Devil's Hole water levels.

Nye County Hydrologist Tom Buqo said hopefully the order will get rid of a concern over water rights applications that have been pending a long time.

"However, there's a little thing called the law of unintended consequences and I don't know if this thing has been thought out that well. We don't know how it affects domestic wells. Once a water right is moved, it can't be moved back. So there's a concern there's going to be land in Nye County where someone sells the water rights and then the land has no water," Buqo said.

The 25-mile radius from Devil's Hole would include much of Amargosa Valley past Lathrop Wells.

Buqo said any one order issued by the state engineer shouldn't be viewed independently of other rulings. He noted the impact of this order with a previous ruling which doesn't allow Nye County to file on water rights at the Nevada Test Site.

"What this says is: Nye County, you're not getting any additional water in the southern part of the county," Buqo said.

Developers proposing solar energy projects in Amargosa Valley would have to pipe water to the location unless they could buy or lease water rights, Buqo said.

A property owner with land near Devil's Hole who transfers water rights farther away leaves the original property unusable, he said.

The county hydrologist, however, found some advantage in the order, providing some clarity to the individual rulings handed down by the state engineer.

"Now that they've established this policy, that should clear things up. People are going to find very quick they won't have to go through the protest rule. The state engineer will just rule, and if they're moving water rights closer to Devil's Hole, they will be denied," Buqo said.

Nevada District 36 Assemblyman Ed Goedhart, R-Amargosa Valley, said the 25-mile radius would cover all of Pahrump as far south as Mountain Falls, if the Pahrump hydrographic basin were included. He charged the order discriminated against Amargosa Valley.

Goedhart said the state engineer keeps expanding the zone around Devil's Hole. He said the order amounted to a taking of private property rights.

"There's no financial reimbursement for the loss of a person's valuable property rights," Goedhart said.

"It could also have grave and consequential consequences to the fledgling solar industry we would like to locate between Pahrump and Beatty if you can't move the water where you put your solar projects," Goedhart said. "I just got a call from Solar Millenium. They're looking at a $1 billion project. This has made them wonder whether to engage in anything in southern Nye County."

Solar developers plan on leasing water rights from long-term farmers in Amargosa Valley, he said.

Research cited by the state engineer shows the water level in Devil's Hole went down 2.4 inches in 20 years, Goedhart said.

Goedhart said the dairy spent $140,000 on experts includling hydrogeologists and attorneys to argue their point at the September 2007 administrative hearings.

The order leaves the possibility of property owners moving water rights farther away from Devil's Hole, to the north and west of Amargosa Valley. Goedhart said property owners at the northern and western end of Amargosa Valley may have nowhere to transfer their water rights.

"This is going to completely take away the ability for growth to happen here in Amargosa Valley," he said.

Nye County Commissioner Gary Hollis said, "I would imagine we're going to protest it."

Land grab bill laden with earmarks and anti-energy

Staff Report
Tulsa Today







U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK)



U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement regarding the Senate Democrat Majority’s plan to devote a week or more of the Senate’s post-election special session debating a 1,082 page, $3 billion earmark-laden omnibus bill that expands federal land control over millions of acres of U.S. property, and restricts energy exploration over millions of acres of U.S. territory.

“Congress’ approval ratings are at an all-time low because the American people understand that never before in our nation’s history have the priorities of the United States Congress been more at odds with the priorities of the American people. The majority’s willingness to spend a week or more debating a lands bill loaded with frivolous projects and radical environmental provisions when we are facing our greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression is a case study in Congress’ misplaced priorities,” Dr. Coburn said.

“While the Senate would prefer to pass this omnibus package after the election, the American people have a right to understand the Senate’s post-election agenda before they go to the polls,” Dr. Coburn said.

Egregious bills and provisions contained in the omnibus package include the following:

• Bill S. 2229 that takes about 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 300 million barrels of oil out of production in Wyoming, according to the Bureau of Land Management. The energy resources walled off by this bill would equal our domestic natural gas production for 15 years.


• Bill S. 27 that would spend $1 billion on a water project designed to save 500 salmon in California. At $2 million a head, each salmon would be worth far more than its weight in gold.


• Bill S. 2359 to spend $3.5 million to celebrate the 450th birthday of St. Augustine Florida in 2015.


• Bill S. 2875 that spends $4 million to protect livestock from wolves.


• Bill S. 1969 that spends $250,000 to help bureaucrats decide how to designate Alexander Hamilton’s boyhood home.


• Bill S. 2220 to spend $5 million on botanical gardens in Hawaii and Florida.


• Bill S. 1680 to spend $3 million on a “road to nowhere” through a wildlife refuge in Alaska.

“I’ve objected to wasteful, pork-barrel spending bills for many years whether offered by Democrats or Republicans. This bill is among the most egregious I’ve seen not just because of what it contains but because it blatantly puts short-term parochial politics ahead of the long-term interests of the country in a moment of national peril. The American people want Congress to address our economic crisis, not erect new barriers to energy exploration and reward special interests in their states,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Voters who are eager for real change should tell their elected representatives it’s time to set common sense priorities. Treating salmon as worth more than their weight in gold is not change. Change also means focusing on the long-term health of our economy rather than the short-term politics of parochialism. If Congress had approached the housing bubble and mismanagement at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with as much foresight as we do the upcoming birthday of St. Augustine Florida in 2015 we would be in much better shape financially,” Dr. Coburn said. “And can we wonder why the public distrusts Congress when we are asking taxpayers to spend $250,000 not on the task of protecting their homes, but the boyhood home of Alexander Hamilton?”

“While the majority may complain about my ‘unprecedented obstruction’ I make no apologies for denying Senators the privilege of passing this reckless and irresponsible bill by a secret non-recorded voice vote that allows for no debate and no amendments. The Majority Leader, who sets the Senate schedule, could have forced an open debate and vote on this package whenever he wished this past year. Unfortunately, the majority wanted to delay action on this bill until after the election precisely because they did not want voters to hold them accountable for erecting new barriers to American energy exploration and spending billions on ridiculous pet projects,” Dr. Coburn said.

“The greatest obstruction to our economic recovery is not any one Senator’s insistence that the Senate do its job and debate bills in the open, but short-sightedness of members of Congress in both parties who have lost the will and ability to set common sense priorities,” Dr. Coburn said.

Editor's Note: Detail summary of the more than 100 provisions of the bill here.

EDITORIAL: At the time, they said he was crazy

Government loses case involving late Nevada rancher

Opinion
Las Vegas Review-Journal

Wayne Hage and his wife, former U.S. Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage of Idaho

Back in the 1980s, it became an article of faith among well-meaning "environmentalists" that grazing cattle on arid Western lands serves to "destroy fragile ecosystems."

Western ranchers presented evidence that desert plants developed in an ecosystem that needs large ungulate grazers to churn their seeds into the soil, to fertilize wetlands, to carry moisture into arid valleys and thus benefit tortoise populations -- which is why more tortoises are found on grazed land than ungrazed.

The ranchers argued that grazing prevents the buildup of excess tinder that can make range fires more frequent and severe, that game species profit from the ranchers' water improvements and efforts at predator control.

The forces seeking to remove mankind from the land scoffed at such arguments. They canceled grazing "permits" left and right.

The U.S. Forest Service ordered that Nevada rancher and private property rights advocate Wayne Hage, in one example, could use "only hand tools" to trim back trees clogging the canals that had brought water to his 125-year-old, 700,000-acre Pine Creek Ranch in central Nevada.

In 1991, Wayne Hage sued. On Friday, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Loren A. Smith ruled Mr. Hage was right, and the Forest Service was wrong.

The judge awarded more than $4.2 million to the plaintiffs, ruling the U.S. Forest Service committed an unconstitutional "taking" of his water rights during their decades-long dispute over livestock grazing.

Judge Smith also ordered the government to pay back interest to the family of a man considered one of the leaders of the 1980s "Sagebrush Rebellion" -- an additional $4.4 million. And the government is also ordered to pay the Hage family's legal costs -- another $4 million.

"The hand tools requirement prevented all effective ditch maintenance, as it cannot be seriously argued that the work normally done by caterpillars and back hoes could be accomplished with hand tools over thousands of acres," the judge wrote. The implementation of the hand tools requirement "was based solely on hostility to plaintiffs," the judge ruled.

"It sends a pretty important message to the government that if you screw with a small ranching family and put them out of business, you have to pay big bucks," exults Lyman "Ladd" Bedford, a San Francisco-based lawyer who has argued the case since Hage first filed his lawsuit, 17 years ago.

Does it?

It would be nice to ask Mr. Hage whether he feels vindicated. We can't. He's dead.

The 17-year federal lawsuit took longer to prevail than either Mr. Hage -- who died in 2006 -- or his widow, the late former U.S. Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage of Idaho, could wait.

And while $4 million or $8 million sounds like a lot of money, they're notably smaller sums than that $28 million Mr. Hage sought -- and that was in 1991 dollars.

That leads Cliven Bundy -- the last active cattle rancher in Clark County, who has fought his own battles with federal bureaucrats trying to drive him and his cattle off the Mesquite allotment by challenging both his grazing and his water rights -- to question just how big a "win" Friday's ruling really is.

"I don't think he gained anything there," said Mr. Bundy Tuesday afternoon. "I think they just stole his water for a cheap price."

Mr. Hage's daughter, Ramona Morrison, is more optimistic.

"Whether it's a permanent or a temporary taking is not clear" -- a matter that may be cleared up in a post-trial conference Friday, says Mrs. Morrison. "At the time, Dad was told he was crazy to try and do this, so to come out with this kind of a ruling after all this time, while we were not surprised that there was compensation, is quite remarkable. ... Dad plowed a trail through 6 feet of snow with this case."

Nevada rancher wins property rights award

Forest Service took
his water rights,
judge says



Associated Press
Los Angeles Times




E. Wayne Hage 1936–2006

RENO, NEV. -- A federal judge has awarded more than $4.2 million to the estate of late Nevada rancher and private property rights advocate Wayne Hage, ruling that the U.S. Forest Service committed a constitutional "taking" of his water rights during a decades-long dispute over livestock grazing on federal land.

Calling the conflict a "drama worthy of a tragic opera and heroic characters," U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Loren A. Smith also ordered the government to pay back interest to the family of one of the leaders of the so-called "Sagebrush Rebellion" during the 1980s.

Hage's lawyer estimates the interest dating to 1991 to be an additional $4.4 million, which he said would make it the largest award ever in such a case.

"It sends a pretty important message to the government that if you screw with a small ranching family and put them out of business, you have to pay big bucks," said Lyman "Ladd" Bedford, a San Francisco-based lawyer who has argued the case since Hage first filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service in 1991.

Smith, based in Washington D.C., ruled that government restrictions severely reducing water flows to Hage's land "deprived them of the water they needed for irrigation, making the ranch unviable."

"The court finds the government's actions had a severe economic impact on plaintiffs and the governments' actions rose to the level of a taking," he said in Friday's ruling.

"Whereas real property ownership is defined by a right to exclude others from that property, water ownership is defined by the right to access and use that water."

Like in similar cases in the past, the judge said the cancellation of Hage's federal grazing permit as a result of overgrazing and trespassing did not in itself amount to a "taking" prohibited under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. That's because a grazing permit is "a license, not a contract or property interest," he said.

However, Smith said the taking occurred when the Forest Service -- apparently motivated by "hostility" toward Hage -- made it impossible for him to maintain the irrigation ditches.

The ditches were regulated under the 1866 Ditch Act, which was enacted one year after the Pine Creek Ranch was founded in central Nevada. They brought water to the sprawling 7,000-acre ranch in central Nevada that Hage bought in 1978 and the 700,000 acres of national forest land where he grazed his cattle -- an area equal to about two-thirds of the size of Rhode Island.

Ed Monnig, supervisor of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, said Tuesday there had been no decision made yet on whether to appeal.

"We're aware of Friday's court decision and our agency is now considering the implications of this ruling and carefully weighing options," Monnig said.

Hage, who was married to the late U.S. Idaho Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage at the time of his death in 2006, first filed a claim seeking $28 million in 1991. He said in an interview in 2004 that his case "could have a dramatic impact on Western state's rights and the proper jurisdiction of federal lands in the West."

"It's the first time in nearly a century that someone has effectively challenged the government over who owns the range rights and water rights out here on these federal lands," he told The Associated Press.

Hage had argued the proliferation of willows, pinion, juniper and other vegetation in the ditches over the years resulted in a significant reduction in the flow of water to his pastures. He said that was primarily because of the Forest Service's demand that he maintain the ditches using nothing more than hand tools.

"Extensive evidence has convinced the court that but for the government actions plaintiffs would have had the water in which they had a vested right," the judge wrote.

'Don't zone me in:'

Property-rights measures on ballot in West

By JOHN MILLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
Seattle Post-intelligencer

BOISE, Idaho -- The West was won a century ago, but the battle over how it will look a century from now continues, with property-rights initiatives on the ballot in at least four states.

Measures in Idaho, Arizona, California and Washington ask voters to follow Oregon, where residents in 2004 forced local governments to pay private property owners when new regulations reduce their land's value.

Aiming to capitalize on anti-government sentiment kicked up by a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case in Connecticut, proponents say these "regulatory takings" measures protect people's freedom to profit from their land.

Opponents point to Oregon, where "Measure 37" has resulted in more than $4 billion in claims. They say these initiatives are financed by wealthy ideologues bent on preventing local governments from deciding where subdivisions, gravel pits, even rendering plants can be built.

It's the latest collision of the "Don't fence me in" ethos of the old West, where property rights border on the sacred, with the new West's vision of a landscape that only seems infinite - and requires laws to shape it appropriately. And it has attracted deep-pocketed backers on both sides: Millions from conservative activist and New York real-estate Howard Rich are propping up the ballot measures, while Paul Brainerd, Seattle-based founder of Aldus software, has injected at least $120,000 into the fight to shoot them down.

"I don't believe that developers should profit from dodging local land-use regulations," said Brainerd, who also owns a home near Ketchum, Idaho. "Each community should be able decide how to best balance the rights and responsibilities of land owners to the greater community good - not just the rights of an individual who wants to develop a subdivision with 250 homes on 20 acres."

Conservative activists including Boise's Laird Maxwell are pushing their initiatives almost solely with money from organizations linked to Rich and say foes have employed "esoteric, pie-in-the-sky scare tactics" to frighten voters on Nov. 7. They say their proposals are simple: If government changes laws to limit how people can use their land, it should pay for the damage.

"It is a battle over whether or not individual liberty will continue in the United States or not," Rich, also on the boards of the conservative Cato Institute and the Club for Growth, told The Associated Press. "The opposition are government bureaucrats, those that profit from taking other people's property without paying for it, and those that have radical agendas hidden under soft facades."

There could have been more measures: A Montana effort appears dead after a judge found signature-gathering fraud got it on the ballot. And the Nevada Supreme Court trimmed regulatory-takings provisions from a measure there.

As the West changes from a region where agriculture is replaced by subdivisions that seem to stretch from horizon to horizon, these battles are emerging in part because some fear they'll be left behind.

"Landowners see zoning laws as an obstacle to them transitioning out of resource use and into urban development," said Sy Adler, an urban studies professor at Portland State University and co-author of "Planning a New West." It would be nice to do this in a more planful way rather than a ballot-measure approach."

Proponents say that's the only way to get government to listen.

Ed Terrazas, an architect near Sun Valley, Idaho, signed onto Proposition 2 after the local government rejected his plan to build four homes on 115 acres of sage and grass he owns above the Big Wood River, near where it flows out of the Rocky Mountains.

"Largely from my years of planning experience, I've seen other people harmed by overzealous regulation that doesn't account for property rights," said Terrazas, who is suing Blaine County. "You're fighting your own government, and they have unlimited resources."

Some of the ballot measures are married to provisions meant to address eminent-domain abuse fears that arose after the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London case. The Connecticut city was allowed to condemn residential property to clear the way for a private economic development.

Still, foes in Idaho, including business groups, cities and counties, and Republican Gov. Jim Risch, say eminent domain is no longer a concern, since state lawmakers this year passed new laws greatly restricting when governments can seize private property.

Others argue the regulatory-takings measures would produce a system where land-use disagreements will wind up in courts, costing taxpayers millions. In Oregon, for instance, where Measure 37 allows landowners to claim compensation or a waiver of land-use rules, a man has demanded either $203 million - or the right to drill geothermal wells, expand a pumice mine and erect vacation homes inside a national volcanic monument.

"What we've got is this out-of-state sugar daddy who is supporting this far-out proposition that will put Idaho communities at risk," Dan Chadwick, Idaho Association of Counties director, said of Rich.

It's no surprise private-property measures have emerged in the Rocky Mountain West, home to some of America's fastest-growing states.

Arizona was No. 2 in 2005, behind Nevada, while Idaho and Oregon came in third and 10th, respectively.

"I would be interested to see whether there's an effective resistance that can be mounted to this kind of initiative," said Dan Kemmis, a senior fellow at the Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana. "There's a growing perception in many of these places that if the West is going to prosper in the long run, and not just make a quick buck out of rapid growth for a short time, that we've got to be as smart as we can be in controlling our own destiny."